XB-42?

[Gnomey]

Congratulation Alder!

 

[Aggie08]

Sweet dude!

 

[plan_D]

Well done, Adler.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Thanks guys now I just have to go do Aerial Gunnery with my unit for 10 days and then I can have my promotion ceremony. Wont have internet access while we are at the range so I wont be online until then.

 

[Nonskimmer]

Have a blast.
Get it? Blast! Because he's doing gunnery and...yeah.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Sometimes I think you are CC.....

 

[cheddar cheese]

I could come up with a much more appalling pun. By the way Adler, its your round.


See?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Alright you just lost me on that one.

 

[cheddar cheese]

Your round...oh forget it.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Are you talking about Rounds as in ammo?

 

[Aggie08]

Heh, its the weekend, puns aren't allowed anyways

 

[cheddar cheese]

Yes, yes I am Adler. Also Rounds as in your round at...the...bar...Indeed.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ah okay I get it. Its late and I should be in bed.

 

[Nonskimmer]

God, I love it when a joke goes bad and it isn't me!

 

[Zipper730]

The Mixmaster's engines generated about the same power as the superlative British De Havilland Mosquito but the American bomber carried twice the Mosquito's maximum bomb load at the same speed as the British airplane.

Was the goal to carry twice the Mosquito's load off the bat? I ask, because I didn't think they carried the cookies until 1944...

When he compared his design to the Boeing B-29 Superfortress, Burton believed he could develop a faster airplane that would carry a similar bomb load and employ a crew of 3 instead of the 10 airmen needed to man the B-29. Burton believed his Mixmaster would require just half of the maintenance crew required to keep the Superfortress airborne and cost one-third the price of the large, four-engine bomber from Boeing."

For most purposes that's actually completely true, but it didn't seem to be able to fly as high as the B-29 could and it might not have been able to fit a nuclear bomb in it.

I bet bailing out of that plane would have been exciting!

Actually that's the thought going through my mind as well... if they couldn't blow the prop off, they'd end up going through a blender!

The double canopies are pretty cool, but many forward thinking pilots didn't like them - the seperation made the workload more stressful, especially during emergencies.

I think they were motivated by reducing frontal area, but yeah you'd need an intercom to do what previously could have been done by speaking, and if the com fails you're basically communicating by hand-signals when you previously could have just spoke.

They ultimately did put a conventional canopy on the design.

 

[Zipper730]

I'm curious if the plane was originally to be called the XA-42 or always XB-42? I've heard various claims and there was an XA-41 and XB-41...

 

[Niceoldguy58]

The B-42 was originally the A-42, and on October 7, 1943 the Mockup Board examined the bomber version and found it satisfactory for production with certain changes. However, this also occurred at the time when the "Attack" category was in the process of being deleted, and thus the aircraft became the B-42 by the it was actually built in 1944.

Douglas had designed the A-42 to be a multi-function aircraft which was more typical for this time in the war. The aircraft was to be fitted with Douglas' easily interchangeable nose concept with different noses fitted for different mission profiles - specifically bombardment, attack and reconnaissance..This same concept had been developed for the A-26, but was not used. Instead, Douglas built separate aircraft for specific missions, in the case of the A-26 bombardment (glass nose) and attack (gun nose, which saw several variations).

The specific changes in defensive armament called for by the Mockup Board were as follows:

The original three single-gun turrets (one with 500 rounds in each wing and one with 200 rounds in the propeller spinner) were to be replaced by one twin .50 caliber turret with 350 rounds per gun in each wing. Douglas was "requested" to study and report on whether it was feasible to substitute turrets mounting either .60 caliber guns (one of Arnold's pet projects which failed miserably) or 20mm guns in lieu of the .50 caliber turrets. This twin-gun configuration can be seen in one of the drawings below.

The gunner's station was to be located adjacent to the pilot's position as in the mock-up, and not behind the engines as in the original Douglas proposal. That position and related equipment was to be eliminated.

The double-ended periscopic site was to be replaced by a "pedestal" type using a standard N-6 reflector sight mounted in the rear of the gunner's "bug-eye". An Automatic Gun Laying installation was to control the rear firing turrets, with the above "pedestal" sight to serve as a backup.

As can be seen in the artwork below, the attack version was intended to have the four 20mm nose guns similar in nature to those on the A-20G. While not shown, my guess is that a nose more similar to the six and eight-gun .50 noses of the A-26B is more likely to have been fitted.

The famous "bug-eye" canopies configuration appears to have been uniquely Douglas'. As previously mentioned, it was used on a number of the C-74's that were produced. While it may or may not have decreased drag or given greater vision, it also made communication between the pilot and co-pilot nearly impossible. This is why it was replaced by the more traditional - and functional - "airliner" type canopy in both cases and was used on the XB-43 as well.

Douglas claimed the XA./B-42 could replace larger, long-range 4-engine bombers in most cases. The double-page spread below shows it compared to an outline of Douglas XB-31 entry to the eventual B-29 project in all possible deployment scenarios. Interesting reading, certainly, but mostly a fanciful notion which the Air Force in its commitment to big, long-range bombers would almost certainly never have bought into.

I hope this helps to give a bit more information on the XA/B-42 and its initial development.

Respectfully submitted,

AlanG

 

[Niceoldguy58]

Sorry...I goofed and hit the wrong button.

Here are the other two illustrations.

 

[Zipper730]

The B-42 was originally the A-42

Great to know!

October 7, 1943 the Mockup Board examined the bomber version and found it satisfactory for production with certain changes. However, this also occurred at the time when the "Attack" category was in the process of being deleted

Yeah, they didn't want single-engine attack aircraft anymore, and that basically left twin-engine attack aircraft (aka light bombers)

Douglas had designed the A-42 to be a multi-function aircraft which was more typical for this time in the war. The aircraft was to be fitted with Douglas' easily interchangeable nose concept with different noses fitted for different mission profiles - specifically bombardment, attack and reconnaissance.

Good feature

This same concept had been developed for the A-26, but was not used.

They were also proposing a night-fighter: I'm not sure if it was favored over the P-61 at anytime

The famous "bug-eye" canopies configuration appears to have been uniquely Douglas'. As previously mentioned, it was used on a number of the C-74's that were produced. While it may or may not have decreased drag or given greater vision, it also made communication between the pilot and co-pilot nearly impossible.

The C-74 actually flew after the XB-42. Regardless, I agree with your position though I never knew the gunner was in the second canopy.

I appreciate your input greatly. I never knew that Arnold was responsible for that whole 0.60 fiasco

 

[GrauGeist]

Dang...a 13 year old thread comes back to life!