4 ms·

Shades of the Convair B-36 Peacemaker, the predecessor to the B-52. "Six turning, four burning" because it had six piston-powered pusher propellers and four jet

by cstross 11y ago

Shades of the Convair B-36 Peacemaker, the predecessor to the B-52. "Six turning, four burning" because it had six piston-powered pusher propellers and four jet engines in underwing pods for take-off boost and high speed bombing runs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker They also experimented with tracked landing gear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/B-36_tracked_gear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_can... A parasite fighter for bomber defense (the XF-85 Goblin): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin And as a test bed for nuclear aircraft propulsion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_NB-36H https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_NB-36H

protomyth 11y ago
I would say the NB-36H because it actually flew and because "The original crew and avionics cabin was replaced by a massive lead and rubber lined 11 ton crew section for a pilot, copilot, flight engineer and two nuclear engineers. Even the small windows had 10-12 inch thick lead glass." The thought that the X-6[1] and WS-125[2] would be good ideas further lead me to nominate the NB-36H. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WS-125 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WS-125
- TylerE 11y ago
  Sort of flew. It flew, yes, but the nuke was never used to actually generate power.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    Yes, the didn't power the airplane with it, but my point is the thought it was a good idea to put a nuclear reactor in a plane. As my Dad said to me a few too many times in my youth: "I'm amazed and appalled - amazed you thought of it and appalled you actually did it"
    - pjc50 11y ago
      If any of the various ""intrinsically safe"" small reactor systems get into production, no doubt someone will propose this again. Or the Lockheed Martin vapourware fusion reactor. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.htm...

by cstross 11y ago

protomyth 11y ago

I would say the NB-36H because it actually flew and because "The original crew and avionics cabin was replaced by a massive lead and rubber lined 11 ton crew section for a pilot, copilot, flight engineer and two nuclear engineers. Even the small windows had 10-12 inch thick lead glass." The thought that the X-6[1] and WS-125[2] would be good ideas further lead me to nominate the NB-36H. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WS-125 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WS-125

TylerE 11y ago
Sort of flew. It flew, yes, but the nuke was never used to actually generate power.
- protomyth 11y ago
  Yes, the didn't power the airplane with it, but my point is the thought it was a good idea to put a nuclear reactor in a plane. As my Dad said to me a few too many times in my youth: "I'm amazed and appalled - amazed you thought of it and appalled you actually did it"
  - pjc50 11y ago
    If any of the various ""intrinsically safe"" small reactor systems get into production, no doubt someone will propose this again. Or the Lockheed Martin vapourware fusion reactor. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.htm...