The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by ppopsie

As I understand the wartime airfields in Britain, the runway lenghts was limited to 2000yds on Class "A" airfields. As can be read from Harris' book, the CinC Bomber Command even suffered with shortage of the airfields in Britain, from which the loaded bombers could operate, during 1941-42 period, and also wrote about the problem to get the larger ones with longer runways constructed rapidly.

I don't know how a large bomber like B-29 with higher wing loading can safely operate from such runways of 2000yds of length. In this context in India or even China should be better, simply to build longer ones almost all from scratch and this could be applied well to the Marianas. But these must have been quite a huge business to carry out, though.

RAF-lincolnshire.info :: Generic airfield layout

So the runways are extended. Not a big deal at all.

[ToughOmbre]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

The B-32 was to replace the B-17 AND B-24...

Joe,

Wasn't the B-32 also intended (at least early on) primarily as insurance in the event B-29 development ran into problems? Or is that just revisionist history and/or over-active imaginations on the part of aviation historians?

TO

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by ToughOmbre

Joe,

Wasn't the B-32 also intended (at least early on) primarily as insurance in the event B-29 development ran into problems? Or is that just revisionist history and/or over-active imaginations on the part of aviation historians?

TO

It was true. A "plan B."

There was a plan to have it replace all the B-17s and B-24s in the ETO. It was so hopelessly behind schedule it barely made to the the Pacific.

[ppopsie]

>The B-32 was to replace B-17s and B-24s
In the case was the B-32 w/o pressurization?

Or what the XXXX was the B-32? It is easier to understand if it was equipped to the same level as the B-29, with pressure cabin, sophisticated defence firepower and similar performances, like the relationship of the Halifax and the Lancaster in Britain.

Could a just powered up version of the B-17/24 had any meanings in the sky over Europe can be an interesting question now.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by ppopsie

>The B-32 was to replace B-17s and B-24s
In the case was the B-32 w/o pressurization?

Or what the XXXX was the B-32?

Originally Posted by ppopsie

It is easier to understand if it was equipped to the same level as the B-29, with pressure cabin, sophisticated defence firepower and similar performances, like the relationship of the Halifax and the Lancaster in Britain.

See Below...

Specifications (B-32)

General characteristics
Crew: 10
Length: 83 ft 1 in (25.3 m)
Wingspan: 135 ft 0 in (41.2 m)
Height: 33 ft 0 in (10.1 m)
Wing area: 1,442 ft² (132.1 m²)
Empty weight: 60,000 lb (27,000 kg)
Loaded weight: 100,000 lb (45,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 111,500 lb (50,580 kg)
Performance
Maximum speed: 357 mph (310 knots, 575 km/h)
Cruise speed: 290 mph (252 knots, 467 km/h) Range: 2,600 nm (3,000 mi, 4,815 km)
Service ceiling 35,000 ft (11,000 m) Rate of climb: 658 ft/min (3.4 m/s)
Wing loading: 70.3 lb/ft² (341 kg/m²)
Armament
Guns: 10× .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns
Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,100 kg)

Here's more from "Joe." Consolidated B-32 Dominator

Originally Posted by ppopsie

>
Could a just powered up version of the B-17/24 had any meanings in the sky over Europe can be an interesting question now.

See Above

[B-17engineer]

"15 were operational and 40 were used as training. A mission were 2 B-32's destroyed alcohol industries so the Japanese couldn't use alcohol as fuel. The B-32's bombed at 20,000 feet. The Zero's on the first pass knocked out the pressure system and the pilots dove to 10,000 feet. 3 of the 20 men on both B-32's were injured. THere was one casualty his name was Anthony J. Marchione. He was the last casulaty of the USAAF.

THe Names of the B-32's were Hobo QUeen and Hobo Queen II



THe B-32 had a pressurized cabin, remote control Gunnery, and reversible pitch propellers that allowed it to slow down on landing."

From a book called BOmber Missions of WWII

[Flyboy2]

I have that book too!! Pretty cool paintings.
Why wouldn't have they used the B-29 over Europe, it carries more bombs right.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Flyboy2

I have that book too!! Pretty cool paintings.
Why wouldn't have they used the B-29 over Europe, it carries more bombs right.

B-17s and B-24s were in place. You have to consider crew training, logistics, supply and tactics. The war in Europe was winding down, it was evident the B-29 would be better served in the Pacific.

[comiso90]

I've been amazed for years at the breadth of advancements and innovations made during the war years. The difference between a B-17 and B-29 is drastic.

[Célérité]

The most surprising comparison is to think that a Skyraider could transport the same load as a B17.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Célérité

The most surprising comparison is to think that a Skyraider could transport the same load as a B17.

But not as far, nor high, nor defend itself.

Two different airplanes for two different roles.

[Old Wizard]

Would you all agree that if you want to hit a specific target accurately...the Mosquito is hard to beat.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Old Wizard

Would you all agree that if you want to hit a specific target accurately...the Mosquito is hard to beat.

What if the target is 1600 miles away and defenses require the mossie to fly at high altitudes?

[Hunter Hawk]

FOr the best Bomber/fighter bomber you can't go past the DH98 Mosquito!!!

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Hunter Hawk

FOr the best Bomber/fighter bomber you can't go past the DH98 Mosquito!!!

I think the B17, B24, B29 and Lancaster is better than the Mossie. For the long range bombing role.