BSR-71

[Hoomi]

The astounding thing is that the B52 was given this nickname before any of the crews flying it today were even born!

My Dad worked on BUFFs before I was born.

And, if the USAF sticks to the schedule they've been discussing, BUFFs will still be flying when my kids reach my age.

[Valkpilot]

The astounding thing is that the B52 was given this nickname before any of the crews flying it today were even born!

Speaking of the BUFF's age:

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/05/17/b-52-bomber-removed-boneyard-return-service.html

[VOODOO]

The astounding thing is that the B52 was given this nickname before any of the crews flying it today were even born!

[Hoomi]

Whatever Lockheed's designation was, I guarantee it wasn't the nickname given the B-52 by its crews - BUFF. :)

[VOODOO]

What was the Lockheed designation? I know that Martin did the XB-48 which was a straight-wing with the engines in a box. And I still contend that the B-52 was ultimately derived from the B-47 right down to the two prototypes having the "fighter" style tandem cockpit. Here's what Wikipedia says:

On Thursday, 21 October 1948, Boeing engineers George S. Schairer, Art Carlsen and Vaughn Blumenthal presented the design of a four-engine turboprop bomber to the chief of bomber development, Colonel Pete Warden. Warden was disappointed by the projected aircraft and asked if the Boeing team could come up with a proposal for a four-engine turbojet bomber. Joined by Ed Wells, Boeing vice president of engineering, the engineers worked that night in The Hotel Van Cleve in Dayton, Ohio, redesigning Boeing's proposal as a four-engine turbojet bomber. On Friday, Colonel Warden looked over the information and asked for a better design. Returning to the hotel, the Boeing team was joined by Bob Withington and Maynard Pennell, two top Boeing engineers who were in town on other business.^[41]

By late Friday night, they had laid out what was essentially a new airplane. The new design (464–49) built upon the basic layout of the B-47 Stratojet with 35-degree swept wings, eight engines paired in four underwing pods, and bicycle landing gear with wingtip outrigger wheels.^[42] A notable feature of the landing gear was the ability to pivot the main landing gear up to 20° from the aircraft centerline to increase safety during crosswind landings.^[43] After a trip to a hobby shop for supplies, Schairer set to work building a model. The rest of the team focused on weight and performance data. Wells, who was also a skilled artist, completed the aircraft drawings. On Sunday, a stenographer was hired to type a clean copy of the proposal. On Monday, Schairer presented Colonel Warden with a neatly bound 33-page proposal and a 14-inch scale model.^[41] The aircraft was projected to exceed all design specifications.^[44]

You are correct that Boeing originated the B47 design, but I grew up in Atlanta, not far from Lockheed's Marietta plant and all the locals called the B47 Lockheed because they were built locally under license and designated Lockheed B47s. I watched them fly around the area for years, sometimes towing a huge drag chute behind. Over 300 were built by Lockheed. I do still maintain that the B52 was actually a new design, not a derivative of the B47, just as the Douglas DC8 was not a derivative of the 707, although both had similar configurations.

[Valkpilot]

Not trying to be critical, but the B52 was not in any way a scaled up B47. Firstly, the B47 was a much earlier design from Lockheed, while the B52 came off Boeing's drawing boards. One failing of the B47 was that operated very close to it's "coffin corner" between a high speed stall and it's low speed stall, making it like flying on a tightrope, similar to the U2 at it's extreme altitude limits.

What was the Lockheed designation? I know that Martin did the XB-48 which was a straight-wing with the engines in a box. And I still contend that the B-52 was ultimately derived from the B-47 right down to the two prototypes having the "fighter" style tandem cockpit. Here's what Wikipedia says:

On Thursday, 21 October 1948, Boeing engineers George S. Schairer, Art Carlsen and Vaughn Blumenthal presented the design of a four-engine turboprop bomber to the chief of bomber development, Colonel Pete Warden. Warden was disappointed by the projected aircraft and asked if the Boeing team could come up with a proposal for a four-engine turbojet bomber. Joined by Ed Wells, Boeing vice president of engineering, the engineers worked that night in The Hotel Van Cleve in Dayton, Ohio, redesigning Boeing's proposal as a four-engine turbojet bomber. On Friday, Colonel Warden looked over the information and asked for a better design. Returning to the hotel, the Boeing team was joined by Bob Withington and Maynard Pennell, two top Boeing engineers who were in town on other business.^[41]

By late Friday night, they had laid out what was essentially a new airplane. The new design (464–49) built upon the basic layout of the B-47 Stratojet with 35-degree swept wings, eight engines paired in four underwing pods, and bicycle landing gear with wingtip outrigger wheels.^[42] A notable feature of the landing gear was the ability to pivot the main landing gear up to 20° from the aircraft centerline to increase safety during crosswind landings.^[43] After a trip to a hobby shop for supplies, Schairer set to work building a model. The rest of the team focused on weight and performance data. Wells, who was also a skilled artist, completed the aircraft drawings. On Sunday, a stenographer was hired to type a clean copy of the proposal. On Monday, Schairer presented Colonel Warden with a neatly bound 33-page proposal and a 14-inch scale model.^[41] The aircraft was projected to exceed all design specifications.^[44]

[VOODOO]

One thing I all ways wondered was that given it's success, no one thought to scale-up the SR-71 into a bomber the way Boeing scaled up the B-47 to the B-52. About the closest we came was the XB-70, which was able to cruise at Mach 3, but was cancelled due in part to improves SAMs. This also put to lie the Blackbird's alleged max speed of Mach 3, because if they were afraid of the Valk getting shot down at that speed, why wouldn't the SR-71 be equally vulnerable?

Not trying to be critical, but the B52 was not in any way a scaled up B47. Firstly, the B47 was a much earlier design from Lockheed, while the B52 came off Boeing's drawing boards. One failing of the B47 was that operated very close to it's "coffin corner" between a high speed stall and it's low speed stall, making it like flying on a tightrope, similar to the U2 at it's extreme altitude limits.

[Valkpilot]

In the early 1960s the airframe that eventually morphed into the SR-71 was conceived as a next generation interceptor designated the YF-12. In addition to my primary duty of a F101B interceptor pilot, my extra duty was Squadron Intelligence Officer for the 49th FIS based at Griffiss AFB, in Rome,NY. I gave mission capabilities briefings on the YF-12. The main reason that this airframe was not practical as a bomber was the problem of weapon delivery. In order to maintain it's stealth signature,as well as the ability to withstand the skin temperatures, weapons had to be transported internally. At the speed this plane maintained it was causing some difficulties in launching missiles,much less trying to drop an unpowered bomb from an internal bomb bay.

Well that lets the cat out of the bag on the speed rating. And I just thought of something. Anything released from that plane at that speed and altitude wouldn't need any explosives, it would be a kinetic weapon.
But what about modern materials, such as composites?

[Aros]

That is some inside info coolness right there! I often marvel at the backgrounds of many in this community.

[VOODOO]

In the early 1960s the airframe that eventually morphed into the SR-71 was conceived as a next generation interceptor designated the YF-12. In addition to my primary duty of a F101B interceptor pilot, my extra duty was Squadron Intelligence Officer for the 49th FIS based at Griffiss AFB, in Rome,NY. I gave mission capabilities briefings on the YF-12. The main reason that this airframe was not practical as a bomber was the problem of weapon delivery. In order to maintain it's stealth signature,as well as the ability to withstand the skin temperatures, weapons had to be transported internally. At the speed this plane maintained it was causing some difficulties in launching missiles,much less trying to drop an unpowered bomb from an internal bomb bay.

[Valkpilot]

True, but cameras and electronic sensor arrays aren't as likely to explode in huge fireballs if the heat gets to them. :Scared:

I've never read if heat was an issue on the Valkyrie.

As F22 said, just the paint. And it never carried live ordinance. But the B-58 and B-1A did at Mach 2+, with the Hustler's hanging out.

[Valkpilot]

It's got to be fake because it's a Lockheed product, not North American:

[Aros]

Most definitely!

[Hoomi]

It's hard to tell sometimes, with some of the bizarre ideas experimented with over the years.

[Aros]

Unfortunately the latter. ;)

[Hoomi]

Sign me up!

Okay - is that something Lockheed actually made, or someone having fun with image-manipulation?

[Aros]

Sign me up!

[F22trainer]

True, but cameras and electronic sensor arrays aren't as likely to explode in huge fireballs if the heat gets to them. :Scared:

I've never read if heat was an issue on the Valkyrie.

There was a reason it was called “the paint stripper”...

[Hoomi]

True, but cameras and electronic sensor arrays aren't as likely to explode in huge fireballs if the heat gets to them. :Scared:

I've never read if heat was an issue on the Valkyrie.

[Valkpilot]

I was on TDY to Kadena AB in Okinawa, around 1978-79. The techs stationed there told us to watch for a KC-135 taking off, because one would always precede a Habu launch. Because the SR-71 was a "wet-wing" aircraft, with the tanks essentially not being fully sealed until the plane started heating up from air friction, they would always refuel mid-air after take-off, before speeding away on their mission.

I was able to watch a couple of them leave while I was there.

Possibly one reason for not creating a bomber version of the SR-71, is how hot it became during its flight. High temperatures and high explosives isn't always a good mix.

But the Oxcart was supposed to be an interceptor. And all those cameras and electronics were very heat sensitive too.