convair B-36

Cvairwerks · **Posted:** Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:12 am

They required a runway to be 1.89 miles minimum for any opeation. Doesn't mean that it took that distance to get off or land, just that the runway had to be that lonf.

Clifford Bossie · **Posted:** Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:26 pm

So much would depend on density altitude and gross take off weight. The runways at (formerly) Biggs AFB are over 13,000 feet long (3,900 ASL). I have been told by old-timers that on a "hot" day, even with jets a B-36D would need "every inch". The Featherweight III B-36Js should have used a little less.

Kyleb · **Posted:** Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:21 pm

At light weights, they were almost a STOL aircraft, according to reports I've seen. ~1500' takeoff roll.

At heavier weights, longer takeoff rolls were necessary. As to the featherweights requiring shorter runways, that was only if they were light on fuel and without a bombload. Loaded for a long range mission, they were the heaviest of the breed.

The Inspector · **Posted:** Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:31 pm

Grant Co. Airport in Moses Lake, WA. (formerly Larson AFB) has 15000 ft of now, pretty tired asphalt and it's only 1060 ft above sea level but it does get a mite warmish in the Summer operated B-36's and, for a short while a FICON detachment.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Sat Jun 09, 2012 10:06 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGjyH2ulsCk

b29flteng · **Posted:** Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:34 pm

Any airplane at heavy weight will use a lot of runway. If you watch the takeoff, in the movie Strategic Air Command, of the B-36, it only uses about 3,500 feet.

JohnB · **Posted:** Sun Jun 10, 2012 12:04 am

The Inspector wrote:

Grant Co. Airport in Moses Lake, WA. (formerly Larson AFB) has 15000 ft of now, pretty tired asphalt and it's only 1060 ft above sea level but it does get a mite warmish in the Summer operated B-36's and, for a short while a FICON detachment.

The B-36s were from the 99 SRW at Fairchild AFB in Spokane.
They visited Larson, but were not assigned there.

The FICON RF-84Ks were based there..91st SRS, part of the 71 SRW based at Great Falls, MT.
It would be interesting to know why they were based at Larson and not Fairchild, or kept at Great Falls.

I was born at Larson. We have color home movies from circa 1957 showing a B-36, FICON and the turboprop B-47D. Great stuff.

If anyone has a B-36 Dash-1 it would be interesting to chart and compare TO distances at a light vs heavy TO weight on a standard day.
But like the others have said it depends always on weight and temp.

The Inspector · **Posted:** Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:26 pm

With the FICON in place, the 36 couldn't retract the mains so I'd guess, takeoff, pickup your fighter, and press on North or West since there were very few good targets in North Dakota except Minot :lol:

and the mosquitos in Minniesnowplace were worse than the VVS.
Ah yes, the B-47D which would make dogs miles way feel queezy and want to retch whenever they ran it up. :rolleyes:

Clifford Bossie · **Posted:** Sun Jun 10, 2012 6:04 pm

The Dash 1 that I have is for the B-36H-III and the takeoff data is about ten pages.

Here is some generic data from the Standard Aircraft Characteristics for the B-36H:

And three pages from the -1:

b29flteng · **Posted:** Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:32 pm

Well that settles it! The B-36 did have a fat wing.

The Inspector · **Posted:** Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:04 am

Next question, was it a huge Clark 'Y' airfoil or an scaled up Davis airfoil?

Kyleb · **Posted:** Mon Jun 11, 2012 7:13 am

The Inspector wrote:

Next question, was it a huge Clark 'Y' airfoil or an scaled up Davis airfoil?

The wing on the -36 was a high aspect ratio wing with a thick airfoil which had some laminar properties. That's what made it a "Davis" wing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_wing

Ztex · **Posted:** Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:41 am

Wait...so they climbed better ( +15FPM) with one engine out???

JohnB · **Posted:** Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:32 am

Unless I'm reading the charts wrong (a possibility, I don't have any 10-engine time

) I'm rather surprised to see the runway lengths.
Less than most would have thought.

Clifford Bossie · **Posted:** Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:45 am

JohnB wrote:

Unless I'm reading the charts wrong (a possibility, I don't have any 10-engine time

) I'm rather surprised to see the runway lengths.
Less than most would have thought.

Indeed. Not too bad at all. I was surprised at how good the takeoff was with a heavy fuel load and two Mark 17 nukes aboard.

Warbird Information Exchange

convair B-36

Who is online