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

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Minor clarification, the "Tall Boy" was a 12,000 lb weapon, not 6,000.

Thanks for the clarification.  Corrections made to original comment regarding the error on Tall Boy bomb weight. 

It was late, I was tired, that is my story and I am sticking with it.

As for B-35 Whiffs, I'll be doing one in an "operational" WWII configuration, OD over gray, framed pilot's canopy, gun turrets slewed and elevated, and other little bits.

I like that olive drab over gray scheme idea.  I was proposing something similar in a recent chat session with Brian da Basher but it involved an A-10 in US Army markings with the idea that the USAF finally admitted that they were not interested in the close air support mission and gave it back to the Army (we can dream).

Another Whiff, but one I'm hesitant to do, is cut up a B-49 to give it greater sweep, in order to improve stability a bit, and more importantly, get a better maximum speed out of it.

Greater wing sweep?  That would be a real challenge.  Maybe you should start with a block of wood and just chip away everything that is not part of the idea.  Trying to modify the existing AMT and Italeri kits would require a lot of work towards a goal that might stay just out of reach.  Have you considered creating a support group for this idea? 

[jcf]

As for B-35 Whiffs, I'll be doing one in an "operational" WWII configuration, OD over gray, framed pilot's canopy, gun turrets slewed and elevated, and other little bits.

I like that olive drab over gray scheme idea.  I was proposing something similar in a recent chat session with Brian da Basher but it involved an A-10 in US Army markings with the idea that the USAF finally admitted that they were not interested in the close air support mission and gave it back to the Army (we can dream).

Ya mean sorta like this?

Model by Lynnwood modeler Tim Lawson.

Jon

[Jeffry Fontaine]

As for B-35 Whiffs, I'll be doing one in an "operational" WWII configuration, OD over gray, framed pilot's canopy, gun turrets slewed and elevated, and other little bits.

I like that olive drab over gray scheme idea.  I was proposing something similar in a recent chat session with Brian da Basher but it involved an A-10 in US Army markings with the idea that the USAF finally admitted that they were not interested in the close air support mission and gave it back to the Army (we can dream).

Ya mean sorta like this?

Model by Lynnwood modeler Tim Lawson.

Hi Jon,

Pretty much exactly like that but with some modern markings and "U.S. Army" or "United States Army" on the fuselage or engines and not a hint of Air Force to be seen anywhere

Now back to regular scheduled discussion on the B-35 and B-49

[kitnut617]

Well I've found some of the article:  http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1967/mar-apr/coker.html
I just need to find the rest of it as it has many interesting links including aircraft (where I saw the 3-View of the B-35), nuclear weapons and other larger conventional bombs

[sagallacci]

Regarding earlier posts about nukes in B-47s, it was able to carry fairly fat (60 in.) but rather short, relativley speaking, bombs. The Mk4, 5, 6, 15, etc. were fat, and could be fitted with short cases, as could later devices of various diameters. The 60 in. figure was used as the one never to exceed dimension of early atomics and early generation fusion devices, and for cramped carry, many bombs could be configured with a minimal case length and parachute can on the rear for an OAL of not much more than 10 -12 ft. 

[elmayerle]

I think y'all are missing a couple obvious possibilities, a VB-35/49 (more likely VB-49) derived from Northrop's Flying WIng airliner proposal that fitted a new center section to the XB-49.  Taking that one step farther and replacing the lounge area in the 'stinger" with a set of clamshell doors that open to the sides and redoing the interior and window area and you've got a CB-49.  Frankly, I like the KB-49 proposal, perhaps with drogue pods under the wings where the YRB-49 had engines mounted and a flying boom under the fuselage centerline?

[kitnut617]

I think y'all are missing a couple obvious possibilities, a VB-35/49 (more likely VB-49) derived from Northrop's Flying WIng airliner proposal that fitted a new center section to the XB-49.  Taking that one step farther and replacing the lounge area in the 'stinger" with a set of clamshell doors that open to the sides and redoing the interior and window area and you've got a CB-49.  Frankly, I like the KB-49 proposal, perhaps with drogue pods under the wings where the YRB-49 had engines mounted and a flying boom under the fuselage centerline?

When you look at some of the very early wind tunnel models Handley Page used for the Victor, they are just as you describe here Evan.

[jcf]

I think y'all are missing a couple obvious possibilities, a VB-35/49 (more likely VB-49) derived from Northrop's Flying WIng airliner proposal that fitted a new center section to the XB-49.  Taking that one step farther and replacing the lounge area in the 'stinger" with a set of clamshell doors that open to the sides and redoing the interior and window area and you've got a CB-49.  Frankly, I like the KB-49 proposal, perhaps with drogue pods under the wings where the YRB-49 had engines mounted and a flying boom under the fuselage centerline?

http://www.google.com/patents/pdf/ALL_WING_CARGO_PACK.pdf?id=VNJjAAAAEBAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U0lqWFJTl1dGvsiIAABZj_-JlU5bw

http://www.google.com/patents?pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=patent+2,638,291&sig=a9BAQ_NHTtjabgKDAgTYElXPZR4&ct=result&id=VNJjAAAAEBAJ&ots=tQn1xYNaGw#PPA6,M1

[elmayerle]

I think y'all are missing a couple obvious possibilities, a VB-35/49 (more likely VB-49) derived from Northrop's Flying WIng airliner proposal that fitted a new center section to the XB-49.  Taking that one step farther and replacing the lounge area in the 'stinger" with a set of clamshell doors that open to the sides and redoing the interior and window area and you've got a CB-49.  Frankly, I like the KB-49 proposal, perhaps with drogue pods under the wings where the YRB-49 had engines mounted and a flying boom under the fuselage centerline?

http://www.google.com/patents/pdf/ALL_WING_CARGO_PACK.pdf?id=VNJjAAAAEBAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U0lqWFJTl1dGvsiIAABZj_-JlU5bw

http://www.google.com/patents?pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=patent+2,638,291&sig=a9BAQ_NHTtjabgKDAgTYElXPZR4&ct=result&id=VNJjAAAAEBAJ&ots=tQn1xYNaGw#PPA6,M1

*chuckle* So they went with a containerized approach.  It still seems like a good idea and something that could be adapted to the YB-49 for an all-jet version.

[dy031101]

Whether prop (B-35) or jet-powered (B-49), the issue with the all-wing aircraft was stability. In 1950 the technology just wasn't there to correct the instabilitites as they happened, and the all-wing projects were abandoned for more "traditional" aircraft. Nowadays, with "fly-by-wire" and instant feedback systems, it would be no sweat.

When, in your estimations, would the B-35 have been practical (or rather a re-invention of it, with improved aerodynamics, bomb bays that are versatile enough, and turboprops for power...... there'd be the T56 after 1954)?

[jcf]

Whether prop (B-35) or jet-powered (B-49), the issue with the all-wing aircraft was stability. In 1950 the technology just wasn't there to correct the instabilitites as they happened, and the all-wing projects were abandoned for more "traditional" aircraft. Nowadays, with "fly-by-wire" and instant feedback systems, it would be no sweat.

When, in your estimations, would the B-35 have been practical (or rather a re-invention of it, with improved aerodynamics, bomb bays that are versatile enough, and turboprops for power...... there'd be the T56 after 1954)?

The only real 'stability' issue with the Northrop wing was an instability in yaw, it tended to hunt about the sky a bit,
and that was only really an issue where supposed 'accurate' conventional bombing with optical bomb-sights was
concerned, basically the pre-WWII Norden design. It would have been a moot point with a nuke. Also according to
some sources the Honeywell auto-pilot that was installed during the tests eliminated the problem.

Northrop was working on an in-house  turboprop engine design, the Turbodyne, from 1941.
The ERB-35B flying wing (converted XB-35) was to be powered by two 10,400 hp XT-37, a developed Turbodyne.
The project was shelved in 1948.

Jon

[dy031101]

Northrop was working on an in-house  turboprop engine design, the Turbodyne, from 1941.
The ERB-35B flying wing (converted XB-35) was to be powered by two 10,400 hp XT-37, a developed Turbodyne.
The project was shelved in 1948.

I was under the impression that many engines which promised huge outputs in that timeframe had a way of getting plagued with teething problems, which is why I figured I'd mention the Allison T56......

[jcf]

I was under the impression that many engines which promised huge outputs in that timeframe had a way of getting plagued with teething problems, which is why I figured I'd mention the Allison T56......

An XT-37 test article made 10,000 shp under test in mid-1948,
so the output was not a blue-sky promise.

Northrop's engine division was sold to GE, and from what I've read, the
compressor design of the Turbodyne influenced what became
the J-79.

[GTX]

Re Turboprop B-49s:






Regards,

Greg

[dy031101]

I think one can be forgiven if he/she mistakes these for relatives of the AVRO Vulcan......

Another super-cool batch of illustrations!