B-29 vs Me264

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I still like the B-29. Using the stated performance of the V3 at the bottom of the page the only real advantage the 264 had was in range plus a little slower landing speed. Mostly the greater range came from the 264 being a smaller aircraft.
the lancaster kicks ass said:
well i'm saying it'd need a pretty damned good engine to get stats like that and there are no engine stats on there.........

You don't know anything about the BMW 801 engines?
I don't see that it performed as well as the B-29 or that it had pressurization a requirement for trips up 45hrs. The B-29 often carried 16,000lb bomb load 6,000mi operationaly. For Germany at the time it was designed/built it was a great leap but it Did Not compare with the B-29, though a few years attention might have gotten it there.
The Me-264 could have been....
It was a pretty plane, technically. But it was the Boing which was build
in numbers (and deployed), so I would give all my credit to the B-29.
Germany could hardly support mass production of a plane of such a size. Unprobable.
If the USAAF deployed P-59 Airacomets fresh out of the Bell factory in Niagara Falls, New York to an air base in Long Island to intercept a German intercontinental bomber and Me 264 were used against Manhattan, how vulnerable would the Me 264 have been to enemy interception at high altitudes (like, say 30,000 feet)? I mean, the B-29's advantage over the Me 264 was being able to fly at high altitudes over Japanese cities, given that the jet powered version of the Kyushu J7W Shinden and the Mizuno Type 2 rocket fighter might have flown high enough to thwart B-29 carpet-bombing raids on Japanese territory, but also bearing in mind the fact that the production Me 264 wouldn't have flown as high as the B-29 Superfortress.

Users who are viewing this thread