Flying Boat Strategic Bombers

[PR19_Kit]

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.

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.

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!

I 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!

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.

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?

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.

[Gondor]

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

[PR19_Kit]

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.

[McGreig]

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but what about Tupolev's project 504?



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 - - - -

[KJ_Lesnick]

Rickshaw

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").

So operational is where it's too big to be tactical and too small to be strategic?

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.

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.

I 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.

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.

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_Kit

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.

How much bigger would you guess?

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.

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.

I 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?

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 rotation of the bay isn't a major interest of mine -- my concern is simply that it could close and holds a seal


McGrieg

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but what about Tupolev's project 504?

Fascinating design, but god is that heavy!

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.

At least it seems to be do-able.

[tigercat]

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.

[McColm]

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 ,.

[bigarv65]

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.

[jcf]

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. 

[Dizzyfugu]

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... 

[jcf]

N1M-ish? 



... or perhaps like this fanciful 3-view from the January 1942 Air Trails.

[Dizzyfugu]

Yup, sort of. Maybe with the kink more inwards, so that the tip parts are longer. 

[bigarv65]

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!

[Captain Canada]

That B-29/ Sunderland is the bomb ! ( get it, the bomb ? ) 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 ?

[zenrat]

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.