Muroc Army Airbase, 1947...

[Piglet]

XB-35 FIGS.... Now comes the fun part, Multi-Position VC:icon_lol:49323493244932549326

[huub vink]

The XB35 looks impressive Tim. And I most probably will like it as it has propellers.... and lots of them! ;) And of course because your models are always fun to fly!


Huub

[rayhere48]

Is the aircraft available now? Sorry if I missed it.

[DagR]

Wow ! Really impressive :-D

[Sundog]

That looks awesome. I can't wait to see it painted up in active squadron bomber colors by the re-painters. I already have room in the hanger for this one.:salute:

[lazarus]

:jump:You`ve more blades there than Gillette! Very nice, Tim. Been looking forward to this one!

[Warrant]

Impressive bird. Great work there, Tim :medals::applause::salute:

[paiken]

I think I just peed myself. Can't wait for this one, Tim.

[TeaSea]

Since my plane is in annual, and I just spent the weekend tearing it apart, all I can think of is the maintenance nightmare of keeping the prop certifications up to date!

Why, the paperwork alone........


But, I'm looking forward to keeping up my virtual maintenance....bring it on Mr. Piglet, bring it on!

[Ferry_vO]

:applause: :jump: :applause:

[CWOJackson]

Another work of art.

[Roger]

Lovely stuff Tim...and it's a bit shiny too:ernae:

[warchild]

Now This is a plane i could get behind, or in :) :).. Would you like a flight model Mr Piglet??

Pam

[dvj]

Wow! You should make a video of how you render these so quickly. The man is not human - just saying. I think the skin needs a bit of metallic look like the recent Rafa, but I'll take it today as it is.

jg

[Railrunner130]

Incredible! Many thanks in advance Tim. I think you're in the process of out-doing yourself on this one.:guinness:

[Moses03]

1947? Those sure do look like B-1's in the background of that first shot. :engel016:

[Bomber_12th]

What an impressive undertaking! For those familiar with the expanse of the cockpit/cabin of the XB-35 (and the lack of easily available resources covering it), there is little wonder why no one has yet before made an XB-35 VC. I am really looking forward to seeing how you tackle it Tim - I know the end results will be as excellent as ever!

Despite being cutting edge for its day, the avionics/gauges/hardware/equipment, are all of the same type you would have found in any of the USAAF's other bombers of the period 1945-1947.

When I think of the XB-35, I always think back to the 1949 movie version of the "War of the Worlds".

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/XB-35_Cockpit.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/XB-35_001.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/XB-35_01.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/1947XB35.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/XB35-7_300.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/060713-F-1234S-023.jpg

[Bomber_12th]

Here is a scan of an image from an article on the XB-35/YB-49 that I found in one of my old magazines, showing the complexity of the flight engineer's station (this being from the YB-49):

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/xb35_engineer_station.jpg

[warchild]

Holy mackrel.. And i thought the widow had a lot of stuff crammed into it.. It aint got nothin on this baby..

[Walter]

WOOOOOWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!! :icon29:

[Sundog]

The plane in War Of The Worlds was the jet powered variant, the YB-49. ;)

Which, hopefully he'll tackle after the XB-35. Maybe not immediately after, as I understand wanting to work on something else after investing so much into one project. But eventually, maybe. Maybe even a YRB-49, the variant that almost made it into production with the Sperry stability system.

Whatever the case, I'm just happy to be getting a good XB-35.

And for those who don't know, in that first pic John posted, the pilot sits up in the front end of the bubble canopy and the copilot sits down in the wing on the right side where you see the yoke near the lower right of the pic, and IIRC, the bombardier would then be to the right of copilot.

[Bomber_12th]

When you read up on what it was like to fly/operate, you find that despite the fact that the aircraft had a co-pilot's position, it didn't provide much of any use to co-piloting the aircraft. For instance, as the co-pilot's position was in the leading edge of the wing, he could only see straight forward, and the co-pilot also had no access to nor control over the throttles, so the co-pilot would never be able to take off or land the aircraft. Also, despite the co-pilot having rudder pedals, he had no control of the brakes. From all reports, the pilot's perspective looking out, was tremendous! Obviously from the pilot's vantage point, he would be looking out over and in front of the aircraft's wing, through the plexi-bubble, rather than seeing a lot of what would be going on in the cabin below.

For those that don't know the full background behind the XB-35, it was originally to be fitted with Northrop Turbodyne gas-turbine engines, producing roughly 10,000 hp each! However, this engine never attained flight status, so instead the XB-35's were fitted with P&W R-4360 reciprocating engines, producing 3,000 hp each. These engines, coupled with the eventual drive train and propeller arrangement, meant that the XB-35 was seriously underpowered. As one of the original test pilots, Charles Tucker, has written, "The XB-35 was very sluggish in flight; it always felt as though it was just wallowing around in the sky. It had [a] myraid [of] problems, mostly centered on the engines and propellers. The propellers were mounted at a large angle to the wing's chord line, [like] the N-9M, and this considerably impaired efficiency. First, contra-rotating propellers were used, and the propeller gearbox was very weak. Problems with this gearbox quickly led to the redesign of the drive train to eliminate the contra-rotating feature and to use single-rotation propellers. This further reduced the efficiency of the propulsion system. The decision to rebuild the airplane as a jet solved the power problem."

Charles Tucker went on to write, "I felt that the YB-49 (jet-engined/re-designed version of the XB-35) was a beautiful airplane, and it was very smooth in flight. It eventually gave me a great deal of satisfaction, excitement and a heck of a lot of memories."

According to Charles Tucker, who accumulated about 100-hours in the YB-49, despite the original issues with the YB-49's stall characteristics, by the time the aircraft was dropped, Northrop had already added a stability-augmentation system that pretty much solved the directional damping problem..."This made the airplane completely stable in all flight regimes."

[Piglet]

Now This is a plane i could get behind, or in :) :).. Would you like a flight model Mr Piglet??

Sure! As it is, I bank into a turn, and it just keeps flying on the same heading and bank angle. Gotta use full rudder input to actually turn. I was gonna deal with it later, but if ya wanna give it a crack at it, let me know what info you need.
About the XB-35's paint scheme....
It's stated the XB-35's were painted in aluminium paint, yet many photos show more of a bare metal "mottled" look. So maybe I'll go more something inbetween, if that makes sense!
That pic of the 1/72 scale cabin... Naturally, I got the kits, and Pilot and tech manuals. Whole lotta stuff I'm learning about!
Talk about a mech-nightmare!

[Skyhawk_310R]

That's a very impressive project, Tim. It would be an impressive project for payware. To think it will be freeware and the work of a single designer is really quite beyond explanation.

[warchild]

That's a very impressive project, Tim. It would be an impressive project for payware. To think it will be freeware and the work of a single designer is really quite beyond explanation.


Two single developers :).. I'll make sure she flies true ... Have loved this plane since the first time ui saw war of the worlds, and that was way way back in the sixties...

[paiken]

Pam and Tim working on the same plane makes this an absolutely must have.

[Gibbage]

Great job Piglet! Its looking truly outstanding! I think your doing it great justice! I remember having a YB-35 in FS5!!!! Great choice and I look forward to flying it soon!!!

[TARPSBird]

About the XB-35's paint scheme....
It's stated the XB-35's were painted in aluminium paint, yet many photos show more of a bare metal "mottled" look. So maybe I'll go more something inbetween, if that makes sense!

Tim, you may want to check out the metal finish that hae5904 has come up with for his fictional South African version of Razbam's Convair 201: http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?58066-Suid-Afrikaanse-Springbok-op-koms-(on-final.....Kestrel-style

[warchild]

::chuckles:: forgot about not being able to PM you.. What i need most are 3 views, and to get my basic research done.. If you PM me, I'll give you my email address.. When your ready, I could use a copy of the model as well. doesnt need a vc or cockpit. I just need it for flight testing..

[Gibbage]

Just thought this was a very fitting photograph =)

49392

[lazarus]

The Turbodyne

[warchild]

Just thought this was a very fitting photograph =)

49392

::chuckles;; I LOVE the chase plane :::LOL:: And i thought the widow was big..
I got a couple hours of sleep and have been watching videos of this and the yb-49 since i sat up ( dont worry, going back to bed in a couple hours ).. Tim, i'm gonna need your flight model as it is so far. i dont think your far off judging by how sluggish this plane can be at lower speeds. However, at this moment I can only speculate. I need to know whats where inside that wing, and figure out what weighs what. I know how the butterfly flaps work and yeah, without a tail plane, you would need to apply some rudder to make a turn.

[Gibbage]

I personally spoke with both the test pilot of the B-2 and the test pilot of the B-35/49. One key aspect about the B-35/49 (more with the 49) is that it had a tendency to wanter in the yaw from left and right, but very slowly. It just could not keep the nose pointed in the proper direction!!! Its one of the main reasons it was canned by the US Army other then the fact it could not carry nukes of the day. Its all part of the flying wing in general. Also, do some research on the N1M and N9M. That aircraft was a small scale replica of the B-35 in almost every way to test its flying qualities before building a full size aircraft. Im sure you will find a lot more data in the N9M since it still fly's at Chino. I have personally seen if fly many times, and its truly one of the most gracefull aircraft you will ever see in the sky.

In later models of the 49, they developed a computer controled stabilization system that fixed this yaw. By the time the system was working, the program was already killed. Another interesting tidbit of information. Due to the extreamly fast and dense airflow under the body, the bombs had a tendency to SKIP off the air stream at the bottom of the bomb bay when it left the still air of the bay and hit the fast moving air under the aircraft. This, along with its nasty yaw made it a HORRIBLE bomber. This was fixed by placing an air brake forward of the bomb bay that would deploy before dropping bombs. It would brake up the air current and allow the bombs to pass though. This same air brake system is used today on the B-2 bomber. There is a GREAT DEAL used on the B-2 that was developed from the B-35/49 program. You can see crew inspecting the air brakes (look like fly swatters) here.

http://www.whiteman.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/090817-F-2722L-001.jpg

Sorry. I have done a lot of research myself. Thats why im so excited to see someone working on it! Now im off to the post office to send out a care package.

[Railrunner130]

Tim did an N9M quite a while back that is still in my hanger. For those who wish to wet their appetite, I highly recommend the N9M.

[warchild]

Tim did an N9M quite a while back that is still in my hanger. For those who wish to wet their appetite, I highly recommend the N9M.

I was looking for that N-9M today.. Couldnt find it.. tried here, simviation, a few other places too.. its like it disappeared.. Downloaded Ito's B-35, which exteriorly is quite fanciful but nice, and sound, panel and flight dynamics suck.. oh well.. Checked out Sky Unlimeteds GO-229 ( HO-229 ) and discovered they got the aircraft file right and left off the rudder.. When i first bought it some time ago i had to make some corrections to cure the falling leaf syndrome it displayed ( would rock left to right ) but otherwise it makes a decent test bed and trtainer so that i can get an idea of where the b-35 needs to go.. :).. I should have proper documentation the the b-35 soon and hopefully Tims flight model, then i'll be able to make an honest start on this bird :)..
Pam

[Gibbage]

P.S. I did the model and textures for the SU Go-229 ;) Also the IL2 Go-229. Heh.

[warchild]

:::LOL:L: awesome job. I love that plane..

[Piglet]

Pam,
Just email me at piglet-ap@dslextreme.com, and we'll set up a link, and I'll zip ya want you need:applause:

[Dexdoggy]

Hmmm, "Piglet & Pam" sounds like a flightsim development team made in heaven! :salute:

[lazarus]

Oh...Piglet and PAM. I thought you were talking about a SANDWICH!

[warchild]

Pam,
Just email me at piglet-ap@dslextreme.com, and we'll set up a link, and I'll zip ya want you need:applause:

Thanks Tim.. Will do that first thing in the morning when i've got a brain between my ears instead of coagulated mush.. :) :)

[Piglet]

Roger that Pam.
"Coming soon from
PIG-PAM Aircraft Co., XB-35!"

[Ferry_vO]

I was looking for that N-9M today.. Couldnt find it..

Pam, try 'n-9mb.zip' at Flightsim.com.

:)

[warchild]

Awesome.. thanks Ferry :)

[warchild]

Email sent Tim..

And for the rest of you folks :)..
Something i've been thinking about for the last couple days, is what your going to experience when you fly this thing. Its been a concern to be honest.. Designed to take advantage of thirty thousand pounds of thrust, the X/YB-35 was almost woefully inadequate with its four three thousand horsepower engines. Even with counter rotating props, it was only capable of reaching about three fourths of its design thrust. This meant that it didnt reach full flight design capabilities till after jets ( and basic computer assist ) were added, and that at lower speeds it had a whole range of bad behaviors, some of which i've had glimpses of in the videos i've watched and the documentation i've read. That means that you folks are gonna have your hands full. I wont kid you, the plane is going to be a challenge. Its not like the P-61 which in real life was more docile than a golden retriever. its more like Kato from Inspector Clouseau, jumping out at you when you least expect it..

now, i promise you all, that i will not excuse bad programming on my part, as being representative of the plane being difficult. The plane will in all ways, behave exactly like the real one. I'll make sure of that, but i do hope your all up for the challenge. It worries me that some of you wont be.

For all you non History buffs out there, Muroc air base was renamed Edwards Airforce Base on December 2nd, 1950, after Capt Glen Edwards, who, as a top ranked Test pilot, was killed with four other crew members during a test. They were flying a YB-49, the more advanced child of the Xb-35, and nowhere near as primitive.

As we've all seen, Piglet is doing an incredible job of building us a visual model that matches the original plane. because of that, the the people who died flying this thing, I'd be a fraud, if i didnt do my very best to make it real..

Stay tuned: its gonna be a hell of a ride ;)..

Pam

PS.. I wonder. With a top speed of 400 mph, if this qualifies for the round the world race?? There were definitely more than ten built.. :).

[Ferry_vO]

According to Wiki there were six YB-49's: "3 converted from YB-35, 2 YB-49 and one YRB-49A, more incomplete examples scrapped."

Anyway the rule stated at least ten in operational use, so no prototypes.

[kilo delta]

Designations on Jet Conversion Program, Feb 1949
http://aerofiles.com/cleardot.gif

<tbody>
s/n
c/n
model
rev #1
rev #2
rev #3
disposition


42-13603
42-38323
42-102366
42-102367
42-102368
42-102369
42-102370
42-102371
42-102372
42-102373
42-102374
42-102375
42-102376
42-102377
42-102378

1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498

XB-35
XB-35
YB-35
YB-35
YB-35
YB-35
YB-35
YB-35
YB-35
YB-35
YB-35
YB-35
YB-35
YB-35
YB-35

XB-35
XB-35
YB-35
YB-49
YB-49
YB-35
RB-35
RB-35
RB-35
RB-35
YB-35A
YB-35A
YB-35A
YB-35A
YB-35A

ERB-35
EB-35
RB-35
YB-49
YB-49
YRB-49A
RB-35B
RB-35B
RB-35B
RB-35B
RB-35B
RB-35B
RB-35B
RB-35B
static




YB-49
YB-49

YB-35B
YB-35B
YB-35B
YB-35B
YB-35B
YB-35B
YRB-49A
YB-35B
EB-35B

salvaged
salvaged
salvaged
flight tests
crashed
salvaged
flight tests
flight tests
flight tests
flight tests
flight tests
flight tests
prototype
flight tests
test bed


</tbody>
Data: Winged Wonders, E T Wooldridge, NASM 1983

More information on this link

http://aerofiles.com/_north.html

[kilo delta]

Stall studies of the XB-35...

kv0GCBfhPHY

[Gibbage]

Thats a scarry video to watch! The aft section of the wing stalls out first!!! That means the aircraft could stall BACKWARDS if the pilots not carefull. The crash that happened was not due to the stall, but the pull-out from the stall. The YB-35 had gotten too fast in the recovery, and during pull-out, the massive ammount of lift collapsed the wing on itself.

[warchild]

I LIKE that video. It not only shows the center of lift moving in relationship to the angle of attack, but to the speed of the airstream over it as well..
( hoping i have enough coffee in me to think straight ).. The thing is, on any non twisted wing, the back of the wing will stall first. The only difference between this plane and a conventional plane is that a conventional plane has a second wing in the form of a horizonatal stabilizer. Whether the horizontal stabilizer is pushing the ass down, lifting it up or just being there to look good, doesnt matter during a stall. Since its still a wing, it will provide some type of force against the airstream to keep the plane level. Obviously, this plane doesnt have that advantage. Compounding that are the aft located engines which are adding thousands of pounds of downward force to the trailing edge of the wing. Its quite conceivable that in a stall the engines would fall downward, rotating the wing to a critical angle >60 degrees to the airstream, and pull the plane down backwards. Thats why i need to research and understand exactly how weight was distributed throughout the wing, because it needs to counter the weight of those engines to avoid such calamities.

[warchild]

More information on this link

http://aerofiles.com/_north.html

Awesome find.. Obviously only one prototype in there :) :) we have a race :)

[warchild]

ok, sooo, the engines are embedded inside the wing. probably close to the intake on the leading edge.. tat would help to keep the wing from stalling backwards. But it does create a problem with cooling..

[kilo delta]

Here's a cutaway drawing of the XB-35...warning....It's BIG

http://sobchak.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/xb35cut.jpg


A (http://sobchak.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/xb35cut.jpg)nother interesting pic here.. http://www.flickr.com/photos/18532986@N07/5358897828/

a (http://www.flickr.com/photos/18532986@N07/5358897828/)nd a pretty interesting link... http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/05/30/inside-the-flying-wing/

[Bomber_12th]

Great stuff, KD!

I love how the cut-away drawing shows how the enormous scale of the XB-35 could actually make the massive "corn cob" P&W R-4360's appear small! You can just make them out, staggered in position, with a tremendous amount of cooling duct-work leading to them from the wing leading edge intakes.

These are photos of the same engine type, as fitted to an F2G Super Corsair. Despite the 12,000 hp out-put generated from the four combined R-4360's on the XB-35, it is nothing compared to what the designers had wanted, in the use of the experimental Northrop gas-turbine engines, which would have produced a combined 40,000 hp, with four installed. Once jets were incorporated into the design, with the YB-49, this lack of power was no longer an issue, and the airplane then became a solid performer.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/DSCN0346.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Bomber_12th/DSCN0361.jpg

[warchild]

Here's a cutaway drawing of the XB-35...warning....It's BIG

http://sobchak.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/xb35cut.jpg


A (http://sobchak.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/xb35cut.jpg)nother interesting pic here.. http://www.flickr.com/photos/18532986@N07/5358897828/

a (http://www.flickr.com/photos/18532986@N07/5358897828/)nd a pretty interesting link... http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/05/30/inside-the-flying-wing/

That first image tells a TON of info.. I can make a plane jane guess at the center of lift and CG and probably be within a few inches of it.. and my gods what a plumbing fiasco behind the air intakes.. no wonder this thing weighed 50000 pounds..
Thanks KD :)..

[lazarus]

.95lb/1hp, pretty amazing, but a cylinder change every time you stop for gas! Most reports seemed to indicate that the wing had acceptable stall characteristics except with CofG aft, where the aircraft would rather violently snap nose over tail into a flat spin.

[Bomber_12th]

Empty weight, as I have read it, on the XB-35, was actually around 89,000 lbs...I guess it depends on where the information comes from. Gross weight was around 180,000 lbs! This was propelled by only 12,000 hp, through the combined power of all four R-4360's. That equates to only 1 hp for every 15 pounds of mass, at gross weight.

The original intenet was to have 40,000 hp on the XB-35, which would have equated to 1 hp for every 4.5 pounds, at gross weight.

(The YB-49, on the other hand, had a total of eight jet engines, producing 32,000 lbs. of force combined. As the original test pilots stated, this completely solved the power-problem, which was the major draw-back of the XB-35.)

[warchild]

yup, the hp was horrendous, even with those monsters in it, but thats why i stuck to thrust as opposed to HP. The extra set of blades on there added to the thrust allowing it to fly somewhat better than on the later single prop per engine versions. The Russians did a somewhat better job of using counter rotating props on their bear which was able to give some of our jets a run for their money. I just cant remember if the total thrust output was a similar formula to determining RMS values in a circuit or not. Its greater than a single prop per engine, but less than eight single prop engines. I'll have to do a thorough look for that formula..

[Lateral-G]

Actual flight tests of the aircraft revealed several problems: The contra-rotating props caused constant heavy drive-shaft vibration and the government-supplied gearboxes had frequent malfunctions and reduced the effectiveness of propeller control. After only 19 flights, Northrop grounded the first XB-35; the second aircraft was grounded after eight test flights. During this time, the contra-rotating propellers were removed and replaced with four-blade single-rotation propellers. In addition to having continued drive shaft vibration problems, the new single-rotation props greatly reduced the aircraft's speed and performance. Furthermore, the intricate exhaust system turned into a fiasco to maintain. After only two years of use, the engines already showed signs of metal fatigue.

At least in the sim we won't have all the problems the real aircraft faced......:kilroy:

[warchild]

welllll, at least you'll never have to wrench on a nut or bolt..

[Piglet]

The new data plates are in!:applause:
Pam, just sent a couple emails to ya.49557

[warchild]

:::LOL:: I love it.. Thanks tim.. off to check email now :)..

[lazarus]

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause: :applause::applause::applause::applause:!:applause :

49557

an Aerospace merger for the ages!