Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So how was the pressurized cabin affected by gun/cannon fire? Did it cause a rapid depressurization and the crews had to scramble for air/coats/gloves/boots or did it have something similar to a self sealing fuel tank to close up the holes?
Another crack like like and I'm kicking your dumb ass into cyber space....
.
The He-177 operationally was a dismal failure despite its potential and having its problems allegedly fixed. I believe the he-177 would not have been able to achieve the mission capable rates of the Lancaster, B-17 or B-24 if flown operationally like those aircraft, just due to its complex systems.
Please ban me, so I won't be tempted to post here anymore. I didn't realize what an ******* you really are.
Please ban me, so I won't be tempted to post here anymore. I didn't realize what an ******* you really are.
I asked the B29 veterans about what they did when their AC was holed by flak or bullets.
They said they were issued wooden plugs (yes, wooden) that they could place into holes as needed.
They also said that on combat runs, everyone was suited up for high altitude. If you have to bail out, you need to be ready! Of course, later in the war they were bombing from low altitudes, so the wooden plugs and high altitude flight suits were not needed.
One of the airmen told us that when a big enough hole did appear and the outrushing air was of sufficient volume, it certeinly brought up a lot of coral dust that had accumulated in the fuselauge.
That the impact on war of He 177 was low i think all are agree, but if B-29 it's the more advanced (heavy) bomber of war sure the 177 was the second, the engine trouble were fixed, the dive bomber role was abbandoned, idk what are the ready % of Lancaster, B-17, B-24, B-29 177, you know it? please post it. the difference on % ready planes can depend not only on trouble on planes but also of different organization of air forces
That the impact on war of He 177 was low i think all are agree, but if B-29 it's the more advanced (heavy) bomber of war sure the 177 was the second, the engine trouble were fixed, the dive bomber role was abbandoned, idk what are the ready % of Lancaster, B-17, B-24, B-29 177, you know it? please post it. the difference on % ready planes can depend not only on trouble on planes but also of different organization of air forces
If you make all those changes, you end up with a totally different aircraft a bit like the Manchester compared to a Lancaster. No one would claim that the Manchester was a success because it led to the development of the Lancaster.
Like the Manchester, the He 177 was a dead end.
I'm not talking of eventually change, only of actual change, the engine trouble was solved, the dive bomber role abbandoned...
Flyboy also your are "ifs" if trouble not solved, if troublesome in maintenance, if it's difficult to product.
Well in the end the He-177 was not able to prove itself and I believe it was because of its poor gestation period and by Luftwaffe doctrine and politics. Although every heavy bomber had some kind of development problem, I believe something like 7 He-177s were lost during the development stage. Had that happened to the B-29, the program would have been cancelled. By the time all the bugs have been worked out of it, most bombers serving in the LW were grounded because of the continual bombing of Germany.
you are sure that were loss 7 177 in development stage, and a so heavy loss had would cancelled a US program?
The B-29 was far from trouble free itself.
One basic "measure" of a bomber is it's installed take-off power.
Since any plane is a series of compromises, one can compare take-off power and see what a designer or group/staff writing a requirement had to work with.
Using twin 1000hp engines you could get a fast small bomber, with short range a small bomb load or you could get a larger, slow bomber that could carry a much larger bomb load quite a bit farther or you could try for a medium speed bomber and medium load over a medium range. The more power available the more performance that could be had in one of those three categories (or the more defensive guns could be stuck on the plane).
With 8000-8800hp the B-29 simply out powered anything else. Combine that with more advanced aerodynamics and more advanced systems and there is no WW II bomber that saw squadron service that could perform the missions the B29 could.