I’m amazed at all the wreckage that remains so visible, and not swallowed up by vegetation and effects of time. I wonder if this is due to the site’s location in Canada, as well as the difficulty of accessing the terrain. Respect to the Canadians who have memorialized this site and the airmen lost there.
It is amazing so much wreckage is still on site after nearly 60 yrs. Full respect to visitors for not desecrating the site. I've now added that to my proposed itinerary for a post-Covid trip to Canada.
I visited the crash sight last week. The climb up takes about 45 minutes (I am 77 yrs old). Good shoes are required. Coming down the steep section of the trail is easier if you have a staff. The trail is up a dry stream bed. The locals (Air Cadets?) have made a bridge over a stream and built rest benches at intervals. They also cut off the trees that fall down over the trail. The wreck is still there with lots of small bits that have not been pilfered. I drove my car right up to the start of the trail. Any front wheel drive car can make it right to there.
As a 12 year old kid living in base housing at Ellsworth, I can still hear the B36 engines. Even though we were away from the runway the takeoffs would raddle the windows. This aircraft has always been special in my memories.
My mother's first husband, Stuart Fauhl was killed in this crash. My oldest brother was only 2 when his father was killed. As Mom was watching her husband pull out of the driveway the morning that the plane took off to go to the Azores, Mom had an overwhelming feeling that something was going to happen, and that feeling stayed with her the entire time that they were gone.
I visited a B-52 crash site in Maine several years ago up on Elephant Mountain above Greenville. ME. It has a similar, albeit smaller, debris field as this one. I was and am amazed at how “fresh” so much has actually remained. The cold climes and remoteness in both these sites have contributed to this. Would love to visit here, too.
There's another B-36 on the west side of the Franklin Mountains near Fort Bliss in El Paso, TX... you can see the front landing gear on Google Earth. Coordinates are 31.806855° N, -106.487284° W. There is also a piece of a turbo-jet engine and a plaque on the big rock. I grew up near Amon Carter Field in Euless, TX... we used to play on the City Of Fort Worth B-36 on static display there... it's now at Pima, of course.
Thanks for posting this. I've been to Newfoundland back in the 80's while doing site surveys for the North Warning Radar system. Wish I'd known about this site at the time. We did manage to visit the crash site of a WWII B26 Marauder, called "Times a Wastin" which crashed near Saglek Bay, Labrador on Dec 10th 1942. Before we left the states we were briefed that we might be near this crash site and had the opportunity to read the pilot's diary. It was a very tragic story in that the crew survived the initial crash landing, but all died in the ensuing winter months from starvation and exposure. The last entry in the Pilot's diary, 3 feb, read: "Slept a solid week in bed. Today Waywrench died after being mentally ill for several days. We are all pretty weak, but should be able to last several more days." Their bodies were discovered by Eskimos about a month later. What makes this story especially sad is that there was a village (Hebron) that was literally only about 5 miles from the crash site, but none of the crew ever hiked in the necessary direction to see it. By the way, just curious - are you any relation to the Tilley hat company or is it just a coincidence your're wearing a Tilley? I love my Tilley hat.
I was there last month (for the second time). A friend found a zipper pull by the pond (where the black area is). My cousin found a set of wings from a jacket about 30 years ago. Had a picnic at the monument site. What an incredible crash site, still after all these years.
Positively fascinating! Great work! I'd seen one of these planes in Dayton, OH at the museum. HUGE doesn't quite describe it! We were told that the Wright Bros first flight was shorter than the B 36's wing span!!!
Nice drone and camera work! Despite what the legends say this RB-36 was not off-course nor on a mission to test air defenses. They meant to cross the Newfoundland area and then overfly Montreal to practice the crews wartime Soviet recon mission - then back to Rapid City. They were intentionally navigating using “dead reckoning”, the problem was the weather pattern shifted and gave them a tailwind instead of headwind meaning they would unknowingly reach land 1 ½ hours ahead of schedule while still flying low.
Quite right on your conclusion of navigation error due to the inadequacies of the dead reckoning method (unknown winds and surface barometric readings for altimeter setting used here caused the aircrew to misjudge eta landfall by 1.5 hours and altitude as well. The altitude misjudgement is understandable if they had no radio or ground contact and weren't flying with visible reference to the ground, assuming they were overwater, land still being far away. I think they suddenly realized landfall only a few minutes or seconds before impact and were yet unaware of the general geography and everyone just happened to be looking everywhere but forward at the wrong time, for a few seconds, that caused the crash. The video just said the flight was headed to Bangor, Maine where the US has/had? a suitible airbase to land and receive these unusually demanding aircraft after an unusually demanding transoceanic flight. So my point is where did you get all the noise about a simulated recon or otherwise flight over Newfoundland, then Montreal, Canada and on to Rapid City, South Dakota? If their only intentional/possible landings and takeoffs were limited to long enough and strong enough runways, Rapid City or just a couple of other midwest and Air Force bases ONLY on each coast then could handle aircraft like the B-36 at all! But relatively speaking, then, by maintaining scrupulous radio silence, with complete ignorance of knowledge that today is so abundantly and routinely available with procedures, practices, and equipment today, such errors are almost unimaginable, EXCEPT to pilots today who do such things due to economic deprivation or considerations, reasons of money, time, effort, tedium, etc. ignorant of these many failsafe alternatives readily available, e.g., the recent Kobe Bryant helicopter crash, i.e. sudden (obscurred) instrument reference conditions from visual reference navigation and flying. Aviators have learned pointedly better since 1953 at all possible speed to avoid such simple yet catastrophic accidents because they were so awesomely great when successful and so heartbreaking and terrible when not.
Thanks but it’s pretty much a certainty they had no idea they were about to hit land - when they did hit they still had an hour to go before the planned water/land safety check of turning on the radio altimeter - it was also at night in rain with zero visibility. My info on this (or “noise” as you call it) is from the official Air Force Accident Report - I don’t know where these other urban-legend versions of the story came from.
@@johnwatson3948 Thats my point too. I think they did NOT have radar altimeters in B-36's in 1953 and in order to set standard barometric altimeters, you need to have a timely reading at a nearby known ground altitude to know your altitude at all. They couldnt get these routine numbers from hundreds of available sources then because of their mission-simulating, self-imposed radio blackout.
Thank you but check out the report available from the AF Historical Research Agency (AFHRA) - mentions the radar altimeter and its planned use on the mission.
@@johnwatson3948 I was just guessing, although mynpoint was that the navigation and aviation challenge THEN, (instananeous, combat speeds and conditions with 10-engine, heavy intercontinental formation missions and flights) was almost incomparable to the same with contemporary heavy aircraft's space-age navigation technology AND AI computer-assistance to handle it all! I was unaware the weather conditions were so bad and that the error in altitude was so ironically relatively small, afterall. Thanks for the correction.
Nice video ! Now if you COULD LEARN TO SPEAK UP !!! Would have enjoyed it more AND slow down when looking at different part's of the aircraft . Thanks Doug in Dallas Texas 11:23 pm 5-29_20 Remember them flying over my house in Wichita Ks back in the 50'S and trying to find them WAY HIGH in the sky ! You could hear them long before you could see them. A much better WORLD to be a kid! God help's us now.
First , many thanks to Paul for taking us to the site - I'll likely never visit in person as it's a long way from home. Doug, JS - May I recommend you try again with headphones? I was wearing headphones and had no trouble hearing. In fact I actually appreciated his soft-spoken manner throughout, and whether he intended it that way or not, this is a crash site where Airmen lost their lives, it seemed respectful to narrate as he did.
Great report and video, but you are going to have to speak up. I had to crank up mu volume to be able to hear you at all. Thanks! Stay safe! Cheers, Danny
Correction to my post below - checked the report again and the RB-36 was in fact north of the intended track and had meant to make landfall “on the Canadian mainland” which would have to mean Nova Scotia - which would have been a direct line to their practice target Montreal. As noted crash was caused by flying low and getting to land 1 ½ hours ahead of schedule, not by being off course.
There were different variants of this aircraft, the oldest one (the B-36 A) had only 6 piston engines (P&W R 4630 Wasp Major), later they added 2 dual engine pods (this were the inboard dual pods from the B - 47) to extend power during takeoff or bomb runs, and get a higher top speed. They also retrofitted the B - 36 A's with this dual engine pods. They modified the 4 jet engines, they also burnt Avgas, the same fuel like the piston engines, not kerosene. They always had problems with the piston engines, they were mounted backwards, while they were originally constructed for mounting in the other direction. So the air inlet got always cold air, instead of air warmed up by the hot cylinders, and in fog or clouds the air inlet tended to freece, which reduced the air flow, until the engine (it was supercharged) couldn't burn the fuel completely, and then the exhaust gases started to burn and set the whole engine on fire. This bombers were impressive machines, even if they were already obsolete in the mid 50s.
The early ones had one massive main landing gear with one huge tire about 10 feet in diameter and they could only land a certain Air Force bases with reinforced thick concret runways because all the weight was on those two tires.
@@zigman8550 that's right, in my knowledge it was only the XB-36, the YB-36 and the XC-99 which used the original 110 inch main gear. The YB and the XC-99 were later converted to use the 4 wheel gear like the production models of the B-36, while the XB was not used as a bomber in service, but used as a testbed for a special track landing gear, and later also converted to the 4 wheel landing gear. In the 50s the XB was used for fire fighter training, and later destroyed.
@@zigman8550 Only two B-36s, the XB-36 first flown on August 8, 1946 and the YB-36 first flown on December 4, 1947, had the main gear single 110" wheel on each side. Interestingly, the first B-36A (first production model) was built using the quad main gear and it actually flew on August 28, 1947 before the YB-36. Source: book "B-36 in Action" (Squadron/Signal publications).
The dual engine pods were developed by GE for the J47 engines. The B-47 came after the B-36 and just happened to use the same engine nacelle configuration. Besides I doubt Boeing, who was a competitor would provide Convair with power plants.
@@bearbon2 A quote from the book, "B-36 in Action" under "Adding Jet Power: B-36D, RB-36D & RB36E," it reads, "On October 5, 1948, Convair proposed adding a pair of turbojet engines under each wing. To reduce development time, the engines and nacelles already being developed for the Boeing B-47 would be used." A bit further in the paragraph it reads, "A prototype conversion was authorized by AMC (Air Material Command) on January 4, 1949, and Convair and Boeing officials met to decide to use General Electric J-47 engines in productions models, but first to fly the prototype with the J-35-A-19 already flown on the XB-47." There you have it!
Actually some people attempted that in 1972 and got as far as the engine tests until the Air Force stopped them. The fear was said to be that the bomber would be used by terrorists.
That's probably the most people that were killed in a B-36 peace time incident. My Dad, who was a bombadier , survived WWII in the 8th Air Force without a scratch. He and lots of other airmen were flight crews on the very first B-36 to be accepted by the Air Force. Some of them had unanticipated glitches that engineers have to work out with experience. On a flight from Carswell AFB in Texas some time in April 1949 he was on a flight to the west coast. He unstrapped to get some coffee for the flight deck crew and just at that instant the aircraft suffered some kind of structural failure in the nose only, where his position was. At 29,000 feet he was sucked out, no parachute was seen if he was wearing one( kind of difficult getting coffee with a chute strapped to your butt) Anyway he splattered somewhere in southern Arizona. The crew and aircraft landed safely, probably why no mention was officially made of the incident - that I'm aware of. The B-36 was an incredible aircraft.
Several hundred men died in the Cold War. The construction of the SOSUS system, 2 sunk subs. And yes, many Russian Comrades died as well. At least these men did not suffer.
They were enroute to Rapid City AFB, SD. President Eisenhowe went to the base and renamed it Ellsworth AFB. This was my first assignment back in '76. BTW Gen. Ellsworth is buried at the Black Hills National Cemetery, C-findarave.com, memorial 17207905. I dont know about the rrst of the crew
Not to be grim but are there like, human remains, bones etc discernible in this wreckage? Along with the aircraft aluminum etc? I’m sure they pulled *most* of that out but it wouldn’t surprise me to find teeth or fingers in there too. Does stuff like that turn up on a wreckage site like this that doesn’t get fully cleared away? You’d think that a forensics team would be able to pull quite a bit from a wreckage like this, even 50-80 years hence.
One can imagine that the military was very fast in getting to the site to remove the 6- 4360 Pratt & Whitney engines as well as the 4 jet engines or what was left of them and any other valuable equipment.
Incorrect! I have hiked this site 3 times in 4 years and I as well as others have found 3 jets and 2 Pratt and Whitney radials! Next hike I will take lots of pictures to show! The U.S air force made no effort to clean this site whatsoever!
@@donnybutt100 How far away are the engines? I want to get to the site in a couple of years. I was near there two years ago but didn't know enough to find the site.
@@crushingvanessa3277 Upon entering the site you will find the first of the engines (a jet) On an embankment not far from that you'll find what remains of one of the piston engines! The other jet engines I saw were a bit more of hike and I only saw them the first time I visited! But no matter what you get to see of the site you'll be rewarded for your efforts!
I read the crash report. It says all 23! people on board perished. I thought the B-36 had a crew of 8 people or so.Were they sitting on each others laps?? I know it is a big plane but it's a bomber, not a transport.
But good sir, the passengers weren't flying onboard for personal, capricious or arbitrary reasons as you imply. Everybody aboard was either working or going to or from relevent, deadly-serious work. The aircraft and missions required many such flights to train, practice and test aircrew and breakthrough technology, opportunities, etc. Although the flight(s) may first appear as superfluous, they were vital to providing a credible deterrence to WW 3 in the early '50's. It worked, huh? We got our money's worth then, imho - and then some.
These planes were designed to stay in the air for 40 hrs at a time so they carried two crews and were fully self contained with a galley, toilet, and bunks.
@@BLACKMONGOOSE13 And it was when we realized the unprecedented need for such unnaturally long flights, ranges etc. would be accomplished by perfecting aerial refueling, 24/7 worldwide alert, survelliance and response capabilites, etc. e.g., TAC, MAC and SAC, with as much focus as traditional areas of bigger and better weaponry, war tactics and trickery, diplomacy, bluff or otherwise. It was the outrageous parameters of every aspect of the B-36 too that displayed the inevitable end of pilots and aircrew as human guidance and delivery systems for unstoppable weapons of modern warfare and mass destruction.
Based on the location of a few pieces of debris I have to think that some have tried to cart pieces away and gave up only a short way down the access trail. This is based on my visit in 2019.
I’m amazed at all the wreckage that remains so visible, and not swallowed up by vegetation and effects of time. I wonder if this is due to the site’s location in Canada, as well as the difficulty of accessing the terrain. Respect to the Canadians who have memorialized this site and the airmen lost there.
It is amazing so much wreckage is still on site after nearly 60 yrs. Full respect to visitors for not desecrating the site.
I've now added that to my proposed itinerary for a post-Covid trip to Canada.
How do you know that they didn't discrete the site? There may have been a lot more wreckage.
@@slobama there may have been but it hasn't been stripped bare. That's the point I'm making. The site has been treated with respect
@@slobama *desecrate*
It's nice to see that the wreckage has been treated with reverence and not emblazoned with disrespectful graffiti.
Wow! Thank you for your reverence while showing us this most sacred graveyard.
This is probably the best video on UA-cam on this crash.
I visited the crash sight last week. The climb up takes about 45 minutes (I am 77 yrs old). Good shoes are required. Coming down the steep section of the trail is easier if you have a staff. The trail is up a dry stream bed. The locals (Air Cadets?) have made a bridge over a stream and built rest benches at intervals. They also cut off the trees that fall down over the trail. The wreck is still there with lots of small bits that have not been pilfered. I drove my car right up to the start of the trail. Any front wheel drive car can make it right to there.
Thanks for the information.👍
As a 12 year old kid living in base housing at Ellsworth, I can still hear the B36 engines. Even though we were away from the runway the takeoffs would raddle the windows. This aircraft has always been special in my memories.
My mother's first husband, Stuart Fauhl was killed in this crash. My oldest brother was only 2 when his father was killed. As Mom was watching her husband pull out of the driveway the morning that the plane took off to go to the Azores, Mom had an overwhelming feeling that something was going to happen, and that feeling stayed with her the entire time that they were gone.
I visited a B-52 crash site in Maine several years ago up on Elephant Mountain above Greenville. ME. It has a similar, albeit smaller, debris field as this one. I was and am amazed at how “fresh” so much has actually remained. The cold climes and remoteness in both these sites have contributed to this. Would love to visit here, too.
There's another B-36 on the west side of the Franklin Mountains near Fort Bliss in El Paso, TX... you can see the front landing gear on Google Earth. Coordinates are 31.806855° N, -106.487284° W. There is also a piece of a turbo-jet engine and a plaque on the big rock. I grew up near Amon Carter Field in Euless, TX... we used to play on the City Of Fort Worth B-36 on static display there... it's now at Pima, of course.
Thanks for posting this. I've been to Newfoundland back in the 80's while doing site surveys for the North Warning Radar system. Wish I'd known about this site at the time. We did manage to visit the crash site of a WWII B26 Marauder, called "Times a Wastin" which crashed near Saglek Bay, Labrador on Dec 10th 1942. Before we left the states we were briefed that we might be near this crash site and had the opportunity to read the pilot's diary. It was a very tragic story in that the crew survived the initial crash landing, but all died in the ensuing winter months from starvation and exposure. The last entry in the Pilot's diary, 3 feb, read: "Slept a solid week in bed. Today Waywrench died after being mentally ill for several days. We are all pretty weak, but should be able to last several more days."
Their bodies were discovered by Eskimos about a month later. What makes this story especially sad is that there was a village (Hebron) that was literally only about 5 miles from the crash site, but none of the crew ever hiked in the necessary direction to see it.
By the way, just curious - are you any relation to the Tilley hat company or is it just a coincidence your're wearing a Tilley? I love my Tilley hat.
I'm glad to see that it's not totally picked over.
No problem hearing you in a quiet room. Great video of a fascinating wreck.
From what I read, the B-36’s altimeter was set to an incorrect barometric setting, so the crew thought they were higher than they were...
I was there last month (for the second time). A friend found a zipper pull by the pond (where the black area is). My cousin found a set of wings from a jacket about 30 years ago. Had a picnic at the monument site. What an incredible crash site, still after all these years.
Positively fascinating! Great work! I'd seen one of these planes in Dayton, OH at the museum. HUGE doesn't quite describe it! We were told that the Wright Bros first flight was shorter than the B 36's wing span!!!
Very nice video. I didn't have trouble hearing you. Thanks!
Very good video. Thank you
Great! Thank you! That is a massive debris field.
Nice drone and camera work! Despite what the legends say this RB-36 was not off-course nor on a mission to test air defenses. They meant to cross the Newfoundland area and then overfly Montreal to practice the crews wartime Soviet recon mission - then back to Rapid City. They were intentionally navigating using “dead reckoning”, the problem was the weather pattern shifted and gave them a tailwind instead of headwind meaning they would unknowingly reach land 1 ½ hours ahead of schedule while still flying low.
Quite right on your conclusion of navigation error due to the inadequacies of the dead reckoning method (unknown winds and surface barometric readings for altimeter setting used here caused the aircrew to misjudge eta landfall by 1.5 hours and altitude as well.
The altitude misjudgement is understandable if they had no radio or ground contact and weren't flying with visible reference to the ground, assuming they were overwater, land still being far away. I think they suddenly realized landfall only a few minutes or seconds before impact and were yet unaware of the general geography and everyone just happened to be looking everywhere but forward at the wrong time, for a few seconds, that caused the crash.
The video just said the flight was headed to Bangor, Maine where the US has/had? a suitible airbase to land and receive these unusually demanding aircraft after an unusually demanding transoceanic flight. So my point is where did you get all the noise about a simulated recon or otherwise flight over Newfoundland, then Montreal, Canada and on to Rapid City, South Dakota?
If their only intentional/possible landings and takeoffs were limited to long enough and strong enough runways, Rapid City or just a couple of other midwest and Air Force bases ONLY on each coast then could handle aircraft like the B-36 at all!
But relatively speaking, then, by maintaining scrupulous radio silence, with complete ignorance of knowledge that today is so abundantly and routinely available with procedures, practices, and equipment today, such errors are almost unimaginable, EXCEPT to pilots today who do such things due to economic deprivation or considerations, reasons of money, time, effort, tedium, etc. ignorant of these many failsafe alternatives readily available, e.g., the recent Kobe Bryant helicopter crash, i.e. sudden (obscurred) instrument reference conditions from visual reference navigation and flying. Aviators have learned pointedly better since 1953 at all possible speed to avoid such simple yet catastrophic accidents because they were so awesomely great when successful and so heartbreaking and terrible when not.
Thanks but it’s pretty much a certainty they had no idea they were about to hit land - when they did hit they still had an hour to go before the planned water/land safety check of turning on the radio altimeter - it was also at night in rain with zero visibility. My info on this (or “noise” as you call it) is from the official Air Force Accident Report - I don’t know where these other urban-legend versions of the story came from.
@@johnwatson3948 Thats my point too. I think they did NOT have radar altimeters in B-36's in 1953 and in order to set standard barometric altimeters, you need to have a timely reading at a nearby known ground altitude to know your altitude at all. They couldnt get these routine numbers from hundreds of available sources then because of their mission-simulating, self-imposed radio blackout.
Thank you but check out the report available from the AF Historical Research Agency (AFHRA) - mentions the radar altimeter and its planned use on the mission.
@@johnwatson3948 I was just guessing, although mynpoint was that the navigation and aviation challenge THEN, (instananeous, combat speeds and conditions with 10-engine, heavy intercontinental formation missions and flights) was almost incomparable to the same with contemporary heavy aircraft's space-age navigation technology AND AI computer-assistance to handle it all! I was unaware the weather conditions were so bad and that the error in altitude was so ironically relatively small, afterall. Thanks for the correction.
Tragic but amazing wreck site. Would love to visit it someday. Have ridden thru that area... well, main roads before.
good work
Nice video ! Now if you COULD LEARN TO SPEAK UP !!! Would have enjoyed it more AND slow down when looking at different
part's of the aircraft . Thanks Doug in Dallas Texas 11:23 pm 5-29_20 Remember them flying over my house in Wichita Ks back
in the 50'S and trying to find them WAY HIGH in the sky ! You could hear them long before you could see them. A much better
WORLD to be a kid! God help's us now.
I wanted so bad to watch the video , but I couldnt hear a damn thing he was saying .
First , many thanks to Paul for taking us to the site - I'll likely never visit in person as it's a long way from home. Doug, JS - May I recommend you try again with headphones? I was wearing headphones and had no trouble hearing. In fact I actually appreciated his soft-spoken manner throughout, and whether he intended it that way or not, this is a crash site where Airmen lost their lives, it seemed respectful to narrate as he did.
Great report and video, but you are going to have to speak up. I had to crank up mu volume to be able to hear you at all. Thanks! Stay safe! Cheers, Danny
I like the way he's speaking. Very ASMR-like. And believe me, ASMR is very popular on UA-cam.
Correction to my post below - checked the report again and the RB-36 was in fact north of the intended track and had meant to make landfall “on the Canadian mainland” which would have to mean Nova Scotia - which would have been a direct line to their practice target Montreal. As noted crash was caused by flying low and getting to land 1 ½ hours ahead of schedule, not by being off course.
There were different variants of this aircraft, the oldest one (the B-36 A) had only 6 piston engines (P&W R 4630 Wasp Major), later they added 2 dual engine pods (this were the inboard dual pods from the B - 47) to extend power during takeoff or bomb runs, and get a higher top speed. They also retrofitted the B - 36 A's with this dual engine pods.
They modified the 4 jet engines, they also burnt Avgas, the same fuel like the piston engines, not kerosene.
They always had problems with the piston engines, they were mounted backwards, while they were originally constructed for mounting in the other direction. So the air inlet got always cold air, instead of air warmed up by the hot cylinders, and in fog or clouds the air inlet tended to freece, which reduced the air flow, until the engine (it was supercharged) couldn't burn the fuel completely, and then the exhaust gases started to burn and set the whole engine on fire.
This bombers were impressive machines, even if they were already obsolete in the mid 50s.
The early ones had one massive main landing gear with one huge tire about 10 feet in diameter and they could only land a certain Air Force bases with reinforced thick concret runways because all the weight was on those two tires.
@@zigman8550 that's right, in my knowledge it was only the XB-36, the YB-36 and the XC-99 which used the original 110 inch main gear. The YB and the XC-99 were later converted to use the 4 wheel gear like the production models of the B-36, while the XB was not used as a bomber in service, but used as a testbed for a special track landing gear, and later also converted to the 4 wheel landing gear. In the 50s the XB was used for fire fighter training, and later destroyed.
@@zigman8550 Only two B-36s, the XB-36 first flown on August 8, 1946 and the YB-36 first flown on December 4, 1947, had the main gear single 110" wheel on each side. Interestingly, the first B-36A (first production model) was built using the quad main gear and it actually flew on August 28, 1947 before the YB-36. Source: book "B-36 in Action" (Squadron/Signal publications).
The dual engine pods were developed by GE for the J47 engines. The B-47 came after the B-36 and just happened to use the same engine nacelle configuration. Besides I doubt Boeing, who was a competitor would provide Convair with power plants.
@@bearbon2 A quote from the book, "B-36 in Action" under "Adding Jet Power: B-36D, RB-36D & RB36E," it reads, "On October 5, 1948, Convair proposed adding a pair of turbojet engines under each wing. To reduce development time, the engines and nacelles already being developed for the Boeing B-47 would be used." A bit further in the paragraph it reads, "A prototype conversion was authorized by AMC (Air Material Command) on January 4, 1949, and Convair and Boeing officials met to decide to use General Electric J-47 engines in productions models, but first to fly the prototype with the J-35-A-19 already flown on the XB-47." There you have it!
Very low audio level Nearly unreadable
I can barely hear you.
I had to use the closed captioning to understand what you were saying.
Cool Post. Thanks were there any h-bombs on board?
Very interesting.
And some people have talked about getting one these monsters flying again? Highly agree with the Air Force on this, it's not going to happen.
Actually some people attempted that in 1972 and got as far as the engine tests until the Air Force stopped them. The fear was said to be that the bomber would be used by terrorists.
As cool as it would be to have one flying, its probably good that the very few (4) that are left are grounded because of the possibility of crashes
That's probably the most people that were killed in a B-36 peace time incident. My Dad, who was a bombadier , survived WWII in the 8th Air Force without a scratch. He and lots of other airmen were flight crews on the very first B-36 to be accepted by the Air Force. Some of them had unanticipated glitches that engineers have to work out with experience. On a flight from Carswell AFB in Texas some time in April 1949 he was on a flight to the west coast. He unstrapped to get some coffee for the flight deck crew and just at that instant the aircraft suffered some kind of structural failure in the nose only, where his position was. At 29,000 feet he was sucked out, no parachute was seen if he was wearing one( kind of difficult getting coffee with a chute strapped to your butt) Anyway he splattered somewhere in southern Arizona. The crew and aircraft landed safely, probably why no mention was officially made of the incident - that I'm aware of. The B-36 was an incredible aircraft.
Several hundred men died in the Cold War. The construction of the SOSUS system, 2 sunk subs. And yes, many Russian Comrades died as well. At least these men did not suffer.
They were enroute to Rapid City AFB, SD. President Eisenhowe went to the base and renamed it Ellsworth AFB. This was my first assignment back in '76. BTW Gen. Ellsworth is buried at the Black Hills National Cemetery, C-findarave.com, memorial 17207905. I dont know about the rrst of the crew
Not to be grim but are there like, human remains, bones etc discernible in this wreckage? Along with the aircraft aluminum etc? I’m sure they pulled *most* of that out but it wouldn’t surprise me to find teeth or fingers in there too. Does stuff like that turn up on a wreckage site like this that doesn’t get fully cleared away? You’d think that a forensics team would be able to pull quite a bit from a wreckage like this, even 50-80 years hence.
One can imagine that the military was very fast in getting to the site to remove the 6- 4360 Pratt & Whitney engines as well as the 4 jet engines or what was left of them and any other valuable equipment.
Incorrect! I have hiked this site 3 times in 4 years and I as well as others have found 3 jets and 2 Pratt and Whitney radials! Next hike I will take lots of pictures to show! The U.S air force made no effort to clean this site whatsoever!
@@donnybutt100 How far away are the engines? I want to get to the site in a couple of years. I was near there two years ago but didn't know enough to find the site.
@@crushingvanessa3277 Upon entering the site you will find the first of the engines (a jet) On an embankment not far from that you'll find what remains of one of the piston engines! The other jet engines I saw were a bit more of hike and I only saw them the first time I visited! But no matter what you get to see of the site you'll be rewarded for your efforts!
@@donnybutt100 Thanks, I'll for sure check iot out.
Why not repost with greater volume
"Freedom isn't free."
I read the crash report. It says all 23! people on board perished. I thought the B-36 had a crew of 8 people or so.Were they sitting on each others laps?? I know it is a big plane but it's a bomber, not a transport.
usual crew was 15 but if a training flight they some times carried more, and the aircraft was huge! its wingspan is about 30ft longer than a 747
But good sir, the passengers weren't flying onboard for personal, capricious or arbitrary reasons as you imply. Everybody aboard was either working or going to or from relevent, deadly-serious work. The aircraft and missions required many such flights to train, practice and test aircrew and breakthrough technology, opportunities, etc. Although the flight(s) may first appear as superfluous, they were vital to providing a credible deterrence to WW 3 in the early '50's. It worked, huh? We got our money's worth then, imho - and then some.
These planes were designed to stay in the air for 40 hrs at a time so they carried two crews and were fully self contained with a galley, toilet, and bunks.
@@BLACKMONGOOSE13 And it was when we realized the unprecedented need for such unnaturally long flights, ranges etc. would be accomplished by perfecting aerial refueling, 24/7 worldwide alert, survelliance and response capabilites, etc. e.g., TAC, MAC and SAC, with as much focus as traditional areas of bigger and better weaponry, war tactics and trickery, diplomacy, bluff or otherwise.
It was the outrageous parameters of every aspect of the B-36 too that displayed the inevitable end of pilots and aircrew as human guidance and delivery systems for unstoppable weapons of modern warfare and mass destruction.
The sign said it was a RB-36 recon version. They had a bigger crew what with all the camera rated people and Intel weenies.
I dont see cockpit, engines?.......if it nosed dived in, wouldnt it be in mostly 1 giant hulk?
Audio ?
Is there a reason why this guy whispered his narrative?
I want to know where that word Teresa came from, because it's not what I wrote!! How did that get in there?
Aind Voan????
Are any of the 4 jet engines or 6 recaps on site?
YES - there are - both types
I am surprised that the scrappers have not carted it all off to sell one piece at a time ! I guess too hard for them to do that .
Ya, I wouldn't mind having that bent up prop @4:40 --- Don't think I could carry it out !
@@sumbeech1484 I am guessing that as a sacred memorial that it is illegal to take parts from there.
@@lancomedic Agreed !! I guess I should of stated that-- and it is definitely sacred without a doubt !!!
Based on the location of a few pieces of debris I have to think that some have tried to cart pieces away and gave up only a short way down the access trail. This is based on my visit in 2019.
Great video but you need to speak louder and not to mumble
Also get rid of those small insets. They are distracting .
Insects ? XD
Look up "inset" in the dictionary
Then don’t look at them
ua-cam.com/video/9FJVxtTNjJk/v-deo.html Here's a B-36 close up from the movie "Strategic Air Command" starring Jimmy Stewart and June Allyson.
Please speak up louder. You are barely audible. Teresa it's like you are whispering. I mean come on.
It's like you are whispering.
And where did that word Teresa come from? That is not what I wrote.
I stopped watching at 6:41 'cause your voice-over is too soft.
His voice is soft, I found using ear buds or phones helps a lot.
Ya, I'm with you !! I just muted & watched it anyway--- Don't really need to hear him anyway-- I just wanted to see the site !!