Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Possibly the Boeing 377?
Sometimes the advances are rather hidden. Building the B-29 gave Boeing leg up in designing large aircraft structures even if the 377 Stratocruiser was something of a commercial dud.
How much they were able to transfer to the B-47 and then to commercial jets I don't know but quite possibly more than The British aircraft industry was able to transfer or build on from their 4 engine bombers.
All three, Boeing had a design and staff that kept them in the game. In the immediate post war years there were few commercial successes because there were so many surplus aircraft and pilots. Building up or keeping together a design team and company was a major challenge there was only 10-11 years between the 377 and the 707, in that time a huge number of companies went to the wall or were absorbed into others.Are you referring to the R-3350 engines?
No.
Submarines and eventually Liberators, Lancasters and Lincolns would have done the job.
Most importantly, don't ask USSR to get involved with Japan.
In both cases, sometimes less is more.
Lots of myths being tossed about with that B-29 commemt up there.
First of all, the B-29's Atomic bomb capability was a later bonus and wether or not the B-29 program continued had nothing to do with it.
The B-32 itself had quite a few problems that delayed it's development, including the SAME engines as the B-29.
The high-altitude capabilities of the B-29 were intended both for Europe and Japan, the fact that it entered the war after the Allies were able to provide long-range escort for the European theater does not diminish it's accomplishments in the PTO.
Claiming that "islands had to be taken for it to operate" is is nonsense. Islands had to be taken anyway. Iwo Jima and Okinawa both were major enemy complexes that allowed the Japanese to attack/defend for a considerable distance. And to add to this point, what other bomber currently in Allied service could have reached Japan from the same airfields with the same bombload?
As far as what the B-29 delivered to the Japanese home islands conventionally, the high-altitude bombing was stopped because of a weather anomaly never encountered before in strategic bombing: the Jet Stream. This was the reason for terrible inaccuracy and the same reason the bombing had to be conducted at lower altitudes.
Claiming that the B-29 cost more than the Manhattan Project is apples and oranges.
Every weapon system developed has a cost, so why not compare the B-29 program to the cost of total wartime U.S tank production? That was 64 billion (in modern dollars).
How much did the U.S. Navy spend on aircraft carrier production between 1941 and 1945? Just one Essex class carrier cost 1 billion (in modern dollars) to build.
And for the record, the Manhattan Project total cost for the war, was 20 billion (in modern dollars).
There are some sites on the internet claiming the B-29 cost more, because they are comparing a certain part of the Manhattan projects expenditures in 1945 dollars to the B-29's cost in modern dollars.
So how much did the B-29 program cost? 3 billion in modern dollars for 3,970 airframes built AND it was in service until 1960, long beyond a vast share of other expensive WWII hardware - which means that money used to develop and produce the B-29 was well invested.
The RAF had a high speed, high altitude bomber in the works as well, the Vickers Windsor. First flight autumn 1943. First RAF four engine bomber that's pressurized and flies above 310 mph.Build the B-33 and build it earlier to have available for replacements of B-17s and 24s for mid 1943 European bomber offensive. Saves about one hour enemy airspace transit time for Berlin mission. Saves lives, maybe many.
It didn't enter service in 1943. By the end of that year the AAF had accepted 92 and they not suitable for combat. The first combat mission for the B29 was in June 1944.How about we turn the tables and look at what an Allied aircraft project looked like.
Before the war it was decided that current heavy bombers in service would not have the range and payload for long range raids across the ocean, so the army wanted a bomber that could carry a larger payload over 3,000 miles. In December 1939 the army issued a specification for a SUPERBOMBER that could deliver 20,000lb of bombs to a target 2,667 miles away and at a speed of 400 mph. The big bomber company submitted its proposal in May 1940. It offered full pressurisation and it met the bomb load specs, as well as having remotely operated turrets. IT WAS THE MOST ADVANCED BOMBER IN THE WORLD.
Despite issues with its engines, four 2,200hp turbosupercharged radial engines, the bomber entered service in 1943 and proved itself capable of BETTER performance than ANY OTHER BOMBER in service at the time. It carried out long range attacks against the enemy from friendly bases and had a maximum speed of 357mph, cruised at 220mph and a ceiling of 31,850ft and could carry a maximum standard load of 20,000lbs across short distances, but a normal load on 1,600 mile range missions was more like 12,000lbs. It was also capable of carrying a secret ATOM BOMB then under development. With enough of them, it could have reduced cities in enemy countries to waste, and it could have dropped an atomic bomb and brought about the END OF THE WAR.
Yup...
Many aircraft had a poor start to their careers, the Typhoon, P-39 and Meteor spring to mind. A plane doesn't have to take part in a combat mission to be in service.It didn't enter service in 1943. By the end of that year the AAF had accepted 92 and they not suitable for combat. The first combat mission for the B29 was in June 1944.
The RAF had a high speed, high altitude bomber in the works as well, the Vickers Windsor. First flight autumn 1943. First RAF four engine bomber that's pressurized and flies above 310 mph.
View attachment 581842
[
Been over this a bunch of times.
part of the problem is timing.
Grumman built F4F-3As because there weren't enough 2 stage engines being built by P & W in 1940/early 1941.
had been rejected by the US Army
and had been rejected by the British when they were offered, although they thought they might do OK as trainers.
FIxing such 'nagging" problems as the weak structure and the propensity to ground loop might not have been so easy. 15 of the 40-50 P-66s used by the 14th pursuit group in California are supposed to have been lost due to ground loops in just a few months.
Sticking the two stage engines into existing airframes may not have been easy either.
Experimental P-40 with P & W two stage engine.
It isn't said oft enough how much the effort you put into your posts is appreciated, well by me anyway.Yes, we have.
There were engines that existed and could be manufactured and there were superchargers that existed and could be manufactured. The rest is priorities and dollars. In the pre-war years, there was a shortage of both. But the AAF had a serious weakness in the Pacific and that was that they did not have enough interceptors that could attack high flying Japanese bombers and fighters until the high demand P-38s became available in early '43. If the P-66 could do 340 mph on 1000 hp at 15k ft, it could do over 350 mph at 19k on 1000 hp. That is faster than the P-40 (339 mph) and faster than the F4F (335 mph). And it would have about the same performance in speed, climb and service ceiling (35k+) as the P-43A only without the turbo-supercharger and 700 lbs lighter and a lot simpler. So it would have been worth the effort.
It wasn't what they wanted but it was what they needed. The AAF was not interested in the P-51 and would have shut down the production had they not changed the design to the attack version.
Same problem with the non-turbo P-38 and with the P-39 and the P-40. Poor altitude performance for Europe. No comment about ground looping?
I don't know what ruggedness problems they had. Could be losing panels on rough landings or wings coming off, not likely. I read that the Chinese flew the planes on quite a few missions but reports on all Chinese flight activity does not give one confidence in their competency. I also read of one Chinese pilot used a P-66 to great accomplishments.
I must admit that I do not know much about ground looping but it sounds more like a training problem. Pilots may have been fresh out of pilot training. When I was fresh out of pilot training I got into a serious problem as I was upgrading to the C-141, On landing in a brisk crosswind I relaxed my controls on touchdown. Immediately, the aircraft windmilled about 10-15 degrees off runway heading and the upwind wing raised significantly to the point that I was alarmed. The nose wanted to go left and the wings wanted to go right. The instructors took over and straightened the aircraft. He then gave me a lesson I would never forget "Don't stop flying the aircraft, even on the runway!" I can't see how an aircraft's design affects ground looping, especially one that looks like all the competing aircraft in this era. Maybe gear too close together but the P-66 has pretty wide gear, or maybe cg is critical. Don't know.
We don't really have a clear breakout of the P-66 but it does have cockpit placed at the back edge of the wing ala the amazingly similar F4U. It looks like there is plenty of room for maybe fuel and intercooler installation. I suspect that it would be no more difficult than putting a turbo-supercharger on an XP-41 to make the P-43. Note difference between P-36 canopy placement and the P-66. The P-36 pilot seat is approximately one third the distance from the wing trailing edge to front edge, in the P-66 pilot seat is just about the trailing edge of the wing. Both aircraft are same length, 28.5 ft.
View attachment 582101
View attachment 582098
View attachment 582093
There was a comment that the P-66 was just too late. This is probably a cause, another, probably more important, was that it was an orphan with no one looking at its potential, or recognizing a need. The plane was a good design and faster than other designs with equivalent engines. The designer was the same guy who designed the record breaker Hughes H-1.
Dick Palmer also designed the BT-13.The plane was a good design and faster than other designs with equivalent engines. The designer was the same guy who designed the record breaker Hughes H-1.
There were engines that existed and could be manufactured and there were superchargers that existed and could be manufactured. The rest is priorities and dollars. In the pre-war years, there was a shortage of both.
It is a bit more complicated than that. The P-66s were impounded aircraft built for Sweden that the US embargoed. How much the US was going to pay Vultee for the aircraft I don't know but the US didn't get involved with using them for quite a number of months, from Joe Baugher's web site.It wasn't what they wanted but it was what they needed. The AAF was not interested in the P-51 and would have shut down the production had they not changed the design to the attack version.
British were rejecting them in spring of 1941 (for the 2nd time). The P-39s would not show up in England until around Sept of 1941 and the first P322 Lighting doesn't get to England until Dec of 1941. The difference in timing and difference in British needs had changed considerably.Same problem with the non-turbo P-38 and with the P-39 and the P-40. Poor altitude performance for Europe. No comment about ground looping?
There was a comment that the P-66 was just too late. This is probably a cause, another, probably more important, was that it was an orphan with no one looking at its potential, or recognizing a need. The plane was a good design and faster than other designs with equivalent engines. The designer was the same guy who designed the record breaker Hughes H-1.
From Vultee P-66 Vanguard - WikipediaDick Palmer also designed the BT-13.
But why is that a bad joke? The geodetic structure worked. Was very robust (just because it was unusual doesn't mean it was bad), and Vickers was already set up to manufacture in that manner.This looks like a bad joke:
The Windsor used Wallis's geodetic body and wing structure that Vickers had previously used in the Wellesley, Wellington and Warwick bombers. The wing structure had no spars but a hollow geodetic tube from tip to tip, passing through the fuselage truss. To better resist the compression and tension efforts, the elements were assembled at 16 degrees next to the root, reverting to the more conventional ninety degrees on the tips, longitudinal elements locking everything in place. The thicknesses of the elements was also reduced towards the tips. No two joints had the same angle on the wing, an authentic production engineer's nightmare. Instead of doped Irish linen covering used on the earlier geodetic aircraft, a stiff and light skin was used on the Windsor. This was made from woven steel wires and very thin (1/1000 inch thickness) stainless steel ribbons, doped with PVC or other plastic, specially designed to avoid ballooning. To properly fit the skin to the frame, a tuning fork had to be used. The wing was designed so that the tips had a noticeable droop on the ground[citation needed], but was straight in flight, so the skin had to be fitted tighter on top than on the bottom to be evenly tight in flight. Wikipedia ... Vickers Windsor - Wikipedia
A few more pictures.But why is that a bad joke? The geodetic structure worked. Was very robust (just because it was unusual doesn't mean it was bad), and Vickers was already set up to manufacture in that manner.
Everything I've ever read indicates the main problem with the Windsor was cost. Which to be fair, was the B29's big issue too.
Britain was not in need of a very expensive superbomber that quite possibly wasn't going to come online in numbers in time to influence the outcome in the ETO.
The Americans were producing results with their super-expensive superbomber(s). Why throw good money after a seemingly covered problem? Especially when it's money you don't really have.
It was never going to be a B29 with 4x Merlin's. I don't have data but I imagine it must have been designed with Griffon or Centaurus as avenues.A few more pictures.
View attachment 582118
View attachment 582117
Performance figures in WIki seem to be rather disappointing, perhaps they are in error?
Take the turrets off the a Lancaster and put those engine housings on and how much better is it than a Lancaster in a time when WW2 is ending and jets are the way to go.A few more pictures.
View attachment 582118
View attachment 582117
Performance figures in WIki seem to be rather disappointing, perhaps they are in error?
IIRC the Vanguard with a single stage engine did 340 mph, with two stage 358 mph, but without bullet proof glass, armour protection or self sealing fuel tanks. I see no signs of a rear view mirror either Let's take a Conservative view of its performance with these essential battlefield mods and reduce performance by 5%. Its not so hot now is it? Service ceiling of under 30,000 ft for the single stage engine variant so that's inadequate. Performance of tropical Kittyhawk II is 354 mph at around 18,500 ft, service ceiling 36,000 feet IIRC. Now that's a more than adequate performance for not only the Med but also anywhere tropical opposing the Japanese. We need more Merlins in Kittyhawks so Packard needs to start producing them in 1940 not 1941, or Ford USA needs to also. Ford UK delivered its first engine in June 1941, the last in March 1946, total built 30,428. Just imagine every Warhawk could have been powered by a Merlin.From Vultee P-66 Vanguard - Wikipedia
The Vultee Vanguard was the product of an idea conceived in the late 1930s by the Vultee Aircraft Division of the Aviation Manufacturing Corporation of developing four aircraft designed for different roles from a set of common wings and aft fuselage and tail assemblies. The company assigned four model designations: V-48 to a single-seat fighter, BC-51 to a basic combat trainer, B-54 to an advanced trainer, and BC-54D as a basic trainer. Eventually, the BC-51 would become the Army Air Corps BC-3 and the BC-54D, the BT-13.