The Northrop B-35 was difficult to defend

[General Savage]

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.

[Pilot]

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

[General Savage]

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.

[Pilot]

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.

[Carl Schwamberger]

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.

[General Savage]

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.

[Bill Walker]

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 .....

[General Savage]

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

[Bill Walker]

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.

[General Savage]

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.