The Edwards Diaries
Test pilot Glen Edwards kept book on the Flying Wing. Now we know what he thought of the airplane he died in.
- By Daniel Ford
- Air & Space magazine, July 1997
(Page 4 of 5)
First a rainstorm drenched Muroc Dry Lake and put a halt to the program. Then Colonel Albert Boyd, the famously ferocious chief of the Flight Test Division, turned up with a contingent from Wright Field. What with one thing and another, it was Thursday, June 3, before they were able to resume the original pace. "What a wonderful day this has been!" Edwards wrote that evening, in what would be the last entry in his diary. "Got off two flights on the YB-49, a lovely flight on the DC-6, one on the C-74--and I'm bushed!. . . Col. Boyd flew the YB-49 for the first time today and wasn't too impressed. We all share the same views. A passable airplane in ideal conditions."
Edwards had flown the One in various configurations for nearly four hours that Thursday, stalling it with the landing gear down, with the landing gear up, and with flaps at all possible settings. Then Boyd flew it for another hour, after which the airplane was turned back to the manufacturer for a new round of tests. As Gary Pape summarized these tests in his book, Northrop Flying Wings, they were to probe "stability, control, and stalling characteristics that the AF pilots. . .felt were unacceptable."
On Friday, therefore, Edwards was back in the right seat as copilot in the Two. Over the course of four hours, Forbes and he made a high-power climb, ran speed-power tests at 10,000 feet, and calibrated the airspeed indicator. Then the two pilots telephoned Colonel Richard Horner in Dayton. Both pilots complained about the data they'd collected on aileron response, though it isn't clear whether they were finding fault with the airplane or alluding to trouble with the data collection systems. In any case, both the Dayton and Muroc contingents agreed to make an extra flight next day with "an augmented crew of test engineers."
So at 6:44 a.m. on Saturday, June 5, the Two took off on its final flight. Forbes was in the left seat, as aircraft commander, with Edwards flying as copilot on the right. Lieutenant Edward Swindell, who had the crucial task of balancing the airplane by feeding fuel to the engine from tanks that were forward and aft of the center of gravity, was behind them in the rear-facing flight engineer's seat. Two civilian engineers, Claire Leser and Chuck LaFountain, made up the "augmented crew."
Because it was Saturday, no chase plane was available, so the only first-hand reports came from Forbes himself. Just after 7 a.m., he radioed that he was over Bakersfield and climbing; half an hour later, that he was "over north end of Antelope Valley, 15,000 feet, and descending." As Northrop test pilot Fred Bretcher recalled the mission, it should have involved a climb to 40,000 feet and a series of performance tests--too many tests for Forbes and Edwards to have completed in 30 minutes. Probably the auxiliary power unit had pooped out before the Two reached its service ceiling, so Forbes had returned to an altitude where the APU could generate the power he needed to operate the electrical systems.
Their next chore was a series of stall tests at 15,000 feet, where the air was smoother. According to technical files from this series of tests that are preserved in the National Air and Space Museum archives, an Air Force civilian, Robert Coleman, said that the plan for this flight was to keep increasing engine power and angle of attack as the tests proceeded. "If the airplane proved to handle cleanly during [low-power] stalls," Coleman recalled, "stalls with higher power settings were to be obtained. . .. It is known," he added, "that the pilot was reluctant to attempt the higher power stalls."
If Forbes was reluctant, he had reason. In addition to repeated stalls as copilot to Edwards, he'd had a terrifying experience in February with Major Cardenas. That particular flight, Cardenas recalls, "resulted in a gyration that was abnormal. And I wouldn't stall the airplane again. Forbes knew that." In Test Flying at Old Wright Field, Cardenas gave more details: After stalling the One, he found himself at the controls of an airplane that was pointing almost straight up; refusing to respond to the controls, it was falling tail-first at 5,000 feet per minute. "The aircraft then tumbled over backwards," he wrote. After landing, he urged that no one perform intentional stalls in the YB-49. Forbes, he added, "heartily agreed" with that recommendation.
Wind tunnel tests had predicted just such a possibility, but Jack Northrop had dismissed it. "A vertical tail slide is hardly a maneuver to be courted [in] a 100-ton bomber," he'd told the Royal Aeronautical Society in 1947.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »





Comments (9)
Great article, I've wondered what the story was behind the loss of the YB-49.
I was raised on south central LA and became an airplane nut at the old age of 6, I lived on the approach path of the LA airport,and spent hours doing Plane Identification in my front yard. I'm now 64 and still a plane nut.
I used to watch the YB-49 flying to and from Muroc field over my house.
William Edwards, Simi Valley CA
Posted by william edwards on February 25,2009 | 07:14 PM
Great article, I've wondered what the story was behind the loss of the YB-49.
I was raised on south central LA and became an airplane nut at the old age of 6, I lived on the approach path of the LA airport,and spent hours doing Plane Identification in my front yard. I'm now 64 and still a plane nut.
I used to watch the YB-49 flying to and from Muroc field over my house.
William Edwards, Simi Valley CA
Posted by william edwards on February 25,2009 | 07:14 PM
i was stationed at edwards afb in the early 70's as an air policeman and remember strange events at the old mercury and atlas rocket testing site southwest of the lake bed. one night, it was an orb hovering above the area change colors from red to yellow to white but the distance could not be determined. this lasted about a half hour. i never reported it.
Posted by glenn gomes on May 31,2009 | 04:50 PM
mr. Northrops son lived across the street fom where i grew up....when he got older he came to live with them......i was young(5-9) but i remember pictures of the flying wing at their house and speaking with Mr. Nortrop....wish i had been a little older!
Posted by tim martin on June 19,2009 | 12:51 AM
Thanks for the comments. The article was a first run at preserving the Edwards diaries for posterity, and led to a full-length book, Glen Edwards: A Bomber Pilot's Diary, published by Smithsonian Institution Press. Some of the photographs for the book are posted . Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
Posted by Oldpilot on July 7,2009 | 12:39 PM
An interesting article. I was fortunate to see the XB-49 fly at an air show at March AFB in California. I believe it was 1948. It made 2 passes and that was it. The information was enlightening as not much was ever put into the news at that time. The aircraft was definitely a thing of beauty. It is ashame that the concept was ahead of technology.
Posted by Donald Burg on May 15,2010 | 02:25 AM
Hi,
I am hoping someone might answer a question for me. In the 1960's I remember attending quite a few airshows with my father. Both my mother and I remember seeing a flying wing at the show. I know they shut them down in 1948 (?) I think, but could there have been any flying exhibitions in the 60's? I have been told no, but is it possible?
Thanks to all!!
Posted by Kevin Wright on July 13,2010 | 05:15 PM
Pretty good article, but some disagreement with what I learned in a many hours long interview with Chuck Tucker, the Northrop test pilot who took over the YB-49 test program after Major Forbes pulled the outer wings off YB-49 No. 2, starting the stall too low and without a G-meter to avoid over stressing the wing.
After Forbes' crash the AF pilots refused to fly the no. 1 YB-49 but the AF wanted the stall tests flown because they had already decided to order 30 jet Wings ... which they did just weeks later. Chuck said the No. 1 was for performance, and the no.2 was instrumented for stability. He wound up flying all the stall tests, even at CGs aft of 30% GMAC, and recovered it from a spin, documented with photos from the chase plane. He flew the YB-49 for more than 100 hours, including the stability tests and autopilot (yaw) system, and said, "... the AF claims the Wjng was unstable were 'bullshit'. The plane was solid as a rock. A good airplane." Chuck also was flyign co-pilot when the Wing demonstrated radar-invisibi9lity -- it was Stealthy -- in several flights over the AF's new CGI radar at Half Moon Bay, north of San Francisco, but the AF ignored it. In the cross country speed comparison to the Boeing B-47 the AF juggled the range and takeoff/start, and the actual elapsed time, corrected, was the same for the YB-49. The Strategic Air Command need was for a 4000-mile-target plane, unescorted, that could get through 19,000 Russian interceptors. The huge B-36 couldn 't. The Stealthy Wing could.
Posted by Terrence O'Neill on April 18,2012 | 03:36 PM
The last line of the article was a laugh. How do you "miss" with an atomic bomb?
Posted by Wayne on May 22,2012 | 05:13 AM