Last B-52G Eliminated Under Start (Ken Katz, Don't Look )

[shep854]

From Military.com, a sad, sad bit of history. I know the planes had to be destroyed, but especially as a pilot, there's just something very sad about an airplane going under the saw.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/12/27/final-b52g-eliminated-under-new-start.html?ESRC=eb.nl

Final B-52G Eliminated Under New START

Edited December 30, 2013 by shep854

[ScottBrim]

I hope someone had the foresight to keep a couple of them for museums.

 

Well, there is at least one left:

 

[shep854]

There are some earlier model B-52s at various museums.

[Archie Pellagio]

I'm surprised they were still around actually.

 

Darwin aviation museum has a B52G on display also.

 

Here is a full list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displayed_Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress

[Chris Werb]

There's a B-52G on display at the former Griffis AFB (once home to our very own Jim Martin)

 

http://rbogash.com/Griffiss/griff_b52.html

[Josh]

There is also a B-52G on display at the Pima air museum near the Bone Yard. It, probably like the others mentioned, is required to be outdoors under satellite view by treaty. Where as the B-36 near by simply doesn't have a hangar big enough for it in that facility...

[shep854]

There's a B-52G on display at the former Griffis AFB (once home to our very own Jim Martin)

 

http://rbogash.com/Griffiss/griff_b52.html

Nice set-up.

[Chris Werb]

Kenneth, why did only one B-52F survive in preservation given the huge number of Ds that were saved?

[Ivanhoe]

I'm surprised they were still around actually.

Look at a B-52 from the viewpoint of an asset manager. Costs tens of thousands to fly it somewhere else, way too big to truck or train it, nobody wants to buy it for service use, few museums have the acreage for one, USAF bases can't even consider a static display/gate guard without a multi-year bureaucratic blitz, even cutting it up requires big honkin' tools from the private sector (again, renting/hiring means another procurement exercise).

 

So you do what property custodians have been doing since Hammurabi; park it, tag it, forget it. Let someone else risk their promotion trying to deal with it.

[Garth]

Here's a list of B-52s on display. Quite a few Gs, from the looks of it:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displayed_Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress

 

What i don't get is why smaller museums in the US, ones that couldn't afford to have a full B-52, don't do what museums in other parts of the world (particularly the UK) do with their larger aircraft: chop off the forward fuselage/cockpit area so at least part of the aircraft (the part that most people are going to find interesting, esp if they're allowed to climb through it) is on display.

[Chris Werb]

I still haven't forgiven the RAF museum for scrapping their Beverley.

 

http://www.beverley-association.org.uk/html/124/124.htm

 

I still think it's odd that two RB-52Bs (27 modified) have survived, but no Es (100 produced) and one F (89 produced)

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Speculation:

1. The Fs were retired at a time when B-52s were plentiful. So not much note was paid to them. That is why the prototype XB-52 and YB-52 were scrapped (terrible loss) and there are no Cs and Es remaining.

2. Considerably larger quantities of Ds and Gs were built than Fs.

3. Ds and Gs were used in combat, Fs only a little bit in 1965.

 

Kenneth, why did only one B-52F survive in preservation given the huge number of Ds that were saved?

[Kenneth P. Katz]

The G was really a new airplane compared to the F and earlier models. Essentially it took the F's propulsion and most of its systems, and put them in a nearly completely new airframe. The G had a light weight airframe and had a higher max gross weight than the earlier aircraft, so it's range was considerably better. But there was a price to be paid for the extra performance. The G was harder to fly than the earlier aircraft (less directional stability, no ailerons) and the airframe was not as strong as the earlier aircraft. There was a belief that during Op Linebacker II, B-52Gs were lost to SAM attacks that would have only damaged a B-52D.

 

Interestingly, the B-52F was really intended to be the last B-52 model. But it was such a large leap to the B-70 that the USAF didn't want a gap. So Boeing convinced them to acquire the highly upgraded B-52G and later the B-52H as interim bombers until the B-70 entered service. It's ironic that the "interim" aircraft were the most long lasting.

 

My fondest memory of the G was a max weight (488,000 pound) take off from Edwards AFB. Edwards is at a high altitude (2300 feet MSL) and it was a hot morning (if I recall correctly, about 90 degrees F). The G had the J57 turboject engines, which were anemic at low speed. Because of that, it had water injection to increase thrust for takeoff. But the water injection system was broken, so we couldn't use it. The take off ground run was about 14,000 feet!

[Archie Pellagio]

The take off ground run was about 14,000 feet!

 

Was Vin Diesel driving alongside?

[Garth]

Interestingly, the B-52F was really intended to be the last B-52 model. But it was such a large leap to the B-70 that the USAF didn't want a gap. So Boeing convinced them to acquire the highly upgraded B-52G and later the B-52H as interim bombers until the B-70 entered service.

 

Wasn't the H optimized for the low-level penetration profile? I'm assuming that the Air Force, knowing the increasing vulnerability of B-52s flying higher altitude profiles decided to go lo-level for the H anticipating that they'd return to a high-level profile with a bomber (XB-70) that was survivable flying it?

[Kenneth P. Katz]

The first B-52 designed for low altitude penetration (as opposed to retrofitted for that capability) was the B-52E, which was a B-52D with the AN/ASQ-38 bomb/nav system and a TA radar.

 

The B-52H was designed as a carrier for the Skybolt missile, and when Skybolt was cancelled, it was used like the earlier models. There's a nice illustration of a B-52H with Skybolts on the cover of this book, which I rather like.

 

 

Interestingly, the B-52F was really intended to be the last B-52 model. But it was such a large leap to the B-70 that the USAF didn't want a gap. So Boeing convinced them to acquire the highly upgraded B-52G and later the B-52H as interim bombers until the B-70 entered service.

 

Wasn't the H optimized for the low-level penetration profile? I'm assuming that the Air Force, knowing the increasing vulnerability of B-52s flying higher altitude profiles decided to go lo-level for the H anticipating that they'd return to a high-level profile with a bomber (XB-70) that was survivable flying it?

 

[irregularmedic]

I'm surprised they were still around actually.

 

Darwin aviation museum has a B52G on display also.

 

Here is a full list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displayed_Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress

 

Note the one (B-52G) listed as being in Seattle at the Museum of Flight, is actually at Paine Field in Everett. Some sources list it as being at the Museum of Flight Restoration Center (WELL worth a visit!), but you won't find it there either. It's actually just up the road (to the northwest) from the Restoration Center, visible from a street near one of the flight lines. It appears to be in unrestored condition, I seem to recall the paint looking quite weathered.

 

If we do any more I&I's or mini-I&I's in the Seattle area we should include the Museum of Flight Restoration Center. After a brief introduction, they just set you free to roam around the facility, at least that was my experience visiting on a weekend. You'll likely have the place to yourself as well, even on a day when the Flying Heritage Collection is flying warbirds, there were only 2-3 other people in the facility the entire time I was there. If you go, they've got a handful of aircraft and vehicles outside, and then another hangar a few yards across the tarmac that is worth taking a look in as well.

[Colin]

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/21/us/arizona-b-52-restored/index.html?eref=edition