The Best Bomber of WWII: #4

[river]

Hi,

Originally Posted by Waynos

River, are you sure that they were not Tallboy's? As I said before two Grand Slams is 44,000lb. I can beleive the B-36 lifting two of them but not the B-29. Unless they were only partially filled with sand to make them light enough of course, but then what would be the point of doing that?

The text says that Grand Slams, Tall Boys and M56 packages were tested on the pylons. The picture says they are Grand Slams, and they did say they were filled with sand. So, perhaps they were lighter in weight than the real Grand Slams, plus the text did say they were used to test the handling qualities of the B29 (maybe they were more concerned about the drag etc of the bombs as opposed to the weight - for initial testing?).

I'll check some images of Grand Slams and Tall Boys and check against the picture to see exactly what it is carrying - in case picture caption is incorrect. I'll try and get it scanned this evening and put the image here in this thread.

river

[Waynos]

Thanks, that would be great if you could.

[river]

Hi,

Sorry if the images are too big... but hey, you can never get too big when looking at fine war machinery, can you!
The pics look crappy as they are (below), but if you click on the yellow bar (on top) they'll blow up reall big and nice.

Okay, here is a pic of the B29 carrying the M56 bomb pakage on wing pylons....




And here it is with the Grand Slam (or Tall Boys? you guys may know better than me) under each wing.....




river

[flakhappy]

I keep running into these statements about the B24 having such a big bomb load, and range, and superior to the B-17, etc., etc. The statements probably are based on manufacturer's promotion, but not on fact. The B-24 had bomb bays (2) that could HOLD 8 tons, but believe somebody who flew in both 17s and 24s 65 years ago: While 17s loaded 3 tons for nearly every mission (except when carrying frags or firebombs), the 24s in Italy cut their loads to 2 1/2 tons so that they could fly to 25,000 feet. In B17s we flew most of our missions several thousand feet higher than that, and I personally flew over nine targets at over 30,000 feet. On top of that, the B-17 was WAY more stable for formation flying. The B-24 was a useful plane in the pacific where tight formations were rarely used. They could fill one bomb bay with fuel and fly all day.

[Civettone]

Hey Flakhappy, I don't feel I have the right to go against what you said. However, the book The Wild Blue by Stephen E. Ambrose states it flew with heavier loads than that. It's mainly based on veteran's stories. Dunno ...


Kris

[flakhappy]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Hey Flakhappy, I don't feel I have the right to go against what you said. However, the book The Wild Blue by Stephen E. Ambrose states it flew with heavier loads than that. It's mainly based on veteran's stories. Dunno ...


Kris

I have read Ambrose and don't remember him quoting anybody about carrying 3 tons or more. I do remember them saying they had a hard time lifting off the runway. We could identify B24 fields in Italy by the shattered treetops off the ends of their runways. The B-24 had a Davis, high-speed wing, which when translated, means it wasn't efficient at low speeds, meaning takeoffs and climbing to targets. They wallowed a lot, unstable, in formation unless more power was used, which meant using more fuel than the mission planners wanted to. The nose of a B-24 "hunted," to quote my own pilot, and didn't want to stay on a fixed heading. The trim had to be adjusted every few minutes, and pilots joked about developing a huge left arm from all the wrestling they did with the yoke. When our crew was switched to B17s our pilots were the happiest people you ever saw.

[Waynos]

Thanks for the excellent pictures, river. I have been trying to scale the bombs (for their external shape is identical) and I am finding it difficult to say for sure which they are yet. Certainly a lot more digging from me required as, although I expressed my doubts earlier, I admit the photo does open up the disctinct possibility that they were both Grand Slams, I just need to accurately scal them when I have a bit more time. thanks again.

[river]

Waynos,

I wait in eager anticipation for your conclusion.

river

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by flakhappy

I have read Ambrose and don't remember him quoting anybody about carrying 3 tons or more. I do remember them saying they had a hard time lifting off the runway. We could identify B24 fields in Italy by the shattered treetops off the ends of their runways. The B-24 had a Davis, high-speed wing, which when translated, means it wasn't efficient at low speeds, meaning takeoffs and climbing to targets. They wallowed a lot, unstable, in formation unless more power was used, which meant using more fuel than the mission planners wanted to. The nose of a B-24 "hunted," to quote my own pilot, and didn't want to stay on a fixed heading. The trim had to be adjusted every few minutes, and pilots joked about developing a huge left arm from all the wrestling they did with the yoke. When our crew was switched to B17s our pilots were the happiest people you ever saw.

Especially that story about the left arm stuck with me (it's on p 77)

On p 23 it is stated that the B-24's bombload was 8800 lbs while that of the B-17 was 3 tons. On p. 79 ceiling is 32,000 feet "and a range of 2,850 miles - all exceeding the B-17's capabilities". On the next page: "it had two bomb bays each of which could match the B-17's single bay for capacity" and "...with improvements the payload rose to 12,800 pounds."

On p 175/176 a bombing mission is described where the maximum takeoff weight of 63,000 lbs was exceeded by 7,000 pounds.

But that's just what the book says. It's not always the most unbiased book ever. The glorification of MacGovern becomes irritating as hell after a while...

Kris

[Hop]

The problem with US bomb loads is that whilst they could carry more than 10,000 lbs in theory, in practice loads were much lower. On average in the ETO the US heavy bombers averaged 5,200 lbs per sortie. The MTO averaged almost exactly the same, 5,194 lbs.

[flakhappy]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Especially that story about the left arm stuck with me (it's on p 77)

On p 23 it is stated that the B-24's bombload was 8800 lbs while that of the B-17 was 3 tons. On p. 79 ceiling is 32,000 feet "and a range of 2,850 miles - all exceeding the B-17's capabilities". On the next page: "it had two bomb bays each of which could match the B-17's single bay for capacity" and "...with improvements the payload rose to 12,800 pounds."

On p 175/176 a bombing mission is described where the maximum takeoff weight of 63,000 lbs was exceeded by 7,000 pounds.

But that's just what the book says. It's not always the most unbiased book ever. The glorification of MacGovern becomes irritating as hell after a while...

Kris

Please remember that this author, sadly now deceased, was the one who in an earliier book called the ball turret a "plastic bubble." Some bubble! Over 1200 pounds and the only plastic was in the author's head. In the earlier book about the war in Europe he went on for many pages about the 8th AF, but presented nary a word about the 12th and 15th AFs. I suspect that a friend of McGovern went to him and suggested that a book like "The Wild Blue" would be a good way to make amends. The author's idea of writing history was to interview 50 or so veterans and take the most sparkling comments for his book. Among historians that technique may sell books, but it's not necessarily the best way to write history. Those who flew in both planes, including me, will tell you that a B-17's stamdard load was 3 tons. When the B-24 groups couldn't achieve their assigned altitudes carrying that weight, they were ordered to carry 2 1/2 tons so they could at least reach 25,000 feet. Variations from the 3 ton and 2 1/2-ton figures are caused by having to load frag clusters or incendiaries, which were more bulky. The B-24s were unstable and hard to trim out, according to my own pilots. When Gen. Doolittle refused to take any more B-24s in the 8th AF, many crews, like mine, were shifted to B-17s. That made everybody in our crew, including the pilots, happy as clams.

[Civettone]

Yeah, I also share the criticism on that book. I suspect he uses the same methods for all of his books. He just goes for the easy stuff, all very black and white.
I'm also sure that it's true that the B-24 wouldn't carry its maximum load all the time. Yet ... on missions were high altitude was not necessary, it could carry more bombs, or carry a similar bomb load a greater distance. That too counts for something I suppose.

Thanks for the input Flakhappy

Kris

[flakhappy]

Originally Posted by Civettone

Yeah, I also share the criticism on that book. I suspect he uses the same methods for all of his books. He just goes for the easy stuff, all very black and white.
I'm also sure that it's true that the B-24 wouldn't carry its maximum load all the time. Yet ... on missions were high altitude was not necessary, it could carry more bombs, or carry a similar bomb load a greater distance. That too counts for something I suppose.

Thanks for the input Flakhappy

Kris

Yurwelcome.

[syscom3]

Say what you may about him, but at least he wrote something interesting about B24's and the 15th AF.

[STARMAN 352ND]

Great Info about the bombers on here.