From my understanding this was the crux of it. In order to fit the Allisons, the main gear, the turbos, and the radiators into a properly streamlined nacelle they ended up being so long that they decided it made more sense to just extend them back into the iconic Twin-Boom design. While a single central fuselage allows more useful payload space, they would still need those long nacelles to fit all of the engine components so it was deemed to be a better aerodynamic use of space to go with the booms and get rid of the central fuselage. The loss of potential internal payload was unimportant because it was intended as an interceptor and they figured it wouldn't need to carry anything more than pilot, fuel, guns, and ammo. Since mass-production was not part of the original consideration the additional costs and complexity of the design were deemed to be acceptable in exchange for the streamlining. I think there may also have been some discussion about the width of the elevator and horizontal stabilizers in the tailplane in the classic Lockheed twin-tail setup and the need to build up the rear of the fuselage to support the rolling (torsional) forces. Two booms supporting it allowed the tailplane to be theoretically stronger and more stable.
Assuming this hasn't long since been addressed already...
Pretty much anything the U.S. does differently comes out worse for Japan. Having it go any better than OTL is hard.
Just one comment on the Johnson Collection: don't you kinda wish he'd gone with the centerline thrust design, & lost the booms? ( )
That does seem low, but bear in mind, the CVE's main mission isin't fleet engagement, it's ASW cover. (Unless I'm much mistaken....) That being true, the majority of a CVE weapons loadout would be DCs &/or bombs.
It may seem odd, but it turns out it's really, really easy to deeply screw Japan without half trying.
Pretty much anything the U.S. does differently comes out worse for Japan. Having it go any better than OTL is hard.Just one comment on the Johnson Collection: don't you kinda wish he'd gone with the centerline thrust design, & lost the booms?
( )
Last edited:
Not really on point, but maybe of interest (& an excuse to bump )
https://web.archive.org/web/20060613210139/http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/cover.htm (jet develoment)
) https://web.archive.org/web/20060613210139/http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/cover.htm (jet develoment)
Hey sorry, all. By now you know my excuses: life is busy, work is busy, etc. etc. so I'll forego any explanations. I am still working on the conclusion of Leyte as time allows there just hasn't been much of that since I was in the hospital a couple months ago. No ETA as yet, but I am more than willing to take part in any discussion here or answer any questions that may have come up.
A shout out to @phx1138 for keeping the thread alive during my distraction!
A shout out to @phx1138 for keeping the thread alive during my distraction!
No worries. Just keeping it in front for anybody who hasn't noticed yet, & letting you know we're all still here.
If I'm seeming impatient, I'll offer my apologies. No intent to bug you on it.That appears to be the later "Synthetic Haze" paint or possibly British PRU Blue. Here's a little information on USAAF Haze Paint: http://34th.photorecon.org/html/aircraft/haze.html
Thanks for the link to the article. I just assumed it was RAF PRU blue. I didn't know about the Synthetic Haze. It's good to learn something new.
Yeah, what leads me to think it is Haze is how dark and vibrant it is. PRU Blue is a little more mellow and gray while the base coat for Synthetic Haze was fairly dark. If the "Flight Blue" over coat was put on too thin, or under certain lighting, the darker "Deep Sky" undercoat would dominate and give it that deep, rich, hue seen in the video.
I have been trying to write some skip-bombing and mast-height bombing action for the next installment but am really struggling finding good reference material for exactly how they were done. I have found a few brief descriptions and even a few videos but they seem to conflict in the method--altitude, speed, release point, etc. Some say that skip-bombing was done from higher altitude (100-250 ft) and mast-height from much lower while others say skip-bombing was < 50ft. and they would "pop up" for a mast-height release. I am not sure which is accurate.
Does anyone have a good resource in the form of first-hand account or even an official "how-to" SOP for performing them? It would be much appreciated!
Does anyone have a good resource in the form of first-hand account or even an official "how-to" SOP for performing them? It would be much appreciated!
There used to be a biography of Pappy Gunn, one of the innovator, iirc, of skipbombing,out there.. Google him, there is a lot available.
Errolwi
Monthly Donor
I can't remember if any of Damien Parer's Bismarck Sea footage shows the detail of skip-bombing (it does include over-the-pilot's shoulder from a Beaufighter), but I think you can find the doco online to check.
Warning, the voice-over is ... reflective of the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bismarck_Convoy_Smashed
Warning, the voice-over is ... reflective of the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bismarck_Convoy_Smashed
Try this, start around the page numbered 32 in the document (12mb pdf)
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a434245.pdf
"A War of Their Own Bombers over the Southwest Pacific"
It says the aircraft were between 150-300ft, primarily between 200-250.
Later on, Mast-head height was also used, but it was a distinctly different tactic. page 60 starts the discussion on Mast-head attacks and covers the Bismark Sea convoy attack.
see also page 85-86
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a434245.pdf
"A War of Their Own Bombers over the Southwest Pacific"
It says the aircraft were between 150-300ft, primarily between 200-250.
Later on, Mast-head height was also used, but it was a distinctly different tactic. page 60 starts the discussion on Mast-head attacks and covers the Bismark Sea convoy attack.
see also page 85-86
Last edited:
So when the Germans or Japanese shoot up life boats it is a war crime - but when the Allies do it is shown on the news reel........
Thank you! This is exactly the type of information I was looking for.