Nuclear Powered Bombers

[KJ_Lesnick]

I remember there was a huge push for nuclear powered bombers in the 1950's: I remember in 1958 it came up in a magazine (Flight Magazine IIRC), which furthered the push for a nuclear powered supersonic bomber.  For quite awhile there was a persistently false belief that the Russians were making a nuclear-powered bombers, some supersonic (an image of the Myasischev M-50/M-52 was used), some allegedly up to 600 tons in weight.

It was all bullshit of course, but I'm curious if our own government made it up and gave it to Flight Magazine with the hope that it would generate more demand for the nuclear powered bomber?

It sounds a bit silly, but after all, there were powerful interests who wanted it; if they could not make a legitimate demand, maybe they'd make a demand illegitimately?  Due to the nature of the Cold War, which wasn't just about who could who could militarily outperform one another, but the ability to show who's economic system was better, and if the Russians were believed to have it, we'd have to have it or the sky would fall and all hell would break loose and stuff (yes I'm saying that in a flippant way).


BTW: Yes, yes, yes... I know this is a predominantly model-building forum, but it is technically an aviation forum, it has an alternate history section, it has people who are quite knowledgeable on aircraft, and I'm posting it here because there are knowledgeable people who seem to know their stuff.  On secretprojects.co.uk, I employ an intermediary (a woman from Hawaii, who's father served in Vietnam); on another forum I have asked a guy I know who is an aviation historian to ask some questions on my behalf (we met on another forum).

[rickshaw]

What?

Kendra/Robyn nuclear powered aircraft are much more dangerous than nuclear powered ships because of the inherent dangers of flying nuclear reactors around.   While they offer unparalleled power, the dangers were judged to outweigh the potential.   Until aircraft can be guaranteed to not malfunction and not to crash, they were considered too expensive and too dangerous.

Some of the designs were ingenious without a doubt but they never made that guarantee.   Many of the designs, in themselves were very dangerous, utilising open piles and other things to heat air and expel it at great velocity.   The handling problems were considered expensive and excessive, with the ground and air crews requiring to be encased in heavily shielded capsules, and with the airframes becoming "hotter" and "hotter" with radioactivity.  Ground crews were required to use mechanical grabs and wheeled/tracked chassis to service the aircraft and carry their shielding.

ICBMs were cheaper and easier, being kept in holes in the ground, safe and dormant until they were needed for use.  When SLBMs and nuclear powered submarines became available, they were considered even safer and undetectable.

While this may be a modelling forum, most of our members don't have indepth technical or even political understanding of the history of the models they build.   I build them because they look nice and because I'm interested in the counter-factual historical possibilities they represent.   I am personally, very anti-nuclear.   It is simply too dangerous for power generation let alone the powering of ships and aircraft.    You would be better off going to Secret Projects (if you can) or some other technical forum for this discussion.   Surely there are some nuclear power forums you can register at?   

[Dizzyfugu]

Ever heard of the US project "Pluto"? Scary Cold War stuff.

[jcf]

Your depth of idiocy is revealed by you referring to Flight magazine of the '50s as Flight Global.
Flight Global is the current branding reflecting Flight's internet media status.

Enough of the conspiracy theory BS, don't you get tired of it? We certainly are.
Nuclear powered aircraft notions were all over the place in the '50s, I have a
period Mechanix Illustrated with an extensive article, no "planting" required.

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

nuclear powered aircraft are much more dangerous than nuclear powered ships because of the inherent dangers of flying nuclear reactors around.

Uh, I think the idea of flying a nuclear-powered aircraft is certifiably insane, especially once we had the ability to conduct aerial refueling.

My curiosity was whether Flight magazine got the idea from government officials and defense contractors who were working on nuclear-powered aircraft, or whether they got it by doing research into nuclear-power from sources that were, shall we say, less biased?

I remember that the USAF, when deciding on whether to procure the either the WS-110 (The B-70) or the WS-125 (which would have been called the B-72 had it entered service) program, they ended up funding both, even after it was shown in 1956-1957 that the WS-125 design was not a practical design as it currently was: It seemed that after the Flight article was released, the program kind of came back to life, which raises some questions.

From what I remember the B-70 & B-72 together were to cost a whopping $3.9 billion, with the B-72 costing the majority of $2.1 billion (I'm not sure if this cost included the F-108 program), and this might have been one of the many straws that broke the camels back.

Many of the designs, in themselves were very dangerous, utilising open piles and other things to heat air and expel it at great velocity.   The handling problems were considered expensive and excessive, with the ground and air crews requiring to be encased in heavily shielded capsules, and with the airframes becoming "hotter" and "hotter" with radioactivity.  Ground crews were required to use mechanical grabs and wheeled/tracked chassis to service the aircraft and carry their shielding.

Honestly, I've wondered if laparoscopic procedures were developed from this (they do have a number of similarities).

ICBMs were cheaper and easier, being kept in holes in the ground, safe and dormant until they were needed for use.  When SLBMs and nuclear powered submarines became available, they were considered even safer and undetectable.

Of course

I am personally, very anti-nuclear.

I happen to agree with you on that.

[McColm]

I've got a book about the designs for Convair at San Diego 1936-1955 . There's a chapter that covers nuclear powered aircraft. Bombers and sea planes including the arrangements for the  Princess flying boat.
Some of the designs would make great  concept models.

[rickshaw]

Kendra/Robyn you should never think that government procurement and in particular defence procurement is sane and sensible.   The infamous "military-industrial complex" which your President Eisenhower warned us about is notorious for driving defence procurement.  A great deal of US defence procurement in particular had more to do with pork barrelling than it did with any reality about defence needs.    Nuclear bombers were driven primarily by the Nuclear Industry, which believe that anything and everything should be powered by nuclear power.   Aircraft designers merely followed that demand.   Even car designers looked semi-seriously at nuclear powered cars in the late 1950s.   Nuclear power offered unheard of power and long range, with what appeared to be apparent simplicity,  until reality caught up with the designers and the dangers became apparent.

[sandiego89]

I agree it is very important to consider things through the lens of the time, not just declare the thinkers and designers of the time insane.  Remember in the late 1940's to early 1950's nuclear power was all the rage, and folks were pondering nuclear ships, aircraft, weapons, space ships, atoms for peace digging canals, ports and nuclear power "to cheap to measure".   There was very limited understanding of the dangers, shielding, complexities and waste.  In a few short years this was better understood and cooler heads prevailed.   

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

Kendra/Robyn you should never think that government procurement and in particular defence procurement is sane and sensible.  The infamous "military-industrial complex" which your President Eisenhower warned us about is notorious for driving defence procurement.  A great deal of US defence procurement in particular had more to do with pork barrelling than it did with any reality about defence needs.

Of course, and that's why it's important to have people outside the military, and outside the industry who have a say in things.

The President, the Secretary of Defense were all examples of people trying to throttle back defense spending in the 1950's and 1960's.

Nuclear bombers were driven primarily by the Nuclear Industry, which believe that anything and everything should be powered by nuclear power.

As well as the military as well, and that spread to air-frame designers.  Of course, even before Hiroshima we knew nuclear weapons would pose a radiation hazard (I'm not sure whether we knew it would cause birth defects, or simply kill people), so it should have been common sense.

Even car designers looked semi-seriously at nuclear powered cars in the late 1950s.

Yes, and while it definitely sounded kind of cool, any car crash would be a catastrophe.

[KJ_Lesnick]

sandiego89

I agree it is very important to consider things through the lens of the time, not just declare the thinkers and designers of the time insane.

My statement was more or less pointing out that I was not really a fan of nuclear-power.  Though you're right, I am looking at it through a modern day lens.

Regardless, I should point out that we already knew that radiation was harmful to life, that's why all that effort was put into shielding the reactor.  The fact that they even evaluated the aircraft in terms of it's ability to withstand a crash and fire indicates they were quite aware of this.  They had also contemplated creating large corridors over the US for nuclear powered aircraft only.

What I'm curious admittedly about the reactor was whether

• It was designed to withstand impact forces and fire damage from a crash shortly after takeoff (i.e. 100-300 knots)?
  
• It was designed to withstand impact forces from a crash from high altitude (35,000 - 55,000 feet) at speeds of 450-660 knots, as well as fire damage?
  

I've read about airplane accidents of all sorts and have heard of cases where aircraft have

• Dove out of control from high altitude for one reason or another: Lauda Air 004 kind of fit this bill, though it came unglued on it's way down, as well as PSA 1771 which was the result of a homicidal man onboard
  
• Broke apart in mid-air due to structural malfunctions: BOAC 781 was a great example of this, metal fatigue caused the airplane to bust into pieces.  Had there been a nuclear reactor onboard, it would have been less shielded, and possibly exposed to daylight
  
• Broke apart in mid-air due to criminal actions: The bombing of Air India 182 and Pan Am 103 would be excellent examples
  

These all involved events occurring at relatively high speeds, and may/may not have been beyond the capability of the reactor to maintain adequate integrity.  Considering some of our bomber force was in the middle of the country, this has obvious dangers.

Remember in the late 1940's to early 1950's nuclear power was all the rage, and folks were pondering nuclear ships, aircraft, weapons, space ships, atoms for peace digging canals, ports and nuclear power "to cheap to measure".

A nuclear powered aircraft nose-diving into the ground is not easily comparable to a nuclear-powered ship.

[McColm]

What's frightening is the nuclear powered car, I don't know if there ever was a prototype built but there's a lot of artwork and possible What-its.

[KJ_Lesnick]

That sounds like a terrible idea, but an interesting what-if... (nuclear powered car)

[Rheged]

"Eagle"   boys comic in the 1950's  was famous for its cutaway diagrams.  See the sample below

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=eagle+comic+cutaway+drawings&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=sOXFrZAHAMLkjM%253A%252CpL_Yj1BeWl13MM%252C_&usg=__RLTZkjv9llzSRygQUxWd3ru9-QI%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwih5dqOvYHYAhVJBsAKHd2TDcEQ9QEIKzAB#imgrc=sOXFrZAHAMLkjM:

One of their cutaways was a nuclear powered railway engine!!   It might be worth looking for, but assume that you will be hopelessly distracted by all of the other diagrams.

[PR19_Kit]

Ah Nostalgia, what wonderful memories they bring back. L. Ashwell Wood was a master of his art.

The Princess flying boat cutaway was always my fave. 

[zenrat]

Thanks Rheged.  There's a Rotodyne cutaway i've not seen before there.