dogfight

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Dec 19, 7:46 pm, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

"Canceled," I think, in whether they're still going to make new episodes. Lotsa
shows on cable continue to run and just repeat the same shows.

It seems like a pretty popular show to be canceled. Perhaps another
network will purchase it. I can't seem to figure out who makes the
show (that's not uncommon, some networks don't want the production
company to advertise the fact that they produce the show to avoid
confusing people). My brother is a TV producer and has access to a DB
that should tell us what the production company is. It would be
interesting to know if they are shoping it to other venues.

-robert
Actually, from my personal experience this is not surprising to me at all.
The "excitement" of war and aerial combat in particular piqued during
and immediately after WW2. I noticed the changes taking place even then
as I toured the air show circuit with WW2 fighters. You wouldn't
necessarily notice it if outside the aviation community as the changes
have been quite subtle.
Today, especially with young people, primarily young males, ( the show's
main demographic) the interest in air combat is not anywhere near what
it used to be.
This doesn't mean it's gone by a long shot, but even from what I have
seen within my own family, the interest is waning severely.
There is still a cadre of "aficionados" out here for shows like the
dogfights History Channel project, but I fear not a large enough cross
sectional demographic to support such a show for very long.



--
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote

Actually, from my personal experience this is not surprising to me at all.
The "excitement" of war and aerial combat in particular piqued during and
immediately after WW2.

That is an interesting observation.

I had observed that with the Military Channel (formerly the Aviation
Channel) and the History Channel, that many people that were not diehard
aviation finatics had discovered WW II history (and after) and had
discovered the coolness of learning about military aviation.

I noticed the changes taking place even then as I toured the air show
circuit with WW2 fighters. You wouldn't necessarily notice it if outside
the aviation community as the changes have been quite subtle.
Today, especially with young people, primarily young males, ( the show's
main demographic) the interest in air combat is not anywhere near what it
used to be.

Again, I see that many people not excited about it before, have enjoyed
learning more about it.

This doesn't mean it's gone by a long shot, but even from what I have seen
within my own family, the interest is waning severely.
There is still a cadre of "aficionados" out here for shows like the
dogfights History Channel project, but I fear not a large enough cross
sectional demographic to support such a show for very long.

That may be, and probably is, ultimately true. There are not enough people
out there with their heads (and soles) in the clouds. Not enough to support
programming ratings, to keep it as alive as it needs to be, anyway.

Morgans wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote

Actually, from my personal experience this is not surprising to me at all.
The "excitement" of war and aerial combat in particular piqued during and
immediately after WW2.

That is an interesting observation.

I had observed that with the Military Channel (formerly the Aviation
Channel) and the History Channel, that many people that were not diehard
aviation finatics had discovered WW II history (and after) and had
discovered the coolness of learning about military aviation.

I noticed the changes taking place even then as I toured the air show
circuit with WW2 fighters. You wouldn't necessarily notice it if outside
the aviation community as the changes have been quite subtle.
Today, especially with young people, primarily young males, ( the show's
main demographic) the interest in air combat is not anywhere near what it
used to be.

Again, I see that many people not excited about it before, have enjoyed
learning more about it.

This doesn't mean it's gone by a long shot, but even from what I have seen
within my own family, the interest is waning severely.
There is still a cadre of "aficionados" out here for shows like the
dogfights History Channel project, but I fear not a large enough cross
sectional demographic to support such a show for very long.

That may be, and probably is, ultimately true. There are not enough people
out there with their heads (and soles) in the clouds. Not enough to support
programming ratings, to keep it as alive as it needs to be, anyway.


Basically the issue I think. The ratings game in TV is murderous. Unless
programs like Dogfights develops a cult following almost in real time as
it airs, I don't believe whatever cross sectional demographic that
exists out here now will support it.
I guess time will tell. Whatever happens, it will be quick :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:28:52 -0500, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news
Morgans wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote

The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes but it
was nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the F8F
Bearcat one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the meaning of the
term "prop fighter performance".
In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been mass
produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its match
anywhere.
Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.

Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort missions?

How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
The Bear had VERY short legs and even with the drop tank would never have
made it as a long range fighter.
In close, intercept, and shoot it down fast was the Bear's prime intended
function.

Designed to defeat Kamikazes' at a distance, no?


Not all that far really. Total fuel was 185 gals without the drop tank,
so the range was severely limited. Figuring climb, cruise and combat
power settings, I'd say less than 90 minutes to bingo fuel.

I was talking with a P-40 pilot up at GDW a while back and he said
they typically fly at economy cruise to cut the fuel consumption "way
back" to only 80 gallons per hour (give or take a tad) :-))

Roger (K8RI)

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:28:52 -0500, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news Morgans wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote

The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes but it
was nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the F8F
Bearcat one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the meaning of the
term "prop fighter performance".
In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been mass
produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its match
anywhere.
Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.

Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort missions?

How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
The Bear had VERY short legs and even with the drop tank would never have
made it as a long range fighter.
In close, intercept, and shoot it down fast was the Bear's prime intended
function.

Designed to defeat Kamikazes' at a distance, no?


Not all that far really. Total fuel was 185 gals without the drop tank,
so the range was severely limited. Figuring climb, cruise and combat
power settings, I'd say less than 90 minutes to bingo fuel.

I was talking with a P-40 pilot up at GDW a while back and he said
they typically fly at economy cruise to cut the fuel consumption "way
back" to only 80 gallons per hour (give or take a tad) :-))

Roger (K8RI)

That's about right for an Allison V1710. Makes me glad to be retired :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

In article ,
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote:



I was talking with a P-40 pilot up at GDW a while back and he said
they typically fly at economy cruise to cut the fuel consumption "way
back" to only 80 gallons per hour (give or take a tad) :-))

Roger (K8RI)

That seems to be a bit high. A quick look found this link:
http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targe.../avia/AVIA_734
_Report_783__Part_09.pdf

If I'm reading it right it shows 30MP/2300 RPM and a fuel burn rate of
only 58.5 GPH.

On Dec 17, 8:07*pm, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:11:04 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

On Dec 15, 6:28 pm, wrote:
A buddy of mine recorded some History Channel show and I watched it.
The show was "Dogfight", and this episode was on P-51s fighting
ME109s, FW190, ME262s, and some Japanese planes.

Dude, you're a pilot and you haven't seen the show "Dogflights"!! OMG,
dude you need to try to get all the old episodes and make sure you
Tivo the new ones. There has never been a show more perfect for pilots
than this.

That must be true; it explains why it's been canceled....

My brother checked his producer's database. The last entry for the
show was the order for the current season last March. Right now they
would normally be in contract negotiations with History Channel for
the next season. He said its probably most likely that both sides are
positioning for the negotiations at this point. His reason for saying
that is that Dogfights and Ice Road Truckers seem to be their marquee
shows so it would be a bit surprising if they really did just decide
not to order another season. BTW: He said they are making a version of
"dogfights" that includes dinosaurs rather that airplanes. Something
like "Jurassic fights".
He has the phone number for the production company that makes
Dogfights because he did some consulting for them awhile back (In TV
people move around all the time). He said he was tempted to call them
up and ask. He's going to see if he knows anyone who's working on
the show though.

-Robert

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:28:52 -0500, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news Morgans wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote

The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes
but it was nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the
F8F Bearcat one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the
meaning of the term "prop fighter performance".
In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been
mass produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its
match anywhere.
Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.

Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort
missions?

How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
The Bear had VERY short legs and even with the drop tank would
never have made it as a long range fighter.
In close, intercept, and shoot it down fast was the Bear's prime
intended function.

Designed to defeat Kamikazes' at a distance, no?


Not all that far really. Total fuel was 185 gals without the drop
tank, so the range was severely limited. Figuring climb, cruise and
combat power settings, I'd say less than 90 minutes to bingo fuel.

I was talking with a P-40 pilot up at GDW a while back and he said
they typically fly at economy cruise to cut the fuel consumption "way
back" to only 80 gallons per hour (give or take a tad) :-))

Roger (K8RI)

That's about right for an Allison V1710. Makes me glad to be retired
:-))

Really? Even at cruise? Sounds high to me. I would have thought a bit
over half that anyway at say, 240 knots. We used to burn about 45 with
an 1830, for instance. I could see the allison easily burning 80 doing
aerobatics, though.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:28:52 -0500, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news Morgans wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote

The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes
but it was nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the
F8F Bearcat one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the
meaning of the term "prop fighter performance".
In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been
mass produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its
match anywhere.
Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.

Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort
missions?

How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
The Bear had VERY short legs and even with the drop tank would
never have made it as a long range fighter.
In close, intercept, and shoot it down fast was the Bear's prime
intended function.

Designed to defeat Kamikazes' at a distance, no?


Not all that far really. Total fuel was 185 gals without the drop
tank, so the range was severely limited. Figuring climb, cruise and
combat power settings, I'd say less than 90 minutes to bingo fuel.
I was talking with a P-40 pilot up at GDW a while back and he said
they typically fly at economy cruise to cut the fuel consumption "way
back" to only 80 gallons per hour (give or take a tad) :-))

Roger (K8RI)
That's about right for an Allison V1710. Makes me glad to be retired
:-))

Really? Even at cruise? Sounds high to me. I would have thought a bit
over half that anyway at say, 240 knots. We used to burn about 45 with
an 1830, for instance. I could see the allison easily burning 80 doing
aerobatics, though.


Bertie

A lot of the "savvy" guys had a tendency to run a bit on the high side
to keep the plugs cleaner. The Merlin would foul the plugs easily if you
favored low power settings and didn't blow it out every once in a while.
Not so sure about the Allison but most likely the same.

Talking min fuel only it's true you can get it down to way less with no
trouble.
The Merlin could be brought all the way back to 28.5" at 1600RPM down as
low as 5K feet and that brought the fuel burn down to around 42gph. Up
high, you could take the blower off the auto switch and into manual low
blower and get a better fuel burn up there as well.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:28:52 -0500, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news Morgans wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote

The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all
altitudes
but it was nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the
F8F Bearcat one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the
meaning of the term "prop fighter performance".
In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had
been
mass produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen
its
match anywhere.
Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.

Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort
missions?

How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
The Bear had VERY short legs and even with the drop tank would
never have made it as a long range fighter.
In close, intercept, and shoot it down fast was the Bear's prime
intended function.

Designed to defeat Kamikazes' at a distance, no?


Not all that far really. Total fuel was 185 gals without the drop
tank, so the range was severely limited. Figuring climb, cruise
and
combat power settings, I'd say less than 90 minutes to bingo fuel.
I was talking with a P-40 pilot up at GDW a while back and he said
they typically fly at economy cruise to cut the fuel consumption
"way
back" to only 80 gallons per hour (give or take a tad) :-))

Roger (K8RI)
That's about right for an Allison V1710. Makes me glad to be retired
:-))

Really? Even at cruise? Sounds high to me. I would have thought a bit
over half that anyway at say, 240 knots. We used to burn about 45
with
an 1830, for instance. I could see the allison easily burning 80
doing
aerobatics, though.


Bertie

A lot of the "savvy" guys had a tendency to run a bit on the high side
to keep the plugs cleaner. The Merlin would foul the plugs easily if
you
favored low power settings and didn't blow it out every once in a
while.
Not so sure about the Allison but most likely the same.

Talking min fuel only it's true you can get it down to way less with
no
trouble.
The Merlin could be brought all the way back to 28.5" at 1600RPM down
as
low as 5K feet and that brought the fuel burn down to around 42gph. Up
high, you could take the blower off the auto switch and into manual
low
blower and get a better fuel burn up there as well.


Yeah, sounds more like it! I presume they hat auto rich and lean rather
than manual as well. I didn't suggest taking min fuel, BTW
I talked to a P40 owner years ago at an airshow and he had come from
quite a ways away. I asked him how much it cost to get there and he told
me it was about the same as his pickup at econ cruise, about 12 mpg.




Bertie