http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23302483/ Before you all start disputing the costs, it costs 1.2 billion dollars per jet. This might seem like a lot but it's an inflated price due to the fact that they only built 21 of them. Cost of an aircraft = aircraft/manufacturing+R&D cost. Barry
Do you realize that many B-52's have crashed? They cost hundreds of millions of dollars also. Planes do crash , if you didn't realize it, and that's a fact we have to live with. Finding out why it crashed would be paramount in understanding the dynamics to avoid further crashes and save lives. Thankfully the crew escaped without injuries.
B52 and B2 are fundamentally different. B52 is an ancient plane whereas the B2 has always been an icon of futuristic aviation and for it to crash is quite different than a cruddy old B52.
Now why would you insinuate it was that? It has a very good track record for over 50 years of service.
At any rate, Barry was right. It was the B2 not the B52 (though, I agree, it's hardly a "cruddy" plane). ~String
I understood what it was. Reread my post. I was just trying to say that there have been crashes of a B-52 and it cost over 200 million per plane.
Cosmic was perfectly correct in highlighting the B52's difference and I was not claiming that he thought it was the B52 v. B2, he know's well which one it is. I'm not trying to say that it should never crash, I'm trying to get across that this might spawn a larger inquest into what the USAF is doing from the general public. The B2 is an icon, a flagship for one to crash sends out a bad image/message and I'm well aware all types of planes will eventually have a crash. Yes, I'm sure the B52 has a brilliant military service/track record but it is outshined by the B2. I don't like B52's Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Isn't the B2 almost 20 years old? Hardly a new or "futuristic" technology. And pretty good track record if this is the first crash.
Sucks to be you then! BUFF is going to be around until the 2040s. The only thing the B-52 has over the B-2 is greater numbers. The USAF is loathe to deploy B-2s all too often because their limited quantity gives them the excuse "we're a strategic asset so you can't deploy us tactically!" which is extremely annoying at times, but thankfully the B-52 is there to pick up the slack, and is just as good at loitering over the battlefield barfing out JDAMs as necessary. Since enemy air defenses haven't been much of a concern in recent years, the B-2's advantage of being able to operate in contested airspace absent a concerted SEAD campaign coming in and destroying AAA/SAM defenses beforehand hasn't been a huge plus. Although being able to circumnavigate the earth for a mission in one fell swoop is pretty goddamned awesome. That said, I would hardly call the B-52 worthless. By the time they retire they'll be nearly 100 years old.
By the time a BUFF goes through rebuild, it is dam nere a new aircraft, the parts on the BUFF's are far from being old.
Though I disagree with just about every personal opinion you offer, I'm generally willing to defer to your expertise on all things military. But I don't think you're quite right on this one. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/24/b-52.htm
Not quite the whole story, yes the production line has been shut down since 1958, the last plane being produced, B-52H number 61-0040, which, left the factory on 26 October 1962 but that doesn't mean that the parts suppler stopped producing replacement parts, as the up-grades were done new systems were installed, and as the service life was extended replacement parts were needed, and the Boeing Plant still produces parts for the B-52, along with a myriad of other contractors to keep the BUFF in the air. If a major component is needed they may go to the bone yard, but even then it will be completely rebuilt to up-grade standards before being installed, most of the systems in the bone yards are not interchangeable with current service aircraft, only the major assembly are of any use, but even then they have to be completely rebuilt to be usable to keep the BUFF viable as a front line bomber. As for the rest of the subsystems they are brand new production, the engines are completely different now, TF33-P-3 turbofan, instead of the Pratt & Whitney J75, the weapons systems are completely different and being up-graded continually, the Avionics, and Electronics, the ECM systems, there is not much other than plane form that is left of the original system.
A B2 has crashed. Some think that is significant. More significant is that there's a B2 to crash. Gravity--a bitch-- is always significant. Same for Probability.
That is too bad. B-2s are very unstable aircraft with their design. BTW, B-52s are possibly the best stratigic bombers of all time and are by all means not cruddy.
Completely incorrect. The B2 design is based on a delta wing, the most flyable shape known in aerodynamics. It flies so well that it is difficult to land it due to so much lift. You are confusing the B2 with the F117. Barry
No the B-2 is not a inherently stable design, it flies because of computer aided stability program, with out a tail it has definite yaw control problems, which can lead to dutch roll problems.
I disagree. The plane has 2 split ailerons which work by adding drag and so create an operable yaw control system (it mighten't be as efficient but nonetheless it is stable). Barry
LMAO, you disagree with physics then. Good luck with that. That plane could not/would not fly two inches without computers controlling the control surfaces. Since the manufacturer readily admits that, as does the military, who in the hell are you to disagree?
There seems to be some confusion here about controllability vs stability. Static stability (on the pitch, roll, or yaw) axis is the tendency of an aircraft to return to center (return to aerodynamic alignment with the relative wind) when disturbed in flight, without further control deflection. Take an arrow, and progressively move the feathers forward until it begins to tumble easily, and that is approximately the point of neutral static stability. Absent neutral static stability, there can be no positive dynamic stability, where a shape inherently damps, or reduces oscillations as a result of being disturbed. The B-2 very likely has neutral static stability in yaw, and negative yaw stability under asymmetrical thrust and/or drag conditions. The yaw controllability of Spirit is uniquely dependent on the operability of the draq rudders. The control authority of the drag rudders might under certain situations become overpowered by other yaw-producing forces. The B-2 has a quadruple-redundancy fly-by-wire electronic flight control/air data system that reduces pilot workload dramatically, making Spirits very, very easy-to-fly within programmed parameters. Like all multi-engine aircraft, the B-2 has vulnerabilities in low-speed, heavily-loaded asymmetrical thrust situations (engine failure on takeoff). Unlike conventional airframes, flying wings have inherently diminished yaw stability and particularly pronounced yaw-roll coupling, known as Dutch Roll. Pronounced dutch roll means that a yaw excursion produces an amplified rolling motion. The B-2 has the potential for unique assymmetry problems because the main landing-gear doors are enormous. I have no idea what lead to the accident, but these are two of many conceivable factors, and the injurious ejection suggests an extreme flight attitude shortly after takeoff. I just learned that one of the crew received a spinal injury in the accident, so the price of our learning from this first-ever B-2 accident has gone beyond mere money.
