Re: "Priceless" in Afghanistan

[Pechs1]

Brian-<< >><BR><BR>


Are you in Russia???
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Elmshoot]

>The
>>> B-1 is a remarkable bird but it has to fly. Going straight up takes it
>into
>>> an area it's not designed to operate at. This is one bird I wouldn't want
>>> to be within 10 miles if it were to stall with less than 20,000 feet
>>> involved.
>>>
>>As he said, for a short period of time. Start with a 500 kt pass pull
>>to the vertical, unload a bit and recover when airspeed reaches that
>>point below you don't want to go. Thrust to weight limits would apply
>>should you wish to accelerate vertically (or start at zero airspeed ;)
>>There may be some other reason that a bone can't go vertical for a bit
>>but it's not lack of energy.
>>
>>Pugs
>
>good info can be found here
>
>http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-1b.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Elmshoot]

>How about structural. As I said, it has to fly. Fighters and Missiles go
>straight up. The B-1 is Fuge. The larger the bird, the less structural
>punishment it can take. When the fighter goes vertical, it's airframe can
>handle the pressures. Now, put enough thrust for it do sustain it more than
>a few seconds and not stall then chances are, something will break.

I'm with Pugs on this one. The Bone will go verticle. It should be able to do a
lovely Nuke toss (1/2 cuban eight) which I'll bet the next round it was
designed to do. I have read that if you max it out with bombs it can't take off
with full fuel and gets topped off when airborne. But Yes I'm sure some Natops
type in the AF said the verticl is too scary for the averege guy. It could all
be done at 3 g's and push over at 0 g or less if that is what it takes but it
could handle the stree maybe not the stick actuator (pilot).
Sparky

[Elmshoot]

>One reason Bones can not maintain a "near vertical" climb is that its
>systems are not rated for sustained zero or negative G's for extended
>periods of time. B-1B's can start a near vertical climb from over 550 KEAS.
>From that speed they can maintain a near vertical climb long enough to trash
>its engines due to lack of oil pressure. You will never see a Bone do an
>extended inverted pass at an airshow!

You might be suprised that most of the tactical navy aircraft are limited to 10
seconds at 0 g and 30 seconds at negative g.
For an airshow that is more than enough to impress the crowd. However the blues
have unlimited neg g with no burner. If you light the burner in negative G it
will get real quiet as the engines quit. They did that stunt the first winter
practice. The solo "forgot" about the burner limit.
Sparky



>> > > Power to weight.
>> > >
>> > > Maximum Takeoff Weight: 477,000 pounds (216,634 kilograms)
>> > > Weight: Empty, approximately 190,000 pounds (86,183 kilograms)
>> > > Thrust: 30,000-plus pounds with afterburner, per engine/120,000 plus
>> pounds
>> > > total thrust
>> > >
>> > > Empty weight still exceeds the engine thrust. Add fuel, Hydralic
>fluid,
>> > > water, etc. and it's weight would be about twice what it's thrust is.
>> The
>> > > B-1 is a remarkable bird but it has to fly. Going straight up takes
>it
>> into
>> > > an area it's not designed to operate at. This is one bird I wouldn't
>> want
>> > > to be within 10 miles if it were to stall with less than 20,000 feet
>> > > involved.
>> > >
>> > As he said, for a short period of time. Start with a 500 kt pass pull
>> > to the vertical, unload a bit and recover when airspeed reaches that
>> > point below you don't want to go. Thrust to weight limits would apply
>> > should you wish to accelerate vertically (or start at zero airspeed ;)
>> > There may be some other reason that a bone can't go vertical for a bit
>> > but it's not lack of energy.
>>
>> How about structural. As I said, it has to fly. Fighters and Missiles go
>> straight up. The B-1 is Fuge. The larger the bird, the less structural
>> punishment it can take. When the fighter goes vertical, it's airframe can
>> handle the pressures. Now, put enough thrust for it do sustain it more
>than
>> a few seconds and not stall then chances are, something will break.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Admin]

"David Casey" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:10:20 -0500, Allen Epps wrote in

May I introduce David Casey. He wants to join the Air National Guard in NM
but can't get the waiver. He's part of a group that still attempts to take
over certain areas on the usenets with this BS. He's part of the so called
404th that infests the us.* areas. Just ignore the idiot and press on.

[Admin]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> on Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:44:04 GMT,
> "Gord Beaman" ) "Gord Beaman" )
> attempted to say .....
>
> > "Admin" > wrote:
> > >
> > > The fact remains that the B-1B is not designed for
> > >a 90 degree vertical unless you like smacking the ground and spreading
> > >yourself over a country mile.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Don't let's get all silly here...we're talking generalities and
> > I think most posters here seem to think (me too) that any a/c can
> > go vertical if even for a short time. There may be some with
> > particular reasons why they can't but in general they all can.
> >
> > This makes sense to me. And as Judge Judy says "If it makes sense
> > to me then it's true!" :)
>
> The B52 wasn't designed for low level penetration operations.
>
> But then those SAC crews must have been wrong all those years for
> practicing it....

Just what do you know about the B-52? You are an Army Guard. Let me
introduce another of the us.military.army 404k00ks.

[Admin]

" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in
> message
> k.net
> > In article >,
> > on Fri, 27 Feb 2004 05:22:23 -0600,
> > "Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> "Duke of URL"
> > <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> attempted to say .....
> >
> >> In ,
> >> redc1c4 > radiated into
> the
> >> WorldWideWait:
> >>> Tank Fixer wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Bob Hover,
> >>>> Boeing 727,
> >>>> Loop.
> >>>
> >>> Alvin M. "Tex" Johnston
> >>> 707
> >>> Barrel Roll
> >>
> >> All pilots
> >> Any airplane
> >> Stark raving lunatics
> >>
> >
> > Just those who jump out of the perfectly good ones are
> lunitics.
>
> Any plane captain will tell you there's no such thing as a
> perfectly good airplane.

And here is the 404k00k with the 5 purple hearts and not even a Bronze to go
with them. He used to post as his first name of Syndey. Hope you don't
mind if I don't leave the k00ks area in the address.

[Admin]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Admin" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tosser" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Admin" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> > > Why can't a B-1 go straight up (for however short a time)?...if
> >> > > it can do a 60 deg attitude then are you telling us that it
> >> > > cannot go another 30 deg?....why not?...
> >> >
> >>
> >> > Power to weight.
> >> >
> >>
> >> According to the story, all that mass was going *supersonic*, FFS.
> >>
> >>
> >> You don't lose that amount of inertia in the blink of an eye .....
> >
> >No but going completely vertical at the blink of an eye, you do lose your
> >wings.
> >
> >
> WTF does that mean?...you didn't go to 60 degrees instantly did
> you?...why must you go to 90 instantly?...

I just like to have two good wings on any AC I happen to be on at the time.
There is enough escapes on the B-1 but not on all AC. But I guess we need
to be overtaxing our Airframes on a daily basis so we can test them out once
in awhile.

[Admin]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Tosser" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Admin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> >> > Why can't a B-1 go straight up (for however short a time)?...if
> >> > it can do a 60 deg attitude then are you telling us that it
> >> > cannot go another 30 deg?....why not?...
> >>
> >
> >> Power to weight.
> >>
> >
> >According to the story, all that mass was going *supersonic*, FFS.
> >
> >
> >You don't lose that amount of inertia in the blink of an eye .....
> >
> >
> >
> What ARE you talking about?...

He's talking about flight. Something you don't know too much about.

[gizmo-goddard]

"Admin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article >,
> > on Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:44:04 GMT,
> > "Gord Beaman" ) "Gord Beaman" )
> > attempted to say .....
> >
> > > "Admin" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The fact remains that the B-1B is not designed for
> > > >a 90 degree vertical unless you like smacking the ground and
spreading
> > > >yourself over a country mile.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Don't let's get all silly here...we're talking generalities and
> > > I think most posters here seem to think (me too) that any a/c can
> > > go vertical if even for a short time. There may be some with
> > > particular reasons why they can't but in general they all can.
> > >
> > > This makes sense to me. And as Judge Judy says "If it makes sense
> > > to me then it's true!" :)
> >
> > The B52 wasn't designed for low level penetration operations.
> >
> > But then those SAC crews must have been wrong all those years for
> > practicing it....
>
> Just what do you know about the B-52? You are an Army Guard. Let me
> introduce another of the us.military.army 404k00ks.

In a Red Flag years back, a friend of mine flying a TARPS hop at 500 AGL and
480 knots had a B-52 fly *under* him on his way to a target. At least that
was his story. I'd call that
low-level.

__!_!__
Gizmo

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:27:53 -0700,
Admin attempted to say .....

>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article >,
> > on Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:44:04 GMT,
> > "Gord Beaman" ) "Gord Beaman" )
> > attempted to say .....
> >
> > > "Admin" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The fact remains that the B-1B is not designed for
> > > >a 90 degree vertical unless you like smacking the ground and spreading
> > > >yourself over a country mile.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Don't let's get all silly here...we're talking generalities and
> > > I think most posters here seem to think (me too) that any a/c can
> > > go vertical if even for a short time. There may be some with
> > > particular reasons why they can't but in general they all can.
> > >
> > > This makes sense to me. And as Judge Judy says "If it makes sense
> > > to me then it's true!" :)
> >
> > The B52 wasn't designed for low level penetration operations.
> >
> > But then those SAC crews must have been wrong all those years for
> > practicing it....
>
> Just what do you know about the B-52? You are an Army Guard. Let me
> introduce another of the us.military.army 404k00ks.

Hmm, let me see.

Big airplane, many engine. Much noise.

Am I wrong yet ?

Was I wrong with my other posting ?


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Admin]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> on Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:27:53 -0700,
> Admin attempted to say .....
>
> >
> > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > > In article >,
> > > on Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:44:04 GMT,
> > > "Gord Beaman" ) "Gord Beaman"
)
> > > attempted to say .....
> > >
> > > > "Admin" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The fact remains that the B-1B is not designed for
> > > > >a 90 degree vertical unless you like smacking the ground and
spreading
> > > > >yourself over a country mile.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Don't let's get all silly here...we're talking generalities and
> > > > I think most posters here seem to think (me too) that any a/c can
> > > > go vertical if even for a short time. There may be some with
> > > > particular reasons why they can't but in general they all can.
> > > >
> > > > This makes sense to me. And as Judge Judy says "If it makes sense
> > > > to me then it's true!" :)
> > >
> > > The B52 wasn't designed for low level penetration operations.
> > >
> > > But then those SAC crews must have been wrong all those years for
> > > practicing it....
> >
> > Just what do you know about the B-52? You are an Army Guard. Let me
> > introduce another of the us.military.army 404k00ks.
>
> Hmm, let me see.
>
> Big airplane, many engine. Much noise.
>
> Am I wrong yet ?
>
> Was I wrong with my other posting ?

That's the first thing you have said that was truthful. That is about the
scope an Army Guard has about a B-1.

[Pechs1]

admin-<< Power to weight.

Maximum Takeoff Weight: 477,000 pounds (216,634 kilograms)
Weight: Empty, approximately 190,000 pounds (86,183 kilograms)
Thrust: 30,000-plus pounds with afterburner, >><BR><BR>
<< Empty weight still exceeds the engine thrust >><BR><BR>

Just go faster before you pull up. With your numbers, no A/C could do a loop,
and of course many do. In the F-4, about 36,000 pounds of thrust in A/B, in an
A/C that weighed about 34,000 pounds empty but did loops and straight ups and
downs all the time, weighing 50,000 pounds or so.

Energy management.

P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

admin-<< How about structural. As I said, it has to fly. Fighters and Missiles
go
straight up. The B-1 is Fuge >><BR><BR>


Okay, where are all the SAC guys...can a B-1B do a loop?
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

admin-<< You assume incorrectly. The fact remains that the B-1B is not
designed for
a 90 degree vertical unless you like smacking the ground and spreading
yourself over a country mile. >><BR><BR>

Doesn't that thing do over the shoulder nuke deliveries? Pull up, throw nuke
out, continue over the top, 1/2 cuban 8 type thing, accel and run like hell???

I'll bet it does...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

Paul-<< Bob Hover,

Boeing 727,

Loop. >><BR><BR>

Now THAT'S priceless. Saw him do his show in an AeroCommander, truly amazing,
engine off loops and such..
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[[email protected]]

"Admin" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Admin" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Tosser" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> "Admin" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > > Why can't a B-1 go straight up (for however short a time)?...if
>> >> > > it can do a 60 deg attitude then are you telling us that it
>> >> > > cannot go another 30 deg?....why not?...
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> > Power to weight.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> According to the story, all that mass was going *supersonic*, FFS.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You don't lose that amount of inertia in the blink of an eye .....
>> >
>> >No but going completely vertical at the blink of an eye, you do lose your
>> >wings.
>> >
>> >
>> WTF does that mean?...you didn't go to 60 degrees instantly did
>> you?...why must you go to 90 instantly?...
>
>I just like to have two good wings on any AC I happen to be on at the time.
>There is enough escapes on the B-1 but not on all AC. But I guess we need
>to be overtaxing our Airframes on a daily basis so we can test them out once
>in awhile.
>
>
Well, there you go...
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

"Admin" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Tosser" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Admin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> >> > Why can't a B-1 go straight up (for however short a time)?...if
>> >> > it can do a 60 deg attitude then are you telling us that it
>> >> > cannot go another 30 deg?....why not?...
>> >>
>> >
>> >> Power to weight.
>> >>
>> >
>> >According to the story, all that mass was going *supersonic*, FFS.
>> >
>> >
>> >You don't lose that amount of inertia in the blink of an eye .....
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> What ARE you talking about?...
>
>He's talking about flight. Something you don't know too much about.
>
>
I see...
--

-Gord.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on 28 Feb 2004 14:54:06 GMT,
Pechs1 attempted to say .....

> Paul-<< Bob Hover,
>
> Boeing 727,
>
> Loop. >><BR><BR>
>
> Now THAT'S priceless. Saw him do his show in an AeroCommander, truly amazing,
> engine off loops and such..

To glide down within feet of the runway, engines off and then zoom climb
was priceless.



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[John Carrier]

Two utterly different issues.

1. BRAC. Someone posted a question. I posted a pretty good reply and
hoped to stir some interest. Result: NADA. We can run a thread for days
about bull****, but a pretty significant issue that will effect many
individuals and military readiness .... nada. Sigh.

2. Shimano. Heard they've run Branford Bike out of the Shimano
distribution business. Hmmm.

R / John X
Still alive (till BRAC 2005) in rural MS

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 2/28/04 9:28 PM, in article , "John
Carrier" > wrote:

> Two utterly different issues.
>
> 1. BRAC. Someone posted a question. I posted a pretty good reply and
> hoped to stir some interest. Result: NADA. We can run a thread for days
> about bull****, but a pretty significant issue that will effect many
> individuals and military readiness .... nada. Sigh.
>
> 2. Shimano. Heard they've run Branford Bike out of the Shimano
> distribution business. Hmmm.
>
> R / John X
> Still alive (till BRAC 2005) in rural MS
>
>

John,

I didn't see your BRAC question. What was it? I used to know something
about BRAC because I was the aide (i.e. fly on the wall) watching a flag
officer defend one of his bases (Pt. Mugu) in 1995.

--Woody

[Pechs1]

John-<< 2. Shimano. Heard they've run Branford Bike out of the Shimano
distribution business. Hmmm. >><BR><BR>

They are just whinning along with Lictons, I think. They don't think it's fair
for shimano to try to protect their distribution and try to raise who deals
with their equipment to a higher level. Branford and Lictons are just concerned
about $$.

They could both resell shimano via MO or the internet, they just have to agree
to sell it in a MSRP range, or no supply. Too bad, I like they way the playing
field has been leveled.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

I'll tell ya another frustration. I read Kerry's voting record and the weapons
systems it involved. Some made sense(like the B-2) but others didn't like his
nay vote on the F-14A(what keep the F-4???) , F-15C and F-16. W/o those
programs we would have been in deep kimchee for GWI and II.

Bush seems like a deer in the headlights and Kerry seems like McGovern
reincarnated...yikess...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Jim Strand]

On 29 Feb 2004 15:04:08 GMT, (Pechs1) wrote:

>...and Kerry seems like McGovern reincarnated...yikess...
>P. C. Chisholm
>CDR, USN(ret.)
>Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Looking at history as a guide it appears to me that Kerry might have
more in common with Neville Chamberlain. Imagining Kerry waving a
piece of paper signed by Saddam and BinLaden saying we'd have peace
forever......
***********************************************
ACC USN ret.
NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR
67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
&
74-77

Co-founder of newsgroup - RAMN
Anti-spam measures in action.
For e-mail response delete "nospam"

***********************************************

[BUFDRVR]

>Doesn't that thing do over the shoulder nuke deliveries? Pull up, throw
>nukeout, continue over the top, 1/2 cuban 8 type thing, accel and run like
>hell???I'll bet it does...

It was designed to do "lay down" nuclear bomb runs, not loft. I've seen them do
some pretty agressive (for a big plane) pitch outs, but I'm not sure if they
could execute an immelman or not.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Guy Alcala]

BUFDRVR wrote:

> >Doesn't that thing do over the shoulder nuke deliveries? Pull up, throw
> >nukeout, continue over the top, 1/2 cuban 8 type thing, accel and run like
> >hell???I'll bet it does...
>
> It was designed to do "lay down" nuclear bomb runs, not loft. I've seen them do
> some pretty agressive (for a big plane) pitch outs, but I'm not sure if they
> could execute an immelman or not.

Don't see why not. If the high-altitude designed B-47s could do them (admittedly,
with some serious wing fatigue problems as a result), then the low-altitude
stressed B-1 shouldn't mind.

Guy

[BUFDRVR]

>Don't see why not. If the high-altitude designed B-47s could do them
>(admittedly,
>with some serious wing fatigue problems as a result), then the low-altitude
>stressed B-1 shouldn't mind.

It's not a stress issue, it's an excess thrust issue. The Bone may be able to
pull off an immelman,but I'm betting you won't find too many pilots eager to
test out that theory.

By the way, the B-47 could do many things niether the B-52 or B-1B can do.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) writes:
>>Don't see why not. If the high-altitude designed B-47s could do them
>>(admittedly,
>>with some serious wing fatigue problems as a result), then the low-altitude
>>stressed B-1 shouldn't mind.
>
> It's not a stress issue, it's an excess thrust issue. The Bone may be able to
> pull off an immelman,but I'm betting you won't find too many pilots eager to
> test out that theory.

If it's qn excess thrust issue, than that would weight it even further
into the "Yes, sure the B-1 can do an Immelman" side. Of all the
things the B-47 didn't have, thrust was probably the most obvious.
According the the B-47S Standard Aircraft Characteristics, Takeoff
Ground Roll for a loaded B-47E-IV, without RATO, could be upwards of
10.500'. That's not exactly a high t/w. (A better context for excess
thrust numbers woudl be SEP at Combat Weight - in that case, the B-47E
data gives us 4450 '/mion @ Sea Level, a 1965-era B-52H gives
6500'/minute. (Score one for the Buff)

For that matter, I've flown planty of Immelmans in sailplanes - it's
hard to find a lower T/W than 0. (Although the roll at the top _was_
kinda sloppy_ What would be more important is Drag/Weight. If you'ge
got a really slippery shape, you won't lose speed as quickly with the
nose high.
If thrust exactly equalled drag (SEP = 0), it'd take _anything_ pulled
straight up anout 260 seconds to lose 300 KTS. Your entry adn exi t
speeds would be rather dependant on the airplane, of course. but
there's plenty of energy for a 2-3 G pull through 180 degrees.


> By the way, the B-47 could do many things niether the B-52 or B-1B can do.

Well, fly around the pattern trailing a parachute is one... :)
Tobogganing behind an overstressed KC-97 would be another.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[BUFDRVR]

>If it's qn excess thrust issue, than that would weight it even further
>into the "Yes, sure the B-1 can do an Immelman" side. Of all the
>things the B-47 didn't have, thrust

Remember, the B-47 did their immelmans from high altitude (and entered from a
dive obviously), the Afghanistan Bone would be entering from straight and
level, thus it becomes an excess thrust issue.

>Well, fly around the pattern trailing a parachute is one... :)
>Tobogganing behind an overstressed KC-97 would be another.
>

Cruising around, fully loaded (albeit a smaller load than a BUFF or Bone) at
40K+ and .90 mach. Doing an immelman at high altitude (not possible for a
BUFF...maybe for a Bone, but not from 30K+).




BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) writes:
>>If it's qn excess thrust issue, than that would weight it even further
>>into the "Yes, sure the B-1 can do an Immelman" side. Of all the
>>things the B-47 didn't have, thrust
>
> Remember, the B-47 did their immelmans from high altitude (and entered from a
> dive obviously), the Afghanistan Bone would be entering from straight and
> level, thus it becomes an excess thrust issue.

Are you sure about that? Remember, the wing loading's a lot higher
than that of the B-52. Not a whole lot of excess G at altitude.
They did use Immelmans as an escape maneuver when they decided tht low
level was the way to go, and that the best way to do that was with a
LABS delivery. It didn't last long though, In the first 3 months that
they tried it in the field, they lost 3 airplanes due to structural
failure. They modified their technique to a low-level ingress with a
pop up to about 10-12,000' to drop a drogued weapon, and a diving turn
away immediately after weapon release.


>>Well, fly around the pattern trailing a parachute is one... :)
>>Tobogganing behind an overstressed KC-97 would be another.
>>
>
> Cruising around, fully loaded (albeit a smaller load than a BUFF or Bone) at
> 40K+ and .90 mach. Doing an immelman at high altitude (not possible for a
> BUFF...maybe for a Bone, but not from 30K+).
>

Well, I'll admit I'm a little on the young side to have flown a
B-47. (But I was at Pease when the last one in service was flown in
to be a gate guard - U.S. Navy markings, and a North American
Autonetics crew. That was 76 or 77 or so) But I've known plenty of
peolple who have. For a loaded B-47, 40 Kft was about all you'd get.
Placard Limits are 425 KIAS up to Mach 0.86, meeting at 'bout 17.500'
I could run a o.86 at 36,000 (tropopause), but that was about it.
The 425 KIAS limit was pretty definite. Aince the wings were so
flexible, the ailerons would twist the wings, reducing, and eventually
reversing roll control. 425 KIAS was the point where you didn't have
any roll control.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Guy Alcala]

BUFDRVR wrote:

> >If it's qn excess thrust issue, than that would weight it even further
> >into the "Yes, sure the B-1 can do an Immelman" side. Of all the
> >things the B-47 didn't have, thrust
>
> Remember, the B-47 did their immelmans from high altitude (and entered from a
> dive obviously), the Afghanistan Bone would be entering from straight and
> level, thus it becomes an excess thrust issue.

See below.

> >Well, fly around the pattern trailing a parachute is one... :)
> >Tobogganing behind an overstressed KC-97 would be another.
> >
>
> Cruising around, fully loaded (albeit a smaller load than a BUFF or Bone) at
> 40K+ and .90 mach.

Nope. B-47E SAC: Max. Spd, 606 mph (M0.84) @ 16,300 ft.; 557 mph (M0.842) @
38,550 ft.; Max. cr. spd., 495 mph (M0.75) @ 38,550 ft.; Svc. Ceiling 40,500 ft.

> Doing an immelman at high altitude (not possible for a
> BUFF...maybe for a Bone, but not from 30K+).

The Immelmanns were done from the deck while making LABS tosses, starting in
1957. They went down there for the same reasons the B-52s did: defenses had
driven them from high altitude to low. There were 6 B-47 crashes in the spring of
1958 brought on by fatigue failures due to these and pop-up maneuvers, which is
why Project Milk Bottle was instituted, to replace the wing milk bottle connecting
pin.

Guy

[WaltBJ]

Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...
> BUFDRVR wrote:
SNIP
>Some of the B47 wing failures were due to high speed low altitude
flying in turbulence. 420 KIAS down around Avon Park Range (FL) in the
summer can get real bumpy. As I remember McCoy AFB (Orlando Intl now)
got its name from a SAC brigadier who bought it, along with his crew,
as his B47 lost a wing in a LABS maneuver.
FWIW if the Bone engines are anything like the J79 at 700 KIAS they're
putting out maybe 25% more thrust than under static conditions. I have
seen the J79's fuel flow rise from about 8500 pph static to over 12000
pph going from 0 KIAS (brakes locked) to 600 KIAS at 500 feet off the
end of the runway. Even so, with the kinetic energy of 700 KIAS that
elephant should be able to leap tall buildings.
Walt BJ

[BUFDRVR]

>> Cruising around, fully loaded (albeit a smaller load than a BUFF or Bone)
>at
>> 40K+ and .90 mach.
>
>Nope. B-47E SAC: Max. Spd, 606 mph (M0.84) @ 16,300 ft.; 557 mph (M0.842) @
>38,550 ft.; Max. cr. spd

Hmmm, I stand corrected, I thought the -47 was faster than a BUFF at
altitude...apparently not.

>The Immelmanns were done from the deck while making LABS tosses, starting in
>1957.

Well, I've seen a picture (I'll try to find it) of a B-47 nearly inverted and
while exact altitude is difficult to determine, there's no visable terrain in
the shot....which has always left me the impression they were at least 20K.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) writes:
>>> Cruising around, fully loaded (albeit a smaller load than a BUFF or Bone)
>>at
>>> 40K+ and .90 mach.
>>
>>Nope. B-47E SAC: Max. Spd, 606 mph (M0.84) @ 16,300 ft.; 557 mph (M0.842) @
>>38,550 ft.; Max. cr. spd
>
> Hmmm, I stand corrected, I thought the -47 was faster than a BUFF at
> altitude...apparently not.

One of the things they learned with teh B-47 was that there is, indeed
such a thing as too high a wing loading for efficient cruising. At
36,000', a B-47 would efficiently cruise at arounf 435 KTAS, or about
235 KIAS. Not too bad, but the airplane stalled at arounfd 165 KIAS,
so the Induced Drag was still a pretty serious factor. (B-47 Wing
Loadings were arounf 150 lbs/ft^2) Even the H model B-52s don't come
close to that.


>>The Immelmanns were done from the deck while making LABS tosses, starting in
>>1957.
>
> Well, I've seen a picture (I'll try to find it) of a B-47 nearly inverted and
> while exact altitude is difficult to determine, there's no visable terrain in
> the shot....which has always left me the impression they were at least 20K.

Hmm. It could be that they were topping out that high. IIRC, when
they were doing the LABS drops, they were entering the pullup at aound
420 KIAS, and pulling up at 2 - 2 1/2 Gs. It's still impressive,
nonetheless.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Elmshoot]

The A-6 loft profile was 4 g's from on the deck as fast as you could go so call
it 450 indicated at the beginning of the pull. we would top out at about 8K. So
even with the B-47's 2-3 g pull I doubt that they topped out much above
10-12K. When the manuver is viewed from the side from the ground the manuver
looks like an egg with the narrow corner at the top hence the fighter reference
to the combat egg. Lower air speed = smaller radius of turn.

>>>The Immelmanns were done from the deck while making LABS tosses, starting
>in
>>>1957.
>>
>> Well, I've seen a picture (I'll try to find it) of a B-47 nearly inverted
>and
>> while exact altitude is difficult to determine, there's no visable terrain
>in
>> the shot....which has always left me the impression they were at least 20K.
>
>Hmm. It could be that they were topping out that high. IIRC, when
>they were doing the LABS drops, they were entering the pullup at aound
>420 KIAS, and pulling up at 2 - 2 1/2 Gs. It's still impressive,
>nonetheless.
>
>--
>Pete Stickney
> A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
> bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
>
>
>
>
>
>