3 ms·

I feel it is fair to say that in many ways, the "architecture" of the B-52 was pioneered in Boeing's B-47 (first flight 17 December 1947 - seven months before t

I feel it is fair to say that in many ways, the "architecture" of the B-52 was pioneered in Boeing's B-47 (first flight 17 December 1947 - seven months before these meetings.) This was a truly innovative aircraft, unlike many other contemporary designs (from Boeing as well as other manufacturers) which resembled their piston-engined precursors. The initial Boeing proposals for the B-52 look like throwbacks to that approach. The article briefly mentions that Bob Withington, one of the members of this ad-hoc proposal-redesign team, played a role in the swept-wing design of the B-47, but is otherwise silent on its significance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-47_Stratojet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-47_Stratojet

Animats 4y ago
Yes. The B-47 was sort of a scaled-up jet-fighter. Look at the cockpit layout.[1] It outperformed some fighters of the era. The original B-52 proposal looks like a modified B-36. The B-36 was the first intercontinental bomber, with "6 turning and 4 burning" - 6 props running on piston engines, plus four jets. That early B-52 proposal looks like something based on the B-36.[2] A bigger B-36 would probably have worked, but it would have been a dead end. Both the B-36 and the B-47 were difficult aircraft to fly and maintain. The B-36, with all those piston engines, was a headache. Too much powerplant to maintain, and underpowered by jet standards. The B-47 needed a rocket assisted takeoff booster to get off the ground with a reasonable amount of runway, and operated too close to the "coffin corner", with cruising speed and altitude too close to stall. Over 2000 were built, over 200 crashed, and none remain flyable. With the B-52, the USAF got an intercontinental bomber that flew well, could be maintained, and had enough power to get itself off the ground without rocket boosters. Its successors were less useful in actual conflicts. Too short ranged, too expensive, less bomb load, etc. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV1hVLGLZ-w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV1hVLGLZ-w [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1-urTRxeEM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1-urTRxeEM

Animats 4y ago

Yes. The B-47 was sort of a scaled-up jet-fighter. Look at the cockpit layout.[1] It outperformed some fighters of the era. The original B-52 proposal looks like a modified B-36. The B-36 was the first intercontinental bomber, with "6 turning and 4 burning" - 6 props running on piston engines, plus four jets. That early B-52 proposal looks like something based on the B-36.[2] A bigger B-36 would probably have worked, but it would have been a dead end. Both the B-36 and the B-47 were difficult aircraft to fly and maintain. The B-36, with all those piston engines, was a headache. Too much powerplant to maintain, and underpowered by jet standards. The B-47 needed a rocket assisted takeoff booster to get off the ground with a reasonable amount of runway, and operated too close to the "coffin corner", with cruising speed and altitude too close to stall. Over 2000 were built, over 200 crashed, and none remain flyable. With the B-52, the USAF got an intercontinental bomber that flew well, could be maintained, and had enough power to get itself off the ground without rocket boosters. Its successors were less useful in actual conflicts. Too short ranged, too expensive, less bomb load, etc. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV1hVLGLZ-w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV1hVLGLZ-w [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1-urTRxeEM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1-urTRxeEM