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

In message , Mike Marron
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Mike Marron writes
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:

Compare out-of-service dates before you get too carried away

I once knew a barber who had been cutting hair for 40 years...

-Mike ( never was capable of giving a decent haircut Marron

Yeah, but the B-50 was completely outclassed by the B-36 and look how
long _that_ lasted...

Meanwhile the Shackleton flew on until the 1980s, and the almost equally
ancient Canberra flies on still. When a design finds the right niche, it
can be very long-lived.

(Look at the C-130 and the B-52)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

Meanwhile the Shackleton flew on until the 1980s, and the almost equally
ancient Canberra flies on still. When a design finds the right niche, it
can be very long-lived.

Thank gawd the Brits managed to find a niche for the Shackleton other
than as a post-war strategic bomber!

-Mike (Shackleton = easy pickins) Marron

In article ,
Mike Marron writes:
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

Meanwhile the Shackleton flew on until the 1980s, and the almost equally
ancient Canberra flies on still. When a design finds the right niche, it
can be very long-lived.

Thank gawd the Brits managed to find a niche for the Shackleton other
than as a post-war strategic bomber!

Erm, Mike, even though the Shack was, in fact used as a bomber (Kenya,
Aden, and, I think, Malaysia), and it was the last of the Lancaster
breed, it was never intended to be a strategic bomber. The RAF's
Strategic Bomber when the Shackleton entered service was the
Washington, am MDAP provided B-29, which filled in the gap between the
Lincoln and the Valiant. The Shackleton, as its name implies, was
always intended as a Maritime Patrol airplane for Coastal Command.
(RAF Bombers, except for the V-bombers, were named after cities.
Patrol Aircraft were named after explorers.)


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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Mike Marron
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Mike Marron writes
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:

Compare out-of-service dates before you get too carried away

I once knew a barber who had been cutting hair for 40 years...

-Mike ( never was capable of giving a decent haircut Marron

Yeah, but the B-50 was completely outclassed by the B-36 and look how
long _that_ lasted...

Meanwhile the Shackleton flew on until the 1980s, and the almost equally
ancient Canberra flies on still. When a design finds the right niche, it
can be very long-lived.

(Look at the C-130 and the B-52)

I imagine the longevity of all of these (certainly the Shackleton) has more
to due with lack of money for replacement, than finding the right niche.
The Air Force would be perfectly happy to have an equal number of B-2s
replacing the B-52s, but couldn't convince Congress to pay for it. It would
certainly be possible to build a modern a/c design to do what the C-130,
B-52, and Canberra do cheaper and better, but that assumes that someone's
willing to pony up the money for the development and acquisition cost.
Hell, the C-130 could and probably should have been replaced by a C-14 or
C-15 25 years ago. Its longevity is due to it being the only Western a/c in
its class. If something like the AN-70 and A400M had also been available in
the west 25 years ago, would the C-130 have remained in production all these
years, given its limitations?

Guy

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 07:16:49 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Mike Marron
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Mike Marron writes
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:

Compare out-of-service dates before you get too carried away

I once knew a barber who had been cutting hair for 40 years...

-Mike ( never was capable of giving a decent haircut Marron

Yeah, but the B-50 was completely outclassed by the B-36 and look how
long _that_ lasted...

Meanwhile the Shackleton flew on until the 1980s, and the almost equally
ancient Canberra flies on still. When a design finds the right niche, it
can be very long-lived.

(Look at the C-130 and the B-52)

I imagine the longevity of all of these (certainly the Shackleton) has more
to due with lack of money for replacement, than finding the right niche.
The Air Force would be perfectly happy to have an equal number of B-2s
replacing the B-52s, but couldn't convince Congress to pay for it. It would
certainly be possible to build a modern a/c design to do what the C-130,
B-52, and Canberra do cheaper and better, but that assumes that someone's
willing to pony up the money for the development and acquisition cost.
Hell, the C-130 could and probably should have been replaced by a C-14 or
C-15 25 years ago. Its longevity is due to it being the only Western a/c in
its class. If something like the AN-70 and A400M had also been available in
the west 25 years ago, would the C-130 have remained in production all these
years, given its limitations?

Guy

For the job it performs the C-130 is certainly a better aircraft than
the A400M. When paired with the C-17 it is unbeatable by the aircraft
you mention.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote:

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 07:16:49 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Mike Marron
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Mike Marron writes
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:

Compare out-of-service dates before you get too carried away

I once knew a barber who had been cutting hair for 40 years...

-Mike ( never was capable of giving a decent haircut Marron

Yeah, but the B-50 was completely outclassed by the B-36 and look how
long _that_ lasted...

Meanwhile the Shackleton flew on until the 1980s, and the almost equally
ancient Canberra flies on still. When a design finds the right niche, it
can be very long-lived.

(Look at the C-130 and the B-52)

I imagine the longevity of all of these (certainly the Shackleton) has more
to due with lack of money for replacement, than finding the right niche.
The Air Force would be perfectly happy to have an equal number of B-2s
replacing the B-52s, but couldn't convince Congress to pay for it. It would
certainly be possible to build a modern a/c design to do what the C-130,
B-52, and Canberra do cheaper and better, but that assumes that someone's
willing to pony up the money for the development and acquisition cost.
Hell, the C-130 could and probably should have been replaced by a C-14 or
C-15 25 years ago. Its longevity is due to it being the only Western a/c in
its class. If something like the AN-70 and A400M had also been available in
the west 25 years ago, would the C-130 have remained in production all these
years, given its limitations?

Guy

For the job it performs the C-130 is certainly a better aircraft than
the A400M.

Which is circular reasoning -- if you define the job the C-130 _can perform_ as
the job any replacement _should perform_ (no more, no less), then of course the
C-130 will be superior. After all, most U.S. military tactical equipment has had
its dimensions artificially limited to what will fit in a C-130 cargo bay. The
C-130's payload is size and volume-limited - U.S. military 'oversize' and
'outsize' cargo is that which _won't_ fit in a C-130. The A400M and AN-70 may or
may not be inferior to the C-130 while performing a role limited to that which
the C-130 is also capable of, but they can also take on jobs that the C-130 is
incapable of, such as carrying a considerable portion of the loads which only the
C-17 or C-5 would otherwise be able to carry. If you can only afford one
tactical airlifter, but you need to move a fair proportion of those oversize
and/or outsize loads by air, then the C-130 isn't the answer.

When paired with the C-17 it is unbeatable by the aircraft
you mention.

At a far higher cost if you've got to buy and operate two different a/c, IF you
are otherwise able to get by with one. For the U.S., with the potential need to
deploy big, heavy cargo into theater trans-oceanically and then make a tactical
landing with the same load, the C-17's extra speed over a turboprop may make
sense, but most countries don't have such a compelling need that will justify the
price tag. The C-130's longevity has been based on two things: first, that it
was an excellent design to start with; and second, that it was the only a/c in
its class among western a/c. Can you name another 4 turboprop western tactical
airlifter with semi-STOL capability that was available in the 1955-2008 time
frame? Is there any doubt that competition, as exists among more numerous,
smaller and cheaper twin-turboprop tactical airlifters, would have led to far
fewer C-130 sales, and its obsolescence and replacement much sooner? The C-130
was the only game in town, big brother had already paid for its development, and
in many cases was willing to help with the payments or even give the a/c away.

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote:
prune

Can you name another 4 turboprop western tactical

airlifter with semi-STOL capability that was available in the 1955-2008 time
frame? I

Short Belfast comes to mind. It had a similar configuration, though I daresay its
capabilities fell short, or more of them would have been built.


Cheers,


--
Indrek Aavisto
Sudbury, Ontario

"Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult" W. S. Churchill

Indrek Aavisto wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote:
prune

Can you name another 4 turboprop western tactical

airlifter with semi-STOL capability that was available in the 1955-2008 time
frame? I

Short Belfast comes to mind. It had a similar configuration, though I daresay its
capabilities fell short, or more of them would have been built.

I'd say the Belfast was more of a strategic airlifter (in cargo size) than a tactical
one. It seems to be about halfway between the C-130 and C-133 in size. I stand ready
to be corrected, but was it stressed for tactical missions, maneuverable enough to do
them, and of sufficiently low ground pressure to operate off paved runways?

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote:

I imagine the longevity of all of these (certainly the Shackleton) has more
to due with lack of money for replacement, than finding the right niche.

Exactly right. In the grand scheme of things the RAF really didn't
have much to brag about throughout the Cold War years compared
to their American and Soviet (and even French) counterparts. The Brits
certainly produced a good number of ass-kickin' Rock 'n Roll bands
back in the '60's and 70's though.

-Mike (can't get no satisfaction from a Shackleton) Marron

In article ,
Mike Marron writes:
Guy Alcala wrote:

I imagine the longevity of all of these (certainly the Shackleton) has more
to due with lack of money for replacement, than finding the right niche.

Exactly right. In the grand scheme of things the RAF really didn't
have much to brag about throughout the Cold War years compared
to their American and Soviet (and even French) counterparts. The Brits
certainly produced a good number of ass-kickin' Rock 'n Roll bands
back in the '60's and 70's though.

-Mike (can't get no satisfaction from a Shackleton) Marron

Oh, I dunno. As the Shackleton folks used to say when the RAF was
considering reconstituting the remaing Shack AEW Squadron as a
Canberra outfit, "Eight Screws beats two blow-jobs any time."

To each their own.

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