Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: caldera on January 12, 2011, 05:25:57 PM
-
What is the historical damage sustainability of the B-29? Was it B-17/Lancaster tough or a zippo like the B-24?
-
I was under the impression that it was tough as nails except for the engines, they could burn nicely
-
I was under the impression that it was tough as nails except for the engines, they could burn nicely
The engines had a reputation for burning because they were tightly cowled and had a propensity for generating a lot of heat on the back cylinders. The accessory cases were made out of magnesium to save weight, as were many of the U.S. radial-powered fighter engines. If a fire started in the back of the engine compartment, and the accessory case caught fire, it was an issue, as magnesium is highly flammable once it starts, and it was located very close to the main wing spar. That, however, is not a "damage" issue, as any of the radial engined U.S. fighters shared the magnesium accessory case construction--they just didn't have the cooling issues the B-29 had. Given it shared the same engineering department as the B-17, I'd expect it to be every bit as tough as the Superfortress, just bigger. I'd be suprised if the B-29, when introduced to the game, will be a "roman candle" type target.
-
The fuselage and tail look like fine. I was thinking more of the wings. Aren't they the same wing style as the B-24? Thought the B-24's problem was something about oval shaped fuel lines (necessitated by the wing shape) that didn't seal so well (IIRC).
One could assume that that issue would have been rectified for the B-29. But you know what happens when you assume.
-
The fuselage and tail look like fine. I was thinking more of the wings. Aren't they the same wing style as the B-24? Thought the B-24's problem was something about oval shaped fuel lines (necessitated by the wing shape) that didn't seal so well (IIRC).
One could assume that that issue would have been rectified for the B-29. But you know what happens when you assume.
Two different aircraft, two different manufacturers, two different wing designs.
-
"I'd be suprised if the B-29, when introduced to the game, will be a "roman candle" type target."
Well, I recall reading an anecdote of a P-61 Black Widow pilot who was sent to shoot down a B29 which was still flying after her crew had bailed. I recall that emptying all the arsenal he had with him had practically no immediate effect on B29. And that is 4 x Hisso -and no defensive fire to distract aiming.
-C+
-
"I'd be suprised if the B-29, when introduced to the game, will be a "roman candle" type target."
Well, I recall reading an anecdote of a P-61 Black Widow pilot who was sent to shoot down a B29 which was still flying after her crew had bailed. I recall that emptying all the arsenal he had with him had practically no immediate effect on B29. And that is 4 x Hisso -and no defensive fire to distract aiming.
-C+
Well did he get credit for the kill when the plane went down due to running out of fuel or what? He should have been barking at the bosses to give him credit to help his score...otherwise I call BS.
-
I asked my grandpa about the B-29's engines - he was flying them at the end of and right after the war and he told me the last time he was behind the controls of an airplane it was a B-29 and he got a warning light/indicator that there was something wrong with one of the engines. They were just about on the ground so he decided to finish the landing, his way of informing the crew was to tell them that they would be on the ground soon but they were all going to have to be pretty damned quick if they wanted to beat him out of the airplane. :)
-
According to Air Force statistics XX Bomber Command lost 80 B-29's between Jun-44 and Aug-45
22 were lost due to enemy fighters
7 were lost due to enemy anti-aircraft fire
51 were lost due to mechanical, operational, or other accidents.
Also, XX bomber Command reported the following damage incidents due to all causes
419 major damage incidents between Jun-44 and Aug-45
2,267 minor damage incidents between Jun-44 and Aug-45
It looks like the B-29 was pretty durable, but then again, statistics can be misleading.
-
I'm quite nervous for the b29, I think it might be a plane to knock half a wing off with a couple taters. That is if u hit the wing tips. :uhoh
-
I'm with Stoney, Magnesium is the root of all evil. Dumbest idea we ever had!
-
I'm with Stoney, Magnesium is the root of all evil. Dumbest idea we ever had!
Well, I suppose it works well enough if you get some air back there to keep the valve stems from becoming projectiles... :)
-
Two different aircraft, two different manufacturers, two different wing designs.
wait...so boing didnt design the b24 and/or b29?....
wow, i feel so stupid right now. :o
-
Boeing designed the B-17 and the B-29. Consolidated designed the B-24.
-
Boeing designed the B-17 and the B-29. Consolidated designed the B-24.
oh, i allways thought the B stood for boing... :o
-
B = Bomber
C= Cargo
P= army fighter
F=naval fighter
the last two got merged after ww2 but I think thats how americans designate things
-
P=Pursuit
it was changed to F after ww2 for Fighter
-
Magnesium alloys are far more stable than using magnesium as the catalyst for a chemical reaction, or a fuse, but all the same, that watermelon will stay burning in the water. The reasoning behind the choice was backed by half-stupid science.... Magnesium powder or thinly shaven strips will ignite rather quickly, but in bulk much more difficult to ignite(less fires), however it also manages to retain a ton more heat(more fires)... :salute
Well, I suppose it works well enough if you get some air back there to keep the valve stems from becoming projectiles... :)
I thought the correct term was boink............ :headscratch:
oh, i allways thought the B stood for boing... :o
:D
-
Two different aircraft, two different manufacturers, two different wing designs.
Boeing made the 24 and the 29, and yes the 29 will be a very tough plane although you don't want to hit while pressurized. :uhoh
-
:uhoh http://www.consolidatedaircraft.org/history.htm :uhoh
Boeing made the 24 and the 29, and yes the 29 will be a very tough plane although you don't want to hit while pressurized. :uhoh
Here, let me Google that for you.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Consolidated+B-24+Liberator
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Boeing+B+24+Liberator
-
Boeing made the 24 and the 29, and yes the 29 will be a very tough plane although you don't want to hit while pressurized. :uhoh
:uhoh http://www.consolidatedaircraft.org/history.htm :uhoh
Here, let me Google that for you.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Consolidated+B-24+Liberator
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Boeing+B+24+Liberator
ooooooooops :o
-
What is the historical damage sustainability of the B-29? Was it B-17/Lancaster tough or a zippo like the B-24?
Well, let us put it this way...more B-29s were lost due to mechanical failures than were shot down by enemy fighters or AAA.
ack-ack
-
I'm with Stoney, Magnesium is the root of all evil. Dumbest idea we ever had!
How can you say that? The use of magnesium provided substantial weight savings with little actual affect owing to flammability. Also, nearly all US aircraft used magnesium, whether it was wheels, brake assemblies, castings, fittings, and a host of other parts that helped cut weight and increase performance.
-
Aside from what I have already said you mean?
How can you say that?
-
Aside from what I have already said you mean?
The problem wasn't the magnesium in the engines, it was poor design.
ack-ack
-
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/xxREXxx_01/japanese-fighter-tactics-b29-superfortress.jpg)
well from the way the japanese had to attack them, we can say the plane was tough enough to where they couldnt just pull up on its six and down it with a couple of cannon shots.
-
LOL, we actually tested similar method against B17 prior a scenario a few years back. It requires good timing and is very hard to defend against. Didn't realize it was an actual tactic. :lol
-C+
-
LOL, we actually tested similar method against B17 prior a scenario a few years back. It requires good timing and is very hard to defend against. Didn't realize it was an actual tactic. :lol
-C+
if you have a good buff pilot, he'd be able to bank at the right times to avoid being in the diving planes line of sight. (for the b17, no idea how good the 29 manuevers)
-
LOL, we actually tested similar method against B17 prior a scenario a few years back. It requires good timing and is very hard to defend against. Didn't realize it was an actual tactic. :lol
-C+
There are no "new" good ideas... :)
-
So basically you're saying the construction was badly handled by adding a very high heat retaining metal as a part of critical areas? :headscratch: A design that succumb to engine overheats way too easily?
That right?
The problem wasn't the magnesium in the engines, it was poor design.
ack-ack
-
So basically you're saying the construction was badly handled by adding a very high heat retaining metal as a part of critical areas? :headscratch: A design that succumb to engine overheats way too easily?
That right?
I think he's saying that the B-29's engine problems were not due to having magnesium in the accessory case, but a lack of cooling air due to the design of the cowling.
-
"I'd be suprised if the B-29, when introduced to the game, will be a "roman candle" type target."
Well, I recall reading an anecdote of a P-61 Black Widow pilot who was sent to shoot down a B29 which was still flying after her crew had bailed. I recall that emptying all the arsenal he had with him had practically no immediate effect on B29. And that is 4 x Hisso -and no defensive fire to distract aiming.
-C+
This is the incident you have mentioned. :headscratch: May be the benchmark that the damage model should be based off?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/b29damage.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/b29damage1.jpg)
-
I think he's saying that the B-29's engine problems were not due to having magnesium in the accessory case, but a lack of cooling air due to the design of the cowling.
Yep.
ack-ack
-
All very true, but at the same instance, one might say.... If "cooler" metals were used, this lack of air would have had a far less impact.
Yep.
ack-ack
Some arguments can go back and forth forever, I do think this is one of them. There is probably 12 different reasons and once they all added to one another, the synergy created is unstoppable.
:salute
-
It was an initial bad design by engineering. Killed quite a few people including one of Boeings most revered test pilots to this day, Eddie Allen. May he, his crew, and those on the ground rest in peace.
"The most relentless problem was the 2,200 hp Wright Cyclone R-3350 twin row radial engine. It had a persistent inclination to overheat, swallow valves and even catch fire in flight. In an effort to produce more horsepower from a lighter engine, the crankcase was made of magnesium, a very light, very strong metal. The problem was magnesium is also a flammable metal. When that was combined with the additional problem of a fuel induction system, which tended to catch fire and burn long enough to catch the magnesium afire, it became a very serious situation. "Band-Aid" treatments such as air baffles to direct more air to the rear row of cylinders and propeller cuffs to force more air through the engine helped, but it would be many moons before the problem was solved. Boeing lost its' Chief Test Pilot along with the cream of the B-29 flight test crew because of a fire which destroyed a wing spar. Shortly after noon on Thursday, February 18, 1943, Eddie Allen was flight testing the number two XB-29 when an engine fire developed. The port wing spar burned through and collapsed sending the huge bomber crashing into a meat packing plant a few miles south of Boeing Field. All eleven men aboard the plane and 18 in the plant were killed instantly."
-
"May be the benchmark that the damage model should be based off?"
Would I be surprised if it did... :rofl
Nice find Lyric1. :aok
-C+
-
"May be the benchmark that the damage model should be based off?"
Would I be surprised if it did... :rofl
Nice find Lyric1. :aok
-C+
Remember that was just from left wing tip to the center of the aircraft :O That is a truck load of lead right there.
-
it's going to be interesting how they/we model the 18+ hour flights over the Pacific...also...don't forget the Japanese defended against these birds by flying into them as well...any idea when the 29 is going to be available???
-
The same way they model it now. :neener:
it's going to be interesting how they/we model the 18+ hour flights over the Pacific...also...don't forget the Japanese defended against these birds by flying into them as well...any idea when the 29 is going to be available???
And normally it's 2 weeks, but I'm abroad, and updates ALWAYS happen when I'm away on work. So it could be this week............. :eek:
-
i heard the b29 is coming sometime in march/april...
-
All very true, but at the same instance, one might say.... If "cooler" metals were used, this lack of air would have had a far less impact.
Some arguments can go back and forth forever, I do think this is one of them. There is probably 12 different reasons and once they all added to one another, the synergy created is unstoppable.
:salute
Aluminum also burns nicely once you lite it up. They figured this out after a couple Al armored cans got whacked by sea skimmers...a bit late for the cans, of course. Everything is a compromise, some work out better than others.
-
i heard the b29 is coming sometime in march/april...
I thought it was 2 weeks?
-
I thought it was 2 weeks?
its been 2 weeks for the past 2 months...
-
You also have to remember that it was also due to the high humidity of the pacific theatre of opperations. case in point in nascar, and many other racing events. becuase the cars are running at high speeds for prolonged times. the engines will burst into flames. it wasnt due to poor design the B-29 was a perfect design, its just the engines werent properly and completly tested before the bomber entered service. mostly due to the fact that the US wanted an end to the war quickly. the problems were ironed out after the war, and the B-29s in korea had very few problems with the engines. and when the russians copied it and made the TU-4 they were never able to fix the engine problems.
-
You also have to remember that it was also due to the high humidity of the pacific theatre of opperations. case in point in nascar, and many other racing events. becuase the cars are running at high speeds for prolonged times. the engines will burst into flames. it wasnt due to poor design the B-29 was a perfect design, its just the engines werent properly and completly tested before the bomber entered service. mostly due to the fact that the US wanted an end to the war quickly. the problems were ironed out after the war, and the B-29s in korea had very few problems with the engines. and when the russians copied it and made the TU-4 they were never able to fix the engine problems.
Sorry thats not right. The engines on the B29 were updated continuously. This design was started before the B17 was even considered. The B29 was still being improved upon during initial deliveries and were field modified with updated items regularly. You suggest the aircraft was not compeltely tested (and said so directly) but there probably wasnt a more thoroughly tested design during the war in any Air Force.
-
You also have to remember that it was also due to the high humidity of the pacific theatre of opperations. case in point in nascar, and many other racing events. becuase the cars are running at high speeds for prolonged times. the engines will burst into flames. it wasnt due to poor design the B-29 was a perfect design, its just the engines werent properly and completly tested before the bomber entered service. mostly due to the fact that the US wanted an end to the war quickly. the problems were ironed out after the war, and the B-29s in korea had very few problems with the engines. and when the russians copied it and made the TU-4 they were never able to fix the engine problems.
The Wright R-3350 engines were beset with numerous problems though these problems were eventually ironed out during the production life of the B-29.
After World War II, the R-3350 was redesigned which means the engines that the B-29 used in Korea were not quite the same engines the B-29 used in the PTO.
Some of the problems of the R-3350s
- excessive clearance between the cylinder baffles and the cowl
- engines had a tendency to swallow their own valves
Other design problems on the B-29 also had a negative impact on the engines such as the cowling being designed too close to the engines, leading to insufficient cooling and engine over heating and the early cowl flaps also had a flutter and vibration when open.
ack-ack
-
hmm i guess the history channel is wrong again oh well no worries. and yes the high tempetures of the PTO had a part in the overheating of the engines.but yeah. none the less the B-29 was a great design (perfect IMHO it way be becuase im a yank but i will stand to that till i die).
-
... and when the russians copied it and made the TU-4 they were never able to fix the engine problems.
Too funny reading a story about the copy they made of a B29 that landed on their territory. Evidently, the team that copied it even incorporated the bullet holes in their new aircraft, and the Boeing-stamped control yokes...
-
Too funny reading a story about the copy they made of a B29 that landed on their territory. Evidently, the team that copied it even incorporated the bullet holes in their new aircraft, and the Boeing-stamped control yokes...
Well, if Uncle Joe told you to copy something exactly or else, wouldn't you make sure it was exact?
-
no.... the B stands for Bomber- B-1, B-2, B-17- B-24, B-25, B-29, and F stands for Fighter- F-4, F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, etc. :o
-
Aluminum also burns nicely once you lite it up. They figured this out after a couple Al armored cans got whacked by sea skimmers...a bit late for the cans, of course. Everything is a compromise, some work out better than others.
Besides for an oxidizer, take a guess what the main component is in modern rocket solid booster fuels. ;)
-
This is the incident you have mentioned. :headscratch: May be the benchmark that the damage model should be based off?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/b29damage.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/b29damage1.jpg)
Doesn't appear that incident was used as the damage model benchmark. Model seems closer to the 1937 incident at Lakehurst, New Jersey. Hopefully just a bug though.
-
All very true, but at the same instance, one might say.... If "cooler" metals were used, this lack of air would have had a far less impact.
Some arguments can go back and forth forever, I do think this is one of them. There is probably 12 different reasons and once they all added to one another, the synergy created is unstoppable.
:salute
It would still be an issue as the design of the cowling flaps would still cause the engines to over heat. Sure, the engines might not have caught on fire but the engines would still have over heated and the bomber's sortie scrapped due to an engine malfunction.
ack-ack
-
Doesn't appear that incident was used as the damage model benchmark. Model seems closer to the 1937 incident at Lakehurst, New Jersey. Hopefully just a bug though.
:rofl
_____________________ /)
/ --- --- --- --- --- --- V )
/ --- --- --- --- X[][][]-I >
\ --- --- --- --- --- --- --/\ )
\____________________/ \)
\|/_____\|/
(=|=|=|=|=)>-I
b29 - its the blimp in the room everyone's talking about
-
:xand its already here!! when was the poll submitted? novembr?
-
I said this in another thread, but I think it fits in with this discussion too. I'm curious if anyone else agrees.
"I actually think many are missing something. AH does not have engine fires. It has fuel fires. That has been no indication from HTC in the update notes that the modeling of AH has changed and that the engines in planes can now catch fire.
So I'll wait for the patches and see if HTC decideds that there is an issue or not. If they say there is no issue with the hardness of the self sealing fuel tank areas, then so be it."
-
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/216/494116614_64a50dcce7_z.jpg?zz=1)
-
New patch.
_________
I just tested the B-29's battle damage sustainability offline, it's a little more "beefy" but it certainly doesn't live up to the artical posted here. Fires will be a thing of the past now.
-
Re: [B29-Superfortress] Aces High Online Sim B-29
From: Frank Farrell <b29gunner@suddenlink.net>Add to Contacts
To: B29-Superfortress@yahoogroups.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the pictures in this posting may not be reality, it is interesting to note that the one of the RCT Gun Sight has an "INTERPHONE" activation button...NOT Intercom! Farrell
:huh
Please note, re my earlier email, the Gun Sight switch WAS CORRECT AS "INTERPHONE"...my point was it did NOT say "INTERCOM"