"Priceless" in Afghanistan

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

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

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"

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

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