Cold War Convair B-36 Peacemaker Bomber

The Convair B-36 Peacemaker bridged the pre- and post-World War II worlds. Conceived as a long range bomber for US Army Air Corps should Great Britain be defeated by Germany, the design was pushed forward to serve as the United States first dedicated nuclear bomber of the postwar atomic age. To meet its design specifications, the B-36 proved to be a massive aircraft and was ungainly to fly. Its early development was plagued by design issues and a lack of priority during the war years. Fast Facts: B-36J-III Peacemaker Length: 161 ft. 1 in.Wingspan: 230 ft.Height: 46 ft. 9 in.Wing Area: 4,772 sq. ft.Empty Weight: 171,035 lbs.Loaded Weight: 266,100 lbs.Crew: 9PerformancePower Plant: 4Ãâ€" General Electric J47 turbojets, 6Ãâ€" Pratt Whitney R-4360-53 Wasp Major radials, 3,800 hp eachRange: 6,795 milesMax Speed: 411 mphCeiling: 48,000 ft.ArmamentGuns: 8 remotely operated turrets of 2Ãâ€" 20 mm M24A1 autocannons Once it was introduced in 1949, the B-36 was chastised for its cost and poor maintenance record. Though it survived these criticisms and relentless attacks from the US Navy, which was also seeking to fulfill a nuclear delivery role, its service life proved short as technology quickly made it obsolete. Despite its shortcomings, the B-36 provided the backbone of the US Air Forces Strategic Air Command until the arrival of the B-52 Stratofortress in 1955. Origins In early 1941, with World War II (1939-1945) raging in Europe, the US Army Air Corps began to have concerns regarding the range of it bomber force. With the fall of Britain still a potential reality, the USAAC realized that in any potential conflict with Germany, it would require a bomber with transcontinental capability and sufficient range to strike targets in Europe from bases in Newfoundland. To fill this need, it issued specifications for a very long-range bomber in 1941. These requirements called for a 275 mph cruising speed, a service ceiling of 45,000 feet, and a maximum range of 12,000 miles. These requirements quickly proved beyond the capabilities of existing technology and the USAAC reduced their requirements in August 1941 to a 10,000-mile range, ceiling of 40,000 feet, and cruising speed of between 240 and 300 mph. The only two contractors to answer this call were Consolidated (Convair after 1943) and Boeing. After a brief design competition, Consolidated won a development contract that October. Ultimately designating the project XB-36, Consolidated promised a prototype within 30 months with second six months later. This timetable was soon disrupted by the US entry into the war. Development Delays With the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Consolidated was ordered to slow the project in favor of focusing on B-24 Liberator production. While initial the mock-up was completed in July 1942, the project was plagued by delays caused by a lack of materials and manpower, as well as a move from San Diego to Fort Worth. The B-36 program regained some traction in 1943 as the US Army Air Forces increasingly required long range bombers for the campaigns in the Pacific. This led to an order for 100 aircraft before the prototype had been completed or tested. B-36A Peacemaker with a B-29 Superfortress for size comparison, 1948. US Air Force Overcoming these obstacles, designers at Convair produced a mammoth aircraft that far exceeded any existing bomber in size. Dwarfing the newly arriving B-29 Superfortress, the B-36 possessed immense wings which permitted cruising altitudes above the ceilings of existing fighters and anti-aircraft artillery. For power, the B-36 incorporated six Pratt Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major radial engines mounted in a pusher configuration. While this arrangement made the wings more efficient, it led to problems with the engines overheating. Designed to carry a maximum bomb load of 86,000 lbs., the B-36 was protected by six remote controlled turrets and two fixed turrets (nose and tail) which all mounted twin 20 mm cannon. Manned by a crew of fifteen, the B-36 had a pressurized flight deck and crew compartment. The latter was connected to the former by a tunnel and possessed a galley and six bunks. The design was initially plagued with landing gear problems which limited the airfields from which it could operate. These were resolved, and on August 8, 1946 the prototype flew for the first time. XB-36 Peacemaker during its first flight, 1946. US Air Force Refining the Aircraft A second prototype was soon built which incorporated a bubble canopy. This configuration was adopted for future production models. While 21 B-36As were delivered to the US Air Force in 1948, these were largely for testing and the bulk were later converted to RB-36E reconnaissance aircraft. The following year, the first B-36Bs were introduced into USAF bomber squadrons. Though the aircraft met the 1941 specifications, they were plagued by engine fires and maintenance issues. Working to improve the B-36, Convair later added four General Electric J47-19 jet engines to the aircraft mounted in twin pods near the wingtips. Dubbed the B-36D, this variant possessed a greater top speed, but the use of the jet engines increased fuel consumption and reduced range. As a result, their use was typically limited to takeoffs and attack runs. With the development of early air-to-air missiles, the USAF began to feel that the B-36s guns were obsolete. Beginning in 1954, the B-36 fleet underwent a series of Featherweight programs which eliminated the defensive armament and other features with the goal of reducing weight and increasing the range and ceiling. Operational History Though largely obsolete when it entered service in 1949, the B-36 became a key asset for the Strategic Air Command due to its long range and bomb capacity. The only aircraft in the American inventory capable of carrying the first generation of nuclear weapons, the B-36 force was relentlessly drilled by SAC chief General Curtis LeMay. Criticized for being an expensive blunder due to its poor maintenance record, the B-36 survived a funding war with the US Navy which also sought to fulfill the nuclear delivery role. During this period, the B-47 Stratojet was in development though even when introduced in 1953, its range was inferior to the B-36. Due to the size of the aircraft, few SAC bases possessed hangars large enough for the B-36. As a result, the majority of the aircrafts maintenance was conducted outside. This was complicated by the fact that bulk of the B-36 fleet was stationed in the northern United States, Alaska, and the Arctic in order to shorten the flight to targets in the Soviet Union and where the weather was often severe. In the air, the B-36 was considered a rather ungainly aircraft to fly due its size. RB-36D Peacemaker in flight,. US Air Force Reconnaissance Variant In addition to the bomber variants of the B-36, the RB-36 reconnaissance type provided valuable service during its career. Initially capable of flying above Soviet air defenses, the RB-36 carried a variety of cameras and electronic equipment. Possessing a crew of 22, the type saw service in the Far East during the Korean War, though it did not conduct overflights of North Korea. The RB-36 was retained by SAC until 1959. While the RB-36 saw some combat-related usage, the B-36 never fired a shot in anger during its career. With the advent of jet interceptors capable of reaching high-altitude, such as the MiG-15, the B-36s brief career began to come to a close. Assessing American needs after the Korean War, President Dwight D. Eisenhower directed resources to SAC which allowed for the accelerated replacement of the B-29/50 with the B-47 as well as large orders of the new B-52 Stratofortress to replace the B-36. As the B-52 began entering service in 1955, large numbers of B-36s were retired and scrapped. By 1959, the B-36 had been removed from service.

Financial Crisis During 2008 Hit The Economy, People Panicked

Ewelina Cachro Professor Bateman Fin 320 3 November 2014 Assignment 2 When the financial crisis during 2008 hit the economy, people panicked. In an attempt to stabilize the market, the government took action. The various actions taken in 2008 by the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank, as well as the new regulations proposed and implemented by the Securities and Exchange Commission, were generated to reduce and mitigate the systemic risk created by the Money Market Mutual Funds. These actions and regulations, as well as the systemic risk created, will be addressed during the upcoming paragraphs. Money Market Mutual Funds are investments whose purpose is to provide investors with a safe place to invest. They are†¦show more content†¦It did not matter what type of security it was; the crisis affected the entire market. However, different classes of assets are affected in different ways. To figure out the systemic risk of a particular industry, security, or portfolio, and to see how that systemic risk compares to the overall market’s systemic risk, investors and others use beta. A large financial firm presents systemic risks due to its â€Å"interconnectedness, leverage, and its tendency to finance long-term assets with short-term debt.† The systemic risk associated with Money Market Mutual Funds, became glaringly obvious when Reserve Primary Fund, a MMMF, had â€Å"broken the buck†. This drop in value of shares from $1.00 to $0.97 spread panic to other MMMFs and created the systemic risk that â€Å"the failure of a single entity†¦can cause a cascading failure† of the entire financial system. Another systemic risk posed by MMMF is that associated with the withdrawals by investors from MMMFs that would lead to a freezing of the markets. This was especially prominent in the short-term investment markets. When $200 billion were withdrawn from â€Å"prime MMMFs†, the short-term interest rates immediately spiked. This spike in short-term interest rates posed another systemic risk in that these interest rates affect the entire mar ket and not just one industry or entity. Another systemic risk issue that arises from MMMFs stems from the very essence of these instruments. MMMFs attract risk-adverse

Analyzing Advantages of the Segment Reporting Management Approach

Question: Discuss about theAnalyzing Advantages of the Segment Reporting Management Approach. Answer: Introduction The idea behind segment reporting is never new to investors, shareholders, managers as well as other users of the Abacus Limited Companys financial statements. It was first promulgated in Australian Accounting Standard (AAS) under the old regime. It essentially circumvents another means of disclosing the financial information of the company comprehensively (Kang and Gray 2013). The information published by segment reporting give another perspective on the risks that a company, for example, Abacus Limited is facing as well as its returns as both multinational and diversified company that may otherwise never been determinable from the data aggregated (Crawford et al. 2012). For instance, if the resources of Abacus Limited were concentrated in a single given geographical region, this also, might have an impact on the decisions surrounding investment of the users of the Abacus Limited financial statements. Segment reporting concept is, thus, simple and has remained significantly unchanged over the past twenty years without limitations being consistently acknowledged when evaluating corporate reporting that have been performed (Crawford et al. 2012). The most significant improvement recognized include the disclosure of the segment information in the provisional financial report and additional information regarding segments (Pisano and Landriani 2012). It has improved increased number of segments for certain enterprises. It has also focused on segmentation which aligns to internal management report as well as the consistency of segment information with other sections of the annual report. One of the major advantage segment reporting to Abacus Limited is that it will allow them to highlight the performance of the various sections. The users of the entitys financial information will, therefore, be enabled to predict the future firm's profitability better, particularly when segments are remaining involved in diverse activities as in the case of Abacus Limited (Pisano and Landriani 2012). As believed by AASB 8, the adoption of segment reporting management approach is a recipe for improved financial reporting. For example, it will permit users of the Abacus Limiteds financial statement to undertake a review of the companys operations via the eyes of management. Furthermore, since the information is already utilized internally by the Abacus Limited management, preparers will only incur few costs while since the information will remain available on a timely manner. This implies that the temporary reporting of the segment information of the company is extendable beyond the existing requirements (Crawford et al. 2012). The AASB 8 also depends on the method an organization recognizes its operating segments unlike the previous AASB 4 that imposed a given basis of segment recognition upon the Abacus Limited, hence an advantage to the firm (Nichols, Street and Cereola 2012). The firm will only be required by AASB 8 to identify its operating segment based on its internal reports which are frequently reviewed by Abacus Limiteds chief operating decision maker to allocate resources to the segment as well as assess its performance. Segment reporting is, therefore, advantageous over consolidated financial statement since enabled Abacus Limited meet the requirement to consolidate all entities controlled by the firm by availing the critically needed segment data (Crawford et al. 2012). References Crawford, L., Extance, H., Helliar, C. and Power, D., 2012. Operating segments: The usefulness of IFRS 8. Edinburgh: ICAS. Kang, H. and Gray, S.J., 2013. Segment reporting practices in Australia: Has IFRS 8 made a difference?. Australian Accounting Review, 23(3), pp.232-243. Nichols, N.B., Street, D.L. and Cereola, S.J., 2012. An analysis of the impact of adopting IFRS 8 on the segment disclosures of European blue chip companies. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 21(2), pp.79-105. Pisano, S. and Landriani, L., 2012. The determinants of segment disclosure: an empirical analysis on Italian listed companies. Financial reporting.