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, 1159 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8444 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 3 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8404 times:

Yowza! Are there one or two flight engineer stations?

sPH


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 41
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8375 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, 12142 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8286 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, 2260 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8228 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, 3761 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8053 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, 2260 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 7987 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: 31
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 7975 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, 2260 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 7966 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, 3761 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 7808 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, 2260 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 7707 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, 1159 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 7644 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, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7611 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, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7561 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 onlineyeelep From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7551 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: 31
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7517 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, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7516 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: 31
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7489 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, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7446 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, 2351 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7419 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, 6449 posts, RR: 54
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7144 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, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days ago) and read 7056 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 3 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6987 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, 706 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6966 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: 31
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6961 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.


User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6449 posts, RR: 54
Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7103 times:

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

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 likely have no problem burning avgas instead of JP4. On the other hand, those R-4360 engines burned high octane and heavily leaded avgas, and maybe the J47 turbine blades were not so happy with the lead?

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 22):
How would using the jets reduce range?

Those old jet engines had a terrible fuel efficiency compared to the recip engines.

The jets has two advantages:
1. They added a considerable take-off and climb power increase for a modest increase in empty weight.
2. They kept the power better in the thin air at altitude, and added additional power, making very high altitude flight possible.

From day one until its last day survivability of the B-36 was a very controversial question. In the era of MiG-15 fighters firing unguided rockets it sure had only one defence to rely on: Altitude. (And possibly because of its immensely large wing being able to maneuver a little out of the way, while a MiG might do nothing better than a zoom climb in direction of the B-36 and hope for the best).

If nothing else, then at least high altitude SAMs made the B-36 totally obsolete.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7089 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 21):
Not long ago I watched the movie "Strategic Air Command" with Jimmy Stewart

Yes, saw that! Flipping channels and "ooohhhhh.. B-47 footage.... hmmmmyeeees"

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 25):
maybe the J47 turbine blades were not so happy with the lead?

Correct, that was an issue for Chrysler turbine cars. Lead would collect on them.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 27, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7125 times:

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 added jet fuel systems - rather running their J47-GE-23 engines on Avgas.

There were 182 converted C-123Bs with two J85 booster engines added. Those likely had two fuel systems.


User currently offlineplanesofthepast From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 28, posted (1 year 3 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6853 times:

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! Too bad one wasn't kept in air worthy condition ... But I understood that the Air Force was against such a project. Plus, the economics of the restoration were difficult to overcome.

Here are some facts on the plane, and a few photos of the survivors.

http://www.planesofthepast.com/about-the-b36-peacemaker.htm


User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 29, posted (1 year 3 months 18 hours ago) and read 6680 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 26):
Yes, saw that! Flipping channels and "ooohhhhh.. B-47 footage.... hmmmmyeeees"

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 watched that movie. Great movie if you're an aircraft enthusiast. Plus it's got Harry Morgan.

Quoting planesofthepast (Reply 28):
I've had the privilege of seeing first-hand three of the last four surviving B-36 aircraft over the last couple of years.

Well, if you get the chance to do it again. Please see if that black panel on the pilot pedestal opens up and reveals a landing gear switch. Or, if anyone you know there would be willing to let us know that's where it is.

I like and would like to support any air museum that's big enough to keep a B-36 under it's roof. I'll make a point to visit next time I'm in the area. The MoF here can't find room for it's B-17 or B-29 under the museum roof.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineaklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 941 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 3 months 15 hours ago) and read 6653 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 29):
I like and would like to support any air museum that's big enough to keep a B-36 under it's roof. I'll make a point to visit next time I'm in the area. The MoF here can't find room for it's B-17 or B-29 under the museum roof.

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 bunch of other stuff as well. Almost worth going to Omaha just to see it.

When I was there I kept looking around outside to find the runway where they landed, but all I saw was rolling cornfields. Turns out they were all disassembled, trucked in, and reassembled in the room.

Take a look at this list: http://www.sasmuseum.com/exhibits/aircraft/


User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 months 14 hours ago) and read 6642 times:

"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 bunch of other stuff as well. Almost worth going to Omaha just to see it."

Its been a long time since I've been to Omaha. But, I'll make a point of going there. It takes a lot of money to put planes that size under a roof, so I shouldn't be so hard on my hometown air museum. They do have a lot of planes that need a roof though (B52, B29, the 1st 747, etc.).

That said, its great these planes are aound still and with as few B36 examples existing I'll throw my $'s their way when I can.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently onlineyeelep From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 6615 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 29):
Well, if you get the chance to do it again. Please see if that black panel on the pilot pedestal opens up and reveals a landing gear switch. Or, if anyone you know there would be willing to let us know that's where it is.

Here it is:
http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/med...a/062/B-36J%20Pilot%20Station.html

Other views:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=360


User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6337 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 21):
Not long ago I watched the movie "Strategic Air Command" with Jimmy Stewart

Sad it's not on DVD... at least I've never found it. Great air to air shots.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 706 posts, RR: 1
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6315 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 33):

Sad it's not on DVD... at least I've never found it. Great air to air shots.

Someone in the UK is selling it on eBay.


User currently offlinerc135x From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6248 times:

Quoting aklrno (Reply 30):
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 bunch of other stuff as well. Almost worth going to Omaha just to see it.

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 Omaha Chamber of Commerce   )

Quoting planesofthepast (Reply 28):
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! Too bad one wasn't kept in air worthy condition

During the mid 1970s I was a volunteer at the original SAC Museum when it was located on the closed Offutt AFB (KOFF) runway in Bellevue. I worked on airplane restorations, displays, built models, and gave tours. Once a week after closing I was allowed to choose an airplane, unlock it, and go inside. The B-36 was always a favorite. The trolley between the front and the back was in great shape, and I could always imagine suffering through a 40-hour flight.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 29):
Great movie if you're an aircraft enthusiast. Plus it's got Harry Morgan.

He was "Sergeant Bible!" Long before TOP GUN "Strategic Air Command" was the defining recruiting film. LeMay (General Hawkes) used the film to recruit Reservists back into SAC and to generate public support for SAC's mission (and budget). Jimmy Stewart ("Dutch" Holland) was a real-life bomber pilot.

The movie won an award for outstanding aerial photography. It was nominated for an Oscar for writing by Beirne Lay. In the movie when Morgan is introducing Stewart to the crew in the back of the airplane one of them is "Airman Lay." He also wrote the great film "12 O'Clock High" and other aviation-related movies.


User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6218 times:

I can't seem to get that link to work.

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 33):
Sad it's not on DVD... at least I've never found it. Great air to air shots.

It's on Netflix. You could get a trial at a discount and cancel if you really want to watch it again.

Quoting yeelep (Reply 32):
Here it is:
http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/med....html

Couldn't get the link to work. So, no photos of the cockpit with that switch open.

Quoting rc135x (Reply 35):
The movie won an award for outstanding aerial photography.

Yep, some great aerial shots. I liked near the beginning where Stewart leaves not knowing how long he'll be up and they take him on one of those 12+ hour flights with lots of air to air footage of the B-36.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlinerc135x From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6165 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 36):
It's on Netflix. You could get a trial at a discount and cancel if you really want to watch it again.

Just checked and it is no longer listed on Netflix. It had been on instant download only.


User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6088 times:

Quoting rc135x (Reply 37):

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 there less than a month ago.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineGRIVely From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5657 times:

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 houses. You didn't confuse the noise of a B-36 overhead at 500 feet for any other airplane. That's for sure.

As an Air Force brat I was always a plane fanatic and was fortunate to have lived through the 50's and into the 60's on a variety of airbases and got to see all the aircraft from SA, TAC, and ADC. One of my father's friends was a Peacemaker crew dog and he took me down to the aerodrome several times to go through his aircraft. I know aerodrome sounds too British but in those days many of the old heavy bomber crews had been in the 8th AF during the war and that was the term they used. I know the officers that were Officers of the Day in the Army were called ADO's in SAC. That stood for Aerodrome Duty Officer and they when they were on duty they wore an ADO brassard.

People don't believe me when I tell them that many times my friends whose father were fighter pilots could tell the sound of their own father's plane from the other F-86s or F-100s. Of course the AF was much different in those days. Fighter pilots pretty much were always assigned the same aircraft. Engines were so unreliable that hardly a month went by without at least one serious aircraft incident. Many, many of our family friends were killed in flying accidents.

On the bright side you could usually check out a T-33 and go on a weekend cross country with your golf clubs in the back seat.

And while B-36s taking off made the ground shake and the pictures on the wall rattle a B-47 doing a SAC alert JATO (Jet Assisted Take Off) wad pretty darn impressive itself.

Ah the old days. Not all were good but they were interesting.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5523 times:

Quoting GRIVely (Reply 39):
You didn't confuse the noise of a B-36 overhead at 500 feet for any other airplane. That's for sure.

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