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

[airman]

The development of the B-52 and jet propulsion :


http://books.google.it/books?id=5cgfJPFbsiEC&lpg=PA55&dq=b-52&hl=it&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=b-52&f=false

 

[hesham]

The development of the B-52 and jet propulsion :


http://books.google.it/books?id=5cgfJPFbsiEC&lpg=PA55&dq=b-52&hl=it&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=b-52&f=false

From the same source.

 

[Stargazer]

Also:

 

[hesham]

Also:

They were in the first post.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Does anyone know the title of the Fairchild M-121 document? Is it even available? I'd love to take a look at it some time. Hell, I'll buy a copy in PDF for the right price. :

 

[Triton]

Boeing Model 464-33-1 report found on eBay.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/BOEING-MODEL-464-33-1-REPORT-DATED-1948-/290762696007?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43b2cea547

 

[Triton]

Boeing Model 464-33-1 report found on eBay.

 

[Triton]

Was the Boeing Model 464-33-1 a concept for the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress?

 

[Antonio]

Was the Boeing Model 464-33-1 a concept for the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress?

Yes it was. The Model 464 is the model number of the B-52.

Boeing XB-52 and YB-52 model number is 464-67
Boeing B-52A model number is 464-201

Source: Giants of the Sky. Bill Gunston

Other Model 464 iterations illustrated in my sources:

-17
-29
-35
-40
-49

 

[Triton]

XB-52 Evolution: June 1, 1946



XB-52 Evolution: November 15, 1947


XB-52 Evolution: December 15, 1948


XB-52 Evolution: December 15, 1948


Source:
http://www.enginehistory.org/GasTurbines/Wright/T35/WrightT35.shtml

 

[Stargazer]

Very nice. Thanks Donald!

I have fixed the link to the second image (it used to duplicate the first one instead).

 

[Michel Van]

wonderful picture, Thx Triton
it had be funny, if B-52 had Turboprop engine. in compares to the Tu-95: looking like unlikely twins ;D

 

[Antonio]

Wasn't the Mya Molot, the B-52 comparative design?

 

[piko1]

where can i find more info on Boeing 462 :

 

[Antonio]

where can i find more info on Boeing 462

here:

http://www.magcloud.com/browse/issue/8224

 

[Triton]

Photo of Boeing XB-52 taken December 29, 1951 part of the Seattle Times archive.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1951-Boeing-B-52-Strato-Fortress-Press-Photo-/200798437792?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item2ec08501a0

 

[hesham]

Hi,


the Boeing Model 464-245 was an extra-long-range B-52 bomber variant,
with 157,000-litre external fuel tanks.

 

[Orionblamblam]

the Boeing Model 464-245 was an extra-long-range B-52 bomber variant,
with 157,000-litre external fuel tanks.

That's liquid hydrogen.

 

[hesham]

May be you are right my dear Scott.

 

[Nico]

Hi friends:
during last months I paid quite a lot of attention to the development of lomg range heavy bombers in the states, and only archiving some pictures I noticed that three shots depict the XB-52 with six engines only.
All of us know that the second prototype (YB-52) actually was flown before first ship that endured some delay, but no one of my books on the matter quotes a six-engine configuration.
Perhaps i read the books not too carefully or is my memory increasingly faltering?
Nico

 

[aim9xray]

The "six-engine B-52" was a testbed for the J75 only and was not an advanced B-52 configuration. (Note the larger intake and longer nacelle). Nice images!

 

[hesham]

By the way,


the Martin Model-236 Proposal had a long slim fuselage,low-mid-wing and
powered by eight pusher engines,mounted at the wing.

 

[Jemiba]

posts from the eBay section added

 

[hesham]

posts from the eBay section added

That's better my dear Jemiba.

 

[archipeppe]

May be you are right my dear Scott.

It seems unlikely that such B-52 with those monster tanks could take off with only 4 engines (I mean the 2 pods left on wing extremities), considering the the actual B-52 takes 8 engines to be airborne with no extra fuel onboard.

 

[circle-5]

May be you are right my dear Scott.

It seems unlikely that such B-52 with those monster tanks could take off with only 4 engines (I mean the 2 pods left on wing extremities), considering the the actual B-52 takes 8 engines to be airborne with no extra fuel onboard.

LH2 weighs about 1/2lb per gallon. JP-4 weighs about 7lbs per gallon (14 times more), so the plane would be a lot lighter, even with these big tanks. In addition, LH2 engines are more efficient, so 4 engines are enough to power a hydrogen-powered B-52.

 

[archipeppe]

LH2 weighs about 1/2lb per gallon. JP-4 weighs about 7lbs per gallon (14 times more), so the plane would be a lot lighter, even with these big tanks. In addition, LH2 engines are more efficient, so 4 engines are enough to power a hydrogen-powered B-52.

Theoretically speaking.


Is true that LH2 is lighter than JP-4 but is also true that it takes more volume and requires heavier tanks (due to the cryogenic insulation), furthermore those huge tanks (similiar to the wing pods of TR-1) would surely add drag to the general aerodynamics configuration of the B-52.


At least to me appears like a very rough sketch to illustrate the possibility to have a LH2/B-52 rather than a true engineering project.

 

[circle-5]

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

The attached Boeing drawing was posted elsewhere by OBB about 7 years ago. I think it's safe to say the 464-245 was more than just a "very rough sketch". Yes, those big tanks would have added some drag, but the deletion of four engines, 3,000-gal. underwing tanks, Skybolts, Hound Dogs or bomb racks would have largely made up for that.

In addition to being 14 times lighter, the energy content of LH2 is triple that of kerosene. That's why it is the preferred fuel in modern rocketry. I'm no engineer or chemist, but I trust the ones at Boeing pulled out a slide rule before publishing this design with the company logo on it. Had this variant made sense in other areas, there is no question in my mind that it could have comfortably flown on four engines, as it was engineered to do.

There are many reasons why no practical LH2-powered aircraft has been successfully built, to date. The complex handling and storing of cryogenic fuel is certainly one of them. So is the lack of infrastructure and the considerable cost of operation. But the engineering behind LH2 vehicles is generally sound and has been well-understood for decades.

 

[archipeppe]

The attached Boeing drawing was posted elsewhere by OBB about 7 years ago. I think it's safe to say the 464-245 was more than just a "very rough sketch". Yes, those big tanks would have added some drag, but the deletion of four engines, 3,000-gal. underwing tanks, Skybolts, Hound Dogs or bomb racks would have largely made up for that.

In addition to being 14 times lighter, the energy content of LH2 is triple that of kerosene. That's why it is the preferred fuel in modern rocketry. I'm no engineer or chemist, but I trust the ones at Boeing pulled out a slide rule before publishing this design with the company logo on it. Had this variant made sense in other areas, there is no question in my mind that it could have comfortably flown on four engines, as it was engineered to do.

There are many reasons why no practical LH2-powered aircraft has been successfully built, to date. The complex handling and storing of cryogenic fuel is certainly one of them. So is the lack of infrastructure and the considerable cost of operation. But the engineering behind LH2 vehicles is generally sound and has been well-understood for decades.

Dear Circle-5 many thanks for the explanation and for the enclosed drawing, now it makes more sense to me.


Regarding the LH2 story we know that Lockheed pioneering such tecnique since the CL-400/Suntan project (a forerunner of A-12/SR-71 family) and also during mid 80's it was seriously considered for civil airliner applications (at least Russians really flown a LH2 aircraft if my memory doesn't fail).


Indeed another thought about the LH2 usage as military propellant: how much risky was to fly a bomber over a huge defended area (I mean with SAMs and MiGs) with those huge and vulnerable tanks filled with highly volatile liquid hydrogene??

 

[fightingirish]

XB-52 cockpit cutaway. For comparison cutaways of B-52B cockpit and its decks.
Edit:
Added comparison cutaways from the XB-52 to B-52H cockpits and their decks.
Sources:
B-52 Stratofortress - Celebrating 60 remarkable years - Air Force Monthly Special Edition 2012
https://www.flickr.com/photos/53504020@N08/7435921646/

 

[Grey Havoc]

Well, ladies and gentlemen, since "shazam" is copyrighted, I'll resort to my:
beebeedee, bobeedee, boo!

Just received from the Smithsonian (with much more), here is the 3view of the Fairchild M-121, which, born under the cover of the Generalized Bomber Research (which wasn't limiited to the Convair GeBo I and II studies) and designed in 1949, during 1950 was considered (alongside at least two Douglas design, the D-1211J and R) as a "dark horse" alternative to the XB-52 program. I don't know if it has already been published elsewhere, but I doubt it... Anyhow, enjoy...

Hats off to thounaojamtom over at MilitaryPhotos.net for these (M-121 and M-128):

 

[archipeppe]

Well, ladies and gentlemen, since "shazam" is copyrighted, I'll resort to my:
beebeedee, bobeedee, boo!

Just received from the Smithsonian (with much more), here is the 3view of the Fairchild M-121, which, born under the cover of the Generalized Bomber Research (which wasn't limiited to the Convair GeBo I and II studies) and designed in 1949, during 1950 was considered (alongside at least two Douglas design, the D-1211J and R) as a "dark horse" alternative to the XB-52 program. I don't know if it has already been published elsewhere, but I doubt it... Anyhow, enjoy...

Hats off to thounaojamtom over at MilitaryPhotos.net for these (M-121 and M-128):

The M-128 has a strong resemblance with the von Braun's Collier's spaceplane....

 

[Stargazer]

Gosh! I knew the M-128's configuration but I don't think I ever heard the M-121 was a biplane!!

Thanks a lot for sharing these beauties!

 

[Grey Havoc]

No problem!

The old post below explains the 'auxiliary wing'.

Thanx...
Actually it could be the opposite. During 1949-50 NACA conducted a series of wind-tunnel tests on a configuration very similar to the M-121's one (only slimmer). Could be that Wernher while at Redstone saw them....
And since you want more, here is it... but I want to write an article on this (Air Enthusiast, any one?), so I'll be VERY parsimonious... Bu the forum is the forum, so.. from which you can see the famous railroad take-off concept and another big surprise: the auxiliary wing for very long range mission (it was full of fuel, more then doubling the total onboard). This is why someone had M-121 described as a "flying wing" perhaps....

 

[Hot Breath]

Was the slip wing recoverable? Was it piloted separately? I can't see any cockpit, if that was the case.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

No it was like a big drop tank. If you want the full story you should check out Jared Zichek's book
Secret Aerospace Projects of the U.S. Navy: The Incredible Attack Aircraft of the USS United States, 1948-1949
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Aerospace-Projects-U-S-Navy/dp/0764332295

 

[hesham]

From a book about B-52,pages 29 & 30;


http://books.google.com.au/books?id=mT1Z1eSS_P4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=B-52+Stratofortress:+The+Complete+History+of+the+World's+Longest+Serving+and&hl=en&sa=X&ei=B5ERVOvlL5HSaIz3gvgO&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Stargazer]

Series of three-view drawings from TsAGI's Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya (No.13, 1983) showing the Models 462, 464-35, 464-49 and 464-201-6-7 (B-52D):

 

[Steve Pace]

Excellent! -SP

 

[hesham]

Hi,

Below: Some of Ed Well's pencil sketches during the days preceding the B-52 design. They are remarkable both for how close they came to the final configuration, and how radical were some of the departures. (Boeing)

http://scilib-avia.narod.ru/Boyne/B-52.htm