Top Heavy Bomber

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

This is similiar to the Top Medium Bomber thread but for Heavies instead.

Remember top does not necessarily mean best for me. Then again in my opinion the Top is the Best and that is the B-29.

To clear things up as well I classified heavy bombers as those that had a payload of 5500lb+.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Adler,

Top Heavy Bomber - hm, I thought for a moment this was a thread about capsizing aircraft

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Hi Adler,

Top Heavy Bomber - hm, I thought for a moment this was a thread about capsizing aircraft

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Gnomey]

B-29 hands down.

 

[syscom3]

Who voted for the Lanc?

 

[Kurfürst]

The B-29 is an obvious hands-down winner here, and it`s kinda

a, unfair, given it`s size was about twice the others (not to mention the B-32..)
b, makes the question redundant, since with the 29/32 on the list, there`s really any other answer...

IMHO it would be better to narrow it down to the 'classic' ~30 ton take off weight heavy bomber class.

 

[drgondog]

The B-29 is an obvious hands-down winner here, and it`s kinda

a, unfair, given it`s size was about twice the others (not to mention the B-32..)
b, makes the question redundant, since with the 29/32 on the list, there`s really any other answer...

IMHO it would be better to narrow it down to the 'classic' ~30 ton take off weight heavy bomber class.

Of course I picked the B-29 as 'top/best' four engine weapon system.

My favorite will always be the B-17 for the war it fought over Germany

The most intriguing for me is the He 177. What if - the dive bombing role and the two nacelle/four engine design had not been part of the spec?

What if - it had been designed for USAAF instead?

 

[ToughOmbre]

Agree with drgondog...

No contest, B-29 the best....by far

And my favorite (and most beautiful) is the "Flying Fortress".

TO

 

[HoHun]

Hi Adler,

Here is a good article on the B-29, written by John Deakin who is one of the pilots of the CAF's "Fifi":

Pelican's Perch #56: Superfortress!

"The word "awesome" is badly overused, but I cannot help but use it to describe the airplane, and the experience of flying it. It is not that is such a good airplane (it's not), or that it flies well (it doesn't), but the history! This is the WWII "Very Heavy Bomber," the largest airplane used in WWII, and the one that did such yeoman service in the Pacific."

And a supplement by Randy Sohn who rescued "Fifi" from the boneyard:

Pelican's Perch #56 Supplement: Randy Sohn on the B-29

"Queen of the fleet? Undeniably! But this last of the completely muscle powered manually controlled aircraft could never be accused of easy handling flight control qualities."

John actually posted a - possibly shorter - version of that article on Compuserve's AVSIG forum long ago, and after reading his comments on the control forces, I quoted the B-29 manual to him:

"The flight controls are conventional and the forces necessary to move them are light, even at high flying speeds - a surprising fact to most pilots the first time they fly the B-29."

I don't remember his precise answer, but I think it was something about the manual obviously having been written by Boeing's marketing department

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Wildcat]

B-29 hands down, though the B-24 and Lanc are my favourites..

 

[ppopsie]

As I understand the B-29 still stands alone. It was way too advanced both in the idea and technically. Simple catalogue-data comparisons of the B-29 with the rest of the types would not mean much.

If a timeline set, say, at the end of 1943, comparisons can be made between such types include; Lanc, Halifax, Stirling, B-24, B-17.

But still, it is difficult to compare each types due to the differences in idea, purpose, role and the results. Each had own meanings and reasons.

Therefore I would choose the Lancaster as MY best bomber because it looks good and right. The second is the B-17 also because it looks very nice and I put the B-29 onto a spetial place in the history of the whole aviation.

 

[comiso90]

Who voted for the Lanc?

I did but it was a mistake.... I was thinking B-29..

I got lanc on the brain I just saw one in a museum.

Although the lanc get huge points for versatility... (tall boys, grand slam and dam buster)

 

[Captn javy Wilson]

nah the b-17 made more missions than the b-29 did and when the b-29 finally came into service, Japan and Germany were both losing the war badly.
The b-17 is always more commedoring than the b-29

 

[mkloby]

Agree with drgondog...

No contest, B-29 the best....by far

And my favorite (and most beautiful) is the "Flying Fortress".

TO

My sentiments exactly - although I dropped a vote for 17... I like Kururst's interpretation.

 

[lancaster mad]

Surely the Lanc has to be the best as I think it did more missions that the Superfort

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Ole B-17, though the B-29 was the best.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Surely the Lanc has to be the best as I think it did more missions that the Superfort

Was the Lancaster as advanced, performed better or could carry the same large bomb load over that long of a distance as the B-29.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Surely the Lanc has to be the best as I think it did more missions that the Superfort

A one man flight crew with half the avionics - A multi engine taildragger with manned turrets - that's a half of generation behind the B-29.

 

[ppopsie]

A one man flight crew with half the avionics - A multi engine taildragger with manned turrets - that's a half of generation behind the B-29.

If the British Tigerforce started the campaign at the same time with the B-29s, it would be known which was more efficient against Japan.

OR which was easier to shoot down. In any way the Tigerforce should never be welcomed by us too.

 

[Lucky13]

B-29, but only by a guns length over the the B-17, B-24 and Lancaster...
As for the He-177, they should have scrapped the ideas of dive bombing and four engines in two nacelles....probably been a completely different aircraft...