Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
From what I understand, increasing the power of large hydrogen bombs had long reached the point of diminishing returns. Basically, you were just blasting a larger hunk of atmosphere into space.One of the reasons the Soviets didn't replicate the Tsar Bomba was because it was too risky for the bomber. I don't know how powerful was the Mk17, but it is, surprisingly, possible for a bomb to be too powerful. The Soviets decided that line was crossed with their Tsar Bomba. I think the USAF (perhaps surprisingly) figured it out before building one.
I think the goal was to come up with a weapon that with a properly placed air burst could ignite a huge area all at once, creating the mother of all firestorms, which would then move downwind, devastating and depopulating entire regions. Scorched earth without the effort of invading and occupying. Then along came the concept of nuclear winter and the folly of supermegatonnage began to sink in.From what I understand, increasing the power of large hydrogen bombs had long reached the point of diminishing returns. Basically, you were just blasting a larger hunk of atmosphere into space.
While Grau Geist had largely addressed this, the design of the B-36 wasn't to carry a huge nuclear warhead: It was to be able to fly from the Continental United States, bomb Germany, and return.I had to page through the entire thread to make sure that no one posted this. It's the thing that the B-36 was designed to haul. It's the Mark 17 Thermonuclear weapon that weighs 45,000 lbs. They built the Peacemaker around it, just like they built the A-10 around the 30mm cannon.
Though I don't know the dimensions of the B-52's bomb-bay, it didn't seem anywhere NEAR as large as the B-36. That said, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.The B-36's bomb bay is like a banquet hall. It is vast. They duplicated it in the B-52.
If I recall, it was either doubtful that the airplane would escape the blast at best, and most likely, they'd be hoist by their own petard: Interestingly, the high power of hydrogen-bombs lead to a proposal of a modified B-47 designed to fly as a drone. Ultimately, a less extreme solution revolved around a ribbon chute that would deploy in the fall, to extend the escape time.With a bomb that powerful, does the plane that dropped it have any chance of surviving the kaboom?
It used a lead-tamper for the third stage. The yield likely would have been around 100 MT, and with modifications, they had anticipated up to 150 MT.Tsar Bomba had a yield of 50 Mt (210 PJ). It was to be the basis of a larger bomb, but used inert material in what was to be the 3rd stage of the larger bomb.
From what I recall, the reason had to do with the fact that the Tu-95 that carried it would probably get incinerated or vaporized by the bomb it dropped.The test of a complete, three-stage, 100 Mt bomb was rejected due to the extremely high level of radioactive contamination that would be caused by the fission reaction of large quantities of third stage uranium.
Was there any corruption with the B-35 prior to 1944? I remember most of the corruption that occurred was after 1946 or so.For anyone genuinely interested why the B-35 & B-49 bombers were cancelled, there still exists on you tube a half hour video I first saw on TV about 30 years ago. It is a story of greed, politics and power.
Northrop did not get aircraft contracts until the 1959 privately funded N-156 became the F-5A
In the case of the B36, the pusher arrangement lent itself to burying the engines in the wings.
One of the historical mysteries surrounding the 36, why the B-60 was never produced.
From a frontal view, it is apparent that the engines make only a small contribution to the frontal area of the plane. They are not completely buried, but the B-36 comes closer to a buried engine installation than nearly all other contemporary multi-engine bombers. As always, there is a host of engineering trade-offs to consider.But B-36 engines were not buried in the wings, though the myth has been around for decades. "The big R-4360s were buried in the thickest part of the wing and drove the pusher propellers through long rearward extension shafts." (Herschel Smith, "Aircraft Piston Engines," 1981)
In reality, the B-36 had its Wasp Majors almost as close to the propellers as a conventional tractor installation. There was just a short extension case for a little more separation. (That from a manual for engine students at Sheppard AFB, which is on the web, I can't remember where.) This is clear if you look at any photo (sorry, haven't got a link at hand) of B-36 maintenance with nacelle access panels removed. The engines are just ahead of the props.
My understanding is that the 10,000 mile range with the 10,000 lb payload specification for the B-36 was the minimum needed to allow hitting any target of realistic potential (ie Europe, USSR, China, etc) from bases in the US and continue on to a safe recovery point on or over friendly/neutral territory. This would allow recovery in the UK or North Africa if the target was in Europe/western USSR - Saudi Arabia or Turkey if the target was in central USSR - Japan, Korea, Australia, if the target was in eastern USSR or China. For the most part, the longer range missions were planned to be one way. As far as I know the range requirement was found to be unrealistic (a max effective range of about 7,500 miles was achieved) and plans were to launch from closer to the target (the missile installations in the USSR) with recovery as before, or in many cases a true one-way mission.
That seems to fit with what I understand: The B-35 was initially favored by the bomber-generals, possibly because it was more aerodynamic, longer-ranged, was actually lighter, had better defensive armament coverage, and may have been able to fly faster, and higher.The corruption occurred late 1940s as Symington appears to have invested in Convair.
Wait, they wanted Northrop to merge with Convair? I thought they wanted a plant that was then currently used by Convair to manufacture the planes, which Northrop felt was unfair to his employees. If I recall, some of Northrop's underwriters also managed to ensure that he didn't get to make any decisions, or they had to pass through somebody else.Since Bill Northrop resisted the merger
Well, GrauGeist already pointed out that the F-89 ended up being developed for the USAF.Northrop did not get aircraft contracts until the 1959 privately funded N-156 became the F-5A for Military Assistance to smaller countries. Eventually, it was seen that a trainer version would be beneficial hence the T-38.
Because, from all published data, its performance was much worse than the B-52.
The YB-49 was a YB-35 modified to install j35 engines so there were no YB-49s with R-4369 engines. The YB-47, basically a contemporary to the YB-49, also had J-35 engines and the B-47 later received the J-47, so, I think the J-47 was not ready for the YB-49 and I suspect there was no eagerness to upgrade the YB-49.The YB-49, as I understand it, had the 4 x R-4360's and the propellers that went with them with 8 x J35's (supposedly they couldn't accommodate the J47's but I can't figure out why, unless it was weight related, as their dimensions were basically identical), with fins grafted on where the propeller shafts were located to add stability back that was taken away.