fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Exactly how many military engines went on to major civilian success. If that was the criteria for success then every German engine, every Japanese engine and the vast majority of Allied engines were failures.
B-36 - Why a Pusher??
- Thread starter Piper106
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Exactly how many military engines went on to major civilian success. If that was the criteria for success then every German engine, every Japanese engine and the vast majority of Allied engines were failures.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
At the outset of the Cold War before the rules had settled down to MAD, the B-36 was a symbol that the USA could keep A bombs in the air all the time, anywhere in the world. The B-36 was never a great favorite of mine but it sure made an impression at the Toronto air show and brought credibility to the Strategic Air Command operations and philosophy.
It was 10 years before the Soviets had the Tupolev Bear to project their air power over distances, and the Peace Maker was much more capable than the Bear, IMO.
Why did it employ pusher engines -- speed and streamlining, same reason the Bear had swept wings
MM
It was 10 years before the Soviets had the Tupolev Bear to project their air power over distances, and the Peace Maker was much more capable than the Bear, IMO.
Why did it employ pusher engines -- speed and streamlining, same reason the Bear had swept wings
MM
wuzak
Captain
In what way?
I don't think the B-36, without the auxiliary jets, cold ever have been described as fast. The Bear was 150mph faster. At least.
I believe the B-36 was an effective deterrent, but I would shift the timeline to the right. When in March 1951 the FEAF floated the idea of conventional B-36 missions from CONUS over North Korea with dual purpose of helping that effort and providing realistic training, SAC replied that only around 30 were fully mission capable. The B-36's real combat capability in numbers only dated from late 51-early 52 and by same token real B-47 capability post dated the Korean War, though it didn't have the degree of teething problems as the B-36. Also, the SAC of formidable repuation for relentless training and readiness was a work in progress in pre KW period. But on the defense, it was really more like ca. 1957 when the Soviet air defense system seriously compromised the crediblity of the B-36 year round*, especially after B-36's were stripped down for higher altitude operation from around '54 (in part to counter improved Soviet capabilities and in part because the retractable gun turret system was never fully debugged). The B-36 was an effective nuclear strike a/c from around '52-'57, give or take a year on either end, not long by today's standards but long enough to be important in those times.
In the very early Cold War the number of US nukes and credible delivery systems was pretty limited, though the number of bombs was skyrocketing by early Korean War, and training and readiness of B-29 and B-50 units had reached a level where they posed a significant nuclear threat to at least parts of the USSR. By same token, the US acted circumspectly about Soviet capabilities once they detonated their nuclear test device in 1949, but in reality the operational versions failed their initial test, and the Soviets had no real deliverable nuclear weapons until around '52, and a very limited capability v CONUS for some years after that. But both sides tended to assume a worst case, so in morale terms you might be right that the B-36 was important even before 1950, but it lacked much actual operational capability until later on.
*since operations v the USSR would often cross high latitudes, 'day and night' tended to mean 'summer and winter'. The Soviets lacked enough high performance radar equipped interceptors to credibly counter B-36's in non-VFR conditions until around '57. The arrangement using radar directed searchlights and non-AI radar MiG-15's to bring down a few B-29's at night over Korea, in 100's of tries, defending only a small area, was not a credible counter to a general nuclear attack on the USSR.
Joe
Last edited:
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... In what way?"
Bigger bomb load. Longer range. Higher operational ceiling.
By the time the Bear came along, the B-52 was there, once again with .... Bigger bomb load. Longer range. Higher operational ceiling. AND FASTER.
"... I don't think the B-36, without the auxiliary jets, cold ever have been described as fast.."
No one claims it was - but it was almost 100 mph than the B-29 - and that is the gold standard for advanced bombers. (And without which the Soviets would never have mastered the tricks of building pressurized strategic bombers)
MM
Bigger bomb load. Longer range. Higher operational ceiling.
By the time the Bear came along, the B-52 was there, once again with .... Bigger bomb load. Longer range. Higher operational ceiling. AND FASTER.
"... I don't think the B-36, without the auxiliary jets, cold ever have been described as fast.."
No one claims it was - but it was almost 100 mph than the B-29 - and that is the gold standard for advanced bombers. (And without which the Soviets would never have mastered the tricks of building pressurized strategic bombers)
MM
Last edited:
Wasserfall had flown nearly 50 test launches by wars end under rather difficult conditions. The B-36's first flight was in August 1946 so we can say that the EMW Wasserfall SAM was running at least 1.33 years ahead of the B-36. In fact I'd put it well ahead of that since the first lauches were in 1944 not at wars end 1945.(April 1945). Both progrms were somewhat delayed by shifting priorities.
Like I already said the B-36 wasn't needed, Britain was still in the war, so they didn't need the ability to bomb Germany from the USA.
They didn't even need to shift the B-29's to Europe to take out Germany, they knew they could do it with what they had.
As for the Wasserfall, CSWBD.
They didn't even need to shift the B-29's to Europe to take out Germany, they knew they could do it with what they had.
As for the Wasserfall, CSWBD.
wuzak
Captain
Yes, the B-36 had a bigger bomb load than the Tu-95 Bear.
The B-36 was as heavy empty as the Tu-95 was loaded.
Incorrect. The Tu-95 had a longer operational range. The B-36 could beat the Tu-95's range when run in ferry condition.
Doesn't appear to be true.
The B-52 looks to have a smaller bomb load than the B-36, still greater than the Tu-95. The B-52 has a shorter range than the Tu-95. The B-52 did have a higher ceiling and was faster than the Tu-95 - but not by as much as you may think!
The B-29 was capable of 357mph. The B-36 with 4 jets and 6 props was capable of 418mph.
The B-50 with 4 R-4360s was capable of similar.
The Tu-95 could do 575mph.
I also think you do the Soviet engineers a disservice. While they may have used the B-29 as a basis for their pressurised long range bombers but I am sure they could have managed to develop such an aircraft by themselves if needed.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... I also think you do the Soviet engineers a disservice. While they may have used the B-29 as a basis for their pressurised long range bombers but I am sure they could have managed to develop such an aircraft by themselves if needed."
Oh - no doubt. They managed to build a Shuttle, wuzzak.
Oh - no doubt. They managed to build a Shuttle, wuzzak.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
You are most likely correct. The Soviets had some great designers. However, development would have taken much longer. I believe that the Soviets themselves would say that the B-29s they got during the war was a watershed to their aircraft industry.
I'm sure the Soviet designers never wanted to copy the B-29 to make the TU-4. But when Stalin tells you to copy it, you copy it, and keep your opinions to yourself.
How they carriered out that order almost sounds like a comedy, it may just be a myth, but Tupolev had to work up his courage to ask Stalin in he wanted the national markings copied too.
The fuselage of the TU-95 is just a evolution of the TU-4, which is a copy of the B-29.
How they carriered out that order almost sounds like a comedy, it may just be a myth, but Tupolev had to work up his courage to ask Stalin in he wanted the national markings copied too.
The fuselage of the TU-95 is just a evolution of the TU-4, which is a copy of the B-29.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I am also sure they were very happy to get their hands on it.
muscogeemike
Senior Airman
My ex-father in law was a USAF mechanic and worked on the B-36 in the '50's. His main problem with the plane was that there was no hanger capable of holding it - meaning that all maintenance had to be done outdoors. Imagine changing all those sparkplugs outdoors on the Artic circle!
michaelmaltby
Colonel
The sheer size of the B-36 airframe made it a natural for "nuclear" power -- seriously. It was studied and reflected in the pop culture of the times - Terry and the Pirates - IIRC - featured a nuclear-powered US bomber for a number of weekly "strips" .
Had a Camp Councillor who was ex-USAF B-36 aircrew (Tech of some trade) and spoke of railroading between compartments - on his back. True .....?
MM
- featured a nuclear-powered US bomber for a number of weekly "strips" .Had a Camp Councillor who was ex-USAF B-36 aircrew (Tech of some trade) and spoke of railroading between compartments - on his back. True .....?
MM
- Thread starter
- #36
"Had a Camp Councillor who was ex-USAF B-36 aircrew (Tech of some trade) and spoke of railroading between compartments - on his back. True .....?"
Yes. As in the B-29 the forward pressurized compartment was connected to the rear pressurized crew compartment via a small diameter tube over the bomb bays.
For personnel to move front compartment to rear compartment they laid down on a cart and pulled themself thru the tube.
Piper106
Yes. As in the B-29 the forward pressurized compartment was connected to the rear pressurized crew compartment via a small diameter tube over the bomb bays.
For personnel to move front compartment to rear compartment they laid down on a cart and pulled themself thru the tube.
Piper106
Matt308
Glock Perfection
On an Alaskan 30ft scaffolding, with 40+mph winds, using thick gloves to manipulate small parts to go into impossibly small fittings.
PWR4360-59B
Senior Airman
- 379
- May 27, 2008
Had resurect this thread. Radials were not and are not even close to the expense of turbines, especially in those days. The turbines way more than make up for some maintenance on the recips, through their fuel consumption as number 1, and their overhaul cost as number 2.
The major costs of turbines at overhaul time is the very expensive exotic materials the parts are made of and the difficulty to make them. I know of some engine parts of years past now like 12 or more years ago that you could stick in your pocket (jet engine part) that cost $20,000. I suppose the same of equivalent parts
are much more nowadays. I think the engine required 8 of those parts. So lets again compair turbines to recips. What an R-4360 at cruise what 150 gallons per hour? Some jets are in the gallons per second range. Wasn't it Eddy Rickenbacker that wanted nothing to do with turbines?
evangilder
"Shooter"
I agree on the parts cost factors and fuel consumption. I would think the 4360, with four rows of cylinders, would be a bit of a feat to maintain and/or rebuild. I'm not an expert on aircraft engines, but what about the weight of the engines? Is the 4360 heavier than a comparable jet engine? What about power to weight ratios? Just some things to consider.
wuzak
Captain
Pratt Whitney T34 - 2590lb, 5500hp + 1250lbf
Pratt Whitney R4360 - 3900lb, 3800hp
Pratt Whitney R4360 - 3900lb, 3800hp
