Best World War II Aircraft?

[ToughOmbre]

A weapon that saves live is BS. No matter what a weapon is designed to kill people.
If amerika wanted to stop the war the fastest way possible they should have surrendered dec 8 1941.

TO

 

[Colin1]

If America wanted to stop the war the fastest way possible they should have surrendered Dec 8 1941

At least I don't have to spend any more time trying to figure out your handle...

 

[tail end charlie]

that might depend on how the accounting was done.

For instance the Chrysler corp. built a brand new factory just to build the R-3350 engines that had 82 acres under the roof. It was the only engine factory that took in raw materials at one end and put out finished engines at the other end. A redesign of the the factory structure saved enough steel to build 14 destroyers over the original building plans. Over 9,300 machine tools were needed to equip this factory.

I am sure similar stories could be told about other parts of the program which all add to the total cost except that these factories and tooling did not go away.
did the massive factories that built the B-29 airframes ( and were charged to the B-29 program) just vanish or were they used to build B-47s, B-52s and 707 airliners?
How much of the research and development that went into the B-29s gun turrets and fire control were used on the B-36?
As for the Chrysler corp and that factory and machine tools. See---

Ford City Complex Has A Past Most Don't Remember

Do you charge the entire build cost to the B-29 program?

All valid points but I think you could say the same for the nuclear programme in terms of their future use. Both programmes were costly it is fair to say.

 

[Marcel]

If AMERICA surrendered in 1941 it would be spelled AMERIKA. You are an idiot. I do hope you limit your posts here because you're bleeding off brain cells with every stroke on the keyboard.

Eh, Joe, he's Dutch and we dutch do spell it like "AMERIKA"

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Eh, Joe, he's Dutch and we dutch do spell it like "AMERIKA"

So do the Germans, LOL! or we could have spelled it (名) アメリカ合衆国; 北米; 南米; アメリカ大陸

 

[Marcel]

So do the Germans, LOL! or we could have spelled it (名) アメリカ合衆国; 北米; 南米; アメリカ大陸

Looks pretty Those Japanese characters are much more beautiful than Latin ones. And a rising sun looks good with the stars and the stripes. You'll have to let you invade by Morocco, then you'll have the moon on you flag as well. A sure winner

 

[tail end charlie]

Taildraggers, especially multi-engine are inherently more difficult to operate on the ground. Although the Lancaster could have easily carried a nuke, the risk of a mishap is greater just by its configuration which is based on 1930s design standards.

I am not saying the Lancaster was in any way comparable to a B 29 they are different generations although I think it was considered for dropping the bomb.

Just considering a few points

The Nuclear bombs were armed after take off in case of a mishap on the ground. Though personally I wouldnt like to be on any piston engined plane with a nuclear bomb. I dont think at that time any were 100% safe.
The range from Okinawa (where bockscar landed) to Tokyo is less than 1000 miles.
All defensive armament apart from the tail guns was removed from the "silverplate" B29s meaning that your enemy must be defenceless.
Many of the B 29s big raids were made at night at low level dropping mainly incendiaries. Whereas the B29 could fly at high altitude it didnt have an escort at that altitude, if used in europe a few high altitude interceptors would have devastated them, until of course the LW was beaten and then you dont need an A bomb.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I am not saying the Lancaster was in any way comparable to a B 29 they are different generations although I think it was considered for dropping the bomb.

Actually it was considered early in the Manhattan project

Just considering a few points

The Nuclear bombs were armed after take off in case of a mishap on the ground. Though personally I wouldnt like to be on any piston engined plane with a nuclear bomb. I dont think at that time any were 100% safe.
The range from Okinawa (where bockscar landed) to Tokyo is less than 1000 miles.
All defensive armament apart from the tail guns was removed from the "silverplate" B29s meaning that your enemy must be defenceless.
Many of the B 29s big raids were made at night at low level dropping mainly incendiaries. Whereas the B29 could fly at high altitude it didnt have an escort at that altitude, if used in europe a few high altitude interceptors would have devastated them, until of course the LW was beaten and then you dont need an A bomb.

You still run the risk of having an aircraft that can be inherently unstable due to its design configuration carrying the most important weapon of the the war. Would you want to risk that?

 

[tail end charlie]

Actually it was considered early in the Manhattan project

Just considering a few points

You still run the risk of having an aircraft that can be inherently unstable due to its design configuration carrying the most important weapon of the the war. Would you want to risk that?

Not at all but then I wouldn't take off with a nuclear bomb with a faulty fuel system like Bockscar did. I would say by todays standards the engine reliability record of the B 29 made it a risk too, but there was a war on.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Not at all but then I wouldn't take off with a nuclear bomb with a faulty fuel system like Bockscar did. I would say by todays standards the engine reliability record of the B 29 made it a risk too, but there was a war on.

Was was "faulty" about Bockscar's fuel system specifically? And I can tell you that depite the problems with the 3350, by August 1945 the MC rate of the B-29 was well into 90%. LeMay would not have had it any other way.

 

[tail end charlie]

Was was "faulty" about Bockscar's fuel system specifically? And I can tell you that depite the problems with the 3350, by August 1945 the MC rate of the B-29 was well into 90%. LeMay would not have had it any other way.

Something about a fuel transfer pump meant that a 600 gal tank could not be used which was known before take off
Hiroshima and Nagasaki Remembered: The Story of Nagasaki
the article in wiki alludes to the same without being specific.

quote
A typhoon was threatening Iwo Jima, the mission rendezvous point. Yakushima, off the Kyushu coast, became the new rendezvous point and four B-29's were deployed as rescue planes in case crews needed to ditch over water.

Just before takeoff from Tinian, flight engineer Master Sergeant John D. Kuharek discovered that one of the fuel pumps was not operating, effectively cutting Bock's Car's fuel supply by 640 gallons. This could jeopardize a safe return and under other circumstances would have meant canceling the mission. But, to convince the Japanese that Hiroshima was not a one-time occurrence, it was decided to proceed.
unquote


I am sorry I dont know what "MC" means, I presume it is to do with serviceability/availability ?
Whatever it is is 90% satisfactory for a nuclear bomb?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Something about a fuel transfer pump meant that a 600 gal tank could not be used which was known before take off
Hiroshima and Nagasaki Remembered: The Story of Nagasaki
the article in wiki alludes to the same without being specific.

Hear-say. I see no historical value in this. the aircraft functioned as advertised and completed its mission. End of story.

quote
A typhoon was threatening Iwo Jima, the mission rendezvous point. Yakushima, off the Kyushu coast, became the new rendezvous point and four B-29's were deployed as rescue planes in case crews needed to ditch over water.

Just before takeoff from Tinian, flight engineer Master Sergeant John D. Kuharek discovered that one of the fuel pumps was not operating, effectively cutting Bock's Car's fuel supply by 640 gallons. This could jeopardize a safe return and under other circumstances would have meant canceling the mission. But, to convince the Japanese that Hiroshima was not a one-time occurrence, it was decided to proceed.
unquote

your point????

I am sorry I dont know what "MC" means, I presume it is to do with serviceability/availability ?
Whatever it is is 90% satisfactory for a nuclear bomb?

"MISSION CAPABLE" That means you have 90% of your aircraft ready to complete their mission. They can have some equipment not functioning but still can fly their mission. I believe Silver plate aircraft had to be 100% MC at any given time.

 

[looney]

If AMERICA surrendered in 1941 it would be spelled AMERIKA. You are an idiot. I do hope you limit your posts here because you're bleeding off brain cells with every stroke on the keyboard.

I'm not commenting on your intelligence neither, I misspelled 1 letter which in my language can be interchanged in several words. I'm not the very best inforeign languages, heck not even in my native language.
I know that if America (I double checked now) didn't enter war whith Germany, when Germany declared it on America (gees again) I would most like be speaking Russian as a second language by now. And Japan would be probably be a bigger country by now.
However the notion that weapons save lives is incorrect, the sole purpose of a weapon is to kill people. Granted preferably the enemy. Buth a death is a death, I believe both lives deserve the life. The amount of deaths in America should deduce that.

The fastest way to end a war .... thingy is a quote from George Orwell. He also said that: War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.

George Orwell Quotes
George Orwell quotes

P.s. tnx all who did not comment on the stupidity following my less nuanced previous post. If I offended anyone I apologise.

 

[Marcel]

However the notion that weapons save lives is incorrect, the sole purpose of a weapon is to kill people. Granted preferably the enemy. Buth a death is a death, I believe both lives deserve the life. The amount of deaths in America should deduce that.

Hoi Looney,

Strictly speaking, you're correct, but in a bigger view you are not and the view is a little naive imho (no offence meant). Not continuing the war would have enabled Japan to expand the war further, resulting in more casualties, thus just stopping the war like you propose would not have ended the killing. In the view of the American (and I agree), they had to defeat the Japanese so they could not wage any more war. An invasion would have meant that millions of Japanese and Americans were going to die, so the 100,000 was just a little in comparison. This is of course a terrible comparison but in an academic way true. By killing a 100,000, they saved the lives of the millions that were going to die in the invasion.

 

[tail end charlie]

Hear-say. I see no historical value in this. the aircraft functioned as advertised and completed its mission. End of story.

The aircraft did not complete its mission because it flew to Okinawa due to shortage of fuel, its mission was to drop the bomb only if the target was clearly visible. The bomb was dropped so according to the mission the target must have been visible but it missed it by several kilometers in daylight, on diverting to Okinawa it had only about 60 gallons of fuel left which it wouldnt have carrying the bomb. As for historical value are you saying it is untrue or doesn't matter?

your point????
My point was answering your question demanding clarification about a fuel pump, what is the point of saying "your point" when you stated the point in the first place?


"MISSION CAPABLE" That means you have 90% of your aircraft ready to complete their mission. They can have some equipment not functioning but still can fly their mission. I believe Silver plate aircraft had to be 100% MC at any given time.

As I said the mission as stated wasnt completed due to a faulty fuel pump. This discussion started from a tail dragging lancaster being risky with a nuclear bomb. My point was that a plane with a fuel tank inoperative carrying a nuclear bomb is also risky. The fact that the plane made it back doesnt mean my point is invalid. Risks are taken in war.

See above in bold

 

[tail end charlie]

Hoi Looney,

Strictly speaking, you're correct, but in a bigger view you are not and the view is a little naive imho (no offence meant). Not continuing the war would have enabled Japan to expand the war further, resulting in more casualties, thus just stopping the war like you propose would not have ended the killing. In the view of the American (and I agree), they had to defeat the Japanese so they could not wage any more war. An invasion would have meant that millions of Japanese and Americans were going to die, so the 100,000 was just a little in comparison. This is of course a terrible comparison but in an academic way true. By killing a 100,000, they saved the lives of the millions that were going to die in the invasion.

Marcel this is in my opinion a revisionist view, there was no thought in American planning about saving any Japanese lives, only American ones. The Americans planned to keep dropping atomic bombs until the Japanese surrendered reardless of how many millions of lives that cost. In 1944 an opinion poll in the US gave 14% of American citizens favouring the complete extermination of the Japanese people.

 

[Marcel]

Marcel this is in my opinion a revisionist view, there was no thought in American planning about saving any Japanese lives, only American ones. The Americans planned to keep dropping atomic bombs until the Japanese surrendered reardless of how many millions of lives that cost. In 1944 an opinion poll in the US gave 14% of American citizens favouring the complete extermination of the Japanese people.

Of course, but saving the Japanese was a nice side-effect. I'm not saying that the US did this for humanitarian reasons, but fact remains that the dropping of the bomb actually did save lives in an indirect manner.

 

[tail end charlie]

Of course, but saving the Japanese was a nice side-effect. I'm not saying that the US did this for humanitarian reasons, but fact remains that the dropping of the bomb actually did save lives in an indirect manner.

If they were concerned about saving lives they would not have dropped the first on a city. This is of little relevance today but it can lead to the notion that dropping nuclear weapons is a life saver forgetting how powerful they are and how many are in storage. I agree the bombs did shorten the war and so saved lives but it is a calculation made in hindsight, fortunately hirohito wasnt as mad as his generals.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil.

And is the price for peace worth slavery or the giving up basic civil rights? You can ask that to some of our members who lived behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War years or to some of the Chinese victimized by the Japanese of that era.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hear-say. I see no historical value in this. the aircraft functioned as advertised and completed its mission. End of story.

The aircraft did not complete its mission because it flew to Okinawa due to shortage of fuel, its mission was to drop the bomb only if the target was clearly visible. The bomb was dropped so according to the mission the target must have been visible but it missed it by several kilometers in daylight, on diverting to Okinawa it had only about 60 gallons of fuel left which it wouldnt have carrying the bomb. As for historical value are you saying it is untrue or doesn't matter?

your point????
My point was answering your question demanding clarification about a fuel pump, what is the point of saying "your point" when you stated the point in the first place?


"MISSION CAPABLE" That means you have 90% of your aircraft ready to complete their mission. They can have some equipment not functioning but still can fly their mission. I believe Silver plate aircraft had to be 100% MC at any given time.

As I said the mission as stated wasnt completed due to a faulty fuel pump. This discussion started from a tail dragging lancaster being risky with a nuclear bomb. My point was that a plane with a fuel tank inoperative carrying a nuclear bomb is also risky. The fact that the plane made it back doesnt mean my point is invalid. Risks are taken in war.

See above in bold

Please don't cut and paste a quote, it makes it difficult to answer.

The aircraft did not complete its mission because it flew to Okinawa due to shortage of fuel, its mission was to drop the bomb only if the target was clearly visible. The bomb was dropped so according to the mission the target must have been visible but it missed it by several kilometers in daylight, on diverting to Okinawa it had only about 60 gallons of fuel left which it wouldnt have carrying the bomb. As for historical value are you saying it is untrue or doesn't matter?

I'm saying its irrelevant in comparing the B-29 and Lancaster as a nuclear bomb carrying platform. Bottom line, the mission was completed and the crew returned to "a" base safely. The fact that one component failed during this mission doesn't give argument that a B-29 carrying a nuke was just as risky as a Lancaster doing the same thing.

As I said the mission as stated wasnt completed due to a faulty fuel pump. This discussion started from a tail dragging lancaster being risky with a nuclear bomb. My point was that a plane with a fuel tank inoperative carrying a nuclear bomb is also risky. The fact that the plane made it back doesnt mean my point is invalid. Risks are taken in war.

The bomb was dropped and the aircraft returned to base, although it had to divert because of a mechanical proplem the mission WAS completed. Risks are taken in war but you try to mitigate risks and utilizing an aircraft with a natural configuration that can present a risk is not a good idea. After the Lincoln, how many tail dragger bomber aircraft were produced?