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

  • BobTheBarbarian
    replied
    Hmm... so that's it: delusions of grandeur. He thinks he's the world's greatest strategist, engineer, and metallurgist all rolled into one!

    Can't say I didn't see it coming...

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    Non of the experts could explain why the Mosquito built for speed used 3 blade props in 1945 and the P-51 and Spitfire used 4 blade props in 1943with the same engine. Stupidity s difficutl to explain. The vaunted Hellcat had a much more powerful engine and also 3 blade props in 1945 and all other fighters using that engine used 4 blade props in 1944 (F4U, P-47, etc,).

    BBB stands for bloody brilliant bomber

    The 6 bladed, die cast, Mn alloy props were developed in another thread by the more imaginative Soviet metallurgists.
    In this thread we're stuck with the W allies' 4 bladed prop which they did not use in the B-17 or Mosquito and the Japanese licensed for the G4M.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dibble201Bty
    replied




    Paul

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    You forgot the six bladed manganese alloy props though...

    Leave a comment:


  • Dibble201Bty
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    What about three of these instead .



    Paul

    Leave a comment:


  • Dibble201Bty
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • BobTheBarbarian
    replied
    Billions of Blistering Barnacles?

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    What is a "BBB?"

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

    Inquiring minds want to know!

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    the verb is to be not to be at. That is where You are.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    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"?

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    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 .

    Leave a comment:


  • D1J1
    replied
    Three pages on THIS idea?! Remarkable, simply remarkable.

    Regards,
    Dennis

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X