1940: the best bomber in service?

[Vincenzo]

1940 bombers ("modern" only, not very light), list for design country.
France: LeO 451 (17,2x22,5WA66), Amiot 354 (14,5x22,8WA67)
U.K: Hampden (16,3x21,1WA64), Wellington (19,7x26,3WA78 ), Whitley (21,5x25,6xWA106)
U.S.: DB-7 (14,6x18,7WA43), Maryland (14,2x18,7WA50), Martin 139/166 (13,6x21,5WA63), B-17 (22,7x31,6WA132), B-18 (17,6x27,3WA89) , B-23 (17,8x28WA92)
Italy: B.R.20 (16,7x21,6WA74), S.M.79 (16,2x20,2WA62), Z.1007 (18,4x24,8WA70), Ca.135 (14,4x18,8WA60)
Japan: G3M (16,5x25WA75), Ki-21 (16x22,5WA70)
Germany: Do 17 (15,8x18WA55), Do 215 (15,8x18WA55), He 111 (16,4x22,6WA88 ) , Ju 86 (16,5x32WA82), Ju 88 (14,4x20,1WA55), Fw 200 (23,5x32,9WA120)
Soviet Union: DB-3 (14,2x21,4WA66)
Poland: PZL.37 (12,9x17,9WA54)
Netherlands: T.V (16x21WA66)

 

[Vincenzo]

Try to give other info
load (bombs&fuel) rounded to half ton, clean configuration.
LeO 451 4
Amiot 354 3,5
Hampden 4
Wellington 4,5
Whitley 5,5 (this is with bomb in the wings maybe not directly comparable with the others)
DB-7 2 (so was too light)
Maryland i've not found enough info for a evaluation but i thin again was too light
Martin 139 2? or less? so again too light
B-17 7
B-18 4
B-23 4?
B.R.20 3 (italian data for normal load)
S.M.79 3 (idem)
Z.1007 3 (idem)
Ca.135 2 (idem)
G3M 3,5
Ki-21 3
Do 17 2 (too light)
Do 215 3
He 111 4,5
Ju 86 2 or 3 (P)
Ju 88 2,5
Fw 200 7
DB-3 2 (for the russian wiki, 1 ton bombs and 0.81 ton of fuel but i think too few fuel for a "long range" bomber maybe some can help??
PZL.37 3,5 (very high for so light plane maybe too high it's possible that the full bomb load was not loadable with the full "normal" fuel)
T. V 2 ? (too light)

 

[wuzak]

Vincenzo, B-17B or C could only carry 4800lbs of bombs (<2.5t).

B-18 was rated for 4400lb (~2.0t)
B-23 less at 4000lb (<2.0t)

 

[Vincenzo]

wuzak 2nd line: load (bombs&fuel)

 

[wuzak]

wuzak 2nd line: load (bombs&fuel)

Ok. So that's the load including fuel?

 

[Vincenzo]

Ok. So that's the load including fuel?

yes, i thinked was clear

 

[wuzak]

Not sure that it is a very useful measure.

 

[Shortround6]

Throw in crew weight and you pretty much have the useful load of the plane in question.

The gun armament wasn't that far apart on these early bombers.

Nobody carried the full bomb load to max range but some planes did not have extra built in tankage that really allowed too much trading of bombs for fuel, more like tanks could not be filled with max bomb load.

 

[parsifal]

1940 bombers ("modern" only, not very light), list for design country.
France: LeO 451 (17,2x22,5WA66), Amiot 354 (14,5x22,8WA67)
U.K: Hampden (16,3x21,1WA64), Wellington (19,7x26,3WA78 ), Whitley (21,5x25,6xWA106)
U.S.: DB-7 (14,6x18,7WA43), Maryland (14,2x18,7WA50), Martin 139/166 (13,6x21,5WA63), B-17 (22,7x31,6WA132), B-18 (17,6x27,3WA89) , B-23 (17,8x28WA92)
Italy: B.R.20 (16,7x21,6WA74), S.M.79 (16,2x20,2WA62), Z.1007 (18,4x24,8WA70), Ca.135 (14,4x18,8WA60)
Japan: G3M (16,5x25WA75), Ki-21 (16x22,5WA70)
Germany: Do 17 (15,8x18WA55), Do 215 (15,8x18WA55), He 111 (16,4x22,6WA88 ) , Ju 86 (16,5x32WA82), Ju 88 (14,4x20,1WA55), Fw 200 (23,5x32,9WA120)
Soviet Union: DB-3 (14,2x21,4WA66)
Poland: PZL.37 (12,9x17,9WA54)
Netherlands: T.V (16x21WA66)

Hi vincenzo

I notice you dont have the Beafort, included in the list, or the later marks of Blenheim. blenheim might not make it because it was a light bomber, but Beafort was in the same class as many of the others you listed.

 

[Vincenzo]

i ve forgotten so
Beaufort 13,5x17,6WA47 load 3

 

[yulzari]

Doesn't the Whitley come out well.

With extra tanks a 3,500km range (albeit with a small weapon load) too. Bless those little wing cells. Mind you an economical cruising speed of 250km/hr means a short winter night can be the range restriction rather than fuel load.

6 hours of darkness lets you get 750km in enemy airspace before you have to come back. 12 gets you 1500km in. Best not to mention headwinds.

A couple of 2,000lb bombs and wing cells full of fuel gives a useful combination: if only you could find the ..**! target at night. Probably easier to use the fuselage bay for the fuel and carry 250lb bombs in the cells though. Ditch the turrets. Save on the weight, drag and crew at night.

 

[Shortround6]

Whitleys not only raided northern Italy from England but attacked the Skoda works in Czechoslovakia ( I don't know if they actually hit it.) Due to the above noted slow speed they had to fly for several hours over enemy held territory in daylight on the trip to the target before night fell.

Cutting the turrets from the Whitley might not have saved much. Plane was pretty high drag to begin with and with just nose and tail turrets they didn't increase the frontal area any. In the days before radar equipped night fighters (or many of them) having a rear "look out" who also had guns wasn't so bad. Yanking 600-800lbs out of the extreme tail might have required shifting other stuff around to get the CG back. Do-able but perhaps not at squadron level?

 

[Vincenzo]

Whitley is a good bomber, for late 30s, but imho it's not significally superior to Wellington.

i need to add an other "bomber"
the S.M.82 22,9x29,7WA119 load 5? (this is evaluation for normal load like the other italian bombers, the plane can load 4 ton of fuel and 4 ton of bombs not both, no italian bomber has at "normal load" more of 1 ton of bomb (also the larger P.108 ).

 

[Shortround6]

The Whitley was certainly a "dated" design and may not be better than the Wellington but make sure you are comparing the MK I Wellington at about 28,500lbs MTO. Later Wellington IIIs (and MK X) got more powerful engines and MTO went to 34,000lb (36,500lb for X).

One old book says MK I could fly 3200 miles at 180 mph at 15,000ft with 1020 Imp Gal and NO bombs.

 

[Vincenzo]

I've used data for I 4500 lbs of bombs and 5400 of fuel (750 imp gals) if you can check is fine

 

[davparlr]

Not sure that it is a very useful measure.

I think this is an excellent measure to determine the ability of a bomber. Bombers, like cargo planes typically trade off range with cargo/bombs as the mission requires. For example, a B-36 had a range of 9500 miles with a 10,000 lb bomb load (one nuke) or it could fly 3850 miles with a 77,784 lbs bomb load. The B-17C could carry 4000 lb of bombs 2000 miles. The Ju-88A-1 (only one I have data on) could carry 4000 lbs 620 miles. I think it is plain to see that if you down loaded B-17 fuel for a 620 mile trip, you could upload a considerably larger bomb load. Just bomb load without the fuel load/range is of little use when comparing bombers or cargo planes and, to a lesser extent fighters.

 

[yulzari]

The Whitley may have been dated but it could carry more than a 1940 Pegasus Wellington. That the Wellington continued to be made when the Whitley ceased production in 1943 was due to the the Wellington factories being only able to make this unusual form of construction, whereas Armstrong Whitworth could carry their stressed skin skills and tools to make the 4 engined stressed skin bombers.

Not to knock the Wellington, but there was no other reason to still be using it as a main Mediterranean night bomber in 1945. The 1940 production Whitley's maximum takeoff weight was over 15,000kg like a post 1940 Hercules Wellington. Don't fall into the trap of using data from the earlier pre 1940 Whitleys with their awful Tiger radials.

The Whitley was a weird piece of ugly aerodynamics with the cruising speed and rate of climb of a penguin but it chugged along and did the job. More of a double deck bus than a motorway coach. I always feel it is looked down on simply for not looking cool.

 

[Vincenzo]

i used data for Whitley with RR engine, i take from a my old search and i don't remember the source

 

[Shortround6]

From what I can find so far the Wellington could carry 750 Imp gal in the wing/nacelle tanks. Early versions could carry 140 imp gal in each of the outer bomb cells. 1020-1030 imp gallons carried means 2/3 of the bomb bay is blocked off. I have no idea what the Weight capacity of the remaining 1/3 is.

Apparently the MTO of the MK varied depending on if it was a MK 1, MK 1A, or MK 1C, at 24,850 lbs, 27,100 lbs and 30,000 lbs. Empty weights went 18,000 lbs, 18,500 lbs and 18,800 lbs.

183 MK 1s, 187 Mk 1As and 2865 MK 1Cs ???

Taking out 1200 lbs for a 6 man crew leaves 10,000 lb for fuel, oil, bombs, ammo and whatever else isn't in the empty weight for the MK 1C. But operating at 30,000 lbs requires a much longer runway and a much worse rate of climb.

 

[wuzak]

The Whitley was a weird piece of ugly aerodynamics with the cruising speed and rate of climb of a penguin but it chugged along and did the job. More of a double deck bus than a motorway coach. I always feel it is looked down on simply for not looking cool.

The Whitley was designed when not all aircraft used flaps, and its designer knew little about flaps so he left them off. Thus to get the takeoff performance the wing was at an angle to the fuselage, meaning that in level flight the fuselage wasn't level, and caused a great deal of drag. Add flaps to the wings (whihc may have happened to later Whitleys - I'm not sure) and fix the angle of attack issue (which didn't happen) and the Whitley's performance would be improved.