Just Leo wrote:
They could have learned more from Busemann.
Context? He'd predicted the issues?
I like both the B-17Ca and YB- 38/B designs but it raises the question of performance. The XB-38 while it was marginally faster, (327 max, 226 cruise versus around 280) and had better range, (3,300 miles compared to about 2,000 miles) the service ceiling was 6,000ft lower than the 'standard' and the cost was very much higher. And then there was the B-24 which itself was a bit faster and carried more payload albeit with an almost 1600 foot lower ceiling. Not really sure why the performance hits though as I'd have thought with superchargers it would have reached a higher altitude.
Archibald wrote:
I wonder about a B-17 with a single 20 mm gun in the nose, and two more guns in a rear turret, and zippo - no more defensive armement, reduced crew. Would it be faster and a little less vulnerable?
The "box" (combat box formation) was very much your friend

And you were only 'faster' when you weren't damaged, "speed-is-life" only works when there isn't a significant speed difference between you and an attacker. As long as there is and an attacker can generate a 'run' from any angle you need to have guns to cover that angle. Once fighters/interceptors started mounting cannon then bombers had to as well to keep engagement ranges equivalent.
Stripped bombers, much like the gunship bombers, were tested but both were found to have enough operational flaws that the concepts simply didn't work for the operations at the time. To gain significant speed would require a reduced bomb load and before nukes the more bombs the better rather than the other way around
Randy