B19 WORLD WAR 2 BOMBER
Erik Shilling
>
>Public Access User (pub...@hpl.govt.nz) wrote:
>: I would like information on the B19 bomber. In particular why it
wasnt put in
>: mass production and used to bomb Japan. I want only informed
comments please.
>
>Who manufactured this bomber?
I think Boeing. Incidently the first set of tires were so big that by
filling them with helium, save 150 pounds.
Erik
Geoff Miller
I've seen footage on _Wings_ of the B-19 landing after its first
flight, and there was a very pronounced pitching up and down just
before touchdown. The pilot seems to have deliberately, and quite
roughly, yanked the yoke back and forth several times. Does anyone
have any idea why that was done? That seems like a strange thing
to do with a new airplane on its first flight, when its handling
qualities hadn't been fully explored yet.
Geoff
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems
geo...@purplehaze.Eng.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Mountain View, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Steve Sundberg
: In article dee...@mm.com (Steve Sundberg) wrote:
: >Public Access User (pub...@hpl.govt.nz) wrote:
>: I would like information on the B19 bomber. In particular why it
>: wasnt put in
>: mass production and used to bomb Japan. I want only informed
>: comments please.
: >
: >Who manufactured this bomber?
: The B-19 was manufactured by Douglas, and was originally known as the
: XBLR-2 (Experimental Bomber, Long range)
: In essence, it was an attempt to build an aircraft with B-29 range and
: bombload, but using 1935 technology. The result was a VERY large,
: rather slow aircraft (cruising speed 135 knots, top speed 224 knots
: [!]).
: I don't know if it was ever intended for production - It took so long
: to build that (rather like the Boeing B-15) it was overtaken by
: technology. Also, with the low cruising speed, it would have been
: slaughtered by fighters...
There were probably other more practical, if not political, reasons involved.
1) Why should Douglas have wasted resources on a plane the Air Corps did
not want? Boeing was just going into production of the B-17 at the time,
and even their plans for the B-29 were refused by the War Department
until 1940. Why should the War Department have even considered the B-19,
decidingly inferior to even the B-17, a necessary component to the Air
Corps? Why should Douglas have diverted its energies from production of
the DC-3, a money-maker, to the production of unwanted (and, ultimately,
useless) aircraft?
2) Strategic bombing was an unproven concept at the time. Even the B-17
was being produced originally for use as coastal defender. Any war plans
the War Department had for various adversaries did not include the use of
long-range bombers for purposes that would later develop. It was not
until 1940, when it appeared that Britain might be invaded or surrender,
that bids went out for bombers in the class of the B-29 and B-32. Certainly
no one knew in 1935 that the US would be in need of such aircraft half a
decade later. Also certain is the fact that the Air Corps had to fight
for every B-17 it could get. War Department appropriations were not
voluminous then. (Even Patton had to train his tank corps with cardboard
cutouts because the Army could not afford to purchase enough tanks.)
--
\|/ ____ \|/ | Steve Sundberg
"@'/ ,. \`@" | dee...@mm.com
/_| \__/ |_\ | 7361...@compuserv.com
\__U_/ | steve.s...@tclbbs.com
Brian Burke
>Public Access User (pub...@hpl.govt.nz) wrote:
>: I would like information on the B19 bomber. In particular why it wasnt put in
>: mass production and used to bomb Japan. I want only informed comments please.
>
>Who manufactured this bomber?
Douglas
BB
Erik Shilling
>
>Martin/Jennifer Keenan (kee...@inforamp.net) wrote:
>: The B-19 was manufactured by Douglas, and was originally known as
the
>: XBLR-2 (Experimental Bomber, Long range)
>
>: In essence, it was an attempt to build an aircraft with B-29 range
and
>: bombload, but using 1935 technology. The result was a VERY large,
>: rather slow aircraft (cruising speed 135 knots, top speed 224 knots
>: [!]).
>
>: I don't know if it was ever intended for production - It took so
long
>: to build that (rather like the Boeing B-15) it was overtaken by
>: technology. Also, with the low cruising speed, it would have been
>: slaughtered by fighters...
>
>There were probably other more practical, if not political, reasons
involved.
>
>1) Why should Douglas have wasted resources on a plane the Air Corps
did
>not want? Boeing was just going into production of the B-17 at the
time,
>and even their plans for the B-29 were refused by the War Department
>until 1940. Why should the War Department have even considered the
B-19,
(snip)
There aare time when one wished they could withdraw a posting, this is
one of them. B-19 was Douglass, but the remark about tire weight
stand. There was one other problem with hugh tires its footprint was
too small and there was as good posibility of breaking through some of
the runways. A picture of the B-19, makes the tire to be somewhere
between 6 to 7 feet in diameter.
Erik Shilling
Martin/Jennifer Keenan
dee...@mm.com (Steve Sundberg) wrote:
>Public Access User (pub...@hpl.govt.nz) wrote:
>: I would like information on the B19 bomber. In particular why it
wasnt put in
>: mass production and used to bomb Japan. I want only informed
comments please.
>
>Who manufactured this bomber?
>
The B-19 was manufactured by Douglas, and was originally known as the
XBLR-2 (Experimental Bomber, Long range)
In essence, it was an attempt to build an aircraft with B-29 range and
bombload, but using 1935 technology. The result was a VERY large,
rather slow aircraft (cruising speed 135 knots, top speed 224 knots
[!]).
I don't know if it was ever intended for production - It took so long
to build that (rather like the Boeing B-15) it was overtaken by
technology. Also, with the low cruising speed, it would have been
slaughtered by fighters...
It was later re-engined (from Wright R-3350 radials to allison V-3420
inlines) and redesignated XB-19A. After an extensive testing program
and some use as a large transport, it was retired to Davis-Monthan,
and scrapped in June 1949.
Martin
scha...@notis.com
In article <4e7a7u$8...@news.mr.net>, <dee...@mm.com> writes:
> Path:
> : I would like information on the B19 bomber. In particular why it
wasnt put in
> : mass production and used to bomb Japan. I want only informed
comments please.
>
> Who manufactured this bomber?
>
>
> \|/ ____ \|/ | Steve Sundberg
The B-19, actually XB-19 aka XBLR-2, was a Douglas one off like the
Boeing XB-15 to test doctrine and the construction of a long range
bomber force in the 1930s. Both the XB-15 and the XB-19 were very
large for their times and both were really underpowered, engine
technology hadn't caught up with the designer's ability to make heavy
aircraft. Neither was seriously considered for production, thank
god, and both were put into storage before the start of the war right
next to the crate that holds the various objects recovered by the
famous 30s adventurer Indiana Jones. Anyway Boeing came up with a
smaller and better design, the B-17 and latter the B-29. The rest is
as they say history (till Hollywood gets its hands on the story).
Ben 'I'm ready for April" Schapiro
Steve Sundberg
: I would like information on the B19 bomber. In particular why it wasnt put in
: mass production and used to bomb Japan. I want only informed comments please.
Who manufactured this bomber?
--
\|/ ____ \|/ | Steve Sundberg
Public Access User
mass production and used to bomb Japan. I want only informed comments please.
/-----------------------------------------------------\
|This message was posted from a public-access Internet|
|terminal at the Hamilton Public Library, New Zealand.|
|>>>=-PLEASE REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE IN A NEWSGROUP-=<<<|
\-----------------------------------------------------/
rwa...@gcn.scri.fsu.edu
>In article <4e7a7u$8...@news.mr.net>, <dee...@mm.com> writes:
>> Path:
>> Public Access User (pub...@hpl.govt.nz) wrote:
>> : I would like information on the B19 bomber. In particular why it
>wasnt put in
>> : mass production and used to bomb Japan. I want only informed
>comments please.
>>
>> Who manufactured this bomber?
>>
>> --
>>
>> \|/ ____ \|/ | Steve Sundberg
>The B-19, actually XB-19 aka XBLR-2, was a Douglas one off like the
>Boeing XB-15 to test doctrine and the construction of a long range
>bomber force in the 1930s. Both the XB-15 and the XB-19 were very
>large for their times and both were really underpowered, engine
>technology hadn't caught up with the designer's ability to make heavy
>aircraft. Neither was seriously considered for production, thank
>god, and both were put into storage before the start of the war right
>next to the crate that holds the various objects recovered by the
>famous 30s adventurer Indiana Jones. Anyway Boeing came up with a
>smaller and better design, the B-17 and latter the B-29. The rest is
>as they say history (till Hollywood gets its hands on the story).
>Ben 'I'm ready for April" Schapiro
Evidently the B-19 , or at least the concept of it, got to Hollywood
first. In the Bugs Bunny cartoon where he's in a plane and the
Gremlins are tearing it up, the plane is supposed to be a B-19, and I
believe that the model plane shown at the beginning of those old news
reels that they show between movies on AMC is supposed to be
representative of one as well. In another Bugs Bunny cartoon, Bugs is
falling from a great height and extends his arms like wings and swoops
back up into the air, at which point he exclaims "Hey! I'm da B-19!!!"
Albert Sykes
: I've seen footage on _Wings_ of the B-19 landing after its first
: flight, and there was a very pronounced pitching up and down just
: before touchdown. The pilot seems to have deliberately, and quite
: roughly, yanked the yoke back and forth several times. Does anyone
: have any idea why that was done? That seems like a strange thing
: to do with a new airplane on its first flight, when its handling
: qualities hadn't been fully explored yet.
: Geoff
Kinda like the YF-22, eh ?
Tallyho !
Alpha Kilo
C050...@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu
rwa...@gcn.scri.fsu.edu writes:
>
>Evidently the B-19 , or at least the concept of it, got to Hollywood
>first. In the Bugs Bunny cartoon where he's in a plane and the
>Gremlins are tearing it up, the plane is supposed to be a B-19, and I
>believe that the model plane shown at the beginning of those old news
>reels that they show between movies on AMC is supposed to be
>representative of one as well. In another Bugs Bunny cartoon, Bugs is
>falling from a great height and extends his arms like wings and swoops
>back up into the air, at which point he exclaims "Hey! I'm da B-19!!!"
>
Through Hare Power) the bomber in question is based on a Douglas design, but
twin engine configuration would make it a B-18. Your other reference is
correct, and in another Bugs Bunny cartoon, where he's playing baseball against
a team of huge goons (the title escapes me at the moment) the biggest player on
the opposing team has a jersey number "B-19".
Keep 'em Flying
Bob Cianciosa
Martin/Jennifer Keenan
>too small and there was as good posibility of breaking through some
of
>the runways. A picture of the B-19, makes the tire to be somewhere
>between 6 to 7 feet in diameter.
>
>Erik Shilling
One of the original B-19 tires is still in the USAF museum at
Wright-Patterson. Gigantic...
Martin
Ray Cresswell
range bombing evaluation. It was considerably larger than the B17
but the engines available at the time were not powerful enough for
adequate performance. I believe it ended up being used as a test bed.
By the time the B29 was being developed, aircraft and engine design
and technology had progressed sufficiently to make it work.
My 2 cents ....Ray
Dan Ford
I have read several replies to your question, so perhaps you already have
the answer you want. (Though "informed comment" is pretty much of an
oxymoron on Usenet :)
The Douglas XB-19 was built as a "one-of" to explore the concept of a
very-long-range bomber. According to Fahey's gray book, it was ordered in
1937, delivered in 1941, 11 man crew, span 212 feet (which would have made
it I believe the largest warplane that had ever flown), 160,000 lb gross
wt, etc. It flew in June 1941. I don't think it was armed and I don';t
believe anybody thought it would ever fly in combat because it was powered
by four Wright R-3350 engines which were still experimental and
troublesome when the B-29 came on line.
With the size of the B-19, and the state of development of the engine, the
poor old thing could only move along at 204 mph. compared to 323 mph for
the B-17D that same year. There was a planned XB-19A with Allison
engines, never built.
As Erik Shilling pointed out, a major problem with the B-19 was its
gigantic tires, which put so much weight on the runway that its usefulness
was limited to highly developed airfields.
Curiously, the plane that evolved from all this--the YB-36--likewise was
delivered with two gigantic tires, maybe eight feet in diameter, one of
which can be seen at the Air Force Museum in Dayton Ohio. The YB-36 could
use only three runways in the United States and none I believe outside of
the country. In the production model, the super-tire was replaced by a
bogie, truck, whatever you call it.
-- Dan
Find the Brewster Buffalo Archives at http://wilmot.unh.edu/~df/buff.html
On 25 Jan 1996, Public Access User wrote:
> I would like information on the B19 bomber. In particular why it wasnt put in
> mass production and used to bomb Japan. I want only informed comments please.
>
John M. Kelly
>: >Public Access User (pub...@hpl.govt.nz) wrote:
> >: I would like information on the B19 bomber. In particular why it
> >: wasnt put in
> >: mass production and used to bomb Japan. I want only informed
> >: comments please.
>: >Who manufactured this bomber?
>: The B-19 was manufactured by Douglas, and was originally known as the
>: XBLR-2 (Experimental Bomber, Long range)
>
>: In essence, it was an attempt to build an aircraft with B-29 range and
>: bombload, but using 1935 technology. The result was a VERY large,
>: rather slow aircraft (cruising speed 135 knots, top speed 224 knots
>: [!]).
>
>: I don't know if it was ever intended for production - It took so long
>: to build that (rather like the Boeing B-15) it was overtaken by
>: technology. Also, with the low cruising speed, it would have been
>: slaughtered by fighters...
>
>
>1) Why should Douglas have wasted resources on a plane the Air Corps did
>not want? Boeing was just going into production of the B-17 at the time,
>and even their plans for the B-29 were refused by the War Department
>until 1940. Why should the War Department have even considered the B-19,
>Corps? Why should Douglas have diverted its energies from production of
>the DC-3, a money-maker, to the production of unwanted (and, ultimately,
>useless) aircraft?
>
>2) Strategic bombing was an unproven concept at the time. Even the B-17
>was being produced originally for use as coastal defender. Any war plans
>the War Department had for various adversaries did not include the use of
>long-range bombers for purposes that would later develop. It was not
>until 1940, when it appeared that Britain might be invaded or surrender,
>that bids went out for bombers in the class of the B-29 and B-32. Certainly
>no one knew in 1935 that the US would be in need of such aircraft half a
>decade later. Also certain is the fact that the Air Corps had to fight
>for every B-17 it could get. War Department appropriations were not
>voluminous then. (Even Patton had to train his tank corps with cardboard
>cutouts because the Army could not afford to purchase enough tanks.)
>
engine-related. I seem to remember something about lack of engine power
at the time of flight testing causing some USAAF concerns. However, the
lessons learned with B-19 were put to use in the design of the B-29.
Regards,
Jack Kelly
Dan Ford
There never was any intention to mass-produce the B-19. Douglas itself
recommended that the project be dropped. The company invested about $4
million in the plane and received about $1 million for it.
I will post Joe Baugher's profile here if there is any interest, or you
can get to it through the usual websites, including my own.
-- Dan
dan....@unh.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://wilmot.unh.edu/~df/air.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Phil Garey
believe only one. It was so slow, that the P-26 could run circles around
it. 4 W R3350, rated at 2000hop, 18 cyl. 212' wingspan, 132' long,
weighed in at 84,431 pound. Loaded it was supposed to go to 160,000.
Supposed to be armed with 6 .30mg, 5 .50 mg, 2 37mm cannon. I believe
they never got it to fly over about 140MPH!
Philip Morten
Julian Fitzherbert
which shows a student going through Hamble and on to fly a VC10.
The before takeoff checks go like this ... trims, Set, TPIs, indecipherable,...
What the heck are TPIs? There is a TPI indicator of some sort on the
engineers panel. I can only think of Temperature, Pressure, Instruments.
Any ideas?
Since the VC10 is now only flown by the RAF I hope the group will accept
this as a "military" question. :)
Julian Fitzherbert
[snip]
>The before takeoff checks go like this ... trims, Set, TPIs, indecipherable,...
>What the heck are TPIs?
The TPI indicator on the engineers panel is at the top along with the
aileron (sp), elevator and spoiler status.
Could TPI be for Tail Plane Incidence?
Philip Morten
>I've been watching the BOAC/BA archive video called 'Airline Pilot'
>which shows a student going through Hamble and on to fly a VC10.
>engineers panel. I can only think of Temperature, Pressure, Instruments.
>Any ideas?
I was able to check a BOAC VC10 operations manual last night, it is
Tailplane Position Indicator. The VC10 uses a variable incidence
tailplane for pitch trimming and for take-off it has to be set to a value taken
from the manual based on weight and balance.
Ged Higgins
wrote:
Hi, I am a RAF Flight Engineer Instructor on the Airmen Aircrew School
at RAF Cranwell.
I am ex C130 Hercules myself but some of my colleagues are ex VC10.
The answer is this...
TPI = Tail Plane Incidence
The indicator is on the Flight Engineers Panel
On the VC10 the whole tail plane is a moving flying control surface.
During the checks the Flight Eng checks that the tail plane is between
2 and 7 degrees.
Hope this helps
Ged
g...@delphi.com
>In article <4f4qm4$3...@alpha.gatwick.Geco-Prakla.slb.com>, jul...@gatwick.Geco-Prakla.slb.com (Julian Fitzherbert) writes:
>[snip]
>>What the heck are TPIs?
ones are flown by the british, TPI's can only be 'Tea Pot Input' <vbg>.
Flying is thirsty work, and we wouldn't want the pilot to run 'dry' would
we!
Julian Fitzherbert
the takeoff checklist. Here is the reply I got from a flight engineer.
chrisi...@gmail.com
a425couple
- cracked the runway and tarmacs it would taxi on.
Interesting.
Sounds reasonable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_XB-19
"advances in technology that made the XB-19 obsolete before
it was completed, ---would be useful for testing.
Its construction took so long that competition for the contracts to
make the XB-35 and XB-36 occurred two months before its first flight.
The plane flew on 27 June 1941, more than three years after the
construction contract was awarded. --
So the B-19 was scrapped, but two of its enormous main tires were saved."
Welllll! I'd tend to think that one of the advances in
technology would be getting rid of the three and only three
super big tires!
Multi-wheeled bogies spread weight better and are lighter.
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker
"The tricycle landing gear system's initial main gear design, with huge
single wheels found to cause significant ground pressure problems, limited
the B-36 to operating from just three air bases in the United States:
Carswell Field (former Carswell AFB, now NAS JRB Fort Worth/Carswell Field),
adjacent to the Consolidated factory in Fort Worth, Texas; Eglin Field (now
Eglin AFB), Florida; and Fairfield-Suisun Field (now Travis AFB) in
California[13]). As a result, the Air Force mandated that Consolidated
design a four-wheeled bogie-type wheel system for each main gear unit
instead, which distributed the pressure more evenly and reduced weight by
1,500 pounds (680 kg)"
Jim Wilkins
news:n0r14...@news6.newsguy.com...
float on at the beach. IIRC four of us could sit on one.