# B-29 vs Me264



## KraziKanuK (Mar 1, 2005)

How would they stack up if the they had flown for the others AF?

Info on the me 264, http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/me264.html


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 1, 2005)

The Me-264 was far better IMO 8)


----------



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

very heavy though...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 1, 2005)

So is Andy Fordham but it didnt stop him becoming World Darts Champion...


----------



## reddragon (Mar 2, 2005)

It's an impressive little creature.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Mar 2, 2005)

I still like the B-29. Using the stated performance of the V3 at the bottom of the page the only real advantage the 264 had was in range plus a little slower landing speed. Mostly the greater range came from the 264 being a smaller aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 2, 2005)

well i'm saying it'd need a pretty damned good engine to get stats like that and there are no engine stats on there.........


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Mar 2, 2005)

Thats true!


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 2, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> well i'm saying it'd need a pretty damned good engine to get stats like that and there are no engine stats on there.........



You don't know anything about the BMW 801 engines?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2005)

lanc you know the 264 was actually built...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 3, 2005)

yes i know she was built, but did she ever get those stats on flight?? and know i don't know anything about the engine........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2005)

BMW 801's were great engines! How can you not know about them...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 3, 2005)

simple, like this.............




















yes, it really is that easy!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2005)

Fw-190A ring any bells?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 3, 2005)

indeed...........


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 3, 2005)

I don't see that it performed as well as the B-29 or that it had pressurization a requirement for trips up 45hrs. The B-29 often carried 16,000lb bomb load 6,000mi operationaly. For Germany at the time it was designed/built it was a great leap but it Did Not compare with the B-29, though a few years attention might have gotten it there.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 10, 2005)

The Me-264 could have been....
It was a pretty plane, technically. But it was the Boing which was build
in numbers (and deployed), so I would give all my credit to the B-29. 
Germany could hardly support mass production of a plane of such a size. Unprobable.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 10, 2005)

Exactly, quantity has a quality all it's own


----------



## delcyros (Mar 11, 2005)

That´s what I mean, Moskitoman! Some "could have been" but some
other DID HAPPEN.


----------



## Vahe Demirjian (Dec 30, 2019)

If the USAAF deployed P-59 Airacomets fresh out of the Bell factory in Niagara Falls, New York to an air base in Long Island to intercept a German intercontinental bomber and Me 264 were used against Manhattan, how vulnerable would the Me 264 have been to enemy interception at high altitudes (like, say 30,000 feet)? I mean, the B-29's advantage over the Me 264 was being able to fly at high altitudes over Japanese cities, given that the jet powered version of the Kyushu J7W Shinden and the Mizuno Type 2 rocket fighter might have flown high enough to thwart B-29 carpet-bombing raids on Japanese territory, but also bearing in mind the fact that the production Me 264 wouldn't have flown as high as the B-29 Superfortress.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 30, 2019)

??????? B-29 service ceiling 31,000 ish
Me 262 service ceiling 37,000 ish
Why do you make things up


----------



## Vahe Demirjian (Dec 30, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> ??????? B-29 service ceiling 31,000 ish
> Me 262 service ceiling 37,000 ish
> Why do you make things up


The B-29 never saw action over Europe in WW2 and only saw combat over Japan. If the B-29 had conducted air raids over Germany, it would faced fierce resistance from Me 262s and Me 163s.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 30, 2019)

Duh. The title of the thread is B-29 vs Me 262. You said the Me 262 couldn’t reach the B-29 altitude


----------



## Vahe Demirjian (Dec 30, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Duh. The title of the thread is B-29 vs Me 262. You said the Me 262 couldn’t reach the B-29 altitude


I never mentioned Me 262 in my posts on this thread, only mentioned Me 264. We all know that the Me 262 had the altitude to take out the B-29, but the Me 264 _Amerika Bomber_ could only fly at an altitude of 26,000 feet, meaning it was vulnerable to interception by American fighter planes, whether piston-powered or jet-powered.


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 30, 2019)

If the LW could have reached the point of operational Me-264s, and bombed NYC, the US would have quickly found a remedy. A string of radar equipped picket ships for early warning, a couple of squadrons of P-47Js / P-51Hs / suitable alternates configured for high altitude interception would probably do the trick. Launch a couple of flights for inbound intercept and a couple for outbound in the event the inbound guys miss. Plane(s) never return.

On the Europe side figure out where they are being built / launching from and kill them on the ground. Planes don’t get airborne.

Bottom line not a difficult exercise to overcome IMO.

Cheers,
Biff

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


----------



## pbehn (Dec 30, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> If the LW could have reached the point of operational Me-264s, and bombed NYC, the US would have quickly found a remedy. A string of radar equipped picket ships for early warning, a couple of squadrons of P-47Js / P-51Hs / suitable alternates configured for high altitude interception would probably do the trick. Launch a couple of flights for inbound intercept and a couple for outbound in the event the inbound guys miss. Plane(s) never return.
> 
> On the Europe side figure out where they are being built / launching from and kill them on the ground. Planes don’t get airborne.
> 
> ...


Any raid would have to come from France and the bay of Biscay was already picketed by anti Submarine aircraft. I cant see any way such a mission would be anything other than a one way propaganda exercise.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Dec 30, 2019)

Vahe Demirjian said:


> The B-29 never saw action over Europe in WW2 and only saw combat over Japan. If the B-29 had conducted air raids over Germany, it would faced fierce resistance from Me 262s and Me 163s.


On what fuel and do not forget our little friends. Me163 is nothing more then a rocket powered arrow. Very easy to evade. B-29 was not needed. Germany 1945 was nothing compared to the Korea era with good soviet jets, pilots, and fuel.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tkdog (Dec 30, 2019)

With the potential that the slow bomber fleet (cruising speed will not be very fast) being tracked across the Atlantic it’s dicey for sure. Long range interceptors from GB, Iceland, Greenland, and Canada followed by point defense in the US. Losses will be significant as even minor damage is a potentially a big deal that far from home.

a Doolittle level raid is potentially feasible. But is it worth the effort?

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


----------



## pbehn (Dec 30, 2019)

Tkdog said:


> With the potential that the slow bomber fleet (cruising speed will not be very fast) being tracked across the Atlantic it’s dicey for sure. Long range interceptors from GB, Iceland, Greenland, and Canada followed by point defense in the US. Losses will be significant as even minor damage is a potentially a big deal that far from home.
> 
> a Doolittle level raid is potentially feasible. But is it worth the effort?


The Doolittle raid had the advantage of surprise. There is no way an airfield with huge German bombers could be brought in to operation in France without being discovered or reported, it would have as much chance of survival as a submarine pen.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 30, 2019)

Not the first time I’ve been an idiot, carry on

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2019)

Vahe Demirjian said:


> The B-29 never saw action over Europe in WW2 and only saw combat over Japan. If the B-29 had conducted air raids over Germany, it would faced fierce resistance from Me 262s and Me 163s.



Would have, should have, could have. If the queen had balls she'd be the king!

The -163 was a joke - look at it's combat record.

If you want to speculate, if the war "would have" went on, the plan was to bring the B-32 to Europe to replace the B-17 and B-24. One would also have to speculate that all the operational issues with the 262"would have" been mitigated to the point that it "would have" been effective against the B-29 or any other heavy to be operated in late 1945.

BUT - let's speculate that a decision was made to bring the B-29 to Europe late 1945/ early 1946. Then the axis "would have" had to contend with the "B-29D" which eventually became the B-50; faster, greater range, heavier bomb load.

Let's not forget our British friends bringing the AVRO Lincoln to play as well!!!


Now let's speculate what allied fighters "would have" shown up, shall we?


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 30, 2019)

The direct military effects of the Doolittle Raid were negligible; a few dozen (non-nuclear) bombs dropped in the general vicinity of Tokyo couldn't have that. The Japanese military and populace lost any sense of the invulnerability of Japan, proper, and some of the Japanese (or at least the portion of the Japanese populace in the know) may have even started to worry that US and its allies would do to the Japanese people what the Japanese Army had been doing in China.

The direct military results of a German air raid on New York (or Boston) would have the same general level of insignificance, but the net result would be a) a lot of Americans really angry at the Germans, in the same way as the country was angry for Pearl Harbor and b) a transfer of effort from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Unless Germany can mount raids of a hundred or more aircraft every day -- or at least every week -- the net effect would be negligible.

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


----------



## pbehn (Dec 30, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> The direct military effects of the Doolittle Raid were negligible; a few dozen (non-nuclear) bombs dropped in the general vicinity of Tokyo couldn't have that. The Japanese military and populace lost any sense of the invulnerability of Japan, proper, and some of the Japanese (or at least the portion of the Japanese populace in the know) may have even started to worry that US and its allies would do to the Japanese people what the Japanese Army had been doing in China.
> 
> The direct military results of a German air raid on New York (or Boston) would have the same general level of insignificance, but the net result would be a) a lot of Americans really angry at the Germans, in the same way as the country was angry for Pearl Harbor and b) a transfer of effort from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Unless Germany can mount raids of a hundred or more aircraft every day -- or at least every week -- the net effect would be negligible.


I agree, and I cant see how any raid would succeed in surprise. How would a raider escape a P-38 or Mosquito NF type aircraft in a chase across the Atlantic?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 30, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Duh. The title of the thread is B-29 vs Me 262. You said the Me 262 couldn’t reach the B-29 altitude



Umm...

It’s B-29 vs. Me 264 (not 262), as in a comparison of the bombers.


----------



## cherry blossom (Dec 30, 2019)

I think that the Me 264 was underpowered. However, that could have been solved by fitting it with four Jumo 222 engines.


----------



## Graeme (Dec 30, 2019)

Vahe Demirjian said:


> how vulnerable would the Me 264 have been to enemy interception at high altitudes



Clearly Vahe, what is really needed here is the Horten Ho XVIII. A recent internet poll has proven it's immunity to allied fighters. Ditch the Me 264...

German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception

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


----------



## wuzak (Dec 30, 2019)

Vahe Demirjian said:


> If the USAAF deployed P-59 Airacomets fresh out of the Bell factory in Niagara Falls, New York to an air base in Long Island to intercept a German intercontinental bomber and Me 264 were used against Manhattan, how vulnerable would the Me 264 have been to enemy interception at high altitudes (like, say 30,000 feet)? I mean, the B-29's advantage over the Me 264 was being able to fly at high altitudes over Japanese cities, given that the jet powered version of the Kyushu J7W Shinden and the Mizuno Type 2 rocket fighter might have flown high enough to thwart B-29 carpet-bombing raids on Japanese territory, but also bearing in mind the fact that the production Me 264 wouldn't have flown as high as the B-29 Superfortress.



Don't think jet fighters were necessary, nor that the P-59 was up to the task.

A P-51B had longer range, higher top speed and faster climb to 30,000ft.

And was available in numbers.

A Me 264 raid on the US would have suffered from a lack of fuel. Jet aircraft, such as the Me 262, could use less refined fuels, but the piston engines required high octane fuels. Such was the problem that a proposal was to use steam turbines running on a 65/35 mix of pulverised coal and petrol, reverting to 100% petrol when the supply was sufficient.

A raid on the US would have been with a small bomb load - maybe as little as 250kg per aircraft. Not worth the effort in terms of manpower and resources. 

The problem for Me 264 production was Allied bombing of production facilities, as well as petrol refineries and the transportation of materials.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 30, 2019)

cherry blossom said:


> I think that the Me 264 was underpowered. However, that could have been solved by fitting it with four Jumo 222 engines.



It was originally designed for four 1,750hp DB 603s, but ended up with Jumo 211s of 1,250hp and then BMW 801s. 

Jumo 222s in production and reliable would have done wonders, but I don't think there was such a thing.

Another possibility was the use of DB 610 couple engines. These got a bad rap in the He 177, but seemed to be a bit better in other types. Also a quick way to get 3,000hp per prop.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 30, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Jumo 222s in production and reliable would have done wonders, but I don't think there was such a thing.



To me the fact that the Germans are supposed to have built around 280 Jumo 222 engines and yet the number of airframes that flew with them can be counted on one hand (with a finger or two left over?) says volumes about the reliability of the Jumo 222 engine, especially given the German proclivity of of building small batches of all sorts of weaponry to use up bits and pieces.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 30, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Now let's speculate what allied fighters "would have" shown up, shall we?


That late in the war?

Can we say P-51H, anyone?

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


----------



## wuzak (Dec 31, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> That late in the war?
> 
> Can we say P-51H, anyone?



Maybe even the P-80A.


----------



## Graeme (Dec 31, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> That late in the war?
> 
> Can we say P-51H, anyone?



Or just shoot'em down with our newly developed surface-to-air missiles.
It is a an alternate history scenario after all...


----------



## Conslaw (Dec 31, 2019)

The failure of any other nation, Allied or Axis, to produce a plane on the par of the B-29 shows how superlative it was. The B-29 was a triumph of engineering, persistence and money. It was an advanced design, but that wasn't enough to get the plane into service in time to be useful. The US government threw huge sums of money at the project to build multiple giant factories and the infrastructure to support them. They essentially froze the design at the point where the plane could fly from the factories, then they sent the "finished" planes to Kansas to be truly finished in "The Battle of Kansas". In a way, that was hugely inefficient, doing a lot of work outside the assembly line context; but on the other hand, eliminating avoidable change orders enabled the assembly lines to keep going. When it came time to deploy the planes, the USAAF had to deploy massive resources to send the planes more than halfway around the world for deployment in China, to be supplied by air "over the hump" from India. They had to use manual labor to build massive airdromes in China, only to abandon them soon afterward when missions from China yielded disappointing results and massive new bases in the Marianas became available.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Dec 31, 2019)

That late in the war, a carrier in the Mid Atlantic equipped with Bearcats (maybe Tigercats?) would be a nasty surprise to slow moving bombers trying to transit to the US as well.


----------



## NICKVB (Jan 2, 2020)

High wing load on the Me-264 (as seen when testing the V1) carried a host of problems in performance and handling abilities. This is the reason the Luftwaffe preferred the Ju-290. The Me-264 sahould have been refesigned, which in 43 was already a non-starter and led to the cancellation in 44. The engines were great, being the 801Gs, and the range (as reported by sonderkommando Nebel) was indeed over 9'000 miles.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 2, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Umm...
> 
> It’s B-29 vs. Me 264 (not 262), as in a comparison of the bombers.



Shh...

Do.Not.Feed.The.Troll...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 2, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> Shh...
> 
> Do.Not.Feed.The.Troll...



He is not a troll, and he admitted mistake...


----------



## cherry blossom (Jan 2, 2020)

NICKVB said:


> High wing load on the Me-264 (as seen when testing the V1) carried a host of problems in performance and handling abilities. This is the reason the Luftwaffe preferred the Ju-290. The Me-264 sahould have been refesigned, which in 43 was already a non-starter and led to the cancellation in 44. The engines were great, being the 801Gs, and the range (as reported by sonderkommando Nebel) was indeed over 9'000 miles.


If we just look at the empty weights, the Me 264 has a lower wing loading than the B-29. The high wing loading arises because the Me 264 had tanks large enough to carry a proportionally larger quantity of fuel. Landing the Me 264 shouldn't necessarily have been any harder than landing a B-29. The problem was take off, which is why I suggested using the most powerful engines available to limit the runway length necessary.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 2, 2020)

With RATO the Me 264 took approximately 1,600m to take off, without RATO it was 2,400m.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 2, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> He is not a troll, and he admitted mistake...


Geo was accused of being a troll in another thread, so we're having a little fun (as usual).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2020)

Ah ok


----------



## Hairog (Jan 3, 2020)

To follow up on Conslaws comments...

The B-29 was the costliest, US weapons system in WWII. I would argue that the bomber was rarely used as designed until Korea. The first few high-level bombing raids yielded terrible results. Japan had a fairly consistent, what we now call, jet stream. It dissipated the bombs dropped from above 30,000 and the bombsights could not account for it. Thus no effective bombing campaign could be conducted at over 30,000 feet.

When LeMay replaced Hansel he quickly realized this and switched from bombing factories and facilities to terror bombing, eventually killing over a million civilians. The Japanese were defenseless against these firebomb attacks. Many were flown at 7,000 ft.

Most of the B-29 were flying below 10,000 feet. The very expensive pressurized system was not used. The very expensive remote-controlled fire-control system not used either as LeMay had them removed to increase the bomb load. The way the Super Fortress was used, made a farce of all it's innovations and it was incredibly costly.

I want to make it clear that I am not denigrating the incredible feat of creating and building these aircraft. Circumstances just negated many of the incredible advances when the bomber was used over Japan.

Interesting to note, my research for the World War Three 1946 book series, has led me to believe that Moscow and the area of the Soviet Secret Cities and manufacturing centers in the Urals also had long periods of a strong jet stream that would have been a challenge in any conventional bombing campaign.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 3, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Ah ok


Post #349 is where it all began nd you know we're going to get some mileage out of it 

F4U Corsair vs P-51 Mustang

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

