Too Little, Too Late - The B-32 Dominator

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I thout the B-29 was really big, but the B-36 really dwarfs it. Imagine a B-36 in 1/48 scale!

[Snautzer]

Originally Posted by steveharding

I'm heartened by the continuing interest in the B-32, and I'm flattered that much of the information about the aircraft on the web is drawn (often verbatim) from the book I wrote (with Jim Long's illustrations) in 1982. I would only ask that if folks are going to present information drawn directly from the book, that they'd give me credit. The book might not exactly be "War and Peace," but it took a lot of research and effort to write.
Thanks,
Steve Harding

At least i bought the book
Its a nice read about this not to well known plane.

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by ccheese

The B-36 was a pain is the @ss. I flew in them twice on a round-robin
that went from Wheelus AFB up into the Arctic Circle and "other places".
I flew in the radioman's spot once and in the tail spot once. On both
flights we lost an engine due to overheating. Tires were a very big
problem, engines overheating, catching fire and even a couple of
runaway props. The Air Force required you wear a chute harness at
all times on this aircraft. Chutes were hanging at different stations
for easy clip-on access.

Charles

...and wasn't the cruising speed of this whale just about 200mph. Man that's a long operation at max operating distance. ccheese what were the toilets and galley arrangements like for those long hauls. Must have been somewhat like a dull bus ride with half kitchens. I have never been impressed with the B-36. It always impressed me as a lumbering cow who was likely going to be fodder for any decent interceptor squadron.

To me this aircraft is the EXACT reason that cruise missiles were invented.

POS, I say.

[syscom3]

Matt, thats why jet engines were added as soon as practical.

One good thing about the B36 was its shear size, allowed replacement crew's to be onboard.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Matt308

...and wasn't the cruising speed of this whale just about 200mph. Man that's a long operation at max operating distance. ccheese what were the toilets and galley arrangements like for those long hauls. Must have been somewhat like a dull bus ride with half kitchens. I have never been impressed with the B-36. It always impressed me as a lumbering cow who was likely going to be fodder for any decent interceptor squadron.

To me this aircraft is the EXACT reason that cruise missiles were invented.

POS, I say.

POS? The USSR probably wished we didn't have it for the first 8 years of it's life

That might be a little harsh comment for the only aircraft capable of carrying the first hydrogen bomb (or four smaller nucs to targets over 3000+ miles away (the 42,000 M-17) at 40,000+ feet. When it got jet engines it moved it's cruise from 230 TAS at 40K to 430 TAS at 50K where no fighter could touch it until the MiG-15 and even that was a stretch.

the stripped down RB-36 was never shot down over China or USSR despite many deep penetrations until 1955-56 when the U-2 came into the inventory..

it was THE big stick until the B-52 became operational because of huge load and range... and yes it did have a lot of engine problems.

[SoD Stitch]

I just missed the the B-36 in operation (I was born four years after it was retired), but I was told you could hear and feel the throbbing of their engines from miles away, even if you couldn't see them. Pretty weird . . .

[Matt308]

POS. And I'm sticking with it. Operationally it would have been decimated.

[ccheese]

Matt: Memory is kinda foggy, but I remember two stacks of six bunks,
a half decent galley (frozen meals prepared by the base mess hall). Lots
of fried chicken, or roast beef and hot dogs & beans. For the life of me
I can't remember the "johns". I do remember the tail position had a
"relief tube", and I remember the sled on a pulley arrangement to get
to the tail. I never flew in a B-36 that had jets...... And yes, they
were very noisey. Two of them running on the tarmac and the ground
shook.

Charles

[Matt308]

Its a flying building. Only thing missing was a gym. It's primary claim to fame should be that it was the precursor for the ISS.

[Gnomey]

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Matt308

It's primary claim to fame should be that it was the precursor for the ISS.

[Jabberwocky]

Originally Posted by Matt308

POS. And I'm sticking with it. Operationally it would have been decimated.

To decimate is to kill 1 in 10.

It comes from the Roman practice of collective punishment for cowardice or rebellion in the ranks, whereby they would execute one in ten of every solider in the cohort (usually through stoning or clubbing by his comrades).

Any yes, I know the modern usage means to "kill the majority", but I like being contrary sometimes

[Matt308]

Your not being contrary, that was a good post! I didn't know that!!

[JoeB]

Literally 'decimated' is maybe a good way to distinguish the requirements of conventional formation bombing and nuclear attack. If you can consistently shoot down 10% of the former you'll stop the bomber offensive pretty quickly; even if the opponent is geared up to pump out enough airplanes to keep going he won't be able to keep up with experienced crews at a sustained loss rate of 10% per sortie.

But, if you only down 10% of a nuclear attack force, you're doomed. Even if they have to come back a *few* times and you only down 10% per sortie that's not enough.

Based on a lot of the detailed chapters in Jacobsen "Convair B-36" on opposing fighters, radar, ECM etc I'd say the B-36 was a very credible nuclear bomber from the time it really worked (say '51-52) until around 1957.

SAC considered using B-36's as conventional bombers in Korea in 1951. I've seen primary source documents on that. Far East Air Force suggested it, LeMay (head of SAC) declined. The main reason given was urgent build up of the force, concentrating on training, and at the time (spring '51) there were only a few dozen B-36's actually fully operational per these memo's. But in formation bombing from any altitude where you could hit anything with conventional bombs, B-36's would also probably have been 'decimated' by MiG-15's at some point at least, as B-29's were, in daylight at least (B-29's went to all night missions in MiG Alley after October 1951).

Joe

[Matt308]

Just crudely crunching numbers (and I emphasize crudely, given production timelines and variants that were not armed...):

~400 B-36s

versus

~12,000 MiG-15s

Not good odds to avoid a "decimation".