Cold War Bombers

[Grimdopple]

wasn't there a program to retrofit a nuclear powered engine on the b 36?

[maddox0110]

@Grimdopple Yes and no. There was a B36 that was fitted with a small nuclear reactor for test purposes. The main test was to see if there could be adequate radiation protection for the crew. Yes, that was possible. Unfortunatly, only the crew was protected, the enviroment elsewere wasn't. A very popular plane by the airfield and maintenance crews...

The reactor didn't do more than fission fuel and make heat.

[mojofuel62]

I wanted to personally thank you for uploading this treasure trove of wonderful material. Although I never served in the military, my father is a Colonel (Ret.) in the USAF, so, needless to say seeing what you've been kind enough to share is for me like walking down memory lane. Keep them coming!

[datzfast]

i Remember seeing at least fifty flush at one time from Robbins AFB, talk about a trail of smoke in the air, it was amazing, Now days it would be an EPA issue

[ripperduck]

What years were these newsreels first shown???

[doormagic]

And the XB-70 Valkyrie ?

[ryannewman4life]

have been near one turning take off loud as hell cause we live near barkstale airfirce

[ripperduck]

What gigantic planes! How much gas did these machines need??????

[raynus1]

@ripperduck: the B-36 had a fuel capacity of 29,995 gallons.

[theedrstrangelove]

the wing span was more than twice as long as the first powered flight at kitty hawk!

[DEP717]

Wow the B-60 was pimping. Even if it lost out to the B-52 that's an awesome plane!

Hard to believe the same guy designed the massive B-36 and the speedy B-58!

[Eirik36]

did u know that the B-36 is actually larger than the B-52 and almost the same bomb capacity, but the B-52 was apx 200mph faster

[raynus1]

@Eirik36: The B-36 could carry up to 86,000lbs of bombs, compared to the B-52's 70,000lbs.

[Eirik36]

@raynus1 true but most of the time the B-36 used about 70,000lb bomb load

[raynus1]

@Eirik36: Correct. 72, 000lbs was considered to be the normal bombload.

[kolbpilot]

@DEP717 Wow, I never knew that. Talk about a contrast in design. What a talented guy. ps....never knew of the B 60 either (thanks Bomberguy) but it kinda' has an old Soviet look to it as it comes towards ya.

[binaway]

@kolbpilot B60 was basically a jet powered B-36. Over 80% of the parts were the same

[USAmerican100]

If AF Secretary Symington had not killed the flying wings, an improved version with J-57 jet engines would have had significant cost and survivability advantage over the B-52.

If not for corrupt politicians the US could have had a stealth jet bomber in service during the 1950's.

[USAmerican100]

The B-36 was just a very expensive, giant target. The B-35 flying wing was half the cost, flew faster and higher, and had a low radar return. So of course Convair owner Floyd Odlum bribed Air Force Secretary Symington into buying the worthless B-36.

[bernard240vdc]

it is quite amusing to look at the landing gear on the early b36 consisting of humoungous single wheels on the mains they replaced that with multiple wheel gear on later  models

[pupkrazee]

i thought it was convair that made it

[neep28]

It was Convair who made it. Consolidated Vultee Aircraft - Convair.

[rvargas68]

Don't mess with Texas!

[TheCannonofMohammed]

The original B-36 had the tundra tires for rough/short field work in Alaska. It could land on gravel river bars, beaches, etc.

[78720]

it couldnt land up on bases in here

[KnowOnesSon]

My grandfather built B-36s for Consolidated at the Fort Worth plant in like '49. Did any of you know that The wingspan is the same 230 feet, but the fuselage is 23 feet longer at 185 feet. The payload of the XC-99 was 101,000 pounds. And the XC-99 with the radar nose cone was just sitting at Kelly AFB in San Antonio Texas but it is now in the process of being disassembled and restored at Wright Patterson Air Force Base and then it is going to the National Museum of the Airforce in Ohio.

[alpissa]

sure

[Commiton]

Lot's of people have had a far rougher lot in life for a long time than most of us here can conceive of. All kinds of religions go bad when people are hungry and put down. We're more likely to go the right way with our "enemies" if we remember they're also part of the human family and not decide they're some kind of deviant offshoot from humanity. The NAZIs did that. We Americans aren't angels but we stand against that kind of shit and helped kick Hitlers ass to back it up.

Buy you a beer?

[Commiton]

The Middle East (and Africa) didn't get to settle down after WW II. First the Europeans with remaining colonies carried on their historic oppression and exploitation. Then they became Cold War U.S.S.R. and U.S. satellite dictatorships and battlegrounds where the two Superpowers fought each other for half a century. If that had been going on in your hometown for half a century what would It look like? What kind of social progress would have been made? How would people live?

[Commiton]

Thanks Bomberguy, I've been digging your postings. Historical, visual, period reports and music. Great editing. When I watch some of this stuff it's really helps me think about all the history I know from the period. I have not to watch and study to the point of wasting time I have work to do in!

Yep.

Nothing like airplanes to lift your eyes and your spirits. Even if they have to get used in wars too.

[DRV275]

Missile technology has made these bombers virtually obsolete. But it's interesting to note that the Cold War was the motivation for all this bomber technology. Now with the Cold War over and America's bad guys a bunch of primitive Islamic terrorists who slink around like lizards hiding amongst the civilian populace, the USA is not really challenged and as such, technology has slowed.

[legosrule45]

awesome

[dorkf1sh]

My AFJROTC instructor was a flight engineer on the Big Stick. He loved those beasties (and I mean that in a sexual way). He related 2 facts I'll never forget:

1) He could walk to most of the engines INSIDE the wing during flight;

2) Landing with more than 4 of the engines turning was considered quite an accomplishment.

He was broken hearted when they retired them in '59.

[Archivesman1]

The B-52, while an old bomber, has been modified many times, and still does an admirable job of performing its mission. It is also superior to Russia's Tu-95, which is the important issue. The B-52 is projected to be with us for many years to come.

[ralpher05]

Here is a little trivia. The B-52 has no alerons. It only has flaps. I asked a B-52 pilot about it and he said they can use flaps to keep plane level. It also has 4 sets of wheels which can all turn. It can land seemingly sideways given a good crosswind.

[pjotrtje0NL]

You're correct about the ailerons, but you're forgetting something important: the B-52 is controlled by using spoilers on the upper side of the outer wing sections. These spoilers control the roll rate of the aircraft and are as such primary control surfaces, whereas on other aircraft spoilers are just 'lift dumpers'.

[xoio]

It also has a pathetic little rudder, thus not being being able to Yaw quickly.

[xoio]

You gotta admit, the TU-95 is still a cool plane!

A prop that cruises at Mach 0.83 & flat out can do M 0.88

[taofledermaus]

You look at these planes now and most look dated and obsolete. Then you see the B52, which is still in service and will be for years to come.

To put that into perspective, it would be like having a fleet of Wright Flyers still in service into the 1960's.

[barofsolitude]

"Six turning and four burning," baby! What made the B-36 cool was its decadence. I mean, just *look* at the thing.

[usm7j]

I was an AF brat in the 50's & 60's-you could hear the B-36's distinct drone long before the plane appeared. Sad to say, the '36 was obsolete before it entered service.

[Rhenoism]

"The world's largest land-based bomber..."

It of course is outclassed by the carrier bombers which are even larger?

[bootsjordan]

that bomber is as big as half and aircraft carrier so how could that be? the biggest carrier bomber is about a tenth of a size of the peacemaker

[1z1q]

what was the official name of the b-36? i.e.b58 hustler b29 superfortress

[robinoi]

i think it was the b-36 revolting bastard

[sierrakilo99]

lol

[cptsneed]

It was the "Peacemaker."

[peepeevagi]

FOrt worth, Texas bitches!

Gawd i love my city.

[elroto]

this video shows a very early version of the big stick (b-36). the single main gear was changed to the multi wheeled main gear

[greenhornet59]

was USAF Brat saw B-36's at Offutt in 1951.

My Dad was a maintenance chief; he told me the B-36 would have been a sitting duck for Soviet rockets and MIGs, Very Big but VERY slow.

[hwoods01]

Yes, later in its life span.. remember, the B-36 was designed in the middle 40's.. Things change over time, and later in life it was, like all bombers, eventually outdated by SAM's and MIG's. Thats why we now have ICBM's.

[totteringtart]

i always thought the bigger a target is the easier it is to destroy ,well you know what they say about men with big toys ,prickless ie american.

[SHNOOKY0206]

MY DAD FLEW ONE OF THOSE B-36s.

[terl47]

Mightiest Bomber in History !!! wow what a claim. !!! Has someone forgotten the RAF Vulcan, didn't that get over Washington undetected ( at the height of the cold war) !! I think that was a real show of ability!!.

PS We still have one flying ( really do) .. So dont threaten us folks !! ( Joke)

[totteringtart]

you are right the vulcan is a classic and its british ,

[jers59]

vulcan had small bomb load only 21.000 LBS, B52 bomb load 70.000LBS

[gingerbeer3]

well done you can use wikipedia

[jers59]

truth hurts sometimes

[gingerbeer3]

not really

[88Thyra]

we-hoo , and any one can write it..we-hoo

[HenryOdd]

Great, thanks for sharing Bomberguy! 5 stars

[pothoxallmighty2]

cool, 4 stars.