B-29 Deployment : Pacific, not Europe

[mmatthej1]

I wonder if any one can point to the moment when the decision was taken to deploy only to the Pacific theatre, by whom & why?

The nearest reference I've seen is to the Quadrant meeting in Aug.'43, which seems to have headed-off a plan for basing in Nthn Ireland & Egypt, for ETO.

Just intrigued!

[chevvron]

Funny, I always thought they were used over here, especially after seeing (many years ago) a feature film showing them operating missions to Germany escorted by P47s. Can't remember the name of the film, but one thing I do remember was the instruction to formate on the lead aircraft which was able to extend its nosewheel leg and not its main gear, to indicate it was the formation leader.

[ian16th]

B29's renamed Washington's, were in service with the RAF in UK, post WWII.

[Agaricus bisporus]

The why is pretty straightforward I'd have thought.

The assets in place for the European bombing campaign were established and working. The bombing campaign was going acceptably well, there was no need to divert attention by the vast effort of introducing a new type. Production & development of the B29 was fraught, numbers were not as high as hoped due to this and there weren't any to spare.

As the Pacific war ramped up it was clear that ultra long range was going to be needed due to the vast distances involved, early attempts at playing at bombing (Doolittle) were just a propaganda aside, and a strategic campaign was going to be needed to roll the Japs back and eventually reach their homeland. Only the B29 could do that. Pointless diluting that force to add it's excessive range capability to the B17s that were coping OK in Europe. (albeit in penny packets)

Wikipedia has a few words on the subject (surprise!).

[WHBM]

Production & development of the B29 was fraught, numbers were not as high as hoped due to this..
The B29 was an absolute operational nightmare, in major part due to the Wright R-3350 engines. A significant number of the losses in the Pacific were due to this, in particular overheating, leading to failures or, worse, fires. This was of course the engine which, in its later variants, went on power the Constellation and the DC7, where such regular issues were reduced but never completely eliminated.

The engine just hadn't been developed adequately, it had a better power-to-weight ratio than Pratt & Whitney could deliver, hence its attraction, but it had just squeezed too much into a small space.

One account I read of a base (Guam or similar) in the Pacific described failed R-3350s removed from B29s which were heaped by crane into an enormous scrap pile about 20 feet high. Presumably it was easier to get complete replacement engines from the US than get the spares and do overhauls.

I did read that the engines for the Enola Gay atomic bomb B29 aircraft were hand-built by Wright development engineers rather than taken from the regular production line, which seems to point to some known production and assembly issues.

[A30yoyo]

AFAIK the only B-29 to pass through the UK in WWII was the YB-29 Hobo Queen which landed at St Mawgan, Cornwall in early 1944 then spent some time at various East Anglian airfields before continuing to India via Marrakech, Morocco, see
http://www.rafwatton.info/Portals/0/wash/wash8.pdf
and
keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=40981
photo in post #15

[Agaricus bisporus]

Wiki mentions having to replace the top 5 cylinders every 25hrs on early models, and a total engine life of just 75! Seems hard to believe but perhaps someone knows.
I do recall that the Confederate Air Force treated it with the greatest of care and respect, they didn't let much out but I had the impression they were almost scared of it which wasn't their style. At all.

[BobM2]

I do recall that the Confederate Air Force treated it with the greatest of care and respect, they didn't let much out but I had the impression they were almost scared of it which wasn't their style. At all.
And with good reason. "Fifi" is grounded again with engine problems just 2 years after replacing all 4 3350's with improved versions that were supposed to be reliable. They need $250,000 to get her airborne again.

Donations accepted here: Keep FiFi Flying A2 (http://www.keepfififlying.org/)

[Agaricus bisporus]

Hmm. I only read about that hybrid engine idea recently and thought it sounded like creating all sorts of trouble. Sorry to hear it has happened.

[Feather #3]

The major cause of today's problems is letting pilots touch the throttles!:ugh:

Leave it to the Flight Engineer and they'll last a lot longer!:D

G'day ;)

[tornadoken]

Very Heavy Bombers in the ETO. - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums (http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=112571&highlight=ETO)

A to Q: unnecessary to deploy Very Heavies in ETO; or too ghastly fraught; or not this year, maybe next; or...
the reason Uncle Joe was so unhelpful to UK/US Heavies, either in distress or seeking one way Missions into Eastern Germany, recovering in USSR, was that we would find targets and their (poor) defences. It was (and is) Red perception that appeasement was intended to point fascists East to save us doing the job. So, to ease his paranoia we planned Very Heavies for PTO.

[mmatthej1]

All good stuff, thanks but - still I ask - can the actual decision against ETO deployment be pinpointed?

There must have been a moment when someone (who?) took the decision, so also (when?) and - noting all the very valid arguments cited in responses thus far - what were the recorded reasons (why?).

It isn't that important at this remove in time but it just intrigues me - a bit like :

- why no Merlin engine version of Lockheed lightning? (worked well for Mustang!)

- why no Merlin (or other) re-engine of Westland Whirlwind, to escape the Peregrine cul-de-sac?

There must be other such conundrums out there as well!

[Dr Jekyll]

why no Merlin (or other) re-engine of Westland Whirlwind, to escape the Peregrine cul-de-sac?

I believe it was considered but the shape of the Merlin was so different that it would have ruined the serodynamics. I saw a 1/72 model once which had engines from a Mosquito and it looked most peculiar.

[FlightlessParrot]

>>- why no Merlin engine version of Lockheed lightning? (worked well for Mustang!)

My understanding is that the Allison was unsatisfactory at high altitude because it was designed for turbocharging (in accordance with Army policy) and there was no room for the turbochargers in the P-51. The P-38 Lightning had room in the tail booms for the turbochargers (the air intakes are an obvious feature), and so its performance at high altitude was just fine.

Hope I've remembered right.

[BobM2]

>>- why no Merlin engine version of Lockheed lightning? (worked well for Mustang!)
Also STRONG political pressure from Allison/GM who didn't want to loose the business.

[Load Toad]

...can the actual decision against ETO deployment be pinpointed?

Rather wouldn't there have to have been a decision to deploy being needed....?

Not needed, no reason to have a decision Not To deploy.

[mmatthej1]

I see what you mean, about there needing to be a POSITIVE decision but, as per my first message indicated, there seems to have been that decision made but then overturned, at a relatively early stage, ie.

"The nearest reference I've seen is to the Quadrant meeting in Aug.'43, which seems to have headed-off a plan for basing in Nthn Ireland & Egypt, for ETO."

[mmatthej1]

Yes, fair point about the turbosuperchargers in the booms - I have never read of any performance issue at height on the P-38, whereas it is always cited wrt the Allison-engined Mustang.

(Did the Mustang switch entirely to Merlin power or was the Allison version continued for specific low-level models, like the Apache? I don't know!)

Also............. why no Griffon-powered Mosquito? Good enough for the Spitfire, so why not the Mosquito? Another conundrum! (maybe it would have needed a very readical re-design, as per Spit, where the Mosquito was perhaps less open to such re-design, with its complex wooden moulds)

[ian16th]

I have in my two remaining grey cells a hint that I read something about this was tried in 1 prototype, but by then the war was almost over.

Sorry if I'm wrong, just a vague memory.

[Brian Abraham]

The P-38 had many problems operating in the high altitude role due to the cold temperatures. Cockpit heating was inadequate, there was not enough heat to defrost the windscreen, and pilots suffered greatly from the cold, to the extent of having to be helped from the cockpit upon landing. Engine problems were manifest also, congealing and foaming oil, overboosting issues caused by the intercooler. Many aircraft were lost due to the engine failures so caused, and pilot morale suffered badly.

The aircraft was put into the escort role because of it's long range, but the 8th Air Force was glad to see the last of them in October 1944 when the P-51 came along. The aircraft served admirable with the 9th Air Force whose primary mission was ground attack. Like wise in the temperate conditions of the Pacific the aircraft performed admirably.

Such was the dismal performance the 8th Air Force (I guess Doolittle who was boss and known to think outside the square) in 1944 flew an aircraft from Bovington to Rolls Royce at Hucknall for trial installation of a pair of single stage two speed Merlin XX. Rolls test flew the aircraft in its Allison guise a number of times, but before any conversion work could be undertaken orders came from Washington that the aircraft was to be returned immediately. Lockheed itself did an extensive investigation of powering the aircraft with two stage Merlins, but did not progress with the idea.

P-51 - once the Merlin was introduced production of the Allison version ceased.

[PlanesOfThePast]

It's a complex subject, but here's what I understand ...

In the late 1930s as war spread around the world, the B-29 was envisioned by as a plane that would operate out of bases in the USA, attack, and return. It would carry heavy payloads over longer distances than any aircraft in existence at the time.

In 1940, the War Department's contingency plan included the use of 24 B-29 bomber groups to bomb Germany from bases in the United Kingdom and North Africa in case of war.

After the January 1943 Casablanca Conference, President Roosevelt decided to inform Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek that aid would be sent to prevent Japan from taking over China. Roosevelt wanted to send bombers to China so that they could bring the Japanese homeland under attack. Neither the B-17 nor the B-24 had the ranges to carry out such missions, and only the B-29 had the necessary long-range capability.

After the August 1943 Quadrant Conference in Quebec, General Henry H. “Hap” Arnold submitted a plan under which the newly-activated 58th Bombardment Wing would be stationed in the China-Burma-India theater by the end of 1943 and begin attacking Japanese targets by flying out of bases in China.

In December 1943 U.S. Army Air Forces leadership committed the Superfortress to Asia, where its great range made it suited for the long over-water flights against the Japanese homeland from bases in China.

I have a very brief history of the B-29, assembly lines, production numbers, and photos at ...

Boeing B-29 Superfortress history, design, development, production numbers, assembly lines, and specifications (http://www.planesofthepast.com/b29-superfortress.htm)

[mmatthej1]

Thanks for summary in last posting - the rationale of the time all makes perfect sense, so I'm happy that the decision point is identified!

Thanks for all inputs on the subject (plus my sundry imponderables!)

[caiman27]

Nice website there.