I recently purchased a book about the B-24 where the latest chapter was devoted to another product from Consolidated, the B-32 Dominator. I already knew about the aircraft, but it was news to me that it entered service and actually saw action, although limited, in WWII. Does anyone know how it compared to the B-29 in performance ? It seems as it had about the same speed and a better ceiling, but my sources are a bit foggy about the ranges. Another late war bomber was the Avro Lincoln. It entered service just as the war ended. An aircraft of less perfomance than the B-29, but still it is claimed that it was a more effective bomber.
The Lincoln did not even remotely compare with the B-29-in terms of speed,bomb-load, range or in the equipment it carried aboard.. Aside from that, the Linc had many unpleasant quirks' an unreliable undercarriage and the wings had a tendency to "yawn"- . In 1950, until sufficient Avro Lincolns could be delivered, the RAF received 88 Boeing B-29s on loan. They Superfortress was designated "Washington" in RAF service. The loan was made in March 1950, and the aircraft returned in 1955.. The Russians thought so much of the B-29 that they sequestered twoi aircraft which had made emergencie landings in their territory after raids in Japan, and copied them on their entirety-They were designated as TU-4s, and about 1000 were made.. You know what they say about imitation: it's the most sincere form of flattery..
The Lincoln was nothing more than a re-vamped Lanc. Capable enough, but in no way a serious rival to the B-29. Although being as they were only used operationally in Malaya, it did the job it was needed for as well as the B-29 could (or the Halifax, for that matter! )
A Ford and a Cadillac will do the job they are designed for-but a Cadillac will do it better.faster and get you there in confort, .and as far as WW2 the B-29 was the "Cadillac"-of all four engined bombers..-Long before l starte taking photos and note,l ran into a former RAF Lancaster pilot at the Imperial War Museum-he was very proud of the Lancaster, which he praised at length-"What about the Lincoln".."Faster, no doubt, but with a tricky undercarriage and he wings had an unfortunate tendency to"yawn" which made the hair on the back of our heads stand!"- I don't have any photos of RAF Lincolns , but here's one of s/n B-010, one of 30 sold to the Argentine AF in 1947-they were active until 1965, when replaced by the McDonnel Douglas A-4B. This particular aircraft (one of two preserved in Argentina) is part of the collection at the National Aeronautics Museum now at Morón, in the prov. of Buenos Aires-and after being exposed to the elemnts for decades, it is now in a large hangar with the rest of the aircraft in the collection... Best regards!
scaramouche, I´ve read that the Argentinians even had a special unit equipped with Lincolns, modelled after the R.A.F´s famous 617 sqn. I don´t think they were ever equipped with any special weapons though. Perhaps you know more about that ? As for comparing the Lincoln to the B-29, I´m perfectly aware of it being inferiour in performance as well as lacking some of the more modern features the B-29 had. But it was a bit more than just a re-vamped Lancaster, wasn´t it ? It only shared the centre-section with the Lancaster. I understand that the Lincoln was much better suited than the B-29 ( Washington, as it was known as in British service ) for operations in Malaya. It also proved to be a much more accurate bomber. And, not to be underestimated when we are talking about effectiveness, the Lincoln was less costly to support and operate.
Skua: The Lincolns sent to Malaya were employed in counterinsurgency tasks, heck! the French were using AAC.1s ( Ju-52 3/ms built in France under the occupation) against the Viet Minh in Indochina at that time..What leads you to believe that the Libcoln was a more accurate bomber than the B-29 when all available information suggests just the opposite? You might be interested to know that Argentine pilots shared some of the misgivings re: the Lincoln vs. the Lancaster. At the request of Fuerza Aérea Argentina (FAA), German technicians contracted after WW 2 by DGFM the Dirección General de Fabricaciones Militares-or Military Directorate of Military Industries ) began development and testing of a missile which superfitially ressmbled the HS 293 . It was intended for the FAA's Avro Lancaster bombers, 15 of which had been purchased in 1947, along with the Lincolns)- Testing of a mock up aboard a specially modified C-47 began in 1952, In 1953 testing of the actual PTA-1 missile was scheduled to begin. It had an stimated speed of 950 km/h , and weighed skughtly over 1000 kg. It was intended for usee against bridges, tunnels, weapons storage depots and vessels. Like the HS 293, the PTA-1 was radio controlled. While testing the radio equipment, over the River Plate, on 20 Sept. 1953 Lancaster B-036 developed engine trouble. The pilot deciced to crash land in the river, but the aircraft dropped suddely and broke upon impact. Among those killed was Wener Baumbach, former Luftwaffe General of Bombers, who had arrived in 1947, and was operating the radio controllled equipment.Despite this tragedy; development continued slowly, due to the economic situation facing the country. In 1955, two addiitonal Lancasters (s/n B-037 and B-038) were modified to carry the PTA-1. When on 16 September, sectors of the armed forces rebelled against the Peron regime, the Lincolns and Lancasters were readied for operations.On 17 Sept., Lancaster s/n B-037, which was being readied at the FAA's Regional Repair Shops at Rio Cuarto wfor an attack against rebel targets in the city of Córdoba, was destroyed on the grond in a bombing raid carried out by rebel Avro Lincons. Developmet of the PTA-1 was discontinued in 1956, due to the high costs involved and the state of finantial stringency prevailing. I'm enclosing a photo of a PTA-1 on its trolley, behind you will see the fuselage of one of the FAA's Lancasters Best Regards
Apparently not all. Jon Lake says otherwise in his article about the Lincoln in International Air Power Review volume 1, based on results from SAC bombing competitions.
Sure. The following is the passage most relevant to our discussion I believe, found on pages 179-180 in the above mentioned article.
That's what l figured-one single situation which might depend on the individual skil of the crew, sarendipity (or simply luck) that the actual quality of the aircraft- This does not prove that the Lincoln was a more accurate bomber.Let me me give you a similar case: Scottie, one of my friends found an old Smith & Wesson .44 "Russian" model revolver at farme he bought in Maryland. It was a rusty keepsake with many parts which had simply rusted away.With a lot of ptience nd skill, he reconstructed the gun, at least outwardly. The trigger mecahnism worked and the cylinder revolved. The barrel was still a dubious brownish mass.. We held a shootong match at a nearby gun range,. After running out of paper targets, we placed coke bottles at 50 yards.. We all fiired our first riund and missed. Scottie pulled out his rusty cannon and blew the bottle's neck to pieces.. Now in similar shoot-outs later on, Scottie failed to hit that same target,even at shorter ranges..and so did various other shooters who tried his old piece. As the saying goes" One swalllow does not a summer make"..This applies to that description of the opmpetition. Bestt Regards! :smok:
Jon Lake writes ( about the B-29 compared to the Lincoln ) : "They were also considerably less accurate in the bombing role". I find it hard to believe that a respected writer like Lake would make a statement like that with no other foundation than the results of a SAC Bomber Competition, especially in a high quality journal like the International Air Power Review. I believe it was written as an example, but it might very well be the only empirical foundation he has for his statement. His statement has, however, most likely a very sound theoretical foundation. Besides that, your friend with the rusty Smith & Wesson missed the target every time after his first lucky shot, but do you have any examples of an event where the B-29 proved to be more accurate than the Lincoln ? But let us take one step back for a moment and take a look at the bomb-aimer´s position in the Lincoln. It represented a considerable ergonomic improvement over, not only the Lancaster, but every other bomber then in service, including the B-29. The Lincoln was also, to my knowledge at least, equipped with radar and sights every bit as good as the B-29´s, possibly better. This taken into consideration, is it really that unthinkable that the Lincoln was a more accurate bomber than the B-29 ?
Every source that l've seen and read describes theh Norden bom-sight a sthe most accurate of any sights used in WW2-certainly the Germans went through a great deal of truble to get its plans- thus l doubt that the Lincoln could have carrried anythngi as good (let alone better) aboard. That applies to the radar equipmebnt as well..Take a look at Pete Bower;s book on the B-29..And one incident (whether my friend's experience with that old S&W Wesson, or the supposed incident in the SAC competition does not empirical evidence make. Compared to the B-29, the Lincoln was crude and incomplete- The B-29 had the following advantages * Good enough armed to take care of enemy fighters. Few B-29's have been shot down. * Good bomb hit ratio despite the high altitudes, thanks to the Norden Bombsight and later the APG-7 bombimg radar * High altitude and speed. Only 1 fighter type in the Japanese forces was capable of intercepting the B-29 * Capable of hauling heavy bomb loads over extreme ranges The author you quote states th B-29s would have been easy prey to modern fighters over Korea( of course! but them again, so would the Lincoln- fact well demonstarted during the Argentine military uprising of Sept. 1955 to which l referred-when confronted with Gloster Meteors (far slower than the MIG 15s flown over Korea) the Lincln was easy meat... this is not relevant.. Can l cite an incident whether the B-29 was more accurate as a bomber than the Lincoln?I cannot but can you actually prove the converse, you see it works both ways-can you cite another example of how the Lincoln was a more accurate bomber? for teh B-29 was a steadier platform, had better ginsights and much better rdar equipment-For the the one single example and the word of a single (and obviously biased) author such as the on you cite does not cut it.Consider this: The Russians (who knew and still know a good aircraf) copied the B-29-and used it (and its equipment on its entirety) and it also served as a model for further bomber construction.. interestingly enough, after operating the Lincol for a couple of years, the Argentines considered adding another bomber unit to the FAA, and considered various options. The one they did consider seriously was the B-29..which of course, the US was noit willing to sell...but that is another story.
The Russians (who knew and still know a good aircraf) copied the B-29-and used it (and its equipment on its entirety) The Russians did not have available salvaged Lincolns, they did B-29s. I personally believe that the B-29 was the better plane, but the argument does not necessarily follow that the Soviets would have produced the B-29 (Especially given their preference for economical aircraft) if Lincolns or even Lancasters had been available in copiable numbers.
You are right in one respect, but you know how the Russians got the data on the alloys that went into the Rolls Royce Nene jet engine-.(one of their spooks actually wore thick rubber-heeled shoes, and "managed" to step on some metal shavings, from which they deduced the actual composition) Knowing the Russians, l believe that if that i there was anything they wanted (e.g. like the atomic bomb) they would have gotten it or at least made a darn good effort .I don't necesarily agree that the Russians prefered economical aircraft- In the 1930s they produced large numbers of the monstruous ANT-6s (and subsequent variants) Heck, they were not constrained by the economic considerations prevalent in Britain or the US...the enormous efforts they went through, just to duplicate the B-29 is a perfect example of what lenghts they would go.as well as the fact that their post WW2 aircraft were for the most part, "gaz guzzlers". Best Regards
Let us just get one thing straight here before going any further. I have never claimed, nor have Jon Lake to my knowledge, that the Lincoln was a better aircraft than the B-29. The issue here is whether or not the Lincoln could be considered a more accurate or effective bomber. The Lincoln carried the Mk.XIV bombsight, produced in the US as the T1, often referred to as the British answer to the Norden. It is difficult, for me at least, to say which was better. Both had their pros and cons. The Mk.XIV was at least simpler to use, and only required the aircraft to fly straight and level for 10 seconds during a bombing run, as opposed to the 30 seconds required by the Norden bombsight. The Norden was, on the other hand, more accurate at certain altitudes. Assuming we own the same book by Pete Bowers, he says little more about the B-29´s radar sight other than that it was an AN/APQ-7, and that bombing with the radar sight was more accurate than visual bombing with the Norden bombsight. Lincolns carried either the H2S Mk.IIIG or the H2S Mk.IVA. I guess it boils down to which of these radar sights was the most accurate then ?
The Lincolns B. Mkv II operated by the Argentine Af (according to Vol. l of its Manual on Lincoln Maintenance ) carried an H2S Mk.2B radar-In the mid 1950, there were plans to modifu at least 12 of these for the maritime patrol role, by fitting them with retractable Ekko ASV 19B 3 cm radars' but the task was taken on by Nval Lockheed P2V-5s. To get back to the main point. You might be interested in these excerpts from Intellgenc Reports l brought from Washington last Nov. 24 Sept. 1947- Purchase of 100 Gloster Meteors and 30 Lincoln bombers from England will fufill Argentina's inmediate requirements for tactical aircraft. Future purchases of English equipment depends upon action to be taken by U.S. Argentina not intrested in buying surolus or outdated equiopment. (The Argentine AF) has requested access to Wright Field, top level Schools and opertaional units euipped the Boeing B-29. 19 Sept. 1947 A conversation with Major R.O. Lacabanne, forer Asistant Air Attache to Washington and now Chief of the Second Diviision of the Air Staff revea Argentina' Air Force's s future plans for modernization...Lacabanne indicated that Argentina was interested in acquiring only the latest types available, including B-29s and F-80s to start with and then more modern models as they get into production. 29 January 1949-large Argentine AF Mission now touring USAF bases has been given ample time to examine the latest opoerational aircraft available here, including the B-29, F-80, and were most imprssed by the Fairchild C-82. Two of the crews normally assigned to the Argentine AF Lincoln Regiment have taken part in training exercises aboard B-29s in which their Air Force has demonstrated d renewed interest. When asked if Argentina could afford to purchase and maintain such expensive aircraft as the B-29, the senior officer indicated present replied "Yes, Argenina has the money" while indicating that Argentina bought British equippment because of tghe favorable balance of trade and the relutance of the U.S. to provide South American nations with advanced weapons of war. He further indicated that the crews which had flown the Superfortress were most impressed by the equipment on board that aircraft; which they considered far superior in every respect to that carried by the Lincolns they have been flying now for almost two years. He was particularly impressed by the AN/APQ-13 or AN/APQ-7 Eagle radar system for bombing and navigation, and the fact that they were sophisticated enough to allow permit blind bombing when heavy cloud cover covered the target., and lapse enthusiastically about the tail-mopunted AN/APG-15B airborne radar gun aiming system which rendered it a most effective weapon against night fighters. " I think the last exceprt speaks for itself-coming from an impartial source that has no axe to grind-but l would not take this primary evidence (from recently declassified documents) as empirical, since it is only one source and l prefer to triangulate my information... In an earlier post you asked whether the Argentine AF had estabished a squadron akin to "The Dam Busters"- A the time, l was only aware of the stand-off missile trials aboard the Lancasters , but today l've received a book printed in Argentina ( "Lincoln" (by J.O. Rodriguez and O. Rodriguez)-which mentions the fact 0n 23 May 1953, the Lincolns participated in a training eercise designated as "Oscar", . The tactics emplyed weer those used by the British squadron during the war, and the aircrfat involved were fitted with a specially dsigned bomsight (fo further details are given) although utilizing conventional practice bombs. The dsign and construction of "bouncing bombs" was seriously considered, but th project remained in the paper stage.
They were apparently named the Brigada Apicella, tasked with attacking dams, bridges and dykes, and operated six Lincolns from July 1953. The AN/APQ-13 was simply the American version of the H2S. The AN/APQ-7 was a considerable improvement over the AN/APQ-13 regarding accuracy, but, as a post-war analysis showed, was still less accurate than visual methods. All variants of the H2S permitted blind bombing, and the AN/APQ-7 was quite possibly more accurate than the H2S Mk.II, but I´m certain that the AN/APQ-13 was not. I don´t know how the H2S Marks III and IV compared to the AN/APQ-7, but I do know that the latter was very difficult to operate. It has by now, however, occured to me that Jon Lake perhaps had only the B-29s in RAF service in mind when he made his statement. I don´t know their details, but it is quite possible that they were equipped with the AN/APQ-13 instead of the AN/APQ-7.
They were apparently named the Brigada Apicella, tasked with attacking dams, bridges and dykes, and operated six Lincolns from July 1953. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- May l ask you the source? because that is all the info l have on the matter-and what l quited is all l have on the Argentine appraisal of the B-29- On the same note, l was surprised to see that many of the documents that l wanted on various South American nations (which were listed on 7 x 5 1/2 inch index cards) werr marked " In custory of the CIA"-and other documents, whuch would be available under the "Freedom of Information Act" ; due to the number of request and cuts in personnel require a waiting period of 8 weeks to a year....oh well...
Same source, Jon Lake´s article about the Lincoln in International Air Power Review volume 1, Summer 2001. He doesn´t write much more about it though.
Thanks again... The rather large package l received from my friend in Germany, for me a veritable treasure; included these photos of Argentine Air Force Avro Lincolns
