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
    Its funny how people think that building about 50,000 extremely expensive four engine planes, each bomber crewed by 9 to 11 people, so that the 8th group loses more men than marines were lost around the world and RAF loses an even more ridiculous number of aviators and wastes most of its resources destroying houses makes more sense than building a a few thousand simpler, faster planes with a crew of 4.

    4 constant section, identical wings (each with a few long strips of aluminum and identical ribs), 8 engines and a crew of 4,
    instead of 6 tapered wing sections (3 starboard and 3 port type each with thousands of different pieces and many different sizes of ribs) and 6 tapered horizontal tail sections (3 starboard and 3 port type), 12 engines, 33 men and MGs, turrets, hellacious wingtip turbulence, lower speed and ceiling, etc, quite absurd.

    Even the fuel and time wasted to make a formation while all planes take off is much shorter with 1/3 as many planes and no wingtip turbulence vortices.
    Last edited by Draco; 08 Jun 15, 22:26.

    Leave a comment:


  • Capt AFB
    replied
    And in the same logic of thing, let't get three C-47 Dakotas together - More paratroopers and supplies can be dropped by one crew.

    But, lets take it one step further, and fuse together a B-17 with two P-51...And you have a Fighter Bomber...Or a Bomber Fighter...

    (Just being silly!)

    Leave a comment:


  • Dibble201Bty
    replied
    There you go Draco, the answers were there all the time!

    Paul

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
    6 engines + 6 crew + no armament + 12,000lbs of bombs @ 350 kts and 30,000ft = Ummmm!

    Paul
    If you drop it to 20,000 feet and 4 engines you get:

    Leave a comment:


  • Dibble201Bty
    replied
    6 engines + 6 crew + no armament + 12,000lbs of bombs @ 350 kts and 30,000ft = Ummmm!

    Paul

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    Originally posted by the ace View Post
    I think we should've let them build a few more P 108s.

    With no tailplane, a pig would fly better.
    Look at the Rutan Quickie.

    Nothing is more stable than 2 large wings at high speed and with counter rotating propellers near the axis of the plane. It has so little maneuverabiity (it is so stable) that it would make a lousy fighter.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    This is the closest thing to a real world analogy...

    The Twin Mustang cost four times as much as the single Mustang. This is the inverse of an economy of scale...

    F-82G Twin Mustang
    Unit cost US$215,154

    General characteristics

    Crew: 2
    Length: 42 ft 9 in (12.93 m)
    Wingspan: 51 ft 3 in (15.62 m)
    Height: 13 ft 10 in (4.22 m)
    Wing area: 408 ft (37.90 m)
    Empty weight: 15,997 lb (7,271 kg)
    Max. takeoff weight: 25,591 lb (11,632 kg)
    Powerplant: 2 Allison V-1710-143/145 counter-rotating liquid-cooled V12 engines, 1,380 hp takeoff (1,029 kW each) each
    Performance

    Maximum speed: 482 mph (400 kn, 740 km/h) at 21,000 ft (6,400 m)
    Range: 2,350 mi (1,950 nmi, 3,605 km)
    Service ceiling: 38,900 ft (11,855 m)
    Armament

    Guns: 6 .50 in (12.7 mm) Browning M3 machine guns[24]
    Rockets: 25 5 in (127 mm) rockets
    Bombs: 4,000 lb (1,800 kg)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...2_Twin_Mustang

    P-51D Mustang
    Unit cost US$50,985 in 1945

    General characteristics

    Crew: 1
    Length: 32 ft 3 in (9.83 m)
    Wingspan: 37 ft 0 in (11.28 m)
    Height: 13 ft 4 in (4.08 m:tail wheel on ground, vertical propeller blade.)
    Wing area: 235 sq ft (21.83 m)
    Airfoil: NAA/NACA 45-100 / NAA/NACA 45-100
    Empty weight: 7,635 lb (3,465 kg)
    Loaded weight: 9,200 lb (4,175 kg)
    Max. takeoff weight: 12,100 lb (5,490 kg)
    Powerplant: 1 Packard V-1650-7 liquid-cooled supercharged V-12, 1,490 hp (1,111 kW) at 3,000 rpm;[106] 1,720 hp (1,282 kW) at WEP
    Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0163
    Drag area: 3.80 sqft (0.35 m)
    Aspect ratio: 5.83
    Performance

    Maximum speed: 437 mph (380 kn, 703 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7,600 m)
    Cruise speed: 362 mph (315 kn, 580 km/h)
    Stall speed: 100 mph (87 kn, 160 km/h)
    Range: 1,650 mi (1,434 nmi, 2,755 km) with external tanks
    Service ceiling: 41,900 ft (12,800 m)
    Rate of climb: 3,200 ft/min (16.3 m/s)
    Wing loading: 39 lb/sqft (192 kg/m)
    Power/mass: 0.18 hp/lb (300 W/kg)
    Lift-to-drag ratio: 14.6
    Recommended Mach limit 0.8
    Armament

    6 0.50 caliber (12.7mm) M2 Browning machine guns with 1,880 total rounds (400 rounds for each on the inner pair, and 270 rounds for each of the outer two pair)
    2 hardpoints for up to 2,000 lb (907 kg) of bombs
    6 or 10 T64 5.0 in (127 mm) H.V.A.R rockets (P-51D-25, P-51K-10 on)[nb 10]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...n_P-51_Mustang

    Leave a comment:


  • the ace
    replied
    I think we should've let them build a few more P 108s.

    With no tailplane, a pig would fly better.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Until it gets shot down... "Sir, we lost another squadron of bombers!"

    In this case, literally...
    Hey, it will keep the OOB tidy. No longer will someone have to ask 'but how many planes do they have?'

    One plane, one squadron!

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    One per squadron! That's genius!
    Until it gets shot down... "Sir, we lost another squadron of bombers!"

    In this case, literally...

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by grishnak View Post
    I suppose it could be used as a stopgap until the 9 bodied tri plane version entered service.
    One per squadron! That's genius!

    Leave a comment:


  • grishnak
    replied
    I suppose it could be used as a stopgap until the 9 bodied tri plane version entered service.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    We are using three fuselages, each carrying the same bomb load, but a smaller total load than a single B-17 (no horizontal stabilizer, 2.67 engines, 67% as much fuel and wing area and 1.33 men per fuselage, instead of 4 engines, 11 men and MGs, ammo, turrets, oxygen for the large crew, etc,).

    The plane is a much smaller target than 3 planes carrying the same bomb load and much less vulnerable to damage (in part because it flies faster and in part because it is much more difficult to shoot down a plane with 8 engines, no horizontal stabilizer and 3 vertical stabilizers).

    After dropping its bomb load this plane is extremely fast and because it has no wingtip turbulence and much lower wing load, it can fly above the ceiling of the enemy fighters.

    On the contrary, with a much more concentrated formation (3 planes in 1), there is much smaller bomb spread. We are talking about B-17s attacking industry with escort in daylight, much more accurate than RAF.

    Even if a plane is shot down, only 4 men are lost and the cost of 2 planes.

    1,000 such planes and 4,000 aviators can be produced much more rapidly than 3,000 B-17s and 33,000 aviators.
    Last edited by Draco; 08 Jun 15, 14:09.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X