The Shortest Lived Mega Bomber You Never Heard Of - Convair YB-60

[@larryschlosser2385]

In 1958, when I was in ROTC I was asked if I would like to fly on a weekend. They said it will be one takeoff and one landing and I would need an overnight bag. We went to the airbase on Long Island and got on a B-36 and took off at at 0600 on Sat. and landed back on Sun. at 1200. We flew to the artic down the Pacific coast of Canada back to the US from Washington back to New York and landed only once. It was the biggest thrill of my life until my oldest child was born.

[@mbeatty6970]

my dad flew as a crewman on a mission down the east coast. They made "bombing runs" on several cities as part of training. I have the p-38 can opener he used to open his c-rat on that mission. Its on my key chain

[@Overthewingflight]

That’s a great memory

[@larryschlosser2385]

@Michael Pezzullo yes one forward and one aft near the gunners station.

[@chriscampbell9191]

@Michael Pezzullo I believe they did. Also a very small stove of some sort, probably to heat liquids like coffee and soup.

[@jimfling2128]

@@chriscampbell9191 We had an electric range the used soup canisters that had their own heater. Just plug them in and you have hot Gambles soup.

[@larryrobertson4099]

I was a B52G copilot, pilot, instructor pilot, and stan/eval pilot starting with VietNam flying out of Guam, and ending up on Sac Alert during the cold war. It flew elegantly for a plane without ailerons. The biggest mistake of my life is when I quit the Airforce in 1977 because Carter cancelled the B1 program after I had been selected to be in the startup B1 training squadron at Edwards AFB.

[@swapsplat]

Don't feel too bad. My dad quit the air force during carter, too. He couldn't support a family of 4 on an NCO salary. What a joke. Carter was such a disaster.

[@LuciFeric137]

The B 52 was an inspired design. With upgrades, it may stay in service close to 100 years. Really incredible.

[@richardsnyder9767]

I think 2040 comes to mind. And then some say 2050. They can upgrade every thing but the airframes are the determining factor. I remember getting to go through them when my dad was a crew chief on them in the 50's and 60's

[@L33tSkE3t]

@@richardsnyder9767 Although they can’t update the shape of the airframe, They can and probably have to replace its components of it to avoid metal fatigue from stress due to pressurization and depressurization cyclization

[@MarkiusFox]

@@L33tSkE3t The structural members of the airframe can't be replaced though, those would be the parts to inspect for fatigue. As much as the USAF loves to dig at the A-10 for being "too slow", the B-52 is quite long in the tooth. It will need to be replaced sooner rather than later, but the USAF seems adamant towards ignoring those concerns.

[@shawnmiller4781]

@@L33tSkE3t the only part of the airframe that is pressurised is the crew compartment. The rest of the fuselage is unpressurised so you don’t have that wear and tear

[@Thomasnmi]

@@MarkiusFox the issue is that no one has come up with a better aircraft.

[@Troubleshooter125]

Ages ago when I was a kid, I remember a book of aircraft mentioning the YB-60, and I noted how similar it looked, at least superficially, to the B-52. This piece filled in a LOT of gaps that were probably not available (or released / declassified) back then. Thanks a lot for yet another enlightening video!

[@lindycorgey2743]

I first saw the B60 in an aircraft book from the Jr High School Library. That would have been in 1975.

[@billcull610]

The B52 was a “Rapid Development Project” conducted in a couple of hotel rooms in Dayton, Ohio over a long weekend in late 1940’s. Engineers from nearby Wright Patterson AFB urgently held meetings in a few hotel rooms in downtown Dayton. The main problem that they were trying to address is eliminating developing another piston powered aircraft. It had to be jet powered. Over a long weekend, the few engineers sequestered themselves day and night. By Monday morning, they had a sheaf of design documents that was submitted to WPAFB development. Thus, the B52 was born. Hard to believe the incredible amount of Design/Development that made significant contribution to USAF and USA security conducted at WPAFB over 75 years. Too many “cooks” stall progress and innovation.

[@Mark_317]

These videos bring me back to being a 12 year old, enamored with everything aircraft. Thank you for a very well edited and curated video.

[@striker44aa]

And watching modern marvels on the history Channel

[@Flies2FLL]

I'm enamored with airplanes to this day and I am still 12; In January I celebrated the 44th anniversary of my 12th birthday...

[@manuwilson4695]

@@striker44aa ...History channel is garbage. A fast becoming well known fact. 🙄

[@striker44aa]

@@manuwilson4695 when i was a kid modern marvels on the history Channel got me into planes,tanks history it was badass. It reminded me of that. The history Channel is garbage now with "eatting history " hahha

[@Mark_317]

@@striker44aa there was a great program on the history channel 20 years ago called american eats, history on a bun

[@keithplymale2374]

My favorite B-36 story is the last flight of the plane. It flew from storage to the USAF Museum at Write-Pat AFB. The built the one wall and arched roof and reinforced floor for the building it was going to be in. The plane flew in, landed and parked on the apron just short of it's final home. They emptied out all the tanks and otherwise made it ready for long term storage inside. Then the aircraft was backed in and the final wall built. I was only there one time in the mid 1980's. I remember you walk around and suddenly you would be under a part of a huge aircraft. You had to go up some stairs to an overlook to see the entire B-36. It dwarfed everything else in that building.

[@lesilestivany7839]

G,day,,,, is that aircraft museum still in existence today???

[@glenmartin2437]

While my father was stationed at El Toro MCFS, I was caught up in the amazing pace of aircraft development. Especially all the jet fighters. I was 10 and 11 years old. Thank you for your video.

[@paoloviti6156]

The Convair YB-60 although a very interesting alternative to the B-52 was basically a B-36 with swept wings and jet engines. Sharing 70% of the B-36 it was cheaper and carried a more hefty load but slower than the YB-52. Unfortunately it had many issues and had significant handling problems, due to its controls having been designed for slower operating speeds. Thanks for sharing this very interesting video.....

[@Vinemaple]

"...due to its controls having been designed for slower operating speeds." Thanks for that detail. That explains a lot.

[@phil4986]

I always loved that massive Peacemaker,a prop plane jet hybrid made to simply instill fear in Soviet Union military officers. The B52 has proved itself to have been a hell of a fine jet,still flying almost 70 years after it's design and manufacture. Great video.

[@selfdo]

The "Peacemaker", especially in its "featherweight" versions, could fly at what were then very high altitudes, making them almost impossible for the Soviet V-VS aircraft of its day, the MiG-15 and MiG-17, to intercept. Even the MiG-19 "Farmer" had trouble, but in theory should have been capable. By the time the excellent MiG-21 and Sukhoi Su-15 both came into service, the B-36 was being retired.

[@Vinemaple]

Peacemaker was hilarious... so clearly the product of a design team stretching the limits of current technology till it screamed, yet it kinda sorta worked. For a pretty long time.

[@Dumbrarere]

The B-36 was never designed for Cold War politics. It was designed as an intercontinental bomber for war against the Axis Powers.. It needed to fly from the US East Coast to Berlin (or from Hawaii to Mainland Japan) and back on one tank of fuel (in case Britain fell, or the Island Hopping campaign in the Pacific failed to yield the desired results), and fly higher than the interceptors and anti-aircraft batteries of the time could reach. Of course, Britain never fell, and the Axis Powers collapsed before the B-36 had its first flight in 1946. However, its carrying capability and intercontinental range made it perfect for potential nuclear strikes against the Soviet Union from US Soil, so it just kind of fell into its role as a strategic bomber with USAF SAC.

[@chrisbaker2903]

@@Dumbrarere Britain would have fallen if Hitler hadn't attacked Russia, violating their treaty and maybe even then if he hadn't listened to Goring who claimed he could defeat Britain with air power.

[@HighlanderNorth1]

🚫 Actually, the B-36 was NOT designed to instill fear in the Soviet Union. But it WAS originally designed to instill fear in the Nazis in the 1940s! Its design started in early WW2, when US military and bureaucrats assumed there was a very real chance that Britain would fall to Germany, which would mean America would NOT have a relatively close base from which to launch bombing missions over Germany. That being the case, the top brass in the US army air force decided to put out a request for a heavy bomber of EXTREME range and LARGE bomb load, that could take off from the US east coast, fly across the Atlantic to Germany, drop it's bomb load then fly all the way back to the US again! At the time those(and other) requirements for the plane were seen as pretty much impossible! But ^thats what was ordered, a LONG range bomber that could carry at least 10,000lb of bombs over a 12,000 mile range! Unfortunately that was impossible by 1941 standards, so they dialed it back to a 10,000 mile range. But Britain was never conquered, so we had a base from where we could fly our plentiful B-17 and B-24 heavy bombers to Germany. So the B-36 development was slowed significantly. But eventually it was fully developed, and first flown towards late 1946, a year after WW2 ended. Then it went into full production and became our primary long range nuclear bomber, with a vastly increased payload of 86,000lbs of bombs, and a bombing radius of just under 4,000 miles each way with a full bomb load..

[@AtheistOrphan]

The B-36 is one of my all-time favourite aeroplanes. I can thoroughly recommend the book ‘Magnesium Overcast’ which covers the whole B-36 story.

[@SeeLasSee]

I’m always amazed at the number of designs and aircraft built in the 1930-60s.

[@douglasclark1894]

That Era was the "start up" boom for aviation where there was rapid technology growth in understanding of aerodynamics, propulsion, materials, armaments, etc. Throw in a major conflict to accelerate development and innovation. The 50s and 60s were the start of consolidation as technology advancements were starting to slow down and govt procurement started to contract

[@loganholmberg2295]

Yeah the tech was developing so fast that most aircraft had very short services lives. Fast frard to today and they are talking of flying B-52s into the century mark and New airframes like the F-35 having 30-40 year service lives.

[@charliedontsurf334]

It nice to see that there was a time when it wasn’t the end of the world if your plane didn’t work out.

[@SeeLasSee]

Thanks for all your thoughts.

[@richardsnyder9767]

Has he done one on the B-58?

[@selfdo]

Even the B-52 was almost cancelled before it could enter production. In 1951, the Air Force suffering a terrible defeat over North Korea at Namsi, where six of nine B-29s on a daylight bombing mission were lost. This meant that no further daylight raids were attempted, as the "North Korean" MiG-15s (now know to having been flown by Soviet V-VS aircrews, serving under WWII, at the time Colonel (later Marshal) Ivan Kozehdub) could easily evade the P-80 and F-2 "Banshee" jets. Although the F-86 Sabre proved more than capable of dealing with the Soviet-made MiGs, they still couldn't adequately protect the lumbering bombers. Work was already being done on high-altitude, faster jet bombers like Convair's own B-58 "Hustler", and these were seen as the only way a bomber could reliably penetrate enemy airspace, complete the mission, and return home safely. That, too, was shattered in May 1960, with the shoot-down of Francis Gary Powers' U-2, flying at a minimum altitude of 70,000 feet (the true altitude has never been divulged), showing that missiles, rather than high-speed jet interceptors, were now the main threat to bombers. The other thing that did away in time with the large, relatively slow horizontal bomber is that nuclear weapons were rapidly "downsized" in terms of size and weight, and the enormous multi-megaton devices possible (and TESTED by both major nuclear powers) were soon seen as of little practical military value. The "Buff", being that even from relatively "forward" bases in Greenland, Alaska, or the UK, still required a few hours to reach targets in the Soviet Union and/or China, was relegated from a primary strike role, that, in turn, along with the "Triad" model of nuclear deterrence, being assigned to land-based ICBMs, sub-launched SLBMs, and "fast", supersonic bombers like the B-58 and the F-105. Even the B-47, now deemed a medium bomber, and the UK's Canberra (we had a version of that bird, also, as the Martin B-57) also had a "theater" nuclear role in Europe, able to hit targets in Warsaw Pact countries and the western parts of the Soviet Union. It was the ALCM (Air-Launched Cruise Missile) that gave the "Buff" a new lease on life in the nuclear deterrence strategy, being able to "stand off" from enemy air defenses and let the missiles themselves do the evasion.

[@leonswan6733]

You know what you are saying.

[@SuperAmin1950]

Uh', not exactly, and your grammar could use a bit of work. 🤔

[@cbm2156]

I remember the YB-60 from the period ca. 1951-52 when I was living with my family near Azle Texas. Azle is located a few miles North of White Settlement where the B-36s were made. I used to watch the YB-60 fly over every few days. it was always escorted by two jet fighters. My father worked at the plant that made the B-36s and the YB-60. I guess that is why I knew about it. I do remember being very disappointed when it was cancelled. I thought it was a great Aircraft.

[@billgund4532]

One of the drawbacks to the YB-60 was it used the same airfoil of the B-36. The wing generated a pretty fair amount of lift, but drag was a problem at higher speeds.

[@darrellcook8253]

The bulging canopy held it back for a jet. Clean aerodynamics makes for better handling, range, speed and load. Drag is bad.

[@JoeOvercoat]

Thank you for that insight, because most certainly it was not the canopy holding it back.

[@None-zc5vg]

It was just a 'B36' with podded jet engines: the wing needed a different, thinner airfoil-profile to increase the type's performance.

[@manuwilson4695]

@@darrellcook8253...a thick wing causes WAY more drag than a bulging canopy! 🙄

[@manuwilson4695]

...what the hell were Convair engineers thinking!!!....a fat wing, with the same engines as the streamlined XB52???

[@SAUBER_KH7]

This is perhaps the best title for the video. I certainly never knew the YB-60 even existed. I'm glad to learn something new!

[@williamcharles9480]

Convair designed some incredible aircraft, the beautiful and powerful B-58 Hustler that came along after the YB-60 was a huge departure from the lumbering design of its predecessor. Even though it had a short life with the USAF, I think that if it had come along a bit later that wouldn't have been the fact. This bomber was fast.

[@danielocarey9392]

This documentary misses the point of the B-60. A sudden wind storm came upon the Fort Worth USAF base, and damaged 2 B-36s. So the Force wanted Convair to see if they could take those planes and turn them into all-jet bombers. The idea was to give a lower cost heavy jet bomber than the B-52 to the Airforce. But Convair told the Force that it would not fly particularly well. The wing airfoil was a high lift design for only moderate speeds. Taking a B-36 and cutting the wing in the center to slope it back would leave a swept wing with great drag. But the experiment was completed, and proved Convair's point that it would not fly quite right. It flew at about 500 MPH, whereas the Boeing could hit about 650 with a light load.

[@middleburgprepper2342]

The B-52 really impressed me the first time I watched a group fly into Kelly AFB while I was in Basic Training at Lackland. Amazing aircraft. I'd be scared to death seeing it come after me.

[@jp-um2fr]

During a coutesy visit of a B52 to the UK it was followed by a British Vulcan bomber. The B52 landed first of course. During the return courtesy trip to the US the Vulcan was told to wait while the B52 landed. The Vulcan then did a low level barrel roll along the runway, perfectly safe for the Vulcan but needless to say the 'henhouse' erupted. 'Manners maketh man' - OOPS!

[@Justanotherconsumer]

Barrel rolls aren’t particularly challenging. Tex Avery and the 707 prototype was the most notorious one - Boeing’s corporate staff freaked out a bit…

[@friendofcoal]

@@Justanotherconsumer The B-52 isn't designed to do barrel rolls, but the Vulcan can do them. In England, the Brits gave the B-52 courtesy of landing 1st, but upon going back to the states the US didn't return the same courtesy for the Brit's (Vulcan) bomber. So, the Brits decided to put on a little show showing that the Vulcan was not just another bomber and it could do something that the B-52 couldn't. It's a way of showing respect... You missed the point of what jp was saying....

[@Tom-jk3hy]

And where are all the Vulcans now ?? And don't say on the Starship Enterprise please . But the B-52's keep on flying . If I'm not mistaken didn't a Vulcan bomber virtually dissinagrate doing a low level flyby at an airshow in England one year ? I do believe the last time it was used in anger was during the Falklands war with Argentina back in the early eighties . And yet the BUFF'S ARE STILL GOING STRONG !! SUPPRISE !! SUPPRISE !! SUPPRISE !!

[@Tom-jk3hy]

@@friendofcoal Well that's because they wanted to B-52 down first just in case the Vulcan discintegrated over the runway like that one did at the airshow in England . I'm just saying .

[@harryricochet8134]

@@Justanotherconsumer Nope, that was Tex Johnson in a 367-80 prototype, the other guy was a cartoonist.

[@richsoroko6696]

I was with the 509TH SAC, stationed at Pease AB in New Hampshire from 1967 to 70. I had gone TDY to Guam, Thailand & Okinawa where bombing missions were conducted over Vietnam. I flew bombing missions with the BUFF from Okinawa. This Was & STILL is an Awesome Bomber to Recover, Inspect, Refuel & Launch during the time I was in the USAF.

[@billwhiteside189]

My father was the Chief of Bomber Maintenance at Edwards in the early 50s. That's me dressed up as a cowboy...take your son to work day? What a hoot to see that photo right in the middle of the video!

[@danielocarey9392]

Great to meet you, partner.

[@twill9278]

My uncle was career Air Force. He was a navigator in the ETO and a bombardier in Asia. In 1960, he was stationed at Westover AFB near Springfield, MA, about an hour and a half from my home. As a 6 year old, perhaps the biggest thrill of my life was a chance to sit in the pilot's seat of a B-52. But there was no seat cushion, just a square sheet metal bucket!

[@kevinwiltshire2217]

Those turrets looked pretty advanced for the time

[@machinist5828]

During the final years of Chanute AFB it was decided that a B-36 there would be disassembled and moved to George AFB or at least it was then. I was taking a class on heat treating different metals there. One of my jobs as a machinist was to help get stuck or stripped screws out of panels and other airframe parts. After class I would go out on the ramp and watch the crew taking the forlorn old bird apart. While watching I got into a conversation with one of the crew and told them who I was and what I did. Before I knew it I was helping wherever I was needed. It sure helped kill the time in the evenings but was only for 2 weeks. I was itching to get up in the cockpit but as the aircraft was on jacks it wasn't allowed. I know it left Chanute but I have no idea where it got to as George shit down soon after. I hope the old warhorse is on display somewhere. Cheers Terry

[@stealthg35infiniti94]

I remember seeing the big B36 parked on the field as we marched to school at Chanute AFB. Someone told us it was shortened by several feet due to a crash.

[@valhalla850i5]

Here is what happened to it: RB-36H 51-13730 at Castle Air Museum. This Peacemaker was displayed at Chanute AFB in Illinois for over three decades. When Chanute AFB closed down in the early nineties, the Peacemaker was transferred to the Castle Air Force Base Museum. It had to be disassembled to components that could be transported on railroad cars. Over a period of a little more than a year, the Peacemaker was reassembled. Link to a display of the restoration of this RB-36H.

[@machinist5828]

@@valhalla850i5 thank you Rick. I knew that it hadn't gone to George AFB like I was told. Not knowing the fate I feared that it might have become beer cans. I'll check the Castle AFB museum site. Cheers Terry

[@q-man762]

Good to know what became of it. I was at Chanute in 1979 for fire school, I recall some individuals figured out how to get inside and sit in the cockpit.

[@Ronin4614]

Yeah, the BUFF was tough to beat and she has more than proved her worth. Thank you for this and all of your “Dark” series videos. Do take care, amigo.

[@787roofdog]

I was stationed at Chanute AFB in 1986 to attend airframe repair school and we assembled for physical training near the B36. I remember it is as being truly impressive and gigantic in size. We would walk around it in awe and wonder what it must have been like to see it fly.

[@canadasleftcoast.5744]

I had the Monogram 1/72 scale B-36 kit when I was young. At the time it was the largest plastic model airplane produced.

[@SchoolforHackers]

Damn I loved those models.

[@rogerd777]

When I go to the Air Force Museum at WPAFB, seeing the B-36 is the highlight of my visit. It is such a beast.

[@johnpombrio]

On Prime Video, there is a James Stewart movie called Strategic Air Command. You get to see a lot of Convair B-36s and the interim Boeing B-47 bombers with lots of takeoffs, landings, and interior shots of the B-36 and some of the B-47. Worth a watch.

[@bobchurch6175]

There's a great scene where a large truck casually drives under the plane's wing.

[@cliffjackson6816]

Excellent presentation of fascinating historical facts! I'm a history buff, especially military history, but never knew about this. The story also illustrates perfectly why Capitalism will always be superior to Socialism. If you eliminate competition (risk), you eliminate the incentive to excel (reward). Human nature is best served by both. Hats off to the Convair team, who were just as important to the establishment of American air superiority as the Boeing team.

[@danielocarey9392]

Capitalism will always be superior to Socialism. YES.

[@davidwolf226]

I'm so glad that you've highlighted the YB-60! To be honest, I had completely forgotten about this prototype. My Dad was an Air Force veteran going back to 1946. His flight crew friends always complained about the many maintenance problems they had with the B-36, so the cancellation of the YB-60 by the Air Force was not any real surprise.

[@sidefx996]

Curious what percentage of those maintenance problems you think were the R-4360s.

[@NikonPhotoHawk]

Very interesting history. I grew up in SAC, and while it was a somewhat precarious time at times, it’s was an area of magnificent achievement by Strategic Air Command… in my opinion the greatest organization the world has ever known. I was two young to have known the B-36, I’d did grow up around the B-47, B-58, B-52 and did see the XB-70.

[@Thomasnmi]

As a former SAC Rat, I agree

[@sw8741]

Did anyone else notice the big huge computers they used? AKA, .big open office space filled with engineers and draftsman. Now that is a sight to behold!

[@michaellinner7772]

These videos provide a space for all of our "what if" ideas to come out and play. I love every one of them because they also provide information and a great source of learning.

[@chrisbaker2903]

It looks a lot like the Chair Force (we do most of our best work sitting down) has forgotten the idea of having a backup aircraft they should have learned from WWII. We had the B-17, arguably the best strategic bomber of the time, but we also had the B-24, the mid sized B-26 and B-25, The P-38 (called the Forked Tail Devil by the Germans), probably the best all around fighter/bomber of WWII although the P-47 was pretty close. The P-51, which was so tail heavy when loaded for long distance missions that the pilots used the big internal tank behind the pilot's position before using the fuel in the drop tanks. It was bought because it was cheaper, not because it was better. I think it was Stalin who said, "there is a quality to quantity all it's own" and so P-51s were bought in great quantities. All the backups and they've completely forgotten the lesson. So the B-60 wasn't as good as the B-52, but what if they'd given the company enough of a contract to keep developing it and modifying the design to make it faster and longer ranged? Wouldn't that have been good?

[@danielocarey9392]

The B-24 could fly faster, farther higher and with a greater bomb load than the b-17.

[@Bill23799]

USAF General tasked with making final decision on the new bomber. " Damnit! I don't care what it says on paper or which plane can carry a bigger payload. the B-52 just LOOKS like a bomber of the future. " APPROVED!

[@danielocarey9392]

So does the B-58. But one of the '52s greatest features is its ability to land in a crab.

[@Sacto1654]

It was essentially Convair's attempt to keep the B-36 production line going. But the B-52 was technically a vastly superior plane, especially with its lower weight and higher top speed.

[@himoffthequakeroatbox4320]

The B-47 flew just over a year after the B-36. Looking at them you'd think it was a decade.

[@jmwoods190]

@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 The reason for this was because B-36 was originally conceived in the WW2 era, NOT the cold war as with the B-47. In fact the B-36's conception was 2 months before Pearl Harbor, but sadly Consolidated/Convair had to put it on the back burner for some years because they were ordered to focus more on B-24 production line. Had that not happened and VJ day happened later, we might've seen a B-36 or two in the Pacific Theater!

[@danielocarey9392]

Well, it started when 2 '36s collided in a windstorm. Convair and the Force decided to repair them by making them into all-jet swept wing versions of the B-36. That is all.

[@charlessweigert6180]

I think the YB-60 was a beautiful aircraft!!!! It would make a very interesting model of another aircraft that was never produced. Love Dark Skies, keep up the awesome work.

[@jackmunday7602]

Another awsome video dark skies. I've recently finished a book called whirlwind by Barrett Tillman. A fantastic read that documents the American Air raids against the Japanese mainland. On the early stages of the book, it covers the development of both technology and doctrine of US heavy bombers before the second world war. One aircraft that it mentions is the Douglas XB-19. A gargantuan aircraft, with a crew of 16, a length of 132 feet and a wingspan of 212 feet. Dwarfing the biggest bomber of ww2, the B-29. Only a single prototype was built, and it was scrapped shortly after the war in 1946. Maybe you could cover the XB-19 in a future video. Keep up the great work mate. 👍👍

[@billdurham8477]

At the USAF Museum in Ohio you can sit on a main tire. And check out the original B36 tire.

[@kendenning6517]

Wouldn't it have been fantastic if the army air core & later the air force had saved these planes 4 future generations. Prototypes & production models in a museum somewhere in 1 location. Would've loved 2C them in real time & not just in archival video's. So many types & innovated designs that boggles 1s mind. From bombers 2 fighters. Some were just duds but others were unique in their futuristic thinking but ahead of our technological capacity at the time 2 perfect them. Some were impractical & 2 expensive. Others passed on 4 political corruption & foolishness. But being able 2C them 2day would B a pleasure. Take 4 example Northrop's flying wing & 2days B2 bomber. Or Lockheed's Hummingbird & a Harrier plus a F35 lined up together. Showing how ideas develop & evolved into working machines. Wouldn't it B something 2C all those aircraft sitting side by side. But I'm thankful we still have some records of their existence.

[@DavidRLentz]

And the Convair B-32 "Dominator" USAAF Very Heavy Bomber.

[@DavidRLentz]

@@kendenning6517 , I have poor vision. Seasonal allergies blur my vision, and make my eyes burn and tear. Your using numbers in lieu of homophonic words makes it rather difficult for me to distinguish the two.

[@Dan.d649]

I wish though that the YB-60 would've been more of a concept airplane, having eight jet engines, and an improved, and faster version of the XB-36. This designed airplane would've been great being preserved, showing itself to aviation geeks worldwide the similarities it had with the successful B-52.

[@timengineman2nd714]

With the YB-60 being 100 knots slower than the B-52, I'm surprised that they didn't add on another single or double turbo-jet pod outboard of the two on each wing that they already had! (They probably would have to move the already existing pods move a tad inboard, about the location of the inner engines on the B-36...) Also, this plane still had the "Giantism" issue, too "darn" big to fit in hangers! And the weight did limit it more than the B-52s (added in edit) to which runways it could use, in addition to having enough room so it's wingtips wouldn't hit anything during Take-Offs and Landings. Boeing did a great job in designing (such as having 8 main wheels under the fuselage which could pivot so you can get the plane's nose into the wind even if the runaway isn't directly into the wind, and an outrigger under each wing to help clearence) and building their B-52!!!

[@danielocarey9392]

True. But Convair had an idea. 2-b-36s had been damaged from a windstorm. So those were the planes they modified. It was only for saving money for the USAF.

[@johnharris6655]

The Airforce wanted faster, so Convair built the B-58.

[@simonm1447]

It was really fast, but it was also demanding to fly for the pilots which resulted in a high crash rate. Later it was forced into a low level role, however the dense air meant way more stress for the airframe than its original Mach 2 high altitude role. At the end fatigue on the airframes and the lack of versatility killed the B-58 in the early 70s

[@K4rt80y]

Taking thick B-36 wings and sweeping them with the necessary fillets to make it work still nets you a wing designed before WWII. The B-60 never stood a chance.

[@rulebretgne5244]

Its hard to appreciate how big a plane we are talking about. The SAC museum near where I live has a b-36 and a b-52. We all consider the b-52 to be big, but the b-36 is truly enormous.

[@arnoldjohnson5594]

I was a electrical gunner flying on a B 36 out of Biggs AFB in 95TH BOMB WING, 334 sqd. great fun for a 22 yr (from the UP) saw much of world from 25 k ft. Then TDY to the Azores (2). Anderson on Guam for the longest 90 days in history. I'm now 3 weeks from 90. Old arnie bob

[@wes326]

I live in Papillion.

[@royreali8852]

I want to thank you for making videos that are not only entertaining and informative, but don't take half a day to view.

[@boris1932]

B-52 was the better design for sure. It has proven that as it will no doubt be around for many years to come. The expected retirement date is 2050 -- just incredible!

[@nHeroGo]

Such cool music. And always high product quality. One of the best show on KZbin.

[@0159ralph]

If these were produced on a mass scale and used in Nam for Linebacker our losses would have been more horrendous. The BUFFs were more suited and had better ECMs against Soviet SAMs. But or loses were still high, the YB60 was 1940s technology.

[@paulm749]

The YB-60 never stood a chance. Being that Convair was starting with an air frame that essentially was built to a WWII spec, they were trying to graft newer technology onto an airplane that was already obsolete by the early 1950's. The B-52 was a clean-sheet design that didn't need to make so many compromises and was therefore able to achieve a much higher level of performance. At best, Convair's attempt to extend the life of the B-36 kept their factory open for a few more years. They only managed to delay the inevitable.

[@danielocarey9392]

But remember that Convair just wanted to help the Force with 2-damaged B-36s at Carswell. They towed them into the factory, and took the wings off, modifying them into swept-wing configuration with turbojets and an all-new tail. a storm smacked the two craft into each other.

[@keithweiss7899]

Those days when we were converting from piston to jet were interesting. I worked with a guy who helped test a piston bomber that had jet engines mounted inboard of those engines. From the side you could not see much of the jet engines. On a test they flew to altitude on propellers and then lit the jets. Next they feathered the propellers to reduce drag and flew with the propellers stopped. One day they passed a commercial airplane while doing this. The pilot saw them passing him with the propellers stopped and about had a heart attack! He kept grabbing his co-pilot and pointing!🤣

[@Dave-ty2qp]

The B-36 was under powered for heavy bomb, and fuel loads so the four J-47 turbojet engines were added. Six turning and four burning was the saying for that era. LOL Back in 1966 I got to go thru one at Amarillo Air Firce Base while it was being prepped for permanent static display. Very big, and impressive as was the C-133 also being prepped.

[@johnjephcote7636]

Would that be the Nene Lancastrian with two Merlins and two Nenes? Unfortunately, its operational ceiling was limited.

[@hibob418]

@@Dave-ty2qp Or as my dad liked to joke, "2 turning, 2 burning, 2 smoking, 2 choking, and 2 more unaccounted for."

[@jamessimms415]

@@Dave-ty2qp 2 turning, 2 burning, 2 on fire, 2 smoking, & 2 missing

[@Dave-ty2qp]

@@hibob418 I'm still laughing on that one. LOL 😂😂

[@gabrielbennett5162]

Fitz Fulton, the guy my grandpa, Vic Horton, flew backseat for on the NASA Blackbirds and 747 Shuttle Carrier, flew this beast. I've been told he was not that impressed with it.

[@BagusWidyanto_HappyIn1997]

I believe it would have been easier to accommodate high bypass turbofan engines on B-60 than B-52 as the engines is positioned higher from the ground. One of the factors that led to the cancellation of RB211 engine adoption in B-52 in late 1990s was the fact that the outer engine pods would have been very low above the ground.

[@selfdo]

That and the B-52H model was the WRONG version to have four instead of eight engines fitted; e.g., it had the shorter empennage and in reality should have been designated as a new model. Having an engine go out with eight is one thing, one of FOUR is different, as in how it affects YAW. While the RB211, from a fuel economy and range (doing so not only increases the aircraft's range and/or potential payload, it also cuts down on needed tanker support), was a "no brainer", the redesign of the "H" model would have essentially rendered these as new aircraft themselves! The older "D" and "G" models, however, were, by treaty, slated for being chopped up at the "boneyard" at Davis-Monthan AFB, in Tucson, AZ, and likely, after years in storage, were probably way too expensive to be rendered airworthy anyway. Nor was building an all-new four-engine bomber deemed practical or desirable. The direct replacement with newer turbofans, while keeping the eight-engine configuration, is the best way to keep the remaining 76 B-52Hs in service, and likely they will until THOSE particular airframes are a CENTURY old!

[@leonswan6733]

@@selfdo I am sorry but the B-52 needs to be retired. Just like the Air Force says that it can`t all be stealth F-22s F-35s and B-2 spirits / B-21 raiders. They are making new and improved F-16s and F-15Xs. They need to keep the B-1Bs going and even a newer B-1C which they could bring the speed back up to Mach 2 capable which the YB-1A prototypes was capable of then they slowed it down to Mach 1.2 for the production B-1Bs. There are plenty of areal re-fueling tankers to give the B-1Bs and Cs all the range with 3 internal bomb bays. There is no need for external bomb racks like the one bomb bay B-52s. Why waste millions of dollars on re-engine the B-52s when we can spend that money to get something that is with the times like a updated B-1C with the existing B-1Bs in addition to The B-2 spirits and the B-21 Raiders. Retire the B-52s !!!!

[@stephenpointon]

@@leonswan6733 I could not disagree more, the cost of updating the B52 with the 8 br700 based engines is a relatively cheap and efficient way to keep this important jet in service. If we were to scrap the b-52's there would be at least a 10 year long gap before its replacement would be ready. That new plane would need a lot of equipment and training dollars to be spent to put it in service. Also the idea of putting an existing design back into production is a non starter as the tooling for the B1 or B2 was destroyed long long ago. The best we can hope for is that the Airforce gets a second order of improved b-21b raiders with all the improvements learned from the initial tranche. If a mach 2 version of the b1-c was to be built it would have a very limited role as it would have very poor range (don't think that in flight refueling cures this as it wont since refueling tankers are very vulnerable as are the aircraft being refueled, presenting any cheap long range air to air missile with a very tasty target), it would be very vulnerable to missile defence systems at all altitudes due to having poor stealth characteristics in infra red and radar properties, exactly the same reasons for a the cancelation of the B-70 , the original B1-A and the scrapping of the B-58 hustler (all planes intended to supplement or replace the B-52). Oh and by the way who is going to build this new plane? Rockwell are long gone, Boeing are not interested in giving up the B52 gravy train, lockheed are snowed under with f-35 work and Northrop have got the b-21 raider.I have worked in the aerospace field for over 30 years so I think I can say my opinions are better informed than most.

[@leonswan6733]

@@stephenpointon Good rebuttal to save the B-52. I respect your 30+ years in the aerospace industry. ( My second attack to retiring and replacing the B-52 ) OK 10 years to find a replacement for the B-52, lets start now. i already know what you are going to say about a twin engine Boeing 777 based aircraft with bomb bays to be a bomber ( limited engine redundancy battle damage survivability ) and I don't think you want to see anything like a tri engine MD-11 or L-1011. Your going to say a B-747 is too big ( big non-stealth target ). So a from scratch design 4 engine type. No need to build a lot of them because the B-21 Raider will be primary, its a non-stealth uncontested aerospace bomb truck. A high wing 4 engine design to keep the bomb bays low for easy weapons loading. it would be something looking like a Convair YB-60 but not as big., I say lets build it The B-52 is too old !!! The youngest modified to H airframe was still built in the 1960s!!!!. Pilots have always said its ocward to take-off land and fly. My first USAF base was Fairchild AFB WA 3 years after the B-52 crashed at the airshow. Lt Col Holland use to get a kick out of being one of the few pilots to get some maneuverability out the thing. The airframe is tired, it needs to be retired. Lets start to retire the B-52 !!!!

[@stephenpointon]

@@leonswan6733 personally i think that a good starting point for a replacement for the buff could be a version of the c-17 it could use existing maintenance infrastructure, and it should never have gone out of production. I can see a need for a replacement but know that replacing such a aircraft can be hard

[@MiKeMiDNiTe-77]

Great clip on a great aircraft really love the look of this classic might have been.

[@charlesclager6808]

Again, like most of your videos, I've been schooled on a topic I never knew existed. Thank you.

[@alexandrec9372]

Muito Bom! Não sabia da existência dessa versão do B36, obrigado por compartilhar. Saudações do Brasil.

[@callenclarke371]

YB-60 is a very interesting aircraft. Good production. I like the music too.

[@fiodarkliomin1112]

Cold war design 👍 I like it. Long live for B-52 👍👍👍🥰

[@ralphbalfoort2909]

I had heard or read about the B-60's slower speed relative to the B-52 several years ago. It's not surprising that it wasn't chosen.

[@simonm1447]

It used the same wings as the 36, in a different wing box in a swept wing configuration. Since the 36 was slower it needed bigger wings to generate the necessary lift, a faster jet typically has a higher wing loading because it can generate the same lift at higher speed with smaller wings. This meant the wings were bigger than needed, which resulted in additional drag, and the wing Profile was also once made for the lower speed of a piston engine propeller aircraft. The additional drag prevented the YB-60 from flying faster. The B-52 however was a clean sheet design, which was optimized for the speed of a jet aircraft. Range wasn't a problem any more due to aerial refueling.

[@manininikolas9310]

Incredible is the configuration of the double 20mm canon a piece of ingeniering

[@michaelmartinez1345]

Even though this was a setback for Convair, they still managed to design & produce the world's First supersonic bomber... The B-58 'Hustler'... It was accepted by the USAF... I really like the civilian airliners they designed & Produced. Real fast planes... The 880's and the 990's... Thank you for this video!!!

[@Brucenator100]

One time I actually saw a B58 flying --- it was very high with contrails and easily identifiable with its pronounced delta wing...

[@mgmcd1]

Have you done a video on the B-47, and how it’s nuclear payload delivery tactic of throwing the bomb while doing an inside loop to bug out quicker ended up fatiguing the wings and airframe? The YB-60 reminds me of a larger cousin to the B-47.

[@jimtaylor294]

Ah yes; what the RAF called "Toss Bombing".

[@johngoscinski1995]

The B-47 was a learning experience for Boeing. It was the first new highly swept wing on an airplane of the type. Go look at the B-45, B-46 and B-48. Sleek metal jet bombers of the same era, with straight wings. Nobody else understood the swept wing at that time. So, Boeing learned their lesson on how to build the highly swept, high speed wing on the B-47, and applied it to the B-52, and in comparison that's why the BUFF won and the B-60 lost. Go look again at the video, and look at how thick the B-60 wing was. It was not any kind of high speed airfoil. There is no mystery for why the B-60 was so slow, its plainly visible. Convair tried to reuse the B-36 parts to the max extent possible, and it doomed the design. THe B-52 had a less stressful flight profile than the B-47 and the thin swept wing worked out.

[@Firebrand55]

They chose.......wisely.The venerable B-52 will fly till 2050, becoming an aviation legend along the way.

[@ReasonablySane]

When I was a kid I lived near Larson AFB in Moses Lake. This was late 50's and early 60's. The B36's flying at high altitude looked like little silver plus signs in the sky.

[@HeadPack]

That was an amazing period in aircraft design. So much ingenuity and willingness to experiment. Unfortunately, things seem to have pretty much stalled since the 1970's. UAV's are among the few exceptions.

[@stevenlitvintchouk3131]

Stealth technology was a big advance. The F-117, B-2, and B-21.

[@BODYBUILDERS_AGAINST_FEMINISM]

I mean, it makes sense I guess. Satellites and and ICBMs are cheaper and more effective. So that's where the funds go.

[@selfdo]

@@stevenlitvintchouk3131 The B-2 "Spirit" is what the original B-49, which it's very similar in concept to, and has the SAME wingspan (coincidence?) could and should have been. The B-49 was simply way too ahead of its time to be adapted for combat service.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

There's LOTS of aircraft development going on, but not where you're looking for it. A lot of the really bleeding edge stuff comes out of partnerships between British universities and BAE. Have a look at the BAE MAGMA test bed. It has thrust vectoring and control surfaces like a normal high-end air superiority fighter jet. Except it has no moving parts. No flaps, no vectoring Turkey feathers. All done with fluidics instead of flaps. So it's lighter, cheaper, faster, more maneuverable, more reliable and the stealthiest airframe built to date. And a lot of the gubbins to make this work is in 3d printer titanium. So MUCH cheaper to make. Something that's a bit more common knowledge is Reactions Engines, which came out of a much earlier uni collaboration. They're making SABRE, the Synergistic Air Breathing Rocket Engine. Forget SCRAM jets, this collects atmospheric oxygen, chills it from 1000°C to -150°C and then burns it with its hydrogen fuel. The in-atmosphere hypersonic jet liner version is called Scimitar. They're investigating putting that into the Tempest 6th gen fighter, making it a hypersonic fighter. Honestly no, up until this point aircraft design has been pretty tame, there's not THAT much difference between an F16 and a Gloster Meteor. Most of the advances have been in the weapons, radars and avionics. Now we'll see true leaps into the new.

[@williamhanson1350]

I am a retired MSgt AF and I loved the aircraft in SAC.

[@shawns0762]

The fatter wing of the YB-60 could produce a lot more lift than the B-52's wings, the bomb load was significantly higher.

[@SoloRenegade]

and also produces more drag, making it slower.

[@valenrn8657]

The fatter wing has a higher drag.

[@tonymanero5544]

These bombers were nuclear weapon delivery systems and were vulnerable when the SA-2 was introduced. Over time, survivability and standoff range were provided by cruise missiles. Bomb payload, important to carry heavy nuclear bombs wasn’t needed with the miniaturization of warheads. Vulnerable U-2 proved dropping nuclear bombs on Russian targets were risky. The entire 1960’s were spent by the Air Force on Minuteman ICBM and keeping the B-52 fleet less vulnerable with the Hound Dog missile. The Skybolt, Quail and SCAD program lead to SRAM and later turbojet cruise missiles. B-70 was trying out Mach 3 speed but it was unnecessary and high cost compared with ICBM and Polaris and later Poseidon. SRAM was withdrawn after 20 years due to rocket motor and body crack problems. Nostalgia for bombers and B-58 is misplaced. The economy was tanking in the 1970’s due to cost of Vietnam War and other things. Bush and Cheney technically bankrupt the US with Iraq 2 and 20 years of Afghanistan.

[@valenrn8657]

@@tonymanero5544 > Bush and Cheney technically bankrupt the US with Iraq 2 and 20 years of Afghanistan. Not yet. From GPAS__2021 pdf Pension (mandated savings) funds vs GDP ratio for 2021 Five Eyes/Five Passport Group, Australia, $2,333 billion, 174.8% (CPTPP member) Canada, $3,080 billion, 192.5% (CPTPP member) United Kingdom, $3,564 billion, 135.1% (near CPTPP member) United States, $32,567 billion, 156.5%

[@richardferg6455]

Perhaps with it's larger load capacity, a refueling tanker could have been an alternative role.

[@leonswan6733]

I was thinking the same thing

[@jimtaylor294]

Might have also made an excellent long range AWACS aircraft.

[@ralphandrade3133]

My uncle, (rip), flew in a B36 in Korea. He told me as a kid about the YB60, and wished he could have flown in it as well. Very interesting, keep them coming.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

You sure it was not the 29? I don't recall the 36 seeing action.

[@mh53j]

@@WALTERBROADDUS you're correct. B-36 was never used on a combat mission.

[@AtheistOrphan]

@@WALTERBROADDUS - More likely the B-50.

[@AtheistOrphan]

With the greatest of respect to your late uncle, the B-36 never operated over Korea. More likely it was a B-50.

[@wilsonli5642]

@4:02: Extending the tail section doesn't "allow" the plane to remain horizontal for longer during takeoff, it _forces_ it to remain horizontal. A longer tail means you can't just pull back on the yoke to 15° or whatever as soon as you reach takeoff speed, you'd have to pull back gradually so that the back doesn't hit the ground. This is a handicap, not an advantage.

[@wilsonli5642]

@@mmm-mmm that's an interesting point, thanks!

[@robertheinkel6225]

Ever seen a B-52 takeoff? The rear goes airborne first.

[@AtheistOrphan]

When I see those turrets I can’t but help think of Daleks!

[@samuelhornetwolf1823]

*I remember it as a kid in the early 60's ...*

[@georgespalding7640]

What a beautiful airplane it was. I wonder if any still exist in a museum or hanger somewhere?

[@josephdupont]

Thank you for the video on the conjure aight I had thought that they had a disintegration problem that one of them fell apart in the air but apparently we really got her money's worth on the B-52 didn't we I still feel bad about the Flying Wing

[@josephbarnes7217]

Awesome video you just keep getting better

[@mondo851]

The YB-60 has a very cool retro look. It could have starred in one of those late 50s sci-fi movies where giant mantises or giant ants or [fill in the blank] invade the U.S. and the Air Force is instantly mobilized.

[@larslarsman]

Early 1950's, East Bakersfield. Occasionally a B36 from Edwards would pass over town and my grade school, make a u-turn West of Bakersfield and head back to Edwards. In hindsight, maybe a bombing training run.

[@scubaguy007]

I always thought this was a British bomber. Thanks for the correct information. I watch your channel nearly everyday. 😊

[@rendrahutabarat914]

They still used black and white video when the b52 was launched .. mind boggling

[@genericscottishchannel1603]

Those turrets are fucking sick

[@penzlic]

YB-60 with NB-36s cocpit canopy would be a stunner.

[@HarborLockRoad]

I think turboprop engines would have been a better idea to keep the B-36 modernized. It worked for the TU-95 for the Soviets.

[@phinhager6509]

The US Didn't really need a slow long range recon/patrol aircraft. We had the U2 and Oxcart/later SR71, aircraft carriers, and sophisticated in air refueling relays.The Tu-95 was answer to a problem the US didn't have.

[@simonm1447]

There was a proposed 4 engine turboprop version of the 36 (even before the production of the 36 started) , but it was canceled since such big turboprops weren't available in the US at the time and the development risk was considered too high back then, compared to the piston engine version.

[@phinhager6509]

@@simonm1447 I thought that those early turboprop b36 proposals where aimed at maximum performance rather than a big cheap second rate like the tu95

[@simonm1447]

@@phinhager6509 the gas turbine proposal was proposed in Feb 1947, after the first flight but before the aircraft as it was later built entered service. It was proposed to use 4 Curtiss-Wright XT-35 turboprop engines, it was estimated to get a speed advantage of 100 mph with 4 XT35-W-1 engines and 150 mph with 4 more powerful XT35-W-3 engines. However this engine wasn't ready yet and the proposal was rejected by the Air Force because of this reason. At the end this engine was never built. Interestingly the same XT-35 engine was part of early B-52 proposals, which still had a straight wing design with 6 turboprops. The B-52 however was built completely different at the end, using a swept wing and 8 jet engines. The YB-60 prototypes had the B-52 twin engine pods, for a later production aircraft however Convair proposed a version with 4 turboprop engines in a tractor configuration, similar to the gas turbine powered B-36 version just with swept wings

[@PaulHodgetts-ud9eq]

I enjoy all the dark series listen and watch a lot thank you for a fantastic show

[@adamellis5228]

At approximately 10:05, it shows workers leaving a factory, that I presume is a plant building these huge aircraft. The narrator discusses Convair's efforts to maintain at least one YB-60 flying as a test-bed. However, this was unacceptable. "...At a cost of $14,300,000.00 in development costs, alone. August of 1952 the project was cancelled, and what was currently in construction would continue. The contract for 72 B-52s was to continue. The two Convair B-36 were 'Formerly' accepted by U.S. The Air Force, having completed their contract's satisfactorily. What caught my attention at the "10:00" point is due to the workers leaving the factory, possibly for the last time. This is why, among other reasons, that large projects like this continue to stay funded even in financially difficult times. I'm talking large scale projects like building war ships. If the skill sets that these individuals possess are not fostered, we will see a decline in something extremely important: Wisdom. Those who understand, will.

[@Wideoval73]

Excellent video. Keep up the great work. Did not know about this B-36 variant.

[@oxcart4172]

Wing empennage? That means wing tail!

[@CFPVideoProductions]

I would strongly suggest in the future, you do not speed up the voiceover. It's rapid shooting of the text makes the listener uncomfortable. I reduced the speed to 85% and it sounded more natural. Thansk for an informative video.

[@nairbvel]

I'm wondering how much the "your bomber is too slow" affected Convair's 880 project, since that thing was (for its time) a speed demon.

[@paulm.sullivan7660]

Very thorough pesentation! Thanks for the history lesson!

[@Dan.d649]

The YB-60 I meant. I was focused on explaining a bit of the XB-36 and than the B-52. I just see the difference between these three airplanes being way too out of balance. The XB-36 Peacemaker, did see mass production though to see long range capabilities, but when the B-52 Stratofortress came about, everything on paper that was researched, developed, delivered, was completely obsolete. The B-52 of course became the winner.

[@kalashnikovdevil]

Considering the Buff is still in service, and will be in service for a long time yet, there's no shame to Convair in this loss.

[@exidy-yt]

Yeah, sorry but I never liked Convair's bomber options. The B-36 in particular was a joke - "4 turnin, 2 smokin, 2 choking, 2 mia" was a terrifyingly unstable strategic bomber platform. I am glad the B-60 never got off the ground compared to the BUFF, a plane so stable and powerful it flies to this very day and will have a flying lifetime that not even the greatest sailing ship design of the age of sail ever held.

[@arround1]

In the air it's Convair!

[@Dan.d649]

The technology front of this airplane was to beat out the XB-36, and the B-52 design. It was an interesting design and rather sleek looking before the B-52 became an instant success.. The production of only two J57 turbojet powered XB-60s is all that became. It was way too late for Convair to consider something like this to compete with the B-52. What Boeing did with the design of the B-52 was exact. It came, and was planned together exactly right. The Air Force was not about to loose out on this opportunity, because the B-52 sought their needs for a long-range jet bomber. The B-47 Strato-Jet was a "ready" bomber that was a successful "sleek" airplane also, and the Air Force seeked it before the B-52, which itself became the world's greatest bomber up until this day, and beyond with the newer engine retrofit forthcoming. I do believe that the B-52 with all newer improvements, will fly past 100 years, making the very best built aircraft in history.

[@evelynkieraivanova5404]

The Mark 6 bomb had a variable yield. Various models and pit options gave nuclear yields of 18, 26, 80, 154, and 160 kilotons for Mark 6 models.

[@ramonvargas3188]

Hello, great spoken history of aviation. Thanks for posting!

[@ThatBoomerDude56]

5:39 I'm pretty sure the guy to the far right is Don Germeraad, who became chief of flight test for Convair a while later on the 880 and 990 programs when my dad was flying as a flight test engineer.

[@davewilson9772]

Those were the halcyon days for Boeing, they could do no wrong. Sadly they were the sunset days for Convair. Thanks DS, I didn't know much about the YB-60.

[@jeremywilliams5107]

Jet bombers for nuclear use at the same time as this development - maybe Vickers should have sold them the Valiant?

[@rydplrs71]

Small correction. The mark 6 nuclear bomb had 8-160kt explosive yield not 1kt

[@josemoreno3334]

Great info on the YB-60.

[@mblaber2000]

That is one thicc airfoil...