Posted: 11/8/2016 4:47:14 PM EDT
| I've read 17-22.. Jeez. What all were they for? |
|
Quoted:
In the front: Pilot Co-pilot Engineer Bombardier Radio Operator Navigator In the back: Top Gunner Right Gunner Left Gunner Radar Operator Tail Gunner Considering that 24 hour missions were common, they took augmented crew. That might be a double crew or more. 11 baseline crew. I see they had crew berths, so relief crew makes total sense. |
|
I seem to remember it being a crew of 15? I had a instructor in a&p school that was a flight engineer on one.
It also had a pressurized tunnel between the front and rear through the bomb bay that the crew could pull themselves through on a trolley. Like the H1, the wings had such a massive chord, that the mechanic could work on the radial engines in flight. I forget the number, but that thing would take off with something ridiculous like 2000 gallons of oil for those six wasp 4360 28-cylinder engines. |
|
Is that the monster beast of a bomber?
Looks like it was made out of spare parts and whole lot of "fuck it, I am bolting it on anyway"? I seem to recall seeing one down at the museum across from the Boneyard in Tucson. I think it had the cool Iron Gauntlet Clutching Thunderbolts insignia of the SAC on it. |
|
Quoted:
I seem to remember it being a crew of 15? I had a instructor in a&p school that was a flight engineer on one. It also had a pressurized tunnel between the front and rear through the bomb bay that the crew could pull themselves through on a trolley. Like the H1, the wings had such a massive chord, that the mechanic could work on the radial engines in flight. I forget the number, but that thing would take off with something ridiculous like 2000 gallons of oil for those six wasp 4360 28-cylinder engines. On the KC-97 we regularly launched with 311 gallons of oil on board. Towards the end when USAF bases quit supporting radial engines with oil we would often load pallets of five gallon buckets of 60wt. oil to service ourselves on long cross country or deployments. |
|
The J47's that we operated on the KC-97L (same engine on B-36) were very dependable. The main issues we had to deal with were starting it. The copilot had the start panel/all controls and throttles on his side of the cockpit. The pilot on the left side would call for different power settings during flight and the right seat pilot would adjust power accordingly.
Their fuel controller was strictly manual. When the throttle was moved it actuated a cable that ran all around Hell's half acre all the way out to the wing tip and down the pylon to the engine. When the wing flexed and when temperature extremes were experienced from 100 degrees on the ramp to 50 degrees below zero at altitude or on the ramp at Goose Bay or Thule the rigging of the fuel controller was affected. During start the electric starter was engaged and, as usual, at a certain RPM the throttle/start lever was advanced from CUT OFF to START detent. If everything worked right a manual engagement of a micro switch preceded the introduction of fuel into the combustion chambers. If the rigging was off just slightly the fuel would come first. When no ignition took place it was procedure to return the throttle/start lever to CUT OFF. Sometimes the initiation of movement would trigger the ignition micro switch and a resounding KA-BOOM would occur shooting very impressive fireballs and flames out both ends of the engine. At night you might think that you were about to meet the Lord. It is really impressive to feel how much that explosion would jolt a 175,000# airframe. I once saw that happen in pitch black at Goose Bay. It was 0200 in the morning parked just outside a hangar with mostly glass doors that reflected the explosion like a mirror. The young Airman manning the fire bottle standing in front of the engine dropped all his shit and exited stage left as fast as he could get his legs to go. In his hast to depart the vicinity he neglected to consider his heading. The heading he chose was directly toward the hangar door. He had just achieved his maximum velocity looking back over his shoulder when he collided with the door. His immediate halt in forward velocity coincided with his newly acquired state of unconsciousness. The other consideration was shutting the engine down. It was critical to idle the engine its predetermined length of time both in flight and on the ground. If temps weren't adequately normalized the tailpipes would shrink rapidly after shutdown and squeeze the turbine wheels seizing the engine. If you think the old fashioned Lear 24/25's were fuel guzzlers you ain't seen nothing. We regularly ran them on all grades of jet fuel and 145 avgas. |
|
Quoted:
The J47's that we operated on the KC-97L (same engine on B-36) were very dependable. The main issues we had to deal with were starting it. The copilot had the start panel/all controls and throttles on his side of the cockpit. The pilot on the left side would call for different power settings during flight and the right seat pilot would adjust power accordingly. Their fuel controller was strictly manual. When the throttle was moved it actuated a cable that ran all around Hell's half acre all the way out to the wing tip and down the pylon to the engine. When the wing flexed and when temperature extremes were experienced from 100 degrees on the ramp to 50 degrees below zero at altitude or on the ramp at Goose Bay or Thule the rigging of the fuel controller was affected. During start the electric starter was engaged and, as usual, at a certain RPM the throttle/start lever was advanced from CUT OFF to START detent. If everything worked right a manual engagement of a micro switch preceded the introduction of fuel into the combustion chambers. If the rigging was off just slightly the fuel would come first. When no ignition took place it was procedure to return the throttle/start lever to CUT OFF. Sometimes the initiation of movement would trigger the ignition micro switch and a resounding KA-BOOM would occur shooting very impressive fireballs and flames out both ends of the engine. At night you might think that you were about to meet the Lord. It is really impressive to feel how much that explosion would jolt a 175,000# airframe. I once saw that happen in pitch black at Goose Bay. It was 0200 in the morning parked just outside a hangar with mostly glass doors that reflected the explosion like a mirror. The young Airman manning the fire bottle standing in front of the engine dropped all his shit and exited stage left as fast as he could get his legs to go. In his hast to depart the vicinity he neglected to consider his heading. The heading he chose was directly toward the hangar door. He had just achieved his maximum velocity looking back over his shoulder when he collided with the door. His immediate halt in forward velocity coincided with his newly acquired state of unconsciousness. The other consideration was shutting the engine down. It was critical to idle the engine its predetermined length of time both in flight and on the ground. If temps weren't adequately normalized the tailpipes would shrink rapidly after shutdown and squeeze the turbine wheels seizing the engine. If you think the old fashioned Lear 24/25's were fuel guzzlers you ain't seen nothing. We regularly ran them on all grades of jet fuel and 145 avgas. great story |
|
My Father did crew on the B-36 from time to time depending on what weapon they had loaded.
He was a Munitions Maintenance Airman (Bomb Tech/Bomb Loader). I think I remember him saying something about the earlier nukes having to have the "core" installed after they were airborne. Or something like that. (Some of the old nukes may have been kinda unstable. My dad and his crew had one "arm itself" in the bombbay of a B-36 one day at Biggs. He said by the time they made it safe they were standing in a puddle of their own sweat.) El Paso (Biggs AFB) to North Africa or Alaska and return. Non-stop and no aerial refueling !! He said they were always afraid the B-36 was going to explode in flight due to constant fuel leaks. |
|
Was there ever a more useless combat airplane than the B-36? Useless in terms of no used for combat, a danger more for it's crew, extremely expensive to build and to operate and an exceedingly short operational life. Maybe perhaps the B-58?
Gee, funny that both of them were built by the same company...... |