Best Bomber of WW2 -- #3

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Now you are talking. If you had chosen a different bomber to debate it might have been better but the He-177 really is not debatable. History speaks for itself and so does performance.

 

[DaveB.inVa]

Most of the engine trouble associated with the B-29 was the early carbureted versions. They had fuel distribution problems and some cylinders would be burning fairly lean. This coupled with the tight cowling got things really hot and accounted for plenty of the problems accounted. These early versions also suffered lubrication problems in the cylinder head and through this had cooling problems in that area too. This would lead to a swallowed valve.

Finally oil crossover tubes were used to sufficiently lubricate the valvetrain. Direct fuel injection (fuel was injected directly into the cylinder) solved the fuel distribution problem and a lot of the heating problems.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Cool, thanks for the info there. Do you know of any problems that occured with the remote control armament systems.

 

[DaveB.inVa]

I dont really know of many serious problems that plagued the CFC. Most problems I recall hearing about were when tubes would burn out.

One guy Ive talked to a few times who ended up being a part of the 509th CG started his career testing various fire control systems for the B-29. He was involved in the manned turret program, the Sperry hydraulic program and the GE electronic program. He always said that for the remote systems the GE system was far better and more reliable. He said it was also much more accurate even better than manned turrets. The reason being that it could make just about any gunner a pretty good gunner because it would compensate for lead and bullet drop. He said while there were some gunners using flexible guns (like the waist gunner on a B-17) that were very good and pretty accurate, they developed thier talent and as such were not as prevalent. The CFC system on the B-29 eliminated the guesswork, producing a much better gunner.

I explained it one time to someone else that its sorta like antilock brakes. There are good drivers that can brake by feel and can out brake an antilock system. But such drivers are few and far between. Antilock takes the work out of it and helps an average or even crappy driver at least brake better!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The CFC system on the B-29 eliminated the guesswork, producing a much better gunner.

Yeah I know all about that guess work. It is still what we have to do on our Helicopters.

Thanks for the info by the way.

 

[Gnomey]

Good info Dave. Thanks for that.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and i think we're all agreed the lanc's second best yes??

 

[KraziKanuK]

Are you saving your pennies Lanc?
http://www.lincsaviation.co.uk/popup.cfm?p_n=48322&p_i=48322
http://www.lincsaviation.co.uk/popup.cfm?p_n=48324&p_i=48324

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i wanna wide on the pwane

 

[Gemhorse]

Thanks for that Dave, I've posted before on the B-29's earlier shortcomings... [met with a hail of flak!]... but that also really clarifies the remote gun system...awesome.

I also thoroughly endorse the Lancaster as 2nd....

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

and of course it was the best at night and over europe

 

[Gnomey]

and of course it was the best at night and over europe

Agreed, that it was.

 

[cheddar cheese]

No way lanc! What about the He-177?!?!

 

[syscom3]

But the Lanc has no record in the PTO. Just because its good flying at night over Europe doesnt mean its good at flying long ranges over the PTO.

 

[Glider]

Syscom
With the obvious exception of the B29 no bomber could come close to the payload/range of the Lancaster, you know that as well as the rest of us.
Plus the Jap fighters generally had less firepower than the Germans so our reduced defensive capability wouldn't have been so limiting.

Can I ask why it wouldn't do so well in the PTO?

 

[syscom3]

In the PTO, the B24's were flying 3200 mile missions (round trip). The single pilot design of the Lanc would have reduced the effectiveness of its long range capability due to pilot fatigue.

Plus the Lanc was a sitting duck during daylight. At least the B24's and B17's could attempt some type of defense.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well if you're gonna get so hung up on this point, why not just take a second pilot along with you, i fail to see the problem with that?

and so what if it didn't see serivce in the pacific (despite two lancs being sent out for suitability trials and passing with flying colours), the -262 didn't see any service in the pacific, yet it was the best jest fighter of the war (with the possible exception of the meteor, but she never saw service in the PTO either but this's for annother thread), the -152 never saw service in the PTO but it's still on of if not the best high alt. prop. fighter, i fail to see your point?

 

[wmaxt]

Syscom
With the obvious exception of the B29 no bomber could come close to the payload/range of the Lancaster, you know that as well as the rest of us.
Plus the Jap fighters generally had less firepower than the Germans so our reduced defensive capability wouldn't have been so limiting.

Can I ask why it wouldn't do so well in the PTO?

The Lanc was optimized for its mission, as was pointed out in another thread the range and payload differences between the Lanc and the B-17 is less than the additional armor/armment on the B-17 required for daylite operations. The Lancs biggest (only) advantage over the B-17 is its huge and flexible bombay making it able to carry a wider range of munitions and for shorter missions a larger quantity (not necissarily weight) as well.

The PTO was a different situation
First the priority was Germany.
Second the B-24 was made in greater numbers.
Third the B-24 had a better range
Fourth the B-17 was deemed more robust for the conditions over Germany.

wmaxt

 

[KraziKanuK]

Plus the Lanc was a sitting duck during daylight. At least the B24's and B17's could attempt some type of defense.

Lancs did day ops in the ETO and lost no more percentage of a/c than did the B-17/B-24.

The hand held guns in the American heavies were spray and prey weapons > pretty well useless. The American heavies had an extra turret but the same number of guns in turrets as the Lanc.

Oh yes, the pilot in the Lanc could be relieved by the flight engineer, navigator or bombadier.

Should it be mentioned that night flying is much harder than day flying? Eight hour missions were common and the pilot did not need a relief pilot to replace him unlike the American heavies.

 

[wmaxt]

Plus the Lanc was a sitting duck during daylight. At least the B24's and B17's could attempt some type of defense.

Lancs did day ops in the ETO and lost no more percentage of a/c than did the B-17/B-24.

The hand held guns in the American heavies were spray and prey weapons > pretty well useless. The American heavies had an extra turret but the same number of guns in turrets as the Lanc.

Oh yes, the pilot in the Lanc could be relieved by the flight engineer, navigator or bombadier.

Should it be mentioned that night flying is much harder than day flying? Eight hour missions were common and the pilot did not need a relief pilot to replace him unlike the American heavies.

The Lanc lost a higher percentage of aircraft, I want to say twice on a percentage/sortie basis (memory, I don't have the numbers out), over the B-17s even with the Lanc flying at night.

A major mission, in tight formation, for 8 or more hours where you can see your enemy and cannot counter (AAA), can be just as bad. The early missions where esp stressful, you knew hundreds of fighters were waiting just for you and you didn't even have the dark to hide in. BTW those fighters got 2 or sometimes 3 runs at you.

wmaxt