B-36 w/turboprop

[Orionblamblam]

An illustration from the next issue of Aerospace Projects Review, showing a top & side view of a proposed B-36 variant with four turboprop engines. The article itself was written by Dennis R. Jenkins.

(Damn drawing took near two weeks to put together... mostly in trying to put together a decent drawing of the basic B-36, of which there are surprisingly few such drawings)

 

[archipeppe]

(Damn drawing took near two weeks to put together... mostly in trying to put together a decent drawing of the basic B-36, of which there are surprisingly few such drawings)

You're terribly right Scott!!!
I had the same problem when I realized a 3-views drawing of a B 36D as mothership for NAA ESO 7487, for a presentation I did las November at AstronautiCon 2 (Italian Astronautical Convention).

 

[Michel Van]

question

why was the B-36 not adaptet to four turboprop engines.?
Those 6 Pusher engine gave the B-36 bad nickname "Six turning and four burning!"

or came that proposal to late ?
or was magnesium-rich airframe of B-36 not ready for that.

more on B-36 and X-15
http://www.air-and-space.com/peacemkr.htm

that they use a B-36 als "Nuclear Reactor in Fight Test" as The NB-36H
give me the crepps

 

[Orionblamblam]

question

why was the B-36 not adaptet to four turboprop engines.?

Short answer: it was a lot easier to simply add the jet engine pods. Modifying the wings to allow turboprops would have been tricky, especially with those really long propeller drive shafts.

The B-60 most likely would have wound up with turboprops rather than turbojets, though.

 

[archipeppe]

The B-60 most likely would have wound up with turboprops rather than turbojets, though.

But, in this way, it could really look like the Tupolev Tu 20 "Bear"....or not??

 

[Orionblamblam]

"Not." Engines would have been slung well below the wings.

 

[Skybolt]

Yup, the real inspiration for the Tu-20 was the Douglas competitor for the B-52 contract... ;D
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,759.msg5878.html#msg5878
and http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,759.msg6173.html#msg6173

 

[russcal]

Hello, everyone!

My first posting here!

In reply to the comment about the B-36, "6 turning, and 4 burning", refered to the engines of the later, mixed power ships: ' "If all engines functioned normally at full power during the pre-takeoff warm up, the lead flight engineer would say to the captain "six [engines] turning and four [engines] burning". Erratic engine reliability led to the wisecrack "two turning, two burning, two joking and two smoking," with two engines not accounted for or referred to as dead" '. Qute attributed to a Capt. Banda, C-99 pilot.

Russ

 

[archipeppe]

"Not." Engines would have been slung well below the wings.

Why this "odd" configuration??
There are some advantages to take the propellers so close to ground, or it is only the desire to not put forward wing the nacelles??

 

[Orionblamblam]

"Not." Engines would have been slung well below the wings.

Why this "odd" configuration??
There are some advantages to take the propellers so close to ground, or it is only the desire to not put forward wing the nacelles??

Separating the engines from the airframe makes servicing the engiens a lot easier, as well as making replacing the engines with some,thgin very different a lot easier. Same reason why the DeHaviland Comet layout became a historical footnote while the 707 layout remains the standard.