Americans didn't drop the bomb...
Discussion
Mr Dave said:
Lincolns service ceiling was 30,500 feet. Hiroshima was bombed from 31,000 feet. Does 500 feet make that much of a difference?
The service ceiling is not the altitude at which it would have flown in combat. A Lincoln would not have got much above about 22,000 feet with a bomb load. The B-29 could cruise at 30,000 fully loaded and higher when unloaded.
Uh huh. That might be true, but it doesn't mean that the B29 wasn't able to cruise at much higher altitudes.
The Yanks started high altitude bombing of Japan, but found the low altitude stuff more effective.
The B29's limitations were it's engines. Piston engines become less efficient as altitude increases, despite using suprcharges and other forms of energy recovery. Props also lose efficiency.
All aircraft have situations where the airframe or engines are at their most efficient. Nowadays, smarter design tries to marry these two points together, so that aircraft are at their most efficient where they spend most of their lives. For the case of modern long range jets, that's up at high altitude and around 0.8M, where their turbo fans and airframes perform best.
So the fact that the B29 performed best at 16,000ft is about as relevant to this discussion as what I had for lunch today. It could reach altitudes significantly higher and usually did.
What I'd like to know is what aircraft in WW2 was signifcantly bigger than the B29. Apart from the Spruce Goose. Or is that the fabled "white aircraft" that this nutjob is banging on about?
The Yanks started high altitude bombing of Japan, but found the low altitude stuff more effective.
The B29's limitations were it's engines. Piston engines become less efficient as altitude increases, despite using suprcharges and other forms of energy recovery. Props also lose efficiency.
All aircraft have situations where the airframe or engines are at their most efficient. Nowadays, smarter design tries to marry these two points together, so that aircraft are at their most efficient where they spend most of their lives. For the case of modern long range jets, that's up at high altitude and around 0.8M, where their turbo fans and airframes perform best.
So the fact that the B29 performed best at 16,000ft is about as relevant to this discussion as what I had for lunch today. It could reach altitudes significantly higher and usually did.
What I'd like to know is what aircraft in WW2 was signifcantly bigger than the B29. Apart from the Spruce Goose. Or is that the fabled "white aircraft" that this nutjob is banging on about?
richw_82 said:
There's a very good book , entitled "Memoirs of a B-29 pilot". In it the author states that the B-29 regularly flew at 16,000 feet for bombing as it was the height at which the best compromise between payload and range was found.
The America pre-war bombing philosphy was for high altitude, precision, daylight bombing. Both the B-17 and B-24 were designed with this in mind. That was why their engines were fitted with both superchargers and turbochargers. It is also why they had smaller bomb-loads than contemporary British bombers - which did not have good high altitude performance. The Americans had sacrificed bomb carrying capability in favour of better altitude performance and heavier defensive armamament.
The Lancaster and Lincoln may have theoretically capable of achieving higher altitudes, but they did not do so on operational missions - most bombing being conducted at 12,000 to 17,000 feet (and occasionally at VERY low level).
The B-29 design started in 1939 (before America entered the war) and the design requirement was an extension of the B-17 philosophy - a high altitude, precision bomber, well defended. Because it was expected that missions would be extremely long - the aircraft was pressurised to enable the crew to function without the need to wear all the cumbersome paraphanalia required in the B-17 and B-24 (oxygen masks, electrically heated and heavy clothing, gloves boots etc).
It was capable of cruisng at altitudes exceeding 30,000 feet for hours on end AND carry a decent bomb load whilst doing so.
When used against Japan, it was eventually found that conventional bombing was more effective at lower altitude so the extreme high altitude missions were ceased in favour of medium to low altitude missions.
The B-29 was the ONLY sensible choice for the carrying of these early atomic weapons.
Don't forget also, the crews had undergone weeks of training in the US. There is no record ANYWHERE of Lancasters, Lincolns or ANY other British aircraft and its crew either undergoing such training in the US or anywhere nor is there any record of British bombers (or even a single British bomber) being based on the Pacific Islands in the run up to the dropping of the bombs.
In fact, at this time of the war, the Americans were doing their best to EXCLUDE British involvement in the final defeat of Japan. They didn't want Britain to be seen to be "jumping on board" at the last minute to claim a shared victory over the Japanese. In that context, the use of a British aircraft and crew to actually deal the fatal blow to Japan is not only unlikely, but absurd.
Edited by Eric Mc on Saturday 4th July 09:46
This is an actual photograph taken by an OSS (forerunner of the CIA) photographer called Robert K. Morgan aboard the USAAF B-29 Superfortress 'Enola Gay' on the 6th of August 1945 over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The aircraft that is pictured dropping the bomb was specially painted 'anti-flash' white to protect its crew from the heatwave generaated by the bomb's explosion.
The picture was never released to the public at the time, but was found in the archives of the OSS when these were released in Washington, DC under the so-called 'sixty-five year rule' under the US Freedom of Information act.
The picture was never released to the public at the time, but was found in the archives of the OSS when these were released in Washington, DC under the so-called 'sixty-five year rule' under the US Freedom of Information act.
Ayahuasca said:
This is an actual photograph taken by an OSS (forerunner of the CIA) photographer called Robert K. Morgan aboard the USAAF B-29 Superfortress 'Enola Gay' on the 6th of August 1945 over the Japanese city of Hiroshima.
So why is the pic named RAAFAvroLincolnMalaya1950.jpg?Pigeon said:
Ayahuasca said:
This is an actual photograph taken by an OSS (forerunner of the CIA) photographer called Robert K. Morgan aboard the USAAF B-29 Superfortress 'Enola Gay' on the 6th of August 1945 over the Japanese city of Hiroshima.
So why is the pic named RAAFAvroLincolnMalaya1950.jpg?
Thanks again Eric!richw_82 said:
Robert Morgan from the Memphis Belle went on to fly B-29's in the pacific too.
I didn't think he was in the OSS.In actual fact, Lancasters and Lincolns which were slated for transfer to the Far East theatre as part of the Tiger Force were indeed painted mainly white. This had nothing to do with anti-flash precautions but to do with the fact that it was intended that they would be operating over vast expanses of ocean.
During the war, the RAF used predominately white surfaces on their aircraft which spent most of the time over the sea.
The fourth Lancaster down in the drawings below shows the 1945 Tiger Force scheme. Note the roundels compared to the post war examples also included in the picture.
The next picture shows a typical Coastal Command scheme - this time on a Halifax.
Edited by Eric Mc on Monday 6th July 09:56
grumbledoak said:
Chris71 said:
Are you reffering to the chap in Chard with his steam engine?
Not heard that one.Richard Pearce in NZ beat the Wright Brothers to it: http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/pearse1.htm...
The one I was talking about is Stingfellow. It's quite widely known... it was, however, only a model. Still 1848 is, what, 55 years before the Wrights?
http://www.chardmuseum.co.uk/Powered_Flight/
Pigeon said:
Ayahuasca said:
This is an actual photograph taken by an OSS (forerunner of the CIA) photographer called Robert K. Morgan aboard the USAAF B-29 Superfortress 'Enola Gay' on the 6th of August 1945 over the Japanese city of Hiroshima.
So why is the pic named RAAFAvroLincolnMalaya1950.jpg?Actually, my post above may have been made up.
Well done to Eric for spotting the Memphis Belle connection
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff