More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids, with added nationalistic abuse (was: #1 Jet of World War II)

"John Keeney" wrote:
"Gord Beaman" wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

In other words, in your scenario above when the pilot increases
the wing angle of incidence (7-deg's), he simultaneously adjusts
his pitch and throttle settings as needed so as to remain stabilized
on the glideslope. He just doesn't gaily "pop the AoI switch" and
then react to what the airplane does...he thinks ahead and anticipates
what the airplane will do and plans accordingly (e.g: "fly the
plane" and pitch for airspeed power for altitude" etc.).

Of course Mike, I understand that but I just broke it down so
that it's easier for me to describe.

I still don't see what this AoI control will do _other_ than
give the pilot better downward visibility for landing and less
drag for high speed operation. Is there some other aspect that
I'm not seeing?...or is that it in a nutshell?...

As I mentioned in my response to you (the important part that you
snipped), besides just increasing the visibility, the variable
incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast fighter to
maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.

In other words Gord, the variable incidence wasn't designed to give
the F-8 "less drag for high speed operation," it was designed to give
the F-8 MORE drag (as the result of more LIFT) for SLOW speed
operation in order to land aboard carriers.

Also, if you peddle back to that website that you posted depicting
a close-up of the Crusader's wing in the raised position, you will
clearly see how the raised portion of the wing assembly directly
above the fuselage is flat as a sheet of plywood and protrudes
right into the relative wind -- effectively functioning as a speed
brake.

a) Improved visibility over the nose, that's good.
b) Greater clearance for the tail, that's good.
c) Thrust line stays closer to horizontal. Good? Not sure...
Any thing else?

I could be wrong, but I don't see any reason why the thrust line
staying closer to horizontal would be a "bad" thing. In the event
of a waveoff the pilot simply has to light the burner and go around
w/o making any drastic adjustments in angle of attack because
the raised wing is already configured for takeoff.

A & b would seem significant when making carrier landings.

Agreed. Although the 20-30 kt. wind over the deck is laminar
and smooth, the part curling down over the fantail is not which
can cause a sudden increase in rate of sink at precisely the
most inopportune time (e.g: ramp strike!)

-Mike Marron

Mike Marron wrote:


As I mentioned in my response to you (the important part that you
snipped), besides just increasing the visibility, the variable
incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast fighter to
maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.


That doesn't make sense to me Mike...as Peter and John say the
higher AoI used for landing allows the fuselage to be more
horizontal (better pilot visibility, keeps the tail higher when
in landing attitude and allows for shorter (stronger)
undercarriage...

In other words Gord, the variable incidence wasn't designed to give
the F-8 "less drag for high speed operation,"

I think it was, it gets the fuselage 'more in line with the wing
chord' which 'has' to reduce drag.

Why do all the engineering to design this complication if it
isn't a very important aspect?. I think that the 'only' reason
for the 'variable AoI' was to allow for low drag (and high speed)
flight yet ~normal fuselage attitude for landing (for pilot vis
plus normal u/c config)...

I think that it's possible that on an a/c with a very low AoI
like this the extreme nose up attitude of the fuselage (to get
enough AoA on short final) may not be 'liveable' because of what
John mentions (tail strikes) plus very poor pilot visibility plus
the requirement for very longlegged u/c as Peter mentioned.

it was designed to give
the F-8 MORE drag (as the result of more LIFT) for SLOW speed
operation in order to land aboard carriers.


Why?...you won't get any more 'lift and drag'
(you can get all you want with the elevators) BUT you WILL have a
much more fuselage 'nose up' attitude if you cannot increase your
AoI for landing.


--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

As I mentioned in my response to you (the important part that you
snipped), besides just increasing the visibility, the variable
incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast fighter to
maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.

That doesn't make sense to me Mike...as Peter and John say the
higher AoI used for landing allows the fuselage to be more
horizontal (better pilot visibility, keeps the tail higher when
in landing attitude and allows for shorter (stronger)
undercarriage...

With regards to the the improved visibility aspect, Peter and
John didn't just say it, everybody (including you and me) said
it. Regarding the part that you don't seem to get (increasing
the angle of incidence so as to help the jet maintain slower
speeds for carrier ops), well, I've tried explaining it to you
numerous differerent ways now and you still don't/won't get it.
Therefore, I'm done. Maybe someone else can try explaining
it to you Gord.

-Mike Marron

Mike Marron wrote:

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

As I mentioned in my response to you (the important part that you
snipped), besides just increasing the visibility, the variable
incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast fighter to
maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.

That doesn't make sense to me Mike...as Peter and John say the
higher AoI used for landing allows the fuselage to be more
horizontal (better pilot visibility, keeps the tail higher when
in landing attitude and allows for shorter (stronger)
undercarriage...

With regards to the the improved visibility aspect, Peter and
John didn't just say it, everybody (including you and me) said
it. Regarding the part that you don't seem to get (increasing
the angle of incidence so as to help the jet maintain slower
speeds for carrier ops), well, I've tried explaining it to you
numerous differerent ways now and you still don't/won't get it.
Therefore, I'm done. Maybe someone else can try explaining
it to you Gord.

-Mike Marron


Ok Mike...thanks for your efforts anyway, I appreciate it.
--

-Gord.

Mike Marron wrote:
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

Mike Marron wrote:



As I mentioned in my response to you (the important part that you
snipped), besides just increasing the visibility, the variable
incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast fighter to
maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.


That doesn't make sense to me Mike...as Peter and John say the
higher AoI used for landing allows the fuselage to be more
horizontal (better pilot visibility, keeps the tail higher when
in landing attitude and allows for shorter (stronger)
undercarriage...


With regards to the the improved visibility aspect, Peter and
John didn't just say it, everybody (including you and me) said
it. Regarding the part that you don't seem to get (increasing
the angle of incidence so as to help the jet maintain slower
speeds for carrier ops), well, I've tried explaining it to you
numerous differerent ways now and you still don't/won't get it.
Therefore, I'm done. Maybe someone else can try explaining
it to you Gord.

No offense Mike, but it doesn't make sense to me either. The
wing will produce the same amount of lift at a given airspeed/
AOA combination, regardless of its relation to the fuselage.
Pivoting the fuselage below the wing won't allow slower
flight, since the wing is the deciding factor. You will have
(again) a lower fuselage angle so that you can actually see
where you are going, but the stall speed shouldn't be affected.

Mike Williamson

Michael Williamson
wrote:

Mike Marron wrote:
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

Mike Marron wrote:



As I mentioned in my response to you (the important part that you
snipped), besides just increasing the visibility, the variable
incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast fighter to
maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.


That doesn't make sense to me Mike...as Peter and John say the
higher AoI used for landing allows the fuselage to be more
horizontal (better pilot visibility, keeps the tail higher when
in landing attitude and allows for shorter (stronger)
undercarriage...


With regards to the the improved visibility aspect, Peter and
John didn't just say it, everybody (including you and me) said
it. Regarding the part that you don't seem to get (increasing
the angle of incidence so as to help the jet maintain slower
speeds for carrier ops), well, I've tried explaining it to you
numerous differerent ways now and you still don't/won't get it.
Therefore, I'm done. Maybe someone else can try explaining
it to you Gord.

No offense Mike, but it doesn't make sense to me either. The
wing will produce the same amount of lift at a given airspeed/
AOA combination, regardless of its relation to the fuselage.
Pivoting the fuselage below the wing won't allow slower
flight, since the wing is the deciding factor. You will have
(again) a lower fuselage angle so that you can actually see
where you are going, but the stall speed shouldn't be affected.

Mike Williamson

Of course...exactly...
--

-Gord.

In article ,
Mike Marron writes:
"John Keeney" wrote:
"Gord Beaman" wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

In other words, in your scenario above when the pilot increases
the wing angle of incidence (7-deg's), he simultaneously adjusts
his pitch and throttle settings as needed so as to remain stabilized
on the glideslope. He just doesn't gaily "pop the AoI switch" and
then react to what the airplane does...he thinks ahead and anticipates
what the airplane will do and plans accordingly (e.g: "fly the
plane" and pitch for airspeed power for altitude" etc.).

Of course Mike, I understand that but I just broke it down so
that it's easier for me to describe.

I still don't see what this AoI control will do _other_ than
give the pilot better downward visibility for landing and less
drag for high speed operation. Is there some other aspect that
I'm not seeing?...or is that it in a nutshell?...

As I mentioned in my response to you (the important part that you
snipped), besides just increasing the visibility, the variable
incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast fighter to
maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.

In other words Gord, the variable incidence wasn't designed to give
the F-8 "less drag for high speed operation," it was designed to give
the F-8 MORE drag (as the result of more LIFT) for SLOW speed
operation in order to land aboard carriers.

OK Mike, tell me how that would occur. The wing doesn't care whether
the fuslage is aligned with it, is hanging down a bit from a hinge,
like an F-8, or is hanging underneath it by a flexible coupleing like
your trike. An F-8 will stall at the same EAS wing up or down, flap &
slat settings being the same. There's no extra lift. As far as the
wing is concerned, the Clmax, and the Angle of Attack required to get
it, is the same.

Now, if you're trying to say that, with a Crusader's wing up, it can
reach that Angle of Attack with a lower fuselage angle, than you are
in violent agreement with the rest of us.

Also, if you peddle back to that website that you posted depicting
a close-up of the Crusader's wing in the raised position, you will
clearly see how the raised portion of the wing assembly directly
above the fuselage is flat as a sheet of plywood and protrudes
right into the relative wind -- effectively functioning as a speed
brake.

Irrelevant as far as lift is concerned. And if they needed a Speed
Drake, they'd have designed the speed brake differently. (The F-8's
board was under the fuselage, much like an F-100's, and couldn't be
used for landing.)

a) Improved visibility over the nose, that's good.
b) Greater clearance for the tail, that's good.
c) Thrust line stays closer to horizontal. Good? Not sure...
Any thing else?

I could be wrong, but I don't see any reason why the thrust line
staying closer to horizontal would be a "bad" thing. In the event
of a waveoff the pilot simply has to light the burner and go around
w/o making any drastic adjustments in angle of attack because
the raised wing is already configured for takeoff.

Actually, with the typical AoA that a low aspect ratio jet is at
during a landing approach. there's a pretty reasonable chunk of the
jet's thrust pointed down, counteracting some of the weight. Sort of
a poor man's Harrier, if you will.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

(Peter Stickney) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Not to mention the Superfort's extra *4,000* total horsepower and four
humongous four-blade 17-ft. diameter props!

Seems that this has come up before. Actually, no, the extra power
really down't enter into it.

Cruise (Max L/D) occurs at the Equivalent Airspeed where the drag is
at a minimum. This occurs at the point where the Induced Drag, which
is decreasing as the speed increases(4th root of EAS), and the Profile
Drag, which is increasing with the square of the EAS. That's the
point where the minumum amount of thrust/power to keep flying occurs.
Note that the amount of installed power doesn't enter into it at all.

High power is useful, however, for times when more power than that
requiring maintaining cruising flight is important, such as when
climbing, or for takeoff, or maneuvering flight.

Interesting stuff. So lemme get this all straight: if you removed and
replaced the B-29's four R-3350's with R-1830's, that would NOT
reduce the cruise or top speed and although the Shackleton dropped
bombs from time to time it was NOT a bomber and the variable
incidence wing on the F-8 did NOT to enable it to maintain the slower
speeds necessary for carrier landings and the flat, raised portion of
the wing assembly directly above the F-8 fuselage did NOT serve
as a speed brake. Gotcha...

-Mike (mucho gracias!) Marron

In article ,
Mike Marron writes:
(Peter Stickney) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Not to mention the Superfort's extra *4,000* total horsepower and four
humongous four-blade 17-ft. diameter props!

Seems that this has come up before. Actually, no, the extra power
really down't enter into it.

Cruise (Max L/D) occurs at the Equivalent Airspeed where the drag is
at a minimum. This occurs at the point where the Induced Drag, which
is decreasing as the speed increases(4th root of EAS), and the Profile
Drag, which is increasing with the square of the EAS. That's the
point where the minumum amount of thrust/power to keep flying occurs.
Note that the amount of installed power doesn't enter into it at all.

High power is useful, however, for times when more power than that
requiring maintaining cruising flight is important, such as when
climbing, or for takeoff, or maneuvering flight.

Interesting stuff. So lemme get this all straight: if you removed and
replaced the B-29's four R-3350's with R-1830's, that would NOT
reduce the cruise or top speed and although the Shackleton dropped
bombs from time to time it was NOT a bomber and the variable
incidence wing on the F-8 did NOT to enable it to maintain the slower
speeds necessary for carrier landings and the flat, raised portion of
the wing assembly directly above the F-8 fuselage did NOT serve
as a speed brake. Gotcha...

Mike, Mike...
What I said, was that a B-29 cruised best at about 170 mph EAS. At
that speed, it takes about 4,000 HP to balance its drag. That's
1,000 HP/engine. Whether the R3350 could produce 2200 HP for 5
minutes at 25,000' is irrelevant to that. Top speed, of course, is
a different matter, just as I've said.

Yes, the SHackleton dropped bombs, but it was not ever intended
primarily to be a bomber. There was a C-123 flavor that dropped
bombs, too, and at one point, the Navy hwas using P-2 Neptunes as
night strafers in Viet Nam. (With a mighty pair of 7.62mm Miniguns
at that) Just becasue something did something once or twice
doesn't change its primary purpose. As we say up here, "If your
cat crawled into teh oven and had a litter of kittens, would you
call ;em biscuits?"

And again, the purpose of the tilting wing on the F-8 was to lower
the fuselage angle, not raise that of the wing. An F-8, for a
given combination of flaps & slats, stalled at the same speed wing
up as wing down.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

(Peter Stickney) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Interesting stuff. So lemme get this all straight: if you removed and
replaced the B-29's four R-3350's with R-1830's, that would NOT
reduce the cruise or top speed and although the Shackleton dropped
bombs from time to time it was NOT a bomber and the variable
incidence wing on the F-8 did NOT to enable it to maintain the slower
speeds necessary for carrier landings and the flat, raised portion of
the wing assembly directly above the F-8 fuselage did NOT serve
as a speed brake. Gotcha...

Mike, Mike...
What I said, was that a B-29 cruised best at about 170 mph EAS. At
that speed, it takes about 4,000 HP to balance its drag. That's
1,000 HP/engine. Whether the R3350 could produce 2200 HP for 5
minutes at 25,000' is irrelevant to that. Top speed, of course, is
a different matter, just as I've said.

Yes, the SHackleton dropped bombs, but it was not ever intended
primarily to be a bomber. There was a C-123 flavor that dropped
bombs, too, and at one point, the Navy hwas using P-2 Neptunes as
night strafers in Viet Nam. (With a mighty pair of 7.62mm Miniguns
at that) Just becasue something did something once or twice
doesn't change its primary purpose. As we say up here, "If your
cat crawled into teh oven and had a litter of kittens, would you
call ;em biscuits?"

And again, the purpose of the tilting wing on the F-8 was to lower
the fuselage angle, not raise that of the wing. An F-8, for a
given combination of flaps & slats, stalled at the same speed wing
up as wing down.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


-Mike (Zzz) Marron