Best Bomber of WW2 (continued)

the lancaster kicks ass · May 17, 2005

well that's like saying the Roc would have been good if it didn't have a turret sitting on the back.........

mosquitoman · May 17, 2005

But that's the point, put some decent engines in and Germany would have a decent heavy(ish) bomber

the lancaster kicks ass · May 17, 2005

again, that's like saying if you put an ultra light-weight and unbelievably drag-free turret in a Roc it would have been amazing!! the fact is they didn't and it was never going to happen, you could however propose it as a "what if"..........

cheddar cheese · May 17, 2005

No I see where MM was coming from. Its similar in respect to the Komet, a good airframe badly let down by its engines.

the lancaster kicks ass · May 17, 2005

yes but he said it was a decent bomber, it can't be good if the engine sucks, the airframe can but the plane itself, if the engine sucks, so does the plane.........

cheddar cheese · May 17, 2005

I fail to see the logic in that at all.

plan_D · May 17, 2005

What lanc is saying is; the He-117 wasn't a good aircraft because the engines were a mess. He probably agrees that the airframe had the potential to be a good aircraft but the He-117 never did have better engines, so it's a poor aircraft.

mosquitoman · May 17, 2005

Well, to put this into Lanc's terms. The Manchester was a good bomber as long as they put 4 Merlins in instead of 2 Vultures

the lancaster kicks ass · May 17, 2005

no, the manchester was a bad bomber. the airframe was good, but the engines were bad, as such the manchester was a bad bomber...............

cheddar cheese · May 17, 2005

Ok then, the engines were bad, but they didnt blow up on every sortie. does that mean that on the missions where the engines prove reliable, that its a bad bomber? I think not...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 17, 2005

If they had just put better engines in the He-177 or even made the He-277 they would have had a great bomber. Imagine a He-177 with BMW-801's. I dont know if that would have been possible but hey just something to think about.

cheddar cheese · May 17, 2005

I agree that would be quite formidable.

plan_D · May 17, 2005

Even when the He-117s engines weren't on fire it was still a bad aircraft because it had a tendency to set on fire at any moment. Would you want to fly in an aircraft that's well known to just catch fire!?!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 17, 2005

But thats the point, if they had modified the aircraft to use different engins such as the BMW 801.

FLYBOYJ · May 17, 2005

plan_D said:
Even when the He-117s engines weren't on fire it was still a bad aircraft because it had a tendency to set on fire at any moment. Would you want to fly in an aircraft that's well known to just catch fire!?!

Early B-29s did But no "D" I have to agree with you. I thinh the 177 must of been another "Mechanic's Nightmare!"

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 17, 2005

That I will agree with you. As a mechanic I dont think I would have wanted to work on one, especially a 277 the frankenstein of bombers.

plan_D · May 17, 2005

You wouldn't want to work on an EE Lightning either.

The He-117 had potential in it's airframe but what it was, it was a pile of burning junk. And that's when it was flying.

MP-Willow · May 17, 2005

Well this has been a great read! Sorry I have been away. The Ju-88 was used everywhere and if they could hve got the 288 organized more there might have been hope. Also the He-111 had more potantial and I think could have been developed into a 4 engine heavy.

16KJV11: You said that raide on New York would have been posible with in-flight refueling and some carriers for fighter cover. That would have been an incredible capital cost and the Graft Zeplin was scrapped because the Navy was focused on U-boats. Also a few German Carriers would have drawn a lot of American carriers say a few Large fleet carriers that would have almost ouble the compliment of aircraft and those would be a lot better.

FLYBOYJ · May 17, 2005

plan_D said:
You wouldn't want to work on an EE Lightning either.

I'VE HEARD!

FLYBOYJ · May 17, 2005

MP-Willow said:
Well this has been a great read! Sorry I have been away. The Ju-88 was used everywhere and if they could hve got the 288 organized more there might have been hope. Also the He-111 had more potantial and I think could have been developed into a 4 engine heavy.

16KJV11: You said that raide on New York would have been posible with in-flight refueling and some carriers for fighter cover. That would have been an incredible capital cost and the Graft Zeplin was scrapped because the Navy was focused on U-boats. Also a few German Carriers would have drawn a lot of American carriers say a few Large fleet carriers that would have almost ouble the compliment of aircraft and those would be a lot better.

Interesting stuff, but I think we put too much stock in the chance that Germany was able to develope a 4 engine bomber that could reach North America, and I don't care how advanced they might of been, without fighter escort, they would of been doomed.

The Germans were bearly able to keep a fighter over London for 1/2 hour, you think they would of done better over New York?!?

Best Bomber of WW2 (continued)

Major General

Master Sergeant

Major General

Major General

Major General

Major General

Lieutenant Colonel

Master Sergeant

Major General

Major General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major General

Lieutenant Colonel

Private Chemtrail Disperser

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Lieutenant Colonel

Staff Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads