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

  • Draco
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    error
    Yours.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    error

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X