B-32 - Clearing the record a bit

[MIflyer]

I recall seeing pictures of brand new B-32's flown straight to the disposal site at Kingman, AZ. As a result of taxiing over rather rough ground the engine mounts on some failed and the engine basically fell off. That would not bode well for service.

 

[Niceoldguy58]

wlewisiii

I've not read anything about the B-32 having any of the flight quirks of the B-24 with one possible exception which deals directly with your question. As on the B-24, the B-32 twin-tail configuration had flutter problems. This was due to the geometry of the wings/engine/tail and the air flow. The B-24's tail flutter was especially onerous when the cowl flaps were open and disturbing the air flow. The same was experienced in flight testing of the early twin-tail B-32. These problems pretty much disappeared with the single tail configuration of the B-24K. That story is a bit more involved and I've dug up TONS more info since Consolidated Mess, Vol. I went to print. I'm not sure whether that will show up in Vol. II or an updated reprint of Vol. I. Still thinking.

The height of the tail on the B-32 was due - I believe - to the fact that the fuselage of the B-32 curved downwards behind the rear top turret. Thus, you had to have a higher tail to get the control surfaces into cleaner air unaffected by the airflow over the fuselage and turrets. It would also provide a much better field of fire, twin tails in and of themselves being a major problem for a clear field of fire. For these reasons, no multiple tail would EVER solve that problem, nor would it cure the inherent flutter problem.

MIflyer, you are a victim of a decades-old pile of BS with that story about the rough ground causing the engine mounts to break. I have not only the photo that has been seen but a document talking about the incident. What happened was the crew was doing a run-up of engine #3 and it overheated so much in the desert heat that it melted the engine mounts. If you look closely at #4 you will see that the inboard cowl also started to melt. It had nothing whatsoever to do with taxiing. Sorry if that ruins a cherished historical moment.

Any other questions or observations on the B-32 please feel free to post them here and I'll attempt to answer them. I've found all sorts of interesting stuff on the bird and proposed armament fittings, engine fittings and bomb loads.

Respectfully submitted,

Alan Griffith

 

[model299]

I was a volunteer at the gone-but-not-forgotten Planes of Fame Museum at Flying Cloud Airport here in the twin cities up to the time it was closed and moved to California. (DON'T get me started! )

I seem to remember from that time frame that SOME organization up here had a complete B-32 nose turret. I seem to remember looking at it at some display, possibly at the Minnesota ANG hanger.

I too, await the book with much eagerness.

 

[tomplatten]

I thought it would be appropriate to add some hard-won facts to the discussions on the B-32. Too many fairy tales have arisen about the aircraft over the many decades since she disappeared.

Where to start? I suppose the first place is that all this information comes from documents and photos gathered for a new book on the B-32 by me (Alan Griffith, author of "Consolidated Mess, Vol I" and Nick Veronico, author of many books). This book will, I believe, be the definitive book on the B-32 Dominator/Terminator and we plan to have it to the publisher a bit later this year. I estimate that in photos alone, some 90% have never been seen. While there may be some manual drawings used in the book, the emphasis at all times has been original documents, reports, drawings and photos.

Anyway, while it is true that more emphasis went into the B-29, it needs to be understood that Boeing had begun the process that would result in the B-29 as early as with the Y1B-20 series (Model 316, 316A/B/C/D) . Consolidated was making a huge jump with the B-24 and its inexperience with building big bombers showed in many ways.

Rather than get into the many delays in the B-32 program here, I will share that by late 1944-early 1945 General Arnold ordered that Consolidated should pump out B-32's as quickly as possible. No more delays were to be accepted and personnel from the B-36 program should be moved over to the B-32 as needed. THe B-32 was going to used to pound Japan into dust, so they needed a lot of them. I have a schedule showing the replacement of B-24s in all parts of the Pacific, the CBI and finally the Aleutians (there in November, 1946) by month. THe pressure to produce B-32s would continue to grow until it suddenly ended and the program cancelled. There were a number of reasons for this. The Atomic Bomb is an obvious cause, but not the only one by any means. The Bomb had been kept completely secret (except to the spies, of course), so it wasn't until it became necessary to let Arnold in on the secret and start training B-29 crews to drop it that they decided to pull the plug on the B-32. In addition, a number of very telling arguments had been made along the way that the B-29 was a better, cheaper aircraft and that it was ALREADY IN MASS PRODUCTION and in combat.

Had the B-32 been in production a year earlier, I have no doubt that B-24's would have been gone in the proverbial heartbeat. Also, keep in mind that the manner in which the B-29's were ultimately used - low to medium altitudes and increasingly at night - would have fit perfectly into the B-32's capabilities. My only real question is whether or not they would have been sent to Europe or dedicated to the Pacific. I lean to the latter as I'm not convinced Doolittle et al would be enthusiastic about having to establish yet another logistical trail for a new, untested aircraft at the same time they were trying to make the 8AF an all-B17 unit as it was.

There has been much said about the poor quality of the B-32. My research has not shown this to be the case any more than it was in the early B-29's. The causes for the problems appears to have been due to the number of new and untried systems incorporated into the design and, even more so, the jump from working out the bugs and into full production in such a short time.

Finally, the B-32 was a Fort Worth aircraft, NOT San Diego. There was discussion about starting a second production line in San Diego, but that never came to fruition.

There is so much to be told in the story of the B-32 that has never been touched upon that it is a bit difficult to know where to begin and where to end in an admittedly limited format such as this. I promise to keep everyone appraised of the progress on "Dominator - The Untold Story of the B-32" and will be glad to answer what questions I can about the aircraft itself.

Respectfully submitted,

Alan Griffith

 

[G10N1]

Do you know of any plans to install the wasp major on the B-32?

I've also seen 82 feet 1 inch or 83 feet 1 inch given as the length depending on the Manual. Anyone know which is correct?

A great site that has a lot of info on the B-32's at Kingman is www.depot41.com
Apparently the owner of the site has a lot of load adjusters, access panels and an instrument Pnl in his collection. Unfortunately no pictures of the instrument pnl though.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm not convinced Doolittle et al would be enthusiastic about having to establish yet another logistical trail for a new, untested aircraft at the same time they were trying to make the 8AF an all-B17 unit as it was.

I have to find the reference but I remember reading that there was a plan to eliminate all B-17s and B-24s and replace them with the B-32 had the war progressed into 1946.

 

[G10N1]

I've read the same somewhere as well. I have no doubt the 32 would have been the new work horse for the AAF and would have been a great bomber given more time. Many of the unsatisfactory issues and new airframe teething problems were fixed or had plans to be fixed in future blocks.

I believe the biggest blow to the program was the defeat of Germany. VE Day freed up a hell of a lot of bombers to be used in the pacific and the majority of B-32 orders were canceled. This slashed production at Fort Worth and canceled the whole line that was just starting production at San Diego. With so few orders remaining it was not feasible to implement many of the design changes and improvements due to cost.

 

[Niceoldguy58]

Greetings gentlemen!

G10N1, the reason you've seen differing numbers for the length of the B-32 is due to unnecessary - and probably uninformed - abbreviating of the actual length which, at 83' 1.75", falls between the two. The actual length is from official USAAF specifications for the B-32.

Flyboy, there were periodic plans to replace most B-24's, both in the Med and throughout all the Pacific Theaters of Operation. The replacement for the Med ended rather early, but as late as early 1945 the plan was to replace all B-24's throughout the Pacific. I have the records outlining the replacement by Air Force and Group up to the final replacement which would have been in the Aleutians in November 1946. The specifics will appear in the book.

As for the cancellation of the B-32 - after Arnold's late 1944 orders to drop everything and produce every B-32 they could get out the door for use against Japan - I believe there were a number of factors going on here. For one thing, production of B-29's was accelerating while that for the B-32 was still dragging. For another, the B-29 was cheaper than the B-32. With the capture of Okinawa the Japanese mainland was well in range of B-24's which were being refurbished in the U.S. (both new and relatively new aircraft from the ETO and MTO) for bombing Japan. Finally, I suspect that around the time the B-32 was cancelled the highest command levels of the Air Force may have been informed of the development of the atomic bomb.

And for last, someone asked if there was ever a plan to fit the B-32 with X-Wasp (R-4360) engines. The answer is yes, but it was suggested as a variant in September, 1942 to serve as a high-altitude long-range patrol and bomber aircraft. It was to have two (2) R-4360's and retain the same wing and landing gear. However, the fuselage was to increase from 9' 6" in diameter to 12' diameter. It was also to be able to carry eight (8) Mk 13-2 torpedoes. I don't believe this got any farther than as a suggested variant along with several possible transport variations.

I hope this is useful and informative.

Alan Griffith

 

[llemon]

Did they ever look at V-3240s for the 32?

Were there any plans for a naval variant ala the PB4Y? It seems pretty logical to replace that aircraft with a B-32 derivative.

 

[Shortround6]

Did they ever look at V-3240s for the 32?

Were there any plans for a naval variant ala the PB4Y? It seems pretty logical to replace that aircraft with a B-32 derivative.

There may have been but since they kept the PB4Y-2s until 1954 it doesn't seem it was a high priority to replace it. The maritime patrol/anti-sub environment being a whole lot less demanding of aircraft performance than penetrating defended airspace. ANd if you can't kill a submarine with the first four homing torpedoes you drop on it are you really going to kill it with numbers 5-8???

 

[Niceoldguy58]

llemon and Shortround,

Yes, as a matter of fact there WAS proposal for a Naval B-32. The documents/drawings/proposal are dated 4-28-45. Consolidated was looking for a way to sell the B-32's they'd already made as well as keep the production line open - which they had just spent a lot of time and money setting up. Even thought the Block 30 was the last to be manufactured Consolidated had changes already laid out for each block up through Block 60.

The version for the Navy was configured as a 4-engine reconnaissance landplane for Patrol Reconnaissance, anti-submarine patrol and bombardment depending on how it was configured. The rear bomb bay had an alternate photographic installation of four or five K-17 cameras (I've got illustrations as both). The front bomb bay was still configured for weapons. Since the aircraft was meant for low to medium altitude reconnaissance the Service Ceiling under military power was only 19,500ft. Turret armament remained the same as on the standard B-32.

I don't know of any specific designation other than as the Model 33 4-engine Reconnaissance Landplane.

As for R-3420's, to date I have found no mention whatsoever of fitting the B-32 with this engine. I suspect that by the time the B-32 was finally in production there was no interest in further development of what really was a fine engine as proven on both the B-19A and the XB-39. The U.S.'s last big recip - the R-4360 - was already being fitted to the next version of the B-29, what would eventually be the B-50. However, the future was going to be jets and by 1943 this meant fighters and by 1944 they were talking jet bombers.

I hope this is informative and useful.

Alan Griffith

 

[G10N1]

Anyone have information on the gross weight of TB-32s and later production B-32s?

The only number I've found is for a block 1 in the pilots manual, I think it was aircraft 478. (I'll edit with the number when I find the manual)

 

[ktank]

I thought I remembered taking a picture of a B-32 nose turret at the NASM's Paul Garber restoration shop a long time ago, as I live near by and have been there dozens of times, including the last ever public tour. If/when I find the pic I will post it.

Wish I remembered what my Dad told me about the mechanism to both unlock and fold the tail, but this is a lost memory.

Since we are talking about aircraft powered by the "wonderful" R-3350, I remembered another story from my Father. Dad was on the flightline when an AOA Connie taxied up to the hanger and shuts down. Crew come out to check the plane as my Dad is standing about 50 ft. in front, facing the plane. The pilot comes down the stairway, sees my Dad, and kind of storms over to Pops, obviously mad about something. Dad says is there a problem? Pilot goes, hell yes, the No. 2 engine is running rough, fix it! About that time, a mechanic looking at the No.3 engine starts motioning more techs to hurry over and sees oil coming out of the cowling, so Dad, as the mechanics are taking the cowl panels off, asks the pilot, how well was No. 3 running? The pilot responded, one of the best engines he's flown, wish all of them ran like it. Dad asks him to turn around and look at No. 3, please. The Pilot does this, and just then, a lower cylinder and head assembly just fall off the engine case onto the ramp. Dad says, really? I was told the Pilots' face turned beet red and he stormed away cursing. Turns out, No.2 just needed a little TLC but No. 3 had to be replaced! I learned a lot about engines, and assumptions, from my Father.

Reputedly the Qantas Connies that pioneered the Kangaroo Route to London in the late '40s flow out with a spare 3350 in the cargo hold, such was the confidence in them.

 

[Daggerr]

I thought it would be appropriate to add some hard-won facts to the discussions on the B-32. Too many fairy tales have arisen about the aircraft over the many decades since she disappeared.

Where to start? I suppose the first place is that all this information comes from documents and photos gathered for a new book on the B-32 by me (Alan Griffith, author of "Consolidated Mess, Vol I" and Nick Veronico, author of many books). This book will, I believe, be the definitive book on the B-32 Dominator/Terminator and we plan to have it to the publisher a bit later this year. I estimate that in photos alone, some 90% have never been seen. While there may be some manual drawings used in the book, the emphasis at all times has been original documents, reports, drawings and photos.
.........................................
I promise to keep everyone appraised of the progress on "Dominator - The Untold Story of the B-32" and will be glad to answer what questions I can about the aircraft itself.

Respectfully submitted,

Alan Griffith

...............................

My co-author, Nick Veronico, and I intend to have this book finished and to the printer a bit later this year. It is our intent for this to be the DEFINITIVE book to date on this aircraft. There will be NO massive reprints of previously published documents, but all original and fascinating information about the B-32, its weapons, its near-life and ultimate death.

So very, very much on this interesting design that has never seen the light of day. We will rectify this in what is looking like a pretty big book.

Respectfully submitted,

AlanG

That was posted early 2028 2018, some 5 years ago.

AFAIK this new B-32 book still has not been published.

Does anybody have any idea what the status of this book is?

EDIT: typo corrected, as mentioned by Donivanp.

 

[Donivanp]

That was posted early 2028, some 5 years ago.

AFAIK this new B-32 book still has not been published.

Does anybody have any idea what the status of this book is?

But 2028 is five years in the future!

 

[Snautzer01]

Does anybody have any idea what the status of this book is?

Good question.

 

[Donivanp]

It's a back to the future thing. Need a Dalorean, a flux capacitor and a scruffy haired scientist. Good luck on all accounts.

 

[33k in the air]

That was posted early 2028, some 5 years ago.

AFAIK this new B-32 book still has not been published.

Does anybody have any idea what the status of this book is?

I can't find any mention of it through Google Books.

There is Consolidated B-32 Dominator — The Ultimate Look from Drawing Board to Scrapyard by William Wolf (Schiffer Publishing, 2006).

 

[GregP]

I thought it would be appropriate to add some hard-won facts to the discussions on the B-32. Too many fairy tales have arisen about the aircraft over the many decades since she disappeared.

Where to start? I suppose the first place is that all this information comes from documents and photos gathered for a new book on the B-32 by me (Alan Griffith, author of "Consolidated Mess, Vol I" and Nick Veronico, author of many books). This book will, I believe, be the definitive book on the B-32 Dominator/Terminator and we plan to have it to the publisher a bit later this year. I estimate that in photos alone, some 90% have never been seen. While there may be some manual drawings used in the book, the emphasis at all times has been original documents, reports, drawings and photos.

Anyway, while it is true that more emphasis went into the B-29, it needs to be understood that Boeing had begun the process that would result in the B-29 as early as with the Y1B-20 series (Model 316, 316A/B/C/D) . Consolidated was making a huge jump with the B-24 and its inexperience with building big bombers showed in many ways.

Rather than get into the many delays in the B-32 program here, I will share that by late 1944-early 1945 General Arnold ordered that Consolidated should pump out B-32's as quickly as possible. No more delays were to be accepted and personnel from the B-36 program should be moved over to the B-32 as needed. THe B-32 was going to used to pound Japan into dust, so they needed a lot of them. I have a schedule showing the replacement of B-24s in all parts of the Pacific, the CBI and finally the Aleutians (there in November, 1946) by month. THe pressure to produce B-32s would continue to grow until it suddenly ended and the program cancelled. There were a number of reasons for this. The Atomic Bomb is an obvious cause, but not the only one by any means. The Bomb had been kept completely secret (except to the spies, of course), so it wasn't until it became necessary to let Arnold in on the secret and start training B-29 crews to drop it that they decided to pull the plug on the B-32. In addition, a number of very telling arguments had been made along the way that the B-29 was a better, cheaper aircraft and that it was ALREADY IN MASS PRODUCTION and in combat.

Had the B-32 been in production a year earlier, I have no doubt that B-24's would have been gone in the proverbial heartbeat. Also, keep in mind that the manner in which the B-29's were ultimately used - low to medium altitudes and increasingly at night - would have fit perfectly into the B-32's capabilities. My only real question is whether or not they would have been sent to Europe or dedicated to the Pacific. I lean to the latter as I'm not convinced Doolittle et al would be enthusiastic about having to establish yet another logistical trail for a new, untested aircraft at the same time they were trying to make the 8AF an all-B17 unit as it was.

There has been much said about the poor quality of the B-32. My research has not shown this to be the case any more than it was in the early B-29's. The causes for the problems appears to have been due to the number of new and untried systems incorporated into the design and, even more so, the jump from working out the bugs and into full production in such a short time.

Finally, the B-32 was a Fort Worth aircraft, NOT San Diego. There was discussion about starting a second production line in San Diego, but that never came to fruition.

There is so much to be told in the story of the B-32 that has never been touched upon that it is a bit difficult to know where to begin and where to end in an admittedly limited format such as this. I promise to keep everyone appraised of the progress on "Dominator - The Untold Story of the B-32" and will be glad to answer what questions I can about the aircraft itself.

Respectfully submitted,

Alan Griffith

I'll take a copy when you get one.

 

[Daggerr]

But 2028 is five years in the future!

That was an unfortunate typo which I have now corrected. Thanks for pointing that out.

I can't find any mention of it through Google Books.

There is Consolidated B-32 Dominator — The Ultimate Look from Drawing Board to Scrapyard by William Wolf (Schiffer Publishing, 2006).

I was aware of William Wolf's B-32 book from 2006, but just when I considered buying it Alan Griffith announced his new B-32 book in 2018. I wonder if and when his book will finally be available.