Fifer54 Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 Following up on a thread about B-29s that mentioned Project Silverplate (which I'd never heard of!), I visited http://www.atomicheritage.org/history/project-silverplate which stated that initially the US military authorities wanted to use the Avro Lancaster as an atomic bomber, because less modification would be needed than on a B-29, but Generals Leslie Groves and "Hap" Arnold insisted on an American plane. What a "What-if" project that would be . . .a USAAF Lanc in NMF . . . 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learstang Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 I say go for it, MNG! And with a great big s***ing a-bomb underneath it also! Regards, Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don McIntyre Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 That would be an interesting project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Vor!!! Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 Lol I mentioned this at the model club after reading about it in Lancaster ( Leo McKinstry) to howls of derision from the so called plane guys I think Churchill wasnt keen on the idea either Think the colour was white for the aircraft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogsbody Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Something like a Lancaster B.VI with all the turrets removed, perhaps. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 It was suggested, but my understanding was that it was Churchill who offered the aircraft, and the US were unanimous in rejecting the idea. The reason behind it was the size of the bombbay, being larger than those of the B-29, but it proved possible to modify the B-29s and perhaps the final design of the bombs weren't quite as large as originally expected? There was no attempt made, AFAIK, to even consider the real design/engineering implications, let alone to address the operational implications of such a slower, lower flying, shorter-ranged aircraft on this mission. I do wonder whether, had it been needed, it might not have been a job given to early Lincolns. But as What-Ifs go, it has a lot to be said for it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobgpw Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 As Graham says, but I believe that the actual bomb release shackle was developed from that used by Tallboy (G Type attachments and F Type releases?) and that initially, supplies of these mechanisms were direct from British stocks to the USA. The original "Thin Man" plutonium bomb was 17 feet long and required modification to the B-29 bomb doors, however Little Boy was much smaller at around 10 feet, Fat Man only slightly longer and no exterior modifications were required to the B-29. The Silverplate aircraft required a few modifications to the forward bomb bay internals, which included "flattening" a small section of the crew communication tunnel to accommodate the release gear and sway braces. Personally, I like the B-29 carrying out armament tests with two 22,000lb bombs on the wing racks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogsbody Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 As Graham says, but I believe that the actual bomb release shackle was developed from that used by Tallboy (G Type attachments and F Type releases?) and that initially, supplies of these mechanisms were direct from British stocks to the USA. The original "Thin Man" plutonium bomb was 17 feet long and required modification to the B-29 bomb doors, however Little Boy was much smaller at around 10 feet, Fat Man only slightly longer and no exterior modifications were required to the B-29. The Silverplate aircraft required a few modifications to the forward bomb bay internals, which included "flattening" a small section of the crew communication tunnel to accommodate the release gear and sway braces. Personally, I like the B-29 carrying out armament tests with two 22,000lb bombs on the wing racks! Like these? Chris 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The wooksta V2.0 Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 (edited) Has anyone got a photo of those racks for the Grand Slams? I have an assembled B29 somewhere that's just itching for some 9 Sqn codes and BPF roundels with a pair of Slams underneath. An atomic bomb armed Lanc is still a splendid whif, but is likely to look much like a Grand Slam armed one. Take out the tail turret, fair over with a Lancastrian cone and give it the Lincoln rudders and we're good to go. Personally, I'd also use Merlin 85s for a bit more ooomph in the power area as she may need it. Edited July 12, 2016 by The wooksta V2.0 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyot Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 What about a `Saddle Tank' Lanc for the nuclear bomber,.......to aid the short range! I`ll look forward to seeing your B-29 Lee,...... Superfortress B.Mk.I rather than Washington? Cheers Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossm Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 (edited) Has anyone got a photo of those racks for the Grand Slams? I have an assembled B29 somewhere that's just itching for some 9 Sqn codes and BPF roundels with a pair of Slams underneath. An atomic bomb armed Lanc is still a splendid whif, but is likely to look much like a Grand Slam armed one. Take out the tail turret, fair over with a Lancastrian cone and give it the Lincoln rudders and we're good to go. Personally, I'd also use Merlin 85s for a bit more ooomph in the power area as she may need it. and the saddle tank to get the range! Edit - I see Tony was faster typing! Edited July 12, 2016 by rossm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Saddle tank + atom bomb > max take-off mass? I think IFR. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The wooksta V2.0 Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 The saddle tank made the aircraft unstable and the crews hated it. Personally, I'd go without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mancunian airman Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Must be some strength in the B29 to carry TWO Grand Slams, I am really impressed with that . . . . I had the saddle tank resin top fuselage conversion but didnt attempt it due to the fact you have to slice the top of the Lanc fuselage off, which, if I got wrong would have been diasterous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocky05d Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 While we are on the subjects of what ifs ,how about that ?. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifer54 Posted July 12, 2016 Author Share Posted July 12, 2016 While we are on the subjects of what ifs ,how about that ?. That monster must be the Avro Upminster B.Mk.1, so called because it's two stops past Barking!!!!!!!! 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Saddle tank + atom bomb > max take-off mass? I think IFR. How many JATO bottles would be needed?! Trevor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnT Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 How many JATO bottles would be needed?! Trevor Is that to get it out of the hanger or all the way round the taxiway to the runway? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogsbody Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Must be some strength in the B29 to carry TWO Grand Slams, I am really impressed with that . . . . I had the saddle tank resin top fuselage conversion but didnt attempt it due to the fact you have to slice the top of the Lanc fuselage off, which, if I got wrong would have been diasterous Somewhere, way back in the dark dim reaches of my old mind, I seem to recall reading that a B-29 was tested with two 12,000lb. Tallboys. That makes more sense to me. I wonder if this photo has been mis-captioned? Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogsbody Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Maybe a Vickers Type C? http://www.xplanes3d.com/Projects/Vickers_c/art/Vickers_C_Scene_1.jpg Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifer54 Posted July 12, 2016 Author Share Posted July 12, 2016 Maybe a Vickers Type C? http://www.xplanes3d.com/Projects/Vickers_c/art/Vickers_C_Scene_1.jpg Chris That's basically a B-36 flying backwards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobgpw Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 The B-29 tested both the Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs. The AAF Proving Ground at Eglin, Florida was used for the trials during February of 1945, ostensibly the tests were to determine the merits of deploying the Tallboy or Grand Slam to the Pacific theatre of operations. This was part of the "Program for Large Bombs in VHB Aircraft". The tests showed that the B-29 could release a Tallboy successfully, however the modifications to the bomb doors caused excessive drag and increased fuel burn. A method of closing the gap in the bomb doors was suggested as being a necessity in order to increase the combat radius. It should be noted that the modifications to the B-29 removed the AN/APQ-13 radar unit from below the wing centre box section. I've seen photos of another B-29 with what appears to be a radar dome located where the front ventral turret was but I think this may have been immediately post-war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneEighthBit Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Stuff Lanc's and B-29s. I want to a see model of the AS.52 Horsa carrying a Tallboy. I wonder if that would have been a viable towing platform for a nuke? I know the USAAF were interesting in using Hotspurs and Horsas as flying bombs against Tokyo - a lof the Hotspurs destined for Canada got diverted to them for trials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocky05d Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 That monster must be the Avro Upminster B.Mk.1, so called because it's two stops past Barking!!!!!!!! :lol: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveCromie Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 :lol: Did you produce this Cocky? Either way, I like it!! DC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now