Top Heavy Bomber

[syscom3]

Theres nothing to decide.

The Lanc was a design from the 30's.

The B29 was a bomber incorporating lots of lessons learned. to become a true "weapons system".

 

[Screaming Eagle]

although my favourite is the B-17 I would have to go with the B-29.

 

[DOUGRD]

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.
!!!

You said the engine issues were rectified by wars end...I said they weren't. The re-engined A/C didn't have the fires but they did have crankcase oil leaks. Problems not rectified just a new set of problems. Teething problems..yes I don't think there has ever been an A/C engine built that didn't have teething problems.

 

[syscom3]

You said the engine issues were rectified by wars end...I said they weren't. The re-engined A/C didn't have the fires but they did have crankcase oil leaks. Problems not rectified just a new set of problems. Teething problems..yes I don't think there has ever been an A/C engine built that didn't have teething problems.

It doesnt matter that the engines didnt have all their bugs worked out untill after the war.

The fact remains that the 20th AF could put several hundred B29's in the air.

 

[Derfman]

While I know that B-29 is the clear choice, I voted B-17 anyway.

The B-17 together with the Lanc and B-24 were the grand old warhorses that faced the LW in its prime. Of the 3, all great, I am shamelessly prejudice in favor of the B-17.

 

[DOUGRD]

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.

According to some info I found it was 16 to fighters, 4 to FLAK, 14 to other causes
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.

I didn't say the B-36 was a stop gap I said the B-29 was a stop gap until the '36 came on line.

 

[DOUGRD]

It doesnt matter that the engines didnt have all their bugs worked out untill after the war.

The fact remains that the 20th AF could put several hundred B29's in the air.

You missed the point.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

According to some info I found it was 16 to fighters, 4 to FLAK, 14 to other causes.

Even at those numbers you're looking at 20 B-29s for 20,000 sorties and dropped 200,000 tons (180,000 tonnes) of bombs and that was over 3 years - overall you're looking at less than 10% loss rate!!!]

I didn't say the B-36 was a stop gap I said the B-29 was a stop gap until the '36 came on line.

Again FALSE - the B-29 was NEVER a STOP GAP - it was a specific weapons system deployed for a specific mission. The B-36 almost got CANCELLED with no thought of it actually replacing the B-29!!!!

"In August of 1947, shortly after the creation of the independent Air Force, General Hoyt Vandenberg, Deputy Chief of Air Staff, set up a USAF Aircraft and Weapons Board to determine which weapons would best support the Air Force's long-term plans. Because of the atomic bomb, strategic bombing took precedence. At that time, the B-36 was the only bomber capable of carrying out nuclear retaliation against an enemy without the need for overseas bases. However, at that time the supply of atomic bombs was still sparse, and plans had to be made for the possible use of conventional bombs. Many members of the Board felt that the B-36 was obsolete and should be cancelled in favor of fast jet bombers. However, this strategy was inherently risky since these jet bombers promised to have insufficient range and in any case would not be available for years. Still others wanted to try and improve the performance of the B-36 and use it as an all-purpose bomber capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear weapons. After prolonged debate, it was decided to stick with the basic B-36 as a special purpose nuclear deterrent bomber."

Convair B-36 Peacemaker -- Chapter 1

The Boeing B-29 was designed in 1940 as an eventual replacement for the B-17 and B-24.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You said the engine issues were rectified by wars end...I said they weren't. The re-engined A/C didn't have the fires but they did have crankcase oil leaks. Problems not rectified just a new set of problems. Teething problems..yes I don't think there has ever been an A/C engine built that didn't have teething problems.

And there was never a large radial engine built that didn't leak - If it didn't leak it had no oil in it!!!!

 

[DOUGRD]

And there was never a large radial engine built that didn't leak - If it didn't leak it had no oil in it!!!!

No Sh*t

 

[DOUGRD]

As far as the B-29's employment by SAC yes it was a "stop gap" measure until SAC could get what it really needed, a truly "Intercontinental Bomber". That was the B-36. Yes the B-36 was almost canx'd and so was the B-29 program. Read the Wikipedia B-29 article again and the comment about the "Battle Of Kansas"

 

[FLYBOYJ]

No Sh*t

So your argument about "crankcase leaks" is basically a non-issue...

As far as the B-29's employment by SAC yes it was a "stop gap" measure until SAC could get what it really needed, a truly "Intercontinental Bomber". That was the B-36. Yes the B-36 was almost canx'd and so was the B-29 program. Read the Wikipedia B-29 article again and the comment about the "Battle Of Kansas"

I have read that chapter on many occasions and it had nothing to do with B-29 operations in the post war years - directly from the article;

"The Battle of Kansas (aka "Battle of Wichita") was the nickname given to a project to build, modify and deliver large quantities of the world's most advanced bomber to the front-lines in the Pacific"

There is nothing in that article about a "stop gap" involving the B-36.

- your so called "stop gap" came about in the post war when the newly formed SAC found a need for an intercontinental bomber capable of reaching the Soviet Union - A mission the B-29 OR B-36 was NOT originally designed for. As a matter of fact the B-35 was developed under the same procurement specification as the B-36. After WW2 the "mission" changed and then there was first a competition for the next generation of bombers - the B-35 or B-36 and after that there was the debate whether the B-36 was even going to be built.

The cancellation of the B-29 originally came about during it development

Going back to the original discussion, despite the shortcoming of the B-29, it stayed around for many years - the engine problems never hampered it for completing its mission and in my opinion greatly exaggerated in this discussion. Had these problems been so bad there would of never been over 3,000 B-29s built.

 

[davparlr]

And there was never a large radial engine built that didn't leak - If it didn't leak it had no oil in it!!!!

I have heard that each C-124 engine had a 50 gallon oil tank to support it. I'm so old C-124s were still used by the guard. I think there are some C-124s out over the Pacific still trying to get home against a 25 kt headwind! If they would only turn around.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I have heard that each C-124 engine had a 50 gallon oil tank to support it. I'm so old C-124s were still used by the guard. I think there are some C-124s out over the Pacific still trying to get home against a 25 kt headwind! If they would only turn around.

The guy I worked part time for in Mojave Ca, had one for a while. there was always tons of oil underneath it. When he started it you better not be toward the rear or you were going to get an oil shower!

 

[syscom3]

You missed the point.

Well what is your point? The engines fail in flight frequently enough that missions are compromised or they are reliable enough for the plane to perform its mission?

 

[pbfoot]

The first familiariaztion flight I had was in an CP107 Argus it had the big 3350's we landed at Hickam and upon departure they fired the engines up Tower saw all the smoke and called out the Fire guys , xtra duty with the Argus Sqn included cleaning off the oil from the wings. For you guys that don't know what Argus was here is a pic note oil om the wings . It was along range ASW aircraft not to be confused with Medium range aircraft like the Shack or P3

 

[syscom3]

At least they could have painted the nacelles and wing in back of it, gloss black to hide the stains!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Saw an Agrus in Burbank when the CP-140s were being built - confirms the point about a leaky radial engine and a 3350 no less....

 

[Graeme]

Why do aircraft engines leak oil so much?
Would be very unacceptable in the Auto industry!

According to this photos caption, of a Seafire III, the oil stain pattern indicates "a right hand rotation" of the propeller, based on the oil streaks.

 

[pbfoot]

In the Radials the oil accumulates in the bottom cylnders