That is, in essence, to design an entirely new airplane.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That is, in essence, to design an entirely new airplane.Does Fokker G.1 fit into the scenario?
Because I love this bird.
In cooperation with the British.
Changes to the historical design:
- engines Merlin X with further upgrade to Merlin XX
- nose section redesigned in the style of Me 210/410
- longer bomb bay
- navigator/observer seat as in Mosquito
- longer fuselage?
- redesigned wing to reduce drag?
- bombsight? probably, none in 1939, but Mark III or Mark XIV added when available.
Hence Gloster Gladiators being sent to France initially which, with the Westland Lysanders, could cope with the worst of the airfields (almost lliterally fields). As time went on the improvements made to the fields plus the availability of more Hurricanes allowed the RAF to replace all the Gladiators with Hurricanes by May 1940.No they are not but they didn't improve a whole lot in the late 30s. That whole scheme about catapulting Manchester bombers? British did a lot of work in the late 30w but then needed more and they were surprised when they went to France and saw what the French fields they were given were like (If they had been good field the French would have kept them)
The 1935 RLM request was for a tactical "schnellbomber", not a bomb truck.To Grey Geist: The issue was BFW did not have the engineering capability to bring the Bf 162 design to a mass production status. It is really difficult to produce aircraft when the design is not complete! Also you may not be aware, Ju 88s were produced by no less than 8 manufacturers, beginning in 1940. I will also address the performance issue: In my opinion, if the Bf 162 had been redesigned to carry the same bomb load that the Ju 88 did, the speed probably would not have been significantly better and the range probably less.
ArtieBob
Might also require a bomb sight?
And a Bomb aimer?
and
Bombers still need to have an useful range/radius, so just attaching the bombs on a Spitfire or Bf 109E will not cut it.
old book (William Green so numbers may be off.
French LeO 451 B4
4 men two GR 14N 48/49 engines 1140hp T-O and 1035hp at 15,75ft. max speed 307mph at 15,748ft
Range with 1100lb bomb load............1439 miles............... economical cruise 227mph at 8,200ft
Bomb load (?)..................................................Fuel
one 1102lb bomb..........................................712imp gal
two 441lb bombs..............................................."..........."
two 1102lb bombs........................................530imp gal
two 1102 + two 441lb..................................398imp gal
two 1102 + five 441lb..................................220imp gal
There was room for one 441 or 220lb in each wing root. No idea what that did to fuel load
Now how far could it fly (and how fast) with even the two 1102lb + two 441lb load?
Granted there were more powerful engines than the GR 14N in 1939/40 (but not for the French)
View attachment 849551
Yes you can get rid of the 20mm and turret what else are you going to take out/cut down?
If all you want is tip and run raids 100km with a 500kg bomb load over the front lines you can do a lot better.
If you want to go 300-400km with 1000kg things are going to get a lot harder.
Seems like the Do 335 started out as a fast bomber, with switch to the fighter job being necessitated by the dire German situation in 1944? There was still the bomb bay present in 1945, with extra fuel tank as alternative payload there.Then there's the Do 335 with props both in front and rear (yes, this was a fighter, but just as an example of the concept.
I'm intrigued by the idea of having two engines in the fuselage as a way around the drag from the engine nacelles in a traditional twin engine design.
The XB-42 was mentioned earlier in the thread, with contra rotating props in the rear. Then there's the Do 335 with props both in front and rear (yes, this was a fighter, but just as an example of the concept. And then we have contra rotating props in the front, as in the Bolkhovitinov S-2M
Bolkhovitinov S-2M-103
Prior to the German invasion, the Soviet air industry was in the process of developing a series of new experimental ideas and concepts. While generally unknown around the world, some of these were …plane-encyclopedia.com
Bolkhovitinov "S" is the correct name. "2M-103" means "with two M-103 engines" - you can find this in the text available at your link.....as in the Bolkhovitinov S-2M
Bolkhovitinov S-2M-103
Prior to the German invasion, the Soviet air industry was in the process of developing a series of new experimental ideas and concepts. While generally unknown around the world, some of these were …plane-encyclopedia.com
Going in a different direction, could the early B-17s have been evolved to be a high speed bomber instead of the flying fortress it became?
I imagine something like the B-17E, without the ball turret and waist gunners. Still have the upper and tail turrets.
5 man crew? Pilot, navigator, bombardier, upper turret and tail turret gunners.
This may be a mistake. Without turbos (and Wright never got the R-2600 to play with the Turbo nicely) the power levels crossover at the higher altitudes.The only engine that gives enough power that probably will fit is the R-2600. There will be a 3,000lb to 4,000lb weight penalty, but a R-2600 powered B-17 will be able to climb to, and cruise at high altitudes more economically offsetting the weight somewhat.
Would swapping the R-1820s for V-1710s (appropriately updated nacelles) allow your B-38E to operate on speed alone?Going in a different direction, could the early B-17s have been evolved to be a high speed bomber instead of the flying fortress it became?
I imagine something like the B-17E, without the ball turret and waist gunners. Still have the upper and tail turrets.
5 man crew? Pilot, navigator, bombardier, upper turret and tail turret gunners.
You need more power, or smaller aircraft. In 1939/1940, the R1830 was state of the art. There was room to improve the Aero's Bristol Mercurys, but this was what the Blenheims used.Thoughts on the CAC Woomera or Aero A.300? Neither made it past the prototype stage, but with more power and cleaner lines there is potential for a fast bomber.
View attachment 851879
View attachment 851880
Fair points. Though when the Woomera would have been produced in 1942 the Hercules and R-2800 Double Wasp should be available.You need more power, or smaller aircraft. In 1939/1940, the R1830 was state of the art. There was room to improve the Aero's Bristol Mercurys, but this was what the Blenheims used.
Just removing the guns will not give you enough of a speed boost to make difference.
The only engine that gives enough power that probably will fit is the R-2600. There will be a 3,000lb to 4,000lb weight penalty, but a R-2600 powered B-17 will be able to climb to, and cruise at high altitudes more economically offsetting the weight somewhat.
I think a single pilot on a four engine aircraft is a mistake.
Bodie is the only author that I can recall that makes the claim that the R-2600 was unsuitable for turbos. The only two turbo R-2600 installations that I know of are the A-20 and the F6F-2. The Turbo A-20 was just a really dumb idea for a tactical bomber that primary mission is dropping 20lb frag bombs. The AAC realized this and dropped the turbo. The A-20 did have a lot of problems with its installation... But so did everything else at the time, so..? The F6F-2 was pretty much the same. The TEC turbo needed a good deal of development work and it didn't offer any advantage over the R-2800-10 until ~21,000ft. This was above the majority naval aerial combat.This may be a mistake. Without turbos (and Wright never got the R-2600 to play with the Turbo nicely) the power levels crossover at the higher altitudes.
The Turbo R-1820 was good for about 1000hp at 25,000 or higher at max continuous (1 hour rating or truly max continuous, run it at that level until the fuel runs out).
A 1700hp R-2600 was lucky it could make 1000hp at 25,000 without a turbo even at Military power (5 minute rating)
The Turbo powerplants in the B-17 and B-24 are often under rated. Granted they were not as good as larger engines for take-off and low altitudes but up at around 25,000ft they were giving very little to The Merlins, Hercules, BMW 801s.
V-1710-91/R-1820/R-2600BI think if speed is desired, a change to the V-1710 would be in order.
At first there would only be a small power improvement, but mid war there will be a few hunder hp advantage per engine.