# Too Little, Too Late - The B-32 Dominator



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 13, 2005)

B-32 SPECIFICATIONS 
Span: 135 ft. 0 in. 
Length: 82 ft. 1 in. 
Height: 32 ft. 2 in. 
Weight: 100,000 lbs. (design gross weight)
Armament: Ten .50-cal. machine guns plus 20,000 lbs. of bombs (max.)
Engines: Four Wright R-3350-23 Cyclone radials of 2,200 hp. each (takeoff power)
Crew: 10 
PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 357 mph. at 30,000 ft.
Cruising speed: 290 mph. 
Range: 3,000 miles w/ 10,000 lbs. bomb load
Service Ceiling: 30,700 ft. 

Compared to the B-29....

Span: 141 ft. 2.76 in.
Length: 99 ft. 0 in. 
Height: 27 ft. 9 in. (at rest) 27 ft. 6.7 in. (taxi position)
Weight: 133,500 lbs. (max. overload) 105,000 lbs. gross
Armament: Ten or twelve .50-cal. machine guns and one 20mm cannon plus 20,000 lbs. of bombs.
Engines: Four Wright R-3350-21 or -23 "Cyclone" radials each equipped with two type B-11 turbo superchargers.
PERFORMANCE 
Maximum speed: 357 mph at 25,000 ft.
Cruising speed: 220 mph
Range: 5,600 miles max. ferry range and 3,250 miles with 20,000 lbs. of bombs
Service Ceiling: 33,600 ft. 

Only 75 were built. Cancellation of the B-32 program came on 8 September 1945 and production of Dominators was halted on 12 October. Flyable aircraft at Consolidated factories were flown directly to the scrap yard and all partially built B-32s were scrapped at the factory. The last remaining B-32 was scrapped in the summer of 1949.

This aircraft was supposed to replace the B-17 and B-24 had the war lasted longer and had it got delivered earlier (it was well over a year behind schedule). General Kenny, Commander of the 5th AF also wanted the plane after the 5th AF was denied B-29s. One Squadron, the 386th Bomb Squadron, 312th Bomb Group, 5th Air Force got 3 of them and flew 6 missions before the end of the war. One B-32 even got damaged by flak and fighters.

*Do you think this aircraft could of replaced both the B-17 and B-24? How do you think it would of done over Germany, especially aganist the ME-262? Keep in mind that this aircraft did not use remote control radar gun turrets like the B-29 but rather electric manned turrets like the B-17 and B-24.*


----------



## Smokey (Jul 13, 2005)

I think it was well protected from diving attacks from above, the front and the sides, belly protection OK, but that large tail would reduce the effectiveness of the top turrets against rear attacks, so its rear defence would have suffered.
A shallow dive from above while following the aircraft would probably be the biggest danger. 

This is another consolidated plane that looks quite unusual


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2005)

Nice shot of the B-32 Smoke! Also only one ball turret!

Yep the XC-99 - note the resemblence of the tails


----------



## Rafe35 (Jul 14, 2005)

Hmm.

I know B-32 Dominator is totally forgotten, but keep wondering is there any B-32 around or totally gone?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2005)

My source says the last one was scrapped in 1949. Maybe ther's a piece of one somewhere?


----------



## Rafe35 (Jul 14, 2005)

It has to be somewhere or probably already gone....forever.

Y'know, B-32 Dominator is just almost look like PB4Y-2 Privateer, but only bigger and more bomb load, but then again it just look really close.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 14, 2005)

It's quick aircraft though - cruising at 290 MPH. I don't really think gun protection is that vital. The RAF and USAAF both found out that guns can't protect your bombers, only escorts can. 

With a escort of P-51Ds; B-32 with their high cruising speed could be in and out of enemy terrority quickly - and be just as well as protected as B-24s and B-17s.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 14, 2005)

They had a whole special about the Dominator on Discovery yWings one night that I watched about a year or so ago. It was an interesting special on an aircraft that got very little attention.

There was an XC-99 up for sale about 2 years ago, but I don't think they found a buyer and ended up scrapping it. Shame.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2005)

plan_D said:


> It's quick aircraft though - cruising at 290 MPH. I don't really think gun protection is that vital. The RAF and USAAF both found out that guns can't protect your bombers, only escorts can.
> 
> With a escort of P-51Ds; B-32 with their high cruising speed could be in and out of enemy terrority quickly - and be just as well as protected as B-24s and B-17s.



I read this aircraft was supposed to be replacing B-17s and B-24s in early 1944. Could you imagine the impact this aircraft would of made in Europe with a short range 20,000 pound bomb load?

The prototype had a faster top speed and also had a twin tail.

XB-32 SPECIFICATIONS 
Span: 135 ft. 0 in. 
Length: 83 ft. 0 in. 
Height: 20 ft. 10 in. (32 ft. for 41-18336)
Weight: 101,662 lbs. (gross weight)
Armament: Fourteen .50-cal. machine guns, two 20mm cannon plus 20,000 lbs. of bombs (max.)
Engines: Four Wright R-3350-13 Cyclone radials of 2,200 hp. each (take-off power)
Crew: 12 (max. as designed) 
PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 376 mph. at 25,000 ft.
Cruising speed: approximately 250 mph. 
Range: 4,450 miles w/ 2,000 lbs. bomb load
Service Ceiling: 30,700 ft.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 14, 2005)

The B-17 had a short range bomb load of 17, 600 lbs but I imagine was slower than the B-32. The Lancaster had a massive short range bomb load - which I have heard as being as high as 33,000 lbs! I don't know if that's the truth - and I've never been bothered to find out. 

If the B-32 had replaced the B-17 and B-24 [in 1944] then we might have seen even more tonnage dropped on Germany - with less of a loss to the USAAF.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The B-17 had a short range bomb load of 17, 600 lbs but I imagine was slower than the B-32. The Lancaster had a massive short range bomb load - which I have heard as being as high as 33,000 lbs! I don't know if that's the truth - and I've never been bothered to find out.
> 
> If the B-32 had replaced the B-17 and B-24 [in 1944] then we might have seen even more tonnage dropped on Germany - with less of a loss to the USAAF.



I agree, and even though we know that escorts were essential (even for the proposed B-32) it's defensive armament is impressive, all power turrets. 

Smokey brought up the large tail interfering with the line of fire. I don't think this would be a major problem.

I also discovered the top turrets were modified Martin Turrets with a teardrop streamlining added to them. The nose and tail turrets were hydraulic/electrical modifications of the Sperry Ball turret and the belly turret was a traditional Sperry ball turret that partially retracted into the belly. it was intended to have remote controlled turrets on the B-32 like the B-29 had, but like the B-29 numerous problems were encountered with them and it was decided to go with manned gun turrets.

No intact, complete B-32 survives today. B-32-1-CF 42-108474 had been set aside for display at the Air Force Museum, but was unaccountably declared excess and scrapped at Davis-Monthan in August of 1949. Only bits and pieces of B-32s remain in existence today. A nose turret from a B-32 is in storage at the Paul Garber Restoration Facility of the Smithsonian Institution at Suitland, Maryland. Another B-32 nose turret is on display in a Minnesota museum. A static test wing panel from a B-32 was erected as a monument to aviation pioneer John J. Montgomery on a hill near San Diego.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 14, 2005)

Another bird that went extinct.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2005)

Yep - I think it would of looked pretty cool at Wright Patterson AFB Museum.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 14, 2005)

Cool plane! It seems sort of in between the B-17/B-24 and B-29. Looks kinda like a 4 engined B-26 Marauder to me.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2005)

B-32 COMBAT HISTORY 
From "Flying Terminated Inventory", Stephen Harding, Wings, April 1993

"An August 1944 directive from the USAAF had required that a combat test be carried out before the B-32 could be introduced into service. However, the AAFPGC agency opposed both a combat test and general service introduction of the B-32, so it seemed that the Dominator would be consigned to operational limbo indefinitely. In the meantime, Lt. Gen. George C. Kenney, the commander of the Far East Air Forces, had been anxious to get B-29s but his requests had always been turned down on the grounds that the B-29s were urgently needed elsewhere. As an alternative, General Kenney started requesting B-32s instead. On March 27, General Arnold approved Kenney's request and authorized a comprehensive Dominator combat test. 

Col. Frank R. Cook was appointed commander of the test detachment. Three B-32s were chosen for the combat test (42-108529, -108531 and -108532). -108531 was damaged in an accident before leaving Fort Worth, and was replaced by 42-108528. -108528 was in rather bad shape, since it had been used as a test machine at Fort Worth. The first two arrived on Luzon on May 24, with the recalcitrant -108528 not arriving until the next day. The test was to be carried out under the auspices of the 5th Bomber Command, with the 316th Bombardment Squadron of the 312th Bombardment Group as the host unit. If things worked out well, the A-20s which equipped the 312th would be replaced by B-32s. 

The first combat mission took place on May 29, 1945. It was a strike against a Japanese supply depot in Luzon's Cayagan Valley. All three of the Dominators were to take part, but -108528 aborted on takeoff. The other two proceeded to the target. Unopposed bombing runs were made from an altitude of 10,000 feet, and both aircraft returned without incident. This raid was followed by a series of attacks on Japanese targets in the Philippines, in Formosa, and on Hainan Island in the Tonkin Gulf. The only opposition encountered during these missions was some rather inaccurate flak. The tests were deemed a success, and plans were made to convert the entire 386th Bombardment Squadron to B-32s. The 312th BG was scheduled to move to Okinawa as soon as the 386th conversion was completed. 

Following the dropping of the atomic bombs, in August of 1945, the unit was ordered to move to Okinawa before the conversion could be carried out. Six more B-32s joined the squadron on Okinawa a few days later. Combat operations continued in spite of the de-facto cease-fire that had been called following the bombing of Nagasaki. During this time, the B-32s flew mainly photographic reconnaissance missions, most of which were unopposed. However, on August 17 a group of 4 B-32s flying over Tokyo were fired on by radar-directed flak and were attacked by Japanese fighters. The American aircraft escaped with only minor damage, claiming one confirmed fighter kill and two probables. During a reconnaissance mission over Tokyo on August 18, 42-108532 and 42-108578 were attacked by Japanese fighters. The American gunners claimed two kills and one probable, but -108578 was badly shot up and one of her crew was killed with two being injured. This was to prove to be the last combat action of World War 2. 

The last Dominator mission of the war was flown by four B-32s on August 28 in a reconnaissance mission to Tokyo. The mission was a disaster, although not because of any enemy action. 42-108544 lost an engine on takeoff and skidded off the runway. All 13 men aboard perished when the aircraft exploded and burned. On the way back from the target, 42-108528 lost power on two of its four engines. The plane's pilot ordered the crew to bail out, but two men perished."


----------



## evangilder (Jul 14, 2005)

Yeah, it would have been nice to have seen one at Wright Pat. I lived near there when I was a kid and always enjoyed a day at the Air Force Museum. So many historic airplanes there. I loved standing next to Bockscar, the -29 that dropped the bomb on Nagasaki.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2005)

I remember when all the anti-nuke freakazoids made such a stink when they restored the Enola Gay - None of those jerkoffs ever researched to find that "Bockscar" been hanging at Wright Pat for years!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 14, 2005)

Haha


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2005)

8)


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 14, 2005)

_The Consolidated B-32 Dominator four-engined heavy bomber was ordered at the same time as the Boeing B-29 Superfortress. However, the B-32 was definitely the USAAF's second choice, and was intended primarily as insurance in case the favored Boeing design failed. Since the B-29 ultimately turned out to be an outstanding success, the B-32 was built only in relatively small numbers and used in only a very few combat actions during the last few weeks of the war. Although its brief combat career was unspectacular, it did have the distinction of flying the last aerial combat mission against Japan._

from http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b32.html


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2005)

Good info KK - from the text....

No surplus B-32s were ever sold to foreign air forces, and the aircraft's complexity and reputation for mechanical unreliability made it unattractive on the postwar commercial market. There is only example in which a commercial customer showed any interest in a surplus B-32.* In June 1947, Milton J. Reynolds, a pen manufacturer, announced that he was planning to buy a surplus B-32 for a round-the-world flight over both poles, but this plan was never carried out.*


----------



## evangilder (Jul 14, 2005)

Now there was a bright idea...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Now there was a bright idea...



What do expect from a pen manufacturer?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 14, 2005)

Pen manufacturer eh? 2 letters short of a manhood, if you know what I mean


----------



## evangilder (Jul 14, 2005)

He lost his pencil, but he knows where his pen is...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2005)

Aviation Art by Stan Stokes....

He is selling prints at http://store.yahoo.com/airplanepictures/hqubdoavartp.html

Story and picture are from the Yahoo site publicly advertised  

Situation: The B-32 Dominator was produced by Consolidated Aircraft in parallel with Boeing’s development of the B-29 Superfortress. While both of these long-range heavy strategic bomber development programs encountered some difficulties, the B-29 was completed sooner, and was ordered in far larger quantities than the B-32. About one hundred Dominators were ultimately built and the aircraft saw some service very late in WW II. Powered by the same engines as the B-29, the B-32 had a distinctive very tall stabilizer. Four B-32s from the 386th BS of the 312th BG based at Yontan, Okinawa were given a three-day photoreconnaissance mission near the end of the War. On the third day of the mission, August 18, 1945, two aircraft were forced to turn back and only two aircraft, the Hobo Queen and the Hobo Queen II made it to Japan. The mission involved photographing an area north and east of Tokyo. The aircraft were unescorted, as the War was over for all practical purposes over. As the two aircraft prepared to head home they were jumped by a large group of Japanese fighters including Imperial Navy A6M2 Zeros and Army Ki44 Tojos. The first attacks occurred at 1:30 PM while the aircraft were at 20,000 feet. The enemy planes made ten passes on the Hobo Queen II with little or no damage. About twenty-five passes were made at the Hobo Queen, which was under the command of Lt. John R. Anderson. Seven passes were made at the tail of the B-32 and one of the attackers blew-up. One fighter pass was made at the ball turret from below with no success, and another six were made at the forward upper turret. About six more were made at the nose turret position, and several more at the upper rear turret. Another enemy fighter blew up, and a third was scene going down smoking. The pilots went to full mix and full throttle and power-dived the B-32 from 20,000 to 10,000 feet. The Hobo Queen absorbed a lot of damage during these attacks. The radioman got the Hobo Queen II to regroup with the badly damaged Hobo Queen to provide some cover. Three men were wounded including Sgt. Anthony J. Marchione, SSgt. Joseph M. Lacharite, and Sgt. John T. Houston. Marchione and Lacharite were at the camera hatch at the rear of the aircraft when that section of the plane was riddled. Both men were hit. Despite his own wounds, SSgt. Lacharite began administering first aid to Marchione, but a second fighter pass wounded Marchione again. Despite the valiant efforts of his crewmates to keep him alive, Marchione passed away at 2:00PM. Sgt. Marchione may have been the last USAAF combat casualty of the War. SSgt. Chevalier administered first aid to SSgt. Lacharite during the long ride home. Despite being unable to bank his aircraft due a feathered prop, Lt. Anderson got the Hobo Queen down successfully.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jul 14, 2005)

I've got the book "Dominator: Story of the Consolidated B-32" by Harding and Long. It is an excellent book that goes into a fair amount of detail about the technical specs of the bomber as well as a great amount of rare pictures. From this book it shows 118 examples produced and 18 missions this book also states that the 290 mph figure is normal cruise while its most economical cruise is 200 mph. In comparison economical cruise for a B-29 was 220 mph with max cruise at 342 mph. (These are from the Baugher site). Most missions were completed by the aircraft called "Hobo Queen II" and "The Lady is Fresh". Some aircraft reviews are in the book as well. Some bad reviews are present but most are good. One stated that the B-32 was an excellent stable bombing platform and advised a go ahead with production. 

To quote the pilot of 529 "The Lady is Fresh" Colonel Cook: "The bomb load which can be carried by the B-32 is roughly two and one half times that of the B-24. The number of ground and air personnel required per plane is the same for B-32 groups as for B-24 groups. This means that, based on effort and hazard to personnel and equipment, the airplane has a 250 percent efficiency advantage over the B-24. All personnel in the theater have recognized this fact. In addition, the airplane is about fifty miles per hour faster and has range capabilities greatly exceeding that of the B-24."



The B-32 was unique in that it was the first production aircraft with reversible pitch propellers and at the time had the largest propellers on a production aircraft. The propellers were 16' 8" Curtiss Electric units and on the B-32 the inner two propellers could be reversed for braking during landing. They had a broader blade than the 16' 7" Hamilton - Standard hydraulic units on the B-29.

The Curtiss Electric reversible pitch props used on Silverplate B-29's came directly from the B-32 program and were chosen because of their broader chord and primarily because they were able to be reversed. The Silverplate B-29's however were able to reverse all four propellers instead of only the inner two like the B-32.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 14, 2005)

Interesting stuff! 2.5x the efficiency over the B-24, the most widely used, most numerous produced US bomber! As many could throw up "what ifs" with advanced German and Japanese fighter aircraft that "could of" made a difference, I see the B-32 as a "what if" to the "what ifs!"

Found some more B-32 stuff. The top pic is actually Hobo Queen II. She was scrapped on Okinawa in 1946


----------



## evangilder (Jul 15, 2005)

Wow, looking at the production line and the amount of airplanes in there, that building must have been HUGE!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 15, 2005)

I think that's in either San Diego or Fort Worth.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 15, 2005)

I remember the Sacramento ALC when I was in the air force was enormous as well. They had at least a dozen B-52s in there for retrofits years ago and there was still room for more! That place was cavernous!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 15, 2005)

12 -52s under one roof! Amazing!

I think that B-32 production line is San Diego - I drove by there the other day, it looks like Lockheed-Martin has the sitre now. USAF Plant 19.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jul 15, 2005)

San Diego is correct. Only the first 3 Dominators were produced at Ft. Worth.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 15, 2005)

Thanks Dave, I know you got the book. I'm going to try to get a copy.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2005)

I always liked the Dominator. It reminded me of a B-24 combined with a B-29 and a Privateer. All rolled into one!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 17, 2005)

I just think it looks like a B-26 with 4 engines and a longer fuelage.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 17, 2005)

Good point CC!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 17, 2005)

yeah it does i suppose.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2005)

Yeah now that I think about it does.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 18, 2005)

A very BIG B-26!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 18, 2005)

actually, the more you look at it, the more it really does look like it..........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 18, 2005)

And I think this is what was sought when Consolidated first designed the B-24


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2005)

That it was to look like a B-26 or this is what they had actually invisioned when they thought up the B-24?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That it was to look like a B-26 or this is what they had actually invisioned when they thought up the B-24?



I think they invisioned the B-24 to look like the B-36 prototype (it had a twin tail) Ruebin Fleet pushed his design team to get the -24 out the door asap. Because of this compromises were made, especially in the fuselage design. Ever hear the saying "The B-24 is the box the B-17 came in?"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2005)

Exactly and since it was pushed out so quickly is where the problems came into effect such as the wings and so forth.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Exactly and since it was pushed out so quickly is where the problems came into effect such as the wings and so forth.



Yep - and it seems similar things happened on the B-32 but I think in the long run it would of been a formatible bomber. Could you imangine B-32s over Germany in the fall of 1944?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2005)

Dont really want to imagine it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2005)

True, 250% the bomb load of a B-24


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jul 19, 2005)

Ive always thought the B-32 and B-36 look very similar. If you look at pictures of the very first B-32's with their glazed nose and the very first B-36's glazed nose you will see they are nearly identical. As a side note the B-32 originally came with twin tails, this proved unstable. A B-32 was then tried with a B-29 tail and was also unstable resulting in the 19 or so foot monster tail production versions came with.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2005)

Interesting


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2005)

Was that out of the B-32 book?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2005)

Sounds about right though.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jul 20, 2005)

Its mentioned in the book but there are more pictures of the XB-32 with the twin tails and the B-29 tail available on the internet.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2005)

I have only seen pics of it with the B-29 tail and I think that is what makes her so unique.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jul 22, 2005)

Here are 3 views of the B-32 tail evolution. They were obtained from www.military.cz/usa/air/war/bomber/b32/b32_en.htm


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 22, 2005)

It looks a little more "sane" with that B-29 tail, although I like the XB-32 with twin tails.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2005)

Yeah I like it better with the B-29 tail.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2005)

That big tail makes it look like a schooner!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 25, 2005)

I prefer the twin-tailed version.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2005)

Naw the twin tails look funny on it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I prefer the twin-tailed version.



Me two - I think CC and I are "Twin Tail" kind of guys. (That didn't sound right   )


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 26, 2005)

no it didn't 

then why don't you like the lanc??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> no it didn't
> 
> then why don't you like the lanc??



Oh I Love the Lanc (the airplane that is!)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 26, 2005)

CC doesn't


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> CC doesn't



Someday he'll see the light (I hope)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 26, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2005)

I like twin tails, it is just that for some reason it looks funky on the B-32.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 28, 2005)

The Me-110 looks fantastic with twin tails. Some aircraft look better with them than others.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> The Me-110 looks fantastic with twin tails. Some aircraft look better with them than others.



Like the P-38


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2005)

but could you imagine a P-38 with a single tail??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but could you imagine a P-38 with a single tail??



*PIMP MY RIDE!  *


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2005)

we'll wait for the -217 (i think it is lol) to be done first........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 28, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > The Me-110 looks fantastic with twin tails. Some aircraft look better with them than others.
> ...



Thats twin boom  I consider them different, although technically it the same 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2005)

well she has two tail surfaces, surely that makes her a twin tail??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 28, 2005)

But it also has 2 fuselage, meaning that it has the tail:fuselage ratio of a single finned plane?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 28, 2005)

yes but that does not make it a single tailed aircraft, the fact that she has two tails, makes her a twin tail.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 28, 2005)

But the Ratio...  I know youre technically correct, but I never think of the P-38 as a twin tail plane, but a twin boom plane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 29, 2005)

yes but it is possible to have a twin boom- single tailed aircraft.........

and don't worry, i was very impressed witht he ratio...........


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2005)

Which aircraft have twin-boom and one tail? I'm not saying they don't exist, I just can't think of any.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 29, 2005)

i don't actually think there are any, i'm just saying it's not impossible......


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2005)

What would be the point in twin-boom and single tail? Sure, it's not impossible but it's pointless. I thought you might have had at least some aircraft in the list but no, again I thought too highly of you. You got my hopes up there, lanc and then crushed them.  

So, the P-38 is twin-boom since there isn't a twin-boom, single tailed aircraft anywhere.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 29, 2005)

Nice pic D, didnt have that one...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 29, 2005)

what are you on about pD?? the P-38's a twin boom because it has two booms!!


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2005)

Really, does it? F*ckin' hell, I never realised that. You tit!!! My point was there isn't a fuckin' twin boom, single tailed aircraft out there so there's no point in saying "twin-boom, twin-tail".


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2005)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 29, 2005)

i never said she was twin boombed and twin tailed!! we had them conversations separatly.......


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2005)

What's your point?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 29, 2005)

you said there's no point in calling it a twin-boom, twin-tail, when no one called it that......


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2005)

Read what I put above the P-38 picture there, lanc.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 30, 2005)

'ang on, so you're arguing that it's pointless calling it a twin boom- twin tail, when you're the only one that's called it that??


----------



## plan_D (Jul 30, 2005)

I'm not arguing anything. I was just saying that my previous statement was void and pointless.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 30, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2005)

Dont take me wrong CC I like twin boomed aircraft or twin tailed aircraft I just think the Dominator looked better with the single tail.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 1, 2005)

yes me too....


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 9, 2005)

I read somewhere that the air force (in 1945) was not having Consolidated put any serious effort into building the B32. They wanted Consolidated to put more effort and resources into designing and building the B36.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 10, 2005)

I hadn't heard that, but it would not be surprising. The Model 35 (later model 36 so as not to be confused with the Northrop B-35)had a preliminary design proposal in May of 1941. That would eventually become the B-36. 

The mockup was ready about a year later and the initial deliveries of the XB-36 were intially supposed to be in 1944. Unfortunately, a lot of hurdles stalled the project and the first one did not fly until August 8, 1946.

Could you imagine a bunch of B-36s over Europe?!


----------



## plan_D (Aug 10, 2005)

That would have been awesome. Germany would have felt it 10-fold. Even better, B-36s doing the fire bombing of Tokyo...


----------



## evangilder (Aug 10, 2005)

Definitely would have left a lot of smoking holes!


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 10, 2005)

The B-36 did not have a cruising speed much faster than the B-17/B-24.

Cruising speed - 218 mph

Combat ceiling - 35,800 feet

Combat radius - 3880 miles with 10,000 pound bombload. New York to Berlin - 3975 miles

B-17s/B-24s would have dropped the same tonnage since they would fly more missions for every B-36 mission.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 10, 2005)

plan_D said:


> That would have been awesome. Germany would have felt it 10-fold. Even better, B-36s doing the fire bombing of Tokyo...



Imagine seeing a 100+ formation above you. "Crikey, zem B-17's are flying low" 
Mmmmmmmmmm....


----------



## SM79Sparviero (Aug 10, 2005)

> The B-36 did not have a cruising speed much faster than the B-17/B-24.
> 
> Cruising speed - 218 mph
> 
> ...



During post-war years Mig15 had troubles when they tried to intercept a B36 in "classified" recon missions .The pilots report that that the jet couldn't simply follow their "large veerage manoeuvres" at high altitude, where a jet angine of the first generations, also a good one such RR "Nene" couldn't compare the performances of a turbocharged huge radial yet. 
If I had to face a swarm of Me-262s over Germany in 1945 I would prefer a single B36 with its 6 engines and 16 20 MM guns over a "box" of B17 or, worse, B24.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2005)

I too have heard that the B-36 was very maneuverable especially for a plane of its size.


----------



## SM79Sparviero (Aug 10, 2005)

B36 's wing was very long and, consequently, not very charged , it contributes to explain the phenomenal ceiling quote of the bomber and its performances at such an altitude......USAF openly supported the rumours about the "transitional bomber" role of the Peacemaker just to hide its real performances and first to protect its future clandestine reconeissance missions.

It is not so easy to defeat huge aircrafts.
B 52 had to face Mig21 in Vietnam, in theory no match, 980 km/h vs Mach2, the Russian up-to-date excellent interceptor caused troubles to F4 Phantoms but on the battlefield no B52 was lost cause attacks from Migs.
On the contrary, at least two Mig 21s were surely shot down by the tail gunners of BUFFs


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 10, 2005)

The first B-36s , the A, had no guns fitted and these would be the ones flying to Germany initially.

These early B-36A/Bs also had *NO* jet engines and were underpowered.

At a weight of 212,800lb , the B-36A did 345mph @ 31,600ft. For comparison, the B-50, also delivered in 1948, did 391mph @ 30,000ft.

Sparviero, your recon bird is a RB-36D/E which had 4 J-47 jet engines totaling almost 21,000lb of thrust.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2005)

Yeap and they flew several aknoledged recon missions over China and Russia. The camaras were so good that photos taken of Golf Courses showed golf balls on the green. It was used because until the U-2 it was the only aircraft that could fly into Asia from bases in the United States.


----------



## Smokey (Aug 10, 2005)

The North Vietnamese air force claimed that a MiG 21 flown by Pham Tuan shot down a B52 on the 27th of December 1972

http://www.stratofortress.org/hanoi.htm



> Special attention is given to the Hero Pilot Pham Tuan, who on 27/12/72 shot down a B-52 over Hoa Binh. The museum contains both the helmet he wore that night, and his MiG-21. (See photos)









Surely the only way the B36 would have seen action is if the war in Europe went into 1946 - then we are into Luft 46 territory; guided surface to air missiles, jet and rocket fighters in theory much better than the Me 262


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2005)

That is debatable though.


----------



## Smokey (Aug 10, 2005)

Yeah, but both sides make claims. Even gun camera film is only conclusive if the vehicle is seen to disintegrate.
This may have happened.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2005)

It might have. Here are the B-52's lost and claimed by the USAF.

Here is Department of Defence B-52 claims for Vietnam:

A total of 10 B-52s went down inside the borders of North Vietnam. 61 total crewmembers. 33 survivors became POWs and were released at the end of the war. 28 of the downed 61 warriors perished. (Information is listed above).



Fourteen other B52s went down outside of North Vietnam. Seven were due to combat. Seven were “operational losses,” which occurred while B52s were enroute to combat areas in Vietnam. 
http://www.nampows.org/B-52.html


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> The first B-36s , the A, had no guns fitted and these would be the ones flying to Germany initially.
> 
> These early B-36A/Bs also had *NO* jet engines and were underpowered.
> 
> ...



There were only 21 built - all but one were later modified.....

There were plans to arm them from the get-go. Had the war lasted longer I doubt the USAAF would of sent the B-36 out unarmed.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 10, 2005)

I've heard 15 B-52s were lost while attacking Hanoi during the 11 day long attack over Christmas 1973 (I think) but I also read it was due to SAMs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I've heard 15 B-52s were lost while attacking Hanoi during the 11 day long attack over Christmas 1973 (I think) but I also read it was due to SAMs.



Dec. 72 - Jan 73, I remember that time well. I was 13 years old and really followed the war. You were right about the B-52s. The Mig kill has always been controversial, and the USAF stated that the B-52 in question was actually brought down by a SAM. An interesting note - during the same period B-52s claimed Mig-21 kills......


----------



## plan_D (Aug 10, 2005)

11 days of constant bombardment, the most brutal bombardment in history. I knew it was 72 or 73, I couldn't remember.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 11, 2005)

If the B32 was deployed a several months earlier, it might have made a good sub hunter.

It was designed as a backup to the B29, and when that plane was proven to work as designed, then the navy might have had interest in using it.


----------



## SM79Sparviero (Aug 11, 2005)

B32 , the cheap alternative to B29 had a too limited use for a good judgement about its operational validity-I personally think that its simpler electronic and hydraulic systems and the absence of a pressurization system as in B-29 would have made it less subjective to failures-

Anyway also B32 showed to be "die hard": in august ,17 1945 4 Dominators during a recon mission over Tokio vere intercepted by 10 Ki-44 and Ki-61 ( on breach of the surrending orders):futile damages for the bomber, 1 fighter surely shot down and two more probable.
On the following day two dominators had to face still over Tokio 14 Zero and Ki.44: one of the B32 had an engine destroyed and 3 gunners injured but it could come back home , two fighters were shot down surely, two more probably.
I could mistake , but this must have been the last air fight of WW2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2005)

The last known air battle of World War 2 was fought by Saburo Sakai and several B-32 on Aug. 18, 1945.

On 18 August 1945, shortly before Japan’s surrender aboard the USS Missouri, Sakai led the final aerial battle of World War II when his flight intercepted two B-32 reconnaissance bombers over the home islands.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/goe/eaglebios/83bios/sakai83.htm


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 12, 2005)

Interesting. Sakai is, IMHO, one of the greatest aces ever.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2005)

He is. The funny thing is after the war his wife died and he lived in poverty and sickness and later found a good living opening a company (i think it was a textile company) with widows of down aviators from his unit. He later even made friendships with several allied pilots that he fought against. He was a honorable man and very good fighter pilot.


----------



## steveharding (Mar 27, 2006)

I'm heartened by the continuing interest in the B-32, and I'm flattered that much of the information about the aircraft on the web is drawn (often verbatim) from the book I wrote (with Jim Long's illustrations) in 1982. I would only ask that if folks are going to present information drawn directly from the book, that they'd give me credit. The book might not exactly be "War and Peace," but it took a lot of research and effort to write.
Thanks,
Steve Harding


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2006)

steveharding said:


> I'm heartened by the continuing interest in the B-32, and I'm flattered that much of the information about the aircraft on the web is drawn (often verbatim) from the book I wrote (with Jim Long's illustrations) in 1982. I would only ask that if folks are going to present information drawn directly from the book, that they'd give me credit. The book might not exactly be "War and Peace," but it took a lot of research and effort to write.
> Thanks,
> Steve Harding



That is respectable and hopefully people will do that more often now.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 27, 2006)

Agreed, thanks Steve. Be sure to give proper credit where do on any copyrighted works.


----------



## Twitch (Mar 28, 2006)

Personally I always felt the B-32 was the bastard stepchild. It wasn't that much better than the B-29 and would soon be eclipsed by the B-36. The USAF had plenty of B-29s that could have supplanted B-17s and B-24s. Always easier to increase quantities of an aircraft in production like the B-29 than to introduce another. The B-36 was stalled during the war for the B-32. For what reason? The B-36 would have been fantastic in combat at the end of WW2. I could have been except for the B-32. I belive they should have leaned on producing a super bomber rather than one barely a notch above the existing B-29.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2006)

Remember, the B-32 was almost 2 years behind schedule. A plan was to have it replace the B-17 and B-24 in the ETO....

I think had it been deployed earlier and more were produced it would of been quickly scrapped at the end of the war, just like the B-24 that disappeared overnight...


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 28, 2006)

The B29's were not going to be produced in sizable numbers untill 1945. Look at my B29 thread for info on that.

The B36 was a headache to develope. There were engine problems, landing gear/tire issues, propellor problems, blah blah blah. Its lucky the plane flew as soon as it did!


----------



## Twitch (Mar 29, 2006)

While the B-36 was a complex animal it was put on hold and NO work was done on it at times during the war so that the B-32 would get priority. It is/was a matter of priorities with government contracts and programs.

Fabrication on the B-36 slowed since the Air Corps wanted attention paid to the Consolidated planes (B-24s B-32s) that it needed then, but agreed to a two-prototype order for a cargo version designated the XC-99. One was ultimately built.

By March of 1943 Consolidated and Vultee merged but didn’t officially become Convair in name until 1954. At that time in the war it seemed that the Japanese might push and take the bases planned for the forthcoming B-29s in China. General Hap Arnold directed that orders be placed for 100 B-36 examples for a production start up in August 1945.

Mid-1944 brought a better outlook for the Americans in the Pacific as B-29s soon would begin their raids on mainland Japan from hard-won island bases. B-29 teething problems were overcome and the press for an Inter-Continental Bomber was lessened. Convair emphasized B-32 development and slowed on the B-36.

As it was, the XB-36 took off from one of only three runways in the U.S. able to handle the weight at Fort Worth, Texas in August 1946.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 29, 2006)

Twitch said:


> ....As it was, the XB-36 took off from one of only three runways in the U.S. able to handle the weight at Fort Worth, Texas in August 1946.



Exactly. In fact, the origional landing gear design of a single large tire per strut, need to be changed to a multiple tire setup so that it could be used on more airfields.


----------



## 130fe (Sep 6, 2007)

The XC-99 was in fact saved and is currently being restored at the Air Force Museum. Rumor has it that a B-32 survived until the mid 70s at Macaren in Las Vegas. Anyone seen photographic proof of this?


----------



## drgondog (Sep 7, 2007)

plan_D said:


> 11 days of constant bombardment, the most brutal bombardment in history. I knew it was 72 or 73, I couldn't remember.



December 18-29, 1972 - 40,000 tons of bombs dropped.

The radar jamming largely effective but the 52D had better jamming equipment than D. More than 900 Sams were launched. 

At first SAC did the 'stupid thing' thta plagued USAF crews throughout the war - namely same altitudes, tracks and times enabling NV to figure out where to concentrate dwindling supplies of Sams - but last three or four nights - 5 or six different altitudes and headings - all in 20 minutes over the targets.

It was brutal but very good concentrations around the MPI designate - they effectively destroyed everything they wanted, and not much of what they didn't want, to bomb.


----------



## ccheese (Sep 7, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The B36 was a headache to develope. There were engine problems, landing gear/tire issues, propellor problems, blah blah blah. Its lucky the plane flew as soon as it did!




The B-36 was a pain is the @ss. I flew in them twice on a round-robin
that went from Wheelus AFB up into the Arctic Circle and "other places".
I flew in the radioman's spot once and in the tail spot once. On both
flights we lost an engine due to overheating. Tires were a very big
problem, engines overheating, catching fire and even a couple of 
runaway props. The Air Force required you wear a chute harness at
all times on this aircraft. Chutes were hanging at different stations
for easy clip-on access.

Charles


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 7, 2007)

130fe said:


> The XC-99 was in fact saved and is currently being restored at the Air Force Museum. Rumor has it that a B-32 survived until the mid 70s at Macaren in Las Vegas. Anyone seen photographic proof of this?



"No surplus B-32s were ever sold to foreign air forces, and the aircraft's complexity and reputation for mechanical unreliability made it unattractive on the postwar commercial market. There is only example in which a commercial customer showed any interest in a surplus B-32. In June 1947, Milton J. Reynolds, a pen manufacturer, announced that he was planning to buy a surplus B-32 for a round-the-world flight over both poles, but this plan was never carried out. 

No intact, complete B-32 survives today. B-32-1-CF 42-108474 had been set aside for display at the Air Force Museum, but was unaccountably declared excess and scrapped at Davis-Monthan in August of 1949. Only bits and pieces of B-32s remain in existence today. A nose turret from a B-32 is in storage at the Paul Garber Restoration Facility of the Smithsonian Institution at Suitland, Maryland. Another B-32 nose turret is on display in a Minnesota museum. A static test wing panel from a B-32 was erected as a monument to aviation pioneer John J. Montgomery on a hill near San Diego."

Consolidated B-32 Dominator


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 7, 2007)

On this day today 65 years ago, Sept 7th 1942........ was the first test flight of the XB-32.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 7, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> On this day today 65 years ago, Sept 7th 1942........ was the first test flight of the XB-32.


8)


----------



## Thorlifter (Sep 7, 2007)

I think it would have been a nice replacement for the B-17/B-24. With that high cruising speed and impressive payload, it would have spent less time over hostile ground, delivered more ordinance, and put less lives in jeopardy.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 7, 2007)

Unfortunatly for Convair, what should have been a fairly straight forward aircraft to design, and it wasnt nearly as sophisticated as the B29, turned into an engineering nightmare for one reason or another.

The B32 "HAD" potential, but too many problems early on relegated it to the back burner.


----------



## JoeB (Sep 7, 2007)

SM79Sparviero said:


> Anyway also B32 showed to be "die hard": in august ,17 1945 4 Dominators during a recon mission over Tokio vere intercepted by 10 Ki-44 and Ki-61 ( on breach of the surrending orders):futile damages for the bomber, 1 fighter surely shot down and two more probable.
> On the following day two dominators had to face still over Tokio 14 Zero and Ki.44: one of the B32 had an engine destroyed and 3 gunners injured but it could come back home , two fighters were shot down surely, two more probably.


Sakai told Henry Sakaida he was among those attacking the B-32's in the first of those engagements, August 17. Sakaida also says in "Winged Samurai" that a group led by WO Sadamu Komachi attacked on the 18th. No Japanese fighters were lost in either case [correction, none lost 17th, he doesn't actually say wrt 18th], and all were apparently JNAF. Sakai did not recall if he flew a 'George' or Zero but most were probably Georges, which explains 'Tojo's', the two types were confused in other documented cases, but leaves the 'Tony' ID a mystery.

On B-52 credits for MiG's destroyed those occurrred Dec 18 and 24 1972. The VPAF official history (which is the basis of Toperczer's "Air War over North Vietnam") does not mention losses of MiG's to B-52's either date. On the 18th a MiG pilot followed a B-52 formation and said he was spotted by the bombers, but not downed. There is no mention of B-52 interceptions on the second date. A declassified Soviet military intelligence summary of the Vietnam War states that VPAF MiG's did not inercept B-52's the night of the 24th due to weather. The USAF's monograph "Linebacker 2 View from the Rock" specifies two different B-52 cells which believed they were intercepted by MiG's that night, a gunner from one was credited the victory.

As to MiG claims of B-52's two are known, evenings of Dec 27 and 28 '72 with AAM's. In the first case 2 B-52's were lost to SAM's according to US accounts; "Linebacker 2 A View from the Rock" even mentions that 'Ivory' and 'Opal' cells were engaged by MiG's, while the two a/c lost were from 'Cobalt' and 'Ash' cells near known SAM sites and ECM indicated SAM lock on's. However, it doesn't seem possible to determine which loss cause is correct without directly comparing US and Vietnamese original records, and perhaps not even then. The 28th claim is strange because the Vietnamese account gives a time in the late evening (not early morning) of Dec 28, and moreover says the MiG-21 involved was destroyed by falling debris from the B-52 target, the pilot Vu Xuan Thieu was killed. But, no B-52's were lost the night of 28/29. It seems possible Thieu's MiG was struck by falling bombs, or some other cause.

Joe


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 7, 2007)

I thout the B-29 was really big, but the B-36 really dwarfs it. Imagine a B-36 in 1/48 scale!


----------



## Snautzer01 (Sep 9, 2007)

steveharding said:


> I'm heartened by the continuing interest in the B-32, and I'm flattered that much of the information about the aircraft on the web is drawn (often verbatim) from the book I wrote (with Jim Long's illustrations) in 1982. I would only ask that if folks are going to present information drawn directly from the book, that they'd give me credit. The book might not exactly be "War and Peace," but it took a lot of research and effort to write.
> Thanks,
> Steve Harding



At least i bought the book 
Its a nice read about this not to well known plane.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 9, 2007)

ccheese said:


> The B-36 was a pain is the @ss. I flew in them twice on a round-robin
> that went from Wheelus AFB up into the Arctic Circle and "other places".
> I flew in the radioman's spot once and in the tail spot once. On both
> flights we lost an engine due to overheating. Tires were a very big
> ...



...and wasn't the cruising speed of this whale just about 200mph. Man that's a long operation at max operating distance. ccheese what were the toilets and galley arrangements like for those long hauls. Must have been somewhat like a dull bus ride with half kitchens. I have never been impressed with the B-36. It always impressed me as a lumbering cow who was likely going to be fodder for any decent interceptor squadron.

To me this aircraft is the EXACT reason that cruise missiles were invented.

POS, I say.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 10, 2007)

Matt, thats why jet engines were added as soon as practical.

One good thing about the B36 was its shear size, allowed replacement crew's to be onboard.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 10, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> ...and wasn't the cruising speed of this whale just about 200mph. Man that's a long operation at max operating distance. ccheese what were the toilets and galley arrangements like for those long hauls. Must have been somewhat like a dull bus ride with half kitchens. I have never been impressed with the B-36. It always impressed me as a lumbering cow who was likely going to be fodder for any decent interceptor squadron.
> 
> To me this aircraft is the EXACT reason that cruise missiles were invented.
> 
> POS, I say.



POS? The USSR probably wished we didn't have it for the first 8 years of it's life

That might be a little harsh comment for the only aircraft capable of carrying the first hydrogen bomb (or four smaller nucs to targets over 3000+ miles away (the 42,000 M-17) at 40,000+ feet. When it got jet engines it moved it's cruise from 230 TAS at 40K to 430 TAS at 50K where no fighter could touch it until the MiG-15 and even that was a stretch.

the stripped down RB-36 was never shot down over China or USSR despite many deep penetrations until 1955-56 when the U-2 came into the inventory..

it was THE big stick until the B-52 became operational because of huge load and range... and yes it did have a lot of engine problems.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 10, 2007)

I just missed the the B-36 in operation (I was born four years after it was retired), but I was told you could hear and feel the throbbing of their engines from miles away, even if you couldn't see them. Pretty weird . . .


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 12, 2007)

POS. And I'm sticking with it. Operationally it would have been decimated.


----------



## ccheese (Sep 12, 2007)

Matt: Memory is kinda foggy, but I remember two stacks of six bunks,
a half decent galley (frozen meals prepared by the base mess hall). Lots
of fried chicken, or roast beef and hot dogs beans. For the life of me
I can't remember the "johns". I do remember the tail position had a
"relief tube", and I remember the sled on a pulley arrangement to get
to the tail. I never flew in a B-36 that had jets...... And yes, they
were very noisey. Two of them running on the tarmac and the ground
shook.

Charles


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 13, 2007)

Its a flying building. Only thing missing was a gym. It's primary claim to fame should be that it was the precursor for the ISS.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 13, 2007)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 15, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> It's primary claim to fame should be that it was the precursor for the ISS.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 17, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> POS. And I'm sticking with it. Operationally it would have been decimated.



To decimate is to kill 1 in 10.

It comes from the Roman practice of collective punishment for cowardice or rebellion in the ranks, whereby they would execute one in ten of every solider in the cohort (usually through stoning or clubbing by his comrades). 

Any yes, I know the modern usage means to "kill the majority", but I like being contrary sometimes


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 17, 2007)

Your not being contrary, that was a good post! I didn't know that!!


----------



## JoeB (Sep 17, 2007)

Literally 'decimated' is maybe a good way to distinguish the requirements of conventional formation bombing and nuclear attack. If you can consistently shoot down 10% of the former you'll stop the bomber offensive pretty quickly; even if the opponent is geared up to pump out enough airplanes to keep going he won't be able to keep up with experienced crews at a sustained loss rate of 10% per sortie.

But, if you only down 10% of a nuclear attack force, you're doomed. Even if they have to come back a *few* times and you only down 10% per sortie that's not enough.

Based on a lot of the detailed chapters in Jacobsen "Convair B-36" on opposing fighters, radar, ECM etc I'd say the B-36 was a very credible nuclear bomber from the time it really worked (say '51-52) until around 1957.

SAC considered using B-36's as conventional bombers in Korea in 1951. I've seen primary source documents on that. Far East Air Force suggested it, LeMay (head of SAC) declined. The main reason given was urgent build up of the force, concentrating on training, and at the time (spring '51) there were only a few dozen B-36's actually fully operational per these memo's. But in formation bombing from any altitude where you could hit anything with conventional bombs, B-36's would also probably have been 'decimated' by MiG-15's at some point at least, as B-29's were, in daylight at least (B-29's went to all night missions in MiG Alley after October 1951).

Joe


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 17, 2007)

Just crudely crunching numbers (and I emphasize crudely, given production timelines and variants that were not armed...):

~400 B-36s

versus

~12,000 MiG-15s

Not good odds to avoid a "decimation".


----------



## Soren (Sep 17, 2007)

Completely agreed.


----------



## JoeB (Sep 17, 2007)

Soren said:


> Completely agreed.


Me too, that comparison *is* way too crude to mean anything. That is what you meant, right?  

Joe


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 18, 2007)

Sure why not. From now on I'll base all of my points in absolutes. It will make folks recognize the truth quicker.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 18, 2007)

Folks, I have to chime in here....

Considering this is all hypothetical, what time during the could war would of this happened? Early in the Korean War there were not a whole lot of B-36s built and a strike into USSR "would of" involved B-29s and B-50s. Are we considering part of the missions being flown at night and how about the ECM factor? At the same time, how many Mig-15 units would of been able to intercept incoming bombers? Did anyone ever research the fact that the Mig-15 had terrible environmental systems that would of make intercepting B-36s at altitude like going naked in Siberia in the middle of a winters' night?!?

By the mid and late 50s a strike from the US "would of" involved B-47 that were just as fast as the Mig-15 and a shade slower than the Mig-17. What about escorting fighters? I think all of this had to be factored in as it would of been obvious the B-36 wouldn't of attacked the USSR alone.

I think the B-36 served its purpose - it was "The Big Stick" and it kept the USSR at bay through out the 1950s. In retrospect, while may in the US were pointing at "The Red Herring" the USSR actually spent much of it's design efforts designing "interceptors" with close support capability and this could easily be seen in such aircraft as the Migs 19-23, the Sukhoi SU-7 and up as well as their home interceptors (ex. SU-15). I don't think they would of been doing that if they weren't worried about a massive aerial strike from the US.

We may look at the B-36 as a dinosaur but it came from an era where changing an engine required 20 guys and there was no EPA around complaining about all the engine oil under parked aircraft.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 18, 2007)

Well since the B-36 could not land on most runways, I am assuming that the scenario was strictly an intercontinental run with nukes at max range, no fighter support, and obviously no refueling capability. With the geographic location of most of the USSR (and Russian specifically) industry centrally located in the Eurasian land mass, this would have required long slow runs over significant amounts of defensive territory. Even with ECM, decimation was surely the order of the day for a 200knot aircraft. Even if they were flying at night at FL450.


----------



## JoeB (Sep 19, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Folks, I have to chime in here....
> 
> Considering this is all hypothetical, what time during the could war would of this happened? Early in the Korean War there were not a whole lot of B-36s built and a strike into USSR "would of" involved B-29s and B-50s. Are we considering part of the missions being flown at night and how about the ECM factor? At the same time, how many Mig-15 units would of been able to intercept incoming bombers? .


This is the point. In Korea B-29's went up against MiG-15's. At night, even without (USAF/USMC nightfighter) escorts, B-29's were shot down by MiG's a very small % of the time, less than 1% per sortie. And it took the particular MiG unit hunting them, the 351st Fighter Regiment, months of combat to gain the skills to intercept B-29's effectively at night, over a very limited area, with GCI radar and radar controlled searchlights, lacking any radar on the MiG's themselves. The MiG unit which took over in February 1953, the 298th Regiment, never built up their skills enough to down any B-29's before the armistice in July.

Still, the rate of B-29 loss became worrisome in Nov '52-Jan '53. But that was because the B-29's had to go back and bomb the same area night after night, a war of attrition. Against nuclear attacks, the Soviet defence would have been totally ineffective. 1% loss in a nuclear attack, so what?

Expand this to the whole Soviet Union, much of which lacked any radar coverage at the time, 100's of targets, not one small area, and no way could early-mid '50's Soviet defences have stopped devastating nuclear attacks by planes like the B-36, or even B-29/50, in night hours. The big advantage of the B-36's over the earlier planes was it could reach a lot further, and carry the huge H-bombs of the time, before they were miniaturized. By ca. 1957 there was enough radar coverage, and radar equipped Soviet night fighters, that this was changing.

Since the B-36 missions would be so long, and some Soviet latitudes so high, attacks esp. in summer might have to occur in daylight (OTOH Warsaw Pact planning at least later on was apparently for attacks in winter, to get cover from weather and longer hours of darkness in Europe). But still, I think those claiming the B-36 was ineffective are neglecting how big a place the USSR was to defend, nothing like compact North Korea. Also the B-36's especially from around 1954 were flying higher, up to 50k, and it's hard to see planes against the sky background up there, as tests and exercises showed, again for fighters lacking their own AI radar. But main point is you can shoot down, 10, 20, 30% of a nuclear attack and still fail miserably. When we compare to WWII/Korea conventional cases, we're talking about where 1-5% losses could seriously undermine a bomber offensive, and 10% generally made it prohibitive.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 19, 2007)

Great points Joe and I think a lot of what you stated affected Soviet defense doctrine for many years and it's evident on the emphasis they placed on "interceptors."


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 19, 2007)

Agreed good post. However, I dispute that some assumptions regarding GCI capability around primary targets may offset your loss suppositions. The B-36 flew for most of the 50s, was (initially at least) a maintenance nightmare whose sortie rate was severely curtailed. Given that most aircraft would be unable to fly at max altitude with a heavy load out, the altitude defense seems much less effective, and perhaps very unlikely to avoid performance envelopes of Soviet interceptors.

FlyboyJ is exactly right that the whole Soviet GCI doctrine was developed during these years and based upon western tactics. However, I think we tend to underestimate the effectiveness border radar may have had, coupled with target defences. Certainly this is a multi-element problem, but the following were working against a successful overall mission assumed to be total annihilation -

- B-36 aircraft fleet size, reduced by sortie rate and aircraft geographic capability
- B-36 loadout (weapon effectiveness) for max range operations. They weren't flying 10,000nm at FL500 with the thermonuclear bomb of the era. They likely were carry a weapon of SIGNIFICANTLY less yield.
- B-36 defensive weapon capability were marginally effective as evidenced by their ultimate removal
- Targets necessary to declare mission success (mutual assured destruction accomplished) were large in numbers.
- Target diversity in a 8.7Million square mile geography meant few B-36s per target and likely only one
- Sheer number of interceptors scrambled to seek out aircraft whose inbound run was likely 4 to 5 hours
- Ability to obtain target run altitudes under max range + weapon loading that exceeded max altitude of interceptors was unlikely
- Effectivity of ECM by individual aircraft elements would likely have been counterproductive to minimizing detection.

Surely some would have gotten through and caused horrific destruction, but recall that the Russians had moved the majority of war production facilities to deep internal locations as part of the lessons learned from WWII. Thus targets were diverse and geographically isolated. I stick with my conclusion that the B-36 fleet would be decimated and unable to cripple the Soviet war machine.

I recognize that our conclusions are based upon our hypothetical scenarios, but again I am under the impression that we are talking about a super-long range penetration bomber over hostile territory with no friendly support. The classic SAC mission that was used to sell the B-36 to begin with. Just don't believe it would have ever lived up to the hype. Thank God for submarines.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 19, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Thank God for submarines.


----------



## renrich (Sep 19, 2007)

Summer of 52, I worked near the end of the runway at Kelly Field In SA. They were bringing in burn casualties from Korea to BAMC in the XC 99( I think there was only one of them) and the noise and vibration when that airplane took off is hard to describe. I mentioned this once before but a hammer laid on a shelf in the houses we were sheetrocking would vibrate all over the shelf during takeoff. I wonder how many nuclear warheads the US had during the time the B36 was active? I would be surprised if the B36 in combat could operate much above 40,000 ft.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 19, 2007)

Especially with the newly developed hydorogen bomb. That thing was, what about 35,0000lbs or some ridiculousness. I would love to hear a high fidelity recording of the B-36. That must have been awesome to hear.


----------



## Graeme (Sep 19, 2007)

Is this drawn wrong? Toilet/Dunny/Crapper (173) appears to have no headroom. And just above is the Upper gunner's sighting platform (172). Nasty! And it's a LONG way from the cockpit.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 19, 2007)

I think the drawing is a little out of proportion....


----------



## Graeme (Sep 19, 2007)

Consolidated's original six engined design in response to the 'very-long-range bomber' proposal, the Model 35, submitted on 3 May 1941.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 19, 2007)

Note that the orignal single tires were scratched due to sheer weight upon known runways and their inability to accept such high PSI. At some point in time, I read the they tried "treads" to minimize load bearing to acceptable levels. But I have never seen pics of these bogies. If anyone has pics, I would love to hear about the engineering behind treads that could accept such weight and yet handle the relatively high speeds necessary for takeoff and landing.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 20, 2007)

I dont think the B36's had anything to worry from the MiG-15's.

They had that parasitic fighter to protect themselves!

8) 




(just kidding!!!!)


----------



## Graeme (Sep 20, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> I read the they tried "treads" to minimize load bearing to acceptable levels. But I have never seen pics of these bogies.



From the 'Story of Flight' pp553.

The experimental caterpillar track gear tried out on the B-36 weighed 5,600 lb more than the wheeled installation it replaced.





The original 100 inch wheel.





The 56 inch bogie wheels eventually selected.





And a comparison of the 100 inch wheel (2) with the caterpillar track (1) showing that they had the same 'footprint' area.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 20, 2007)

My God. What a monstrosity that tracked gear was. Must have been an engineering nightmare.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 20, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Agreed good post. However, I dispute that some assumptions regarding GCI capability around primary targets may offset your loss suppositions. The B-36 flew for most of the 50s, was (initially at least) a maintenance nightmare whose sortie rate was severely curtailed. Given that most aircraft would be unable to fly at max altitude with a heavy load out, the altitude defense seems much less effective, and perhaps very unlikely to avoid performance envelopes of Soviet interceptors.
> 
> FlyboyJ is exactly right that the whole Soviet GCI doctrine was developed during these years and based upon western tactics. However, I think we tend to underestimate the effectiveness border radar may have had, coupled with target defences. Certainly this is a multi-element problem, but the following were working against a successful overall mission assumed to be total annihilation -
> 
> ...



Matt - I never have seen a strike plan from the 1950-1954 timeframe when the '36 was the only a/c able to make a long range penetration.. but consider this.

If the USSR had the same respect for SAC in 1953-1954 that you apparently do (and SAC was basically all B-36/B-47 then) then why didn't they just move into Europe and be done with it? By your logic there is no way that Russia or Soviet industry was at risk. Maybe they were just 'peace loving' flower children?

Ditto in 1949 when each B-36 could carry 4 x 50Kt bombs each.. just exactly what was going to effectively stop them at night? At the end of the day a lot of B-29 crews would have volunteered to make one way trips - so it would not have rested solely on the 36. The B-36 was the only a/c that could carry the first 40,000 pound thermonuc and only one to carry H-Boms at all until the Mk20-26 series came into production so the B-47 could also carry them.

Do you suppose that with the incredible air defense capability that exists today, that either China or Russia consider a B-52 'insignificant' 50 years after the design and with far less altitude and airspeed capability relatively speaking, than a B-36 in 1950?

And at the end of the day how many 20 megaton Mk26's really needed to get through to 'make the point' say, in 1954?

I suspect that while the B-36 may not meet your personal standards for a great airplane - it was 'effective' and certainly a Major Deterrent.

And nuc subs didn't exist, or ICBMs or IRBMs.. just the lowly and over hyped B-36 from 1947-1955 capable of strikes over all of USSR... and after that B-52s and B-47s until the 60s.

I'm not trying to change your mind that the B-36 was a POS, just posing different questions to perhaps view the beast from the USSR POV?

Regards,

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Sep 20, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Agreed good post. However, I dispute that some assumptions regarding GCI capability around primary targets may offset your loss suppositions. The B-36 flew for most of the 50s, was (initially at least) a maintenance nightmare whose sortie rate was severely curtailed. Given that most aircraft would be unable to fly at max altitude with a heavy load out, the altitude defense seems much less effective, and perhaps very unlikely to avoid performance envelopes of Soviet interceptors.
> 
> FlyboyJ is exactly right that the whole Soviet GCI doctrine was developed during these years and based upon western tactics. However, I think we tend to underestimate the effectiveness border radar may have had, coupled with target defences. Certainly this is a multi-element problem, but the following were working against a successful overall mission assumed to be total annihilation -
> 
> ...



Matt - I never have seen a strike plan from the 1950-1954 timeframe when the '36 was the only a/c able to make a long range penetration.. but consider this.

If the USSR had the same respect for SAC in 1953-1954 that you apparently do (and SAC was basically all B-36/B-47 then) then why didn't they just move into Europe and be done with it? By your logic there is no way that Russia or Soviet industry was at risk. 

Border radar and bases Were subject to strikes from Navy and most every other aircraft in USAF arsenal. 

Ditto in 1949 when each B-36 could carry 4 x 50Kt bombs each.. just exactly what was going to effectively stop them at night? At the end of the day a lot of B-29 crews would have volunteered to make one way trips - so it would not have rested solely on the 36. The B-36 was the only a/c that could carry the first 40,000 pound thermonuc and only one to carry H-Boms at all until the Mk20-26 series came into production so the B-47 could also carry them.

Do you suppose that with the incredible air defense capability that exists today, that either China or Russia consider a B-52 'insignificant' 50 years after the design and with far less altitude and airspeed capability relatively speaking, than a B-36 in 1950?

And at the end of the day how many 20 megaton Mk26's really needed to get through to 'make the point' say, in 1954?

I suspect that while the B-36 may not meet your personal standards for a great airplane - it was 'effective' and certainly a Major Deterrent.

And nuc subs didn't exist, or ICBMs or IRBMs.. just the lowly and over hyped B-36 from 1947-1955 capable of strikes over all of USSR... and after that B-52s and B-47s until the 60s.

I'm not trying to change your mind that the B-36 was a POS, just posing different questions to perhaps view the beast from the USSR POV?

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 20, 2007)

Don't patronize me with the "Matt disrespects SAC" bullshit. We are trying to have a moronic discussion that is of necessity overly simplified with respect to our battleplan assumptions. If we want to contrast US and Soviet airforce's, battle doctrine and integration with land and sea assets, then I don't want to play. The solution space quickly becomes so complex and technical, that neither you nor I are qualified to make any meaningful statements. I believe that we can have a discussion of its role as a long range penetration bomber over hostile territory (its classic SAC role, as sold to congress) and as evidenced by the numerous desperate attempts to attach parasitic fighters all over the bloody thing (including one on each wingtip??). Anything beyond that and I suspect the US historical order of battle is probably still not available under the Freedom of Information Act.

Let's both agree that the B-36 was an engineering marvel and contributed to our safety. And it did so without erroneous claims that it would be loaded with a 42,000lb Mk17 15MT thermonuclear bomb flying at night at 50,000ft with a full fuel load and 420kt max speed for 10,000nm in the late 1950s against soviet interceptors incapable of operations at night.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 20, 2007)

Matt, you should be a diplomat.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 20, 2007)




----------



## drgondog (Sep 20, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Don't patronize me with the "Matt disrespects SAC" bullshit.
> 
> *You implied SAC palmed off a giant selling job on the B-36 Mission - which was to be THE deterrent to USSR by virtue of being able to reach central Russia with the biggest stick in the world... and then went on to 'thank god for submarines'.. so I took your meaning that it made far more sense to you to put faith in the deterrence capability of the sub.
> 
> ...


 
As to moronic - maybe 'shallow', I believe the tone might have set by someone describing the B-36 as a POS (point of sale?) and then thanking god for submarines..maybe he meant sub marines? or subsurface boats capable of carrying ICBM's - which did not exist when the B-36 was the sole delivery capability... whoever made those comments did not follow up to describe HIS personal choice for a better alternative, so I felt it was a little shallow but didn't state that.

none of it made sense to me, but I'm slow...and I wouldn't describe You as 'moronic' - in all seriousness!!

And to your last point I can agree with you that while it was NOT the greatest thing since sliced bread it was the best available and the only one that perform its mission, namely take the first thermo nucs to central Russia until the B-52 (and smaller Mk26) arrived. You have a better nomination?

Matt - very much like you I am often wrong but NEVER uncertain.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 20, 2007)

See all is good in the world. The moronic comment was not aimed as a personal slight. Rather it was a description of two internet junkies discussing WWIII weapon systems and tactical doctrine. And you have to admit, that compared to real world planning and analysis, our contributions could very well be described as "moronic".

...off to another thread.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 20, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> See all is good in the world. The moronic comment was not aimed as a personal slight. Rather it was a description of two internet junkies discussing WWIII weapon systems and tactical doctrine. And you have to admit, that compared to real world planning and analysis, our contributions could very well be described as "moronic".
> 
> ...off to another thread.



I Do agree. Tip of the hat to you - 

Bill


----------



## Graeme (Sep 20, 2007)

Does anyone have more on this?


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 20, 2007)

Northern and Eastern Russia via the Chuchki Sea. I'd believe it.

Kinda like saying that the Soviets routinely flew into the Canadian Northern Territories via polar routes. This was the CF-101 SOP.


----------



## renrich (Sep 21, 2007)

Interestingly, our AF regularly flew recon missions over the USSR in B45s until the Mig 15 became operational and then the B47 took over that mission. There were some hairy moments between the B47s and Mig 15s but, as I recall, no B47s were ever downed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 21, 2007)

B-50s were also flown into the Soviet Union as well.


----------



## JoeB (Sep 21, 2007)

renrich said:


> Interestingly, our AF regularly flew recon missions over the USSR in B45s until the Mig 15 became operational and then the B47 took over that mission. There were some hairy moments between the B47s and Mig 15s but, as I recall, no B47s were ever downed.


I assume your flag means 'our AF' is the USAF  . Actually the RB-45 units deeply penetrating the Soviet Union were RAF. 

One USAF RB-45 was downed, the only one lost in combat, by Soviet MiG-15's over North Korea, December 4 1950, the first verifiable 'jet kill' by MiG-15's (several earlier claims against US jet fighters are not reflected in US records), and first jet fighter to down a jet bomber, bomber-type anyway.

At least 3 RB-47's were downed during the Cold War, two by MiG's and one by SAM's.

This is a decent list of incidents on the web
Intrusions, Overflights, Shootdowns and Defections During the Cold War and Thereafter

Two books are "Spyflights of the Cold War" by Lashmar and "By any Means Necessary" by Burrows.

Note most of those incidents happened on the peripheries of the USSR, flights not really intended to violate Soviet air space, or only marginally, sometimes accidentally. Many of the a/c intercepted were in intl airspace as the US claimed at the time. The British effort (with US cooperation) was in contrast to fly deep into the Soviet Union, as were of course the U-2 flights later.

Joe


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 21, 2007)

Blind Man's Bluff - A fantastic book of cold war operations. And the publicly known casualties are probably just the tip of the iceberg. Aircraft from B-50s to C-130s were victims of interceptors whose coordinates were most often outside of "enemy" territory.


----------



## BurntFanger (Jun 3, 2009)

i enjoyed this post as my fathers unit in ww2 was the 312th and he talked about the b-32 and interesting note is the 312th started the war as a light attack sq usung p-40's then the A-24(army version od the dauntless) then they moved yo to med attack with the A-20 i have some old photos and will try to scan them and share


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 3, 2009)

Looking forward to that!


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 3, 2009)

BurntFanger said:


> i enjoyed this post as my fathers unit in ww2 was the 312th and he talked about the b-32 and interesting note is the 312th started the war as a light attack sq usung p-40's then the A-24(army version od the dauntless) then they moved yo to med attack with the A-20 i have some old photos and will try to scan them and share



I just received a book about them.

"Rampage of the the Roaring 20's "


----------



## Messy1 (Jun 3, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Blind Man's Bluff - A fantastic book of cold war operations. And the publicly known casualties are probably just the tip of the iceberg. Aircraft from B-50s to C-130s were victims of interceptors whose coordinates were most often outside of "enemy" territory.



I own that book Matt. I have read it a few times, very informative and entertaining. Once I start reading it I cannot put it down.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 3, 2009)

JoeB said:


> I assume your flag means 'our AF' is the USAF  . Actually the RB-45 units deeply penetrating the Soviet Union were RAF.
> 
> 
> Joe



Not really. They were painted up with fake RAF markings but they were manned by USAF crews and operated entirely on behalf of the USAF, source for that being 'Aerial Espionage' by Dick van der Aart. Now there must have been a reason for this but as I no longer have the book I cannot look it up. can anyone else help?

edit to add, I just looked the B-45 in the appendix of Putnams Aircraft of the Royal Air Force and it states that four RB-45 were operated by RAF and USAF personnel (contradicting what I wrote above somewhat) they operated out of RAF Sculthorpe but belonged to the 19th Tactical Recconaissance Squadron, USAF. It still doesn't say why though.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Jun 3, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> I just received a book about them.
> 
> "Rampage of the the Roaring 20's "



I tried Googling that book and couldn't find anything....


----------



## Niceoldguy58 (Feb 23, 2018)

I thought it would be appropriate to add some hard-won facts to the discussion on the B-32. Too many fairy tales have arisen about the aircraft over the many decades since she disappeared. 

Where to start? I suppose the first place is that all this information comes from documents and photos gathered for a new book on the B-32 by me (Alan Griffith, author of "Consolidated Mess, Vol I" and Nick Veronico, author of many books). This book will, I believe, be the definitive book on the B-32 Dominator/Terminator and we plan to have it to the publisher a bit later this year. I estimate that in photos alone, some 90% have never been seen. While there may be some manual drawings used in the book, the emphasis at all times has been original documents, reports, drawings and photos. 

Anyway, while it is true that more emphasis went into the B-29, it needs to be understood that Boeing had begun the process that would result in the B-29 as early as with the Y1B-20 series (Model 316, 316A/B/C/D) . Consolidated was making a huge jump with the B-24 and its inexperience with building big bombers showed in many ways. 

Rather than get into the many delays in the B-32 program here, I will share that by late 1944-early 1945 General Arnold ordered that Consolidated should pump out B-32's as quickly as possible. No more delays were to be accepted and personnel from the B-36 program should be moved over to the B-32 as needed. THe B-32 was going to used to pound Japan into dust, so they needed a lot of them. I have a schedule showing the replacement of B-24s in all parts of the Pacific, the CBI and finally the Aleutians (there in November, 1946) by month. THe pressure to produce B-32s would continue to grow until it suddenly ended and the program cancelled. There were a number of reasons for this. The Atomic Bomb is an obvious cause, but not the only one by any means. The Bomb had been kept completely secret (except to the spies, of course), so it wasn't until it became necessary to let Arnold in on the secret and start training B-29 crews to drop it that they decided to pull the plug on the B-32. In addition, a number of very telling arguments had been made along the way that the B-29 was a better, cheaper aircraft and that it was ALREADY IN MASS PRODUCTION and in combat. 

Had the B-32 been in production a year earlier, I have no doubt that B-24's would have been gone in the proverbial heartbeat. Also, keep in mind that the manner in which the B-29's were ultimately used - low to medium altitudes and increasingly at night - would have fit perfectly into the B-32's capabilities. My only real question is whether or not they would have been sent to Europe or dedicated to the Pacific. I lean to the latter as I'm not convinced Doolittle et al would be enthusiastic about having to establish yet another logistical trail for a new, untested aircraft at the same time they were trying to make the 8AF an all-B17 unit as it was.

There has been much said about the poor quality of the B-32. My research has not shown this to be the case any more than it was in the early B-29's. The causes for the problems appears to have been due to the number of new and untried systems incorporated into the design and, even more so, the jump from working out the bugs and into full production in such a short time. 

Finally, the B-32 was a Fort Worth aircraft, NOT San Diego. There was discussion about starting a second production line in San Diego, but that never came to fruition. 

There is so much to be told in the story of the B-32 that has never been touched upon that it is a bit difficult to know where to begin and where to end in an admittedly limited format such as this. I promise to keep everyone appraised of the progress on "Dominator - The Untold Story of the B-32" and will be glad to answer what questions I can about the aircraft itself.

Respectfully submitted,

Alan Griffith

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


----------

