# Fast bomber for USAAC: how would've you done it?



## tomo pauk (Sep 18, 2011)

...or faster than real ones anyway 

Please toss in you proposals, for a light/medium/heavy bomber that could be conceived between 1939-1942(from proposal to deployment; 1941 as a deadline is fine also, if judged posible), using engines armament (if any?) available for USAAC back then.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 18, 2011)

I think the A-26 was the apex of what a two engine medium bomber should have been. 

In a nod tot he 5th AF, I would have placed the cockpit further forward (through a fuselage plug) for improved visibility.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 18, 2011)

A 2 seat unarmed bomber using the wings and engines of the P 38. A US Mosquito equivalent with a similar sized internal bomb bay.


----------



## BombTaxi (Sep 18, 2011)

The 'Mosquito' equivalent would be the best route - but I can't see the US going for that kind of machine, as they placed an emphasis on bombers with substantial defensive armament providing mutual support through close formations and heavy firepower. Also, the P-38 could only lift 2000lb, IIRC. If you add a larger airframe and another crew member, then increase the bombload to the Mossies 4000lb, you will lose so much performance that you're going to need guns, IMHO


----------



## davparlr (Sep 18, 2011)

I love the Mosquito, but I don't think the US has the engines to pull it off. Also, the wood would be problematic for deployment maintenance. 

A-20 was a bit too slow and the A-26 would have been a problem for the R-2800 engine, especially since it would now be used for a light weight fighter!

Okay, how about this for out of the box thinking. I'd build an XB-42 with two turbo-supercharged V-1710-27/-29 engines. I would have to ponder speed vs. range/payload trade-offs.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 18, 2011)

The A-26 used the R2800. Did you mean a different engine?


----------



## wuzak (Sep 18, 2011)

I believe he is saying that with Tomo's lightweight R-2800 fighter coming on-stream at about the same time the supply of R-2800s is going to be stretched thin, and could cause problems for the production of the A-26.

Which, I suppose, could be solved by dumping the B-26 in favour of the B-25, thus freeing up the R-2800 for the A-26.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 18, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> ...or faster than real ones anyway
> 
> Please toss in you proposals, for a light/medium/heavy bomber that could be conceived between 1939-1942(from proposal to deployment; 1941 as a deadline is fine also, if judged posible), using engines armament (if any?) available for USAAC back then.



What is meant by conceived? As in drew up a proposal and submitted it to the USAAC/F for their perusal? Or do you mean it gets through the process to the construction of a prototype, or even to production?

This what-if has a few timeline issues.
a) If it is merely conceived by 1942 then it is unlikely to get into volume production by war's end. The A-26 prototype construction was authorised in mid 1941, flying in mid 1942 and seeing combat in mid 1944. The project could suffer serious delays due to priority for production of existing typres.

b) Anything conceived before mid 1943 will not benefit from the realisation that the self defending bomber is a myth. Thus the AAC is unlikely to approve a lightly defended bomber. At best you will get approval for a replacement/supplement to the A-20/B-25/B-26 bombers - as was the case with the A-26. 

c) Anything conceived before 1941 will not benefit from the demonstration of the Mosquito's performance. Unless the designer got his/her hands on the 1937 memorandum by George Volkert (Handley Page's chief designer), _A Memorandum on Bombing Policy and its Influence on design_, which proposed a high speed unarmed bomber as being a better solution than a heavily defended bomber. Volkert's hypothetical design, drawn to specification P.13/36 (which produced the Manchester and Halifax), had an estimated top speed of 380mph on 2 x 2000hp Vultures with a normal bomb load of 3000lb and a maximum of 7000lb. That sort of bomb load would make the USAAC/F brass happier than the Mossie's original 1000lb bomb load. You'd still have to get it past the bomber barons, though.


I suppose that the B-17 as originally conceived was a fast bomber, the prototype being faster than any of the USAAC's persuits at the time.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 18, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> A 2 seat unarmed bomber using the wings and engines of the P 38. A US Mosquito equivalent with a similar sized internal bomb bay.



Maybe better based on the P-61?

Use turbocharged R-2800s, which weren't used on P-61s until the post WW2 P-61C, ditch the turret and belly guns, maybe use the one piece canopy from the P-61E/F-15 Reporter, equip the backseater with a telescopic bomb sight (so he doesn't have to be in the nose). Bomb bay could go under the fuselage where the 4 x 20mm cannons were, with additional stores/fuel tanks on underwing pylons. Maybe have to move cockpit forward to allow for the bomb bay, or shorten the cockpit area. 

The night fighter version could use the same canopy, with the radar in the nose and 4 x 20s in the belly. The bomber version may have room for some guns in the nose - maybe 4 x 0.50s?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8DAL7gPYBiM/TQRGgubjqNI/AAAAAAAAAp8/m9pxotVML-Q/s1600/F15_Reporter.jpg
http://i792.photobucket.com/albums/yy210/Ryan_Crierie/Northrop_F-15_Reporter_10.jpg
http://airspot.ru/catalogue_image/filename/5412/thumb/p61e-i.jpg
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs47/i/2009/196/e/4/F_15A_Reporter_Lineart_by_talos56.jpg

Still not going to get this before mid 1944.


----------



## davebender (Sep 18, 2011)

The A26 entered service during mid 1944 with a max speed of about 355mph. 1,400 mile range with 2,000lb internal bomb load. IMO that's not terribly impressive for a late war medium bomber. It was no faster then the B29 heavy bomber which entered service about the same time. 

Ju-288A. 416mph max speed. 2,237 miles with 3,000kg internal bomb load. 
IMO something like this should be the objective. Very fast, excellent range and decent internal bomb load. Did the U.S. produce a prototype of anything similiar? Perhaps it could be powered by a pair of 2,500hp Packard built Napier Sabre engines.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 18, 2011)

btw, the USAAC/F saw the DB-7/A-20 as being too lightly armoured. For its day it was a reasonably high performance bomber.

Engine wise, in the time period I don't think there is any other option for the US than the R-2800. There were a lot of experimental 2000hp+ motors, but the R-2800 was the only one going to be available in the required time frame. I suppose the R-3350 could also be considered, but it was a bit behind the R-2800 in development.

The other realsitic alternative was the V-3420, which was developed using V-1710 parts. If it was required for a high speed bomber then maybe its development would have received a higher priority earlier.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 18, 2011)

davebender said:


> The A26 entered service during mid 1944 with a max speed of about 355mph. 1,400 mile range with 2,000lb internal bomb load. IMO that's not terribly impressive for a late war medium bomber. It was no faster then the B29 heavy bomber which entered service about the same time.
> 
> Ju-288A. 416mph max speed. 2,237 miles with 3,000kg internal bomb load.
> IMO something like this should be the objective. Very fast, excellent range and decent internal bomb load. Did the U.S. produce a prototype of anything similiar? Perhaps it could be powered by a pair of 2,500hp Packard built Napier Sabre engines.



Douglas A-26 Invader - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia has the internal load as 4000lb with 2000lb external load possible. The internal load is probably due to space restrictions. Lose the defensive armament, fit high altitude versions of the engine, such as the R-2800-8 used in the F4U-1, F6F and P-61A/B and the performace would no doubt improve.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 18, 2011)

davebender said:


> The A26 entered service during mid 1944 with a max speed of about 355mph. 1,400 mile range with 2,000lb internal bomb load. IMO that's not terribly impressive for a late war medium bomber. It was no faster then the B29 heavy bomber which entered service about the same time.



True but it was certainly much more reliable than the 1944 B-29, much less likely to set itself on fire. What was the range with a 4000lb internal bomb load? 


davebender said:


> Ju-288A. 416mph max speed. 2,237 miles with 3,000kg internal bomb load.


 At least the B-26 could actually meet the performance numbers given for it, Not the numbers given in the manufacturers advertising literature before the plane flew. 


davebender said:


> IMO something like this should be the objective. Very fast, excellent range and decent internal bomb load. Did the U.S. produce a prototype of anything similiar? Perhaps it could be powered by a pair of 2,500hp Packard built Napier Sabre engines.



400mph, 3 tons of bombs and almost intercontinental range are fine goals for a medium bomber. They just took a while to achieve.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 18, 2011)

If the dead line is Jan 1942 for squadron service for actual operational use in the Spring/summer of 1942 the US has a choice of three engines. the Wright R-2600, the P&W R-2800 and the Allison V-1710. 

If we are talking about a light/medium bomber then choices are going to start falling to sort of a cross between an A-20 and B-25 using the R-2600. The A-20 couldn't carry enough fuel to be as useful as a slightly bigger plane and cutting one crew member and a few .30cal guns isn't going to provide it. That leaves a cut down B-25 type. The Early ones without power turrets could hit 322mph. Cutting crew means less armor needed and cutting the few hand aimed defensive guns means a bit more weight saving but we are talking in the range of 1,000-2,000lbs here. A bit smaller wing but if you want 4000lbs of bombs and over 700 gallons of fuel (4200lbs) you can't go too small on the wing without winding up with a slightly smaller B-26.

The B-26 could carry 962 gallons of fuel not including bomb bay tanks. And it needed them. From Joe B's web site. "Range 1150 miles at 214 mph with 3000 lbs of bombs and 962 gallons of fuel".

If you want speed you are going to need even more fuel. Granted you can ditch a few crew members and those .50 cal guns and a smaller fuselage will help a bit but those big radials have a lot of drag. 

A cross channel dash is one thing but South Pacific distances are another. 

Carrying 4,000lbs 2-300 miles at 300mph might be doable. Carrying 4,000lbs 1000miles at 300mph may not be.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 18, 2011)

What about a 4 x turbo V-1710 aircraft, smaller than a B-17, but larger than one of the mid-sized bombers, no turrets or gunners, close attention to drag reduction?

Or, perhaps, the same 4 x V-1710s, but with pairs installed in a single nacelle on each wing. Each of the V-1710s drives its own 3 blade prop, in a contraprop arrangement. The V-1710s monted close together, almost like a V-3420.


----------



## riacrato (Sep 19, 2011)

1. P-38 with redesigned cockpit section accomodating a bombardier, and 1000 lbs internal. Gun armament reduced to a pair of M2s. Should still go ~600-620 km/h top at fth where fighter defense is not much faster if at all.

Not great but feasible and relatively easy to do.

2. DB-7B without defensive turret and ventral gun.


----------



## davebender (Sep 19, 2011)

If we are talking about 1939 to 1942 then 2,500hp engines are out of the question.

Operational altitude will be 10,000 feet. Low enough to bomb accurately yet above effective range of light flak. 

Nothing requires a fast bomber to have only 2 engines. Build the most aerodynamic airframe possible powered by 4 of the most powerful liquid cooled engines available (they have less frontal area then radial engines). Personally I'd use Packard built Merlin engines. However Allison engines should work also. In any case they will have reliable single stage superchargers. No need for turbochargers or two stage superchargers at 10,000 feet.

Internal fuel adequate for a combat radius of 600 miles while carrying a 3 ton internal bomb load. Wing mounted drop tanks might extend the combat radius further. 

No manned gun turrets. A pair of streamlined remote control barbettes similiar to those on the Me-410 cover the vulnerable tail area. Other then that, speed and maneuverability are the only defense. Two man crew (pilot plus navigator / bombardier). The navigator doubles as gunner for the remote weapon barbettes. 

With a crew this small they can be enclosed in an armored cocoon. A crew this small is also more expendable then a 10 man B17 aircrew. 

Fuel tanks are to be self sealing. Remainder of the aircraft would be unprotected. This bomber will fly easily on 3 engines if one gets shot out. A nice feature for a combat aircraft.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 19, 2011)

A bit out of left field, but what if the US tried to marry its higher powered engines to a foreign designed airframe. As an example, consider the aerodynamically clean French Bre 482. The protype flown in 1940 had the following characteristics

Breguet 482 B4 

Type: Heavy bomber 
Overall Height: 2 
Crew: 4 
Engine: 4 HS 12Z, each rated at 1350 hp 
Fuel tank 
Empty weight: 10,450 kg 
Maximum takeoff weight: 14,010 kg 
Wingspan: 24.09 m 
Length: 18.87 m 
Height: 5.6 m 
Max. speed: 560 km / h 8000 m 
Ceiling: 12,000 m 
Range: 1200 km 
Armament: 2500 kg bombs, machine gun 3 mobile, 1 mobile gun


What would have happened to an airframe like this, if it had been adapted to four engines of around 2000HP. 560 KMH is around 350 MPH. 

Some images of the prototype.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 19, 2011)

davebender said:


> If we are talking about 1939 to 1942 then 2,500hp engines are out of the question.
> 
> Operational altitude will be 10,000 feet. Low enough to bomb accurately yet above effective range of light flak.
> 
> ...



I still don't think that 10,000ft was enough. The Manchester operated at 10,000ft often (was it because of bomb load, or the single engine operation height - I can't recall).

2000hp liquid cooled engines weren't exactly falling off the production line at the time. For Merlins and V-1710s you have to wait until late 1943/early 1944 before that is even possible. SO then you are left with the Vulture - which is about to be cancelled, the Sabre - which is far from ready, and the V-3420 which is either on again or off again depending which month you choose. Packard Merlins aren't in great supply at the time either.

I think you need 3 crew if a defensive gun, even if remote, was required. Simply because one of the most vulnerable of times was on the bom approach, where both the pilot and bomb aimer/navigtor would be fully occupied. Having a thrid crew to aim the gun on a bombing approach would be much appreciated, I'm sure.

When were reliable remote targeted barbettes possible?

I think the later Republic Rainbow showed how sleek a 4 engined aircraft could be. Make it a bit smaller, and use turbocharged V-1710s. The performance should be quite acceptable by 1942 standards.

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/republic.jpg
http://fsaircraft.net/sites/default/files/models/rbw.jpg?1298020975


----------



## Mustang nut (Sep 19, 2011)

davebender said:


> Nothing requires a fast bomber to have only 2 engines. Build the most aerodynamic airframe possible powered by 4 of the most powerful liquid cooled engines available (they have less frontal area then radial engines). Personally I'd use Packard built Merlin engines. However Allison engines should work also. In any case they will have reliable single stage superchargers. No need for turbochargers or two stage superchargers at 10,000 feet.
> No manned gun turrets. A pair of streamlined remote control barbettes similiar to those on the Me-410 cover the vulnerable tail area. Other then that, speed and maneuverability are the only defense. Two man crew (pilot plus navigator / bombardier). The navigator doubles as gunner for the remote weapon barbettes.
> 
> With a crew this small they can be enclosed in an armored cocoon. A crew this small is also more expendable then a 10 man B17 aircrew.



Dave that is starting to sound like a lancaster with the turrets removed, there was a proposal to do that but some objected on "morale" grounds. They speculated that taking the guns ammo and turrets out would give an extra 50 MPH. The lanc with no turrets and bomb load was quite an agile plane.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 19, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> Dave that is starting to sound like a lancaster with the turrets removed, there was a proposal to do that but some objected on "morale" grounds. They speculated that taking the guns ammo and turrets out would give an extra 50 MPH. The lanc with no turrets and bomb load was quite an agile plane.



Imagine that the airframe was better streamlined to take advantage of fewer sticking out bits, the lower weight and the lower required bomb load - 3000kg = 6600lb vs Lanc's 14,000lb bomb load.


----------



## Mustang nut (Sep 19, 2011)

wuzak said:


> Imagine that the airframe was better streamlined to take advantage of fewer sticking out bits, the lower weight and the lower required bomb load - 3000kg = 6600lb vs Lanc's 14,000lb bomb load.



With hindsight it was probably a better idea but at the time the obsession was with higher payload and defensive armament even though the gunners were told not to fire in most cases. If the lanc did go 50MPH faster it would have cut down losses quite a bit. If it was designed from the start to be like the mosquito it would have been considerably faster taking many LW night fighters out of the "game".


----------



## davebender (Sep 19, 2011)

How about the Dornier approach? They scaled up the Do-17 to produce the larger Do-217. The resulting bomber worked just fine even though the Luftwaffe treated the program like an unloved step child. 

The de Havilland Mosquito had excellent high speed aerodynamics but was a bit small for a serious bomber. Can it be scaled up about 50% larger and powered by four V12 engines? It would be made of aluminum as the USA was not short of that material. This would be a fairly large aircraft so I think remote control barbettes to protect the tail are still a good idea. Otherwise it's basically a large, 4 engine Mosquito.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 19, 2011)

It's funny you should mention Dornier actually, if we're after a particularly high speed design, what about something along the lines of the Do-335? High power with low drag and I don't really see any practical problems with implementing the concept in an earlier time frame, pusher props were nothing new. It does perhaps limit space for bombs and fuel in the fuselage but is an interesting approach.


----------



## davebender (Sep 19, 2011)

Very fast. In fact the 413mph sustained speed makes the Do-335 almost impossible to intercept without jet aircraft. Good combat radius too. 

However the Do-335 weapons bay held only a 1,000kg payload. Dornier didn't patent the Do-335 tandem engine arrangement until August 1937 so I wouldn't assume it could be easily duplicated by another aircraft manufacturer.

An interesting idea but IMO the more conventional Mosquito design would be a better starting point for Britain or the USA.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 19, 2011)

davebender said:


> Very fast. In fact the 413mph sustained speed makes the Do-335 almost impossible to intercept without jet aircraft. Good combat radius too.
> 
> However the Do-335 weapons bay held only a 1,000kg payload. Dornier didn't patent the Do-335 tandem engine arrangement until August 1937 so I wouldn't assume it could be easily duplicated by another aircraft manufacturer.
> 
> An interesting idea but IMO the more conventional Mosquito design would be a better starting point for Britain or the USA.



Push-pull a/c were being flown in WW1, so it would be Dornier duplicating the engine arrangement.


----------



## davebender (Sep 19, 2011)

I agree. However they were primitive compared to the Do-335. Otherwise Dornier would not have filed patent number 728044 on August 3rd, 1937.

Let's use a WWI era technology example. 
The Haber Process was patented by BASF a few years prior to WWI. The scientific principles were public knowledge after being published in various scientific journals. Yet both Britain and the USA failed in attempts to duplicate the Haber Process on an industrial scale. Britain had to purchase an oil to synthetic ammonia plant from the Dutch. It was hastily (and secretly) shipped from Rotterdam to England during 1915. After reassembling the plant British engineers used it as a template to build a second plant. I suspect American engineers also used it as a template for the synthetic ammonia plant built in Texas.

It's entirely possible that American aviation engineers will be able to make the tandem engine arrangement work in a WWII era fighter-bomber. It's also entirely possible they will fail as happened when attempting to duplicate the Haber Process. Not to mention the Hs.404 20mm cannon and MG42 machinegun. Cutting edge technology is tricky stuff.

IMO building a larger Mosquito is a better bet as the U.S. Army Air Corps would have de Havilland engineers to assist. And a super size Mosquito should fill the fast bomber requirement just fine.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 19, 2011)

The Savoia-Marchetti S.65 first flew in 1929, some 8 years before Dornier took our his patent.

from 1917, some 20 years before Dornier took out his patent.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 19, 2011)

The British probably didn't put a lot of effort into perfecfing the Haber process, they didn't need it. They could get all the nitrates they needed for explosives from Chile, they owned most of the nitrate mines there.

Plenty of other aircraft used the push-pull arrangement besides Dornier, the Fokker DXXIII, Tupolev made several different push-pull, designs, so did Latecoere, Loire, Savoia- Marchetti, Handly Page, Hall, there's a long list of push pull designs out there. But only Dornier perfected it ?? I think not .


----------



## Trebor (Sep 19, 2011)

the lockheed XB-30 Constellation


----------



## wuzak (Sep 19, 2011)

What about something along the lines of the Martin XB-33A?

Martin XB-33 Super Marauder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:Xb33-2.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But with R-2800s and turbos instead of R-2600s. Or V-1650-3s? Or Turbo V-1710s.

Again, lose some of the defensive armament, drop the maximum bomb load down to 6000-800lb instead of 12,000lb. Reduce the size of the aircraft as much as possible, crew to 3 or 4.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 19, 2011)

A couple of nearly there:

North American XB-28 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Martin XB-27 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## davebender (Sep 20, 2011)

Off topic. But IMO interesting enough to present anyway...
Frontline and factory: comparative ... - Google Books

Aug 1914. 
WWI begins.

Dec 1914. 
Britain and France belatedly realize there's more to making explosives and smokeless powder then just importing bird droppings from Chile. Prior to WWI they had largely depended upon chemical feedstock imported from Germany and the Netherlands.

30 Jan 1915. 
Borneo petrol refinery transported from Rotterdam to Britain.

3 Apr 1915.
The Borneo petrol refinery has been reassembled and placed into operation at Portishead. Apparently operation of the plant continued under the control of Dutch engineers. This refinery provided chemical feedstock crucial for making toluene.

Two plants for the production of toluene were constructed using Dutch expertise.
Oldbury plant. 450 tons per week.
Sandycroft. 700 tons per week.

An American explosives engineer (Kenneth Quinan) built a TNT factory at Oldbury. It used toulene produced at the Oldbury and Sandycroft plants.

Experience gained allowed the construction of other plants and refineries crucial to the production of high explosives.

The Land War:* 1914
5,000 tons. 1914 British powder and explosives production. 14,400 tons produced by Germany.
24,000 tons. 1915 British powder and explosives production. 72,000 tons produced by Germany.
76,000 tons. 1916 British powder and explosives production. 120,000 tons produced by Germany.
186,000 tons. 1917 British powder and explosives production. 144,000 tons produced by Germany.

Britain supplied explosives to other Entente nations just as Germany supplied explosives to other members of the Central Powers. For example, 62% of Russian smokeless powder and artillery propellent were imported. 1914 Russia had the largest army in the world, which gives a pretty good idea as to the enormous size of ammunition requirements. Something like two thirds of total British small arms ammunition production went to Russia. Britain also had to supply France with explosives and explosive feedstock for a couple years. Most of the pre-war French capacity to produce toluene was located in Lille, which was captured by Germany during August 1914.

Economics wins battles. 
Russia almost went under during 1915 because Germany had a huge firepower advantage. The Russian Army had artillery pieces but not much ammunition. 

The 1916 Russian Brusilov Offensive almost succeeded for the same reason. Most of the Austrian ammunition stockpile went to their May 1916 offensive against Italy. Meanwhile most of the Russian ammunition stockpile went to General Brusilov and Germany was shooting most of what they produced at Verdun. Consequently General Brusilov had at least a 5 to 1 advantage in artillery ammunition. Historical Austrian Army reports are full of comments about the shortage of artillery ammunition necessary to defeat Russian offensive preparations. Habsburg defenses didn't stiffen until Austria and Germany began shifting large quantities of ammunition to the Russian front.

Now back to that fast bomber discussion...


----------



## davparlr (Sep 20, 2011)

I still like a XB-42 type bomber

Performance of the XB-42 according to Wikipedia
•	Empty weight: 20,888 lb (9,475 kg)
•	Max takeoff weight: 35,702 lb (16,194 kg)
•	Powerplant: 2 × Allison V-1710-125 V12 engines, 1,325 hp (988 kW each) each
Performance
•	Maximum speed: 410 mph (357 knots, 660 km/h) at 23,440 ft (7,145 m), 344 mph at SL (separate reference)
•	Cruise speed: 312 mph
•	Range: 1,800 mi (1,565 nmi, 2,895 km)
•	Ferry range: 5,400 mi (4,696 nmi (8,690 km))
•	Service ceiling: 29,400 ft (8,960 m)

According to my reference book, the 1800 mi range was with 8000 lb bomb load.

The amount of power used to generate these numbers is confusing. The V-1710-125 generated 1800 hp in WEP, are these values based on WEP? Unknown. However, NACA reports the XB-42 was powered by V-1710-93 engines (used in the P-63) generating 1325 hp, (1150 at 22k).

There are some comparisons with other aircraft available. The XB-42 based bomber is aerodynamically cleaner than the P-38 or Mosquito. The most important of these is a significant reduction in interference drag. Effectively, both the P-38 and Mosquito have three fuselages, interfacing with the wing in six places. The XB-42 has only one, interfacing in two. In addition, the propulsion design is more efficient than either aircraft. Both the use of pusher propellers and counter rotating propellers improve propulsion performance, so the XB-42 will get more out of each hp than the P-38 or Mosquito.
Using the P-38F turbocharged engine, the V-1710-49/53, it is reasonable to assume the performance of the XB-42 based bomber is closer to P-38 than the Mosquito. This is projected 1942 performance based on P-38F and XB-42 data.

•	Empty weight 20,000
•	Max takeoff weight 37,000
•	Power plant 2 x V-1710-49/53 1325 hp at take off, 1150 hp at 25,000 ft.
•	Max speed 380-390 mph at 27,000 ft, 310 mph at SL
•	Cruise speed 312 mph
•	Range w/bomb load 1800 mi.
•	Bomb load 8000 lb

This is a significant performance improvement over contemporary bombers, besting range and payload of the Mosquito by quite a lot and a large improvement over the B-17/24. High speed cruise reduces exposure to enemy action and high dash speed would make a very difficult aircraft to intercept.

The biggest risk is thermal dynamics. Aircraft designers during the war fought continuous battles with overheating engines and placing two engines in one fuselage significantly adds to that problem, but the design issue is not insurmountable. Gear box should be no problem in that two engines drive separate propellers. The separate controls of the pitch of the two propellers could be a problem. Otherwise, there should not be any issues with the aircraft that could not be reasonably dealt with using 1941 technology.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 20, 2011)

The XB-28 seems amost on the money here, in service in mid 1943 perhaps? Mixmaster is also neat.

The lightened B-26 (crew of 3-4, perhaps only 1 defensive HMG?), with two-stage R-2800 maybe also sounds nice.

The smallest still usable plane could've been the (non-turbo?) P-38, with 'Droop snoot' nose. Optionally a couple of HMGs in a gun pack just aft the nose wheel bay, with engines allowed for WEP in 1943 (1300+ HP in low alt)?

On the heavy side, a plane using B-24 wing, but somewhat thinner hull, 4 x turbo V-1710s, 4-5 crew members. Even better for RAF use?


----------



## johnbr (Sep 20, 2011)

The B29 with 4 Sabre v1 and 2stage supercharger and turbo chargers.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 21, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> The XB-28 seems amost on the money here, in service in mid 1943 perhaps? Mixmaster is also neat.
> 
> The lightened B-26 (crew of 3-4, perhaps only 1 defensive HMG?), with two-stage R-2800 maybe also sounds nice.
> 
> ...


 
Although the highest risk, I don't think any of the above have the greatest potential of performance as the mixmaster, think Mosquito with better range and twice the payload.


----------



## davebender (Sep 21, 2011)

That might be the best bet as a historical U.S. prototype for the aircraft actually existed. No need to guess on non-historical designs or copying a foreign design and getting it right.


----------



## post76 (Sep 21, 2011)

Something similar to an F-82, but instead use the fuselage of the P-47. Drop the turbo for two-stage super chargers to save weight for bomb load.
It also opens up room to expand the cockpit for dual rear facing gunners. No torrent, but a maybe a pair of rear facing 50's in each cockpit. Give them the capacity to swivel 180 degrees to the rear. 
You'd have a total of 4 crewmen. 2 rear facing gunners, pilot and bombardier/co-pilot. 
Might carry a top speed closer to 400mph around mid 20,000ft range, and hopefully have the capacity to carry 3-4000lb bomb load.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 21, 2011)

Proposed here (with sketch), though without rear gunners:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/twin-hull-planes-23751-4.html


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 21, 2011)

The problem with trying to use twin fuselage fighters as bombers is that carrying stores underwing (or under fuselage/s) is a high drag way carrying them. Using the same engines a plane with a bigger fuselage, carrying the same bomb load inside will fly faster on the same power while loaded than the smaller plane carrying the load outside. Once the load is dropped the smaller plane will be faster. Faster also means that for the same power and fuel burned the bigger plane will actually go farther (more range). Depending on range desired and fuel needed the bigger plane may be the only way to go. Early A-20s carried 540 gal inside and later ones carried 725 gals, without bomb bay tanks. B-25s carried 692 gallons on early ones (or all?), B-26s carried 942 gallons and the A-26 could hold up to 1600 gallons in internal tanks. Some of these planes had the ability to swap part of the bomb load for bomb bay tanks which would have little or no effect on cruising speeds or dash speeds at the same weight. Hanging multiple fuel tanks and bombs under a "twin" fighter was going to result in a slow airplane while loaded. For instance a 'clean" Mustang could cruise at 15,000ft at 373mph using 90gph, while adding two 500lb bombs meant the plane cruised at 343mph while using 97 gph. adding six rockets was like using airbrakes, for the same 97gph the speed fell to 314mph at 15,000ft. Of course other altitudes and speeds could be used but you get the idea. For short range a "twin" fighter can carry a pretty good load but if you want to go far and go fast you are better off with a bigger fuselage and putting the bombs inside.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 22, 2011)

> The problem with trying to use twin fuselage fighters as bombers is that carrying stores underwing (or under fuselage/s) is a high drag way carrying them.



The most fuel efficient bomber would've been that (X)B-42 - single hull doing all the stuff. After that, we have Mosquito-like bombers.

We can also take a look at real bombers produced in WW2:
-Ju-88 He-111: bombs bigger than 100-250 kg were carried outside the bomb bay
-A-20, B-25, B-26: two radials plus a hull 
No advantage over twin that carries bombs externally?

The twin P-47, non-turbo, can have two bomb bays, each slightly smaller than perhaps Avenger had?



> Depending on range desired and fuel needed the bigger plane may be the only way to go. Early A-20s carried 540 gal inside and later ones carried 725 gals, without bomb bay tanks. B-25s carried 692 gallons on early ones (or all?), B-26s carried 942 gallons and the A-26 could hold up to 1600 gallons in internal tanks. Some of these planes had the ability to swap part of the bomb load for bomb bay tanks which would have little or no effect on cruising speeds or dash speeds at the same weight.



Twin P-47: 600-740 gals internally; that's without cramming fuel into outer wings (permanent fuel tanks) 'bomb bay'.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2011)

A B-26 could carry two 2000lbs internally. B-25s and B-26s could carry at least six 500lb bombs internally. In fact later B-25s could carry six 1000lbs bombsof a certain type internally for short distances. 

A B-26A could fly 1000 miles at 265 mph while carrying 3000lbs of bombs. A P-47 can't fly 900 miles clean at 12,000ft at 250mph. 

A B-26B could fly 1020 miles at 15,000ft at 247mph on 900 gallons at a gross weight of 30-33,000lbs.
A P-47C could fly 880 miles at 12,000ft at 248mph on 265 gallons at a gross weight of 11-13,500lbs 

Fuel loads given allow for warming up and taking off but no reserve. 

Cutting hole in P-47 fuselages mean putting in reinforcements around the holes, putting in door actuators and so on. The more stuff that has to be modified the less commpnatitaly reamins and while it may "look like" a twin P-47 the differences start opile up to where you aren't really saving any thing. 

Just because the Germans couldn't figure out how to put a decent bomb bay in plane doesn't mean that nobody could. 

Down load. http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/at...ots-manual-naa-b-25h-erection-maintenance.pdf


And go to page 573 for an idea of what a real bomb bay could offer for different missions.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 24, 2011)

You do have a point here, so I'd like to scratch all that bomb bay mess and just go with recesses instead.
Having another, say, 2 x 75 gals (in outer wings) would've been nice thing to boost fuel quantity (2 x 305 gals + 2 x 75 gals = 760 gals).

Back to the XB-42, perhaps that was the best airframe to install early Packard Merlins (1-stage)? With proper use of exhaust thrust the total thrust is on par with 1325 HP turbo V-1710s (up to 15-20kft?; mid '42-mid '43), while the engine installation is far less complex of lower weight? That's, of course, 'our' Mixmaster (B-42B; B-42A would be the one with V-1710s like P-40s were using) is built in such a time frame. 
A night fighter offspring too, maybe, with 2-stage Merlins (space permitting)?


----------



## davebender (Sep 24, 2011)

What's wrong with the bomb bays in purpose built German level bomber aircraft such as the Do-217, Ju-288, Fw-191 and He-177?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 24, 2011)

davebender said:


> What's wrong with the bomb bays in purpose built German level bomber aircraft such as the Do-217, Ju-288, Fw-191 and He-177?



Gee, I guess you got me Dave. Do-217 can carry eight 550lb bombs inside. in order to carry it's max internal bomb load of 5550lbs it needed to carry two 2205lb bombs and two 551lb bombs not ten 551s or 5 1102lbs bombs. Not bad for a medium bomber. 

Ju-288 carried what? we know what was intended but with 17 out of 22 built crashing in testing perhaps the less said the better?

The Fw-191? another "what if" plane. With an internal bomb load of eight 551lb or four 1102 bombs it sure doesn't impress me for 50,000lb + bomber. Overload condition called for two more 1102lb bombs OUTSIDE.

The He-177? getting there. Six 1102 bombs inside. It can carry a lot more weight but it can't carry more big bombs. Six seems to be the max for bombs bigger than 551lbs. Yes, it can carry 6 2205lb armor piercing bombs but a B-17 can carry eight 1600lb AP bombs inside and it's bomb bay was designed in 1934-35. Again I am left less than impressed by the German bomb bay.

One service bomber that was the equal of it's contemporaries?


----------



## davebender (Sep 24, 2011)

The Do-217E entered service during 1941. USA contemporary aircraft would be the B25C and B26A. All 3 aircraft are similiar in size (empty weight) and engine power. Each aircraft model has it's advantages and disadvantages. But I think the Do-217 compares nicely with the competition.


----------



## post76 (Sep 25, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> The most fuel efficient bomber would've been that (X)B-42 - single hull doing all the stuff. After that, we have Mosquito-like bombers.
> 
> We can also take a look at real bombers produced in WW2:
> -Ju-88 He-111: bombs bigger than 100-250 kg were carried outside the bomb bay
> ...


 
We can only speculate, but i wonder if two separate P-47s in bomber configuration wouldn't be equally as potent if not better than sending a larger target into battle. 
You would think that there should be a benefit beyond the capacity of using two separate planes, maybe even three. 
If using a twin P-47 only allows room for 500lbs more load, i'd say what's the point.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 25, 2011)

P-47s used as bombers have crap for range. If you can't reach the target to begin with every thing else is moot.


----------



## post76 (Sep 25, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> P-47s used as bombers have crap for range. If you can't reach the target to begin with every thing else is moot.


 


I think the issue was combat radius.
They made it to Germany and back. If they had to dogfight for 30 minutes they might be stretching it to get home.

If all they needed to do was fly and drop bombs and return, they could do that using a fast cruise.

Even so, would there be a benefit for range with twin engines?
and again, what benefit for load out?
Sort of a "what if" so i don't think there's a wrong answer.

It would be better to develope a high altitude Il-10. Maybe drop the armor for more load out. They might reach 400mph at altitude. 
The original was doing 340 at 8000ft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 25, 2011)

To get to Germany and back they used drop tanks on the way to Germany. Replacing the drop tanks with bombs means internal fuel or some combination of bombs and drop tanks. While some P-47s could get 2500lbs of bombs off the ground they weren't going very far. 

A 305 gallon P-47 had an operational radius of 125miles according to one chart. the 370 gallon P-47 went to 225miles. A Mustang with 184 gallons under the same conditions went 150 miles. All at 25,000ft. at 10,000ft the Mustang could make 200 miles but adding a pair of 500lb bombs reduce the radius to 175miles at 10,000ft. A P-47N with 564 gallons had a radius of 400 miles at 25,000ft. Adding a pair of 1000lbs bombs cut the radius to 300 miles at 25,000ft. 

Fighters can make a decent bomber substitute if you have lots of them and if the target is only a few hundred miles away (or less). 

We have all seen the Pictures of P-40s with bombs. The drop tank weighed 366lbs for fuel+tank. If you want a 500lb under the fuselage and anything under the wings AND stay under gross weight you have to leave out some .50 cal ammo or fuel or both. 

A P-47N with 2500-2800hp for take-off (with ADI) can get a lot more off the ground than a P-47C/D with 2000hp and a toothpick prop.


----------



## Readie (Sep 27, 2011)

Dornier Do 335 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a favourite of mine.(dont faint Chris) 
There were plans to make a light bomber. Apologies for wiki thread but, it gives the idea of this techinically innovative aircraft.

Cheers
John


----------



## parsifal (Sep 27, 2011)

I think the best, most cost effective alternative for the US would be to simply licence build the Mosquito or undertake derivative development at an accelarated rate leading to the improved Hornet. 

Someone said there was a shortage of wood to build these aircraft. I see two possible solutions to that, or more correctly two responses. the first is that I am unaware of any cutailment of Mosquito (or hornet) production due to a shortage of timber. There were vast areas of appropriate timber in 1940-45 suitable for use that remained untapped. 

A possible alternative might be to adapt the basic design to be constructed in metal. Might need new higher power engines, but this would be able to be accommodated IMO. 

Some criticism of the mosquito, or more correctly, airframes constructed in wood has been raised due to the "specialist" skills needed to use this material. Certainly wood working skills are not generally associated with the aero industry, but they are hardly any more specialised than those trades needed to work the special metals coming into general use in the '40s, like Duralumin. That, in fact, was one of the great attractions of the Mosquito...it could tap into a trades skill set not needed for other aircraft construction. You could basically use piano makers, cabinet makers, carpenters and similar tradespeople to work the material.

Some people have levelled criticism at the limited life of wooden airframes, particulalry in damp or tropical conditions. Certainly one would think that is the case. However the average lifespan of a Mustang airframe in 1944 was just 8 months, regardless of the combat attrition rate. Wartime airframes were flogged, and they just didnt last that long. Post war, the Hornets and Mosquitoes that were retained did not show any undue signs of fatigue or weather damage that I am aware of. RAAF Mosquitoes, built in 1945, were not retired until 1962, I believe the RNs Sea Hornets remained in frontline carrier based service through the 1950's. Hornets were also deployed to malaya for arduous frontline service...thats in 1957!!! So IMO, the specialist laminar construction bullet proofed these particular designs to rapid hull stress or deterioration due to weathering.

A few of the old timers that i trained under used to talk about repairs to these types of aircraft. Once the skillsets to undertake that work had been learned, repairs to damage were not an especially or unusual problem for them to handle. Anecdotal I know, but thats as good as I can provide.

Performance wise, a US derivative of the hornet, appearing say in 1943 with a 2000+HP could be expected to deliver the same, or similar performance to the Hornet, produced at wars end. Hornet was not prioritised in Britain, because the mosquito was so successful, but the US might want the added performance conferred on the hornet, by pouring greater resources into the program, so that the design and development could be worked out earlier. if they did, they could expect the following performance figures 

Performance (Hornet)

Maximum speed: 472 mph at 22,000 ft (760 km/h at 6,706 m)
Range: 3,000 mi (4,828 km)
Service ceiling: 33,000 ft (10,058 m)
Rate of climb: 4,000 ft/min (20.3 m/s)
Armament


4 × 20 mm (.79 in) Hispano Mk. V cannons (with 190 rpg) in lower fuselage nose
2 × 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs under wing, outboard of engines
8 × "60 lb" (27 kg) RP-3 unguided rockets
2 × Highball installation developed but not applied to fleet
Avionics
ASH radar fitted in Sea Hornet NF Mk 21.

With a clean top speed of 470mph, the type fully loaded is going to fly at around 370 mph at normal combat ranges. With a 3000 mile range, its combat radius (practical) will be about 1000 miles,more than enough to fly all the way to Berlin. At that speed, nothing in the german inventory in 1943 is going to catch them.....


----------



## wuzak (Sep 27, 2011)

Hornet was not a bomber, and I'm not sure it was big enough to carry two highballs.

A Mosquito made under licence in the US would have provided them with the fast bomber (if they needed it or knew they needed it) but not for a couple of years. When did Canadian Mossies first leave the production line - sometime in in 1943?


----------



## parsifal (Sep 27, 2011)

wuzak said:


> Hornet was not a bomber, and I'm not sure it was big enough to carry two highballs.
> 
> A Mosquito made under licence in the US would have provided them with the fast bomber (if they needed it or knew they needed it) but not for a couple of years. When did Canadian Mossies first leave the production line - sometime in in 1943?



It wasnt a bomber, it was a fighter bomber, able to carry 2000lbs of bombs. But I think it quite possible to convert it to a dedicated unarmed bomber, along the lines of a Mosquito BIv.

Mossies were re-engineered in that way, but in the reverse direction. They started out as a Recon aircraft, morphed to a bomber, then to a fighter, then back to a bomber, carrying a heavier bombload, and then back to a fighter......there is no reason why the hornet could not do the same. There might be one issue, the fuselage profile of the Hornet was slightly narrower and deeper, but surely this could be overcome. 

Canadian Mosquitoes began to roll off the lines from 1 june 1943, about 1 1/2 years after the Mosquito entered high volume production in the UK. I seem to remember the main problem was twofold....a shortage jigs to cut the templates, and a need to train the personnel on assembly and forming of the laminar building material. 

The hornet design spec was not issued until mid'43, and first flight was in 1944, so timing might be a bit of a problem. Some things would have to happen for this to come to fruition at a reasonable time. The design spec would need to be issued at least a year earlier, and the US would need to come into the program from the start. A suitable 2000 HP powerplant would need to be available from the end of 1942, and the new glues used in the hornet (Redux...a stronger version of the epoxy that had been used in the Mossie) would need to be developed slightly earlier than it was, as well as the technique of bonding wood to metal. All problems, that would need to be solved but are these insurmountable for the yanks to overcome. I dont know....on the one hand they have some amazing engineering and design capabilities....on the other ther is this innate aversion to laminar construction methods that might damn the development process. 

Early Hornet development is problematic, but if it were, it would have been a very potent addition to the US inventory....an interesting comparison to the F7f I guess. Perhaps a more realistic option would be simply to build the mosquito under licence, though the daydream of seeing Hornets in US service 1944-5 is appealing dont you think?


----------



## Lighthunmust (Sep 28, 2011)

Captain Eric Brown was apparently extremely impressed with the flight characteristics of the Hornet. I vote for a Mosquito/Hornet type craft. Considering the comparable bomb load, I wonder if all those 8th Air Force B-17s had been replaced by Mosquitos would less lives have been lost while accomplishing the same mission?


----------



## wuzak (Sep 28, 2011)

parsifal said:


> It wasnt a bomber, it was a fighter bomber, able to carry 2000lbs of bombs. But I think it quite possible to convert it to a dedicated unarmed bomber, along the lines of a Mosquito BIv.



The Hornet was a fighter which could be converted into a fighter bomber by fitting externally mounted bombs.

I don't think the fuselage is big enough for a bigger bomb bay, and if the fighter is modified to make it possible you'd end up with teh Mosquito anyway.




parsifal said:


> Mossies were re-engineered in that way, but in the reverse direction. They started out as a Recon aircraft, morphed to a bomber, then to a fighter, then back to a bomber, carrying a heavier bombload, and then back to a fighter......there is no reason why the hornet could not do the same. There might be one issue, the fuselage profile of the Hornet was slightly narrower and deeper, but surely this could be overcome.



The Mosquito was designed as an unarmed light bomber, with a bomb load of 1000lbs. At the time the prototype flew the MAP weren't completely sold on the idea of an unarmed bomber, but a high speed recce plane was required, and so that became the first priority. The MAP also wanted to see the Mossie as a long range day fighter, which would be the FII, which would later become the NFII when radar was added. The original production order of 50 had several changes of the mix of reconaissance, bomber and fighter versions. One of the FII prototypes was even fitted with a powered 4 gun turret (which wasn't, apparently, powerful enough to rotate the turret at speed). Another FII prototype was fitted with a mockup turret which had a number of positions teh mockup guns could be positioned.

The fighter bomber version came later, combining the cannon/mg armament of the FII and using the bomb bay area not taken up by the cannon.





parsifal said:


> Canadian Mosquitoes began to roll off the lines from 1 june 1943, about 1 1/2 years after the Mosquito entered high volume production in the UK. I seem to remember the main problem was twofold....a shortage jigs to cut the templates, and a need to train the personnel on assembly and forming of the laminar building material.



Expect a similar timeline for US built Mossies.





parsifal said:


> The hornet design spec was not issued until mid'43, and first flight was in 1944, so timing might be a bit of a problem. Some things would have to happen for this to come to fruition at a reasonable time. The design spec would need to be issued at least a year earlier, and the US would need to come into the program from the start. A suitable 2000 HP powerplant would need to be available from the end of 1942, and the new glues used in the hornet (Redux...a stronger version of the epoxy that had been used in the Mossie) would need to be developed slightly earlier than it was, as well as the technique of bonding wood to metal. All problems, that would need to be solved but are these insurmountable for the yanks to overcome. I dont know....on the one hand they have some amazing engineering and design capabilities....on the other ther is this innate aversion to laminar construction methods that might damn the development process.
> 
> Early Hornet development is problematic, but if it were, it would have been a very potent addition to the US inventory....an interesting comparison to the F7f I guess. Perhaps a more realistic option would be simply to build the mosquito under licence, though the daydream of seeing Hornets in US service 1944-5 is appealing dont you think?



I believe that de Havilland was working on the Hornet before the MAP issued the specification. The project was an on again/off again sort of project, as de Havilland failed to get a clear indication of the MAP's desire for such an aircraft. I believe a similar situation existed for the super Mossie - 430mph, 6000lb bomb load powered by two Sabres. Indecisiveness by the MAP may have also been a factor in the timing of the Vampire.

I genuinely believe the Hornet could have made WW2 had the MAP given de Havilland a clear indication that style of aircraft was very much wanted. 

I am also sure that if the USAAF wanted a Hornet style aircraft they could have come up with it on their own. After all, they had massive R-2800 production, Packard Merlins were rolling off the lines and Allison V-1710 production was ramping up. In terms of 2000hp engines the R-2800 woud have been available at that rating from 1942, the Merlin was cleared for 2000hp in the low level Mk66 with 150 grade fuel from 1944.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 28, 2011)

The problem is that the USAAC was not as interested in an ultra high lightweight bomber as perhaps they should have. They were very much wedded to the concept of the heavy lift bomb truck, whether that be in the category of light, medium or heavy bomber, and certainly were disinclined to anything made of wood. In each category of bomber (light/medium/heavy) speed was of less importance to strength and defence, along with bombload. The idea of a lightweight high speed unarmed light bombload bomber was never going to attract any interst in the US procurement machine.

In that sort of environment, a hornet/mosquito/any indigenous design similar was going to attract zero interest. The prejudices and preconceptions were just far too strong for an idea like that to have any hope


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 28, 2011)

The other problem you had in the US was what was actually possible for an airplane to do in the time period the US was looking at planes that would actually serve in the war. Given the both the Size of the US and distance from any likely enemy in 1938-39-40 one of the over riding requirements was range. For instance

"On March 11, 1939, the Air Corps issued Proposal No. 39-640 for the design of a medium bomber. According to the specification, a bombload of 3000 pounds was to be carried over a range of 2000 miles at a top speed of over 300 mph." 

This lead to the B-25 and B-26 bombers. Now look at it again, this is 6 months before WW II starts, it is about a month before the Air Corps even orders the first production P-40s. Of the three engines suggested in the proposal only one was actually flying at the time. Compared to a Bristol Blenheim they wanted 2-3 times the bomb load, 50% more range and a higher top speed. 

The first B-25s had nowhere near the armament of later ones, they were also much faster. The first B-25 had it's first flight Aug 19 1940. one week into the BoB. The early B-25s carried three .30 cal guns. one in the nose, one out the top (no turret) and one in the waist and a single .50 in the tail fired by a man laying prone. At the time (late 1939/early 1940) the plans for the Mosquito called for a 1000lb bomb load and a range of 1500 miles. At this point, before either flew, you would have needed 3 Mosquito to carry the same bomb load as 1 B-25. Good as the B-25 may have turned out to be the Mosquito was one of those rare planes that not only exceeded it's manufacturers expectations/calculations, it did so by a fair amount. This allowed for significant increases in payload before the plane went into service. As time went on RR increased the power of the engines considerable which only added to the capabilities of the Mosquito. The B-25 used pretty much the same power engines for the duration of the war which meant any increase in war load could only come at the expense of performance. It also meant that any increase in performance could only come at the expense of war load or redesign of the aircraft. 

I don't mean this to be a comparison of the B-25 vs the Mosquito, just trying to show that in 1939/40 what was though possible for performance in the near future (service bombers in 1942) was different than what was possible just a few years later and procurement decisions should be looked at that way. 
Perhaps the US should have traded either bomb load or range (or both) for more speed without guns. With engines available at the time (or in the foreseeable future) you weren't going to get bombload, range and speed even if you left a couple of crewmen and a few hand held guns behind.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 29, 2011)

What would have been needed would have been a fundamental change in tactical concepts. B-25s and B-26s were variations to a theme, that looked at the whole package....the americans wanted an aircraft with decent bombload, decent range, decent defences (armour added later) and thats exactly what they got. Nothing wrong with the philosophy...i happen to think the US mediums were the best in their class during the war.....but was a balanced allround design the way to go to producing the most survivable and effective bomber for the US. thats an open question. 

The Mosquito was being designed and developed at roughly the same time as the US mediums, but followed a fundamentally different path. As a bomber, it looked for the most aerodynamically clean design possible, and this worked hand in glove with the idea of dispensing with defensive armament, to maximise speed. Speed and agility were the mosquito bombers defence.

I do not believe that the US would ever have accepted a Mosquito style solution, but I do believe that it was technically feasible for them to do so. Instead of building the rather large, defended type like the B-25. that was not particulalry outstanding aerodynamically they would have needed to design a smaller, better shaped aircraft with a smaller bombload. i dont know if building in metal was better or worse in this scenario, but building in wood was a provenm possibility at least...just never considered by the US.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 5, 2011)

I do not think any of the above configurations offered near the performance potential as the XB-42 type pusher.
•	Empty weight 20,000
•	Max takeoff weight 37,000
•	Power plant 2 x V-1710-49/53 1325 hp at take off, 1150 hp at 25,000 ft.
•	Max speed 380-390 mph at 27,000 ft, 310 mph at SL
•	Cruise speed 312 mph
•	Range w/bomb load 1800 mi.
•	Bomb load 8000 lb
Built with basically off-shelf-technology, this plane, in 1942, would be faster than the Mosquito, carry a heavier load farther than a B-17E, and would be nearly or as fast as the Bf-109F/G and Fw-190A-3 at 27k. It certainly would have a formidable capability.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 5, 2011)

If you want 1710-49/53 on-board, those can make 1325 HP @ 25,000 ft @ MIL. Those being turbocharged, still think Packard Merlins would've been better choice.

Just wondering, how good would've been a single-engined pusher, with the biggest available radial mounted? That means 1700 HP in 1941, 1850 early in 1942, 2000 later in 1942 atc? Sorta child of Northrop Black Bullet and Douglas Mixmaster?


----------



## wuzak (Oct 5, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> If you want 1710-49/53 on-board, those can make 1325 HP @ 25,000 ft @ MIL. Those being turbocharged, still think Packard Merlins would've been better choice.
> 
> Just wondering, how good would've been a single-engined pusher, with the biggest available radial mounted? That means 1700 HP in 1941, 1850 early in 1942, 2000 later in 1942 atc? Sorta child of Northrop Black Bullet and Douglas Mixmaster?



I would think you would need two radials, unless you use an R-4360.

The Black Bullet performed way below expectations. Part of that was due to the engine installation. Not sure how two fat radials will fit inside the Mixmaster and get cooling air. Note that in the XP-56 the R-2800 had to be backwards in order to drive the pusher prop, and that P&W had to redo the cooling arrangements, as the air flow was back to front and had to use a fan. It also took some time for P&W to come up with the drive arrangement (probably because they were ever so slightly busy at the time).


----------



## wuzak (Oct 5, 2011)

davparlr said:


> I do not think any of the above configurations offered near the performance potential as the XB-42 type pusher.
> •	Empty weight 20,000
> •	Max takeoff weight 37,000
> •	Power plant 2 x V-1710-49/53 1325 hp at take off, 1150 hp at 25,000 ft.
> ...



That would make it about as fast as a Mosquito BIV, albeit with a larger load and longer range. But it is a substantially larger airframe.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 6, 2011)

wuzak said:


> I would think you would need two radials, unless you use an R-4360.
> 
> The Black Bullet performed way below expectations. Part of that was due to the engine installation. Not sure how two fat radials will fit inside the Mixmaster and get cooling air. Note that in the XP-56 the R-2800 had to be backwards in order to drive the pusher prop, and that P&W had to redo the cooling arrangements, as the air flow was back to front and had to use a fan. It also took some time for P&W to come up with the drive arrangement (probably because they were ever so slightly busy at the time).



But, I've specified 'one radial' 
Last time Black Bullet was discussed here, no cooling problems were mentioned - none were encountered, hence P&W and Northrop were doing a good job re. cooling? 

Anyway, a 2-man crew, hull akin to Avenger (TBM; crew in front, one behind another, bomb bay fuel tank at center, divided by wing spars, engine aft) wing of the size shape as Hellcat's (or P-47's wing look-alike, for really high speed) and here we go  

A light/attack bomber to complement the heavier ones.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 6, 2011)

In the XP-56 the airflow was back to front for the R-2800. The flow came in from the supercharger end of the engine and exited near the nose case. It could not be done with normal ram air (like on conventional aircraft) and required an engine driven fan to work. I can't recall if the XP-56 had issues with cooling, but the cooling flap exits, the wing/fuselage interface and the shape of the fuselage (because of the size of the radial engine and its closeness to the tail) were suspected of creatin turbulence in front of the prop, destroying the efficiency of the prop and reducing the top speed from the predicted over 400mph to in the low 300s.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 7, 2011)

Hmm, then 'my' bomber would have to include cooling fan too, but also a geared elevated (so the prop is not about to hit the land) drive shaft (5-6 ft long?). Also, the exit duct should not be annular anymore, but bifurcated, or, maybe, channeled under the hull, so the cooling air is as much away from the prop disc as possible?


----------



## wuzak (Oct 7, 2011)

I think for the bomber the engine would further away from the prop and the extension shaft longer. Which would make the problem less. 

But I still think you'll end up with an unacceptably fat fuselage.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 9, 2011)

Max width of Avenger's fuselage was 60in - 5ft. That's not too fat


----------



## Conslaw (Apr 5, 2014)

I agree that the A-26 was the ape of twin-engined bombers. What I would have done differently is cleared all of the crap out of the procurement process. That plane should have been widely available by early 1943. Whereas the AF moved heaven and earth to get the B-29 in production despite its faults, they kept fiddling with the A-26 before moving it into large scale production.


----------



## Conslaw (Apr 5, 2014)

apex not ape, sorry.


----------



## timmy (Apr 5, 2014)

I always wondered if Bell could have placed a couple of small Radials (R-1830 ?) in the front of the Bell Airacuda Nacelle's
To make it a 4 engined high speed bomber in the push/pull configuration 

Better than those stupid manned cannon pods


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 5, 2014)

I am still baffled by why people think the "push-pull" concept is so great. In the Do-335 they got it to work with props over 40 ft apart. In a number of aircraft built from WW I into the mid-30s with much less distance between the propellers they found the rear prop suffered in efficiency due the disturbed air from the front prop. More often than not the rear engine had cooling problems to boot. Front engine planes have a certain amount of cool/cold air flowing through the engine cowling helping to cool off spark plugs, magnetos and a few other accessories (in fact some planes have specialized small scoops directing airflow at some of these components.) the rear engines in some push-pull configurations suffered from not having this cooling airflow which is different from the airflow through th e radiators and oil coolers.


----------



## timmy (Apr 5, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> I am still baffled by why people think the "push-pull" concept is so great. In the Do-335 they got it to work with props over 40 ft apart. In a number of aircraft built from WW I into the mid-30s *with much less distance between the propellers they found the rear prop suffered in efficiency due the disturbed air from the front prop*. More often than not the rear engine had cooling problems to boot. Front engine planes have a certain amount of cool/cold air flowing through the engine cowling helping to cool off spark plugs, magnetos and a few other accessories (in fact some planes have specialized small scoops directing airflow at some of these components.) the rear engines in some push-pull configurations suffered from not having this cooling airflow which is different from the airflow through th e radiators and oil coolers.



I always wondered why they never went push/pull for bombers..now I know.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 6, 2014)

The XB-28 would have probably fit the bill as a twin-engined, high-speed bomber.

It was powered by two P&W R-2800-27 engines, carried a 4,000 (1,800kg) payload and had a top speed of 372mph (599kph). It had an empty weight of 25,575lbs. (11,600kg) and a loaded weight of 35,740lbs. (16,210kg). With a pressurized cabin, it was capable of a max altitude of 33,500ft. (10,213m) with a range of 2,040 miles (3,280km). 

The design called for a crew of 5 and had remote controlled top, belly and tail turrets, but these could have been removed to save weight and improve speed.

Even though the XB-28 was offering superior performance, it had been designed for high-altitude bombing and was cancelled in favor of other, existing medium and high-altitude bombers.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 6, 2014)

It is interesting to see how much of 'useful load' the P-38J has been able to lift in the air with 2 x 1425 HP for take off. 620 lbs of guns and almost 7000 lbs of fuel. In case max fuel was carried, no ammo was aboard (up to 610 lbs worth)? I'd love to see a 'classic twin (ie. not a twin boom design) with a decent bomb bay. 
7600 lbs of payload can be divided in several ways. 3600 lbs of fuel is 600 US gals, 4000 lbs for bombs. When carrying the cookie (4000 lbs), the Mosquito carried 500 imp gals of fuel - 600 US gals. Engine power 2 x 1390 HP for TO.* The A-20G-20 was carrying 725 US gals and 2000 lbs of bombs, total 6350 lbs. Or 400 US gals and 4000 lbs, total 6400 lbs.
The early turbo V-1710s were good for 1150 HP for take off, so the payload would be cut down, maybe 5500-6000 lbs total. Once 1325 HP for TO is available/allowed (summer of 1942), the payload can be upped to 6500-7000 lbs. The low-tech (ie. no 2x turbo - saves 600+ lbs - a better better than turbo until mid 1943) version would be also good - 1150 HP from early 1941, 1325 HP from mid 1942. Should be also cheaper than turboed versions, easier to produce and purchase, so the Allies can use them, too.

*later versions also carried 2 x 500 bombs on 2 x 1390 HP for TO. B.Mk.XX


----------



## m37b1 (Apr 7, 2014)

This is an interesting topic. One that I've pondered many times. I'd say the best move would have been to upgrade the Martin B-26.
Turbocharged P&W -2800-59 series (2300-2800 HP), making it a high altitude/high speed bomber. 
Additionally, the nacelles could have been cleaned up, ducting all cooling air and exhaust out the back as was done with the Republic XF-12. (Main gear would have to be changed. Maybe bicycle, like the B-26H? Or into the side of the fuselage, like an amphibian?) 
Additional clean up could have been achieved with a streamlined top turret, as that tech became available, and removal of the blister guns. 

A couple of questions about the actual B-26. 
First: Why was it so slow to begin with? Best speed I've ever seen listed is, 326 mph. Seems the the sum of the parts should be faster.
Second: I once read that it had a much heavier gauge sheet aluminum used for it's skin than other bombers. This was detailed as one of the reasons it had a low loss rate. Anyone know the details of this?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> It is interesting to see how much of 'useful load' the P-38J has been able to lift in the air with 2 x 1425 HP for take off. 620 lbs of guns and almost 7000 lbs of fuel. In case max fuel was carried, no ammo was aboard (up to 610 lbs worth)? I'd love to see a 'classic twin (ie. not a twin boom design) with a decent bomb bay.
> 7600 lbs of payload can be divided in several ways. 3600 lbs of fuel is 600 US gals, 4000 lbs for bombs. When carrying the cookie (4000 lbs), the Mosquito carried 500 imp gals of fuel - 600 US gals. Engine power 2 x 1390 HP for TO.* The A-20G-20 was carrying 725 US gals and 2000 lbs of bombs, total 6350 lbs. Or 400 US gals and 4000 lbs, total 6400 lbs.
> The early turbo V-1710s were good for 1150 HP for take off, so the payload would be cut down, maybe 5500-6000 lbs total. Once 1325 HP for TO is available/allowed (summer of 1942), the payload can be upped to 6500-7000 lbs. The low-tech (ie. no 2x turbo - saves 600+ lbs - a better better than turbo until mid 1943) version would be also good - 1150 HP from early 1941, 1325 HP from mid 1942. Should be also cheaper than turboed versions, easier to produce and purchase, so the Allies can use them, too.



Designing with hindsight?

You KNOW you will get a 1425hp engine in early 1943 so you design and build a bomber in 1939-41 using 1150hp engines so you will be _ready_ when the 1425hp engine shows up?

Payload of the P-38 was actually higher as there were several hundred pounds of guns mounts, bracing, ammo boxes and chutes, of course the P-38 was a single seater and the "bomber" should have a crew of at least two so you add back in 200lbs for the second crewman and ????pounds for his work space (the piggy back arrangement used by P-38 night fighters was hardly suitable for a bombardier/navigator). 

Your estimate includes 620 gals of fuel carried in 310lbs worth of drop tanks. To get the fuel (or bombs) _inside_ you need a bigger (much bigger) fuselage and/or wing (combining the two booms won't quite get you there)





There is not a lot of "boom" once you get passed the landing gear bays and radiators. 

How big is the desired bomb bay? 
we have been over this before and while a 4000lb "cookie" can fit into a rather small bomb bay six 500lb bombs do not. 

Without the turbo the proposed plane falls well behind the Mosquito. The 1325hp take-off version Allison falls to 1150hp at 12,000ft and there is no hope of WER at that altitude. Merlin XX/21/V-1650-1 gives 1240hp/11500ft/9lns boost in low gear or 1120 hp at 18,500ft. Using 16lbs boost on the Merlin the and Allison has about 80% of the power of the Merlin at 12,000ft or so. The Merlin can run at 1010hp at 18,000ft until the fuel runs out. An Allison with 7.48 gears and 1325hp for take-off (as used in the A-36) gives about 800hp at 18,000ft (no ram) at 3000 rpm and a max cruise of around 675hp at 18,000ft at 2600rpm.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2014)

m37b1 said:


> This is an interesting topic. One that I've pondered many times. I'd say the best move would have been to upgrade the Martin B-26.
> Turbocharged P&W -2800-59 series (2300-2800 HP), making it a high altitude/high speed bomber.
> Additionally, the nacelles could have been cleaned up, ducting all cooling air and exhaust out the back as was done with the Republic XF-12. (Main gear would have to be changed. Maybe bicycle, like the B-26H? Or into the side of the fuselage, like an amphibian?)
> Additional clean up could have been achieved with a streamlined top turret, as that tech became available, and removal of the blister guns.
> ...



The -59 engine didn't go much above 2300-2500hp and that was with water injection, the 2800hp engines were "C" series engines and don't show up until late 1944. 

B-26 had enough trouble landing without trick narrow track landing gear. Proof of concept landing gear is one thing, using it in service on crappy airstrips in bad weather is another thing. 

Please note that the 1850hp "A" series engines were actually good for around 1500hp at 14-15,000ft and the 2000hp "B" series engines were good for 1600hp at 13,500ft. Merlins used in Mosquitoes could pull 1435-1490hp at at around 11-12,000ft if allowed to use 16lbs of boost. 

B-26 was actually pretty zippy for it's size/weight in the early versions. 28,367 pounds gross, 33,022 pounds maximum. for an B-26A


----------



## m37b1 (Apr 7, 2014)

Agreed on the R2800's. If we did use the Turbo -59's development could have paralleled that of the P-47. 2800 HP "C" by late 44.

I though the same about the bicycle gear, hence the thought of alternative design.

Any thoughts on what kind of speed could have been achieved with the changes I proposed? 350 - 370 mph at 20 - 24K ft, maybe? (dependent on load).


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2014)

What's the point?

By mid/late 1944 the war has been pretty much decided. No "new" airplane is going to change the end by more than week or so. 

An A-26B could hit 355mph at 15,000ft with 4,000lb of bombs. The A-26 could have been introduced into service 6-12 months earlier with less arguments/wrangling between Douglas and the USAAC. It was not really delayed by any technical reason. 

Trying to use the cowl design of the Republic XF-12 requires introducing that knowledge 3-4 years early (first flight of XF-12 was 4 February 1946 and service use was normally at least a year after prototype first flew and often longer)


----------



## pbehn (Apr 7, 2014)

Gents I have a question. Was the mosquito a success because it was made of wood or because it was from the start designed without defensive armament, the P51 was quick without being made of wood. If for example NAA had designed a metal medium bomber with the same philosophy would it have been as quick?


----------



## pbehn (Apr 7, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> What's the point?
> 
> By mid/late 1944 the war has been pretty much decided. No "new" airplane is going to change the end by more than week or so.



I think so too. The allies would have been better served putting a massive effort into getting an MB tank to challenge German armour but that is another thread.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2014)

A bit of both. 


It was _allowed_ to be built _because_ it was made of wood and would have little impact on the production of other metal aircraft wither it succeeded or failed. 

It's wood construction may have been very similar in weight to a metal aircraft (other peoples wood aircraft were often heavier) but it's surface finish (skin drag) may have been better than many metal airplanes. 

The Mosquito was also _designed_ around a 1000lb bomb load. Four 250lb bombs in side by side pairs with one pair behind the other. With better than _expected_ performance and increasing engine power as it went through the design/prototype stage they decided the payload could be improved to 2000lbs and this was done using four 500lb bombs but cutting about 15in from the tail fin assembly of the 500lb bombs to get them to fit. 

*IF* the Mosquito had been designed from day #1 to hold four _normal_ 500lb bombs the bomb bay might have been 30 in longer and there may have been a few other changes to go along with it. 

As for what NAA could have done in 1940 see: North American XB-28 Dragon

But please note that NAA had been working on a fighter design since the summer of 1939. The first Mustang flew in the fall of 1940 but the first _combat_ mission was not flown until _after_ the prototype XB-28 flew for the first time, about 1 1/12 years after the prototype flight.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 7, 2014)

Why keep trying to reinvent the wheel when there was a ready-made platform sitting there ready to go by 1942?

The XB-28 would have been ideal for mission profiles that the Mosquito was used for.

By removing the three turrets and reducing the crew respectively, it would further increase it's already impressive performance...


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 7, 2014)

m37b1 said:


> This is an interesting topic. One that I've pondered many times. I'd say the best move would have been to upgrade the Martin B-26.
> Turbocharged P&W -2800-59 series (2300-2800 HP), making it a high altitude/high speed bomber.
> Additionally, the nacelles could have been cleaned up, ducting all cooling air and exhaust out the back as was done with the Republic XF-12. (Main gear would have to be changed. Maybe bicycle, like the B-26H? Or into the side of the fuselage, like an amphibian?)
> Additional clean up could have been achieved with a streamlined top turret, as that tech became available, and removal of the blister guns.
> ...



The B-26 usually have had 4 HMGs in individual blisters, installed on the fuselage sides, that ought to cut speed. The dorsal turret further increases drag = decreases speed. More crew for maning the guns = wing need to be increased in order to keep wing loading in acceptable limits = more weight and drag = kills speed. The wing received substantial increase of incidence with the B-26F, in order to improve low speed handling and take off/landing behaviour, consequence being further increase of drag = kills speed. After so many 'kills speed' marks, the speed went down to 277 mph.

The B-26 used a single stage engine, meaning the engine was topping out in low and medium altitudes = thicker air = you know what  . The exhaust ducting used on the B-26 never received improvements the P&W was experimenting from late 1941 on, ie. it never used individual exhaust stacks, let alone the tight cowling and cooling fan that were part of the experiments. Even the B-25s and A-20s received individual exhausts during the ww2 for their Wright R-2600s. Better exhaust can gain easy 10 mph.

What B-26 might use: leave only the tail turret, install only 2 HMGs aside to bombardier. That will cut drag and weight, crew being only four. Use the better exhaust system. If such engines are available, use two stage engines, so the performance can be improved above 15000 ft. The 2-stage engines were outfitted with water-methanol injection from early 1944 on, that would boost performance between sea level and 20000 ft. For extra points: use fan cooled engine, once the results of the experiments on the XP-42 with such installation are known.

XP-42 with fan cooling and individual exhaust stacks:
http://b-29s-over-korea.com/NASA-Photos_I/images/Curtiss-XP-42--NASA.jpg

added: the single stage engines installed in the most of the B-26s were making 1600 HP between 8000 and 13500 ft; the 2-stage engines were making 1800 HP at that altitude band and up to 15500 ft (no ram). The B-26 with 2-stagers would've been faster above 5000 ft, since above that altitude the 2-stagers have more power.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 8, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> Designing with hindsight?
> 
> You KNOW you will get a 1425hp engine in early 1943 so you design and build a bomber in 1939-41 using 1150hp engines so you will be _ready_ when the 1425hp engine shows up?



The thread involves a bit of hindsight. I've stated reduced payload values for the bomber with engines of 1150 HP for take off.



> Payload of the P-38 was actually higher as there were several hundred pounds of guns mounts, bracing, ammo boxes and chutes, of course the P-38 was a single seater and the "bomber" should have a crew of at least two so you add back in 200lbs for the second crewman and ????pounds for his work space (the piggy back arrangement used by P-38 night fighters was hardly suitable for a bombardier/navigator).



Think that armament weight (620 lbs, no ammo) included most of those extras. The 4 HMGs weighted 280 lbs, the 20 mm was at 129 lbs, data from AHT. That is some 310 lbs just for 'bare' guns. Indeed, additional weight must be allocated for the second crew member his quarters.



> Your estimate includes 620 gals of fuel carried in 310lbs worth of drop tanks. To get the fuel (or bombs) _inside_ you need a bigger (much bigger) fuselage and/or wing (combining the two booms won't quite get you there)
> There is not a lot of "boom" once you get passed the landing gear bays and radiators.



Indeed, the wing should grow up a bit. Between 15-20% in area, 7-8% in thickness - should give 20-30% more of internal space in the wings. So the wings should hold circa 500 gals. Using a 'classic' layout can enable for fuel tanks to be located above bomb bay. 



> How big is the desired bomb bay?
> we have been over this before and while a 4000lb "cookie" can fit into a rather small bomb bay six 500lb bombs do not.



The bomb bay should be ideally be of the dimensions as from the A-20. 



> Without the turbo the proposed plane falls well behind the Mosquito. The 1325hp take-off version Allison falls to 1150hp at 12,000ft and there is no hope of WER at that altitude. Merlin XX/21/V-1650-1 gives 1240hp/11500ft/9lns boost in low gear or 1120 hp at 18,500ft. Using 16lbs boost on the Merlin the and Allison has about 80% of the power of the Merlin at 12,000ft or so. The Merlin can run at 1010hp at 18,000ft until the fuel runs out. An Allison with 7.48 gears and 1325hp for take-off (as used in the A-36) gives about 800hp at 18,000ft (no ram) at 3000 rpm and a max cruise of around 675hp at 18,000ft at 2600rpm.



I didn't proposed the 7.48 S/C engine from A-36, but the 8.80 one from the P-40K. Same 1325 HP for take off, but 920 HP at 18000 ft (no ram) at 3000 rpm. Max cruise was at 830 HP at 16000 ft, 2600 rpm. The max cruise altitude of 1010 HP for the Merlin 20s was at 16000 ft, not 18000 (and 1080 at ~9000); it would indeed need the turbo to perform well above 12000 ft - no great mysteries there. In that light, the engine from the A-36 might fit the needs, since it offered greater military (15 min) and maximum continuous power under 10000 ft than the engine from P-40K.
Maybe using the Packard Merlins in a fast, US-built bomber would be better than to use them in the P-40s?


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2014)

In the first page of this thread someone said the P-38 could only carry 2,000 pounds. That is incorrect. It could and DID carry 4,000 pounds of bombs as well as two torpedoes. We had no want or need for the Mosquito, we could already carry a 4,000 pound bomb load with the P-38.

Developing the P-38 as a bomber would have simple and much easier than making the Mosquito, which had a zero probability of being done to start with. The politics internal to the USA at that time would have prevented it from happening. Might as well concentrate on what COULD have been done instead of pie in the sky. I would support trying the 2-stage Merlin in the P-38 after its use in the P-51 was established, but politics killed THAT, too. When you can't even make an experimental version of a US fighter with a foreign engine, do you really think there would have been a chance for a complete foreign design? 

As for a bomber P-38, stretch the fuselage forward and backward, add the bomb bay, and leave in at least two guns for self defense. Possibly add 2 - 4 feet inboard to the wingspan and maybe some small boom length addition for stability. The bomb load might even go up some from 4,000 pounds.

But the Mosquito is never gonna' happen in 1940 America. Maybe in 1944 but, by then, we already KNEW we were winning and the chance slipped away before anyone took advantage of the possibly susceptible 1942 - 1943 time frame. So it would have to be a US design, with or possibly without US engines, or it would never have gotten built.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 8, 2014)

GregP said:


> In the first page of this thread someone said the P-38 could only carry 2,000 pounds. That is incorrect. It could and DID carry 4,000 pounds of bombs as well as two torpedoes. We had no want or need for the Mosquito, we could already carry a 4,000 pound bomb load with the P-38.


The P-38F was tested with two 2000 lb torpedos. The 2 x 300/310 gal tanks are close to 4000 lbs. Seems like that no ammo was carried if such drop tanks were attached - correction(s) are welcomed.
Problem with a P-38 carrying 4000 lbs of bombs is that it would not gone too far, compared with eg. Mosquito with a 4000 lb cookie. The externaly-mounted stuff adds considerable drag, and that decreases mileage. The internal fuel tankage would be either 300 or 410 gals for P-38, vs. 600 US gals for the Mossie carrying the cookie. So we look at maybe half of the range/radius.



> Developing the P-38 as a bomber would have simple and much easier than making the Mosquito, which had a zero probability of being done to start with. The politics internal to the USA at that time would have prevented it from happening. Might as well concentrate on what COULD have been done instead of pie in the sky. I would support trying the 2-stage Merlin in the P-38 after its use in the P-51 was established, but politics killed THAT, too. When you can't even make an experimental version of a US fighter with a foreign engine, do you really think there would have been a chance for a complete foreign design?



Five US manufacturers were offered with a deal to produce Mossie under license, they all said 'no, can't be done'. Someone's 'what could be done' is another man's 'pie in the sky'.
Once the P-51 was there, there was no much point in looking at another fighter to install US-built 2-stage Merlins, this time two per each fighter. Especially the P-38, where the Mach limit was the in-penetrable wall once the speed (TAS) went above 430 mph above 25-30000 ft. The feeble dive limit would be still there, unlike for P-51, or even for the P-47.



> As for a bomber P-38, stretch the fuselage forward and backward, add the bomb bay, and leave in at least two guns for self defense. Possibly add 2 - 4 feet inboard to the wingspan and maybe some small boom length addition for stability. The bomb load might even go up some from 4,000 pounds.



Interesting proposal, though I'd leave the wing and booms alone. 
Maybe mount the front wheel strut further forward, so more nacelle length is available for bombs. A bomb bay that can hold a single 2000 lb bomb, or 4 x 500 lbs (2 pairs, one above and to the side against another). A bombardier, like in the drops-snoot versions, but indeed the pair of the HMGs being installed. 70-80 gals of fuel above bomb bay.


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2014)

I keep seeing suggestions that the USA build the Mosquito early in WWII in here. Let’s look at that a bit.

We had the Lockheed P-38 that could carry 4,000 pounds of bomb, was a high-altitude fighter, and when flying in the USA, didn’t have any issues with European fuels. It still had issues with the intakes, frozen radiator doors, and a poor cockpit heater, but these could have been worked out here. First flight for the P-38 was in Jan 1939 and service entry was in 1941, before we were in the war. Widespread use wasn’t until 1942.

When we flew the P-38, the Mosquito hadn’t flown yet. It didn’t fly until Nov 1940 and wasn’t in service until sometime in 1941, and wasn’t in widespread service until 1942.

The Packard-Merlin first ran on a test stand in August 1941, but the first production was in 1942.

All of these three items, the P-38. Mosquito, and the Packard-Merlin were basically introduced in 1942 into widespread service.

So why is everyone insisting these could have been made in 1940 or 1941? They weren’t and could not have been. First, the USA wasn’t even IN the war until Dec 7 1941, which is basically new year 1942 when anything got underway. At that time we were just introducing the P-38 Lightning and it was as fast or faster than a Mosquito, carried a 4,000 pound bomb load, and was made of metal, not wood. We knew some things had to be worked out, but this had to be completed. Moreover, the USA was embracing isolationism and would never have considered making a foreign aircraft for US use … certainly not before a war situation had been confronted and had clearly shown a need for something we didn’t have and didn’t have time to invent or design.

No such was situation had ever come up until WWII reared its ugly head. There was no WAY the Mosquito could have been built here AFTER the P-38 had flown and shown its as-yet-unrealized potential. We didn’t even start delivering Merlins from Packard in any quantity until 1942, and the British clearly didn’t have the production capacity to furnish us with Mosquitoes even had we so desired them.

There might have been an outside possibility that if the British had, say, 3 – 5 Mosquitoes touring the USA and putting on demos around US air bases when Pearl Harbor happened, we might have wanted to acquire some right away. Since they had only recently beaten the Nazis away in the Battle of Britain, what is the possibility of THAT happening? Zero. Never happened.

Outside of that, I can’t think of any reasonable event that could have made the US armament procurement people even want to inquire about Mosquitoes.


----------



## boeing299 (Apr 8, 2014)

I've read through this thread and find it pretty interesting, so I'm going to throw my idea out there. Produce the XB-33A Super Marrauder. It is proposed to be pretty fast already, but very heavy. It uses engines that are proven and available. If the service ceiling numbers are accurate at 39,000 ft., and the max speed at 345 mph, it's going to be a long, tough climb for any interceptors, so it probably doesn't need all the defensive weaponry. Lighten it up some and add some later props, gain a little more speed. Development seems to have been pretty far along, so timing shouldn't be a grave concern. With a little refinement, who knows?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2014)

The P-40K engines don't show up until around May of 1942 so by the time you have several squadrons worth produced, issued, crews trained and the squadrons shipped over seas it will be late 1942 at best before it sees action. 

A-20 bomb bay was 32in wide at the bottom (tapering to 28in at the top) and 62.5 in high (not needed with horizontal bomb stowage) and about 12 feet long. The bomb bay size is dependent on _when_ work is started as the Original A-20/As much like the French aircraft, were required to carry large numbers of small bombs, up to 80 30lb bombs in vertical chutes. In 1939 the Americans were also using an older series of bombs that included 300, 600 and 1100lb sizes that were used very little in WW II. (Philippines?) 
Ten 100lb bombs were one of the loads, four 300lb, two 600lb or a single 1100lb bombs were "standard" loads but sixteen 100lb bombs was a max load. The small bomb requirement was dropped fairly soon but too late to redesign the fuselage. As we know, the extra space in the top of the bomb bay was used for fuel. 

The difficult parts are the field length, especially with low powered engines and the range. USAAC _policy_ was NOT to use liquid cooled engines for "attack" aircraft. This changed a bit once the shooting started but would tend to rule things in 1939-40 and early 1941.

First A-20s were ordered for the US with R-2600 engines June 30, 1939 and the order was split between turbo and non-turbo versions. The turbo installation didn't work and a change in policy ( no need for high altitude light bomber) meant they were almost all completed with low altitude engines. 

You may be able to interest the USAAC in a plane using two Allison engines ( of which they can't get enough of to begin with) in 1939-41 but what will it offer that the A-20 and B-25/B-26 won't? 

Not just be _different_ but actually offer some capability that those 3 do not have. Range? Payload? Survivalbilty in low altitude attacks from ground fire? 
Please remember that in order to see combat aside from anti-sub patrol it has to be knocked down, crated or wrapped, loaded as deck cargo on a ship and taken to the proposed theater of operations (or flown around the US, 1630 miles from Eastport Maine to Keywest Florida. 986 miles from Key West to Brownville TX ( mouth of the Rio Grande) 1142 miles from Bellingham WA to San Diego and 2427 miles from San Diego to New York) which generally means using two or more "small" planes to do the work one larger one can do is not going to be viewed with favor. 

A-20 already has range problems, using smaller engines and hoping better streamlining will make up the difference doesn't seem likely. 

Unless you ditch the P-39 or reduce the need the Allison engines somehow there isn't a surplus of Allison engines until 1943/44. (another factory will take a year or more to build)


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2014)

boeing299 said:


> I've read through this thread and find it pretty interesting, so I'm going to throw my idea out there. Produce the XB-33A Super Marrauder. It is proposed to be pretty fast already, but very heavy. It uses engines that are proven and available. If the service ceiling numbers are accurate at 39,000 ft., and the max speed at 345 mph, it's going to be a long, tough climb for any interceptors, so it probably doesn't need all the defensive weaponry. Lighten it up some and add some later props, gain a little more speed. Development seems to have been pretty far along, so timing shouldn't be a grave concern. With a little refinement, who knows?




A lot of refinement. The R-2600 never seemed to be satisfactorily turbo charged. Although I am not sure that they ever tried to turbo the BB series engines that began to show up in the fall of 1943. (different cylinder head and cylinder barrel fins offered better cooling)


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 8, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> The P-40K engines don't show up until around May of 1942 so by the time you have several squadrons worth produced, issued, crews trained and the squadrons shipped over seas it will be late 1942 at best before it sees action.



Initial squadrons will be using the A/C with older engines. It would be at least 4 months before the improved models are in the combat - right for the Op Torch, for example?



> A-20 bomb bay was 32in wide at the bottom (tapering to 28in at the top) and 62.5 in high (not needed with horizontal bomb stowage) and about 12 feet long. The bomb bay size is dependent on _when_ work is started as the Original A-20/As much like the French aircraft, were required to carry large numbers of small bombs, up to 80 30lb bombs in vertical chutes. In 1939 the Americans were also using an older series of bombs that included 300, 600 and 1100lb sizes that were used very little in WW II. (Philippines?)
> Ten 100lb bombs were one of the loads, four 300lb, two 600lb or a single 1100lb bombs were "standard" loads but sixteen 100lb bombs was a max load. The small bomb requirement was dropped fairly soon but too late to redesign the fuselage. As we know, the extra space in the top of the bomb bay was used for fuel.



Tanks for the data. Hopefully the new bomber should be tailored for new bombs.



> The difficult parts are the field length, especially with low powered engines and the range. USAAC _policy_ was NOT to use liquid cooled engines for "attack" aircraft. This changed a bit once the shooting started but would tend to rule things in 1939-40 and early 1941.



Not the pure 'attack' aircraft, more a combo between 'attack' and 'bomber' is what I'm after.



> First A-20s were ordered for the US with R-2600 engines June 30, 1939 and the order was split between turbo and non-turbo versions. The turbo installation didn't work and a change in policy ( no need for high altitude light bomber) meant they were almost all completed with low altitude engines.



Indeed, that's how I got it too.



> You may be able to interest the USAAC in a plane using two Allison engines ( of which they can't get enough of to begin with) in 1939-41 but what will it offer that the A-20 and B-25/B-26 won't?
> Not just be _different_ but actually offer some capability that those 3 do not have. Range? Payload? Survivalbilty in low altitude attacks from ground fire?



Better range vs. A-20, less drain on manpower than B-25/26, lower price than all, lower operational costs. Less need for escorts. In case turbo is installed, the speed difference is further increased.



> Please remember that in order to see combat aside from anti-sub patrol it has to be knocked down, crated or wrapped, loaded as deck cargo on a ship and taken to the proposed theater of operations (or flown around the US, 1630 miles from Eastport Maine to Keywest Florida. 986 miles from Key West to Brownville TX ( mouth of the Rio Grande) 1142 miles from Bellingham WA to San Diego and 2427 miles from San Diego to New York) which generally means using two or more "small" planes to do the work one larger one can do is not going to be viewed with favor.



The new bomber should beat the A-20 in payload vs. range category. The B-25/26 woefully need escort when going against any decent opposition.



> A-20 already has range problems, using smaller engines and hoping better streamlining will make up the difference doesn't seem likely.



It is very much likely. The 1600 HP R-2600 will use 40% more fuel on max continuous than single stage V-1710 at 11-12000 ft. Most of the 27% more power it makes will be consumed by greater drag and (not just) powerplant weight. The powerplant weight is greater, even with liquid cooling of the V-1710 accounted for. The bomber I propose will be smaller (wing area at ~380 sq ft vs. 465, shorter fuselage) and lighter = even better speed or range. 
Less weight will also keep the take off distance within acceptable limits.



> Unless you ditch the P-39 or reduce the need the Allison engines somehow there isn't a surplus of Allison engines until 1943/44. (another factory will take a year or more to build)



In case the USAF goes for such a bomber, they might consider financing building it? And/or licence produce the V-1710 - Continental, Lycoming, Buick, Studebaker, or, God forbid (an GM product) - Chrysler?


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2014)

Like some of the above suggestions, I think the A-20 had great potential as did the Martin follow-on super Marauder. When I mentioned the P-38 bomber above it was never intended as a heavy bomber or even as along range one. We had dedicated bombers for that, the B-17, B-24, B-25, and B-26. I was thinking of the P-38 bomber version to be a relatively short range attack plane for ground support based not too far from the front lines.

Even if you COULD, why fly a bombed up P-38 to Germany when you had B-17's and B-24's? Can't think of a good reason to go that way at the time, and neither could the people who procured the aircraft for the USA at the time.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2014)

Army thinking, pre-war, was that they didn't want to fly liquid cooled engines within AA fire distance of the front lines. Air-cooled engines for ground support. Once the shooting started they used what they had. This was before armor and self sealing tanks but loosing ground attack aircraft to stray rifle bullets wasn't in their plans. 

A problem with the A-20, B-25 and B-26 and the non-turbo Allison is that cruise height is restricted. Their engines won't make power at economical settings up at 18-24,000ft that allow for a good cruise in thin air for less drag. 
Very few planes went very far flying at max continuous cruise. What is the plane going to cruise at using something more like max cruise power using lean mixture rather than rich mixture? 

An A-20B could "cruise" at 305mph at 12,000ft in high blower using 308 gallons an hour (range 440 miles on 460 gallons of fuel) _or_ cruise at 253mph at 12,000ft using 147 gallons an hour (range 680 miles on 460 gallons) at 12,000ft in low blower using auto lean. 

Now I am wondering how well a 380 sq ft winged "bomber" ( Bf 110 had 410 sq ft and the Russian PE-2 had 436 and the Bench mark Mosquito had 454) with a pair of 1150 hp engines (first models) is really going to do.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 8, 2014)

Another issue worth considering for extra speed is streamlining. The Mosquito had a considerably smooth surface finish.







The B-26 looks like a suitable candidate.


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2014)

I think the B-26 had considerable development potential in it. But whether or not they would have done that development given some incentive to do so is a question that cannot be answered except by "what if." 

Development of the A-20 might have made it a LOT better and might have speeded up the A-26 development, too but, again, the question is what would have precipitated such a change in historic development? Another "what if."

The Curtiss A-18 Shrike might have been developed but, at the same or more cost as a P-38, why try it? Why not go with the P-38? But the Shrike had potential for considerable clean-up. What if they had use two turbo-supercharged Allisons and had done an aerodynamic cleanup with an eye toward a high-speed light to medium bomber? Might have been formidable in 1940 - 1941. More "what-if."


----------



## wuzak (Apr 8, 2014)

GregP said:


> I keep seeing suggestions that the USA build the Mosquito early in WWII in here. Let’s look at that a bit.



The first person to suggest it was H.H. "Hap" Arnold. He did so in early 1941, after seeinga demonstration of the Mosquito.




GregP said:


> We had the Lockheed P-38 that could carry 4,000 pounds of bomb, was a high-altitude fighter, and when flying in the USA, didn’t have any issues with European fuels. It still had issues with the intakes, frozen radiator doors, and a poor cockpit heater, but these could have been worked out here. First flight for the P-38 was in Jan 1939 and service entry was in 1941, before we were in the war. Widespread use wasn’t until 1942.



A 1942 P-38 could not carry a 4000lb bomb load. It also wasn't as fast as later models, though slightly faster than the Mosquito.

With the intercoolers in the leading edges of the wings the range was also more restricted than later models.




GregP said:


> When we flew the P-38, the Mosquito hadn’t flown yet. It didn’t fly until Nov 1940 and wasn’t in service until sometime in 1941, and wasn’t in widespread service until 1942.



Correct. Prototype and pre-production prototypes of the P-38 flew before the Mosquito. Some, but not many, production aircraft may have been flown before the Mosquito prototype did. But they would not have been considered combat worth aircraft.

First Mosquito mission was a PR flight in 1941, by one of the prototypes.




GregP said:


> The Packard-Merlin first ran on a test stand in August 1941, but the first production was in 1942.



Right, and it had been in planning since mid 1940. It also would have taken time to build a production line for the Mosquito.




GregP said:


> All of these three items, the P-38. Mosquito, and the Packard-Merlin were basically introduced in 1942 into widespread service.
> 
> So why is everyone insisting these could have been made in 1940 or 1941? They weren’t and could not have been. First, the USA wasn’t even IN the war until Dec 7 1941, which is basically new year 1942 when anything got underway. At that time we were just introducing the P-38 Lightning and it was as fast or faster than a Mosquito, carried a 4,000 pound bomb load, and was made of metal, not wood. We knew some things had to be worked out, but this had to be completed. Moreover, the USA was embracing isolationism and would never have considered making a foreign aircraft for US use … certainly not before a war situation had been confronted and had clearly shown a need for something we didn’t have and didn’t have time to invent or design.



Is anybody suggesting they could have been built in 1940/41?

It certainly wouldn't be 1940, because the US was, most likely, completely unaware of the Mosquito's existence at the time.

In early 1941 the decision could have been made to build the Mosquito, and a start made on obtaining/building factories for the task.

Despite not being in the war in 1941, the US was supplying a large amount of material to the UK and allies. The Lend-Lease act was signed into law in March 1941. The US was hardly isolationist at that time.

And contrary to what you believe, Arnold was keen on the Mosquito. Not as a bomber, but as a photo-reconnaissance aircraft. It was the manufacturers he asked to look at the project who rejected the idea.




GregP said:


> No such was situation had ever come up until WWII reared its ugly head. There was no WAY the Mosquito could have been built here AFTER the P-38 had flown and shown its as-yet-unrealized potential. We didn’t even start delivering Merlins from Packard in any quantity until 1942, and the British clearly didn’t have the production capacity to furnish us with Mosquitoes even had we so desired them.



In 1942 there wasn't sufficient production capacity to supply the US with Mosquitoes. However, the US did receive some Mosquito B.XXs from Canadian production, modified for PR work. These were found to be unsatisfactory, so were replaced by PR.XVIs. Not sure when this was, the later would have been some time in 1944, the former in 1943




GregP said:


> There might have been an outside possibility that if the British had, say, 3 – 5 Mosquitoes touring the USA and putting on demos around US air bases when Pearl Harbor happened, we might have wanted to acquire some right away. Since they had only recently beaten the Nazis away in the Battle of Britain, what is the possibility of THAT happening? Zero. Never happened.
> 
> Outside of that, I can’t think of any reasonable event that could have made the US armament procurement people even want to inquire about Mosquitoes.



The head of the Air Force, General H.H. "Hap" Arnold saw the demonstration of the Mosquito in 1941. He even took the plans back with him to Washington.


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2014)

We were so keen on Mosquitoes that we ordered 120, only 40 of which were delivered. We sent 16 to Europe and gave 11 of those to the RAF, and 5 went to Italy for reconnaissance. I guess were were overrun with Mosquitoes, huh?

The RAF provided 145 Mosquito PR Mk XVI's to the Eighth Air Force and they flew reconnaissance between February 1944 and the end of the war.

We never ran a single offensive operation with them and could have flown the recon without them.

You can't convince me we needed them at all. We sent FIVE to Italy and BORROWED 145 for PR duties. Hardly seems "indispensable" from any standpoint. In point of fact, we evaluated MANY and, indeed, almost ALL Allied aircraft including Soviet types, as well as many Axis types. The British did, too. So did the Germans, Soviets, Japanese, etc.

Since we flew them so little and they scored not even a single victory in US service, and never dropped a single bomb in US service as far as I can tell, why do I keep hearing this from you about the Mosquito? It was never on the US list of "things to help win the war for the USA," but WAS handy for recon when needed, just as it was to the RAF. It meant we had other resources to free up for offensive operations and didn't have to convert more of our own assets for recon.

This does NOTHING to diminish the service to the RAF. It was a stalwart for the Brits and the Allies in general, and was a very good unit. Truly a great aircraft. But it wan't our cup of tea and never would have been so. 

On the other hand, I wish we had procured some Hornets post-war. Now THERE was a superb twin piston fighter if I ever saw one.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 9, 2014)

Greg, the fact remains that the head of the USAAC investigated having the Mosquito built under licence in the US, even going to the extent that he procured plans for the aircraft and sent them to several manufacturers for comment. He was, most likely, swayed by their comments on the Mosquito and didn't push any further.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 9, 2014)

GregP said:


> Since we flew them so little and they scored not even a single victory in US service


Actually, there was one victory credited to a U.S. operated Mossie in the MTO 

* The U.S. 416 NFS based out of Italy, operated NF.30 Mosquitos, and it was this unit that claimed a victory later in the war. *


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2014)

Right, it was investigated and found to be not worth the effort.

Wuzak, it was less to the USA than the Ta-152 was to Germany ... a footnote at best. Again, nothing bad said about the Mosquito, except the USA didn't need it, didn't build it, and barely operated it.

I realize you are a consumate Mosquito guy, but it was NOT a USA choice for operations and never WAS operated in an offensive mode by the USA, regardless of how much you wanted all the Allies to move to Mosquitoes. It might well have done as well as Lancasters and B-17's, etc. in the war, but it didn't in real life.

An investigation of the feasibility of building it doesn't even come close to a decision to DO it. When it comes to alternate choices for the USA, let it go. We did, in the real world.

I must say, I'm glad the British didn't fail to take advantage of one of the best of their designs, though. 

Good as it was, it wasn't without issues. Here is the last airworthy Mosquito, before the new-build unit, meeting it's end.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aVZMNw6u2U_

I don't have the accident report, but it LOOKS like structural failure. One outer wing appears to fail in flight, possibly preventing the pilot from completing the roll. I don't know the real story, but that looks like airframe failure to me. He wasn't "babying" the engines by flying at low boost and just seemed to stop rolling. Watch the time when it stops flying and starts falling. The left outer wing appears to flex upward, signifying, to me, spar failure. Once that happened, it was almost a foregone conclusion. Sorry to see it. Would MUCH rather see ascending rolls on one engine like the prototype did in demos.


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2014)

This is MUCH more pleasant to watch! An all-de Havilland formation with the immortal Mossie in the lead position.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ePsaJ0gy14_

Wish I had been there.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 9, 2014)

GregP said:


> We were so keen on Mosquitoes that we ordered 120, only 40 of which were delivered. We sent 16 to Europe and gave 11 of those to the RAF, and 5 went to Italy for reconnaissance. I guess were were overrun with Mosquitoes, huh?



Some USAAF commanders were keen on the Mosquito. From _Conquering the Night. Army Air Forces Night Fighters at War_ by Stephen L. McFarland:

"AAF Col. Phineas K. Morrill laid the groundwork for a major controversy in September 1943, when he requested that all of the night fighter squadrons trained by his 481st Night Fighter Operational Training Group be equipped with twin-engine British Mosquitoes rather than American Pï¿½70s or Pï¿½61s. The proposal received little attention until June 1944, when Maj. Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Deputy Commander in Chief of Allied Expeditionary Air Force in Europe, added his weight to Morrillï¿½s request. Considering that ï¿½neither the Pï¿½61 nor the Pï¿½70 type aircraft are suitable night fighters . . . and that little success can be expected,ï¿½ Vandenberg wanted US night fighter squadrons to switch to British-provided Mosquitoes."



GregP said:


> The RAF provided 145 Mosquito PR Mk XVI's to the Eighth Air Force and they flew reconnaissance between February 1944 and the end of the war.
> 
> We never ran a single offensive operation with them and could have flown the recon without them.
> 
> ...



The 416th Night Fighter squadron operated the Mosquito NF Mk XXX offensively, and other US NF squadrons in the Med wanted and asked for them, as their Beaufighters were clapped out and too slow to intercept high-flying, fast moving German nusiance bombers and there were delays with the P-61A. The 425th operated it in the ETO as well, but failed to score a kill. 

The 416th scored a single kill with a Mosquito, I think in late-ish 1944.



GregP said:


> But it wan't our cup of tea and never would have been so.



I agreed that the Mosquito didn't meet with USAAF daylight bombing philosophies, but if the USAAF had been given more responsibility for night fighting (for which the British had primary responisbility in the MTO and ETO) then the Mosquito may have well been much more to their taste, at least as a NF if not a bomber.

Certainly, the USAAF night fighter squadrons in the Mediterranean took warmly to the Beaufighter as a night fighter, scoring 31 of the 89 USAAF NF kills in the ETO/MTO with it. They much preferred it to the P-70, but as a nightfighter it was decidedly less capable than the Mosquito NFs the RAF was operating at the same time, being slower and equipped with the less-capable Mk IV radar (RAF squdrons had Mk VIII by this time).


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 9, 2014)

Double post


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 9, 2014)

Thanks Jabberwocky; I posted mine after you'd filled in the gaps. The United States, specifically the US Navy examined the Mosquito as a land based night fighter, but complications arose over the responsibility of operating these, from the USAAF. Despite the reluctance to examine the Mossie for offensive roles, the type did have its supporters in the USAAF and requests for night fighter Mossies in the Med could not be fulfilled because of unavailability of aircraft in production. The use of Beaufighters was because the British couldn't build them fast enough and barely had enough for their needs, let alone anyone else's, so the USAAF received the Beaufighters. A request for PR Mossies in the PTO was met with the Air Ministry's response of "...and why not make operational use of your 40 F-8s?" meaning the Canadian examples not used. The US ones also flew pathfinder missions in support of 8th AF ops. It seems that the Americans didn't really understand the Mosquito and it took a new generation of combat aircraft before they finally took to the concept, in the Mossie's spiritual successor the Canberra, which Martin built as the B-57.


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2014)

Never said the Mosquito wasn't capable or wasn't desired by the men in the field. I said it wasn't going to happen that the USA was ever going to be equipped with it. It wasn't wanted by the people charged with procuring American war equipment and wasn't ever going to be built here. And it didn't get built here. The record is VERY clear. We didn't use the Mosquito much except for reconnaissance.

Is there anything I said that is wrong? Or unclear? All the posturing in the world won't change the fact that we didn't use the Mosquito much at all. 

It wasn't until the Canberra was wanted as a stop-gap attack plane the we built a foreign design for the USAAF / USAF, and we redesigned the fuselage when we did. As it happens, the Canberra turned out to be a better plane than we expected and we used it well past when it was initially slated to be phased out. I have several friends who flew it and they loved the plane once it was above 300 feet AGL.

Below that altitude they hated it because the ejection seat wasn't any good below 300 feet ... you'd hit the ground before you slowed down enough to survive. Nothing unusual about that at the time. It was before widely-deployed zero-zero ejection seats were in general use. Many of our own planes had the same failing at the time.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 9, 2014)

While you are right about it not finding other offensive roles (it was used as a night fighter by the USAAF), that's no indication of the aeroplane's performance or capability itself, in fact...



> It wasn't until the Canberra was wanted as a stop-gap attack plane the we built a foreign design for the USAAF / USAF, and we redesigned the fuselage when we did. As it happens, *the Canberra turned out to be a better plane than we expected *and we used it well past when it was initially slated to be phased out. I have several friends who flew it and they loved the plane once it was above 300 feet AGL.



The Mosquito easily falls into what you've stated here in the service of many armed forces around the world, during and post-war. Like I said, the Americans didn't get it and had they operated them offensively, they would have. It took the Canberra to prove to them just how effective the concept was.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 9, 2014)

GregP said:


> Right, it was investigated and found to be not worth the effort.



No, that is not what I said, and, most likely, not what happened.

The manufacturers that were given the design to evaluate did not want to build it, pure and simple. Beech wrote a critique describing it as worthless and an anachrnism (because it was made from wood). 

Most of the manufacturers involved didn't make a huge impact with their own products, at least offensively, during the war either.

The manufacturers asked to look at the plans were:
Beech
Curtiss Wright
Fairchild
Fleetwings
Hughes

As to the bomber version, that was never going to happen. Arnold was part of the "Bomber Mafia", who believed in the concept of the self defending bomber fighting its way to the target. It was this dogma which prevented the Mosquito bomber from even being considered.

As mentioned earlier, Arnold's initial interest was for the Photo Reconnaissance version.


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2014)

Hey nuuumannn,

I thought I made myself VERY clear. There was and IS nothing wrong with the Mosquito. It was and IS a good performing aircraft. The political climate of the 1940's would never allow a foreign aircraft to be built for the US Armed Forces IN the USA and it was never DONE in WWII. We did accept some foreign aircraft into service in auxiliary roles, such as recon. None in primary roles to any real extent.

This says NOTHING about the performance of the Mosquito in the real war. It was a simple FACT. We didn't use it except in an auxiliary roles, even when it was requested by the field personnel. The people in procurement weren't fliers, they were ground people and did what they were told to do by the people in power.

These facts are not nationalism or my own opinion, they are simple, historical facts and reflect the attitudes of the time, not MINE or the attitudes NOW. Personally, I'd rather have Eurofighters than the F-35. Hell, I'd rather have Sukhois than the F-35, too. I would NOT have bought the Mosquito under any circumstances, mostly because it was of wood construction. The longevity of such material in tropical salt air environments was not good and never was. Likewise, it wasn't all that good in arctic conditions. That's the way it IS.

The jobs we specifically wanted done were done by aircraft WE designed and built, and that was the way it WAS, not necessarily the way it IS today. I don't want to change the facts of history, but I DO want it recorded accurately, as it happened at the time. Not as someone outside the country and outside the internal politics of the time saw it or sees it today.

Record what REALLY happened, not what you wanted to have happened.

I have NO agenda here. We didn't use Mosquitoes much when they were available, and when we wanted them, very few were delivered. That might well have had a lot to do with it ... I don't KNOW, but non-performance was not tolerated in WWII to any extent by the USA. If you didn't DO it, you were bypassed by someone who COULD. Maybe ordering 120 Mosquitoes and getting 40 was the straw that broke the Camel's back. 

Whatever the reason, they were insignificant in US WWII operations. That cannot be refuted by anyone with any facts from the time.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 9, 2014)

GregP said:


> I think the B-26 had considerable development potential in it. But whether or not they would have done that development given some incentive to do so is a question that cannot be answered except by "what if."



A lot of "What IF", change wing, change fuselage, use different version of the engines that need a _lot_ more volume in the Nacelles. 



> Development of the A-20 might have made it a LOT better and might have speeded up the A-26 development, too but, again, the question is what would have precipitated such a change in historic development? Another "what if."



Futzing with the A-20 wouldn't have done much for the A-26 and the A-26 shows why the Army probably wasn't interested in a _small_ bomber powered by Allison engines. Douglas was already doing private venture work in 1940 on the A-26 (or at least a successor/improved A-20) and a mock-up was being inspected on April 11-12 1941 and a contract for two prototypes place June 2 1941, about 6 months before Pearl Harbor. Prototype flew July 10, 1942. It seems to be what people here are asking for except for the two remote control turrets. Because of the remote control turrets it was a 3 seat plane with bombardier in the nose so fuselage is a LOT smaller than the B-26. 



> The Curtiss A-18 Shrike might have been developed but, at the same or more cost as a P-38, why try it? Why not go with the P-38? But the Shrike had potential for considerable clean-up. What if they had use two turbo-supercharged Allisons and had done an aerodynamic cleanup with an eye toward a high-speed light to medium bomber? Might have been formidable in 1940 - 1941. More "what-if."



Sorry Greg but the A-18 was a no go. The whole airframe was a NO GO. Sticking turbo Allisons on it is like sticking Merlin 61s on a Blenheim. You have a 1935 wing with 1935 flaps and 1935 bomb bays in the wing. It is a cool looking plane but _any_ money spent on it other than a complete and totally new airplane is money down a rat hole.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 9, 2014)

> Record what REALLY happened, not what you wanted to have happened.



Greg, cool your jets. You are reading too much into the posts being put up here. Take a deep breath. Typing every SECOND word in CAPITALS makes you SOUND very ANGRY.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 9, 2014)

GregP said:


> The political climate of the 1940's would never allow a foreign aircraft to be built for the US Armed Forces IN the USA and it was never DONE in WWII. We did accept some foreign aircraft into service in auxiliary roles, such as recon. None in primary roles to any real extent.



600 Spitfires and no, they were not recon, at least for the most part. 
Beaufighter night fighters. :http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=492

Four squadrons may not be your idea of any real extent but for a year and half they were the ONLY US night fighters in the Med theater. 
P-61 first flew 26 May 1942 and took two years to get into combat at all let alone in several theaters so _somebody_ was not getting the job done. 



> I have NO agenda here. We didn't use Mosquitoes much when they were available, and when we wanted them, very few were delivered. That might well have had a lot to do with it ... I don't KNOW, but non-performance was not tolerated in WWII to any extent by the USA. If you didn't DO it, you were bypassed by someone who COULD.



Not quite true about non-performance as the US 20mm Hispano fiasco shows. US job performance was sometimes judged by numbers produced (much like a Soviet factory manager) rather than the actual effectiveness of the weapon/vehicle/item.


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 9, 2014)

timmy said:


> I always wondered if Bell could have placed a couple of small Radials (R-1830 ?) in the front of the Bell Airacuda Nacelle's
> To make it a 4 engined high speed bomber in the push/pull configuration
> 
> Better than those stupid manned cannon pods



Looks like Buck Rogers!


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 9, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> ...or faster than real ones anyway
> 
> Please toss in you proposals, for a light/medium/heavy bomber that could be conceived between 1939-1942(from proposal to deployment; 1941 as a deadline is fine also, if judged posible), using engines armament (if any?) available for USAAC back then.



Returning to first post you have 3 different categories. 

Light bomber is pretty much covered by the A-20 and has been said before the USAAC policy was to use air-cooled engines for ground attack planes. 
The US was very interested in long range bombers and had little use for small bombers with light payloads for long range use. For one thing the state of the art wasn't quite there in mid to late 30s. See XB-15. XB-16 ( 6 Allison engines, The maximum weight was to have been 105,000 pounds. The range was estimated to be 3300 miles carrying 2500 pounds of bombs. The crew was to be 11. ) and the B-19 project.

For the ranges the US was interested in the fast bomber wasn't really an option. Rightly or wrongly they envisioned long missions with _most_ of the flying time spent in undefended airspace (over oceans) so a slow or moderate cruise speed wasn't a real problem. And let's face it, in 1938 the fast (schnell) bomber was still pretty much a concept. The He 111-Bs operating in Spain had a top speed of 230mph at around 4000 meters (without the dustbin lowered) with a cruise speed of 214mph. The He 111-Es that were staring to show up maxed at 261mph with max cruise of 237mph. These were only schnell bombers compared to JU 52s. The DO 17s with radial engines topped out at about 255mph with 3-4 man crews. 
315-320mph B-25s and B-26s were rockets compared to those aircraft and had better defenses to boot. (three 7.9mm mgs didn't take much to beat).

Also please consider that in 1939 the Allison factory didn't really exist. From 1930 through 1937 they built 16 engines, in 1938 they built 12 V-1710s and one V 3420 and in 1939 they built 48 engines. In 1940 they built 1153 with only 342 going to the USAAC and in 1941 they built 6,433. 

Army was interested in turbos for high altitude cruise and range (same reason airliners went for pressurized fuselages with late piston engined airliners), same fuel will take you further in the thinner air _if_ you can get the engines to work there. Army thought that air cooled engines wouldn't take the strain of trubo operation at high altitudes ( thin air won't cool as well).

A lot of things happened to change at _least_ some of the thinking. Better casting and forging techniques allowed a lot more fin area to be used by air cooled engines which went a long way to solving the high altitude cooling problems. Better fuels allowed a bit more compression to be used for better economy. Bomb accuracy from the higher altitudes proved to be more elusive than 1930's theory calling for lower operational altitudes ( and slower speeds and shorter range). Fighters got a lot better (although they should have seen this one coming, although it took quite a while for the Japanese to catch up). 

US was sort of trapped into the B-17, in many ways it was behind the times by 1941, not surprising for a contemporary of the Bristol Blenheim and Curtiss A-18, but it was the case of the B-17 or ??? 53 built in 1940, 144 in 1941 (could have been more?), 1,412 in 1942 and 4179 in 1943 with the "G" being introduced in July of 1943.

IF you decide in 1940 that you what to replace the B-17, what do you replace it with and how long will it take to to build it in the numbers the B-17 could be built in late 1941 and in 1942? While the numbers were small the production tooling was already designed and "merely" needed coping to get more factories on line. Please remember that Buick, Chevrolet and Studebaker were ALL being brought into the aircraft engine manufacturing plan in the fall of 1940. Dinking around with which company would produce which engine could delay things by months. Studebaker was originally supposed to build R-2600s and not R-1820s but as production priorities changed it was thought that Studebaker had more flexibility to change type of engine that parent company Wright did.


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2014)

Hi Nuuumann,

Not angry at all. I'm a bit tired of being either misunderstood or being deliberately misinterpreted, but that goes with a forum I suspect.

Unsurprisingly I disagree with Shortround's comment on my comments. He took the route of deliberate misinterpretation. 

You don't have to do a complete redesign of the B-26 to make it a lot better. Some changes have to be made, but not a complete redesign.

Futzing with the A-20 is what generated the A-26; it was an evolutionary plane, not a revolutionary one. Stand them side by side (we have that happening right across from the museum now) and the family resemblance is obvious. It's sort of like standing a P-47B next to our Seversky AT-12 ... it is just scaled up a bit and has a belly for all the air and exhaust ducts to and from the turbocharger. 

The A-18 Shrike could easily have been improved with a different, higher-speed airfoil, general cleanup, and a complete new set of engines. It would resemble the Me 110 and some of the Japanese planes, but COULD have been made a LOT faster with suitable attention. If you did it with attention to a possible bomb load, you would have a high-speed bomber with some bomb load that I would not care to speculate on without some design work that I am not interested in doing.

The title of this thread is how would YOU make a high-speed bomber, but everyone who comes up with a suggestion is beset by nay-sayers from all sides. Perhaps they don't want any discussion of ideas they didn't think of themselves. It happens all the time in business. I made three suggestions and have maybe five more, but I see that discussion is not apparently really wanted, so all I'll say in here going forward is that a high-speed American light to medium bomber was certainly possible in the early 1940's if that had been the specification that was sent out. Instead, the specs of the time were all about planes that any semi-modern fighter could catch.

It seems the people with the foresight worked at de Havilland in the UK and thus was born the Mosquito. It wasn't that nobody else could DO, but they mostly were never asked to do it creatively. Most aircraft designers were hemmed in by requirements. The Mosquito was born out of "what can we do that will be better than anything flying today or in the next few years?" ... not from a specification. Such innovation was possible from almost all design agencies if they had been given a free hand and could use any equipment they could imagine.

I don't think there is anything that could be done to make the Airacuda into a good aircraft unless they ditched the pods. Putting in two extra crewmen was never going to help performance!


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 9, 2014)

GregP said:


> I think the B-26 had considerable development potential in it. But whether or not they would have done that development given some incentive to do so is a question that cannot be answered except by "what if."
> ...





Shortround6 said:


> A lot of "What IF", change wing, change fuselage, use different version of the engines that need a _lot_ more volume in the Nacelles.



In case the reduction of guns/gun ammo/turrets and crew is executed, the wing loading of the B-26 should return in more acceptable values - meaning no such a pressing need to increase the wing dimensions and incidence. Wing's thickness to chord ratio was 17%, vs 18% of the A-20. Anyway, I'd appreciate a more complete analysis of the B-26's wing profile. 
This is how much some airplane items reduced the max range of the B-26; it is very much possible that reduction in speed was in similar values?






Speed of the early B-26s, with 'small wing' (605 sq ft) and R-2800-5 engines (1850 HP for take off): 






We might see that max RPM used is not 2600 (as available for the 'A' series of the R-2800), but 2400. One wonders how fast would've been those B-26s with engines operating at 2600 rpm, and with less drag and weight. Let alone with next engines used (R-2800-43s) operating at 2700 RPM, delivering 1600 HP at 13500 ft, no ram (and at 15000 ft with ram) and improved exhaust system. 

Much* or all** of the intercoolers of the two-stage R-2800s was located along the engine bearer's tubing. The auxiliary compressor was within the tubing. This means that no extra space was needed behind the bearer, ie. within the nacelle (or fuselage). As can be seen in the pg. 509 (*= F4U) and pg. 581 (**= F6F) of the 'Americas hundred thousand. 
Here is how the B-26's engine bearers looked like. 






Please note the extra space between aft part of the bearer and firewall:






Fuselage was able to house a large bomb load; once there is less crew and guns around, it is tad a too big though.

added: 'explosion' view of the B-26: link
added2: cutaway of the F6F: link; cutaway of the F4U: link


----------



## pbehn (Apr 9, 2014)

Cant complain about the USA not using the Mosquito, the British put work on it on hold in favour of Wellingtons and Tiger Moths. By the time its abilities were known and proved it was wanted by almost all sections of the RAF and a good few of the USAF ( for recon and night fighter).


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 9, 2014)

wuzak said:


> The manufacturers that were given the design to evaluate [Mosquito] did not want to build it, pure and simple. Beech wrote a critique describing it as worthless and an anachrnism (because it was made from wood).
> 
> Most of the manufacturers involved didn't make a huge impact with their own products, at least offensively, during the war either.
> 
> ...



Wait a minute, Hughes, of Spruce Goose fame, couldn't build a Mosquito?


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2014)

Hughes was VERY good at making one of almost anything, They weren't too good at making 1,000 identical units as a production batch. They made one Spruce Goose, one Hughes speed record plane, one big 2-blade helicopter with tip jets, etc. 

They did make a production batch of two F-11's, one of which Hughes himself crashed.

About the only thing they made many of was electronic in nature ... I'm thinking radars and guidance systems.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 9, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> Wait a minute, Hughes, of Spruce Goose fame, couldn't build a Mosquito?



By the time the concept was proven it was too late, to all intents and purposes the air war was over in mid to late 44, for the USA to make significant numbers of them they would have had to make the decision before it was really operational. It was an outstanding recon plane but USA had many to choose from in that role. It was an outstanding night fighter but the USA didnt need so many it was committed to daylight bombing. It was an outstanding light medium bomber but the USA had loads of other good A/C on order... The British screwed up with the mosquito there should have been fewer wellingtons halifaxes and many orther marques then maybe we could have sent some to the USA as recon and NF planes.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 9, 2014)

GregP said:


> Not angry at all. I'm a bit tired of being either misunderstood or being deliberately misinterpreted, but that goes with a forum I suspect.
> 
> Unsurprisingly I disagree with Shortround's comment on my comments. He took the route of deliberate misinterpretation.



Did I?



> Futzing with the A-20 is what generated the A-26; it was an evolutionary plane, not a revolutionary one. Stand them side by side (we have that happening right across from the museum now) and the family resemblance is obvious. It's sort of like standing a P-47B next to our Seversky AT-12 ... it is just scaled up a bit and has a belly for all the air and exhaust ducts to and from the turbocharger.



Lets see, different wing structure (two spar instead of single spar), different air foil, different flap set up ( first service use of double slotted flaps?). 

From the right angle a B-29 and a B-17 look a lot alike too. 







B-29 was _just_ evolutionary because it kind of looks the same? 

A-26 prototype was flying with remote control turrets more than 9 months ( or a year?) before a Production A-20 got a manned turret. 

next question, you work in a museum restoration shop. Could you take an A-20 airframe and turn it into an A-26? What parts would be useful aside from the instruments and few nuts, bolts and fittings?



> The A-18 Shrike could easily have been improved with a different, higher-speed airfoil, general cleanup, and a complete new set of engines. It would resemble the Me 110 and some of the Japanese planes, but COULD have been made a LOT faster with suitable attention. If you did it with attention to a possible bomb load, you would have a high-speed bomber with some bomb load that I would not care to speculate on without some design work that I am not interested in doing.



Here we go again, "_could easily have been improved_" with a *different* airfoil and *different* wing construction (original was fabric covered from main spar back) possibly *different* flaps. In other words a whole new wing. 

A "_general cleanup_" would certainly be nice considering it was slower than a Blenheim, carried less of a bomb load and used more powerful engines. Hey, you never know "_with suitable attention_" you might even get it to be as good as a Blenheim 

And the Blenheim didn't loose a large percentage of aircraft to undercarriage collapse. 

unless you go for a mostly new fuselage you are kind of stuck with a pregnant guppy type bomb bay seeing as how the original didn't have one in the fuselage. 



> You don't have to do a complete redesign of the B-26 to make it a lot better. Some changes have to be made, but not a complete redesign.



Maybe, and this is the closest one. 

speed of early versions is in question, it may have been faster than we think or it may have had cooling problems? 

Starting with the early version you only save 716.4 lbs if you leave ALL the guns and ammo on the ground and only another 400lbs if you cut the crew to 3 men ( early Version had 5 man crew).

However the weight at which those 2400rpm speed figures are given is 26,734lbs (less than some A-20s in ferry condition) and is only 4775lbs above empty weight (no guns or even turret) and 1972lbs lighter than "normal" gross load. "Normal" gross only includes four 500lb bombs and shackles ( same bomb load as an A-20), 465 gallons of fuel ( more less than some early A-20s 400-540 gals) and 42.3 gallons of oil (just over 1/2 total oil capacity), 5 men and two .30 cal guns 600rpg, the turret with two .50s and 400rpg and the single .50 in the tail with 200 rounds. 
In other words even if you leave the guns, turret, and 2 men out you still need to loose 856 lbs of either bombs or fuel to get _down_ to the weight the performance figures are for. 

Stripping guns and crew out of an _existing_ aircraft doesn't do a whole lot for the speed unless you have some pretty high drag turrets ( the British were masters at high drag dorsal turrets) which the Martin turret was not. 

So we are back to a not so simple fix or tweak if you want high speed, range and bomb load (or even two out of three) out of a B-26. Even stripped it offers only a slight difference in speed and range from an A-20 while carrying the same bomb load. Granted it offers much greater range or bomb load or both but then the speed goes down hill somewhat. 




> I don't think there is anything that could be done to make the Airacuda into a good aircraft unless they ditched the pods. Putting in two extra crewmen was never going to help performance!



Well, something we can agree on 

Minimum change for turning the Airacuda into a bomber is put the bomb bays in the front of the nacelles, just don't drop bombs while climbing steeply


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2014)

Take a powder Shortround.

We'll probably never see eye to eye, but I still love ya'.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 9, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> Wait a minute, Hughes, of Spruce Goose fame, couldn't build a Mosquito?



Don't think that it was that they _couldn't_, more likely that the didn't want to.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 9, 2014)

GregP said:


> Hughes was VERY good at making one of almost anything, They weren't too good at making 1,000 identical units as a production batch. They made one Spruce Goose, one Hughes speed record plane, one big 2-blade helicopter with tip jets, etc.
> 
> They did make a production batch of two F-11's, one of which Hughes himself crashed.
> 
> About the only thing they made many of was electronic in nature ... I'm thinking radars and guidance systems.



Didn't they make components for other manufacturers?


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2014)

Let's see if anyone else, aside from Shortround, can see the family resemblance. See below. They went from a single-width fuselage to side-by-side, but the airframes are remarkably similar in many ways, from the dihedral of the horizontal tail, to the lines of the nose and tail cone and a lot more. They added a lower turret and, since the fuselage was wide enough for two in the A-26, it was more shallow. To get more fin area, they went to a squared-off shape, as they did for the wings and horizontal tail, too, but the general characteristics are almost identical.

The A-26 had 16% more wing area, 17% more power, and was overall 28% heavier for slightly heavier wing loading. Top speed for the A-26 was only about 4% higher than for the A-20.

If they had done nothing more than add the R-2800 to the A-20, they would have almost exactly the same performance, speed-wise, as they got with the A-26.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 9, 2014)

You forgot to add that they made the A-26 with laminar flow wings....


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 9, 2014)

Nice, Tell me to take a powder and then come back with another personnel attack or insult. 

I think I am done responding to you.


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2014)

Wasn't a personal attack, you said you didn't see the resemblance. I just wondered if anyone else did. No insult was ever intended. 

Maybe you see the resemblance now? Maybe not.

Jeez Shortround, if I want to insult you, you'll KNOW it. If I say you resemble the north end of a southbound jackass, you know you've been insulted. I haven't made a single disparaging remark about you of which I am aware. Sorry if you took it that way. Maybe you are a wee bit touchy? But there was no insult in the post nor was any intended, as stated above.

Think happy thoughts. Maybe have a beer. I will. Cheers.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 9, 2014)

There is a resemblance. 

There often is in products from the same company.


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2014)

Since both involved Ed Heinemann, I'm not surprised. I have a calculus book that belonged to his brother. A lot of his work was evolutionary and built upon the last design with some changes to make it more closely meet the spec.

My favorite Ed Heinemann design is the A-4 Skyhawk. Surely a good flying jet if ever there was one. Had a ride on one once, a TA-4J. I'd go well into hock to do it again ... but it's probably not in the cards.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 10, 2014)

GregP said:


> Let's see if anyone else, aside from Shortround, can see the family resemblance. See below. They went from a single-width fuselage to side-by-side, but the airframes are remarkably similar in many ways, from the dihedral of the horizontal tail, to the lines of the nose and tail cone and a lot more. They added a lower turret and, since the fuselage was wide enough for two in the A-26, it was more shallow. To get more fin area, they went to a squared-off shape, as they did for the wings and horizontal tail, too, but the general characteristics are almost identical.
> 
> The A-26 had 16% more wing area, 17% more power, and was overall 28% heavier for slightly heavier wing loading. Top speed for the A-26 was only about 4% higher than for the A-20.
> 
> If they had done nothing more than add the R-2800 to the A-20, they would have almost exactly the same performance, speed-wise, as they got with the A-26.



When both A-20 and A-26 were carrying 4000 lbs of bombs, the A-26 carried 900 US gallons of internal fuel, vs. 400 gals in the A-20. The A-26 also carried twice the number of machine guns, even before additional ones were installed under the wings or within them.


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2014)

Yeah, the A-26 was certainly more capable. And history doesn't prove that upgrading the A-20 would not have been better ... it was never done so there is no record of what might have happened.

All speculation ...

I think the A-26 was better than any development of the A-20, but could not prove it one way or the other with data available to me today.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 10, 2014)

Historically, the A-20 was upgraded. It was already a redesign of the DB-7 (the one with Twin Wasps). There limits were hit with latest versions, and capability to lug around additional 3500-4000 lbs worth of fuel and tanks would've been possible only in case such A-20s were built from unobtanium. 
People might want to check out Joe Baugher's series of articles about the DB-7/A-20 to see both capability and weight grow with years passing.


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2014)

I was thinking of the A-20 with 5 - 6 feet more span, a 4 - 5 foot fuselage plug, a new airfoil, and R-2800's with suitable props, cleaned up for drag reduction. Of course the spar would have to be updated for the new configuration.

They did that with the U-2, making it into the TR-2. One had an 80 foot wingspan and the other has a 100 foot wingspan. It was mostly done with a wing plug, keeping the tip and the root and adding wing area in between.

I am thinking the A-20 could have VERY effectively been improved and made faster simultaneously by the R-2800's and some intelligent wing mods plus a fuselage stretch. Of course the tail would have to be adjusted, too, to cope with the new power and speed.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 10, 2014)

'New airfoil' = new wing. Toss also the new undercarriage. Basically, the 80% of aircraft is new. And it still does not have a copilot, as the A-26 had, as well as B-25 and B-26.
Might as well start with a new design, as historically Ed Heinemann did.


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2014)

Let's see.

Kurt Tank added a plug and changed engines to the Fw 190 and created the Ta-152. They added length to create the Spitfire 21. They changed engines from the B-29 to the B-50 or KB-50. They added a plug to so many airliners I can't count them ... and changed engines and props. The DH 7 turned into the DH 8. They changed the tail on the B-17. They stretched the Do-17 into the Do-217. They added a second fuselage to the P-51 and made the P-82, and the Germans made a twin Bf 109 and a twin He-111. They added plugs to the C-141 and Boeing 747, DC-9, DC-8, and the Piper Cherokee to create the Cherokee Six. They added plugs to the U-2 or create the TR-2. They turned the Manchester into the Lancaster with plugs and extra engines.

Many airliners have different engines and the same airframe.

The list is LONG and distinguished ... and you say they could NOT do it with the A-20?

What the heck are you thinking? And why?

Make your case. I say it was EASILY possible and quite probable that the goals could have been met.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 10, 2014)

Greg, the questio has to be is that worth the effort vs designing a new aicraft? Considering that you aren't just extending the wings, you are changing the profile - which means a whole new design for the structure.

Also interested to know what the fuselage plug gives you?

On the Fw 190D and Ta 152 series it was to restore CoG.

I don't think that the Spitfire ever had a fuselage plug. The differences in length were due to the different length of the engine (Griffons and 2 stage Merlins being significantly longer than the early Merlins), the profile of the spinner (much more extended on Griffon types) and the increase in rudder size.

The P-82 was an almost entirely new design - it took 18 months+ to get the prototype flying.

On various transports the idea was to give more cargo/passenger space.

Do you expect that the bomb bay could be lengthened, or another installed?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2014)

Hi Wuzak,

People are telling me it can't be done.

Bullshit.

It CAN be done. You are all just trying VERY hard to find reasons why it it was impossible. It WAS possible, and not with more effort than designing an entirely new aircraft. Try thinking of how it CAN be done rather than why it can't.

You naysayers just piss me off and I would fire the lot of you rather than miss a contract for an improved aircraft. The goal is to DO it, not find reasons why you can't. In real history it wasn't done, but that doesn't stop you from postulating all sorts of "what ifs" that are WAY more unlikely than creating a fast bomber from the A-20 via modifications to a plane that was a 340 mph plane to START with.

Geez.

I'd fire you if I were the commander. Tell me how it CAN be done, not why it can't. In real life, they went with the A-26, but it certainly COULD have been done differently.

I fully realize it wasn't. If we want to talk reality only, why are there so many alternate timeline and alternate history threads?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 10, 2014)

GregP said:


> Let's see.
> 
> Kurt Tank added a plug and changed engines to the Fw 190 and created the Ta-152.



More a case of a new wing, than just adding a plug, for the Ta-152. 



> They added length to create the Spitfire 21.



No great shakes re. result achived - maybe better handling?



> They changed engines from the B-29 to the B-50 or KB-50. They added a plug to so many airliners I can't count them ... and changed engines and props. The DH 7 turned into the DH 8. They changed the tail on the B-17. They stretched the Do-17 into the Do-217. They added a second fuselage to the P-51 and made the P-82, and the Germans made a twin Bf 109 and a twin He-111. They added plugs to the C-141 and Boeing 747, DC-9, DC-8, and the Piper Cherokee to create the Cherokee Six. They added plugs to the U-2 or create the TR-2. They turned the Manchester into the Lancaster with plugs and extra engines.



I'll reiterate: the A-20 was already a big brother of the DB-7, that received a beefed-up structure U/C, enlarged fin, new much heavier powerplant, ever incresing fuel tankage, the tanks themselves receiveing protection, increased the number and size of guns, eventually receiving the turret. 
The B-50 also endured installation of bigger tail, longer nacelles, plus internal strengthening that 3-wievs don't talk about. The B-17 never went in service use with engines other than Cyclones - no much need for substantial changes. The Do-217 was a completely new A/C, not a variant of the Do-17. The P-82 was not two Mustangs mated together, the fuselage was different. Twin 109 is something else than a 109 with wing and fuselage extensions, new engines, new fin, new U/C, like you propose for the A-20. The twin He-111 served a different purpose than usual He-111. 



> Many airliners have different engines and the same airframe.
> 
> The list is LONG and distinguished ... and you say they could NOT do it with the A-20?



Covered above - A-20 was already a redesign of existing A/C.



> What the heck are you thinking? And why?
> 
> Make your case. I say it was EASILY possible and quite probable that the goals could have been met.



Greg, don't loose any sleep over my disagreement with you. I've made my case, two times now.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 10, 2014)

GregP said:


> Hi Wuzak,
> 
> People are telling me it can't be done.
> 
> ...



Greg, I'm not saying it can't be done, just asking if it is preferred to doing a new aircraft, and why.

If I understand your premise correctly, you are choosing to upgrade the A-20 with bigger, more powerful engines. R-2800s, presumabl

The increased span I understand is to allow greater take-off loads, and thus more equipment/more armour/bigger bomb loads. And hold more fuel.

I don't understand the need for a longer fuselage. Is it to hold a bigger or second bomb bay? Or is it a counter-weight to the heavier engines?

I think you also mentioned using turbos. Could these be positioned to counter-act the heavier engines, or is that part of the weight equation that requires the fuselage extension?

I take it the whole idea here is to upgrade the A-20 in quick time?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 10, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> When both A-20 and A-26 were carrying 4000 lbs of bombs, the A-26 carried 900 US gallons of internal fuel, vs. 400 gals in the A-20. The A-26 also carried twice the number of machine guns, even before additional ones were installed under the wings or within them.



A few minor corrections if I may, A-20 carried 2000lb inside and 2000lb outside under the wings in later versions. A-26 carried 4000lb inside and 2000lb outside under the wings, for 6000lb total. 

A-26 was also _designed_ to carry a 75mm cannon in the nose although few were built with it. It is featured rather prominently in the early pilots manual though. 

A-26 helped handle the greater landing weight not only with the larger wing, 540 sq ft instead of 465 sq ft, but by using a different flap system. I don't know if the flap system or the new airfoil or simply greater weight (or a combination) called for the change to the two spar wing structure. 

I would also note that the A-26 was being designed and built in prototype form _well_ before the A-20 was ever given .50cal mg in _any_ positions and well before the A-20 got the under wing racks that boosted the short range bomb load to 4000lbs. A-26 was also designed to hold TWO torpedoes although the capability was never used.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 10, 2014)

A few figures for _late_ war A-20, B-26, B-25 and A-26.


...........................................A-20G...............B-26B..................B-26J....................A-26B

Combat max gross..................27,000lb............36,500lb...............35,000lbs..............35,000lb
Normal internal fuel..................725 gal..............962gal..................974gal..................925gal
normal bomb load...................2000lb................3000lb..................3000lb..................4000lb
max internal bomb load............2000lb................4000lb..................4000lb..................4000lb

Max continuous power at max combat gross weight at 12,000ft

True air speed........................314mph..............287mph.................275mph................334mph
range SM..............................690 miles............550miles.................750miles...............780miles
Fuel burn GPH........................290....................398.......................319.....................386

Normal power at overload max gross weight at 12,000ft (includes warm up and climb) 

True air speed........................264mph..............238mph.................245mph................296mph
range SM..............................1050 miles...........810miles................1120miles.............1365miles
Fuel burn GPH........................140....................240.......................205.....................209

Max range at overload max gross weight at 12,000ft (includes warm up and climb)*


True air speed........................233mph..............210mph.................215mph................255mph
range SM..............................1410miles........... 1090miles..............1510miles.............1710miles
Fuel burn GPH........................110....................149.......................135.....................139

* some planes numbers are not at 12,000ft but at 9,000 or 10,000ft as they were available. 

Figures are from the Crowood book on the A-20 by Scott Thompson.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 10, 2014)

Have yourself a bacon, it was way overdue  Trying to make a formatted post on the forum is a b!tch, many thanks for that.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 10, 2014)

Thank you Tomo. I was rather struck by the advancement in speed/range of the A-26 compared to the other 3 aircraft. Due, I believe, almost entirely to the advancement of aeronautics (air foil, wing size/flaps and drag reduction) in just the few years between the planes, the first 3 being from 1938/39.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 10, 2014)

Could you please check out the range and fuel burn rate for the B-26B, seems way more fuel hungry than B-26J? Was the B-26B from the table outfitted with bigger or smaller wing? What were the engines installed and power settings used?

The A-26 also have had a wing that was not just more advanced, but of smaller size than of either of the B-26s. Cuts plenty of drag - improves mileage?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 10, 2014)

Just getting the numbers from the table in the book. The B-26B was in production from May of 1942 until Feb of 1944 and the different production block numbers cover quite a number of changes (bigger wing was introduced on the B series with the -10-ma block, after it was introduced on the C series), different engines and different gross weights. 

This chart from Zeno's http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/B-26/B-26FOIC.pdf

shows a fuel burn of 330gph at 10,000ft for 271mph and 368gph at 15,000ft for 285mph but this is for a B-1 with small wing, no cheek guns. The Manual shows speeds as low as 278mph at 15,000ft for the same 368gph in the 36,000-39,000lb weight range to a high of 300mph at same height and fuel burn but at a weight of 23400-27,000lbs. 

Perhaps the 398 gallons an hour is a typo and should be 368 (number flipped?) but the Martin B-26 still gets the worst fuel mileage. The 238mph for 240gph is within a couple of MPH and Gallons per hour of the manual for the weight class.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 10, 2014)

Here is the chart for the early B-26s (small wing, R-2800-5 engines). Manual can be downloaded at Willaim's site; scroll down: link.







I'm sure that B-26 will get the worst fuel mileage, just the numbers for the B-26B seem in too big a disadvantage vs. B-26J


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 13, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> A few figures for _late_ war A-20, B-26, B-25 and A-26.
> 
> 
> ...........................................A-20G...............B-26B..................B-26J....................A-26B
> ...




Thanks for that data. I recall that a "Wings" magazine edition had an article on the B-26 development in which it was stated that the B-26 when powered by a turbo supercharged R-2600 was expected to sustain a speed of 400mph. The development of this engine "fell through the roof".

Now consider replacing the single stage two speed R-2800 on the B-26 with a turbo charged variant. The Turbo R-2800 can maintain full power to 25,000ft whereas I expect a R-2800 would start falling of at 12000 feet with a rapid decline from 20,000ft. (I have no data on this latter engine Im taking an educated guess).

At 12000ft air pressure is down to 0.66 atmospheres (with the R-2800 gear driven version already loosing power)
At 25000ft air pressure is down to 0.30 atmospheres

Hence an turbo R-2800 equipped B-26 at 25000ft, with 2000hp, would experience considerably less than half the parasitic drag at 250000ft tahn at 12000ft but have 5%-10% more power. I reckon that should equate to a 25% increase in speed using a cube root law which for the early 305mph version of the Marauder would take it to 380mph. At 25000ft it would have been able to outrun most fighters of the day. As PW R-28000 Gains in power would increase speed.

The B-26 could carry the same load as the B-17 but for less distance and less altitude. A turbo charged B-26 could've carried the same load as the B-17, at the same altitude but at speed so high interception was unlikely, and remember this is still and armed bomber. I suggest a pair of 150 gallon drop tanks would allow such a B-26 to penetrate all the way to Berlin at a sustained high speed.

It has to be remembered that when the Mosquito entered service that it was actually slower than contemporaneous Me 109G1/G2 or even Me 110G1. What made the Mosquito effective was the two stage two speed Merlin which boosted the speed of both the Spitfire IX and Mosquito to slightly beyond that of the standard German fighters *at high altitude.* That's for the pathfinder and PRU versions. The low altitude Fighter Bombers received single stage supercharged engines with supercharger impellers and gearing tailored to low altitude work (at the expense of high altitude work). 

A US 'fast bomber' would require similar tailoring: a specialized high altitude engine, which the US was the world leader in. It should also be recognized that some of the Mosquito's speed was a result of the use of WEP (War Emergency Power) which was highly developed in the Merlin engine and such WEP systems would also need to be developed for US aircraft.

The Germans had some very advanced high altitude work but they were faced with dealing with insufficient high octane fuel (their C3 fuel) and dealing with an incredible range of scenarios both in the West and East that limited their ability to handle all situations well.


----------



## m37b1 (Apr 13, 2014)

Koopernic said:


> Thanks for that data. I recall that a "Wings" magazine edition had an article on the B-26 development in which it was stated that the B-26 when powered by a turbo supercharged R-2600 was expected to sustain a speed of 400mph. The development of this engine "fell through the roof".
> 
> Now consider replacing the single stage two speed R-2800 on the B-26 with a turbo charged variant. The Turbo R-2800 can maintain full power to 25,000ft whereas I expect a R-2800 would start falling of at 12000 feet with a rapid decline from 20,000ft. (I have no data on this latter engine Im taking an educated guess).
> 
> ...



DING!!!


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 13, 2014)

Koopernic said:


> It has to be remembered that when the Mosquito entered service that it was actually slower than contemporaneous Me 109G1/G2 or even Me 110G1.



How fast did the Me 110G1 go?


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 13, 2014)

Koopernic said:


> Thanks for that data. I recall that a "Wings" magazine edition had an article on the B-26 development in which it was stated that the B-26 when powered by a turbo supercharged R-2600 was expected to sustain a speed of 400mph. The development of this engine "fell through the roof".
> 
> Now consider replacing the single stage two speed R-2800 on the B-26 with a turbo charged variant. The Turbo R-2800 can maintain full power to 25,000ft whereas I expect a R-2800 would start falling of at 12000 feet with a rapid decline from 20,000ft. (I have no data on this latter engine Im taking an educated guess).
> 
> ...


After all that reworking and rebuilding on the B-26 and when would it have been available?

The XB-28 would have been production ready before the B-26 and it was faster than the B-26, flew higher than the B-26 and could carry the same max. load as the B-26 with a range of nearly 900 miles further than the B-26.

With it's pressurized cabin, the XB-28 had a service ceiling of 34,800 feet compared to the B-26's 21,000 feet.

The XB-28's top speed of 370mph (nearly 90mph faster than the B-26) at 25,000 feet might not have been as impressive as a Mosquito, but was one of the fastest fully armed, turreted, twin-engined bombers available.


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 13, 2014)

"On the Fw 190D and Ta 152 series it was to restore CoG."
The tail plug ( few inches, only 8 inches, ahead of the empenage) was as you say to help restore C of G as well as aerodynamic center given the longer (but lighter) Jumo 213 or DB603 engine.
The additional fuselage 'plugs' on the Ta 152 allowed a larger wider chord wing to be fitted as well as a massive increase in fuel and other liquids (MW50, GM-1) nevetheless the Ta 152 and Fw 190 shared a great many parts and metal work profiles to the extent that the larger Ta 152 tails started appearing on Fw 190. There are big gains in reusing parts in this way, even 70% reuse is of benefit in both design and production)

Spitfire never received a plug, the only fuselage mod was the heightened pointy tail, it was so stable to begin with. Counter weighting and parts redistribution was used to balance C of G. For Focke-Wulf the change from radial to liquid cooled was probably more radical than the addition of the two stage Merlin and then Griffon to the Spitfire IX and XIV respectively.


----------



## Koopernic (Apr 13, 2014)

mhuxt said:


> How fast did the Me 110G1 go?



In the G series the DB601E engine was replaced by the slightly modified (it was a new engine but you could say it was bored out since piston centers were the same) DB605A with a few other minor refinements. An armed Me 110G1 could manage 370mph which I believe was almost the same speed as an unarmed Mosquito with the single stage Merlin. A PRU Mosquito could manage 386mph while a bomber version (unarmed) 382mph. Take the guns and armour of the Me 110 and put guns on the Mosquito the speed advantage would reverse. An armed Me 109G1 could manage 400.5 mph with that same engine but fell over the year due to weight and drag increases to 386mph before climbing again in late 43 to 1944 to 440mph as improved engines came in. They entered service in the first few months of 1942. The Mosquito entered service with the single stage Merlin, it soon received more capable engines. Rolls Royce produced many different variants of the Merlin optimized for different missions, at the specific altitude they were optimized for they were unbeatable. Think of it this way, the Luftwaffe might have a fighter in the area where Mosquito were operating but they might need Fw 190 to have half a chance at intercepting a low altitude bombing run and a GM-1 equiped 109 for a high altitude attack. A Luftwaffe fighter equipped with radar was simply too slow.

The Me 110 by this time was turning into a pure night fighter (actually one of its initial design missions) but was much slower when equipped with radar. The Me 110 could haul a very heavy bomb load, 4400lbs, but it lacked a bomb bay to keep speed up unless a very light load and was short ranged though it could carry rather large drop tanks, (the Me 210/410 did have a bomb bay, which is why they were developed).

The Germans to a degree simply got caught out on high altitude engines. After the two stage Merlin's came in their only hope was GM-1 equipped Me 109.

Of course it doesn't take much of a speed advantage to cut interception chances.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 13, 2014)

A production Mosquito F.II was tested at Boscombe Down at 358mph with a matt black finish and 366mph with a smooth black finish.It was fitted with the standard armament of 4 x 0.303" and 4 x 20mm.

The exhaust fitted was one of the early types - not the later ejector exhaust system.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 13, 2014)

Thanks, had never heard of a 110 G-1 before.

I suppose there's also the issue of which is faster at which other's rated altitude, and who sees whom first.


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 13, 2014)

Koopernic said:


> The development of this engine "fell through the roof".



What happened did it fall off the plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 13, 2014)

Koopernic said:


> "On the Fw 190D and Ta 152 series it was to restore CoG."
> The tail plug ( few inches, only 8 inches, ahead of the empenage) was as you say to help restore C of G as well as aerodynamic center given the longer (but lighter) Jumo 213 or DB603 engine.
> The additional fuselage 'plugs' on the Ta 152 allowed a larger wider chord wing to be fitted as well as a massive increase in fuel and other liquids (MW50, GM-1) nevetheless the Ta 152 and Fw 190 shared a great many parts and metal work profiles to the extent that the larger Ta 152 tails started appearing on Fw 190. There are big gains in reusing parts in this way, even 70% reuse is of benefit in both design and production)



The incerese of the fuel tankage was due to installing the new tanks between the wing spars. The wing fuel tanks were also specified for some versions of later Fw-190Ds. Main benefit (intended?) of the increased volume between firewall and engine was the capability to have a powerful central battery installed, as it was the case for the Ta-152C - three cannons (and their ammo, of course) in fuselage.



> Spitfire never received a plug, the only fuselage mod was the heightened pointy tail, it was so stable to begin with. Counter weighting and parts redistribution was used to balance C of G. For Focke-Wulf the change from radial to liquid cooled was probably more radical than the addition of the two stage Merlin and then Griffon to the Spitfire IX and XIV respectively.



When V-12s were installed on the 'basic' Fw-190 fuselage, they added also the cooling systems at the extreme front. In Spitfire, a good deal of the increased engine weight was counter-balanced by installation of bigger heavier radiators behind the CoG.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 13, 2014)

Helo, Koopernic,



Koopernic said:


> ...
> Now consider replacing the single stage two speed R-2800 on the B-26 with a turbo charged variant. The Turbo R-2800 can maintain full power to 25,000ft whereas I expect a R-2800 would start falling of at 12000 feet with a rapid decline from 20,000ft. (I have no data on this latter engine Im taking an educated guess).
> 
> At 12000ft air pressure is down to 0.66 atmospheres (with the R-2800 gear driven version already loosing power)
> At 25000ft air pressure is down to 0.30 atmospheres



I too do feel that the B-26 would do better with greater power. The 2 turbos per A/C would add quite a bit of weight, however - around 2 x 800 lbs, judging by weight distribution of the P-47. The B-26 was already at the limits of the weight loading. Some weight should be cut by reducing armament and crew, but not all 1600 lbs?
The 2-stage R-2800 should offer better performance than turbo up to 20000 ft, and comparable between 20-25000 ft? Much smaller weight penalty, circa 2 x 300 to 2 x 400 lbs - easier to balance out with reduction of guns and crew.



> Hence an turbo R-2800 equipped B-26 at 25000ft, with 2000hp, would experience considerably less than half the parasitic drag at 250000ft tahn at 12000ft but have 5%-10% more power. I reckon that should equate to a 25% increase in speed using a cube root law which for the early 305mph version of the Marauder would take it to 380mph. At 25000ft it would have been able to outrun most fighters of the day. As PW R-28000 Gains in power would increase speed.



The early B-26s were good for 325 mph, admittedly at not max weights?



> The B-26 could carry the same load as the B-17 but for less distance and less altitude. A turbo charged B-26 could've carried the same load as the B-17, at the same altitude but at speed so high interception was unlikely, and remember this is still and armed bomber. I suggest a pair of 150 gallon drop tanks would allow such a B-26 to penetrate all the way to Berlin at a sustained high speed.



Maybe install some fuel tanks in the aft bomb bay, or use some space where the navigator and radioman were?



> It has to be remembered that when the Mosquito entered service that it was actually slower than contemporaneous Me 109G1/G2 or even Me 110G1. What made the Mosquito effective was the two stage two speed Merlin which boosted the speed of both the Spitfire IX and Mosquito to slightly beyond that of the standard German fighters *at high altitude.* That's for the pathfinder and PRU versions. The low altitude Fighter Bombers received single stage supercharged engines with supercharger impellers and gearing tailored to low altitude work (at the expense of high altitude work).



The single stage engines in the Mossie were not specially tailored for low altitude. The Merlins XX, 21, 23, 31 and 32 were 'normal' Merlins, that gave better power at altitude than single stage V-1710s. The WER (over boosting due to ever better fuel) was only available at altitudes 'under' the FTH, though.



> A US 'fast bomber' would require similar tailoring: a specialized high altitude engine, which the US was the world leader in. It should also be recognized that some of the Mosquito's speed was a result of the use of WEP (War Emergency Power) which was highly developed in the Merlin engine and such WEP systems would also need to be developed for US aircraft.



Interestingly enough, the single stage R-2800 did not received water-alcohol injection (ADI) until the 'C' series of engines, ie. too late for ww2. The turbo and 2-stagers were equipped with ADI from late 1943/early 1944. No ADI = no WER for US radials.
The V-1710s were allowed for WER without ADI (= WER dry), officially from mid 1942 on. Depending on version, altitude and time, the WER was between 1400 and 1600 HP.



> The Germans had some very advanced high altitude work but they were faced with dealing with insufficient high octane fuel (their C3 fuel) and dealing with an incredible range of scenarios both in the West and East that limited their ability to handle all situations well.



Seems like the Germans embarked into the 2-stage bandwagon too late. Big engines, decent RPM, intercoolers and MW-50 should enable good high altitude performance even on the B4 fuel.


----------



## cimmex (Apr 13, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> MW-50 should enable good high altitude performance even on the B4 fuel.


MW50 only works below FTH
cimmex


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 13, 2014)

The benefits are most pronounced below FTH. 
The MW-50, or similar ADI system, adds some intercooling/aftercooling effect. Eg. above 21000 ft, the 2-stage R-2800-10W gave almost 100 HP more with ADI, and the -18W gave more than 150 HP above 25000 ft.


----------



## cimmex (Apr 13, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> The benefits are most pronounced below FTH.
> The MW-50, or similar ADI system, adds some intercooling/aftercooling effect. Eg. above 21000 ft, the 2-stage R-2800-10W gave almost 100 HP more with ADI, and the -18W gave more than 150 HP above 25000 ft.


According to “Flugmotoren und Strahltriebwerke” the use of the MW50 system allows higher Boost without detonation. Above FTH the supercharger could not deliver higher boost anymore.
cimmex


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 13, 2014)

cimmex said:


> According to “Flugmotoren und Strahltriebwerke” the use of the MW50 system allows higher Boost without detonation.



Of course, but that is not all what it does.



> Above FTH the supercharger could not deliver higher boost anymore.



In case intercooling/afterooling is used, there is more air (or mixture) admitted in cylinders at a same boost, since cooler air is also denser. Please note the speed loss (graph) of some 7-8 km/h when the MW-50 system is disengaged (_'MW abschaltung'_) once the Bf-109 with DB-605DB/ASB is above 7.5 km. The FTH being at 7.1 km; all altitudes with ram, of course. The MW-50 system acts as an intercooler there.

added: the benefits of the ADI systems were probably more pronounced with superchargers capable for boost (=2 stage), than with single stage ones?


----------



## cimmex (Apr 13, 2014)

I’m sure you are wrong in this case but I’m too lazy to search the source now. Your original statement was “MW-50 should enable good high altitude performance even on the B4 fuel.” For this the Germans uses the GM1 system not MW50.
cimmex


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 13, 2014)

No, that was not my statement.


----------



## cimmex (Apr 13, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> Helo, Koopernic,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


not? see last two lines.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 13, 2014)

Indeed, and not just “MW-50 should enable good high altitude performance even on the B4 fuel.”


----------



## cimmex (Apr 13, 2014)

well,our discussion started with post 161


----------

