Top Heavy Bomber

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jan 11, 2008

JDCAVE said:
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.

You are completely missing the point. Any of these problems were not caused because of the B-29.

As others have allready stated the B-29 flew low level missions because of the Jet Stream.

Any Bomber inluding the Lancaster would have these same problems if it could fly at those altitudes.

The engine reliability problems were not that bad of problem late 1944 onwards as can be seen by the number of aircraft used.

JDCAVE said:
"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.

Again you are seeing past the point.

Was or was not the Lancaster and evolution of the Manchester? Did or did not the Manchaster have engine problems?

Also another question. You say the B-29 and the B-17 were designed for high altitude bombing (which is correct) and that is why they were so heavily armed.

What does the armament have to do with being high alltitude or low alltitude?

Nothing...

FLYBOYJ · Jan 11, 2008

JDCAVE said:
Focus on what occured during the war.

The B-29 carried heavier bomb loads further than the lancaster - it's that simple.

Specifications (B-29)

General characteristics
Crew: 11: (A/C)pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer, bombardier, navigator, radio operator, radar observer, blister gunners (two), CFC upper gunner, and tail gunner
Length: 99 ft 0 in (30.2 m)
Wingspan: 141 ft 3 in (43.1 m)
Height: 29 ft 7 in (8.5 m)
Wing area: 1,736 ft² (161.3 m²)
Empty weight: 74,500 lb (33,800 kg)
Loaded weight: 120,000 lb (54,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 133,500 lb (60,560 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Wright R-3350-23 and 23A turbosupercharged radial engines, 2,200 hp (1,640 kW) each
* Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0241
Drag area: 41.16 ft² (3.82 m²)
Aspect ratio: 11.50
Performance
Maximum speed: 357 mph (310 knots, 574 km/h)
Cruise speed: 220 mph (190 knots, 350 km/h)
Stall speed: 105 mph (91 knots, 170 km/h)
Combat radius: 3,250 mi (2,820 nm, 5,230 km)
Ferry range: 5,600 mi (4,900 nm, 9,000 km)
Service ceiling 33,600 ft (10,200 m)
Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.5 m/s)
Wing loading: 69.12 lb/ft² (337 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.073 hp/lb (121 W/kg)
Lift-to-drag ratio: 16.8
Armament
Guns:

12× .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns in remote controlled turrets
1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail (removed shortly after put into service)
Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout, could be modified to externally carry two 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) T-14 "Earthquake" bombs

Specifications (Lancaster)
General characteristics
Crew: 7: pilot, flight engineer, navigator, bomb aimer, wireless operator, mid-upper and rear gunners
Length: 69 ft 5 in (21.18 m)
Wingspan: 102 ft (31.09 m)
Height: 19 ft 7 in (5.97 m)
Wing area: 1,300 ft² (120 m²)
Empty weight: 36 828 lb (16,705 kg)
Loaded weight: 63,000 lb (29,000 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Rolls-Royce Merlin XX V12 engines, 1,280 hp (954 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 240 knots (280 mph, 450 km/h) at 15,000 ft (5,600 m)
Range: 2,700 NM (3,000 mi, 4,600 km) with minimal bomb load
Service ceiling 23,500 ft (8,160 m) Wing loading: 48 lb/ft² (240 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.081 hp/lb (130 W/kg)
Armament
Guns: 8× 0.303 in (7.70 mm) Browning machine guns in three turrets
Bombs:

Maximum: 22,000 lb (10,000 kg)
Typical: 14,000 lb (6,400 kg)

pbfoot · Jan 11, 2008

renrich said:
If the Lancaster had faced determined fighter opposition with it's vulnerable liquid cooled engines it's losses would have been prohibitive.

Come on now the 17/24 combo was no competition for the Lanc,Halifax combo . Better bombing results at night then day . I still maintain the B29 was the best bomber of WW2

FLYBOYJ · Jan 11, 2008

JDCAVE said:
Remember the B-29 was refined after the war. Focus on what occured during the war.

100% INCORRECT! The Basic B-29 design stayed in place with the B-29 and the B-29A. The B-50 was supposed to be an improvement and was first designated the B-29D, but it was decided to give it it's own designation. Both served together well into the mid 50s.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 11, 2008

pbfoot said:
Come on now the 17/24 combo was no competition for the Lanc,Halifax combo . Better bombing results at night then day . I still maintain the B29 was the best bomber of WW2

Agree...

But I'd put the -17, 24 and Halifax closer together although I think the Halifax was the most under-rated heavy bomber of the war.

pbfoot · Jan 11, 2008

FLYBOYJ said:
Agree...

But I'd put the -17, 24 and Halifax closer together although I think the Halifax was the most under-rated heavy bomber of the war.

A lot of hally guys preffered the beast over the Lanc

Graeme · Jan 11, 2008

As early as July 1943 it was worked out that one Lancaster was lost for every 132 tons dropped.
(Compared to 56 tons for a Halifax and and 41 tons for each Stirling)

Arriving later in the war, but how did the B-29 fare?

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
.
Was or was not the Lancaster and evolution of the Manchester? Did or did not the Manchaster have engine problems?

Chris, I've read that it's a myth that the Lancaster resulted purely because the Manchester was a 'failure'. The Lancaster design began early 1939 and was 'locked in' early 1940, well before the Manchester exhibited it's engine problems. There were also political reasons-Chadwick was 'ticked off' that the Air Ministry announced on 28 August 1940 that it wanted to concentrate on 4-engined bombers and asked Avro to shut down current production lines and manufacture the Halifax. The move was met with stiff resistance by the company arguing that they could manufacture a 4-engined version (the Lancaster) on the current production lines. The Air Ministry agreed in September 1940.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 11, 2008

Graeme said:
As early as July 1943 it was worked out that one Lancaster was lost for every 132 tons dropped.
(Compared to 56 tons for a Halifax and and 41 tons for each Stirling)

Arriving later in the war, but how did the B-29 fare?

20th AF Losses - main B-29 operator.

Army Air Forces in World War II

syscom3 · Jan 11, 2008

FLYBOYJ said:
100% INCORRECT! The Basic B-29 design stayed in place with the B-29 and the B-29A. The B-50 was supposed to be an improvement and was first designated the B-29D, but it was decided to give it it's own designation. Both served together well into the mid 50s.

The B29 after the war was re designated the B50, in order to make it appear to Congress that they were funding a substantially different "B29" rather than just re engining it.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 11, 2008

syscom3 said:
The B29 after the war was re designated the B50, in order to make it appear to Congress that they were funding a substantially different "B29" rather than just re engining it.

You mean the B-29 "D."

Graeme · Jan 11, 2008

FLYBOYJ said:
20th AF Losses - main B-29 operator.

Army Air Forces in World War II

Thanks for the site. I guess there are many variables, but by dividing Table 126 by Table 165, I get 346 tons for every B-29 lost

FLYBOYJ said:
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!!!

The Russians liked it to! (Tu-4).

FLYBOYJ · Jan 11, 2008

Graeme said:
Thanks for the site. I guess there are many variables, but by dividing Table 126 by Table 165, I get 346 tons for every B-29 lost

For the most part that would probably be correct. The CBI might have some data under "heavy bombers" when B-29s were stationed there. For the most part on that site when you see 20th AF and "Very Heavy Bombers" they're talking B-29s.

Graeme said:
The Russians liked it to! (Tu-4).

Yep - a whole other story....

DOUGRD · Jan 12, 2008

FLYBOYJ said:
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!!!

Sorry Flyboy, but if I may jump in midstream here, the engine issues weren't really rectified during the war. Yes the re-engined "D" model came online but the R4360's had big problems of their own. Crankcase oil leaks were major headaches for instance but at least they didn't lead to the engine fires of the R3350's. B-29's were used in Korea but their performance was hampered by the MIG-15. After several losses the B-29 raids were restricted to night only. The '29's use by SAC wasn't so much a testiment to its effectiveness as it was really the only long range bomber we had that was big enough to carry the nukes. It was more of a stopgap measure until the B-36 came online which was the first true intercontinental bomber and the only platform capable of carrying the first generation hydrogen bombs which were too big for the B-29. Although the B-29 was a remarkable aircraft I think some of the comparisons in this thread about the '29 versus the Lanc are forgetting some details. The Lancaster was also a remarkable aircraft. As was said earlier it only had one pilot. Think of it, a FOUR engine A/C with one driver. And it also carried the heaviest load in the ETO. It might have been a simple A/C with low tech systems but that was intentional. Simpler, cheaper and quicker to build. The British never had the resources that the U.S. did during the war, thanks to the U Boats. Remember too that the Lanc faced much heavier fighter/flak opposition than the '29 which was why they were switched to night ops. They also didn't fly the "tight formations" that American bombers did rather Bomber Command flew in miles long streams with virtually no mutual defense. I think that is one BIG reason the Lancs suffered the losses they did. The Lanc was a great A/C for its time and I'm sure that the EARLY lessons learned by Bomber Command and the USAAC with the B-17 and B-24 contributed to the design and success of the B-29's. Which A/C do I think was best? The B-29 but only from a technology stand point. It was the first pressurized combat A/C and was so aerodynamically clean that dropping the landing gear more than doubled the drag (total parasite induced) on the airframe. Amazing!

DOUGRD · Jan 12, 2008

After rereading my own post and several others I came to this conclusion.. What is the measure of the best or top heavy bomber? Wouldn't you say it comes down to putting the bombs on the target? Range, load, speed, surviveability all count but did the bombs hit the target. That's the true measure. What does everyone else think? Which was the top platform?

B-17engineer · Jan 12, 2008

OOPS..... I VOTED Whitley, I meant Lancaster...............I didn't mean Whitley.........

renrich · Jan 12, 2008

The Halifax must have had some pretty good attributes as it was one of the 4-engine landplanes the Allies used with good results in ASW. To degrade the B29 versus the Lancaster because of teething problems makes no sense because the Lanc had problems (as do most new AC) also. Many Lanc were u/s early on because of fuel line problems, wing tips were a problem and some early Lancs did not come back because of tailplane issues. Those ultimately were solved and it became an effective night bomber.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 12, 2008

DOUGRD said:
Sorry Flyboy, but if I may jump in midstream here, the engine issues weren't really rectified during the war. Yes the re-engined "D" model came online but the R4360's had big problems of their own. Crankcase oil leaks were major headaches for instance but at least they didn't lead to the engine fires of the R3350's.

What you describe was typical of any large radial engine of the era. Yes the 4360 wasn't by far maintenance friendly, it did serve the purpose

DOUGRD said:
B-29's were used in Korea but their performance was hampered by the MIG-15. After several losses the B-29 raids were restricted to night only.

In actuality the losses were minimal - I think around 4 or 5 were loss, several others were damaged beyond repair. In 1953 there were some daylight raids but by then the UN had full aerial superiority.

DOUGRD said:
The '29's use by SAC wasn't so much a testiment to its effectiveness as it was really the only long range bomber we had that was big enough to carry the nukes. It was more of a stopgap measure until the B-36 came online which was the first true intercontinental bomber and the only platform capable of carrying the first generation hydrogen bombs which were too big for the B-29. Although the B-29 was a remarkable aircraft I think some of the comparisons in this thread about the '29 versus the Lanc are forgetting some details.

At the time SAC came into full swing (under LeMay's leadership) he imposed heavy "mission capable rates" where a certain amount of aircraft within the command had to be ready to go at a moment's notice and if I remember right it was something like 85% mission capable, 65% fully mission capable which meant everything on the aircraft had to be functioning at any given time. If the B-29 would of been tat bad, those "MC" rates would of never been met and even with the B-50 they were being attained.

The B-36 was on the drawing board since the early 40s and was never intended to be a "stop gap." It's purpose was to be able to bomb Europe from the US. It just so happened that after WW2 there was a need for it and the rest is history.

DOUGRD said:
The Lancaster was also a remarkable aircraft. As was said earlier it only had one pilot. Think of it, a FOUR engine A/C with one driver. And it also carried the heaviest load in the ETO. It might have been a simple A/C with low tech systems but that was intentional. Simpler, cheaper and quicker to build. The British never had the resources that the U.S. did during the war, thanks to the U Boats. Remember too that the Lanc faced much heavier fighter/flak opposition than the '29 which was why they were switched to night ops.

The single pilot set up was actually dangerous and impracticable. The Brits had to do it and my hats off to the pilots but there were many Lancs lost because there were only one set of eyes in the cockpit - not only during combat, but on the return trip where IMC conditions existed and the single pilot "busted" the instrument approach - the dual cockpit configuration became the norm in the post war years for reasons I given.

As far as the heavier flack - trade that for a 1,000 mile one way mission over ocean with weather just as if not more treacherous found in Europe

DOUGRD said:
They also didn't fly the "tight formations" that American bombers did rather Bomber Command flew in miles long streams with virtually no mutual defense. I think that is one BIG reason the Lancs suffered the losses they did. The Lanc was a great A/C for its time and I'm sure that the EARLY lessons learned by Bomber Command and the USAAC with the B-17 and B-24 contributed to the design and success of the B-29's.

That's an operation situation and has nothing to do with the capability of the aircraft

DOUGRD said:
Which A/C do I think was best? The B-29 but only from a technology stand point. It was the first pressurized combat A/C and was so aerodynamically clean that dropping the landing gear more than doubled the drag (total parasite induced) on the airframe. Amazing!

Operationally. performance, configuration and it's impact on the war the B-29 takes it. Some folks might think the B-29 was bombing "Paper Houses" when they firebombed Japan, but in essence it still brought Japan to it's knees and did it in half the time (for a number or reasons) that it took to subdue Germany - and in some conditions worse than experienced in Europe.

FLYBOYJ · Jan 12, 2008

DOUGRD said:
After rereading my own post and several others I came to this conclusion.. What is the measure of the best or top heavy bomber? Wouldn't you say it comes down to putting the bombs on the target? Range, load, speed, surviveability all count but did the bombs hit the target. That's the true measure. What does everyone else think? Which was the top platform?

Speed, systems, performance, survivability and putting the bombs on target - I'm sorry but the B-29 takes it.

History of the 20th Air Force

renrich · Jan 12, 2008

The B29 during the low level night bombing campaign over Japan did not fly tight formations but in streams somewhat the same as the British night bombing. I have a friend who was a navigator on a B29 and it is interesting to hear him describe it.

B-17engineer · Jan 12, 2008

Hard choice.........................THey all had great capabilities and were Terrific..........Ill come back when they make a desicion

Top Heavy Bomber

Top Heavy Bomber

Heinkel He 177 Greif

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress

Consolidated B-24 Liberator

Boeing B-29 Superfortress

Convair B-32 Dominator

Armstrong Whitworth Whitley

Avro Lancaster

Handley Page Halifax

Short Stirling

Ilyushin DB-3

Ilyushin Il-4

Petlyakov Pe-8

Private Chemtrail Disperser

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

1st Lieutenant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

1st Lieutenant

1st Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Pacific Historian

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

1st Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Colonel

Chief Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Chief Master Sergeant

Colonel

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads