It was not immediately clear what caused the crash.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -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