How the B-52 emerged (Boeing and contending designs to the B-52)

[Skybolt]

Ahem... http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,759.msg10955.html#msg10955
BTW, it was a subsonic airplane... :

 

[hesham]

Hi,

http://www.wingweb.co.uk/aircraft/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress.html

 

[ucon]

Compare with Myasishchev LK-1
See full story, pix and drawings in www.avicopress.ru
Regards

 

[Skybolt]

Thanx, but the drawings are not to scale. The Model 462 was larger than a B-36.

 

[Clioman]

Here's some info on the Model 462:

Wingspan -- 221'
Length -- 161'-2"
Height -- 48'-2"
Design Gross Wt -- 360,000 lbs. (Internal tankage sufficient to bring GW to 400,000 lbs, and possible 480,000 lbs w/external tanks and JATO-assisted take-off
Powerplants -- six Wright T-35 turboprop engines rated @ 5,500 hp
Crew -- 10
Defensive armament -- five turrets mounting a total of 12 20mm guns
Bombload -- one 40,000 lb conventional or 50,000 lbs. of GP, or "special bomb of 61 inches dia. and 160 inches long weighing 10,000 lbs.

Rejected because the design's projected operating radius (3,750 statute miles or 3,100 nautical miles) failed to meet range rqmt of 5,000 statute miles at projected GW of 400,000 lbs. AF also noted engine/propellor issues, size of bomb bay & weight ass'd with defensive armament.

Cf. Boeing D-4500, rev. 6-27-46; D-13009, March 15, 1952

 

[Skybolt]

Thanks Clioman. Do you happen to have a copy of that report ?

 

[Steve Pace]

pre XB-52

 

[shockonlip]

Very cool!

Thanks Steve!

I always preferred the tandem cockpit myself.

 

[JohnR]

Very cool!

Thanks Steve!

I always preferred the tandem cockpit myself.

I agree with you, the change to the production cockpit made the design look more commercial/pedestrian.

I wonder if, if the production B52 had been turboprop powered would it have had the same longevity as the actual B52?

 

[Stargazer]

This early version is strange as it has the front section ahead of the wings reduced to a minimum, i.e. the cockpit ends on the wing! (looks like it has no neck...)

 

[OM]

I wonder if, if the production B52 had been turboprop powered would it have had the same longevity as the actual B52?

...Doubtful. Jets were going to replace turboprops outright. Otherwise the B-36 would have been retained.

 

[Antonio]

pre XB-52

It's an iteration placed in between Model 464-49 and Model 464-67

 

[Skybolt]

Doubtful. Jets were going to replace turboprops outright. Otherwise the B-36 would have been retained.

mmm, i'd not be so sure. After all look at the Bear... Besides, the B-52 was "saved" by missiles since at least the late 70s. SAC was very aware that as a gravity bomb deliverer (key to PRECISION bombing, even with megaton range bombs) it was of doubtful value by mid-60s, although it persisted in developing stand-off missiles as "SAM destroyers" to carve a safe penetration corridor in Soviet defenses (this carried to the demise of Skybolt, since Minuteman was deemed superior against known fixed SAM bases). A swept wing B-36 with turboprops would have been still valid as a stand-off launcher, besides having more range AND more load carrying capability. The B-52 was superior in point speed over the target, and that was the selling point for SAC (with a lot of gyrations, though), and range was cured with aerial refuelling at the tune of hundreds of specialized tankers. Actually, the definitive B-52 was very different from the one that won the Heavy Bombardment Competition in 1946, and, what's more, the specifications were totally different, and evolved with the evolution of the design..... Back then the Air Force could do that at will, nowadays it would have been impossible (see the KX competition).
An aside: the size of the bomb bay of the B-52 and the ability (not so huge, mind you, at intercontinental range) under the wings dictated the development of a good share of aerial weapons. Consider a big belly turboprop B-36 in mid 1970s and imagine what would the SCAD and the mini-cruise be.

 

[Orionblamblam]

pre XB-52

It's an iteration placed in between Model 464-49 and Model 464-67

Model 464-49.

 

[Steve Pace]

Droppable gear. Interesting.

 

[mz]

Interesting how it looks almost like a flying wing. With that sweep, span and tail length there's not that much moment arm difference between the tail and the wingtips, and one could perhaps dispense with the whole tail from that point of view...
The B-49 for example had much less sweep and so does B-2.

 

[Stargazer]

one could perhaps dispense with the whole tail from that point of view...

Except the wing's width would have to be augmented I guess, they are a bit too narrow like that.

 

[sferrin]

Consider a big belly turboprop B-36 in mid 1970s and imagine what would the SCAD and the mini-cruise be.

Just for comparison even a "Big Belly" B-52D could only carry 84 500lb bombs internally whilst the B-36 could carry something like 138 of them. Or two Mk17/24 or T-12 40,000lb+ bombs.

 

[Skybolt]

Thanx Sferrin for substantiating my argument (I was working from memory and my figures were a guesstimate), .
BTW, in retrospect a B-60 (even not considering turboprop B-36s) would have been much better at the "bomb truck" role B-52s assumed in every conflict since Vietnam.

 

[Triton]

Evolution of the Boeing B-52 design.

Source: http://sobchak.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/dal-model-462-al-b-52/

 

[circle-5]

A pair of USAF Douglas 1211-J bombers, actively terraforming a communist outpost in the 1950s. (my Photoshop rendering -- this did not actually happen!)

 

[circle-5]

A USAF Douglas 1211-J over SFO, headed for Siberia from Castle AFB to demonstrate creative uses of American hydrogen to comrade J. Stalin. Note F-92 fighter escorts underwing. Again, this scene never actually took place.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Outstanding!!!! However, if you produce an image with the detachable Skyrays, you really will make my day.

 

[PlanesPictures]

_

 

[Stargazer]

A USAF Douglas 1211-J over SFO, headed for Siberia from Castle AFB to demonstrate creative uses of American hydrogen to comrade J. Stalin. Note F-92 fighter escorts underwing. Again, this scene never actually took place.

Congratulations on your imaginary scenes... Very well done!

 

[Triton]

Drawing and models of the Douglas 1211-J.

Source: http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/The-Do-Everything-Bomber.html

 

[Mark Nankivil]

I hope that model is at least in Circle-5's collection!

Does anyone on the group know where Air & Space mag's interest in the models started and if the 1211 is a glimpse of things to come? I for one would love to see what that bring out into the light of day.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[circle-5]

I hope that model is at least in Circle-5's collection!

You bet! And it came from another SPF member. Just one big happy family!

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Jared Zichek!

 

[nugo]

Hi All!

That's what I found:

 

[OM]

Drawing and models of the Douglas 1211-J.

Source: http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/The-Do-Everything-Bomber.html

...Someone needs to photochop these into a Sears' Wish Book Exclusive ad

 

[Triton]

Models of Boeing Model 462.

Source: http://www.hyperscale.com/2009/reviews/books/b52competitionbookreviewkb_1.htm

 

[Triton]

Three-view drawing and artist's concept of Boeing Model 450-65-10C.

This Model 450-65-10C was one of several proposals for a supersonic follow on to the B-47. Engines were to have been J57s. Span was 87 feet, with 3.5 to 1 aspect ratio, and 2,190 sq ft area.

Source: Boyne, Walter. Boeing B-52 - A Documentary History Jane's Publishing Company Limited 1981 p. 42.

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Boeing XB-52 bomber concepts.

Source: http://www.elgrancapitan.org/foro/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=11260

 

[Triton]

Three-view drawing of Boeing Model 464-17.

Source: Boyne, Walter. Boeing B-52 - A Documentary History Jane's Publishing Company Limited 1981 p. 44.

 

[Triton]

Three-view drawing of Boeing Model 464-35.


Source: Boyne, Walter. Boeing B-52 - A Documentary History Jane's Publishing Company Limited 1981 p. 45.

Edit: Fixed typos in model number and filename.

 

[Triton]

Three-view drawing of Boeing Model 464-40.

Source: Boyne, Walter. Boeing B-52 - A Documentary History Jane's Publishing Company Limited 1981 p. 45.

 

[Stargazer]

Message edited (typos fixed). Thanks, Triton!

 

[Skybolt]

It's -35.

 

[Triton]

Three-view drawing of Boeing Model 464-49.

Source: Boyne, Walter. Boeing B-52 - A Documentary History Jane's Publishing Company Limited 1981 p. 46.