FACEBOOK
TWITTER
B 52 TEST FLIGHTS DEBUNK 9/11 ONCE AND FOR ALL
- Dale Felix and Jim Goodell after structural demo flight
B 52 DISINTIGATES AT 300 FEET AT 400 KTS….
By Jim Goodell – test pilot for Boeing for 30 years. This story recounts his experiences in flight testing of jet bombers in Boeing Wichita -
Editor’s note: The B-52 Stratofortress, one of the most robust aircraft ever built disintegrated, killing her crew, when tested at the same speed and 10 times the altitude as the 757 alleged to have hit the Pentagon. Follow the world’s finest test pilots in their attempts to make the world’s strongest aircraft fly 4 times higher than the Pentagon at speeds approaching “9/11″
Chapter 6: B52 Structural Demonstration
I flew on various B-52 test programs until I finally got my hands on a test program I could sink my teeth into, a structural demonstration, flight loads survey, and a landing loads survey. This program lasted a year. Besides performing the maneuvers required to get the structural loads on the airplane, a lot of aerial refueling was required to get the airplane up to weight. On a typical flight we took off at a gross weight of 400,000 Ibs. and refueled to 450,000 Ibs. or 488,000 Ibs. to get to the weight required for a demonstration point.
At first the refueling was difficult until I learned how. The airplane involved was the B52G. Aerodynamically the wing was the same, but made of different aluminum, lighter and stronger. Refueling the B52G was more difficult than previous models. We blamed it on the lateral control system which used only spoilers. Previous models had ailerons and spoilers. The spoilers seemed more difficult to get small corrections with and they caused more pitching. During the first refueling I don’t think I gained much fuel. I believe we burned almost as much fuel as we took on from the tanker.
Finally I became proficient and we moved on down the road. It was a long program what with weather problems, instrumentation problems, and just a lot of points to get. Briefly it required 2 g pull-ups at max speed, and minimum speed, minus 1 g pushovers at maximum and minimum speeds. It required rolling pullouts at maximum roll rates, elevator reversals at certain speeds, many landings at various rates of sink, and a lot of roller coasters for instrumentation calibration. The demonstration had to be done at two different weights, 450,000 Ibs. and 488,000 Ibs. The g loadings were 2gs at 450,000 Ibs. and 1.8 gs. At 488,000 Ibs.
B52 in refueling position
Test B52 with F86 chase planeThe max speed pull-ups did not seem to be a problem, but the max speed push overs were something else. I pushed for all I was worth and just barely made it. The low speed pull-up was a surprise. I hit buffet and the airplane pitched on up by itself. We got into severe buffet, and I thought I had broken the airplane. The buffeting was so bad I couldn’t keep my feet on the rudder pedals. It turned out that as the airplane buffeted the wings were unloaded and nothing was hurt. The elevator reversals were difficult.
I was supposed to reverse the elevators at a certain speed and g loading. For example at 250 kts pull up to 1.3g then rapidly push over to lg. I could not get calibrated. Finally one of the mechanics designed and built a stop to be put on the control column. Then all I had to do was establish the speed, pull back to the stop until the 1.5g was obtained then push forward to the other stop. It took a few tries to get the stops set right, then it worked fine.
Part of the demonstration was sideslip. For some reason the engineers wanted the sideslip measured to one tenth of a degree. We had no instrumentation that could measure that fine. Finally some one decided we should use the confetti method. A camera was sighted in looking dead ahead on the center line of the airplane. This camera was mounted in the cockpit. The airplane was flown in confetti dispensed by an airplane out in front. The sideslip was measured on the film taken from the cockpit camera. The sideslip angle was the angle between the cross hairs dead ahead and the confetti source as seen on film. It worked, but I would never recommend the method to any one else. It must have taken a ton of confetti. It took numerous flights with guys working like beavers in the tail of a KC-135 Tanker airplane filling the hopper of a confetti dispenser. I think they used buckets. The confetti clouds we flew in were so thick that twice we had to land without airspeed indications because the confetti had choked up our pitot tubes.
Another problem developed. The confetti was red and farmers began to complain about it lying in their fields, particularly the pastures. They said their cows were giving pink milk. I don’t know how they found out where the confetti came from. That ended the confetti method. I think we were through anyway.
The landing loads survey was fun except for the early starting times. The landings required absolutely smooth air, and the only time we could be sure of that was very early in the morning, right at sun up. The test required landings at various rates of sink at max. landing weight. The toughy was max. rate of sink rear gear first. I always seemed to chicken out and pull up too much just before the rear gear struck the earth. I had to get the nose pretty high to get the rear gear to hit first. I finally decided to pull the spoilers up just before landing. This worked fine. The nose pitched up and the airplane fell like a ton of bricks. Completion of the landing loads survey completed the B52G structural test program.
Dale Felix and Jim Goodell after structural demo flightAs with the B-47 it was decided that it was going to be difficult if not impossible to penetrate Russia with the B-52 at high altitude.
A low-level test program came into being for the B-52. The idea was to fly the B-52 at low level a lot, 300 ft. above the ground, to see how it did and fix anything that needed fixing. The B-52 was not designed for low level flying, so it did not do very good.
The first flights precipitated a lot of secondary structural failures. For example some of the skin on top of the horizontal stabilizer would occasionally peel off.
It was found that the windshield got all bugged up so the pilots could not see out. I don’t think that problem was ever solved.
After a time a primary structural failure occurred and an airplane was lost. A test airplane out of Seattle went down near Burns, Oregon. The test airplane had made several test flights over a test course at speeds up to 400kts. (Editor’s note: Never at a speed as high as the vastly weeker Boeing 757 theoretically few into the pentagon at…only 25 feet off the ground.)
The flight crews reported a lot of turbulence and a very rough ride on previous flights, but since the airplane was designed to withstand wind gusts up to 55kts. And gusts exceeding that speed rarely if ever occurred, no concern was felt for the safety of the airplane. The flight crews were concerned because it was brutal punishment. When the airplane crashed with the loss of the crew an investigation was started. In the meantime the flight crews refused to fly high speed low level flights. After reduction of the data from previous flights, it was found that the test airplane had encountered wind gusts of up to 80 feet per second. The design criteria of the airplane had been exceeded.
On the particular accident the horizontal stabilizer of the airplane had failed and the airplane had dived into the ground in less than a second. There was no time to eject from the airplane. At the low altitude the airplane was flying it is doubtful that an ejection would have been successful anyway. This is one thing the flight crews objected to, that is being in a dangerous situation with no possible means of escape. The navigators were particularly unhappy because their ejection seats fired downward.
A fix for the horizontal stabilizer was arrived at and incorporated low level flight testing resumed. Flight crews were still unhappy about the situation but had no recourse short of quitting. Nobody did that because we all needed the money. It was decided to resume testing by gradually increasing the speed of low level flight. A low level course was selected running from south Texas to North Dakota and running along the eastern border of Colorado. The course was about a thousand miles long.
The altitude to be flown was 300ft. above the ground and the speeds were to start at 300kts. And to be gradually increased to 400kts. On subsequent flights. Ray McPherson and I decided to go on these flights. He was the Chief of Flight Test for Boeing- Wichita at the time and I was his assistant. We thought we should assume the risk rather than ask other pilots. We found some willing navigators and got an occasional tail gunner from Boeing or the Air Force. The tail gunner position was the worst position because it was at the tail end of the whip. The participants back there got beat up and really needed their hard hats.
We pilots thought we could navigate by looking outside and referring to the map. It turned out to be impossible. Things went by too fast and at the low level there weren’t enough land marks visible. The airplanes navigation system run by the navigator was necessary.
We made three trips. The last trip was made at 400kts. We smashed a lot of bugs, scared a lot of cattle, beat up several tail gunners, but we made it. The airplane was considered fixed, but the flight crews were not convinced. It just seemed like too much punishment for the airframe.
One pilot. Jack Funk, described it as like flying formation with a bunch of loose parts.
In the meantime the engineers were figuring out a way to do the thing on instruments using terrain clearing radar.
N.D. Showalter Jr was the project pilot on this program. He did an excellent job and became the expert on terrain clearing radar for the B-52. John Rutherford was another pilot who did a lot of low level flying with and without radar. John was an enigma. A lot of things about high altitude flying bothered him, flutter and such, but low level flying seemed to be his dish. I went with him on one flight over the Rockies when we started at the bottom of a 10,000 ft. ridge at 325 kts. And went over the top at less than 200kts. I wondered if we were going to run out of speed before we cleared the top. John flew it with all the confidence in the world.
B52H Test Crew (photo right)
Eventually another airplane broke.
Chuck Fisher and crew were flying over the eastern edge of the Rockies when they hit severe turbulence and the vertical fin of the airplane broke off. This was a touch and go situation because the airplane had no directional stability and could easily have rolled over and gone in.
They put the rear landing gear down, which gave them a little bit of stability, and flew the airplane to a base in Arkansas. The wind was calm there, so they were able to make a successful landing. Charlie was quite a hero after that, and rightfully so. After Charlie’s incident it was back to the drawing board for structural fixes. Low level testing was resumed later, but at reduced airspeeds. Development and testing of terrain clearing radar continued.
B-52 production ended with the B-52H model in 1960, but the flight testing continued into the seventies and probably even into the eighties. After production stopped things gradually slowed up at Boeing-Wichita, and I became concerned about the future. Besides I had a management job that didn’t involve flying. My boss, Ray McPherson offered me the opportunity to transfer to Seattle to fly the jet transports. I grabbed it in a hurry.
That was the end of Boeing-Wichita for me. It was quite an adventure, and I enjoyed it. I enjoyed working with the people and testing the jet bombers. They made the jet transports possible.
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=46909
Posted by Johnny Punish on Aug 29 2010, With 0 Reads, Filed under Heroes, Military. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
COMMENTS
To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback
The A model, from recollection, had a higher vertical stabilizer. The control surface failed during one of the low level flight test. With some later model, the height was reduced. Right?
I once challenged someone on the internet with this that was holding out for a plane at the Pentagon. He retorted with “that was old technology”.
Good article. But the facts are in the details. The B-52 and the 7X7s are completely different birds, different airframes.
I and thousands of others watched one of the original 707s “barrel roll” over Lake Washington in Seattle at between 700 and 1000 feet. I don’t remember the airspeed. It was also on TV during the yearly Seattle Seafair hydroplane races on the Lake.
The Chief Boeing test pilot, “Tex ????” (I forget his name at the moment) got an emergency radio call from Boeing’s President to, “Land Boeing’s future immediately and report to my office.” He had been watching the boat races on T.V.
Tex landed, and later reported he knew he was going to be fired as he headed for the President’s office. In the interim, he was saved.
The head of United Airlines called the Boeing President and said, “I’ve been watching the boat races on TV. I saw that new plane of yours barrel roll! Incredible! If you can do that, it must be the best passenger plane ever. United is placing an order for X new planes, immediately”
By the time Tex reached the office, the deal was done. The Boeing guy said, “Tex, your ass has been saved. BUT, don’t do it again. You had Boeing’s future and the future of 100,000 Boeiing families in your hands.”
I will add, as a former Boeing engineer, he admitted in my presence that he had previously, secretly barrel rolled it, out of sight over the Pacific Ocean so he and his crew knew they were safe. He also admitted in my presence that he flew that same 707 UNDER the Tacoma Narrows bridge at probably 150-200 mph.
I also worked on the flight avionics and armament on the B-52. I don’t think it would be possible to ever barrel roll that long, skinny puppy.
___
As far as the 757/767s, flying them manually would make your assumptions correct. However, pre-programmmed flight computers could handle the WTC and Pentagon with ease. After all, it is just another automatic landing job — only not using an airport.
This has led me to the further conclusion was the Pennsylvania crash was precisely because the “let’s roll” guys perhaps retook the cockpit, perhaps took it out of autopilot if they knew how, or the highjacker pilot knew they were in trouble and took it out of autopilot himself, ensuring a crash.
As far as an inside job, if any, your search should focus on any flight path downloads that would change routes and destinations automatically in the flight computer(s). I can’t really help you there, but it’s a thought. Further, the computer firewalls have been drammatically improved since 9/11 so what might have happened then, would be much, much more difficult today.
Texas Vet
Tom,
Yup, the B52 airframe is 15 times more robust than the 757 and can handle endless more stress. I ran this past Nils…who indicated the 757 even with flight computers could never have come close…couldn’t even have been controlled.
g
Hi g, I’ll be out of pocket for the next week, with no computer access. But, in a week or so, if Nils is so inclined, we can email each other as long as no trade secrets are involved — or higher level info on the B-52s. It might not be totally exciting in the online world, but I still value my security clearance.
As a hint, ask Nils if he ever landed a 7×7 by autopilot?
Tom
PS G — thanks. I’m saving the Germany / Black Forest / Alsace / Eagle’s Nest trip for next Spring-Summer timeframe. If you’re able, I’d love to have your able advice.
T.
This information is in support of the plane flying so low to the ground. I’m not a pilot so I don’t know if this is accurate about the flight control computer but here it is:
Hani Hanjour may not have been up to the task, but a 757′s flight control computer seems sufficient. It’s equipped with radar altimeters and accurate GPS monitors for precise altitude and position tracking. It can analyze and respond to conditions hundreds of times per second. Examples of the extreme capabilities of fly-by-wire systems are reverse swept-wing aircraft, which are inherently unstable and require rapid adjustment of the plane’s control surfaces.
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/aerobatics.html
I realize there is debate over the stress factor on the plane.
Brian
I have both pilots and engineers. There is no debate only a coverup.
plane can’ t do it…end of story
ask them to try
it is suicide …taking a 757 at even 300 down to 100 feet…which would clear the pentagon
plane would turn to scrap in seconds
plus
no pilot in the world, even with limited fly by wire…which would not function under those circumstances….could do it
none
no test pilot alive
g
g => it is suicide …taking a 757 at even 300 down to 100 feet…..
TV => Yep, but then, it was a suicide mission …. See you guys net weekend
T.V.
Tom,
By suicide…..meaning…the plane would be unable to fly and thus be unable to hit anything. However, you know that very well as you also understood the earlier article proving the plane unable to stay airborne at that altitude and the proof it was structurally unable to perform.
You were also aware the site had no 757 wreckage or bodies.
You were also aware the pilots…to call them that….could never have found the pentagon much less hit it.
You are simply part of the problem…..willing to ignore science, truth and the obvious fact that political leaders that you supported attacked the united states.
g
Gordon, there are photographs of the plane wreckage, plenty of eyewitnesses and the government claims they have been able to identify all but one of the passengers with forensics. I suppose it could be a sham, but to me unlikely.
At around 3:40 a.m on September 14, a paramedic and a firefighter who were searching through the debris of the impact site found two dark boxes, about 1.5 by 2 feet long. They called for an FBI agent, who in turn called for someone from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The NTSB employee confirmed that these were the black boxes from American Airlines Flight 77.
The cockpit voice recorder was quickly transported to the NTSB lab in Washington, D.C., and its data was downloaded. Soon afterward, the FBI took charge of the box and its data.[83] CBS News reported that “Preliminary information shows there is nothing that appears to be useful on the cockpit voice tape. The tape appears to be blank or erased.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77
As you know I am not a military person, but why did hundreds of people mention they saw a commercial airliner heading to the Pentagon, numerous individuals seeing the plane at the Pentagon, and some people witnessed it hit the Pentagon but nobody mentioned seeing a missile. Do they soar through the sky at such a high speed that they are not visible to humans? Asking the question with respect to you. I don’t know much about missiles.
I don’t know much about airplanes but this is an interesting comment from Texas Vet: As far as the 757/767s, flying them manually would make your assumptions correct. However, pre-programmmed flight computers could handle the WTC and Pentagon with ease. After all, it is just another automatic landing job — only not using an airport.
From Michael Rivero who runs whatreallyhappened.com. I don’t think he will mind if I post his comment he sent me:
My main argument against the no-plane absurdity is there is no reason for a deception here. The peeps have to get rid of a 757 full of people anyway; why not crash them into the Pentagon? What us to be gained by a high risk deception involving a swap? Hundreds of people saw the plane fly towards the Pentagon. Not one witness saw it fly away. Where did it go if not into the building?
CNN reporter Mcintyre who was at the crash scene at the Pentagon:
MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN in which I — myself — appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: From my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site near the pentagon only at the Pentagon
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/16/transcript.wed/index.html
I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.35.html
I took pictures of some of the wreckage, some of the parts of the fuselage, a part of the cockpit, until they told us we had to move back away from the scene.
I saw thousands of shards of metal, of pieces of the plane all over the driveway. I didn’t pick up any of them or touch any of them, but I saw them everywhere. And again, took some pictures of them.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/16/lol.04.html
Well, perhaps a large plane actually hit the Pentagon.
That is what he said afterwards, that morning he stated he saw no evidence of a large commercial aircraft at the site. For what it’s worth, I don’t believe a large aircraft struck the Pentagon. I believe it flew over the pentagon and a coordinated explosion (perhaps a missile) happened within the building. You may be interested in the following interview with Craig Ranke of the Citizens Investigation Team.
###
August 7, 2010
Kevin Barrett talks with Craig Ranke of Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), makers of the documentary National Security Alert. They discuss the CIT tour of Europe scheduled around this upcoming 9/11 anniversary. Craig also discusses 911blogger’s bizarre decision to censor Barrie Zwicker’s ringing endorsement of CIT.
http://edwardrynearson.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/kevin-barrett-craig-ranke/
Edward, read it again:
MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN in which I — myself — appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: From my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site near the pentagon only at the Pentagon
Crash site only at the Pentagon not near the Pentagon.
9-11 Victims’ Families Exposing Building 7 Collapse
http://uncensored.co.nz/2010/08/29/13658/
[...] B 52 TEST FLIGHTS DEBUNK 9/11 ONCE AND FOR ALL : Veterans Today [...]
no plane hit the pentagon. I believe it was a missle…for no plane which disintrgrated on impact could actually penetrate 6 concrete, reienforced walls.
the pentagon was built to withstand an attack. it was built with defences…only a missle could get through those defenses.
where the real plane went? Not sure. But it didn’t hit the pentagon.
I have read a number of articles about 911 and the Pentagon and struggle with the standard spin. I confess I don’t know a lot about commercial plane’s or their auto pilot but if it was used when did they set it? Was it set prior to the plane descending or after? I understand gps and how it can pinpoint your location but can the auto pilot find your building, fly pass it, turn around and come back and put it in door number 1? Air Traffic Controller said it was a military maneuver. So when was it engaged or was door number 1 painted with …….? We know the the guy wasn’t that good of a pilot. Just asking?
Joey,
It goes further. Take some time to study. Be careful…alot of crazy stuff out there…even crazier than the govenrments “boxcutter” cover story.
Pentagon….no plane is capable of flying that low.
A B 52 can go no lower than 300 feet…and it is alot stronger than a 757. http://www.jetbombers.com/chapter6.html
Let Boeing and the DOD debunk 9/11 for you.
g
Brian,
Let me understand this. The Pilot takes the 757 over the capital and passes the Pentagon up then returns to the Pentagon with a 270 degree turn at 400+ miles an hour while in a 7000 feet dive to put it in door number 1. Door number one was the just complete remodeled section of the Pentagon that was used by the department of the Navy. Strange, why would “the Pilot” do such aerial acrobatics if all he wanted to do is hit the Pentagon? Just asking?
Oh, by the way there was an eye witness that said he saw a “Big Ass Gray Plane” land at the Pentagon (crash) and also saw a 4 engine propeller driven plane (can you say C-130) right behind it that turned away. It’s on youtube if you care to google it. Again just asking for a reasonable explanation from the powers that be; whoever they are???