A 'big bomber' with six engines - worth the effort?

The B-29 could certainly have been improved and it was covered a ways back. The R-3350 was developed and ran very early. Then it languished for 5+ years while they developed the R-2600. If the main customer had asked Wright to concentrate on the development of the R-3550, it would have been ready 5 years sooner, with the attendant benefits of a more mature engine sooner. But that is a what-if and has no bearing on what happened.

You couldn't just hang 6 R-2800's on it without considerable redesign, probably more span, probably requiring more tail and possibly more length. That would waste enormous effort and resources, all for nothing. The B-17 and B-24 were doing the job we needed done and the development of the B-29 was pretty much tied to the development of the R-3350 or other suitable large piston engine ... not the R-2800.

You could certainly develop an alternate aircraft around 6 R-2800's, but doing it with the B-29 would be a waste of effort.

Just my opinion. Apparently Boeing thought the same as they never pursued the concept. In fact. nobody pursued the concept, not even the USAAF.

They DID try the V-3420 and I believe they should have gone that way when the R-3350 proved to need development. It was feasible, would not have resulted in any redesign that was major in any way, and could easily have been switched back over should the R-3350's ills be cured sooner, if so desired. The V-3420 variant also had better performance than the R-3350 counterpart.

GregP said:

They DID try the V-3420 and I believe they should have gone that way when the R-3350 proved to need development. It was feasible, would note have resulted in any redesign that was major in any way, and could easily have been switched back over should the R-3350's ills be cured sooner, if so desired. The V-3420 variant also had better performance than the R-3350 counterpart.

Click to expand...

There we go, that wasn't so hard, was it?
I agree that this could be an interesting alternative path to explore.
I have to wonder about Allison's ability to make it happen.
If enough priority were given early on, do you think a large infusion of money (primarily for hiring additional engineering staff) would enable Allison to meet this demand w/o sacrificing what they were already working on?

Allison developed the V-3420 early and the Air Corps (at the time) elected to not pursue it past the development of a small production run of engines. It could have been resurrected at almost any time since the engines were stock and the only really new parts were a single nose / gear case for two engines and the associated shafts and gears ... nothing "high risk" at all, and no "powerplant" parts were needed ... just cases and gears.

The V-3420 ran quite well and still does. Joe Yancey has two ready for overhaul if anyone wants to pursue it.

Is not the reason for six-engines to carry larger bomb loads farther?

The B-36 really, although it was a pusher aircraft, should answer all question about why or why not.

Although the latter ones had jets, which changes the scenario a bit, the B-36 could be flown, at altitude with piston engines feathered and just jets burning.
It would have been flying sooner than it did but the military refused to allocate the men and resources necessary for a couple of years.

We should probably be glad that Hitler was the putz he was as the German probably could have had something similar flying except for Hitler's moronics.

There are three questions and streams of thought arising here IMO. The first is the technological question, was it possible to built a 6 or 8 engined aircraft using 30's and early 40s technologies. Answer has to be yes, given the ANT-20 and various other technical design excercises.

The second issue is cost effectiveness. Was it efficient or cost effective to use 6 or 8 engines to build an aircraft as a bomber. Given that nobody really pursued this until the B-36, and even that was only a qualified success, the answer is probably not cost efficient.

The third is related to both of the above, but really raises the issue of the heavy bomber as a concept in general. Was the heavy bomber, hauling huge amounts of ordinance and dropping it on enemy cities and infrastructure efficient, and would having bigger and heavier aircraft make it even more deadly, or more useless as a form of warfare, depending on your point of view.

My opinion is that strategic bombing was well worth the effort. The collateral damage issue aside, for the british, they spent something like 12% of their defence budget on the bombing campaign, and I expect the US effort was something similar. To combat this, the Germans utilsed something like 45% of their military budgets on air defence, be it aircraft, flak, detection, or infrastructure. Their efforts appear to have been inadequate. Estimates do vary, to the point of their being sharp debate on the issue, but i prefer to believe the USSBS opinion that estimates about 40% of German production was lost as a result of bombing. this estimate is backed up by the germans own projection figures versus what they actually delivered. I expect Japan was in a similar predicament.

Strategic bombing is often labelled a failure, because it failed to achieve its stated aims. This is true, but the problem was not in the effectiveness of bombing, but in the unrealistic edxpectations in the prewar period, rather than the outright effectiveness of bombing. bombing was expected to end the need for land campaigns and force nations to the surrender table on their own. it was unable to deliver on that. it was expected to achieve that by the devastation of a nations war making potential. It did that. What could not be anticipated was the irrational behavioour of the Axis. Despite being confronted with the clear mechanisms of defeat as a result of the air campaign, they chose instead to doggedly fight it out to the end. Its hard to defeat insanity with rational argument.

parsifal said:

Despite being confronted with the clear mechanisms of defeat as a result of the air campaign, they chose instead to doggedly fight it out to the end. Its hard to defeat insanity with rational argument.

Click to expand...

There is no second place winner in a war; if one is not going to doggedly fight to the bitter end, then the one had best not go to war at all.

Pretty decent points for both Parsifal and BobR.

In Hitler's shoes, given that you are in late 1943 / early 1944, what course of action would YOU pursue?

Maybe a subject for another thread?

Fighting a war even though you know you are going to lose is a distinctly modern concept. Before Napoleon, countries would fight a war until one side or the other had an advantage. Certain concessions would usually be given to the victor, and then everyone would go home. it was war in the age of reason. Then along came a man called napoleon bonaparte. One of the things he did was to make warfare more brutal, total. If an army was defeated in the field, napoleon would, if he could, pusue that army to attempt its total destruction. That had not been something practised in the modern age before. The wars of the early 20th century were logical extensions of that concept of total war....war fought to the point of national (and human) destruction.

after the war, the threat of mutually assured destruction, meant that limited wars, wars withy a defined purpose, and limited resources and objectives returned to the table. Wars were fought within the constrictions of a limited sandbox, and with limited resources, to avoid dangerous escalation of conflict. So rationality is not something beyond us in the modern age. Our nations just choose not to acknowledge the role of rational thinking in war. nowhere was that more apparent than in the way the the Fascists Nazis and Militarists of the Axis decided to fight their wars to the bitter end, for no particular purpose other than to make their defeat more costly and time consuming.

GregP said:

Pretty decent points for both Parsifal and BobR.

In Hitler's shoes, given that you are in late 1943 / early 1944, what course of action would YOU pursue?

Maybe a subject for another thread?

Click to expand...

Hitler fought his war on the basis of it being a total war, and further, as he began to lose, his grip on reality slipped. If i was Hitler, i would have to assume I am insane and therfore, any process of logic or rationality dont apply.

if i was not insane, I would not be hitler, and if i was not hitler, I would probably not be at war.. if i was at war, it would be for different reasons than those hit upon by hitler. but, putting all those aside, say i was at war, but not insane, and faced with defeat, I would start to prepare for "defeat management".

I would start to seek terms for rapprochement with my enemies, atarting with the Russians. i would establish the terms for my country's survival, and try and retain the territorial integrity of Germany if at all possible. the allied resolve for unconditional surrender in 1942 was not nearly as strong as it was in 1944.

I would not fight a war where I planned to destroy my own country for not giving me the victory i demanded.

parsifal said:

Fighting a war even though you know you are going to lose is a distinctly modern concept. Before Napoleon, countries would fight a war until one side or the other had an advantage. Certain concessions would usually be given to the victor, and then everyone would go home. it was war in the age of reason.

Click to expand...

You are rationalizing based on how the war ended.

There is no proof of your statement of before Napoleon when before Napoleon many victors butchered the survivors of the defeated.

No one has ever fought a war, which would mean start, they knew they were going to lose.

i dont think Hitler knew from the start that he was going to lose, but there is quite a bit of evidence that by 1942 he had a fair idea that he could not win. Halders diary has several entries that point to this during his visit to the front in the East in 1942. Certainly by the conclusion of Stalingrad, he had to have known that the war was lost. hitler was no fool, but he was, or became, deluded by the end.

Warfare in the periods before the age of reason could at times be brutal, but warfare after the 30 years war, which occurred in the early part of the 17th century, did change to the formn I have described. its well documented if you look. Its also pretty well documented that this cosy concept of limited war, developed in the age of reason, was blown out of the water by Napoleon, and this carried forward into the first half of the 20th century. I will dig around and see if I can find some of the old textbooks that I have to demonstrate this for you. There may even be some sources on line. its more or less part of the classic theories of warfare.

as to people starting wars they knew they would lose, well, in a blunt sense that its probably correct, but there are pleanty of examples of people starting wars they knew they could not actually win. Many japanese, including Yammamoto knew that Japan could not defeat the US outright, for example. There was one instance in the wars against native Americans, where a tribe with 12 warriors went to war knowing there were at least 2000 US soldiers ranged against them. people in desperate situations can do strnge and destructive things. Corner a rabid dog, and it will try and bite you, regardless of the cost.

Edit

This book might give you a bit of a start in understanding the origins of total war in the modern sense, rather than mixing it all up with the concepts of war in the medieval sense and earlier. These earlier modes of warfare, incidentally, dont actually fit the definitions that apply to total war

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/269717.The_First_Total_War

FLYBOYJ said:

I'll call BS on that - despite it's teething problems it was the most advanced bomber of WW2, was the first nuclear deterrent after WW2 and into the early cold war, and carried on into Korea. It got the job done and saw service until the 1960s, while fielding about a 10% combat loss rate in both WW2 and Korea, so please tell me why was it a failure and if it was such a failure why did the RAF operate it until the Canberra and later "V" bombers came along?

I think you have a very simplistic view on why a large aircraft carrying large numbers of bombs are necessary - there have been many applications where a large 4 engine bombers were necessary and fulfilled a requirement in the post war years; aside from Korea and Vietnam you had Lincolns in Malaya and Kenya and Vulcans over the Falklands, I know there were more.

Click to expand...

The cost basically and the fact that it failed at its designed task.

From memory the development cost was comparable to the Manhatten Project. That's a heck of a lot of dough (and the associated people, skills and resources) to throw at a plane that was unsuccessful at first until tactics were changed to having it drop incendiaries at low level, which anything could have have done. B-24s were perfectly capable of that task at a fraction of the cost.

As for carrying nukes, not so sure that was such a good idea. And against Japan there was no need for Tallboys (etc) and they were never used by the USAAF against Japan. There were no targets to use such a bomb against.

So I'll stand by my opinion, a very expensive failure (sadly followed by even more expensive failures). As for Korea they lost a lot there and what actually did it achieve? Nothing basically, they bombed the heck out of the North Korean cities (the USAF does Bomber Command) and it made zero difference in actual fighting capability of their army (and the Chinese). I'd argue that Australian Mustangs made a much greater contribution to that war.

Just part of the 'bomber mania' that the USAAF (and the later USAF) has had for ages, huge resources poured into aircraft of (at best) marginal utility. The ultimate such nonsense being the B-2 (which I see as the successor of the B-29 as yet another expensive failure). And, amazingly, the USAF wants to develop yet another bomber, which I find amazing as it moves to an all bomber and zero fighter and zero CAS fleet.

The F-35 is really just a successor to the F-117, by no stretch of imagination is it a fighter. Remember the design spec is 'Joint Strike Fighter', ie a light bomber, to be supported by huge amounts of F-22s gaining air superiority to let it through. With the death (and disappointment) of the F-22 it has been relabeled as a 'fighter', which is was never designed to be (and doesn't even meet the early, rather poor performance specs anyway).

OldSkeptic said:

The cost basically and the fact that it failed at its designed task.

From memory the development cost was comparable to the Manhatten Project. That's a heck of a lot of dough (and the associated people, skills and resources) to throw at a plane that was unsuccessful at first until tactics were changed to having it drop incendiaries at low level, which anything could have have done. B-24s were perfectly capable of that task at a fraction of the cost.

As for carrying nukes, not so sure that was such a good idea. And against Japan there was no need for Tallboys (etc) and they were never used by the USAAF against Japan. There were no targets to use such a bomb against.

So I'll stand by my opinion, a very expensive failure (sadly followed by even more expensive failures). As for Korea they lost a lot there and what actually did it achieve? Nothing basically, they bombed the heck out of the North Korean cities (the USAF does Bomber Command) and it made zero difference in actual fighting capability of their army (and the Chinese). I'd argue that Australian Mustangs made a much greater contribution to that war.

Click to expand...

From the other thread discussing this...

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/b-29-reset-40518-8.html#post1122503

OldSkeptic said:

As for Korea they lost a lot there and what actually did it achieve? Nothing basically, they bombed the heck out of the North Korean cities (the USAF does Bomber Command) and it made zero difference in actual fighting capability of their army (and the Chinese). I'd argue that Australian Mustangs made a much greater contribution to that war.

Click to expand...

If you want to talk a few individual CAS missions, I'll agree but for the most part total and utter nonsense!

"B-29s flew 1,076 days during the 1,106-day air war in Korea, dropping 160,000 tons of bombs on Communist targets–a greater bomb tonnage than had been dropped on Japan during World War II. Regardless of the many obstacles they faced, B-29 crews performed brilliantly, destroying industrial and military strategic targets in North Korea and supporting U.N. ground troops."

http://www.historynet.com/korean-war-the-boeing-b-29-superfortress-served-throughout-the-air-war.htm

OldSkeptic said:

Just part of the 'bomber mania' that the USAAF (and the later USAF) has had for ages, huge resources poured into aircraft of (at best) marginal utility. The ultimate such nonsense being the B-2 (which I see as the successor of the B-29 as yet another expensive failure). And, amazingly, the USAF wants to develop yet another bomber, which I find amazing as it moves to an all bomber and zero fighter and zero CAS fleet.

Click to expand...

There's only a small number of B-2 being operated and it's combat record is flawless. Right now it's only issue is its FMC rates and that's a whole other story.

OldSkeptic said:

The F-35 is really just a successor to the F-117, by no stretch of imagination is it a fighter.

Click to expand...

It also replaces the A-10 and F-16

OldSkeptic said:

Remember the design spec is 'Joint Strike Fighter', ie a light bomber, to be supported by huge amounts of F-22s gaining air superiority to let it through. With the death (and disappointment) of the F-22 it has been relabeled as a 'fighter', which is was never designed to be (and doesn't even meet the early, rather poor performance specs anyway).

Click to expand...

"Bomber Mania? It must have been pretty contagious because in the post war years the UK, USSR and even Australia caught it too!



Death and disappointment? Describe "huge"? The F-22 was cut by 50 or so aircraft, the tooling is still available should the line ever need to be re-opened. The only thing disappointing about the F-22 is it's FMC rates and like the B-2 that's another story for discussion. Until you could show me a shooting war where both B-2 and F-22 failed, you just have your opinions...

But that's for another thread...

FMC rates ? google isnt giving me anything what does it mean please

fastmongrel said:

FMC rates ? google isnt giving me anything what does it mean please

Click to expand...

Fully Mission Capable

OldSkeptic said:

The cost basically and the fact that it failed at its designed task.

Click to expand...

Wrong...the B-29 was a technological advancement in heavy, long range bombers. The B-29 performed a multitude of roles over quite a period of time (over 20 years), proving it's worth. There's even several airframes still in use today, as transports, 70 years later.

OldSkeptic said:

From memory the development cost was comparable to the Manhatten Project. That's a heck of a lot of dough (and the associated people, skills and resources) to throw at a plane that was unsuccessful at first until tactics were changed to having it drop incendiaries at low level, which anything could have have done. B-24s were perfectly capable of that task at a fraction of the cost.

Click to expand...

Any system will have an associated cost. The B-24 was no exception (average cost was $297,000.00 each).
If you want to have good equipment, you need to pay for it. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
As far as effectiveness, the B-24 was good for a max. combat range of 1,200 miles with a max. load of 2,700 pounds, the B-29's combat range was 3,250 miles with a load of 20,000 pounds. If you had the luxury of being close to your target, the B-24 could carry much more (8,800 pounds), but with a serious range penalty.

OldSkeptic said:

As for carrying nukes, not so sure that was such a good idea. And against Japan there was no need for Tallboys (etc) and they were never used by the USAAF against Japan. There were no targets to use such a bomb against.

Click to expand...

Actually, there was...
The Japanese had several targets where a "tallboy" type bomb was employed. The "Pumpkin Bomb" was used against hardened targets, it weighed 5.34 tons.
Of course, actual U.S. tallboys were used in Korea, deployed by B-29s and B-36s.
And I'm curious as to how an Atomic weapon would have been delivered then, without a capable bomber.
Unless, of course, you suppose that none be dropped at all, and then drag the war on for another year...

OldSkeptic said:

So I'll stand by my opinion, a very expensive failure (sadly followed by even more expensive failures). As for Korea they lost a lot there and what actually did it achieve? Nothing basically, they bombed the heck out of the North Korean cities (the USAF does Bomber Command) and it made zero difference in actual fighting capability of their army (and the Chinese). I'd argue that Australian Mustangs made a much greater contribution to that war.

Click to expand...

I will in no way diminish the contribution made by the Australians and other nations during the Korean war, but to say that fighters did more than bombers descends the conversation into the "fighters versus the bombers effectiveness" discussion like is often seen regarding which was more effective in the ETO.
It is true that the B-29 suffered losses against Communist fighters. The Japanese were successful in intercepting and shooting down B-29s over japan, too. But it can be said that there were several instances where Axis fighters intercepted a few Allied bombers over Europe. Bombers aren't invincible.
The B-29 operations switched to night bombing like Bomber Command did over the ETO after being mauled by the Luftwaffe during the early daylight raids.

OldSkeptic said:

Just part of the 'bomber mania' that the USAAF (and the later USAF) has had for ages, huge resources poured into aircraft of (at best) marginal utility. The ultimate such nonsense being the B-2 (which I see as the successor of the B-29 as yet another expensive failure). And, amazingly, the USAF wants to develop yet another bomber, which I find amazing as it moves to an all bomber and zero fighter and zero CAS fleet.

Click to expand...

Funny how "bomber mania" beat Germany into the ground (seems that "bomber mania" worked for Bomber Command and the USAAF, there).
And it's funny how "bomber mania" gripped the two cold-war super powers...
There were a number of heavy bombers that followed after the B-29, notably the B-36 and the B-52 (yes, there were many others) and if we wish to look at the B-52, which had it's lineage traced back to the closing days of WWII, we'll see that the investment of the B-52 development was a sound one. There is no way the B-52 could have come into being without the likes of the B-29 and lessons learned from it and it's still in service, nearly 60 years later. It has a wide range of applications and has performed a multitude of tasks that would normally require several different aircraft types. Money well spent.
Referring to American "marginal utility", I would say that the B-17 was a little more than marginal.
So was the B-24.
And the B-25.
And B-26 and...
Well...actually, I have no idea WTF you're referring to as "marginal utility". I would say the Ju290 had "marginal utility" before the B-29.
The reference about the B-2 makes no sense. It's a highly specialized stealth bomber. In plain English, this means it's sneaky. People don't like it because it's sneaky. It scares them, therefore they hate it. It arrives over target, delivers it's ordnance and then leaves, all like a sneaky bastard.
And based on it's design, development, performance and track record, it's delivered on it's promise.

OldSkeptic said:

The F-35 is really just a successor to the F-117, by no stretch of imagination is it a fighter. Remember the design spec is 'Joint Strike Fighter', ie a light bomber, to be supported by huge amounts of F-22s gaining air superiority to let it through. With the death (and disappointment) of the F-22 it has been relabeled as a 'fighter', which is was never designed to be (and doesn't even meet the early, rather poor performance specs anyway).

Click to expand...

I'm trying to find a connection between the F-35 and a B-29. I must be missing something here...

OldSkeptic said:

So I'll stand by my opinion, a very expensive failure (sadly followed by even more expensive failures). As for Korea they lost a lot there and what actually did it achieve? Nothing basically, they bombed the heck out of the North Korean cities (the USAF does Bomber Command) and it made zero difference in actual fighting capability of their army (and the Chinese). I'd argue that Australian Mustangs made a much greater contribution to that war.

.

Click to expand...

No matter how you may skew the dollars spent, when one ocnsiders the hundreds of thousands lives saved and probably millions of live not maimed from the war dragging on it was about as far from a failure as is humanly possible.

After all the monetary cost of war is irrelevant compared tot he cost in human lives.

Australian Warhawks and Boomerangs made a greater fighting impact than their Mustangs.

GrauGeist said:

I'm trying to find a connection between the F-35 and a B-29. I must be missing something here...

Click to expand...

Me too...

Its juat that recently the Australian Govt confirmed the sale of an additional 58 F-35s, with follow up orders that will take our inventory to over 100. The problem is the cost, shelled out at over $12bn Aus, at a time almost on the same day they announced massive cuts in other expenditures, and just to lay the boot in, raised the retirement age to 70.

What I dont get is the claim the aircraft wont be a great or true fighter. Youve got to be kidding surely. I know some pretty senior brass at our end in the RAAF, that have worked on this for more than 10 yeas, had some pretty intense discussions with them over dinner and/or drinks. They always talk about how it will restore our ability to tak and hold air superiority over most regional threats, for the next 20-30 years. They will not be happy to learn that they got it so wrong....

Dont believe half of what gets written in this place, and dont waste your breath arguing. it just encourages them.

Sure, if you believe the hype.

I, for one, don't think that the F-35 is as bad as some say. I also don't think it is as good as others say.

We could have bought Rafales 10 years ago and be in a position to replace them with F-35s when they are a working and (potentially) cheap system.

The air to air supremacy ability of the F-35 is reliant on 2 things - not being seen and BVR weapons. The BVR weapons ar the AIM-120 AMRAAM. Which has had, IIRC, around 50% success in actualy BVR combat (mostly it has been used in WVR combat, though). And all of the successes were against non evading/jamming aircraft, and one was a friendly.

Once within visual range stealth has little bearing - as the heat for the exhaust is enough to give it away. In a gun battle? Forget it, no chance.

I also have trouble with the idea that the F-35 wouldn't be seen. Even if it is invisible to one radar band it will light up like a Christmas tree in another.

As for the RAAf, have they actually done a proper analysis?