Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I simply dont get this argument that it was somehow not possible to design a high speed bomber using the technology of the "mid 30s"....I guess it depends on what is the "mid 30s", but if it includes 1938, then history shows that it definately was possible to design a high speed bomber with the technology available at that time. So its not a case of "historically posible", its a case of "historical fact". Both the germans with their Ju88, and the brits (more successfully IMO but a little later in development) with their Mosquito concepts were doing just that very thing....designing and dveloping a fast bomber using the technology developed in the immeditely preceding mid thirties technology.
This is an extract from the ubiquitous wiki that pretty succinctly describes what was happening in the dehavvilland world in the early 30's and onward.........
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 topic
As I suggested before, if fast unarmed bombers were deemed the way forward for the RAF it would have been in response to Volkert's paper, .
Nearly had you there SR6..
Cheers
John
Quite right,and as I keep saying that opportunity was well and truly missed for doctrinal reasons at that time. I believe he wrote that paper in response to a request to Handley Page from the Air Ministry. The Air Ministry obviously didn't like what they saw. It seems no further action was taken.
Cheers
Steve
SNIP LW tried to acquire both, yet failed. A day fighter Bf-110G-2 was barely able to make 350 mph, under 20,000ft that is. SNIP
A Me 110G2 managed 368 mph, presumably with the DB605 at 1.42 ata noteleistung.
With all NF gear, it's 320mph for 110G-4. Ju-88 was only a tad better, but with Jumo 213s from second half of 1944. Ta-154 ended before it started. He-217 managed to score vs. ordinary bomb trucks, those that cruised 250-300 mph.
Or maybe we need an "ideal German NF" thread, to give Germans a chance?
those things did not prevented RAF to request 4 engined designs in that year. An unarmed bomber, of lower weight, with less crew fuel needed seems like a more affordable thing, than a bomber with MGs, more crew, more weight fuel.
Then we could agree that Volkert was right, while Air Ministry was wrong?
Certainly,if you want a fast strategic bomber which was what this thread was about.
I think the Air Ministry was wrong in the same way that every pre war air force organisation was. Everyone believed that the armed bomber would get through in daylight.They believed it would fight its way through,hence the necessity for defensive armament. Even senior figures in RAF fighter Command envisaged lines of turret fighters engaging bomber formations in a fashion somewhat like a naval battle. With the benefit of hindsight we know this is nonsense.
In the end the RAF did a good job with what it had. It took a while but the area attacks,when a good concentration was achieved,were devastating. In the run up to the invasion Bomber Command showed that it was capable of accurately bombing relatively small tactical targets,something that Harris himself did not believe his crews to be capable of.
The Air Ministry may have got it wrong but it ended up with one of the best bombers,and certainly the best night bomber,of the of the war in the Lancaster.
Cheers
Steve
n fact, almost certainly they could have, and more relevantly, such a platform could have been in service considerably earlier than either the halifax or the Stirling and with far fewer production bottlenecks. DeHavilland, in response to Spec 13/36 proposed an upengined DH91, which according to to the Company could have delivered a 6000 lb bomload all the way to germany at a cruising speed of 270mph and a max speed (loaded) of 300mph. These craft would have had three defensive turrets, and would have entered production sooner than either the Halibag or the Stirling because they were made of wood, and in prewar Britain qualified workers able to work Duralumin were in very short supply. Thats a big reason why the large scale entry to service of the heavy types that you mentioned. in addition to the damaging Luftwaffe raids that you mention, there were also production bottlenecks due to shortfalls in a whole range of asdsociated industries, all of them with a direct effect on either engine, and/or airframe development and production. With an "off the shelf" proposal like the DH95, wooden construction methods were proposed, which in 1938-40 would have facilitated accelarated production early in the war, and allowed an earlier kickoff of the serious bombing campaign, rather than delay it. The situation would have been the exact opposite to what you are expecting....instead of delaying the commencement of the bomber offensive, it would have expedited it.
I could be wrong but that proposal probably carried no armor or self sealing tanks. The provision of which would affect bomb load or range or both. what kind of defensive turrets? The DeHavilland method of construction was not the normal aircraft wooded construction and British manufacture of wooden aircraft in the 1930s was not so great that a vast surplus of experienced wooden aircraft workmen were available. Much is made of the ability to use workmen from the furniture industry. I wonder how much of that was propaganda. I know some companies contributed and did well but not every table maker could make airplanes. A big hang up when trying to build a bomber force of hundreds if not thousands of aircraft are all the bits and pieces. Landing gear capable of dealing with 40,000lb and up aircraft, brakes, Hydraulic systems that will be needed regardless of airframe material. Spitfires got 3 pitch props because the constant speed units were going to the bombers. I think trying for a big wooden bomber would have been about the same as a metal one, no earlier into service but no later.
A bomber version of the Albatross was no mosquito, but at 300mph, carrying 6000lbs of bombs it was a more agile, and IMO more survivable option than a Halifax, with a cruise speed under load of about 180 knots and a max speed of about 240mph.
Both the speed and bomb load for the Albatross are questionable given the lack of protective equipment I noted above. It also looks a little suspicious when you figure that the Albatross needed 270hp per engine to do 200mph at 15,000ft (data from 1938 Jane's, may be in error) at that altitude with no other changes the Albatross should have needed just over 900hp per engine to do 300mph if the cube law is right (and my math). maybe a bit less power in the thinner air at higher altitudes but with only the Merlin X engine on offer in 1938/early 39 going much higher than 20,000ft for top speed or best cruising speed is out of the question. Numbers for the Halifax could be a bit under rated, what bomb load are they for? While the Halifax seldom carried it's 13,000lb max load they could be for a load greater than 6,000lbs. The Halifax was also carrying the structure to deal with a 13,000lb load even when it wasn't fully loaded. A Halifax built to carry just 6000lbs could have had a smaller wing, smaller landing gear, lighter spars, fuselage, etc.
Not at all, though it is a matter of opinion. The Mosquito as a concept was first mooted and its basic configuration worked out as early as 1938. It would take 2 year of unceasing and tireless persuasion to get the official spec written for it. If, by some miracle the Air Staff could have been brought round to the Mosquito concept, there is no reason not to expect the mosquito to be enterin service from late 1940 instead of 1942. Moreover, if the Albatross proposal had been pushed forward, the RAF would have had a fast medium bomber, not as good as the mosquito, but better than a halifax, from 1939. Its produceability, like the Mosquito would have been better, so ramping up of supply would not have been as problematic as the RAF heavies proved.
It also took a while for the proposal to actual settle down, while wiki claims " twin Merlin engined Albatross, armed with three gun turrets and a six-man crew.[10] It would carry 6,000 pounds (2,700 kg) of bombs to Berlin and return at 11,000 feet (3,400 m). It had a total weight of 19,000 pounds (8,600 kg), a top speed of 300 miles per hour (480 km/h) and cruise speed of 268 miles per hour (431 km/h) at 22,500 feet (6,900 m)." One can see that somebody was being a bit optimistic. After all a Handley Page Hampden weighed just under 19,000lbs Normal loaded, had two gun positions (not turrets) 4 men, a top speed of 254mph and a range of 1850 miles with a 2,000lb load. Or compare it to a an Early B-25 without power turrets. A latter proposal according to one source called for " A two Merlin compromise design was arrived at on 11 August, with a bomb load of 4,000 lb., a top speed of 260 mph and a range of 1,500 miles" this in 1938. Ramping up supply hits the same roadblocks as every other program. All the bits and pieces that go into any airplane regardless of the air-frame material. And you still need jigs and fixtures wither you are building in wood or metal.
I agree, but not for technological reason. For doctrinal reasons rather than technological reasons. A four engined version of the Mosquito was not that difficult or unusual in reality. The French with their BRE482 concept had shown that a 350mph heavy (ie 4 engines) bomber was a possibility in 1940, carrying a bombload of 8000lb. If the French could do it, with one of the most innefficient and late start aeronautical efforts for WWII, why couldnt the brits take a proven (well, proven subsequently at any rate....thats the weakness of the high speed bomber argument...in 1939 it was not proven....it was possible, and DeHavilland had the vision to see that potential, but the air staff were cautious and could not see it) design in 1939 and develop a world beater in 1941.
Maybe you have different sources than I do. According to the books I have the French didn't do it. Not only didn't they fly in 1940 (one flew in 1947) but the proposed bomb load was 5500lbs not 8000lbs. Max speed with 1940 engines was estimated at 326mph. Cruise speed was 248mph, range not given but with the 5500lb load full fuel was supposed to be 693imp gallons. Not a lot for four 1100hp engines. More fuel meant less bombs.
The 350mph (or above) speed was achieved post war but the engines offered 1500hp for take off and hundreds more hp at altitude than the 1940 engines.
This goes back to the technological reason. The Merlin X engine doesn't really offer the performance needed for the concept to work. The Merlin XX does, an extra 20% or more of power at 20,000ft for less than 50lbs per engine. In 1938 (Hooker goes to work at R-R in Jan) the XX isn't even a speck on the horizon and nobody's engines offer the power to weight at 20,000ft that the Merlin XX will in under two years.