Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B-36 360 Degree Panarama Cockpit Veiw  
User currently offlinedtw9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1165 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8587 times:

Wow, talk about having a few gauges to keep track of.

http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/media/062/B-36J%20Engineer.html

40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinesphealey From United States of America, joined May 2005, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8547 times:

Yowza! Are there one or two flight engineer stations?

sPH


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8518 times:

The number of gauges and the view are both pretty impressive although, strictly speaking, that's a 4π steradian panorama.
  


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8429 times:

Quoting sphealey (Reply 1):
Yowza! Are there one or two flight engineer stations?

Yes, all B-36 had two FEs. The B-36J, like this one carried a crew of 13, all earlier B-36s had a crew of 15.


User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2289 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 8371 times:

That's a great picture. Can you imagine an Airbus pilot stepping into that thing? The guy would shit himself silly. A Boeing guy would at least recognize the yokes, but I doubt either would be able to get the thing off the ground.

Ahhh, when pilots were real men..


User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3790 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8196 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 4):
Can you imagine an Airbus pilot stepping into that thing? The guy would shit himself silly. A Boeing guy would at least recognize the yokes, but I doubt either would be able to get the thing off the ground.

Ahhh, when pilots were real men..

I can't even count the number of idiotic statements in your post...

Honestly?  



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2289 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8130 times:

It's called humor my friend. You know, the number of dials and almost complete lack of automation might present real problems to pilots that have very little actual flying to do, calculations to make etc in modern aircraft.

When you have to explain the joke it does lose something. Let's put it down to a difference in comical taste shall we?


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8118 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 6):
the number of dials and almost complete lack of automation might present real problems to pilots that have very little actual flying to do

Pilots won't have a problem with the basic six pack of instruments. Even today's MFDs still emulate the basic sixpack and experienced pilots can easily find their way. They would also not have much trouble figuring out how to operate the autopilot.

I have flown a lot of Lockheed Super Connie's.

Back then pilots didn't know or fully understand the FE panel. Multiple recip engines required detailed full-time monitoring of the engines. Pilots didn't do that job.

The biggest issue for modern pilots would be navigation in my opinion.

Those old recips were not setup for the pilots to navigate, and usually not for the pilots to work the radios.

Pilots FLEW - and all those other tasks, engine monitoring, navigation, radios - were someone else's job.


User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2289 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 8109 times:

It's tough being a joker. I know from the number of times my wife hasn't laughed at one of my bits. A.net can be the same as marriage I suppose.

User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3790 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7951 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 6):
Let's put it down to a difference in comical taste shall we?

Yes, I guess. Though I think it was pretty inflammatory on modern day pilots.

First of all, most Airbus and Boeing pilots these days have indeed flown things a lot more basic and mechanical than their current ride earlier in their career.

And since we're on the point, I wonder whose job I'd rather be doing. It's like apple to oranges, I know, but flying nowadays is more about managing an ever increasing series of threats to the safety of the flight than manhandling a heavy piece of metal in a mostly empty sky. There is more automation now, for sure, but also a lot less people in the cockpit and a great deal more things to deal with.

But yes, I'd rather be flying a B-36 than a 747. Except maybe for the 40 hours long missions...



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2289 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7850 times:

I base the comments also in part on a friend who recently transitioned from MD11s. He still says he "misses the challenge of piloting".

But this is well off topic. Incredible picture by the way, and love that 360. I've been sharing it around and sometimes get more fascinated by the actual construction. Just metal and rivets, nary a piece of insulation to be found. Crazy what those guys went through just flying, forget about flak bursting all around you on really bad days.


User currently offlinedtw9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1165 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7787 times:

I have one question, where is the landing gear handle. I see the circuit breakers and the landing gear indicator lights but can't seem to find the handle

User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2841 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7754 times:

Quoting dtw9 (Reply 11):
I have one question, where is the landing gear handle. I see the circuit breakers and the landing gear indicator lights but can't seem to find the handle


The B-36 didn't have a handle or lever. It had a switch. You can find where the switch is located here:

http://www.cybermodeler.com/aircraft/b-36/images/b-36_pit02.jpg

It's located below the the co-pilot's altimeter on the pilot's pedestal and directly below the landing gear light extend and retract switches. It looks like it has a black cover over it that opens to expose the switch.

[Edited 2013-06-11 11:48:12]


The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineulfinator From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7704 times:

Did this B-36 not have the additional four podded jet engines? I only ask because I didn't see any instruments or throttles, at least that were obvious, for those.

User currently offlineyeelep From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 667 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7694 times:

I think it does. Look at the overhead above the captains position.

User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7660 times:

Quoting ulfinator (Reply 13):
I only ask because I didn't see any instruments or throttles, at least that were obvious, for those.

The throttles are overhead and the bank of four sets of four instruments centered between the pilots show for four engines if you zoom in. Likely the jet engine instruments.


User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2841 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7659 times:

Quoting yeelep (Reply 14):
I think it does. Look at the overhead above the captains position.

I didn't see any gauges for the jet engines in the FE stations. Kind of interesting the jet oil and fuel pressure, tach and pipe pressure gauges are all located above the pilot's pedestal up front. So, yes you are correct it does have them.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 7632 times:

The jets don't require as much monitoring or multiple extra gauges as the recips.

User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2841 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7589 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 17):
The jets don't require as much monitoring or multiple extra gauges as the recips.


Were they just used for take off or did they use them in cruise as well?



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2368 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7562 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 18):
Were they just used for take off or did they use them in cruise as well?

Not in normal cruise (the jets would have been far too inefficient), but they did during high speed dashes, or in any other situation that required extra power.


User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6484 posts, RR: 54
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7287 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 18):
Were they just used for take off or did they use them in cruise as well?

About half of the B-36s were either built as - or converted to - RB-36 reconnaissance birds. In the early fifties they performed missions over the USSR at 50,000+ feet altitude - well above any Soviet defence capability at that time. Cruising at such altitude was only possible with all ten engines running.

But as rwessel corectly states, it greatly reduced range.

Some special lightweight variants, with most gun turrets and other non-essential stuff removed - was said to have reached 58,000 feet. It was the forerunner of the Lockheed U-2.

The flight engineer would report to the captain: "Six turning and four burning".

Reliability was was nothing to write home about, so over a beer in the bar the crews would sometimes be joking: "'two turning, two burning, two joking, two smoking, and two engines not accounted for".



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2841 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 7199 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 20):
Reliability was was nothing to write home about, so over a beer in the bar the crews would sometimes be joking: "'two turning, two burning, two joking, two smoking, and two engines not accounted for".

Interesting airplane. Not long ago I watched the movie "Strategic Air Command" with Jimmy Stewart. So I started doing some research into the airplane. Lots of good video of this plane flying around and some interior shots of the cabin. Too bad not many survive.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7130 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 20):
But as rwessel corectly states, it greatly reduced range.

Wouldn't they have had separate fuel tanks? Some for the jets (JP4?) and some for the recips (avgas)? How would using the jets reduce range?



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 722 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7109 times:

In response to the question about the 2 FE positions in the cockpit, I poked around the web, and the original crew complement was 15, increased to 22 for the RB-36 (complete with darkroom).

What, exactly, did all 15 do? Were some reserve pilots and FEs?


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7104 times:

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 23):
What, exactly, did all 15 do? Were some reserve pilots and FEs?

Here is an interesting article - http://www.zianet.com/tmorris/b36.html

But to summarize some key points.

A crew would fly four or five missions a month - 70 flight hours - so missions were 14:55 hours for a minimum and 20:05 hour for a long mission - which resulted in the 35 flight hours for a necessary maintenance check. Crews did two of thse cycles a month in 'their' aircraft.

The crew would include an aircraft commander, a pilot, a third pilot, two performance engineers (FE), a bombardier, a navigator, a co-observer, two radio operators - that's 10 people. The aircraft had 16 defensive guns in eight turrets. Five crewmen were dedicated gunners and the third pilot, co-observer and second radio operator manned turrets on the forward part of the aircraft.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 22):
Wouldn't they have had separate fuel tanks? Some for the jets (JP4?) and some for the recips (avgas)? How would using the jets reduce range?

From the linked article above:

The jets used standard 115/145 AVGAS, the same as the recips.


25 prebennorholm : I don't know. And since the last B-36 was retired in 1956, then there aren't many crew members left to tell about it. Those J47 engines would very li
26 Flighty : Yes, saw that! Flipping channels and "ooohhhhh.. B-47 footage.... hmmmmyeeees" Correct, that was an issue for Chrysler turbine cars. Lead would colle
27 rfields5421 : The Navy's P-2V also used just one fuel system - 115/Avgas - for both the piston engines and the J-34 jet engines. Also doubt the 81 KC-97L aircraft a
28 Post contains links planesofthepast : I've had the privilege of seeing first-hand three of the last four surviving B-36 aircraft over the last couple of years. The size is just staggering!
29 canoecarrier : I felt the same way. There's a B-47 at the Museum of Flight here in Seattle I walk by all the time and never knew someone sat in the nose until I wat
30 Post contains links aklrno : The SAC museum outside Omaha has a B-47, B-52, B-29, and B-36 under a roof (I think they are all in the same room, but I don't remember for sure. A b
31 canoecarrier : "The SAC museum outside Omaha has a B-47, B-52, B-29, and B-36 under a roof (I think they are all in the same room, but I don't remember for sure. A b
32 Post contains links yeelep : Here it is: http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/med...a/062/B-36J%20Pilot%20Station.html Other views: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsh
33 EMBQA : Sad it's not on DVD... at least I've never found it. Great air to air shots.
34 SSTeve : Someone in the UK is selling it on eBay.
35 Post contains images rc135x : The Museum is about 30-45 minutes away from the airport (KOMA) via Interstate 80. Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo is world class (no, I don't work for the O
36 canoecarrier : I can't seem to get that link to work. It's on Netflix. You could get a trial at a discount and cancel if you really want to watch it again. Couldn't
37 rc135x : Just checked and it is no longer listed on Netflix. It had been on instant download only.
38 canoecarrier : You can rent it for 2.99 in HD on Amazon Instant Video. Its there now. Netflix must have just pulled it because I had it on a watchlist and saw it th
39 GRIVely : In 1955 my father was in the Air Force and stationed at Sandia Labs. Our family lived on Kirtland AFB and the B-36s frequently took off right over our
40 Flighty : Those planes must have sounded like doom itself.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic B-36 360 Degree Panarama Cockpit Veiw
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Russia Sells Syria 36 YAK-130. posted Mon Jan 23 2012 05:15:15 by notaxonrotax
MKE 128th - Smoke Fills Cockpit Of KC-135 posted Thu Sep 30 2010 10:40:52 by GeneralAviator
Sukhoi T-50 Cockpit Revealed posted Tue Mar 2 2010 19:59:50 by Shmertspionem
Air Force One Mini Cockpit posted Sun Feb 21 2010 10:01:42 by LMML 14/32
Buff Cockpit posted Sat Sep 26 2009 15:52:27 by Boeing767mech
Air Force One/Glass Cockpit? posted Thu Jan 22 2009 23:22:16 by DocLightning
WSJ: Iraq May Buy 36 F-16 From The US posted Fri Sep 5 2008 06:54:02 by 777
Air Force One Cockpit posted Mon Sep 1 2008 19:00:06 by Speedbird741
Serbia Sells 36 Lasta-95 Trainers To Iraq posted Sat Dec 22 2007 05:17:42 by JoKeR
A-4 Skyhawk / Cockpit-Size posted Wed Aug 29 2007 19:50:59 by Blackbird

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format