Fast bombers again

Both Ju 88 and Bf 162 have the similar thing going against them - the bomb bay does seem to be too small. The Ju 88 was also bigger than Mossie - 25% more wing area.
However, there were several options to improve Ju 88 range/speed/payload combination. Installing for a bomb panier, (a big one was to be used on Ju-388 and Ju-88A-15), meaning also extra fuel can be put in the previous bomb bay. I'd go for a panier that can hold 2 x 1000 kg bombs in tandem, or 3 x 500 kg for longer ranges. Might be possible to dive bomb in such a configuration.
If not, I've suggested earlier: maybe install the vertical racks as used on He 111, those hold 250 kg bombs. Shortcoming is that dive bombing might not be an option with He-111 racks.
Use the DB 603A. Those can cruise with 1170 PS at 5 km while using 325 L/h (86 US gals per hour). The 30 min rating will give 1510 PS while using 465 L/h (123 US gph). Problem is the low availability and reliability of those in 1943.

When talking about Mosquito - was it that because it was built from wood was so fast? From pbhen:

I saw a Halifax in Yorkshire (Elvington museum) the surface finish was closer to that of a ship than a mosquito, rough panels riveted together, absolutely nothing like that shown on the mosquito in your photo.

Click to expand...

This is not to say that every riveted metal aircraft will look the same, but it raises an eyebrow.

pbehn said:

I saw a Halifax in Yorkshire (Elvington museum) the surface finish was closer to that of a ship than a mosquito, rough panels riveted together, absolutely nothing like that shown on the mosquito in your photo.

Click to expand...

That "Halifax" is a replica, built from bits and pieces (wings from a Hastings, part of the fuselage from a shed or chicken coop,) so shouldn't be used as a yardstick.

Shortround6 said:

Kind of depends on how many you want to make, A few hundred at a dozen or so a month or 12,000 at 200 a month or better. While Balsa is grown on plantations now, back during WW II it was pretty much wild and it was low density growth, no Balsa forests like pine or spruce. 2-4 balsa trees per hectare was common. Granted you could log all year long with fewer problems than trying to log in Canada all year long but massive increases in Balsa production might not have been possible.

Click to expand...

I think that even by the start of WWII mass production was applied and concerned with metal products. I know very little apart from what I have posted here about mossie production apart from it was wooden with adhesives in many locations. Mass producing a large wooden aeroplane maybe is different. Many sub assemblies needed clamping and bonding then wait for the next step. Thinking about it I am not really surprised there were so many factories for mossies I imagine a huge space filled with wood and adhesive which one lucky incendiary bomb could take out. does anyone know what a factory looked like, not just the final assembly but the areas where balsa and plywood were joined and laminates attached?

Edgar and Tomo

The Halifax is the only WWII bomber I have been up close to. But look at this.

pbehn said:

The Halifax is the only WWII bomber I have been up close to. But look at this.

Click to expand...

Or this?



Of course some areas of the Spitfire were finished to a much smoother finish, but then it was a 'high speed aircraft' unlike those bombers. War time expediency meant that compromises were made and 'mushroom' rivets was one of them.

The smooth finish of the Mosquito is not entirely due to its wooden construction, but rather its covering of doped fabric.

Cheers

Steve

Could a US wooden wonder have been built using the Duramold or Aeromold process.

continued

That is typical Lancaster construction, look at all the rivets and gaps and things sticking out and just uneven.


The Lanc was the best of the 3 main British heavies but it was built as a "bomber" with defensive guns. The Mosquito was built to have no defence apart from speed and maneuverability, its surface finish compares to the best of fighters. Single engined recon aircraft and planes for diver missions had gaps filled sanded and polished did the mosquito have gaps to be filled and sanded? de Havilland wernt forced to use wood they chose to, not using scarce aluminium and having a large pool of men able to work with wood was useful as a sales pitch but de Havilland would have used wood anyway it is what they knew. Bombers like the Wellington and Blenheim were built to be faster than bi planes in the forlorn hope (it seems) that the enemy would not move to advanced monoplane fighters, the mosquito was built to be on a par for speed with a similar engined single seat fighter, its surface finish and attention to detail was the same as on a fighter of the time.

With the fit and finish of a lancaster would not make a huge difference, it was designed to do what it did, taking the turrets off was estimated to increase speed by 25MPH because it was designed to have turrets in the first place. Compare a lancs finish to the mosquito earlier in the thread, de Havilland were used to making racers and knew how to do it, they just applied the same mentality to a bomber that others had applied to fighters. I dont see any reason why the USA could not have made mosquitos on license or a similar plane out of metal it was just a question of making the decision to send bombers out without defensive guns. The Raf ordered Recon and bomber versions at first, so they were not exactly sure how things would go.

stona said:

Of course some areas of the Spitfire were finished to a much smoother finish, but then it was a 'high speed aircraft' unlike those bombers. War time expediency meant that compromises were made and 'mushroom' rivets was one of them.

The smooth finish of the Mosquito is not entirely due to its wooden construction, but rather its covering of doped fabric.

Cheers

Steve

Click to expand...

I believe research was done with split peas over rivet heads to find out which had to be flush riveted and which didnt have to be, attention to detail .

fastmongrel said:

Could a US wooden wonder have been built using the Duramold or Aeromold process.

Click to expand...

Quite possibly, however you better be ready to really "tool" up for it

Duramold - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Timm N2T Tutor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They 'baked' either the entire fuselage of small trainers or relatively large sections of big aircraft in large "ovens".

They got a smooth finish and a somewhat durable aircraft (or parts made by the process) but not as durable as first advertised/claimed. Although 10 out of 262 surviving until 2001 in flyable condition says something. Of course they weren't worth much as scrap.
Field repairs might be a bit dicey unless Field repair shop has lots of resin and an oven you can stick a fuselage in

The Halifax is the only WWII bomber I have been up close to.

Click to expand...

pbehn, I think you need to get yourself down to Hendon, where that photo of the Mossie you posted was taken; that's in the Milestones of Flight Hall; the Camel has been moved now, as has the Ki-100 back to Cosford - the wing with the Hinomaru on it, but the Mossie sits centre stage and the gondola from the airship Null Secundis is still there, I think (above the Mossie). In the Bomber Command Hall, you'll see a Lancaster, Wellington, Halifax wreck, B-17, B-24, B-25 and a host of other good stuff. You'll also see a Ju 88, He 111, two Bf 109s, a G-2 and E-4, Bf 110, He 162, Fw 190, Me 262, all the Spitfires you could shake a stick at...

Good summary. The Air Ministry was fixated with the gun turret (as Steve alluded to earlier) as a result of the efforts of Messers Boulton and Paul and the securing of production rights for the SAMM de Boysson turret, which proved to be superior to what the British were working on at that time. It was an impressive piece of kit and managed to convince the Ministry that bomber defence would be truly effective by relying on turrets such as these (ignore the fact that it was manufactured and installed in the Defiant for now) and so supporting the research done into turrets by BP, British bomber specs had turrets. Took quite a mind shift to get away from that, but it was possible. The Mosquito was no aberation and contrary to popular belief Freeman and GdeH weren't working alone against the Ministry on the concept. It had been discussed and approved owing to Handley Page's designer George Volkert's interesting paper on high speed bombers he submitted to the ministry in 1937. Many were in agreement with what Volkert proposed - it was designed to get people thinking rather than put forward an actual aircraft design, although it focussed on an 'ideal' unarmed fast bomber. The C-in-C Bomber Command and Director Technical Development liked what they read.

An interesting point regarding the development of the Mosquito is the impact this all had on it. Although we are aware it was not universally liked when GdeH first proposed it, but the reasons why are often mistaken - no one believed de Havilland's calculations for speed and performance and rubbished the idea, not because it was unarmed, although that came for scrutiny and was changed. Ludlow-Hewitt C-in-C BC stated the RAF didn't need an unarmed bomber, but a 'Speed Bomber' and Sholto Douglas insisted that the DH.98 was to be fitted with a tail turret! This is something that is often forgotten in the flurry of fervour about the Mossie versus the Men from the Ministry. They weren't against it per se, but it had to change before they accepted it. Thankfully Freeman was able to secure the continued work on the prototype as a performance study and he also criticised the plans to put a turret on it, as did GdeH and Bishop, who provided evidence that it's performance would slip by a lot as a result, so the Prototype was built without a turret. To reinforce this, the Mosquito was offered as a fighter and succeeded in receiving a spec written for a production version and also, Blackburn, Bristol and Hawker were working on their own high speed bomber projects in their design offices - Blackburn even receiving a production order.

What happened to the turret armed Mosquito? In the light of how the prototype managed to swiftly change the Men from the Ministry's mind about it, who cares, but it would be interesting to see proposals.

nuuumannn said:

What happened to the turret armed Mosquito? In the light of how the prototype managed to swiftly change the Men from the Ministry's mind about it, who cares, but it would be interesting to see proposals.

Click to expand...

As I read dH built a mock up but explained quite rightly, that basically the turret just replaced the bomb payload, you could carry a couple of bombs for a short distance none for a long distance and could not outrun anything going there or back.

As I read dH built a mock up but explained quite rightly, that basically the turret just replaced the bomb payload, you could carry a couple of bombs for a short distance none for a long distance and could not outrun anything going there or back.

Click to expand...

A mock up turret was fitted to the prototype and another aircraft (recently whilst restoring the prototype at Salisbury Hall, brackets were found for the turret installation aft of the cockpit, so they've been left there as a reminder of this), but this was done in aid of a night fighter spec released in 1940, not as a result of the original plans to fit a turret to the design. The idea Sholto Douglas had was for a tail turret. This night fighter spec was originally released earlier in the year, but in December 1940 was altered to add a turret to the spec in light of experiments with the Defiant as a night fighter and as a future replacement for the Defiant night fighter - the turret armed fighter didn't die with the day fighter Defiant in August 1940 as many still believe. So, the Mossie was considered for the fitting of the turret aft of the cockpit (pictures exist) and two Beaufighters had BP turrets installed. These actually entered squadron service, but proved a bit useless being slower than the Defiant they were intending on replacing.

http://vicflintham.co.uk/content/post-war-military-aircraft/beau/beau5.jpg

Timppa said:

Americans would have reverse-engineered it as all-metal, using even 7075 alloys. So it would have been a bit lighter, also.

Click to expand...

would be interesting to see IF it could be made all metal like you said and what the weight and flight characteristics would have been.

The limited internal bombload (both capacity and limits to individual bomb size -ie only using relatively small bombs) were a significant limitation, but that's also something the US heavy bombers had as a disadvantage compared to the British heavies (relatively speaking).

The things actually compromising the Ju-88's performance were related to RLM doctrine and pet projects. Added weight, bulk and drag were added with the defensive armament, added crew, structural reinforcements for G forces involved in dive bombing, the addition of dive breaks, and finally the addition of external bomb pylons. (albeit the latter issue was related to the internal bombload issues)

It might not have been a mossie, but if stripped down to a clean, unarmmed bomber configuration, it might have been close. (perhaps more so if the wings had been clipped)


For that matter, given the apparent performance of the XB-38, it makes me wonder how well the B-17 airframe would have done in an unarrmed, streamlined fast-bomber configruation.

pbehn said:

Many sub assemblies needed clamping and bonding then wait for the next step. Thinking about it I am not really surprised there were so many factories for mossies I imagine a huge space filled with wood and adhesive which one lucky incendiary bomb could take out. does anyone know what a factory looked like, not just the final assembly but the areas where balsa and plywood were joined and laminates attached?

Click to expand...

Yes, it looked like (and in fact was) a small furniture factory, normally employed producing wooden furniture, tucked away in this town's backstreets. The vast majority of Mosquito components were produced here, in High Wycombe, by small factories with maybe 50-100 employees. Dancer Hearne, Walter Baker, Risborough Furniture, Hughenden Furniture, Castle Bros., Cam Tools, Joynson Holland, William Birch Ltd., Styles Mealing, J.B.Heath, F. Parker Sons, E.Gomme Ltd. are names that I doubt any of you have heard, but it's reckoned that they produced parts for 5,570 Mosquitoes (post-war E Gomme produced G-Plan furniture.)
High Wycombe, then, was the centre of the furniture industry, mostly because the local Chiltern Hills are covered in beech trees; these days "bodging" is a term of contempt, but furniture bodgers were skilled men, who lived in huts in the woods, with home-made "lathes" consisting of a slim, springy tree-trunk and a length of cord wound round the piece to be turned.
For a time, I worked with the man who solved the problem of the Mosquito glue, but never knew until it was too late. Traditional furniture glue is casein-based, is liquefied by heat (both of which which caused problems abroad,) and had to be brushed on while liquid, then clamped while it cooled; he came up with a synthetic alternative. Everybody knows about the balsa wood, but Sitka spruce, birch, ash, Douglas fir and walnut were also used.
High Wycombe and the surrounding area also produced parts for the Oxford, Horsa, Tiger Moth, Magister, and post-war Vampires and Venoms.
The fabric, used on the Mosquito, was Madapolam, a top-quality Egyptian cotton.

I believe research was done with split peas over rivet heads to find out which had to be flush riveted and which didnt have to be, attention to detail .

Click to expand...

K5054 was entirely flush-riveted, and used for the "pea" experiment; it was found that the rear fuselage could be left with mushroom heads, while the rest should be flush (100% flush riveting was introduced in June 1943.) On the early Spitfires some of the panels, on the undersides of the wings and tailplane, were held in place by countersunk screws set into pieces of wood let into the ribs.

Edgar Brooks said:

Yes, it looked like (and in fact was) a small furniture factory, normally employed producing wooden furniture, tucked away in this town's backstreets.

That is what I imagine but photographers always concentrate on assembly lines, to build a mossie you had to make a lot of sandwiches of various plywoods and balsa. That was the reason I asked about cost, the Mosquito may have used non strategic materials and men but I dont think they were cheap

K5054 was entirely flush-riveted, and used for the "pea" experiment; it was found that the rear fuselage could be left with mushroom heads, while the rest should be flush (100% flush riveting was introduced in June 1943.) On the early Spitfires some of the panels, on the undersides of the wings and tailplane, were held in place by countersunk screws set into pieces of wood let into the ribs.

Click to expand...

I remember reading about it, to get the best trade off of production and speed. As I said before I dont think it would make any difference to a Lancaster but the Lanc wasnt particularly fast. If you want a bomber to go at around 400mph maximum you must build a bomb load with a racer around it. Much is made of maximum speed which is of course important when you are intercepted. More important is cruising speed which prevents interception. A very low drag design gives high speed, high cruising speed and the ability to out cruise the opposition. The wooden construction of the mossie was very smooth while the Spitfire was in its early days a bit rough. The P51 was a later generation which paid more attention to surface finish gaps rivets and surface smoothness. To make a fast bomber you had to be at the forefront of aerodynamics and engine power in the same way as those making fighte

This one almost got to a token serial production - Ikarus Orkan ('Hurricane'). On two Fiat A.74 RC it was expected around 550 km/h, max bomb load 800 kg.
link1
link2

pbehn said:

The wooden construction of the mossie was very smooth while the Spitfire was in its early days a bit rough. The P51 was a later generation which paid more attention to surface finish gaps rivets and surface smoothness.

Click to expand...

Eventually, there wasn't, really, that much to choose; in September 1942, Supermarine switched from cellulose (matt, but rough) to synthetic paint (also matt, but smooth.) They also began to fill rivet holes and panel lines, in the first 1/3rd of the wings and tailplane, with stopper, which was sanded smooth, primed, and painted. The RAF introduced a new trade of "Aircraft Finisher," whose job was to maintain that finish, and erks were taught how to concentrate on making sure that removable panels, like engine covers, were fitted as flush as possible.
Hawker and Bristol (at least) went over to the new paint, but the Mosquito, probably due to the fabric covering, remained in cellulose.

The American take on the topic was the North American XB-28. The 1st prototype was outfitted with two R-2800-11 engines with turbos, those providing 1840 HP at 25000 ft. The aircraft was rated for 4000 lb of bombs, however the Joe Baugher's page lists 6000 lb of bombs over 2040 miles of range?! Not sure that would be possible on just two R-2800 engines. The difference in empty and max TO weight is just under 12000 lbs, meaning fuel fraction is well under 5000 lbs (833 US gals) with such a huge bomb load, probably closer to 4000-4500 lbs (667-750 gals). Max speed was supposed to be 372 mph at 25000 ft, and had three turrets aboard.
Ray Wagner says only 600 lbs over 2040 miles, though. Fuel quantity of 1170-1508 gals. Baugher notes Wagner as reference for it's XB-28 entry.

I must apologize if the points I'm going to make have been made earlier in the thread. But waiting untill I have read everything in so long a one, often results in me never getting to write at all.
The fast bomber concept always intrigued me, but in a what if it's not only a question of replacing the number of, say, B 17's with mosquitoes, or maybe double the number airframes.

It's not a question of making the fast bomber immune to attack, a lower loss rate than the armed bombers will do. Also the mission profile could change. The need for destroying whole cities at night arose for the RAF from the fact that, in the first part of the war, they couldn't hit anything smaller. The loss rates forced them to bomb at night.

Daytime presicion bombing turned out to be a problem for USAAF too, not from failings in the Norden bomb sight, but from various other circumstanses connected with high attitude bombing. The FW 190A would probably have posed more serious troubles if the bombers had flown at, say, 6000 meters. Flak, of course, would also be more deadly.

As observed the shorter time to target gives the fast bomber an advantage, as do the shorter time over target, even against flak.

Now let's change the target profile. Instead of massing the slow bombers, only 1 'wave' is sent against each target on a given day, but a larger number of targets are selected. The bombers makes precision bombing from low attitude, thereby redusing wastage of bombs. And civilian losses are reduced, although that is hardly a consideration when you try to win the war, but still a plus for the civilians. If the target is not knocked out, repeat the raid the day after, cheaper raids means more efficient follow up. Now, faced with targets in the tens being targeted each day, the day fighters can't concentrate on one attack, or rather, that becomes less efficient. Bear in mind that even a faster plane can be intercepted if the interception is well enough planned.

But crucially the strategy with a myriad attacks each day is a much larger burden on the defences cground control, and I would say more so than the attackers' planners, though more effort has to go into this.

We can't prove that it could work, personally I believe the same results could have been achieved for less cost. How much less I dare not guess at. In reality such a specialization is, however, dangerous. The most efficient (or safest) would probably be a mix between heavily armed (and perhaps armoured)and fast bombers. Pretty much as thye RAF did have the mosquitoes to make precision attacks by day. But I do believe that the ratio of fast bombers could, with advantage, have been much larger.

On another level it is also far easier converting a fast bomber into a survivable reconnaisance aircraft. Had the germans put into production a year before the faster Ju-88's or derivatives thereoff, (or other aircraft like especially Ar 234), the Germans might have discovered much more usefull information about the impending Overlord. But then again, they didn't very accurately appreciate the pretty much simoultanious build up to Bagration.