# B-29's pressurized cabin and remote-controlled machine-gun turrets.



## DogFather (Apr 26, 2011)

Didn't the pressurized cabin, make combat more dangerous? I would think a round
in the cabin, could cause a sudden de-pressurization

The plane also had an electronic fire-control system. How well did this work, compared to other US planes, like the B-17 and B-24? Are than any stats, on fighters shot down per mission, or anything like that?


----------



## mikewint (Apr 26, 2011)

The B-29 was a giant airplane, nearly twice as heavy as the heaviest previously serving bomber. Mid-set wings with a high aspect ratio gave it exceptional range. It had three separate pressurized crew compartments: one in the nose, a second aft of the wing for the gunners, and an isolated compartment for the tail gunner. Rather than the traditional bulky manned gun turrets, Boeing used small, remote-control units 'networked' together with an analog computer that compensated for factors such as air temperature and bullet drop. This system was very difficult to develop, but it proved effective. There are several accounts of 'healthy' B-29s peeling out of formation to drive off successfully fighters preying on damaged brethren.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 27, 2011)

According to the B29 crew members over at the B29 web site, unless a huge hole was blown out, depressurization was controllable. The crew also had onboard, wooden plugs that they could pound into any holes.

Also consider, being in a pressurized aircraft eliminated (or minimized) some of the dangers of not being in one.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 27, 2011)

Catastrophic "sudden de-pressurization" is a movie invention. Most planes have enough pump capacity to handle minor leaks.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 27, 2011)

The Remote Control Turret System (RCT) or Central Station Fire Control System which was developed by General Electric, was a very advanced weapon system for its day. Instead of the gunner being inside the turret, between the guns or at an open waist window in the 30 below zero wind, he was located inside the pressurized crew compartment. If the gunner was in a more comfortable heated environment, could wear fewer layers of clothes, wasn't restricted inside the turret it was reasoned that he would be less encumbered and less fatigued than his brother in the manned turret.
From two former B-29 gunners:

I have heard much about our remote control turrets, and the supposition seems to be that they were next to worthless. Personally I can't say enough good things about them. They did the job when need. I used to do quite a bit of squirrel hunting as a youth.. When I came home empty handed I didn't blame the shotgun. Personally. while flying 31 missions I never had any gun to fail, and if you knew the wing span of the fighter, and set your sight right, he was a dead pigeon. We had a fine gunnery system. 
Bill Royster One of the poor abused gunners.

When Lemay ordered all guns except in the tail removed during low level night time missions, our crew disobeyed the order and put 100 rounds in the lower aft turret, just in case. On two separate night missions the left gunner shot down a night fighter by sighting on the muzzle blast. We could not claim the kills in fear of Court Marshal. Another point for the accuracy of the CFC system in my book. I'm able to talk about it today. (11 lives spared at the time) This is just the highlights of the incident, Blackie


----------



## davebender (Apr 27, 2011)

> If the gunner was in a more comfortable heated environment, could wear fewer layers of clothes, wasn't restricted inside the turret it was reasoned that he would be less encumbered and less fatigued than his brother in the manned turret.


Crew ergonomics is an often overlooked factor in weapon system effectiveness. 

I just finished watching a Military Channel episode on the M18 Hellcat tank destroyer. It had an aircooled engine with cooling air being sucked through the crew compartment. A good idea during the summer at it kept the crew cool. A horrible idea during the Battle of the Bulge. Zero degree air blowing over the vehicle crew as long as the engine was running. Unlike infantry, armored vehicle crew cannot move about to keep warm. I'm surprised they actually managed to kill a few German tanks, frozen fingers and all.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 27, 2011)

deleted


----------



## Trebor (Apr 27, 2011)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi1_1l7M8FA_


----------



## mickey (Jun 18, 2011)

My uncle was a tail gunner in a B-29, he was in the 482 squadron of the 505 bomb group flying out of north field Tinian. He was shot down over Tokyo on May25/26 1945. This was only his second mission and his crew was flying lead! His plane was named "Peachy" Our family doesn't know much about his time in the Mariannas. Anything you would like to share about being a gunner on a Superfortress would be appreciated.
Thanks


----------



## superkeith1872 (Jun 22, 2011)

I agree on the lack of explosive decompression, small holes weren't an issue and could be easily plugged in flight. I think the environmental concerns alone, make this a good idea. These crews could fly in short sleeve shirts rather than the bulky heated suits used in the European bombing operations and this also reduced oxygen delivery issues with the masks freezing up and killing you if nobody noticed. The electric mechanical "computers" used in the gun systems were an absolute marvel for their time and were extremely expensive and difficult to design, build and get the bugs out. The cost of development and per turret costs were crazy but a good investment in the end.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jun 23, 2011)

mickey said:


> His plane was named "Peachy"


 
more then one b29 apparently was called that 482nd Bombardment Squadron, 505th also had a Peachy that one survived till this day 

His name will be a good help.

pic from B-29 Superfortress 44-62022 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jun 23, 2011)

This was his target 

(I have found a rapport of this incendiary night raid anyone is interested)


.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 23, 2011)

Yes ... please post it!


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jun 23, 2011)

Here you go 
I will post the site i found this one and many many more tactical reports like this in the appropriate place and cross reference it to this one. Which place would be the best?

.
View attachment 21st-Bomber-Command-Tactical-Mission-Report-181.pdf


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 23, 2011)

Thats Great! So much detail that went into the mission.

If you have others, please post.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 23, 2011)

While the B-29 was no match for MiG-15s in Korea, it is interesting to see how many they actually brought down with the remote turret system for engaging a 600mph airplane. I have a book upstairs that also documents the use of the remote turret system used from a scrapped B-29 for a ground AA emplacement (don't recall the near-Japan operational location). The claim was that it was usable, but I don't think that it was credited with any WWII kills. Setting it up must have been just a exercise of geometry and ensuring the analog computing was deemed robust.


----------



## model299 (Jun 23, 2011)

The computer gunnery system was so new and complex, it caused some problems during production of the first generation of aircraft. I've got several books that talk about GE factory reps having to travel to modification centers, and rewiring entire systems because the factory war-workers, many of them working on "Hi_tech" stuff for the firts time were simply in over their head. 

(EDIT) It's not that the war workers were incompetent, or didn't care. They simply had never seen anythning on this level before. Wanted to make that clear.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 23, 2011)

Matt308 said:


> While the B-29 was no match for MiG-15s in Korea, it is interesting to see how many they actually brought down with the remote turret system for engaging a 600mph airplane. I have a book upstairs that also documents the use of the remote turret system used from a scrapped B-29 for a ground AA emplacement (don't recall the near-Japan operational location). The claim was that it was usable, but I don't think that it was credited with any WWII kills. Setting it up must have been just a exercise of geometry and ensuring the analog computing was deemed robust.


 
Dear Uncle Bill who was a B-29 Radio Operator during Korea once told me that the remote turrets could not get a good firing solution on the MiG-15, especially if they were moving at speed and if a deflection shot was attempted. I believe most if not all of the B-29 kills/ claims during Korea were from tail gunners.



model299 said:


> The computer gunnery system was so new and complex, it caused some problems during production of the first generation of aircraft. I've got several books that talk about GE factory reps having to travel to modification centers, and rewiring entire systems because the factory war-workers, many of them working on "Hi_tech" stuff for the firts time were simply in over their head.
> 
> (EDIT) It's not that the war workers were incompetent, or didn't care. They simply had never seen anythning on this level before. Wanted to make that clear.


 
I'd like to know specifics about this story concerning the "factory workers" as "electrical installers," "aircraft electricians," etc., wired aircraft per engineering drawings or documents called "production illustrations," depending what manufacturer your talking about. Any mis-wiring within the unit or aircraft resulted either because of bad engineering or factory workers mis-reading drawings (which did occur as a result of training and in that case falls back to company management) and although the latter most likely did occur, I don't believe it was the norm, especially later in the war.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jun 24, 2011)

syscom3 said:


> Thats Great! So much detail that went into the mission.
> 
> If you have others, please post.



21st Bomber Command Tactical Mission Reports 
JapanAirRaids on Scribd | Scribd


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 25, 2011)

Snautzer01 ........ EXCELLENT!

Flyboy, I believe what model299 was trying to say is that there were manpower issues when the B29's first stated production. And that was expected given the leap in technology this bomber represented. But of course, it is correct to say that as the workforce matured and gathered experience. Any production issues related to workforce quality became non existent. In fact, towards the end of the war, every phase of the production was almost on autopilot with minimal intervention needed by anyone high up in the process. That alone is testimate on quickly the US workforce could adapt to the war work. Going from the proverbial barefoot and pregnant farmer's wife in Georgia to a skilled assembler at the Marietta plant.


----------



## mjmikelson (Jan 18, 2013)

mickey said:


> My uncle was a tail gunner in a B-29, he was in the 482 squadron of the 505 bomb group flying out of north field Tinian. He was shot down over Tokyo on May25/26 1945. This was only his second mission and his crew was flying lead! His plane was named "Peachy" Our family doesn't know much about his time in the Mariannas. Anything you would like to share about being a gunner on a Superfortress would be appreciated.
> Thanks


 

Did you find out info on this plane and Mission? If not, let me know as I have a fair amount of info on it. Your uncle's crew was the alternate crew for that plane--not the main crew. The MACR essentially says that they left and nothing was ever heard from them again. It was a night mission and nobody saw them, or saw what happened to them. 

The B-29 in Pueblo is painted to match "Peachy", but that's in honor of the main crew mostly, since the pilot was from Pueblo and it's named after his sister. Given the racy artwork on it, that's a bit creepy, but that's the story behind it. That main crew survived the war and had a second "Peachy". The B-29 in Pueblo is NOT the plane from WWII, but rather is a frankenstein of at least 3 carcasses from China Lake. The current crew chief is redoing the plane to have nothing but WWII markings and is pulling out all the badly done restoration work (there's a lot of badly done stuff in the plane). I've spent a fair amount of time in the plane myself, shooting interviews inside it.


----------



## GunnyNelson (May 8, 2013)

Pls share... what B29 site? Does it still exist in 2013?


----------

