t is my understanding that the Army Air Corps was supposed to have no bombers bigger than the B-17 by Congressional mandate
Still had the far larger XB-15 and XB-19, plus the XB-35 and XB-36 that were approved in between the XB-28 and XB-32
t is my understanding that the Army Air Corps was supposed to have no bombers bigger than the B-17 by Congressional mandate
. 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.
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.
B-32s never got a 'Battle of Kansas' with AA priority to fix outstanding issues
What if, instead of 4 superduper new engines, as OTL, they go with 6 existing ones? Could that be made to work for an earlier introduction?
Well, but if we're looking at a PoD early enough, the AAC might say 'wow, the planned engines are awfully risky, let's go with something we KNOW we can do'.Not without designing an entirely new wing to support the extra weight of the engines. Which means you're basically designing an entirely new aircraft. Especially considering the penalty in fuel burn having two additional engines imposes on you. You either accept the reduced range, or find a way to squeeze in more fuel. Likely at the expense of bomb load.
And as for fuel consumption, surely that scales more closely with horsepower than with number of engines. If 6 of engine A have about the same horsepower as 4 of engine B, won't the fuel consumption be about the same? Especially if you can shut down a pair during cruise (which would be easier and less risky with 6 total than with 4).
Further, the B-32 cowl, and particularly the exit flap arrangement generated significantly less aerodynamic drag when open beyond about 25%
And as for fuel consumption, surely that scales more closely with horsepower than with number of engines. If 6 of engine A have about the same horsepower as 4 of engine B, won't the fuel consumption be about the same? Especially if you can shut down a pair during cruise (which would be easier and less risky with 6 total than with 4).
We're talking all things going accordingly to the original time table, reality has a way of messing up the best plans.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?
If the USAAF had been willing to trade bomb load for fuel, there is a possible answer in the XB-33 Super Marauder. it still would have been a bit short legged,
Of all the possibles past the B-29 and B-32, was also the bomber version of the Constellation C-69 transport, the XB-30
![]()
Bomber version never left paper, but was estimated to be slightly faster, but only 16,000 pound bombload to the desired 5000 mile range
Postwar, the Lockheed Constellation was far more successful than the Boeing Stratocruiser (B-50 with passenger area) for moving people cross country reliably, and that was with the Connies having TurboCompound R-3350s with PRTs that blew regularlyIf Kelly Johnson was not involved, I would not trust Lockheed then or now to design toilet paper.