Years ago I had a bar friend who was a tail gunner in D models who had many missions to N Vietnam including Hanoi at night. You can imagine the stories he told! Being in the tail he had a clear view of the all the SAM launches and the sky filled with them arcing in his direction. He had a couple Mig encounters too. He said they never fired on them but flew formation just out of range of his guns. He was told they were relaying heading, altitude and speed to the missile sites to fire because their radar was being jammed. He also saw a couple 52s hit by SAMs and going down. He was just sick because he knew the crews. Brave men!
this is my favorite episode ever. Mr.Ken Katz is a phenomenal guest. a bit of a shame that the episode didnt go 20-30 minutes longer, enjoyed every second of it.
@@FighterPilotPodcast I'm an aerospace engineer and we are not usually that entertaining to listen to. Lol. But then I never got any stick time in any aeroplane as well.
Mr. Katz, well done. I flew G and H models from 1975 to 1990. I served two tours at CCTS. I wrote the basic language Form F program that was approved by CEVG. The max fuel was just over 301,000 lbs, not 200,000. The max G's were 1.68 and max bank depended on gross weight. Usually 50 to 55 degrees. Below 10000, max bank was 30 Deg. On nuc alert two officers had to cross the red line at the same time. The the aircraft commander could escort the mx guys inside the red line once he and another officer were inside the line. The Aircraft commander had to disarm the cockpit security system and two officers had to enter the cockpit to drain the water. The G model could not heat the water. 10,000 lbs of water. I think it lasted 110 seconds; about 1/2 way through flap retraction. Classified EWO docs and tickets could not be accessed by the enlisted ground crew chief or gunner. There always had to be two guys within eyesight of one another. Deadly force was authorized! It was not fun! Your description of flying qualities was spot on. Oh, SAC requirements required us to wear parachutes during critical phases of Flight. So high level celestial navigation legs, 1.5 hours, were the only time we could take them off. I retired with just under 5,000 hours.
I remember Tacit Rainbow. My dad worked on SRAM II around that time at ED and was previously on B-1B CTF several years before when Doug Benefield died with the capsule ejection from one of the B-1A testbeds. You're right about Edwards. There was no place like it, especially in the 1980s. The variety of military aircraft flying less restricted profiles was like a sonic buffet of beautiful jet engine sounds.
Question for you, Ken: I have read in a history book about the Space Shuttle that the B-52 was used to make a key decision about the shuttle's design, and was wondering if you've ever heard of this. According to the book, NASA was trying to decide if the shuttle should have air breathing engines to facilitate a go-around in case of a missed landing approach, but the engines would add weight, complexity, cost, and headaches for crew training, so a test was run where they had single-engine pilots make power-off approaches as well as power-on approaches in a B-52 and found that power-off approaches were far easier for a pilot with no multi-engine training to handle. This led to the decision to delete air-breathers from the shuttle and rely on glider approaches. The book is T. A. Heppenheimer, "Development of the Space Shuttle, 1972-1981", Smithsonian Institute Press, page 90
@Helium Road I have never read that but Heppenheimer is a good source so if he wrote that I would believe it. But I don't see how results would translate easily from a high L/D aircraft like the B-52 to a Space Shuttle Orbiter with low L/D. I would have thought that the lifting body programs (X-24A, X-24B, HL-10, M2F3) would have conclusively proven the feasibility of gliding approaches in a low L/D aircraft.
Hi Mr. Katz, I'd like to ask off the cuff as an AE student wanting to build and fly some larger scale models of a homebuilt aircraft, what's the best way to approach scale for progressively larger to full size flight test models? (16.7 feet full model). Apologies if this is trivial in some sense to career engineers.
There are a few ways in which things change as you scale a flight vehicle in size. There is the Reynolds Number which affects viscous flow. There is also the cube/square law which states that, as a shape grows in size, its volume grows faster than its surface area. Put those two together, and that's why a mosquito has different flight dynamics than a B-52.
@@kennethkatz8278 Thanks for the reply! Reynolds number is huge of course. Any good reading recommended on the topic of model design and testing? I didn't get into MIT for course 16, but maybe some day for graduate work perhaps.
@@nikovlogs9837 I can't think of anything. But you need to understand the purpose of the model before you build it. And once you understand the purpose, then you can build a model that is suitable to meet that purpose. There are many kinds of models: a physical mock-up that is not actually functional, a model with partial functionality, a miniature of the real thing, a model on a computer (Simulink/MATLAB, for example).
In 1988 on the USS Ranger, off the coast of San Diego, there was a "fly by" by a B52 and a supersonic flyby by a F16. The B52 climbed and put it on its "side", a day i will never forget.. Thanks forgiving us "maintainers" recognition on other episodes.
Wow, great episode. Really refreshing to listen to the engineer‘s perspective. Mr. Katz seems like a very likeable, humble and extremely well informed guy.
Great show as usual and very interesting guest who knows his stuff damn well. It would be great to have him again if you come up with some other topics he worked with.
Glad I found your channel. Having spent my entire career in the B-52 if was fun to listen Ken's comments on the plane. With the inclusion of the B-52H and now the "B-52J" the story only gets better. Now I have to find some time to do some "binge listening."
Went to Wings Over the Wasatch, 5 years ago and watched the T-Birds do their demonstration while standing in the shade from a B-52G, out of Barksdale, if I remember right. I do remember seeing the Manufacturing Plate, which put the date of manufacture in 1960. That is, the same year I was born. I was talking to a Captain, one of the crew members, who could have been a son, by his age. Sure puts this bird's age in perspective. Also, dad was stationed at Edwards from 1967-69. He was an aerial photographer who photographed munition disbursement from aircraft, such as the B-52. He actually went to UBON RTAFB in 1969-70 as an aerial photographer, flying on AC-130s. Thanks for these series!!!!!
Max Fuel load, without weapons on board, is 290,000 lbs. So with a full load of say, 70K in weapons, your combat fuel load is about 220K in gas. Excellent recall by Mr. Katz on so many areas! Bravo sir!
I know I'm about 5 months late to this but I have to say this was a fantastic interview. Very entertaining and Mr. Katz delivers his superb knowledge in a very understandable manner. Great work!
What a great episode!!! Thanks, Jello and Ken!! I thought I knew just about verything about the "BUFF"...thanks for teaching me a few more things I didn't :-). The testing/engineering part was super interesting.
I had a coworker at Papa Johns (He was a workhorse in his old age) who was in the air force during the mid to late 50's. He was some sort of ground crew for B52s and would talk about how they had alert drills in the middle of the night and early morning where they would have to scramble nuclear weapon loaded B52s into the air. Said most of the time it was training oriented, but on a few occasions it was because they had some sort of idea there were Soviet bombers running around (He assumed it was a radar mistake.) Crazy times
one fun fact that I didn't hear mentioned is the fact that a B-52 dropped a nuclear weapon off the gulf coast of that was never recovered and is believed to be buried in the mud somewhere just offshore apparently it is a "LIVE" megaton level hydrogen weapon, although I could be wrong it may have been a b47 but either way there's a live nuke somewhere just off the beach in the Gulf.
Downward firing ejection seats required a minimum of 250 feet if in level flight, and 120 knots for proper chute deployment. At high altitude, once the Nav ejected, then non-ejection seat crew bailed out the hole just like in a B-17.
i love this guy! jello seems a bit unfavorable about non-pilot guests, but the fello is such a charmer! and its amazing that he worked on tacit rainbow
@@FighterPilotPodcast thats fantastic!! what episode is that? i'd love to see!! also i don't mean this in a rude way, its totally understandable that you, as a fighter pilot, do not hold the same sense of reverence for a pencil pusher. as someone who never served, you're all at a respect level far beyond my comprehension. i just thought that this fella in particular was a fun guest
I have flown DC-3’s that are still in service today. I suppose as along as you properly maintain and replace fatigued structural components and parts that just flat out wear out… you can keep it flying indefinitely. I hope, when I retire, that I have enough money to buy a Cessna 190 or 195. I love old aircraft.
Hey Ken! I remember reading about the Tacit Rainbow in, I think, Dale Brown's "Flight of the Old Dog" and thinking it was the coolest thing ever, even today when I see JASSM's and JSOWs and the like I think to myself "Hey that's just like the "Tacit Rainbow"
It was a cool idea. But the program technical risk was not well managed, and when the Cold War ended all but the highest priority programs were cancelled, even more so if they were in trouble which Tacit Rainbow was.
It was also in a film called By dawn's early light. Also I have found something missing from your podcast, Eagles, F-15 Eagles. F-15's RULE! They are loud and heavy the way I like my music. Keep em coming! Love your podcast.
37:35- I could offer some suggestions(Namely using it on a...Certain pain-in-the-ass country in east asia..) But seriously,It's great that you feature this aircraft! And in fiction,let's just say it's one of Dale Brown's favorite aircraft(He was a crewman on one,IIRC). Also,why call it BUFF? The B-52 is one of the most aesthetically pleasing aircraft in our arsenal! BUFF should be "Beautiful Unmatched Flying Fighter"...or something like that :P
Assuming constant acceleration, an S2 (rotation speed) of 163 knots indicated = 174 knots true airspeed at conditions of 2302 feet MSL/29.92 in Hg/30 degrees C OAT and a 14,000 foot ground run, I calculate that ground run took 95 seconds.
Hey Jello........We're all waiting for you and Mover Lemoine to combine one of these casts. There is no escape; the fates have dictated it. It'll be the biggest thing since the Brady Bunch met the Partridge Family.
As always, what a great episode. The thing about the B-52 that sticks out to me is the negative AOA. You just don't see that with a lot of planes. As a kid, I was at one of the annual Edward AFB air shows with my close friends and their dad, a jet engine mechanic who did a lot of work on Pratt engines mainly for F-15 CTF. He showed me how even I could lift or pull down the wingtip of the empty B-52, and the opposite tip would go up or down. I couldn't have been older than 11.
The short answer is that the B-52 doesn't normally fly at a negative AOA, but rather that the pilot reduces its AOA after takeoff but the AOA is still positive. The long answer is that if you are flying a "normal" airplane like Jell-O's Hornet or my Piper Warrior, a takeoff goes like this. Accelerate down the runway to increase the speed, which increases the dynamic pressure of the air flowing over the airplane. At a specified airspeed, the pilot pulls back on the stick (Hornet)/yoke (Warrior), which pitches the aircraft nose up, which increases AOA. The coefficient of lift is proportional to AOA (at least until AOA increases into the stall zone) so the combination of dynamic pressure and AOA creates enough lift to force the aircraft off the ground. In contrast, the B-52 has that quadricycle landing gear, so instead of pitching up to take off, the wing is set at a high incidence angle. When the B-52 is going fast enough, the incidence angle of the wing is sufficient to lift the B-52 off the ground without rotating. Then on climb out, the combination of incidence angle and AOA is too high, so the pilot actually lowers the nose (decreases AOA). But it's not negative. Hope that makes sense--this is a lot easier to describe with a whiteboard or pencil and paper than with words.
@@kennethkatz8278 Your explanation is perfectly clear. So the wing incidence angle has positive AOA on T/O, even though the fuselage is nose-depressed relative to the velocity vector. Thanks again for your time. It was really an exceptional interview. I think I enjoy more detailed engineering perspectives like this.
@@harryb8023 Lift = CL*S*q CL = coefficient of lift, which is linearly related to AOA within the linear region (in other words, small values of AOA outside the stall zone) S = reference area (typically the planform area of the wing) q = dynamic pressure = 0.5*air density*velocity^2 What that means is that higher angle of attack (if less than stall), bigger wing, lower altitude (= higher air density) and faster all cause higher lift. Did that answer your question?
Would have been nice to see the engine upgrade go to 4 engines. But they decided not to change the pod structures so RR will be making low bypass engines and will not get as much of the efficiency improvement that high bypass would provide unfortunately.
@@FighterPilotPodcast Ya true indeed, there are many other factors beyond just fuel efficiency. As noted by your guest including rudder authority with one engine out having larger effect, and the overall cost/benefit of all required changes.
This was fantastic show. Thank you. We are lucky enough to have them fly into Darwin from time to time. My young son has had the privilege of sitting in the cockpit of the B-52 that we have in the Darwin Aviation Museum www.darwinaviationmuseum.com.au/. I believe that it is 1 of only 2 on display outside of the US. I'm just in awe when I see them in the air & on the ground a beautiful bird. When they are in town I can hear them start from my house so I jump in the car just so I can see them taxi & take off.
21:12 ever hear the OLD joke... . FA18 comes up to a b52.... "look what i can do"..... lights the cans, rolls around the B52 52 says "pretty cool.... but watch this" . after 5 mins the 18 radios "hey, what did you do?" . b52 says "went back and made myself coffee and a sandwich"
I'm loving these bomber interviews. Sunshine is missing out on this great stuff but I know we're all better off with him doing what he does. GREAT WORK. and thank you
It was a pleasure meeting Jell-O face-to-face and he is a great interviewer (and a great guy in general). But I too missed having Sunshine in the interview, because we could have geeked out together on flight test.
![ROSÉ (로제) - number one girl [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A9oByH9Ci24/mqdefault.jpg)
Years ago I had a bar friend who was a tail gunner in D models who had many missions to N Vietnam including Hanoi at night. You can imagine the stories he told! Being in the tail he had a clear view of the all the SAM launches and the sky filled with them arcing in his direction. He had a couple Mig encounters too. He said they never fired on them but flew formation just out of range of his guns. He was told they were relaying heading, altitude and speed to the missile sites to fire because their radar was being jammed. He also saw a couple 52s hit by SAMs and going down. He was just sick because he knew the crews. Brave men!
Thanks for sharing, Terry, incredible insight!
this is my favorite episode ever. Mr.Ken Katz is a phenomenal guest. a bit of a shame that the episode didnt go 20-30 minutes longer, enjoyed every second of it.
Thanks!
Totally agree, Ken was so well informed on the subject and it was great to hear the in's and outs in such detail
@@MagpieOz Thank you
Agreed, Ken was great and he and Jell-O complimented each other in conversation. This ep is in my top 3 now (top 3: F117, B17 and now B52).
I didn't think I'd enjoy a guest who's not a pilot. This is one of the best ever.
That would have been a dangerous statement had you replaced "pilot" with another descriptor. We all have something unique to offer.
@@FighterPilotPodcast I'm an aerospace engineer and we are not usually that entertaining to listen to. Lol. But then I never got any stick time in any aeroplane as well.
Mr. Katz, well done. I flew G and H models from 1975 to 1990. I served two tours at CCTS. I wrote the basic language Form F program that was approved by CEVG. The max fuel was just over 301,000 lbs, not 200,000. The max G's were 1.68 and max bank depended on gross weight. Usually 50 to 55 degrees. Below 10000, max bank was 30 Deg. On nuc alert two officers had to cross the red line at the same time. The the aircraft commander could escort the mx guys inside the red line once he and another officer were inside the line. The Aircraft commander had to disarm the cockpit security system and two officers had to enter the cockpit to drain the water. The G model could not heat the water. 10,000 lbs of water. I think it lasted 110 seconds; about 1/2 way through flap retraction. Classified EWO docs and tickets could not be accessed by the enlisted ground crew chief or gunner. There always had to be two guys within eyesight of one another. Deadly force was authorized! It was not fun! Your description of flying qualities was spot on. Oh, SAC requirements required us to wear parachutes during critical phases of Flight. So high level celestial navigation legs, 1.5 hours, were the only time we could take them off. I retired with just under 5,000 hours.
Jell-O, great job turning my torrent of words into a tightly-edited podcast!
You did great, Ken!
I remember Tacit Rainbow. My dad worked on SRAM II around that time at ED and was previously on B-1B CTF several years before when Doug Benefield died with the capsule ejection from one of the B-1A testbeds.
You're right about Edwards. There was no place like it, especially in the 1980s. The variety of military aircraft flying less restricted profiles was like a sonic buffet of beautiful jet engine sounds.
Question for you, Ken: I have read in a history book about the Space Shuttle that the B-52 was used to make a key decision about the shuttle's design, and was wondering if you've ever heard of this. According to the book, NASA was trying to decide if the shuttle should have air breathing engines to facilitate a go-around in case of a missed landing approach, but the engines would add weight, complexity, cost, and headaches for crew training, so a test was run where they had single-engine pilots make power-off approaches as well as power-on approaches in a B-52 and found that power-off approaches were far easier for a pilot with no multi-engine training to handle. This led to the decision to delete air-breathers from the shuttle and rely on glider approaches. The book is T. A. Heppenheimer, "Development of the Space Shuttle, 1972-1981", Smithsonian Institute Press, page 90
@Helium Road I have never read that but Heppenheimer is a good source so if he wrote that I would believe it. But I don't see how results would translate easily from a high L/D aircraft like the B-52 to a Space Shuttle Orbiter with low L/D. I would have thought that the lifting body programs (X-24A, X-24B, HL-10, M2F3) would have conclusively proven the feasibility of gliding approaches in a low L/D aircraft.
Only about halfway through, lovin the info, your extensive knowledge, and clarity of speech. Nerd popcorn material here.
Favorite B-52 Movie: *By Dawn’s Early Light*. This was a GREAT episode - Mr. Katz was articulate and a pleasure to listen to.
Thank you.
Correction: I said "Conventional Advanced Cruise Missile" but I should have said "Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile" aka the CALCM.
Hi Mr. Katz,
I'd like to ask off the cuff as an AE student wanting to build and fly some larger scale models of a homebuilt aircraft, what's the best way to approach scale for progressively larger to full size flight test models? (16.7 feet full model). Apologies if this is trivial in some sense to career engineers.
There are a few ways in which things change as you scale a flight vehicle in size. There is the Reynolds Number which affects viscous flow. There is also the cube/square law which states that, as a shape grows in size, its volume grows faster than its surface area. Put those two together, and that's why a mosquito has different flight dynamics than a B-52.
@@kennethkatz8278 Thanks for the reply!
Reynolds number is huge of course. Any good reading recommended on the topic of model design and testing?
I didn't get into MIT for course 16, but maybe some day for graduate work perhaps.
@@nikovlogs9837 I can't think of anything. But you need to understand the purpose of the model before you build it. And once you understand the purpose, then you can build a model that is suitable to meet that purpose. There are many kinds of models: a physical mock-up that is not actually functional, a model with partial functionality, a miniature of the real thing, a model on a computer (Simulink/MATLAB, for example).
In 1988 on the USS Ranger, off the coast of San Diego, there was a "fly by" by a B52 and a supersonic flyby by a F16. The B52 climbed and put it on its "side", a day i will never forget.. Thanks forgiving us "maintainers" recognition on other episodes.
Wow, great episode. Really refreshing to listen to the engineer‘s perspective. Mr. Katz seems like a very likeable, humble and extremely well informed guy.
Great show as usual and very interesting guest who knows his stuff damn well. It would be great to have him again if you come up with some other topics he worked with.
Glad I found your channel. Having spent my entire career in the B-52 if was fun to listen Ken's comments on the plane. With the inclusion of the B-52H and now the "B-52J" the story only gets better. Now I have to find some time to do some "binge listening."
Went to Wings Over the Wasatch, 5 years ago and watched the T-Birds do their demonstration while standing in the shade from a B-52G, out of Barksdale, if I remember right. I do remember seeing the Manufacturing Plate, which put the date of manufacture in 1960. That is, the same year I was born. I was talking to a Captain, one of the crew members, who could have been a son, by his age. Sure puts this bird's age in perspective.
Also, dad was stationed at Edwards from 1967-69. He was an aerial photographer who photographed munition disbursement from aircraft, such as the B-52. He actually went to UBON RTAFB in 1969-70 as an aerial photographer, flying on AC-130s.
Thanks for these series!!!!!
Excellent interview, Ken certainly knows his stuff and spoke very well about a classic aircraft - great stuff!
Thanks, Mick!
Thank you. Now you just need to convince Vincent to change his masterpiece to the "Fighter Pilot and Aerospace Engineer Podcast". :)
@@kennethkatz8278 Ha ha, I'll back you up there Kenneth! As an ex-RAAF electronics technician, how about also adding "...and aircraft maintainers"?
Mick McKean Amen, I am the #1 fan of maintainers.
Thanks Jell-O and Mr. Katz!! Growing up near a SAC base (Carswell AFB) that had Ds was great!! One of my fav aircraft.
This is such an amazing channel! I could listen to these interviews all day!
Tin roof...Rusted!
What an incredible broadcast!! Huge Thanks!! Loved your guest!!
Max Fuel load, without weapons on board, is 290,000 lbs. So with a full load of say, 70K in weapons, your combat fuel load is about 220K in gas. Excellent recall by Mr. Katz on so many areas! Bravo sir!
"If you're gonna suppress a SAM site with a thermonuclear weapon, you're probably gonna shut it down." lol ya think?
Omg I’m a geek, but I absolutely loved listening to Mr. Katz. Thanks Jello!
Another great interview, Mr. Katz is a FONT of aviation knowledge!
Appreciate the compliment
Kenneth Katz when is the S3 Viking book coming out?
@@chrisdilley266 2020 or 2021, I hope.
I know I'm about 5 months late to this but I have to say this was a fantastic interview. Very entertaining and Mr. Katz delivers his superb knowledge in a very understandable manner. Great work!
Thanks, Karahan.
My favorite episode to date. Ken was stone cold with information, damn. Details I've neither heard nor read elsewhere.
What a great episode!!! Thanks, Jello and Ken!! I thought I knew just about verything about the "BUFF"...thanks for teaching me a few more things I didn't :-). The testing/engineering part was super interesting.
The sound guys! It sounds amazing with all those engines going!
I had a coworker at Papa Johns (He was a workhorse in his old age) who was in the air force during the mid to late 50's. He was some sort of ground crew for B52s and would talk about how they had alert drills in the middle of the night and early morning where they would have to scramble nuclear weapon loaded B52s into the air. Said most of the time it was training oriented, but on a few occasions it was because they had some sort of idea there were Soviet bombers running around (He assumed it was a radar mistake.) Crazy times
This is super interesting.
one fun fact that I didn't hear mentioned is the fact that a B-52 dropped a nuclear weapon off the gulf coast of that was never recovered and is believed to be buried in the mud somewhere just offshore apparently it is a "LIVE" megaton level hydrogen weapon, although I could be wrong it may have been a b47 but either way there's a live nuke somewhere just off the beach in the Gulf.
F for the Valkyrie. That was a beautiful bird.
Ken is very engaging and clear
Oh,and for anyone who wants to read about what an upgraded B-52 can do,check out Dale brown's books!
He also has upgraded B-1s and other stuff too!
Downward firing ejection seats required a minimum of 250 feet if in level flight, and 120 knots for proper chute deployment. At high altitude, once the Nav ejected, then non-ejection seat crew bailed out the hole just like in a B-17.
The B-52 is America's way of saying “f you”
Looking forward to the B-one!
You've only got to wait a week!
i love this guy! jello seems a bit unfavorable about non-pilot guests, but the fello is such a charmer! and its amazing that he worked on tacit rainbow
And yet, Ken Katz returns later as guest cohost, so maybe I DO like non-pilot guests!
@@FighterPilotPodcast thats fantastic!! what episode is that? i'd love to see!! also i don't mean this in a rude way, its totally understandable that you, as a fighter pilot, do not hold the same sense of reverence for a pencil pusher. as someone who never served, you're all at a respect level far beyond my comprehension. i just thought that this fella in particular was a fun guest
My dad was stationed at a BMEWS site in Alaska in 65-66.
I have flown DC-3’s that are still in service today. I suppose as along as you properly maintain and replace fatigued structural components and parts that just flat out wear out… you can keep it flying indefinitely.
I hope, when I retire, that I have enough money to buy a Cessna 190 or 195. I love old aircraft.
Superb interview
Thank you, Underbird.
Very geeky, and i love it !
The flight test engineer went deep--big surprise!
@@FighterPilotPodcast Wouldn't want to disappoint and not live up to stereotype.
@@kennethkatz8278 You definitely represented!
Don't know if the show is still looking for a cohost, but Prime-time would be an awesome addition in my opinion.
Only a few G models got Harpoon, IIRC all B-52H are AGM-84 capable. Could only be carried externally 6 under each wing.
Hey Ken! I remember reading about the Tacit Rainbow in, I think, Dale Brown's "Flight of the Old Dog" and thinking it was the coolest thing ever, even today when I see JASSM's and JSOWs and the like I think to myself "Hey that's just like the "Tacit Rainbow"
It was a cool idea. But the program technical risk was not well managed, and when the Cold War ended all but the highest priority programs were cancelled, even more so if they were in trouble which Tacit Rainbow was.
Enjoying "Bomber Month"!
Excellent Podcast. 👏👍Go USA 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
The title of this episode should be 'Unleash Hell on NoGood' with B52'
Compelling!
It was also in a film called By dawn's early light. Also I have found something missing from your podcast, Eagles, F-15 Eagles. F-15's RULE! They are loud and heavy the way I like my music. Keep em coming! Love your podcast.
Recording that interview this week. 😎
@@FighterPilotPodcast No way, you're teasing me! Dude, I can't wait! OMG! I am 37 years old and I'm soooo giddy right now.
@@voicewithinthevoid Better that way than an old grump already! The world's got enough of those...
37:35-
I could offer some suggestions(Namely using it on a...Certain pain-in-the-ass country in east asia..)
But seriously,It's great that you feature this aircraft!
And in fiction,let's just say it's one of Dale Brown's favorite aircraft(He was a crewman on one,IIRC).
Also,why call it BUFF? The B-52 is one of the most aesthetically pleasing aircraft in our arsenal!
BUFF should be "Beautiful Unmatched Flying Fighter"...or something like that :P
You might need need a different second 'f'. "Fighter," really?! 😜
In terms of 100 year service? C-130? Some truely amazing engineering from that era tho.
How long did the 14,000 ft ground roll take?
I don't remember but it seemed like a long, long time.
@@kennethkatz8278 Thanks - after a minute or so I would have preemptively bailed out.
taotoo2 No you wouldn’t. The pilot is infinitely better situated to make that call than somebody sitting in the back.
Assuming constant acceleration, an S2 (rotation speed) of 163 knots indicated = 174 knots true airspeed at conditions of 2302 feet MSL/29.92 in Hg/30 degrees C OAT and a 14,000 foot ground run, I calculate that ground run took 95 seconds.
Hey Jello........We're all waiting for you and Mover Lemoine to combine one of these casts. There is no escape; the fates have dictated it. It'll be the biggest thing since the Brady Bunch met the Partridge Family.
He tried several months ago--never worked out. Two very fluid schedules are difficult to overlap.
You forgot to ask him about the 'CRM-114' from Dr. Strangelove. 😀.
As always, what a great episode. The thing about the B-52 that sticks out to me is the negative AOA. You just don't see that with a lot of planes. As a kid, I was at one of the annual Edward AFB air shows with my close friends and their dad, a jet engine mechanic who did a lot of work on Pratt engines mainly for F-15 CTF. He showed me how even I could lift or pull down the wingtip of the empty B-52, and the opposite tip would go up or down. I couldn't have been older than 11.
The short answer is that the B-52 doesn't normally fly at a negative AOA, but rather that the pilot reduces its AOA after takeoff but the AOA is still positive.
The long answer is that if you are flying a "normal" airplane like Jell-O's Hornet or my Piper Warrior, a takeoff goes like this. Accelerate down the runway to increase the speed, which increases the dynamic pressure of the air flowing over the airplane. At a specified airspeed, the pilot pulls back on the stick (Hornet)/yoke (Warrior), which pitches the aircraft nose up, which increases AOA. The coefficient of lift is proportional to AOA (at least until AOA increases into the stall zone) so the combination of dynamic pressure and AOA creates enough lift to force the aircraft off the ground.
In contrast, the B-52 has that quadricycle landing gear, so instead of pitching up to take off, the wing is set at a high incidence angle. When the B-52 is going fast enough, the incidence angle of the wing is sufficient to lift the B-52 off the ground without rotating. Then on climb out, the combination of incidence angle and AOA is too high, so the pilot actually lowers the nose (decreases AOA). But it's not negative.
Hope that makes sense--this is a lot easier to describe with a whiteboard or pencil and paper than with words.
@@kennethkatz8278 Your explanation is perfectly clear. So the wing incidence angle has positive AOA on T/O, even though the fuselage is nose-depressed relative to the velocity vector.
Thanks again for your time. It was really an exceptional interview. I think I enjoy more detailed engineering perspectives like this.
Kenneth Katz can you demonstrate the CL into a formula for me. Labeling all the dependencies via their respected variables...
@@harryb8023 Lift = CL*S*q
CL = coefficient of lift, which is linearly related to AOA within the linear region (in other words, small values of AOA outside the stall zone)
S = reference area (typically the planform area of the wing)
q = dynamic pressure = 0.5*air density*velocity^2
What that means is that higher angle of attack (if less than stall), bigger wing, lower altitude (= higher air density) and faster all cause higher lift.
Did that answer your question?
Kenneth Katz yes, getting it sir, is CL that part of the equation solely AOA, help me understand the COEFFICIENT of lift part within the equation..
Would have been nice to see the engine upgrade go to 4 engines. But they decided not to change the pod structures so RR will be making low bypass engines and will not get as much of the efficiency improvement that high bypass would provide unfortunately.
Hopefully someone smart considered everything and made the best overall decision.
@@FighterPilotPodcast Ya true indeed, there are many other factors beyond just fuel efficiency. As noted by your guest including rudder authority with one engine out having larger effect, and the overall cost/benefit of all required changes.
@@wyskass861 True. These airframes are no spring chickens!
what a beast it will still be flying when the B-2 is in the bone yard.
Crazy to think.
Can’t believe he didn’t mention “By Dawns Early Light”
Oops.
This was fantastic show. Thank you. We are lucky enough to have them fly into Darwin from time to time. My young son has had the privilege of sitting in the cockpit of the B-52 that we have in the Darwin Aviation Museum www.darwinaviationmuseum.com.au/.
I believe that it is 1 of only 2 on display outside of the US. I'm just in awe when I see them in the air & on the ground a beautiful bird. When they are in town I can hear them start from my house so I jump in the car just so I can see them taxi & take off.
There’s a dropped nuke near the state of Georgia too
21:12 ever hear the OLD joke...
.
FA18 comes up to a b52.... "look what i can do"..... lights the cans, rolls around the B52
52 says "pretty cool.... but watch this"
.
after 5 mins the 18 radios "hey, what did you do?"
.
b52 says "went back and made myself coffee and a sandwich"
Yep, heard it. Good one.
Pilot - Takeoff, if abort we access the situation.
Engineer - Takeoff, if abort pull ejection seat and let service members access the situation.
Right before i leave for the campus
Either "sorry" or "you're welcome"--I'm not sure which!
@@FighterPilotPodcast its a good thing since i have a 1hour and 20 mins drive
@@georgechar1101 Then you're welcome!
If you are into aviation:
Dan Gryder can save YOUR life!
The tall tail D, E, and F models were the best looking. The cropped G and H lose so much elegance.
The B-52 has the nickname of BUFF, I know what it stands for does any one else know?
Don't remember now that's it's been so long but did we not cover that in the interview?
Big Ugly Fat...Fellow...
"Big Ugly Fat Fellow" (or substitute last word with a different word beginning with F, LMAO)
I'm loving these bomber interviews. Sunshine is missing out on this great stuff but I know we're all better off with him doing what he does. GREAT WORK. and thank you
It was a pleasure meeting Jell-O face-to-face and he is a great interviewer (and a great guy in general). But I too missed having Sunshine in the interview, because we could have geeked out together on flight test.