# North American XB-28 Dragon



## fubar57 (Jan 7, 2018)

Another new one to me, only 2 made...







North American XB-28 Dragon - Wikipedia​

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Crimea_River (Jan 7, 2018)

Looks a lot like an A-20.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 10, 2018)

Indeed. 

Good shot!


----------



## Gastounet (Jan 12, 2018)

Photos I have found on the net

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gastounet (Jan 12, 2018)

I can not explain why the same photo is there three times.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 14, 2018)

It was designed as a high altitude version of the B-25, though it ultimately evolved into a completely different design, mostly owing to the desire for a pressurized hull: If I recall, it had a turbocharged engine, and remotely controlled turrets, and a top speed of 372 mph @ 25000 feet. Typical bomb-load would have been 2000 pounds but maximum would be around 4,000.

It's maximum range was around 2000 miles, which combined with it's high altitude capability and similar maximum internal load, sort of made it a high altitude A-26 (the A-26 flew shorter distances, but flew lower).

The design was cancelled because high altitude bombing being hampered by clouds, bad weather, and low altitude planes were adequate for the job.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Sep 24, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Sep 24, 2019)

North American B-28 Dragon Cockpit 
*General characteristics*

*Crew:* Five
*Length:* 56 ft 4 in (17.17 m)
*Wingspan:* 72 ft 6 in (22.10 m)
*Height:* 22 ft 0 in (6.71 m)
*Wing area:* 675.9 sq ft (62.79 m2)
*Empty weight:* 25,575 lb (11,601 kg)
*Gross weight:* 35,763 lb (16,222 kg)
*Max takeoff weight:* 39,135 lb (17,751 kg)
*Powerplant:* 2 × Pratt & Whitney R-2800-27 18 cyl. air-cooled radial turbosupercharged piston engines, 2,000 hp (1,500 kW) each*Performance*
*Maximum speed:* 372 mph (599 km/h, 323 kn) at 25,000 ft (7,600 m)
*Cruise speed:* 255 mph (410 km/h, 222 kn)
*Range:* 2,040 mi (3,280 km, 1,770 nmi)
*Service ceiling:* 34,800 ft (10,600 m)
*Rate of climb:* 1,111 ft/min (5.64 m/s)
*Wing loading:* 52.87 lb/sq ft (258.1 kg/m2)*Armament*
*Guns:* 6 × .50 caliber (12.7mm) M2 machine guns in remote-sighted turrets
*Bombs:* Normal 2,000 lb (910 kg), Maximum 4,000 lb (1,800 kg)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Sep 24, 2019)

Редкая птица. North American XB-28

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Sep 24, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 25, 2019)

Good stuff


----------



## Maty12 (Jun 20, 2021)

I know this thread has been dormant for a while, but does anyone know what specific propellers the XB-28 & XB-28A used? With the counter-rotating propellers being one of the more pioneering aspects of the design it's very odd to me that I haven't been able to find a manufacturer or model for them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Maty12 (Aug 10, 2021)

Wind Tunnel models of the XB-28 have been used on a number of NACA studies. These are the ones I was able to find:

-Effects of Direction of Propeller Rotation on the Longitudinal Stability of the 1/10-Scale Model of the North American XB-28 Airplane with Flaps Neutral, Special Report

-The Influence of Vertical-tail Design and Direction of Propeller Rotation on Trim Characteristics of a Twin-engine-airplane Model with One Engine Inoperative
This one used several combinations of vertical stabilizers, including all-moving surfaces and a twin tail.

-Wind-Tunnel Tests of a Twin-Engine Model to Determine the Effect of Direction of Propeller Rotation on the Static-Stability Characteristics

I also suspect that this paper is using an XB-28 nacelle:
Some Lift and Drag Measurements of a Representative Bomber Nacelle on a Low-drag Wing I
Note the shape of the air intake, spinner, cowling, nacelle and the additional diagonal seam/gap a few inches aft of the cowl flaps that's present in the XB-28. There are a few differences, such as the lack of the large outboard air intake, a higher-mounted exhaust stack and very large fillets/streamlining around the wing. According to the paper its using a 1-10 nacelle buitl by North American for "a proposed twin engine bomber."

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Maty12 (Oct 24, 2022)

Had seen this footage earlier in a Boeing stock footage website, seems it's on youtube now

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 24, 2022)

Gastounet said:


> I can not explain why the same photo is there three times.


Fixed it for you.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 24, 2022)

I seem to remember the round windows behind the cockpit had something like fish-eye optics, for what I can assume was for greater situational awareness.


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 3, 2022)

Quite like this bird....

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 8, 2022)

Maty12 said:


> I know this thread has been dormant for a while, but does anyone know what specific propellers the XB-28 & XB-28A used? With the counter-rotating propellers being one of the more pioneering aspects of the design it's very odd to me that I haven't been able to find a manufacturer or model for them.



I can't answer what propellers it was fitted with, but likely Hamilton Standard Hydromatic or Curtiss electric props. One thing, though, propeller rotation in different directions is a function of the engine and/or gearbox, not the propeller itself.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 8, 2022)

The more I learn about this aeroplane, the more apparent how advanced a concept it was for its time. I'm sure if pursued with necessary resources it would have been quite the machine. It was pressurised and featured remote gun turrets, although these were not developed to any extent on the prototype. The XB-28A had GE turrets.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 8, 2022)

The B-28 was a solid medium bomber platform, good speed, good range and good loadout.

I don't see why the AAF did not pursue it unless there was politics involved or that the B-28 entering production might hinder current NAA production types (which was highly unlikely if that was the case).


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 8, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> I don't see why the AAF did not pursue it unless there was politics involved or that the B-28 entering production might hinder current NAA production types



It'd be interesting to dive into the archives to find out if that was the case. The B-28 gets very little airtime, and it would be good to find out more information.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Nov 8, 2022)

Nice airplane eBay non type specific


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 8, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> It'd be interesting to dive into the archives to find out if that was the case. The B-28 gets very little airtime, and it would be good to find out more information.


Fully agree with you!


----------



## Maty12 (Nov 8, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> I can't answer what propellers it was fitted with, but likely Hamilton Standard Hydromatic or Curtiss electric props. One thing, though, propeller rotation in different directions is a function of the engine and/or gearbox, not the propeller itself.


Forgot to update it here, but I did find this information thanks to a tech report on ebay. It used Hamilton Standard 24E50 hubs with 6491A-12 and 6492A-12 blades.



GrauGeist said:


> The B-28 was a solid medium bomber platform, good speed, good range and good loadout.
> 
> I don't see why the AAF did not pursue it unless there was politics involved or that the B-28 entering production might hinder current NAA production types (which was highly unlikely if that was the case).


As far as I can tell, simply because the war continued, though shenanigans are always possible. By 1942/43 the USAAF was using its medium bombers at low and medium altitude and had no need for a high-altitude medium. It was a good airplane, but not one the AAF felt it needed. Same goes for the B-33. If the B-28 had flown a year or a year and a half earlier it might have made it into production.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 8, 2022)

Maty12 said:


> As far as I can tell, simply because the war continued, though shenanigans are always possible. By 1942/43 the USAAF was using its medium bombers at low and medium altitude and had no need for a high-altitude medium. It was a good airplane, but not one the AAF felt it needed. Same goes for the B-33. If the B-28 had flown a year or a year and a half earlier it might have made it into production.



Informative, thank you!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 12, 2022)

The standard explanation seems to be that it was a high-altitude platform intended for the ETO, and the weather was so generally miserable during WWII that lower-altitude airplanes were deemed better-suited for the job. I think that is simplifying it a bit, and I'd like to know the real reason myself. Cheers.


----------



## GTX (Nov 12, 2022)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 12, 2022)

I really like Mr. Nash’s channel. If you look at his earlier stuff, there’s some interesting first hand views of Third World conflicts. When I watch those, there’s a Warren Zevon tune that runs through my mind. Something about a cerebrally challenged Thompson gunner.


----------

