Best piston engined fighter of 1945?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

[URL='https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/'][B]Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary[/B][/URL] said:
backwater
noun
a part of a river where the water does not flow:

a place that does not change because it is not influenced by new ideas or events that happen in other places:

a place that does not seem to know much about the world and its ways:
Click to expand...

backwater

1. a part of a river where the water does not flow: 2. a place that does not…
dictionary.cambridge.org


Definition of BACKWATER

water backed up in its course by an obstruction, an opposing current, or the tide; a body of water (such as an inlet or tributary) that is out of the main current of a larger body; an isolated or backward place or condition… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com


Continued use of this word makes clear that, despite all of your protestations to the contrary, you do consider the PTO insignificant, unimportant to following world events, and not worthy of study.
 
"...the B-29 development & the Manhattan Project being unrelated..."?

Hey G-G, Project Silverplate just called, they want me to hold their beer!
 
'Back burner' is another antonymic term - you'd perhaps prefer instead? (I think Curtis Le May just might've).
 

Whether you intend to or not, by using this inapt word you do millions who fought, suffered, and died a disservice. Here's what the word means:



backwater

noun

back·wa·ter ˈbak-ˌwȯ-tər
-ˌwä-

Synonyms of backwater

1​
a
: water backed up in its course by an obstruction, an opposing current, or the tide
b
: a body of water (such as an inlet or tributary) that is out of the main current of a larger body


2​
a
: an isolated or backward place or condition
b
: an unpopular or unimportant field (as of study or business)

Definition of BACKWATER

water backed up in its course by an obstruction, an opposing current, or the tide; a body of water (such as an inlet or tributary) that is out of the main current of a larger body; an isolated or backward place or condition… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com

PTO doesn't fit any of those denotations. Your argument is with Merriam-Webster. The fact that something is not #1 priority doesn't imply that it is unimportant, inactive, or isolated.
 
Last edited:
J.A.W. said:
"...the B-29 development & the Manhattan Project being unrelated..."?

Hey G-G, Project Silverplate just called, they want me to hold their beer!
Click to expand...
The B-29 was proposed to the USAAC (Army Air Corps) in early 1940 in response to the Army's December 1939 request for a "super long range bomber".

Three other companies responded as well: Lockheed (XB-30), Douglas (XB-31) and Consolidated (XB-32).

Boeing's XB-29 was selected with the XB-32 as a back up, and the first B-29 flew in summer 1942.

At this point in 1942, the Manhattan Project was still in the process of selecting various sites for developing material, research, testing and so on.

It was by 1943, that the Atomic program had an idea of what the bomb shape would be and what aircraft might be capable of carrying it. The Lancaster was briefly discussed as an option due to the size of the first bomb (Thin Man), but was ruled out. A preproduction B-29 was tested for the Atomic bomb tests in November 1943 under the code name "Silverplate".

By May 1944, the B-29 was accepted into USAAF (Army Air Force) service.

In August 1944, "Operation Silverplate" pulled 17 B-29s off the assembly line for Atomic Bombing modifications.

In December 1944, the 509th Composite Group was formed.

The rest is history.

So no, the B-29 and Atomic program were not the one and the same.
 
Yes, I remember watching the film Iwo Jima and seeing the Marines rotate between vulnerable positions to relatively safer positions and thinking no way would I want to do that...
 
J.A.W. said:
Or indeed, the totally revised P-51H.

It'd be a curious thing if reliable flight-test data were available to make a fair comparison - of all 4 Griffon powered late-war prototypes to fly.

(CAC-15, Fury I, M-B V, Spiteful).
Click to expand...
The big advantage was the contra-rotating prop, eliminating torque issues, especially on takeoff.

Handling was praised, with control harmonisation said to be particularly good.

Another MB5 advantage was the accessibility designed into the airframe and the consequent ease of maintenance.
 
In my opinion by 1945
Axis:
  • N1K2 for Japan
  • TA-152H for germany
Allies
  • Tempest MK-V in ETO
  • P-51D PTO
  • Navy F4U-4
URSS
  • LA-7
 
J.A.W. said:
"...the B-29 development & the Manhattan Project being unrelated..."?

Hey G-G, Project Silverplate just called, they want me to hold their beer!
Click to expand...
Project Silverplate was 16 aircraft when the war ended. They had a number of special modifications and could have warranted a different designation such as B-29S.

Silverplate B-29s not only had an enlarged and lengthened bomb bay to contain the bomb, they were significantly lightened by the removal of four gun turrets and their ammo, and by the removal of armor plating.

They also had a considerably better engine than the early B-29s. The fuel-injected Wright R-3350-41 engines in the later model bombers were greatly improved and far more reliable.

That meant considerably better performance in climbing, altitude and speed.

At 30,000+feet altitude, probably unreachable by any current fighter and any current AA, but that wasn't tested other than by U.S. P-47s.

Silverplate modifications included Curtiss Electric reversible-pitch propellers and pneumatic actuators for rapid opening and closing of bomb bay doors.

As modern as the standard B-29 was, the Silverplate B-29 took things to a considerably higher level of performance.

The Very Long Range bomber program that resulted in the B-29 began in 1938, well before there was a Manhattan Project. The B-29 design itself was formulated in 1939. The XB-29s flew in 1942, YB-29s in 1943.

3,950 B-29s were developed for conventional aerial bombing and built by war's end.

The 509th's 16 B-29s had Silverplate modifications and these are the only B-29s that should be charged to the Manhattan Project. The aircraft cost about $650,000 apiece.
 
Last edited:
A number of corrections need made to the above.

Silverplate numbers.
In total there were 65 Silverplate B-29, with 46 produced during WW2 and the remainder between then and 1947. Of those, the very first and the last 8 came from the Boeing Wichita production line and the remainder from the Martin Omaha line.

The 393rdBS 509thBG was issued with a new batch of 15 Silverplates produced from April 1945 with all the latest modifications before leaving for Tinian, as replacements for their earlier aircraft. These came from Blocks B-29-36-MO to B-29-50-MO.

Bomb Bay
Only the very first Silverplate, B-29-5-BW 42-6259 was converted to have a single long bomb-bay. It was completed in Feb 1944. This was needed because the version of the A-bomb then envisaged was the 17ft long "Thin Man" development of which was terminated in 1944. When development shifted to the shorter "Little Boy" and "Fat Man", the long bomb bay was no longer required as these weapons could be accomodated in the forward bomb-bay of a B-29.

Silverplate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org



B-29B
The Bell Atlanta plant produced 311 B-29B aircraft between Jan & Sept 1945. These too were stripped of their remote controlled turrets while the tail turret was fitted with the AN/APQ-15B radar fire control system. Most of these aircraft went to the 315th BW which also used the AN/APQ-7 Eagle radar for precision attacks on Japanese oil targets.
 
OK, there were 15 Silverplate B-29s activated to combat status and sent to Tinian North Field during the war.

I am aware of the 65 in total that were produced before the end of the run.

I am also aware of the later B-29 conventional versions that were without the dorsal and ventral turrets.

All that doesn't obviate my main point which was to agree with others that the general B-29 program was a separate entity from the B-29s used for the atomic bomb missions.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
Good choices all round. Though, in a dogfight I'd give a Spitfire Mk.XIV positive odds against any of the above. Top marks for looks too.

View attachment 795852
Click to expand...
It's strange to me how the griffon spitfires aren't in vogue in modern conscience, 90% of flight sims go to the mk 9 at the most or the tempest mk5 for the RAF 1944-45 fighter.
Books, films, where is the last time you saw people who aren't WW2 enthusiasts talking about it?
Seems there's more about the ta-152 with 25 operational at any single time than anything about the mk14s
 
GrauGeist said:
The 56th FG was assigned the P-47M for work up.

Not sure about not being able to intercept a V-1, the P-47M could make 470mph at 30,000 feet, the V-1's max. speed was about 400mph at an average altitude between two and three thousand feet.
Click to expand...
I believe the "buzz bomb killer" is an urban legend. As you suggest it was too slow at the altitudes the V1s flew at. Also the first V1 was launched to Britain on June 12 1944. That doesn't give a lot of time before entering production in September.
 
It is hardly surprising really given the production figures of the wartime Griffon variants compared to the Merlin models and the number of squadrons equipped. Of 20,000+ Spitfires & Seafires produced, the most produced Griffon variant was the Mk.XIV with just 956 produced.

IIRC the 100 Mk.XII were only used by 2 squadrons in 1943/44 before being replaced by Mk.XIV.

While the first Mk.XIV reached 610 squadron in Dec 1943, only a handful of squadrons were equipped with the Mk.XIV in NWE before the end of WW2 (7?, of which 2 had them for only a short period in 1944 before handing them on to other units, plus a couple of tactical recce squadrons) while several hundred were shipped direct from the factory to India from Spring 1945, where only 3 squadrons re-equipped with them before the war ended, with none of those seeing combat.

The Mk.XVIII only reached the squadrons post war.

The Mk.XXI only reached the first squadron in April 1945 with a second in early May.

While production of the Seafire XV began in late 1944, it was Aug 1945 before the first front line squadrons began to receive them. The Mk.XVII arrived a couple of months later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Best piston engine(s) for fighters of 1945?
5 6 7
Replies
130
Views
12K
spicmart
S
M
Pinnacle of Piston fighter: XP-72 vs Spiteful Mk XVI?
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
5K
Jugman
J
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Engineman
E
Best "general purpose" prop fighter also capable of best high altitude performance
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
PAT303
P
A
Best Axis four engined bomber?
Replies
9
Views
2K
dedalos
D
Menu
Log in
Register