Could Martin Have Built...

[rickshaw]

Where does the payload go?   Anybody care to make an attempt at making a model of it?

[sandiego89]

Where does the payload go?   

If you are referring to the NAA concept 4 posts up, looks like a very standard bomb bay.  See the sausage shaped store below the front engine?  Looks like a bomb or fuel tank.   

Great WHIF there.  A plumbing nightmare in real world. 

Not sure I'd want to be the pilot in that thing with twin 50's right above my head and perhaps 6!, yes 6, 50's by my knees! 

[rickshaw]

Yes, I was referring to the NAA drawing.   I took that shape to be a fuel tank but looking more closely at it, it could be a bomb there.  If they are bombs, where are the fuel tanks?  Twin engines of that size would be thirsty beast, I think.

I think, made slightly larger, with proper tankage and perhaps a few less .50s it'd be an interesting aircraft.

[kitnut617]

I was going to say the bomb bays are pretty much like how they are on a Mixmaster, under the engine bays.

Neat how the radiators work too --

When you look at it, it's a very neat package for a four engine bomber

[jcf]

The info on the caption is all that I have. As to fuel, probably wet-wings along
with a fuel cell beneath the aft engine between the two(?) weapons bays.

[kitnut617]

From the neatness of the package, I would think quite a bit of thought and design went into it --

[wuzak]

Excellent picture Jon.

To me it looks like only fuel cells below the engines and no bomb bays.

The caption says something about it being a low level attacker, so it may have been a ground attack aircraft, or strafer. They may have needed something with a bit more kick than 0.50" if they wanted to attack anything other than soft targets.

If bombs were to be carried I expect they would be hung externally.

FWIW, Martin proposed a B-26 development with twin V-3420s.

The NAA drawing is a similar configuration to McDonnell's Type 1 proposal to R40C (which gave the XP-54, XP-55 and XP-56).

https://oldmachinepress.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/mcdonnell_model_1_apr-6-40.jpg

https://oldmachinepress.wordpress.com/2012/09/

Though the McDonnell only had one V-3420.

[jcf]

Definitely bombs forward of the wing beneath the forward engine, you can the fuze assemblies.

Actually easier to see in the printed image in North American Aircraft 1934-1998 Volume 1
by Norm Avery.

[kerick]

Interesting concept. Pilot field of vision could be a lot better. Lose the turrets and tail gunner and add fuel tanks. With those two engines it would need a LOT of fuel!

[KJ_Lesnick]

maxmwill

What about something similar to the XB42 Mixmaster?

Well in concept something fast, high-flying, and carrying a respectable bomb-load, yeah.

Of course as you said, similar to it, not the same: There are a number of traits about the XB-42 that I think are either bizarre, stupid, or outright idiotic.

Plus, I'd want something that would be entering service in 1944 (which would require a first flight of mid-1942) even if it would result in a smaller payload (4,000 pounds vs 8,000 pounds)


Joncarrfarrelly

'relatively low work-load', I suppose 5,226 B-26 and 536 B-29 plus 1,575 Baltimore plus sundry other products, including thousands of turrets and other equipment could be considered 'low'.

Compared to other companies?  It seems fairly low actually...

Something like this North American concept perhaps? 

Do you have any information when was this proposed?


Captain Canada

They should have just built Mosquitos !

In principle, I agree with you completely: The DH.98 was a design with enormous potential.  The only issues with the design happened to be that

- Major General H.H. Arnold did actually want Mosquito's:  Unfortunately, he didn't want them for bombers, but as reconnaissance birds (Admittedly, had we built them: It's possible there would have been bomber-variants constructed, as I do recall an experiment in which a Mosquito was fitted with a Norden)
- The bomb-bay could not fit 4 x 500 pound American bombs: The RAF's bombs had cylindrical tails which were about the same size or smaller than the bomb; the USAAF's were box-finned that were larger than the bomb's body, and technically, the Mosquito couldn't actually fit 4 x 500 pound RAF standard-issue bombs: It used a 500 pound body kluged to a 250 pound tail
- While USAAF bombers could probably be adapted to use RAF standard-issue bombs: The reverse is not the case, and I doubt we'd switch our bomb designs for this purpose, though who knows (I wouldn't bet on it)
- It would have had to been built to exact specification as some manufacturers thought the materials were primitive (Curtiss, interestingly proposed making a wooden transport and ended up using mahogany in the construction: Yes it was overweight)


Rickshaw

Yes, I was referring to the NAA drawing.   I took that shape to be a fuel tank but looking more closely at it, it could be a bomb there.  If they are bombs, where are the fuel tanks?  Twin engines of that size would be thirsty beast, I think.

Yeah, that's one of the things I don't like about the design: If the engines were in the wings, all that space where the engines are could be fuel-tanks or additional structural support members.


Kitnut617

Neat how the radiators work too

Interesting layout

[wuzak]

- Major General H.H. Arnold did actually want Mosquito's:  Unfortunately, he didn't want them for bombers, but as reconnaissance birds (Admittedly, had we built them: It's possible there would have been bomber-variants constructed, as I do recall an experiment in which a Mosquito was fitted with a Norden)

In 1944 or 1945.

Note that the USAAF mediums (B-25 and B-26) rarely, if ever, used the Norden. And after bombing tactics were altered to bomb on the leader's signal not many of teh heavy bombers did either.

- The bomb-bay could not fit 4 x 500 pound American bombs: The RAF's bombs had cylindrical tails which were about the same size or smaller than the bomb; the USAAF's were box-finned that were larger than the bomb's body, and technically, the Mosquito couldn't actually fit 4 x 500 pound RAF standard-issue bombs: It used a 500 pound body kluged to a 250 pound tail

The 500lb MC bombs did not have 250lb tails affixed. They were shortened 500lb units (they were, after all, two different body diameters). And these became standard issue once it was established that the accuracy was affected negligibly.

By the time the Mosquito bomber entered service the standard bomb load was 4 x 500lb MC or GP bombs.

A Mk IV was also experimentally fitted with 1 x 1000lb GP (just off centre, forward bomb bay) and 2 x 500lb. Note that the 1000lb GP bomb was smaller in diameter than the later 1000lb MC bomb and carried about half the explosive charge.

Summary of bombs that were test fitted to Mosquito B.IX LR495 (standard bomb bay).



   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

No	Type	Stations
2*	100lb AS	5-6
6*	120lb Smoke	1-2-3-4-5-6
4	200lb Smoke Float	3-4-5-6
6	250lb SAP	1-2-3-4-5-6
4	250lb AS	3-4-5-6
4	250lb LC	3-4-5-6
2*	250lb B	5-6
6*	250lb DC	1-2-3-4-5-6
6	250lb GP	1-2-3-4-5-6
2*	250lb SCI	5-6
2	325lb DC	5-6
4*	400lb SCI S/L	3-4-5-6
6	500lb MC	1-2-3-4-5-6
4	500lb SAP	3-4-5-6
2	500lb AN M43	5-6
6	500lb AN M58	1-2-3-4-5-6
4*	500lb LC.II	3-4-5-6
6	500lb GP	1-2-3-4-5-6
2*	500lb SCI	5-6

AS = Anti-submarine
SAP = Semi-Armour Piercing
LC = Light Case (Chemical)
B = Buoyancy
DC = Depth Charge
GP = General Purpose
SCI = Smoke Canister
MC = Medium Capacity - basically a later version of the GP bomb with higher charge to weight ratio (~50% vs ~25-30%)

Order of release of bombs was:
No 1 - rear starboard fuselage
No 2 - rear port fuselage
No 3 - forward port fuselage
No 4 - forward starboard fuselage
No 5 - starboard wing
No 6 - port wing

The AN M43 and AN M58 were US bombs. The AN M43 could not be carried in the fuselage stations as the doors would not close.

The AN M58 was a SAP bomb with lower chareg to weight ratio.

- While USAAF bombers could probably be adapted to use RAF standard-issue bombs: The reverse is not the case, and I doubt we'd switch our bomb designs for this purpose, though who knows (I wouldn't bet on it)

For much of the war British and American bombs were fitted with both the single lug (British) and twin lug (American) system of carriage.

- It would have had to been built to exact specification as some manufacturers thought the materials were primitive (Curtiss, interestingly proposed making a wooden transport and ended up using mahogany in the construction: Yes it was overweight)

The construction of teh Mosquito wasn't a simple wooden structure. It was a composite, stressed skin design. I suspect the Curtiss transport suffered from a) using homogenous materials and b) being of Curtiss design and manufacture (Curtiss built P-47s, for example, were said to be of low quality).

[jcf]

If one reads Col. Sessums report, the source cited on the C-76 Wiki page, and the supposed source of the 'insisting instead on a ply construction of dense mahogany, which greatly increased the plane's weight' line on the page
you'll see that Sessum's makes no such statement, rather he details Curtiss incompetence in design and sub-contracting:
"It was to be built out of mahogany and we laid in great supplies of mahogany for it and the Curtiss Company obtained a group of furniture manufacturers and delegated the various components of the airplane to be built in small parts and assembled in Louisville.
Well, each furniture man would have to come then, of course, to find out how to build this structure. He was told by the Curtiss Company and he would go back and maybe he was building the rudder or the horizontal stabilizer. He would build this piece and bring it back to the Curtiss plant where they would test it and it would probably break so they told him to glue more strips here and there and try it again. Well, after a year or so, the various components passed the test and the airplane was assembled but as they rolled it out on the flying line-- the usual procedure is to weigh the airplane before it takes off so they can see that the balance is correct and so forth--they weighed this thing in, the weight empty, of the airplane, was slightly in excess of what it was supposed to be when it was fully loaded. So it essentially was a pursuit ship--one man pilot.
In the previous paragraph he does come across as miffed that Curtiss ignored the work on materials he and his colleagues had done in the early stages of the project. 

https://digitalndulibrary.ndu.edu/u?/icafarchive,300

The notion that mahogany is too dense for aircraft construction is belied by the successful use of the material in lightweight boat and aircraft construction from the 1890s and on. Do a search on Saunders 'Consuta" if you want a good example. It was not the choice of material that doomed the C-76, it was a combination of Curtiss incompetence and the rapid expansion of aluminum production capability, the feared critical shortage never happened.

We'll leave the issue as to what they were referring to with use of the word 'mahogany' to another day,
suffice to say that it is a word/term that covers a vast range of possibilities.

[KJ_Lesnick]

I didn't know that...

[kitnut617]

Where does the payload go?   Anybody care to make an attempt at making a model of it?

It looks like the idea was developed into this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/North_American_XB-45_cutaway_drawing_061020-F-1234S-019.jpg

[KJ_Lesnick]

The XB-45 looks bigger...