• Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!

  • Microsoft MSN, Live, Hotmail, Outlook email users may not be receiving emails. We are working to resolve this issue. Please add support@steelsoldiers.com to your trusted contacts.

 

Hmmm..do you like low flying aircraft?....then here ya go!

marchplumber

Well-known member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
3,651
2,416
113
Location
Peoria, Illinois
I don't know about radio antennas! That would have left some sheet metal damage.....IDK, I wasn't there........that first flight pictured reminded me of how "slow" large airplanes seem to be. LOL The C-5 and the Antonov come to mind
 

USAFSS-ColdWarrior

Chaplain
Super Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
18,469
5,476
113
Location
San Angelo, Tom Green County, Texas USA
That second B-36 certainly is LOW and SLOW.... Kinda makes you wonder if he was having performance problems once airborne... BUT THEN he seems to find some power, pulls back on the stick and begins a gradual climb toward altitude while also executing a turn.
By the two different camera angles of the low flying bomber(s), it was either TWO people filming OR TWO separate passes and/or aircraft executing similar flight profiles.

Back in the days of rooftop TV antennae it's no wonder the prop-wash off those big pusher propellers wiped those flimsy sticks off the shingles... along with some roofing and decking too. It takes a lot of wind to push a plane like that into the air.

Thanks for sharing this video.
 

steelypip

Active member
769
68
28
Location
Charlottesville, VA
That second B-36 certainly is LOW and SLOW.... Kinda makes you wonder if he was having performance problems once airborne... BUT THEN he seems to find some power, pulls back on the stick and begins a gradual climb toward altitude while also executing a turn.
By the two different camera angles of the low flying bomber(s), it was either TWO people filming OR TWO separate passes and/or aircraft executing similar flight profiles.
Back in the days of rooftop TV antennae it's no wonder the prop-wash off those big pusher propellers wiped those flimsy sticks off the shingles... along with some roofing and decking too. It takes a lot of wind to push a plane like that into the air.
A little thread necropost here because I just saw your reply. Everything I've ever heard/read about the B-36 was that it was barely an airplane. If you take WWII recip technology and design it to carry 2-3 Fat Man sized bombs to Europe (the design was initially an XBLR paper airplane project in case Hitler succeeded in invading the UK during WWII) and then return before efficient aerial refueling was invented, you end up with an enormous, slow, flying fuel tank.

Add in really long missions, the low level of automation at the time, the need for effective onboard antiarcraft defense (because the airplane can't outrun anything), and the amount of 'care and feeding' six 4,360 cu. in. radial engines need, and you get a 13 man crew. The package ends up being taller and wider than a B-52, weighs about the same and carries about the same mass of payload, but goes less than half as fast (cruise speed of 200 kts vs. 442 kts for the BUF).

An airplane with a clean cruise speed of 230 mph is going to climb at no more than 175 mph. That plus a 230 ft wingspan means you have a true aluminum overcast - it's climbing out at around the same speed as a Beechcraft Bonanza but looks like the Goodyear Blimp.

Six buried four-row radials made for a lot of maintenance per flight hour. USAF didn't fly them any more than they had to, and training flights were scheduled around the maintenance requirements of the aircraft, not the other way around.

Curtis LeMay could not wait to get rid of the airplane - he persuaded Boeing to hurriedly build a miniature lower-tech sibling of the forthcoming revolutionary B-52 (the B-47) for the express purpose of getting away the Convair Monstrosity sooner.

The B-36 was so big, so slow, and so unreliable that SAC bases had to be far larger than you'd think. Loring was built as a double wing base with three squadrons of B-36s and several squadrons of KB-50s and then KC-97s to refuel them. The AVGAS storage bunkers outside of west gate were substantial - and not required once the B-52 arrived. Neither was the second wing, because the BUF was so much faster, easier to maintain, and had been designed to capitalize on flying boom aerial refueling.

The B-36 was so underpowered that the standard 12000 foot (2 mile) SAC runway wasn't long enough on a hot day. That's what the four jet engines are for - just to get it into the air before you run out of runway. They were shut down once the airplane was cleaned up and climbing out.
 

waayfast

Active member
814
106
43
Location
Lake Fork,Idaho
Well, this local fellow got just a little too low--but then again he's still 60ft off the ground. I think he has his STOL technique DOWN!!

"Airstrip!?? Airstrip!?? We don't need no steeeenkin' airstrip- we'll just park in that tree!

This is just about 8 miles (by road) from my house. Right in the SAME EXACT area where my company was logging up until we got snowed out at the end of February.
Heck, he may be up in a tree that might not have been there had we kept cutting! OH, man -this potentially could be all our fault! LOL!

As of tonight- the hapless PA-18 is still safe up in the tree. Randy is supposed to shimmy up that White Fir (trust me on this) and set straps so they can fly it out with a Helo.
I may drive out that way and watch. Will try for some pics.

Perhaps USAFSS-ColdWarrior could post the link to this story at KTVB Channel 7 News out of Boise for us. Thanks friend.

Jim
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website like our supporting vendors. Their ads help keep Steel Soldiers going. Please consider disabling your ad blockers for the site. Thanks!

I've Disabled AdBlock
No Thanks