In Flying to the Limit, page 131, the British test of a Mohawk IV (H-75A-4) with 6 LMG and armor, showed best climb of 2,600 fpm at 8,000 feet. Climb rate did not fall below 1,000 fpm until 27,000 feet. 3.9 minutes to 10,000 feet. 6.2 minutes to 15,000. 8.8 minutes to 20,000. 13.3 minutes to 26,000. 18 minutes to 30,000. 23.2 minutes to 32,000. 302 mph at 14,000. Test was done in early 1941.
Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
In Flying to the Limit, page 131, the British test of a Mohawk IV (H-75A-4) with 6 LMG and armor, showed best climb of 2,600 fpm at 8,000 feet. Climb rate did not fall below 1,000 fpm until 27,000 feet. 3.9 minutes to 10,000 feet. 6.2 minutes to 15,000. 8.8 minutes to 20,000. 13.3 minutes to 26,000. 18 minutes to 30,000. 23.2 minutes to 32,000. 302 mph at 14,000. Test was done in early 1941.
Smokey Stover
Banned
Them thar is fighting words Smokey
When making claims like that it is best to have all your ducks in a row and unfortunately your ducks are different breeds in different ponds.
Crash of prototype had nothing to do with the qualities of the aircraft, good or bad. They tried to take off without unlocking the control surfaces. Gust locks had been installed to keep the large control surfaces from flapping around in the wind and getting damaged. One thing that came of this accident was take-off check lists. Douglas got the contract, in large part, because a twin engine bomber was cheaper than a 4 engine. They could get a lot more planes for the money ( first order for B-18s was a whopping 82 aircraft)
The 4000lb bomb load is a furphy that just will not go away. It seems to have got it's start in an offhand quote from a General to a war correspondent. B-17s routinely carried 5000lb loads to Berlin and 6000lbs on occasion to Berlin and often on shorter flights. The element of truth to the 4000lb load is that while the Berlin bound B-17s carried 5000lbs of iron bombs the ones carrying incendiaries carried a bit over 3000lbs so the average was 4000lbs.
A B-17, with the external bomb racks (seldom used) could get 17,000lbs off the ground, it just couldn't go very far with it.
External racks would hold a pair of 4000lb bombs (or smaller) and did not block the bomb bay.
Mosquitoes could not carry the 4000lb cookie until 1944 so what they could or could not carry makes little difference to B-17s in action in 1942/43. Mosquitoes carried four 500lbs inside and two outside at best for the first year or more of operation. And they very rarely carried incendiaries except for target marking.
The British "test" was flawed for a bunch of reasons. Despite being told that the B-17Cs they got weren't really ready for combat the British used them anyway, in the typical British "penny packet" numbers, rarely more than 3 aircraft per mission, which is hardly enough to set up the defensive formation quantity of fire the 'theory' depended on. The as fitted armament consisted of a single manually operated .50 cal out each waist window, one, 50 cal out the back of a ventral tub and the fourth out the top of the radio compartment, however field of fire and indeed field of view for the dorsal gunner were best described as restricted.
View attachment 483890
There was one additional .30 cal or .50 cal in the nose. British were using either two or three power turrets in most of their bombers at this point and why they thought that a handful of manually aimed .50 cal guns was such a big improvement as to allow daylight operation is beyond me.
The B-17E was already on order when the RAF got their 20 Fortress MK Is and with double the number of guns and twin dorsal and ventral power turrets the firepower was significantly higher. Still not enough as it turned out but there was reason to discount earlier experience.
BTW you might want to check on that just a few more bombs a little bit further for the B-29 comparison also.
Ok, sorry it's a bit late i had to dig out my files from the loft/attic.
Bombs: Although it theoretically could carry 17,417 lb of bombs, the B-17 rarely flew combat missions with more than 5,071lbs to 6,000lbs. This was because of its poor climb rate with load, poor performance at altitude and the low power to weight ratio of the Wright cyclones. (Although i have a feeling you will try and debate that)
12,732 B-17's were produced at a cost of $238,329 each. Today, the same aircraft would cost $2,781,367 apiece. That's a hefty price tag for a 1935 design. Not to mention most of them went down in flames.
Because of all the guns, which were basically redundant, it had a ten man crew. That's ten guys every time one went down. Admittedly a few managed to bail out but effectively for them the war was over. It was used wrong, despite the RAF's warnings thousands of young men were needlessly sacrificed on what was suicide missions. Without the P-51 the whole planes history would have been a disaster not a triumph as some seem to think. The Norden bombsight was nowhere near as accurate as claimed and time and again crews were sent out to bomb the same location day after day. The suits worn were totally inadequate and led to many deaths by asphyxiation and even electrocution. Also the B-17 was not a heavy bomber just because it had four engines. If anything it was a mediocre medium bomber.
Losses
These statistics came from the 398th BG newsletter. These numbers match up with what I have seen listed by individual unit histories and in reference books. It also matches up with the wall in front of the American Air Museum before the unit names were worn away by rain.
Bomb Group Station Bomber
Type Missions
Flown Losses First number denotes amount of aircraft. Second number losses.
34th Mendelsham B-17 170/ 34
91 Bassingbourn B-17 340 /197
92 Podington B-17 308 /154
94 Bury St. Edmonds B-17 324 /153
95 Horham B-17 320 /157
96 Snetterton Heath B-17 321 /189
100 Thorpe Abbots B-17 306/ 177
303 Moleworth B-17 364 /165
305 Chelveston B-17 337 /154
306 Thurieigh B-17 342 /171
351 Polebrook B-17 311/ 124
379 Kimbolton B-17 330/ 141
381 Ridgewell B-17 296 /117
384 Grafton Underwood B-17 314 /159
385 Great Ashfield B-17 296 /129
388 Knettishall B-17 306 /142
390 Framlingham B-17 300/ 144
398 Nuthampstead B-17 195 /58
401 Deenthrope B-17 256 /95
447 Rattlesden B-17 257/ 97
452 Deopham Green B-17 250/ 110
457 Glatton B-17 237 /83
486 Sudbury B-17 188 /33
487 Lavenham B-17 185 /48
490 Eye B-17 158 /40
493 Deebach B-17 158 /41
Total 10631 /4145
Almost half of the amount of aircraft on each mission failed to return
Last edited:
Reguarding the B17/B24 and the self defending bomber:
I'd like to point out that the Germany was probably the only country that could have effectively handled the B17 until at least midwar.
The Japanese never got very good at shooting them down and when they did scratch a few down it generally took a LOT of Zeros vs a few B17's to get it done. By the time they had built planes to deal with the B17, the B29 had appeared and they were back where they started.
In American tests it was reported that when the B29 was over 30,000 feet (exact height may have been 32,000 or 33,000 I can't remember) that even the P38 and P47 had difficulty making attacks on the B29 because when they turned they tended to high speed stall. In essence, I believe all they could do was nice gentle turns which made them vulnerable to return fire from the bomber. I think B29's at high altitude, especially at night would have been nearly invulnerable to German attacks.
Did you read of the B29 crew that bailed out over I think Iwo Jima, and a P61 Black Widow was told to shoot down the now crewless B29 on autopilot? They moved up to point blank range and emptied 4 20mm cannon an 4 50's into the B29 before it finally went down. Sounds like a tough machine to me.
Even at lower altitudes the B17 was never considered an easy victory by German pilots in a 1 on 1 situation. There is a reason they kept fitting more and bigger guns to their fighters as the war progressed.
I'd like to point out that the Germany was probably the only country that could have effectively handled the B17 until at least midwar.
The Japanese never got very good at shooting them down and when they did scratch a few down it generally took a LOT of Zeros vs a few B17's to get it done. By the time they had built planes to deal with the B17, the B29 had appeared and they were back where they started.
In American tests it was reported that when the B29 was over 30,000 feet (exact height may have been 32,000 or 33,000 I can't remember) that even the P38 and P47 had difficulty making attacks on the B29 because when they turned they tended to high speed stall. In essence, I believe all they could do was nice gentle turns which made them vulnerable to return fire from the bomber. I think B29's at high altitude, especially at night would have been nearly invulnerable to German attacks.
Did you read of the B29 crew that bailed out over I think Iwo Jima, and a P61 Black Widow was told to shoot down the now crewless B29 on autopilot? They moved up to point blank range and emptied 4 20mm cannon an 4 50's into the B29 before it finally went down. Sounds like a tough machine to me.
Even at lower altitudes the B17 was never considered an easy victory by German pilots in a 1 on 1 situation. There is a reason they kept fitting more and bigger guns to their fighters as the war progressed.
Mohawk IV added
Spitfire I - 6.25 lb, 2600 rpm (6,050 lb) - Merlin III
Hurricane I - 6.25 lb, 2600 rpm (6,316 lb) - Merlin III
Mohawk II - 87 cm, 2550 rpm (5,962 lb) - Twin Wasp SC3G
Mohawk IV - 103/95 cm, 2300 rpm (6,330 lb) - Cyclone G205A
But my point is this was a World War. If you take round figures a loss of 40% of bombers in a 10 week conflict is 4% per week. This is like Bomber Command making one, thousand bomber raid every week with losses of 4% or two per week with losses of 2%. That is about the best BC ever achieved not the worst. The numbers and losses suffered by the LW were not unusual compared to WW1, the surprise is they had no production or training system to sustain them. Before the BoB was over Germany was involved in the siege of Malta and at the beginning of 1941 in North Africa. The loss of 407 single engine fighters destroyed or damaged is only serious if you are not producing many, in terms of beating France it is a very small loss. The LW were to lose many more in the BoB getting nowhere at all.
Shortround6
Major General
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Halifax/Halifax_III_ADS.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-17/Fortress_III_Data_Sheet.pdf
Yep, poor performance at altitude. Service ceiling of 26,500ft at 64,000lbs vrs the Halifax III's service ceiling of 20,000ft at 65,000lbs.
Yep, medium bomber, anybody else got a medium bomber that can carry 10,000lb of bombs 1640 miles?
Hmmmmm,
305th Bomb Group Can Do | American Air Museum in Britain
"During their tour of duty the Group flew 337 missions in 9,321 sorties and dropped 22,363 tons of bombs. The Group lost 154 aircraft MIA; 13 of those losses occurred on the famous "2nd Schweinfurt" mission of 14-Oct-1943, the most losses of any Bomb Group participating in that action."
Each mission consisted of multiple sorties (one aircraft flying one mission).
SO your statics are worthless in this case for figuring out losses.
For this one bomb group operating out of this one airfield (and Chelveston was an air base, not a target) they averaged 27.5 aircraft flown per mission
and they also averaged one loss for every 60.5 sorties flown, not the near 50% loss rate you are claiming.
parsifal
Colonel
I never said they "shot down' 1500, I said that the French were responsible for the loss of about 1500 aircraft. not all aircraft were lost in the French campaign were shot down. I went out of my way to make that very clear.
I'm not even saying that the French shot down 1000 a/c. If you track back through this conversation, I started this by saying the corrected claims for h-75 equipped units is 230 LW a/c for the loss in air combat of just 29 H-7s. Since then Ive pointed out that h-75 losses to all causes came to about 100 a/c
I pointed out that the H-75 claims accounted for some 33% of FAF fighter claims . 3 x 230 is 700a/c.
You responded by saying that" we both know that claims are notoriously inaccurate" I agreed but pointed out that these were post war corrected claims, to which you said total losses to all sources for the LW were about 1000, and from there we came to the realisation that total losses for the LW, from all causes and all sources, was much higher than "about 1000" that you initially were suggesting. For my part, using a process of what other nationalities could reasonably establish as their contribution to that overall loss rate for the LW, i arrived at a figure of 1500 for the french. There are difficulties with that, as we cant be 100% sure who was responsible for each loss. What we do have are reasonably accurate figures for the overall loss rate. Murray says 1916 a/c, plus a further 370 scrappings. Campbell says 1814 (you say, on the basis of a comment made in another forum that Cornwell is saying about 1400, without the benefit of actually having read the original source), Then we have the 500 or so lost in Poland. plus we have a number lost in Scandinavia. in total those losses amount to about 3300 aircraft from the beginning of the war, from all causes and from all sources. The 1500 is a derived figure taken from that overall total. I NEVER claimed they were shoot downs .
At one point you were making some rather unsupportable observations.... such as this gem
"The figures I have seen is over a 1000 LW a/c claimed by all the French flown fighters, not just by the H 75 units; while the likely actual number shot down by French flown fighters is 355".
Really???? And then misquoting the source material on which that observation was made.
....
I'm not even saying that the French shot down 1000 a/c. If you track back through this conversation, I started this by saying the corrected claims for h-75 equipped units is 230 LW a/c for the loss in air combat of just 29 H-7s. Since then Ive pointed out that h-75 losses to all causes came to about 100 a/c
I pointed out that the H-75 claims accounted for some 33% of FAF fighter claims . 3 x 230 is 700a/c.
You responded by saying that" we both know that claims are notoriously inaccurate" I agreed but pointed out that these were post war corrected claims, to which you said total losses to all sources for the LW were about 1000, and from there we came to the realisation that total losses for the LW, from all causes and all sources, was much higher than "about 1000" that you initially were suggesting. For my part, using a process of what other nationalities could reasonably establish as their contribution to that overall loss rate for the LW, i arrived at a figure of 1500 for the french. There are difficulties with that, as we cant be 100% sure who was responsible for each loss. What we do have are reasonably accurate figures for the overall loss rate. Murray says 1916 a/c, plus a further 370 scrappings. Campbell says 1814 (you say, on the basis of a comment made in another forum that Cornwell is saying about 1400, without the benefit of actually having read the original source), Then we have the 500 or so lost in Poland. plus we have a number lost in Scandinavia. in total those losses amount to about 3300 aircraft from the beginning of the war, from all causes and from all sources. The 1500 is a derived figure taken from that overall total. I NEVER claimed they were shoot downs .
At one point you were making some rather unsupportable observations.... such as this gem
"The figures I have seen is over a 1000 LW a/c claimed by all the French flown fighters, not just by the H 75 units; while the likely actual number shot down by French flown fighters is 355".
Really???? And then misquoting the source material on which that observation was made.
....
Last edited:
B17 high altitude performance?
A B17E could get to 25,000 feet in 20.6 minutes
A B24D could get to 25,000 feet in 18.4 minutes
A P40E could get to 25,000 feet in 19.4 minutes
(B17E at 40,000 pounds, B24D at 41,000 pounds)
A B17E at 40,000 pounds could beat a P40E or Wildcat to 30,000 feet by about 12 minutes.
Maybe they should have used B17's at Guadalcanal as high altitude interceptors.....
A B17E could get to 25,000 feet in 20.6 minutes
A B24D could get to 25,000 feet in 18.4 minutes
A P40E could get to 25,000 feet in 19.4 minutes
(B17E at 40,000 pounds, B24D at 41,000 pounds)
A B17E at 40,000 pounds could beat a P40E or Wildcat to 30,000 feet by about 12 minutes.
Maybe they should have used B17's at Guadalcanal as high altitude interceptors.....
Shortround6
Major General
DIfference between what the plane on it's own could do and what happened on operations and in formation. I would note that B-17s and B-24s at 40-41,000lbs were carry not much in the way of fuel and bombs.
At 65,000lbs or so they took around 40 minutes to get to 20,000 ft but so did the Halifax and the Lancaster (Lancaster was at 68,000lbs) That would be one plane, pretty much flying straight, not circling as it climbed.
At 65,000lbs or so they took around 40 minutes to get to 20,000 ft but so did the Halifax and the Lancaster (Lancaster was at 68,000lbs) That would be one plane, pretty much flying straight, not circling as it climbed.
Shortround, You would a want a B17 or B24 light when operating in the interceptor mode......
And don't worry about the escort, all a B17 or B24 has to do is dive above 300 mph and then out roll the Zero. Everyone knows you can outroll a Zero above 300 mph!
And don't worry about the escort, all a B17 or B24 has to do is dive above 300 mph and then out roll the Zero. Everyone knows you can outroll a Zero above 300 mph!
An advantage of night operations was the aircraft involved didn't "form up" but had to be at a specific place and altitude and course at a specific time. I would think daylight operations needed more performance "in reserve" to allow changes to formation etc.
The RAF BC bombers were trying to fly in a tight formation when penetrating a chosen part of the 'Himmelbelt'. They will reach the cruise altitue faster than the USAF heavies, since that altitude was lower by a large margin, 5-10 thousand feet.
I don't think time to altitude was any problem at all Tomo. Some crews had a lot of time to waste between take off and the first way mark /time /altitude /direction.
Shortround6
Major General
The B-17 may well have been over rated. However this was due to it's prominence in pre-war news stories and news reels like the interception of the Italian Liner Rex and a good will flight to Brazil, and it's connections in some early war actions (that turned out not to be true) like the Colin Kelly story.
Already more well known to the general public than some other US aircraft other news stories and News reels (propaganda) added to it. The Post war Movie 12 O'clock High in 1949 and the TV series in 1964-67 also helped cement the B-17 into the minds of the General Public.
If someone wants to deconstruct the legend of the B-17 based on correcting some of the propaganda stories that is fine with me.
But using bogus performance comparisons and bogus loss rates won't affect the legend.
Already more well known to the general public than some other US aircraft other news stories and News reels (propaganda) added to it. The Post war Movie 12 O'clock High in 1949 and the TV series in 1964-67 also helped cement the B-17 into the minds of the General Public.
If someone wants to deconstruct the legend of the B-17 based on correcting some of the propaganda stories that is fine with me.
But using bogus performance comparisons and bogus loss rates won't affect the legend.
wuzak
Captain
Could the B-17?
wuzak
Captain
Where does 17,417lb come from? The theoretical maximum was 6 x 1,600lb SAP + 2 x 4,000lb bombs under the wing = 17,600lb. It may have been able to carry more, but the 6 x 1,600lb load was the maximum it could carry internally, due to size restrictions.
But the 8th AF rarely used the 1,600lb SAP bomb. I believe the maximum load carried internally was 8 x 1,000lb GP. 2,000lb GP bombs could be carried internally, but only two at a time (smaller bombs could be carried along with them).
B-17 bomb loads were affected by two factors - range and type of ordnance.
The farther the raid, the more fuel required and the less bomb load can be carried.
The larger the amount on incendiaries carried, the lower the overall weight of bombs.
Shortround6
Major General
That is what the British Data sheets for the Fortress IIA and Fortess III say.
SO if they couldn't what does that say about the payload/range on the data sheets for the Lancaster and Halifax?
The bomb load is a bit of a trick, you could jam eight 1600lb AP bombs into the bombay but the load was pretty useless and almost never used (or never). the fatter 1000lb bombs dropped the payload to 6 bombs but then you had a lot more weight to use for fuel.
Like 1900 miles with 6800lbs?
I would note that if you keep the external racks you can do things like carry four 2,000lb bombs.
SO if they couldn't what does that say about the payload/range on the data sheets for the Lancaster and Halifax?
The bomb load is a bit of a trick, you could jam eight 1600lb AP bombs into the bombay but the load was pretty useless and almost never used (or never). the fatter 1000lb bombs dropped the payload to 6 bombs but then you had a lot more weight to use for fuel.
Like 1900 miles with 6800lbs?
I would note that if you keep the external racks you can do things like carry four 2,000lb bombs.
Last edited:
Smokey Stover
Banned
Ok, firstly we are talking about why i think the B-17 was overrated. So comparing it with another aircraft (which i knew you would do) is irrelevant. Also your mis quoting me, i said nearly half not 50%. Secondly, where are you getting this 10,000lb payload from? Even the B-17G couldnt carry that load over 1600 miles. The bomb bay just wasnt designed/capable of carrying such a load unless your saying every gun was removed and half the crew. Even then it just didnt have the power to weight ratio to fly high enough to avoid anti aircraft defences. I know B-17 bombers and their crews were not a high priority for the US top brass, as lets face facts they were used as bait so hotshot P-51 pilots could shoot down German fighters that were so heavy with added firepower (To bring down bombers) they really didnt stand a chance. I think your patriotism is clouding your judgement. Im an aviation engineer that specializes in engines. Its not as simple as turning a key or pushing a button and away you go. How do think they stay up there, by magic perhaps? Time and time again i come across this made up history of the victors and after 70 years what amazes me most is how you all still swallow it. We can swap "stats" all day long. It doesnt mean the sources are accurate. Oh and btw, if it was such a great bomber, why did they build so many B-24's? Because it wasnt a great bomber, it wasnt even a good bomber unless your talking target practice for the luftwaffe. Im surprised you didnt tell me how America saved us all and if it wasnt for America, blah blah blah. We were doing just fine until Churchill sold his country down the river by giving away everything just for a few ww1 destroyers and some crappy old rifles. The war was already won (By Russia) before the states even dropped a bomb in anger. And im not trying to be personal, im simply stating a fact.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Then give us some real sources and not this made up crap.
You claimed the B-17 had poor altitude performance, poor compared to what? if you don't compare it to any other aircraft what is your frame of reference.
OK, nearly half is is not 50% but then the real loss rate was was under 2% which is a whole lot different than nearly half isn't it.
give me some real statistics that make sense, not that mish-mash of confusion between missions and sorties.
Look at the RAF data sheets. I will freely grant the B-17 seldom carried 10,000lb on operations. (although it carried 9000lbs on four missions, 78-79 sorties when using the Disney bomb). However as used and possible are often not the same thing.
There are pilots manuals in the tech section of this site. I would suggest that you read then before claiming what was possible and what was not unlees you are claiming that the manuals were rewritten by the victors after the fact to make the B-17 look good.
Charts in manuals says that a B-17 with 6000lbs inside and 4000lbs outside could still hold 2280 gallons (US) of fuel at a take off weight of 65,000lbs and that includes a crew of 9, nine guns and 3500 rounds of ammo, 144 gallons of oil, 900lbs of misc equip and 1500lbs for the auxiliary wing tanks.
Care to show any weight charts you have?
You claimed the B-17 had poor altitude performance, poor compared to what? if you don't compare it to any other aircraft what is your frame of reference.
OK, nearly half is is not 50% but then the real loss rate was was under 2% which is a whole lot different than nearly half isn't it.
give me some real statistics that make sense, not that mish-mash of confusion between missions and sorties.
Look at the RAF data sheets. I will freely grant the B-17 seldom carried 10,000lb on operations. (although it carried 9000lbs on four missions, 78-79 sorties when using the Disney bomb). However as used and possible are often not the same thing.
There are pilots manuals in the tech section of this site. I would suggest that you read then before claiming what was possible and what was not unlees you are claiming that the manuals were rewritten by the victors after the fact to make the B-17 look good.
Charts in manuals says that a B-17 with 6000lbs inside and 4000lbs outside could still hold 2280 gallons (US) of fuel at a take off weight of 65,000lbs and that includes a crew of 9, nine guns and 3500 rounds of ammo, 144 gallons of oil, 900lbs of misc equip and 1500lbs for the auxiliary wing tanks.
Care to show any weight charts you have?
