B-36 in 1944

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


I recall a reference stating that several RAF bases were closed for upgrading to B-29 capability, but that this was not completed prior to the end of the war in Europe.

I believe it was either in one of Roger Freeman's books, or possibly Jonathan Falconer's book on Bomber Command operations. (I miss not being able to cite things exactly!)
 
wuzak said:
Sounds like Sänger's concept for an America bomber

Silbervogel - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
Sanger's concept would be powered by a supersonic ramjet, if I remember correctly; the intercontinental version of the V-2 (project code name A-10), on the other side, would be a true ballistic missile, with two stages, the second one capable of controlled reentry and with refined aerodynamics to cope with the hyper sonic speeds it would reach (reminiscent of a "lifting body" shape). Meanwhile, the 'improved V2' (code name A-4b) had a simple pair of 45° arrow shaped wings, though -at some point- thin trapezoidal wings (a là F-104) were investigated as well in a wind tunnel model.




 
Last edited:
B-36A 311,000 lbs TOGW with 3000 BHP altitude rated engines needed 6000 ft ground run and 8000 ft to clear 50 ft
______ Vmax 340/356 mph at 25,000/33,000 ft with Normal/Combat power

B-36B 328,000 lbs TOGW with 3250 BHP altitude rated engines needed 6030 ft ground run and 8520 ft to clear 50 ft
______ Vmax 361/376 mph at 25,000/37,500 ft with Normal/Combat power

* To meet the standards of the day, this required overall runway lengths of 10,000 ft for operations
 
What would the effect be if the B-36 follows a He 177 attack pattern?
 
SpicyJuan11 said:
What would the effect be if the B-36 follows a He 177 attack pattern?
Click to expand...
The He177 would descend from higher altitudes in a shallow dive as it approached it's target area.
This allowed the bomber to both increase speed and deliver bombs at a lower altitude, increasing bomb accuracy.
That built up speed also allowed it to leave the target area quicker.
 
Maybe to clarify a bit, the He177 did not dive like a Stuka or SBD, it employed a long shallow descent towards it's target, levelling off at a certain altitude - not sure of exact height AGL, but definately not a low altitude.
 
wuzak said:
Diving towards target with its engines on fire?
Click to expand...
It's a good decoy for enemies too. Who's going to waste ammunition on a plane already on fire?

A shame, the idea of mating two engines together looked sound on paper. A shame also that BMW didn't pursue seriously the idea of a 18 or 22 cylinder engine derived from the 801 early in the war (I know about the 802/803, but they came late when bomber engines were useless and jets for fighters become a priority). That might have been more effective than all those odd X or star engines that were being worked on at the time.
 
Last edited:
The B-29 only started coming off the assembly lines in 1943 and in service in 1944 because the United States government threw unlimited money at the project. In terms of technology, it was really a post-war aircraft, and the B-36 would have been even more so. If the B-36 was given higher priority, how many fewer B-24s would have been made for how many B-36s. Remember Consolidated had the B-32 in between. The B-32 was a bit behind the B-29 technologically, and yet it barely made it into the war at all because it wasn't given super priority.
 
The B-36's priority was downgraded when Britain was able to hold the line against Germany.
And as far as the B-24 goes, it was not only manufactured by Consolidated in San Diego, but also at Consolidated's Ft. Worth plant.
Ford was also manufacturing them (almost as many as Consolidated) plus a thousand each from Douglas and North American.
I'm fairly sure that if the B-36 was given high-priority, ther would have still been Liberator production.
 

Probably. But how many B-36s could have been built? The production lines would need to be entirely overhauled before even starting manufacture. And then each B-36 would take a lot more effort than one B-24.

And, of course, there's the engines.
 

I presume then we are saying that B-36 production is substituted for B-29 production? If we are advancing the former there seems little point in proceeding with the latter.

Did Pratt & Whitney have the ability to ramp up R-4360 production in 1943-44? Or are we assuming a small B-36 production output prior to the war's conclusion?

A total of 20.5 months elapsed from the time of the first flight of the B-29 prototype to its first combat mission. It is reasonable to assume that B-36 development would have required at least as much time. To get the B-36 to a first combat mission in January 1945 would mean a first flight sometime in April 1943. Is this feasible?
 
Wasn't Convair (or rather Consolidated) producing the B-32 before the B-36? From what I've read, this plane (B-32) had a long and troubled development even if it was considered a sort of 'fallback' option of the B-29 program in case the latter failed.

Even if the B-32 was produced in low numbers and it wasn't very successful, I guess that it gave Consolidated engineers a good deal of know how. Without this ordeal, however, it is a possibility that Consolidated would encounter, in the B-36 development, the same problems it faced with the earlier B-32 and the end result would be different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
631
CHen10
C
Vickers Wellington crashed in 1944
Replies
1
Views
424
wells
W
V
P-51Ds over Normandy June 1944
Replies
1
Views
695
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
V
JG 4 11 September 1944
Replies
1
Views
446
FalkeEins
T
B24 use in ETO
Replies
3
Views
475
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Menu
Log in
Register