A request for a few big airplanes ...

PropsRule · **Posted:** Tue Aug 12, 2014 11:10 am

wendovertom wrote:

I cannot help but wonder how it felt to be in a mariner or B-47 during those JATO take offs! I'll bet it was awesome!

Tom P.

I sincerely believe every JATO take off photo could be accurately captioned, "YEEEEEHAAAAAWW!!!".

The photo of the B-47 landing is a nice study too. Imagine a plane that big and yet so clean that they have to pop a drouge 'chute on approach!

Mark Allen M · **Joined:** Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm **Posts:** 7817

It's that time again to just sit back and enjoy the show ... this video has segments that touch on several of my older threads.
A little bit foggy of a film but neat stuff!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J22zyh ... e=youtu.be

sandiego89 · **Joined:** Mon May 21, 2012 12:28 pm **Posts:** 1199

PropsRule wrote:

wendovertom wrote:

Tom P.

Imagine a plane that big and yet so clean that they have to pop a drouge 'chute on approach!

Technically the B-47 approach chute was not to slow down in the tradtional sense, it was to increase drag so the engines could be spoolled up more. These early engines had such a poor spool up time (@ 20 seconds), that they needed to keep them spooled up for improved response time for a go-around. Some real tricks had to be used in the B-47 including the approach chute, stopping chute (big whoops if you pulled the wrong chute deploymenet handle), dropping the rear landing gear to increase drag, the JATO gear, first widespread use of non-skid brakes IIRC.

One of the most interesting writes ups I recall was from an ex B-47 pilot who later flew the B-727 and he commented that although the planes were simialr in size, the B-47 was routinely flown at higher weights, and with less thrust than the 727. Not much margin. Still amazing for a plane that rolled out in 1947

daviemax · **Posted:** Tue Aug 12, 2014 3:46 pm

sandiego89 wrote:

PropsRule wrote:

wendovertom wrote:

Tom P.

Imagine a plane that big and yet so clean that they have to pop a drouge 'chute on approach!

Technically the B-47 approach chute was not to slow down in the tradtional sense, it was to increase drag so the engines could be spoolled up more. These early engines had such a poor spool up time (@ 20 seconds), that they needed to keep them spooled up for improved response time for a go-around. Some real tricks had to be used in the B-47 including the approach chute, stopping chute (big whoops if you pulled the wrong chute deploymenet handle), dropping the rear landing gear to increase drag, the JATO gear, first widespread use of non-skid brakes IIRC.

One of the most interesting writes ups I recall was from an ex B-47 pilot who later flew the B-727 and he commented that although the planes were simialr in size, the B-47 was routinely flown at higher weights, and with less thrust than the 727. Not much margin. Still amazing for a plane that rolled out in 1947

Design of the B-47 began in 1943 - at the height of B-17 production and before the B-29 entered combat. It remains amazing that the Boeing team could be so far-sighted while still living in the heart of the conventional piston-powered aircraft era. In addition to the advanced technology it incorporated, visually the B-47 was and remains a very striking aircraft.

Snake45 · **Joined:** Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:49 pm **Posts:** 864

daviemax wrote:

Design of the B-47 began in 1943 - at the height of B-17 production and before the B-29 entered combat. It remains amazing that the Boeing team could be so far-sighted while still living in the heart of the conventional piston-powered aircraft era. In addition to the advanced technology it incorporated, visually the B-47 was and remains a very striking aircraft.

If I'm not mistaken, the original B-47 plans had straight wings--the swept wings were only incorporated postwar, when the German data became available. (Same story as F-86, which was also originally planned as a straightwing, sort of a "Jet Mustang," more or less, like the FJ Fury.)

I won't argue with you about the B-47 being a striking aircraft, though. It's a truly beautiful and elegant design, even today. :supz:

PropsRule · **Posted:** Tue Aug 12, 2014 5:12 pm

sandiego89 wrote:

PropsRule wrote:

wendovertom wrote:

Tom P.

...Technically the B-47 approach chute was not to slow down in the tradtional sense, it was to increase drag so the engines could be spoolled up more...

Very interesting. Thanks for the clarification. It's easy to forget how much we take for granted today, like expecting the engines to spool up within a reasonable amount of time after standing up the power levers.

It's incredible to think what was accomplished with "big" airplanes considering what they had to work with at the time.

daviemax · **Posted:** Wed Aug 13, 2014 7:51 am

Snake45 wrote:

daviemax wrote:

Design of the B-47 began in 1943 - at the height of B-17 production and before the B-29 entered combat. It remains amazing that the Boeing team could be so far-sighted while still living in the heart of the conventional piston-powered aircraft era. In addition to the advanced technology it incorporated, visually the B-47 was and remains a very striking aircraft.

If I'm not mistaken, the original B-47 plans had straight wings--the swept wings were only incorporated postwar, when the German data became available. (Same story as F-86, which was also originally planned as a straightwing, sort of a "Jet Mustang," more or less, like the FJ Fury.)

I won't argue with you about the B-47 being a striking aircraft, though. It's a truly beautiful and elegant design, even today. :supz:

Agree with this comment - I am certain that the swept wings were developed when Boeing engineers obtained the German aerodynamic data in mid-1945; however I have never seen a drawing of the original design with straight wings although I have read that it appeared to be a B-29 wing with jets. Of course the B-29 itself was the most advanced aircraft then in production, which is a great starting point. In any case the B-47 remains a landmark design.

Snake45 · **Joined:** Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:49 pm **Posts:** 864

I THINK I've seen drawings of the early B-47 proposals--I think maybe in an old Airpower/Wings magazine. It would take me a while to search through almost 40 years of those and find them, but I'll keep my eye open.

Mark Allen M · **Joined:** Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm **Posts:** 7817

Scroll down just a tad and you'll see a bit of B-47 evolution. (If accurate)
http://www.airvectors.net/gfxsaus_01.html
boeing b-47 model 424
http://scilib-avia.narod.ru/Boyne/images/032.jpg

Snake45 · **Joined:** Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:49 pm **Posts:** 864

Mark Allen M wrote:

http://scilib-avia.narod.ru/Boyne/images/032.jpg

I think these are the drawings I saw. Kinda looks like a big B-45, don't it? :wink:

daviemax · **Posted:** Wed Aug 13, 2014 12:09 pm

Great stuff, thanks. Bowers called the Model 424 a "scaled-down B-29 with four jet engines" and the drawing certainly depicts that.

Chris Brame · **Posted:** Wed Aug 13, 2014 5:02 pm

daviemax wrote:

Here is another B-17G, landing. ID of aircraft is open as of now, as is location. Large number '74' on nose (which does not appear to be part of aircraft serial number) suggests this may be a TB used for four-engine transition training.

From the early style wheels, I think that's a B-17F; enlarging the photo seems to show the last three of the serial as 177 - best match from Baugher could be 42-6177:

Quote:

(42-)6177 reclamation completed Dyersburg AF, TN Dec 9, 1945

What do you think?

daviemax · **Posted:** Thu Aug 14, 2014 7:40 am

[/b]

Chris Brame wrote:

daviemax wrote:

Here is another B-17G, landing. ID of aircraft is open as of now, as is location. Large number '74' on nose (which does not appear to be part of aircraft serial number) suggests this may be a TB used for four-engine transition training.

From the early style wheels, I think that's a B-17F; enlarging the photo seems to show the last three of the serial as 177 - best match from Baugher could be 42-6177:

Quote:

(42-)6177 reclamation completed Dyersburg AF, TN Dec 9, 1945

What do you think?

Chris, thanks, I agree that if the last three are indeed -177 it is almost certainly 42-6177 based on the fates of other -177 aircraft. Also, Dyersburg was a B-17 training base, so that fits as well. Thanks for the help!

Lightjug · **Posted:** Thu Aug 14, 2014 4:57 pm

What a great thread Mark... and great comments and information everyone.

Thank you all! :drink3:

Mark

Warbird Information Exchange

A request for a few big airplanes ...

Who is online