WI: XB-51 chosen over Canberra?

The Air Force would have been ignoring the fact that there were valid reasons for denying wide-scale production. Lack of range was one, but the limited strength was possibly a greater drawback. Would you want Walter Cronkite to fly in a B-51?
Martin did get the contract to build Canberra and did a fine job incorporating their bomb bay and building a much better cockpit.
Boeing got more use out of the tandem main gear developed by Martin on the Marauder. It was deemed unsuitable for possible basing applicable to this aircraft's role.
Martin left the business after Canberra and concentrated on rockets for a while. But look! They're back.
I'd much rather see the NAA Vigilante tri-engined fighter proposal adopted.
 
The Air Force would have been ignoring the fact that there were valid reasons for denying wide-scale production. Lack of range was one, but the limited strength was possibly a greater drawback. Would you want Walter Cronkite to fly in a B-51?
Martin did get the contract to build Canberra and did a fine job incorporating their bomb bay and building a much better cockpit.
Boeing got more use out of the tandem main gear developed by Martin on the Marauder. It was deemed unsuitable for possible basing applicable to this aircraft's role.
Martin left the business after Canberra and concentrated on rockets for a while. But look! They're back.
I'd much rather see the NAA Vigilante tri-engined fighter proposal adopted.

The canberra had alot of issues (Engines especially, they took longer than most to spool up, and were unreliable) in US service, many of which wouldn't have happened with the XB-51. Also, the XB-51 would have probablu done much better in Vietnam than the Canberra(XB-51 had 8 20mm guns from the start, which are VERY useful for taking out trucks, which alot of the ground attack aircraft were doing. B-57 didn't have guns from the start in US service), which performed quite badly. Would have been a good supplement for the A-1 Skyraider, and would have been safer from fighters than the Skyraider due to higher speed.

I still wish the A-10 had come around during, not AFTER Vietnam. Faster than the A-1, and carries more ordnance. It's combat radius leaves a bit to be desired however.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The canberra had alot of issues (Engines especially, they took longer than most to spool up, and were unreliable) in US service, many of which wouldn't have happened with the XB-51. Also, the XB-51 would have probablu done much better in Vietnam than the Canberra(XB-51 had 8 20mm guns from the start, which are VERY useful for taking out trucks, which alot of the ground attack aircraft were doing. B-57 didn't have guns from the start in US service), which performed quite badly. Would have been a good supplement for the A-1 Skyraider, and would have been safer from fighters than the Skyraider due to higher speed.

I still wish the A-10 had come around during, not AFTER Vietnam. Faster than the A-1, and carries more ordnance. It's combat radius leaves a bit to be desired however.

The B-57 also had 2X the bomb load of the XB-51 (B-57 = 8,000 pounds, XB-51 = 4,000 lb both at useful range), along with 2.5x the loiter time at twice the range from base which comes in handy if you are talking about a bomber.

Strafing isn't a bomber's game, even a light bomber, its a ground attack fighter's job. You want a strafer with speed use the F-100 (four 20mm revolver cannon, 7,000 pound bomb load, Mach 1+) or F-104 (20mm Gatling cannon, 4,000 Lb, Mach 2+). As twitchy as the Starfighter was, at least it didn't lead with its engines as primary aiming point like the chin mounted twins on the XB-51. The fighters could also handle 4G turns without something bad happening.

For that matter chuck everything mentioned in this entire thread and use the Thud. Seven time the bomb load of the XB-51, rotary 20mm cannon, fast as a thief.

BTW: The simple fact that a board of American Air Force officers would choose a British built design over an aircraft from Martin pretty much speaks for itself.

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b51.html
 
The B-57 also had 2X the bomb load of the XB-51 (B-57 = 8,000 pounds, XB-51 = 4,000 lb both at useful range), along with 2.5x the loiter time at twice the range from base which comes in handy if you are talking about a bomber.

Strafing isn't a bomber's game, even a light bomber, its a ground attack fighter's job. You want a strafer with speed use the F-100 (four 20mm revolver cannon, 7,000 pound bomb load, Mach 1+) or F-104 (20mm Gatling cannon, 4,000 Lb, Mach 2+). As twitchy as the Starfighter was, at least it didn't lead with its engines as primary aiming point like the chin mounted twins on the XB-51. The fighters could also handle 4G turns without something bad happening.

For that matter chuck everything mentioned in this entire thread and use the Thud. Seven time the bomb load of the XB-51, rotary 20mm cannon, fast as a thief.

BTW: The simple fact that a board of American Air Force officers would choose a British built design over an aircraft from Martin pretty much speaks for itself.

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b51.html
Er, on the light bomber point, it IS a ground attack aircraft.
 
Er, on the light bomber point, it IS a ground attack aircraft.

Actually, it isn't. The B-57 was always intended to be an interdiction aircraft, not a close air support aircraft. There is a difference. In the former, the primary means of attack are bombs or rockets, in the latter in that day and age, the primary means of attack was rockets and/or cannon. An interdiction aircraft plies it's trade behind the front line, attacking lines of communication, a "ground attack aircraft" plies its trade on or around the front line, attacking ground units on the battlefield.
 
Interesting claim. On what are you basing it? Why would the US version of the engines be less reliable than the British ones?

Wright did have trouble in producing a local version of the Sapphire - the early versions had the above-stated problems. They eventually got the engine right(something they never did in their license-built Olympus, the J67), but by then the J57 was king.
 
Wright did have trouble in producing a local version of the Sapphire - the early versions had the above-stated problems. They eventually got the engine right(something they never did in their license-built Olympus, the J67), but by then the J57 was king.

Interesting. Yet, I've never heard of the British having problems with that engine.
 
Yes, the Sapphire was a troublesome beast early on - the only powerplant I know of which suffered from centreline closure (google "Sandpaper Sapphire") but don't forget, it was in essence, the first axial turbojet developed. (You can trace its lineage back to the Metrovick "Beryl").

The design DID mature (in RAF service, at least) but the development path was effectively ended when Rolls bought and subsumed Armstrongs in 1965. In any case, the Avon was always streets ahead after the early years - a true design classic!

Every Canberra variant to see squadron service (both RAF & overseas customers) was, of course, Avon powered.

Regards,
Frank
 
Top