And there are significant technology differences. The new upgrade will be the B-52J or K.
Proper aircraft maintenance cycles are intense, so it would surprise me if any of airframes we use now have 1952 original parts. Aircraft are subject to lots of vibration and the aluminum in B-52s will eventually stress-crack because of it. (It wouldn’t surprise me if composites were added in many places instead of aluminum replacements, but that is just speculation.)
Also during those maintenance cycles, it’s much easier to do systems upgrades since the aircraft is basically torn down to its frame anyway.
It’s the same design to what we had in 1952, but they ain’t the same aircraft, philosophically speaking.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the number of 1952 original parts in service is nonzero. They might be new old stock, or cannibalized from one that was retired decades ago, or even stolen off a museum piece, but I’d bet money on it.
I suppose you are correct. If the bit isn’t structural, it doesn’t need to pass any test for microcracks. If it is structural and it passes testing, YOLO that shit.
It’s just the core frames that need serious attention though. I don’t think I have been around a single aircraft that wasn’t constantly bleeding some kind of fluid, so everything else not related to getting the thing in the air and keeping it from completely disintegrating while in flight is mostly optional. (I am joking, but not really. Airplanes hold the weird dichotomy of being strangely robust and extremely fragile at the same time.)
If it ain’t broke.
And there are significant technology differences. The new upgrade will be the B-52J or K.
Proper aircraft maintenance cycles are intense, so it would surprise me if any of airframes we use now have 1952 original parts. Aircraft are subject to lots of vibration and the aluminum in B-52s will eventually stress-crack because of it. (It wouldn’t surprise me if composites were added in many places instead of aluminum replacements, but that is just speculation.)
Also during those maintenance cycles, it’s much easier to do systems upgrades since the aircraft is basically torn down to its frame anyway.
It’s the same design to what we had in 1952, but they ain’t the same aircraft, philosophically speaking.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the number of 1952 original parts in service is nonzero. They might be new old stock, or cannibalized from one that was retired decades ago, or even stolen off a museum piece, but I’d bet money on it.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/02/12/more-with-less-lacking-parts-airmen-scramble-to-keep-b-52s-flying/
Bomber of Theseus
I suppose you are correct. If the bit isn’t structural, it doesn’t need to pass any test for microcracks. If it is structural and it passes testing, YOLO that shit.
It’s just the core frames that need serious attention though. I don’t think I have been around a single aircraft that wasn’t constantly bleeding some kind of fluid, so everything else not related to getting the thing in the air and keeping it from completely disintegrating while in flight is mostly optional. (I am joking, but not really. Airplanes hold the weird dichotomy of being strangely robust and extremely fragile at the same time.)