Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[pinsog]

Smokey Stover, I'm having trouble believing your an aviation engineer if you don't know why they built so many B24's AND B17's. Same reason they built so many P39, P40, Hurricanes, Zeros and so many other aircraft. The factories were built and the aircraft were being cranked out. As an engineer, you should know you don't just turn a key or push a button and start building a whole different aircraft. Do you think it's magic? All the tooling and special parts, jigs etc that are specific to a new aircraft don't appear instantly out of thin air. Meanwhile the front line is desperately missing the aircraft which is not being produced.

Your not debating in good faith, your just stirring the pot to annoy people.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Your not debating in good faith, your just stirring the pot to annoy people.

My Master Warning light is flashing, Betty is bitching, and the BS and TROLL annunciators are lit, compromising my night vision!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It's getting deep in here...

 

[Ascent]

When discussing the Mosquito when people mention it could carry 4'000lb to Berlin it's often dismissed because it was the cookie bomb and not a typical load.

Surely we need to look at the B17 in the same way? What was it's biggest practical load? Not theoretical maximums that were never used as a regular thing due to not being a practical load.

Also on the question of it being overrated, if you swap the B17 for another 4 engine heavy do you get the same results? I.e large casualties when unescorted but sustainable losses when the escorts are around.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

if you swap the B17 for another 4 engine heavy do you get the same results? I.e large casualties when unescorted but sustainable losses when the escorts are around.

Didn't the B24 have higher loss rates on comparable missions?

 

[Stig1207]

Well wiggled, Sir!

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.

In May and June 1940 the Luftwaffe lost 1,482 aircraft destroyed in the air and a further 488 written off on landing. A further 219 were written off after being returned to the factories. Calculated losses inflicted by the RAF and the minors amounted to no more than 650 LW a/c. By deduction that means the FAF caused the loss of over 1500 LW aircraft, either as direct shoot downs or subsequent write offs. Because the campaign was so short, relatively few of the LW machines were lost in non-combat related incidents. Ive read somewhere it was in the order 200 a/c. French flak was negligible, perhaps 50 LW a/c in total. The lions share of LW losses were at the hands of the French fighter forces, which tore into the LW causing it damage from which it never recovered fully.

So I have misunderstood?

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,

Post war? Still claims though, unless you mean that these are verified.

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

Ah no, I have pointed out that the FAF claimed about a 1000 enemy aicraft shot down. I have written that LW losses were in the range of 1400-1500 destroyed; this is for period May-June 1940, just to be clear.

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), .

Murray's total is for destroyed and damaged to all causes May-June 1940; the 370 scrappings is a figure you have arrived at just like the 1500. You derived the 370 from 488 damaged aircraft in Murray's chart; so it doesn't make sense that you then add it to the total of 1916 a/c.
Cornwell says 1814, but it is unclear whether that figure is for Sep 3 '39- May 10 '40 or whether its May 10 -June 24 '40. However, the conclusion of the exchange between Mars and Juha, in the link that I posted twice already, was that Mars had got it wrong, and that the correct dates is Sep 3 '39- May 10 '40.

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 linked to Arnaud Gillet's figure of 355, so what did I misquote? I have also linked to Philippe Garraud, who has arrived at a figure of 500.
What unsupportable observations?

 

[Smokey Stover]

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?

Firstly i apologize for some of my comments towards the end, that was unfair judgement of character. I just feel a little offended by the amount of people ready to jump on any and every mistake. Facts are important yes. But these manuals you refer to. Surely you are smart enough to understand the difference between whats on paper compared to how things work when the aircraft is actually flying. Even the manufacturers couldnt (and often didnt, admit to) certain actions or flight control systems. Especially pre, during, and post ww2. Many aircraft were on the cutting edge of technology and knowledge is often gained by unexpected/overlooked factors. The other problem is those manuals and stats are copied and re-printed over the years without any correction.

But ok, if you want me to strip down the Wright cyclones, the turbochargers used and the aircrafts flight/handling and loading/altitude performance i will. It may take some time but i'd rather get stats from a working unit than trust any manual. It wont be 100% after all these years but i just happen to know a man that has a R-1820 on a jig. i wont confuse the issue by bringing the few 17's that were converted to Allison V-1710's, which ironically performed better. WTS....

 

[Shortround6]

When discussing the Mosquito when people mention it could carry 4'000lb to Berlin it's often dismissed because it was the cookie bomb and not a typical load.

Surely we need to look at the B17 in the same way? What was it's biggest practical load? Not theoretical maximums that were never used as a regular thing due to not being a practical load.

Also on the question of it being overrated, if you swap the B17 for another 4 engine heavy do you get the same results? I.e large casualties when unescorted but sustainable losses when the escorts are around.

1. I tend to dismiss it because of the context it is often put in. That being that the US should have used Mosquito's instead of B-17s because they carried the same bomb load. Which ignores the already mentioned huge manufacturing effort put into the B-17 and the facts that the first European B-17 operations (over France) were in Aug of 1942 While the Mosquito didn't carry a cookie to enemy territory until early 1944, which is a bit late to try to swap production around. There is no doubt the Mosquito was one of the great aircraft of the war and made a tremendous contribution, well out of proportion to the number of aircraft and crews involved due to it's pathfinder and propaganda raids. The last diverted German attention and efforts out of proportion to actual damage done.

2. Much like other other bombers practical loads varied with range and desired bombing altitude. And yes, I will freely admit that the B-17 had either the smallest or one of the smallest, most restrictive (in terms of volume) bomb bays of any heavy bomber. I don't like the the use of the 1600AP bomb when figuring out bomb loads because it is deceptive but it does point out that the B-17 was more volume limited than weight limited. However bringing in Lancasters with 22,000lb grand slams also distorts the picture. Practical limit on B-17s was about 6000lbs, either six 1000lb HE bombs or twelve 500lb HE bombs. more usual was 5000lb. However they could carry this load and drop it several thousand feet higher up than the British bombers could.
I would also note that the B-17s carried a wide variety of bombs, in part due to supply problems. In 1942/43 they often used British supplied 250lb and 500lb incendiary bombs before supplies of US incendiaries caught up. The US also changed types and sizes of incendiary bombs. Recommended types of bombs may have also changed for certain targets. And some of the recommendations may have not have been the best. This can also affect the "average" bomb load. Like twenty eight 100lb bombs for airfeild attack. a 2800lb bomb load?

The Big British bombers routinely carried much heavier loads. B-17s could have flown at night and perhaps if flown at lower altitudes , used the external racks.

British bombers if flown by day would have suffered even greater losses than the US bombers, in part due to lower altitudes putting them in greater danger from flak. Perhaps they could have flown higher by restricting their payloads?

 

[pbehn]

Any discussion of using Mosquitos for strategic bombing ignores the obvious fact that there were not enough to do all the other "stuff" people wanted of it, and also that it couldn't do it.

 

[swampyankee]

In some ways, the B-24 was a better aircraft, with better payload/range performance and more versatility, but the B-17 was more damage tolerant and, reputably, easier to fly.

While some marks of the Mosquito could carry the same bomb load to Berlin and return, the sort of massed raids needed for destruction would severely limit the Mosquito's cruising speed and ability to maneuver to avoid interception, increasing the Mosquito's vulnerability. The RAF and USAAF entered the strategic bombing campaign with very optimistic estimates of the effectiveness of defensive weapons on bombers; this pushed the RAF to night operations. The USAAF responded with ever-increasing loads of defensive weapons, which had multiple deleterious effects on both aircraft performance and bomb load. The worst extrapolation of this was the YB-40.

 

[tomo pauk]

Firstly i apologize for some of my comments towards the end, that was unfair judgement of character. I just feel a little offended by the amount of people ready to jump on any and every mistake. Facts are important yes. But these manuals you refer to. Surely you are smart enough to understand the difference between whats on paper compared to how things work when the aircraft is actually flying. Even the manufacturers couldnt (and often didnt, admit to) certain actions or flight control systems. Especially pre, during, and post ww2. Many aircraft were on the cutting edge of technology and knowledge is often gained by unexpected/overlooked factors. The other problem is those manuals and stats are copied and re-printed over the years without any correction.

Manuals were aproved by military, even written by military, and were official documents for all people to follow and adhere to. No-one in miitary wanted to face court martial for aproving anything that might mislead the people on operations, while risking the lives of servicemen without a need. Facts are in manulas, how we today interpret them might and might not be facts.

But ok, if you want me to strip down the Wright cyclones, the turbochargers used and the aircrafts flight/handling and loading/altitude performance i will. It may take some time but i'd rather get stats from a working unit than trust any manual. It wont be 100% after all these years but i just happen to know a man that has a R-1820 on a jig. i wont confuse the issue by bringing the few 17's that were converted to Allison V-1710's, which ironically performed better. WTS....

Why would be ironical that B-17 (XB-40) powered by V-1710s performs better than run-on-the-mill B-17? It was 1425 vs. 1200 HP (military power), four such engines = 900 HP more, with a bit less drag and a bit more weight.

 

[Shortround6]

Firstly i apologize for some of my comments towards the end, that was unfair judgement of character. I just feel a little offended by the amount of people ready to jump on any and every mistake. Facts are important yes. But these manuals you refer to. Surely you are smart enough to understand the difference between whats on paper compared to how things work when the aircraft is actually flying. Even the manufacturers couldnt (and often didnt, admit to) certain actions or flight control systems. Especially pre, during, and post ww2. Many aircraft were on the cutting edge of technology and knowledge is often gained by unexpected/overlooked factors. The other problem is those manuals and stats are copied and re-printed over the years without any correction.

But ok, if you want me to strip down the Wright cyclones, the turbochargers used and the aircrafts flight/handling and loading/altitude performance i will. It may take some time but i'd rather get stats from a working unit than trust any manual. It wont be 100% after all these years but i just happen to know a man that has a R-1820 on a jig. i wont confuse the issue by bringing the few 17's that were converted to Allison V-1710's, which ironically performed better. WTS....

I think you are confusing a few things and don't bother with Allisons. That comparison has been done to death and is a perfect example of (not a few but one aircraft) figures taken from a single aircraft on test and comparing them to a group of planes flying in formation on operations.

The airplane (and crew and operation planners) doesn't care what the power to weight ratio of the engine is. Or the power to weight ratio of the powerplant if you prefer. What matters is the performance of the plane as a whole. The B-17 (and B-24) were not built of anti-gravitium or coated with pixie dust.
Their 1200hp engines did limit them on take-off compared to the British engines. However the large, bulky and several hundred pounds apiece turbo installations
ment they offered as much or more power than the British engines over 20,000ft. The engines in a B-17 could give 1000hp apiece up to 23-24000ft for as long as the fuel held out (and at that power they were sucking down over 100 US gallons an hour each so the fuel wasn't going to last long).
The two speed Merlin used in the Lancaster made about 1000hp at 15-16,000ft under max cruise conditions (2650rpm and 7lbs boost) and lost power from their on up. roughly 2 1/2 % per 1000 ft. or very roughly 20% by the time you get to 24,000ft (I didn't compound the percentages) so please figure your power to weight ratio accordingly. 5 minute ratings for bombers are pretty useless as it is going to take several minutes to accelerate to full speed or several minutes to even climb 1000ft for most of the planes when cruising at altitude.
Hercules engine as used in the Halifax III may have been good for 1300hp at 13,500ft (2400rpm/6lb boost) at 30 minute climb rating, or roughly 1040hp at 21,500ft? what is the power to weight ratio of a Hercules XVI power plant at 1000hp?

That is, not to pick on the British, what kept the B-17 and B-24 using the R-1820 and R-1830 engines. The US Wright R-2600 offered no real improvement at altitude (it didn't take to turbo charging well) even if it it might have improved take-off. It required more manufacturing effort. next step/s were the R-2800 (not enough to go around as it was) and the R-3350( and let's not get into that one) and both were better used in new aircraft.

 

[Shortround6]

I would also double check any R-1820s available. It may very well be comparable to the ones used in a B-17. One the other hand the R-1820 is the most developed and by that I mean the most changed, not the most advanced, aircraft piston engine in history. Production spans the early 30s to the 1950s if not the early 60s and power went from under 600hp to 1525hp in post war versions. many of which were used in helicopters.

 

[parsifal]

Well wiggled, Sir!




not wiggling, just setting the record straight
So I have misunderstood?
Yes


Post war? Still claims though, unless you mean that these are verified.
Cornwell comes the closest to the level of accuracy you are looking for , since he goes through each individual combat and records the result. I know that Foreman has done something similar, though I don't believe he has done it (yet0 for the period we are looking at


Ah no, I have pointed out that the FAF claimed about a 1000 enemy aicraft shot down. I have written that LW losses were in the range of 1400-1500 destroyed; this is for period May-June 1940, just to be clear.
You have made any number of suggestions about LW losses, from 355 to about 1000 to 1400. it seems to change according to the point you are trying to make at the time


Murray's total is for destroyed and damaged to all causes May-June 1940; the 370 scrappings is a figure you have arrived at just like the 1500. You derived the 370 from 488 damaged aircraft in Murray's chart; so it doesn't make sense that you then add it to the total of 1916 a/c.
Cornwell says 1814, but it is unclear whether that figure is for Sep 3 '39- May 10 '40 or whether its May 10 -June 24 '40. However, the conclusion of the exchange between Mars and Juha, in the link that I posted twice already, was that Mars had got it wrong, and that the correct dates is Sep 3 '39- May 10 '40.


It does make sense, because for the polish campaign, the numbers damaged and the numbers destroyed appear as separate tallies as well. But of the 273 damaged in the Polish campaign Murray 203 were written off. Eventually....Why would the numbers damaged (and then eventually scrapped) be significantly different in proportion to the experiences following Poland?

I can see that you are up to your old tricks of misquoting and misrepresenting your source material. The exchange between Juha and that Mars person from the Axis history forum was never a discussion of September 3 1939 to May 1940. It was always relating to a date in June 1940, plus the discussion was whether a portion of the alleged Cornwell totals should be added or subtracted. in the finish they concluded that the smaller total should be subtracted. None of which has any relevance to what the source they are actually referring to actually says. If you want to hold up a discussion between a couple of average guys from another as your proof, be my guest, but that is hardly a proof dont you think?

I linked to Arnaud Gillet's figure of 355, so what did I misquote? I have also linked to Philippe Garraud, who has arrived at a figure of 500.
What unsupportable observations?

Yes you did misquote

 

[Stig1207]

Yes you did misquote

Ok, but what did I misquote?

 

[Shortround6]

As an example of the B-17 engines I have decided to use the following tables, mainly because I can find them

Please note the altitudes are with RAM or the maximum forward speed at the power listed. Power when climbing will have a bit lower altitude limit.

Engine/s from a late model P-38.

Now please note that despite 1600hp WEP rating and the 1425hp military rating the max continuous power rating is 1100hp compared to the Cyclones 1000hp and the max lean cruise rating is 795hp vs the Cyclone's 750hp rating.

Difference in performance when flying in formations of hundreds of aircraft over hundreds of miles isn't not going to be anywhere near what the difference in max power suggests.

 

[pbehn]

As far as I remember the RAF had no interest in higher altitudes for the bombers in the bomber stream because they started to form vapour trails.

 

[Ascent]

I wasn't suggesting using Mosquitoes, that argument has been done to death, I'm just saying you shouldn't be looking at theoretical maximums but practical limitations.

Could you fix a Lancaster to fly at higher altitudes? Lighter bomb loads? A change of engines?

 

[Shortround6]

It is hard to say. They stuck a longer span wing and two stage engines on the Lancaster and called it a Lincoln. But then they pushed the normal gross weight to 75,000lbs and the max to 82,000lbs which kind of killed the altitude performance.

There were a few Lancaster VIs (Nine according to Wiki) with Merlin 85 two stage engines.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/jb675-climb.jpg

Now since they didn't change the gross weight the extra 200lbs per engine and the weight/s of the intercooler radiators (and bigger main radiators?) has to come out of the bomb load or fuel load.

Again, we have to make sure we are comparing like to like (similar gross or operating weights) as the ceiling on bombers can vary by thousands of feet due to changes in weight.

 

[pbehn]

I wasn't suggesting using Mosquitoes, that argument has been done to death, I'm just saying you shouldn't be looking at theoretical maximums but practical limitations.

Could you fix a Lancaster to fly at higher altitudes? Lighter bomb loads? A change of engines?

Maybe you could but why would you, if you were Harris, it was against Harris' philosophy. Lighter pay loads means you need more planes to drop the same bomb load. Higher altitude means less accuracy and vapour trails which could be seen by moonlight. The use of both Halifax and Lancaster together in a bomber stream meant that the Halifax with its higher drag and weight carried a lower bomb load and the longer the mission, the bigger the difference, which is why Harris hated the Halifax and the company that made it.