4-engined bomber for 1943-44

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

davebender said:
He-177A3.
Entered production November 1942. Slightly improved He-177A5 enters production during December 1943. All sorts of room for development of He-177B, He-277 etc. if you want to spend the money.
Click to expand...

Was pencil put to paper in 1940?

tomo: "I was thinking more of 1940, for the start of putting the ideas on paper"
 
April 1941. Jumo 222 passes 100 hour test @ 2,000 hp.
Dec 1942. Jumo 222 passes 100 hour test @ 2,500 hp.

The 2,000 hp version should be a sure thing by 1943. Junkers has two years to refine the design after it passed the 100 hour test.

I wouldn't rush the 2,500 hp version. The He-177B should have excellent performance with four 2,000 hp engines burning B4 fuel and those engines should be reliable. The 2,500 hp engines can go into production after passing a few more endurance tests.
 
davparlr said:
Why? The B-26 went from contract go-ahead to first delivery in two years, January, 1939 to February, 1941. Just add a year or two for a bigger and better plane and no great technology challenge over the B-26, I just don't see the problem.
Click to expand...

th B-26 variant available in early '43 was a 40k? lbs bomber with 285 mph max speed and 215 mph cruise speed with 1,150 miles range with 3,000 lbs bomb with a 21k ceiling
so i don't think that a bomber with 2 times the power with over 2 times the weight can cruiser to 100 mph faster get 80% more range with over 3 times the bomb load anf 9k higher ceiling
 

More than 2x the power.

Remember that the B-26 had single stage A-series R-2800s. The proposed bomber would likely have B-series R-2800s (increased fom 1850hp max to 2000hp max) and be turbocharged, giving much more thna twice the power at altitude.
 
so compare with 29 that has turbocharged engine
80% of power, 75% of weight, around the same speed, 60% of range but with 2 times bomb load, around same ceiling and in production 8 months before
i remain sceptic
and that range need how many fuel? + the 10000 lbs of bombs all in 90k lbs???
 

1/2 the bomb load.
 
Shortround6 said:
You mean like the B-33A only with turboed R-2800s instead of R-2600s?
Click to expand...
Yes, only I would have cancelled the B-26 whose role could easily been taken over by the B-25, and the B-17 or B-24, either of which could adequately do the job of the other. The B-24 would probably be preferable to keep. So, the total quantity of engines and aircraft would not change. Of course I am looking at the war in excellent hindsight.
 
An (mostly) unarmed bomber that would be a Mossie/Mixmaster combo: the 2 engines on wings, other 2 engines in upper part of the hull, behind the wing (Mixmaster's were in front of the wing) driving 2 props at tail. Some guns in front, maybe also in the nacelle, looking aft remotely controlled; the night bomber maybe without any whatsoever.
 
davparlr said:
I believe this is incorrect. Wagner's American Combat Planes shows the B-29 as having a range of 3250 mile/20,000 lbs. bombs which is identical to the National Museum of the US Air Force.

Factsheets : Boeing B-29
Click to expand...

sorry i used Joe Baugher page as source and again this go wrong

from the link posted in (recent) B-29 thread at 140000 lbs with 20000 lbs bombs and 39396 lbs fuel B-29 has 2627 nautical miles range (around 3023 statute miles)

so back to topic 2/3 of range with 1/2 of bomb load

it's a reduced B-29 it's possible i'm not more sceptical in the technically capability
but i've doubt in the timeline the B-33 not got the prototype at november 25th 1942 it's hard to think they can go in production in '43 also w/o B-26 work almost starting in '40 i don't know if starting in '39 we can project a similar plane
 
Last edited:

Other aircraft timelines

B-24

Concept begun Sep. '38
B-24 prototype ordered Jan. '39
1st production Dec. '40
1st B-24A delivery May,'41

B-29
Prototype ordered '40
1st production delivery Sep '43

The upgraded B-26 would have similar technology to the B-24 but bigger and larger engines but not near the complexity of the B-29. I don't see a problem in delivering start of '43 if design starts in '39 or first of '40.
 
We actually know very little about the program including funding, which may have been on the back burner due to the B-29 program, or development issues. However, it doesn't seem outlandishly long, certainly not enough to indicate a problem.

June '41 prototype contracted
October '41 mockup approved
Nov '42 programmed cancelled

So only a year and a half from contract to cancel and only 12 months from mockup approval to cancel. Remember, this aircraft just went from two engines to four different engines. It also should be noted that Martin went on contract for production in January, '42, for some 400 aircraft, another indication that there appeared no significant problems at that stage. I don't think this supports your argument. I would have started this project earlier, around the end of '39.
 
june '41 was 4 engined prototype contracted, the twin engined was already contracted and so in june they not start o to nothing

we have already did this discussion and we don't agree so i think we can agree that we are in disagree.
 
I'm digging into the 'old pages' of this forum and I'm having various interesting reads. Last week of holidays...
In various threads I was willing to simply comment, but refrained : on this one I will contribute.

The aim here is to developp a 4-engined bomber that is due to enter service beginning 1943. That's the rule of this thread, using available technologies.
Up to now there has been one good idea of a 4-engined B-26 with P-47 Thunderbolts powerplants. And some well-worked well-designed He-177AorB possibilities. It has also been found that the design work should begin by 1940 at the latest.
Let's see.

Talking of Thunderbolts...
The Japanese fighter J2M Raiden (i.e. 'Thunderbolt') or Jack is notorious for having a somewhat early development, that was later plagued by successive delays, not all of them related to powerplant. It was noneless started in April 1940, first flew March 42 and entered service in 'development units' in December 42. True the first real serial built (i.e ready) were the J2M2 mod11 delivered to 381st kokutai in December 43, but that is another matter for our challenge here. We're in late 1939 early 1940 and we have to be making plans.
(Let's conform to Wikipedia all the way.)

We can suppose that somewhere in 1940 the Japanese envisionned or ordered a 'super bomber' the way the Raiden was as a 'super fighter' (the philosophy being based on 'super engine' following the American Corsair-Thunderbolt one.) Engines would then be the "1,400 hp" Mitsubishi MK4C Kasei 13 14-cylinder radials (J2M protos and early types), that would enventuallly become the serial produced "1,850 hp" Mitsubishi MK4R-A Kasei 23a (J2M2 mod11, entering service end 43.)
They would require some impossible mix of performances, the usual Japanese fashion, and some manufacturer would be awarded design and developpement of a sleek 4-engined bomber, using the Raiden's ambitious powerplants and refined implemantation (cooling fans, long and narrow cowlings etc.)
Defensive philosophy would be an open guess, but one has to remember that well protected, 'defensive' designs were indeed an option in Japan even at this stage of the war : The 'all attack' one was for rapid expension, taking the Occidentals off guard, that was to be followed by thourought defensive buid-up on the newly aquired assets (until the US gave up trying, that was the plan.)
The Tojo illustrates this well enough. By 1940 it had to be 'Raiden generation' technically speaking.

I forsee a long range fast bomber for this 'super project', Japanese wise, 4 engined with the mightiest and cleanest et all : so I'd opt for some decent armour and fuel protection, yet with rather minimal if modern, well streamlined defensive gunnery. A nice 20mil in the tail à la He-177, plus a few retractable extras probably. Very aerodynamic chape, with some characteristic Mitsubishian/japanese oval, to keep them Japs happy : in the... Marauder-Rainbow fashion (!)

That would be a pretty good project, well in line with historical choices and availabilities :
Priority given to 'Zeroes Betties' of the "1st phase", production and employ.
Start of design for a second generation of powerfull, well armed and protected air weapons for the follow-up events (the "2nd phase"), early enough. Preferably through some typically impossible requirements like agilty of the Hayabusa mixed with heavy bomb load, armour, of a 'pacifical' sized range, superior ceilling awesome speed etc., given the well known eternal superiority of the Nippon designer above anything else, of course. Protection, punch and superior performances for that second phase. The Raiden proves that this 'power for thunder' option was on tracks.

So why not a 4-engined bomber along those lines, using the Raiden powerplant as its core ?
Probably a very credible choice and a technical/industrial possibility, bound to face some teething delays but able to reach 'developement units' by early 1943... And, events happening as they did, getting real action in the end of that same year.
More certainly even, a very possible/probable decision to go ahead with such an option, early enough. While its actual realisation would have proven more difficult than forseen...

The Japs would have planned it as some kind of long range 'defensive big stick', to easely hammer rather effortlessly every of those American 'attemps' at their newly fortified Asian Empire. Until those lazy Occidendentals and cowards would give-up their silly 'attempts', and return to their coke and popcorns watching western movies. Of course...

Would have given a very nice, and quite capable aeroplane, this without doubts.

(and Happy summertime to you all Northern-hemispherians!)
 
Last edited:
Probably should not use the term "Japs" as it could be taken a derogatory and insulting, although I am not sure why since the once derogatory term "Rebs" is now considered a badge of honor by those it applies to, i.e., Southerners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Best Axis four engined bomber?
Replies
9
Views
2K
dedalos
D
Numbers of operational craft; Spring '44
Replies
9
Views
1K
Barrett
B
Japanese logistics, purchase programs and war booty, reality and alternatives 1936-44
2
Replies
33
Views
798
tomo pauk
Best piston engined fighter of 1945?
7 8 9
Replies
168
Views
16K
PAT303
P
"Zerstörer" specification, but as an 1-engined fighter
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
4K
marathag
Menu
Log in
Register