The problem with that though, those were silverplate addition B-29's. While the airframe was basically the same minus the gun and turrets, the engines had numerous modifications on them to correct the known issues of the Cyclones in the standard B-29's.
Most agile four engined aircraft ww2?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I don't think any of us can say for certain, as none of us have flown them. The B29 looks like an ungainly beast. Sorry but it's ugly! And dad definitely said the B-24 handled like a cow. Dad said the Lancaster was a wonderful aircraft to fly. It handled like a Tiger Moth. I saw it fly at the Abbotsford air show and the pilot put it through what I thought particularly steep climbs, turns and dives. Also Captain Winkle Brown was very impressed with the aircraft. However, the B-17 looks like she handles nicely. She looks nice too and that's got to count.
This is what dad had to say about the Lancaster:
"The Lancaster was the finest aircraft I have ever flown. It was like flying a Tiger Moth, really, except that it had 4 engines. It just floated like a bird! It didn't want to land! It was as if it just loved to fly! It was responsive to the controls—just a little touch of the controls, the rudder or the control column, to bank or climb or dive, just a slight movement and it performed beautifully and smoothly.
The pilot had fantastic visibility. You could see everything; it was like being in a greenhouse. I could look around, if I arranged my seat to its highest and shortened the rudder pedals to the fullest extent, I could see right around through 360 degrees and it was wonderful to see like that. I could see right into the astro hatch and if Jonesy (Wireless OP) was there, I could see him and also look right at Nick Horychka in the Mid-Upper Turret. The aeroplane was absolutely beautiful. Now we had never flown this plane before so I went out with an American who was on the squadron by the name of Lt Joe Hartshorn. He was an awfully fine man. He did one circuit and landing and he then stepped out of the airplane and I took it from there."
Jim
This is what dad had to say about the Lancaster:
"The Lancaster was the finest aircraft I have ever flown. It was like flying a Tiger Moth, really, except that it had 4 engines. It just floated like a bird! It didn't want to land! It was as if it just loved to fly! It was responsive to the controls—just a little touch of the controls, the rudder or the control column, to bank or climb or dive, just a slight movement and it performed beautifully and smoothly.
The pilot had fantastic visibility. You could see everything; it was like being in a greenhouse. I could look around, if I arranged my seat to its highest and shortened the rudder pedals to the fullest extent, I could see right around through 360 degrees and it was wonderful to see like that. I could see right into the astro hatch and if Jonesy (Wireless OP) was there, I could see him and also look right at Nick Horychka in the Mid-Upper Turret. The aeroplane was absolutely beautiful. Now we had never flown this plane before so I went out with an American who was on the squadron by the name of Lt Joe Hartshorn. He was an awfully fine man. He did one circuit and landing and he then stepped out of the airplane and I took it from there."
Jim
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
I suspect that given the structural integrity of the He 177, it could well have been the most manueverable in low GW mode.
drgondog
Major
seems unfair to discount the He 177.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
As long as we brought up the Silverplates, given 20/20 hindsight, would the USAAF been better served had all the B-29s been built as Silverplates from the get-go?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Not really.
The Silverplates were highly modified and included equipment unique to the Atomic mission, like an additional crew station for the "Weaponeer" as well as radio and sensing equipment/antennas.
Lancaster?
Lots of power and aerodynamic refinement, quite agile for any plane, let alone a bomber… but
You wouldnt want to try and get out of one in a hurry, there were sacrifices for that agility that made it a rather compromised 'war' plane. See climbing over that mid set wing spar!
In that respect, accessibility, the Halifax was better.
The B-17? 'Dependable', easy and relaxing to fly, tough as nuts, and a very easy plane to get out of , (ball turret excepted!)
Lots of power and aerodynamic refinement, quite agile for any plane, let alone a bomber… but
You wouldnt want to try and get out of one in a hurry, there were sacrifices for that agility that made it a rather compromised 'war' plane. See climbing over that mid set wing spar!
In that respect, accessibility, the Halifax was better.
The B-17? 'Dependable', easy and relaxing to fly, tough as nuts, and a very easy plane to get out of , (ball turret excepted!)
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
My bad. I didn't express myself well. I was thinking of a stripped down B-29. Better engine cooling, I think.
Of course it wouldn't have been outfitted with a-bomb equipment (what's that?).
BlackSheep
Banned
- 443
- May 31, 2018
My thinking is along the lines of your own and I believe it would have paid off in the end. Better and increased performance by stripping them of most defensive armament plus fixing engine problems would have helped them complete their missions and when the worst happens, only have a normal crew is lost.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The problem with the Silverplates, is that aling with their turrets being removed, so was all the armor plating.
The Atomic missions (and the Pumpkin bombing missions) were all done at high altitude and in small groups, so they (hoped) wouldn't draw up interceptors.
Regular bombing missions (with standard bombs) had to be done at lower altitudes because the winds at higher altitudes negated bombing accuracy, which meant that they would be in range of AA defenses and easy reach of interceptors - both of which would put a Silverplate in jeopardy.
The B-29B, introduced in Fall of '44 for low-level bombing in Japan, did have it's turrets omitted, but retained it's tail position.
So there is that.
The Atomic missions (and the Pumpkin bombing missions) were all done at high altitude and in small groups, so they (hoped) wouldn't draw up interceptors.
Regular bombing missions (with standard bombs) had to be done at lower altitudes because the winds at higher altitudes negated bombing accuracy, which meant that they would be in range of AA defenses and easy reach of interceptors - both of which would put a Silverplate in jeopardy.
The B-29B, introduced in Fall of '44 for low-level bombing in Japan, did have it's turrets omitted, but retained it's tail position.
So there is that.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
That's what I remember. It did take a doctrinal shift to go from "Flying Maginot lines" up on high to screaming down on the deck at transonic velocities. With the retrospectroscope warmed up, might it have been better to start with? With whatever they had to do to stop the engines from igniting (in the bad way).
BlackSheep
Banned
- 443
- May 31, 2018
The argument against Silverplates is noted and I believe the intent on all parties was to suggest a "lighter" B-29 and the Silverplate was mentioned in error. So, what is being suggested sounds a lot like a B-29B.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I think what was being sought as the B-29 was entering combat was the "B-29D" which ultimately became the B-50
An order for 200 production examples under the designation B-29D was placed in July of 1945, but was reduced to only 50 after V-J Day. In December of 1945, the designation of the B-29D was changed to B-50A. This was a ruse to win appropriations for the procurement of an airplane that appeared by its designation to be merely a later version of an existing model that was already being cancelled wholesale, with many existing models being put into storage. Officially, the justification for the new B-50 designation was made on the basis that the changes introduced by the B-29D were so major that it was essentially a completely new aircraft. The ruse worked, and the B-50 survived the cutbacks to become an important component of the postwar Air Force.
Boeing B-50A Superfortress
www.joebaugher.com
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I love learning about procurement legerdemain. Saying "No, the A-36 isn't a fighter. It's a bomber. We've used up our fighter budget. We're just getting some dive bombers to fill out our shopping list".
BlackSheep
Banned
- 443
- May 31, 2018
The B-50 was the ultimate example of "management" not even knowing what they were managing,
. I'm sure we've all worked with someone like that, who could quote the manual frontwards and backwards, but get them in the field and they are lost.- Thread starter
- #37
Admiral Beez
Major
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Actually it was what the AAF was hoping for when they put out the bid for a "superbomber" in 1939The B-50 was the ultimate example of "management" not even knowing what they were managing,
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Your OP specifies four engines, not four props. Doesn't the He-177 qualify as four-engined, in one sense?
Thanks for posting that, Mike. Interesting read and less flowery language used in its execution. Looks like the writer acknowledges one of the early Typhoon's issues, carbon monoxide entering the cockpit.
