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

[nuuumannn]

Getting back to big bombers (isn't there a "let's bash the F-35 yet again" thread elsewhere?), as stated in another thread, the B-29 was one of the most influential bombers in history, never mind its faults. The fact of the matter is, that the B-29 represented the next evolutionary step in technological development and bridged the gap between unpressurised piston engined bombers and fast jet bombers, thus, it's influence, particularly on Russian heavy aircraft development can not be underestimated. It is calculated that some 90 percent of the technology in the B-29 was new to the Russian aviation industry - this comes from Yefim Gordon and Valimir Rigmant's excellent wee book called Tupolev Tu-4 Soviet Superfortress. It was a big leap forward over existing types in the west also; providing its crews with a shirt sleeve environment in which to work, also it was faster and could carry a bigger load across a greater distance had more sophisticated defensive armament than previous bombers. How can anyone claim that it failed in its objective? Technology has to progress forward, without that, we couldn't expect to out do our enemies, in commerce and on the battlefield. There's a reason why Roosevelt did not want to give B-29s to Stalin, despite his requests for them.

If we are going to examine the technology in the B-29, it lent its DNA to every subsequent big aircraft designed and built by Boeing. The B-47 and 367 Dash 80 were no accident. These aircraft set a bench mark in subsequent design in their respective genres and both owe the B-29. Take a look at the line; from the B-29, we have the Stratocruiser airliner and military tanker transport, which feeds directly into the requirement for a jet powered tanker transport that was fulfilled by the designs that led to the KC-135, from which Boeing developed the 367-80, or the prototype B707. The rest is easy.

As for six engined bombers, the British had concepts for these as well and these date in drawings back to before the war. Vickers drew up ideas for giant bombers with Barnes Wallis pushing his big bombs, but the Air ministry was not sold on the idea of an aircraft designed solely to carry one weapon. Quite unexpectedly, the Avro Lancaster killed off the necessity behind the first Vickers scheme. The post war abortive Bristol Brabazon airliner was based on technology for a 100 Ton bomber that Bristol was toying with during the war. it was to have the same wings and engine arrangement as the Brab.

Take a look here:

Amazon.com: British Secret Projects 3: Fighters and Bombers 1935-1950 (9781857801798): Tony Butler: Books

Those of you not familiar with this book will not recognise the design on the cover, the Vickers Type 'C' Giant Bomber design of December 1942.

 

[nuuumannn]

Thanks for the likes Dave. While we are on the subject of the F-35, while it has its fair share of teething troubles, it's an enormously bold step forward. A successful STOVL jet encorporating stealth technology in a compact air frame. It is the next logical step beyond the Harrier, which was a very successful design and concept. No one else is able to do the same right at the moment; the last STOVL prototype the Russians were working on ended up in a museum. Looks like MacNamara's ideas behind the TFX might come to fruition.

 

[parsifal]

whats really generating these critiques of the b-29, really has not much to do with the type, and everything to do with the shortcomings of level bombing. Some basis for that, but i bet if the allies had built a force of tactical attack aircraft, like the Ju88, we would be lamenting the heavy losses suffered, and the lack of adequate lift capacity in the wartime bomber forces.

Facts are,no system or type was ever going to be perfect. all had shortcomings in one form or another.

 

[fastmongrel]

My only words on the F35 It had better damn well work or the West is sc***ed.

 

[fastmongrel]

The B29 was a technical marvel the best bomber by a country mile in WWII better than any Nazi wonderweapon even those that are only in the imaginations of the most fervent Luft46 fanboy. Its only problem High altitude bombing has never been particulary effective even recently with guided munitions its not perfect. If High Altitude bombing had been as good as its proponents claimed the Korean and Vietnam wars would have been over in months and the Iraqi ground campaigns would never have happened.

There never has been a war winning weapon apart from one and winning with that weapon doesnt bear thinking about.

 

[nuuumannn]

My only words on the F35 It had better damn well work or the West is sc***ed.

And for that very reason it will.

 

[gjs238]

How can anyone claim that it failed in its objective?

Different time frames.

I don't know if all the detractors feel this way, but I am not questioning the design over it's lifetime and different incarnations.
I am looking at, and prioritizing on one item - the defeat of Japan by conventional bombing and mining (I can't imagine the original designers were considering atomic weapons.)
For this task the plane seems to have been rushed into service at great cost.
How could this have been improved?

That's it - how could it have been improved?
Doesn't mean it sucked.

One suggestion was 6-engines, which morphed into it's own thread.
It's been so long I don't remember if that concept was ever really examined.
But if 6 engines, or 106 Albatross's got the plane into service sooner and/or with less mechanical failures (fires) than perhaps that is something to consider.
Or not

 

[wuzak]

But if 6 engines, or 106 Albatross's got the plane into service sooner and/or with less mechanical failures (fires) than perhaps that is something to consider.
Or not

Only 7 Albatrosses were built, so they couldn't help get the B-29 into service any sooner.

 

[parsifal]

I think he meant albatross, as in the bird, not albatross as in the plane......

 

[wuzak]

I think he meant albatross, as in the bird, not albatross as in the plane......

I know....

Still, 106 de Havilland Albatrosses would be nice. (and about as useful to B-29 development as birds)