It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A B-52 Mystery

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 05:10 AM
link   
DaMac is right, there is (or was if it has been written off) a B-52H based at Barksdale with 60-0049 as serial number.

This is the most recent picture i've found of it 60-0049 dated 26 april 2014.

I too suppose this is just a typo, but on Foxtrotalpha is written that:

An oxygen leak coupled with a spark ended 61-0049's life in an intense cockpit fire while on the ground at Barksdale AFB last year.


Leaving aside the serial number, the plane seems to have been damaged in 2014, so i searched for B-52s accidents and mishaps here but there is nothing about it for the last year (the document is from january 8 2015).




posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 05:48 AM
link   
The problem with the 60 tail number is that it belongs to the 49th test and evaluations squadron, not an active operational squadron. Gariac made a post years ago about tail 60-0049 being at tonapah I believe, and it's also on his website. So would a plane that's strick for testing be counted as one on the START treaty? Cause that's the justification for bringing ghost back from the boneyard.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 05:48 AM
link   
BTW, the only article online that mentions the serial numbers of both planes i've been able to find is this one , apart from the one on Foxtrotalpha


"This particular one was to replace aircraft 0049, which unfortunately had a ground maintenance fire that made it unrepairable," he said. "We had an oxygen leak with a spark and it caused a cockpit fire. There was so much damage it was actually more economical to bring this one out of the desert than it was to repair 0049. And there was doubt about the structural integrity, with the fire there inside the cockpit, to rebuild 0049. That's why we brought this out, to keep our Strategic Arms Reduction numbers of 76 (B-52s) constant."


No mention of a 61-0049, they just refer to it as 0049.

The guys at Airliners wrote about 60-0049 though here:


Quoting sovietjet (Reply 5): Which airframe is damaged at Barksdale? I'm hearing 60-0049 was the damaged tail number. Suffered an oxygen leak in the crew compartment that started a fire


So i think that Rogoway just mistyped the serial.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

If it's nuclear capable, i'd say yes.



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
There were a total of 744 B-52s built. The last aircraft delivered is 61-0040. Now tail numbers are sequential. So if 1040 was 744 of 744 how was 1049 destroyed in a ramp fire?


I can imagine there is a difference between the order of construction contract tail numbers and the actual delivery order. Perhaps 1049 was delivered before 1040?
Also wondering if it is possible that tail numbers change after significant upgrades or retrofit for a different operational tasking?

Read that the ressurrected B-52 flew all the way with its gear down and without navigational instruments! That would have been an interesting ride if the weather was not clear as it was that day



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: spaceman42

Tail numbers don't change. Once they're assigned you're stuck with it. They're also sequential. So if 1049 rolled off the line before 1040 then it would have been 1040.

Yeah they cannibalized the navigation system for another aircraft that needed it.

They also tracked down the first crew chief for the aircraft and had him marshal them out of parking.
edit on 2/26/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Perhaps this a similar case to the Singapore F-15SG numbers mystery Zaphod?

LEE.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 05:31 AM
link   



So i think that Rogoway just mistyped the serial.


I asked him about it before i told zaph about this and he said he just sourced the air force article about it. so it seems that the air force made the mistake if it is one.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 06:27 AM
link   
It's been confirmed by Barksdale that it was 1049.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So if 61-1049 never existed as a B-52, how could it have gone on fire ? Especially as that number was assigned to another aircraft. Anyone lost a Buff anywhere !!!!!!!

Sorry, should have typed 61-0049 !!!!
edit on 27-2-2015 by nelloh62 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2015 by nelloh62 because: typo error



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: nelloh62

Or did the fire happen to something else, and they're claiming it's a BUFF to hide it.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: boomer135


I asked him about it before i told zaph about this and he said he just sourced the air force article about it.


This one?

It's the only article from the Air Force i've found, with just one serial provided (61-0007), unless there is another article around (?).


It's been confirmed by Barksdale that it was 1049.


Mailed the public affairs?



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nelloh62

Or did the fire happen to something else, and they're claiming it's a BUFF to hide it.


Oh how you make threads entertaining...lol.

I'm with Boomer. Probably just an AF mistaken identity.

Disclaimer: I haven't spent a second researching myself.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
If the last plane is 040 and theres a 049, maybe its a ruse to hide their actual numbers? I bet the Russians are wondering where the other eight Strato Fortresses are, too.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: CiTrus90

I didn't but someone did and forwarded it to me.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

The PAO at the base confirmed the number. If it's mistaken identity a lot of people have egg on their face.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Stranger things have happened eh !!



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: nelloh62

Usually not through this many steps, with something this important though.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm quite ready to believe aircraft 61-0049 was " damaged ". The only question still hanging is what aircraft was it



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: howmuch4another

The PAO at the base confirmed the number. If it's mistaken identity a lot of people have egg on their face.


yeah I just saw that. (scratches head)



new topics




 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join