B-32 - Clearing the record a bit

[Donivanp]

It was supposed to say B-29

 

[syscom3]

In 1944, a replacement B29 was looked at which became the B-50. Essentially a B29 with P&W R4360's. This was going to fly in 1947, probably sooner if wartime requirements dictated the need in 1946.

I do not know of any B-32 upgrade planned at any time.

Note - I keep reading references about the terrible quality problems with the B-32 in its initial 1945 production run. I do not see this bomber being of any importance in 1945 or 1946.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In 1944, a replacement B29 was looked at which became the B-50. Essentially a B29 with P&W R4360's. This was going to fly in 1947, probably sooner if wartime requirements dictated the need in 1946.

That's not correct.
Boeing was looking to improve the B-29 performance and get rid of the 3350s. They put R-4360s on a B-29A, it was designated the XB-44. Eventually other design changes came about and the 4360 powered B-29 was to be the "B-29D".

When the war ended the AAF still wanted the B-29D despite cuts across the board. Only "new aircraft" funding was available in the post war defense budgets so in order to acquire the B-29D it's designation had to be changed = B-50A.

Despite the leap in performance the B-29 had over other heavies of the period, the B-50 was the formular the AAF was actually looking for in 1941.

 

[SuperFire]

If the Boeing or the Army Air Corps wanted the 4360's but couldn't get them, then the XB-44 would have been a replacement to what they ended up with in final production; both statements are true and to say it's not correct is just semantics. Some people in the AAC did want them, some obviously didn't or didn't think it was possible at the time. Six and one-half dozen of the other in the end. It IS true, depending upon who you were in the service and at Boeing at the time.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If the Boeing or the Army Air Corps wanted the 4360's but couldn't get them, then the XB-44 would have been a replacement to what they ended up with in final production; both statements are true and to say it's not correct is just semantics. Some people in the AAC did want them, some obviously didn't or didn't think it was possible at the time. Six and one-half dozen of the other in the end. It IS true, depending upon who you were in the service and at Boeing at the time.

No, it's not semantics. The B-50 was never intended to replace the B-29, it was a further development of the B-29 and would have served along side B-29As as the B-50 actually did into the 1950s.

The XB-44 was just a model designation for development only. It was a one off aircraft and never really intended to go any where. The B-50 designation emerged after the war was over. Bottom line had the war continued we would have never had a B-50, rather a B-29D.

Even though its Wikipedia, the time line is spelled out pretty accurately with references.

"Development of an improved B-29 started in 1944, with the desire to replace the unreliable Wright R-3350 Duplex Cyclone engines with the more powerful four-row, 28-cylinder Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major radial engine, America's largest-ever displacement aircraft piston engine in large-scale production. A B-29A-5-BN (serial number 42-93845) was modified by Pratt & Whitney as a testbed for the installation of the R-4360 in the B-29, with four 3,000 hp (2,200 kW) R-4360-33s replacing the 2,200 hp (1,600 kW) R-3350s. The modified aircraft, designated XB-44 Superfortress, first flew in May 1945. The planned Wasp-Major powered bomber, the B-29D, was to incorporate considerable changes in addition to the engine installation tested in the XB-44. The use of a new alloy of aluminum, 75-S rather than the existing 24ST, gave a wing that was both stronger and lighter, while the undercarriage was strengthened to allow the aircraft to operate at weights of up to 40,000 lb (18,000 kg) greater than the B-29. A larger vertical fin and rudder (which could fold to allow the aircraft to fit into existing hangars) and enlarged flaps were provided to deal with the increased engine power and weight, respectively. Armament was similar to that of the B-29, with two bomb bays carrying 20,000 lb (9,100 kg) of bombs, and a further 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) externally. Defensive armament was 13 × .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns (or 12 machine guns and one 20 mm cannon) in five turrets."

First flying in May 1945, the sole XB-44 proved 50–60 mph (80–97 km/h) faster than the standard B-29, although existing sources do not indicate how much of this increased speed was due to differing aircraft weight due to deleted armament or increased power due to the R-4360-33 engines.[7]

An order for 200 B-29Ds was placed in July 1945, but the ending of World War II in August 1945 prompted mass cancellations of outstanding orders for military equipment, with over 5,000 B-29s canceled in September 1945.[4] In December that year, B-29D orders were cut from 200 to 60, while at the same time the designation of the aircraft was changed to B-50.

Officially, the aircraft's new designation was justified by the changes incorporated into the revised aircraft, but according to Peter M. Bowers, a long-time Boeing employee and aircraft designer, and a well-known authority on Boeing aircraft, "the re-designation was an outright military ruse to win appropriations for the procurement of an airplane that by its B-29D designation appeared to be merely a later version of an existing model that was being canceled wholesale, with many existing examples being put into dead storage."


Boeing B-50 Superfortress - Wikipedia

 

[SuperFire]

Ok man! Kind of like saying the F/A-18D isn't a replacement for the F/A-18C even though they are almost two totally different aircraft. Growler!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Ok man! Kind of like saying the F/A-18D isn't a replacement for the F/A-18C even though they are almost two totally different aircraft. Growler!

Errr, the F/A-18D is a two place F/A-18C

 

[SuperFire]

So is! Got a lot of other changes and is much larger. It's basically a different aircraft really. A replacement.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

So is! Got a lot of other changes and is much larger. It's basically a different aircraft really. A replacement.

Its not - its a legacy airframe, I think you're confusing it with the F/A-18 E/F

 

[SuperFire]

Ah, yes, you are correct about the model lettering. My mistake. But you get the idea I hope.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Ah, yes, you are correct about the model lettering. My mistake. But you get the idea I hope.

I do - and when the Super Hornet came about the same/ opposite was done as the B-29/ B-50. To keep funding the Super Hornet was touted to a low-risk "derivative". In the case of the B-29/ B-50, the designation was changed to show it was a whole new aircraft to keep funding. I think the B-50 had well over a 50% common airframe when compared to the B-29.

 

[SuperFire]

So what he said about being a replacement vs. what you said about being the original desire are both true, depending upon which faction that was in charge then viewed it.

 

[BiffF15]

Ok man! Kind of like saying the F/A-18D isn't a replacement for the F/A-18C even though they are almost two totally different aircraft. Growler!

The F/A-18D model is used in a totally different mission set than the C. The Growler (how that name got past the YGBSM board I'll never know) is a variant of the Super Hornet, a completely different plane and mission from the C/D models.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[SuperFire]

We addressed that mistake right after that quoted post, but yes, you are right.

 

[Hansie Bloeckmann]

Swampyankee (Great name, by the way), your question has been asked countless times, and I'm still not sure there is a totally satisfactory answer. According the AAC, the answer was obviously "yes". And given what they knew up to the test of the atomic bomb at Jackass Flats I think the answer would still have had to "yes". The U.S. put a lot of eggs in that one basket, and even after BOTH had been dropped there was no guarantee that Japan would not have continued to fight on and thus necessitating an incredibly costly invasion. We need to look back to the time period from Pearl Harbor up until the time when the knowledge of the existence of the atomic bomb was more widely known among the command structure to truly understand the perceived need. Had the atomic bomb not existed, or not functioned properly or the Japanese hard-liners succeeded in circumventing the Emperor, the U.S. would have needed every long-range heavy bomber we could get our hands on in order to reduce Japan to a slightly hilly parking lot. Casualties in the island campaign had steadily risen in 1945 and there was no reason whatsoever to believe the actual invasion of Japan would not have followed that hyperbolic curve into the stratosphere. It is important to remember that despite the greater and greater numbers of B-29's bombing Japan, the Superfortress was still a problem-plagued aircraft in both equipment and in tactics. Not widely known were the plans to equip the B-29, B-32, B-36 and B-35 (some fairly crazy drawings if I say so myself) with both the Tallboy and Grandslam bombs with which to attack Japan. I suspect these bombs would have been used primarily to hit mountains and their tunnel systems to seal them shut. And don't forget the object floating in the punchbowl - Russia. Had push come to shove we would have needed every long-range heavy bomber would could lay our hands on. I hope that answers most of your questions.

Viking, I can assure you that our book, while it may have the occasional page taken from a manual, is based entirely on original factory, unit and AAC documents and photos. For instance, I obtained over 200 photos alone on the A-17/A-18/A-19 turrets that were designed and tested on the B-32, not to mention documentation on proposed production, tests, etc.

Varsity - I'm working on it/them!!

Donivanp, I, too, would love to see a kit of the B-32 - especially in the "One True Scale, Amen", 1/72nd scale. Given my years in the model kit industry I am sure I have appropriate data and drawings to enable a manufacturer to produce such a kit.

I hope this addresses all the questions and concerns to date. If more appear, I'll be sure to try and address them.

Alan Griffith

Could you please expand on the part Russia played in 1945 as our ally against Japan. How much effort did Stalin actually expend to put Japan's 'nutz in a vise. so to speak??'--I am under the impression that Stalin had a spy network in Japan that informed him that Russia had only Hitler's Army to contend with, that Japan had to immediate plans to hit Russia via Siberia-or whatever far remote areas of the vast USSR empire existed in 1941-42.. If that is true, then Stalin's movement of winter trained troops from Siberia into the front lines against the Germans was the main pivot that crushed the Wehrmacht at Stalingrad--other logistical points the Germans had non withstanding..

 

[swampyankee]

Could you please expand on the part Russia played in 1945 as our ally against Japan. How much effort did Stalin actually expend to put Japan's 'nutz in a vise. so to speak??'--I am under the impression that Stalin had a spy network in Japan that informed him that Russia had only Hitler's Army to contend with, that Japan had to immediate plans to hit Russia via Siberia-or whatever far remote areas of the vast USSR empire existed in 1941-42.. If that is true, then Stalin's movement of winter trained troops from Siberia into the front lines against the Germans was the main pivot that crushed the Wehrmacht at Stalingrad--other logistical points the Germans had non withstanding..

I think it was more as a threat against Japan. Probably the bulk of the Japanese Army was in China; when the USSR entered the war, the Japanese command knew that, after their navy was destroyed, the army would be next. Of course, the USSR never did much, but even as a neutral vis-a-vis Japan, the USSR and Japan were at daggers drawn on the Manchuria-Siberia border.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

So what he said about being a replacement vs. what you said about being the original desire are both true, depending upon which faction that was in charge then viewed it.

No its not - he said a replacement B-29 was looked at in 1944, it was not, Boeing was still developing the Basic design. He said the B-50 was designed to replace the B-29, it was not. The B-50 was first flown in 1947 if for any thing else, WW2 ended or else it would have flown months, if not a year sooner as the B-29D. Those are cold facts and reference were shown.

Do us a favor, instead of focusing on semantics, show us some data or information to support anything to the contrary.

 

[SuperFire]

If it was looked at by someone in '44 then the statement is true. Obviously it was. Do me a favor and be nicer. Your argument is flimsy and you weren't there. Neither was he but you both have valid points. It's just that they come from opposite ends of a tug-of-war that goes on in the DOD to this day over airplanes. You are pushing a bad angle my-man. A he-said, she-said affair from long long ago.

 

[Niceoldguy58]

I just love the way these discussion threads go...Start with the B-32, slip into the B-29, then down the slide to the XB-44 and eventually to the B-50 (by the way, a superb book on the B-50 from Ginter, written by Geoff Hayes - lavishly illustrated and full and lots of delicious facts), then to the F-18 and now back to the B-50. Where next?? Such fun!!

AlanG

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If it was looked at by someone in '44 then the statement is true. Obviously it was. Do me a favor and be nicer. Your argument is flimsy and you weren't there. Neither was he but you both have valid points. It's just that they come from opposite ends of a tug-of-war that goes on in the DOD to this day over airplanes. You are pushing a bad angle my-man. A he-said, she-said affair from long long ago.

Guess what! I've determined that you're too obnoxious and ignorant to be here, enjoy cyberspace!

Oh wait - someone beat me to it! Imagine that!