I was so surprised to learn the B-1 holds more ordinance than the colossal B-52. Ignoring the B-1's hardpoints, this beast holds even more than the B-1 (internally). Amazing.
There are some fun facts about the B-36 Peacemaker. It's a larger aircraft than the B-52 Stratofortress. It can carry more ordinance, has a higher takeoff weight, and has a longer range than the B-52 Stratofortress. So why was it replaced? The cruising speed of a B-36 was only 230 miles an hour. About the same as a World War II bomber. Literally could be intercepted by a biplane. The cruising speed of a B-52 is over 600 miles an hour. Fast enough that it was difficult to intercept for Soviet subsonic interceptors like the MIG-15 and 17. Back when our strategic nuclear threat was bomber based, we could not afford to have something so slow and so easy to shoot down as the B-36 no matter how much it could carry. One or two nuclear bombs that make it to the Soviet Union is better than five or six nuclear bombs that don't
All good but when you started giving facts in mils or whatever you call it i get lost, there is something called metric sistem that everyone understand out of the US
The truth is far more complicated than this. While the B-36 was not fast running on just its radial engines, it flew at such a high altitude that by the time a Mig 15 could get into the air and climb to its altitude, the Mig would not be able to catch it even if the B-36 was not using the four J47s and even if it could catch it, at attitude, _the B-36 could out-turn the Mig 15_ !!!! With the four J-47s burning, it could reach burst speeds of 435 mph. I used to have a rather poor opinion of the B-36, but after reading the book "Magnesium Overcast," I really came away with a much different perspective. Of course by the time the B-52 entered service, the skies were no longer safe for large bombers, and even if they were, even the B-70 was deemed obsolete with the introduction of ICBMs.
@@shenmisheshou7002 well, that is one fact that overrides anything else. Once we can fire missiles from continent to continent with some measure of accuracy, bombers and therefore interceptors are both obsolete. The issue with The Peacemaker was not its direct confrontation with interceptors over Soviet skies, it was the time that it took to deliver strategic weapons from our continent to theirs. If you have a situation where you are delivering a first strike strategic nuclear attack, but the other side has 12 hours to prepare for the time you launch your aircraft, there is no such thing as a surprise attack. Those temporary speed bursts were possible, but you're talking about an airplane that was supposed to hopefully return to base. Any way you slice it, it was simply too large and too slow to deliver a surprise strategic attack
@@richardbullwood5941 I think you are missing the big picture. The B36 entered into service in 1948. In 1948 the only way to deliver nuclear weapon was using fixed wing aircraft. The first US ICBMs entered service in 1959. That means that for the 10 years it operated, the B-36 was the only real deterrent. The TU-20/TU-95 did not enter wide spread service until the end of 1953, but at that time, there were a very limited number. Next, many of the targets that would be important strategic targets were the oil fields in the caucasus, which could be easily reached from air bases in the UK. Then there is the lack of satellites. Now we can see an attack coming, but in 1950, no one could tell an attack was coming that far in advance. NORAD did not go into operation until 1958. Last, the US has had a no first strike doctrine since the end of World War II. The B-36 was the best plane that could be built at the time, and it would have been a difficult plane to defend against but of course it could be shot down, just as the B-52 could have been shot down. The whole idea of strategic bombers is to deter. Even the B-1A would have faced the same issues and Carter knew that, and killed it. NA-Rockwell then came up with the B1B, a plane that should never been built, but manage to get a contract when it promised a bunch of congressmen that they would build parts for the plane in their district. Congressmen love to tell their voters they created jobs. NATO Was against the B1B, saying that it was not a good weapon and that spending the money on thousands of cruise missiles would be a better use. Today, we have the F-22, which has never shot down anything but a balloon, but it somehow make the American Public feel like a deterrence, but it has not seemed to keep anyone from doing what they want to do.
I remember this big bastard as a kid they had 2 at Ohare field in the 60s and when it took off it was a sight to behold but scary as shit when it landed cuz back in the day you can park right by the fence & watch the planes take off & land we”d lay on the cars roof on our backs & the planes would fly over us & it seemed you can reach up & touch them but when that Godzilla plane land it’s massive size seemed like it was gonna come down on your head & loud? Wow you felt the air wash as it passed overhead the only plane that scared the shit out of me.
I used to have a rather low opinion of the B-36, but after reading the book "Magnesium Overcast," this is what I learned. While the B-36 was slow, no contemporary jet of the day could take off and get to altitude before the B-36 was long gone. Also, at 40,000 feet, the giant wings of the B-36 would actually allow it to out-turn a Mig 15!!! At 40,000 feet, the stall speed off the military jets of the day was only a few MPH lower than the cruise speed, meaning that any turn sharper than 10 degrees or so would cause the plane to stall, while the B-36 could make significantly steeper turns. Also, with the J-47s lit up, the burst speed of the B-36 was 435 mph, so once again, at 40,000 to 50,000 feet, there was literally nothing in the day that could catch it.
Actually the barrell roll does'nt put much stress on a aircraft if done correctly. Tex knew this, no doubt this manoeuvre was easy for him to do. But I mean, yeah, the guy was a test pilot. In my opinion these guys were all super brave, the amount of fatalities was really bad.
It is amazing how these old flight instruction videos could always find an actor that could make a back of a cereal box sound interesting while reading it…
My dad was a B-24 waist gunner. Five missions, England to Germany, 2 crashes, one on a return landing, one on a training run, north England. He was the sole survivor of that one, pretty banged up and burns. Glad I'm here, my son, and grandsons.
That's great... something I think is interesting about the b24 is it having a retractable ball turret. When it's on the ground you can't see it. I thought for a long time that they just didn't have one lol
The crews that were willing to man aircraft like the b-36 and b-17s were fearless badass gentlemen. Men like that don't exist anymore. Boys are raised by there mom and they're not raised an tought to be rugged and tough and girls are raised to hear me Roar.. armies in the US arm forces don't have any tough rugged young men anymore
Great job with background music at appropriate low level. My aging ears do great with conversation turned up a bit, but the result is painfully blasting heavy metal music / noise in many videos and makes them unwatchable.
Fun fact, it says in the manual that if combat is expected decompression must be performed. if one pressure chamber is ruptured any persons in the tunnel will be accelerated out of the tunnel at speeds up to 140mph (human cannonball)🤔😘
does working on a plane like this feel like being in a fast submarine that you can sometimes see out of? or does being in a submarine feel like a weird slow plane that you can't see out of? (not referencing length of operations, just standard duties in a normal shift or flight.) i haven't been on a submarine.
Well, submarines are A LOT quieter! These old reciprocating engined planes were really loud inside, and then you add a SCREAMING turbojet. A lot of the guys who flew aircraft from those days, lost much of their hearing by their 40s. There was little hearing protection then. My ROTC colonel was pretty hard of hearing by his late 40s, having flown jets in the 60s and 70s.
Wow, i didn't get my head around how big it was until you mentioned that there are walkways IN THE WINGS to check the engines IN FLIGHT. That's wild, but very cool
I also understand that it had tunnel with a little cart that was used to traverse between forward and rear crew compartments Laid on your back and pulled your way from one to other
In 1949 my family lived just north of Hensley Field/NAS Dallas. On Armed Forced Day that year an air show was underway when a B-36 "Peacemaker" flew low over our property. It was extremely loud and scared my sister. That said, it was definitely an impressive aircraft. The B-36 had taken off from Carswell AFB in Fort Worth.
41:15 - "... resulted in the Boeing XB-15 ... however its 115 ft wingspan proved too large for practical use ...". What does this mean? The B-17G was 103ft, the B-24 was 110. A one or two sentence explanation would be helpful.
Nice video, especially on the B47. The videos technical explanation on plane performance and flight characteristics were fascinating. It's interesting how the video portrayed the plane as being special, high performance and finicky. Yet in a few years, commercial jets would provide the same performance with quiet, safe, boring regularity.
“I’m going to have to go to the bathroom.” That’s classic. One day back in the old days of Quake 3 Arena FPS, one of the competitors, chatted to everyone, “I need to tinkle.”. we found out the competitor was like 10 years old, most of us were in our 20s 30s and 40s. And we were all laughing. To this day I say that in FPS arenas for the kick it.
It’s still debated whether or not the Spruce Goose actually flew. The aircraft never left the “ground effect”, which significantly increased a wings lift when flying close to the ground or water. Thus it’s speculated that it could never properly fly, lacking the power and lift to fly outside of ground effect.
@@fazole I believe its shortcoming came to power, engines of the time simply didn’t possess the power to propel such a behemoth, even with 8 of them. I believe if it had access to TU-90 style turboprop engines it could have had the power to take off successfully.
What 59 air defense systems destroyed 5 s400 1 s500 how much can you have destroyed an claim your air defense systems are world class ,unless you mean at being destroyed?
actually the flying wing was stable and like other aircraft it had to be flown within its flight envolope,,,politics crashed the flying wing not aerodynamics.
I "don't want to see this channel" and unsubscribed, yet it still gets recommended. It's not that I dislike this channel; it's just that the second video always plays, which annoys me.
➤➤ Watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories, and missions: www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes
➤➤ Join the channel: www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes/join
➤ IG ➤ instagram.com/dronescapesvideos
➤ FB ➤ facebook.com/Dronescapesvideos
➤ X/Twitter ➤ dronescapes.video/2p89vedj
➤ THREADS ➤ www.threads.net/@dronescapesvideos
I was so surprised to learn the B-1 holds more ordinance than the colossal B-52. Ignoring the B-1's hardpoints, this beast holds even more than the B-1 (internally). Amazing.
Me to. It doesn’t look big enough
"It's bigger on the inside" lol
There are some fun facts about the B-36 Peacemaker. It's a larger aircraft than the B-52 Stratofortress. It can carry more ordinance, has a higher takeoff weight, and has a longer range than the B-52 Stratofortress. So why was it replaced? The cruising speed of a B-36 was only 230 miles an hour. About the same as a World War II bomber. Literally could be intercepted by a biplane. The cruising speed of a B-52 is over 600 miles an hour. Fast enough that it was difficult to intercept for Soviet subsonic interceptors like the MIG-15 and 17. Back when our strategic nuclear threat was bomber based, we could not afford to have something so slow and so easy to shoot down as the B-36 no matter how much it could carry. One or two nuclear bombs that make it to the Soviet Union is better than five or six nuclear bombs that don't
All good but when you started giving facts in mils or whatever you call it i get lost, there is something called metric sistem that everyone understand out of the US
The truth is far more complicated than this. While the B-36 was not fast running on just its radial engines, it flew at such a high altitude that by the time a Mig 15 could get into the air and climb to its altitude, the Mig would not be able to catch it even if the B-36 was not using the four J47s and even if it could catch it, at attitude, _the B-36 could out-turn the Mig 15_ !!!! With the four J-47s burning, it could reach burst speeds of 435 mph. I used to have a rather poor opinion of the B-36, but after reading the book "Magnesium Overcast," I really came away with a much different perspective. Of course by the time the B-52 entered service, the skies were no longer safe for large bombers, and even if they were, even the B-70 was deemed obsolete with the introduction of ICBMs.
@@shenmisheshou7002 well, that is one fact that overrides anything else. Once we can fire missiles from continent to continent with some measure of accuracy, bombers and therefore interceptors are both obsolete. The issue with The Peacemaker was not its direct confrontation with interceptors over Soviet skies, it was the time that it took to deliver strategic weapons from our continent to theirs. If you have a situation where you are delivering a first strike strategic nuclear attack, but the other side has 12 hours to prepare for the time you launch your aircraft, there is no such thing as a surprise attack. Those temporary speed bursts were possible, but you're talking about an airplane that was supposed to hopefully return to base. Any way you slice it, it was simply too large and too slow to deliver a surprise strategic attack
@@richardbullwood5941 I think you are missing the big picture. The B36 entered into service in 1948. In 1948 the only way to deliver nuclear weapon was using fixed wing aircraft. The first US ICBMs entered service in 1959. That means that for the 10 years it operated, the B-36 was the only real deterrent. The TU-20/TU-95 did not enter wide spread service until the end of 1953, but at that time, there were a very limited number. Next, many of the targets that would be important strategic targets were the oil fields in the caucasus, which could be easily reached from air bases in the UK. Then there is the lack of satellites. Now we can see an attack coming, but in 1950, no one could tell an attack was coming that far in advance. NORAD did not go into operation until 1958. Last, the US has had a no first strike doctrine since the end of World War II. The B-36 was the best plane that could be built at the time, and it would have been a difficult plane to defend against but of course it could be shot down, just as the B-52 could have been shot down. The whole idea of strategic bombers is to deter. Even the B-1A would have faced the same issues and Carter knew that, and killed it. NA-Rockwell then came up with the B1B, a plane that should never been built, but manage to get a contract when it promised a bunch of congressmen that they would build parts for the plane in their district. Congressmen love to tell their voters they created jobs. NATO Was against the B1B, saying that it was not a good weapon and that spending the money on thousands of cruise missiles would be a better use. Today, we have the F-22, which has never shot down anything but a balloon, but it somehow make the American Public feel like a deterrence, but it has not seemed to keep anyone from doing what they want to do.
I remember this big bastard as a kid they had 2 at Ohare field in the 60s and when it took off it was a sight to behold but scary as shit when it landed cuz back in the day you can park right by the fence & watch the planes take off & land we”d lay on the cars roof on our backs & the planes would fly over us & it seemed you can reach up & touch them but when that Godzilla plane land it’s massive size seemed like it was gonna come down on your head & loud? Wow you felt the air wash as it passed overhead the only plane that scared the shit out of me.
“Speak softly and carry a big stick!“ - Teddy Roosevelt
Get it right!
@davidsawyer1599 everything is over hyped when you're a Bass player😂
What did he really say though, you where there
@markrix "I'll take the Salad with no Dressing, extra crouts".
You heard it right, Theodore 100 called them Croutons: Crouts.
Im glad he didn't say .. "whisper loudly and carry a small nuke. "
I used to have a rather low opinion of the B-36, but after reading the book "Magnesium Overcast," this is what I learned. While the B-36 was slow, no contemporary jet of the day could take off and get to altitude before the B-36 was long gone. Also, at 40,000 feet, the giant wings of the B-36 would actually allow it to out-turn a Mig 15!!! At 40,000 feet, the stall speed off the military jets of the day was only a few MPH lower than the cruise speed, meaning that any turn sharper than 10 degrees or so would cause the plane to stall, while the B-36 could make significantly steeper turns. Also, with the J-47s lit up, the burst speed of the B-36 was 435 mph, so once again, at 40,000 to 50,000 feet, there was literally nothing in the day that could catch it.
very good book
That's an awesome add on to this video. Thank you for adding the info and listing the book
Affectionately known as " magnesium overcast " crazy times create crazy responce .
Ole Tex Johnson
Only guy nuts enough to do a barrel roll in a passenger jet.
Actually the barrell roll does'nt put much stress on a aircraft if done correctly. Tex knew this, no doubt this manoeuvre was easy for him to do. But I mean, yeah, the guy was a test pilot. In my opinion these guys were all super brave, the amount of fatalities was really bad.
There is a B-36 is on display at the SAC Aerospace museum located along I-80 near the Platte River between Omaha and Lincoln, Nebraska.
For Quite Some time now even small jet fighters are nuclear bomb capable ! As the nukes are SO much smaller !!
It is amazing how these old flight instruction videos could always find an actor that could make a back of a cereal box sound interesting while reading it…
My Dad flew the 'ball ' in a B-24.
My dad was a copilot in a B-24 he rarely would talk about it
My dad was a B-24 waist gunner. Five missions, England to Germany, 2 crashes, one on a return landing, one on a training run, north England. He was the sole survivor of that one, pretty banged up and burns. Glad I'm here, my son, and grandsons.
That's great... something I think is interesting about the b24 is it having a retractable ball turret. When it's on the ground you can't see it. I thought for a long time that they just didn't have one lol
The crews that were willing to man aircraft like the b-36 and b-17s were fearless badass gentlemen. Men like that don't exist anymore. Boys are raised by there mom and they're not raised an tought to be rugged and tough and girls are raised to hear me Roar.. armies in the US arm forces don't have any tough rugged young men anymore
Great job with background music at appropriate low level. My aging ears do great with conversation turned up a bit, but the result is painfully blasting heavy metal music / noise in many videos and makes them unwatchable.
Fun fact, it says in the manual that if combat is expected decompression must be performed. if one pressure chamber is ruptured any persons in the tunnel will be accelerated out of the tunnel at speeds up to 140mph (human cannonball)🤔😘
For anyone wondering, this are at least two entirely separate videos put together. The 2nd one starts around 40:00 .
does working on a plane like this feel like being in a fast submarine that you can sometimes see out of? or does being in a submarine feel like a weird slow plane that you can't see out of? (not referencing length of operations, just standard duties in a normal shift or flight.) i haven't been on a submarine.
Well, submarines are A LOT quieter! These old reciprocating engined planes were really loud inside, and then you add a SCREAMING turbojet. A lot of the guys who flew aircraft from those days, lost much of their hearing by their 40s. There was little hearing protection then. My ROTC colonel was pretty hard of hearing by his late 40s, having flown jets in the 60s and 70s.
Wow, i didn't get my head around how big it was until you mentioned that there are walkways IN THE WINGS to check the engines IN FLIGHT. That's wild, but very cool
I also understand that it had tunnel with a little cart that was used to traverse between forward and rear crew compartments Laid on your back and pulled your way from one to other
In 1949 my family lived just north of Hensley Field/NAS Dallas. On Armed Forced Day that year an air show was underway when a B-36 "Peacemaker" flew low over our property. It was extremely loud and scared my sister. That said, it was definitely an impressive aircraft. The B-36 had taken off from Carswell AFB in Fort Worth.
All this and we still had busted arrows..
The entire second half of this video is all about the B-47.
41:15 - "... resulted in the Boeing XB-15 ... however its 115 ft wingspan proved too large for practical use ...". What does this mean? The B-17G was 103ft, the B-24 was 110. A one or two sentence explanation would be helpful.
las explicasiones de el b47 hechas por el piloto en 1:20 min son fantasticas
Nice video, especially on the B47. The videos technical explanation on plane performance and flight characteristics were fascinating.
It's interesting how the video portrayed the plane as being special, high performance and finicky.
Yet in a few years, commercial jets would provide the same performance with quiet, safe, boring regularity.
Make sure you have CC on from 1:10:00 to 1:13:00. It's... interesting lol.
Too much information 😅
What the heck happened to the sound at that point? It sounds like demons jabbering
😂
“I’m going to have to go to the bathroom.” That’s classic. One day back in the old days of Quake 3 Arena FPS, one of the competitors, chatted to everyone, “I need to tinkle.”. we found out the competitor was like 10 years old, most of us were in our 20s 30s and 40s. And we were all laughing. To this day I say that in FPS arenas for the kick it.
Excuse me but, wasn't the 'Spruce Goose ' the biggest airplane to fly?
It’s still debated whether or not the Spruce Goose actually flew. The aircraft never left the “ground effect”, which significantly increased a wings lift when flying close to the ground or water. Thus it’s speculated that it could never properly fly, lacking the power and lift to fly outside of ground effect.
@@hondoonaka1823
It was basically an early erkranoplane, a USSR era flying ground effect ship
@@fazole I believe its shortcoming came to power, engines of the time simply didn’t possess the power to propel such a behemoth, even with 8 of them. I believe if it had access to TU-90 style turboprop engines it could have had the power to take off successfully.
It was the biggest plane to ever fly under 3.5 feet…
Any way you look at it, the B-36
Chanute AFB, Illinois in 1980 had a B36 and a B52 parked in close proximity. The B36 was a much more impressive looking bomber.
I wonder if Eielson AFB (Moose Creak) and Ladd AAF (Fairbanks) ever had an airframe heating specialist named Herman Nelson. 🤔
Also heard it referred to as the flying cigar
The legendary Z plane, Mt. Fuji！？😲
Northrops B35 would have the last laugh...as the B2 Stealth Bomber....
Make longer tube
had to rewind, thought u were taking shots at Rosevelt right off the gate
Lindbergh Field, not Linden-bergh
Why is half the video about the B-47? Title your video correctly.
b 47 are not b 36
Speak softly but carry a big stick
where
Honestly that wingspan looks ungainly and out of porportion. Like a balsa wood plane...
“Lind-en-berg” Field?
🤠
Listening to these old men talk up russ b.s
What 59 air defense systems destroyed 5 s400 1 s500 how much can you have destroyed an claim your air defense systems are world class ,unless you mean at being destroyed?
The AI generated voice over is very strange. I don’t like it. Great content of the video though.
actually the flying wing was stable and like other aircraft it had to be flown within its flight envolope,,,politics crashed the flying wing not aerodynamics.
I "don't want to see this channel" and unsubscribed, yet it still gets recommended. It's not that I dislike this channel; it's just that the second video always plays, which annoys me.
You don't call it s a c,,,its SAC (pronounced sack). Do a better job.
Salut my friend super Drone super video subscribe subscribe ...