Jimmy Dolittle part 2?

I got this in an email.

" While this may look like a gag shot, it is actually a "transport of a transport" necessity. The B-52 was in Beirut , Lebanon undergoing routine fuel tank cleaning. Workmen accidentally damaged the bladder system and had to install the bladders from smaller C-130s temporarily. The plane was flown to nearby McCollough air base where it was lifted upon a barge bound for Tyre on the Mediterranean . Once there it was off-loaded onto the carrier deck for transport to Crete where the appropriate tank bladders were installed. It was then flown back to Beirut.
Military cooperation in action."

Umm seems like would have been easier to install the fuel tank bladders at McCollough air base?

Interesting picture.

Just for the record, the largest carrier-based aircraft was the Douglas A-3 Skywarrior, aka the Whale. The Wikipedia article below says that maximum takeoff weight for the A-3 was a whopping 82,000 pounds, roughly double that of Jimmy Doolittle's B-25s. (Max takeoff weight for a B-52 is around half a million pounds.)

I recall that a Whale (electronic intelligence version) was a crucial part of the operation that captured the Achille Lauro highjackers.

Raytheon Corporation (formerly Hughes Aircraft Company) still has two or three A-3s flying that they use for testing radar systems.
A 3 Skywarrior

That`s a really neat and impressive picture. Thanks for sharing!

I think they had better use BOTH of the bow cats to launch that one!

Yes it would be. And, of course, the photo is fake. For starters, the B-52 is nearly that big in comparison to the USS Nimitz. There would be over 100 feet of clearance between the wingtips and the side of the flight deck.

The idea that the US Air Force has their tanks cleaned in Beirut is rather absurd. Lebanon isn"t exactly a friendly nation, the last time we were in there 243 US Marines were killed.

And, while I ain"t been everywhere, I"ve never heard of any McCollough air base.

- US Navy, 14 years

And the gullibility of the users of this site never ceases to impress.

Yes, I smelled a fake, too. As far as I know, the last time the US was in Beirut was when the Marine barracks were bombed, as you describe. And the place hasn't gotten any more hospitable since them.

Also, I seem to recall that the B-52 has wet wings, not bladders. And removal of a fuel cell from the wing of an aircraft is typically a big deal. I remember a "Dirty Jobs" segment where they showed airmen climbing INSIDE the fuel cells of a C-5 to repair them.

its a nice picture, but im also having problems with it, first the fighter jets around the b-52 arnt the same scale as the bomber, 2 have their noses under the left engines of the bomber, and i dont think thats possible, the b-52 is too big for the carrier side to side , and most important, the b-52 if it was a real pic has both the recovery area as well as the cats blocked on the carriers flight deck rendering it all but inoperative, except to helicopters. i would think the military would rather scrap the b-52 than have a carrier over there that can't launch its planes, just my opinion

Also what carrier would shut down flight operations to transport a B52?

Some people will believe anything...whoever did the picture did a nice job, but that doesn't make it any less fake.

A few facts, in addition to what's already been pointed out:

1. A google search failed to turn up any references to a "McCollough Air Base".

2, The idea of installing a fuel bladder from a different model/manufacturer airplane is pure unadulterated nonsense.

3. Large airplanes have multiple fuel tanks, and can easily fly with one empty. Commercial airliners do it all the time.

Keith

Lots of valid comments as to why it's a fake. My first thought was that I dont see any way the Navy would allow a carrier to be in that hostile area with its entire flight deck disabled.

Also, just wondering what the wingspan of the B-52 is vs. the width of the carrier. That in itself would probably give it away.


Gene

Oh Well.
It fooled me.
It's still a neat picture.

Well one thing I notice is if it is a fake they even brought the shadow with it and the shadow sun angle matches shadow sun angle of the other aircraft. However everything else points to fake.

Sorry its a fake I looked up the specs
Width of flight deck on CV-68 Nimitz is 252 Ft.
Wing Span on B-52 is 185 ft.

Walt

F-111 was tested for carrier use.
Weight F-111F, empty 47,481 pounds (21,367 kilograms).
Maximum Takeoff Weight F-111F, 100,000 pounds (45,000 kilograms)
EF-111A 89,000 pounds (40,050 kilograms)

In late 1968, became the only F-111 to perform carrier operations
on the USS Coral Sea after completing arrestor proving tests at
PAX River in February 1968

Maximum Takeoff Weight 155,000 pounds (69,750 kilograms).
Operating Weight: 83,000 Pounds

youtube link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfwJJD5jGXk

Yep, a lot of heavy aircraft have operated off carriers. But a few takeoffs and landing don't make a plane "carrier-based". A-3 Skywarriors made cat shots and arrested landings pretty much on a daily basis for over 30 years.

The A-3 lacked ejection seats, incidentally, meaning that if one went into the drink due to a failed takeoff or landing, it was pretty much a given that the crew would be killed. A-3 crews made the morbid joke that "A-3D" stood for "All Three Dead".

How exactly could it be lifted and placed with such precision and with the other planes on deck while they did it? I don't think so. Dave

I've worked B52's and they do have bladders in the wings. In my Air Force career I have worked as a Depot Aircraft Battle Damage Repair Team member and we have repaired aircraft for "one time flights" back to where the repair could be completed correctly. So, it is feasible for the Military to do something like this. But a C130 fuel cell is pretty far fetched. I've worked on B52s. I've replaced the # 9, 10 and 11 fuel cells. It's not all that hard. It is no easier or harder to do the job correctly the first time than it is to put in C130 fuel cells. The really critical part is keeping the aircraft level while it is on jacks for as long as it takes to finish the job. Battle Damage Repair Teams do make unorthodox repairs (with engineering approval) on a limited basis. I've used duct tape to secure tubing and wiring, aluminum tape to patch holes in wing surfaces, angle iron to repair structures. What ever we could safely do to get the aircraft to a place where repairs could be accomplished "by the Book". Not everyday, but when necessary. I was assigned to the 2951st Combat Logistics Support Squadron for 14 years doing this kind of repair.
I can't find any info on McCollough Air Base. There is a ring of truth in this story but I still think it is a great Photo Shop job.