Seems like "Enola Gay" was caught in a revisionist storm... AGAIN!!

In article ,
Cub Driver writes:

There's no descendant of the P-59A. But every airliner that flies,
with its engines hung in pods beneath the wings, owes something to the
Me-262.

Not true. Just like every airliner that flies with the engines embedded
inside the wings or fuselage does not owe something to the Yak 15 or P-80.

There was a Boeing engineer with Operation Paperclip. He cabled back
to hold the development on the XB-47, which was then in design. He
came back with engineering studies that showed the advantages of swept
wings and pod-mounted engines. These were duly incorporated in the
B-47, which was the granddaddy of all Boeing airliners, and by
extension all Airbusses as well.

To be sure, the pods on the 262 were a work-around. It was only when
wings were swept that the Germans discovered that the pods served
brilliantly as air dams.

Dan, the pods on the B-47, as best as I've been able to find, didn't
spring from any German concepts. Boeing was certainly influenced by
the Swept Wing data that it saw, and which was also corroborated by
the data they were receiving from the N.A.C.A. and R.T. Jones, (BTW,
the Boeing engineer that was tagging along with the Paperclip teams
sent his information to everybody, not just Boeing.)
When Boeing decided to enter the Medium Jet Bomber competition, they
decided to leap the pack (North American, with the XB-45, the interim
winner, Convair with the XB-46, and Martin with teh XB-48, all
straight wings with integral wing-mounted engine pods, and although
not al that different in basic concept than the Arado 234, really
Piston-Engine shapes with jets scabbed on) adn go with a thin, swept
wing. The integral pods as used in te Me 262 and Ar 234 weren't
acceptable from a structural (danged heavy), safety, (A thrown turbine
bucket, which happened pretty often back then, would cut through an
adjacent structure like a red-hot bullet. If the adjacent structure
is Wing Spars and Fuel Tanks, it's very bad) aerodynamic, (The
integral pods added a really hefty chunk of Interference Drag, and,
although they hadn't doped it out yet, raised all sorts of problems
with cross-sectional Area Distribution and Transonic Drag.) and
maintenance problems. (Can't reach to top of the engine, and on a big
airplane, it's way high off the ground)
As I recall, initially they wanted to use one or 2 large engines
buried in the fuselage, but the large engines weren't happening
quickly, and they needed the internal volume for fuel and bombs.
They then went with a sort of Flying Fishlike configuration, with 4 or
more smaller engines in the upper fuselage over the wing center
section, fed by a large nose inlet. That wasn't working either, and
the thin wing was showing signs of being very marginal in torsional
resistance, and therefore flutter-prone. Somebody in Boeing's
Aerodynamics section suggested using the engines as anti-flutter
weights, and Boeing used their new high speed wind tunnel to come up
with an engine pod design that was well separated vertically from the
wings, reducing interference drag, and well forward, keeping the engines
clear of any vital structure. The improved flutter resistance
allowed the flexible wings to work, and hhe pylons gave teh added
bonus of being nifty wing fences to help resist the pitch-up tendency
that swept wings have. When it was discovered that they'd need a bit
more power, they initially scapped an engine to each wingtip. They
then discovered that they'd want a bit more wing area, so they
extended the tips out past the outboard engines, and that became the
B-47.

While there was soem German influence in the B-47, the pod
configuration was Boeing's idea.

It's really well described in "The Road to the 707", (William H. Cook,
TYC publishing, 1991) Cook was one of Boeing's Aerodynamicists, and
spearheaded their High Speed Tunnel effort. I think the Dimond
Library has a copy.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Gerdeus" wrote in message
om...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Gerdeus" wrote in message
om...
There's no descendant of the P-59A. But every airliner that flies,
with its engines hung in pods beneath the wings, owes something to
the
Me-262.

Not true. Just like every airliner that flies with the engines
embedded
inside the wings or fuselage does not owe something to the Yak 15 or
P-80.

Name one.

Boeing 727.

Nope. It had three engines in pods at the tail. One was served by an air
intake at the front of the fin. See
http://www.cactuswings.com/psa/hangar/727.shtml

Rather like the DC 10, the L1011 or the Trident.

John

John Keeney wrote:

Ed, THE Air Force Museum is truly a sight to behold.
I haven't been for a couple of years (maybe next week), but in the then
latest building you went in and looked off in the distance to the right
to see the Globe Master and B-18. Off in the distance to the left, the
F-117,
a 'Nam vet' B-52 up on a display stand and a Dagger. Above you hung
many a quaint and curious relics of the "X-" age and Observation types.
But from that vantage point in that brightly lit, open room you couldn't
see the XB-70, the Blackbird, X-15, B-57, B-58, MH-47 or the not
insignificant displays of 90 and Century series fighters.

The other rooms in the complex still housed huge displays and yet
another building of like size has been opened since to take some of the
overflow.

Definitely a great display of aircraft and history. Obviously US-centric
as a US Air Force Museum should be.

Perhaps back in the early 90's I saw one of the most touching displays
of the human cost of war I've ever seen. It was an item on loan from the
government of New Guinea IIRC.

A simple door panel from a C-47 (???) with a diary written on it. The
plane had gone down in the SWPA during WWII with 10 or so survivors.

Each day, for a time, recorded the hope of being spotted by rescue aircraft.
Every few days, a death of a survivor was noted. And on it went for some
time until eventually, the "diary" grew silent.

Don't know if it's still there or not, but made a very strong impression
on me.


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote:

John Keeney wrote:

Ed, THE Air Force Museum is truly a sight to behold.
I haven't been for a couple of years (maybe next week), but in the then
latest building you went in and looked off in the distance to the right
to see the Globe Master and B-18. Off in the distance to the left, the
F-117,
a 'Nam vet' B-52 up on a display stand and a Dagger. Above you hung
many a quaint and curious relics of the "X-" age and Observation types.
But from that vantage point in that brightly lit, open room you couldn't
see the XB-70, the Blackbird, X-15, B-57, B-58, MH-47 or the not
insignificant displays of 90 and Century series fighters.

The other rooms in the complex still housed huge displays and yet
another building of like size has been opened since to take some of the
overflow.

Definitely a great display of aircraft and history. Obviously US-centric
as a US Air Force Museum should be.

Perhaps back in the early 90's I saw one of the most touching displays
of the human cost of war I've ever seen. It was an item on loan from the
government of New Guinea IIRC.

A simple door panel from a C-47 (???) with a diary written on it. The
plane had gone down in the SWPA during WWII with 10 or so survivors.

Each day, for a time, recorded the hope of being spotted by rescue aircraft.
Every few days, a death of a survivor was noted. And on it went for some
time until eventually, the "diary" grew silent.

Don't know if it's still there or not, but made a very strong impression
on me.


SMH

God, that must have been wrenching...It really get's to me to
come across something like that in a museum when I'm with family
or friends (and not 'steeled' for it). It seems that the older I
get the less handle that I have on my emotions and that sight
certainly would have done me in...

Thank you for passing it along.
--

-Gord.

"John Mullen" wrote:

"Gerdeus" wrote in message
. com...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Gerdeus" wrote in message
om...
There's no descendant of the P-59A. But every airliner that flies,
with its engines hung in pods beneath the wings, owes something to
the
Me-262.

Not true. Just like every airliner that flies with the engines
embedded
inside the wings or fuselage does not owe something to the Yak 15 or
P-80.

Name one.

Boeing 727.

Nope. It had three engines in pods at the tail. One was served by an air
intake at the front of the fin. See
http://www.cactuswings.com/psa/hangar/727.shtml

Rather like the DC 10, the L1011 or the Trident.

John


Comet/Nimrod.
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" wrote:

"Gerdeus" wrote in message
. com...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Gerdeus" wrote in message
om...
There's no descendant of the P-59A. But every airliner that
flies,
with its engines hung in pods beneath the wings, owes something
to
the
Me-262.

Not true. Just like every airliner that flies with the engines
embedded
inside the wings or fuselage does not owe something to the Yak 15
or
P-80.

Name one.

Boeing 727.

Nope. It had three engines in pods at the tail. One was served by an air
intake at the front of the fin. See
http://www.cactuswings.com/psa/hangar/727.shtml

Rather like the DC 10, the L1011 or the Trident.

John


Comet/Nimrod.

Yep, I think you'd have to go back that far. Podded engines are safer and
easier to replace/service

John.