Question about Tallboy/Grand Slam bombs
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question about Tallboy/Grand Slam bombs
Leo McKinstry in his book Lancaster claims the Tallboy bomb designed by Barnes Wallis could reach a terminal velocity of 3700 feet per second. He also says the Grand Slam bomb exceeded the speed of sound when dropped from 12,000 feet. These incredible speeds seem to defy the laws of physics and I have trouble believing this was possible. Can someone please clarify this.
In 'The Dam Busters' by Paul Brickhall he comments at Barnes Wallis was trying to develop big bombs to create earthquake effects & that he calculated the bombs needed to be dropped from 40,000ft to reach the necessary velocity. This was very early in the war and he realized he'd have to develop a bomber (the 'Victory Bomber') to get a bomb that high. In the end he settled on bigger bombs dropped from a lower height by the Lancaster. The Tallboy first due to the difficulty of making the Grand Slam. I know in that book it mentions that the Grand Slam bombs had to withstand impact speeds of about 1000mph.
I'll try to dig it out later today to see if / how it mentions how these velocities were arrived at. I thought that falling bodies would reach a 'terminal velocity' and wouldn't be that great a speed though?
I'll try to dig it out later today to see if / how it mentions how these velocities were arrived at. I thought that falling bodies would reach a 'terminal velocity' and wouldn't be that great a speed though?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Richmond Texas
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that Tallboy, dropped from as high as a Lancaster could carry it would just go supersonic. Grand Slam maybe a bit faster. Certainly not 3700 fps.
After an excellent landing you can use the airplane again.
After an excellent landing you can use the airplane again.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to recall a statement by Eric Brown in one of his books that when they were doing high speed research with Spitfires i.e. vertical dives, they would reach a point where throttling back the engine had no effect because all the speed was being provided by the aircraft mass - and they were hitting 500 mph with a lot more drag and a lot less mass than a Tallboy!
Also I think it was Sir Stanley Hooker who once did a back of a fag packet calculation that a Spitfire flat out in level flight was producing about 1000 lb of thrust. Sabres got close to the sound barrier in level flight with about 5000 lb thrust.
So a well streamlined bomb with 12000 lb (or 22 000 lb) of gravitational thrust? Through the sound barrier easy.
Also I think it was Sir Stanley Hooker who once did a back of a fag packet calculation that a Spitfire flat out in level flight was producing about 1000 lb of thrust. Sabres got close to the sound barrier in level flight with about 5000 lb thrust.
So a well streamlined bomb with 12000 lb (or 22 000 lb) of gravitational thrust? Through the sound barrier easy.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight thread drift
Was it really true that a Grand Slam/Tallboy parked on its nose outside an RAF airfield guard room was moved for road widening and found to be full of explosive? Or is it just another urban myth?
Anyway looking at the damage caused by BW's bombs [TV Documentary] supersonic or not, they made very big bangs/shifted shedloads of soil!
Anyway looking at the damage caused by BW's bombs [TV Documentary] supersonic or not, they made very big bangs/shifted shedloads of soil!
Gentleman Aviator
Inspired by Load Toad, I did a bit of back of the fag packet (OK - I used a calculator) calculation using very old O Level physics - having heard the same story myself in my youth.
I know this is very flawed, but I used 1100 fps as the "speed of sound" (OK, that's ICAN Sea Level) and 32 fps/s as g.
Using basic formulae (OK, I know that's in a vacuum!) of v=gt and d=1/2 x g x t x t, it gives an absolute minimum of about 19 000 feet, which makes claims of 3700 fps from 12 000ft seem very unlikely.
Clearly effects of air density (which would vary) and coefficient of drag (which wouldn't) would probably increase this figure - the CD certainly would.
After this my brain started to hurt ......
I know this is very flawed, but I used 1100 fps as the "speed of sound" (OK, that's ICAN Sea Level) and 32 fps/s as g.
Using basic formulae (OK, I know that's in a vacuum!) of v=gt and d=1/2 x g x t x t, it gives an absolute minimum of about 19 000 feet, which makes claims of 3700 fps from 12 000ft seem very unlikely.
Clearly effects of air density (which would vary) and coefficient of drag (which wouldn't) would probably increase this figure - the CD certainly would.
After this my brain started to hurt ......
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 70
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This doesn't answer your question but may be of interest - see the second post down.
Through the sound barrier easy.
BRITISH PILOT FIRST TO BREAK SOUND BARRIER!
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know about the exactly velocity reached by either the Tallboy or the Grand Slam, but both had offset fins to give them gyroscopic stability to counteract the effect of transonic shock waves forming and disturbing the path of the bomb.
The Grand Slam had offset fins from the first one, but the Tallboy was not fitted with them until after the first drop trials because it was affected in this way. This information came from Paul Brickhill's 617 Squadron book.
Very high accuracy was being demanded, the SABS bomb sight needed all sorts of corrections applied resulting in very high crew workload and having an errant bomb would have negated all that work put in to ensure accuracy.
The Grand Slam had offset fins from the first one, but the Tallboy was not fitted with them until after the first drop trials because it was affected in this way. This information came from Paul Brickhill's 617 Squadron book.
Very high accuracy was being demanded, the SABS bomb sight needed all sorts of corrections applied resulting in very high crew workload and having an errant bomb would have negated all that work put in to ensure accuracy.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hipper,
Thanks for that - fascinating! By the way, I was in the Rathaus (townhall) in Leipzig after they restored it - I didn't realise it was damaged in the war as it was in perfect condition.
Thanks for that - fascinating! By the way, I was in the Rathaus (townhall) in Leipzig after they restored it - I didn't realise it was damaged in the war as it was in perfect condition.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tallboy Bomb
The Tallboy had to withstand an impact velocity, if dropped from its optimum height of 18000 feet, of 750 mph after falling for 37 seconds .
Reference Dambusters by Wood, Lee and Watchel.
Reference Dambusters by Wood, Lee and Watchel.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems McKinstry is a little bit high for the terminal velocity of the Tallboy but 750 mph is pretty fast.
Lancaster is not a bad book - over 500 pages of it. It's well written but there are a number of errors. However, it's still worth reading particularly because of the first-hand descriptions form just about everyone involved with the plane including those on the other side.
Lancaster is not a bad book - over 500 pages of it. It's well written but there are a number of errors. However, it's still worth reading particularly because of the first-hand descriptions form just about everyone involved with the plane including those on the other side.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 86
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In his book "No 5 Bomber Group", W.J. Lawrence wrote of the Tall Boy:
"it was ballistically perfect, and in consequence had a very high terminal velocity estimated at 3,600 and 3,700 ft per second".
Don't know what bombing height that was at.
Bob C
"it was ballistically perfect, and in consequence had a very high terminal velocity estimated at 3,600 and 3,700 ft per second".
Don't know what bombing height that was at.
Bob C
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 86
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tallboy Terminal Velocity
The rule of thumb formula we used at NASA for quick calculations of terminal velocity was:
Vt = sqrt((2.m.g)/Cd.p.a))
Cd is drag coefficient, p is air density, a is cross sectional area.
If you plug in some “best guestimate” figures for the tallboy you get terminal velocity figures close to the quoted 3,700 ft/sec.
Bob C
Vt = sqrt((2.m.g)/Cd.p.a))
Cd is drag coefficient, p is air density, a is cross sectional area.
If you plug in some “best guestimate” figures for the tallboy you get terminal velocity figures close to the quoted 3,700 ft/sec.
Bob C
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Birmingham, England (sometimes)
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few quick sums:
If you neglect air resistance you have to start from 18,906 feet according to Newton.
(I remember this from a maths lesson in 1967 "If a plane flying at 19,000 at drops a bomb what speed does it hit the ground at? ignore the effect of air resisitance." I got to 1100 feet per second but the teacher wanted it in miles per hour and I got that bit wrong, which is why I remember it! Very irascible Scotsman was Laurie Andrew)
VnV
(I remember this from a maths lesson in 1967 "If a plane flying at 19,000 at drops a bomb what speed does it hit the ground at? ignore the effect of air resisitance." I got to 1100 feet per second but the teacher wanted it in miles per hour and I got that bit wrong, which is why I remember it! Very irascible Scotsman was Laurie Andrew)
VnV
Bouncing-Bomb Man by Iain Murray (Haynes 2009) p129:
"were dropped from 18,000'.... average striking velocity 1100fps"
A Hell of a Bomb by Stephen Flower (Tempus 2002) p98:
"from 18,000'......had taken 37 seconds to fall, impacting at just over 1,000 ft per second."
It would be nice to see the original test reports, I wonder if they are accessible anywhere; IWM or perhaps the Brooklands museum.
"were dropped from 18,000'.... average striking velocity 1100fps"
A Hell of a Bomb by Stephen Flower (Tempus 2002) p98:
"from 18,000'......had taken 37 seconds to fall, impacting at just over 1,000 ft per second."
It would be nice to see the original test reports, I wonder if they are accessible anywhere; IWM or perhaps the Brooklands museum.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
750 mph is pretty fast
3,600 and 3,700 ft per second
I don't see that as impossible for a streamlined and spin stabilised vehicle with 12,000 pounds of gravitational "thrust" but it would have to be dropped from a height that would exceed the ability of any optical bombsight to aim it. So, its the age old engineering problem of optimising the design - in this case, impact speed and impact resistance versus accuracy, that ends with an optimum dropping height of 18,000 feet and an impact velocity of 1,100 feet per second to achieve the desired penetration of, lets say, a submarine pen.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12,000 pounds of gravitational "thrust"
Gravity is not thrust, it is a fixed rate of acceleration and is totally independant of the mass of the object as every schookid knows.
A ton of lead falls as fast as an ounce of feathers in a vacuum which is what most of the above calculations are based on.