B-36 - Why a Pusher??

[GregP]

The F-86 E, F, and H and Canadair Sabre Mk 6 don't have an RAT.

 

[Koopernic]

The F-86 E, F, and H and Canadair Sabre Mk 6 don't have an RAT.

I must have mistaken the F-100 super sabre's systems with that of the F-86 Sabre. The F-100 had a RAT inside the intake duct. The pilots manual for the F-86E says that there are two independent hydraulic systems; should both supplies fail then an electric pump with 8 minutes of battery power will provide hydraulic pressure for the flight control surfaces. If that fails as well the pilot can pull and handle to connect up fully manual controls that are suitable for flighty up to 200 mph, a nice feature seemingly abandoned in recent aircraft.

The F-86E added an all flying tail and fully irreversible hydraulic controls.

 

[Donivanp]

Applications[edit]
Aero Spacelines Mini Guppy
Aero Spacelines Pregnant Guppy
Boeing 377 Stratocruiser
Boeing B-50 Superfortress
Boeing C-97 Stratofreighter
Boeing KC-97 Stratotanker
Boeing XF8B
Boeing XB-44 Superfortress
Convair B-36
Convair XC-99
Curtiss XBTC
Douglas C-74 Globemaster
Douglas C-124 Globemaster II
Douglas TB2D Skypirate
Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcar
Fairchild C-120 Packplane
Goodyear F2G Corsair
Hughes H-4 Hercules ("Spruce Goose")
Hughes XF-11
Lockheed R6V Constitution
Martin AM Mauler
Martin JRM Mars
Martin P4M Mercator
Northrop YB-35
Republic XP-72
Republic XF-12 Rainbow
SNCASE SE-2010 Armagnac
Vultee XA-41

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I must have mistaken the F-100 super sabre's systems with that of the F-86 Sabre. The F-100 had a RAT inside the intake duct. The pilots manual for the F-86E says that there are two independent hydraulic systems; should both supplies fail then an electric pump with 8 minutes of battery power will provide hydraulic pressure for the flight control surfaces. If that fails as well the pilot can pull and handle to connect up fully manual controls that are suitable for flighty up to 200 mph, a nice feature seemingly abandoned in recent aircraft.

The F-86E added an all flying tail and fully irreversible hydraulic controls.

The rudder was still controlled with cables.

IIRC the hydraulic back up pump worked for 8 minutes providing you lost electric power but I could be wrong, It's been a few years since I've been around an F-86. We actually had Canadair Mk 5 and 6s

 

[l'Omnivore Sobriquet]

The tractor front-engine, blowing onto the wing, adds some drag.
The pusher at the back, doesn't.

 

[Shortround6]

This is true, however the pusher prop doesn't always have the same efficiency as as tractor prop. Sometimes is does and sometimes, depending on fuselage/wing/nacelle/prop extension shaft housing you don't.

 

[hajafri]

can you explain? are flaps used in this a/c? if yes which type and how? are LE slats also used? asif

 

[mexchiwa]

There was a tractor B-36 proposal - the YB-36C. Forget the reason, additional thrust from exhaust?

 

[Piper106]

Yes, the B-36C was to be powered by the R-4360 VDT (Variable Discharge Turbo) that had significant exhaust thrust.

 

[11bwmech]

I am not an aeronautical engineer, but I suspect the airflow across the wing was pretty smooth and not turbulent at all. Big difference in pressure above and below, though. That's probably why they had to use three bladed props, to keep from having two blades crossing the plane of the trailing edge in opposite directions at the same time. Made for a very big prop, 19 ft. in diameter.

I also suspect that were it not for the B-36, we might all be speaking Russian.

 

[Zipper730]

First off...The "Peacemaker" (while impressive, within it's own context) was a massive waste of money.

Why?

Realistically? The power plants themselves were a major PITA for those who had to deal with them...this is well documented.

The R-4360 had lots of issues with maintenance and cooling...

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 guess the idea was to make it easier to justify dropping the nukes?

Agree to a point but disagree about the B-47 - entered service in 51', phased out as a bomber till 65 and finally retired in 77

I didn't know it served until 1977...

it flew like a fighter

It had a normal g-load of either 2.0-3.0g depending on variant when fully loaded, 3.0-3.6g at combat weight, and ultimate loads ranging from 3.0-4.8g based on this. At high altitude, it could outrun early fighters (F-80, F-84 probably), and turned better than them up high (40,000+).

 

[fubar57]

You're asking someone (iron man) who hasn't been here for over two years questions

 

[fubar57]

I also suspect that were it not for the B-36, we might all be speaking Russian.

... и что с этим не так, товарищ?

 

[GrauGeist]

... и что с этим не так, товарищ?

много неща, много неща.
това е какво!

 

[Zipper730]

... и что с этим не так, товарищ?

С чего начать Fubar?

 

[pinehilljoe]

... и что с этим не так, товарищ?

m
If not speaking Russian, a lot of men may have died on the ground. The B-36 gave a method to deliver the bomb that until AIM, SAM or second generation jet fighters were developed couldnt be shot down. Wings and Airpower did an article on the 36 interviewing pilots, they would practice with F-84 and 86s trying to intercept them, and the fighters couldn't reach the altitude the 36 was flying at. They would watch them trying to zoom up and just couldnt reach the 36. For a few years it gave the US a great deterrent. One could always argue too many were built, and the program cost could have been lowered.

The other part of the thread on the 47, I've read the 47 had wing fatigue issues, and some were lost in flight from wing failure, when doctrine change to low altitude flying with a pop up to release bombs. The USAF was not sorry to retire the 47

 

[Zipper730]

If not speaking Russian

Basically, Fubar 57 wrote something to the effect of "What's wrong with that Comrade?" to which I replied "How to start, Fubar?" This was not necessarily a perfect translation (Google), but it was a flippant remark to a (presumably) flippant question.

The B-36 gave a method to deliver the bomb that until AIM, SAM or second generation jet fighters were developed. Wings and Airpower did an article on the 36 interviewing pilots, they would practice with F-84 and 86s trying to intercept them, and the fighters couldn't reach the altitude the 36 was flying at. They would watch them trying to zoom up and just couldnt reach the 36.

The problem with attempting to intercept the B-36 was basically

• How far out it could be detected
• How long it took for aircraft to accelerate to speed and climb to altitude
• The turning radius of the B-36 at altitude
• The turning radius of fighters at altitude

While the fighters could muster a much higher g-load and could essentially wipe their asses with the B-36 at lower altitudes, once you get up to higher altitudes the F-84 and F-86 found themselves basically in a condition where they were barely flying. The B-36 had a massive wing area, a high aspect-ratio, and thick wings which meant it could keep lifting when the F-84 and F-86 could not. One has to also consider that during intercepts, the fighters might still be at a high fuel load and the B-36 would be around 63-64%

 

[swampyankee]

When I was in college, a friend said a friend of his father's flew F-86D's for Air Defense Command; the pilot reported that an F-86D got one pass as a B-36 at altitude: the fighter didn't have the performance to re-intercept if the first pass failed.

Leaving aside Soviet intentions, I seriously doubt the B-36 kept the Soviets from invading the US or even Western Europe. I think the Soviets really thought they'd win by ideology. Here, they were defeated by liberalism.

 

[Zipper730]

When I was in college, a friend said a friend of his father's flew F-86D's for Air Defense Command; the pilot reported that an F-86D got one pass as a B-36 at altitude: the fighter didn't have the performance to re-intercept if the first pass failed.

That seems to add up: The F-86D couldn't turn fast enough at altitude to reposition itself...

Leaving aside Soviet intentions, I seriously doubt the B-36 kept the Soviets from invading the US or even Western Europe.

The Russians believed it would be possible to fight even in the aftermath of a nuclear explosion. Remember, you have to remember how much of a disregard for human life your enemy has.

 

[swampyankee]

T
The Russians believed it would be possible to fight even in the aftermath of a nuclear explosion. Remember, you have to remember how much of a disregard for human life your enemy has.

Alas, so did -- and possibly, do -- many US planners. The Soviets, if what I've read is correct, were of the belief that there was not some qualitative difference between tactical nuclear weapons and conventional weapons. This, I find more than slightly frightening, and Putin isn't making me any less nervous.