When I was a kid late 60's, early 70's, the local National Guard had C-124's which had 4 R-4360's. The C-124 was big for its day, and the big radials were the last of the breed. Very impressive to me. But it was a piker compared to the B-36. I'd give anything to have seen a B-36 fly. That had to be amazing.

@@kyleboatright7403 Hi Kyle..in 1967, I was in crash fire at Cubi Pt, PI and I got to check out a lot of different aircraft. Every chance I got, I would go aboard, sit in the cockpit and look around. I got to check out a C-124 once, what struck me was the size of the giant dual main landing gear tires, especially standing next to them. When it took off, same great sound, just less of it.

That's awesome! I too was there for the first time last year (2020) on the Sunday after Thanksgiving. took my girlfriend - but mainly I just wanted to see the B-36.

I was fortunate to have seen all 4 remaining B-36's

Pima Air & Space Museum in Tucson has one in their outdoor yard. Hope you get a chance to come visit!

I can hear the info that you presented, being narrated by the guy from, Dark Docs. 😆

@@Conman1181 but with 15 errors and all read as one word

My Father was a engine maintenance member and while at Boring Loring in the winter they did not yet have service bays built for this large aircraft. He specifically recalled how difficult it was pulling spark plugs on the big recips in the bitter cold, and rotating breaks so as to maintain hand mobility.

@@erincarson8998 Thanks for that interesting snippet of information, I wasn't aware of that. But I wasn't just thinking about the B-36 . . .

J'aimerais bien le voire voler , ce devait être un travail enorme que de le mettre en route , les checks list , et vérifications de toutes sortes sans parler des paperasses inherentes à chaques departs et arrivees alors je presume que les vols par eux même c'etait rien en comparaison de la mise en tension . Sûre que mettre un tel engin en mouvement n'etait pas des plus simples et ne pouvait en aucun cas s'apparenter à celle d'un Cessna 172 ? Est ce que les membres d'equipages montaient à bord par le train avant , ou par une porte comme sur un avion type DC4 ou Boeing 707 donc via une passerelle autotractée ?

Agreed. The other thing that helped us to win World War II was the fact that there were many different engineering companies, each with slightly different ideas on how to make an excellent airplane. Combine that with the federal government consciously creating competitions between companies and you ended up with the best airplane for the mission, in most cases. Even without government sponsoring competitions, these engineering companies were all competing against each other, and they knew it. Competition always improves the breed.

I marched by the B-36 at Chanute winter of 1982 on way to class.

Based on what I’ve heard about the engines, he was a busy man!

@@Shadowfax-1980 u8uuuu hi ou touhy th

Gg

@@Shadowfax-1980 y

Actually, the B-36 never needed in flight refueling, because of it's massive internal fuel capacity.

Really the B-47 began to replace the B-36 in front line service not long after the B-47s introduction. SAC and the USAF didn’t decide to try the low altitude approach concept until the 1980s. The B-52 had all sorts of enhanced vision gear to let it do what it was never build for. However this was how Regan brought back the B-1 project. By converting the B-1A into the B-1B. The B-2 was also under development around then

It has flown continuously for 32 hours.

I remember that hole during a visit to the museum in 1990. They said it was caused by a tornado that had hit several years earlier. At the time they didn't have the money to repair it. At least it looked better than the pictures I saw of the B36's at Carswell AFB in Texas after a tornado back in 1952. That disaster damaged 83 B-36's (two thirds of the fleet at time). Only one B-36 was declared a total loss, all the others were repaired within a year. I'm glad they finally overhauled the plane at Offutt AFB and moved it inside. The weather in that part of the country is just brutal on aircraft, especially a static display. I enjoyed the museum, including the Goblin Fighter they had just below the B-36 and the British Vulcan Bomber near it. I'm hoping to see another restored B-36 at the Pima Air Museum in Tucson, Arizona (next to the Bone Yard at Davis-Monthan AFB) sometime later this year and visit the Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio next year.

@@marks1638 That one B36 that was a total loss was rebuilt to carry a nuclear reactor inside. It was designated NB-36.

@@tomtom8306 Maybe they should have left it that way. Flying around with a running nuclear reactor over the US doesn't sound like the brightest idea. But in those days they didn't think radiation was that big of a deal.

IDK, the painting job makes it looks too clean, I'd leave also the bullet impacts and deterioration, that kind of give the machine some kind of "historical" aspect to it.

@@SilverSpoon_ The B36 was never used in actual combat.

I was born at Carswell AFB while my dad was stationed there as a Flight Engineer on B-36s.

I went to the SAC museum at Offutt in about 1992 or so and this beast was sitting outside next to an SR-71. I remember being amazed at the width of the tail section/elevators - empennage in general. I do recall that it was in need of some attention, glad they've got it inside now to help preserve it. Thanks for posting this video.

Thanks for the advice, would love to visit this museum 👍👍👍

28 cylinders

His combat missions were in B-24s.

I thought, WOW it even had future technology !

According to Wikipedia, the flight engineer could crawl through a passageway in flight to access the engines, but only when unpressurized, presumably at lower altitudes

See crew member interview of Sgt. Preisler at Pima. The plane could go to 63,000 feet and was entirely immune to Mig 15s. It mapped all of Russia. The engines caught fire a lot due to oil leaks. The rear stabilizer was not power activated. The props were heated by exhaust.

The 4 wheel boogie was an innovation that was less out of engineering then needed. Yes the original prototype had a massive single wheel it also lacked the 4 jets. Both the jets and the improved boogie were standard on production model B-36s

They have one of these gears at SAC. Tire about 9 feet tall.

More like a walk around

Sigh,,,,yeah.... 😕

Was thinking the same thing....

Well there’s not much to walk thru. She has very cramped spaces.

@@spectrumstudios4848 Well, a walkthrough USUALLY goes THROUGH them anyway. That's the essential part of a walk through, you know WALKING THROUGH? If you don't walkthrough, then it isn't REALLY a walkthrough in any shape, form, or fashion. So.....

The one at the Air Force Museum is wearing a silver finish paint scheme, with white undersides, to protect the aircraft from the blast of its weapon.

Gatekeeper spelling N*zi

@@JustaPilot1 PC police, must make you proud!

AND YET...the offspring of those developmental program craft are, in some cases, STILL in front line service today. The B52, the F4 Phantom... So while they rolled thru a lot of evolutionary designs fast, the results often more than paid for it in longevity.

There is an old saying: It take Billions to prevail in a fight and ALL of it to lose one.... Enjoy your freedom to express your opinion today.....

@MEs61 Turkey and Iran may or may not have a few in service.

Technology was in such a state of flux back in the late 40's and through the 50's. If you designed something, six months later, we'd learned something new and your design was no longer cutting edge. Jet engines, better jet engines, new alloys, swept wings, afterburners, the area rule, and a bunch of other technologies came to fruition during those years. A strategic bomber staying relevant for 12 years was pretty amazing, IMO given that fighters went through at least 3 generations during that same span of time.

It's always been six turning and four burning.

I’ve heard “Two turning, two burning, two choking, two smoking, and two unaccounted for.” 😄.

It was neglected and vandalized. Eventually moved to a secure location and selected for restoration. Model is XC-99.

@@desireegrisham3892 It is at the restoration facility at the USAF Museum in Dayton, Ohio. I can't see the museum ever committing the resources to restore such a large aircraft, since there was only one of them... ever. It would be nice, though.

Castle Air Museum Atwater CA and the Air Force Museum in Dayton have the others.

Number 4 is The united States Air Force Museum, Dayton Ohio

Not to sound like an idiot but its Walter soplata. He lived just south of me in the south Russell/Chesterland ohio area. He was an interesting guy to say the least. I moved to Tennessee about 6 years ago and stopped paying much attention but I heard most if not all of his collection is gone. Like i said not trying to be rude or anything but it might make it easier for someone trying to look him up.

You'll never see one of these beasts as a fly able warbler, because of its size means that only a handful of fields that it could operate from, and there's the matter of cost to restore, operate it, maintain it, and where to base it, when it's not flying. That's why there'll never be any flyable examples, ever.

@@johnosbourn4312 That’s what they said about the Union Pacific Big Boy…they would never get one going…

@David Vance No idea.

Had never heard that, thought they were pressure carburetors.

They never had fuel injection it was all carborat

They never had a fuel injection it had carbs it's whole life span,the square tips were just experiment, the fourth one was at CHANUTE AFB BEFORE MOVING HER TO CASTLE AFB BY TRAIN AND TRUCK. I WAS CHANUTE 1982,84,86 WHEN SHE SAT OPPOSITE OF A C MODEL 52 IF I REMEMBER RIGHT

@@thomascreary990 Yes, they did, and that one does. It’s just as I said and if you think about you’ll see it has to be. Why did the carburetor freeze up and plug fowling problems go away? The square tip props were pretty common too, they were hollow and exhaust gas flowed through them and exited near the tips to keep them from icing.

Yeah, I noticed that too, It looks like they were finally able to get it out of the elements, The corrosion must be hellacious beneath all the skin surface. And a big shout out to all the volunteers working hard to preserve it- That is one BIG airplane... I went through the Castle one on Open Cockpit day and the dimensions are something else considering it was 20 years before the 747...

The last on flew in 1959, no one flew ever since it was taken out of service. Maybe it would be technically possible to restore one to flightworthy condition, but it would be extremely much costs and effort, and the materials of the pressurized compartments (an aluminum magnesium alloy) are sensitive to corrosion compared to normal aluminum. Also the engines had problems since the beginning of the project. It's expensive enough to keep a ,,normal'' WW2 aircraft running, but it would be way more expensive here, also because it was state of the art back then and built at the limit.

There are other vids. Its packed with tube equipment, radar, ecm, auto pilot, chaff dispensers. Tail gun is radar directed. Top and bottom turrets were remote control.

That's because it lose half of tone in dead weight due to lube oil leaking out.

@@mshotz1 it was fuel leaks but not on the latest revisions

Pullers wouldn't have worked with that wing design.

@@tylerbonser7686 - You'll have to elaborate on that because I don't see it.

@@scootergeorge9576 the shape of the wing. The engines would have to be very far forward so the propellers wouldn't hit the wing and would completely change the balance of the plane.

@@tylerbonser7686 - Could have used a straight leading edge and the fuselage is typically made in segments. The fuselage length, either forward or aft of the center of gravity could have been changed quite easily.

@@scootergeorge9576 wow it's pointless to have a conversation with someone who has so little understanding on a subject

A 36 would go over 400 mph. The Tu 95 will do 525 mph.

B-36 average cruise speed was 230 mph. Level high speed was 430+ mph.

Yes.

@@rogersmith7396 That's fascinating and reassuring to me. Very cool too. Thank you.

@@TralfazConstruction Not much of one. I think they had coffee and probably cold sandwiches. Too early for microwave. See Wright Pattersons complete tour of the inside. A crew member said anything on the floor froze due to 50 below air temp and anything up high cooked due to heat exchangers in the ceiling.

@@rogersmith7396 Thank you for the very interesting details. I'll need to watch Strategic Air Command (1955) again soon. When I was in grade school the movie was broadcast in prime time at least twice. Next day in school we youngsters discussed the crash and rescue scene mostly.

@@TralfazConstruction All I remember was he was only in the 36 long enough to crash it in the snow. Then he was off to 47s or 52s.

Me too. I did get to see the inside of this aircraft at a "crawl through the planes day" (probably Memorial Day) at the old SAC Museum about 1988.