- Thread starter
-
- #61
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
...
Faster bombers resulting in faster fighters is a typical 'arms race'. You can bet the advantage would have swung from side to side throughout the conflict.
...
I've posted the graphs for both 601/605 and the BMW at 'better P-39' thread, so you don't have to dig
Mixmaster was a pretty good performer with 1300 something HP V-1710s (mech supercharged; 1200 HP at 20,000?), so the regular Merlin XXs are good choice (1000 Hp at 20K). Okay, we can't haul 8000 lbs at such speed alt, but surely 6000.
For 4-engined 'super-Mossie' the same choice?
Or maybe we need an "ideal German NF" thread, to give Germans a chance?
And both the concept of a mosquito with four engines or a cleaned up lanc, are not developments that would date back to the 1930s, they are concept that would develop concurrently with the historical airframes around 1938-40 (way too late for the LW to resppond earlier than they did), at the same time, in the same time frame, using the same engines and the same basic technology. there simply would not be a longer lead time to develop either of these concept. They just werent, because as Wuzak points out, they ran counter to RAF thinking at the time. hell, look how close the mossie came to not being accepted, how much harder would it be to extend that basic airframe concept to a heavy bomber configuration. i dont think it would be hard technologically....there is nothing inherent to the mosquito design that I can see that prevents the design froim being "stretched". there is nothing n that concept that I can see that would require a long lead time for development. its all "off the shelf technology, and "somewhat off the shelf" design work. What is missing is simply the vision the will on the part of the air staff to travel down that path.
the Lanc was as about stripped as an aircraft could be , it had minimal armour, no deicing equipment it very hard for the crew to bail out , if you talk to some who flew the Lanc and Halifax many preffered the Halifax as it was easier to escape which is pretty important to the crewThe RAF didn't develop a "stripped out Lancaster" because it went against their bomber theory.
The Lancaster didn't develop from the Manchester to carry bigger loads - it came about because of the need for more reliable and more available engines. The top speed of the Manchester was similar to the Lancaster's.
I wonder what may have happened had the Centaurus been available in 1940 to fit to the Manchester.
the Lanc was as about stripped as an aircraft could be , it had minimal armour, no deicing equipment it very hard for the crew to bail out , if you talk to some who flew the Lanc and Halifax many preffered the Halifax as it was easier to escape which is pretty important to the crew
Well my fellow countrymen were not exactly the darlings of BC , I know of aircrew that used to bomb from low altitudes to get out of the flak and other hazards. There was a lot of acrimony between the higher ups in the RAF and RCAF but that is a very different topicOther crews,notoriously some of your countrymen,simply didn't follow the ordered routes or altitudes in an effort to stay safe. Typically they went in high and came back low,sometimes very low and by a more direct route. Questions were asked when they returned to base ahead of the rest of the stream but they largely seem to have got away with it.
It was a practice unsurprisingly frowned upon by Bomber Command.
Cheers
Steve