The airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war.

[Greyman]

Also, the flight refuelling thing wasn't ready by August 1945; trials were still undergoing.

It would have been eventually though:

Flight refueling is undoubtedly a successful method of increasing the range and or bomb load of an aircraft, and the number of unsuccessful sorties during the trials was only two out of 36 flights. While single aircraft could be refueled without difficulty, the question of refueling large numbers of aircraft in a short space of time becomes more complicated.

- Bomb Development Unit​

An interesting side note is that after the bombs were dropped and everything was cancelled, some of the stored equipment was later refurbished, modified, and delivered to the US to meet an urgent requirement for flight refueling SAC B-29s.

 

[Shortround6]

Not that big an impact, or at least not enough to cause problems. The distance from Iwo Jima to Japan is 1300km, so a 2600km round trip. The Lancasters range was 4000km so even if the range was affected by the Little Boy it would not have been affected enough to cause problems, especially since the Lancaster would only need to carry the bomb for 1300km.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_I_III_ADS-b.jpg


as the bomb load increases the range gets shorter because you can't carry the same amount of fuel.

A Tall Boy was 38in in diameter
The Fat Man atomic bomb was 60in diameter.

Granted Little boy was only 28 in diameter.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

But had the B-29 not existed I am sure the Americans would have been able to find some other bomber that would have done the job. I mean if necessary the Americans could have always borrowed a Lancaster and modified it since Little Boy was under the Lancaster's bomb load capacity and the British had been dropping Grand Slams and Tallboys from Lancasters for years, both of whom were bigger than the atomic bomb.

 

[ykickamoocow]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_I_III_ADS-b.jpg


as the bomb load increases the range gets shorter because you can't carry the same amount of fuel.

A Tall Boy was 38in in diameter
The Fat Man atomic bomb was 60in diameter.

Granted Little boy was only 28 in diameter.

The Grand Slam was 46 inches which is getting up there.

 

[Greyman]

What would have been the back-up plan in case of no Wildcat? Just the Buffalo? (looking at Coral Sea/Midway)

 

[wuzak]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Lancaster_I_III_ADS-b.jpg


as the bomb load increases the range gets shorter because you can't carry the same amount of fuel.

A Tall Boy was 38in in diameter
The Fat Man atomic bomb was 60in diameter.

Granted Little boy was only 28 in diameter.

So, 2,250 miles (3,621km) range with 10,000lb bombs (about the weight of the atomic bombs).

A 2,600km round trip, as suggested by ykickamoocow, should be possible.

As I said before, Little Boy was the size of a 4,000lb HC "cookie". Just a change to the tail of the bomb (to a British style round tail) and it would have fitted into a Mosquito. Not that a Mosquito could carry the weight.

Arming the bomb in flight was for safety, not necessity. Partly because several B-29s had crashed and burned on take-off from Tinian previously.

 

[wuzak]

On the early bombs the bomb had to be accessible to a crewman while in flight. This requirement lasted for quite a while into the 40s if not the very early 50s ?

The other problem with using them was dropping them from a height that allowed the bomber enough time (using a lot of engine power) to clear the blast area.
The idea was that the plane and crew dropping the bomb could survive.

Accounts differ but it seems the Hiroshima bomb was dropped from somewhere between 26,000 and 30,060ft (?). one account saying it took just over 44 seconds to descend (Small parachutes/s on the bomb) to detonation height (600 meters?) and the Enola Gay was 11 1/2 miles away when the bomb went off.

The Lancaster might have been able to carry the bomb and drop it but it's chances of getting back to base are a lot less.

If it took 44s for the bomb to fall to detonation height, and the Enola Gay was 11.5 miles away, then the Enola Gay would have been travelling at around 940mph.

Something would seem to be amiss.

At 350mph, a B-29 would travel around 4.2 miles. At 280mph, a Lancaster would be ~2.3 miles away (assuming a reduced time of 30s for the drop).

 

[wuzak]

Yes, it did, but you are ignoring the performance bit. The Little Boy might have been able to be carried by the Lanc but again, what impact would that have on its range, and performance in tropical conditions? Besides, if I had a choice I would have chosen the Lincoln over the Lancaster because of its improved performance.

The Lincoln would have been better - if they were available.

 

[ykickamoocow]

The Lincoln would have been better - if they were available.

According to wikipedia anyway the Lincoln became operational in Augst 1945, so that would be possible, though if the B-29 did not exist the Americans might prefer using the proven Lancaster.

 

[nuuumannn]

Not that big an impact, or at least not enough to cause problems.

Do you have figures to prove that? Again we are talking about a bomb the weight of Tall Boy, reduced range and increased fuel consumption because of tropical conditions, flying at an altitude of 17,000 ft, possibly less at a speed of 162 mph to achieve sufficient range. Again, why bother when, like Greyman suggested, the RAF use the Lincoln? But I don't agree in flight refuelling being ready in time for August 1945 along the existing timeline, unless with the planning that went into such a hypothetical raid, it might have been, but again, we are getting into hypotheticals, changing of timelines etc. This is all outside of reality, and I don't believe the USAAF would have turned to the Brits at any rate, not with something as sensitive as the atomic bomb.

Hey look! Joe just posted a pic of the B-32! It could have been modified to carry the bombs and it sure beats a Lancaster in performance.

 

[wuzak]

The main advantages for the Lincoln would have been an extra few thousand feet of bombing altitude and extra speed. But it still would not have been close to the B-29's performance.

A Lincoln with a 2 stage Griffon may have been even better, though more fuel would have to be carried.

 

[Greyman]

For what its worth the new Lancaster VI (Merlin 85s) was good for 312 mph at 18,000 feet (62,000 lb). And that's with flame dampers, H2S blister, etc.

 

[ykickamoocow]

Do you have figures to prove that? Again we are talking about a bomb the weight of Tall Boy, reduced range and increased fuel consumption because of tropical conditions, flying at an altitude of 17,000 ft, possibly less at a speed of 162 mph to achieve sufficient range. Again, why bother when, like Greyman suggested, the RAF use the Lincoln? But I don't agree in flight refuelling being ready in time for August 1945 along the existing timeline, unless with the planning that went into such a hypothetical raid, it might have been, but again, we are getting into hypotheticals, changing of timelines etc. This is all outside of reality, and I don't believe the USAAF would have turned to the Brits at any rate, not with something as sensitive as the atomic bomb.

Hey look! Joe just posted a pic of the B-32! It could have been modified to carry the bombs and it sure beats a Lancaster in performance.

I don't know much about the B-32 bomber, but looking at its wikipedia page it seems to have been introduced in January 1945 and retired 8 months later so there was something that the US Air Force did not like about it. Still, if the B-29 was not around perhaps the US military would have overlooked whatever flaws the B-32 had.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

According to wikipedia anyway the Lincoln became operational in Augst 1945, so that would be possible, though if the B-29 did not exist the Americans might prefer using the proven Lancaster.

In a very small circle the Lancaster was looked at but never really seriously considered. The B-32 was planed at a "back up" to the B-29. Although the Lancaster and Lincoln were great aircraft, in reality they were a half step back from the B-29

 

[Greyman]

Hey look! Joe just posted a pic of the B-32! It could have been modified to carry the bombs and it sure beats a Lancaster in performance.

So we're in agreement then, the B-29 is not the airplane that did the most to turn the tide of the war.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I don't know much about the B-32 bomber, but looking at its wikipedia page it seems to have been introduced in January 1945 and retired 8 months later so there was something that the US Air Force did not like about it. Still, if the B-29 was not around perhaps the US military would have overlooked whatever flaws the B-32 had.

Because the war ended!

 

[ykickamoocow]

Because the war ended!

I thought there might be another reason, as it seems odd to just retire an aircraft like that. I mean the British did not just retire the Centurion Tank just because WW2 ended.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I thought there might be another reason, as it seems odd to just retire an aircraft like that. I mean the British did not just retire the Centurion Tank just because WW2 ended.

Well the USAAF did - Sept 1945 about 2000 of them were cancelled. There were ample B-29s at the end of the war, there were only about 30 B-32s delivered at wars' end

 

[Greyman]

The Dominator was superfluous in peacetime with the Superfortress in the picture. The Centurion was not.

 

[Greyman]

What was the distance of the atomic bomb flights? Just looking at the Tallboy Tirpitz strikes:

68,500 lb all up weight​

12,000 lb bomb​

2,400 miles​