Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/40999/

Topic: Convair YB-60
Username: Dahawaiian
Posted 2006-01-11 01:36:22 and read 8084 times.

Does anyone have information concerning this massive aircraft that eventually lost to the B-52? This aircraft certainly was the biggest jet bomber ever manufactured although it never went into production. Would it have made a better bomber compared to the B-52 if Convair had spent more time to develop it?

Topic: RE: Convair YB-60
Username: Ptrjong
Posted 2006-01-11 01:48:10 and read 8080 times.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b060-01.html

Quoting Dahawaiian (Thread starter):
Would it have made a better bomber compared to the B-52 if Convair had spent more time to develop it?

Certainly not. As Joe Baugher makes clear, the B-60 was 'just' a jet B-36 with swept wings. The B-52 was way superior.

Peter

Topic: RE: Convair YB-60
Username: N844AA
Posted 2006-01-11 03:11:53 and read 8056 times.

My god, that's a stunningly ugly plane, and I say that as a long-time fan of the B-36.

http://www.air-and-space.com/Convair...20N26372%20YB-60%2049-2676%20l.jpg

I was going to say the only graceful thing about that plane is the tail, but apparently the tail design was a contract requirement for the competition that led to the B-52.

Topic: RE: Convair YB-60
Username: Ghostbase
Posted 2006-01-11 20:55:44 and read 7950 times.

It was an impressive looking bomber but the problem was her 72% commonality with the standard B-36F Peacemaker; attaching eight P&W XJ-57 turbojets onto a swept wing all attached to the fuselage of a WW2 era airframe was just not ever going to produce a stellar performance. The XB-52 flew over 100mph faster and generally out-performed the YB-60 in every respect. Two prototypes were built but only one ever flew, both were scrapped in quick order!

The B-36 certainly spawned some interesting variants; the YB-60, the XC-99, and the 'nuclear' NB-36H as well as FICON and Tom-Tom.

 ghost 

Topic: RE: Convair YB-60
Username: AvObserver
Posted 2006-01-21 21:09:39 and read 7737 times.

The ONLY real advantage the derivitive B-60 would've had over the clean-sheet B-52 was in cost; at about $4 million per copy (in 1952 dollars), it would have cost only about half as much as the roughly $8 million per unit B-52. That savings, however, couldn't outweigh its strikingly inferior performance. I don't echo N844AA's opinion about its looks, I rather like its profile but I can't deny it wouldn't have been nearly the bomber the mighty BUFF has been. The all-jet B-60 would still have been markedly slower than the Soviet's all-turboprop TU-95 Bear bomber.

Topic: RE: Convair YB-60
Username: Areopagus
Posted 2006-01-25 00:04:15 and read 7613 times.

That article linked by Ptrjong mentions the tailwheel, but its description is at variance with the explanation and pictures published by Airpower. Airpower said that the sweep of the wings changed the center of gravity, but the main landing gear couldn't be moved aft, making a tipup very possible. The rear gear needed to be down while the aircraft was on the ground, and it was full length to keep the fuselage level. It wasn't a small tailwheel of a taildragger. Well, that is to say, it was a small wheel on a very long strut. The airplane couldn't rotate unless it was retracted. So, the rear gear was retracted once aerodynamic control was gained on the takeoff roll, and was reextended again on rollout before aerodynamic control was lost. It sounds like the recipe for operational errors.

Topic: RE: Convair YB-60
Username: planesofthepast
Posted 2012-11-02 15:22:05 and read 6187 times.

There is more information about the Convair YB-60, and photos, at ...

http://www.planesofthepast.com/convair-yb60.htm

There were two prototypes, the first being S/N 49-2676. The second prototype was never completed. Both aircraft were scrapped in July, 1954.

Topic: RE: Convair YB-60
Username: Geezer
Posted 2012-11-20 00:53:44 and read 5687 times.

Quoting Dahawaiian (Thread starter):
Would it have made a better bomber compared to the B-52 if Convair had spent more time to develop it?

Let's put it this way; the NEWEST B-52 still in service, is 50 years old; so all the rest are even older than that. How many airplanes can you think of that have managed to stay in military service for over 50 years ? I'd say that fact alone pretty well says it all as to "how good" an airplane the B-52 is.

Back in that era, the "A.A.F", and later the U.S.A.F. came up with some of the most preposterous, outlandish designs for airplanes, I'm amazed that we've gotten as far as we have; (anyone remember the great "B-19"?) (You can still see one of it's tires at the U.S.A.F. Museum in Dayton.

Charley

Topic: RE: Convair YB-60
Username: 135mech
Posted 2012-11-27 09:32:20 and read 5161 times.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 7):
You can still see one of it's tires at the U.S.A.F. Museum in Dayton.

Isn't that the 10 foot tall tire from the original production B-36 before they went to the 4-wheel bogie? I've been there and that was the "special" tire display.

Regards,
135Mech

Topic: RE: Convair YB-60
Username: boeingfixer
Posted 2012-11-27 16:36:29 and read 5032 times.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 7):
(anyone remember the great "B-19"?) (You can still see one of it's tires at the U.S.A.F. Museum in Dayton.
Quoting 135mech (Reply 8):
Isn't that the 10 foot tall tire from the original production B-36 before they went to the 4-wheel bogie? I've been there and that was the "special" tire display.

I think he was talking about the wheel/tire from the B-19. As for the B-36, only the XB-36 and YB-36 had the large single wheel MLG with the YB-36 later being modified to the 4 wheel gear and it eventually became a RB-36E.

Cheers,

John

Topic: RE: Convair YB-60
Username: Geezer
Posted 2012-11-27 17:03:55 and read 5027 times.

Quoting 135mech (Reply 8):
Isn't that the 10 foot tall tire from the original production B-36 before they went to the 4-wheel bogie? I've been there and that was the "special" tire display.



I haven't been to the museum for a couple of years now, so I had to do some checking; no, that big tire is an original from the B-19. It was the biggest bomber ever built for the Air Force prior to 1946; (the first B-36 was completed in 1949)

During WW 2 my brother-in-law worked at Wright Field in experimental engineering, and as a kid, I spent all of my "out of school" summer months at my sister's house, ( which was within sight of "the field", as everyone called it back then), watching airplanes. Every plane anyone came up with was sure to be at Wight Field for evaluation. (Most never made it past eval)

While this thing was being built by Douglas, the war was in full swing in Europe, and the Air Force was VERY excited about getting a "bigger" bomber; the problem was though, the thing was obsolete before they even finished building it. When it was built, it had four 2,000 hp Wright R-3550 engines, which quickly proved to be vastly under-powered; then they replaced them with 2,600 hp V-3420 Allisons, which gave it more power, (and even MORE problems) For a couple of years there, the B-19 was all you heard about. Once the Air Force realized it wasn't going to "cut it" as a bomber, they re-did the interior and tried to make a cargo hauler out of it; After a hell of a lot talk, (and no success), they finally cut the thing up for scrap ! ( which was a VERY much needed commodity during the war years.)

So, the only thing Hitler ever had to worry about from the B-19 program, was the scrap metal that was later used for making P-47's, P-38's, and P-51's. (They gave him a fit !)

Charley

Topic: RE: Convair YB-60
Username: acontador
Posted 2012-11-28 07:07:56 and read 4908 times.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 10):
the problem was though, the thing was obsolete before they even finished building it.


I think you are being a bit too critical and fast with that judgement. When the B-36 eventually made it into service, there was no other aircraft in the USAF inventory that could carry a "special" weapon (nuclear) 10,000 miles far, much less one of the very bulky early thermonuclear weapons. Sure, it was quickly overshadowed (and mostly forgotten) by its replacement, the vastly superior B-52, but which only could compete in range with the B-36 thanks to the in-flight refuelling (and the dozens of KC-135As required to do so). Without the B-36 there would have been no credible US nuclear deterrent force in the 1949-1956 period, which was way before any ICBMs were operational.

The B-36 was also the first operational aircraft to routinely fly missions lasting over 24 hours, sometimes up to 48 hours straight flying with no in-flight refuelling.

The YB-60 was the back-up cheap program in case the B-52 development would ran into trouble. Accordingly, they decided to keep changes to a minimum, which affected the new design the most by keeping the relatively thick wing cross-section originally designed for the B-36 operational speeds. The increase in speed meant an increase in drag from the wing, which eventually led to a poor top speed when compared to the newly designed B-52. By itself, the YB-60 was a huge improvement over the basic B-36, but could not match the B-52.

Cheers,
Andres

Topic: RE: Convair YB-60
Username: Spacepope
Posted 2012-11-28 09:01:12 and read 4875 times.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 10):
After a hell of a lot talk, (and no success), they finally cut the thing up for scrap ! ( which was a VERY much needed commodity during the war years.)

The B-19 wasn't cut up for scrap until well after the war. Wiki says it survived until 1949.

Topic: RE: Convair YB-60
Username: Geezer
Posted 2012-11-28 17:19:09 and read 4747 times.

Quoting acontador (Reply 11):
I think you are being a bit too critical and fast with that judgement. When the B-36 eventually made it into service, there was no other aircraft in the USAF inventory that could carry a "special" weapon (nuclear) 10,000 miles far, much less one of the very bulky early thermonuclear weapons. Sure, it was quickly overshadowed (and mostly forgotten) by its replacement, the vastly superior B-52, but which only could compete in range with the B-36 thanks to the in-flight refuelling (and the dozens of KC-135As required to do so). Without the B-36 there would have been no credible US nuclear deterrent force in the 1949-1956 period, which was way before any ICBMs were operational.

Hi, Acontador ! We're getting our airplanes mixed up here ! I wasn't referring to the B-36........I was only talking about the B-19; I meant that the B-19 was obsolete before it ever flew; as I mentioned above, all during WW2 my sister's husband was working at Wright Field; even though I was just a "boy" at the time, he used to tell me everything he was allowed to talk about, every evening when he came home. I was checking some website the other day to refresh my memory about the B-19, and this one site was talking about it AND the B-36; it mentioned that the B-36 first flew in (I believe), 1949; so i'm thinking, the B-19 must have already been "given up on" by that time. Also, if the first B-36 was completed in 1949 as that website says, it's fair to assume that the project dated well back to the time the B-19 was still flying, and looking at the B-36, (even as it was when it first came out), it's pretty easy to see why all interest was lost in the B-19.

Also...........not long after V-J Day, (end of the war with Japan), the Air Force immediately went into "peacetime mode", and my brother-in-law left his job with the Air Force and went back into the sheet metal business with his step father, so from that point on, all I ever heard about what was going on at Wright Field, was only what was in the newspaper; (no more daily "inside information")

What I can't remember right now is, how long my sister still lived in Dayton after the war ended; I practically lived at her house the whole time they were in Dayton, because anything and everything the Air Force had at the time, you could see flying around every day. When my sis moved back to Middletown, ( 25 miles south of Dayton ), I didn't get around Dayton very much for a while, until I got married and lived in Dayton for a few years.

Thinking back about all of this, I suppose it's the reason I became so interested in airplanes at an early age; ( just never "got around to doing anything about my interest". ( until I found A.net about 60 years later)

Charley


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/