Was the B-29 Superfortress a Failure? (1 Viewer)

Gawd, I love that there are minds here so willing to devote so much energy to determining earthshaking concepts as important as what the real definition of "is" is!

never mind Thump

for the ones who want some numbers

Much of the cost of these things is figuring out and developing new things. Manhattan left the USA with the ability to make various types of nuclear weapons, the B-29 project left US industry with all sorts of knowledge, not just in making aircraft but sensor, engine metallurgy calculators etc. In 1989 I worked with an ultrasonic scanning system developed to investigate the Challenger Shuttle disaster. The hardware was a bit "Heath Robinson" but the software was state of the art at the time. My boss said it was in many ways better than the market leader at the time called "P Scan". By the time I stopped working in the industry, ultrasonic scanning was replacing radiography in most industrial applications. Its very difficult to quantify if such things are "worth it", it depends on how you count beans and what you consider is a "bean".

GrauGeist said:

I hate to be the killer of popular myths, but...wait, I'm lying.

The Manhattan Project did NOT cost 1.9 billion, 2.2 billion, 2.6 billion or whatever catchy figure of the day happens to be.

From the start of the project through to the end of August 1945, the project cost 20 billion dollars.
This excludes the 76 million that the U.S. Army spent on the Silverplate project (B-29 modifications, personnel, training, logistics, support, etc., etc.)

And here's a fun bit of trivia:
There were roughly 12,731 B-17s built and the unit cost was approximately $250,000 dollars per aircraft, delivered.

If we put pencil to paper and do a bit of math, we'll see that the B-17 project end up costing...

Wait for it...

$3,182,750,000 dollars.

Yes, that's right - 3 billion dollars.

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing because I don't truly know whether or not what you're saying is true, but the WWII Museum in New Orleans says « With the Manhattan Engineer District (MED) costing the American taxpayer $2 billion, the B-29 program far surpassed that figure with a price tag of $3 billion. » I'd just like to know your source, thanks.

-Stannum

fannum said:

(Note the B-32 gave up on pressurization early due to complexity)

Click to expand...

I was under the impression the B-32 was pressurized? Was it not?

The Stannum Crusader said:

I was under the impression the B-32 was pressurized? Was it not?

Click to expand...

Not.

The USAAF 1945 Statistical Digest table 202 Direct Cash Appropriations and Expenditures from Direct Appropriations, $38,537,162,557 FY 1939 to August 1945, with the explanatory note "Expenditures differ from appropriations since funds appropriated for one year may be spend in that year, in subsequent years or never spent. These tables covers "direct" appropriations and expenditures only - i.e. for aircraft, aviation gasoline, etc. and excludes amounts spent by the technical services - Quartermaster, Finance, etc. - for the benefit of Army Aviation."

Go to table 203 and it has monthly expenditure July 1942 to December 1945 (using the 1945 supplement for September to December 1945), it has $25,632,308,000 spent on aircraft plus spares out of $36,177,398,000.

Table 82 is average cost of aircraft with the note, "Average cost per aircraft is the weighted average on all programs approved during a designated fiscal year and represents the estimated cost of a complete aircraft ready for flyaway, including factory installed ordnance and radio equipment. Costs exclude equipment installed at modification centres and aircraft spare parts. Unit costs reflect renegotiations of contracts only to the extent of reductions in contract prices for future deliveries but do not reflect reductions in price affected by cash refunds."

The 1947 Statistical Digest table 73 is similar, from "pre 1941" through to Fiscal Year 1947, table 8 of the second volume of the 1948 digest gives the 1948 costs. The 1947 table is much more detailed and comprehensive than the 1945 one, covering most of the aircraft built, but at times has significant differences with the 1945 table. The top 15 types by total cost being
C-47 can add another 383 C-53 costing $54,149,444. The B-36 price is from 1944, the first B-36A was accepted in August 1947, next production was in July 1948, and likely cost more than the 1944 price. The average B-29 price is strongly influenced by the 1942 order for 1,650 at $865,036 each, the 1944 order was for 2,113 at $574,058 each, the 1945 order was for 180 at $467,927 each.

The Statistical Digest says 115 B-32 cost $786,208 each, for a non pressurised aircraft that used manned turrets instead of the B-29 system. Drop by US Archives Record Group 18 Entry 10 Box 68 and obtain the following figures

28-Feb-43 B-29 $639,275 Costs based on weighted average of uncompleted contracts
31-Jul-44 B-29 $756,949 Costs are weighted average of all Army contracts from 1939 to date
31-Aug-44 B-29 $748,235 Airframe and engine costs subject to revision. Costs based on uncompleted contracts
30-Nov-44 B-29 $715,073 Costs based on uncompleted contracts
28-Feb-43 B-32 $753,952 Costs based on weighted average of uncompleted contracts
31-Jul-44 B-32 $766,219 Costs are weighted average of all Army contracts from 1939 to date
31-Aug-44 B-32 $749,173 Costs based on uncompleted contracts
30-Nov-44 B-32 $759,567 Costs based on uncompleted contracts

Pre war the RN prepared a table of total cost of ownership, costing what would have been something like a Swordfish, Walrus etc. at 11,500 pounds per year over a 5 year lifetime, the yearly total cost of ownership of warships, excluding any aircraft carried, works out to battleship 58.5 aircraft, large cruiser 26.1 aircraft, small cruiser 17.6 aircraft, fleet aircraft carrier 41.7 aircraft, small aircraft carrier 29.7 aircraft, destroyer (J class) 5.74 aircraft, submarine 5.7 aircraft.

The fleet carrier considered having a 36 aircraft capacity, the small carrier 15 aircraft. Add their air groups and the fleet carrier is now costing per year 1.36 battleships or 2.76 large cruisers or 4 small cruisers or 13.54 destroyers. Assuming for the moment Ark Royal could carry 72 aircraft without increasing non aviation ship costs, it would cost 1.85 Nelson class battleships per year to run.

An Admiralty order for 300 Barracuda was costed at 3,750,000 pounds in 1941 or 12,500 pounds each, 200 Firefly 2,610,000 pounds or 13,050 pounds BUT in both cases that includes spare engines.

In April 1942 the round figure quoted cost was 8,000 pounds for a Hurricane, 21,000 pounds for a Beaufighter, 15,500 pounds for a P-40, 16,700 pounds for a P-39 and 39,500 pounds for an A-20, US types prices include freight to Britain.

So what is exactly being included in the various cost estimates?

SaparotRob said:

Not.

Click to expand...

Oh okay, thanks

GrauGeist said:

True, but *technically* speaking, there were three air dropped bombs.

Thin Man, which was supposed to be dropped from a B-29 during a test (did not go well) - 16 March 1944

Little Boy - Hiroshima Mission, 6 August 1945

Fat Man - Kokura Mission, 9 August 1945

Click to expand...

I wrote: "Only two were used in WWII."

Take note of the word "used". It's key.

ETA: Pretty sure Thin Man was never built, much less tested.

Snautzer01 said:

never mind Thump

Click to expand...

Right.

Thumpalumpacus said:

I wrote: "Only two were used in WWII."

Take note of the word "used". It's key.

ETA: Pretty sure Thin Man was never built, much less tested.

Click to expand...

While complete Thin Man bombs were never built for reasons explained in the link at the bottom of this post, various elements of it were tested. That included Thin Man bomb casings.

Quite a number of Thin Man bomb casings were built and drop tested. The first Silverplate B-29 to be converted (B-29-5-BW 42-6259) was modified specifically for these tests with a single long bomb bay. Drop tests took place in Feb, Mar & June 1944. Later it was also used for Fat Man bomb case testing. Production Silverplate B-29 kept the two separate bomb bays as both Little Boy and Fat Man were shorter.

Regarding the ability to forecast weather, most of the USA used personal devices at home as there was no accurate forecast, should one actually have a radio at home to listen for a weather forecast. I have a deskset barometer and dial temperature gauges from my grandparents home. My grandfather predicted the weather about as accurately as the TV weatherguessers today. He also used being outside most of the day as part of his forecast. I, however, using the same deskset, can verify the TV announcement of high or low pressure
and the temperature within several degrees. I personally favor my weather rock.

EwenS said:

While complete Thin Man bombs were never built for reasons explained in the link at the bottom of this post, various elements of it were tested. That included Thin Man bomb casings.

Quite a number of Thin Man bomb casings were built and drop tested. The first Silverplate B-29 to be converted (B-29-5-BW 42-6259) was modified specifically for these tests with a single long bomb bay. Drop tests took place in Feb, Mar & June 1944. Later it was also used for Fat Man bomb case testing. Production Silverplate B-29 kept the two separate bomb bays as both Little Boy and Fat Man were shorter.
View attachment 769629
View attachment 769630

Mk1

Specifications DesignerLos Alamos Service1944 (Cancelled)TypeGunDimensions204″ x 23″Weight?Yield? Application PrototypeThin-Man Description & History Man’ weapon being develop…

nukecompendium.com

Click to expand...

Reread what I wrote that aroused his assertion of three uses, including this "test" that never tested the bomb. They knew from physics that there would be too much Pu-240 and that the critical mass would not hold together long enough for fuller fission. Testing a casing is no more testing the bomb than testing a tire is testing a car.

The atom bomb was only used twice in the war. There was only one bomb tested in non-combat conditions during the war. Thin Man was never tested as a bomb. These are facts.

Ok, it looks like I should have been a little clearer in my comment about the three bombs.

Little Boy and Fat Man were (as we know), deployed in combat.

Thin Man was aborted for several reasons, one of which, was it's design being extremely problematic.
It was Thin Man's size (17 feet long, 38 inches wide and weighing 8,000 pounds) that brought up the subject of a Lancaster being used to deliver it, however, that was quickly ruled out.
Instead, a B-29 (42-6259) was selected for the "Silver Plated Project" and had modifications to carry Thin Man, which included modifying the bomb bay, relocation of oxygen tanks and so on.

Another issue was the bomb release system, which failed during the test mission on 16 March 1944, causing the bomb to fall into the bomb bay doors while enroute to the test site, causing a great deal of damage.

It was this incident and the issue of Thin Man's fission complexity, that caused it to be abandoned.

The one upside to this event, though, is that a British bomb attachment and release system was used.

But anyway, my original point was, that there were three bombs originally built during the war, two were used, one was scrapped.

Here is Thin Man:

GrauGeist said:

But anyway, my original point was, that there were three bombs originally built during the war, two were used, one was scrapped.

Here is Thin Man:
View attachment 769652

Click to expand...

Not to split hairs but do you mean three bombs or three types of bombs? I thought there were other bombs en route or under construction that would have been used if the war hadnt ended?

pbehn said:

Not to split hairs but do you mean three bombs or three types of bombs? I thought there were other bombs en route or under construction that would have been used if the war hadnt ended?

Click to expand...

He means types, there was another I think MKIII that would have been done in August.

The Stannum Crusader said:

He means types, there was another I think MKIII that would have been done in August.

Click to expand...

I think GrauGeist is old enough even if he isnt ugly enough to tell me what he means. With the rate of production and outright danger of live nuclear weapons at the time it could be argued that any bomb that was dropped before the war ended was the "last". Another way to ask my question would be which of those three types were planned to be continued in production, if the war continued?

pbehn said:

I think GrauGeist is old enough even if he isnt ugly enough to tell me what he means. With the rate of production and outright danger of live nuclear weapons at the time it could be argued that any bomb that was dropped before the war ended was the "last". Another way to ask my question would be which of those three types were planned to be continued in production, if the war continued?

Click to expand...

Both the Mk 2 "Little Boy" type Uranium bomb and the Mk.3 "Fat Man" type Plutonium Bomb were to have continued in production into 1946, with the latter being the predominant type. Here is the official record dated 30 July 1945, detailing the expected production figures.

EwenS said:

Both the Mk 2 "Little Boy" type Uranium bomb and the Mk.3 "Fat Man" type Plutonium Bomb were to have continued in production into 1946, with the latter being the predominant type. Here is the official record dated 30 July 1945, detailing the expected production figures.

Atomic Bomb: Decision -- Bomb Production Schedule, July 30, 1945

The Manhattan Project could make atomic bombs at an ever-increasing rate

www.dannen.com

Click to expand...

Mk 1 was little boy, Mk 2 was Tall boy

The Stannum Crusader said:

Mk 1 was little boy, Mk 2 was Tall boy

Click to expand...

Fat Man?