As a common problem with propeller-driven aircraft is the propeller ground clearance, I cannot understand why engines should be pylon-mounted. 
It's not a critic on you, Kit, but on the original XB-55.

I don't know you'd bother with pylon mounted engines anyway..apart from trying to make the plane quieter.
The original B-29 had no problem when it was upgraded to the B-50 .
The engines on the 29 were Pratt and Whitney R-3350s at 2200hp and upgraded with P&W R-4360s at 3500hp..nice 
Pylon mounted a great for jets as there lighter and don't suffer as much from torque like ya get from propellers.
This ain't aimed at you Kit ..nope ..this about the real things .
They look cool but sometimes I don't know why..to get upgraded you need new pods..strengthened pylons and wing to mount em ..it's a heap of work for probably not much gain.

Why not put the engine pylons on top of the wings if you are going for a similar layout to the
B-52's landing gear arrangement ?You can put some  dangling bits under the wings from your arsenal of weapons store.

The props can't go on the back of the nacelles, it's a very swept wing and they'd have to be mounted waaaaay back  for the props to clear the TE.

The pylons will be there because it's 'half way' between a B-54 and a B-55, and something has to be distinctly B-55 about it. They'll be pretty low pylons though as the landing gear, a bicycle type, just as the B-55 was going to be, come from the Tu-95 and it's a limited length.

I can offer nothing here except support to keep on going 

There is a solution that will work for you.

I had the same Tu-95 model kit as you and put the engine bits on the B-52G wings. The landing legs of the Tu-95 can easily be broken, that's why mine have been removed from the Convair EB-61 Peacehaven AEW.1.
I'm sure that you will endeavour to complete your build 

As an aside, the HondaJet's engines are mounted on pylons over the wings - IIRC for less vibration and noise.

Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 23, 2023, 02:27:15 PMThe props can't go on the back of the nacelles, it's a very swept wing and they'd have to be mounted waaaaay back  for the props to clear the TE.

The pylons will be there because it's 'half way' between a B-54 and a B-55, and something has to be distinctly B-55 about it. They'll be pretty low pylons though as the landing gear, a bicycle type, just as the B-55 was going to be, come from the Tu-95 and it's a limited length.

If it's a very swept wing, won't the front-mounted nacelles have to be set waaaaay forward to clear the leading edge?

The XB-55's running with 4-blade (or is it 8-blade?) contra-props per engine, that keeps the length of the blades shorter than if they were single 4-blade props, sa maybe you could go 5(10?)-bladed or 6(12?)-bladed to reduce their length a bit more? And reduce the length of the pylon until its more of a suggestion than a statement?

Quote from: Old Wombat on April 23, 2023, 05:53:38 PMIf it's a very swept wing, won't the front-mounted nacelles have to be set waaaaay forward to clear the leading edge?

The XB-55's running with 4-blade (or is it 8-blade?) contra-props per engine, that keeps the length of the blades shorter than if they were single 4-blade props, sa maybe you could go 5(10?)-bladed or 6(12?)-bladed to reduce their length a bit more? And reduce the length of the pylon until its more of a suggestion than a statement?

Yes, but the Tu-95's nacelles are VERY long to start with. I've hacked off the rear extension, where the main gear normally sits, already and it's STILL long.

The XB-55 had 8-bladed, square tipped contraprops, and I've hacked the Tu-95'a props to look the same, or as near as I can manage it anyway.  I suspect the pylons will be pretty short, if only so the prop tips don't hit the ground, but we'll see as things progress.

A lot will depend on how I can position the two main gear legs in the fuselage, but I'll be doing some work on that today.

Quote from: Rick Lowe on April 23, 2023, 03:18:38 PMAs an aside, the HondaJet's engines are mounted on pylons over the wings - IIRC for less vibration and noise.

A nice looking little plane that, yes. The VFW 614 also had its engines on top of the wing, but I'm not sure what their reasoning was. It certainly WASN'T for noise reduction as I flew in one from Copenhagen to Frankfurt once and I was right alongside the cowling! I couldn't see much of the scenery either.....

Short prop blades on turbo jet engine...



 

Quote from: zenrat on April 24, 2023, 04:20:59 AMShort prop blades on turbo jet engine...

Very appropriate too, the B-54B uses the same XT-40 engine as the XF-84H. But FOUR of them.................

I've never seen pylon mounted turbo-props on an aircraft before. Certainly stands out.

Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 24, 2023, 06:10:38 AMVery appropriate too, the B-54B uses the same XT-40 engine as the XF-84H. But FOUR of them.................

Was the XF-84H the aircraft that made people physically sick when the engine was running ? If so what will 4 do ? 

Quote from: NARSES2 on April 24, 2023, 06:26:12 AMWas the XF-84H the aircraft that made people physically sick when the engine was running ? If so what will 4 do ? 

It was indeed, but the noise wasn't generated by the engine so much as the prop, which ran at speeds which made the tips supersonic apparently!

I did a tape-up of the B-54B, just to see how big it was going to end up. It sure is LARGE! 

Note the Scale reference Tamiya paint pot by the nose.

You cannot view this attachment.

Quote from: NARSES2 on April 24, 2023, 06:26:12 AMI've never seen pylon mounted turbo-props on an aircraft before. Certainly stands out.

Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 24, 2023, 06:10:38 AMVery appropriate too, the B-54B uses the same XT-40 engine as the XF-84H. But FOUR of them.................

Was the XF-84H the aircraft that made people physically sick when the engine was running ? If so what will 4 do ? 

Extract from the USAF manual on this aircraft............

"........A lesser known self defence mechanism is the  remarkable screech from the propellor blades of the aircraft.  This noise penetrates the cockpits of attacking aircraft and can render their pilots insensible.  Under no circumstances should field modifications be made to the lining of the flight deck enclosure ......."