Author Topic: B29 (No not wishing, just general question)  (Read 1978 times)

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: B29 (No not wishing, just general question)
« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2009, 12:39:25 AM »
The overheating and catching fire was a design problem of the Wright R-3350 used by the B-29 ITSELF. It had NOTHING to do with the fact that it was a radial engine, the number of cylinders, or the number of banks. The R-2800 used in the Corsair, Hellcat, P-47 and P-61 was ALSO an 18-cylinder staggered two-bank radial engine and didn't have these same problems.

It didn't help that bombers usually sat on the ground longer than fighters before taking off.

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: B29 (No not wishing, just general question)
« Reply #16 on: July 07, 2009, 04:42:40 AM »
The overheating and catching fire was a design problem of the Wright R-3350 used by the B-29 ITSELF. It had NOTHING to do with the fact that it was a radial engine, the number of cylinders, or the number of banks. The R-2800 used in the Corsair, Hellcat, P-47 and P-61 was ALSO an 18-cylinder staggered two-bank radial engine and didn't have these same problems.

the R-2800 had problems with heat too, and was all to do with it being a radial and hence hard to cool. in a USAAF test of rated wep and mil settings none of the tested engines installled in F-4Us completed the tests. the test was 30x climb ~20k, cruise 30min, WEP 5min, Mil 15min, cruise and land 30min. that rated 15min Mil Pwr is the same as our unlimited Mil Pwr btw...
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: B29 (No not wishing, just general question)
« Reply #17 on: July 07, 2009, 09:18:13 AM »
the R-2800 had problems with heat too, and was all to do with it being a radial and hence hard to cool. in a USAAF test of rated wep and mil settings none of the tested engines installled in F-4Us completed the tests. the test was 30x climb ~20k, cruise 30min, WEP 5min, Mil 15min, cruise and land 30min. that rated 15min Mil Pwr is the same as our unlimited Mil Pwr btw...

Which test and what were the actual power settings? Because in other ground tests (where cooling conditions are even WORSE because of lack of airflow) R-2800s were run for several hours non-stop at WEP power with no ill effects.
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: B29 (No not wishing, just general question)
« Reply #18 on: July 07, 2009, 10:17:43 AM »
...it being a radial and hence hard to cool....

Radials are very easy to cool.  It only gets tricky when you want to minimize cooling drag to the absolute minimum, which they did on the B-29, and have ineffective engine cooling as a result.  Bottom line was that the R-3350 was a new motor in a new aircraft and the kinks had not been worked out yet.  There was tremendous pressure to get the B-29 airborne and combat capable as soon as possible.  The R-2800 was fortunate that none of the aircraft designs (F6F, F4U, and P-47) that used it were really pushing the cooling system envelope when they were introduced.  Don't forget that the B-29 was designed around a requirement that it fly from the U.S. to Germany on one tank of gas.  The designers were looking for every single advantage they could, and obviously cut it too close on the cooling system.  Ultimately, after the teething problems were solved, the R-3350 was one of the most successful piston engines, especially in airline service after the war.  It was even used on a few fighters, and can still be found at Reno powering some of the Unlimited class racers.

And, the USAAF gun-decked the F4U test just like the Navy gun-decked the P-51D evaluation.  Neither service wanted the other services aircraft forced on them just because the War Production Board thought it would be more efficient.
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: B29 (No not wishing, just general question)
« Reply #19 on: July 07, 2009, 02:41:26 PM »
I should have been more specific - double bank radials like he R-2800 have cooling problems as the rear bank is harder to get airflow to.

as for ground tests with several hours of WEP, there is no way these were done with the engine installed in a standard airframe. it would have been a bench test with sufficient airflow to eliminate that as a limiting factor.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-50030-final.pdf
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: B29 (No not wishing, just general question)
« Reply #20 on: July 07, 2009, 10:41:27 PM »
I should have been more specific - double bank radials like he R-2800 have cooling problems as the rear bank is harder to get airflow to.

I've never read of any cooling problems involving production F6F's, F4U's, or P-47's.  None of the POHs have any warnings outside of normal cooling awareness.  My point is simply that proper cooling system design will cool even the R-4360 corncob type engines.  Otherwise, all of those aircraft through the 40's, 50's, and 60's that used corncob type engines would not have been successful.  The B-29's initially had poorly performing baffle systems--that's why they had cooling problems.  The double row of cylinders certainly made the engineers' job harder, but again, in order to meet the performance criteria established by the USAAF, the Boeing engineers tried every method possible to increase the efficiency of the design.  Apparently their initial engine cooling design went too far...
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: B29 (No not wishing, just general question)
« Reply #21 on: July 08, 2009, 12:03:10 AM »
Check out the climb rate chart on Page 23 of that report. That's a MUCH different rate of climb curve for than we have in the game. According to this chart, the Corsair had a sustained rate of climb at combat power exceeding 3500FPM all the way up to 10,000ft, and meets or exceeds 3000fpm past 15k. The aircraft in the test is identified as a -1, but is probably a 1A. Our 1A doesn't come CLOSE to that rate of climb even under WEP. There's almost a full 1000fpm difference at some altitudes between this test and the climb charts for our 1A!
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: B29 (No not wishing, just general question)
« Reply #22 on: July 08, 2009, 02:31:53 AM »
interesting, the climbrate is also way higher than the chart on the next page, and all the others for 1 and 1As tested :confused:
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: B29 (No not wishing, just general question)
« Reply #23 on: July 08, 2009, 07:44:06 AM »
interesting, the climbrate is also way higher than the chart on the next page, and all the others for 1 and 1As tested :confused:

It's not quite AS off as it looks, because the chart starts at 10,000ft, although it's definitely a good 200-300fpm off.

I'd like to hear some other opinions from some of the chart guys on this, as looking at a couple things it looks like this aircraft may have even been in an overloaded status exceeding normal combat loads. Gonna start a new thread so as not to hijack this one further...
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline 1carbine

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 237
Re: B29 (No not wishing, just general question)
« Reply #24 on: December 10, 2009, 04:22:06 PM »
I don't know the sortie totals, but I can give rough production totals off the top of my head.


B-17: over 12,000 built.
B-24: over 18,000 built.
B-29: over 3,000 built, some post war.

That should give you an idea of the likely sortie totals.

B-17: over 12,731 built.
B-24: over 18,482 built.
B-29: over 3,970 built, some post war.

In Korea the B-29s flew 20,000 sorties and dropped 200,000 tons (180,000 tonnes) of bombs. B-29 gunners were credited with shooting down 27 enemy aircraft. not sure how many in WW2 but on the Boeing website it says "As many as 1,000 Superfortresses at a time bombed Tokyo"
Obama is the Energizer bunny of fail.

_|o[____]o
[1---L-OllllllO-
()_)()_)=°°=)_)

Offline Chalenge

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15179
Re: B29 (No not wishing, just general question)
« Reply #25 on: December 10, 2009, 05:44:52 PM »
According to the book by General LeMay (where he lists sorties by days) the sorties totalled 27,129 not including supply sorties.

Of special interest are the two days when there was only 1 bomber up each day.
If you like the Sick Puppy Custom Sound Pack the please consider contributing for future updates by sending a months dues to Hitech Creations for account "Chalenge." Every little bit helps.

Offline Cthulhu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2463
Re: B29 (No not wishing, just general question)
« Reply #26 on: December 10, 2009, 06:30:35 PM »
OK, I'm gonna catch Hell for this, but....

The number of B-29 missions flown just prior to the end of the war?

2    :bolt:
"Think of Tetris as a metaphor for life:  You spend all your time trying to find a place for your long thin piece, then when you finally do, everything you've built disappears"

Offline 1carbine

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 237
Re: B29 (No not wishing, just general question)
« Reply #27 on: December 10, 2009, 07:07:22 PM »
OK, I'm gonna catch Hell for this, but....

The number of B-29 missions flown just prior to the end of the war?

2    :bolt:


So was boeing wrong about there B-29 bombing tokyo?
Obama is the Energizer bunny of fail.

_|o[____]o
[1---L-OllllllO-
()_)()_)=°°=)_)

Offline Cthulhu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2463
Re: B29 (No not wishing, just general question)
« Reply #28 on: December 10, 2009, 07:29:48 PM »
So was boeing wrong about there B-29 bombing tokyo?
You mean about not dropping the big bomb on Tokyo? Gotta leave somebody alive to surrender you know. Or are you referring to the massive firebombing raids?

On a completely different note, do any of you old guys remember when Le May was George Wallace's running mate? He made Wallace look like Jimmy Carter by comparison. :D

Going away now  :bolt:
"Think of Tetris as a metaphor for life:  You spend all your time trying to find a place for your long thin piece, then when you finally do, everything you've built disappears"

Offline 1carbine

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 237
Re: B29 (No not wishing, just general question)
« Reply #29 on: December 10, 2009, 08:12:44 PM »
My mistake your talking about the atom bombs   :rofl  sorry   :bolt:
Obama is the Energizer bunny of fail.

_|o[____]o
[1---L-OllllllO-
()_)()_)=°°=)_)