Inspirations Mk.II

[zenrat]

Give Germany a four-engined bomber. They had two credible real-world prototypes: the Ju89 and the Do19.

They had an operational four engine bomber.  The Condor.   But it was a maritime patrol bomber not a strategic bomber.  So how about an FW-200 with the ventral bath tub removed and a big donkey bomb bay put in its place?  You'd need a glazed nose for the bomb aimer and i'd personally also want to add a nose turret, tail gunner, ball turret and a couple of waist guns.  Basically a full on fliegende festung.

...if they were really committed to a heavy bomber fleet, they probably WOULD have modified it, and that wouldn't be hard to model. Just stick a bunch of Typhoon-style strengthening plates around the outside of the fuselage just behind the wing.

As an interim modification, yes.  But if they had produced a version specifically for strategic bombing then would they not have strengthened them internally?

I've found a blog about Italian involvement in the BoB here.  As far as bombers go Cant 1007s and Fiat BR20s were used.  The colour schemes appear to be one of the "usual" attractive 3 colour mottles so doing a paint whiff on a different bomber wouldn't look too different to when it appeared on a different front.  However, given the DB601 engine an MC202 in a yellow nosed luftwaffe scheme might make a few people look twice.

[Captain Canada]

Some great ideas. Got me thinking twin even more now !

[Weaver]

As an interim modification, yes.  But if they had produced a version specifically for strategic bombing then would they not have strengthened them internally?

Oh sure, but I was thinking of something that you could acknowledge in a model.

[jcf]

Give Germany a four-engined bomber. They had two credible real-world prototypes: the Ju89 and the Do19.

They had an operational four engine bomber.  The Condor.   But it was a maritime patrol bomber not a strategic bomber.  So how about an FW-200 with the ventral bath tub removed and a big donkey bomb bay put in its place?  You'd need a glazed nose for the bomb aimer and i'd personally also want to add a nose turret, tail gunner, ball turret and a couple of waist guns.  Basically a full on fliegende festung.

Not much modification needed: the Condor could carry 2000lb of bombs which is as much as an early B-17. The big problem with the Condor was strength. They were only stressed as civilian airliners and quite a few of them that survived battle damage broke their back as they made a hard landing back at base. you could see high-intensity bombing ops wearing out a fleet of unmodified ones very quickly.

Then again, if they were really committed to a heavy bomber fleet, they probably WOULD have modified it, and that wouldn't be hard to model. Just stick a bunch of Typhoon-style strengthening plates around the outside of the fuselage just behind the wing.

Poor comparison based on myths that will not die, the Model 299 was designed around a centrally mounted bomb-bay, the
full depth of the fuselage, between the two main spars, that could fit up to eight 600lb bombs, the Y1B-17/YB-17 could carry
up to 8,000 lbs, ditto the B-17C/D which could carry 4,000 lbs of bombs 2,500 miles at 25,000 ft. Loads continually went up from the E
through the G. As with all period bombers, useful bomb-load depended on range to target etc.

The FW 200 was designed with a full length, flat floor to maximize passenger space, the fuselage bottom is four separate, shallow assemblies
the tops of which form the deck surface, putting in a bomb-bay would require a major re-engineering of the entire structural design. Also
it only had a single spar passing through the fuselage, the rest of the wing loads were transferred to the fuselage skins.
The structural drawings in Vom Original zum Modell: Focke-Wulf Fw 200, make the problems clear. This is one of the main reasons they
went for the gondola design when developing the B model airliner into a long range patrol version for the Japanese, the other is that to get the
necessary range they had to fill the fuselage with fuel tanks. So, you say you don't need that much range, however that doesn't change the
structural realities.
A belly 'pod' along the lines of the Speedpack fitted to Constellation airliners might be a better choice.

[zenrat]

That WOULD require rather major structural modifications.  So, if I was going to build one for the GB (I have an early Revell kit and i'm not sure I can face sanding off all those rivets yet) i'd say it was designed from the start as a bomber with a full depth bomb bay and all the other wish list items.

[Weaver]

Give Germany a four-engined bomber. They had two credible real-world prototypes: the Ju89 and the Do19.

They had an operational four engine bomber.  The Condor.   But it was a maritime patrol bomber not a strategic bomber.  So how about an FW-200 with the ventral bath tub removed and a big donkey bomb bay put in its place?  You'd need a glazed nose for the bomb aimer and i'd personally also want to add a nose turret, tail gunner, ball turret and a couple of waist guns.  Basically a full on fliegende festung.

Not much modification needed: the Condor could carry 2000lb of bombs which is as much as an early B-17. The big problem with the Condor was strength. They were only stressed as civilian airliners and quite a few of them that survived battle damage broke their back as they made a hard landing back at base. you could see high-intensity bombing ops wearing out a fleet of unmodified ones very quickly.

Then again, if they were really committed to a heavy bomber fleet, they probably WOULD have modified it, and that wouldn't be hard to model. Just stick a bunch of Typhoon-style strengthening plates around the outside of the fuselage just behind the wing.

Poor comparison based on myths that will not die, the Model 299 was designed around a centrally mounted bomb-bay, the
full depth of the fuselage, between the two main spars, that could fit up to eight 600lb bombs, the Y1B-17/YB-17 could carry
up to 8,000 lbs, ditto the B-17C/D which could carry 4,000 lbs of bombs 2,500 miles at 25,000 ft. Loads continually went up from the E
through the G. As with all period bombers, useful bomb-load depended on range to target etc.

Sorry Jon, you're quite right. I should have been more specific:

The figure of 2000lb for the B-17A was for a radius of 900 miles. It comes from Alfred Price's Combat Development in WWII: Bomber Aircraft

The FW 200 was designed with a full length, flat floor to maximize passenger space, the fuselage bottom is four separate, shallow assemblies, the tops of which form the deck surface, putting in a bomb-bay would require a major re-engineering of the entire structural design. Also it only had a single spar passing through the fuselage, the rest of the wing loads were transferred to the fuselage skins.

The structural drawings in Vom Original zum Modell: Focke-Wulf Fw 200, make the problems clear. This is one of the main reasons they went for the gondola design when developing the B model airliner into a long range patrol version for the Japanese, the other is that to get the necessary range they had to fill the fuselage with fuel tanks. So, you say you don't need that much range, however that doesn't change the structural realities. A belly 'pod' along the lines of the Speedpack fitted to Constellation airliners might be a better choice.

The FW 200 gondola included a bomb bay that could hold 4 x 550lb bombs, and the C-2 version could carry another two under the outboard engine nacelles. It also had underwing hardpoints and total possible bomb load is listed as 11,900lb for some versions. Whatever the pros and cons versus the B-17, that's still a respectable and useful bomb load, particularly in comparison to anything else the Luftwaffe had.

ther

[jcf]

To turn the Condor into a dedicated bomber design, I'd be tempted to move the wings up the fuselage to a mid,
or slightly above mid, position not unlike the Halifax or Lancaster.
Which still doesn't address the question of where to put the bomb-aimer. 

[perttime]

To turn the Condor into a dedicated bomber design, ...
Which still doesn't address the question of where to put the bomb-aimer. 

The front end of the gondola - unless he absolutely has to be in the nose.
Then a gun position in the nose...

[jcf]

No gondola on the mid-wing re-design I'm suggesting. 

[Weaver]

If they were re-designing the Condor to that extent, they'd probably insist on an all-glazed nose like the He 111 or He 177, which would incorporate pilot, bomb-aimer position and nose gun.

[zenrat]

Other than easy comms with the pilot is there any reason for the bomb aimer to be in the nose?
How about a retractable position behind the bomb bay.  Something similar to the ventral gunners position on the Caproni Ca 311 only facing forwards instead of backwards.

Found this pic which illustrates nicely the need for strengthening.

Either that or its doing yoga.

[rickshaw]

Fw200s were very prone to breaking their back. Very prone.

[perttime]

Fw200s were very prone to breaking their back. Very prone.

... And needed brakes that don't get stuck and catch fire...

[tigercat]

http://hushkit.net/2012/10/21/how-the-zero-won-the-battle-of-britain/

[zenrat]

Heh heh heh.  Very good.