Best Bomber of WW2 (continued)

DaveB.inVa · 06-02-2005, 06:34 PM

I believe however that your logic for this is flawed. You totally ignore the weight of the aircraft as well. These values are using max overload figures.

B-29 15.34 lbs per hp

Avro Lancaster 10.7 lbs per hp

B-17G 15 lbs per hp

Also you use given rated military or takeoff power levels. Note that these power levels are not maintained throughout the flight, just as no aircraft flew at its maximum speed throughout the flight. These power levels may also greatly differ due to altitude. In short those figures arent nearly as important as you think!

Just as a note as well, by use of different shackle arrangements and a combination of incendiary and general purpose high explosive bombs the B-29 could carry an internal load of 22,800 pounds. The B-29 was also equipped with 4 underwing hardpoints that could accomodate up to a 4000 lb bomb per hardpoint.

Plus you can't forget this picture. I originally got the picture from the B-29 Superfortress Yahoo group however the picture is also seen at this site. http://members.aol.com/nukeinfo2/

FLYBOYJ · 06-02-2005, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

yeah, although the B-29 didn't do as well as many people would think it would do i think.....

I believe under 300 B-29s were lost between 44 and 45, the worse was 29 in a 525 plane raid. In the beginning it had lots of engine problems, but by June 45 it was King!

the lancaster kicks ass · 06-03-2005, 04:14 AM

Dave i was using the figures to simply show how much payload the planes could take per Hp, i should not have taken into account all up aircraft weight, as this is no indication of anything!!

and do you think i am so mind numbingly stupid that i do not know that aircraft don't fly at full power for the whole flight?? but i used the maximum horse power as that's the maximum available, which figured would you rather i used? would it make you happy if i tried to find an average horse power from every flight of every aircraft in the war??

and i couldn't give a **** about what thye B-29 could or could not carry, fact is, she never carried and dropped two tallboys in combat it WWII, as such i aint counting it, all my sources state the maximum payload of the B-29 as 20,000lbs, why?? because that's the generally accepted combat maximum, all the planes could carry more than the listed maximum if they wanted, but i'm using very widely accepted figures, i'm willing to trust my figures given the accepted combat maximum over one person, who, if i might add, has a shocking manner when talking to people, that says the B-29 could carry more with, however he does not give any source, and does not even say if it carried that ammount in comabt, what is your source?? i will gladly post a list of mine if you so wish, i'm willing to bet good money that my sources are more numerous and reliable than yours..........

furthermore the figures were not meant to be anything definitive, i stated that very clearly when i posted them, i simply did it to give poeple an idea of the figures, but obviously you did not get that, and you strive for something more definitive, well if you want something better, you're more than welcome to bog off and do it yourself rather than complain to me, i'll look forward to see your much improved version..............

cheddar cheese · 06-03-2005, 08:39 AM

You're contradicting yourself big time lanc...you say the most widely accepted combat maximum but that means you should alter the B-17's to ~6000lbs...not 17,600lbs as I severly doubt it carried this much in combat...and not every Lancaster could carry 22,000lbs, just the specially modified Dambusters ones, I believe the general max. payload for a normal Lancaster was 18,000lbs...

And no need to get so stressed out about it...I often wonder why everyone here is so touchy?

plan_D · 06-03-2005, 09:09 AM

I'm not touchy, NS won't let me.

cheddar cheese · 06-03-2005, 09:10 AM

Ok, my immense ESP skills detect that this thread is degrading into category WRONG....

plan_D · 06-03-2005, 09:15 AM

I think the fact that lanc has used 17,600 lbs and 22,000 lbs as maximum combat loads is right. The maximum combat load is different from maximum load, the B-29 never carried those loads into combat so it's not a combat load.

Although, I do think the P-38 load should be changed to 5,200 lbs because it did carry it in combat.

MP-Willow · 06-03-2005, 12:25 PM

Lanc, thanks for the list. I will try to look about the B-17G and also question when looking at this load to Hp we sould take into account the model. When you Say Lancaster is it the mark One or Ten?

The B-24 normally carried 8 to 12 thousdand for combat, that is for G to L models. But then crews took up icecream to chill for desert as wel

DaveB.inVa · 06-03-2005, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

Dave i was using the figures to simply show how much payload the planes could take per Hp, i should not have taken into account all up aircraft weight, as this is no indication of anything!!

How do you figure you shouldn't figure the aircraft weight as well? Do the engines not have to carry the whole aircraft or just the playload?

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

and do you think i am so mind numbingly stupid that i do not know that aircraft don't fly at full power for the whole flight?? but i used the maximum horse power as that's the maximum available, which figured would you rather i used? would it make you happy if i tried to find an average horse power from every flight of every aircraft in the war??

Never did say you were mind numbingly stupid, however at times like this I do wonder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

and i couldn't give a s**t about what thye B-29 could or could not carry

I feel the exact same towards the Lancaster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

fact is, she never carried and dropped two tallboys in combat it WWII, as such i aint counting it

Sounds like a case of jealousy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

all my sources state the maximum payload of the B-29 as 20,000lbs, why?? because that's the generally accepted combat maximum, all the planes could carry more than the listed maximum if they wanted, but i'm using very widely accepted figures

Why not tell the whole story with the Lancaster. You know very well the Lancasters modified to carry one tallboy or grand slam were modified to reduce weight. I do have no doubt however that they could carry the bomb without these modifications.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

i'm willing to trust my figures given the accepted combat maximum over one person who, if i might add, has a shocking manner when talking to people, that says the B-29 could carry more with, however he does not give any source, and does not even say if it carried that ammount in comabt, what is your source?? i will gladly post a list of mine if you so wish, i'm willing to bet good money that my sources are more numerous and reliable than yours..........

Maybe your sources are more numerous for the Lancaster, I do however doubt it for the B-29.

Heres my source http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_5.html
Also I own references 1-3 on that page, plus 3 more that do reference to the B-29 carrying the aforementioned load. I also have 3 other great references that focus only on the B-29 and the 509th Composite Group. This may not be a large number of references but these are complete books that deal only with the B-29 and not a plethora of books that provide "general information" with a story. I do have some books however that do provide "general information" and a story, usually these mention the Lancaster in there somewhere. I also can get just about any bit of information you'd like from the B-29 Yahoo group. I've met quite a few of these great veterans and have been extremely honored to be able to view the volumes of reference material they possess. I also respect and greatly appreciate the time and knowledge they are willing to give freely to anyone who asks.

One such veteran lives just a few miles from my college apartment. His home and life revolves more around the B-29 than any one person I know and dare I say revolves even more around the B-29 than your life revolves around the Lancaster. He has two full rooms and a garage absolutely filled with technical manuals on the B-29 along with an almost complete history of the B-29 program. His material covers everything from the part numbers and diagrams for the B-29's Minneapolis Honeywell electronic turbo controls all the way to the crew names and mission lists for the Boeing "Washington" that your country used after WWII. I have had the joy of browsing all of this at will. He is just happy that someone else besides him appreciates the B-29 and the veterans that fought with her.

Please elaborate on the "shocking manner" in which I talk to people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

furthermore the figures were not meant to be anything definitive, i stated that very clearly when i posted them, i simply did it to give poeple an idea of the figures, but obviously you did not get that, and you strive for something more definitive, well if you want something better, you're more than welcome to bog off and do it yourself rather than complain to me, i'll look forward to see your much improved version..............

I'm not complaining at all, I'm just stating the facts. I really am not out to get you and am not at all opposed to your views of the Lancaster or its abilities. I do notice however that anytime anyone mentions the B-29 that it sends you into a complete mental breakdown. I don't know why this happens, though at times I suspect you are slightly envious of the B-29 or are perhaps reluctant to recognize any figures that may trump the figures of the Lancaster. That is fine by me. I do not envy the Lancaster nor its crews. I also do not envy that the Lancaster was used for certain missions. I do however disagree when someone states that no other aircraft would have been able to perform such operations. .

In conclusion Im not out to get you and I feel no animosity toward you. I dont even want to anger you in any way. Im just about the facts and would wish to debate these facts in a calm civil manner that does not degrade to profanity. I like your posts and am actually glad your around because you're one of the few "bomber people" on this board even if I don't see eye to eye with some of your posts.

Nonskimmer · 06-03-2005, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

I'm not touchy, NS won't let me.

Hey, hey, don't point that thing at me! I just don't want people here to kill each other. Beyond that, you be as touchy as you like! :-"

Soren · 06-03-2005, 05:43 PM

Nice post DaveB.

Nonskimmer · 06-03-2005, 05:45 PM

Agreed. Well said.

trackend · 06-04-2005, 04:25 AM

I sometimes feel guys that threads go a bit off course more through Passion about our favourite aircraft or subject than anything else. I am as much to blame as anyone else, why we pick on certain planes as our personel choice perhaps would make an interesting thread finding out what makes use feel this way about particular aircraft.
Regarding the two aircraft in question I think the B29 probably was a better plane but as its introduction was towards the latter part of the war (I think April 1944) the Lancaster and the B17 played far more significant roles in the conflict and of these two I think the Lanc probably carried a bigger payload overall to the enemy which at the end of the day is what a bomber is supposed to do.
As far as which could carry what between the B29 & the Lanc I'll leave that to you guys to sort out.
Can I just ask you to be nice as it does tend to detract from ( for me) an interesting topic and I would like to learn more. As it stands I already know all the insults available in the English language (and a few I've invented myself) and that includes Les's colourful turn of phrase's (well almost all of Les's )

Cheers fellas.
Uncle Lee

cheddar cheese · 06-04-2005, 12:10 PM

Well said DaveB.

the lancaster kicks ass · 06-04-2005, 12:40 PM

hey hey hey, when did this turn into lanc Vs. B-29?? i never turned this into a lanc Vs. B-29 contest, in actual fact i have in the past admitted that the B-29 is a better bomber than the lancaster, however as you all seem to be so quick to judge to judge me when you know nothing of my posting history, you assume that i automatically think the lanc was the best thing since sliced bread, i know this is not the case and that the B-29 was a better bomber, get my full opinion before you judge me like that.......