eBay: Consolidated B-32 Dominator
- Thread starter Snautzer01
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
My understanding is that Boeing's argument focused on how crucial low drag was to their design, the book claimed that lowering the B-29's gear doubled the drag on the aircraft. Of course, it's Wolf, so it might be best to take the claim with a grain of salt, he sometimes cites many sources that may contradict each other and doesn't make much of an effort to say which is correct, at least in his book about the B-26. I don't know enough about the B-32 to say if his book on it has the same issue or not.
Niceoldguy58
Airman
- 94
- Mar 2, 2010
Greetings, gentlemen.
The biggest problem with the pressurization system - based on both original engineering drawings and documents - is that if it was installed there was no way to be able to put a "tunnel" from the front to the back of the aircraft to reach the rear gunner's positions due to the size and location of the spar. In order to put that and the pressurization system into the aircraft would have required an increase in the diameter of the fuselage. I don't have the drawings in front of me, but IIRC it was an increase of about two feet. This would have put the development of the B-32 back even further than it already was. I'm in the process of redrawing for the book the originals that show this problem.
As for Wolf's book, we have found that it may begin the journey of discovery on the B-32, but it is missing a great deal of factual information and - as do all books - has some factual mistakes as well. Regarding the turrets on the B-32, there were probably over a dozen different turret designs done for the B-32 and at least three or four that were actually built and tested, either on the B-32 or on other aircraft as a "proof of concept". I have managed to uncover dozens of drawings and photos and don't believe I've found them all yet!
Zipper, I suggest you Google the .60cal machine gun and its development. You will find a ton of information. I've also gathered info from various archives. The .60cal was a favorite of Arnold's, but they just couldn't make it work. It was an attempt to take the German 20mm cannon (Mg15?) and redesign it for a U.S. shell. For some reason the AAF - and thus the aircraft manufacturers - were very anti-20mm, and thus wasted a tremendous amount of time and money trying to make the 37mm cannon and the .60cal fill that same role for the U.S. aircraft.
Submitted for your consideration,
AlanG
The biggest problem with the pressurization system - based on both original engineering drawings and documents - is that if it was installed there was no way to be able to put a "tunnel" from the front to the back of the aircraft to reach the rear gunner's positions due to the size and location of the spar. In order to put that and the pressurization system into the aircraft would have required an increase in the diameter of the fuselage. I don't have the drawings in front of me, but IIRC it was an increase of about two feet. This would have put the development of the B-32 back even further than it already was. I'm in the process of redrawing for the book the originals that show this problem.
As for Wolf's book, we have found that it may begin the journey of discovery on the B-32, but it is missing a great deal of factual information and - as do all books - has some factual mistakes as well. Regarding the turrets on the B-32, there were probably over a dozen different turret designs done for the B-32 and at least three or four that were actually built and tested, either on the B-32 or on other aircraft as a "proof of concept". I have managed to uncover dozens of drawings and photos and don't believe I've found them all yet!
Zipper, I suggest you Google the .60cal machine gun and its development. You will find a ton of information. I've also gathered info from various archives. The .60cal was a favorite of Arnold's, but they just couldn't make it work. It was an attempt to take the German 20mm cannon (Mg15?) and redesign it for a U.S. shell. For some reason the AAF - and thus the aircraft manufacturers - were very anti-20mm, and thus wasted a tremendous amount of time and money trying to make the 37mm cannon and the .60cal fill that same role for the U.S. aircraft.
Submitted for your consideration,
AlanG
special ed
1st Sergeant
- 5,118
- May 13, 2018
What have you found on Convair model 39 airliner? I have found pictures in American Airlines mkgs and as USN transport, but no accurate three view or dimensions. The fuselage appears to be enlarged in diameter to avoid the spar conflict you describe. It appears the wing was the same shape as PB4Y and B-32, however there is little info on actual measurements.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
That's another new one for me. Thanks, special ed, for that query.
special ed
1st Sergeant
- 5,118
- May 13, 2018
Only two were built. The post war airliner market was captured by surplus C-47s, C-54s and Connies. Convair didn't have a chance.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Convair didn't have much success in the airliner market. Some brilliant designs, though.
special ed
1st Sergeant
- 5,118
- May 13, 2018
The CV-240s and 340s were workhorses in the DC-3 market and nudged Martin 404 until Fokker/Fairchild F.27 showed up. The Convair Model 39 is of interest because I like the little known and obscure planes, and I hope to build a controlline model of it some day when I can make a reasonably accurate version. At present I could build a profile model and use the photos to guesstimate wingspan and empennage.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I like the one offs and "oddballs" myself.
Thanks for clearing the record, Alan. Looking forward to your book!
at6
1st Sergeant
It's a shame that a few weren't preserved in museums for posterity.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Agree. But preserving an aircraft that huge would have been a challenge. Wasn't there an airliner derived from the B-36 that wound up as roadside attraction somewhere?
Yikes, that's a major design flaw!
That's pretty cool
I thought it was some kind of anti-tank or anti-aircraft gun that they were basing it on.
From what I remember the appeal was that it had a very high muzzle velocity, which is a good thing. I'm surprised they didn't realize the gyroscopic systems they were developing would increase accuracy to the point that the flat arc wouldn't be as essential. Regardless, the Vulcan cannon was also built to 0.60" as well. I think it wasn't until the early 1950's that they decided to go with 20mm.
cvairwerks
Senior Airman
The XC-99, she's at Wright Pat in the museum's hands. I belive she was moved from San Antonio in the '90's.
cvairwerks
Senior Airman
Should be able to run down some data, looking under Consolidated R2Y(-1). Janes from 1946 or 47 should have some info, as well as the book "General Dynamics and the Predecessors". My copy is buried somewhere in storage, or I'd look when I get home from work later this morning.
special ed
1st Sergeant
- 5,118
- May 13, 2018
Thanks CV. I'll look for that book and see if I can find Janes on line.
We want the book! We want the book!
ARTESH
Chief Master Sergeant
As always, a great photo thread with lots of info and knowledge shared.
Looking for more and more.
Looking for more and more.
- Thread starter
- #119
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 39,974
- Mar 26, 2007
B17 FLYING FORTRESS - ORIGINAL AVIATION PHOTO-MOYES & BOWYER COLLECTIONS | eBay
This original photo is from the collection of two of the most famous aviation authors, Chaz Bowyer and Philip Moyes. All photos are original prints from negatives, (not scanned copies), and they were printed between 1930-1970.
www.ebay.com
Consolidated B-32 Dominator
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
