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

Convair Model 6

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
680
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Convair Model 6

Seen here was the next logical step for Convair, marrying the swept-back wings of the YB-60 and the fuselage of the XC-99. The Model 6, however, retained the rounded cockpit of the B-36 rather than the airliner-style windows of the XC-99 (Model 37). The YB-60 was Convair's proposal for a large long-range heavy bomber; this was based on the B-36. Only two YB-60s were built; the USAF opted for Boeing's Model 464 (better known as the B-52) instead. This rare illustration comes from Dennis Jenkins et al., B-36 Photo Scrapbook, (Hinckley, Leics.: Specialty Press, 2003), p. 85. This is the companion book to Magnesium Overcast, by the same authors.
http://rides.webshots.com/photo/2931511060048918155qsFJEH
 

Attachments

  • ConvairModel6.jpg
    ConvairModel6.jpg
    221.7 KB · Views: 1,001

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,268
Reaction score
49
Only one YB-60 was built and flown. The 2nd one was never completed.
 

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,268
Reaction score
49
Here's some more.
 

Attachments

  • yb60onGround.jpg
    yb60onGround.jpg
    298.9 KB · Views: 825
  • YB-60 first flight.jpg
    YB-60 first flight.jpg
    149.3 KB · Views: 766
  • YB-60 takeoff.jpg
    YB-60 takeoff.jpg
    161 KB · Views: 720
  • YB-60.jpg
    YB-60.jpg
    399.9 KB · Views: 696

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
549
Does anyone here have evidence to support the fact that the YB-60 (or the X-6 for that matter) fell under the "Model 6" designation? The only document I know that is specifically labeled as such is the breakdown view (seen a few posts above) for a double-decker transport derived from the XC-99.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,366
Reaction score
4,164
A larger view.

http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2010/06/people-sometimes-ask-me-how-i-decide.html
 

Attachments

  • Convair6.jpg
    Convair6.jpg
    111.2 KB · Views: 79

SAustin16

Bravo to All Brave Test Pilots
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
132
Reaction score
6
Even with 8 engines, this aircraft would appear to be significantly under-powered. I think the B-52 would look petitie next to the Convair 6. The XC-99 used to reside at Kelly AFB, and looked vast even from a distance...at least to my eye.
 

Bill S

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
574
Reaction score
392
Some NARA II images of the YB-60, including cockpit and flight engineers station.
 

Attachments

  • x-342FH-B26608-YB-60--49-2676-Right-Front-x.jpg
    x-342FH-B26608-YB-60--49-2676-Right-Front-x.jpg
    162.3 KB · Views: 98
  • x-342FH-B26607-YB-60--49-2676-Overhead.jpg
    x-342FH-B26607-YB-60--49-2676-Overhead.jpg
    153.3 KB · Views: 63
  • x-342FH-B26619-YB-60--49-2676-Flight-Engineers-Station-x.jpg
    x-342FH-B26619-YB-60--49-2676-Flight-Engineers-Station-x.jpg
    236.3 KB · Views: 64
  • x-342FH-B26620-YB-60--49-2676-Cockpit-x.jpg
    x-342FH-B26620-YB-60--49-2676-Cockpit-x.jpg
    220.4 KB · Views: 62

Bill S

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
574
Reaction score
392
A few more in-flight images of the YB-60 from NARA II.
 

Attachments

  • x-342FH-B26615-YB-60--49-2676-Inflight-x.jpg
    x-342FH-B26615-YB-60--49-2676-Inflight-x.jpg
    143.6 KB · Views: 68
  • x-342FH-B26616-YB-60--49-2676-Inflight-x.jpg
    x-342FH-B26616-YB-60--49-2676-Inflight-x.jpg
    76.3 KB · Views: 77
  • x-342FH-B26617-YB-60--49-2676-Inflight-x.jpg
    x-342FH-B26617-YB-60--49-2676-Inflight-x.jpg
    108.8 KB · Views: 81

circle-5

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
166
Thanks Bill, nice photos! I wonder why the undercarriage is censored on photo no. B26608. Didn't Convair just carry these components over from the B-36?
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,054
Reaction score
1,447
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
circle-5 said:
Thanks Bill, nice photos! I wonder why the undercarriage is censored on photo no. B26608. Didn't Convair just carry these components over from the B-36?

An unwarranted guess: if the photo showed the known B-36 landing gear with the known B-36 tires being squashed more or less than normal, an analyst could make a guess about the weight of the aircraft. Probably not it, though.
 

Johnbr

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
755
Reaction score
165
This the No-2 Yb-60.
 

Attachments

  • YB-60 number-2 in an Airplane Hanger.j.jpg
    YB-60 number-2 in an Airplane Hanger.j.jpg
    325 KB · Views: 91

sienar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
664
Reaction score
308
That is not related to Model 6 or YB-60 but part of the FSW studies Convair was doing post war. I thought there was a thread with that aircraft posted in it already but I cant find it.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5164.msg84404.html
 

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
320
Reaction score
194
Orionblamblam said:
circle-5 said:
Thanks Bill, nice photos! I wonder why the undercarriage is censored on photo no. B26608. Didn't Convair just carry these components over from the B-36?

An unwarranted guess: if the photo showed the known B-36 landing gear with the known B-36 tires being squashed more or less than normal, an analyst could make a guess about the weight of the aircraft. Probably not it, though.

Early photos of the B-52 sometimes had the landing gear obscured because of the swivel feature that accommodated cross-wind landings, which was important because it allowed operations from portions of the interstate highway system, maybe the censorship is related to that. I don't know of any similar feature on the B-60, but maybe it existed and has been forgotten, or was planned, or perhaps its absence was deemed sensitive.
 

Similar threads

Top