B-47 Stratojet

[Jschmus]

Given that all of their previous bombers had transport variants, I've often wondered why they didn't produce at least a stopgap based on the B-47, but that looks like it would have been cramped.  Bizarre-looking thing. 

[Taiidantomcat]

Given that all of their previous bombers had transport variants, I've often wondered why they didn't produce at least a stopgap based on the B-47, but that looks like it would have been cramped.  Bizarre-looking thing. 

I just read 15 minutes: Curtis Lemay and the countdown to Armageddon And the author said that as pretty as the B-47 was, it was very difficult to fly and had numerous accidents. That aside, its a really neat looking concept

[Maverick]

It actually looks quite a bit like that East German Baade.

Regards,

Mav

[rallymodeller]

Given that all of their previous bombers had transport variants, I've often wondered why they didn't produce at least a stopgap based on the B-47, but that looks like it would have been cramped.  Bizarre-looking thing. 

I just read 15 minutes: Curtis Lemay and the countdown to Armageddon And the author said that as pretty as the B-47 was, it was very difficult to fly and had numerous accidents. That aside, its a really neat looking concept

The Jimmy Stewart movie Strategic Air Command has some incredible interior shots of both B-47s and B-36s. A crucial scene in the movie describes how physically demanding the B-47 was to fly for any length of time; Jimmy Stewart's character was a minor league pitcher and flying the B-47 basically ruined his pitching arm. 

[rickshaw]

You beat me too it.  I was about to mention Strategic Air Command.  Great movie.  Well worth seeing.

[rallymodeller]

It actually looks quite a bit like that East German Baade.

Regards,

Mav

Whoa. It looks almost exactly like the Baade-152:

[Jschmus]

That's just scary.  Well, we know there was an awful lot of espionage going on back then, industrial and otherwise.  Or it could be a really weird case of convergent evolution.

[rallymodeller]

I think it's more of a convergent evolution thing in that case. The Baade-152 was based on a failed Alekseev bomber design that dated from about the same time period as the B-47; I would hazard that the same German research was used by both Boeing and Alekseev.

[Maverick]

Wasn't the Baade 152 also based on German 'projekten'?  I'd read somewhere that there was an initial study by Junkers or Kut Tank.  That would suggest that both the Russian original, East German derviation and the B-47 have a common ancestor.

Regards,

Mav

[rallymodeller]

Wasn't the Baade 152 also based on German 'projekten'?  I'd read somewhere that there was an initial study by Junkers or Kut Tank.  That would suggest that both the Russian original, East German derviation and the B-47 have a common ancestor.

Regards,

Mav

The prototype was rebuilt from a bomber project built in Russia by ex-Junkers engineers. So it's German by way of Russia by way of Germany. It was originally to have re-engineered Junkers Jumo 004 engines (ther Pima 004) but they weren't ready so it got the same engines as the MiG-19. Gotta love the Cold War...

[redstar72]

Wasn't the Baade 152 also based on German 'projekten'?  I'd read somewhere that there was an initial study by Junkers or Kut Tank.  That would suggest that both the Russian original, East German derviation and the B-47 have a common ancestor.

Regards,

Mav

The prototype was rebuilt from a bomber project built in Russia by ex-Junkers engineers. So it's German by way of Russia by way of Germany.

You are not quite correct. Although "152" was a development of Baade/Alexeev "150" bomber prototype, they had actually not very much in common. Here they are, in the same scale:



Concerning "150" - I don't think that it was based on any wartime German project. As far as I know it was designed in Soviet Union from the beginning, and I think it's true. Despite being designed mostly by German engineers, it has typical Soviet bomber appearance without any notable evidences of German origins:



It also lacks any resemblance with previous Baade bombers, such as "140" (Ju 287 development) or unbuilt heavy "132":



These two undoubtly look German, but the "150" doesn't.

It was originally to have re-engineered Junkers Jumo 004 engines (ther Pima 004) but they weren't ready so it got the same engines as the MiG-19.

Mikulin AM-5 or RD-9?... What is your source for this? I never heard that "152" ever flew with them. As I know, it flew actually with German engines for which it was designed and which were designed for it. Also, these engines were named Pirna (not "Pima") 014 - and I think they can't have much in common with Jumo 004, because they were 3.5x more powerful (31 kN thrust instead of 9)! Or maybe did you mean Jumo 012?

[ysi_maniac]

Step by step evolution of B-47

[KJ_Lesnick]

Jeffrey Fontaine

Replace the 2 X 20mm cannons in the tail turret with a Vulcan

Post 1958 that would be a really good idea: 'Mo dakka!


MAD

I had read many times that the B-47 could be quite nimble in the air

I've got conflicting information on this: Some say it could turn with or out-turn a MiG-15 at 51,000 feet -- yet they were seen to be vulnerable to MiG-15 attack


joncarrfarrelly

Radioplane GAM-67 Crossbow, RP-45D target drone converted to an ECM RPV.

Actually it was an anti-radiation missile: It was ultimately cancelled in favor of a more advanced drone as the basis for the design.  The USN was inspired and developed two missiles around the same purpose designated the Raven & Corvus (both ironically designated the ASM-N-8), of which the Corvus was selected.

Though I've never seen the drone proposed by the USAF to replace the GAM-67, it wouldn't shock me if it was larger and heavier than the Corvus.

[Gondor]

MAD

I had read many times that the B-47 could be quite nimble in the air

I've got conflicting information on this: Some say it could turn with or out-turn a MiG-15 at 51,000 feet -- yet they were seen to be vulnerable to MiG-15 attack

The above means that at height, 51,000ft plus it was more manoeuvrable than a MiG-15 at that height where at lower levels the MiG was more manoeuvrable. It's that simple!

Gondor

[KJ_Lesnick]

Gondor

The above means that at height, 51,000ft plus it was more manoeuvrable than a MiG-15

No, I get the concept: At higher altitudes it's not a matter of who turns best, it's more of who sucks the least.  The thing is, they were shot down, it seems while at high altitude: I cannot conceivably think of any reason why they'd be flying low if they could fly high up.

• Since even before WWII: The goal was to fly higher and faster
  
• For reconnaissance missions: They would be lightly loaded and would be able to fly high-up
  
• If they were flying bombing missions, the only reason they'd be flying low would be to either go under the radar, or because they were weighed down with bombs: The latter would be a weight related issue