How are the b52s physically flying with how pressuring the cabin of airlines can only have so many Cabin...

Fix'd.

I mean, most of the class is either fresh out of the military or in their 30s (or both) so that point is kinda null. He might have been a faggot, though.

Maintenance checks and reverse-engineered newly made parts. This is almost entirely what they do at Tinker Airforce Base in Oklahoma. Also yeah no windows meaning fewer stress concentrations and fewer fractures.

The fuck is the point of going to school in your 70s?

Enjoying learning.
If you have the money after retirement why not? Signing up for one class a semester at a local uni sounds like an interesting way to spend time. It would give you a chance to cover the mostly useless subjects (e.g. Old English) you never had time to learn when you were young.
Since you wouldn't care about a degree, you can usually sign up as a non-credit registrant, which is cheaper and doesn't require you to actually get fully admitted to the university. You attend the classes but don't do graded assignments or exams.

On a related note, some Strelok once explained why US still keeps B-52s when they have B-1s and B-2s, but I forgot. So can someone explain it to me?
I mean, I understand that the US would want to keep its nuclear deterent without investing heavily in manufatcuring new planes, hence keeping the B-52s. Plus I imagine a B-52 costs less per flight hour, or maintenance than a B-2. But that wasn't his reasoning.

Metal fatigue can be fickle and depends on how you manufacture your alloys but in some cases (especially with Steel or rarely with Aluminium alloys) you can end up with a failure cycle number of ridiculous numbers like 100 million or even infinity depending on the load applied. This is called an endurance limit and if your cyclic stress applied in regular flight is below the endurance limit stress, your metal literally won't fail from fatigue (i.e. microcracks expanding and forming massive fuckoff cracks).

As other anons have said, no windows means no stress concentrations so the majority of the airframe can act as a basic bitch hoop stress case at a guess, and reinforcing the thing with stringers and bulkheads becomes fairly straightforward.

Attached: S-N_curves.PNG (561x364, 84.12K)

That's because aircraft are subject to outrageous amounts of scrutiny and if anything as much as provokes an assumption of defectiveness, it is immediately replaced. That includes replacing chunks of airframe that look like they starting to age.
points out some correct things about metallurgy and plane design, but is otherwise wrong. Aluminium is very prone to work hardening whereby it becomes stronger but also more brittle. And even if it wasn't, airframe parts being able to withstand a lot of pressure cycles isn't the reason airplanes can fly for decades.

Attached: 68700a14dd0937d5191d5c30fa881225cc85606a509aa4e0d6dd9b09fd1e040f.jpg (772x525, 87.99K)

I did say it applies more to Steel than Aluminium. In any case, the graph I used shows a pretty substantial cycle count for Aluminium going into the 100,000s and above with relatively high stresses for said cycles. I doubt any planes currently in service have had nearly that many load applications regardless and, like you said, with proper inspections and maintenance these things can last for a long time.

well, b2s are absolute shit, is one reason.

What the fuck Sweden.

Assuming he means accidentally using feminine pronouns or something

how do I tell if my aluminium spars are OK?

Yes. That was basically the gist of his reasoning. But could you develop that point? Preferably with taking B-1s into the equation, too.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_hardening
His wording was fine, think before you type.

Not anymore user!

We use a specialized drill, specialized tape per crack type, and a specialized mixture of WD-40 for deicing!

As for B-52s, they don't do full pres anymore. (not often, enough for o2 saturation usually)

Attached: 1503939657722.jpg (620x736, 91.09K)

Since when does strength equal hardness and not resilience?

The B-1 and B-2 are both massive hangar queens. Back when we were mobilizing for Iraq the USAF estimated that we could only put 50% of our B-1s and 30% of our B-2s in the air at any given time, vs. 80% of our B-52s.

Alleviating boredom while learning new stuff.
When I was in college I saw an tough old guy in uniform, I went and spoke to him to see if he was a speaker or something, turns out he was a retired Signal Corps Colonel with pretty cool stories to tell (dude was in comms HQ for both Kosovo invasion + initial Afghanistan invasion), that decided to get a master degree in history of the arts.

Because he liked that and why the fuck not?

It is.

Learning is fun and helps keep your mind sharp, as long as you don't take retarded classes.

Thanks for the reply. I also heard an argument once about how a B-2 needs to get refueled more times to get to russia than a B-52. Now, according to Wikipedia, a cursary internet search, and some back of the envelope calculations there seems to be some substance to this, but the difference seems to be not more than one time aerial refuelling. How much truth is in that?

Well Mr. Didgets the fault lies in the fact that the B-2 would need to refuel inside land based Russian radar coverage with a non-stealthy tanker plane. This ruins the surprise. The B-52 however does not give a shit and can be topped off before it hits land based radar. For whatever amount of good that will do it anyway. I don't really see how this is an issue with the B-2 though because all of them are pointed at China on islands close enough to negate the refuel question anyway. Almost like it was never intended for Russia to begin with. Anyway, just recently there was a rumor/photos out about a supposed stealth tanker drone that will supposedly fix the issue with the B-2 in Russia by acting like invisible drop tanks for it essentially.

Attached: 919f36a3d2e9122c60aa470e1e5ec0eebdfde0c44e14f692741e62378d098c15.jpg (500x336, 33.96K)

Those words should not seriously be used in conjunction to describe anything.

Attached: DW6hCTPVQAAazmg.jpg orig.jpg (750x516, 35.04K)

That explains it. We had a thread about those stealth refueling drones a while back. So this also explain that.

Didn't notice my own Superhitler get.

Why is b-2 so expensive?

Theres's a thread on it here

The stealth meme.