![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
A peer review for this article has been started. Add comments there. - Fnlayson ( talk) 23:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I added a reference to the incident here into the article. LordShonus ( talk) 11:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The aircraft length needs to be changed from 159 ft. to 98 ft. Having worked onthese aircraft for over 4 years at Minot AFB I can say for certain that the 159 ft. length is a gross overestimation. Our general airframe technical manuals on the B-52H cited 98 ft. lenght with the rear turret removed.
First off, I appreciate your input. Unfortunetly your link just sends me to random page here on Wiki. So i did a little searching and found a near perfect top down view of a B-52H in flight. I picked this pic because there's no ground clutter or shadows to mess with the sizing. Since we agree that the aircraft has a 185 ft wingspan I used that as my base to find scale. Wingtip to wingtip was 4.3125". If we take 185'x 12 we get width in inches, devide that by 4.3125 and we get the scale... 514.7826 Multiply this by the measured length of 2.3777" and then divide by 12 (to put the number from inches to feet) we get a length of just under 102ft. My ruler may be wrong, but the math agrees with Boeing's Air Force Technical Data the 1B-52H-1-1. But as I stated, This wasn't a perfect top down. Even if I added .5 inch it still wouldn't make the 159' mark. Something I've learned over the years, never trust the engineer's specs. Looks like you and me have a little work ahead of us to find an actual length that we can agree on. Shoot me an email at fmd_dragon@yahoo.com, being a modeler and perfectionist I know that there is an error in the length due to the angle. My curiosity is perked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.240.136.86 ( talk) 10:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Since Boeing's site references 157'7" as the length, I'm inclined to believe that the 159' length used on this site is either correct, or close enough that I would chalk it up to slight variations in production. www.boeing.com/history/b52. My own personal experience as a crew-member some years ago also bears out the general length of this plane, a length that is far in excess of the 98 feet mentioned above. Jongleur ( talk) 23:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
why is not the Bud Holland accident mentioned under notable accidents? -- 98.246.94.67 ( talk) 08:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The claim that the B-52 is both the largest aircraft to achieve an aerial kill in combat and the largest aircraft to be shot down in combat has been challenged. Please present evidence that this information is incorrect or the challenge will be removed. - Ken keisel ( talk) 18:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I think the best way to go about this is to do a proof by exclusion. There are not many combat aircraft larger than a B-52 (in terms of mass, wingspan, length, or payload) and most of those are unarmed cargo aircraft. I think the best way to prove this is to conclusively show why this claim is true by showing all larger aircraft did not have a kill.
The following military aircraft are larger than the B-52 in some manner (the parameter listed in parenthesis may not be the only one that exceeds the corresponding parameter of the B-52, but is one characteristic that does exceed it):
The current version of the article calls the chapter "Air-to-air victories" -- it then makes sense to add Pham Tuan and his victory over B-52 -- probably the largest military airplane shot down with air-to-air weaponry. 94.248.125.55 ( talk) 19:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
To those who have contributed to this article, I intend to work on this in the near future and press for FA status. The prose needs a little bit of work here and there, some sources are needed, and some formatting needs to be done with respect to the references (dates, italics, authors, etc), but it largely appears to be ready for FA. Thoughts on anything else? Please add them to the list below. Once one of the items below is done, strike it out and put your signature after it.
I'm just trying to coordinate efforts here. If you have a better way to do it, I am all ears. — BQZip01 — talk 02:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 500 kg, use 500 kg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 500 kg.
[?]{{fact}}
s.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks
One point that arose from the F-4 Phantom Featured Article review is that Vectorsite and Joe Baugher's website are not considered WP:RS - they will need to be replaced if this is raised to FA. Nigel Ish ( talk) 21:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The article could do with expansion of the section on the structural issues encountered in the early days that caused a number of crashes. Referencing also needs improvement. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
File:B-52 3-view.svg looks more like a B-52D (IIRC, B-52D has the tall tail/vertical stabiliser and is the only model that can carry more 750lb bombs than the other B-52 variants) than a B-52H to me, and in my view, this file should not be use as it does not correspond to the header of Specifications for B-52H, kind of misleading to place it there in the first place. Thoughts, anyone? -- Dave1185 talk 16:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there any consensus for the complete change in the reference format? Nigel Ish ( talk) 22:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to state my intentions that I am currently making considerations on this article towards nominating it for a Good Article Review. I note that there was an ongoing FA push several months ago, I'm not sure how active those efforts are right now, I don't want to step on anybody's toes with this. This article would be the first that I've taken through with manual citations, which I find a real pain to work with, but I'll manage it somehow as I think the quality is essentially there. If anybody is in favour of this move and wants to keep an eye on this article for when it happens, or even more importantly if there is opposition to me taking such actions here, drop a comment below this one. It's only an idea right now, I'd be much more confident going forwards with it if I knew someone more experienced in tuning up manual referencing was enthusastic and ready to go, as there I could certainly use what help is offered. Kyteto ( talk) 20:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I was visiting the Kansas Aviation Museum in Wichita, KS yesterday, and took an external photo of the tailgun section of a B-52D they have on display there (tail number 55-0094). Since good pictures of a B-52's tailgun are hard to come by, I figured I would upload this one. I'm just not sure where to put it in the article itself. I was thinking of including it in the Variants section under the picture of the B-52D dropping bombs, but I'm not sure if that's the best place. Raguleader ( talk) 02:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I've been working on the 1963 Elephant Mountain B-52 crash. During that research I found a lot of useful information here. Thank you! The problem with the ejection seats became more clear to me on this website: The History Of Ejection Seats - Bailout for the other guy If one wants to add a little more details about the series of turbulence-induced structural failures the B52s experienced in the beginning of the 1960s, here is a interesting website on this topic: Look mom, I lost my tail! We gotta bring this Buff in anyway. I would do I myself but I really don't want to mess with this article. WideBlueSky ( talk) 01:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. Airplaneman ✈ 21:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I am working with staff at Balboa Park in San Diego for releasing museum images under free licenses. There are several digitized images of B-52s from the San Diego Air & Space Museum. The images can be seen here and here. If any of the images can be used for the article, please list the requested image(s) at Wikipedia:GLAM/BP/Image requests. If there are any questions please let me know on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 17:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I recently fixed the formatting of the Notable accidents section, so that it renders as a a proper HTML list, per the MoS. In doing so, I also moved the image ahead of that list. User:Fnlayson has twice moved it into the middle of the list, causing there to be two, unconnected HTML lists. This is semantically incorrect and unhelpful to our readers. Furthermore, he did so he said, to place it "adjecent [sic] to relevant entry", which it apparently is on his system. However, on my system (which no doubt has a different screen size, resolution and/ or font size), it sits alongside a 1972 incident. Images should not interrupt lists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm only going to reply to those parts of your essay which appear pertinent to the issue at hand. The image is currently associated with the wrong item in the list. This can be remedied in one of three ways. Place it inside the correct item; place it ahead of the list (as I did in my reverted edit); or remove it entirely. The latter seems unnecessary; the former, you say, causes it to run onto the next section. This, then, leaves only one viable solution. You appear to have raised no reasoned objection to this. I note also that you have ignored my point about the mobile view of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking for information on what altitudes the airplane can operate at. The article doesn't seem to discuss this. __ meco ( talk) 09:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
My (very dated) T.O. 1B-52H-1 (15 February 1975) states on page 5-18 "there is no unqualified altitude restriction." Practically however, there are some considerations flying above 50,000 feet. The aerodynamic phenomenon known as the Coffin Corner comes increasingly into play, where the aircraft's stall speed approaches its critical Mach number, and the plane become unstable. I've been in B-52s flying as high as 58,000 feet and the pilots were very gingerly working the throttle and flight controls, all the while watching airspeed and fuel distribution very carefully. Policy is to limit the altitude to 50,000 feet. Jongleur ( talk) 19:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
At least, thats how it renders on my machine. Whats missing is something from the "convert" template William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I saw the B-52 Stratofortress that is on display at IWM Duxford recently and the caption says when it flew in to the Museum on 8 October 1983 it landed on the grass runway there, the shortest airstrip a B-52 has ever landed on. What is the minimum requirement for landing the plane, how long is the Duxford airstrip and is this claim true? 86.154.164.71 ( talk) 14:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
At the very end of the first paragraph of the Design --> Overview section, there is a link to the page for Bail out, however that page concerns economic bailouts. No page exists for bailing out of an aircraft. What should happen to the link? Hentheden ( talk) 20:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
75.80.54.119 ( talk) 22:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd love to see some clarity on what of the B-52 force was actually eliminated under the START I treaty, and when. Two useful links I'll refer to below:
Under "Post Vietnam service" it currently states that "all B-52Gs remaining in service were destroyed per the terms of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START)". This sounds like this occurred before the Gulf War (the next section), yet as per the disposal-article at least 39 B-52Gs were destroyed between 2011 and 2013 as part of the New START treaty.
It can't be that "remaining in service" didn't count the units in the boneyard, as the factsheet states that the B-52G was used heavily in the Gulf War, and no B-52s had ever been reactivated until Feb 2015.
Based on the disposal-article, it's unclear whether part of the problem was that under the START I treaty the aircraft were "cut into pieces" but under New START they specifically needed to have the tail section severed.
It also states that they "cut the 365 B-52G bombers into pieces", but there's no source for this number. However, the factsheet states that the total number of B-52Gs (both built and converted) was 193, so I do not understand where the 365 number comes from.
I don't understand what happened to all the earlier B-52s that were produced - I wonder if what was destroyed under START was a combination of all of these, so not specifically the B-52Gs, and certainly not "all" of them. cfmdobbie 86.187.213.214 ( talk) 21:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
A current article about a b-52 taken out of the boneyard to replace one damaged in service; seems to have information about the status of the b-52s in the Air Force that may be of value to this piece.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/i-ll-be-damned-these-boneyard-b-52s-can-still-fly-4eec4c8bf5cf
Victor, Vulcan, and Valiant were all medium, not heavy bombers, so more equivalent to the B-47 than B-52. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.90 ( talk) 20:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Wow! This is impressive; didn't know Guam had one.
Headline-1: B-52 bomber flies over South Korea as rift with Pyongyang deepens
QUOTE: "The B-52 was joined by South Korean F-15 and U.S. F-16 fighters and returned to its base in Guam after the flyover, the U.S. said.
"This was a demonstration of the ironclad U.S. commitment to our allies in South Korea, in Japan, and to the defense of the American homeland," said Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., commander U.S. Pacific Command, in a statement. "North Korea's nuclear test is a blatant violation of its international obligations."
The warplanes’ flight follows a victory tour by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to celebrated the country’s purported claim of a hydrogen bomb test. Kim is seeking to rally nationalistic pride as the rest of the world is outraged over reports or the test." -- AstroU ( talk) 15:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
Individual combat losses are not really notable and this table doesnt add much to the article, suggest we remove it. MilborneOne ( talk) 11:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
This B-52 bomber "lost in combat chart" was made for one primary reason: Too many "properly sourced" references have been stating different numbers of B-52s lost in the war. Some say 30, some say 31, some state only 15 were shot down, and some say 16. There are other examples, but those few samples will suffice. To settle this issue once and for all, those B-52 losses were documented by Serial Number, Date, and Cause. And of course, they are clearly referenced. To my surprise, and I never knew this, and no one bothered to research it, one B-52 was damaged by a NVAF MiG-21 then it was downed by a SAM. Maybe the NVAF was right after all, maybe one of their -21s did down a B-52, that the USAF flatly and adamantly denies! Interesting, that a MiG-21 should strike a -52 with it's Atoll missile and almost within seconds a SAM hits it? Those -21s were specifically trained to intercept the -52s, and were specifically trained to stay out of the SAM kill zones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.54.218 ( talk) 21:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The last sentence in the lede is confusing, but so is the following cited source:
The use of extended low altitude operations to insure the B-52's penetration capability further degraded the design strike range. The overall inefficiency of jet engine operations at low level, coupled with slower operating speeds, greatly reduced range at low altitude. For example, if the B-52H flew at high altitude on a nuclear strike mission, it had a maximum unrefueled range of approximately 9,000 nm. On a similar strike mission with 2,400 nm flown at 500 feet, the operations planners could count on only a 6,300-nm range with the addition of one refueling.
What exactly is a "similar strike mission"? Is the range at 150 metre altitude 2,400 nautical miles ( I assume yes)? What exactly is the "could count on only a" bit meant to convey? Does it mean after the low altitude stretch, the B52 needed refueling and could only continue 6,300 nm at some unspecified altitude? Or does it first fly 6,300 nm, then get refueled and is limited to 2,400 at low altitude? Can anyone help clarify this? - 84user ( talk) 18:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
"It was the first air-dropped thermonuclear weapon." What?? Hiroshima, anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.42.217 ( talk) 17:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
There is no need to spell out the anecdotal meaning of BUFF.. this site is of possible interest to juveniles and don't need this bad language.. Any adult who reads.. big ugly fat f****r known exactly what the author is implying... I changed this twice and but it was put back to its crude form almost immediately.. I believe the author is doing this as a matter of personal principle without regard to the age of the reader... Chrispaul1 ( talk) 06:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Even if USAF do not admit any losses to MiG-21, why the hell the B-52 kills are accepted and mentioned, while the VPAF don't confirm them? So, if USAF is 'always' right, is it a NPOV statement? The facts are, that USAF claims two MiGs and no AA losses, while the VPAF claims two B-52s and no AA losses. Why the articles says only the USAF version? I think this should be corrected, no matter if it is more or less verifiable. After all, who says that USAF spoke true about this kills? The Wikipedia should be neutral, or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 ( talk) 03:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
In the Notable Accidents section of this article, only about 25 accidents are listed. The Aviation Safety Network (ASN) website lists 111, most with fatalities. What makes some of these notable and most of these not notable? TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 20:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Why do we show a photo of a post-Vietnam remotely-layed tail gun postion next to the section descrinbing tail gunners shooting down MiGs in Vietnam? All the VN era B-52s still had the gunners postions in the conventional place. This is totally misleading to people who don't know this already, they will be picturing the wrong thing entirely. There are photos of the original manned tail gun postions here, but I don't know anything about availability. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/10237/the-u-s-air-forces-last-tail-gunner-has-retired Idumea47b ( talk) 08:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
"Of the 50 B-52Bs built, 27 were capable of carrying a reconnaissance pod as RB-52Bs (the crew was increased to eight in these aircraft).[53] The 300 pound (136 kg) pod contained radio receivers, a combination of K-36, K-38, and T-11 cameras, and two operators on downward-firing ejection seats. The pod required only four hours to install" "300lbs" seems ridiculously low to me for an installation like this. Radio equipment and cameras were large, heavy and bulky back then, the pod alone must weigh a good amount, and two ejection seats are not light either. I wouldn't be surpised if they were more than 100lbs each. I suspect it's supposed to be 3,000lbs, which is a far more plausible figure, or that it was supposed to be 1,300 or 2,300 and someone missed a digit. Idumea47b ( talk) 00:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm tempted to just come back when I have some time and go over this whole article and make a list of things that are problematic, unclear, contradictory or seemingly unlikley, and then post them all at once, otherwise I'll have to keep coming back and posting new sections here. In Variants, it says that the C (I think) model was "fitted with 3,000 gallon underwing fuel tanks". These can be seen in photos easily, and 3,000 gallons seems plausible. But then for the G model it says "700 gallon underwing fuel tanks were added". The B-52 already had underwing fuel tanks. Are these in addition to the larger, older tanks? Instead of them? Why are no tanks visible in the photo of the B-52G right next to this? Were the older ones fixed and the newer ones jettisonable? Also, I don't see any mention of the nose being repofiled, but it clearly was. Older models have a much blunter, continuous nose curvature, while later models have a more projecting nose cone, or the windscreen is more distinctly "stepped" than the older models. It is easy to see it in the photo of the old and new NASA aircraft parked next to each other. Why was this change made and when? Idumea47b ( talk) 04:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
It says B-52 is jet powered but is clearly not the case it uses Turbofans to fly NOT rockets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatal Error 401 ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The lede image is faked; compare it to the purported original, https://www.flickr.com/photos/usairforce/14230029094/ The "desert" before and after the plane has been added William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
A peer review for this article has been started. Add comments there. - Fnlayson ( talk) 23:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I added a reference to the incident here into the article. LordShonus ( talk) 11:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The aircraft length needs to be changed from 159 ft. to 98 ft. Having worked onthese aircraft for over 4 years at Minot AFB I can say for certain that the 159 ft. length is a gross overestimation. Our general airframe technical manuals on the B-52H cited 98 ft. lenght with the rear turret removed.
First off, I appreciate your input. Unfortunetly your link just sends me to random page here on Wiki. So i did a little searching and found a near perfect top down view of a B-52H in flight. I picked this pic because there's no ground clutter or shadows to mess with the sizing. Since we agree that the aircraft has a 185 ft wingspan I used that as my base to find scale. Wingtip to wingtip was 4.3125". If we take 185'x 12 we get width in inches, devide that by 4.3125 and we get the scale... 514.7826 Multiply this by the measured length of 2.3777" and then divide by 12 (to put the number from inches to feet) we get a length of just under 102ft. My ruler may be wrong, but the math agrees with Boeing's Air Force Technical Data the 1B-52H-1-1. But as I stated, This wasn't a perfect top down. Even if I added .5 inch it still wouldn't make the 159' mark. Something I've learned over the years, never trust the engineer's specs. Looks like you and me have a little work ahead of us to find an actual length that we can agree on. Shoot me an email at fmd_dragon@yahoo.com, being a modeler and perfectionist I know that there is an error in the length due to the angle. My curiosity is perked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.240.136.86 ( talk) 10:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Since Boeing's site references 157'7" as the length, I'm inclined to believe that the 159' length used on this site is either correct, or close enough that I would chalk it up to slight variations in production. www.boeing.com/history/b52. My own personal experience as a crew-member some years ago also bears out the general length of this plane, a length that is far in excess of the 98 feet mentioned above. Jongleur ( talk) 23:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
why is not the Bud Holland accident mentioned under notable accidents? -- 98.246.94.67 ( talk) 08:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The claim that the B-52 is both the largest aircraft to achieve an aerial kill in combat and the largest aircraft to be shot down in combat has been challenged. Please present evidence that this information is incorrect or the challenge will be removed. - Ken keisel ( talk) 18:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I think the best way to go about this is to do a proof by exclusion. There are not many combat aircraft larger than a B-52 (in terms of mass, wingspan, length, or payload) and most of those are unarmed cargo aircraft. I think the best way to prove this is to conclusively show why this claim is true by showing all larger aircraft did not have a kill.
The following military aircraft are larger than the B-52 in some manner (the parameter listed in parenthesis may not be the only one that exceeds the corresponding parameter of the B-52, but is one characteristic that does exceed it):
The current version of the article calls the chapter "Air-to-air victories" -- it then makes sense to add Pham Tuan and his victory over B-52 -- probably the largest military airplane shot down with air-to-air weaponry. 94.248.125.55 ( talk) 19:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
To those who have contributed to this article, I intend to work on this in the near future and press for FA status. The prose needs a little bit of work here and there, some sources are needed, and some formatting needs to be done with respect to the references (dates, italics, authors, etc), but it largely appears to be ready for FA. Thoughts on anything else? Please add them to the list below. Once one of the items below is done, strike it out and put your signature after it.
I'm just trying to coordinate efforts here. If you have a better way to do it, I am all ears. — BQZip01 — talk 02:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 500 kg, use 500 kg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 500 kg.
[?]{{fact}}
s.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks
One point that arose from the F-4 Phantom Featured Article review is that Vectorsite and Joe Baugher's website are not considered WP:RS - they will need to be replaced if this is raised to FA. Nigel Ish ( talk) 21:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The article could do with expansion of the section on the structural issues encountered in the early days that caused a number of crashes. Referencing also needs improvement. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
File:B-52 3-view.svg looks more like a B-52D (IIRC, B-52D has the tall tail/vertical stabiliser and is the only model that can carry more 750lb bombs than the other B-52 variants) than a B-52H to me, and in my view, this file should not be use as it does not correspond to the header of Specifications for B-52H, kind of misleading to place it there in the first place. Thoughts, anyone? -- Dave1185 talk 16:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there any consensus for the complete change in the reference format? Nigel Ish ( talk) 22:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to state my intentions that I am currently making considerations on this article towards nominating it for a Good Article Review. I note that there was an ongoing FA push several months ago, I'm not sure how active those efforts are right now, I don't want to step on anybody's toes with this. This article would be the first that I've taken through with manual citations, which I find a real pain to work with, but I'll manage it somehow as I think the quality is essentially there. If anybody is in favour of this move and wants to keep an eye on this article for when it happens, or even more importantly if there is opposition to me taking such actions here, drop a comment below this one. It's only an idea right now, I'd be much more confident going forwards with it if I knew someone more experienced in tuning up manual referencing was enthusastic and ready to go, as there I could certainly use what help is offered. Kyteto ( talk) 20:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I was visiting the Kansas Aviation Museum in Wichita, KS yesterday, and took an external photo of the tailgun section of a B-52D they have on display there (tail number 55-0094). Since good pictures of a B-52's tailgun are hard to come by, I figured I would upload this one. I'm just not sure where to put it in the article itself. I was thinking of including it in the Variants section under the picture of the B-52D dropping bombs, but I'm not sure if that's the best place. Raguleader ( talk) 02:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I've been working on the 1963 Elephant Mountain B-52 crash. During that research I found a lot of useful information here. Thank you! The problem with the ejection seats became more clear to me on this website: The History Of Ejection Seats - Bailout for the other guy If one wants to add a little more details about the series of turbulence-induced structural failures the B52s experienced in the beginning of the 1960s, here is a interesting website on this topic: Look mom, I lost my tail! We gotta bring this Buff in anyway. I would do I myself but I really don't want to mess with this article. WideBlueSky ( talk) 01:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. Airplaneman ✈ 21:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I am working with staff at Balboa Park in San Diego for releasing museum images under free licenses. There are several digitized images of B-52s from the San Diego Air & Space Museum. The images can be seen here and here. If any of the images can be used for the article, please list the requested image(s) at Wikipedia:GLAM/BP/Image requests. If there are any questions please let me know on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 17:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I recently fixed the formatting of the Notable accidents section, so that it renders as a a proper HTML list, per the MoS. In doing so, I also moved the image ahead of that list. User:Fnlayson has twice moved it into the middle of the list, causing there to be two, unconnected HTML lists. This is semantically incorrect and unhelpful to our readers. Furthermore, he did so he said, to place it "adjecent [sic] to relevant entry", which it apparently is on his system. However, on my system (which no doubt has a different screen size, resolution and/ or font size), it sits alongside a 1972 incident. Images should not interrupt lists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm only going to reply to those parts of your essay which appear pertinent to the issue at hand. The image is currently associated with the wrong item in the list. This can be remedied in one of three ways. Place it inside the correct item; place it ahead of the list (as I did in my reverted edit); or remove it entirely. The latter seems unnecessary; the former, you say, causes it to run onto the next section. This, then, leaves only one viable solution. You appear to have raised no reasoned objection to this. I note also that you have ignored my point about the mobile view of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking for information on what altitudes the airplane can operate at. The article doesn't seem to discuss this. __ meco ( talk) 09:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
My (very dated) T.O. 1B-52H-1 (15 February 1975) states on page 5-18 "there is no unqualified altitude restriction." Practically however, there are some considerations flying above 50,000 feet. The aerodynamic phenomenon known as the Coffin Corner comes increasingly into play, where the aircraft's stall speed approaches its critical Mach number, and the plane become unstable. I've been in B-52s flying as high as 58,000 feet and the pilots were very gingerly working the throttle and flight controls, all the while watching airspeed and fuel distribution very carefully. Policy is to limit the altitude to 50,000 feet. Jongleur ( talk) 19:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
At least, thats how it renders on my machine. Whats missing is something from the "convert" template William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I saw the B-52 Stratofortress that is on display at IWM Duxford recently and the caption says when it flew in to the Museum on 8 October 1983 it landed on the grass runway there, the shortest airstrip a B-52 has ever landed on. What is the minimum requirement for landing the plane, how long is the Duxford airstrip and is this claim true? 86.154.164.71 ( talk) 14:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
At the very end of the first paragraph of the Design --> Overview section, there is a link to the page for Bail out, however that page concerns economic bailouts. No page exists for bailing out of an aircraft. What should happen to the link? Hentheden ( talk) 20:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
75.80.54.119 ( talk) 22:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd love to see some clarity on what of the B-52 force was actually eliminated under the START I treaty, and when. Two useful links I'll refer to below:
Under "Post Vietnam service" it currently states that "all B-52Gs remaining in service were destroyed per the terms of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START)". This sounds like this occurred before the Gulf War (the next section), yet as per the disposal-article at least 39 B-52Gs were destroyed between 2011 and 2013 as part of the New START treaty.
It can't be that "remaining in service" didn't count the units in the boneyard, as the factsheet states that the B-52G was used heavily in the Gulf War, and no B-52s had ever been reactivated until Feb 2015.
Based on the disposal-article, it's unclear whether part of the problem was that under the START I treaty the aircraft were "cut into pieces" but under New START they specifically needed to have the tail section severed.
It also states that they "cut the 365 B-52G bombers into pieces", but there's no source for this number. However, the factsheet states that the total number of B-52Gs (both built and converted) was 193, so I do not understand where the 365 number comes from.
I don't understand what happened to all the earlier B-52s that were produced - I wonder if what was destroyed under START was a combination of all of these, so not specifically the B-52Gs, and certainly not "all" of them. cfmdobbie 86.187.213.214 ( talk) 21:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
A current article about a b-52 taken out of the boneyard to replace one damaged in service; seems to have information about the status of the b-52s in the Air Force that may be of value to this piece.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/i-ll-be-damned-these-boneyard-b-52s-can-still-fly-4eec4c8bf5cf
Victor, Vulcan, and Valiant were all medium, not heavy bombers, so more equivalent to the B-47 than B-52. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.90 ( talk) 20:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Wow! This is impressive; didn't know Guam had one.
Headline-1: B-52 bomber flies over South Korea as rift with Pyongyang deepens
QUOTE: "The B-52 was joined by South Korean F-15 and U.S. F-16 fighters and returned to its base in Guam after the flyover, the U.S. said.
"This was a demonstration of the ironclad U.S. commitment to our allies in South Korea, in Japan, and to the defense of the American homeland," said Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., commander U.S. Pacific Command, in a statement. "North Korea's nuclear test is a blatant violation of its international obligations."
The warplanes’ flight follows a victory tour by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to celebrated the country’s purported claim of a hydrogen bomb test. Kim is seeking to rally nationalistic pride as the rest of the world is outraged over reports or the test." -- AstroU ( talk) 15:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
Individual combat losses are not really notable and this table doesnt add much to the article, suggest we remove it. MilborneOne ( talk) 11:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
This B-52 bomber "lost in combat chart" was made for one primary reason: Too many "properly sourced" references have been stating different numbers of B-52s lost in the war. Some say 30, some say 31, some state only 15 were shot down, and some say 16. There are other examples, but those few samples will suffice. To settle this issue once and for all, those B-52 losses were documented by Serial Number, Date, and Cause. And of course, they are clearly referenced. To my surprise, and I never knew this, and no one bothered to research it, one B-52 was damaged by a NVAF MiG-21 then it was downed by a SAM. Maybe the NVAF was right after all, maybe one of their -21s did down a B-52, that the USAF flatly and adamantly denies! Interesting, that a MiG-21 should strike a -52 with it's Atoll missile and almost within seconds a SAM hits it? Those -21s were specifically trained to intercept the -52s, and were specifically trained to stay out of the SAM kill zones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.54.218 ( talk) 21:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The last sentence in the lede is confusing, but so is the following cited source:
The use of extended low altitude operations to insure the B-52's penetration capability further degraded the design strike range. The overall inefficiency of jet engine operations at low level, coupled with slower operating speeds, greatly reduced range at low altitude. For example, if the B-52H flew at high altitude on a nuclear strike mission, it had a maximum unrefueled range of approximately 9,000 nm. On a similar strike mission with 2,400 nm flown at 500 feet, the operations planners could count on only a 6,300-nm range with the addition of one refueling.
What exactly is a "similar strike mission"? Is the range at 150 metre altitude 2,400 nautical miles ( I assume yes)? What exactly is the "could count on only a" bit meant to convey? Does it mean after the low altitude stretch, the B52 needed refueling and could only continue 6,300 nm at some unspecified altitude? Or does it first fly 6,300 nm, then get refueled and is limited to 2,400 at low altitude? Can anyone help clarify this? - 84user ( talk) 18:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
"It was the first air-dropped thermonuclear weapon." What?? Hiroshima, anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.42.217 ( talk) 17:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
There is no need to spell out the anecdotal meaning of BUFF.. this site is of possible interest to juveniles and don't need this bad language.. Any adult who reads.. big ugly fat f****r known exactly what the author is implying... I changed this twice and but it was put back to its crude form almost immediately.. I believe the author is doing this as a matter of personal principle without regard to the age of the reader... Chrispaul1 ( talk) 06:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Even if USAF do not admit any losses to MiG-21, why the hell the B-52 kills are accepted and mentioned, while the VPAF don't confirm them? So, if USAF is 'always' right, is it a NPOV statement? The facts are, that USAF claims two MiGs and no AA losses, while the VPAF claims two B-52s and no AA losses. Why the articles says only the USAF version? I think this should be corrected, no matter if it is more or less verifiable. After all, who says that USAF spoke true about this kills? The Wikipedia should be neutral, or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 ( talk) 03:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
In the Notable Accidents section of this article, only about 25 accidents are listed. The Aviation Safety Network (ASN) website lists 111, most with fatalities. What makes some of these notable and most of these not notable? TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 20:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Why do we show a photo of a post-Vietnam remotely-layed tail gun postion next to the section descrinbing tail gunners shooting down MiGs in Vietnam? All the VN era B-52s still had the gunners postions in the conventional place. This is totally misleading to people who don't know this already, they will be picturing the wrong thing entirely. There are photos of the original manned tail gun postions here, but I don't know anything about availability. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/10237/the-u-s-air-forces-last-tail-gunner-has-retired Idumea47b ( talk) 08:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
"Of the 50 B-52Bs built, 27 were capable of carrying a reconnaissance pod as RB-52Bs (the crew was increased to eight in these aircraft).[53] The 300 pound (136 kg) pod contained radio receivers, a combination of K-36, K-38, and T-11 cameras, and two operators on downward-firing ejection seats. The pod required only four hours to install" "300lbs" seems ridiculously low to me for an installation like this. Radio equipment and cameras were large, heavy and bulky back then, the pod alone must weigh a good amount, and two ejection seats are not light either. I wouldn't be surpised if they were more than 100lbs each. I suspect it's supposed to be 3,000lbs, which is a far more plausible figure, or that it was supposed to be 1,300 or 2,300 and someone missed a digit. Idumea47b ( talk) 00:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm tempted to just come back when I have some time and go over this whole article and make a list of things that are problematic, unclear, contradictory or seemingly unlikley, and then post them all at once, otherwise I'll have to keep coming back and posting new sections here. In Variants, it says that the C (I think) model was "fitted with 3,000 gallon underwing fuel tanks". These can be seen in photos easily, and 3,000 gallons seems plausible. But then for the G model it says "700 gallon underwing fuel tanks were added". The B-52 already had underwing fuel tanks. Are these in addition to the larger, older tanks? Instead of them? Why are no tanks visible in the photo of the B-52G right next to this? Were the older ones fixed and the newer ones jettisonable? Also, I don't see any mention of the nose being repofiled, but it clearly was. Older models have a much blunter, continuous nose curvature, while later models have a more projecting nose cone, or the windscreen is more distinctly "stepped" than the older models. It is easy to see it in the photo of the old and new NASA aircraft parked next to each other. Why was this change made and when? Idumea47b ( talk) 04:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
It says B-52 is jet powered but is clearly not the case it uses Turbofans to fly NOT rockets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatal Error 401 ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The lede image is faked; compare it to the purported original, https://www.flickr.com/photos/usairforce/14230029094/ The "desert" before and after the plane has been added William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)