drgondog
Major
That was my point regarding why the B-32 did Not have a pressurized tunnel similar to B-29.
Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
Because the B-34 was pressurized and the others were not. Without a tunnel you would have to depressurize both areas to allow anyone to travel between.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,004
- Jun 25, 2013
I seems to be a poor use of resources to use a B-32 as a ground attack platform when it would a) require escorts and b) require a lot more logistics support.
If it's escorted, that means fighters and dedicated attack aircraft can do the same task. Considering that each B-32 requires, itself, at least as much support as four fighters, plus the support for its escorts, it seems unlikely this is a sensible role to assign to a heavy bomber.
If it's escorted, that means fighters and dedicated attack aircraft can do the same task. Considering that each B-32 requires, itself, at least as much support as four fighters, plus the support for its escorts, it seems unlikely this is a sensible role to assign to a heavy bomber.
Putting a big airframe low to the ground and at high speeds repeatedly tends to weaken the airframe a bit. Fatigue might become an issue. The B-32's wing was designed for high altitude, not low altitude. Vibration could set in, throwing the pilot's aim, all manner of things might happen. Unless trials were done it would be impossible to say exactly what might or might not work.
The British put their post-war high altitude heavy bombers to work into a low altitude role, the Valiant didn't respond well to it, having to be withdrawn early because of fatigue (following the Valiant stress failures the Victor underwent extensive low-level trials and redesign to improve its fatigue life). The RAF operated the Buccaneer at low altitude through hills and valleys which induced structural weakness that rendered many aircraft useless, despite the type being designed for low altitude ops; the Bucc was for flying low over water, not flying through mountain ranges.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
We could also say the same for the bombers that were conducting bombing missions as well as any other types doing ground attack missions (P-47, B-25, etc.).
Japanese home airspace was going to be hotly contested, no matter what Allied type entered it.
Japanese home airspace was going to be hotly contested, no matter what Allied type entered it.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,344
- Jan 31, 2021
Hence why I was wondering if making it a predecessor of the AC-47 gunship might have worked, rather than a sort of super B-25 strafer.
Clearly, it did. Turning the B-32 into the same might result in a different outcome.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
True enough. Anyone who's seen a C-5 on final approach knows how deceptive a large plane flying low can be.
I'd bet radar isn't an option given the state of the technology at the time. "Look-down/shoot-down" wasn't a thing then because ground-clutter fouled the screens -- and I bet that would apply to ground targets as well, especially since the targets are not moving and are presumably camouflaged as well, which may interfere with return-reception.
Optical would seem to hold more promise, as gyros were growing more complex, and a slaving-locking system for the guns wouldn't seem too hard to cobble together -- we did about the same for the B-29's defensive guns. Would the planes have the room for the heavy ordnance of the Spectre? Doubtful; a slender fuselage has less room to accommodate recoil, and I'd guess the -29 and -32 weren't stressed for sideways forces like that anyway. But still, hosing a target down with 37mm and a few fifties seems most possible of the three options, from either of the two airplanes.
I don't know how sensitive IR systems were at the time so can't offer an intelligent opinion there.
Last edited:
The interesting thing is both the B-1 (Bone) and the B-52 (Buff) became quite useful for Close Air Support (CAS) in Afghanistan. Hours and hours of loiter time, unbelievable amount of weapons (Precision Guided Munitions AKA PGMs), air refuelable. The grunts loved having hours of hate circling above them ready at a moments notice.
Cheers,
Biff
Cheers,
Biff
Thumpalumpacus
Major
They both have the benefit of size (big fuel tanks, large lifting), allowing an expansion of weapons-kit to accommodate better, stand-off arms. The Buff's lifespan already speaks to that ability, and no doubt the Bone's will as well, albeit more technical complication for wings etc.
It's an interesting development -- almost as if the stealth fighters are the destroyers scouting for the fleet while defending themselves, and the bombers are the BBs laying back behind the line to target what's spotted. Done at 600 kts rather than 25 or 30.
All the big ground attack aircraft the USAF tried later , AC-47, AC-119, AC-130, were siting ducks when there was anything bigger than light AA present on the ground.
And I hate to think how bad it might have been if they had been up against any kind of aerial opposition.
And I hate to think how bad it might have been if they had been up against any kind of aerial opposition.
- Thread starter
- #1,512
I'm surprised it took so long to be introduced to operational use. It's first flight was around the same time as the B-29.
Regarding high altitude performance, from what I remember the problem with the B-29 had to do with the following
- Slow climb-rate: Owing to the aircraft being heavier than initially anticipated, the aircraft was underpowered. Further, the cowling didn't provide adequate cooling at lower speeds (if I recall the R-3350's had magnesium accessory components which made fires more likely, but the B-29's magnesium spar made any engine fire a very serious problem) so the climb-speed had to be above what would be considered remotely optimum. A lot of power is needed to climb the aircraft up and that burns a lot of gas.
- Slow acceleration rate: The plane was underpowered and acceleration appeared to be poorer than desired and that would probably mean the plane would take longer to reach the cruise speeds and require higher power settings to cruise at the desired speed than had more engine power been available.
- Cowling-flap design: If I recall the position of the cowl-flaps had a serious effect on the plane's cruising speed. I'm not sure if there was anything unusual about the cowl-flaps or simply due to the plane being underpowered.
Last edited:
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,344
- Jan 31, 2021
The B-32 ran into a lot of development issues. The first prototype had a B-24 style twin rudder tail. It wasn't until 1943 that a B-32 prototype that closely resembled the production aircraft finally took flight.
The B-32 was ordered as a back-up to the B-29, and once the latter had proved itself, the need for the B-32 diminished, particularly since it wasn't pressurized and thus couldn't operate at high altitudes the way the B-29 did. The B-32 also carried less fuel than the B-29s with center fuel tank.
wuzak
Captain
I believe this was also an issue with B-29s., though I am not sure about when cruising.
From what I understand, B-29s taking off from shorter than ideal runways on their island bases while being overloaded had to carefully set the cowling flaps so that the engine did not overheat and the drag was low enough that the required take-off speed could be reached before the end of the runway.
Niceoldguy58
Airman
- 94
- Mar 2, 2010
After a lot of research on the topic, I've long since come to the conclusion that the R-3350 of WWII was an absolutely execrable engine in all aspects. In fact, it wasn't until a complete redesign of the engine after WWII that it could be considered useful vs dangerous. And that was due to Chrysler's work on the engine.
I have often wondered what might have been the case if the USAAF had not been so US-centric and used the Bristol Centaurus "bomber engine" on both the B-29 and the B-32. I suspect that both aircraft would have been substantially safer and earlier in their combat usage had that been the case.
AlanG
I have often wondered what might have been the case if the USAAF had not been so US-centric and used the Bristol Centaurus "bomber engine" on both the B-29 and the B-32. I suspect that both aircraft would have been substantially safer and earlier in their combat usage had that been the case.
AlanG
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
So would the USAAF have purchased the engines from Britain (assuming that the British had any to spare) or would the U.S. have had to tool up a manufacturing plant (like Packard did) and make their own.
If the latter, how long would that have taken to get a substantial number built and who would have made them?
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,004
- Jun 25, 2013
Much more likely would have been to use the Allison V-3420. While the Centaurus was a great engine, I don't think it would be available in time
wuzak
Captain
Certainly not in the numbers required.
Niceoldguy58
Airman
- 94
- Mar 2, 2010
MIflyer, based on what I recall in my B-32 documents your assertion about using the B-32 as essentially a 4-engined attack plane is correct.
And it is also one hell of a thing to imagine....
The concept was not new. 150 sets (4 guns each) of .50 cal. packet guns were produced for mounting on 10th and 14th AF B-24s. I have one photo of this and, while I have the records ordering the production of the packets I have yet to find anything else about the project. Still looking!
Regards,
AlanG
And it is also one hell of a thing to imagine....
The concept was not new. 150 sets (4 guns each) of .50 cal. packet guns were produced for mounting on 10th and 14th AF B-24s. I have one photo of this and, while I have the records ordering the production of the packets I have yet to find anything else about the project. Still looking!
Regards,
AlanG
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
