FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1950
1950 - 0175.PDF
r FLIGHT. 26 January 1950 115 Tractable, versatile, and of high all-round performance—the English Electric Canberra bomber (two Rolls-Royce Avon turbojets). British designs later than the Canberra it can be said that one, at least, will be a four-jet type, comparable in per- formance with the English Electric bomber but having a longer radius of action. No bomber with turboprop power is known to be under development in any country. Piston-engined types now current (the B-36 and B-50 are the prime examples) will continue to serve for many years and accordingly are later examined in some detail. Of the B-36, now in regular squadron service with the U.S.A.F., more has been spoken and written in criticism and vindica- tion than of any other aircraft—not excluding the Braba- zon, an airliner of almost identical size, though of lighter gross weight. Space does not allow representation of all the theories, technical and tactical, propounded at the time of an American governmental inquiry into charges of irregu- larity in the purchasing of the B-36, but some piquant observations by "Favonius," in Flight of May 12th, 1949, are commended to the interested reader, with the proviso that he duly notes the verdict of Mr. Carl A. Vinson, chair- man of the House Armed Services Committee—that " there has been very substantial and very compelling evidence that the Air Force has selected this bomber, and procured this bomber, solely on the grounds that it is the best air- craft for its purpose available to the nation to-day." Criticism of the B-36 has stemmed largely from its sup- posed vulnerability to fighter action, but as so often proved true in military flying, theory has been shaken, if not shattered, by practical demonstration. It is true that the fighters matched against this bomber during trials last year were exclusively U.S.A.F. types, and, this being so. were not (as intimated in the preceding survey) dis- tinguished for their performance at extreme height. Never- theless, it is well to ponder the difficulties of destroying a high-altitude bomber, even though this might be flying— like the B-36—only moderately fast. First, there is the consideration that early-waming radar development appears to have fallen seriously behind aircraft progress, both in effectiveness and quantity available. No Power, in fact, is within sight of adequate provision for early-waming. It may be assumed for our purpose, however, that a bomber has been located at 40,000ft. The next move, then, will obviously be the " scrambling" of the fighter and its direction on to the bomber, a procedure which, pending the general adoption of fighter-radar, is beset by manifold and serious problems, not the least of which is the fighter pilot's difficulty of making visual contact with the bomber and flf determining its course. Although head-on attacks are feasible at 30,000ft, it is by no means certain that these will prove possible at our assumed level of 40,000ft or above, where, the bomber having highly supercharged piston engines, the jet fighter's margin of speed superiority may have seriously diminished. With present-day fighters, stern or quarter attacks would be usual, placing the fighter (assuming that it has normal 20 mm armament) to the advantage of the defending gunners, not only in space, but ballistically also, for the bomber is a retreating target. It is recognized, of course, that the radar-equipped fighter, armed with homing missiles, will eventually put a very different complexion on the matter, in that, although remaining beyond the range Boeing XB-47 Stratojet with Its General Electric J-«7 turbojets. Of the Martin XB-51's three turbojets, one is in the fuselage.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
