The idea of getting a B-36 to fly

[Nathan]

Yeah I know, but I really want to ask a serious question and see what everyones veiws are on this. If there was an effort going on to try and get a B-36 flying for at lest a few years on the airshow circut would you be willing to support that effort?

Yeah I know, but I really want to ask a serious question and see what everyones veiws are on this. If there was an effort going on to try and get a B-36 flying for at lest a few years on the airshow circut would you be willing to support that effort?

I did support the effort in the early 70s to try to return the B-36 in Texas (now at Pima in Arizona) to the air ("The Peacemaker Foundation" got 3 of the six piston engines running before the Air Force killed the effort).

I think it is a fantasy project unfortunately, but there is not an aircraft I would rather see restored to flying condition than this one. In the extremely unlikely event that this did happen, I think it would have to be for a one time flight or perhaps just a very limited number of air shows in one year - I think "flying for a few year years on the air show circuit," is pushing the fantasy a little too far....

[Tillerman]

Although I live far away from the US, I would support this idea. But, at the same time, I realize that the cost of this idea becoming reality would be beyond anyone's imagination. Look at the problems they have in the UK to keep the Vulcan in the air..

Tillerman.

[Clifford Bossie]

Yeah I know, but I really want to ask a serious question and see what everyones veiws are on this. If there was an effort going on to try and get a B-36 flying for at lest a few years on the airshow circut would you be willing to support that effort?

I am sorry, but I would see that as a major drain of money and manpower. Plus liability. If one was to have it at an airshow the support needed would pretty well assure that it would be the only warbird in attendance. Still, it would be something to see. Just wish I lived in the alternate universe where it could happen.

[PinecastleAAF]

I think it would be great to have a B-36 flying for airshows but only if Snort is doing the flying. People could lounge in the shade during the low passes. Personally I would not contribute to it since I have to buy food and that is getting harder and harder to afford. If it could drop some sandwich bombs however I might change my mind. B-36 flying is a pipe dream but fun to think about. I'm glad I like my copy of Strategic Air Command so much.

[Mark_Pilkington]

.

I'm sorry but I dont think this is a worthwhile idea.

While I would be pleased to see one in the air, it would be impressive, I dont need that outcome that much and wouldnt personally support a project fundraising etc.

I dont think it would be successful both financially and technically - (I assume with only a handfull left parts and expertise must be scarce, and it would need "serious" money), and if even if it could be done it would consume funds better spent on more lasting outcomes (the same reason I havent contributed to the Vulcan project despite being happy to see a Vulcan fly)

The benefits just dont cover the costs, there will always be a "generation" who havent seen a Vulcan (or B36), the current Vulcan project has a notional life of 10 years, and then future generations and children born in 10 years time etc still wont get to see one fly, the same situation that occurred after the last display operation of it by the RAF in the 90's, and so to spend the $10M USD to get it flying, be close to failing in its second year, and requiring $2.5M USD each year to keep in the air doesnt seem to be worthwhile in my opinion. (far better spent putting a roof over the it, and others on the ground.

Obviously if people have the time and money they are welcome to try, but like the Vulcan, it would likely consume vast somes of money to get one airworthy, even to get a single fly-by.

Some aircraft are only viable for military use, and only when new and currently supported by expertise, spares and crews, and probably still have obscene operating costs if they had to be justified, and become unviable at some stage even for the military to operate (ie as is now happening to the Australian F111 fleet).

I think the B-36 sits in that category, and personally think the Vulcan probably does too - thats why we have film and video.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Last edited by Mark_Pilkington on Wed Mar 18, 2009 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm glad I like my copy of Strategic Air Command so much.

I am glad you mentioned the "Strategic Air Command" movie. I think the scene where Jimmy Stewart watches the B-36 fly over the baseball field sums up why I would support the effort. To see, hear and feel that behemoth would be unbelievable....

It's nice to dream. I have contributed to putting a C-97 back in the air and getting a Martin Mars to fly back to Baltimore (failed effort for now - but maybe when they finally are ready to retire the firebombers) - I like big piston-engined aircraft. But the B-36 would be the ultimate.

[Randy Haskin]

Anything is possible with enough $.

Just look at how well it's gone for the Vulcan group here in the UK!

[jet1]

...it would cost less and be seen by lots more people.

[Michel Lemieux]

What is the maintenance down time for every hour of flight on a B-36 ?

[PinecastleAAF]

What is the maintenance down time for every hour of flight on a B-36 ?

By the time the pre-flight was done the airshow would be over.

[Zachary]

I'd rather see FIFI back in the air myself, but if a B-36 were to be restored to flying condition, I'd be one of the first in line to see it fly!

Zack

[Michel Lemieux]

By the time the pre-flight was done the airshow would be over.

My point exactly

Just the sheer number of various systems in this bird is mind boggling

[bdk]

While I would support such an effort, I would like to see the plan before commiting any money.

[Mudge]

Anything is possible with enough $.

Randy...problem is...there ain't THAT much money in the world.

Mudge the financier