A-Bomb Delivery...

scary...

That's a scary story waiting to happen :D

It has all sorts of potential--and a nasty option would be to have the enemy get their hands on the remote control frequency, with the possibility of jamming, or worse, taking control of the bomber...
 
If the B-29 from Boeing had not been available, Consolidated's B-32 would have filled the bill as the designated back-up a/c. Had that aircraft failed, proposals from Lockheed and Douglas might have filled the void.(B-30/B-31). Had the Wright R-3350 engine program failed, a 4 engined bomber based on the well-proven Pratt &Whitney R-2800, turbo-charged, as fitted to the North American XB-28 could serve as a back-up to the back-ups. Failing all these, I'd really like to see a bomber version of the Republic Rainbow, with the corncob engines.
 
but why use a C-47 if there are C-54's around, bigger cargo capacity, more range. So much easier to use.
 
Failing all these, I'd really like to see a bomber version of the Republic Rainbow, with the corncob engines.

That engine was the R-4360. The B-29 was eventually re-engined with it to become the B-50. That could have been done a lot earlier; IIRC the original R-4360/B-29 testbed was flown in mid-1944 as the B-29D. There was also a B-29 proposal that had its remote-controlled gun turrets replaced by manned mounts but I'm not sure whether that actually flew. Either way, a large number of B-29s were simply stripped of their guns.

The B-29s primary problems were with its engines and guns so if the R-3350/remote gun B-29 had failed, a replacement would have been the R-4360/gunless B-29. On the crutch issue, it's hard to see that this was a single-point failure. If the one used hadn't been available, it would have been easy enough to build another design.

By the way, the reason why no parachute was used on the atomic bombs was fear that they'd be hit and disabled by anti-aircraft fire. They were actually quite heavily armored against fragments from AA fire which accounted for their weight.
 
If you were going to use a C-47 with a hole cut in the floor, you could use the B-18, which was a C-47 with a hole in the floor. If you have to use a transport, the Constellation was in service and was similar to Lockheed's B-29 proposal. The C-74 Douglas Globemaster first flew in September 1945 and was the transport version of Douglas' proposal.
 
The Constellation is probably the best choice there but was it strong enough to take the evasive maneuvers needed to get it clear of the blast? The B-29 was pushed to the maximum in order to do that and I have no idea how agile the Constellation was. If it couldn't make the turn and dive, we're back to the crew problem again.

Could the B-32 make it to Japan from Tinian?
 
quite a bunch of different cargo planes available indeed

The C-54 lists as having 2000miles range with 22K lb payload, 3100miles with 14 k lb, 4000miles with 10k lb

range for the B-32 on wiki is stated as 3800 miles

don't think the connie could take that kind of maneuvers as it had a high wingload (428kg/m2) (b-29 = 337).
 
Last edited:
The distance from Tinian to Hiroshima is listed as 1,567 miles to give a mission of 3,134 miles. That looks like knocking out the C-54 and C-69. The B-32 range is ferry configuration with maximum fuel and even then, its tight. With 20,000 pounds of bombs, the B-32 had a range of 800 miles. (http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/cons_dominator.php) Also, the B-32 also used the R-3350 engine so engine problems will hit it as well.
 
I wouldn't recommend a transport for dropping a bomb, but a bomber based on the proven aerodynamics of a transport is another story. The Connie's wings were ill-placed for a large bomb bay.

The range figures given for the B-32 give it longer range than the B-29, but shorter range with maximum bombload of 20,000 lb. With turrets deleted as per Enola Gay, this may make a difference. Math is too tedious.

B30.png
 
The distance from Tinian to Hiroshima is listed as 1,567 miles to give a mission of 3,134 miles. That looks like knocking out the C-54 and C-69. The B-32 range is ferry configuration with maximum fuel and even then, its tight. With 20,000 pounds of bombs, the B-32 had a range of 800 miles. (http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/cons_dominator.php) Also, the B-32 also used the R-3350 engine so engine problems will hit it as well.

Aviastar lists max range at 3800 mi and 800 mi for the B-32. With guns. The B-29 is listed at 3250 mi max and 1790 with max bombs., with guns. The aircraft that dropped the bomb had no turrets. Higher payload, greater range. The B-32 actually had more problems with the engines, being the second choice, and getting less development priority.
 
It has all sorts of potential--and a nasty option would be to have the enemy get their hands on the remote control frequency, with the possibility of jamming, or worse, taking control of the bomber...


See, that should happen with the third bombing.

Either the first or second bombing should go more or less according to plan, by the skin of their teeth, sure, but the result is according to intent.

The second or first bombing, stuff should go painfully wrong with the delivery. This can range from ejected pilots ending up in remarkable trouble to the plane malfunctioning and either going off target and/or incinerating whoever was trying to deliver the device.

The third bombing should be when someone on the opposition gets hip and puts into plan a way to jam the frequency and/or seize control of the delivery.

I wonder if they would be able to even try landing it in such a way so they could get their hands on the device? (Or does the device set off at a specific altitude...?)
 
Aviastar lists max range at 3800 mi and 800 mi for the B-32. With guns. The B-29 is listed at 3250 mi max and 1790 with max bombs., with guns. The aircraft that dropped the bomb had no turrets. Higher payload, greater range. The B-32 actually had more problems with the engines, being the second choice, and getting less development priority.

I didn't know the B-32's engine problems were worse than those on the B-29. That's very interesting; thank you.

According to the Characteristics Summary, the B-29 had a range of 3390 nautical miles with a 10,000 pound payload. The Standard Aircraft Characteristics give it a range with maximum fuel of 4,493 nautical miles. The same document gives us 2,627 nautical miles with 20,000 pounds of bombs. The B-29B (no guns) has a maximum fuel range of 4,939 nautical miles or 3,505 nautical miles with 10,000 pound bomb load. The B-50A (aka B-29D) with guns is very similar to the B-29B.

So, it looks like a gunless B-32 would be viable as a nuclear delivery aircraft.
 
Seeing as how the bomb is going to be delivered against Japan in August 1945, who by this point has an air defense of bupkis, strapping a parachute to the bomb, giving it a time-delay fuze instead of an altimeter one, and dropping it from a slightly modified Lancaster or cargo plane are perfectly viable solutions with just as much risk as the original B-29 mission.
 
Seeing as how the bomb is going to be delivered against Japan in August 1945, who by this point has an air defense of bupkis, strapping a parachute to the bomb, giving it a time-delay fuze instead of an altimeter one, and dropping it from a slightly modified Lancaster or cargo plane are perfectly viable solutions with just as much risk as the original B-29 mission.


Has anyone done the math on this modified Lancaster?
 
Seeing as how the bomb is going to be delivered against Japan in August 1945, who by this point has an air defense of bupkis, strapping a parachute to the bomb, giving it a time-delay fuze instead of an altimeter one, and dropping it from a slightly modified Lancaster or cargo plane are perfectly viable solutions with just as much risk as the original B-29 mission.
In which case, what about using the Spruce Goose? :cool:
 
Mighty Aphrodite

Here's another alternative to consider.

It would have to be modified; it would hardly do to have even a minimal flight crew bailing out over a Japanese city about to get nuked! I suppose it would be possible to have a crew handle the takeoff, then bail out just offshore of their base, with boats standing by to recover them from the Pacific. After that the plane is on autopilot, nudged by remote control from escort planes to stay on course. Upon approach to target the final autopilot program is engaged; this holds the plane on a steady heading at the optimal airburst altitude and arms the bomb. The escort planes veer off and track it from a great distance.

Should Japanese fighters or AA disable the plane, either sensing devices aboard the drone plane or remote command from the observing escort planes triggers the bomb early and that way it does some damage to the enemy anyway.

As far as range is concerned, the drone is only going half of the round trip from base to site and back, and its only payload is the 5 tonne or so "device." I believe there were not only issues with sheer weight with the first-generation A-bombs but also their bulk; it took a B-29 to merely accommodate the bomb. But if we aren't actually dropping the bomb but merely detonating it inside an expendable airplane we have more flexibility.

Clearly a drone plane with simple WWII technology (as sophisticated as they could manage then, but simple compared to what we can do today) is not going to be able to do any maneuvering for its self-defense.

Perhaps it would make sense to purpose-design the drone plane instead of recycling an obsolete old bomber airframe. Then for the Enola Gay alternate mission, I'd consider a biplane, more of a sesquiplane really. The airframe holds the bomb, autopilot/remote control gear and fuel for the final sprint to target, and it's a high-powered trimotor or so, with 2 to 5 radial engines on the nose and lower wing--the lower wing being small and sleek. The upper wing contains fuel for cruise and is much bigger. The plane cruises toward target rather slowly using just one or a few of its engines (after takeoff on all engines).

It's escorted to target of course; we might not want to make the upper wing too big or the flight too slow so that reasonably capable escorts would not have to keep zigzagging around it and would have enough fuel left to get home!

When approaching target and armed for its strike, the upper wing is blown off and all engines engage at full power for a run up to very high speed, as fast as a WWII prop plane could possibly go. We rely on speed, and the fact that this minimal drone plane is a relatively small and low-visibility target, for it to evade defenses and reach the pre-set optimal detonation zone. Or again if it gets hit early, the bomb is set off early.
 
You takes a Zeppelin with a parasite Noorduyn Norseman floatplane, an egg timer, and a road map. Fly the Zep to the IP and arm the bomb, lock the flight controls, set the egg timer, and scoot to Okinawa.
 
Seeing as how the bomb is going to be delivered against Japan in August 1945, who by this point has an air defense of bupkis, strapping a parachute to the bomb, giving it a time-delay fuze instead of an altimeter one, and dropping it from a slightly modified Lancaster or cargo plane are perfectly viable solutions with just as much risk as the original B-29 mission.

We know that now, but it wasn't very clear back then and Japanese anti-aircraft fire was still bringing down B-29s - something like 50 - 60 B-29s were shot down by anti-aircraft guns. Another point is that the first atomic bombs weighed around 10,000 pounds and I'm not sure if parachutes capable of carrying that weight were available. But, the thing that reports of the time kept stressing was the danger from anti-aircraft fire.
 
The much later B-53 bomb came fitted with a parachute system weighing "800-900" lbs included into the weight of an 8850 lb bomb,with 3 main 48 foot canopies which brought the bomb gently down from 40000 ft to 4000 ft in 167 seconds. The weight of chute required for a 9700 lb bomb would be greater and the interval between 20000 ft and 1600 ft would be about half or so, giving you an extra 43 seconds or so to scoot away from the shock wave approaching at 1138 feet per second, in a slower aircraft at a lower altitude. It's a crapshoot, but I'd risk an Englishman. If he lived, he could land on Okinawa, at Yontan, the B-32 base.
 
You takes a Zeppelin with a parasite Noorduyn Norseman floatplane, an egg timer, and a road map. Fly the Zep to the IP and arm the bomb, lock the flight controls, set the egg timer, and scoot to Okinawa.


The pilot would need to have some very big eggs.
 
Top