Was the B-29 Superfortress a Failure? (2 Viewers)

[FLYBOYJ]

How about xb-30 ? Boeing jumped the line i read. And boy isnt it pretty?

The XB-30 was Lockheed's proposal for a long range superbomber being solicited by the AAF. The other contributors were Douglas (XB-31) and Consolidated (XB-32). The Douglas design never really went anywhere, the Lockheed design eventually led to the development of the Constellation. Boeing and Consolidated were chosen to meet this requirement, the rest is history.

 

[Shortround6]

Talking about the money or lost opportunity or whatever about the B-29 leads us to try and figure out what to replace it with.

Like 2-3 times as many B-17s/B-24s and number of workers/factories and so on. The number of crewmen(and training schools), the number of ground crew (and training schools) and, unknown at the time of starting the project, where are you going to park all the B-17s/ B-24s.

Or what were the Alternatives? The B-29 (like other planes) gained weight in the design process but it wound up over 40% heavier than the proposed weight of the XB-30.

Boeing had been toying with designing a super bomber since 1935-36 and went through at least 6 different design studies/project numbers before the USAAC issued the requirement.
That is part of what gave them a head start. another part was that Boeing was working on Flying boat for the Navy.

And some of the knowledge they gained on the wing carried over.

 

[GrauGeist]

How about xb-30 ? Boeing jumped the line i read. And boy isnt it pretty?

Lockheed's XB-30 was developed from the Constellation, so was bound to be good looking.

 

[peiper]

Lives lost? During construction? When used against an enemy? What does that have to do with anything?

And yes - it probably includes labor costs.

I would put lives lost as ''price-less'''...
ok, it took a lot of $$$$ to train, equip, feed, house, etc the crews...the crew are part of the airplane-..also the ferrying crews......I would add all of that into the cost of the B29 program .....then the lives lost in combat

 

[GrauGeist]

I would put lives lost as ''price-less'''...
ok, it took a lot of $$$$ to train, equip, feed, house, etc the crews...the crew are part of the airplane-..also the ferrying crews......I would add all of that into the cost of the B29 program .....then the lives lost in combat

But that's not how it works.

The "cost" quoted for the B-29 program is the end figure for the program: cost of design, development, production and delivery to the customer (USAAF).

If you want to associate the human element into the fiscal equation, then it would be the B-17 that cost more, since more were produced, staffed and subsequent crews KIA.

Roughly 470+ B-29s were lost to all causes in WWII while roughly 4,700+ B-17s were lost.

 

[Snautzer01]

the Lockheed design eventually led to the development of the Constellation

Yes Boeing had taken a head start out of there own pocket if i am not mistaken. And did that trick before as others had done. Does not mean it was the best proposal. What i have learned it was the best option for a most advanced bomber at the time that was beyond the the table napkin by far. Who would gamble on paper planes when a war is on?
I am not playing the what if game here.
The B-29 did, what it was not supposed to do in the Japan war in ww2, brilliantly. No argument there. But as a armchair nobody i might think that in hind sight it can be argued a lesser developed airframe would have done just as good for perhaps less money. It did not happen for reasons. We might argue because we can on this one. It wont change history.
But and that is the point, it wasn't created to do what it turned out to do.

I do hope you can see the point in that.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yes Boeing had taken a head start out of there own pocket if i am not mistaken. And did that trick before as others had done. Does not mean it was the best proposal.

I believe it was

What i have learned it was the best option for a most advanced bomber at the time that was beyond the the table napkin by far. Who would gamble on paper planes when a war is on?
I am not playing the what if game here.
The B-29 did, what it was not supposed to do in the Japan war in ww2, brilliantly. No argument there. But as a armchair nobody i might think that in hind sight it can be argued a lesser developed airframe would have done just as good for perhaps less money. It did not happen for reasons. We might argue because we can on this one. It wont change history.
But and that is the point, it wasn't created to do what it turned out to do.

I do hope you can see the point in that.

I see the point but at the end of the day and in hindsight I still think the B-29 was the best option. Although the Constellation turned out to be a great machine in it's own right, it's questionable if a bomber version could have been developed quicker and cheaper and could have done the same job. Lockheed had their hand full with the P-38, Hudson/ Vega/ Ventura line, as well as license building B-17s.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Talking about the money or lost opportunity or whatever about the B-29 leads us to try and figure out what to replace it with.

Like 2-3 times as many B-17s/B-24s and number of workers/factories and so on. The number of crewmen(and training schools), the number of ground crew (and training schools) and, unknown at the time of starting the project, where are you going to park all the B-17s/ B-24s.

And quite simply, Tinian would still have been too far away for LeMay's campaign to have gained traction by spring of 1945 with -17s and -24s, as it did historically with -29s. That's because even three times the number of bombers that can't reach the target are essentially zero value.

You can bring the finest sword ever built to a shootout, but you're still bringing a knife to a gunfight.

The B-29's range changed everything in the PTO

 

[GrauGeist]

The USAAF did have an available option before the B-29, but it was never given priority aince it was viewed as a testbed and that was the B-19 (XB-19).

The B-19 was submitted to the USAAC's XLRB proposal in 1935, so there was plenty of time to get it finalized and to be production ready before 1941.
And it was actually faster with the V-1710 engines than it was with the original R-3350 engines.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The USAAF did have an available option before the B-29, but it was never given priority aince it was viewed as a testbed and that was the B-19 (XB-19).

The B-19 was submitted to the USAAC's XLRB proposal in 1935, so there was plenty of time to get it finalized and to be production ready before 1941.
And it was actually faster with the V-1710 engines than it was with the original R-3350 engines.

The XB-19 would have had to go through a lot of refinements to make it combat capable. I don't know how much faster it was with the V-1710s, but I doubt it was able to go over 250 mph. It had a great range but a dismal service ceiling. I think we would have been polishing a turd if the XB-19 was attempted to fulfill the role the B-29 eventually did.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The XB-19 would have had to go through a lot of refinements to make it combat capable. I don't know how much faster it was with the V-1710s, but I doubt it was able to go over 250 mph. It had a great range but a dismal service ceiling. I think we would have been polishing a turd if the XB-19 was attempted to fulfill the role the B-29 eventually did.

Agreed, slower, lower ceiling, smaller payload, range questionably similar to a-29;

 

[GrauGeist]

The B-19 was a contemporary of the B-17, which went through quite a few upgrades during it's service life, both having their start in the mid-30's.

For what it's worth, the B-19's max. speed with R-3350s was 224mph with a cruise of 135mph.
With the Allison V-3420 (I meant to say "Twin V-1710 engines" above, btw), it's max. speed was 265mph @ 20,000 feet, it's cruise was upped to 185mph.

So yes, it's performance was not stellar, but again, as I mentioned earlier, it's development was not prioritized, so it's development after it's first flight (which took roughly six years from paper to flight) was virtually zero.

Had it been prioritized like the B-29, then development, modifications and upgrades would have seen a much different outcome - Boing submitted the B-29's proposal early in 1940 and the B-29 first flew four years later, almost to the date. If we put the same priority to the B-19, fours years after it's proposal would have been 1939...

 

[Shortround6]

Douglas didn't even want to complete it, and they were losing money every day on it.
Douglas figured that the state of art in aerodynamics and aircraft structure had passed it by.
The Army insisted on completion to validate some of the calculations. But both Douglas and the Army knew they would never build another one.
The DC-4E was started about the same time,

It flew in June of 1938, was sold to Japan in late 1939, the Airlines didn't want it any more. Douglas was moving on to the DC-4 (C-54) and which would fly in Feb 1942.
Curtiss had flown the prototype of what would be the C-46 in March 1940 (and a mock up was displayed at the 1939 Worlds Fair).

The Consolidated B-24 prototype flew over 17 months before the XB-19.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The B-19 was a contemporary of the B-17, which went through quite a few upgrades during it's service life, both having their start in the mid-30's.

For what it's worth, the B-19's max. speed with R-3350s was 224mph with a cruise of 135mph.
With the Allison V-3420 (I meant to say "Twin V-1710 engines" above, btw), it's max. speed was 265mph @ 20,000 feet, it's cruise was upped to 185mph.

So yes, it's performance was not stellar, but again, as I mentioned earlier, it's development was not prioritized, so it's development after it's first flight (which took roughly six years from paper to flight) was virtually zero.

Had it been prioritized like the B-29, then development, modifications and upgrades would have seen a much different outcome - Boing submitted the B-29's proposal early in 1940 and the B-29 first flew four years later, almost to the date. If we put the same priority to the B-19, fours years after it's proposal would have been 1939...

Still pretty hopeful - to be honest I don't think Douglas had the know how or manpower to pull it off. As mentioned by SR earlier, Boeing, on their own dime, was designing a superbomber 1935/36 so I really think they had a let up.

In the middle of it all they came out with this:

 

[Shortround6]

The Army doled out money a little bit at a time and the whole thing was running late.
The problem is that even if they sped things up and got it done in 1939, you were buying 1937-39 Aerodynamics and structure. You would be building big, slightly newer, B-17s, not even big B-24s, let alone what the B-29 wound up as.
With the same engines ( or even with V-3420s) you are going to wind up with more drag and more weight.

 

[SaparotRob]

Still pretty hopeful - to be honest I don't think Douglas had the know how or manpower to pull it off. As mentioned by SR earlier, Boeing, on their own dime, was designing a superbomber 1935/36 so I really think they had a let up.

In the middle of it all they came out with this:

View attachment 692281

Definitely better looking than the Douglas.

 

[fannum]

Too many of these replies miss important points.
Comparison with any predecessor bombers is useless, as each was designed for different missions than those they actually wound up being assigned.
None of the predecessor bombers had the speed and altitude capability to drop a nuclear bomb.
Many features wound up not being used, but performed well. That was the fault of the specifiers not being psychics as opposed to any blame of the designers and engineers.
Much of the design and trouble shooting effort went into the R3350, which performed admirably through VietNam in dozens of critical military and civil designs, including the DC-7, Connie, StratoCruiser, KC-97, AD, and Neptune, each at the peak of their role for decades. The refinement of pressurization made jetliners possible. And not only Americans benefited. Tupolev not only copied the B-29, but used the cockpit in the Tu-95 Bear, still in service.

 

[Shortround6]

Too many of these replies miss important points.
Comparison with any predecessor bombers is useless, as each was designed for different missions than those they actually wound up being assigned.

Well, some of the people that say it was a 'waste' don't come up with a viable alternative. Like either an existing, in production aircraft or an alternative that could have produced in the same time span and yet be cheaper.
The older planes can't do it. But some people may need to be convinced.

Many features wound up not being used, but performed well. That was the fault of the specifiers not being psychics as opposed to any blame of the designers and engineers.

Some of this is also a matter of degree, People of the time knew about the jet stream. The reason that speed record setters flew from the west coast to the east coast of the US for many years before WW II. What they didn't know before WW II was how strong the jet stream was over Japan. That wasn't the only problem but yes, some of the objections do use hindsight.

 

[GrauGeist]

None of the predecessor bombers had the speed and altitude capability to drop a nuclear bomb.

That was an unexpected benefit of the B-29's design, not intentional.

 

[fannum]

That was an unexpected benefit of the B-29's design, not intentional.

What do you base that on? The nuclear mission was part of the design process, important parts of the specifications, but the reason withheld from all but a few. Marshall's bio touches on that, and so tightly controlled that less than a couple dozen knew of the linkage of the bomb and B-29 before late '44. Note that VP didn't even know of the device.