More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids, with added nationalistic abuse (was: #1 Jet of World War II)

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?

Not yet, but I've got a bunch of B-25/B-26 books on order from various libraries,
so hopefully they will have something useful. I've also been reading Alfred
Price's "Spitfi A Complete Fighting History," which has some interesting info
on Mk. V fuel burn, range, Spit drag, etc. I'll cull that and try to post the
more interesting stuff for your and Pete's benefit.

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.

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.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

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

Subject: More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids,

From: Guy Alcala

The question is whether there is room (and shackles) for the

If there was "room" (stations) then shackles could be fitted.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Guy Alcala wrote in message .. .
Peter Stickney wrote:

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.

From the Stirling file by Michael Bowyer

Early Stirling I, Hercules II engines, the first production aircraft N3635 came
in at 41,160 pounds tare when under trials, max take off weight 64,000
pounds initially.

Stirling III, Hercules VI/XVI tare weight 44,856 pounds, max flying weight
70,000 pounds.

The tare weights appear 2 to 3 tons more than the Lancaster and Halifax.

The books notes the advantages of the "strongly built" airframe as well
as the penalties.

Apparently the outboard sections of the wing were watertight. Interestingly
the Stirling's wing area was 1,460 square feet, Lancaster 1,297, later
Halifaxes 1,275, B-17 1,420, B-24 1,048 and B-29 1,736. The Stirling
wingspan was 99 feet 1 inch versus the B-17 103 feet 9 inches, it was
also the thickest wing, able to carry bombs in cells within the inner wing.
three cells on each side capable of carrying 500 pound bombs at least.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

In article , Geoffrey Sinclair
writes
Apparently the outboard sections of the wing were watertight. Interestingly
the Stirling's wing area was 1,460 square feet, Lancaster 1,297, later
Halifaxes 1,275, B-17 1,420, B-24 1,048 and B-29 1,736.

I'm not disputing the figures above, but I thought the B-24 had a larger
wing area than most contemporary bombers allowing it to fly higher?

--
John

In article , John Halliwell
writes
In article , Geoffrey Sinclair
writes
Apparently the outboard sections of the wing were watertight. Interestingly
the Stirling's wing area was 1,460 square feet, Lancaster 1,297, later
Halifaxes 1,275, B-17 1,420, B-24 1,048 and B-29 1,736.

I'm not disputing the figures above, but I thought the B-24 had a larger
wing area than most contemporary bombers allowing it to fly higher?

Was it not the thick section Davis wing that gave it the improved lift?

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:13:14 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
wrote:

In article , John Halliwell
writes
In article , Geoffrey Sinclair
writes
Apparently the outboard sections of the wing were watertight. Interestingly
the Stirling's wing area was 1,460 square feet, Lancaster 1,297, later
Halifaxes 1,275, B-17 1,420, B-24 1,048 and B-29 1,736.

I'm not disputing the figures above, but I thought the B-24 had a larger
wing area than most contemporary bombers allowing it to fly higher?

Was it not the thick section Davis wing that gave it the improved lift?

Cheers,

Dave

The Davis wing was a high aspect ratio wing with a low angle of
attack.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote:


The Davis wing was a high aspect ratio wing with a low angle of
attack.

Al Minyard

Is there something that I'm missing here?...how can a wing's
design decide that?...I'd think that only the elevators could
control the AOA?.
--

-Gord.

Alan Minyard wrote:

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:13:14 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
wrote:

In article , John Halliwell
writes
In article , Geoffrey Sinclair
writes
Apparently the outboard sections of the wing were watertight. Interestingly
the Stirling's wing area was 1,460 square feet, Lancaster 1,297, later
Halifaxes 1,275, B-17 1,420, B-24 1,048 and B-29 1,736.

I'm not disputing the figures above, but I thought the B-24 had a larger
wing area than most contemporary bombers allowing it to fly higher?

Was it not the thick section Davis wing that gave it the improved lift?

Cheers,

Dave

The Davis wing was a high aspect ratio wing with a low angle of
attack.

I'll step with some trepidation into Pete's territory here as he explains this
stuff far better than I do, but we've been keeping him busy doing calcs. The high
aspect ratio wing provides good L/D ratios, increasing range performance as well as
lift at low angles of attack. Here's how the a/c's aspect ratios stack up, from
low to high:

Stirling 6.72:1;. B-17, 7.58:1; Halifax (early) 7.81:1; Lancaster 8.02:1; Halifax
(late) 8.51:1; B-24, 11.55:1; B-29, 11.48:1.

As you can see, the B-24, designed a couple of years later than the British heavies
and five years or so after the B-17, has a much higher aspect ratio wing, and the
B-29 follows this practice. The wing area of the B-24 was considerably lower than
the others, for low drag. Good altitude performance requires some combination of
low wing-loading (high wing area for weight), engine thrust, and aspect ratio.

While the B-24 had good engine power at altitude and a high aspect ratio, it also
had high wing-loading compared to its contemporaries (not the B-29). It had better
altitude performance than the British a/c because of its engine supercharging, not
its wings. The B-17, with similar supercharging as the B-24 had a higher combat
and service ceiling, because although it had a moderate aspect ratio wing it also
had far lower wing-loading, and was able to fly slower. The B-24 cruised between
10-20 mph IAS faster than the B-17, but then it had to to be comfortable. The
crews hated having to fly in company with B-17s.

It's also easier to make lower aspect ratio wings of the same area stronger for the
same weight, because the stresses can be spread over a longer (and thicker) root,
which is one reason why a/c like the Stirling and B-17 have reputations for being
able to take lots of wing damage and survive, and why a/c like the B-24 had
opposite reps. However, the lower aspect ratio wing requires more area to get the
same lift at the same AoA, increasing drag.

Guy

Geoffrey Sinclair wrote in message ...

The Stirling
wingspan was 99 feet 1 inch versus the B-17 103 feet 9 inches, it was
also the thickest wing, able to carry bombs in cells within the inner wing.
three cells on each side capable of carrying 500 pound bombs at least.


I should add the Halifax also had 3 cells in each wing for 500
pound bombs, from Halifax : an illustrated history of a classic
World War 2 bomber by Kenneth A. Merrick.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.