The Northrop B-35 was difficult to defend
 

The development of Northrop's B-35 seemed hopeless from the start, and was doomed to be obsolescent before it could enter production.
After many teething problems from a beginning in 1943 mainly with the propellers and gearboxes the first flight was in 1946.
In reading write ups about it, one point that comes to mind I haven't seen mentioned. Defense.
America had just come through the biggest shooting war in history with the 'flying fortress' mentality of flying aircraft like the B-17 and the B-29, heavily armed through enemy fighter infested skies.
This seemed to be lost when looking at the 'wing' configuration. It isn't hard to see the difficulty of placing effective defensive armament. Just look at the propellers in the way at the rear. Virtually impossible to get a field of fire.
It seems fortunate that the concept was scrapped.
What took it's place was another disaster, the B-36. But that's another story.

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/n...hrop_xb-35.jpg

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/n...op_xb-35_1.jpg

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/n...hrop_b-352.gif

Re: The Northrop B-35 was difficult to defend
 

This idea still live in B-2 so generally concept is good

Re: The Northrop B-35 was difficult to defend
 

A lot of differences with the defensive systems available today compared with the forties Pilot.
Back then it was turret guns and single 50 cals poking out everywhere.
I can't imagine a traditional bomber/fighter confrontation today.
Today it's all stealth, speed and decoys.

Re: The Northrop B-35 was difficult to defend
 

It is principle of use. When you remove much of defensive armament you get lighter and faster aircraft which could do their job properly. De Havilland Mosquito and Arado Blitz are samples. XB-35 could work at high altitude and high speed.

Re: The Northrop B-35 was difficult to defend
 

Looking at the photos & various illustrations it is clear the rump fusalage appendage in the center rear of the aircraft extends far enough past the props. A twin or quad gun mount there would have a clear field of fire to the rear. Also it appears the propeller arc does not extend much below the bottom of the wing structure. A bottom gun mount would have a similar field of fire to the rear as on a B17 or B24. I dont see this aircraft being any more vulnerable than a B29 or B36 with their large tail structures blocking part of the rear field of fire. Or the B17 & B24 for that matter.

Re: The Northrop B-35 was difficult to defend
 

The immediate design as illustrated in the photos, shows a large turret above that rear conical protrusion. However the design could have been altered to put selsyn controlled twin 20mm tail guns or quad 50 cals in the rear cone before they sent that thing off to war.
For whatever tactical reasons, the fact remains that the USAF rejected the design and it was scrapped.
The US military struggled to find a practical bomber at the end of the propeller age.
They went to war in Korea and the billions of dollars worth of the follow on B-36s didn't go with them.
They were obsolete also.

Re: The Northrop B-35 was difficult to defend
 

I think you will find an answer by looking at the B-47. Given enough speed advantage, you only need a tail gun with a limited cone of fire (according to thinking at the time). If we believe the stories now coming out about B-47s penetrating Soviet airspace in the 1950s without being successfully challenged, I guess it worked.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theory guy, but the real reason for the Northrop flying wings not proceeding may lie in the procurement methods of the US, and the advantage that gave at the time to "well established" companies like Convair and Boeing.

And don't get me started on the Arrow .....

Re: The Northrop B-35 was difficult to defend
 

Take a look at LIFE magazine in 1952.
Scroll to the heading " WHY ARE WE LOSING AIR SUPREMACY".
Read about the problems with the B-47.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...oblems&f=false

Frank Savage

Re: The Northrop B-35 was difficult to defend
 

I've had a few chances to talk to B-47 aircrew about the aircraft, and they all a long list of things they didn't like. But, in the early days, it was the fastest thing around, and they would put up with a lot for that.

Re: The Northrop B-35 was difficult to defend
 

I looked at the 'search' feature and as there isn't a B-47 topic I'm going to continue under the it's own heading of the Boeing B-47, Bill.
Frank Savage.

Re: The Northrop B-35 was difficult to defend
 

Why the B-36 would be a "disaster"? AFAIK technically a very good design with nice handling.

Re: The Northrop B-35 was difficult to defend
 

Yes Jukka, it would have been a technological marvel but it was designed and built with all those billions of dollars as a war plane and when the war came [Korea] it couldn't go because the enemy had jet fighters as it was already obsolete.
See the post, B-36 Six turnin' and four burnin'

Re: The Northrop B-35 was difficult to defend
 

Even allowing that, disaster is a far too strong a word to describe the B-36.

Re: The Northrop B-35 was difficult to defend
 

I understood that it had stability problems that nowadays can be handled by computers and fly-by-wire but weren't soluble then.

Re: The Northrop B-35 was difficult to defend
 

Here is an interesting video clip from 1943 showing the take off of a B-35 during testing.
It shows much more ability to get airborne than the following B-36. When I watched that B-36 video clip in my other post 'Six turnin' and four burnin', it reminded me of the Spruce Goose film clip.
That wing area obviously gave a lot of lift.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlYno...eature=related