Heavy Metal

[3175375]

I read about this in a book on the B-36. Crazy stuff that we did back in the day!

A 12-ton lead-and-rubber-shielded cockpit with windows 10-12 inches thick protected the flight crew from the otherwise lethal amount of radiation emanating from the reactor hanging in the bomb bay. Special water pockets installed aft of the cockpit also absorbed radiation.

Among the most audaciously hazardous concepts of the 1950s was the notion of installing an operational nuclear reactor inside an aircraft, a venture pursued by both the Soviet Union and the USA. The NB-36 ‘Crusader’ epitomized this daunting venture, representing a potential ecological catastrophe each time it ascended. Nevertheless, it managed to execute 47 flights. Its purpose was to evaluate the viability of managing a nuclear reactor during flight, serving as a preliminary step towards creating a genuine atomic-powered aircraft.

The NB-36 carried a three-megawatt reactor into the skies, and due to the extensive shielding necessary to protect its crew, it became the aircraft with the highest quantity of lead integrated into its structure, with the cockpit’s rubber and lead shielding alone amounting to eleven tons.

The Scale of the B-36 Peacemaker in 26 Stunning Photos - PlaneHistoria

 

[amazinblue82]

I read about this in a book on the B-36. Crazy stuff that we did back in the day!

A 12-ton lead-and-rubber-shielded cockpit with windows 10-12 inches thick protected the flight crew from the otherwise lethal amount of radiation emanating from the reactor hanging in the bomb bay. Special water pockets installed aft of the cockpit also absorbed radiation.

Among the most audaciously hazardous concepts of the 1950s was the notion of installing an operational nuclear reactor inside an aircraft, a venture pursued by both the Soviet Union and the USA. The NB-36 ‘Crusader’ epitomized this daunting venture, representing a potential ecological catastrophe each time it ascended. Nevertheless, it managed to execute 47 flights. Its purpose was to evaluate the viability of managing a nuclear reactor during flight, serving as a preliminary step towards creating a genuine atomic-powered aircraft.

The NB-36 carried a three-megawatt reactor into the skies, and due to the extensive shielding necessary to protect its crew, it became the aircraft with the highest quantity of lead integrated into its structure, with the cockpit’s rubber and lead shielding alone amounting to eleven tons.

The Scale of the B-36 Peacemaker in 26 Stunning Photos - PlaneHistoria

View attachment 655067

Yeah, kinda stupid in retrospect, maybe even at the time?

NB-36

source: The 10 worst US aircraft

Nuclear industry was "new", and the human race (the ones pulling the strings on the technology anyway) "naive" to the problems to come from the boundless opportunity they saw on the new frontier.

A flying nuclear reactor? Hell, we cant even go back to Chernobyl to live for 20,000 years. This aint that, but a nuclear accident of a nuclear plane crash? That would be kinda a problem somewhere .. for a few hundred years.

Still a fascinating story.

---

---

The Scale of the B-36 Peacemaker in 26 Stunning Photos - PlaneHistoria, Strategic Air Command (film) - Wikipedia

Neat "heavy metal" pics of the Peacemaker too.

With SIX "wasp major" engines (plus four JATO's), and a wingspan LONGER than the total distance Orville and Wilbur flew only ~40 years earlier, wildly impractical yet a stunning engineering achievement at the time.

Video (7 mins) from one of my favorite movies, featuring a Hollywood take on a B-36 takeoff/landing (Strategic Air Command, 1954, shot in Vista-Vision)

JATO contrails (they normally on a altitude, or some Hollywood take for a dramatic shot?)

---

---

---

---

---

 

[3175375]

Yeah, kinda stupid in retrospect, maybe even at the time?

Nuclear industry was "new", and the human race (the ones pulling the strings on the technology anyway) "naive" to the problems to come from the boundless opportunity they saw on the new frontier.

A flying nuclear reactor? Hell, we cant even go back to Chernobyl to live for 20,000 years. This aint that, but a nuclear accident of a nuclear plane crash? That would be kinda a problem somewhere .. for a few hundred years.

Still a fascinating story.

---

---

The Scale of the B-36 Peacemaker in 26 Stunning Photos - PlaneHistoria, Strategic Air Command (film) - Wikipedia

Neat "heavy metal" pics of the Peacemaker too.

With SIX "wasp major" engines (plus four JATO's), and a wingspan LONGER than the total distance Orville and Wilbur flew only 35 years earlier, wildly impractical yet a stunning engineering achievement.

Video (7 mins) from one of my favorite movies, featuring a Hollywood take on a B-36 takeoff/landing (Strategic Air Command, 1954, shot in Vista-Vision)
View attachment 655080



View attachment 655071

---

View attachment 655077View attachment 655072

---

View attachment 655073

---

View attachment 655074

---

View attachment 655075
View attachment 655076

---

I have seen the B-36s at the Pima Air Museum and at the Air Force Museum in Dayton. They are flippin’ ginormous!

In the book, Magnesium Overcast, one clearly gets the sense of the enormity of the aircraft when they talk about the galleys and sleeping quarters. A 10+ hour flight was commonplace!

 

[amazinblue82]

Couple more B-36 mementos for fun

When Vultee became "Convair"

---

---

Air show fact sheet on B-36. Interesting trivia to wow the public ... works even today with me.

---

---

source:

20 mins if you have time. Very interesting, SAC began life with delivery of B-36 and B-50's

 

[amazinblue82]

The fastest, FOUR engine, piston plane. The XR-12 "Rainbow", ~470 mph at 40K ft.

1946, Air Force wanted a reconnaissance asset, speed of a "fighter", with the operating range/physical size of a bomber.

Republic's XR-12 and Hughes Aircraft's XF-11 won a design competition, with Republic emerging as the ultimate winner.

Alas, Air Force canceled the project in 1949 when the first jets were coming on line.

Republic tried to "remarket" it to airlines for passenger service (they exaggerated size in their illustrations too). That too, was unsuccessful.

Civil and military aircraft went jets for speed and altitude, while prop planes took different performance-related roles, and never looked back.

source: 16 mins. at your leisure

---

---

Hughes' XF-11 (Hughes crashed his in Beverly Hills..nearly killled him).

 

[barnfind]

Lifted from Facebook.
I worked with a gent, who had become my mentor, who worked on the MA-1 radar. It evolved into the AWG-9 weapons system for the F-111B and eventually the F-14 Tomcat.

He had told me that the MA-1 was a good radar, when it worked. It had a LOT of separate boxes. Even more than the F-14.
I remember alert barns at Oxnard Air Force Base in the 60’s. I don’t remember if they housed F-106s or 102s, but the barns still exist and were shown in the movie ‘Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang’ or ‘Flubber’.

Anyway, the F-106 is big, almost as big as an F-105 Thunderchief.

View attachment 654988
Sixes over Garrison Dam in 1981.

The F-106 Delta Dart was America's last purpose-built fighter-interceptor. Powered by a Pratt & Whitney J75 turbojet engine with afterburner capability, the "Six" carried two AIM-4 Falcon missiles along with a single AIR-2A Genie nuclear air-to-air rocket. Some aircraft in the American fleet were modified to carry the M61 Vulcan rotary cannon in place of the Genie after the Project Six Shooter modification.

The mission of the F-106 was to intercept any Soviet bombers during a war. Operating in conjunction with the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) interceptor control system, and using its Hughes MA-1 Fire Control System, the aircraft could actually be flown automatically via computer for much of it's interceptor mission. A pilot only being needed for take-off and landing (unless something went wrong with flight automation, and there were difficulties with the MA-1 system early in the program).

Sixes were found in North Dakota with the 460th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron at Grand Forks AFB from 1971 to 1974, but served longer with the 5th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron at Minot AFB from 1960 to 1985.

Today, an F-106 static display can be found at Minot AFB, but it is inaccessible to the general public. Another is found at the Dakota Air Territory Museum in Minot, while a recently-restored F-106 in 5th FIS colors (and background) can be found at the Pima Air and Space Museum in Tucson, Arizona.

#ColdWarHistory

 

[amazinblue82]

ME 323 Gigant

 

[amazinblue82]

Haven't done one these in this thread in years. 38 mins, but first 3-4 mins and you can get gist of whole deal.



Some basic rules I found (dunno if applicablel at all venues/circuits):

I like tractor pulls, and I like these .. however, are these trucks still useful (economics, reliability) as working vehicles for people with day jobs? Something tells me some of them ain't.

Dunno the "classes", but some of these trucks would not (unless one could flip a switch and make some of them run "normallly").

Up to 3,000 horses, loaded trailers @140K pounds, buncha torque to even do burnouts, idle/drink fuel like they will shut off any second, belching copious amounts of black smoke (apparently good for power because of rich mixtures, but if it turns white that's bad).

Guys in vid explaining that some of them are NOT "streetable" (though many ARE "street-legal"), others are but are NOT fuel economical/could NOT pass an emissions test.

Seems that others are regular work rigs, but don't tend to be the stump pullers/sprinters that some of the torque-twisting, wheel-standing "A" class rigs seem to be.

 

[amazinblue82]

tractors gone wild . 30 mins if interested & have time.

Yeah, its got the "clickbait" cantnip monikers: "'insane" "awesome"., "you wont believe ..."., wildest ..." It's silly internet BS marketing, but some of things these tractor guys do (if you've ever been and can literally feel the earth shake) kinda IS insane.

There is some REAL engineering skill in these things, custom fabrication, etc., Plus, you need serious $$$ to play in ANY of the various classes (up to 6,000 horses)

They (this "sport") have had their share of "Darwin Award" (e.g., two Hemis on a Deere riding mower with no roll cage) winners sadly, but in the 35 years I have been watching, safety has improved dramatically for drivers AND spectators.



This vid has a good mix of "action" and "explanation" of what some of this stuff is (was) before you see/hear it running. 70-year old Allisons, and RR Griffons still kickin' up dirt, for example.

neat stuff. couple stills from vid below.

Rolls Royce V12 "Griffon"

---

Allison 1710's

---

Two, Chinook Helicopter turbine engines (says they are T55's, Lycoming and Honeywell)

---

Two, Twin-Turbo LS (Chevy Small Block) V8's

---

Sherman Tank 1,100 cu. in. Ford V8 (yes, eight cylinder)

 

[amazinblue82]

Danish offerring, called the "Sled Dog" ("SLÆDEHUNDEN", - I dont see it after 2018 ) asserted to be unique in tthe world as to equipment (only DUAL v12 diesel PLUS a HEMI ever built), strongest pulller in the world at one time.

source: Instagram

Dunno if ANY of that is true, in fact I doubt the most powerful claim, but the Transmash V12 is Russian diesel design used in tanks 80 years ago.

Big HP (alleged to be around 5,000), it has two V-12's, 40 liters each, and both are twin-turbocharged (Holset-brand, a Cummins company). It has a 572 blown alcohol HEMI on top of all that.



Anyway, 10 minute video, seven years old, and again alleged to STILL have been the only dual V12 diesel, plus alcohol HEMI through 2018. Dunno where it is now.

three minutes in, you've seen it all -- a buncha dominating "full pulls".

 

[LocuMob]

Danish offerring, called the "Sled Dog" (I dont see it after 2018 ) asserted to be unique in tthe world as to equipment (only DUAL v12 diesel PLUS a HEMI ever built), strongest pulller in the world at one time.

source: Instagram

Dunno if ANY of that is true, in fact I doubt the most powerful claim, but the Transmash V12 is Russian diesel design used in tanks 80 years ago.

Big HP (alleged to be around 5,000), it has two V-12's, 40 liters each, and both are turbocharged (Holset, a Cummins company). It has a 572 blown alcohol HEMI on top of all that.



Anyway, 10 minute video, seven years old, and again alleged to STILL have been the only V12 dessel, plus alcohol HEMI through 2018. Dunno where it is now.

three minutes in, youve seen it all -- a bumcha dominating "full pulls".

View attachment 656212View attachment 656213

"We need more power."

"Well, what do we have laying around the shop?"

"There's that Hemi we were gonna use in the Mini Mod..."

 

[LocuMob]

World's Largest Mack Truck Is Getting a New Shot at Life After 55 Years

The frane alone weighs over 95,000 lbs. One of three that were made.

 

[3175375]

World's Largest Mack Truck Is Getting a New Shot at Life After 55 Years

The frane alone weighs over 95,000 lbs. One of three that were made.

View attachment 656413

Hey, I could have hired that truck for towing my RV home, before I figured out that the EGR cooler was bad. ;^)

 

[LocuMob]

Hey, I could have hired that truck for towing my RV home, before I figured out that the EGR cooler was bad. ;^)

Would have been a long ride home, top speed is 28.8 mph. But that last .8 mph is something else!

 

[amazinblue82]

World's Largest Mack Truck Is Getting a New Shot at Life After 55 Years

The frane alone weighs over 95,000 lbs. One of three that were made.

View attachment 656413

World's Largest Mack Truck Is Getting a New Shot at Life After 55 Years

Excerpt from the link:

Tthe last surviving Mack M100SX, the largest truck ever built by the manufacturer, is being restored after decades of disuse.

Normal tractors have nothing on the M100SX. It's so gargantuan and so specialized that Mack built just three of them in the mid- to late-1960s; this one was completed in April or May 1967.

It measures 32 feet, 1 inch from the front bumper to the back of the frame. From the ground to the top of the cab, it's 13 feet, 6 inches. And the weight? Even without the body, it clocks 95,485 pounds. The GVWR is massive at 331,875 pounds, meaning its payload capacity exceeds 100 tons.

The original engine is a two-stroke Detroit Diesel 12V149T, which translates to twelve cylinders arranged in a V at 149 cubic inches each. My rural public school education helps me calculate the total displacement at 1,788 cubic inches, or 29.3 liters.

It's twin-turbocharged to 1,000 horsepower and makes 2,500 lb-ft of torque at 1,900 rpm. I can only imagine the size of those pistons since every cylinder has more displacement than an entire Honda Civic engine—and there are 12 of them.

 

[3175375]

Today, we share an aerial shot from AirVenture 2017 featuring 11 B-25 Mitchell medium bombers. This gathering of B-25s commemorated the brave men who served in the Doolittle Raid on April 18, 1942, which occurred 82 years ago today.

This raid marked the initial response to the attack on Pearl Harbor and showcased the U.S. military's capability to strike Japan's homeland through air forces.

Chris Miller

#Aviation #Avgeek #MilitaryAviation #FighterJets #CombatPilot #AirForce #MilitaryAircraft #Warbirds #B25 #WW2

 

[3175375]

One more article regarding the F-111B:

A fascinating and less commonly known fact about the F-111B involves its testing aboard the USS Coral Sea (CVA-43). The F-111B was intended to be a fleet defense interceptor for the U.S. Navy as part of the TFX (Tactical Fighter Experimental) program, which aimed to create a fighter aircraft that could serve both the Air Force and the Navy. In 1968, the F-111B underwent sea trials aboard the USS Coral Sea to evaluate its suitability for carrier operations, which was a critical aspect of its development for the Navy.

One of the significant moments during these tests was the F-111B's successful arrested landing and catapult launch from the deck of the USS Coral Sea. This demonstrated the aircraft's potential for carrier-based operations. However, despite this success, the F-111B faced numerous issues, including weight problems, insufficient agility, and concerns about its radar and missile systems' effectiveness. These challenges ultimately led to the Navy deciding to cancel the F-111B program.

The experience with the F-111B played a pivotal role in shaping the Navy's future procurement strategies, leading directly to the development of the F-14 Tomcat. The Tomcat was designed to address the shortcomings of the F-111B, incorporating lessons learned from the F-111B's development and testing. The F-14 went on to become one of the most iconic and effective carrier-based fighters in the U.S. Navy's history.

 

[3175375]

One more article regarding the F-111B:

A fascinating and less commonly known fact about the F-111B involves its testing aboard the USS Coral Sea (CVA-43). The F-111B was intended to be a fleet defense interceptor for the U.S. Navy as part of the TFX (Tactical Fighter Experimental) program, which aimed to create a fighter aircraft that could serve both the Air Force and the Navy. In 1968, the F-111B underwent sea trials aboard the USS Coral Sea to evaluate its suitability for carrier operations, which was a critical aspect of its development for the Navy.

One of the significant moments during these tests was the F-111B's successful arrested landing and catapult launch from the deck of the USS Coral Sea. This demonstrated the aircraft's potential for carrier-based operations. However, despite this success, the F-111B faced numerous issues, including weight problems, insufficient agility, and concerns about its radar and missile systems' effectiveness. These challenges ultimately led to the Navy deciding to cancel the F-111B program.

The experience with the F-111B played a pivotal role in shaping the Navy's future procurement strategies, leading directly to the development of the F-14 Tomcat. The Tomcat was designed to address the shortcomings of the F-111B, incorporating lessons learned from the F-111B's development and testing. The F-14 went on to become one of the most iconic and effective carrier-based fighters in the U.S. Navy's history.

View attachment 656895

What’s interesting about this text is that it calls out the radar as an issue of the F-111B, but it was specified in the specs that the follow on aircraft must accommodate it (the AWG-9 weapons system). I am confused.

 

[amazinblue82]

i cannot absorb enough about these military aircraft to be helpful. in fact, I learned a bunch when I watched this 10 minute vid. about "the F111's "fatal flaw".



the whole idea to try to get few aircraft (that TFX project you mentioned) to do more things ...develop a plane the Navy could also use starting with an Air Force design ... seems to make sense. Hell, USA had so many aircraft since 1940, it boggles the mind.

In fact, a Smithsonian piece said we entered WW II with fleet of 2,500 total planes and ended with 300,000. Not only absolute total, but multiple types/special roles (couple thousand different ones) across the service branches by. Different topic, but DAYUM!

there was no endless trough of public money to feed the "military industrial complex" ... build interstates AND go to the moon to boot .. so one can infer it made sense to show some fiscal discipline. That woulda been McNamara's job at Defense, like he was as a "Whiz Kid" at Ford.

---

---

All that to say, I am MORE confused by the state of affairs 1950's to 1970's that brought us these magnificent aircraft and some catastrophic screw-ups. F-111's may have been both.

So, i am dropping back from that plane's discussion here as again i am no help, as its all making my head spin.... but it is fascinating.

On balance, I think we are better off from having done that plane (i.e., the F-111 & variants) and those aircraft that can can trace their technical "genes" and global superiority to that program.

In all, had we not spent TRILLIONS of $$$ on weapons systems here and sold round the world, some of it badly in hindsight the past 80 years, the world might be a different and worse place.

 

[LocuMob]

These challenges ultimately led to the Navy deciding to cancel the F-111B program.

The experience with the F-111B played a pivotal role in shaping the Navy's future procurement strategies, leading directly to the development of the F-14 Tomcat. The Tomcat was designed to address the shortcomings of the F-111B, incorporating lessons learned from the F-111B's development and testing. The F-14 went on to become one of the most iconic and effective carrier-based fighters in the U.S. Navy's history.

I think we are better off from having done that plane (i.e., the F-111 & variants) and those aircraft that can can trace their technical "genes" and global superiority to that program.

In all, had we not spent TRILLIONS of $$$ on weapons systems here and sold round the world, some of it badly in hindsight the past 80 years, the world might be a different and worse place.

This, to me, perfectly illustrates why, sometimes you must fail. Some people just don't get that.