Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Or French...
You must have a lot of duck, grouse and goose for dinner with a setup like that.Another perspective on the Big triplane.
View attachment 643512
Agile is certainly not the first word that springs to mind.
Except perhaps for the crew responsible for tying them down.
Another perspective on the Big triplane.
View attachment 643512
Agile is certainly not the first word that springs to mind.
Except perhaps for the crew responsible for tying them down.
Since you mentioned the B-36, which I worked on and flew in occasionally for over 5 years, I will repeat what I was told then: prior to air-to-air missiles but after the general use of jet fighters, the Peacemaker was presumed to be pretty safe at 40,000 ft. If the B-36 was flying at anything close to top speed, the only reasonable approach was from the rear. The big wing made it possible for the B-36 to turn so much tighter that the pursuer would be a mile or two away before completing its turn. Few fighters of that era (early to mid 50s) could reach that altitude with enough fuel to engage in a protracted dogfight. An F-89 pilot once said he could have gotten to a high-flying B-36, but he would have had to walk home.Agility is not a term generally associated with large WWII bombers. Its one I tend to associate more with fast small to mid size bombers like the Douglas A-20. But it's my understanding that low wing loading is a reasonably good indicator of maneuverability, and some bombers like the He-111 and early models of the B-17 appear to have had relatively low wing loadings thanks to their very large wings. I've also occasionally come across references to British heavies using turns to escape German night fighters, and to high altitude bombers like the stripped down versions of the B-36 being able to evade interceptors due to the advantages that large wings offer in thin air.
I doubt the big bombers could roll all that well, but I do find myself wondering if I should be giving their turning capability more credit. It probably wasn't much use when flying in a combat box but I'm wondering if it might be tactically useful enough to matter in other circumstances.
I'm also wondering about the relative agility of big wings and small wings for bombers. A lot of the bombers that I've tended to think of as agile had relatively small wings. Admittedly some of them were relatively light bombers, but some were getting into medium bomber size. For a direct comparison, consider the Ju-88 and He-111: two bombers that could be had at very similar weights with very similar engine fits. The Ju-88 was considered a fast bomber and had heavy fighter variants, so I would generally presume that it was the more agile of the two. But the He-111 had roughly half again the wing area which makes me wonder if it might have actually been the more maneuverable of the two. I realize wing loading is not the only factor in agility, but its hard to ignore just how much lower the He-111's wing loading is.
If memory serves, it was because the specification called for it to be able to carry torpedoes internally.
According to 8th AF studies the B-24 was a less accurate bomber than the B-17.The Liberator had very good manoeuvrability for its size.
The Fortress was reasonably manoeuvrable but according to the British the least so of the main five. The price to pay for getting top marks in formation flying and bomb aiming.
When Rolls Royce was redesigning the Halifax cooling system to improve reliability and reduce drag they also redesigned the bomb bay doors through their Philips and Powis subsidiary (Miles). This allowed the bomb bay doors to be fully closed when carrying 4,000 and 8,000 lb bombsThe Lancaster/Manchester's was the only one that was not sectioned or constrained for whatever reason, which meant it could carry a variety of bomb types that pre-war designers didn't take into account when they first approached their bomber designs. The Halifax bomb bay for example was constrained by the complex door operating mechanisms, which protruded into the the bomb bay itself, the folding of the doors also providing obstruction, the upper-most entering the bomb bay to sit alongside its inner wall. A portion of the Halifaxes' and Stirling's bomb loads were carried in wing bays.
I remember the first time I heard of this type was the big Matchbox model, the aircraft might have been a ponderous thing, but it made a real impressive model!
This allowed the bomb bay doors to be fully closed when carrying 4,000 and 8,000 lb bombs
Yes the doors were partly open. There is a picture in "Rolls-Royce and the Halifax. It was lsited as aspecila fitment and as far as I know was not used on operations.That's not entirely accurate. The big 4,000 lb bomb couldn't be entirely enclosed within the bomb bay and the first Halifax to carry it, the B.II Series IA had to fly with the doors open against the bomb. A set of bulged doors was designed and trial fitted but never entered service.
(I'm currently looking for a photograph that illustrates this that I've seen, but can't for the life of me remember where I saw it)
Makes sense. At higher altitudes the B-24 was less stable that the B-17. Formations were therefore looser, resulting in a more dispersed bombing pattern.According to 8th AF studies the B-24 was a less accurate bomber than the B-17.
It was lsited as aspecila fitment and as far as I know was not used on operations.
The Ju 88 A-4 was stressed for 10 G. With later variants, due to higher weights, this degraded to about 7 G, roughly the same as a F-15.Quite true.
The Ju-88 would have had a higher G limit to handle the dive bombing role.
The Ju 88 A-4 was stressed for 10 G. With later variants, due to higher weights, this degraded to about 7 G, roughly the same as a F-15.
This has to rank with the non-maneuverable ugly bombers. Amiot 1043M.
Alex Henshaw, production test pilot at Castle Bromwich, used to loop and roll Lancasters on test. The Vulcan prototype was rolled at Farnborough in 1952 IIRC. Not much use operationally though.