A number of WWII generation planes have been restored and are operated by aviation buffs. But does anyone have a flightworthy B-36? Or were they all scrapped long ago? It’d be a shame because I think they were remarkably elegant looking airplanes.
Well the Commemorative Air Force doesn’t have any. But if anybody does, I’m sure they’d know about it.
I was going to mention the one at Castle AFB also. I saw it when we went past on the train. What a remarkable aircraft.
I put "B-36"and “flying condition” into Yahoo and got a number of interesting sites, including this one titled “Locations of Convair B-36 survivors and otherwise.” It lists the same five places that Boyo Jim’s second link cites.
So it would seem that there aren’t any flying examples left. Which is probably just as well, since if there was one flying it would probably only be a matter of time before it crashed and was destroyed.
Frankly, it’s not one of my favorite planes. Big, yes. Impressive, yes. But I’ve always thought that the idea of a plane with jets and props was kind of weird. And I’ve never liked pusher props, either.
But there’s no accounting for taste.
That B-36 at Castle used to be at Chanute AFB when I was there for tech school, back in 1984. It sat just off the (at the time) unused airfield. I marched by it every day for 9 weeks.
I always wondered what became of it after they closed Chanute…
What was the point in the place having both jets and props? Why not fit more jets where the props are? Why were the props reversed, too? I’ve never seen a plane before with the propellers facing the back. Why was it not more common?
God damn. Place should read plane in the first sentence.
he answer to the engine configuration questions is “Because it seemed like a good idea at the time.” I suppose that the designers did not completely trusty those new-fangled jet engines for a heavy lifter, so they made sure there were props as well.
Pusher props were not unknown, but never as popular as tractor props. The craft just looks weird now.
Range was an important consideration. The B-36 used it’s jet engines for extra thrust on takeoff and when sprinting over a target. For the long haul, it used just the props for maximum fuel efficiency. An experimental version did replace all the props with jet engines (and swept back the wings), but it was inferior to the B-52, so plans to upgrade the B-36 fleet were never implemented. Another experimental version tried a puller prop configuration, and again didn’t offer any real improvement.
I don’t think it was mistrust but the fact that jet engines weren’t available when the B-36 was first proposed just prior to the US entering WWII. It didn’t mutate into a “WTF were we thinking?” experiment until they figured it didn’t have enough power and jets were added. The B-36 truly jumped the shark during the very special episode, Peacemaker gives birth to a thalidomide baby, when the mutant XF-85 Goblin emerged from its belly.
I was station at Elsworth AFB, Rapid City, SD. during the RB-36 days. It was loaded with those giants, never forget the sound they made when flying over… it was different than any other aircraft. Quite an experience to ride the tholley besides the bomb bays.
After the service I worked for a petrochemical company that bought a surplus RB-36 jet pod. Their thinking was to use it for an emergency hot air supply if one of the company gas turbines suffered a wreck. It was never needed, years later it was sold for junk.
The last B-36 I saw was at the USAF museum, Dayton, OH.
The jets were added on mainly in the interest of time. Replacing the big piston engines with them would have been a major effort, delaying the deployment of the new configuration during a time when maintaining the nuclear deterrent against Stalin was the ultimate priority. But it took comparatively little time and effort to improve the takeoff weight (i.e. fuel load and range and bomb load) of the existing planes with the “six turning and four burning” configuration. The introduction of the B-47 in quantity eliminated that problem.
At the time, the new jets weren’t necessarily more reliable than the well-understood piston engines despite their simplicity, so it was something of a leap of faith to commit to an all-jet design for the B-36’s replacement, anyway.
The “pusher” configuration was chosen to reduce turbulence over the wing, since air wasn’t churned up until after it had already created lift. That approach wasn’t any more popular than it was because of fatigue loads it induced in the propeller blades and shafts, though. Every time a blade would pass the wing trailing edge it would go from a high-pressure region to a low-pressure one or vice versa, imposing a high-frequency cyclic load that would eventually create fatigue cracks in the blades. Those loads did the same thing to the shaft and bearings, making loss (literally) of blades and failure of engines just too routine an occurrence. Apparently the shock loads on the blades were so strong, and created so much noise, that the plane could be heard and even felt from many miles away.
There was at least one incident I’ve heard of where all six piston engines failed on a flight, and the plane was successfully landed with only the four jets. Convair was actually at the point of designing a new version with a conventional “tractor” configuration when USAF committed to all jet power.
There was a cargo version, the XC-99, proposed using the B-36 wing and tail but with a cavernous fuselage. One was actually built and even used for a while, and is now at Kelly AFB in San Antonio being prepared for relocation to the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson.
The movie “Strategic Air Command” with Jimmy Stewart has some good B-36 (and B-47) footage if you’re interested, including a scene where he crash-lands one on the Greenland icecap.
Oh, the '36 can fly 10,000 miles
Oh, the '36 can fly 10,000 miles
It can fly 10,000 miles
(something something something something)
But it only has a teensie-weensie bomb!
From Boyo Jim’s link
I don’t know if i would call that a teensie weensie bomb.
Rick: That was an old “war ditty” that I read in There I Was… Flat On My Back, a collection of cartoons by Bob Stevens.
Wasn’t there also an American version of the Grand Slam bomb that was developped for the B-36 ?
I remember that plane - my Dad was stationed there from '74-'77, when I was just another brat. There were a huge number of planes on display - ones that had become too worn to be used in training. It’s nice to know that at least one of 'em found a new home.
I wonder what they did with the rest…the B-58, the two B-52s, and the B-29 painted up to look like the ‘Enola Gay.’ All in surprisingly good shape, considering they sat around outside.
Since it was a worn-out plane, I doubt that one is restorable to flying condition. Pity; the B-36 isn’t a pretty plane, but it’s damned impressive.
Oh, it could be done, galen. The guys that restore planes for the Smithsonian take utterly destroyed aircraft and bring them back to pristine condition, but I don’t think that anyone would really be willing to do that because of the cost. (Though it could happen, there were guys who fished a couple of planes out of glaciers and restored them.)
Well, true. It seems pretty unlikely, but I will agree it’s possible.