• 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
27,611
Reaction score
4,574
Hi,


and a model for Boeing 464-67.


https://elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/boeing-model-464-67-men-and-their-toys-ii/
 

Attachments

  • 464-67.jpg
    464-67.jpg
    61.3 KB · Views: 1,273

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,458
Reaction score
933
B)
Here a video showing an early Boeing XB-52 mock-up (Model 464-17 or Model 464-29) with strait wings and turboprop engines.
Video:
https://youtu.be/f3F78ld-Lus?t=1m9s
Code:
https://youtu.be/f3F78ld-Lus?t=1m9s

I have never seen this mock-up before.
So maybe Flateric or someone else can take a clean screenshot and upload it to this topic. :)
 

Attachments

  • B-52_Mockup_01.jpg
    B-52_Mockup_01.jpg
    79 KB · Views: 1,275

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,532
Reaction score
311
To me looks more like a Model 474 (XB-55)
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,128
Reaction score
1,213
fightingirish said:
So maybe Flateric or someone else can take a clean screenshot and upload it to this topic. :)
Model 464-35
 

Attachments

  • Weekend Warriors? Birth of the B-52.mp4_snapshot_01.06_[2015.12.01_02.50.19].jpg
    Weekend Warriors? Birth of the B-52.mp4_snapshot_01.06_[2015.12.01_02.50.19].jpg
    160.1 KB · Views: 229
  • Weekend Warriors? Birth of the B-52.mp4_snapshot_01.08_[2015.12.01_02.46.39].jpg
    Weekend Warriors? Birth of the B-52.mp4_snapshot_01.08_[2015.12.01_02.46.39].jpg
    219.2 KB · Views: 198
  • Weekend Warriors? Birth of the B-52.mp4_snapshot_01.04_[2015.12.01_02.46.30].jpg
    Weekend Warriors? Birth of the B-52.mp4_snapshot_01.04_[2015.12.01_02.46.30].jpg
    161.6 KB · Views: 159
  • Weekend Warriors? Birth of the B-52.mp4_snapshot_01.03_[2015.12.01_02.46.25].jpg
    Weekend Warriors? Birth of the B-52.mp4_snapshot_01.03_[2015.12.01_02.46.25].jpg
    145.9 KB · Views: 134
  • Weekend Warriors? Birth of the B-52.mp4_snapshot_01.02_[2015.12.01_02.46.17].jpg
    Weekend Warriors? Birth of the B-52.mp4_snapshot_01.02_[2015.12.01_02.46.17].jpg
    136.4 KB · Views: 871
  • Weekend Warriors? Birth of the B-52.mp4_snapshot_01.01_[2015.12.01_02.46.07].jpg
    Weekend Warriors? Birth of the B-52.mp4_snapshot_01.01_[2015.12.01_02.46.07].jpg
    108.7 KB · Views: 913

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,058
Reaction score
1,475
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
I'll just leave this here...

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

usbp16ad1.jpg
 

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,532
Reaction score
311
Great flateric. Never thought that early 464 iterations progressed so far into mockup stage. Thus I confused it with model 474. In my humble opinion, there is a family resemblance between this 464 sub-design and the 474 early turboprop designs.

Again, amateur researchers and aerospace fans are basically restricted to built aircraft and miss the bulk of the story which is made from those left in the drawing boards. Mockups are fascinating because is something in between. Great topic, thanks to the contributors.
 

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,458
Reaction score
933
Thanks to Jemiba and flateric for the screenshots! :)
In the front right of this screenshot you see the two different cockpit configurations.
index.php
 

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,532
Reaction score
311
In the front right of this screenshot you see the two different cockpit configurations.

The tandem configuration is visible. What a lot of findings in a single photo!
 

lark

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,809
Reaction score
91
Looking at the rather conservative tailfin of the mockup
I think it stems from an early phase of the development.
Perhaps the 464-25 variant..?
 

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,268
Reaction score
53
Master carpenters at work using brads and glue instead of rivets! -SP
 

LowObservable

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,211
Reaction score
172
I'm not sure whether this question has been raised before here.

Two key events in bomber development took place very closely together: the conception and approval of the jet-boosted B-36D (design approved and demo authorized in Oct 1948) and the AF's legendary "thanks but no thanks" to a turboprop XB-52 (Oct 21 1948).

Has anyone published or found primary-source documents that establish a causal link between the two? I know that B-36 histories suggest that after the AF/AAF turned down the B-36C, the Convair bomber's days seemed numbered until the idea of jet boost was adopted. Clearly, too, if the advantage of the turboprop XB-52 was speed and altitude over a defended area, the jet-boosted B-36D eroded it.

Lori Tagg's monograph* quotes the AF's Col Henry Warden: "Colonel Warden told the three men that the B-52 was not a significant enough improvement over the B-36 for the Air Force to justify further development." But at that point, is Warden talking about the new jet-boosted version?

It's a fascinating historical question, because it places a lot of credit for the genesis of today's B-52 on whoever looked at a B-47's engine pods and said "hey, what if..?"

*http://www.amazon.com/Development-B-52-Wright-Field-Story/dp/B000NM0YB0
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,680
Reaction score
3,187
Hi! 462 model larger image.

http://modernwartech.blog.hu/2016/11/22/a_b-36_vetelytarsai_tovabbfejlesztese_es_az_nb-36h_az_ismerteto_6_resze
 

Attachments

  • 462-7.jpg
    462-7.jpg
    110.3 KB · Views: 1,030

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,680
Reaction score
3,187
Re: How the B-52 emerged (Boeing and contending designs to the B-52)

Hi!
http://youroker.livejournal.com/36573.html
"The sources of the B-52 go into the distant military 1944 - on August 15, the technical office in Wright Field recommended starting the development of the project of a jet / turboprop heavy bomber. It was supposed that in 1946 a competition for the best project will be held, and in the interval between 1947 and 1949 the first prototype will be built. The development of the aircraft allocated 650,000 dollars, the very construction of the aircraft was estimated at 16 million dollars. On assignment, the bomber was intended to replace the Convair XB-36, which had been under construction since 1941. By 1944, the command of the US Air Force began to realize that the XB-36 could not survive in the conditions of combat with jet aircraft, which means it was already obsolete. In April 1945, Boeing was asked to develop a project based on the XB-36, but with new turboprop engines. The Boeing refused, explaining its refusal by the fact that the very design of the XB-36 does not meet modern requirements (citation: "so completely out of line with the state of the art").
On November 23, 1945, the final requirements for a new bomber were ready. The aircraft required high speed and range, flight at high altitude, takeoff from ground airfields.In February 1946 technical requirements were clarified, they introduced a mandatory requirement for installation of turbojet engines on the aircraft. Also, the requirements for range were reduced, since they were unattainable at that level of technology development when using turboprop engines.
By mid-1946 drafts of bombers from Boeing, Convair and Martin were prepared. All three did not fully meet the given criteria, so no project provided take-off from the ground airfields, but all were admitted to the competition.
June 27, 1946 in Boeing presented their vision of a prospective heavy bomber. According to the description, the aircraft concentrated all the achievements of engineering, especially electronics. Boeing engineers claimed that the design of the aircraft took into account all the shortcomings of the XB-36. As it was written in the project brochure, it was "... the most advanced aircraft out of those that can be created at this level of technology development." The project itself was called Model 462.
When creating the aircraft, first of all the engineers focused on achieving the speed and range parameters specified in the technical task, the wing profile and placement of the nacelle engines were optimized for these requirements. Of all the submitted projects, 462 was the largest and could provide the longest flight range with the greatest bomb load. It was also possible to install and suspend fuel tanks, which further increased the range. "

"In late August 1946 , all data on the Model 462 were transferred to the newly created corporation RAND (Research and Development) to study and make recommendations . In early September 1946 the year RAND rendered its verdict . According to engineers RAND Model 462 is an outdated concept of a bomber , the aircraft was extremely peretyazhel . Its huge size ( I will remind , that the Model 462 was greater in - 36) not only did not give easily increase the flight range , but even reduced it . According to experts RAND was required to reduce the plane of at least one and a half times . Also recommended to reconsider the concept of defensive weapons and inefficient huge tail of the aircraft . This report was submitted to the Aeronautical Commission , who in turn passed the report of Boeing, where he caused a very negative reaction . According to engineers Boeing report was drafted amateurishly and bore in itself only harm . Reducing the bomber would make it slower , less altitude and hoisting , would reduce its protective properties . Unknown , guided by whether engineers Boeing interests of the company , desiring to put on the conveyor more large and expensive aircraft , or simply mistaken . But fortunately the military supported the view RAND. In October 1946 the year Boeing received the task to reduce the aircraft .
To this end the story of the first competition XB - 52, but does not end the story XB - 52. "
 

Attachments

  • The option of placing the bomb load.png
    The option of placing the bomb load.png
    73.1 KB · Views: 12
  • Boeing Model 462 is a sectional view.  In the bomb bay you can see a 20 ton T12 bomb.jpg
    Boeing Model 462 is a sectional view. In the bomb bay you can see a 20 ton T12 bomb.jpg
    12 KB · Views: 11
  • Side view of the Model 462 nacelle.jpg
    Side view of the Model 462 nacelle.jpg
    28.2 KB · Views: 12
  • 462 specification.png
    462 specification.png
    184.2 KB · Views: 11
  • Drawing Model 462. It is evident involves placing external fuel tanks ..png
    Drawing Model 462. It is evident involves placing external fuel tanks ..png
    99.4 KB · Views: 11
  • Drawing Model 462  5.png
    Drawing Model 462 5.png
    131 KB · Views: 29
  • Drawing Model 462  4.png
    Drawing Model 462 4.png
    139 KB · Views: 31
  • Modified Model 462.png
    Modified Model 462.png
    269.4 KB · Views: 33
  • Model 462.jpg
    Model 462.jpg
    121.9 KB · Views: 34

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,680
Reaction score
3,187
Re: How the B-52 emerged (Boeing and contending designs to the B-52)

More 462.
 

Attachments

  • The scale model of the Boeing Model 462. The gun turrets are removed..png
    The scale model of the Boeing Model 462. The gun turrets are removed..png
    266.6 KB · Views: 20

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,680
Reaction score
3,187
Re: How the B-52 emerged (Boeing and contending designs to the B-52)

Hi! Convair designed LRHBA, competitor of 462. It was a mix powered bomber.

"In the summer of 1946, Convair offered his variant of a long-range bomber. The project was named very simply: Consolidated Vultee Long Range Heavy Bombardment Airplane (we will use the LRHBA shortcut later), which translates to the Far Heavy Bomber from Consolidated Vultee. The main distinguishing feature of this aircraft was a wing with a reverse sweep. The project itself was the development of ideas laid down in the HA-44, developed by Convair in 1945 for a heavy support / tactical bomber competition. It was from him that many decisions were taken, including the wing of reverse sweep.
In the description attached to the project, it was reported that Convair intentionally did not fulfill in its draft technical requirements for a prospective strategic bomber, since he considers these requirements unattainable at this level of technology development. Therefore, the proposed project is a transitional machine, performed at the maximum development of modern technology, which later can be brought to the level set in the requirements. There is a possibility that Convair deliberately focused on the impossibility of meeting the requirements, in the hope of closing the project potentially dangerous for its B-36, but it is impossible to confirm this. "
 

Attachments

  • Variants of the bomb load of the aircraft.png
    Variants of the bomb load of the aircraft.png
    247.8 KB · Views: 12
  • Wing rack chassis Convair LRHBA..png
    Wing rack chassis Convair LRHBA..png
    258.4 KB · Views: 10
  • The construction of defensive turrets..jpg
    The construction of defensive turrets..jpg
    29.9 KB · Views: 10
  • Convair LRHB scheme.  Defensive turrets and a retracted landing gear are clearly visible.jpg
    Convair LRHB scheme. Defensive turrets and a retracted landing gear are clearly visible.jpg
    75.2 KB · Views: 12
  • General scheme and basic characteristics of the Convair LRHBA wing..jpg
    General scheme and basic characteristics of the Convair LRHBA wing..jpg
    39.7 KB · Views: 11
  • Convair LRHBA, rear view..png
    Convair LRHBA, rear view..png
    355.3 KB · Views: 11
  • Consolidated Vultee Long Range Heavy Bombardment Airplane..png
    Consolidated Vultee Long Range Heavy Bombardment Airplane..png
    300.4 KB · Views: 12

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,680
Reaction score
3,187
Re: How the B-52 emerged (Boeing and contending designs to the B-52)

Martin competitor 236 flying wing bomber and 236-2 bomber.
"The last to be submitted was a draft bomber from Martin. The aircraft was made according to the traditional scheme, but it had several interesting solutions in the design. According to the project it was a mid-wing with a wingspan of 60 meters, weighing 125 tons, with a working ceiling of 10 kilometers and a practical one of 13 kilometers. As in previous projects, all the requirements were not met, so the range (at a load of 4.5 tons) was only 3,500 kilometers, the speed of only 700 kilometers per hour at an altitude of 5 and a half kilometers. The aircraft received the designation Martin Model 236.

A distinctive feature of the aircraft was an attempt to combine the pluses of the standard design and the "flying wing". From conventional aircraft, the Model 236 received a standard aircraft fuselage, from the "flying wings" - a wing with a very thick aerodynamic profile. In the wing, eight pushing piston or turboprop engines were completely housed, not protruding beyond the profile of the wing profile. The aircraft was supposed to use either turbo-screw engines Wright T-35 or reciprocating engines Lycoming R-7755 with a capacity of 5000 horsepower each. Also in the wing were placed two small bomb bays at 5 tons each, between the second and third and between the sixth and seventh engines. In addition, the variant of the aircraft with the usual layout and wing, which was called the Martin Model 236-2, was worked out.
The tail plumage was carried out according to the traditional scheme, without any hint of a sweep. At design speeds, such a feathering would be extremely inefficient, and we can assume that it will be replaced with a more suitable one. Defensive weapons consisted of 4 spherical turrets half-submerged in a hull. Equipping turrets - 20 mm guns. The construction of turrets can also be considered unsuccessful, since they seriously affected the speed of the aircraft. The bomb load was 18 tons: 5 tons in two wing bombs and 8 tons in the fuselage for the Martin Model 236-2 or two bomb bays in the fuselage for the Martin Model 236-2."
 

Attachments

  • The structure of the wing Martin Model 236 combined layout.jpg
    The structure of the wing Martin Model 236 combined layout.jpg
    13.9 KB · Views: 12
  • The fuselage structure of the Martin Model 236-2 is of the usual layout..png
    The fuselage structure of the Martin Model 236-2 is of the usual layout..png
    153.8 KB · Views: 15

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,280
Reaction score
1,198
Re: How the B-52 emerged (Boeing and contending designs to the B-52)

.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,128
Reaction score
1,213
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
7,680
Reaction score
3,187
Re: How the B-52 emerged (Boeing and contending designs to the B-52)

Is this post wrong? I only want to understand what happened and I only want to know the truth. ;)
http://youroker.livejournal.com/36573.html
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,680
Reaction score
3,187
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
 

XP67_Moonbat

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,162
Reaction score
73
Re: How the B-52 emerged (Boeing and contending designs to the B-52)

Blackkite, did you Flateric? You need to stop, dude.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,127
Reaction score
244
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
7,680
Reaction score
3,187
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
9,128
Reaction score
1,213
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.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,680
Reaction score
3,187
Hi! More Fairchild M-121. I can see jettisonable wing shape fuel tank over the fuselage.

http://blog.livedoor.jp/janome_gotyou/archives/2015-02.html
 

Attachments

  • engine j-34.jpg
    engine j-34.jpg
    28.6 KB · Views: 807
  • M-121 PIC2.jpg
    M-121 PIC2.jpg
    148 KB · Views: 842
  • M-121 PIC1.jpg
    M-121 PIC1.jpg
    111.2 KB · Views: 857
  • M-121 THREE SIDE VIEW.jpg
    M-121 THREE SIDE VIEW.jpg
    119.3 KB · Views: 876

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,680
Reaction score
3,187
And it's patent.

http://www.google.com/patents/US2714999
 

Attachments

  • 0acd160f.gif
    0acd160f.gif
    84.7 KB · Views: 140
  • 2b2da6ea.gif
    2b2da6ea.gif
    124.5 KB · Views: 131
  • 06caf0f2.gif
    06caf0f2.gif
    96.9 KB · Views: 123
  • 0932877b.gif
    0932877b.gif
    104.7 KB · Views: 135

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,680
Reaction score
3,187
archipeppe said:
Pure science fiction thanks Blakkite!
Oh!! :eek: Why do you think so? Jettisonable fuel tank? Bombing method was same as A-5. ;D
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,757
Reaction score
4,425
LowObservable said:
I'm not sure whether this question has been raised before here.

Two key events in bomber development took place very closely together: the conception and approval of the jet-boosted B-36D (design approved and demo authorized in Oct 1948) and the AF's legendary "thanks but no thanks" to a turboprop XB-52 (Oct 21 1948).

Has anyone published or found primary-source documents that establish a causal link between the two? I know that B-36 histories suggest that after the AF/AAF turned down the B-36C, the Convair bomber's days seemed numbered until the idea of jet boost was adopted. Clearly, too, if the advantage of the turboprop XB-52 was speed and altitude over a defended area, the jet-boosted B-36D eroded it.

Lori Tagg's monograph* quotes the AF's Col Henry Warden: "Colonel Warden told the three men that the B-52 was not a significant enough improvement over the B-36 for the Air Force to justify further development." But at that point, is Warden talking about the new jet-boosted version?

It's a fascinating historical question, because it places a lot of credit for the genesis of today's B-52 on whoever looked at a B-47's engine pods and said "hey, what if..?"

*http://www.amazon.com/Development-B-52-Wright-Field-Story/dp/B000NM0YB0

Wright Field had in 1947 given a critical review to the turboprop XB-52 design powered with T35 engines, due to the greater blade lengths and higher rpms required causing serious worries to the propeller manufacturers. T35 was in trouble, more power was needed, lots of redesign work underway, and Pratt & Whitney got the go-ahead for a backup turboprop to the T35 for XB-52, the T45 (PT4).

At this point in time, opinions were divided on turboprop versus turbojet. For the then-current state of the art of single spool axial engines with 6:1 compression ratio, the turboprop configuration appeared necessary to achieve fuel economy. However Pratt & Whitney engineers realised that if they could achieve a 12:1 compression ratio, the decrease in fuel consumption and boost in thrust could make higher speeds and longer ranges achievable with a turbojet configuration. Pratt & Whitney already doubted the future of a large turboprop and concentrated their T45 work on components that would be common with a turbojet design and testing these components in isolation - no complete PT4 engine was ever made.

In May 1948, Boeing was directed to study replacing the T35 on the XB-52 with the Westinghouse J40 (already funded by the Navy). P&W started design work on a jet version of the PT4 engine at this time.

By September 1948 Leonard Hobbs from P&W had convinced the USAF to officially restructure the T45 program as a 10,000lb thrust turbojet as a backup to the Westinghouse J40. Pratt & Whitney engineers were already in contact with Boeing engineers about their new J57 design prior to 21 October 1948 when Henry Warden, reviewing Boeing's XB-52 design (still turboprop based at that time), recommended redesigning it around the J57. The troubled T35 was cancelled.

I doubt therefore there was a specific event in October that links the B-36D and XB-52 decisions - this was a case where technical advances altered the tradeoffs between props and jets.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,680
Reaction score
3,187
Re: How the B-52 emerged (Boeing and contending designs to the B-52)

Hi! Liquid cooling engine for Martin surprising flying wing proposal!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_XR-7755
 

Attachments

  • th_img_7492.jpg
    th_img_7492.jpg
    121.8 KB · Views: 107
  • th_img_7491.jpg
    th_img_7491.jpg
    136.4 KB · Views: 112

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,680
Reaction score
3,187
Hi! Fairchild M-128 with jettisonable wing shape fuel tank.
I think that M-128 has four vertical tail stabilizers and small bubble shape cockpit.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?style=4&t=145479&start=100

But.......Ummm....... ???
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=759.0;attach=11326;image
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=759.0;attach=11328;image
 

Attachments

  • M-128.jpg
    M-128.jpg
    73 KB · Views: 190

RyanCrierie

Crazy Researcher
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
848
Reaction score
141
Website
www.alternatewars.com
Skybolt said:
A chart describing the three original proposals for the 1945 Hevy Bombardment Aircraft competition of 1945.

Ranking was:

#1 Boeing won with 846 points
#2 Martin with 824 points
#3 Convair with 748 points
 

lark

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,809
Reaction score
91
It must be noted that the Fairchild M-128 project
was inteded for a US Navy competition and not for the B-52 one..
 

Vahe Demirjian

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 1, 2013
Messages
624
Reaction score
287
There's more info on the Fairchild 121 in American Secret Projects: Bombers, Attack, and Anti-Submarine Aircraft 1945-1974.
 

Similar threads

Top