Ultimate WWII bomber

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by herman1rg, Apr 19, 2010.

  1. herman1rg

    herman1rg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So hypothetically it's 1942 and you want to design the ultimate bomber using parts and technology from ANY bomber available.

    So list what you would use and why.
     
  2. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    I would end up with the B29.
     
  3. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,205
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Well considering the B-29 first flew Sept. 21, 1942, I think this is a mute point. The R-4360 was being developed at the same time so accelerating production and installing those engines on the B-29 would have given you the B-50 5 years earlier. Large jet bombers won't even play as even with the best technology of the day, large jet aircraft were not going to happen, even if the stars aligned perfectly.

    The ultimate bomber for WW2 under this scenario would have been an R-4360 powered B-29 (B-50).
     
  4. Waynos

    Waynos Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,309
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I thought you meant any bomber in production already, otherwise yeah, you would just carry on with the B-29, maybe stretch the wings for a 6 engined model........can't think of a practical advantage yet, just like the thought :D
     
  5. BombTaxi

    BombTaxi Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Barnsley, S. Yorks, UK

    I'm with sys and FBJ on this. B-29 wins the prize, hands down. More bombs, further, higher and faster than anybody else - enough said really
     
  6. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    41,770
    Likes Received:
    518
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Doctor
    Location:
    Portsmouth / Royal Deeside, UK
    Home Page:
    I agree completely. Can't really go wrong from here.
     
  7. pbfoot

    pbfoot Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,636
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    niagara falls
    B 29 an absolute no brainer
     
  8. davparlr

    davparlr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,934
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    retired avionics engineer
    Location:
    Southern California
  9. syscom3

    syscom3 Pacific Historian

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    12,631
    Likes Received:
    309
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    How about an R2800 powered Skyraider in 1942? Or the R3350 powered version in 1944?
     
  10. T Bolt

    T Bolt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    9,728
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Bridge & Highway Construction Inspector
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #10 T Bolt, Apr 19, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2010
    Here’s one I drew up almost 30 years ago when I was still in high school:

    A carrier based torpedo bomber based on a shortened top ½ of a B-29 fuselage. Clipped B-29 wings(folding like a Hellcat), R-4360 engines, B-17 nose turret P-51 canopy and windscreen for the tail gunner, and a twin tail unit for low underdeck storage reinforced with skid wheels. The weapons load is 4 full-sized torpedoes, 4 fixed forward fireing cannon, 3-50 cal in chin turret, 4-50 cal in top turret and 2-50 cal tail stinger.

    I found the old drawing a few days ago and thought it would be good foe a laugh:lol:
     

    Attached Files:

  11. fastmongrel

    fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,342
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Motor Mechanic
    Location:
    Lancashire
    A DH Mosquito with a pressurised cockpit, bulged bomb bay, extended wings and 3 stage RR Griffon engines. Equipped with a Stabilised Automatic Bomb Sight and GEE-H. You are going to get 4,000 pound bombs landing from 40,000 feet on precision targets around the clock.
     
  12. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,205
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Medium light bomber?

    Its a tail dragger that still has to slow down to about 250 mph to drop its bombs.
     
  13. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Only the USA has the luxury of waiting until the spring of 1945 for the B-29 heavy bomber to become reliable. Everyone else requires a more immediate solution.

    Junkers Ju 288 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Listen to the Junkers engineers. Power the Ju-288 with DB610 engines (i.e. coupled DB605). It will be in service during 1943. Once in mass production Germany can cancel the He-111, He-177, Ju-290 bomber variants (cargo variants remain in service), Do-217 and Ju-188 (i.e. Ju-88 with more powerful engines).

    Ju-88 light bomber and night fighter variants can remain in production.

    Me-110 night fighter variants can remain in production.

    Me-210 / Me-410 light bomber will be cancelled.

    He-219 night fighter will be cancelled. Instead experiment with a night fighter version of the Ju-288. If these experiments are successful then the Ju-88 and/or Me-110 night fighter programs will eventually be cancelled.
     
  14. fastmongrel

    fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,342
    Likes Received:
    408
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Motor Mechanic
    Location:
    Lancashire
    Op didnt say it had to be a heavy bomber just design your ultimate bomber from parts available in 1942. 3 stage Griffon could certainly have been available in 42 if required and less effort had been diverted to Merlin. Extended wings already available and bulged bomb bay could be easily produced. GEE-H and SABS might not have been available but were certainly not beyond the bounds of probability.

    Tail dragger so what. It would be nice to have trike undercart but would be a bit of a squeeze for the bomb aimer and probably cut the bomb bay size.

    Didnt know Mossies had to slow to 250mph always thought they could drop bombs faster than that around about max cruise speed. Even so 250 mph at 40,000feet is still a real awkward intercept for 1942 and flak forget about it I dont think anyone really cracked hitting targets at 40,000 feet till the invention of the SAM.

    My opinion such as it is worth the RAF would have been better and more effective using the Mossie as its main weapon leaving smaller numbers of Lancs to drop the big stuff and smaller numbers of Halifaxes for transport and maritime patrol.
     
  15. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,205
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    And it's also a hazard for low time pilots. This can become a training issue (as it really was in WW2)
    The sighting systems of the day required a steady bomb run and at 40,000 feet you're not going to accurately bomb with freefall bombs. 250 is even a generous speed, B-29s at altitude usually bombed at just about 200 mph.
    See above...
     
  16. BombTaxi

    BombTaxi Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Barnsley, S. Yorks, UK
    Having the Lanc, Mossie and Halifax all in production at the same time seems a bit wasteful, IMHO. Better perhaps to build the Lanc and Mossie in large numbers, and use one or both of them as the basis for a recon/patrol aircraft, cutting the Halifax out altogether. This would make for much more efficient production, and simplfy maintenance and the production of spare parts, especially as both types used similar powerplants and armament.
     
  17. zoomar

    zoomar Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2010
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    18
    OK, first it needs to be a four-engined plane. Since the B-29 was only a paper dream in 1940, I can't just make things easy and build it. Arguably the most modern bomber actually under test in 1940 was, aak, the He-177. So I'd start with the sleek fueslage and original nose of the He-177v1, and combine that with the high wings of a B-24 mounting 4 individually mounted Pratt&Whitney radials. I would place a premium on a high bombload and a relatively high forward speed, so armor would be limited, with rubberized self-sealing fuel tanks. I would place all defensive armamement (.50 cal MGS) in power turrets, a quad at the tail, and retractable dorsal and ventral turrets carrying two .50s apeice. I'd also give consideration to the B-24's tricycle landing gear
     
  18. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,205
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Agree
     
  19. BombTaxi

    BombTaxi Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Barnsley, S. Yorks, UK

    Good shout zoomar, especially the power tail turret - this is somewhere where I have always thought the US and LW let themselves down in their bomber designs, and it would help make a combat box slightly more effective by increasing mutual arcs of fire.

    One change I might suggest is avoiding the Davis wing of the B-24. While it was aerodynamically outstanding, it was vulnerable to catastrophic failure due to battle damage. A less efficient but tougher wing a la the Fortress might be a better plan, IMHO...
     
  20. herman1rg

    herman1rg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Interesting idea, thats what I was hoping for in this thread
     
Loading...

Share This Page