Were all the B-29s flown to their Pacific Bases ?
Musicman59
would all need new or rebuilt engines? And thats a lot of engines.
Was that the case? Were any shipping over by trasport/baby flattops
and assembled on site?
thx - Craig
Dave
For the B-29s sent to China they loaded two engines into a C-46 and
welded the container to the floor. The C-46s flew eastbound to India
and China providing the theater with new engines and fresh C-46s to
further supply China over The Hump. The containers were tank-like with
a top and a bottom and they made good water tanks at the ranch.
Scott M. Kozel
Why would they need new or rebuilt engines after 25 or 30 hours of
non-stressed travel? They wouldn't be carrying bombs or ammo, and they
could fly at a modest speed and altitude.
Alan
To be honest, I never considered this before, but the obvious answer
is they flew.
I did a quick search of Craven & Cate "USAAF in WWII" and came up dry.
I'm positive they flew. Craven & Cate does talk about the base
construction and doesn't say anything about facilities for unloading
planes from CVEs or facilities for reassembling planes. I have no idea
how many hours a B-29 engine ws capable of before requiring
replacement. I don't think they would need replacement after a flight
from the West Coast to the Marianas, remember these were VERY long
range bombers.
Alan
pbrom...@aol.com
Fom the USAF National Museum website:
Portions of a document from 1945 regarding the Saipan invasion:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1755
Short quote:
"In order to support, supply, and maintain the Superfortresses in
their raids on Japan, we organized new and streamlined maintenance
service units. When AAF engineers had put the finishing touches on the
airdromes on Saipan, these groups made their way ashore and began
setting up their shops. In less than 3 weeks, their servicing
facilities were in full operation providing aircraft with maintenance
and repair.
But even with such a streamlined organization, combat units sometimes
get ahead of their service units. To forestall any such break-down, we
have organized aircraft repair ships -- floating maintenance and
repair shops manned by experienced airplane mechanics, propeller
specialists, sheet metal workers, and other skilled craftsmen who can
be moved to any spot where they are needed. Such a ship designed to
service B-29's carries a stock of 137,000 spare parts for the
Superfortresses and can do just about any repair job necessary to keep
the big bombers flying against Japan."
The context of the document makes it sound like this was up and
running within 30 days or so of the invasion.
Dave
> But even with such a streamlined organization, combat units sometimes
> get ahead of their service units. To forestall any such break-down, we
> have organized aircraft repair ships -- floating maintenance and
> repair shops manned by experienced airplane mechanics, propeller
> specialists, sheet metal workers, and other skilled craftsmen who can
> be moved to any spot where they are needed.
Don't forget that this was a wartime characterization that might
invite review in light of actual performance. Remember statements like
the Norden bomb sight putting a bomb into a pickle barrel.
To be sure, by 1944, U.S. industrial organization was reaching its
zenith, but not everything worked as advertised. I don't know where a
contemporary objective evaluation would be found.
Dave Wilma
www.DavidWilma.com
John Strong
Deployment to China was typically:
Kansas to Florida
Florida to Brazil
Brazil to Morocco
Morocco to Algeria
Algeria to Egypt
Egypt to India
India to China
Some then redeployed from China to the Marianas:
China to India
India to Ceylon
Ceylon to Australia
Australia to New Guinea
New Guinea to Tinian
Deployment directly to the Marianas was:
Kansas to Sacramento
Sareamento to Hawaii
Hawaii to Kwajelein
Kwajelein to Tinian
--
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:64b1c5cf-a1a7-4449...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> Guessing that by the time they flew from Kansas to the Marianas, they
> would all need new or rebuilt engines?
No.
You find WWII history in some interesting places.
Journal of the American Statistical Association, V 41 no. 234, June
1946, pages 190 to 203. "Actuarial Analysis of the operating life
of B-29 aircraft engines", by O L Altman and C G Goor.
Lots of obvious and not so obvious points.
1) R-3350's were in critical supply in 1944 and the first half of 1945.
Supply problems were easing around the end of the war.
2) Air transportation was used to fly R-3350's to the US for overhaul,
at best 2 R-3350's would fit in a cargo plane.
3) Overhauled engines had around 10% lower "life" before the next
overhaul.
4) The -23 was the carburettor and the -57 the fuel injected versions.
The -23 was modified to improve reliability.
5) The statisticians noted the standard USAAF methodology for
forecasting engine life was only suitable for a reasonably static
population. Not where there was a steady arrival of more strength
using new aircraft.
And the results, (Drum roll please).
In terms of engine life, operations in India were the worst, since
each combat sortie required three reasonably rapid climbs, India
to China, China to Japan, China to India. Next came training in
the US, finally the best were the units in the Marianas.
Expected life prior to first overhaul, early operations from India, 163
hours, -23 engines. Using modified -23 engines this had risen to
280 hours by February/March 1945 for aircraft operating from India
and 304 hours from the Marianas.
The figures for B-29s used in training were 221 hours and 310 hours
versus the 163 and 280 hours figures above.
Operating from India a comparison between the modified and
unmodified -23 engines showed 80% of the unmodified and 95.3%
of the modified engines survived to over 100 hours, 33.9 of the
unmodified and 81.5% of the modified engines survived to over 200
hours, 0.2% of the unmodified and 47.3% of the modified engines
survived to over 300 hours.
In the Marianas, as of 20 November 1944 the average hours on each
-23 engine removed was 91, by 20 January 1945 it was 151, as of 30
April it was 234. These figures include removals for engine model
changes, modifications, accidents and battle damage. They are also
under estimates of the normal engine lifetime because so many of
the engines were new. The figures include new and overhauled
engines, so it is either the number of hours since the engine was
built for new engines or since overhaul for the overhauled engines.
Engine hours before removal as of 31 May was 259 hours, and 31
July 272 hours. These figures are for engines removed because of
mechanical problems only.
Even in July the steady number of new B-29s arriving drove down
the average engine hours per removed engine.
A study as of 31 July 1945 noted in the Marianas the -23 engines
96.8% of new and 92.5% of overhauled logged more than 100 hours
before replacement, 87.5% and 75.7% respectively logged over 200
hours, 62.7% and 43.4% logged over 300 hours, 19% and 8% logged
over 400 hours, none logged over 500 hours.
As noted above the training schools in the US went through
R-3350 engines quicker than the combat units in the Marianas,
for example 57.9% (new) and 36.4% (overhauled) logged over
300 hours, but once this mark was passed the engines in the US
held up more, so 24.6% and 10.4% logged over 400 hours,
and 1.2% and 0.2% managed over 500 hours.
The fuel injected -57 engine had a higher time between overhauls,
so in the above study 31.2% used in training logged over 400
hours, and 4.9% logged over 500 hours.
> And thats a lot of engines.
The reality was bad enough, engines needing overhaul were air
freighted back to the US.
> Was that the case? Were any shipping over by trasport/baby flattops
> and assembled on site?
No, the B-29 had the necessary range, the B-17 and B-24 were
deployed overseas by direct flight and they had lower ranges.
It would be fascinating to see how a B-29 would fit on an escort
carrier, a flight deck at best 501 by 80 feet meets an aircraft with
a length of 99 feet and a wingspan of 141.25 feet.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
a425couple
> "Musicman59" <cwest...@gmail.com> wrote ...
>> Guessing that by the time they flew from Kansas to the Marianas, they
>> would all need new or rebuilt engines?
> No.
Neat find, thanks.
> 2) Air transportation was used to fly R-3350's to the US for overhaul,
> at best 2 R-3350's would fit in a cargo plane.
Expensive (labor & materials intensive) but
realitively quick. (guess 2 days in transit each way).
Marine shipping would have required many more
to be in inventory. (Without even getting into inter-
service pride, networking, priorities etc.)
(guess by ship & rail, 14 days or so each way).
> And the results, (Drum roll please).
> Expected life prior to first overhaul, early operations from India, 163
> hours, -23 engines. Using modified -23 engines this had risen to
> 280 hours by February/March 1945 for aircraft operating from India
> and 304 hours from the Marianas.
Interesting.
So if use 304 hours, then by time pre-delivery, then fly
the B-29 to Marianas, it probably near used up 40 hours,
or near 14% of engine life (and if use 163 guidepost = near 25%).
> Operating from India a comparison between the modified and
> unmodified -23 engines showed 80% of the unmodified and 95.3%
> of the modified engines survived to over 100 hours, 33.9 of the
> unmodified and 81.5% of the modified engines survived to over 200
> hours, 0.2% of the unmodified and 47.3% of the modified engines
> survived to over 300 hours.
> In the Marianas, as of 20 November 1944 ----
Interesting progress.
>> Were any shipping over by trasport/baby flattops
>> and assembled on site?
> No, the B-29 had the necessary range, ----
> It would be fascinating to see how a B-29 would fit on an escort
> carrier, a flight deck at best 501 by 80 feet meets an aircraft with
> a length of 99 feet and a wingspan of 141.25 feet.
Yeah! (Hee Hee).
(Actually, I've long had a fascination with big planes on
carriers. Without getting into "off topic" facts, let's just
say the B-25s on Hornet were very "modest" compared
to some that have been done! Taken off & even Landed!)
And actually, I'd be rather amazed it the concept of shipping
on a 'jeep carrier' was not at least considered (but quickly
discarded).
Certainly ships like the USS Barnes CVE-20 spent their
entire WWII careers in Pacific just transporting planes.
Without modeling it all out, I'd rough guess 8 B-29s could be
done on a CVE.
But problems and downsides abound.
First you must fly to a really long runway right next to
fairly deep draft ship docking facilities with really big
crane lifting ability. Lift on to ship, tie down, slow sail
in sea spray, then unload at taxi-way to runway.
And every one of these steps has potential 'grief'!
David H Thornley
>
> Neat find, thanks.
>
have to do a lot of looking, though.
>> It would be fascinating to see how a B-29 would fit on an escort
>> carrier, a flight deck at best 501 by 80 feet meets an aircraft with
>> a length of 99 feet and a wingspan of 141.25 feet.
>
> Yeah! (Hee Hee).
> (Actually, I've long had a fascination with big planes on carriers.
>
The pictures I've seen of the big ones are, shall we say, singular.
I haven't seen pictures of multiple large planes on a carrier.
> And actually, I'd be rather amazed it the concept of shipping on a 'jeep
> carrier' was not at least considered (but quickly discarded).
I'd be surprised if it was considered, actually. I don't think the
CVEs were used to ferry B-24s around the Pacific, and those would
be easier than the B-29s.
Certainly
> ships like the USS Barnes CVE-20 spent their entire WWII careers in
> Pacific just transporting planes.
Right. Small planes. Planes that could land on a carrier deck and take
off again. Planes that didn't have the range to make it across the
Pacific, and so had to be carried on something.
For something that wouldn't have a prayer of landing on a carrier deck
or taking off from it, why have a flight deck? Couldn't you figure
out something else?
Without modeling it all out, I'd rough
> guess 8 B-29s could be done on a CVE.
I have no idea how you'd do it.
According to Wikipedia, the flight deck on a Bogue-class carrier (like
USS Barnes) was 480' long and 70' wide. That means that it could fit
four front-to-back, and about half a B-29 sideways. If you staggered
them, you'd still have the problem that the wings would extend all the
way across the flight deck, unless you hung the aircraft with the
fuselage off the flight deck. Even putting the fuselages over to
the sides, it looks like it'd be difficult to put six in there.
They didn't have a whole lot to avoid on the flight deck, having a very
small island and perhaps another few things sticking up, but that would
be a further concern.
But problems and downsides abound.
You bet.
> First you must fly to a really long runway right next to fairly deep
> draft ship docking facilities with really big crane lifting ability.
Port facilities tend to be surrounded by all sorts of stuff, not
including massive runways. It would be a major construction and
planning operation to do this.
> Lift on to ship, tie down, slow sail in sea spray,
Half the wing would be outside the flight deck. If the fuselage is
centered, this might not include any engines in the salt spray.
I'm also not at all sure what it's going to do to the handling of
the escort carrier under various sea and weather conditions.
then unload at
> taxi-way to runway.
Again, we're looking at a really long runway right next to the same
docking facilities with the same cranes. Somewhere on the Pacific
islands. Just creating one of those would be a pain, since Pacific
islands tended to have either good airstrip terrain or good docking
terrain. That's one reason we considered taking Truk: a good
anchorage with the ability to build airstrips.
And every one of these steps has potential 'grief'!
>
Which would have been obvious to anybody involved, which is why I'd
be surprised if it was considered (other than somebody coming up with
an amusing picture).
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Alan
"Aircraft Carriers" and found some pictures of CVEs ferrying deck
loads.
Casablanca class - 512 x 108 ....
50-P51
59-F4U & F6F {USN types = folding wings obviously}
6-PBY, 2-PV, 1-C47 & 1-B26
Bogue class - 496 x 111
15-P47 & 25-P38 {the P38 wings beyond the engines were removed}
There was also a picture of a CVE off loading {or maybe on}, by crane,
single engine aircraft onto or from a barge using an onboard crane.
------------------------
How would the ferry trip affect the CVE & the B-29 and what would you
need to make it possible?
You would need a very large crain at both termini of the trip to on &
off load the B-29. The CVE would have to be moored directly adjacent
to a taxiway.
Perhaps 5 planes, most likely 4 planes, could fit on a CVE {Bogue or
Casablanca} with a minimum of overhang if arranged at 45 degree
angles, like this XXXX.
I think the engine nacelles could be weather proofed to preserve the
engines from the salt spray.
Special stands, the B26 mentioned above had them, would be needed to
support tail and wings. The tails would stick up alot, possibly
obscuring the view from the ships bridge and acting like sails. The
tails acting like sails could be a real problem in a strong wind,
twisting the air frames, so the tails would have to be guide wired to
take any wind load. All these lift, tie down and stand points would
require the air frames to be modified, probably increasing production
time.
The CVE would probably handle strangely and I suspect the increased
wind deflection would reduce speed and range.
You would also need ???? more CVEs to move the B-29s at the required
rate.
Alan
aglooka
wrote:
ould reduce speed and range.
>
>You would also need ???? more CVEs to move the B-29s at the required
>rate.
I guess so, and many more. And i guess that almost all CVE's were
already busy and needed for various tasks (i never heard of an idle
CVE despite their numbers)
Extra CVE's would have been better used for other tasks i guess (pilot
training, increasing the number used for landing support, increase the
number of sub hunting groups, more transport for smaller planes etc.)
>Alan
Aglooka
sun...@webtv.net
Czechoslovakia that Churchill was quoted as saying they acted in "hyena
like fashion."
Churchill also said that the sun never set on the British Empire.
British <possessions> across the globe had been devoured in order to
create the empire that the sun never set on. Y.
Michele
news:29244-4AA...@storefull-3113.bay.webtv.net...
> A425 couple wrote regarding the 1939 border dispute between Poland and
> Czechoslovakia that Churchill was quoted as saying they acted in "hyena
> like fashion."
>
Yes. He was talking about the Poles, specifically.
> Churchill also said that the sun never set on the British Empire.
Did he? Is he on record where, saying that?
> British <possessions> across the globe had been devoured in order to
> create the empire that the sun never set on. Y.
>
So let us know: the Polish behavior as to Cieszyn was, in your view,...
what? If Churchill is wrong, how would you describe it?
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
<55ksa5tun3mg9vhhqivbofvr4sm38jokec@4ax.
com>,
aglooka <te...@test.com> wrote:
Anyone have figures on how many B-29s
crashed on the transportation phase?
Bill Shatzer
> Anyone have figures on how many B-29s
> crashed on the transportation phase?
Not very many it seems - the USAAF reported that only 10 "Very Heavy
Bombers" (which I assume equals B-29s) were lost enroute from the US to
overseas theaters - all of which were Twentieth Air Force planes.
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t108.htm
cheers,
Alan
> >rate.
>
> I guess so, and many more.
IIRC the initial Kaiser proposal was to build 100 CVEs not the 50 that
eventually became the Casablanca class. Assuming the ferry route had
been impractical for some reason, the USN could have continued with
the additional hulls. But they would have had to start the whole
program sooner to have the CVEs ready on time.
--------------
BTW, the USN didn't want the Kaiser CVEs, they were forced to take
them by FDR. After experience with converted AKs and AOs, the USN
decided hulls based on tankers {Commencement Bay class} were more
suitable than those based on cargo ships {Casablanca class}. FDR said,
tough, these will be available in larger numbers more quickly. FDR's
view of USN designs was they tended to be what he called "gold
plated". IMHO both sides of this particular debate were valid. The
Commencement Bays were better CVEs but required more resources and
time to build and the USN didn't seem to have any trouble finding uses
for the Casablancas.
Because of when the program started, very few Commencement Bays saw
any WWII service. Those that were ready would have been used in amphib
support roles in the invasion of Japan, some of them with USMC air
groups. The Marines would have finally been supported by their own.
Something they had been wishing for since after Guadalcanal.
FDR's "gold plated" view also influenced the number of Essex class CVs
versus Midway class CVs and the cruiser classes were affected as well.
Alan
Jim H.
"The Pacific Pioneer." She was the first one to fly across the
Pacific to the Marianas. I dunno what route she took, or how many
stops she made, or how much longer her engines lasted. But she made
the full distance under her own power.
Having made a round-trip Pacific crossing on a roughly CVE-sized ship,
I doubt that you could rely on crossing without getting salt spray all
over deckloaded B-29's. Not fatal, but not good for aluminum &
complex-for-the-era electronics. I've no idea how plentiful the fresh
water supply was on the Marianas for washing the planes down on
arrival, but suspect it may have been limited. Certainly Navy planes
survived a lot worse on a regular basis, but I wonder if it shortened
their life. Carrier planes were much less complex than B-29's, too.
Jim H.
Rich Rostrom
> Having made a round-trip Pacific crossing on a roughly CVE-sized ship,
> I doubt that you could rely on crossing without getting salt spray all
> over deckloaded B-29's. Not fatal, but not good for aluminum &
> complex-for-the-era electronics.
Dec 25, 1941 - General Auchinleck (GOC
Middle East) to Winston Churchill:
Regarding the tanks for the British Army in Libya:
These vehicles were stowed on forward well-deck,
unsheeted and unlocked. In consequence vehicles
were exposed to sea water, and when received
both tanks had water on floors and showed rust
markings nine inches up the walls.
Considerable damage to electrical and wireless
gear, requiring 14 days' expert attention before
tanks can run. Method of dispatch most
unsatisfactory. All American tanks are dispatched
with all crevices and doors pasted up with
masking tape.
IOW, cargo shipped on deck tended to suffer
for it, unless very carefully prepped. I think
deck-loaded B-29s would be in pretty ugly
shape after an 8,000 mile trip across the
Pacific.
William Black
>
> Did he? Is he on record where, saying that?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_empire_on_which_the_sun_never_sets#Britain
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
sun...@webtv.net
The point I was attempting to make was that Churchill never questioned
Britain's right to grab land (guns against spears) but that a lesser
power doing the same thing acted in hyena like fashion. The phrase: The
Sun never sets on the British Empire was in common usage. One can
hardly doubt that he used it himself on occasion.
Michele
> On 9/14/09, Michele wrote: "so tell me what is your view etc."
>
> The point I was attempting to make was that Churchill never questioned
> Britain's right to grab land (guns against spears)
Yes. The differences I can see are the following two:
1. Britain had done so in the past and was by this time frame beginning to
reestablish self-determination in those lands,
2. Britain had mostly done so in "uncivilised" lands (not true, mind you,
and even if it were, still racist, but that's the way they saw it at the
time.
Poland (and Germany, and Hungary) was doing that now, and in the core of
Europe.
but that a lesser
> power doing the same thing acted in hyena like fashion.
I think the point wasn't that it was a lesser power. The point was that a
hyena often eats the remnants of the meal of a larger carnivore, say a lion.
What Churchill was striving to highlight was that Poland exploited Germany's
meal to grab a snack. Note that this isn't the only one occurrence of such a
similar remark by Churchill. Italy was compared, IIRC, to a jackal or some
other streetsweeper animal when it followed the lion into France.
The phrase: The
> Sun never sets on the British Empire was in common usage. One can
> hardly doubt that he used it himself on occasion.
>
Which is not what you claimed initially. OK then.
Michele
news:h8r8gl$j4f$5...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Michele wrote:
>> <sun...@webtv.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
>>> Churchill also said that the sun never set on the British Empire.
>>
>> Did he? Is he on record where, saying that?
>>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_empire_on_which_the_sun_never_sets#Britain
>
I've looked at the page. Could you tell me where in it there is a reference
to Churchill? I can't find it.
William Black
There isn't one.
He never said it.
Churchill didn't use clich�s or jargon unless he was ripping the piss
out of someone.
He was one of the finest orators and writers in English of the past
hundred years, he didn't need to use other people's words.
William Black
> On 9/14/09, Michele wrote: "so tell me what is your view etc."
>
> The point I was attempting to make was that Churchill never questioned
> Britain's right to grab land (guns against spears)
That'll be why he was a drafter and signatory to the treaty establishing
the Irish Free State...
As far as I can discover the only bit of Empire he was resolved never to
give up was India, and because of this he never received any post in
Baldwin's government.
The reality is that the future of India was set in the 1931 Round Table
Talks and fixed in stone by the Government of India Act of 1936.
Churchill was never consulted at any point in the process and was never
really in a position to do anything about it but fling insults at
everyone concerned, to no very good purpose...
sun...@webtv.net
Absolutely. He was the best.
Alan
> The Marines would have finally been supported by their own.
> Something they had been wishing for since after Guadalcanal.
OOPS, this is incorrect. The Marine infantry was supported by Marine
air on Bougainville. Change the above sentence to read "Something they
had been wishing for since the Solomons campaigns."
Alan
Bill Shatzer
Even earlier than that. The Marines on Wake Island in 1941 were
supported by the F4Fs of VMF-211.
Rhino
news:4ab1f5a3$0$827$4faf...@reader5.news.tin.it...
> <sun...@webtv.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:6723-4AB...@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net...
>> On 9/14/09, Michele wrote: "so tell me what is your view etc."
>>
>> The point I was attempting to make was that Churchill never questioned
>> Britain's right to grab land (guns against spears)
>
> Yes. The differences I can see are the following two:
> 1. Britain had done so in the past and was by this time frame beginning to
> reestablish self-determination in those lands,
> 2. Britain had mostly done so in "uncivilised" lands (not true, mind you,
> and even if it were, still racist, but that's the way they saw it at the
> time.
>
> Poland (and Germany, and Hungary) was doing that now, and in the core of
> Europe.
>
> but that a lesser
>> power doing the same thing acted in hyena like fashion.
>
> I think the point wasn't that it was a lesser power. The point was that a
> hyena often eats the remnants of the meal of a larger carnivore, say a
> lion. What Churchill was striving to highlight was that Poland exploited
> Germany's meal to grab a snack.
Sorry, I'm not clear on the context of the remark then. I had thought we
were talking about the German invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939. If
that is the case, what meal did the Poles get at Germany's expense? It seems
to me that the Soviets were the hyenas in this context in that they got the
eastern part of Poland.
Or are we talking about the spring of 1939 when Germany seized the rest of
Czechoslovakia and the Poland helped itself to a smallish area on the
Polish-Czech border? [By the way, was that area ever returned to
Czechoslovakia after the war the way the Sudetenland was?]
>Note that this isn't the only one occurrence of such a similar remark by
>Churchill. Italy was compared, IIRC, to a jackal or some other
>streetsweeper animal when it followed the lion into France.
>
>
> The phrase: The
>> Sun never sets on the British Empire was in common usage. One can
>> hardly doubt that he used it himself on occasion.
>>
>
> Which is not what you claimed initially. OK then.
>
--
Rhino
Michele
news:hc7oni$9ls$1...@news.datemas.de...
We are talking about Churchill's topos about minor powers following the lead
of Germany. He used it in the case of the Italian attack on France in June
1940, and also before that.
And yes, the region is now Czech.