What The Heck Were They Thinking? B-29 Project "Tip Tow" - Page 2 - Aircraft of World War II

mlsco · 05-14-2009, 03:27 AM

Let's not forget the nuclear-powered aircraft studies during the 1950's, as well.

Consider building a reactor well enough shielded not to fry the crew and still light enough to get off the ground...

Matt308 · 05-14-2009, 04:56 PM

Which one? There was the B-36 that had the nuclear reactor in it and then there was a nuclear propulsion powered bomber that was contemplated that was supposed to have high speed/intercontenental range and as a "bonus" spew radioactive exhaust over enemy territory. Gotta love the 50s.

Soundbreaker Welch? · 05-14-2009, 06:17 PM

Did they ever figure out a way to have light enough nuclear reactor aboard a plane?

Matt308 · 05-14-2009, 07:35 PM

Light enough if you consider it fit in a B-36. Not exactly small... nor light.

Flyboy2 · 05-14-2009, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundbreaker Welch?

Did they ever figure out a way to have light enough nuclear reactor aboard a plane?

I'm not sure.. I thought theoretically they were able too, but I'm not exactly positive.. The airforce ended up pullling the plug on the NB-36 program right before its first flight, so who knows

Matt308 · 05-14-2009, 11:52 PM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5024190.ece

The United States tested a nuclear-powered jet engine on the ground and also carried out flight tests with a nuclear reactor on board a B-36 jet with a lead-lined cockpit over West Texas and Southern New Mexico. The reactor “ran hot” during the flights but the engines were powered by kerosene. The purpose of the flights was to prove that the crew could be safely shielded from the reactor.

Each flight was accompanied by an aircraft packed with marines ready to respond to a crash by parachuting down and securing the area.

The test programmes were abandoned in the early 1960s when the superpowers decided that intercontinental ballistic missiles made nuclear-powered planes redundant.

Bucksnort101 · 05-15-2009, 11:43 AM

Read Clarence "Bud" Andersons book "To Fly and Fight" on his WW2 and post WW2 aviations expolits. He was very involved in this project and describes several horrowing events that occured during testing.

mlsco · 05-15-2009, 10:54 PM

I was particularly impressed by the idea of flying about with a liquid metal reactor.

If a single rifle shot to the cooling system might bring down a P-51 (or whatever) in an unspectacular way, consider how much more interesting an isolated breach exposing elemental sodium to the atmosphere in an aircraft would look.

Matt308 · 05-15-2009, 11:09 PM

The crazy '50s.

siznaudin · 07-15-2009, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlsco

Let's not forget the nuclear-powered aircraft studies during the 1950's, as well.

Consider building a reactor well enough shielded not to fry the crew and still light enough to get off the ground...

Didn't the ruskies do the same thing, but saved weight by cutting down on the (expendable) crew shielding?

lingo · 07-15-2009, 06:03 AM

[QUOTE=Sweb;493848]
Ever read about the US Navy's soft carrier deck experiments designed to cushion the landings of planes without landing gears? Yep, the thinking was if planes didn't need landing gear they could be built much lighter and carry more fuel and ordnance. So, a resilient deck was experimented with and they actually tested it by pan-caking (gear up) some Grumman Cougars on it. It didn't work either.

The British also tried this using a Vampire flown by Eric 'Winkle' Brown. A great way to scrap aircraft.

Waynos · 07-15-2009, 07:19 AM

I wasn't aware the USN had also tried gearless deck landings, I thought the RN took all the blame for that one. So who was daftest, the service that thought of it first or the one that said 'ooh, we'll try that'

There have been several attempts to make bombers carry their own fighters, ever since WW1, but I think syscom's tiptow is the maddest of them all. At least the others were 'sort of' sensible, in a purely relative sense, by hooking the planes fuselage onto something designed for the job, however badly

Waynos · 07-15-2009, 07:55 AM

I also think one of the maddest schemes ever was the USN VTOL fighter project that resulted in the XFV-1 and XFY-1. Take off and flight were one thing, but landing vertically backwards!?!?

syscom3 · 07-15-2009, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waynos

I also think one of the maddest schemes ever was the USN VTOL fighter project that resulted in the XFV-1 and XFY-1. Take off and flight were one thing, but landing vertically backwards!?!?

I forgot about that.

vikingBerserker · 07-15-2009, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waynos

I wasn't aware the USN had also tried gearless deck landings, I thought the RN took all the blame for that one. So who was daftest, the service that thought of it first or

Why do I keep thinking of a Nerf Carrier????

05-14-2009, 04:56 PM	#17
Matt308 aka Dickcheese Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Washington State Posts: 13,386	Which one? There was the B-36 that had the nuclear reactor in it and then there was a nuclear propulsion powered bomber that was contemplated that was supposed to have high speed/intercontenental range and as a "bonus" spew radioactive exhaust over enemy territory. Gotta love the 50s. __________________ "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the [U.S.] Marines don't have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan Master of Duplicate Posts

05-14-2009, 06:17 PM	#18
Soundbreaker Welch? Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 1,893	Did they ever figure out a way to have light enough nuclear reactor aboard a plane? __________________ "His motor's conked out!" "What's the differance, they're all Nazis!" "Luke, shut up!" "Fear the hook!" "Oh.....I wanna fly." "You mean the kind that go under water and fly up the stairs?" "What you doing? Oh Nooooo!"

05-14-2009, 07:35 PM	#19
Matt308 aka Dickcheese Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Washington State Posts: 13,386	Light enough if you consider it fit in a B-36. Not exactly small... nor light. __________________ "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the [U.S.] Marines don't have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan Master of Duplicate Posts

05-14-2009, 11:52 PM	#21
Matt308 aka Dickcheese Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Washington State Posts: 13,386	http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5024190.ece The United States tested a nuclear-powered jet engine on the ground and also carried out flight tests with a nuclear reactor on board a B-36 jet with a lead-lined cockpit over West Texas and Southern New Mexico. The reactor “ran hot” during the flights but the engines were powered by kerosene. The purpose of the flights was to prove that the crew could be safely shielded from the reactor. Each flight was accompanied by an aircraft packed with marines ready to respond to a crash by parachuting down and securing the area. The test programmes were abandoned in the early 1960s when the superpowers decided that intercontinental ballistic missiles made nuclear-powered planes redundant. __________________ "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the [U.S.] Marines don't have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan Master of Duplicate Posts

05-15-2009, 11:43 AM	#22
Bucksnort101 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,204	Read Clarence "Bud" Andersons book "To Fly and Fight" on his WW2 and post WW2 aviations expolits. He was very involved in this project and describes several horrowing events that occured during testing. __________________ A 2006 study found that the average American walks about 900 miles a year. Another study found that Americans drink an average of 22 gallons of beer a year. That means, on average, Americans get about 41 miles per gallon.

05-14-2009, 03:27 AM	#16
mlsco Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 20	Let's not forget the nuclear-powered aircraft studies during the 1950's, as well. Consider building a reactor well enough shielded not to fry the crew and still light enough to get off the ground...

05-15-2009, 10:54 PM	#23
mlsco Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 20	I was particularly impressed by the idea of flying about with a liquid metal reactor. If a single rifle shot to the cooling system might bring down a P-51 (or whatever) in an unspectacular way, consider how much more interesting an isolated breach exposing elemental sodium to the atmosphere in an aircraft would look.

05-15-2009, 11:09 PM	#24
Matt308 aka Dickcheese Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Washington State Posts: 13,386	The crazy '50s. __________________ "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the [U.S.] Marines don't have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan Master of Duplicate Posts

07-15-2009, 06:03 AM	#26
lingo Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Penzance Cornwall UK Posts: 131	[QUOTE=Sweb;493848] Ever read about the US Navy's soft carrier deck experiments designed to cushion the landings of planes without landing gears? Yep, the thinking was if planes didn't need landing gear they could be built much lighter and carry more fuel and ordnance. So, a resilient deck was experimented with and they actually tested it by pan-caking (gear up) some Grumman Cougars on it. It didn't work either. The British also tried this using a Vampire flown by Eric 'Winkle' Brown. A great way to scrap aircraft.

07-15-2009, 07:19 AM	#27
Waynos Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 914	I wasn't aware the USN had also tried gearless deck landings, I thought the RN took all the blame for that one. So who was daftest, the service that thought of it first or the one that said 'ooh, we'll try that' There have been several attempts to make bombers carry their own fighters, ever since WW1, but I think syscom's tiptow is the maddest of them all. At least the others were 'sort of' sensible, in a purely relative sense, by hooking the planes fuselage onto something designed for the job, however badly __________________ BlondeValkyrie - Bugger off and host your OWN pictures you thieving twat Last edited by Waynos; 07-15-2009 at 07:23 AM.

07-15-2009, 07:55 AM	#28
Waynos Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 914	I also think one of the maddest schemes ever was the USN VTOL fighter project that resulted in the XFV-1 and XFY-1. Take off and flight were one thing, but landing vertically backwards!?!? __________________ BlondeValkyrie - Bugger off and host your OWN pictures you thieving twat

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode