UK: Mosquito, DE: Ju-88, US: ?

[wuzak]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/dk290-b.pdf

Tests performed from December 1942-March 1943

 

[Denniss]

Boston IV = A-20J, glazed noze version of A-20G-25 and higher. Increased internal tankage is reported since A-20G-20.
See also Douglas A-20 Boston/Havoc
A-20 should have been limited to 500lbs bombs internally.

 

[davparlr]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/dk290-b.pdf

Tests performed from December 1942-March 1943

It is apparent that, according to the test, these stub exhaust were still in test until mid '43. The same plane, in a different test, and with stub exhaust, did not do so well.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/dk290-level.jpg

and another plane, with stub exhaust, also did not do so well.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/hj679-level.jpg

Still, in '42, I think my data is pretty good.

 

[tomo pauk]

Boston IV = A-20J, glazed noze version of A-20G-25 and higher. Increased internal tankage is reported since A-20G-20.
See also Douglas A-20 Boston/Havoc
A-20 should have been limited to 500lbs bombs internally.

Thanks, I posted data from the A-20G manual.

From Joe Baugher's site:

The last 433 A-20C production aircraft [out of 948 -C produced] were fitted with an extra 140-gallon self-sealing fuel tank in the bomb bay, which raised the total fuel capacity to 540 gallons. All A-20Cs could be fitted with a ferry tank underneath the belly.

Maximum bombload of 2000 pounds in split bomb bay comprising four 500-lb bombs. Normal bombload was 1000 pounds comprising two 500-lb or four 250-lb bombs.

 

[wuzak]

It is apparent that, according to the test, these stub exhaust were still in test until mid '43. The same plane, in a different test, and with stub exhaust, did not do so well.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/dk290-level.jpg

and another plane, with stub exhaust, also did not do so well.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/hj679-level.jpg

Still, in '42, I think my data is pretty good.

Here's DK 290 G

HJ 679 was an FB.VI. Ie it had a flat windscreen, 4 0.303" mgs and 4 cannon ports. The fighter versions were draggier than the bomber and reconnaissance versions, and slower using the same engines.

 

[Shortround6]

Some times there is only so much STRETCH in an airframe without major redesign and retooling. The DB-7 started with R-1830 engines and 270 gallons of fuel. While keeping pretty much the same external shape (Bigger fin and rudder) it went to the R-2600 engines and more fuel. Defensive armament increased as did the crew (at times), late versions often flew with a 4th crewman to handle the ventral gun. Changing from twin manual .30 cal guns to a twin .50 power turret probably didn't help the CG either.
Perhaps a version with the nose/cockpit moved 20-30in forward could have been made to help balance fuel tanks behind the the main spar. Or something else done but WHY?

The Americans didn't NEED multi-role aircraft as much as some other countries did because it's industrial base was large enough accommodate specialized designs.
The Americans built at least 7 different twin engine bombers/fighters using R-2600/2800 engines. I am not counting flying boats or transports. Some of these designs took a bit longer than expected (like the P-61) to develop but put a damper on extensive modifications of existing designs. First flight of the P-61 prototype was on May 26th 1942, over a week before the Battle of Midway. First letter of intent to order 100 planes was issued on Dec 24th 1941 and by Feb 12th 1942 420 P-61s were on order.
In the spring/summer of 1942 why do a major redesign of the A-20 into a night fighter?
Work had started on the A-26 in Jan of 1941 (if not before) with the Mockup being inspected in mid April of 1941 and two prototypes ordered on June 2 1941.

Even in America there was only so much engineering staff. Futzing around with older designs could delay newer ones.

 

[gjs238]

Even in America there was only so much engineering staff.

With hindsight, would the US been better off using the time resources put into the P-61 elsewhere?
Often we are told that this or that could not have happened because scarce design resources were not available.
Was the P-61 a waste of those resources?

Or perhaps, again with hindsight, the P-61 could have been designed better?

I expected the issue of scarce design resources to come up, so tried making the point in another thread that by switching to "go advanced" mode and clicking the hindsight button, perhaps we can better use those scarce design resources elsewhere.

Don't redesign anything.
Design them better by concentrating those scarce resign resources.

 

[mhuxt]

Here's DK 290 G

HJ 679 was an FB.VI. Ie it had a flat windscreen, 4 0.303" mgs and 4 cannon ports. The fighter versions were draggier than the bomber and reconnaissance versions, and slower using the same engines.

Even more to the point, the report indicates the speed is lower than would be expected and concludes that "HJ679 may not be truly representative of this type."

As you've noted, stub exhausts were in action in 1942.

 

[nuuumannn]

I agree with Shortround on this; There wasn't a requirement for an aircraft quite like the Mossie within the US armed forces. Taking the essense of this thread and ignoring contemporary protocol, rather than attempting to modify an existing design that might not produce the results required at any rate, the best the the US could have done was to licence produce the Mosquito. After all, (with hindsight) Martin built its spiritual successor, the Canberra.