What if the B-52 was a passenger plane?

It would probably be very effective when it comes to getting the passengers to leave the plane -just open those big doors at the bottom of the plane.

Ya, umm, no...

What about MPG with eight engines?

This was fun. Now do a passenger version of the B-2 bomber.

Could you do the Lockheed C-5 Super Galaxy?

One big thing that was not considered in the video is fuel economy. Those old engines would be atrocius for commercial use.

I don't think the passenger B-52 could carry enough passengers do much damage to the target...

I wouldn't be surprised if the military hasn't already had someone crunch the numbers of this for troop transport at one time or another.

Nothing with more than 2 engines is commercially viable.

Nope...

One simple reason why not - Fuel costs compared with other planes!!

Maybe we should ask Grandpa Buff. Habitual Linecrosser reference

keep the imperial system too, I quit watching halfway through, not knowing what many dimnentions were.

Just don’t fly over war zones

Its way too narrow.

A flight of fancy at best. You can't assume passenger capacity based purely on passenger weight. It's a combined passenger weight, along with luggage, and food and beverage to sustain them during the flight. Additionally, the weight of seating and other infrastructure (toilets, storage tanks for non-potable water and infotainment systems). Lastly, commercial aircraft also count on carrying a fair amount of non-passenger sourced cargo as a means of generating revenue to keep passenger ticket prices affordable. The Concorde was marginally narrower, but it also flew faster than the speed of sound, which is what it's passengers paid for. If your focus is on aeronautics, you should know these facts already... so why the nonsense video about how an airframe designed around the function of a strategic bomber be converted to support passenger service? lol

after all, the Lockheed Constellation was originally designed a a bomber....believe it was possibly the XB-33.....

The B-52H is not in production. Boeing is simply updating existing airframes.

Boeing already has a plane in production that can carry more than a B-52H could as a civilian aircraft. It's the 777-200 or 300 both can handle ~103,700 kg (~228,700 lbs).

It's an interesting idea, but for this to be viable, you'll have to re-engine the aircraft, redesign the fuselage to handle passengers... Redesign the wing- aerodynamics have come quite far since the 1940/50s. By the time all this is done, you might as well design something new from scratch. It will be cheaper.

It also has a skinny fuselage.

It'd be the safest one still flying in the sky! :)

They are tiny inside, compared to commercial aircraft.

And of course it would have ejection seats so the passengers could bail out when the Boeing jet falls apart.

i think its a good idea, have a bunch of these operating and if a major war breaks out convert them for military use

It would also be nice if you could of been nice to see economics of profit per passengers. Military use usually don't care as much for engine efficiency as much a airline. Probably changing engine mounts to accommodate larger engines like GenX and lower the number of Engines to 4 from 8.

This was a terrible idea! There’s a reason bombers look like bombers and not passenger planes! Granted the Soviet Union nor Russia really cares what they look like as they will still shoot down passenger planes with innocent civilians on board.

How much does the USAF charge private planes for aerial refueling? Argentina to Moscow non stop just became possible

You could never make it a double decker. The fuselage is barely wide enough for 2-2 configuration, and just a fraction wider than Concorde. So the fuselage height is not more than 3 meters. Unless you want everyone to crawl inside and sit in fetus position. Even a much wider 737 or A320 has no chance to be a double decker even when the plane is much wider.

In your opening dialog, you state that "It can carry a ton of weight?" "Ton" is one of the most poorly used slang words in todays English, and does NOT belong in your intro!

They are focused in war, not in the people.

Hey numbnuts, since you apparently deleted the wing center section where it goes through the fuselage are you just going to bolt the wings to the fuselage skin?

It would be cold, noisy, trailing smoke, and always late. The plus side is there are very few 10,000-foot runways for it to use when the density altitude is high.

The main reason not to do it is we wouldn't want enemies to accidentally misidentify a passenger plane as a strategic bomber, and then shoot it down. It's the same reason we don't use the Minuteman III ICBM to launch satellites to orbit. It could absolutely do that, but we wouldn't want to trigger false alarms. The engines of the B-52 are also inefficient and dirty.

B52 was very thin for its size. I didn't need all the room of a passenger jet. I was driving out west somewhere remote and saw one off in the distance flying low. I believe he targeted me and flew right over my car at a hundred feet or so. No airport around. I got a great look at it.

I think the biggest issue with this would be that they haven’t produced this aircraft since the first half of the 1960s :)

He totally left out the fact (1) the fuel efficiency of the b52’s 8 engines is horrible and (2) the maintenance costs on a huge plane that old are exorbitant. The financial math doesn’t work.

An angle im surprised you didn't mention was the expanded room for comically large, fuel efficient, modern turbine engines that could be hung from those ultra high wings. I low key think new boeing desings will go back to have high wings expressly for this feature

Boeing is actually Using Air beluga similar engines to make the 747 fly again this time it's a twin engine

Solo fue una propuesta de Boeing para un avión capaz de transportar muchos basajeros pero apareció el 747 y paso de todo.

totally unreal! but a good exercise in imagination

And let's not forget the maintenance costs of those 8 huge engines...

747 can carry over 300,000lbs and the 787 can carry over 500,000 lbs. 70,000 lbs isn't much of a comparison

this would be the most impractical passenger plain designed for civilians use. the fuel consumption alone would not make it viable. you couldn't get enough people to even fill it to capasity the same reason that the Airbus A 380 is no longer in service plus there is the potential loss of life on a plain that seats that many.

Interesting idea. Also, i read maybe a year or two ago that the USAF wanted to retire the B52s but there is simply no other aircraft available that has all the features and capabilities of these magnificent jets. Hence the B52s are still flying.

Would the tickets be cheaper if they were going on a bombing run at the same time?🤔😆

"If you look out the left side of the plane, you will see the devastation we just caused."😂

That thing would lose so much money that it would take your breath away. It takes a military and a government to operate and maintain a beast like a B-52. Boeing is now considering a twin engine B-747.

You can cram about 200 more people in the wings