Talk:Northrop YB-35

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Designation

I've also seen this plane designated B2T - what is this code and what why was it used? (Mmartins 15:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC))

B2T was the designation reserved by the US Navy for this aircraft. As far as I'm aware, it was never actually used. --Rlandmann 06:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

20 .50's?

Is that correct?

With 3 gunners, that's about 7 apiece. If it had remote control turrets like a B29, maybe. It just seems odd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deathbunny (talk • contribs) 03:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Werenn't there supposed to be 4 remote turrets in the wings plus there was supposed to be one in the tail in a conventional style barbette? That would average 4 per turret. (192.43.227.18 06:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Bobbo9000)[reply]

There were 7 gun turrets TOTAL, four on the outer wings (two top and two bottom), one on top of the "fuselage" one on bottom of the "fuselage", and one tail gun. The wing turrets had 2 guns each, the "Fuselage" and tail turrets four each. That adds up to 20 guns.

They were remote controlled like the B-29 and any of the three gunners could operate any gun turret, or more than one at a time. For example if there was a top or frontal attack, the top gunner could have operated THREE turrets having 8 guns total to repel it. I would hate to be the fighter pilot making that attack!! One advantage of this system was even if one gun or turret jammed, there were many backups to fill in for it.

My understanding was the YB-35 actually had the gun system installed and operational. The B-36 had a similar system, although it had 16 20mm cannons in eight two gun turrets. TBrummer (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

conspiracy

While I don't generally go for conspiracy theory's the facts I garnered from the old timers are: -Jack Northrop really only cared about developing new ideas. The underwriters of the companies that carried his name realized this and wrote into the contract that he didn't get to make business decisions. There are so many development projects that Jack started that went nowhere beyond testing. -All the technical problems were solvable. -All prototypes were scrapped, even though Northrop try to buy some back for further testing (Jack wanting to play more).

The aerospace industry is known for nasty politics, and Northrop only became a loved builder after buying Grumman. Saltysailor (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC) -[reply]

I worked in the industry in the 1980s, and I heard a completely different rumor, one I mention here in the hope someone knows more about it than I. My story has it that the Air Force didn't have much confidence in the "flying wing" design because of possible instability during flight (a problem that persisted in later "flying wing" aircraft until it was solved for the B-2 Stealth bomber by adding sophisticated computer controls that could not have been done in the '50s). So Northrop decided he would not follow the usual process of requesting Air Force R&D funding first -- he would develop the plane out of his own personal pocket. And he did. And for some reason, his having the guts to do that and then apply for funding so outraged Arlen Specter (chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee) that for the rest of Specter's career, every defense appropriations bill had language spelling out that none of it was to be spent on Northrop's flying wing plane. Jdg71 (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC) -[reply]

EB-35

Dispute/Discuss notation: According to information clearly stated in the authoritative Pape & Campbell volume Nothrop Flying Wings, and again in the O'Leary article noted in Air Classics (both listed in the references section), the T37 Turbodyne patents and technical data were, indeed, transferred to General Electric after the engine's devolpment program was cancelled by the Air Force. The Pape & Campbell volume is considered the definitive reference on Northrop Flying Wings. I have read this exact same info (about the T37 Turbodyne) in older Flying Wing references in my extensive Flying Wing collection. --Ken Keller (Wikipedian SolarWind1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.164.114 (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]