Mailplanes - Possible Fast Bombers before 1939

[Romantic Technofreak]

It was not only Germany that abandoned the concept of the fast bomber - a machine able to run out any fighter of its time. The world had to wait for the Mosquito to make this concept become reality. But it could have been realized much earlier.

The Mosquito´s ancestor was the De Havilland DH 88 Comet:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~tozu/dh88/images/g-acss5.jpg

Obviously nobody thought of equipping this racebird with appropriate engines - or De Havilland found nobody to finance it. So, though being extremely fast for its motorization, the aircraft kept on transporting mailsacks. See this amazing Dutch website for complete information (and some Airwar 1946 fantasy, maybe we return to that some other time):

http://www.xs4all.nl/~tozu/dh88/index.htm

I just learned from this site that the Comet involved the development of the French Caudron C-670, and this one really was intended as a fast bomber. But, using only 2 x 220 hp? Just enjoy this picture, and find out the position of the bomb aimer!

http://www.aviafrance.com/images/388.jpg

Even the USSR could have joined, emlploying the Grigorovich DG-55:

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/from_pdf/grigorovich/img/grigorovich_1_1.jpg

So we have to accept that the world missed the chance to bring this fascinating class of aircrafts into service before WWII broke out. One last thing: In my eyes, the pointed noses of these aircrafts cry for a third engine (would this add some Italian bomber design style [:p])!

[simon]

Nice post! I wonder if the extra drag of an additional nose engine and associated heavier structure, extra fuel tankage, etc, would have been worth it though. Then of course you'd have to reposition the cockpit or adopt a tricycle undercarriage, not unsurmountable of course by far, but probably requiring a much heftier aircraft.

I can't help noticing a vague similarity in design appearance to the Fw187 Falke, and with that in mind I think the designs perhaps merit consideration as Zerstorer as well, or foreign equivalents, afterall that nose could carry a hefty battery of guns and cannon as easily, if not more so than a third engine!

Why didn't anyone else try to mimick the Luftwaffe's Zerstorer pre-war? All in all it seemed a pretty promising idea in theory, hmm perhaps there's another thread there...

I do like the whimsical Airwar 1946 section in the link though, not as factually based or researched as Luft46 (Although of course the owner makes no pretences that his site is supposed to be anything like the latter!), but good fun nonetheless especially Burdurian Bf109!

[Ricky]

The counter-history is very good!
The Rote Pfeils made me chuckle...

(back on topic)
It's funny how the Russian plane looks so similar to the Comet.
Still, similar jobs, similar look, I suppose...

[simon]

Agreed! :D

How much spare time must this guy have? I barely have enough to paint and make a 1/72nd fighter kit in the colours and decals that came in the box, nevermind coming up with fantasy airshow display teams!

[Ricky]

Mind you, did you see the pictures of his work space?
I have to use our diningroom table for my modelling, which involves

a) competeing for space
b) moving it all off every mealtime [B)]

I'd love to have that kind of flexibility.

(and a wife that sympathetic!;))

[simon]

Very true. If I had a dedicated workspace like that where I could just sit down for half an hour and paint I'd be fine. It's having to spend half an hour either side packing everything away and unpacking it all that takes the time. I need a slot of spare time about two hours long to be able get anything done!

[Ricky]

*sigh*

Ah, the dream...

I have partially solved the time problem by kitting out a toolbox with the selection of paints and tools needed for the model I'm currently working on (plus the model!). This means that all I need do to set up is put down newspaper & my cutting mat, open up the toolbox and I'm off!

Packing up still takes a fair while, though.

When I was at Uni my bedroom had a little 'study' attached - basically a cupboard with desk (and window!). I turned this into my studio, and got a surprising amount of modelling done. I even had to put up a shelf to store my completed kits!

We do seem to have drifted off topic...

[GregP]

There were quite a few interesting twin engine planes around. One was the Sud Est Se.100

http://ww2photo.mimerswell.com/air/fr/se/04240.jpg

Note the rear landing gear is located in the lower vertical fin. Strange, but it IS French, so I expect that. The Russians had many excellent twins including the Petlyakov Pe-2/3 and the Japanese had too many twins to mention. The best was probably the Mitsubishi Ki-46 Dinah, but it was used solely for reconaissance for some reason.

Breguet produced the 691 - 695 series that were pretty good.

http://www.wwiitechpubs.info/hangar/ac-francaise/ac-fr-ga-breguet-bre-693/images/ac-fr-ga-

These looked neat, but I have no idea if they were good aircraft. Caudron not only had the 670 mentioned above, but also the 640 / 641.

http://membres.lycos.fr/ailesfrance/images/8481.jpg

Now that looks like a Comet!

Fiat made the FC.20.

http://www.comandosupremo.com/CANSAFC20Bis.jpg

One of my favorites is the post-WWII FMA I.Ae.30 Namcu. No pic, but I have it in my datbase. Pretty. Looks like a De Havilland Hormet.

How about the Gloster F.9/37?

http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/pictures/gallery/gloster%20f9%2037.jpg

The USA joined in, too. This is the Grumman F5F (or R-50).

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/photos/skyrockt.jpg

Then there was the Hanriot H.220.

http://www.raravia.com/img/h220.jpg

The Italians also joined in with the IMAM Ro.57 / 58.

http://www.comandosupremo.com/Ro57.jpgThere are a lot more, but that's a good start.

[Ricky]

After Greg's heroic effort to drag this back on topic (nice pics btw), I would just like to say one final thing on the Air war 1946...
Surely he cannot be serious making the Arado Ar234 into an AWACS and the Me410 into a torpedo bomber!
The other way round would work quite well, or even use RT's Me210 as both...
The Ar234 just has not got the range required...

I'm done! :D

Is it me, or does the FC.20 look a bit like a Ju.88 with a twin-tail?

[Romantic Technofreak]

It is nice to see so many answers, friends. No matter if they miss the topic. I have to give a lot of replies:

quote:I wonder if the extra drag of an additional nose engine and associated heavier structure, extra fuel tankage, etc, would have been worth it though. Then of course you'd have to reposition the cockpit or adopt a tricycle undercarriage, not unsurmountable of course by far, but probably requiring a much heftier aircraft.



Of course there would have been changes required. What would you say to a big, 3-engined destroyer having three fuselages (the two outer ones being the prolongated engine nacelles, connected with the central one by the horizontal fin) as early predecessor of the Me 261?
Can´t help fantasizing about aircraft that have never been...;)!


quote:The Rote Pfeils made me chuckle...

Yes, an expensive aerobatics team, if you consider the gas-guzzling DB 603 engines and the typically German thriftyness. Bücker Bü 181s would have been the appropriate ones[|)][V].

quote:Why didn't anyone else try to mimick the Luftwaffe's Zerstorer pre-war? All in all it seemed a pretty promising idea in theory, hmm perhaps there's another thread there...


I think Greg´s answer shows that there have been other efforts too. By the way, I am preparing for a thread how you mention it, but this takes time (and a different one in between).

quote:It's funny how the Russian plane looks so similar to the Comet.
Still, similar jobs, similar look, I suppose...

The similarity reminded me also to the "Concordski" Tu-144. Industrial espionage (or just copying) surely was invented before the 60´s.[8D]

Greg, you are right mentioning nimble two-engined airplanes, but none of these was thought as fast bomber. "Fast bomber" means a bomb-carrying airplane able to outrun enemy fighters, as it was applied with, and not before, the Mosquito. What I want to say is that this concept was discussed long before 1939, but nobody took the ball. The concepts of those airplanes you mentioned are not far distant of the one of a fast bomber, but it is questionable if all of these could have been converted to one. At least, the bomb bay is missing on many of them, but mailplanes must have a cargo space, enabling a military use of it as bomb bay.

(May I give a definition? The destroyer, German Zerstörer, is a multi-engined fighter with a crew of at least two. The other possibility is: single crew member, but heavier armed and slower than a fighter)

Breguet 690 series - assault airplanes

S.N.C.A.S.E SE-100 - destroyer prototype

Petlyakov Pe-2/3 - bomber, very adaptable, but not too fast

Mitsubishi Ki-46 - reconnoissater. Fast bomber function imaginable (we discussed this already in the "Prettiest airplane" thread)

Caudron 640/641 - Civil version of the Caudron 670, what I mentioned as the only real effort converting a mailplane to a fast bomber.

Fiat-CANSA FC 20 - assault aiplane, mate of the Hs 129, but suffered from overweight

Gloster F.9/37 - destroyer, lost against the Beaufighter

Grumman F5F - fighter

Hanriot H.220 - destroyer prototype

IMAM Ro. 57/58 - destroyer prototype

quote:Surely he cannot be serious making the Arado Ar234 into an AWACS and the Me410 into a torpedo bomber!


He can. In the book "Secret weapons of the Luftwaffe Vol. III) there is the invention of a rotating antenna shown, named "FuG 244 Berlin N" and placed on an Ar 234. It is claimed that the concept became a war prey to the Allies, which developped the AWACS antenna from it. And, if you consider the Short Sturgeon (and the Beaufighter of course), why should the Me 410 not become a torpedo bomber? It served it las time as coastal protector in Norway!

So, friends, I gave you a lot to read, and hopefully a lot to answer!

[B-24WillowRun]

Well I have been reading about Grumman Cats and the XF5F program was only that one airframe. It was a big fighter that could take mail if it ever was built. But it did lead to the Tigercat F7F[:p] Sadly the T-Cat was swept out of the Navy when the F4U seemed to never die, and why is that [?]

[amigojeff]

As for D.H.88 or DG-55,two engines were enough considering their sizes and weights,the third central engine would take up way too much room and weight and cause many problems.The Italian trimotors(S.M.79,81,75,etc) were much bigger machines.

Breguet 693 did have a bomb bay just behind the cockpit,but used as a low level bomber sufferd heavy losses under German small-caliber FLAKs.It's fast(490km/h),but in 1939,still slower than many fighters.

As an example of early fast bombers,how about SB-2-bis?In Spanish Civil War,SB bombers were fast(450km/h) than most fighters they met.

[Ricky]

quote:He can. In the book "Secret weapons of the Luftwaffe Vol. III) there is the invention of a rotating antenna shown, named "FuG 244 Berlin N" and placed on an Ar 234. It is claimed that the concept became a war prey to the Allies, which developped the AWACS antenna from it. And, if you consider the Short Sturgeon (and the Beaufighter of course), why should the Me 410 not become a torpedo bomber? It served it las time as coastal protector in Norway!

My problem was just that surely the Ar234 has very limited 'loiter time', and surely something like the Me410 would be a better choice for that. AWACS aircraft do not need speed, which is the AR234s biggest (or only?) asset.

Sure, why not have the Me410 as a torpedo plane? But if the escorting fighters are Me262s, surely using a jet (Ar234) would make more sense...

[Romantic Technofreak]

I don´t know how the SB2

http://unicraft.20m.com/novo/sb2.jpg

made it against early versions of the Bf 109. Fact is that He 111 and Do 17 outran the Polikarpov I-16 during the Spanish Civil war. Subsequently it was considered that a special fast bomber is unneccessary. He 119 and Hs 127 were given up, and the promising original designs of Do 17 and Ju 88 were converted into conventional bombers.

Incredible what you can find at all in the web (solo pictures won´t show up, sorry):

http://www.geocities.com/uni1ua/ar23448/ar234.htm

The Arado-AWACS I was talking about. Of course Ricky is right mentioning the unsatisfactory endurance of jet airplanes of that time. The best patrol plane design for me would have been the Blohm & Voss P. 203,

http://www.luft46.com/bv/3bb203.jpg

with combined jet and piston engine drive (although I don´t like the "potato harvester" design of the jet intakes ;)). So you could combine speed and endurance when the turboprop is not yet in service.

[Ricky]

Hey, nice Model RT!

As far as I was aware, the SB2 did very well against the current Biplanes in the Spanish Civil War, but not the 109.

I could easily be wrong...
Greg - surely you can provide comparative speeds!

[simon]

The SB-2 was a pretty impressive aircraft by the standards of the thirties, able to outrun much of the fighter opposition (In fact it did so well that the Japanese Army copied it, significant perhaps that the copy was easy meat for Allied fighters by the start of the war in the Far East).

Having asked why no-one else tried to mimick the Zerstorer, of course there are a number of twin engine fighters some successful, some not, and many were pre-war designs or specifications, but no-one really thought of them as anything more than just big interceptors, except the Luftwaffe. Even one of the most successful, Lockheed's Lightning, was really intended as a fast climbing interceptor.

It just seems that no-one outside the Luftwaffe saw the need for a long ranged fighter aircraft pre-war.

[B-24WillowRun]

Maybe they were just thinking of it because they knew better where things were headded? As for the Lightening it was developed if I remember readign corectly inpart from RAF interests. But the P-38 was found to be great at what ever it did. [:I]