A ME R ICA N A ERO SPAC E A RC H I V E 3

THE B-52 COMPETITION OF 1946

...and Dark Horses from Douglas, 1947-1950

Jared A. Zichek
▲1

I
n the third issue of The American tion and inspire researchers to dig fur- Cover: Artist's impression of Convair's
Aerospace Archive, we take an in- ther into the tumultuous developmental extraordinary Long Range Heavy Bom-
depth look at two of the original three history of this legendary aircraft. bardment Airplane, one of the losing
proposals for the B-52 competition of contenders in the heavy bombardment
competition of 1946. This and all other
1946; offer speculation on the third Background images in this publication are scanned
based on available evidence; and exam- from original documents found in RG 341
ine some later dark horse contenders The origins of the B-52 can be of the National Archives in College, Park,
from Douglas. This is not a comprehen- traced back to August 15, 1944, when MD, unless otherwise indicated.
sive history of the complicated evolution the engineering division at Wright field
of the Boeing B-52 design - that would recommended that a design study for a 1) Artist's impression of the Boeing Model
require an entire book, and the general jet-propelled/turboprop heavy bomber 462, winner of the competition. It would
story of that evolution has already been be undertaken in FY1946; the study subsequently be replaced by the Model
ably told elsewhere. Instead, the aim is 464, which underwent a radical evolution
was to cost $650,000 and development
before emerging as the swept wing, jet-
to shed more light on some of the design of the airplane to cost $16 million be- powered XB-52 in 1951.
submissions connected to the competi- tween FY1947 and FY1949. The type
The American Aerospace Archive is published periodically by Jared A. Zichek (6021 La Jolla Hermosa Ave, La Jolla, California 92037) and is printed and distributed by MagCloud
(www.jaredzichek.magcloud.com). American Aerospace Archive Number 3 (ISSN 1943-9636) is copyright 2009 by Jared A. Zichek. All rights reserved. All featured text and im-
ages are copyright 2009 their respective copyright holders. Reproduction of any material in part or in whole without its creator's permission is strictly forbidden. The American
Aerospace Archive accepts no responsibility for unsolicited manuscripts, photos, art or other materials. Submissions are considered on an invitational basis only. Email your
comments and suggestions to editor@aeroarchivepress.com and visit our website at www.aeroarchivepress.com.

2
was sought as an eventual replacement
for the Convair XB-36, work on which
had started in early 1941. Before its first
flight on August 8, 1946, the Army Air
Force (AAF) was already concerned that
the giant bomber would not meet its
mission radius requirement or be able
to survive over enemy airspace without
escort fighters. In April 1945, the AAF
requested Boeing to undertake a design
study for a heavy turboprop successor
to the B-36. Boeing and its competitors
declined to submit proposals because
the desired characteristics were “so com-
pletely out of line with the state of the
art." On November 23, 1945, the AAF
released "Military Characteristics for
Heavy Bombardment Aircraft," require-
ments for a “high speed, high altitude,
long range, land airplane” shown in the
table at right.1
In February 1946, the Air Techni-
cal Service Command (ATSC) issued
a Request for Proposals (RFP) to the
aviation industry for designs to “meet
or approximate” the November 1945
2) General arrangement drawing and ba-
sic characteristics of the Model 462 taken
from the brochure dated June 27, 1946.
characteristics. At the time, the Military Characteristics for Heavy Bombardment Aircraft
requirements were beyond the November 23, 1945
state of the art, with a suitable High speed at tactical operating altitude 450 mph
turboprop engine taking up to
10 years to develop, according to Tactical operating altitude 35,000 ft
some experts. Due to the lack of
Service ceiling 40,000 ft
a suitable engine, the AAF asked
the industry to approximate the
Tactical operating radius (take off point to
requirements as best as it could, target) at design gross weight with 5,000
with emphasis being placed on 10,000 lb bomb statute
meeting the high speed require- miles
ment.2 Average speed for above radius 300 mph
Boeing, Convair and Mar- Maximum (internal) bomb load 80,000 lbs
tin would each submit propos-
Crew accommodations for at least 12: pilot, copilot, flight
als to fulfill these demanding engineer, one bombardier-navigator, one radio operator,
requirements. The first one we the minimum number of fire control operators deemed
will examine is the winner, the necessary, and a six person relief crew.
Boeing Model 462. efforts toward development and coordi-
nation of developmental activities sur-
Boeing Model 462 rounding many component elements,
particularly power plants. Derived from
In the first half of 1946, Boeing a series of design studies and based on
submitted its Model 462 to the heavy the results of extensive operational expe-
bombardment competition. The follow- rience with the B-29, this conclusion was
ing information about the design comes exemplified by the Model 462, which
from the proposal brochure dated June Boeing described as "...the most practi-
27, 1946.3 cal airplane possible with developments
Boeing noted that significant ad- available for a design program initiated
vances in heavy bombardment airplane at this time." Only through full utiliza-
design were contingent upon concerted
2▼
▲3
tion of design potentialities was it pos-
sible to propose an airplane with char-
acteristics approaching those established
by the design directive.
In selecting basic design parameters
such as power plants, gross weight and
wing area, primary consideration was
given to speed and range characteristics.
Boeing believed that the Model 462 was
the largest and hence the longest range
airplane which would satisfy speed re-
quirements with the selected engines.
Provision for external droppable fuel
tanks effectively increased the range
without sacrifice in speed at gross weight
less one half fuel.
The configuration and basic design
of the Model 462 was optimized within
the limitations imposed by existing ele-
ments and development considerations.
4
Description
The Boeing Model 462 was a high
wing monoplane powered by six Wright
T-35 combustion turbine engines geared
to 20 ft diameter tractor propellers. The
exterior configuration was characterized
by particular attention to aerodynamic
cleanness in basic layout as well as detail
considerations, and by control and stabi-
lizing surfaces designed to maintain the
reputation of Boeing airplanes for stabil-
ity and ease of control. The crew of ten
was accommodated in a single pressur-
ized compartment forward of the wing
from which all flight and combat func-
tions of the airplane were conducted.
The large bomb bay was located under
the wing center section near the center
of gravity of the airplane. Self-sealing
fuel tanks were installed in areas for-
ward of, above, and behind the bomb
3) Another artist's impression of the Boe-
ing Model 462, the general design of
which owed a great deal to the company's
experience with the B-29.
bay. Access to the bomb bay during
pressurized flight was available to crew
members through an air lock to a tun-
nel which joined the crew compartment
and the forward section of the bomb bay.
In order to simplify nacelle and landing
gear design problems, it was proposed
to study carefully a main landing gear
configuration in which one of 4 landing
gear units retracted into each of the four
inboard nacelles.
Power Plant
The Model 462 was powered by six
Wright T-35 combustion turbine engines
rated at 5,000 hp each. Driving 20 ft di-
ameter, single rotation, four blade high
activity propellers, these engines were
mounted in nacelles arranged to permit
complete interchangeability of power
sections in the form of a quickly change-
able power package. Thus, although na-
celles had increased in number from the
B-29, problems related to maintenance
and overhaul were greatly minimized.
Boeing planned an extensive pre-
liminary study devoted to the determi-
nation of optimum spinner, cowl, and
propeller cuff configurations such that
the most efficient air inlet conditions
would be achieved. In addition, the
basic problems surrounding combus-
tion turbine installation would be given
thorough initial consideration in order
to assure availability of the latest devel-
▼4
▼5
opments in fuel systems, cooling provi-
sions, jet exhaust arrangements, fire de-
tection and prevention, etc.
Fuel capacity was divided between
the wings, the fuselage and the bomb
bay. Of the 16,040 gallons carried in the
wing fuel system, 9,700 gallons were pro-
tected by self-sealing tanks. The fuselage
contained provisions for 8,370 gallons in
self-sealing tanks and capacity for 7,850
gallons of fuel in self-sealing droppable
bomb bay tanks, increasing the potential
fuel capacity to a total of 32,260 gallons.
In addition, provision was made for
droppable wing tanks to accommodate
approximately 6,500 gallons.
Armament
The effectiveness of the Model 462
was increased by its ability to deliver
bomb combinations in all sizes up to
and including the 44,000 lb “Grand
Slam.” The 36 ft bomb bay provided am-
ple space for consideration of advanced
methods of bomb loading and release.
4) Cutaway view of the Model 462; note
the massive 44,000 lb T12 bomb shown in
the bomb bay.
5) Close-up cutaway of the giant bomb-
er's nose section. The Model 462 would
have carried a crew of 10, though only 9
are shown here.
5
 Defensive armament consisted of 4 two-gun
turrets and 1 four-gun tail turret, all of which were
armed with 20 mm guns. All guns were controlled
from four stations in the crew compartment be-
tween which operation of the turrets could have
been exchanged. Turret locations provided a 3600
field of fire with at least four guns, with the excep-
tion of a very small area which was covered by two
guns. Since performance of the Model 462 was
based upon minimum drag, full consideration
was given to the development and utilization of
flush turrets and radar.

Summary

It was anticipated that an extended program

of aerodynamic, power plant, equipment installa-
tion, and structural development would proceed as
a part of Phase I. Only through this coordination
in early design stages could the AAF be assured of
satisfactory progress in carrying out Phase II.
The airplane performance estimated by Boe-
ing was premised on a program of extensive and
thorough investigation of new materials, new
▲6 manufacturing techniques and innovations such
as sandwich type construction, different methods
of joining structure, new means of increasing the
efficiency of stressed skins, and study of aerody-
namic devices such as sealed, low drag control sur-
faces and full span flaps. The use of combustion
turbine power necessitated an exhaustive study
of cowling, induction system, cooling, and other
design problems associated with the relatively un-
explored field of turbine engine installation. Boe-
ing argued for the adoption of such a plan early in
Phase I, as it would substantially reduce the time
required for later development phases and would
be of tremendous assistance in the creation of
prototype models, a factor of paramount consid-
eration relating to the development of an aircraft
▲7 ▼8
in this class.
Boeing believed that the Model 462, as ba-
sically conceived in the brief studies conducted
up to that point and supplemented by the above
type of research, would represent the optimum

6) Side views of the Model 462 engine nacelles. The

aircraft was powered by 6 Wright T-35 turboprops
producing 5,000 hp each. The forward sections
were interchangeable to simplify maintenance and
overhaul.

7) Illustration showing various bomb load possibili-

ties, ranging from eighty-four 500 pound bombs to
one enormous 44,000 lb bomb.

8) Weight breakdown of the Boeing Model 462.

With a design gross weight of 360,000 lbs, it was the
heaviest of the three contenders.

6
▲9
configuration for a heavy bombardment
airplane designed to fulfill the require-
ments of the AAF as expressed in the
requirements set forth on February 13,
1946.
Victory
Although the high gross weight of
360,000 lbs was necessary to attain the
range and speed proposed, Boeing’s
model fell short of the range required
(5,000 miles radius/13,000 miles range).
As will be seen later in this monograph,
Boeing’s model was, by far, the largest
aircraft proposed, even heavier than the
B-36, which was less than a year away
from its first flight.
On May 23, 1946 General Craigie,
Chief of the Engineering Division, rec-
ommended that the AAF accept the
Boeing Model 462 for Phase I develop-
ment “in view of the results of this evalu-
ation and the outstanding record of Boe-
ing Aircraft Company in the building of
heavy bombardment aircraft….” Craigie
9) Artist's impression and top view of
the Model 462. The defensive gun tur-
rets retracted flush into the fuselage and
contributed to the type's overall aerody-
namic cleanness.
believed that Boeing's proposal repre-
sented the best performance per dollar,
in addition to “most nearly [meeting]
the requirements set forth in the Mili-
tary Characteristics than either of the
other two proposals, and further has
far greater potentialities.” During the