Can the XB-19 produced in quantity?

Seriously, before any actual use, the 19's going to need more powerful engines, not that it's actually going to run into any Spads or Albatrosses over the mid-Atlantic...p
Oh, and the Sopwith Camel with the Beagle in the cockpit is on our side.
For something to close the Atlantic Gap against U-boats, the speed is fine. It could take off from Bennett Field, fly over to the UK stooge around abit without landing, and return. Or fly a big search pattern and land and refuel, and let one crew sleep, and send another for the return leg.
 
Agreed that more powerful engines will be needed to make it an effective bomber over contested airspace (plus revised defensive armament), but as it stands it could close a lot of the Atlantic Gap and make things a lot more hazardous for U-Boats if built and deployed in numbers.
 
That might be its most useful possible role. As an example being able to fly wounded troops straight from some Pacific fly speck of an island to the US mainland is going to save lives.
 
For something to close the Atlantic Gap against U-boats, the speed is fine. It could take off from Bennett Field, fly over to the UK stooge around abit without landing, and return. Or fly a big search pattern and land and refuel, and let one crew sleep, and send another for the return leg.

A problem with the XB-19 which seems quite surprising given its size, is that it carried a lot of its fuel and bombload externally, which really slowed it down.

I also remember reading about the B-36 and the "Featherweight" project. It removed all armament except the tail guns, and also removed the bunks and galley. While removing the weapons isn't a good idea during WWII (an Fw-190 is easier to hit than a MiG-17), it was found that B-36 crews almost never used the galley and usually slept in their stations or takeoff positions.

Perhaps removing these would also allow more fuel and bombs to be carried internally.

Speaking of the B-36, what about a 6 engine design for the XB-19?
 
A problem with the XB-19 which seems quite surprising given its size, is that it carried a lot of its fuel and bombload externally, which really slowed it down.

...

Speaking of the B-36, what about a 6 engine design for the XB-19?
Internally, that was more from limit on existin number of mount points on the bay, in 1938 the very heavy(2000+GP bombs) were not common

It had a lot of payload, and had large number of internal tankage 10500 gallons. as far as speed, I don't think the external shackles were ever used. It just din't have enough HP

It had enough wingspan for six engines. the BV-238 Seaplane had six engines on a 197 foot wingspan, vs 212 for the XB-19

Had the liquid cooled V-3420 engines been ready in 1938, the B-19 could have had pushers like the B-36, without the difficulties pf cooling radial Wasp Majors
 
Internally, that was more from limit on existin number of mount points on the bay, in 1938 the very heavy(2000+GP bombs) were not common

It had a lot of payload, and had large number of internal tankage 10500 gallons. as far as speed, I don't think the external shackles were ever used. It just din't have enough HP

It had enough wingspan for six engines. the BV-238 Seaplane had six engines on a 197 foot wingspan, vs 212 for the XB-19

Had the liquid cooled V-3420 engines been ready in 1938, the B-19 could have had pushers like the B-36, without the difficulties pf cooling radial Wasp Majors
For all you aeronautics types out there; could you add a liquid cooled driving a pusher prop to the inboard engine nacelle to create a six-engined version?
 
As they're building those anyway it shouldn't be a problem. That is why the US is spending the lives of its young men on otherwise worthless islands and atols.
 
For all you aeronautics types out there; could you add a liquid cooled driving a pusher prop to the inboard engine nacelle to create a six-engined version?
The French had push/pull nacelles for thier heavy bombers before WWII, ots far easier with liquid cooled than the aircooled they used.
 
The French had push/pull nacelles for thier heavy bombers before WWII, ots far easier with liquid cooled than the aircooled they used.
I'm specifically asking about mixing power plants, in this case. The wing could obviously handle the extra weight, external bomb load considered, and you'd still have the reliability of 4 air cooled engines over water.
 
Just throwing out ideas here
Yes I understand, but there's not a lot you can do with a mid-30s airframe that's obsolescent by the start of WW2. Really other than transport (where it'd be mediocre anyway) and ASW (where it might actually be useful) the plane is a white elephant.
 
Top