• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

B-36 w/turboprop

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,052
Reaction score
1,432
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
An illustration from the next issue of Aerospace Projects Review, showing a top & side view of a proposed B-36 variant with four turboprop engines. The article itself was written by Dennis R. Jenkins.

(Damn drawing took near two weeks to put together... mostly in trying to put together a decent drawing of the basic B-36, of which there are surprisingly few such drawings)
 

Attachments

  • smallB-36 turbo.gif
    smallB-36 turbo.gif
    55.3 KB · Views: 652

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,749
Reaction score
455
Orionblamblam said:
(Damn drawing took near two weeks to put together... mostly in trying to put together a decent drawing of the basic B-36, of which there are surprisingly few such drawings)

You're terribly right Scott!!!
I had the same problem when I realized a 3-views drawing of a B 36D as mothership for NAA ESO 7487, for a presentation I did las November at AstronautiCon 2 (Italian Astronautical Convention).
 

Attachments

  • Slide7.JPG
    Slide7.JPG
    35.4 KB · Views: 576

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,814
Reaction score
987
question

why was the B-36 not adaptet to four turboprop engines.?
Those 6 Pusher engine gave the B-36 bad nickname "Six turning and four burning!"

or came that proposal to late ?
or was magnesium-rich airframe of B-36 not ready for that.

more on B-36 and X-15
http://www.air-and-space.com/peacemkr.htm

that they use a B-36 als "Nuclear Reactor in Fight Test" as The NB-36H
give me the crepps :eek:
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,052
Reaction score
1,432
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Michel Van said:
question

why was the B-36 not adaptet to four turboprop engines.?

Short answer: it was a lot easier to simply add the jet engine pods. Modifying the wings to allow turboprops would have been tricky, especially with those really long propeller drive shafts.

The B-60 most likely would have wound up with turboprops rather than turbojets, though.
 

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,749
Reaction score
455
Orionblamblam said:
The B-60 most likely would have wound up with turboprops rather than turbojets, though.

But, in this way, it could really look like the Tupolev Tu 20 "Bear"....or not??
 

russcal

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 3, 2007
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hello, everyone!

My first posting here!

In reply to the comment about the B-36, "6 turning, and 4 burning", refered to the engines of the later, mixed power ships: ' "If all engines functioned normally at full power during the pre-takeoff warm up, the lead flight engineer would say to the captain "six [engines] turning and four [engines] burning". Erratic engine reliability led to the wisecrack "two turning, two burning, two joking and two smoking," with two engines not accounted for or referred to as dead" '. Qute attributed to a Capt. Banda, C-99 pilot.

Russ
 

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,749
Reaction score
455
Orionblamblam said:
"Not." Engines would have been slung well below the wings.

Why this "odd" configuration??
There are some advantages to take the propellers so close to ground, or it is only the desire to not put forward wing the nacelles??
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,052
Reaction score
1,432
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
archipeppe said:
Orionblamblam said:
"Not." Engines would have been slung well below the wings.

Why this "odd" configuration??
There are some advantages to take the propellers so close to ground, or it is only the desire to not put forward wing the nacelles??

Separating the engines from the airframe makes servicing the engiens a lot easier, as well as making replacing the engines with some,thgin very different a lot easier. Same reason why the DeHaviland Comet layout became a historical footnote while the 707 layout remains the standard.
 
Top