|
| Most post-World War II bombers evolved from military requirements issued in the early or mid-forties, but none were produced as initially envisioned. Geopolitical factors accounted for the programs; the military threat, varying in degrees of intensity through the years, never ceased to exist. While these factors justified the development of new weapons, technology dictated their eventual configurations. Strategic concepts fell in between, influenced by circumstances as well as the state-of-the-art. Thus the B-36, earmarked in 1941 as a long-range bomber, capable of bearing heavy loads of conventional bombs, matured as the first long-range atomic carrier. The impact of technology was far more spectacular in the case of the B-52, affecting the development of one of history's most successful weapon systems, and the concepts which spelled the long-lasting bomber's many forms of employment.
As called for in 1945, the B-52 was to have an operating radius of 4,340 nautical miles, a speed of 260 knots at altitude of 43,000 feet, and a bombload capacity of 10,000 pounds. Although jet propulsion had already been adopted for the smaller B-45 and B-47 then under development, the high fuel consumption associated with jet engines ruled against their use in long-range aircraft. But what was true in 1945, no longer applied several years later. After floundering through a series of changing requirements and revised studies, the B-52 project became active in 1948. Air Force officials decided that progress in the development of turbojets should make it possible to equip the new long-range bomber with such engines. The
decision, however, was not unanimous. Money was short, B-52 substitutes were proposed, and it took the deteriorating international situation caused by the Korean conflict to ensure production of the jet-powered B-52-the initial procurement contract being signed in February 1951.
While technological improvements received top priority when new weapons were designed, untried technology was a tricky business. Hovering over the B-52 weapon system was the specter of the B-47's initial deficiencies. As a result, the B-52 was designed, built, and developed as an integrated package. Components and parts were thoroughly tested before being installed in the new bomber. Changes were integrated on the production lines, giving birth to new models in the series, a fairly common occurrence. Yet, in contrast to the usual pattern, B-52 testing only suggested improvements, and at no time uncovered serious flaws in any of the aircraft. In fact, Maj. Gen. Albert Boyd, Commander of the Wright Air Development Center, and one of the Air Force's foremost test pilots, said that the B-52's first true production model was the finest airplane yet built.
Initially flown in December 1954, the B-52's performance was truly impressive. The new bomber could reach a speed of 546 knots, twice more than called for in 1945, and could carry a load of 43,000 pounds, an increase of about 30,000 pounds. Still, most of the early B-52s were phased out by 1970, due to Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara's mid-sixties decision to decrease the strategic bomber force. However, the later B-52G and H-models, and even some of the earlier B-52Ds, were expected to see unrestricted service into the 1980s.
By mid-1973, the B-52s had already compiled impressive records. Many of the aircraft had played important roles during the Vietnam War. Modified B-52Ds, referred to as Big Belly, dropped aerial mines in the North Vietnamese harbors and river inlets in May 1972. In December of the same year, B-52Ds and B-52Gs began to bomb military targets in the Hanoi and Haiphong areas of North Vietnam, where they encountered the most awesome defenses. Although the B-52s were often used for purposes they had not been intended to fulfill, after decades of hard work they remained one of the Strategic Air Command's best assets.
| CREW | 6 |
| ENGINE | 8 x turbo-jet P+W TF-33-P-3, 75.7kN |
| WEIGHTS |
| Take-off weight | 221350-226000 kg | 487996 - 498247 lb |
| Empty weight | 111350 kg | 245486 lb |
| DIMENSIONS |
| Wingspan | 56.4 m | 185 ft 0 in |
| Length | 47.6 m | 156 ft 2 in |
| Height | 12.4 m | 41 ft 8 in |
| Wing area | 371.6 m2 | 3999.87 sq ft |
| PERFORMANCE |
| Max. speed | 1070 km/h | 665 mph |
| Cruise speed | 900 km/h | 559 mph |
| Ceiling | 18300 m | 60050 ft |
| Range w/max.fuel | 16000 km | 9942 miles |
| Range w/max payload | 11800 km | 7332 miles |
| ARMAMENT | 4 x 20mm machine-guns, 34000kg of bombs and missiles |
 | A three-view drawing (1000 x 592) |
| kiggins, e-mail, 02.07.2009 19:34 I was delivering my second son when the FIRST B52's were flying over Merced Ca on way to Castle Air base ie SAC. AND every time went to visit Merced; I was first out the door to again be thrilled to HEAR and SEE the PILOT as he was coming in over Merced and I would love to have a picture of this MAGNIFICENT Plane. Once the site at Castle had good pictures however that site is gone and I did not have PC for long while. Thank you. I miss to this day that grand / Magnificent SOUND. reply | | Ned, e-mail, 02.07.2009 04:01 Flew D models in the '70s and 80's. Most flights involved constantly working around malfunctions. The systems were so redundant that flights normally continued albeit with more complications. The B-52 is /was a truly great machine. reply | | Rex, e-mail, 25.04.2009 07:29 Just wanted to say these guys were awesome aircraft! I worked on the Fire Control System at Barksdale from 76 to 83. Weather they were a 57, 58, or 59 model, I got to know each and every tail number that came through there and believe me it really tore me up when I visited Davis Monthan in the early 90's and saw the same tail numbers sitting there in pieces. All I could think of was all my blood, sweat, and guts that I left on them to keep them flying. All the times when I am still out at the tail working at 3:00 am and watching the crew pull up to do their preflight. But we never gave up and always managed to get the aircraft back to the green "GO" status. Those were the good ole days although we worked very hard, the wing always seemed to reward hard work. Keep Em Flying Mighty 8AF! reply | | Scotty, e-mail, 17.03.2009 09:41 I read with some interest some of the comments above First I have flown just over 7000hrs as a gunner in the B-52, 4000 hrs in the "Tall Tail" aircraft 3000 hrs in G's and H's. I flew over 400 missions over Vietnam. After leaving active duty I went to work in the WST at Castle AFB training crewmembers to fly the Aircraft. when talking about performance and engines it all depends which model you are refering too, only the "H" had fans. the Tall Tail A-F used water to increase thrust for takeoff. The A model (3) was never operational the B was the first to be deployed operationaly. The B52 was designed to have a A3 gunnery system (quad 50.cal's) but there was a problem with the system so the Turret /radar system was replaced with the MD5 system Twin 20MM guns. As Stan points out above the system was used on the B36 and the B47 Later "B" had the A3A system, then the A3A replaced by the MD9 the "G" had the ASG 15 system All these were pretty much had the same Track while Scan radar ( the system could lock on and track a tgt while continuing to search for other tgts) and a turret with Quad 50 cal's. the gunner moved to the forward cockpit with the "G" the "H" came with a new system the ASG21 the gunner in the up front and the system designed by Emerson had a 20MM 6 barrel cannon. They have talked about re-engining the aircraft but it always come down to Dollars and cents but the "H" is still flying with upgraded systems and still doing a great job. I sure miss the old "D" model reply | |
| | Ron, e-mail, 06.01.2009 17:44 I just stumbled across an article showing photos of the B52 boneyard in Arizona. Why was the B52 grounded? I had heard it was a very useful aircraft. It's sad to see such a magnificant plane just sitting in a field rusting away. If anybody can give me some insight on my questions, please email me. Thanks. reply | | Jim Dietrich, 25.12.2008 03:25 I served as Maintenance Officer on the B52C /D for two years in 1968 /69. A thrill to fly on them although I threw up during a low level training run. I remember some went to the scrap yard with only 6000 flights or less compared to a B727 with 70000 flights. reply | | Norm, e-mail, 21.12.2008 19:09 I was stationed at DM AFB in 1950 and we had the pleasure of having we thought the first B52 bombers on our base. Or was I dreaming reply | | Earl Mundy, e-mail, 20.12.2008 02:57 In the early 70s I saw a scramble of B-52s and KC135s launch out of Carswell AFB at about 2AM one night. It was an awesome sight and the earth litterally trembled at the thunder of the engines. It was an experience of a lifetime I will never forget. reply | | Stan Allen, e-mail, 27.10.2008 05:08 The B52H model's fire control system (ASG-21) used a gimbal fired 20MM M60 Gatling Gun with a firing rate of 4,000 rds /min
It did NOT have four 20MM guns as is stated above. The B52B through B52F used the A3A /MD9 FCS which had four cal. .50 M3 machine guns mounted on a turret along with the track radar. The B52G used the ASG15 FCS and had the same cal. .50 M3 configuration of guns and track radar. There is one exception to some of the B52Bs that had the APG41 FCS with twin 20MM cannon mounted on a turret; this same FCS was used on the B36H and B36J model aircraft. Cheers, Stan reply | | justin, 16.10.2008 09:35 i work on this aircraft every day and just wanted to say you empty weight is way wrong and take off weight and so is the max range. Sorry can't tell you the exact specs but letting you know they are wrong. I am in the air force now. but just letting you know. reply | | Terry, 23.08.2008 02:31 Correction to my post about B-52 engines. The document I mentioned indicated the B-52 could out maneuver the Mig-21 not the later Mig-29 at high altitudes. reply | | Terry, 22.08.2008 08:08 The high ratio bypass engine in the top illustration was an attempt to match an engine similar to the 747's but apparently the older TF-33 engine excelled at higher altitudes. I read a document once that indicated the B-52 could out maneuver the Mig 29 at altitudes above 55,000 due to the TF-33. The only time I ever saw blackpowder cartridges used to start was during an ORI or operational readiness inspection. reply | | Ben Thurston, e-mail, 18.08.2008 20:16 Had the honor of flying in a B-52 from WRB 19th BW (Robbins AFB) on a low level radar bombing run in the NW US (Salina, TX?)(Nebraska) etc. as an orientation ride for Air Traffic Controllers. reply | | Tom, e-mail, 16.07.2008 04:46 Can't you find better pictures. The top picture appears to be a "D", judging by the tail and larger tip tanks, but where did that bastard engine come from in the 5 /6 position. reply | |
| | Tom, e-mail, 10.07.2008 19:27 The photo at the top is of an aircraft modified as a large engine testbed. The engine designation(s) are unclear as the B-52 used several different models of J-57 engines with different thrust levels before changing to TF-33 engines for the B-52H. A series of write-ups and photos of the different models of B-52 would have been helpful, as there are significant physical differences in some of the different models. The drawing provided is of the B-52H, and it would have enhanced understanding if that had been indicated. reply | | Sgt.KAR98, 15.06.2008 23:28 Oh yes,BTW,why the B-52 on the top image have a different engine? reply | | Sgt.KAR98, 15.06.2008 23:27 Althought I like more the Tu-95,the B-52 is still a symbol of mass destruction.
I wonder if itīs interior is as cool as the B-17. reply | | David Collins, e-mail, 23.01.2008 22:46 I am a Aero Engineer in Great Britain, When I was working for Rolls-Royce about 10 years ago, the US Air Force wanted a quote to fit four RB211 engines to B-52 to improve performance and fuel economy. There had been previous requests, maybe this was an earlier re-engining test. reply | | Pat Wilson, e-mail, 27.09.2007 23:20 I have found in my garage several "site-guns" for B-52 Bomber. Could you help me find a buyer? reply | | Leonard, e-mail, 28.08.2007 15:51 Can you further identify your picture? 7 jet engines?
This must be some "test bed" version. reply |
|
Do you have any comments?
|
| 
COMPANY
PROFILE
All the World's Rotorcraft
|
