Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thanks!I previously mentioned I knew a guy that was flying both the B-17 and B-24…
As I think you saw in my point, not about facts but perception, the reason why they were phased out is obvious but at the time it "went with the territory" no blame attached to tail wheels as there was with nose wheels.And this is the reason why taildraggers went away on the majority of aircraft produced after WW2, especially on military aircraft.
You "fly" a taildragger the minute the engine(s) start turning.
I was on a program where you had USAF IPs with minimal or no tail wheel time attempt to fly a motorized tail dragger glider. Many ground loops and damaged aircraft, thank god no one was killed. A bird Colonel saw the light and killed the program.
Merlin powered Wellington Mk IIs started dropping 4,000 lb HCs in April 1941.You may have something there.
You can actually find some accounts or even manuals that will list not only the 12,800lb internal bomb load but a max bomb load of 17,600lbs.
A pair of 4000lb bombs (American not British cookie) under the wings and six 1600lb AP bombs inside.
And again it is a total useless load except for bombing an entire city, assuming the B17 when so loaded could even make it past Dunkirk and make it back to England without running out of fuel.
The American 4000lb bomb was short and fat and wasn't going to land anywhere near where the 1600lb AP bombs were going to land.
And unless the target was the already motioned thick steel or a number of feet of concrete a normal 500lb bomb held more explosive.
A B-17 on normal structures would do more damage with eight 500LB bombs than with eight 1600lb bombs.
View attachment 666783
4000lb bomb on the right.
flying the B-17 with a pair of those metal parachutes hanging off the wings didn't do anything for the speed and range either.
However in 1940-41 there wasn't a big need to exaggerate the B-17s load because British 4 engine bombers were just trickling into service (like the B-17) and the British twin engine heavies couldn't carry much either. A 1940 Wellington with Pegasus engines didn't carry what a 1943 Wellington with Hercules engines did.
My father in law (18,000 hours, 20 years USAF, B-1 test pilot, United Air Lines 15 years) was the most humble man I ever met - one time told me "you're a REAL pilot because you could fly a taildragger!"As I think you saw in my point, not about facts but perception, the reason why they were phased out is obvious but at the time it "went with the territory" no blame attached to tail wheels as there was with nose wheels.
So just a bit further than a P-39?I have never done the calculations, but I have read that if the B-17F/G had deployed for operations with 17,600 lb bomb loads the normal 85 Impgal Spitfire would have been able to effectively escortit to target and back. I think this indicates that the effective B-17F/G ROA with 17,600 lbs bomb load would be about 100 miles.
So just a bit further than a P-39?
But was it dropped before 1945?The US AN-M56 4,000lb. general purpose bomb was developed in 1941.
Yes.But was it dropped before 1945?
Yes.
I've even posted photos in another thread, of the B-17 being loaded and carrying them (externally) in missions to targets in France, spring 1944.
Not that I saw, but there were ground squirrels milling about, so you know they were the poor sobs doing the hefting!There had to be donkeys involved somewhere.
Yeah but the P-39 had an armored nose! That must have helped!Good question but P-39 and P-38 also had nosewheels. The issues for B-24 design seemed rooted in the 'shimmy' experienced during high speed roll and would sem to me to depend somewhat on the attach infrastructure or even the stiffness of the Nose assembly more than the gear itself.
Click the link on post #334 and #335 above.Hey GrauGeist,
While the external racks could carry 4000 lb bombs, as far as I know they never did on operations. Have you run across photos of the B-17F/G wiht 4000 lb bombs on ops? If so, do you know the mission or how far to the target?
The most I have run across was 2x 2000 lb in the bomb bay, and 2x 1000 lb external (1x under each wing).
Note that the B-17 could carry two 2,000 pounders internally as well as two 4,000 pounders externally for a 12,000 pound load - this was not it's max., but the larger bombs were found to create considerable damage not by the blast alone, but the subsequent shockwave that the blast created.