Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A most efficient, less expensive and easily produced strategic bomber for WW II

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A most efficient, less expensive and easily produced strategic bomber for WW II

    Combined, 3 B-17s have 3 pilots, 3 copilots, 3 bombardeers, 3 navitaor12 engines, 6 wingtips, 6 horizintal stabilizer tips and 3 very expensive sets of cantilever wings made of thousands of different parts, with many sizes of different ribs.

    A bomber made with 3 B-17 fuselages, parallel to each other and 50ft apart, which are joined by tandem inexpensive, easily produced constant section wings (4 wing sections, 2 low wings near the noses, 2 high wings in the rear, identical ribs, long strips of aluminum skin). There is a single pilot, a copilot, a navigator, a bombardeer and a Norton sight, instead of 1 of each in 3 B-17s)
    There are 2 engines (identical to the B-17s, but with 4 blade props) on each wing section (8 engines total, instead of 12 of 3 B-17s) and only twice the fuel capacity and wing area of a single B-17.
    This plane has no wingtip turbulence (the wings end on the outer fuselages).
    Since the crew flies in a single fuselage, only that fuselage has oxygen tanks and wind screens, seats, etc,
    The plane carries the same bomb load as 3 B-17s and delivers them in a smaller area and has no guns or gunners (a crew of 4, instead of 33 in 3 B-17s). It is faster and more stable during a bomb run and can survive Flak better than a single plane (it has 3 vertical stabilizers (each smaller than those on a single B17) and can continue flying with 5 engines out of order after dropping its bombs). It does not leave wingtip turbulence vortices that affect other planes during take off or during the bomb run.
    The 8 engines make less noise and fewer contrails than the 12 engines of 3 B-17s carrying the same bomb load.
    Because there are 3 times fewer planes flying to deliver the same bomb load in a raid and because the larger planes are more visible, there will be fewer collisions and fewer bombs hitting friendly planes on the way down. It is also easier for escort fighters to protect them and being faster and tougher, they are more difficult for enemy fighters to shoot down.

    Even if a landing gear is shot out, the plane still has 2 landing gears to land.

    Since the plane is much less expensive and easier to produce than 3 B-17s and since only 2/3 the fuel and a small fraction of the number of aviators (less wages, food, uniforms, training, etc,) is used for the same bomb load, the savings are considerable.

  • #2
    No defensive armament? You lose one and it counts for three. Runways need to be much wider.

    Comment


    • #3
      Given you've just tripled the bomb load you would have to radically strengthen the overall structure. With increased air resistance you will need more fuel and horsepower.

      Bigger plane, bigger target, and with no gunners fights can get in nice and close.

      Lastly, with the poor accuracy of the WW2 bombers, 1/3 as many planes means 1/3rd the hits.
      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

      Comment


      • #4
        We are using three fuselages, each carrying the same bomb load, but a smaller total load than a single B-17 (no horizontal stabilizer, 2.67 engines, 67% as much fuel and wing area and 1.33 men per fuselage, instead of 4 engines, 11 men and MGs, ammo, turrets, oxygen for the large crew, etc,).

        The plane is a much smaller target than 3 planes carrying the same bomb load and much less vulnerable to damage (in part because it flies faster and in part because it is much more difficult to shoot down a plane with 8 engines, no horizontal stabilizer and 3 vertical stabilizers).

        After dropping its bomb load this plane is extremely fast and because it has no wingtip turbulence and much lower wing load, it can fly above the ceiling of the enemy fighters.

        On the contrary, with a much more concentrated formation (3 planes in 1), there is much smaller bomb spread. We are talking about B-17s attacking industry with escort in daylight, much more accurate than RAF.

        Even if a plane is shot down, only 4 men are lost and the cost of 2 planes.

        1,000 such planes and 4,000 aviators can be produced much more rapidly than 3,000 B-17s and 33,000 aviators.
        Last edited by Draco; 08 Jun 15, 15:09.

        Comment


        • #5
          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

          Comment


          • #6
            I suppose it could be used as a stopgap until the 9 bodied tri plane version entered service.
            Wack tac mac hey.
            Regards.
            Grishnak.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by grishnak View Post
              I suppose it could be used as a stopgap until the 9 bodied tri plane version entered service.
              One per squadron! That's genius!
              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                One per squadron! That's genius!
                Until it gets shot down... "Sir, we lost another squadron of bombers!"

                In this case, literally...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  Until it gets shot down... "Sir, we lost another squadron of bombers!"

                  In this case, literally...
                  Hey, it will keep the OOB tidy. No longer will someone have to ask 'but how many planes do they have?'

                  One plane, one squadron!
                  Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think we should've let them build a few more P 108s.

                    With no tailplane, a pig would fly better.
                    Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      This is the closest thing to a real world analogy...

                      The Twin Mustang cost four times as much as the single Mustang. This is the inverse of an economy of scale...

                      F-82G Twin Mustang
                      Unit cost US$215,154

                      General characteristics

                      Crew: 2
                      Length: 42 ft 9 in (12.93 m)
                      Wingspan: 51 ft 3 in (15.62 m)
                      Height: 13 ft 10 in (4.22 m)
                      Wing area: 408 ft (37.90 m)
                      Empty weight: 15,997 lb (7,271 kg)
                      Max. takeoff weight: 25,591 lb (11,632 kg)
                      Powerplant: 2 Allison V-1710-143/145 counter-rotating liquid-cooled V12 engines, 1,380 hp takeoff (1,029 kW each) each
                      Performance

                      Maximum speed: 482 mph (400 kn, 740 km/h) at 21,000 ft (6,400 m)
                      Range: 2,350 mi (1,950 nmi, 3,605 km)
                      Service ceiling: 38,900 ft (11,855 m)
                      Armament

                      Guns: 6 .50 in (12.7 mm) Browning M3 machine guns[24]
                      Rockets: 25 5 in (127 mm) rockets
                      Bombs: 4,000 lb (1,800 kg)

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...2_Twin_Mustang

                      P-51D Mustang
                      Unit cost US$50,985 in 1945

                      General characteristics

                      Crew: 1
                      Length: 32 ft 3 in (9.83 m)
                      Wingspan: 37 ft 0 in (11.28 m)
                      Height: 13 ft 4 in (4.08 m:tail wheel on ground, vertical propeller blade.)
                      Wing area: 235 sq ft (21.83 m)
                      Airfoil: NAA/NACA 45-100 / NAA/NACA 45-100
                      Empty weight: 7,635 lb (3,465 kg)
                      Loaded weight: 9,200 lb (4,175 kg)
                      Max. takeoff weight: 12,100 lb (5,490 kg)
                      Powerplant: 1 Packard V-1650-7 liquid-cooled supercharged V-12, 1,490 hp (1,111 kW) at 3,000 rpm;[106] 1,720 hp (1,282 kW) at WEP
                      Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0163
                      Drag area: 3.80 sqft (0.35 m)
                      Aspect ratio: 5.83
                      Performance

                      Maximum speed: 437 mph (380 kn, 703 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7,600 m)
                      Cruise speed: 362 mph (315 kn, 580 km/h)
                      Stall speed: 100 mph (87 kn, 160 km/h)
                      Range: 1,650 mi (1,434 nmi, 2,755 km) with external tanks
                      Service ceiling: 41,900 ft (12,800 m)
                      Rate of climb: 3,200 ft/min (16.3 m/s)
                      Wing loading: 39 lb/sqft (192 kg/m)
                      Power/mass: 0.18 hp/lb (300 W/kg)
                      Lift-to-drag ratio: 14.6
                      Recommended Mach limit 0.8
                      Armament

                      6 0.50 caliber (12.7mm) M2 Browning machine guns with 1,880 total rounds (400 rounds for each on the inner pair, and 270 rounds for each of the outer two pair)
                      2 hardpoints for up to 2,000 lb (907 kg) of bombs
                      6 or 10 T64 5.0 in (127 mm) H.V.A.R rockets (P-51D-25, P-51K-10 on)[nb 10]

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...n_P-51_Mustang
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by the ace View Post
                        I think we should've let them build a few more P 108s.

                        With no tailplane, a pig would fly better.
                        Look at the Rutan Quickie.

                        Nothing is more stable than 2 large wings at high speed and with counter rotating propellers near the axis of the plane. It has so little maneuverabiity (it is so stable) that it would make a lousy fighter.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The twin P-51 was produced in a ridiculous number, had 3 different wing sections (instead of 4 identical ones with identical ribs and long strips of skin).

                          This plane has 1/3 the windows, Norton sights and crew of a B-17.

                          It is pretty obvious to anyone who has ever built anything that 4 identical, constant section wings are a piece of cake. The only reason they are avoided is wingtip turbulence, which is absent here.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            6 engines + 6 crew + no armament + 12,000lbs of bombs @ 350 kts and 30,000ft = Ummmm!

                            Paul
                            ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
                            All human ills he can subdue,
                            Or with a bauble or medal
                            Can win mans heart for you;
                            And many a blessing know to stew
                            To make a megloamaniac bright;
                            Give honour to the dainty Corse,
                            The Pixie is a little shite.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
                              6 engines + 6 crew + no armament + 12,000lbs of bombs @ 350 kts and 30,000ft = Ummmm!

                              Paul
                              If you drop it to 20,000 feet and 4 engines you get:

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X