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

  • #16
    There you go Draco, the answers were there all the time!

    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


    • #17
      And in the same logic of thing, let't get three C-47 Dakotas together - More paratroopers and supplies can be dropped by one crew.

      But, lets take it one step further, and fuse together a B-17 with two P-51...And you have a Fighter Bomber...Or a Bomber Fighter...

      (Just being silly!)

      Comment


      • #18
        Its funny how people think that building about 50,000 extremely expensive four engine planes, each bomber crewed by 9 to 11 people, so that the 8th group loses more men than marines were lost around the world and RAF loses an even more ridiculous number of aviators and wastes most of its resources destroying houses makes more sense than building a a few thousand simpler, faster planes with a crew of 4.

        4 constant section, identical wings (each with a few long strips of aluminum and identical ribs), 8 engines and a crew of 4,
        instead of 6 tapered wing sections (3 starboard and 3 port type each with thousands of different pieces and many different sizes of ribs) and 6 tapered horizontal tail sections (3 starboard and 3 port type), 12 engines, 33 men and MGs, turrets, hellacious wingtip turbulence, lower speed and ceiling, etc, quite absurd.

        Even the fuel and time wasted to make a formation while all planes take off is much shorter with 1/3 as many planes and no wingtip turbulence vortices.
        Last edited by Draco; 08 Jun 15, 23:26.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Draco View Post
          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.
          I think you are.underestimating the cost of unnecessary complexity.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #20
            You obviously cannot tell the difference between having to make and place thousands of different pieces of skin and ribs on 6 wing sections and 6 tail sections and using identical, wide and long strips of aluminum sheet on identical ribs for 4 sections. Not tomention the cost of making, feeding anda maintaining 12 engines and props, instead of 8.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
              I think you are.underestimating the cost of unnecessary complexity.
              Not to mention the vulnerability of a few very expensive systems compared to somewhat less efficient but less costly ones that can afford to be lost to some degree.

              But I do like the B-17 / P-51 combo. A self escorting bomber! Now there's a winner!

              After all, this version worked so well...

              Comment


              • #22
                error

                Comment


                • #23
                  Even unescorted, the faster Mosquito (like this plane), without turrets, suffered fewer losses than the Lancaster, Halifax, Stirling, B-24 or B-17.


                  With escort and higher speed and ceiling and a less vulnerable design (destroying the horizontal or vertical stabilizer brings down a B-17. Flak ruining the landing will probably write off the B-17.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Draco View Post
                    Even unescorted, the faster Mosquito (like this plane), without turrets, suffered fewer losses than the Lancaster, Halifax, Stirling, B-24 or B-17.


                    With escort and higher speed and ceiling and a less vulnerable design (destroying the horizintal or vertical stabilizer brings down a B-17.
                    The 3x B-17 would be antithetical to the design principles of the Mosquito.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Draco View Post
                      error
                      Yours.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Draco View Post
                        Even unescorted, the faster Mosquito (like this plane), without turrets, suffered fewer losses than the Lancaster, Halifax, Stirling, B-24 or B-17.
                        And, because it was far fewer in number, less of a threat. Had it been adopted as the primary RAF bomber, like some have suggested, the Germans would have gone all out to stop it and come up with counters to it. Then it would have needed ECM it couldn't carry or operate, weapons it didn't have for defense, and it would have ended up being shot down in larger numbers.


                        With escort and higher speed and ceiling and a less vulnerable design (destroying the horizintal or vertical stabilizer brings down a B-17.
                        I guess somebody forgot to tell that to the crew of these:







                        And, finally a canard for Draco...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          No, both avoid the weight of a large crew and many guns and ammo, both have a small wing area per bomb load (hence both need to carry less fuel per bombload) and the BBB has no wingtip turbulence so it has less drag and higher speed.

                          Even if You want to make a wooden BBB, it is easier to produce than 6 Mosquito with its 4 constant section wing sections.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            The Germans went all out to try to stop the Mosquitos, their fighters just couldnt catch up with them in speed and altitude´. Göring feared it so much he ordered a German version.
                            It's ironic that the RAF leaders ruined the Stirling with absurd specs and almost cancelled the Mosquito, designed to satisfy no RAF specs.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Draco View Post
                              No, both avoid the weight of a large crew and many guns and ammo, both have a small wing area per bomb load (hence both need to carry less fuel per bombload) and the BBB has no wingtip turbulence so it has less drag and higher speed.

                              Even if You want to make a wooden BBB, it is easier to produce than 6 Mosquito with its 4 constant section wing sections.
                              The only things you would gain, would be payload and range, neither of which was a problem with the B-17 and B-24.

                              You might gain a small, incremental speed advantage... Which would be of little value.

                              No matter how you slice it, more engines and more fuselage assemblies are more complex than less. The complexity cost tends increase geometrically with linear increases in complexity.

                              Unless range and payload were the primary reasons to build it, a 3x B-17 just doesn't make any sense.
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                For each of those miracle survivor planes in the picture 100 planes went down.
                                If the B-17 was tough, imagine a plane with 3 vertical stabilizers, 4 large wing sections, no small horizontal stabilizer, 3 landing gears and 8 engines.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X