![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
WalterM140 wrote:
Once air superiority was available the RAF flew their daylight missions in loose gaggles of 2-4 aircraft staggered in height to minimise flak damage. That might have been influenced by the fact that no other aircraft type could fly in the tight formations used by the B-17. That's a question of stability and control forces. The B-17 was easier to fly in formation than the B-24, but I have no idea how the British heavies stacked up. I've heard that B-26s could also fly in very tight formations, but I shouldn't think as at high an altitude as the B-17. Not even close, owing to the engine supercharging. B-17's could maintain formation at heights almost twice as high as the altitude at which Bomber Command usually operated, either by day or by night. Again, due to the superchargers. Both US mediums and the British heavies used single-stage two-speed superchargers while the B-17 and B-24 used turbochargers (feeding superchargers). That generally gave them max. power and top speeds ain the range of 13,500 - 15,000 feet. A couple of years ago a few of us decided to find out what it would take to boost RAF heavies to B-17 or B-24 formation cruise heights. Given the available British engines, they could only have used two-stage two-speed Merlins, 60, 70 or 80 series. Those were all being used by Spit 8/9/16s, late model Mossie bomber/recon a/c, and of course Merlin P-51s. Major changes in production lines (and the a/c) would have been required to provide enough for the heavies as well. Our conclusion was that the simplest and quickest method for the Brits to go over to US style daylight bombing against well-defended targets in the fall of 1943 was to use B-24s diverted from US groups in training (the 8th preferred the B-17), at least until they could produce a high altitude bomber engine (preferably a Bristol Hercules air-cooled radial, either turbocharged or with a two-speed supercharger) in adequate numbers. By night most of them were able to cruise individually in the 19 - 23,000 foot range, but formation flying limits the performance to the worst a/c, and also requires some power in hand for throttle jockeying and formation turns. So we figured they were likely restricted to tight formation flying at altitudes of around 18,000 or at most 20,000 feet for Lancs or Halifax IIIs, although we knew we'd have to lighten the bombloads to get them that high (owing to the need to increase the defensive armament, armor, crew, and fuel loads). Guy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
regaining night currency but not alone | Teacherjh | Instrument Flight Rules | 11 | May 28th 04 02:08 PM |
Did the Germans have the Norden bombsight? | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 106 | May 12th 04 07:18 AM |
Why was the Fokker D VII A Good Plane? | Matthew G. Saroff | Military Aviation | 111 | May 4th 04 05:34 PM |
Night of the bombers - the most daring special mission of Finnishbombers in WW2 | Jukka O. Kauppinen | Military Aviation | 4 | March 22nd 04 11:19 PM |
Why did Britain win the BoB? | Grantland | Military Aviation | 79 | October 15th 03 03:34 PM |