X-6 Mock-up

[The Artist]

I found this in the Lockheed Martin publication Code One, Second Quarter, 2001

 

[Steve Pace]

As was this X-6 model.

 

[circle-5]

More and/or bigger photos of these models. Note miniature reactor module, complete with twin GE X-211 powerplant (4 engines total). Remote exchange of this reactor pack was fully functional on the model, including the lifting and lowering of the airframe, automated hoists and trolleys. Some of the cables and pulleys are visible, but most of the mechanical automation is hidden under the "tarmac". The 1950s-style television camera on the twin-arm manipulator cart is noteworthy. I wonder what happened to this model.

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
http://jpcolliat.free.fr/x6/x6-4.htm
Also YB-60 base X-6 was studied.

http://www.airfields-freeman.com/ID/Airfields_ID_SE.htm

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6

http://www.megazone.org/ANP/tech.shtml
"The B-36 was also to provide the basis for the actual X-6 aircraft. At the time the B-36 was the only existing, time tested, airframe large and powerful enough to carry the expected engine and shield weight. The engine chosen was the J53 turbojet. At the time the J53 was a conventional turbojet in the planning stage at General Electric. The J53 was a high- performance design and it was felt that conversion to nuclear power would present no more difficulty than any other design then in use. In the early stages of the program, before GE's petition, it was planned to connect the J53 to a liquid-metal reactor for use on the X-6. The original propulsion system was to have weighed 165,000 pounds. This was composed of a 10,000 pound reactor, 60,000 pounds of reactor shielding, 37,000 pounds of crew shielding, and a total engine weight of 18,000 pounds plus an additional 40,000 pounds for ducts and accessories. After experiencing development problems with the J53, GE resorted to the J47 as the powerplant. J47s converted for nuclear testing were referred to as X-39s."


X-39 engine was a P-1 nuclear reactor(Output ; 150MW) with four J47 turbo machinary.

http://jpcolliat.free.fr/x6/x6-5.htm
"Preliminary calculations indicated that four General Electric J47 turbojets connected to a reactor to direct cycle with fuel at 1000 ° C would be probably able to propel the X-6. Four engines are expected to produce a total of 11800 KP to 4500 meters using only the heat from the reactor, but would also burn chemical fuel combustion chambers.
With this surge, the nuclear engine could propel the test bench flying at speeds of the order of 650 km/h. The complete nuclear propulsion system must have weighed about 75 tons. This included a reactor of 4500 kg, 27.5 tons of protection anti-radiation on the reactor, 16.7 tons of protection anti-radiation for crew, over 8100 kg for turbojets and about 18 tons of piping and accessories.By end December 1951, additional studies have led to substantially change the program.

General Electric finds that four J - 47 modified would not produce enough thrust with only nuclear energy (with a reactor operating at 1000 ° C) to keep the X-6 in flight. J-47 nuclear (designation of General Electric for the X-39) so was relegated to the stage of experimental ground test engine and the flight engine was given the designation X-40 although its configuration was not yet known."

NX-2
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B12WsCOCGAvKYTh3UDV3UGNxMzA/view

 

[circle-5]

The 3-view drawing of the straight-wing X-6 (B-36) by Mike Wagnon, shown above, is inaccurate. Such an aircraft would have been modified to NB-36H standards, at the very least, to incorporate the heavily-shielded flight deck cocoon and its related structural reinforcement.

Also, the large heat exchanger inlets are missing and the X-39 engines are incorrectly located too far aft. The engines are also too small in diameter, too close to the fuselage and not staggered. All these modifications are clearly visible on the various X-6 manufacturer scale models. I fear that Wagnon's B-60-based X-6 drawing is similarly inaccurate, with its airliner-style cockpit.

The rest of the 3-view drawing looks excellent, so it must have been lifted from somewhere else.

Attached photo shows lead-shielded flight deck being hoisted on the NB-36H, with instrumentation connector panels on side wall.

 

[blackkite]

The 3-view drawing of the straight-wing X-6 (B-36) by Mike Wagnon, shown above, is inaccurate. Such an aircraft would have been modified to NB-36H standards, at the very least, to incorporate the heavily-shielded flight deck cocoon and its related structural reinforcement.

Also, the large heat exchanger inlets are missing and the X-39 engines are incorrectly located too far aft. The engines are also too small in diameter, too close to the fuselage and not staggered. All these modifications are clearly visible on the various X-6 manufacturer scale models. I fear that Wagnon's B-60-based X-6 drawing is similarly inaccurate, with its airliner-style cockpit.

The rest of the 3-view drawing looks excellent, so it must have been lifted from somewhere else.

Attached photo shows lead-shielded flight deck being hoisted on the NB-36H, with instrumentation connector panels on side wall.

HmHmHm....Thanks a lot.