Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Best All-Around Fighter of World War II
sentinel28a    10/13/2009 3:38:03 PM
Let's try a non-controversial topic, shall we? (Heh heh.) I'll submit the P-51 for consideration. BW and FS, if you come on here and say that the Rafale was the best fighter of WWII, I am going to fly over to France and personally beat you senseless with Obama's ego. (However, feel free to talk about the D.520.)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Belisarius1234       2/15/2013 4:58:13 PM
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8110/8477449546_5885556ff0_z.jpg" height="559" width="640" /> http://www.flickr.com/photos/58358250@N00/8477449546/in/photostream" />
There are a lot of things you can do to create Zergs, SL, but if you are after the Ruhr dams, you have to have the Lancaster.  
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/18/2013 2:57:49 AM
A couple of points, firstly you dont realy want your navigator under the bubble, he requires light to work with and light to a night bomber is a no no, if you have im under the bubble you then need to box him in, in such a away to prevent light spillage ( a compartment behind the bubble is better (as the lancaster had)
 
secondly he rear turret, 4x .5 is a bit much, IIRC there was never a opeational turret like this, 4x303 yes and 3x .5 yes but 4x.5?  a better bet would be the 2x20mm or even 1x20mm (20mm was the prefered choice post war )
 
a glazed "dome" nose like the one fitted to the halifax would be better than that greenhouse
 
also those merlin installations, the "podded" merlin was designed for the Beaufighter, it was not the best fit aerodynamically, this was an area where a big gain in performace could bemade 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234       2/18/2013 8:49:54 AM
ONBW wrote:
A couple of points, firstly you dont realy want your navigator under the bubble, he requires light to work with and light to a night bomber is a no no, if you have im under the bubble you then need to box him in, in such a away to prevent light spillage ( a compartment behind the bubble is better (as the lancaster had)
 
Redlight the cockpit and issue glasses. That pilot has a lighted instrument panel.  Most of the navigation by 1942-1943 is by RADIO or starlight, so he is working in the dark anyway. If he has to read maps or aerial photos, then the redlight and goggles.     
 
2. The 0.50 has 2x the reach of a 0.30 and is in plentiful supply. The US made more of those then the 0.30. The stupid thing is reliable and effective .
 
 
Do you know what that thing is that he works on in the photo?  4 x 0.50's
OBNW wrote;
a glazed "dome" nose like the one fitted to the halifax would be better than that greenhouse
 
Bullet resistant plex and blow-out panels at the entry/exit panels. Greenhouse. Flat is easier to make than curved. .. The propeller disk is where the DRAG is, so do for the bomber what you did for the fighters, use fat paddle shaped propeller blades.  Improve THRUST.    Manufacture of standard engine mounts saves time, and the savings in parasitic drag at the cowl is insignificant.
 
B.
 
==============================================
OBNW  wrote:
also those Merlin installations, the "podded" Merlin was designed for the Beaufighter, it was not the best fit aerodynamically, this was an area where a big gain in performace could be made 

 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Error.   2/18/2013 9:07:17 AM
That armorer in the photo is NOT John Moses Browning, though the remote turret is an experimental aircraft installation test rig.
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/18/2013 9:18:58 AM
The problem with redlight is that maps end up as two colour, is that a road or rail or canal?
 
the problem with flats pepex is that it need frame work and that induces drag, the smooth single peice perspex nose is best have your paneles behind it by all means
 
that 4 gun .5 mount is dorsal one off a B29 I think and is unmanned, remote controled from one of several aiming positions, are you wanting a remote conrol turret in the rear as this was generally regarded as being not much better than nothing, even the 4x303 was regarded as more efficient
 
I have read that supplies of the .5 were slow, significant supplies didnt start reaching the UK untill 41 despite the UK having US made aircraft with the .5 as standard, (earl deliveries were pretty much restricted to replacement of existing units)
 
actually the cowling of an engine is aerodyanmic critical, even stuck behind the prop the drag of a poor design  (not that the Pod merlin was poor just compromised) had significant effect of drag, had you designed the unit to work with the wing  a gain in performance could have been achieved, look at the difference between that of the halifax and the Lanc or for that matter the later Lanc with the anual radiators 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234       2/18/2013 12:35:14 PM
ONBW wrote:
 
The problem with red-light is that maps end up as two colour, is that a road or rail or canal? 
B writes;
That's the problem with photographic bombing maps in general. Deal with it. Use the appropriate IR inks. Those exist and were known. US used them.
 
OBNW writes:
The problem with flat perspex is that it needs frame work and that induces drag, the smooth single piece perspex nose is best have your paneles behind it by all means
B said
That nose, okay, I see your good point, but didn't you mean CANOPY, too? There you don't have a choice. You have to have blow-out panels for either manual bail-out or ejector seat. That sheeting is THICK and HEAVY. Ease of manufacture is the key, time and expense likewise. Tradeoffs are acceptable.
 
OBNW wrote:
 That 4 gun .5 mount is dorsal one off a B29 I think and is unmanned, remote controled from one of several aiming positions, are you wanting a remote conrol turret in the rear as this was generally regarded as being not much better than nothing, even the 4x303 was regarded as more efficient.
 
B writes:
British RAF opinion, and as the USAAF proved in combat; a wrong one. The remotes worked very well. Easier to stabilize in 2-d, traverse, elevate; smaller, and weighed MUCH less, so more ammo aboard. Easier to bail out the gunner from an observer blister too.   
 
OBNW wrote:
I have read that supplies of the .5 were slow, significant supplies didn't start reaching the UK until 41 despite the UK having US-made aircraft with the .5 as standard, (earl deliveries were pretty much restricted to replacement of existing units).
 
B writes: 
a. The Lancaster wasn't made until '41.
b. Lessons learned wouldn't be applied until '42 at the earliest.
c. I would need a source on the M-2 shortage, because that is not my understanding.  I could be wrong That was generally not the case on this side of the duckpond from '40 onward, as that stupid hunk of iron was nowhere as difficult to manufacture as its gas operated European competitors. In fact the reason we stuck with it all the way into Korea was because it was the ONE machine gun we could make that wasn't a piece of CRAP; either in the 0.30, or the 0.50.
OBNW wrote:
Actually the cowling of an engine is aerodyanmic critical, even stuck behind the prop the drag of a poor design  (not that the Pod merlin was poor just compromised) had significant effect of drag, had you designed the unit to work with the wing  a gain in performance could have been achieved, look at the difference between that of the Halifax and the Lanc or for that matter the later Lanc with the annular radiators;
 
B. writes:
Not making myself clear, before so I explain. When you fiddle with the cowl geometry, you start modifying criticals such as plumbing, external air cooling  flow around an ICE block and its radiators. As you apply lessons learned you can change the power-egg arrangement as installed in the factory, but that is COMPLEX and more uncertain as to result. Changing the propeller geometry is a LOT simpler, easier and yields immediate benefit with field retrofit without fouling things up on the factory floor. 
 
Time is the driver. You want to keep those bombers rolling out as fast as you can with as little down time as possible, while improving them as much as you can. That is why the Dyson special is essentially a MB III modified with manual bailout through the canopy for the main crew and a better tailgun that fits in the existing B III balcony space. The bomb-aimer goes out the nose-belly trapdoor (How he enters) while the gunner climbs through the roof hatch on his turret to jump.
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    About entry and exit.   2/18/2013 12:59:32 PM
Minimal practical changes to the fuselage as possible
 
I want to eliminate as many openings in the fuselage frame as possible. That greenhouse canopy is where I put the 'door' (hatches)  for the main crew. The bomb-aimer gets a trap-door entry hatch in the nose belly that is his entry and bail-out route. The gunner might as well enter and exit through the roof of his turret (How did he squeeze in through that rear door? GAH!) 
 
How do the crew reach these inaccessible top-entry points you ask?
 
Ladders. and they walk on top of the bomber to reach their hatches.
 
Why make things so awkward? 
 
If you look at the Lancaster as built:
 
 
you see many detours of hydraulics and electrical around hatches and entryways. The hatches themselves are located at structure break points. That makes me an unhappy camper. If I can shorten bail-out paths, simplify fuselage construction, make pneumatic, wire, and hydraulic runs shorter, less kinked, and ARMOR those runs in hard-pipe because they are straight without as many hose interrupts and pass throughs; especially if I can get the main hydraulics above the bomb bay roof-pan, I'm a happy camper. The crew can walk on the Lancaster roof to get to their hatches and climb ladders. NBD.
 
And since the gunner drops into his turret instead of climbing in through the back, he can wear his parachute seat cushion.  
 
No Heinkel seats, either, but when its six feet and out instead of sixteen  to twenty as escape paths with no other crew and chairs between you and outside, that is 2 seconds versus 15 seconds. Your survival odds just tripled. (except the gunner, I consider him dead meat no matter what I try.)   
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/18/2013 1:56:55 PM
b
 
when the .5 turret was finally completed and fitted to Lanc the gunner could carry the parachute (seat cusion type) and the accepted method of leaving was to dive head first between guns
 
as for the shortage, I believe it was a case of production being always behind demand and the US taking priority
 
the US did seem to have problems with machine gun and cannon design after Browning
 
as for gas operated, the majority of european guns were also blowback designs, only the lewis and vickers were gas operated (usually used as a hand held defensive gun in obsolite designs or in non effective roles like the nose of a Halifax where it wasnt expected to do anything)
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/18/2013 2:13:45 PM
That's the problem with photographic bombing maps in general. Deal with it. Use the appropriate IR inks. Those exist and were known. US used them.
a lot of work to counter a issue that didnt exist
 
that nose, okay, I see your good point, but didn't you mean CANOPY, too? There you don't have a choice. You have to have blow-out panels for either manual bail-out or ejector seat. That sheeting is THICK and HEAVY. Ease of manufacture is the key, time and expense likewise. Tradeoffs are acceptable.
 
no canopy i agree was not practical, it was also a problem for your ejector seats and you need to ensure the exit route is clear
 
B writes:
British RAF opinion, and as the USAAF proved in combat; a wrong one. The remotes worked very well. Easier to stabilize in 2-d, traverse, elevate; smaller, and weighed MUCH less, so more ammo aboard. Easier to bail out the gunner from an observer blister too.  
problem was that at time positioning your gunner so far away from your turret meant that his view was virtualy non existant, the manned tail turret was the most effective defense during the war period
B writes:
a. The Lancaster wasn't made until '41.
and the turret to take .5s didnt arrive to 43/44 they did try US b24 liberator units but they were incompatable with british planes (electrical vs hydrollic iirc)
 
OBNW wrote:
Actually the cowling of an engine is aerodyanmic critical, even stuck behind the prop the drag of a poor design  (not that the Pod merlin was poor just compromised) had significant effect of drag, had you designed the unit to work with the wing  a gain in performance could have been achieved, look at the difference between that of the Halifax and the Lanc or for that matter the later Lanc with the annular radiators;
B. writes:
Not making myself clear, before so I explain. When you fiddle with the cowl geometry, you start modifying criticals such as plumbing, external air cooling  flow around an ICE block and its radiators. As you apply lessons learned you can change the power-egg arrangement as installed in the factory, but that is COMPLEX and more uncertain as to result. Changing the propeller geometry is a LOT simpler, easier and yields immediate benefit with field retrofit without fouling things up on the factory floor.
 
prop design was still a art rather than science not all developments worked on all airframes, it is often a tradeoff of speed and climb, the power egg was not even AVRO but was a joint development between RR and Bristol and was initialy a tempory arangement until AVRO could build its own merlin instalation but were good enough until the annular radiator installation arrived
Time is the driver. You want to keep those bombers rolling out as fast as you can with as little down time as possible, while improving them as much as you can. That is why the Dyson special is essentially a MB III modified with manual bailout through the canopy for the main crew and a better tailgun that fits in the existing B III balcony space. The bomb-aimer goes out the nose-belly trapdoor (How he enters) while the gunner climbs through the roof hatch on his turret to jump.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/18/2013 4:38:47 PM

Given the absolute fact that the USAAF flew more sories, 762,462, dropped more bombs, 1,396,816 tons,
Yes it does, but it also includes light and medium bombers.
so wait aminute you include light and medium figures????? adn the compair them agaisnt Lancaster figures as if thats comparable? or are you compairing it agaisnt BC figures in which case the fact that the USSAF was much much bigger might be a factor might it not? god you decoming more and more dishonest
Yes, I did. Either you comp American Heavies Vs RAF heavies, or all Vs all, because using the Mosquito WO comping it to American twin engined bombers seems limp to me. So is it the fact that the B-17 flew more missions,(>291K!) in less time( One year less!) dropping more bombs(>640Kt!) than the Lanc and the rest of RAF Heavies, or is it the fact that the entire USAAF dropped about 40% more tons of bombs than the entire RAF during the entire War?
 
DOES IT? because it does not seem that way from the reports if you look at comparable missions, in fact in like for like missions the B17 shows rather badly
Sources for this bogus claim? Exactly how many day light missions did the RAF fly?


 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics