Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Surely someone at Boeing told the Air Force chaps that more weight and drag without an engine upgrade beyond the B-17's 9-cylinder 1,000 hp Wright R-1820 Cyclone was not going to be able to keep up. In that light, was the 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp considered?heavy armament, the YB-40's increased weight and drag significantly reduced its performance, making it less effective in practice.
R-2800 on a B-29 ?Surely someone at Boeing told the Air Force chaps that more weight and drag without an engine upgrade beyond the B-17's 9-cylinder 1,000 hp Wright R-1820 Cyclone was not going to be able to keep up. In that light, was the 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp considered? The R-2800 is heavier and longer, but narrower than the R-1820. I believe its first four engine application was the Boeing B-29, but it looks like it could be modified to fit the B-17. There were many twin engined R-2800 applications.
View attachment 798699
Sigh. I abhor the pedant; so have edited the post, hopefully to your satisfaction.R-2800 on a B-29 ?
From Joe Baugher's site about the YB-40 with my emphasis.Surely someone at Boeing told the Air Force chaps that more weight and drag without an engine upgrade beyond the B-17's 9-cylinder 1,000 hp Wright R-1820 Cyclone was not going to be able to keep up. In that light, was the 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp considered? The R-2800 is heavier and longer, but narrower than the R-1820. I believe its first four engine application was the Boeing B-29, but it looks like it could be modified to fit the B-17. There were many twin engined R-2800 applications.
View attachment 798699
It was able to keep up with B-17s when loaded with bombs, but not on the return back.The concept was innovative but ultimately impractical due to the performance trade-offs.
It's doubtful that Boeing had anything to do with the YB-40, I think that was a purely USAAF development. I wonder how much more fuel would be needed for a Double Wasp, anyway? It would probably need a lot more fuel, again, adding to the weight, and make it even more vulnerable. It seems like a dubious trade-off to me.Surely someone at Boeing told the Air Force chaps that more weight and drag without an engine upgrade beyond the B-17's 9-cylinder 1,000 hp Wright R-1820 Cyclone was not going to be able to keep up. In that light, was the 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp considered?
The XB-40 was a Boeing built airframe converted by Vega. The 20 YB-40 and 4 TB-40 conversions were Vega built airframes with the conversions carried out by Douglas at Tulsa, Oklahoma. A number of different armament fits were tried on the aircraft not sent to Britain.It's doubtful that Boeing had anything to do with the YB-40, I think that was a purely USAAF development. I wonder how much more fuel would be needed for a Double Wasp, anyway? It would probably need a lot more fuel, again, adding to the weight, and make it even more vulnerable. It seems like a dubious trade-off to me.
Maybe the better use of the B-17s gunship was CAS under the protection of Allied air superiority. Sort of a 1940s Lockheed AC-130 - just look at the weaponry below. Was there a Gatling gun available in 1943?That said, The Gunship escort never worked well for anybody
Maybe the better use of the B-17s gunship was CAS under the protection of Allied air superiority. Sort of a 1940s Lockheed AC-130 - just look at the weaponry below. Was there a Gatling gun available in 1943?
View attachment 798916
Fly parallel along the Normandy Beaches blasting away… but yeah we need a Vulcan or least something auto cannon like. Oh well.Not sure getting a YB-40 down on the deck to hose down tanks at 180 mph with .50 cal is really useful. And no, no 20mm Vulcan is available in 1944. Nor useful, for that matter.
Fly parallel along the Normandy Beaches blasting away… but yeah we need a Vulcan or least something auto cannon like. Oh well.
That's my thinking. Could we fit a set of the US Navy's Bofors 40 mm L60 autocannons, fixed to fire downward to one side, firing up to 160 rpm. We'd want a high explosive anti-personal fragmentation round. Here's a WW2 era unit being fired.I would say the gunships would have had better effect behind the bluffs, sweeping the incoming reinforcements, and logistic centers.
That's my thinking. Could we fit a set of the US Navy's Bofors 40 mm L60 autocannons, fixed to fire downward to one side, firing up to 160 rpm. We'd want a high explosive anti-personal fragmentation round. Here's a WW2 era unit being fired.
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AvojbfGAHqo&pp=ygUVQm9mb3JzIDQwIG1tIEwvNjAgZ3Vu
We can also add the 75mm T13E1 lightweight cannon used on the B-25H, shown below, but angled downward so the crewman in the nose can aim the gun without having to put the B-17 into a descent.
View attachment 798976
Perhaps the gunship could work in concert with a team of Tiffies or Jugs, who's job was to sweep the area for flak batteries prior to the heavy's gun-run?Yeah, I wouldn't want to be on one of those gunships. Low, slow, big, and not very nimble.
View attachment 798977
And they had 88s in the operational area.
Perhaps the gunship could work in concert with a team of Tiffies or Jugs, who's job was to sweep the area for flak batteries prior to the heavy's gun-run?
I'm figuring that the B-17 gunship, based on the Admiral's specs, has an array of heavy hitting fun stuff, much like a Spooky.Jugs already bring the .50s, Tiffs bring 20mm, and both doing 300 mph plus on the deck. Why risk the other nine or ten guys in a flying target?
This isn't New Guinea. German AA is solid. Get in, shoot up, GTFO. Do low-and-slow at your own peril.