Fast bombers alternatives for 1939-40

[Steamed_Banana]

Maybe so. Unless this is a square meter of steel and concrete covering the target.
Different objectives, different tools.

Sure that's what the shaped charge is for!

But seriously, I do certainly acknowledge the continued merits of the 2,000 lb bomb etc., they just work a lot better with a near-the-target spotter (human or otherwise) especially with something like a laser designator.

 

[tomo pauk]

Why not stick with the Henley for a bit? If developed and deployed properly, it could well have presented a unique capability for the allies in the ETO and later Mediterranean (with an equally plausible maritime conversion that would have been very much superior to the Skua).

A fast and even reasonably survivable dive-bomber and/or ground attack bomber was something very lacking in 39/40 for the RAF. And although a 300mph top speed in '39/40 isn't going to make it as invulnerable as the Mosquito, its a smaller more agile machine which was highly rated by those that flew it. It would certainly would surely be more survivable than the Battle or Blenheim and, smaller bombload traded for potential better accuracy if the dive-bombing capability had been properly developed, possibly no less effective than the much appreciated Bostons and Marylands.

We are pretty much in agreement - between the Henley, Battle and Blenheim, it is Henley that would've stood the best chances in 1940. While indeed the 290-300 mph speed range is far from making it immune vs. the 109s and the mass of Flak, it wouldn't be a lively target practice as the other two bombers were.

With that said, if either De Haviland or Supermarine were to compete in a 1-engined fast-ish bomber league for the late 1930s, their product might've been faster on the same engine, perhaps by another 20 mph?

 

[bf109xxl]

It was whatever I could find in Russian at that moment, from the early 1990s to the 2010s.

I am curious about the sources you used. Based on the ones available to me (e.g., the book on the Pe-2 by Medved and Khazanov, 2007), it is impossible to calculate average values because the data is incomplete. For example, there is data on the 1st Bomber Air Corps (the 1st BAC, later the 2nd Guards, and even later the 6th GBAC) for 1943 - according to this data, dive bombing was used in 18% of successful combat sorties. And in the Lvov-Sandomir offensive, dive bombing was used in two-thirds of sorties, while the 2nd GBAC did not bomb from level at all. It is clear that the 1st BAC (the 2nd GBAC) was the leader in the use of dive bombing in the Soviet Air Force, but I would still appreciate references to sources.

 

[don4331]

Why not stick with the Henley for a bit? If developed and deployed properly, it could well have presented a unique capability for the allies in the ETO and later Mediterranean (with an equally plausible maritime conversion that would have been very much superior to the Skua).

That thick wing section might limit top speed (though later Merlins would have helped) - but recessed bombs improve streamlining and speed before they're released. I wonder for comparison what the top speed of a Hurribomber was when carrying 2 x 500lb draggy hardpoints and bombs to the target? (I'm sure I read somewhere that the mark ii Hurricane was cut back to sub 300mph by the fitting of external racks ALONE!).

Start with 2 speed Merlins and work you way into 2 speed Griffons? The airframe was used a flying testbed for Vulture, so it could handle the power.

Given the outer wing panels are same as Hurricane, adding 8 - 0.303 or 4 - 20mm allows some serious strafing capability too.

 

[yulzari]

A Griffon engined Hawker Henley.

 

[Shortround6]

We are pretty much in agreement - between the Henley, Battle and Blenheim, it is Henley that would've stood the best chances in 1940. While indeed the 290-300 mph speed range is far from making it immune vs. the 109s and the mass of Flak, it wouldn't be a lively target practice as the other two bombers were.

With that said, if either De Haviland or Supermarine were to compete in a 1-engined fast-ish bomber league for the late 1930s, their product might've been faster on the same engine, perhaps by another 20 mph?

It might depend on how each company interprets the requirements.
Supermarine's entry into the Baracuda competition the type 322 was hardly a model of streamlining
The British suffer from a lack of vision in the 1930s about the required bombs and load.
Of the light bombers Only the Blenheim could even carry 500lb bombs internally.
For a number of targets a few (2 ?) 250lb bombs may work well and 4 to 6 will spread the damage out.en
But some targets require larger bombs.
Henley could have been modified with a larger bomb bay to handle a single 500lb bomb but that might cost a few mph.
British kept sticking high altitude (high for 1938-1940) engines in their tactical bombers for speed at high altitudes and sacrificed take-off power and low altitude performance to do it.
How fast was a Henley at 2500ft?
A lot of this fixable (Merlin VIII engine), constant speed prop, bulged bomb bay to start.

Common bomb load for the 1940 Stuka was one 550lb AND four 110lb bombs or a single 1100lb bomb.

 

[Dimlee]

I am curious about the sources you used. Based on the ones available to me (e.g., the book on the Pe-2 by Medved and Khazanov, 2007), it is impossible to calculate average values because the data is incomplete. For example, there is data on the 1st Bomber Air Corps (the 1st BAC, later the 2nd Guards, and even later the 6th GBAC) for 1943 - according to this data, dive bombing was used in 18% of successful combat sorties. And in the Lvov-Sandomir offensive, dive bombing was used in two-thirds of sorties, while the 2nd GBAC did not bomb from level at all. It is clear that the 1st BAC (the 2nd GBAC) was the leader in the use of dive bombing in the Soviet Air Force, but I would still appreciate references to sources.

I did that research just for myself. Curiosity satisfied (for a while), case closed without the summary and the list of sources.
Interesting note about 2nd GBAC, thanks. The 82nd GBAP was a part of it, and I remembered this number among the leading performers.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

It might depend on how each company interprets the requirements.
Supermarine's entry into the Baracuda competition the type 322 was hardly a model of streamlining

They both look very similar (and butt ugly). I always assumed that was due to the spec.

 

[SplitRz]

There's some interesting info I found on this website: Hawker Henley target tug and dive-bomber.

The Henley was never committed to action against the enemy as such, but operating in the war-torn skies of Britain during 1940 it was inevitable that some contact did occur. The two instances I'm aware of show up well the performance of the Henley. Sqdn Ldr D.H. "Nobby" Clarke wrote with feeling in his book "What Were They Like to Fly" about the potential of the Henley being wasted and he tells how he once used a Henley to catch up a fleeing Bf 109 over the English Channel and was able to get into a firing position but was unable to do anything because he had no guns. In the book "The Most Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay (an excellent history of the Battle of Britain) there is the story of Wing Commander Ira "Taffy" Jones, a veteran of WWI who was Station Commander of Stormy Down a small training airfield in South Wales. He took off in a Henley target tug to intercept a Junkers Ju 88 (fastest of the German twin-engined bombers of the time) that was flying over the Bristol channel. He closed on the Ju 88 and. having no other armament available fired a "Very" signal pistol at it, which caused it to turn tail and fly away.⁴

"In many respects the Henley is an example of a highly efficient and promising aeroplane wasted."
"Aircraft of the Fighting Powers" 1941 edition

"- I still think we could have done with a few Henley squadrons."
Bill Gunston, War in the Air Magazine, July 1989.

" I trailed through the skies cursing them, my C.O. and all the lunatics who had relegated a war-worthy fighter to target-towing."
Sqdn Ldr D.H. Clarke D.F.C. A.F.C. -"What Were They Like to Fly".

Can anyone winkle out any performance figures for the Griffon engine test bed Henley...?

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Speaking of worthy designs left in the rubbish bin, I'm a big fan of the Gloster F9/34. 360 mph 580 km/h on two 1,000 hp Taurus T-S(a) is fairly impressive. The prototypes only had a minor bomb capacity but ... couldn't they put a bomb bay in that?

 

[tomo pauk]

Four bomb cells (sorta half of what the He 111 had, or double what the bomber version of the Yak-9 had but without the CoG problems?



Front cannons will have to go 1st; install perhaps 4 .303s under the pilot. Instead of rear cannons, the post for the rear gunner. At least 4 x 250 lb should've fitted in, best-case scenario will be 4x 500 lbs.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

There's some interesting info I found on this website: Hawker Henley target tug and dive-bomber.

View attachment 853531

"In many respects the Henley is an example of a highly efficient and promising aeroplane wasted."
"Aircraft of the Fighting Powers" 1941 edition

"- I still think we could have done with a few Henley squadrons."
Bill Gunston, War in the Air Magazine, July 1989.

" I trailed through the skies cursing them, my C.O. and all the lunatics who had relegated a war-worthy fighter to target-towing."
Sqdn Ldr D.H. Clarke D.F.C. A.F.C. -"What Were They Like to Fly".

Can anyone winkle out any performance figures for the Griffon engine test bed Henley...?

Those look like really thick wings

 

[Jugman]

S Shortround6 The A-20's belly tank was a drop tank and it could be used with bombs in the bomb bay. It weighed 350lb and the filler neck limited glide angle* for bombs in the front bomb bay somewhat. A late model A-20G-35-DO, at an overload take-off weight of 27,000lb with four M64 in the bomb bay, should get you a combat radius of ~520 miles. This assumes 785/1099 gallons are available for cruise at ~270mph at 15,000ft. At this very much frowned upon weight you will have just enough weight to fully load one or two guns. You could reduce fuel by a 100 gallons to arm all guns for a reduced radius of ~460 miles. On just internal fuel at the recommended maximum weight of 25,000lb a combat radius ~310 miles from 425/725 gallons. There should be enough weight left over to fully arm 2/3rds of the guns.
At the same conditions a solid nose B-25J with the upper bomb bay tank should get ~430 miles from 830/1189 gallons with a full load of ammo. Given the negatives and the very marginal advantage over a B-25 it's easy to see why it wasn't used on combat.

*For those interested the glide angle restriction were:
500lb AN-M64 19° to 8.5°
500lb AN-M58 26.5° to 15°
350lb AN-MK44 37.5° to 18°
325lb AN-MK41 36.5° to 20°
300lb M31 28° to 20.5°
250lb AN-M57 29° to 22°
115lb M70 35° to 15°
100lb AN-M30 34° to 18.5°
100lb M38A2 38° to 20.5°
100lb M47A1 35° to 11°
100lb AN-M4 32.5° to 18.5°
100b AN-M12 25° to 5.5 °
100lb M1A1 & M2A1 28.5° to 4°
100lb M1A1 & M2A1 28° to 5.5°
23lb M72 22° to 3.37° The M5, AN-M6, AN-M8, and M10 are listed in this entry. I'm thinking one of the "M1A1 & M2A1" entries was meant for these incendiary cluster bombs. They all use the same M5 cluster adapter.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

S Shortround6 The A-20's belly tank was a drop tank and it could be used with bombs in the bomb bay. It weighed 350lb and the filler neck limited glide angle* for bombs in the front bomb bay somewhat. A late model A-20G-35-DO, at an overload take-off weight of 27,000lb with four M64 in the bomb bay, should get you a combat radius of ~520 miles. This assumes 785/1099 gallons are available for cruise at ~270mph at 15,000ft. At this very much frowned upon weight you will have just enough weight to fully load one or two guns. You could reduce fuel by a 100 gallons to arm all guns for a reduced radius of ~460 miles. On just internal fuel at the recommended maximum weight of 25,000lb a combat radius ~310 miles from 425/725 gallons. There should be enough weight left over to fully arm 2/3rds of the guns.
At the same conditions a solid nose B-25J with the upper bomb bay tank should get ~430 miles from 830/1189 gallons with a full load of ammo. Given the negatives and the very marginal advantage over a B-25 it's easy to see why it wasn't used on combat.

*For those interested the glide angle restriction were:
500lb AN-M64 19° to 8.5°
500lb AN-M58 26.5° to 15°
350lb AN-MK44 37.5° to 18°
325lb AN-MK41 36.5° to 20°
300lb M31 28° to 20.5°
250lb AN-M57 29° to 22°
115lb M70 35° to 15°
100lb AN-M30 34° to 18.5°
100lb M38A2 38° to 20.5°
100lb M47A1 35° to 11°
100lb AN-M4 32.5° to 18.5°
100b AN-M12 25° to 5.5 °
100lb M1A1 & M2A1 28.5° to 4°
100lb M1A1 & M2A1 28° to 5.5°
23lb M72 22° to 3.37° The M5, AN-M6, AN-M8, and M10 are listed in this entry. I'm thinking one of the "M1A1 & M2A1" entries was meant for these incendiary cluster bombs. They all use the same M5 cluster adapter.

Very interesting!

 

[SplitRz]

Those look like really thick wings

Yup - Typically Hawker to some extent - plus they have to be for the carriage of the bomb cells in the wings. That said, it was still good for 290mph on an early Merlin. Thick wings certainly served the Typhoon well enough in its fighter bomber role at low altitudes.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Yup - Typically Hawker to some extent - plus they have to be for the carriage of the bomb cells in the wings. That said, it was still good for 290mph on an early Merlin. Thick wings certainly served the Typhoon well enough in its fighter bomber role at low altitudes.

I think the thick wings were part of the problem with the Typhoon.

The Henley had some promise though, granted. And nowhere near the problems of the Typhoon that I'm aware of.

Another (to me) promising option would be the little Miles M.20

Miles M.20 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

330 mph with fixed undercarriage is pretty impressive to me. Very good rate of climb too. It had the 8 gun armament. Also had an 870 mile range and 5 hour endurance on internal fuel (granted, going very slow I'm sure).

What about a four gun M.20 with a bomb cradle underneath?

 

[SplitRz]

I think the thick wings were part of the problem with the Typhoon.

The Henley had some promise though, granted. And nowhere near the problems of the Typhoon that I'm aware of.

Another (to me) promising option would be the little Miles M.20

Miles M.20 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

330 mph with fixed undercarriage is pretty impressive to me. Very good rate of climb too. It had the 8 gun armament. Also had an 870 mile range and 5 hour endurance on internal fuel (granted, going very slow I'm sure).

What about a four gun M.20 with a bomb cradle underneath?

The main limitation of the thick wings is the extra drag which becomes an increasing problem the higher the altitude. Low down, despite its thick wings, the Typhoon was competitively fast right up to the end of the war (though hampered by the extra drag of external bomb cradles and ordinance). I don't think a thinner wing is going to help much tbh - what ever extra performance gained is going to be traded back by its necessitating draggy cradles and bombs out in the airstream. (Fighter bombers ended up fighter bombers mainly by default - usually fighters relegated from being front line superiority/interceptors and weren't designed with internal carriage in mind.) One of the things that kept the Mosquito fast as a pure bomber was the increased capacity of the bomb bay and the ability to carry its weapons internally - and to an extent this remained true into the Cold War: The subsonic Buccaneer was actually faster than the generation later (and when clean far faster) Tornado when they were both carrying a bombload because the Buccaneer carried its warload internally. I think to qualify as a 'fast bomber', internal carriage is going to be a must.

The Miles is an interesting idea. However, its a small airframe - smaller than a Hurricane and with an MTO of a 1000lbs less too - so it might struggle with airframe strength and durability in a bomber role. Its also very much a single-seater, so I'm not sure if it fits into he criteria of the OP . It does though, like the Henley - have the huge advantage of having a reliable and upgradable engine, having been designed from the outset to use the Merlin.

 

[SplitRz]

Four bomb cells (sorta half of what the He 111 had, or double what the bomber version of the Yak-9 had but without the CoG problems?

View attachment 853537

Front cannons will have to go 1st; install perhaps 4 .303s under the pilot. Instead of rear cannons, the post for the rear gunner. At least 4 x 250 lb should've fitted in, best-case scenario will be 4x 500 lbs.

That would make for a very neat install - but weren't the vertical cells in the early HE111s a bit of a handicap for accurate bombing?

 

[tomo pauk]

That would make for a very neat install - but weren't the vertical cells in the early HE111s a bit of a handicap for accurate bombing?

I'm not sure.

A fast bomber might have an advantage here - cruise fast at the best altitude (mostly determined by the engine capabilities), make a shallow dive towards the target to anywhere between 10000 ft and perhaps 1000 ft, level up the aircraft, do the bombing run there, and then go either tree-top or fast climb, possibly with change of course - all in order to render itself a hard target for the AAA.

Point of the bombing from the lower altitude is to increase the accuracy.

 

[SplitRz]

I'm not sure.

A fast bomber might have an advantage here - cruise fast at the best altitude (mostly determined by the engine capabilities), make a shallow dive towards the target to anywhere between 10000 ft and perhaps 1000 ft, level up the aircraft, do the bombing run there, and then go either tree-top or fast climb, possibly with change of course - all in order to render itself a hard target for the AAA.

Point of the bombing from the lower altitude is to increase the accuracy.

I couldn't agree more.

Do vertically mounted cell-dropped bombs work at low altitude? In my mind's eye, bomb mounted and released horizontally enters the airstream at the same angle as the aircraft whilst also having its imparted momentum. What's the effect of a vertically delivered bomb at low altitude, I wonder? Will it be prone to being unstable if it hits the slipstream 'side on'? Would it have time to stabilise if dropped from a vertical cell at low altitude? .... We need a munitions expert!!!