B-35 and B-49 Northrop's Flying Wings

[RussC]

 

So the issue was how much thrust the props produced relative to the specified horsepower and the exact weight?

Yes

It was about the range. You probably have seen that Northrop was considering a jet airliner version, even produced a film showing one.

Yeah, but it wouldn't have been feasible.  The pressure-hull requirement would either ended up suffering metal fatigue and going the way of the DH Comet, required a lot of strengthening to avoid metal fatigue negating the benefits of a flying wing, or would have simply not worked.

Very true, in fact on the current BWB airliner Boeing concepts team are wrestling with this very issue, some solutions are to create a series of partially overlapping cylinders with access "aisles" between them. The film that Northrop made of a passenger wing in the late 40's shows it operating at heights not needing pressurization - which were also not feasible. Would have been pretty scenic, going cross country at 12,000 ft, sneaking through gaps in the Rocky Mtns....
 

Atomic started decreasing by the start of the 50's ( Mark 5, 6 and especially the Mark 7) but the early thermonuclear jumped back up again in size , especially the Mark 17 which was a lot like the Grand Slam of Barnes Wallis' design. Actually too long to fit in some aircraft. A big table of all this at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cold_War_nuclear_bombs_of_the_United_States

So Mk.7, Mk.8, and so forth?

Whichever would fit, which looks like about half of them from the big list of destruction.
Puzzling that later on, the B-58 Hustler got a pass on this same issue, but only by combining the weapon into an external fuel tank.

So they'd pull the stick back and chop the power, then raise the power as necessary to hold the desired speed?
 
That way would work, done carefully.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Russ C

Yes

Understood

Very true, in fact on the current BWB airliner Boeing concepts team are wrestling with this very issue, some solutions are to create a series of partially overlapping cylinders with access "aisles" between them.

I thought the plan was to use composites to defeat the metal fatigue issue?  As I understand it the compartments were to ultimately be rectangular (composites) with connecting passageways between them (the idea was that it would be more structurally efficient than having one big pressure hull and some airframe structure could be fitted between the cabins.

The film that Northrop made of a passenger wing in the late 40's shows it operating at heights not needing pressurization - which were also not feasible. Would have been pretty scenic, going cross country at 12,000 ft, sneaking through gaps in the Rocky Mtns....

The problem would be too much drag I would guess and thus insufficient range...

Whichever would fit, which looks like about half of them from the big list of destruction.

Assuming this isn't classified, are there any pictures of what the YB-35's bomb-bays looked like?

That way would work, done carefully.

Still the planes speed would drop in order to do this, no?

[RussC]

Russ C

Very true, in fact on the current BWB airliner Boeing concepts team are wrestling with this very issue, some solutions are to create a series of partially overlapping cylinders with access "aisles" between them.

I thought the plan was to use composites to defeat the metal fatigue issue?  As I understand it the compartments were to ultimately be rectangular (composites) with connecting passageways between them (the idea was that it would be more structurally efficient than having one big pressure hull and some airframe structure could be fitted between the cabins.

 Thats a new one for me, I hope its the case. My internals info goes back to 2007, from a NASA article.

The film that Northrop made of a passenger wing in the late 40's shows it operating at heights not needing pressurization - which were also not feasible. Would have been pretty scenic, going cross country at 12,000 ft, sneaking through gaps in the Rocky Mtns....

The problem would be too much drag I would guess and thus insufficient range...

Absolutely, plus some real problems with weather.

Whichever would fit, which looks like about half of them from the big list of destruction.

Assuming this isn't classified, are there any pictures of what the YB-35's bomb-bays looked like?

I have no photos or links, probably the best are the cutaway illustrations done by graphic artists of the day. I think the doors, if you want to measure from the 3-views are going to be wider in their openings in the hull, than their height...it was the thickness of the wing as the limiter. In my mind the immediate solution would be bulged bay doors to gain girth.

That way would work, done carefully.

Still the planes speed would drop in order to do this, no?

yes, definitely.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Russ C

Thats a new one for me, I hope its the case. My internals info goes back to 2007, from a NASA article.

Oh, I was talking about the McDonnell Douglas double-decker BWB from the late 1990's.  I remember composites being proposed.  

Regardless judging by this drawing, they also use similar rectangular shaped compartments

Absolutely, plus some real problems with weather.

True

I have no photos or links, probably the best are the cutaway illustrations done by graphic artists of the day.

I haven't found any of those

In my mind the immediate solution would be bulged bay doors to gain girth.

Makes sense

[Daryl J.]

I would not propose a Zwilling of these machines.     

[RussC]

I would not propose a Zwilling of these machines.    

 No, but for some reason, it did spark an idea of a MISTEL of these machines! Imagine a XB-35 with XP-79 parasites and then think about a German E555 Arado with a Horten 229 above it in the Mistel piggyback setup.

 Wheels slowly turning, gray matter vibrating and a slight smell reminiscent of burning meatloaf.....

[Joe C-P]

I would not propose a Zwilling of these machines.     

But perhaps a biplane...

[RussC]

I would not propose a Zwilling of these machines.     

But perhaps a biplane...

Before Hill in England, and Northrop in the USA and Cheranovski in Russia began their designs, John Dunne was creating flying wings in biplane and monoplane configurations.

[KJ_Lesnick]

RussC,

Wait a second... if they were increasing stability by increasing AoA it wouldn't make a difference because when you stall a plane you put it past the critical AoA -- you'd be at high alpha anyway...

[RussC]

RussC,

Wait a second... if they were increasing stability by increasing AoA it wouldn't make a difference because when you stall a plane you put it past the critical AoA -- you'd be at high alpha anyway...

   The thing was not to exceed a certain angle or hit stall speed. Thinking the same thing that I am? Personally, I don't see how that was any less demanding of pilot inputs and concentration than keeping normal "unstable" flight, and I still don't see the advantage they claimed if that was so. Mind you, this is from a few articles read. I have not personally flown an XB-35 (except in very fervent dreams, and usually with female crews) but just regular trainers and bug smashers.

[raafif]

not from Northrop but Horton via Captain America ....
http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/HydraFlyingWingCatalogPage.htm


also the parasite bomb ...
http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/HydraParasit-Catalog.htm

[KJ_Lesnick]

RussC,

The thing was not to exceed a certain angle or hit stall speed.

Well, I've been told the plane was unstable and had abysmal stall and spin characteristic.  However, as I said before a Northrop test pilot was able to stall, and recover the aircraft under circumstances which were photographed.  You were saying that they sometimes flew the plane at higher alphas in order to make the plane more stable, but for a stall, the plane would have to go past the critical alpha and since the plane could be stalled and recovered, the point is that whether it was flown at low or high alpha it would still be stallable and recoverable.

[Stargazer]

not from Northrop but Horton via Captain America ....

Brilliant flying wing from Hydra! But this should read HortEn, not Horton...

[Old Wombat]

not from Northrop but Horton via Captain America ....

Brilliant flying wing from Hydra! But this should read HortEn, not Horton...

Picky! Picky!

Man, given some of the spelling & typo's one sees...

[Stargazer]

Man, given some of the spelling & typo's one sees...

As a former teacher, I hate typos for a start... but in this particular case it's on someone's name, and a major source of confusion: The "Horton" vs. Horten mistake is a very common one in aviation circles and I fight it as best as I can, not only because "Horten" is German while "Horton" is American, but also because there was once a Horton in America who designed some strange all-wing prototypes and had NOTHING to do with Germany's Horten!!