Speed is not always the best indication of survival, so you are confusing why high speed propeller driven designs never emerged. Large propellers offered better accelleration and fuel range plus could offer exceptional payloads compared to jets. But because they offered huge infrared signatures it didn’t make sense to pursue them any longer. In Vietnam the VNAF’s prop fleet was hammered by SA-7.
Semantics shmantics, the airflow around a wing is either laminar or turbulent. The airflow around something is under pressure. The net effect may be lower pressure around one side of the object, but the entire flow itself is pressurized. Come on, man, these are basic concepts. You seem more interested in arguing at this point than listening to the point made.
Your original argument about the B-36 being the wrong compromise is wrong. The choice for the pusher was to draw turbulence away from the wing and the induced airflow created a better overall laminar airflow. As for performance it was more than acceptable as jet engines just didn’t have it back in those days. It was only as fast as necessary and flew higher than the interceptors of its day. Don’t forget that at its top altitudes it could out manuever the interceptors, too. The fact it could spend the better part of two days in the air and fly across any hemisphere unrefuelled made it a pretty good design in my opinion.
Sign In
