Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Convair YB-60  
User currently offlineDahawaiian From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 229 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8246 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?

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8242 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



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineN844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8218 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.



New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
User currently offlineGhostbase From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 354 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8112 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 



"I chase my dreams but I never seem to arrive"
User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2472 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7899 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.

User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7775 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.

User currently offlineplanesofthepast From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6349 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.


User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 5849 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



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5323 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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


User currently offlineboeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 533 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5194 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



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5189 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



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineacontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5070 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

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



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5037 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.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4909 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



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Convair YB-60
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...
What Is A Usaf U-60 posted Thu Nov 2 2006 16:25:19 by Wannabe
Why Did RB-57F Need The Extra J 60 Turbojets? posted Sat Sep 23 2006 23:20:31 by 747400sp
UH-60 Check In posted Wed Apr 19 2006 11:54:02 by Flynlr
Question About Fokker 60 posted Sat Jan 21 2006 19:38:23 by HS748
What Is This Space Project From The 60's posted Sun Jan 1 2006 12:12:33 by Aak777
Help With H-60 Serial posted Thu Aug 12 2004 10:05:34 by Maiznblu_757
60 Years Ago - The Missile Era Begins posted Sat Jun 12 2004 23:51:33 by GDB
H-60 Helicopters posted Sat Aug 16 2003 06:25:46 by Cancidas
60 Years Of 617 Squadron, RAF posted Thu Mar 27 2003 13:29:09 by GDB
H-60 Question posted Mon Mar 24 2003 11:12:12 by Dash 80
Saw An MH-60 Flying In Orlando Today posted Mon Apr 12 2010 14:22:51 by HaveBlue
UH-60 Down In West Virginia posted Thu Feb 18 2010 18:14:47 by FlyASAGuy2005
UH-60 Crashes At Balad AB posted Sun Sep 20 2009 19:14:05 by Gocaps16
How Did North Korea Obtain 60 Hughes MD-500? posted Wed Jun 24 2009 21:15:50 by Afrikaskyes
Uscg HH-60 Jayhawk On "Deadliest Catch" posted Wed Apr 22 2009 10:26:53 by Khobar
YB-57 Operating Over SW Asia posted Tue Dec 16 2008 10:38:16 by AGM100
60 Years Later, Yeager's Busting The Sound Barrier posted Sun Oct 14 2007 17:22:40 by OPNLguy
Usaf Gets Another 60 Raptors posted Wed Aug 1 2007 13:30:31 by F27Friendship
Convair XC-99 To Air Force Museum posted Mon Apr 2 2007 20:46:38 by Lumberton
Bye, Bye Fokker 60! What Is Your Future? Airline? posted Wed Nov 29 2006 12:28:57 by OwlEye

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format