Best early war RAF 'heavy' bomber

OldSkeptic said:

Not a single one of those was even close to a Ju-88 and barely (at best) the equal of a He-111.........

So the RAF had its theology and set the specifications, ordered and got rubbish planes that achieved just about nothing in those early days, by luck they got one that became useful in other areas later on.

Click to expand...

Do you want to come up with some facts/figures to back this up?

Models that were in service in large numbers 1939/1940 to match the "early war" part.

The British planes could achieve a lot more than the training of the crews allowed. Give the 1939-40 British bomber crews Avro Lincolns (or even B-29s) and results would not have been much better. Some "night bomber" squadrons rarely flew at night for training and even then only over England (British Isles) so navigation skills were woefully lacking. The bomb sight in use wasn't very good and again, the bomb aimers weren't given much practice so even if planes found the right city let alone factory the chances of hitting it were very small.
These two main defects had nothing to do with the aircraft themselves.

The RAF did neglect army support to a rather shocking degree, the Lysander aside from it's short take-off and landing capability was hardly state of the art for close support in 1939/40.

Not a single one of those was even close to a Ju-88 and barely (at best) the equal of a He-111.

Click to expand...

A bit of an exaggeration; in what respect exactly? Both the Whitley and Wellington carried a heavier load a greater distance and had better, at least more advanced defensive armament than both German types - in fact than any other bomber in service at the beginning of the war. The biggest advantage that the Luftwaffe bombers had was the radio navigation aids available to the He 111s of KGr 100, which gave the Germans the potential for astonishing accuracy for the time; thankfully this technology wasn't exploited to its fullest advantage and the British were able to provide countermeasures to Knickebein, X- and Y-Gerat during the 1941 Blitz.

As I stated earlier, the British types stand up well compared to their contemporaries, whilst the Ju 88 was certainly the fastest twin engine bomber in service in 1939-1940, it lacked in bomb load and range compared to the British aircraft. The same goes for the He 111 being faster, but deficient in load/range. Different philosophies, strengths and weaknesses, and certainly not "not even close" to their German counterparts.

I have always read that the Wellington was highly thought of until the big 4 engine bombers came on stream.
Easy to make, capable of taking a serious beating still bring its crew home - for its day - carrying a decent load to good range at a decent speed.
But I guess these things are all relative.

I wonder how much better the Whitley's performance could have been had they incorporated flaps in the design and therefore been able to avoid the nose down flying attitude.

I believe the Whitley did have flaps but they were an "add on" and the wing was not redesigned to take advantage of the flaps and even the fuselage angle was not changed ( the famous downward angle in flight).
Not all flaps are any where near equal and many early flaps were little more than speed brakes. When opened they dropped to 70 degrees or more with no intermediate positions and added enough drag to alter the glide slope.
Many early Spitfires achieved shorter take offs by the "trick" of inserting wooden wedges into the flap for a 15-20 degree deflection, once a safe altitude was reached the flaps were cycled ( opened up and the wooden wedges fell out, then closed and the plane proceeded normally). Not something you really want to do on a bomber unless you really had to.

The nose down attitude in flight was a result of its wing's angle of incidence.

True but it was to give a better angle of attack (more lift) for take-off or landing. Something that might not be needed with better/more "modern" flaps ( and flaps changed a tremendous amount in just 5-6 years in the mid-late 30s).

Yes, sorry Shortround, I got called away before I had a chance to finish off that post; I was going to add that the wing was placed at the angle of incidence it was owing to the desire to shorten the take-off and landing run at load, which better flaps would have cured.