Flying Boat Strategic Bombers

[KJ_Lesnick]

I'm thinking when you consider that the Schneider Trophy planes were float-planes and achieved speeds of over 400 miles an hour, I don't see why a good engineering team couldn't create a 4-engined flying-boat bomber that could achieve speeds of ~300 mph.

The only drawbacks I could think of is that you might need to deal with corrosion issues due to operating in salt water, and more difficulty with a ventral turret (unless it was retractable -- which is do-able): I'd like to point out the Avro Lancaster's largely operated early on with a rear, top and forward turret only.

[PR19_Kit]

They did, but is was jet powered and called the P6M Seamaster........

[Captain Canada]

Sounds like a good idea to me ! What are you thinking of using as a base kit ?

[Dizzyfugu]

In the USSR several atomic-driven, huge and supersonic sea planes (as strategic bombers) had been designed. Huge beasts, imagine a M-50 bomber as a seaplane...!

[KJ_Lesnick]

No, I'm talking about WW2 era concepts...

[Captain Canada]

I'm guessing it would need a thinner fuselage and retracting wing floats. Maybe use a 72nd scale boat ( such as an Albatross ) with a lengthened fuselage and  scale-o-rama it up to 48th scale ? Or something along those lines....

[PR19_Kit]

No, I'm talking about WW2 era concepts...

But you didn't say that.....

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. 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!

Comparing that sort of  technology with a bomber design would be like trying to convert an Indy car into a School Bus, there is no comparison possible, apart from the fact that they both have wings, or wheels in the case of the Indy car/School Bus.

The bigger question might be why would they want to design such an aircraft? The strategic bomber as a concept didn't really exist until the late 30s, earlier types like the HP O/400 and the big Gothas were longer range big tactical bombers in reality and they didn't last through the 1920s.  By the '30s large airfields were easy to build and freely available, even in a crowded island l ike ours, and even a Lancaster could fly from a grass airfield, albeit maybe not at full load.

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. The Sunderland's sideways sliding bomb racks worked a treat but couldn't carry really big bombs and not many of them either. Only in the late 50s did the Seamaster solve that problem with its brilliant rotating and sealed bomb door idea.

Flying boat fan though I am, and a BIG fan of the Seamaster (what a surprise...) I can't see that the concept of a strategic flying boat bomber is a goer.

[royabulgaf]

I gather we are starting from a clean sheet.  Take a twin fuselage design, which does away with wingtip floats.  Make the wing center section thick, and put the bomb bay there. 

[rickshaw]

Both major axis powers in WWII attempted to use flying boats as strategic bombers.  Blohm und Voss proposed variants on their giant flying boats, even ones which turned them back to land aircraft for use as strategic bombers towards the end of the war.  The Japanese occasionally used their big flying boats as strategic bombers - several northern Australian towns were bombed by them in small numbers, necessitating the stationing of fighter aircraft there which would have been more usefully used in the offensive in the SW Pacific.

[PR19_Kit]

Where did they carry the bombs and how heavy was the largest bomb they could drop?

I think that has to be the limiting factor with a flying boat bomber but Royabulgaf's twin fuselage idea has merit too. Very big bombs could be slung under the centre section like a torpedo under a Stringbag.

[wuzak]

Where did they carry the bombs and how heavy was the largest bomb they could drop?

I think that has to be the limiting factor with a flying boat bomber but Royabulgaf's twin fuselage idea has merit too. Very big bombs could be slung under the centre section like a torpedo under a Stringbag.

And do your armourers have to wear scuba gear?

[Weaver]

There's always the Blackburn B-20 approach, i.e. a split hull that's deep when the aircraft's on the water but shallow in flight to reduce drag:



http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/blackburn_b20.htm

In theory, you could mount bombs on top of the lower hull and have them flip over the side, like some of the torpedo launchers on smaller torpedo boats.

[tigercat]

Recently read a What If book where they used Sunderlands to drop bombs rather than Depth Charges but can't remember what it was called

Will wrack my brains.

[pyro-manic]

Sunderlands could drop bombs, just not very big ones.

The whole concept of a strategic flying boat bomber is flawed - the weight required for a hull structure of any sort makes the useful load less than a land-based equivalent, plus the issue of how to carry the bombs is a major one - either requiring complex (and expensive, and heavy?) methods to seal a "traditional" bomb bay, or a novel way to carry and deploy the payload which will have a knock-on effect on possible loads.

One possible way you could get big bombs (eg. Cookies) out of a flying boat would be to have a high tail with a rear door, and use a parachute extraction method where a little drogue 'chute pulls the bomb out of the rear of the plane on rails. Also means a useful transport variant can be made? Still not as good as a Lancaster or B-24 etc for strategic bombing though.

[sandiego89]

I gather we are starting from a clean sheet.  Take a twin fuselage design, which does away with wingtip floats.  Make the wing center section thick, and put the bomb bay there.  

But twin hulls and a thick wing would have an adverse effect on high speed, which the original post desired.  I vote for a single long and slender hull, as this really helps with speed.  A high length to width ratio like 13:1 or something (Seamaster was 15:1).  Most flying boats had a much lower ratio (fat) and were quite slow.  Reducing frontal area is big part of achieving speed, so what ever you can do to reduce intersection drag and less frontal area is important: retractable floats, less numbers of vertical stabilizers, eliminated/reduced struts and pylons, internal weapon stoarge, etc all help.  Radial engines tend to be favored for seaplanes, but have a higher frontal area.

The Mavis had a slender hull and good flight characteristics, but a more draggy plylon mounted, and strutted wing.

Seaplanes are indeed a huge compromises, but to help your get closer to your desire for a fast(ish) WWII four engined application I would recommend a single slender hull, a single or at most twin tail, a fuselage mounted wing and an internal bomb bay (bombs could be released via a side hatch to eliminate bottom of hull openings). Although the demands of water based aircraft usually demand a clean sheet design, perhaps modifying a sleeker land based bomber with a planing hull and retractable tip floats might be a good option- a Sea Lancaster!  

Some other options: -
-a back dated R3Y tradewind- had a long slender ratio, but the kits are pricy or poor.  
- a lengthened and streamlined WWII seaplane.  Mavis, Emily, Dornier.  Shorts and Consolidated boats tend to be quite "fat" and would likely never get the speed you desire.  
- Land based plane with a planing hull grafted on.  Lancaster, B-24, rainbow.
- A smaller medium type with a hull or floats- more like youe schneider cup references: Sea Mosquito, B-26, A-26, B-25, Me-110 etc.