# Top Heavy Bomber



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2007)

This is similiar to the Top Medium Bomber thread but for Heavies instead.

Remember top does not necessarily mean best for me. Then again in my opinion the Top is the Best and that is the B-29.

To clear things up as well I classified heavy bombers as those that had a payload of 5500lb+.


----------



## HoHun (Nov 16, 2007)

Hi Adler,

Top Heavy Bomber - hm, I thought for a moment this was a thread about capsizing aircraft 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi Adler,
> 
> Top Heavy Bomber - hm, I thought for a moment this was a thread about capsizing aircraft
> 
> ...


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 16, 2007)

B-29 hands down.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 16, 2007)

Who voted for the Lanc?


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 16, 2007)

The B-29 is an obvious hands-down winner here, and it`s kinda 

a, unfair, given it`s size was about twice the others (not to mention the B-32..)
b, makes the question redundant, since with the 29/32 on the list, there`s really any other answer...

IMHO it would be better to narrow it down to the 'classic' ~30 ton take off weight heavy bomber class.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 16, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> The B-29 is an obvious hands-down winner here, and it`s kinda
> 
> a, unfair, given it`s size was about twice the others (not to mention the B-32..)
> b, makes the question redundant, since with the 29/32 on the list, there`s really any other answer...
> ...



Of course I picked the B-29 as 'top/best' four engine weapon system.

My favorite will always be the B-17 for the war it fought over Germany

The most intriguing for me is the He 177. What if - the dive bombing role and the two nacelle/four engine design had not been part of the spec?

What if - it had been designed for USAAF instead?


----------



## ToughOmbre (Nov 16, 2007)

Agree with drgondog...

No contest, B-29 the best....by far  

And my favorite (and most beautiful) is the "Flying Fortress".

TO


----------



## HoHun (Nov 16, 2007)

Hi Adler,

Here is a good article on the B-29, written by John Deakin who is one of the pilots of the CAF's "Fifi":

Pelican's Perch #56: Superfortress!

"The word "awesome" is badly overused, but I cannot help but use it to describe the airplane, and the experience of flying it. It is not that is such a good airplane (it's not), or that it flies well (it doesn't), but the history! This is the WWII "Very Heavy Bomber," the largest airplane used in WWII, and the one that did such yeoman service in the Pacific."

And a supplement by Randy Sohn who rescued "Fifi" from the boneyard:

Pelican's Perch #56 Supplement: Randy Sohn on the B-29

"Queen of the fleet? Undeniably! But this last of the completely muscle powered manually controlled aircraft could never be accused of easy handling flight control qualities."

John actually posted a - possibly shorter - version of that article on Compuserve's AVSIG forum long ago, and after reading his comments on the control forces, I quoted the B-29 manual to him:

"The flight controls are conventional and the forces necessary to move them are light, even at high flying speeds - a surprising fact to most pilots the first time they fly the B-29."

I don't remember his precise answer, but I think it was something about the manual obviously having been written by Boeing's marketing department 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Wildcat (Nov 16, 2007)

B-29 hands down, though the B-24 and Lanc are my favourites..


----------



## ppopsie (Nov 16, 2007)

As I understand the B-29 still stands alone. It was way too advanced both in the idea and technically. Simple catalogue-data comparisons of the B-29 with the rest of the types would not mean much. 

If a timeline set, say, at the end of 1943, comparisons can be made between such types include; Lanc, Halifax, Stirling, B-24, B-17.

But still, it is difficult to compare each types due to the differences in idea, purpose, role and the results. Each had own meanings and reasons.

Therefore I would choose the Lancaster as MY best bomber because it looks good and right. The second is the B-17 also because it looks very nice and I put the B-29 onto a spetial place in the history of the whole aviation.


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 16, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Who voted for the Lanc?



I did but it was a mistake.... I was thinking B-29..

I got lanc on the brain I just saw one in a museum.

Although the lanc get huge points for versatility... (tall boys, grand slam and dam buster)


----------



## Captn javy Wilson (Nov 16, 2007)

nah the b-17 made more missions than the b-29 did and when the b-29 finally came into service, Japan and Germany were both losing the war badly.
The b-17 is always more commedoring than the b-29


----------



## mkloby (Nov 16, 2007)

ToughOmbre said:


> Agree with drgondog...
> 
> No contest, B-29 the best....by far
> 
> ...



My sentiments exactly - although I dropped a vote for 17... I like Kururst's interpretation.


----------



## lancaster mad (Nov 17, 2007)

Surely the Lanc has to be the best as I think it did more missions that the Superfort


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Nov 17, 2007)

Ole B-17, though the B-29 was the best.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 17, 2007)

lancaster mad said:


> Surely the Lanc has to be the best as I think it did more missions that the Superfort



Was the Lancaster as advanced, performed better or could carry the same large bomb load over that long of a distance as the B-29.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2007)

lancaster mad said:


> Surely the Lanc has to be the best as I think it did more missions that the Superfort


A one man flight crew with half the avionics - A multi engine taildragger with manned turrets - that's a half of generation behind the B-29.


----------



## ppopsie (Nov 17, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> A one man flight crew with half the avionics - A multi engine taildragger with manned turrets - that's a half of generation behind the B-29.



If the British Tigerforce started the campaign at the same time with the B-29s, it would be known which was more efficient against Japan. 

OR which was easier to shoot down. In any way the Tigerforce should never be welcomed by us too.


----------



## Lucky13 (Nov 17, 2007)

B-29, but only by a guns length over the the B-17, B-24 and Lancaster...
As for the He-177, they should have scrapped the ideas of dive bombing and four engines in two nacelles....probably been a completely different aircraft...


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 17, 2007)

The B29 dropped three atomic bombs. (Two on Japan, one at Bikini atoll)

The Lanc didnt.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 17, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Was the Lancaster as advanced, performed better or could carry the same large bomb load over that long of a distance as the B-29.



I thought you didn't like "best" threads and was merely talking about the "top bombers" as you said in the medium bomber thread 

But the B29 was the top bomber of WWII for wiping out an entire city all by itself, one plane, a feat luckily never needed to be repeated by another type. It was strategic bombing taken to the ultimate level.


----------



## HoHun (Nov 17, 2007)

Hi Ppopsie,

>OR which was easier to shoot down. 

Coincedentally, I just found these paragraphs:

"CDR Sachi-o Endo

Endo is the hero who became famous s the 'King of B-29 Killers' (B-29 Gekitsui-o) during intercept operations against B-29s that raided the homeland. [...]

Adding the last score [achieved on the sortie that ended with his death] to the rest, records show that Endo shot down eight and heavily damaged another eight aircraft, counting B-29s only."

(from Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units in World War II by Hata/Izawa)

Endo apparently flew a Gekko night fighter and achieved his kills mostly in night missions. His last flight was a daylight sortie, though.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## ppopsie (Nov 17, 2007)

HoHun said:


> "CDR Sachi-o Endo



Hi HoHun,

Thanks for the quote. The Gekko was a twin engine fighter initially developed as a long range escort (something like a Me110). But it failed to satisfy hot fighter jocks of the Navy and was once shelved. It revived when the IJN had to defend the southern island bases from US night bombers. The Gekko had two Sakae engines which was the same type with that on the A6M. The engine was reliable but had lacked high altitude performances. 

There was another twin engine fighter in the Army, a Ki-45Kai which had similar performances.

Both types achieved successes for their level of performances, when the B-29s flew at medium to lower altitudes to get more bombing efficiency. Considering there were almost no radar guidance existed in the nights, these night fighter pilots' achievements were great ones.

CDR Sachio Endo was an old pilot who rose from rank of EM ultimately to Lieutenant which was a very rare case in IJN. He posthumously honored a double rank rising to make Commander himself.

As for the Lancs there were dams left intact in the Japanese territory in 1945 all which continuously supplied electricity, the last war resource. If the Allied forces needed to cut it off, the specially modified Lancs and the rotating mines must've used for it. Enough number of the mines were still kept at the end of the war in Britain.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2007)

ppopsie said:


> If the British Tigerforce started the campaign at the same time with the B-29s, it would be known which was more efficient against Japan.
> 
> OR which was easier to shoot down. In any way the Tigerforce should never be welcomed by us too.



Don't get me wrong - I feel there's nothing wrong with the Lancaster and the later Lincoln - both were excellent aircraft and were a distant number 2 in my book - but look at the way they were built, their systems, crew layouts, and lastly performance and that's why I consider the B-29 the un challenged king of the hill..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2007)

Marcel said:


> It was strategic bombing taken to the ultimate level.


BINGO!


----------



## Heinz (Nov 17, 2007)

B 29 no question. But in 2nd the Lancaster, B 17 and B 24 all share the honours for me.


----------



## HoHun (Nov 17, 2007)

Hi Adler,

>Then again in my opinion the Top is the Best and that is the B-29.

>To clear things up as well I classified heavy bombers as those that had a payload of 5500lb+

Hm, that would include the Ju 88.

This thread has a loading plan showing bombloads up to 3000 kg (6615 lbs):

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/te...oadouts-individual-bomb-sizes-makes-9040.html

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## ppopsie (Nov 17, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Don't get me wrong....the way they were built, their systems, crew layouts, and lastly performance...



Oh don't worry. I agree with you 100%. I see the Lancaster was an incredibly simple (maybe cheap) aircraft in having;
-the main hydraulics with operating pressure of just 800psi for MLG, flaps and the bomb doors ONLY.
-each turret operated from own independent hydro sources, with just 300psi operation pressures each. But was good for the damage control purposes 
-control surfaces totally without mechanical gearing or spring tab complications
-hardly imbisible so-called workmanship on the products, and 
-wooden parts still used elsewhere in the airframe.


Most of its systems including advanced radars and jamming equipment were just added-on. Being practically an aircraft of the good old days in all but it performed superbly for the purpose and the period.

On the other hand the B-29 was developed integrating every state-of-art techs and aimed at to make an ideal weapon of the time, and was connected directly to post-WW2 era aviation. I see that is the B-29 had meant in the history.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 17, 2007)

The Lanc evolved into the Shackleton.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2007)

ppopsie said:


> Most of its systems including advanced radars and jamming equipment were just added-on. Being practically an aircraft of the good old days in all but it performed superbly for the purpose and the period.


For the Lanc I think that's the best assessment yet.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

Marcel said:


> I thought you didn't like "best" threads and was merely talking about the "top bombers" as you said in the medium bomber thread
> 
> But the B29 was the top bomber of WWII for wiping out an entire city all by itself, one plane, a feat luckily never needed to be repeated by another type. It was strategic bombing taken to the ultimate level.



You are correct, I dont. I think there are too many variables. I was just trying to see what else he had to say on the matter.

Now having said that I honestly believe that the "Best" and "Top" of the Heavy Bombers certainly is the B-29 hands down.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi Adler,
> 
> >Then again in my opinion the Top is the Best and that is the B-29.
> 
> ...



Is that all you do is go around and attempt to find mistakes made by others as if you do no wrong?

You want to make all the polls from now on???!!!!


----------



## Marcel (Nov 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Now having said that I honestly believe that the "Best" and "Top" of the Heavy Bombers certainly is the B-29 hands down.



As Joe would say: BINGO


----------



## 16KJV11 (Nov 18, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi Adler,
> 
> Top Heavy Bomber - hm, I thought for a moment this was a thread about capsizing aircraft
> 
> ...



To be honest, that's what came into my mind too!


----------



## 16KJV11 (Nov 18, 2007)

For my money, the B29 tops all of the bombers, except maybe for length of service in WWII.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 18, 2007)

Marcel said:


> As Joe would say: BINGO


8)


----------



## Aussie1001 (Nov 18, 2007)




----------



## JDCAVE (Jan 10, 2008)

My father was F/Lt HHM Cave, pilot with 419 Squadron, 6-Group. He completed his tour with 1800 hours of flying, on numerous aircraft types, including the liberator. I will report what my father said about the Lancaster.

"The Lancaster was the finest aircraft I have ever flown. It was like flying a Tiger Moth, really, except that it had 4 engines. It just floated like a bird! It didn't want to land! It was if it just loved to fly! It was responsive to the controls-just a little touch of the controls, the rudder or the control column, to bank or climb or dive, just a slight movement and it performed beautifully and smoothly. The pilot had fantastic visibility. You could see everything, it was like being in a greenhouse. I could look around, if I arranged my seat to its highest and shortened the rudder pedals to the fullest extent, I could see right around through 360 degrees and it was wonderful to see like that. I could see right into the astro hatch and if Jonesy (Wireless OP) was there, I could see him and also look right at Nick Horychka in the Mid-Upper Turret. The aeroplane was absolutely beautiful. Now we had never flown this plane before so I went out with an American who was on the Squadron by the name of Lt. Joe Hartshorn. He was an awfully fine man. He did one circuit and landing and he then stepped out of the airplane and I took it from there." Please note here that Joe Hartshorn was an American (who won a DFC) with the squadron. 

Dad also flew the B-24 Liberator, during his stint with Coastal Command (Cornwall, England). Now this was obviously a pivotal aircraft during the war because of its very long range and its use in anti-submarine warfare. Dad's comments: "It handled like a cow"

Dad, on a bet, once did a circuit and bump (take-off, orbit and landing) all by himself--no one else on the aircraft. His notation in his logbook (the JPEG of which I can email) was "F/Lt. HHM Cave pilot, scratch crew". Can any of you claim to have done that in any of the other aircraft in question?

There have been comments on this forum on the defensive armament of the Lanc. Christ knows why they opted for .303 Brownings. That was an unnecessary cost savings dictated by the Air Minisitry. It could just as easily have been provided with 50 cal guns, but note that the Lancaster B1 HK541 included modifications that would have ben used for Tiger Force in the Pacific.

The B-29 was clearly a superb aircraft. However it was a "next generation" piston bomber and clearly in a different league than either the B-24, B-17 or the Lancaster. It's bomb loads were almost entirely incendiaries and you can pack a lot of these in to such bombers. It didn't have to contend with either a significant fighter presence, nor flak. Nor was it used in any kind of a precision role. Also, the lancaster was clearly capable of carrying the atomic bomb. The Heinkel HE 177? Don't even go there! If it had any kind of promise, the Germans would have jumped on the design. 

But the Lanc? It was clearly the first use of a strategic bomber in a strategic PRECISION role. Neither the B-17 nor the B 24 could make that claim, nor could they carry either the tallboy, grand slam nor "Upkeep" . The Lanc was used with precision (617 squadron) against the dams, against viaducts, U-Boat Pens, railway tunnels (Saumur), and battle ships (Tirpitz), The Daisy Cutter was not larger than the Grand Slam in terms of weight. Also if you consider the normal bomb ordnance carried by main-force aircraft, it could out-compete either the Forts or Box Cars or Halibags, based on lift, hands down. Note that after the war, Albert Speer, the Reich's Minister of Armaments, was interrogated by the Americans. He indicated that when it came to bombing of oil production in Germany, British raids were more effective because of the larger size of bombs they used. No doubt this was due to bomb bay size. Finally, against Berlin, remember the Mosquito could fly to the Big-Smoke twice in one evening, with a 4000 bomb--the same bomb load that the B-17 force carried, with a crew of 2 men, 2 engines, at twice the speed of B-17's and without fighter support or defensive armament and at a signficantly lower rate-of-loss!

Finally my Dad, reminising about landing on American airfields (when diverted after a raid because of weather)..."We used to like opening our bomb doors when we landed at American bases, because we could show off how much we could carry. A 500 lb bomb [rolling around the bomb bay] fell onto the tarmac. I've never seen people run so fast in all my life!"

At the end of the day, the war was fought with the munitions and aircraft the allies had available and chose to use. Both the B-17, B-24, B-29, Lancaster and Halifax were a critical components for the war effort. Both the American and British contributions were denigrated by Galbraith's report on the Strategic Bomber Offensive. Recently, historians such as W. Overy and Middlebrook have concluded the efforts of this offensive were critical towards winning WW II.

If you wish to look at my father's contributions to the war effort...
Hanover



JDCAVE


----------



## Thorlifter (Jan 11, 2008)

JDCAVE said:


> It's bomb loads were almost entirely incendiaries and you can pack a lot of these in to such bombers.



But weight is weight. It doesn't matter if its a ton of feathers or a ton of bombs. It's still a ton.




JDCAVE said:


> It didn't have to contend with either a significant fighter presence, nor flak.



Good point!




JDCAVE said:


> The Heinkel HE 177? Don't even go there! If it had any kind of promise, the Germans would have jumped on the design.



Don't count on it. They sure misused the 262.


----------



## A4K (Jan 11, 2008)

I agree with Thorlifter on the He 177 - if it didn't have to be capable of 400 mph dive bombing (.....) they wouldn't have had to muck around with double engines (what a catastrophe - and no firewalls..) and she might have had a fighting chance of being a superb bomber. If you up-armed an He 277, for example,with maybe DB605 engines you might have had a likely competitor for the B-29, and earlier on in the piece aswell.

It would have been interesting to have seen B-29s in the same situation as the Lancs, only then could you really say which was the better, I reckon. 
Personally I'm prejudiced towards the Lanc, because I LOVE that plane, but the B-29 was the newer, and therefore more technically advanced, aircraft.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2008)

JDCAVE said:


> The B-29 was clearly a superb aircraft. However it was a "next generation" piston bomber and clearly in a different league than either the B-24, B-17 or the Lancaster.


And that's what made it the best heavy bomber of WW2


JDCAVE said:


> It didn't have to contend with either a significant fighter presence, nor flak. Nor was it used in any kind of a precision role.


Not true - although the Japanese anti aircraft defences were not as formidable as seen over Germany, they were pretty intense. Additionally the B-29 served in Korea where is did perform a precision role while subject to being intercepted by MiG-15s. In both conflicts the B-29s loss rate was less than 10%.

The Lancaster on paper could of carried an atomic bomb but its out-dated tail wheel configuration (mainly used for aircraft operating on dirt fields) would of increased the risk factor for landing accidents and ground loops - something I think one would want to mitigate while carrying a nuclear weapon.

The best heavy bomber of WW2 was the B-29. I put the Lancaster in distant 2nd.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 11, 2008)

If damaged over Japan, B29's had to fly 1600 miles ot the Mariana's, or 800 miles to Okinawa or Iwo Jima.

If they only had to fly a couple of hundred miles back to friendly bases like that in Europe, their loss rate would have gone way way down.

As for the Lanc, it was the 2nd best. A bombers mission is to drop bombs accurately on target and destroy it. As the USSBS data shows, the Lanc was better at putting bombs on target, and with its ability to carry 4000 pound bombs...... destroy it. As for the B17 flying at 30000 feet? Big deal. 

The 500 and 1000 pounders carried by the B24 and B17 just couldnt do the job.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And that's what made it the best heavy bomber of WW2
> 
> The best heavy bomber of WW2 was the B-29. I put the Lancaster in distant 2nd.



Ditto. I really dont undestand how people can not consider the B-29.


----------



## JDCAVE (Jan 11, 2008)

Well, I must confess that I am no expert on the B29. However I note the following text off of Wikipedia...

"The most common cause of maintenance headaches and catastrophic failures was the engine. Though the Wright R-3350 would later become a trustworthy workhorse in large piston-engined aircraft, early models were beset with dangerous reliability problems, many caused by demands that the B-29 be put in operation as soon as possible. It had an impressive power-to-weight ratio, but this came at a heavy cost to durability. Worse, the cowling Boeing designed for the engine was too close (out of a desire for improved aerodynamics), and the early cowl flaps caused problematic flutter and vibration when open in most of the flight envelope. The 18 radial cylinders, compactly arranged in front and rear rows, overheated because of insufficient flow of cooling air, which in turn caused exhaust valves to unseat.

These weaknesses combined to make an engine that would overheat regularly at combat weights, particularly during climbs after takeoff. Unseated valves released fuel-air mixtures during engine combustion that acted as a blowtorch against the valve stems. When these burned through the engines disintegrated and caught fire. A fire that was not immediately contained in the forward part of the engine by fire extinguishers became impossible to put out. An accessory housing manufactured of magnesium alloy in the back of the engine would often catch fire and produce heat so intense it burned through the firewall to the main wing spar in no more than 90 seconds, resulting in catastrophic failure of the wing.

This problem would not be fully cured until the aircraft was re-engined with the more powerful Pratt Whitney R-4360 "Wasp Major" in the B-29D/B-50 program, which arrived too late for World War II....frequent replacement of the uppermost five cylinders (every 25 hours of engine time) and engines (75 hours)..." were required. Hmmm! I'll bet the lanc didn't require that kind of maintenance!

That doesn't sound to me to be a particularly reliable engine at all! The Merlin engine was certainly the most univerally used engine of the war, and although there have been criticisms on this board on the use of coolant, certainly Mosquitos were used in India, and Spits, Lancs and Hurricanes were used in the dessert with no serious engine problems.

The comment earlier on by Thorlifter "weight is weight and it doesn't matter..." Certainly you can pack a lot more incendiaries into a bomb bay than, say 1000 lb bombs just because of the geometry of how that tonnage is packaged. 

So, as I see it the Superfort was a fast bomber (score 1 for superfort). Longer range for the superfort (score 1). Maximum bomb tonnage was about equal (draw). Handling charactaristics (score 1 for the lanc, do you really think that one man could do a circuit and bump in a superfort and say that it flew as effortlessly as a biplane?). Reliability (seriously folks! based on the engines alone, you've got to score 1 for the lanc! Only deep American pockets could afford to keep that sucker in the air). Superforts never used in anger in any precision bombing role (score 1 for the lanc). Historical versatility in combat and longevity of service career during WWII (score 1 for the lanc). I've got the lanc ahead on points 4-2. Yes the superfort was a next generation bomber, but serious teething troubles were evident throughout it's service history in WW II because of its rush to service.

Hey! The superfort was the aircraft that ended the war in Japan! Harris would have loved to have had the same success against Germany! But it's a heck of a lot easier to burn a bunch of wooden houses and factories (which is why they were able to use all incendiary loads) than it was to attack the military-industrial complex of fortress Europe. It also helps to have the atomic bomb!

JDC


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 11, 2008)

The B29's engines were reliable enough for combat operations, once the ground crews and airmen figured out how to keep them operating. 

B29's were faster
B29's carried a heavier payload
B29's had the best combination of radar and navagation aids
B29's had the best defensive armorment and fire controls
B29's had nuclear capability
B29's were reliable enough to be able to be available for regular operations.
B29's were used for precision and area bombing, and mining missions.

Now in what catagory was the Lanc superior in?


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 11, 2008)

I don't really see what is so special about one man doing a touch and go in a Lanc as it didn't have a copilot . The Merlin was far from the most univerially engine of WW2 . It was used great deal but The PW 1830 would certainly take the honour for the most used , B17,24 Sunderland wildcat C47 ad infinitum


----------



## JDCAVE (Jan 11, 2008)

Lets not just debate this on paper. Let's look at the *performance of the aircraft for its intended purpose during WW II only*. 

Please provide the evidence of superior Nav aids to OBOE during WW II. Also, if these were available, they would certainly be transferable to other aircraft such as the lanc, so I think the point may be moot. But if they were available, why didn't the US make them available to the British, as the Brits did with radar earlier in its development.

Precisions targets during WW II? Please state raids and efficacy of these raids?

Area raids? No doubt the Superfort was effective. 

Fire controls! Hell! with those engines, you'd be dead without them!!!

I just don't think the Superfort performed up to it's *intended design specifications*. I think the lanc did indeed perform up to its intended design. The B-29 entered the war too late for them to completly rectify the engine issues and other design flaws. Lemay had to have these aircraft operate at much lower altitudes as the losses at high altitude as a result of engine failure were catostrophic and unsustainable. It would be interesting to try and find information on the loss of super forts due to design problems. In the last months of the war in Europe, lancaster losses were as low or less than 1%, even on deep penetrations in Germany. This is evidence that the aircraft was very reliable. While I don't have the figures handy, I don't think the losses of super forts were anywhere near that low. 

The results of the low level, all incendiary raids were certainly amazing, but such results are much easier to achieve because of the different nature of the targets over Japan, as compared to Germany. Also targets were much more concentrated in an island nation as compared to Europe. It would be interesting to compare the loss rates on Superforts (after the Japanese fighters were no longer around) with those sustained by lancasters late the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2008)

JDCAVE said:


> I just don't think the Superfort performed up to it's *intended design specifications*.




How did it not?

Didn't the B-29 carry a heavier payload over a farther distance and accuratly drop that payload?

That is what it was designed for...

If the B-29 had been used in the ETO it would have completely rendered all heavy bombers there obsolete.

You also talk about poor engine reliability. That was later fixed. All aircraft have issues at first. Didn't the Lanc not evolve from a less successful aircraft called the Avro Manchester. What was the Manchesters weakness? Its underpowered and unreliable engines.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 11, 2008)

The Lancaster was a fluke plane and simple it was the afterbirth from the abortion of a Manchester . Not to mock the lanc it was a good aircraft served long and well after the war but was not even in the same league as the B29. In any way shape or form . Lanc losses were not all that light look at Nuremburg 101 lost , thats closer to 10% . Of the 7,377 Lancasters built, 3,249 were lost in action thats no 1%.


----------



## Graeme (Jan 11, 2008)

JDCAVE said:


> This problem would not be fully cured until the aircraft was re-engined with the more powerful Pratt Whitney R-4360 "Wasp Major" in the B-29D/B-50 program



How successful/trouble free was the Pratt Whitney R-4360? According to Ernest K. Gann, they had endless trouble with it on the Stratocruiser...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> The Lancaster was a fluke plane and simple it was the afterbirth from the abortion of a Manchester . Not to mock the lanc it was a good aircraft served long and well after the war but was not even in the same league as the B29. In any way shape or form . Lanc losses were not all that light look at Nuremburg 101 lost , thats closer to 10% . Of the 7,377 Lancasters built, 3,249 were lost in action thats no 1%.



Agreed. The Lanc was a great aircraft and bomber but to say it was a better bomber than the B-29 is quite naive.


----------



## renrich (Jan 11, 2008)

It is incorrect to say that the B29 carried only incendiaries in low level area bombing. The B29 was designed for high altitude daylight precision bombing just as the B17 was. That was the reason the AC was so heavily armed. In the first raids against Japan that is exactly the role carried out. It was discovered because of the jet streams encountered at high altitudes that that type of bombing was not very efficient(that was not due to any shortcomings in the B29) and that was when night bombing at low altitudes was ushered in. Of course incendiaries were used where the mission was to burn down cities. There were still missions where conventional gravity bombs were used.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 11, 2008)

JDCAVE said:


> Please provide the evidence of superior Nav aids to OBOE during WW II. Also, if these were available, they would certainly be transferable to other aircraft such as the lanc, so I think the point may be moot. But if they were available, why didn't the US make them available to the British, as the Brits did with radar earlier in its development.



LORAN and the eagle radar was fitted as it became available.



> Precisions targets during WW II? Please state raids and efficacy of these raids?



Nice bombing results from mid and high raids in Thailand and Burma were observed prior to the movement of all B29's to the Mariana's. The precision bombing in Japan was never effective due to the jet steams scattering the bombs over a very wide area. The jet steams in Europe were not a factor, and were unanticipated over the the Japanese islands.



> Fire controls! Hell! with those engines, you'd be dead without them



centralized fire control for the guns. 



> I just don't think the Superfort performed up to it's intended design specifications.



Several thousand were built indicating that it did measure up to specs.



> B-29 entered the war too late for them to completly rectify the engine issues and other design flaws.



The B29's began their missions in earnest in summer of 1944. And if the engine was so unreliable, how come the 20th AF could stage raids involving several hundreds of them, on a consistant basis?



> Lemay had to have these aircraft operate at much lower altitudes as the losses at high altitude as a result of engine failure were catostrophic and unsustainable.



Totally incorrect. Lemay changed tactics because the "precision" bombing results was dismal. And he and the JCS were aware of the flamability aspects of the Japanese cities, and the complete lack of Japanese night defenses.



> It would be interesting to try and find information on the loss of super forts due to design problems. In the last months of the war in Europe, lancaster losses were as low or less than 1%, even on deep penetrations in Germany. This is evidence that the aircraft was very reliable. While I don't have the figures handy, I don't think the losses of super forts were anywhere near that low.



Do you think the Lancs loss's would go up if a damaged plane had to fly 1600 miles, or 800 miles back to base?


----------



## JDCAVE (Jan 11, 2008)

*PBFOOT: * I am well aware of the serious loss of aircraft on the Nuremberg raid, and the lost rate was 11.1% (64 lancasters of 572, see for example Middlebrook, Nuremberg) and these were combat losses against and advanced night fighter system. You missed my point, however. I wanted you to focus on the rate of loss when defences were very low, in order to establish the reliability of the aircraft. Baseline losses over Europe were 0-1%

*Deralderistgelandet:* "Didn't the B-29 carry a heavier payload over a farther distance and accuratly drop that payload" No it did not. Not during conflict in WWII. Remember the B-29 was refined after the war. Focus on what occured during the war.
"You also talk about poor engine reliability. That was later fixed." Yes, after the war.
"Didn't the Lanc not evolve from a less successful aircraft called the Avro Manchester." The last time I looked the Lancaster was an entirely different aircraft with different rudders, tail plane and had 4 engines. 

*Renich:* "It is incorrect to say that the B29 carried only incendiaries in low level area bombing." I never said that. I said that the B29 never (to my knowledge) dropped a purpose-built bomb from height to target a specific structure with great accuracy during WW II. If it did please provide the reference. And no. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not examples of precision bombing.
"The B29 was designed for high altitude daylight precision bombing just as the B17 was. That was the reason the AC was so heavily armed." Given fighter coverage, the defensive armament was irrelevant and was in fact removed on Lemay's orders. Part of the reason for Lemay ordering the attacks to occurr at low level was (agreed) to improve accuracy, but also to reduce the wear on engines that were found to be unreliable for the most part. (See my first post)

JDC


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 11, 2008)

On the Nuremburg raid aircraft lost over the continent might have been 64 but aircraft written of or crashed on landing moved it up a whack


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 11, 2008)

You might find this link of interest pbfoot.
bc-stats


----------



## Glider (Jan 11, 2008)

Very interesting site.


----------



## renrich (Jan 11, 2008)

The reason many of the MGs and their crews were left behind for the low level night attacks was because they were trying to save weight for a bigger bomb load, the MGs were superfluous because the Japanese did not have a effective night fighter force. The early raids on the Japanese were flown unescorted. As stated above there were early daylight precision raids with good results in Thailand and Burma. To postulate that the B29 could not perform in high altitude bombing with conventional bombs seems ridiculous to me. If the Lancaster had faced determined fighter opposition with it's vulnerable liquid cooled engines it's losses would have been prohibitive.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2008)

JDCAVE said:


> Fire controls! Hell! with those engines, you'd be dead without them!!!



Evidently you don't know the B-29 as well as you think you do... 

Central Station Fire Control or Remote Control Turret System as used in the B-29, A-26 and the B-50

A firecontrol system is not used to put out engine fires!

Although there were issues with the engines they were rectified by the war's end - the effectiveness of the aircraft is more than evident as it was the first mainstay in the Strategic Air Command and was used during the Korean War, something you keep ignoring - the Lancaster, while a well serving platform was an obsolete weapons system when compared to the B-29 in almost every category.

Even after the Lincoln made the scene the RAF saw fit to deploy the B-29 in the 1950s. If that's not evidence of the aircraft's superiority I don't know what is!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2008)

JDCAVE said:


> *Deralderistgelandet:* "Didn't the B-29 carry a heavier payload over a farther distance and accuratly drop that payload" No it did not. Not during conflict in WWII. Remember the B-29 was refined after the war. Focus on what occured during the war.
> "You also talk about poor engine reliability. That was later fixed." Yes, after the war.



You are completely missing the point. Any of these problems were not caused because of the B-29.

As others have allready stated the B-29 flew low level missions because of the Jet Stream. 

*Any Bomber* inluding the Lancaster would have these same problems if it could fly at those altitudes.

The engine reliability problems were not that bad of problem late 1944 onwards as can be seen by the number of aircraft used.




JDCAVE said:


> "Didn't the Lanc not evolve from a less successful aircraft called the Avro Manchester." The last time I looked the Lancaster was an entirely different aircraft with different rudders, tail plane and had 4 engines.



Again you are seeing past the point.

Was or was not the Lancaster and evolution of the Manchester? Did or did not the Manchaster have engine problems?

Also another question. You say the B-29 and the B-17 were designed for high altitude bombing (which is correct) and that is why they were so heavily armed. 

What does the armament have to do with being high alltitude or low alltitude?

Nothing...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2008)

JDCAVE said:


> Focus on what occured during the war.


The B-29 carried heavier bomb loads further than the lancaster - it's that simple.


Specifications (B-29)


General characteristics
Crew: 11: (A/C)pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer, bombardier, navigator, radio operator, radar observer, blister gunners (two), CFC upper gunner, and tail gunner 
Length: 99 ft 0 in (30.2 m) 
Wingspan: 141 ft 3 in (43.1 m) 
Height: 29 ft 7 in (8.5 m) 
Wing area: 1,736 ft² (161.3 m²) 
Empty weight: 74,500 lb (33,800 kg) 
Loaded weight: 120,000 lb (54,000 kg) 
Max takeoff weight: 133,500 lb (60,560 kg) 
Powerplant: 4× Wright R-3350-23 and 23A turbosupercharged radial engines, 2,200 hp (1,640 kW) each 
* Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0241 
Drag area: 41.16 ft² (3.82 m²) 
Aspect ratio: 11.50 
Performance
Maximum speed: 357 mph (310 knots, 574 km/h) 
Cruise speed: 220 mph (190 knots, 350 km/h) 
Stall speed: 105 mph (91 knots, 170 km/h) 
*Combat radius: 3,250 mi (2,820 nm, 5,230 km) *
*Ferry range: 5,600 mi (4,900 nm, 9,000 km)* 
*Service ceiling 33,600 ft (10,200 m) *
Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.5 m/s) 
Wing loading: 69.12 lb/ft² (337 kg/m²) 
Power/mass: 0.073 hp/lb (121 W/kg) 
Lift-to-drag ratio: 16.8 
Armament
Guns:

12× .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns in remote controlled turrets 
1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail (removed shortly after put into service) 
*Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout, could be modified to externally carry two 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) T-14 "Earthquake" bombs*


Specifications (Lancaster)
General characteristics
Crew: 7: pilot, flight engineer, navigator, bomb aimer, wireless operator, mid-upper and rear gunners 
Length: 69 ft 5 in (21.18 m) 
Wingspan: 102 ft (31.09 m) 
Height: 19 ft 7 in (5.97 m) 
Wing area: 1,300 ft² (120 m²) 
Empty weight: 36 828 lb (16,705 kg) 
Loaded weight: 63,000 lb (29,000 kg) 
Powerplant: 4× Rolls-Royce Merlin XX V12 engines, 1,280 hp (954 kW) each 
Performance
Maximum speed: 240 knots (280 mph, 450 km/h) at 15,000 ft (5,600 m) 
*Range: 2,700 NM (3,000 mi, 4,600 km) with minimal bomb load *
*Service ceiling 23,500 ft (8,160 m) *Wing loading: 48 lb/ft² (240 kg/m²) 
Power/mass: 0.081 hp/lb (130 W/kg) 
Armament
Guns: 8× 0.303 in (7.70 mm) Browning machine guns in three turrets 
Bombs:

*Maximum: 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) 
Typical: 14,000 lb (6,400 kg) *


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 11, 2008)

renrich said:


> If the Lancaster had faced determined fighter opposition with it's vulnerable liquid cooled engines it's losses would have been prohibitive.


Come on now the 17/24 combo was no competition for the Lanc,Halifax combo . Better bombing results at night then day . I still maintain the B29 was the best bomber of WW2


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2008)

JDCAVE said:


> Remember the B-29 was refined after the war. Focus on what occured during the war.



100% INCORRECT! The Basic B-29 design stayed in place with the B-29 and the B-29A. The B-50 was supposed to be an improvement and was first designated the B-29D, but it was decided to give it it's own designation. Both served together well into the mid 50s.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Come on now the 17/24 combo was no competition for the Lanc,Halifax combo . Better bombing results at night then day . I still maintain the B29 was the best bomber of WW2



Agree...

But I'd put the -17, 24 and Halifax closer together although I think the Halifax was the most under-rated heavy bomber of the war.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 11, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree...
> 
> But I'd put the -17, 24 and Halifax closer together although I think the Halifax was the most under-rated heavy bomber of the war.


A lot of hally guys preffered the beast over the Lanc


----------



## Graeme (Jan 11, 2008)

As early as July 1943 it was worked out that one Lancaster was lost for every 132 tons dropped.
(Compared to 56 tons for a Halifax and and 41 tons for each Stirling)

Arriving later in the war, but how did the B-29 fare?



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> .
> Was or was not the Lancaster and evolution of the Manchester? Did or did not the Manchaster have engine problems?



Chris, I've read that it's a myth that the Lancaster resulted purely because the Manchester was a 'failure'. The Lancaster design began early 1939 and was 'locked in' early 1940, well *before* the Manchester exhibited it's engine problems. There were also political reasons-Chadwick was 'ticked off' that the Air Ministry announced on 28 August 1940 that it wanted to concentrate on 4-engined bombers and asked Avro to shut down current production lines and manufacture the Halifax. The move was met with stiff resistance by the company arguing that they could manufacture a 4-engined version (the Lancaster) on the current production lines. The Air Ministry agreed in September 1940.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2008)

Graeme said:


> As early as July 1943 it was worked out that one Lancaster was lost for every 132 tons dropped.
> (Compared to 56 tons for a Halifax and and 41 tons for each Stirling)
> 
> Arriving later in the war, but how did the B-29 fare?



20th AF Losses - main B-29 operator.

Army Air Forces in World War II


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 11, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 100% INCORRECT! The Basic B-29 design stayed in place with the B-29 and the B-29A. The B-50 was supposed to be an improvement and was first designated the B-29D, but it was decided to give it it's own designation. Both served together well into the mid 50s.



The B29 after the war was re designated the B50, in order to make it appear to Congress that they were funding a substantially different "B29" rather than just re engining it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The B29 after the war was re designated the B50, in order to make it appear to Congress that they were funding a substantially different "B29" rather than just re engining it.


You mean the B-29 "*D*."


----------



## Graeme (Jan 11, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 20th AF Losses - main B-29 operator.
> 
> Army Air Forces in World War II



Thanks for the site. I guess there are many variables, but by dividing Table 126 by Table 165, I get 346 tons for every B-29 lost 



FLYBOYJ said:


> Even after the Lincoln made the scene the RAF saw fit to deploy the B-29 in the 1950s. If that's not evidence of the aircraft's superiority I don't know what is!!!



The Russians liked it to! (Tu-4).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2008)

Graeme said:


> Thanks for the site. I guess there are many variables, but by dividing Table 126 by Table 165, I get 346 tons for every B-29 lost


For the most part that would probably be correct. The CBI might have some data under "heavy bombers" when B-29s were stationed there. For the most part on that site when you see 20th AF and "Very Heavy Bombers" they're talking B-29s.




Graeme said:


> The Russians liked it to! (Tu-4).


Yep - a whole other story....


----------



## DOUGRD (Jan 12, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Evidently you don't know the B-29 as well as you think you do...
> 
> Central Station Fire Control or Remote Control Turret System as used in the B-29, A-26 and the B-50
> 
> ...



Sorry Flyboy, but if I may jump in midstream here, the engine issues weren't really rectified during the war. Yes the re-engined "D" model came online but the R4360's had big problems of their own. Crankcase oil leaks were major headaches for instance but at least they didn't lead to the engine fires of the R3350's. B-29's were used in Korea but their performance was hampered by the MIG-15. After several losses the B-29 raids were restricted to night only. The '29's use by SAC wasn't so much a testiment to its effectiveness as it was really the only long range bomber we had that was big enough to carry the nukes. It was more of a stopgap measure until the B-36 came online which was the first true intercontinental bomber and the only platform capable of carrying the first generation hydrogen bombs which were too big for the B-29. Although the B-29 was a remarkable aircraft I think some of the comparisons in this thread about the '29 versus the Lanc are forgetting some details. The Lancaster was also a remarkable aircraft. As was said earlier it only had one pilot. Think of it, a FOUR engine A/C with one driver. And it also carried the heaviest load in the ETO. It might have been a simple A/C with low tech systems but that was intentional. Simpler, cheaper and quicker to build. The British never had the resources that the U.S. did during the war, thanks to the U Boats. Remember too that the Lanc faced much heavier fighter/flak opposition than the '29 which was why they were switched to night ops. They also didn't fly the "tight formations" that American bombers did rather Bomber Command flew in miles long streams with virtually no mutual defense. I think that is one BIG reason the Lancs suffered the losses they did. The Lanc was a great A/C for its time and I'm sure that the EARLY lessons learned by Bomber Command and the USAAC with the B-17 and B-24 contributed to the design and success of the B-29's. Which A/C do I think was best? The B-29 but only from a technology stand point. It was the first pressurized combat A/C and was so aerodynamically clean that dropping the landing gear more than doubled the drag (total parasite induced) on the airframe. Amazing!


----------



## DOUGRD (Jan 12, 2008)

After rereading my own post and several others I came to this conclusion.. What is the measure of the best or top heavy bomber? Wouldn't you say it comes down to putting the bombs on the target? Range, load, speed, surviveability all count but did the bombs hit the target. That's the true measure. What does everyone else think? Which was the top platform?


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 12, 2008)

OOPS..... I VOTED Whitley, I meant Lancaster...............I didn't mean Whitley.........


----------



## renrich (Jan 12, 2008)

The Halifax must have had some pretty good attributes as it was one of the 4-engine landplanes the Allies used with good results in ASW. To degrade the B29 versus the Lancaster because of teething problems makes no sense because the Lanc had problems (as do most new AC) also. Many Lanc were u/s early on because of fuel line problems, wing tips were a problem and some early Lancs did not come back because of tailplane issues. Those ultimately were solved and it became an effective night bomber.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 12, 2008)

DOUGRD said:


> Sorry Flyboy, but if I may jump in midstream here, the engine issues weren't really rectified during the war. Yes the re-engined "D" model came online but the R4360's had big problems of their own. Crankcase oil leaks were major headaches for instance but at least they didn't lead to the engine fires of the R3350's.


What you describe was typical of any large radial engine of the era. Yes the 4360 wasn't by far maintenance friendly, it did serve the purpose




DOUGRD said:


> B-29's were used in Korea but their performance was hampered by the MIG-15. After several losses the B-29 raids were restricted to night only.


In actuality the losses were minimal - I think around 4 or 5 were loss, several others were damaged beyond repair. In 1953 there were some daylight raids but by then the UN had full aerial superiority.




DOUGRD said:


> The '29's use by SAC wasn't so much a testiment to its effectiveness as it was really the only long range bomber we had that was big enough to carry the nukes. It was more of a stopgap measure until the B-36 came online which was the first true intercontinental bomber and the only platform capable of carrying the first generation hydrogen bombs which were too big for the B-29. Although the B-29 was a remarkable aircraft I think some of the comparisons in this thread about the '29 versus the Lanc are forgetting some details.


At the time SAC came into full swing (under LeMay's leadership) he imposed heavy "mission capable rates" where a certain amount of aircraft within the command had to be ready to go at a moment's notice and if I remember right it was something like 85% mission capable, 65% fully mission capable which meant everything on the aircraft had to be functioning at any given time. If the B-29 would of been tat bad, those "MC" rates would of never been met and even with the B-50 they were being attained.

The B-36 was on the drawing board since the early 40s and was never intended to be a "stop gap." It's purpose was to be able to bomb Europe from the US. It just so happened that after WW2 there was a need for it and the rest is history.



DOUGRD said:


> The Lancaster was also a remarkable aircraft. As was said earlier it only had one pilot. Think of it, a FOUR engine A/C with one driver. And it also carried the heaviest load in the ETO. It might have been a simple A/C with low tech systems but that was intentional. Simpler, cheaper and quicker to build. The British never had the resources that the U.S. did during the war, thanks to the U Boats. Remember too that the Lanc faced much heavier fighter/flak opposition than the '29 which was why they were switched to night ops.



The single pilot set up was actually dangerous and impracticable. The Brits had to do it and my hats off to the pilots but there were many Lancs lost because there were only one set of eyes in the cockpit - not only during combat, but on the return trip where IMC conditions existed and the single pilot "busted" the instrument approach - the dual cockpit configuration became the norm in the post war years for reasons I given.

As far as the heavier flack - trade that for a 1,000 mile one way mission over ocean with weather just as if not more treacherous found in Europe 



DOUGRD said:


> They also didn't fly the "tight formations" that American bombers did rather Bomber Command flew in miles long streams with virtually no mutual defense. I think that is one BIG reason the Lancs suffered the losses they did. The Lanc was a great A/C for its time and I'm sure that the EARLY lessons learned by Bomber Command and the USAAC with the B-17 and B-24 contributed to the design and success of the B-29's.


That's an operation situation and has nothing to do with the capability of the aircraft 


DOUGRD said:


> Which A/C do I think was best? The B-29 but only from a technology stand point. It was the first pressurized combat A/C and was so aerodynamically clean that dropping the landing gear more than doubled the drag (total parasite induced) on the airframe. Amazing!


Operationally. performance, configuration and it's impact on the war the B-29 takes it. Some folks might think the B-29 was bombing "Paper Houses" when they firebombed Japan, but in essence it still brought Japan to it's knees and did it in half the time (for a number or reasons) that it took to subdue Germany - and in some conditions worse than experienced in Europe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 12, 2008)

DOUGRD said:


> After rereading my own post and several others I came to this conclusion.. What is the measure of the best or top heavy bomber? Wouldn't you say it comes down to putting the bombs on the target? Range, load, speed, surviveability all count but did the bombs hit the target. That's the true measure. What does everyone else think? Which was the top platform?


 Speed, systems, performance, survivability and putting the bombs on target - I'm sorry but the B-29 takes it.

History of the 20th Air Force


----------



## renrich (Jan 12, 2008)

The B29 during the low level night bombing campaign over Japan did not fly tight formations but in streams somewhat the same as the British night bombing. I have a friend who was a navigator on a B29 and it is interesting to hear him describe it.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 12, 2008)

Hard choice.........................THey all had great capabilities and were Terrific..........Ill come back when they make a desicion


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 12, 2008)

Theres nothing to decide. 

The Lanc was a design from the 30's.

The B29 was a bomber incorporating lots of lessons learned. to become a true "weapons system".


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Jan 12, 2008)

although my favourite is the B-17 I would have to go with the B-29.


----------



## DOUGRD (Jan 12, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Although there were issues with the engines they were rectified by the war's end - the effectiveness of the aircraft is more than evident as it was the first mainstay in the Strategic Air Command and was used during the Korean War, something you keep ignoring - the Lancaster, while a well serving platform was an obsolete weapons system when compared to the B-29 in almost every category.
> !!!



You said the engine issues were rectified by wars end...I said they weren't. The re-engined A/C didn't have the fires but they did have crankcase oil leaks. Problems not rectified just a new set of problems. Teething problems..yes I don't think there has ever been an A/C engine built that didn't have teething problems.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 13, 2008)

DOUGRD said:


> You said the engine issues were rectified by wars end...I said they weren't. The re-engined A/C didn't have the fires but they did have crankcase oil leaks. Problems not rectified just a new set of problems. Teething problems..yes I don't think there has ever been an A/C engine built that didn't have teething problems.



It doesnt matter that the engines didnt have all their bugs worked out untill after the war.

The fact remains that the 20th AF could put several hundred B29's in the air.


----------



## Derfman (Jan 13, 2008)

While I know that B-29 is the clear choice, I voted B-17 anyway.

The B-17 together with the Lanc and B-24 were the grand old warhorses that faced the LW in its prime. Of the 3, all great, I am shamelessly prejudice in favor of the B-17.


----------



## DOUGRD (Jan 13, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In actuality the losses were minimal - I think around 4 or 5 were loss, several others were damaged beyond repair. In 1953 there were some daylight raids but by then the UN had full aerial superiority.
> 
> According to some info I found it was 16 to fighters, 4 to FLAK, 14 to other causes
> The B-36 was on the drawing board since the early 40s and was never intended to be a "stop gap." It's purpose was to be able to bomb Europe from the US. It just so happened that after WW2 there was a need for it and the rest is history.



I didn't say the B-36 was a stop gap I said the B-29 was a stop gap until the '36 came on line.


----------



## DOUGRD (Jan 13, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> It doesnt matter that the engines didnt have all their bugs worked out untill after the war.
> 
> The fact remains that the 20th AF could put several hundred B29's in the air.



You missed the point.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2008)

DOUGRD said:


> According to some info I found it was 16 to fighters, 4 to FLAK, 14 to other causes.


*Even at those numbers you're looking at 20 B-29s for 20,000 sorties and dropped 200,000 tons (180,000 tonnes) of bombs and that was over 3 years - overall you're looking at less than 10% loss rate!!!*]



DOUGRD said:


> I didn't say the B-36 was a stop gap I said the B-29 was a stop gap until the '36 came on line.


 *Again FALSE - the B-29 was NEVER a STOP GAP - it was a specific weapons system deployed for a specific mission. The B-36 almost got CANCELLED with no thought of it actually replacing the B-29!!!!*

_"In August of 1947, shortly after the creation of the independent Air Force, General Hoyt Vandenberg, Deputy Chief of Air Staff, set up a USAF Aircraft and Weapons Board to determine which weapons would best support the Air Force's long-term plans. Because of the atomic bomb, strategic bombing took precedence. At that time, the B-36 was the only bomber capable of carrying out nuclear retaliation against an enemy without the need for overseas bases. However, at that time the supply of atomic bombs was still sparse, and plans had to be made for the possible use of conventional bombs. Many members of the Board felt that the B-36 was obsolete and should be cancelled in favor of fast jet bombers. However, this strategy was inherently risky since these jet bombers promised to have insufficient range and in any case would not be available for years. Still others wanted to try and improve the performance of the B-36 and use it as an all-purpose bomber capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear weapons. After prolonged debate, it was decided to stick with the basic B-36 as a special purpose nuclear deterrent bomber."_

Convair B-36 Peacemaker -- Chapter 1

*The Boeing B-29 was designed in 1940 as an eventual replacement for the B-17 and B-24. *


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2008)

DOUGRD said:


> You said the engine issues were rectified by wars end...I said they weren't. The re-engined A/C didn't have the fires but they did have crankcase oil leaks. Problems not rectified just a new set of problems. Teething problems..yes I don't think there has ever been an A/C engine built that didn't have teething problems.


*And there was never a large radial engine built that didn't leak - If it didn't leak it had no oil in it!!!!*


----------



## DOUGRD (Jan 13, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *And there was never a large radial engine built that didn't leak - If it didn't leak it had no oil in it!!!!*



No Sh*t


----------



## DOUGRD (Jan 13, 2008)

As far as the B-29's employment by SAC yes it was a "stop gap" measure until SAC could get what it really needed, a truly "Intercontinental Bomber". That was the B-36. Yes the B-36 was almost canx'd and so was the B-29 program. Read the Wikipedia B-29 article again and the comment about the "Battle Of Kansas"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2008)

DOUGRD said:


> No Sh*t



So your argument about "crankcase leaks" is basically a non-issue... 



DOUGRD said:


> As far as the B-29's employment by SAC yes it was a "stop gap" measure until SAC could get what it really needed, a truly "Intercontinental Bomber". That was the B-36. Yes the B-36 was almost canx'd and so was the B-29 program. Read the Wikipedia B-29 article again and the comment about the "Battle Of Kansas"


I have read that chapter on many occasions and it had nothing to do with B-29 operations in the post war years - directly from the article; 

_"The Battle of Kansas (aka "Battle of Wichita") was the nickname given to a project to build, modify and deliver large quantities of the world's most advanced bomber to the front-lines in the *Pacific*" _

There is nothing in that article about a "stop gap" involving the B-36.

- your so called "stop gap" came about in the post war when the newly formed SAC found a need for an intercontinental bomber capable of reaching the Soviet Union - A mission the B-29 *OR* B-36 was *NOT* originally designed for. As a matter of fact the B-35 was developed under the same procurement specification as the B-36. After WW2 the "mission" changed and then there was first a competition for the next generation of bombers - the B-35 or B-36 and after that there was the debate whether the B-36 was even going to be built.

The cancellation of the B-29 originally came about during it development

Going back to the original discussion, despite the shortcoming of the B-29, it stayed around for many years - the engine problems never hampered it for completing its mission and in my opinion greatly exaggerated in this discussion. Had these problems been so bad there would of never been over 3,000 B-29s built.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 13, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *And there was never a large radial engine built that didn't leak - If it didn't leak it had no oil in it!!!!*



I have heard that each C-124 engine had a 50 gallon oil tank to support it. I'm so old C-124s were still used by the guard. I think there are some C-124s out over the Pacific still trying to get home against a 25 kt headwind! If they would only turn around.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2008)

davparlr said:


> I have heard that each C-124 engine had a 50 gallon oil tank to support it. I'm so old C-124s were still used by the guard. I think there are some C-124s out over the Pacific still trying to get home against a 25 kt headwind! If they would only turn around.


The guy I worked part time for in Mojave Ca, had one for a while. there was always tons of oil underneath it. When he started it you better not be toward the rear or you were going to get an oil shower!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 13, 2008)

> You missed the point.



Well what is your point? The engines fail in flight frequently enough that missions are compromised or they are reliable enough for the plane to perform its mission?


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 13, 2008)

The first familiariaztion flight I had was in an CP107 Argus it had the big 3350's we landed at Hickam and upon departure they fired the engines up Tower saw all the smoke and called out the Fire guys , xtra duty with the Argus Sqn included cleaning off the oil from the wings. For you guys that don't know what Argus was here is a pic note oil om the wings . It was along range ASW aircraft not to be confused with Medium range aircraft like the Shack or P3


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 13, 2008)

At least they could have painted the nacelles and wing in back of it, gloss black to hide the stains!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2008)

Saw an Agrus in Burbank when the CP-140s were being built - confirms the point about a leaky radial engine and a 3350 no less....


----------



## Graeme (Jan 13, 2008)

Why do aircraft engines leak oil so much?
Would be very unacceptable in the Auto industry!

According to this photos caption, of a Seafire III, the oil stain pattern indicates "a right hand rotation" of the propeller, based on the oil streaks.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 13, 2008)

In the Radials the oil accumulates in the bottom cylnders


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2008)

Actually a lot of the oil comes out of the crankcase oil breather. Other leaks may develop at the bottom of the cylinder heads (Jugs) where they attach to the crank case (Radial Engines). There is also leakage from the rocker arm covers. You could have several "small" leaks on a very big engine and it produces what is perceived as a big mess.

And what Pb described is known as "hydraulic lock." A build up of engine oil at the bottom of the engine. The spark plugs on the lower cylinders have to be removed and the prop pulled through - when this happens oil shoots out of the spark plug holes. If this is not done when the engine is started the crankshaft and connecting rods could bend.

That one of the reasons why you see ground crews pulling through props prior to the start of a mission.


----------



## Graeme (Jan 14, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually a lot of the oil comes out of the crankcase oil breather. Other leaks may develop at the bottom of the cylinder heads (Jugs) where they attach to the crank case (Radial Engines). There is also leakage from the rocker arm covers



Acceptable loss? or an indication that its time for maintenance? Gaskets/seals/O-rings/bearings?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 14, 2008)

Graeme said:


> Acceptable loss? or an indication that its time for maintenance? Gaskets/seals/O-rings/bearings?


It depends - some manufacturers actually state in their manuals that "minor" leaks are acceptable. Others may give provisions on how much oil loss per hour is acceptable. The most common cause of oil around radial engines is oil getting blown out of the crankcase breather and there's not much one could do for that. Many manufacturers will not allow any leakage from the prop btw...

Most of the leaks could be fixed with new gaskets and seals. Altitude changes, heat, cold and vibration play hell on seals and gaskets....


----------



## seesul (Jan 14, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It depends - some manufacturers actually state in their manuals that "minor" leaks are acceptable. Others may give provisions on how much oil loss per hour is acceptable. The most common cause of oil around radial engines is oil getting blown out of the crankcase breather and there's not much one could do for that. Many manufacturers will not allow any leakage from the prop btw...
> 
> Most of the leaks could be fixed with new gaskets and seals. Altitude changes, heat, cold and vibration play hell on seals and gaskets....



Joe, some cars producers use the system where the oil gases going out from the crankcase go back to the engine inlet and in fact are burnt out. Do some a/c engine producers use the same or similar system or not? Or is the oil leak volume so high that it is impossible to send it back and burnt it out?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 14, 2008)

seesul said:


> Joe, some cars producers use the system where the oil gases going out from the crankcase go back to the engine inlet and in fact are burnt out. Do some a/c engine producers use the same or similar system or not? Or is the oil leak volume so high that it is impossible to send it back and burnt it out?


For some reason most of the engines I've seen just vent the breather oil overboard. I'm guessing that there is no return due to pressures that might build up in the crank case.

Something a lot smaller - I had a 65' Cessna 150 with a Continental O-200. It had a normal oil capacity of 6 quarts. If you filled it to capacity it would "throw out" about 3/4 of a quart from the breather. After that there was no oil from the breather and it burnt a quart maybe every 40 hours.

I've seen other GA aircraft do the same thing and yet I've seen others that are fine with a full capacity - it's almost as if they have a mind of their own!


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 14, 2008)

The same for the T6/Harvard if the oil tank is full she throws it out like crazy if a little over half full she doesn't toss half as much . Much less wiping down


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 15, 2008)

Not to complain, but a few comments on the list: as said earlier, the Ju 88 could carry more than 5,500 lbs of bombs (as could the B-25 and He 111) but it is obviously not a true Heavy Bomber and likewise the Il-4 and DB-3 shouldn't be considdered as such either. Also, the Fw-200 probably should have been on the list, as should the Do 217, though the 217 was more in the weight class of a medium bomber the 8,000lb+ max bombload shows otherwise. However, none of these bombers even come close to the Top Heavy, so it's a moot point.

On the note of the Lancaster, the Merlins were certainly liabillity to survivabillity as a daylight bomber as was the realitively weak defensive armament, and the single pilot was a prooven risk. However, the pilot did have the flight engeneer's extra set of eyes to help keep a look-out. The 4x Merlins could be replaced by 4x Bristol Hercules radials with similar power and altitude performance. (as around 300 Lancs were produced with) A second set of controlls could easily be added, and were in many cases, allowing the use of a copilot and a substancial risk reduction resultantly.

That said, the B-29 is still the "Top" bomber imo, with the Lancaster in second. Except maby as a dalight precision bomber, as it still didn't have the high-altitude capabillities, long-range bombloads, and defensive armament capabillities that the B-17 and B-24 had, in fact it seems no WWII bombers were as heavily armmed as those of America, though they were still no match w/out an escort, but the excellent defences helped considderably combined with fighter support.


One thing I've wondered about in the B-29's case is why not use R-2800 engines? The smaller diameter, size, and better airflow characteristics would have eliminated the overheating problems, weight was somewhat less, with the R-3350s of the B-29 rated for just 2,200 hp, even earlier R-2800s weresn't much less powerful (2000-2100 hp rated) and by the time B-29s were entering production the R-2800-59 with 2,300 hp rating (and 2,500+ hp WEP) was being used on the latest production P-47Ds and the P-47M/N's 2800 hp R-2800-57C was availiable as well.

And just look at the B-29's nacelles, its just begging for R-2800 Double Wasps. (ie it apears to have stollen the noses of 4 P-47s )

The only reason I can think of is that the R-2800 was in too high of a demand, but seeing the priorety of the B-29 this shouldn't have been a major issue. (licence production could be set up if necessary)


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 15, 2008)

Kool Kitty I was thinking the same thing why the IL-4 is up there as well as the DB-3. TO me the IL-4 was a medium bomber. It wasn't big at all either. 4 man crew at first it was 3. 

Personally i would've added the Do-217.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 15, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> One thing I've wondered about in the B-29's case is why not use R-2800 engines? The smaller diameter, size, and better airflow characteristics would have eliminated the overheating problems, weight was somewhat less, with the R-3350s of the B-29 rated for just 2,200 hp, even earlier R-2800s weresn't much less powerful (2000-2100 hp rated) and by the time B-29s were entering production the R-2800-59 with 2,300 hp rating (and 2,500+ hp WEP) was being used on the latest production P-47Ds and the P-47M/N's 2800 hp R-2800-57C was availiable as well.
> 
> And just look at the B-29's nacelles, its just begging for R-2800 Double Wasps. (ie it apears to have stollen the noses of 4 P-47s )
> 
> The only reason I can think of is that the R-2800 was in too high of a demand, but seeing the priorety of the B-29 this shouldn't have been a major issue. (licence production could be set up if necessary)



_"Further work resulted in the Model 333A of late 1938. It was to have been powered by four 1150 hp Allison V-1710 twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled engines, installed in tandem pairs. However, full pressurization of the cabin was considered impractical because of the need to open the bomb bays during high-altitude flight, and it was decided that only the crew areas in the nose and in the mid-fuselage sections were to be pressurized. The nose and mid-fuselage pressurized cabins were to be connected by a pressurized tunnel passing over the bomb bay that allowed the crew members to change positions during pressurized flight. This feature remained on all subsequent Boeing long range bomber design proposals. 

Because of the poor high-altitude performance of the Allison liquid-cooled engine, variations of the project were proposed with the new flat-mounted Wright and Pratt Whitney radial engines. This led to the Model 333B project of February 1939. It was powered by four Wright engines buried in the thick wing. With a gross weight of 52,180 pounds, the maximum speed was to have been 364 mph at 20,000 feet. The range was to have been 2500 miles with a 2000-pound bombload. 

In March of 1939, the Model 334 was proposed. The wingspan was extended to 120 feet in order to provide enough fuel to reach a range of 4500 miles. The Pratt Whitney radials were still buried in the wing. A twin fin-and-rudder was to have been used to facilitate the installation of tail armament. Gross weight was up to 66,000 pounds and maximum bomb load was 7830 pounds. 

In July of 1939, Boeing revised the design still further to produce the Model 334A. It eliminated the buried engine installation and the twin fin-and-rudder assembly of the Model 334 and replaced them with four conventionally-mounted Wright R-3350 radials and a single vertical tail. A high aspect-ratio wing of 135 feet span was to be used. The Boeing proposal had finally begun to take the recognizable shape of what was eventually to emerge as the Superfortress. 

In January of 1940, the Army issued the formal requirements for the VLR "superbomber". The requirements called for a speed of 400 mph, a range of 5333 miles, and a bomb load of 2000 pounds delivered at the halfway-point at that range. This became the basis for Request for Data R-40B and Specification XC-218. On January 29, 1940, the War Department formally issued Data R-40B and circulated it to Boeing, Consolidated, Douglas, and Lockheed. The official specification was revised in April to incorporate the lessons learned in early European wartime experience, and now included more defensive armament, armor, and self-sealing tanks. 

The Boeing company had a leg up on its competition, since it had been thinking along the very same lines. In August of 1939, Boeing had started work on the Model 341 project, which featured a new high-lift airfoil for a high aspect-ratio wing of 124 feet 7 inches in span. The Model 341 offered a maximum speed of 405 mph at 25,000 feet. It was to have been powered by four 2000 hp Pratt Whitney R-2800 radials. Weighing 85,672 pounds, the range was to have been 7000 miles with one ton of bombs. A maximum load of 10,000 pounds could be carried over shorter distances. 

In order to meet the requirements of Data R-40B, the Boeing Model 341 design was reworked into the Model 345. The Model 345 envisaged a pressurized aircraft, four Wright R-3350 engines replacing the R-2800s of the Model 341, a twelve-man crew, a double-wheeled tricycle undercarriage which retracted into the engine nacelles instead of sideways into the wing as on previous projects, four retractable turrets each carrying a pair of 0.5-inch machine guns, and a tail turret with two machine guns and a 20-mm cannon. The retractable Sperry power turrets were operated under remote control by gunners sighting through periscopes. The Model 345 was to be capable of carrying a ton of bombs over the stipulated 5333 miles at a cruising speed of 290 mph. The maximum bombload was to be 16,100 pounds. The maximum speed was estimated to be 382 mph at 25,000 feet. The weight was to be 97,700 pounds. " _


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 15, 2008)

Still I don't see why they didn't considder the R-2800s as an alternative in the 345 model, especially considdering that the power outputs of the R-2800 were better than those of early R-3350s of the same time, pluss the 2800 had reliabillity and prooven design on its side.

Seeing as 2100 hp Allison V-3420s as well as the more powerful R-4360s were both chosen and tested as alternate powerplants for the basic 345 design, I don't see why the R-2800 wasn't considdered: except the 2800 was nearing the end of its development for power output while the V-3420, R-3350, and R-4360 all had far more development for increase in power output and performance. Still, the 2800 should have been considdered as an intrim powerplant, and still outperformed (at least in the 2800-57C,and 59) most R-3350 models used on the B-29, and certainly those used durring the war.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 15, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>Still, the 2800 should have been considdered as an intrim powerplant, and still outperformed (at least in the 2800-57C,and 59) most R-3350 models used on the B-29, and certainly those used durring the war.

Very good point. Maybe it is a question of fuel consumption? I haven't looked at the R-2800 figures yet, but if the engine was more thirsty for the same power settings, the ambitious goals for the B-29 regarding range might have been out of reach ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 15, 2008)

The R3350 weighed less than the R2800, as well as having a lower drag. Not to mention it carried a larger prop.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 15, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Still I don't see why they didn't considder the R-2800s as an alternative in the 345 model, especially considdering that the power outputs of the R-2800 were better than those of early R-3350s of the same time, pluss the 2800 had reliabillity and prooven design on its side.
> 
> Seeing as 2100 hp Allison V-3420s as well as the more powerful R-4360s were both chosen and tested as alternate powerplants for the basic 345 design, I don't see why the R-2800 wasn't considdered: except the 2800 was nearing the end of its development for power output while the V-3420, R-3350, and R-4360 all had far more development for increase in power output and performance. Still, the 2800 should have been considdered as an intrim powerplant, and still outperformed (at least in the 2800-57C,and 59) most R-3350 models used on the B-29, and certainly those used durring the war.


The engineers responsible for propulsion could of had a number of reasons why they changed their minds. Weight, size, reduction gearing, and accessory accommodation could of all been a factor, as well as availability, producibility and last but not least - costs!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 16, 2008)

The R-2800 was more expensive than the R-3350?! Either in maintenence costs or production costs I'd think the 2800 would be cheaper due to the large number produced, and the realitive reliabillity and serviceabillity.

I don't see how it would be heavier and streamline more poorly, all the info I've seen on the 2800 shows it to be ~300 lbs lighter and only ~52 in in diameter compared to the 3350's ~55 in. I don't see why the R-3350 could use a larger prop though...

Availabillity would be a factor certainly, but I don't think the early carborated versions of the 3350 had SFC any better than the 2800, though the direct injection later used likely would have. Judging by the performance of the P-47's layout and the accesories it carried it would seem to have adaquate performance for the intended long-range high-altitude role. The smaller R-2800 shouldn't have had as much of a problem with oil leaks either.


Still though, the R-4360 is the ultimate engine for the design, with excelent reliabillity in the air (compared to the R-3350, and no real fire issues), though a maintenence mess on the ground.


Overall: 1.) Weight and size is better if anything in the 2800, 2.) reduction gearing may have been an issue, 3.) accessory accommodation maby though it had alot of versitility in this area(seen in the variety of areas it was used, with turbos, 2-stage superchargers, water-injection, use in low-alt and high-alt, and long-range applications; used in fiighters, night-fighters, bombers and transports for a few), 4.) availability definitly would have been a factor due to the high demand for a number of uses, 5.) producibility I'm not sure of but shouldn't have been a big problem (licenced production if necessary), 6.) and costs shouldn't have been an issue.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The R-2800 was more expensive than the R-3350?! Either in maintenence costs or production costs I'd think the 2800 would be cheaper due to the large number produced, and the realitive reliabillity and serviceabillity.
> 
> I don't see how it would be heavier and streamline more poorly, all the info I've seen on the 2800 shows it to be ~300 lbs lighter and only ~52 in in diameter compared to the 3350's ~55 in. I don't see why the R-3350 could use a larger prop though...
> 
> ...




Here's the TCDS for each engine. Although the 3350 weighed 1000 lbs more, the differences are apparent.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/28543f501b3e3cee8525670d0060471a/$FILE/E-231.pdf

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/d78d8c1a3822fd4e8525670b006c8f72/$FILE/E-272.pdf


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 16, 2008)

The figures on that R-3350 are for the turbo-combine version, which definitely wasn't available for the war. It's also rated for a higher minimum octane fuel than the 2800 you sited. IIRC, the early 3350s used in the war were only ~300-500 lbs heavier than the 2800, the turbine equipment adds alot more weight. That model 2800 wasn't one of the ones rated for higher power either, I was thinking along the lines of the 2800-59, used in late P-47Ds with 2,300 hp take-off/millitary power and over 2,500 hp WEP with water injection. Though these ae figures for civilian engines too, so I'm not sure how they differ. (WEP obously wouldn't be listed though)

And though I don't have the figures, I suspect the 2800 would have been cheaper.

But I still think availabillity and high demand for other uses is the most likely reason, but I'm not sure.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 16, 2008)

I don't know much about these engines, but typically, at a rated horsepower, a smaller engines works harder than a larger engine (higher RPM?). Since I am sure the B-29 engines were working harder for longer periods of time than a P-47 staying with B-17 and 24s, long endurance relaibility may have been a factor.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 16, 2008)

Hi again,

>Maybe it is a question of fuel consumption? I haven't looked at the R-2800 figures yet, but if the engine was more thirsty for the same power settings, the ambitious goals for the B-29 regarding range might have been out of reach ...

The R-2800-21 vs. the R-3350 installed in the B-29:

R-2800: 200 g/HP/h minimum (at 950 HP, 15000 ft)
R-3350: 212 g/HP/h (at 930 HP, 14000 ft)

R-2800: 286 g/HP/h economical maximum (at 1200 HP, 25000 ft)
R-3350: 215 g/HP/h (at 1180 HP, 25000 ft)

R-2800: 352 g/HP/h maximum continuous (at 1625 HP, 29000 ft) 
R-3350: 256 g/HP/h (1620 HP, 29000 ft)

R-2800: 374 g/HP/h take-off/emergency power (at 2000 HP, 27000 ft)
R-3350: 312 g/HP/h maximum continuous (at 2050 HP, 28000 ft)

(Data based on P-47 Specific Engine Flight Chart and the B-29 Airplane Commander Training Manual)

So the R-2800-21 can compete with the R-3350 only at very low power settings, which yield a speed that is below the speed for optimum range on the B-29. At higher power settings, which might be necessary when carrying a large fuel load, the fuel consumption of the R-2800-21 is rouhgly 30% greater, with a resultant impact on range.

So it looks as if the R-2800-21 at least couldn't have been used for the B-29 without sacrificing the quality for which the bomber was designed - extreme range.

It might be interesting to check the consumption data for a more modern R-2800 variant than the -21, but unfortunately I don't have any charts for these variants.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 17, 2008)

Any data on the R-2800-59 used on later P-47D's, or the R-2800-57C would be more useful. The later model engines (ie 50 series) had improoved ignition and fuel systems and fuel consumption would have likely been significantly different.

Plus your stats show the 2800's SFC going down from 1200 to 1625 hp to the point where it is again more efficient and cruising with ~1625 hp per engine would give low power/weight of less than .06 hp/lb and cruise speed would likely drop below 200 mph.

But the only model I was seriously considdering was the R-2800-59 of 2,300 hp take-off (2,535 hp with water injection). It would allowed take-off of about the same load and length (if not better) as the R-3350-23 and with higher max power and probably similar continuous power. But I don't have any real data for the specs of this engine other than power. It would also be more practical than the R-2800-57C which had considderable teething problems as well and wouldn't have had much of a reliabillity advantage, if any, over the R-3350.

Also the R-2800-59 engine was in the highest demand as the engine used by all late model P-47D's and availabillity would have been a problem, inless licensed production set-up specifically for the B-29 project was establashed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 17, 2008)

Look at the date it was decided to use the 3350....


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 17, 2008)

That was prior to the advent of the 2800-59? (or similar earlier models)


----------

