Discussion
I saw a suggestion that the B47 was originally proposed as a jet version of the B29, but the design then developed beyond recognition. This surprised me as I always thought the B47 was one of very few Boeing aircraft that was a clean sheet design.
Where there any bits of B29 in the B47 or was it really a totally new design? Or did it start off by developing the old design then end up with everything changed like Sea Fury to Sea Hawk or P51 to F86?
Where there any bits of B29 in the B47 or was it really a totally new design? Or did it start off by developing the old design then end up with everything changed like Sea Fury to Sea Hawk or P51 to F86?
Boeing did indeed look at designing a jet powered development of the B-29 but quickly decided that the new types of engines and the increasing awareness of the benefits of wing sweep-back meant that they were better off with a clean sheet.
They did a similar thing with the thinking behind the 707 airliner. Initial ideas for the 707 centered around jet powered derivatives of the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser airliner. Indeed, the jet airliner project number actually predates the 377 - the "707" project was originally referred to as the Boeing 367. By the time they had reached design change number 80 they had also abandoned the idea of bolting jets onto a Stratocruiser and had come up with a new design entirely. That is why the prototype "707" was always referred to as the Boeing 367-80, or often just the "Dash 80".
Interestingly, the Russians, who had built illicit copies of the B-29 as the Tupolev Tu-4 Bull, stayed with the basic B-29 fuselage shape and cross section when moving on to their next generation long range bomber, which became the Tu-95 Bear - which is still in service. Original concepts of Boeing's B-52 featured turboprops - some with straight wings and some with swept back wings. The B-52 could have ended up looking like a Tu-95.
They did a similar thing with the thinking behind the 707 airliner. Initial ideas for the 707 centered around jet powered derivatives of the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser airliner. Indeed, the jet airliner project number actually predates the 377 - the "707" project was originally referred to as the Boeing 367. By the time they had reached design change number 80 they had also abandoned the idea of bolting jets onto a Stratocruiser and had come up with a new design entirely. That is why the prototype "707" was always referred to as the Boeing 367-80, or often just the "Dash 80".
Interestingly, the Russians, who had built illicit copies of the B-29 as the Tupolev Tu-4 Bull, stayed with the basic B-29 fuselage shape and cross section when moving on to their next generation long range bomber, which became the Tu-95 Bear - which is still in service. Original concepts of Boeing's B-52 featured turboprops - some with straight wings and some with swept back wings. The B-52 could have ended up looking like a Tu-95.
ash73 said:
Was the B29 the most advanced aircraft design of WWII? It was a big step from the B17 and Lancaster.
Maybe the Me262 was a bigger leap forward, but much simpler, and the Ho229 was just a prototype.
Amazing how far designs progressed in such a short time.
It was certainly the most advanced and complicated to enter large scale production. I've heard that the development of the B-29 cost more than the research and development that went into the Manhattan Project. So, the aeroplane that ended up carrying the first atom bombs cost more than the bombs themselves.Maybe the Me262 was a bigger leap forward, but much simpler, and the Ho229 was just a prototype.
Amazing how far designs progressed in such a short time.
And it was a very difficult aeroplane to get into production.
It's an interesting thought. The B29 was certainly advanced in terms of details, pressurisation, remote controlled turrets etc. But in concept it was a bigger B17. Nothing to make a pre war aviation person go 'WTF?'.
At the other extreme you could call a Mosquito ahead of it's time. Designed to get under the radar to a very specific target and with no defensive armament. So more a wooden piston engined equivalent of a Tornado than a smaller faster Lancaster. What was most advanced out of Meteor, ME262 and the just-about-technically-operational P80? ME262 engines were very advanced in one way but a bit crap in others.
At the other extreme you could call a Mosquito ahead of it's time. Designed to get under the radar to a very specific target and with no defensive armament. So more a wooden piston engined equivalent of a Tornado than a smaller faster Lancaster. What was most advanced out of Meteor, ME262 and the just-about-technically-operational P80? ME262 engines were very advanced in one way but a bit crap in others.
The B-29 pioneered a lot of technology. Pressurisation of large aircraft was still in its infancy when the B-29 was first proposed. The only other large pressurised aircraft designed and built before the B-29 was the Boeing 307 Stratoliner - so at least Boeing had the right experience, even though they only ever built about 8 of them.
The prototype, one off, Douglas DC-4E was designed to be pressurised as was the Lockheed 049 Constellation. The DC-4E never entered service (only a prototype was built) and the Connie entered service at roughly the same time as the B-29.
Getting the B-29 built in large numbers was a huge task. A whole new factory was built in Kansas just to make it - and the Bell Aircraft company was also brought in as a major subcontractor.
The Kansas factory is still owned by Boeing.
The prototype, one off, Douglas DC-4E was designed to be pressurised as was the Lockheed 049 Constellation. The DC-4E never entered service (only a prototype was built) and the Connie entered service at roughly the same time as the B-29.
Getting the B-29 built in large numbers was a huge task. A whole new factory was built in Kansas just to make it - and the Bell Aircraft company was also brought in as a major subcontractor.
The Kansas factory is still owned by Boeing.
Eric Mc said:
It was certainly the most advanced and complicated to enter large scale production. I've heard that the development of the B-29 cost more than the research and development that went into the Manhattan Project. So, the aeroplane that ended up carrying the first atom bombs cost more than the bombs themselves.
And it was a very difficult aeroplane to get into production.
Or they could have used a Lancaster and saved a pie of dollars. Such is ego.And it was a very difficult aeroplane to get into production.
A very good book featuring the B47 is 'Wide Body' by Clive Irving, specifically the importance of high-speed wind tunnels, the development of the aero-elastic wing and podded engine nacelles and the B47s role in identifying and then addressing emerging problems in high speed flight.
Yertis said:
Or they could have used a Lancaster and saved a pie of dollars. Such is ego.
A very good book featuring the B47 is 'Wide Body' by Clive Irving, specifically the importance of high-speed wind tunnels, the development of the aero-elastic wing and podded engine nacelles and the B47s role in identifying and then addressing emerging problems in high speed flight.
I don't think a Lancaster would have been capable of carrying those early very heavy bombs over the large distances required and at the altutides originally specified. Lancaster rarely bomber from above 20,000 feet - more often quite a bit lower, as they were designed to do of course. And they were quite a bit slower than a B-29. If a Lancaster had flown the Hiroshima or Nagasaki missions, they'd have been caught in the heat blast as they would have been too low and too slow.A very good book featuring the B47 is 'Wide Body' by Clive Irving, specifically the importance of high-speed wind tunnels, the development of the aero-elastic wing and podded engine nacelles and the B47s role in identifying and then addressing emerging problems in high speed flight.
The B-29 was, like the B-17 before it, designed as a stratospheric bomber and it was designed for speeds in the 300 mph range.
And at the time the B-29 was ordered, the Lancaster didn't exists. All that existed was its rather pathetic predecessor, the Manchester.
As it turned out, of course, B-29s were eventually able to operate much closer to the Japanese mainland than had originally been anticipated and they also switched to low level bombing and night bombing too. So, by late 1944/early 1945, Lancasters COULD have done the job - but it was too late by then as hundreds of B-29s were now in service.
The RAF Tiger Force would have carried such missions alongside USAAF B-29s if the war had continued beyond August 1945.
Eric Mc said:
I don't think a Lancaster would have been capable of carrying those early very heavy bombs over the large distances required and at the altutides originally specified. Lancaster rarely bomber from above 20,000 feet - more often quite a bit lower, as they were designed to do of course. And they were quite a bit slower than a B-29. If a Lancaster had flown the Hiroshima or Nagasaki missions, they'd have been caught in the heat blast as they would have been too low and too slow.
I'm sure you're correct Eric. However, my information came from here (third paragraph).The topic being discussed isn't really the merits of the Lancaster or the B-29 (two very different designs conceived for different jobs).
It's really about the B-29 and its influence.
The B-29 was the first pressurised aircraft to be built in large numbers by any airframe manufacturer and the technology used and lessons learned were passed on to future designs.
It is interesting to see how well Avro's first pressurised design fared (hint - not very well).
It's really about the B-29 and its influence.
The B-29 was the first pressurised aircraft to be built in large numbers by any airframe manufacturer and the technology used and lessons learned were passed on to future designs.
It is interesting to see how well Avro's first pressurised design fared (hint - not very well).
There was a wildly far fetched conspiracy theory a few years back, I think I saw it on PPrune, to the effect that an early Avro Lincoln did drop the Hiroshima bomb. The mildly interesting thing was that the supposed witness described seeing Lincolns at either Guam or Tinian and said they were painted white. Which Tiger force Lancasters and Lincolns would have been if ever deployed. I also saw a report years ago that Lancasters were actively considered as a back up in case the silver plate B29s weren't available, which puzzled me until I discovered how much modification an ordinary B29 would have needed.
So certainly considered. Possibly seriously considered even during detailed planning. But not a serious option.
So certainly considered. Possibly seriously considered even during detailed planning. But not a serious option.
Dr Jekyll said:
There was a wildly far fetched conspiracy theory a few years back, I think I saw it on PPrune, to the effect that an early Avro Lincoln did drop the Hiroshima bomb. The mildly interesting thing was that the supposed witness described seeing Lincolns at either Guam or Tinian and said they were painted white. Which Tiger force Lancasters and Lincolns would have been if ever deployed. I also saw a report years ago that Lancasters were actively considered as a back up in case the silver plate B29s weren't available, which puzzled me until I discovered how much modification an ordinary B29 would have needed.
So certainly considered. Possibly seriously considered even during detailed planning. But not a serious option.
Quite. As detailed in the link I posted, our involvement was limited to the supply of Lancaster bomb release mechanisms, the only ones available capable of hefting the weight of the atom bombs. So certainly considered. Possibly seriously considered even during detailed planning. But not a serious option.
Dr Jekyll said:
ME262 engines were very advanced in one way but a bit crap in others.
Only because by then the Germans simply didn't have access to the materials needed to make the engines reliable enough......and the fact that they were struggling to find safe enough places to build them, and having to use more and more forced labour, that despite the risks involved, were doing an excellent job of sabotaging a lot of stuff just enough to mean it wouldn't last long once in service.Its interesting to see what FHC have found out about the engine design, with their remanufacturing of a lot of the bits needed with modern materials, to enable their original Jumo engine Me262 restoration to fly with original engines. They ground ran the engines last year.....but with the situation now with FHC, I'm not sure whether it will now ever fly.
That was part of the concept - and to get above the range of anti-aircraft guns too. The Japanese eventually developed an interceptor that had the ability to zoom climb to the altitude required to intercept high flying B-29s but it was near the end of the war and the country did not have the resources to put them into quantity production.
By the time of the Korean War, the B-29 was much more vulnerable and a number were lost to MiG 15s.
By the time of the Korean War, the B-29 was much more vulnerable and a number were lost to MiG 15s.
ash73 said:
Ki-84 was better.
Despite the complicated engine that needed very carefully looking after on the ground and in the air.....and an undercarriage made of cardboard....It was a formidable aircraft though despite it's issues as a result of the materials supply problem for Japan late in the war.
The only surviving example was still airworthy in the USA up until the early 70's before going back to Japan.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff