Author Topic: The reason to Fix the diving heavies (Read 1252 times)

DREDIOCK · « **on:** October 12, 2004, 11:08:11 PM »

On a thred that seems to have dissapeared HT said somethinig to the effect that if anyone could say why these planes couldnt divebomb he'd look into fixing it.

Ok I have the reason.
Quite obvious really.

From a flight standpoint perhaps they could do such manuvers.. But they wouldnt.
Yanno why?

The Crew/Gunners.

You would probably end up getting half the crew killed or at least Seriously injured taking the heavies into near vertical dives then climbouts.
even teathered in they would be flung back and forth like one of those rubber balls attached to a paddle by elastic band. not to mention that anything not nailed down would go flying around as well.

This would limit the angle that these planes would be able to safely dive in at.

theres your reason.

Flit · « **Reply #1 on:** October 12, 2004, 11:23:35 PM »

Nothing like a can of .50 hittin ya upside the head to put ya to sleep (:

Karnak · « **Reply #2 on:** October 12, 2004, 11:55:58 PM »

Well, fully laden Lancasters would do a corkscew manuver that involved a sharp dive, turn and climb to shake night fighter's off their tail.

Tail gunner would see the enemy fighter (hopefully) and yell something like "Fighter, corkscrew port!" and the pilot would immediately do so.

But you're right about the sustained vertical manuvers I think.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #3 on:** October 13, 2004, 12:13:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Well, fully laden Lancasters would do a corkscew manuver that involved a sharp dive, turn and climb to shake night fighter's off their tail.

Tail gunner would see the enemy fighter (hopefully) and yell something like "Fighter, corkscrew port!" and the pilot would immediately do so.

But you're right about the sustained vertical manuvers I think.

this suddenly occured to me when I was chasing down a 17 who had a gunner firing on me and he suddenly dove near vertical and dropped on the base then pulled out and went near vertical up and around.
It suddenly dawned on me what would be going on on the inside of the plane during such a manuver. especially for the waist gunners

Karnak · « **Reply #4 on:** October 13, 2004, 12:16:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
It suddenly dawned on me what would be going on on the inside of the plane during such a manuver. especially for the waist gunners

They'd be planning on ambushing the pilots behind the mess and beating the crap out of them?

GreenCloud · « **Reply #5 on:** October 13, 2004, 01:20:20 AM »

agree dread..good point..but..the bomer still physiallcy could..so....How about it kilsl the gunners when you dive liek that?...but that wont stop suciced cv dweebs

I dont know

bozon · « **Reply #6 on:** October 13, 2004, 04:31:15 AM »

would the bombs successfully leave the bomb bay in a steep dive?

I guess it really depends on the way they are held in the bomb bay. If they are stacked or have metal bars between them they might hit something on the way out.

I belive the design of bomb bays count on gravity to pull the bomb out of the plane, approximatly perpendicular. they were not sprang out (did they?).
consider a pure vertical dive - the bombs would not even leave the plane.

In that case, the actuall clean release of the bomb might not work in a steep dive.

Bozon

bozon · « **Reply #7 on:** October 13, 2004, 04:41:17 AM »

look at the pictures of the B24 bomb bay in this thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=132502

1. the bombs are stacked and are placed well inside the plane.
2. They have nothing to pull them out of the bay but gravity.
3. They are very crowded from the sides - any release in a bank will make bombs hit the side of the bomb bay. any release in a dive of more than 20-30 degrees will make bombs hit the front of the bay.

Do not allow bomb release in dives beyond a certain angle and a certain bank, or make the bombs dud since they would hit the plane and spin out of control !

Bozon

Swoop · « **Reply #8 on:** October 13, 2004, 05:00:20 AM »

So......you're in your B17 flying along, go into a 90 degree straight down dive......hit the bomb release and.......a 500lber hits the pilot in the back of the head on it's way out through the windscreen followed by the radio operator who was on his way to the cheek gun at the time.

Yeah, they did that all the time during the war.

Tilt · « **Reply #9 on:** October 13, 2004, 06:23:56 AM »

Pyro was looking for data related to the angles of dive that ac could release from................

I saw pictures but no data.............

However some assumptions can be safely made.........

lets take a B17..........

Answer the following with No, Unlikely, Maybe, Yes

could it............

release in a 90 degree dive?

release in a 67 degree dive?

release in a 45 degree dive?

release in a 22 degree dive?

release in a 90 degree bank?

release in a 67 degree bank?

release in a 45 degree bank?

release in a 22 degree bank?

HTC can take informed views on this and make a model for each ac. They can modify the limiting angle as data becomes available.

Basically starting at some angle between "Unlikely" and "Maybe".

Right now releasing at any angle of bank or dive is also IMO erronious. Avoiding the creation of a smaller error is not a reason for not resolving a larger one.

xHaMmeRx · « **Reply #10 on:** October 13, 2004, 07:10:32 AM »

I'd say informed views weren't needed...just some simple trigonometry and a little physics. How far do the bombs drop from the top of the bomb bay to exit and how far forward do they move at a given angle. I have seen the bays of B-17s, B-24s and B-25s loaded with bomb mock-ups and suspect the amount of forward movement possible is not much and therefore the allowable angle of drop is equally small.

Angle of drop
..../..|
.../...|
../....|
./.....| Bomb Bay Depth
/......|
<----|
Forward
Movement

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #11 on:** October 13, 2004, 08:37:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by xHaMmeRx
I'd say informed views weren't needed...just some simple trigonometry and a little physics.

Not to mention a little common sence

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #12 on:** October 13, 2004, 08:39:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GreenCloud
agree dread..good point..but..the bomer still physiallcy could..so....How about it kilsl the gunners when you dive liek that?...but that wont stop suciced cv dweebs

I dont know

I'd go for that,
You could still dive the heavy but there would be a price to pay. a tradeoff.
You sacrifice your gunners in the process

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #13 on:** October 13, 2004, 08:45:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tilt
Pyro was looking for data related to the angles of dive that ac could release from................

Yes but that would also have to be assuming the pilot and Co Pilot were the only ones on the plane other then the bombs.

Im sure one of the reasons they didnt use the heavies in a DB capacity would be the crew.

Im sure they Taking the crew into account would at the very least be a minor consideration.

Tilt · « **Reply #14 on:** October 13, 2004, 08:51:04 AM »

informed views can be based upon all of the following......

crew considerations
trigonometry
historical record
hard data

no source need be ignored