In 1952, Fairchild Aircraft was hard at work on the NEPA program (Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft), designing a range of airframes for nuclear powerplants. One such study was the N-14 configuration… an all-nuclear modification of the Boeing XB-52. (See APR issue V2N5 for info on the N-22 configuration).
The design was seen to be possible, but not ideal. The engines were very far away from the reactor (located in the middle of the fuselage, aft of the wings), requiring very long, vary large diameter and very well insulated pipes to carry coolant from the reactor to the engines. The number and scope of changes to the airframe that would be required would make this virtually a whole new aircraft, largely negating the value of using an existing aircraft.
Gross weight was 340,000 pounds. Max speed at sea level was 280 knots; 480 knots at altitude. Payload was an anemic 2000 pounds.
14 Responses to “Nuclear Powered B-52”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
_2,000_ pounds, not 20,000 pounds?
Oh, great…they would have invented a nuclear-powered YB-17.
Are the pods out near the wingtips for aeroelastic reasons, or does it burn conventional fuel for takeoff and landing?
Another version had *200* pounds of payload, while similar-tech all-new designs had payloads of more than 20,000 pounds.
It carried extra chemical fuel, but would use it only in emergencies; otherwise it would leave it in the pods to help increase its g-loading capability.
On the 200 pound payload one it would pay to use only horse jockeys as crew.
When you are throwing out performance figures like that, I get the impression you are doing it with the specific intent that you want the concept rejected.
Not every idea is a winner. But if you want to do a proper assessment, you have to assess all the possibilities… and report on them. I’m sure there were a number of studies that had *negative* payload weights.
With the two outer pods being single engine pods you would kind
of think to put it in the B-47 category or so to speak as goofy
as it may sound but…
Fairchild looked at several nucl;ear B-47s, but found them to be in the possible-but-not-practical category. The nuclear powered B-36’s were better.
Admin:
How can you have a *negative* payload weight? Does it mean the aircraft can’t fly?
Sorta. When you do the math and it shows that you need to be 100 pounds lighter than the unloaded weight of the aircraft in order to fly the mission, then you have a negative 100 pound payload. This is not that uncommon, especially with launch vehicle design, if you start off with heavy parts, large safty margins and low performance propellants. You then need to start shaving weight and/or increasing performance… or just scrapping the design and trying something else.
Do you see any hope for a revival of the nuclear-powered aircraft concept?
I don’t see any hope for a revival of the nuclear-powered aircraft concept as we have better technologies now. What I do see is possibilities for microwave powered aircraft and more work on Lighter-than-Air aircraft.
I think most military aircraft right now have negative payload weights
for many missions. It just means that you need airborne refuelling
to perform the mission.
B-2 spirit really comes to mind. What can you bomb based in ConUS
without tankers ?
-G.
What can you bomb based in ConUS
without tankers?
Canada.
> any hope for a revival of the nuclear-powered aircraft
Not with uranium/plutonium fission reactors. *IF* somethign like cold fusion, hafnium isomers or some other fusion process works out… then, maybe. But so far, nothing seems to even be making break-even.
This was concept N-14. What did N-1 through N-13 look like? Are those the ones with negative payloads?
No, the hydrogen in a thermonuclear warhead can’t be used as a balloon to help carry the bombs.