Vulnerability of liquid cooled engines

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

For daylight operations it is true that the defensive fire was significant, the raids that were considered a disaster like Schweinfurt also imposed heavy losses on the LW.

I suppose it depends on what you count as a heavy loss.

The Luftwaffe lost 20-odd fighters in the first Schweinfurt mission. Almost all due to the fighter escort of P-47s and Spitfires.

The Allied fighter pilots claimed slightly more kills than was actually the case. Gunners on the bombers claimed more aircraft killed than the Luftwaffe put into the air, by some margin.

Bombing raids became far more costly to the Luftwaffe when escort was provided all the way to target.
 
which morphed from 4 to six engines. The range requirement was restated as "maximum practical"
Boeing also came up with the XB-20 to compete with the XB-19 but as the XB-20 was pretty much a slightly bigger XB-15 with bigger engines it wasn't as advanced as the XB-19 and was not funded.
Please note that only the XB-16 proposal used liquid cooled engines and the Army was sticking to the "idea" that liquid cooled engines (buried in the wings) were the preferred power plant for their ultimate bomber.

The XB-15 and XB-19 were originally intended to use liquid cooled engines (X/V-3420s, I believe) but these were unavailable and would not be available for some time.

So they ended up with what was available.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back