The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945

[RCAFson]

Ok, let's be realistic - Your attempts to justify the Lancaster for the atomic missions is almost admirable if it weren't for the intrusion into the realm of the fantastic.
Kokura is just a bit south of Hiroshima, Nagasaki is south-west of Kokura.

We've been for the most part, discussing the magic Lancaster's journey retracing Bockscar's mission but yes, Hiroshima was further north - which would have also required a considerable amount of fuel to make the run from Tinian to Tinian.

And nice try, but my last sentence did not, in fact imply that. If one happened to read the rest of my post (reading comprehension helps a great deal, by the way) I stated that it would require quite a few of the Unicorn Lancasters to match the requirements if the 509th, which used interchangeable aircraft that could either carry the bomb or carry the nessecary instruments (weather or data).

Maybe I'll start a thread about the Stirling as a candidate for an Atomic bomber, should be fun.

Again, a Tinian-target-Tinian mission plan isn't required and Bockscar proved that. Tinian-Target-Okinawa is well inside the Lancaster's capability.

I think it a reasonable assumption that at least a whole squadron of "Silverplate" Lancasters will be available (at about the same cost as three B-29s), but there's no reason that these have to fly the weather/recon missions as well, although they could.

Short Stirling:
"The Stirling had a shallow bomb-bay 12.8 meters (42 feet) long, divided into three parallel "cells", each only 48.3 centimeters (19 inches) -- which would prove a limitation as the war went on, since the Stirling would never be able to carry the oversized "high capacity" or "blockbuster" bombs; it couldn't handle general-purpose bombs bigger than 225 kilograms (500 pounds). Along with the main bombbay, there were bomb-bays in the wings inboard of the main engines, though drawings suggest they were generally used to accommodate long-range tanks. Maximum bomb load was an impressive 6,350 kilograms (14,000 pounds), but that load could only be hauled for a relatively short distance; for long-range missions, the typical bombload was a quarter of that weight, 1,590 kilograms (3,500 pounds)."
The Short Stirling

Ramsey picked the Lancaster for a reason.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Why did they have to be interchangeable? Were they able to transfer the bomb inflight? The aircraft were used for weather/recon because it was convenient to do so, and not for any other compelling reason.

*SNIP*

If you have to ask that question, then you don't understand what it really took to carry out the mission 509th was tasked with. Dave is correct, those planes HAVE to be interchangeable to accomplish this, so yes, you'd need 6 preferably more. They had an all B-29 cast not because it was convenient, mission parameters dictated so.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Ramsey picked the Lancaster for a reason.

Ramsey "recommended" the Lancaster.

 

[swampyankee]

This thread is generating a surprising amount of heat. If the B-29 and the B-32 had failed, the US didn't have a second fallback: neither the B-17 nor B-24 could have carried the nuclear bombs of 1945.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This thread is generating a surprising amount of heat. If the B-29 and the B-32 had failed, the US didn't have a second fallback: neither the B-17 nor B-24 could have carried the nuclear bombs of 1945.

Agree, and at that point General Arnold would not have had a choice.

 

[SaparotRob]

Could the Barling bomber been used as a fall back? If the nose landing gear was removed a lot of weight could be saved.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Since we've been talking a lot of "what ifs," Arnold "could have" chosen the Lockheed XB-30 which was offered to the AAF the same time the B-29 was being developed. This was essentially a converted L-049 Constellation. 16,000 pound bomb load at 382 mph, but a laughable service ceiling of just under 18,000 feet.

You also had the Douglas XB-31, another project that tried to compete with the B-29.

Douglas XB-31 - Wikipedia

 

[SaparotRob]

Is there a drawing of the XB-31?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Is there a drawing of the XB-31?

 

[swampyankee]

Since we've been talking a lot of "what ifs," Arnold "could have" chosen the Lockheed XB-30 which was offered to the AAF the same time the B-29 was being developed. This was essentially a converted L-049 Constellation. 16,000 pound bomb load at 382 mph, but a laughable service ceiling of just under 18,000 feet.

You also had the Douglas XB-31, another project that tried to compete with the B-29.

Douglas XB-31 - Wikipedia

Considering that the XB-30 was lighter, with a lower wing loading, and the same engines, I find 18,000 ft somewhat fishy.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Considering that the XB-30 was lighter, with a lower wing loading, and the same engines, I find 18,000 ft somewhat fishy.

Yep - Considering the first Connies had a service ceiling of 25,000 feet

 

[RCAFson]

Since we've been talking a lot of "what ifs," Arnold "could have" chosen the Lockheed XB-30 which was offered to the AAF the same time the B-29 was being developed. This was essentially a converted L-049 Constellation. 16,000 pound bomb load at 382 mph, but a laughable service ceiling of just under 18,000 feet.

You also had the Douglas XB-31, another project that tried to compete with the B-29.

Douglas XB-31 - Wikipedia

Ramsey, Groves and Arnold had to pick an aircraft that was available and had a viable development track in late 1943/early 1944. Ramsey didn't begin to look for a delivery aircraft until mid 1943.

"The Douglas XB-31 project was formally cancelled in late 1941 before anything could be built. "
Douglas XB-31
AFAIK, the XB-30 suffered the same fate.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

AFAIK, the XB-30 suffered the same fate.

Actually the XB-30 was based on the Constellation. The first ones were flying in 1943 so this "could have" happened if the other identified deficiencies were addressed

 

[SaparotRob]

View attachment 601364

View attachment 601365

That is a cool airplane. I didn't see any drawings of it on Wikipedia. Kind of weird seeing a description in Japanese (?).

 

[SaparotRob]

Just how many heavy bomber types was the US ordering? I had known about the B-32 being an "also ran" but I never knew about these 2. Were Stinson, Waco and Piper also in on the bidding?

 

[swampyankee]

Just how many heavy bomber types was the US ordering? I had known about the B-32 being an "also ran" but I never knew about these 2. Were Stinson, Waco and Piper also in on the bidding?

Boeing, Consolidated, Lockheed, and Douglas had considerable experience in large aircraft, although Lockheed likely had the least of these four. Martin and Sikorsky also had large aircraft experience. While Stinson had done a commercial airliner, I don't think either Waco or Piper had even built a twin at this time. Going from a smallish single (Waco didn't even make monoplanes) to a strategic bomber may have been seen as a bit too much of a jump by both company management and the customer.

 

[SaparotRob]

And another one of my jokes crashes and burns.

 

[SaparotRob]

Knew I should have added Rutan.

 

[Dash119]

And another one of my jokes crashes and burns.

If it is any consolation, I got it...

 

[swampyankee]

Knew I should have added Rutan.

Oh, he'd just build an asymmetric canard with five engines