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
    The F4U competed against the F5F and was beaten. It required a hell of a lot of money, time and modifications and even the final product in 1944 produced less thrust and much more torque than the F5F, was more expensive with its seagull wing and went down if the engine failed in mid Ocean.
    the prototypes of the Corsair was already braking 400mph by the time of that "decisive" test, the X5F was having difficulty even reaching 360mph, and that was with out armament, armor and a host of other equipment.

    The P-38 was much more expensive than the F5F and its watercooled engines were much less reliable.
    Do you have evidence that it was cheaper to build? Where is this stated? Out side of you who has wrote or stated that it was cheaper to build?

    Solving an undercarriage problem, producing large numbers of small, reliable, bored-out engines and props and using the F5F for the navy and air force and also the P-51 for the air force and marines made a lot more sense than wasting a fortune producing the lousy P-38, 39, 40, 47, F4F, F6F, F4U and causing a production, training, maintenance and logistics nightmare.
    It only took the US about a century to develop a fighter for all armed forces and a rdicisulously expensive one.

    But I don't expect people who regard the Doolittle raid, Nimitz, the B-29, Hellcat, Sherman, etc, as the greatest assets to ever understand that
    The F6F out flew it's opponents, the F4F managed to end up with a positive kill count, Our highest scoring aces flew the P38. Lousy planes would not have that recored.

    Here's a fun page for you
    http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/SAC.htm
    It has the Flight data for the XF5F-1 the XF4U-1 and even the F6F-3 &-5

    The data is Damming of the XF5F-1

    Per the data it reaches a top speed of 358 mph at 17,300 feet and takes 4.2 minutes to reach 10,000 feet, with a ceiling of 34,500 feet. Range with 168 Gal of fuel is 780 miles at 168mph. It also has no armament.

    Lets compare it to an F6F-3 Hellcat (standard production model)
    Max speed is 372 mph at 18,000 feet
    Time to 10,000 feet is 3.2 minutes, ceiling is 38,800 feet
    Range is 950 miles at 160 mph with 250 gals of fuel

    This aircraft is equipped with 6x 50 cal MGs with 400 rds per gun and 400 pounds of armor plate.

    The XF4U-2 also has better performance
    Time to 10,000 feet 3.8 minutes, 33,700 foot ceiling, max speed around 380 mph and a range of 760 miles at 180 mph with 178 gals, and it's armed.

    Ouch, these lousy planes are beating that wonder plane that manages to have inferior performance even though it has no armor plate and weapons!

    So based on these data points (available at the link I posted) why would the navy want the XF5F-1?

    By the Way the F-35 you deride as being expensive is currently cheaper than some European fighters...
    Last edited by Nebfer; 11 Jun 15, 16:58.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    Nick,
    Sorry no Jeep.
    Damn . His alternatives were better than yours .

    Hopefully he will return .

    Leave a comment:


  • Dibble201Bty
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    Thanks Dibble, I hadn't seen them.
    too bad they didn't use the 4 blades from the start, allowing the laden M to cruise slightly faster with the same fuel consumption or to escape fighters even easier.
    From: MOSQUITO, C. Martin Sharp & Michael J.F. Bowyer Pages 47-48

    "Tests with W4050 on 21st July 1942 were made with 4-blade Hydromatic propellers. At about 15,000ft surging occurred, at first put down to a new constant-speed unit, so three-bladed airscrews were fitted....Twice radiators cracked and were repaired, and three and four-bladed airscrews were compared, along with tropical intakes....Comparisons of three and four-bladed airscrews followed, there being little to choose between them"

    Paul

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    Thanks Dibble, I hadn't seen them.
    too bad they didn't use the 4 blades from the start, allowing the laden M to cruise slightly faster with the same fuel consumption or to escape fighters even easier.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hida Akechi
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    The F4U competed against the F5F and was beaten. It required a hell of a lot of money, time and modifications and even the final product in 1944 produced less thrust and much more torque than the F5F, was more expensive with its seagull wing and went down if the engine failed in mid Ocean.

    The P-38 was much more expensive than the F5F and its watercooled engines were much less reliable.

    Solving an undercarriage problem, producing large numbers of small, reliable, bored-out engines and props and using the F5F for the navy and air force and also the P-51 for the air force and marines made a lot more sense than wasting a fortune producing the lousy P-38, 39, 40, 47, F4F, F6F, F4U and causing a production, training, maintenance and logistics nightmare.
    It only took the US about a century to develop a fighter for all armed forces and a rdicisulously expensive one.

    But I don't expect people who regard the Doolittle raid, Nimitz, the B-29, Hellcat, Sherman, etc, as the greatest assets to ever understand that
    You've not proven to anyone that this F5F junkheap was any better or could have performed any better in actual combat. It required way too much work to make it viable. The other craft you poo-poo were examples of outstanding engineering and while it can be debated that there could have designed an even better warplane, it just didn't happen because what we had was as good as it gets at that time. The records of the Corsair and Lightning, for example, during the war(s) is enough for them to stand strong. Doesn't seem there was a need for this fantasy F5F super fighter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    I only spoke about fighters above, but as I mentioned in the othe rthread a dive bomber version and a torpedo bomber of the F5F eliminated the need for the slow TBF and SBD which after dropping its load make a much better fighter than the SBD or gets away much faster than the TBF.

    A single mass produced engine and plane (the latter in 3 versions), instead of 7.

    Nick,
    Sorry no Jeep.

    The triple Mosquito results in less fatigue (higher speed, less noise and vibration as the enginers are farther from the crew and more stability and 1 crew instead of 3), higher survivability, lower cost compared to 3 of Ms and 2/3 the fuel used and engine cost and maintenance for the bomb load of 3 Ms.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dibble201Bty
    replied
    I wasn't going to bother as none were the wartime bomber version but just to let you know Draco:





    Paul
    Last edited by Dibble201Bty; 11 Jun 15, 16:10.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    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.
    You are looking at the technical rather than the practical applications.

    The Mossie has the same bomb load as the B-17 for the missions required of it. However it only needs 2 crew instead of 10, 2 engines instead of 4, has significantly less cost, and the crew are less exhausted by being in the air for a shorter period of time.

    I really hope you had an earlier incarnation as Cheap Jeep . I loved that guy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    Originally posted by Nebfer View Post
    No no no in his mind it was the best plane of the war, his comics said so... After all it did beat XYZ in a "competition" but was rejected because stupid navy officials did not see the potential of a high performance aircraft...

    Even though said navy guys clearly saw a aircraft with far more development time to go, as the plane required constant modifications even before and after said competition, and that said aircraft was achieving said performance in an unarmed and unequipped state that had no value in a combat airframe.

    Though it seems Draco has not learned the adage of the Best is the enemy of the Good, or in other words, seeking the best tool for the job often results in the discarding of many perfectly good ones that would of been available sooner and more cheaply.
    The F4U competed against the F5F and was beaten. It required a hell of a lot of money, time and modifications and even the final product in 1944 produced less thrust and much more torque than the F5F, was more expensive with its seagull wing and went down if the engine failed in mid Ocean.

    The P-38 was much more expensive than the F5F and its watercooled engines were much less reliable.

    Solving an undercarriage problem, producing large numbers of small, reliable, bored-out engines and props and using the F5F for the navy and air force and also the P-51 for the air force and marines made a lot more sense than wasting a fortune producing the lousy P-38, 39, 40, 47, F4F, F6F, F4U and causing a production, training, maintenance and logistics nightmare.
    It only took the US about a century to develop a fighter for all armed forces and a rdicisulously expensive one.

    But I don't expect people who regard the Doolittle raid, Nimitz, the B-29, Hellcat, Sherman, etc, as the greatest assets to ever understand that

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Nebfer View Post
    No no no in his mind it was the best plane of the war, his comics said so... After all it did beat XYZ in a "competition" but was rejected because stupid navy officials did not see the potential of a high performance aircraft...
    You left off "...flown by heroic cartoon characters."

    Leave a comment:


  • Nebfer
    replied
    Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
    Again with the F5F. It was shown to be a pos lemon, and it wasn't produced because better designs existed. You haven't proven otherwise, and others have shown you reality. Get over it.
    No no no in his mind it was the best plane of the war, his comics said so... After all it did beat XYZ in a "competition" but was rejected because stupid navy officials did not see the potential of a high performance aircraft...

    Even though said navy guys clearly saw a aircraft with far more development time to go, as the plane required constant modifications even before and after said competition, and that said aircraft was achieving said performance in an unarmed and unequipped state that had no value in a combat airframe.

    Though it seems Draco has not learned the adage of the Best is the enemy of the Good, or in other words, seeking the best tool for the job often results in the discarding of many perfectly good ones that would of been available sooner and more cheaply.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hida Akechi
    replied
    Again with the F5F. It was shown to be a pos lemon, and it wasn't produced because better designs existed. You haven't proven otherwise, and others have shown you reality. Get over it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Blundering Bloated Bas.....d
    Big Bureaucratic Blunder
    Basically Brainless BS

    ....
    The big bureaucratic blunders were the Alaska and second Burma road (rdiculously costly in money and labor at the most valuable time) and the Matilda, Stirling, P-39, the first US LST, whose design, tooling and production cost a fortune only to be discarded, some of them with heavy losses.

    Other huge blunders were not mass producing the F5F in 1941 and the de Havilland Hornet in 1942 (why the hell did they wait until after the war, when jets ruled?)
    The most expensive, complicated and unreliable bomber project of WW II was of course the B-29. The allies could have easily liberated Burma and China in 1942 with what they wasted flying huge t over the hump for years and on the B-29 and leveled Japan in 1943 with cheap, easily produced BBBs from China with small crews and escorted by P-51.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hida Akechi
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    Stupidity s difficutl to explain.
    You do such a good job in explaining yourself, though. Or not, perhaps.

    ...more imaginative Soviet metallurgists.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Blundering Bloated Bas.....d
    Big Bureaucratic Blunder
    Basically Brainless BS

    ....

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X