Bomb bay design...

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by Lucky13, Sep 28, 2014.

  1. Lucky13

    Lucky13 Forum Mascot

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    36,719
    Likes Received:
    1,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Nightshift picker
    Location:
    A Swede living in Glasgow, Scotland
    Home Page:
    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?
     
  2. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    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.
     
  3. Donivanp

    Donivanp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Messages:
    1,422
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Computers
    Location:
    Katy Texas
    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
    b-17bomb1.jpg
    other side
    b-17bomb2.jpg
    B-24 bomb loading diagram
    b-24 bomb 2.jpg
    B-24 Weapons bay
    B-24bomb1.jpg
     
  4. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,179
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    The Wellington used a similar racking system to US bombers, though teh bay wasn't as deep.

    [​IMG]

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

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,179
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    The Wellington used a similar racking system to US bombers, though teh bay wasn't as deep.

    [​IMG]

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

    Greyman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    711
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I think the RAF bomb bays were shaped in such a way due to the mine requirement.
     
  7. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,179
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    The Halifax and Lancaster bays were designed to carry large torpedoes.
     
Loading...

Share This Page