Awhile back, there was some comment in a thread about the fact the old AMT XB-35 kit was hard to come by (but I can't find it now), I had made a comment that as Italeri had a number of the old AMT moulds I was sure the Y/XB-35 would turn up again. So guess what is listed in the 'Future Release' column on Hannants' website: http://www.hannants.co.uk/search/?FULL=IT1277
Robert
But will they come with the necessary Isreali and Canadian markings? It's highly unlikely that the Dutch and Norwegian decals will be included either although the Royal Sahara AF might actually make the cut. (Thumbsup icon)
Daryl J., wondering a bit about the XB-49 as well................
I've got mine already Jeffry, two Y/XB-35's and the YB-49, this is the only one built at the moment. Eventually it will have two Grand Slams installed :wacko:
One of these years I'm going to build my USN PS-1 version.
The sticking point has been trying to find a decal of Marilyn Monroe in her Pl*yb*y pose of the right size for the underside.
JoeP
Whether prop (B-35) or jet-powered (B-49), the issue with the all-wing aircraft was stability. In 1950 the technology just wasn't there to correct the instabilitites as they happened, and the all-wing projects were abandoned for more "traditional" aircraft. Nowadays, with "fly-by-wire" and instant feedback systems, it would be no sweat.
Quote from: kitnut617 on March 09, 2008, 08:03:32 AMI've got mine already Jeffry, two Y/XB-35's and the YB-49, this is the only one built at the moment. Eventually it will have two Grand Slams installed
Hi Robert,
Please tell me more of this Grand Slam version that you speak of. This is something that I find interesting.
Other ideas that may or may not have been discussed in the past regarding the Northrop flying wing designs:
KB-35 and KB-49 tanker aircraft equipped with hose and drogue or the flying boom to refuel Air Force and Navy aircraft.
EB-35 and EB-49 dedicated electronic warfare aircraft.
EB-35 and EB-49 airborne warning and control aircraft with large radar in the position of your choosing.
RB-35 and RB-49 well there was a real world reconnaissance version of the RB-49 not that it got very far thanks to politics, the Air Force, and Northrop. Maybe a WHIF version with a battery of cameras fitted in a ventral position?
Jeffry Fontaine,
QuotePlease tell me more of this Grand Slam version that you speak of. This is something that I find interesting.
I'm not Robert, but the Grand Slam was a type of nuclear weapon. It was carried by the B-47. It weighed 22,000 or 22,500 lbs if I recall correctly.
KJ Lesnick
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on November 22, 2008, 06:32:54 PM
Jeffry Fontaine,
QuotePlease tell me more of this Grand Slam version that you speak of. This is something that I find interesting.
I'm not Robert, but the Grand Slam was a type of nuclear weapon. It was carried by the B-47. It weighed 22,000 or 22,500 lbs if I recall correctly.
KJ Lesnick
No, I believe the Grand Slam referred to here was a conventional bomb of 22,000 lb carried by Lancasters (though I have also seen pics of B-29s and B-36s with them). The 10 ton (22,000 pound) "Grand Slam" was 26-feet, 6-inches long. Its hardened casing was cast in a single piece in a sand mold, using a concrete core. The "Grand Slam" could reportedly penetrate though 20+ ft of concrete.
"Grand Slam" was also the code name of a highly classified modification project strictly concerned with atomic matters. The "Grand Slam" modifications would allow the Convair B-36 to carry atomic bombs, which the Air Force believed might weigh more than 40,000 pounds. Since the 10,000-pound M-121, when properly dropped, could inflict the damage of a 40,000-pound bomb, curiosity and rumors most likely explained the ensuing confusion. As a matter of fact, the "Grand Slam" designation was also loosely applied to other conventional bombs of the M-121 category.
Regards,
Greg
How about a late, late version of the B-35/49 with winglets and thin, extended fuselage that has canards and a butterfly tail done in Arctic markings.
QuoteKB-35 and KB-49 tanker aircraft equipped with hose and drogue or the flying boom to refuel Air Force and Navy aircraft.
That would make a cool flying diorama with perhaps something like a couple of Grumman Panthers hooked up behind.
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: GTX on November 22, 2008, 07:58:30 PM
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on November 22, 2008, 06:32:54 PM
Jeffry Fontaine,
QuotePlease tell me more of this Grand Slam version that you speak of. This is something that I find interesting.
I'm not Robert, but the Grand Slam was a type of nuclear weapon. It was carried by the B-47. It weighed 22,000 or 22,500 lbs if I recall correctly.
KJ Lesnick
No, I believe the Grand Slam referred to here was a conventional bomb of 22,000 lb carried by Lancasters (though I have also seen pics of B-29s and B-36s with them). The 10 ton (22,000 pound) "Grand Slam" was 26-feet, 6-inches long. Its hardened casing was cast in a single piece in a sand mold, using a concrete core. The "Grand Slam" could reportedly penetrate though 20+ ft of concrete.
"Grand Slam" was also the code name of a highly classified modification project strictly concerned with atomic matters. The "Grand Slam" modifications would allow the Convair B-36 to carry atomic bombs, which the Air Force believed might weigh more than 40,000 pounds. Since the 10,000-pound M-121, when properly dropped, could inflict the damage of a 40,000-pound bomb, curiosity and rumors most likely explained the ensuing confusion. As a matter of fact, the "Grand Slam" designation was also loosely applied to other conventional bombs of the M-121 category.
Greg, you pretty much covered all bases on that reply, just have to add the following:
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on November 22, 2008, 06:32:54 PMQuotePlease tell me more of this Grand Slam version that you speak of. This is something that I find interesting.
I'm not Robert, but the Grand Slam was a type of nuclear weapon. It was carried by the B-47. It weighed 22,000 or 22,500 lbs if I recall correctly.
Kendra,
In my original comment to Robert I was referring to the carriage of two Grand Slam 22,000 pound high explosive deep penetration bombs by the flying wing bomber which Robert mentions in passing in the post that I quoted with my remarks. The Grand Slam high explosive bombs were far too large to be carried internally by either flying wing bomber and were actually carried semi-recessed in the bomb bays with a fairing fitted to the front of the weapon to improve airflow during carriage and release. The reference drawings that I have encountered on-line and elsewhere show the B-35 and possibly the B-49 carrying only the 12,000 pound Tall Boy weapons and not the 22,000 pound Grand Slam. So Robert's remark elicited a response in order to get additional details on what he is planning to build.
The was also another weapon project called Grand Slam which was an air launched ballistic missile designed to carry a nuclear warhead and penetration aids (decoys) for the reentry phase of the delivery profile. The Grand Slam nuclear armed missile was was never produced. It was also a UK project and not American.
The physical dimensions of the B-47 bomb bay prevented it from carrying any of the larger nuclear devices or heavy bombs over 4000 pounds in size. If you look at the size of the bomb bay on the B-29 (forward or rear, your choice) you will have an idea of how large the B-47 bomb bay was and the physical limitations it had on what could be carried internally.
Sorry to have caused confusion with such an innocent question.
Quote from: sagallacci on November 23, 2008, 09:40:33 AMMinor clarification, the "Tall Boy" was a 12,000 lb weapon, not 6,000.
Thanks, it was late, I was tired, that is my story and I am sticking with it. ;)
*Attached images for additional details on the 4000 pound bomb and corrections made to original comment regarding the error on Tall Boy bomb weight.
How did this one slip by ----
Jeffry,
I've only seen an 3-View of this arrangement on a website which was called 'Very Heavy Conventional Aerial Bombs'. Was is because the hosting ISP has gone belly-up and now I can't find where the article has moved to, if it has moved anywhere. But I think you have all what I've seen anyway, the two bombs being semi-recessed. I was going to use this 3-View to convert my model but now I can't find it to do it. Would you have an image ?
Kendra,
As has already been pointed out, I am referring to the British made and used, 22,000lb bomb. My interest in it is because my Dad served in the squadron (617) that used this bomb operationally during WW.II. I've since found out the the USAAF/USAF later did experimental tests with this bomb using a B-29, first carrying just one semi-recessed in the bomb bay, and later two (one under the inner wing on each side of the fuselage). I had written to Boeing and was able to buy a couple of photos from their archive department showing this, and one of the photos showed what looked like a bigger bomb. I found this out when I did a trial fit-up of a 1/72 Grand Slam bomb to a 1/72 B-29, so when I wrote back to Boeing enquiring about what was actually in the photo, I was told it was a T-12 which was sometimes referred to as a Grand Slam. This T-12 was an exact scaled up Grand Slam and weighed in at around 44,000 lbs, but when they couldn't fit it into the B-29 bomb bay, they shortened the tail cone which makes it look a bit stumpy.
Greg,
A B-36 could carry two T-12s or four Grand Slams, this arrangement could also be carried by the proposed Vickers 'C' Type bomber (see cover of BSP-Bombers)
Here's a couple of pics of a 1/72 Tallboy (Edit: 12,000 lb), a 1/72 Grand Slam (22,000 lb) and a 1/72 T-12 (44,000 lb), the T-12 I've made from info off the internet and looking at photos of it.
Minor clairification, the "Tall Boy" was a 12,000 lb weapon, not 6,000.
As for B-35 Whiffs, I'll be doing one in an "operational" WWII configuration, OD over gray, framed pilot's canopy, gun turrets slewed and elevated, and other little bits.
Another Whiff, but one I'm hesitant to do, is cut up a B-49 to give it greater sweep, in order to improve stability a bit, and more importantly, get a better maximum speed out of it.
Quote from: sagallacci on November 23, 2008, 09:40:33 AM
Minor clairification, the "Tall Boy" was a 12,000 lb weapon, not 6,000.
D'oh!! --- that's what I meant to say. :banghead: (edited my post)
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on November 22, 2008, 06:32:54 PM
It was carried by the B-47. It weighed 22,000 or 22,500 lbs if I recall correctly.
KJ Lesnick
I believe this size of bomb was initially carried by the B-36 and then the B-52. I've read some reference to it as that what had to happen. Judging by the size of the bomb bay in my B-47 model, the only larger bomb it could carry would be about 10,000 lbs, or Little Boy/Fatman size but more likely what the Thunderchief carried, maybe as many as four of them. Something like the two on the rack or the one second in from the left in this photo. These don't leave very much more space in the bay when installed so I can't see a 22,000 lb'er fitting in there, unless what the kit has as a bay is totally wrong.
The Mk.7 shape on the left definitely doesn't fit in the B-47 bomb bay.
Quote from: sagallacci on November 23, 2008, 09:40:33 AMMinor clarification, the "Tall Boy" was a 12,000 lb weapon, not 6,000.
Thanks for the clarification. Corrections made to original comment regarding the error on Tall Boy bomb weight.
It was late, I was tired, that is my story and I am sticking with it. ;)
Quote from: sagallacci on November 23, 2008, 09:40:33 AMAs for B-35 Whiffs, I'll be doing one in an "operational" WWII configuration, OD over gray, framed pilot's canopy, gun turrets slewed and elevated, and other little bits.
I like that olive drab over gray scheme idea. I was proposing something similar in a recent chat session with Brian da Basher but it involved an A-10 in US Army markings with the idea that the USAF finally admitted that they were not interested in the close air support mission and gave it back to the Army (we can dream).
Quote from: sagallacci on November 23, 2008, 09:40:33 AMAnother Whiff, but one I'm hesitant to do, is cut up a B-49 to give it greater sweep, in order to improve stability a bit, and more importantly, get a better maximum speed out of it.
Greater wing sweep? That would be a real challenge. Maybe you should start with a block of wood and just chip away everything that is not part of the idea. Trying to modify the existing AMT and Italeri kits would require a lot of work towards a goal that might stay just out of reach. Have you considered creating a support group for this idea?
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on November 23, 2008, 02:58:21 PM
Quote from: sagallacci on November 23, 2008, 09:40:33 AMAs for B-35 Whiffs, I'll be doing one in an "operational" WWII configuration, OD over gray, framed pilot's canopy, gun turrets slewed and elevated, and other little bits.
I like that olive drab over gray scheme idea. I was proposing something similar in a recent chat session with Brian da Basher but it involved an A-10 in US Army markings with the idea that the USAF finally admitted that they were not interested in the close air support mission and gave it back to the Army (we can dream).
Ya mean sorta like this?
Model by Lynnwood modeler Tim Lawson.
Jon
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on November 23, 2008, 03:02:20 PM
Quote from: Jeffry Fontaine on November 23, 2008, 02:58:21 PM
Quote from: sagallacci on November 23, 2008, 09:40:33 AMAs for B-35 Whiffs, I'll be doing one in an "operational" WWII configuration, OD over gray, framed pilot's canopy, gun turrets slewed and elevated, and other little bits.
I like that olive drab over gray scheme idea. I was proposing something similar in a recent chat session with Brian da Basher but it involved an A-10 in US Army markings with the idea that the USAF finally admitted that they were not interested in the close air support mission and gave it back to the Army (we can dream).
Ya mean sorta like this?
Model by Lynnwood modeler Tim Lawson.
Hi Jon,
Pretty much exactly like that but with some modern markings and "
U.S. Army" or "
United States Army" on the fuselage or engines and not a hint of Air Force to be seen anywhere :)
Now back to regular scheduled discussion on the B-35 and B-49 ;)
Well I've found some of the article: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1967/mar-apr/coker.html
I just need to find the rest of it as it has many interesting links including aircraft (where I saw the 3-View of the B-35), nuclear weapons and other larger conventional bombs
Regarding earlier posts about nukes in B-47s, it was able to carry fairly fat (60 in.) but rather short, relativley speaking, bombs. The Mk4, 5, 6, 15, etc. were fat, and could be fitted with short cases, as could later devices of various diameters. The 60 in. figure was used as the one never to exceed dimension of early atomics and early generation fusion devices, and for cramped carry, many bombs could be configured with a minimal case length and parachute can on the rear for an OAL of not much more than 10 -12 ft.
I think y'all are missing a couple obvious possibilities, a VB-35/49 (more likely VB-49) derived from Northrop's Flying WIng airliner proposal that fitted a new center section to the XB-49. Taking that one step farther and replacing the lounge area in the 'stinger" with a set of clamshell doors that open to the sides and redoing the interior and window area and you've got a CB-49. Frankly, I like the KB-49 proposal, perhaps with drogue pods under the wings where the YRB-49 had engines mounted and a flying boom under the fuselage centerline?
Quote from: elmayerle on November 24, 2008, 01:49:37 PM
I think y'all are missing a couple obvious possibilities, a VB-35/49 (more likely VB-49) derived from Northrop's Flying WIng airliner proposal that fitted a new center section to the XB-49. Taking that one step farther and replacing the lounge area in the 'stinger" with a set of clamshell doors that open to the sides and redoing the interior and window area and you've got a CB-49. Frankly, I like the KB-49 proposal, perhaps with drogue pods under the wings where the YRB-49 had engines mounted and a flying boom under the fuselage centerline?
When you look at some of the very early wind tunnel models Handley Page used for the Victor, they are just as you describe here Evan.
Quote from: elmayerle on November 24, 2008, 01:49:37 PM
I think y'all are missing a couple obvious possibilities, a VB-35/49 (more likely VB-49) derived from Northrop's Flying WIng airliner proposal that fitted a new center section to the XB-49. Taking that one step farther and replacing the lounge area in the 'stinger" with a set of clamshell doors that open to the sides and redoing the interior and window area and you've got a CB-49. Frankly, I like the KB-49 proposal, perhaps with drogue pods under the wings where the YRB-49 had engines mounted and a flying boom under the fuselage centerline?
http://www.google.com/patents/pdf/ALL_WING_CARGO_PACK.pdf?id=VNJjAAAAEBAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U0lqWFJTl1dGvsiIAABZj_-JlU5bw
http://www.google.com/patents?pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=patent+2,638,291&sig=a9BAQ_NHTtjabgKDAgTYElXPZR4&ct=result&id=VNJjAAAAEBAJ&ots=tQn1xYNaGw#PPA6,M1
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on November 24, 2008, 04:38:01 PM
Quote from: elmayerle on November 24, 2008, 01:49:37 PM
I think y'all are missing a couple obvious possibilities, a VB-35/49 (more likely VB-49) derived from Northrop's Flying WIng airliner proposal that fitted a new center section to the XB-49. Taking that one step farther and replacing the lounge area in the 'stinger" with a set of clamshell doors that open to the sides and redoing the interior and window area and you've got a CB-49. Frankly, I like the KB-49 proposal, perhaps with drogue pods under the wings where the YRB-49 had engines mounted and a flying boom under the fuselage centerline?
http://www.google.com/patents/pdf/ALL_WING_CARGO_PACK.pdf?id=VNJjAAAAEBAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U0lqWFJTl1dGvsiIAABZj_-JlU5bw
http://www.google.com/patents?pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=patent+2,638,291&sig=a9BAQ_NHTtjabgKDAgTYElXPZR4&ct=result&id=VNJjAAAAEBAJ&ots=tQn1xYNaGw#PPA6,M1
*chuckle* So they went with a containerized approach. It still seems like a good idea and something that could be adapted to the YB-49 for an all-jet version.
Quote from: sequoiaranger on July 22, 2008, 10:40:18 AM
Whether prop (B-35) or jet-powered (B-49), the issue with the all-wing aircraft was stability. In 1950 the technology just wasn't there to correct the instabilitites as they happened, and the all-wing projects were abandoned for more "traditional" aircraft. Nowadays, with "fly-by-wire" and instant feedback systems, it would be no sweat.
When, in your estimations, would the B-35 have been practical (or rather a re-invention of it, with improved aerodynamics, bomb bays that are versatile enough, and turboprops for power...... there'd be the T56 after 1954)?
Quote from: dy031101 on June 16, 2009, 03:49:00 PM
Quote from: sequoiaranger on July 22, 2008, 10:40:18 AM
Whether prop (B-35) or jet-powered (B-49), the issue with the all-wing aircraft was stability. In 1950 the technology just wasn't there to correct the instabilitites as they happened, and the all-wing projects were abandoned for more "traditional" aircraft. Nowadays, with "fly-by-wire" and instant feedback systems, it would be no sweat.
When, in your estimations, would the B-35 have been practical (or rather a re-invention of it, with improved aerodynamics, bomb bays that are versatile enough, and turboprops for power...... there'd be the T56 after 1954)?
The only real 'stability' issue with the Northrop wing was an instability in yaw, it tended to hunt about the sky a bit,
and that was only really an issue where supposed 'accurate' conventional bombing with optical bomb-sights was
concerned, basically the pre-WWII Norden design. It would have been a moot point with a nuke. Also according to
some sources the Honeywell auto-pilot that was installed during the tests eliminated the problem.
Northrop was working on an in-house turboprop engine design, the Turbodyne, from 1941.
The ERB-35B flying wing (converted XB-35) was to be powered by two 10,400 hp XT-37, a developed Turbodyne.
The project was shelved in 1948.
Jon
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on June 16, 2009, 04:14:08 PM
Northrop was working on an in-house turboprop engine design, the Turbodyne, from 1941.
The ERB-35B flying wing (converted XB-35) was to be powered by two 10,400 hp XT-37, a developed Turbodyne.
The project was shelved in 1948.
I was under the impression that many engines which promised huge outputs in that timeframe had a way of getting plagued with teething problems, which is why I figured I'd mention the Allison T56......
Quote from: dy031101 on June 16, 2009, 04:25:12 PM
I was under the impression that many engines which promised huge outputs in that timeframe had a way of getting plagued with teething problems, which is why I figured I'd mention the Allison T56......
An XT-37 test article made 10,000 shp under test in mid-1948,
so the output was not a blue-sky promise.
Northrop's engine division was sold to GE, and from what I've read, the
compressor design of the Turbodyne influenced what became
the J-79.
Re Turboprop B-49s:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_kIWY2DV0KnE%2FSccqRhqESRI%2FAAAAAAAACzQ%2FzeNgX1DoFtk%2Fs1024%2FNorthrop%2520Turbodyne%2520V%2520proposal%25201.jpg&hash=a68e5ccb4f79ae31dfbf1f5c4f5974a0fdeed0ac)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_kIWY2DV0KnE%2FSccqRixXc8I%2FAAAAAAAACzY%2F-WsHRA9Z6BM%2Fs1024%2FNorthrop%2520Turbodyne%2520V%2520proposal%25202.jpg&hash=32cd52cec3d53e68367055d6c880e777407ddc18)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh6.ggpht.com%2F_kIWY2DV0KnE%2FSccqQukgd7I%2FAAAAAAAACzA%2F9X36JNNkpkU%2Fs1024%2FNorthrop%2520Allison%2520proposal%25201.jpg&hash=4017a29d9ca9dc10d997f0ab3da8409f7e381dec)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_kIWY2DV0KnE%2FSccqRF45wRI%2FAAAAAAAACzI%2FlalnyhDCZGA%2Fs1024%2FNorthrop%2520Allison%2520proposal%25202.jpg&hash=b0fb65a939041d3a3d30261b3cd0067d8fccbb74)
Regards,
Greg
I think one can be forgiven if he/she mistakes these for relatives of the AVRO Vulcan......
Another super-cool batch of illustrations! :thumbsup:
I don't know if anybody has seen these before, but I thought I'd share. From the "x planes" blog on Tumblr:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F26.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_li45mj2sOk1qzsgg9o1_500.jpg&hash=aa97667ec0199a1b6043ed0154327575e6599360)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_li63aujRxy1qzsgg9o1_500.jpg&hash=279279443c7b79e0d4013c710bacd4396661601a)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F30.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_li694o2oxC1qzsgg9o1_500.jpg&hash=816df513f1d57baed8e812b3e92bb22f0f38d7a3)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F27.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_li7ugkvO5V1qzsgg9o1_r1_500.jpg&hash=db6aa649f681919ee8c4db726b618347ef9b6e54)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lh1fix60zK1qzsgg9o1_500.jpg&hash=ada40c19eb38dc278cbb7ddd22d410402019e542)
That top photo with the B.17 is fantastic :wub: Thanks for posting
Quote from: NARSES2 on March 24, 2011, 03:13:00 AM
That top photo with the B.17 is fantastic :wub: Thanks for posting
seconded! Love that blog too!
Something I missed on the last pass:
Pilot's Handbook for the XB-35 Heavy Bombardment Airplane
http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/history_military/xb35_pilots_handbook.html
Northrop Flying Wing drawing from the January, 1942 Air Trails:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi729.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww291%2Fjoncarrfarrelly%2FWING_AIR-TRAILS_1-42_01.png&hash=1ee911c3db2e2a90d12a32a66ba1095513a3f880)
A nice bit of period conjecture based on the layout of the N1M, two photos of which appear on page 32
of the same issue.
Did a bit of off-the-cuff scaling using a prop diameter of 12 feet (3.6576 m) as the starting point, all measures are approximate ;):
Span: 72 ft 9 in (22.174 m)
OAL: 29 ft 3 in (8.915 m)
;D
love the N1m, yet to start my 48th Sword kit -- will do it with both maximum sweep and dihedral (both setable on the ground only).
Are those remote gun-turrets shown on the wing ??? might have to add those ! ;D
Modelling that N1M based design as a bomber and then putting that drawing alongside would through some JMNs off. ;D
This is my whiffy of Jack Northrop's flying wing fighter-bomber that was up on the old What-if site many moons ago....
"Upon commencement of flight testing of the small scale flying wing, the handling qualities warranted the operational testing of the small wing as a fighter-bomber. Sent to participate in fighter-sweeps and ground attack shortly after D-Day, the small wing racked up an impressive set of kills. Armed with 4x20mm cannon and 8xAP rockets, the little wing performed well until Allied gunners accidentally shot it down, thinking it was a Luftwaffe Wunder-Weapon......"
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv191%2Fluftbct%2FXP-N9M%2FXPN9M1.jpg&hash=e646565fe333c9b7dc45a5ca5dc1e096bde0ff84)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv191%2Fluftbct%2FXP-N9M%2FXPN9M5.jpg&hash=67901506ac4361dc7d7d30bcd6cd6dcab715ddfb)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv191%2Fluftbct%2FXP-N9M%2FXPN9M3.jpg&hash=447940e1369a38aceb7f7f7b98ce8a4da4559da0)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv191%2Fluftbct%2FXP-N9M%2FXPN9M2.jpg&hash=6bdf10334f9e11f09732cebdd4652c6a2c4ae3ac)
where are the D-day stripes ???
Just my unsolicited two pence but I've always thought the (X)B-35/47 would have been an excellent in-flight refueling tanker or serve in some other supportive role such as command-control or perhaps even AWAC.
I remember Jack Northrop had a proposal of a B-49 design with a partial fuselage formed over the baseline fuselage with a few modifications here and there to allow it to carry a nuclear bomb in a centralized bomb-bay. Anybody have any drawings of that assuming it's not classified?
Quote from: sequoiaranger on July 22, 2008, 10:40:18 AM
Whether prop (B-35) or jet-powered (B-49), the issue with the all-wing aircraft was stability. In 1950 the technology just wasn't there to correct the instabilitites as they happened, and the all-wing projects were abandoned for more "traditional" aircraft. Nowadays, with "fly-by-wire" and instant feedback systems, it would be no sweat.
Which is the main reason why the base in California's High Desert is called "Edwards AFB" and not "Muroc AFB". Captain Glen Edwards (Canadian-American) was killed testing the YB-49.
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on July 14, 2011, 12:43:20 PM
A nice bit of period conjecture based on the layout of the N1M, two photos of which appear on page 32
of the same issue.
Quote from: GTX on July 15, 2011, 01:20:31 PM
Modelling that N1M based design as a bomber and then putting that drawing alongside would through some JMNs off. ;D
I believe you guys actually mean "N9M", as the N1M was a whole different bird called the "Flying Jeep".
A few images of the XB-35's cockpit arrangement taken from Northrop official maintenance manuals:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secretprojects.co.uk%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D9969.0%3Battach%3D138824%3Bimage&hash=e2b7053477ed600a641bf2a5aa1ec7d3fd765d3d)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secretprojects.co.uk%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D9969.0%3Battach%3D138826%3Bimage&hash=13d3c6420c66ab751ac2747b473591f5d87142ef)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secretprojects.co.uk%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D9969.0%3Battach%3D138828%3Bimage&hash=c5bf6eaa5c52de0a7fe63381c609a51def12bf76)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secretprojects.co.uk%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D9969.0%3Battach%3D138830%3Bimage&hash=5fec6ed36bc3a5df7c9e8ca41ddb9e83dbae3f7f)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secretprojects.co.uk%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D9969.0%3Battach%3D138832%3Bimage&hash=65124ae481da773770fa067fefa6d14217dd8558)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secretprojects.co.uk%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D9969.0%3Battach%3D138800%3Bimage&hash=e7d3ac5756123d9f71522ccd36eaf455e762a6e4)
Also, a modeller calling himself Thlaylie has posted these beautiful shots of his XB-35 cockpit on the Secret Projects Forum:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi88.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk176%2FThlaylie%2FFLYING%2520WING%2FXB-35_003.jpg&hash=6fa75b0fc4ed1334e637284f5bd6180b9c288a72)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi88.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk176%2FThlaylie%2FFLYING%2520WING%2FXB-35_001.jpg&hash=43fe228f1f3c336325b8efad6aba1c783d4c8a69)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi88.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk176%2FThlaylie%2FFLYING%2520WING%2FXB-35_002.jpg&hash=f9026d1049e7286431220a058a0ffe00aa994487)
Looks more like a Submarine control room with a periscope in the middle!
I can recommend this for those fascinated by the Northrop Flying wings
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Northrop-Flying-Wings-Garry-Pape/dp/0887406890/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313575244&sr=1-1
Quote from: rickshaw on August 17, 2011, 02:05:26 AM
Looks more like a Submarine control room with a periscope in the middle!
The first thing that crossed my mind was 'Starship Enterprise'! ;D
But very handy for anyone building one, and I think I've got one in The Loft. Not seen it for ages though.
Quote from: Stargazer2006 on August 17, 2011, 12:28:23 AM
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on July 14, 2011, 12:43:20 PM
A nice bit of period conjecture based on the layout of the N1M, two photos of which appear on page 32
of the same issue.
Quote from: GTX on July 15, 2011, 01:20:31 PM
Modelling that N1M based design as a bomber and then putting that drawing alongside would through some JMNs off. ;D
I believe you guys actually mean "N9M", as the N1M was a whole different bird called the "Flying Jeep".
No, we know exactly what we are talking about, and if you paid attention to my post you'll note that the drawing
is from the
January 1942 issue of
Air Trails, which would have gone to press in December of 1941,
a full year before the first flight of N9M.
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on August 17, 2011, 12:43:14 PM
No, we know exactly what we are talking about, and if you paid attention to my post you'll note that the drawing
is from the January 1942 issue of Air Trails, which would have gone to press in December of 1941,
a full year before the first flight of N9M.
I can sense some irony in your post. I'm sorry if I offended you, that really wasn't the idea. I thought about a possible typo, as can happen regularly on forums, no-one is exempt from them I believe.
Anybody know of Northrop's N-31 design? It was a bomber, it had a partial fuselage...
Yep, Kendra, definitely. There were several iterations of the design. I can send you a few pics by mail if you want.
Quote from: Stargazer2006 on August 17, 2011, 12:31:24 AM
A few images of the XB-35's cockpit arrangement taken from Northrop official maintenance manuals:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secretprojects.co.uk%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D9969.0%3Battach%3D138824%3Bimage&hash=e2b7053477ed600a641bf2a5aa1ec7d3fd765d3d)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secretprojects.co.uk%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D9969.0%3Battach%3D138826%3Bimage&hash=13d3c6420c66ab751ac2747b473591f5d87142ef)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secretprojects.co.uk%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D9969.0%3Battach%3D138828%3Bimage&hash=c5bf6eaa5c52de0a7fe63381c609a51def12bf76)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secretprojects.co.uk%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D9969.0%3Battach%3D138830%3Bimage&hash=5fec6ed36bc3a5df7c9e8ca41ddb9e83dbae3f7f)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secretprojects.co.uk%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D9969.0%3Battach%3D138832%3Bimage&hash=65124ae481da773770fa067fefa6d14217dd8558)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secretprojects.co.uk%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D9969.0%3Battach%3D138800%3Bimage&hash=e7d3ac5756123d9f71522ccd36eaf455e762a6e4)
All I see are red X's.
Larry
Well, you quoted the supposed red x-es, and in fact they show pretty well and fill a whole page on my end... Are you the only one who can't see the pics?
Only redX's
Can't see them either.
This happens in two cases:
- the forum/website that hosts the images requires you to be logged in to see pictures, or
- the forum/website that hosts the images disallows hotlinking. You can see the images because they're in your browser's cache memory.
Quote from: Patron Zero on August 10, 2011, 02:13:02 AM
Just my unsolicited two pence but I've always thought the (X)B-35/47 would have been an excellent in-flight refueling tanker or serve in some other supportive role such as command-control or perhaps even AWAC.
Hi Patron:
I asked Maverick (John) who was kind enough to create profiles for such uses:
- F-16A (N9M with HeS011 Turbo Jets): http://s150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Album%20Part%202/?action=view¤t=N9M1.jpg
- F-17A: http://s150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Album%20Part%202/?action=view¤t=B-3502.jpg
- KB-35A: http://s150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Album%20Part%202/?action=view¤t=B-3503.jpg
- B-35A Tiger Force with a Grand Slam: http://s150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Album%20Part%202/?action=view¤t=B-3505.jpg
These and many more Flying Wing profiles can be found here:
http://s150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Album%20Part%202/?start=all
Carl
Very nice. My attempt is not as nice but I do unfortunately have a seatbelt OCD. :rolleyes: I used the PE from the Airwaves A-37.
I did add a shroud to the front of the instrument panel as it did look exposed after closing up the fuselage halves.
As someone on another forum noted, great looking cockpit which will be hidden from view.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1139.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn547%2FCF-101B%2FB-49-Cockpit.jpg&hash=e5f63ee928da821f671ad4577f069211d4a07d4d)
Carl
Wow. Maverick outdid himself on these!
I'm so sorry about the pics I posted. I linked them from Secret Projects, so I guess those who were able to see them are those who are also members there. Sorry about that... I'll try to find a solution soon.
Quote from: Stargazer2006 on August 17, 2011, 04:16:03 PM
Yep, Kendra, definitely. There were several iterations of the design. I can send you a few pics by mail if you want.
Yup, I'd love it
Awesome model of the cockpit, frankly I'm surprised there was not an Interociter available to the flight engineer !
http://www.unit16.net/tie2pics/tie205.jpg
Quote from: Patron Zero on August 26, 2011, 01:19:50 PM
Awesome model of the cockpit, frankly I'm surprised there was not an Interociter available to the flight engineer !
I love
that movie! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Island_Earth) the "Mute Aunt (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_h7EVTpdem4/TaIecqjKuDI/AAAAAAAABNg/Wly8tOqbvE0/s1600/this-island-earth-mutant.jpg)" was scary, too.
Over the years I've read all sorts of stuff regarding the political and technical issues as to why the YB-35 was cancelled in favor of the B-36. Recently I came across some rather interesting information regarding the YB-35 which seem to illustrate even more of the story than we were previously told. I'd like to know which of these are true and which are not.
Technical & Performance Issues
- The airplane was said to be unstable and had dangerous spin and stall characteristics (so bad that the USAAF/USAF had allegedly contemplated barring pilots from purposefully putting the plane into a stall or a spin, even for training purposes). Interestingly pilot who worked for Northrop and flew the B-35 said that the aircraft was not unstable and he had successfully put the airplane into a stall and even a spin and recovered. Allegedly there was photographic evidence to support it. He called the claims of the USAF to be basically BS.
- The aircraft's drivetrain, which included contra-rotating propellers was known to have serious problems and the equipment which the government furnished limited it's performance. Presumably this was fixable.
- The aircraft had a tendency to "hunt" in yaw (does that mean a tendency to slide and wallow all over the place -- as that was a known trait of the plane), however that was said to be fixable with a type of autopilot.
- It has been said that the aircraft was slower at top-speed compared to the B-36, though others have said it was 50 mph faster.
- It has been said the aircraft's cruise speed was extremely slow (around 185 mph).
,,,
Political Issues
- Louis Johnson who, at the time was the Secretary of Defense, previously sat on Convair's board of Directors raising serious issues as to a conflict of interest
- Floyd Odlum, who was a wealthy businessman and had a major stake in Convair, used his connections to manipulate/corrupt the Secretary of the Air Force in order to save his B-36.
- The Air Force wanted the YB-35 and B-36 to be able to carry nuclear weapons, yet prohibited Northrop from redesigning it's bomb-bays to be able to actually carry them.
- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold was stated to have preferred the B-35 over the B-36
- In an recorded interview, Jack Northrop was told that the YB-35 could be built, but it would be built at Convair. Northrop thought this was profoundly unfair and refused.
- Northrop was really only interested in developing new ideas. The underwriters of the companies that carried his name realized this and wrote into his contract that he didn't get to make business decisions.
There is a lot to this story, and some of it is at the industrial-managerial end, some at the political-pentagon end and then of course the test pilots such as Harry Crosby, Cardenas, Edwards and others. Here are a few more bits-
The AF secretary was a big player in this, and his name was Stuart Symington, and a native Texan in the area of Dallas where Convair was located. His family was and some relations still are active in the State's politics.
The original site chosen for B-35 manufacture was a B-29 assembly plant owned by Martin in Omaha, Nebraska.
The opinions of the test pilots all varied, about the stability and the climb rate and there was a large discrepancy in the power to weight tables. There were many questions about the economy of the machine in terms of fuel loads.
One reason given about the B-35 not being picked was the small bomb bays not being able to take the very large "fat man" type atomic bombs of the era internally. Actually, smaller bombs were in production when the contracts were cancelled.
There is a school of thought in pilot's handling of an aircraft that a good design should be able to be trimmed to fly with minimal input from the pilot, in other words, set the rim tabs to a given zero climb rate and the plane should stay there, even with wind changes, or small shifts in CG or changes in throttle. The B-35 needed vigilance and attention and correction. A lot of pilots disapproved of this and used a trick of putting up more throttle but trimming the nose high and a steeper angle of attack. This effectively plows the airfoil into the air rather than cutting it. The turbulence over the top of the wing, a rolling vortex actually acted as a damper of side to side movements as well as any slight pitching- effectively stabilizing it to the level of flying a DC3 or DC-4 of the era- HOWEVER...doing this also increased the drag to the point that the top speed was less and the great efficiency of the flying wing aerodynamically was lost or nulled to that of a typical B-29 or B-24. It is unclear if the data in the performance tables of the B-35 was made flying in the "cheater" manner or with full control, in fact, since these tables are made over a series of many flights, many pilots, it could be a variety of flight "styles".
The yaw and pitch problems were supposedly all eliminated in the YRB-49A jet version using automatic hydraulic dampers developed by the Otis corporation. If you take a ride in an elevator and the car comes to a nice smooth stop at your floor without you having to step down or up an inch or two, and it hits this mark without backtracking or sudden jerks to get there - you are benefitting from offshoots of flying wing technology.
There was the issue of the inflight fire in a YB-49 on a coast to coast run supposedly caused by the engines not being serviced with enough oil, but was blamed on the J-47 installation in a wing made for props.
The issue that the plane used a 1934 airfoil cross section that could never operate in the trans-sonic or supersonic, no matter how many engines you put on the machine.
Too much technology at one leap? Political football? Sabotage? just plain incompetance in enough places? Managerial FUBAR? .....Hard to say.
While YRB-49's from EDW were flying tests over the SF bay area and other air bases, the controllers often told the pilots of the flying wing to operate at odd altitudes like 5000, 7000, 13,000 21,000 etc while the other traffic was conducted at even heights. This was because the wing was often invisible to radar at times and was also not easily found in binoculars visually or even in some more powerful telescopes.
Can't this be merged with the existing Northrop Flying Wings thread?
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,19253.0.html
Whatever the reasons were , they were all sort of corrected when the B-2 model was first shown to an ailing Jack Northrop , same wingspan , same leading edge angle and a few kind words along the way . That's probably all I can say on the subject .
Quote from: tahsin on December 05, 2011, 02:39:33 AM
Whatever the reasons were , they were all sort of corrected when the B-2 model was first shown to an ailing Jack Northrop , same wingspan , same leading edge angle and a few kind words along the way . That's probably all I can say on the subject .
Has been said that he uttered "Now I know why God has kept me alive all of these years" when he viewed the replica and the model is interred with him. It certainly sounds appropo' !
I've merged these 2 topics as suggested by Jschmus as they are basically about the same subject
Chris
RussCQuoteThe AF secretary was a big player in this, and his name was Stuart Symington, and a native Texan in the area of Dallas where Convair was located.
So, there was a connection between Odlum and Symington?
QuoteThe original site chosen for B-35 manufacture was a B-29 assembly plant owned by Martin in Omaha, Nebraska.
Even though Northrop was going to build it?
Quotethere was a large discrepancy in the power to weight tables.
I don't understand how that would happen. Can you explain?
QuoteThere were many questions about the economy of the machine in terms of fuel loads.
I don't understand -- this was a military bomber, not a commercial airliner unless it couldn't meet range.
QuoteOne reason given about the B-35 not being picked was the small bomb bays not being able to take the very large "fat man" type atomic bombs of the era internally.
According to a page on Wikipedia, they said Northrop was told by the USAAF (which would imply a time period from 1945 to 1947) wasn't allowed to redesign its bomb-bays to accommodate the nuclear bombs.
QuoteActually, smaller bombs were in production when the contracts were cancelled.
At what point did nuclear bombs start to shrink in size?
QuoteThere is a school of thought in pilot's handling of an aircraft that a good design should be able to be trimmed to fly with minimal input from the pilot, in other words, set the rim tabs to a given zero climb rate and the plane should stay there, even with wind changes, or small shifts in CG or changes in throttle.
If it's dynamically stable that's what should happen...
QuoteThe B-35 needed vigilance and attention and correction. A lot of pilots disapproved of this and used a trick of putting up more throttle but trimming the nose high and a steeper angle of attack. This effectively plows the airfoil into the air rather than cutting it. The turbulence over the top of the wing, a rolling vortex actually acted as a damper of side to side movements as well as any slight pitching- effectively stabilizing it to the level of flying a DC3 or DC-4 of the era- HOWEVER...doing this also increased the drag to the point that the top speed was less and the great efficiency of the flying wing aerodynamically was lost or nulled to that of a typical B-29 or B-24. It is unclear if the data in the performance tables of the B-35 was made flying in the "cheater" manner or with full control, in fact, since these tables are made over a series of many flights, many pilots, it could be a variety of flight "styles".
How do you trim it for a nose-high condition? As I understand it trimming was determined by airspeed, mach-number, and CG position. The only way I could think of to jack up the alpha would be to climb the plane higher...
QuoteThe yaw and pitch problems were supposedly all eliminated in the YRB-49A jet version using automatic hydraulic dampers developed by the Otis corporation.
I know the YB-49 flew in '47, I assume the YRB-49 flew a year or so later?
QuoteThe issue that the plane used a 1934 airfoil cross section that could never operate in the trans-sonic or supersonic, no matter how many engines you put on the machine.
I didn't know that, but the aircraft wasn't supersonic had the YB-35 won the competition, would they really need to refit it with jets? I figure you'd just build a new design.
QuoteWhile YRB-49's from EDW were flying tests over the SF bay area and other air bases, the controllers often told the pilots of the flying wing to operate at odd altitudes like 5000, 7000, 13,000 21,000 etc while the other traffic was conducted at even heights. This was because the wing was often invisible to radar at times and was also not easily found in binoculars visually or even in some more powerful telescopes.
This is when our knowledge of stealth seemed to begin. Ironically, it seemed that until the SM-62 that it wasn't realized to it's potential.
QuoteQuoteThe original site chosen for B-35 manufacture was a B-29 assembly plant owned by Martin in Omaha, Nebraska.
Even though Northrop was going to build it?
No. The production batch of 200 aircraft was ordered from Martin as their Model 205, and were to be designated plain B-35.
QuoteQuoteThe yaw and pitch problems were supposedly all eliminated in the YRB-49A jet version using automatic hydraulic dampers developed by the Otis corporation.
I know the YB-49 flew in '47, I assume the YRB-49 flew a year or so later
There were actually two different aircraft designated YRB-49As by the Air Force. The first was c/n 1489 (USAAF 42-102369) the Model N-41 which started off as a YB-35, was apparently designated ERB-35 at some point, was planned for flight tests as a YRB-49A but was eventually not flown. The second and only flying prototype was the Model N-52, c/n 1496 (USAAF 42-102376), which started off as a YB-35, became a YB-35A, then an RB-35B and finally an YRB-49A. It apparently flew in 1950.
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on December 05, 2011, 08:32:55 AM
RussC
QuoteThe AF secretary was a big player in this, and his name was Stuart Symington, and a native Texan in the area of Dallas where Convair was located.
So, there was a connection between Odlum and Symington?
I had always heard the name Symington above all others. I wonder too if that time period had other things involved like the change from a USAAF to an independant USAF right at that same time era.
QuoteThe original site chosen for B-35 manufacture was a B-29 assembly plant owned by Martin in Omaha, Nebraska.
Even though Northrop was going to build it?
Yes, but this was not new as the B-29 was built by a variety of companies- Boeing, Bell, Martin (Omaha) and Douglas (I think the Douglas were made in Georgia at Marietta). The flying fortress was made in others factories. The Grummans were also made by General Motors. B-24s were made by Consolidated and by Ford Motor Co.
Quotethere was a large discrepancy in the power to weight tables.
I don't understand how that would happen. Can you explain?
According to one article and I think it was the one that accompanies the NASM web site, the published tables were found to be overly optimistic, but there were disagreements. Since the planes are gone, its going to be "person A said this and person B said that" to settle on anything though.
QuoteThere were many questions about the economy of the machine in terms of fuel loads.
I don't understand -- this was a military bomber, not a commercial airliner unless it couldn't meet range.
It was about the range. You probably have seen that Northrop was considering a jet airliner version, even produced a film showing one.
QuoteOne reason given about the B-35 not being picked was the small bomb bays not being able to take the very large "fat man" type atomic bombs of the era internally.
According to a page on Wikipedia, they said Northrop was told by the USAAF (which would imply a time period from 1945 to 1947) wasn't allowed to redesign its bomb-bays to accommodate the nuclear bombs.
Didn't know that! That smacks a bit of rigging the deck in some ways, yes?. That would just leave the YRB-49 recon ship as a viable machine.
QuoteActually, smaller bombs were in production when the contracts were cancelled.
At what point did nuclear bombs start to shrink in size?
Atomic started decreasing by the start of the 50's ( Mark 5, 6 and especially the Mark 7) but the early thermonuclear jumped back up again in size , especially the Mark 17 which was a lot like the Grand Slam of Barnes Wallis' design. Actually too long to fit in some aircraft. A big table of all this at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cold_War_nuclear_bombs_of_the_United_States
QuoteThere is a school of thought in pilot's handling of an aircraft that a good design should be able to be trimmed to fly with minimal input from the pilot, in other words, set the rim tabs to a given zero climb rate and the plane should stay there, even with wind changes, or small shifts in CG or changes in throttle.
If it's dynamically stable that's what should happen...
Yes
QuoteThe B-35 needed vigilance and attention and correction. A lot of pilots disapproved of this and used a trick of putting up more throttle but trimming the nose high and a steeper angle of attack. This effectively plows the airfoil into the air rather than cutting it. The turbulence over the top of the wing, a rolling vortex actually acted as a damper of side to side movements as well as any slight pitching- effectively stabilizing it to the level of flying a DC3 or DC-4 of the era- HOWEVER...doing this also increased the drag to the point that the top speed was less and the great efficiency of the flying wing aerodynamically was lost or nulled to that of a typical B-29 or B-24. It is unclear if the data in the performance tables of the B-35 was made flying in the "cheater" manner or with full control, in fact, since these tables are made over a series of many flights, many pilots, it could be a variety of flight "styles".
How do you trim it for a nose-high condition? As I understand it trimming was determined by airspeed, mach-number, and CG position. The only way I could think of to jack up the alpha would be to climb the plane higher...
The angle of attack would be increased but not enough power to climb. This actually does sound like a balancing act in itself, but maybe the test fliers discovered this "quiet zone" just by trying things until something was found. A gradual climb can be trimmed in too, when I was taking lessons personally years ago, I was dubbed a "leadfoot" to the point of watching the altimeter as much as the horizon until getting a better feel for it all.
QuoteThe yaw and pitch problems were supposedly all eliminated in the YRB-49A jet version using automatic hydraulic dampers developed by the Otis corporation.
I know the YB-49 flew in '47, I assume the YRB-49 flew a year or so later?
1950, according to the labels on some photos.- Looks like Stargazer found the same timeframe while I was typing this also. I'm sill trying to find out how long the YRB was flown for, I see some pictures and some reading that state 1953 or even 54 and 55 but can't pin that down at all.
QuoteThe issue that the plane used a 1934 airfoil cross section that could never operate in the trans-sonic or supersonic, no matter how many engines you put on the machine.
I didn't know that, but the aircraft wasn't supersonic had the YB-35 won the competition, would they really need to refit it with jets? I figure you'd just build a new design.
Agreed. But from my reads, the era was moving at a fast pace, everything was about jet power then. It would have delayed things to rebuild from the ground up using laminar flow wings or even thinner cross sections. Also, Northrop was a advocate of keeping a straight airfoil and putting everything inside without breaking that single surface, unlike what was done in other designs like the Hortens or Armstrong Whitworth's. So using a thin wing and a bulged center or a pod was probably off the design table for the company, but later, with J. Northrop retired the B-2 could proceed with a bulged cross section for the engines and crew. The YRB-49 Had both internal and podded jets, and some illustrations show the B-35 with jet pods similar to the fit given the B-36
QuoteWhile YRB-49's from EDW were flying tests over the SF bay area and other air bases, the controllers often told the pilots of the flying wing to operate at odd altitudes like 5000, 7000, 13,000 21,000 etc while the other traffic was conducted at even heights. This was because the wing was often invisible to radar at times and was also not easily found in binoculars visually or even in some more powerful telescopes.
This is when our knowledge of stealth seemed to begin. Ironically, it seemed that until the SM-62 that it wasn't realized to it's potential.
SM-62, the Snark missile?
Quote from: PR19_Kit on August 17, 2011, 07:45:37 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on August 17, 2011, 02:05:26 AM
Looks more like a Submarine control room with a periscope in the middle!
The first thing that crossed my mind was 'Starship Enterprise'! ;D
But very handy for anyone building one, and I think I've got one in The Loft. Not seen it for ages though.
I look at that, and wonder how that can be the cockpit to an airplane (though I've seen reference B&W's so I know its right). Still, looks more like a set from an Irwin Allen production. At least Irwin would have all of those gauges at the engineer's station would be synchronized flashing lights.
I'd love to extend the wing tips into an ogival point much like Hawker did the the tail of the Hunter and Harrier.
Then add a small diameter fuselage extending mostly aft with a very swept ogival butterfly tail.
Kit: the new 1/200 one from Cyber Hobby scale-o-rama'ed into 1/72 and twin engines.
:blink: :blink: :blink:
:cheers: (Folgers with plastic powdered cream, I'm at work)
Daryl J.
Quote from: Daryl J. on December 07, 2011, 11:41:36 AM
I'd love to extend the wing tips into an ogival point much like Hawker did the the tail of the Hunter and Harrier.
Then add a small diameter fuselage extending mostly aft with a very swept ogival butterfly tail.
Kit: the new 1/200 one from Cyber Hobby scale-o-rama'ed into 1/72 and twin engines.
:blink: :blink: :blink:
:cheers: (Folgers with plastic powdered cream, I'm at work)
Daryl J.
It sounds like you could just as easily take a 72nd scale Revell Go 229 and add the fuselage and sub-tail to that if not minding a really deep wing fillet.
Stargazer2006QuoteThere were actually two different aircraft designated YRB-49As by the Air Force. The first was c/n 1489 (USAAF 42-102369) the Model N-41 which started off as a YB-35, was apparently designated ERB-35 at some point, was planned for flight tests as a YRB-49A but was eventually not flown. The second and only flying prototype was the Model N-52, c/n 1496 (USAAF 42-102376), which started off as a YB-35, became a YB-35A, then an RB-35B and finally an YRB-49A. It apparently flew in 1950.
Understood
Russ CQuoteYes, but this was not new as the B-29 was built by a variety of companies- Boeing, Bell, Martin (Omaha) and Douglas (I think the Douglas were made in Georgia at Marietta). The flying fortress was made in others factories. The Grummans were also made by General Motors. B-24s were made by Consolidated and by Ford Motor Co.
Understood
QuoteAccording to one article and I think it was the one that accompanies the NASM web site, the published tables were found to be overly optimistic, but there were disagreements. Since the planes are gone, its going to be "person A said this and person B said that" to settle on anything though.
So the issue was how much thrust the props produced relative to the specified horsepower and the exact weight?
QuoteIt was about the range. You probably have seen that Northrop was considering a jet airliner version, even produced a film showing one.
Yeah, but it wouldn't have been feasible. The pressure-hull requirement would either ended up suffering metal fatigue and going the way of the DH Comet, required a lot of strengthening to avoid metal fatigue negating the benefits of a flying wing, or would have simply not worked.
QuoteDidn't know that! That smacks a bit of rigging the deck in some ways, yes?
Yup
QuoteAtomic started decreasing by the start of the 50's ( Mark 5, 6 and especially the Mark 7) but the early thermonuclear jumped back up again in size , especially the Mark 17 which was a lot like the Grand Slam of Barnes Wallis' design. Actually too long to fit in some aircraft. A big table of all this at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cold_War_nuclear_bombs_of_the_United_States
So Mk.7, Mk.8, and so forth?
QuoteThe angle of attack would be increased but not enough power to climb. This actually does sound like a balancing act in itself, but maybe the test fliers discovered this "quiet zone" just by trying things until something was found. A gradual climb can be trimmed in too, when I was taking lessons personally years ago, I was dubbed a "leadfoot" to the point of watching the altimeter as much as the horizon until getting a better feel for it all.
So they'd pull the stick back and chop the power, then raise the power as necessary to hold the desired speed?
QuoteAgreed. But from my reads, the era was moving at a fast pace, everything was about jet power then. It would have delayed things to rebuild from the ground up using laminar flow wings or even thinner cross sections. Also, Northrop was a advocate of keeping a straight airfoil and putting everything inside without breaking that single surface, unlike what was done in other designs like the Hortens or Armstrong Whitworth's. So using a thin wing and a bulged center or a pod was probably off the design table for the company, but later, with J. Northrop retired the B-2 could proceed with a bulged cross section for the engines and crew.
Well depending on equipment it would be inevitable. I don't know what his views were about applying this to fighters, but if you put a radar in a plane you'd have to have a bulged nose to fit it at the time.
QuoteSM-62, the Snark missile?
The Snark
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on December 08, 2011, 10:04:34 PM
So the issue was how much thrust the props produced relative to the specified horsepower and the exact weight?
Yes
QuoteIt was about the range. You probably have seen that Northrop was considering a jet airliner version, even produced a film showing one.
Yeah, but it wouldn't have been feasible. The pressure-hull requirement would either ended up suffering metal fatigue and going the way of the DH Comet, required a lot of strengthening to avoid metal fatigue negating the benefits of a flying wing, or would have simply not worked.
Very true, in fact on the current BWB airliner Boeing concepts team are wrestling with this very issue, some solutions are to create a series of partially overlapping cylinders with access "aisles" between them. The film that Northrop made of a passenger wing in the late 40's shows it operating at heights not needing pressurization - which were also not feasible. Would have been pretty scenic, going cross country at 12,000 ft, sneaking through gaps in the Rocky Mtns....
QuoteAtomic started decreasing by the start of the 50's ( Mark 5, 6 and especially the Mark 7) but the early thermonuclear jumped back up again in size , especially the Mark 17 which was a lot like the Grand Slam of Barnes Wallis' design. Actually too long to fit in some aircraft. A big table of all this at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cold_War_nuclear_bombs_of_the_United_States
So Mk.7, Mk.8, and so forth?
Whichever would fit, which looks like about half of them from the big list of destruction.
Puzzling that later on, the B-58 Hustler got a pass on this same issue, but only by combining the weapon into an external fuel tank.
So they'd pull the stick back and chop the power, then raise the power as necessary to hold the desired speed?
That way would work, done carefully.
Russ C
QuoteYes
Understood
QuoteVery true, in fact on the current BWB airliner Boeing concepts team are wrestling with this very issue, some solutions are to create a series of partially overlapping cylinders with access "aisles" between them.
I thought the plan was to use composites to defeat the metal fatigue issue? As I understand it the compartments were to ultimately be rectangular (composites) with connecting passageways between them (the idea was that it would be more structurally efficient than having one big pressure hull and some airframe structure could be fitted between the cabins.
QuoteThe film that Northrop made of a passenger wing in the late 40's shows it operating at heights not needing pressurization - which were also not feasible. Would have been pretty scenic, going cross country at 12,000 ft, sneaking through gaps in the Rocky Mtns....
The problem would be too much drag I would guess and thus insufficient range...
QuoteWhichever would fit, which looks like about half of them from the big list of destruction.
Assuming this isn't classified, are there any pictures of what the YB-35's bomb-bays looked like?
QuoteThat way would work, done carefully.
Still the planes speed would drop in order to do this, no?
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on December 13, 2011, 07:00:18 PM
Russ C
QuoteVery true, in fact on the current BWB airliner Boeing concepts team are wrestling with this very issue, some solutions are to create a series of partially overlapping cylinders with access "aisles" between them.
I thought the plan was to use composites to defeat the metal fatigue issue? As I understand it the compartments were to ultimately be rectangular (composites) with connecting passageways between them (the idea was that it would be more structurally efficient than having one big pressure hull and some airframe structure could be fitted between the cabins.
Thats a new one for me, I hope its the case. My internals info goes back to 2007, from a NASA article.
QuoteThe film that Northrop made of a passenger wing in the late 40's shows it operating at heights not needing pressurization - which were also not feasible. Would have been pretty scenic, going cross country at 12,000 ft, sneaking through gaps in the Rocky Mtns....
The problem would be too much drag I would guess and thus insufficient range...
Absolutely, plus some real problems with weather.
QuoteWhichever would fit, which looks like about half of them from the big list of destruction.
Assuming this isn't classified, are there any pictures of what the YB-35's bomb-bays looked like?
I have no photos or links, probably the best are the cutaway illustrations done by graphic artists of the day. I think the doors, if you want to measure from the 3-views are going to be wider in their openings in the hull, than their height...it was the thickness of the wing as the limiter. In my mind the immediate solution would be bulged bay doors to gain girth.
QuoteThat way would work, done carefully.
Still the planes speed would drop in order to do this, no?
yes, definitely.
Russ CQuoteThats a new one for me, I hope its the case. My internals info goes back to 2007, from a NASA article.
Oh, I was talking about the McDonnell Douglas double-decker BWB from the late 1990's. I remember composites being proposed.
Regardless judging by this drawing, they also use similar rectangular shaped compartments (http://"http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2007/08/11/bwb-aircraft_1_69.jpg")
QuoteAbsolutely, plus some real problems with weather.
True
QuoteI have no photos or links, probably the best are the cutaway illustrations done by graphic artists of the day.
I haven't found any of those
QuoteIn my mind the immediate solution would be bulged bay doors to gain girth.
Makes sense
I would not propose a Zwilling of these machines. :blink:
Quote from: Daryl J. on December 16, 2011, 01:03:18 PM
I would not propose a Zwilling of these machines. :blink:
No, but for some reason, it did spark an idea of a MISTEL of these machines! Imagine a XB-35 with XP-79 parasites and then think about a German E555 Arado with a Horten 229 above it in the Mistel piggyback setup.
Wheels slowly turning, gray matter vibrating and a slight smell reminiscent of burning meatloaf..... :o
Quote from: Daryl J. on December 16, 2011, 01:03:18 PM
I would not propose a Zwilling of these machines. :blink:
But perhaps a biplane...
Quote from: JoeP on December 16, 2011, 07:06:16 PM
Quote from: Daryl J. on December 16, 2011, 01:03:18 PM
I would not propose a Zwilling of these machines. :blink:
But perhaps a biplane...
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.century-of-flight.freeola.com%2FAviation%2520history%2Fflying%2520wings%2Fimages%2F21.jpg&hash=8aa00c0b26345d59c1c95a66c545175cd80bd5cb)
Before Hill in England, and Northrop in the USA and Cheranovski in Russia began their designs, John Dunne was creating flying wings in biplane and monoplane configurations.
RussC,
Wait a second... if they were increasing stability by increasing AoA it wouldn't make a difference because when you stall a plane you put it past the critical AoA -- you'd be at high alpha anyway...
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on December 24, 2011, 01:22:09 PM
RussC,
Wait a second... if they were increasing stability by increasing AoA it wouldn't make a difference because when you stall a plane you put it past the critical AoA -- you'd be at high alpha anyway...
The thing was not to exceed a certain angle or hit stall speed. Thinking the same thing that I am? Personally, I don't see how that was any less demanding of pilot inputs and concentration than keeping normal "unstable" flight, and I still don't see the advantage they claimed if that was so. Mind you, this is from a few articles read. I have not personally flown an XB-35 (except in very fervent dreams, and usually with female crews) but just regular trainers and bug smashers.
not from Northrop but Horton via Captain America ....
http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/HydraFlyingWingCatalogPage.htm
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fantastic-plastic.com%2FHydraFlyingWingModel.jpg&hash=830ea25e7ddbe05b61acdfa7ac13147e32f652c8)
also the parasite bomb ...
http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/HydraParasit-Catalog.htm
RussC,
QuoteThe thing was not to exceed a certain angle or hit stall speed.
Well, I've been told the plane was unstable and had abysmal stall and spin characteristic. However, as I said before a Northrop test pilot was able to stall, and recover the aircraft under circumstances which were photographed. You were saying that they sometimes flew the plane at higher alphas in order to make the plane more stable, but for a stall, the plane would have to go past the critical alpha and since the plane could be stalled and recovered, the point is that whether it was flown at low or high alpha it would still be stallable and recoverable.
Quote from: raafif on December 25, 2011, 07:48:43 PM
not from Northrop but Horton via Captain America ....
Brilliant flying wing from Hydra! But this should read
HortEn, not Horton...
Quote from: Stargazer2006 on January 02, 2012, 05:34:57 AM
Quote from: raafif on December 25, 2011, 07:48:43 PM
not from Northrop but Horton via Captain America ....
Brilliant flying wing from Hydra! But this should read HortEn, not Horton...
Picky! Picky! :P
Man, given some of the spelling & typo's one sees... :rolleyes:
;D
Quote from: Old Wombat on January 02, 2012, 06:15:59 AM
Man, given some of the spelling & typo's one sees... :rolleyes:
As a former teacher, I hate typos for a start... but in this particular case it's on someone's name, and a major source of confusion: The "Horton" vs. Horten mistake is a very common one in aviation circles and I fight it as best as I can, not only because "Horten" is German while "Horton" is American, but also because there was once a Horton in America who designed some strange all-wing prototypes and had NOTHING to do with Germany's Horten!!
Who?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dialbforblog.com%2Farchives%2F416%2Fhorton6.gif&hash=9f256ec776194c9fac612ac89afff0c68a5da78b)
That image didn't load...
Then again there is this:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geeksofdoom.com%2FGoD%2Fimg%2F2011%2F12%2F2011-12-26-horton_doctor_who-533x458.jpg&hash=10b02ce860d9a43790e0eb90916d583e7c09f06d)
"Horton hears a Doctor Who"