#1 Jet of World War II

In message , Peter Twydell
writes
Even further OT, does anyone know why the He 111 had its bombs stowed
nose up?

Don't know.

Guess is "to fit in available volume" given that a big space of the
He111 was originally devoted to low-density passenger accommodation, and
the space for "bulky luggage / bombload" is limited by CG constraints.

As bombs got bigger and engines more powerful, the airframe could carry
more load, but there was no way to extend the bomb-bay aft (guessing!)
so "more bombs" had to be carried vertically around a precise datum to
pack more ordnance around the existing centre-of-pressure. You couldn't
add bombs aft at all, adding them forward made the aircraft unflyable,
but rigging the bombs vertically around the CG meant adding more was
easier, so 'increasing density' by carrying bombs vertically rather than
horizontally might help.

Speculation only.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

In message , ArtKramr
writes
I undesrtand that there was a later model Mosquito on the drawing boards in
1944 that could carry 100,000 pounds of bombs with a 10,000 mile range at 1500
miles per hour all the way. I understand one prototype was built , took off on
a test flight in 1944 and is still up there. But I don't really believe that
last part.Do you?

I saw it go overhead this evening. Mind you, it was being chased by the
"Berlin Bomber Marauder", the "Moscow Patrol Spitfire (from Thorney
Island)", the US "Surrender Or Else" B-29, and the German "We Won The
War, No, We Mean It!" Me-262 among many other types. All of them had
serious influence on post-war debate. None of them really existed.


It would be a very committed or foolish person who decided that
Marauders and Mosquitos were interchangeable. Mosquitoes carried more
bombs further, but a Marauder formation had many guns to fire at
attacking fighters and were much better able to survive fighter attacks
or flak, fired at a tight formation. (Mossies lived by being too quick
for the enemy)

The speciality Marauder missions (attacking bridges comes particularly
to mind) would have been suicide for Mosquitos, just as Marauders would
have performed poorly in a night bomber stream.

Key point... by the end, the enemy had to fight B-17s, B-24s, B-25s and
B-26 formations during the day, then fight Halifax, Lancaster and
Mosquito raids at night, across the whole range of targets, while also
dealing with all the fighters who had been told to expend their
ammunition on enemy targets (the US and allies has such a swarm of
fighters that finding airborne targets is a routine problem?)

Just how do you write tactics to answer that? Especially while the
medium bombers are ripping your transport infrastructure to pieces,
while the heavies are depriving you of the fuel to move your forces or
fight them once in theatre?

Airpower may have been oversold lately, but that doesn't change its
fundamental value.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

Subject: #1 Jet of World War II
From: "Emmanuel Gustin"
Date: 7/21/03 12:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

I undesrtand that there was a later model Mosquito on the drawing boards
in
1944

What was on the drawing boards in 1944 was the Canberra,
of course. The formal spec was issued in 1945 and called for
the highest max continuous cruise speed at 40,000 feet, but not
less than 440 knots (506 mph) and a ceiling of at least 50,000 ft;
a short range was undesirable but the RAF was willing to accept
1400 nautical miles (1610 statute miles) with a 6,000 lb bomb
load if nothing better was on offer. By the standards of the day,
that was ambitious enough...

--
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel.Gustin -rem@ve- skynet.be
Flying Guns Page: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/



Who said Belgians have no sense of humor? (grin)

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

In article ,
Peter Twydell writes:
In article , Peter Stickney
writes
In article ,
Peter Twydell writes:
Thanks, Peter. I asked the question before I'd had any coffee, and
realised the probable answer after breakfast, while reading the latest
He 111 In Action. It mentioned the Russian Front, and the realisation
dawned.

Thinking about it a bit more, the inference is that the suspension and
arming systems were compatible, which seems unlikely.

Oh, I don't know. The Soviets had a _lot_ of A-20s, and B-25s. I
don't ever recall hearing about them getting different racks when they
were prepped for delivery.

Even further OT, does anyone know why the He 111 had its bombs stowed
nose up?

It was the only way they could fit them in the bomb bay area. The He
111 started life as a dual-role Airliner/Clandestine Bomber, back
before the German reamament program of teh late 1930s was announced.
The bomb hay area was originally a sepate "Smoking Room" between the
wing spars. With the spars situated the way they were, there was no
way to make a longer bay without cpmpromising the stuctural integrity
of the airplane. Since the bay was taller than it was long, it was
easier to hang the bombs by their noses & drop 'em out tail first.
It couldn't have done the accuracy much good - the bombs don't just
drop out & stabilize, but wobble all over the place until they settle
down. While they're wobbling, they're flying - those streamlines
shapes will develop lift, so teh more the bomb flops around, the more
it deviates unpredictabply from the point of aim.


Was it one of these that exploded in Austria last week, killing two EOD
personnel? I thought that the journalist had made a mistake when
referring to a US 550 pounder, but it looks as though they were right.

It's possible. It's also possible that it was a Soviet bomb dropped
by Soviet aircraft, since they were flying in the area in 1945. It's
also possible that the reporter flubbed a lbs/kg conversion, or used
the nearest metric equivalent. Euro Reporters are no more numerate or
"fact-tight" than ours are.

"Ours" being your side of the pond? They're no better (or worse) here.
The only European newspapers I read are Dutch, and they're usually
pretty bad on matters aeronautical.

One of the universal traits of human nature. Some are Performers, and
some are Spectators. Some couldn't be arsed to even think about what
their eyes are seeing. Last year, there was a crash just offshore
of Cape Cod (Guy tried to make the beach, didn't quite) in shallow
water. (Not shallow enough, IIRC, there were fatalities) One of the
local television reporters was rattling on about a "Twin Engine
Beechvraft" while standing with his camera crew showing them winching
a single-engine airplane with "Cessna" painted on the tail fin out of
the drink. (And yes, I'm a bit more sophisticated/anorak than that.
It was apparantly a 182 - Short fuselage, wing struts, fixed gear, and
a big spinner over the constant-speed prop hub) And that a "National
Guard" helicopter had repsonded on scene, while showing file footage
of a Coast Guard helicopter searching for survivors. (The National
Guard is a part of the Army or Air Foce, and their equipment is in
camouflage with subdued markings. The Coast Guard, who has primary
responsibility for Search and Rescue, flies white helicopers with
great huge red high visibility markings, (If they don't paint the
whole thing orange) and have "USCG" emplazoned on it in 18" (0.5M)
characters, and, for the Hard of Thinking, "United States Coast Guard"
painted on the side in 12" (0.33+) letters.

And these are the folks who are telling you what's going on.


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

In article ,
(ArtKramr) writes:
Subject: #1 Jet of World War II
From: nt (Gordon)
Date: 7/21/03 10:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

The late model Mosquitoes could carry up to 5,000 pounds of
bombs. In theory they could carry this to Berlin from England,
at most economical cruise and with minimal fuel reserves.


I undesrtand that there was a later model Mosquito on the drawing boards in
1944 that could carry 100,000 pounds of bombs with a 10,000 mile range at 1500
miles per hour all the way. I understand one prototype was built , took off on
a test flight in 1944 and is still up there. But I don't really believe that
last part.Do you?

Well, you see, it ran out of gas, and therefore couldn't land. The
last transmission from the pilot was "If you can't get liquid petrol
up to me I'll never play t eviolin again - it's a petrol driven
violin, you know!"

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

In article ,
Greg Hennessy writes:
On 19 Jul 2003 05:29:09 GMT, nt (Gordon) wrote:

that the Mosquito was the only air threat that conventional
forces were simply never able to overcome.

One wonders about the potential of the Douglas Mixmaster for the very same
reasons.

The airplane that begins to look rather unreal would be a bomber
version of the F-12 Rainbow. (About th emost beutiful airplane ever
built). The F-12 was intended to be a long range high altitude photo
and radar recon airplane, and was capable of _cruising_ at 400 mph TAS
at 40,000', while carrying a 10,000# payload. for about 1500 miles.
It would have taken something like a Sabre to intercept it.

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

Subject: #1 Jet of World War II
From: (Peter Stickney)
Date: 7/21/03 7:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) writes:
Subject: #1 Jet of World War II
From: nt (Gordon)
Date: 7/21/03 10:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

The late model Mosquitoes could carry up to 5,000 pounds of
bombs. In theory they could carry this to Berlin from England,
at most economical cruise and with minimal fuel reserves.


I undesrtand that there was a later model Mosquito on the drawing boards in
1944 that could carry 100,000 pounds of bombs with a 10,000 mile range at
1500
miles per hour all the way. I understand one prototype was built , took off
on
a test flight in 1944 and is still up there. But I don't really believe
that
last part.Do you?

Well, you see, it ran out of gas, and therefore couldn't land. The
last transmission from the pilot was "If you can't get liquid petrol
up to me I'll never play t eviolin again - it's a petrol driven
violin, you know!"


That violin has strings attached you know.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: #1 Jet of World War II
From: (Peter Stickney)
Date: 7/21/03 7:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

The airplane that begins to look rather unreal would be a bomber
version of the F-12 Rainbow. (About th emost beutiful airplane ever
built).

I found that the most beautiful planes ever built were the ones that showed up
to give us top cover.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

This will probably appear out of place thanks to a poorly
performing local news server.

Guy Alcala wrote in message .. .
Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:

In the war diary Freeman usually gives the types of bombs
dropped until the end of 1943, a quick skim indicates the
heavies last used them on 9 September 1943

Last used which?

300 pound bombs, used on strikes on French airfields on that
date by the B-24s of 44th, 93rd, 389th and 392nd groups.

, the mediums
on 9 October 1943, assuming usage stopped in 1943.

What date were the mediums reassigned from 8th Support Command to 9th
AF (and thus no longer appear in Freeman)?

Good point, 16 October 1943 was the transfer date, and 9
October the last mission under 8th Air Force, so clearly
there could have been other missions using 300 pound bombs
after 9 October. I missed the transfer date.

The USAAF statistical digest contradicts the Freeman
figures, table 138, bombs dropped by type of bomb
1943 to 1945 in the war against Germany says the USAAF
did not use the 300 pound bomb in Europe from 1 January
1943 onward and only 712 600 pound bombs, all in 1943.

I wonder what that "350" lb. bomb used in 1945 (only 12) was; possibly a typo. I
suspect Freeman may be right in the case of the 300 lbers. IIRR there's a late
1943 or early '44 issue of "Impact" which describes 8th AF B-26 missions in 1943,
and clearly states the number of 300 lb. bombs dropped on the target (might have
been one of the missions to the Le Trait shipyards. I'll have to get to the
library to find the details). Then again, IIRR the "300 lb. bomb" weighed less
than 300 lb. while the "250 lb. bomb" weighed more than 250 lb., so maybe the two
types were combined in the table.

Freeman notes for the 300 pound M31 "the average type weights
differed from the classification by as much as 40 pounds" So if
this was downwards the 300 pounds becomes 260 pounds.

Why the difference in weight? Change in explosive or case or just
a classification decision, the bomb never was 300 pounds?

There were 1,122 Armour Piercing 1,600 pound bombs
used, all in 1944.

I'd sure like to know what the targets were for the AP bombs. I doubt they'd
have enough penetration for sub pens, and I don't think we ever attacked armored
ships with them (which is what they were designed for, by the Navy). Underground
factories or maybe railway tunnels?

Or simply a case of the supply situation becoming strained
so they used what they had, there were supply problems in
1944 thanks to the tempo of operations. Freeman notes an
attempt to use 1,600 pound bombs in 1942.

In table 139, bombs dropped by type versus Japan HE
bombs include 1,220 4,000 pound, all in 1945, 750 300
pound, 688 in 1945 (yes 5), 188,198 550 pound, yes 550.

I'm guessing a typo in one or more of these tables.

It worries me that the Statistical Digest seems to have major
differences with other sources, thinks like fighter kill claims
as well as types of bombs dropped.

The late model Mosquitoes could carry up to 5,000 pounds of
bombs. In theory they could carry this to Berlin from England,
at most economical cruise and with minimal fuel reserves.

And AFAIK never did.

Correct, it would have required cruising at B-17 speeds at B-26
heights and minimal headwinds. One of those theoretical
performance figures.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

In article , ArtKramr
writes
Subject: #1 Jet of World War II
From: "Emmanuel Gustin"
Date: 7/21/03 12:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

I undesrtand that there was a later model Mosquito on the drawing boards
in
1944

What was on the drawing boards in 1944 was the Canberra,
of course. The formal spec was issued in 1945 and called for
the highest max continuous cruise speed at 40,000 feet, but not
less than 440 knots (506 mph) and a ceiling of at least 50,000 ft;
a short range was undesirable but the RAF was willing to accept
1400 nautical miles (1610 statute miles) with a 6,000 lb bomb
load if nothing better was on offer. By the standards of the day,
that was ambitious enough...

--
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel.Gustin -rem@ve- skynet.be
Flying Guns Page: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/



Who said Belgians have no sense of humor? (grin)

They do, but the problem is their accents! :-)

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!