A B-52 bomber in time for D-Day?

[MIflyer]

Take it from someone who has launched rockets. The step between a B-29 and the B-52 is much smaller than the step between Goddard and Atlas D. But in those books the purpose of the B-52 was to haul nukes; they only needed a few of them to do that.

I think it would be easier to go straight to the B-49 rather than the B-36.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Well the technology already existed for the needed rocket (V-2) and it's not like a nuke has to have pin point accuracy.

Most importantly, it could not be shot down by flak or fighters.

 

[Glider]

If we are into fantasy the Canberra would be more feasible and have almost as big an impact

 

[tomo pauk]

If we are into fantasy the Canberra would be more feasible and have almost as big an impact

Seem to me that you've forget that pieces of kit need to be designed in a cool country in order to feature in a book, let alone in a movie...

 

[Glider]

Your right, perfect square jaws, perfect teeth, sun kissed beaches and palm trees I get it. Been to Southend recently?
southend seafront - Bing images

 

[Keslerian]

The processes involved in manufacturing the turbine and compressor blades was not really available in the US in 1942, or anywhere. These processes were in the very early stages of development in 1942.

My knowledge on this subject is limited. Would you be able to explain further?

I wonder if something like an A6 would be more useful and less difficult for the times?

Obviously the range is the problem compared with the B-52. And the engine issue is the same (when the XP-59 first flew its engines gave 2 x 1,300lbf thrust, the A6 needs 2 x 9,000lbf and the B-52 8 x 10,000lbf).

But if you still have bases in the UK, the A6 would give the Germans a lot of strife.

Yeah, the A6 would be really useful. Its like the ultimate attack aircraft in a WW2 setting. Incredibly fast, agile, good rate of climb, and a very impressive payload too: It can carry more ordnance than a friggin' B-17!

 

[Keslerian]

The V-2 engines did not use much in the way of high temp materials. The Germans did not have access to those ores. Rather than using a gas generator to drive the turbopump turbine they used H202, which is a much colder reaction and meant the V-2 engine did not need as much in the way of nickle. That same problem killed their jet fighter program.

And there is nothing needed to build the B-52 in 1952 that was not available in 1942. If you suppose that the later knowledge as to alloys and designs are supplied, you are there. The big question is: would you even build a B-52 or something better?

Well, the absence of the heavy press program would be a PITA. But not necessarily a crippling problem.

The transistor was accidentally discovered in 1921 and invented in 1946. A four year advancement - and then some - in that technology would be trivial to implement. And computers do not have to be the size of a paperback book to work.

I can't really agree with that. After all, there is a pretty massive leap between the invention of the transistor, the invention of the integrated circuit, and then the microprocessor. There was a computer in 1953 that used 200 point-contact transistors and 1300 point diodes. (That was about the best they could do at the time, because transistors are impossible to mass produce without the planar process)

Once the integrated circuit was built, transistors got progressively smaller with each generation, which allowed designers to put more and more of them onto a silicon chip. ''The INTEL 4004 Microprocessor that was introduced in 1971 had 2,300 transistors. The INTEL Pentium 4 Processor introduced in 2000 had 42,000,000 transistors.'' The downtimers can do lots of things with their future knowledge, but building computers isn't really one of them.

 

[wuzak]

My knowledge on this subject is limited. Would you be able to explain further?

I think in the way the blades were constructed - evolved from sheet metal to precision cast or forged - and the way they are connected to the hub.

 

[J.A.W.]

Also, apart from pains-taking thermo-development in the hot-turbine section,
a steady transitition in compressors - between high-speed & sub-sonic usage, with more bypass fan use for the latter,
all to get some 1/2 decent fuel economy - from this thirsty ICE machine..

 

[J.A.W.]

I'll add that SS Colonel Dr von Braun & his mob of Nazi rocket scientists
- do deserve aero-space credit for proving that such a large technically-complex
machine could power through the putative 'sound-barrier' intact..

& to handle such heat & shock stresses, arcing high across the Earth's curve
as an effective ballistic-missile, it was pretty impressive for 3/4s of century ago..
regardless of its actually negligible war-weapon value..

 

[J.A.W.]

& on the matter of computer develpment, I recall reading many years ago that
in 1945, ADGB were working on plans to use their new-fangled computer to integrate
a control system, so as to operate a radar directed, proximity fuse-tipped, heavy flak barrage
intended to down von Braun & Dornberger's V2's, right then - arcing down on London..

In fact, while von Braun was rapidly 'Paperclipped' by US security forces, ol' Dornberger
was held by the Brits for a couple of years, to help with such matters - under threat of
war-crimes prosecution - for non-compliance..

 

[GrauGeist]

The B-36 was already in development during WWII, it's first flight was just shortly after the conclusion.
Given it's size, speed and payload capabilities for the time, it was the most advanced bomber without rival and would remain at the top for nearly a decade.

For contrast, the Soviet Union had the Tu-4 (reverse-enginered B-29) as their primary bomber...

 

[J.A.W.]

Nah, the B-36 was the epitome of a humungous 'white elephant' - that only the US could afford..
( even then, it was a 'close run thing' - against the USN's new 'big carrier' demands,
& only saved by 'the bomb' )
..it was obsolescent by the time it got into service ( & oh yeah - it was a horror, to service)..

Chuck Yeager enjoyed putting the hopes of the USAF 'bomber mob' straight,
on the gun-aiming problems of the MiG 15 he evaluated.. along the lines of..

'Sure its lousy, but its big cannon can 'cover the spread' - offered the by the bloated B-36's planform!'

 

[GrauGeist]

Nah, the B-36 was the epitome of a humungous 'white elephant' - that only the US could afford..
( even then, it was a 'close run thing' - against the USN's new 'big carrier' demands,
& only saved by 'the bomb' )
..it was obsolescent by the time it got into service ( & oh yeah - it was a horror, to service)..

Chuck Yeager enjoyed putting the hopes of the USAF 'bomber mob' straight,
on the gun-aiming problems of the MiG 15 he evaluated.. along the lines of..

'Sure its lousy, but its big cannon can 'cover the spread' - offered the by the bloated B-36's planform!'

WTF are you even going on about?

The B-36 was the world's first nuclear delivery platform, it had a cruising speed faster than most contemporary fighters of the day, it had a max. conventional loadout that would only be surpassed by the B-52.

There is no way it was "obsolescent" by the time it got into service (1949) because there wasn't anything else that could match it for years - It was put to paper in 1941 and saw it's first flight in 1946 - it was in service less than three years later. Nothing that ANY nation produced could match it.

So either you're sadly misinformed or you're just making noise to discount my post. In either case, go read a book, learn WTF you're talking about and come back when you have something to bring to the table.

 

[J.A.W.]

Hey man.. of the two us, guess who could really use some more 'book learning',
likely its the Ford-Merlin & Wright-fighter faux pas guy.. right?

The B-36 was 'meat-on-the-plate' for the MiG 15, which is why not even one - was used in Korea..
& unlike the B-52, ( which has served the USAF well, for many decades & is still going strong)
the ungainly 'maintainers nightmare' B-36 never so much as dropped a bloody hand grenade, in anger..

Curtis LeMay, SAC boss hated 'em & could hardly wait to be rid of those sodding sauropods..

 

[vikingBerserker]

So in the book there were Mig 15s?????? Did I miss something that the Russians were fighting the US?

 

[J.A.W.]

Maybe they jumped out of the 'Zero was too good...' thread, having learned the 3 essentials from those wily Nippons..
Surprise, fear & ruthless effciency..

 

[MIflyer]

Yes, in the book the Soviets were working on building Mig-15's. The info from 2021 not only provided technical data but knowledge of what was going to happen after the war as well. In the book, before WWII was over it evolved into a secret war between the US and the USSR, not necessarily with the approval of the senior leadership of 1945. The people from the future knew that it was vital to strangle the Red baby in its crib.

So a B-49 or B-52 would be better than a B-36.

As for computers, it was explained that everyone aboard those time traveling ships had multiple personal laptops, tablets, iphones, etc. Each one of those items had more computing capability than existed anywhere else in 1942. Joseph Gobbels was even brought to tears by the frequent message "Windows Has a Problem And Needs to Shutdown Right Now."

 

[vikingBerserker]

Ok, this makes more sense to me - thank you.

I stick with the ballistic missiles then as being the best alternative. German V-2 like rocket with a nuke and a better guidance system.

 

[Shortround6]

The Problem a lot of these time travel books have is that the "time travelers" do NOT bring all the technical information of how to produce the weapons/planes/ships they have with them.

And unfortunately for even time travel reality ( there is a real stretch in itself) the planes/engine/ computers of 2021 (or even 2001) are generations different than the even the prototype engines of 1941 so that the only things they have in common is general operating principles.
In aircraft fabrication they were using those big Hydraulic presses to bend chemically milled sheets.

WIthout the knowledge of how to do chemical milling the big hydraulic presses are much less useful.

In the turbine engine there a number of generations in such things as turbine blades, some of which had nothing in common with their predecessors except shape. For instance RR went, in the years between 1972 and 1987, from an inlet temperature to the turbine of 1530degrees K to 1739 degrees K. using not only different alloys and different layouts of air passages to cool the blades but 3 different casting techniques. This is on the Civil RB 211 turbo fan.
up until 1977 the blades were investment cast in a traditional multi axis grain structure. Between 1977 and 79 they developed a way to cast the blades with very long lengthwise crystals nearly eliminating any crosswise grain boundary lines and greatly increasing tensile strength. Later they were able to make blades that were actually one large crystal.
Even if you had some of these to examine in a 1942 laboratory, how do you duplicate them?
Or how do you try to backdate any of their features (except for overall shape) to the materials and fabrication techniques used in WW II.

I would note that it usually took around two years (at best) during WW II from breaking ground on a new factory to actually getting mass production numbers of either engines or airframes. This was for engines/ airframes using pretty much existing technology. You can't build the factory until you know what machinery is needed to put in it and for mass production the machines have to placed in a logical order (and near whatever services are going to be needed, electrical, compressed air, steam, nitrogen supplies, etc. When I worked at P & W 40 years ago some of the machines extend down below floor level and had large cooling tanks for the cooling fluid poured on the piece and the cutter/s as the piece was worked on. Trying to move machines after they are installed is a major pain in the ass.