Jump to content


Photo

Usaaf B-29 Vs. Imperial Japanese Fighter Aircraft


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 MiloMorai

MiloMorai

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,399 posts

Posted 30 March 2020 - 1948 PM

That and a fair few other problems on the engines.There is a good case for saying they didnt sort the B29 out till it became the B50.

 

Its too bad they didnt run with the B39, they would have saved themselves a lot of losses.

http://www.91stbombg...st_ww2_1945.pdf

 

from Table 165

XX BC loses -  Total 80 of which 22 by a/c, 7 by AAA, 51 other causes

XXI BC losses - 334, 52, 47, 216 and 19 combo of a/c and AAA


  • 0

#22 Tim Sielbeck

Tim Sielbeck

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 272 posts

Posted 31 March 2020 - 0242 AM

That and a fair few other problems on the engines.There is a good case for saying they didnt sort the B29 out till it became the B50.

 

Its too bad they didnt run with the B39, they would have saved themselves a lot of losses.

 

 

My dad was a B-29 pilot.  He was in agreement with your statement about B-29 engines.  He told me they would take off from Roswell AFB and have to fly at extremely low altitude for 100+ miles before their engine temperatures would come back down into the red zone.  He thought the only good B-29s were the B-50s because of the increase in engine power and reliability.

 

He loathed the B-39, though.  He didn't much care for Consolidated products, thought they were to prone to fuel leaks and the fires that resulted.


  • 0

#23 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,358 posts

Posted 31 March 2020 - 0359 AM

Its a great shame because the B29 was,other than the engines, a truly great design. But it was rushed into service far too quickly. There is a TV programme on Discovery called 'Aircraft Restoration' that did a feature on the revival of Fifi, the commemorative airforces B29. One of the guys who was instrumental in recovering it was part of the group in 1943/44 that went around trying to repair the aircraft as they came off the production line with upgrades (Boeing were still designing it and modifying it on the production line which was asking for trouble)

There was an airfield where a couple of hundred or so were parked up wanting the upgrades, so Boeing dispatched a few boxcars with numbers on listing what the parts were for the aircraft to be upgraded. Unfortunately on the way there was a rainstorm and it washed the numbers off.  So they were there for days trying to upgrade the aircraft to the latest tranche without any indication of what needed doing..... When you hear stories like that, its a marvel they achieved as much as they did.

 

I can say I know enough about consolidated to comment, but didnt they have a production line for B24's at some point?

 

I suspect if they had used B50's  instead of B29's over Korea, there would have been lower losses. Made a hell of a fine spyplane as well for that matter.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 31 March 2020 - 0400 AM.

  • 0

#24 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,358 posts

Posted 31 March 2020 - 0402 AM

 

That and a fair few other problems on the engines.There is a good case for saying they didnt sort the B29 out till it became the B50.

 

Its too bad they didnt run with the B39, they would have saved themselves a lot of losses.

http://www.91stbombg...st_ww2_1945.pdf

 

from Table 165

XX BC loses -  Total 80 of which 22 by a/c, 7 by AAA, 51 other causes

XXI BC losses - 334, 52, 47, 216 and 19 combo of a/c and AAA

 

Yeah, I was reading Alfred Prices book on electronic warfare, and he said one of the first raids out of China lost something like 7 aircraft, of which most were mechanical failures. Which is not great, when mechanical failure is beating the enemy on the loss rate. Probably not as bad as a Manchester in absolute fairness though....


  • 0

#25 GregShaw

GregShaw

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,305 posts

Posted 31 March 2020 - 0954 AM

The Wright engines never seemed to be as satisfactory as the P&W, outside of maybe the R-1820. The R-3350 in the B-29 may have been the least liked, but notice the R-2600 was skipped over by all fighter manufacturers in favor of P&W's R-2800. 


  • 0

#26 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,192 posts

Posted 31 March 2020 - 1113 AM

Its a great shame because the B29 was,other than the engines, a truly great design. But it was rushed into service far too quickly. 

 

Well, it depends on the viewpoint. if you subscribe to the view that they ended the war through atomic bombing, mining and fire bombing, evidently they didn't. If you believe that the Navy would be able to blockade Japan and the AAF bomb it from Okinawa, then maybe...


  • 0

#27 beans4

beans4

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 392 posts

Posted 31 March 2020 - 1213 PM

R-3350s have been used on some of the Sea Furys that are flying today, as they are close in size and performance to the original Bristol Centaurus.  I read somewhere (will try to find a source) that now R-2800s are becoming more popular due to superior reliability.


  • 0

#28 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,358 posts

Posted 31 March 2020 - 1214 PM

Bet it doesn't sound as good though...
  • 0

#29 MiloMorai

MiloMorai

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,399 posts

Posted 31 March 2020 - 1433 PM

R-2600 used by,

 


  • 0

#30 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,645 posts

Posted 31 March 2020 - 2016 PM

Stuart, that was called the 'Battle of Kansas', as Boeing and the Army struggled, outdoors in the dead of winter, to make the bombers combat- (even air- ) worthy. 

 

And yes, Consolidated designed and originally produced the B-24.

----

There were a number of very problematic aircraft that were pressed into series production and service that probably would have been dropped in peacetime--if they even made it off the drawing board.  The first one that comes to my mind is the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver. 


Edited by shep854, 31 March 2020 - 2029 PM.

  • 0

#31 MiloMorai

MiloMorai

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,399 posts

Posted 31 March 2020 - 2221 PM

Stuart, that was called the 'Battle of Kansas', as Boeing and the Army struggled, outdoors in the dead of winter, to make the bombers combat- (even air- ) worthy. 

 

And yes, Consolidated designed and originally produced the B-24.

----

There were a number of very problematic aircraft that were pressed into series production and service that probably would have been dropped in peacetime--if they even made it off the drawing board.  The first one that comes to my mind is the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver. 

The Helldiver after the initial problems were fix went on to be good a/c.


  • 0

#32 Tim Sielbeck

Tim Sielbeck

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 272 posts

Posted 01 April 2020 - 2120 PM

To describe my dad's dislike of Consolidated products:  https://youtu.be/lioRCye2Dug?t=52

 

I saw this film and described it to my dad.  He said it could have been flak or it could have been the result of a fuel leak that exploded, too.


  • 0

#33 JW Collins

JW Collins

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,360 posts

Posted 02 April 2020 - 1709 PM

The B-24 had its qualities including a larger typical payload than the B-17 but most didn't consider it as robust. I wonder how much of that was due to the unique Davis wing design.
  • 0

#34 MiloMorai

MiloMorai

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,399 posts

Posted 02 April 2020 - 1753 PM

To describe my dad's dislike of Consolidated products:  https://youtu.be/lioRCye2Dug?t=52

 

I saw this film and described it to my dad.  He said it could have been flak or it could have been the result of a fuel leak that exploded, too.

Or a bomb from another a/c.

 

Years ago there was a discussion on what happened to that B024 but can't remember what conclusion was reached.


  • 0

#35 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,645 posts

Posted 02 April 2020 - 2236 PM

The SB2C was supposed to replace the SBD in '42 -'43.  Even when fully developed, it was still not well-liked.  Its nickname was 'Son-of-a-Bitch 2d Class'.


  • 0

#36 CaptLuke

CaptLuke

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,184 posts

Posted 04 April 2020 - 1334 PM

The B-24 had its qualities including a larger typical payload than the B-17 but most didn't consider it as robust. I wonder how much of that was due to the unique Davis wing design.

 

I've read the Davis wing was weaker/more-vulnerable than the B-17's wing, just as you say, but the B-24 had a number of other structural weaknesses that the B-17 just didn't have.  It's notable that while there are many famous pictures of B-17s limping home with horrendous damage, there seem to be far fewer analogous pictures B-24s.  The B-24 was also supposedly substantially more difficult physically to fly than a B-24, so "hard to fly and more vulnerable" is not going to endear it to its pilots.

 

That's balanced against the good points of the B-24, especially the longer range, which was particularly valued in the Pacific.


  • 0

#37 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,645 posts

Posted 04 April 2020 - 1730 PM

Is anybody aware of feedback from Navy use as a long-range low-level patrol aircraft--the PB4Y-1, as well as the -2 Privateer, which was a gun-totin' monster!


  • 0