North American XB-28 Dragon
- Thread starter fubar57
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Crimea_River
Marshal
Looks a lot like an A-20.
Indeed.
Good shot!
Good shot!
Gastounet
Airman 1st Class
Gastounet
Airman 1st Class
I can not explain why the same photo is there three times.
It was designed as a high altitude version of the B-25, though it ultimately evolved into a completely different design, mostly owing to the desire for a pressurized hull: If I recall, it had a turbocharged engine, and remotely controlled turrets, and a top speed of 372 mph @ 25000 feet. Typical bomb-load would have been 2000 pounds but maximum would be around 4,000.
It's maximum range was around 2000 miles, which combined with it's high altitude capability and similar maximum internal load, sort of made it a high altitude A-26 (the A-26 flew shorter distances, but flew lower).
The design was cancelled because high altitude bombing being hampered by clouds, bad weather, and low altitude planes were adequate for the job.
It's maximum range was around 2000 miles, which combined with it's high altitude capability and similar maximum internal load, sort of made it a high altitude A-26 (the A-26 flew shorter distances, but flew lower).
The design was cancelled because high altitude bombing being hampered by clouds, bad weather, and low altitude planes were adequate for the job.
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
North American B-28 Dragon Cockpit
General characteristics
General characteristics
- Crew: Five
- Length: 56 ft 4 in (17.17 m)
- Wingspan: 72 ft 6 in (22.10 m)
- Height: 22 ft 0 in (6.71 m)
- Wing area: 675.9 sq ft (62.79 m2)
- Empty weight: 25,575 lb (11,601 kg)
- Gross weight: 35,763 lb (16,222 kg)
- Max takeoff weight: 39,135 lb (17,751 kg)
- Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney R-2800-27 18 cyl. air-cooled radial turbosupercharged piston engines, 2,000 hp (1,500 kW) eachPerformance
- Maximum speed: 372 mph (599 km/h, 323 kn) at 25,000 ft (7,600 m)
- Cruise speed: 255 mph (410 km/h, 222 kn)
- Range: 2,040 mi (3,280 km, 1,770 nmi)
- Service ceiling: 34,800 ft (10,600 m)
- Rate of climb: 1,111 ft/min (5.64 m/s)
- Wing loading: 52.87 lb/sq ft (258.1 kg/m2)Armament
- Guns: 6 × .50 caliber (12.7mm) M2 machine guns in remote-sighted turrets
- Bombs: Normal 2,000 lb (910 kg), Maximum 4,000 lb (1,800 kg)
Last edited:
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
- Thread starter
- #11
fubar57
General
Good stuff
I know this thread has been dormant for a while, but does anyone know what specific propellers the XB-28 & XB-28A used? With the counter-rotating propellers being one of the more pioneering aspects of the design it's very odd to me that I haven't been able to find a manufacturer or model for them.
Wind Tunnel models of the XB-28 have been used on a number of NACA studies. These are the ones I was able to find:
-Effects of Direction of Propeller Rotation on the Longitudinal Stability of the 1/10-Scale Model of the North American XB-28 Airplane with Flaps Neutral, Special Report
-The Influence of Vertical-tail Design and Direction of Propeller Rotation on Trim Characteristics of a Twin-engine-airplane Model with One Engine Inoperative
This one used several combinations of vertical stabilizers, including all-moving surfaces and a twin tail.
-Wind-Tunnel Tests of a Twin-Engine Model to Determine the Effect of Direction of Propeller Rotation on the Static-Stability Characteristics
I also suspect that this paper is using an XB-28 nacelle:
Some Lift and Drag Measurements of a Representative Bomber Nacelle on a Low-drag Wing I
Note the shape of the air intake, spinner, cowling, nacelle and the additional diagonal seam/gap a few inches aft of the cowl flaps that's present in the XB-28. There are a few differences, such as the lack of the large outboard air intake, a higher-mounted exhaust stack and very large fillets/streamlining around the wing. According to the paper its using a 1-10 nacelle buitl by North American for "a proposed twin engine bomber."
-Effects of Direction of Propeller Rotation on the Longitudinal Stability of the 1/10-Scale Model of the North American XB-28 Airplane with Flaps Neutral, Special Report
-The Influence of Vertical-tail Design and Direction of Propeller Rotation on Trim Characteristics of a Twin-engine-airplane Model with One Engine Inoperative
This one used several combinations of vertical stabilizers, including all-moving surfaces and a twin tail.
-Wind-Tunnel Tests of a Twin-Engine Model to Determine the Effect of Direction of Propeller Rotation on the Static-Stability Characteristics
I also suspect that this paper is using an XB-28 nacelle:
Some Lift and Drag Measurements of a Representative Bomber Nacelle on a Low-drag Wing I
Note the shape of the air intake, spinner, cowling, nacelle and the additional diagonal seam/gap a few inches aft of the cowl flaps that's present in the XB-28. There are a few differences, such as the lack of the large outboard air intake, a higher-mounted exhaust stack and very large fillets/streamlining around the wing. According to the paper its using a 1-10 nacelle buitl by North American for "a proposed twin engine bomber."
Fixed it for you.
I seem to remember the round windows behind the cockpit had something like fish-eye optics, for what I can assume was for greater situational awareness.
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Quite like this bird....
I can't answer what propellers it was fitted with, but likely Hamilton Standard Hydromatic or Curtiss electric props. One thing, though, propeller rotation in different directions is a function of the engine and/or gearbox, not the propeller itself.
The more I learn about this aeroplane, the more apparent how advanced a concept it was for its time. I'm sure if pursued with necessary resources it would have been quite the machine. It was pressurised and featured remote gun turrets, although these were not developed to any extent on the prototype. The XB-28A had GE turrets.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The B-28 was a solid medium bomber platform, good speed, good range and good loadout.
I don't see why the AAF did not pursue it unless there was politics involved or that the B-28 entering production might hinder current NAA production types (which was highly unlikely if that was the case).
I don't see why the AAF did not pursue it unless there was politics involved or that the B-28 entering production might hinder current NAA production types (which was highly unlikely if that was the case).
