Top Heavy Bomber

[A4K]

I agree with Thorlifter on the He 177 - if it didn't have to be capable of 400 mph dive bombing (.....) they wouldn't have had to muck around with double engines (what a catastrophe - and no firewalls..) and she might have had a fighting chance of being a superb bomber. If you up-armed an He 277, for example,with maybe DB605 engines you might have had a likely competitor for the B-29, and earlier on in the piece aswell.

It would have been interesting to have seen B-29s in the same situation as the Lancs, only then could you really say which was the better, I reckon.
Personally I'm prejudiced towards the Lanc, because I LOVE that plane, but the B-29 was the newer, and therefore more technically advanced, aircraft.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The B-29 was clearly a superb aircraft. However it was a "next generation" piston bomber and clearly in a different league than either the B-24, B-17 or the Lancaster.

And that's what made it the best heavy bomber of WW2

It didn't have to contend with either a significant fighter presence, nor flak. Nor was it used in any kind of a precision role.

Not true - although the Japanese anti aircraft defences were not as formidable as seen over Germany, they were pretty intense. Additionally the B-29 served in Korea where is did perform a precision role while subject to being intercepted by MiG-15s. In both conflicts the B-29s loss rate was less than 10%.

The Lancaster on paper could of carried an atomic bomb but its out-dated tail wheel configuration (mainly used for aircraft operating on dirt fields) would of increased the risk factor for landing accidents and ground loops - something I think one would want to mitigate while carrying a nuclear weapon.

The best heavy bomber of WW2 was the B-29. I put the Lancaster in distant 2nd.

 

[syscom3]

If damaged over Japan, B29's had to fly 1600 miles ot the Mariana's, or 800 miles to Okinawa or Iwo Jima.

If they only had to fly a couple of hundred miles back to friendly bases like that in Europe, their loss rate would have gone way way down.

As for the Lanc, it was the 2nd best. A bombers mission is to drop bombs accurately on target and destroy it. As the USSBS data shows, the Lanc was better at putting bombs on target, and with its ability to carry 4000 pound bombs...... destroy it. As for the B17 flying at 30000 feet? Big deal.

The 500 and 1000 pounders carried by the B24 and B17 just couldnt do the job.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And that's what made it the best heavy bomber of WW2

The best heavy bomber of WW2 was the B-29. I put the Lancaster in distant 2nd.

Ditto. I really dont undestand how people can not consider the B-29.

 

[JDCAVE]

Well, I must confess that I am no expert on the B29. However I note the following text off of Wikipedia...

"The most common cause of maintenance headaches and catastrophic failures was the engine. Though the Wright R-3350 would later become a trustworthy workhorse in large piston-engined aircraft, early models were beset with dangerous reliability problems, many caused by demands that the B-29 be put in operation as soon as possible. It had an impressive power-to-weight ratio, but this came at a heavy cost to durability. Worse, the cowling Boeing designed for the engine was too close (out of a desire for improved aerodynamics), and the early cowl flaps caused problematic flutter and vibration when open in most of the flight envelope. The 18 radial cylinders, compactly arranged in front and rear rows, overheated because of insufficient flow of cooling air, which in turn caused exhaust valves to unseat.

These weaknesses combined to make an engine that would overheat regularly at combat weights, particularly during climbs after takeoff. Unseated valves released fuel-air mixtures during engine combustion that acted as a blowtorch against the valve stems. When these burned through the engines disintegrated and caught fire. A fire that was not immediately contained in the forward part of the engine by fire extinguishers became impossible to put out. An accessory housing manufactured of magnesium alloy in the back of the engine would often catch fire and produce heat so intense it burned through the firewall to the main wing spar in no more than 90 seconds, resulting in catastrophic failure of the wing.

This problem would not be fully cured until the aircraft was re-engined with the more powerful Pratt Whitney R-4360 "Wasp Major" in the B-29D/B-50 program, which arrived too late for World War II....frequent replacement of the uppermost five cylinders (every 25 hours of engine time) and engines (75 hours)..." were required. Hmmm! I'll bet the lanc didn't require that kind of maintenance!

That doesn't sound to me to be a particularly reliable engine at all! The Merlin engine was certainly the most univerally used engine of the war, and although there have been criticisms on this board on the use of coolant, certainly Mosquitos were used in India, and Spits, Lancs and Hurricanes were used in the dessert with no serious engine problems.

The comment earlier on by Thorlifter "weight is weight and it doesn't matter..." Certainly you can pack a lot more incendiaries into a bomb bay than, say 1000 lb bombs just because of the geometry of how that tonnage is packaged.

So, as I see it the Superfort was a fast bomber (score 1 for superfort). Longer range for the superfort (score 1). Maximum bomb tonnage was about equal (draw). Handling charactaristics (score 1 for the lanc, do you really think that one man could do a circuit and bump in a superfort and say that it flew as effortlessly as a biplane?). Reliability (seriously folks! based on the engines alone, you've got to score 1 for the lanc! Only deep American pockets could afford to keep that sucker in the air). Superforts never used in anger in any precision bombing role (score 1 for the lanc). Historical versatility in combat and longevity of service career during WWII (score 1 for the lanc). I've got the lanc ahead on points 4-2. Yes the superfort was a next generation bomber, but serious teething troubles were evident throughout it's service history in WW II because of its rush to service.

Hey! The superfort was the aircraft that ended the war in Japan! Harris would have loved to have had the same success against Germany! But it's a heck of a lot easier to burn a bunch of wooden houses and factories (which is why they were able to use all incendiary loads) than it was to attack the military-industrial complex of fortress Europe. It also helps to have the atomic bomb!

JDC

 

[syscom3]

The B29's engines were reliable enough for combat operations, once the ground crews and airmen figured out how to keep them operating.

B29's were faster
B29's carried a heavier payload
B29's had the best combination of radar and navagation aids
B29's had the best defensive armorment and fire controls
B29's had nuclear capability
B29's were reliable enough to be able to be available for regular operations.
B29's were used for precision and area bombing, and mining missions.

Now in what catagory was the Lanc superior in?

 

[pbfoot]

I don't really see what is so special about one man doing a touch and go in a Lanc as it didn't have a copilot . The Merlin was far from the most univerially engine of WW2 . It was used great deal but The PW 1830 would certainly take the honour for the most used , B17,24 Sunderland wildcat C47 ad infinitum

 

[JDCAVE]

Lets not just debate this on paper. Let's look at the performance of the aircraft for its intended purpose during WW II only.

Please provide the evidence of superior Nav aids to OBOE during WW II. Also, if these were available, they would certainly be transferable to other aircraft such as the lanc, so I think the point may be moot. But if they were available, why didn't the US make them available to the British, as the Brits did with radar earlier in its development.

Precisions targets during WW II? Please state raids and efficacy of these raids?

Area raids? No doubt the Superfort was effective.

Fire controls! Hell! with those engines, you'd be dead without them!!!

I just don't think the Superfort performed up to it's intended design specifications. I think the lanc did indeed perform up to its intended design. The B-29 entered the war too late for them to completly rectify the engine issues and other design flaws. Lemay had to have these aircraft operate at much lower altitudes as the losses at high altitude as a result of engine failure were catostrophic and unsustainable. It would be interesting to try and find information on the loss of super forts due to design problems. In the last months of the war in Europe, lancaster losses were as low or less than 1%, even on deep penetrations in Germany. This is evidence that the aircraft was very reliable. While I don't have the figures handy, I don't think the losses of super forts were anywhere near that low.

The results of the low level, all incendiary raids were certainly amazing, but such results are much easier to achieve because of the different nature of the targets over Japan, as compared to Germany. Also targets were much more concentrated in an island nation as compared to Europe. It would be interesting to compare the loss rates on Superforts (after the Japanese fighters were no longer around) with those sustained by lancasters late the war.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I just don't think the Superfort performed up to it's intended design specifications.

How did it not?

Didn't the B-29 carry a heavier payload over a farther distance and accuratly drop that payload?

That is what it was designed for...

If the B-29 had been used in the ETO it would have completely rendered all heavy bombers there obsolete.

You also talk about poor engine reliability. That was later fixed. All aircraft have issues at first. Didn't the Lanc not evolve from a less successful aircraft called the Avro Manchester. What was the Manchesters weakness? Its underpowered and unreliable engines.

 

[pbfoot]

The Lancaster was a fluke plane and simple it was the afterbirth from the abortion of a Manchester . Not to mock the lanc it was a good aircraft served long and well after the war but was not even in the same league as the B29. In any way shape or form . Lanc losses were not all that light look at Nuremburg 101 lost , thats closer to 10% . Of the 7,377 Lancasters built, 3,249 were lost in action thats no 1%.

 

[Graeme]

This problem would not be fully cured until the aircraft was re-engined with the more powerful Pratt Whitney R-4360 "Wasp Major" in the B-29D/B-50 program

How successful/trouble free was the Pratt Whitney R-4360? According to Ernest K. Gann, they had endless trouble with it on the Stratocruiser...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Lancaster was a fluke plane and simple it was the afterbirth from the abortion of a Manchester . Not to mock the lanc it was a good aircraft served long and well after the war but was not even in the same league as the B29. In any way shape or form . Lanc losses were not all that light look at Nuremburg 101 lost , thats closer to 10% . Of the 7,377 Lancasters built, 3,249 were lost in action thats no 1%.

Agreed. The Lanc was a great aircraft and bomber but to say it was a better bomber than the B-29 is quite naive.

 

[renrich]

It is incorrect to say that the B29 carried only incendiaries in low level area bombing. The B29 was designed for high altitude daylight precision bombing just as the B17 was. That was the reason the AC was so heavily armed. In the first raids against Japan that is exactly the role carried out. It was discovered because of the jet streams encountered at high altitudes that that type of bombing was not very efficient(that was not due to any shortcomings in the B29) and that was when night bombing at low altitudes was ushered in. Of course incendiaries were used where the mission was to burn down cities. There were still missions where conventional gravity bombs were used.

 

[syscom3]

Please provide the evidence of superior Nav aids to OBOE during WW II. Also, if these were available, they would certainly be transferable to other aircraft such as the lanc, so I think the point may be moot. But if they were available, why didn't the US make them available to the British, as the Brits did with radar earlier in its development.

LORAN and the eagle radar was fitted as it became available.

Precisions targets during WW II? Please state raids and efficacy of these raids?

Nice bombing results from mid and high raids in Thailand and Burma were observed prior to the movement of all B29's to the Mariana's. The precision bombing in Japan was never effective due to the jet steams scattering the bombs over a very wide area. The jet steams in Europe were not a factor, and were unanticipated over the the Japanese islands.

Fire controls! Hell! with those engines, you'd be dead without them

centralized fire control for the guns.

I just don't think the Superfort performed up to it's intended design specifications.

Several thousand were built indicating that it did measure up to specs.

B-29 entered the war too late for them to completly rectify the engine issues and other design flaws.

The B29's began their missions in earnest in summer of 1944. And if the engine was so unreliable, how come the 20th AF could stage raids involving several hundreds of them, on a consistant basis?

Lemay had to have these aircraft operate at much lower altitudes as the losses at high altitude as a result of engine failure were catostrophic and unsustainable.

Totally incorrect. Lemay changed tactics because the "precision" bombing results was dismal. And he and the JCS were aware of the flamability aspects of the Japanese cities, and the complete lack of Japanese night defenses.

It would be interesting to try and find information on the loss of super forts due to design problems. In the last months of the war in Europe, lancaster losses were as low or less than 1%, even on deep penetrations in Germany. This is evidence that the aircraft was very reliable. While I don't have the figures handy, I don't think the losses of super forts were anywhere near that low.

Do you think the Lancs loss's would go up if a damaged plane had to fly 1600 miles, or 800 miles back to base?

 

[JDCAVE]

PBFOOT: I am well aware of the serious loss of aircraft on the Nuremberg raid, and the lost rate was 11.1% (64 lancasters of 572, see for example Middlebrook, Nuremberg) and these were combat losses against and advanced night fighter system. You missed my point, however. I wanted you to focus on the rate of loss when defences were very low, in order to establish the reliability of the aircraft. Baseline losses over Europe were 0-1%

Deralderistgelandet: "Didn't the B-29 carry a heavier payload over a farther distance and accuratly drop that payload" No it did not. Not during conflict in WWII. Remember the B-29 was refined after the war. Focus on what occured during the war.
"You also talk about poor engine reliability. That was later fixed." Yes, after the war.
"Didn't the Lanc not evolve from a less successful aircraft called the Avro Manchester." The last time I looked the Lancaster was an entirely different aircraft with different rudders, tail plane and had 4 engines.

Renich: "It is incorrect to say that the B29 carried only incendiaries in low level area bombing." I never said that. I said that the B29 never (to my knowledge) dropped a purpose-built bomb from height to target a specific structure with great accuracy during WW II. If it did please provide the reference. And no. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not examples of precision bombing.
"The B29 was designed for high altitude daylight precision bombing just as the B17 was. That was the reason the AC was so heavily armed." Given fighter coverage, the defensive armament was irrelevant and was in fact removed on Lemay's orders. Part of the reason for Lemay ordering the attacks to occurr at low level was (agreed) to improve accuracy, but also to reduce the wear on engines that were found to be unreliable for the most part. (See my first post)

JDC

 

[pbfoot]

On the Nuremburg raid aircraft lost over the continent might have been 64 but aircraft written of or crashed on landing moved it up a whack

 

[AL Schlageter]

You might find this link of interest pbfoot.
bc-stats

 

[Glider]

Very interesting site.

 

[renrich]

The reason many of the MGs and their crews were left behind for the low level night attacks was because they were trying to save weight for a bigger bomb load, the MGs were superfluous because the Japanese did not have a effective night fighter force. The early raids on the Japanese were flown unescorted. As stated above there were early daylight precision raids with good results in Thailand and Burma. To postulate that the B29 could not perform in high altitude bombing with conventional bombs seems ridiculous to me. If the Lancaster had faced determined fighter opposition with it's vulnerable liquid cooled engines it's losses would have been prohibitive.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Fire controls! Hell! with those engines, you'd be dead without them!!!

Evidently you don't know the B-29 as well as you think you do...

Central Station Fire Control or Remote Control Turret System as used in the B-29, A-26 and the B-50

A firecontrol system is not used to put out engine fires!

Although there were issues with the engines they were rectified by the war's end - the effectiveness of the aircraft is more than evident as it was the first mainstay in the Strategic Air Command and was used during the Korean War, something you keep ignoring - the Lancaster, while a well serving platform was an obsolete weapons system when compared to the B-29 in almost every category.

Even after the Lincoln made the scene the RAF saw fit to deploy the B-29 in the 1950s. If that's not evidence of the aircraft's superiority I don't know what is!!!