Engine Drops Out of B-52 During Training at Minot Air Force Base

lol we have all been waiting a very long time for that one

I think that was supposed to be a joke, skylab72.

Yes
From Wikipedia
A KC-135A tanker (AF Ser. No. 58-0026)[3] from March AFB crashed shortly after takeoff from Minot AFB on 17 January 1968, killing 12 of the 13 on board.[4] Major General Charles M. Eisenhart, vice commander of the Fifteenth Air Force, was at the controls and over-rotated at takeoff in low visibility, inducing a stall. The survivor, a steward, was badly burned and later succumbed.[5] On a staff visit from March AFB, the aircraft was departing for Glasgow AFB, Montana.[4]

In the early hours of 4 October 1968, a Minot B-52H (AF Ser. No. 60-0027)[6] was on approach, completing an overnight training mission with six aboard. It lost power to four engines and crashed in a field eight miles (13 km) east, with four fatalities and two survivors.[7][8] Among the dead was a Lieutenant Colonel just days from retirement and the squadron clerk, on his first B-52 orientation ride.[6]

Col Eisenhart proceeded to takeoff against the advice of the tower (It was a rather odd, foggy day in January (Thaw?). The big shot didn't want to wait for the weather to clear. I remember it well because they crashed on base.

Similarly, the Pilot of the B52 was a desk jockey, getting his flight hours in bringing the clerk along on the ride. The radar gunner, got up to show the clerk, in the EWO seat, how to use the e seat and never was able to get out

And so is your reply irrelevant

Love how the article says the pilot declared an in-flight emergency when he "discovered" and engine was gone..."Hey Co, didn't we have four of those on the left wing when we took off?"

The engine separating from the pylon left live electrical connections exposed, likely a fuel leak and may have damaged the sister engine when the nacelle came apart/fell off. Depending upon which nacelle came apart, the potential for a flight control surface or spar damage was a real possibility. This event was not just an engine out approach scenario and there was real risk of losing the airframe and possibly a flight crew.

Err, most of the engines were attached to the plane via bolts?

What I mean is it looks as if 1 engine is connected to the engine directly next to it. So how can just 1 fall off? If 1 falls off, wouldn't the engine connected to it fall too? Or are they not actually connected to each other?

Besides a few fuel and electrical connections (non-structural) there are only 3 bolts holding each engine to the airframe. Due to budget cutbacks, those bolts are supplied by the lowest bidder.

Grrr, auto-correct. Bomb Bay.....

That's what I thought initially as well: That they were carrying an engine and it somehow got dropped from the bomb bay. That would be worse than the "dreaded 7-engine approach," IMO.

LOL..good comeback joel...

You think part of the reason we have 60 year old bombers is that we don't want to give the impression we plan to bomb the hell out of somebody ILO of smart bombs?

An off-topic aside-please forgive: Does it bother anyone other than me that the u.s. president-elect communicates his views via Twitter?

How did the AC write it up in the flight incident reports ? No readings with #_ Engine Displays. Also, High Fuel Flow from wing tanks. One wing seems to have more lift too.