Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That's probably true enough: General Power more or less saying that if there are two Americans and one Russian left, that we won...Alas, so did -- and possibly, do -- many US planners.
Yeah, and there's of course a qualitative difference: Nuclear bombs are way more destructive per bomb, and mass, and they leave a nice radioactive bonus that regular bombs do not.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
Yeah, the sad thing is he's not pulling all the strings even in Russia (high finance)Putin isn't making me any less nervous.
What would you expect? The B-47 was the first really large swept wing multi-engine jet to go into service in large numbers and accumulate a fleet operating history. There was no fatigue history to guide designers in building a long life swept wing of that flexibility, aspect ratio, and size with engines mounted outboard on pylons. All the calculations and projections in the world can't compensate for a lack of hard data to base them on. Boeing was "exploring the dark side of the moon", and I think they achieved a miracle equivalent to solving the S-duct issue with the 727.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
Never mind turning, the Dog Sabre couldn't breathe adequately at altitude with that radome schnozzola obstructing half its intake, and the engine couldn't reach its theoretical thrust output for lack of intake volume. The higher you flew, the worse it got, affecting speed, climb, and energy in a turn.That seems to add up: The F-86D couldn't turn fast enough at altitude to reposition itself...
The practice area at my home airport was under an "Oil Burner" low level navigation route, and I would be frequently out with a student at 3500 - 4500 ft when a BUFF or a KC would come over at 6000 - 7000 ft. Sometimes even we would see a "conjugating pair", an awesome sight from just underneath, and audible over the sputter of our O-200.I grew up on the ranch in NE Oregon, beneath the low-level route from Fairchild AFB (Spokane) and Mountain Home. My most vivid childhood memory is that huge behemoth motoring overhead. The sound was impressive but so was the FEEL. You could sense that massive thrashing of the atmosphere before the 36 hove into view. Man o man. The first 52 I saw was a disappointment!
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
Fatigue happens. You just gotta count on it and roll the dice. Whatever you design it NOT to do, you can count on somebody going out and doing it.Interesting that the same thing happened to the Vickers Valiant when it was moved to low altitude roles (and it caused the premature retirement of the type).
I didn't know that...Never mind turning, the Dog Sabre couldn't breathe adequately at altitude with that radome schnozzola obstructing half its intake, and the engine couldn't reach its theoretical thrust output for lack of intake volume. The higher you flew, the worse it got, affecting speed, climb, and energy in a turn.
There was a really good article on the Dog Sabre in "Wings" or "Airpower", or maybe it was "Flight International" back in the day (70s?) that described the teething problems it had. It, like all the interceptors of its generation, was pushing the frontiers of several different technologies at once.I didn't know that...
Convair had a design for a flying boat based on the Model 37 airliner version of the B-36 bomber with Wasp Majors arranged in tractor configuration and high-mounted wing.
Reference:
Johnson, E.R. (2009). American flying boats and amphibious aircraft : an illustrated history. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co.
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
The statement "teething problems" seems to make me wonder if they were able to rework the intake...There was a really good article on the Dog Sabre in "Wings" or "Airpower", or maybe it was "Flight International" back in the day (70s?) that described the teething problems it had. It, like all the interceptors of its generation, was pushing the frontiers of several different technologies at once.
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
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.
Oh, theWing size may have had very little to do with engine placement as the engines were not actually IN the wing but in the nacelles at the rear of the wing.
View attachment 237926
There are no extension shafts. Propellers are mounted on a "normal" propshaft/gearbox and the engines are pretty much in line with the flaps. Engine power section (cylinders) is much smaller than the whole nacelle, The turbos, intercoolers and ducting taking up quite a bit of space.
See: http://www.angelfire.com/dc/jinxx1/B36/B36J522217_10.jpg
Wing size may have had very little to do with engine placement as the engines were not actually IN the wing but in the nacelles at the rear of the wing.
View attachment 237926
There are no extension shafts. Propellers are mounted on a "normal" propshaft/gearbox and the engines are pretty much in line with the flaps. Engine power section (cylinders) is much smaller than the whole nacelle, The turbos, intercoolers and ducting taking up quite a bit of space.
See: http://www.angelfire.com/dc/jinxx1/B36/B36J522217_10.jpg
Wing size may have had very little to do with engine placement as the engines were not actually IN the wing but in the nacelles at the rear of the wing.
View attachment 237926
There are no extension shafts. Propellers are mounted on a "normal" propshaft/gearbox and the engines are pretty much in line with the flaps.
Oh, the engines were in the wing. They were accessible from openings at the wing root. I was 6'5" tall, and I could stand up in the thickest part. I have crawled to the inboard side of the #6 engine inside the wing. The nacelles were part of the wing rather than totally protruding from it, as some tractor types.