Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The aircraft must be successful. The Fairey Battle is what they should have anticipated.Fairey Battle.
Bf 110C-1 was good for about 481 miles at the 262mph speed at sea level, Now maybe that is more than what is wanted but the plane has about 70% of the range of the Battle at altitude (217mph for the Bf 110 and 200mph for the Battle) so you don't have as much as some people may think.Your aircraft should be able to operate from crude airfields close to the front line, allowing multiple missions per day. There is no need for long range
I hope that we will not arrive to a conclusion that the 'normal' Bf 1109C, powered by the DB 601As, will not be able to carry bombs.No bombs *
The 1940 Bf 110C-4 got the bomb racks but it also got the DB 601N engines with more power.
Bf 110C-1 was good for about 481 miles at the 262mph speed at sea level, Now maybe that is more than what is wanted but the plane has about 70% of the range of the Battle at altitude (217mph for the Bf 110 and 200mph for the Battle) so you don't have as much as some people may think.
The 110C-1 can carry bombs, it just needs a bit more runway than the C-4.I hope that we will not arrive to a conclusion that the 'normal' Bf 1109C, powered by the DB 601As, will not be able to carry bombs.
There is no need that any aircraft flies 100% of it's sortie at sea level. Even if it is a tactical bomber.
If we're worried about the runway required by the 110C-1, install the 601Aa, that offer a bit extra power down low, and same TO power that 601N was making.The 110C-1 can carry bombs, it just needs a bit more runway than the C-4.
Just trying to put things into context for range. The 110 was considered long range by some. It might have more than what is wanted for tactical support but the tactical support aircraft that is wanted in relatively static/slow moving battle may not the the tactical support aircraft that is ideal for fast moving battle campaign.
Supermarine's not-Henley?Design or describe a light bomber that will survive your anticipated conditions.
- Your engine (or engines) must be in production by 1939.
- Your weapons must be in production in 1939.
- Your aircraft must reach production in 1939.
- Your most serious victims will 1939 vintage armour, although we need to speculate on how you will cope with the heavier armour that will soon appear.
- Your protection is some combination of fighter level speed, defensive firepower and/or armour.
- Your aircraft should be able to operate from crude airfields close to the front line, allowing multiple missions per day. There is no need for long range.
- Your tactics minimise your exposure to ground fire, i.e., no vertical dive bombing. Maybe an extra crew can help with navigation and target spotting. Can you do radio communication with ground forces?
How bad in that regard would've a bombed-up Spitfire been?No single-engine airframe at that time will be any more survivable than the Hurricane Mk IID was later,
What kind of power should've been needed?There simply are no extant engines powerful enough to do the job in 1939.
Definitely. Both were about as good as it gets in 1939, but I'd install Wright R-2600 Cyclones from the start and have four .50s in the nose with none in the wings and no dorsal turret. They could The NA-40/B-25 was about a year too late to fit this timeline.1939? The Martin Maryland and the Douglas DB-7/A-20 were the answer.
Bf 109E was carrying a 250 kg/550 lb bomb once bomb rack was installed. Perhaps the early Spitfire, with it's bigger wing than what the 109 had, should be good for carrying three 250 lb bombs? We're at 75% of what the Battle or Blenheim was carrying.If what you are looking for is a relatively lightweight fighter-bomber then the Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf109, etc would do. But from the OP it sounds like we are looking for a more capable attack aircraft. Yes?
The Hurricane Mk II used the Merlin XX (as you know) and by the time the Mk IID and Mk IV were operational it had further increased boost of the 1942-43 period. So it had at lest 1280 BHP available for TO and similar power or more for Vmax at low altitude. But its Vmax when carrying bombs or 40mm 'S' guns was still not much over about 250 mph, and maneuverability was limited. So IMO unescorted survivability does not meet the OP requirement.
In 1939-40 the maximum HP available for the Merlin was bout 1080 BHP at low level, so you won't get anything better than the Hurricane Mk IID performance at low altitude for sure, and almost certainly worse. The Spitfire or Bf109 fighter-bomber would be a bit faster than the Hurricane Mk IID/IV at altitude, but when loaded with bombs and/or cannon the ~1000 BHP engine power would probably make them just as vulnerable and in need of escort.
IMO you would need at least 1500 BHP for a single-engine attack aircraft to meet the OP requirements of load carrying ability and marginal survivability. I think you would need at least parity in speed as low altitude to the fighters of the time if there is to be the possibility of operating without escort and having reasonable attrition due to enemy fighters.