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

  • A most efficient, less expensive and easily produced strategic bomber for WW II

    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.

  • Doveton Sturdee
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    Have You any numbers? Missions flown by Defiants and Beaus, kills, etc,

    What dose the period 1940-41 mean? does it include all fo 1941?
    Sorry, but as you are the one making the (unsubstantiated) claims, i.e, :-

    Could it be that it was the most successful night fighter for a couple of months, because they wasted the few Radars available and crews on them, instead of using them to great advantage on Beaus?

    Isn't the onus rather upon you to challenge Wood & Dempster, and prove them wrong?

    Otherwise, as Mr. Gardner so elegantly puts it :-

    put up or shut up.

    As previous experience suggests that the former won't happen, perhaps you might try the latter.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    Have You any numbers? Missions flown by Defiants and Beaus, kills, etc,

    What dose the period 1940-41 mean? does it include all fo 1941?
    Do you? You brought all this up. Time for you to put up or shut up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    Originally posted by Doveton Sturdee View Post
    Could it be that it was the most successful night fighter for a couple of months, because they wasted the few Radars available and crews on them, instead of using them to great advantage on Beaus?


    Sorry, but unlike you I don't play fast and loose with the facts, and I don't invent them to suit a foolish claim.

    In this case, I would refer you to 'The Narrow Margin' by Wood & Dempster, which states, quite unambiguously, that in the period 1940-1941 the Defiant achieved more successes per interception than any other British night fighter. Sorry if this upsets you, but happily facts are facts.

    Incidentally, what evidence do you have that the RAF starved Beaufighters of radar in order to equip Defiants?

    None, of course.
    Have You any numbers? Missions flown by Defiants and Beaus, kills, etc,

    What dose the period 1940-41 mean? does it include all fo 1941?

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Doveton Sturdee View Post
    Could it be that it was the most successful night fighter for a couple of months, because they wasted the few Radars available and crews on them, instead of using them to great advantage on Beaus?


    Sorry, but unlike you I don't play fast and loose with the facts, and I don't invent them to suit a foolish claim.

    In this case, I would refer you to 'The Narrow Margin' by Wood & Dempster, which states, quite unambiguously, that in the period 1940-1941 the Defiant achieved more successes per interception than any other British night fighter. Sorry if this upsets you, but happily facts are facts.

    Incidentally, what evidence do you have that the RAF starved Beaufighters of radar in order to equip Defiants?

    None, of course.
    Don't forget, it was also a Defiant (turret removed) being used as an ELINT plane that discovered the German navigation beams for accurate night bombing, recorded their signals and allowed the British to jam the snot out of them...

    Leave a comment:


  • Doveton Sturdee
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    Even beastly, ignorant I, know that a Beau with 20 mm cannon facing forward, much higher speed and rate of climb, more ammo and better maneuverability (lower wing load with a Radar), much longer flight time and the same crew of 2 has a much higher probability of shooting down more planes per night. Including Ju 88 after dropping their load, which can easily out maneuver, outfly an outclimb a Defiant, burdened with Radar and ammo (much heavier wing load than an empty Ju 88). The faster Beau, attacking from below, 6 o'clock is also a more difficult target and much more survivable, in case of taking fire on an engine and it has no vunerable radiator and coolant reservoir.

    Could it be that it was the most successful night fighter for a couple of months, because they wasted the few Radars available and crews on them, instead of using them to great advantage on Beaus?
    Could it be that it was the most successful night fighter for a couple of months, because they wasted the few Radars available and crews on them, instead of using them to great advantage on Beaus?


    Sorry, but unlike you I don't play fast and loose with the facts, and I don't invent them to suit a foolish claim.

    In this case, I would refer you to 'The Narrow Margin' by Wood & Dempster, which states, quite unambiguously, that in the period 1940-1941 the Defiant achieved more successes per interception than any other British night fighter. Sorry if this upsets you, but happily facts are facts.

    Incidentally, what evidence do you have that the RAF starved Beaufighters of radar in order to equip Defiants?

    None, of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    Even beastly, ignorant I, know that a Beau with 20 mm cannon facing forward, much higher speed and rate of climb, more ammo and better maneuverability (lower wing load with a Radar), much longer flight time and the same crew of 2 has a much higher probability of shooting down more planes per night. Including Ju 88 after dropping their load, which can easily out maneuver, outfly an outclimb a Defiant, burdened with Radar and ammo (much heavier wing load than an empty Ju 88). The faster Beau, attacking from below, 6 o'clock is also a more difficult target and much more survivable, in case of taking fire on an engine and it has no vunerable radiator and coolant reservoir.

    Could it be that it was the most successful night fighter for a couple of months, because they wasted the few Radars available and crews on them, instead of using them to great advantage on Beaus?
    Last edited by Draco; 17 Jun 15, 12:40.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doveton Sturdee
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    Only RAF would think of fitting an expensive and heavy Radar on a Defiant with a low speed and rate of climb, even without a Radar and with .303 guns in a turret, or did they remove the turret?, in which case it is not a Defiant.. Especially since the Infinitely better Beau entered service at nearly the same time as plane Radar did.
    I suppose they felt like justifying the huge investment on the Defiant by also wasting good crews and Radars.


    By the way RAF did not put out any spec for the Beau, Bristol designed it and presented it and fortunately it was accepted, much like the Mossie. So RAF specs often begat aberrations and private industry often had to risk making good designs, hoping that they would be accepted. I wonder how many excellent designs were rejected by the geniuses who ordered and approved the Stirling, Defiant, Battle, Whirlwind and other expensive, discarded planes (often after 1,000 or more planes had been produced).

    If only Hawker had designed the Twinhurry and RAF acceptd it in time.
    Only RAF would think of fitting an expensive and heavy Radar on a Defiant with a low speed and rate of climb, even without a Radar and with .303 guns in a turret, or did they remove the turret?, in which case it is not a Defiant.. Especially since the Infinitely better Beau entered service at nearly the same time as plane Radar did.
    I suppose they felt like justifying the huge investment on the Defiant by also wasting good crews and Radars.


    Which, seen without Mr. Draco's blind, unreasoning, and irrational anti Anglo-American prejudice, could be read as:-

    Wasn't it impressive that someone in the RAF hierarchy in late 1940 had the foresight and imagination to see in the Defiant, an aircraft which had been unsuccessful in daylight operations, it's potential as a night fighter, and had the initiative to progress this vision?

    As a result, for minimal cost and outlay, the Defiant became the most effective night fighter of the early part of the war, and employed tactics which were so effective that the Luftwaffe virtually copied them later in the war.

    Incidentally, it appears that Mr. Draco believes that German bombers on night raids were tearing around the skies at full throttle the whole time.

    Ah well, German night bombing operations are something else Mr. Draco doesn't appear to know anything about. Presumably, he simply looked at the maximum speed of each type on his Wikipedia files, and assumed that, because the bombers could, then they always did!

    As to the twin engined Hurricane. As far as I know, nothing like this was ever planned or even considered. Presumably Mr. Draco likes the idea of the name (Twinhurry) and feels the need to repeat it endlessly.

    My son behaved similarly when given his first rattle, some time ago now!

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    Originally posted by Doveton Sturdee View Post
    The Me 110 did make a decent night fighter, but then so did a good number of other aircraft

    Mr. Draco may not like this, but the most effective and successful RAF night fighter during the early part of the war was (horror of horrors!) the Boulton-Paul Defiant, especially when fitted with air interception radar.

    At least, so I have been told, by a source I would regard as rather more reliable, and certainly more informed, than Mr. Draco.
    Only RAF would think of fitting an expensive and heavy Radar on a Defiant with a low speed and rate of climb, even without a Radar and with .303 guns in a turret, or did they remove the turret?, in which case it is not a Defiant.. Especially since the Infinitely better Beau entered service at nearly the same time as plane Radar did.
    I suppose they felt like justifying the huge investment on the Defiant by also wasting good crews and Radars.

    By the way RAF did not put out any spec for the Beau, Bristol designed it and presented it and fortunately it was accepted, much like the Mossie. So RAF specs often begat aberrations and private industry often had to risk making good designs, hoping that they would be accepted. I wonder how many excellent designs were rejected by the geniuses who ordered and approved the Stirling, Defiant, Battle, Whirlwind and other expensive, discarded planes (often after 1,000 or more planes had been produced).

    If only Hawker had designed the Twinhurry and RAF acceptd it in time.
    Last edited by Draco; 16 Jun 15, 16:35.

    Leave a comment:


  • sebfrench76
    replied
    "Twins hurry" ??
    Is it that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Doveton Sturdee
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Really? Show us some examples of where that was applied. It certainly isn't true in France or against the early daylight RAF bomber raids. It wasn't even tried against US B-17's and B-24's.
    The Me 410 was tried occasionally before the US got long range escorts but it proved very marginal making a good target for defensive fire.
    In fact, the whole idea of a twin engine "bomber destroyer" pretty much proved a complete bust other than when such aircraft were used as night fighters.

    The Me 110 did make a decent night fighter, but then so did a good number of other aircraft primarily twin engine bombers.

    By day, the best "bomber busters" were single seat fighters that could haul a load of cannon like the Hurricane or the FW 190.
    The Me 110 did make a decent night fighter, but then so did a good number of other aircraft

    Mr. Draco may not like this, but the most effective and successful RAF night fighter during the early part of the war was (horror of horrors!) the Boulton-Paul Defiant, especially when fitted with air interception radar.

    At least, so I have been told, by a source I would regard as rather more reliable, and certainly more informed, than Mr. Draco.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    The Twinhurry has a similar wing area to that of the Bf 110 (400 Vs. 414 ft2). However, she has a crew of one, instead of 2, a single vertical stabilizer, fewer guns (4x20 mm, instead of 2x20mm + 5x7.92mm), a lighter landing gear and better engines. So the T is faster, more maneuverable, less costly and has a higher rate of climb.

    The Bf 110 was a good bomber destroyer, but during the BoB the Germans used it to escort bombers (to dogfight single engine fighters) and to attack Britain all the way from Norway, without Bf 109s. Accordingly, the LW wasted about 200 Bf 110s in the BoB, where almost no RAF bombers and hundreds of RAF fighters fought. A lousy use of a good bomber destroyer. Those 200 Bf 110s and their crews were sorely missed in Barbarossa.

    In contrast, RAF did not deploy a good bomber destroyer to boost the single engine fighters against the thousands of LW bombers.
    Really? Show us some examples of where that was applied. It certainly isn't true in France or against the early daylight RAF bomber raids. It wasn't even tried against US B-17's and B-24's.
    The Me 410 was tried occasionally before the US got long range escorts but it proved very marginal making a good target for defensive fire.
    In fact, the whole idea of a twin engine "bomber destroyer" pretty much proved a complete bust other than when such aircraft were used as night fighters.

    The Me 110 did make a decent night fighter, but then so did a good number of other aircraft primarily twin engine bombers.

    By day, the best "bomber busters" were single seat fighters that could haul a load of cannon like the Hurricane or the FW 190.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doveton Sturdee
    replied
    Originally posted by Draco View Post
    The Twinhurry has a similar wing area to that of the Bf 110 (400 Vs. 414 ft2). However, she has a crew of one, instead of 2, a single vertical stabilizer, fewer guns (4x20 mm, instead of 2x20mm + 5x7.92mm), a lighter landing gear and better engines. So the T is faster, more maneuverable, less costly and has a higher rate of climb.

    The Bf 110 was a good bomber destroyer, but during the BoB the Germans used it to escort bombers (to dogfight single engine fighters) and to attack Britain all the way from Norway, without Bf 109s. Accordingly, the LW wasted about 200 Bf 110s in the BoB, where almost no RAF bombers and hundreds of RAF fighters fought. A lousy use of a good bomber destroyer. Those 200 Bf 110s and their crews were sorely missed in Barbarossa.

    In contrast, RAF did not deploy a good bomber destroyer to boost the single engine fighters against the thousands of LW bombers.
    In contrast, RAF did not deploy a good bomber destroyer

    Actually, the RAF did deploy a very effective bomber destroyer during the Battle of Britain.

    They called it the Hawker Hurricane, as you would have known if you knew anything about the tactics that Dowding & Park employed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    The Twinhurry has a similar wing area to that of the Bf 110 (400 Vs. 414 ft2). However, she has a crew of one, instead of 2, a single vertical stabilizer, fewer guns (4x20 mm, instead of 2x20mm + 5x7.92mm), a lighter landing gear and better engines. So the T is faster, more maneuverable, less costly and has a higher rate of climb.

    The Bf 110 was a good bomber destroyer, but during the BoB the Germans used it to escort bombers (to dogfight single engine fighters) and to attack Britain all the way from Norway, without Bf 109s. Accordingly, the LW wasted about 200 Bf 110s in the BoB, where almost no RAF bombers and hundreds of RAF fighters fought. A lousy use of a good bomber destroyer. Those 200 Bf 110s and their crews were sorely missed in Barbarossa.

    In contrast, RAF did not deploy a good bomber destroyer to boost the single engine fighters against the thousands of LW bombers.
    Last edited by Draco; 15 Jun 15, 18:08.

    Leave a comment:


  • Draco
    replied
    Originally posted by Doveton Sturdee View Post
    Because it is infinitely superior to the Defiant, Battle and Whirlwind and much easier to design, produce (in Britain and abroad), maintain and train crews than 3 aberrations.

    As no design work was ever started (or, indeed, even contemplated, to the best of my knowledge) how do you know what it would have been superior to, or easier to maintain, than? Furthermore, do you really think it would have been a good idea to have disrupted Hurricane production in so cavalier a manner?

    Sorry, of course you do. The realities of the time are totally lost on you, as usual.
    Hurricane production is not disrupted at all, the engines and props come from the Defiant and Battle and the Twinhurry is produced by Westland (which makes a lot more money producing thousands of planes for years than just 111 Whirlwinds), Fairey and Boulton Paul (instead of spewing garbage which kills hundreds of British aviators, they make money producing the best bomber destroyer and light bomber in the world).

    The plane has a similar structure and design to that of the Hurricane, simply a slightly larger wing and tail and a sturdier landing gear (much lighter than that of the Beaufighter), so it is as easy to repair as a Hurricane (easier than a Spitfire). The simple wing desing makes it much easeier to produce than the most complicated oval wing of the Spitfire.

    You see, anybody with a little common sense (no super computer or PhD required)can tell You that if one uses twice the thrust of a Hurricane (and without torque) and a slightly larger wing and the same crew and a similar fuselage, one gets a plane with higher speed and rate of climb. The fuselage and wing are as easy to build as a Hurricane's, only the extra engine and the nacelles increase cost and difficulty. However, it is obvioulsy easier to produce 1,000 identical planes than 3,200 planes in 3 completely different models, with 2 different engines and 3 different wings, fuselages, turrets, canopies, etc, It is much easier to make 1,000 Hurricane canopies for the Twinhurries than just the 2,000 triple canopies of the lousy Battles or the thousand canopies and 4 gun turrets of the Defiant.

    Anybody can also tell You that if one takes a plane with a narrower, lighter fuselage than the Beaufighter or Mossie, a reduced fuel capacity and bomb load, a lighter landing gear, a crew of one and a 400 ft2 wing (instead of the 454 ft2 of the Mossie or 503ft2 of the Beau), one gest a higher speed and rate of climb, an ideal bomber destroyer and light bomber which can easily escape the Bf-109.

    Common sense allows accurate predictions before one even builds a prototype or gets a PhD in aerodynamics. On the other hand, complete lack thereof can lead to wasting considerable design talent, production capacity, excellent engines and props, aviators' lives, thousands of discarded planes and sequential loss of valuable allies to an ever stronger enemy.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X