B-36 stuff...anyone?

[Cvairwerks]

In 1946, 18/36 was built as a heavy runway, approximately 8200’ x 200’. Sometime after 1948, the diagonal runway was removed and 50’ aprons were added down 18/36. The aprons were never intended as part of the usable width of the runway, but they would allow a B-36 to turn around without having to taxi the full length to exit. Sometime after that, the middle taxiway was added along with another 3000’ of usable runway was added.

[StangStung]

Dimensions 11999 ft x 200 ft / 3657 m x 61 m

https://www.globalair.com/airport/apt.r ... ptcode=NFW

Yep, 65 years later, they have narrowed it to 200' and extended it several thousand feet. Funny how things change over time.

When the movie was made in the 50's, as you can see from watching the video, the runway was a hundred feet wider. Check it out...

Here's a link to how the field looks (today) on google maps. If you check the paved width of the runway, it is 300'. They have painted edge markers at 200' wide in the 67 years since Strategic Air Command was filmed.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lake+Worth,+TX/@32.7726698,-97.4373768,2508m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x864e74d787ae3987:0xe3a12d5de85683ce!8m2!3d32.8097846!4d-97.442894

So, it was narrow, then it was wide, then it was narrowed again?

Do you think they widened the runway first and then built a plane to fit the runway or did they build the plane first and then widened the runway to fit the plane?

Looks like the YB-60 off to the right. And also why is that B-36 seemingly down the hill and off in the grass to the lower right portion of the pic?

[Kyleb]

And also why is that B-36 seemingly down the hill and off in the grass to the lower right portion of the pic?

I think I see two visual clues. 1) No bubble top 2) No jet pods. The picture's lack of definition makes this tough.

But, if I'm right, it probably makes it the XB-36 which didn't have either the bubble top or jet pods.

It could also be the NB-36 which didn't have the bubble top. Maybe they reclaimed the jet pods after the airplane was retired.

Last edited by Kyleb on Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

[quemerford]

And also why is that B-36 seemingly down the hill and off in the grass to the lower right portion of the pic?

I think that's the XB-36, awaiting disposal.

[sledge39]

.
The B-36 takeoff sequence...

A B-36 and B-25 formation takeoff...the B-25 camera follows the B-36 down the runway and into the air in a single long uncut shot from the beginning of the takeoff roll through unstick and gear and flap retraction.

(In the video 2:45 - 3:37)

Eyewitness account ... by Walter Douglas a B-36 co-pilot in "Flying on Film" (Mark Carlson 2012)... "I watched as Paul Mantz in his B-25 camera plane followed the B-36 into the air...he (was) right off the port wingtip and stayed with it all the way...

https://www.aerovintage.com/forum/viewt ... ae15550450
.

Last edited by sledge39 on Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.

[sandiego89]

And also why is that B-36 seemingly down the hill and off in the grass to the lower right portion of the pic?

I think that's the XB-36, awaiting disposal.

Agree, The XB lingered about in a few parking spots and in the dirt at the North end of the plant before being scrapped. The hot pad for the NB-36H had yet to be built at the time of the picture Stang posted.

[JohnB]

Getting back to the original point...
I agree with Craig59, I would love to learn how Mantz did it.

The Wingtip vortices or wake turbulence must have been considerable, even for an aircraft as heavy as a B-25.

You can also discount the possibility of the camera ship being far away and using a telephoto lens, a long lens would increase any camera motion and make for a shake image. Also remember camera mounts weren't as good back then (gee, ya think?)...look at the shots helicopter shots of The Sound of Music as an example.

[Kyleb]

Getting back to the original point...
I agree with Craig59, I would love to learn how Mantz did it.

Go to about 2:35 in the movie clip. Hit stop. This is the first of the two takeoff scene cuts. It is obviously shot from a crane on the East side of the runway. If you notice, the airplane is departing away from Lake Worth, which means it is departing to the South (the runway numbers give it away too). By shadow position (the shadow is well to the East of the C/L of the aircraft), we know the shot was made in the afternoon. A key point is where all of the tire tracks (black streaks) are relative to the runway centerline. Like normal, they are arranged around the centerline. That is important. In this scene, the aircraft is more or less centered on the 300' runway. Look at the wingtip overhangs for reference.

At about 2:45 in the clip, it cuts to Shot #2. Hit stop. Look at the shadow position. This shot was made closer to noon. Look at the position of the nosegear. Relate the nose gear to all the rubber on the runway. The nosegear is offset well to the right of most of the tire tracks. In fact, the left main appears to be on or right of centerline too. Note (relatively speaking) how close the right main is to the right side of the runway. The airplane is well offset to the right. 60', maybe 75'. Which leaves a 100' strip of runway along the left side for the B-25 to use. And the smart/talented B-25 pilot needs less than half of that width given the B-25's gear track, so he cheats as far left as he can, leaving 50-75' between wingtips.

Then, notice that by about 2:51, relative motion tells us that the B-25 is airborne and has/is opening a little distance between the aircraft. This is prior to, or just as the B-36 starts to rotate and generate serious tip vortices.

That's how it was done.

[Ruberneck]

B-36 Buzz Job Story
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/b-36-cr ... rhood/amp/

[JohnB]

Although it hadn't left the ground and may not be generating FAA definition wingtip vortices...given its size and speed it would still be generating a great deal of wake and propwash.

Mantz would of have to have been thoroughly prepared for it.
Also, it would be interesting to have sat in on the preflight brief between Mantz and the B-36 crew (possibly a Convair test crew?) and hear them discuss what each would do (where they would go) in the event of an emergency.

Legally, I wonder if the B-36 had a Paramount film financed insurance policy for that scene...given the AF may not have been thrilled with risking a front line bomber in those circumstances.

[Michel Lemieux]

Wow....love the spins on this post!

Tks Kyleb....always wondered how it could have been shot. You are right. Cut small pieces at different time of the day it seems.

Wonder how the B-25 cam ship pilot felt before takeoff.

Speaking of......anyone knows who else was flying for Mantz? Do you think he flew this sequence himself?

I had no clue they were responsible for some of the footage.

For sure the high altitude stuff was by the AF.

Cheers!

[Kyleb]

Although it hadn't left the ground and may not be generating FAA definition wingtip vortices...given its size and speed it would still be generating a great deal of wake and propwash.

Mantz would of have to have been thoroughly prepared for it.
Also, it would be interesting to have sat in on the preflight brief between Mantz and the B-36 crew (possibly a Convair test crew?) and hear them discuss what each would do (where they would go) in the event of an emergency.

Legally, I wonder if the B-36 had a Paramount film financed insurance policy for that scene...given the AF may not have been thrilled with risking a front line bomber in those circumstances.

The most outboard prop was 125' or more from the B-25's wingtip. Propwash wouldn't have been a factor. As far offset as the B-25 was, the tip vorticies wouldn't have been an issue until the -36 rotated, and the -25 was at speed and extending the distance by then.

I'd bet you a beer it was a USAF crew. Maybe a select crew, but a "normal" SAC crew. I've seen it written elsewhere that Mantz's directions to the B-36 crew were: "You keep it straight and make a normal takeoff and I'll handle the rest."

Films like these were used as recruiting tools by the USAF. Certainly, not everyone was granted that kind of access, but the risks were known and accepted as part of making the film, all the better to draw in recruits. Just like in Top Gun, The Final Countdown, Wings of the Navy, Dive Bomber, Bombers B-52, Jet Pilot, and a hundred others. Only recently has society become so risk averse that things like this are seen as unusual.

[JohnB]

While I don't disputed your comments about the services accepting risks for the sake of a film and it's potential benefits, I do recall a AAF pilot was killed while filming God is my Co-Pilot and the film company being sued by the family, in any event, there was a settlement.

My point is that even in "the good old days" there were attorneys and lawsuits (witness the aftermath of the Titanic...long before there were TV advertising ambulance chasers).

And while Mantz likely said that, after all he was the prototype "old school" kind of flyer, SAC was still SAC...so it's likely somebody thought about the safety aspects. Especially since the required shot involved a close formation with a civilian aircraft, something definitely more hazardous that the usual filming of an AF aircraft doing routine flying...taking off, landing or even refueling with another AF aircraft...the other scenes from the film.
After all, the MITO seen in "A Gathering of Eagles" wasn't any more dangerous since it was being photographed for a film.

And segments of the media, someone like Drew Pearson, would have thought nothing of lambasting the AF/SAC/LeMay of they wrecked an expensive bomber while filming a movie for PR value.
So, I would expect some thought, even just "CYA" lip service, was done at some level of the service.