History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:49 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 11:03 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:29 pm
Posts: 5285
Note: Medium bombers are split into two sub-classes, Medium-heavy and medium-light. Medium heavy bombers are medium bombers that serve the same general role as heavy bombers but are cheaper but carry less warload and have shorter range that contemporary heavies. In a way, they are the poor-man's heavy bomber. In cost terms, one can usually buy around three medium-heavies for the cost of two heavies.

USAAF/USAF
LB-5 21.65
LB-6 28.12
B-3A 32.47
B-4A 34.37
B-6A 34.42
B-10 52.12
B-18 59.84
B-23 98.42
B-25 99.12
B-25A 106.66
B-25B 108.83
B-25C 111.73
B-25G 110.93
B-25H 115.13
B-25J 117.90
B-25JS 124.70
B-26 109.28
B-26A 119.76
B-26B 128.28
B-26C 125.86
B-34A 114.14
B-45 248.14
B-66B 286.65
F-111A 603.50
F-111D 642.29
F-111E 649.05
F-111F 727.12
USN
P2V-1 190.01
P2V-2 200.41
P2V-3 218.68
P4M-1 237.41
AJ-1 192.46
AJ-2 212.39
A3D-1 288.35
A3D-2 290.84
A-5A 494.71
A-6A 322.89
A-6E 347.27
RAF
DH-10 27.64
Aldershot 22.77
Hyderabad 23.66
Hinaidi 29.50
Sidestrand 28.60
Overstrand 33.48
Wellesley 50.06
Harrow 55.49
Bombay 70.34
Albemarle 74.45
Buckingham 110.60
Mosquito B.IV 111.27
Mosquito B.XVI 131.85
Mosquito B.35 134.22
Canberra B.2 220.32
Canberra B.6 240.42
Canberra B(I).8 257.95
Tornado GR.1 618.95
Tornado GR.4 645.31
Germany
AEG G-II 12.48
AEG G-III 15.46
Gotha G-I 14.34
Gotha G-II 20.07
Dornier N 24.75
Ju-24 29.59
Ju-52G-7 40.10
Ju-52G-7e 43.00
Do-17E-1 47.61
Do-17M-1 53.70
Do-17Z-2 56.31
Do-215B 75.13
Ju-86D-1 49.06
Ju-86E-1 52.63
Ju-86R-1 66.87
He-111B-2 56.24
He-111E-3 64.76
He-111P-4 71.89
He-111H-3 71.24
He-111H-6 72.61
He-111H-10 77.57
He-111H-16 80.22
Ju-88A-1 77.77
Ju-88A-4 95.09
Ju-88S-1 99.23
Ju-188A-2 102.45
Ju-188E-3 103.92
Ju-388K 118.94
Ar-234B-2 109.15
Ar-234C-3 143.93
Russia
DB-3 90.21
Il-4 95.74
Yer-2 98.28
Yer-2bis 127.50
Tu-2 107.67
Tu-2bis 109.61
Il-28 177.68
Tu-14 172.14
Su-24 456.81
Su-24M 474.31
Su-24M-2 506.81
Su-34 646.21
Japan Army
Ki-1 38.47
Ki-2 33.81
Ki-21-I 69.27
Ki-21-II 79.75
Ki-49-II 93.45
Ki-67-I 116.95
Japan Navy
G3M1 77.47
G3M2 83.55
G3M3 108.51
G4M1 109.55
G4M2 112.08
G4M3 110.12
France
Amiot 143 51.67
Potez 540 48.14
Amiot 354 83.03
Leo-451 84.30
Vautour IIB 234.61
Italy
SM-79-I 75.70
SM-79-III 84.53
SM-81 62.21
BR-20 75.78
Z-1007 84.75
SM-82 81.10
SM-84 84.35
Sweden
SAAB-18 104.26
Netherlands
Fokker T-V 59.88
Poland
PZL-37 73.13

_________________
There are 550 million firearms in the world, enough for one person in twelve of the world's population. The moral dilemma that faces us is how to arm the other eleven.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 9:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7568
Location: BM-9, BB-30
The thing that jumped out at me is that the B-34A ranks higher than all the Mitchells up to the B-25G. The Ventura was really that good?

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 10:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
The Bushranger wrote:
The thing that jumped out at me is that the B-34A ranks higher than all the Mitchells up to the B-25G. The Ventura was really that good?


It's not so much that it was that good; there's no single place where one can put a finger and say "that's why". It's a little bit here, a little bit there and no real antis. The B-25 is an interesting case in that it's always reported as a very docile, forgiving and easy aircraft to fly and I'd suggest its rating, compared with the B-34 and (much more so) the B-26 how what was sacrificed to gain that advantage.

It's interesting to note that a lot of B-25s were sold for civilian roles including corporate transports etc. Nobody EVER suggested selling a B-26 for such roles.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7568
Location: BM-9, BB-30
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Nobody EVER suggested selling a B-26 for such roles.


Point of order: some actually were converted to such roles; the Confederate Air Force's B-26 that crashed in 1995 had come via Tenneco, which had used it as an executive transport. But overall, that is a good point - they were far more rare than B-25 or A-26 conversions.

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
The Bushranger wrote:
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Nobody EVER suggested selling a B-26 for such roles.


Point of order: some actually were converted to such roles; the Confederate Air Force's B-26 that crashed in 1995 had come via Tenneco, which had used it as an executive transport.

Sorry, I didn't know that. The interesting point is, though that the best start towards being a "good" aircraft is to have no really obvious deficiencies. Aircraft that are reputed to have been "good" but don't show up well usually have a buried problem (often not a very obvious one). They may be structurally weak for example. Or, they may have a virtue that doesn't show up in hard-number analysis. The B-25 is an example of the latter case; an aircraft that is easy to maintain and very easy to fly may be preferred to one that is a higher performer in absolute terms but is a swine to maintain and difficult to fly.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 4:21 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:32 pm
Posts: 6510
Location: Currently 3rd Rock from the sun
What's the difference between a B-25JS and just a plain B-25J? I found tons of stuff about the B-25J, nada on the B-25JS.

_________________
Faugh a Ballagh


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
jemhouston wrote:
What's the difference between a B-25JS and just a plain B-25J? I found tons of stuff about the B-25J, nada on the B-25JS.

The J has a glazed nose with a bombardier. The JS (J strafe) has a solid nose with eight .50 machine guns.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2015 3:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6363
Location: Cambs, UK
dH Mosquite B.IV: 111.27

Ju-388K 118.94
Ar-234B-2 109.15
Ar-234C-3 143.93

So the earliest mark of Mosquito bomber variant in production outperformed or pretty much equalled its enemy rivals up until the introduction of jets. That's surprising and goes to show how "hot" the Mossie was.

Also, the figures for the Japanese show just how good the NELL and BETTY types were, given what was sent to oppose them in the early stages of the Pacific war.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 5748
Craiglxviii wrote:
dH Mosquite B.IV: 111.27

Ju-388K 118.94
Ar-234B-2 109.15
Ar-234C-3 143.93

So the earliest mark of Mosquito bomber variant in production outperformed or pretty much equalled its enemy rivals up until the introduction of jets. That's surprising and goes to show how "hot" the Mossie was.

Also, the figures for the Japanese show just how good the NELL and BETTY types were, given what was sent to oppose them in the early stages of the Pacific war.

No, that prompts a look to see what was sacrificed to get that performance. In the Mossie's case, it was structural strength, durability, and ease of manufacture by using wood. With the Betty, it was the durability, armament, and ability to take damage in exchange for range.


If the rating for a plane is low compared to it's contemporaries, that's likely a sign of non-optimal design, or of specialization. If it's very high. that may be a sign of min-max thinking on the design team, or of a technological breakthrough.

_________________
(English doesn't) just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.--James D. Nicoll


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6363
Location: Cambs, UK
Yes... I understand that. I know the Mossie was built of wood, I know it had ply delamination issues in the Far East; I know the Japanese types were lightly built etc. But still, those numbers tell us how good as a bomber that type was, and versus their contemporaries they're very good indeed.

I suspect the numbers are skewed due to:

i) the Mossie due to speed, handling and rate of climb.
ii) the NELL/ BETTY due to long range.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:24 pm
Posts: 2771
What would the A-12 have scored?

_________________
Pointy-Haired Boss: Is experience exactly the same as pessimism?
Dilbert: Experience is much worse

Dilbert
October 20, 2016


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:18 am
Posts: 6964
Location: Where the grass is green and the girls are pretty
clancyphile wrote:
What would the A-12 have scored?

Couldn't say--the model needs validated data from actual flying airplanes.

_________________
"The double tap is a myth. Shoot the threat until it goes away. Only then will his soul find peace." -- Dalai Lama


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 11:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
clancyphile wrote:
What would the A-12 have scored?

No idea. No confirmed data.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 2:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:45 am
Posts: 5155
Location: EGUD
KDahm wrote:
No, that prompts a look to see what was sacrificed to get that performance. In the Mossie's case, it was structural strength, durability, and ease of manufacture by using wood.

That's a prime example of peacetime thinking - wood is harder for a conventional aircraft company to manufacture, but not particularly hard (certainly easier than modern composite aircraft, to which the design and methods used are closely related). More importantly, there are a large number of skilled woodworkers available at this time in history who aren't really required for anything else important, and who can be set to work on this. Durability is also not a great issue - roughly one in six Bomber Command aircrews survived a tour of thirty missions, and the record-setting Lancaster did a little over 100 missions (less than a thousand hours in the air). That being the case, why pay for durability in performance? If an aircraft has by some miracle lasted that long, break it up for parts and use the airframe for instructional or decoy purposes.

_________________
War is less costly than servitude. In the end, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 8:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6363
Location: Cambs, UK
Following on from this, one could argue that in employing the skilled woodworkers to manufacture aircraft, one produced additional aircraft in the same timespan (that were put to effective use) than would have otherwise been the case, even if those aircraft weren't 100% optimal regarding the state of the art for durability; the next check would be to look at the average life expectancy of a Mozzie vs a comparable performance, metal construction schnellbomber, say the A-26 or B-26. That will then tell us how much of a trade off the performance gain vs robustness of construction was.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 8:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
pdf27 wrote:
That's a prime example of peacetime thinking - wood is harder for a conventional aircraft company to manufacture, but not particularly hard (certainly easier than modern composite aircraft, to which the design and methods used are closely related). More importantly, there are a large number of skilled woodworkers available at this time in history who aren't really required for anything else important, and who can be set to work on this. Durability is also not a great issue - roughly one in six Bomber Command aircrews survived a tour of thirty missions, and the record-setting Lancaster did a little over 100 missions (less than a thousand hours in the air). That being the case, why pay for durability in performance? If an aircraft has by some miracle lasted that long, break it up for parts and use the airframe for instructional or decoy purposes.


That's very true; its the philosophy the Russians adopted for all of their equipment. There was no point in building anything for durability since it wouldn't live long enough to be durable. As an example, there are virtually no original T-34/76s left. (I believe that some T-34/85s were actually converted back to /76s for museums etc). The big example is Russian aircraft guns. They consistently outperformed everybody else's because there was no pretense of durability or long life. There was no point in building a gun with a life of 100,000 rounds if the aircraft carrying it was going to be destroyed before it had fired 500. If a Russian aircraft gun malfunctioned, it was replaced, not repaired.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 9:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:07 pm
Posts: 568
Location: Netherlands
Question why is the Netherlands build and operated Fokker T.V bomber not mention in the list, it is almost in comparison to the Swedish Saab 18 bomber.

_________________
AH Alternate Timelines Forum


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 9:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10917
Craiglxviii wrote:
Following on from this, one could argue that in employing the skilled woodworkers to manufacture aircraft, one produced additional aircraft in the same timespan (that were put to effective use) than would have otherwise been the case, even if those aircraft weren't 100% optimal regarding the state of the art for durability; the next check would be to look at the average life expectancy of a Mozzie vs a comparable performance, metal construction schnellbomber, say the A-26 or B-26. That will then tell us how much of a trade off the performance gain vs robustness of construction was.


schnellbomber, - aaarrgggh. :D

The Mosquito was certainly a short-life aircraft but that was conceptual rather than physical. In fact, the Mosquito was very much a Bristol Blenheim 3 years later. If was had broken out in 1936, the Blenheim would have had much the same reputation as the Mosquito has today, the light bomber that was so fast defensive fighters couldn't catch it. Likewise, if war had broken out in 1944 when jet powered fighters were coming into service, the Mosquito would have the same reputation that the Blenheim has today - an obsolete and near defenseless target for enemy fighter pilots to hone their skills on before they got down to something serious.

In durability terms, its worth noting that A-26s (have been renamed B-26s and then back again) were still in combat use twenty years after WW2 - the last ones weren't pulled from service until the early 1970s. Mosquitos were long gone by then. Now that was a freak caused by treaties and the need for hack airframes but the fact the A-26 could last that long was intriguing.

There's an interesting comparison possible between the Mosquito and the B-36. Each existed in a niche that had a very short lifetime. In the very late 1940s and early 1950s, the B-36 was the queen of the skies; nobody could get up high enough to touch it. USAF documentation at the time was full of discussions about "the unexpected ascendency of the piston-engine bomber" and pointing out how it made existing air defenses obsolete (which it did by the way). The catch was that the unexpected ascendancy ended very suddenly. It needed fighters equipped with afterburners to solve the altitude problem and air-to-air missiles solve the firepower issue. Once fighters with afterburner-equipped engines and air-to-air missiles appeared, the B-36 was gone. It lingered a year or two as a night bomber but that was it. The Mosquito and the Blenheim went the same way - killed by new engines and firepower. The Blenheim was finished by the development of air-to-air cannon (or HMGs) and by the 1000hp engine. The Mosquito was killed by heavy cannon and jets.

Now, if we accept that analysis of the niche role it was in, then the lack of durability in the Mosquito makes a lot of sense. Assuming that the Air Staff had learned from the Blenheim experience, they must have realized that the "life" of the Mosquito bomber was going to be a short one and assumed the type would be withdrawn from service once the anticipated advances in fighter technology took place. The problem is always that the technical advances that made fast but defenseless light bombers plausible can also be applied to fighters to end the niche. The B-36 got away with it because the technical expedients used to get it up high (huge wings and lots of power from turbocharged engines) weren't applicable to fighters. When a substitute for them was developed, the B-36's superiority ended abruptly.

Radar also killed the concept of the Mosquito; the idea of fast bombers was that they could be through a defended area before the defenses could react (yes, one can spot Mosquitos on radar - the low-observable nature of a wood airframe is overstated) and that is a very viable tactic. But, it does require a minimum speed level determined by the technology and observation horizons of the defenses. Blenheims didn't have it, Mosquitos did against non-radar based observation systems but as those took over, the immunity faded.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 5748
pdf27 wrote:
KDahm wrote:
No, that prompts a look to see what was sacrificed to get that performance. In the Mossie's case, it was structural strength, durability, and ease of manufacture by using wood.

That's a prime example of peacetime thinking - wood is harder for a conventional aircraft company to manufacture, but not particularly hard (certainly easier than modern composite aircraft, to which the design and methods used are closely related). More importantly, there are a large number of skilled woodworkers available at this time in history who aren't really required for anything else important, and who can be set to work on this. Durability is also not a great issue - roughly one in six Bomber Command aircrews survived a tour of thirty missions, and the record-setting Lancaster did a little over 100 missions (less than a thousand hours in the air). That being the case, why pay for durability in performance? If an aircraft has by some miracle lasted that long, break it up for parts and use the airframe for instructional or decoy purposes.

But the full supply chain for the aviation quality wood is more complex, and it did need skilled woodworkers to build it. Not that it couldn't or shouldn't be done, it's that the tradeoffs to do it if that chain and the woodworkers aren't readily available is very high.

As far as durability, again, that's a decision in balancing the competing interests. Again, we can get a higher rating by trading off airframe longevity, durability when taking fire, increasing the octane rating of the fuel, and various other methods. The optimization balance falls differently for peacetime and wartime. Sacrifices that are worth it in wartime are not in peacetime. The important part is to recognize the tradeoffs and be able to evaluate where each is desirable.

_________________
(English doesn't) just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.--James D. Nicoll


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 14355
Location: PCE(R)-857
Why is the A-6 rating so low? Lack of PGMs?

_________________
Shepard: "What kind of weapons does this thing have?"
Liara T'Soni: "It's a taxi; it has a fare meter!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group