CONVAIR NX-2 CAMAL, The Story Of The Secret Post WW2 Atomic Powered Bomber Plane

2024 ж. 29 Нау.
101 448 Рет қаралды

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.video/2p89vedj
THREADS ➤ www.threads.net/@dronescapesv...
#Convair #aircraft #airplane

Пікірлер
  • ➤➤ 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

    @Dronescapes@DronescapesАй бұрын
  • As a veteran and a lifelong military history freak,it doesn't get much better than Dronescapes on YT. Always solid work! 🇺🇸👍

    @Hunter_Nebid@Hunter_NebidАй бұрын
  • 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. 👍

    @jtjames79@jtjames79Ай бұрын
    • Good choice.

      @harryhole5786@harryhole5786Ай бұрын
  • I really enjoy these historical re-caps ! thanks Drone Scapes !

    @mpetry912@mpetry912Ай бұрын
  • They never thought that a plane carrying a reactor would wear out long before the reactor did.

    @MrCenturion13@MrCenturion13Ай бұрын
  • 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....

    @VistaThaiGuy@VistaThaiGuyАй бұрын
  • 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.

    @trob1173@trob1173Ай бұрын
  • We can't have too many nuclear power plants, then electricity would be cheap, and that's just not acceptable.

    @LordHolley@LordHolleyАй бұрын
  • Cannot believe they even went beyond thinking this up. Airborne reactors? What could go wrong!

    @AnthonyTolhurst-dw1nc@AnthonyTolhurst-dw1ncСағат бұрын
  • Often wondered about atomic-powered airplanes!

    @markhuebner7580@markhuebner7580Ай бұрын
  • Excellent job coordinating the visuals with the narration to tell a complete and professional presented story.

    @robertfarrow4256@robertfarrow4256Ай бұрын
  • 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.

    @rbilleaud@rbilleaudАй бұрын
    • 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.

      @jahbad01@jahbad01Ай бұрын
    • 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.

      @kurtisengle6256@kurtisengle6256Ай бұрын
    • Its more of a physics problem.

      @markrix@markrixАй бұрын
  • 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.

    @johnharris6655@johnharris6655Ай бұрын
  • Its so powerful

    @ioanbota9397@ioanbota9397Ай бұрын
  • Best

    @BarnW@BarnWАй бұрын
  • 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.

    @davidelliott5843@davidelliott5843Ай бұрын
    • There was never a prototype...

      @Coyote27981@Coyote27981Ай бұрын
  • Check out the u f o at 15:45

    @tomupchurch4911@tomupchurch4911Ай бұрын
  • Thank God this Atomic power bomber was not used!!! I wondered what the Soviets have done???

    @saskshark@sasksharkАй бұрын
    • 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.

      @kurtisengle6256@kurtisengle6256Ай бұрын
  • 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.

    @LordZero666@LordZero66614 күн бұрын
  • 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.

    @larrymcgill5508@larrymcgill5508Ай бұрын
  • The "special squadron" was the _509th Composite Group._

    @kiowablue2862@kiowablue2862Ай бұрын
  • 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.

    @timbrwolf1121@timbrwolf1121Ай бұрын
  • 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?

    @georgegonzalez2476@georgegonzalez2476Ай бұрын
    • You obviously didn't pay attention.

      @Hunter_Nebid@Hunter_NebidАй бұрын
  • Mad as hatters

    @mikepotter5718@mikepotter5718Ай бұрын
  • JUST A THOUGHT. I wonder if a Thorium reactor might have worked.

    @TheRoyalBavarian@TheRoyalBavarianАй бұрын
  • It probably caused more electrical issues than it was worth at the time. They simply didn't have the tools of experience.

    @czarp@czarpАй бұрын
    • 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@karlchilders5420Ай бұрын
    • @@karlchilders5420 i meant interference, mostly, and i figured that much. i havent got eyes on to hit it with a laser, to be fair.

      @czarp@czarpАй бұрын
    • 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

      @czarp@czarpАй бұрын
    • 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.

      @czarp@czarpАй бұрын
  • Very little about “an atomic bomber” past the 23 minute mark.

    @midlanddisplay@midlanddisplay28 күн бұрын
  • With liquid salt reactors this aircraft or similar ones could be reality.

    @chriss-nf1bd@chriss-nf1bdАй бұрын
  • An interesting video on the mission to Hiroshima. The title mentions something else completely and hardly mentions it. Most confusing.

    @jahbad01@jahbad01Ай бұрын
  • The atomic bomb is already obsolete

    @jhorn100@jhorn100Ай бұрын
  • 😳😬🤯

    @seanbrazell7095@seanbrazell7095Ай бұрын
  • 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

    @harounel-poussah6936@harounel-poussah6936Ай бұрын
  • Is this mentioning the flying crowbar before I invest 2 hours 😮

    @richardmaier28@richardmaier28Ай бұрын
  • 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.

    @uberbeeg@uberbeegАй бұрын
  • Dumb dumb dumb project

    @user-nr3ss5hk9s@user-nr3ss5hk9sАй бұрын
  • 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.

    @PaulCyclist@PaulCyclistАй бұрын
  • the peacemaker was trash

    @user-fl2wn5zr5z@user-fl2wn5zr5zАй бұрын
    • Why? I thought it was beautiful

      @darthnihilus511@darthnihilus511Ай бұрын
    • 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..

      @lucasokeefe7935@lucasokeefe7935Ай бұрын
    • ​@@darthnihilus511- it was, but the push-propellers configuration ensured that it cooked engines almost as bad as the early B-29...

      @woongah@woongahАй бұрын
    • Nah

      @scprivatepilot50B@scprivatepilot50B3 күн бұрын
    • If I had unlimited funds I would have one updated and restored perfectly and spend a few nights a month just sleeping on it. A huge comfortable bed in the bomb bay(pressurized) with a little sound insulation and a galley with a couple decent bathrooms and entertainment/birthing areas for the three shift crew. They would fly me around until I was over it, nonstop because I would also have 24/7 airborne refueling crafts.

      @darthnihilus511@darthnihilus5113 күн бұрын
  • Very little about the NX-2. Waist of time. Nothing about the NX-2 after the 23 minute mark.

    @good4politics@good4politics12 күн бұрын
KZhead