• 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
27,805
Reaction score
4,972
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: 1,650
  • 450-Boeing_B-52_evolution_464_to_B-52.jpg
    450-Boeing_B-52_evolution_464_to_B-52.jpg
    14.9 KB · Views: 1,507

ucon

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
554
Reaction score
165
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: 1,597

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,299
Reaction score
159
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
8
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
2,299
Reaction score
159
Thanks Clioman. Do you happen to have a copy of that report ?
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
237
shockonlip said:
Very cool!

Thanks Steve!

I always preferred the tandem cockpit myself.

I agree with you, the change to the production cockpit made the design look more commercial/pedestrian.

I wonder if, if the production B52 had been turboprop powered would it have had the same longevity as the actual B52?
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
664
This early version is strange as it has the front section ahead of the wings reduced to a minimum, i.e. the cockpit ends on the wing! (looks like it has no neck...)
 

OM

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
752
Reaction score
21
Website
www.io.com
JohnR said:
I wonder if, if the production B52 had been turboprop powered would it have had the same longevity as the actual B52?

...Doubtful. Jets were going to replace turboprops outright. Otherwise the B-36 would have been retained.
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,299
Reaction score
159
Doubtful. Jets were going to replace turboprops outright. Otherwise the B-36 would have been retained.
mmm, i'd not be so sure. After all look at the Bear... Besides, the B-52 was "saved" by missiles since at least the late 70s. SAC was very aware that as a gravity bomb deliverer (key to PRECISION bombing, even with megaton range bombs) it was of doubtful value by mid-60s, although it persisted in developing stand-off missiles as "SAM destroyers" to carve a safe penetration corridor in Soviet defenses (this carried to the demise of Skybolt, since Minuteman was deemed superior against known fixed SAM bases). A swept wing B-36 with turboprops would have been still valid as a stand-off launcher, besides having more range AND more load carrying capability. The B-52 was superior in point speed over the target, and that was the selling point for SAC (with a lot of gyrations, though), and range was cured with aerial refuelling at the tune of hundreds of specialized tankers. Actually, the definitive B-52 was very different from the one that won the Heavy Bombardment Competition in 1946, and, what's more, the specifications were totally different, and evolved with the evolution of the design..... Back then the Air Force could do that at will, nowadays it would have been impossible (see the KX competition).
An aside: the size of the bomb bay of the B-52 and the ability (not so huge, mind you, at intercontinental range) under the wings dictated the development of a good share of aerial weapons. Consider a big belly turboprop B-36 in mid 1970s and imagine what would the SCAD and the mini-cruise be.
 

mz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
676
Reaction score
12
Interesting how it looks almost like a flying wing. With that sweep, span and tail length there's not that much moment arm difference between the tail and the wingtips, and one could perhaps dispense with the whole tail from that point of view... :)
The B-49 for example had much less sweep and so does B-2.
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
664
mz said:
one could perhaps dispense with the whole tail from that point of view... :)

Except the wing's width would have to be augmented I guess, they are a bit too narrow like that.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,893
Reaction score
2,166
Skybolt said:
Consider a big belly turboprop B-36 in mid 1970s and imagine what would the SCAD and the mini-cruise be.

Just for comparison even a "Big Belly" B-52D could only carry 84 500lb bombs internally whilst the B-36 could carry something like 138 of them. Or two Mk17/24 or T-12 40,000lb+ bombs.
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,299
Reaction score
159
Thanx Sferrin for substantiating my argument (I was working from memory and my figures were a guesstimate), ;) .
BTW, in retrospect a B-60 (even not considering turboprop B-36s) would have been much better at the "bomb truck" role B-52s assumed in every conflict since Vietnam.
 

circle-5

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
179
A pair of USAF Douglas 1211-J bombers, actively terraforming a communist outpost in the 1950s. (my Photoshop rendering -- this did not actually happen!)
 

Attachments

  • Douglas 1211-J 01.jpg
    Douglas 1211-J 01.jpg
    146 KB · Views: 981

circle-5

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
179
A USAF Douglas 1211-J over SFO, headed for Siberia from Castle AFB to demonstrate creative uses of American hydrogen to comrade J. Stalin. Note F-92 fighter escorts underwing. Again, this scene never actually took place.
 

Attachments

  • Douglas 1211-J 03.jpg
    Douglas 1211-J 03.jpg
    305.4 KB · Views: 905

XP67_Moonbat

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,162
Reaction score
82
Outstanding!!!! However, if you produce an image with the detachable Skyrays, you really will make my day.
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
664
circle-5 said:
A USAF Douglas 1211-J over SFO, headed for Siberia from Castle AFB to demonstrate creative uses of American hydrogen to comrade J. Stalin. Note F-92 fighter escorts underwing. Again, this scene never actually took place.

Congratulations on your imaginary scenes... Very well done! ;)
 

Mark Nankivil

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,669
Reaction score
695
I hope that model is at least in Circle-5's collection!

Does anyone on the group know where Air & Space mag's interest in the models started and if the 1211 is a glimpse of things to come? I for one would love to see what that bring out into the light of day.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

circle-5

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
179
Mark Nankivil said:
I hope that model is at least in Circle-5's collection!

You bet! And it came from another SPF member. Just one big happy family!
 

nugo

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
336
Reaction score
11
Hi All!

That's what I found:
 

Attachments

  • 1largerl3.jpg
    1largerl3.jpg
    108.4 KB · Views: 255
  • 2largecp6.jpg
    2largecp6.jpg
    137.1 KB · Views: 440

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
818
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Three-view drawing and artist's concept of Boeing Model 450-65-10C.

This Model 450-65-10C was one of several proposals for a supersonic follow on to the B-47. Engines were to have been J57s. Span was 87 feet, with 3.5 to 1 aspect ratio, and 2,190 sq ft area.

Source: Boyne, Walter. Boeing B-52 - A Documentary History Jane's Publishing Company Limited 1981 p. 42.
 

Attachments

  • 450-65-10C.JPG
    450-65-10C.JPG
    34.8 KB · Views: 1,497

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
818
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Three-view drawing of Boeing Model 464-17.

Source: Boyne, Walter. Boeing B-52 - A Documentary History Jane's Publishing Company Limited 1981 p. 44.
 

Attachments

  • BoeingModel464-17.JPG
    BoeingModel464-17.JPG
    33.5 KB · Views: 1,242

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
818
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Three-view drawing of Boeing Model 464-35.


Source: Boyne, Walter. Boeing B-52 - A Documentary History Jane's Publishing Company Limited 1981 p. 45.

Edit: Fixed typos in model number and filename.
 

Attachments

  • BoeingModel464-35.JPG
    BoeingModel464-35.JPG
    37.8 KB · Views: 1,195

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
818
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Three-view drawing of Boeing Model 464-40.

Source: Boyne, Walter. Boeing B-52 - A Documentary History Jane's Publishing Company Limited 1981 p. 45.
 

Attachments

  • BoeingModel464-40.jpg
    BoeingModel464-40.jpg
    37.4 KB · Views: 338

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
818
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Three-view drawing of Boeing Model 464-49.

Source: Boyne, Walter. Boeing B-52 - A Documentary History Jane's Publishing Company Limited 1981 p. 46.
 

Attachments

  • BoeingModel464-49.JPG
    BoeingModel464-49.JPG
    40.1 KB · Views: 352

Similar threads

Top