A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

WWII Fighter Bombers



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 21st 04, 02:41 PM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"M. H. Greaves" writes:
I read a book recently about a fighter group who flew with one under wing
tank, and a bomb under the other, with P51's, the drag must have been
hellish!
The U.S. used the P47, and the P38's to great advantake for ground attack,
the RAF used the typhoon, the tempest, the beaufort, these are the most
prominent ones i can remember.


Not a whole lot of Beuforts used as Firgter-Bombers or Light Bombers.
They were tasked as Torpedo Bombers, for antishipping work. (As were,
in fact, most Beaufighters) By mid '44, the usual RAF Light Bomber was
the Mosquito FB.VI.

The P51's mainly carried two under wing tanks, which they used first, them
when the time came to dog fight, they would let them go; they had a big fuel
tank in behind the pilot to fall back on.


A little bit oof there. For P-51s with the aft fuel tank, the
sequence was to burn the fuel in the aft tank first, then the drops.
A full aft tank moved the Center of Gravity to the extreme back end of
its allowable range, and caused a tendency to overshoot in pitch
(pulling G, for instance) that wasn't acceptable in combat. Return
fuel would have been in the normal wing tanks.

Any fighter bomber that had say small bombs would execute their primary
objectives first,i.e. drop the bombs first because to dog fight with a bomb
under neath could be too risky, the drag, extra weight, and the damger of
the bombs being hit while still attached., they would not be required to go
any great distance with the bombs; this was the medium, and heavy bombers
task, if the fighters carried a bomb or two they would be used to soften a
target with aswell as others straffing, and perhaps those doing the
straffing would cover thos carrying the bombs.


It perhaps should also be pointed out that the bombs were the
fighter-bomber's most effective weapons, so naturally they'd be used
first. Bombs are pretty inseneitive to damage from things like
bullets & fragments. That's why they require special fuzes and
booster charges (Which are in the fuze wells in the center of the
bomb) to set them off. The danger of a hung bomb comes from two
sources - if the arming wire's been pulled, allowing the vanes onthe
fuze to turn, moving the firing mechanism into alignment, then it can
go off with a sufficient impact in the right direction. If the rack
didn't release all the way, or if one lug has released and the other
hasn't then the bomb could fall of its own accord at just about any
time, and if it doesn't release cleanly can casue severe damage to teh
airframe. USAAF firghter-bombers, (And RAF Mustangs used as
fighter-bombers) were quite wide-ranging. The first RAF fighter over
Germany were Mustang Is (Allison engines, and no fuselage tank) flying
Armed Recce missions past Kiel in early 1942. (Brit built fighters
just never had much in the way of range, carrying bombs or not).

Ta answer the previous poster's question (And this is why Top Posting
is abhorrent - it breaks up the flow of the conversation):

It depends on the situation. If the fighter-bombers are being
escorted, and the escorts can handle teh attackers, then they'd
probably keep the bombs and press on to the target. If the attacking
fighters don't have enough of a performance advantage to be able to
catch the fighter bombers in good time - tail chases are slow - then
it would be a jusdgement call. The drag of bombs was about the same
as that of an equivalaently sized drop tank.

"zxcv" wrote in message
...
Would a fighter plane (say a P-51 or P-40 for example) that was on mission
to drop some tactgical bombs and encountered some any fighters generally
drop its bombs before engaging the enemy? or just try to run away? or

fight
with them still hanging on (sounds pretty dangerous to me with the extra
weight and the BOMBs hanging under their wings)?




--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
  #12  
Old March 21st 04, 07:01 PM
M. H. Greaves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Okay Peter, thanks for setting me straight on a point or two there! it seems
on the top posting/bottom posting that i'm stuck between a rock and a hard
place: if i top post people complain, if i bottom post people complain, i'm
not getting at you, its just that i was in another n/g that had a rather
large debate cum argument online about people that top or bottom post;
nowadays i dont bother either way, if it annoys people that much whether i
top post or bottom post then thats just too bad, i'm sorry and all that but
who really cares!??? i dont, i just scroll down to where the latest comments
are!
"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"M. H. Greaves" writes:
I read a book recently about a fighter group who flew with one under

wing
tank, and a bomb under the other, with P51's, the drag must have been
hellish!
The U.S. used the P47, and the P38's to great advantake for ground

attack,
the RAF used the typhoon, the tempest, the beaufort, these are the most
prominent ones i can remember.


Not a whole lot of Beuforts used as Firgter-Bombers or Light Bombers.
They were tasked as Torpedo Bombers, for antishipping work. (As were,
in fact, most Beaufighters) By mid '44, the usual RAF Light Bomber was
the Mosquito FB.VI.

The P51's mainly carried two under wing tanks, which they used first,

them
when the time came to dog fight, they would let them go; they had a big

fuel
tank in behind the pilot to fall back on.


A little bit oof there. For P-51s with the aft fuel tank, the
sequence was to burn the fuel in the aft tank first, then the drops.
A full aft tank moved the Center of Gravity to the extreme back end of
its allowable range, and caused a tendency to overshoot in pitch
(pulling G, for instance) that wasn't acceptable in combat. Return
fuel would have been in the normal wing tanks.

Any fighter bomber that had say small bombs would execute their primary
objectives first,i.e. drop the bombs first because to dog fight with a

bomb
under neath could be too risky, the drag, extra weight, and the damger

of
the bombs being hit while still attached., they would not be required to

go
any great distance with the bombs; this was the medium, and heavy

bombers
task, if the fighters carried a bomb or two they would be used to soften

a
target with aswell as others straffing, and perhaps those doing the
straffing would cover thos carrying the bombs.


It perhaps should also be pointed out that the bombs were the
fighter-bomber's most effective weapons, so naturally they'd be used
first. Bombs are pretty inseneitive to damage from things like
bullets & fragments. That's why they require special fuzes and
booster charges (Which are in the fuze wells in the center of the
bomb) to set them off. The danger of a hung bomb comes from two
sources - if the arming wire's been pulled, allowing the vanes onthe
fuze to turn, moving the firing mechanism into alignment, then it can
go off with a sufficient impact in the right direction. If the rack
didn't release all the way, or if one lug has released and the other
hasn't then the bomb could fall of its own accord at just about any
time, and if it doesn't release cleanly can casue severe damage to teh
airframe. USAAF firghter-bombers, (And RAF Mustangs used as
fighter-bombers) were quite wide-ranging. The first RAF fighter over
Germany were Mustang Is (Allison engines, and no fuselage tank) flying
Armed Recce missions past Kiel in early 1942. (Brit built fighters
just never had much in the way of range, carrying bombs or not).

Ta answer the previous poster's question (And this is why Top Posting
is abhorrent - it breaks up the flow of the conversation):

It depends on the situation. If the fighter-bombers are being
escorted, and the escorts can handle teh attackers, then they'd
probably keep the bombs and press on to the target. If the attacking
fighters don't have enough of a performance advantage to be able to
catch the fighter bombers in good time - tail chases are slow - then
it would be a jusdgement call. The drag of bombs was about the same
as that of an equivalaently sized drop tank.

"zxcv" wrote in message
...
Would a fighter plane (say a P-51 or P-40 for example) that was on

mission
to drop some tactgical bombs and encountered some any fighters

generally
drop its bombs before engaging the enemy? or just try to run away? or

fight
with them still hanging on (sounds pretty dangerous to me with the

extra
weight and the BOMBs hanging under their wings)?




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



  #13  
Old March 21st 04, 08:05 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"M. H. Greaves" wrote in message
...
Okay Peter, thanks for setting me straight on a point or two there! it

seems
on the top posting/bottom posting that i'm stuck between a rock and a hard
place: if i top post people complain, if i bottom post people complain,

i'm
not getting at you, its just that i was in another n/g that had a rather
large debate cum argument online about people that top or bottom post;
nowadays i dont bother either way, if it annoys people that much whether i
top post or bottom post then thats just too bad, i'm sorry and all that

but
who really cares!??? i dont, i just scroll down to where the latest

comments
are!



There are several very good reason for bottom posting.

Firstly and most importantly replies can read in the
context of the original post.

Secondly in a post to which there are several responses its
much easier to keep track of who said what and when.

Keith


  #14  
Old March 21st 04, 09:28 PM
M. H. Greaves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

yes, thats true, i appreciate that, and like i say i wasnt getting at you
mate! just expressing an opinion thats all
regards, Mark {:-)}
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"M. H. Greaves" wrote in message
...
Okay Peter, thanks for setting me straight on a point or two there! it

seems
on the top posting/bottom posting that i'm stuck between a rock and a

hard
place: if i top post people complain, if i bottom post people complain,

i'm
not getting at you, its just that i was in another n/g that had a rather
large debate cum argument online about people that top or bottom post;
nowadays i dont bother either way, if it annoys people that much whether

i
top post or bottom post then thats just too bad, i'm sorry and all that

but
who really cares!??? i dont, i just scroll down to where the latest

comments
are!



There are several very good reason for bottom posting.

Firstly and most importantly replies can read in the
context of the original post.

Secondly in a post to which there are several responses its
much easier to keep track of who said what and when.

Keith




  #15  
Old March 22nd 04, 04:24 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

-cut-


There are several very good reason for bottom posting.

Firstly and most importantly replies can read in the
context of the original post.

Secondly in a post to which there are several responses its
much easier to keep track of who said what and when.

Keith

But only if people would keep the quoted amount within reason...I
hate it when I select a msg in an interesting thread, scroll down
to see what it's about then scroll through innumerable lines to
see the new stuff then again and again...how come people can't
learn to remove all that superfluous text? Why quote the old
stuff over and over? I think there's a conspiracy afoot to
change me over to a top-poster!...
--

-Gord.
  #16  
Old March 22nd 04, 04:38 AM
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gord Beaman wrote:
But only if people would keep the quoted amount within reason...I
hate it when I select a msg in an interesting thread, scroll down
to see what it's about then scroll through innumerable lines to
see the new stuff then again and again...how come people can't
learn to remove all that superfluous text? Why quote the old
stuff over and over? I think there's a conspiracy afoot to
change me over to a top-poster!...



I generally hate top posting if there's more than a paragraph quoted. Frankly,
I hate bottom posting under the same conditions. I do believe that bottom
posting under a very sparse quotation makes for an easier flow of ideas, as in
who said what. There's no need to requote an entire conversation in order to
give context.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com.


  #17  
Old March 22nd 04, 08:40 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:


snip

But only if people would keep the quoted amount within reason...I
hate it when I select a msg in an interesting thread, scroll down
to see what it's about then scroll through innumerable lines to
see the new stuff then again and again...how come people can't
learn to remove all that superfluous text?


Agreed

Keith


  #18  
Old March 22nd 04, 11:32 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:24:15 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

But only if people would keep the quoted amount within reason..


Amen!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at
www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
  #19  
Old March 22nd 04, 12:54 PM
M. H. Greaves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

ya never know!!???
"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

-cut-


There are several very good reason for bottom posting.

Firstly and most importantly replies can read in the
context of the original post.

Secondly in a post to which there are several responses its
much easier to keep track of who said what and when.

Keith

But only if people would keep the quoted amount within reason...I
hate it when I select a msg in an interesting thread, scroll down
to see what it's about then scroll through innumerable lines to
see the new stuff then again and again...how come people can't
learn to remove all that superfluous text? Why quote the old
stuff over and over? I think there's a conspiracy afoot to
change me over to a top-poster!...
--

-Gord.



  #20  
Old March 25th 04, 12:16 AM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"M. H. Greaves" writes:
he dropped the wing tank firstm then the bomb!
"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

I read a book recently about a fighter group who flew with one under wing
tank, and a bomb under the other, with P51's, the drag must have been
hellish!


Did the pilot pickle them off at the same time?


I rather doubt it. I had occasion to pull out the F-51's -1, and
there isn't any provision to drop from each station individually.
Both stations go at the same time.

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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canadian fighter squadrons during WWII Ed Majden Military Aviation 10 March 8th 04 06:34 AM
German forward swept wing WWII fighter projects. Charles Gray Military Aviation 4 January 11th 04 02:49 PM
Guns on a WWII fighter... Kurt Jeffery Military Aviation 15 December 15th 03 12:48 AM
Kadena honors legendary WWII fighter ace Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 November 23rd 03 03:58 AM
V engined bombers (was: #1 Piston Fighter was British) John Keeney Military Aviation 0 July 1st 03 06:06 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.