33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,354
- Jan 31, 2021
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
In 1944 B-17s put 15.0% of bombs within 500' of aiming point whereas the B-24 could only manage 10.2% a huge difference.
Is it though? It's only a 4.8 percentage point difference in absolute terms. In fractional terms it's the difference between 1 in 7 bombs versus 1 in 10 bombs. Neither is a particularly great result, though obviously the B-17 is performing better.
Per these percentages, B-17 is almost 50% better. Perhaps a difference between needing and not needing to send another multi-hundred bombers' sortie against the dedicated target.
That s a 50% difference which is hugeSure, in percentage terms. In absolute terms it's 1 in 7 versus 1 in 10, which is not all that much of a difference. If it was 1 in 7 versus 1 in 15 or 1 in 20, that would be a substantial absolute difference.
It still looks cool.
Well Shortround, we are in the "What If" section of the forum, so I don't see why the Germans would have to stick to the historical crappy Z-2 project and are free to make changesI really cannot understand the attraction of these Zwilling aircraft. If you want something strange just go to Blohm & Voss and have done it.
As a glider tug it has some merit.
As a bomber it would be a great boon to the allied forces.
It isn't any faster than a standard He 111. For a plane of it's size and cost it has crap for defensive armament, lets face it...........crap + crap = double crap.
Maneuverability is crap. Rolling ability vs even a B-24 is going to be horrible.
You need at least an 8 man crew and more likely 10 men. You can not swap men between fuselages in case of causalities. Trying to coordinated defensive fire is going to as bad or worse than allied 4 engine bombers. Trusting 3-4 men to one pilot is one thing. Trusting 7-8 to one pilot is another thing.
Just trying to keep all the controls rigged is going to be a nightmare (even P-38s and P-82s used a common elevator between the booms/fuselages.
The tails themselves look like a problem. At least in a B-17 or Lancaster if the fuselage gets "tweaked" everything in the tail is tweaked the same, on this thing you can have tails flying in slightly different directions.
Got to love the landing gear with the 4 separate retract mechanisms.
My fingers are getting tired and I may have to throw-up in a bucket contemplating this overlooked genius of German engineering.
They could have thrown a bit of money at FW and have them modify the FW 200 a bit more than the rock bottom, bare minimum. Compare the FW 200 to a B-17 Sharkfin.However if the Germans see the dark clouds of war on the horizon and decide to make the He 111Z as a back up, then both it and the He 111 might be prioritized, allowing it to be developed further. Sure, this was far from ideal since the airframe was already so old, but the Germans don't really have a choice barring engine developments or the airframe manufacturers getting their shit together when making new types. Any new types wouldn't see service for quite some time due to standard developmental, not to mention any delays.
It had 7-9 as a glider tug. German supermen could pilot bombers over long ranges without relief. Of course they rarely actually did that in combatNot sure why you're complaining about crew when the He 111 had 5 and the B-17 had 10. He 111Z-1 had 7-9.
This is a reason I dislike it. I understand why they did it for the glider tug. But a lot of people seem to thing it would be a good starting point for a long range/strategic bomber.Landing gear would be interesting. Keeping the Z-1s arrangement simplifies production, but if they go for a landing gear redesign that could save weight that otherwise could be used for more fuel.
This is a reason I dislike it. I understand why they did it for the glider tug. But a lot of people seem to thing it would be a good starting point for a long range/strategic bomber.
Then when flaws/problems are pointed out the answer is always "they could have changed it" which is true, but if they had started with a different plane or kept their expectations more reasonable they might have had the in service "long range/strategic bomber" with fewer problems just as fast. See above
Boeing did a lot of swapping things back and forth.A clean-sheet design is almost always better -- more efficient, mainly -- than a conversion.
Boeing did a lot of swapping things back and forth.
The 307 Stratoliner used the wings, landing gear, horizontal stabilizer from the early B-17s
View attachment 785002
The old vertical stab and rudder was too small, not sure if the new one predates the B-17E or if they were worked on at the same time.
View attachment 785003
Boeing had shared the wing of the B-15 with the China clippers. They had shared at least some wing parts between the B-29 and a one off twin engine flying boat and they built a new fuselage for the 377 using the wing/engines of the B-50.
But the fuselages were brand new, designed for the role.
The USSBS Bombing Accuracy report is not as harsh on the B-24, it uses within 1,000 feet as the measurement. The majority of the targets the 8th Air Force attacked had a large footprint. The USAAF raid on Huls on 22 June 1943, after the raid the bomb craters were found over an area of 12 square miles, 20% of the bombs dropped hit the 541 acre (0.84 square miles) site. If the site were a square then each side fence would be 4,650 feet long. The USSBS excludes missions where less than 5% of bombs landed within 1,000 feet of the aiming point and boxes that had a circular error of more than 3,000 feet. Given the 8th Air Force reporting the B-24 had a higher percentage of gross errors that would help explain the USSBS difference with the 8th Air Force. If their was a problem with the B-24 versus the B-17 it appears to be about hindering correctly identifying the target.Accuracy also counts. As shown in the papers I posted recently the B-24s clumsy handing characteristics resulted in much fewer bombs on target. In 1944 B-17s put 15.0% of bombs within 500' of aiming point whereas the B-24 could only manage 10.2% a huge difference. This was in good visibility. I would assume the poor handing of the Halifax as compared to the Lancaster also resulted in a disparity.
Mosquito VI fighter bombers versus the light, medium and heavy level bombers.I recall a study of Crossbow bombing results which showed the Mosquito to be by far the most effective bomber in that particular circumstance.