B17s vs IJN CAs

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
We know that the Luftwaffe was never able to mass 400 condors if it wanted to.

Well, not surprising if one considers that there were less than 300 build[;)]

[Kwik E Mart]

are there any industrious souls out there that have tracked 4E replacement rates over the course of all patches? perhaps it is a moot point with the PDU option...i thought that it had been lowered significantly, but PDU might screw it all up

me thinks i would set a trap for the 4E swarms...send in the carriers to the edge of escort range of allied fighers and let the carriers LRCAP a token surface group sent in as bait...maybe you said P-38's were already on the scene, in which case, never mind...

[mdiehl]

If the Luftwaffe had built 1000 of them they still would have lacked the doctrine & other necessary prerequisites to mass them into a large (400 plane) close formation raid.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Focke-Wulf Fw-200 "Condor" was just strengthened airliner/cargo aircraft (and much less true conversion to military aircraft than, for example, what B-17 resembled it's civilian origins).

The success it had in Atlantic (before Allies countered it) was just statement for good German adaptation techniques.

It was never 100% conceptual military aircraft... just smart way of doing much with less...


Leo "Apollo11"

[mdiehl]

The B-17 was not a civilian conversion. It was designed from the get go (Boeing 299) to be a bomber. Ironically maybe is that postwar some B17s were converted to transport/airliner use.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The B-17 was not a civilian conversion. It was designed from the get go to be a bomber. Ironically maybe is that postwar some B17s were converted to transport/airliner use.

True, but supposedly it was a direct offshoot of the C-47. They did have the sense to put more engines on![:)]

[mdiehl]

Except that it wasn't a direct offshoot of the (Douglas DC-1 aka C-47). It was a from the ground up new design. If it had any similarities to an older plane it was more like the Boeing 247 -- to which the DC-1/C-47 was similar to the degree that both were twin engined radial engined transports.

[mdiehl]

Boeing 247

[mdiehl]

Boeing 299/XB-17

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Except that it wasn't a direct offshoot of the (Douglas DC-2 aka C-47). It was a from the ground up new design. If it had any similarities to an older plane it was more like the Boeing 247 -- to which the DC-2/C-47 was similar to the degree that both were twin engined radial engined transports.

Interesting - i had read (in more than one place) the C-47 descendency story. I'd stare at picture of both aircraft afterwards, and could never see the similarities the authors claimed. Your story makes more sense, i think. I'll have to read up on this...

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The B-17 was not a civilian conversion. It was designed from the get go (Boeing 299) to be a bomber. Ironically maybe is that postwar some B17s were converted to transport/airliner use.

I wrote "civilian origins" and not "conversion"... [;)]

BTW, most military bomber aircraft in those times (pre WWII amd beggining of WWII) had origins in civilian aircraft!


Leo "Apollo11"

[mdiehl]

Its origins were a 1934 USAAF spec and RFP for a 4-engined heavy bomber. The 299 was built by an commercial aircraft company specializing in transport aviation, but that's about all there is to rumours of "civil" origins.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Its origins were a 1934 USAAF spec and RFP for a 4-engined heavy bomber. The 299 was built by an commercial aircraft company specializing in transport aviation, but that's about all there is to rumours of "civil" origins.

I am not lazy (and have good memory) so I took out my B-17 book:

B-17 "Flying Fortress" by Roger Freeman


The mixed civilian /military origins for B-17 were 1930's design by Boeing (i.e. evolution of their designs):

Boeing Model 200
Boeing Model 215 (YB-9)
Boeing Model 247
Boeing Model 294 (XB-15)

In 1934 USAAF issued contract for XLBR-1 (Experimental Long Range Bomber) and Boeing applied with their Model 294 (the XLBR-1 was redesignated XB-15 later on).

In the mean time the USAAF issued another proposal for replacement of then current Martin B-10 bombers and Boeing applied with their Model 299 (looked much like smaller version of older big brother Model 294).

Project was lead by Claire Egtvedt.

Model 299 later become YB-17 and finally was accepted as B-17 in 1937.

The rest was history... [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"

[mdiehl]

It only "has its origins" in civil models in the most trivial sense. The Boeing a/c were of a general character -- monocoque aluminum low wing tail draggers with radial engines. So no, Boeing did not "completely reinvent the wheel" in the Boeing 299 but then Boeing did not in the design process begin by upgrading or stretching an earlier civilian design. Nor was a new company created to make a new plane so of course a "civilian" aviation company *would* have to be the one to make the plane thus draw upon some basic known facts about aircraft design.

Yes the 299 has the overall "look" of a Boeing plane. But it was designed from the outset from blueprints in response to a USAAF RFP for a long range self-defending bomber.

By the way, Ron, the DC-1 was Douglas project to compete with the Boeing 247. At the time the 247 had been put into production Boeing could only fill orders for United and could not meet the immediate demand for the plane. Thus was born the DC1/C47

[mdiehl]

This is a B200...

[mdiehl]

This is a B215/B9 with a P26 background all these are from Boeing's web site by the way.

[rtrapasso]

OK - how did the B200 change from a single engine plane to a dual engine one??[X(][&:]

[mdiehl]

The Boeing 294/XB15 is a codesign of the Boeing 299. Both were designed from the ground up in response to the 1934 USAAF RFP for a vlr bomber and used a common set of basic blueprints (so the 299 was not a developmental consequence of the 294). The only major difference between the 294 and the 299 was that the 294 was Boeing's liquid-cooled in-line engine design study; in contrast the 299 was Boeing's air-cooled radial engined design study of the same basic aircraft. And yes, the army did issue two different RFPs about 4 months apart. Boeing used the same initial blueprints for both. Both planes rolled out in 1935.

XB15 in test...

[mdiehl]

OK - how did the B200 change from a single engine plane to a dual engine one??

By virtue of sloppy typing on my part. The first one's a 200 the next one (twin engine with the P26 background) is a 215.

[rtrapasso]

EDITED - you beat me to it!