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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: nelloh62

Sooner or later we'll see the AIB report released and that will prove if it was 60.




posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

They are going to look a bit silly at Barksdale if they retract and now say it's 60-0049 !!!



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: CiTrus90

They're also working number 3 and number 5 engines it looks like. Although it could be number 7. It's hard to tell on my phone. So it may be in for other issues.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Or...they could have been taking off components from it to transfer them on Ghost Rider, which was not in flyable condition at the time.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: TerrorAlertRed

If they are serious on evaluating them for new engines they either have had major upgrades to the engines available or they have figured out how to fix air frame cracks.

Back around 99 everything was approved to get rid of the tf33 pos... But it got scrapped when they realizesd the rolls Royce (I think going off memory) motors would rip the wings off due to the amount of cracks on the fuselage.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: CiTrus90

There were plenty of other aircraft in the Boneyard they could have stripped cheaper than taking parts off that one and shipping out to Arizona. Easier too.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Well, -0007 was one of the 13 B-52s in type 1000 storage, but nonetheless they had to:

1-

According to Tech. Sgt. Stephen Sorge, a fuels specialist from the 307th Maintenance Squadron, the most challenging part of this project was replacing all the fuel bladders and lines but we had a safe and successful run of all eight engines the end of January.


2-

The airplane had undergone 70 working days of extensive refurbishment by personnel from the boneyard, Barksdale and Minot and Tinker Air Force bases, including replacement of hydraulic hoses and other vital components for flight.


So, if type 1000 means near-flyaway condition and they still had to replace those parts, i don't think there was a better choice than taking parts off -0049, because probably the other B-52s at AMARG were in the same (or even worse) condition than -0007.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: CiTrus90

Those are the components that fail the most easily. They're also the most plentiful in the supply chain. If they were stripping the bird at Barksdale I'd expect to see more than two engines opened up.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I don't know how the ground crew work, but i suspect they don't need to open up all eight engines at the same time.

I don't get why you really believe there is a 61-0049, it's just a typo. I haven't seen this serial posted anywhere else than on Foxtrotalpha. And at this point i think that the guy that answered the public affairs mail someone forwarded to you may very well be the same source that told Rogoway a wrong serial number.

There are no pics, no reports, nothing whatsoever on 61-0049, while there is a B-52 with a perfectly similar serial number, 60-0049, at the same base, Barksdale, of which we have accounts and pictures, even one taken in april 2014 of the plane sitting with its nose in a hangar and cordoned off during an airshow at Barksdale AFB (where usually people can even stay underneath B-52s to protect themselves from the sun). I swear i could even write the history of this specific plane in a week, with the amount of info and pictures there is on the net about it.

On the contrary, there is nothing supporting or even suggesting the existence of a 61-0049, if not for Foxtrotalpha and a mail only you've seen.

I don't understand why in your opinion it would be so difficult for someone to get a serial number wrong?



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: CiTrus90

I'm not the only one that's seen it. I didn't even write it. And what's the big deal about it being roped off during an airshow? They always are. Only the aircraft on display are open to the public, even for shade use. They're not going to have people crawling all around active aircraft. They'd have to go over them all before flying them again.

The Air Force is normally very careful about tail number accuracy. Especially when a treaty is involved, and when dealing with an accident. It makes a hell of a lot of difference when you use 61 instead of 60. I've seen multiple websites using 61.

I don't believe there's a 61, hence the title of the thread about it being a mystery.
edit on 3/4/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


The Air Force is normally very careful about tail number accuracy. Especially when a treaty is involved, and when dealing with an accident. It makes a hell of a lot of difference when you use 61 instead of 60. I've seen multiple websites using 61.


I've absolutely never seen a 61-0049 mentioned in an Air Force site, and that's exactly why i think it's a typo.

Someone most probably just looked at the pics of Ghost Rider, saw its serial number was 61-0007, read from the Air Force site it was going to replace a 0049, didn't even bother searching for the correct serials, and put together the two things going around saying the damaged aircraft was a 61-0049. That's how i think it went.

Once the AIB report will get released we will all have a big laugh at this supposed mistery.

Bet?

If i lose i'm willing to offer you my skills in whatever thing you may need from 3d rendering, to drawing, to topics research.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: CiTrus90

And the PAO just read it wrong? And couldn't confirm it?



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yep. They probably did the same mistake.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: CiTrus90

Their job is to give out accurate information. It's a pretty crappy PAO that makes that kind of mistake instead of picking up a phone and making a call.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Ok, for the record it was me that e-mailed Barksdale PAO. Here is a transcript of the correspondence:

My original inquiry:

From: Withheld
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:43 AM
To: 2BW/PA Organizational Account
Subject: B-52H fire and resurrection inquiry

Hello, I'm wondering if you can tell me the tail number for the aircraft that was involved in the cockpit O2 fire that required the replacement B-52H, 61-0007 "Ghost Rider" to be pulled into active service again?

Also, I've read that the two aircraft are sitting next to each other. Is it possible to get pictures of the two next to each other for posterity sake?

Thanks so much,

The response:

From: 2BW/PA Organizational Account
Date: Thu, Feb 26, 2015 12:52 PM
To: Withheld
Subject:RE: B-52H fire and resurrection inquiry

Mr. (withheld),The B-52 involved in the incident was serial number 61-0049. Unfortunately, due to the ongoing process of reconfiguring these BUFFs, a photo of the two together would not be possible at this time.If you have any further questions, please let me know. For our records, what is your media affiliation?

V/R,2nd Bomb Wing Public Affairs Barksdale Air Force Base,
LAwww.facebook.com/2ndbombwing
www.twitter.com/2ndbombwing
www.youtube.com/2ndbombwing

My reply:

From: Withheld
Date: Thu, Feb 26, 2015 3:03 PM
To: 2BW.PA@us.af.mil;
Subject:Re: B-52H fire and resurrection inquiry

Hello, thanks for your quick response.
The reason for the inquiry is that there seams to be some confusion on the tail number for the damaged B-52H. It was my understanding that tail number 61-0040 was the last production B-52 to come off the line in Oct. 1962. The only match to 61-0049 was an F105D lost in Libya in May of 1962.
There is however a B-52H with tail number 60-0049, and there had been some speculation that there may have been a typo in the official report.
For your records, I'm not affiliated to any one particular media outlet, but rather a member in a group of aviation enthusiast that fact find for several online aviation blog sites and forums.
Thanks again for your help.

No response as of yet, even though the original response was within hours of my initial inquiry.

As of this morning I have also sent a inquiry to Barksdale's FOIA office (barksdale.foia@barksdale.af.mil):


From: Withheld
To:barksdale.foia@barksdale.af.mil
Sent: Wed, Mar 04, 2015 06:04 AM
Subject: B-52H Serial number 61-0049

Hello, I am trying to determine if a reporting error has occurred in the correct serial number for the B-52H that suffered an O2 fire last year that required B-52H 61-0007 to be pulled out of Davis-Monthan. That particular damaged B-52 was reported as serial number 61-0049.
The last B-52H to be built was 61-0040 in 1962. There should not be a B-52H with a serial number 61-0049.
There is however a B-52H that has a serial number of 60-0049. I am wondering if this is in fact the correct serial number for the damaged B-52.
The only serial number match to 61-0049 that I have been able to find was an F105D lost in Libya in May of 1962.
Is it possible to get a photo of the tail number for 61-0049 to verify that is was indeed a 61 series B-52?

Thanks for your help.

I will update this thread upon any reply I get.

edit on 4-3-2015 by Sammamishman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Thanks for mailing the PAO at Barksdale and for posting the transcript Sammamishman .

I, too, mailed them on the 27th asking if they knew what aircraft 61-0007 was going to replace but didn't get any asnwers as of yet.

I suppose someone recognized the mistake too late and got chewed out.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Here is a link to my telephone conversation with Barksdale regarding this incident on Monday. It has been shortened to only include pertinent information, but that's it. They confirmed the B-52H being replaced IS 60-0049.

drive.google.com...



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DaMac

Highest five ever to you, kind Sir.

Thanks for taking the time to ask them directly and sharing this information with us here. Thank you.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: CiTrus90

Glad to do it, was hoping to put the mystery to bed.



posted on Mar, 4 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

I also got a response today back from Barksdale:

RE: B-52H fire and resurrection inquiry
From: 2BW/PA Organizational Account
To: Withheld
Sent: Wed, Mar 04, 2015 12:45 PM

Mr. (Withheld),

After doing some research, you are correct. The aircraft involved was tail number
60-0049.

V/R,

CS

//SIGNED//
Christopher P. Sullivan, 1Lt,USAF
Deputy Chief, 2nd Bomb Wing Public Affairs
Barksdale Air Force Base, LA
Commercial: 318-456-3858
DSN: 781-3858
www.facebook.com/2ndbombwing
www.twitter.com/2ndbombwing
www.youtube.com/2ndbombwing



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join