Was the Lincoln nuclear capable?

[kitnut617]

What's interesting about this photo is that out of the 80 odd B-29's the RAF got, only three were B-29's.  The rest were B-29A's and the photo shows the engine nacelle of a B-29 and then in the background, the B-29A which had 'cuffed' props and slightly longer wings (IIRC)

[Logan Hartke]

Yeah, but with USAAC/USAAF/USAF designation systems, "B-29" refers to both the family of bombers and the first iteration of that family.  It is a bit ambiguous that way.

Cheers,

Logan

[eatthis]

Was it capable of carrying a nuclear "shape"?  Theoretically, sure.  Depends on what era, what size nuclear weapon, and what modifications you'd like to make.

To answer your question as it was posed, though...no, the Lincoln was not "nuclear-capable".  The RAF would never have bothered with the Boeing Washington B.1 had the Lincoln been nuclear-capable.  That was the whole point of acquiring them in the first place.  They hated the B-29s they did get (can't blame them) and ditched them as soon as they could.



Cheers,

Logan

whats wrong with the b29?

[Logan Hartke]

Nothing when they're new.  I think the Tu-4s that the Soviet Union was rocking at the time were better than the RAF's B-29s.  I've heard that a number of them had patches where they'd been hit by Japanese fighters in 1945.  They'd fought their war, been patched back together, then sold to the British.  Their readiness rate was always pretty sad in RAF service.  It didn't help that the RAF didn't buy enough spares to support them.  Again, it was just a bad experience all around.

Cheers,

Logan

[Geoff]

Cheers
Geoff