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    OBNM   2/6/2013 7:36:33 AM
 
British (carriers) and American (shackles).
 
 
All you ever wanted to know on HOW  and what used the USAAF bombardier what did his job, along with the tools-including the bomb shackles used.
 
After a cursory analysis, you'll find that cut-and-paste boy took things out of context, did not understand what he posted, and why his objections were BS again.
 
In sum, the B-17's already draggy problem with all those blisters, bubbles, guns and whatnot hanging off were made worse by the EXTERNAL load hung off the wings (It's called internal volume, Stuart, you can only hang so many bombs into the racks of a B-17 before you run out of hang points or foul fall paths). Once over the standard load (3 tons) you started to trade fuel for bombs, which cut range further.
 
About 17,600 pounds. as you say that was MAX overloaded airframe condition. But if you refer back to  my Aphrodite citation, you will find that the aircraft (B-17, the B-24 carried more) about 15 tons of torpex. It was almost impossible to fly the plane safely-even remotely. so overloaded.  Half the losses were due to tele-operator  error, half to Flak. NONE dropped bombs. And NONE exceeded their normal overload condition as 12,000 pounds of gear was stripped out, to add to the normal 8,000 lb bomb-load for 20,000 lbs normal burden with another 10,000 pounds added as 'overload'. So where Shooter gets his 17,600 pounds BULL is beyond me.
 
Mex airframe overload by the way is UNFLYABLE condition. 
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/8/2013 7:36:33 PM


This is OPERATIONAL data from the USSBS which I regard as DEFINITIVE 

B-17G:
Empty Weight: 38,000lb
Loaded weight: 65,500lb
Max Bomb Load: 9,600lb
Range: 1200 miles with 6,000lb

 If Stuart wants to insist that a B-17G could carry 9600 lbs of bombs,
 plus the usual caveat of never been inside a B-17 and knows NOTHING about what I claim to know about it.  You see, having just a little money and living almost next to Oshkosh, Wi, I've actually bought TWO rides!
when are you taking them?  when you do have a look in the bomb bay

 

I took both rides back in the late '80s and early '90s. I also drive out to Dayton, OH to see the Museum of the USAF at least once a year. My Mother's family is from out there, she visits and I crawl through the museum for three to four days. I always ask if I can step over the railings to take close up pics and measure things. They do not mind if I do not touch anything with my bare fingers. I have several sets of white cotton gloves. Last summer I drove out to the east coast to visit a dozen museums. I spent two weeks on the road, car camping in my Dodge Grand Caravan SXT. last winter I drove out to california to see the sights, visit half a dozen museums and interview with a movie studio. I was turned down, but still seem to have had more fun than all the rest of you guys put together?

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/8/2013 8:06:17 PM

He is trying to take us for fools
then he says 3750 failing to mention that this is ferry range and not operational
That IS the "Maximum" "Still Air" operational range with 4,000 pounds of bombs and all other ammo and crew.
 
-I never said anything, I just quoted the Boeing Inc. website!
 
No you were either taking us for fools or you completely failed to comprehend the facts which is it?  we were saying short ranged with normal bomb load and in any oveload would have miniscule range and what do you post A FERRY range
No, it is you that have not listened. Altitude is one of the prime criteria for load and range. The higher you fly, the less you carry and shorter range you go! The B-17 is the more aerodynamic plane of the two! Lancaster and B-17. It is not even close! If the Lancaster had to leave enough bombs on the ground back at base to equal the B-17's ceiling, it could not cary as many bombs nearly as far! That IS the entirety of the argument! Nothing else matters. That range and load are fungable is also beyound dispute. Or wait, do you dispute that range and load are inversely linked? The B-17 had more aspect ratio, better form factor, more efficient engines with better SFC and more fuel tankage. ALL things that the Lanc could not equal.

then he claims that he can prove the lanc didnt carry 2x grandslam yet failed to do so, No, I said "I can Prove it did not cary two Grand Slams!"  Proof, they will not fit between the plane's belly, the ground and the inside edge of the prop disks! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Avro_Lancaster.png
link /> 
 

he claims that a diagram You posted, not me and that diagran does show 34 shackles! he refers to doesnt show 34 shackles that can carry 440lbs incedaries (he thinks for some reason that all the shackles can be used at use, none of these shackles couldnt possibly block each other.... I never said one way or the other, but the plane does have 34 shackles and the weight each can cary changes with batch number and date of manufacture.

not in your mounth but your posts are certainly treating us as if we are, That is because I am trying to make a point that any rational adult can see. But you continue to ignore the points like range and load are fungable. How do you explain something that simple to any person who fails to understand it seven times so far? 

The basic argument is;
1. The B-17G has the same MTO and a smaller EEW than the Lancaster, which means more disposable load.
2. The B-17G has more fuel tankage than the Lanc.
3. The B-17G has more efficient engines( power pack/instalation) than the Lanc.
4. The B-17 is faster at the same weight than the lancaster on less power, therefore it is more aerodyanamic than the Lancaster!
5. The B-17G has been listed in more books and web pages with a 17,600 pound bomb load than you can shake a stick at. That the entire bay and shackle system is cappable of holding that weight is also not open to dispute. But what you are confused by is your and my failure to find any refferance that it did, or did not carry that weight of bombs on any operational sourte. 
6. The Lancaster was in service for how many years before the B-17 came in service and yet with so many extra years to do so, it barely carried more bombs than the B-17 fleet did in less than two years. That the "AVERAGE" bomb load of the Lanc was just under 7,000 pounds because range and load are fungable!
7. If the Lanc could cary 14-18,000 pounds of bombs, why is it's AVERAGE bomb load just under 7,000 pounds. The simple answer is that range, altitude and load are all interchangable.

 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/8/2013 8:29:21 PM

 
It is a package containing 21, = 3 X 7 20 pound incendiaries. I am looking for a better and still current link
4560lbs?
No, that was 3 X 7 @ 20 lbs = 21 X 440 Lbs. But I was mistaken, that was the pay load, not the "All Up Weight" which was about 490 pounds for the entire cluster. Which is I believe either the Mk-46, or Mk-47 cluster incendiary bomb. Note that the early versions of same had a substantial fuse that protruded from the other wise flat nose. Failed to find a pic since starting this reply, but some one else did post a link, I just can not find it at this time.
 

Still looking for the link to this type of weapon. Help much liked!

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/8/2013 9:04:59 PM

 

In sum, the B-17's already draggy problem with all those blisters, bubbles, guns and whatnot hanging off were made worse by the EXTERNAL load hung off the wings True, external loads do cause extra drag! (It's called internal volume, Stuart, you can only hang so many bombs into the racks of a B-17 True and that number is 34 bombs! before you run out of hang points or foul fall paths). A-Ha! it is not possible to foul the path of any bomb in a B-17, unless the bombs that were let go first failed to drop! Which by the way was a common thing in all AFs! Once over the standard load (3 tons) you started to trade fuel for bombs, which cut range further. Again, not true at all! See; EEW ~36,500 pounds, plus 10 crew at 200 pounds each = 2,000 pounds, 5,200 rounds of linked .50 Caliber = 1,582 pounds, 2,780 gallons of gas = full tanks, inc the "Tokyo" tanks = 17,792 pounds, engine oil = 156 Gallons = 1,123 pounds, OR 58,997 pounds grand total less bombs. Over load weight = 72,000 pounds leaves 13,003 pounds of bombs at maximum over load weight. At the more normal over load weight of 65,000 pounds it leaves 6,003 pounds of bombs for a maximum range attack. You can figure out how far a B-17 can fly in 2,780 gallons of Avgas. As an aside, the normal opperating weight of the B-17 was about 56,000 pounds sacrificeing both fuel and bombs to get to the required operational ceiling.

About 17,600 pounds. as you say that was MAX overloaded airframe condition. But if you refer back to  my Aphrodite citation, Why, it is not realivant to this argument! 

Mex airframe overload by the way is UNFLYABLE condition. Boeing Aircraft Co certainly disputes this claim!
B.

See the above math for explanation of the various conditions of operation.

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    Reply part two!   2/8/2013 9:11:47 PM

In sum, the B-17's already draggy problem with all those blisters, bubbles, guns and whatnot hanging off
This is the rub! You think that even with all the excreances "Hanging off" of the B-17 that it is a less aerodynamic aircraft than the lancaster? Why on earth would you draw that conclusion? Published speeds are either the same or faster depending on the model of B-17! At no time is the Lancaster faster than the B-17, even when you consider that it has more powerful engines! At no time can the Lanc reach normal operational altitudes of the B-17! Even the 3 dozen or so stripped "Specials" were not as fast or high flying as the average B-17! So how on earth do you figure that the Lanc was the more aerodynamic plan e?
I mean serious ly! 
B.



 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    In case its not clear.   2/8/2013 9:32:53 PM
Nothing you say, Stuart, amounts to a hill of beans. That's more or less why no one is bothering with your BS any more. So go ahead and debate yourself. No one else cares.  
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/10/2013 1:42:16 PM
He is trying to take us for fools then he says 3750 failing to mention that this is ferry range and not operational That IS the "Maximum" "Still Air" operational range with 4,000 pounds of bombs and all other ammo and crew.
 
no its not, least thats not what it says, it the maximum range ie ferry range NOT operational, why can you not understand that!

I never said anything, I just quoted the Boeing Inc. website
 
in answer to a post, that implies that the Boeing web site supports you view which it doesnt
 you post A FERRY range
No, it is you that have not listened.
Altitude is one of the prime criteria for load and range.
it may be but that does not mean it can fly 3000+ with a bomnb load because it could do that with evena full crew and ammo
 
 
 The higher you fly, the less you carry and shorter range you go!
and?
 
The B-17 is the more aerodynamic plane of the two! Lancaster and B-17. It is not even close! If the Lancaster had to leave enough bombs on the ground back at base to equal the B-17's ceiling,
er no, the wing on the Lanc restriced its ceiling not its bomb load, it could and did reach berlin with 10000lb+ at 24000+ , it was never designed to operate at > 30000ft so why would it be an issue? and as the B17 rarely operated at > 26000ft
 
and as the B17 couldnt carry the bomb load of a Lanc its a one sided argument
 
 it could not cary as many bombs nearly as far! That IS the entirety of the argument! Nothing else matters. That range and load are fungable is also beyound dispute.
within limits (this is the bit you fail to understand you cannot trade one off against the other indefinately thier is a point at which there is nothing left to trade
 
 Or wait, do you dispute that range and load are inversely linked?
 
no, I dispute that if you can only carry 2000lbs to berlin than your bomber is not as efficient as mine that carries 14000lbs to berlin, yes you can carry 8000lbs and trade off range, but that means I fly to russia and you fly to belgium
 
The B-17 had more aspect ratio, better form factor, more efficient engines with better SFC and more fuel tankage. ALL things that the Lanc could not equal.
History says not, its a fact that Lancs took 14000lbs to berlin something beyond a B17 capability, so either your tankage is wrong, your efficeincy is wrong or you form factor is wrong - your choice
 
then he claims that he can prove the lanc didnt carry 2x grandslam yet failed to do so, No, I said "I can Prove it did not cary two Grand Slams!"  Proof, they will not fit between the plane's belly, the ground and the inside edge of the prop disks! See: link... />
 
are you a moron? a Lanc carried 1 Grand slam without the bomb reaching the props, it also carried in with the width of the bay,  nothing on that plan would indicate  that 2 could not be carried side by side, we are taking a Lanc here NOT a B17
 
That is because I am trying to make a point that any rational adult can see. But you continue to ignore the points like range and load are fungable. How do you explain something that simple to any person who fails to understand it seven times so far?
Because what you claim is not rational, me and everyother poster can see the flaws in your argument yet you cannot and yet you claim to be a trained analyst but cannot consider your premise to be inn error despite the evidence.
 
you claim evidence and yet fail to post it, you come up with trite phrases like " range and load are fungable" yet you seem to fail to understand that this can ONLY OCCUR WITHIN BOUNDARIES, the B17 already traded load off against range inthat upto the G model half the bomb bay was taken up with fuel bladders to enable it to reach the target
 
the basic point is that the small bomb bay of the B17 and the limited tankage of the pre Tokyo tanked G models means that it was a poor heavy bomber
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/10/2013 2:28:22 PM
It is a package containing 21, = 3 X 7 20 pound incendiaries.
  
I am looking for a better and still current link
4560lbs? No, that was 3 X 7 @ 20 lbs = 21 X 440 Lbs.
what? you making these figures up as you go along? the only WW2 US bomb of 20lbs was a fragmentation bomb dropped in 120lbs clusters
and what does 3x7 @ 20lbs mean? 3 x20lbs bomb i get, 7x 20lbs i get but 3x7 @20bs would seem to mean that they were in a 140lbs container and then three of these were what? strapped together (well, despite no such container existings) yet this is not what you claim this alledged picture shows as that would be 63 bombs being dropped not 30 odd!
 
 But I was mistaken, that was the pay load, not the "All Up Weight" which was about 490 pounds for the entire cluster.
so we are talking the 500lbs container then, but wait that was 4lbs incendaries not 20lbs,
and they are VERY distinctive
 
 Which is I believe either the Mk-46, or Mk-47 cluster incendiary bomb. Note that the early versions of same had a substantial fuse that protruded from the other wise flat nose.
 
no they didnt, Mk 46 and Mk 47 were Navy bombs and as such never used on B17s
 and was between 90lbs and 110lbs depending on the model
 and a M46 was a photo flash bomb
 
oh and the US bomb dispenser never had substantial nose fuses
 
 Failed to find a pic since starting this reply, but some one else did post a link, I just can not find it at this time.
 
 what an amazing supprise you cannot back up your claim, well thats never happened before  has it? oh no wait it always happens
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/10/2013 2:38:23 PM

In sum, the B-17's already draggy problem with all those blisters, bubbles, guns and whatnot hanging off were made worse by the EXTERNAL load hung off the wings True, external loads do cause extra drag! (It's called internal volume, Stuart, you can only hang so many bombs into the racks of a B-17 True and that number is 34 bombs!
 
yes if you want to fly with 34 x 100lbs then it can, but if you want anything bigger then its a lot less than 34
 
 before you run out of hang points or foul fall paths). A-Ha! it is not possible to foul the path of any bomb in a B-17, unless the bombs that were let go first failed to drop!
its easy to fowl a shackle, a single 250lbs bomb will cover 3 shackle mounting points, it rather dificult to mount a bomb when thier is already one in the way
 
Which by the way was a common thing in all AFs! Once over the standard load (3 tons) you started to trade fuel for bombs, which cut range further. Again, not true at all! See; EEW ~36,500 pounds, plus 10 crew at 200 pounds each = 2,000 pounds, 5,200 rounds of linked .50 Caliber = 1,582 pounds, 2,780 gallons of gas = full tanks, inc the "Tokyo" tanks = 17,792 pounds, engine oil = 156 Gallons = 1,123 pounds, OR 58,997 pounds grand total less bombs. Over load weight = 72,000 pounds leaves 13,003 pounds of bombs at maximum over load weight. At the more normal over load weight of 65,000 pounds it leaves 6,003 pounds of bombs for a maximum range attack.
yes ONCE you get the tokyo tanks and as you cannot carry 13000lbs of bombs that figure is irrelavent
 
 You can figure out how far a B-17 can fly in 2,780 gallons of Avgas. As an aside, the normal opperating weight of the B-17 was about 56,000 pounds sacrificeing both fuel and bombs to get to the required operational ceiling.
yet they still bombed with 3000lbs from less than 20000feet!, why?
 
Mex airframe overload by the way is UNFLYABLE condition. Boeing Aircraft Co certainly disputes this claim!
 
where? I do not see such a claim
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics