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

US Bombers

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,652
Reaction score
4,620
Hi,

in Specification XC-214 for high altitude bomber of 1939,the contenders
were Hughes DX-2,Lockheed L-129,Martin Model-182 XB-27 and North
American NA-63 XB-28,I can imagine that the Hughes DX-2 was developed
from D-2,but bigger and longer,who can drawing a big version from D-2
as a bomber ?.

Pictures added from a later post by hesham
 

Attachments

  • L-129.JPG
    L-129.JPG
    20.1 KB · Views: 113
  • XB-27.JPG
    XB-27.JPG
    21.2 KB · Views: 147

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,652
Reaction score
4,620
Thank you my dear Skybolt,

also for USAAC Circle Proposal 39-640 for medium bomber,the contenders
were Douglas,Martin Model-179 B-26,North American NA-62 B-25 and
Stearman,what was the Douglas and the Stearman proposals ?.
We know Stearman up to X-120,and from X-130 to X-190 were
unknown,the X-200 was Boeing/Stearman XL-15.
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
599
hesham said:
The Burnelli X-BAB-3 attack bomber project which was involved in a competition led to develop Douglas A-20.
On the chapter of excellent bomber designs that never were, a report dated 19 September 1939 about the Burnelli X-BAB-3 design concludes to the following:

The high speed possibilities of a 0.16 scale model of the Burnelli Aircraft Corporation XB-AB-3 design were investigated in the N. A. C. A. 8-foot high speed wind tunnel at Mach numbers from 0.18 to 0.65 (...) From studies of the research made by the Burnelli Co., the NACA and the Air Corps, the Military adaptability of the basic design has the following advantages over the orthodox streamlined dead-weight fuselage.

1. The coefficient of drag is the lowest known for any useful airplane today.

2. The coefficient of lift is greater.

3. The lifting fuselage has distinct advantages for the installation of power plants, bombs, armament and all other accessories over the streamlined fuselage.

4. From wind tunnel tests already conducted by the NACA and NYU the performance is exceptionally good in every phase.

5. The design embodied extremely good factors of safety -- considerably higher than the streamlined fuselage type.

6. The design is simple of construction and in the opinion of the Air Corps lends itself to high speed production better than any design and therefore the valuable time element involved in all production contracts can be taken advantage of to its fullest extent.

7. It is apparently a cheaper airplane to build because of the time element referred to in 6 above.

(emphasis added)

A more detailed summary of the report can be read here:
http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/xbab3.htm

It is sad that the history of aircraft procurement is ripe with similar stories of superior designs that were turned down for the wrong reasons and/or by the wrong people. In this particular case, one wonders if the USAF didn't simply want to give their regular contractors a bone to chew. And if the question was Burnelli's incapacity to have the aircraft mass-produced, it would have been easy to sub-contract it to anyone else, like the USAF soon did with every mass-produced aircraft, anyway. Or maybe that's because Burnelli was a Canadian-based, not US-based, interest?

An excellent reference online for Burnelli's designs: http://www.burnelli.com/
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,299
Reaction score
153
Please, no "conspiration against Burnelli" posts, please...
The NACA reports i here: http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19930092656
An interesting review rom 2003 of the contributions of Vincent Burnelli to aircraft design http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20030004233
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
599
I wasn't even aware there was such a thing as a "Burnelli conspiracy theory"!!!

I just find it sad that such great engineers and visionaries were forever estranged from the main civil and military procurements, not for lack of performance or faulty design, but because they did not belong "to the fold" or followed a more original path.
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,299
Reaction score
153
Well, it is not the place in this thread (there is a dedicated topic elesewhere), but the way Burnelli designed aircrafts was expensive on the side of drag in days were the engine power wasn't so cheap. The B2000B needed 8 W3420s coupled in pairs (normal rating total 20.000 HPs) in 1942 to give the same performance of the XB-36 (6 R-4360s rated 2600 HPs in 1942).
 

lark

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,809
Reaction score
94
At first sight maybe,but if you have time
take a look at the nose frontviews of both types...
 

Caravellarella

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,033
Reaction score
217
The Lockheed B30 looks like a "minimum effort" conversion of the standard Lockheed Constellation airliner; which although an exceptional aircraft surely wouldn't have been competitive with a purpose designed/built bomber like the B29. Does anyone know how serious Lockheed were being with this proposal. As one who has studied the Constellation quite instensely, I cannot see where a bomb-bay would fit in around the wing-centre-section......

Terry (Caravellarella)
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
217
You'd need some some strong fuselage frames in that area to carry the wing loads as sell as frame the bomb bay. I'd think the design would lend itself more to bomb bays ahead of and behind the wing carry-thru structure (the one ahead of the wing would likely be much like the Orion's weapons bay (as compared to the airliner it was derived from, the Electra) and the one behind the wing would be similar. I rather suspect the major lines would've remained the same between the L-09 and the B-30, allowing some of the same jigs and fixtures (possiibly even some of the same skin panels) to be used, but the structure likely would have needed redesigning to military standards. I see this more as an adaptation of existing and proven lines rather than a simple conversion.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,652
Reaction score
4,620
Hi,

the Burnelli B2000B bomber.
 

Attachments

  • Burnelli.jpg
    Burnelli.jpg
    36.3 KB · Views: 878

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,299
Reaction score
153
I'd presume no-one... otherwise it would have been already posted here.
Taylor patent: http://www.google.com/patents?id=wURyAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&dq=james%20taylor%20airplane&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=james%20taylor%20airplane&f=false
and here is the six engine version:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=wkRyAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&dq=james%20taylor%20airplane&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=james%20taylor%20airplane&f=false
It's easy, just use Google Patents...
 

Mark Nankivil

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
693
Greetings All -

A 3 view of the Burnelli B-2000 from Air Progress April 1965

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • Burnelli  B-2000 3V.jpg
    Burnelli B-2000 3V.jpg
    107 KB · Views: 1,416

lark

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,809
Reaction score
94
Not so much a bomber I think Mark, but...
...B-2000 lifting fuselage-express transport- with a span of 200feet en lenght of 110ft.

The Canadian Car & Foundry B-2000B was the bomber, powered by 8 Allison 3420 engines
and a span of 222ft.

According to The Aeroplane Monthly Oct.1980 it sould be a
proposal in the B-36 competion.

P.S. There is confusion between the B-1000 and B-2000 designs..
 

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,462
Reaction score
945
The Boeing Y1B-20 (Model 316) was a development of the XB-15 design proposed by Boeing as a long-range heavy bomber.
Fact Sheets > Boeing Y1B-20


Attachment source: Le Fana de L'Aviation August 1999 (Number 357), page 15
 

Attachments

  • Boeing_316_Y1B_20_Fana_August_1999_page15.jpg
    Boeing_316_Y1B_20_Fana_August_1999_page15.jpg
    74.2 KB · Views: 950

lark

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,809
Reaction score
94
This drawing is puzzling me since a long time..

Since it is a variant of the model 316
there must be more of them I guess.
 

ACResearcher

Author/researcher/illustrator.
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
261
Reaction score
160
Re: Model 316 series

The drawing shown by fightingirish is the Model 316B but the XB-20 itself was based on the Model 316. There were, in fact, five different Model 316 derivatives, from the 316 to the 316D. This included several variations on bomber designs as well as variations on 4-engine airliner/transports.
According to Boeing documents the 316 was an outgrowth of the Model 294/XB-15. Personally, I don't see the connections, seeing more of the Boeing Model 307 than the 294 in the design. However, specific documents showing the relationship have yet to be found so we need to go by Boeing's explanation for the time being.
It is my belief that the Model 307 had a profound impact on Boeing bomber design up to and beyond the B-29/Model 345. The Model 307 set the standard at Boeing for high-altitude, pressurized fuselages with its rounded nose and round fuselage. Almost all the Boeing design studies from that point on utilized that basic combination.
AlanG
 

lark

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,809
Reaction score
94
Well....that is research!
Thanks very much.
 

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,534
Reaction score
313
I agree with Lark!

US bomber development in the 30's is extremely interesting but unfortunately we only receive bits of information from time to time.

Many thanks ACResearcher for your sharing it
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,652
Reaction score
4,620
My dears,


that drawings are our knowledge about Boeing Model 316 (XB-20).
 

Attachments

  • 316.JPG
    316.JPG
    49.8 KB · Views: 739
  • 316   2.JPG
    316 2.JPG
    64 KB · Views: 400
  • XB-20.JPG
    XB-20.JPG
    20.2 KB · Views: 426

lark

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,809
Reaction score
94
As ACResarcher said before , there were five different Model 316 variants..
 

ACResearcher

Author/researcher/illustrator.
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
261
Reaction score
160
Hesham, one needs to very carefully examine both 3-views (or all five in the case of the Model 316 series) and compare the location AND size of the various external gun blisters, wing position, tail shape, canopy shape and size, etc. While certainly related, they are not the same design.

AlanG
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,652
Reaction score
4,620
At first,thank you my dear Lark,


and for ACResearcher,please do you have a drawings to those five designs ?,
can you send them?.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,652
Reaction score
4,620
Hi,


here is a six-engined heavy bomber,designed by Douglas,based on DC-4 as
mention in Ailes 11 January 1940 magazine article.
 

Attachments

  • Douglas-4.JPG
    Douglas-4.JPG
    16.7 KB · Views: 1,005
  • Douglas-3.JPG
    Douglas-3.JPG
    37.5 KB · Views: 1,025
  • Douglas-2.JPG
    Douglas-2.JPG
    39.5 KB · Views: 1,174
  • Douglas-1.JPG
    Douglas-1.JPG
    26 KB · Views: 1,200

lark

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,809
Reaction score
94
A better 3 view can be seen in the Douglas XB-31 thread...
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,652
Reaction score
4,620
Hi,


here is the early Consolidated XB-32 prototype to a production aircraft drawings.


Air International 2/1979
 

Attachments

  • XB-32.png
    XB-32.png
    798.7 KB · Views: 1,638

sienar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
685
Reaction score
340
From NACA; http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/Building_646_Models


Strange designation
 

Attachments

  • NACA_19077.jpg
    NACA_19077.jpg
    228.7 KB · Views: 812
  • NACA_19078.jpg
    NACA_19078.jpg
    188.2 KB · Views: 795
  • NACA_19079.jpg
    NACA_19079.jpg
    189 KB · Views: 749
  • NACA_19080.jpg
    NACA_19080.jpg
    178.8 KB · Views: 707

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,652
Reaction score
4,620
hesham said:
that drawings are our knowledge about Boeing Model 316 (XB-20).

Was that the bombs storage for Boeing XB-20,I can't translate well.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    199.1 KB · Views: 138
  • 2.png
    2.png
    90.1 KB · Views: 135
Top