Peacemaker question

[jandmbear]

I doubt very seriously (never say never, however) that we will see another B-36 payware offering. I have the Alphasim model that I purchased years ago, and I converted it to FSX successfully. The models only shortcoming is and has always been its VC cockpit. The exterior model is actually quite good. I was always confused why Alphasim went to the trouble of making a great exterior and didn't spend much time on the interior. They had other models that they had created at the same time that had far superior VC's. Getting around to my question: Do any of you know if Virtavia has upgraded the VC of this plane, or plan to in the future? My Grandfather was an Aircraft Commander on the B-36, and I love to fly this plane in the sim. Kind of a personal connection sort of thing. I just wished the inside matched the outside. Anyway, thanks in advance for any suggestions!

[ColoKent]

Couple of things.....

I also love the B-36....only second to the B-47 (from a strategic bomber standpoint). I think there are four factors involved that preclude more B-36 examples in FS and explain Virtavia's VC quandary:

1. Long mission times make a focus in FS less likely...for example: 20+ Hours for the B-36
2. Mixed prop/jet mix has always been more challenging to simulate in FSX and P3D
3. At the time of the Virtavia B-36 release, VCs had not advanced to the the degree they have today
4. Virtavia has never been known for highly functional VCs

...just my .02 cents

Kent

[icycle]

Would tend to agree.

The combination of the labor involved on the visual for the up-to-date VC, along with the work on the challenging flight dynamics, make economic viability of a B-36 project "daunting", to say the least. Remember that this plane, aside from being huge, and despite being rather slow at low altitudes, could cruise relatively comfortably (and was quite agile for its size, actually) well north of 40K feet. In FSX/P3D - et. al., that is a tough nut to crack, especially given the piston/turbine combo of propulsion.

As you say. Never say never. I would certainly be in line to buy one if one was offered in FSX. But that goes into the "wishes" column, right below an early mode B-52 of course!

Bill

[Ian Warren]

jandmbear Your Grandfather would love my place , a mate who stopped here regular say to me, how could one print so much about the B-36 , It would be interesting to see if your Grandfather is mentioned or maybe even a pic of him , it would be great to get a cockpit rebuild .. would be a challenge .. never know .. get an Idea going ?

[jandmbear]

Ian, I have the book on the right "The story of Cowtown and the Convair B-36. Great read!

[Bone]

The real problem with the VC is that the majority of the paint is based on a swatch template. One very small and low Rez green swatch file is used to cover the VC. It's bland and has no texture. If someone could figure out the mapping and put some decent paint in it, I think that would make a huge difference.

[tommieboy]

Was the B-36B the last pure piston powered bomber or aircraft for that matter designed and or delivered to the U.S. Military? I could never figure this out.

Tommy

[jeansy]

The real problem with the VC is that the majority of the paint is based on a swatch template. One very small and low Rez green swatch file is used to cover the VC. It's bland and has no texture. If someone could figure out the mapping and put some decent paint in it, I think that would make a huge difference.

I thought they re released this a few years back with a new VC or upgraded VC with more detail or is the new VC just as simple and outdated as the pre existing one?

[Ian Warren]

Ian, I have the book on the right "The story of Cowtown and the Convair B-36. Great read!

That one indeed is brilliant, I love the quality off the print , the other to the left is a whooping great 400 pages in the same print quality , with you mentioning the B-36 I lost myself for a good four hours, simply books like these are simply ... super highly recommended , one can spend hour and hours easy.

[glh]

Was the B-36B the last pure piston powered bomber or aircraft for that matter designed and or delivered to the U.S. Military? I could never figure this out.

Tommy

From the chronology at Wikipedia, I would say you are correct:

B-36B: Armed production variant with six 3,500 hp (2,600 kW) R-4360-41 engines, 73 built, later conversions to RB-36D and B-36D.

RB-36B: Designation for 39 B-36Bs temporarily fitted with a camera installation.

YB-36C: Projected variant of the B-36B with six 4,300 hp (3,200 kW) R-4360-51 engines driving tractor propellers, not built.

B-36C: Production version of the YB-36, completed as B-36Bs.

B-36D: Same as B-36B, but fitted with four J47-GE-19 engines, two each in two underwing pods, 22 built and 64 conversions from B-36B.

RB-36D: Strategic reconnaissance variant with two bomb bays fitted with camera installation, 17 built and seven conversions from B-36B.

It appears that all but 2 "B" models were eventually converted to bomber/recon "D" configuration versions by adding the jets. There is no mention of the piston/jet combo for OPERATIONAL use until the "D" model came along: all other bombers (B-45, 47, 52, etc.) after that were OPERATIONAL jets. I cannot prove it from the Wiki article but if you read the history of what happened to the fleet, I strongly suspect those 2 were written off from weather damage or operational accident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker#Variants
<dl><dt>



</dt></dl>

[Ian Warren]

Was the B-36B the last pure piston powered bomber or aircraft for that matter designed and or delivered to the U.S. Military? I could never figure this out.

It was the last pure piston powered aircraft tho it did not stay around long enough, the C variant was a reversed design looking at other ideas, then D being the final with first the J-35 then to the J-47s jet pods, not sure how many air-frames may have been modified to later versions or the numbers, I'd have to into a real serious read to find out how many B class type aircraft were used or modified.

[tommieboy]

Thanks for the replies guys....

That is why I like the B model; pure piston power. I always thought that the B model with contra-rotating propellers would have been the cat's meow. I assume that was considered in the design and didn't make the final cut for one reason or another. More than likely complexity / reliability concerns. Still, one can help to wonder what could have been.

Tommy

[ColoKent]

I must confess to being a B-36 nut as well - with a similar attachment to the B model... The things I always wished were different on the Alpha/Virtavia model were:

1. A revamped VC
2. Wish the airplane felt "big" while flying it (vs. Cessna 150-like)

Kent

[Milton Shupe]

I have found but one picture of the cockpit. Building a VC like this with hundreds of parts to be modeled, mapped and textured especially for FSX quality would certainly require 6-12 months of dedicated modeling if you had access to an aircraft and detailed pictures, drawings, and dimensional specs.

Can you please post a screenshot of what you have in this model?


Accident Report:
Synopsis of Air Force Accident Report (added August 13, 2003)

This is one of the worst confluence of aircraft problems I have ever read resulting in loss of plane, some of the aircrew, and injuries to the survivors.

http://www.air-and-space.com/b-36%20wrecks.htm#44-92035

[mal998]

Here are some thoughts on the Alpha's B-36: the original model was built in 2000, a mere 16 years ago. The upgrade was done in 2009, so these planes were pretty old. Phil's original philosophy was to build lots of planes in a very short amount of time and keep them inexpensive. It's true that many of the original models were really well done but the VC's were lacking (to say the least).

That's back in the day when Michael Davies and Carl and Jay McDaniel were part of the AS team. Michael's F-84F/RF-84F set and his terrific Vigilante were among my favorites. The models were pretty good but the VC's were pretty terrible, some almost cartoon-like.

Today, the problem with upgrading older models and VC's today is two fold; time and money. The build time for a new VC is really long. Take for example Virtavia's A-4. It has a nice modern VC but it took nearly a year to get it completed. And then there's the cost involved. If it's an old model but it takes a year to build the new VC what can you charge that would make it profitable? We've actually talked about updating some of the older titles and the B-36 might be one one of them. But at this point who can say for sure.

[DaveB]

This is one of the worst confluence of aircraft problems I have ever read resulting in loss of plane, some of the aircrew, and injuries to the survivors.

You and me both Milton!!
ATB
DaveB

[Ian Warren]

I must confess to being a B-36 nut as well - with a similar attachment to the B model... The things I always wished were different on the Alpha/Virtavia model were:

Kent , my brother stopped here a long whiles back just after the updated Alpha/Virtavia .. his words straight off "WOW a B-36" and he's not even a aircraft PC Plane nutter

[Ian Warren]

Thanks for the replies guys....

That is why I like the B model; pure piston power. I always thought that the B model with contra-rotating propellers would have been the cat's meow. I assume that was considered in the design and didn't make the final cut for one reason or another. More than likely complexity / reliability concerns. Still, one can help to wonder what could have been.

I'm pleased the question was asked .. it was an enjoyable morning /afternoon looking reading and checking

[Ian Warren]

Here are some thoughts on the Alpha's B-36: the original model was built in 2000, a mere 16 years ago. The upgrade was done in 2009, so these planes were pretty old. Phil's original philosophy was to build lots of planes in a very short amount of time and keep them inexpensive. It's true that many of the original models were really well done but the VC's were lacking (to say the least).

That's back in the day when Michael Davies and Carl and Jay McDaniel were part of the AS team. Michael's F-84F/RF-84F set and his terrific Vigilante were among my favorites. The models were pretty good but the VC's were pretty terrible, some almost cartoon-like.

Today, the problem with upgrading older models and VC's today is two fold; time and money. The build time for a new VC is really long. Take for example Virtavia's A-4. It has a nice modern VC but it took nearly a year to get it completed. And then there's the cost involved. If it's an old model but it takes a year to build the new VC what can you charge that would make it profitable? We've actually talked about updating some of the older titles and the B-36 might be one one of them. But at this point who can say for sure.

A good example of time and effort required is watching Jan Vissers and Mikes work on the mild mannered Manfred Jahn's DC-3 rebuild , today's techniques and course the access to aircraft is the primary deal as well , to get the photo information.

[Ian Warren]

I have found but one picture of the cockpit. Building a VC like this with hundreds of parts to be modeled, mapped and textured especially for FSX quality would certainly require 6-12 months of dedicated modeling if you had access to an aircraft and detailed pictures, drawings, and dimensional specs.

Think that is the key .. access to photo , Milton, I wonder how many telephone calls they would get today complaining about the noise if these were flying over non plane nutters city , a formation of ten maybe line astern just every couple off minutes ... music to my ears ... Buuuuut !

[wombat666]

Be a great subject for us FS 'nerds' but for the general market I doubt it would be a 'Commercial' success, the proliferation of contemporary 'Tubes' and GA subjects would (probably) prevail.
And as Milton mentioned, a good VC would be the killer, 6-12 months work would need to be recovered and would be cost intensive.
The ledger always needs to be in the black.
Shame really.