Best Bomber of ww2

[the lancaster kicks ass]

lol, it's ironic then that the lanc remained in service with the RAF till 1964...................

[plan_D]

Then the Lincoln was based on it, then the Shackleton was based on that.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but the lancaster stil remeined in service 'til 1964, serving just as long as the lincoln..........

[Lightning Guy]

But not as a bomber. As has been noted, tanker and transport derivatives of the B-29 served even longer . . .

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but the lancaser lived in spirit in the shackleton, which served longer than the B-29, and you can't say the B-29 lived on in the B-36 and B-52............

[Lightning Guy]

I was referring to the B-29 living on in the B-50 as well as the direct tanker and cargo developments.

[R Pope]

The Russians didn't have the metalurgical savvy to duplicate the B-29 and maintain its structural strength so the Bull was somewhat of a Dog. The engines particularly were troublesome, even more so than the originals. The first Russian copy had American engines, "borrowed" from one of the interned aircraft, "Ramp Tramp" I think. Later on, the Russkies put turboprops on the AWACS version. Now there's a sight!

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but the B-50 isn't a true B-29, the lancs serving in '64 were proper lancs..................

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

but the B-50 isn't a true B-29, the lancs serving in '64 were proper lancs..................

The B-50 is almost 90% B-29 with up rated engines, gun controls and avionics, it also has a bigger fin/rudder. The difference in designation was for getting funding from Congress for the aircraft.

K-97 has an upper deck that expands cargo space and the Guppie/super guppies havs a radicaly expanded upper fuselage for outsized cargo (like rockets) and are still flying today.

[DaveB.inVa]

The last actual serving B-29 was retired in 1960 whereas the last B-50's were retired in 1967. But as others have said the B-29 lives on in the form of the Guppy as well as the Tu-95 Bear! Its an almost direct descendant of the B-29 as Tupolev used a lot of the design features from the Tu-4 in making the Bear. The cockpit layout is very similar and Ive read that even the fuselage diameter is the same!

Either way though I will say that the Best Bomber of WWII was definatley the B-29!

[plan_D]

How can you honestly say that the Tu-95, a turbo-prop 1960s Soviet bomber, descended from the B-29. Just because the Soviets copied the B-29 and made the Tu-4 Bull, it doesn't resemble the B-29 in ANYWAY! It's like saying the B-52 is a descendent of the Handley Page bombers of World War 1, after all they're both heavy bombers....

[GermansRGeniuses]

Ya know, they're actually Turboshafts...


What's a turboshaft, you ask?


Basically, it's a jet engine that has a turbine at the end, behind the air compressor baldes; the hot air from the jet turns the turbine, which in turn turns a shaft connected to a propellor... (In the Bear's case, a pair of contra-rotating props for each engine)



Random fact: each Nk-12 Turboshaft on Tu-95s, Tu-114s, Tu-126s, and An-22s is rated at FIFTEEN THOUSAND HORSE POWER!!!

[DaveB.inVa]

Well.... I gave the reasons. First off the Bear first flew in 1952, not in the 60's. The cockpit layout is very similar, with throttles on the left hand of the pilot and on the right hand of the copilot with a center aisle stand between them. The fuselages are the same diameter and if you can find a picture of the glass nosed bomber version, take a look at the greenhouse design and compare it to the B-29. You would be crazy to think that the Bear did not take many design features from the Tu-4. The Soviets would be crazy themselves not to develop and utilize certain design features present in the Tu-4. The Soviets didn't call the interned B-29's a gift from God for nothing! I have also read statements from Tupolev engineers that they used design features from the Tu-4. In fact Tu-95 design began shortly after full Tu-4 production began.

Sure you can compare a HP O400 to a B-52 and say theyre both heavy bombers and you can say the B-29 and the Bear are heavy bombers. But you can not deny that the Bear is similar to the B-29/Tu-4.

Answer this, do you think the Bear would have the design that it does (or even existed!) had the three B-29's not landed in the USSR??

[plan_D]

First of all, the Bear is still considered a 60s bomber because that's when it started probing British airspace. The RR Nene engine was designed in 1941, I hear no one ever calling it a 1940s Jet engine...

Second of all, the Bear looks NOTHING like a B-29. The control situation and same diameter is not a reason to call it a descendant...but then, let's just say all heavy bombers derived from the bombers before them.



B-29...




Tu-95..

I see your point if I hadn't been told any different I'd mix these two up...

They probably would have achieved something a long those lines. Seeing as the B-29 gave them no knowledge on TURBO-SHAFT (Thank you, GrG and no, I didn't ask :P ) or swept-back wings...

[DaveB.inVa]

Fine, whatever and go drink some beer. Who cares if its considered a 60's bomber because thats when it "probed" British airspace. Should I call the He111 a 40's bomber because it didnt "probe" British airspace until the BoB? ... and I suppose a B-17 should be considered a 40's bomber because it didn't "probe" German airspace until the early 40's. Nice rule, I'll have to remember the great "probe" rule!

Your decended from your grandmother and I hope to goodness you dont look exactly like her... although you do have some traits or genes.

My point is that the Soviet engineers said they used design features from the Tu-4 to develop the Tu-95. Whatever the heck that means to you, fine. You can go argue with them, after all they were the guys who said they used the Tu-4 to develop the Tu-95. I was just repeating what they said... you know... because I figure they might have some insight on the subject. Next time I need to know something about an aircraft, or anything, I'm coming to you. Forget the SOB that designed the thing, I'm coming to you!