B36 - those were the days

Roland Donnell

Roland Donnell

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
46
Location
Plano, Tx
Display Name
Display name:
Roland Donnell
I was reminded by my brother how we use to run outside upon hearing the thundering approach and lay on our backs to watch the B36's west bound from Carswell AFB lumber over our sleepy little town Graham, Texas. I wish I could have gotten up this close. Something probably only the old timers here can appreciate with Jimmy Stewart. Clip from Strategic Air Command.

 
Possibly my favorite airplane. Something of a steampunk monstrosity.

They were amazingly large and capable aircraft for 1940's technology. The later, featherweight versions had combat ceilings (relatively low on gas, and after a long, long cruise climb) of 50K feet or more. There are multiple crews who claimed altitudes approaching 60,000'. They would have been invulnerable on night missions because the Russians lacked night fighters with that kind of altitude capability. They retired as SAM's began to be deployed, which was good timing. A 300 MPH bomber cruising at 50K' would have been extremely vulnerable to first generation surface to air missiles.

The practical downside of a B-36? Six R-4360's with dual turbochargers. Those were big powerful recips and the odds of completing a 30 hour mission with all 6 recips (and 4 jets) running happily weren't great.
 
There’s one at the SAC Museum just west of Omaha. It’s a pretty impressive bird.
 
DaleB said:
There’s one at the SAC Museum just west of Omaha. It’s a pretty impressive bird.
Click to expand...

The other 3 survivors are at the Air Force Museum in Dayton, Castle Air Force Base in California, and the Pima Museum in Arizona. The one in Arizona was at Carswell in Fort Worth for years in an outdoor museum with a lot of other interesting stuff. Carswell was a major B-36 base and was co-located with the Convair plant where the B-36's were built. That airplane was supposed to be restored and put back on display indoors in Fort Worth, but the funding never worked out, so it went to Pima, much to the chagrin of the everyone in Fort Worth who had a history with the type and with that particular airplane.
 
My dad talks about how the windows would rattle when a group of them would fly over the farm house when he was a kid.
 
Bob Noel said:
or prevent the deaths of millions of people
Click to expand...
Semantics. Strategic nuclear bombers are designed for one purpose only; drop big bombs and kill lots and lots of people. The WHY depends on your point of view. I like to think we do it to “prevent” wars and death. I’m sure all those other countries that build nuclear bombers say the exact same thing.

Good thing, I guess, that we’re all working so hard not to kill each other... by figuring out better ways to kill each other.
 
DaleB said:
Semantics. Strategic nuclear bombers are designed for one purpose only; drop big bombs and kill lots and lots of people.
Click to expand...
One could argue that their primary purpose is as a deterrent, to make someone else believe that were they to attempt to drop big bombs these would be used to retaliate, and to be very effective at it. The actual dropping of said bombs is essentially a secondary purpose.

Nauga,
and his insurance policy
 
DaleB said:
Semantics. Strategic nuclear bombers are designed for one purpose only; drop big bombs and kill lots and lots of people. The WHY depends on your point of view. I like to think we do it to “prevent” wars and death. I’m sure all those other countries that build nuclear bombers say the exact same thing.

Good thing, I guess, that we’re all working so hard not to kill each other... by figuring out better ways to kill each other.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you actually understand the mission that SAC had.
 
“Let’s make this look good, we’ll never actually use it...”

And I understand SAC’s mission perfectly well, thanks.
 
DaleB said:
There’s one at the SAC Museum just west of Omaha. It’s a pretty impressive bird.
Click to expand...
I only recently learned about this museum/display. I am up in the Twin Cities and that is barely at 2hr flight for me. Is there a nearby airport with courtesy car? Can you actually land at this location? Any details would be great!
 
A few more from PIMA. I had a Hasselblad with and took these on film. I have no clue where the cleaned up scans are so these are raw. 5yr old daughter for scale on the F-111. Hard to think that thing ever took off a carrier.

HB500CM_SCAN__0086.jpg

HB500CM_SCAN__0085.jpg

HB500CM_SCAN__0088.jpg
 
The B-36 was called "Peacemaker", and one can argue it was 100% successful at its mission... never dropped a bomb in anger, and there was no nuclear war.

But what can you say about an airplane that has 336 spark plugs?
 
Dana said:
But what can you say about an airplane that has 336 spark plugs?
Click to expand...

That only Uncle Sam, with an infinite budget for holding off the Godless Commies, could afford a fleet of over 300 of 'em.
 
"5yr old daughter for scale on the F-111. Hard to think that thing ever took off a carrier."

Is that an F-111B? Was there a secret program where the Air Force was launching F-111's off of carriers?
 
topgun260 said:
"5yr old daughter for scale on the F-111. Hard to think that thing ever took off a carrier."

Is that an F-111B? Was there a secret program where the Air Force was launching F-111's off of carriers?
Click to expand...
The Navy B model did not have that long nose that gave the F-111 it’s name: Aardvark.

And it is true that there is a huge amount of Vark DNA in the Tomcat.
 
Sinistar said:
I only recently learned about this museum/display. I am up in the Twin Cities and that is barely at 2hr flight for me. Is there a nearby airport with courtesy car? Can you actually land at this location? Any details would be great!
Click to expand...
KMLE is not far. I don't know what the courtesy car situation is there these days, you could call Oracle Aviation. Unfortunately, there's no place closer. I've flown over a few times.

Bob Noel said:
I don't believe you actually understand the mission that SAC had.
Click to expand...

Tarheelpilot said:
So then why post what you posted? I don’t get your point at all.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what's so difficult to grasp here. What I posted shouldn't be that hard to understand. The airplane was designed specifically to fly thousands of miles and drop nuclear bombs on people. Period. It had no other purpose. None were ever used for anything else. What the intent of the political system that built is might have been is a completely separate question, and not what I commented on.

If I were to place a Claymore mine in front of my house to discourage axe murderers from visiting, the fact that I never actually want detonate it does not alter the fact that the device itself was designed for one purpose, and one purpose only -- it was designed to kill people. The use case does not alter that.
 
DaleB said:
I don't understand what's so difficult to grasp here. What I posted shouldn't be that hard to understand. The airplane was designed specifically to fly thousands of miles and drop nuclear bombs on people. Period. It had no other purpose.
Click to expand...

Nukes didn’t exist when the B-36 was designed. It was designed as an ultra long range conventional bomber. Later, it was adapted to tote nukes.
 
My uncle was a flight engineer on a B-29 during the Korean War.
As you might suspect, when the Migs came on-line the life expectancy of a B-29 crew was approximately 17 seconds, yet he managed to survive his tour.
When he rotated back to the states they sent the entire crew to B-36 school and put him in the B-36.
As he told the story, it took him less than two months in the B-36 to volunteer to go back to Korea and the B-29.
He did not have a good opinion of the plane and wanted nothing to do with it.
 
My late dad spent 30 years in the Air Force in both SAC and TAC (mostly SAC). If memory serves SAC's motto was "peace is our profession." I believe they were 100% successful since they never had to be used for their intended purpose.
 
Archer Jack said:
My late dad spent 30 years in the Air Force in both SAC and TAC (mostly SAC). If memory serves SAC's motto was "peace is our profession." I believe they were 100% successful since they never had to be used for their intended purpose.
Click to expand...
SAC nukes, yes. Conventional, not so much. SAC bombers dropped ordnance on Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Iraq.

But listen... I'm not arguing our strategic policies or anything else. Really, I'm not. I enlisted, spent my time defending peace and freedom and all that. I love old military aircraft, and have owned a couple of ex-military guns and things. I'm not some tree-hugging woke hippie liberal -- just ask anyone who knows me.

But I would not be so naive as to think that the M16 or M60 that I once carried, or the Spad, Camel, P-51, B-29, B-36, B-52, or Claymore was designed for peace. All were/are weapons designed to kill people and break things in large numbers. The fact that having them can be used as a deterrent to others is not germane to discussing their design goals.

One can admire the equipment and the technology while still recognizing its intended purpose. I just think it's interesting and not entirely encouraging that so many of our greatest achievements have been accomplished while in the process of trying to figure out how to more quickly and efficiently kill each other.
 
DaleB said:
SAC nukes, yes. Conventional, not so much. SAC bombers dropped ordnance on Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Iraq.

But listen... I'm not arguing our strategic policies or anything else. Really, I'm not. I enlisted, spent my time defending peace and freedom and all that. I love old military aircraft, and have owned a couple of ex-military guns and things. I'm not some tree-hugging woke hippie liberal -- just ask anyone who knows me.

But I would not be so naive as to think that the M16 or M60 that I once carried, or the Spad, Camel, P-51, B-29, B-36, B-52, or Claymore was designed for peace. All were/are weapons designed to kill people and break things in large numbers. The fact that having them can be used as a deterrent to others is not germane to discussing their design goals.

One can admire the equipment and the technology while still recognizing its intended purpose. I just think it's interesting and not entirely encouraging that so many of our greatest achievements have been accomplished while in the process of trying to figure out how to more quickly and efficiently kill each other.
Click to expand...

Apparently, it IS motivating. And with active competition during wartime great advancements are frequently made. Radar and radar warning receivers durning WWII for example.
 
jsstevens said:
Apparently, it IS motivating. And with active competition during wartime great advancements are frequently made. Radar and radar warning receivers durning WWII for example.
Click to expand...
The list goes on and on. Canning food was developed to supply the French army. We've made huge advances in chemistry, medicine, meteorology, electronics, radio, computers, prosthetics, and all sorts of other technology, all due to our proclivity for waging war.

And really, where would we be without the catapult and trebuchet for flinging pumpkins?
 
DaleB said:
The list goes on and on. Canning food was developed to supply the French army. We've made huge advances in chemistry, medicine, meteorology, electronics, radio, computers, prosthetics, and all sorts of other technology, all due to our proclivity for waging war.

And really, where would we be without the catapult and trebuchet for flinging pumpkins?
Click to expand...

Add superglue to that list.
 
kyleb said:
Possibly my favorite airplane. Something of a steampunk monstrosity.
Click to expand...

One of my favorite movies, although I like the B-47 parts better.

I love how they're starting those massive engines and no one is wearing hearing protection.

I SAID, I see no one wore hearing protection back then. :rolleyes:
 
Pugs said:

One of my favorite movies, although I like the B-47 parts better.

I love how they're starting those massive engines and no one is wearing hearing protection.

I SAID, I see no one wore hearing protection back then. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
saturday-night-live-garrett-morris-hard-of-hearing-news.jpg
 
6 turning and 4 burning. The motto of the B-36. If the Pilot didn’t follow the proper shut procedure for the recips, long hours of plug changing ensued.

A late friend of mine was a gunner in B-29’s slated to go to Korea when the war ended. He was first reassigned to B-36 school before being retrained as a jet engine mechanic. He told me about an AirPower Demonstration he watched as a B-36 started dropping conventional bombs one by one as it came into sight and was still at it as it disappeared out of sight. Much adult beverage was being consumed as this story was told but it would have been impressive to see.

Cheers
 
Many believe the B36/nuclear bomb was our only deterrent after WW2. We had demobilized as did the rest of our allies while Russia and China were still building their military. Europe’s and our only defense from 1947 till late 50’s was the “Peacemaker”/nuclear bomb threat. We had limited conventional weapons, personnel or allies to prevent a massive 5 million soldier invasion. Only the B36 posed the ability to strike the USSR with an atomic bomb till we developed ICBMs, aerial refueling, & nuclear subs. It may not of been a perfect deterrent, but the only one we had after our demobilization.
 
One thing about the B-36 that I had never seen before was the Propeller anti ice system. Notice the vent at the end of the blade from my Pima picture below.

20210106_110109.jpg

Now a diagram of the system I found online. Search for "angelfire.com b-36". I could not get the link to past correctly.

B-36_Prop_deicing.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top