- Dec 27, 2005
- Reaction score
He is only one person.
So basically by the 1950's and 1960's, an attack plane's roles now encompassed the old attack-plane designation, and the light-bomber/tactical-bomber designation?KJ, the differences were less and less. Originally an attack airplane would have used guns and rockets at a rather low altitude, while light bombers would have used bombs from a medium to high altitude. With the rise in weight carrying capabilities of attack planes and fighter-bombers, the difference waned. During the mid-to-late fifties bombers were supposed to attack fixed targets removed from the front (railway nodes, large airports, harbours), while attack planes would have targeted near the front. Nuclear weapons rendered the picture still more murky: a solitary F-105 with a 100 kton tactical bomb on Kronstadt would have made little different from a B-66 in the same mission...
Actually the USN did at one time (1930's I think) use the Bomber designation (dive bombers), though they stopped using it though later on and instead went to using the Attack to cover both bomber and attack.More or less, yes, but using the F- designation (fighter-bomber). Remember that the first USAF A- designation plane was the A-7, and the first newly designed USAF attack planes were the A-9/A-10 couple.... The Navy history is different, the attack role included the bomber role.
I'm confused, ???They're in awe, Scott.
Very likely, yes. While the available documentation does not spell it out, they are probably Models 316-X and -Y, with X and Y being the different variations. Further variants were wind tunnel tested by NASA, but there's less data for those.robunos said:Am i right to assume then , that both the 'B-68', and 'Model 316' images are separate iterations of the same design,
Did I miss something? Where did you read about this in the topic? Or did you get that piece of info from elsewhere? I'd love to know more about it!Orionblamblam said:Hey, neat. Martin built a full-scale metal mockup of the B-68/Model 316.
oh, really ? So, show me the other competitors, say the NAA one, a bautiful design, with a Vigilante flavouir but sleeker and even more elegant, in my opinion. Or the three different Douglas submissions.... or the too-late Boeing one (no, not the patent of the early configuration, the definitive one...). I've seen them, so it is all really relative. And what about the three-engined delta Lloyd Jones published a lot of time ago ? Mysteries are not finished until they are finished....The XB-68 program is definitely no mystery anymore, and it's thanks to all of you guys. Thank you so much for the treat!
Okay, don't overreact. I was talking about Martin's entry, the winning one and the only one elected to be designated XB-68. Of course if you're talking about the whole WS-302A program, sure there is plenty we don't know about. Also I make a distinction between saying that something is "no longer a mystery" and that it "holds no mysteries anymore"! So bear with me, Skybolt, of course there will always be people more knowledgeable than us, and secrets to be dug out, but for an aircraft that we knew virtually nothing about months ago, I think we have definitely got some place!Skybolt said:oh, really ? So, show me the other competitors, say the NAA one, a bautiful design, with a Vigilante flavouir but sleeker and even more elegant, in my opinion. Or the three different Douglas submissions.... or the too-late Boeing one (no, not the patent of the early configuration, the definitive one...). I've seen them, so it is all really relative. And what about the three-engined delta Lloyd Jones published a lot of time ago ? Mysteries are not finished until they are finished....The XB-68 program is definitely no mystery anymore, and it's thanks to all of you guys. Thank you so much for the treat!
You're such a tease!Skybolt said:Not overreacting, only having fun...
And, seriously, that piece of story is really in the dark. Talking about the Martin WS-302A, I have reason to believe that the Model 316 wasn't the end of the line, that there were further evolution, both inside and outside the TBX and WS-302A frame, before the entire Supersonic Tactical Bomber concept was shelved in favour of low altitude souped up Fighter Bombers or Strike Aircrafts, which happened only in 1959, when General Lauris Norstad, SHAPE, decided that the long range theater nuclear strike mission would have been left to missiles, and this was the origin of MMRBM, and the rest taken up by strike aircrafts (SDR-17 and later TFX). BTW, the Super Hustler concept, in the ZEL mode, was intended as a highly supersonic tactical bomber for theater operation. In a certain Convair document a Super Hustler is even shown with Luftwaffe markings....