John.
 

Hey John, I saw a picture of a heavy bomber circa just post WW II that had 6 reverse runny internal combustion engines and four jets on near the ends of the wings. From the serial number on the fuselage they had to have made at least 100 of these things but I've never heard of them before. Do you know what these things were? They appeared to have forward and aft gunnery positions So it had to have an extremely long range where they couldn't keep fighter cover.

John.
 

On 3/4/2021 5:17 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Hey John, I saw a picture of a heavy bomber circa just post WW II that had 6 reverse runny internal combustion engines and four jets on near the ends of the wings. From the serial number on the fuselage they had to have made at least 100 of these things but I've never heard of them before. Do you know what these things were? They appeared to have forward and aft gunnery positions So it had to have an extremely long range where they couldn't keep fighter cover.


Easy.
Convair B.36. Nothing else like it.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

John.
 

On Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 3:37:15 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/4/2021 5:17 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Hey John, I saw a picture of a heavy bomber circa just post WW II that had 6 reverse runny internal combustion engines and four jets on near the ends of the wings. From the serial number on the fuselage they had to have made at least 100 of these things but I've never heard of them before. Do you know what these things were? They appeared to have forward and aft gunnery positions So it had to have an extremely long range where they couldn't keep fighter cover.

Easy.
Convair B.36. Nothing else like it.

I'd like to know why they chose pusher props rather than he more standard approach. They were building some rather spectacular planes then. The B58 was a supersonic bomber with a 3000 mile range. This was unbelievable. They built a hundred of those things but they seemed to go out of service really fast so I guess it simply could not handle the stresses of supersonic flight. Being a delta wing, it was very stable in all conditions and I suppose it qualified as a medium bomber though with nuclear capability. **** and git as it were. That B36 had to have superior altitude and speed on the B50 that John worked with.

John.
 

On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 15:17:22 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Hey John, I saw a picture of a heavy bomber circa just post WW II that had 6 reverse runny internal combustion engines and four jets on near the ends of the wings. From the serial number on the fuselage they had to have made at least 100 of these things but I've never heard of them before. Do you know what these things were? They appeared to have forward and aft gunnery positions So it had to have an extremely long range where they couldn't keep fighter cover.

It was a B-36D and there was an early version (B-36B?) with only the
receips..

They had a 15 man crew and could carry something like 80,000 lbs of
bombs and had 20mm cannon in the turrets rather then the 50 cal in
other bombers. The upper and lower turrets retracted into the fuselage
and there were a nose and tail fixed turret.and they had a range of
something like 10,000 miles, at 240 mph, or something like 40 hours
flying time. There was also a RB-36 photo reconnaissance version,

Two of my gunners on the RB-50 crew had been assigned to B-36's and
used to tell wild stories about 4 day flights.

They were replaced by the B-52 and I read that the last SAC B-36 was
scrapped in 1959.
--
Cheers,

John B.

John.
 

On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 16:06:57 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 3:37:15 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/4/2021 5:17 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Hey John, I saw a picture of a heavy bomber circa just post WW II that had 6 reverse runny internal combustion engines and four jets on near the ends of the wings. From the serial number on the fuselage they had to have made at least 100 of these things but I've never heard of them before. Do you know what these things were? They appeared to have forward and aft gunnery positions So it had to have an extremely long range where they couldn't keep fighter cover.

Easy.
Convair B.36. Nothing else like it.

I'd like to know why they chose pusher props rather than he more standard approach. They were building some rather spectacular planes then. The B58 was a supersonic bomber with a 3000 mile range. This was unbelievable. They built a hundred of those things but they seemed to go out of service really fast so I guess it simply could not handle the stresses of supersonic flight. Being a delta wing, it was very stable in all conditions and I suppose it qualified as a medium bomber though with nuclear capability. **** and git as it were. That B36 had to have superior altitude and speed on the B50 that John worked with.

Re pusher props, it might have to do with airflow over the wings which
would be turbulent air behind the conventional forward facing
engine/prop so lift per square foot of wing area might be greater in
the reversed engine models.
--
Cheers,

John B.

John.
 

On Friday, March 5, 2021 at 3:22:09 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 16:06:57 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 3:37:15 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/4/2021 5:17 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Hey John, I saw a picture of a heavy bomber circa just post WW II that had 6 reverse runny internal combustion engines and four jets on near the ends of the wings. From the serial number on the fuselage they had to have made at least 100 of these things but I've never heard of them before. Do you know what these things were? They appeared to have forward and aft gunnery positions So it had to have an extremely long range where they couldn't keep fighter cover.

Easy.
Convair B.36. Nothing else like it.

I'd like to know why they chose pusher props rather than he more standard approach. They were building some rather spectacular planes then. The B58 was a supersonic bomber with a 3000 mile range. This was unbelievable. They built a hundred of those things but they seemed to go out of service really fast so I guess it simply could not handle the stresses of supersonic flight. Being a delta wing, it was very stable in all conditions and I suppose it qualified as a medium bomber though with nuclear capability. **** and git as it were. That B36 had to have superior altitude and speed on the B50 that John worked with.
Re pusher props, it might have to do with airflow over the wings which
would be turbulent air behind the conventional forward facing
engine/prop so lift per square foot of wing area might be greater in
the reversed engine models.

With that sort of bomb load I suppose they needed every ounce of lift they could get.

John.
 

On Sat, 6 Mar 2021 12:26:11 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, March 5, 2021 at 3:22:09 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 16:06:57 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 3:37:15 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/4/2021 5:17 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Hey John, I saw a picture of a heavy bomber circa just post WW II that had 6 reverse runny internal combustion engines and four jets on near the ends of the wings. From the serial number on the fuselage they had to have made at least 100 of these things but I've never heard of them before. Do you know what these things were? They appeared to have forward and aft gunnery positions So it had to have an extremely long range where they couldn't keep fighter cover.

Easy.
Convair B.36. Nothing else like it.

I'd like to know why they chose pusher props rather than he more standard approach. They were building some rather spectacular planes then. The B58 was a supersonic bomber with a 3000 mile range. This was unbelievable. They built a hundred of those things but they seemed to go out of service really fast so I guess it simply could not handle the stresses of supersonic flight. Being a delta wing, it was very stable in all conditions and I suppose it qualified as a medium bomber though with nuclear capability. **** and git as it were. That B36 had to have superior altitude and speed on the B50 that John worked with.
Re pusher props, it might have to do with airflow over the wings which
would be turbulent air behind the conventional forward facing
engine/prop so lift per square foot of wing area might be greater in
the reversed engine models.

With that sort of bomb load I suppose they needed every ounce of lift they could get.

Don't forget the fuel load to fly for 40 hours. Without in air
refueling.
--
Cheers,

John B.

John.
 

On Saturday, March 6, 2021 at 2:47:28 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 6 Mar 2021 12:26:11 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, March 5, 2021 at 3:22:09 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 16:06:57 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 3:37:15 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/4/2021 5:17 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Hey John, I saw a picture of a heavy bomber circa just post WW II that had 6 reverse runny internal combustion engines and four jets on near the ends of the wings. From the serial number on the fuselage they had to have made at least 100 of these things but I've never heard of them before. Do you know what these things were? They appeared to have forward and aft gunnery positions So it had to have an extremely long range where they couldn't keep fighter cover.

Easy.
Convair B.36. Nothing else like it.

I'd like to know why they chose pusher props rather than he more standard approach. They were building some rather spectacular planes then. The B58 was a supersonic bomber with a 3000 mile range. This was unbelievable. They built a hundred of those things but they seemed to go out of service really fast so I guess it simply could not handle the stresses of supersonic flight. Being a delta wing, it was very stable in all conditions and I suppose it qualified as a medium bomber though with nuclear capability. **** and git as it were. That B36 had to have superior altitude and speed on the B50 that John worked with.
Re pusher props, it might have to do with airflow over the wings which
would be turbulent air behind the conventional forward facing
engine/prop so lift per square foot of wing area might be greater in
the reversed engine models.

With that sort of bomb load I suppose they needed every ounce of lift they could get.
Don't forget the fuel load to fly for 40 hours. Without in air
refueling.

Just noticed a youtube video "Dark Skies" had a video about the B50 and the first bomber to fly around the world. Rather funny that the B50 was refueled by an RB50.

John.
 

On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 15:19:04 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Saturday, March 6, 2021 at 2:47:28 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 6 Mar 2021 12:26:11 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, March 5, 2021 at 3:22:09 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 16:06:57 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 3:37:15 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/4/2021 5:17 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Hey John, I saw a picture of a heavy bomber circa just post WW II that had 6 reverse runny internal combustion engines and four jets on near the ends of the wings. From the serial number on the fuselage they had to have made at least 100 of these things but I've never heard of them before. Do you know what these things were? They appeared to have forward and aft gunnery positions So it had to have an extremely long range where they couldn't keep fighter cover.

Easy.
Convair B.36. Nothing else like it.

I'd like to know why they chose pusher props rather than he more standard approach. They were building some rather spectacular planes then. The B58 was a supersonic bomber with a 3000 mile range. This was unbelievable. They built a hundred of those things but they seemed to go out of service really fast so I guess it simply could not handle the stresses of supersonic flight. Being a delta wing, it was very stable in all conditions and I suppose it qualified as a medium bomber though with nuclear capability. **** and git as it were. That B36 had to have superior altitude and speed on the B50 that John worked with.
Re pusher props, it might have to do with airflow over the wings which
would be turbulent air behind the conventional forward facing
engine/prop so lift per square foot of wing area might be greater in
the reversed engine models.

With that sort of bomb load I suppose they needed every ounce of lift they could get.
Don't forget the fuel load to fly for 40 hours. Without in air
refueling.

Just noticed a youtube video "Dark Skies" had a video about the B50 and the first bomber to fly around the world. Rather funny that the B50 was refueled by an RB50.

Lucky Lady, but was it KB-50's that refueled it or KB-29's?
--
Cheers,

John B.

John.
 

On 3/26/2021 7:30 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 15:19:04 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Saturday, March 6, 2021 at 2:47:28 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 6 Mar 2021 12:26:11 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, March 5, 2021 at 3:22:09 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 16:06:57 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 3:37:15 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/4/2021 5:17 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
Hey John, I saw a picture of a heavy bomber circa just post WW II that had 6 reverse runny internal combustion engines and four jets on near the ends of the wings. From the serial number on the fuselage they had to have made at least 100 of these things but I've never heard of them before. Do you know what these things were? They appeared to have forward and aft gunnery positions So it had to have an extremely long range where they couldn't keep fighter cover.

Easy.
Convair B.36. Nothing else like it.

I'd like to know why they chose pusher props rather than he more standard approach. They were building some rather spectacular planes then. The B58 was a supersonic bomber with a 3000 mile range. This was unbelievable. They built a hundred of those things but they seemed to go out of service really fast so I guess it simply could not handle the stresses of supersonic flight. Being a delta wing, it was very stable in all conditions and I suppose it qualified as a medium bomber though with nuclear capability. **** and git as it were. That B36 had to have superior altitude and speed on the B50 that John worked with.
Re pusher props, it might have to do with airflow over the wings which
would be turbulent air behind the conventional forward facing
engine/prop so lift per square foot of wing area might be greater in
the reversed engine models.

With that sort of bomb load I suppose they needed every ounce of lift they could get.
Don't forget the fuel load to fly for 40 hours. Without in air
refueling.

Just noticed a youtube video "Dark Skies" had a video about the B50 and the first bomber to fly around the world. Rather funny that the B50 was refueled by an RB50.

Lucky Lady, but was it KB-50's that refueled it or KB-29's?


I knew nothing of it but yes, you're right. Here's a nice
web page:


https://www.fai.org/news/lucky-lady-...d-world-flight

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971