Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Does anyone have any data or links to technical papers on why the B-36 was built with pusher engines??
I assume that the Convair engineers (and the Northrup engineers working on the B-35) calculated that the drag reduction by not having the propeller airflow over the wing more than made-up for the losses resulting from the propeller having to work in the wake from the wing, but was the difference significant??
I notice that some other 'clean sheet of paper' very long range aircraft (Me 264, and the Nakajima G10N) were conventional tractor designs, so I assume the difference in efficiency between tractor and pusher was pretty close, but that is just a guess.
Comments??
Piper106
First off...The "Peacemaker" (while impressive, within it's own context) was a massive waste of money.
The entire program was funded on an "we're already too far into this to walk away" basis.
Aerodynamicallly? Pushers had their merits.
Realistically? The power plants themselves were a major PITA for those who had to deal with them...this is well documented.
Forwards or backwards, the enginewas a nightmare to deal with.
A "Bridge to Far", IMO.
'
Not that the B-47 was that much of a improvement either
Interesting times indeed.
There are tons of "B-36" resources on the net...do a little reading. You might find specifics that relate to the question you're asking. I've read boatloads of material on the B-36, yet I've never seen this particular issue addressed.
Perhaps look for NACA reports, with regards to this line of inquiry?
Love the "Magnesium Overcast"...what a STATEMENT.
It now seems silly how we were "duck and covering", when the USSR were actually so far behind the curve, as to make the whole thing kind of laughable (in hindsight) ...
I haven't ever seen quantitative papers or books about this design decision, but qualitatively speaking it's more or less as you said. The B-36 specification heavily emphasized long range and thus cruise performance. As a rule a pusher configuration will be more efficient in cruise, subject to considerations like rotation on take off, which might force the pusher prop to be smaller diameter to clear the ground on rotation. However in B-36 case they found that pusher was definitely more efficient in cruise. Some early concepts leading to the B-36, and some wind tunnel models even, had push-pull nacelles or conventional tractor nacelles. but the designers believed pusher would win, and at least at the state of the art in wind tunnel testing at the time the tests proved them right.Does anyone have any data or links to technical papers on why the B-36 was built with pusher engines??
I assume that the Convair engineers (and the Northrup engineers working on the B-35) calculated that the drag reduction by not having the propeller airflow over the wing more than made-up for the losses resulting from the propeller having to work in the wake from the wing, but was the difference significant??
Siegfried, that's a fail on arithmetic. 28x2x6=336.
The Wasp Major R-4360 used in the B-36 was used by plenty of other aircraft so it was maintainable. The B-50, C-97, C-119, C-124, and about 20 other well known aircraft used the same engine, but not as a pusher.
The B-36 was the only aircraft in the American arsenal that could carry the early largest H-bombs until the B-52 came along.
Yes, but no civilian customers.
Yes but I can pose the correct question, even with 1/2 bottle of Cabernet.
Yes, but no civilian customers.
It was used in the Boeing 377 and it's Mini Guppy and Pregnant Guppy variants, and in the SNCASE Armagnac.
56 + 9. I wouldn't call that commercially successfull in any way.
LOL, Since when do we judge the success of a military engine or aircraft by how successful it was on the civilian market?
It would have been a maintenance and resource hog and that also suggests a militarily inefficient aircraft. By the time it could have been ready it would have been rendered ineffective by SAM missiles, ( an easy target for wasserfall )should it have been needed it was also well within interception capability of any 1945 or 1946 Luftwaffe. A more creatively designed jet aircraft could have exceeded its range by 1949 anyway by which time the b36 was barely ready anyway. It should have been caned and the US Navy had its super carriers funded. They'd still be around.