High speed unarmed medium/heavy bomber

[wuzak]

The high speed, unarmed bomber concept was originally for a high altitude too, I would have the barbette on the underside.  For an upgraded version of the DH.101 I'm planning, it would have even more powerful engines (some Sabre VII's were bench tested to 5500 hp) and carry a Tallboy bomb so it could be dropped at the altitude Barnes Wallis designed it for.  I'm planning having a A-26 Intruder style remote turret under the fuselage and just behind the bomb bay.

Here's an interesting pics you might want to consider, 20mm remote turrets:

Yes, I am aware of the altitude side of things. Hence versiosn with 60-series Merlins and Griffons. Late war versions could have the 100-series Griffons with 3 speed 2 stage superchargers, though they were basically tuned to give better low altitude performance than extend the high altitude performance.

Very interested in your Super Mossie. Will its bomb bay be long enough to carry a Tallboy?

While Sabres were bench tested at 5000hp+ that is not the power I would rely on! Service Sabre VIIs were rated for 3500hp at takeoff and 3000hp at low level. I would expect that could be brought up to 4000hp at take off safely, but altitude performance would be less.

Also the Merlin was tested at 2600hp in 1944 - that version was eventually rated at 2200hp MS gear @ 2000ft and 2100hp FS gear @ 15,000ft.

There was also the Hawker High Speed Bomber (P.1005), which was to be powered by Sabres too. I think that made it to the mockup stage.


Oh, another HP proposal was for a bomber powered by 4 Merlins, with the engines mounted buried in the inner wing, their cranks spanwise, driving a contra prop via gears and extension shafts on each wing. A daigram is shown in British Experimental Combat Aircraft of World War II, by Buttler.

[McColm]

Rockets would make your build go faster. Although the German's did use jets in service before the Brits .

[The Rat]

Rockets would make your build go faster. Although the German's did use jets in service before the Brits .

From the backstory: "The very first mission of the Victor 1 was a roaring success, and it utterly destroyed the factory responsible for production of the Junkers Jumo 004, including the offices where all plans were stored." 

[NARSES2]

I've never seen that Lancaster photograph before, so thanks for posting Robert  I was only aware of the Windsor's layout

[kitnut617]

Very interested in your Super Mossie. Will its bomb bay be long enough to carry a Tallboy?

No it's not, but for this specific version it would do away with the bomb bay and will have the bomb semi-recessed. The bomb would be shakled directly to the wing spars which are oriented much like the DH.98.

I'm building these two from a set of 3-View drawings Tony Butler gave me after they were discovered hidden away in another un-related De Havilland manual along with drawings of the DH.102 and ""Jet Mosquito"".  Tony gave them to me on the understanding I couldn't show them anywhere until he publishes them himself.  The side view I have shown is in the public domain already though, in an Air-Britain and Aviation World article he has written.  Incidently, the DH.102 drawing shows it was a 'scaled-down' DH.101 with the nacelle size reduced to fit around a Griffon engine.  It was still a bit bigger than a DH.98 though.  The'Jet Mosquito' was a development of the DH.102 so not really a Mosquito at all.

While Sabres were bench tested at 5000hp+ that is not the power I would rely on! Service Sabre VIIs were rated for 3500hp at takeoff and 3000hp at low level. I would expect that could be brought up to 4000hp at take off safely, but altitude performance would be less.

Yes, I said I would have a more powerful engine with a note saying some were tested at 5500 hp.  I think if a 3000 hp engine was flying a 4000 hp was more in line for a development. It's my view though, sleeve valve engines are easier to boost the super-charger on than poppet-valve engines, plus you get more of the projected power increase from the boost when it is done on a sleeve valve engine

[kitnut617]

I've never seen that Lancaster photograph before, so thanks for posting Robert  I was only aware of the Windsor's layout

I've got another pic of it somewhere but I can't find it at the moment --- 

[tahsin]

I'm building these two from a set of 3-View drawings Tony Butler gave me ... on the understanding I couldn't show them anywhere until he publishes them himself.

So is that going to become a model to appear in a book?

[kitnut617]

I'm building these two from a set of 3-View drawings Tony Butler gave me ... on the understanding I couldn't show them anywhere until he publishes them himself.

So is that going to become a model to appear in a book?

Re-reading my post there, Tony asked if I would not show anything of the drawings that haven't already been published --- is what I meant to say.  I will of course send photos of the finished model to him but what happens after I couldn't say.

[tahsin]

The ones in Aeroplane Winter 2013 definitely look good. In case they are the ones in question.