Missing AAF Bomber Generation

[TheMustangRider]

IMO that would be time well spent as the B-24 had a very short development period prior to mass production. In addition to more powerful engines the initial model B-24 might have gotten self sealing fuel tanks, powered gun turrets and controls with better balance. Mass production starts a year later (1942 ILO 1941) but you get a much better aircraft. Perhaps good enough that the very expensive and problem plagued B-29 program gets cancelled.

I see such event very unlikely as Gen. Arnold himself was very involved in the development of the B-29 and pushed its premature mass production with the conviction that victory over Japan through air power alone would give the USAAF its much desired independence from the Army.

 

[davparlr]

I've been reading up on Boeing history lately and it seems that by 1943 they were pretty confident the war was won. The next generation bomber was going to be a swept wing jet.

jim

Could be true and might explain one reason why, in 1943, the AAF had to send thousands of airmen into the most ferocious air defense system in the world with lumbering 200 mph bombers at 20-25k and 5000lb bomb loads.

 

[davparlr]

So i don't think that XB-33 was un intermediate generation design within B-24 and B-29

Not temporal but technical. The AAF could have fielded a much better performing aircraft in 1943 even if they only upgraded the engines on the B-17/24 or developing a new aircraft. They did neither.

 

[Vincenzo]

l. The AAF could have fielded a much better performing aircraft in 1943 even if they only upgraded the engines on the B-17/24 or developing a new aircraft. They did neither.

I've very large doubt that XB-33 can become operational in '43, why the devolpment of XB-33 must be much faster of that B-29?

 

[davebender]

I am not suggesting the B-29 program should be scrapped.

During 1942 to 1943 the B-29 program didn't look too promising. It would be comforting to know the U.S. AAF had an enhanced capability B-24 in case the B-29 program got axed.

 

[Shortround6]

That is what the B-32 Was for. If it took several years to get a 10,000lb fighter designed and into production the chances of getting a 60-80,000lb bomber into production any quicker were pretty dim. The shear number of engineering drawings would quite formidable. Which aircraft program (or how many programs) should be cut to free up the man power (engineers and draftsmen) for this "back up" program?

 

[davparlr]

You might want to sandwich in the B-19 as an indication of a 2nd generation and why they skipped to the 3rd so quickly.

I am not sure what you mean here. The B-19 was big but did not improve speed and it had a low ceiling. I don't know why they would have skipped the 2nd generation due to it.

maybe
B-17 first generation
B-24 2nd
B-29 3rd

I do not think you will find very many people that consider the B-24 a generation or even a half generation past the B-17, same size engines, same weight, slightly faster cruise, and slightly longer range, but at a lower altitude.

XB-33 was not a design for heavy bomber was designed for high altitude bomber he was four engined but others challengers were twin engined (XB-27 and 28 )

Huh? It carried twice the bomb load of the heavy bombers B-17/24 and its job was not to be a heavy bomber?

I've very large doubt that XB-33 can become operational in '43, why the devolpment of XB-33 must be much faster of that B-29?

Lower risk due to proven engine, and, if necessary, non-pressurization. Basically, an upgrade in performance to standard practices and proven technology.

If you didn't need a bomber the size of the B-29, possibly. Even with these improvements compare the size of the two and the bomb carrying capability of the B-29. The B-24 wasn't going to be stretched any further.

The XB-38 used engines 250 hp more than the B-17F engines, yet cruise and top improved around 26 mph. An increase like that with the B-24 would raise the cruising speed to 240 mph, and if this could be done from 25-30k, I believe it would have provided a significant improvement in survivability. This is a second generation change that could have been done but was not.

TheMustangRider
I see such event very unlikely as Gen. Arnold himself was very involved in the development of the B-29 and pushed its premature mass production with the conviction that victory over Japan through air power alone would give the USAAF its much desired independence from the Army.

Maybe a key here to the cancellation of the B-33A in order to support the B-29.

I am not suggesting the B-29 program should be scrapped.

During 1942 to 1943 the B-29 program didn't look too promising. It would be comforting to know the U.S. AAF had an enhanced capability B-24 in case the B-29 program got axed.

I agree and I think many airmen were lost because of lack of capability that should have existed.

 

[Vincenzo]

Davparl compare early B-17 with early B-24, so you can see difference. XB-33 if im not in wrong was designed for reply to high altitude bomber program. carried less bomb of B-24 and late 17? you compare max load with normal load? so you think that presurization and engine cost almost 1 year on B-29 program? you know that XB-33 was cancelled in november '42 and we have not prototype

 

[jimh]

The bomber designs we had, 17, 24, 29 were the best we could do at the time, warts and all. To implement major design changes in mid production is a monumental undertaking. There were no intentions of modifying existing designs beyond the basic airframe. The B-24 was modified in the field to have a nose turret and later implemented in the factory. The B-29 had its teething problems but soldiered on into Korea. Had the war continued our Jet capabilities would have been ramped up but I truely believe...and this is my opinion only, the advent of the "bomb" gave our military planners a true end game strategy that allowed us to develop aircraft and other weapons beyond WWII while the war was still being fought. The XB-47 was test flown in 1947...I would love to know when the first piece of metal was cut for this airplane.

imho
jim

 

[tomo pauk]

Wonder how well a 4-mot with turbo R-2800, or V-1710 would've fared? The 2800 offers great performance advantage over all fielded, reliable available engines almost to 1945. The V-1710 mated with B-17 airframe was far better than regular B-17.

Would 'we' go for an un-armed bomber, perhaps? Douglas Mixmaster seem to fit the bill here.

 

[davebender]

The B-24 wouldn't need design changes in mid production. It could have been designed for the R2600 engine right from the beginning.

 

[jimh]

It could have been designed from the beginning but it wasn't. The R-2600 burns almost 25 to 30 more gallons of fuel an hour more than the 1830 for a small increase in speed...you still can't squeeze any more bombs in the hull and it would require a bigger wing to accomodate more fuel. Hawkins and Powers re-engined thier fleet of PB4-Y's with the 2600 with great success, but it fit the mission intended, heavy loads of borate or whatever they used in fire supression. In fact they used QEC's from B-25's.

jim

 

[woljags]

Hi was just wondering do we know what the Martin would have looked like

 

[tomo pauk]

It could have been designed from the beginning but it wasn't. The R-2600 burns almost 25 to 30 more gallons of fuel an hour more than the 1830 for a small increase in speed...you still can't squeeze any more bombs in the hull and it would require a bigger wing to accomodate more fuel. Hawkins and Powers re-engined thier fleet of PB4-Y's with the 2600 with great success, but it fit the mission intended, heavy loads of borate or whatever they used in fire supression. In fact they used QEC's from B-25's.

jim

Fine tidbit, thanks
For R-2600 to really work in a heavy bomber, it needs a turbo. Anyone knows if there was any luck with turboed R-2600?

Hi, woljags,
Here is Wikipedia entry for (X)B-33/-33A:
Martin XB-33 Super Marauder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[davparlr]

That is what the B-32 Was for. If it took several years to get a 10,000lb fighter designed and into production the chances of getting a 60-80,000lb bomber into production any quicker were pretty dim. The shear number of engineering drawings would quite formidable. Which aircraft program (or how many programs) should be cut to free up the man power (engineers and draftsmen) for this "back up" program?

This is a reasonable argument for the B-33A schedule but the A-26, an upgrade to the A-20 began as early as 1940. If a new bomber upgrade had started at this time it should not a schedule problem. Obviously, had the AAF started planning an upgrade to the B-17/24 then fielding an upgraded plane in mid '43 should have been no problem. It is interesting that the AAF did not plan/design the B-24 for an engine upgrade. I guess the B-29 was on everyone's mind.

Davparl compare early B-17C with early B-24A (I chose these two because they have similar performing engines), so you can see difference.

Empty weight/gross weight/max gross/load carrying max gross (lbs)
B-17C 30,000/39,320/49,650/19,650
B-24A 30,000/39,350/53,600/23,000

Max speed/cruise speed (mph)
B-17C 323/250
B-24A 292/228

Ceiling (ft)
B-17C 37,000
B-24A 30,000

I don't see your argument at all except for max loaded weight advantage of the B-24, which, by the way, disappeared in final versions.

The bomber designs we had, 17, 24, 29 were the best we could do at the time, warts and all.

I disagree. Certainly by 1940-41 time frame when an upgrade would have to begin, better engines were available/developing and better aerodynamics understood.

To implement major design changes in mid production is a monumental undertaking. There were no intentions of modifying existing designs beyond the basic airframe.

The question is why not?

Had the war continued our Jet capabilities would have been ramped up but I truely believe...and this is my opinion only, the advent of the "bomb" gave our military planners a true end game strategy that allowed us to develop aircraft and other weapons beyond WWII while the war was still being fought. The XB-47 was test flown in 1947...I would love to know when the first piece of metal was cut for this airplane.

In 1940-41, jet bombers were only daydream of a handful of eggheads and no one had any idea about the B-47.

Wonder how well a 4-mot with turbo R-2800, or V-1710 would've fared? The 2800 offers great performance advantage over all fielded, reliable available engines almost to 1945. The V-1710 mated with B-17 airframe was far better than regular B-17.

Maybe saving a lot of lives.

Would 'we' go for an un-armed bomber, perhaps? Douglas Mixmaster seem to fit the bill here.

I like the Mixmaster. I could have been impressive if it was started earlier.

 

[Timppa]

IIRC, the B-29 was a far superior aircraft vs the B-29, heavier firepower, larger bomb load and a greater range. I do however love the way the B-33A looked.

I believe the B-29 was equal to the B-29.8)
(Hint: there is the preview option)

 

[Vincenzo]

Davparl i've already writed the contemporary (or near) B-17 or B-24 have similar capability
but if you see the Y1B-17 and YB-24 (1937 and 1941 planes firsts after the prototypes) the B-24 has around 2 times bombload and 40% more of max range

 

[davparlr]

Davparl i've already writed the contemporary (or near) B-17 or B-24 have similar capability
but if you see the Y1B-17 and YB-24 (1937 and 1941 planes firsts after the prototypes) the B-24 has around 2 times bombload and 40% more of max range

Vincenzo,

You cannot really compare these two aircraft. The Y1B-17's R-1820-39s generated 930 hp each. The YB-24's R-1830-33s generated 1200 hp each, almost 30% more power. By the time the B-24 became operational, the R-1820-65's were equivalent to the R-1830's and performance, except for a small increase in range for the B-24, was almost identical and became more so as the years went on. These planes were not a generation apart.

 

[Vincenzo]

the engine it's that available. the Hawker Fury is not same generation of Gloster Gladiator, but with the right engine Fury performances are not so different; you can't take out engine evolution

 

[davparlr]

the engine it's that available. the Hawker Fury is not same generation of Gloster Gladiator, but with the right engine Fury performances are not so different; you can't take out engine evolution

Your definition generational is time related, mine is performance. This is obviously going nowhere.