Cold Blue' Shows the B-17 Bomber Like You've Never Seen It Before

I didn't consider the central fire control system on the B-29 and certainly it would have had a positive affect on fighter attacks. Near the end of the B-29 attacks the Japanese fighters were able to reach the B-29 altitudes and they did have an affect on the formations. The pressurized cabins were a Godsend to the crews ...until they were violated by flak or bullets. Seldom happened. I was friends with the flight engineer on "Dauntless Dottie" and knew several other B-29 pilots. They were special people in that they were the fore front of a huge advance in aviation technology during the conflict. The B-29 was a great advance in aviation over the B-17 and B-24 and those who flew it and operated it were also..

 

Bob- Affirmative, but they flew way higher and used the same Norden bombsight technology, so the errors in accuracy were even worse. Especially since the Jet Stream often dipped through Japan. One reason why Curtis LeMay had them dropping at low altitude for the fire bombing missions. No telling where those bombs would have hit from 30,000'.

We had the same problem with differential ballistic winds in Desert Storm with the B-52s dropping dumb bombs from 45,000'. Errors exceeded 1/4 mile, which was about the length of the bomb string.

 

I agree. I mentioned this in a previous post, I think. My friend, Dave, said that they couldn't figure out why their drop was so far off. " Every damn bomb ended up in Tokyo Bay!" Over Germany the wind shear may not have been the problem that it was over Japan but from what you said about Desert Storm, maybe not. I may have mentioned this before. When I was in basic training in Texas we spotted a white trail at high altitude. It was a B-29 on fire. When I was at Langley Field in 1945 we saw one on final, on fire. When I was walking out of Drew Field after my discharge there was a B-29 on final with afire in number three. I'm amazed that this airplane helped us to end the war. Good airplane, horrible engine.

 

While the R-3350 never became the paragon of reliability that the R-2800 became, it did quite well in the Neptune, Skyraider, Constellation and DC-7, so maybe the issues in the B-29 were mainly because of newness.

 

The B-29's other big problem, I read was that they took off on very hot days, loaded to the gills over max with fuel and bombs, with no cooling air (other than the props). many engines were almost terminal by liftoff. It helped to stay on the deck after liftoff and struggle for more airspeed instead of altitude for that reason.

Of course, when there was a fire, the magnesium engines burned ferociously; almost impossible to extinguish... then it would burn through the wing spar.

There was also a big problem with the props... many runaway props that could not be feathered. They were electric, I think.

But still a great airplane...

 

This may come off as a silly question, but I am sure I heard while watching a documentary on the air war in the ETO that if the bomber crews felt their missions were suicidal or some other reasoning that they could decide not to go on the bombing run, tho no crew ever did this.

I have never been able to confirm this, perhaps I was dozing off and dreamt this. As I said it's a silly question but it keeps popping into my head every now and again.

 

There is no recorded incident where a bomber crew turned back in the face of the enemy. However, there were filmed incidents of bombers making dubious "forced landings" in Sweden and Switzerland where they were interned.

 

Paragraph one: To gain airspeed was paramount in the minds of the pilots and that meant closing the cowl flaps to decrease drag. Cooling the engines was the first duty of the flight engineer and that meant opening the cowl flaps. Great struggling ensued between the two. The R3350 appeared to be two R1820's mated "face to face" with the front bank (R1820 engine) with the exhaust manifold collector ring ahead of the air-cooled engine. An obsession of Wright engineers. As Dr. Phil says, " How does that work for you?" One big problem was lack of cooling in the exhaust valves that had failures of the valve stems , consequently swallowing the valve. Some B-29's upon reaching the Pacific theater had to have all four engines replaced, some with less than 6 hours on them. There were fields of dead engines.

Paragraph two: I never heard of that happening but I don't doubt that it did. The B-50 had magnesium links in the engine mounts so that if a fire got big enough in an engine, the links would burn through allowing the engine to fall free.

Paragraph three: The Curtiss electric props were as bad as the engines. I saw a B-50 crash shortly after take off when #3 and #4 went into full feather.

 

Thanks Bob... I knew about the mag engine mounts on the B-50.... that was a good idea.

I read about the 29 engines burning through the spar somewhere... will see if I can find it.

 

I think you are correct, Jim.

 

Since the R-4360 engines on the B-50 were nearly as problematic as the R-3350s, the B-50s had their own problems. I know that the B-377 Stratocruisers that were based on the B-50 started their life with hollow-blade propellers that caused a number of accidents before being replaced; did the B-50s use those as well?

 

Thanks Bob, assuming that's the same for crews not taking off from base for their mission at all

 

I can't answer that one. I worked on the KC-97G and B-50's and I can only remember the Hamilton Standard props and hubs. Sixty nine + years does have and effect on the recall at times.

 

The B-377 Stratotankers had rubber cored propellers originally, only sort of hollow, I think. Many failures. Some fatal.
I've never heard of those on the B-50.

I know they added a couple turbojets to the KC-97's used as tankers, so they could service jet fighters without 'flying downhill'...

 

They still had to toboggan on later fighters like the F-111A and loaded F-4s. The fighters would put one engine in min AB and refuel with the other throttle. In an F-4, that meant you were almost burning as much fuel as you took on (just kidding).

 

I have heard of B52 crews refusing to go up during the Viet Nam conflict when the SAM sites got better.

 

I never heard of that. We had the losses to prove it. They finally ran out of SAMs.