Earliest possible introduction of B-29 bomber?

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
wasn't a new problem, the XB-19 had same limitation, and also had huge, single main wheels. And it was only 160,000lbs
Which actually makes the screw-up by Convair that much worse since they had a previous example.
 

Archibald

Banned
. If one starts to remove the basic elements of the design, starting with less efficient engines, elimination of full pressurization, proper streamlining, and any of the many other innovations that litter the B-29's design the result is a faster debut of the B-29. It is the introduction of an improved B-17. While that is not in itself a bad thing, it is also not the breakthrough that the B-29 represents, it is a better 1930s bomber.

I'd say only the lesser engines, less defensive armement, and a bit less range. With four R-2800, pressurization, and streamline, it would still be better than the B-17 and B-24, perhaps with far less losses over Germany. Then, once the R-3350 is ready, up-engine the aircraft with it (just like the B-29 morphed into the B-50).

As for the B-26, it won't be a loss. Just build more B-25s with R-2600s.
 

Archibald

Banned
That's the 800 pound gorilla indeed. Probably not, or the range would be too short (forget Tinian, move closer, with all the difficulties). Maybe build only the silverplate birds (15 of them) with the R-3350s, to carry the bomb. I would say the R-2800 birds would debug all of the design, minus the R-3350 of course. Perhaps that would make the battle of Wichita easier ?
 
That's the 800 pound gorilla indeed. Probably not, or the range would be too short (forget Tinian, move closer, with all the difficulties). Maybe build only the silverplate birds (15 of them) with the R-3350s, to carry the bomb. I would say the R-2800 birds would debug all of the design, minus the R-3350 of course. Perhaps that would make the battle of Wichita easier ?

Several solutions for the ALT B-29 or 'almost B-29' to be able to drop the bomb on Japan:
1 - stage the raid from Okinawa
2 - install the debugged R-3350 thus making it about as capable as the OTL B-29
3 - install the C series R-2800 - 2100 HP for take off and up to 30000 ft; 1700 @ 30000 ft max continuous; has water injection (= 2800 HP on 130 grade fuel) that might help out with bigger payloads or shorter strips
4 - water injection for the 'usual' R-2800s = 2300 to 2600 HP on 130 grade fuel.

Obviously the option 1 does not exclude options 2-4.
2, 3 and 4 allow for Tinian bomb raid.
 
Fun comparison: the Lancaster's and B-29's payload max payload (in terms of mass) was quite similar (remember the Grand Slam) but the Lancaster lost on range (around 800-900 miles less). How would a "cheap" B-29 compare? Was the Lancaster's bay big enough for the A-bomb?
 

SsgtC

Banned
Fun comparison: the Lancaster's and B-29's payload max payload (in terms of mass) was quite similar (remember the Grand Slam) but the Lancaster lost on range (around 800-900 miles less). How would a "cheap" B-29 compare? Was the Lancaster's bay big enough for the A-bomb?

It's not so much that the Lanc couldn't physically carry the bomb. It's that it couldn't clear the blast radius. A Lancaster can't get high enough or fast enough to survive the drop
 
Fun comparison: the Lancaster's and B-29's payload max payload (in terms of mass) was quite similar (remember the Grand Slam) but the Lancaster lost on range (around 800-900 miles less). How would a "cheap" B-29 compare? Was the Lancaster's bay big enough for the A-bomb?

Little Boy no problem. Don't know about Fat Man.
 
Picking up on some earlier posts. The "30,000-foot deadline" demanding pressurization for crew survival.

The European theater required the B-17s and B-24s to operate at high altitude to pass over hostile territory. Usual transit and over target altitude was on the order of 25,000 feet, with the crew on oxygen and wearing electrically heated garments. While range was not a major problem in ETO, a direct climb to altitude reduces range substantially.

In the Pacific theater, operating from isolated island bases and flying over long reaches of largely undefended ocean, there was no military reason for climbing to altitude immediately, even if the overheating R-3350s and high drag cowl flap position would permit it. Where it is necessary to maximize range, the aircraft must be flown at best L/D. This is obtained at the lift coefficient where drag is lowest and, correspondingly it can be held constant, at its optimal value, by controlling speed and air density as aircraft weight decreases with fuel burn. This can be accomplished by slowing down, by climbing to higher altitude where air density is lower, or a combination of the two. Combined with the sad operating characteristics of the CW R-3350, it appears that (I don't have any mission profiles in front of me-) B-29 missions out to the Empire would be flown in a gradual slow climb (or series of step climbs) as engine temperature permits, with cowl flaps being closed toward the in-trail position, and maybe even gradual power reduction as the ship burns lighter. I can't imagine that the entire mission would be flown at 30,000+ feet if range was in any way critical. It is possible that average B-29 mission altitude was actually lower than ETO.

Pressure cabins are great if there is no chance that they could be punctured and burst explosively. Did B-29s depressurize over target?

Considering temperature lapse rate in the standard atmosphere, aircrew at 30,000 in an unpressurized aircraft would be about 12 degrees F colder than at 25,000 feet. With full-flow masks available, breathing would nominal at either altitude.

I note , from USAF specs, that the B-32 service ceiling was all of 1,150 feet lower than the B-29, normal cruise was 20 MPH faster, and range figures, as presented, while not directly comparable, were in general similar. Since the B-32s empty weight was 14,250 pounds less than the B-29 (about 80%) for the same mission, the '32 might have been a better bargain.
 
Last edited:
The existing OP defines a British US attacking a Nazi Brazil, so the mission profile is a little ill-defined. Is there going to be island-hopping in the Caribbean?
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
Well, I might have been born a few days earlier in Dec. 1991?

That good enough?

Or maybe I join the Forum in 2011 as I was considering it back then?
 
Is this interesting aviation topic still in play? If so, did B-29s depressurize over target?

Dynasor
 
Last edited:
The existing OP defines a British US attacking a Nazi Brazil, so the mission profile is a little ill-defined. Is there going to be island-hopping in the Caribbean?

I dunno. If I get a little free time I might do a map study. I sure would hate to see a WW II Pacific Solomons type campaign in the Caribbean. That geography favors whoever holds Cuba (presumably Brazil), plus the Windward Islands make a nasty flanking position. It really is an airpower nightmare.
 
Only a few hundred miles from Brazil actually.

How was it that the Japanese held Solomons was a problem and their presence in New Guinea such a threat? Those are closer to Australia than to Hokkaido. Geography is rather funny. Any operation the US actually mounts against Cuba starts not in Florida but from bases hundreds of miles away on the eastern sea frontier, although forward air bases in Florida could be mere minutes away. Charleston, Norfolk, New London, even Kings Bay is some distance. WW II would have been worse.
 
Ok Guys, Did I miss some transition between B-32s over Tokyo and problems with Brazil? Being new to these forums, are there some rules I should learn?

Dynasoar
 
:p
The existing OP defines a British US attacking a Nazi Brazil, so the mission profile is a little ill-defined. Is there going to be island-hopping in the Caribbean?

Ok Guys, Did I miss some transition between B-32s over Tokyo and problems with Brazil? Being new to these forums, are there some rules I should learn?

Dynasoar

I dunno. If I get a little free time I might do a map study. I sure would hate to see a WW II Pacific Solomons type campaign in the Caribbean. That geography favors whoever holds Cuba (presumably Brazil), plus the Windward Islands make a nasty flanking position. It really is an airpower nightmare.


Nope.:cool: Did not miss a thing.
 
Top