Recent content by SplitRz

All of that I had assumed and agree with. The question I'm pondering, is when aerodynamics started to take a more serious role in the design? Up until external carriage started to have a marked impact upon performance - as well as the cross over to when bomb sights (finally) managed to get to...

I think there's a lot of wisdom in this. Especially the last sentence! One of the largely forgotten stories of 1940 is the 'battle of the barges' - a series of attacks that were actually effective (and most likely would in and of themselves have made Sealion even more impossible than it was...

There's at least an argument that a purpose designed two seater light bomber like The Henley *might* have been superiour. It certainly was to the Battle in all important aspects - especially speed - apart from bombload. Its interesting that many of the Henley's proponents after it was cancelled...

It really boils down to whether or not you understand the concept of context, the title of a thread [read it out aloud to yourself if that helps] - and whether you can have a reasonable, polite and relevant conversation without strawmen arguments, hair-splitting, tangents, and ad hominem...

As I understand it, operational experience and feedback in France meant that a rapid modification programme had ensured most (if not all) had been re-equipped with variable props before the peak of the BoB - a matter of a few months. I don't know if you've ever read Paul Richies 'Fighter...

I'm not sure its hyperventilation as opposed to head-scratching and some challenge as to why you're using examples of non-contextual aircraft to prove... well... what exactly? (and it seems i'm in company on that front, so maybe your hyperbole is unnecessary)... 1939/40 Fast Bomber. The A-36...

Thats actually any interesting thought! At what point did engineers, aerodynamicists and manufacturers start to address the issue of bombs design from the perspective of the drag induced by externally mounted munitions? Barnes Wallis and others designing specialist bombs obviously looked at it...

Yes. Which is three years after the time period of this thread. It required FOOs, coordination, developed tactics and aircraft located near the front line. Cab rank by its very nature, required air superiority to have already been established. Again, none of which applies to the context...

A what candidate are you offering in 1939/40, as per the terms of this entire thread? Let me remind you the context of what we're supposed to be discussing: ------------------------------------- Fast bombers alternatives for 1939-40 "Bombers that might've been actually fast :) 1-engined...

I'm not convinced by that claim. What contemporary Luftwaffe interceptors did a Mustang carrying 2 x 500lbs 'still have the advantage' over in either speed, turn, or climb...? I don't doubt that when the Luftwaffe was attrited back to a shadow of its former self in both airframe numbers and...

As I understand, not 'routinely' without established air superiority - and not 'routinely' (if that had not been established), without escort against interception. A minor (in terms of raids and numbers deployed) exception would be the FW190 'tip and run raids' of the south east coast of the UK...

Not true. Fighter bombers with external loads could only operate fully effectively where escorted and/or where air supremacy or at least superiority had been achieved. Escorting fighters also often faced exactly the same difficulty that they did escorting standard bombers - the speed difference...

There's the rub! Some truths remain the same, regardless of time period however. In 1939, no one had (or could assume) air superiority. And like you say, for WW1 types, the speed penalty was a smaller percentage of a slower speed to begin with. In 1939, the situation was much the same as it...

After pages and pages of cogitation, I think you have basically nailed it. A slightly ungraded Maryland (would benefit from twin defensive gun positions and more powerful engines) pretty much fits the bill to a T for 1940. Faster, more maneuverable and eminently more survivable than a Blenheim.

I've got to presume its worse. I can't imagine 2 x 500lb bombs and crutches are going to produce less drag than 2 x 40mm cannons. I think Hurricane 2Ds were good for about 275mph at sea level. Hanging munitions on fighters makes them into fighter bombers. But does it make them into 'fast...