This was such a unique time in aviation, with technology evolving at an incredible pace, fueled by seemingly endless government funding.

I just have to ask myself (as a big fan of Lockheed aircraft) why they couldn't field a successful bomber version of the L-049 design which would compete with the B-29? I realize they had a project called the XB-30 based on the general 049 design, but it doesn't seem to carry the same distinctive "Connie" shape.

Were the Boeing's wings just far more advanced or what? A quick glance at the specs seems to indicate that both had similar speeds, the 049 had a decently longer range, although about a 20% reduction in payload? That would appear to be a strong competitor.

I'd say maybe they were just busy with govt. contracts, P-38 etc, plus apparently they were actually building B-17s still (under contract / license) even towards the end of the war? Perhaps they were just over-extended resource-wise and weren't interested in such an exotic program? Then again if that's true, why did Boeing seemingly devote such intense resources into the development of the B-29?


On the flip side, after enjoying unrivaled success as the ultimate long range heavy bomber in WWII, why did Boeing's B-29-based 377 / Stratocruiser fail commercially (well, essentially.. ) while the Connie enjoyed instant success into a booming post-war commercial aviation industry? Maybe I partially answered my question (as Lockheed did have a significant head-start in the industry post-war) but that doesn't explain why Boeing couldn't leverage the epic and iconic image of the "nuclear" B-29 design as the ultimate "super airliner" post-war.


I suppose I'm more curious about the lack of an 049-based bomber than the lack of Stratocruiser success (I've read the thread on that by the way!) One is by choice (military) while one is by demand (commercial / opinion / profits / emerging technologies such as jets) so that explains the Stratocruiser. However, it seems like Lockheed would have a fairly strong contender if they had really pushed the design into a long range bomber. In the specs I listed as well, the payload seemed less than the B-29, but it's important to note that by the final version of the Super Connie, they had essentially doubled the MTOW without significantly increasing the weight of the aircraft, hinting at a huge overabundance of capacity in the airframe design, which would have made for an easy conversion to a competitive bomb payload one would think.

On the bomber side, the short answer is: Because Boeing won the contract. Lockheed proposed the XB-30 (a modified L-049) against Boeing's XB-29, Douglas's XB-31, and Consolidated's B-32. Winning the contract will do a lot to help a potentially capable design become a real thing.

The B-29 is a lot more airplane than the Constellation was, at least at that point. Sure, the Connie eventually grew up. But the B-29 grew up too, into the B-50.

On the 377:

estorilm wrote:

Were the Boeing's wings just far more advanced or what?

Yes. The 377 could outfly everything on the market, but it was commensurately more expensive than everything else, too. Boeing did build 900-ish for the Air Force, though.

In general, I think it proves the superiority of purpose-built designs. Airplanes built to be bombers tend to be better bombers than converted passenger transports, and vice versa. (The corollary of this is the impossibility of truly multi-purpose aircraft designs: F-111, F-35, etc. But that's another topic.)

Florianopolis wrote:

On the bomber side, the short answer is: Because Boeing won the contract. Lockheed proposed the XB-30 (a modified L-049) against Boeing's XB-29, Douglas's XB-31, and Consolidated's B-32. Winning the contract will do a lot to help a potentially capable design become a real thing.

The B-29 is a lot more airplane than the Constellation was, at least at that point. Sure, the Connie eventually grew up. But the B-29 grew up too, into the B-50.

On the 377:

estorilm wrote:

Were the Boeing's wings just far more advanced or what?

Yes. The 377 could outfly everything on the market, but it was commensurately more expensive than everything else, too. Boeing did build 900-ish for the Air Force, though.

In general, I think it proves the superiority of purpose-built designs. Airplanes built to be bombers tend to be better bombers than converted passenger transports, and vice versa. (The corollary of this is the impossibility of truly multi-purpose aircraft designs: F-111, F-35, etc. But that's another topic.)

Thanks for the quick and informative reply!

I guess i was kinda hoping for something "more" to be there - but it seems like the initial indicators were true.

I suppose we could go into more detail though - for example, why did the 377 grow a reputation as an engine / prop killer though the Connie had the same units? From what I knew of the B-29 ops, they tended to have similar issues at-or-near MTOW right? Especially on certain islands in the Pacific, I recall people saying they'd be practically near-crash readiness on every takeoff - as in if there were any issues with ANY engine, they'd be in the water.
Was it simply true that the Connie tended to be over-engined and demand little from the powerplants?
I read a book a while ago about crash investigations (the same author wrote a newer book about early jet-age investigations as well) and there were some rather intense failures with the 377, especially when you consider the incident-to-aircraft production ratio.

Interesting that these airframes had so much folklore attached while their commercial vita was rather lackluster.
20% of 377 frames went down and out with engine or prop issues.
My understanding is that the 377 is the passenger conversion of the KC96 which is the tanker derived from the freighter conversion of the B50 which is the overengined postwar upgrade to the B-29 ( same basic airframe. ) which was based on a majorly pimped B-17 .
Completely unsurprising that they did not live up to their PR image.
The same passing interest made them available due to low hours for the guppy conversions.

Every Airbus used to start its life in a Boeing

while looking up the compatriot offers:
the Lockheed offer has an eery resemblance to the militarized version of the FW-200
while the Douglas proposal looks like a 4 prop u2. unending wings of a sailplane.

Here's an excellent article which y'all may find interesting.

The Constellation was arguably more successful as a military airplane than it ever was as an airliner. The USAAF, USAF and Navy bought and used nearly 40 percent of all the Con­stellations ever manufactured

http://www.historynet.com/the-legendary ... lation.htm

The 377 and the Connie had different engines, here's a good breakdown:
B-29: early R-3350s (2 rows, 9 cylinders), first with carbs, later injected, and supercharged. These had many problems early on, especially in the hot Pacific. Many engine fires and other things. They used to take off, fly at 50 feet to accelerate in order to cool the engines, and only then gradually start climbing. If you lost an engine, you were hosed. The cost of safer takeoffs would have been a massive reduction in bomb load.
Connie: early/mid R3350s, later turbo-compound on the 1049D and onward. Many of the bugs had been worked out in wartime service, though the turbo-compound versions introduced new bugs and were never highly reliable.
377: R-4360 (4 rows of 7 cylinders, offset slightly with each successive row, hence the nickname "corncob"). These were much bigger engines than the 3350, both in displacement (+1000 ci/~16 liters) and size. They had cooling problems their entire lives due to their four-row architecture, and were heavier per unit output than the 3350s. Consequently, the 377 had higher costs overall, despite it's better speed and comfort. Also, the 377 was late to market, and most Airlines had already committed to Connies and DC-6/7s by then.

The best radial of that era was the Pratt R-2800, it was very reliable and had great SFC, which is why the DC-6 outlasted the DC-7 and Connie when the first jets came online.

Ugh, those R3350 turbo-compounds. My dad used to work on them when he worked for one of the majors and would still sometimes have nightmares about them well into retirement. Brilliant design, but was a bit ahead of its time with respect to durability.

The 377 came before the C97, so it was the derivative.Both the Connie and Stratocruiser had engine issues, plus I blieve the Connie had some electrical problems which grounded the early 049 variants briefly? I'm and old guy and flew both the L1049H (FTL), and the C97G (Calif ANG 146th,
The Connie was a bettter and more reliable airplane IMO. Also flew the DC6B and the R2800 CB16. A very reliable engine, for its time.

Very interesting topic

The Connie was and still is one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built


I think the bare metal finish used in some of the military aircraft suited it best

BravoOne wrote:

The 377 came before the C97,

What I could garner:

( FF:1942) B29 -> (FF:1944) C97 -> (intro:1952) KC97
................................................... \ -> (FF:1947) B377

For the (K)C97 there must be some later "munge in" from the B50?

WIederling wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

The 377 came before the C97,

What I could garner:

( FF:1942) B29 -> (FF:1944) C97 -> (intro:1952) KC97
................................................... \ -> (FF:1947) B377

For the (K)C97 there must be some later "munge in" from the B50?

Not sure about your dates but as far as in service dates, I seem to recall that PAA, NWA, UAL and BOAC alll had 377's in service around 1949 to 1950. The C97's that I flew were built in 1953/54 time period and originally were KC97s only to be converted to freighters around 1959/1960? time period. I could be off a year or so either way. You would be correct about the B50 I suspect.

The Boeing C-97 was designed in parallel (but trailing) with the B-29 series during WWII, but at a far slower rate (only 3x XC-97 were produced), because the need for bombers was far more urgent.


Boeing model 367 (C-97 series) B29 wing, tail, undercarriage and power plant, New double-lobe fuselage.
Boeing model 367-1-1 (XC-97), 3 prototypes, F/F november 9th 1944

In July 1945 the USAF ordered ten service test models :

Boeing model 367-5-5 (YC-97), 6x, F/F March 11 1947 , identical as XC-97 , but with revised " Andy Gump" engine nacelles, increased fuel capacity, improved electrical systems.
Boeing model 367-4-4 (YC-97A, 3x, F/F January 1948, essential a B-50 aircraft with a double-lobe fuselage.(75st aluminium wings, PW R-4360 engines, high tail, thermal de-icing, etc.)
Boeing model 367-4-7 (YC-97B), 1x, identical to YC-97A, but with de luxe personnel transport interior, deleted cargo shell doors and airline type windows.

Boeing model 377-10-19 (B377 Stratocruiser), the prototype was known to factory personel as no.11 because it followed the 10th plane of the YC-97 contract (YC-97B), identical window arrangment and entry doors as YC-97B, F/F July 8 1947.
The aircraft was later bought in stripped down form by Panam and modified to the standard PanAm 377-10-26 standard.

The correct development sequence for the B377 Stratocruiser is :
XB-29
YB-29
B-29
B-50A
YC-97B
B377

You seem to have a broader knowledge than most regarding the 377. Do you know which operators had the swing out FE panel pn their aircraft. I think it was BOAC and NWA, but not sure. Maybe UAL as well.

The Curtiss Electric Props on the -377 were much less trouble prone.
Nonetheless, at the time Boeing did not have the relationship with the airlines that Douglas and Lockheed did. And, most folks still remembered when the Boeing/Hamilton/Pratt and Whitney/United Model 247 was unavailable to them. That did not endear Boeing to the airline folks.

Also, Even though Lockheed was able to design cutting edge aircraft, they did not have a reputation of catering to the needs of the different airlines. Consequently, Douglas gained the reputation of a "can do" airframe manufacturer and Lockheed was a "can't do" manufacturer. For all the design innovation going on at Burbank, the Lockheed Sales Department sure did piss-off a lot of current or potential customers. Some of those airlines switched to Douglas and never looked back.

When Boeing finally convinced the airlines they were serious about building commercial airframes (the 707) they figured out pretty quickly that they needed to customize airframes to the customer.
The Boeing "family" of Jetliners dominated for decades.

BravoOne wrote:

Do you know which operators had the swing out FE panel pn their aircraft. I think it was BOAC and NWA, but not sure. Maybe UAL as well.

Do you have a picture of this swing out FE panel ? Do you consider this AOA FE panel a fixed FE panel ?



American Overseas Airlines, 377-10-29 (later taken over by PAA), Copyright ETHW

Also ,it's difficult to pinpoint a standard configuration for BOAC, because BOAC received only six 377-10-32 aircraft direct from the factory :

c/n 15974, G-AKGH, Caledonia
c/n 15975, G-AKGI, Caribou
c/n 15976, G-AKGJ, Cambria
c/n 15977, G-AKGK, Canopus
c/n 15978, G-AKGL, Cabot
c/n 15979, G-AKGM, Castor

The other eleven aircraft in the final BOAC Stratocruiser fleet of seventeen aircraft were obtained from other airlines :

one 377-10-26 aircraft from PAA
four 377-10-28 aircraft from SAS
six 377-10-34 aircraft from UAL

The NWA 377 fleet has one standard NWA configuration , with all ten 377-10-30 aircraft (with rectangcular passengers windows!) directly obtained from the factory.
c/n 15947/15956, NC74601/74610

Back to the topic :

ImperialEagle wrote:

Nonetheless, at the time Boeing did not have the relationship with the airlines that Douglas and Lockheed did. And, most folks still remembered when the Boeing/Hamilton/Pratt and Whitney/United Model 247 was unavailable to them. That did not endear Boeing to the airline folks.

Also, Even though Lockheed was able to design cutting edge aircraft, they did not have a reputation of catering to the needs of the different airlines. Consequently, Douglas gained the reputation of a "can do" airframe manufacturer and Lockheed was a "can't do" manufacturer. For all the design innovation going on at Burbank, the Lockheed Sales Department sure did piss-off a lot of current or potential customers. Some of those airlines switched to Douglas and never looked back.

When Boeing finally convinced the airlines they were serious about building commercial airframes (the 707) they figured out pretty quickly that they needed to customize airframes to the customer.
The Boeing "family" of Jetliners dominated for decades.

fully agree

With my former employer KLM (retired now) the same story was told to me by the "Old hands" in the cockpit and within KLM/TD, when I joined KLM in the mid seventies.
The general mood after the war about Boeing was : nice bombers, but unable to produce a safe, customized civil aircraft,
This attitude can also be explaned by the crash of the Boeing model 307 Stratoliner (essential a B-17 bomber with a new fuselage), just before the second world war , during a demonstration flight with the KLM Technical Pilot at the controls
It crashed on March 18, 1939, while its performance with two engines inoperative on one wing was being demonstrated to representatives of KLM. When the engines were shut down, the pilot moved the rudder to maximum deflection to counter the resulting yaw. The Stratoliner then experienced rudder lock, where the control loads prevented the rudder from being re-centered. As a result, the 307 went into a spin and crashed. The ten people aboard, including KLM test pilot Albert von Baumhauer, Boeing test pilot Julius Barr, Boeing Chief Aerodynamicist Ralph Cram, Boeing Chief Engineer Earl Ferguson, and a TWA representative were killed. Subsequent wind tunnel testing showed that the addition of an extended dorsal fin ahead of and attached to the vertical tail prevented rudder lock. This was incorporated into the 307's rudder redesign, while also being incorporated in Boeing's rear fuselage redesign for their models "E" through "G" B-17 bomber.

After the war Boeing was not even consulted , only Douglas and Lockheed were in the race for new (or second hand military) civil aircraft. (for short range : Convair)
Inside KLM two divisions (Douglas and Lockheed) were present after both aircraft companies were choosen to compete :.
Lockheed : L049, 749, 749A, 1049
Douglas : DC3, DC-4, C-54 Skymaster, DC-6,7
The DC-7C won the last battle in the prop age and the lockheed electra proved to be a failure (to late and slow), the jet age was entered with Douglas : DC8, DC8-63,DC9. DC-10, MD11.

Finally, the first Boeing airplane was bought by KLM as late as 1971 : the B747-206B, because this XXL sized aircraft was only offered by Boeing.

747classic wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

Do you know which operators had the swing out FE panel pn their aircraft. I think it was BOAC and NWA, but not sure. Maybe UAL as well.

Do you have a picture of this swing out FE panel ? Do you consider this AOA FE panel a fixed FE panel ?



American Overseas Airlines, 377-10-29 (later taken over by PAA), Copyright ETHW

Also ,it's difficult to pinpoint a standard configuration for BOAC, because BOAC received only six 377-10-32 aircraft direct from the factory :

c/n 15974, G-AKGH, Caledonia
c/n 15975, G-AKGI, Caribou
c/n 15976, G-AKGJ, Cambria
c/n 15977, G-AKGK, Canopus
c/n 15978, G-AKGL, Cabot
c/n 15979, G-AKGM, Castor

The other eleven aircraft in the final BOAC Stratocruiser fleet of seventeen aircraft were obtained from other airlines :

one 377-10-26 aircraft from PAA
four 377-10-28 aircraft from SAS
six 377-10-34 aircraft from UAL

The NWA 377 fleet has one standard NWA configuration , with all ten 377-10-30 aircraft (with rectangcular passengers windows!) directly obtained from the factory.
c/n 15947/15956, NC74601/74610

Thanks for great reply. The photo you show is inline with the traditional or standard FE panel. The swing out panel I believe, after giving it more thought was a UAL spec and there may have been at least one other operator. I recall reading and article that described the mods necessary to covert it back to the standard FE configuration as having been done by Lockheed Aircraft at what was then Idlewild airport, in New York. I'll see if I can find that article. The original UAL panel was hinged at the front allowing it to be operated by the pilots if required. There is a large picture of this unique configuration in the former Boeing training center, Seattle, Washington.

estorilm wrote:

This was such a unique time in aviation, with technology evolving at an incredible pace, fueled by seemingly endless government funding.

I just have to ask myself (as a big fan of Lockheed aircraft) why they couldn't field a successful bomber version of the L-049 design which would compete with the B-29? I realize they had a project called the XB-30 based on the general 049 design, but it doesn't seem to carry the same distinctive "Connie" shape.

A development of the Lockheed 49 Constellation and also known as the model 249, the XB-30 was based on the same design
brief as the B-29. A contract for a preliminary design was awarded on 27 June 1940 but Lockheed subsequently withdrew from
the competition as the company did not have the production capacity and no aircraft was ever built.


Wikipedia

B-30
Lockheed 51
Specifications:
span: 123', 37.49 m
length: 104'8", 31.90 m
engines: 4 Wright R-3350-13
max. speed: 382 mph, 615 km/h


See : https://usmilitaryaircraft.files.wordpr ... airf-b.pdf
And scroll down to B-30 (page 37/106)