5 ms·

The B-52 design proposal was done in a hotel room over one weekend, the actual engineering took at least 3 years, including "670 days in the wind tunnel". That

The B-52 design proposal was done in a hotel room over one weekend, the actual engineering took at least 3 years, including "670 days in the wind tunnel". That is not to say the weekend hotel proposal was not an impressive accomplishment in itself, it was. But there's a difference between laying out a software architecture and writing code. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress#Design_effort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress#Des... > On Thursday, 21 October 1948, Boeing engineers George S. Schairer, Art Carlsen, and Vaughn Blumenthal presented the design of a four-engine turboprop bomber to the chief of bomber development, Colonel Pete Warden. Warden was disappointed by the projected aircraft and asked if the Boeing team could come up with a proposal for a four-engine turbojet bomber [...] By late Friday night, they had laid out what was essentially a new airplane. > [...] On Monday, Schairer presented Colonel Warden with a neatly bound 33-page proposal and a 14-inch (36 cm) scale model. The aircraft was projected to exceed all design specifications. > [...] During ground testing on 29 November 1951, the XB-52's pneumatic system failed during a full-pressure test; the resulting explosion severely damaged the trailing edge of the wing, necessitating considerable repairs. [...] The XB-52 followed on 2 October 1952. The thorough development, including 670 days in the wind tunnel and 130 days of aerodynamic and aeroelastic testing, paid off with smooth flight testing. Encouraged, the USAF increased its order to 282 B-52s.

Tangurena2 4y ago
Coincidentally, I was watching a YouTube video last night about the YB-60. This was a version of the B-36 with the same jet engines as the B-52. And the aircraft lost in a competition with the B-52 because the Boeing jet was just plain better than the Convair jet. Boeing did a very good job. I don't think there have been (or will be) another aircraft that lasted this long in service. There are prettier aircraft (in my opinion), but "pretty" doesn't get the job done. The Big Ugly Fat Fella will be around for quite some time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcumiS0uk5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcumiS0uk5o https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_YB-60 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_YB-60
- themadturk 4y ago
  No, the B-52 is a paragon of beauty (no sarcasm there...it's always been my favorite aircraft). And the C-130 is right around the same age, not to mention still (I believe) being manufactured.
  - Animats 4y ago
    So is the UH-1, the Huey helicopter. Over 16,000 made, and many still flying.
    - aerostable_slug 4y ago
      My uncle (Army aviator) retired some years ago as a chief warrant officer with a ton of hours in Hueys, starting with a couple tours in Vietnam. He likes to say that the flight crew from the last B-52 landed at Davis-Monthan will be flown back to their cars in a UH-1. He might be right. Relating his time in the aircraft in VN, he said there was little to compare with skimming the rice paddies with the doors removed, periodically going up a bit to clear water buffalo, carrying a load of beer for the guys in a firebase. He mostly flew medevac slicks in combat. Gotta save those boys.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mannykannot 4y ago
I feel it is fair to say that in many ways, the "architecture" of the B-52 was pioneered in Boeing's B-47 (first flight 17 December 1947 - seven months before these meetings.) This was a truly innovative aircraft, unlike many other contemporary designs (from Boeing as well as other manufacturers) which resembled their piston-engined precursors. The initial Boeing proposals for the B-52 look like throwbacks to that approach. The article briefly mentions that Bob Withington, one of the members of this ad-hoc proposal-redesign team, played a role in the swept-wing design of the B-47, but is otherwise silent on its significance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-47_Stratojet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-47_Stratojet
- Animats 4y ago
  Yes. The B-47 was sort of a scaled-up jet-fighter. Look at the cockpit layout.[1] It outperformed some fighters of the era. The original B-52 proposal looks like a modified B-36. The B-36 was the first intercontinental bomber, with "6 turning and 4 burning" - 6 props running on piston engines, plus four jets. That early B-52 proposal looks like something based on the B-36.[2] A bigger B-36 would probably have worked, but it would have been a dead end. Both the B-36 and the B-47 were difficult aircraft to fly and maintain. The B-36, with all those piston engines, was a headache. Too much powerplant to maintain, and underpowered by jet standards. The B-47 needed a rocket assisted takeoff booster to get off the ground with a reasonable amount of runway, and operated too close to the "coffin corner", with cruising speed and altitude too close to stall. Over 2000 were built, over 200 crashed, and none remain flyable. With the B-52, the USAF got an intercontinental bomber that flew well, could be maintained, and had enough power to get itself off the ground without rocket boosters. Its successors were less useful in actual conflicts. Too short ranged, too expensive, less bomb load, etc. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV1hVLGLZ-w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV1hVLGLZ-w [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1-urTRxeEM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1-urTRxeEM

Tangurena2 4y ago

Coincidentally, I was watching a YouTube video last night about the YB-60. This was a version of the B-36 with the same jet engines as the B-52. And the aircraft lost in a competition with the B-52 because the Boeing jet was just plain better than the Convair jet. Boeing did a very good job. I don't think there have been (or will be) another aircraft that lasted this long in service. There are prettier aircraft (in my opinion), but "pretty" doesn't get the job done. The Big Ugly Fat Fella will be around for quite some time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcumiS0uk5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcumiS0uk5o https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_YB-60 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_YB-60

themadturk 4y ago
No, the B-52 is a paragon of beauty (no sarcasm there...it's always been my favorite aircraft). And the C-130 is right around the same age, not to mention still (I believe) being manufactured.
- Animats 4y ago
  So is the UH-1, the Huey helicopter. Over 16,000 made, and many still flying.
  - aerostable_slug 4y ago
    My uncle (Army aviator) retired some years ago as a chief warrant officer with a ton of hours in Hueys, starting with a couple tours in Vietnam. He likes to say that the flight crew from the last B-52 landed at Davis-Monthan will be flown back to their cars in a UH-1. He might be right. Relating his time in the aircraft in VN, he said there was little to compare with skimming the rice paddies with the doors removed, periodically going up a bit to clear water buffalo, carrying a load of beer for the guys in a firebase. He mostly flew medevac slicks in combat. Gotta save those boys.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mannykannot 4y ago

I feel it is fair to say that in many ways, the "architecture" of the B-52 was pioneered in Boeing's B-47 (first flight 17 December 1947 - seven months before these meetings.) This was a truly innovative aircraft, unlike many other contemporary designs (from Boeing as well as other manufacturers) which resembled their piston-engined precursors. The initial Boeing proposals for the B-52 look like throwbacks to that approach. The article briefly mentions that Bob Withington, one of the members of this ad-hoc proposal-redesign team, played a role in the swept-wing design of the B-47, but is otherwise silent on its significance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-47_Stratojet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-47_Stratojet

Animats 4y ago
Yes. The B-47 was sort of a scaled-up jet-fighter. Look at the cockpit layout.[1] It outperformed some fighters of the era. The original B-52 proposal looks like a modified B-36. The B-36 was the first intercontinental bomber, with "6 turning and 4 burning" - 6 props running on piston engines, plus four jets. That early B-52 proposal looks like something based on the B-36.[2] A bigger B-36 would probably have worked, but it would have been a dead end. Both the B-36 and the B-47 were difficult aircraft to fly and maintain. The B-36, with all those piston engines, was a headache. Too much powerplant to maintain, and underpowered by jet standards. The B-47 needed a rocket assisted takeoff booster to get off the ground with a reasonable amount of runway, and operated too close to the "coffin corner", with cruising speed and altitude too close to stall. Over 2000 were built, over 200 crashed, and none remain flyable. With the B-52, the USAF got an intercontinental bomber that flew well, could be maintained, and had enough power to get itself off the ground without rocket boosters. Its successors were less useful in actual conflicts. Too short ranged, too expensive, less bomb load, etc. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV1hVLGLZ-w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV1hVLGLZ-w [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1-urTRxeEM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1-urTRxeEM