even modernized, those planes are old. OLD old. They all used to be packed with vacuum tubes sort of old. The last one ever built left the assembly line in 1962. 64 years ago.
I mean even so we should've had them all replaced not only by now, but with some regularity. Every moving part should've been inspected she tested before this flight. Ffs, we still have 58 in active service!
I'm not saying they're perfect, but they are doing something right, and more care should've been taken before a test flight with civilians.
It is not immediately clear if there are any injuries.
Edit - newer info:
Monday afternoon, the base said eight people were on the aircraft during a routine test mission.
"Initial indications are that the crash was not survivable,"
Edit - latest info:
Eight people died after a B-52 Stratofortress crashed and burst into flames shortly after takeoff on a test mission Monday from Edwards Air Force base in California's Mojave Desert
I was wrong about that but only for the flight crew, it was designed to just carry a whole bunch of bombs so not a lot of passenger safety measures built in.
I don't know if it's the Voyager client or I turned it off, but I can't see anyone's instance without an extra click. Blissfully unaware until I notice something bizarre and shitty, and I can block that one. I guess a sustained brigading or bot campaign from one instance could change my calculation. Mostly I'm aggressive about blocking the ai slop and the cartoony-pornish and is okay
The point was: my first question reading the headline - how many were injured.
So I went and read the article, then quoted it here so people don't need to do the same.
Human life is still human life. I don't wish death or injury on anyone. *Except in maybe 5 special cases (but out of billions it is not a bad ratio)
Yeah dumping fuel is standard before attempting any risky landing in any plane. You want to minimize the changes of a fire all. That takes quite a while though. Definitely not something happening on takeoff when it's fully loaded and fueled.
It's still kinda janky looking tbh. Like someone put a commercial airliner in MS Paint and just stretched everything away from where the wings meet the fuselage.
That's because of the era it was designed it. It is from the dawn of the jet age. Jet engines weren't very powerful yet and they believed they had to have very thin and very swept wings to get the speeds they wanted. It was before thrust reversers so it uses drogue chutes. Its wings are too thin to support the weight of the craft so the main landing gear are in the fuselage and the wings droop so much they have the wheels on the wing tips. They were too afraid to have the weight of the plane and payload rotate on take off to the rear wheels so the flaps are so aggressive it actually takes off with a nose down attitude. The front wheels are the last to leave the pavement and the first to touch it. It's just a really strange design because they were still learning about jet design.
The aircraft is also permanently at takeoff attitude on the ground, the front landing gear is significantly longer than the rear. Also, both sets of main gear rotate, so it can crab down the runway, this is for landing in crosswinds.
The USA is ran by fascist who work for the capitalist. They are unpopular and willing to false flag in order to build up the already bloated military budget. The rift between israel and the USA is just for show. Netinyahoo isn't really in charge. People need to remember the capitalist are in charge. Fascist are the useful idiots of empire
This would be a terrible idea for a false flag, this is an aircraft older than the typical US senator, operating from a base in the middle of the USA. It's most likely that this was a mechanical issue.
this is an aircraft older than the typical US senator
Let's not get too hasty, the B-52H variant was first produced in 1961, making it 65 years old. A 65 year old incumbent senator still has three, maybe four good decades left in office...
56 Comments
kreskin@lemmy.world · 58 pts · 79d
even modernized, those planes are old. OLD old. They all used to be packed with vacuum tubes sort of old. The last one ever built left the assembly line in 1962. 64 years ago.
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 79d
I mean even so we should've had them all replaced not only by now, but with some regularity. Every moving part should've been inspected she tested before this flight. Ffs, we still have 58 in active service!
I'm not saying they're perfect, but they are doing something right, and more care should've been taken before a test flight with civilians.
frongt@lemmy.zip · -1 pts · 77d
Yes, they're inspected regularly, and not just the moving parts but the non-moving parts too. And they've all been completely rebuilt at least once.
Gates9@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 79d
It’s the plane Slim Pickens flies in Dr. Strangelove
Melobol@lemmy.ml · 41 pts · 79d
Edit - newer info:
Edit - latest info:
FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 79d
It’s not like there’s ejection seats but it would be fuckin wild if someone managed to jump out of the bomb bay.
EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com · 36 pts · 79d
It's been renamed to Mumbai
extremeboredom@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 79d
It'd've been wild if someone had managed to jump out the Mumbai
zeejoo@thelemmy.club · 12 pts · 79d
There are 6 ejection seats on the B52
FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 78d
Huh, TIL thanks. That’s just for flight crew though, I imagine the techs were in the bay with no idea
zeejoo@thelemmy.club · 2 pts · 78d
100% although 8 souls aboard is atypical. Crew usually consists of 5, all of whom can eject.
Melobol@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 79d
So they don't have ejection seats.
That doesn't bode well.
FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 78d
I was wrong about that but only for the flight crew, it was designed to just carry a whole bunch of bombs so not a lot of passenger safety measures built in.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · -21 pts · 79d
What, exactly, is your point? Aircraft crash without the crew being injured quite frequently.
lazynooblet@lazysoci.al · 8 pts · 79d
I don't know how you interpreted their comment, but I see it as a helpful heads up for the first question people ask when reading the headline.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 79d
An ML being helpful is a first for me.
unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 79d
I don't know if it's the Voyager client or I turned it off, but I can't see anyone's instance without an extra click. Blissfully unaware until I notice something bizarre and shitty, and I can block that one. I guess a sustained brigading or bot campaign from one instance could change my calculation. Mostly I'm aggressive about blocking the ai slop and the cartoony-pornish and is okay
Melobol@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 79d
The point was: my first question reading the headline - how many were injured.
So I went and read the article, then quoted it here so people don't need to do the same.
Human life is still human life. I don't wish death or injury on anyone. *Except in maybe 5 special cases (but out of billions it is not a bad ratio)
kreskin@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 79d
It crashed in a big fireball, as aircraft full of fuel tend to do. Fun fact, many of these dump their fuel -- or used to--before they land.
halcyoncmdr@piefed.social · 3 pts · 79d
Yeah dumping fuel is standard before attempting any risky landing in any plane. You want to minimize the changes of a fire all. That takes quite a while though. Definitely not something happening on takeoff when it's fully loaded and fueled.
Dremor@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 79d
Well, that's a Boeing, so a small percentage of crashes are to be expected.
grue@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 79d
They were built so long ago that it was back when Boeing's engineering reputation was good.
Dremor@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 78d
Well, unfortunately the current priorities may not be the same as it was then.
No matter how well something is built, if the maintenance is bad, you waste all that good engineering.
Atropos@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 79d
Some of them are designed to not crash at all!
Gormadt@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 78d
And the fronts don't even fall off!
PodPerson@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 79d
Well did a wave hit it? Was it made with cardboard or any cardboard derivatives?
non_burglar@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 79d
So no paper?
itsjustachairmary@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 78d
One down, a bunch more to go, thank you for your service in getting rid of these
Mpatch@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 78d
Wat? There's like 3 more left. They are a museum piece.
Ghoelian@piefed.social · -3 pts · 79d
Wait what the hell is a Stratofortress? i only know that as the stratovarius song.
(I'm not allowed to view the article for some reason, access denied)
Zidane@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 79d
Image from the article
EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com · 6 pts · 79d
What a wildly disproportionate-looking aircraft
halcyoncmdr@piefed.social · 17 pts · 79d
To be fair that's an upward angle on a plane taking off, with the flaps fully extended for maximum lift.
This is what a B-52 looks like when in a regular flight configuration.
Murse@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 79d
It's still kinda janky looking tbh. Like someone put a commercial airliner in MS Paint and just stretched everything away from where the wings meet the fuselage.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 79d
Bombers tend to look like that, they have a very small fuselage compared to a passenger aircraft. Very compact cargo.
whosepoopisonmybuttocks@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 79d
Yo mama
FlexibleToast@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 79d
That's because of the era it was designed it. It is from the dawn of the jet age. Jet engines weren't very powerful yet and they believed they had to have very thin and very swept wings to get the speeds they wanted. It was before thrust reversers so it uses drogue chutes. Its wings are too thin to support the weight of the craft so the main landing gear are in the fuselage and the wings droop so much they have the wheels on the wing tips. They were too afraid to have the weight of the plane and payload rotate on take off to the rear wheels so the flaps are so aggressive it actually takes off with a nose down attitude. The front wheels are the last to leave the pavement and the first to touch it. It's just a really strange design because they were still learning about jet design.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 78d
The aircraft is also permanently at takeoff attitude on the ground, the front landing gear is significantly longer than the rear. Also, both sets of main gear rotate, so it can crab down the runway, this is for landing in crosswinds.
Yeah, weird plane.
SupraMario@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 79d
There is a reason it has the nickname BUFF.
Big Ugly Fat Fuck.
Gormadt@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 78d
But GOD can they fly!
...well not this one, not anymore. But usually.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 79d
It's because the cargo they're built to carry is very dense, hence the very slim fuselage.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 79d
How the hell have you not heard of the B-52 stratofortress?
Gormadt@slrpnk.net · 5 pts · 78d
One of today's lucky 10,000?
unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 79d
not noncredibledefense
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 79d
I realise that, but it's a very famous aircraft type.
unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 79d
I thought the Stratofortress was just ten times bigger than a 747, and I worked in loading them shits topside and I ran the k[loader and oh!
The important points are: do not loiter in front of or behind of giant demonic turbines
Lol Jack Parsons was a roll sma-t shit
https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/compare-aircraft-results.php?aircraft1=19&aircraft2=247
Edited. Possibly the badass name "Stratofortress" was subsumed
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 79d
It's a flying fortress that flies in the stratosphere. Duh.
TheFrirish@tarte.nuage-libre.fr · -4 pts · 78d
c/upliftingnews pun obviously intended get recked terrorist America.
kokesh@lemmy.world · -24 pts · 79d
Oh no, poor US nazis. Cry me a river.
Wataba@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 78d
Suckers and losers.
The people downvoting can take a fucking hike. Anyone willingly serving shitstain bigoted pigs are valid targets and dont deserve to be mourned.
Resign or accept the fucking consequences of cowardice.
greenmonster@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -24 pts · 79d
ohhh no the poor genociders. 🙁
ruuster13@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 79d
Ooooh. Geno's Hard Cider would be a great brand name.
greenmonster@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -37 pts · 79d
The USA is ran by fascist who work for the capitalist. They are unpopular and willing to false flag in order to build up the already bloated military budget. The rift between israel and the USA is just for show. Netinyahoo isn't really in charge. People need to remember the capitalist are in charge. Fascist are the useful idiots of empire
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 17 pts · 79d
This would be a terrible idea for a false flag, this is an aircraft older than the typical US senator, operating from a base in the middle of the USA. It's most likely that this was a mechanical issue.
BranBucket@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 79d
Let's not get too hasty, the B-52H variant was first produced in 1961, making it 65 years old. A 65 year old incumbent senator still has three, maybe four good decades left in office...
Dremor@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 79d
And whay link your rant has with the current topic?