PDA

View Full Version : B-36 Question?



XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 01:30 AM
Is it being modelled, rather should it be modelled?

I mean i personally would like it and all. Since i love bombers especially ones with defensive armament so strong NO plane except maybe a few could touch it.

But i think there would be a few flaws to its prescence:

-first off its gigantic so itd need like a special runway

-it carries over 86,000 pounds in bombs so that annhiliate like an entire airfield.

-its defensive armament would be the best any bomber in 46 or earlier could carry so any fighter that went near it would be destroyed, maybe a go229 might get it with the 103's.

-it could be a major pain to model since its gigantic, but i dunno much about modelling.

But ending that note id still love to have it the above flaws are something people would complain about i think.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 01:30 AM
Is it being modelled, rather should it be modelled?

I mean i personally would like it and all. Since i love bombers especially ones with defensive armament so strong NO plane except maybe a few could touch it.

But i think there would be a few flaws to its prescence:

-first off its gigantic so itd need like a special runway

-it carries over 86,000 pounds in bombs so that annhiliate like an entire airfield.

-its defensive armament would be the best any bomber in 46 or earlier could carry so any fighter that went near it would be destroyed, maybe a go229 might get it with the 103's.

-it could be a major pain to model since its gigantic, but i dunno much about modelling.

But ending that note id still love to have it the above flaws are something people would complain about i think.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 01:37 AM
id like to have it. its kinda a whatif because it wasnt made for a while after the war, but was originally planned to be a superbomber for the war. about nothing touching it, i agree, though i think with a couple me-262s it would be toast. but i think it should be the b-36b because the b-36d had jets and was faster than a p-51! anyway it sure would be fun to watch that huge thing go down.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 01:50 AM
the b-36 that should be added would like u said be the prop only varient. The one that first flew in mid 46'.

well someone told me they wouldnt wanna face 12 - 20mm cannons and facing 2 from a pe8 i can totally agree that 12 would be very scary but i think the biggest issue would be landing/taking off....maybe we could get RATO for it, lol.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:00 AM
Thrawn888 wrote:
- well someone told me they wouldnt wanna face 12 -
- 20mm cannons and facing 2 from a pe8 i can totally
- agree that 12 would be very scary but i think the
- biggest issue would be landing/taking off....maybe
- we could get RATO for it, lol.
-
-

lol yea but u gotta admit it would be cool to watch that thing go down. im sure an me-262 would take it down pretty easily

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:02 AM
yes it would unless it has the durability of those me 323, lol.

b the funniest thing to see a massive b36 RATO away

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 03:15 AM
That thing is huge! I wanna see the 2 x 48,000lb Grand Slam bombs it can carry.

Check this out, parked next to a B-29:::

http://www.air-and-space.com/Convair/Consolidated%20Vultee%2010-1796%20XB-36%2042-13570%20B-29%2044-84027%20l.jpg </img>

<center>http://banners.wunderground.com/banner/gizmotimetemp_both/language/www/US/TX/Dallas.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 03:18 AM
WOW!!! That makes the Pe-8 look like a toy! That is huge!

http://fluxout.homestead.com/files/Thx-32x.jpg


"You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you"

Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983)

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 03:30 AM
I too would like to see the B36...

The USAF personnel of the time called it the "Aluminum Overcast".

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible. "
--T.E. Lawrence

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 03:33 AM
Holy crap.

Is that another car underneath the wing to tow it? Does it have to be towed with one attached to each of the landing struts? Wow.

Does anyone have any decent size comparins from top/side views of the various bombers like b29 vs pe8 around?

Bearcat101
09-09-2003, 03:41 AM
Love to see some n00b try and taxi to the runway with that thing and not single-handedly kill all of his teammates on the ground ...

"-When in doubt, empty your magazine.
-Never share a foxhole with anyone braver than you are.
-Never forget that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.
-If your attack is going really well, it's an ambush.
-No plan survives the first contact intact.
-All 5 second grenade fuses burn down in 3 seconds." Excerpt from Murphy's Laws

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 07:22 AM
Just imagine the THING parked on any AB in FB, no need for flying it, LOL! Voulchers R.I.P!

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 07:24 AM
look up its operational ceiling some time

only the me262 and Gibbs jet would have a hope of even getting up therre close enough to take a shot at it



<center> http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SQDLAtUWiWZ3BKw19!aryp7v3C1h1DuNwpHOOuqhlraGSyMAY KiPEOZAA1OBgsLu*Sa0UQ2my0PiFyvNkJ5K7Clsoy7yNtEvOXY nHDuPNiotpZACY2oJxw/aircraftround.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 08:12 AM
FireBird77 wrote:
- Just imagine the THING parked on any AB in FB, no
- need for flying it, LOL! Voulchers R.I.P!
-
-

That is all it would do, sit there./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The runways are not long enough for it to TO. Besides, are any of the runways in FB 13.5"(34.3cm) thick? (for B-36A). The XB-36 required 22.5"(57.2cm).

The B-36A grossed out at 310,380lb(24,121gal, 10,000lb of bombs) and needed 8000ft of runway to TO.

At 212,800lb, it had a speed of 345mph(31,600ft) and a service ceiling of 39,100ft. For comparison, the B-50 it was 391mph @ 30,000ft.


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:56 PM
well its massive size would require a special airfield/map for it or itd be alot of mess on the runway.

and forget vulching this plane would replace low level AAA, lol.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 03:10 PM
I don't this the 84,000 pond bomb load would apply to the prop-only version. 20,000 pounds and fuel would be the more likely limit.

There is a movie with Jimmy Stewart call 'Strategic Air Command' that shows almost the entire plane inside and out (as well as the B-47). A must see for any bomber nut.

One thing to note. The B-36 had a lower wing loading that most fighters. The aircraft could out-turn a fighter at high-alitude (the only place one would be see in reality, none of this catch it on the ground stuff). Whenever russian fighters would go after the recon models, the pilots only had to change course about 30 degrees to mess up the fighter and cause him to stall and spin. It should be remembered that air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles were still in the development stages at this time. The US Navy later proved that they could intercept aircraft at the altitudes that the B-36 flew, but this was never tested against the B-36 (politics in action).

-Legodragonxp

p.s. Don't forget to change the 336 spark plugs after each flight.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 03:19 PM
legodragonxp wrote:
- I don't this the 84,000 pond bomb load would apply
- to the prop-only version. 20,000 pounds and fuel
- would be the more likely limit.

i just checked and the b-36A maximum bombload for short ranges was 72,000 pounds of bombs and since flights on FB arent 5000 mile flights that shouldnt be an issue.

as for the take off issue just strap on RATO bottles and your a happy camper but as stated before taxi'ing on the current airfields wont be fun. since it is so massive its wingspan would be a problem

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 03:26 PM
Here is an interesting article. The B-36As were hand-crafted headaches... read down about halfway to get directly to the B-36 info, but the whole article is good.

http://www.airspacemag.com/ASM/Mag/Index/1996/AM/bacr.html

While interesting, the B-36 would be silly in FB. Who really wants to take the two hours it took to get to 40,000 feet? Nobody? Ok, then the plane is totally out of its element. To get to any altitude, you'd need a very light bomb and fuel load (much to the anger of other as they watch this under-loaded monster outclimb most fighters below 10,000 feet.)

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 03:33 PM
ok ur right but even still it can be used at low alt with a low bombload or as just a flying gunship, those 2 are practical in the game anyway

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 03:37 PM
double post.

Message Edited on 09/09/03 02:39PM by legodragonxp

Message Edited on 09/09/0302:40PM by legodragonxp

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 03:39 PM
You must have missed the part of the article about how the turrets in the 'A' models were worthless.
Of note, This thing wouldn't have been much faster than the TB-3 at low level. I'll have to dig, but I seem to recall the Vne is about 200 knots.






Message Edited on 09/09/0302:40PM by legodragonxp

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 04:25 PM
to be honest i doubt the turrets would have issues if modelled, in that it isnt going to be modelled "turret f'ed up and wont shoot" when a fighter comes by. that aside it can still be used for low level annhiliation carpet bombing.

that just my opinion

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 04:31 PM
0if anyone wants to see one, there is a B-36 at the SAC museum in omaha...

the only problem is you can't really get far enough away to get a good picture.

you loose all sense of scale when you get far enough out because it is sitting in a hanger with a B-52 (ans some other stuff too.

the A-26 and B-25 fuses look like flies next to these monsters.

they also have a couple of wasp major engines on display
which are just amazing.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 04:44 PM
ThAts craZINESS!



<center> <img src=http://www.mindspring.com/~lnlhall/images/Am%20Pale%20Ale.JPG> </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 05:56 PM
Please tell me, it's true? The B-36 will be launched? If yes. when it will be available? Is there any picture of it's development?

Thanks

http://cmte_carvalho.sites.uol.com.br/disco_virtual/compartilhada/Forgotten_Battles/Assinatura_III.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 06:46 PM
cmte_carvalho wrote:
- Please tell me, it's true? The B-36 will be
- launched? If yes. when it will be available? Is
- there any picture of it's development?

no sadly the b-36 is just an optimistic hope right now.

honestly this plane would be a giant undertaking. unless maybe gibbage went for it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 11:33 PM
Someone wrote:

"You must have missed the part of the article about how the turrets in the 'A' models were worthless.
Of note, This thing wouldn't have been much faster than the TB-3 at low level. I'll have to dig, but I seem to recall the Vne is about 200 knots."


Vne is "never exceed speed", I think the B-36 can go faster than that, lol......Do you mean Vref???


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1755

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 11:43 PM
heres a lil size comparison for u guys. theres a b-17 and b-29 to compare to this monster, i dont know what the others are.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-36-DFSC8408873_JPG.jpg


and heres something i found from http://pages.nyu.edu/~jh15/b-36.html for some more size comparisons.

It is hard for those who were not involved in the manufacture or upkeep of the B-36 to imagine just who BIG it really was. Hopefully, the facts which follow will help put this amazing aircraft into its proper perspective:

Wingspan of the B-36 - 230 feet - is greater that the length of the first powered flight made by Orville Wright's Flyer airplane on 17 December 1903.

The B-36 can carry a heavier load of bombs for a greater distance than any other airplane in existance. It has flown more than 10,000 miles, carrying 10,00 pounds of bombs halfway.

At high speeds, the B-36's ten engines (six reciprocating and four jets) develop the equivalent of 44,000 horsepower, roughly comparable to that of nine locomotives, or about as much horsepower as that generated by 400 average passenger cars.

The tremendous bomb load of the Convair B-36 is clearly indicated by the fact that a B-36 can haul 84,000 pounds of bombs - more than the gross weight of a fully loaded WWII B-24 Liberator bomber.

Volume of the B-36 bomb bay alone is 12,300 cubic feet, equivalent to the capacity of three railroad freight cars. The B-36 itself, with a volume of 18,000 cubic feet, has a volume greater than three average five-room houses.

An automobile could easily circle the globe 18 times with the 30,000-plus gallons of high octane gasoline carried in the wing tanks of the Convair B-36.

More than 30 miles of wiring are required in the Convair B-36 electrical system, equal to the amount needed to wire 280 five-room houses.

A 600-room hotel, or 120 five-room houses could be heated by the anti-icing equipment installed on the B-36 superbomber. In an hour the aiant plane's anti-icing equipment turns out 4,290,000 BTUs.

There are 68,000 different shop-made parts and 11,000 assemblies in a B-36 bomber, nout counting the thousands upon thousands of parts supplied in government furnished equipment.



Message Edited on 09/09/0303:03PM by jj8325

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 12:05 AM
Third one down is a Martin B10 I think, but the biplanes I have no idea....

It's only funny til someone loses an eye....then it's hilarious

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/nightschpanker/Sign.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:16 AM
i thought the B-29 was big-holy S#*@
lou69

THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN WON WITHOUT THE CANADIANS

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:40 AM
The top aircraft is a US made D.H.9B, with a fully cowled Liberty engine.

The next one down is one of the US heavy bombers from between the wars, but I don't know precisly which one; they all look alike to me.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 01:50 AM
Looks like a Martin MB-2 Harry.


http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:03 AM
Neat plane, but I hope it never makes it into FB.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 02:06 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Neat plane, but I hope it never makes it into FB.
-

And I hope it does! Even *I* could hit something that... ungodly... stupidly... huge. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:35 AM
i bet its hard to land too without plowing off of the runway. i think it might have had reverse pitch so that it could slow down, but im not sure.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:41 AM
oh yea landing would be a ton of fun mashing the runway too since its so heavy.

take off should be a blast literally with RATO

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 05:44 AM
someone should post a poll to see how many ppl want the b-36. i would but im tired so im going to bed.

XyZspineZyX
09-10-2003, 06:43 PM
someone should make a poll but i dont know how so....

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 05:11 PM
Yankees liked huge toys like B-29, so they made a "PEACEMAKER" - huge flying chunk of alluminium to drop a nuke on Moscow...
Here is a pichttp://www.airwar.ru/image/i/bomber/b36-i.jpg


Takeoff mass - 186 000
up to 39000 bombs
16 20mm defensive cannons.
Range 5500km practical ceiling 12162.
6 piston engins 3800hp each + 4rocket engines for takeoff added in later modshttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Very big, very expensive. Never was any threaat though - up til 1950 only 62 were built and after that became useless due to small speed.
A product of megalomaniac's sick imagination

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 05:19 PM
- 6 piston engins 3800hp each + 4rocket engines for
- takeoff added in later modshttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pardon me, 4 jets not rocket, of 2270kgs J47s

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 05:30 PM
I think it was mostly magnesium, not aluminum, but don't quote me on that

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 07:38 PM
The B-36 was made of both Magnesium and Aluminum (amounts varied per model)

Maximum TRUE airspeed was 410 knots at 44,000 feet.
Cruising TRUE airspeed was 350 knots at 44,000 feet.

I'm still looking for the facts on the maximum INDICATED airspeed, but I recall it being about 200 knots. Faster than that warped the upper wing panels.

-Legodragonxp

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 08:25 PM
legodragonxp wrote:

-
- Maximum TRUE airspeed was 410 knots at 44,000 feet.
- Cruising TRUE airspeed was 350 knots at 44,000 feet.
-
-

What version? What weight?




http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 03:56 PM
OK some more detailed data.
All metal monoplane, with extra long wings. 6 piston engines with pushing propellers.
Project begun in 1941 - after pearl harbour.
Original standards set by government were 17000m ceiling, 724kph max speed, 12000km range, and so on.
First prototype made in 1943 by CAC. Got order for 10 machines in 1944, august. First one was completed 1945.
1948 model with 4 jet engines had indicated top speed 661kph
More info when time permits

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 04:23 PM
The more bombers the better.