Comments on: ATOM-BOMBER Carries 3 Jet Fighters http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/09/02/atom-bomber-carries-3-jet-fighters/ Yesterday's tomorrow, today. Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:42:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Odon http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/09/02/atom-bomber-carries-3-jet-fighters/#comment-493313 Odon Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:27:16 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/09/02/atom-bomber-carries-3-jet-fighters/#comment-493313 [i]"(we can) strike anywhere in the world where aggression against us could start." The bomber is so designed that “there is nowhere in the world that can’t be bombed” from North America.[/i] Striking aggressively against aggression! [i]“(we can) strike anywhere in the world where aggression against us could start.” The bomber is so designed that “there is nowhere in the world that can’t be bombed” from North America.[/i]

Striking aggressively against aggression!

]]> By: tommyrot http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/09/02/atom-bomber-carries-3-jet-fighters/#comment-465734 tommyrot Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:47:06 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/09/02/atom-bomber-carries-3-jet-fighters/#comment-465734 People expected there to be a big boom in post-WWII air travel, so Consolidated tried to sell the C-99 as a civilian passenger plane. The expected boom didn't materialize and no civilian C-99s were sold. (Only the single XC-99 was built.) With the advent of jet transports, the economics of commercial air travel were much improved, so the '60s finally saw a boom in air travel. This led to the 747, the first passenger plane with greater capacity than the XC-99. People expected there to be a big boom in post-WWII air travel, so Consolidated tried to sell the C-99 as a civilian passenger plane. The expected boom didn’t materialize and no civilian C-99s were sold. (Only the single XC-99 was built.)

With the advent of jet transports, the economics of commercial air travel were much improved, so the ’60s finally saw a boom in air travel. This led to the 747, the first passenger plane with greater capacity than the XC-99.

]]> By: Firebrand38 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/09/02/atom-bomber-carries-3-jet-fighters/#comment-463520 Firebrand38 Mon, 03 Sep 2007 04:18:49 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/09/02/atom-bomber-carries-3-jet-fighters/#comment-463520 On another note, it's interesting that they mention the "compressibility" problem (sound barrier) as a defense. This was just a couple months after the Air Force had announced the secret that the X-1 had broken the sound barrier in 1947. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,794037,00.html The author definitely gives the impression that the B-36 would carry a full bomb load and three fighters as well. I especially liked the breathless reference to carrying 400 soldiers. I'm sure the Strategic Air Command and Curtis LeMay would have loved to sigh up for that mission with their new bomber. More accurately, there was actually a cargo plane prototype built on the B-36 airframe; the XC-99 http://www.visi.com/~jweeks/b36/xc99.html and yes, it would carry 400 soldiers. On another note, it’s interesting that they mention the “compressibility” problem (sound barrier) as a defense.

This was just a couple months after the Air Force had announced the secret that the X-1 had broken the sound barrier in 1947. http://www.time.com/time/magaz.....37,00.html

The author definitely gives the impression that the B-36 would carry a full bomb load and three fighters as well.

I especially liked the breathless reference to carrying 400 soldiers. I’m sure the Strategic Air Command and Curtis LeMay would have loved to sigh up for that mission with their new bomber.

More accurately, there was actually a cargo plane prototype built on the B-36 airframe; the XC-99 http://www.visi.com/~jweeks/b36/xc99.html and yes, it would carry 400 soldiers.

]]> By: Firebrand38 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/09/02/atom-bomber-carries-3-jet-fighters/#comment-462555 Firebrand38 Sun, 02 Sep 2007 23:17:55 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/09/02/atom-bomber-carries-3-jet-fighters/#comment-462555 Here is the fact sheet on the XF-85 Goblin. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=586 Here is the fact sheet on the XF-85 Goblin.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.m.....asp?id=586

]]> By: Stannous http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/09/02/atom-bomber-carries-3-jet-fighters/#comment-461558 Stannous Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:25:57 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/09/02/atom-bomber-carries-3-jet-fighters/#comment-461558 Report on the XP-85 test: The first free flight came on August 28, 1948. The test pilot detached his XF-85 from the EB-29B and flew free for 15 minutes while he evaluated the handling properties of the new fighter. However, when it came time to re-hook, he ran into trouble. The XF-85 was caught in violent air turbulence underneath the parent aircraft. After ten minutes of futile attempts to hook onto the trapeze, the XF-85 was slammed up against the trapeze and the canopy was shattered. Fortunately, the pilot was uninjured and he managed to make an emergency landing on the dry lake bed below. Following repairs, 46-524 made three flights on October 14 and 15 of 1948. Three successful recoveries were made, although each one of them was a rather harrowing experience for all concerned. However, on the fifth flight, more trouble was encountered. The removal of the temporary fairing around the base of the hook resulted in severe turbulence and loss of directional stability, forcing the pilot to make another emergency landing. Vertical surfaces were added to the wingtips in an attempt to improve directional stability while flying in the turbulent air underneath the EB-29B. However, this did not help very much, and the sixth XF-85 flight ended in yet another emergency landing on the lakebed. The same fate awaited 46-523 on April 8, 1949, when it made its first and only flight. In spite of the problems encountered with recovery, the XF-85 handled quite well in ordinary flight. Report on the XP-85 test:
The first free flight came on August 28, 1948. The test pilot detached his XF-85 from the EB-29B and flew free for 15 minutes while he evaluated the handling properties of the new fighter. However, when it came time to re-hook, he ran into trouble. The XF-85 was caught in violent air turbulence underneath the parent aircraft. After ten minutes of futile attempts to hook onto the trapeze, the XF-85 was slammed up against the trapeze and the canopy was shattered. Fortunately, the pilot was uninjured and he managed to make an emergency landing on the dry lake bed below.

Following repairs, 46-524 made three flights on October 14 and 15 of 1948. Three successful recoveries were made, although each one of them was a rather harrowing experience for all concerned. However, on the fifth flight, more trouble was encountered. The removal of the temporary fairing around the base of the hook resulted in severe turbulence and loss of directional stability, forcing the pilot to make another emergency landing. Vertical surfaces were added to the wingtips in an attempt to improve directional stability while flying in the turbulent air underneath the EB-29B. However, this did not help very much, and the sixth XF-85 flight ended in yet another emergency landing on the lakebed. The same fate awaited 46-523 on April 8, 1949, when it made its first and only flight.

In spite of the problems encountered with recovery, the XF-85 handled quite well in ordinary flight.

]]> By: tommyrot http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/09/02/atom-bomber-carries-3-jet-fighters/#comment-461212 tommyrot Sun, 02 Sep 2007 15:58:51 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/09/02/atom-bomber-carries-3-jet-fighters/#comment-461212 Yeah, the whole parasite fighter thing didn't work that well. The combination of a tiny fighter with a short wingspan and horizontal stabilizer set close to the wing made it somewhat unstable. Trying to fly such a plane near a giant bomber and all the turbulence the bomber created was difficult and dangerous. The program was abandoned and never implemented operationally. The B-36 could also carry a conventional jet fighter semi-externally. This worked better. These were even used to conduct secret (and illegal) reconnaissance flights over the Soviet Union - the B-36 would carry the fighter near the Soviet border and then the fighter would make a dash over Soviet territory and take pictures. The fighter would then rendezvous with the B-36 which would carry it back to the US. Some Wikipedia info on the B-36/F-84 parasite program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FICON_project Yeah, the whole parasite fighter thing didn’t work that well. The combination of a tiny fighter with a short wingspan and horizontal stabilizer set close to the wing made it somewhat unstable. Trying to fly such a plane near a giant bomber and all the turbulence the bomber created was difficult and dangerous. The program was abandoned and never implemented operationally.

The B-36 could also carry a conventional jet fighter semi-externally. This worked better. These were even used to conduct secret (and illegal) reconnaissance flights over the Soviet Union - the B-36 would carry the fighter near the Soviet border and then the fighter would make a dash over Soviet territory and take pictures. The fighter would then rendezvous with the B-36 which would carry it back to the US.

Some Wikipedia info on the B-36/F-84 parasite program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FICON_project

]]> By: jayessell http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/09/02/atom-bomber-carries-3-jet-fighters/#comment-460966 jayessell Sun, 02 Sep 2007 14:22:28 +0000 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/09/02/atom-bomber-carries-3-jet-fighters/#comment-460966 Didn't tests prove it nearly impossibe to recover the parasite fighters? The pilots weren't officially Kamikazees were they? (In a hot war I suppose they'd would have been.) I'm looking forward to the comments from the aviation fans. Didn’t tests prove it nearly impossibe to recover the parasite fighters?

The pilots weren’t officially Kamikazees were they?
(In a hot war I suppose they’d would have been.)

I’m looking forward to the comments from the aviation fans.

]]>