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

[pb43]

I met a B-29 pilot once, nice guy (don't recall his name), but we did have a friend of the family that served aboard B-29s during WWII, who was a radar operator.

He was aboard Enola Gay during the Nagasaki mission, too.

To clarify:- "Enola Gay" flew Weather reconnaissance c/s Dimples 82, two hours ahead of "Bocks Car" on 9 August.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

You are forgetting that Britain had the Stirling, Lancaster and Halifax several years before the B-29 entered service in any numbers. That trio proved that they could deliver strategic bombing from 1942 on, two years before the B-29.

Used in numbers, the Lancaster was a primitive WMD. The difference was that the B-29 could do with 300 (Tokyo, Mar 1945) or the two A-bombs with one bomber apiece what took anywhere from 6-800 Lancs. The Superfort could also do it from a greater distance. So you're seeing force multiplication as tech rolls along.-- and that's what the -29 brought to the table.

The Lancaster was, I think we all agree, a fantastic bomber and very versatile. You're right that in 1943, it was top-tier, and in ETO was to remain so through to the end of the war. The B-29, being a later design, was simply more efficient at the task.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You are forgetting that Britain had the Stirling, Lancaster and Halifax several years before the B-29 entered service in any numbers. That trio proved that they could deliver strategic bombing from 1942 on, two years before the B-29.

And although all 3 aircraft made their contributions to the war effort, they were a generation behind the B-29.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

And although all 3 aircraft made their contributions to the war effort, they were a generation behind the B-29.

In 1943 the Brits had the best heavy-bombing force in the world (imo), once they sorted the navigation and targeting issues that hampered them in the early war. They did the best with what they had and were deadly when things came together on a mission.

 

[GrauGeist]

To clarify:- "Enola Gay" flew Weather reconnaissance c/s Dimples 82, two hours ahead of "Bocks Car" on 9 August.

And to clarify further, Enola Gay was weather recon over Kokura (primary target) and Laggin' Dragon (Dimples 95) was weather recon over Nagasaki (secondary target).
Bockscar was accompanied by The Great Artiste (Dimples 89) which carried equipment to measure the bomb's blast and The Big Stink (Dumples 90) which was there to photograph and observe.

 

[wuzak]

I believe someone posted a pretty detailed drawing that showed Fat Man would not fit in the Lancaster, or it it did there was just about no clearance on either side of the bomb bay.

I though there would be a ground clearance problem, as well as drag, du to the bulk of the bomb being external to the aircraft.

 

[Shortround6]

I believe there had to access to the bomb in flight for final arming.
Could be wrong.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I believe there had to access to the bomb in flight for final arming.
Could be wrong.

It could be armed on the ground, but there was some nervousness about taking off in a pregnant cow with the world's first nuke already armed, from what I remember, so it was armed in flight. But I don't know if that was a requirement or not.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I though there would be a ground clearance problem, as well as drag, du to the bulk of the bomb being external to the aircraft.

Possibly, but I also believe there was a clearance issue within the aircraft

 

[pb43]

I though there would be a ground clearance problem, as well as drag, du to the bulk of the bomb being external to the aircraft.

Little Boy would have fitted, but the same problem of access for arming would have reared its ugly head, Not to mention that the lanc and Lincoln were unpressurised so have restricted service ceilings! The major reason why relatively few B-29s got shot down by fighters was thet they flew so high!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Little Boy would have fitted, but the same problem of access for arming would have reared its ugly head, Not to mention that the lanc and Lincoln were unpressurised so have restricted service ceilings! The major reason why relatively few B-29s got shot down by fighters was thet they flew so high!

Their last six months' service over Japan were relatively low-level, under ten thousand feet, at night, in the firebombings. Minelaying as well was a low-level operation.

I don't know that the A-bomb had to be armed during flight. I bet it was possible to arm on the ground and take off with it.

 

[45South]

The wright engines were a failure. A lot of airman died because of this

 

[GrauGeist]

The wright engines were a failure. A lot of airman died because of this

The R-3350 was most certainly not a failure - the rushed development caused complications that were eventually ironed out.
This holds true to many Allied and Axis types.
The wartime demand to get equipment into operation often times saw situations where modifications and upgrades were needed that would have taken much longer to debug during peacetime.

 

[45South]

The R-3350 was most certainly not a failure - the rushed development caused complications that were eventually i
This holds true to many Allied and Axis types.
The wartime demand to get equipment into operation often times saw situations where modifications and upgrades were needed that would have taken much longer to debug during peacetime.

 

[45South]

You a Wright but the aircrew loses was terrible price to pay.

 

[GrauGeist]

To be 100% honest, how many pilots and crew were lost to the early B-26?

How many pilots were lost to training from the transition from advanced trainer to assigned fighter?

How many Naval aviators were lost to carrier training?

How many were lost trying to learn the P-39's quirks?

Yes, the early R-3350 had it's issues and the early B-29 engine cowling design needed improvement, but during wartime, when the ability to gain the upper hand on the enemy hangs in the balance, risks must be taken.

Even many merchant mariners were lost due to a flaw in the construction of Liberty Ships and it took several disasters before the flaw was found and corrected.

 

[wuzak]

Little Boy would have fitted, but the same problem of access for arming would have reared its ugly head,

Little Boy would have fitted inside the Mosquito, if the tail was changed to a British style round tail.

Others have addressed the need for access to arm the bombs.

Not to mention that the lanc and Lincoln were unpressurised so have restricted service ceilings! The major reason why relatively few B-29s got shot down by fighters was thet they flew so high!

Lancasters were restricted in their operating ceiling by the engines used (single stage Merlin 20-series, for the majority of production), aerodynamics and weight.

B-17s weren't pressurised either, yet they operated ~5-10,000ft higher.

 

[pb43]

Their last six months' service over Japan were relatively low-level, under ten thousand feet, at night, in the firebombings. Minelaying as well was a low-level operation.

I don't know that the A-bomb had to be armed during flight. I bet it was possible to arm on the ground and take off with it.

They NEVER took off with armed nuclear weapons, and the still don't. Modern weapons are automatically armed in a very similar fashion. The pit is removed until the weapon is armed. Either a weapons technician or the bombs arming mechanism inserts the pit and completes tamper and explosive lens shells. The early weapons stored the pits in special containers in the aircraft, rather than inside the bomb.

 

[wuzak]

The R-3350 was most certainly not a failure - the rushed development caused complications that were eventually ironed out.
This holds true to many Allied and Axis types.
The wartime demand to get equipment into operation often times saw situations where modifications and upgrades were needed that would have taken much longer to debug during peacetime.

Not sure that the R-3350 development could be called rushed.

It appears that the R-3350 was first run in the same month that the R2800 did. And the R-3350 certainly had more issues

 

[wlewisiii]

The wright engines were a failure. A lot of airman died because of this

No. They were mother loving expensive, and we sent a lot of good men to the far beyond early because of those sons of bitches, but they were not a failure in the long run.