Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Gaidin on June 05, 2009, 06:38:58 PM
-
Does anyone know the number of missions the B29 flew prior to the end of WW2, and how does that number relate to the B24/17/26's numbers?
-
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.
-
Well that depends on if you mean missions missions or just when one of them took off flew to another airbase and then flew back after droping someone off or somehting along those lines. If I have the numbers correct, then B29's opperating from china, or some other god-awfull place out in the east, had to have 3 supporting missions for one actuall drop bombs on the enemy's heads missions. The fule had to be flown in, the bombs had to be flown in, the ammo for the turrets had to be flown in, stuff like that. I know this because I saw a show about the B29 or something where there was a section about them, and to operate against Japan (not occupied islands and Jap controled territory) they had to have all the aformentioned stuff (gas, ord, etc.) flown over a mountian range and it took 3 trips to make one agains Japan. Also there was a problem with the engines catching fire do to the hot, humid climate. Or maby it was just hot or something like that. Well anyway they had a problem with engine fires.
-
I am referring to actual drop bombs on the enemy missions. Numbers for all of them for comparison.
-
From http://39th.org/39th/hc/b29decisive-factor.htm (http://39th.org/39th/hc/b29decisive-factor.htm):
Between June of 1944 and August 1945, B-29's flew a combined 380 bombing missions (26,611 bomb sorties) and dropped 167,448 tons of bombs and mines and lost 402 B-29's while shooting down 871 enemy aircraft as well as 565 probables and damaging 1,090.
From http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_B-29_combat.html (http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_B-29_combat.html):
The 58th Bombardment Wing carried out 72 missions from India and China. Amongst them was the longest B-29 mission of the war, a 3,900 mile round trip to attack the crucial oil refineries at Palembang, Sumatra.
And:
By the end of the war XXI Bomber Command had carried out 34,000 B-29 sorties, dropped 160,000 tons of bombs and devastated large parts of Japan, at the cost of 371 aircraft, but the Japanese had still not surrendered.
wrongway
-
Thank you wronway, you just saved me from a socialy akward moment where I knew all that crap about the whole 3 missions, and supporting missions, and engine fire stuff, but no IDEA about the number of missions or bombs droped.
-
TY for the info on the B29. Does anyone have the numbers for the others? Bombing sorties, pounds of ord dropped?
-
All kinds of info here, http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/aafsd/aafsd_list_of_tables.html
-
All kinds of info here, http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/aafsd/aafsd_list_of_tables.html
comes back bad request. no page.
-
B-17:
From http://www.zap16.com/mil%20fact/B-17%20Flying%20Fortress/Boeing%20B-17%20Flying%20Fortress.htm (http://www.zap16.com/mil%20fact/B-17%20Flying%20Fortress/Boeing%20B-17%20Flying%20Fortress.htm):
Total operational sorties: 294875
Total bombs dropped: 650000 tons
B-17's lost in action: 4483 (861 accidents)
This may be Europe only or 8th AF only.
Can't find a number for B-24s. Lots and lots of groups all over flew B-24s. Many for a variety of reasons other than strategic bombing. B-24s flew cargo, maritime patrols, dropped commandos behind enemy lines amongst other random missions.
wrongway
-
Thanks for all the info. Im doing a project on WW2 bombing and this info will help flesh out things.
-
comes back bad request. no page.
Works for me. Try again as sometimes there is problems connecting.
-
...and to operate against Japan (not occupied islands and Jap controled territory) they had to have all the aformentioned stuff (gas, ord, etc.) flown over a mountian range and it took 3 trips to make one agains Japan. Also there was a problem with the engines catching fire do to the hot, humid climate. Or maby it was just hot or something like that. Well anyway they had a problem with engine fires.
The mountain range you are referring to is the Himalayas. And after 1945 B-29 sorties were no longer flown from India/China as the allies had already "procured" island bases throughout the Central Pacific and the Marianas Islands - it was cheaper for the U.S. to ship in fuel/ordnance than it was to fly them into China/India.
The overheating issues were typically caused at take-off. This was due to the fact that the B-29 had radial engines, which require a great amount of airflow to keep cool. This is because the 18 cylinders in the radial engines were compactly arranged in front/rear rows - which would overheat and cause exhaust valves to unseat. All of these factors combined with unseated exhaust valves (which somewhat functioned as a blowtorch against the valvestems). Once these burned through, the engines would disintegrated. Also, the accessory housing were manufactured of a magnesium alloy that would burn through and catch fire due to the heat of the engines. Once this barrier was breached, engine fires were pretty much impossible to extinguish.
-
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.
-
comes back bad request. no page.
No problem with me. Sometimes the site is finicky, try again.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
...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.
-
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 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-50030-final.pdf)
-
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...
-
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!
-
interesting, the climbrate is also way higher than the chart on the next page, and all the others for 1 and 1As tested :confused:
-
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...
-
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"
-
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.
-
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:
-
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?
-
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:
-
My mistake your talking about the atom bombs :rofl sorry :bolt:
-
There were nearly 1000 sorties after Nagasakit and nearly 500 between Horoshima and Nagasaki so nice and clever but factually incorrect.
-
From the Air Force Historical Center;
http://www.afhra.af.mil/timelines/index.asp (http://www.afhra.af.mil/timelines/index.asp)
Table 119- AIRBORNE AND EFFECTIVE COMBAT SORTIES FLOWN IN EUROPEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS, BY TYPE OF AIRPLANE: AUG 1942 TO MAY 1945
Total effective Heavy Bomber sorties from Aug 42 - May 45 = 274,921
Table 125- AIRBORNE AND EFFECTIVE COMBAT SORTIES FLOWN BY TWENTIETH AIR FORCE, BY TYPE OF AIRPLANE: JUN 1944 TO AUG 1945
Total effective Very Heavy Bomber sorties from Jun 44 to Aug 45 = 29,153
As an alternative comparison, Heavy Bombers dropped a total of 714,719 tons of bombs in the ETO in 34 months (21,021 tons per month average). Very Heavy Bombers dropped 169,676 tons of bombs in 15 months (11,312 tons per month average).
-
There were nearly 1000 sorties after Nagasakit and nearly 500 between Horoshima and Nagasaki so nice and clever but factually incorrect.
I didn't think it was that clever, but I guess I just have higher standards. I grew bored with spewing stale wartime factoids by the mid 70's... my apologies. :salute In an effort to make amends and to increase the overall completeness of the thread, I'll check my data and post how many of those sorties were actually flown by left-handed Eskimos with narcolepsy. In fact, I bet Lusche already has that data charted somewhere. ;)
-
I didnt think so either but I was considering the source.
-
how many of those sorties were actually flown by left-handed Eskimos with narcolepsy.
Statistically, there had to be at LEAST one... right?
-
No I think STATISTICALLY Eskimo (Inuit) tend to be shorter and more suited for fighters than bombers but you could ask greens how he thinks about that.
-
No I think STATISTICALLY Eskimo (Inuit) tend to be shorter and more suited for fighters than bombers but you could ask greens how he thinks about that.
i lol'd :aok