anderson@osl475a.erim.org (Rod Anderson) (05/24/91)
From: anderson@osl475a.erim.org (Rod Anderson) wb9omc@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)'s comments on the B49 - B36 situation reminded me of the following. KCET (LA's public TV station) produced a news special on the B-36 vs. B-49 controversy, in which they interviewed Jack Northrop. He was in his 80's at the time and would die within a few months. (Program was recorded c. 1982). It's been a number of years since I've seen it, but the interview goes something like this: Jack Northrop wasn't Stuart Symington's (Sec AF) favorite airframer. Symington told Northrop that the country didn't want two bomber manufacturers and that Northrop should merge with Convair. When Jack tried to negotiate with Convair, they insisted on a buyout which would mean the end of Northrop Corp. It was clear to Jack Northrop that the Convair folks knew the pressure placed on him by Symington. When Northrop told Symington that he couldn't agree to being forced out of business, Symington cancelled the B-49 and promised Northrop would never receive another contract if he had anything to say about it. As an indicator of Symington's animosity, he had the eight B-49's on the line broken up for scrap and the tooling destroyed. (This is why there is no B-49 in the AF Museum.) Northrop later testified before Congress that no pressure had been placed on him. In the program, he said he perjured himself because he still feared Symington (a senator at this time?). Incidentally, the B-36 display at the AF Museum says a lot about how the AF really felt about the B-36. Next to it is a Goblin parasitic interceptor, which was launched from the B36's bombbay when enemy planes appeared, presumably shot them down, and then was recovered with a trapeze-type gadget. That the AF was reduced to this sort of Rube Goldberg approach indicates they had real concerns about the B-36's survivability and mission effectiveness. If anyone can add more details or corrections from the KCET program, I would appreciate it. -Rod
smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (05/30/91)
From: smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov Inanderson@osl475a.erim.org (Rod Anderson) writes... >If anyone can add more details or corrections from the KCET program, >I would appreciate it. A good book to read was written by one of Northrop's executives. I think the title is "Jack Northrop and the Flying Wing" by Coleman. Barnes and Nobles has a special on it for around $5.00.
wb9omc@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) (05/30/91)
From: wb9omc@ee.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) anderson@osl475a.erim.org (Rod Anderson) writes: >had the eight B-49's on the line broken up for scrap and the tooling >destroyed. (This is why there is no B-49 in the AF Museum.) And a darn shame, too. It would have fit right in with birds like the SR71, the B58 and the XB70. >Incidentally, the B-36 display at the AF Museum says a lot about how >the AF really felt about the B-36. Next to it is a Goblin parasitic >interceptor, which was launched from the B36's bombbay when enemy planes >appeared, presumably shot them down, and then was recovered with a >trapeze-type gadget. That the AF was reduced to this sort of Rube >Goldberg approach indicates they had real concerns about the B-36's >survivability and mission effectiveness. In fact, the Goblin (XF85??) was not the only attempt to mate a fighter with the B36. One program used various F84's, both the straight wing flavor (Thunderjet) and the swept wing variant (Thunderstreak) in configurations under the bomb-bay and connecting at the wing tips (!) to do the same thing but with a more orthodox fighter. Neither was particularly successful OR acceptable. Another idea was to mate the RF84 Thunderflash to the RB36 (or is it GRB36....) for a two part recon platform. The idea was for the mothership to fly high and stable taking routine pictures, while the RF84 could be deployed to take the "closer look" and things of interest. With the Thunderflash retaining some defensive capabilities, it could also defend the mothership, or so was the concept. In all of the F84 cases, the operational aspect was for the B36 to take off and mate with the "little fellow" in flight. Obviously, this didn't contribute a lot to current USAF operations with one exception - knowledge of nasty turbulence generated by the big planes. This has been given as a justification for using the flying boom to refuel fighters from something BIG like a KC135 or a KC10 Extender. It gets the fighter (or whatever) down BELOW into some supposedly clear air rather than directly behind in the wake. Some of the film of the F84's trying to link with the B36's is very educational in this respect. It does indeed appear difficult, as one can see the smaller plane rocking and swaying in the B36's turbulence. Of course, some of the film I've seen of boom refueling doesn't always look too stable, either. :-) OK, in all fairness to the B36, if nothing else it was probably the most crew *comfortable* bomber ever built. It had a full galley that could be used to prepare hot food and coffee for the crews IN FLIGHT, and in fact, appears to have been the equivalent or better of commercial airliners.... Duane
jem3@bellcore.bellcore.com (25355-John E McKillop) (05/30/91)
From: pyuxf!jem3@bellcore.bellcore.com (25355-John E McKillop) anderson@osl475a.erim.org (Rod Anderson) writes: >Incidentally, the B-36 display at the AF Museum says a lot about how >the AF really felt about the B-36. Next to it is a Goblin parasitic >interceptor, which was launched from the B36's bombbay when enemy >planes appeared, presumably shot them down, and then was recovered with >a trapeze-type gadget. > >If anyone can add more details or corrections from the KCET program, >I would appreciate it. I have heard the same thing about Symington, Convair and Jack Northrop. (Same program???) The McDonnell XF-85 Goblin was an experiment and never went into service. Trying to catch the trapeze when "landing" must have been a nightmare especially at night or bad weather. I do know a guy who was a gunner on B-36s back in the early 50s and he thinks they were the greatest thing since sliced bread. Of course it could be the old aircrew attitude that it's my airplane therefore its the greatest!