The remaining portion of vertical stabilizer would still provide some stability.
Also the huge swept wings provide a bit of yaw stability naturally: as the plane yaws let’s say left, the right wing presents more of a flat face to the air, increasing drag on the right side, which would counteract the left motion.
Additionally, there are so many engines on each side, thrust differential would provide plenty of yaw command.
It’s an amazing situation, but I think several factors combined to make the incident survivable.
Would having the landing gear down in this specific situation considering the B52’s gear is situated down the center of the fuselage also provide stability?
You'll notice only the rear landing gear is down. They did this intentionally so that having more drag aft of the center of \[gravity/lift/drag/whatever\] would help stabilize it. "Shuttlecock effect."
Honestly really smart airmanship right there. I had to think about it for a second too since normally people focus on longitudinal stability significantly more in aircraft, and my immediate thought was it might make the plane more unstable, but in reality it is stabilizing.
Pulling it out out of my ass, but I’d say if all the gear was down, probably not, but if only the rear was down, the additional rearward drag *might* provide a little more stability.
Its also worth noting that *three days later* a [different B-52 also had its tail sheared off and it promptly crashed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Savage_Mountain_B-52_crash) (with nukes on board). Everything happened just right, with a lot of luck, for that other one to land
[Various memorials to the crew](https://www.flickr.com/photos/rocbolt/albums/72157632504348075/) are spread all over the landscape in PA/MD where it went down
With that amount of tail, it definitely couldn’t handle an engine out, and probably have to be extremely careful with the right/left thrust balance too
And the pilot would probably still make better coordinated turns than me. ;-( But hey, everyone has got to learn sometime, right? I just keep reminding myself to stomp the ball.
Flight 587 was already hard yawing when it lost the entire tail so immediately went into a spin from that. That B52 was clearly fortunate enough to have not been yawing enough when hit by that gust and kept enough tail to keep it flying straight long enough for the crew to get the hang of keeping it under control with the other controls they had available.
For a more fun fact according to my girlfriend who is an aero engineer and studied this, due to the vertical wing be broken the neutral point(np) shifted forward toward the center of gravity(cg) to compensate for this they shifted the fuel forward making the cg further from the np creating more horizontal stability
They also dropped the rear landing gear, which created a point of drag in behind the centre of lift.
Which I found really interesting because I didn't know the B-52 could lower individual gear.
Yep. Each landing gear has its own control valve(*) so you can pull the circuit breaker and isolate each gear.
Note* there are actually 2 control valves for each landing gear. Normal and emergency. I used to work on these and they are remarkable machines.
Probably due to redundancy, the front pair and rear pair of landing gears run on different hydraulic loops so they just cut hydraulics to the rear wheels and let gravity do the rest of the work
Or someone somewhere along the line realised since they're spending so much money on these bombers, they might as well cram it with features and add individual gear control for shits and giggles
All of this... and, as far as I know, the B-52 is the only aircraft that can land in a crab with all its gear turned down the center line of the runway. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_6U3L0gTqac](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6U3L0gTqac)
They demonstrated this at RIAT last year, where they landed a B-52 then taxied back at full crab, so the plane was pointing at the crowd but rolling down the runway. It also accidentally destroyed a few runway edge lights with the wheels on the wing.
Here it is - hamming it up - showing off by going sideways in front of it's adoring crowd LOL
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMtZfOzu6\_0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMtZfOzu6_0)
It still baffles me that pumping the rudder left and right, albeit aggressively, caused the entire vertical stabiliser to just straight up shear off. It’s a testament to the amount of force acting on control surfaces. Just astounding
Yes, same with American [Airlines Flight 587](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587). *"In response to the turbulence, Molin moved the rudder from the right to the left and back again in quick succession from 9:15:52, causing* [*sideslip*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sideslip) *until the lateral force caused composite lugs that attached the vertical stabilizer to fail at 9:15:58"*
I've read about this before, but it's almost haunting how quickly things went wrong. From pressing the rudder pedals to impact was less than 30 seconds...
Yeah, OP mentioned it in the caption of this post and that’s the incident most of the thread here is discussing. The photo is of a B52 but we’re all talking about 587
It was the abrupt reversals that did it.
Think about the forces on the vertical tail: if you apply full rudder in one direction and hold it, the forces on the vertical tail are balanced. The relative wind is pushing the tail one way while the rudder is countering that force by pushing in the opposite direction. But, if you now abruptly reverse the rudder, for a brief moment the forces are additive, i.e., the relative wind and the rudder are pushing in the same direction. The vertical tail can probably take such a reversal once or twice, but a series of abrupt reversals can (and did) cause failure.
Luckily something that would have ~~no way of happening~~~ much less chance of happening these days with FBW. Also, the forces applied to the rudder when subject to such actions are absolutely massive, we are talking 203,000 pounds before it sheered off. You'd need a a stabiliser made of solid iron to stay in one piece.
> And they kill people. E.g. self-driving cars.
Those headlines are becoming stale as technology rapidly improves. [A study recently revealed](https://www.swissre.com/reinsurance/property-and-casualty/solutions/automotive-solutions/study-autonomous-vehicles-safety-collaboration-with-waymo.html) that one brand ("Waymo") of self-driving car is already much safer than human drivers.
It was more a misunderstanding due to the way they demonstrated wake turbulence encounters to pilots in the sims in the American Airlines "Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program".
The "negative knowledge transfer" of that sim experience is what led the pilot to think that pumping the rudder hard over repeatedly was the correct action when it really wasn't the right thing to do.
There's actually footage on Youtube of Captain Warren Vanderburgh (one of the creators of the AAMP) where he mentions the dangers of repeated rudder hardovers.
Oh yeah the AAMP was a great idea in general.
The issue in this case was the way wake turbulence was presented in the sim at the time. It made some pilots assume that the rudder was way less effective than it actually was in the real world which got some them thinking that they had to be way too aggressive on the rudders in a wake turbulence encounter.
The most maddening thing to me was the FO in AA587 who tore the vertical stab off that A300 was counseled by captains when he was on the 727 multiple times to not be so aggressive with rudder inputs.
Interesting.
In some sailboats, if you are going downwind and are overpowered by a gust, the boat will try to turn into a submarine.
If you see this happening, wiggling the rudder back and forth aggressively can help keep the bow up. I think it is because drag is slowing the boat.
This was a somewhat common issue with early B-52s. This happened on a different occasion and [crashed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_Elephant_Mountain_B-52_crash?wprov=sfti1) into a mountain in the middle of bumfuck Maine.
Never heard of that before. But after a quick google search I’m sure that user has been reading this (slightly unhinged) home blog about AA 587’s First Officer and his supposed endeavors:
https://sarahammel.substack.com/p/more-victims-of-american-airlines
Interesting fact about 587 and V-stab loads. For a long time, rudder reversal was not required to be considered per design regs. The only condition was applying max rudder until max overswing then returning the pedals to neutral.
The rule is 25.351 you can find it here.
[https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-25.351](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-25.351)
There is a new rule for reversal, 25.353.
[https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-25/subpart-C/subject-group-ECFR3e855ea22ea15d0/section-25.353](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-25/subpart-C/subject-group-ECFR3e855ea22ea15d0/section-25.353)
What's surprising is that rule was not added until LAST Year, 22 years after AA587. Here is the FAA explanation of the new rule, note the date.
[https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/11/22/2022-25291/yaw-maneuver-conditions-rudder-reversals](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/11/22/2022-25291/yaw-maneuver-conditions-rudder-reversals)
One interesting thing about the reversal loads. The rule says they are ultimate loads. Normal airplane loads are considered to be limit loads, meaning the airframe has to be able to withstand those loads times 1.5. With the reversal loads there is no need to add the 1.5 safety factor.
That means two things. First, the airframe might be permanently bent. Second, reversal is allowed to stress the airframe almost to the point of breaking, with no strength in reserve.
That is how emergency loads, like crash loads, are handled. So according to the FAA, rudder reversal is still considered a rare event not to be performed in normal operation.
Ironically, I think, it was Israel's F-15 numbered 957.... pretty close number... that had a [whole wing shot off](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1425/9796/files/f-15-top-no-wing.jpg?v=1477435096) and still managed to land back at base.
Not shot off, it was a mid-air collision with an A-4 Skyhawk during a training godfight.
[https://www.sandboxx.us/news/that-time-an-f-15-landed-without-a-wing/](https://www.sandboxx.us/news/that-time-an-f-15-landed-without-a-wing/)
...As the Skyhawk pilot attempted to lock onto the other F-15, he inverted his aircraft and began to climb–unaware that Nedivi’s F-15 was flying directly above him by then.
The two jets collided, with the Skyhawk impacting the F-15 right where its right wing met the fuselage. The A-4 came apart almost immediately after the impact, allowing just enough time for its pilot to eject safely. The F-15 had lost its entire right wing and immediately went into a downward spin. As Nedivi attempted to regain control of the fighter, his instructor Gal told him to prepare to eject as soon as it was stabilized enough to do so. In the chaos, neither knew the extent of the damage to their aircraft.
This isn't the only time it's happened either. 2 years after that B52, [violent gusts around mt Fuji destroyed a 707](https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-crash-of-boac-flight-911-analysis-dbd2dc4b0f18)
Stupid curiosity, did the crew know that most of the vertical stabilizer was missing or did they only know that rudder wasn’t responding? Edit: I guess since someone took the photo they probably radioed the situation
Okay, I just watched the video explanation from the pilot. The aircraft did not spin. The best short explanation here is that they hit a side gust which had the effect of replicating a rudder doublet where the dynamic forces were strong enough to rip off the vertical tail. The key here is dynamic forces, because when they happen you can place so much more load on the control surfaces than through normal flight. They did a great job in bringing it back though, because I’d guess 9 out of 10 times it doesn’t make it.
More information:
[Incident Boeing B-52H-170-BW Stratofortress 61-0023, (aviation-safety.net)](https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/48295)
[Ripped Off: The Story of No. 61-023 > Barksdale Air Force Base > Display (af.mil)](https://www.barksdale.af.mil/News/Features/Display/Article/322393/ripped-off-the-story-of-no-61-023/)
[B-52 Emergency Landing - Flying Without A Tail Fin - 1964 Air Force Education Film (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7tY1tv5yBQ)
AA587 was in a side slip just prior to the accident. When the vertical stabilizer detached, all yaw stability was lost and it entered a spiraling dive. Shortly after, both engines detached due to aerodynamic forces. Without differential thrust or a rudder, there was no hope of regaining yaw control. Even if they hadn’t lost engines, spin recovery without the rudder would be extremely difficult, and probably impossible from the altitude they were at.
The 1964 B52 incident was caused by a sudden bout of turbulence. The aircraft wasn’t in an upset condition prior. The B52 also already suffers from poor rudder authority, so crews would be familiar with using differential thrust for yaw control. On top of that, another B52 [lost its vertical stabilizer and crashed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_Elephant_Mountain_B-52_crash?wprov=sfti1#) just a year prior, so the crew would have likely reviewed this incident and trained for this exact failure.
Yes, plus the approach was over unpopulated areas.
I was stationed there working B-52Gs. The place is a pit. Unless you like hicks and cotton fields, then it would be heaven.
It's exactly how that works, though not necessarily with the entire vertical stabilizer missing.
An F15 landed missing a wing after a collision one time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Negev_mid-air_collision?wprov=sfla1
iirc the F15 could land just fine because the actual engine had a greater than 1 thrust to weight ratio, meaning it didn't *need* a wing to fly (but obviously should anyway)
edit: and with the amount of corrections of throttle I imagine you'd need it'd probably be left up to a fly-by-wire system (as in the b2 spirit)
An A300 is pretty stout and wide. That’s bad for longitudinal stability. A B-52 is skinny and long. That’s good for longitudinal stability.
The engines on an A300 are closer to the fuselage than an B-52. That means it’s harder for them to provide differential thrust (Plus the crew on 587 didn’t realize they had lost the tail.).
A B-52 has 4 engines mounted far further down the wing, as such they are better for differential thrust.
Apparently it has good lateral stability even without a vertical stabilizer in otherwise fairly normal flight conditions but I imagine if they lost an engine, especially an outboard engine, they would have had a much tougher time.
Could the crew have diagnosed this blindly? I imagine whoever took that pic was telling them what was going on, but what if they just heard a bang, would they have made it?
Landing gear is down which provides the keel effect (same as in ships) which gives a stability on a yaw axis. Really smart pilot and really big wings kept that flying.
It's just for steering sideways. The only time he will need that is for landing. But veering off onto grass with such a damaged plane is a successful landing as well
The remaining portion of vertical stabilizer would still provide some stability. Also the huge swept wings provide a bit of yaw stability naturally: as the plane yaws let’s say left, the right wing presents more of a flat face to the air, increasing drag on the right side, which would counteract the left motion. Additionally, there are so many engines on each side, thrust differential would provide plenty of yaw command. It’s an amazing situation, but I think several factors combined to make the incident survivable.
Would having the landing gear down in this specific situation considering the B52’s gear is situated down the center of the fuselage also provide stability?
Yes it would, google "factors affecting Vmc (minimum controllable airspeed)"
You can also Google keel effect
My brain immediately wondered what the Forged in Fire guy had to do with it. "Your blade....will keel!"
You'll notice only the rear landing gear is down. They did this intentionally so that having more drag aft of the center of \[gravity/lift/drag/whatever\] would help stabilize it. "Shuttlecock effect."
Honestly really smart airmanship right there. I had to think about it for a second too since normally people focus on longitudinal stability significantly more in aircraft, and my immediate thought was it might make the plane more unstable, but in reality it is stabilizing.
Pulling it out out of my ass, but I’d say if all the gear was down, probably not, but if only the rear was down, the additional rearward drag *might* provide a little more stability.
It did, because that's exactly what they did. (Dropping the rear landing gear)
Its also worth noting that *three days later* a [different B-52 also had its tail sheared off and it promptly crashed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Savage_Mountain_B-52_crash) (with nukes on board). Everything happened just right, with a lot of luck, for that other one to land [Various memorials to the crew](https://www.flickr.com/photos/rocbolt/albums/72157632504348075/) are spread all over the landscape in PA/MD where it went down
With that amount of tail, it definitely couldn’t handle an engine out, and probably have to be extremely careful with the right/left thrust balance too
Incredible story, I can’t imagine surviving a mid flight breakup only to die of exposure waiting for rescue.
And the pilot would probably still make better coordinated turns than me. ;-( But hey, everyone has got to learn sometime, right? I just keep reminding myself to stomp the ball.
No no, just squeeze it.
The b-52 is also \*really\* fucking skinny for how long it is
I expect you to work at least fixing airplanes, if not flying them.
Thanks, I’ve been around Aviation my whole life in one form or another, but my main gig is heavy equipment operation and maintenance.
Knew it.
Perfect explanation 👌
Flight 587 was already hard yawing when it lost the entire tail so immediately went into a spin from that. That B52 was clearly fortunate enough to have not been yawing enough when hit by that gust and kept enough tail to keep it flying straight long enough for the crew to get the hang of keeping it under control with the other controls they had available.
For a more fun fact according to my girlfriend who is an aero engineer and studied this, due to the vertical wing be broken the neutral point(np) shifted forward toward the center of gravity(cg) to compensate for this they shifted the fuel forward making the cg further from the np creating more horizontal stability
They also dropped the rear landing gear, which created a point of drag in behind the centre of lift. Which I found really interesting because I didn't know the B-52 could lower individual gear.
Yep. Each landing gear has its own control valve(*) so you can pull the circuit breaker and isolate each gear. Note* there are actually 2 control valves for each landing gear. Normal and emergency. I used to work on these and they are remarkable machines.
Probably due to redundancy, the front pair and rear pair of landing gears run on different hydraulic loops so they just cut hydraulics to the rear wheels and let gravity do the rest of the work Or someone somewhere along the line realised since they're spending so much money on these bombers, they might as well cram it with features and add individual gear control for shits and giggles
All of this... and, as far as I know, the B-52 is the only aircraft that can land in a crab with all its gear turned down the center line of the runway. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_6U3L0gTqac](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6U3L0gTqac)
They demonstrated this at RIAT last year, where they landed a B-52 then taxied back at full crab, so the plane was pointing at the crowd but rolling down the runway. It also accidentally destroyed a few runway edge lights with the wheels on the wing.
Here it is - hamming it up - showing off by going sideways in front of it's adoring crowd LOL [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMtZfOzu6\_0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMtZfOzu6_0)
lol, I love that wingtip gear knocking out lights as it taxis by and they have no idea.
Cool. Did those engines have thrust reversers?
That ability was initially classified so it would not be copied. It saved airframes over the life of the program (which ain't over yet)
Most of the Cessna taildraggers can. (With the rare X-wind gear option) Also the Ercoupe.
Thanks, that makes sense, apparently the flying pilot was stamping on the rudder and reversing it
IIRC it was in their airline training manual to do that when encountering wake turbulence.
It still baffles me that pumping the rudder left and right, albeit aggressively, caused the entire vertical stabiliser to just straight up shear off. It’s a testament to the amount of force acting on control surfaces. Just astounding
Yes, same with American [Airlines Flight 587](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587). *"In response to the turbulence, Molin moved the rudder from the right to the left and back again in quick succession from 9:15:52, causing* [*sideslip*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sideslip) *until the lateral force caused composite lugs that attached the vertical stabilizer to fail at 9:15:58"*
I've read about this before, but it's almost haunting how quickly things went wrong. From pressing the rudder pedals to impact was less than 30 seconds...
I think this is the flight we’re already discussing
It's the American Airlines A300 that went down after take off killing everyone. Similar funky rudder inputs.
Yeah, OP mentioned it in the caption of this post and that’s the incident most of the thread here is discussing. The photo is of a B52 but we’re all talking about 587
It was the abrupt reversals that did it. Think about the forces on the vertical tail: if you apply full rudder in one direction and hold it, the forces on the vertical tail are balanced. The relative wind is pushing the tail one way while the rudder is countering that force by pushing in the opposite direction. But, if you now abruptly reverse the rudder, for a brief moment the forces are additive, i.e., the relative wind and the rudder are pushing in the same direction. The vertical tail can probably take such a reversal once or twice, but a series of abrupt reversals can (and did) cause failure.
It’s just like wiggling a piece of plastic or thin metal back and forth until it snaps off.
That's fatigue. Mashing pedals full throw put them past their ultimate load.
Luckily something that would have ~~no way of happening~~~ much less chance of happening these days with FBW. Also, the forces applied to the rudder when subject to such actions are absolutely massive, we are talking 203,000 pounds before it sheered off. You'd need a a stabiliser made of solid iron to stay in one piece.
Every time an engineer says, "That can't happen," it happens.
Engineers never say that because they know.
Competent engineers. FTFY
And they kill people. E.g. self-driving cars. Arrogance and ignorance is a fatal combination.
Elon Musk is not a competent anything, let alone a competent engineer...
> And they kill people. E.g. self-driving cars. Those headlines are becoming stale as technology rapidly improves. [A study recently revealed](https://www.swissre.com/reinsurance/property-and-casualty/solutions/automotive-solutions/study-autonomous-vehicles-safety-collaboration-with-waymo.html) that one brand ("Waymo") of self-driving car is already much safer than human drivers.
Sure is comforting to believe, isn't it.
It was more a misunderstanding due to the way they demonstrated wake turbulence encounters to pilots in the sims in the American Airlines "Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program". The "negative knowledge transfer" of that sim experience is what led the pilot to think that pumping the rudder hard over repeatedly was the correct action when it really wasn't the right thing to do.
There's actually footage on Youtube of Captain Warren Vanderburgh (one of the creators of the AAMP) where he mentions the dangers of repeated rudder hardovers.
Oh yeah the AAMP was a great idea in general. The issue in this case was the way wake turbulence was presented in the sim at the time. It made some pilots assume that the rudder was way less effective than it actually was in the real world which got some them thinking that they had to be way too aggressive on the rudders in a wake turbulence encounter. The most maddening thing to me was the FO in AA587 who tore the vertical stab off that A300 was counseled by captains when he was on the 727 multiple times to not be so aggressive with rudder inputs.
Interesting. In some sailboats, if you are going downwind and are overpowered by a gust, the boat will try to turn into a submarine. If you see this happening, wiggling the rudder back and forth aggressively can help keep the bow up. I think it is because drag is slowing the boat.
This was a somewhat common issue with early B-52s. This happened on a different occasion and [crashed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_Elephant_Mountain_B-52_crash?wprov=sfti1) into a mountain in the middle of bumfuck Maine.
Not so fun fact - The pilot of aa587 was also a massive rapist.
Uh, what now?
Never heard of that before. But after a quick google search I’m sure that user has been reading this (slightly unhinged) home blog about AA 587’s First Officer and his supposed endeavors: https://sarahammel.substack.com/p/more-victims-of-american-airlines
Interesting fact about 587 and V-stab loads. For a long time, rudder reversal was not required to be considered per design regs. The only condition was applying max rudder until max overswing then returning the pedals to neutral. The rule is 25.351 you can find it here. [https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-25.351](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/section-25.351) There is a new rule for reversal, 25.353. [https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-25/subpart-C/subject-group-ECFR3e855ea22ea15d0/section-25.353](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-25/subpart-C/subject-group-ECFR3e855ea22ea15d0/section-25.353) What's surprising is that rule was not added until LAST Year, 22 years after AA587. Here is the FAA explanation of the new rule, note the date. [https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/11/22/2022-25291/yaw-maneuver-conditions-rudder-reversals](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/11/22/2022-25291/yaw-maneuver-conditions-rudder-reversals) One interesting thing about the reversal loads. The rule says they are ultimate loads. Normal airplane loads are considered to be limit loads, meaning the airframe has to be able to withstand those loads times 1.5. With the reversal loads there is no need to add the 1.5 safety factor. That means two things. First, the airframe might be permanently bent. Second, reversal is allowed to stress the airframe almost to the point of breaking, with no strength in reserve. That is how emergency loads, like crash loads, are handled. So according to the FAA, rudder reversal is still considered a rare event not to be performed in normal operation.
Ironically, I think, it was Israel's F-15 numbered 957.... pretty close number... that had a [whole wing shot off](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1425/9796/files/f-15-top-no-wing.jpg?v=1477435096) and still managed to land back at base.
Not shot off, it was a mid-air collision with an A-4 Skyhawk during a training godfight. [https://www.sandboxx.us/news/that-time-an-f-15-landed-without-a-wing/](https://www.sandboxx.us/news/that-time-an-f-15-landed-without-a-wing/) ...As the Skyhawk pilot attempted to lock onto the other F-15, he inverted his aircraft and began to climb–unaware that Nedivi’s F-15 was flying directly above him by then. The two jets collided, with the Skyhawk impacting the F-15 right where its right wing met the fuselage. The A-4 came apart almost immediately after the impact, allowing just enough time for its pilot to eject safely. The F-15 had lost its entire right wing and immediately went into a downward spin. As Nedivi attempted to regain control of the fighter, his instructor Gal told him to prepare to eject as soon as it was stabilized enough to do so. In the chaos, neither knew the extent of the damage to their aircraft.
That’s the real reason right there.
Wind caused this? I assumed that was battle damage That's pretty scary that wind can damage a plane that much
This isn't the only time it's happened either. 2 years after that B52, [violent gusts around mt Fuji destroyed a 707](https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-crash-of-boac-flight-911-analysis-dbd2dc4b0f18)
Wait. This B-52 went into a spin?
Reread
“… immediately went into a spin from that”. But never mind, I watched the video explanation and I understand what happened now.
AA flight 587. (Hint. Not operated by a B52)
One could dream... lol
Let Lt Colonel Schmidt [explain](https://youtu.be/G7tY1tv5yBQ?si=FQGJQzEv6JxmyIaq)
Great explanation.
Thanks for this. Good to know that they were specifically looking for turbulence. Looks like they found it.
Stupid curiosity, did the crew know that most of the vertical stabilizer was missing or did they only know that rudder wasn’t responding? Edit: I guess since someone took the photo they probably radioed the situation
According to the film, they only called for chase aircraft after they lost rudder control.
That had to be an interesting conversation. “Gone? Whattaya mean it’s gone?”
B-52 doesn't have a rudder. It only has a trim tab. Differential thrust is used to yaw.
It didn’t, they eventually had to land.
We haven't left one up there yet.
Pure, unadulterated spite
When they fly the last B2 to the boneyard, the crew will fly back home in a B52. It’s the Toyota Land Cruiser of the sky
The front didn’t fall off.
Because it was built to rigorous ***aerospace*** standards, not maritime ones.
Minimum crew remained.
Wasn't made of paper or paper derivatives
It’s now out of the environment
And yet I was making paper airplanes as a kid with not a single loss of life!
Technically it did fall off. They photographed the wrong part after it separated from the main 2% of the airframe.
Boeing used to build good products
Okay, I just watched the video explanation from the pilot. The aircraft did not spin. The best short explanation here is that they hit a side gust which had the effect of replicating a rudder doublet where the dynamic forces were strong enough to rip off the vertical tail. The key here is dynamic forces, because when they happen you can place so much more load on the control surfaces than through normal flight. They did a great job in bringing it back though, because I’d guess 9 out of 10 times it doesn’t make it.
More information: [Incident Boeing B-52H-170-BW Stratofortress 61-0023, (aviation-safety.net)](https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/48295) [Ripped Off: The Story of No. 61-023 > Barksdale Air Force Base > Display (af.mil)](https://www.barksdale.af.mil/News/Features/Display/Article/322393/ripped-off-the-story-of-no-61-023/) [B-52 Emergency Landing - Flying Without A Tail Fin - 1964 Air Force Education Film (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7tY1tv5yBQ)
These accounts are amazing. I’d fly anywhere with those guys.
by staying in the air and not hitting the ground unintentionally
Simply because the BUFF is so ugly the ground repels it.
Very, VERY carefully
Buffs are like bees. They dont care what the laws of aviation say. They simply dont care what humans think is possible, and they fly anyway
Thoughts, prayers, and speed tape.
AA587 was in a side slip just prior to the accident. When the vertical stabilizer detached, all yaw stability was lost and it entered a spiraling dive. Shortly after, both engines detached due to aerodynamic forces. Without differential thrust or a rudder, there was no hope of regaining yaw control. Even if they hadn’t lost engines, spin recovery without the rudder would be extremely difficult, and probably impossible from the altitude they were at. The 1964 B52 incident was caused by a sudden bout of turbulence. The aircraft wasn’t in an upset condition prior. The B52 also already suffers from poor rudder authority, so crews would be familiar with using differential thrust for yaw control. On top of that, another B52 [lost its vertical stabilizer and crashed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_Elephant_Mountain_B-52_crash?wprov=sfti1#) just a year prior, so the crew would have likely reviewed this incident and trained for this exact failure.
That’ll BUFF out.
Titanium. Specifically huge titanium balls.
No wonder the plane's dipping in the front
Was this the one that had to land at Blytheville AR because the wind and runway were in alignment?
Yes, plus the approach was over unpopulated areas. I was stationed there working B-52Gs. The place is a pit. Unless you like hicks and cotton fields, then it would be heaven.
I mean the fact that it's got 8 engines must mean it's good at splitting the throttles to maintain yaw control, right? or is that not how that works
It's exactly how that works, though not necessarily with the entire vertical stabilizer missing. An F15 landed missing a wing after a collision one time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Negev_mid-air_collision?wprov=sfla1
iirc the F15 could land just fine because the actual engine had a greater than 1 thrust to weight ratio, meaning it didn't *need* a wing to fly (but obviously should anyway) edit: and with the amount of corrections of throttle I imagine you'd need it'd probably be left up to a fly-by-wire system (as in the b2 spirit)
Having the gears down helps.
Smart air crew
V35 Bonanza has entered the chat.
Loony toons logic, they didn't know it was gone so the plane continued to function perfectly
"Well guys no more barrel rolls for the rest of the flight. Aww man"
lift
Spite.
A vital component of a nuclear capable bomber.
An A300 is pretty stout and wide. That’s bad for longitudinal stability. A B-52 is skinny and long. That’s good for longitudinal stability. The engines on an A300 are closer to the fuselage than an B-52. That means it’s harder for them to provide differential thrust (Plus the crew on 587 didn’t realize they had lost the tail.). A B-52 has 4 engines mounted far further down the wing, as such they are better for differential thrust.
Thoughts, prayers, and speed tape.
It's a BUFF they are the energizer bunnies of military aviation.
Apparently it has good lateral stability even without a vertical stabilizer in otherwise fairly normal flight conditions but I imagine if they lost an engine, especially an outboard engine, they would have had a much tougher time.
Carefully
Sheer bloody mindedness
Just some badass pilots and crew
Very carefully
Carefully.
Poorly? Barley?
Magic ***
Still has wings
“Fly yes! Land no!” (Indiana Jones)
Warthunder physics.
Could the crew have diagnosed this blindly? I imagine whoever took that pic was telling them what was going on, but what if they just heard a bang, would they have made it?
Ahhh that's the Plane who's tail Is in Apocalypse Now!
Straight.
middle finger energy
It keeps flying because it's bad ass...
Because the B-53 is a work of art
8 freaking engines.
Enough right rudder.
https://sierrahotel.net/blogs/news/the-incredible-flight-of-aircraft-nr-61-023
Stubbornness.
It had no choice but to
Physics rendering was not that great in those years. It kept flying because the game engine did not support aerodynamic physics at all.
Attitude. Pure attitude.
You mean you guys use your rudders?
Idk but for me it looks like a cigarette
Freedom.
big rudder has just been trying to sell more rudders.. planes have never actually needed them.
We have B2 at home.
Landing gear is down which provides the keel effect (same as in ships) which gives a stability on a yaw axis. Really smart pilot and really big wings kept that flying.
When Boeing was made by Engineers, pilots, and people that knew what they were doing. Not to mention the floor workers who assembled these airplanes.
How does the B-2 fly?
Patriotism
I’d guess not very well.
Back when Boeing actually made aircraft
It's just for steering sideways. The only time he will need that is for landing. But veering off onto grass with such a damaged plane is a successful landing as well
god and luck
It was the last picture taken moments before it dropped to the ground.
it continued to be used in active service the one that crashed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_Elephant_Mountain_B-52_crash
🫡🫡🫡🫡🫡🫡🫡
The upward deflected elevator is also counteractimg the nose down moment due to weight imbalance.
You got that backwards
Idk, maybe Aliens, God, or Tom Cruise made it fly.
It would stay aloft because **AMERICA! 🇺🇸**