Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Click the link on post #334 and #335 above.
You'll see 4,000 pounders in action.
From summer 1943 onward, they bombed French targets and further inland as the war progressed.
The US AN-M56 4,000lb. general purpose bomb was developed in 1941.
This was something the RAF built on with their "HC" series of bombs, often called "cookies".
I was privy to a great story by Lt Marshall Knox (Navy Cross) who flew ADs in combat during Vietnam. Somewhere (I 'disremember' where) in Pacific or even San Diego, beverages were consumed and a cluster of clueless A-4 drivers alleged that flying a tail dragger should not be a problem for a 'real' aviator. Bets were placed re: no incidents/damage'. The next day, the 'real aviators' drove the first three ADs into the weeds on left side of runway, and wiser heads prevailed. Bets were paid, butts were chewed by higher authority. Marshall told me 'Thank God' they didn't attain actual flight condition and have to watch them land'.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.
Of further interest attched are the B-17 bomb hoisting arrangements. Note that the USAAF got the captions for the 1600 lb and 2000 lb bombs reversed. Figure 417 showns the external rackHey GrauGeist,
Sorry, but those are not 4000 lb bombs on the external racks. The 4000 lb bomb was as ~long as the external rack, the ones in the phots you posted are only ~1/2-2/3 the length of the rack. Also the sway braces are in the wrong position for the 4000 lb bomb. By the position and spacing of the sway braces it looks like the bomb in the photos with the words "You To Joseph . . " on the side is the 1000 lb. The 2000 lb and 4000 lb used wider spacing for the sway braces with the forward one farther forward. The lower diagram in the link to your post#62 in the Fake B-26 photo? thread shows the required sway brace spacing and positions, as well as the relative size of the bombs to the bomb rack.
Here is another diagram of the rack and sway brace position and spacing, with the relative size of the 1000 lb and 4000 lb bomb in comparison to the length of the rack. Note the spacing of the sway braces.
View attachment 666821
My god! no experience flying a taildragger and then ballsy enough to attempt a first flight in a Skyraider!!!! Ensign Darwin!I was privy to a great story by Lt Marshall Knox (Navy Cross) who flew ADs in combat during Vietnam. Somewhere (I 'disremember' where) in Pacific or even San Diego, beverages were consumed and a cluster of clueless A-4 drivers alleged that flying a tail dragger should not be a problem for a 'real' aviator. Bets were placed re: no incidents/damage'. The next day, the 'real aviators' drove the first three ADs into the weeds on left side of runway, and wiser heads prevailed. Bets were paid, butts were chewed by higher authority. Marshall told me 'Thank God' they didn't attain actual flight condition and have to watch them land'.
You can tell a Fighter pilot, but not tell him much, Dad and several other pilots took a dare from Doc Savage (Cpt USN and Ace) that USAF pilots at Eglin couldn't all make a carrier landing in 'soft' seas with some training at Pcola. They did with one wave off and land on second try - circa 1952 - so USAF lost the bet. I think T-28s were the beast of choice.My god! no experience flying a taildragger and then ballsy enough to attempt a first flight in a Skyraider!!!! Ensign Darwin!
an aircraft with a tail wheelI'm just a stupid non-pilot. WTF is a "Tail-Dragger"?
Jim
Interesting term for a specified range figure with a given bomb load. Next, Australian Official histories online, Second World War Official HistoriesThe nominal meaning of the "design useful bomb load" is pretty much the same as the requirement to carry a specific weight of wombs to a given distance. Similar in idea to the requirement that a the Air Ministry Specification resulting in the Fairey Battle required it to carry 1000 lbs to a radius of X miles.
I think it is mostly to make the B-17 not look anemic compared to the British 4-engine heavies. If you do not use the 1600 lb AP bomb load, for the US normal operations it only carried a max of ~6000 lbs
| Aircraft | Crew | Miles | Bombs (lb) | max speed mph/feet | serv. Ceil. Ft. | Guns | Remarks |
| B-17 | |||||||
| Mk I B-17C | 6 | 3,000 | nil | 300 at 25,000 | 35,000 | 6 x .5-in & 1 x .3-in | As used by RAF |
| Mk I B-17C | 6 | 2,000 | 5,000 | ||||
| Mk II | 6 to 10 | 2,050 | 6,000 | 290 at 25,000 | 27,500 | 9 x .5-in | As used by RAF |
| Mk II | 6 to 10 | 840 | 12,800 | ||||
| Mk IIa | 8 | 1,900 | 7,000 | 295 at 25,000 | 32,000 | 9 x .5-in | As used by RAF |
| Mk IIa | 8 | 1,650 | 9,600 | ||||
| Mk III | 9 | 2,740 | 3,500 | 280 at 20,000 | 31,500 (a) | 13 x .5-in | As used by RAF (a) min . Weight |
| Mk III | 9 | 1,140 | 12,800 | n/a | 26,500 (b) | 13 x .5-in | (b) max. weight |
| B-17G | 11 | 2,350 | 4,000 | 295 at 30,000 | 36,000 | 13 x .5-in | |
| B-17G | 11 | 2,250 | 6,000 | ||||
| B-24 | |||||||
| Mk I | 6 | 3,100 | nil | 320 at 16,500 | 36,000 | 4 x 20-mm & 5 x .303-in or | |
| Mk I | 6 | 2,000 | 4,000 | n/a | n/a | or 6 x .5-in & 1 or 2 x .3-in | |
| Mk I | 6 | 1,500 | 8,800 | ||||
| Mk II B-24C | 6 to 10 | 2,100 | 5,000 | ? | 34,000 | 7 x .5-in or 11 x .303 -in | |
| Mk II B-24C | 6 to 10 | ? | 8,000 | ||||
| Mk III B-24D | 8 | 2,470 | 3,500 | 275 at 20,000 | 33,000 | 8 x .5-in & 4 x .303-in | |
| Mk III B-24D | 8 | 1,290 | 12,800 | ||||
| Mk VI | 8 | 2,290 | 4,000 | 270 at 20,000 | 32,000 | 10 x .5-in | As used by RAF |
| Mk VI | 8 | 990 | 12,800 | ||||
| B-24G, H & J | 10 | 2,500 | 3,000 | 300 at 30,000 | 34,000 | 6 or 10 x .5-in | American . Max . bomb load 16,000 lb |
| B-17E | 6 to 10 | 2,500 | nil | 295 at 30,000 | 27,500 | 8 x .5-in and 1 x .30 in | |
| B-17E | 6 to 10 | 1,415 | 2,500 | ||||
| B-17E | 6 to 10 | 1208 | 4,000 | ||||
| B-17G | 11 | 1,100 | 12,800 | 295 at 30,000 | 36,000 | 13 x .5-in | External racks could increase bomb load to 17,600 pounds |
US AN-M56A1 4,000 pound bomb, first production in January, then some in March, April and October 1942, then production April 1943 to March 1944, all up 6,225 made. Superseded by the HC Mk V, production from April 1944 to August 1945 at least, 38,805 made. USAAF Statistical Digest has 1,220 x 4,000 pound dropped in theaters against Japan in 1945.The US AN-M56 4,000lb. general purpose bomb was developed in 1941.
And the plot thickens, using the Mighty Eighth War Diary the 303rd had flown a mission to France on 16 September, dropping 500 pound bombs, then the group's next mission was on 23 September, again France, again 500 pound bombs. Then on 26 September the 3rd Bomb Division mission to France, only the 96th (19 a/c) and the 388th (21 a/c) bombed, with 38x1000 pound, 228x500 pound HE and 840x100 pound Incendiary, the 94th and 385th groups aborted. The accompanying photograph is a shot of the 94th group with a pair of 1,000 pound bombs on external racks, the numbers suggest the 96th also carried the external load, even so at 5,900 pounds per attacking bomber they are not big loads, perhaps the external load was to compensate for the loss of bomb weight carrying the incendiaries.Roger Freeman's Mighty Eighth War Manual on page 223 has the same photo of the aircraft on the ground with the bombs on the underwing racks; note the image on your linked post is cropped tighter. The caption for the photo reads:
"M-44 1000 lb GP slung on a 303rd BG B-17F's wing racks, 18 Sept. 1943, ready for a mission to France. Single yellow band round rear and front of bomb casing indicated TNT or Aurotal [sic] filling."
Mighty Eighth War Diary usually lists the number and types of bombs dropped by the heavies in August and September 1943, a pair of 2,000 pounders on Bonn 12 August, another pair on French airfields on the 15th, 368 dropped on Watten France on 27th from 187 B-17, 7 September 116 dropped on Watten from 58 B-17, the B-17 could carry 2x2,000 pound HE internally.On page 153 of the same book, in a section about the B-17F, it says this:
"The B-17F had the capability to lift much heavier loads if external wing racks were used when it was possible but not practicable to attach 4000 lb bombs. With the prospect of increasing bomb loads to short-haul targets, in August 1943 B-17 stations received kits for installing external racks on their aircraft. A few missions were flown during the next month where, in addition to a normal internal load, two 2000 lb bombs were carried externally by each Fortress. With the adverse effect on climb and high altitude performance making formation flying even more difficult and considerably reducing endurance, VIII BC soon decided that high altitude bombing was sufficiently difficult without this added burden.
And the plot thickens, using the Mighty Eighth War Diary the 303rd had flown a mission to France on 16 September, dropping 500 pound bombs, then the group's next mission was on 23 September, again France, again 500 pound bombs. Then on 26 September the 3rd Bomb Division mission to France, only the 96th (19 a/c) and the 388th (21 a/c) bombed, with 38x1000 pound, 228x500 pound HE and 840x100 pound Incendiary, the 94th and 385th groups aborted. The accompanying photograph is a shot of the 94th group with a pair of 1,000 pound bombs on external racks, the numbers suggest the 96th also carried the external load, even so at 5,900 pounds per attacking bomber they are not big loads, perhaps the external load was to compensate for the loss of bomb weight carrying the incendiaries.
I think in the bigger picture it would have a lower accident rate but then again it was performing a different missionView attachment 667406
Which assessment did the PB4Y-2 Privateer get? Any significant improvement over the B-24?
Did it have better accident rate, Was it safer to fly and be in, in case of a crash/ditch?