I'm thinking when you consider that the Schneider Trophy planes were float-planes and achieved speeds of over 400 miles an hour, I don't see why a good engineering team couldn't create a 4-engined flying-boat bomber that could achieve speeds of ~300 mph.
The only drawbacks I could think of is that you might need to deal with corrosion issues due to operating in salt water, and more difficulty with a ventral turret (unless it was retractable -- which is do-able): I'd like to point out the Avro Lancaster's largely operated early on with a rear, top and forward turret only.
They did, but is was jet powered and called the P6M Seamaster........
Sounds like a good idea to me ! What are you thinking of using as a base kit ?
In the USSR several atomic-driven, huge and supersonic sea planes (as strategic bombers) had been designed. Huge beasts, imagine a M-50 bomber as a seaplane...!
No, I'm talking about WW2 era concepts...
I'm guessing it would need a thinner fuselage and retracting wing floats. Maybe use a 72nd scale boat ( such as an Albatross ) with a lengthened fuselage and scale-o-rama it up to 48th scale ? Or something along those lines....
:cheers:
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on February 18, 2013, 06:30:21 PM
No, I'm talking about WW2 era concepts...
But you didn't say that.....
The Schneider Trophy racers were powered by very large engines for their time, the Rolls-Royce R Type was about the same capacity as a Griffon, but had a very short life, measured in single figures of hours, which would have been pretty useless for a strategic bomber. Plus the aircraft itself was TINY, almost all engine and radiator and it carried the fuel in the floats on the S-6 series aircraft. The pilot was possibly the most cramped cockpit of all time, and had to have his hands on the stick before they lowered the windshield into position!
Comparing that sort of technology with a bomber design would be like trying to convert an Indy car into a School Bus, there is no comparison possible, apart from the fact that they both have wings, or wheels in the case of the Indy car/School Bus.
The bigger question might be why would they want to design such an aircraft? The strategic bomber as a concept didn't really exist until the late 30s, earlier types like the HP O/400 and the big Gothas were longer range big tactical bombers in reality and they didn't last through the 1920s. By the '30s large airfields were easy to build and freely available, even in a crowded island l ike ours, and even a Lancaster could fly from a grass airfield, albeit maybe not at full load.
Adding a hull to a large enough fuselage to carry a hefty bomb load makes for a BIG aeroplane, think Sunderland or Coronado, and there's always the vexed question of where do you store and drop the bombs from without water pouring in the hole when you're on the water. The Sunderland's sideways sliding bomb racks worked a treat but couldn't carry really big bombs and not many of them either. Only in the late 50s did the Seamaster solve that problem with its brilliant rotating and sealed bomb door idea.
Flying boat fan though I am, and a BIG fan of the Seamaster (what a surprise...) I can't see that the concept of a strategic flying boat bomber is a goer.
I gather we are starting from a clean sheet. Take a twin fuselage design, which does away with wingtip floats. Make the wing center section thick, and put the bomb bay there.
Both major axis powers in WWII attempted to use flying boats as strategic bombers. Blohm und Voss proposed variants on their giant flying boats, even ones which turned them back to land aircraft for use as strategic bombers towards the end of the war. The Japanese occasionally used their big flying boats as strategic bombers - several northern Australian towns were bombed by them in small numbers, necessitating the stationing of fighter aircraft there which would have been more usefully used in the offensive in the SW Pacific.
Where did they carry the bombs and how heavy was the largest bomb they could drop?
I think that has to be the limiting factor with a flying boat bomber but Royabulgaf's twin fuselage idea has merit too. Very big bombs could be slung under the centre section like a torpedo under a Stringbag.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on February 20, 2013, 01:25:08 AM
Where did they carry the bombs and how heavy was the largest bomb they could drop?
I think that has to be the limiting factor with a flying boat bomber but Royabulgaf's twin fuselage idea has merit too. Very big bombs could be slung under the centre section like a torpedo under a Stringbag.
And do your armourers have to wear scuba gear?
There's always the Blackburn B-20 approach, i.e. a split hull that's deep when the aircraft's on the water but shallow in flight to reduce drag:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffreespace.virgin.net%2Fjohn.dell%2FB20%2FBoat1.JPG&hash=4a7a2cfbb3d0edb4ef6e74d396d437d45ac05ad1)
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/blackburn_b20.htm
In theory, you could mount bombs on top of the lower hull and have them flip over the side, like some of the torpedo launchers on smaller torpedo boats.
Recently read a What If book where they used Sunderlands to drop bombs rather than Depth Charges but can't remember what it was called
Will wrack my brains.
Sunderlands could drop bombs, just not very big ones.
The whole concept of a strategic flying boat bomber is flawed - the weight required for a hull structure of any sort makes the useful load less than a land-based equivalent, plus the issue of how to carry the bombs is a major one - either requiring complex (and expensive, and heavy?) methods to seal a "traditional" bomb bay, or a novel way to carry and deploy the payload which will have a knock-on effect on possible loads.
One possible way you could get big bombs (eg. Cookies) out of a flying boat would be to have a high tail with a rear door, and use a parachute extraction method where a little drogue 'chute pulls the bomb out of the rear of the plane on rails. Also means a useful transport variant can be made? Still not as good as a Lancaster or B-24 etc for strategic bombing though.
Quote from: royabulgaf on February 19, 2013, 05:19:48 PM
I gather we are starting from a clean sheet. Take a twin fuselage design, which does away with wingtip floats. Make the wing center section thick, and put the bomb bay there.
But twin hulls and a thick wing would have an adverse effect on high speed, which the original post desired. I vote for a single long and slender hull, as this really helps with speed. A high length to width ratio like 13:1 or something (Seamaster was 15:1). Most flying boats had a much lower ratio (fat) and were quite slow. Reducing frontal area is big part of achieving speed, so what ever you can do to reduce intersection drag and less frontal area is important: retractable floats, less numbers of vertical stabilizers, eliminated/reduced struts and pylons, internal weapon stoarge, etc all help. Radial engines tend to be favored for seaplanes, but have a higher frontal area.
The Mavis had a slender hull and good flight characteristics, but a more draggy plylon mounted, and strutted wing.
Seaplanes are indeed a huge compromises, but to help your get closer to your desire for a fast(ish) WWII four engined application I would recommend a single slender hull, a single or at most twin tail, a fuselage mounted wing and an internal bomb bay (bombs could be released via a side hatch to eliminate bottom of hull openings). Although the demands of water based aircraft usually demand a clean sheet design, perhaps modifying a sleeker land based bomber with a planing hull and retractable tip floats might be a good option- a Sea Lancaster! ;)
Some other options: -
-a back dated R3Y tradewind- had a long slender ratio, but the kits are pricy or poor.
- a lengthened and streamlined WWII seaplane. Mavis, Emily, Dornier. Shorts and Consolidated boats tend to be quite "fat" and would likely never get the speed you desire.
- Land based plane with a planing hull grafted on. Lancaster, B-24, rainbow.
- A smaller medium type with a hull or floats- more like youe schneider cup references: Sea Mosquito, B-26, A-26, B-25, Me-110 etc.
I think there is a misunderstanding of what "strategic bombing" is. Its using bomber aircraft to strategically influence the outcome of a battle/campaign/theatre of war/war. "Strategy" is the level of planning where political objectives are fulfilled by military means. Clausewitz summed it up the most succinctly with the maxim, "war is but politics by another means." It doesn't matter how big the bombs are or any other factor, its where they are placed and to what effect - does it influence the war at the highest level?
The Japanese flying boat attacks on far northern Australian cities were pinpricks but they tied down an inordinate amount of resources to counter them, so therefore they fulfilled a strategic purpose. Pearl Harbor was a strategic attack, executed with tactical resources and the biggest bomb they dropped there was IIRC 500kg. Taranto was a strategic attack, effectively knocking the Italian fleet out of the war and it was conducted by a handful of Stringbags.
The British introduced BIG bombs 'cause they brutally realised that if they were going to bomb cities to gain a strategic outcome, then the most efficient way to destroy a city was to send big bombs. Yet, it should be noted, the greater proportion of the bombs that were dropped were relatively small ones, in the 500-1,000lb range. HC bombs knock down light structures, they don't knock down heavy ones and most European cities were built of stone and brick, not timber, so relatively difficult to demolish. So, a bomber capable of carrying a big HC bomb could also carry multiple smaller ones instead.
rickshaw, I disagree with some of what you have said.
Strategic bombing is against the enemy's economy.
Taranto was against naval assets, so wasn't strategic bombing at all, but rather tactical (against the enemy's military assets). Similarly for Pearl Harbor.
The majority of bombs dropped in WW2 were the smaller ones - both the RAF and the USAAF dropped more 500lb bombs than anything else. But that's where they diverge, somewhat.
The second most dropped bomb by the USAAF was the 100lb GP bomb, followed by the 100lb incendiary bomb and the 250lb GP bomb. I don't have the numbers with me, but I believe teh second most dropped (HE) bomb by the RAF was the 1000lb GP/MC bomb.
Quote from: wuzak on February 21, 2013, 12:09:49 AM
rickshaw, I disagree with some of what you have said.
Strategic bombing is against the enemy's economy.
No, that is what it came to mean in the thinking of many strategists in WWII and after. "Strategic Bombing" could have any target, as long as the intention was to affect the strategic outcome of a conflict.
Quote
Taranto was against naval assets, so wasn't strategic bombing at all, but rather tactical (against the enemy's military assets). Similarly for Pearl Harbor.
Yet the intention of both strikes was to knock the enemy fleet or at least a proportion of it, out of action - a strategic outcome.
Quote
The majority of bombs dropped in WW2 were the smaller ones - both the RAF and the USAAF dropped more 500lb bombs than anything else. But that's where they diverge, somewhat.
The second most dropped bomb by the USAAF was the 100lb GP bomb, followed by the 100lb incendiary bomb and the 250lb GP bomb. I don't have the numbers with me, but I believe teh second most dropped (HE) bomb by the RAF was the 1000lb GP/MC bomb.
Isn't that basically what I said?
Quote from: rickshaw on February 21, 2013, 06:35:28 AM
Quote from: wuzak on February 21, 2013, 12:09:49 AM
rickshaw, I disagree with some of what you have said.
Strategic bombing is against the enemy's economy.
No, that is what it came to mean in the thinking of many strategists in WWII and after. "Strategic Bombing" could have any target, as long as the intention was to affect the strategic outcome of a conflict.
Quote
From your earlier definition I would suppose that almost all bombing/aerial attacks could be construed as strategic, since they are planned and executed to try to influence the outcome of battles/campaigns/theatres of war/wars.
I suppose revenge bombings would be the case that doesn't fall under the strategic banner, but even then they can be designed to have a strategic outcome.
Quote from: rickshaw on February 21, 2013, 06:35:28 AMQuote
Taranto was against naval assets, so wasn't strategic bombing at all, but rather tactical (against the enemy's military assets). Similarly for Pearl Harbor.
Yet the intention of both strikes was to knock the enemy fleet or at least a proportion of it, out of action - a strategic outcome.
The effect of both attacks could only ever be considered short term. The case of the USN is clearer, since there was no attempt to attack the US proper, so US industry was able to build replacements. I don't know if Italy attempted to do so, but there economy was under attack, which would have made building replacement ships difficult.
Quote from: rickshaw link=topic=36654.msg590241quote]
The majority of bombs dropped in WW2 were the smaller ones - both the RAF and the USAAF dropped more 500lb bombs than anything else. But that's where they diverge, somewhat.
The second most dropped bomb by the USAAF was the 100lb GP bomb, followed by the 100lb incendiary bomb and the 250lb GP bomb. I don't have the numbers with me, but I believe teh second most dropped (HE) bomb by the RAF was the 1000lb GP/MC bomb.
Isn't that basically what I said?
Sorry, I was trying to reinforce your point.
USAAF attacks changed, for some targets, from (attempted) precision bombing to effectively carpet bombing. Targets such as the synthetic oil plants. The USAAF tended to use even smaller bombs than normal (100l and 250lb rather than 500lb and 1000lb) because the volume of bombs would increase the likelihood of hitting something in the sprawling plants and causing damage. The damage was more easily repaired than damage from larger bombs, so it became a race between the repairers and the bombers.
Quote from: wuzak on February 22, 2013, 04:24:35 PM
From your earlier definition I would suppose that almost all bombing/aerial attacks could be construed as strategic, since they are planned and executed to try to influence the outcome of battles/campaigns/theatres of war/wars.
Not quite. In military thought there were, originally two levels of planning - tactical and strategic. Since WWII, under influence from first the fUSSR and then the US militaries, a third, intermediate level - "Operational" was defined (it had previously existed but was usually considered "grand-tactical"). Tactical was the immediate battle, where troops were in contact with the enemy and concerned matters completely (or almost completely) military. Strategic was anything beyond the battlefield and could be both political and military in nature (ie the making/breaking of alliances, vast outflanking movements by invading third nations, etc.). As the size of battlefields increased from small areas to ever larger until they effectively encompassed ones hundreds of kilometres in length, so the term "strategic" came to encompass anything that was intended to effect matters at the national level and with both a military and a political point. "Operational" strategy is the intermediate level - where politics and military issues intersect and is best described as, "the level where the military gives substance to political objectives in a campaign or theatre of war".
So, any bombing which occurs on or near the battlefield is considered tactical such as Close Air Support and Tactical bombing missions. Interdiction, immediately behind the battlefield is also largely considered tactical because it is intended to immediately influence the outcome of a tactical engagement. Interdiction missions, further back, which are intended to influence a campaign or theatre's operations are really either Operational or Strategic in nature.
Much of this, I admit is an artificial distinction but it is the definitions which were accepted in WWII and after (with Operational Strategy included).
Quote
I suppose revenge bombings would be the case that doesn't fall under the strategic banner, but even then they can be designed to have a strategic outcome.
Again one which blurs the lines. It is strategic in that it is intended to affect the political thinking of the enemy. To make them aware that tit-for-tat is possible and that they must show restraint in their own strategy. Problem is, it invariably just creates a cycle of escalation until total war is reached and everything is considered a valid target.
Quote
The effect of both attacks could only ever be considered short term. The case of the USN is clearer, since there was no attempt to attack the US proper, so US industry was able to build replacements. I don't know if Italy attempted to do so, but there economy was under attack, which would have made building replacement ships difficult.
In retrospect I'd agree but at the time, the idea was that by undertaking the strike either the Italian fleet would be "bottled up", unwilling to put to sea or in the case of Pearl Harbor destroyed sufficiently so that the ability of the USA to interfere in Japanese plans was so reduced that it would be ineffective. The Japanese believed it would gain them the advantage sufficiently so that they could present Washington with a
fait accompli which it would have to accept. The Royal Navy was correct, it did circumscribe the Italians' actions afterwards, making them most unwilling to risk their ships further. The Japanese miscalculated badly. Both sought a strategic outcome though.
Quote
USAAF attacks changed, for some targets, from (attempted) precision bombing to effectively carpet bombing. Targets such as the synthetic oil plants. The USAAF tended to use even smaller bombs than normal (100l and 250lb rather than 500lb and 1000lb) because the volume of bombs would increase the likelihood of hitting something in the sprawling plants and causing damage. The damage was more easily repaired than damage from larger bombs, so it became a race between the repairers and the bombers.
I would have though that the oil refineries would have been particularly susceptible to blast so ideal targets for HC "cookies".
However, while interesting in of itself, this discussion is distracting from the objective of the thread - the possible use of sea planes as strategic bombers. The point I was making was that one should not become hung up (pun intended) about the sorts of bombs which sea planes were capable of carrying but rather the objectives of the missions which were to be undertaken. Did the sea planes have sufficient range to strike over long distances to attack targets of strategic importance? The obvious answer is "yes". Would they be effective though? Depends upon what targets were being attacked and how. A sea plane strike from long range against Pearl Harbor could have been just as effective as the carrier strike because the key was surprise, not necessarily the weapons used by the aircraft.
I tried fitting floats to a C-69 Constellation, I gave up in the end. But you might have better luck than me.
They must have been BIG floats! I built a C-47C using the largest Aeroclub floats and they needed a 1" extension each!
Grafting the hull of a Sunderland onto the bottom of a Connie might have worked, but yet again you're into the 'Where do I carry and drop the bombs?' problem.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on February 23, 2013, 02:18:08 AM
Grafting the hull of a Sunderland onto the bottom of a Connie might have worked, but yet again you're into the 'Where do I carry and drop the bombs?' problem.
I would very much like to see someone produce a "Sunderstellation", but I regret that the waterproof bomb bay problem is going to be too great to overcome.
Try under the wings just as the PS-1 did or they could be launched like torpedoes from the nose/front end like a submarine!
Quote from: PR19_Kit on February 23, 2013, 02:18:08 AM
They must have been BIG floats! I built a C-47C using the largest Aeroclub floats and they needed a 1" extension each!
Grafting the hull of a Sunderland onto the bottom of a Connie might have worked, but yet again you're into the 'Where do I carry and drop the bombs?' problem.
I tried using a pair of 1/48 scale floats. :banghead:
Bombs from flying boats have been carried under the wings, on struts and in the fuselage and winched out under the wings before dropping. I see no reason why they couldn't be dropped from the sides of fuselages, through hatches (perhaps rotating ones?). It could be possible to have them, like the Seamaster did of being dropped from a waterproof bombbay (and loaded from a hatch in the fuselage top).
The Seamaster rotating bomb door was a) brilliant and b) worked but it was 10 years after the time period that the OP mentions.
They had some teething problems with keeping the bomb bay dry but it worked very well in the end. The XB-51 pioneered the idea and the P6M just waterproofed it. ;D
The CANT Z511 was a floatplane, though not quite as big as a Connie.
http://www.simnetwork.com/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_cant.z511.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/CantZ511%28IdroGigante%291s.jpg
That's what I based the Connie float plane on. I also removed the middle tail fin, added griffon engines and a pair of auxiliary jet pods from a Neptune kit. I used a plastic stand from a fellow whiffer as the landing gear was already in the up position. I must have painted this model about six times, as the layers of paint have filled in some of the glazed windows. I've used some decals to indicate cargo doors. I still haven't decided on using RAF roudels or a civie Belgium decals taken from the Airfix Bristol Superfreighter kit.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on February 19, 2013, 12:55:24 AMBut you didn't say that.....
You're right, I should have clarified...
QuoteThe Schneider Trophy racers were powered by very large engines for their time, the Rolls-Royce R Type was about the same capacity as a Griffon, but had a very short life, measured in single figures of hours, which would have been pretty useless for a strategic bomber.
So these engines were highly tweaked?
QuotePlus the aircraft itself was TINY, almost all engine and radiator and it carried the fuel in the floats on the S-6 series aircraft. The pilot was possibly the most cramped cockpit of all time, and had to have his hands on the stick before they lowered the windshield into position!
I always thought they were fighter sized... you learn something new everyday
QuoteThe bigger question might be why would they want to design such an aircraft? The strategic bomber as a concept didn't really exist until the late 30s, earlier types like the HP O/400 and the big Gothas were longer range big tactical bombers in reality and they didn't last through the 1920s.
Actually the V/1500 was supposed to be strategic bomber. So too was the XNBLR-1 though it's range sucked.
QuoteAdding a hull to a large enough fuselage to carry a hefty bomb load makes for a BIG aeroplane, think Sunderland or Coronado, and there's always the vexed question of where do you store and drop the bombs from without water pouring in the hole when you're on the water.
1: Punching them out the side seems to work.
2: Could you either slide or punch them out the back?
3: Regardless did the technology exist to produce a watertight bomb-bay that could open and seal shut good?
Quote from: Weaver on February 20, 2013, 04:48:01 AM
There's always the Blackburn B-20 approach, i.e. a split hull that's deep when the aircraft's on the water but shallow in flight to reduce drag:
I thought of something like that except it was for a fighter (like the depicted B.44) not a bomber. I wasn't sure if it was realistic...
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on February 23, 2013, 08:27:51 PM
QuoteThe Schneider Trophy racers were powered by very large engines for their time, the Rolls-Royce R Type was about the same capacity as a Griffon, but had a very short life, measured in single figures of hours, which would have been pretty useless for a strategic bomber.
So these engines were highly tweaked?
Just a lot! Plus the R engine was BUILT purely for racing. Some of its design ideas were later used in the Merlin, but with a 10 litre reduction in capacity.
QuotePlus the aircraft itself was TINY, almost all engine and radiator and it carried the fuel in the floats on the S-6 series aircraft. The pilot was possibly the most cramped cockpit of all time, and had to have his hands on the stick before they lowered the windshield into position!
QuoteI always thought they were fighter sized... you learn something new everyday
Overall you're right, the S6B was about 90% of the size and weight of a Spitfire, but the S6B was much narrower which meant the cockpit was a lot smaller, but the engine produced
1000 more hp!
QuoteAdding a hull to a large enough fuselage to carry a hefty bomb load makes for a BIG aeroplane, think Sunderland or Coronado, and there's always the vexed question of where do you store and drop the bombs from without water pouring in the hole when you're on the water.
Quote1: Punching them out the side seems to work.
2: Could you either slide or punch them out the back?
3: Regardless did the technology exist to produce a watertight bomb-bay that could open and seal shut good?
1. It did yes, but as I said the size of the bombs they could drop were limited. No-one seems to have developed that system for larger sizes but I think it would have been possible.
2. The problem with doing that is the big CG shift as you drop the bombs, and this when you're trying to fly as accurately as possible to get them on target. The 15000 lb BLU-82 bomb, dropped from the rear ramp of a C-130, wasn't exactly the world's most accurate bomb, but at that size it didn't need to be!
3. I suspect not or they'd have used it. It took Martin a considerable time to get the bomb door on the Seamaster to seal and rotate on any one flight, and that was in the late 50s.
The Sunderland had it's wing based on the Sterling, or maybe the other way around, so why not use the same "bomb cell" system that was used for the Sterling and in fact early Halifax bombers by housing bombs in the wings directly in the centre of lift so not affecting the centre of gravity?
Gondor
Both the Sunderland's and the Stirling's wing design came from the original C Class Empire flying boat wings, but the Stirling's wing had less span because of Air Ministry imposed limitations and was thicker to give similar lift at slower speeds. That gave them the capability to include the bomb cells but increased the drag of course. But those wing cells for the Stirling could only take very small bombs IIRC, but I can't find a reference to say HOW small! I think it was only 250 lbers, even the main bomb bay of a Stilring could only carry 2000 lbs bombs.
I'm a bit late to this discussion, but what about Tupolev's project 504?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi706.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww67%2FMcGreig%2FTu-504-2_zpsd3f8b532.jpg&hash=0f967d15734c08ac3163482ba391b94f2fb43d8d)
This was a genuine strategic bomber project and, although the project appears to have been commenced in 1950, it uses WW-2 technology, being perhaps the ultimate development of the B-29.
Project 504 was designed as an inter-continental bomber, refuelling from submarines to give it the range to reach the USA and Tupolev based the design on his ultimate Tu-4 (alias B29) development, the one-off Tu-85, which had increased length and span and more powerful engines.
The following specification comes from the Secret Projects forum:
Engine: ASh-2K (TVD-1)
Span: 56 m
Length: 44 m
Height: 12 m
Max speed: 580 km/h
Range: 10000 km
MTOW: 104000 kg
Armament: 3x2x23 mm
Bombs: 1x 6,000 kg
Crew: 12
The bomb load of 1 x 6,000kg suggests a fuselage rather than a wing bomb bay but I haven't been able to find any information on how this would have been constructed.
The photo below is of my slightly smaller whiff version based directly on the (Airfix) B-29. This was built about 7 years ago but was badly damaged almost immediately. I keep getting it out to rebuild but I've never summoned up enough enthusiasm - maybe for this year's Southern Expo or Milton Keynes - - - -
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi706.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww67%2FMcGreig%2FTu-504-1_zps4738c05a.jpg&hash=67f2cd6990f4a1985d7083b8f428365180efdb6a)
RickshawQuoteNot quite. In military thought there were, originally two levels of planning - tactical and strategic. Since WWII, under influence from first the fUSSR and then the US militaries, a third, intermediate level - "Operational" was defined (it had previously existed but was usually considered "grand-tactical").
So operational is where it's too big to be tactical and too small to be strategic?
QuoteAgain one which blurs the lines. It is strategic in that it is intended to affect the political thinking of the enemy. To make them aware that tit-for-tat is possible and that they must show restraint in their own strategy. Problem is, it invariably just creates a cycle of escalation until total war is reached and everything is considered a valid target.
Correct and in the following states the results occurred
1: in Germany they kept on fighting until they were occupied even though they realized they were largely done for
2: In Japan the Emperor surrendered
(though his Generals wanted to keep fighting) because the atom-bombs we dropped were so incredibly destructive, requiring only one bomber to slip through and drop one bomb, they had no nuclear bomb of their own
(they were working on one, admittedly), and as far as I know, no means of delivering them effectively to us; we also delivered two bombs in rapid succession which made it appear as if we had lots of these weapons
(we only had one more, and could produce only one bomb a week) and more cities being leveled would be guaranteed and we would only stop until we had turned all of Japan into a graveyard.
Interestingly, I don't know what effect the bombs had on the civilian population from a morale standpoint but contrary to what some airpower theorists thought, they did not seem to be the weakest link in the chain -- the Emperor was.
Interestingly if they had the means to retaliate and the means to fend off B-29's with a sufficient degree of reliability they would not have surrendered. As long as an enemy can hit back and/or fend off attacks they usually will keep fighting.
QuoteI would have though that the oil refineries would have been particularly susceptible to blast so ideal targets for HC "cookies".
I see your point. Such big explosions near all sorts of flammable gasses and liquids sounds like a great idea. You'd also think there'd be a good wisdom in laying down as many incendiaries as you got as well to just turn the place into a bonfire.
QuoteA sea plane strike from long range against Pearl Harbor could have been just as effective as the carrier strike because the key was surprise, not necessarily the weapons used by the aircraft.
True, and in fact Billy Mitchell didn't think carriers would be used against such a target because they couldn't project enough firepower.
He was right and wrong: On one hand, the bomb-loads were increased from 1921 to 1941; on the other several carriers were used to attack Pearl Harbor, not just one.
PR19_KitQuote1. It did yes, but as I said the size of the bombs they could drop were limited. No-one seems to have developed that system for larger sizes but I think it would have been possible.
How much bigger would you guess?
QuoteThe problem with doing that is the big CG shift as you drop the bombs, and this when you're trying to fly as accurately as possible to get them on target.
Yeah if you forced them out the side that would shift the CG to the side and produce extra drag on one side. You'd need opposite aileron and rudder to keep her straight.
The Norden and Sperry bombsights did include autopilots to automatically keep the plane on target, so I suppose that could be dealt with in that case.
QuoteI suspect not or they'd have used it.
What made it so hard to keep watertight? Could any of the following do the trick
1: Bilge pump to keep pumping out water from the bay?
2: Pump/suction system to force some air out of the sides of the bomb-bay to effectively suck the doors closed with rubber lining the doors to maintain a good seal?
QuoteIt took Martin a considerable time to get the bomb door on the Seamaster to seal and rotate on any one flight, and that was in the late 50s.
The rotation of the bay isn't a major interest of mine -- my concern is simply that it could close and holds a seal
McGriegQuoteI'm a bit late to this discussion, but what about Tupolev's project 504?
Fascinating design, but god is that heavy!
QuoteThe bomb load of 1 x 6,000kg suggests a fuselage rather than a wing bomb bay but I haven't been able to find any information on how this would have been constructed.
At least it seems to be do-able.
What about wing mounted glide bombs as a possible payload for your strategic seaplane bomber. Or for your tactical needs how many rocket projectiles could a Sunderland carry.
You could try building the Blohm and Voss Ha.139 which looks like a Connie on floats and a kink in the wing.
As to the Connie /Sunderland combo this will run into problems .At what point do you add the hull ? It is very wide. Secondly you can use the shoulder mounted wing to the Connie .
I have two built Sunderlands in my stash that I could convert to the twin hull design ,.
I've been toying with the idea of making floats for an XB-35 kit I've had for a while. Do it up in faux 1947 continued WWII livery. I have a PBY fuselage I could trim down and rescale to fit.
Quote from: bigarv65 on August 24, 2013, 11:03:58 AM
I've been toying with the idea of making floats for an XB-35 kit I've had for a while. Do it up in faux 1947 continued WWII livery. I have a PBY fuselage I could trim down and rescale to fit.
Put it on two floats, it'll look like the little bro of Bel Geddes and Koller's
Airliner Number 4. ;D
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flifeandletters.la.utexas.edu%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F10%2F18-norman-bel-geddes-airliner-number-4.jpg&hash=4ef17c34cb9d71a533a3ecf1cbd69330fe630846)
Quote from: bigarv65 on August 24, 2013, 11:03:58 AM
I've been toying with the idea of making floats for an XB-35 kit I've had for a while. Do it up in faux 1947 continued WWII livery. I have a PBY fuselage I could trim down and rescale to fit.
Don't make floats - use the hull directly. It's a bold idea, but what about sawing the XB-35 up into a central "hull", and then with gull wings, so that stabilizer floats could be attached to the wing tips and the central fuselage used (or modified with an added boat hull) for bouyancy? No idea where to put the propellers, though, as this might be messy - maybe install podded engine nacelles on pylons on top of the wings? Should look odd... :rolleyes:
N1M-ish? ;D
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airwar.ru%2Fimage%2Fidop%2Fxplane%2Fn1m%2Fn1m-4.jpg&hash=67bf139f91ec2417114a3990a74130c4fd19ab8a)
... or perhaps like this fanciful 3-view from the January 1942 Air Trails.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi729.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww291%2Fjoncarrfarrelly%2FWING_AIR-TRAILS_1-42_01.png&hash=1ee911c3db2e2a90d12a32a66ba1095513a3f880)
Yup, sort of. Maybe with the kink more inwards, so that the tip parts are longer. :thumbsup:
I see what you're at. Almost like the Indiana Jones wing, lots of dihedral/anhedral angles to put the center of the "wing" in the water, with integrated floats further out on the wings where they dip back in. I would want to rework the props to get them well clear of the water.
I definitely saw it as a maritime anti-shipping bird, so torps on the wings and depth charges in the bays. Or maybe as a post-war air racing version...
I also still have the wings and engines to a B-36 Peacemaker. What should I do with those? (other than try to graft them to the b-35!)
The Ekranowing!
That B-29/ Sunderland is the bomb ! ( get it, the bomb ? :thumbsup: ) awesome stuff.
The flying wing boat idea is cool too...but it would be a time trying to keep it going in one direction, no ?
Lets assume you can get a conventional type bomb bay in the hull of a flying boat to seal. You'd then need to think about rearming the thing. Would you haul it out of the water every time (to do it from below like with a land based bomber) or would you make other arrangements - via a hatch on the side for example.
However, I think twin hulls is the way to go. Now i'm just spitballing here but what about twin Catalina hulls joined by a common centre section into which you mount a drastically shortened B17 fuselage (G obviously to get the maximum number of guns - basically cut it at the back of the bomb bay and clue the tail turret back on).
I'm also liking the idea of replacing the outboard blisters on the Cat' hulls with B17 ball turrets.
This is my first post. I would have introduced myself properly but I couldn't find an appropriate thread so please forgive me diving straight in. It seems I was "What Iffing" way back when without realising it. They're long gone now but the 5 engine B17, Twin jet butterfly tail Hawker Tempest and Combat Space Shuttle were particular favourites. And yes, they did indeed hang from my bedroom ceiling.
Quote from: zenrat on September 21, 2013, 03:55:56 AM
Lets assume you can get a conventional type bomb bay in the hull of a flying boat to seal. You'd then need to think about rearming the thing. Would you haul it out of the water every time (to do it from below like with a land based bomber) or would you make other arrangements - via a hatch on the side for example.
Martin solved all of that umpteen years ago with the P6M Seamaster. They got it all to work very well indeed, it was just that the USN lost the battle with the 'Great God' LeMay and had to can the project. :banghead:
Quote from: zenrat on September 21, 2013, 03:55:56 AM
This is my first post. I would have introduced myself properly but I couldn't find an appropriate thread so please forgive me diving straight in. It seems I was "What Iffing" way back when without realising it. They're long gone now but the 5 engine B17, Twin jet butterfly tail Hawker Tempest and Combat Space Shuttle were particular favourites. And yes, they did indeed hang from my bedroom ceiling.
Firstly welcome aboard. Secondly I think a lot of us started "What Iffing" without realising it, in some cases many, many years ago.
Like the idea of the Catalina/B17 cross
If you want to introduce yourself then you can find the appropriate slot here http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/board,82.0.html (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/board,82.0.html)
Chris
Quote from: PR19_Kit on September 21, 2013, 04:48:39 AM
Quote from: zenrat on September 21, 2013, 03:55:56 AM
Lets assume you can get a conventional type bomb bay in the hull of a flying boat to seal. You'd then need to think about rearming the thing. Would you haul it out of the water every time (to do it from below like with a land based bomber) or would you make other arrangements - via a hatch on the side for example.
Martin solved all of that umpteen years ago with the P6M Seamaster. They got it all to work very well indeed, it was just that the USN lost the battle with the 'Great God' LeMay and had to can the project. :banghead:
'Twasn't just Le May, the nascent strategic force airedales faced a far more tenacious enemy:
Hyman G. Rickover and the Nuclear Navy. Rickover and Co. needed money and were not going
to share. ;D
Quote from: NARSES2 on September 21, 2013, 06:54:56 AM
Quote from: zenrat on September 21, 2013, 03:55:56 AM
This is my first post...
Firstly welcome aboard. Secondly I think a lot of us started "What Iffing" without realising it, in some cases many, many years ago.
Like the idea of the Catalina/B17 cross
If you want to introduce yourself then you can find the appropriate slot here http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/board,82.0.html (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/board,82.0.html)
Chris
Thx Chris
I'm beginning to believe there's a flying boat bomber build brewing !
:tornado:
The one big selling point to the notion of "strategic" seaplane bombers in a 1930-40s setting would be refuel/refit at sea. Actually considered for attacks on N.America by the Japanese. Perhaps a US equivelent as an alternative to the B-29 basing issues. The plane would not nessisarily be an ultra-long range type either, being forward fueled before the attack by subs or even surface assets as the naval tide turned in the US's favor. Speed and altitude would be the likely design criteria of the day. However, as the logistics of huge numbers of seaplanes would be fierce, there might be an emphasis on fewer but bigger type/larger bomb load. A flying boat version of the XC-99 (easily reconsidered for the B-36) was actually designed. Or marry more B-29 features to the Sea Ranger, making it faster and higher flying. Or, without much of a stretch, put a boat hull under a B-24, (or B-32, to get wacky) though it would be short-legged if loaded down with a big bomb load.
One handy thing about big flying boats is that the available runway length is almost infinite, so you could just add power and thus speed until the thing decided to lift off. ;D
Quote from: PR19_Kit on September 22, 2013, 11:55:24 PM
One handy thing about big flying boats is that the available runway length is almost infinite, so you could just add power and thus speed until the thing decided to lift off. ;D
Logical and sensible, but flying boat hulls dislike hard, unyielding floaters in their take-off run. Keeping the water clear of rubbish would be a thankless task........and it has suddenly occurred to me, would an opponent seed likely operating bases with air dropped influence mines (magnetic or pressure, for instance)? I don't know if these would respond to a flying boat.
Even if they did the 'boat may be going so fast, over 100 kts, that the mine may not go off in time to actually damage the 'boat.
Having said that I have a vague idea that the RNAS mined a German flying boat somewhere in WWI but I bet it'll take some digging to find info on it.
Welcome on board.
One way to tackle the re-arming issue was the P6M SeaMaster's approach: it had a rotating bomb bay (Buccaneer style), what made sealing it easier, and actually the bomb bay could be re-filled from above, thorugh a dorsal opening (not certain if even a complete bomb bay could be inserted/replaced). Pretty convenient solution, as loeading bombs or mines on the water should be pretty tricky. No idea how this was done e. g. on P5Ms, which had bomb bays in the engine nacelles? Certainly from below, but I guess that loading in something from below from a boat would be hazardous...?
The Seamaster's loading hatch was aft of the wing trailing edge and the weapons were loaded one at a time into an internal conveyor that carried them forward to their correct positions on the bomb door. The crane that did the lifting and the hatch doors were all part of the airframe!
When on land the entire bomb door could be removed and replaced with another one, even with a different weapon load. They even flew it with a 'tanker door' which carried an FR refuelling hose reel and tested it with quite a few USN attack types. although none were real 'wet' transfers IRC.
Thanks a lot for the correction!
The oceans are big but the conditions in which the flying boats can operate are limited.
If the seas are too rough, your not taking off nor landing.
The dream in the '50s was to design maritime flying machines that could operate in
the open sea, lots of ideas were tested but none came to fruition.
But isn't that similar to gusting and cross-winds which affect landplanes? Both types have their limitations determined by the weather.
Nope, hard runways don't move up and down, unless of course your in a Bruckheimer film. ;)
Sea state is the killer.
If you have a big cross-wind they go sideways..........
And in a big downdraft they do go up and down!
Very few flying boats attempted landing in the open sea during WWII, those that did, invariably ended up damaged, if there was even mild conditions at the time. It wasn't so much once they were down, it was during the landing or take off run, where the hull might find itself trying to plow through even small waves at speeds where the water became rather "hard" and might stove in the hull which was, afterall, only a few millimetres thick at the most. Flying boats aren't built like ships, Kit, which are designed to withstand the waves and allow the ship to go up and down in time with the waves. When you add sideways movement caused by current and/or cross wind, then the flying boat could have real difficulties.
Jeepers creepers, how one statement can escalate into an entire war of words!
I WASN'T SUGEGSTING THAT THAT THEY LAND OR TAKE-OFF FROM THE OPEN SEA! :banghead:
What I said was 'One handy thing about big flying boats is that the available runway length is almost infinite, so you could just add power and thus speed until the thing decided to lift off.'
I've added the underline and emboldment to make my point.
Sea runways, wherever they happened to be, generally have much more scope to be lengthened than a land runway that has a finite length. I'd suggest Pembroke Dock or Foynes as examples, both of which offer 'runways' of more than ten miles in length.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on September 24, 2013, 12:21:15 AM
Sea runways, wherever they happened to be, generally have much more scope to be lengthened than a land runway that has a finite length. I'd suggest Pembroke Dock or Foynes as examples, both of which offer 'runways' of more than ten miles in length.
Might I also respectfully offer Lough Neagh, Windemere and even (monstrous obstacles permitting) Loch Ness. The fresh water would reduce corrosion issues.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on September 23, 2013, 07:21:20 AM
...When on land the entire bomb door could be removed and replaced with another one, even with a different weapon load. They even flew it with a 'tanker door' which carried an FR refuelling hose reel...
Did they have one carrying Thunderbird 4? ;D
Quote from: zenrat on September 24, 2013, 05:07:18 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on September 23, 2013, 07:21:20 AM
...When on land the entire bomb door could be removed and replaced with another one, even with a different weapon load. They even flew it with a 'tanker door' which carried an FR refuelling hose reel...
Did they have one carrying Thunderbird 4? ;D
Probably............ ;)
And even if they didn't we could do one like that here. Does anyone do a T'bird 4 kit in 1/72? I could slide one into my Seamaster when it's finished.
http://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y
;D
Precisely my point!