 | The Best Bomber of WWII: #4| Aviation Discuss The Best Bomber of WWII: #4 in the World War II - Aviation forums; the B-29's bomb bay was nowhere near as big or versatile as the lancaster's, there was no ... |
|
08-02-2006, 04:09 AM
|
#151 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country:  | the B-29's bomb bay was nowhere near as big or versatile as the lancaster's, there was no way she could've taken a tallboy internally, mostly because she actually had two separate bomb bays yes? whilst the B-29 was the better bomber the size of bomb bay and range of weapons it allowed to be carried is still one advantage the lanc had over the B-29, who had to carry outsized loads externally.............
__________________ 
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | 
|  | |
08-02-2006, 04:16 AM
|
#152 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,051
Country: | I admit that in the picture I've shown it's not a Tallboy...
...it's a Grand Slam.
__________________ "When you go home tomorrow, don't expect anyone to know what you have been through. Even if they did know, most people probably wouldn't care anyway. Some of you may get the medals you deserve, many more of you will not. But remember this, all of you are now members of the front-line club, and that is the most exclusive club in the world." - Lt. Col. Matthew Maer CO 1st Battalion, the Princess of Wale's Royal Regiment. Camp Abu Naji, Oct. 2004  To those in that club. | |
| | |
08-02-2006, 06:45 AM
|
#153 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Royal Deeside/St Andrews, Scotland, UK (atm Pretoria, South Africa)
Posts: 10,819
Country: | There is also this one (although not in the bomb bay the lanc couldn't do this): 
B-29 with 2 Tallboys (could also be Grandslams in the same positions). Source on right click. VERY HEAVY CONVENTIONAL AERIAL BOMBS
__________________  "Success is not Final, Failure is not Fatal, it is the Courage to Continue that Counts"
Sir Winston Churchill
"To him the people of the world largely owe the Freedom and liberties they enjoy today"
Enscription on Hugh Dowding's (AOC Fighter Command 1936-40) statue in London
Moderator WW2 Talk: A WW2 Discussion Forum | |
| | |
08-02-2006, 07:52 AM
|
#154 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country: | i struggle to believe the B-29 could take two grand slams, and quite what either of those pictures are supposed to prove is beyond me as i was simply commenting on their ability to carry internal loads, i actually explicitly said the B-29 had to carry outsized loads externally so again, what point are you trying to prove? do you actually think i wasn't aware of those two pictures they've been posted several times before.........
__________________
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
08-02-2006, 07:55 AM
|
#155 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,051
Country: | Those pictures prove the B-29 could carry just a diverse payload as the Lancaster. Mine proves the B-29 could carry the Tallboy and Grand Slam internally, or just as internal as the Lancaster. When the Lancaster had any of those bombs, they weren't any further in the bomb bay than they are on the B-29.
__________________ "When you go home tomorrow, don't expect anyone to know what you have been through. Even if they did know, most people probably wouldn't care anyway. Some of you may get the medals you deserve, many more of you will not. But remember this, all of you are now members of the front-line club, and that is the most exclusive club in the world." - Lt. Col. Matthew Maer CO 1st Battalion, the Princess of Wale's Royal Regiment. Camp Abu Naji, Oct. 2004 To those in that club. | |
| | |
08-02-2006, 08:30 AM
|
#156 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country: | only two weapons were ever carried semi-recessed in the lanc, the Upkeep, the riad for which it's questonable the B-29 could've completed anyway, and the Grandslam, tallboys and the 12,000lb HC bomb and the rest of her family could all be carried internally without any problems.........
__________________
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
08-02-2006, 02:10 PM
|
#157 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Kiwi Land
Posts: 848
Country:  | After or if the Lanc was built / modified with the bulged bomb bay.
__________________
4 out of 5 voices in my head say I am normal. Majority rules.
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me. | |
| | |
08-02-2006, 02:51 PM
|
#158 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country: | firstly i don't count the simple job of replacing bomb doors as a problem and second most if not all tallboy carrying lancs had the bulged bomb bay long before the tallboy was used...........
__________________
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
08-02-2006, 03:32 PM
|
#159 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 12,511
Country:  | Quote: |
Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks *** only two weapons were ever carried semi-recessed in the lanc, the Upkeep, the riad for which it's questonable the B-29 could've completed anyway, and the Grandslam, tallboys and the 12,000lb HC bomb and the rest of her family could all be carried internally without any problems......... | B-29's were flown and tested with 2 Tallboys on pylons - no sweat. There were also tests and plans to have it carry internally the 42,000 pound T-12. For that its bomb bay had to be modified. Testing in this configuration continued into 1946. Here's a site about it, good stuff.... VERY HEAVY CONVENTIONAL AERIAL BOMBS. Bomb, SAP, 25,000-lb, T28E4
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"  | |
| | |
08-02-2006, 03:35 PM
|
#160 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Kiwi Land
Posts: 848
Country: | The bulged bomb bay was needed to fit the 8,000 and 12,000 pound cookies in Lancasters.
Many Squadrons used them, The Tallboy was used operationaly only by 617 and 9 Squadrons. After their aircraft were modified.
Your point is?
__________________
4 out of 5 voices in my head say I am normal. Majority rules.
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me.
Last edited by k9kiwi : 08-02-2006 at 03:39 PM.
| |
| | |
08-02-2006, 04:08 PM
|
#161 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country: | Quote: |
Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ B-29's were flown and tested with 2 Tallboys on pylons - no sweat. There were also tests and plans to have it carry internally the 42,000 pound T-12. For that its bomb bay had to be modified. Testing in this configuration continued into 1946. Here's a site about it, good stuff.... VERY HEAVY CONVENTIONAL AERIAL BOMBS. Bomb, SAP, 25,000-lb, T28E4 | dude at no point am i doubting the B-29's abilities to carry bigger payloads than the lanc, nowhere in those few posts have i said the lanc carried bigger payloads than the B-29 i'm getting annoyed now that everytime i comment regarding the B-29 and lanc that i'm trying to say the lanc is the better bomber, i make the exact opposite explicitly clear if you take the effort to read my posts! this all started from me saying the lanc had a bigger, more versatile bomb bay that allowed a greater range of weapons to be carried internally, and that was only in responce to a post from annother member, in reply everyone is posting about the B-29 carrying loads externally which i'd already talked about! jeezz....
__________________
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
08-02-2006, 04:17 PM
|
#162 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 7,863
| Lanc, in what way is the Lancaster better than the B29?
In fact, to be fair, do you think the Lincoln was a better plane?
__________________
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?" | |
| | |
08-02-2006, 04:33 PM
|
#163 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Kiwi Land
Posts: 848
Country: | To quote the shortest sentence ever written.
"Jesus wept".
__________________
4 out of 5 voices in my head say I am normal. Majority rules.
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me. | |
| | |
08-02-2006, 04:46 PM
|
#164 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 12,511
Country: | Quote: |
Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks *** dude at no point am i doubting the B-29's abilities to carry bigger payloads than the lanc, nowhere in those few posts have i said the lanc carried bigger payloads than the B-29 i'm getting annoyed now that everytime i comment regarding the B-29 and lanc that i'm trying to say the lanc is the better bomber, i make the exact opposite explicitly clear if you take the effort to read my posts! this all started from me saying the lanc had a bigger, more versatile bomb bay that allowed a greater range of weapons to be carried internally, and that was only in responce to a post from annother member, in reply everyone is posting about the B-29 carrying loads externally which i'd already talked about! jeezz.... | Well gee Lanc, do you think there's an obvious reason why we're a little gun-shy???  
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
08-02-2006, 08:21 PM
|
#165 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: London Ontario Canada
Posts: 183
Country:  | For me it is the B29 big bomb load and long range. | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:12 AM. | | |
