Top Heavy Bomber

[renrich]

The Halifax must have had some pretty good attributes as it was one of the 4-engine landplanes the Allies used with good results in ASW. To degrade the B29 versus the Lancaster because of teething problems makes no sense because the Lanc had problems (as do most new AC) also. Many Lanc were u/s early on because of fuel line problems, wing tips were a problem and some early Lancs did not come back because of tailplane issues. Those ultimately were solved and it became an effective night bomber.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by DOUGRD

Sorry Flyboy, but if I may jump in midstream here, the engine issues weren't really rectified during the war. Yes the re-engined "D" model came online but the R4360's had big problems of their own. Crankcase oil leaks were major headaches for instance but at least they didn't lead to the engine fires of the R3350's.

What you describe was typical of any large radial engine of the era. Yes the 4360 wasn't by far maintenance friendly, it did serve the purpose

Originally Posted by DOUGRD

B-29's were used in Korea but their performance was hampered by the MIG-15. After several losses the B-29 raids were restricted to night only.

In actuality the losses were minimal - I think around 4 or 5 were loss, several others were damaged beyond repair. In 1953 there were some daylight raids but by then the UN had full aerial superiority.

Originally Posted by DOUGRD

The '29's use by SAC wasn't so much a testiment to its effectiveness as it was really the only long range bomber we had that was big enough to carry the nukes. It was more of a stopgap measure until the B-36 came online which was the first true intercontinental bomber and the only platform capable of carrying the first generation hydrogen bombs which were too big for the B-29. Although the B-29 was a remarkable aircraft I think some of the comparisons in this thread about the '29 versus the Lanc are forgetting some details.

At the time SAC came into full swing (under LeMay's leadership) he imposed heavy "mission capable rates" where a certain amount of aircraft within the command had to be ready to go at a moment's notice and if I remember right it was something like 85% mission capable, 65% fully mission capable which meant everything on the aircraft had to be functioning at any given time. If the B-29 would of been tat bad, those "MC" rates would of never been met and even with the B-50 they were being attained.

The B-36 was on the drawing board since the early 40s and was never intended to be a "stop gap." It's purpose was to be able to bomb Europe from the US. It just so happened that after WW2 there was a need for it and the rest is history.

Originally Posted by DOUGRD

The Lancaster was also a remarkable aircraft. As was said earlier it only had one pilot. Think of it, a FOUR engine A/C with one driver. And it also carried the heaviest load in the ETO. It might have been a simple A/C with low tech systems but that was intentional. Simpler, cheaper and quicker to build. The British never had the resources that the U.S. did during the war, thanks to the U Boats. Remember too that the Lanc faced much heavier fighter/flak opposition than the '29 which was why they were switched to night ops.

The single pilot set up was actually dangerous and impracticable. The Brits had to do it and my hats off to the pilots but there were many Lancs lost because there were only one set of eyes in the cockpit - not only during combat, but on the return trip where IMC conditions existed and the single pilot "busted" the instrument approach - the dual cockpit configuration became the norm in the post war years for reasons I given.

As far as the heavier flack - trade that for a 1,000 mile one way mission over ocean with weather just as if not more treacherous found in Europe

Originally Posted by DOUGRD

They also didn't fly the "tight formations" that American bombers did rather Bomber Command flew in miles long streams with virtually no mutual defense. I think that is one BIG reason the Lancs suffered the losses they did. The Lanc was a great A/C for its time and I'm sure that the EARLY lessons learned by Bomber Command and the USAAC with the B-17 and B-24 contributed to the design and success of the B-29's.

That's an operation situation and has nothing to do with the capability of the aircraft

Originally Posted by DOUGRD

Which A/C do I think was best? The B-29 but only from a technology stand point. It was the first pressurized combat A/C and was so aerodynamically clean that dropping the landing gear more than doubled the drag (total parasite & induced) on the airframe. Amazing!

Operationally. performance, configuration and it's impact on the war the B-29 takes it. Some folks might think the B-29 was bombing "Paper Houses" when they firebombed Japan, but in essence it still brought Japan to it's knees and did it in half the time (for a number or reasons) that it took to subdue Germany - and in some conditions worse than experienced in Europe.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by DOUGRD

After rereading my own post and several others I came to this conclusion.. What is the measure of the best or top heavy bomber? Wouldn't you say it comes down to putting the bombs on the target? Range, load, speed, surviveability all count but did the bombs hit the target. That's the true measure. What does everyone else think? Which was the top platform?

Speed, systems, performance, survivability and putting the bombs on target - I'm sorry but the B-29 takes it.

History of the 20th Air Force

[renrich]

The B29 during the low level night bombing campaign over Japan did not fly tight formations but in streams somewhat the same as the British night bombing. I have a friend who was a navigator on a B29 and it is interesting to hear him describe it.

[B-17engineer]

Hard choice.........................THey all had great capabilities and were Terrific..........Ill come back when they make a desicion

[syscom3]

Theres nothing to decide.

The Lanc was a design from the 30's.

The B29 was a bomber incorporating lots of lessons learned. to become a true "weapons system".

[Screaming Eagle]

although my favourite is the B-17 I would have to go with the B-29.

[DOUGRD]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Although there were issues with the engines they were rectified by the war's end - the effectiveness of the aircraft is more than evident as it was the first mainstay in the Strategic Air Command and was used during the Korean War, something you keep ignoring - the Lancaster, while a well serving platform was an obsolete weapons system when compared to the B-29 in almost every category.
!!!

You said the engine issues were rectified by wars end...I said they weren't. The re-engined A/C didn't have the fires but they did have crankcase oil leaks. Problems not rectified just a new set of problems. Teething problems..yes I don't think there has ever been an A/C engine built that didn't have teething problems.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DOUGRD

You said the engine issues were rectified by wars end...I said they weren't. The re-engined A/C didn't have the fires but they did have crankcase oil leaks. Problems not rectified just a new set of problems. Teething problems..yes I don't think there has ever been an A/C engine built that didn't have teething problems.

It doesnt matter that the engines didnt have all their bugs worked out untill after the war.

The fact remains that the 20th AF could put several hundred B29's in the air.

[Derfman]

While I know that B-29 is the clear choice, I voted B-17 anyway.

The B-17 together with the Lanc and B-24 were the grand old warhorses that faced the LW in its prime. Of the 3, all great, I am shamelessly prejudice in favor of the B-17.

[DOUGRD]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

In actuality the losses were minimal - I think around 4 or 5 were loss, several others were damaged beyond repair. In 1953 there were some daylight raids but by then the UN had full aerial superiority.

According to some info I found it was 16 to fighters, 4 to FLAK, 14 to other causes
The B-36 was on the drawing board since the early 40s and was never intended to be a "stop gap." It's purpose was to be able to bomb Europe from the US. It just so happened that after WW2 there was a need for it and the rest is history.

I didn't say the B-36 was a stop gap I said the B-29 was a stop gap until the '36 came on line.

[DOUGRD]

Originally Posted by syscom3

It doesnt matter that the engines didnt have all their bugs worked out untill after the war.

The fact remains that the 20th AF could put several hundred B29's in the air.

You missed the point.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by DOUGRD

According to some info I found it was 16 to fighters, 4 to FLAK, 14 to other causes.

Even at those numbers you're looking at 20 B-29s for 20,000 sorties and dropped 200,000 tons (180,000 tonnes) of bombs and that was over 3 years - overall you're looking at less than 10% loss rate!!!]

Originally Posted by DOUGRD

I didn't say the B-36 was a stop gap I said the B-29 was a stop gap until the '36 came on line.

Again FALSE - the B-29 was NEVER a STOP GAP - it was a specific weapons system deployed for a specific mission. The B-36 almost got CANCELLED with no thought of it actually replacing the B-29!!!!

"In August of 1947, shortly after the creation of the independent Air Force, General Hoyt Vandenberg, Deputy Chief of Air Staff, set up a USAF Aircraft and Weapons Board to determine which weapons would best support the Air Force's long-term plans. Because of the atomic bomb, strategic bombing took precedence. At that time, the B-36 was the only bomber capable of carrying out nuclear retaliation against an enemy without the need for overseas bases. However, at that time the supply of atomic bombs was still sparse, and plans had to be made for the possible use of conventional bombs. Many members of the Board felt that the B-36 was obsolete and should be cancelled in favor of fast jet bombers. However, this strategy was inherently risky since these jet bombers promised to have insufficient range and in any case would not be available for years. Still others wanted to try and improve the performance of the B-36 and use it as an all-purpose bomber capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear weapons. After prolonged debate, it was decided to stick with the basic B-36 as a special purpose nuclear deterrent bomber."

Convair B-36 Peacemaker -- Chapter 1

The Boeing B-29 was designed in 1940 as an eventual replacement for the B-17 and B-24.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by DOUGRD

You said the engine issues were rectified by wars end...I said they weren't. The re-engined A/C didn't have the fires but they did have crankcase oil leaks. Problems not rectified just a new set of problems. Teething problems..yes I don't think there has ever been an A/C engine built that didn't have teething problems.

And there was never a large radial engine built that didn't leak - If it didn't leak it had no oil in it!!!!

[DOUGRD]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

And there was never a large radial engine built that didn't leak - If it didn't leak it had no oil in it!!!!

No Sh*t