Author Topic: For those who want a German bomber... (Read 2497 times)

Scrap · « **Reply #45 on:** January 20, 2005, 04:22:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
My preference for the next German bomber would go:

1) Ju188A-2
2) He177A-5
3) Do217E-2

Don't get too focused on the words "Heavy" and "Medium". Look at the actual capabilities of each aircraft. Doing that you'll see that, if anything, the Ju188A-2 would be a better MA bomber than the B-17G.

Yesssssssssssssssssss!

It's a real shame our opinion has fallen on deaf ears for so long Karnak.

HoHun · « **Reply #46 on:** January 20, 2005, 04:37:06 PM »

Hi Karnak,

>Look at the actual capabilities of each aircraft. Doing that you'll see that, if anything, the Ju188A-2 would be a better MA bomber than the B-17G.

Hm, why do you think so? It's not that I disagree, I'm just interested in the reasons for your opinion :-)

(In my opinion, a pure bomber He 177 would be a good choice. I haven't considered alternatives, though.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Karnak · « **Reply #47 on:** January 20, 2005, 06:59:30 PM »

Hohun,

The Ju188A-2 has a similar payload to the B-17G (actually a bit more), a 20mm MG151/20 in a dorsal turret with a 360° traverse (unlike the Ki-67's 180° traverse) and a significantly higher top speed, 40-50mph faster. It will likely climb and handle a lot better too, being a twin engined aircraft. The Ju88A-4 in AH is a VERY tough aircraft and I see no reason why that wouldn't extend to the Ju188A-2 as well.

The B-17G would have better defensive fire, particularly from below and from the direct rear and be a bit tougher.

The two would be pretty close, but overall I'd say the Ju188A-2 would be a little better in AH.

Pongo · « **Reply #48 on:** January 20, 2005, 07:31:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I know.

But damn was it cool looking. Loadout of B17, speed like a fighter, and a whole bunch of defensive turrets even with some 20mm cannon.

puntaroony

AVRO1 · « **Reply #49 on:** January 22, 2005, 08:46:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ

Ah Yes the Bomber B Project!

Unfortunatly the Germans had trouble developping the engines that they designed for em.

DB 604C 2500 HP 24-cylinder injection X-engine

Junkers Jumo 222 2500 HP 24-cylinders liquid-cooled 4 row radial

HoHun · « **Reply #50 on:** January 23, 2005, 06:57:30 PM »

Hi Karnak,

>The Ju188A-2 has a similar payload to the B-17G (actually a bit more)

Hm, are you sure? It seems to have been limited to a take-off weight of 14500 kg, which doesn't appear that generous.

The loadout options were actually the same as for the Ju 88A-4:

Forward bomb bay: 18 x 50 kg
Rear bomb bay: 10 x 50 kg
Inboard bomb rack: up to 1800 kg
Outboard bomb rack: up to 500 kg
Outer wing bomb rack: up to 500 kg

I don't know if the outer wing racks were ever used on the Ju 88 or the Ju 188, though. I'd think that the bomb bays usually were used for fuel tanks, too, but I'm not sure on that either.

>The B-17G would have better defensive fire, particularly from below and from the direct rear and be a bit tougher.

Do you know whether the series production Ju 188 had the rear gunner position? It seems he was to be replaced with a remotely controlled gun that never came up.

>The two would be pretty close, but overall I'd say the Ju188A-2 would be a little better in AH.

Do you have any performance figures? With the bombs carried externally, I'd think that the Ju 188 would probably lose a lot of performance, and without turbo-superchargers, its altitude capability appears limited anyway.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Karnak · « **Reply #51 on:** January 23, 2005, 11:46:44 PM »

In AH the Ju88A-4 has a total payload that is heavier than the B-17G's, 3,000kg vs 6,000lbs.

At high altitude you're certainly right, but the fact is that most usage in AH is at low and medium altitudes. The external bombs would slow it some, but with a 50+mph advantage on the B-17G when both are clean I doubt it would be enough to make the B-17G faster.

As I understand it, the Ju188A-2 had one MG131 13mm gun or twin MG81 7.92mm guns in the rear ventral gondalla. I've not read anything about remote guns on it.

bunch · « **Reply #52 on:** January 24, 2005, 01:14:25 AM »

I have a book by a pilot who lead a group of (& flew) Ju88a-4s in combat in Russia, who says that this largest combat load he ever carried was 2250kg & that amount was for "experten" only & normal pilots could handle 1750kg max....On a related topic, anyone ever heard of an instance of a B-17 using it's external bomb racks for a combat mission?

MiloMorai · « **Reply #53 on:** January 24, 2005, 01:42:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by bunch
On a related topic, anyone ever heard of an instance of a B-17 using it's external bomb racks for a combat mission?

When they carried the Disney bomb.

GScholz · « **Reply #54 on:** January 24, 2005, 01:51:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by bunch
On a related topic, anyone ever heard of an instance of a B-17 using it's external bomb racks for a combat mission?

Why would you want to? The B-17 has plenty of bomb-bay space, even for overloads.

bunch · « **Reply #55 on:** January 24, 2005, 04:20:00 AM »

Was just wondering, because the authoratative M.A.D. says the B-17 could carry 9453kg, but normal combat loads were more like 6000lbs (about 2700kg) & was wondering why the discrepancy. I assumed it was bay size, but maybe it was 9453kg, but not with full gas tanks.....?

MiloMorai · « **Reply #56 on:** January 24, 2005, 05:13:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Why would you want to? The B-17 has plenty of bomb-bay space, even for overloads.

The B-17G could carry, internally:

26 X 100 lb (2600lb/1180kg)

or

16 X 300 lb (4800lb/2177kg)

or

12 X 500 lb (6000lb/2721jg)

or

2 X 2,000 lb (4000lb/1814kg)

GScholz · « **Reply #57 on:** January 24, 2005, 06:00:59 AM »

Seems like I was wrong Bunch.

"Other important changes included self-sealing oil tanks, heavier landing gear to handle the increased weight, and external bomb racks under the inner wings. The B-17's limited bomb capacity had been the subject of much legitimate criticism, and the bomb racks were intended to correct that error by increasing the bomb load from the typical 1.8 tonnes (4,000 pounds) to up to 4.35 tonnes (9,600 pounds). Later modifications of the external bomb rack scheme increased the maximum bombload to 9.4 tonnes (20,800 pounds), but the external racks proved an exercise in futility. They were rarely used except for special missions, as external loads imposed significant performance penalties."

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avb172.html

HoHun · « **Reply #58 on:** January 24, 2005, 06:06:39 PM »

Reply in Progress - Stay Tuned!

HoHun · « **Reply #59 on:** January 24, 2005, 06:18:22 PM »

Hi Scholz,

The B-17 bomb bay had two symmetrical halves. Each had shackles for:

12 x 0100 lbs
08 x 0300 lbs
06 x 0500 lbs
03 x 1000 lbs
04 x 1600 lbs (might be only 3 would fit)
01 x 2000 lbs (special shackles required)

Apparently, bombs could be mixed within one bay as space permitted, which is hard to estimate without trying it out.

The 2000 lbs bomb required special shackles which had to be removed before dropping bombs loaded above it, requiring some maintenance work in the bomb bay over the target. (It was situated in the lower third of the bomb bay.)

Two external hard points were suited for:

1 x 1000 lbs
1 x 1600 lbs
1 x 2000 lbs
1 x 4000 lbs

One example bomb load load has 8800 lbs, with 2 x 2000 lbs externally, 2 x 2000 lbs internally and 8 x 100 lbs above the big bombs internally.

The 9600 lbs mentioned in your quote might allude to 2 x 3 x 1600 lbs as maximum load out.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)