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

Mike Marron wrote:

(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.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


-Mike (Zzz) Marron

There are none so blind as those who will not see...
--

-Gord.