Best medium bomber, 1939

Discussion in 'Polls' started by Oreo, Jul 28, 2008.

?

Best medium bomber, 1939?

  1. Douglas B-18

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Martin B-12 series

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Lockheed Hudson

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Vickers Wellington

    21.1%
  5. Handley Page Hampton

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Ju 86

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. He 111

    31.6%
  8. Do 17

    5.3%
  9. Fiat Br 20

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  10. Ju 52/3m

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  11. PZL P.37

    5.3%
  12. Caproni Ca 135

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  13. Ju 88

    36.8%
  14. Mitsubishi G3M Nell

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  15. Mitsubishi Ki-21

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  16. Savoia Marchetti SM 79

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Oreo

    Oreo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    jobsite dumpster truck driver
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Here's a poll to see if you're awake. If you vote, please tell why you chose it. And no, if I didn't include it, don't thrash me. Some of these bombers did not see service, or much. I will try to post all relevant types, but I know I'll forget some. We're talking about best in terms of most capable of doing their job and surviving. In some cases, we may not have much evidence to go on.
     
  2. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,767
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    You did not make a poll for people to vote...

    You love polls don't you?
     
  3. Oreo

    Oreo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    jobsite dumpster truck driver
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Sorry, Adler, I was making the poll but it was an open-book test and it took a while so there was a delay. I was trying to be super thorough, as no matter how careful I am something always seems to slip through the cracks. . . . .
     
  4. timshatz

    timshatz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,441
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    MGR
    Location:
    Phila, Pa
    Love the Ju88. Not only a great bomber, but a heavy fighter, night fighter, interdiction aircraft. You name it. Head and shoulders above the rest in versatility and general ability as an aircraft.
     
  5. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,767
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    In the 1939 I will have to go with the Ju 88. At that time it was faster than a lot of its oposition, very maneuverable and a very versatile aircraft. It remained a very versatile and good aircraft for the remainder of the war.
     
  6. Oreo

    Oreo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    jobsite dumpster truck driver
    Location:
    South Carolina
    And you will be interested to note, Adler, that I chose a Deutch kampf fleugzeug for my selection. The Do 17Z was, I think, the best medium bomber in squadron service in 1939. I struggled with putting the Ju 88 on as it was barely in service, but knew I'd catch it if I didn't include it. The Ju 86 was phasing out of service; if I included it, I would have to include the Ju 88. But I think the Do 17Z, which hit hard in Poland, was a sturdier bomber than the Ju 88's of the time. However, I think the Ju 88's overtook the Dornier designs shortly after that, until the advent of the 217.
     
  7. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,767
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    I am not very fond of the flying pencil. Yeah it was good at the time, but it was overpassed very quickly and became very obsolete very quickly as well. The Ju 88 lived on and got better...
     
  8. Oreo

    Oreo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    jobsite dumpster truck driver
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Well, you may all be right. Perhaps I was wrong. Can't change it now.:oops:
     
  9. Oreo

    Oreo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    jobsite dumpster truck driver
    Location:
    South Carolina
    However, I anticipate seeing some Wellington fanatics before we're done. . . .
     
  10. Oreo

    Oreo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    jobsite dumpster truck driver
    Location:
    South Carolina
    My choice of the Do 17 had to do with its abilities in 1939, not later, however I see your point, and really the Ju 88 probably had the edge even then. Some accounts I was reading thought the Do 17Z was the best bomber of the B.o.B. but then I can't even find that reference now I'm looking for it. I probably should have voted for something else.
     
  11. kool kitty89

    kool kitty89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,069
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    The LeO 451 was pretty good.

    Also, how about the Do 215, or would that be counted under Do-17?
     
  12. Thorlifter

    Thorlifter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    7,905
    Likes Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    IT Nerd
    Location:
    Dallas, Tx Jubail, Saudi Arabia
    I'm torn between 3. The Ju-88, the He-111, and the Wellington. So I'll go with...........uh.........um............The Ju-88 due to its versatility.
     
  13. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,767
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    In 1939 the Ju 88 was still a much better aircraft. Better airframe, better performance...
     
  14. Oreo

    Oreo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    jobsite dumpster truck driver
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Blast! :shock: I knew I was forgetting something-- the Frenchies! And, yes, the LeO was a good plane by all accounts. Not sure if it was in service in 1939 or started in 1940. Yes, a good plane. Very capable.
     
  15. parsifal

    parsifal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    10,676
    Likes Received:
    676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Urban Design/Strategic Studies Tutor
    Location:
    Orange NSW
    Quick performance comparison of Ju88 and Wellington


    Source Wiki

    Wellington
    General characteristics

    Crew: six
    Length: 64 ft 7 in (19.68 m)
    Wingspan: 86 ft 2 in (26.26 m)
    Height: 17 ft 6 in (5.33 m)
    Wing area: 840 ft² (78.04 m²)
    Empty weight: 18,556 lb (8,417 kg)
    Max takeoff weight: 28,500 lb (12,927 kg)
    Powerplant: 2× Bristol Pegasus Mk. XVIII radial engine, 1,050 hp (783 kW) each
    Performance

    Maximum speed: 235 mph (378 km/h)
    Range: 1,805 miles (2,905 km)
    Service ceiling 18,000 ft (5,486 m)
    Rate of climb: 1,050 ft/min (320 m/min)
    Wing loading: 34 lb/ft² (168 kg/m²)
    Power/mass: 0.08 hp/lb (0.13 kW/kg)
    Armament


    Guns: 8x .303 Browning machine guns:
    2 in nose turret
    2 in tail turret[7]
    2 in waist positions [8]
    Bombs: 4,500 lb (2,041 kg) bombs

    Ju 88 (Data for A-4)

    Specifications Ju 88 A-4

    General characteristics

    Crew: 4
    Length: 14.36 m (47 ft 2⅞ in)
    Wingspan: 20.08 m (65.88 ft)
    Height: 5.07 m (16.63 ft)
    Wing area: 54.7 m² (587 ft²)
    Loaded weight: 9,000 kg (20,000 lb)
    Max takeoff weight: 14,000 kg (30,865 lb)
    Powerplant: 2× Junkers Jumo 211J [33] liquid-cooled inverted V-12, 1,044 kW (1,420 PS, 1,401 hp) each
    Performance

    Maximum speed: 475 km/h (295 m) at 5,300 m (17,388 ft)
    Range: 2,300 km (max internal fuel) (1,429 mi)
    Service ceiling 8,500 m (26,900 ft)
    Armament


    Guns:

    3-6 machine guns, either MG 15, MG 81, MG 81Z or MG 131 (some carried one MG FF cannon in the nose)[34]
    Bombs: Max load 2,005kg (4,420 lb)

    Ten 50kg (110 lb) bombs internally + four 250kg (551 lb) bombs externally.
    Two 500kg (1,105 lb) externally.
    Four 500kg (1,105lb) bombs externally.[
     
  16. parsifal

    parsifal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    10,676
    Likes Received:
    676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Urban Design/Strategic Studies Tutor
    Location:
    Orange NSW
    In terms of performance, I dont think there is any doubt, the Ju88 is superior to the Wellington. It is arguable that the geodetic constructi8on of the Wimpy was superior to the s6tandard monocoque construction of the Ju-88, but it was also labour intensive for construction
     
  17. Oreo

    Oreo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    jobsite dumpster truck driver
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Yes, but do you have the one other major "statistic" that needs to be compared: The "How-many-bullet-holes-can-it-return-to-base-with" statistic, which I believe the Wellington would win. ;)
     
  18. kool kitty89

    kool kitty89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,069
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    So would the He 111, but was the Wellington tougher than the 111?
     
  19. Oreo

    Oreo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    jobsite dumpster truck driver
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Not sure, I think so. For one thing, Wellington had radial engines, which do not have the vulnerable liquid cooling system of the He 111. Anything else being equal, air-cooled over liquid cooled meant more resilient to bullets.
     
  20. HoHun

    HoHun Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Hi Oero,

    >For one thing, Wellington had radial engines, which do not have the vulnerable liquid cooling system of the He 111.

    Hm, after the Air Battle of Heligoland Bight in December 1939, when the Luftwaffe had intercepted a formation of Wellingtons, the German fighter pilots concluded that the British bomber was highly vulnerable and poorly protected. It also seems to have burned rather easily, but I figure the early model Wellingtons might not have had seal-sealing fuel tanks yet.

    With regard to the often claimed superiority of the radial engine, I'd love to see some operational statistics that actually prove it. In my opinion, RAF Bomber Command is the most likely source for such figures as they operated subvariants of the same type equipped with V engines or with radial engines.

    Here is a current disucussion of the topic: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/engine-survivability-13581.html

    Regards,

    Henning (HoHun)
     
Loading...

Share This Page