Support the show on Patreon! Join the fun from just £3+vat a month. You'll get all episodes early, ad-free and I'll send you a welcome pack with a handwritten thank you card! Join today at www.patreon.com/thedamcasters
I remember standing next to one of these when I was probably 12 and barely being able to reach up and touch an exhaust nozzle. Incredible how something that size can fly so fast and so gracefully. The BONE is a beautiful aircraft.
In 1975 me and my best friend were given the job of installing the varible ramps mods on ship #3, and still talk about it today. My favorite view of the airframe was go all the way back and stradel the vertical stabilizer look forward and see the all the different contours coming down this beautiful aircraft. Not another aircraft like it.
I was employed at Rockwell as an Training Representative on the B1-A's . Best job I ever had. So,, you could say I know pretty much everything there is to know about the B1-A's. Amazing aircraft. I'd love to go to this museum and visit my "baby". again.
I would like to add an addition to the discussion about low altitude ride quality. While Joe is correct that the wing doesn't encounter the gust all at once, the bigger reason for less gust sensitivity is more aerodynamic than that. As sweep increases, the lift curve slope of the wing decreases. This means that for every degree increase in the angle of attack, a more highly swept wing will produce less incremental lift. Less lift equates to less bouncing. Hope this helps.
The B-1 is the gate guardian there, if I'm not mistaken? Did they tell you the story about the tourists taking pictures there? Not sure if it's true or they were just trying to scare us
@AbyssinianRumble I don't remember if they said anything like that but I definitely took some pictures and nobody said anything. It might have been just in certain areas I'm not sure it was too long ago
@ Well I was there in 2016 and they told us about some "tourists" that were on the bus and apparently they were taking pictures of some very specific things that were of importance to only certain people in the know. At any rate, they summarily confiscated their devices and escorted them out. So the story goes...
6 AGM-86 ALCMs per rotary launcher (CSRL), Common Stragetic Rotarty Launcher. Used on -52s. On the B model ther was a moveable bulkhead between bay 1 and 2 so the CSRL could be loaded. There were fuel tanks for bay 1. Haven't worked on a B-1 in 30 years.
The B-1A that was lost during testing had two pilots and an engineer on board. They were testing the center of gravity/automated wing sweep electronics. There was too much fuel in one tank and that caused a huge problem. The aircraft essentially became tail heavy and pitched up violently. They couldn't regain control. The ejection capsule was supposed to level out after ejection by releasing a pin and a set of straps but it didn't. So instead of landing on the inflatable bags mounted to the underside of the capsule, it came down very fast on the front of it crushing the copilot in his seat. It was a tragic story. The pilot was good friends with the man who died. It took quite a while for rescue to come. By the time they did, the copilot had already died.
The explanations of error nautical concepts and this were great and much appreciated. In addition it's nice to hear that there are other Hustler-Lancer duo Super freaks out there. People usually just say The XB-70.
I got to crawl in one at a Whiteman show back in the 90s. Being 6'3", it was quite a tight fit. Like I was climbing into the driver's seat of a clown car but with instruments pressing in all around me. I recall being worried about banging into everything. Got to check out the bomb bays and their rotary launchers which was also memorable.
I live near the only other B-1A still in existence at the SAC museum. Unfortunately it’s outside as a show piece near the entryway but they have so many other rare aircraft inside. A number of Cold War missiles as well. When I saw the TV in the bomb bay, it reminded me of their B-36 that had a small movie theater in the bomb bay with rows of chairs for viewers. Thanks for the cool video.
25:35 ish, mm sure takeoff with AB on is pretty but at 1000ft it might crack windows, the "sound" isn't just what you think, it's a sequence of air pressure waves essentially, it doesn't sound and feel like something is tearing apart the sky/air for nothing. I tried to stay in a tent something around 1000ft off the side of a runway where we had F/A-18 hornets taking off of - I had double ear protection so that wasn't a huge issue, the fact that the tent kept getting blown over was what made it a no-go. I was manning a comms wagon and ended up sleeping on the floor in the wagon instead of the f'ing tent. I had some choice words for the crew who prepped the site afterwards, but unsurprisingly they were doubling over from laughter saying brass had told them to give us a scenic location. It _WAS_ a sight to behold at night, but that doesn't make you very happy when you're trying to get some shuteye after sitting staring at a computer screen for 12+hours.
Why the weird language around the three thermonuclear weapon casings under the aircraft? I know us aviation geeks love to ignore the ugly purpose of the planes we look at, but it's kinda the entire reason we spent untold billions of dollars making these things.
That fin thingy that rotates 😂 Technically a pitch damper. You guys are the best! The meticulous explanations and physical connections you make with aerodynamics is fascinating.
Tu-160 Blackjack has a larger all-moving tail, it also has an all-moving vertical stabilizer/rudder. Fascinating trivia: at 28 feet, the span of the BONE's tail is almost exactly the same as the span of the canards on the B-70 Valkyrie.
Correct. In the lates 70s at Boeing we were using full potential models, thus allowing to compute weak shocks. In the early 80s we adopted Tony Jameson's first Euler code., to which we coupled a 3-D boundary layer code to account for viscous effects. All running on the early Crays
Front right seat, copilot, killed when the airbag meant to cushin impact under the capsule failed to inflate properly- the capsule landed on the front right corner, the impact caused his seat bolts to sheer and was killed impacting the control yoke and console.
What is that small fuselage to the left side, from the pilots perspective, and under the nose of the B-1A? Edit: I see the wheels and read Steve Fossett. Quick search later and it's named *Spirit of America* - *Sonic Arrow* . Powered by a single GE J-79 engine. Capable of reaching 800 mph.
Between the B1 being the bright new thing only to get cancelled and the program being restarted, my buddy 🇬🇧, on a tour of US plane wrecks found 2 prototypes abandoned in a hanger. They were covered in bird poop and detritus over their Zinc Chromate paint job. All I know is his tale of finding them and seeing the photographs he took of them.
Didn't they make a movie about that plane? Something called "Lovely Bone?" 😁Product-improved B-58; amazing what the old Hustler was capable of w/ tech that was at least a decade older. One of Reagan's better decisions to return the Bone to production, AFAIC. What we need now is someone with deep pockets to do a scaled down version of it as an experimental: obviously, you don't need the swing wing or supersonic capabilities as a private pilot, but having a payload capacity to at least carry a motorcycle, a fast cruise & deliciously long range would be a nice trifecta!
I remember at the start AWST mentioned the provision for future laser weapons on it which was real sci-fi then. Carter canceled the program but had the foresight to keep a few in flight test for development purposes. Unlike Obama who blew up the F-22 program and made sure it was never coming back.
I Got Watch a B 1 B take off from the Local Airport, From The Adjacent Road, close enough to get a Really Nice Look as it Sadly at the time left Our Presence to Return to it’s Home. As it Taxied Gracefully for Takeoff, reading itself to go looking like a Gorgeous Aircraft. Then it Started Rolling, and Taking Off, and as it went by, the Sound it made Gloriously Drowned Out and Deafened Everything Else, then Sadly as it Continued on, Everything Returned to Normal and Everything Else was So Uneventful Afterwards. The B 1 B, Along With Other of Our Aircraft, just Says, with it’s Mere Presence, We’re AMERICA!! Anybody Got A Problem With That?
I used that great clip of the spotters at the end of the RAF Cottesmore's runway getting blown over by the B-1B on take-off in our second Combat Bullseye episode as my guest Chris Gibson in the footage! It is fantastic.
It is a shame that this is one of two only surviving B-1A (and the only surviving original B-1A design since the other guy was a mix between B-1A and B-1B b/c it was used for B-1B testing) and she is wearing some fictional livery instead of her original white paint scheme. The other one was also wearing some acid dream fictional scheme, however thanks god she got recently repainted into the camo paint scheme she wore during the tests (it was the only B-1A that in addition to white also trialed camo scheme). PS: since you are in Colorado you need to visit the SAC museum in Nebraska: it has the other B-1A, B-58 "Greased Lightning", SR-71, Vulcan B2, B-36 and the Goblin parasite fighter.
She was painted the colour she is for training framilariastion purposes, but it would be great if she was white I agree with you there. There is a much wider discussion to be had about aircraft as artifacts and the colours they are painted in. Next time I'm back out that way, the SAC museum is high on the list!
@@damcasterspod as far as the colors go I think it makes sense to paint some generic airplane in the colors of it's more famous sister, however if you have a quite unique artifact (one of two B-1A) I would personally try to keep as close to the original appearance possible. Btw, did you had a chance to hit National WW2 Aviation Museum in Colorado Springs? Not much stuff is there but quite good one and in flying condition.
I hope to have a wider conversation, hopefully with someone from the IWM, about the ups and downs of painting aircraft and the rules around it. As for Wings, getting 160 to a paint shop would be an epic move. I had hoped to get down to chat with the Westpac team to look around the shop. Unfortunately, the snowstorm when I was there threw out our plans.
Wasn't the all moving tail a British invention for the M-52 that got cancelled ? Then the Americans stole the idea to use on their Bell X-1 which looked suspiciously like the M-52. 😉
@@damcasterspod Indeed! I remember on a doco about the X-1 the late Mr Yeager bragged a lot about that all moving tail, he was very proud of it, even saying that was the secret to the success of the X-1 due to regular tails not working too well through the transonic range to supersonic, but not once did he mention the Brits "helped" with that!!! haha
@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt Actually some high performance planes do, check out the SR-71, it's twin "rudders" move the entire vert stab. The lack of an all moving tail in a dive on British Spitfires and Hurricanes in WW2, where they would reach transsonic speeds, meant the standard tail with elevators could not pull them out of the dive and they crashed. Rudders have nothing to do with dives and pitching in or out of them. All moving wingtips ? (so a massive pin in it to move the wing in the vertical plane up and down like ailerons, elevons, flaps etc, that would render the wing unusable I think, plus the wings have multiple control surfaces and are way more complicated) are not necessary, wings have way more surface area for the control surfaces to achieve the required moment (or force) than a tail or vert stab.
The B-1A was a followon to the B-58 and a competitor to the Tu-22M which actually beat it to service by more than a decade. It would be best to call it a medium/regional bomber as it simply didn't have the legs to reach Russia without a huge number of tankings. And then then the B-1B came along and the gross weight went from 366,000lbs to 477,000lbs with 265,000 being fuel and the jet still could not get over 3,400nm in a hurry because wingloadings and stall margins were so high that cruise altitude fell below 14,000ft (vs. 45 on the BUFF). And while the jets might have operated from dispersals during a hotwar, post first strike, they would have been in places like the dry lake beds of Iran and the, later, Turkey or Saudi. Because we did not move nuclear weapons off base in CONUS and frankly, nobody expected the bases to survive a SIOP alert launch as Soviet SSBN would have been launching DT ballistic shots from just offshore in the Carribean and Pacific coats, looking to hit SAC bases in North Dakota and Texas. Less than 10 minute arrivals. Given the B-1 had the notorious nickname of 'Redball Express' as a jet whose systems were so failure prone that multiple ramp spares were needed to assure a training mission launch, it's unlikely that dispersal ops would have lasted for very long (or been very necessary) once the full SIOP plan went through DEFCON 1. There's only so much you can do on a barren lakebed in Balochistan. The whole idea of Dispersal operations was actually begun (and ended) in the B-50/B-47 era, at a time when we had routine access to places like Wheelus AB in Libya, Zaragoza in Spain, Clark in the PI and Misawa in Japan, for nuclear capable platforms. Then the 9,000 mile B-52 entered into service and it was no longer necessary, as the world changed and the emphasis shifted to ballistic missiles. The AGM-86B was intended for but never qualified on the B-1B as it required serious modifications to the airframe hardware standard, moving a load bearing frame about six feet down the airframe to accommodate the 20ft long missile on a CSRL or Common Strategic Rotary Launcher. When configured (only two, out at Edwards, every were), it could only carry 8 of these giant weapons, compared to the 20 on the B-52. The B-1A, was actually cancelled because of the success of the B-52 as a standoff cruise missile carrier which is ironic, because the AGM-86A SCAD was designed as a 'Subsonic Cruise Armed Decoy' with about half the length, a third the range and a much smaller warhead. To enable the B-1A to roll back defenses, enroute. SCAD could be mounted on the MPRL or Multi Purpose Rotary Launcher, along with systems like SRAM, ASALM and a variety of freefall nuclear systems and it could indeed take 8 per bay or a totaal of 24 munitions. More common was 16 as the forward bay often had a giant, 3,000 gallon, auxiliary fuel tank. The weapons load trainer on display in the video is of the AGM-86B configuration. Lots of other things which are wrong here. The outboard door on the inlets is intended to provide added mass flow at low speeds as a means to increase thrust. There are indeed vertical ramps inside the inlet but their purpose is explicitly to act as a choke to mass flow so that the supersonic shock doesn't touch the engine fan face. Top Speed for the B-1A was 595 knots, low, Mach 2.25 high. It could go faster but was fuel limited for a realistic profile (SRAM is a 100nm ranged system from a certain height). Top Speed for the B-1B varied, initially being stated as 700 knots low and Mach 1.4 high. Later this was reduced to 'subsonic' low and Mach 1.25 high. Most crews I have spoken too said it had the ability to go 'very fast', well beyond limiter, at low level, simply because ramp recovery was so high in the low air. But was inlet massflow and load limited (could not release anything) at altitude. The radar TERFLW was not reliable at low level (late detections, phantom flyup commands, bad look into turn) and the LARC/SMCS had ride control bank angle limits which prevented full use of the flyup mode without uncoupling the system which _rapidly_ damaged the forward longerons. Command pitchups were often out of bounds of the FCGMS to maintain fuel balance could lead to accelerative superstall at very low AOA capture (well below the 4G limit of the jet). It was a rocket to ride, especially at low level, in penetration mode, but it took an expert crew to do it safely and with all the iterative changes to the SEF-1-2-3 cutting ever bigger exceptions out of the allowable envelope, was eventually deemed better to simply derate the whole airframe as a low level penetrator. My understanding now is that the jet in fact no longer does low level work in the STRs as the upper wingroot skins have developed cracks and nobody knows how to mill new ones. Just like nobody knows how to fabricate and replace the wing bearings as 'lost technology'.
Harsh, while this video focuses on a bomber, the wider museum has incredible civil aircraft and spacecraft (see the previous video!). It is worth remembering that the jet bombers of the 1950s gave us the civil aircraft that powered the civil aviation boom from which we have benefitted since.
Support the show on Patreon! Join the fun from just £3+vat a month. You'll get all episodes early, ad-free and I'll send you a welcome pack with a handwritten thank you card! Join today at www.patreon.com/thedamcasters
I remember standing next to one of these when I was probably 12 and barely being able to reach up and touch an exhaust nozzle. Incredible how something that size can fly so fast and so gracefully. The BONE is a beautiful aircraft.
The B-1 is, in my opinion, the most beautiful military airplane ever made! Thanks for taking us down in the weeds with it!
You're very welcome!
Probably the first time I've heard someone explain what mechanically made the B slower than the A. Thanks, Joe!
In 1975 me and my best friend were given the job of installing the varible ramps mods on ship #3, and still talk about it today. My favorite view of the airframe was go all the way back and stradel the vertical stabilizer look forward and see the all the different contours coming down this beautiful aircraft. Not another aircraft like it.
That is fantastic! Thanks for sharing. I totally agree that there isn't a bad line on that aircraft.
16:29 that Valkirye looked like a Klingon battlecruiser
It is epic, isn't it?! I need to get to Dayton to see it.
I love the lines of the bone
100% agree!
The F111 pivot pin was also installed with liquid nitrogen cooling for a tight fit.
I was employed at Rockwell as an Training Representative on the B1-A's . Best job I ever had. So,, you could say I know pretty much everything there is to know about the B1-A's. Amazing aircraft. I'd love to go to this museum and visit my "baby". again.
I would like to add an addition to the discussion about low altitude ride quality. While Joe is correct that the wing doesn't encounter the gust all at once, the bigger reason for less gust sensitivity is more aerodynamic than that. As sweep increases, the lift curve slope of the wing decreases. This means that for every degree increase in the angle of attack, a more highly swept wing will produce less incremental lift. Less lift equates to less bouncing. Hope this helps.
Canadian here. I toured Ellsworth Air Force Base and was able to see the B-1B bomber and also the ICBM missile silos. Very interesting video. Thx
The B-1 is the gate guardian there, if I'm not mistaken? Did they tell you the story about the tourists taking pictures there? Not sure if it's true or they were just trying to scare us
@AbyssinianRumble I don't remember if they said anything like that but I definitely took some pictures and nobody said anything. It might have been just in certain areas I'm not sure it was too long ago
@ Well I was there in 2016 and they told us about some "tourists" that were on the bus and apparently they were taking pictures of some very specific things that were of importance to only certain people in the know. At any rate, they summarily confiscated their devices and escorted them out. So the story goes...
Getting to train on armament systems in this hangar is a bigger realization to me now than it was at the time when it was so cold.
I don't envy you those days! Wings had it nice and toasty while we were there!
6 AGM-86 ALCMs per rotary launcher (CSRL), Common Stragetic Rotarty Launcher. Used on -52s. On the B model ther was a moveable bulkhead between bay 1 and 2 so the CSRL could be loaded. There were fuel tanks for bay 1. Haven't worked on a B-1 in 30 years.
B 58 HUSTLER OHH YEA .IVE SEEN BONES LIFT OFF FROM NELLIS . BOTH THE B1 AND B 58 ARE MY FAVORITES
The B-1A that was lost during testing had two pilots and an engineer on board.
They were testing the center of gravity/automated wing sweep electronics.
There was too much fuel in one tank and that caused a huge problem.
The aircraft essentially became tail heavy and pitched up violently.
They couldn't regain control.
The ejection capsule was supposed to level out after ejection by releasing a pin and a set of straps but it didn't.
So instead of landing on the inflatable bags mounted to the underside of the capsule, it came down very fast on the front of it crushing the copilot in his seat.
It was a tragic story. The pilot was good friends with the man who died.
It took quite a while for rescue to come. By the time they did, the copilot had already died.
Very tragic story. We discussed this in one of our very early episodes which was a deeper dive into the story of the Bone with author Ken Katz.
The explanations of error nautical concepts and this were great and much appreciated. In addition it's nice to hear that there are other Hustler-Lancer duo Super freaks out there. People usually just say The XB-70.
We are a small but happy community 😉
You have to stand next to one to realize how big they really are and then go inside to find out how small the cockpit is.
One day I'll get into the cockpit, one day...
I got to crawl in one at a Whiteman show back in the 90s. Being 6'3", it was quite a tight fit. Like I was climbing into the driver's seat of a clown car but with instruments pressing in all around me. I recall being worried about banging into everything. Got to check out the bomb bays and their rotary launchers which was also memorable.
Great explanation off area rule, thank you.
The B-1A is big, but the very similar-looking Tu-160 is much bigger yet.
Which was a response to the B-1 interestingly.
I live near the only other B-1A still in existence at the SAC museum. Unfortunately it’s outside as a show piece near the entryway but they have so many other rare aircraft inside. A number of Cold War missiles as well. When I saw the TV in the bomb bay, it reminded me of their B-36 that had a small movie theater in the bomb bay with rows of chairs for viewers. Thanks for the cool video.
Watching Strategic Air Command in the bomb bay of B-36 would have been epic!
The b58 is truly one of my favorites.. you keep talking about the b1 but I'm day dreaming about the Hustler now...
25:35 ish, mm sure takeoff with AB on is pretty but at 1000ft it might crack windows, the "sound" isn't just what you think, it's a sequence of air pressure waves essentially, it doesn't sound and feel like something is tearing apart the sky/air for nothing. I tried to stay in a tent something around 1000ft off the side of a runway where we had F/A-18 hornets taking off of - I had double ear protection so that wasn't a huge issue, the fact that the tent kept getting blown over was what made it a no-go. I was manning a comms wagon and ended up sleeping on the floor in the wagon instead of the f'ing tent. I had some choice words for the crew who prepped the site afterwards, but unsurprisingly they were doubling over from laughter saying brass had told them to give us a scenic location. It _WAS_ a sight to behold at night, but that doesn't make you very happy when you're trying to get some shuteye after sitting staring at a computer screen for 12+hours.
Why the weird language around the three thermonuclear weapon casings under the aircraft? I know us aviation geeks love to ignore the ugly purpose of the planes we look at, but it's kinda the entire reason we spent untold billions of dollars making these things.
Stu Bailey covers this in last week's episode. The USAF chose to use words like 'shapes' etc to (my interpretation here) normalise the weapons.
@damcasterspod great, thanks for the reply. I'll go watch that episode. Thanks for what you do!
That fin thingy that rotates 😂
Technically a pitch damper.
You guys are the best!
The meticulous explanations and physical connections you make with aerodynamics is fascinating.
I know all the big techy words 😁
Tu-160 Blackjack has a larger all-moving tail, it also has an all-moving vertical stabilizer/rudder. Fascinating trivia: at 28 feet, the span of the BONE's tail is almost exactly the same as the span of the canards on the B-70 Valkyrie.
what a beauty!
Love listening to Joe
So do I, which is why I keep roping him into doing episodes! Two more with Joe coming in the next couple weeks.
Recall that computational modeling of aerodynamic surfaces was at its infancy when this bird was being designed.
Correct. In the lates 70s at Boeing we were using full potential models, thus allowing to compute weak shocks. In the early 80s we adopted Tony Jameson's first Euler code., to which we coupled a 3-D boundary layer code to account for viscous effects. All running on the early Crays
Always wondered what the little canards were for. Very cool!
Actually, they weren't canards ,they were Suctural Mode Control Systems. SMCS.
@GlennHunt-le1zc well, i didn't know what they were til I watched this video. Case in point.
Those vortex generators on the tail are on the B-1b and in fact if they weren't there it would cost several knots of cruise and top speed.
It is my understanding that the B-58 was "officially" replaced by the FB-111A.
Correct, in the medium bomber role, the B-1 was the Mach 2 strategic mach 2 strike role the B-58 had.
I went to that museum back in A&P school in 2010.
We need it. Take it back.
I wish I could be in the room when the engineers came up with the name B1-R (Bone)R.
You're triggering some very bad memories from High School. My surname is Bone...
Roll control is accomplished through spoilerons
Awesome video.
Thanks for watching!
Front right seat, copilot, killed when the airbag meant to cushin impact under the capsule failed to inflate properly- the capsule landed on the front right corner, the impact caused his seat bolts to sheer and was killed impacting the control yoke and console.
What is that small fuselage to the left side, from the pilots perspective, and under the nose of the B-1A?
Edit: I see the wheels and read Steve Fossett. Quick search later and it's named *Spirit of America* - *Sonic Arrow* . Powered by a single GE J-79 engine. Capable of reaching 800 mph.
2:24 what is that cruise missile in the bottom right corner? I have never seen that thing before!
Or at 4:28, the F-4 Phantom which also had vari-ramps. Wait, WoR has a static B-58?
Unfortunetly not, they just have the escape capsule.
I wonder what flying through the wake turbulence of a B-1 bomber would be?
It would certainly spill your drink.
❤❤❤B1-B IS SO BEAUTIFUL ❤️❤️❤️
Can't agrue with you there!
What is that thing on the roller cart bellow the nose of the B-1?
Oh I see it a land speed record car. Cool.
Yes! It is Steve Fosset's Spirit of America - Sonic Arrow. Basically a Starfighter's J-79 strapped to a seat. It is really something to see.
rotary cruise missile launcher - is there anything more bad ass than that
C'est vraiment beau.
When I was a crew chief on the B1b at Dyess I got to be a part of a team that pulled a pin once. They only weigh 800 pounds and are hollow.
Hallow? Wow that is cool!
@damcasterspod 🤣
Its a great museum went last year
Have they ever tried manipulating the profile of a delta wing to increase camber on the top surface as opposed to variable geometry swing mechanisms?
50 years of B-1 in 2024.
Largest flying tail = L-1011
I was just going to make same comment.... Tri-Star 72 feet, B-1 45 feet.
Between the B1 being the bright new thing only to get cancelled and the program being restarted, my buddy 🇬🇧, on a tour of US plane wrecks found 2 prototypes abandoned in a hanger. They were covered in bird poop and detritus over their Zinc Chromate paint job. All I know is his tale of finding them and seeing the photographs he took of them.
Didn't they make a movie about that plane? Something called "Lovely Bone?" 😁Product-improved B-58; amazing what the old Hustler was capable of w/ tech that was at least a decade older. One of Reagan's better decisions to return the Bone to production, AFAIC.
What we need now is someone with deep pockets to do a scaled down version of it as an experimental: obviously, you don't need the swing wing or supersonic capabilities as a private pilot, but having a payload capacity to at least carry a motorcycle, a fast cruise & deliciously long range would be a nice trifecta!
Great show!! Say hello to Stuart and page me if you come to see the spruce goose or the F117
I remember at the start AWST mentioned the provision for future laser weapons on it which was real sci-fi then. Carter canceled the program but had the foresight to keep a few in flight test for development purposes. Unlike Obama who blew up the F-22 program and made sure it was never coming back.
The F-22 choice was ditated by the F-35 rising costs (and the fact that the F-22 wing spar replacement program was incredibly expensive).
I Got Watch a B 1 B take off from the Local Airport, From The Adjacent Road, close enough to get a Really Nice Look as it Sadly at the time left Our Presence to Return to it’s Home.
As it Taxied Gracefully for Takeoff, reading itself to go looking like a Gorgeous Aircraft.
Then it Started Rolling, and Taking Off, and as it went by, the Sound it made Gloriously Drowned Out and Deafened Everything Else, then Sadly as it Continued on, Everything Returned to Normal and Everything Else was So Uneventful Afterwards.
The B 1 B, Along With Other of
Our Aircraft, just Says, with it’s
Mere Presence, We’re AMERICA!!
Anybody Got A Problem With That?
I used that great clip of the spotters at the end of the RAF Cottesmore's runway getting blown over by the B-1B on take-off in our second Combat Bullseye episode as my guest Chris Gibson in the footage! It is fantastic.
Few aircraft, and fewer bombers radiate such an erotic energy as the B-one. It looks like smooth, flawless skin stretched over rippling muscles.
It is a shame that this is one of two only surviving B-1A (and the only surviving original B-1A design since the other guy was a mix between B-1A and B-1B b/c it was used for B-1B testing) and she is wearing some fictional livery instead of her original white paint scheme. The other one was also wearing some acid dream fictional scheme, however thanks god she got recently repainted into the camo paint scheme she wore during the tests (it was the only B-1A that in addition to white also trialed camo scheme).
PS: since you are in Colorado you need to visit the SAC museum in Nebraska: it has the other B-1A, B-58 "Greased Lightning", SR-71, Vulcan B2, B-36 and the Goblin parasite fighter.
She was painted the colour she is for training framilariastion purposes, but it would be great if she was white I agree with you there. There is a much wider discussion to be had about aircraft as artifacts and the colours they are painted in. Next time I'm back out that way, the SAC museum is high on the list!
@@damcasterspod as far as the colors go I think it makes sense to paint some generic airplane in the colors of it's more famous sister, however if you have a quite unique artifact (one of two B-1A) I would personally try to keep as close to the original appearance possible. Btw, did you had a chance to hit National WW2 Aviation Museum in Colorado Springs? Not much stuff is there but quite good one and in flying condition.
I hope to have a wider conversation, hopefully with someone from the IWM, about the ups and downs of painting aircraft and the rules around it. As for Wings, getting 160 to a paint shop would be an epic move. I had hoped to get down to chat with the Westpac team to look around the shop. Unfortunately, the snowstorm when I was there threw out our plans.
Wasn't the all moving tail a British invention for the M-52 that got cancelled ? Then the Americans stole the idea to use on their Bell X-1 which looked suspiciously like the M-52. 😉
It was, just don't mention it around Yeager. 😉
@@damcasterspod Indeed! I remember on a doco about the X-1 the late Mr Yeager bragged a lot about that all moving tail, he was very proud of it, even saying that was the secret to the success of the X-1 due to regular tails not working too well through the transonic range to supersonic, but not once did he mention the Brits "helped" with that!!! haha
So, why don’t we have all moving rudder or wingtips ?
@@ArneChristianRosenfeldt Actually some high performance planes do, check out the SR-71, it's twin "rudders" move the entire vert stab. The lack of an all moving tail in a dive on British Spitfires and Hurricanes in WW2, where they would reach transsonic speeds, meant the standard tail with elevators could not pull them out of the dive and they crashed. Rudders have nothing to do with dives and pitching in or out of them. All moving wingtips ? (so a massive pin in it to move the wing in the vertical plane up and down like ailerons, elevons, flaps etc, that would render the wing unusable I think, plus the wings have multiple control surfaces and are way more complicated) are not necessary, wings have way more surface area for the control surfaces to achieve the required moment (or force) than a tail or vert stab.
Germany isn't the eastern part of Europe . West Germany was on the eastern part of occidental Europe.
The B-1A was a followon to the B-58 and a competitor to the Tu-22M which actually beat it to service by more than a decade. It would be best to call it a medium/regional bomber as it simply didn't have the legs to reach Russia without a huge number of tankings. And then then the B-1B came along and the gross weight went from 366,000lbs to 477,000lbs with 265,000 being fuel and the jet still could not get over 3,400nm in a hurry because wingloadings and stall margins were so high that cruise altitude fell below 14,000ft (vs. 45 on the BUFF).
And while the jets might have operated from dispersals during a hotwar, post first strike, they would have been in places like the dry lake beds of Iran and the, later, Turkey or Saudi. Because we did not move nuclear weapons off base in CONUS and frankly, nobody expected the bases to survive a SIOP alert launch as Soviet SSBN would have been launching DT ballistic shots from just offshore in the Carribean and Pacific coats, looking to hit SAC bases in North Dakota and Texas. Less than 10 minute arrivals.
Given the B-1 had the notorious nickname of 'Redball Express' as a jet whose systems were so failure prone that multiple ramp spares were needed to assure a training mission launch, it's unlikely that dispersal ops would have lasted for very long (or been very necessary) once the full SIOP plan went through DEFCON 1. There's only so much you can do on a barren lakebed in Balochistan.
The whole idea of Dispersal operations was actually begun (and ended) in the B-50/B-47 era, at a time when we had routine access to places like Wheelus AB in Libya, Zaragoza in Spain, Clark in the PI and Misawa in Japan, for nuclear capable platforms. Then the 9,000 mile B-52 entered into service and it was no longer necessary, as the world changed and the emphasis shifted to ballistic missiles.
The AGM-86B was intended for but never qualified on the B-1B as it required serious modifications to the airframe hardware standard, moving a load bearing frame about six feet down the airframe to accommodate the 20ft long missile on a CSRL or Common Strategic Rotary Launcher.
When configured (only two, out at Edwards, every were), it could only carry 8 of these giant weapons, compared to the 20 on the B-52.
The B-1A, was actually cancelled because of the success of the B-52 as a standoff cruise missile carrier which is ironic, because the AGM-86A SCAD was designed as a 'Subsonic Cruise Armed Decoy' with about half the length, a third the range and a much smaller warhead. To enable the B-1A to roll back defenses, enroute.
SCAD could be mounted on the MPRL or Multi Purpose Rotary Launcher, along with systems like SRAM, ASALM and a variety of freefall nuclear systems and it could indeed take 8 per bay or a totaal of 24 munitions. More common was 16 as the forward bay often had a giant, 3,000 gallon, auxiliary fuel tank.
The weapons load trainer on display in the video is of the AGM-86B configuration.
Lots of other things which are wrong here. The outboard door on the inlets is intended to provide added mass flow at low speeds as a means to increase thrust. There are indeed vertical ramps inside the inlet but their purpose is explicitly to act as a choke to mass flow so that the supersonic shock doesn't touch the engine fan face.
Top Speed for the B-1A was 595 knots, low, Mach 2.25 high. It could go faster but was fuel limited for a realistic profile (SRAM is a 100nm ranged system from a certain height).
Top Speed for the B-1B varied, initially being stated as 700 knots low and Mach 1.4 high. Later this was reduced to 'subsonic' low and Mach 1.25 high.
Most crews I have spoken too said it had the ability to go 'very fast', well beyond limiter, at low level, simply because ramp recovery was so high in the low air. But was inlet massflow and load limited (could not release anything) at altitude. The radar TERFLW was not reliable at low level (late detections, phantom flyup commands, bad look into turn) and the LARC/SMCS had ride control bank angle limits which prevented full use of the flyup mode without uncoupling the system which _rapidly_ damaged the forward longerons. Command pitchups were often out of bounds of the FCGMS to maintain fuel balance could lead to accelerative superstall at very low AOA capture (well below the 4G limit of the jet).
It was a rocket to ride, especially at low level, in penetration mode, but it took an expert crew to do it safely and with all the iterative changes to the SEF-1-2-3 cutting ever bigger exceptions out of the allowable envelope, was eventually deemed better to simply derate the whole airframe as a low level penetrator. My understanding now is that the jet in fact no longer does low level work in the STRs as the upper wingroot skins have developed cracks and nobody knows how to mill new ones. Just like nobody knows how to fabricate and replace the wing bearings as 'lost technology'.
Pima Air And Space Museum is a joke. Dirty planes, dated displays, just one of the worst aircraft museums I've ever visited.
A war monger's dream....
Harsh, while this video focuses on a bomber, the wider museum has incredible civil aircraft and spacecraft (see the previous video!). It is worth remembering that the jet bombers of the 1950s gave us the civil aircraft that powered the civil aviation boom from which we have benefitted since.
These aren't machines of war at all. You see having air superiority makes these machines of peace because no one wants a piece.
ITS HUGE!!!! Shocking how small B52s are and how BIG B1Bs are in real life.
B-52 is a lot larger than the B-1