Hi
Sources I have read indicate the B-29 had fabric covered control surfaces, if so did that change for those that were going to drop atom bombs?
Mike
The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945
- Thread starter nuuumannn
- Start date
- Status
Hi
Sources I have read indicate the B-29 had fabric covered control surfaces, if so did that change for those that were going to drop atom bombs?
Mike
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The B-29 had fabric control surfaces. This had no bearing with it's ability to act as a nuclear bomber.
If you don't have a problem with the crew being all 100% homo sapiens what is the issue with fabric control surfaces? I don't think it was an issue of cost, at the time the B-29 was just about the most expensive thing ever made.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And at the time the design philosophy was to retain fabric control surfaces on a number of large multi-engine aircraft, weight and control surface balance reasons. I believe there were mods to do away with the fabric surfaces on the B-29 and I believe eliminated on the B-50,
I do know that continued radiation probably would not have been too healthy on the fabric but then again I doubt there would have been continual nuclear operations in the post war.
Thanks MikeMeech,
You are correct. The B-29 does have fabric surfaces. From what I recall from the presentation at the testing museum, there was concern for non-metallic surfaces surviving the detonation if they hadn't gotten out of the 8 mile radius.
Kk
As I understand it the concern was two fold. The initial concern was the fabric's resistance to the flash burn. The second was the over pressure of the blast radius. From the Trinity Test, there was a rough idea of what these values would be, but nothing certain. As an untested design, Little Boy also represented an unknown as to efficiency and the size of the blast. The 8 mile safety radius was probably conservative, but represented the best guess as to survivability.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
All were valid concerns but were not made priorities in the post war. Apparently the B-50 had at least a fabric rudder
There was no lack of field success.
Only 9 were built because the aircraft had no clear role especially after the collapse of the Luftwaffe air defence system and with it the need for a high altitude/high speed night bomber. The early Lincoln had essentially the same powerplant configuration and various minor mods cured most of the problems.
The Lancaster VI would be dropping either ww2 atomic bomb at the same speed and altitude as historically and I can't see why fabric control surfaces would be a factor.
Dash119
Senior Airman
With the exception of the P-38, I believe all the U.S. aircraft of WWII had at least one fabric covered control surface(s). And most of the aircraft from the rest of the world too. The thought process was that fabric covering was lighter and less prone to flutter.
- Thread starter
- #251
Indeed. This would have been an issue but it is likely that it would have survived the shockwave - Lancasters are pretty tough, but its much lower altitude from which it dropped the bomb would have been a problem. Enola Gay and The Great Artiste suffered no damage from the shockwave but they were higher than the Lancaster could fly. Little Boy was dropped from an altitude of around 31,000 ft, a height a Lancaster could not reach and travelled a distance of 2.67 miles to the aiming point, the T shaped Aioi Bridge over a time of around 43 or 53 seconds before exploding according to Paul Tibbetts.
In that time, Enola Gay had made a hard 155 degree turn to the north east from their direction of around 265 degrees heading westwards, but the shockwave hit the aircraft 11.5 miles out and a couple of seconds after making the hard turn, the shockwave travelling at 1,100 ft per second. The aircraft was travelling at over 200 mph at the time, something a Lancaster could easily achieve unladen, although I don't know its exact speed.
As for thoughts that the Lancaster VI could have done the raid, again Fw 187 like wishful thinking on the part of those who reckon it could have. It was barely suitable for normal service owing to technical issues, not to mention poor availability. It didn't have the range, nor the performance to carry out the operation within the timeline of the August 1945 attacks. Nor did the Lincoln, which just three examples were delivered to its first unit three days before Little Boy was dropped.
Fabric control surfaces? Red herring - don't bother dwelling on it. Even the Me 163 had fabric control surfaces.
- Thread starter
- #252
To summarise, two reasons why the Lancaster, and that includes ALL Lancaster marks - and the Lincoln could not have carried out the atom bomb raids on Japan.
1. The Lancaster was not American.
When Gen Groves approached Hap Arnold for AAF support, Arnold read Norman Ramsay's report stating that the Lancaster was the only bomber that could carry Thin man internally but quickly decided that the aircraft HAD to be American. The ONLY choice was the B-29. This was in 1943, two years before the raid took place, when there was no actual mission parameter available.
2. The Lancaster did not have the performance to carry out the mission parameters as they were actually flown.
The Lancaster did not have the range, it wasn't fast enough and could not reach the height the raid was flown at. It is worth remembering that performance figures for Lancasters referred to in official documents and on Wiki or wherever we dredge our crap up from on the net were based on conditions found in the UK at the time of testing, unless otherwise stated. The hot and high temperatures of the mid-Pacific sapped aircraft performance and would have reduced the Lancaster's performance even further.
From the figures calculated by me from official documentation recorded by the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment during the war, to achieve the objective at its maximum take-off weight carrying the bomb (68,000 lb), either Thin Man or Little Boy, but definitely not Fat Man and enough fuel to reach Japan and return, the Lancaster I (Special) would have had to fly at an average speed of 175 mph at an altitude of 15,000 ft across a round trip of approximately 1,700 miles IN TEMPERATE CONDITIONS.
For comparison, at 2am on 6 August 1945, Enola Gay departed Tinian to drop Little Boy on Hiroshima, it returned at 2:58pm after a journey time of 12 hours 58 minutes. The distance travelled was an approximate round trip of 2,722 miles. Using these figures, Enola Gay's calculated average speed was around 216 mph. Loaded with the 9,700 lb bomb and fuel for its mammoth round trip, Enola Gay's gross weight was 140,000 lbs. Little Boy was dropped from an altitude of 31,060ft.
In short, the Lancaster could not have done it.
1. The Lancaster was not American.
When Gen Groves approached Hap Arnold for AAF support, Arnold read Norman Ramsay's report stating that the Lancaster was the only bomber that could carry Thin man internally but quickly decided that the aircraft HAD to be American. The ONLY choice was the B-29. This was in 1943, two years before the raid took place, when there was no actual mission parameter available.
2. The Lancaster did not have the performance to carry out the mission parameters as they were actually flown.
The Lancaster did not have the range, it wasn't fast enough and could not reach the height the raid was flown at. It is worth remembering that performance figures for Lancasters referred to in official documents and on Wiki or wherever we dredge our crap up from on the net were based on conditions found in the UK at the time of testing, unless otherwise stated. The hot and high temperatures of the mid-Pacific sapped aircraft performance and would have reduced the Lancaster's performance even further.
From the figures calculated by me from official documentation recorded by the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment during the war, to achieve the objective at its maximum take-off weight carrying the bomb (68,000 lb), either Thin Man or Little Boy, but definitely not Fat Man and enough fuel to reach Japan and return, the Lancaster I (Special) would have had to fly at an average speed of 175 mph at an altitude of 15,000 ft across a round trip of approximately 1,700 miles IN TEMPERATE CONDITIONS.
For comparison, at 2am on 6 August 1945, Enola Gay departed Tinian to drop Little Boy on Hiroshima, it returned at 2:58pm after a journey time of 12 hours 58 minutes. The distance travelled was an approximate round trip of 2,722 miles. Using these figures, Enola Gay's calculated average speed was around 216 mph. Loaded with the 9,700 lb bomb and fuel for its mammoth round trip, Enola Gay's gross weight was 140,000 lbs. Little Boy was dropped from an altitude of 31,060ft.
In short, the Lancaster could not have done it.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Grant, as an aside, the decision not to use the Lancaster may seem to be "flag waving" but in actuality could it have been because of supply and support logistics?
The USAAF operated a couple of Lancasters in the ETO for a short while as well as other British types, so the Army using a British aircraft was not unheard of.
My thinking (or at least first impression) was familiarity and logistics (each bomber would need mechanics familiar with the aircraft) as well as spare engines, parts and such.
Not to mention American pilots who were experienced with the type - they couldn't bring RAF personnel to help because if the secrecy surrounding the project. Also asking for 30 some-odd Lancs without an explanation might have seemed a bit weird, too.
The USAAF operated a couple of Lancasters in the ETO for a short while as well as other British types, so the Army using a British aircraft was not unheard of.
My thinking (or at least first impression) was familiarity and logistics (each bomber would need mechanics familiar with the aircraft) as well as spare engines, parts and such.
Not to mention American pilots who were experienced with the type - they couldn't bring RAF personnel to help because if the secrecy surrounding the project. Also asking for 30 some-odd Lancs without an explanation might have seemed a bit weird, too.
The USAAF could have easily claimed to have Tallboy (or another conventional bomb with large dimensions_ targets that they wanted to hit. The USAAF operated a number of UK built aircraft and it hardly raised any eyebrows. The Lancaster was being built in Canada and any USAAF Lancaster would probably have been fitted with Packard Merlins, so maintenance was unlikely to be an issue. There were already a number of Commonwealth scientists and leaders who were cleared for Manhattan project secrets, including Cdn PM King.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #255
Possibly Dave, but what is certain was that Arnold made it clear from the outset that the mission was to be carried out by an American aircraft if the AAF was to be involved, before any considerations were taken into account. This was in 1943 at a time when the B-29 was still under development.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
People outside of the loop would have found the US requesting 30+ Lancasters without a plausible explanation a bit odd, though.
Without them knowing about any details of the Atomic weapons, would have wondered why the Army wanted a fleet of Lancs when the B-17 was a heavy lift platform.
What we know today about the program from it's onset to the final days of Japan would have gotten us shot in 44/45, by the way
Without them knowing about any details of the Atomic weapons, would have wondered why the Army wanted a fleet of Lancs when the B-17 was a heavy lift platform.
What we know today about the program from it's onset to the final days of Japan would have gotten us shot in 44/45, by the way
- Thread starter
- #257
It has to be remembered that from the AAF's point of view at the time, Arnold was not briefed fully about the nature of the bomb, just that it was powerful and that it could bring about the end of the war and so he took it upon himself to ensure that the ailing B-29 program progressed without too much more trouble. He diverted enormous effort to it and gave the program top priority. He selected Tibbets and basically said to him, get a crew together and work out what you need to do to achieve this set of parameters. He ensured that Tibbets could just use the term 'Silverplate' and he could have anything he needed. Tibbetts had no idea about the bomb or its capability or nature, like Arnold, so both were working on what they had been told by Groves and Ramsay. Deak Parsons (often written as 'Deke', but is actually 'Deak') was also sworn to secrecy surrounding the nature of the weapon and was the only one of Enola Gay's crew who had any idea what was going to happen on the mission on 6 August.
- Thread starter
- #258
I also can't see Harris or Portal (Chief of Air Staff) agreeing to it, to be honest, not in 1943. Since neither Arnold nor Tibbetts knew anything about the weapon, the RAF heads would have said nope, we got a campaign to run. 1943 was a crucial year for Bomber Command in terms of equipment and role in the forthcoming war - it finally had the aircraft it needed in the numbers required to successfully launch a conclusive campaign - Lancaster IIIs and Halifax IIIs, after the unsatisfactory performance of the Stirlings and Merlin engined Halifaxes he'd been lumbered with in the previous year. Harris jealously guarded his Lancasters and with the Americans unable to give a satisfactory response to his questions, he wouldn't have let them go.
Bock's Car dropped a ~50% more powerful bomb at ~28.9k ft, versus ~31.6k ft for Enola Gay. Enola Gay could have probably dropped at 24k ft quite safely. The bombs weighed ~10k lbs, and were not especially heavy by Lancaster standards.
The Lancaster VI did have the altitude performance to have dropped either bomb at the historical release altitude , having a service ceiling of ~29k ft at 65000lb TOW (full fuel and ~14K bomb load). Why keep repeating something that has been shown to be untrue? Max TOW for the Lanc VI was 72000lb. The Silverplate B-29s had all armament (except tail guns) and armour stripped where a Lanc VI had full armament, so a "Silverplate" Lanc would perform better than a standard Lancaster VI.
The Lancaster would have had to have flown a modified flight path that included landing at either Okinawa or Iwo Jima. Bock's Car actually landed at Okinawa. A "Silverplate" Lincoln could probably have flown the same route as Enola Gay.
The Silverplate B-29s probably had a TO weight of 115-120k lbs.
- Thread starter
- #260
What part of this do you not understand? The maximum take off weight at 72,000 would not have given the aircraft the range needed to reach 1,700 miles! You toy with one aspect of the equation it stuffs up something else! At the MTOW of 68,000 lbs you can carry the fuel and warload at range of 1,700 miles at a speed of 175 mph at a height of 15,000 ft. Increase or decrease any of these parameters and you lose out somewhere else, too slow, too short range, too low height!
Lancaster VI equals Fw 187 wishful thinking man! In 1943 it didn't exist!
Last edited:
- Status
