Too Little, Too Late - The B-32 Dominator

[evangilder]

Agreed, thanks Steve. Be sure to give proper credit where do on any copyrighted works.

[Twitch]

Personally I always felt the B-32 was the bastard stepchild. It wasn't that much better than the B-29 and would soon be eclipsed by the B-36. The USAF had plenty of B-29s that could have supplanted B-17s and B-24s. Always easier to increase quantities of an aircraft in production like the B-29 than to introduce another. The B-36 was stalled during the war for the B-32. For what reason? The B-36 would have been fantastic in combat at the end of WW2. I could have been except for the B-32. I belive they should have leaned on producing a super bomber rather than one barely a notch above the existing B-29.

[FLYBOYJ]

Remember, the B-32 was almost 2 years behind schedule. A plan was to have it replace the B-17 and B-24 in the ETO....

I think had it been deployed earlier and more were produced it would of been quickly scrapped at the end of the war, just like the B-24 that disappeared overnight...

[syscom3]

The B29's were not going to be produced in sizable numbers untill 1945. Look at my B29 thread for info on that.

The B36 was a headache to develope. There were engine problems, landing gear/tire issues, propellor problems, blah blah blah. Its lucky the plane flew as soon as it did!

[Twitch]

While the B-36 was a complex animal it was put on hold and NO work was done on it at times during the war so that the B-32 would get priority. It is/was a matter of priorities with government contracts and programs.

Fabrication on the B-36 slowed since the Air Corps wanted attention paid to the Consolidated planes (B-24s & B-32s) that it needed then, but agreed to a two-prototype order for a cargo version designated the XC-99. One was ultimately built.

By March of 1943 Consolidated and Vultee merged but didn’t officially become Convair in name until 1954. At that time in the war it seemed that the Japanese might push and take the bases planned for the forthcoming B-29s in China. General Hap Arnold directed that orders be placed for 100 B-36 examples for a production start up in August 1945.

Mid-1944 brought a better outlook for the Americans in the Pacific as B-29s soon would begin their raids on mainland Japan from hard-won island bases. B-29 teething problems were overcome and the press for an Inter-Continental Bomber was lessened. Convair emphasized B-32 development and slowed on the B-36.

As it was, the XB-36 took off from one of only three runways in the U.S. able to handle the weight at Fort Worth, Texas in August 1946.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Twitch

....As it was, the XB-36 took off from one of only three runways in the U.S. able to handle the weight at Fort Worth, Texas in August 1946.

Exactly. In fact, the origional landing gear design of a single large tire per strut, need to be changed to a multiple tire setup so that it could be used on more airfields.

[130fe]

The XC-99 was in fact saved and is currently being restored at the Air Force Museum. Rumor has it that a B-32 survived until the mid 70s at Macaren in Las Vegas. Anyone seen photographic proof of this?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by plan_D

11 days of constant bombardment, the most brutal bombardment in history. I knew it was 72 or 73, I couldn't remember.

December 18-29, 1972 - 40,000 tons of bombs dropped.

The radar jamming largely effective but the 52D had better jamming equipment than D. More than 900 Sams were launched.

At first SAC did the 'stupid thing' thta plagued USAF crews throughout the war - namely same altitudes, tracks and times enabling NV to figure out where to concentrate dwindling supplies of Sams - but last three or four nights - 5 or six different altitudes and headings - all in 20 minutes over the targets.

It was brutal but very good concentrations around the MPI designate - they effectively destroyed everything they wanted, and not much of what they didn't want, to bomb.

[ccheese]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The B36 was a headache to develope. There were engine problems, landing gear/tire issues, propellor problems, blah blah blah. Its lucky the plane flew as soon as it did!

The B-36 was a pain is the @ss. I flew in them twice on a round-robin
that went from Wheelus AFB up into the Arctic Circle and "other places".
I flew in the radioman's spot once and in the tail spot once. On both
flights we lost an engine due to overheating. Tires were a very big
problem, engines overheating, catching fire and even a couple of
runaway props. The Air Force required you wear a chute harness at
all times on this aircraft. Chutes were hanging at different stations
for easy clip-on access.

Charles

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by 130fe

The XC-99 was in fact saved and is currently being restored at the Air Force Museum. Rumor has it that a B-32 survived until the mid 70s at Macaren in Las Vegas. Anyone seen photographic proof of this?

"No surplus B-32s were ever sold to foreign air forces, and the aircraft's complexity and reputation for mechanical unreliability made it unattractive on the postwar commercial market. There is only example in which a commercial customer showed any interest in a surplus B-32. In June 1947, Milton J. Reynolds, a pen manufacturer, announced that he was planning to buy a surplus B-32 for a round-the-world flight over both poles, but this plan was never carried out.

No intact, complete B-32 survives today. B-32-1-CF 42-108474 had been set aside for display at the Air Force Museum, but was unaccountably declared excess and scrapped at Davis-Monthan in August of 1949. Only bits and pieces of B-32s remain in existence today. A nose turret from a B-32 is in storage at the Paul Garber Restoration Facility of the Smithsonian Institution at Suitland, Maryland. Another B-32 nose turret is on display in a Minnesota museum. A static test wing panel from a B-32 was erected as a monument to aviation pioneer John J. Montgomery on a hill near San Diego."

Consolidated B-32 Dominator

[syscom3]

On this day today 65 years ago, Sept 7th 1942........ was the first test flight of the XB-32.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

On this day today 65 years ago, Sept 7th 1942........ was the first test flight of the XB-32.

[Thorlifter]

I think it would have been a nice replacement for the B-17/B-24. With that high cruising speed and impressive payload, it would have spent less time over hostile ground, delivered more ordinance, and put less lives in jeopardy.

[syscom3]

Unfortunatly for Convair, what should have been a fairly straight forward aircraft to design, and it wasnt nearly as sophisticated as the B29, turned into an engineering nightmare for one reason or another.

The B32 "HAD" potential, but too many problems early on relegated it to the back burner.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by SM79Sparviero

Anyway also B32 showed to be "die hard": in august ,17 1945 4 Dominators during a recon mission over Tokio vere intercepted by 10 Ki-44 and Ki-61 ( on breach of the surrending orders):futile damages for the bomber, 1 fighter surely shot down and two more probable.
On the following day two dominators had to face still over Tokio 14 Zero and Ki.44: one of the B32 had an engine destroyed and 3 gunners injured but it could come back home , two fighters were shot down surely, two more probably.

Sakai told Henry Sakaida he was among those attacking the B-32's in the first of those engagements, August 17. Sakaida also says in "Winged Samurai" that a group led by WO Sadamu Komachi attacked on the 18th. No Japanese fighters were lost in either case [correction, none lost 17th, he doesn't actually say wrt 18th], and all were apparently JNAF. Sakai did not recall if he flew a 'George' or Zero but most were probably Georges, which explains 'Tojo's', the two types were confused in other documented cases, but leaves the 'Tony' ID a mystery.

On B-52 credits for MiG's destroyed those occurrred Dec 18 and 24 1972. The VPAF official history (which is the basis of Toperczer's "Air War over North Vietnam") does not mention losses of MiG's to B-52's either date. On the 18th a MiG pilot followed a B-52 formation and said he was spotted by the bombers, but not downed. There is no mention of B-52 interceptions on the second date. A declassified Soviet military intelligence summary of the Vietnam War states that VPAF MiG's did not inercept B-52's the night of the 24th due to weather. The USAF's monograph "Linebacker 2 View from the Rock" specifies two different B-52 cells which believed they were intercepted by MiG's that night, a gunner from one was credited the victory.

As to MiG claims of B-52's two are known, evenings of Dec 27 and 28 '72 with AAM's. In the first case 2 B-52's were lost to SAM's according to US accounts; "Linebacker 2 A View from the Rock" even mentions that 'Ivory' and 'Opal' cells were engaged by MiG's, while the two a/c lost were from 'Cobalt' and 'Ash' cells near known SAM sites and ECM indicated SAM lock on's. However, it doesn't seem possible to determine which loss cause is correct without directly comparing US and Vietnamese original records, and perhaps not even then. The 28th claim is strange because the Vietnamese account gives a time in the late evening (not early morning) of Dec 28, and moreover says the MiG-21 involved was destroyed by falling debris from the B-52 target, the pilot Vu Xuan Thieu was killed. But, no B-52's were lost the night of 28/29. It seems possible Thieu's MiG was struck by falling bombs, or some other cause.

Joe