Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Even though it's kinda big the Caproni Ca.335 looks like a pretty good candidate too. Apparently there was also a more powerful dive bomber version
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
OK, we've been all round the houses but have we actually found or imagined a single-engined bomber which was not either a tactical aircraft or carrier-borne? Have we found an example of an air force specifying such an aircraft for bombing at a more strategic level after the Battle/Mary/Ann generation?
It had fairly good performance reported during it's trials and with a top speed of 330mph, it would have been hard to catch in 1939/1940" Caproni Ca.335 looks like a pretty good candidate too."
Jeez Bill, that looks like an under-powered slug.
OK, we've been all round the houses but have we actually found or imagined a single-engined bomber which was not either a tactical aircraft or carrier-borne? Have we found an example of an air force specifying such an aircraft for bombing at a more strategic level after the Battle/Mary/Ann generation? I'd propose that the answer is no, and the reason is that you gain so much in terms of proper bomber capability by having more engines. It's not that it couldn't be done, but that it wasn't worth doing.
" Caproni Ca.335 looks like a pretty good candidate too."
Jeez Bill, that looks like an under-powered slug.
Sort of.A slug? Really? You got examples of a lot of bombers that are faster than that in 1939?
I am in agreement, mostly. By the late 30s the engines were fairly reliable, long lived was different. and in 1939 there was a large discrepancy in power between nations. The US had 1600hp available (just going into production) and the Italians had about 1000hp and everybody else was in-between. This is for engines that were type tested and at least in small scale production ( a dozen or 20 per month)IMO the biggest problem preventing wider use of fast single-engined bombers was that 1) engines weren't considered reliable enough and were only just starting to become powerful - with the most powerful only available in certain areas, thus the tendency to make twin or three engined light / fast bombers
Also true. A dive bomber needs a heavier structure than a level bombers.2) A lot of interest for Tactical bombers was focused on dive bombing, which made everything much more complicated on the design level, and had a direct impact on speed in particular,
Also true. High wing loading means high take-off speeds and high landing speeds which means longer airfields. If you want to use a bigger wing for short field performance you have to accept a bit lower speed. If you have one of the more powerful engines perhaps you can do the trade-off. If you are stuck with a lower power engine perhaps you can't.3) I don't think the idea of aircraft with relatively high wing loading was widely accepted yet, and of course as we can see with the Ba-88, had it's own inherent perils.
The Breda B. 88, in part, ran into trouble because the engines ran into a wall. They were licensed G-R 14Ks (for the most part)
Without redesigning the whole aircraft The B. 88 was stuck, leave 33% of the bomb load behind? pull one or two of the 12.7mm guns? leave behind several hundred liters of fuel?
A combination?
The Russians were following their own path with the G-R 14K license and went through the M-87 and M-88 engines and they never got them past 1100hp (?).
You may be right. Britain was trying to up grade and do it both fast and cheap, they were also trying to skirt a possible international arms treaty that didn't happen. The result for Britain was contract for a lot of Battles and not a good way way out of the contract. Canceling the cintract means that you might have gone to war in 1938-39 with a lot more Hawler Harts still in service.There's nothing at all wrong with a tactical aircraft. Surface forces need support from the air and that's the way to do it. But what is the mission of our what-if bomber if it isn't tactical? Do we expect to invest in it to, for the RAF, fly to the Ruhr from UK bases and be anything more than a nuisance? The Battle kinda was intended to do that and it wasn't capable of it. The RAF went to two then four engines because that was a way to get a suitable tonnage delivered, using a force of thousands. To do it by night you need a navigator and a proper bombsight station. To do it by day you need speed as well. I don't say it can't be done, only that there's no point. And maybe I'm lacking imagination but I can't see any other nation's air arm having a mission for it either outside of tactical.
Maybe...................But they sure aren't fastI may be thinking about this the wrong way, but does the FAA's use of their Swordfish and Albacore Sqns operating from land in support of the various ground forces in NA and MTO count as tactical and/or maybe grand tactical?
I am in agreement, mostly. By the late 30s the engines were fairly reliable, long lived was different. and in 1939 there was a large discrepancy in power between nations. The US had 1600hp available (just going into production) and the Italians had about 1000hp and everybody else was in-between. This is for engines that were type tested and at least in small scale production ( a dozen or 20 per month)
Also true. A dive bomber needs a heavier structure than a level bombers.
You have to make some kind of compromise since you will never have all desired features. But if you aren't adding all the extra dive bomber stuff, and you are willing to start out with a small-ish bomb load, I think you could in fact have a fast bomber. The airfield is another compromise of course.Also true. High wing loading means high take-off speeds and high landing speeds which means longer airfields. If you want to use a bigger wing for short field performance you have to accept a bit lower speed. If you have one of the more powerful engines perhaps you can do the trade-off. If you are stuck with a lower power engine perhaps you can't.
The low powered aircraft also often has to decide between fuel (or range) vs bomb load. A big wing allows for greater load with the same engine. A fast, but short ranged bomber may not be able to reach the desired (or intended) targets making it a poor choice for the money spent. You can't always get everything you want and sometimes niche aircraft have to take 2nd place to more general purpose aircraft.
The Breda B. 88, in part, ran into trouble because the engines ran into a wall. They were licensed G-R 14Ks (for the most part) and France had moved on to the 14Ns to get over 1000hp, The Russians were following their own path with the G-R 14K license and went through the M-87 and M-88 engines and they never got them past 1100hp (?).
Without redesigning the whole aircraft The B. 88 was stuck, leave 33% of the bomb load behind? pull one or two of the 12.7mm guns? leave behind several hundred liters of fuel?
A combination?
I have read reports of the Albacore in NA and the MTO being used for attacks on supply dumps and airfields, as well as attacks against troop concentrations, both day and night. At night they were sometimes directed to the target by 1 or 2 Wellingtons acting as pathfinder/illumination flare droppers. During the daytime attacks they were usually escorted when possible. I read in one source (I do not remember which) that ~90% of the ordnance dropped by Albacore squadrons in the NA and MTO campaigns occurred when flying from shore bases.