FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Brilliant! Just Brilliant!Best ww 1 bomber Vickers Vimy.First plane to fly non stop across the Atlantic.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Brilliant! Just Brilliant!Best ww 1 bomber Vickers Vimy.First plane to fly non stop across the Atlantic.
Brilliant! Just Brilliant!
You also mentioned the altitude capabilities of the B17, was the B29 able to fly higher than the bulk of German late war interceptors? I know the Japanese really struggled to find a fighter with altitude to intercept the B29. I think the Germans had the perfect idea with the Arado 234.
I don't see whay the Ar 234 would be a particularly good choice. The High altitude versions of the Bf 109 with the AS/D engine (and/or GM-1) should have been fine at B-29 altitudes, granted it would take longer to intercept due to the added climbing time.
The Me 262 (and He 162) would also have been quite capable of combat at these altitudes.
The Ta-152H, being specifically designed for use at extreme altitudes, would obvioulsy perform well there, though its high altitude capabilities were a bit more than necessary for B-29 altitudes. (its ceiling being ~15,000 ft higher than the B-29's)
The Fw 190D-13 would also have worked fine. (though few were built)
The lower altitude rated Bf 109s (without the high-alt engine or GM-1) might have some problems there. (the ceilig was still quite high, but the performance was somewhat marginal at 30,000 ft)
I think the Fw 109D-9 would be underperforming as well, with the A-8/9 even worse.
Remember when the B-17 was designed, it wasn't really an up to date design by 1944.
Because based on the technology of the time a squadron of heavy bombers still did more wide spread damage than a small number of fast moving bombers like the Mossie. And as far as carrying the same payload, it depended on the mission. A B-17 could carry up to 17,000 pounds on a short range mission.Personally I don't see the point in a lot of the 'heavy bombers'. The B17 had a crew of 10, normal bomb load of 4000lbs and a speed of 500km/h give or take, while a plane such as the Mosquito had a crew of 2 and could carry the same payload at 550 km/h give or take? Why not send faster more agile Mossies and save yourself the risk of losing 8 more trained crew members.
Because based on the technology of the time a squadron of heavy bombers still did more wide spread damage than a small number of fast moving bombers like the Mossie. And as far as carrying the same payload, it depended on the mission. A B-17 could carry up to 17,000 pounds on a short range mission.
In what way? You have large 4 engine bombers that could deliver a huge amount of bombs over a wide area verses a small fast bomber that was designed for pinpoint attack - its a matter of tactical vs. strategic and in the end a strategic approach prevailed.As I said, with the benefits of hindsight! I'm not doubting with the technology of the time that the B17 wasn't the best choice available. However I think with the benefit of hindsight it raises and interesting argument!
I have some old Flight magazines and it is very interesting to read the appraisals of the US aircraft being supplied to Britain during 1939-40.
In one 1939 edition the B-17 is described as being 'obsolete by any standard' (when the RAF was depending on the Whitley as its chief heavy bomber !!!!) and then goes on to make the astonishing claim that 'a B-17 might well be brought down by a single bullet'
In what way? You have large 4 engine bombers that could deliver a huge amount of bombs over a wide area verses a small fast bomber that was designed for pinpoint attack - its a matter of tactical vs. strategic and in the end a strategic approach prevailed.
Additionally there may of been some cost benefits in operating a mass of twin engine bombers as opposed to 4 engine, but additionally the structure of the Mossie did not lend it self for long term longevity. Working with wood in the field is difficult when compared to aluminum aircraft.
In the end I believe the heavy bomber prevailed and in a direct comparison the Mossie could not of accomplished the B-17's mission and visa-versa. Also consider the B-24 was side by side the 17 on the American effort over Europe, in fact over all, the B-24 was more widely used than the B-17.