B-2 Spirit question

[TomcatFanatic123]

Are the panel lines on the B-2 covered by RAM, like on the F-117?

Edited December 22, 2005 by TomcatFanatic123

[majortomski]

Maybe yes.. maybe no, what's your clearance level?

[gearheadrandy]

Panel lines? What panel lines?

I've walked around the USAF Museum's B-2 and it's very smooth. Okay, that's a restored and repainted machine, but all the operational photos I've seen look the same.

The 'In Action' book has lots of photos, is widely available, and doesn't cost much. :)

[majortomski]

Tomcat, the photos in the October 2003 edition of Flight Journal show tape on most of the lower surface removable panel edges. But I don't believe it is used on the major structural joints.

[check6man]

an the B-2 is heavily weathered too

[Just call me Ray]

Panel lines? What panel lines?

I've walked around the USAF Museum's B-2 and it's very smooth. Okay, that's a restored and repainted machine, but all the operational photos I've seen look the same.

The 'In Action' book has lots of photos, is widely available, and doesn't cost much. :)

I didn't know they had a B-2 in a museum already. Was it an operational bird or a test frame or a mock-up or what?

[garthk]

I didn't know they had a B-2 in a museum already. Was it an operational bird or a test frame or a mock-up or what?

Test frame, iirc used in vibration testing. From the sounds of it, they just covered the frame with plywood, fiberglass or some other material and made it look as close as practical to the real thing.

Having seen both it (last Summer) and the Spirit of Florida (a few years ago at an Andrews AFB/DoD Open House), it's a nice, impressive 1:1 scale model that should not in any way be used as representative of an operational aircraft.

[P-38 guy]

From the Museums web site.

Structural Testing

Northrop Grumman constructed two additional aircraft without engines or instruments for fatigue testing. On the second of those test aircraft (the B-2 on display) engineers attached computer-controlled, hydraulically driven plates along the airframe to simulate all flying conditions. They calculated that the structure would reach 150 percent of the design specifications, but the wing withstood stresses over 161 percent before it finally cracked.

Early production B-2s also underwent extensive environmental testing. In 1993, the Spirit of Ohio (serial number 82-1070) endured over 1,000 hours of extensive temperature testing at the McKinley Climatic Laboratory at Eglin AFB, Florida. It withstood temperatures ranging from -65 to 120 degrees Fahrenheit, rain, and high humidity. To verify the test results outside the laboratory, the Spirit of Ohio deployed to Eielson AFB, Alaska, in March 1996 for further cold climate testing. To signify these tests, the technicians painted the “Fire and Ice†artwork on the nose landing gear panel and signed it. Given to the USAF Museum in 1999, that nose panel was installed on the Museum’s B-2 during restoration.

Mike

[J.C. Bahr]

I used to get a quarterly update from the USAFM and I remember they mentioned that the particular bird on display was an "iron bird" that like Mike stated in his post was the same as the regular production birds, but was just a shell since it didn't have all the bells & whistles. It apparently sat for quite a while once turned over to the museum as there was supposed to be a pretty visible crack in the wing from the testing mentioned in Mike's post. They couldn't fix the crack as the military and Northrop weren't too forthcoming with WHAT exactly the wing surfaces were made of and how to go about cosmetically fixing it for display purposes. The update stated something to the extent that they weren't going to be able to put it on display until they had that rectified and I've often wondered how they fixed it.

Seeing that it was a non-flying test-airframe to begin with, would seem to me that it could've been repaired with common fibre-glass, unless the fibre-glass wouldn't adhere to the original material?

Now the other question... which Spirit was written off? I keep hearing that a few years ago somebody screwed up and didn't install lock-pins in the gear of one of them and that the gear folded on it while it was sitting in the hangar and injured like nine maintenance personnel. Word has it that it was a total write-off... which is a pretty expensive goof considering the price we tax-payers had to shell out for them! Perhaps the military is trying to keep a lid on it just for that reason, but I once saw a photo taken at Whiteman where in the background of one of the hangars there looked to be a hangar queen Spirit sitting with a lot of parts K-balled off of it.

Anybody know anymore?