US Bombers

[Retrofit]

Quote:
1941, April. A competition for an intercontinental bomber was initiated......
Proposals came from:
* Consolidated Model 35
* XB-36: Consolidated Model 36
* Consolidated Flying Wing Bomber

(Sorry, I don't know how to use the "Quote" function)


Hi, Pometablava
Is there more information available on this "Consolidated Flying Wing Bomber" proposal?
Thanks

 

[Antonio]

Is there more information available on this "Consolidated Flying Wing Bomber" proposal?

Unfortunately I have no more info about that design.

About the "quote" function you only have to click the button I show you in the attached image and paste the text in between.

Regards,

Antonio

 

[lark]

In early 1945 Convair had initiated an in house study for a very heavy flying wing
bomber aircraft.This was based around the same requirements used for the B-36.
10.000 pounds of bombs-range 10.000 miles
six 19 foot pusher props driven by turbosupercharged X-Wasp engines.
crew of 12 in two presurised cabins.

The goal was to see if the flying wing offered sufficient
promise to drive possible changes to the B-36 configuration.

No Convair design number found.

Among the sources : Magnesium Overcast .The story of the Convair B-36
Denis R. Jenkins- Speciallity Press.USA. 2001.

 

[Retrofit]

Thanks Lark

 

[hesham]

Hi,

the Martin XB-33.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

please, has anyone a drawing to Boeing Model-424 bomber project ?.

 

[toura]

Concerning MARTIN bombers, what was the model 189 ?
Thanks

 

[Tophe]

Do the picture/words above of April 29-30 answer your question? or do you want more?

 

[toura]

hello Tophe.
Not exactelly. Did you have more details and ....perhaps a three view drawing.
I've a dream !
Bye and perhaps thanks you !

 

[Tophe]

perhaps a three view drawing.

Probably, if Igor at last produces it as a model kit, a 3-view drawing will be included. Look, it is a Unicraft-Models future release at:
http://www.geocities.com/unicraftmodels/fut/futusa/futusa.htm

 

[toura]

dear Toffe
I have the little picture of this site , yes, but nothing more than this one
and the above mentionned here. Wait for more infos as you tell me
Many thanks.

 

[Apophenia]

According to the Model number list prepared for The Glenn L. Martin Aviation Museum, the Model 189 was the first design listed as an "XB-33". The second was Hesham's 4-engined XB-33, the Model 190.

Work was actually begun on the Model 190 prototype. An order was placed for 400 of the 4-engined B-33s but then cancelled before much was accomplished on the XB-33.

I don't think that Martin's XB-27 (Model 182) high-altitude bomber project has been mentioned yet -- 3-view attached.

Tophe, you must be looking forward to Unicraft's RQ-5. I'm not sure how I feel about Bombardier's Guardian UAV being listed under "USA", though

 

[Hoo-2b-2day]

In regard to the NA-98X (B-25 Super Strafer) this is covered quite well in the "B-25 Mitchell The Magnificent Medium" by Norm Avery. A very informative and readable book.

The NA-98X was simply an upgraded B-25H with Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engines replacing the Wright R-2600's and such modifications as required by this change and the requirement of an indicated diving speed of at least 400 mph. It appears that this was an attempt to create a less expensive alternative to the Douglas A-26, but it crashed only 3 weeks into the test programme and that was the end of the story. The NA-98X wasn't around long enough to get a USAAF designation.

 

[Apophenia]

The NA-98X was a private venture. There was no designation because the USAAF never ordered the aircraft (the Army Air Force probably regarded 43-4406 as a trials B-25H on loan to manufacturer).

According to Baugher, the NA-98X failed because the R-2800s gave it power beyond the airframe's structural limits. Obviously, giving the design the entirely new wings that it needed would have defeated to objective of providing a cheaper alternative to the A-26.

North American NA-98X

 

[Justo Miranda]

Martin XB-33-MO from "Airplane Five View Album" via Chuck Davis
and Martin XB-33A Super Marauder from unknown japanese source

 

[Justo Miranda]

Martin XB-27-MA from "Airplane Five View Album" via Chuck Davis

 

[Justo Miranda]

North American XB-28-NA from "Airplane Five View Album" via Chuck Davis

 

[Jemiba]

"XB-33A Super Marauder from unknown japanese source"

The same model photo is shown in Lloyd S.Jones "US Bombers B1 - B70",
together with this 3-view:

 

[Justo Miranda]

Grumman 55 , XTB 2F-1 from "Airplane Five View Album" via Chuck Davis
Please see
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,521.0/highlight,grumman%2055.html

 

[Justo Miranda]

from unknown japanese source

 

[Justo Miranda]

from unknown japanese source

 

[Justo Miranda]

from unknown japanese source

 

[Justo Miranda]

from unknown japanese source

 

[Rickshaw]

That is one hell of a big tail on that XB-31!

 

[joncarrfarrelly]

North American XB-28-NA from "Airplane Five View Album" via Chuck Davis

NAA drawing of the XB-28A, note the major differences from the "Airplane Five View Album" drawing.

Source: North American Aircraft 1934-1998; Vol. 1, Norm Avery, Narkiewicz//Thompson 1998

Jon

 

[Apophenia]

Is it just me or does the "Airplane Five View Album" drawing show a glazed tail turret?

AFAIK, even the artwork for early, twin-tailled XB-28 concepts didn't include a manned tail position.

Oh yeah, much larger horizontal tailplane on the "Airplane Five View Album" version, too.

 

[joncarrfarrelly]

Grumman 55 , XTB 2F-1 from "Airplane Five View Album" via Chuck Davis
Please see
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,521.0/highlight,grumman%2055.html

Design 55 3-view, again visible differences,

Source: Grumman Aircraft since 1929, Rene J Francillon, Putnam/Naval Institute Press 1989.

Jon

 

[airman]

i had noticed some analogy with Grumman 55 and Grumman S-2 (post war) :

 

[Clioman]

Re: US Bombers - Consolidated Flying Wing

Someone asked about Consolidated's consideration of a flying wing as an alternative to its B-36 design...the report is dated May 8, 1942.

 

[flateric]

wow!

 

[Orionblamblam]

Better quality version of the art (from APR V2N3).

 

[Clioman]

Sorry - meant to add some data to go with the image. The report ("Heavy Bomber Flying Wing, 6 Eng," Rpt. No. ZP-XM-001, dtd 5-8-42) includes a letter (H. A. Sutton to I. M. Laddon) which notes "on the basis of the figures only, the Flying Wing looks very promising...The big unsolved problem in this type of airplane is the one of providing adequate control." Sutton said that a model was under construction for tests in the Cal-Tech wind tunnel. Whether the tests actually occurred is unknown.

Here are some comparison data from the report; both designs used the "X-Wasp" engine, later P&W R-4360:

XB-36 (as of May 42) Flying Wing Design

Wingspan: 230' 288'
Length: 163' 78'
Gross Wt: 267,246 lbs 237,800 lbs
Max Range: 10,000 mi 10,000 mi
Max Speed: 378 mph 394 mph

 

[Orionblamblam]

Seems you have a copy of the report. Did it have a three-view?

 

[Clioman]

Yes. Here 'tis:

 

[Clioman]

What's even more interesting is to compare the Consolidated design with something that Boeing considered about six months later. Boeing's Model 404 was an attempt to improve the performance of their Model 384 design "in an all-out effort to achieve maximum range and performance." Amazingly, the Air Materiel Command rejected the design because its promised performance was too conservative. These are from Boeing Report D-5448, "Design Summary Study, Model 404," Dec. 13, 1943:

 

[Orionblamblam]

Yes. Here 'tis:

That was the one thing missing from the original APR article. Now it can be rectified...

 

[Clioman]

The report also has a cutaway showing the interior provisions, including two pressurized cabins, engine ducting, etc.

 

[Clioman]

Ahh...now that I've pulled my copy of APR 2/3, I see that Dennis Jenkins did provide a copy of the cutaway drawing. BTW, his article and my comment above regarding wind tunnel testing need to be revisited. Having looked more closely, I should note that there are several pages of text from the same file which DO speak to wind tunnel results for this design. Two-dimensional tests were done on a 36" span model in the GALCIT tunnel in August 1942 (Rpt ZT-014) and "an 0.03-scale model of a tailles airplane without power was tested in the GALCIT 10-ft. wind tunnel on December 29, 1942." (Rpt ZT-15) The summary description of the second test suggests that NACA Tech Note no. 837 may discuss those results in detail. A second page -- an undated "Tailess Design Summary of Studies" -- begins with a telling comment: "The directional stabililty is considered inadequate without additional means for increasing the stability. These means will be investigated during further studies and tests of the model with respect to control." Presumably the use of vertical end-plate stabilizers in the Boeing 404 was an effort to address the controllability issue. IIRC, one of the test crew's chief complaints regarding the Northrop XB-35 was how long it took the autopilot to dampen out the airplane's yawing motions during bombing runs...in a B-29, it took less than 30 seconds. The XB-35 took several minutes.

 

[flateric]

Very interesting persons continue to arrive at SPF. That's great.

 

[Retrofit]

Really very interesting documents on Consolidated and boeing Flying wing projects, thank you Clioman;Is there a way to obtain copies of the 2 reports (Rpt No ZP XM 001 qnd D-5448)?
Thanks again.