Comments by "Sar Jim" (@sarjim4381) on "Operation Chrome Dome and the Palomares Incident" video.

There are no B-52 pilots now flying that are older than the B-52 they are flying. Even more amazing. the Air Force expects the upgrades performed from 2013 to 2015 to allow the aircraft to remain in active combat service until at least 2050, when the youngest plane will be about 85 years old and the eldest near 100 years old. No other aircraft has even come close to these records.
42
Humberto, my dad was an engineer who worked on the landing gear for the B-52 and 747. Both were the most complicated gear ever devised to that time and, as you say, were all done with pen, paper, and a slide rule. Some primitive CAD programs running on mainframes were just coming in at the end of the 747 project, and my dad hated them. He thought a slide rule was all you needed, and used one until he passed away in 2005. Looking at the results, it's hard to argue with that.
22
Indeed, the DC-3/C-47 has now been in service for for nearly 75 years. It's doubtful any will remain in military service more than the next 20 years from now just because so many surplus twin engine turboprops and jets will be available at attractive prices. Still, that would put them at 90-95 years old. However, I was careful to protect myself by stipulating combat aircraft. Transports tend to live more sedate lives than combat aircraft, and the idea of a combat aircraft that might be 90-100 years old and still in effective military service is really astounding.
21
Humberto, Thanks. My dad wanted to be a pilot but, like you, he was washed out because of his eyesight. He spent his three years in the Pacific as a motor machinist mate on a PT boat. That's cool that you managed to get all the way up to your commercial transport license and are flying a later model of the plane that my dad helped to engineer. He started working on the 747 gear when it was still a design project for a military transport. When that contract went to Lockheed for what became the C-5 Galaxy, he thought he was done with that project. He would have been if not for Juan Trippe having the vision to see this monster as a viable airliner. I believe the basic structure and hydraulics of the gear is still the same as it was on those original Pan Am 747-100's. Ironically, the best flight I ever had on a 747 was six days after 9/11 on an Air New Zealand flight from LA to Fiji for a dive trip. We had planned the trip for a year, and we were going as long as they could get the flights restarted. IIRC, there were a grand total of 18 of us on that almost brand new 747-400, all of us in free first class seats and eating free first class food. The number of pax's must have been close to the number of flight attendants on the trip since it seemed like I had my own personal attendant for the flight. Marilyn was her name...but I digress. It's a long ass haul to Fiji but, with the main cabin virtually empty, we all had our own beds, stretched out across that whole center row of seats. Marilyn bought me blankets and extra pillows to make sure I was comfortable. What flight that was!
10
Tipper, I would give my left testicle...hell, maybe both, to fly a B-52. I'm just a GA pilot. Well, it's past tense now, since age and blood pressure got me, so I'd probably end up putting the plane into the ground, but it sure would be fun for as long as it lasted!
8
I remember reading an article in Strategic Studies Quarterly that the 2013-2015 upgrades were a total skin off rebuild so they can examine frames parts for corrosion or cracking. We have 76 B-52's in service, and a surprising 80% still have the original frame members. There were some cracking problems in the early 00's so every frame component that needed it got replaced. Even after the rebuilds, the majority of frames are still original. The combination of overbuilt components from the 50's, before bleeding edge computer designs, and the relatively few hours each flies during a typical year, are why they are still in the air. The other issue is the cost of a brand new bomber. A B-2 cost $6 billion compared to an average of $500 million for each B-52. $500 million is still a lot of money, but not bad considering we are getting what are, in essence, 12 new bombers for the price of one B-2.
7
James, the only thing I'm close to is an Army helicopter base. Hearing them all day is not the same as some big turbojets hanging from "real" aircraft.
4
@aaronanderson7619 Indeed. My dad was a mechanical engineer that worked on the landing gear design and construction of the B-52 and 747 during his career. The B-52 was mostly build in the pre-computer age, so they'd come up with their load factors and then add 10% for safety. I think the longevity of the aircraft is a testimony to the job all the engineers did that most of the aircraft will be 90 years old at retirement (assuming that really happens in 2050). There are still 78 B-52s left in service today By comparison, only 21 B-2 bombers were ordered due to spiraling cost and only 20 are left after one crashed on landing in Guam. The B-21 Raider, the supposed replacement of the B-52, is now projected to cost $550 million per airframe. Since the B-21 is expected fulfill many more roles than B-2, which wound up costing $1.2 billion per airframe. The probability one will really cost $550 million and the Pentagon will really be able to get the 100 aircraft it wants are both near zero. The B-52H, even with all the many upgrades done in its lifetime, only cost $60.1 million in 2018 dollars. Anyway, Merry Christmas to you as well.
3