Top Heavy Bomber

Top Heavy Bomber

  • Heinkel He 177 Greif

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress

    Votes: 7 10.6%

  • Consolidated B-24 Liberator

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Boeing B-29 Superfortress

    Votes: 39 59.1%

  • Convair B-32 Dominator

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Armstrong Whitworth Whitley

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Avro Lancaster

    Votes: 16 24.2%

  • Handley Page Halifax

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Short Stirling

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Ilyushin DB-3

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Ilyushin Il-4

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Petlyakov Pe-8

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    66

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser
Staff
Mod
50,291
15,910
Nov 8, 2004
USA/Germany
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+.
 
Hi Adler,

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

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
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?
 
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)
 
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.
 
syscom3 said:
Who voted for the Lanc?
Click to expand...

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)
 
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
 
FLYBOYJ said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
924
Vahe Demirjian
  • Locked
  • Poll
best ww2 bomber
Replies
9
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
  • Poll
Which aircraft was the better Russian bomber?
Replies
5
Views
4K
GrauGeist
S
  • Poll
Best Allied medium bomber 1942-1943 besides the Mosquito
8 9 10
Replies
186
Views
28K
Dimlee
The "Wannabe" Skyraiders
Replies
15
Views
5K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register