Honestly, the more I look at it, the more it appears this divergence created something of a "worst case scenario" the Japanese fleets. Details in the narrative will be brief but I can include a supplemental sub-chapter covering the broad narrative of the actions off Samar afterward if there is enough interest.
Thanx for the extremely quick answer. So, one real attack per jeep carrier, then bombs, rockets, and strafing...
Here's an interesting picture of a Droopsnoot P-38 I found loaded with 3 x GP bombs (500 pounders?) on a single side and a drop tank (I think a 165 gallon Lockheed tank) on the other:
And another with both sides loaded with bombs on a standard P-38:
I didn't know additional hard points were added in the center wing. Although this may be later in the war and most likely in Europe, I think it is interesting to consider the possibilities this could present for skip-bombing light targets.
Does anyone have any more information on when/where these multi-bomb setups were developed and first used?
And another with both sides loaded with bombs on a standard P-38:
I didn't know additional hard points were added in the center wing. Although this may be later in the war and most likely in Europe, I think it is interesting to consider the possibilities this could present for skip-bombing light targets.
Does anyone have any more information on when/where these multi-bomb setups were developed and first used?
Last edited:
82nd FG? They were in the Med with the 1st and 14 FG (12th/15th AF).
I had heard about strapping 250#-ers to the OW hard points before.
Anyway, I found this G or H as well with four bombs and two tanks...although it appears these may be 250# (the diameter seems a little smaller than those of the previous which seems about right, AN-M57 250# had a body diameter of 10.9", AN-M64 500# had a body diameter of 14.2"):
I think I may reserve more of these experiments for later in the war when the primary focus becomes Fighter-Bombing and CAS but maybe a limited deployment of the above is fitting for our immediate needs.
I've read it an the 'P-38 in action' book, those are not renown for pin-point accuracy.
The P-38G was supposedly used by the 82nd FG for the out-board bombs in Pacific, per the book.
The droop snoots were supposed to be used as pathfinders for daylight accurate bombing raids for lighter strike aircraft instead of the light and heavy bombers. They were used to fool the defender's radar and defensive nets in Europe because the Nazis and Eu. collaborators were expecting real bombers than the Allied fighter sweeps. These fighters were created for the needs of the Romanian petrol raids.
We here in Utah have been saying this winter is obviously very mad at us because she keeps leaving and then coming back and saying "And another thing..." Point of fact it snowed again today
Randy
We here in Utah have been saying this winter is obviously very mad at us because she keeps leaving and then coming back and saying "And another thing..." Point of fact it snowed again today
Why did Kelly Johnson settle on a twin boom design?
Here are the design concepts that Kelly Johnson considered before choosing number 4 for the XP-38.
Most of the other layouts look questionable except for the design number 1 which worked out quite well for the DH Mosquito, Hornet, and similar aircraft. So why didn't Kelly Johnson use number 1?
Lockheed favoured twin tail designs as in the Electra and the Hudson. It's nice to have the propwash flowing over the rudders to enhance low speed control for take off and landing. But why have twin booms? Anybody know or would like to speculate?
Here are the design concepts that Kelly Johnson considered before choosing number 4 for the XP-38.
Most of the other layouts look questionable except for the design number 1 which worked out quite well for the DH Mosquito, Hornet, and similar aircraft. So why didn't Kelly Johnson use number 1?
Lockheed favoured twin tail designs as in the Electra and the Hudson. It's nice to have the propwash flowing over the rudders to enhance low speed control for take off and landing. But why have twin booms? Anybody know or would like to speculate?
marathag
Banned
Two slim booms have less surface area than a larger central fuselage, less wetted area, less drag for the same interior volume.
Why did Kelly Johnson settle on a twin boom design?
Here are the design concepts that Kelly Johnson considered before choosing number 4 for the XP-38.
Most of the other layouts look questionable except for the design number 1 which worked out quite well for the DH Mosquito, Hornet, and similar aircraft. So why didn't Kelly Johnson use number 1?
Lockheed favoured twin tail designs as in the Electra and the Hudson. It's nice to have the propwash flowing over the rudders to enhance low speed control for take off and landing. But why have twin booms? Anybody know or would like to speculate?
Johnson was probably running out of space, since he planned to use not just two engines, but also two turbo set-ups. Each half of aircraft requires oil cooing, coolant cooling, and intercooler, plus it houses one of main U/C, two fuel tanks initially, and radio(s). So with two coolant radiators per side, the rear part of nacelle grew so much that going for twin boom is not a wonder.
Bigger central fuslage will offer greater useful volume than two booms for the same wetted area, lower weight, lower price and less manufacturing time.
Sounds reasonable about reducing the wetted area. I don't know why de Havilland didn't use the twin boom design.
This is interesting. You're asserting the opposite of marathag that one central fuselage offers less wetted area for less drag. But finding room for all that equipment pushed Johnson toward a twin boom design. And I'm guessing that Lockheed wanted a twin tail anyway so that also weighted the decision. How much of a difference in surface drag between the two planforms? Maybe not so much but I'm uncertain.
A 'classic twin' makes much better sense for a bomber.
Hornet was initially suggested as trimmed-down Mosquito, basically a new, slim fuselage that uses tail and shortened wing from Mosquito.
Let's look at a cylinder, that has r=2 ft and length, or height or 10 ft. Cross section is r^2xPi = 4x3.1416 = ~12.57 sq ft; circumference is 2rPi = 12.57 ft. We are interested in volume of cylinder (= 125.5 cu ft; the bigger the better) and area of the side of cylinder (125.7 sq ft; the lower the better since it will lower the drag).
Lets see how much of volume we get with two smaller cylinders that, added together, have same area of sides of cylinders; both cylinders are 10 ft long. One small cylinder has area of it's side = 62.85 sq ft. That gives the circumference of 6.285 ft, and radius of, well, 1 ft. Cross section is 1x1xPi = 3.1416 sq ft for one small cylinder, volume of 31.416 cu ft, or 62.832 cu ft volume for both cylinders.
At the end, the big cylinder as described (roughly describing a 'classic twin' rear fuselage) will offer twice the useful volume for same wetted area vs. two small cylinders (roughly describing 'twin boom').
Last edited: