Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner)
Reload this Page >

B52 Bomber Mildenhall Air Fete Take Off!

Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner) If you're not a professional pilot but want to discuss issues about the job, this is the best place to loiter. You won't be moved on by 'security' and there'll be plenty of experts to answer any questions.

B52 Bomber Mildenhall Air Fete Take Off!

Reply

Old 12th Apr 2018, 18:01
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 2
B52 Bomber Mildenhall Air Fete Take Off!

Was at one of the Mildenhall Airshows back in the 80's when a B52 started it's take off run down the runway, it came off the deck at a very low nose down attitude ( which I know they normally do ) but on this occasion it wasn't getting any higher and kept this very low attitude with nose only a couple of feet off the ground and getting closer to it. Everyone was shaking their heads in disbelief as we had visions of it going in. Luckily it got airborne that was also another close call!

Glider 90
GLIDER 90 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Apr 2018, 19:05
  #2 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 54
Posts: 5,002
I remember that take off, bit more than a couple of feet; spectacular certainly but not a close call.

Saw a Buffalo do something similar from Gatwick once, lift off, nose down, gear up, held low for a short while before climbing out in a curiously flat attitude.
treadigraph is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Apr 2018, 19:08
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 2
It looked close to me and so did many others!
GLIDER 90 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 13th Apr 2018, 12:26
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,889
You seem obsessed with close calls! Unfortunately many amateurs think things look bad when, in fact, they are perfectly normal.
Groundloop is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Apr 2018, 00:46
  #5 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 54
Posts: 5,002
Originally Posted by Groundloop View Post
You seem obsessed with close calls! Unfortunately many amateurs think things look bad when, in fact, they are perfectly normal.
Looked odd to some apparently, not to me, a great demo of the B-52's capabilities. If anyone is tempted to call "Bud Holland", I gather it wasn't.
treadigraph is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Apr 2018, 11:01
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NI
Posts: 915
Completely tangential and pedantic but I don't understand why people omit the hyphen and write the likes of B52 and F35. They don't randomly add hyphens to make 7-3-7 or A-320 so why omit them from other designations?

I suppose one possible comeback is 'I was using the ICAO type codes'.

Admittedly it is marginally better than 'BBC Standard' which appears to be Hercules C-130-J.
El Bunto is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Apr 2018, 17:57
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 8,983
Originally Posted by El Bunto View Post
Completely tangential and pedantic but I don't understand why people omit the hyphen and write the likes of B52 and F35. They don't randomly add hyphens to make 7-3-7 or A-320 so why omit them from other designations?

I suppose one possible comeback is 'I was using the ICAO type codes'.
But note that the ICAO decode for A332, for example, is "Airbus A-332-200".

Other types suffering from ICAO hyphen-rash include the "BAe-146" and most of Aerospatiale's helicopters.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Apr 2018, 20:41
  #8 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 54
Posts: 5,002
Noticed an aviation mag article recently in which various Wichita types had become Cessna C152, Cessna C172, etc... I did find it a bit grating!
treadigraph is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 17th Apr 2018, 12:21
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dorset UK
Age: 65
Posts: 915
Back on the B52 at Mildenhall topic.
I remember one show about 1970, standing beside an American who said "Look at this bird go". The B52 then took off due to the earth's curvature, as usual, did a couple of flybys and departed to the States.
About 2 items later the 5 engined Vulcan did it's display and said American's jaw dropped to the floor.
dixi188 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 17th Apr 2018, 18:58
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: 12 miles off
Posts: 203
Returning to the original post and the "nose down attitude". Never having had the opportunity to take to the air in a BUFF I have a question for those who have.

On rotation do you actually pull the yoke towards you?

Apologies in adavnce if this is a dumb question
Akrotiri bad boy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 17th Apr 2018, 21:18
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: birmingham
Age: 56
Posts: 12
There is not such thing as a dumb question, only a dumb answer. Doh
ex fat repair team is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 17th Apr 2018, 23:32
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Penzance
Age: 68
Posts: 492
Originally Posted by dixi188 View Post
Back on the B52 at Mildenhall topic.
I remember one show about 1970, standing beside an American who said "Look at this bird go". The B52 then took off due to the earth's curvature, as usual, did a couple of flybys and departed to the States.
About 2 items later the 5 engined Vulcan did it's display and said American's jaw dropped to the floor.




Wot, like that?
RedhillPhil is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Apr 2018, 12:52
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,520
Note the longitudinal axis of the B52 on climb out. It does look very flat. I've seen the too, but too many years ago to be accurate. What I do remember is the Vulcan takeoff in reheat and finding I could hardly breath. Chest pain was very real. Ears were also protesting and not one H&E Db meter holding numpty in sight. Ah, the days before them were relaxed.
RAT 5 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Apr 2018, 13:23
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 53
nose-down attitude at take-off B-52 ground effect

(Dumb question? er...question sequence)
Doesn't something called "ground effect" enhance lift below some very low altitude? So wouldn't that, plus lower Cd due to gear up, make very low flight above a runway a good place to accelerate? And wouldn't a low-nose attitude sort of facilitate this low flat flight regime? And reduce tire wear, in comparison to developing pre-rotation velocity in normal fashion?
dogsridewith is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Apr 2018, 18:49
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 2,066
Originally Posted by RAT 5 View Post
Note the longitudinal axis of the B52 on climb out. It does look very flat. I've seen the too, but too many years ago to be accurate. What I do remember is the Vulcan takeoff in reheat and finding I could hardly breath. Chest pain was very real. Ears were also protesting and not one H&E Db meter holding numpty in sight. Ah, the days before them were relaxed.
Reheat on a Vulcan? Vulcan test-beds did carry under slung engines for the likes of the Concorde, Tornado and TSR2.

Some details and pics of the under slung engines carried on Vulcan test-beds.

Jet Age - Pt 6 - Vulcan To The Sky
TEEEJ is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 19th Apr 2018, 14:22
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,016
Wasn't there a story about one of the bombing competitions in the USA attended by Vulcans? Something about the height a Vulcan could reach from a standing start and before passing the far end of the runway. The Vulcan crews won a case of whisky?
Hartington is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2018, 15:39
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,386
The Buff has four trucks for the undercarriage. Two in front and two behind the bomb bay. You try and land it like a conventional aircraft and it will porpoise as it bounces from front to rear trucks. For this reason it is designed to land with the fuselage level. In crosswind conditions the trucks can be turned so that the aircraft will track along the runway even though the nose is offset to counteract the drift.

Take off is the same. It runs along the runway until the wings overcome it's weight and then it will get airborne, again in a level attitude. It will maintain that level attitude as it increases speed as the flaps are pulled in.
Fareastdriver is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Apr 2018, 12:54
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Trangression Zone
Posts: 2,049
This is off topic but it's something that I'm very curious what is the maximum number of engines that the B52 lose for Takeoff and en enroute?
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Apr 2018, 21:19
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,055
Originally Posted by dogsridewith View Post
Doesn't something called "ground effect" enhance lift below some very low altitude? So wouldn't that, plus lower Cd due to gear up, make very low flight above a runway a good place to accelerate? And wouldn't a low-nose attitude sort of facilitate this low flat flight regime? And reduce tire wear, in comparison to developing pre-rotation velocity in normal fashion?
Ground effect peters out above 1/2 wing span or so.

Note that the B-52 has HUGE flaps, effectively increasing the angle of attack well above the wing's angle of incidence. Combined with ground effect, the B-52 can indeed climb away from the ground with a flat (or even negative) fuselage attitude.

"Very low flight" may be a good place to accelerate theoretically, but proximity to the ground also makes it more dangerous and subject to often-uncontrollable outside influences (birds, turbulence...) that may tend to reduce altitude to 0.
Intruder is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24th Apr 2018, 03:26
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 53
Landing gear drag versus angle in raising or lowering

Is it ever too low to raise gear if there isn't enough runway left to abort take-off?
As gear generally or always rotates longitudinally or laterally, is there any angle in its movement where drag is higher than when fully extended?
dogsridewith is offline  
Reply With Quote

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service