GregP
Major
The R-3350 nightmare had the lowest aggregate loss rate of any heavy bomber in WWII, slightly less than the loss rate of Mosquito bombers.
Perhaps it wasn't such a nightmare after all.
Perhaps it wasn't such a nightmare after all.
A 'big bomber' with six engines - worth the effort?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GregP
Major
Won the war in the Pacific. Not so late or short.
Just the best.
Just the best.
Read some of the comments at the bottom of this page, they are rather interesting.
The B-36 used 4360s not 3350s
Convair B-36 - bomber
The B-36 used 4360s not 3350s
Convair B-36 - bomber
GregP
Major
Yah, the 4360 was and IS not exactly easy to work on or tune. The mission ready rate for the B-36 wouldn't exactly set any records except maybe for worst mission rate. The Reno races cement that. They run great right up until they grenade and eat their own insides. ... of course, the R-3350's have a pretty good record for that, too, very probably because they run more of them than R-4360's.
If you run the R-4360 OR the R-3350 today at rated power, it's fine, but a bit maintenance intensive and a real gas-guzzler. If you hot-rod it, pad your bank account; you'll need it. Hire people who can do sheet Aluminum work. Your aircraft will need them, too.
If you run the R-4360 OR the R-3350 today at rated power, it's fine, but a bit maintenance intensive and a real gas-guzzler. If you hot-rod it, pad your bank account; you'll need it. Hire people who can do sheet Aluminum work. Your aircraft will need them, too.
parsifal
Colonel
Doesnt the ANT-20 fit this bill. The USSR only built two such aircraft. Both were technological marvels for their time, and quite capable aircraft, and yet, totally impractical
Shortround6
Major General
The ANT-20 rather shows what is going on.
You don't really start the design process by saying "let's build a six engine bomber"and see what you get.
You start by saying "let's build a bomber that carries XXX amount of bombs YYY distance at ZZZspeed"* and from there you figure you will need QQQ horsepower. Then you figure out how to get QQQ horsepower from available or shortly to be available (in the next few years) engines. Then you figure out the problems with different engine layouts, drag, structural considerations ( #3 engine on each wing being way out on the wing or hanging onto the wing behind the flaps or mounted between the spars and using extension shafts or???). And you look at take-off power, max continuous, power at altitude and fuel economy.
*defensive armament, field length and other considerations enter into it.
Using six 1200hp engines just to use six engines when you have 1600-1800hp engines available doesn't make much sense.
ANT-20 started with 8 engines when they figured 6 of the existing engines wouldn't be enough and went back to 6 on the ANT-20Bis when more powerful engines were available.
Aircraft tend to increase in weight, cost and complexity with the cube of their size. Stretch a wing by 10% AND scale everything else to match and you are looking at around a 33% increase in aircraft structure weight, cost and so on, granted it won't be quite that bad because you probably won't increase the height and width of the fuselage by a full 10% but you get the idea.
You don't really start the design process by saying "let's build a six engine bomber"and see what you get.
You start by saying "let's build a bomber that carries XXX amount of bombs YYY distance at ZZZspeed"* and from there you figure you will need QQQ horsepower. Then you figure out how to get QQQ horsepower from available or shortly to be available (in the next few years) engines. Then you figure out the problems with different engine layouts, drag, structural considerations ( #3 engine on each wing being way out on the wing or hanging onto the wing behind the flaps or mounted between the spars and using extension shafts or???). And you look at take-off power, max continuous, power at altitude and fuel economy.
*defensive armament, field length and other considerations enter into it.
Using six 1200hp engines just to use six engines when you have 1600-1800hp engines available doesn't make much sense.
ANT-20 started with 8 engines when they figured 6 of the existing engines wouldn't be enough and went back to 6 on the ANT-20Bis when more powerful engines were available.
Aircraft tend to increase in weight, cost and complexity with the cube of their size. Stretch a wing by 10% AND scale everything else to match and you are looking at around a 33% increase in aircraft structure weight, cost and so on, granted it won't be quite that bad because you probably won't increase the height and width of the fuselage by a full 10% but you get the idea.
Maybe on planet Rancho Cucamonga
GregP
Major
Nope, in USA, Earth. Perhaps you can explain your dislike of the B-29 publically in here instead of being sarcastic.
It has the lowest loss rate of any of the 3 US heavy bombers by far, lowest in fact in the entire Allied world. It has the longest range and is the fastest over target with the biggest payload, averaging more than twice the payload of either the B-17 or B-24. It's devastating attacks with bombs, firebombs, and nuclear bombs laid waste to entire cities, and not just the nuclear attacks. The Tokyo firebomb attack created about as much destruction without the radiation. It suffered comparatively few combat losses. It remained in service a LONG time and spawned many post-war aircraft, from airliners to tankers.
What's not to like? The engine troubles, for all they're cried about by certain people, didn't prevent it from having a lower loss rate the either the B-17 or B-24 ... or any British heavy. People in here almost worship the Mosquito, and the B-29's loss rate is a tiny bit better than the bomber version of the mighty Mossie, though not so low as the fighter versions of the Mossie. Of course, no one would ever accuse the B-29 of competing with a fighter anyway.
So, is there any particular reason you dislike it or maybe just prefer another heavy to it?
It has the lowest loss rate of any of the 3 US heavy bombers by far, lowest in fact in the entire Allied world. It has the longest range and is the fastest over target with the biggest payload, averaging more than twice the payload of either the B-17 or B-24. It's devastating attacks with bombs, firebombs, and nuclear bombs laid waste to entire cities, and not just the nuclear attacks. The Tokyo firebomb attack created about as much destruction without the radiation. It suffered comparatively few combat losses. It remained in service a LONG time and spawned many post-war aircraft, from airliners to tankers.
What's not to like? The engine troubles, for all they're cried about by certain people, didn't prevent it from having a lower loss rate the either the B-17 or B-24 ... or any British heavy. People in here almost worship the Mosquito, and the B-29's loss rate is a tiny bit better than the bomber version of the mighty Mossie, though not so low as the fighter versions of the Mossie. Of course, no one would ever accuse the B-29 of competing with a fighter anyway.
So, is there any particular reason you dislike it or maybe just prefer another heavy to it?
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #30
The war in pacific, if we are just to list aircraft, was won by cumulative effort of F4Fs, P-38/39/40/47/51s, F6Fs, F4Us, SBDs, Spitfires, Hurricanes, Beaufighters, A-20s, B-17/24/29 etc. Singling out the B-29 is doing the injustice to other contributors.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I am sure there are vets who would be glad to hear their efforts were a waste because it was the B29 what won the war in the Pacific.
I speak as someone who will argue till the cows come home that the B29 is one of the top 10 bombers of all time.
KiwiBiggles
Senior Airman
Pumping the B-29 as the greatest bomber on the basis of its low-level bombing over Japan is exactly the same specious argument that pumps the F6F as the greatest fighter on the basis of its reported kill ratio. Neither would have had anything like the same survivability against Germany in 1944.
The B-29 did very well in its sphere of operations, but at 25,000 ft over Germany it would have got knocked down by flak at pretty much the same rate as B-17s and B-24s. Going higher (as it could) would have wrecked any bombing accuracy. Coming in at low level as they did over Tokyo etc would have been suicide. And I suspect that the day-in-day-out nature of 8thAAF operations would have been very difficult to maintain with the B-29
The B-29 did very well in its sphere of operations, but at 25,000 ft over Germany it would have got knocked down by flak at pretty much the same rate as B-17s and B-24s. Going higher (as it could) would have wrecked any bombing accuracy. Coming in at low level as they did over Tokyo etc would have been suicide. And I suspect that the day-in-day-out nature of 8thAAF operations would have been very difficult to maintain with the B-29
GregP
Major
I never insulted the vets at all.
Get real and don't try to put words in my mouth that I didn't say. If you want to insult vets, go ahead, but don't accuse me of it.
I are one.
I think the B-29 was the best heavy bomber of the war and cause critical damage to Japan near the end of the conflict way beyond any damage caused by any other Allied bombers in the mid-1944 - 1945 timeframe. The fact that it was the best near the end of the conflict says NOTHING whatsoever about the people and equipment that performed badly needed missions before that time. The P-51 Mustang is way better than the P-40, but it did not undo the yeoman work done by the P-40 both before and after the P-51 was introduced. The P-40 was still hitting back when the war ended.
When VE day happened and we started the transition to move men and material into the Pacific to concentrate there, the B-29 was the star of the bombardment campaign once it was there in sufficient numbers to make regular missions. All military equipment gets outdated or improved upon sooner or later.
If you feel differently, by all means present your case for the best heavy bombers of the PTO after VE day. Prior to that time we were fighting a sort of holding action with the best equipment going to the ETO while the PTO was given what was left to continue with.
We certainly don't all have the think alike, and your opinion is as valid as any, just like mine is. It's the way I feel, not the way you feel. I don't think that someone who disagrees is wrong ... they just feel differently about the subject than I do. I can't think of another bomber that did as well as the B-29 myself, but will gladly read your reasons for thinking otherwise.
I may have missed reading about the events you read about. Tell me about the better heavy in the PTO after VE day.
And if we hadn't used the B-29's for the atomic bombs, then the actual invasion of Japan may have well lasted another year or more and may have caused tremendous loss of life that was averted by the use of the B-29. Notice I have not said I agree with the use of the Atomic bomb; I said it had the effect of rendering the invasion of Japan unnecessary which, almost by definition, won the war and caused the surrender within days.
Perhaps I missed that one and there were other reasons why they surrendered? Surely the biggest cumulative damage was caused by the US Navy, especially the submarine force, but something tripped the decision to surrender.
Get real and don't try to put words in my mouth that I didn't say. If you want to insult vets, go ahead, but don't accuse me of it.
I are one.
I think the B-29 was the best heavy bomber of the war and cause critical damage to Japan near the end of the conflict way beyond any damage caused by any other Allied bombers in the mid-1944 - 1945 timeframe. The fact that it was the best near the end of the conflict says NOTHING whatsoever about the people and equipment that performed badly needed missions before that time. The P-51 Mustang is way better than the P-40, but it did not undo the yeoman work done by the P-40 both before and after the P-51 was introduced. The P-40 was still hitting back when the war ended.
When VE day happened and we started the transition to move men and material into the Pacific to concentrate there, the B-29 was the star of the bombardment campaign once it was there in sufficient numbers to make regular missions. All military equipment gets outdated or improved upon sooner or later.
If you feel differently, by all means present your case for the best heavy bombers of the PTO after VE day. Prior to that time we were fighting a sort of holding action with the best equipment going to the ETO while the PTO was given what was left to continue with.
We certainly don't all have the think alike, and your opinion is as valid as any, just like mine is. It's the way I feel, not the way you feel. I don't think that someone who disagrees is wrong ... they just feel differently about the subject than I do. I can't think of another bomber that did as well as the B-29 myself, but will gladly read your reasons for thinking otherwise.
I may have missed reading about the events you read about. Tell me about the better heavy in the PTO after VE day.
And if we hadn't used the B-29's for the atomic bombs, then the actual invasion of Japan may have well lasted another year or more and may have caused tremendous loss of life that was averted by the use of the B-29. Notice I have not said I agree with the use of the Atomic bomb; I said it had the effect of rendering the invasion of Japan unnecessary which, almost by definition, won the war and caused the surrender within days.
Perhaps I missed that one and there were other reasons why they surrendered? Surely the biggest cumulative damage was caused by the US Navy, especially the submarine force, but something tripped the decision to surrender.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
Hi Kiwi,
The B-29 wasn't deployed to the ETO, so that is pure speculation. The fact that some "what if" might happen doesn't change the real-world mission performance of the B-29. It did what it did, just like every other aircraft and weapon used in the war. Nobody remembers who could have won the fight or the big game if only some lucky break happened, they remember who really did win it.
The B-29 wasn't deployed to the ETO, so that is pure speculation. The fact that some "what if" might happen doesn't change the real-world mission performance of the B-29. It did what it did, just like every other aircraft and weapon used in the war. Nobody remembers who could have won the fight or the big game if only some lucky break happened, they remember who really did win it.
KiwiBiggles
Senior Airman
Actually, during development of the Bomb, serious consideration was given to using the Lancaster as the delivery truck. It was politically extremely unpopular, but if the B-29 had been six months or so longer in teething, it might well have happened.
GregP
Major
The Lancaster was a VERY worthy contender. I personally think it the best heavy bomber in the ETO. Almost unbelievable considering it's gestation from the Manchester, but a good one for sure. It certainly performed when required. Nobody remembers it for Pacific action ... it is the immortal ETO British bomber. I happen to like the Halifax almost as well, but the Lanc WAS the better of the two in several parameters.
Maybe that's why they called the Lancaster, Halifax, Stirling, B-17, and B-24 heavy bombers and the B-29 a superheavy bomber in US terms.
In practice the B-29 could outhaul the Lancaster, but when the PTO typical mission range was thrown in, the real bomb loads were only slightly in favor of the B-29 due to the fuel required for the much longer missions involved for the B-29's.
I wish we had a an airworthy Lancaster AND a Halifax flying around the USA, but the Canadian Lanc doesn't come South too often and I'm unaware of any airworthy Halifaxes. We only have ONE airworthy B-29 at present, but that may bump by one soon. Perhaps a Lanc or Halifax might be in the cards sometime.
Hell, I'd like to see a Whitley fly ...
Maybe that's why they called the Lancaster, Halifax, Stirling, B-17, and B-24 heavy bombers and the B-29 a superheavy bomber in US terms.
In practice the B-29 could outhaul the Lancaster, but when the PTO typical mission range was thrown in, the real bomb loads were only slightly in favor of the B-29 due to the fuel required for the much longer missions involved for the B-29's.
I wish we had a an airworthy Lancaster AND a Halifax flying around the USA, but the Canadian Lanc doesn't come South too often and I'm unaware of any airworthy Halifaxes. We only have ONE airworthy B-29 at present, but that may bump by one soon. Perhaps a Lanc or Halifax might be in the cards sometime.
Hell, I'd like to see a Whitley fly ...
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
That was due to the shape of the Thin Man bomb, which was long and skinny. The Lancaster could take the bomb no problems as it was shorter than a tallboy and similar maximum diameter.
To carry Thin Man in a B-29 would require more extensive modifications than were eventually required for Fat Man and Little Boy.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The Lancaster was mentioned by Manhattan Project personnel but I don't think that was ever a serious consideration, that's one reason why there was so much emphasis to make the B-29 program successful. A single piloted tail dragger without pressurization and a service ceiling of 21,000 feet carrying the first atomic bomb was a recipe for disaster - and that's not taking anything away from it's ETO combat record.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Had the B-29 been deployed in numbers to Europe it "could have" bombed at altitude and accuracy would not have mattered because of the increased bomb load and lack of the jet stream over Europe. Comparing hypothetical B-29 missions over Europe to PTO missions, the Euopean mission would have been milk runs. Just getting to Japan was dangerous in itself.
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
Considering the dispersion from dropping the A-bomb at 30000 feet was about 1.5 miles, even dropping the max 9000kg payload is going to spill out everywhere, its going to make the British night bombing look accurate in comparison.
