Fast bombers alternatives for 1939-40

[Shortround6]

The reason why the Ju88 won the competition was not for it's speed, which the Hs127 dominated the three contenders, but for it's bomb load.

And that seems to be one of the sticking points.
Fast with 400-500kg or slower with 800-1000kg payloads (fatter fuselage or bombs hanging outside).

Ju-88 could carry 28 50kg bombs inside which also shows a problem. Little or no provision for large bombs at the start.

A 6,000kg Schnellbomber or a 10,000kg Schnellbomber and what engines does each country really have in production in mid 1939 for the start of the war and what do they have in production in the spring/summer of 1940. Vulture and Sabre are more than vaporware but are more like thin soup/broth than solid food.

The Martin 167 was a 7,000kg airplane at normal gross weight.

3 man crew seems to be about minimum? problems with 1939/40 radios? If one man is trying to use the radio he is not navigating or using the bombsight?
Then we have the gun question/s.
Bombs only and no guns.
Bombs with one RCMG out the back.
Bombs with several RCMG
Bombs with several RCMG and a 20mm cannon (French)
Bombs plus multiple RCMG for strafing + defensive guns
Bombs plus 20mm cannon and RCMG for strafing + (?) defensive guns.

Some of the German prototypes in the 30s had the single 7.9mm mg out the back but often the field of fire was a bad joke and was changed (larger, higher drag canopy) for service use. Ju-88s and Do-17s got the ventral gondolas for ventral protection and a loss of speed.
French were even worse.

With the guns retracted the plane was pretty quick, not quick enough but a lot better than many other bombers. But now the pilot (or flight leader) has a choice, Try to run and not shoot or deploy the guns and the built in airbrakes and slow the plane while trying to escape. The Ventral single 7.5mg seems to be a really questionable device?

 

[GrauGeist]

The RLM request (that Henschel, Junkers and Messerschmitt responded to) was to have the aircraft fitted with the DB600 engine.

Of the three, the Hs127 had a max. speed of 353mph and was capable of carrying a bombload of 3,300 pounds.

It's speed alone would make it difficult to interception by fighters at that point in time.

 

[Elan Vital]

France had something kinda like this, the Marcel Bloch MB 140.

This was essentially a super-Bloch 175 with quad engines (GR 14Ns for a start), designed around the 4 bomb bays of the Bloch 162 but without the central walkway to reduce total diameter, 3-man crew only. Meant to carry 2 tonnes of bombs over 2000 km, at more than 600 kph. The wing was made finer than 175, and as the aircraft was bigger, the drag of the canopies and weapons was less impactful. A fuselage under construction was destroyed during the invasion.

Given the use of GR 14Ns, the idea could probably have been applied in time for 1939-40 if proposed instead of the 162, or with a timeline similar to the 175.

 

[Shortround6]

The RLM request (that Henschel, Junkers and Messerschmitt responded to) was to have the aircraft fitted with the DB600 engine.

Of the three, the Hs127 had a max. speed of 353mph and was capable of carrying a bombload of 3,300 pounds.

It's speed alone would make it difficult to interception by fighters at that point in time.

It also seems a little (more than a little) too good to be true.

 

[tomo pauk]

The RLM request (that Henschel, Junkers and Messerschmitt responded to) was to have the aircraft fitted with the DB600 engine.
Of the three, the Hs127 had a max. speed of 353mph and was capable of carrying a bombload of 3,300 pounds.
It's speed alone would make it difficult to interception by fighters at that point in time.

It also seems a little (more than a little) too good to be true.

It kinda does. On engines weaker than what the Bf 110C had, with the wider fuselage, and on wing of similar size, it should be slower than the Bf 110C, not faster as it is claimed.

OTOH, the Hs 127 is still an interesting design, and, even at 330 mph max, it would've been quite an asset for the Luftwaffe in the specified time frame.

 

[GrauGeist]

It also seems a little (more than a little) too good to be true.

Possibly.

However, without my books handy, I can't determine at what altitude this speed was achieved and I'm sure it was in clean condition.

The Bf162 had a max. speed rating of 300mph at 11,000 feet, which is not bad bad all, considering it was heavier than the Hs127.

 

[MIflyer]

B-42. See no reason why they could not have built it in 1940. Nothing technologically impossible.

 

[tomo pauk]

B-42. See no reason why they could not have built it in 1940. Nothing technologically impossible.

As-is, engines are not yet there, ditto for the fuel. We can recall that 2-stage supercharged V-1710s on the Mixmaster were supposed to do about 1900 HP with the help of the 130 (150? 145?) grade fuel and water-alcohol injection.
As a concept - why not? Pusher engines were used back in the Great War, and eg. RR was making pusher Kestrels in the 1930s. So we'd basically be getting a bomber no slower than the He 119, if two of better V12s are used, like the Merlins or the DB 601s?
The 1st V-1710s of note were also pushers.

 

[GrauGeist]

The 1st V-1710s of note were also pushers.

The first application of the V-1710 was in Consolidated's P-30 fighter, which the Army Air Corps should have invested in, to be honest.

 

[Shortround6]

P-30s were powered by turbo-supercharged Curtiss V-1570-59/61 engines.
There was a conversion of one of the Consolidated A-11s, a near identical airplane without the turbo-charger, as a test bed for the Allison Allison XV-1710-7.
P-30 with Curtiss engine.

 

[Shortround6]

B-42. See no reason why they could not have built it in 1940. Nothing technologically impossible.

There is a lot they didn't know in 1940 that they knew in 1943-44.
And even building a prototype in 1940 is different than having 50-100 aircraft in service in 1940.

What airfoil are you going to use in 1940? Difference between prototype Mustang and production aircraft in 1940.
Cooling systems, sounds simple to use electric motors on the fans (two for each engine) for ground running and take-off.
But electrical systems made large advances in WW II.
1940 Allison was good for 1040hp in the P-40s. YP-39 fighters got the 1090hp V-1710-37 engines.
The XB-42s either used several engines or the initial test engines were replaced as several different models are listed for the XB-42.
The engines were rated at 3200rpm which means the later counter weighted crankshafts. They also would have had the stronger more modern blocks and a bunch of other parts.
Take-off rating was 1325hp dry for the initial E-23 version and 1820hp WER with water injection.
1940 is almost 2 years before Allison gets the two stage supercharger working in the early P-63s.

Things were not quite as rosy as the Magazine article suggests. Granted things were very rushed and Douglas was working on other projects at the same time but the XP-42 came out about 10% overweight which had some serious effects on range and payload. Fixable? given more time probably.
There may have been a problem with the expected lift from the wings/flaps as the take-off run was about double what was expected. Fix for that could have been easy (another 6-9in longer nose landing gear leg? for increase wing incidence) or hard?
Introducing a plane that took and landed faster than the Martin B-26 a year earlier?
Granted a scaled down version (low 20,000lb weight) might still have been fast but carried a lot less bombs.
Part of the speed of the XB-42 was from the two stage supercharged engines and flying at 23,000ft. With standard Allison supercharges and flying at 13-15,000ft some of the speed disappears.

 

[Shortround6]

On the HS 127.

If they got 353mph using those radiators perhaps they should have shared what they knew with the rest of Germany?
Maybe I am wrong but they sure don't look good.
Amount of thrust from exhaust gas also does not look good.
Granted the exhausts on the Bf 110 don't look that good either although for different reason.

 

[SaparotRob]

P-30s were powered by turbo-supercharged Curtiss V-1570-59/61 engines.
There was a conversion of one of the Consolidated A-11s, a near identical airplane without the turbo-charger, as a test bed for the Allison Allison XV-1710-7.
P-30 with Curtiss engine.
View attachment 849955

Needs landau irons.

 

[MIflyer]

Little known fact is that an airliner version of the B-42 was going to be designated the DC-6. It was not just an XB-42 with more portholes in the side, but still used the same basic design concept.

 

[GTX]

Instead of reworking the Bf110, just give the Bf162 the green light.

The Bf162 was pretty much a bomber version of the 110.

One had both the Bf 161:

And the Bf 162:

 

[GTX]

And speaking of which:

Messerschmitt’s SchnellBomber; The Bf 162 - Forgotten Aircraft - Military Matters

When Messerschmitt decided to build a fast bomber, they thought there existing Bf 110 heavy fighter might make a good basis. It wasn't.

militarymatters.online

 

[tomo pauk]

Possible 1-engined stuff.
The closest to the useful, faster 1-engined bomber idea for 1939-40 was probably the Hawker Henley. WIth almost 290+ mph, it was faster than many fighters in service in the day, even if the Emil will still not have problems catching it. One of the reasons the Henley was not even faster was in the choice of the wing - the big & thick wing of the Hurricane gotten even more draggier by installation of a thick wing 'plug'. If the wing is as-is from the Hurricane, and with undercarriage retracting outwards (so it leaves the space for the bomb bay), it might've come in close to the Hurricane I?

Another take is that the base is not that of the Hurricane, but that Supermarine does a light bomber based on the Spitfire, with a wing now at ~280 sq ft, 14-15% t-t-c at root, the 'beard' radiator under the engine, behind it being the bomb bay. It will loose some speed vs. the Spitfire (doh), but hopefully 320-330 mph can be achieved? Obviously the fuel tanks go in the wing. Guns' armament just 4 LMGs + the rear gun?

 

[GrauGeist]

One had both the Bf 161:

View attachment 850058

And the Bf 162:

View attachment 850059

The Bf161 was designed as an unarmed recon platform, the Bf162 was designed as a bomber.

The 161 was powered by Jumo210 engines while the 162 had DB600s.

 

[Shortround6]

Got to thinking about the P-38 as a bomber or sort of the basis for a bomber, like a small (for a bomber twin) and ran across this old thread.

P-38 as a bomber?

An invitation for a discussion about Lockheed P-38's capabilities as a bomber (short/medium/long range), both historical and otherwise ;)

ww2aircraft.net

A lot of information on ranges and take-off distances but all for the later models. A 1939-40 small twin bomber is going to have around 1100hp V-12 engines at best from any nation.

No real answers as to the drag of more than two under wing loads although some of the US units carried 6 or possibly 8 under wing items (two drop tanks and six 250lb bombs).

This is a 'what if' and we are not stuck with the P-38 shape. Single bigger fuselage and built in bomb bay but a 15000lb aircraft with a 325-350 sq ft wing is still going to need a certain amount of runway to take-off. More weight means longer distance. More wing means shorter distance but less speed.

P-38F with a pair of 150 gal drop tanks grossed 17,900lbs but was carrying about 1200lbs of guns and ammo and around 235lb of armor/BP Glass. Self sealing on the fuel tanks may have been 200-300lbs. Only information in AHT is for the YP-38 (unsealed 400 gallon tanks) the P-38J (with the extra leading edge tanks).

 

[SaparotRob]

Got to thinking about the P-38 as a bomber or sort of the basis for a bomber, like a small (for a bomber twin) and ran across this old thread.

P-38 as a bomber?

An invitation for a discussion about Lockheed P-38's capabilities as a bomber (short/medium/long range), both historical and otherwise ;)

ww2aircraft.net

A lot of information on ranges and take-off distances but all for the later models. A 1939-40 small twin bomber is going to have around 1100hp V-12 engines at best from any nation.

No real answers as to the drag of more than two under wing loads although some of the US units carried 6 or possibly 8 under wing items (two drop tanks and six 250lb bombs).

This is a 'what if' and we are not stuck with the P-38 shape. Single bigger fuselage and built in bomb bay but a 15000lb aircraft with a 325-350 sq ft wing is still going to need a certain amount of runway to take-off. More weight means longer distance. More wing means shorter distance but less speed.

P-38F with a pair of 150 gal drop tanks grossed 17,900lbs but was carrying about 1200lbs of guns and ammo and around 235lb of armor/BP Glass. Self sealing on the fuel tanks may have been 200-300lbs. Only information in AHT is for the YP-38 (unsealed 400 gallon tanks) the P-38J (with the extra leading edge tanks).

Welcome to the Dark Side, S Shortround6 . We've been waiting for you. And we have cookies.