The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

Shortround6 · Jun 28, 2016

Sometimes the meaning of words change over time. Especially when new technology shows up and then becomes common place after several decades.

So just for information as I am making no claim that this the definitive list passed down from on high by divine powers.

Turbojet: Gas turbine-compressor unit with full jet reaction thrust.

Turbojetfan: Gas turbine-compressor unit with full jet reaction thrust augmented by secondary turbine driven ducted fan or open fan thrust.

Turboprop: Gas turbine-compressor unit driving a propeller, with minor jet reaction thrust

Rocketjet: Rocket unit using liquid or solid propellants, with full jet reaction thrust.

Pulsejet: Intermittent firing or pulsating ram-compression duct unit with full jet reaction thrust.

Ramjet: Continuous firing ram-compression duct unit with full jet reaction thrust.

List is from "Aircraft Engines of the World" 1947 edition by Paul H. Wilkinson.

The engines known to be in existence (at least the ones not on secrets lists) were separated into those categories in the "Jet propulsion engines and gas turbines" section of the book.

It seems over the years that turbo got deleted from Turbojet, jet got deleted from Turbojetfan, Jet got deleted from Rocketjet. at least in common useage.

edit, change rocket to jet in last sentence.

FLYBOYJ · Jun 28, 2016

James, you're being a douche - stop the semantics and get this thread back on subject.

FLYBOYJ · Jun 28, 2016

James W. said:
Douche is like French for cleanser, right?
Never the less, your honour, I rest my case, since res ipsa loquitur.

Thank you

ALEX Hogarth · Jul 19, 2016

gjs238 said:
So it seems that fans of the B-29 can justifiably claim that the plane slowed Soviet encroachment.
Also, without the B-29 or B-32, how would the A-Bombs have been dropped?
Were British heavies capable of this?

I understand that the lancaster was the failback hcad the b29 failed, plans were even made to build the lanc in the us

Valdez · Jul 19, 2016

I would be interested to see the source for the Lancaster as an alternative to the B-29. I was under the impression that the Consolidated B-32 Dominator was the only alternative, especially after the B-32 was simplified by removing pressurization and using manned turrets.

pbehn · Jul 19, 2016

ALEX Hogarth said:
I understand that the lancaster was the failback hcad the b29 failed, plans were even made to build the lanc in the us

Oh dear, do you realise how long it took to start lancaster production in Canada? The USA would never have used the lancaster for many reasons,even though it could have done it.

fubar57 · Jul 19, 2016

I've read the Lancaster could carry "Little Boy" but not "Fat Man" as the fuselage was too narrow

Would the atomic bomb have been used against Germany?

GrauGeist · Jul 19, 2016

ALEX Hogarth said:
I understand that the lancaster was the failback hcad the b29 failed, plans were even made to build the lanc in the us

The XB-39 was the "fallback" for the B-29 in the event that the R-3350 engine problems couldn't be ironed out.

The B-32 was the backup for the B-29 if the project itself ran into problems.

wuzak · Jul 19, 2016

The Lancaster was considered for carrying the Than Man nuclear bomb, because its length required a lot of changes to the B-29 bomb bays. In the end those changes were made, and the Thin Man was dropped in favour of Lttle Boy and Fat Man (both of which still required extensive modifications to the bomb bays of the B-29.

fubar57 said:
I've read the Lancaster could carry "Little Boy" but not "Fat Man" as the fuselage was too narrow

Would the atomic bomb have been used against Germany?

That may well be the case. Grand Slam was 46" in diameter, and couldn't be carried in the Lancaster without the bomb bays being removed. Fat Man was 60" in diameter.

Little Boy was about the size of a 4000lb HC Cookie and would have no problems for the Lancaster.

FLYBOYJ · Jul 19, 2016

Way back in this thread I think we had the Lancaster/ atomic bomb discussion. I think this was just a discussion by some leaders that really didn't go that far. The "Silverplate" B-29 were modified to drop the atomic bombs and would eventually become the world's first nuclear strike force.

Project Silverplate

"Nicknamed after the codeword for the project (a shortening of the original moniker "The Silver Plated Project"), B-29 Superfortress bombers in Silverplate configuration were the first planes ever to carry nuclear payloads. Of the 65 planes so modified between 1944 and 1947, 53 served with the first nuclear weapons unit, the 509th Composite Group. Two survive to this day and their names—Enola Gay and Bockscar"

pbehn · Jul 19, 2016

FLYBOYJ said:
Way back in this thread I think we had the Lancaster/ atomic bomb discussion. I think this was just a discussion by some leaders that really didn't go that far. The "Silverplate" B-29 were modified to drop the atomic bombs and would eventually become the world's first nuclear strike force.

Project Silverplate

"Nicknamed after the codeword for the project (a shortening of the original moniker "The Silver Plated Project"), B-29 Superfortress bombers in Silverplate configuration were the first planes ever to carry nuclear payloads. Of the 65 planes so modified between 1944 and 1947, 53 served with the first nuclear weapons unit, the 509th Composite Group. Two survive to this day and their names—Enola Gay and Bockscar"

I the USA was facing imminent destruction then the Lancaster could have dropped the bomb, but that was nor the situation. The Lancaster did take off and land with huge payloads. however an accident with a grand slam would severely damage the airfield, an accident with a nuclear bomb destroys the whole region which may be one of the few islands you have in reach of your enemy

tyrodtom · Jul 19, 2016

All the components weren't assembled in the bomb until after takeoff. I forget the exact procedure, I think the highly enriched triggers weren't installed until after takeoff, and at altitude. So a crash might breach the shell, and disperse nuclear matter, or a fire might detonated the high explosive charge and you'd have a small dirty bomb, but no nuclear explosion without the full assembly..

They were still using a procedure somewhat like that even in the 50's and maybe later.

wuzak · Jul 19, 2016

pbehn said:
I the USA was facing imminent destruction then the Lancaster could have dropped the bomb, but that was nor the situation. The Lancaster did take off and land with huge payloads. however an accident with a grand slam would severely damage the airfield, an accident with a nuclear bomb destroys the whole region which may be one of the few islands you have in reach of your enemy

All three of the nuclear bombs developed at that time (Thin Man, Little Boy and Fat Man) were comfortably below the Lancaster's normal bomb load.

Fat Man was the heaviest at 10,300lb, Little Boy was 9,700lb and Thin Man around 8,000lbs.

Thin Man was 38" in diameter (same as Tallboy and the 8,000lb and 12,000lb HC bombs). It was also 17' (5.2m) long. It was for this reason the Lancaster was considered as a candidate to deliver the bomb.

In terms of size, Little Boy could fit inside a Mosquito B.XVI. But taking off may be problematic.

wuzak · Jul 19, 2016

tyrodtom said:
All the components weren't assembled in the bomb until after takeoff. I forget the exact procedure, I think the highly enriched triggers weren't installed until after takeoff, and at altitude. So a crash might breach the shell, and disperse nuclear matter, or a fire might detonated the high explosive charge and you'd have a small dirty bomb, but no nuclear explosion without the full assembly..

They were still using a procedure somewhat like that even in the 50's and maybe later.

If that were the case I think the Lancaster would be ruled out, as there wasn't the access to the bomb bay.

Did the B-29 have access to its bomb bays? Since it was pressurised and fore/aft access was via a tube, I thought it wouldn't.

tyrodtom · Jul 19, 2016

You're right, the bomb bay can't be pressurized. I probably shouldn't have said at altitude.

But if you read about the mission it's mentioned one of the crew , maybe the bombardier, practiced the procedure several times before the mission , and it was done in flight for the actual missions.

You would think any large bomber has access to the bomb bay, I've read of various instances where crew had to assist getting hung bombs to drop.

In a cutaway of the B-29 it shows both a catwalk in the bomb bay, and a access door.

How else could Slim Pickens have rode the H-bomb down in Dr. Strangelove, lol. I know, that was a B-52.

ALEX Hogarth · Jul 20, 2016

tyrodtom said:
You're right, the bomb bay can't be pressurized. I probably shouldn't have said at altitude.

But if you read about the mission it's mentioned one of the crew , maybe the bombardier, practiced the procedure several times before the mission , and it was done in flight for the actual missions.

You would think any large bomber has access to the bomb bay, I've read of various instances where crew had to assist getting hung bombs to drop.

In a cutaway of the B-29 it shows both a catwalk in the bomb bay, and a access door.

How else could Slim Pickens have rode the H-bomb down in Dr. Strangelove, lol. I know, that was a B-52.

The lancaster had access to the bomb bay, there was a series of hatches all down the roof and a larger access port at the far end, these were however quite small, suffcient to get to a hung bomb but little else

ALEX Hogarth · Jul 20, 2016

GrauGeist said:
The XB-39 was the "fallback" for the B-29 in the event that the R-3350 engine problems couldn't be ironed out.

The B-32 was the backup for the B-29 if the project itself ran into problems.

But you would still be placing faith in what were paper designs the lancaster was a production aircraft, it wasnt ideal but it was there if the new designs failed and remember that especially the b29 was pushing current technology to its limits if not beyond

pbehn · Jul 20, 2016

ALEX Hogarth said:
But you would still be placing faith in what were paper designs the lancaster was a production aircraft, it wasnt ideal but it was there if the new designs failed and remember that especially the b29 was pushing current technology to its limits if not beyond

The B29 was the most expensive military project ever undertaken at the time, costing more than the bombs it dropped, it wouldnt be allowed to fail.

ALEX Hogarth · Jul 20, 2016

pbehn said:
The B29 was the most expensive military project ever undertaken at the time, costing more than the bombs it dropped, it wouldnt be allowed to fail.

Expensive project fail in fact more often as they tend to be more complex, but how about a year delay?
Having fail back position is sound planning
Plans were in place to build the lanc in the us should it be required although iirc it would have been a mk4 what was later named the lincoln

FLYBOYJ · Jul 20, 2016

ALEX Hogarth said:
Expensive project fail in fact more often as they tend to be more complex, but how about a year delay?
Having fail back position is sound planning
Plans were in place to build the lanc in the us should it be required although iirc it would have been a mk4 what was later named the lincoln

Do you have proof of that?

The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

Major General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Recruit

Airman

Colonel

General

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Captain

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Colonel

Senior Master Sergeant

Captain

Captain

Senior Master Sergeant

Recruit

Recruit

Colonel

Recruit

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads