CONVAIR NX-2 CAMAL, The Story Of The Secret Post WW2 Atomic Powered Bomber Plane
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ย. 2024
- The history of Convair NX-2 Camal, a secret project to develop an atomic-powered bomber.
Convair's NX-2 (designated Model 54 in-house) proposed powering the subsonic, ultra-long endurance jet bomber (about the size of a B-52) with either Pratt & Whitney indirect air cycle nuclear engines or General Electric direct air cycle nuclear engines.
The U.S. Nuclear Propulsion Program (or Manned Nuclear Aircraft Program) began in May 1946. This after Fairchild Engine and Aircraft Corporation, received the first formal study contract. The objective, is to determine the feasibility of nuclear energy for the propulsion of aircraft. The Fairchild project known as the Nuclear Energy for Propulsion of Aircraft (NEPA) began at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN.
Work at Oak Ridge proved building a nuclear aircraft was feasible and defined the major approaches to the program. As a result, the Air Force and Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) joined forces in the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) Program. In 1951, they contracted with the General Electric (GE) Company at Evendale, Ohio to, “…develop a nuclear aircraft propulsion system through an exacting research, development, design and component-test program on reactors, materials, shielding and an over-all nuclear power plant.” 1
At the time, there appeared to be two design concepts for a “nuclear” aircraft: the Direct-Air-Cycle and the Indirect. General Electric elected the Direct-Air-Cycle2 due to the perceived simplicity, flexibility, adaptability, and ease of handling. General Electric quickly developed high-temperature, compact, lightweight reactors and shields required for aircraft flight. The GE Company also believed their new technology had applicability to aerospace and ground power systems. In the 1950s, nuclear reactors were approximately the size of two railroad cabooses stacked on one another, and the performance requirements for aircraft nuclear power plants were much more
schematic.
The objective of the ANP Program expanded to include the demonstration of nuclear-powered flight. Still, in 1952, the Air Force decided that direct nuclear cycle engine developments were progressing well and began construction of a power plant for the Convair B-36 flight testing and targeted 1956 for the first flight. In 1953 the Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson abruptly canceled the B-36 experimental flight program, Wilson, a skeptic, contended “that experimental “proof-of-principle” flights were worthless unless they were performed by a prototype for as an actual weapon systems.”4 The money slated for the project was for a weapons system so, the prototype requirements leaned in this direction.
Though the B-36 experiment halted, Air Force leaders managed to keep GE’s direct cycle developments moving forward and Pratt and Whitney continued their progress. Pratt and Whitney used a pressurized water, indirect cycle engine which failed to progress (see below schematic). Pratt and Whitney changed gears and began working with Oak Ridge on a molten salt circulation fuel reactor, still using the indirect cycle nuclear turbojet concept. Pratt and Whitney remained behind GE in developments throughout the testing and experimentation.
Though Air Force leaders canceled developments for a B-36 nuclear-powered aircraft, a Convair B-36, designated as the NB5-36H and specially refitted to contain a fully operational nuclear reactor however, the NB-36H did not use the reactor for propulsion.
In 1958, the Air Force introduced a new mission requirement in an attempt to keep the ANP Program alive. Known as CAMAL (continuous airborne alert, missile launching, and low-level penetration), it was a rehashing of a nuclear weapons system aircraft.8 During the summer of 1959, Dr. Herbert F. York, Director of Defense Research and Engineering in the Pentagon, and other Department of Defense research officials pushed a reorientation of the ANP Program project. These officials called for the development of a useful nuclear turbojet capable of installation in and flown on a Convair Model 54 (the NX-2)
Watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories, and missions ➤ / @dronescapes
To support/join the channel ➤ / @dronescapes
IG ➤ / dronescapesvideos
FB ➤ / dronescapesvideos
X/Twitter ➤ dronescapes.vi...
THREADS ➤ www.threads.ne...
#Convair #aircraft #airplane
➤➤ Watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories, and missions: www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes
➤➤ Join the channel: www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes/join
➤ IG ➤ instagram.com/dronescapesvideos
➤ FB ➤ facebook.com/Dronescapesvideos
➤ X/Twitter ➤ dronescapes.video/2p89vedj
➤ THREADS ➤ www.threads.net/@dronescapesvideos
I really enjoy these historical re-caps ! thanks Drone Scapes !
I got two video updates at the same time for your channel.
Now I don't know how to choose.
I'll watch one on my phone and one on my computer at the same time. 👍
Good choice.
They never thought that a plane carrying a reactor would wear out long before the reactor did.
Excellent job coordinating the visuals with the narration to tell a complete and professional presented story.
As a veteran and a lifelong military history freak,it doesn't get much better than Dronescapes on YT. Always solid work! 🇺🇸👍
When I was on an attack sub during the 80's, I visited Nagasaki and the atomic bomb museum. Cold War and all...they would not let us port up because we were nuclear powered....we had to stay 2 miles away. Then, Fukushima happened later....
Even as a kid, I wrestled with how the power would be converted into propulsion without killing the planet Armored Core 4, Kojima particle style.
Don't know why people think this was such a bad idea. We have nuclear powered warships and submarines and don't give it a second thought. The risk of a disaster with this kind of thing is way overstated. It's not as if you are dealing with huge amounts of radioactive material like you would at a nuclear power plant. With properly sealed containers, the risk is pretty small.
Actually that was the primary reason the project was cancelled. Do remember that each flight was followed by a platoon of marines to deal with possible crash. They called themselves "The Glow in the Dark brigade" and would have had to deal with any clean up. Airplanes have to be lightweight and program was focused on developing light weight ways to shield the crew. All the safety issues are part of what cancelled effort. Plus the expense of the program was getting outright stupid.
Fly two in formation, each will kill the others crew. The radiation shield only covered the crew, leaving a bare reactor facing in every other direction. So you can't fly around other aircraft, or over cities, you can't land anywhere or service the aircraft or even walk up to get into it, BECAUSE : radioactive as hell.
Its more of a physics problem.
If we can get fusion figured out and engineered, a lot of possibilities open up for nuclear power. Fission has too many drawbacks to be implemented much more than it already is.
Often wondered about atomic-powered airplanes!
Cannot believe they even went beyond thinking this up. Airborne reactors? What could go wrong!
A more interesting story is Project Orion, where there was a plan to use Nuclear Warheads to propel space craft like surfboards riding the nuclear Shockwave. Theoretically, it would produce much faster speeds of travel than what could be achieved by rockets.
Best
They had a prototype nuclear powered missile that would simply fly around on autopilot scattering contamination. Russia tried the same thing and fried its aircrews in the process.
There was never a prototype...
Pure hokum. The NB36 never actually had a reactor installed. It was merely a mock up of the containment field. The pilots said it was much like flying a glider because of the shielding attenuating the sound.
This project was exactly the type of military/industrial complex schemes that Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address when he left office as the President of the United States.
The title doesn’t match the contents very well. Then in the video there is a lot of CGI of some hypothetical bomber that never even got off the drawing board. Then there’s two hours about Hiroshima. What kind of random mess is this?
You obviously didn't pay attention.
I think I heard a doc clip about a guy watching a nuke test (in the trenches) saw the flash through his helmet he had over his face.
Check out the u f o at 15:45
Thank God this Atomic power bomber was not used!!! I wondered what the Soviets have done???
The Soviets built and flew a direct cycle bomber. That means the air passed through the reactor, and the plane spread nuclear waste everywhere. Everyone involved died of cancer.
It probably caused more electrical issues than it was worth at the time. They simply didn't have the tools of experience.
There wasn't a SINGLE "electrical" issue. The issues were about propulsion, containment/shielding, aircrew health/survavability and mission success forecast. The reactor itself was no big problem - carrying it around safely on an airframe that itself would regularly fall out of the sky, THAT was a concern.
@@karlchilders5420 i meant interference, mostly, and i figured that much. i havent got eyes on to hit it with a laser, to be fair.
One could power lighter electric turbines and a smaller airframe, but, in the end, "smaller" boils down to missiles and just lobbing gilde bombs by doing a backflip
and at this point- we have ICBMs that travel to space within another housing that conforms to the missile that doesn't not look like another missile- where the U.S. has to have a missile for its missile to do missile stuff.
Its so powerful
I think that it would be possible to, at least, design a safe nuclear powered aircraft.
Weight would not be the biggest challenge. The MTOW of the Antonov An-225 would be more than enough for a nuclear passenger aircraft.
Reactors have become much safer, heat-exchanging technology has also developed. If a reactor could be shown to be safe under any and all eventualities, including falling to the depths of an ocean, and crash into the face of a mountain at cruise speeds, it could be done. But that would require a massive crash structure around the reactor (which would double as shielding), much larger than the reactor itself.
I think that it would look like a large spherical'ish shape to which the wings and fuselage would attach. It could also be a blended body or flying wing as long as the reactor sphere were to be placed at around 25% of the chord's length from the leading edge.
Whatever route were to be taken, this thing would likely be no smaller than a 747, thereby restricting which airports it could use, as well as requiring new maintenance hangars to accommodate its massive frontal area.
What has the last 3/4 of this documentary to do with a atomic powered bomber?
The "special squadron" was the _509th Composite Group._
It's ironic that in-air refueling killed the atomic plane. Given that a huge fuel carrying nuclear drone would be pretty useful. Kind of like how they have the constantly flying refueling airship rings in the movie Stealth.
Now that drones are a thing, a nuclear plane could be made, though no one would support such a potentially dangerous hazard in our skies.
JUST A THOUGHT. I wonder if a Thorium reactor might have worked.
We can't have too many nuclear power plants, then electricity would be cheap, and that's just not acceptable.
I remember back in the 60s the government wanted to build reactors all over the place (one in every large city). I remember reading articles in "The Weekly Reader" in grade school. The American people were never told of the risks. Then Three Mile Island happened; Whoops, LOL
It's the NIMBY principle as well. We need to get fusion developed before we can implement a nuclear grid. Much safer.
Very little about “an atomic bomber” past the 23 minute mark.
Mad as hatters
An interesting video on the mission to Hiroshima. The title mentions something else completely and hardly mentions it. Most confusing.
The atomic bomb is already obsolete
With liquid salt reactors this aircraft or similar ones could be reality.
Did USA paid royalties to the owners of the implosion-type A-bomb patent ?
The patent was in the name of Nobel-Prized Frédéric Joliot-Curie and his two aides alban and Kowarski...
Yup, the A-bomb paten t is French and was registered at the CNRS in Paris, May 1939... ATM, France also owned 100% of world's heavy water stockpile
Is this mentioning the flying crowbar before I invest 2 hours 😮
😳😬🤯
Dumb dumb dumb project
When this program was cancelled, it was because of one simple question, " What happens if one crashed
Perfect example of ' we can build it, but the question of should we was never asked.
This aircraft was a failure because not one engineer even considered the possibility of a serious crash in a populated area.
Utter unthinking Cold War madness that didn't even consider the safety of the public.
You were all expendable in the Cold War, and the nuclear armed Generals like LeMay didn't care.
Very little about the NX-2. Waist of time. Nothing about the NX-2 after the 23 minute mark.
the peacemaker was trash
Compared to?.... I wholeheartedly agree that Northrop should have recieved more funding for the XB-35 and YB-49, but other than that the Peacemaker had no contemporaries until the Stratofortreas entered service almost a decade later..
@@darthnihilus511- it was, but the push-propellers configuration ensured that it cooked engines almost as bad as the early B-29...
What a joke. Not one mention of the real end problem. How to convert thermal power it a propulsion engine. Can’t be pistons, can’t be turbo fan or jet and two heavy for steam turbines.
Maybe a Stirling engine? Or radiovoltaic cells embedded in the shielding?