PDA

View Full Version : So if we go 1946 would this replace B-17 and B-29



Snow_Wolf_
03-20-2004, 09:05 PM
Let say the WWII drag into 1946 would we see this bird in action (think Yb49 is better)

http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/~FlyWing/image/YB-35_05.jpg

http://manganet.free.fr/mononoke/logog.jpg

Snow_Wolf_
03-20-2004, 09:05 PM
Let say the WWII drag into 1946 would we see this bird in action (think Yb49 is better)

http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/~FlyWing/image/YB-35_05.jpg

http://manganet.free.fr/mononoke/logog.jpg

VW-IceFire
03-20-2004, 09:16 PM
I was under the impression that there were too many problems with the YB-49. Flying wings have only really been perfected with the B-2 and computer flight control to accomodate for the instability.

I imagine the B-29 would have been effective enough in 1946 and on had the war lasted that amount of time.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

vanelvis
03-20-2004, 10:05 PM
I also heard some where that there were instability problems. With computer controles the issues were worked out.

jamesdietz
03-21-2004, 10:21 AM
Instability - minstabity- It would be so Kool & afterall we are now flying at least one German A/c that so far as I know never got off the ground in powered flight:the Go-229 ...and who's gripping about that?

Kampfmeister
03-21-2004, 10:31 AM
I'd have to admit it would be interesting to see, but I don't think it would replace the B-29. Didn't the B-29 fly operational missions during the Korean war?

Aaron_GT
03-21-2004, 10:35 AM
"Instability - minstabity- It would be so Kool & afterall we are now flying at least one German A/c that so far as I know never got off the ground in powered flight:the Go-229 ...and who's gripping about that? "

The 229 flew several times.

Ta154_Moskito
03-21-2004, 10:39 AM
a Yb49 would be an awesome addition to this sim, but IMO a B-32 Dominator would be more suitable, as it almost did see service if I'm not mistaken.

noshens
03-21-2004, 10:42 AM
i'd rather want b29 than this.

JR_Greenhorn
03-21-2004, 10:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ta154_Moskito:
a B-32 Dominator would be more suitable, as it almost did see service if I'm not mistaken.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The B-32 most certainly did see service in WWII in the Pacific, but nowhere near the numbers of the B-29s operational.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kampfmeister:
Didn't the B-29 fly operational missions during the Korean war?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes.

jenikovtaw
03-21-2004, 10:49 AM
I doubt it though. B29 would be mainstay until B36. B17 was obsolete by ... well as soon as it went into combat, as much as I hate to admit it.

Cess-Harp
03-21-2004, 10:55 AM
The flight problems where mostly worked out.. the main issue was the drive shaft linkage from the engine to the props. It was very hard to maintain.

That is why they went to jets on the later model.
We went over this project in flight model setup in my classes.
Most of the pilots loved the aircraft , but it fell mostly to politics. As normal .

Was it perfect , nope but it had a outrages range for the day and could carry a very large bomb load.. also it was almost invisible to the radar of the day.. ie one of the first stelth.

ajafoofoo
03-21-2004, 11:10 AM
I'm guessing the difference between the germans and US in WWII on the flying wing thing was that the germans were willing to accept the instability as part of the plane in operation.
I'm sure if they started producing the 229 they would have just accepted the stability problem as part of the flying wing design and pilots would adjust accordingly.

To enjoy it's advantages you have to accept that if you spin it, you might as well bail.

From what I saw in programs about US flying wing testing, they pushed it to the limit and died doing it. They seemed determine to defeat the instability problem when they should have just accepted it at that time. Seems that wasn't acceptable so the planes kinda were forgotten.

You get a much more efficent plane with the wing. If it's a bomber why the hell worry about turning or stalling it to the point of spinning?

I bet the b2 we have now has the same instability inherent in it's basic airframe, but the computers that help fly it will probably never allow the plane to get near a stall condition.

horseback
03-21-2004, 11:47 AM
As far as the major US bomber post-'45, I suspect that the B-29 would be the end-all until the B-36 (which was originally planned for a cross-Atlantic bombing campaign against Germany) arrived. If accurately modeled, your sound system might not survive though. The B-36 was absolutely the loudest thing in the air I've ever heard, in a childhood spent on USAF bases from the 50s to the 70s.

As for politics killing Northrop projects, the B-49 was the first in a long line of superb Northrop products being killed or rendered unrecognizable due to politics (see the F-17/F-18 deal, as well as the F-20 vs F-16, for recent examples). Jack Northrop made fine aircraft, but he really ticked someone off at the Pentagon to the point that it became a tradition.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

e2michaelb
03-21-2004, 02:57 PM
Someone can correct me if they like, but I think that the follow-on to the B-29 was the B-50, which looked like a '29 with huge compound radial engines. In addition, I think the first U.S. jet bomber might have been ready in 1946, the B-45. I recall seeing its picture; it looked like an enlarged cross between a B-25 and an A-26, with a couple of humongous jet engines hung under the wings not unlike the ME-262.

darkhorizon11
03-21-2004, 06:15 PM
See below

darkhorizon11
03-21-2004, 06:21 PM
Yeah the YB49 was riddled with problems.

Also the Go 229 never actually flew. Only its prototype, the Ho IX (aka Go229) did.

The biggest problem was the instability known as middle effect which is found in flying wing and delta wing aircraft. Autopilots at the time were relatively crude and had trouble dealing with this. It was often unsafe and pilots had to constantly monitor it to make sure the autopilot didn't put the plane into AIO.

The only reason the Germans were willing to deal with this without doing more extensive research was because:

a) The Go229 was to be a fighter, not a bomber, so they missions were all short.

b) Desperation

Xiolablu3
03-21-2004, 06:28 PM
I know flying wings are supposed to be more efficient, but ist the B2 notoriously slow??

I mean like REALLY slow.

I saw something on the discovery channel about the B2 (I know they are wrong about a few things) and they said it was flying at
150kph(?!?) but who needs speed when u are that high and have stealth?

I couldnt beleive it was THAT slow?? Does anyone have any info to correct this if its wrong??

Zyzbot
03-21-2004, 06:34 PM
Link has B-2 info.

Speed given as HIGH subsonic.

<A HREF="http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-2.htm" TARGET=_blank>

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-2.htm (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-2.htm</A>)[/url]


I found another source that gave the speed as 1010 kph.

JR_Greenhorn
03-21-2004, 06:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I know flying wings are supposed to be more efficient, but ist the B2 notoriously slow??

I mean like REALLY slow.

I saw something on the discovery channel about the B2 and they said it was flying at
150kph(?!?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think that they might have been trying to impress you with how slow it can actually fly due to its aerodynamic efficiency. Isn't the ability to stay aloft in a plane that size at that speed uncommon?


Most of the "stealth" planes only fly to high subsonic speeds, bucause supersonic flight kind of blows the whole steath thing.