Doolittle's Whiffers!?!?

[Acree]

My next project involves this question: What if, in 1939 when the NA-40 crashed, instead of cancelling the attack bomber competition, the USAAC had simply declared the Martin 167 the outright winner.  Answer:  there might never have been a B-25 Mitchell.  Many other questions arise from that - among which: "what would have happened during Doolittle's Raid?"  "What kind of plane would Pappy Gunn have modified to carry a 75mm Howitzer (or would he?)?" etc., etc.   Well, for now I am focusing on the Doolittle part of the fantasy.  NOTE: this does not reflect any dislike of the B-25 on my part! 

With all those Martin 167s around (would they have been called A-22s, or would they have picked up the B-25 designation?  Would they even have been called Mitchell?), could Doolittle have pulled off his raid with the Martin attack bomber?  Preliminary investigation shows that just maybe he could have.  Here is a little chart showing pertinent details of the original prototypes in the attack bomber competition (NA-40, Douglas 7B and Martin 167/XA-22).  The only question not shown here is whether the short takeoff technique could have been developed with the Martin.  I don't see why not.

Aircraft        Range             Speed           Bombload         Loaded Wt.      Wingspan
NA-40      1176 miles        265 mph         1200 #s         19,741 #s              66' 0"
7B            1555 miles       304 mph          2000 #s         15,200 #s             61' 0"
XA-22       1200 miles       304 mph          1760 #s         15,297 #s             61' 4"

So, my XA-22-based Doolittle raider is on the way... parts on order. 

One last thought... I originally wanted to do the Ruptured Duck as an A-22, but it never would have gotten that name with an A-22 - that came from a tail-scrape on takeoff in the B-25 that the A-22 could not do with a tailwheel!  So, It probably won't be the Duck (but I might do it anyway).
Thoughts?

[tigercat2]

I have always been a big fan of the Maryland, aka A-22; and you are probably right, it could have done the Doolittle Raid.  Here are my two Marylands, one as an A-22 in USAAF service.


Wes W.

[Acree]

Nice job, Wes.  What kit did you use? 

Mine of course will be in pretty plain markings: olive drab over neutral gray.  Just to give it that Doolittle Raiders touch, I will do either "Ruptured Duck" (with a rewritten back-story) or "Hari-Carrier."  I was also considering a posing her on a section of Hornet deck, if I am ambitious enough.

Cheers,
Chuck

[tigercat2]

Nice job, Wes.  What kit did you use? 

Mine of course will be in pretty plain markings: olive drab over neutral gray.  Just to give it that Doolittle Raiders touch, I will do either "Ruptured Duck" (with a rewritten back-story) or "Hari-Carrier."  I was also considering a posing her on a section of Hornet deck, if I am ambitious enough.

Cheers,
Chuck

I believe that I used the old, old Frog kit for these.  Also have a Baltimore in a similar scheme (desert cammo).  I have always liked the Baltimore and Maryland aircraft; they are some of the "forgotten" US-built aircraft that served with other forces but never with the US.



Wes W.

[jcf]

Interesting notion, however, Martin winning the dual-purpose attack bomber contest, which went to the modified Douglas DB-7A after the Air Corps specifications were rewritten to include improved medium altitude performance (James S. McDonnell had concentrated on low-level performance in the design of Model 167), does not preclude the development of the B-25.

The B-25 and Martin's Model 179 (B-26) were the competitors for the medium bomber specification, Air Corps Circular Proposal CP39-640.

The major advantage of the B-25 over the 167/XA-22 in the Doolittle raid scenario is the tricycle landing gear. With a trike gear the tail is permanently 'up', no takeoff role is required to raise the tail to get control authority, the shortness of the carrier flight deck could make this problematic with a large tail-dragger.

Now with that said, Martin had proposed re-engining the 167 with R-2600s in place of the R-1830s to meet the rewritten attack bomber performance specs. Now if that had happened you would probably have enough raw grunt to get the plane off the deck. The easiest way to get an R-2600 powered Model 167 would be to use the wings/engines of a  Model 187 Baltimore kit, especially as the 167 and 187 used the same wing. 'Twould be a real hot-rod. 

Jon

[sequoiaranger]

I don't know if the following is "appropriate" aeronautically, but MAYBE the tail-scrape could have come from a "live" test in which the Maryland taking off from a carrier nosed up so high at the end of the flight-deck that it was approaching stall attitude, when the very front end of the flight deck passed the tailwheel and the tail of the plane dropped down on the deck. The thump and bounce off the lip of the deck put the tail up higher and "saved" the angle-of-attack so the Maryland didn't stall after all, but was JUST able to stay out of the water and slowly regain altitude.

Probably MORE than improbable, but I thought I would give the story a shot!

OR, BETTER YET.....!  MODIFY the Maryland to make it a tricycle landing-gear aircraft!! use some parts from a B-25 and Voila!!! Probably it would take TWO Marylands, and take a parallel-section extension to move the cockpit forward a bit, (or the wing back a bit) but do-able!!

PS--I, too, really like the Martin 167 (the Baltimore is too much of a "tadpole" IMHO), and it is one of only a handful of "real-world" aircraft I plan to do someday.

[jcf]

If the nose wheel rotated ninety degrees to lie flat when retracted you might be able to fit it
under the pilot.

Or, equip the bombers with a temporary tricycle gear that is dropped after takeoff. 

Jon

[sequoiaranger]

Here's a stretched version with nosewheel:

[Acree]

I think the tricycle gear versus taildragger is a very valid point.  However, with the Hornet's 32 knot top speed plus a reasonable wind, even a taildragger Maryland might do OK.  I can't find a comparison of takeoff distance, takeoff speeds or stall speeds, but the wing loading of a Maryland is about 75% of a Mitchell.  Of course the takeoff would require unique technique, but it might still work (certainly will in my alternative history).

At any rate, I chose this as my next project because it would be simple (I'm trying to rebuild/build my skills a little before tackling harder kit-bashing tasks).  So, I probably won't by doing a tricycle gear Maryland.  Besides, if that's what it would take to get a Maryland off the deck of the Hornet, I think they just would have figured out a way to extend the range of A-20s instead and used them.  A tricycle gear mod on a Maryland would have been a major engineering effort when there were other options (although it is very intriguing as a whif exercise). 

I like the Maryland and Baltimore also.  Considering the numbers built and the amount and quality of combat operations, you sure don't hear enough about them.  BTW, my father worked on the assembly line for Baltimores and B-26 Marauders at Middle River until he quit to join the Army.  He was a control rigger.  The workers called the Baltimore the "Sunfish" due to its fuselage shape.

Cheers,
Chuck

[jcf]

Rough comparative power loadings using published horsepower and max weight figures for each.

Model 167 : 7.28 lbs/hp

B-25B : 7.97 lbs/hp

Now in What-if land 167 with 1600hp R-2600s ala the 187 (max weight bumped to 17,200 to compensate for heavier engines & installation).

Model 167HR* : 5.375 lbs/hp 

Jon



* HR = Hot Rod 

[apophenia]

What about a catapult cradle similar to that proposed for the Manchester and other British bombers? That would give you the tail-up attitude. It'd be a big mod by perhaps warranted by the the importance of the Doolittle mission.

[Acree]

Interesting you should say that, Apophenia, I was thinking about a jettisonable tailwheel extension like that used on some Bf109 models.  Perhaps not as big a mod as you were talking about, but should do the job. 

Chuck

[Acree]

I'm also beginning to think about a more radical 167HR as Johncarrfarrelly suggests, using R-2600s from a Baltimore or Maruader, but also including the fuselage stretch and tricycle mod suggested earlier.  But I think I'll save those ideas for a little later and continue with my less-ambitious plan for now. 

Cheers,
Chuck

[sideshowbob9]

Add another fan of the Maryland and Baltimore to the list!

Probably not practical, but what was the state of RATO bottles in 1942?

The jettisonable tailwheel extension sounds like the best plan so far.

[Acree]

RATO is certainly a historic possibility.  The RAF had their first CAM launch using a rocket-propelled catapult sled in May 1941, and the first test use of a no-kidding RATO bottle was in Aug 1941 on an ERCO Ercoupe (believe it or not - see photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RATO).  So, timing wise, it should work.  Anybody know where I can get a couple of 1/72 scale early RATO bottles? 

Chuck