The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[GrauGeist]

Hampdens, Lancasters, Wellingtons, Halifaxes all did mining operations during WW2 for the RAF.

Perhaps they should have used Dakotas?

Why not a Mossie? They're faster and can do the same job as a B-29!

 

[GrauGeist]

MiG-3s were used in combat in WW2, but Mikulin mills were wanted for IL-2s more.

& I wrote "Super Mosquito" which if it ( &/or the Hawker high-speed bomber) had been realized, then Butch Harris' program
to export Merlin wreckage to Germany in the hundreds a month - would've been shown as needless.

The 1962 Chevy Nova has 12 bolts that hold the front clip to the firewall.

Mount Everest is the highest mountain in the world, but experts believe that K2 is higher

The Golden Mantle ground Squirrel is typically referred to as a "Chipmunk"

 

[GrauGeist]

These are myths though right G-G, they don't belong on the best bomber thread, unlike the 'Super Mosquito'..

They make far more sense than the stupid crap you're posting.

At least the info in my last post was factual, but just about as relevant to the conversation as what you're putting up

 

[GrauGeist]

You are funny, de Havilland project DH 102 & Hawker project P.1005 certainly existed,
- but sadly ol' Blighty couldn't build enough Sabre to power 'em

While you're at it, look up the Dornier Do-STRA

That's a "bomber" that would better suit you...

 

[wuzak]

Why not a Mossie? They're faster and can do the same job as a B-29!

I think Moss

You are funny, de Havilland project DH 102 & Hawker project P.1005 certainly existed,
- but sadly ol' Blighty couldn't build enough Sabre to power 'em

The DH 102 was a paper project. It performance was strictly projected.

The Hawker project got slightly further - it managed to get to a mock-up.

Neither would have made it early enough to make much of a difference in WW2.

And while the production issues at Napiers which almost caused it to go under and then get bailed out by English Electric had some influence, the performance of existing types, particularly the Mosquito, was the real reason they were not continued with.

 

[Greyman]

G-G, seems you left out the Me 163,
(& yes it has a tiny prop on its nose, but it was propelled by a jet, albeit not one made by a turbine. )

Generally in the aviation world the Me 163 is categorized separately from the pack - being a rocket aircraft.

 

[Shortround6]

Ok look at it again. You are guilty of the Wiki pick the max data phenomenon. Or close to it.

I would also note two things.

One. no "G" limit is given in this document. .
Two. When was the 82,500lb weight limit approved?
Several sources say a max gross of 73,000lbs was used during the war. and that was crept on in several stages from lower weights.
Please note the "combat" weight of 47,700lbs. No notes as to what restrictions were implemented as the weight went higher.
For an early version with a empty weight of 35,134lbs a gross weight of 47,000lbs allowed 1700 gallons of fuel, a crew of 3 and a payload of 1496lbs (yes 1496lbs). gross was bounced to 50,000lbs pretty quick and into the 60s and then finally to 73,000lbs for "wartime use". Post war airliner use saw the gross dropped back to 66,500lbs, then 71,300 and finally back to the 73,000lb setting.
The 1946 Jane's lists several versions of the C-54, what is really interesting from the weight stand point is a max landing weight of 62,000lbs.

The Pilots manual available on this website doesn't have the range charts but all the do not exceed speed limits are for 65,000lbs.
In the somewhat puffy introduction (like where the P-38 was call the Fork tail devil in it's manual) the C-54 is said to be able to carry 20,000lb 1500 miles. Manual is dated August 1st 1945.
The 1946 Janes says 16,500lbs over 1500 miles at 220mph at 10,000ft and 5400lbs over 3900 miles at 190mph at 10,000ft.

There were at least 3 different fuel tank setups used in C-54s fuel capacity varied only a small amount as fuel tanks in the fuselage were replaced by even more fuel tanks in the wings but the wing tanks came with restrictions on how much fuel could be in them when landing to prevent breaking the wing.

Trying to fly "combat" missions with an overloaded airliner puts you in the same situation as the Fw 200 Condor, lots of broken planes due to structural failure.

 

[Shortround6]

However, the C-54 certainly could tote a useful load, be they mines or what have you..

The problem is that it couldn't carry them far enough in it's WW II configuration, especially it's configuration during the planning stages of the B-29 and other large bombers when the C-54 was a 50-60,000lb airplane.
BTW for those that want to play the MAX game, Some B-17s could carry 17,600lb of bombs, just not very far. two 4000lb bombs on external racks and eight 1600lb AP bombs inside (1600lb AP bombs were smaller in diameter than 1000lb HE bombs and would fit in the racks better).
Operational capabilities of aircraft are often far below what WIki (and some books) would have people believe.

 

[wuzak]

Some B-17s could carry 17,600lb of bombs, just not very far. two 4000lb bombs on external racks and eight six 1600lb AP bombs inside (1600lb AP bombs were smaller in diameter than 1000lb HE bombs and would fit in the racks better).

Minor correction SR.

 

[Shortround6]

It did in the early stages as the Liberators didn't have the range required.
It could take 3-4 years to bring a plane from the planning stage to the operational stages in large numbers. It often took a year from 1st production example to the 500th production example.
A lot of times planes got better during that time due to other events, sometimes they became obsolescent or redundant due to other events. Since we are on the C-54 the P & W R-2000 that powered it was only used in the C-54 (and a few conversions). It started life as a back-up engine to the R-1830 according to some sources. Back up in the sense that it could match the power output of the R-1830 using lower grade fuel. like 87 or 91 octane rather than 100 octane should their be a shortage of 100 octane. Turns out there was no shortage and the extra displacement was used to make more power than the R-1830. P & W was also able to modify the R-1830 to make 1350hp for take off in the last models in WW II, some used in Navy Privateers, so be careful in looking at performance of Navy B-24s.
Sawing plane X should have been canceled because plane Y could do the job after the fact (like 3-4 years after the program started) is using hindsite a bit too much to justify the position taken.

 

[Shortround6]

Minor correction SR.

Thank you. I believe the B-17 was lucky it could fly from England to the French coast and back with such a load, it was essentially useless except for winning bar bets.

 

[Shortround6]

really?

If you want to drop bombs or lay mines at long ranges you need big airplanes. Big airplanes are expensive.
Japan is not a tiny country. It has a coast line according to most sources of around 29,000km. Granted you don't have to mine the entire coast but it is a much harder job than mining Germany.

 

[wuzak]

A question about the practicality of deploying aerial mines from a C-54.

Do the crew throw the mines one by one out the cargo door?

http://www.aviationphotocompany.com/img/s/v-3/p1563606272-3.jpg

They are not exactly set up for releasing stores.

 

[Shortround6]

Use mounting system for M-22 tank

Drag plays heck with speed and range though.

 

[wuzak]

I daresay it wouldn't take Dornberger & von Braun to work it out.

Take a shot at it, please.

I would think aerial mines were designed to be released from standard bomb racks/containers. And teh C54 didn't have fittings for them.

SAC for USN transport Liberator give max range as ~3,500 miles ( 6,000lb payload).

In transport guise dd the Liberator lose some/all of its turrets/guns?

 

[wuzak]

Mining German waters included the rivers from the Rhine to the Danube, & likely more dangerously defended than Nippon.

But at shorter range and with far more features to be used for navigational purpose.

 

[pbehn]

I am not suggesting that a 'bog standard' C-54 be used, but that it could be used as a basis & customised for the duty.

& yes transport Lib was stripped of the guns/turrets & etc, AFAIR, Churchill had one he liked..

Churchill ate too many pies, he needed a Liberator to carry his big fat behind.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Some thoughts on the matter.

B-29 was, in hindsight, an expensive folly. It was a failure as a self-defending bomber, even against the Japanese.
General LeMay, as a pragmatic boss,( with his bean-counter buddy McNamara) stopped such fruitless ideology.

Hindsight is 20-20 especially if you're trying to compare technologies and situations that were state of the art 70 years ago. The B-29 was state of the art and ushered in systems and manufacturing techniques that can be traced to aircraft manufacturing technology today. The B-29 maintained a combat attrition rate of 10% (including in Korea) and remained in service until 1960. If it was that much of a folly then why did the RAF use it in post war years and the Soviet Union illegally copy it?!?!?

However, IMO, the punishment of Japanese civilians by mass burning was cruel & needless.

Your opinion - tell that to the POWs held by the Japanese (I happen to have a family member who was a Japanese POW). The indiscriminate bombing of civilians was done by all combatants. Please refrain from this type of discussion, it will piss off many people on this forum and can ultimately lead to being banned.

Minelaying, while effective, could've been effectively done by less expensive means.

Not in the mass and time frame that was done by the B-29.

The USN carrier forces were quite able to smash Nippon industry.

And the war would have lased until 1950

Cheap cruise missiles were a much more cost effective approach to mass city bombardment.
Weird that the B-36 was proceeded with, as a 'Mega Flying Fortress' bristling with gun turrets.

The Mosquito & Ar 234 pointed the way to the future, as had the V-weapons.

Hindsight is 20-20!!!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Have to disagree, Mosquito bomber ops showed that speed/evasion was the better option.

Not if you needed to saturate a large target area. With the Mosquito and even with the Canberra, you were bombing by hand and was subject to human error. While desired results were achievable it wasn't until a generation later when aerial warfare allowed this to be the norm

MiG-15's quickly drove the B-29's back into the night over Korea, a Canberra would've done better.

Not entirely true - B-29s over Korea suffered losses to MiGs early in the war - They started bombing at night but did conduct limited daylight operations in areas where UN forces had aerial superiority or where MiGs weren't a factor.

A good piece about B-29s operating during the Korean War;

Korean War: The Boeing B-29 Superfortress Served Throughout the Air War | HistoryNet

The stripped out lightweight B-36 which could use height to evade was another thing, but once nukes got compact,
as noted, a fast jet would do it better.

And that's when the B-47 entered the picture.

A dedicated minelaying C-54 could've done that job at a fraction of the B-29's price.

Utter nonsense

 

[Shortround6]

The actual mining campaign took a little over a month, March and April 1945, but was preceded by several months of planning and preparation. It was first brought up in the summer of 1944. It took 1529 sorties to drop 12,135 mines. Average mine load was 12,000lb per plane. Some of the mines were 2000lb. The base/s used were in the Marianas and ranges to some the mine fields were well over 1000 miles, radius is obviously double. While the planes did not fly in formation they did stream across the target area in quick succession and used the latest radar sets in the theater for a navigation aid to proper placement of the mines. Each plane having an assigned drop area to form a dense mine feild. Some areas were defended by AA guns and there were some attempts at interception by fighters including a few being shot down by the defensive guns on the B-29s.
Question was cost effectiveness, specially modified planes carrying smaller payloads at slower speeds in combat areas and suffering higher losses makes the cost effectiveness rather doubtful.
Supporting oddball aircraft on Pacific islands thousands of miles from home is also expensive. The mine laying aircraft could be used for conventional bombing within a few hours or at most a few days (it was an entire bomb wing) and not have to be replaced by a different type of aircraft for different missions.