Quote from: NARSES2 on August 23, 2022, 06:17:21 AMCheers Scoot    I did wonder, but then thought maybe they'd taken the concept farther ? Wonder how much water it could carry ?

I just cracked my Magnesium Overcast book on the B-36 and it looks like each of the four bomb bays could fit a droppable 3,000 gallon fuel tank in them. Multiply by four and you get 100,145 lbs of water, which is almost the exact cargo capacity of the XC-99 (100,000 lb), so that tells us we're right on target. In fact, considering that the B-36J Featherweight III had an empty weight of 166,165 lb (75,371 kg) and a max takeoff weight of 410,000 lb (185,973 kg), you could even add some to that if you really wanted to and were fighting a fire relatively close to the airfield, though they likely would want to leave the excess capacity as a safety margin when operating at such low level.

So, minimum 12,000 gallons of water vs the Martin Mars' 7,200 gallons. Considering that the B-36 had more than double the horsepower of the Mars, that makes a lot of sense. That's also the exact capacity of the very successful DC-10 air tanker in use today, just with a slower cruise speed.



I think it's a lot more practical than it might seem at first. The biggest disadvantage compared to the Mars would be its inability to scoop water from lakes, but that doesn't seem to put off modern tankers all that much. Additionally, there aren't as many runways that would be able to operate an aircraft of that size as there are nowadays. Still the Mars were acquired in 1959 and the B-36J-IIIs would have been available in that exact same timeframe.

Cheers,

Logan

Quote from: Logan Hartke on August 23, 2022, 10:43:17 AMSo, minimum 12,000 gallons of water vs the Martin Mars' 7,200 gallons. Considering that the B-36 had more than double the horsepower of the Mars, that makes a lot of sense. That's also the exact capacity of the very successful DC-10 air tanker in use today, just with a slower cruise speed.

Thanks Logan.   

The B-36 would suck at the low altitudes required for fire-fighting. 


However it would've been great for chemtrails.

And it would sound AWESOME!   

And I've heard real one's o'head as well.....

Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on August 23, 2022, 11:21:51 AMThe B-36 would suck at the low altitudes required for fire-fighting.

Maybe? I've read that it actually had a surprisingly low accident rate for the era given its size and complexity due to the power assisted controls (one of the first such aircraft) and immense power on takeoff and landings.



In short, the largely failed attempts to increase the aircraft's top speed (it was more airframe/drag-limited than power-limited) had resulted in more thrust and horsepower than the aircraft really needed, including those six giant props that could be called upon for almost instantaneous power if you got in trouble trying to land. It probably wouldn't need half the fuel or other military equipment that it carried for most SAC missions, so even with a full 12,000 gallons of water, I suspect any B-36J-III tankers would still probably be over 100,000 lbs under the max gross weight over the target fire.

I'd be more worried about flying that magnesium skin fuselage through columns of burning ash!

Lots of those plastic domes for observers to look out of. Could become the orbiting command and control center for a big fire. After dumping its first load of course.

Quote from: Logan Hartke on August 23, 2022, 01:14:27 PM

Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on August 23, 2022, 11:21:51 AMThe B-36 would suck at the low altitudes required for fire-fighting.

Maybe? I've read that it actually had a surprisingly low accident rate for the era given its size and complexity due to the power assisted controls (one of the first such aircraft) and immense power on takeoff and landings.



In short, the largely failed attempts to increase the aircraft's top speed (it was more airframe/drag-limited than power-limited) had resulted in more thrust and horsepower than the aircraft really needed, including those six giant props that could be called upon for almost instantaneous power if you got in trouble trying to land. It probably wouldn't need half the fuel or other military equipment that it carried for most SAC missions, so even with a full 12,000 gallons of water, I suspect any B-36J-III tankers would still probably be over 100,000 lbs under the max gross weight over the target fire.

I'd be more worried about flying that magnesium skin fuselage through columns of burning ash!

Anything beyond a 20° bank and you'd probably smack something with a wingtip. 

It's controllability at take-off and landing is not the same as low-level manueverability. 

"...sitting on your front porch and flying your house around." - Lieutenant General James Edmundson

Another consideration is that engine reliability problems were common along
with propeller problems due to the pusher installation. The uneven airflow off
of the wings meant the loading on the blades varied as the propeller rotated,
and the loading was different at each position moving out from the fuselage
as the wing thickness decreased. Not a setup you'd want to stress even more
by trying to throw the beast around at low level.

Rainmaker would be a better name than Watermaker.

Quote from: zenrat on August 24, 2022, 04:58:50 AMRainmaker would be a better name than Watermaker.

Well, it is something of a water pill

Cheers Logan 

Piasecki-Douglas Heavy Lift Helicopter

>>LINK!<< for when the token expires

Looks like something for Fallout.

Looks more like a cross between Boeing and Douglas..a DC-3 and a CH-47 ...I don't see anything from Piasecki in there because it doesn't have any of his designs in it.

Another sharp - or pointy - one from tomzoo:
https://www.deviantart.com/tomzoo/art/XF-5X-Freedom-Fighter-943449473

You cannot view this attachment.