Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

Personally, I wonder if your source that claimed 2 x 1,000 'and' 4 x 500
should have read 'or', as that would fit better with the claimed bomb bay
capacity in several sources. It wouldn't be the first time that has
happened.

Agreed, and I will check the Squadron ORBs when I get the chance. Any
American stats to compare with this?

snip

Here are the B-25's bomb station options, as called out in teh
U.S. Navy Standard Aircraft CHaracteristics for the PBJ (Which was a
B-25 with a different paint job)

Internal:
1 x 2,000#
or
2 x 1600#
3 x 1000# GP
4 x 1000# AP (The AP bombs are much slimmer
3 x 650#
6 x 500#
8 x 250#
24 x 100#

With the 215 (U.S Gal Bomb Bay Tank:
2 x 1000#
2 x 1600#
2 x 650#
4 x 500#
4 x 325# Depth Charge
12 x 100#

Externally, (Bay doors open) there was provision for a Mk 13 torpedo.

Yeah, I've got that too. The question is whether there is room (and shackles) for the
_combination_ of 2 x 1,000 and 4 x 500 lb. bombs, which is why I'd like to see a bomb
station arrangement diagram. The credited 4,000 lb. load appears to only be possible
carrying 4 x 1,000 lb. AP bombs. Several sources state that the 2,000 lb. station had
to be removed to allow 3 x 1,000 lb. GP to be carried, and that the 2,000 lb. station
was deleted from the production a/c at some point in 1944 or so. With the 2,000 lb.
station in place, only 2 x 1,000 lb. bombs could be carried (this assumes these sources
are accurate). The British a/c in 2 Gp. were early Cs and Ds IIRC, and they didn't
start getting Js until late in 1944. This source also doesn't list the external
station capacities, which were definitely available.

As for the Stirling, well, actually, fir all its bulk, it doesn't seem
that heavy.They really should have taken the fuselage out of hte box

before they bolted the wings on, though.

The empty weight (46,000 lb. IIRR) has always seemed far higher than was the case with
the Lanc or Halifax, and the MTOW (70klb. IIRR) not that much more. It is possible
that this is a mistake and isactually the OWE rather than the empty weight losted for
the others. Still, its range with a comparable bombload is significantly less than
either, and while the wing design undoubtedly plays some part I expect the main factor
is the restricted useful load. Shorts' structural methods seem to stem from the flying
boats, and appear a bit out of date. Come to think of it, ISTR a Roy Braybrook article
in AI some years back, where he showed that their flying boats had rather poor useful
loads compared to comparable American models, for much the same reason.

Guy