If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Aircraft growth (question starting with Art Kramer)
What reaction do you have to the size of WWII aircraft versus modern
ones, where a "lightweight" fighter such as an F-16 is probably comparable in size to Willie the Wolf -- and a F-15 the size of a B-17. Must be a strange sensation -- I'd like to hear your thoughts. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
By the mid 1950s we were catapulting single engine jet aircraft from Navy
carriers with greater bomb loads than the WWII B-17 could carry. WDA end "Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message ... What reaction do you have to the size of WWII aircraft versus modern ones, where a "lightweight" fighter such as an F-16 is probably comparable in size to Willie the Wolf -- and a F-15 the size of a B-17. Must be a strange sensation -- I'd like to hear your thoughts. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:05:59 -0700, "W. D. Allen Sr."
wrote: By the mid 1950s we were catapulting single engine jet aircraft from Navy carriers with greater bomb loads than the WWII B-17 could carry. WDA Not too sure about that. Which single engine Navy jet carried a B-17 equivalent load in the '50s. I'll concede that the A-6 certainly could, but it isn't single engine nor is it mid-'50s. (Of course if we start talking yields rather than pounds, there's no contest.) Don't know that F-9s, F-11s, etc could handle much over about 2000 pounds of iron. Certainly the F-4 and F-105 carried equivalent iron loads operationally and could carry double the B-17 load if all stations were loaded up, which wasn't operationally practical but was done a couple of times. 16x750 on a F-105 or 24xMk-83 on an F-4 is pretty healthy. And, we could do it at 4.5 times the speed! Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Actually, that single engine aircraft was the A-1 (AKA Spad) which relied on
a Wright R-3350 for power. The early A-4 could theoretically lift a B-17 bomb load, but not with much fuel in the aircraft. R / John "W. D. Allen Sr." wrote in message ... By the mid 1950s we were catapulting single engine jet aircraft from Navy carriers with greater bomb loads than the WWII B-17 could carry. WDA end "Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message ... What reaction do you have to the size of WWII aircraft versus modern ones, where a "lightweight" fighter such as an F-16 is probably comparable in size to Willie the Wolf -- and a F-15 the size of a B-17. Must be a strange sensation -- I'd like to hear your thoughts. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Howard Berkowitz wrote: What reaction do you have to the size of WWII aircraft versus modern ones, where a "lightweight" fighter such as an F-16 is probably comparable in size to Willie the Wolf -- and a F-15 the size of a B-17. And a SPAD XIII weighed about 1,300 lbs empty compared to 'bout 7,600 lbs for an empty P-51 - 'bout a six-fold increase. The F-15 represents only 'bout a four-fold weight increase over the P-51. And it's certainly more than four times as capable. Your point, exactly? One might note that the displacement of the USS Abraham Lincoln is many times that of the USS Yorktown and the weight of an M1A1 is many times that of a M4 Sherman. I doubt regressing to SPAD XIII weights (and performance) is a winning prescription in the 21st century. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill" == Bill Shatzer writes:
Bill On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Howard Berkowitz wrote: What reaction do you have to the size of WWII aircraft versus modern ones, where a "lightweight" fighter such as an F-16 is probably comparable in size to Willie the Wolf -- and a F-15 the size of a B-17. Bill And a SPAD XIII weighed about 1,300 lbs empty compared to Bill 'bout 7,600 lbs for an empty P-51 - 'bout a six-fold Bill increase. Bill The F-15 represents only 'bout a four-fold weight increase Bill over the P-51. And it's certainly more than four times as Bill capable. Bill Your point, exactly? One might note that the displacement of Bill the USS Abraham Lincoln is many times that of the USS Bill Yorktown and the weight of an M1A1 is many times that of a Bill M4 Sherman. Bill I doubt regressing to SPAD XIII weights (and performance) is Bill a winning prescription in the 21st century. The flip side of this is I think that if the same capabilities were desired, they could be squeezed out of a design much much smaller, given the advances in miniaturazation (for example unmanned aircraft for missile or bomb delivery). However, I believe that the option-limiting factor on front-line fighters and bombers has always been engine power, and that the criterion of judgement has been not weight, but (I don't know the correct term) the excess thrust (jets) or power over the weight. And turning that into performance. -- G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Not too sure about that. Which single engine Navy jet carried a B-17 equivalent load in the '50s. Though not a jet, the AD (later A-1) did. What's more, the AD was nuclear-capable, which the 17 never was. all the best -- Dan Ford email: (put Cubdriver in subject line) The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Aircraft growth (question starting with Art Kramer)
From: Bill Shatzer Date: 6/6/04 12:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Howard Berkowitz wrote: What reaction do you have to the size of WWII aircraft versus modern ones, where a "lightweight" fighter such as an F-16 is probably comparable in size to Willie the Wolf -- and a F-15 the size of a B-17. And a SPAD XIII weighed about 1,300 lbs empty compared to 'bout 7,600 lbs for an empty P-51 - 'bout a six-fold increase. The F-15 represents only 'bout a four-fold weight increase over the P-51. And it's certainly more than four times as capable. Your point, exactly? One might note that the displacement of the USS Abraham Lincoln is many times that of the USS Yorktown and the weight of an M1A1 is many times that of a M4 Sherman. I doubt regressing to SPAD XIII weights (and performance) is a winning prescription in the 21st century. I can't even relate to modern jets with their super speeds and heavy bombloads and remarkable performance. I am out of the past. An ancient soldier with no relationship to the present.(sigh) Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 14:00:31 -0600, Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:05:59 -0700, "W. D. Allen Sr." wrote: By the mid 1950s we were catapulting single engine jet aircraft from Navy carriers with greater bomb loads than the WWII B-17 could carry. WDA Not too sure about that. Which single engine Navy jet carried a B-17 equivalent load in the '50s. I'll concede that the A-6 certainly could, but it isn't single engine nor is it mid-'50s. (Of course if we start talking yields rather than pounds, there's no contest.) Don't know that F-9s, F-11s, etc could handle much over about 2000 pounds of iron. Certainly the F-4 and F-105 carried equivalent iron loads operationally and could carry double the B-17 load if all stations were loaded up, which wasn't operationally practical but was done a couple of times. 16x750 on a F-105 or 24xMk-83 on an F-4 is pretty healthy. And, we could do it at 4.5 times the speed! Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 The "normal" bomb load of a B-17 was 6,000lb, while an A-4E could carry 8,200lb. The "E" was not introduced until 1961 and the "1950's" A-4C was limited to 5,000lb by the arrangement of the pylons. Still, pretty impressive stats for old Heinie's Hot Rod :-) Al Minyard |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Shatzer wrote:
I doubt regressing to SPAD XIII weights (and performance) is a winning prescription in the 21st century. That depends on the mission. Do the names "Predator" and "Hellfire" ring a bell? Jack |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | September 2nd 04 05:15 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 4 | August 7th 03 05:12 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | July 4th 03 04:50 PM |