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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    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.
    Imagine you providing a source that confirms the first sentence in the above nonsense.

    Because, actual sources (non Wiki, video games, and movies you choose to use) show you are wrong.

    http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml

    http://www.303rdbg.com/missionreports/stats.pdf

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
      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.
      Sorry if You cannot see the obvious:
      1o,000 fast bombers, each with 4 identical wing sections, 8 engines and propellers, a Norton sight and 4 aviators is infinitely easier, cheaper and more survivable than 30,000 slow planes each with a Norton sight 2 different, tapered wing sections, 2 different, tapered horizontal stabilizer sections, 4 engines and props, lots of guns, turrets, ammo and 10 aviators.

      The difference in speed given the lower crew, gun, ammo, fuel, engine and wing wt, the lack of wingtip drag and the 4 blade prop is considerable. More so that it was in a Mosquito, with a lot of wingtip turbulence.
      Last edited by Draco; 08 Jun 15, 23:13.

      Comment


      • #33
        Schweinfurt, Regensburg, etc, show that they were quite easily shot down and caused few enemy losses, despite their guns and even before the Germans really mastered shooting them down. Losses were so high that Roosevelt had to stop massive raids until long range escorts could be provided.

        You can see the few planes which returned (many of them to be written off and killing some men during landing) with spectacular damage. You cannot see how easily the others went down.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Draco View Post
          Sorry if You cannot see the obvious:
          1o,000 fast bombers, each with 4 identical wing sections, 8 engines and propellers, a Norton sight and 4 aviators is infinitely easier, cheaper and more survivable than 30,000 slow planes each with a Norton sight 2 different, tapered wing sections, 2 different, tapered horizontal stabilizer sections, 4 engines and props, lots of guns, turrets, ammo and 10 aviators.

          The difference in speed given the lower crew, gun, ammo, fuel, engine and wing wt, the lack of wingtip drag and the 4 blade prop is considerable. More so that it was in a Mosquito, with a lot of wingtip turbulence.
          Speed and altitude are no defense on their own. A big formation of your bombers will be shot to pieces without a heavy escort. The lack of defensive armament will make them easier to shoot down.
          Crew size won't make any difference to that.

          I doubt you can show us any source that even hints that your "design" is more survivable.

          Comment


          • #35
            Three pages on THIS idea?! Remarkable, simply remarkable.

            Regards,
            Dennis
            If stupid was a criminal offense Sea Lion believers would be doing life.

            Shouting out to Half Pint for bringing back the big mugs!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Draco View Post
              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.
              What about three of these instead .

              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by D1J1 View Post
                Three pages on THIS idea?! Remarkable, simply remarkable.

                Regards,
                Dennis
                How many pages does it take to go "Sea Lion"?
                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment


                • #38
                  3 pages on this design makes much more sense than wasting several billion dollars, huge industrial capacity, huge amounts of aluminum, engines, guns, ammo, turrets and training a huge number of aviators for years (so that most die or are captured and never complete their tour) to make, ferry, maintain and fly 50,000 complicated, vulnerable and slow, 4 engine monsters.


                  If You take 3 Mosquito fuselages 28 ft apart, w/o H stabilizer and use 4 engines on 4 identical constant section wing sections (with twice the total wing area of a Mosquito) connecting the fuselages and use 4 blade props and twice the fuel capacity and the same crew and oxygen system of a single Mosquito and windows and seats in only one fuselage, you have a plane that is much easier and faster to build in wood than 3 mosquitoes with tapered wings and H. stabilizers and is still faster (no wingtip drag and less fuel, plane and crew wt per bomb load), has a higher ceiling and is more survivable (especially since only the best crew flies it and surviving longer, they gain experience fast) and stable (less maneuverable) during the bomb run. There is only a bomb sight and a set of guns, instead of 3.

                  With the engines further from the pilots and 4 blade props, the crew endures less noise and vibration.

                  Since the Mosquito was built for speed, can anybody tell me why it used 3 blade props, instead of the better 4 blade prop used by the P-51 and Spitfire with the same Merlin engine? That and the 3 blade prop of the more powrful Hellcat seem rather dumb mistakes.
                  Last edited by Draco; 09 Jun 15, 08:03.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    A ditching BBB is also more survivable and takes longer to sink than a B-17 or 24.

                    It is much easier for the small crew to bail out than for a large crew crawling out of turrets, etc, so even if a BBB losses 6 engines or has a huge wing section destroyed or catches fire (despite having less fuel and more spread out) and goes down, a higher percentage of the crew may survive than with the 11 of a B-17.

                    Since this plane has excellent range and survivability, there is no need to make both the B-17 and B-24 (which delivered fewer t of bombs, despite being produced in larger quantities), so only a large number of BBB is produced, further simplifying production and maintenance.

                    The BBB is excellent for patrolling the mid Atlantic in ASW, flying between Nova Scotia and Ireland. It can carry Radar, rockets, a 40 mm Bofors cannon and a large number of depth charges

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      How many pages does it take to go "Sea Lion"?
                      I think this is where we're at...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        the verb is to be not to be at. That is where You are.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          What is a "BBB?"

                          Big Butt Bomber?
                          Bloated Bombing Buffalo?
                          Badly Built Bomber?
                          Butt-headed Bureaucratic Buffoonery?

                          Inquiring minds want to know!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Billions of Blistering Barnacles?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              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.
                              They tried and tried, but came up with nothing of note. And in the same vein, 'If' Jerry by some miracle, had come up with a counter, The Boffins at de Havilland would have countered by putting the Mosquito on another level.

                              'What ifs' cut both ways.

                              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


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                                What about three of these instead .



                                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

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X