Too Little, Too Late - The B-32 Dominator

• Jul 29, 2005

• #81

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

What would be the point in twin-boom and single tail? Sure, it's not impossible but it's pointless. I thought you might have had at least some aircraft in the list but no, again I thought too highly of you. You got my hopes up there, lanc and then crushed them.

So, the P-38 is twin-boom since there isn't a twin-boom, single tailed aircraft anywhere.

 

• Jul 29, 2005

• #82

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Nice pic D, didnt have that one...

 

• Jul 29, 2005

• #83

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

what are you on about pD?? the P-38's a twin boom because it has two booms!!

 

• Jul 29, 2005

• #84

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

Really, does it? F*ckin' hell, I never realised that. You tit!!! My point was there isn't a fuckin' twin boom, single tailed aircraft out there so there's no point in saying "twin-boom, twin-tail".

 

• Jul 29, 2005

• Thread starter
• #85

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

28,097

8,751

Apr 9, 2005

Colorado, USA

 

• Jul 29, 2005

• #86

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

i never said she was twin boombed and twin tailed!! we had them conversations separatly.......

 

• Jul 29, 2005

• #87

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

What's your point?

 

• Jul 29, 2005

• #88

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

you said there's no point in calling it a twin-boom, twin-tail, when no one called it that......

 

• Jul 29, 2005

• #89

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

Read what I put above the P-38 picture there, lanc.

 

• Jul 30, 2005

• #90

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

'ang on, so you're arguing that it's pointless calling it a twin boom- twin tail, when you're the only one that's called it that??

 

• Jul 30, 2005

• #91

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

I'm not arguing anything. I was just saying that my previous statement was void and pointless.

 

• Jul 30, 2005

• #92

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

 

• Jul 31, 2005

• #93

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,360

16,100

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

Dont take me wrong CC I like twin boomed aircraft or twin tailed aircraft I just think the Dominator looked better with the single tail.

 

• Aug 1, 2005

• #94

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

yes me too....

 

• Aug 9, 2005

• #95

syscom3

Pacific Historian

14,971

11,835

Jun 4, 2005

Orange County, CA

I read somewhere that the air force (in 1945) was not having Consolidated put any serious effort into building the B32. They wanted Consolidated to put more effort and resources into designing and building the B36.

 

• Aug 10, 2005

• #96

evangilder

"Shooter"

19,049

208

Sep 17, 2004

Moorpark, CA

www.vg-photo.com

I hadn't heard that, but it would not be surprising. The Model 35 (later model 36 so as not to be confused with the Northrop B-35)had a preliminary design proposal in May of 1941. That would eventually become the B-36.

The mockup was ready about a year later and the initial deliveries of the XB-36 were intially supposed to be in 1944. Unfortunately, a lot of hurdles stalled the project and the first one did not fly until August 8, 1946.

Could you imagine a bunch of B-36s over Europe?!

 

• Aug 10, 2005

• #97

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

That would have been awesome. Germany would have felt it 10-fold. Even better, B-36s doing the fire bombing of Tokyo...

 

• Aug 10, 2005

• #98

evangilder

"Shooter"

19,049

208

Sep 17, 2004

Moorpark, CA

www.vg-photo.com

Definitely would have left a lot of smoking holes!

 

• Aug 10, 2005

• #99

K

KraziKanuK

Banned

792

4

Jan 26, 2005

The B-36 did not have a cruising speed much faster than the B-17/B-24.

Cruising speed - 218 mph

Combat ceiling - 35,800 feet

Combat radius - 3880 miles with 10,000 pound bombload. New York to Berlin - 3975 miles

B-17s/B-24s would have dropped the same tonnage since they would fly more missions for every B-36 mission.

 

• Aug 10, 2005

• #100

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

plan_D said:

That would have been awesome. Germany would have felt it 10-fold. Even better, B-36s doing the fire bombing of Tokyo...

Click to expand...

Imagine seeing a 100+ formation above you. "Crikey, zem B-17's are flying low"
Mmmmmmmmmm....