World most expensive warbird crashes - sets a new precident

The world's most expensive aircraft ever built has just had it first crash.

The Northorp Grumman B-2 stealth bomber first entered servuce in 1988 and since then has not crashed.

That changed today in Guam, as a B2 crashed at the air base and was destroyed.

2 of the crew were seen to eject and are safe.

The average unit cost of each B-2 bomber is around $1.8bn US.

Nothing this expensive has ever crashed before in the world.

http://www.kuam-media.com/news/streamin ... h-0223.wax

[n5151ts]

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... hp?t=19885

Last edited by n5151ts on Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Randy Haskin]

Nothing this expensive has ever crashed before in the world.

How about the Space Shuttle x 2?

[The Inspector]

The shuttles didn't crash, they were the victims of an explosion and a mid air structural failure. As a consequence, they both did impact the earth as gravity don't never take a day off-

[Jollygreenslugg]

Isn't a warbird an aircraft which has survived military service? The B2 is an active aircraft, so it's hardly a warbird.

Cheers,
Matt

[Randy Haskin]

The shuttles didn't crash, they were the victims of an explosion and a mid air structural failure. As a consequence, they both did impact the earth as gravity don't never take a day off-

Hmmm....so 'explosions' and 'mid air structural failures' in aerospace vehicles aren't crashes.

Interesting.

So, by your definition, the aircraft has to be functioning fine right up until impact with terra firma?

[bipe215]

The shuttles didn't crash, they were the victims of an explosion and a mid air structural failure. As a consequence, they both did impact the earth as gravity don't never take a day off-

Somebody better tell the NTSB. Their report says Scott Crossfield's
210 'crashed'

Steve G

[Shay]

Isn't a warbird an aircraft which has survived military service? The B2 is an active aircraft, so it's hardly a warbird.

Cheers,
Matt

Oh my Gawd, here we go again.

I realise this is an old arguement, but......:


How are they not WARBIRDS?

They are BIRDS (aircraft) ..... that go to WAR........seems pretty clear to me.

I don't understand the ill-concieved notion that a "Military" aircraft isn't a Warbird until it has been retired from service and is being flown in "Civilian" hands.

As if to say that it only has value after serving it's intended design and purpous and is no longer needed by the military. If this is the case then this would lead one to believe that the term WARBIRD is an oxymoron because these aircraft once struck from active duty certainly don't go to WAR. CIVBIRDS or PEACEBIRDS or 401kBIRDS would be more accurate.

I think that it is a very narrow-minded point of view to think an aircraft, just because it doesn't have pistons, props, isn't 60 years old or isn't touring the airshows in inaccurate paint schemes isn't a WARBIRD.

Is a F-105 or a F/A-18 any less of an Warbird than a P-51 when you weigh them against their merits?

Or by the same token, Is a L-3 more of a WARBIRD than an F-15 or F-16?


Shay
_____________
Semper Fortis

[Malo83]

Isn't a warbird an aircraft which has survived military service? The B2 is an active aircraft, so it's hardly a warbird.

Cheers,
Matt

Oh my Gawd, here we go again.

I realise this is an old arguement, but......:


How are they not WARBIRDS?

They are BIRDS (aircraft) ..... that go to WAR........seems pretty clear to me.

I don't understand the ill-concieved notion that a "Military" aircraft isn't a Warbird until it has been retired from service and is being flown in "Civilian" hands.

As if to say that it only has value after serving it's intended design and purpous and is no longer needed by the military. If this is the case then this would lead one to believe that the term WARBIRD is an oxymoron because these aircraft once struck from active duty certainly don't go to WAR. CIVBIRDS or PEACEBIRDS or 401kBIRDS would be more accurate.

I think that it is a very narrow-minded point of view to think an aircraft, just because it doesn't have pistons, props, isn't 60 years old or isn't touring the airshows in inaccurate paint schemes isn't a WARBIRD.

Is a F-105 or a F/A-18 any less of an Warbird than a P-51 when you weigh them against their merits?

Or by the same token, Is a L-3 more of a WARBIRD than an F-15 or F-16?


Shay
_____________


X2
Semper Fortis

[CH2Tdriver]

quote"Oh my Gawd, here we go again.

I realise this is an old arguement, but......:


How are they not WARBIRDS?"


It is the de-facto generally accepted definition below.

"Warbird is a term used to describe vintage military aircraft. Although the term originally implied piston driven aircraft from the World War II era, it is now often extended to include all military aircraft, including jet powered aircraft, that are no longer in military service. Vintage jet aircraft in flyable condition, however, are much rarer due to technical complexity.

Sometimes, the term "Warbird "also applies to newly built replicas of vintage aircraft, such as Allison V-1710 powered Yak-9s from Yakovlev, Me 262s built by the Me 262 Project and FW 190s by Flug Werk.

Restored warbirds are a frequent attraction at airshows. Highly modified as well as "stock" warbirds can also frequently be seen at air races, since late-war fighter planes are among the fastest propeller-driven planes ever built. The most popular warbirds for races seem to be the P-51 Mustang, the Hawker Sea Fury, the F8F Bearcat, the T-6 Texan and the F4U Corsair."

Plus when I read the title of this thread my heart stopped as I thought I was about to read that we lost a B-17 or Lanc or P-38 or something! That nonewithstanding we lost an expensive aircraft true, but even the military admits and plans for 'attrition' in their fleet procurements.

Whats most important is that the crew ejected safely.

[Ontario-Warbird]

I think the most important thing in this thread is that the 2 pilots are safe and well and it didn't kill anyone on the ground.

Dave C

[The Inspector]

Come on Randy, quit trying to separate the fly poop from the pepper. Yes, in the end both shuttles did impact (or crash) the earth, so, yes, I guess they did crash.
If you personally need to divorce yourself from your government issued vehicle because of technical difficulties that you cannot overcome, and you decide to give it back to the taxpayers and eject, did your aircraft crash or did it impact with the earth because of outside events caused by the control stick actuator being absent from its assigned place within that aircraft?
Unless you have a method for suspending gravity, then I suppose any impact is a 'crash'

[snj5]

I think the most important thing in this thread is that the 2 pilots are safe and well and it didn't kill anyone on the ground.

Dave C

Absolutely. Thank goodness for ejection seat technology.
With all of the exotic materials and secret equipment in a B-2 it is going to be a HAZMAT / security nightmare

[warbird1]

With all of the exotic materials and secret equipment in a B-2 it is going to be a HAZMAT / security nightmare

I just wonder how long it will be before some enterprising young Airman starts selling pieces off it on Ebay and spills all our secrets to the enemy.