PDA

View Full Version : The B-29



owlwatcher
06-18-2004, 02:28 PM
Wonder how it will compare to the B-17?
AS to how hard it will be to shoot down?
What model will we be recieving?
What Japs. planes will we get to intercept it?
Noticed the B-29 had a 20mm in the tail.

owlwatcher
06-18-2004, 02:28 PM
Wonder how it will compare to the B-17?
AS to how hard it will be to shoot down?
What model will we be recieving?
What Japs. planes will we get to intercept it?
Noticed the B-29 had a 20mm in the tail.

VF-17_Jolly
06-18-2004, 02:37 PM
Think "Deathstar"......... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.skyknights.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/jolly.jpg

RedDeth
06-18-2004, 02:45 PM
B-29s couldnt evade well. if they start tilting wings like bombers can do now with diving and such they will cartwheel and fall.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://66.237.29.231/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg

Droopsnoot
06-18-2004, 03:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by owlwatcher:
Wonder how it will compare to the B-17?
AS to how hard it will be to shoot down?
What model will we be recieving?
What Japs. planes will we get to intercept it?
Noticed the B-29 had a 20mm in the tail.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The B-29 could carry a maximum load of forty 500 pound General Purpose bombs for 4,000 miles.

It had a computer operated remote control Central Fire Control system with a maximum of five turrets; a maximum of 12 caliber fifty machine guns and, as you say a 20mm stinger in thr tail.

The crew compartments were pressurized and the crews operated in a shirt sleeve environment even at altitude over enemy territory.

The later B-29's had Pneumatic bomb doors that could open in three seconds, and after emptying the bomb bays , snap shut in about 5 seconds, as compasred to the B=17 with woefully slow electricslly operated doors.

The B-29 bombed at an Indicated Air Spoeed of 180 to 200 mph while the B-17 usually bombed at 150.

The B-29's ability to absorb punishment was similar to that of the B-17, I believe, but I have no proof other than the following personal experience...

I was in one that entered a firetorm at 7,000 feet and tumbled uncontrollably for three full rolls, as the uopdrafts tossed it up to over 21,000 feet before finally spitting it out updside down, with three engines on fire.

The airoplane was rolled upright, the fires were extinguished and one engine feathered.

The airplane flew back from inland on Honshu to Iwo Jima on 2 engines and only partial puwer on the third, (which was on the same side as the featherd engine) The main electrical system was out so that no equipment worked.)

At Iwo,we discovered that the wings had been warped so badly that the flaps would not come down, even though we had restored some electricsl power. The gear however did come down and apparently locked... we couldn't tell until after touch down.

At Iwo,the engines and electrical system were repaired and rhe flaps freed, so we took the plane back to Tinian, a flight of several hours.

Thereafter , the plane flew every mission it was scheduled for, though admittedly its cruise performance was slightly worse than it had been before. It flew slightly sideways theereafter.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I'm not sure a B-17 would have stood up to such treatment.

We will probably get the B-29 A model in PF.

The 20 mm was removed from many B-29's leaving only twin 50's in the tail. Some b-29s had the 50's removed as well. (Why I'm not sure.)

Though the B-29 was much bigger than the B-17 it was still an easy airplane to control.

The early model's engines had a tendency to overheat though, which made take-offs interesting. Sometimes we flew for several miles after lift-off before the engines were cool enough to climb. Later mods corrected that to a certain extent however.

In combat, as we may have it in PF, every take-off was at or near maximum gross weight, so they were never considered routine.

Of course the same could also be said of the B-17 and B=24's used in combat.

If the B-29s are flyable in PF you will find that the tactics used by the B-29s were quite different from those of either the daylight bombing by the B-17s and B-24s, or the night heavy bombing missions flown by the British.

It could add a new dimension to combat flight simulations, particularly if it includes provision for separate players cooperating on each B-29 in multiplayer.

[This message was edited by Droopsnoot on Fri June 18 2004 at 02:48 PM.]

NegativeGee
06-18-2004, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What Japs. planes will we get to intercept it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good question!

There are already the Ki-84's, and they made some B-29 intercepts.

There is the Ki-44, which off course we (read me lol) all want flyable, although from what I've read they had a tough time against the Superforts and were not very successful.

Ki-45 Toryu's, J2M2's Ki-61's, there are lots off possibilites I suppose. If only we had that plane list http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Also, thankyou Droopsnoot for that story- hair raising stuff! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - G√ľnther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

owlwatcher
06-18-2004, 03:38 PM
Good information

The 20 mm was removed from many B-29's leaving only twin 50's on the tail. Still others had them removed as well. (Why I'm not sure.)

Not sure it maybe about weight in the tail from carrying the 20mm and it's ammo. The tail weight needed to be lighter.

Droopsnoot
06-18-2004, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
B-29s couldnt evade well. if they start tilting wings like bombers can do now with diving and such they will cartwheel and fall.

http://www.fighterjocks.net home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://66.237.29.231/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_10834584
07_knightsmove-taylor.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that so????? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Latico
06-18-2004, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Droopsnoot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
B-29s couldnt evade well. if they start tilting wings like bombers can do now with diving and such they will cartwheel and fall.

http://www.fighterjocks.net home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://66.237.29.231/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_10834584
07_knightsmove-taylor.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that so????? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oooooooooooooohhhhh......... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

I think the last thing you want to do is try to tell a veteran WWII bomber crewman what those heavies capabilites are.

Giganoni
06-18-2004, 04:47 PM
I have Henry Sakaida's book B29-Hunters of the JAAF it seems from reading that source that the B-29 was fairly tough. Sometimes it could survive even two ramming attacks (at least for awhile). Of course this was the exception to the rule and probably were only glanced. Still seems that the engines would be the biggest part weakspot. Also Japanese interceptors didn't always have the hardest hitting armament. Versions of the Ki-44 , Ki-61, and Ki-84 had big guns, as well as the J2m3. Also the versions of the Ki-45 could at times pack a punch.

Also seems that the Bomber return fire despite its impressive guns was largely inaccurate unless the Japanese pilot gave himself up as an easy target. Yet who knows, according to Sakaida though 360 B-29s were lost on combat missions (including operational losses during those missions) so it wasn't invincible.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg

Fliger747
06-18-2004, 05:03 PM
I had "fed" riding along in the jumpseat one night, some years ago and turns out he had flown the B-29 and B-50 in Korea. The standard "Mig evasion" was to throw all of the flaps out and fly and manuver at fairly slow airspeed giving them very little time to line up on an unstable target.

The B-29's were used in various modes, some in the daylight "high/fast" coridor, where they were hard to intercept and CATCH, and at night at lower altitude. At night, due to little in the way of Japanese night fighters, some of the armamement was stripped for payload and speed.

A great airplane IF you have a runway long enough!

Droopsnoot
06-18-2004, 05:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
I have Henry Sakaida's book _B29-Hunters of the JAAF_ it seems from reading that source that the B-29 was fairly tough. Sometimes it could survive even two ramming attacks (at least for awhile). Of course this was the exception to the rule and probably were only glanced. Still seems that the engines would be the biggest part weakspot. Also Japanese interceptors didn't always have the hardest hitting armament. Versions of the Ki-44 , Ki-61, and Ki-84 had big guns, as well as the J2m3. Also the versions of the Ki-45 could at times pack a punch.

Also seems that the Bomber return fire despite its impressive guns was largely inaccurate unless the Japanese pilot gave himself up as an easy target. Yet who knows, according to Sakaida though 360 B-29s were lost on combat missions (including operational losses during those missions) so it wasn't invincible.

http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/v225/giganoni/IL2/giganoni2.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasn't our mission to knock down Japanese planes.

As a bombardier, I often did final calculations prior to the Initial Point to fine tune the settings in my bombsight for the exact target area.

At such times I maintained primary control of the upper four gun turret, until I was on the bomb run itself.

If there were a Japanese fighter lurking out of range at 2:30 or 9:30, and I saw him start to bank in for an attack,I would fire at him.

But without bothering to frame his wings, and with the reticle completely closed down. This elevated my guns to cancel out max computed bullet drop at exreme range.

I would squeeze off a short burst and watch him change his mind. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

He knew he was out of range, so the burst of tracer from four guns coming into his area, the moment he started in, was usually enough to change his mind, even though they didn't hit him.(so far as I know).

Then I could go back to my calculations. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Snuffy Smith
06-18-2004, 06:05 PM
The 20s in the tail were mainly taken out for weight. Also, often the chin turret was removed to reduce drag. Taking off with a full combat load (overload) was always exicting.

I wanted wings till I got the gosh darned things; now I don't want'em anymore. I just want the peek-a-boo blonde.
http://mysite.verizon.net/res7kxfm/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/lakeveronicasalute231.jpg

[This message was edited by Snuffy Smith on Tue July 27 2004 at 10:11 PM.]

Texas LongHorn
06-18-2004, 10:04 PM
RedDeth wrote: "B-29s couldnt evade well. if they start tilting wings like bombers can do now with diving and such they will cartwheel and fall." Not so fast my friend &lt;ggg.&gt; I remember reading about a remarkable feat Tibbets pulled off to show the agility of the big bomber. Shortly after arriving in the PTO with his group he took up some bigshot General to show off his baby. I guess there was some doubt about being able to lift off with a full load of fuel and the simulated weight of the A-Bomb. Tibbets roared down the runway and about halfway down the strip calmly shuts off BOTH engines on the SAME side and feathers the props. The aircraft climbed out and the engines were restarted. Then after climbing to a relatively modest altitude he pulled the 29 up into a hammerhead stall!!! Pulling out pretty close to the ground he zoom climbed and repeated the entire process a few times. Needless to say the flying qualities of the 29 were well proven that day. The General had to change his shorts but was certainly a believer after that little show. All the best, LongHorn

http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v149/msdavis/My_Sig_Image2.jpg

RedDeth
06-19-2004, 04:32 AM
DUDE! texas longhorn if that stunt was done in a full load b29 they woulda most likely all hit the ground. im not that old but ive watched documentaries on the plane and pilots talk about how dangerous it was to fly those things loaded to the gills and having to take out ammo and guns for long missions due to wait of payload.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://66.237.29.231/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg

Droopsnoot
06-19-2004, 05:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
DUDE! texas longhorn if that stunt was done in a full load b29 they woulda most likely all hit the ground. im not that old but ive watched documentaries on the plane and pilots talk about how dangerous it was to fly those things loaded to the gills and having to take out ammo and guns for long missions due to wait of payload.



http://www.fighterjocks.net home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://66.237.29.231/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never heard of that and I was associted with the bird from 1944 to 1951.

Must have been the 21st AF that did that gun removal bit. Our guns only came out for cleaning and routine maintenanxce, and went back in for the next mission.

Maybe it was in Korea they did that.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

The B-29 was easy to fly and it was sometimes required to do some very drastic maneuvers and it did them well.

[This message was edited by Droopsnoot on Sat June 19 2004 at 05:08 AM.]

owlwatcher
06-19-2004, 06:23 AM
The guns were removed for bigger bomb loads in the night bombing missions of Japan.
The night bombing missions were for bombing accurcy cause of high winds over Japan high alitude bombing was found to be insffective.
Low alitude at night were the most effective ways to get the bombs on target.

Texas LongHorn
06-19-2004, 06:34 AM
RedDeth, I figured out which book it is, check out the 1977 "Enola Gay" by Gordon Thomas. His original book was somewhat fictionalized and made into a TV movie. The book itself is the real McCoy, with interviews of the crews. The wild thing is that Tibbets didn't consider himself the best pilot in the group. He had a number of characters that should have been in irons rather than wearing wings, sorta' like the Black Sheep of bombers. But could these boys fly! The book is full of anecdotes, like the little story of deployment to the PTO. It seems two of the 29's detoured to Cuba to pick up plane loads of Scotch and Smokes before flying across the Pacific. A B-29 can hold alot of both! One other incident in the book describes a hotshot XO doing stunts around the field at extreme low altitude. The aircraft was found to be missing about four feet of wingtip upon landing. Now THAT'S flying low &lt;ggg.&gt; All the best, LongHorn

http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v149/msdavis/My_Sig_Image2.jpg

Copperhead310th
06-19-2004, 09:39 AM
Sorry Red death but i can't belive your going to disagree with some one who actually was a Bombadier on the aircraft in question.

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

Droopsnoot
06-19-2004, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by owlwatcher:
The guns were removed for bigger bomb loads in the night bombing missions of Japan.
The night bombing missions were for bombing accurcy cause of high winds over Japan high alitude bombing was found to be insffective.
Low alitude at night were the most effective ways to get the bombs on target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I participated in several fire bombing raids including the one on Aomori which was way up on the extreme tip of Honshu. My outfit didn't remove our guns.

The outfits on Guam flew the furthest. Perhaps they did.

RedDeth
06-19-2004, 01:57 PM
im not disagreeing with ds. i just rewatched a documentary on the last bomb raids of ww2 about the b29s. the missions were so long the b29s about a third of them ran out of fuel on approach back to base. but made it.

and by more than one pilot account they had the planes loaded down and i forget the exact circumstances whether heat thermals or flak whatnot but they said once those wings got pointed at the ground they were prettey much screwed and wouldnt be able to recover aka goin down. now if DS says thats not so then i will believe him.

but this was actual pilots from these missions.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://66.237.29.231/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1083458407_knightsmove-taylor.jpg

Droopsnoot
06-19-2004, 08:50 PM
It is true that we came back low fuel and that we always made heavy takeoffs, but not necessarily because of the length of the mission.,(although they did average somewhere over 15 hours long).

After we got Iwo Jima as an emergency base, about half way between the Home islands and the Mariannas, General LeMay initiated a policy that stipulated that the airplanes be dipsticked after every mission and if any particular plane had an extra 500 pounds of fuel in it, for the next mission, that airplane had 500 lbs of fuel deducted from what the mission was planned to require, and another 500 pound bomb put aboard.

He could do this because we figured go or no go as we approached Iwo. If we calculated that our fuel consumption was such that we could make it back from where we were to our home base, we didn't land at Iwo. If it looked like we couldn't make it we landed and picked up more fuel.

It was a matter of pride to handle our cruise control in such a professional manner that we didn't have to land at Iwo, so the tendency was to cut things pretty close.

As a result when we got back to Tinian, there ensued what we jokingly called the Tinian Sweepstakes wherein , because we were ALL low fuel, declaring "low fuel" to the tower, to request priority for landing was useless.

Instead everybody endeavored to cut the others out of the pattern and get on final approach ahead of them. Once on final you had landing priority http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sometimes we were so low on fuel that the angle of approach would cause fuel to be trapped in the lowest tank and be unuseable.

Engineers frequently kept engines running by transferring fuel from high tank to low tank all the way doewn the final, to keep the engines from quittng.

Engines sometimes quit during the landing roll and sometimes planes had to ditch instead of landing.

So your information there is correct, except for the reason.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But I'm afraid that I must disagree about that low wing uncontrollability bit. Somwewhere on this forum I described a mission wherein my plane was caught in a firestorm and tumbled through three complete rolls, yet it was able to be controlled,and levelled out fron upside down without great loss of altitude from where the updrafts turned us loose. and then it was flown back to land at Iwo.

Also, the B-29, without going into details of why, routinely performed tactics that got a wing down as you described.

Adnittedly it is not recommended in the tech order that you do near vertical banks with a B-29 (or with any other Heavy or Very heavy Bomber), but recovering from an unusual position like that probably depended on the skill of the pilot... The '29, as you will see (if we get a flyable one with the correct FM) DID have a relatively slow roll rate as compared to planes with less wing area.

Ruy Horta
06-20-2004, 12:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Droopsnoot:
But I'm afraid that I must disagree about that low wing uncontrollability bit. Somwewhere on this forum I described a mission wherein my plane was caught in a firestorm and tumbled through three complete rolls, yet it was able to be controlled,and levelled out fron upside down without great loss of altitude from where the updrafts turned us loose. and then it was flown back to land at Iwo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You did three complete rolls going down, how much altitude did you loose and how violent was the rolling, do you still remember?

Didn't anyone in the crew think of bailing with three engines on fire, rolling to mother earth?

Plenty of crew would have jumped if I understand the conditions and fit them to the ETO.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta

Droopsnoot
06-20-2004, 06:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Droopsnoot:
But I'm afraid that I must disagree about that low wing uncontrollability bit. Somwewhere on this forum I described a mission wherein my plane was caught in a firestorm and tumbled through three complete rolls, yet it was able to be controlled,and levelled out fron upside down without great loss of altitude from where the updrafts turned us loose. and then it was flown back to land at Iwo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You did three complete rolls going down, how much altitude did you loose and how violent was the rolling, do you still remember?

Didn't anyone in the crew think of bailing with three engines on fire, rolling to mother earth?

Plenty of crew would have jumped if I understand the conditions and fit them to the ETO.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif
Ruy Horta
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The three rolls were done while the updraft inside the firestorm was carrying us UP from 7,000 feet to about 21,000 feet, (The metro people estimated that the updrafts in a firestornm are over 100 mph.)

One of the fires was from burning debris caught in the airscoop , the other two were actual engine damage.

I have no idea how much altitude we lost for we were at 21,000' after things simmered down, and we could take stock.

My point is that the plane was controllable as we rolled from inverted back upright and our wings certainly were perpendicular to the ground at some point at that time..

By the time we could jump we knew we didn't have to. It all seemed to happen fast but what the elapsed time was I don't know.

In retrospect, if we had had to jump we would have been up the crick for we wore harnesses with detatchable chest packs and we would never have found where they had been tossed to in the dark. Only one man had a complete chute on. He told us that he had bounced off the "roof" three times. Thats why we figured we had been tumbled three times.

Actually, all I remember was rapid changes in weight, smelling burning flesh and wood smoke, and how completely dark it was., Everything was black until we came out of the top of the cloud. Then the fire on the ground lit things up for us and we could tell which way was up.

Can I send you a PM? I would like to send you my email address so we can discuss the "Photo-Joe" concept further.

[This message was edited by Droopsnoot on Sun June 20 2004 at 05:59 AM.]

Magister__Ludi
06-21-2004, 01:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Droopsnoot:

The B-29 could carry a maximum load of forty 500 pound General Purpose bombs for 4,000 miles.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


40 x 500lb was the maximum payload, only for short range missions.

Normal payload was:
5000lb for 3200miles at 25000ft or
12000lb for 3200miles at 10000ft.

Sure payload/range capability was much better than of B-17 or B-24, hence it was classified as "very heavy" bomber.

Normal payload for B-17G was
4000lb for 1800miles at 25000ft

Normal payload for B-24J was
5000lb for 1700miles at 25000ft

Normal payload for He-177A-5 was
6000lb for 3100miles at 20000ft
--

SkyChimp
06-21-2004, 06:25 PM
The USAAF reclassified the B-17 as a medium bomber sometime in 1944. The B-29 was classified as a heavy bomber. By 1950, the B-29 was classified as a medium bomber as well.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

Droopsnoot
06-22-2004, 12:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Droopsnoot:

The B-29 could carry a maximum load of forty 500 pound General Purpose bombs for 4,000 miles.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


40 x 500lb was the maximum payload, only for short range missions.

Normal payload was:
5000lb for 3200miles at 25000ft or
12000lb for 3200miles at 10000ft.

You are right of course... I gave max load and max distance

However we didn't fly at 25000 feet for a whole mission. We climbed gradually as we burned off fuel.and were only above 20,000 feet for short periods during the mission.

I carried 40 500 pounders several times to Japanese Home Island targets, but of course I didn't bring them back to Tinian. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Each of those missions was at least 15 hours long, which is not exactly a short mission, but then , I only carried them half way.

I guess seven hours plus would qualify as a "short" mission.

I assume you got those figures out of the tech order, but the tech order doesn't take into account the way the missions were actually flown.

Used as you used them, however, they do make a good measuring stick for comparing the various bombers....which is what this thread is about.

Thanks! Would you pass those figures on to Luthier?

After the war it becaame moot because we didn't carry 500 pounders and we had Air Refuelling... and before we had air refuelling, we solved the problem in a different way.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[This message was edited by Droopsnoot on Mon June 21 2004 at 11:49 PM.]

BigKahuna_GS
06-24-2004, 02:01 PM
S!

Thanks DroopSnoot !

For your service to your country. It is allways great to hear directly from someone who was "there". Personal experiances fill in the areas where people just dont know what happened.

I too had read were Gen Curtis LeMay had orderd defensive guns removed on night time missions for greater bomb loads. I guess that would depend on where you were flying from to the target area.

A couple of interesting stories I remember reading was a side blister blew off and the B-29 depressurized. The gunner was thought to be lost and when crew memebers got to his station, there in the slipstream banging against the side of the plane was the gunner still tethered to the plane by a safety strap. The gunner suffered some frostbite but was pulled back into the B-29.

The other story was a Medal of Honor recipient. A B-29 crew member accidently missed the portal for firing a phosphourus type marking flare and the B-29 was in danger of catching fire/exploding. Another crew member actually picked up the flare and hand carried it all the way to the portal thus saving the plane and the entire crew. He ended up losing both hands and parts of his arm, 3rd degree burns and his vision was damged. What an incredible selfless act of bravery to save his fellow crewmates.


______

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

Droopsnoot
06-24-2004, 07:10 PM
Yes, Kahuna,
Ironic as it may seem, the B-29 campaign could be considered a "Forgotten Battle", like many more in the Pacific Theater of Operations, thanks to emphasis on the war in the ETO, and the tremendouds publicity surrounding the delivery of the Atomic Bombs.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the knowledge of it.

Just the other day my Disabled American Veterans magazine recounted the events surrounding the winning of that Medal of Honor. You will be pleased to learn that he is still alive and has had a reasonably full life, dispite his handicapping injuries.

huggy87
06-25-2004, 11:22 AM
I salute you Droopsnoot for your service during the war and your activity in the forums. One of my Grandfather's is 85 years old and he cannot even figure out how to turn on his computer. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I find it interesting that with the passage of time, veterans of WW2 are more apt to talk about their experiences. My grandfathers barely said two words about their involvelment in the war for most of their lives. Now they tell me the most fantastic stories. Maybe it is an attempt to leave a piece of themselves behind.

One of my Grandfathers was a B-24 pilot in the PTO. He has been going to Bomber group reunions for about ten years now. Sadly, the reunions are getting thinner every year.

I've enjoyed your stories and insights. I am an FA-18 pilot in the US Navy and have seen combat over Iraq and Afghanistan. I must say, that the enemy we faced was very incompetent and ill equipped compared to what you and every young flier faced in WW2.

Salute

Huggy

Droopsnoot
06-25-2004, 06:45 PM
Hi Huggy,

Perhaps when I am 85 in 2 1/2 more years I won't remember how to turn on my computer either http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

As a combat pilot yourself, I'm sure that you have learned that people cannot really grasp what it is like. That's why, for years I didn't talk much about it.

When I advised the Developers of B17 II however, it was their aim to produce a battle simulation that SHOWED people what it was like, so they asked me to help them. This forced me to "tell it like it was" to a group who weren't just after cheap thrills or worse, Bleeding Hearts who judgmentally sought to label me a murderer.

I have found that those interested in flight simulations are not judgemental, for the most part but are eager to learn , so now I talk freely from an instructional standpoint, to clear up misconcepotions, drawing on my experience for illustrative examples.( I was a B-47 Flight Simulator Instructor Pilot.for two years during my time in service,and also hold all the flying ratings tha Air Force had except radio operator.)

Yes, there are fewer of us every year and it is strange to hsve people think of me like I thought of the Civil War vets You see I am still 22 inside... that was a vintage year! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sakai9745
06-25-2004, 07:28 PM
To both Huggy and Droopsnoot,

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

I served myself - Desert Storm in '91 in P-3s doing reconnasance - and had a VERY SMALL taste of combat (we got ourselves painted by surface radar for a few seconds, and boy did we run! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). I can never imagine what it would be being in the thick of it as you two have been, and can only be eternally grateful for the efforts and sacrafice of those who have put it on the line for their country.

My own grandfather fought as a medic for a guerilla unit in the Philippines, and he too would never speak of his experiences, all the way to his death a few years aback. I never would push the matter, considering what little I heard about those times from my grandmother. A show on TV recently gave me a little more insight on this. In an interview after finding the Yorktown, Ballard made one powerful observation about the American and Japanese veterans who accompanied him on the expedition, and how their own experiences in the war affected them -

"They're hurting, and they're telling us, 'Don't do this. It isn't... fun'."

Al - SF, Calif

"Defense Dept regrets to inform you that your sons are dead cause they were stupid."