Boeing YB-40 Flying Fortress
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:52 pm
Operational only in ETO. Learned about it just yesterday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YB ... g_Fortress
Matrix Games Forums
What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
Boeing YB-40 Flying Fortress
Page 1 of 1
Operational only in ETO. Learned about it just yesterday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YB ... g_Fortress
RE: Boeing YB-40 Flying Fortress
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:07 pm
Allied shenengians, in Germany it would have also required dive bombing capability. This is what this plane obviously lacked to be successfull
Regards
Hermann Göring
Regards
Hermann Göring
RE: Boeing YB-40 Flying Fortress
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:17 pm
For years I have believed that He-177 was a twin-engine bomber. I guess YB-40 must have its own secrets.
RE: Boeing YB-40 Flying Fortress
Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:34 pm
Known about them for a long time now. An attempt to turn some B-17's into gunships to escort deep raids. Not successful for various reasons.
Failure of being able to differentiate between a tactical and strategic air force.
The result of trying to give a four engine strategic bomber a tactical capability. Better stated as a failure of doctrine.
in Germany it would have also required dive bombing capability.
Failure of being able to differentiate between a tactical and strategic air force.
For years I have believed that He-177 was a twin-engine bomber.
The result of trying to give a four engine strategic bomber a tactical capability. Better stated as a failure of doctrine.
RE: Boeing YB-40 Flying Fortress
Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:07 pm
The He-177?
I think that Goering/Udet destroyed its usefulness and delayed its deployment by demanding that it be capable of dive-bombing.
Wasn't its powerplant overly complicated by putting two engines in each engine nacelle and then having counter-rotating propellors. Was that arrangement necessary to get it to dive-bomb?
I think that Goering/Udet destroyed its usefulness and delayed its deployment by demanding that it be capable of dive-bombing.
Wasn't its powerplant overly complicated by putting two engines in each engine nacelle and then having counter-rotating propellors. Was that arrangement necessary to get it to dive-bomb?
RE: Boeing YB-40 Flying Fortress
Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:10 pm
And another what if...[:D]
RE: Boeing YB-40 Flying Fortress
Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:49 pm
A more aerodynamic nose arrangement of 8 x .50 cals on the PV-2D (only 30 or so delivered out of 500 ordered because the war ended).
RE: Boeing YB-40 Flying Fortress
Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:04 pm
Other B-17 field modifications.... [:)]
The 20mm nose gun was ordered removed once the engineers got wind of it as the B-17 nose was not stressed for a weapon of this size. Supposedly the pilots couldn't read their instruments while the weapon was firing due to the vibrations. [X(]
RE: Boeing YB-40 Flying Fortress
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:20 am
Matches the reports of B-25 noses being damaged from gun vibrations.
RE: Boeing YB-40 Flying Fortress
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:48 am
The dive bombing requirement excluded the use of 4 single engines - no wing would be able to cope with the stresses during recovery from dive.
Germany had no large engine powerful enough for such a big bomber (the Jumo 222 never materialized) so they had to couple two smaller engines.
This beast actually worked from late 43/early 44 after fixing many problems especially with the too tight engine installation.
Germany had no large engine powerful enough for such a big bomber (the Jumo 222 never materialized) so they had to couple two smaller engines.
This beast actually worked from late 43/early 44 after fixing many problems especially with the too tight engine installation.