A very enjoyable and illuminating thread – if a little slow on the uptake some of us. How unfortunate for Hand87_5 that he’s turned his back on such masterpieces. :rolleyes:

On a marginally more serious note, is this not the whole point of being here? Asking questions, finding out things, having a laugh along the way, ending up with some good info and a first-class link to add to the favourites.

Anna – your pm’s still full …. 😎

… followed Dave’s Sunderland link and had my mind blown by B.B. Webber’s TU-95 Bear – whoa!
http://www.rcwarbirds.com/feature.html

Moggy (and Anna)

Go here …
http://www.stratofortress.org/
.. to read of all sorts of things about B52s including a “stories” section (find it, click it) in which you can read an account of a B52H being flown and successfully landed after losing all four engines on one (RH) side. And that included losing the #3 pod not long (2 min) after takeoff – so much for my “no damage” theory above. Supports inter alia Erics argument that they’ve buckets of power at takeoff.

Anyway, answer so far = 4

Endeavouring to stay on thread …
Eric, if you’re right (which I have no reason to doubt, a laden B52 must be HEAVY) then presumably power must be abundant when cruising at operating altitudes. Implication is that loss of 2 or 3 engines is probably manageable, maybe more when bomb-bay empty and fuel low. Proviso I daresay is aerodyamics, by which I mean you’d not want to be contending with airframe, wing or nacelle damage.

Defn of historic = no longer front-line?

Mars perhaps?

What about that mad Hungarian or whatever he is – flying underbridges and all sorts of other insanity? Anyone know who I’m trying to remember?