Old designs with modern engines

[Spino]

Here's an idea: a B-36 with Allison T40s instead of the Wasp Majors...

 

Wasn't that the B-36C with redesign to tractor props?

B-36C would have had tractor props, but it appears that it would have had the Wasp Majors paired with VDT superchargers.  The Wasp Majors were good for something like 4,300hp each under the right conditions, the T40 was good for over 5000 (when it worked...)

[PR19_Kit]

...........the T40 was good for over 5000 (when it worked...)

Yeah, that would have been my add-on too. Who would wish a heap of trouble like SIX T40s on to a poor self respecting B-36? What are the chances of it even reaching the take-off point with all six running?

[Spino]

...........the T40 was good for over 5000 (when it worked...)

Yeah, that would have been my add-on too. Who would wish a heap of trouble like SIX T40s on to a poor self respecting B-36? What are the chances of it even reaching the take-off point with all six running?

Yeah if the B-36 had been fitted with T40s, I'm not sure that the slogan "two turning, two burning, two smoking, two choking, and two more unaccounted for" would have quite covered it!  Had they been able to solve the teething issues with the T40, it might have been all right, and even might have removed the need for the J47 pods that most B-36s were fitted with.  But that's a great big IF...

[Rheged]

...........the T40 was good for over 5000 (when it worked...)

Yeah, that would have been my add-on too. Who would wish a heap of trouble like SIX T40s on to a poor self respecting B-36? What are the chances of it even reaching the take-off point with all six running?

Yeah if the B-36 had been fitted with T40s, I'm not sure that the slogan "two turning, two burning, two smoking, two choking, and two more unaccounted for" would have quite covered it!  Had they been able to solve the teething issues with the T40, it might have been all right, and even might have removed the need for the J47 pods that most B-36s were fitted with.  But that's a great big IF...

Assuming that the NOT INVENTED HERE problem could be overcome, 6 RR Tynes might have given the later model B-36's a bit more get up and go.; besides that, the world shortage of aviation spark plugs  would have been  avoided    (about 360 per aircraft, if I've got it right)

[Diamondback]

...........the T40 was good for over 5000 (when it worked...)

Yeah, that would have been my add-on too. Who would wish a heap of trouble like SIX T40s on to a poor self respecting B-36? What are the chances of it even reaching the take-off point with all six running?

Yeah if the B-36 had been fitted with T40s, I'm not sure that the slogan "two turning, two burning, two smoking, two choking, and two more unaccounted for" would have quite covered it!  Had they been able to solve the teething issues with the T40, it might have been all right, and even might have removed the need for the J47 pods that most B-36s were fitted with.  But that's a great big IF...

Assuming that the NOT INVENTED HERE problem could be overcome, 6 RR Tynes might have given the later model B-36's a bit more get up and go.; besides that, the world shortage of aviation spark plugs  would have been  avoided    (about 360 per aircraft, if I've got it right)

Imagine the RAF buying C-99s, or B-36s adapted for maritime patrol. Seems that extreme endurance and those huge bays would be good for raining sonobuoys on the GIUK Gap... My bad on T40 vs VDT... but... imagine the Peacemaker with six pusher turboprops of equal or greater power. IIRC the best Wasp Majors hit 4360hp on the nose, 1hp per cubic inch, which again IF memory serves from my armchair in my mother's basement (seriously, Y'ALL try live in caregiving sometime...) is a pretty respectable HP-per-cubic-inch ratio.

[PR19_Kit]

1hp per cubic inch, which again IF memory serves from my armchair in my mother's basement is a pretty respectable HP-per-cubic-inch ratio.

The legendary Chrysler Hemi (the 2nd generation 1964 version) did just that, slinging out 426 bhp from 426 cu ins.  in stock form mind you. Top Fuel Hemis, being tuned up a little bit  could produce a LOT more!

Nowadays in Europe pushing out 100 bhp/litre of capacity is a similar sort of benchmark but much more efficient.

[Mossie]

Chinook and Sea Stallion. Both have been around forever and powered by the same engines, although later CH-53's added a third one.

There was a program to investigate GE T408's to replace the CH-47's T55's recently.

[Weaver]

Nowadays in Europe pushing out 100 bhp/litre of capacity is a similar sort of benchmark but much more efficient.

I remember my former car-racing (and Vampire-flying) friend John once boasting to me that his 1960s racing car put out 100bhp/ton.

I flipped open the nearest motorbike catalogue and showed him a Suzuki GSX1100. "See that? That actually produces 100bhp, and it weighs 500lbs..."

He went a bit pale...

[NARSES2]

Now I know absoutely nothing about engines and bhp etc, and don't particularly need to, but I was always told that to use the term Horse Power is an insult to the animal as a good shire will produce far more than that.

[Spino]

Now that I think about it, if you swapped the eight J57s on the B-60 for six or eight T40s, you'd have essentially an American Tu-95, albeit much larger!

[jcf]

...........the T40 was good for over 5000 (when it worked...)

Yeah, that would have been my add-on too. Who would wish a heap of trouble like SIX T40s on to a poor self respecting B-36? What are the chances of it even reaching the take-off point with all six running?

Yeah if the B-36 had been fitted with T40s, I'm not sure that the slogan "two turning, two burning, two smoking, two choking, and two more unaccounted for" would have quite covered it!  Had they been able to solve the teething issues with the T40, it might have been all right, and even might have removed the need for the J47 pods that most B-36s were fitted with.  But that's a great big IF...

Assuming that the NOT INVENTED HERE problem could be overcome, 6 RR Tynes might have given the later model B-36's a bit more get up and go.; besides that, the world shortage of aviation spark plugs  would have been  avoided    (about 360 per aircraft, if I've got it right)

The last B-36 was built in 1954, Tyne was first run April 1955, the B-52 entered service February 1955.
The Wright XT35 was first run 24 June 1946, it was originally the engine specified for the "B-52" design competition and also proposed to replace the R-4360 in the B-36.
Wright T35

[jcf]

Now that I think about it, if you swapped the eight J57s on the B-60 for six or eight T40s, you'd have essentially an American Tu-95, albeit much larger!

A production B-60 would most likely have been equipped with turboprop engines.
You cannot view this attachment.

[Charlie_c67]

...........the T40 was good for over 5000 (when it worked...)

Yeah, that would have been my add-on too. Who would wish a heap of trouble like SIX T40s on to a poor self respecting B-36? What are the chances of it even reaching the take-off point with all six running?

Yeah if the B-36 had been fitted with T40s, I'm not sure that the slogan "two turning, two burning, two smoking, two choking, and two more unaccounted for" would have quite covered it!  Had they been able to solve the teething issues with the T40, it might have been all right, and even might have removed the need for the J47 pods that most B-36s were fitted with.  But that's a great big IF...

Assuming that the NOT INVENTED HERE problem could be overcome, 6 RR Tynes might have given the later model B-36's a bit more get up and go.; besides that, the world shortage of aviation spark plugs  would have been  avoided    (about 360 per aircraft, if I've got it right)

Maybe Bristol could've used it as a reason to keep going with their Orion Turboprop...

[Spino]

Hear me out: F3H-2N Demon with J79 engine in place of the J71.  The J79 is pretty much the same diameter as the J71 (just a tad smaller in fact), and it's shorter, lighter, and delivers a LOT more thrust.

[PR19_Kit]

I like that idea, you'd have half an Phantom in one step.