WesWorld

Oooh, the Arado looks like a very good fit for what I was thinking layout wise. I actually considered tailboom-mounted rear guns, and decided it was too complex.

On the Twin vs. Tri.
Revamping an old Fokker T.VII, it looks like a 2000kg, 2000km twin bomber could manage about 250kts at cruise, and 276kts max. About 30kts difference due to the 3rd engine.

As for why Tri motors went out...not sure, but they seemed to like to put the bombadiers and navigators in the glazed noses, which is hard if there is an engine there. Sticking the engine behind you came up with the problems I encountered. Simpler to spring for 4 engines in nacelles. Unless one of the goals of the bomber happens to be speed.

I thought about simply copying a Mosq. As it is, the speed is competitive with the historic F Mk II (359vs 366), albeit at 5,000 feet lower.

However, I both don't know how to sim plywood as a structural material, and part of Wesworld history is the plywood Italian fighter was found to grow moldy in the Kongo trials. Since places like Thailand, Phillipines, Peru, Brazil, Mexico and Kongo would all be hoped for possible clients, mold growing was bad. So it would have to be steel, which would cut off some performance. The lower supercharger altitude would knock it down some too.

Quoted

There has been no real fighter versus bomber combat since 1935, then planes like the Vanquish and the I-100 were legion.

And which is why I thought Avia would look to that conflict, and with a couple years removed the "lessons" seeping out.

The other aspect is that it's a leap from need guns to rely only on speed- esp when you're not going to outrun everything already out there. There have been planes over 400mph for a bit now, so fast simply reduces the chances and timeframe for interception, but can't be expected to allow you to run away.

As for markets - This would be expensive to have as all of your bombers, but I could see nations wanting a squadron or two B.161s for specific jobs. I'm thinking with the 800km functional radius (there/back+25%), most countries can reach their neighbor's vital infrastructure/choke points. Mexico can hit western Cuba, Argentina can hit all of Grand Uraguay, Azerbajain can hit Tehran, Persia can hit Riyadh or Bahgdad, Thailand can cover all of Vietnam/Burma/Malaysia or Rumania can cover all of Yugoslavia....just some examples.

On further review, I've found I was referencing the wrong plane - I mean the C-119 or C-82, not the C-47. Sorry for the confusion.

Anyhow, I decided to investigate the idea of a conventional twin instead of the tri. So I ported the B.161 back to work.

There, I finally took the time to a B-26 & C-11 image to get a proper fuselage diameter, figure out how far back the bomb bay went, add length for engine after that, etc. This also led to resizing the nacelle's cross-section after looking up the 12Z and making it slightly larger.

So.. the B.161 result is "final" and better.


There is also a B.161 twin for comparison. There I just chucked the booms and went for a standard single fuselage, 2 nacelle approach. It's a good bomber, comparable to the B-26, but compared to the Trimotor, it cruises 50mph slower, and has a max speed 40mph slower.

Avia B.161

General Type:
Airplane = 1
Airship = 2
Orbiter = 3
1

Year of First Flight: 1938

Description

Carrier or Rough Field
Monoplane
Twin Fuselage





Characteristics:

Weight (maximum) 30,313 lbs
Weight (empty) 18,281 lbs

Length 35 ft
Wingspan 59 ft
Wing Area 649 sq ft
Sweep 3 degrees

Engines 2.8
Minerva-Avia III (HS 12Z)
Piston

1,498 hp
at 16,404 ft


Crew 6


Typical cost $0.130 million in 1942
Total number procured 120


Performance:

Top Speed 333 kts = 383 mph
at 16,404 ft
Mach N/A

Operational Ceiling 37,000 ft

Range 1,080 nm = 1,244 miles
with 5,223 lbs payload
5,751 lbs released at halfway point

Climb 2,666 fpm

Cruise 275 kts = 316 mph
at 16,404 ft

Corner Speed 248 KIAS =
259 kts at 3,281 ft
Mach N/A
Turning Rate 28.4 deg/sec
Radius 1,763 ft



Internal Data:

Intake / Fan Diameter 8 ft

Bypass Ratio 61.23

Engine Weight 1714 lbs
Overall Efficiency 23 percent

Structural Factor 1.00

Number of Wings 1
Number of Fuselages 2

Limiting Airspeed 400 kts
Wing Ultimate g Load 7.00 g
Wing Taper 0.2
Wing Thickness at Root 2.2 ft

Tail / Canard Factor 0.4

Number of Nacelles 1
Length 37 ft
Diameter 6.72 ft
Fullness 0.3

Fuselage Diameter 2.9 ft
Fuselage Fullness 0.1

Pressurized Volume 0 percent
Cargo Decks 0

Cleanness 86 percent
Unstreamlined section 5.9 sq ft

User equipment 2,961 lbs

Aircraft Type or Name:

Avia B.161 Twin

General Type:
Airplane = 1
Airship = 2
Orbiter = 3
1

Year of First Flight: 1938

Description

Carrier or Rough Field
Monoplane
Conventional Fuselage





Characteristics:

Weight (maximum) 27,557 lbs
Weight (empty) 16,367 lbs

Length 35 ft
Wingspan 59 ft
Wing Area 649 sq ft
Sweep 3 degrees

Engines 2
Minerva-Avia III (HS 12Z)
Piston

1,498 hp
at 16,404 ft


Crew 6


Typical cost $0.114 million in 1942
Total number procured 120


Performance:

Top Speed 300 kts = 345 mph
at 16,404 ft
Mach N/A

Operational Ceiling 32,000 ft

Range 1,080 nm = 1,244 miles
with 5,180 lbs payload
5,664 lbs released at halfway point

Climb 1,876 fpm

Cruise 230 kts = 265 mph
at 16,404 ft

Corner Speed 237 KIAS =
247 kts at 3,281 ft
Mach N/A
Turning Rate 29.5 deg/sec
Radius 1,622 ft



Internal Data:

Intake / Fan Diameter 8 ft

Bypass Ratio 61.23

Engine Weight 1600 lbs
Overall Efficiency 23 percent

Structural Factor 1.00

Number of Wings 1
Number of Fuselages 1

Limiting Airspeed 400 kts
Wing Ultimate g Load 7.00 g
Wing Taper 0.2
Wing Thickness at Root 2.2 ft

Tail / Canard Factor 0.4

Number of Nacelles 2
Length 16 ft
Diameter 2.9 ft
Fullness 0.1

Fuselage Diameter 6.72 ft
Fuselage Fullness 0.3

Pressurized Volume 0 percent
Cargo Decks 0

Cleanness 86 percent
Unstreamlined section 5.9 sq ft

User equipment 3,524 lbs

Both look very good. I can't decide which is the better. The trimotor has the edge but is the 40mph (50mph cruise) and 5,000ft advantage worth the extra complexity and maintainence requirements of a third engine? It does look attractive though on paper.

Thanks for your help and comments

That's the reaction I'd hope for- attractive to some for the speed, vs. the expense and maintenance. I'd rather have 12 B.161s than 12 normal, but if the choice is 60 vs. 90... ehhh.

Again, my goal is competitive options for the NPC market.

With the B.158 twin, I don't see Avia pushing out another bomber in the 1939-41 time frame, so a new twin bomber will wait until 1942, and be fairly conventional with twin radials, +nose/tail turrets and probably a bigger bombload. Perhaps just a copy of the Fokker T.IX under the Avia brand.

I'll go ahead and put them in your format for the NPC aircraft thread shortly. I'll ask you to edit them in then.

While these planes are 'backfill', I think I should include notes regarding performance with later model engines, such as would be fielded in 1942, so that can be used going forward.