@MaxxGladiator You can blame that idiot Stuart Symington, then Secretary of the Air Force, for killing the Flying Wing because he was in bed with Consolidated Vultee/Convair and stood to gain personal profit by forcing Jack Northrup to merge (which as you stated) refused. My brother worked at Northrup and had a rare chance to meet the great man a few years before his death.
Only one problem with the B-36 climbs to 50,000 feet + video... the aircraft shown is not a featherweighted B-36. I few in both standard and featherweight types and the featherweights had all 20mm gun mounts removed except the twin tail mount. This one clearly shows two 20 mm cannon mounted just in front of the flight deck canopy. The featherweights did get way above 50,000 feet, however.
Comon you clowns, stop talking politics. Demo or Repulican it don't matter, they've both sold out our country to special interests. Let's just enjoy these moments of yesteryear. You know when we were a true world power, when we had a president who really cared about the country, like John F. Kennedy.
TalksWithDirt : I believe that if you check the record, you will find the housing market and our economy began to collapse some time after January, 2007, and is now on the road to recovery, 4 years later. This may come as a shock to you, but Nanci Pelosi, the stupidest woman ever to walk the face of this Earth since the dawn of time, is no longer the speaker of the house of representatives.
@StephenB58 Yeah right. Recovery. Stop drinking the coolaid they give you. For the record the world is about to slip from a 5 year recession into t full blown depression. Hail Bush, Hail Obama! Forward the Military Industrial Complex to victory.
remember when american was the best at everthing the good and shining, we still are and can be better again! we must stop fighting ourselfs, and we must put aside social issus to focus on bussiness and rebuilding and r&d,and protect our borders
We spend entirely too much on war. Man imagine if we as a species were not so savage what could have been done with all the resources we put into our military forces. We'd be having fun colonizing the solar system and enjoying the wealth of exploiting a frontier that would make North America look like a sand box. Beautiful, but in the end what a shame.
@hotrod4you2 No the sequence to the 747 was B-29 -> B-47 -> 720(707) -> then the 747. The '36 was a dead end Convair concept. The reason for American decline is not infighting, we've been doing that since day one. I'd say it's not enough infighting. We're poor because the office of the president can use the military for what ever he wants, and in order to sell t-bonds at a good price we export our industry overseas. We just have to tie down the gov and stop taking sucker deals from Asia.
@TalksWithDirt WRONG. Although the B-36 was built by Convair (now General Dynamics) the bomber was vital for a number of innovations that are in common use today... ...not the least of which was the 4-wheel undercarriage, which was developed to prevent long-term damage to runways from excessive weight/pressure on the tarmac), The 4-wheel undercarriage was designed by Convair for the B-36, and is now used in all "heavies". Without it, the Boeing 747 would never have been built.
@555bladerunner Sorry Charley. Think about it. What aircraft before the B-36 spread the load with multiple wheels on the mains? Think about it.... It looks kinda like a B-36. I'll bet if you look it up you'll find a paper on runway loading via multi wheel landing gear on some NACA/Langley publication from the 1930's.
@TalksWithDirt No. I was referring specifically to the 4-wheel configuration used in all commercial widebodies today. The MULTI-wheel landing gear was first introduced by the Germans during WW2. However, the current 4-wheel undercarriage that was developed by Convair provides the best equipment mass-to-load bearing ratio and is the least complex of all multi-wheel configurations. It also takes up less internal space... ...all of which make the 4-wheel the carriage of choice for widebodies.
@555bladerunner Can you provide the optimization function? By my pin headed understanding it will be a function that will have a local first derivative of zero when you take the derivative of concrete load vs number of wheels. See by my pin headed understanding pressure is force divided by area. So a 200,000 lb airplane whos tires constitute a rest area of 16 ft^2 the concrete would have to be rated for 12,500 lb/in^2. But you see in that there is no optimum at 4 wheels/truck. Please explain.
@TalksWithDirt HA! "If you can't dazzle 'em with your brilliance..."...No, of course not, but I doubt the engineers who work widebody designs are so rigid as to mandate an optimum as a design criteria. Once you find a configuration that meets load requirements then you would proceed to find a solution that minimizes cost and maximizes reliabilty; the later, of course, being the most important criteria, since damage to the runway, although critical, is not a crew/passenger safety issue.
Respond to this video... BTW you're a dumb ass conservative. It's your ilk that took an America victorious over the USSR and 'only' only 4 trillion in debt, with a balanced budget and due to retire the debt by 2030. We'd already be the worlds lender again if it were not for the fact that you conservatives screwed up Afghanistan, Iraq, the 'war on terror (tm)', caused the housing bubble, lowered taxes, sold debit notes like a cheap whore, then bailed out wall street and the banks.
"... In the defense of our country." Is this the same country, that , 55 years later, has forgotten 9/11? The same country that rubs our palms together nervously, trying to figure out how in the world to deal with the illiterate Somali pirates who hold 660 captives, some for years at a time?
From Fort Worth, my father and uncle worked at General Dynamics in the early 50's on the B36. My uncle stayed for 42 years and worked on the 58 next. And then on ever thing else they made. I can remember the 36's coming over my folks house when I was 5-6 yrs old. It is too bad the federal law at the time would not allow any restoration of nuclear platforms and all the 36's were beyond repair at the time of the confederate air force. Quite an aircraft and alot of memories Thanks.
I was a B-36 Engine mechanic stationed at Rapid City AFB (Ellsworth today) and Ramey AFB in Puerto Rico. I was sent from Rapid City to the 72nd Strat Recon Wing in Ramey AFB Puerto Rico for the last two years of my hitch. When the B-36s first landed at their new (old base) but remodified runways they shattered the WWII windows out of our barracks. They had a heck of a drone. Our maintenance squadron was close to the flight line. Photos bring back fond memories.
My father was a flight test engineer and flew over 3000 hours in these planes. He was also aboard when they were testing dropping and retrieving a fighter. I still have some of the books and other papers pertaining to this plane and the B-58.
Thanks for posting this. The announcer erred in staying that at 50,000 the plane was cruising in the "troposphere". He meant "the stratosphere"...the troposphere is the lowest part of the atmosphere.
This was one of the classic cold war propaganda films. Removing 5 tons was mostly done by not carrying any weapons, and very little fuel - enough to make the climb as stated and return to the ground. The configuration was not operational. Carrying nuclear weapons and a full load of fuel never let it climb much over 24,000 feet, but the initial climb was only possible to 21,000 until enough fuel was burned off.
@sailordiver2007 I thought the same the first time I saw this as well. What good is an empty bomber at 50,000 feet. That must of been a hell of an instrument panel at 1:04 (I take it that's the flt. engnr.). I was a jet mech in the '80's on B52 G & H's & they have an impressive array of ancient, electro-mechanical, analog guages as well. Night time was quite the sight with 'em all lit up. But that B-36 & it's 10 engines, an engineering marvel even though it was a waste.
B-36 was design in a time when it was feared that we would have to bomb Germany from bases in the US. Fortunately, Germany didn't invade Brittain, but it was never certain.
Government waste of our tax money even back then, the Northrop prop wing could fly just as high and fast, had a low radar return, and only cost half as much.
@USAmerican100 There is no doubt we've had many great flying machines. But why don't you just can it? You're obnoxious. I've seen your posts on at least one other area. You're obnoxious there as well.
Because I want to make sure everyone knows how big money corrupts our government, the government buying the "big stick" instead of the flying wing is one example of the government being bought off (by multimillionaire Floyd Odlum) costing us taxpayers many billions of dollars. There is even a book about it, "Good Men do Something". It is still going on today, if that's being obnoxious then yes I am obnoxious.
The Flying Wings both YB-35 and YB-49 were unstable and when stalled drop tail first into an inverted flat spin. That was what killed Major Edwards. Also neither was designed to carry the H-Bomb of that era the wings were essentially medium bombers.
Wrong, when stalled the wings dropped nose first because a stall causes the center of lift to jump further back. Charles Tucker did a complete stall test series in the YB-49 and it always nosed down. On one recovery he pulled out too fast and it went into an inverted flat spin from which he quickly recovered. Tucker also reported that with the "Little Herbert" yaw damper engaged the wing was "rock solid", not unstable. Look up "Charles Tucker YB-49".
Edwards was killed because pilot Danny Forbes let the speed build up too fast during a stall recovery, and as a result pulled out too hard (5g's) snapping the outer wing panels off. Without outer wings panels the main section was unstable and went into an unrecoverable inverted flat spin. The main section pretty much burned up, the outer wing panels were recovered intact a few miles away.
The Mk-14 H-bomb introduced in 1954 was too big for the wings, the Mk-15 introduced 6 months later was small enough to be carried by the wings, 1200 of the Mk-15s were made and carried by B-47's. Also the wings could carry 2 Mk-15's, which were about the same size as the Mk-1 Hiroshima atom bomb.
The B-35 prop wing could fly further than the B-36, and much higher, plus had about 10% of the radar cross section.
You are just repeating the lies propagated by AF Secretary Stuart Symington so he could cancel the wings in favor of his rich buddy and later campaign contributor Floyd Odlum's B-36 big target.
What an impressive ole' sled that is. The 1950's Jimmy Stewart move "Strategic Air Command" features the B36. This bird gave way to the B47 then the B52.
I'm starting an internship at Castle Air Force Museum where I'll get to work on one of the four surviving ones! It's an RB-36H. The museum is in Atwater, CA
I was there in 1986. I knew at that time that Chanute was slated for closure. When it closed, all the outdoor display aircraft were moved. The B-36 went -don't quote me- to SAC headquarters, in Omaha. Or maybe to Castle AFB. I don't remember. But they refurbished her very nicely. I have photos of when it was at Chanute, as well as all the display planes. (I'm a plane buff, obviously)....
I once met a fellow in Tucson who designed this plane. He was fascinating to talk to. He also had a hand in the PBY and B-24 and supervised the customizing of one for Churchill. That man saw and made history. One hell of a photo album.
On a train ride from Bakersfield Ca, to Stockton Ca, I looked out the window to see an astonishing site, a collection of amazing war era fighters and bombers, and helicopters. And among them was a huge B-36 Peacemaker and a B-52 Stratofortress, Later when I got home I researched and found out that it was called Castle Air Museum, at the now defunct Castle Air Force Base in or near Atwater, Ca. I hope to visit there one day. Also Travis Air Force Base and March AFB both have amazing collections.
There is a group near Davis Monthan AFB that is working on restoring a B-36 to a flyable status, but I beleive that it to will never be flown. I would love to see it as part of flight show ciricut at least one time.
The last B36 was dissassembled from Ft Worth Tx, shpiped to Pima Air Museum Near Tuscon Az, ronconditionand is now on display.Was there last month 9/2010 beautiful War Bird 4 remainig.. 1 Pima Air museum Arizona, 2. Wright Patterson Air Museun 3. Nebraska Air Museum, 4 Castle AFB,Calif came from Chanute AFB.Have seen 3 of them, 1 more to go Nebraska next one.. > )
Very sad indeed. The only one still complete is at Wright Patterson. It has been stored indoors since its retirement I believe. Perhaps even airworthy but it'll never fly.
it can't only get to abut maybe 8,000 feet(not sure on that one) but nowadays yea you get fighters who can get that high(ie F-15,F-16,Mig-29,Su-33,Su-34)
The first reconnaissance versions of the B-36 (new RB-36D's and modified B-36B's) entered service in 1950, six years before this film was made. As stated below, "Featherweight" was a modification program for existing aircraft, not a new aircraft.
"Project Featherweight" wasn't an experimental "one-off" aircraft. It was a fleet-wide series of modifications of in service B-36's to increase performance. This was done in an attempt to keep the aircraft out of the growing engagement envelope of period Soviet fighters.
a friend spent 30 days continous up in the air in one of these. he was a mech. they would shut down the engine and he would service it, by way of a track down the wings
@acrazedmaniac Your friend is feeding you some B.S. 30 hours is more likely I was an engineer on a "D" . Average flight was 30 to 35 hours . The Record is about 42+. It NEVER had in flight refueling. Also I have about 5 or six in flight hours in the wing. you could only do a very little electrical repair and possibly a little landing gear improvisation.
The plane had to fly below 7 K to do anything.(no o2)
My ming squezz her baby girl nipbo mike came out.
monyeyou 5 days ago
If this plane was stripped down why is it still fitted with guns?
talon55130 4 weeks ago
Great footage, especially the worm's view. Aircraft is an 11th BW B-36 out of Carswell.
lincbond442 1 month ago
An early version, first, the rail wheels. Future ones were fitted with just one large one. Second, the tail belly radars. They are missing.
fiverats1 2 months ago
I have a grad degree in aeronautics, and we studied this monster in a class. Not exactly efficient, but it worked.
However, it was selected over the Northrop Flying Wing because Jack Northrop refused to 'share' the win he was told to do by the US Government.
The 'Wing' was far more efficient.
Hell - they made Northrop even cut them all up. Sad indeed.
Something like Obama would like our military to do with our stuff. A true traitor.
MaxxGladiator 5 months ago
@MaxxGladiator You can blame that idiot Stuart Symington, then Secretary of the Air Force, for killing the Flying Wing because he was in bed with Consolidated Vultee/Convair and stood to gain personal profit by forcing Jack Northrup to merge (which as you stated) refused. My brother worked at Northrup and had a rare chance to meet the great man a few years before his death.
racer500gp 2 months ago
Only one problem with the B-36 climbs to 50,000 feet + video... the aircraft shown is not a featherweighted B-36. I few in both standard and featherweight types and the featherweights had all 20mm gun mounts removed except the twin tail mount. This one clearly shows two 20 mm cannon mounted just in front of the flight deck canopy. The featherweights did get way above 50,000 feet, however.
billcaal 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lol if you vote
fyadcorp 5 months ago
Fake narration.
TheIntruders 6 months ago
I like the technology. The Federal Government is another matter.
MrBEB123 7 months ago
Let's put a Tailhook on it and land it on the Enterprise !!
charger2538 7 months ago
Res ipse loquatur
vonmazur1 8 months ago
Imagine a 1,000 plane raid with this plane.
isuckaman 8 months ago
@isuckaman Just so long as it is not used to kill White People.
MrBEB123 7 months ago
Comon you clowns, stop talking politics. Demo or Repulican it don't matter, they've both sold out our country to special interests. Let's just enjoy these moments of yesteryear. You know when we were a true world power, when we had a president who really cared about the country, like John F. Kennedy.
RobSar63 9 months ago 11
@RobSar63 All JFK did was bang Marilyn when he had a babe at home!
oldfart387 3 months ago
@RobSar63 yeah I asked the cubans that were at the bay of pigs about that, they didn't share your enthusiasm.
bad74maverick1 3 months ago
TalksWithDirt : I believe that if you check the record, you will find the housing market and our economy began to collapse some time after January, 2007, and is now on the road to recovery, 4 years later. This may come as a shock to you, but Nanci Pelosi, the stupidest woman ever to walk the face of this Earth since the dawn of time, is no longer the speaker of the house of representatives.
StephenB58 11 months ago 2
@StephenB58 Yeah right. Recovery. Stop drinking the coolaid they give you. For the record the world is about to slip from a 5 year recession into t full blown depression. Hail Bush, Hail Obama! Forward the Military Industrial Complex to victory.
TalksWithDirt 5 months ago
remember when american was the best at everthing the good and shining, we still are and can be better again! we must stop fighting ourselfs, and we must put aside social issus to focus on bussiness and rebuilding and r&d,and protect our borders
hotrod4you2 11 months ago
We spend entirely too much on war. Man imagine if we as a species were not so savage what could have been done with all the resources we put into our military forces. We'd be having fun colonizing the solar system and enjoying the wealth of exploiting a frontier that would make North America look like a sand box. Beautiful, but in the end what a shame.
TalksWithDirt 11 months ago
@TalksWithDirt these plane are why we have 747 w/ air to air travel you crying liberal
hotrod4you2 11 months ago
@hotrod4you2 No the sequence to the 747 was B-29 -> B-47 -> 720(707) -> then the 747. The '36 was a dead end Convair concept. The reason for American decline is not infighting, we've been doing that since day one. I'd say it's not enough infighting. We're poor because the office of the president can use the military for what ever he wants, and in order to sell t-bonds at a good price we export our industry overseas. We just have to tie down the gov and stop taking sucker deals from Asia.
TalksWithDirt 11 months ago
@TalksWithDirt WRONG. Although the B-36 was built by Convair (now General Dynamics) the bomber was vital for a number of innovations that are in common use today... ...not the least of which was the 4-wheel undercarriage, which was developed to prevent long-term damage to runways from excessive weight/pressure on the tarmac), The 4-wheel undercarriage was designed by Convair for the B-36, and is now used in all "heavies". Without it, the Boeing 747 would never have been built.
555bladerunner 5 months ago
@555bladerunner Sorry Charley. Think about it. What aircraft before the B-36 spread the load with multiple wheels on the mains? Think about it.... It looks kinda like a B-36. I'll bet if you look it up you'll find a paper on runway loading via multi wheel landing gear on some NACA/Langley publication from the 1930's.
TalksWithDirt 5 months ago
@TalksWithDirt No. I was referring specifically to the 4-wheel configuration used in all commercial widebodies today. The MULTI-wheel landing gear was first introduced by the Germans during WW2. However, the current 4-wheel undercarriage that was developed by Convair provides the best equipment mass-to-load bearing ratio and is the least complex of all multi-wheel configurations. It also takes up less internal space... ...all of which make the 4-wheel the carriage of choice for widebodies.
555bladerunner 5 months ago
@555bladerunner Can you provide the optimization function? By my pin headed understanding it will be a function that will have a local first derivative of zero when you take the derivative of concrete load vs number of wheels. See by my pin headed understanding pressure is force divided by area. So a 200,000 lb airplane whos tires constitute a rest area of 16 ft^2 the concrete would have to be rated for 12,500 lb/in^2. But you see in that there is no optimum at 4 wheels/truck. Please explain.
TalksWithDirt 5 months ago
@TalksWithDirt HA! "If you can't dazzle 'em with your brilliance..."...No, of course not, but I doubt the engineers who work widebody designs are so rigid as to mandate an optimum as a design criteria. Once you find a configuration that meets load requirements then you would proceed to find a solution that minimizes cost and maximizes reliabilty; the later, of course, being the most important criteria, since damage to the runway, although critical, is not a crew/passenger safety issue.
555bladerunner 5 months ago
Respond to this video... BTW you're a dumb ass conservative. It's your ilk that took an America victorious over the USSR and 'only' only 4 trillion in debt, with a balanced budget and due to retire the debt by 2030. We'd already be the worlds lender again if it were not for the fact that you conservatives screwed up Afghanistan, Iraq, the 'war on terror (tm)', caused the housing bubble, lowered taxes, sold debit notes like a cheap whore, then bailed out wall street and the banks.
TalksWithDirt 11 months ago
@TalksWithDirt
you should have been a blow job!!!
redneckgregg 10 months ago
@hotrod4you2 What is air-to-air travel exactly? Is that when you leap from one 747 to another? Suppose that would cut down on layover time.
bikingforbrie 11 months ago
2:44 Not a feather-weight version if it still has nose guns.
All turrets except the tail position were removed.
agwhitaker 1 year ago
I miss hearing them...a drone that would buzz your teeth..and a tiny speck 'way up in the sun...Amazing birds, the B36.
sagehopper2006 1 year ago
When I was in the Air Force, they used to call the B-36 "The biggest bomber to never fight a war".
Flash8437 1 year ago
"... In the defense of our country." Is this the same country, that , 55 years later, has forgotten 9/11? The same country that rubs our palms together nervously, trying to figure out how in the world to deal with the illiterate Somali pirates who hold 660 captives, some for years at a time?
zimmerking2 1 year ago
my grampa worked with airplanes then he went to rockets with von braun
mastercheif98612 1 year ago
Now, calling this huge thing 'featherweight' has its merit.
artieroo 1 year ago
From Fort Worth, my father and uncle worked at General Dynamics in the early 50's on the B36. My uncle stayed for 42 years and worked on the 58 next. And then on ever thing else they made. I can remember the 36's coming over my folks house when I was 5-6 yrs old. It is too bad the federal law at the time would not allow any restoration of nuclear platforms and all the 36's were beyond repair at the time of the confederate air force. Quite an aircraft and alot of memories Thanks.
OpheliasWings 1 year ago
I was a B-36 Engine mechanic stationed at Rapid City AFB (Ellsworth today) and Ramey AFB in Puerto Rico. I was sent from Rapid City to the 72nd Strat Recon Wing in Ramey AFB Puerto Rico for the last two years of my hitch. When the B-36s first landed at their new (old base) but remodified runways they shattered the WWII windows out of our barracks. They had a heck of a drone. Our maintenance squadron was close to the flight line. Photos bring back fond memories.
mooaks1 1 year ago
My father was a flight test engineer and flew over 3000 hours in these planes. He was also aboard when they were testing dropping and retrieving a fighter. I still have some of the books and other papers pertaining to this plane and the B-58.
domino5864 1 year ago
@domino5864 So he was on those modified B-36s with the trapese that releases the F-84?
1bearcatf8f 1 year ago
Awesome footage!!! Love the worm's eye view!
lincbond442 1 year ago
The original aluminum overcast.
49bobbyk 1 year ago
I cant imagine the vibration from those 6 props and 4 jets all going at the same time, getting the props in synch must have been a bear.
HuasoPodrido 1 year ago
wow i would love to fly in one of them
boringcabbage 1 year ago
I saw one of these at Strategic Air Command in Omaha. It's breath-taking in person.
pcostel1 1 year ago
I saw one of these up close at Wright Patterson USAF Museum, all I can say is it's massive! I'ts still there as a matter of fact.
TheZepmeister 1 year ago
I like this plane!
kuluku 1 year ago
WHOA
nealshireman 1 year ago
Thanks for posting this. The announcer erred in staying that at 50,000 the plane was cruising in the "troposphere". He meant "the stratosphere"...the troposphere is the lowest part of the atmosphere.
barkochba132 1 year ago 5
This was one of the classic cold war propaganda films. Removing 5 tons was mostly done by not carrying any weapons, and very little fuel - enough to make the climb as stated and return to the ground. The configuration was not operational. Carrying nuclear weapons and a full load of fuel never let it climb much over 24,000 feet, but the initial climb was only possible to 21,000 until enough fuel was burned off.
sailordiver2007 2 years ago
@sailordiver2007 I thought the same the first time I saw this as well. What good is an empty bomber at 50,000 feet. That must of been a hell of an instrument panel at 1:04 (I take it that's the flt. engnr.). I was a jet mech in the '80's on B52 G & H's & they have an impressive array of ancient, electro-mechanical, analog guages as well. Night time was quite the sight with 'em all lit up. But that B-36 & it's 10 engines, an engineering marvel even though it was a waste.
kolbpilot 1 year ago
You are right. pressurized magneto lines failed sporadically. I did fly regularly well over 30K, operationally. Not often.
mhpfiddler 1 year ago
@sailordiver2007 Apparently the last and lightest model, the B-36J could do 58 000 feet, unarmed and with reduced crew
FortunaFortesJuvat 1 year ago
I have to have one of these. So nice.
KiloByte69 2 years ago
Good plane.
kuluku 2 years ago
B-36 was design in a time when it was feared that we would have to bomb Germany from bases in the US. Fortunately, Germany didn't invade Brittain, but it was never certain.
HJMC3345 2 years ago
Government waste of our tax money even back then, the Northrop prop wing could fly just as high and fast, had a low radar return, and only cost half as much.
USAmerican100 2 years ago
@USAmerican100 There is no doubt we've had many great flying machines. But why don't you just can it? You're obnoxious. I've seen your posts on at least one other area. You're obnoxious there as well.
FylthyBeest 2 years ago
@FylthyBeest
Because I want to make sure everyone knows how big money corrupts our government, the government buying the "big stick" instead of the flying wing is one example of the government being bought off (by multimillionaire Floyd Odlum) costing us taxpayers many billions of dollars. There is even a book about it, "Good Men do Something". It is still going on today, if that's being obnoxious then yes I am obnoxious.
USAmerican100 2 years ago
USAmerican100, Yes, you are obnoxious. You are ridiculously obnoxious. Why don't you you do most a favor and shut up? You're an idiot. Moron.
FylthyBeest 2 years ago
The Flying Wings both YB-35 and YB-49 were unstable and when stalled drop tail first into an inverted flat spin. That was what killed Major Edwards. Also neither was designed to carry the H-Bomb of that era the wings were essentially medium bombers.
saepler 2 years ago
@saepler
Wrong, when stalled the wings dropped nose first because a stall causes the center of lift to jump further back. Charles Tucker did a complete stall test series in the YB-49 and it always nosed down. On one recovery he pulled out too fast and it went into an inverted flat spin from which he quickly recovered. Tucker also reported that with the "Little Herbert" yaw damper engaged the wing was "rock solid", not unstable. Look up "Charles Tucker YB-49".
USAmerican100 2 years ago
@saepler
Edwards was killed because pilot Danny Forbes let the speed build up too fast during a stall recovery, and as a result pulled out too hard (5g's) snapping the outer wing panels off. Without outer wings panels the main section was unstable and went into an unrecoverable inverted flat spin. The main section pretty much burned up, the outer wing panels were recovered intact a few miles away.
USAmerican100 2 years ago
@saepler
The Mk-14 H-bomb introduced in 1954 was too big for the wings, the Mk-15 introduced 6 months later was small enough to be carried by the wings, 1200 of the Mk-15s were made and carried by B-47's. Also the wings could carry 2 Mk-15's, which were about the same size as the Mk-1 Hiroshima atom bomb.
The B-35 prop wing could fly further than the B-36, and much higher, plus had about 10% of the radar cross section.
USAmerican100 2 years ago
@saepler
You are just repeating the lies propagated by AF Secretary Stuart Symington so he could cancel the wings in favor of his rich buddy and later campaign contributor Floyd Odlum's B-36 big target.
USAmerican100 2 years ago
I wish there was still one of these flying!
jpatt1000 2 years ago
Yes. Bigger than a Buff. Almost 3 feet longer, 6 feet taller and *45 feet* greater in wing span.
I had the pleasure of seeing one once. It's absolutely enormous.
culbeda 2 years ago
Bigger than a BUFF?
mojame100 2 years ago
Thank God the cold war stayed cold. We could have destroyed humanity...
Nick410s 2 years ago 2
It's "featherweight". :D
peepeevagi 2 years ago
Don' mess with TEXAS!
rvargas68 2 years ago
wow.. nice vid.. awesome vintage aircraft:)
ymanganelli 2 years ago
I see this plane and I'm amazed but how big is the bomb load? Is it near, below or above the B-1? Someone answer.
Skullcrusher4321 2 years ago
it was in service from 1949-59
Maus5000 3 years ago
awesome, i just got a model of this plane, and its freakin amazing! Its awesome! great vid too.
Maus5000 3 years ago
how long was the b-36 in service
5000TRAINS 3 years ago
This is my favorite old school "bomber". The XB-70 Valkerie is my other favorite. But the B-36 is totally unreally, isn't it?
stellarblue51 3 years ago
Was the B36 bigger than the Howard Hugh's spruce goose?
osgood54 3 years ago
The goose got a longer wing.
kcrhk 3 years ago
Ugh's airplane had got 97metres wingspan, where as B-36 has got a 230 feet one (about 70 metres). But I think b-36 could take off with more playload
anisocoro 2 years ago
What an impressive ole' sled that is. The 1950's Jimmy Stewart move "Strategic Air Command" features the B36. This bird gave way to the B47 then the B52.
lowflyingcessna 3 years ago
Are any of these incredible planes that have survived airworthy and if not when is the last time one was in the air?
haworthhoarder 3 years ago
1958 was the last time one flew and none are airworthy although there a couple in museums. The most awesome bomber ever made, period!
racer500gp 3 years ago
I worked on one that was used as an outdoor display at Chanute AFB, Il, in the '80s.
It's been taken apart, moved and refurbed into a beautiful static display at Wright Pat, OH.
Damn thing was HUGE!!!!
Truthseekerfinder 3 years ago
I'm starting an internship at Castle Air Force Museum where I'll get to work on one of the four surviving ones! It's an RB-36H. The museum is in Atwater, CA
jetstream01 3 years ago
"Six turning and four burning" is what the FEs used to say.
Have a ball working on this.
Truthseekerfinder 3 years ago
Hah yeah I've read that too. Thanks will do. Check my profile for videos and pictures of the museum soon.
jetstream01 3 years ago
I've been to Chanute and didn't see the B36. Only one I've seen was at Wright Patterson. Wonder what happened to the Chanute B36?
osgood54 3 years ago
I was there in 1986. I knew at that time that Chanute was slated for closure. When it closed, all the outdoor display aircraft were moved. The B-36 went -don't quote me- to SAC headquarters, in Omaha. Or maybe to Castle AFB. I don't remember. But they refurbished her very nicely. I have photos of when it was at Chanute, as well as all the display planes. (I'm a plane buff, obviously)....
Truthseekerfinder 3 years ago
That was the only B 36 I ever saw. I was there in Feb-Mar '80. If I remember right, it was quite accessable, no fence. Should of taken a pic of it.
kolbpilot 2 years ago
Yup, no fence. It was awesome to do a walk around on it. I took lots of pics of it.
Truthseekerfinder 2 years ago
Sorry, it last flew on Feb 12, 1959. My bad.
racer500gp 3 years ago
funny been called featherweight was probably the heaviest plane on the planet lol
uggla03 3 years ago
I once met a fellow in Tucson who designed this plane. He was fascinating to talk to. He also had a hand in the PBY and B-24 and supervised the customizing of one for Churchill. That man saw and made history. One hell of a photo album.
nomadnametab 3 years ago
I would have liked to see how it would have done as a high altitude conventional bomber
BrynMawrYamBag 3 years ago
WORMCAM!!! LOL
falconlem 3 years ago
50,000ft?? Are they serious?
Andybucker 3 years ago
On a train ride from Bakersfield Ca, to Stockton Ca, I looked out the window to see an astonishing site, a collection of amazing war era fighters and bombers, and helicopters. And among them was a huge B-36 Peacemaker and a B-52 Stratofortress, Later when I got home I researched and found out that it was called Castle Air Museum, at the now defunct Castle Air Force Base in or near Atwater, Ca. I hope to visit there one day. Also Travis Air Force Base and March AFB both have amazing collections.
texocalitunes 3 years ago
imm puting that on my list of places to visit someday... thank you
wowitslou 2 years ago
Six Turning And Two Burning. I remember when
as a child, those things would fly over at high altitude and rattle the dishes in the cabinets.
PistolPete2 3 years ago
my dad back in the 1950s got fly in the b36 as the rear gunner when he was really young
loveforhistory 3 years ago
Four.....burning.
Auggie56 3 years ago
Absolutely awe-inspiring! I wish there were one still flying today. I would love to see it at an air show.
mynameisntowens 3 years ago 2
beautiful aircraft....
cajunhornet60 3 years ago 2
There is a group near Davis Monthan AFB that is working on restoring a B-36 to a flyable status, but I beleive that it to will never be flown. I would love to see it as part of flight show ciricut at least one time.
elwhit95 3 years ago
@elwhit95
The last B36 was dissassembled from Ft Worth Tx, shpiped to Pima Air Museum Near Tuscon Az, ronconditionand is now on display.Was there last month 9/2010 beautiful War Bird 4 remainig.. 1 Pima Air museum Arizona, 2. Wright Patterson Air Museun 3. Nebraska Air Museum, 4 Castle AFB,Calif came from Chanute AFB.Have seen 3 of them, 1 more to go Nebraska next one.. > )
davethomas4061 1 year ago
are there any still in an airworthy state?
grahamkeithtodd 3 years ago
Sadly no. There are only a few left. One is at Wright Patterson AFB in OH.
elwhit95 3 years ago
Very sad indeed. The only one still complete is at Wright Patterson. It has been stored indoors since its retirement I believe. Perhaps even airworthy but it'll never fly.
smokingws6 3 years ago
There is one at the SAC/Cold war Museum
20 Miles west of Omaha NE on I-80
dotnot10 3 years ago
largest combat aircraft ever built
mikedeluco 4 years ago
Sitting duck to any fighter.
zipacna1980 4 years ago
not at 50,000 feet thats were a fighter can't get
mirlin235 4 years ago
not at 50,000 feet thats were a fighter can't get
mirlin235 4 years ago
sopwith camel b-plane?
zipacna1980 4 years ago
HAHAHAHAHA NO
it can't only get to abut maybe 8,000 feet(not sure on that one) but nowadays yea you get fighters who can get that high(ie F-15,F-16,Mig-29,Su-33,Su-34)
mirlin235 4 years ago
Sounds like they were testing its potential
as a spy-plane by stripping off all excess
weight, including bombs and guns--but were not
authorized to say so (if they even KNEW so)
in this newsreel footage.
rredhawk 4 years ago
The first reconnaissance versions of the B-36 (new RB-36D's and modified B-36B's) entered service in 1950, six years before this film was made. As stated below, "Featherweight" was a modification program for existing aircraft, not a new aircraft.
TsurugiJiri 4 years ago
No, they were never used in a war. They were replaced by the jet B-47.
rickd248 4 years ago
were these planes ever used in war.
markmarshall39 4 years ago 2
MY dad served on the bomber crew on the b36 as a tail gunner
joelpatricksimmons 4 years ago
only in the cold war
ch3ck1ds 4 years ago
How come it retained some of its guns if all non-essential components were stripped for this experiment?
myndenway 4 years ago
Well that would be because the guns were not considered non-essential. Fairly obvious really.
technoslurp 4 years ago
Makes no sense. It does not need the guns for the experiment.
myndenway 4 years ago
"Project Featherweight" wasn't an experimental "one-off" aircraft. It was a fleet-wide series of modifications of in service B-36's to increase performance. This was done in an attempt to keep the aircraft out of the growing engagement envelope of period Soviet fighters.
TsurugiJiri 4 years ago
not possible, the B36 was not equiped for air to air refueling
cornskid 4 years ago
ya....thanks.
a friend spent 30 days continous up in the air in one of these. he was a mech. they would shut down the engine and he would service it, by way of a track down the wings
acrazedmaniac 4 years ago
@acrazedmaniac Your friend is feeding you some B.S. 30 hours is more likely I was an engineer on a "D" . Average flight was 30 to 35 hours . The Record is about 42+. It NEVER had in flight refueling. Also I have about 5 or six in flight hours in the wing. you could only do a very little electrical repair and possibly a little landing gear improvisation.
The plane had to fly below 7 K to do anything.(no o2)
mhpfiddler 1 year ago
@mhpfiddler Wow, how many people can say that. The B36 is rare enough but you got to ride in the B49 as well. Exclusive indeed. Hats off.
kolbpilot 1 year ago
Thanks
denberg2 4 years ago
Great find, thanks for sharing
Bomberguy 4 years ago