C-47 as a bomber

gary1954 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:17 pm

marine air wrote:

Um , I think you guys are missing the point. Why did MIT graduate Jimmy Doolittle choose the B-25? HOrsepower and speed have a lot to do with survivability. YOU can strap anything to anything but you are going to have more losses. The DC-3 would have been an easy target to small arms fire on the ground much less anything more sophisticated, IMHO.

Actually, the B-25 was choosen by Lt. Gen. Doolittle for the Raid on Tokyo base on it's wingspan. He was all for using another bomber, until he learned that he was going to launch from a carrier, he opted for the B-25 when he found out about that little hitch in the plan.

JDK · **Posted:** Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:21 pm

gary1954 wrote:

He was all for using another bomber, until he learned that he was going to launch from a carrier, he opted for the B-25 when he found out about that little hitch in the plan.

Hey Gary,
Which one? I kinda like '299s over Tokyo' :lol:

gary1954 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:25 pm

I read it I believe in his Biography, It has been 30 years, and I can't remember what he had initially told Arnold which would be a suitable aircraft, until like I said, he learned that he was going to launch from a carrier, and without hesitation he said, then we'll have to use the B-25 or words to that affect. Don't wanna highjack this thread...sorry

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:25 pm

gary1954 wrote:

I read it I believe in his Biography, It has been 30 years, and I can't remember what he had initially told Arnold which would be a suitable aircraft, until like I said, he learned that he was going to launch from a carrier, and without hesitation he said, then we'll have to use the B-25 or words to that affect. Don't wanna highjack this thread...sorry

Gen. Doolittle was told that it had to take off in 500 feet - which immediately ruled out the B-26, which I suspect he would've like. That left the B-18 (See, we're sort of on topic), B-23, and B-25. This was narrowed to the B-18 and B-25 shortly thereafter, and the B-18 was ruled out because it's wingspan was too wide.

Ryan

gary1954 · **Posted:** Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:01 am

RyanShort1 wrote:

gary1954 wrote:

I read it I believe in his Biography, It has been 30 years, and I can't remember what he had initially told Arnold which would be a suitable aircraft, until like I said, he learned that he was going to launch from a carrier, and without hesitation he said, then we'll have to use the B-25 or words to that affect. Don't wanna highjack this thread...sorry

Gen. Doolittle was told that it had to take off in 500 feet - which immediately ruled out the B-26, which I suspect he would've like. That left the B-18 (See, we're sort of on topic), B-23, and B-25. This was narrowed to the B-18 and B-25 shortly thereafter, and the B-18 was ruled out because it's wingspan was too wide.

Ryan

The plan required an aircraft with an overall range of 2400 miles carrying a 2000-pound bombload and capable of taking off from the deck of an aircraft carrier. The only two possible candidates at the time were the Martin B-26 Marauder and the North American B-25 Mitchell. The B-25 was selected on the basis of its superior takeoff performance.

this information came from http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b25_5.html

marine air · **Posted:** Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:30 am

What about the A-20 Havoc? Can't it carry bombs? ALso wasn't Martin building the "Maryland" and the "Baltimore" for the French?
Lasty wouldn't the Lockheed B-34, or "Hudson" have made a better choice as far as range and wingspan? THey were in U.S. service at the time.

JDK · **Posted:** Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:50 pm

marine air wrote:

What about the A-20 Havoc? Can't it carry bombs? ALso wasn't Martin building the "Maryland" and the "Baltimore" for the French?
Lasty wouldn't the Lockheed B-34, or "Hudson" have made a better choice as far as range and wingspan? THey were in U.S. service at the time.

A quick check shows the Boston's range was inadequate, while the bomb load was OK. I suspect the same problem applies to the rest - shortfall on range or load or take-off performance (or excess span?).

famvburg · **Joined:** Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:41 am **Posts:** 540

Along similar lines, Lockheed proposed a bomber version of the Constellation, the XB-30, in the competition that brought us the B-29. I read somewhere once that the original Douglas XB-31 design was a bomber version of the DC-4, tho the common drawings of the XB-31 are the huge four R-4360 powered version.

JDK wrote:

Nathan wrote:

I still don't consider the C-47 and B-18 the same though.

No one's saying they are 'the same'.

Making a bomber out of a C-47 or DC-3 can go various routes, depending on how good a bomber you want and how many changes you want to make, or money you want to spend. What's interesting is that most routes have been tried - more than I'd realised, even oddities like Aeronut's Dak supply pannier racks and the R4D. The B-18 remains one of the 'from DC family to bomber' solutions.

You prepared to take a blind quiz on all the combinations, with or without pics? I'm not.

Cheers,

Warbird Information Exchange

C-47 as a bomber

Who is online