MINOT AIR FORCE BASE, N.D. — An engine dropped out of a B-52 bomber during a training flight on Wednesday, the Air Force has confirmed following questions from Defense News. (www.defensenews.com) 更多...
Yes From Wikipedia A KC-135A tanker (AF Ser. No. 58-0026)[3] from March AFB crashed shortly after takeoff from Minot AFB on 17 January 1968, killing 12 of the 13 on board.[4] Major General Charles M. Eisenhart, vice commander of the Fifteenth Air Force, was at the controls and over-rotated at takeoff in low visibility, inducing a stall. The survivor, a steward, was badly burned and later succumbed.[5] On a staff visit from March AFB, the aircraft was departing for Glasgow AFB, Montana.[4]
In the early hours of 4 October 1968, a Minot B-52H (AF Ser. No. 60-0027)[6] was on approach, completing an overnight training mission with six aboard. It lost power to four engines and crashed in a field eight miles (13 km) east, with four fatalities and two survivors.[7][8] Among the dead was a Lieutenant Colonel just days from retirement and the squadron clerk, on his first B-52 orientation ride.[6]
Col Eisenhart proceeded to takeoff against the advice of the tower (It was a rather odd, foggy day in January (Thaw?). The big shot didn't want to wait for the weather to clear. I remember it well because they crashed on base.
Similarly, the Pilot of the B52 was a desk jockey, getting his flight hours in bringing the clerk along on the ride. The radar gunner, got up to show the clerk, in the EWO seat, how to use the e seat and never was able to get out
Wow. You can't make this stuff up. Glad the crew got it down with just dirty laundry, no one on the ground hurt, and we can all chuckle about it. Could have been a real tragedy.
The Air Force is now saying the engine didn't just drop off the aircraft but, according to AF Secretary Deborah Lee James it was a catastrophic failure of the engine, "Literally, I'm told, it conceivably disintegrated and, upon disintegration, came out of the aircraft." The debris is believed to be "at the bottom of a riverbed". They also believe it is "a one-off" and not a fleet-wide problem. They stayed airborne to burn off fuel before landing so fortunately it was not an impending disaster type emergency. Still scary enough.
Love how the article says the pilot declared an in-flight emergency when he "discovered" and engine was gone..."Hey Co, didn't we have four of those on the left wing when we took off?"
We had to chuckle one evening as we were putting along in our little A6 and we heard a MayDay from a B52. They had lost an engine (not literally like this one) and had to get on the ground ASAP.
Lots of critical posts and not enough concern for the aircrew. Thank God they did not experience a catastrophic airframe failure as a result of the separation of the engine and made it back to base safely. This is a 60 year old aircraft still being asked to serve its country and doing a fine job for its age, but after this many years of flight cycling some things are bound to fail. Thus the reason to push the B-21 and get a replacement on the line for these old workhorses.
BTW, each engine is mounted individually to the pylon, they are not connected together. It only looks that way from the shape of the nacelle.
You have a very good point. I did not express concern for the crew because of this line from the article "...pilots were able to land the aircraft safely without any injury to the five personnel on board."
The engine separating from the pylon left live electrical connections exposed, likely a fuel leak and may have damaged the sister engine when the nacelle came apart/fell off. Depending upon which nacelle came apart, the potential for a flight control surface or spar damage was a real possibility. This event was not just an engine out approach scenario and there was real risk of losing the airframe and possibly a flight crew.
I know that. I've spent plenty of time in the BUFF. I'm sure it was rather intense at the time and pucker factor was quite high. I've had quite a few tense moments myself. The point I was making, was that it did turn out well, no one was injured, they managed to keep their landings equal to the their take offs.
What I mean is it looks as if 1 engine is connected to the engine directly next to it. So how can just 1 fall off? If 1 falls off, wouldn't the engine connected to it fall too? Or are they not actually connected to each other?
Well, clearly some connectors in this plane didn't function correctly, whether they were connectors between engines or between an engine and the airframe.
Besides a few fuel and electrical connections (non-structural) there are only 3 bolts holding each engine to the airframe. Due to budget cutbacks, those bolts are supplied by the lowest bidder.
This is such a poorly-worded headline. Doesn't an engine "dropping out" of a bomber sound like something being released from the bomb bay? Shouldn't the headline read "engine drops off a B-52...?"
Good catch! Poor english grammer strikes the press yet again! I was beginning to wonder if they were carrying the engine in the bomb bay and someone let it go. I will be a 7 engine approach in a B-52 is as much fun as any other engine-out approach on a multi-engine jet. Glad everyone is safe.
That's what I thought initially as well: That they were carrying an engine and it somehow got dropped from the bomb bay. That would be worse than the "dreaded 7-engine approach," IMO.
You think part of the reason we have 60 year old bombers is that we don't want to give the impression we plan to bomb the hell out of somebody ILO of smart bombs?
It scares the H^*& out of me. At least a loose cannon can be expected to roll down hill. But having National Command Authority setting international policy in 140 characters or less? You can't even put the 2nd Amendment verbatim into a tweet.
I prefer my news from sources that do fact checking, verification and use one of the standard style guides. Then I do my own filtering thru a customized grain-o-salt meter. Do you have a preference?
He's not the President yet. His Twitter comments are just that, comments, albeit sometimes very pointed comments...he can't set policy until he is sworn in and he certainly can't set policy via Twitter. Take a breath, or two, people.
Your reassurance reassures me not in the slightest. This is getting well off topic. A better venue for such a discussion is at: http://discussions.flightaware.com/general/the-banter-thread-t4618.html?hilit=banter%20thread&start=5500
I'm not sure I understand - is it your theory that after he's sworn in he's going to change his way? PS - Thanks for the reminder to breathe ... that could have been disastrous.
I have no theory about anything. I was just commenting on the assertions that the "National Command Authority setting international policy" via Twitter were specious. How can anyone say he's setting policy when he's not the President yet? I have no idea if he will "change his way" after he is sworn in but my guess is he will still use Twitter...to what degree, who knows? My point was that he can't set policy using Twitter. Glad you're still breathing!
Maybe you best tell that to those who "follow" him...why is it stocks of those companies he "belittled", drop like a rock?...perhaps he best clean his own closet and family closets first for "Made In America"
Sorry, all media "spins" the news. The whole right v Left is a contrived dichotomy wherein the two official "parties" can each share half of the better answers then swap access to the seats of power every few years. Wake up.
Harsh? You can't handle harsh. The whole right v Left is a contrived dichotomy wherein the two official "parties" can each share half of the better answers then swap access to the seats of power every few years. You act like sheep act.
Yep. Chicago not on my mind. I'm headin for Florida next week. Golf, muscle car auction, and heat. At least you are warmed by the ocean and you have wine.
Since there's absolutely no indication of what caused the engine to fall off, it's not a good idea to ask "Where were their QC people?" As Forrest Gump famously said "$#!t happens", and it can happen despite the best efforts of aircraft maintenance personnel who are wrestling a 50+ year old beast. I have 3000 hours in the BUFF as navigator and radar navigator (weapons operator) and can attest to that fact. Certainly, it could have been a maintenance issue, or it could have been bolt fatigue, or an explosion, or a bird strike, or who knows what? Speculation before any facts are known is worthless and, to me, is especially inappropriate when it questions the competency of very hard working BUFF maintenance folks. BTW, it hasn't been "The Great SAC" for quite a while now. SAC became Strategic Command in, I think, 1992 and came under Air Combat Command (along with TAC). In 2009, the BUFFs and ICBMs were organized under the Air Force Global Strike Command....or something like that. Anyway, the old SAC is no more
How did the AC write it up in the flight incident reports ? No readings with #_ Engine Displays. Also, High Fuel Flow from wing tanks. One wing seems to have more lift too.