Jet Bombers
Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:14 pm
What is the reasoning behind keeping them out of civilians' hands?
It would be quite a sight to find a flying B-47 or B-58 at an airshow.
It would be quite a sight to find a flying B-47 or B-58 at an airshow.
Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:37 pm
I have always thought ...
A: they are nuclear capable (FIFI ?)
B: they are too "advanced" ie. too much like what the military flies now (Collings F-4 and A-4? )
C: the military just doesn't want us to have the cool toys. (this is evidenced by the de-mil process that most of their stuff goes through)
Could the answer be C?
(see USN prosecution of salvagers of drowned aircraft...)
A: they are nuclear capable (FIFI ?)
B: they are too "advanced" ie. too much like what the military flies now (Collings F-4 and A-4? )
C: the military just doesn't want us to have the cool toys. (this is evidenced by the de-mil process that most of their stuff goes through)
Could the answer be C?
(see USN prosecution of salvagers of drowned aircraft...)
Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:06 pm
I think B and C - then again - who could afford the JP8 for a B-58?? It would be neat to see a B-47. Isn't there a group in the UK trying to get a Vulcan back in the air again??
Tom P.
Tom P.
Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:18 pm
I think the problem with the Vulcan is the Fuel $$ that you mentioned ..
They do or have taxied the Vulcan I believe once a year ... And also they do the same with a Victor ...
RJ
They do or have taxied the Vulcan I believe once a year ... And also they do the same with a Victor ...
RJ
Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:19 pm
Aren't some of these things covered by strategic arms treaties, either then or now?
Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:57 pm
Vulcan ? Taxi ?? Or do you mean ..... the Vulcan that now has enough funding to FLY again next year 
The full story is here on the Vulcan to the sky web site ~
http://www.tvoc.co.uk/index2.php
The full story is here on the Vulcan to the sky web site ~
http://www.tvoc.co.uk/index2.php
Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:32 pm
the de-mil issue is tops. the dod got some egg in their face in some years past letting of all things an early worn out f-18 get into civvie hands, this was promptly nixed, but the fact that it happened was an embarrassment. secondly, there is much worry of domestic terrorists, are own countrymen getting hold of a weapon platform to use on our own country. i'm not worried, the cost prohibitive price of jet av gas, lack of spare parts etc, make this nothing but paranoia.
Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:46 pm
Tom, although the F-18 was a screwup it all went through legal channels. An investigation was done and the sale was allowed to stand.
It is gutted and has no or very little internal systems in it. No engines, black boxes, actuators etc... Estimate to make it fly somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-5 million dollars.
The F-4 has 2 J-79s, fuel burn roughly 20 lbs per mile @ 6.8 lbs per gallon. B-58 has 4 J-79s, I would guess about 40+ lbs per mile. You do the math and tell me who could afford to fly a B-58.
I don't even want to think about a B-47 with 6 very thirsty 2nd generation jet engines !
It is gutted and has no or very little internal systems in it. No engines, black boxes, actuators etc... Estimate to make it fly somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-5 million dollars.
The F-4 has 2 J-79s, fuel burn roughly 20 lbs per mile @ 6.8 lbs per gallon. B-58 has 4 J-79s, I would guess about 40+ lbs per mile. You do the math and tell me who could afford to fly a B-58.
I don't even want to think about a B-47 with 6 very thirsty 2nd generation jet engines !
Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:20 am
I heard the B-58 was a maintenance nightmare! I don't know how true that was but I can see how it could be. But I’d love to see that do a high speed pass at an airshow. 
Tim
Tim
Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:49 am
The F-4 has 2 J-79s, fuel burn roughly 20 lbs per mile @ 6.8 lbs per gallon. B-58 has 4 J-79s, I would guess about 40+ lbs per mile. You do the math and tell me who could afford to fly a B-58.
For a brief moment, I felt pretty good about my T-Bird fuel burn at ecomonical 8 to 9 lb/mile...
There are a handful of people with the money to operate/maintain a jet bomber, but as Tim said, the maintenance would be a nightmare....mind-boggling really. A B-58 or a B-47 would need an army of maintenance folks on them constantly, not to mention difficulty in obtaining spares. If you consider the "relative" simplicity of an F-104 where you do 10-12 hours maintenance for every flight hour, imagine what one of these beasts would require. There is the South African outfit with the Buccaneer, Lightning, Hunter etc--and they do have a full time staff of maintenance guys courtesy of their billionaire oilman founder. As far as the nuclear capability being a factor, an FJ-4 Fury, F-100s and F-4s had tactical nuclear capability and they're flying in private hands so I'm not sure that's a real issue. Even so, the perception of a jet powered "strategic bomber" in private hands and the ensuing paranoia could be a player in today's homeland security environment. At any rate, I'd love to see the old Boeing Stratojet or the Hustler come streaking across show center at the speed of heat!
For a brief moment, I felt pretty good about my T-Bird fuel burn at ecomonical 8 to 9 lb/mile...
There are a handful of people with the money to operate/maintain a jet bomber, but as Tim said, the maintenance would be a nightmare....mind-boggling really. A B-58 or a B-47 would need an army of maintenance folks on them constantly, not to mention difficulty in obtaining spares. If you consider the "relative" simplicity of an F-104 where you do 10-12 hours maintenance for every flight hour, imagine what one of these beasts would require. There is the South African outfit with the Buccaneer, Lightning, Hunter etc--and they do have a full time staff of maintenance guys courtesy of their billionaire oilman founder. As far as the nuclear capability being a factor, an FJ-4 Fury, F-100s and F-4s had tactical nuclear capability and they're flying in private hands so I'm not sure that's a real issue. Even so, the perception of a jet powered "strategic bomber" in private hands and the ensuing paranoia could be a player in today's homeland security environment. At any rate, I'd love to see the old Boeing Stratojet or the Hustler come streaking across show center at the speed of heat!
Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:07 pm
Hustler come streaking across show center at the speed of heat
Gives me chills just thinking about it ...oooh
Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:52 pm
SWEET PHOTO!!
I think it was in Air and Space that a back seater retold the story of flying with a low flight time General from Okinawa to Japan - when they arrived in Japan they were low on fuel but despite the Flt Engineers protest the General opted for a high speed buzz job of the field anyway - they apperently had a rolling stop after landing because the engines died after turning off the taxi way.
AH, sleep per chance to dream. . . . .
Tom P.
I think it was in Air and Space that a back seater retold the story of flying with a low flight time General from Okinawa to Japan - when they arrived in Japan they were low on fuel but despite the Flt Engineers protest the General opted for a high speed buzz job of the field anyway - they apperently had a rolling stop after landing because the engines died after turning off the taxi way.
AH, sleep per chance to dream. . . . .
Tom P.
Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:05 pm
I remember the USAF flying a B-47 in the early 80's. I had thought that was cool and would have liked to had seen it. On that same note, I was chatting with one of the pilots we had at a commuter outfit that I worked for. He was a high timer and a ret USAF pilot, we got to talking about old jets and the B-47 came up. I had mentoned about how neat it would be to have one fly today and mentioned the USAF ferrying one here in the states. He said "yeah I knew about that, I was in the back seat". He said at the time of the ferry, he was one of the last pilots current on the B-47.
Wish I could find the article again.
Personally I think flying a TU-45 in the states would be neat.
Wish I could find the article again.
Personally I think flying a TU-45 in the states would be neat.
Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:32 pm
N3Njeff wrote:I remember the USAF flying a B-47 in the early 80's. I had thought that was cool and would have liked to had seen it. Wish I could find the article again.
Personally I think flying a TU-45 in the states would be neat.
I think there was some articles in Warbirds Intl. Castle Air Museum's B-47 made the last flight of the type in the mid 80s out of China Lake. I remember my friend Maj Gen Chuck Fink got to taxi it but they nixed him as pilot because he was retired USAF. I remember he was criticizing the general who botched the landing when it got to Castle.
JH
Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:51 pm
I remember he was criticizing the general who botched the landing when it got to Castle.
I remember dale telling me that the flight was a mess. He told me that stuff was breaking once it broke ground. They were having aileron control problems on landing, maybe that has something to do with a "botched" landing. After dale telling me about it, sounded like they were very lucky to have the skills that they had!
I know I would fly with him anytime..........B-47 or a BE-1900D
I remember dale telling me that the flight was a mess. He told me that stuff was breaking once it broke ground. They were having aileron control problems on landing, maybe that has something to do with a "botched" landing. After dale telling me about it, sounded like they were very lucky to have the skills that they had!
I know I would fly with him anytime..........B-47 or a BE-1900D