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.I'm surprised Convair didn't arrive at the same exact conclusion regarding the drag issue. It seems hard to imagine that it wouldn't be, and the B-36 had retractible turrets on their design.
Thanks for clearing the record, Alan. Looking forward to your book!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
Yikes, that's a major design flaw!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.
That's pretty coolThis 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.
I thought it was some kind of anti-tank or anti-aircraft gun that they were basing it on.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.
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.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?
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.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.