Earthquake Bombs

[KJ_Lesnick]

I've done some searching into the Tallboy, the Grand-Slam, and the T-12 Cloudmaker, as well as a conceptual 50,000 pound T-16

I've found some information, and I'm mostly looking for clarification to make sure all figures are correct

The Tallboy

• Listed Length: 21'0"
  
• Diameter: 38"
  
• Listed weight: 12,000 lbs
  
• Explosive Charge: Torpex, 5,200 lbs
  

.
The Grand-Slam

• Listed Length: 25'5" to 26'6" (two answers in two sources, which is correct?)
  
• Tail Length: 13'6" (Is that factored into overall length?)
  
• Listed Weight: 22,000-22,500 lbs
  
• Explosive Charge: Torpex, 9,135 lbs
  

Is tail-length factored into the listed 25'5" or 26'6" length?

T-12: The Cloudmaker

• Diameter: 54"
  
• Length: 328"
  
• Explosive Charge: No idea
  

I strongly suspect the length is wrong simply because it's fineness ratio looks similar to the other bombs appearance wise, yet is too "plump" to be correct unless the tail wasn't counted...

The T-16

• Was never built
  
• To weigh 50,000 pounds
  
• I'm not clear if weight dummy tests from B-36's were T-12's or T-16's
  

[kitnut617]

T-12: The Cloudmaker

• Diameter: 54"
  
• Length: The only figure I've seen is 200" (I strongly suspect this is wrong based on the fineness ratio of the previous two)
  
• Explosive Charge: No idea
  

I strongly suspect the length is wrong simply because it's fineness ratio looks similar to the other bombs appearance wise, yet is too "plump" to be correct unless the tail wasn't counted...

If you read what is available on the internet, you'd know what happened ----

[dogsbody]

T-12: The Cloudmaker

• Diameter: 54"
  
• Length: The only figure I've seen is 200" (I strongly suspect this is wrong based on the fineness ratio of the previous two)
  
• Explosive Charge: No idea
  

I strongly suspect the length is wrong simply because it's fineness ratio looks similar to the other bombs appearance wise, yet is too "plump" to be correct unless the tail wasn't counted...

If you read what is available on the internet, you'd know what happened ----

What he said. Buy a book. Search GOOGLE.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Kitnut 617

If you read what is available on the internet, you'd know what happened

Did you hear what I wrote?  I said I looked all over the place (and yes, I used google) and couldn't find conclusive data. 

This is not sponging, this is actual research.  This is a forum with a lot of knowledgeable aviation enthusiasts and this is where one would go to gather data

[dogsbody]

I've done some searching into the Tallboy, the Grand-Slam, and the T-12 Cloudmaker, as well as a conceptual 50,000 pound T-16

I've found some information, and I'm mostly looking for clarification to make sure all figures are correct

The Tallboy

• Listed Length: 21'0"
  
• Diameter: 38"
  
• Listed weight: 12,000 lbs
  
• Explosive Charge: Torpex, 5,200 lbs
  

.
The Grand-Slam

• Listed Length: 25'5" to 26'6" (two answers in two sources, which is correct?)
  
• Tail Length: 13'6" (Is that factored into overall length?)
  
• Listed Weight: 22,000-22,500 lbs
  
• Explosive Charge: Torpex, 9,135 lbs
  

Is tail-length factored into the listed 25'5" or 26'6" length?

T-12: The Cloudmaker

• Diameter: 54"
  
• Length: The only figure I've seen is 200" (I strongly suspect this is wrong based on the fineness ratio of the previous two)
  
• Explosive Charge: No idea
  

I strongly suspect the length is wrong simply because it's fineness ratio looks similar to the other bombs appearance wise, yet is too "plump" to be correct unless the tail wasn't counted...

The T-16

• Was never built
  
• To weigh 50,000 pounds
  
• I'm not clear if weight dummy tests from B-36's were T-12's or T-16's
  

So, did you get this info at a single place or did you check various sources? If you used various sources and the information is the same or very close, then the information can be regarded as correct. I could go through all of my reference books to see if the info matched what you have posted here, but I'm not going to, because that very same information is freely available on the Internet.

Why do you need this information anyway? All you do here is try to mine freely available information and details, but you never seem to add anything. You sometimes even argue and disagree with the information that you have been freely given. This forum is called What-If for a reason. It not called The Aviation & Armament Resource Centre.


Chris

[KJ_Lesnick]

dogsbody

So, did you get this info at a single place or did you check various sources?

I checked a bunch, if only to make sure there were no contradictions and I found at least one regarding the Tallboy and Grand-Slam.  I've made a guesstimate by analyzing the fineness ratio and would assume 25'5" was correct for the Grand-Slam (as it most closely matches the Tallboy), though I'm not 100% sure.

If you used various sources and the information is the same or very close, then the information can be regarded as correct.

Well the T-12's data is frankly If the bomb was 200 inches in long and 54 feet in diameter it's fineness ratio would produce too plump a shape compared to the picture or two I've seen of the weapon.

Why do you need this information anyway? All you do here is try to mine freely available information and details, but you never seem to add anything.

Actually, I had an interesting WHIF concept based on this, though it depends on accurate dimensions...

You sometimes even argue and disagree with the information that you have been freely given.

That's not disagreeing: As I said, there have been many cases where conflicting information exists, and in some cases it was from good sources.  So, when the information seems at odds with what I was told, I usually do point out: Then how come XYZ said?  It's not to be difficult -- I'm trying to figure out the facts.

You know there was a forum once where I remember on a discussion of NOx emissions (I did a lot of research on the Boeing & Lockheed SST designs actually, and the later HSCT design because it seemed like a great idea) and what factors increase and decrease them and one person said an afterburner tends to produce very little due to the fuel/air ratio being relatively low.  Well, it seemed odd to me but at the time, that's all I had.  Well, at a later date a discussion came up on a forum regarding a similar issue and I brought that one up and it was brought to my attention that I was wrong, and when I pointed out what I was told, the guy who I was talking to turned out to have been the guy who was INVOLVED IN THE EXPERIMENT: Yeah it did read low NOx emissions alright -- because the soot from the burner covered the sensors (LOL).

[tahsin]

"You sometimes even argue and disagree with the information that you have been freely given."

Possibly because she has read a ton of USAF papers, stamped with various degrees of Secret so secret that we don't even know such classifications exist. And such papers show the info available online is just a cover-up for the bungling of various agencies over the years. What she will do with all that stuff, God surely knows...

[KJ_Lesnick]

tahsin

Possibly because she has read a ton of USAF papers, stamped with various degrees of Secret so secret that we don't even know such classifications exist.

Uh, I don't have access to classified information: If I did, I certainly wouldn't post it.  Many of the estimates I made were based on educated guesses or on statements I've heard said.

[tahsin]

Oh, I don't know, you look so 27 to me...

[dadlamassu]

You could try the Barnes Wallis Museum based in the Yorkshire Air Museum for Tallboy and Grand Slam.   The Museum offers a research service for postal enquiries for which it charges at £15. Download the research request form here http://www.pwinternet.com/yorkshireairmuseum/Research%20Service.pdf

[KJ_Lesnick]

dadlamassu

Uh, that link didn't go anywhere...

[KJ_Lesnick]

The concept I had was based around a fictitious cold-war weapon that could provide massive penetration as well as providing a nuclear-blast: The concept was based around some targets in the fUSSR being so hardened that they could take direct 10 MT blasts.  However penetrating inside then exploding would solve hte problem

[tahsin]

No, it wouldn't because you would be shot down.

[KJ_Lesnick]

tahsin

Possibly because she has read a ton of USAF papers, stamped with various degrees of Secret so secret that we don't even know such classifications exist.

First of all, I don't have access to classified information.  Much of the information I obtained over the years has come from various sources

• Books: I have a lot of aviation books, and I've bought some that were recommend on secretprojects.co.uk, and this forum as well
  
• Videos: For example there are many videos in which statements were made that clearly indicated secrets
  
• Websites: They range from Airliners.net, F-106 Delta Dart, as well as Secret Projects
  
• People online: I'm an aviation buff and have over the years (I was a member of airliners.net since 1999 and was there until at least 2007, was a member on PPRuNe from 2001-2012) found a number of people with similar interests in both civil and military aviation.  At least one was a KC-135 boom operator, another was a missile-technician, three were airline pilots of which two flew in the Navy (E-2C and P-3's), and one in the USAF (T-38)
  

Some of the people I've talked to definitely had interesting things, but they were quite willing to say "that's classified" and I ended it right there.  I also tended to frame my questions along the lines of "provided it's not classified..." to avoid such a risk.  Some of the documentation I found came from secretprojects.co.uk (links to other sites) which were no longer classified (the documentation indicated that they had been declassified though they were at one point classified).

No, it wouldn't because you would be shot down.

That's not a matter of the bomb, but the aircraft delivering it.  A cloud-maker might be able to fit in a B-52's bomb-bay.

[kitnut617]

Left to right, T12, Grand Slam, Tallboy.  T12 scratch built from information garnered off internet. If I can find it, you can