Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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'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
So i don't think that XB-33 was un intermediate generation design within B-24 and B-29
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.
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.
Vincenzo said:maybe
B-17 first generation
B-24 2nd
B-29 3rd
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 )
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?
FLYBOYJ said: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.
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.
davebender said: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.
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
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?
Vincenzo said:Davparl compare early B-17C with early B-24A (I chose these two because they have similar performing engines), so you can see difference.
I disagree. Certainly by 1940-41 time frame when an upgrade would have to begin, better engines were available/developing and better aerodynamics understood.Jimh said:The bomber designs we had, 17, 24, 29 were the best we could do at the time, warts and all.
The question is why not?To implement major design changes in mid production is a monumental undertaking. There were no intentions of modifying existing designs beyond the basic airframe.
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.
Maybe saving a lot of lives.tomo pauk said: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.
I like the Mixmaster. I could have been impressive if it was started earlier.Would 'we' go for an un-armed bomber, perhaps? Douglas Mixmaster seem to fit the bill here.
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.
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
Your definition generational is time related, mine is performance. This is obviously going nowhere.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