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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
LOL, Since when do we judge the success of a military engine or aircraft by how successful it was on the civilian market?
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
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.To the B-36 detractors - It was the ONLY weapon the US had through the early 50's which could carry the big boomers (internally) and destroy anything, anywhere on this earth. The late 40's brought out the MiG 15 which was the only Soviet fighter capable of getting an altitude advantage and it was a point interceptor which would have to be reasonably close to the course track to intercept the late model 36's.
Waste of money? How does one determine that, had the 36 not been around in strength in 1948-1950? The Russians did NOT pile on in Korea for a reason.
Of course, as usual, you're presenting something that never made it beyound the prototype stage of developement, with your usual magic enhancement of it's capabilities, to someting that got built and actually put on operations, but in the B-36's case after WW2. Because it wasn't needed to defeat Germany as it WAS.
"... 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)
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 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.
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!
Indeed. The 377 had to make scales because oil would be running low, not fuel. The turboprop put those nice but complex and expensive to maintein radials in the grave.