The Do-Everything Bomber
With its bid to replace the Convair B-36 bomber, did Douglas promise too much?
- By John Aldaz and Sir George Cox
- Air & Space magazine, January 2010
The Douglas Model 1211-J was a grand scheme that existed only as a model and in blueprints.
John Aldaz
(Page 2 of 2)
By including so many options, the Model 1211-J's designers tried to make the bomber a paragon of multi-tasking self-sufficiency. They had hoped to sell the Air Force not just a single bomber but a family of aircraft, with a variety of airframes to choose from, including custom options and mission-specific add-ons. But would asking so much of the 1211-J compromise its ability to do its main job: put bombs on target? "I've always been a minimalist in aircraft design," says aerospace historian and author Dick Hallion. "When you take a look at this Douglas design, there's a lot of frou-frou. There are a lot of things here that wouldn't work out well operationally. There are a lot of issues that make turboprops unreliable: gearbox issues, shafting issues, the propellers themselves. These are all complex problems that need to be worked out." And even if Douglas engineers could have solved the 1211-J's problems, the bomber's fussy design would have made it a maintenance nightmare.
The Douglas designers of course hoped to dazzle the Air Force with possibility, but no matter how much versatility they put into the 1211-J, it wasn't enough to interest LeMay, who kept pushing for the more practical, turbojet-powered B-52. In the spring of 1951, Air Force chief of staff General Hoyt Vandenberg approved the Boeing proposal. Given the stupendous—and ongoing—career of the B-52, this was certainly a wise decision.
John Aldaz and Sir George Cox have collected hundreds of original aircraft manufacturer models.
Comments (4)
In '52, I was in the Navy stationed at Adak, AK. My home was Fairbanks, AK. 1500 miles away. I got a leave and went home. My Dad owned the Elbow Room bar. I was helping there on night when Tracy Matthewson and one other test pilots were having a drink. Tracy asked if I would like to come out to (then) Ladd Air Force Base the next morning to see some planes? I almost hyper-vent'ed. I got there and was cleared for "Secret" by them and went into the hangar and got to sit in the XF 101 and the XF 102. They came into the military a few years later. When they took off, we had never heard sound levels like that in Fairbanks. Everyone in town knew when they "lite the wick" on those planes. Ray
Posted by Ray Wallace on November 19,2009 | 11:01 AM
The pictures of the Model 1211-J look a lot like the TU-20/Tu-95/Tu-142 Bear bombers built by the Soviet Union. Any relation?
Posted by Charlie White on November 23,2009 | 01:54 AM
The Douglas 1211 was designed a few short years after Tupolev successfully carbon-copied most of the B-29 into their Tu-4 bomber. It is therefore very possible the Tu-95 did receive like-minded "technology transfers" from the Douglas 1211 studies. Donald Douglas Sr. pointed to the 1211’s unique wing structure, designed to distribute weight span-wise, while reducing critical bending loads at the root, which can also be found on the Tu-95.
However, direct evidence has yet to surface showing the Tu-95 was another product of industrial espionage. In addition, Russian aerospace scholars will rightfully argue the Tupolev design bureau was also capable of brilliant, independent thinking, and that similar requirements often lead to identical design solutions.
The answer to this question may still be buried deep in some old, dusty Soviet archive. However, it would be ironic if the parallel careers of the B-52 and the Tu-95, both exceptionally capable enemy bombers, had started in the same U.S. conference room, back in 1950.
Posted by John Aldaz on November 29,2009 | 07:30 PM
How do I reach John Aldaz about the GA 3-view drawing shown in this article?
Thanks in advance.
Posted by Alan Griffith on February 27,2013 | 12:10 AM