Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better (2 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Sounds like a major design flaw.
 

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.
 
GrauGeist said:
They already had fleets of B-24s, B-17s and B-29s - what was lacking was a long range ground attack platform.
Click to expand...

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 said:
but no flak suppression or close air support - what now?
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:

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?
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
Kilkenny said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do you perhaps mean the KI-100?

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

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Similar threads

G
Better Dambusters
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GTX
Making better Italian aircraft, 1933~1945
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
tomo pauk
What was it about the black crosses on the wings that made German aircraft the best?
5 6 7
Replies
123
Views
9K
mikewint
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
14
Views
2K
Jugman
J
S
How much faster is an aircraft with wooden surface?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register