# Convair B-52 Project



## johnbr (Oct 24, 2018)

Net by luck.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Oct 25, 2018)




----------



## johnbr (Oct 25, 2018)

Convair LRHBA Long-Range Heavy Bomber


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 25, 2018)

Very cool!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Oct 26, 2018)

That appears to be an early iteration, probably when Boeing was also looking at turboprops.

The final result was the YB-60:

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 26, 2018)

The YB-60 was Convair, not Boeing.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 26, 2018)

No doubt a nice looking aircraft.


----------



## jmcalli2 (Oct 28, 2018)

GreenKnight121 said:


> That appears to be an early iteration, probably when Boeing was also looking at turboprops.
> 
> The final result was the YB-60:
> View attachment 514475
> ...



I never understood why Convair didn't bury the J57s in that thick wing.


----------



## ODonovan (Oct 28, 2018)

jmcalli2 said:


> I never understood why Convair didn't bury the J57s in that thick wing.



My guess would be ease of maintenance. They weren't nearly as reliable as the ones we have now. And, with eight of them, I imagine there would have been a LOT of engine swapping going on. Having them on pylons would drastically cut maintenance times and keep a greater percentage of them combat ready at any given time. Of course, it MIGHT have improved some of the handling and speed issues the 60 had. We'll never know.



-Irish

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Oct 28, 2018)

From a children's sticker book of 1954 attempting to summarise buried vs podded.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 28, 2018)

Also in the event of a catastrophic engine failure , a little less chance of losing the wing, with podded engines. Or more time before you lose the wing

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 29, 2018)

jmcalli2 said:


> I never understood why Convair didn't bury the J57s in that thick wing.



Because the wing was the same as the B-36, just angled to give it some sweep and a new filler piece put in at the leading edge where it joins to the fuselage. Burying the engines would have required more modifications and engineering time, while Convair were trying to do the YB-60 project as cheaply as possible.

Plus they were already using podded jet engines on the B-36, so just used 4 sets of them.

I believe there was also a turboprop version of the YB-60 proposed which would have had the turboprops suspended from pylons in pods.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 29, 2018)

The YB-60 was, indeed, proposed with turboprops as an option.

This would have 6 turboprops suspended from pylons under the wing. The jet version was to use 12 J47s in 6 pods suspended from pylons.

The YB-60 would change to have only 8 J57s jets instead, and turboprops remained a possibility.

Also, Boeing's XB-52 started life as a turboprop, but the engineers figured a pure jet would be superior. Still, the XB-55 was offered as an alternative to the XB-52, featuring 4 Allison turboprops.

Turboprops had also been considered by Convair for a development of the B-36A in 1947. There were to be 4 Wright XT-35 turboprops, driving tractor propellers, mounted in the inner two wing positions of the B-36. The outer nacelles were deleted and extra fuel tanks installed in that area.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## AMCKen (Oct 30, 2018)

Seems to me I read somewhere once that podded engines also helped reduce wing flutter by being an extra weigh hanging 'out there'. Similar idea to the weights one sometimes sees on elevators and ailerons of earlier aircraft.
https://www.largescaleplanes.com/articles/images/650/16.jpg


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Nov 1, 2018)

Also, podded engines allow fitting of much larger diameter and/or longer engines, while buried engines must remain close in dimensions to the original engine installed.

So while the B-52H had a larger diameter much higher-thrust turbofan version of the original B-52 engine (J57 replaced by TF33), and the KC-135E had the same upgrade, with the KC-135R receiving even larger diameter and higher-powered CFM-56s, the Valiant and its transport/airliner variant, the V.1000/VC-7, would have been restricted in their upgrade possibilities to engines close to the dimensions of its RR Conways (unless a new wing inner section was designed).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Nov 1, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The YB-60 was Convair, not Boeing.



Yes, the large CONVAIR painted on the fuselage made that blindingly obvious.

Please reread my comment for what I actually said.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 2, 2018)

GreenKnight121 said:


> Yes, the large CONVAIR painted on the fuselage made that blindingly obvious.
> 
> Please reread my comment for what I actually said.


Ok, let's see:


> "That appears to be an early iteration, probably when Boeing was also looking at turboprops.
> 
> The final result was the YB-60: "


So, from reading the comment, one was led to believe that *"Boeing was looking at turbo-props. The final result was the YB-60"*. Hence my reply.

So now what...


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 28, 2018)

Good stuff guys!


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 28, 2021)

To paraphrase johnbr, I found this thread by luck. Great stuff. I started following links and found the XB-55 and the XB-59. That’s 2 more I’ve never heard of. An American TU-95 (but classier, I’m biased) and a supersonic bomber that looks, to my untrained eye, a better design than the B-58 (closer to center line thrust). Go Boeing!


----------



## special ed (Jan 28, 2021)

You may be surprised that the ancestor of the Tu-95 was the B-29, through the Tu-4. Tupolev advanced through many prototypes and designs to come up with the Tu-95.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 28, 2021)

I much prefer (and I'm sure the pilots would also) the tricycle gear of the B-60 to the bicycle gear of the B-52. On the other hand, the B-60 was much slower than the B-52, although the Convair aircraft was[1] lighter.


-----

1: Well, according to the flawed Wikipedia


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 28, 2021)

special ed said:


> You may be surprised that the ancestor of the Tu-95 was the B-29, through the Tu-4. Tupolev advanced through many prototypes and designs to come up with the Tu-95.


You’re right. I am surprised.


----------



## special ed (Jan 28, 2021)

When I see the shots of fighters shadowing intruding Tu-95s they always make me think of the B-29 grand daddy.


----------



## special ed (Jan 28, 2021)

The B-52 landing gear was designed to allow crosswind landing compensation. There photos and videos showing the gear pivoted and touch down at an angle to the runway.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

