Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better (3 Viewers)

[Zipper730]

Due to the position of the spar, the diameter of the fuselage was too narrow to accept a "tunnel" from the front pressurized compartment to the back. In order to accommodate one the fuselage diameter would have had to increase by about two more feet or so IIRC. I have copies of the original drawings showing this.

Sounds like a major design flaw.

 

[33k in the air]

They proposed to use the B-32 as gunships for the invasion of Japan. A friend of mine trained as a gunner for them and was told they would fly low and strafe targets for the invasion of Japan. Some people say this is absurd but they had already been doing that with B-25's in Burma and the distance from Okinawa to the Japanese mainland was a bit far for medium bombers. And for that they did not need pressurization anyway.

Seems like a waste of materiel.

The B-32 could carry the same bomb load as the B-29, and had a range that was not that much shorter (compared to the B-29s with the center tank). The big difference is the lack of pressurization and remote-controlled turrets.

I would have thought adding to the bomb dropping striking power would be a better use of the aircraft.

 

[GrauGeist]

Seems like a waste of materiel.

The B-32 could carry the same bomb load as the B-29, and had a range that was not that much shorter (compared to the B-29s with the center tank). The big difference is the lack of pressurization and remote-controlled turrets.

I would have thought adding to the bomb dropping striking power would be a better use of the aircraft.

They already had fleets of B-24s, B-17s and B-29s - what was lacking was a long range ground attack platform.

 

[33k in the air]

They already had fleets of B-24s, B-17s and B-29s - what was lacking was a long range ground attack platform.

A four-engine very heavy bomber seems like a poor choice and a rather large bullet magnet. Up to 40 x 500-lb bombs in one aircraft seems a more effective attack.

(Tiger Force, the collection of RAF and RCAF Lancaster squadrons, would have also been available had the war dragged on.)

 

[GrauGeist]

But medium bombers didn't have the range from Okinawa and the B-32s that did see action were used mainly as recon including being some of the last Allied aircraft to engage Japanese elements at war's end.
So great, we have a massive fleet of bombers but no flak suppression or close air support - what now?

 

[MIflyer]

but no flak suppression or close air support - what now?

Exactly! And the experience of the rest of the Pacific showed that we could expect human wave attacks. BANZI! Everything from toddlers to the elderly charging with hoes, rakes, and butter knives. The fighters needed drop tanks to even get to Japan, even from Okinawa, and thus would have only had their .50 cal guns, and limited loiter time.

As for 500 lb bombs, where are you going to drop them when you have troops in close contact? I wonder if they ever hit on the idea of dropping flares for night attacks? They probably would have gotten there

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

But medium bombers didn't have the range from Okinawa and the B-32s that did see action were used mainly as recon including being some of the last Allied aircraft to engage Japanese elements at war's end.
So great, we have a massive fleet of bombers but no flak suppression or close air support - what now?

Coordinate with CAGs. By 1945 the four main types flying off carrier decks could carry rockets as well as bombs, and would be much more survivable, being smaller, faster, and more maneuverable, right?

 

[drgondog]

Sounds like a major design flaw.

Why? Its operating altitude was much lower than B-29 and B-29 ops from March 1945 to EOW showed that high altitude ops were less effective over Japan than traditional ETO ops.

 

[drgondog]

Coordinate with CAGs. By 1945 the four main types flying off carrier decks could carry rockets as well as bombs, and would be much more survivable, being smaller, faster, and more maneuverable, right?

they don't fly very far w/o combat tanks, meaning that the Carriers were very close to inbound Kamikaze strikes.

IIRC neither F4U nor F6F could carry 2x500 pound bombs 100 miles for a mission - so for longer missions they would escort the other two types.

 

[GrauGeist]

Coordinate with CAGs. By 1945 the four main types flying off carrier decks could carry rockets as well as bombs, and would be much more survivable, being smaller, faster, and more maneuverable, right?

As the Allied fleet approached Okinawa, they came under savage air attack, both conventional and by Kamikaze, resulting in considerable damage and loss.
The Japanese air elements were not only coming from Okinawa, but bases on the southern home island of Kyushu 500 miles to the north.
For the invasion of the home islands, the Allied fleet would come under the gauntlet of the same, but intensified attacks.
So pre-invasion bombing/ground attack missions would be a must and it would be up to the long range air elements from Okinawa to lead the way and scour every square inch of soil, leaving no stone unturned.

Operation Downfall and all it involved would have made Operation Overlord look like a Sunday outing at the beach.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Once could argue that Skua was far more streamlined than Ju-87 or Aichi Val - retractable U/C vs. fixed, and no 'dropped' flaps like the Ju 87 had. Where it lacked was 'under the hood', 900 HP is not going to enable much more than it was historically so.

If we can get a 1,000 bomb onto the Skua's cradle whilst keeping its steep dive angle we can, IMO forgive the rest. For starters the FAA needs to source a 1,000 lb. APHE bomb, since the RAF's usual 1,000 lb GP bomb won't do the job. General-purpose bomb - Wikipedia Perhaps some of the old stock of 12" shells could be modified, though they didn't do well at Jutland.

 

[SaparotRob]

A 14" version did do considerable damage to U.S.S. Arizona. Perhaps it might've worked against targets with thinner deck armor?

 

[Shortround6]

Germans only had 4 ships that would require a 1000lb SAP bomb. Italians only had 3-5?
However the British 500lb SAP was neither fish nor fowl. Not enough penetration for the big ships and too much for small ones. Not enough explosive for either.

Put 1 or 2 1000lb HE bombs into the upper works of most cruisers and battleships and you have a mission kill at the least. Months in dockyard.

 

[Admiral Beez]

A 14" version did do considerable damage to U.S.S. Arizona. Perhaps it might've worked against targets with thinner deck armor?

The RN likely has a lot of 13.5" shells in stockyards someplace. Maybe that's our APHE of choice.

 

[fastmongrel]

The 1,000lb GP bomb didn't exist when the Skua was being designed.

I have measured my 1/72 scale Skua (I know not an engineering drawing) and it looks like a bigger bomb will fit. The bomb recess is 5' 6" long X 2' 2" wide by approx 10" deep.

The Skua had a 319 sq ft wing area virtually the same as a Dauntless so with a 1200hp engine I can't see any problems.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The 1,000lb GP bomb didn't exist when the Skua was being designed.

I tried, I really did.

For starters the FAA needs to source a 1,000 lb. APHE bomb....

We're going to need to need to source or develop a 1,000 lb. APHE bomb.

 

[Kilkenny]

A6M- Should have been designed around the Kinsei engine from the outset (ala the A6M8 of 1945), with four 12.5mm guns in the wings, two side-by-side self-sealing fuselage gas tanks, armor protection for the pilot, and butterfly flaps. This would have resulted in a much tougher opponent for the Hellcat and Corsair (even if only topping out at 360mph).
J2M- Should have been given priority attention in 1940, so as to be operational in 1942 (instead of 1944). And received a two-stage turbocharger by 1944 at the latest. A first-class, tough interceptor that would have been a tough opponent for high-altitude US bombers.
Ki-67- Should have been given priority attention in 1940, so as to be operational in 1942 (and totally replace all other Army and Navy two-engined bombers, especially the Betty).
Ki-61- Should have been built with the Kinsei engine from the outset (instead of in 1945 as the Ki-106). This fine aircraft would have totally replaced the Ki-43 and would have been a very tough opponent through 1945.
Ki-84- The Homare engine was too difficult to manufacture and service. This plane also should have been built with the MK9 (18-cylinder Kinsei) engine and likely would have been the last piston fighter needed by the Japanese. It would also have a carrier version.
B7M- Should have been given priority attention in 1940, so as to be operational in 1943 (instead of 1945). Would have replaced all existing IJN naval dive and torpedo bombers.
Of course, all the above assumes that Nakajima and Mitsubishi would cooperate and cross-license everything, and the Japanese Army and Naval would also cooperate in aircraft manufacture. Probably asking way too much!

 

[GrauGeist]

Ki-61- Should have been built with the Kinsei engine from the outset (instead of in 1945 as the Ki-106). This fine aircraft would have totally replaced the Ki-43 and would have been a very tough opponent through 1945.

Do you perhaps mean the KI-100?

The KI-106 was an upgrade prototype (much like the KI-116) of the KI-84.

 

[SaparotRob]

The J2M showing up in 1942 would have posed quite a problem for the Allies as well as the tougher Zero.

 

[33k in the air]

But medium bombers didn't have the range from Okinawa and the B-32s that did see action were used mainly as recon including being some of the last Allied aircraft to engage Japanese elements at war's end.
So great, we have a massive fleet of bombers but no flak suppression or close air support - what now?

But you do have P-51s available to suppress flak. A swarm of small, fast, agile fighters seems a better choice than big, lumbering, very heavy bombers. If guns aren't enough, load the fighters up with HVARs or fragmentation bombs.

Or, get drop tanks and/or auxiliary bomb bay tanks onto the B-25s to extend their range.