# Consolidated B-32 Dominator



## Snautzer01 (Sep 30, 2016)



Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 30, 2016)

Love it!


----------



## Old Wizard (Oct 1, 2016)




----------



## johnbr (Oct 2, 2016)

I would love to see it with the saber --128 engine.That was a 2 stage engine.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Oct 12, 2016)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Oct 13, 2016)




----------



## Old Wizard (Oct 13, 2016)




----------



## Snautzer01 (Oct 14, 2016)

Photograph of the tail assembly lines at Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation in Fort Worth, Texas

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Oct 14, 2016)




----------



## Old Wizard (Oct 14, 2016)




----------



## Gnomey (Oct 17, 2016)

Nice shots!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 17, 2016)

Very nice!


----------



## johnbr (Aug 27, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Aug 27, 2018)

View attachment 507372

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Aug 27, 2018)




----------



## johnbr (Aug 27, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Aug 27, 2018)




----------



## johnbr (Aug 27, 2018)

*The XB-32 had a ridiculous defensive armament proposal of 2 quad 12.7mm turrets in dorsal and ventral positions, 2 turrets consisting of 2 12.7mm and 1 20mm cannon directly behind the outboard engines and 2 singular 12.7mm turrets facing forward beside the outboard engines.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Sep 21, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Sep 21, 2018)




----------



## Gnomey (Sep 22, 2018)

Good stuff guys!


----------



## johnbr (Oct 1, 2018)




----------



## Wurger (Oct 1, 2018)




----------



## johnbr (Oct 19, 2018)




----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 19, 2018)

Very nice


----------



## johnbr (Oct 19, 2018)

XB-32 2nd prototype, turrets in extended position

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 19, 2018)

The simple fact that Wolf's "Ultimate" book on the Dominator doesn't have the above picture disqualifies it of that title.


----------



## johnbr (Oct 20, 2018)




----------



## johnbr (Oct 20, 2018)

The *Consolidated B-32 Dominator* was a four-engined heavy bomber ordered by the Army Air Force at the same time as the Boeing B-29 Superfortress. In reality, the B-32 was a fall-back aircraft in the event that the complex, technology-laden B-29 did not meet its expectations as the nation's premier heavy bomber of World War II.

The Dominator's original design was similar to Consolidated's existing bomber, the B-24 Liberator, in that it used twin fins and a large Davis-type wing; but it featured with a longer, rounder fuselage and a rounded nose.




Consolidated B-32-1-CF Dominator (S/N 42-108471)​ 
The first B-32 mockups were built in December of 1940, a year before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The first XB-32 airplane was completed on September 1, 1942, six months behind schedule. Mechanical problems such as engine fires and collapsed landing gears plagued the testing of the aircraft. Although a contract was awarded to Consolidated for the production of 300 B-32s, some in the USAAF were in favor of cancellation of the entire program. 
Although the B-32 was designed to the same specifications as the Boeing B-29, considerably more development was necessary by Consolidated to meet the USAAF's specifications. Pressurization and remote control of the gun turrets were abandoned and the twin-ruddered B-24-type tail was replaced in 1944 by a very large B-29-type single fin and rudder. 
The B-32 was powered by four Wright R-3350-23 Duplex Cyclone 18-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engines with two turbochargers. The aircraft included space for up to 10 crew members, similar to Consolidated's B-24 Liberator. 
By 1944 testing of the three B-32 prototypes had progressed to the point that the USAAF placed orders for over 1,500 Dominators. The first B-32 aircraft were completed in September of 1944, but production delays at Consolidated persisted. 
During the design, development and production of the Dominator, its creator, the Consolidated Aircraft Company, merged in 1943 with the Vultee Aircraft Company. The resulting company became to be "Convair" (first unofficially, and then officially)
*B-32 Dominator Specifications* 
*Armament:* 10 .50-cal. machine guns plus 20,000 lbs. of bombs (maximum)
*Engines:* Four Wright R-3350-23 Cyclone radials of 2,200 hp each (takeoff power)
*Maximum speed:* 357 mph at 30,000 ft.
*Cruising speed:* 290 mph
*Range:* 3,000 miles with 10,000 lbs. bomb load
*Service ceiling:* 30,700 ft.
*Span:* 135 ft. 0 in.
*Length:* 82 ft. 1 in.
*Height:* 32 ft. 2 in.
*Weight:* 100,000 lbs. (design gross weight)
*Crew:* 10​


----------



## johnbr (Oct 20, 2018)

*B-32 Bomber Production Numbers* 
At the time of cancellation of the contract by the USAAF, Consolidated Fort Worth had produced 74 B-32s and 40 TB-32s, and San Diego had built one aircraft.
A total of 300 B-32s were ordered, but only 118 were delivered to the USAAF. A total of 130 were flyable, and 170 more cancelled.
Orders for an additional 1,099 B-32-CFs and 499 B-32-COs were cancelled after VJ-Day. 
The table shown below represents a recap of B-32 Dominator production by model, and by manufacturing plant. Numbers represent our best research on the subject; there are minor variations in numbers reported by other sources and outlets. 
​ 
​


----------



## johnbr (Oct 20, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Oct 20, 2018)




----------



## johnbr (Oct 25, 2018)




----------



## johnbr (Oct 25, 2018)




----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 25, 2018)

Capt. Vick said:


> The simple fact that Wolf's "Ultimate" book on the Dominator doesn't have the above picture disqualifies it of that title.



You know, I really liked that book until you pointed that out, and I totally agree!


----------



## Niceoldguy58 (Oct 25, 2018)

A very nice start on B-32 photos. 

Some time late next year (I believe) aviation author Nick Veronico and I (Alan Griffith, author of "Consolidated Mess") will be bringing you what should prove to be the definitive book on the B-32. The previous comments by Capt. Vick are actually quite telling. The amount of information available on the B-32 to anyone willing to do some serious research is quite astounding, and Nick and I have spent several years digging it up. That one photo of the remotely-operated 4-gun turrets doesn't even scratch the surface. There are also photos of the rearward-firing .50 caliber machine guns AND 20mm cannon in the rear inboard engine nacelles and the machine guns mounted in the leading edge of the wings outboard of the outer engines will all be in it - as will the tests on the A-18 and A-19 4-gun manned turrets that were experimentally mounted. I found over 200 photos of the A-18 alone in my research. Obviously not ALL of them will be in the book!

It is my opinion, based on my research, that one of the reasons B-32 development took so long was the number of different turrets that were considered. For instance, the original Emerson 128 nose turret was changed for a different one (I'm struggling to remember what its designation was but with no luck) because it was felt its replacement could more easily have the doomed .60 caliber machine guns mounted in it. 

The B-32 is a much-maligned, inappropriately forgotten aircraft, and one which will finally receive its due. For instance, did you know the AAF planned to replace every B-24 in all Pacific Theaters, the CBI and the Aleutians with the B-32? The book will contain the schedule of replacement by month and unit through November 1946. And while production ended with the Block 35 (or was it 30?), we will show you the change orders planned through Block 60. And have you ever heard of Project Albert? You will, with photos. How about the proposed Navy version? Or original factory artwork on the two proposed cargo versions - or the two-engined version?

This book, with planned publication by MMP, is all based upon original documents, photos and factory drawings with very little copied from manuals. We have them, of course, by why not tell the *detailed* story of how the aircraft came to be and, ultimately, came to be cancelled? 

All of this and much, much more.

Respectfully submitted,

Alan Griffith

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 25, 2018)

johnbr said:


> I would love to see it with the saber --128 engine.That was a 2 stage engine.



I know that post was 2 years ago, but I think a Sabre V with turbo would be the ticket!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 25, 2018)

I will add it to my 3 other B-32 books. Can't wait!


----------



## Tieleader (Oct 25, 2018)

Capt. Vick said:


> The simple fact that Wolf's "Ultimate" book on the Dominator doesn't have the above picture disqualifies it of that title.


One man's "ultimate" is another man's "penultimate"...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tieleader (Oct 25, 2018)

johnbr said:


> View attachment 507366
> View attachment 507368
> View attachment 507369
> View attachment 507370


What is really interesting to me is the size of the building. Considering the massive size of the the tail unit alone this structure must be humongous!


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 26, 2018)

Oh and another thing, I guess I will have to hold off on building the Anigrand B-32 until after this book comes out......oh well


----------



## Niceoldguy58 (Oct 27, 2018)

Since I mentioned the two-engine B-32 I thought I'd put a lo-res copy of the original factory artwork up here for everyone to see. The aircraft is shown powered by two Pratt & Whitney X-Wasp (R-4360) engines. 

Of special interest is the background "sky" in the drawing. It is in the shape of the "Rising Sun"!

From future title: "Dominator - The Untold Story of the B-32"

Respectfully submitted

Alan Griffith

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Oct 28, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 2, 2018)

Good shots!


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jan 24, 2019)

Photo B32 Dominator US Bomber- Philippines 1945 | eBay


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jan 24, 2019)

That's a privateer amigo

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jan 29, 2019)




----------



## G10N1 (Mar 3, 2019)

Big Dominator fan myself. looking forward to a new book. 




profile drawing when the Dominator still had the b-29 tail

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Mar 3, 2019)




----------



## Gnomey (Mar 4, 2019)

Good stuff!


----------



## Snautzer01 (Mar 6, 2019)

Ww2 aircraft photo b32 xb32 usaaf dominator bomber prototype consolidated | eBay


----------



## Wurger (Mar 6, 2019)




----------



## spicmart (Mar 7, 2019)

Why was the Dominator just a fallback project to the B-29? Did Boeing have more experience to design such an aircraft or were Consolidated's engineers less capable so that it would take Consolidated more efforts to meet the requirements? Why was the B-32 smaller than the Superfort even though the specs to be met were the same?


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 7, 2019)

Nice shots!


----------



## G10N1 (Mar 7, 2019)

Spicmart,

I believe Initially the B-29 and B-32 programs were on the same footing having the same mission requirements/priority. In total 4 company’s submitted designs; Boeing and Consolidated winning over Douglas and Martin. The requirement stipulated things like range and bomb load. How to make it happen was left up to the aircraft company’s. Hence the size differences. Though I want to say the AAF preferred the Boeing design proposal over Consolidated. The AAF went ahead with two designs to cover their ass hoping at least 1 would fulfill the requirements. 

Initially CVAC had a slight lead as the XB-32 was the first to fly, beating out the XB-29 by a week or 2 in sept 1942. Unfortunately CVAC seems to have had more difficulties with the pressurization and remote controlled turrets. (I think the turret difficulties had more to due with Sperry). Also the first prototype crashed on what was to be it’s 31st test flight. This caused delays in the program. CVAC had to rush to get the second prototype ship in the air. 

Eventually with the B-29 progressing (and not without its own problems) the AAF changed the design requirements in 1943 omitting pressurization and remote turrets for the B-32. This necessitated a major redesign, again delaying production. The plane in the new configuration would again require flight testing. By this time the B-32 was definitely not the AAF’s first choice in the VHB category. 

So you have the B-29 undergoing service test in late 1943, and flying it’s first combat mission by June 1944. By 1945 production capacity had surpassed what the AAF required and was being utilized in bombing missions by the hundreds. 

VS 

The first newly redesigned B-32 didn’t even get into the air until August 1944. Service testing wrapped up in May or June 1945 and by August only around 9 B-32s had made it overseas for combat duty. The AAF still had plans to use it due to the enormous cost and effort expended in creating it, but the end of the war eliminated the need altogether.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Mar 8, 2019)

Thank you.


G10N1 said:


> Spicmart,
> 
> I believe Initially the B-29 and B-32 programs were on the same footing having the same mission requirements/priority. In total 4 company’s submitted designs; Boeing and Consolidated winning over Douglas and Martin. The requirement stipulated things like range and bomb load. How to make it happen was left up to the aircraft company’s. Hence the size differences. Though I want to say the AAF preferred the Boeing design proposal over Consolidated. The AAF went ahead with two designs to cover their ass hoping at least 1 would fulfill the requirements.
> 
> ...



Thank you.


----------



## Niceoldguy58 (Mar 31, 2019)

It is clear some clarification of the B-32 story needs to happen here.

When the R40B heavy bomber competition took place with the resultant XB-29, XB-30, XB-31 and XB-32 designs being those considered, while the B-29 won the competition, Lockheed's XB-30 actually came in second - NOT the B-32. Another note, the bug-eyed 4-engine drawing so often seen for the Douglas XB-31 is totally wrong. Douglas' entry was the Model 332, whereas the bug-eye was Model 423 and appears to have perhaps been Douglas'entry for the B-36 program. 

At any rate, Lockheed bowed out of the program because their production capacity was already taken up by P-38's, Hudson's, etc. The entire production issue went much deeper, however. At this early point in war planning the AAC's production plans stopped with a relatively low number of aircraft (in comparison to what would actually happen) in mid-1943. All the manufacturers were a bit concerned about this as it would have involved a tremendous investment in floor space, design, personnel and tooling for a project that would end abruptly, leaving them with a lot of then-useless tooling and empty buildings. Of course, no one had any idea when (NOT if) we would get into the war, who the enemies would be or what war on the scale that WWII would actually become meant in terms of the needed amount of production. 

Boeing had basically been refining the ultimate design of the B-29 since the Model 316 XB-20 in early 1938 - i.e. a long streamlined fuselage with a rounded nose and remotely-operated turrets, long wings, etc. If you look at the designs between the Model 316 and the final Model 345, you will see a very strong family resemblance throughout. At the point of R40B design acceptance, Consolidated had just barely begun building early versions of what would become the B-24 we know. Consolidated's B-32 design went through many changes inside and out, which was also one reason for its taking longer, but certainly not the only one. 

The B-32 really wasn't a "back-up" to the B-29. Just as the AAF flew the the B-17 and B-24, they certainly could and would have flown two different types of very long range, very heavy bombers. However, the B-32 went through a dizzying amount of changes, some the fault of the original design (the best known being the tail once a prototype had been built and flown) and others due to changing decisions on the part of the AAF. For instance, I can think of at least four different fuselage turret types and installations that were examined and tested for the B-32, some quite unique in appearance. 

The story of the B-32 is a uniquely complicated and varied one, but its story SHALL be told.

AlanG


----------



## johnbr (Jul 7, 2019)

This is a much simplified cutaway drawing of the Consolidated B-32 Dominator. The B-32 was a heavy bomber made for US Army Air Forces during World War II. The aircraft and has the distinction of being the last Allied aircraft to be engaged in combat during World War II. Developed in parallel with the Boeing B-29 Superfortress as a fallback design should the Superfortress prove unsuccessful, the B-32 reached units in the Pacific during the summer of 1945 and only saw limited combat operations against Japanese targets before the end of the war. Consolidated Aircraft built a total of 130 Dominators at its Fort Worth, Texas, facility. Spotlighted Photos | Code One Magazine


----------



## johnbr (Jul 7, 2019)

* B-32 Dominator same site



*

The Consolidated B-32 Dominator was a heavy bomber made for the US Army Air Forces during World War II. The aircraft and has the distinction of being the last Allied aircraft to be engaged in combat during World War II. The B-32 was developed in parallel with the Boeing B-29 Superfortress as a fallback design should the Superfortress prove unsuccessful. It reached units in the Pacific during the summer of 1945, and subsequently only saw limited combat operations against Imperial Japanese targets before the end of the war. Consolidated Aircraft built a total of 130 Dominators, including forty TB-32 aircrew trainers like this one. No examples remain of a B-32.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jul 22, 2019)

B-32 Bomber Factory in Fort Worth, Texas c.1944 WW2 Photo Glossy "4 x 6" inch B | eBay

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jul 22, 2019)




----------



## fubar57 (Jul 22, 2019)




----------



## Snautzer01 (Sep 8, 2019)

Org. Nose Art Photo: B-32 Bomber "HOBO QUEEN"!!! | eBay


----------



## Snautzer01 (Oct 25, 2019)

Org. Nose Art Photo: B-32 Bomber "HOBO QUEEN II"!!! | eBay

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 25, 2019)




----------



## Snautzer01 (Feb 28, 2020)

Original WWII AAF B-32 Dominator Photo - "Direct From Tokyo" 312 BG,5th AF, 1945 | eBay

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Feb 28, 2020)




----------



## Maty12 (Mar 5, 2020)

Snautzer01 said:


> Original WWII AAF B-32 Dominator Photo - "Direct From Tokyo" 312 BG,5th AF, 1945 | eBay
> 
> View attachment 571658


That's a very good picture! It's hard to find good reference for the nose landing gear and the various diagrams in the manuals (and even the inboard profiles) seem to all disagree heavily about its design, with 4 or so different ones. Based on this picture, I'd say the closest match is the design used in the airplane commander's manual, with a tow attachment at the front and an angled strut at the bottom (some diagrams show it curving sharply). Photos of that assembly are very rare.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Mar 20, 2020)

WWII AAF Consolidated Vultee B-32 Dominator Super Bomber Aircraft Photo #74 | eBay

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Mar 20, 2020)




----------



## fubar57 (Mar 25, 2020)

That is one big a$$ tail


----------



## Snautzer01 (Apr 10, 2020)

370 - 35mm Generic Aircraft Slide - B-32 Dominator 42-108529 @ Okinawa in 1945 | eBay

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Apr 11, 2020)




----------



## Snautzer01 (Jun 24, 2020)

WWII Consolidated B-32 Dominator Heavy Bomber Aircraft Formation Photo #201 | eBay

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jun 24, 2020)




----------



## fubar57 (Jul 1, 2020)

I'll re-iterate my comment in Post # 71

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Maty12 (Jul 1, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> I'll re-iterate my comment in Post # 71


What I love is that making the tail bigger just worked. It's how they solved every stability problem the plane had, they just kept making it bigger until the plane flew well. It sounds like a skit from a comedy show. Just make the vertical stabilizer bigger for EXTREME stability.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jul 3, 2020)

Still wish one was saved...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Maty12 (Jul 4, 2020)

Capt. Vick said:


> Still wish one was saved...


What saddens me is that one was _supposed to be_. B-32-1-CF 42-108474 "Flaming Mamie" was set aside for display, but scrapped anyway in 1949 (From Sinko's 2007 book). I think Wolf's book also mentions this, but it has been a while since I've read that one. I'm not sure if it was a mistake or someone just changed their minds.


----------



## johnbr (Jul 4, 2020)

Flicker 
*Nose turret on Consolidated B-32 Dominator Bomber - 1945*

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jul 4, 2020)

Same site.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jul 4, 2020)

George Lane

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jul 4, 2020)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jul 4, 2020)

Consolidated B-32 Dominator | Digital Pitt

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jul 4, 2020)

Consolidated B-32 Dominator | Digital Pitt

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jul 5, 2020)




----------



## Capt. Vick (Aug 1, 2020)

While scrolling through YouTube, I came across the video above. I haven't watched it all the way through, because very shortly after it started I caught a glimpse of something I have never seen before. The rear dorsal turret is of a type I have never seen before, and I don't mean the plexiglass aerodynamic fairing either. As you can see from the screenshot below, it is clearly of a manned 4 x .50 cal. machinegun turret!






Now a little way in after this you see examples of waist gunners from other bomber, all the while talking about the Dominator (don't you hate when they do that) so at first I was thinking it may be a different aircraft, but it seems to matchup with the position of the turret in relation to the vertical stabilizer as well as the two small windows (one that can open as a hatch) in the close up I included below:






Anyway, I had to spread the word. Anyone have any additional information on this installation?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 1, 2020)

Nice Jim!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 2, 2020)

Where's the guy writing the book on the Dominator? He'll know...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Niceoldguy58 (Aug 2, 2020)

Hi. I'm "the guy" on the B-32.

You actually have photos of two completely different turrets there.

The first turret photo is a test mount of the A-18 four-gun top turret. I think it was by Sperry but off the top of my head I don't recall. It was strictly a test. The aircraft was also fitted with the standard nose ball turrets and another 4-gun turret designated the A-19. The A-19 was truly an ugly turret (Emerson, I think), and the A-18's were hardly considered works of art. The A-18 was being tested as dorsal turrets, both front and back. The A-19 was a belly turret. All these turrets were in the standard locations where production Martin top turrets and the Sperry bottom ball turret were located. However, they were so heavy that it threw the CG too far back, enough so that even Emerson warned Consolidated about the A-19 being too heavy.

The bottom photo above is that of the standard B-32 top turret mount, the A-6F as I recall. That remarkably ugly fairing on the back of the turret was supposed to be "aerodynamic", and as long as the turret was pointed forward it mostly was. However, the minute you started to turn the turret(s) to either side they generated a great deal of disturbed airflow over the tail and rudder, making the aircraft difficult to control. That fairing also used up a lot of surface area leading to the vertical stab, adding to the rough air. If you take a look at side photos of the XB-32, you'll notice the fuselage behind the rear turret sloped deeply down to tail turret. This never changed on the production B-32's. Thus even the B-29 vertical tail experiment did not have sufficient clear air flowing over the vertical tail surfaces for good control - but it WAS better than the original twin tails. Thus you see the VERY tall tail assembly ( I believe this was configuration #3) on the B-32 which enabled them to move the rudder up on the tail and exposed the tail overall to a clean airflow. You can also see that slope on the side photo of #528 a bit earlier in this thread.

This same tail problem was the major cause of the crash of the Boeing 307 prototype. Because of that same downward slope of the tail (taken from the sharktail B-17's), the aircraft's bigger fuselage and low position of the rudder caused both directional stability problems and rudder lock. Thus production 307's were fitted with the B-17G tail whose much greater surface area and taller, bigger rudder got rid of that problem. This was not an uncommon problem with monoplanes in the 1930's. If you look at the tail on the original prototype of the Northop FT-1 vs the tail on the FT-2 you will notice a major change in the structure and position of the rudder.

I hope this answers your questions and a bit more.

Alan Griffith

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Aug 2, 2020)




----------



## Capt. Vick (Aug 2, 2020)

Thanks Alan, just a clarification. I included the second picture, knowing it was the standard B-32 setup, only to confirm that the first picture was of a B-32 also. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jan 2, 2021)

Consolidated B-32 Dominator in flight - USA - WWII - World War 2 - Photograph | eBay


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jan 2, 2021)

Consolidated XB-32 Dominator 386th Squadron - WWII - World War 2 - Photograph | eBay

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jan 2, 2021)




----------



## Snautzer01 (Apr 11, 2021)

*PHOTO* Consolidated B-32 Dominator Bombers in Service ~ Excellent | eBay

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Apr 11, 2021)




----------



## Gnomey (Apr 13, 2021)

Good shots!


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 13, 2021)

Niceoldguy58 said:


> The amount of information available on the B-32 to anyone willing to do some serious research is quite astounding, and Nick and I have spent several years digging it up. That one photo of the remotely-operated 4-gun turrets doesn't even scratch the surface. There are also photos of the rearward-firing .50 caliber machine guns AND 20mm cannon in the rear inboard engine nacelles and the machine guns mounted in the leading edge of the wings outboard of the outer engines will all be in it - as will the tests on the A-18 and A-19 4-gun manned turrets that were experimentally mounted. I found over 200 photos of the A-18 alone in my research. Obviously not ALL of them will be in the book!


What was wrong with the pressurization system? Wasn't that the thing that resulted in the most massive physical changes?


> For instance, the original Emerson 128 nose turret was changed for a different one (I'm struggling to remember what its designation was but with no luck) because it was felt its replacement could more easily have the doomed .60 caliber machine guns mounted in it.


I didn't know there was any problem with the 0.60.


----------



## Maty12 (Jul 10, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> What was wrong with the pressurization system? Wasn't that the thing that resulted in the most massive physical changes?
> I didn't know there was any problem with the 0.60.


Very late response and I may be remembering wrong (Alan, please correct me if I am), but as far as I recall pressurization issues were not the reason that the aircraft's configuration was drastically changed. Per Wolf's book, the USAAF concluded that manned turrets were more effective than remote-controlled ones and wanted both the B-29 and B-32 to switch to them. Boeing successfully argued that this would add too much drag to their design and decrease its performance drastically given the manned turrets' larger size and less streamlined shape, Convair was for whatever reason not as convincing and was stuck with the manned turrets. These made pressurization impractical, so that system was ditched since it was essentially dead weight.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 10, 2021)

I'm surprised Convair didn't arrive at the same exact conclusion regarding the drag issue. It seems hard to imagine that it wouldn't be, and the B-36 had retractible turrets on their design.


----------



## Maty12 (Jul 11, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm surprised Convair didn't arrive at the same exact conclusion regarding the drag issue. It seems hard to imagine that it wouldn't be, and the B-36 had retractible turrets on their design.


My understanding is that Boeing's argument focused on how crucial low drag was to their design, the book claimed that lowering the B-29's gear doubled the drag on the aircraft. Of course, it's Wolf, so it might be best to take the claim with a grain of salt, he sometimes cites many sources that may contradict each other and doesn't make much of an effort to say which is correct, at least in his book about the B-26. I don't know enough about the B-32 to say if his book on it has the same issue or not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Niceoldguy58 (Jul 21, 2021)

Greetings, gentlemen.

The biggest problem with the pressurization system - based on both original engineering drawings and documents - is that if it was installed there was no way to be able to put a "tunnel" from the front to the back of the aircraft to reach the rear gunner's positions due to the size and location of the spar. In order to put that and the pressurization system into the aircraft would have required an increase in the diameter of the fuselage. I don't have the drawings in front of me, but IIRC it was an increase of about two feet. This would have put the development of the B-32 back even further than it already was. I'm in the process of redrawing for the book the originals that show this problem. 

As for Wolf's book, we have found that it may begin the journey of discovery on the B-32, but it is missing a great deal of factual information and - as do all books - has some factual mistakes as well. Regarding the turrets on the B-32, there were probably over a dozen different turret designs done for the B-32 and at least three or four that were actually built and tested, either on the B-32 or on other aircraft as a "proof of concept". I have managed to uncover dozens of drawings and photos and don't believe I've found them all yet!

Zipper, I suggest you Google the .60cal machine gun and its development. You will find a ton of information. I've also gathered info from various archives. The .60cal was a favorite of Arnold's, but they just couldn't make it work. It was an attempt to take the German 20mm cannon (Mg15?) and redesign it for a U.S. shell. For some reason the AAF - and thus the aircraft manufacturers - were very anti-20mm, and thus wasted a tremendous amount of time and money trying to make the 37mm cannon and the .60cal fill that same role for the U.S. aircraft.

Submitted for your consideration,

AlanG

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jul 21, 2021)

What have you found on Convair model 39 airliner? I have found pictures in American Airlines mkgs and as USN transport, but no accurate three view or dimensions. The fuselage appears to be enlarged in diameter to avoid the spar conflict you describe. It appears the wing was the same shape as PB4Y and B-32, however there is little info on actual measurements.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 21, 2021)

That's another new one for me. Thanks, special ed, for that query.


----------



## special ed (Jul 21, 2021)

Only two were built. The post war airliner market was captured by surplus C-47s, C-54s and Connies. Convair didn't have a chance.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 21, 2021)

Convair didn't have much success in the airliner market. Some brilliant designs, though.


----------



## special ed (Jul 21, 2021)

The CV-240s and 340s were workhorses in the DC-3 market and nudged Martin 404 until Fokker/Fairchild F.27 showed up. The Convair Model 39 is of interest because I like the little known and obscure planes, and I hope to build a controlline model of it some day when I can make a reasonably accurate version. At present I could build a profile model and use the photos to guesstimate wingspan and empennage.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 21, 2021)

I like the one offs and "oddballs" myself.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Maty12 (Jul 21, 2021)

Niceoldguy58 said:


> Greetings, gentlemen.
> 
> The biggest problem with the pressurization system - based on both original engineering drawings and documents - is that if it was installed there was no way to be able to put a "tunnel" from the front to the back of the aircraft to reach the rear gunner's positions due to the size and location of the spar. In order to put that and the pressurization system into the aircraft would have required an increase in the diameter of the fuselage. I don't have the drawings in front of me, but IIRC it was an increase of about two feet. This would have put the development of the B-32 back even further than it already was. I'm in the process of redrawing for the book the originals that show this problem.
> 
> ...


Thanks for clearing the record, Alan. Looking forward to your book!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Jul 21, 2021)

It's a shame that a few weren't preserved in museums for posterity.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 21, 2021)

Agree. But preserving an aircraft that huge would have been a challenge. Wasn't there an airliner derived from the B-36 that wound up as roadside attraction somewhere?


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 21, 2021)

Niceoldguy58 said:


> The biggest problem with the pressurization system - based on both original engineering drawings and documents - is that if it was installed there was no way to be able to put a "tunnel" from the front to the back of the aircraft to reach the rear gunner's positions due to the size and location of the spar.


Yikes, that's a major design flaw!


> This would have put the development of the B-32 back even further than it already was. I'm in the process of redrawing for the book the originals that show this problem.


That's pretty cool


> Zipper, I suggest you Google the .60cal machine gun and its development. You will find a ton of information. I've also gathered info from various archives. The .60cal was a favorite of Arnold's, but they just couldn't make it work. It was an attempt to take the German 20mm cannon (Mg15?) and redesign it for a U.S. shell.


I thought it was some kind of anti-tank or anti-aircraft gun that they were basing it on.

From what I remember the appeal was that it had a very high muzzle velocity, which is a good thing. I'm surprised they didn't realize the gyroscopic systems they were developing would increase accuracy to the point that the flat arc wouldn't be as essential. Regardless, the Vulcan cannon was also built to 0.60" as well. I think it wasn't until the early 1950's that they decided to go with 20mm.


----------



## cvairwerks (Jul 22, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Agree. But preserving an aircraft that huge would have been a challenge. Wasn't there an airliner derived from the B-36 that wound up as roadside attraction somewhere?


The XC-99, she’s at Wright Pat in the museum’s hands. I belive she was moved from San Antonio in the ‘90’s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cvairwerks (Jul 22, 2021)

special ed said:


> What have you found on Convair model 39 airliner? I have found pictures in American Airlines mkgs and as USN transport, but no accurate three view or dimensions. The fuselage appears to be enlarged in diameter to avoid the spar conflict you describe. It appears the wing was the same shape as PB4Y and B-32, however there is little info on actual measurements.


Should be able to run down some data, looking under Consolidated R2Y(-1). Janes from 1946 or 47 should have some info, as well as the book “General Dynamics and the Predecessors”. My copy is buried somewhere in storage, or I’d look when I get home from work later this morning.


----------



## special ed (Jul 22, 2021)

Thanks CV. I'll look for that book and see if I can find Janes on line.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Nov 16, 2021)

We want the book! We want the book!


----------



## ARTESH (Nov 16, 2021)

As always, a great photo thread with lots of info and knowledge shared.

Looking for more and more.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Nov 17, 2021)

B17 FLYING FORTRESS - ORIGINAL AVIATION PHOTO-MOYES & BOWYER COLLECTIONS | eBay


This original photo is from the collection of two of the most famous aviation authors, Chaz Bowyer and Philip Moyes. All photos are original prints from negatives, (not scanned copies), and they were printed between 1930-1970.



www.ebay.com





Consolidated B-32 Dominator

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Nov 17, 2021)




----------



## Snautzer01 (Jan 23, 2022)

CONSOLIDATED B-32 DOMINATOR- ORIGINAL AVIATION PHOTO-MOYES & BOWYER COLLECTIONS | eBay


This original photo is from the collection of two of the most famous aviation authors, Chaz Bowyer and Philip Moyes. All photos are original prints from negatives, (not scanned copies), and they were printed between 1930-1970.



www.ebay.com





42-108472 was first B-32 delivered (Sep 19, 1944). W/o the very same day when nosewheel collapsed on landing.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jan 23, 2022)




----------



## Gnomey (Jan 24, 2022)

Good shots!


----------



## TbirdsRGo (Jan 28, 2022)

Question for AlanG: did your B-32 book ever come out? I'm looking forward to it!
General question for everyone: what was the outer diameter for the Sperry A-17 turret? I'm trying to build a correct 1/72 model of the B-32 but existing models are kind of suspect in that regard.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jan 28, 2022)

Yes, sadly I have heard that the nose turret on all B-32 kits are severely out of round (and undersized?).


----------



## Maty12 (Jan 28, 2022)

TbirdsRGo said:


> Question for AlanG: did your B-32 book ever come out? I'm looking forward to it!
> General question for everyone: what was the outer diameter for the Sperry A-17 turret? I'm trying to build a correct 1/72 model of the B-32 but existing models are kind of suspect in that regard.


Take this with a heavy grain of salt, but according to my measurements from the B-32 1:10 inboard profile drawing I've purchased from the Smithsonian the diameter of the Nose/Tail turret is roughly 46". This is the same reason I have yet to buy a 1:72 model of the B-32, they're all the same mold with the nose turret dwarfing the tail turret. From looking at it, I think the nose turret is the one that's wrong, as the glazed "chin" section looks to small compared to the rest of the nose. I could be wrong though.


----------



## TbirdsRGo (Jan 29, 2022)

Thanks, my best estimate for the Sperry A-17 ball turret diameter is nearly identical at 45" based on James Long's drawing in the Harding/Long book, "Dominator, The Story of the Consolidated B-32 Bomber", which appears to be pretty accurate, and G. W. Heumann's drawing of the XB-24N in William Green's "Famous Bombers of the Second World War, Vol 1" which also looks correct. Thankfully, this scales out to 5/8" in 1/72 scale, so it shouldn't be too hard to find a marble or ball bearing that can be used to make a vacuform copy. I just have to find ONE, rather than buying a lot of 100!
I'm finally getting around to building my PB4Y-2 and B-32 models and the YB-24N (with Consolidated tail turret) has a few things in common, so I'm working on a YB-24N conversion (which covers most of the XB-24N, except for the unique tail turret).
Is that Smithsonian B-32 drawing currently available or is that from years past?


----------



## cvairwerks (Jan 29, 2022)

T.O. AN-11-45C-19 Has the installation dimensions for the A-17 turret. There's a pdf available via eveilbay, but the guy is asking a bit high in my opinion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## TbirdsRGo (Jan 29, 2022)

Yes, looks like a great manual - lots of pictures and drawings, but I didn't want to spend $50 on a scan. All I really needed were the dimensions!
The Contrails B-32 tail turret looks to be about the right diameter, but the nose turret is way too big.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Maty12 (Jan 29, 2022)

cvairwerks said:


> T.O. AN-11-45C-19 Has the installation dimensions for the A-17 turret. There's a pdf available via eveilbay, but the guy is asking a bit high in my opinion.


Did not know this manual existed. Might look into that. Would probably save me a lot of trouble when it comes to making the turret whenever I finally work on my B-32 3D model again


----------



## TbirdsRGo (Jan 31, 2022)

I initially thought that the X/YB-24N nose ball turret was the same as in the B-32, but after reviewing some photos, they are very different. The B-32 nose turret was definitely the Sperry A-17 model. What manufacturer/model was the XB-24N nose turret?
The external differences I have observed are that the B-32 guns were closer together (6.5" center to center), they were located below the turret center, and only the center section of the A17 turret could be elevated/depressed. The entire XB-24N nose turret both yawed (azimuth) and pitched (elevation).
Here's the B-32 nose turret close up:
then the X/YB-24N nose turret also close up:
The third picture clearly shows that the entire ball (including the sides) pitches as one assembly.
I don't have any pictures that show a B-32 nose turret in an elevated or depressed position, but there are several reasons why I'm convinced that only the center section can pitch.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 31, 2022)

TbirdsRGo said:


> I initially thought that the X/YB-24N nose ball turret was the same as in the B-32, but after reviewing some photos, they are very different. The B-32 nose turret was definitely the Sperry A-17 model. *What manufacturer/model was the XB-24N nose turret?*
> The external differences I have observed are that the B-32 guns were closer together (6.5" center to center), they were located below the turret center, and only the center section of the A17 turret could be elevated/depressed. The entire XB-24N nose turret both yawed (azimuth) and pitched (elevation).
> Here's the B-32 nose turret close up:
> then the X/YB-24N nose turret also close up:
> ...


Probably Emerson. Looks like the same one used on early P2Vs

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Maty12 (Jan 31, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Probably Emerson. Looks like the same one used on early P2Vs
> 
> 
> View attachment 656503
> ...


Hopefully it lacked the "pinching the ammunition belts" problem from the Sperry A-17, I recall it being a frequent complaint on the B-32.


----------



## TbirdsRGo (Jan 31, 2022)

Thanks for the tip! I don't really know anything about Neptunes, but I have Steve Ginter's book on the Martin P4M-1 Mercator and that bow turret has to be a version of the same turret as the B-24N. The Mercator turret mounted two 20mm cannons but other than that it appears to be identical. He refers to it as the Aero 9A Bow Turret.
Meanwhile, the Mercator tail turret, which is vaguely similar to a B-17G tail turret in that the gunner is stationary, is referred to as the Aero 11B Tail Turret. It looks an awful lot like the XB-24N tail turret. The seven YB-24Ns, on the other hand used the ubiquitous Consolidated A-6 tail turret. Which is why I am building a YB-24N (taking the easy way out!)

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## TbirdsRGo (Jan 31, 2022)

Looks like the P2V-5 Neptune was at least one version that had that type of bow turret.


----------



## BlackSheep (Feb 1, 2022)

johnbr said:


> View attachment 510218



Someone in planning had their thinking cap on when they ordered the B-32.. Gamble on all the cutting edge tech in the B-29, play it safe with what works in the B-32. I wish someone had the foresight and power to keep one intact for us history buffs.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 2, 2022)

Good shots!


----------



## Snautzer01 (Apr 20, 2022)

TB-32-10-CF 42-108506















B-32 Assembly Line- Tail Groups


Photograph of the "tail groups" in the assembly line of the B-32s at Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation in Fort Worth Texas in January 1945.




texashistory.unt.edu

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Apr 20, 2022)

42-108596 42-108597 42-108598














B-32 Tail Assembly Line


Photograph of the tail assembly lines at Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation in Fort Worth, Texas. Many airplanes are lined up in this room.




texashistory.unt.edu

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Apr 20, 2022)

42-108506















B-32 Aircraft outside of the Assembly Line.


Photograph of a B-32 aircraft outside of the assembly line at Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation in Fort Worth, Texas in February 1945. The four large engines on the wings are covered.




texashistory.unt.edu

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Apr 20, 2022)

B-32 Aircraft outside of the Assembly Line.


Photograph of a B-32 aircraft outside of the assembly line at Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation in Fort Worth, Texas in February 1945. The four large engines on the wings are covered. A man on a bicycle looks at the plane.




texashistory.unt.edu

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Apr 20, 2022)

B-32 being carried by a monorail


Photograph of an aircraft under construction. It is being carried by a monorail from above in the Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation in Fort Worth, Texas.




texashistory.unt.edu

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Apr 20, 2022)

Hanging Vertical Fin on a B-32


Workers hang a tail fin on a B-32 aircraft at Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation in Fort Worth, Texas in January 1945. Other planes in the assembly line can be seen in the background.




texashistory.unt.edu

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Apr 20, 2022)

Very inteeresting shots. Pics 3 and 4 of the same aircraft leaving the hangar show it on a jack/platform which I guess allowed it to be moved diagonally through assembly. What is the notation on the nose of this plane? It doesn't appear to be TB-32 but another letter before the B.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Apr 20, 2022)

special ed said:


> Very inteeresting shots. Pics 3 and 4 of the same aircraft leaving the hangar show it on a jack/platform which I guess allowed it to be moved diagonally through assembly. What is the notation on the nose of this plane? It doesn't appear to be TB-32 but another letter before the B.


FW NO 38 or 3B. I think 38 because in this series is a FW NO 128

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Apr 20, 2022)




----------



## cvairwerks (Apr 20, 2022)

special ed said:


> Very inteeresting shots. Pics 3 and 4 of the same aircraft leaving the hangar show it on a jack/platform which I guess allowed it to be moved diagonally through assembly. What is the notation on the nose of this plane? It doesn't appear to be TB-32 but another letter before the B.


Moving line cradle. Until just a couple of years ago, there were still some remnants of the original moving line system still embedded in the factory floor. With the main building having been converted to only F-35 production work, the last of that system was removed when a large amount of new fixtures were installed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 20, 2022)

cvairwerks said:


> Moving line cradle. Until just a couple of years ago, there were still some remnants of the original moving line system still embedded in the factory floor. With the main building having been converted to only F-35 production work, the last of that system was removed when a large amount of new fixtures were installed.


I was working in Burbank when Lockheed was closing the B-1 facility, during WW2 Hudsons and P-38s were built at this facility. The system to move the line (which was steam driven) was still there.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## cvairwerks (Apr 20, 2022)

Those old factory floors were a pain when things had to be updated. Most of the floor in Plant 4 was over 18" thick. During the F-22 days, we had some new jib cranes going in for some new fixtures. Due to some contractor dunderhead not reading the drawings correct, the wrong diameter sockets for the columns were ordered. Wasn't until they tried to set the columns that anyone noticed. Took them a couple of weeks working 12 hours a night to crack up the 10' concrete cubes holding the sockets.....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Apr 20, 2022)

Sigh...if only this was true:

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Apr 20, 2022)

That might make me buy a plastic model again.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 25, 2022)

Nice shots!


----------



## Niceoldguy58 (May 14, 2022)

We have all these photos and many, many more in gathering for our book on the Dominator. With the help of the former head archivist we have been able to organize the photos in the same order as the production of the aircraft. Good stuff.

AlanG

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (May 14, 2022)

Niceoldguy58 said:


> We have all these photos and many, many more in gathering for our book on the Dominator. With the help of the former head archivist we have been able to organize the photos in the same order as the production of the aircraft. Good stuff.
> 
> AlanG


Could you give a heads up when the book goes to print? It would be appreciated by more then me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (May 22, 2022)

B-32-1-CF 42-108474 Last Dominator on Davis Monthan AFB, reclaimed 1949















*PHOTO* Consolidated B-32 Dominator Bomber (42-108474) in Service ~ Excellent | eBay


A nice shot of an early B-32 Bomber in service.



www.ebay.com

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (May 22, 2022)




----------



## Snautzer01 (Jul 14, 2022)

Prototype















1940s USA aircraft Photo Convair B-32 Dominator airplane | eBay


Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for 1940s USA aircraft Photo Convair B-32 Dominator airplane at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!



www.ebay.com

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jul 14, 2022)




----------



## Gnomey (Jul 16, 2022)

Nice shots!


----------



## Maty12 (Nov 26, 2022)

Some excellent color photos here that I've not seen elsewhere:
Consolidated B-32 Dominator

Unknown B-32: photo 1
TB-32 0M31: photo 2
The Lady Is Fresh: photos 3 & 7
Hobo Queen II: photos 4, 5 & 6

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## BlackSheep (Nov 26, 2022)

Maty12 said:


> Some excellent color photos here that I've not seen elsewhere:
> Consolidated B-32 Dominator
> 
> Unknown B-32: photo 1
> ...


You weren’t kidding, those are top notch! 
When people talk about the rexpensive risk of the B-29 project rarely do I hear them mention this excellent insurance policy. A true shame that not one of those bad boys was saved.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DBII (Nov 27, 2022)

Is there a projected publish date for the book?


----------



## Snautzer01 (Nov 30, 2022)

1142















Original WWII Photo RARE US Army Air Corps AAF XB-32 B-32 BOMBER Aircraft 34 | eBay


<p>ORIGINAL WWII PHOTO - ORIGINAL TO THE TIME - NOT A COPY, SCAN, OR REPRO</p> <p>QUANTITY: 1 - See the other original WWI & WWII photos that I have listed. </p> <p>ITEM: RARE Original WWII Photo of XB-32 BOMBER. Identified by descriptive note written on the back.</p> <p>Photo is probably an...



www.ebay.com

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Nov 30, 2022)




----------

