Low Flying B-52

[NavyLonghorn]

Everytime someone starts a sentence with the world "actually," I die a little more on the inside.

 

[Fly Navy]

actually....ground effect doesnt increase lift, it reduces induce drag.....i think

And if you're flying in ground effect clean?

 

[Fly Navy]

Everytime someone starts a sentance with the world "actually," I die a little more on the inside.

Actually... you can't spell either.

 

[NavyLonghorn]

Actually... you can't spell either.

Not even a little bit.

 

[mules83]

And if you're flying in ground effect clean?

Basically ground effect kills wingtip vortices which is a by-product of lift (induce drag). Clean or not. Winglets on the big jets make the wing think it’s in a partial ground effect all flight long. This is a really basic explanation. I’m sure I’m going to get chewed out by someone smarter.

Im not sure if I answered your question.

 

[Fly Navy]

Basically ground effect kills wingtip vortices which is a by-product of lift (induce drag). Clean or not. Winglets on the big jets make the wing think it’s in a partial ground effect all flight long. This is a really basic explanation. I’m sure I’m going to get chewed out by someone smarter.

Im not sure if I answered your question.

It was rhetorical.

Induced drag is the worst when slow and dirty, not fast and clean...

I think there is another explanation to ground effect, but I could be completely wrong.

Edited to add: Looked it up, seems it's a debatable subject. Many believe it has to do with induced drag, and some testing supports it. Seems there are other theories out there too.

So I stand partially corrected.

 

[BOMBSonHAWKEYES]

Its a B52 G model and it was designed to fly at 50ft over terrain. I'm sure it could handle 25 feet over the water.

 

[Schnugg]

Maybe he was one of those kids who lived and breathed fighter pilot , then got a BUFF and was forced to make do. To bad we can't give him a swift kick to the balls now to wake him up to reality :icon_tong . Someone should have done that before he totalled a perfectly good a/c. Not everyone can be a fighter pilot, only those who like to race a/c down the runway on a crotch rocket .

Don't start spewing BS you don't know is true...who are you to preach/pontificate safety knowledge?

If we're typing about the same B-52 mishap, a swift kick won't help...he's dead.

Strike 1. "Maybe" I should ban you again

 

[Catmando]

Paraphrased from my ancient, but still eminently and widely respected bible – NAVAIR 00-80T-80; "Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators."

"As the wing encounters ground effect, there's a reduction in the upwash, downwash, and the tip vortices. The wing will in effect, behave as if it had a greater aspect ratio. A wing experiencing ground effect will require a lower angle of attack to produce the same coefficient of lift. "

Several others' comments regarding the B-52 and pilot appear to be right on. Having occasionally flown in that regime – but in aircraft far better suited for it, and having nothing to prove – I have some similar opinions and sea stories . . . but those are for later.

 

[highlyrandom]

If it ain't a rule, it should be...no personal attacks on dead guys, even if they caused other deaths. They've paid all anyone is expected to pay for being idiots, not safety-conscious, overzealous, etc. So leave 'em alone, feel free to discuss the incidents and the attitudes that led to them, but posthumous cheap shots seem even cheaper. Some people weren't meant to be pilots, for reasons other than skill and determination, and they didn't stay pilots. Happens.

 

[highlyrandom]

I'll buy that. I was really just referring to those who would take the "wanted to be a fighter pilot" thing too far, who weren't yet fighter pilots or any pilots. B-52s are pretty capable aircraft, and so are Hornets, but there are things you can't do in each, and as you know they're not all obvious to the Top Gun watcher. Especially how many ejections happen because the plane is about to depart the tarmac, let alone a flat spin headed out to sea...

 

[Tex_Hill]

After reading the report by Major Kern, the one statement which really blew my mind was the one attributed to Major Don Thompson:

"There was already some talk of maybe trying some other ridiculous maneuvers. - - his (Lt Col Holland) lifetime goal was to roll the B-52."

After reading this, the questions that came to my mind were:

1. was Lt Col Holland serious when he made this comment to Maj Thompson?

• how could a B-52 safely perform this maneuver at any altitude?

• If Lt Col was serious what made him think he could pull it off?

 

[Schnugg]

Because in this guys case it was his attitude and demeanor, and a Leadership comprised of good ole boys that covered for him that lead to this. He should not have been flying because of his total disregard for limitations and safety, not because of a lack of ability or skill. He simply wouldn't accept that a B-52 wasn't an F-15 and guys that flew with him were scared out of their minds. Eventually it came down to a Squadron commander that knew what was going on, and forbid anyone in his unit from flying with said accident pilot. The CO was the only one to fly with him, for the sake of his pilots, and ultimatley was the one riding with him when he put it in. No one is taking cheap shots at this guy... it's the truth.

Concur with the assessment of the mishap pilot. He was an accident that did happen.

I don't like some NMMI kid poking fun at it like it's a game. Thus my reply and his banishment.

 

[Fly Navy]

I'll buy that. I was really just referring to those who would take the "wanted to be a fighter pilot" thing too far, who weren't yet fighter pilots or any pilots. B-52s are pretty capable aircraft, and so are Hornets, but there are things you can't do in each, and as you know they're not all obvious to the Top Gun watcher. Especially how many ejections happen because the plane is about to depart the tarmac, let alone a flat spin headed out to sea...

That was ghost... and we all know how ghost is on the board.

 

[A4sForever]

That was ghost... and we all know how ghost is on the board.

Uhhhhh .... ACTUALLY ..... "WAS" would be the correct tense of the verb.

What about dead guys who took other (now dead) guys with them when they bought the farm? Does that change the rule? I think maybe it should. I don't have anything to add re: airmanship, but a cheap shot doesn't seem to be a cheap shot when it's relevant and true.

"The Rule" (p.s., there ain't any rule) is what will get future guys killed.

You learn from history. Yours and others .....

An example; not a "sea story":
I tried to get a guy's Wings pulled --- last cruise in WestPac. He was goofy in the aircraft -- period. The squadron handled the "problem" by leaving him on the beach det. A bandaid, at best. I was even going to ride with him in the last bounce pattern @ CUBI to see what in the hell he was doing. CB-Boomers coming through the area CNX'ed the hop --- next day we stood down --- 3-4 days later we were CONUS bound.

I pressed the issue --- I had been for a couple of months --- the guy had joined us late in the cruise --- but it was determined that I was being "too hard" on him. He'd mature and do satisfactorily. I objected --- but as I was leaving the squadron, the subject was tabled and nothing was done.

4-5 months later, this pilot crashed into the water right off the end of the runway @ the NUW beach in full view of all those at the EM club --- CAVU, late afternoon hop, practice no-flap approach, a newly commissioned "STASHed" Ensign in the right seat of the A-6. Long story short: both guys dead --- the biggest part of them that was found was a helmet.

I came back to the squadron for a party about two months after the accident -- CO's Hail & Fairwell. One B/N who had never liked me and who had a drinking problem walked up to me --- stuck his alcohol breath in my face and his finger in my chest --- and said: "I suppose you're happy now ... ???"

I knocked him out. One punch.

The dead guy was a nice guy. I didn't know the Ensign. But the guy was also a lousy pilot -- that, I DID know. Many people had been covering for him for a long time -- TRACOM, RAG, Squadron --- because he was a "good guy" and had a nice, pretty little wife. He killed himself, took a blinking, innocent young Ensign with him --- to say nothing of the expensive aircraft.

The moral of the story? Don't cover up. Don't join the "Good 'ol Boys" Club. Don't be afraid to talk about things -- preferably prior to an accident happening. But if nothing else --- bring it ALL out .... warts and all. That's the "kind" thing to do ...

Because people looked the other way these two guys are dead. They lost decades of doing productive things that we can only imagine. Lost families, kids, opportunities, contributions. And why ??? Because people would not do the right -- but hard --- thing.

I wonder what his wife would have thought about all the cover-ups -- had she known ... ???

No smiles for idiots --- in or out of the cockpit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*EDIT* none of this is meant to dampen the "Spirit of Attack". And ... I think someone's already said this:

YOU HAVE GOT TO KNOW YOUR LIMITATIONS !!! And those of the aircraft.