PDA

View Full Version : B-29 War Machine Ultimate Quality



smoker1911
03-18-2008, 08:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmtEcds31MM&feature=related

smoker1911
03-18-2008, 08:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmtEcds31MM&feature=related

DKoor
03-19-2008, 06:07 AM
That was the ultimate bomber in ww2.
JAAF had serious problems in getting their fighters to successfully intercept swarms of those beasts.
One of the problems was extremely high altitudes of operations (over 9,000m, later sorties were flown on lower alts) in comparison to usual ww2 air battles.
All around icing, lack of power due to freezing, attenuate air - engine problems, gun jamming due to cold.... etc.
Considering how hard must have been to bring one such big bomber down it's no wonder they often resort to ramming it in order to bring the bomber down.

Once USAF started with low alt operations they have increased their strike rate and it was practically over for the Japanese after B-29s got escort in the shape of P-51.

Ratsack
03-19-2008, 06:55 AM
It wasn't very successful initially. It wasn't just a case of poor supply in China, either. Even the first operations from the captured islands weren't a roaring success, and the Nipponese put up a surprisingly good defense considering their limited technical resources at that time.

The later bombing efforts by saturation from low alt were a different story, though. High altitude airframe and engines, pressurized, with robot guns...succeeds at 5,000 feet.

Good design.

And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

cheers,
Ratsack

HayateAce
03-19-2008, 07:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
...and it was practically over for the Japanese after B-29s got escort in the shape of P-51. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strange, that's the second WW2 theater of operations the P51 had an effect on the outcome....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

http://stores.wildmanngraphics.com/catalog/P%2051,s%20on%20duty%20.jpg

Skoshi Tiger
03-19-2008, 08:05 AM
I work in a High School. One of the Science teachers was showing a film about nuclear energy.

At the start he told the kids to ask question if they didn't understand something.

They they had a segement in it about the B-29's dropping the Atomic bombs.

One of the kids put up his hand so the teacher paused the DVD.

"If they're droppin' an Atom Bomb, why are they using such and old plane?" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

The said science teacher spent the next three weeks walking around saying he hoped to die early rather than live in a world controlled by the next generation!!!!!!!

Friendly_flyer
03-19-2008, 08:23 AM
I wonder how the B-29 would have fared in Europe against late war Luftwaffe designs.

Ratsack
03-19-2008, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
I wonder how the B-29 would have fared in Europe against late war Luftwaffe designs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see that it was any more capable of defending itself than the other American heavies. Without escort I think it would've discovered the same world of hurt the other USAAF heavies did.

However, with its higher speed and greater range, it would've been more effective than the B-17 or B-24 when escorted. Allowing the close escorts to cruise at a slightly higher speed might have increased the escorted range, too.

cheers,
Ratsack

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-19-2008, 08:47 AM
Hypothetically irrelevant considering the odds would have still been 20:1

Heck, a single FW with a pair of 30mm and a pair of 20mm is more than a match for any bomber provided they aren't harassed by pesky Jugs and ponies. Doesn't matter what type of bomber it was.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

edit - Ratsack beat me to it...basically the same thing.

luftluuver
03-19-2008, 08:51 AM
Most likely better than the B-17s and B-24s. For starters, a 100mph increase cruising speed over the B-17s and B-24s would make interception somewhat harder.

Forgot. It could carry 3-4 times the bomb load of the B-17 and B-24.

Patriot_Act
03-19-2008, 11:54 AM
B-29 was the ultimate bomber of WWII, and the ultimate flying machine of the era.
Although lacking swept wings and jets the airframe became the arcgetype
for most large airliners and bombers
in the US and soviet Union to date.
Add swept wings jets, and a nose job and you
get the prototype for the boeing 707.

B-29 was a excellent investment for the future
of far greater importance than the designers could have imagined.
Kind of mind blowing to think that the B-29
also revolutionised Soviet aircraft design......
After all they liked it so much that Stalin ordered it copied http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

P.A.

ARCHIE_CALVERT
03-19-2008, 12:31 PM
Yes brilliant bomber... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

But the Jet Stream stopped the B-29's high altitude bombing raids, until the bombing sights could be improved... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DKoor
03-19-2008, 02:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:
Jet Stream stopped the B-29's high altitude bombing raids </div></BLOCKQUOTE>!

ARCHIE_CALVERT
03-19-2008, 05:28 PM
Jet Stream... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

SUICIDE ATTACKS ON B-29s

Some of the bloodiest battles of WWII occurred during the battle for the Marianas. The Japanese, refusing to surrender and fighting to the last man inflicted heavy casualties on the Americans. We had to fight for every inch of land on those strategically important islands. While our losses were staggering, it was imperative that we take the islands to provide bases for our B-29s. From Guam and Saipan we could mount heavy airstrikes against the Japanese mainland. In the summer of 1944 our amphibious forces captured the Marianas, and a crash program started immediately to transform them into forward bases for the B-29s. The B-29s did not have an easy time on their missions to bomb Japan. The typical mission took 16 hours and covered 3200 miles. They had no fighter escorts. They faced navigation problems, anti-aircraft fire, search lights, and worst of all the jet stream. Fuel was a major problem with the return trip a nightmare. Bad weather, mechanical problems, and physical damage were only some of the problems.

The capture of the Mariana Islands sealed the fate of the Japanese Empire. This positioned the B-29s just 1300 miles southeast of Tokyo, and within range of Japan's industrial districts. The B-29s could fly above the reach of most fighter planes and accurate anti-aircraft fire, yet the trip to Tokyo and back took over 15 hours. General Hap Arnold chose General Haywood S. Hansell Jr. to command the XXI Bomber Command. The B-29s kept coming, and soon Hansell had over 100 to bomb the Japanese aircraft industry, which was first on the list. Over Tokyo the bombers were subjected to inaccurate flak ineffective fighters due to the altitude. However the altitude was the very cause of the bombers not getting results. The jet stream was causing most of the problems. The B-29s faced the first of many suicide attacks when a Kawasaki pilot crashed his plane into the tail of one flown by Lt. Sam Wagner. Both planes went down in vertical dives and no parachutes were seen. It was obvious to the Japanese that the loss of one pilot and one fighter plane compared to a B-29 and eleven trained airmen was an excellent exchange. The B-29s faced a natural phenomenon that was making their high altitude precision attacks an impossibility. The jet stream at 30,000 ft. blowing at least 150 mph made the bombardiers job extremely difficult. If they flew with the wind the targets were missed. If against the wind they became sitting ducks to Japanese flak. Also the jet stream was unpredictable, shifting abruptly. Hansells attempt to bomb the NAKAJIMA ENGINE WORKS three times had failed. On the third raid Japanese fighters were aggressive, shooting down six bombers and damaging another six. Hansell decided to bomb the MITSUBISHIE AIRCRAFT ENGINE WORKS at Nagoya. Japanese fighters shot down four B-29s and damaged 31. The Kamikaze attacks were increasing and B-29 losses were becoming unacceptable. The B-29 "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was rammed by three fighters and crashed. The attack had taken seven minutes during which time witnesses saw its gunners destroy nine Japanese fighters. Time after time bombing results were not satisfactory, and Washington was getting nervous over our increasing losses. Hansell was replaced by Curtis LeMay. He refused to be shut down by the jet stream. He decided a reduction in altitude would improve bombing accuracy, reduce fuel consumption, and eliminate the jet stream problem. LeMay also had a surprise for Japan. He planned large scale firebombing with incendiaries. His first raid was promising, although fighters shot down one B-29 and damaged 35. Still handicapped by bad weather over Japan, LeMay was getting criticism and higher ups were becoming impatient as they were with Hansell. LeMay knew something had to be done. He ordered a mission to be flown at fifty ft. General O'Donnell told LeMay he refused to fly the mission. LeMay looked him straight in the face and said "you WILL fly that mission". The mission was flown without the loss of a single plane. LeMay was now ready to carry out his firebombing program

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/Japanese_Kamikaze/Japanese_Kamikaze06.html

Rjel
03-19-2008, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
The said science teacher spent the next three weeks walking around saying he hoped to die early rather than live in a world controlled by the next generation!!!!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I bet every generation from the beginning of time has said that.

Frequent_Flyer
03-19-2008, 09:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
I wonder how the B-29 would have fared in Europe against late war Luftwaffe designs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Germans were lucky the got their butt kicked all the way back to Berlin. They were too busy trying to find an american uniform to surrender to.

p1ngu666
03-19-2008, 11:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
I wonder how the B-29 would have fared in Europe against late war Luftwaffe designs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

make some coops? give u a good indication http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Patriot_Act
03-20-2008, 02:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:
Yes brilliant bomber... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

But the Jet Stream stopped the B-29's high altitude bombing raids, until the bombing sights could be improved... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Archie, sometimes it stopped them cold!
All four engines at max WEP and making no headway...

P.A.

Aaron_GT
03-20-2008, 03:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Kind of mind blowing to think that the B-29also revolutionised Soviet aircraft design...... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The B-29 was an amazing machine, but I don't think it would be correct to say it necessarily revolutionised Soviet design, as straight wing reciprocating engine propellor bombers were an evolutionary dead end, and the B-29 was more or less the end of that line. The Tu-4 was a copy produced as a stopgap, much as the Washington B.I was for the RAF. It was an excellent plane, but of its time, and the end of a great line of classic aircraft.

I'd have said that the Junkers EF-132 had a more dramatic effect, and you can see the influence of that in the Tu-16, versions of which still fly today.

In terms of the 707, that basically has the aerodynamic experience from the B-47. It's still essentially the form for 90% of all subsequent passenger jets, apart from a few with high wings, so a very successful format. The only real carry over from the B-29 is the general body width from the Stratocruiser, but that had a different fuselage from the B-29.

K_Freddie
03-20-2008, 05:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
I wonder how the B-29 would have fared in Europe against late war Luftwaffe designs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Germans were lucky the got their butt kicked all the way back to Berlin. They were too busy trying to find an american uniform to surrender to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.. if only you knew better !.
Todays story seems to be similar, but different. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Frequent_Flyer
03-20-2008, 08:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
I wonder how the B-29 would have fared in Europe against late war Luftwaffe designs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Germans were lucky the got their butt kicked all the way back to Berlin. They were too busy trying to find an american uniform to surrender to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.. if only you knew better !.
Todays story seems to be similar, but different. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats right it was Germanys stratagy to lure the forces from the East and the West into the Fatherland. Than eradicate them with a corp of 80 year old men and 15 year old boys.

Ratsack
03-20-2008, 10:06 PM
This thread has taken an odd and rather idiotic path. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


Ratsack

Von_Rat
03-21-2008, 02:57 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gifand how is that unusual?

Patriot_Act
03-21-2008, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Kind of mind blowing to think that the B-29also revolutionised Soviet aircraft design...... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The B-29 was an amazing machine, but I don't think it would be correct to say it necessarily revolutionised Soviet design, as straight wing reciprocating engine propellor bombers were an evolutionary dead end, and the B-29 was more or less the end of that line. The Tu-4 was a copy produced as a stopgap, much as the Washington B.I was for the RAF. It was an excellent plane, but of its time, and the end of a great line of classic aircraft.

I'd have said that the Junkers EF-132 had a more dramatic effect, and you can see the influence of that in the Tu-16, versions of which still fly today.

In terms of the 707, that basically has the aerodynamic experience from the B-47. It's still essentially the form for 90% of all subsequent passenger jets, apart from a few with high wings, so a very successful format. The only real carry over from the B-29 is the general body width from the Stratocruiser, but that had a different fuselage from the B-29. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This post is typical of the level of aviation knowledge displayed
in this forum.

B-29 had straight wings and piston engines and therefore is the end of the road.

In terms of airframe structure and systems B-29 is the
archetype for all Boeing designs to follow through the 767.

Now you will tell me the Me-262 was more advanced.
but I will laugh because in terms of airframe and
systems it was a 1930's design with jet engines and wings swept to correct a C.O.G. screw-up.

yes, look at the design elements of a B-47, B-52 and 707 and you can see that
the engineers used B-29 structure throughout.

Junkers EF-132? I can not find any airframe prints for it.
But I suspect your chasing paper airplanes
in a desperate attempt to place a German face
on modern aviation.


P.A.

luftluuver
03-21-2008, 05:55 PM
Junkers EF-132
http://www.luft46.com/junkers/juef132.html

Patriot_Act
03-22-2008, 02:32 AM
Luftlover, do you know where I can find airframe prints?
Where it was still just a concept there may be no such drawings.
Thanks anyway for the exterior drawings.
It is easily the most advanced and plausable
German paper airplane I have seen yet.

One note, the vertical fin seems to be just a tad on the small size
for such a big airplane. If it had flown they would have quickly corrected that
if it became a problem.

P.A.

Friendly_flyer
03-22-2008, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
make some coops? give u a good indication </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If QMB is something to go by, the B-29 would have fared better than the B-17, but in no way be immune to fighters (Ta-152 and Bf-109 K with Mk. 108 gondolas).

Aaron_GT
03-25-2008, 06:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This post is typical of the level of aviation knowledge displayedin this forum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, but it is a fact that straight wings and piston engines WERE at the end of their developmental road for strategic bombers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">B-29 had straight wings and piston engines and therefore is the end of the road. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In terms of airframe structure and systems B-29 is the
archetype for all Boeing designs to follow through the 767 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The wing structure (as well as the aerodynamics) of current Boeing design is very different from anything in the B-29. The B-29 used relatively stiff wings with integral nacelles, the current designs use strong but flexible wings with very different internal structure, and underslung engines.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now you will tell me the Me-262 was more advanced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not what's being discussed, and many features of the Me-262 were also dead ends.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">yes, look at the design elements of a B-47, B-52 and 707 and you can see that
the engineers used B-29 structure throughout. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The B-47 was different in terms of the wing aerodynamics and structures employed (you have to use different structures for swept wings else you end up with torsional effects twisting the wing tips).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But I suspect your chasing paper airplanes
in a desperate attempt to place a German face
on modern aviation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would I do that? I am not German and my primary interest is Allied aircraft. I just don't agree that the B-29 was revolutionary in terms of the aerodynamics. I'd see it as more the pinnacle of a series of Boeing designs from the 1930s into the mid 1940s, and this was then usurped by new aerodynamics and techniques from the late 1940s to present. All credit to Boeing for being very quick to adapt to new discoveries an aerodynamics and getting something into the air very quickly.

Where the B-29 was advanced was more in terms of systems - radar aided bombing, crew pressurisation, computer controlled remote-control turrets. Other countries were all working on these too (everyone did), but the B-29 was where they all came together successfully.

Aaron_GT
03-25-2008, 06:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One note, the vertical fin seems to be just a tad on the small sizefor such a big airplane. If it had flown they would have quickly corrected thatif it became a problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a sense it was flown, as constructed in the USSR, following on from the USSR flying the Ju-287. In this form it was the EF-150, and was influential, but found wanting, and not adopted in that form. But the information gleaned from constructing it was used in subsequent Soviet jets.

In this the USSR was the same as any of the old WW2 allies, in that German wind tunnel information and mock ups (as well as other military technology) were examined for whatever was useful, and engineers encouraged to move too. To not have used the best of what was available to add to Allied knowledge would have been remiss.

The failed German projects were probably also valuable. Some of the projects finally built by the old WW2 allies turned out to not be that great. The Ju-287 was an example with forward-swept wings being subject to very high torsional loads on the tips.