B-36 Peacemaker

[noxioux]

I did a quick search to make sure I wasn't repeating anything already discussed, but I recently read some arcana that said that development on the B-36 had begun some time before the US entered WWII, and was posponed when the demand for B-24's, etc. . . had to take priority.

So it got me to thinking, what if development had not been interrupted, and was completed in time for the daylight bombing campain?  What if the B-36 became the primary tool of the 8th Air Force for pounding the jerrys into the stone age.  How would it change German response to the daylight bombing campaign?

Of course, I'm thinking of the A and B models, not the later jet-assisted ones.  Also, how would the non-nuclear role change the development of the aircraft?

It seems to me that a fleet of insanely large bombers flying at altitudes unreachable by current interceptors would create some higher pressures on German aircraft builders to come up with some quick solutions.  Maybe a much more concentrated development of jet or rocket powered interceptors?  Maybe force Hitler & Co. to give up that stupid fascination with dive-bombing requirements?

Not that I'm a big B-36 fan (just the opposite), but it's good food for our whiffing neurons.

[Madoc]

Noxioux,

Years ago, I saw this bit of interesting "what if?" artwork that paired a B-36 and an Me-163.  It was a night time setting and the 36 was painted in a camo job similar to what the USAF used for its 29's over Korea.  There was also an interesting "multi-service" roundel emblem on the Big Stick's nose that had the UK's Union Jack, Canada's Maple Leaf and the US Stars 'n Stripes all in one circle, each country's livery enjoying a third of the space.

The painting was rather striking with the moonlit clouds, the silver and black B-36, the Flea's bright exhaust, and the fire from all the multiple turrets on the bomber.  The artist's name escapes me but the image remains well remembered.

I would think that the only reason the USAAF would have had to have fielded the B-36 was if all its other strategic bombers could not have been applied first.  That would've meant that there were no closer airfields upon which to have based all those 17's, 24's, and 29's.  That would've resorted the priority list for the ultra-long range heavy bomber to have come out on top.  Had that happened, then things wouldn't have been nice for the UK.

I would also think that the Luftwaffe would've been very hard pressed to mount effective interceptions of the B-36's - even with their jets.  The Big Sticks flew so high that even if a Me-262 could've climbed up that far it would've been at a severe disadvantage when it came to making even the most basic of maneuvers versus the much larger bomber.  That and all those 20mm canons in all those turrets would've paid merry hell onto any aircraft which did get that far up.

This would've been so for a while at least.  We probably also would've seen much more effort expended on the development of useful parasite fighters.  Something easier to handle than the Goblin - or a Goblin with a better engine - would've been a high priority to get in service.

Madoc

[noxioux]

It occurs to me that development of the longer range fighters would've been put off, too, since there wouldn't have been a real requirement.

One note on the B-29;  if the B-36 had been fielded earlier, there wouldn't have been a need for the 29.  If I'm not mistaken, the 36 was on the drawing boards prior to the 29.  If not, someone please correct me!

[rallymodeller]

Boeing had been working on the B-29 for some time before the USAAF sent out the call for a bomber that could hit Germany from North America (the idea behind it). In fact, Boeing's proposal for the B-36 looked a awful lot like a twin-boomed '29 with six paired pusher engines driving three contraprops (and a 236' wingspan!). There's a two-view in the Aero Series book on the Peacemaker, along with the Douglas proposal that looks sort of like a Mixmaster/Invader hybrid done at 200% scale. Don't forget, the XB-35 was also for the same competition.

In any event, right into the late 50's the principal advantage of the B-36 was more it's operational altitude (over 40,000') than it's sheer speed. At that altitude, even ADC interceptors were right in what is known as "coffin corner", where the critical Mach number and stall speed are within a few knots. This is also what made the RB-36 recce versions successful.

It was only after the deployment of supersonic interceptors in the late 50's that the Featherweight I thru III programs were instituted to increase the "Big Stick's" outright speed and that was at the expense of all but one of the 20mm turrets.

It is quite concievable that the '36 would have been deployed in a Luft '46-type scenario.  Any Luftwaffe pilot who was to come up against it would have had a REALLY hard time, what with all those 20mm turrets...

[Martin H]

Its more likly that the B-29 would have been deployed to Europe, and the 36 to the far east. realy makesome proper use of all that range there

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Well WHIFing the B-36 sounds like a good idea.  What name do you think the British would have given it for their own versions?  Boeing B-29 became the "Washington" so would the B-36 have been named after the Lone Star State?  The Convair "Texas" B. 1.?  Or would they have chosen another name for it?  

I like the idea of a B-36 in RAF Coastal Command markings.  Maybe another one as a Pathfinder for 100 Group.  Australian FEAF with green top and white underside?  It would definitely have been able to strap on the Grand Slam and carry it internally without any problems.  Or in the mine laying role, it would have been able to bottle up Tokyo harbor on one sortie.  

[Aircav]

It would definitely have been able to strap on the Grand Slam and carry it internally without any problems.

Not sure but I think it would be able to carry two

[Madoc]

Folks,

I've been kicking some thoughts around about this as well.  The B-36 was originally conceived to take the fight to Germany if England fell.  This was back in early 1941 when it still seemed a real possibility for this to happen.  The B-36 never got a high production priority because events conspired such that the need for such a very long range machine never came to pass.  Because we retained our bases in China and gained new ones through the Pacific, this meant that the B-29 was sufficient for bombing Japan and there was no need for any larger bomber for that task.  Because Englad did not fall, the range to Germany was well within what the B-17's and B-24's could attain so there was no need in the ETO for the Big Stick either.  So, if you want to see B-36's deployed then something about the situation has to change.

Perhaps instead of England having fallen to the Nazis it's China to the Japanese.  Perhaps instead of spending so much effort mucking about in Burma the Japanese put those resources into pushing back the Nationalists to such an extent their holdings were so deep in China that they put Japan out of reach even of the B-29's.  Or perhaps the Japanese took resources off of the China front and put them into Burma with the result of cutting off the "Burma Road" and pushing deeply enough into India to make even "Flying the Hump" impractical as a means of supporting China in its war.  Either of those scenarios would've meant no bases from which the B-29's could've operated against Japan unless and until we took islands in the Pacific that were close enough.  Faced with that, then you've got a good scenario which would call for increased B-36 development priority.  It would also call for a lower development priority for the B-29 as it would've been more than was needed in Europe but less than was required in the Pacific.  Thus, there'd be less reason to shift so much effort off of the B-17 and 24 lines to produce the new bomber and more reason to take any effort spent on the 29 and direct it to the 36.

So, America's heavy bomber armada could remain pretty much the same over Europe but it would've been the B-36 which emerged as the "star" on that side of the globe.

Perhaps you could spin more changes from this such that the war in Europe somehow dragged on longer and thus created more of an opportunity for the B-36 to have been deployed over there as well.  Perhaps the Nazis, seeing the expected performance of the B-36 and its actual results in combat over Japan, would've accelerated their jet and rocket interceptor programs and that would've increased US loses over Germany such that there was now enough of a need for the B-36's ultra high altitude capabilities and thus it gets shifted from a Pacific priority to a European one.  Then, in a odd turn of historical fate, the B-29 gets to make a comeback in the PTO as all those B-36's get retasked for Europe and enough time has progressed that we've taken enough Pacific atolls to bring Japan in range of the Boeing machine.

Hmm....

Madoc

[Archangel]

I saw a picture of a B-36 with an unusual Piant scheme last night. It had alot of blue on the back half and I got to thinking that it would make one very large unmanned cruise missile or Mistel type of aircraft. We could say that the Bomarc and MAtador type programs didn't get off to good starts and the Air Force was left with no choice but to build remote controlled bombers converted to carry large payloads of explosives.

[jcf]

As Robert(kitnut) requested a larger version of my avatar I thought it appropriate to post it here.

I did start building a model along these lines years (decades) ago from the Monogram 1/72 kit and currently have a Hobbycraft 1/144 kit marked up for sacrifice. My back-story will explain the HC kit's glaring error, the upside down wing.

Jon

[RLBH]

Having seen this, how about a very subtle one: a B-36 with an in-flight refuelling receptacle. Given its' huge range and low speed, the endurance is already pretty extreme, but one could imagine a need arising to lift the truly huge maximum payload (86,000 pounds, all internal!) over an extended range.

Of course, what else can lift enough fuel to tank a B-36, except another B-36? Hence, the KB-36. I suspect you wouldn't need all that fuselage length for tankage so you might even get away with shortening the aircraft some.

[jcf]

Having seen this, how about a very subtle one: a B-36 with an in-flight refuelling receptacle. Given its' huge range and low speed, the endurance is already pretty extreme, but one could imagine a need arising to lift the truly huge maximum payload (86,000 pounds, all internal!) over an extended range.

Of course, what else can lift enough fuel to tank a B-36, except another B-36? Hence, the KB-36. I suspect you wouldn't need all that fuselage length for tankage so you might even get away with shortening the aircraft some.

Nah, two KC-97 per B-36. 

[Chris707]

For those targets you just _have_ to take out without using a bucket of sunshine:



and taking it to the next (il)logical level ;-)


One imagines some runway reinforcement would be a wise idea

Chris
-----------------------------------
http://www.dataviewbooks.com/b-36review.html

[kitnut617]

For those targets you just _have_ to take out without using a bucket of sunshine:

One imagines some runway reinforcement would be a wise idea

Chris
-----------------------------------
http://www.dataviewbooks.com/b-36review.html

Not quite to scale I think Chris

[Chris707]

That was just the pic I was looking for for scaling purposes and couldn't find! LOL. I've seen it a thousand times, but when you need something, it goes and hides...:-)