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

  • Nebfer
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    I meant so when I wrote that I didn't understand why the hell they waited until after the war to develop the Hornet.

    However, the Hornet had 2,000 hp Merlins and a 361 ft2 wing (high wing loading, less maneuverability) and is made of wood and I´m talking about about having 1,000 in service for France and the BoB, instead of the lousy Defiant (1,000) and Battle (2,000), so it has the less powerful Merlins, a 400 ft2 wing, is made of aluminum and can carry four 20 mm cannon with 160 rpg, two 100 lb and two 250 lb bombs externally. So RAF saves a lot of money, 1,000 Merlins (for Hurricanes and Spitfires) and aviators (in training and losses) and kicks butt in France and the BoB. Alas, common sense is not common.

    Such a plane would have shot down a lot of LW bombers and Bf-110s and some Bf 109s over France, blown up the bridges that the Battle couldn't blow up (AAA shot the slow planes by the dozen) and devastated the extremely long and vulnerable WM columns while they spent days in the largest traffic jam by far in European history up to that time.

    Such a plane operating from Britain would have provided excellent cover for the allied navies supporting with naval guns and supplying the 400,000 troops trapped around Dunkirk, preventing an evacuation, holding back the WM and bleeding the LW, while Britain, France and the US produced 3 times more fighters than Germany.

    The French would have been extremely glad to get 100 such planes and the Poles-Czechs 25, so Britain didn't even have to send many aviators to France.
    The first flight of the Hornet was in April of 1944. They only way it would seen action in WW2 is if it had it's first flight in 1941 or early 1942. As most one or two engine aircraft at the time take around two years to develop into a production ready aircraft. Here's a quick rule of thumb, its a bit rough but it should work for most aircraft of this time frame, count the number of engines that is how many years it will take from it's first flight to it's introduced plus or minus a year to a minimum of 1, though many single engined aircraft take two years as well.

    And producing this aircraft earlier one would have to provide evidence that the required engines would of been available (if they are not then it's not going to be built or if it dose it's performance is going to suffer due to the worse engines), and the requirements for it's development and the actual need to produce it.
    Last edited by Nebfer; 13 Jun 15, 15:21.

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    Originally posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
    Then what you want is a DH.103 Hornet!

    http://users.skynet.be/BAMRS/dh103/dh103.htm

    Paul
    I meant so when I wrote that I didn't understand why the hell they waited until after the war to develop the Hornet.

    However, the Hornet had 2,000 hp Merlins and a 361 ft2 wing (high wing loading, less maneuverability) and is made of wood and I´m talking about about having 1,000 in service for France and the BoB, instead of the lousy Defiant (1,000) and Battle (2,000), so it has the less powerful Merlins, a 400 ft2 wing, is made of aluminum and can carry four 20 mm cannon with 160 rpg, two 100 lb and two 250 lb bombs externally. So RAF saves a lot of money, 1,000 Merlins (for Hurricanes and Spitfires) and aviators (in training and losses) and kicks butt in France and the BoB. Alas, common sense is not common.

    Such a plane would have shot down a lot of LW bombers and Bf-110s and some Bf 109s over France, blown up the bridges that the Battle couldn't blow up (AAA shot the slow planes by the dozen) and devastated the extremely long and vulnerable WM columns while they spent days in the largest traffic jam by far in European history up to that time.

    Such a plane operating from Britain would have provided excellent cover for the allied navies supporting with naval guns and supplying the 400,000 troops trapped around Dunkirk, preventing an evacuation, holding back the WM and bleeding the LW, while Britain, France and the US produced 3 times more fighters than Germany.

    The French would have been extremely glad to get 100 such planes and the Poles-Czechs 25, so Britain didn't even have to send many aviators to France.
    Last edited by Draco; 13 Jun 15, 10:13.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
    Then what you want is a DH.103 Hornet!

    http://users.skynet.be/BAMRS/dh103/dh103.htm

    Paul
    I doubt he knows what he wants...

    Leave a comment:


  • Dibble201Bty
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    No, the Welkin was another useless aberration with an extremely long and thick wing with terrible compressibility problems and lousy maneuverability (low rate of roll, etc,)

    Think of the Merlin-Whilrwind with a 400 ft2 wing as an enhanced fighter Mosquito (crew of 1, narrower, shorter fuselage and slightly smaller wing and horizontal stabilizer area, reduced fuel capacity and bomb load and better maneuverability). A superb fighter.
    Then what you want is a DH.103 Hornet!

    http://users.skynet.be/BAMRS/dh103/dh103.htm

    Paul

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    No, the Welkin was another useless aberration with an extremely long and thick wing with terrible compressibility problems and lousy maneuverability (low rate of roll, etc,)

    Think of the Merlin-Whilrwind with a 400 ft2 wing as an enhanced fighter Mosquito (crew of 1, narrower, shorter fuselage and slightly smaller wing and horizontal stabilizer area, reduced fuel capacity and bomb load and better maneuverability). A superb fighter.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    The Whirlwind is an excellent example of a missed opportunity for utter lack of common sense in RAF.
    The British wasted excellent Merlin engines on lousy planes at a critical time (Defiant, Battle, etc) and used the lousy RR Peregrine for the Whirlwind.
    The Whirlwind couldn't fit a Merlin and was the only aircraft in RAF use using the Peregrine engine. Hence, the decision to end Peregrine production in favor of expanding Merlin production and with the end of the former production of the Whirlwind ended too.

    Had they not produced any of the ridiculous planes and designed the Whirlwind to use Merlins, it would have been a formidable bomber destroyer during the BoB, which the Bf-109 could not chase.
    When Westland developed the Whirlwind the Peregrine was in production and the Merlin wasn't. It was a reasonable move to use a proven engine instead of an unproven one.


    The Merlin Whirlwind is much faster and more maneuverable than Mossie, a nighmare for Göring. It is also a very much better and infinitely more survivable bomber than the slow Battle (which had a crew of 3, so it resulted in heavy casualties).
    The Merlin Whirlwind would be called a Welkin. Of course, you don't know that like you don't know much of anything. That's right, Westland did build the Whirlwind equivalent in a Merlin engine plane.... The Welkin.



    And, no it's not better than a Mosquito except as a high altitude fighter and even then not by any wide margin.

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    The Whirlwind is an excellent example of a missed opportunity for utter lack of common sense in RAF.
    The British wasted excellent Merlin engines on lousy planes at a critical time (Defiant, Battle, etc) and used the lousy RR Peregrine for the Whirlwind.

    Had they not produced any of the ridiculous planes and designed the Whirlwind to use Merlins, it would have been a formidable bomber destroyer during the BoB, which the Bf-109 could not chase.

    The Merlin Whirlwind is much faster and more maneuverable than Mossie, a nighmare for Göring. It is also a very much better and infinitely more survivable bomber than the slow Battle (which had a crew of 3, so it resulted in heavy casualties).

    Incredibly, the twin engine Whirlwind has very similar wing area to the Spitfire (250 Vs.241 ft2) and smaller than the Battle's (422 ft2) and exactly the same as the Defiant (which had a very heavy 4 MG turret!).
    A Merlin Defiant with a 400 ft2 wing would have been ideal (high speed and rate of climb). over 1,000 Defiants and 2,000 Battles were made. 1,000 Merlin Whirlwinds would have cost much less than the 3,000 aberrations and kicked butt.
    Last edited by Draco; 12 Jun 15, 13:29.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dibble201Bty
    replied
    Seeing as this Thread is a bit 'odd'. Here's something to peruse.




    Paul
    Last edited by Dibble201Bty; 12 Jun 15, 12:04.

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    If you read back a few posts BBB is the triple B-17, by extension, MMM is the triple Mosquito.

    That's what I mean, the Mosquito was excellent for many roles, just not an idieal fighter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dibble201Bty
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    Only as a fighter. A crew of 2, liquid cooled engines (vulnerable) and a large wing are not good characteristics for a fighter.
    It was excellent as a bomber which could outrun fighters and was difficult for Flak to hit.

    Although the MMM is better, less expensive and much easier to make.
    BBB? MMM? What the heck do they mean?

    So far people are tolerating your thread and contributing to it. Making it less understandable and moving from bomber to fighter concepts make it even more a mess.

    The Mosquito was only conceived as a fighter in it's original MkII and Night Fighter types, thereafter together with a handfull of High altitude Mk NF XV's 'which was another four bladed airscrew Mosquito', the Mosquito was mainly a fighter bomber & Bomber capable of holding it's own in a dog-fight in certain situations.

    Essentially the Mosquito was a:

    Photographic Reconnaissance
    Fighter ( day/night long range fighter MkII)
    Day and Night Bomber
    Night-Fighter
    Fighter-Bomber
    Trainer
    Meteorological Reconnaissance
    Coastal Strike
    Bomber support
    Airliner
    Intruder and Ranger
    Pathfinder and target marker
    Torpedo-Reconnaissance (for carrier use)
    Torpedo-Fighter/Bomber
    Target Tug.

    I'm sure that bolting a couple of air-cooled engines to the Mosquito would have made it half the plane it was.

    Paul

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    Only as a fighter. A crew of 2, liquid cooled engines (vulnerable) and a large wing are not good characteristics for a fighter.
    It was excellent as a bomber which could outrun fighters and was difficult for Flak to hit.

    Although the MMM is better, less expensive and much easier to make.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dibble201Bty
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post

    It is interesting in your source that in the late 1930s American experts concluded that the ideal single engine fighter would have liquid-cooled engine (like the P-51 and unlike the F4F, F6F, F4U or P-47) and the ideal fighter would have air-cooled engines (like the F5F, Beaufighter and Black Widow and unlike the P-38 & Mosquito).
    What's that meant to mean? I do hope you you are not sideswiping my beloved Mosquito as a heap of junk or at least, not very good?

    Paul

    Leave a comment:


  • Nebfer
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    The navy and the army acted completely independently. The navy ruined the design by changing the P & W engine chosen by Grumman (which were used for the successful F4F). The army ordered the XP-50 and after wasting money scrapped it when an engine caused a crash.
    Oh? The original engine was the P&W R-1535-96 - 825 hp, They substituted a Wright R-1820-40/42 1,200 HP eng

    Also note said crash was of the only prototype, which means time wasted building a second prototype, of a plane that at the time dose not seem to be much better than current aircraft.

    It does not take a genius to see that a sleek plane with two of the same engines of an F4F, slightly larger wing area and designed by teh same company can have much higher speed, better visibility, survivability and range and carry more ammo It can alse make a much better bomber (as the P-38 was) and torpedo plane (like the Beaufighter).
    Higher speed? Nope the plane had a top speed with it's twin 1,200 HP engines of just under 360 mph at 17,000 feet. As we seem to have to keep reminding you that this was the performance of a aircraft that has yet to fly with 4x 50 cal MGs (~250 lbs) 1,600 rd of ammo (~420 lbs), 400 to 1,000 pounds of armor, who knows how much weight the self sealing fuel tanks would added, your looking at 1,200 to 2,000 pounds of extra weight, even with the bored out engines providing 1,350 HP (each) performance is going to suffer a fair bit. Never mind the weight required to fix some of the other issues the plane had, or other improvements, like folding wings (roughly 400 lbs, if the Wildcat is anything to go by). And you still think this plane would of been a far better plane than the Corsair which by the time the Skyrocket was canceled was braking 400mph, a speed the Skyrocket was unlikely to reach, the Hellcat also had better flight performance then the unequipped Skyrocket had. I gave you the official flight performance data both the Corsair and Hellcat where better in every category.

    The plane is even more formidable if the engine is bored out to increase HP 10% with the same weight.
    Not with a roughly 20% increase in weight at the lest for a combat model.
    And this dose not factor in requirements for dive bombing...

    Keep in mind if the plane was as good as you said it was then the USN would of put it into production, they would of been stupid not to, build a bunch of wildcats until it comes online in roughly 1943. But they did not, they only built a single prototype, if it was worth seriously looking into they likely would of built a few more to explore it's capability's a bit more.



    Actually, it is surprising that the British and AMericans did not collaborate to design a naval fighter.
    Perhaps they did, but why would they? The two have different operational practices and requirements that makes it difficult to cooperate on these things, what may be acceptable for the US might be unworkable for the British.
    Last edited by Nebfer; 11 Jun 15, 19:37.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hida Akechi
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    The navy and the army acted completely independently. The navy ruined the design by changing the P & W engine chosen by Grumman (which were used for the successful F4F). The army ordered the XP-50 and after wasting money scrapped it when an engine caused a crash.
    The F5F was a bust from the start. A sideshow. A distraction. The US made the correct decisions with the aircraft it ended up producing. Get over yourself. This isn't comic-book world. Junk heap contraptions sometimes are just junk heap contraptions.

    [quote]It is obvious that with a little common snese and less arrogance the navy and army should have allowed Grumman free hand and plenty of resources to develop a much less expensive and more reliable fighter than the P-38, which was actually too a little too fast for the Zero and Ki-43.[quote]

    You shouldn't use the term "common sense" until you actually find out what it means. Then you can show some. The arrogance part you got down.

    It does not take a genius to see that a sleek plane with two of the same engines of an F4F, slightly larger wing area and designed by teh same company can have much higher speed, better visibility, survivability and range and carry more ammo It can alse make a much better bomber (as the P-38 was) and torpedo plane (like the Beaufighter).
    None of those things were true. If they were, the F5F would have been put into production. It wasn't.

    The plane is even more formidable if the engine is bored out to increase HP 10% with the same weight.
    The hell it was. Nothing was "formidable" about that aircraft except the list of problems that had to be overcome before it was even considered seriously.

    Actually, it is surprising that the British and AMericans did not collaborate to design a naval fighter.

    The P-51 was not designed in collaboration, but was greatly improved when the best British engine and prop were used on the best and much easily produced American wing and fuselage (compared to the Spitfire).

    It is interesting in your source that in the late 1930s American experts concluded that the ideal single engine fighter would have liquid-cooled engine (like the P-51 and unlike the F4F, F6F, F4U or P-47) and the ideal fighter would have air-cooled engines (like the F5F, Beaufighter and Black Widow and unlike the P-38 & Mosquito).
    Um...

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    The navy and the army acted completely independently. The navy ruined the design by changing the P & W engine chosen by Grumman (which were used for the successful F4F). The army ordered the XP-50 and after wasting money scrapped it when an engine caused a crash.

    It is obvious that with a little common snese and less arrogance the navy and army should have allowed Grumman free hand and plenty of resources to develop a much less expensive and more reliable fighter than the P-38, which was actually too a little too fast for the Zero and Ki-43.

    It does not take a genius to see that a sleek plane with two of the same engines of an F4F, slightly larger wing area and designed by teh same company can have much higher speed, better visibility, survivability and range and carry more ammo It can alse make a much better bomber (as the P-38 was) and torpedo plane (like the Beaufighter).

    The plane is even more formidable if the engine is bored out to increase HP 10% with the same weight.

    Actually, it is surprising that the British and AMericans did not collaborate to design a naval fighter.

    The P-51 was not designed in collaboration, but was greatly improved when the best British engine and prop were used on the best and much easily produced American wing and fuselage (compared to the Spitfire).

    It is interesting in your source that in the late 1930s American experts concluded that the ideal single engine fighter would have liquid-cooled engine (like the P-51 and unlike the F4F, F6F, F4U or P-47) and the ideal fighter would have air-cooled engines (like the F5F, Beaufighter and Black Widow and unlike the P-38 & Mosquito).

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X