• 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)

airman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
1,243
Reaction score
102
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
593
Also:
 

Attachments

  • Boeing 464-29.jpg
    Boeing 464-29.jpg
    16.6 KB · Views: 912
  • Boeing 464-35.jpg
    Boeing 464-35.jpg
    20.2 KB · Views: 64

XP67_Moonbat

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,162
Reaction score
73
Does anyone know the title of the Fairchild M-121 document? Is it even available? I'd love to take a look at it some time. Hell, I'll buy a copy in PDF for the right price. ::)
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
751
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: 114
  • $(KGrHqF,!rUF!dFGoEG2BQLvlFFG2w~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqF,!rUF!dFGoEG2BQLvlFFG2w~~60_57.JPG
    122 KB · Views: 133
  • $(KGrHqJ,!qYE+nMeQoJWBQLvlCV+F!~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqJ,!qYE+nMeQoJWBQLvlCV+F!~~60_57.JPG
    102.5 KB · Views: 107
  • $(KGrHqN,!hcE+4YenyRhBQLvk8uQ8!~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqN,!hcE+4YenyRhBQLvk8uQ8!~~60_57.JPG
    118.2 KB · Views: 67
  • $T2eC16J,!)!E9s2fBWywBQLvk+tWz!~~60_57.JPG
    $T2eC16J,!)!E9s2fBWywBQLvk+tWz!~~60_57.JPG
    118.3 KB · Views: 69
  • $(KGrHqV,!jUE+rV6MLvFBQLvk55EtQ~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqV,!jUE+rV6MLvFBQLvk55EtQ~~60_57.JPG
    108.2 KB · Views: 72
  • $(KGrHqN,!n0F!J08q,s7BQLvk3OfuQ~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqN,!n0F!J08q,s7BQLvk3OfuQ~~60_57.JPG
    125.5 KB · Views: 75
  • $(KGrHqZ,!i4F!Ji!IvhpBQLvk0Rgow~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqZ,!i4F!Ji!IvhpBQLvk0Rgow~~60_57.JPG
    182.3 KB · Views: 78

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
751
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Boeing Model 464-33-1 report found on eBay.
 

Attachments

  • $T2eC16h,!)UE9s3wEgeYBQLvlR,(Sg~~60_57.JPG
    $T2eC16h,!)UE9s3wEgeYBQLvlR,(Sg~~60_57.JPG
    98.6 KB · Views: 65
  • $(KGrHqV,!rEF!YbPm5hJBQLvlO0h1Q~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqV,!rEF!YbPm5hJBQLvlO0h1Q~~60_57.JPG
    115.9 KB · Views: 51
  • $(KGrHqR,!qwE+nTwyO3OBQLvlMDr9w~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqR,!qwE+nTwyO3OBQLvlMDr9w~~60_57.JPG
    122.4 KB · Views: 53

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,532
Reaction score
311
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
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
593
Very nice. Thanks Donald!

I have fixed the link to the second image (it used to duplicate the first one instead).
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,909
Reaction score
1,212
wonderful picture, Thx Triton
it had be funny, if B-52 had Turboprop engine. in compares to the Tu-95: looking like unlikely twins ;D
 

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,532
Reaction score
311
Wasn't the Mya Molot, the B-52 comparative design?
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
751
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Photo of Boeing XB-52 taken December 29, 1951 part of the Seattle Times archive.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1951-Boeing-B-52-Strato-Fortress-Press-Photo-/200798437792?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item2ec08501a0
 

Attachments

  • 6_13_308_img1154B.jpg
    6_13_308_img1154B.jpg
    131.2 KB · Views: 1,803
  • 6_13_308_img1154A.jpg
    6_13_308_img1154A.jpg
    50.2 KB · Views: 1,858

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,611
Reaction score
4,574
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: 203

Nico

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
266
Reaction score
33
Hi friends:
during last months I paid quite a lot of attention to the development of lomg range heavy bombers in the states, and only archiving some pictures I noticed that three shots depict the XB-52 with six engines only.
All of us know that the second prototype (YB-52) actually was flown before first ship that endured some delay, but no one of my books on the matter quotes a six-engine configuration.
Perhaps i read the books not too carefully or is my memory increasingly faltering?
Nico
 

Attachments

  • XB-52_6-1.jpg
    XB-52_6-1.jpg
    44 KB · Views: 1,639
  • XB-52_6-2.jpg
    XB-52_6-2.jpg
    38.6 KB · Views: 1,666
  • XB-52_6-3.jpg
    XB-52_6-3.jpg
    85.8 KB · Views: 1,673

aim9xray

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
593
Reaction score
280
The "six-engine B-52" was a testbed for the J75 only and was not an advanced B-52 configuration. (Note the larger intake and longer nacelle). Nice images!
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,611
Reaction score
4,574
By the way,


the Martin Model-236 Proposal had a long slim fuselage,low-mid-wing and
powered by eight pusher engines,mounted at the wing.
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,280
Reaction score
1,198
posts from the eBay section added
 

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
574
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
171
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
1,798
Reaction score
574
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.
 

circle-5

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
171
Re: How the B-52 emerged (Boeing and contending designs to the B-52)

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.
 

Attachments

  • Boeing model 464-245.jpg
    Boeing model 464-245.jpg
    48.4 KB · Views: 286

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
574
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??
 

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,458
Reaction score
933
XB-52 cockpit cutaway. For comparison cutaways of B-52B cockpit and its decks.
Edit:
Added comparison cutaways from the XB-52 to B-52H cockpits and their decks.
Sources:
B-52 Stratofortress - Celebrating 60 remarkable years - Air Force Monthly Special Edition 2012
https://www.flickr.com/photos/53504020@N08/7435921646/
 

Attachments

  • XB52_cockpit_cutaway_AFM_B52_special_issue.jpg
    XB52_cockpit_cutaway_AFM_B52_special_issue.jpg
    103.8 KB · Views: 346
  • B52B_cockpit_decks_cutaway_AFM_B52_special_issue.jpg
    B52B_cockpit_decks_cutaway_AFM_B52_special_issue.jpg
    134.6 KB · Views: 395
  • XB-52B-52h-cockpits_7435921646_ac98637691_h.jpg
    XB-52B-52h-cockpits_7435921646_ac98637691_h.jpg
    326.8 KB · Views: 200

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
13,849
Reaction score
3,721
Skybolt said:
Well, ladies and gentlemen, since "shazam" is copyrighted, I'll resort to my:
beebeedee, bobeedee, boo!

Just received from the Smithsonian (with much more), here is the 3view of the Fairchild M-121, which, born under the cover of the Generalized Bomber Research (which wasn't limiited to the Convair GeBo I and II studies) and designed in 1949, during 1950 was considered (alongside at least two Douglas design, the D-1211J and R) as a "dark horse" alternative to the XB-52 program. I don't know if it has already been published elsewhere, but I doubt it... Anyhow, enjoy...


Hats off to thounaojamtom over at MilitaryPhotos.net for these (M-121 and M-128):
 

Attachments

  • M-128.jpg
    M-128.jpg
    179.7 KB · Views: 298
  • M-121.jpg
    M-121.jpg
    205.5 KB · Views: 308

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
574
Grey Havoc said:
Skybolt said:
Well, ladies and gentlemen, since "shazam" is copyrighted, I'll resort to my:
beebeedee, bobeedee, boo!

Just received from the Smithsonian (with much more), here is the 3view of the Fairchild M-121, which, born under the cover of the Generalized Bomber Research (which wasn't limiited to the Convair GeBo I and II studies) and designed in 1949, during 1950 was considered (alongside at least two Douglas design, the D-1211J and R) as a "dark horse" alternative to the XB-52 program. I don't know if it has already been published elsewhere, but I doubt it... Anyhow, enjoy...


Hats off to thounaojamtom over at MilitaryPhotos.net for these (M-121 and M-128):


The M-128 has a strong resemblance with the von Braun's Collier's spaceplane....
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
593
Gosh! I knew the M-128's configuration but I don't think I ever heard the M-121 was a biplane!!

Thanks a lot for sharing these beauties!
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
13,849
Reaction score
3,721
No problem!

The old post below explains the 'auxiliary wing'.

Skybolt said:
Thanx...
Actually it could be the opposite. During 1949-50 NACA conducted a series of wind-tunnel tests on a configuration very similar to the M-121's one (only slimmer). Could be that Wernher while at Redstone saw them....
And since you want more, here is it... but I want to write an article on this (Air Enthusiast, any one?), so I'll be VERY parsimonious... Bu the forum is the forum, so.. from which you can see the famous railroad take-off concept and another big surprise: the auxiliary wing for very long range mission (it was full of fuel, more then doubling the total onboard). This is why someone had M-121 described as a "flying wing" perhaps....
index.php
 

Hot Breath

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
196
Reaction score
1
Was the slip wing recoverable? Was it piloted separately? I can't see any cockpit, if that was the case.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,611
Reaction score
4,574

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    124.5 KB · Views: 282
  • 2.png
    2.png
    188.2 KB · Views: 298
  • 3.png
    3.png
    70.9 KB · Views: 286
  • 4.png
    4.png
    150.4 KB · Views: 280
  • 5.png
    5.png
    146.5 KB · Views: 263

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
593
Series of three-view drawings from TsAGI's Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya (No.13, 1983) showing the Models 462, 464-35, 464-49 and 464-201-6-7 (B-52D):
 

Attachments

  • B-52 evolution (TsAGI).gif
    B-52 evolution (TsAGI).gif
    210.4 KB · Views: 349

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,611
Reaction score
4,574
Hi,


Below: Some of Ed Well's pencil sketches during the days preceding the B-52 design. They are remarkable both for how close they came to the final configuration, and how radical were some of the departures. (Boeing)


http://scilib-avia.narod.ru/Boyne/B-52.htm
 

Attachments

  • 050.jpg
    050.jpg
    47.7 KB · Views: 1,462

Similar threads

Top