It was not immediately clear what caused the crash.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 4 months ago (8 children)

Trying to remember what I can of the B-52, I would be absolutely gobsmacked if it was a fuel and or engine problem considering it has 8 turbines. Considering there doesn't look like any secondary explosions would rule out some sort of payload shift. That seems to leave just an unintentional stall or indeed a jammed control surface. Considering the contractors, there is a non-zero chance they were instrumental in this.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Remember the B stands for Boeing (I know it’s actually Bomber for the class, but it fits too well here). Feel bad for the crew though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Boeing is the poster child of what killed the USA.

    Boeing went from an engineer centric company and was poisoned by a "reverse-merger" that put people who already killed one manufacturer in charge. These parasites proceeded to stick to the same playbook that drove them into the ground plus double downed on their greed. I added up all the stock buybacks which looks like legal embezzlement and it was more then the research and development costs of the 777 and the 787 combined. I didn't bother with adjusting for inflation as the buybacks are spread over decades, so the true cost is definitely worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

    Also one-wings are notoriously hard to fly and B-52's are actively supporting the pilot (via computers) to even make it operational for a human, if I don't misremember. So maybe that failed?

    Having passive assistance that couldn't fail would actually be a great thing an bring one-wing designs into the commercial aviation.

    Edit: I was mistakenly speaking about a (rather) modern bomber B2. Mistook it for the B-52, which isn't a one-wing and built not long after the second world war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    B-52 not B2 Thing is from the 50s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (2 children)

    Oh shit, my bad. I thought one-wing bomber. This us a flying fortress, no? Put an edit on my original comment.

    Thanks for the correction

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    No. Flying fortress are the old old bomber from early cold war. They flew a lot in Vietnam. Slow slow planes. They also leave a black streak across the sky from the exhaust.

    B1B is supersonic with the moving wings B2 is subsonic one wing

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment