The Wittemann-Lewis NBL-1 "Barling Bomber" was an experimental long-range, heavy bomber built for the United States Army Air Service in the early 1920s. Although unsuccessful, it was an early attempt at creating a strategic bomber.
The largest heavier-than-air bomber of that period, it featured three mammoth wings and an empennage with four rudders and an elevator plane controlled by the pilot, held together in a box-like framework resting on a fixed tail skid. Powered by six 420-hp Liberty 12A liquid-cooled engines—four tractors and two pushers mounted behind the two inboard tractor engines—it was 65 feet long and 27 feet high, with a wingspan of 120 feet. Its empty weight was 27,703 pounds, with a gross weight of 32,203 pounds and a maximum takeoff weight of 42,569 pounds. Top speed was 96 mph and cruising speed was 61 mph; its range with a full bombload of 5,000 pounds was approximately 170 miles. It was also equipped with seven .30-caliber defensive machine guns.
To some it was the “Magnificent Leviathan,” to others “Mitchell’s Folly.” Its detractors considered the giant triplane a waste of taxpayer money, and dismissed it as reflection of the outsized aspirations of air power advocate Brigadier General William “Billy” Mitchell. Popularly known as the Barling Bomber, it was the largest aircraft of its day, and although ultimately a failure, it presaged a future in which even larger bombers would become the mainstay of American air power.
Walter H. Barling, the airplane’s British designer and namesake, had already fathered the Tarrant Tabor, a large experimental six-engine triplane bomber built in May 1919 for the Royal Aircraft Establishment, when he took on this new project. The Tabor turned out to be so heavy and out of balance that it nosed over on the takeoff roll for its maiden flight, killing its pilots. But Mitchell, then assistant chief of the U.S. Army Air Service, was impressed with the basic concept. He was convinced that such huge planes, loaded with bombs, were capable of sinking battleships. Moreover, he believed the Army Air Service deserved a budget that would fund them.
Mitchell forged ahead, eager to prove his assertions about the need for aircraft capable of combating warships. His July 1921 sinking of the German battleship Ostfriesland and three other ships seemed to validate his hypothesis. But when Kansas Congressman Daniel R. Anthony learned about the Barling Bomber’s cost, initially estimated at $375,000 though later increased to $525,000, he objected. Congress canceled further development work as well as the second prototype.
The bomber’s vital statistics, in addition to its cost, staggered the public’s imagination.
The main cockpit had a single control wheel and one throttle lever for all six engines that the pilot pushed forward or side-to-side to control the engine speeds for taxiing or to assist in making turns in the air. An unusual 10-wheel adjustable landing gear with oleo struts distributed the huge plane’s weight on the ground, a concept that is seen on some of today’s large aircraft. Dual wheels under the nose helped keep it from pitching too far forward during takeoff, as had happened with the Tarrant Tabor. Other futuristic features included reinforced bulkheads and special materials in the fuselage to help protect the plane and crew from anti-aircraft fire.
Walter H. Barling, the airplane’s British designer and namesake, had already fathered the Tarrant Tabor, a large experimental six-engine triplane bomber built in May 1919 for the Royal Aircraft Establishment, when he took on this new project. The Tabor turned out to be so heavy and out of balance that it nosed over on the takeoff roll for its maiden flight, killing its pilots. But Mitchell, then assistant chief of the U.S. Army Air Service, was impressed with the basic concept. He was convinced that such huge planes, loaded with bombs, were capable of sinking battleships. Moreover, he believed the Army Air Service deserved a budget that would fund them.
Mitchell forged ahead, eager to prove his assertions about the need for aircraft capable of combating warships. His July 1921 sinking of the German battleship Ostfriesland and three other ships seemed to validate his hypothesis. But when Kansas Congressman Daniel R. Anthony learned about the Barling Bomber’s cost, initially estimated at $375,000 though later increased to $525,000, he objected. Congress canceled further development work as well as the second prototype.
The bomber’s vital statistics, in addition to its cost, staggered the public’s imagination.
The Barling was meant to have a crew of six: two pilots in an open cockpit in the nose and a flight engineer seated behind them, with separate compartments for a navigator and radio operator, and a bombardier positioned on a small bicycle seat in the lower nose under the pilots. The bombardier had to send requests for course or speed changes to the cockpit via a pulley and rope assembly.
Very interesting article. It is a shame that it was destroyed.
ReplyDelete