Military Review

Douglas Model 1211 long-range bomber project (USA)

26
Back in the fall of 1945, the United States Department of Defense developed requirements for a promising strategic bomber. The latest Convair B-36 Peacemaker aircraft have yet been arranged by the military, but the expected rapid development aviation allowed to operate such equipment only for the next few years. By the mid-fifties, it was required to completely renew the fleet of distant bombers. To this end, a program for developing similar projects was soon launched and a competition announced.


The winner of the competition in the end was the company Boeing with the project of a bomber, later named B-52. In addition to Boeing, several other aircraft-building companies participated in the competition, offering the most daring designs. Among the participants of the program was the company Douglas. By 1950, when the final stage of the competition began, this company developed several versions of a preliminary project under the general name Model 1211 or simply “1211”.

According to some reports, during the 1211 project, Douglas specialists reviewed several dozen variants of the overall architecture and layout of the prospective aircraft. At the same time, only some proposals were worked out at the level of the preliminary project. All of them, by the standards of the company, received additional letters in the designation. Thus, at different times, engineers were engaged in projects "1211-A", "1211-B", etc. At the time of the submission of the draft, the project with the letter “J” was military relevant. It was he who stayed in stories American aviation as not very successful competitor of the future B-52.

Douglas Model 1211 long-range bomber project (USA)


Gradually developing the initial ideas, the Douglas specialists gathered in the Model 1211-J project a number of the most daring and unusual technical solutions. In order to maximize the performance they went to a number of original steps of layout and other character. At the same time, however, in the project "1211-J" were viewed some of the trends characteristic of American developments in the field of long-range bombers.

Bomber Douglas Model 1211-J should have a sufficiently large size. The large elongation fuselage had a length of the order of 49 m, the swept-wing span reached 70 m. The proposed swept wing could provide high flight data. The plane, equipped with four turboprop engines, could reach speeds of up to 830 km / h and fly to a range of almost 20400 km. The combat radius at the same time was 8050 km. Estimated ceiling machines - 16500 m.

During the development of the project, an unpleasant feature of the chosen scheme was found out. To achieve the required flight range, the aircraft had to carry about 77,3 tons of fuel. Despite all the efforts, the designers were not able to place all the fuel tanks needed for this inside the wing and fuselage. Inside the aircraft, it was possible to place no more than 55 tons of fuel, i.e. about 70% of the required amount. Because of this, four additional tanks for 22,6 tons of kerosene were forcedly introduced into the fuel system. Such tanks were to be suspended under the wing, between pairs of engines and under the consoles.

After that, the project developers again had problems. The wing spanning the 70 m, loaded with fuel in the internal and external tanks, was supposed to be seriously bent. Moreover, on the take-off wingtips could hurt the concrete strip with the corresponding sad consequences. For this reason, the external pair of fuel tanks was equipped with drop-down additional landing gear. They had to keep the tanks at the desired height above the surface of the runway and protect the aircraft from damage.


Scheme of the aircraft in the version of the bomber and carrier fighters. Figure Otvaga2014.ru


Apart from the large size and original structure of the fuel system, the Douglas Model 1211-J bomber was a typical representative of its class of technology. Inside was to accommodate the crew and the payload, as well as part of the fuel. On the wing were four engine nacelles for engines. In the tail of the fuselage was fixed swept plumage. According to calculations, the normal take-off mass of the prospective aircraft was 146 t.

On takeoff, it was planned to use its own chassis in combination with additional drop racks. Due to the emptying of tanks and reducing the load on the wing, you could only sit on your own chassis. The main landing gear were placed in the internal engine nacelles, another rack was in the forward fuselage.

As the power plant, it was planned to use Wright XT35 Typhoon turboprop engines with a power of 5500 hp. each. In addition, the possibility of using other turboprop engines was considered. It is known about the development of a variant of the project "1211" using turbojets. The engines were planned to be equipped with twin coaxial propellers with a diameter of 4,3 m.

To accommodate a nine-man crew, the Model 1211-J aircraft was to receive a two-story, sealed cabin in the forward fuselage. In the upper part of the cabin there were places for two pilots, a navigator and a flight engineer. In the lower, which had a nasal blister, the places of the scorer and the avionics engineer were envisaged. Manage the plane should have been six people. In addition, the cockpit had space for three pilots who could take control during long flights.

High speed of flight allowed to simplify defensive armament. To protect against enemy fighters approaching from behind, the plane had to use one 20 mm automatic cannon. The gun was equipped with a remote control system. In addition, the possibility of equipping a bomber with nodes for the suspension of air-to-air missiles was considered.

In the fuselage cargo compartment it was possible to place weapons with a total weight of up to 20 t. The newest non-nuclear bomb of the caliber 1211 thousand pounds (about 43 t) was supposed to be the heaviest ammunition for the Douglas Model 19,5-J. In addition, the aircraft was supposed to carry various nuclear weapons of suitable size and weight.



Overall, the 1211-J project looked interesting and promising. However, according to some characteristics, he lost to the developments of other project participants. In particular, the leadership project of the company Boeing has already been outlined. Among the shortcomings of the Douglas project were oversized dimensions that made it difficult to operate, as well as turboprop engines with insufficient performance. As the promising bomber development program was implemented, the military began to prefer machines with turbojet engines.

It should be noted that the specialists of the company "Douglas", seeing the new desires of the customer, attempted to update the project. So, in the version "1211-R" it was proposed to use a set of six engines: four turboprop and two turbojet. According to calculations, such a power plant did not give special advantages. Cruising speed was only 655 km / h, and the combat radius was reduced to 8000 km. Thus, the aircraft with a combined power plant in terms of flight data was almost no different from the base Model 1211-J.

The latest version of the Douglas Model 1211 project was a project with the letter “W”. Again trying to improve the performance and meet the requirements of the military, aircraft designers decided to equip the aircraft with four turboprop and four turbojet engines. There were no significant benefits anyway, which led to a halt in development.

Along with attempts to improve the characteristics of the aircraft by changing the composition of the power plant, Douglas specialists tried to solve other problems. The characteristic lack of jet fighters of that time was a small radius of action, because of which they could not defend long-range bombers on most of their route. In order to defend bomber formations, from the end of the forties the United States developed various so-called projects. parasitic fighters - light aircraft suspended under a bomber and delivered to the place of a possible battle.


Model aircraft "1211-J". Photo Airspacemag.com


In the fighter carrier variant, the Model 1211 aircraft did not receive an internal pair of additional tanks. Instead, it was proposed to install nodes for mounting two fighter F4D Skyray. Such "flying aircraft carriers" could accompany the bomber compound and, if necessary, detach the fighters. The task of the latter was the fight against enemy fighters and the protection of their bombers.

The competition to develop a promising long-range bomber lasted several years. The number of contestants has steadily declined: the first unsuccessful projects were stopped already in the middle of 1946. Project Model 1211 was developed until the early fifties. All work on it was stopped shortly after the military chose a proposal from Boeing and supported the further development of this project. The result was the emergence of a strategic bomber B-52. The project of the company Douglas went to the archive.


On the materials of the sites:
http://globalsecurity.org/
http://airspacemag.com/
http://otvaga2004.ru/
http://alternathistory.org.ua/
Author:
26 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Wedmak
    Wedmak 7 May 2015 07: 07
    +8
    Tu-95 American assembly. As always, we pursued universality and lost. This is me about Model 1211.
    1. AlNikolaich
      AlNikolaich 7 May 2015 07: 30
      +8
      Yes. They did not succeed in their Tu-95 ... But B52 came out. Ours did not build a similar car.
      Here is the difference between the concepts and the engineering school ... Our Tu-4 was practically laced with Boeing, and
      in a few years, the Tu-95 appears, which is again our product! As if there wasn’t
      American trace! In the states, only B52 was successful, although there were competitors from many companies.
      Two excellent aircraft of the era, of the same purpose, are so different from each other, and created in
      different parts of the world!
      1. FID
        FID 7 May 2015 09: 06
        +9
        Quote: AlNikolaich
        As if there wasn’t
        American trace

        I will disappoint you a little - the AP-15PS autopilot ... This is, let's say, almost a "copy" of American autopilots ...
      2. Argon
        Argon 7 May 2015 10: 27
        +5
        The laws of physics and aerodynamics are the same, the difference is what is considered a priority. In this case, the main quality of the machines was the range, the differences were not in the "concepts of engineering schools", but in the fact that the Americans had a fairly economical jet engine (and more than one) but we are not. Just a year after the first flights of the YB-52 and its competitor YB-60. In the USSR, work begins (after a fairly voluminous theoretical research and substantiation) to create a similar machine, the whole "wave" was raised by the head of the Department of Aircraft Engineering of the MAI, " blue romantic of aviation "," incorrigible search engine "-Myasishchev V.M. This work was the M-4 machine, even" in the middle "of the work it became clear that it would not be possible to get a serial turbojet engine with the required specific fuel consumption, and therefore the given range Anticipating a fair punishment for the failure of the project (and excuses like "well, it didn't work out" -then did not pass) MAP initiates the development of a duplicate project headed by Tupolev. It must be said that the success of the Tu-95 would not It was predetermined and ensured by the appearance of the NK-12 engine, which was then being developed on an initiative basis. Initially, it was planned to equip the Medved with four pairs of "trophy" gas turbines (what a conceptual difference between engineering schools), each twin, through a two-flow gearbox, worked on a common coaxial The first Tu-95 took off with just such a twin installation.
        1. Simple
          Simple 7 May 2015 11: 40
          +2
          Quote: Argon
          The M-4 machine became the result of this work, it became clear even "in the middle" of the work that it would not be possible to obtain a serial turbojet engine with the required specific fuel consumption, and therefore the specified range was not achievable.


          On domestic turbofan engines, the bomber M 4 in practical range did not reach 2000 km to the technical specifications.

          If the target was outside the range, an option was considered in which the bomber did not return to the base, but was withdrawn to a specified area of ​​the ocean, where the crew left the car and waited in inflatable boats when the submarine picked it up.


          On 28 of March 1956, a Decree of the USSR Council of Ministers was issued, according to which the design of a flying atomic laboratory (LAL) on the basis of the serial Tu-95 began in the Tupolev Design Bureau.
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 10 May 2015 02: 11
            +1
            3M made from M-4 was quite ...
      3. oldkap22
        oldkap22 7 May 2015 10: 48
        +2
        It seems to me that Myasishchev's planes are a kind of "analogue" of the b-52. The Tu-95 was more suitable for our Air Force in those conditions (well, the Americans had different conditions and Boeing prevailed ...)
      4. Taoist
        Taoist 7 May 2015 10: 55
        +3
        Well, the reproduction of the B-29 was a forced and imposed step from above. It is worth considering that Tupolev had its own school of creating heavy machines long before they appeared with the Americans. And therefore, as soon as the restriction was lifted, naturally everything pretty quickly returned to normal ...
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 7 May 2015 22: 22
          +5
          Quote: Taoist
          reproduction of the B-29 was a forced and imposed on top step

          I don’t know whether Stalin himself decided so, or someone thought of it, but Tupolev was ordered to copy the B-29 to the last screw. Literally. Of course, it was not Stalin himself who ordered, but I’m ready to argue that copies of the order fell on the tables of Stalin and, most likely, Beria, who then, in addition to the NKVD, was engaged in the entire complex related to the atomic theme, including carriers. And Tupolev really didn’t want to return to where he already got, and therefore it was literally executed. Everything was copied, including the patches delivered in the field for holes received from the Japanese. It seems like even the holes themselves were neatly copied.
          1. jjj
            jjj 7 May 2015 23: 57
            +3
            The devices were calibrated in feet and even the lying Kodak camera was copied, if I am not mistaken, the analogue was called "Sharp". In liberal circles, it was considered stupid, but the USSR had to rebuild the design teams and assembly plants in new directions. We know the result, so that copying must be recognized as the right decision.
            1. Elk
              Elk 8 May 2015 19: 37
              +1
              The devices were calibrated in feet, and even the lying Kodak camera was copied, if I am not mistaken, the analogue was called "Sharp". In liberal circles, it was considered stupid,

              It is not worth quoting a rezun. This is really stupid. So what, but redrawing the instrument scale is not so difficult.
          2. Taoist
            Taoist 10 May 2015 12: 35
            +2
            Well, you are already "retelling stories" ... The car was copied, of course, carefully, but not to such an extent ... ;-) The assortment was recalculated for ours and for metric and not inch. The propulsion system is different, in the turrets there are guns and not large-caliber Browning ... So it didn't get to the point of "copying holes" to marasmus ... But they really had to copy - it was the fastest way to get a carrier and master a new production technology ... the Pe 6 was inferior to the B-8 - mainly because it was not adapted for mass production ...
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 10 May 2015 18: 19
              -2
              This was the system. Before and after that, Tupolev "copied" many other things, for example, the Tu-160 from Myasishchev. Only up to ...
        2. oldkap22
          oldkap22 8 May 2015 06: 21
          +1
          Well, it may have returned to its place, but at a NEW technological level. Agree. That the entire aviation industry (and not only) as a result of this "imposition" has changed a lot ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. siberalt
      siberalt 7 May 2015 20: 34
      +1
      And where are they going to fly so far on them? Petrol to Poland? laughing Closer to Russia they will not be allowed.
    4. Mister X
      Mister X 9 May 2015 12: 38
      +2
      Who in the know - Project Douglas 1240 also developed for the competition for promising strategic bomber?

  2. Tatar 174
    Tatar 174 7 May 2015 07: 31
    +4
    And all this to the Soviet Union, i.e. destroy us ...
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 7 May 2015 22: 26
      +3
      Quote: Tartar 174
      And all this to the Soviet Union, i.e. destroy us ...
      And in America, at least among the people, they sincerely believed that it was the Communists who wanted to destroy America. My neighbor, already a pensioner, told me how in the 1950s they were taught in elementary school to use the siren to climb under tables and cover their heads with their hands.
      How many resources on both sides have been wasted ...
      1. Elk
        Elk 8 May 2015 19: 35
        +2
        My neighbor, already a pensioner, told me how in the 1950s they were taught in elementary school to use the siren to climb under tables and cover their heads with their hands.
        How many resources on both sides have been wasted ...

        Yeah. That's just what and why? Well, naturally, the average American citizen didn’t have to ask such questions. It's easier to get under the table ... Guys, the nuclear war for 1950 was planned not by the USSR, but by the USA. Alas, this is a documented fact.
  3. chebman
    chebman 7 May 2015 08: 30
    +1
    "the crew should have been placed inside the crew" ?!
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 7 May 2015 09: 11
      +2
      Quote: chebman
      "the crew should have been placed inside the crew" ?!

      Inside the fuselage ... ..
  4. Mooh
    Mooh 7 May 2015 11: 07
    0
    Who is more readable, please tell us what kind of hellish device is it without wings but with tail unit, suspended instead of internal underwing tanks?
    1. FID
      FID 7 May 2015 11: 23
      +1
      So this is the internal underwing ... Indeed, in the underwing almost a third of the total fuel supply was.
      1. fider
        fider 7 May 2015 12: 59
        0
        External underwing ...
        1. FID
          FID 7 May 2015 14: 36
          0
          Quote: fider
          External underwing ...

          No, the external underwing on the pylons ...
          1. Mooh
            Mooh 7 May 2015 20: 02
            +1
            Thanks for the answer. Judging by the layout, this is not entirely true. In the photo of the layout there are four underwing tanks of the same size and design. Perhaps, at a different flight range, either a standard tank or this increased tank with a tail was suspended. And I thought it was a sinful thing that this is a pouring device or some other hellish machine.
  5. Simple
    Simple 7 May 2015 12: 25
    +2
    McDonnell XF-85 Goblin escort fighter, which could be based on a heavy bomber
    Convair B-36




    https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives
  6. Alex
    Alex 7 May 2015 21: 48
    +7
    I look, the idea of ​​Vakhmistrov with an air link turned out to be tenacious and attractive.

    Cyril, as always, many thanks and dumb "+"!
  7. fa2998
    fa2998 7 May 2015 22: 02
    +1
    It is quite a sensible idea, without unnecessary geometric enlargement of the fuselage and fuel cuts, they took it on the suspension. The military constantly demanded from the designers "higher, faster, stronger", and most importantly, the range. These requirements are mutually exclusive. An aircraft loaded with 80-100 tons cannot. (And more) to set records in height and speed. Everything was decided by refueling in the air. So she unleashed the imagination of the designers. hi
    1. Argon
      Argon 9 May 2015 04: 28
      +1
      You are fundamentally wrong, hanging tanks are always a "designer's sin." No matter how "clean" their shape is, they always seriously reduce the aero quality of the structure as a whole, the working range of alignments, significantly affect handling. must have the ability to reset (after running out of fuel), the moment of "withdrawal" of an empty PTB is a very difficult engineering problem, this process is very limited in flight modes - it requires certain skills from the pilot (and luck is not superfluous). A much more progressive solution is conformal (overhead) tanks. But they are far from a "panacea", they have their drawbacks. Still, the "aerobatics" for developers is to create a structure with such a weight and volumetric efficiency that would allow placing all the necessary stock in the internal tanks.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 9 May 2015 05: 22
        0
        Before an air battle or an air defense breakthrough in a supersonic tank, the hanging tank is consumed and dumped, so nothing like that ... Conformal tanks are usually not saved that way, and they are more expensive.
      2. Scraptor
        Scraptor 9 May 2015 21: 10
        0
        Less from whom and why?
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-58_Hustler
        a conformal tank is a half measure because, unlike the integral layout, it does not perform supporting functions.
        Large air defense teams on strategists are naturally big problems, and the main thing is that they cannot be as cheap as for tactical aviation.
  8. Technologist
    Technologist 8 May 2015 16: 29
    +2
    In those years, there were a lot of interesting cars, both with us and with us. And now, for some reason, silence or may not spread simply winked
  9. kirpich
    kirpich 10 May 2015 01: 31
    +1
    A wing with a wingspan of 70 m, loaded with fuel in the internal and external tanks, had to seriously bend. Moreover, on take-off the wingtips could hit concrete strips with corresponding sad consequences.


    Something reminiscent of the meat production
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 10 May 2015 02: 25
      +1
      ... the article further says that under each tank there was a resettable support stand.
      What is wrong with the meat production facilities? It resembles the opposite of Tupolev.
  10. valerysvy
    valerysvy 12 May 2015 18: 30
    0
    Thanks for the Article .... Very informative and interesting ...
  11. The comment was deleted.