Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
May I venture to suggest that the B29 was a little over rated?
Its weak spot being engine fires.
It had many good advanced features but...
John
It was a whole technical generation ahead of anything else so not surprising it had some initial problems. Still doesnt stop it being the best bomber of the war.
That's the thing about our Readie - you always know where he stands ("Spitfires are FANTASTIC!! Any questions? No? Good!")
I also have a sneaking admiration of the Mustang too.
I wouldn't bring that up in polite conversation if I were you. It'll ruin your reputation!
Tricky this. I pegged the Me163 since it was pretty useless. An interesting concept but a dead end,there aren't many rocket powered glider interceptors about today but for the Germans,at the time,needs must.Was it however over rated? Did anyone really rate it in the first place?
This is why people are voting for great aircraft like the Spitfire and Mustang. By being so highly rated they leave themselves open to the charge of being over rated. Not by me though.
Steve
Don't tell that to the Russians!
I think the PBY Catalina was one of the most overrated planes.
It was reliable, beautiful and sturdy but does not deserve all the acclaim it receives.
Don't get me wrong it was (is) an awesome plane but to often that is the ONLY image that is conjured when thinking of WW2 seaplanes or flying boats.
I love the Cat but she is overrated.
I agree the B29 was advanced in design and delivered the fatal blows to Japan. No one could argue with that.
However, I think that the A bomb attack has led a lot of people into believing that the B29 was the best bomber of WW2.
I would vote for the aerial footsoldiers who slogged through years of attack, losses, success and failures the Flying Fortress, Lancaster, Stirling, Liberator and Wellington.
having said that if you look at the team of bombers the allies had, together they were unbeatable and that is the most important thing at the end of the day.
John
That does not change the fact that capability wise it was the best and most capable heavy bomber of the war. It could do more than any of the other heavy bomber and was more advanced. I don't understand why people don't want to admit that. There is no shame in that, nor does it take away from the Lancaster, B-17 or B-24. They were also amazing aircraft, but fact remains that there is always a next generation that makes it better.
Now I do agree with you and think that a lot of people overlook the other "big 3", but not in a serious aviation community like this one, and therefore that does not make it overrated. No one with a true understanding of the B-17, Lancaster and B-24 would do this. There are however a lot of people on this forum that overlook the B-29, because it was not built on a certain Island to remain unnamed...
Neither does the Dam Busters raid automatically make the Lancaster the 'best'.
John
The B-29 actually doesn't catch the spotlight as much as bombers such as the B-17, Lancaster , B-24 and so on.
Have to disagree with you there John, if ever there was an outstanding example of sheer technical merit in an aircraft it was proved to be there in spades in the Lanc.....the pertinent accompanying point being for the timeframe summer 1943.
It's not so much that 'it made the Lanc the best' as that it proved it was (in summer '43).....together with its' crews.
The difficulty of pulling off what those men machines did given the problems they faced was nothing short of miraculous.....not to mention the dangers
(the loss figues made chilling reading).
Anyways just my 2 pennies.
I have to say I think the B29 did enough for long enough to show itself as the best bomber in WW2.
(The only serious opposition contender of anything close to similar ability - and that is heavily reliant on proposed specs and not produced specs - I can see is the German He 274, which we know from Fench post-war use was one very formidable machine, but which thankfully had zero operational history to gauge it by; the question is was it next gen or peak of the old gen? I tend to see it more as next.....kind of in the way the Lanc grew out of the old Manchester gen to become a new gen itself, so to the He 177 - He 277/274)
I agree. I think when most people think of WW2 bombers they automatically think of the B-17 (unless you are from the Motherland....
That's an interesting point, if we went into the streets of our respective cities and asked the youth which heavy bomber they associate with WW2 I wonder what they would say?
We may have to explain the term 'heavy bomber' first...
John
That's an interesting point, if we went into the streets of our respective cities and asked the youth which heavy bomber they associate with WW2 I wonder what they would say?
We may have to explain the term 'heavy bomber' first...
John