• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

OS-111 & XVA(H1) Navy Heavy Bomber projects (alternatives to Skywarrior)

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
514
Reaction score
164
Tailspin Turtle said:
The Navy evaluation stated that the bicycle gear was "probably satisfactory for field landings but is an unknown quantity for carrier work". My impression is that there was no particular difficulty landing either the B-47 or the B-52. The U-2, of course, is notoriously difficult to land.
The B-47 was notorious for porpoising if both mains did not contact at the same time, like the U-2. B-52 porpoises, too, but is much more forgiving. Still you can see many B-52 videos with a pretty good bounce or two at landing. Making contact with both mains at the same time on a pitching deck might be problematic. Porpoising over the wire might be a potential disaster. Not sure what the spool up time is on a J40, but turning a porpoise into a go around on a flightdeck might be pretty hazardous if you miss the wire. Porpoising beyond or onto the front edge of the deck is likely a bad day, too. Those things might have played a role in the official skepticism, I don't know.

Early advice in the -47 was to deploy the ribbon chute (not to be confused with the smaller drogue frequently used on approach) when porpoising, even if you were not in contact with the ground at the time. The trucks could take a lot of abuse, and ending the oscillation was more important than potentially blowing a tire. Eventually guys just deployed the ribbon chute immediately prior to touch down.

I tend to agree that arresting gear probably quiets the porpoising problem quickly. It could very well work, but I can see why they might be cautious.
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,810
Reaction score
181
[Belated] :-[ Nice find on Reply#71 Tailspin Turtle

Thanks for sharing mate!!

Regards
Pioneer
 

masher47

Yesterdays dreams...
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2013
Messages
131
Reaction score
545
The N-59A above evolved from Model P.D. 1053 according to Jared's fine Secret Aerospace Projects of the U.S.Navy. The following posts are from the actual proposals made to the Navy which he included in his book.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,268
Reaction score
3,175
The N-59A above evolved from Model P.D. 1053 according to Jared's fine Secret Aerospace Projects of the U.S.Navy. The following posts are from the actual proposals made to the Navy which he included in his book.
Thank you dear Masher47,

and do you have a drawing to P.D.1053 ?.
 

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,027
Reaction score
26
From what I've read so far, the requirements seem to dictate the following
  • Capacity for a 12,000 pound nuclear-bomb
  • Radius of around 1700 nm while carrying payload
  • Weight no more than 100,000 pounds
  • Folding wings and suitable for operating off carriers
  • Crew of 3
  • Defensive turret
Was there any g-load requirement for the XVA(H1)?
 
Last edited:
Top