B-29 reset

Perhaps a R-2800 powered Martin XB-33 Super Marauder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_XB-33
Thinking the 4-engined version.

Or at least something along these lines.

If the "B-29" developed around the R-2800 had been smaller, then the bomb load would have been commensurately less. So you are basically talking about a new bomber development in lieu of the real B-29. That is certainly possible, but never happened. If it had, it would have replaced the B-29 program since Boeing only had so many development teams.

Of course it COULD have been done, and nobody can say how it might have done in the war ... we KNOW how the real B-29 did, and it hit hard and fairly accurately. It was tough to shoot down due to speed over target and carried a bomb load that 5 B-17's carried from London to Berlin. The B-17 COULD carry a lot, but not all that far. The B-29 could do both.

So yes, they COULD have developed the B-29 alternately with smaller engines, but the real question is "Why"? As actually done it proved decisive and reduced its targets to rubble, whether from fire bombs, conventional bombs, or atomic bombs, and did so from long ranges.

The B-17 in Europe flew 192,508 sorties and dropped 640,032 short tons of bombs, had 4,688 losses, and claimed 6,659 enemy A/C destroyed. It delivered 2.2 short tons per sorties and flew 62.2 sorties per loss.

The B-29 in the Pacific flew 31,387 sorties and dropped 159,676 short tons of bombs, had 414 losses, and claimed 213 enemy A/C destroyed. It delivered 5.1 short tons per sorties (twice that of the B-17) and flew 75.8 sorties per loss.

So the B-29 had a lower loss rate, delivered twice the bombs (or could use half the planes, alternately), and was more than 100 mph faster over the target. What cannot be seen here is that operational losses accounted for a lot of B-29 losses. I believe they lost something like 121 to enemy A/C, but can't find that number just now ... it's from recent memory.

All in all, I like flying fewer sorties or, alternately, dropping more bombs so you'd have to revisit targets much less frequently. The B-29 acquitted itself quite well in the Pacific and would have been devastating in the ETO had it been deployed there, if due only to dropping twice as many bombs per plane per sortie. That is, of course, a "what-if" on my part, but the rest is not.

I think as designed the B-29 was the best heavyweight bomber of the war, and was the only super heavyweight.

The Lancaster carried, on average, about 80% of the bomb load of the B-29 and had twice the loss rate. It was easily the best heavy bomber in the ETO. But it didn't quite perform like the B-29 did in the Pacific and, to be fair to the mighty Lanc, was never ASKED to do so. One could argue how the Lanc might have done in the Pacific, but not very effectively since it never happened to any degree. It's like speculating on how the B-29 might have done in the ETO, which ALSO never happened to any great degree.

In the end, the B-29 dropped the heaviest loads over the longest distances with a very good loss rate. In fact, the loss rate of the B-29 in combat was very slightly less than the loss rate of the Mosquito bomber which has been deemed, at least in HERE, as almost untouchable. That statement is based on a B-29 loss rate of 0.0132 losses per sortie for the B-29 against a loss rate of 0.0138 losses per sortie for bomber command Mosquitoes (39,795 sorties against 396 losses). People in here are constantly saying we should have adopted the Mosquito to help our cause. Perhaps they should have adopted the B-29 as designed instead of the Mosquito bomber if loss rate, bomb load, and range are the keys to the better plane?

I'd stay with the B-29 as designed and as utilized, but that is just my opinion. But if someone wants to speculate about alternate bombers, be sure you have the formula for a plane that would perform better than the real heavy bomber with the best recorded performance of WWII for the combination of range, bomb load, and speed for a 4-engine bomber. It seems to be damned hard to beat the B-29. I can't find another heavy that did as well.

The A-26 Invader (lowest loss rate for ANY bomber I can find), A-20 Havoc, and B-26 Marauder all had lower loss rates than the B-29, and WAY better than the Mosquito bombers, but didn't deliver the bomb load of a heavy. They were more for pinpoint raids, like the Mosquito for the RAF.

Ask a simple question, and be prepared to read an essay

GregP said:

....

So yes, they COULD have developed the B-29 alternately with smaller engines, but the real question is "Why"? As actually done it proved decisive and reduced its targets to rubble, whether from fire bombs, conventional bombs, or atomic bombs, and did so from long ranges.

Click to expand...

Why? To have a workable big bomber in early 1943.

....

All in all, I like flying fewer sorties or, alternately, dropping more bombs so you'd have to revisit targets much less frequently. The B-29 acquitted itself quite well in the Pacific and would have been devastating in the ETO had it been deployed there, if due only to dropping twice as many bombs per plane per sortie. That is, of course, a "what-if" on my part, but the rest is not.

Click to expand...

Everyone loves that. Hence this thread - start with benefits already in 1943.

I think as designed the B-29 was the best heavyweight bomber of the war, and was the only super heavyweight.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

The Lancaster carried, on average, about 80% of the bomb load of the B-29 and had twice the loss rate. It was easily the best heavy bomber in the ETO. But it didn't quite perform like the B-29 did in the Pacific and, to be fair to the mighty Lanc, was never ASKED to do so. One could argue how the Lanc might have done in the Pacific, but not very effectively since it never happened to any degree. It's like speculating on how the B-29 might have done in the ETO, which ALSO never happened to any great degree.

Click to expand...

Lets not compare incomparable. Lanc flew in a far more dangerous air space, and was in the fray far earlier then B-29. Although, the B-29 should be a more survivable platform, un-catchable for German night fighters. So would 'my bomber'.
I have no problems in thinkering of Lanc in the Asia/Pacific, nor of B-29 in Europe.

I'd stay with the B-29 as designed and as utilized, but that is just my opinion. But if someone wants to speculate about alternate bombers, be sure you have the formula for a plane that would perform better than the real heavy bomber with the best recorded performance of WWII for the combination of range, bomb load, and speed for a 4-engine bomber. It seems to be damned hard to beat the B-29. I can't find another heavy that did as well.

Click to expand...

B-52 was kinda better, but was tad a too late
It i snot a question of envisioning the better bomber than B-29, but an earlier one.

The A-26 Invader (lowest loss rate for ANY bomber I can find), A-20 Havoc, and B-26 Marauder all had lower loss rates than the B-29, and WAY better than the Mosquito bombers, but didn't deliver the bomb load of a heavy. They were more for pinpoint raids, like the Mosquito for the RAF.

Click to expand...

Neither A-20, nor A-26, nor B-26s were flying 1000 miles above German-held Europe to bomb something, without escorts, during daylight.
Mosquito did.

Well Tomo,

It is possible to develop something, for sure. Several somethings WERE proposed and were not selected to proceed. And a couple of somethings had already BEEN developed, the B-17 and B-24. The B-29 was developed to take the next step. Seems to me you want to have another successive development in between the new plane and the B-29.

While you COULD, the B-29 might never have been developed since it was probably the single most difficult weapon system developed in the USA during the war. Draining resources from the real B-29 program may have caused it to never get service ready.

So, I'd stick with the B-29 as it was developed, if given the choice. I can find no real fault with the B-29 as developed in real life other than a desire to have Wright concentrate on the R-3350 five years sooner.

If not given that choice, then let the alternate history fans come up with the plane, further speculate the performance, and then further speculate the defectiveness in whatever theater they decide to assign it to. I'm sure you (the plural sense, not specifically you, Tomo) can speculate the way to a better outcome. It seems to happen frequently. Naturally, I'd support a better, quicker outcome, but am skeptical it could really happen all by development of a lesser-performing, smaller B29 a bit sooner. Doesn't seem like a game changer on the face of it.

Then again, I might be wrong there.

GregP said:

Don't even tell me about Grand Slams ... they were never a "normal" bomb load and the Lancasters that carried them were structurally in dangerous waters. It was done out of necessity, not with any regularity. They dropped a total of 42 Grand Slams in the entire war, less than .03% of Lancaster sorties.

Click to expand...

Grand slams took an age to make as did the tall boys, it was a specialist weapon, I don't thing of much use against Japanese targets Japan is a volcanic group of islands even a grand slam doesn't penetrate Granite so well/

The B-29 was one of the most advanced weapons of WW2 IMO, 2nd to the Atomic bomb. It would only seem likely that there would be issues in it's development, especially with the pentagon pushing to get it deployed. In the end both B-29 and 3350 became very useful and reliable machines, but I think this thread would be more appropriate being titled "R-3350 reset."

B-29 (and R-3350) development and service implementation took much too much long.
The goal, as Tomo stated, is to get this thing in the air dropping bombs earlier.

For all intents and purposes, bombing Japan from China was a failure. A major reason for this was the B-29.
I suspect that even if the folks who started this project (the B-29) knew how protracted it would be, they would have gone down a different avenue.

So how do we get the B-29 in the air earlier?
Different engines? How about V-3420's?

If it is impossible to get the B-29 in the air earlier, what can we get in the air earlier?
Something with four R-2800's?

gjs238 said:

For all intents and purposes, bombing Japan from China was a failure. A major reason for this was the B-29.

Click to expand...

Half of the problem was the machine, the other half of the problem were the people running the show. The machine could be (and was) fixed.

gjs238 said:

If it is impossible to get the B-29 in the air earlier, what can we get in the air earlier?
Something with four R-2800's?

Click to expand...

You would have the option to stay with the B-17 and B-24 which were already proving effective in the campaigns of the MTO and ETO

There were also other projects under development that could be ramped up or reconsidered.

The XB-15 was intended to use the Allison V-3420 but used the P&W R-1830 instead, because at the time of development (mid-1930's) they weren't available. It's performance was good for it's time but the B-17 would prove to be better. I just threw this in there because it used liquid-cooled engines in a heavy bomber design. As a side-note, the XB-15 prototype was converted into a transport (XC-105) and was operated (sometimes on anti-sub patrols) for the duration of the war, seeing it's last service in
June 1945.

The XB-19 first flew in 1941, powered by the Wright R-3350 but were changed out to Allison V-3420-11 later on. This project never became a priority even though it proved to have a range over 4,200 miles (6,800 km) and reached altitudes over 39,000 feet (12,000 m). It's one shortcoming was it's slow speed.

The XB-39 was spun off of the B-29 program, using Allison V-3420-17 engines instead of the radial. It's performance was impressive, with a range of 6,290 miles (10,060 km) and could operate at altitudes of 35,000 feet (11,000 m). It's top speed was 405mph (648kph). This project died on the vine due to the demand of turbo-superchargers elsewhere.

The B-32 was developed in the event of the B-29's failure and it's development was lethargic. If the B-29 couldn't get in the air because of the R-3350, then this project wouldn't be a good alternative because it's design relied on them. Changing the engines in this project would be the same as changing the engines in the B-29, and now we've lost time and initiative and are back to square 1.

I like the V-3420, and had the R-3350 been a failure (and there are those who say that in WWII it was ...) it was a possibility. The aircraft had good performance and might have been a good one.

Maybe they should have tried the V-3420 on the Beech A-38 as well as the B-29 airframe.

GregP said:

Maybe they should have tried the V-3420 on the Beech A-38 as well as the B-29 airframe.

Click to expand...

The XB-39 proved to be capable of the same war load as the B-29, but was actually faster and had a higher capable altitude overall.

The initial tests were done without the turbo-superchargers installed and made impressive runs. Once the turbo-superchargers were installed, it returned even better results.

But the decision was made to stay the course with the radials in the current B-29 design instead.

GrauGeist said:

You would have the option to stay with the B-17 and B-24 which were already proving effective in the campaigns of the MTO and ETO

There were also other projects under development that could be ramped up or reconsidered.

The XB-15 was intended to use the Allison V-3420 but used the P&W R-1830 instead, because at the time of development (mid-1930's) they weren't available. It's performance was good for it's time but the B-17 would prove to be better. I just threw this in there because it used liquid-cooled engines in a heavy bomber design. As a side-note, the XB-15 prototype was converted into a transport (XC-105) and was operated (sometimes on anti-sub patrols) for the duration of the war, seeing it's last service in
June 1945.

The XB-19 first flew in 1941, powered by the Wright R-3350 but were changed out to Allison V-3420-11 later on. This project never became a priority even though it proved to have a range over 4,200 miles (6,800 km) and reached altitudes over 39,000 feet (12,000 m). It's one shortcoming was it's slow speed.

The XB-39 was spun off of the B-29 program, using Allison V-3420-17 engines instead of the radial. It's performance was impressive, with a range of 6,290 miles (10,060 km) and could operate at altitudes of 35,000 feet (11,000 m). It's top speed was 405mph (648kph). This project died on the vine due to the demand of turbo-superchargers elsewhere.

The B-32 was developed in the event of the B-29's failure and it's development was lethargic. If the B-29 couldn't get in the air because of the R-3350, then this project wouldn't be a good alternative because it's design relied on them. Changing the engines in this project would be the same as changing the engines in the B-29, and now we've lost time and initiative and are back to square 1.

Click to expand...

The XB-19 was converted to V-3420s as a part of the B-29 program. Fisher designed a quick engine change module for the V-3420 which would bolt up to the R-3350's firewall, and thus would, theoretically, be a bolt up unit for the B-29.

The V-3420 QEC module used experimental turbos, not the production ones as used on the B-29. The R-3350 in the B-29 used two B-series turbos - which would also have been sufficient for the V-3420 too.

Then Allison and Fisher had their V-3420 efforts diverted to the P-75 program. This delayed testing of the XB-39, which happened after the B-29 was in series production.

GrauGeist said:

The XB-39 proved to be capable of the same war load as the B-29, but was actually faster and had a higher capable altitude overall.

The initial tests were done without the turbo-superchargers installed and made impressive runs. Once the turbo-superchargers were installed, it returned even better results.

But the decision was made to stay the course with the radials in the current B-29 design instead.

Click to expand...

The decision was to not interrupt production.

wuzak said:

The decision was to not interrupt production.

Click to expand...

Perhaps my summary was too short?

But the decision was made to stay the course with the radials in the current B-29 design instead

Click to expand...

Remember folks, as the first B-29s were rolling out of the factory, the AAF had their eye on this...

Boeing B-29D/XB-44 Superfortress

As Greg mentioned earlier, the B-29 was a little underpowered.

All a day late and a dollar short.
How do we get this crate to successfully bomb Japan from China, earlier than historical and w/o all the mechanical losses.

We really don't get it there any faster. Until the defeat of Germany, the Pacific was of secondary importance at LEAST to the USA. They concentrated on the ETO and possibly the MTO/North Africa to the detriment of the PTO, and rightfully so.

We knew fighting a 2-front war was a losing proposition, and Hitler found that out the hard way. When the ETO was won, there was a massive shift to the PTO and then it, too, was won in fairly short order.

The USA historically didn't NEED the B-29 until we got it, and then we concentrated it in the PTO where it did yeoman service.

I think maybe you're looking for a problem were none existed. We did it the right way at the right time. Why mess with a winning strategy that worked very well by playing with one of the major weapons that won the PTO war?

GregP said:

I think maybe you're looking for a problem were none existed.

Click to expand...

You're joking right? The B-29/R-3350 issues are legendary and well written about.

Not joking at all. The B-29 had issues, yes, but also the lowest loss rate of any heavy bomber.

Would have been nice if Wright had passed over the R-2600 and had developed the R-3350 5 years sooner but, in the end, it performed just fine as it was with the heaviest bombloads carried the farthest distances and delivered at the highest speeds of any WWII heavy bomber. Sure, some things could have been fixed sooner, but the record says it did just fine ... excellent, in fact.

Why not six R2800's? Inner nacelles configured in a push pull arrangement. Very little change to the basic air-frame. Could that have made a serviceable B-29 sooner, while the R3350's were being ironed out? What would the performance be?