As for diesels. Caterpillar converted R1820's to diesel for tank use. However, this was not optimized for aviation. (poor HP to lb ratio - 450HP @ 2000 RPMs). It did prove to be an excellent tank engine, albeit a very expensive one. Only used in the M-4A6. Not sure what adding boost and injecting more fuel would have done, given injection tech at the time.
B-29 reset
- Thread starter gjs238
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GregP
Major
The question is not why not six R-2800's but, rather, what was so wrong with the plane that had the lowest loss rate, heaviest bomb load, and fastest attack speed in WWII for its's class of aircraft?
Why do you need to improve on the the best? ... especially since it was made obsolete very shortly after its heyday. Jet bombers were the rage 5 - 8 years after WWII, but during 1944 /1945, the B-29 was the pinnacle of excellence. It was made even better by the addition of the R-4360 in the form of the B-50 / KB-50. It was copied by the Soviets in it's entirely, surely the rarest form of flattery.
And you feel the need to thy to improve it?
I like just as it was, but wish you luck in your improvement program. It might win the war several days sooner. I can't say or argue it with any facts.
Why do you need to improve on the the best? ... especially since it was made obsolete very shortly after its heyday. Jet bombers were the rage 5 - 8 years after WWII, but during 1944 /1945, the B-29 was the pinnacle of excellence. It was made even better by the addition of the R-4360 in the form of the B-50 / KB-50. It was copied by the Soviets in it's entirely, surely the rarest form of flattery.
And you feel the need to thy to improve it?
I like just as it was, but wish you luck in your improvement program. It might win the war several days sooner. I can't say or argue it with any facts.
wuzak
Captain
Not improve - make it more reliable and available earlier. Though just changing the engines may not have helped getting it operational earlier, due to other systems also causing issues/delays.
The historical B-29 was upgraded with Wasp Major engines. So why not up-engine the 'big bomber' with R-3350s for 1945?
The bomber that cruises at 300+ mph will be within the AAA envelope a 1/3rd less time than a B-17, that cruised at 200+ mph. A faster target is also a tougher target to hit. The exposure time against defending fighters will be also substanitially shorter. The heavy fighters trying to lob rockets on bombers stand no chance to make an impression. Once proper escorts are introduced, they don't have to ess in order not to overtake bombers, thus incresing their range.
The bomber that cruises at 300+ mph will be within the AAA envelope a 1/3rd less time than a B-17, that cruised at 200+ mph. A faster target is also a tougher target to hit. The exposure time against defending fighters will be also substanitially shorter. The heavy fighters trying to lob rockets on bombers stand no chance to make an impression. Once proper escorts are introduced, they don't have to ess in order not to overtake bombers, thus incresing their range.
GregP
Major
Good points, Tomo. I have no resistance to improving the B-29.
I resist the notion to make it less than it was because it achieved such great success as deployed in real life, with good speed, bomb load, range, and loss rate.
For instance, I didn't really like the He 177 but DO like the He 277 with 4 engines I seriously wonder how it might have gone if they had developed and produced the He 277 a lot sooner. But I have no operational data for factual comparison, so it is speculation on my part only. It might be the planes produced would not do any more than the planes actually produced.
I can't say.
I resist the notion to make it less than it was because it achieved such great success as deployed in real life, with good speed, bomb load, range, and loss rate.
For instance, I didn't really like the He 177 but DO like the He 277 with 4 engines I seriously wonder how it might have gone if they had developed and produced the He 277 a lot sooner. But I have no operational data for factual comparison, so it is speculation on my part only. It might be the planes produced would not do any more than the planes actually produced.
I can't say.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
In reality, had the USAAF insisted on the Allison powered B-29 (XB-39) and devoted resources to it's production when it showed better performance early on, then there may have been a much different outcome for the B-29 as history remembers it.
But the B-36 project for strategic intercontinental abilities was also in the works (although pushed to the back burner after England turned the tables on Germany's assault). This too, could have been pushed to the front of development and production if the USAAF had felt it was a priority.
But the B-36 project for strategic intercontinental abilities was also in the works (although pushed to the back burner after England turned the tables on Germany's assault). This too, could have been pushed to the front of development and production if the USAAF had felt it was a priority.
GregP
Major
Yeah, the V-3420 B-29 could have been a good one. I also might have developed the faults of the He-177 if run enough hours. If the seams along the inside and are not torqued properly it, too, may be leaked oil and caused fires. Having worked on Allisons I THINK not, but I could be wrong.
I would like to have seen it at least tried, especially WITH a turbocharger setup. We'll Probably never really know.
We DO know the performance numbers and they were good. That doesn't exactly translate into combat effectiveness, but gives an indication of what was possible.
I like the concept, especially the QEC option.
I would like to have seen it at least tried, especially WITH a turbocharger setup. We'll Probably never really know.
We DO know the performance numbers and they were good. That doesn't exactly translate into combat effectiveness, but gives an indication of what was possible.
I like the concept, especially the QEC option.
wuzak
Captain
Getting a reliable B-29 into production earlier may have allowed the USAAF to deploy them to where they were needed when they were needed most. ie in the ETO in late 1943/early 1944.
Had they been deployed in that time frame, even with reduced performance, I believe they would have reduced aircraft losses and reduced air crew illness and injury (such as frostbite).
I also have little doubt that they would have suffered heavier losses than B-29s did in the CBI and PTO historically.
Not sure if they would have proved more effective at bombing, but certainly there would have been more tonnage dropped in the target area.
Had they been deployed in that time frame, even with reduced performance, I believe they would have reduced aircraft losses and reduced air crew illness and injury (such as frostbite).
I also have little doubt that they would have suffered heavier losses than B-29s did in the CBI and PTO historically.
Not sure if they would have proved more effective at bombing, but certainly there would have been more tonnage dropped in the target area.
wuzak
Captain
A normal bomb load for a Lancaster was 14,000lbs. What was the normal bomb load for a B-29? I don't think it was the maximum 20,000lb, because range suffered with that load.
Let's put big bombs into perspective.
Sure the Grand Slam and Tallboy were late comers and statistically insignificant in the number of missions for which they were used.
Let us look at the big bombs the USAAF used - 1600lb, 2000lb, 4000lb and 4500lb.
The USAAF dropped ~66,300 bombs of over 1000lb nominal weight. The RAF dropped 93,000 4000lb HC and 24,000 4000lb MC bombs. They dropped relatively few 2000lb bombs, because the one they had was an older design with low charge ratio and they did not develop a replacement.
Of the bombs over 2000lb, the USAAF dropped ~1400. 879 Tallboys were used by the RAF, 835 of those being dropped at a target. In other words, thenumber of Tallboys the RAF dropped was ~60% of the number of 4000 and 4500lb bombs the USAAF dropped.
The losses suffered in the PTO were just to say sustainable, the B29 was a leap forward in cost, complexity and training. What were termed acceptable losses with B17s and B24s were not acceptable with a B29. The successful raids on Japan were low level incendiary raids and of course the A bomb. Dropping conventional bombs from high altitude wasnt very successful at all. The B29 in Europe in 1943/44 may well have taken a hammering with the cost out of all proportion to the damage inflicted.
Apart from the cost in lives and cost of training, from Wiki "In 1945, a B-29 bomber cost $782,000. It cost $32,000 to upgrade an aircraft to Silverplate configuration, so the total cost of a Silverplate bomber was $814,000, about $10.7 million in 2014 dollars. "
Last edited:
GregP
Major
Hi Wuzak,
I keep records of the data I find. In a book titled, "Combat Aircraft (31) Lancaster Squadrons 1942 – 1942" by John Lake there is a table of data for the war. It shows the Lancaster flew 156,192 sorties of which 148,403 were bombing sorties. In those sorties the Lancaster dropped 681,645 short tons of bombs. A "short ton" Is 2,000 pounds. They suffered 3,832 combat losses. That works out to 4.6 short tones per sortie per Lancaster, or 9,186 pounds per average sortie with a loss rate of 0.0258 per bombing sortie. Hardly 14,000 pounds over the war's sorties.
The USAAF Statistical Digest says the B-29 flew 31,387 sorties against Japan and dropped 159,676 short tons on the sorties with 414 lost in combat. That works out to 5.1 short tons per sortie per B-29, or 10,175 pounds per average sortie with a loss rate of 0.0132 per sortie. Hardly 20,000 pounds, but more than the Lancaster's average.
We could argue capabilities until we are blue in the face, but the B-29 carried a bit more bomb load on average, had about half the loss rate, and was easily 100 mph faster when pushed. It also could carry almost 50% more than the Lancaster on normal ops if range didn't dictate less bombs an more fuel. Over an ocean, that didn't prove to be the case. Over Europe, if it had been deployed there, maybe ... maybe not ... depends on a lot of factors that I won't even try to summarize.
These numbers say nothing about the environment of the operations, the opposition expected and encountered or anything else subjective. They are merely the averages for the ops flown. Since no two authors can seem to ever agree on anything unless one quotes the other, I'm sure other numbers can be found floating about. They'll still show the B-29's carrying more on average with a lower loss rate than the Lancaster. The B-29 could have averaged quite a bit more bomb load if it was only going between London and Berlin, but they operated where they did and flew the mission lengths required of them, at the time.
This is just wartime performance on average, nothing more. It doesn't take into account when the bomb load was less because they ran out of bombs or any other operational difficulties.
I keep records of the data I find. In a book titled, "Combat Aircraft (31) Lancaster Squadrons 1942 – 1942" by John Lake there is a table of data for the war. It shows the Lancaster flew 156,192 sorties of which 148,403 were bombing sorties. In those sorties the Lancaster dropped 681,645 short tons of bombs. A "short ton" Is 2,000 pounds. They suffered 3,832 combat losses. That works out to 4.6 short tones per sortie per Lancaster, or 9,186 pounds per average sortie with a loss rate of 0.0258 per bombing sortie. Hardly 14,000 pounds over the war's sorties.
The USAAF Statistical Digest says the B-29 flew 31,387 sorties against Japan and dropped 159,676 short tons on the sorties with 414 lost in combat. That works out to 5.1 short tons per sortie per B-29, or 10,175 pounds per average sortie with a loss rate of 0.0132 per sortie. Hardly 20,000 pounds, but more than the Lancaster's average.
We could argue capabilities until we are blue in the face, but the B-29 carried a bit more bomb load on average, had about half the loss rate, and was easily 100 mph faster when pushed. It also could carry almost 50% more than the Lancaster on normal ops if range didn't dictate less bombs an more fuel. Over an ocean, that didn't prove to be the case. Over Europe, if it had been deployed there, maybe ... maybe not ... depends on a lot of factors that I won't even try to summarize.
These numbers say nothing about the environment of the operations, the opposition expected and encountered or anything else subjective. They are merely the averages for the ops flown. Since no two authors can seem to ever agree on anything unless one quotes the other, I'm sure other numbers can be found floating about. They'll still show the B-29's carrying more on average with a lower loss rate than the Lancaster. The B-29 could have averaged quite a bit more bomb load if it was only going between London and Berlin, but they operated where they did and flew the mission lengths required of them, at the time.
This is just wartime performance on average, nothing more. It doesn't take into account when the bomb load was less because they ran out of bombs or any other operational difficulties.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
3250 miles at 25,000 feet (7620 m) with 5000 lb (2270 kg) bomb load
4100 miles at 25,000 feet (7620 m) with 5000 lb (2270 kg) bomb load and auxiliary fuel tank
4700 miles (7600 km) max
The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: B-29 Superfortress, U.S. Heavy Bomber
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The B-29 may have had problems with it's engines early on, but it was also a new, highly advanced system that raised the bar on heavy bombers/strategic bombers.
As with any new system, there will be a debugging period where problems will be addressed and corrected. They are also going to be expensive, any new system is.
The B-52 had it's initial setbacks and so did the B-2...and so will the next system and the next and the next...
Remember, the Martin B-10 was one of the most advanced bombers for it's time, and people complained about spending money on it even though it raised the bar on bomber design by quite a bit.
As with any new system, there will be a debugging period where problems will be addressed and corrected. They are also going to be expensive, any new system is.
The B-52 had it's initial setbacks and so did the B-2...and so will the next system and the next and the next...
Remember, the Martin B-10 was one of the most advanced bombers for it's time, and people complained about spending money on it even though it raised the bar on bomber design by quite a bit.
The biggest problem for the B 29 was the "jet streams" which meant regardless of the gun sight you could miss by miles even if you could see the target which frequently you couldn't. Apart from the A Bomb which ended the war and night time fire storm raids its best use was probably mining sea lanes and ports. Fantastic airplane but ranged against the wrong enemy, although I believe it was first conceived when it was thought Germany would control Europe. It was pointless attacking the steel industry in Japan, they had no raw materials (ore coal etc) It was pointless attacking the shipbuilding industry it had no steel to make ships with, and for the oil industry the refineries were in many cases stood idle for want of crude. That said it was a great aircraft.
In Europe the B 29 would have been well above most Flak but it was still vulnerable to fighters.
Here is a question guys. The B 29 had a very sophisticated defence system with "computer" controlled firing/targeting was this proven to be more effective than the conventional defence of the B17 B24?
In Europe the B 29 would have been well above most Flak but it was still vulnerable to fighters.
Here is a question guys. The B 29 had a very sophisticated defence system with "computer" controlled firing/targeting was this proven to be more effective than the conventional defence of the B17 B24?
GregP
Major
In practice it was very effective because the B-29's would climb higher than necessary so they could attack from a shallow dive and be at the correct altitude over target at high speed, on the order of 320+ mph. That means that most, but not all, attacks on a B-29 were from the rear ... with radar-aimed tail guns.
There was almost no way a typical Japanese fighter could make a pass and then circle around to attack a second time. If he made a head-on pass, by the time he turned 180° the B-29 was already 2 - 3 or more miles ahead and the closing speed and extra fuel wasn't sufficient for a tail chase. There were very few beam attacks on B-29's over Japan.
Had the B-29 been deployed over Europe, things might have been a bit tougher since Europe was a high-altitude war at higher speeds. But it never was deployed there except as a visiting decoy. There was at least one B-29 that made a circuit of the UK bases, probably to cause concern in Germany.
There was almost no way a typical Japanese fighter could make a pass and then circle around to attack a second time. If he made a head-on pass, by the time he turned 180° the B-29 was already 2 - 3 or more miles ahead and the closing speed and extra fuel wasn't sufficient for a tail chase. There were very few beam attacks on B-29's over Japan.
Had the B-29 been deployed over Europe, things might have been a bit tougher since Europe was a high-altitude war at higher speeds. But it never was deployed there except as a visiting decoy. There was at least one B-29 that made a circuit of the UK bases, probably to cause concern in Germany.
I believe it was being evaluated and they used the opportunity for propaganda, The RAF did consider it for night bombing, maybe if losses to flak and nightfighters became too high in a protracted war.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I believe it was - It took the gunners away from the actual weapon (no fumes or gun recoil vibration) and the turrents could be shared between gun positions.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiT5QLRHl0Q
Thanks GregP and Flyboy, looking at that video I am sure it worked well with a few hostiles, but facing a massed attack would the people targetting know they were targetting the same plane. From what Greg said if most attacks were from the rear maybe it was all overkill.
- Thread starter
- #60
Re: R-3350
It seems that unless Curtiss-Wright is infused with vast sums of support (money, engineering staff, etc) it will not be able to properly develop the R-3350 in a more reasonable timeline without sacrificing development of the R-2600.
Curtiss-Wright was already plodding through numerous projects and is criticized for not better developing the P-40, or a successor for the same.
Is this mismanagement, or did they really need support?
If the answer is that C-W could under no circumstances properly develop the R-2600 and R-3350 simultaneously, then we have a choice to make. Which one gets priority.
Historically the R-2600 received priority.
If we allow the R-2600 to have priority, let's substitute V-3420's for the R-3350's.
If we give the R-3350's priority, what do we replace the R-2600's with?
V-3420
Much of the same can be asked of Allison.
We know historically that Allison was unable to properly develop the V-3420 in a reasonable time.
And we know their record with 2-stage supercharging of the V-1710.
If infused with vast sums of support (money, engineering staff, etc) would it be able to properly develop the V-3420 to power the B-29 or B-32 in a more timely and reliable fashion?
Other
If neither Allison or C-W can pull this off, what other options are there to the historical timeline?
R-2800's have been mentioned. But that seems to entail a smaller plane.
It seems that unless Curtiss-Wright is infused with vast sums of support (money, engineering staff, etc) it will not be able to properly develop the R-3350 in a more reasonable timeline without sacrificing development of the R-2600.
Curtiss-Wright was already plodding through numerous projects and is criticized for not better developing the P-40, or a successor for the same.
Is this mismanagement, or did they really need support?
If the answer is that C-W could under no circumstances properly develop the R-2600 and R-3350 simultaneously, then we have a choice to make. Which one gets priority.
Historically the R-2600 received priority.
If we allow the R-2600 to have priority, let's substitute V-3420's for the R-3350's.
If we give the R-3350's priority, what do we replace the R-2600's with?
V-3420
Much of the same can be asked of Allison.
We know historically that Allison was unable to properly develop the V-3420 in a reasonable time.
And we know their record with 2-stage supercharging of the V-1710.
If infused with vast sums of support (money, engineering staff, etc) would it be able to properly develop the V-3420 to power the B-29 or B-32 in a more timely and reliable fashion?
Other
If neither Allison or C-W can pull this off, what other options are there to the historical timeline?
R-2800's have been mentioned. But that seems to entail a smaller plane.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
