--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 4/20/16, Bruce Johnson <xxxxxx@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [TML] Off-topic but incredible!
 To: "xxxxxx@simplelists.com" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
 Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2016, 2:53 PM

 > On
 Apr 20, 2016, at 2:22 PM, Peter H Brenton <xxxxxx@mit.edu>
 wrote:
 >
 > Military
 hardware is another matter (as exemplified by the B52s),

 The B52 is
 more of a black swanicorn than the normal military hardware
 procurement.:-)

 It was
 designed and made at a time when we were just transitioning
 to jets from prop bombers, and was (iirc) the first design
 that was meant to be jet propelled from the get-go (iirc the
 B-36 started life as an internal combustion prop design).
 Also, Boeing had a LOT of experience building tough,
 survivable aircraft, <http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/fuselag2.htm>
 and I think they took that with them to the B52 design.

 So it was pretty
 over-engineered to start with.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yep, dad flew both B-24's & B-17's (Boeing) in WWII & he said the B-17 was a whole heckuva' lot sturdier than the '24.
But the '24 could carry a heavier bomb load further & was cheaper to build so, in the end, more of them were built.
Dad always said he noticed a decline in designing all thru the '50's, culminating in the early '60's when McNamara became SecDef, brought in his 'Whiz Kids' & really messed things up.

==================================================================