If Allies had Bomb in 1943

Neither the XB-15 nor XB-19 has spectacular performance, although I suppose that could be partially solved by refitting them with the Wright R-1820 and Wright R-3350 respectively.
 
Last edited:

NothingNow

Banned
Neither the XB-15 nor XB-19 has spectacular performance, although I suppose that could be partially solved by refitting them with the Wright R-1820 and Wright R-3350 respectively.

Pretty much their only real problem was being horribly underpowered, so yeah, engining them as designed would solve about 90% of the issues there. After that, give them some nice, paddle-bladed variable-pitch props and a better oxygen system and you've got a usable strategic bomber in '38-'39.
They were designed around ~2600bhp engines. Fitting them with 850bhp engines is not going to do them any favors. The R-1820 wouldn't really help.
The R-3350 OTOH? Giving the flight engineer some serious fire extinguishers (and lots of them) would probably make the things less dangerous in flight than they were on the B-29.
 
The XB-15 was powered by the same base engine that powered the B-24, the P&W R-1830, but at a much lower power rating than that achieved by the turbocharged units of the Liberator. The wings were re-engined with Wright R-2600s and fitted to the Boeing 314 "Clipper". The XB-19 was to take the Allison V-3420 double engine in later life. The ultimate solution was to go overboard on power, and the B-36 was born.
Part of the B-29's problems were caused by the nacelles which formed catch basins for leaked flammable fluids, waiting for ignition from a red-hot engine. The solution was to either stop the leaks, or add drainage. They put holes in the argument.
 
In Paul Brickhill's 'The Dambusters' its noted that in July 1940 Beaverbrook asked Wallis to go top the US to look at US pressurisation not knowing that Wallis was already working on it.

Don't need pressurization, it's just much nicer for the crews on a long trip.

London to Berlin and back again, around 1200 Miles

Tinian to Hiroshima around 3100 Miles

Anyone know if there would have been a suitable engine if the B-29 had been made a 6 engined bomber?

R-2800

Or just use an Martin XB-33, a high-altitude version of the B-26 Marauder with a 12,000 pound bombload that was cancelled so they could build B-29s under contract in Omaha in late 1942

Or the Lockheed Neptune, that was delayed by the B-29 till postwar

You don't need a huge range for Berlin as with the Pacific
 
Part of the B-29's problems were caused by the nacelles which formed catch basins for leaked flammable fluids, waiting for ignition from a red-hot engine. The solution was to either stop the leaks, or add drainage. They put holes in the argument.

Knew a USAF ret. Colonel who was on the XB-32 test program after he did his missions over Europe.

He really liked flying the XB-32 vs. the B-29, said it handled better and had less trouble with Engines burning, as he felt the Convair Nacelles were better designed than the Boeing.

But like the B-29, had pressurization issues and they never got the computerized gun system to work right.

But he said the one thing that impressed him that the USA was going to win the War was as part of the initial XB-32 work, he saw the mockup of the XB-36 at San Diego, to have had five 37mm cannons in retractable turrets, along with a bunch or 50s :D
 
Top