The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

FLYBOYJ · Jun 27, 2016

Mine laying 101;

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a425762.pdf

"Aerial Mine Laying Results In a 5-1/2 month campaign (beginning March 1945): 1,529 B-29 sorties laid over 12,000 mines Aerial mines sank 287 Japanese ships, damaged 323 50% of all merchant ship losses during period."

GrauGeist · Jun 27, 2016

James W. said:
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. )

The Me163 wasn't included on the jet list, because it was a rocket.

And the prop on the nose was for it's generator.

pbehn · Jun 27, 2016

FLYBOYJ said:
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?!?!?

The cost of the B29 just as a bomber on a mission maybe was not worth it however it did drop the bomb and left post war USA in the lead in aviation and many other areas of technology.

FLYBOYJ · Jun 27, 2016

pbehn said:
The cost of the B29 just as a bomber on a mission maybe was not worth it.

It depends how and where you calculate it's worth. For what it cost to develop and deploy in WW2 by today's standards, you're probably correct, however the need outweighed all other factors. What the AAF was looking for in the B-29 was achieved in the B-29D which eventually became the B-50. Although its combat career ended after Korea, if filled a number of roles until 1960, mainly as a tanker. the fact that it had use after WW2 and hung around for 18 years may have justified the original cost. One would also have to look at other factors (fleet operating costs, attrition and MC rates)

GrauGeist · Jun 27, 2016

One of the big misconceptions regarding the B-29, was that it was an over-priced, problem ridden dead end.

The truth of the matter, was that it was cutting edge technology that ushered in a whole new era of strategic bombers. As with any new technology, there will be problems to be worked out. Which were, in time.

The difference between the U.S. and it's advanced concepts (with success) and the German's advanced concepts (with failures), is that the U.S. had the luxury of fielding other types until the project's bugs were worked out. The Germans were desperate and had to press everything into service with desperation.

The other luxury that the U.S. had, was that it's manufacturing and test facilities were far removed from any combat zone, so progress could go forward unhindered. The Germans had no such peace: their test facilities and factories were being bombed on a continous basis resulting in loss of test equipment, manufacturing facilities, damage (or destruction) to the prototype(s), loss of data and loss of skilled engineers and personnel. So everytime a site was bombed, the Germans nearly had to start from scratch (again and again, etc.)

For the mission results, longevity of service and lending it's technology to successive types, the taxpayer got it's money's worth out of the B-29 project without a doubt.

GrauGeist · Jun 27, 2016

It seems to me, that folks are so bent on disproving the B-29, that they miss the B-32 adventure entirely!

FLYBOYJ · Jun 27, 2016

Consolidated B-32 Dominator bomber, design, development, history, production, scrapping, survivors, and photographs

pbehn · Jun 27, 2016

GrauGeist said:
For the mission results, longevity of service and lending it's technology to successive types, the taxpayer got it's money's worth out of the B-29 project without a doubt.

Of course it did, the huge cost went on research and training, the actual aircraft are a by product, the space programme was much the same.

GrauGeist · Jun 27, 2016

pbehn said:
Of course it did the huge cost went on research and training, the actual aircraft are a by product, the space programme was much the same.

Agreed

And another, often overlooked aspect of the B-29, was the several "spin-offs" like the B-50, which remained in service for 20 years.

Additionally, the B-50 was developed into the KB-50, which was an aerial tanker and the storm-chaser WB-50, which evaluated weather/atmosphere.

Back to the B-29: two successful variants were the C-97 transport and the model 377 Stratocruiser.

The last C-97 was retired about 1977/1978 and the 377 was retired in 1963.

If that weren't enough, the "Guppy" series of oversized transports have their lineage leading directly back to the B-29, some even remaining in service until the late 90's.

Not many other bombers can boast of that!

GrauGeist · Jun 27, 2016

FLYBOYJ said:
Consolidated B-32 Dominator bomber, design, development, history, production, scrapping, survivors, and photographs

What??

No wiki??

FLYBOYJ · Jun 27, 2016

James W. said:
Me 163 was jet propelled, by a rocket motor sure, but a jet even so.

Some aircraft gas turbines propel their airframes via a jet, others drive a propeller, or fan via a shaft.

In no way shape or form was the Me 163 "a jet." It carried it's own oxidizer and had no turbine in the combustion chamber.

FLYBOYJ · Jun 27, 2016

James W. said:
What opposition was provided to the B-29 mining ops? Were these dedicated interceptions, or was it chance encounters?
What were the altitudes/speeds? I guess there was a fair bit of USAAF/USN cooperation, & the flyboys wanted to show
that the massive B-29 program was worth the cost, perhaps a harbinger of the B-36/Super-carrier funding playoff later on.

It's all in that PDF I posted - I'll give you the simpler Wiki page...Operation Starvation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FLYBOYJ · Jun 27, 2016

James W. said:
What caused it to move then? Would it be the jet of gasses expelled through the nozzle at the tail?

Expansion of gases in a combustion chamber.

Here...

the term jet engine loosely refers to an internal combustion airbreathing jet engine. These typically feature a rotating air compressor powered by a turbine, with the leftover power providing thrust via a propelling nozzle

FLYBOYJ · Jun 27, 2016

James W. said:
That thesis in pdf form was a good overview, ( if scant on ops detail),
& showed the military/political opposition that had to be overcome,
I accept there is likely no way the Transport Command would allow diversion of any C-54s, no matter how good the reason.

Its no surprise that General LeMay got behind it, he was never reticent to adopt ideas that had worked elsewhere.

Edit: The wiki entry shows 15 B-29s lost ( no breakdown as to cause) so not too dangerous a task.

Any combat mission has the potential to be dangerous, your comment doesn't negate the effectivness of the B-29

FLYBOYJ · Jun 27, 2016

James W. said:
But in reality, as well as in proper aero-space usage, the type of engine does not matter, a bottle rocket flies due to the "jet".

& gas turbines are used to power ships, tanks & electrical generation plants, yet these are not "jets" as such.

I could tell you as a "aero-space usage" employee for a number of years who have worked on turbine jet engines AND rockets, you are 100% wrong!!! What determines the difference between a jet and a rocket is the way fuel is mixed, where the oxidizer comes from and the way thrust is controlled.

Comparing gas turbines with a GEARBOX into this is just silly!!!

FLYBOYJ · Jun 27, 2016

James W. said:
No indeed, using the B-29 was convenient, once LeMay ok'd it, even if it was overkill as a mission task.

Overkill? The only other aircraft that "possibly" could have dropped that many mines during that time period was the Lancaster. 70 years ago there was no such thing as "overkill" unless you were on the receiving end!

wuzak · Jun 27, 2016

GrauGeist said:
For surgical strikes, i cannot think of any Mosquito missions that took out an aircraft factory or marshalling yard

I can't either, but Mosquitoes were used to destroy some oil refineries/synthetic oil plants.

FLYBOYJ · Jun 27, 2016

James W. said:
Some rockets ( solid fuel, per bottle rocket) are "light that candle!" unthrottleable, others such as in the Me 163 were controllable.

The "jet" which provides the motive thrust is produced by an internal combustion engine in any case, turbine/athodyd/liquid fuel rocket.

The use of the gas turbine to produce a primary propulsive "jet", or turn a fan - is incidental to the Newtonian physical process.

The Me 163 WAS NOT a jet. A ducted fan could provide motive thrust in a confined container, does it make it a jet???

FLYBOYJ · Jun 27, 2016

James W. said:
I thought you reckoned we ought not go into that part ( receiving end) of it, & just stick to the technical debates.l.o.l..

Now you're being rational (and smart)

FLYBOYJ · Jun 27, 2016

From Wiki

"The Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet, designed by Alexander Lippisch, was a German rocket-powered fighter aircraft. It is the only rocket-powered fighter aircraft ever to have been operational."

The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Colonel

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Colonel

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Captain

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads