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

How the B-52 emerged (Boeing and contending designs to the B-52)

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,051
Reaction score
3,733
Hi,

http://www.wingweb.co.uk/aircraft/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress.html
 

Attachments

  • 450-Boeing_Turboprop_powered_bomber_concepts.jpg
    450-Boeing_Turboprop_powered_bomber_concepts.jpg
    12.6 KB · Views: 1,567
  • 450-Boeing_B-52_evolution_464_to_B-52.jpg
    450-Boeing_B-52_evolution_464_to_B-52.jpg
    14.9 KB · Views: 1,445

ucon

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
551
Reaction score
88
Website
www.avicopress.ru
Compare with Myasishchev LK-1
See full story, pix and drawings in www.avicopress.ru
Regards
 

Attachments

  • LK-1.jpg
    LK-1.jpg
    144 KB · Views: 1,537

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,300
Reaction score
130
Thanx, but the drawings are not to scale. The Model 462 was larger than a B-36.
 

Clioman

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
130
Reaction score
7
Here's some info on the Model 462:

Wingspan -- 221'
Length -- 161'-2"
Height -- 48'-2"
Design Gross Wt -- 360,000 lbs. (Internal tankage sufficient to bring GW to 400,000 lbs, and possible 480,000 lbs w/external tanks and JATO-assisted take-off
Powerplants -- six Wright T-35 turboprop engines rated @ 5,500 hp
Crew -- 10
Defensive armament -- five turrets mounting a total of 12 20mm guns
Bombload -- one 40,000 lb conventional or 50,000 lbs. of GP, or "special bomb of 61 inches dia. and 160 inches long weighing 10,000 lbs.

Rejected because the design's projected operating radius (3,750 statute miles or 3,100 nautical miles) failed to meet range rqmt of 5,000 statute miles at projected GW of 400,000 lbs. AF also noted engine/propellor issues, size of bomb bay & weight ass'd with defensive armament.

Cf. Boeing D-4500, rev. 6-27-46; D-13009, March 15, 1952
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,300
Reaction score
130
Thanks Clioman. Do you happen to have a copy of that report ?
 

airman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
1,230
Reaction score
86
Website
zeef.com
The development of the B-52 and jet propulsion :


http://books.google.it/books?id=5cgfJPFbsiEC&lpg=PA55&dq=b-52&hl=it&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=b-52&f=false
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
466
Also:
 

Attachments

  • Boeing 464-35.jpg
    Boeing 464-35.jpg
    20.2 KB · Views: 38
  • Boeing 464-29.jpg
    Boeing 464-29.jpg
    16.6 KB · Views: 891

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
557
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Boeing Model 464-33-1 report found on eBay.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/BOEING-MODEL-464-33-1-REPORT-DATED-1948-/290762696007?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43b2cea547
 

Attachments

  • $T2eC16Z,!)kE9s4,BDg,BQLvlH0KH!~~60_57.JPG
    $T2eC16Z,!)kE9s4,BDg,BQLvlH0KH!~~60_57.JPG
    129 KB · Views: 83
  • $(KGrHqF,!rUF!dFGoEG2BQLvlFFG2w~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqF,!rUF!dFGoEG2BQLvlFFG2w~~60_57.JPG
    122 KB · Views: 104
  • $(KGrHqJ,!qYE+nMeQoJWBQLvlCV+F!~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqJ,!qYE+nMeQoJWBQLvlCV+F!~~60_57.JPG
    102.5 KB · Views: 77
  • $(KGrHqN,!hcE+4YenyRhBQLvk8uQ8!~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqN,!hcE+4YenyRhBQLvk8uQ8!~~60_57.JPG
    118.2 KB · Views: 43
  • $T2eC16J,!)!E9s2fBWywBQLvk+tWz!~~60_57.JPG
    $T2eC16J,!)!E9s2fBWywBQLvk+tWz!~~60_57.JPG
    118.3 KB · Views: 48
  • $(KGrHqV,!jUE+rV6MLvFBQLvk55EtQ~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqV,!jUE+rV6MLvFBQLvk55EtQ~~60_57.JPG
    108.2 KB · Views: 50
  • $(KGrHqN,!n0F!J08q,s7BQLvk3OfuQ~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqN,!n0F!J08q,s7BQLvk3OfuQ~~60_57.JPG
    125.5 KB · Views: 53
  • $(KGrHqZ,!i4F!Ji!IvhpBQLvk0Rgow~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqZ,!i4F!Ji!IvhpBQLvk0Rgow~~60_57.JPG
    182.3 KB · Views: 55

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
557
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Boeing Model 464-33-1 report found on eBay.
 

Attachments

  • $(KGrHqR,!qwE+nTwyO3OBQLvlMDr9w~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqR,!qwE+nTwyO3OBQLvlMDr9w~~60_57.JPG
    122.4 KB · Views: 31
  • $(KGrHqV,!rEF!YbPm5hJBQLvlO0h1Q~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqV,!rEF!YbPm5hJBQLvlO0h1Q~~60_57.JPG
    115.9 KB · Views: 29
  • $T2eC16h,!)UE9s3wEgeYBQLvlR,(Sg~~60_57.JPG
    $T2eC16h,!)UE9s3wEgeYBQLvlR,(Sg~~60_57.JPG
    98.6 KB · Views: 37

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,515
Reaction score
245
Was the Boeing Model 464-33-1 a concept for the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress?

Yes it was. The Model 464 is the model number of the B-52.

Boeing XB-52 and YB-52 model number is 464-67
Boeing B-52A model number is 464-201

Source: Giants of the Sky. Bill Gunston

Other Model 464 iterations illustrated in my sources:

-17
-29
-35
-40
-49
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,051
Reaction score
3,733
Hi,


the Boeing Model 464-245 was an extra-long-range B-52 bomber variant,
with 157,000-litre external fuel tanks.
 

Attachments

  • Bo-464-245  1.JPG
    Bo-464-245 1.JPG
    20.6 KB · Views: 142

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,710
Reaction score
358
hesham said:
May be you are right my dear Scott.


It seems unlikely that such B-52 with those monster tanks could take off with only 4 engines (I mean the 2 pods left on wing extremities), considering the the actual B-52 takes 8 engines to be airborne with no extra fuel onboard.
 

circle-5

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
142
archipeppe said:
hesham said:
May be you are right my dear Scott.
It seems unlikely that such B-52 with those monster tanks could take off with only 4 engines (I mean the 2 pods left on wing extremities), considering the the actual B-52 takes 8 engines to be airborne with no extra fuel onboard.

LH2 weighs about 1/2lb per gallon. JP-4 weighs about 7lbs per gallon (14 times more), so the plane would be a lot lighter, even with these big tanks. In addition, LH2 engines are more efficient, so 4 engines are enough to power a hydrogen-powered B-52.
 

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,710
Reaction score
358
circle-5 said:
LH2 weighs about 1/2lb per gallon. JP-4 weighs about 7lbs per gallon (14 times more), so the plane would be a lot lighter, even with these big tanks. In addition, LH2 engines are more efficient, so 4 engines are enough to power a hydrogen-powered B-52.


Theoretically speaking.


Is true that LH2 is lighter than JP-4 but is also true that it takes more volume and requires heavier tanks (due to the cryogenic insulation), furthermore those huge tanks (similiar to the wing pods of TR-1) would surely add drag to the general aerodynamics configuration of the B-52.


At least to me appears like a very rough sketch to illustrate the possibility to have a LH2/B-52 rather than a true engineering project.
 

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,710
Reaction score
358
circle-5 said:
The attached Boeing drawing was posted elsewhere by OBB about 7 years ago. I think it's safe to say the 464-245 was more than just a "very rough sketch". Yes, those big tanks would have added some drag, but the deletion of four engines, 3,000-gal. underwing tanks, Skybolts, Hound Dogs or bomb racks would have largely made up for that.

In addition to being 14 times lighter, the energy content of LH2 is triple that of kerosene. That's why it is the preferred fuel in modern rocketry. I'm no engineer or chemist, but I trust the ones at Boeing pulled out a slide rule before publishing this design with the company logo on it. Had this variant made sense in other areas, there is no question in my mind that it could have comfortably flown on four engines, as it was engineered to do.

There are many reasons why no practical LH2-powered aircraft has been successfully built, to date. The complex handling and storing of cryogenic fuel is certainly one of them. So is the lack of infrastructure and the considerable cost of operation. But the engineering behind LH2 vehicles is generally sound and has been well-understood for decades.


Dear Circle-5 many thanks for the explanation and for the enclosed drawing, now it makes more sense to me.


Regarding the LH2 story we know that Lockheed pioneering such tecnique since the CL-400/Suntan project (a forerunner of A-12/SR-71 family) and also during mid 80's it was seriously considered for civil airliner applications (at least Russians really flown a LH2 aircraft if my memory doesn't fail).


Indeed another thought about the LH2 usage as military propellant: how much risky was to fly a bomber over a huge defended area (I mean with SAMs and MiGs) with those huge and vulnerable tanks filled with highly volatile liquid hydrogene??
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,009
Reaction score
1,322
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Ahem:

http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=2416



 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,085
Reaction score
978
Blackie, please stop posting copyrighted stuff from Jared Zichek book.
Have some respect to an other forum member.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,482
Reaction score
2,761
Hi!
https://ja.scribd.com/document/13035242/The-B-52-Competition-of-1946-and-Dark-Horses-from-Douglas-1947-1950#scribd
http://www.magcloud.com/browse/issue/8224
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
170
I think the latest links uploaded by Blackkite were put on the web by Jared himself, so I don't think they can be seen as a violation of forum policy.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,482
Reaction score
2,761
starviking said:
I think the latest links uploaded by Blackkite were put on the web by Jared himself, so I don't think they can be seen as a violation of forum policy.
Me,too. :) This site offers me very valuable information.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,085
Reaction score
978
starviking said:
I think the latest links uploaded by Blackkite were put on the web by Jared himself, so I don't think they can be seen as a violation of forum policy.
Exactly. Apart from deleted.
 

Similar threads

Top