My Dad worked for Convair during this period and I recall hearing him talk about the B-60, but this is the first video I have seen of it. Awesome. Thanks for posting.
Lt. Col Fitzhugh "Fitz" Fulton was one of the men who test flew this beast. That's him second from the end at 1:44. He was literally the best multi-engine pilot in the world, even acknowledged by the Soviets as such. My grandfather, Victor Horton, flew with him many times during his NASA career out at Edwards, especially on the YF-12 and SR-71 Blackbirds and the 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. Fitz was not that impressed with the YB-60; apparently it had some handling issues and was not as capable as the B-52, despite being able to carry almost twice the bomb load.
The B-52 is so good that in 2017 the USAF is seriously thinking about replacing her Pratt & Whitney T33 turbofan jets with a newer jet design giving her 30% more range . The Air Force plans to keep the B-52 operational until 2050 ! The YB-60 was in no way a better airplane than the B-52 . The Convair design was a modification of sorts to the B-36 , while the Boeing bomber was a new design . The Convair was a capable airplane , but outclassed in 1952 by the Boeing design . The B-52 also paved the way for the 707 .
Yeah, the only thing the YB-60 (or B-36) had over the Buff was its capability to carry any of the current operational USAF munitions internally. (The 44,000 lb T-12 was retired at the same time as the B-36.) I wonder how much more speed they could have rung out of it had the thickness of the wing had been cut in half and maybe loosing the greenhouse and having a B-29 style flush cockpit. (At least down to the nose boom anyway, can't have windows there!)
Reengining the B-52 has been discussed since I started working on them in 1971. It's been tested with current state of the art engines. In the end--as usual--it will come down to money. I'm not holding my breath on that.
Saw a documentary on 747's, not that the B-52 led to it,per say. But the engine for the 747 was tested in flight by removing the port inboard twin-engine pod of a loaned 52 & taking it aloft. Spent however long testing it but had that going before the prototype 747 ever flew. That 'Buff' looked strange W/6 jet engines & one turbo-fan.
The wings of the YB-60 were rather thicker then the B-52's. I would think that on take-off with higher speeds, there must have been a "drag" issue. The undercarriage looked like it would tuck itself right into the wing area instead of usually the mid section of the fuselage. The controllability of this airplane on take-off must have taken some kind of effort. The B-52 on the other hand, was an innovative design that the Air Force liked immediately, after the B-47's success. There were only two fully built YB-60s, and only one of them flight tested. The other airframe was used for ground testing. It soon became an immediate failure since the Air Force already found their niche in the B-52 program.
The B-60 was designed to fly high in order to be out of reach of enemy fighters, but with the advent of air-to-air missles and surface-to-air missles the B-60 might as well been sitting still. The B-52 was a much more manueverable aircraft for its size, and could fly at tree top level to avoid radar a whole lot better than the huge and lumbering B-60.
The BUFF out performed the YB-60 in virtually every category and was ultimately a better decision. Tough on the people there, but there were other projects that came their way.
The B-60 was the modification of an existing design, the B-36. It is more cost effective to modify an existing design, then start a new one. The principle goal of the Eisenhower Administration was to have a cost effective defense, instead of wasteful or unnecessary expenses. Missles can knockout the B-52 too and since it is a more expensive plane, the greater the loss.
The concept of a new bomber was first brought up in November 1945, the war was already over. The B-52 that we know today was designed in the late 40's, early 50's.
My dad worked at Convair during completion and delivery of the last B-36, "The City of Fort Worth", which now sits in the Pima Air and Space Museum, and the first flight of the YB-60, which was the plane he'd been hired to help build. Boeing used engineering data that the Convair engineers rejected, resulting in a thicker, stiffer wing on the YB-60. It meant that the wing flutter that developed at high speed, when the flow delaminated over the control surfaces, could not be engineered out, and would have caused premature fatigue in critical areas. The YB-60 was NEVER a viable design. Graft and politics had chosen the B-36 over the superior design of the B-49, but that stiff wing on the 60 was too dangerous for any amount of bribery to overcome.
@stephenwinkler It turns out that the the YB-60 was putting a bandaid on a bad solution. It tuns out that the Buff significantly out performed an old design during testing including more modern technology, faster air speed, etc. The correct solution involved more than putting swept wings and jet engines on a world war 2 design. The B-52 was just voted the best bomber ever and the tax payers got excellent value for their money. Note that they could have made a B-47 out of the B-50, etc
The YB-60 was very simmilar in concept and design to it's Soviet counterpart the Tu-95 Bear(which was simply a modified design of it's predessesor the Tu-3 Bull).Both took less time to make,but each had it weaknesses compared to the B-52.
The claim that the YB-60 had a 60% parts cominality with the B-36 is laughable. The fuselage shares many parts but the entire empinage, wing, and powerplants are entirely different.
If you take account of the fact that the wings were B36 wings on a redesigned wing root to achieve the desired swept profile then the commonality of parts is much higher than just the fuselage
Paul Miller My source was: Jet bombers : from the Messerschmitt Me 262 to the Stealth B-2 The authur said that claims made by convair that there was an abundanse of cominality were exagerated. In fact called the claims laughable. But that was about all they could hang their hat on. The B-60 could not measure up to the B-52 in performance.
roaklin true, it was basically an enlarged b-29 with turboprop engines, but into the early fifties it became much different with jet engines in its final design.
@HJMC3345 The YB-60 had a greater payload, then the Buff. If you want a significant increase in air speed, then go supersonic. Supersonic fighters had to escort the B-52, because it was a subsonic bomber. Since, both bombers needed a fighter escort, why not save the taxpayers some money and go with the less expensive bomber? Incidentally, I, too, saw the program about the ten best bombers and I do not agree with the results. For example, some people would rate the B-17 as the best bomber ever.
I read posts relative to SAMs. There were none in existance at the time. As for the 20mm tail turret, this and the B-47 were faster than most jets of the day, and definatelty capable of simply flying beyond the range of any intersceptor trying to catch-up to it.
@@NoTaboos - It was your claim. Look at the empennage of the B-60 and compare it to the B-36. Look at the swept wings of the B-60 and compare them to the straight wings of the B-36. There were other differences as well but you need to back up your statement. I call it a claim but whatever. You were wrong. Simple as that.
@@scootergeorge7089 You self-righteous little prick. It was a symbolic statement reflecting the comparative lack of effort put into the design compared to the B-52. Nothing to do with differences.
I wonder if it was known that one future mission would be dropping conventional bombs over the jungle (Vietnam) when would bomber design have shown this mission change? What we see here is the result of faulty thinking (that there would not be any need in a conventional war, or even conventional war) That is, a war where nukes are not used.
A case of too small of a jet engine on too much airplane. I bet if Convair had put a little more thought into it, they could have given Boeing a real run for their money. I mean really, that "greenhouse" cockpit arrangement? The rest of the YB-60 looked so futuristic. Boeing abandoned the inline cockpit idea of the B-47 after putting it on the XB and YB-52.
Jet engines were relatively weak in this time, today the 777 has only 2 engines, but is even heavier than the YB-60 or the B-52. Back then they needed 8 engines. The predecessor of the YB-60 and the B-52, the B-36, had 6 piston engines and later models additionally 4 jet engines for situations they needed more peak power.
Plus the B-47 already had two pairs of engines and two singles. Before that,the b-36 had a pair of podded engines under each wing tip for extra power at takeoff,and over target area. Wasn't an uncommon arrangement
@@tomcline5631 this engine pods came from the B-47, the B-36 A didnt have this pods from beginning on. They took it, because they were already developed, and modified the turbo jets so it could run on av gas instead of normal jet fuel.
The 8 engine configuration goes back to the large mass of the hydrogen bombs that the USAF intended to use. Add the requirement to carry a certain number of those bombs a certain distance and you ended up with a gross takeoff weight of the aircraft. P&W turbojet engines had only so much thrust. That limitation led to the need for 8 engines. Truth is that every USA jet engine manufacturer has struggled to keep up with the demands of the USA DOD. Even in the world of civil aviation the jet engine manufacturers struggled with the demands of the B707, DC8, COMET, Trident, B727, VC10, B747, L1011, B737, etcetera. The aircraft always required far more performance than existed or projected to exist.
Had an instructor who crewed on the B36, by his description it was a huge pile of crap. This new plane would have been an amazing upgrade. The B52 was probably far better though being a newer design.
The only one I've seen was a recon plane that's now at castle air museum in Atwater california. And yeah, instructor told me it used a ton of oil and it was common for entire cylinders to blow off the engines. The PW 4360 corncob engine was not very reliable from my understanding. Cool as hell though!
Yep, the "Peacemaker" was a PoS. The engine was overstressed and never designed for that "pusher" configuration. She was a flying gas tank and aerial refueling made her obsolete.
@@williamschramm2761 no it was a succes since it was the only true intercontinental bomber and that could carry thermonuclear devices , by the time the b52 came it too was obsolete since all of them were replaced by icbms atlas minutemen , any bomber could be shot down by ground to air missiles no matter how fast like a b58 b70 , the age of the nuclear bomber was over early 60s
Hugging the earth at tree top level lowered the chance of SAMs having time to track the B-52 where as the B-60 was very sluggish and not near as fast as the B-52. As far as the greater the loss, more B-60s would have been shot down in greater numbers than the better suited 52s. More planes lost-more crews lost.
Speed was the problem with prop-driven aircraft. The prop-driven tankers could not fly fast enough for safe refuelings of faster jet aircraft. To get the needed speed, refuelings had to be conducted during a dive, a hazard maneuver during a hazardous operation, the jet aircraft often flying on the edge of a stall.
Barry Grant Have seen pics of supersonic fighters struggling just above stall to refuel from piston prop tankers. However, the B36 would likely go probably 400 had it turboprops, it was a very clean airplane. Anyway it’s arm chair speculation. LeMay wanted jets, congress wanted money for its constituents, and now we know the rest of the story. But boo boo I miss radials and props. Thanks for your reply and hope get along OK.
@@danbenson7587 The turboprops of that era, if they existed, would not have helped much. Have you ever seen a B-36? They have all the streamlining of a Greyhound bus.
Barry Grant I worked on the street leading into General Dynamics in FW. The B36 was on display a bit upstream of the entrance. Would have to disagree on B36 aerodynamics, it had a high fitness ratio, laminar wing, engines buried and pusher. The only nasty was, curiously, the cockpit window seals. Here I talk of the later light weight model. Gotta go
Barry Grant Turboprops were a mixed bag in the 50s. The issue being propellers lose efficiency above 400 or so. The AF wanted to go fast, so the money went to pure jets. But there were turboprops around, Google the “Wright XT35-W-1” intended for the B52. I think it was around 5000hp.
@HJMC3345 The BUFF was a completely new design and much more expensive than the YB-60. The fiscally responsible decision would have been the modification of the B-36 design, which was the YB-60. The YB-60 was larger than the B-52 and had a larger capacity for a greater bomb load. However, as with the B-29 versus the B-32, Boeing had her stooges in our Defense Department, while Convair did not. Why pay for a completely new design, when you already have an existing design? That is my point.
Stephen Winkler Just remember what happens when you go with the "Cheaper" design. Just look at the C5 and the Billions of dollars it cost the Gov't to "FIX" the cheaper design and to bail out Lockheed so they could fix it, and we are still paying for them as some are sitting on the ground waiting to be "Fixed" It was "Cheaper" than Boeings design (747) and did not meet the design criteria it was supposed to. YEA cheaper alright !!!
Boeing clearly had the superior design...a new JET from the ground up. convair didnt know anything about pure jets, Boeing built on the B47, they had all the experience with high speed pure jets, and it clearly showed. The BUFF is one mean flying machine, just the landing gear is a quantum leap. it allowed for unrestricted access to the dual bomb bays...GENIUS.!
My Dad worked for Convair during this period and I recall hearing him talk about the B-60, but this is the first video I have seen of it. Awesome. Thanks for posting.
I agree. The B-60 was a jet version of a WW-2 design. The B-52 was capable of changing with the times where the B-60 would not have been able to.
Lt. Col Fitzhugh "Fitz" Fulton was one of the men who test flew this beast. That's him second from the end at 1:44. He was literally the best multi-engine pilot in the world, even acknowledged by the Soviets as such. My grandfather, Victor Horton, flew with him many times during his NASA career out at Edwards, especially on the YF-12 and SR-71 Blackbirds and the 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. Fitz was not that impressed with the YB-60; apparently it had some handling issues and was not as capable as the B-52, despite being able to carry almost twice the bomb load.
Some good scenes here. Thumbs up!
The B-52 is so good that in 2017 the USAF is seriously thinking about replacing her Pratt & Whitney T33 turbofan jets with a newer jet design giving her 30% more range . The Air Force plans to keep the B-52 operational until 2050 !
The YB-60 was in no way a better airplane than the B-52 . The Convair design was a modification of sorts to the B-36 , while the Boeing bomber was a new design .
The Convair was a capable airplane , but outclassed in 1952 by the Boeing design .
The B-52 also paved the way for the 707 .
Yeah, the only thing the YB-60 (or B-36) had over the Buff was its capability to carry any of the current operational USAF munitions internally. (The 44,000 lb T-12 was retired at the same time as the B-36.) I wonder how much more speed they could have rung out of it had the thickness of the wing had been cut in half and maybe loosing the greenhouse and having a B-29 style flush cockpit. (At least down to the nose boom anyway, can't have windows there!)
The B-47 and the KC-35 paved the way for the 707
Reengining the B-52 has been discussed since I started working on them in 1971. It's been tested with current state of the art engines. In the end--as usual--it will come down to money. I'm not holding my breath on that.
Saw a documentary on 747's, not that the B-52 led to it,per say. But the engine for the 747 was tested in flight by removing the port inboard twin-engine pod of a loaned 52 & taking it aloft. Spent however long testing it but had that going before the prototype 747 ever flew. That 'Buff' looked strange W/6 jet engines & one turbo-fan.
The wings of the YB-60 were rather thicker then the B-52's. I would think that on take-off with higher speeds, there must have been a "drag" issue. The undercarriage looked like it would tuck itself right into the wing area instead of usually the mid section of the fuselage. The controllability of this airplane on take-off must have taken some kind of effort. The B-52 on the other hand, was an innovative design that the Air Force liked immediately, after the B-47's success. There were only two fully built YB-60s, and only one of them flight tested. The other airframe was used for ground testing. It soon became an immediate failure since the Air Force already found their niche in the B-52 program.
The B-60 was designed to fly high in order to be out of reach of enemy fighters, but with the advent of air-to-air missles and surface-to-air missles the B-60 might as well been sitting still. The B-52 was a much more manueverable aircraft for its size, and could fly at tree top level to avoid radar a whole lot better than the huge and lumbering B-60.
The B-52 was also faster
@@jamesricker3997 It was also able to be refueled in the air
B36. love this plane
The BUFF out performed the YB-60 in virtually every category and was ultimately a better decision. Tough on the people there, but there were other projects that came their way.
Although jet noise was the future, DAMN those B-36 engines have satisfyingly loud HUMMMM!!
Wow, the YB-60's nose looks like something Buck Rogers would have flown.
The B-60 was the modification of an existing design, the B-36. It is more cost effective to modify an existing design, then start a new one. The principle goal of the Eisenhower Administration was to have a cost effective defense, instead of wasteful or unnecessary expenses. Missles can knockout the B-52 too and since it is a more expensive plane, the greater the loss.
The concept of a new bomber was first brought up in November 1945, the war was already over. The B-52 that we know today was designed in the late 40's, early 50's.
My dad worked at Convair during completion and delivery of the last B-36, "The City of Fort Worth", which now sits in the Pima Air and Space Museum, and the first flight of the YB-60, which was the plane he'd been hired to help build. Boeing used engineering data that the Convair engineers rejected, resulting in a thicker, stiffer wing on the YB-60. It meant that the wing flutter that developed at high speed, when the flow delaminated over the control surfaces, could not be engineered out, and would have caused premature fatigue in critical areas.
The YB-60 was NEVER a viable design.
Graft and politics had chosen the B-36 over the superior design of the B-49, but that stiff wing on the 60 was too dangerous for any amount of bribery to overcome.
It didn't smoke as much on takeoff as I'd expected!
Probably really light for the first flight,and so wasn't using the water injection system.
Surprised the Air Force didn’t order some B-60’s to back up the B-52, in case the B-52 would have delays or development problems
I'd love to see an alternate history where these beasts were accepted into service and got their own "big belly" modifications and engine upgrades
Then write one.
metalrod23 AND as of 2013 their still flying in service of USAF!!
@stephenwinkler
It turns out that the the YB-60 was putting a bandaid on a bad solution.
It tuns out that the Buff significantly out performed an old design during testing including more modern technology, faster air speed, etc. The correct solution involved more than putting swept wings and jet engines on a world war 2 design.
The B-52 was just voted the best bomber ever and the tax payers got excellent value for their money. Note that they could have made a B-47 out of the B-50, etc
The YB-60 was very simmilar in concept and design to it's Soviet counterpart the Tu-95 Bear(which was simply a modified design of it's predessesor the Tu-3 Bull).Both took less time to make,but each had it weaknesses compared to the B-52.
Tu-4 Bull was reverse-engineered from the American Boeing B-29 Superfortress.
the tu-4 "Bull" is a B-29 copy. the Tu-95 is not a B-29, it is a far more advanced plane.
Grandmother of all jet passenger airplane!!!
@Carl Clarke - The B-47 predates the KC-135 as well as the Dash 80 and 707. The Stratojet was the first American swept wing jet bomber.
So it's a jet version of the B36 pretty much. And that thing was crazy big and complicated. The B52 was faster and flew longer, no brainer
The claim that the YB-60 had a 60% parts cominality with the B-36 is laughable. The fuselage shares many parts but the entire empinage, wing, and powerplants are entirely different.
If you take account of the fact that the wings were B36 wings on a redesigned wing root to achieve the desired swept profile then the commonality of parts is much higher than just the fuselage
Paul Miller
My source was: Jet bombers : from the Messerschmitt Me 262 to the Stealth B-2
The authur said that claims made by convair that there was an abundanse of cominality were exagerated. In fact called the claims laughable. But that was about all they could hang their hat on. The B-60 could not measure up to the B-52 in performance.
I think they meant it from a manufacturing process , they didnt have to change assembly line much to make the
@@cnfuzz - Not what they said and it takes a huge stretch of the imagination to believe otherwise.
The B-52 design was started in WW2.
roaklin true, it was basically an enlarged b-29 with turboprop engines, but into the early fifties it became much different with jet engines in its final design.
Voiceover sounds like Bill Peach (Aussie).
A line comes to mind - "Dispatch War Rocket Ajax - to bring back his body!"
Vultee and Consolidated merged to become Convair. Some designs were very radical, this wasn't.
And convair became general dynamics producing the finest export fighter the f16
con fuzz
Correct !
You got that right.
i wish that the air force would of thought that.
@HJMC3345 The YB-60 had a greater payload, then the Buff. If you want a significant increase in air speed, then go supersonic. Supersonic fighters had to escort the B-52, because it was a subsonic bomber. Since, both bombers needed a fighter escort, why not save the taxpayers some money and go with the less expensive bomber? Incidentally, I, too, saw the program about the ten best bombers and I do not agree with the results. For example, some people would rate the B-17 as the best bomber ever.
I read posts relative to SAMs. There were none in existance at the time. As for the 20mm tail turret, this and the B-47 were faster than most jets of the day, and definatelty capable of simply flying beyond the range of any intersceptor trying to catch-up to it.
If they reconfigured the cockpit into a more madero b52 style it may have gained some traction.
It would still lack the performance of the B-52. And the production B-52 has a completely redesigned cockpit compared to the original YB-52.
@crysis888 1,000% agreed!
YB-60 looks like B-52,but B-52 is far sophisticated.
She was a big girl, not a bad looking one either. Had the 52 not worked out this would have been sac's ride
Beautiful aircraft. Too bad both examples were scrapped shortly after testing.
Jesse Wright and a
and a
crysis888 But would they have still been in service today ????
I think it would of been better if Convair offered the airforce with an upgrade package for the B-36 into B-60.
Just a B-36 without propellers.
Wrong! The entire wing and tail structure was different. So your claim is a huge exaggeration.
@@scootergeorge7089 It was not a claim.
@@NoTaboos - It was your claim. Look at the empennage of the B-60 and compare it to the B-36. Look at the swept wings of the B-60 and compare them to the straight wings of the B-36. There were other differences as well but you need to back up your statement. I call it a claim but whatever. You were wrong. Simple as that.
@@scootergeorge7089 You self-righteous little prick. It was a symbolic statement reflecting the comparative lack of effort put into the design compared to the B-52. Nothing to do with differences.
I wonder if it was known that one future mission would be dropping conventional bombs over the jungle (Vietnam) when would bomber design have shown this mission change? What we see here is the result of faulty thinking (that there would not be any need in a conventional war, or even conventional war) That is, a war where nukes are not used.
A case of too small of a jet engine on too much airplane. I bet if Convair had put a little more thought into it, they could have given Boeing a real run for their money. I mean really, that "greenhouse" cockpit arrangement? The rest of the YB-60 looked so futuristic. Boeing abandoned the inline cockpit idea of the B-47 after putting it on the XB and YB-52.
Its huge...
The eight engines on both aircraft and the layout did that happen by accident or who was spying on who?
Jet engines were relatively weak in this time, today the 777 has only 2 engines, but is even heavier than the YB-60 or the B-52. Back then they needed 8 engines.
The predecessor of the YB-60 and the B-52, the B-36, had 6 piston engines and later models additionally 4 jet engines for situations they needed more peak power.
Plus the B-47 already had two pairs of engines and two singles. Before that,the b-36 had a pair of podded engines under each wing tip for extra power at takeoff,and over target area. Wasn't an uncommon arrangement
@@tomcline5631 this engine pods came from the B-47, the B-36 A didnt have this pods from beginning on. They took it, because they were already developed, and modified the turbo jets so it could run on av gas instead of normal jet fuel.
The 8 engine configuration goes back to the large mass of the hydrogen bombs that the USAF intended to use. Add the requirement to carry a certain number of those bombs a certain distance and you ended up with a gross takeoff weight of the aircraft. P&W turbojet engines had only so much thrust. That limitation led to the need for 8 engines. Truth is that every USA jet engine manufacturer has struggled to keep up with the demands of the USA DOD. Even in the world of civil aviation the jet engine manufacturers struggled with the demands of the B707, DC8, COMET, Trident, B727, VC10, B747, L1011, B737, etcetera. The aircraft always required far more performance than existed or projected to exist.
Had an instructor who crewed on the B36, by his description it was a huge pile of crap. This new plane would have been an amazing upgrade. The B52 was probably far better though being a newer design.
From my understanding, the B-36 was out of date as soon as it came out of production. It's greatest success was a reconnaissance aircraft
The only one I've seen was a recon plane that's now at castle air museum in Atwater california. And yeah, instructor told me it used a ton of oil and it was common for entire cylinders to blow off the engines. The PW 4360 corncob engine was not very reliable from my understanding. Cool as hell though!
You are correct. I have similar stories
Yep, the "Peacemaker" was a PoS. The engine was overstressed and never designed for that "pusher" configuration. She was a flying gas tank and aerial refueling made her obsolete.
@@williamschramm2761 no it was a succes since it was the only true intercontinental bomber and that could carry thermonuclear devices , by the time the b52 came it too was obsolete since all of them were replaced by icbms atlas minutemen , any bomber could be shot down by ground to air missiles no matter how fast like a b58 b70 , the age of the nuclear bomber was over early 60s
Hugging the earth at tree top level lowered the chance of SAMs having time to track the B-52 where as the B-60 was very sluggish and not near as fast as the B-52. As far as the greater the loss, more B-60s would have been shot down in greater numbers than the better suited 52s. More planes lost-more crews lost.
This is the jet version of the b36 with little changes to the frame.
B-52 in training.
we just didn't have enough thrust,,,,, otherwise,,,, she would have still be flying today.
looks nicer than the B-52
👍
The Air Force should have re-engined the B36 fleet with turboprops and kept it flying for years as a tanker.
Speed was the problem with prop-driven aircraft. The prop-driven tankers could not fly fast enough for safe refuelings of faster jet aircraft. To get the needed speed, refuelings had to be conducted during a dive, a hazard maneuver during a hazardous operation, the jet aircraft often flying on the edge of a stall.
Barry Grant Have seen pics of supersonic fighters struggling just above stall to refuel from piston prop tankers. However, the B36 would likely go probably 400 had it turboprops, it was a very clean airplane. Anyway it’s arm chair speculation. LeMay wanted jets, congress wanted money for its constituents, and now we know the rest of the story. But boo boo I miss radials and props. Thanks for your reply and hope get along OK.
@@danbenson7587 The turboprops of that era, if they existed, would not have helped much. Have you ever seen a B-36? They have all the streamlining of a Greyhound bus.
Barry Grant I worked on the street leading into General Dynamics in FW. The B36 was on display a bit upstream of the entrance. Would have to disagree on B36 aerodynamics, it had a high fitness ratio, laminar wing, engines buried and pusher. The only nasty was, curiously, the cockpit window seals. Here I talk of the later light weight model. Gotta go
Barry Grant Turboprops were a mixed bag in the 50s. The issue being propellers lose efficiency above 400 or so. The AF wanted to go fast, so the money went to pure jets. But there were turboprops around, Google the “Wright XT35-W-1” intended for the B52. I think it was around 5000hp.
Why Be Sixty when you can Be Twenty One
The only option was to be fifty two.
@HJMC3345 The BUFF was a completely new design and much more expensive than the YB-60. The fiscally responsible decision would have been the modification of the B-36 design, which was the YB-60. The YB-60 was larger than the B-52 and had a larger capacity for a greater bomb load. However, as with the B-29 versus the B-32, Boeing had her stooges in our Defense Department, while Convair did not. Why pay for a completely new design, when you already have an existing design? That is my point.
In My Honest Opinion i would choose the B-60 Over the B-52 But thats my opinion.
Stephen Winkler Just remember what happens when you go with the "Cheaper" design. Just look at the C5 and the Billions of dollars it cost the Gov't to "FIX" the cheaper design and to bail out Lockheed so they could fix it, and we are still paying for them as some are sitting on the ground waiting to be "Fixed" It was "Cheaper" than Boeings design (747) and did not meet the design criteria it was supposed to. YEA cheaper alright !!!
The Boeing design inheritly was better. And streamlined
2:08 A time-traveling Barack Obama, suffering from concussion, gives a speech about the Internet to bemused Convair workers
BOEING HAD BETTER LOBBYIST AND POLITICAL HACKS BEING BRIBED
The right decision was clearly made.
Boeing clearly had the superior design...a new JET from the ground up. convair didnt know anything about pure jets, Boeing built on the B47, they had all the experience with high speed pure jets, and it clearly showed. The BUFF is one mean flying machine, just the landing gear is a quantum leap. it allowed for unrestricted access to the dual bomb bays...GENIUS.!
And you have NO evidence for the B.S. you spew here, Bill!
No. The B52 was just more advanced.
@Dave H also the situation had changed for the B70. A great airplane over taken by the times.