Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Re-Engined B-52 To Be Designated The B-52J


Chantry

Recommended Posts

It first flew long before I was born and it's last flight might be after I've passed away.  https://theaviationist.com/2023/04/07/re-engined-b-52-to-be-designated-the-b-52j/

 

 

And the DC-3/C-47 appears to be immortal

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rip Snorter said:

I don't think there will ever be another Skunk Works.  I wonder how long they will be able to replace major structural parts on the  '52.

The Skunk Works is still around, but it is and always has been part of Lockheed.

 

Unknown, most of the B-52's still operable have relatively low hours on the air frame.  The last I remember reading, was that life span of a B-52 was about 27,500 flight hours.  A C-130 is about 30,000 hours before it is retired. 

 

IIRC there was a Lockheed L-1011 with about 110,000 hours on the air frame before it was retired and there are DC-3/C-47's on the air show circuit with 70,000+ hours and at least one had over 100,000 hours.

 

Civilian commercial  passenger aircraft no longer go by the hours on the air frame, but instead use flight cycles with one take off, the flight and the landing making up one flight cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rip Snorter said:

I don't think there will ever be another Skunk Works.  I wonder how long they will be able to replace major structural parts on the  '52.

They are alive and going strong at Plant 42 in Palmdale, Ca. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chantry said:

Civilian commercial  passenger aircraft no longer go by the hours on the air frame, but instead use flight cycles with one take off, the flight and the landing making up one flight cycle.

Yup.  They went to that after that Hawaiian Airlines failure. The fuselage “roof” behind the cockpit blew off at altitude carrying a flight attendant with it. Inter-island 737 with relatively low airframe time, but lots cycles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chantry said:

It first flew long before I was born and it's last flight might be after I've passed away.  https://theaviationist.com/2023/04/07/re-engined-b-52-to-be-designated-the-b-52j/

 

 

And the DC-3/C-47 appears to be immortal

 

 

A remarkable aircraft that is a testament to brilliant design, engineering and adaptability. It’s also an indictment of the failure of the USAF to acknowledge the mission it served and develop a suitable replacement. Instead they’ve frittered billions on bling like the B-1 whose mission is still pretty vague after 40 years. It’s now used as a tactical bomber because there aren’t enough other attack aircraft to go around, plus they couldn’t think of anything else to do with it. It should never have been built as it’s time had already passed when it was still on the drawing board. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first twin engine I flew in was the "Dak" for "Dakota" in the RCAF.

It first flew in 1936 if my memory serves.

I sometimes see a modified version around here, flying out of Uplands Airport, that looks really odd. 

Instead of Pratt and Whitney radials, it has turbine engines!

 

Here's "Pinochio" now a static display at CFB Cold Lake, modified to train CF-104 pilots in the use of it's radar, again, if my memory is correct.

pinoch2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474 said:

The first twin engine I flew in was the "Dak" for "Dakota" in the RCAF.

It first flew in 1936 if my memory serves.

I sometimes see a modified version around here, flying out of Uplands Airport, that looks really odd. 

Instead of Pratt and Whitney radials, it has turbine engines!

 

Here's "Pinochio" now a static display at CFB Cold Lake, modified to train CF-104 pilots in the use of it's radar, again, if my memory is correct.

pinoch2.jpg

 

A number of DC-3/C-47's were updated with turbo prop engines, probably due to the cost of parts, complete engines or rebuilding the engines of the Pratt & Whitney R-1830's, which itself is one of the great radial engine designs of all time.

 

Also Basler  https://www.baslerturbo.com/  is taking "worn out" DC-3/C-47's, adding P&W PT6 turbo props, lengthening the fuselage, upgrading the avionics and repairing or replacing parts as needed.  "each BT-67 is engineered to assure that every component, assembly, or system is either new or the equivalent of new. All workmanship and materials meet the highest standards of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).".

 

I can see no reason why the DC-3/C-47 or Basler's BT-67 won't still be flying at least another 50 years.  Even now, no one has been able to design a plane that can carry the same load as a DC-3/C-47, get into short landing strips (or even no landing strips if the ground is flat enough) and do it at a lower cost per hour.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a boy, I flew on a DC 3 run by a now defunct airline called Carib-Air.  As the name suggests, they flew to islands in the Caribbean.  I have several recollections.  First was the steep angle climbing to your seat, the noise, and a thin stream of very black oil flowing along the nacelle of the engine.   A memorable landing passing low over a beach.  A nearly legendary aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chantry said:

 

A number of DC-3/C-47's were updated with turbo prop engines, probably due to the cost of parts, complete engines or rebuilding the engines of the Pratt & Whitney R-1830's, which itself is one of the great radial engine designs of all time.

 

Also Basler  https://www.baslerturbo.com/  is taking "worn out" DC-3/C-47's, adding P&W PT6 turbo props, lengthening the fuselage, upgrading the avionics and repairing or replacing parts as needed.  "each BT-67 is engineered to assure that every component, assembly, or system is either new or the equivalent of new. All workmanship and materials meet the highest standards of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).".

 

I can see no reason why the DC-3/C-47 or Basler's BT-67 won't still be flying at least another 50 years.  Even now, no one has been able to design a plane that can carry the same load as a DC-3/C-47, get into short landing strips (or even no landing strips if the ground is flat enough) and do it at a lower cost per hour.

 

 

 

 

There was an outfit here in Olathe, KS that did work on the turboprop conversions. Occasionally one would fly over the house at low altitude. Sorta odd to see and hear a DC-3 making turboprop sounds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mebbe slightly tangential... fiction, first published thirty-five+ years ago.  I found this and its sequels to be entertaining yarns.   :rolleyes:

 

Flight Of the Old Dog

 

3f87a622477a21b7676b983670b3787c2f940e67.jpg                megafortress.jpg?width=500&height=322.22222222222223

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2023 at 5:05 PM, Chantry said:

And the DC-3/C-47 appears to be immortal

 

"They patch her up with masking tape,

      With paper clips and string...

And still she flies, she never dies...

       Mathusalah with wings!" - Oscar Brand

 

In the early 1960's, Ozark Airlines was flying DC-3's on regular schedules in the mid-West. I would sometimes take one from Greater Peoria airport to O'hare on a weekend from college.  One semester, I had Fridays with no classes. One Thursday evening, I boarded one and was the only passenger on board!  After takeoff, I asked the stewardess (what they were called then) if she could ask the captain if I could come up to the flight deck, telling her I was an Air Force ROTC cadet, with ambitions to fly (which didn't happen...but that's another story).  The captain said okay, and I went up and stood between him and his first officer (co-pilot).  We were at about five-thousand feet, with a 10/10 undercast below us and a full moon above us. Looked like we were flying over a bed of cotton!  

Also got to fly a "Goonie Bird" (USAF C-47) from the right seat during a fam flight of some of us cadets. Handled like a truck, but very easy to handle. Of course I never tried to land one, as I had never flown a "tail dragger". 

 

Thanks for the memories!B)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must have been 10 or 11 when I flew to California from the East coast to visit with relatives.  The plane was a Lockheed Super G Constellation.  I believe I was the only child on board, and was flying alone.  I was invited up into the cockpit, pretty amazing, and apparently a regular practice since I was given a set of wings.  When my meal came, it included a 4 pack of cigarettes.  Since they were the brand one of my parents smoked, I was able to take them home.  Better days!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.