Too Little, Too Late - The B-32 Dominator

evangilder · Mar 27, 2006

Agreed, thanks Steve. Be sure to give proper credit where do on any copyrighted works.

Twitch · Mar 28, 2006

Personally I always felt the B-32 was the bastard stepchild. It wasn't that much better than the B-29 and would soon be eclipsed by the B-36. The USAF had plenty of B-29s that could have supplanted B-17s and B-24s. Always easier to increase quantities of an aircraft in production like the B-29 than to introduce another. The B-36 was stalled during the war for the B-32. For what reason? The B-36 would have been fantastic in combat at the end of WW2. I could have been except for the B-32. I belive they should have leaned on producing a super bomber rather than one barely a notch above the existing B-29.

FLYBOYJ · Mar 28, 2006

Remember, the B-32 was almost 2 years behind schedule. A plan was to have it replace the B-17 and B-24 in the ETO....

I think had it been deployed earlier and more were produced it would of been quickly scrapped at the end of the war, just like the B-24 that disappeared overnight...

syscom3 · Mar 28, 2006

The B29's were not going to be produced in sizable numbers untill 1945. Look at my B29 thread for info on that.

The B36 was a headache to develope. There were engine problems, landing gear/tire issues, propellor problems, blah blah blah. Its lucky the plane flew as soon as it did!

Twitch · Mar 29, 2006

While the B-36 was a complex animal it was put on hold and NO work was done on it at times during the war so that the B-32 would get priority. It is/was a matter of priorities with government contracts and programs.

Fabrication on the B-36 slowed since the Air Corps wanted attention paid to the Consolidated planes (B-24s B-32s) that it needed then, but agreed to a two-prototype order for a cargo version designated the XC-99. One was ultimately built.

By March of 1943 Consolidated and Vultee merged but didn't officially become Convair in name until 1954. At that time in the war it seemed that the Japanese might push and take the bases planned for the forthcoming B-29s in China. General Hap Arnold directed that orders be placed for 100 B-36 examples for a production start up in August 1945.

Mid-1944 brought a better outlook for the Americans in the Pacific as B-29s soon would begin their raids on mainland Japan from hard-won island bases. B-29 teething problems were overcome and the press for an Inter-Continental Bomber was lessened. Convair emphasized B-32 development and slowed on the B-36.

As it was, the XB-36 took off from one of only three runways in the U.S. able to handle the weight at Fort Worth, Texas in August 1946.

syscom3 · Mar 29, 2006

Twitch said:
....As it was, the XB-36 took off from one of only three runways in the U.S. able to handle the weight at Fort Worth, Texas in August 1946.

Exactly. In fact, the origional landing gear design of a single large tire per strut, need to be changed to a multiple tire setup so that it could be used on more airfields.

130fe · Sep 6, 2007

The XC-99 was in fact saved and is currently being restored at the Air Force Museum. Rumor has it that a B-32 survived until the mid 70s at Macaren in Las Vegas. Anyone seen photographic proof of this?

drgondog · Sep 7, 2007

plan_D said:
11 days of constant bombardment, the most brutal bombardment in history. I knew it was 72 or 73, I couldn't remember.

December 18-29, 1972 - 40,000 tons of bombs dropped.

The radar jamming largely effective but the 52D had better jamming equipment than D. More than 900 Sams were launched.

At first SAC did the 'stupid thing' thta plagued USAF crews throughout the war - namely same altitudes, tracks and times enabling NV to figure out where to concentrate dwindling supplies of Sams - but last three or four nights - 5 or six different altitudes and headings - all in 20 minutes over the targets.

It was brutal but very good concentrations around the MPI designate - they effectively destroyed everything they wanted, and not much of what they didn't want, to bomb.

ccheese · Sep 7, 2007

syscom3 said:
The B36 was a headache to develope. There were engine problems, landing gear/tire issues, propellor problems, blah blah blah. Its lucky the plane flew as soon as it did!

The B-36 was a pain is the @ss. I flew in them twice on a round-robin
that went from Wheelus AFB up into the Arctic Circle and "other places".
I flew in the radioman's spot once and in the tail spot once. On both
flights we lost an engine due to overheating. Tires were a very big
problem, engines overheating, catching fire and even a couple of
runaway props. The Air Force required you wear a chute harness at
all times on this aircraft. Chutes were hanging at different stations
for easy clip-on access.

Charles

FLYBOYJ · Sep 7, 2007

130fe said:
The XC-99 was in fact saved and is currently being restored at the Air Force Museum. Rumor has it that a B-32 survived until the mid 70s at Macaren in Las Vegas. Anyone seen photographic proof of this?

"No surplus B-32s were ever sold to foreign air forces, and the aircraft's complexity and reputation for mechanical unreliability made it unattractive on the postwar commercial market. There is only example in which a commercial customer showed any interest in a surplus B-32. In June 1947, Milton J. Reynolds, a pen manufacturer, announced that he was planning to buy a surplus B-32 for a round-the-world flight over both poles, but this plan was never carried out.

No intact, complete B-32 survives today. B-32-1-CF 42-108474 had been set aside for display at the Air Force Museum, but was unaccountably declared excess and scrapped at Davis-Monthan in August of 1949. Only bits and pieces of B-32s remain in existence today. A nose turret from a B-32 is in storage at the Paul Garber Restoration Facility of the Smithsonian Institution at Suitland, Maryland. Another B-32 nose turret is on display in a Minnesota museum. A static test wing panel from a B-32 was erected as a monument to aviation pioneer John J. Montgomery on a hill near San Diego."

Consolidated B-32 Dominator

syscom3 · Sep 7, 2007

On this day today 65 years ago, Sept 7th 1942........ was the first test flight of the XB-32.

FLYBOYJ · Sep 7, 2007

syscom3 said:
On this day today 65 years ago, Sept 7th 1942........ was the first test flight of the XB-32.

8)

Thorlifter · Sep 7, 2007

I think it would have been a nice replacement for the B-17/B-24. With that high cruising speed and impressive payload, it would have spent less time over hostile ground, delivered more ordinance, and put less lives in jeopardy.

syscom3 · Sep 7, 2007

Unfortunatly for Convair, what should have been a fairly straight forward aircraft to design, and it wasnt nearly as sophisticated as the B29, turned into an engineering nightmare for one reason or another.

The B32 "HAD" potential, but too many problems early on relegated it to the back burner.

JoeB · Sep 7, 2007

SM79Sparviero said:
Anyway also B32 showed to be "die hard": in august ,17 1945 4 Dominators during a recon mission over Tokio vere intercepted by 10 Ki-44 and Ki-61 ( on breach of the surrending orders):futile damages for the bomber, 1 fighter surely shot down and two more probable.
On the following day two dominators had to face still over Tokio 14 Zero and Ki.44: one of the B32 had an engine destroyed and 3 gunners injured but it could come back home , two fighters were shot down surely, two more probably.

Sakai told Henry Sakaida he was among those attacking the B-32's in the first of those engagements, August 17. Sakaida also says in "Winged Samurai" that a group led by WO Sadamu Komachi attacked on the 18th. No Japanese fighters were lost in either case [correction, none lost 17th, he doesn't actually say wrt 18th], and all were apparently JNAF. Sakai did not recall if he flew a 'George' or Zero but most were probably Georges, which explains 'Tojo's', the two types were confused in other documented cases, but leaves the 'Tony' ID a mystery.

On B-52 credits for MiG's destroyed those occurrred Dec 18 and 24 1972. The VPAF official history (which is the basis of Toperczer's "Air War over North Vietnam") does not mention losses of MiG's to B-52's either date. On the 18th a MiG pilot followed a B-52 formation and said he was spotted by the bombers, but not downed. There is no mention of B-52 interceptions on the second date. A declassified Soviet military intelligence summary of the Vietnam War states that VPAF MiG's did not inercept B-52's the night of the 24th due to weather. The USAF's monograph "Linebacker 2 View from the Rock" specifies two different B-52 cells which believed they were intercepted by MiG's that night, a gunner from one was credited the victory.

As to MiG claims of B-52's two are known, evenings of Dec 27 and 28 '72 with AAM's. In the first case 2 B-52's were lost to SAM's according to US accounts; "Linebacker 2 A View from the Rock" even mentions that 'Ivory' and 'Opal' cells were engaged by MiG's, while the two a/c lost were from 'Cobalt' and 'Ash' cells near known SAM sites and ECM indicated SAM lock on's. However, it doesn't seem possible to determine which loss cause is correct without directly comparing US and Vietnamese original records, and perhaps not even then. The 28th claim is strange because the Vietnamese account gives a time in the late evening (not early morning) of Dec 28, and moreover says the MiG-21 involved was destroyed by falling debris from the B-52 target, the pilot Vu Xuan Thieu was killed. But, no B-52's were lost the night of 28/29. It seems possible Thieu's MiG was struck by falling bombs, or some other cause.

Joe

Soundbreaker Welch? · Sep 7, 2007

I thout the B-29 was really big, but the B-36 really dwarfs it. Imagine a B-36 in 1/48 scale!

Snautzer01 · Sep 9, 2007

steveharding said:
I'm heartened by the continuing interest in the B-32, and I'm flattered that much of the information about the aircraft on the web is drawn (often verbatim) from the book I wrote (with Jim Long's illustrations) in 1982. I would only ask that if folks are going to present information drawn directly from the book, that they'd give me credit. The book might not exactly be "War and Peace," but it took a lot of research and effort to write.
Thanks,
Steve Harding

At least i bought the book
Its a nice read about this not to well known plane.

Matt308 · Sep 9, 2007

ccheese said:
The B-36 was a pain is the @ss. I flew in them twice on a round-robin
that went from Wheelus AFB up into the Arctic Circle and "other places".
I flew in the radioman's spot once and in the tail spot once. On both
flights we lost an engine due to overheating. Tires were a very big
problem, engines overheating, catching fire and even a couple of
runaway props. The Air Force required you wear a chute harness at
all times on this aircraft. Chutes were hanging at different stations
for easy clip-on access.

Charles

...and wasn't the cruising speed of this whale just about 200mph. Man that's a long operation at max operating distance. ccheese what were the toilets and galley arrangements like for those long hauls. Must have been somewhat like a dull bus ride with half kitchens. I have never been impressed with the B-36. It always impressed me as a lumbering cow who was likely going to be fodder for any decent interceptor squadron.

To me this aircraft is the EXACT reason that cruise missiles were invented.

POS, I say.

syscom3 · Sep 10, 2007

Matt, thats why jet engines were added as soon as practical.

One good thing about the B36 was its shear size, allowed replacement crew's to be onboard.

drgondog · Sep 10, 2007

Matt308 said:
...and wasn't the cruising speed of this whale just about 200mph. Man that's a long operation at max operating distance. ccheese what were the toilets and galley arrangements like for those long hauls. Must have been somewhat like a dull bus ride with half kitchens. I have never been impressed with the B-36. It always impressed me as a lumbering cow who was likely going to be fodder for any decent interceptor squadron.

To me this aircraft is the EXACT reason that cruise missiles were invented.

POS, I say.

POS? The USSR probably wished we didn't have it for the first 8 years of it's life

That might be a little harsh comment for the only aircraft capable of carrying the first hydrogen bomb (or four smaller nucs to targets over 3000+ miles away (the 42,000 M-17) at 40,000+ feet. When it got jet engines it moved it's cruise from 230 TAS at 40K to 430 TAS at 50K where no fighter could touch it until the MiG-15 and even that was a stretch.

the stripped down RB-36 was never shot down over China or USSR despite many deep penetrations until 1955-56 when the U-2 came into the inventory..

it was THE big stick until the B-52 became operational because of huge load and range... and yes it did have a lot of engine problems.

Too Little, Too Late - The B-32 Dominator

"Shooter"

Staff Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

Staff Sergeant

Pacific Historian

Airman

Major

Member In Perpetuity

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Captain

Pacific Historian

Staff Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Honourably banned

Attachments

Glock Perfection

Pacific Historian

Major

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads