Todos
← Back to Squawk list
What makes the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress so long-lasting?
When Michael Riggs started work on the Boeing B-52 programme almost 20 years ago, the newly-hired engineering graduate expected Boeing would soon move him off the Stratofortress programme. “I thought it was going to be kind of a short stint, because it was an old aircraft. I thought it was an old aircraft because my dad flew it in Vietnam. So I thought, ‘Hey, I'll spend a little time on here and I'm going to need to look for another platform to be working on’,” he says. (www.flightglobal.com) Mais...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
All very true.
But... today’s aircraft can’t be designed with sliderules and pen and paper calculations. In fact, no ordinary computer is capable of much of the simulation that is needed, and supercomputers are used for that.
What’s really needed is an approach that combines the technology of today with the pragmatism and common sense of the past. I’m sure I don’t need to cite recent examples where this was not the case and resulted in tragic consequences.
But... today’s aircraft can’t be designed with sliderules and pen and paper calculations. In fact, no ordinary computer is capable of much of the simulation that is needed, and supercomputers are used for that.
What’s really needed is an approach that combines the technology of today with the pragmatism and common sense of the past. I’m sure I don’t need to cite recent examples where this was not the case and resulted in tragic consequences.
All perhaps due to American companies run by businessmen bean counters. . . . For example, take the auto industry - American manufacturers take the profits of a successful car and issue stock dividends. . . when in Japan, they plow their profits back into improving the successful car.
Cars are worse than ever today. Difficult to work on (which = higher labor costs for consumers), and built with expensive yet cheaply engineered, failure-prone parts. These days you're lucky to have an engine last much over 100k miles. Meanwhile my '86 Grand Marquis has 274k on the original driveline with no signs of slowing down yet. My '07 Silverado is on its 7th brake job, 3rd set of hub bearings, an entire suspension replacement, a new rear differential, and a new transmission at 104k miles. Most of that stuff failed just out of the 3 year / 36k warranty. Most expensive vehicle I've ever bought in my life, yet broke down and cost more than any other I've ever owned.
I saw that as a motor vehicle mechanic. Who thinks it is a good idea to take the starter from the bottom of the engine and put it in the valley between cylinder heads and under the intake manifold (Notrhstar V8)? As far as my truck, a '14 Silvetrado, at 77,000+ miles, I finished replacing the original 50,000 mile tires and still had a couple of thousand more miles on them. The only real issue I have had with it is the air conditioning, but 2-60 helps that. ;) I still have at least 10,000 more miles left on the front brakes.
Same is true in the auto industry today. They mask their massive cheapout scheme with big power, nice handling, an a smooth ride. What we mechanics see on a daily basis you wouldn't believe ...
...Well said Robert...
Today?
Computers decide what can be made weaker to save weight, save strength, and I'm sure to save money.
What makes a B-52 long lasting? Engineers trying to figure out how much it *could* carry, not how much it *should*.
THAT, I see it, is the problem with the 'New Boeing'. Why 'waste' money on engineering, when a computer can tell them what to do. Why 'waste' money on beefing up the substructure of the plane, when a computer tells them it's 'good enough'. Why have redundant systems when management tells you the computer tells them it's all okay. Why waste money on an educated workforce, when the chances the computer is wrong has been accounted for in the bean counters Monty Carlo Risk Assessment computer program to protect their jobs, management's, and investor returns. Why indeed...