Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.I wish I had the quotes handy, but, Col. Tibbits was extremely empresses with the flying ability of the stripped down B-29s his group was given.
seems unfair to discount the He 177.I just found this thread, Bombers and Agility so we'll see some repeats. Though we can expand beyond bombers, such as the Douglas DC-4 and Avro Lancasterian.
Not really.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?
My bad. I didn't express myself well. I was thinking of a stripped down B-29. Better engine cooling, I think.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.
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.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?).
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).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 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.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 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.
I think what was being sought as the B-29 was entering combat was the "B-29D" which ultimately became the B-50Its worth noting the United States cancelled an order for 5,000 B-29C's and 200 B-29D's after VJ Day
The B-50 was the ultimate example of "management" not even knowing what they were managing,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.
We're looking for four props. The He 274 looks like a contender.seems unfair to discount the He 177.
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,. 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.
The same guys also wrote: Materiel Command Memorandum Report on Typhoon I, British Fighter Plane