Could you have designed a better Warbird?

[Burmese Bandit]

Vengenza: no internal bombay. This is designed to be a big gun plane, with the possibility of the guns being deleted and a large, jettisionable belly rocket pod mounted later should rocket accuracy improve enough later in the war to replace guns.

I intend...alas, I cannot give you a time frame....but I intend, as another member of this forum told me in a PM, to buy and learn to use the X-plane software, and then to design all three of these planes and then post the results here. Then you can not only see them but fly them!

Vraciu: THIS is the reason why I started this thread! I want to see some really imaginative solutions. Here are some thoughts I had to make an alternate B-29. Feel free to make use of them!

(1) We know that if there had been enough research money available, the Rolls Royce Griffon, a 2,000 hp class narrow frontal area engine, could have been available in numbers with the bugs worked out in 1943. Let's start your bomber on the premise that Rolls Royce sold the rights to the US Gov in 1941 and the USG promptly gave the patents and drawings to Continental Allision etc and told them to push the design and guaranteed them a contract. By 1943 a stable 2050 hp design is ready.

(2) Now with that 2050 hp design you throw in a new twist: central supercharging, as I used in the BB 129. Only this central is not for protection purposes, but for increasing the power of the engines which will be embedded in the wings, like the B-36. Since each of the wing engines will no longer have the duty of powering the supercharger we should get a profit of 200 hp per engine. Thus we have griffons of 2250 hp per engine in the wings. Just about right to power the 120,000 lb (50,000 kg) BB-29...or the Vraciu 29.

(3) Result: a B-29 without the huge draggy radial engines. only smooth slim blisters driving pusher engines! At 30,000 feet a maximum speed of 400 mph should be possible, and on long trips overwater you could have the option of shutting down one or two of the engines to save fuel with very little drag penalty... lots of possibilities open up!!!

 

[Venganza]

Vengenza: no internal bombay. This is designed to be a big gun plane, with the possibility of the guns being deleted and a large, jettisionable belly rocket pod mounted later should rocket accuracy improve enough later in the war to replace guns.

I intend...alas, I cannot give you a time frame....but I intend, as another member of this forum told me in a PM, to buy and learn to use the X-plane software, and then to design all three of these planes and then post the results here. Then you can not only see them but fly them!

Burmese Bandit, great idea about making the planes in 3D and flyable! I was actually thinking about trying to turn my interpretation of the BB-129 into a 3D model. I think I will try, even if you come up with your own model - I kind of like what I've done so far and I may continue it, maybe I can call it VG-129, with due credit to you as the inspiration, of course. Happy New Year!

Venganza

 

[Burmese Bandit]

And a happy one to you, too!

BTW, in response to those who have called my design overengineered - actually I wanted to respond a long time before, but things got in the way...

There is a difference between what engineers call a graceful failure design and a catastrophic failure design. In a graceful failure design failure takes place gruadually, allowing time for response to avoid catastrophe, whereas in a catastrophic failure design a single failure destroys everything. Think of a bicycle chain. If one link in the chain fails, the bicycle stops moving. That's catastrophic failure. Think of a toothed gear. If one tooth breaks, the gear still can spin another gear - it'll run a bit rough, that's all. That's graceful failure.

My five engines are a graceful failure system. One engine breaks, the others soldier on. Supercharger engine is damaged, other engines continue at a lower output. And so on, in other situations.

 

[Vraciu]

Well, if we want to have RR Griffons in, hmmm... I'll call my bomber ABC (Avro/Boeing/Consolidated) Achilles, have anyone precise plans of this engine to copy them to the bomber plan?

The next thing we ought to do are wings. I think that longer Lancaster's wings will be enough. But with tail I have bigger problem. I don't know which'll be better: double, as in Lancaster or B-24 or single, as in B-17 or authentic B-29.

Work in progress,
Chris

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Wings: If you want to put the engines in the wings I think a B-36 wing scaled down to 120 feet should do it.

And keep the B-29 tail. MUCH easier to blend in the tail gunner position smoothly!

And while we're on the subject, don't forget to keep the revolutionary design features of the B-29: the central cylinder mating with the wing and two bomb bays in front and behind, with cylindrical bomb carriage leading to two relatively small bomb bay doors in the underside. This feature allowed the fuselage to be cylindrical, and only smallish doors to be cut into the fuselage, thus tremendously improving strength.

You will need to think about how to best site the radiators for maximum efficiency and minimum vulnerability.

 

[Vraciu]

Hmmm, BB, in original project I wanted to make an Allied bomber AD. 1942/43, so from B-29 I'll get hermetic cabin (did I write it correct in English?) and two bomb bays. Other technical wonders from Superfortress weren't available in this time. But my Achilles' fuselage will be more oval than cylindrical, in order to carry more bombs.
Radiators: I think we can put them in wings behind engines and armour them. I haven't got better ideas than this.

Work in progress

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Oh, 1942!

That changes a few things...

The 2050 hp Griffon is not too plausible for 1942, since it was producing 1730 hp in 1941. So your 1942 bomber (if it uses wing embedded pusher prop griffons) will have 1730 hp + say 170 hp bonus with central supercharging, for 1900 hp - 7600 hp total. That will enable you to design an 85-96,000 lb bomber with about a 120 foot wingspan.

That weight should let you get armoured circular rear radiators, out of which the pusher props would emerge. Since we are moving the supercharger weight from the wings to the fuselage, the wings should be able to take the weight of the armour. However, the armour will be rather thin - I suspect about 5 mm only - so is it worth the trouble? It will stop only long range glancing shots by 20 mm cannon.

You will also have to forego the remote controlled turrets. I don't think that's possible by 1942.
.

 

[Vraciu]

Yes, we must say goodbye to remote controlled turrets, but they can appear in lateer versions. I think that 2,000 hp Griffon in late 1942 will be possible (if we tell engineers that they should hurry). During the production more powerful engines will be installed in bombers.
I think that 8 mm armour plates is maximum that we can install. It'll stop some bullets and will increase crew's morale.
I'm thinking about undercarriage now. Main with front wheel or with tailwheel?
Main in wings, but as in B-24 (between engines) - but there we reduce fuel tanks' capacity; or in engines' nacelles (as in Lancaster or B-17). But if we place them in nacelles, we'll increase aerodynamical defiance. In B.IP version we must concentrate on range, but in B.IE high speed is very desirable (Luftwaffe!).

What do you think?

 

[Burmese Bandit]

If you put the engines in the wings as in the B-36, you might as well go the whole hog and go for high speed and height. So I would suggest the lighter, 86,000 lb version.

You will need a high wing for the pusher props to clear the ground.

Main with front wheel as in B-24. Europe is not the pacific, battle ranges are shorter. You have the central fuel tank as in the B-29. And for long range missions the rear bomb bay could hold fuel.

 

[Vraciu]

the engines in the wings as in the B-36

I don't think that problems with pushing engine (Do 335, B-42) can be solve in 1942/43. B-36 is in 1946, that's four years later. Four years - compare B-17B and B-29 and you'll see the difference.
High wing could be problematic in fight against fighters (B-24), I'd prefer mid-wing.
I think that now we can start making fuselage. Front of bomber comes from Lancaster, but bombardier's compartment is moved forward.
Canopy of pilots' cabin comes also from Lancaster because it provides very good visibility.

Has anyone plans of RR Griffon?

Work in progress

 

[Clay_Allison]

I think the Lancaster was nearly ideal as a bomber but I would change the gunner layout so that they had more low side mounted blister guns.

I hate belly guns on a bomber, at least how the B-17 had them, with the hydraulics respoonsible for both getting the man out of the bubble AND for dropping the landing gear. That was just callous and it forced a friend's grandfather to belly land his plane on his gunner.

If you had side guns angled down and to the left and right, the pilot could just "lean" if the enemy fighters were coming up from dead below and give his guys a clear shot.

 

[Vraciu]

The next step with making fuselage are bomb bays. I want to make all fuselage besides bombardier's compartment wider to carry more bombs. Next, if we want to have two bombays, we must move wings towards end of plane, because with undercarriage with front wheel it must have good stability when it's full load.

Work in progress

 

[Soren]

I'd design something like the Heinkel P.1078 I believe (It looks very promising):

 

[Vraciu]

I'm making defensive weaps of my bomber now.
I decided to have:
-forward turret from Lancaster, but with 12,7 Brownings
-upper turret over rear bomb bay (2x12,7)
-two side gunners stations, both with 2x12,7
-ball turret behind rear bomb bay (2x12,7)
-tail gunner station with - there are four options:
- 2x12,7 (as in B-17)
- 4x12,7 (my proposition)
- 2x12,7 + 1x20 (as in B-29)
- 2x20 (British Hispanos) (my proposition)

Which of these options will be the best you think?

Work in progress

 

[Burmese Bandit]

First, soren: The premise of this thread is that your plane must be ready in time to make a difference to the war.

That being so...yes, the heinkel is a wonderful design. But could it plausibly have been in service to make a difference to the war?

Vraciu: Again, this thread is a serious intellectual excercise - you know that already, I know, from your posts - so I want you to think seriously about your choices.

There were very good reasons driving the choices behind aircraft designers in WWII. Center of gravity, the state of the art in wing research, material and weapon and powerplant availability, skilled labour - heck, even internal politics got into the act.

I want you to think of all of these.

Now, coming back to your design. You haven't said which nation you thought of producing your bomber. If the answer is Britain then forget the 20 mm - the air ministry wanted 20 mm turrets in its heavy bombers even before the war, but cost, (non)availability of 20 mm cannon, and weight at the end of the tail considerations kept 20 mm being put into tail turrets till the end of the war. Even the Germans couldn't achieve that. Only the americans did that with a single 20 mm in the tail in the B-29 and it took a 124,000 lb design to take it.

 

[Soren]

First, soren: The premise of this thread is that your plane must be ready in time to make a difference to the war.

That being so...yes, the heinkel is a wonderful design. But could it plausibly have been in service to make a difference to the war?

Well if the He1078A design and the HeS.011 engine had been given top priority then maybe, but I can't say for sure. Seems like it wouldn't have been ready before mid 45.

A better choice would be much more plausible: Simply prioritizing the Jet engines earlier, cause the a/c designs the Germans had were already far ahead anything else. Had the Jumo 004E been put on the Me-262 from the start, then the Allies could've kissed their bomber campaign goodbye.

The Jumo 004E would give the Me-262 a performance of well over 900 km/h, much better reliability and most importantly the range to attack the Allies over England.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Well, since Vraciu is building a heavy bomber, but not along the lines I proposed, then I think I will...

(a) assemble a plausible timeline scenario in which my own heavy bomber design would be designed and built, ready by 1943

(b) explain the design of said bomber

(c) explain how said bomber's tactical and strategic use would have been better than the B-17 or B-24

 

[Vraciu]

I made list of all versions of my bomber:
ABC Achilles B.IE, 4xRR Griffon engine (2,000 hp x 4 = 8,000 hp), entered service 1942
ABC Achilles B.IP, 4xRR Griffon engine (1,900 hp x 4 = 7,600 hp), entered service 1942
ABC Achilles B.IIE, 4xRR Griffon engine (2,250 hp x 4 = 9,000 hp), entered service late 1943
ABC Achilles B.IIP, 4xRR Griffon engine (2,250 hp x 4 = 9,000 hp), entered service late 1943/early 1944
ABC Achilles B.IIIE, 4xNapier Sabre engine (3,000 hp x 4 = 12,000 hp), entered service late 1944/early 1945
ABC Achilles B.IIIP, 4xNapier Sabre engine (2,750 hp x 4 = 11,000 hp), entered service early 1945

Im finishing my scheme of bomber in 1:72 scale, unfortunately it's too big for A3 paper, I won't have tail gunner's compartment on scheme, but the rest is on their places.

Work in progress

 

[Clay_Allison]

I've been thinking of a fighter concept for Finland in the Continuation War. The idea is for an all-plywood 4000 pound fighter powered by Swedish license-built DB-601 based on the French VG-33s captured by the Nazis.

 

[Venganza]

I've been thinking of a fighter concept for Finland in the Continuation War. The idea is for an all-plywood 4000 pound fighter powered by Swedish license-built DB-601 based on the French VG-33s captured by the Nazis.

Sounds cool, Clay. Should go like a bat out of Hell. Always thought the Arsenal VG-33 was a great-looking plane.

Venganza