Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The B-52 was designed in a hotel room over one weekend

sandboxx.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 209 posts

Re: The B-52 was designed in a hotel room over one weekend

#101

Post by gladiatr72 »

daveslash wrote: post #62
Forgeties79 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“I want all my music to fit in the palm of my hand.” Steve Jobs created the iPod in just one day

Heh, exactly. Succinctly put. Here's a longer-winded version: I'm an R&D Software Engineer. In a workplace setting years ago we had a Software Architect who would advise management and the implementation engineers. Me and my team were really struggling with a difficult implementation problem relating to some federated identity stuff. Management told us to go to the architect. We explained our problems and he waved th…

Or perhaps more in-line with a favorite of mine:

The secret to mankind achieving unpowered flight is for someone to throw themselves at the ground and simply miss..

Re: The B-52 was designed in a hotel room over one weekend

#102

Post by jackcosgrove »

runjake wrote: post #3

The first prototype of the B-52 may have been designed in a weekend. The B-52 of today was iteratively designed over decades and the current H models are entirely different planes than earlier models (although structurally very close to the G model). Another HN commenter mentioned GPS being designed over a holiday. But we spent years and years in the military debugging GPS and making it functional. Claiming that some…

> Claiming that something was designed in a day is good clickbait

It also glorifies an attitude that the greenfield design process is where the wizardry happens, and that forgetting about or dropping products after this stage is acceptable. Only failed products don't need to be maintained and refined.

Re: The B-52 was designed in a hotel room over one weekend

#104

Post by Someone »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #71
Forgeties79 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“I want all my music to fit in the palm of my hand.” Steve Jobs created the iPod in just one day

Meh, the Archos Jukebox was doing that well before Steve Jobs. Steve's genius concept was "I want all my music to fit in the palm of my hand, but with a way better UI than Archos Jukebox" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archos_Jukebox_series

The iPod also fitted easier in the typical hand (and, probably more important, in the typical pocket). Dimensions of that Archos: 3.1 in x 4.4 in x 1.2 in = 16.4 in³

Dimensions of the first iPod: 4.02 in x 2.43 in x 0.78 in = 7.62 in³. That’s less than half the volume.

(Weight-wise, the difference is smaller (10.2 vs 6.5 oz)

Re: The B-52 was designed in a hotel room over one weekend

#105

Post by colechristensen »

KaiserPro wrote: post #88

As a non airforce/aeroengineer, can someone explain why the smaller dual engine nacelles haven't been replaced with a larger turbofan engine? surely its more efficient and lower maintenance? is it that it would alter the centre of drag/gravity/thrust too much and would require too much engineering?

They thought about it but decided it would be a waste of money. Lots of considerations go into engine choice and making changes is quite expensive.

>In 1996, Rolls-Royce and Boeing jointly proposed fitting each B-52 with four leased Rolls-Royce RB211-535 engines. This would have involved replacing the eight Pratt & Whitney TF33 engines (total thrust 136,000 lbf (600 kN)) with four RB211 engines (total thrust 148,000 lbf (660 kN)), which would increase range and reduce fuel consumption, at a cost of approximately US$2.56 billion for the whole fleet. However, a USAF analysis in 1997 concluded that Boeing's estimated savings of US$4.7 billion would not be realized and that re-engining would instead cost US$1.3 billion more than keeping the existing engines, citing significant up-front procurement and re-tooling expenditure.

Re: The B-52 was designed in a hotel room over one weekend

#106

Post by hajile »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #57
daveslash wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Came here to say something similar. My comment being "The word 'designed' is being used very generously here. I would suggest 'conceptualized' as a better word"

Conceptualized is a perfect word. The claim that it was designed in a weekend is like those “overnight success” stories that ignore the decade of work that someone put in to get to that point.

The current F-22 looks and acts nothing like the YF-22 that won the competition (despite the YF-23 being much better, but that's another story).

The fact that the B-52 production was not just similar to the prototype, but similar to a complete mockup is a testament to the accuracy of their initial vision. The fact that the US continues to use that design after so many decades is even more amazing.

Re: The B-52 was designed in a hotel room over one weekend

#107

Post by gfdsgfdsf »

lelandfe wrote: post #92
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conceptualized is a perfect word. The claim that it was designed in a weekend is like those “overnight success” stories that ignore the decade of work that someone put in to get to that point.

This was genuinely an overnight success, though. They got approval on the strength of this design. And the broad strokes design of the aircraft seemingly stayed intact through the subsequent processes. This entire comment chain is bewildering, we're attacking strawmen. Did anyone read this article and leave assuming no further work was done after approval? Was this HN comment chain enlightening to anyone ? Who are we…

you just summed up 100% of internet commenting

Re: The B-52 was designed in a hotel room over one weekend

#108

Post by devman0 »

KaiserPro wrote: post #88

As a non airforce/aeroengineer, can someone explain why the smaller dual engine nacelles haven't been replaced with a larger turbofan engine? surely its more efficient and lower maintenance? is it that it would alter the centre of drag/gravity/thrust too much and would require too much engineering?

Someone else mentioned in another thread that it's for resiliency. I guess if you're carrying 70,000 lbs of ordnance you don't want an engine failure messing with your thrust too much during critical flight phases.

Re: The B-52 was designed in a hotel room over one weekend

#110

Post by digdugdirk »

hajile wrote: post #106
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conceptualized is a perfect word. The claim that it was designed in a weekend is like those “overnight success” stories that ignore the decade of work that someone put in to get to that point.

The current F-22 looks and acts nothing like the YF-22 that won the competition (despite the YF-23 being much better, but that's another story). The fact that the B-52 production was not just similar to the prototype, but similar to a complete mockup is a testament to the accuracy of their initial vision. The fact that the US continues to use that design after so many decades is even more amazing.

Any recommendations for an overview resource that better explains your statements?

Both about the YF-23 design being better, and about why the B-52 design is so good.

Post reply on HN