Plan B

"f86sabre" (f86sabre) 12/20/2013 at 21:46 • Filed to: Planelopnik

3

9

There was some doubt that the B-29 was going to deliver its full promise. To hedge its bets the War Department awarded Consolidated a contract to build 1500 B-32 Dominators. The aircraft sported the same engines as the B-29 and was intended to fly at altitudes similar to the 29. Development issues, and the B-29's success, meant that the Dominator was a plane with no real role. Orders were cut and the plane was sidelined to a side role. A notable bit of history is that the last airman killed in air combat for the US was aboard a B-32 flying a photo recon mission over Tokyo on August 18, 1945.

IDROVEAPICKUPTRUCK > f86sabre 12/20/2013 at 22:21

1

Wow, it's rare that I've never heard of a WWII aircraft. Thanks for this, my 11 year old self is very angry with me.

ttyymmnn > f86sabre 12/20/2013 at 22:32

0

Interesting to compare the design approaches between the B-29 and the B-32. It seems like Consolidated built a very large traditional bomber, while Boeing went with something a bit more radical, and ultimately more successful. I wonder if the B-32 would have been as successful had it been chosen over the Strat. I wonder also if Consolidated was going for a traditional approach, thinking it was a safer bet with fusty old USAAF generals.

f86sabre > ttyymmnn 12/20/2013 at 22:40

0

I think traditional was what the War Department was after. Let Boeing push the limits. The B-32 had serious pressurization issues and ended up being restricted to medium altitudes. It is interesting that Consolidated was always a couple of steps behind Boeing on the innovation race. The B-47 only flew a year after the first flight of the B-36.

ttyymmnn > f86sabre 12/20/2013 at 22:45

0

I've never done any in depth reading about the competition between the YF-23 and the F-22. But it always seemed to me that the AF went with the F-22 because it looked more like a traditional airplane. The same with the JSF. The X-32 may have been a perfectly capable plane, but there's no way it was going to beat out a more traditionally designed aircraft. Real men don't fly short fat airplanes.

f86sabre > ttyymmnn 12/20/2013 at 22:57

0

I can't argue with that. Regarding the bombers though, I would say the B-29 was the more ambitious design. It probably benefitted from having more resources assigned to it than the B-32.

I love how the YF-23 looks. Low and sexy.

What it looks like now...

I love the engine stand.

ttyymmnn > f86sabre 12/20/2013 at 23:06

1

I'll have to read about the F-22/F-23 competition. I thought the F-23 was wicked looking. I'll be interested to read how she performed vs. the F-22. I've got some old books I bought from the Military Book Club back when I was a teenager (early 80's). One of them, U.S. Fighters, only went as far as the YF-17. It's interesting to see how a failed concept for the USAF went on to become such a successful platform for the USN.

iDriveCode3 > f86sabre 12/21/2013 at 00:57

0

This makes me want a big cutaway book on WWII aircraft. In fact, this makes me want all the cutaway books ever published. I have this secret hope that my daughter, nearly 4, grows up with the same sense of wonder and amazement that I had as a kid. I think tucked away in a corner of my parents attic sit a stack of National Geographic magazines, cutaway books, all the Calvin & Hobbes books, and a copy of The Way Things Work.

f86sabre > iDriveCode3 12/21/2013 at 07:51

2

I couldn't find any cutaways of the B-32, but I found these in the search. Good luck with the 4 year old. I'm working on my 3 and 6 year olds. There are signs of appreciation.

iDriveCode3 > f86sabre 12/21/2013 at 09:54

1

Thank you sir! You just made my morning!