The Randy Sohn memorial airplane thread

[Steve C.]

2 minutes ago, twostepn2001 said:

Consolidated Aircraft factory in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1943 assembling B-24's. Interesting fact is that although B-24's were built in Ft. Worth, almost half of the total number was built at Ford's Willow Run plant in Michigan and then transported by truck to Ft. Worth for final assembly because Ford was building them so fast they didn't have room to finish them out.

So.... Ford collaborated with a truck building company called Thorco to build twin engined trucks along with 55 foot long trailers to transport them to Texas. The trucks had two 292 Ford flathead V-8's and was built as a 3-seater, two drivers and a "gunner" carrying a Thompson machine gun. One truck would haul a complete fuselage while a second one would haul the wing assemblies along with engines.

 

Interesting.  And no interstates to get all the way to Texas.

[Howard_P]

9 hours ago, Steve C. said:

Interesting.  And no interstates to get all the way to Texas.

Yup, done on two lane US-27 and US-24 thru downtown Fort Wayne.  People who grew up along the route have said that when you saw one coming, you got off the road as they were coming thru.  Angola, IN has a traffic circle in their downtown where US-27 crossed US-20.  Parking in the downtown was banned for the duration so the trucks could get through.

[Steve C.]

[Steve C.]

Outstanding documentary on the P-47.  Lots of new-to-me footage, including launching them off of a carrier.

 

[mikem]

Just because we haven't seen this for a while.

http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/MATINEE.html

 

Mike

[Mr. Plow]

On 12/29/2022 at 12:09 PM, twostepn2001 said:

Consolidated Aircraft factory in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1943 assembling B-24's. Interesting fact is that although B-24's were built in Ft. Worth, almost half of the total number was built at Ford's Willow Run plant in Michigan and then transported by truck to Ft. Worth for final assembly because Ford was building them so fast they didn't have room to finish them out.

So.... Ford collaborated with a truck building company called Thorco to build twin engined trucks along with 55 foot long trailers to transport them to Texas. The trucks had two 292 Ford flathead V-8's and was built as a 3-seater, two drivers and a "gunner" carrying a Thompson machine gun. One truck would haul a complete fuselage while a second one would haul the wing assemblies along with engines.

 

So funny thing.....I was driving south on I55 through Springfield IL this AM and met 2 trucks, one carrying the inner wing spars,  and one carrying the fuselage of.......a B-17!!!!!!   Air frame was unmistakable,  even under white plastic shrink wrap.   It was headed north, no idea where or what for, but not something you see everyday!

[jeeper61]

Ran across these on FB

Dad flew in F-89s

1953 Limestone AFB (Loring) Open House

F-89 and a B-36 

The B-36 was "Six Turning and Four Burning"

Was the heaviest bomber with single tire main gear it required special extra thick runways 

Excellent examples on display at the Air Force Museum check out if you get a chance 

I think about Randy and these brave fliers from early day of aviation all the time 

Thank You

[New Englander]

38 minutes ago, jeeper61 said:

Ran across these on FB

Dad flew in F-89s

1953 Limestone AFB (Loring) Open House

F-89 and a B-36 

The B-36 was "Six Turning and Four Burning"

Was the heaviest bomber with single tire main gear it required special extra thick runways 

Excellent examples on display at the Air Force Museum check out if you get a chance 

I think about Randy and these brave fliers from early day of aviation all the time 

Thank You

There was a B36 under restoration in Fort Worth with the aim of making it airworthy. It was well along when they lost their hangar space and the project abandoned.

Sinking into the pavement is still an issue. Nowadays it's been simplified with ACN/PCN or Aircraft Classification / Pavement classification. As long as the ACN is lower than the PCN there's no problem. We've sunk a bit in a few places where there was no information , on the ramps not runways thankfully. In Moab, Utah we left such a huge divot they started parking us on 1" plywood sheets. I expected we were going to have a a problem but rather than send us a bill they repaved the ramp with a big concrete pad. Perhaps the fuel we bought helped, as much as 4000 gallons if heading to Europe. Got the plywood treatment in a few other places.

I can't imagine the loading a fully laden B36 put on the pavement.  If I remember the tires are nearly 10' tall and probably a poor design putting too many eggs in one basket.

Perhaps making one airworthy was a pipe dream. The logistics of spares alone prohibitive.

Cool your dad flew in F89s!

[Gearclash]

1 hour ago, New Englander said:

1" plywood sheets.

If 1” plywood made all the difference, what on earth where you parking on??  Plaster of Paris??

[New Englander]

7 hours ago, Gearclash said:

If 1” plywood made all the difference, what on earth where you parking on??  Plaster of Paris??

You never know what kind of road bed is under the pavement especially if the area was originally made for balloon DC3 tires or light planes. 1" plywood spread the load just enough. I don't think it would have been enough for these guys though. Under pavement must have been clay.

 

[TomH]

13 hours ago, jeeper61 said:

Was the heaviest bomber with single tire main gear it required special extra thick runways 

Production B 36's had a 4 wheel set up for main gear.

But...This is quite something. In an effort to lower the pounds per square inch exerted on the run ways, this track system was tried.

 Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/B-36 tracked gear - Wikipedia

[mikem]

2 hours ago, New Englander said:

You never know what kind of road bed is under the pavement especially if the area was originally made for balloon DC3 tires or light planes. 1" plywood spread the load just enough. I don't think it would have been enough for these guys though. Under pavement must have been clay.

 

Houston------We have a problem-------

Mike

[New Englander]

16 minutes ago, TomH said:

Production B 36's had a 4 wheel set up for main gear.

I should have remembered that. The one at Castle is indeed on a 4 wheel truck. Thanks.

[twostepn2001]

14 hours ago, New Englander said:

There was a B36 under restoration in Fort Worth with the aim of making it airworthy. It was well along when they lost their hangar space and the project abandoned.

A long time ago when they were still in the process of restoring the B-29 "Doc", somebody asked Randy about the CAF or someone ever restoring a B-36 to flying condition. He said something that besides the high cost, he said since the B-36 was capable of carrying nuclear bombs, it was in some treaty with Russia that no B-36 could be allowed to be airworthy. And he explained the difference between a restored B-29 and why they can be restored to flying condition but not B-36. l did a search but can't find that post. maybe someone with better skills than me can find and post it.

Speaking of the single tire version of the B-36 landing gear, here is a pic of it. Says it was 9.5 tall and weighed over 1300 lbs.

[New Englander]

1 hour ago, twostepn2001 said:

B-36 was capable of carrying nuclear bombs

B29 actually carried two. Somehow I doubt the Russians would be too worried over a B36 but perhaps.

[twostepn2001]

38 minutes ago, New Englander said:

B29 actually carried two. Somehow I doubt the Russians would be too worried over a B36 but perhaps.

Yes l realize that the B-29 was nuclear capable. And l'm sure they actually carried more than two. Hiroshima and Nagasaki in combat and several others at test sites in Nevada and Utah. No, l can't remember any details of what Randy said. Just that the costs would be almost impossible to handle and the SALT treaty with Russia concerning nuclear weapons. l did find the following in a article about the B-36 telling why there will probably never be a restored flying B-36:

The main problem is that only four surviving B-36 airframes exist, all in museums. Two airframes are displayed outdoors, at the Pima Air & Space Museum in Tucson, and the Castle Air Museum in Atwater, California. Two others are indoors, at the Museum of the U.S. Air Force in Dayton, Ohio, and the Strategic Air Museum in Ashland, Nebraska.

Part of a 1970s advertising campaign to "Help the B-36 Fly Again"

The Museum of the United States Air Force is the custodian of these four planes, "on loan" to the museums named above. The Air Force, and/or the Museum, would thus have to be involved in releasing one of these B-36s to a group involved in the restoration to airworthiness.

Parts of a fifth B-36, formerly on display at the Air Force Museum, are located in Newbury, Ohio.

The next obstacle is the decaying mechanical, electrical and structural components. Decades of corrosion would have to be reversed and fixed. The inventory of available parts is small. The cost would be large, in the multi-million dollar range, and the required skilled volunteer workforce monumental.

Maintenance would be a consideration also. Spark plug maintenance alone would be costly and time consuming. With six piston engines with 28 cylinders each, (56 spark plugs per engine), a total of 336 plugs would have to be maintained because of the constant fouling of the spark plugs due to the high lead content in the fuel required by the Pratt & Whitney R-4360.

In the early 1970s a project was initiated by the Peacemaker Foundation in Fort Worth, Texas, to raise funds to restore and fly B-36 S/N 52-2827, then on display at the Greater Southwest International Airport. The restored B-36 was to be based at Fort Worth's Meacham Field and used as an airborne museum. The image to the right shows part of the advertising campaign to "Help the B-36 Fly Again". However, the project was never finalized.

[jeeper61]

There was another prototype landing gear type on the B-36

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDCgMlomhvM

[TN Hillbilly]

How does the size of the B-36 compare to something like a C130 or whatever the military is using today? It looks enormous!

[New Englander]

5 hours ago, twostepn2001 said:

However, the project was never finalized.

Actually quite a bit of work was done, 40,000 man hours. I believe the costs involved of actually operating one would have been outrageous. Finally, after loosing their hangar and perhaps realizing the scope of the undertaking the plane was disassembled and trucked to the Pima Museum in Tucson. 

I'm aware of SALT treaties that had to account for B52s but the B47 wasn't a problem and by extension a true antique like the B36 probably wasn't either.

When the Gate Guardian B47 and B52 at my home airport were  disassembled the B52 had to be left in that state for a period for Soviet satellites to observe it as B52s are active aircraft. There was no requirement for the obsolete B47 to remain to be observed and it was trucked as it was parted.

The same requirement exists for B52s dismantled at Davis Monthan.

[New Englander]

10 minutes ago, TN Hillbilly said:

How does the size of the B-36 compare to something like a C130 or whatever the military is using today? It looks enormous!

Wing span similar to a C 5A or AN 124. Both of those cargo carriers are swept wing while the B 36 was a tapered straight wing.

[twostepn2001]

15 hours ago, TN Hillbilly said:

How does the size of the B-36 compare to something like a C130 or whatever the military is using today? It looks enormous!

Here is a pic of a B-29 parked next to a B-36 just for comparison. The only plane larger than B-36 from the same era is the Hughes Hercules or "Spruce Goose". lt has a wingspan of 320 feet where the B-36 has a wingspan of 230 feet. The Hercules has a length of 218 ft. and the B-36 was 162 feet long.

 

[TomH]

That is the XB 36 prototype, you can see the huge single wheel gear. 

What kind of tractor is under the wing and in front?  probably needed one on each side and one in the middle to pull it!

[jeeper61]

3 hours ago, TomH said:

That is the XB 36 prototype, you can see the huge single wheel gear. 

What kind of tractor is under the wing and in front?  probably needed one on each side and one in the middle to pull it!

Must be there are only 6 turning on that one 

 

[mike newman]

....a bit different from modern ''bombers''

...an old Stearman  (?)  caught in the Southern Lights..just a few days gone...

Mike

[New Englander]

20 minutes ago, mike newman said:

....a bit different from modern ''bombers''

...an old Stearman  (?)  caught in the Southern Lights..just a few days gone...

Mike

Great Pic Mike! It's not often the aurora has that much red in it.