Amerika Bomber

[Serenity]

A tunnel isn't going to help you get though the pylons into the turbines.  If you want to look at engines, you need to look at engines that live inside wings.  If you want to look at the turbines, land and open the inspection covers.

But see that then begs the question, why would only the outer prop engines require inflight maintenance? Why not just say for servicing all engines?

[Krusty]

Normally inner engines are near the thicker wing roots, and you can have crawl spaces to get to them (if that is part of the design, several planes have done similar things) but usually the outer engines are on the thinner part of the wing.

I think the tunnels are just a testament to how gigantic the design was, so much so that even with 6 engines the outer most engines STILL have 6-foot tunnels leading to them.

[Angus]

"but usually the outer engines are on the thinner part of the wing.".
USUALLY? I cannot recall a wing that goes thicker on the outboard...sorry

[MiloMorai]

"but usually the outer engines are on the thinner part of the wing.".
USUALLY? I cannot recall a wing that goes thicker on the outboard...sorry

The XF-91 certainly looks like the wing is thicker at the tips than at the root. Even the chord is greater at the tip.



http://wherewolf.narod.ru/drawings/Drawings1.htm

[Angus]

Not much of a crawl space there 

[Chalenge]

The XF-91 certainly looks like the wing is thicker at the tips than at the root. Even the chord is greater at the tip.

(Image removed from quote.)

http://wherewolf.narod.ru/drawings/Drawings1.htm

I believe that was a try at lowering the pressure buildup at the root.

[Fulmar]

http://www.amazon.com/Luftwaffe-over-America-Secret-United/dp/185367608X

I just finished reading this.  Got it for $8 in the bargain bin at Barnes and Noble.  Wasn't the best book I've ready.  I was actually disappointed with the writing style.  Anyways, it specifically covers this subject on the bombers and techniques (mainly mid air refueling or at sea refueling with sea planes) to accomplish it.

Sum it up, the Germans did have the capacity or really the skill to develop bombers that could reach America.  By the time they really wanted to have the bombers, all the current factories were slated and packed with fighter production which simply didn't have the capacity for large bombers.  Too little, too late in the war.

[E25280]

V2 is a perfect example of the muddled thinking that kept German production from reaching its potential. It did not come anywhere near the destructive power needed to justify the utterly massive expenditure of resources required by its development and deployment.

Technically impressive, yes. But strategically useless. Remember that the entire payload was about 1000kg....and that a single B-24 was able to deliver two and a half TIMES that amount on a long range mission.

And the V-2 cost about $2 billion in development alone. Not to mention the costs of production, the production materials it consumed, the factory and labor production it required, and the literally thousands of lives (primarily of slave laborers) lost during those processes. Could those resources have changed history had they been spent on more mundane tanks, planes, and equipment? We'll never know.

Marvellous as it was, the V2 demonstrates more about Germany's "Cloud cuckoo land" production system than it does her technical wizardry.

Unlike a B-24 (or the JU-88s et. al. of the BoB), the V2 could NOT be intercepted.  It would seem that point alone would make it worth developing.

[bj229r]

What was it's accuracy?Anything within 15 miles? Useless for naught but killing women and children, unless they could have improved upon that

[E25280]

What was it's accuracy?Anything within 15 miles? Useless for naught but killing women and children, unless they could have improved upon that

It has been pretty well established that the Germans were not alone in killing women and children with fairly inaccurate targeting techniques -- that is, when the women and children were not actually the targets, which they often were.

This site claims that, had it not been for the British disinformation campaign about where the rockets were hitting, they would have acheived a hit radius of 6km.  If your goal is to kill civilians, that's close enough.

Depending on your goal, the rocket makes sense.  Develop a payload large enough (e.g. nukes), and they are your best bet that the payload will be delivered.

My basic point was that the whole "strategically useless" and "waste of resources" arguments are fine with the benefit of hindsight.  But in the moment, there were certainly reasons to go that path beyond the cliche' "delusional nazi" position.

[bj229r]

It has been pretty well established that the Germans were not alone in killing women and children with fairly inaccurate targeting techniques -- that is, when the women and children were not actually the targets, which they often were.

This site claims that, had it not been for the British disinformation campaign about where the rockets were hitting, they would have acheived a hit radius of 6km.  If your goal is to kill civilians, that's close enough.

Depending on your goal, the rocket makes sense.  Develop a payload large enough (e.g. nukes), and they are your best bet that the payload will be delivered.

My basic point was that the whole "strategically useless" and "waste of resources" arguments are fine with the benefit of hindsight.  But in the moment, there were certainly reasons to go that path beyond the cliche' "delusional nazi" position.

Yup, they killed a lot of them for sure (often intentionally) but if the Allies wanted to erase a 'ball-bearing' factory, they could flatten it, along with the portion of the city in which it was located. Can't see a V2 doing that---just hitting the city was all they could muster, thus it was useless for strategic purposes

[Westy]

"Sum it up, the Germans did have the capacity or really the skill to develop bombers that could reach America.  By the time they really wanted to have the bombers, all the current factories were slated and packed with fighter production which simply didn't have the capacity for large bombers.  Too little, too late in the war."

Actually, to sum it up... the Germans blew it big time for as early as 42 and 43 they could not even hit the Russian factories to put the smallest dent in the Russian war machine. Let alone cross the Atlantic to bomb the US and return home or even down to South America.

[Angus]

So, in truth, the whole plan was plain silly. As I said before, since a nation could not be bombed into submission nor to a strategic loss with only 30 miles of crossing, the idea of a USA bomber is completely silly. Unless there is a chance of something else than a conventional loadout.

[AWwrgwy]

So, in truth, the whole plan was plain silly. As I said before, since a nation could not be bombed into submission nor to a strategic loss with only 30 miles of crossing, the idea of a USA bomber is completely silly. Unless there is a chance of something else than a conventional loadout.

Bombing Tokyo in 1942 was silly too.


wrongway

[Karnak]

Trans Atlantic flights would have been very fuel intensive.  This is what a nation reduced to towing their marvelous jet fighters to the runway with oxen in order to save fuel was talking about.