Level bombers didnt dive bomb for a simple reason: they couldnt.
Not just because the pilots wanted to get home, but because the planes couldnt stand the forces inherent in the bomb run. I dont have access to pilot manuals, design data, and engineering tests for the buffs (I'm not even an engineer), but I understand at least one thing clearly about aircraft design: every decision is a trade off.
If you clip the wings to help roll rate, you cut into sustained turn. If you decrease wing loading to help turning, you cut into max speed. If you add fuel capacity to help range, you reduce maneuverability and climb. If you try to add every feature and capacity, you end up with a plane that does nothing well. So when you design an aircraft, you design it FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE.
Level bombers were designed for long range bombing from altitude . (Yes, I know they were used at low alt, but that wasnt the design specification.) Because of the goal, decisions made pointed to maximizing the features that helped the aircraft succeed at the task. And, for the purposes of this discussion, consider just the effect of increasing wing G-tolerance on the mission.
Wings on heavy bombers needed to be strong enough to carry the load of the aircraft, its fuel, and its ORDNANCE (thanks, Leviathan). They had to be designed with a safety margin that allowed for stresses expected in performing the design mission, which would include altitude changes and banking (60 degree bank doubles the force on wing spars,
even without applying G). Diving stresses those structures even more. With increased air speed the airframe gets increased friction forces, vibration (and the risk of resonance induced force multiplication) --- and INERTIA.
Any effort to change direction while at speeds above design parameters requires applying further stress to the airframe and control surfaces, almost certainly causing structural failure. While extra margin was built in, it wasnt allowed to unnecessaily compromise the primary mission. Building spars strong enough to dive costs WEIGHT. Allowing a B-24 enough strength to withstand, much less pull out of, a 310mph dive would have REQUIRED a reduction in bombload or range. Any designer who seriously wanted to make that compromise wouldnt be smart enough to hold a job.
I have tried to research for design documents on the net, and have come up short of the definitive data I want. I have found original pilot documentation that, for example, instructed them to keep airspeed below 275mph when descending. I've also dicumented that speeds above 305 would set up catastrophic vibrations in the de-icer boots along the leading edge, causing structual wing failure. Application of control forces can also cause catastrophic failure:
In the higher speed range, the elevators become "heavy". This is desirable inasmuch as it helps to prevent sudden extreme application of the elevators, which might prove damaging to the structure. When maneuvering the airplane, as in a dive, always keep the airplane trimmed by use of the trim tabs. If the pilot attempts to hold the full stick load, his sudden relaxing can apply a destructive force to the airplane
b-24 pilots notes, 1942 http://www.gaspartorriero.it/HTML/B24%20Pilot%20Notes.htm. All emphasis mine.Note that even RELAXING controls at speed, much less yanking on them, could cause structural failure.
From the same site, speed limits are clearly outlined for various loads:
DIVE - The limiting diving speeds for various gross weights are:
_____________________MPH KmPH Knots
41,000 lbs (18,144 Kg) 355 570 300
47,174 lbs (21,398 Kg) 325 520 280
56,000 lbs (25,401 Kg) 275 440 240
Air loads build up rapidly on any large airplane in a dive, therefore, avoid abrupt movements of the controls.
Control trim should be maintained with the idea of keeping tail surface forces to a minimum. It is better to trim the airplane to slightly nose heavy rather than tail heavy. If it were trimmed tail heavy, in a dive the inherent tendency to pull up would make the application of up-elevator easier and more abrupt, creating higher load factors of "g's".
It is my impression (and PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, HT) that these structural limits are not well modelled in AH2. I'm fairly sure I've taken full ordnance loads faster than that, though full fuel loads arent needed in the game.
I'm also suspicious that the very "heavy" controls described at speed arent well modelled. The manual notes that
EVEN AT LANDING SPEED OF ABOUT 100mphWhen flying a heavy airplane remember that a heavy body in motion resists effort to change the motion. Therefore, if a steep glide is being made with accompanying high rate of descent, it takes some time and a considerable force to flare out this rate of descent and change the direction to one parallel to the ground. It cannot reasonably be expected with a rate of descent of over 500 ft./min. (152 meters/min.) to start to level off 5 to 10 feet (1.5 to 3 meters) above the ground and succeed in doing anything but "flying in".
_____________________________
___
The current use of heavy bombers in the MA has significant game impact. Discussion of "whats good for the game" has been inconclusive; however, correct flight models are a priority at HTC. I beleive that the above information would both result in more accurate modelling and improved game play.
For those with better research skills (or access) than mine, there are several avenues that may produce even more useful results.
1. Bomb dropping restrictions. There is a tantalizing comment in the pilots notes:
Bomb Clearance Instructions
When releasing bombs in a glide or climb, observe the restrictions shown in "Armament Manual".
If anybody can track down a copy of this document, it would likely describe the design limitations for non- horizontal bombing -- and thus resolve another discussion with fact rather than opinion.
2. During engineering tests, it was contemporary practice to test the functional (as opposed to design) strength of aircraft by simply loading weights on the wing until the thing failed. Delving into archival records of Consolidated or Boeing through successor corporations or historical archives might yeild us hard numbers that would tell how much "cushion" was included in the above speed and load restrictions.
With Regards,
Simaril
