Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The point is the bomb bay wasn't designed around the improved defensive armament from the E model on. The bomb bay, and its limitations, is something that the B-17 was stuck with throughout its life.
What makes you think it would have been less succesful?
around 16 victories for 10 losses. Still, it along with the Me 262, had enough punch to disable/destroy a B-29. also, what Allied fighter escort would be effective at that altitude? now this is assuming that the B-29 took off north first to get to altitude then circled back south towards Germany to hit oil/fuel plants/depots.How many aircraft did the Me 163 shoot down ? I think it might have been about as efficient at killing Luftwaffe personel as Allied .
unleashed? well maybe. I think they didn't want B-29 parts raining over Germany.
What was the distance traveled by the B-29, fully loaded, to get to 40,000'?
Wuzak the length of the bomb bay and the cg of the bombs within were designed to be close to the cg of the airplane where it would be located without bombs. In the timeframe the B-17 started design ~ 1933 that was one hell of a bomber, with a great bomb load.
the -17 was indeed designed for coastal defence, to bomb ships as a matter-o-fact. but couldn't 'strategicaly' hit the ships worth a darn. so they found a different role for it.
The B29 would have been wasted in Europe. There were thousands of bombers Lancs, Halifax's, B17's and B24's you can argue which was the best but all were effective over europe.
I believe that is a myth, and the USAAC used the coastal defence argument to justify the purchase of the B-17 in isolationist/neutral USA in the mid 1930s.
awesome! as far as the other documents, please by all means.. post them. all this seems to be confirming my hypothosis. many thanks.