Earliest possible introduction of B-29 bomber?

kernals12

Banned
Could the B-29 bomber have been introduced a year or even 18 months earlier than it was IOTL (May 8, 1944)? I need to know for a TL I'm doing that involves a very different World War (not world war 2) where in which Brazil and the United States swap for Nazi Germany and Britain respectively.
 
I'll suggest the 'almost B-29', powered by R-2800 engines. That should work for late 1942/early 1943.
Stick the R-3350s once historically available.
 
Well, if you drop the pressurization, remote computing gunsights and go back to the supercharged R-3350s rather than twin turbos, it would have been ready considerably sooner, and reliable enough to use
 
Potentially if you went with the XB-39 (possibly from the start), that may result in an earlier introduction.
 
Well, if you drop the pressurization, remote computing gunsights and go back to the supercharged R-3350s rather than twin turbos, it would have been ready considerably sooner, and reliable enough to use

IIRC the early R-3350 have had problems with unreliable & fire-prone power section, not with turbochargers (techincally those were also supercharged - turbos + engine-stage compressor per each engine).
 
IIRC the early R-3350 have had problems with unreliable & fire-prone power section, not with turbochargers (techincally those were also supercharged - turbos + engine-stage compressor per each engine).

They weren't having trouble when they were used with the prototype Consolidated XP4Y Corregidor, and the XB-32 Dominator had fewer engine issues than the XB-29, from better nacelle design

Now both the Martin Mars and Corregidor used the -8 engine, rated for 2200HP, so wasn't downrated much HP wise, just altitude, being a flying boat and all.

XPB2M-1R Mars, named 'Old Lady', was used as a freighter carrying up to 10 tons of cargo between Hawaii and California from 1943 onwards, after repairs from a thrown propeller that started a fire, plus structural damage from one thrown blade
 
Test model development is half of it. The other question is how fast can the construction of the factories be accelerated?

The Dodge Engine Plant was started in June, 1942, and production Engines were rolling off the line in January 1944 for 1000 engines a month, and when production contracts ended, had built over 18,000 engines.
This was a large complex, 19 buildings over 6.3 million square feet, with 16,000 construction workers in 1943.

Ford's Willow Run was 3.5 million square feet of factory space over 5 million sq. feet of ground, to give you an idea of scale
 
What do you mean by "almost B-29" ? It is a pretty good idea, a B-29 with R-2800.

The turboed R-2800 in 1942-44 was making, for example, 1625 HP max continuous, vs. 2000 HP provided by early R-3350. On 4 engines that is 1500 HP deficit. Granted, some weight saving will be achieved on the account of one big turbo being lighter than 2 smaller (500 lbs total?) and bare engine weight (4 x 400 lbs = 1600 lbs total). Also lighter props and oil system - another 1000 lbs total? Thus the loaded weight (= includes fuel and bomb load) will go down from 120000 lbs to 117000 lbs, or about 2.5%, vs. a much bigger deficit in power available in flight.

Thus 'almost B-29' :)
 
What do you mean by "almost B-29" ? It is a pretty good idea, a B-29 with R-2800.

With just supercharging, the F4U topped out around 22,000 feet.

Supercharged R-2800s in a B-29 gives you a longer ranged Lancaster
With a single turbo like on the P-47, critical Altitude goes a few thousand feet higher, but you will still be down over 1200HP from when using R-3350s.

dual turbos on those gave the B-29 a 35,000 ft critical altitude
 
The B-29 was a very expensive weapon to bring to service and perhaps important enough to remain despite the pressure of our WW2. It is my understanding that the Army Air Corps was supposed to have no bombers bigger than the B-17 by Congressional mandate, the B-24 was likely the longest ranged they were anticipating having assuming it was built. Without the desire to reach Europe the B-29 might have faltered. If you change enough perhaps you should consider dealing with no B-29 at all as distasteful as that sounds. (I did that for my USA avoids the world wars train of thought). With only B-17 or B-24 the Army needs to pursue an "Island-Hopping" strategy to secure bases in range of targets. That alters your war. The USN might stumble on using their carriers as floating air bases sooner, employing bombers and attack aircraft against shore targets in a more directed way. That alters the balance between the USN and Army. A rockier path but perhaps more "realistic" in anything less than a true WW2. Might be interesting to see how things are done without the B-29.
 
With just supercharging, the F4U topped out around 22,000 feet.

F4U (and F6F and P-61) were outfitted with 2-stage supercharged R-2800, contrary to eg. B-26, F7F or F8F with 1-stage S/C. There was no 2-stage supercharged R-3350 in production.
1-stage S/Charged R-3350 were with critical atitude of 16000 ft.

Supercharged R-2800s in a B-29 gives you a longer ranged Lancaster
With a single turbo like on the P-47, critical Altitude goes a few thousand feet higher, but you will still be down over 1200HP from when using R-3350s.

dual turbos on those gave the B-29 a 35,000 ft critical altitude

Longer ranged Lancaster would've been an even greater bomber :)
Critical altitude of turboed R-3350s was 25000 ft, same as turboed R-2800 in 1942-44.
 
The B-29 was a very expensive weapon to bring to service and perhaps important enough to remain despite the pressure of our WW2. It is my understanding that the Army Air Corps was supposed to have no bombers bigger than the B-17 by Congressional mandate, the B-24 was likely the longest ranged they were anticipating having assuming it was built. Without the desire to reach Europe the B-29 might have faltered. If you change enough perhaps you should consider dealing with no B-29 at all as distasteful as that sounds. (I did that for my USA avoids the world wars train of thought). With only B-17 or B-24 the Army needs to pursue an "Island-Hopping" strategy to secure bases in range of targets. That alters your war. The USN might stumble on using their carriers as floating air bases sooner, employing bombers and attack aircraft against shore targets in a more directed way. That alters the balance between the USN and Army. A rockier path but perhaps more "realistic" in anything less than a true WW2. Might be interesting to see how things are done without the B-29.

The B-29, planned in 1940, after 1943 was going to be pipelined as a US strategic weapon. The reason was the Manhattan Project. The bomber cost more than the bomb to develop.

As for getting it into production earlier? How? The Battle of Kansas was a firewall event that seriously dislocated everything from logistics to trained manpower distribution in the CONUS just to get the first bombers into the field by 1944. This bomber was rushed into service at least three years too early.
 
The B-29, planned in 1940, after 1943 was going to be pipelined as a US strategic weapon. The reason was the Manhattan Project. The bomber cost more than the bomb to develop.

As for getting it into production earlier? How? The Battle of Kansas was a firewall event that seriously dislocated everything from logistics to trained manpower distribution in the CONUS just to get the first bombers into the field by 1944. This bomber was rushed into service at least three years too early.

Without knowing what is being altered I assume the B-29 may not get past planning or appropriations in many alternate timelines. The B-29 was part of the desire to reach Europe, if that goes away or more muted in danger then the B-17 and its ilk likely remain "good enough" to the purse holders. But I agree, even as is the B-29 was accelerated to fit the war we had rather than where we planned to be. I will leave the Manhattan Project on the sidelines, it too is subject to butterflies. But the later needs a B-29, or better the B-36, to be where the Air Force sees itself going. But will Congress pay for that without a very direct threat?

My interest is seeing a USA at war with what it had not with what it could have. The USA was a peer naval power but a lesser military power otherwise, beyond its core the Army was more police force than anything else, the Marines did well in the Banana Wars or policing in China, but the USA pre-1940 is more aspirations than substance. High potential indeed but it needed an enemy to motivate that, take out Europe and the Army Air Corps is scouting in B-17s hoping to bomb something lest the Navy do it better. I think we need to know better the backdrop to this, otherwise I am open to the B-29 never getting more than sketch art.
 
Without knowing what is being altered I assume the B-29 may not get past planning or appropriations in many alternate timelines. The B-29 was part of the desire to reach Europe, if that goes away or more muted in danger then the B-17 and its ilk likely remain "good enough" to the purse holders. But I agree, even as is the B-29 was accelerated to fit the war we had rather than where we planned to be. I will leave the Manhattan Project on the sidelines, it too is subject to butterflies. But the later needs a B-29, or better the B-36, to be where the Air Force sees itself going. But will Congress pay for that without a very direct threat?

My interest is seeing a USA at war with what it had not with what it could have. The USA was a peer naval power but a lesser military power otherwise, beyond its core the Army was more police force than anything else, the Marines did well in the Banana Wars or policing in China, but the USA pre-1940 is more aspirations than substance. High potential indeed but it needed an enemy to motivate that, take out Europe and the Army Air Corps is scouting in B-17s hoping to bomb something lest the Navy do it better. I think we need to know better the backdrop to this, otherwise I am open to the B-29 never getting more than sketch art.

The B-29 does not have the legs to reach Europe from the CONUS. The mistake here is not understanding WHY the B-29 was designed in the first place. The plane was always intended for Japan as a part of Plan Orange. It was going to be built.
 
One ultimate problem faced by B-29s was jet fighters. One of the greatest problems faced in Germany's production of these engines was availability of certain metals for alloying. Brazil is under no such restrictions whatever.
 
If the engines are ready earlier you could see a B-32 months before a B-29.
If everything went right in OTL the B-32 would have replaced the B-17 in 1943 , making the B-17 a historical footnote.
Best bet for a B-29 in front line service would be mid 1943.
 
If the engines are ready earlier you could see a B-32 months before a B-29.
If everything went right in OTL the B-32 would have replaced the B-17 in 1943 , making the B-17 a historical footnote.
Best bet for a B-29 in front line service would be mid 1943.

The plane had more technical glitches than the B-29, including a pressurization system that was unfixable. The same goes for the remote weapon stations. Same engine problems as bedeviled the B-29 bedeviled the Dominator. It could not carry Fat Man though it could carry Little Boy. It just would have not survived the drop. It would never have replaced the B-17, either. It was not even as good as a B-17 mechanically. As a matter of fact, the plane was abandoned, when the B-29 for all of its faults proved that it could operate halfway decently out of China. The B-32 was a piece of junk.

Once again, given the R-3350 problems, how was the B-29 going to be ready before May 1944?
 
Last edited:
To be fair If I remember correctly the B-32 was something of a backup to the B-29 if for whatever reason the B-29 was not a success. I suspect their wasn't any drive to fix any faults of the B-32 because of the B-29 being able to enter service as planned.
 
Top