Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Wing struts above the wing have to be big - they're in compression rather than tension and have to be beefy enough to not buckle. Wings struts below the wing are in tension and the load-bearing elemen

But can it lay an egg?   I've seen photos of that one before but don't know what it is or where it's based.  Such poor taste in flying objects is more commonly seen in the hot air balloon ge

What a cock up.

Posted Images

OK, I'm going to take this one because I have a dirty trick up my sleeve for the next one.

 

It's the Trident 2E G-AVFB at Duxford. I wouldn't have gotten it without all the broad hints here. Tube-o-Chairs are not my strong suit.

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a one-of-a-kind variant of a production aircraft. Though this particular aircraft operated in an experimental role, the aircraft itself was not a prototype nor an experimental model. The test program had to do with what it carried.

 

I'm looking for the model designation for this specific variant, not just the base aircraft type from which it was derived.

 

I'm expecting the mavens here to catch on pretty quickly, but we'll see.

 

John

 

y4mB28PEuR6rvzOzANov5y6Av4W3kXNm6R9sI66u

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to ask yourself this, If they were to build an aircraft that could stay aloft for days, would they have the sense to make sure it had a decent bathroom! B-52 crews have often complained about having an aircraft with a long endurance, only to find that there was nowhere to take a dump! A Nuclear powered aircraft would need an airline style restroom!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

...and I'd have never gotten it without all the hints posted by others.

Looks like my post is getting the same treatment.

John

I think it's happening to all of them lately,  we all seem to be getting results and dropping hints. I think it's quite amusing seeing some of the obtuse awnsers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russians just didn't bother to shield the crew, and the majority died of radiation poisioning

 

While the Americans used this aircraft with the lead shielding

 

How dumb can you get? What is the point of having a long endurance aircraft if you don't have a long endurance crew? 

 

I guess the intercontinental ballistic missile was the Convair of bad news for this aircraft's future, it put a big X - 6 of them possibly - against this concept. 

 

J.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Convair NB 36H

 

That's exactly right, Steph. This was a one-of-a-kind variant of the B-36 with a special, heavily shielded cockpit section. It flew with a nuclear reactor aboard, in the after bomb-bay, part of a research project to determine the feasibility of a nuclear powered airplane.

 

Though the reactor was flown and was taken critical several times in flight, the complete nuclear propulsion system was not flown, just the power source. Ulitmately, it appears this might have been feasible but, wisely, testing was terminated over concerns about core integrity in a crash. It was that, more than competing technologies that killed this program.

 

Quote

How dumb can you get? What is the point of having a long endurance aircraft if you don't have a long endurance crew?

 

Not sure of the details of the Soviet aircraft testing along these lines. I suspect that the radiation the crew received was not immediately dangerous in the time span of a mission. Radiation kills in three ways and the time spans are seconds (central nervous system failure), a few weeks (acute radiation poisioning, mainly blood and immune system effects) and a few decades (latent cancers). Which one gets you depends entirely upon how much absorbed dose is received. Oddly, there's not much in between those three windows. If the crews received several hundred Roentgens/REM in a mission (the middle case), they would not be affected until some time later.

 

I'm more familiar with some of the Soviet nuclear submarine technology. One class of Russian boat was very fast and had a test depth deeper than US torpedoes could reach at the time (hurriedly fixed with the Mark 48 ADCAP). Crew safety was fairly heavily compromised in favor of performance. The Russian boat had a high power-density, liquid metal cooled reactor and minimal shielding for the crew, at least by American standards. The best information available suggests that crews on that class of boat (they only built five of them) could do two patrols before having to be rotated to other duties because of absorbed radiation dose.

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...