Erm...that's Missing Quite An Important Bit (Aircraft Content)

[Dr H]

Apparently the crew were able to land it safely!

 

[Reg]

It's a B52 rear gunner that is credited with the last ever ariel rear gunner kill (a Mig, if I remember correctly).

[Mutley00]

Kurt,

 

Weren't you the last to service this before it took off

[KurtB]

Kurt,

 

Weren't you the last to service this before it took off

 

Not me chief! 

[KurtB]

Apparently the crew were able to land it safely!

 

They used differential throttle and extended to rear undercarriage only to put some vertical area behind the centre of gravity.

[Dr H]

They used differential throttle and extended to rear undercarriage only to put some vertical area behind the centre of gravity.

 

Obvious way of dealing with it. I knew that's what they had done.......

[Spitfire]

They used differential throttle and extended to rear undercarriage only to put some vertical area behind the centre of gravity.

 

Nice pic

Not sure it would have created a great a problem as it looks really, the loss of yaw is easily compensated for by the diff throttle as mentioned, especially at low speeds where it losses effect anyway.

Possibly the gear extension was also for hydraulic reasons? with the loss of hydraulics caused by the fin damage maybe they wanted to make sure it went down before fluid loss became an issue though I'm not sure if it is on the same hyd circuit or what secondary systems are available on this type.

 

The CofG change is academic as the fin would not weigh much and they usually had several hundered tons of bombs loaded, The avarage being aft of the CofG

 

Luckily it wasn't the stabiliser otherwise we would be looking at the big hole it left in the ground.

 

[TimSportsTourer]

Must have had a very long, thin, stiff selfie-stick to take the photo, though.

[KurtB]

Nice pic

Not sure it would have created a great a problem as it looks really, the loss of yaw is easily compensated for by the diff throttle as mentioned, especially at low speeds where it losses effect anyway.

Possibly the gear extension was also for hydraulic reasons? with the loss of hydraulics caused by the fin damage maybe they wanted to make sure it went down before fluid loss became an issue though I'm not sure if it is on the same hyd circuit or what secondary systems are available on this type.

 

The CofG change is academic as the fin would not weigh much and they usually had several hundered tons of bombs loaded, The avarage being aft of the CofG

 

Luckily it wasn't the stabiliser otherwise we would be looking at the big hole it left in the ground.

 

Note only the aft gear is down not the nose gear or outriggers, this was done to add vertical area lost by the fin. There is still a huge area of vertical surface in the fuselage sides ahead of the centre of pressure/gravity which would act to destabilise the aircraft in yaw. I'm a little at a loss as to why you'd think that Boeing thought to put a massive fin (vertical stabiliser) on the early B-52's if it's loss wouldn't have caused "a great problem"?

 

The gear has a double redundant system, in that it has a hyd run round to lower under its own weight, and a nitrogen blow down system to facilitate travel and locking.

[Spitfire]

Note only the aft gear is down not the nose gear or outriggers, this was done to add vertical area lost by the fin. There is still a huge area of vertical surface in the fuselage sides ahead of the centre of pressure/gravity which would act to destabilise the aircraft in yaw. I'm a little at a loss as to why you'd think that Boeing thought to put a massive fin (vertical stabiliser) on the early B-52's if it's loss wouldn't have caused "a great problem"?

 

The gear has a double redundant system, in that it has a hyd run round to lower under its own weight, and a nitrogen blow down system to facilitate travel and locking.

 

Good points Kurt, worth another thought.

But I'm still not sure about the rear gear acting as you mention.

I cannot see any obvious form that would cause it to behave that way, for a start it is much wider than it is long. The small directional change in airflow over such a small area as the side of the wheel(s) and the shambolic shape in terms of aerodynamics for the rest of the gear, I think the effect would appear to be too minimal.

 

What is far more evident is the huge drag it generates, this being behind the CofG will cause a differential thrust along the lontitudinal axis should they be out of line and this would certainly help stability, and more importantly, increase rapidly as the differential increased and visa versa which would also help to not only rapidly oppose but also dampen the yaw moments.

 

As for the great problem, it was landed safely and on a runway so in my book that counts as a win.

Rule number 1. Don't hit the ground

Seriously, to meet all the handling criteria and certification of any aircraft you need all the surfaces working, but that is not the same as limping home.

After the Japanese 747 crash the sims were programmed with a loss of tail program, it really is not as bad as you may imagine to fly, even with crosswinds where it actually becomes easier!

 

Meant to add, the fact the gear can be seperately controlled would indicate this advantage had been considered before….. possibly from the war?