WesWorld

Gentlemen,

some of you are capable of producing quite some nice aircraft drawings. May I ask you for help?

The RSAF flys a heavy bomber called B-14 . As this bomber is based on the historical Ju-89 I have only drawings and photos of the unarmed prototyp at hand.

Is anybody out here who could modify those drawings to make them show the armament discribed in the text? I think of Lancaster like turrets for and aft as well as a turret on and below her fuselage for example?

I have other variants in mind I´d like to discuss too.

Cheers,

HoOmAn

PM me an I will what I can do, a decent line drawing of the OTL Ju-89 would be helpful

The only drawing I have is the one I used in my encyclopedia section. :o/

So basically the whole thing has to be drawn....

So a turret (á la B-24) in the nose and tail, dorsal and ventral turrets and the last to guns are ?

The A model has two MGs each: nose, tail, upper and lower fuselage.

The C model has different turrets in nose and tail with bigger guns. Two additional MGs are added to windows in the fuselage sides (think B-17 style) firing through windows.

I first thought her nose turret should be as in the Lancaster or Liberator but probably it looks cooler if it´s like in the B-17. What do you think?

The C model probably also should have rudders of different shape and a more streamlined cockpit.

I also thought about a D version with a single rudder like the Privateer version of the B-24. Not sure if that´s really an option. What do you think?

Single fin is easier to draw

A quicky before I saw your answer

Not good but it gives you a start

A single fin would have to be massive to match the stability of a twin fin. I'd stick to the twin myself, most bombers had them historically. Also you want to think about control loads in the age before power-assistance, can the pilot move the rudder easily on the single-fin version?

Otherwise it looks quite neat.

Having all the armament in power operated turrets is a probably a bit optimistic for the early 30s. I'd think possibly a rear and dorsal turrets with power operation both mounting 2x7.92, then a pintle mounting in the nose like the B-25, two fixed weapons in the lower nose and either a retractable dustbin or simple hatch in the lower fuselage. For the mid 30s C-variant the all power operated turrets is a bit more likely but will cause a rather large increase in drag.

Simplified B



Some comments from Hoo would be nice

Hopefully this will help you

For the period, a dorsal mounting of some sort, a tail position, probably beam positions and a nose position would probably be reasonable. Dustbin turrets are TERRIBLE drag producers, and ball turrets are a bit in the future yet (though the RSAAF might be one of the first to get one, after the South American War).

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Hopefully this will help you

Thanks, got Waffen Arsenal 139 which of course had 3-views of all the German heavy bombers except the Do.19 and Ju-89...

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
For the period, a dorsal mounting of some sort, a tail position, probably beam positions and a nose position would probably be reasonable. Dustbin turrets are TERRIBLE drag producers, and ball turrets are a bit in the future yet (though the RSAAF might be one of the first to get one, after the South American War).

I think there's a good case for South Africa to massively invest in heavier defensive armament after their wartime experience. More power-operated turrets with heavier guns though a 15mm MG would be rather heavy and large. A Sperry ball turret with 2x0.50" weighed in at 1200lb without the gunner. Here is a single MG151 turret from a He 277.

For pictures ask on this forum. They have a massive collection of 3-views from their members.

I agree, the RSAAF, having had direct experience, will probably have a jump on everyone else in up-arming their bombers.

The problem of the size of the 15mm MG is one that I'm confronting wearing my German hat, though the MG-151s not any heavier than the M-2 Browning, it's 10 inches longer (5 inches in the barrel, 5 in the receiver). That makes for a fairly bulky weapon, which is why some things I'm designing for the future end up with a mixed armament of 15mm/20mm weapons and smaller, handier 11 or 13mm weapons (after the even smaller and handier 7.92mm's are discarded as too light to be useful).

Thanks for your input and drawings!

The Vickers Wellington flew 1937 - that´s 4 years later than the WW B-14. So I think manual nose and tail turrets with two 7,62mm MGs are not a problem.

The Avro Manchaster flew first in 1939 and featured a turret on her back as did the Handley Page Hempton of 1936. The American B-17 of 1935 had one too. Further more we have such turrets in use on other planes already - including fighters. So ventral turrets shouldn´t be a problem, right?

Regarding ball turrets I´m not sure wether there is a problem or why it´s unrealistic to assume the RSAF uses them. The historical B-17 which first flew in 1935 had them which would be only 2-3 years post WW B-14s and within the time frame. The Liberator first flew in 1939 and had one too - so for later B-14s it really shouldn´t be much of a problem. For early ones - not sure. A dustbin is not really an option. Opinions and proposals?

For a single fin I probably wait for later versions and the shape of said fin should be more like that of the Wellington...?!

Vukoflad, of your drawings I like the position and form of the turrets on your single fin version best. That one with twin fins is more or less what I had in mind. At least for the C-variant. For the original A version there probably is some tweaking necessary. In general the bow turret probably needs a lower non-glas part where the rotation mechanism is suited. Think Wellington again. Or would you think a turret as used for the B-17 is better?

Manual turrets shouldn't be a problem, no, same with dorsal turrets.

As far as belly turrets go, it's really the B-17Es (and the later versions of the Es at that) and the B-24Ds that have them, the previous versions don't (earlier B-17s and B-24s) or have the remote-controlled turrets (B-17Es) that are failures.

OK how about this for an early B-14



Or based on the 3-view posted earlier by RA

The lower pic looks pretty good. Her ventral turret should be smaller, though. Combined with the lower mount of the upper drawing and those windows I think we have the B-14A. The B-13C then should have the side windows including guns and a ball turret while her nose guns should then be in a Wellington like turret.

What do you think?