the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
good save at the end there..........
Best Bomber of WW2 (continued)
- Thread starter cheddar cheese
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
good save at the end there..........
trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
Talk about sitting on the fence I must be somewhere in the Azores 
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
to be honest it just sounds like you don't want to upset me
From everything I have been told and read Lanc, there were 2 of them used. But I am not very sure of myself on this and you may be right with only one.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
from what i know the second aircraft was used as spares for the first..........
Like I said you may be right.
MP-Willow
Staff Sergeant
Nice bit on the Lancs in Russian stars. As for the Russian B-29s I have read about that program and well they did a lot of good reverse engineering and origanal work to get the program to work.
CC the P.108 would have been good under german hands and I think that production could have been available for it. Maybe in Italy but with German engineers!
CC the P.108 would have been good under german hands and I think that production could have been available for it. Maybe in Italy but with German engineers!
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i don't think it had what it takes.........
- Thread starter
- #349
cheddar cheese
Major General
Why not?
I dont think it was that bad of a bomber.
Piaggio P.108B
The Piaggio P.108 was as good a bomber as any in the world. And was the only four engined bomber used by Regia Aeronautica. First flown Nov 1939, the P.108 went into service in May 1941. Crew conversion took quite awhile, delaying operationl deployment until June 1942. The main area of operations for the P.108's were bombing Gibraltar and Algeria. In Sep 1943 surviving P.108's were seized by the Germans, who never used them operationally. Although less then 40 P.108's were built, it stands as a testimony to the Italians to be able to field such a modern aircraft, while being hamper by a very serious lack of resources.
POWERPLANT: Four Piaggio P.XII RC 35 18 Cylinder radial air-cooled
MAXIMUM SPEED: 261 MPH (420 KM/H)
CEILING: 26,400 ft (8,050 m)
RANGE: 2,100 miles (3,520 km)
ARMAMENT: Eight 12.7 mm Breda SAFAT MG
BOMBLOAD: 7,700 LBS (3,500 KG)
Piaggio P.108B
The Piaggio P.108 was as good a bomber as any in the world. And was the only four engined bomber used by Regia Aeronautica. First flown Nov 1939, the P.108 went into service in May 1941. Crew conversion took quite awhile, delaying operationl deployment until June 1942. The main area of operations for the P.108's were bombing Gibraltar and Algeria. In Sep 1943 surviving P.108's were seized by the Germans, who never used them operationally. Although less then 40 P.108's were built, it stands as a testimony to the Italians to be able to field such a modern aircraft, while being hamper by a very serious lack of resources.
POWERPLANT: Four Piaggio P.XII RC 35 18 Cylinder radial air-cooled
MAXIMUM SPEED: 261 MPH (420 KM/H)
CEILING: 26,400 ft (8,050 m)
RANGE: 2,100 miles (3,520 km)
ARMAMENT: Eight 12.7 mm Breda SAFAT MG
BOMBLOAD: 7,700 LBS (3,500 KG)
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
well how reliable was she?? could she take much damage?? how was the crew accomodation??
MP-Willow
Staff Sergeant
Lanc, I will try to look for that. but it did have documented engine problums, the Italians could not get that fixed and were never given the funds to realy try.
Damage, it was ok I think, C.C might know better. The raids on "The Rock" and into North Africa did show she could take some hits, but also a spitfire could take her down.
Damage, it was ok I think, C.C might know better. The raids on "The Rock" and into North Africa did show she could take some hits, but also a spitfire could take her down.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Wouldn´t the Fw-191 A be a pretty good bomber? Not produced in numbers because of stupid decisions by RLM. But it was really a capable weapon, comparable, if not better than the He-177. The first prototype has to use electrical power assist (Tank don´t wanted to use that much of it) and became prone to malfunction. The next have been the same, the sixth prototype (Fw-191 V-6, became the origin of the Fw-191 A-series) was redesigned for hydraulic power assist and it proved to be an excellent plane. And very reliable. RLM postponed the design in favour of the Ju-288, lately all bomber -b projects have been cancelled because of the lack of high hp-engines (focke wulf redesigned it for other engines, but RLM refused these ideas, too.)
Fw-191 A
twin engined medium bomber, 1942
Engines: two DB 610 with 2950 hp each
(or two Jumo-222 with 1800 hp or two DB 606 with 2700 hp or four DB 601 E with 1200 hp)
spanwidth: 26,00 m (~85 ft)
length: 19,63 m (~65 ft)
height: 5,60 m (~ 18ft)
wing surface: 70, 50 m² (~235 ft²)
weight: 11545-16300 kg (depends on engine) (~25400 lbs-35860 lbs.)
take off weight: 23600 kg (~51920 lbs)
top speed (at 5000m / 15000 ft): 605 Km/h (~376 mp/h)
cruise speed (at 5000m / 15000 ft): 505 Km/h (~313 mp/h)
initial (sustainable) climb: 1150 m/min (~3400 ft/min)
time to altitude: 21 min to 6000 m (~19000 ft)
range: 3500 km (2174 miles)
service altitude: 9100 m (~30000 ft)
total armor: 1450 kg (3190 lbs), self sealing fuel tanks
usual bomb load: 4000 kg ( 8800 lbs, capable to take two Hs-293 or two LT 950) overloaded condition could allow up to 6000 kg (13200 lbs) bombload with reduced range
military equipment: chin turret: 1 MG 151/15
top turret: 2 MG 151/15 (Z)
gondola remotery controlled guns: 2 MG 81
remotery controlled tail turret: 2 MG 151/15 (Z)
Fw-191 A
twin engined medium bomber, 1942
Engines: two DB 610 with 2950 hp each
(or two Jumo-222 with 1800 hp or two DB 606 with 2700 hp or four DB 601 E with 1200 hp)
spanwidth: 26,00 m (~85 ft)
length: 19,63 m (~65 ft)
height: 5,60 m (~ 18ft)
wing surface: 70, 50 m² (~235 ft²)
weight: 11545-16300 kg (depends on engine) (~25400 lbs-35860 lbs.)
take off weight: 23600 kg (~51920 lbs)
top speed (at 5000m / 15000 ft): 605 Km/h (~376 mp/h)
cruise speed (at 5000m / 15000 ft): 505 Km/h (~313 mp/h)
initial (sustainable) climb: 1150 m/min (~3400 ft/min)
time to altitude: 21 min to 6000 m (~19000 ft)
range: 3500 km (2174 miles)
service altitude: 9100 m (~30000 ft)
total armor: 1450 kg (3190 lbs), self sealing fuel tanks
usual bomb load: 4000 kg ( 8800 lbs, capable to take two Hs-293 or two LT 950) overloaded condition could allow up to 6000 kg (13200 lbs) bombload with reduced range
military equipment: chin turret: 1 MG 151/15
top turret: 2 MG 151/15 (Z)
gondola remotery controlled guns: 2 MG 81
remotery controlled tail turret: 2 MG 151/15 (Z)
Attachments
MP-Willow said:Lanc, I will try to look for that. but it did have documented engine problums, the Italians could not get that fixed and were never given the funds to realy try.
Damage, it was ok I think, C.C might know better. The raids on "The Rock" and into North Africa did show she could take some hits, but also a spitfire could take her down.
I dont think it was ever used eneugh to really tell.
delcyros said:
I think she could have been capable had she been produced ealier and actually entered service. However I think she would have had to have entered service around 1942.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
thing is we don't know enough about the P.108 to say if it would have been that sucessful or not as stats don't tell you everything...........
However the P.108 saw service.
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
I'm amazed the Luftwaffe didn't use the Fw200 as a heavy bomber- it had the range
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
Great post earlier, Adler, of Germany's potential heavy-bombers....
I'm abit suspect of the Do-217 performance figures, I've only got the Do-217N-2's figures, but I'm sure they were never ever that quick.....
However, the Ju-287 was destined for greater things, it's unique wing configuration, forward-swept wing [FSW], was later researched and tested as the Grumman X-29 around 1976, and aspects of the technology gained has been used in F-4, F-14 and F-15 developments. The only aircraft to reach a reasonable quantity of production as a FSW design has been the Hamburger HFB-320 Hansa biz-jet, so far, but the Junkers design was certainly years ahead of it's time.......
The B-29 design was 'stolen' by Russia, as I posted awhile back....they really loved that rear turret configuration, you'll notice they've employed that for years afterwards in many designs !!
I agree with Trackend's statement concerning the 'B-29 as Best Bomber'...[mumble, mumble]....
Mossy states the Fw-200 should have been a bomber, which I indeed thought was a good idea, but it's service as a maritime raider was very good, it was a real thorn in the Allies ass in the Atlantic. I think the reason it wasn't further developed as a bomber had a lot to do with a structural weakness peculiar to the Fw, just behind the wing structure in the fuselage; - I've seen photos somewhere in my reading where they had a tendency to 'break-their-back' on heavy landings or such.....
Basically though, Germany failed in the heavy-bomber stakes, not through any bad designs or such, they indeed had some bloody good designs - They failed directly through the dickhead in charge, Hitler, who I guess was consumed by the success of the earlier ''Blitzkreig'' strategy, not forseeing that the day would come when a Bomber Offensive combined with Air Superiority was the only way to win a war....Thank God the Allies were thinking clearly, or we would've been in trouble if some of those good designs saw fruition.....
I'm abit suspect of the Do-217 performance figures, I've only got the Do-217N-2's figures, but I'm sure they were never ever that quick.....
However, the Ju-287 was destined for greater things, it's unique wing configuration, forward-swept wing [FSW], was later researched and tested as the Grumman X-29 around 1976, and aspects of the technology gained has been used in F-4, F-14 and F-15 developments. The only aircraft to reach a reasonable quantity of production as a FSW design has been the Hamburger HFB-320 Hansa biz-jet, so far, but the Junkers design was certainly years ahead of it's time.......
The B-29 design was 'stolen' by Russia, as I posted awhile back....they really loved that rear turret configuration, you'll notice they've employed that for years afterwards in many designs !!
I agree with Trackend's statement concerning the 'B-29 as Best Bomber'...[mumble, mumble]....
Mossy states the Fw-200 should have been a bomber, which I indeed thought was a good idea, but it's service as a maritime raider was very good, it was a real thorn in the Allies ass in the Atlantic. I think the reason it wasn't further developed as a bomber had a lot to do with a structural weakness peculiar to the Fw, just behind the wing structure in the fuselage; - I've seen photos somewhere in my reading where they had a tendency to 'break-their-back' on heavy landings or such.....
Basically though, Germany failed in the heavy-bomber stakes, not through any bad designs or such, they indeed had some bloody good designs - They failed directly through the dickhead in charge, Hitler, who I guess was consumed by the success of the earlier ''Blitzkreig'' strategy, not forseeing that the day would come when a Bomber Offensive combined with Air Superiority was the only way to win a war....Thank God the Allies were thinking clearly, or we would've been in trouble if some of those good designs saw fruition.....
Attachments
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
yes i was going to raise the point about the Fw-200, she did have range but like most german bombers her payload was unimpressive, as was her defensive armourment, and it terms of damage tollerance she was worse than the lancaster!! she really was weak and i too have seem the pictures of them break their backs on landing, structually very weak...........
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
You know Lanc, you bring up a good point. from what I understand the FW 200 had little structural modification between its civilian and combat configuration. As you said, many FW 200s broke in half on landing and also had other structural failures. I guess it could be said that you can't always take a good civilian plane, hang armament on it and go fight!
During the early 1980s I worked at Lockheed on the P-3. I could tell you that although most of the P-3 looked like the Electra, at least 3/4 of the aircraft was modified with beefier structure. We always knew what was an original Electra part and what was designed specifically for the P-3 by the part number. Except for some quality problems during manufacture, she held up pretty well over the years.
During the early 1980s I worked at Lockheed on the P-3. I could tell you that although most of the P-3 looked like the Electra, at least 3/4 of the aircraft was modified with beefier structure. We always knew what was an original Electra part and what was designed specifically for the P-3 by the part number. Except for some quality problems during manufacture, she held up pretty well over the years.
- Status
