• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

Muroc Army Airbase, 1947...

The plane in War Of The Worlds was the jet powered variant, the YB-49. ;)

Which, hopefully he'll tackle after the XB-35. Maybe not immediately after, as I understand wanting to work on something else after investing so much into one project. But eventually, maybe. Maybe even a YRB-49, the variant that almost made it into production with the Sperry stability system.

Whatever the case, I'm just happy to be getting a good XB-35.

And for those who don't know, in that first pic John posted, the pilot sits up in the front end of the bubble canopy and the copilot sits down in the wing on the right side where you see the yoke near the lower right of the pic, and IIRC, the bombardier would then be to the right of copilot.
 
When you read up on what it was like to fly/operate, you find that despite the fact that the aircraft had a co-pilot's position, it didn't provide much of any use to co-piloting the aircraft. For instance, as the co-pilot's position was in the leading edge of the wing, he could only see straight forward, and the co-pilot also had no access to nor control over the throttles, so the co-pilot would never be able to take off or land the aircraft. Also, despite the co-pilot having rudder pedals, he had no control of the brakes. From all reports, the pilot's perspective looking out, was tremendous! Obviously from the pilot's vantage point, he would be looking out over and in front of the aircraft's wing, through the plexi-bubble, rather than seeing a lot of what would be going on in the cabin below.

For those that don't know the full background behind the XB-35, it was originally to be fitted with Northrop Turbodyne gas-turbine engines, producing roughly 10,000 hp each! However, this engine never attained flight status, so instead the XB-35's were fitted with P&W R-4360 reciprocating engines, producing 3,000 hp each. These engines, coupled with the eventual drive train and propeller arrangement, meant that the XB-35 was seriously underpowered. As one of the original test pilots, Charles Tucker, has written, "The XB-35 was very sluggish in flight; it always felt as though it was just wallowing around in the sky. It had [a] myraid [of] problems, mostly centered on the engines and propellers. The propellers were mounted at a large angle to the wing's chord line, [like] the N-9M, and this considerably impaired efficiency. First, contra-rotating propellers were used, and the propeller gearbox was very weak. Problems with this gearbox quickly led to the redesign of the drive train to eliminate the contra-rotating feature and to use single-rotation propellers. This further reduced the efficiency of the propulsion system. The decision to rebuild the airplane as a jet solved the power problem."

Charles Tucker went on to write, "I felt that the YB-49 (jet-engined/re-designed version of the XB-35) was a beautiful airplane, and it was very smooth in flight. It eventually gave me a great deal of satisfaction, excitement and a heck of a lot of memories."

According to Charles Tucker, who accumulated about 100-hours in the YB-49, despite the original issues with the YB-49's stall characteristics, by the time the aircraft was dropped, Northrop had already added a stability-augmentation system that pretty much solved the directional damping problem..."This made the airplane completely stable in all flight regimes."
 
Now This is a plane i could get behind, or in :) :).. Would you like a flight model Mr Piglet??
Click to expand...
Sure! As it is, I bank into a turn, and it just keeps flying on the same heading and bank angle. Gotta use full rudder input to actually turn. I was gonna deal with it later, but if ya wanna give it a crack at it, let me know what info you need.
About the XB-35's paint scheme....
It's stated the XB-35's were painted in aluminium paint, yet many photos show more of a bare metal "mottled" look. So maybe I'll go more something inbetween, if that makes sense!
That pic of the 1/72 scale cabin... Naturally, I got the kits, and Pilot and tech manuals. Whole lotta stuff I'm learning about!
Talk about a mech-nightmare!
 
That's a very impressive project, Tim. It would be an impressive project for payware. To think it will be freeware and the work of a single designer is really quite beyond explanation.
 
Skyhawk_310R said:
That's a very impressive project, Tim. It would be an impressive project for payware. To think it will be freeware and the work of a single designer is really quite beyond explanation.
Click to expand...


Two single developers :).. I'll make sure she flies true ... Have loved this plane since the first time ui saw war of the worlds, and that was way way back in the sixties...
 
Great job Piglet! Its looking truly outstanding! I think your doing it great justice! I remember having a YB-35 in FS5!!!! Great choice and I look forward to flying it soon!!!
 
::chuckles:: forgot about not being able to PM you.. What i need most are 3 views, and to get my basic research done.. If you PM me, I'll give you my email address.. When your ready, I could use a copy of the model as well. doesnt need a vc or cockpit. I just need it for flight testing..
 
Gibbage said:
Just thought this was a very fitting photograph =)

View attachment 49392
Click to expand...

::chuckles;; I LOVE the chase plane :::LOL:: And i thought the widow was big..
I got a couple hours of sleep and have been watching videos of this and the yb-49 since i sat up ( dont worry, going back to bed in a couple hours ).. Tim, i'm gonna need your flight model as it is so far. i dont think your far off judging by how sluggish this plane can be at lower speeds. However, at this moment I can only speculate. I need to know whats where inside that wing, and figure out what weighs what. I know how the butterfly flaps work and yeah, without a tail plane, you would need to apply some rudder to make a turn.
 
I personally spoke with both the test pilot of the B-2 and the test pilot of the B-35/49. One key aspect about the B-35/49 (more with the 49) is that it had a tendency to wanter in the yaw from left and right, but very slowly. It just could not keep the nose pointed in the proper direction!!! Its one of the main reasons it was canned by the US Army other then the fact it could not carry nukes of the day. Its all part of the flying wing in general. Also, do some research on the N1M and N9M. That aircraft was a small scale replica of the B-35 in almost every way to test its flying qualities before building a full size aircraft. Im sure you will find a lot more data in the N9M since it still fly's at Chino. I have personally seen if fly many times, and its truly one of the most gracefull aircraft you will ever see in the sky.

In later models of the 49, they developed a computer controled stabilization system that fixed this yaw. By the time the system was working, the program was already killed. Another interesting tidbit of information. Due to the extreamly fast and dense airflow under the body, the bombs had a tendency to SKIP off the air stream at the bottom of the bomb bay when it left the still air of the bay and hit the fast moving air under the aircraft. This, along with its nasty yaw made it a HORRIBLE bomber. This was fixed by placing an air brake forward of the bomb bay that would deploy before dropping bombs. It would brake up the air current and allow the bombs to pass though. This same air brake system is used today on the B-2 bomber. There is a GREAT DEAL used on the B-2 that was developed from the B-35/49 program. You can see crew inspecting the air brakes (look like fly swatters) here.

http://www.whiteman.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/090817-F-2722L-001.jpg

Sorry. I have done a lot of research myself. Thats why im so excited to see someone working on it! Now im off to the post office to send out a care package.
 
Tim did an N9M quite a while back that is still in my hanger. For those who wish to wet their appetite, I highly recommend the N9M.
 
Railrunner130 said:
Tim did an N9M quite a while back that is still in my hanger. For those who wish to wet their appetite, I highly recommend the N9M.
Click to expand...

I was looking for that N-9M today.. Couldnt find it.. tried here, simviation, a few other places too.. its like it disappeared.. Downloaded Ito's B-35, which exteriorly is quite fanciful but nice, and sound, panel and flight dynamics suck.. oh well.. Checked out Sky Unlimeteds GO-229 ( HO-229 ) and discovered they got the aircraft file right and left off the rudder.. When i first bought it some time ago i had to make some corrections to cure the falling leaf syndrome it displayed ( would rock left to right ) but otherwise it makes a decent test bed and trtainer so that i can get an idea of where the b-35 needs to go.. :).. I should have proper documentation the the b-35 soon and hopefully Tims flight model, then i'll be able to make an honest start on this bird :)..
Pam
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top