![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Corrie" wrote in message
m... A *unique* hunk o tin it is, however. The 'tool' IS the history. ONE airplane was able to do that amount of damage - unprecendented. The B-29 itself was the most technologically advanced machine of its day. I love aircraft too but would submit that the bomb IS the history. Of course it was more than vaporized - quite a restoration project even for the pros at the Smithsonian. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Maule Driver wrote: I love aircraft too but would submit that the bomb IS the history. Of course it was more than vaporized - quite a restoration project even for the pros at the Smithsonian. They've got one of the "fat boy" bombs at the museum at Oshkosh. They claim there's nothing inside the casing, of course. George Patterson Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is "Hummmmm... That's interesting...." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"G.R. Patterson III"
I love aircraft too but would submit that the bomb IS the history. Of course it was more than vaporized - quite a restoration project even for the pros at the Smithsonian. They've got one of the "fat boy" bombs at the museum at Oshkosh. They claim there's nothing inside the casing, of course. Having seen some of the restoration practices they follow I wouldn't be surprised if they loaded the 'fat boy' full of nuclear material, then emptied it before putting it on display. Those folks are nuts in a good way. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() I love aircraft too but would submit that the bomb IS the history. Of course it was more than vaporized - quite a restoration project even for the pros at the Smithsonian. I believe there are at least two replicas, and I have seen one of them, at Wright-Patt air force museum. The other I think is in New Mexico. all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Corrie" wrote:
The "Peacemaker" never dropped a bomb in anger - it scared the Soviets out of starting anything stupid in the dark days of the early Cold War. It would surprise me to learn that the Soviets were terrified of a weapon based on the thoroughly discredited idea that heavily armed, unescorted strategic bombers could fight their way deep into enemy territory with acceptable losses. The B-36 always struck me as a flying porkbarrel project propelled by Curtis LeMay's ego. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
That's exactly what the Soviets were afraid of. We spent them into
collapse because they thought our weapons might work. The B1 Bomber, Star Wars, etc. They were fairly certain these things wouldn't work as advertised, but they couldn't afford to take the chance that they might. Unfortunately for them they also couldn't afford to keep up. Dan Luke wrote: "Corrie" wrote: The "Peacemaker" never dropped a bomb in anger - it scared the Soviets out of starting anything stupid in the dark days of the early Cold War. It would surprise me to learn that the Soviets were terrified of a weapon based on the thoroughly discredited idea that heavily armed, unescorted strategic bombers could fight their way deep into enemy territory with acceptable losses. The B-36 always struck me as a flying porkbarrel project propelled by Curtis LeMay's ego. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It would surprise me to learn that the Soviets were terrified of a
weapon based on the thoroughly discredited idea that heavily armed, unescorted strategic bombers could fight their way deep into enemy territory with acceptable losses. The B-36 always struck me as a flying porkbarrel project propelled by Curtis LeMay's ego. We know for a certainty that the 36s routinely flew over China and even Vladivostok, and very likely they flew over much of Siberia and perhaps even eastern Russia. Several crewmen have related how they watched the MiGs trying to get up to their altitude but vainly falling away. Such flights were probably made in excess of 50,000 feet. LeMay actually didn't care for the 36, but it was in the pipeline when he became head of SAC. He accepted it for what it was: a placemarker for the B-52. It overlapped the B-47 (which likewise made regular flights over eastern Russia) but the latter simply didn't have the range to do what the 36 (and later the 52) was capable of. Very quickly these flights were made unnecessary by the U-2, and the U-2 in turn was soon supplanted by satellite photography. all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Cub Driver" wrote in message ... Very quickly these flights were made unnecessary by the U-2, and the U-2 in turn was soon supplanted by satellite photography. Not supplanted, augmented. We're still using the U2's. There was also this black thing called an SR71 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Cub Driver" wrote:
Such flights were probably made in excess of 50,000 feet. Would it have been operationally practical (or even possible) to drop nukes from such altitudes? -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Dan Luke wrote: It would surprise me to learn that the Soviets were terrified of a weapon based on the thoroughly discredited idea that heavily armed, unescorted strategic bombers could fight their way deep into enemy territory with acceptable losses. You mean like the losses the B-29s took bombing Japan? Of course, the losses to the B-17s against Germany were worse. Lets take the worst case there. We lost something over 60% of the planes that flew the Schweinfurt "Black Thursday" raid and over half the planes made it to the target. At one time, we could have launched over 30 B-36s at any given moment. So only 10 of them reach their targets. Stalin isn't going to be upset at the prospect of losing 10 major production centers? He would certainly be worried about the fact that the odds were good that he'd be in one of them. The B-36 always struck me as a flying porkbarrel project propelled by Curtis LeMay's ego. The B-36 project was started prior to America's entry into WWII. Roosevelt was afraid that Britain would be lost and that the U.S. would have to enter the war against Germany without being able to base bombers in the British Isles. It was planned that we would use it for a conventional bombing campaign against Germany operating from bases in the U.S. Postwar development was a case basically of the only game in town. It was the only plane capable of carrying nuclear weapons into the USSR that could possibly reach production in a few years. It was a stopgap measure, but it worked until we could get something better in place. George Patterson Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is "Hummmmm... That's interesting...." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hubble plug to be pulled | John Carrier | Military Aviation | 33 | March 19th 04 04:19 AM |
Rules on what can be in a hangar | Brett Justus | Owning | 13 | February 27th 04 05:35 PM |
Here's the Recompiled List of 82 Aircraft Accessible Aviation Museums! | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 18 | January 20th 04 04:02 PM |
Compiled List of Aircraft-Accessible Aviation Museums | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 23 | January 17th 04 10:07 AM |
Air and Space Museum Invites Aviation Vets to Opening | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 29th 03 03:36 AM |