• 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)

Zeppelin

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
84
Reaction score
11
Grey Havoc said:
Hats off to thounaojamtom over at MilitaryPhotos.net for these (M-121 and M-128):

I can see where Gerry Anderson got some of his modelling clues for the XL5
 

Attachments

  • Fireball_XL5 1961.jpg
    Fireball_XL5 1961.jpg
    37 KB · Views: 308
Last edited by a moderator:

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,591
Reaction score
1,727
This is a Douglas Model D-1211J, one of competitor.

I'm taking that the US got an eye on the Russian's Bear bomber......

Timing doesn't support that. Earlier in this thread we have a January 1951 magazine article on this design, which describes it as being a year old at that point, so the design is c. 1950. The requirement that led to the Tu-95 was issued in 1950 and the design approved in July 1951, so design work was happening in 1950-51, the exact same time that the Douglas design was being developed. It seems very unlikely that the Douglas designers were aware of the Tupolev aircraft's configuration at that time. It's probably a case of parallel requirements using similar technology bases coming up with similar designs.
 

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
323
Reaction score
202
I'd bet that if the Fairchild approach had progressed much further, the anticipated cost of throwing away what are effectively full-sized wings (and the cost of cleaning up their impact sites) would have inspired the development of a fly-back version, at least for training flights. Even Gen. Lemay had a budget.
 

edwest

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
1,269
Reaction score
417
This is a Douglas Model D-1211J, one of competitor.

I'm taking that the US got an eye on the Russian's Bear bomber......

Timing doesn't support that. Earlier in this thread we have a January 1951 magazine article on this design, which describes it as being a year old at that point, so the design is c. 1950. The requirement that led to the Tu-95 was issued in 1950 and the design approved in July 1951, so design work was happening in 1950-51, the exact same time that the Douglas design was being developed. It seems very unlikely that the Douglas designers were aware of the Tupolev aircraft's configuration at that time. It's probably a case of parallel requirements using similar technology bases coming up with similar designs.


No one knows that. But yes, a lot of designs and prototypes existed earlier than popular history tells us. The British and the Americans began their spy overflights in 1946. How much of that is declassified?
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,591
Reaction score
1,727
This is a Douglas Model D-1211J, one of competitor.

I'm taking that the US got an eye on the Russian's Bear bomber......

Timing doesn't support that. Earlier in this thread we have a January 1951 magazine article on this design, which describes it as being a year old at that point, so the design is c. 1950. The requirement that led to the Tu-95 was issued in 1950 and the design approved in July 1951, so design work was happening in 1950-51, the exact same time that the Douglas design was being developed. It seems very unlikely that the Douglas designers were aware of the Tupolev aircraft's configuration at that time. It's probably a case of parallel requirements using similar technology bases coming up with similar designs.


No one knows that. But yes, a lot of designs and prototypes existed earlier than popular history tells us. The British and the Americans began their spy overflights in 1946. How much of that is declassified?

I'm not at all sure how this is relevant to what I wrote.
 

LowObservable

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,211
Reaction score
171

Attachments

  • XB-52 J75 test -crop.jpg
    XB-52 J75 test -crop.jpg
    913.2 KB · Views: 222

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,948
Reaction score
341
The six-engine XB-52 is mentioned in a couple of posts here, but this is a different take:


Tony Landis says here that the goal was not to test the J75 but to evaluate whether the B-52 would have better performance with reheat J75s replacing the outer J57s. The piece also includes this cool photo, which I haven't seen before.

Nice find and interesting link thanks

Especially - "Despite being powered by eight Pratt & Whitney J57 engines, the bomber felt underpowered from the start. Even with water-injection added for additional thrust at take-off, the aircraft suffered from mar-ginal performance with a full weapons load on a hot day."

Always found it so ironic, that although the USAF recognised the continuous limitations of the B-52's engines/performance, the amount of perceived need of more modern, more capable engines, that it hasn't materialised....

Regards
Pioneer
 

Attachments

  • XB-52 (49-230) with two P&W J75 turbojets on outer pylons, 1959.jpg
    XB-52 (49-230) with two P&W J75 turbojets on outer pylons, 1959.jpg
    85.8 KB · Views: 170
Last edited:

dan_inbox

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
869
Reaction score
415
the goal was not to test the J75 but to evaluate whether the B-52 would have better performance with reheat J75s replacing the outer J57s.
What would be the thinking for replacing only the outer engines? wouldn't replacing them all be the real means of improving performance?
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
447
The six-engine XB-52 is mentioned in a couple of posts here, but this is a different take:


Tony Landis says here that the goal was not to test the J75 but to evaluate whether the B-52 would have better performance with reheat J75s replacing the outer J57s. The piece also includes this cool photo, which I haven't seen before.

Nice find and interesting link thanks

Especially - "Despite being powered by eight Pratt & Whitney J57 engines, the bomber felt underpowered from the start. Even with water-injection added for additional thrust at take-off, the aircraft suffered from mar-ginal performance with a full weapons load on a hot day."

Always found it so ironic, that although the USAF recognised the continuous limitations of the B-52's engines/performance, the amount of perceived need of more modern, more capable engines, that it hasn't materialised....

Regards
Pioneer

The B-52Hs as delivered in the 60’s were/ are powered by TF33 turbofans so the USAF did recognise and address the issues re: the J57s.
The planned re-engining would/ will be the B-52s 3rd in-service engine type (though the B-52H airframes 2nd).
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,609
Reaction score
980
the goal was not to test the J75 but to evaluate whether the B-52 would have better performance with reheat J75s replacing the outer J57s.
What would be the thinking for replacing only the outer engines? wouldn't replacing them all be the real means of improving performance?

Most books say that the primary objective was to conduct high altitude testing of the J75 but according to the Encyclopaedia of US Air Force Aircraft and Missile Systems Volume II the original May 1955 B-52G proposal was for a new wing with J75s mounted on the standard B-52 fuselage, it would thus make sense that the XB-52 conversion was also originally intended to support that programme?

Performance also has multiple parameters, take-off run, altitude over target, range, reliability, etc. I am curious as to which of these was the most significant driver behind consideration of the J75 over the J57 in the May 1955 B-52G concept.
 
Last edited:

RLBH

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
373
Reaction score
244
The six-engine XB-52 is mentioned in a couple of posts here, but this is a different take:


Tony Landis says here that the goal was not to test the J75 but to evaluate whether the B-52 would have better performance with reheat J75s replacing the outer J57s. The piece also includes this cool photo, which I haven't seen before.

Nice find and interesting link thanks

Especially - "Despite being powered by eight Pratt & Whitney J57 engines, the bomber felt underpowered from the start. Even with water-injection added for additional thrust at take-off, the aircraft suffered from mar-ginal performance with a full weapons load on a hot day."

Always found it so ironic, that although the USAF recognised the continuous limitations of the B-52's engines/performance, the amount of perceived need of more modern, more capable engines, that it hasn't materialised....

Regards
Pioneer

The B-52Hs as delivered in the 60’s were/ are powered by TF33 turbofans so the USAF did recognise and address the issues re: the J57s.
The planned re-engining would/ will be the B-52s 3rd in-service engine type (though the B-52H airframes 2nd).
Fourth, surely? J57s up to the B-52F, J75s on the B-52G, and TF33s on the B-52H?

Does anyone know what engine was being considered in the Boeing 1969/1971 studies? I'm sure it's come up here before but can't find anything obvious.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
447
The six-engine XB-52 is mentioned in a couple of posts here, but this is a different take:


Tony Landis says here that the goal was not to test the J75 but to evaluate whether the B-52 would have better performance with reheat J75s replacing the outer J57s. The piece also includes this cool photo, which I haven't seen before.

Nice find and interesting link thanks

Especially - "Despite being powered by eight Pratt & Whitney J57 engines, the bomber felt underpowered from the start. Even with water-injection added for additional thrust at take-off, the aircraft suffered from mar-ginal performance with a full weapons load on a hot day."

Always found it so ironic, that although the USAF recognised the continuous limitations of the B-52's engines/performance, the amount of perceived need of more modern, more capable engines, that it hasn't materialised....

Regards
Pioneer

The B-52Hs as delivered in the 60’s were/ are powered by TF33 turbofans so the USAF did recognise and address the issues re: the J57s.
The planned re-engining would/ will be the B-52s 3rd in-service engine type (though the B-52H airframes 2nd).
Fourth, surely? J57s up to the B-52F, J75s on the B-52G, and TF33s on the B-52H?

Does anyone know what engine was being considered in the Boeing 1969/1971 studies? I'm sure it's come up here before but can't find anything obvious.

In service the B-52G had J57s.
 

LowObservable

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,211
Reaction score
171
The more I think about this, the idea seems to make a whole lot of no sense at all. Even with A/B, the J75 provided about the same thrust as two J57s. There would be some weight saving but not much compared to a fully loaded B-52, and there would be much less thrust in MIL. If you wanted to provide more T/O power it would make more sense to add afterburners to the inboard engine pairs, I'd have thought.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,605
Reaction score
4,563
From Air Force magazine 1956.
 

Attachments

  • 2-1956.png
    2-1956.png
    163.3 KB · Views: 148

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,754
Reaction score
4,414
Convair LRHBA


Long-Range Heavy Bombardment Aircraft​

In the summer of 1944, the US military came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create a new long-range bomber, which at the beginning of the next decade was to replace the existing Boeing B-29 Superfortress. In 1946 it was planned to consider the proposed projects and choose the best of them. By 1950, it was planned to build the first prototype of a prospective machine and begin its testing. It should be noted that the new bomber was supposed to replace not only the existing B-29, but also the Convair B-36 Peacemaker being developed at that time, as the military had already completely stopped working on this piston aircraft at the development stage.

In the fall of 1945, the US Air Force determined the requirements for a Long-Range Heavy Bomber. Taking into account the specifics of the development of air defense and fighter aircraft, the specialists of the Air Force considered that the new strategic aviation aircraft should have high, if not unique, characteristics for that time. To minimize the risk of destruction of the enemy by air defense, the aircraft had to accelerate to 725 km/h and fly at a cruising speed of about 560 km/h. The bomber had to climb to a height of 13,200 m. The working height was determined at 10670 m. The maximum payload was set at 36 tonnes. The maximum range of flight at 8 thousand km was to be achieved at a load of 4.5 tonnes.

During discussions with the participation of aviation industry specialists, the military realized that some specifications of the requirements were simply unattainable with the use of available technologies, units and assemblies. For this reason, a new version of the requirements appeared in a few months. Due to the lack of engines with reasonable fuel economy, the required maximum flight range was reduced. In addition, turbojet engines should now be used as a power plant, since turboprop engines could not provide the required flight data.

In the first half of 1946, at once three companies expressed their desire to participate in the program to create a long-range long-range bomber. Their variants of this aircraft were offered by Convair (Consolidated Vultee), Boeing and Martin. It is note-wrothy that all three proposed projects did not fully meet the requirements of the Air Force. Due to the lack of a number of necessary technologies and technical solutions, the maximum speed and range were less than those set, and the aircraft could not be operated from ground runways. Nevertheless, the military department has taken into consideration all the proposed projects.

The most interesting of the projects presented was that of the company Convair. In an attempt to create a long-range bomber with the required high performance, its designers decided to use a number of original and daring ideas that had not previously been used in developing such aircraft. The Long Range Heavy Bombardment Airplane project or LRHBA proposed to equip the new aircraft with a forward swept wing. For all the complexity of this design was to help achieve the required characteristics. The new project was to use some developments on a promising tactical strike aircraft with a wing of a similar design.

According to available data, the LRHBA project had one particularly interesting feature. When developing the preliminary version of the project, the goal was not to achieve the maximum possible characteristics at the level required by the technical task. Convair declared the requirements of the Air Force were overstated and unattainable with the modern development of the aviation industry. For this reason, the military was offered a variant of the aircraft, which could be built using existing technologies. In the future it was supposed to modernize the aircraft and gradually bring its characteristics to the required level.

There was a difference of opinion on the prerequisites for the appearance of a project with obviously understated characteristics. Convair feared for its B-36 project, the development of which was conducted at that time. A new program for the development of a long-range bomber threatened the B-36 project, which was of great financial interest to the company. Possibly Convair, not wanting to lose a profitable contract, deliberately promoted the idea of the impossibility of fulfilling the requirements of the customer, at least for the next several years. There is no acceptable evidence for such a version. All the documents speak about the problems with the technologies that complicated the development of the aircraft.

Despite the "conservatism" in terms of technology and materials, the LRHBA project was bold enough in other ways. With the use of industry opportunities in the mid-1940s, it was planned to build an aircraft with the possibilities for further modernization. In particular, initially the bomber had to be equipped with turboprop engines, and in the future they could be replaced with turbojet engines.

To achieve the maximum possible flight characteristics, the aircraft should have an appropriate aerodynamic shape. The design of the wing was developed taking into account the loads associated with the relatively large take-off weight, and also "sharpened" under the flight at maximum speeds. Studies have shown that flying at specified speeds without the risk of flow failure requires making a swept wing with a small relative thickness. The impossibility of achieving the required thickness and the absence of methods for controlling the flow failure led to the choice of a swept wing.

The Convair LRHBA proposed to the military was a high-flying normal aerodynamic scheme with a swept wing and a swept tail unit. To achieve the required range characteristics, a large fuel reserve was required, which affected the dimensions of the aircraft.

LRHBA obtained a wing with a sweep of -30 ° (along the ¼ chord line) in a span of 50.9 m. The wing area with an extension of 7 and a narrowing of 3: 1 was 372 sq.m. The wing had to be installed with a small angle of transverse V. On the wing were provided four large-length nacelles, smoothly conjugated with its surface. At the rear edge of the wing provided for advanced mechanization with flaps and ailerons.

The nose of the fuselage, 52.6 m long, housed a cockpit of pilots and navigators. In the middle part there were volumes for equipment and a cargo compartment for the transportation of bomb load. The crew of the proposed aircraft was to consist of 11 people: two pilots, a radio operator, a flight engineer, two navigator-bombardiers (one had to use a radar sight, the second was an optical sight) and five shooters. The crew was to be located in two cabins. In the nose were placed the seats of the entire crew, with the exception of a few gunners, for whom the tail cabin in the fuselage was intended in front of the keel. The cabins were connected by a long tube. In both cabins, cots were provided for the crew to rest during long flights.

Although the main defense of the new LRHBA aircraft was to be a high speed flight, Convair engineers did not forget about traditional defense equipment. In the side sponsors of the fuselage, which did not worsen the aerodynamics of the aircraft, it was proposed to install remotely controlled turrets with two automatic cannon of 20 mm caliber each. A similar installation was envisaged in the tail of the fuselage. Ammunition - 600 rounds per gun. The work of five turrets had to be controlled by five shooters, whose work stations provided remote control panels. The possibility of using gun turrets of traditional design was also considered.

To improve flight performance and improve control, the tail of the aircraft was made swept. The stabilizer was placed in the lower part of the keel. The arrow-shaped design of the keel and stabilizer made it possible to increase their efficiency in comparison with the feathering of another architecture and thereby improve the controllability of the aircraft in pitch and yaw.

The military demanded that the aircraft be able to operate from unimproved runways. In combination with the reverse sweep of the wing, this requirement seriously complicated the development of the chassis. The acceptable track of the chassis could be performed by installing the main stanchions on the wing, however this was due to certain problems. As a result, the main pillars were fixed on the front spar of the wing and made retractable into the fuselage. When developing the bow of the chassis, which had a traditional design, special problems did not arise.

Of great interest is the design of the nacelles of the prospective bomber. On the wing of the aircraft it was proposed to place four units with fairings protruding beyond the front and rear edges of the wing. In front of the gondola, in front of the wing edge, was the Wright T-35 turboprop engine. The engines had to be equipped with four-bladed propellers with variable pitch.

Four turboprop engines could not ensure the acceleration of the aircraft to the speeds specified in the terms of reference. For this reason, the LRHBA bomber had to have an additional power unit in the form of four General Electric TG-180 turbojet engines. Such engines placed in the rear of the nacelles. The air intakes of the engines were brought to the leading edge of the wing. Turboprop and turbojet engines had to work together on takeoff and, if necessary, accelerate to maximum speed. On cruising flight modes, only turboprop T-35s were proposed. According to calculations, the maximum speed of the aircraft (with the joint work of all eight engines) was to reach 650 km / h.

The Air Force's specification required the use of a bomb load weighing up to 36 tons. However, Convair engineers did not share the optimism of the military. The LRHBA could carry no more than 18 tons of bombs on board, but the recommended load was almost half that. The proposed aircraft project provided transportation of only 10 tons of bombs. With this load, the bomber could have acceptable flight data and maneuverability. The increase in load up to 18 tons was fraught with the risk of damage and destruction of the structure. The insufficiently strong fuselage could be deformed or destroyed under overloads of about 3 units, which greatly limited the maneuverability of the aircraft at high speeds.

The documents on the preliminary version of the LRHBA project offered several options for loading the bomber cargo compartment. Depending on the task, the aircraft could take on board as a multitude of bombs of small caliber, and one or two large. In addition, some options for combat load provided for the use of additional fuel tanks installed in the cargo compartment. Such tanks allowed to make the most effective use of available free volumes, not occupied by bombs.

Naturally, with the existing restrictions associated with the strength of the proposed aircraft, the fulfillment of the requirements of military speech did not go. There was a proposal to strengthen the central part of the fuselage, which allowed increasing the normal bomb load to 18 tons without losses in maneuverability, but such a revision of the project threatened to increase the take-off weight and reduce flight performance.

Despite the presence of many problems and inconsistency with the customer's requirements, the Long Range Heavy Bombardment Airplane project was still submitted to the military. The Air Force, having familiarized themselves with the documentation and calculations of the designers, accepted the project for consideration and did not exclude it from the program. Convair - in the event of receiving an appropriate order - promised to complete the development of the project and build a prototype aircraft before the end of the 1940s. In addition, it was planned to develop a new project that fully met the requirements of 1946.

Shortly after the end of the application for participation in the program, in the spring of 1946, the US War Department made its first conclusions. The Martin project called Model 236 did not suit the military and soon dropped out of the competition. In the future, only Boeing participated in the competition with the Model 462 project and Convair with the LRHBA.

The choice of the winner was very difficult. Both projects had their advantages and disadvantages. Each of the proposed aircraft outperformed the competitor in one characteristic and was inferior to it in others. Because of this, teh air Force had to choose not only the general figures of the calculated characteristics, but also a number of other parameters. At the end of May 1946, the Air Force decided. The Boeing Model 462 aircraft was inferior to the LRHBA bomber in some respects, but it was much cheaper and easier to manufacture and operate.

The Convair LRHBA project due to the refusal of the Air Force was terminated. Some of the developments in this project were subsequently used to create promising new models. The LRHBA project itself remained in the early stages of development. Since the military chose the project of another company, Convair did not even begin to build a model of the new bomber. The Long Range Heavy Bombardment Airplane remained just a set of drawings.

After that, Boeing continued developing its project, offering the military several new aircraft variants that had great differences from each other. In the end, in 1949, a project appeared Model 464-67, a radically designed 8-jet swpt-wing aircraft vastly changed from the original Model 462, a conservatively designed six-engine turboprop with a straight wing. In 1951, Boeing received an order to build a prototype and pre-series batch of bombers, now known as B-52.
 

Attachments

  • Convair b-52 art.png
    Convair b-52 art.png
    672 KB · Views: 66
  • Convair b-52.png
    Convair b-52.png
    532 KB · Views: 50
  • Convair b=52.png
    Convair b=52.png
    324.1 KB · Views: 54
  • Convair b-52 guns.png
    Convair b-52 guns.png
    346.2 KB · Views: 53
  • Convair b-52 cut.png
    Convair b-52 cut.png
    324.3 KB · Views: 51
  • convair b-52 gear.jpg
    convair b-52 gear.jpg
    252 KB · Views: 50
  • W__ije4dt3BY0cCukkyiRlReBeJxE6MSvnyblLZtvLk.jpg
    W__ije4dt3BY0cCukkyiRlReBeJxE6MSvnyblLZtvLk.jpg
    70.5 KB · Views: 52

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,532
Reaction score
311
Full details about Convair B-52 and still more:

 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,754
Reaction score
4,414
Full details about Convair B-52 and still more:

Cheers - looks like the original source for the above.
 

Similar threads

Top