I can understand these tests as tests for info, but this is actually what they may have had to ditch in, in the North Sea.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I can understand these tests as tests for info, but this is actually what they may have had to ditch in, in the North Sea.B-17 Ditching. The low wing design probably assisted in increased crew safety, opposed to B-24 ditching characteristics.
Which German aircraft that saw lots of service in WWII had high aspect ratio wings?Thanks for the good explanation. The Germans happen to prefer higher aspect ratio because they prefer high roll rate (this I saw in publications) for their slash'n'dash tactics. But then again they also tended to build planes with comparably smallish wings overall and were willing to accept higher wing loads.
Especially Messerschmitt insisted on his planes to have abnormally wing loading early on.
This was due to his obsession for light build and focus on performance rather than pilot friendlyness.
Focke Wulf combat aircraft rolled well over most of the speed envelope and had quite sturdy wings as well as large ailerons.
Though the wings are short, the aspect ratio is higher than in most or all Allied fighters.Which German aircraft that saw lots of service in WWII had high aspect ratio wings?
My understanding is that the Fw-190, noted for its very high rate of roll, had short wings and large ailerons. High aspect ratio means long skinny wings. This means high moment of polar inertia, and ailerons a long way from the centre of mass.
Early skip bombing was tried with B-17sAFAIK - No. 5th AF General Kenney left that for B-25s and A-20s.
Been looking for a reference for the B-17A to D bomb bays and what changed to the E, no success, the B-17E at least plus the B-24 bomb bays were made for a maximum load of 8x1,600 pound AP, which limited the B-17 to 6,000 pounds and the B-24 to 8,000 pounds of HE bombs internally. Given when both types entered production design would have been in the 1939 to 1941 period. Also no success is a good list with dates for USAAF pre war bomb types and weights. The RAF listed its Fortress I maximum bomb load as 7,400 pounds with normal at 5,000 pounds, while giving the following alternatives, 2x2,000 pound, 4x1,100 pound and 8x600 pound.The time line doesn't work for this. The 1600lb AP bomb only came into service in May of 1942.
Correct about the turbo chargers, but the PB4Y-2 data I reported was for the same altitude as the PB4Y-1.I Believe the PB4Y-2 did not have turbocharges which makes comparisons of ranges and speeds a little difficult as they were flying at different altitudes?
Been looking for a reference for the B-17A to D bomb bays and what changed to the E, no success, the B-17E at least plus the B-24 bomb bays were made for a maximum load of 8x1,600 pound AP, which limited the B-17 to 6,000 pounds and the B-24 to 8,000 pounds of HE bombs internally. Given when both types entered production design would have been in the 1939 to 1941 period. Also no success is a good list with dates for USAAF pre war bomb types and weights. The RAF listed its Fortress I maximum bomb load as 7,400 pounds with normal at 5,000 pounds, while giving the following alternatives, 2x2,000 pound, 4x1,100 pound and 8x600 pound.
Understandable, but without pre war data on B-17 bomb bays and available bombs not resolvable, the confirmed story starts in 1939/40. The MacArthur-Pratt agreement in January 1931 gave the AAC a coastal defence role at least.I just have a personal hang up with the 1600lb bomb as it seems to get into all kinds of discussions and bomb capacity lists or other things.
I believe under 300 (Closer to 200?) were dropped in Europe in WW II.
The 1600lb bomb gets trotted out whenever there is a discussion about the SBD but there is no evidence that the SBD ever carried a 1600lb from a flight deck and probably never carried one from a shore base either, at least in combat.
You can find specifications for P-61 Night fighters that list four 1600lb AP bombs. P-61s were used for bombing at times
I would say there was a need for heavy AP bombs in 1938. Hemisphere defence in the 1930's was implicitly resisting a Japanese attack, the IJN had 9 battleships and a heavy cruiser force, as the battleships were reconstructed in the 1930's they generally had the elevation of their main guns increased, which in turn required more deck armour to resist long range hits, armour that would also resist bombs.Of course in 1938 the need for 1600lb AP bombs was rather limited. The Bismarck had been laid down but wouldn't even be launched until 1939 let alone completed and the Japanese were keeping the Yamato secret.
The B-10 from early 1936 seems to have topped out at about a pair of 1,100 pound bombs, the B-18 from mid 1937 had a bigger bomb load, the B-18A from mid 1938 could carry 6,500 pounds of bombs (no, probably not 4x1,600 pound AP)Once you get past the 1100lb bombs things get a little tough to pin down. Of course for most of the 1930s and using the B-10 series of bombers you weren't going to carry much of anything bigger than 1100lbs although there may have been purchases of a few experimental batches?
This may have been posted elsewhere, but about five years ago there was a PBS Episode of "Secrets of the Dead" (I believe) that search for a downed B-17 near Greece. During the search they did find a submerged B-24 and went into some detail about the B-24's tendency for the nose section to crumple up and kill the flight crew.B-24 water crash test
I'm of the opinion that you needed all three bombers and they weren't redundant.
I can certainly agree with this but I also think that if I were a bomber crewman, especially pilot, in WWII, I'd rather be on one of the Boeings than the other two!
B-24 water crash test
The dominant B-24 structural flaw during ditching was breaking the airplane in half at the aft bulkhead of bomb bay.This may have been posted elsewhere, but about five years ago there was a PBS Episode of "Secrets of the Dead" (I believe) that search for a downed B-17 near Greece. During the search they did find a submerged B-24 and went into some detail about the B-24's tendency for the nose section to crumple up and kill the flight crew.
I'm of the opinion that you needed all three bombers and they weren't redundant.
The 1000 lb and 1600 lb AP bombs were designed by the USN after the start of WWII:Understandable, but without pre war data on B-17 bomb bays and available bombs not resolvable, the confirmed story starts in 1939/40. The MacArthur-Pratt agreement in January 1931 gave the AAC a coastal defence role at least.
The USAAF Statistical Digest says 1,222 x 1,600 pound AP bombs dropped, 1943 to 1945 inclusive, all in the European or Mediterranean Theatres, all in 1944. None dropped in theatres versus Japan. The B-17 raids run by Bomber Command dropped only 1,100 pound HE.
The War Production Board report, which starts in July 1940, reports no AP bombs made until January 1942, when 53 1,600 pound mark I were made for the Navy, it took until September for some to be made for the USAAF. Production for the USN ended in October 1943, apart from some made in June and July 1944, similarly production for the USAAF shut down in December 1943, apart from some in May 1944. All up 11,119 for the USAAF and 10,444 for the USN. The 1,000 pound AP bombs began production in March 1942. However according to the War Production Board the US was producing usually under 500 tons of bombs a month July 1940 to March 1941, including none in December 1940, and the totals include USN depth bombs, 500, 300 and 100 pound bombs seem to make up production but as the individual totals are so small compared with later entries they are all reported as zero, result is a number of bombs might have had limited quantity runs during the period but not be explicitly reported (There are no Tallboys or Grand Slams), in any case there is no column for 1,100 pound bombs. By the way in 1942 the report has 1,468 M63 1,400 pound AP bombs made, other limited AP bomb production were the 900 pound M60 the 800 pound M61 and the 600 pound M62.
Looks like the pre war USN dive bombers, the BG-1, SBU, SB2U and BT are generally quoted as carrying a 500 or 1,000 pound bomb which implies there were stocks of such bombs in the 1930's and some AP bombs would exist. For the SBD, all but the SBD-6 have performance charts carrying a 1,600 pound bomb, all except the SBD-1 have a reduced fuel load when doing so. The take off run in calm conditions for the SBD-1 with a 500 pound bomb was 770 feet, with the 1,600 pound bomb 1,050 feet and even with reduced fuel loads the 1,600 pound load is usually the longest take off run.
According to the USN its carrier based aircraft dropped no AP bombs in 1942, then 10 tons in 1943, 264 tons in 1944 and 29 tons in 1945, land based aircraft 7 tons in 1945. It does not break the AP bombs category down by weight, the notes to 1945 say largely 1,000 pounds and the land targets were transportation and harbor areas, ships were warships and also merchant ships over 500 tons.
9th Air Force P-61, 6 x 1000 GP HE, 14 x 500 GP HE, 13 x 1100 FB Incendiary, 44 x 750 FB Incendiary, 16 x 500 FB Incendiary, 79 x 500 IB Incendiary, 2 x 280 FB Incendiary, 2 x 250 IB Incendiary and 273 rockets, plus 1 x 1100 FB Incendiary, 2 x 500 FB Incendiary, 2 x 500 IB Incendiary and 2 rockets jettisoned.
I would say there was a need for heavy AP bombs in 1938. Hemisphere defence in the 1930's was implicitly resisting a Japanese attack, the IJN had 9 battleships and a heavy cruiser force, as the battleships were reconstructed in the 1930's they generally had the elevation of their main guns increased, which in turn required more deck armour to resist long range hits, armour that would also resist bombs.
I have no idea what the US thought during the 1920's and 1930's about aircraft sinking merchant ships, given the prize rules for submarines included ideas about safety of the civilian crews, my understanding is the public definition of hemisphere defence was sinking approaching enemy warships, especially the big ones. No one was going around talking of wiping out convoys or sinking tens of thousands of tons of merchant ships, they were talking about sinking lots of battleships. With at times pointing out the land based aircraft could carry larger numbers of the heavier bombs needed for the bigger ships and hitting them further offshore.
The B-10 from early 1936 seems to have topped out at about a pair of 1,100 pound bombs, the B-18 from mid 1937 had a bigger bomb load, the B-18A from mid 1938 could carry 6,500 pounds of bombs (no, probably not 4x1,600 pound AP)
The conclusion is the USAAF B-17 ended up optimised for carrying a specific AP bomb (and possibly AP bombs from the start) which carried over to the B-24.
Different construction designs.The structure of the B-24 seems particular weak even though the empty weight is comparable tö the B-17's and Lancaster's. How come?
Thank you so much for provided those drawings.Here is the original B-17D bomb bay arrangement and designed/expected bomb loads: