Bomb bay design...

[Lucky13]

Why such difference between B-17, B-24, B-25, B-26, B-29 on one side and the Hampden, Wellington, Stirling, Halifax and Lancaster on the other, plus others on the axis and allied sides...
Pros and cons of both ways?

 

[davebender]

Ju-87 and Ju-88 were dive bombers which commonly carried 500 and 1,000kg kg weapons. Probably easier to accomplish weapon release when externally mounted.

U.S. Army doctrine called for CEP of 500 feet when dropped from level bomber @ 20,000 feet. Still relatively accurate so you don't need huge bombs.
.....Historical accuracy nowhere near that good. Heavy bomber mafia must have lied and those lies formed basis for faulty bombing doctrine.

Early RAF Bomber Command doctrine called for use of relatively small weapons. This changed to an emphasis on larger bombs such as 4,000lb cookie.

 

[Donivanp]

The US used a deep weapons bay and not overly long. The RAF used a shallow bay but very long. Not sure why but it almost got the Lancaster to drop the Nuke on Japan as the original "Gun" type weapon design was took long to fit in any American bomber. Hap Arnold made then redesign it. The weapons bay on the B-29 has the wing spar running between for and aft.
B-17 Weapons bay

other side

B-24 bomb loading diagram

B-24 Weapons bay

 

[wuzak]

The Wellington used a similar racking system to US bombers, though teh bay wasn't as deep.

To carry the 4000lb HC bomb they removed the racks and added a different type of support.

 

[wuzak]

The Wellington used a similar racking system to US bombers, though teh bay wasn't as deep.

To carry the 4000lb HC bomb they removed the racks and added a different type of support.

 

[Greyman]

I think the RAF bomb bays were shaped in such a way due to the mine requirement.

 

[wuzak]

I think the RAF bomb bays were shaped in such a way due to the mine requirement.

The Halifax and Lancaster bays were designed to carry large torpedoes.

 

[Zipper730]

Why such difference between B-17, B-24, B-25, B-26, B-29 on one side and the Hampden, Wellington, Stirling, Halifax and Lancaster on the other, plus others on the axis and allied sides...

The B-17 and B-24 had a cat-walk in the middle of the bay which was also a load-bearing member. I'm not sure why they build it that way unless it was a left-over from the Boeing 247 roots (The B-24 was essentially based on having 2 x B-17 bays), though the B-26 had a similar arrangement (The A-20, B-25, A-26, and B-29 did not have this).

 

[Shortround6]

B-17 stacked the bombs on top of each other, the bombs went from the floor to the ceiling.
The British bomb bays were essentially under the floor, granted the floor was "raised" but this floor was a structural member.
Later bombers got a bit better with the structural design and the required strength could be had by heavier construction of the fuselage walls in the bombay area.

 

[Zipper730]

B-17 stacked the bombs on top of each other, the bombs went from the floor to the ceiling.

I'm surprised they didn't just have a flat ceiling and bear the loads there...

The British bomb bays were essentially under the floor, granted the floor was "raised" but this floor was a structural member.

I would have figured the "ceiling" was the roof of the bomb bay and that was a load-bearing structure.

Later bombers got a bit better with the structural design and the required strength could be had by heavier construction of the fuselage walls in the bombay area.

When was this?

 

[wuzak]

I'm surprised they didn't just have a flat ceiling and bear the loads there...

They may have required access to teh bomb bay to arm the bombs during flight.

The B-29's bomb bay arrangement is essentially the same, except there is 2 bays and no walkway.

I would have figured the "ceiling" was the roof of the bomb bay and that was a load-bearing structure.

On the Lancaster the wing centre section went through the fuselage. The bomb bay was below that.

On the Mosquito the wing was one piece, the bomb bay was beneath the centre section, the bombs suspended from racks connected to the fuselage.

Fuel cells were in the wing.

The Wellington's bomb bay also looks to be connected to the wing structure, which is connected to the fuselage structure

When was this?

December 9th.


1944.


9:06am

 

[billrunnels]

The US used a deep weapons bay and not overly long. The RAF used a shallow bay but very long. Not sure why but it almost got the Lancaster to drop the Nuke on Japan as the original "Gun" type weapon design was took long to fit in any American bomber. Hap Arnold made then redesign it. The weapons bay on the B-29 has the wing spar running between for and aft.
B-17 Weapons bay
View attachment 273390
other side
View attachment 273391
B-24 bomb loading diagram
View attachment 273392
B-24 Weapons bay
View attachment 273393

Great pictures of the B-17 Bay/Cat Walk.

 

[Tracker]

A couple of pictures B17

Above pics from B-17
Two pictures below - Lancaster

Pics are my own

 

[billrunnels]

View attachment 504921
A couple of pictures B17
View attachment 504923
Above pics from B-17
Two pictures below - Lancaster
View attachment 504924
View attachment 504925
Pics are my own

Thanks for sharing the additional B-17 smoke marker bombs and bomb release unit photos. In real time the smoke markers would be hung, one each side of Cat Walk, at the lowest station just above the doors. They were the first two out of the Bay. They came out smoking.

 

[Greg Boeser]

The B-26 forward bomb bay was almost an exact copy of the early B-17 bay. The keel ran the length of the bay and was a load bearing member. It was the attachment point for the torpedo when carried. The B-25 had a crawl space above the bay to permit access between the rear and foreward crew spaces.

 

[Milosh]

Diagrams Lancaster bomb loads.
Bomb Loads