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
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Balljoint thanks for that link fascinating stuff.
wuzak
Captain
Much emphasis on the delays to the B-29 program is about the engines, but how much did issues with other sub-systems slow the program? Or was it mainly getting the systems to work together?
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
The B32 had problems with its gun system, so much so that Consolidated removed the remotely controlled gunnery system and fitted normal manned turets. I wonder if Boeing had problems with the guns or was it just that Consolidated couldnt integrate the system.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I'm not sure if Boeing ever had any real issues with the fire control system in the B-29, but they did toy with manned turrets.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-pictures/odd-b-29-a-39837.html#post1094885
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-pictures/odd-b-29-a-39837.html#post1094885
The R-3350 was not nearly as bad of an engine as is often claimed. As flawed as the early R-3350 was, much of the trouble in service were caused by the very poor engine installation of the B-29. No radial would have worked well in the B-29 nacelle as designed.
The B-29 was never expected to be combat ready before January 1944. That was probably an unrealistic goal to begin with. Its first combat mission was Jun 5, 1944. That is less than 22 months after its first flight. It took the Halifax, Manchester, and Liberator bombers between 15-19 months. Most combat aircaft the had their first flight at the onset of or during the war were in this range. Generally the more sophisticated the aircraft the longer it tended to take. Production examples were leaving the factory less than a year after its first flight. That's about the same time it took the B-24, P-39, P-47, and P-51.
Honestly what do people expect?
The B-29 was never expected to be combat ready before January 1944. That was probably an unrealistic goal to begin with. Its first combat mission was Jun 5, 1944. That is less than 22 months after its first flight. It took the Halifax, Manchester, and Liberator bombers between 15-19 months. Most combat aircaft the had their first flight at the onset of or during the war were in this range. Generally the more sophisticated the aircraft the longer it tended to take. Production examples were leaving the factory less than a year after its first flight. That's about the same time it took the B-24, P-39, P-47, and P-51.
Honestly what do people expect?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Another way to validate the R-3350 fire tendancy...
Let's see how many other applications were prone to fire.
Here's other aircraft that used the R-3350 at one point or another. From this list, the one type that did have trouble with onboard fires, was the Mars JRM and an observation regarding the Mars, was that it had a close-fitting cowl assembly. On the otherhand, there are many types on the list that did not have trouble.
Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly
Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Boeing XC-97 Stratofreighter
Boeing XPBB Sea Ranger
Canadair CP-107 Argus
Consolidated B-32 Dominator
Curtiss XBTC-2
Curtiss XF14C
Curtiss XP-62
Douglas A-1 Skyraider
Douglas BTD Destroyer
Douglas DC-7
Douglas XB-19
Douglas XB-31
Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcar
Fairchild AC-119
Lockheed Constellation
Lockheed L-049 Constellation
Lockheed C-69 Constellation
Lockheed L-649 Constellation
Lockheed L-749 Constellation
Lockheed L-1049 Super Constellation
Lockheed C-121 Constellation
Lockheed R7V-1 Constellation
Lockheed EC-121 Warning Star
Lockheed L-1649A Starliner
Lockheed P-2 Neptune
Lockheed XB-30
Martin JRM Mars
Martin XB-33 Super Marauder
Martin P5M Marlin
Stroukoff YC-134
Let's see how many other applications were prone to fire.
Here's other aircraft that used the R-3350 at one point or another. From this list, the one type that did have trouble with onboard fires, was the Mars JRM and an observation regarding the Mars, was that it had a close-fitting cowl assembly. On the otherhand, there are many types on the list that did not have trouble.
Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly
Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Boeing XC-97 Stratofreighter
Boeing XPBB Sea Ranger
Canadair CP-107 Argus
Consolidated B-32 Dominator
Curtiss XBTC-2
Curtiss XF14C
Curtiss XP-62
Douglas A-1 Skyraider
Douglas BTD Destroyer
Douglas DC-7
Douglas XB-19
Douglas XB-31
Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcar
Fairchild AC-119
Lockheed Constellation
Lockheed L-049 Constellation
Lockheed C-69 Constellation
Lockheed L-649 Constellation
Lockheed L-749 Constellation
Lockheed L-1049 Super Constellation
Lockheed C-121 Constellation
Lockheed R7V-1 Constellation
Lockheed EC-121 Warning Star
Lockheed L-1649A Starliner
Lockheed P-2 Neptune
Lockheed XB-30
Martin JRM Mars
Martin XB-33 Super Marauder
Martin P5M Marlin
Stroukoff YC-134
Shortround6
Major General
The Problems were several, some with the engine and some with the cowling. In an effort to streamline the plane the cowling's front opening was a bit too small for ground running or low speed operation. BTW the Lockheed Constellation had some problems with engine cooling too.
Please note the cooling flaps in open position and drag. While the initial design might have been OK in certain climates the majority of the early B-29 use was either hot or high or both. Put that together with max loads and short runways and the plane was being operated very close to the margin if not over at times.
The B-29 went through 4 different dash numbers (at least) of R-3350 engines before it even went past the "A" model and some of them were to address the cooling issues as were the fitting of cuffs of the prop blade roots to increase cooling air flow. I don't know if there were changes to the cowl also. There were different internal cowl baffles ( or baffles mounted on the engine) different oil systems to give more oil to the 3 top rear cylinders which showed the most tendency to overheat. Fuel injection was used for better fuel distribution ( 3 top rear cylinders ran leaner?)
A major problem with re-powering the B-29 was not the take-off or war emergency power ratings of the engines but the max continuous rating ( often used for climb) which for the R-3350s used in the B-29s was supposed to be 2000hp at 2400rpm as long as the engine temperature would allow. This is only 200hp below the take-off power and is a rather high percentage compared to most WW II aircraft engines for example while the R-2800 used in the P-47 was rated for 2000hp military and take-off it was only rated at 1625hp max continuous. Given the altitude and speed a B-29 would be at 5 minutes after starting it's take-off run any replacement engine needs a very high max continuous power setting. (V-3420 may have offered 2100hp in early versions).
Please note the cooling flaps in open position and drag. While the initial design might have been OK in certain climates the majority of the early B-29 use was either hot or high or both. Put that together with max loads and short runways and the plane was being operated very close to the margin if not over at times.
The B-29 went through 4 different dash numbers (at least) of R-3350 engines before it even went past the "A" model and some of them were to address the cooling issues as were the fitting of cuffs of the prop blade roots to increase cooling air flow. I don't know if there were changes to the cowl also. There were different internal cowl baffles ( or baffles mounted on the engine) different oil systems to give more oil to the 3 top rear cylinders which showed the most tendency to overheat. Fuel injection was used for better fuel distribution ( 3 top rear cylinders ran leaner?)
A major problem with re-powering the B-29 was not the take-off or war emergency power ratings of the engines but the max continuous rating ( often used for climb) which for the R-3350s used in the B-29s was supposed to be 2000hp at 2400rpm as long as the engine temperature would allow. This is only 200hp below the take-off power and is a rather high percentage compared to most WW II aircraft engines for example while the R-2800 used in the P-47 was rated for 2000hp military and take-off it was only rated at 1625hp max continuous. Given the altitude and speed a B-29 would be at 5 minutes after starting it's take-off run any replacement engine needs a very high max continuous power setting. (V-3420 may have offered 2100hp in early versions).
Shortround6
Major General
The thing is that there were a series of R-3350 engines and most, if not all of the post war planes got the later versions, There were BA, BB, BC, BD, C and DA series engines at the very least.
Another thing is operating conditions and aircraft weights. A B-29 went about 120,000lbs Normal and 135,00lbs max overload. A Lockheed 649 (with post war engines) was 94,000lbs max take-off weight. It didn't have to flog the engines quite as hard.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Sure and there were mechanical changes to the design of the engine during wartime production, one of which, was the increase of the number of cylinder cooling fins (amongst other things)
The R-3350 was an ongoing evolution, just like everything else.
The R-3350 was an ongoing evolution, just like everything else.
Shortround6
Major General
That is very true and unfortunately the B-29 got to be the plane that went into action first with the R-3350 and bore the brunt of the debugging process.
Imagine the howls and internet bandwidth if the Napier Sabre had gone into service on a 4 engine bomber?
Imagine the howls and internet bandwidth if the Napier Sabre had gone into service on a 4 engine bomber?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Yep!
That would be a helluva bomber in 1943?
OldSkeptic
Senior Airman
- 509
- May 17, 2010
Why bother? Bombing accuracy from 20,000ft was woeful so why go to 30,000ft? To be less accurate?
The plane was insanely expensive to develop (comparable to the Manhatten project from memory).
It failed at it's primary design task and then was switched to low level incendiary bombing over Japan, which could have been done by B-24s at a fraction of the cost.
The plane was a failure by any objective measure.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Have you ever heard of bombing by radar? It was done quite effectively during WW2 and Korea at higher altitudes.
That was the choice made by the operator and the environment it was being operated (Jet stream issues). The low level missions were accomplished to bring Japan to her knees QUICKLY, and based on what was being bombed and the construction of the buildings and factories, this was a perfect deployment of an aircraft that accomplished the mission successfully. No Lancaster, B-24 or He177 could come close to completing the firebombing of Tokyo from the bases the B-29 were being operated from. The B-24 would not have had the legs or bomb carrying capacity to accomplish what the B-29 did, PERIOD!
Additionally the other contribution that the B-29 completed (and detractors of the B-29 either fail to recognize or ignore) was mining operations that probably would have strangled Japan as well as continued fire bombings and actual invasion. .
Operation Starvation sank more ship tonnage in the last six months of the war than the efforts of all other sources combined. The Twentieth Air Force flew 1,529 sorties and laid 12,135 mines in twenty-six fields on forty-six separate missions. Mining demanded only 5.7% of the XXI Bomber Command's total sorties, and only fifteen B-29s were lost in the effort. In return, mines sank or damaged 670 ships totaling more than 1,250,000 tons.
After the war, the commander of Japan's minesweeping operations noted that he thought this mining campaign could have directly led to the defeat of Japan on its own had it begun earlier.
Operation Starvation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
16 years and two wars of service for a "failure" that had one of the lowest combat loss rates of any heavy bomber ever produced.
Your unsubstantiated opinion - regardless how the "operator" deployed it, the B-29 was the best heavy bomber of WW2 and one of the best heavy bombers ever developed. No other allied or axis aircraft could have accomplished what the B-29 did in the time it was operated, and I'll exclude the atomic bomb operations from MY opinions!
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
another point to consider...
Of the B-17, B-24 (or other heavy bombers interred or otherwise), the Soviets chose to copy the B-29. There is a reason for that.
Of the B-17, B-24 (or other heavy bombers interred or otherwise), the Soviets chose to copy the B-29. There is a reason for that.
An interesting article on the the B-29:
The B-29?s Battle of Kansas
particularly the cost effectiveness comments.
The B-29?s Battle of Kansas
particularly the cost effectiveness comments.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
"Initial operations from China indicated that the B-29 was a potential failure, but under LeMay's leadership, the B-29 came to symbolize airpower. It offered, at an ever-decreasing cost in aircraft and personnel, the option of victory over Japan."
Japan was pretty thoroughly beaten by the time Lemay started his low level firebombing tactics. US possession of Okinawa and Iwo Jima meant that the B-29 was no longer the only option for a strategic bombing campaign against Japan.
To put things in perspective, the $3 billion B-29 program cost more than the combined cost of the all the USN's new battleships and aircraft carriers.
To put things in perspective, the $3 billion B-29 program cost more than the combined cost of the all the USN's new battleships and aircraft carriers.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
