Bomb load P-38 vs. DH Hornet/Sea Hornet.

[Pasoleati]

I find it interesting that the substantially smaller and less powerful P-38J/L could carry 2 x 1600 lbs. bombs while the Hornet/Sea Hornet maximum was "only" 2 x 1000 lbs. The same applies to F6F/F8F/F4U vs. the Tempest/Sea Fury the Amis being able to carry bigger/more bombs. Any idea why?

 

[Apophenia]

I've no idea of the answer ... might it have something to do with British carrier deck sizes? Either way, I'm puzzled as to why the USAAF would want its P-38s to carry 1,600 lb bombs - those AN-Mk 1s were thick-cased, armour-piercing bombs intended for use against capital warships.

BTW: The RAF equivalent to the US AN-Mk 1 would have been the 2,000 lb AP - awkwardly large for an aircraft the size of the Sea Hornet. In any case, 1932 testing of British AP bombs (using the battleship HMS Marlborough) had shown them to be largely ineffective against capital ships.

 

[tomo pauk]

In any case, 1932 testing of British AP bombs (using the battleship HMS Marlborough) had shown them to be largely ineffective against capital ships.

Care to share some details about the testing, like what kind of bombs were used, or what kind of bomb-dropping method was used and from what height?

 

[Pasoleati]

That is not the point. The point is that we have a 4000 hp design vs. a 3200 hp design, yet the latter can carry over 50 % greater greater external load. Or, say the Sea Fury vs. the F8F: again, the Sea Fury carries a maximum of 2000 lbs. whereas the F8F's maximum carrying capacity is 3600 lbs. The American closest Sea Hornet "colleague", the F7F, can carry 4000 lbs.

 

[Apophenia]

Care to share some details about the testing, like what kind of bombs were used, or what kind of bomb-dropping method was used and from what height?

I've only found a snippet in 'The Development of RAF Bombs, 1919-1939' by Stuart Hadaway (in the Royal Air Force Historical Society Journal 45, 2009, pg.19)

The armour piercing bombs were, necessarily, thick cased. Three types were developed from 1921: 250, 500 and 2,000 lb, with, respectively, Charge:Weight Ratios of 17%, 18% and 8.8%. Naturally, these led to small explosions. The only test of any of these bombs saw one detonated below-decks on the target-ship HMS Marlborough. The damage was negligible. Also of note is that the bomb was placed there to be detonated, and not dropped.

On its HMS Marlborough page, Wikipedia mentions "450-pound (204 kg) armour-piercing (AP) bombs". Not sure what that is about. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Marlborough_(1912)

 

[Apophenia]

That is not the point...

Uh, yeah ... hence my "I've no idea of the answer ..."

 

[Scott Kenny]

I find it interesting that the substantially smaller and less powerful P-38J/L could carry 2 x 1600 lbs. bombs while the Hirnet/Sea Hornet maximum was "only" 2 x 1000 lbs. The same applies to F6F/F8F/F4U vs. the Tempest/Sea Fury the Amis being able to carry bigger/more bombs. Any idea why?

External carriage versus internal?

 

[1635yankee]

Operational preferences?

The Sea Hornet was not operational in WWII, had to take off from smallish carriers, and was generally operating in a far different environment than the P-38. The answer could be as simple as the RN saw no need to carry a heavier bombload.

 

[Jemiba]

Operational preferences?

...The answer could be as simple as the RN saw no need to carry a heavier bombload.

Would think along similar lines.
The DH Hornet was a fighter/fighter bomber, and only intended for such missions, while the USAAF developed a
special version of the P-38J ("Droop Snoot"), fitted with a two-men crew and a bombsight, as a lead aircraft for
formations of several P-38, acting as a kind of multi-aircraft heavy bomber then. Quite a different role, I think.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Would think along similar lines.
The DH Hornet was a fighter/fighter bomber, and only intended for such missions, while the USAAF developed a
special version of the P-38J ("Droop Snoot"), fitted with a two-men crew and a bombsight, as a lead aircraft for
formations of several P-38, acting as a kind of multi-aircraft heavy bomber then. Quite a different role, I think.

I was under the impression that the P38J was used as the Pathfinder for large bomber formations.

 

[_Del_]

That is not the point. The point is that we have a 4000 hp design vs. a 3200 hp design, yet the latter can carry over 50 % greater greater external load.

Probably as simple as structural loads. Later P-38's were beefed up for even heavier loads. Hornet structure may not have been as easily strengthened, and perhaps the trade off or even the ability was seen as unnecessary.

I was under the impression that the P38J was used as the Pathfinder for large bomber formations.

Both were done.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Well we had the Mosquito for bomb loads and that aircraft carried nearly as much load internally as the B-17. If you want to go to the lengths required to make Hornet capable of carrying greater loads you could but, why would you want to? There were other strike aircraft for the RNAS designed for the role.

 

[Hood]

A Hornet F.3 could carry a 1,000lb bomb and four 60lb 3in rockets under each wing, so that takes the total load to 2,480lb. They could carry a 200 Imp Gal drop tank and 200gals of fuel would weigh around 1,480lb, so that max underwing load would be 2,960lb.

You have to bare in mind that time the standard RAF bomb sizes were 500lb or 1,000lb. So logically most fighters of that period could carry at least a 1,000lb bomb, but drop tanks may weigh more than that. It's really only an indication of the capacity of the bomb carrier/shackle and not the structural load the wing can withstand.

 

[tomo pauk]

I've only found a snippet in 'The Development of RAF Bombs, 1919-1939' by Stuart Hadaway (in the Royal Air Force Historical Society Journal 45, 2009, pg.19)

The armour piercing bombs were, necessarily, thick cased. Three types were developed from 1921: 250, 500 and 2,000 lb, with, respectively, Charge:Weight Ratios of 17%, 18% and 8.8%. Naturally, these led to small explosions. The only test of any of these bombs saw one detonated below-decks on the target-ship HMS Marlborough. The damage was negligible. Also of note is that the bomb was placed there to be detonated, and not dropped.

Thank you for the feedback.

One can just hope that a person that ordered testing of aerial bombs without actually dropping them from the aircraft was quickly dispatched to the cozy and advantageous position of counting penguins on South Georgia.

On its HMS Marlborough page, Wikipedia mentions "450-pound (204 kg) armour-piercing (AP) bombs". Not sure what that is about. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Marlborough_(1912)

We might expect that a 1000, 1600 or 2000 lb AP bomb might be doing a more serious damage against the thickly-armored warships.

That is not the point. The point is that we have a 4000 hp design vs. a 3200 hp design, yet the latter can carry over 50 % greater greater external load. Or, say the Sea Fury vs. the F8F: again, the Sea Fury carries a maximum of 2000 lbs. whereas the F8F's maximum carrying capacity is 3600 lbs. The American closest Sea Hornet "colleague", the F7F, can carry 4000 lbs.

FWIW, the P-38 was tested with two 2200 lb torpedoes; it was also able to carry 2x 300 US gal drop tanks (= 600 x 6 = 3600 lbs + weight of the empty tanks). Taking off at overload weights required the long runaway, a luxury not available to the Sea Hornet.
P-38 also had the Fowler flaps, these were a big bonus when trying to take off under heavy loads.

Last but not least, P-38s rarely carried more than 1000 lb of bombs under each wing.

External carriage versus internal?

Neither of the listed A/C have had internal storage.

 

[tomo pauk]

I was under the impression that the P38J was used as the Pathfinder for large bomber formations.

Both were done.

What was the 2nd aircraft type?

 

[_Del_]

What was the 2nd aircraft type?

It was a 8th AF invention originally to give the fighter-formations a Norden-equipped lead aircraft, then used occasionally like the RAF Mosquitoes as pathfinders.
Oddly, the H2X-equipped version is frequently called a Pathfinder now on the internet, but was used to my knowledge only for radar-mapping. It is possible that it, too, was occasionally used as a pathfinder-lead, but H2X was already equipped in B-17's and -24's well in advance of the P-38.

 

[tomo pauk]

It was a 8th AF invention originally to give the fighter-formations a Norden-equipped lead aircraft, then used occasionally like the RAF Mosquitoes as pathfinders.
Oddly, the H2X-equipped version is frequently called a Pathfinder now on the internet, but was used to my knowledge only for radar-mapping. It is possible that it, too, was occasionally used as a pathfinder-lead, but H2X was already equipped in B-17's and -24's well in advance of the P-38.

Thank you.
So that is the 1st aircraft. What was the 2nd aircraft type you had in mind?

 

[_Del_]

Thank you.
So that is the 1st aircraft. What was the 2nd aircraft type you had in mind?

Do you mean which bombers? 8AF had both B-17's and B-24's. I'd have to dig deeper for specific missions. There is an 8AF mission list archive online, or the next time I head in the direction of Savannah they have helpful staff at the 8th museum.

 

[tomo pauk]

Do you mean which bombers? 8AF had both B-17's and B-24's. I'd have to dig deeper for specific missions. There is an 8AF mission list archive online, or the next time I head in the direction of Savannah they have helpful staff at the 8th museum.

What fighters were used as pathfinders (when suitably modified)? P-38 was one of them. You've said that 'both' were used in that role. What was the second aircraft you had in mind?

 

[_Del_]

What fighters were used as pathfinders (when suitably modified)? P-38 was one of them. You've said that 'both' were used in that role. What was the second aircraft you had in mind?

We might be talking past eachother. I said both were done, in response to:

..., while the USAAF developed a
special version of the P-38J ("Droop Snoot"), fitted with a two-men crew and a bombsight, as a lead aircraft for
formations of several P-38, ...

I was under the impression that the P38J was used as the Pathfinder for large bomber formations.

"Both were done" by the P-38. Perhaps I was less clear than I should have been with multiple quotes being referenced.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What was the 2nd aircraft type?

Both leading formations of P38s and leading formations of large bombers, not a second aircraft type.