B-29 Losses

[Ratsel]

$3,000,000,000+ in todays american dollars for the B-29 losses.. Thats alot of scratch!

 

[GregP]

Ratsel, the B-29 unit cost was $639,188 each. If you plug that into an inflation calculator, it equal $7,835,386 (7.835 million dollars) in 2010 dollars, the most recent year I found ... not 3 billion dollars. F-22 Raptors cost the taxpayer $150 millon each and are flying with our armed forces now, which is more than 19 times the cost of a B-29.

I didn't add up the total war losses above, just the unit cost. But, then again, I never added up the total war losses for ANY type before, either. We lost 371 B-29's to combat, so the cost iin today's dollars would be $2.9 billion, close to your number. Good thing we had such a low loss rate, huh?

The B-17 cost us $238,329 each in 1944 dollars, which is $$2.921 millon each in today's dollars. We lost 4,754 in WW2, adding up to $13.888 billon! or about 4.78 times the cost of the B-29 losses.

So, what is your point? Yes, the war was expensive, but the B-29 losses were WAY down on the list.

 

[Ratsel]

Ratsel, the B-29 unit cost was $639,188 each. If you plug that into an inflation calculator, it equal $7,835,386 (7.835 million dollars) in 2010 dollars, the most recent year I found ... hardly 3 billion dollars. Maybe you missed a decimal place? F-22 Raptors cost the taxpayer 150 millon each and are flying with our armed forces now, which is more than 19 times the cost of a B-29.

$3,000,000,000 TOTAL (todays scratch) for the 300+ B-29's loss. I guess about 8mil each in todays scratch. Or am I still wrong?

 

[GregP]

No, you're not. Did you even read my reply above?

I stated above the cost was about $7.835 million each (close to your $8 million figure), and that the cost of B-29 losses were only about 21% of the cost of B-17 losses (1 / 4.78 ). So, the B-29 was way far from the most expensive bomber in LOSSES and delivered about 2.5 - 5.0 times the payload per aircraft of the B-17, depending on range of mission. I'd say it was WAY more effective and a much better bomber overall.

So, you are correct, it is a lot of money. But so was the entire war, which is one reason we tried our best to stay out of it. If we had followed the WWI Treaty of Versailles example and had asked Germany to pay for the entire war, they could never get it paid and would still be in poverty. France and the Soviet Union never paid us for war debt, either, but we're not still complaining about it.

Live and learn. If they get into trouble in the future as far as national survival goes, they shouldn't count on the U.S.A. to bail them out with that track record. At least, if I were in charge, I wouldn't.

Of course, the government does what it does, and usually doesn't take into account the opinions of the citizens, so you never know.

 

[Ratsel]

Well I did read your reply, I don't think you read mine first post though. Like I said, 3 billion today's dollars for all those b-29 losses. Over and out, cheers.

 

[GregP]

OK, cheers, and it IS a lot of money.

Of course, I don't know of any cheap airplanes, especially of the military variety.

Hey, the cost of Grumman G650 bizjet is more than 6 times the cost today of a B-29! I don't know what that says about people who fly them, but it must say something, don't you think?

Maybe the B-29 was bargain at $8M in today's dollars.

Wish an F-22 or F-35 was only $8M!

 

[Vincenzo]

The money circulation growt up with time so inflaction calculator not give a actual money value, the error go larger with the time, try to converter in gold 638k $ of 1945 and reconvert the gold in 2012 $.
the losses of B-29 program was not only that in combat, hundreds of B-29 were losses not in combat

 

[FLYBOYJ]

300+ B-29s were lost during WW2, about another 100+ in Korea to "all causes" (chime in anytime JoeB), and there were almost 4000 built. If any of the numbers are correct this combat/ other operation attrition rate will be about 11 - 13% which is still pretty remarkable considering the way the aircraft was rushed into production, the lack of prototype aircraft, the jump in technology this aircraft brought to the table and the different roles this aircraft was deployed in.

 

[pbfoot]

300+ B-29s were lost during WW2, about another 100+ in Korea to "all causes" (chime in anytime JoeB), and there were almost 4000 built. If any of the numbers are correct this combat/ other operation attrition rate will be about 11 - 13% which is still pretty remarkable considering the way the aircraft was rushed into production, the lack of prototype aircraft, the jump in technology this aircraft brought to the table and the different roles this aircraft was deployed in.

Seems good to me if you compare other large aircraft of the period maybe even lower then most

 

[tyrodtom]

Compared to some other weapon systems of the time $7.8 million might not be so bad .
Each V2 rocket costs the equivilent of $3.8 million , plus 30 tons of potatoes had to be used to make the ethanol for each launch. That's the 1944 cost of a V2, that early 1945 cost was about half that, $ 1.7 million.

Did 4 average V2s manage to do as much damage as a average B-29 in it's service life?

 

[cimmex]

Rockets are still in service, B-29 not
cimmex

 

[tyrodtom]

Rockets are still in service, B-29 not
cimmex

V2 rockets ?? Only in static displays.
There's a B-29 still flying.

 

[Vincenzo]

300+ B-29s were lost during WW2, about another 100+ in Korea to "all causes" (chime in anytime JoeB), and there were almost 4000 built. If any of the numbers are correct this combat/ other operation attrition rate will be about 11 - 13% which is still pretty remarkable considering the way the aircraft was rushed into production, the lack of prototype aircraft, the jump in technology this aircraft brought to the table and the different roles this aircraft was deployed in.

414 were losses in combat mission in WWII [table 165], an other 87 were losses in accidents from 20th air force and an other 105 were dropped to 2nd line (one of this was loss for accident) [table 101], an other 119 were losses in accidents in continental US [table 214], an other 10 were losses en route from US to theaters [Table 108]. So total B-29 losses all cause in WWII were almost 631, for true higher because all VH Bomber losses were 772 [table 99] and not other losse can go from other models

adding
B-29 bomber production in WWII 3,763 [table 76]
and checking B-32 was not considered VH only H so all the 772 losses are for B-29. the alone plane in VH category, not B-29, it's the B-19 prototype

 

[Siegfried]

Ratsel, the B-29 unit cost was $639,188 each. If you plug that into an inflation calculator.

OK, where did you find that app?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

414 were losses in combat mission in WWII [table 165], an other 87 were losses in accidents from 20th air force and an other 105 were dropped to 2nd line (one of this was loss for accident) [table 101], an other 119 were losses in accidents in continental US [table 214], an other 10 were losses en route from US to theaters [Table 108]. So total B-29 losses all cause in WWII were almost 631, for true higher because all VH Bomber losses were 772 [table 99] and not other losse can go from other models

adding
B-29 bomber production in WWII 3,763 [table 76]
and checking B-32 was not considered VH only H so all the 772 losses are for B-29. the alone plane in VH category, not B-29, it's the B-19 prototype

So if we throw in the 100+ from Korea the attrition rate goes to about 23% for both combat and non-combat losses. I bet if you compare that rate to other bombers of the day you'll probably find similar numbers. Also consider that the B-29s were flying the longest distances of the war over oceans.

 

[GregP]

Sorry about the errant post earlier about Nitrous Oxide and Gasoline. My foray into Nitrous Oxide was about 10 years ago and I got a couple of things wrong.

I said Nitrous Oxide contained about 34% Oxygen. To be accurate, it is 33%.

I said gasoline had about 24% Oxygen and it has none. To be accurate, AIR has about 21% Oxygen.

So, instead of 24% and 34%, it is actually 21% and 33% Oxygen when burning Nitrous Oxide instead of an air-gasoline mixture.

The result is the same, you get very LEAN on Nitrous Oxide unless you compensate by adding extra gasoline when Nitrous Oxide is introduced in the intake system. The valve to do this is usually actuated by a solenoid. If the wet system gasoline solenoid fails to actuate, you destroy the engine within seconds. I've seen a Corvette do it on a dynamometer, and it isn't a nice thing to watch, or cheap.

I do not believe the Germans had digital fuel controller in WWII; their system was mechanical. Nitrous consumption is RAPID in a large displacement engine. At Reno, they usually go through a tank in 2-3 laps. Of course the tanks are not overly large in racing aircraft, but the butn rate is tremendous. I doubt serriously the Germans could use GM-1 for more than 8 - 10 minutes without running out of Nirtous Oxide, but that is just my opinion.

The sum of all this makes me doubt the ability of a GM-1-equiped Fw 190 (or other fighter) to catch a B-29 if the Superfort is at high speed and if the Fw depends on the extra speed produced by GM-1 use, unless the Fw 190 is in a great position to start with. That is, I doubt the Fw 190 would have enough GM-1 to climb, say, 5000 feet and then accelerate and catch the fast-moving B-29. Now if the Fw 190 was already at the same altitude or higher, then the GM-1 could be used to simply accelerate and catch the B-29.

The point is the B-29 is is a game changer if it attacks fast. If it attacks at 220 mph, then it is as vulnerable as the B-17 / B-24's were.

If the B-29 cruise-climbs to 30,000+ feet at 220 mph and stays at that power but starts a descent on the way to the target, it can arrive at the target at over 300 mph while not running the engines much harder than for a 230 mph cruise, using the descent to speed up. Again, the speed makes a harder target for teh defending fighters. Not impossible, but harder to find and attack than a B-17 or B-24. Plus, it drops more than twice and many bombs per aircraft. All that makes for a tough job for the Luftwaffe, who were already in some difficulty with the existing attackers.

So, the B-29 was not impossible to attack successfully ... it was simply a harder target moving faster, thereby making for fewer attack passes and tougher interception. In real life, the B-29 never attacked in the ETO, but the above was also true for defenders where it DID attack.

 

[Vincenzo]

Heavy bomber production (june 40 to august 45) 31,000 (B-172432)
Heavy bomber losses 14,280 (this is comparable with 772 for B-29)
Heavy bomber effective missions 500,139 (with the exception of ETO, only from jan 43)

B-29 production 3,763
B-29 losses 772
B-29 effective missions 29,153

so HB loss/prod 0.46, loss/missions* per thousand 28.6 overstimed because absence most '42 missions
VHB loss/prod 0.20, loss/missions* per thousand 26.5

* this is indicatve of cost not capability to survive to mission, are all losses not combat mission lost.

HB missions from '43 499,385, losses from '43 13,837 losses/missions per thousand 27.7

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Heavy bomber production (june 40 to august 45) 31,000 (B-172432)
Heavy bomber losses 14,280 (this is comparable with 772 for B-29)
Heavy bomber effective missions 500,139 (with the exception of ETO, only from jan 43)

B-29 production 3,763
B-29 losses 772
B-29 effective missions 29,153

so HB loss/prod 0.46, loss/missions* per thousand 28.6 overstimed because absence most '42 missions
VHB loss/prod 0.20, loss/missions* per thousand 26.5

* this is indicatve of cost not capability to survive to mission, are all losses not combat mission lost.

HB missions from '43 499,385, losses from '43 13,837 losses/missions per thousand 27.7

I assume these numbers are from the USAF AAF historical database...

I have a problem with "effective mission." What defines that? The bombers hitting their target or by their shear presence causing the enemy to surrender, retreat of change tactics? The numbers still show how the "VHB" compared to the B-17 and B-24 (and I know the B-32 was removed from the equasion)

Again, not taking anything away from the ETO, give me the English Channel over the Pacific Ocean any day!

No matter how you look at it the B-29 was a super weapon worth the cost and was probably the 2nd most potent aerial weapon of WW2 next to the atomic bomb.

 

[Ratsel]

No matter how you look at it the B-29 was a super weapon worth the cost and was probably the 2nd most potent aerial weapon of WW2 next to the atomic bomb.

Only in PTO/CBI. In the MTO and ETO is wasn't worth the paper it was designed on.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If the B-29 cruise-climbs to 30,000+ feet at 220 mph and stays at that power but starts a descent on the way to the target, it can arrive at the target at over 300 mph while not running the engines much harder than for a 230 mph cruise, using the descent to speed up. Again, the speed makes a harder target for teh defending fighters. Not impossible, but harder to find and attack than a B-17 or B-24. Plus, it drops more than twice and many bombs per aircraft. All that makes for a tough job for the Luftwaffe, who were already in some difficulty with the existing attackers.

So, the B-29 was not impossible to attack successfully ... it was simply a harder target moving faster, thereby making for fewer attack passes and tougher interception. In real life, the B-29 never attacked in the ETO, but the above was also true for defenders where it DID attack.

Great points - and for the record - just because you have a fighter that has a top speed of 400 mph + intercepting a bomber at 230 mph at 30K doesn't mean you're going to be able to catch the target and get a firing solution. You're also fighting winds aloft that may slow (or enhance) your climb as well as the bombers taking advantage of winds aloft as well. Combine that with running at max power in the climb plus max fuel consumption and yes, you have a MAJOR game changer.