B-52

[KJ_Lesnick]

Why did LeMay want the B-52's canopy to be changed from a nice fighter-style bubble-canopy to the unremarkable airliner style set-up?

[rickshaw]

Why did LeMay want the B-52's canopy to be changed from a nice fighter-style bubble-canopy to the unremarkable airliner style set-up?

Because after viewing the Vickers Valiant in the UK, he decided that it was a more workable arrangement for a heavy bomber aircraft.   In the end, he was right.

[sandiego89]

I understood it as Lemay was used to and comfortable with the side by side seating of the B-17 and B-29 and directed the change.  Better crew coordination (and make sure those pesky co-pilots don't touch anything  )

[Librarian]

Interesting thread, I had wondered about that. The B-57 also went down the fighter canopy route.  Pity really as the original B-47 style on the B-52 was so much more attractive. Now you've got me thinking about a B-58 with a fighter canopy .

[Captain Canada]

Just makes sense to me. Especially on 8-10+ hour flights.

[sandiego89]

Now you've got me thinking about a B-58 with a fighter canopy .

The Jay Miller book on the B-58 has a great photo of exactly that- a mockup of an early B-58 front cockpit proposal with a "fighter" canopy- vey much like the F-106 (no surprise).   I can scan later if you desire.  Quite sexy looking but deemed to be too cramped for long missions.   

[Librarian]

Oh yes please . Whiff-World pilots don't get pins and needles .

[sandiego89]

Oh yes please . Whiff-World pilots don't get pins and needles .

As requested, a photo of an early MX-1626 design mockup (B-58) with a "fighter" like canopy.

Source: Miller, Jay, Aerograh 4 CONVAIR B-58 ISBN0-942548-26-4.  Page 27 - a must for any Hustler fans....



Sorry for the threadjack

[Captain Canada]

Now that would work !

[KJ_Lesnick]

Because after viewing the Vickers Valiant in the UK

What was wrong with the Valiant?

In the end, he was right.

How so?

[rickshaw]

Because after viewing the Vickers Valiant in the UK

What was wrong with the Valiant?

Nothing.  Which was the point.

In the end, he was right.

How so?

The B-52 was a much more easily flown and fought aircraft with side-by-side seating than tandem seating.

[PR19_Kit]

The B-57 also went down the fighter canopy route.  Pity really as the original B-47 style on the B-52 was so much more attractive. Now you've got me thinking about a B-58 with a fighter canopy .

I think the point there is that the B-57 was a tactical aircraft whereas the B-52 was strategic in its concept. Both taskings require different crew interactions, and the RAF's Canberra's started off as semi-strategic in nature, thus the somewhat bizarre crew positioning. The USAF saw it as a purely tactical aircraft and changed the positioning accordingly.

'Looking good' doesn't cut it much when the bad guys are shooting at you and you're tasked to drop explosive things on them..... 

[tahsin]

B-47 would hardly get a fighter canopy but for the thing that the co-pilot was also the rear gunner. Or they would need a fourth guy on the plane, possibly right at the back. İf not a seperate pressured area, still systems to make sure that he simply didn't freeze to death at 50 000 fit just before the MiGs showed up.

[hamsandwich]

Anigrand make 1/72 starlifter and galaxy, See http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/ANIG7282 and http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/ANIG9001

[KJ_Lesnick]

PR19_Kit

I think the point there is that the B-57 was a tactical aircraft whereas the B-52 was strategic in its concept. Both taskings require different crew interactions

Well the crew interactions seem largely based around the issue of navigating greater distances, the greater number of crew often present, and the greater dependence on ECM (admittedly modern ECM systems are so automated -- far as I know the F-22 has automatic EMCON systems, at least I remember reading that online once, though I don't really remember where)