Donivanp
Major
It was supposed to say B-29
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That's not correct.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.
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.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.
Errr, the F/A-18D is a two place F/A-18COk 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!
Its not - its a legacy airframe, I think you're confusing it with the F/A-18 E/FSo is! Got a lot of other changes and is much larger. It's basically a different aircraft really. A replacement.
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.Ah, yes, you are correct about the model lettering. My mistake. But you get the idea I hope.
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!
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 (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..
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.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.
Guess what! I've determined that you're too obnoxious and ignorant to be here, enjoy cyberspace!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.