In article , Mike Marron
writes
Peter Twydell wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Nah, the Shackleton was a frumpy Brit post-war bomber
hopelessly outclassed by the sleek and futuristic B-29
which actually saw combat in both WW2 and Korea and
later copied by the Soviets.

If you want to compare post-war recip bomber aircraft, you'd
have to compare the Shackleton to the B-50 in which case the
Shackleton becomes even more hopelessly outclassed:

Shackleton total HP: 9,600 (B-50: 14,000)
Shackleton max speed: 287 mph (B-50: 385 mph)
Shackleton service ceiling: 22,000 ft. (B-50: 37,000 ft.)
Shackleton range: 2,500 miles (B-50: 4,650 miles)
Shackleton bombload: 18,000 lbs. (B-50: 20,000 lbs.)

And the advantage of the higher speed and service ceiling while sub-
hunting close to sea level is what?

I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"

Nobody said it wasn't a bomber.

Tell your mate Peter Stickney that.

It was designed for and was doing a different bombing job.

A "bomber" by any other name is still a "bomber..."

Pete said it was maritime patrol aircraft, which is a bomber by another
name, innit?

How's the petard business?

Get a grip.

Put 'er in the ol' vice yourself pal.

-Mike Marron

--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!