Attack/Bomber Payload & Range

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

Hey Zipper730,

For the UK, if you can find the Air Mistry Specification applying to the individual aircraft (produced and not produced) you could maybe find a pattern in there somewhere.

I am not as familiar with the US system (at least for bomber aircraft), but I imagine there would be a similar system when issuing requests for new aircraft designs, and hence a similar chance at finding a pattern.

The problem I think you will run into relative to the 1943-45 period is embodied in the change over to jet engines. The last of the prop driven bombers (small and large) were already in the advanced design stage - or being built/flying in prototype form. For the US this includes anything from what became the AD-1 Skyraider and AM-1 Mauler, to the XB-35 Flying Wing and B-36 Peacemaker. The next generation of attack aircraft (and fighters for that matter) were all jets, which required a reset in a lot of ways - particularly in terms of range.
 
Last edited:
Well, looking at the specifications for some bomber proposals in the post WW2 period there are some patterns that popped up that I can think of

XA-43: Payload 10000 to 12000 lb, radius 600 nm at 10000' and 1000 nm at 35000'
XA-45: Payload: 10000 lb, radius of 600 nm at 10000' and 1000 nm at 35000'
B-57 Canberra: Payload 8800 lb, combat range of 3000 nm

So it seems that they want a combat range of 2000 nm at altitude and 1200 nm down at lower altitudes, a maximum payload of 8800 pounds, a range of at least 2000 nm. This is what I'm kind of getting at. There might have been some acceptance for certain designs with slightly less or more payload, but that's post WWII.
 
Certainly before the war- when most of the operational aircraft actually fighting WWII were initiated- there were some remarkably casual rules of thumb involved. "Well, if our current bomber carries 1000 lbs 1000 miles at 200 mph, then this one should carry 1500 lbs 2000 miles at 250 mph." Those nice round numbers are a giveaway (I made them up to illustrate my point, but if you look at the early planning you'll see such things).
And specs usually ask for something not necessarily quite (as of yet) within reach, because who wants to get last year's best warplane?
Of course, as hinted at by somebody (A-26/A-14), a few years can change things rather dramatically- witness the B-29 being considered a medium bomber in Korea!
 
The UK only fielded one heavy bomber in WW2, that was the Stirling, The Lancaster (Manchester) and Halifax were medium bombers in the design stage.
 
gingerbob said:
Of course, as hinted at by somebody (A-26/A-14), a few years can change things rather dramatically- witness the B-29 being considered a medium bomber in Korea!
Click to expand...

Who considered the B-29 as medium bomber in Korea?

pbehn said:
The UK only fielded one heavy bomber in WW2, that was the Stirling, The Lancaster (Manchester) and Halifax were medium bombers in the design stage.
Click to expand...

British didn't classified their bombers by counting the engines on a type, but by looking at payload vs. range. So Blenheim ended up classified as light bomber, IIRC so did the Mosquito. Wellington and Whitley were heavy bombers. Despite the same number of engines.
 
I think it is just the passage of time and the increase in capability. The Halifax and Manchester were conceived as medium bombers, the Stirling was earlier and conceived as a heavy bomber. What is in a name?
 
pbehn said:
I think it is just the passage of time and the increase in capability. The Halifax and Manchester were conceived as medium bombers, the Stirling was earlier and conceived as a heavy bomber. What is in a name?
Click to expand...

Who classified the Halifax or Manchester as medium bomber(s)?
 
tomo pauk said:
Who classified the Halifax or Manchester as medium bomber(s)?
Click to expand...
The same guy who called the Stirling "HEAVY", by the same token a late war Typhoon was a medium bomber in 1920s parlance and a light bomber comparable with the Do17 in the war years, similar power and payload just less crew.
 
pbehn said:
The same guy who called the Stirling "HEAVY", by the same token a late war Typhoon was a medium bomber in 1920s parlance and a light bomber comparable with the Do17 in the war years, similar power and payload just less crew.
Click to expand...

Wonderful.
 
I'll see what I could find on RAF specifications for light, medium, and heavy bombers.
 
Zipper730 said:
I'll see what I could find on RAF specifications for light, medium, and heavy bombers.
Click to expand...
It gets complicated, the Stirling was supposedly a heavy bomber but it was designed to carry torpedoes and stuff, the Lancaster (Manchester) was just designed with a huge bomb bay, with no divisions in it. The two bomb bays were similar in dimensions but you could put much more in a Lancaster in terms of bomb dimensions and mix. Much of what a Stirling took to and from the target was itself, it was huge and low powered so the theoretically "medium" bomber Lancaster could carry much more when fitted with 4 engines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

G
Bomber main spar question.
Replies
4
Views
691
MiTasol
Ki-49 Donryu - Japan's Early-Mid War Army Medium Bomber
Replies
0
Views
370
Laurelix
W
Wellington torpedo-bomber - crude sight?
Replies
10
Views
1K
MiTasol
U
Ar234B-2 Bedienungs-Karte für den Flugzeugführer Oktober 1944
Replies
1
Views
772
Capt. Vick
P-47N Payload
Replies
11
Views
1K
Zipper730
Menu
Log in
Register