B-17 and B-52 Comparison

Now we've really veered off, but if you're impressed by the legacy of the B-29, remember that its design was stretched to the B-50, to the C-97 and from there to the Guppy and from there to the Super Guppy. I wonder if all the old C-97 Super Guppies are grounded now? (Or the regular transports. There used to be several flying in and out of Miami IAP in late 80s, early 90s). And I used to watch the Super Guppy take off from NASA Houston not so long ago, and if it wasn't loaded, the rear wheels left the ground before the nose. I never, to this day, have been able to imagine how the designers knew that thing would fly. Especially with a big piece of a Titan missile or the Apollo Saturn on board. But at its heart (and tail and wings and, originally, engines) it's a B-29 all the way.
tom

QUOTE: Originally posted by butchy QUOTE: Originally posted by AJACKETSFAN QUOTE: Originally posted by shrikes Look at the Hawkeye, Orion, and Hercules. Of course, the B-17 had radial engines and today's planes use Turboprop engines... Heck look at the Tuplov "Bear", it's the counterpart of the B-52 and it's still in service. Yeh but I think the Bear is a much "newer" aircraft than the Buff.. A nice comparison would be the B 17 and B 29.. Big difference there and same time frames.

Kinda weird you mention the Tu-95 Bear and the B-29. They are very closely related! The Tu-95 is a direct descendent of the Tu-4 Bull which was a direct copy of the B-29. Their fuselage diameters are exactly the same and just everywhere you look on the Tu-95 you see B-29, from the nose all the way to the layout of the cockpit. Its really cool that the rudimentary elements of the B-29 still live on today in another country and that it does really well! The Bear is one of my favorite aircraft and it being related to the B-29 (my all time favorite) just makes it that much better.

QUOTE: Originally posted by toomanyslurpees by the way my comments were origionaly in better context before I realized there was a second page here if that seemed alitte out of the blue. though now that you're talking engine noise, myself being twenty three can only wonder what a thousand bomber raid must have sounded like.

....and the sound of the tons of bombs raining from them!

by the way my comments were origionaly in better context before I realized there was a second page here if that seemed alitte out of the blue. though now that you're talking engine noise, myself being twenty three can only wonder what a thousand bomber raid must have sounded like.

Yeah, when discussing the advantages of prop planes you really have to make a big concession to turboprops. A giant radial engine is nothing but thousands of parts slamming together at incredible speeds and pressures, trying hard to tear itself apart, and while they were marvels of their day, they are not in any way practical by modern standards. Now, there's no music like a Twin Wasp or bigger cranking up and beating up the field, and the sound of a Merlin (OK, it's not radial) is just....well, a formation of Merlin powered planes going over sounds like angels to me.
But then, give me jets any day. If I live to be a hundred, I'll never forget the sound of an entire wing of B-47s flying over our base housing on Armed Forces Day and similar excuses for a flyby, and knowing my dad was at the yoke of one of them. And each one of them pushed by six smoke-spewing J-47s. What a site, what a sound. I was barely more than a toddler, but it's as clear as yesterday to me. By the way, any idea where the RB-47 came from, the one being disgorged from that C-5 (which, speaking of engines, were notorious for in-flight fires -- the C-5, I mean)? Great photos all around, guys. Thanks.
Tom

there's two turbo prop types that are thown together but very different, the engine on that B-17s' nose would be a turbine engine, the turbine is driving the propellor with all the energy which is not used to turn the compressor (I heard 70% of a jets power drives the compressor), there's very little thrust from the exhaust, it's mostly from the propeller at any altitude. The other type is a jet engine with a propellor stuck on the front, the turboprop, actually pretty much the same thing as a high bypass jet engine (like most airlines 747etc, but instead of a propeller there's a ducted fan) at low altitude the propellor is more efficient but higher of the thrust from the jet is more effective when the propeller looses efficiency at altitude. (I took an aerodynamics class at school, pretty interesting stuff)

QUOTE: Originally posted by b6dan Was the book "B-52 Combat History: 1955-73"? I have that book and that model, except I'm going to try to scratchbuild the bomb bay as a "Big Belly". That'sgoing to take a lot, but I'm making molds and copies of the bombs. I'm going to need about 48...

To tell you the truth I have no idea if that's the book or not buit it does sound familiar, probably is. Good luck on the Big Belly bomb bay. I thought about doing some modifacations on mine and just gave up in the process because the thing itself is a beast to build. I'm not even near done yet. I took the easy road and used the stock bombs. Now I'm stuck deciding the bast way to go about the tri-color camo scheme paint job topside. Let us all know when you get it done. Sounds like it 'll be a good build.

Was the book "B-52 Combat History: 1955-73"? I have that book and that model, except I'm going to try to scratchbuild the bomb bay as a "Big Belly". That'sgoing to take a lot, but I'm making molds and copies of the bombs. I'm going to need about 48...

YEAH B-52!!!

You're exactly right, b6dan. That is a B-52-D variant. I did a little research on that plane when I started building this beast as well, and came to find out it was shot down some where over Thailand (or somewhere near there) during Operation Linebacker. At least that's what I found out in a book about B-52s I got at the library a while back. WIsh I could rememebr the name of hte book. Arrghh. Oh well.

Does anyone have any tips on the tri-tone camo paint scheme? I''m kind of stuck trying to figure out the best way to go about painting the top side of this blasted thing.

I believe the B-52 is the Monogram "D" variant. That paint was DRY, right? Besides, if WWII lasted long enough, we would have had B-35's and B-29's beating the living @#*! out of Berlin. But, if you really want to bring up that one movie, Final Countdown.... What if we sent a 3-ship ballgame of B-1B's from Nellis, back 60 years to drop JDAM's on Iwo Jima? Heehee... I'm gonna have COOL dreams tonight...

QUOTE: Originally posted by AJACKETSFAN QUOTE: Originally posted by shrikes Look at the Hawkeye, Orion, and Hercules. Of course, the B-17 had radial engines and today's planes use Turboprop engines... Heck look at the Tuplov "Bear", it's the counterpart of the B-52 and it's still in service.

Yeh but I think the Bear is a much "newer" aircraft than the Buff..
A nice comparison would be the B 17 and B 29.. Big difference there and same time frames.

Shrikes,
The prop planes you site are turbo prop aircraft, A prop hung out on a jet engine.
And where can you get AVGAS/purple juice/115-145 octane anymore?

Don

Nice looking stuff there Tag_LK.....make sure you post the pics when you complete them.

Great photos Tag_LK, Blackwolf (of course) and Shrikes. Its always fun to see how technology (and size) have changed since WW2.

RODC

QUOTE: Originally posted by shrikes Look at the Hawkeye, Orion, and Hercules. Of course, the B-17 had radial engines and today's planes use Turboprop engines...

Heck look at the Tuplov "Bear", it's the counterpart of the B-52 and it's still in service.

The nose to tail length of the B-2 is almost the same as the F-15. The wingspan of the B-2 is exactly the same as the XB-35; YB-49. It is purely coincidental, but engineers found the span to be the ideal for a flying wing when designing the B-2. Jack Northrop was far more advanced than he got credit for. ( former USAF B-2A Crew Chief)

I dunno... props are still quite useful because (i'm told) They're more fuel efficient (ergo, longer range) than most jet engines and can take more punishment that a jet engine. Look at the Hawkeye, Orion, and Hercules. Of course, the B-17 had radial engines and today's planes use Turboprop engines... But that would've been cool... like having 4 generations of Bombers still in active service.

Oh and the B-17 did get a chance to use the turboprop: (even only as a test bed)



as well as a jet engine: (though i can't find any pics of this one, maybe Steve-O can help?)
"Later the first aircraft was used to test the Wright XJ65 turbojet, the engine being slung below a streamlined nose structure and the intake being covered with a cap for protection during ferrying. This aircraft contuned flying untill crashing on takeoff in 1980."

And, yes, I'm a B-17 nut.

Yes, they are both 1/72. The B-52 wingspan is about 2-2 1/4 feet long.

the B-17 and B-52 in that pic are both 1/72nd scale but if that is a 1/48th scale B-52 (and i know there is no B-52 in 1/48th scale) then I dont know what planet I'm on then. :P

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tailspinturtle If the B-17 had lasted as long as the B-52 is expected to be in service, it would still be in service today...

Not when the F-15E and A-10 both carry a heavier bomb load.
It's amazing what jet engines have done isn't it? [:0]

Mike

QUOTE: Originally posted by TAG_LK I thought some of you might think this is interesting, as I did. I'm building a B-17 and B-52 right now, and they are both the same scale. I took this picture. Some people have already done this with their own models, but for others, this is quite interesting.

what scale are those models.

i wonder what the air war in ww2 would have been like if we had planes that big in combat back then.

These 2 have to be my favorite. They are with the C-5 Galaxy's.



Yep, thats a fuselage of a RB-47E Stratojet coming out of the mouth of the giant galaxy.

Sorry never seen or heard of a jetted B-17... that would be kinda sad I think. But I have seen several photos modified to carry a big turboprop or big radial up in the nose as a test aircraft.

Heres one of my favorite size pictures!!

http://www.air-and-space.com/peacemkr/AFFTCHO%20XB-36%20al.jpg

I think those props wouldn't be good enough in today's standards. Does anyone know if there was a prototype B-17 with jet engines in it? That would be very cool.

If the B-17 had lasted as long as the B-52 is expected to be in service, it would still be in service today...

This may not be the answer since it is side shot and different distances away, but it is a neat shot.



Edit:And by the way. The B-2's wingspan is almost exactly same as the B-52's, but it is less that half as long.

Thats neat,and just think the B-17 was a late 30s to mid 40s bomber.The B-52 is a late 50s to who knows when bomber.It just gos to show the leaps in techinology and how far we have gone.I wonder what the B-1B looks like in scale to the B-52 and the B-2 . Digger

Very interesting pics. Kinda shows the Quantum leap in aviation over a relatively few years.

Regards, Rick