The Atomic Bomber p.1(5)

[REPOMAN24722]

After a while, wouldnt an engine fail?

[jbfrodsham]

The spitfire could have been equipped with long range foul tanks as early as 1940, but bomber command had a commitment to the elect gun turret. This cost the lives of 10s of 1000s of airmen, this is a fact that NO ONE talks about, guns on a bomber are useless!!

[jbfrodsham]

I am going to have a drink and watch this, thanks for posting this! I love the power to cheap to metre!

[JohnyBravoSix]

great!

I have made myself a cappuccino and now I gonna enjoy watching this.

thanks for posting! :)

[Haffschlappe]

Prof. Cus Habong was chief engineer of this project!

[MNanme1z4xs]

This thing does look like the areal base idea from Ace Combat.

[EricBarbman]

A nuclear engine with radioactive fuel in planes ? What could possibily go wrong ?

[Corristo89]

great idea if you need extreme range, but what if one is shot down? a nuclear reactor with uranium/plutonium exploding somewhere in the stratosphere? smart... the 50s and 60s were odd in that way. there were supposed to be nuclear powered cars for everyone. no one had any idea of the extreme dangers of radioactivity.

[chokedad]

There was no intention of flying the plane for months. The critical term here is 'theoretically'. The actual aim was to increase range.

[terentii]

@chokedad I believe the ability to orbit on-station for prolonged periods of time was a consideration as well. The bomber would leave its holding pattern and penetrate Soviet (or Chinese) airspace once the final order to launch an attack was given. (If you've never read "Fail-Safe" or "Red Alert," do. I highly recommend both books; the latter served as the basis for the movie "Dr. Strangelove.")

[westlock]

Even if the technical problems had been solved, what aircrew could spend months in a cramped bomber? Nuclear propulsion only makes sense for subs, ships and spacecraft.

[terentii]

@westlock I wondered about that myself. It isn't just a question of "crew endurance." It's a question of supplying the crew with food, fresh water, personal hygiene, waste management, laundry, recreational facilities, sleeping quarters, and so on. Plus, you would need at least two rotating watches (no one could be on permanent duty 24 hours a day). This isn't a description of a strategic bomber, it's a bloody submarine (or starship)!

[circusboy90210]

@terentii too bad nobody would've made it more popular today with the technology available now.

[MrDarkAbsolute]

@terentii Such an aircraft today would probably be a drone... that would solve the problem.

[terentii]

@MrDarkAbsolute Or a cruise missile.

I once asked the flight engineer of a C-5A how long they could theoretically stay aloft with in-flight refueling and a relief crew. He said the crucial factor was the oil in the engines, which would (as I recall) have to be changed after 100 hours or so. I suspect the same would be true for a nuclear engine, since it too would have moving parts. I also suspect 4--5 days would be the limit of crew endurance in such cramped quarters, too.

[MrDarkAbsolute]

@terentii didn't thought about that but it is logic, you're right ;)

And after five days in such an environement you're too much subject to make errors...

thanks!

[cobrachoppergirl]

The US government and military needs to stop buidling weapons to provoke the world.

[BH206L3]

@cobrachoppergirl So I guess we Americans should not be allowed to defend ourselves. Yea right.

[guppyworld540]

2:00...ME 109?

[marick626]

I wonder if one of those atomic aircraft ever did fly, what would have happened if one of those ever had to do a crash landing or something.

[usmc7242]

@marick626 they redid a B-36 or B-50 with an atomic reactor, it did work, but was very impractacle

[TheTomyossarian]

@usmc7242 hell yeah it was impractical! It spewed gawd-awful amounts of radiation into the air, which made it impossible to take-off or land without turning the vicinity around the airfield into a Chernobyl-esque hot zone...

[scavenom2008]

I agree but that is true only if the open reactor design is chosen.

[Ayrshore]

@TheTomyossarian

A little OTT there, but yes, the direct cycle engine was never going to be the way forward.

[Ayrshore]

@marick626

The Americans flew a B36 with one fitted, but it didn't power the plane. The Russians flew one that was nuclear-powered, the Tu119

[nelsonmars]

WTF is up with the sound variations?

[statist0815]

I'm the only one who notice that Discochannel has everytime the same faces with different names and professions?

Right. I don't like Georgi Jerevan :-)

[Humbertusmarius]

I did all the 3D modeling and animation for the series. Thanks for posting, this brings back good memories. By the way check out my new stuff on my channel.

Cheers.

[tweedlebeetles]

This is relevant to my interests.

Thanks chum!

[judeskii]

lovethis show. thanks for uploading.