Comments on: Flying Bomb Guided by Man Pilot

By: KHarn

KHarn — Thu, 29 May 2008 15:54:46 +0000

What sort of bomb is that supposed to be? Where are the stablizing fins when it’s in the “plane”?
Also, the text says that it’s a 3500 lb bomb, but the picture says that the HE load is 200 pounds. The standard US bombs of WWI had a HE load of 45% while the load was upped in the late thirties to 51%. The Armor-Piercing bombs had a load of about 25%.
Look, let’s just send a dozen B18s loaded with eight 250 pounders each and forget about this crazy thing.

By: Firebrand38

Firebrand38 — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:29:49 +0000

jtobako
Fourteen days and no answer? I thought as much…..

By: Firebrand38

Firebrand38 — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:43:20 +0000

What’s your source for that?

By: jtobako

jtobako — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:24:56 +0000

You have to remember that early in WWII ‘gentlemanly behavior’ was normal, with early sub attack victims given supplies for rescue.

By: Neil Russell

Neil Russell — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 04:41:03 +0000

“Makes me wonder what value you put on the pilotâ€™s life”
Wouldn’t you like to get assigned this duty? LOL
Probably we are all reading way too much into something that was just designed to fill the pages of Mechanics Illustrated.
But after FB pointed out the “specially designed” rubber raft, I decided I would want it designed with a 200hp engine to get me the heck away from the destroyer I just sunk!

By: Firebrand38

Firebrand38 — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:36:28 +0000

“less expensive” and a “deathtrap, sure”? Makes me wonder what value you put on the pilot’s life.

Alright, even at the time this was written the Navy has carrier launched Grumman FF-1 biplanes that had a service ceiling of over 22,000 feet. So coming in at 10,000 feet isn’t much of a plus.

Unlike the cruisers in Star Trek battleships didn’t just float around alone. They had tenders, destroyers and other escorts. So of course they just sit there waiting to see what happens while you dive in on the battleship. No, I think the “theory” is that if this is deployed they are going to do their level best to shoot you out of the sky.

Then of course you wind up bobbing in your specially designed rubber raft in the middle of this battlegroup you attacked.

But as proven in WW2 you didn’t need this gimmick to sink battleships.

By: striatic

striatic — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:48:37 +0000

“Why this would be any better than a dive bomber?”

because it’d be less expensive, theoretically.

no engine, no landing gear. small size.

it could operate from long range bombers based out of range of a carrier counterattack.

it is a deathtrap, sure . but there’s a chance for survival. the japanese developed a similar plane late in WWII without an ejection system.

By: Firebrand38

Firebrand38 — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:33:40 +0000

Charlie and Neil
Actually the idea came back to the United States in WW2 as the BQ-7 drone http://www.designation-systems...../bq-7.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.....BQ-7_drone
It was one one of these missions in 1944 that Joe Kennedy Jr was killed.

Myself I wonder what the “special design” of the rubber raft was supposed to be in aid of.

By: Neil Russell

Neil Russell — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:11:16 +0000

Charlie, I’m still laughing at your comment on this one. I can see that poor schlub floating out there with those other guys and one of them says “and you are?”
Truly a Larry David moment.
Of course the idea would come back later by the Japanese who seemed to have only translated half of this article before they put the plan into practice