B-32 Dominator, the other Very Heavy Bomber of WW2

[@josephschoenling7468]

Greg is spoiling us

[@meaders2002]

He sure is. Are you going to fight it too?

[@lolshark99b49]

greg done did it to ya

[@robinjones4140]

@@meaders2002 move really fast 70° movement also be on my knowledge of electrical stuff from the aircraft individual Carrie 20,000 pounds in a tournamentooooooo ha haoa grocery actively as they could win no purple no Marywe OK

[@codered5431]

I feel like im in flight school for b-32 bombers

[@meaders2002]

@@robinjones4140 You may wish to get help for that drug overdose.

[@thejackals1874]

Many components and sub-assemblies for the Dominator (and Liberator, Catalina, etc.) were manufactured by Rohr Industries in Chula Vista, just south of San Diego. While clearing out an abandoned Rohr building a few years back, I found a B-32 pilot/copilot instrument panel which was earmarked for disposal. Being a longtime member of the International B-24 Club, I recognized what a rare item it was. I now have it mounted in my garage and am thinking of donating it to the San Diego Aerospace Museum. Keep up the outstanding work on these videos!

[@clarencefoster5877]

Æ

[@runninggames771]

ok

[@BoleDaPole]

You should sell it to them, and if you do donate it make sure to get the proper paperwork for tax write off purposes.

[@jamesricker3997]

The Smithsonian would be interested

[@RCAvhstape]

This must be the most attention anyone has paid to the B-32 since the 1940s, well done, Greg.

[@CAL1MBO]

lol

[@ditto1958]

Pretty amazingly- that company made the Liberator, the Dominator and the Peacemaker- all within a few short years. Then they made twin engine turboprop airliners that were extremely successful for decades.

[@primmakinsofis614]

Perhaps so, but the B-32 was plagued with development problems. The B-29 prototype first flew on 21 Sept. 1942; its first combat operation took place on 5 June 1944, about 20.5 months later. The B-32, in contrast, had its first prototype take to the air on 7 Sept. 1942, two weeks before the B-29. But its combat debut wasn't until 29 May 1945, some 32 months after its first flight, and a full year after the B-29 entered combat.

[@dukecraig2402]

​​@@primmakinsofis614But that's most likely because the government was putting more resources into the B29, even though the B32 was supposedly the back up in case the B29 didn't come through doesn't mean there wasn't a point where they determined that the B29 was in fact going to make it and really put the coals to it dedicating more men and resources into it. The theory that the B32 had more problems to overcome or was more trouble plagued during development using your formula is only true if all other things are equal, ie equal amount of man hours, resources and overall efforts being put into both of them, I'd guess they had a tremendous amount more effort going into the B29 considering that it had the far more advanced defensive guns and a pressurized fuselage and was operational earlier than the B32, they had to have been putting a tremendous amount more man hours and resources into it given how much more advanced it was and was still operational first between the two.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Lets keep in mind that there was a huge secret behind the scenes effort to make sure the B-29 was ready for the atomic action. That wasn't the case with the B-32. The B-29 was the most expensive wartime project of WW2 and by far.

[@dukecraig2402]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles As we all know Tibbets was definitely in on the reasons behind the modifications to the Silverplate B29's, but I wonder how they explained all that to the higher up's at the factory like the plant manager and the engineers behind those modifications, the workers would be fairly easy to pull the wool over their eyes but I wonder how they handled it with the higher up's there.

[@dianedougwhale7260]

@Duke Craig you might be surprised that it's not as easy to pull the wool over the eyes of the mug punter ! The Hot Shots just don't know what the workers are up to - at party meetings ! Hoover's peccadilloes were common knowledge to party members -

[@michaelmoorrees3585]

The AC is probably to simplify the electronics. Fluorescent lights need AC, and by having AC, all you need is a ballasted transformer. Likewise for anything generating radio waves. Remember vacuum tube electronics back then, so the 26VAC can be fed into a simple transformer, to simply bump it up to the higher voltage for optimum operation of the electronics. Probably 400Hz, too, to keep the transformers small. Note, that the "inverter" was a DC motor coupled to an AC generator ("alternator" wasn't used as a term, back then). Old cars, before alternators (with internal semiconductor rectifiers), had "cut-offs", that disconnected the generator, when the engine speed, was at idle. Actually, we usually don't say either "generator", or "motor". We call them a "machine", because many can act as both.

[@crazypetec-130fe7]

I love the in-depth review of the various systems. I spent 20 years on the C-130 as a crew chief/maintainer and a flight engineer, and it was fascinating to learn what had changed in the systems and what hadn't. This is the kind of nuts 'n' bolts content that makes an old dinosaur of an FE happy.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

That must have been a really fun plane as an FE.

[@crazypetec-130fe7]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yeah, fun job, and a great view out the office windows. :)

[@alan6832]

I want to float the idea that major defensive armament in bombers was a mistake, and that bombers need to either outrun enemy fighters like the Mosquito or be escorted by fighters, and that bombing beyond the range of either capability is generally a mistake unless the enemy has neglected deep air defense. One big advantage of unarmed bombers is that when they are lost, no gunners or defensive guns are lost with them, so the loss is smaller. This turret sighting technology might change the equation though, especially if it enabled B-29s to carry just one gunner.

[@AutismFathers]

​@@alan6832 🎉 22:26 ap 2😅😢 . Do

[@athelwulfgalland]

@@alan6832 That was a popular concept in the mid 1930s. It went about as well as the turret armed fighter concept in practice. The trouble was that most of the time by the time they reached operational service they were generally outstripped, performance wise, by contemporary fighters. The Mosquito was a unique case study in terms of bomber aircraft with several less than savory trade offs for it's performance.

[@MacMcNurgle]

I am not a historian. I was a kid in the 70's that spent most evenings making, painting and thinking about WWII planes. So the Rusky planes, the more obscure Jap planes, they were not as well known to me. There were few decent models. But until today, I thought I knew most every USAAF planes. I've never heard of the B32. It is great to get that thrill of finding something new again. Thanks for that alone.

[@BearfootBob]

there always seems to be one more WW1-WW2 plane we've never seen or knew existed, and although I know eventually the well runs dry, it seems like it never will

[@ronjon7942]

@@BearfootBob yeah, you’re right. I’m a fan of Ed’s and Rex’s channels, and I simply don’t know where they find inspiration for their content. They both assure their audiences they’ll have years of subjects.

[@pezpengy9308]

me neither!

[@enscroggs]

The tail of the B-32 was a scaled-up version of the tail used by the PB4Y-2 Privateer, not coincidentally another Consolidated product.

[@aussiebloke609]

Greg, your longer format is much appreciated. It's not hard to find a short synopsis on youtube covering virtually any subject (we won't touch on the topic of accuracy here), but it's refreshing to be able to get into a detailed explanation of some of the slightly more esoteric topics. Cheers, mate. 👍

[@detkaiser3668]

I totally agreee.

[@david_fisher]

Anotheraussiebloke (that would be me) agrees wholeheartedly. Thanks Greg.

[@cameroncameron2826]

I love the whole deal too - Greg your attention to detail staggering.

[@964cuplove]

Detailed is his middle name…

[@vipondiu]

Greg is surpassing himself by going even deeper into detail in obscure propeller planes mechanics. Today: how does the electrical system work on the obscure and nearly forgotten B-32

[@russellkinnard9697]

Very enjoyable. My dad always told me he was radar counter measures on the B32 Dominator. He also said that he was bumped from the recon flight of 8/28/1945 because his position was not necessary for the mission. He then saw his plane crash on take off, all 13 crew members were killed. He never liked to talk about this very much. Your video was very informative. Thanks

[@jeffbrooke4892]

Wow, the B-32. Now that's an airplane sorely under-discussed. After VE day my father was scheduled to be rotated into the Pacific along with the rest of the Eight Air Force. But thankfully VJ day happened and that never happened. That's as he always told it although I do not know how production of the bomber would have ramped up to accommodate it. Thanks for covering this aircraft.

[@amerigo88]

From the AirForceHistoryIndex - an official record regarding 8th Air Force redeployment - "TRANSFERRED TO OKINAWA 16 JUL 45, THERE DERIVING PERSONNEL FROM INACTIVATED 20 BOMBER COMMAND. GEN JAMES H. DOOLITTLE ASSUMED COMMAND, 19 JUL 45. RECEIVED FIRST B-29 AIRCRAFT, 8 AUG 45. ASSIGNED WITH 20 AIR FORCE TO UNITED STATES ARMY STRATEGIC AIR FORCES. "

[@Mentaculus42]

U.S. Army Air Forces (20 June 1941 - 17 September 1947) I always find it interesting that the Army had control of what ultimately became the “Air Force” after WW II, & now we have a Space Force that was pulled mostly out of the Air Force.

[@luckyguy600]

Greg does what he always does and a fine job at that. He doesn't cherry-pick his subjects and covers all he can, as best he can. A true perfectionist to accuracy. You can always bank on Greg and his knowledge. Pictures and interest are few and far between on the B-32. Companies make aircraft for money, not as nostalgia subjects. We here on Greg's website are creatures of nostalgia.

[@jeffbrooke4892]

@@amerigo88 Thanks for the information.

[@jonathan_60503]

If you need fluorescent lighting, then I can see why you'd want AC, especially back then. To strike the initial arc inside the tube you need high voltage, 600 V or so, which the fluorescent ballast provides (in addition to current limiting). AC voltage is much easier to step up or down than DC; you just need a transformer with a different number of windings on each side. Doing the same with DC back in WWII usually took a mechanical motor generator pair where you'd, for example, run a 28 V DC motor to spin a 600 V DC generator.

[@sadwingsraging3044]

Carrying high amperage through DC required massive heavy cables as well.

[@davidhollenshead4892]

Exactly. as the early inverters were just a dc motor spinning an alternator...

[@jaym8027]

Thank you, Greg. I just wanted to say that I generally prefer reading over videos. Your videos are an exception for me due to the density of information presented. No fluff, no filler, no melodrama. I'm very happy to be a Patreon and to support your work on these videos.

[@CR055H41RZ]

KZbin does favor shorter production edited content that falls in the 12-20 minute mark, however many of us who come to your channel for your expertise specifically enjoy the in-depth and more comprehensive coverage that actually includes archival research that is difficult to find online and enjoy the longer format.

[@crtune]

I have been constantly recommending Greg's channel to all I can - especially because of the intensity and extent and quality of information provided. To me, this is how actual designers, pilots, mechanics and engineers view things. It's simply true that there many underlying facts and reasons why things are the way they are, or were the way they were. Given the easy way this stuff can be provided and transmitted today, I'd think there would be more of this, except that people have limited attention to give to matters.

[@peppermill7163]

Perhaps famously, Joe Kennedy Jr died while piloting an operation Aphrodite type plane. In his case it was a converted Navy B-24. I love the long format. It starts on a topic and comfortably covers it until it's complete. What could be better than that?

[@AutoReport1]

General Dynamics acquired Convair from Atlas in 1954 and the Convair division was not shut down till 1996, although the main business lines were sold a few years previously and the name was not used on aircraft since the '70s. The remaining Convair aircraft business producing the F-16 was finally sold to Lockheed; missiles were sold to Hughes, later acquired by Raytheon; and space systems went to Martin, later to merge with Lockheed.

[@billtaylor3499]

Another spell binding video, thanks, Greg. This video sort of was book ended by family in the USAAF and USAF. My oldest uncle was crew chief on a Liberator, 35 missions, IIRC. Including one of the Ploeski raids. And a younger uncle flew B-29s over Korea. They were based in Japan, his service cut short by a dropped engine on takeoff, full of fuel and bombs. And, of course, a ditch across the end of the runway. Not quite stopped before the ditch, things lit off, probably another R3350 engine fire. Uncle Charlie did get all crew out of the plane before the armament cooked off, but damaged his back in the process. Which invalided him out of the service. It was fascinating to learn yet more about the Wright engine issues in the late WWII Very Heavy Bombers, to go with recent videos on the SuperFortress. Please keep doing videos Your way, as you regularly come up with far too much relevant info to cram into the advertising YT short segments. I'd most certainly watch a full hour and a half, or two hour show, when the content just demands it. We can pause any segment whenever life intervenes, and pick it up when we have time again. Your series proves there is a adult audience for hour and longer presentations of important historical airplanes and the context they were used in. So much of this information won't be available much longer unless diligent searchers like yourself consolidate it now. I'm hoping you keep being you.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks Bill. I'm not going to change my format.

[@sadwingsraging3044]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles you better not! If you do I am going to find you and stare most menacingly at you...😶 🤣

[@ronjon7942]

Agree w Bill.

[@FinsburyPhil]

Now here's an interesting what if - how about if the US supplied the RAF with B-32s rather than B-29s after the war. Something a little smaller and less complex (and cheaper?) may have suited them. The picture of B-36 next to the B-29 is mind bending.

[@todd3205]

This the most intelligently done classic aircraft YT channel there is.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thank you.

[@amerigo88]

Talk of the long, effective range of the retractable gun turrets makes me think of the "WWII US Bombers" KZbin channel. Very historical coverage, firmly grounded in WWII era documents, frequently, formerly classified. I love Greg, but there is room for another great channel. We are spoiled!

[@garynew9637]

Yeah, that guy is great!

[@davidfoster5906]

The circuit shown at 54.32 the 3 phase adaptor is an inductor that has an equal number of turns of wire on an iron core to create 3 phase power. The capacitor stabilizes current demand , perhaps for the turrent motor.The gunner needs the motor to change direction as fast as his reflexes.The capacitor in parallel with the conductor creates what is called a resonant circuit which provides stable current when turned on and off.

[@roderickwho1983]

" ... a treadmill for cars" ! An absolutely spot on explanation ! Thanks, as always.

[@roborovskihamster5425]

It's nice that he allows his cars to exercise when the weather is too bad for a walk.

[@76horsepower]

Thank you! I was somehow completely unaware of the B-32 until I read Last to Die: A Defeated Empire, a Forgotten Mission, and the Last American Killed in World War II a couple years ago (which was an excellent book).

[@SharkHustler]

Yeah! - read it last year (or thereabouts) over the pandemic. That was certainly a great read!

[@Greg41982]

Liked after "Greetings, this is Greg" as always. Your videos are the best!

[@BearfootBob]

My Grandfather was a reconnaissance photographer with 312 Bomb Group, and the A-20G I have him pictured posing next to the nose art was 386th Squadron, which went on to operate the B-32, and were involved in those post-surrender photo recon missions that became the last aerial battle of WW2. He was still with the 312th as late as July 1945, but I don't yet know for certain if he worked aboard the B-32. Seems likely. There were many of those recon missions.

[@petesheppard1709]

Thanks! I have seen many brief mentions of the B-32 [edit] over the years; not much more than teases! An in-depth review is timely and welcomed!! MORE THANKS for the additional information about Aphrodite and the end-of-war nuance. I only knew of Aphrodite as an attempt to attack U-boat sub pens by flying the drones into the gates, and that Joe Kennedy (JFK's older brother) was killed on an Aphrodite mission.

[@dukecraig2402]

Kennedy was actually killed on the Navy's version of the missions which were code named Anvil instead of Aphrodite but were the same thing. I believe they used either the Navy B24's or the single tail version called the Privateer or a combination of both as the one's stuffed with explosives but still used B17's as the control plane's.

[@petesheppard1709]

@@dukecraig2402 Thanks! I had read of Kennedy's death in a book specifically related to Aphrodite. New information comes out over time, though.

[@dukecraig2402]

@@petesheppard1709 Yea, same thing different name at the end of the day. If you look around you can find a list of targets for Anvil and their outcome, I think Wikipedia has a page for like they do for Aphrodite.

[@petesheppard1709]

@@dukecraig2402 👍

[@fafner1]

If you are interested in the B-36, catch the 1955 movie "Strategic Air Command" starring Jimmie Stewart. The plot is typical 1950's Hollywood, but lotsa great cinematography of the B-36.

[@lorrinbarth1969]

I love how you present your research, saying in each case how much trust or faith you put in it. Other people should take notice.

[@naciremasti]

Greg, you're a goddamn national treasure. Keep doing what you're doing. Always better than anything on television.

[@ronjon7942]

Agreed. I canceled all my tv subscriptions a long time ago and pretty much view primarily on YT.

[@dannycalley7777]

@@ronjon7942 RJ 7942 ..........and those corporate stooges wonder why people are not watching TV !!!!!

[@tarsis6123]

Thank you Greg. A stressful workday is easier to decompress from with a deep dive into another interesting old plane.

[@jackroutledge352]

"If you're down to one engine in a B-32, and that one is on fire, you're having a really bad day." 😅 Understatement of the century!

[@BlueBaron3339]

Greg's videos are unique in all of KZbin due to their depth, utter absence of pandering, and the BOLD ASSUMPTION that some people continue to have a long and cheerful attention span for subjects that interest them deeply. And this one truly hit *all the marks!*

[@cannonfodder4376]

Never even gave much thought to the B-32. Always forget about it and thr later B-36. Learned a lot about it today. Excellent video Greg.

[@PutchewInnaspin]

Always wanted to learn more about this aircraft, thank you!

[@ThatCrazySasquatch]

Hey greg, always love the videos! Im a motor mechanic and one interesting bit of info I can glean on you is that ALL DC brushless motors use 3 phase AC. Rather than using brushes on a rotating commutator, brushless motors use the sine wave to energize and de-energize the magnetic coils in sequence. A drill motor does the same thing but it gets tricked by a speed control or VFD. It sends the power through 3 mosfets (basically a transistor) which opens and closes the signal to mimic an AC sine wave. In the case of the gyros im assuming that a brushed motor wasnt suitable since the carbon brushes erode which spreads conductive dust everywhere. All the DC motors i service are covered in both grease and carbon dust, and often time that dust flashes over which can burn the motor out.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks for that good post.

[@jtjames79]

Fun fact. If you pee on a magnesium fire, it explodes. Knowing is half the battle!

[@AnthonyEvelyn]

Yes good drop Greg! Was waiting on a comprehensive breakdown on the B-32 Dominator!

[@ricktaylor3748]

Why would you people care ?

[@AnthonyEvelyn]

@@ricktaylor3748 Who the fuck are 'you people'? What are you trying to insinuate here?

[@kiwitrainguy]

@@ricktaylor3748 Why would white people care about ending slavery?

[@chrisoconnor6579]

Only channel where an hour long video is welcomed.

[@sadwingsraging3044]

😳 Drach.... Nuff said.

[@PappyGunn]

Thanks for this video of this forgotten plane. It’s often described as obsolete on deployment so I’m glad you mention it was designed as such by army specs. I can imagine a number of engineers and pilots not too thrilled about this project.

[@lamwen03]

"Lightly armed bombers operated mostly at night." Yes, Lancaster, I'm lookin' at you. 🤣

[@Charon-5582]

From what I understand 3 phase power is basically 3 waveforms overlaid, it decreases the "down time" where the current alternates... it keeps the power close to maximum and less "choppy"... its like having a 3 cylinder 2 stroke...

[@williamstewart-l3d]

Greg, Another excellent presentation, this on an aircraft I've always admired. As a kid in the ANG/USAF 1950 -1954 at WPAFB Powerplant Lab, recall discussing problems with the wartime CW R-3360. The B-32 engine installation was superior to the Boeing B-29 in that cooling air pressure drop was substantially less at the required mass flow and consequently the drag penalty of open cooling flaps was much reduced. The cooling problems of this engine, in both the B-29 and B-19 and its effect on performance and crew survival were technically inexcusable. Check out the Republic F-12 Rainbow or XP-72 for the way large radials should be integrated (or for that matter the FW-190). As for B-32 relics, I believe an outer wing panel done in stainless steel topped the Montgomery Memorial in San Diego. The Hustler's first flight was in November 1956

[@stephenrickstrew7237]

Greetings .. I had to drop everything as soon as I saw the new episode..! Thanks so much ..!

[@sproctor1958]

56:05 I like the way you put that statement. I have no idea who or what brought it... but I liked it. Normally, I don't watch programs that are over 20 or 30 minutes long... but here I am... enjoying the heck out of your B-32 video. Something of a "missing link" in aviation history. Thank you! (p.s. I suspect a "Dark" culprit... 😊 )

[@rayschoch5882]

Done with your usual thoroughness and competence, Greg. Your videos are always worth listening to and watching, even for those of us who are non-pilots or aviators (or car geeks). Lots of fascinating tech stuff in this one, but the most striking thing for me is the photo near the end showing the B-29 and B-36 together. The B-36 (You can see one in person at the SAC museum in Ashland, NE.) is a genuinely gigantic aircraft, and I always marvel that something that large and heavy was able to fly at all, much less carry a payload. It does seem fairly obvious that KZbin prefers videos of 15 minutes or less, and I watch a fair number of those, too, but even at my age (79), my attention span isn't limited to 15-minute chunks, so I can attend to longer presentations as well, and yours are worth the effort at the viewer end.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks Ray, I always appreciate your comments.

[@billchessell8213]

The perfect length video for when I have an hour to sit and really enjoy myself. Thanks Greg!

[@Thunderous117]

I am so excited to watch this! Thanks Greg!!

[@mjcmustang]

I can listen to your videos all day. Don't stop making these please. I love the detail and enjoy the fact these videos are long

[@FINNIUSORION]

With cable television being what it now is I don't know what I would do without KZbin. Loads of this stuff especially this channel is on par or better than anything I've seen on history Channel or discovery wings. Except wings of the luftwaffe. That will always be my favorite series.

[@ronjon7942]

Does Discovery Wings even exist outside of archived content? And the History channel…sure, occasionally something worth watching, but I unsubscribed as it was too difficult to find any gems in all their garbage. I don’t mean to offend you if you find value in those channels, my opinion is that Greg (and more than a few others) is on an entirely different plane than the legacy providers. This is museum quality content - scratch that, even museum channels just parrot similar info as to what’s on Wikipedia. Both are good, Wikipedia’s great, maybe it’s fair to label Greg’s work as similar to masters and doctoral thesis’s for an aviation historian.

[@FINNIUSORION]

@@ronjon7942 yeah I haven't paid for cable in years now, and that was my point. One guy by himself is producing better stuff than giant million dollar corporations with huge teams.

[@kiwitrainguy]

I first found out about the B-32 Dominator when I watched the Wings documentary about the B-29.

[@Andy81ish]

I love the 1 hr shows, I can put something on and just sit back and listen while I work. Thanks for your efforts.

[@forthwithtx5852]

I’ve been going to work at USAF Plant 4 (Fort Worth) for 18 years. It’s neat to see old photos of the Plant. I don’t recall in the historical photos sprinkled throughout the Plant, the B-32 featured. Things change a little, but some of the shots/locations are easily identified. Today, it is of course the main production line for F-35. Fun facts: the building is just over a mile long. It’s near twin in Tulsa is just a bit shorter (everything is bigger in Texas).

[@generessler6282]

What a legacy you are leaving the world with these videos... It would be fascinating to study what human civilization has lost because great engineering and research organizations fell afoul of business decisions. I'm thinking of the fade to nothing of Bell Labs, Xerox Parc, much of IBM, and, now, Convair engineering - clearly a powerhouse per your rundown here. Maybe we are watching the same with the death spiral of Musk as an engineering leader and also Alphabet moon shots. Thanks very much for the huge trove of information and insights.

[@donjones4719]

"fascinating to study what human civilization has lost because great engineering and research organizations fell afoul of business decisions" Substitute priesthood decisions and you can see how the knowledge behind the Antikythera mechanism was lost. At least that's the way I see it. Greek temple organizations were known for protecting there knowledge of mechanical systems and astrological observations & predictions. People wonder how the knowledge behind that famous mechanism was lost. To me the easiest answer is that it was never disseminated, and when the Grecian small island regional "nation" it existed in collapsed the knowledge was lost. Selfishly lost due to non-engineering decisions.

[@sadwingsraging3044]

Death spiral of Musk? Exactly what do you mean by this? Last I seen Musk just launched a rocket that has almost TWICE the power a Saturn V did and the most likely cause of the failure AFTER it had reached Max-Q was due to the damage occurred to the rocket AT LAUNCH when the launch pad itself was destroyed. Feel free to enlighten me.

[@marckyle5895]

@@sadwingsraging3044 For the first time, both the rocket AND portions of the launch pad cleared the tower. Not a success.

[@sadwingsraging3044]

@@marckyle5895 you don't know wth you are talking about. That launch was a success. As a matter of fact the rocket getting as far as it did proved exactly how well the systems on it actually worked! To say anything else is a delusion brought on by some Syndrome that a lot of snowflakes suffer from.🤣

[@ronjon7942]

@@sadwingsraging3044 Yeah, I didn’t catch his train of thinking on that one…most of them, actually.

[@donjones4719]

3"55 My father worked on the B-29 turrets as a ground crew technician. In his later years he did clock repair as a hobby, which must have been a piece of cake after that. Any proper Star Wars fan will recognize the flat dome of the B-29 turret. Of course Lucas famously used a lot of WW2 imagery.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

and actual WW2 stuff. Most famously an MG34 was used as a blaster in the original movie.

[@donjones4719]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I thought Han Solo's Mauser C-96 blaster pistol was the most famous.🙂

[@ronjon7942]

@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles huh, I didn’t know that.

[@ronjon7942]

@@donjones4719 I’m not making the connection between the 29’s turret top and a Star Wars weapon. The ground cannon?

[@donjones4719]

@@ronjon7942 Guns on the outside of the rebel admiral's flagship, IIRC. But it's been a long time since I rewatched the movies. I just know they were there, external flat turrets aimed by gunners in a separate station.

[@Knuck_Knucks]

Don't forget. Mark shared with us those secrete Lancasters were standing by if the B-29s if they couldn't drop the bombs!

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

lol.

[@immikeurnot]

???

[@crtune]

@@immikeurnot I think Greg is laughing because If I remember right, he debunked the idea that there really were sets of Lancaster ever really converted to handle nuclear bombs. I think maybe he claims and we know that they talked about this (don't count on this, my memory may be faulty), but it never got anywhere. The platform really was going to be B29 bombers. I'm pretty certain this never really got going.

[@billbolton]

Thanks Greg. Best B32 video I've seen. The story of the aircraft that barely made it to the party are very interesting and oft overlooked or dismissed.

[@amerigo88]

If the B-32 was the lower risk, less complex option, this was a game of leapfrog between Boeing and Consolidated. The B-24 was much more complex than Boeing’s B-17 of mid-1930s origin. With the B-29, Boeing was allowed by the USAAF to ride on the cutting edge. That didn't work out well with the Wright Cyclone R-3350 engines and their overheating problems. That engine didn't really get the bugs worked out until the early days of the Korean War.

[@primmakinsofis614]

_If the B-32 was the lower risk, less complex option_ It didn't start that way. But Consolidated had a lot of trouble with the cabin pressurization and the remote-controlled turrets, eventually dropping both of those, resulting in a bomber that was effectively a super-B-17 or super-B-24.

[@mahbriggs]

The B 32 used the same engines as the B 29.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

This continued after WW2. LeMay actually preferred the low-risk Boeing B-50 over the B-36. Then the B-52 bested the B-60. And the B-58 should have been built in larger numbers as a B-47 replacement, but costs and then DoD and USAF politics led to its early retirement.

[@donbalduf572]

Very interesting, as always. I’ve linked your presentations many times when other folks needed clarification on aircraft and aircraft systems. Thanks for the closing summary of the fate of Convair. My late father-in-law was a structural engineer who worked at Convair in the 1950s. Some of the structure in the B-58 is his work.

[@jahbad01]

Many thx. There is almost nothing posted on this aircraft and it should not be forgotten.

[@nutrinutbob]

I wish my littlest uncle was still around to comment on some of the gunsight theory. He was a belly turret gunner in a B24J. Kept his interest and understood things mechanical as he worked at Rockwell after the war. He'd have probably understand the compensating gunsight.

[@stevenr2950]

You picked one of my favorites, well done.

[@BlackMasterRoshi]

I appreciate the long-form stuff. as an electrician I found this very interesting.

[@N34RT]

Greg, thanks for another excellent video with accurate, detailed information. As a professional corporate pilot for the last 33 years, I've flown several aircraft that still employ Current Limiters in their electrical systems (the King Air -200's, -300's, and -350's, as well as several business jets). Your description of them as "slow blow fuses" is spot on! (the common phrase used at Flight Safety, C.A.E., and SimCom during my many initial and recurrent training evolutions). Sidebar: Without exception, the electrical systems of all the aircraft (19) covered by my 5 type ratings were ALWAYS the most involved, complicated, and difficult to comprehend, understand, and master.

[@johninnh4880]

Excellent video that is jam packed with interesting data. Thanks for another of your informative videos.

[@mickvonbornemann3824]

You’ve done it again, Greg. Another comprehensive rundown that’s so precise that there’s not one wasted word. & again still better with every new edition

[@wazza33racer]

Until today, I had never heard of the B-32........thanks for this interesting chapter of aviation history. It sounds likes Greg is in good form and good health )

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Thanks, and yes, I'm fully recovered.

[@lshuster]

Thanks, Greg. Your in-depth analysis and comparison (in this case) to the B-29 is interesting. Keep up the great work!

[@heralds]

Would love to see an in depth discussion of bomber gunners, such a cool idea

[@sergeipohkerova7211]

Probably the upper turret gunner on a B-17 was the best gunner job to get, because you get to ride up front with the pilots for a lot of the mission, and you get a good opportunity to get a shot in on a lot of front, back, and beam attacks. Worst position of course is ventral turret. Followed by waist gunner with those open windows.

[@fafner1]

​@@sergeipohkerova7211 I recommend the book "Combat Crew" by John Comer. Comer volunteered to be an aerial gunner (a decision he regretted as he served during the dark days before long range fighter escorts were available). He initially failed the depth perception test but was accepted as a flight engineer as the top turret of the B-17 was equipped with a Sperry Computing Sight that automatically computed the correct lead. As flight engineer, he had the task of dealing with all the issues (failed systems, wounded crew, rescuing an unconscious tail gunner whose oxygen had failed) that didn't directly involve flying the plane. It makes for a great read, as he was more aware of everything going on than the pilot or copilot were.

[@richardrichard5409]

​@@sergeipohkerova7211 ball gunners on B17 and B24 incurred lowest combat casualtie.

[@stevefreeland9255]

Another great video Greg thank you so much! I remember the first learning about this aircraft in the 1990s when I visited the aviation museum at the Honolulu International Airport!

[@elgato9445]

Is it possible that the Japanese pilots fought on because they didn't believe they had surrendered and were honoring their code? Utterly fascinating, Greg. All of it. Never worry about the length of your content. We feel as you do. It takes time to get to the bottom of all this and we appreciate your hard work.

[@lorrinbarth1969]

If you don't know you say you don't know. That's what is great about Greg

[@McRocket]

Almost every, single one of your videos I watch? I realize just how bloody little I knew/know about aircraft. And I have been a commercial pilot for 13 years. J/k. ☮

[@tedfarwell3132]

Great video, as always. Thanks, Greg!

[@jaidillon1790]

We love the longer content Greg! I usually watch your videos multiple times, and love the immersion in the subject matter. 👍

[@GG-xu1yn]

Years ago I had a lengthy conversation with Col. Tony Svore, B-32 Commander of the 386th Squadron. He & his crew flew a Dominator direct from combat theater to Washington, D.C. at War’s end in order to deliver a photograph of the Surrender Signing. I mentioned that there are several written accounts of them delivering the actual Surrender Document, but he assured me that what they had was merely the photograph. Taxiing toward the apron, Col. Svore deliberately went past the turn in order to show off the Dominator’s ability to reverse its inboard propellors’ pitch, thus being able to back up the giant Bomber. He said ground crews began loading into tugs and other support equipment and raced toward the ‘overshot’ B-32, only to watch in amazement as it inched backward under it’s own power! Additional information in the reply below . . .

[@GG-xu1yn]

Further adding to this story, once in Washington, Col Svore told me most of his crew went their separate ways, leaving only his engineer & him to ferry the VH Bomber westward, the ultimate destination being Kingman, Arizona's Sales-Storage Depot No. 41. I asked, “Who did the navigating?", to which he replied, "I flew A-20s - I did my own navigating". On the way, they stopped by the Ft. Worth Convair plant to show factory workers what one of their B-32s looked like after being overseas. Nearing, Kingman, Tony said he flew down into the Grand Canyon, which was restricted airspace. “What are they going to do to me - I just finished flying combat missions…” BTW, I have a B-32 artifact autographed by Col. Svore!

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

Wow, that's awesome. Thanks for sharing.

[@DavidRLentz-b7i]

In depth details technical, operational, and historical, like no one else! Thanks, Greg.

[@alexmelia8873]

Also want to add, when you mentioned the 17aH battery, my mind immediately went to the APU (APP). I fly the CRJ and we have a 17aH battery in the nose simply used to start the APU. It’s an immensely small battery as you mentioned. Very cool how similar aircraft design is even 60 years later

[@robertsolomielke5134]

This is indeed in depth, so big TY your work. Loved the way all systems were covered, instead of the usual flat run. This beast led to the B-36, my favorite of them all.

[@68orangecrate26]

Great stuff! I didn’t realize that the B-29s defensive guns were so effective.

[@BearfootBob]

"Rampage of the Roaring 20s" gives more detail and context to that last aerial battle involving two B-32s. One of the B-32 Pilots ignored orders, and flew low over Hiroshima to survey the atomic bomb damage. Intelligence had specifically warned against approaching there, that it might be provocative. The aerial attack came over Tokyo not too long after.

[@williamgalbraith3621]

Great work! I think they got a good handle on the R3350 issues when they started using direct fuel injection. Mixture distribution (specifically, the lack of it!) was the bane of all of these huge, multi-cylinder aircraft engines. Take an overall look at one of these induction systems sometime. It's an amazing thing that they got 50+ litre engines to reliably run! The carburetors they used were massive one or two venturi hunks of iron and bronze! My grandaddy (an engine maintainer during WWII) said that the R2600 carb on B-25s weighed well over a hundred pounds!

[@sharg0]

Another excellent and informative video! Thank you Greg for all the effort and dedication you put into these!

[@coreys2686]

I like the longer videos. I'd bet that KZbin pushes shorter videos so they can put more pre-roll and post-roll ads in 5 twelve minute videos than they can get away with in a 60 minute video.

[@dunxy]

How this channel is still so small has me perplexed, by far the best historical warplane related channel, its not even a close race. It could be the videos are too long for the algorithm, stupid because the long thorough videos are what makes this channel superior.

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

I don't know, but I don't worry about it. I'm happy with the number of people I have here. More would be better, but I'm not going to change my format.

[@PauloPereira-jj4jv]

Probably the most complete video about the B-32.

[@petertimowreef9085]

ooooh It's a Greg video! I absentmindedly clicked this thinking it was just another 10-20 minute video that just skims the surface of an obscure WWII plane like so many YT videos do, perfect to watch while eating. A Greg video deserves more attention however, imma download it and listen to it as a podcast during the 35 minutes it takes me to cycle to work. Thanks mister Greg!

[@fawnlliebowitz1772]

Lengthy AND informative! Keep it up Greg!

[@cameronalexander359]

Amazing essay. Love the long format vids

[@mpersad]

Another superbly researched and narrated video, with terrific use of archive materials. Many thanks, Greg!

[@richardivey1585]

I think I've said it before, but I like the long videos. We watch Greg's channel due to high-quality content because Greg does amazing research. Let the kids enjoy their brief and shallow videos. I'll stay a loyal Patreon member BECAUSE of the long videos.

[@malcolmking752]

Thank you for another fantastic video. I would love a video touching on the B-36. I am fascinated by the later mixed-power variants, and would love to hear you discuss these, or mixed power aircraft in general. I have heard basic explanations of reasons why mixed power setups were desirable in some aircraft of the period, however I have never heard any explanations of these systems' inner workings, or what their operations were like. It amazes me that having two completely different engine types for the crew to manage was ever worth the trouble and complexity. Thanks again for the superb videos.

[@bobharrison7693]

Mixed power worked well in the P2V, P6M and AJ.

[@darikdatta]

AC power can be stepped up or down in voltage with a simple transformer, DC requires a lot more complicated circuitry to do that. The AC powered stuff probably required high voltage. For example, fluorescent lighting requires enough voltage to maintain an arc through the gas in the tube. 24V wouldn't cut it for that. I suspect that is why an AC circuit is necessary. EDIT: and regarding 3-phase, what's great about it, is with 3 wires set up for 3 phase you can deliver 3 times as much power as can be delivered over a single phase 2 wire setup using the same gauge wire. Because math is magical, 3 phase circuits don't require return wires.

[@dyson9422]

The picture shown with the discussion of inverters is a motor generator, a direct current motor on the same shaft with a AC generator. AC frequency used for Aircraft is usually 400 Hertz (cycles per second).

[@SgtMustang]

Love your long form formats for these documentaries. I’d be very interested to see what you could put together on the B-36, which is an equally strange “odd-man-out” bomber, or maybe the P61.

[@TotallyDapper]

I’ll second the request for a video on the P-61. It’s a fascinating aircraft, one of my favorites.

[@justinweidenbach3699]

My grandfather was trained to be a flight engineer for this aircraft. He was held back as an instructor for B-29s. Till his dying day, he regretted not flying combat missions. Truly a different generation, and breed.

[@mahbriggs]

A very informative and interesting video on a little known bomber! As for the length, spend as much time as you think necessary! I am getting a bit tired of the nonsense rules and restrictions of KZbin! Their silly censorship is getting more and more ridiculous!

[@sadwingsraging3044]

Amen! There is soon to be a dust-up, a Rumble if you will, between those of us that value freedom of speech and those willing to kneel to some jumped up jerks in Silicon Valley high on huffing their own farts.😑👍🏻

[@johnmoran8805]

What a wonderful video! Enjoyed every minute, thank you so much!

[@ronjon7942]

This will be good. I’ve been intrigued by the B-32 since I was about 8 or 10 (fifties now) when a family friend who was a Lightning mechanic gave me an actual photograph of a Dominator in flight. I’ve no idea of the context of the photograph, but who knows, he may have took it, or a P-38 pilot gave it to him. He was in the Pacific theater. Evidently the mechanics often had to fly in the P-38 during checkouts; I remember him saying he had to lie prone, but I’m not sure if he was fore or aft of the pilot, and now that I think of it, I don’t recall any plexiglass other than the canopy. Maybe the reconnaissance version? Anyway, I tuck the photo in a random aircraft book of mine, and when it falls out, I always say I’m gonna research this aircraft in depth, so thank you, Greg. I can’t wait to view your work on it. The next time the pic drops, I’ll make a point of getting it to you, along w a collection of postcards of preWWI aircraft of Germany that ought to be seen by others. Looking at the great photo at 5:28 that shows off the dual tail, I’m positive my pic shows off a very tall, singular one - but that doesn’t seem unheard of for Consolidated.

[@cpm1003]

Apparently, Popular Mechanics has been full of crap for many many decades. Thanks for this excellent video about a plane I'd never heard of!

[@grexhimatt7230]

Awesome video on the B-32 my friend. By the way old tube (electronic valve) systems uses high voltage low current electricity... yes, DC but... the only way to get it is via step-up transformers (115VAC to, lets say 600VAC or more) and transformers ONLY operates on AC or pulsating current. The transformers are internal components of the electronic equipment. After the transformer step-up stage diode type vacuum valves converts back this high voltage AC to high voltage DC filtered trough capacitors and filter-reactors for the rest of internal tubes to use. Of course vacuum tube filaments can operate on AC, but commonly low voltage AC. The internal transformer has a tap from a step-down section too for this reason.

[@ronjon7942]

Thanks, interesting. I’m just learning electronics for diy and hobby, and also enjoy the history of electromagnetism, electricity, and electronics and find the stories of the tubes and their exploitation quite fascinating.

[@Mentaculus42]

But why 3-phase generation, maybe because of the use of synchros? Pretty standard in planes of that era up through the 60s. Also the use of 3-phase in commercial and industrial applications has very little to do with why it is used airplanes, one is used for balanced high power usage and in planes it is used mostly for low power instrumentation.

[@tomcarroll6744]

Great job on an interesting airplane. The long format videos are fine as long as we aren't deluged with them; we don't want to miss anything. An interesting exercise is to take the performance numbers of a WW2 era propeller bomber, scale them to handy ranges, and multiply them all. These are all the "plusses" like range, cruise speed, bombload, etc. This gives you the ranking of performance. Then divide by the empty weight which represents the cost. Scale the numbers to a happy range around 100. All the bombers , including the B-32, have about the same value...except the B-29 which stands way out.

[@wbertie2604]

The B-29 tail looks so much better.

[@aerotube7291]

Greg, I love your vids, I often go to sleep listening to them, and then rewatch them another day.