Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??, NOW 777

[OK Don via Mercedes]

The 1957 182A is reasonably quiet with the active and passive headset on :-)
I did load it up with sound deadening insulation as the first step in
installing the interior - I'd hate to hear it without that.

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 1:47 PM, archer75--- via Mercedes <
mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:

> The 182RG is quiet as well, but the newer 172s are still noisy; probably
> tiring on a long trip.
>
>
>


-- 
OK Don

NSA: The only branch of government that actually listens to US citizens!

"There are three kinds of men: The ones that learns by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence
for themselves."

WILL ROGERS, *The Manly Wisdom of Will Rogers*
2013 F150, 18 mpg
2012 Passat TDI DSG, 44 mpg
1957 C182A, 12 mpg - but at 150 mph!
___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.

Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??, NOW 777

[M. Mitchell Marmel via Mercedes]

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 1:47 PM, archer75--- via Mercedes <
mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote:


> A landing strip at the Tallahassee, Florida airport (TLH) is beside a long
> building which a novice could easily mistake for the runway at night.  Bob,
> who is something of a jokester, half way lined up on the building as we
> were landing at dusk and said something like, "They could use more landing
> lights at this airport." I let him have his little joke and never told him
> I had flown in there before. I've often wondered if anyone ever actually
> landed on the roof of that building.
>

Never more than once, I suspect.

-MMM-
___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.

Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??, NOW 777

[archer75--- via Mercedes]

The 182RG is quiet as well, but the newer 172s are still noisy; probably tiring 
on a long trip.
Friend with a 182RG flew us to a fish festival on the Florida Panhandle coast 
to meet his daughters fiance and enjoy the day.
He took me, his daughter, and her fiance for a sightseeing trip around the 
area. I looked back and the fiance was staring at something out the window and 
seemed very agitated.
It turned out that he thought the (retracted) landing gear had fallen off.

A landing strip at the Tallahassee, Florida airport (TLH) is beside a long 
building which a novice could easily mistake for the runway at night.  Bob, who 
is something of a jokester, half way lined up on the building as we were 
landing at dusk and said something like, "They could use more landing lights at 
this airport." I let him have his little joke and never told him I had flown in 
there before. I've often wondered if anyone ever actually landed on the roof of 
that building.
Gerry

WILTON wrote:

> 'Reminds me of the new (8 hours on it when I left Sault Ste, Marie, MI) 1974 
> Cessna 177RG I flew with the entire family aboard on a trip from The Soo to 
> eastern NC in summer of '74.  'Smelled like a new car; autopilot; very 
> quiet; mighty fine airplane - a real hummer - it literally just hummed.  I 
> was the resident expert on that airplane by the time I returned it to The 
> Soo.  New cost was $38,000.  'Wonder what such as that would cost these 
> days.
> 
>  Wilton
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Rich Thomas via Mercedes" 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 10:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??, NOW 777
> 
> 
> > Back many moons ago I was going BOS-LHR on BA, got on a brand new 777 (was 
> > its 2nd flight).  The FAs and pilots were all excited about it and spent a 
> > lot of time pointing out the new features and performance and such.  I 
> > think the galleys were down below, there was an elevator for going up and 
> > down.  It even smelled new, like a new car.  After the fact I was thinking 
> > that flying a 2-engine plane trans-Atlantic on its 2nd flight might have 
> > been a bit risky, but no problems befell us so it was OK.  At the time, 
> > the Scottish agricultural products provided in copious quantities and 
> > varieties dampened any concern I might have had.
> >
> > --R
> >
> >
> > On 9/28/14 5:52 PM, Mountain Man via Mercedes wrote:
> >> AT wrote:
> >>> And in comparison to the B-36 and B-52, we now have the B-1B with an 
> >>> empty weight of 182,000 lb, maximum gross weight of 477,000 lb...
> >>>
> >> I remember 18 years ago taking a ride on the new 777.  The pilot was
> >> proud to compare his new 777 with the familiar B-52.  B-52 had 8
> >> engines and the 777 had more engine power with 2 engines than the
> >> B-52.  He named several comparisons.  Each seat had new-then, lcd
> >> screen to watch shows - it was a spectacular ride on that aircraft,
> >> and the price was right - $50RT promo with T-Day afternoon leave and
> >> return on Saturday morning.  Memorable for me and 2 sons.
> >> ma
> >>
> >> ___
> >> http://www.okiebenz.com
> >>
> >> To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
> >>
> >> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
> >> http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
> >>
> >> All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
> >> individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner 
> >> has no control over the content of the messages of each contributor.
> >>
> >
> >
> > ___
> > http://www.okiebenz.com
> >
> > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
> >
> > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
> > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
> >
> > All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
> > individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner 
> > has no control over the content of the messages of each contributor. 
> 
> 
> ___
> http://www.okiebenz.com
> 
> To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
> 
> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
> http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
> 
> All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
> individuals are resp

Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??, NOW 777

[OK Don via Mercedes]

Flying in our rebuilt 182A is similar, I keep finding little things (and
some not so little) that need to be fixed. Statistically, most engine
failures happen within the first 200 hours after either new or overhaul. We
lost oil pressure a month ago just after take-off. A galley plug wasn't
tightened in the case and came out. Luckily we were close enough to glide
back to the runway.

Here are the first listings I found for a 177RG -

*CARDINAL RG 1972*
 •
$48,000 • *MUST SELL* • Comfortable, reliable Cardinal RG. Great complex
time builder. We're retiring and downsizing-I'm just not flying it enough.
Easy entry, exit. TT 3500, SMOH 1600, STOH 590. IO-360-A1B6. Two separate
mags, both overhauled 6/12. 76/75/79/75. IFR Cert due this month. Annual
done 4/14. Powerflow. Runs great lean of peak. Good mid 1990's avionics.
Good paint and interior. Hangared. Gear up 1984.

*1971 CARDINAL RG*

• *AVAILABLE
FOR SALE* • 1971 Cessna Cardinal RG IO-360-A1B6 200 Hp TTAF 3922 TSMO 684
TSPOH 274.1 *$64,000 *OBO oil analysis shows no abnormal wear this has been
the case for the last 4 oil changes all AD are in compliance as of annual
5/2014 IFR CERT complete 10/30/2013 GNS 430W garmin 340 audio panel MK12D
stand by com/nav collins indicator dual VOR 4 place intercom JPI700 engine
analyzer with fuel flow, oil temp, batt voltage, cylinder temp, exhaust
temp metal panel upgrade during 430 install powerflow exhaust less then 25
hours still in use so those hours will change .

*C-177 RG 1972*
 •
$59,000 • *AVAILABLE FOR SALE OR TRADE* • 2975 TT 470 SMOH 171 STOP 3 blade
prop good paint kx125 kt76A flys great needs interior .

http://www.barnstormers.com/cat.php?mode=listing&main=



On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 9:58 AM, WILTON via Mercedes 
wrote:

> 'Reminds me of the new (8 hours on it when I left Sault Ste, Marie, MI)
> 1974 Cessna 177RG I flew with the entire family aboard on a trip from The
> Soo to eastern NC in summer of '74.  'Smelled like a new car; autopilot;
> very quiet; mighty fine airplane - a real hummer - it literally just
> hummed.  I was the resident expert on that airplane by the time I returned
> it to The Soo.  New cost was $38,000.  'Wonder what such as that would cost
> these days.
>
> Wilton
> --
>



OK Don

NSA: The only branch of government that actually listens to US citizens!

"There are three kinds of men: The ones that learns by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence
for themselves."

WILL ROGERS, *The Manly Wisdom of Will Rogers*
2013 F150, 18 mpg
2012 Passat TDI DSG, 44 mpg
1957 C182A, 12 mpg - but at 150 mph!
___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.

Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??, NOW 777

[Rich Thomas via Mercedes]

Add another 0 to the end for the lawyers' fees.

--R

On 9/29/14 10:58 AM, WILTON wrote:
'Reminds me of the new (8 hours on it when I left Sault Ste, Marie, 
MI) 1974 Cessna 177RG I flew with the entire family aboard on a trip 
from The Soo to eastern NC in summer of '74.  'Smelled like a new car; 
autopilot; very quiet; mighty fine airplane - a real hummer - it 
literally just hummed.  I was the resident expert on that airplane by 
the time I returned it to The Soo.  New cost was $38,000.  'Wonder 
what such as that would cost these days.


Wilton

- Original Message - From: "Rich Thomas via Mercedes" 


To: 
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??, NOW 777


Back many moons ago I was going BOS-LHR on BA, got on a brand new 777 
(was its 2nd flight).  The FAs and pilots were all excited about it 
and spent a lot of time pointing out the new features and performance 
and such.  I think the galleys were down below, there was an elevator 
for going up and down.  It even smelled new, like a new car.  After 
the fact I was thinking that flying a 2-engine plane trans-Atlantic 
on its 2nd flight might have been a bit risky, but no problems befell 
us so it was OK.  At the time, the Scottish agricultural products 
provided in copious quantities and varieties dampened any concern I 
might have had.


--R


On 9/28/14 5:52 PM, Mountain Man via Mercedes wrote:

AT wrote:
And in comparison to the B-36 and B-52, we now have the B-1B with 
an empty weight of 182,000 lb, maximum gross weight of 477,000 lb...



I remember 18 years ago taking a ride on the new 777.  The pilot was
proud to compare his new 777 with the familiar B-52.  B-52 had 8
engines and the 777 had more engine power with 2 engines than the
B-52.  He named several comparisons.  Each seat had new-then, lcd
screen to watch shows - it was a spectacular ride on that aircraft,
and the price was right - $50RT promo with T-Day afternoon leave and
return on Saturday morning.  Memorable for me and 2 sons.
ma

___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, 
those individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The 
list owner has no control over the content of the messages of each 
contributor.





___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, 
those individuals are responsible for the content of the post. The 
list owner has no control over the content of the messages of each 
contributor. 






___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.

Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??, NOW 777

[WILTON via Mercedes]

'Reminds me of the new (8 hours on it when I left Sault Ste, Marie, MI) 1974 
Cessna 177RG I flew with the entire family aboard on a trip from The Soo to 
eastern NC in summer of '74.  'Smelled like a new car; autopilot; very 
quiet; mighty fine airplane - a real hummer - it literally just hummed.  I 
was the resident expert on that airplane by the time I returned it to The 
Soo.  New cost was $38,000.  'Wonder what such as that would cost these 
days.


Wilton

- Original Message - 
From: "Rich Thomas via Mercedes" 

To: 
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??, NOW 777


Back many moons ago I was going BOS-LHR on BA, got on a brand new 777 (was 
its 2nd flight).  The FAs and pilots were all excited about it and spent a 
lot of time pointing out the new features and performance and such.  I 
think the galleys were down below, there was an elevator for going up and 
down.  It even smelled new, like a new car.  After the fact I was thinking 
that flying a 2-engine plane trans-Atlantic on its 2nd flight might have 
been a bit risky, but no problems befell us so it was OK.  At the time, 
the Scottish agricultural products provided in copious quantities and 
varieties dampened any concern I might have had.


--R


On 9/28/14 5:52 PM, Mountain Man via Mercedes wrote:

AT wrote:
And in comparison to the B-36 and B-52, we now have the B-1B with an 
empty weight of 182,000 lb, maximum gross weight of 477,000 lb...



I remember 18 years ago taking a ride on the new 777.  The pilot was
proud to compare his new 777 with the familiar B-52.  B-52 had 8
engines and the 777 had more engine power with 2 engines than the
B-52.  He named several comparisons.  Each seat had new-then, lcd
screen to watch shows - it was a spectacular ride on that aircraft,
and the price was right - $50RT promo with T-Day afternoon leave and
return on Saturday morning.  Memorable for me and 2 sons.
ma

___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner 
has no control over the content of the messages of each contributor.





___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner 
has no control over the content of the messages of each contributor. 



___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.

Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??, NOW 777

[Rich Thomas via Mercedes]

Back many moons ago I was going BOS-LHR on BA, got on a brand new 777 
(was its 2nd flight).  The FAs and pilots were all excited about it and 
spent a lot of time pointing out the new features and performance and 
such.  I think the galleys were down below, there was an elevator for 
going up and down.  It even smelled new, like a new car.  After the fact 
I was thinking that flying a 2-engine plane trans-Atlantic on its 2nd 
flight might have been a bit risky, but no problems befell us so it was 
OK.  At the time, the Scottish agricultural products provided in copious 
quantities and varieties dampened any concern I might have had.


--R


On 9/28/14 5:52 PM, Mountain Man via Mercedes wrote:

AT wrote:

And in comparison to the B-36 and B-52, we now have the B-1B with an empty 
weight of 182,000 lb, maximum gross weight of 477,000 lb...


I remember 18 years ago taking a ride on the new 777.  The pilot was
proud to compare his new 777 with the familiar B-52.  B-52 had 8
engines and the 777 had more engine power with 2 engines than the
B-52.  He named several comparisons.  Each seat had new-then, lcd
screen to watch shows - it was a spectacular ride on that aircraft,
and the price was right - $50RT promo with T-Day afternoon leave and
return on Saturday morning.  Memorable for me and 2 sons.
ma

___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.




___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.

Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??

[Mountain Man via Mercedes]

WILTON wrote:
> Several years ago, Boeing tried to get USAF to replace the eight engines
> with four much newer and more efficient engines that were already airliner
> surplus at the time and producing about 40,000 lbs each.  Air Force refused
> - didn't want a "private company to have control of its engines in case of
> war."

Yeah - that works!! - NOT!!
Take that type of approach and see how that works for...
WWII
'Nam
Iraq
I guess we have the best gov't money can afford.
ma

___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.

Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??

[WILTON via Mercedes]

Yep, the 1960-era TF-33 engines on the B-52H produce only 17,000 lbs thrust 
each, efficient and powerful for 1960, but way behind modern engines. 
Several years ago, Boeing tried to get USAF to replace the eight engines 
with four much newer and more efficient engines that were already airliner 
surplus at the time and producing about 40,000 lbs each.  Air Force 
refused - didn't want a "private company to have control of its engines in 
case of war."


Wilton

- Original Message - 
From: "Mountain Man via Mercedes" 
To: "Addison Thompson" ; "Mercedes Discussion List" 


Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??



AT wrote:
And in comparison to the B-36 and B-52, we now have the B-1B with an 
empty weight of 182,000 lb, maximum gross weight of 477,000 lb...




I remember 18 years ago taking a ride on the new 777.  The pilot was
proud to compare his new 777 with the familiar B-52.  B-52 had 8
engines and the 777 had more engine power with 2 engines than the
B-52.  He named several comparisons.  Each seat had new-then, lcd
screen to watch shows - it was a spectacular ride on that aircraft,
and the price was right - $50RT promo with T-Day afternoon leave and
return on Saturday morning.  Memorable for me and 2 sons.
ma

___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner 
has no control over the content of the messages of each contributor. 



___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.

Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??

[Addison Thompson via Mercedes]

The 777 is an awesome airliner. 



On Sep 28, 2014, at 2:52 PM, Mountain Man  wrote:

AT wrote:
> And in comparison to the B-36 and B-52, we now have the B-1B with an empty 
> weight of 182,000 lb, maximum gross weight of 477,000 lb...
> 

I remember 18 years ago taking a ride on the new 777.  The pilot was
proud to compare his new 777 with the familiar B-52.  B-52 had 8
engines and the 777 had more engine power with 2 engines than the
B-52.  He named several comparisons.  Each seat had new-then, lcd
screen to watch shows - it was a spectacular ride on that aircraft,
and the price was right - $50RT promo with T-Day afternoon leave and
return on Saturday morning.  Memorable for me and 2 sons.
ma


___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.

Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??

[Mountain Man via Mercedes]

AT wrote:
> And in comparison to the B-36 and B-52, we now have the B-1B with an empty 
> weight of 182,000 lb, maximum gross weight of 477,000 lb...
>

I remember 18 years ago taking a ride on the new 777.  The pilot was
proud to compare his new 777 with the familiar B-52.  B-52 had 8
engines and the 777 had more engine power with 2 engines than the
B-52.  He named several comparisons.  Each seat had new-then, lcd
screen to watch shows - it was a spectacular ride on that aircraft,
and the price was right - $50RT promo with T-Day afternoon leave and
return on Saturday morning.  Memorable for me and 2 sons.
ma

___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.

Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??

[Mountain Man via Mercedes]

AT wrote:
> And in comparison to the B-36 and B-52, we now have the B-1B with an empty 
> weight of 182,000 lb, maximum gross weight of 477,000 lb...
>

I remember 18 years ago taking a ride on the new 777.  The pilot was
proud to compare his new 777 with the familiar B-52.  B-52 had 8
engines and the 777 had more engine power with 2 engines than the
B-52.  He named several comparisons.  Each seat had new-then, lcd
screen to watch shows - it was a spectacular ride on that aircraft,
and the price was right - $50RT promo with T-Day afternoon leave and
return on Saturday morning.  Memorable for me and 2 sons.
ma

___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.

Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??

[Addison Thompson via Mercedes]

And in comparison to the B-36 and B-52, we now have the B-1B with an empty 
weight of 182,000 lb, maximum gross weight of 477,000 lb, a weapon load of 
125,000 lb (more than either of the predecessor bombers) and a max speed of 
1.25 Mach.
AT

From: "WILTON" 
Subject: Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??
Date: September 27, 2014 9:21:40 AM PDT

Interesting to note that the basic/empty weight of a B-52 is 188,000lb (max 
gross weight of 488,000lb) and carry nearly the same pay load as the B-36 at 
600 mph.

Wilton

- Original Message - From: "Craig via Mercedes" 
To: "Dan Penoff" ; "Mercedes Discussion List" 

Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??


> On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 20:46:45 -0400 Dan Penoff via Mercedes
>  wrote:
> 
>> Check it out:
>> 
>> http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/wait-the-b-36-peacemaker-flew-with-tank-tracks-for-lan-1638780957
> 
> Yup. Also interesting are the comments:
> 
> A wingspan of 230 feet, six piston engines and later four
> additional turbojet engines, a 278,000lb empty weight, a max bomb
> load of close to 80,000lbs and intercontinental range, the B-36
> was truly a remarkable giant of the skies.
> 
> Very few airfields in the US during the late 1940s were long and
> fortified enough to handle the XB-36's takeoff run and original
> main gear that featured one massive tire and that exerted 156
> pounds per square inch.
> 
> http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--AU4cgkAT--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/hc22dgpzlycvnwls8mpf.jpg
> 
> This, and the fact that it would be useful to forward deploy and
> disperse B-36s during a nuclear exchange, meant that a new
> landing gear system needed to be devised.
___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.

Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??

[Rich Thomas via Mercedes]

Those are 12,000 shaft hp engines on that thing, the largest turbo-props 
ever.  Pootie has been sending them around to rattle Obama's cage a 
bit.  It would be interesting to see a stealth aircraft fly up their 6 
and let off a little shot under the flight deck.  Or maybe that has 
already happened?


--R


On 9/27/14 2:38 PM, Peter Frederick via Mercedes wrote:
The really scary thing is the Tupolev Bear -- similar size to the B-52 
but almost as fast, flies higher, and carries more bomb load twice as 
far.  On big hairy counter-rotating turboprops, something that no one 
in the west ever got to work very well.


Probably vibrates almost as bad as a B-36.

Peter

___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post. The list 
owner has no control over the content of the messages of each 
contributor.





___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.

Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??

[Peter Frederick via Mercedes]

The really scary thing is the Tupolev Bear -- similar size to the B-52  
but almost as fast, flies higher, and carries more bomb load twice as  
far.  On big hairy counter-rotating turboprops, something that no one  
in the west ever got to work very well.


Probably vibrates almost as bad as a B-36.

Peter

___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.

Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??

[Peter Frederick via Mercedes]

It's actually fairly easy to miss the B-36 in the hanger -- it's so  
big you cannot get far enough away from it to actually see it.


IIRC, the wings are something like 20 feet above the ground and a tall  
guy can walk easily under the bomb bay with the doors open, so it's  
lost in the structure.


I don't know when the building was built, but I'd guess by the mid 60's.

Peter

___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.

Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??

[Peter Frederick via Mercedes]

Chance-Vought was fairly conservative with the wing loading, and  
Boeing was not.  Much more lift per square foot, thus less structure.


The B-60 (I think that was the designation for the all-jet B-36  
derivative) was a real dog.  Way too big, wing way too fat, and so  
forth since it was not really a new design.  Chance-Vought was on the  
way to disintegration by then and was unable to do a new design, they  
had lost most of their engineering staff.


A B-52 is MUCH smaller -- the rather bent one hanging in the air in  
the Dayton Museum looks like a toy compared to the B-36.


Peter

___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.

Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??

[Dan Penoff via Mercedes]

I went to the Air Force Museum 3-4 times a year from the early 60s until 1969. 
The majority of the static displays at that time were on a large gravel pad 
next to a big hangar where the indoor displays were.

About the only thing I recall about the indoor displays was the B-29 fuselage 
that you could walk through. This was a must for every visit, as my Dad was a 
flight engineer on a B-29 in a reconnaissance group based out of both Guam and 
Tinian. I would add that Dad started out his Army Air Force career in 
Alamagordo troubleshooting and repairing the automated gun turret systems on 
the same aircraft.  I like to believe that's where my love for all things 
mechanical and electrical came from - especially after looking over that system!

I would love to be able to visit the museum now and spend several days seeing 
all the displays. I have no doubt it is very, very different from when I 
visited in the 1960s

Dan

Sent from my iPad

> On Sep 27, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Peter Frederick via Mercedes 
>  wrote:
> 
> That was an experimental system that was only installed once, I think.  I'd 
> imagine that it was almost impossible to keep the track on the gear at 
> take-off speeds!
> 
> The eventual replacement was the first four-wheel bogey that was then used 
> until they retired the B-36.
> 
> If you have not been to the Air Force Museum at Dayton, Ohio, stop in if you 
> get a chance.  The original hanger was built to house the B-36 that is on 
> display, it was by far the largest aircraft around at the time.  Freaking 
> monster.  Those six R4360 turbo radials (that's 4360 cubic inch  by the way) 
> managed to shove the beast through the air at a stunning 375 mph at maxiumum 
> range full bomb load over target -- they were slower until they burned off 
> enough fuel to get over 15,000 ft.
> 
> The bomb bay can hold an object something like 12 ft in diameter and 80 ft 
> long -- the original H-bomb was projected to be about this large.  I don't 
> think one was ever air dropped though.  At any rate it will hold six medium 
> sized sedans.
> 
> And every single piece of aluminum skin is wrinkled.  Must have vibrated 
> something terrible.
> 
> Also prone to catastrophic engine fires, poor high altitude performance, high 
> fuel consumption, and barely functional gun systems (the same ones that 
> didn't work very well in the B-29 that my father worked on during his time in 
> Kansas making the B-29 reliable enough to send overseas).
> 
> The guns were eventually removed and much of the skin was replaced with 
> thinner magnesium alloy (I think, something lighter and stronger than the 
> aluminum) and the four jets were added to boost the over target speed and 
> range.
> 
> Chance-Vought did produce a single swept wing fully jet powered version as a 
> replacement, but the Boeing design that became the B-52 was lighter, faster, 
> carried more bomb weight, had a longer range, and used much less fuel.  
> Uncharacteristically, the Air Force bought the better plane and the B-36 was 
> retired.
> 
> Peter
> 
> ___
> http://www.okiebenz.com
> 
> To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
> 
> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
> http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
> 
> All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
> individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has 
> no control over the content of the messages of each contributor.

___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.

Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??

[WILTON via Mercedes]

Interesting to note that the basic/empty weight of a B-52 is 188,000lb (max 
gross weight of 488,000lb) and carry nearly the same pay load as the B-36 at 
600 mph.


Wilton

- Original Message - 
From: "Craig via Mercedes" 
To: "Dan Penoff" ; "Mercedes Discussion List" 


Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??



On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 20:46:45 -0400 Dan Penoff via Mercedes
 wrote:


Check it out:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/wait-the-b-36-peacemaker-flew-with-tank-tracks-for-lan-1638780957


Yup. Also interesting are the comments:

A wingspan of 230 feet, six piston engines and later four
additional turbojet engines, a 278,000lb empty weight, a max bomb
load of close to 80,000lbs and intercontinental range, the B-36
was truly a remarkable giant of the skies.

Very few airfields in the US during the late 1940s were long and
fortified enough to handle the XB-36's takeoff run and original
main gear that featured one massive tire and that exerted 156
pounds per square inch.

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--AU4cgkAT--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/hc22dgpzlycvnwls8mpf.jpg

This, and the fact that it would be useful to forward deploy and
disperse B-36s during a nuclear exchange, meant that a new
landing gear system needed to be devised.


Craig

___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner 
has no control over the content of the messages of each contributor. 



___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.

Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??

[Peter Frederick via Mercedes]

That was an experimental system that was only installed once, I  
think.  I'd imagine that it was almost impossible to keep the track on  
the gear at take-off speeds!


The eventual replacement was the first four-wheel bogey that was then  
used until they retired the B-36.


If you have not been to the Air Force Museum at Dayton, Ohio, stop in  
if you get a chance.  The original hanger was built to house the B-36  
that is on display, it was by far the largest aircraft around at the  
time.  Freaking monster.  Those six R4360 turbo radials (that's 4360  
cubic inch  by the way) managed to shove the beast through the air at  
a stunning 375 mph at maxiumum range full bomb load over target --  
they were slower until they burned off enough fuel to get over 15,000  
ft.


The bomb bay can hold an object something like 12 ft in diameter and  
80 ft long -- the original H-bomb was projected to be about this  
large.  I don't think one was ever air dropped though.  At any rate it  
will hold six medium sized sedans.


And every single piece of aluminum skin is wrinkled.  Must have  
vibrated something terrible.


Also prone to catastrophic engine fires, poor high altitude  
performance, high fuel consumption, and barely functional gun systems  
(the same ones that didn't work very well in the B-29 that my father  
worked on during his time in Kansas making the B-29 reliable enough to  
send overseas).


The guns were eventually removed and much of the skin was replaced  
with thinner magnesium alloy (I think, something lighter and stronger  
than the aluminum) and the four jets were added to boost the over  
target speed and range.


Chance-Vought did produce a single swept wing fully jet powered  
version as a replacement, but the Boeing design that became the B-52  
was lighter, faster, carried more bomb weight, had a longer range, and  
used much less fuel.  Uncharacteristically, the Air Force bought the  
better plane and the B-36 was retired.


Peter

___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.

Re: [MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??

[Craig via Mercedes]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 20:46:45 -0400 Dan Penoff via Mercedes
 wrote:

> Check it out:
> 
> http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/wait-the-b-36-peacemaker-flew-with-tank-tracks-for-lan-1638780957

Yup. Also interesting are the comments:

A wingspan of 230 feet, six piston engines and later four
additional turbojet engines, a 278,000lb empty weight, a max bomb
load of close to 80,000lbs and intercontinental range, the B-36
was truly a remarkable giant of the skies.

Very few airfields in the US during the late 1940s were long and
fortified enough to handle the XB-36's takeoff run and original
main gear that featured one massive tire and that exerted 156
pounds per square inch.

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--AU4cgkAT--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/hc22dgpzlycvnwls8mpf.jpg

This, and the fact that it would be useful to forward deploy and
disperse B-36s during a nuclear exchange, meant that a new
landing gear system needed to be devised.


Craig

___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.

[MBZ] B-36 With Tank Treads??

[Dan Penoff via Mercedes]

Check it out:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/wait-the-b-36-peacemaker-flew-with-tank-tracks-for-lan-1638780957

Dan
___
http://www.okiebenz.com

To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

All posts are the result of individual contributors and as such, those 
individuals are responsible for the content of the post.  The list owner has no 
control over the content of the messages of each contributor.