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

Mike Marron wrote:

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"

Does that make the P-3 Orion a bomber?

Does a surveillance/photo/recce/anti-submarine mission make
the Tu-95 Bear NOT a bomber?

Dumb question. Dumb poster.

Grantland

Dave Eadsforth wrote:


I was amused by what was once said about the Mosquito and its split
'anti shimmy' wheel. Apparently, the first time any pilot flew a
Mosquito he would be warned about the tail shimmy, and so his first
landing was so carefully executed that there was no shimmy at all. Next
flight he would relax, and bingo - all over the place. Got them almost
every time...

Cheers,

Dave


Apropos of not a bunch but the Fairchild C-119 was a bitch in
this regard...the MLG struts were so long that when the bearing
points and connections got the least bit worn then the damned
thing would shimmy like to tear the bloody gear off. Someone
actually did heavily damage the nose gear once, but it was
usually the mains.
--

-Gord.

Guy Alcala wrote:

Ah, well, one more for the killfile. Trolls, loons and (as in this case)
just plain rude and crude all get in.

I hear ya. Pardon my transgressions (tough Sunday at work) and
I shall endeavor to wash my mouth out with soap. However,
hypocritical, pompous, disagreeable pontificators who argue just for
the sake of arguing (which is nothing more than a polite form of
trolling) are equally as "rude & crude" and killfilable in my book.

See ya around.

-Mike Marron

Peter Twydell wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Nah, the Shackleton was a frumpy Brit post-war bomber
hopelessly outclassed by the sleek and futuristic B-29
which actually saw combat in both WW2 and Korea and
later copied by the Soviets.

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:

Shackleton total HP: 9,600 (B-50: 14,000)
Shackleton max speed: 287 mph (B-50: 385 mph)
Shackleton service ceiling: 22,000 ft. (B-50: 37,000 ft.)
Shackleton range: 2,500 miles (B-50: 4,650 miles)
Shackleton bombload: 18,000 lbs. (B-50: 20,000 lbs.)

And the advantage of the higher speed and service ceiling while sub-
hunting close to sea level is what?

I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"

-Mike Marron

In article , Mike Marron
writes
Peter Twydell wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Nah, the Shackleton was a frumpy Brit post-war bomber
hopelessly outclassed by the sleek and futuristic B-29
which actually saw combat in both WW2 and Korea and
later copied by the Soviets.

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:

Shackleton total HP: 9,600 (B-50: 14,000)
Shackleton max speed: 287 mph (B-50: 385 mph)
Shackleton service ceiling: 22,000 ft. (B-50: 37,000 ft.)
Shackleton range: 2,500 miles (B-50: 4,650 miles)
Shackleton bombload: 18,000 lbs. (B-50: 20,000 lbs.)

And the advantage of the higher speed and service ceiling while sub-
hunting close to sea level is what?

I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"

-Mike Marron

Nobody said it wasn't a bomber. It was designed for and was doing a
different bombing job.

Get a grip.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

Peter Twydell wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Nah, the Shackleton was a frumpy Brit post-war bomber
hopelessly outclassed by the sleek and futuristic B-29
which actually saw combat in both WW2 and Korea and
later copied by the Soviets.

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:

Shackleton total HP: 9,600 (B-50: 14,000)
Shackleton max speed: 287 mph (B-50: 385 mph)
Shackleton service ceiling: 22,000 ft. (B-50: 37,000 ft.)
Shackleton range: 2,500 miles (B-50: 4,650 miles)
Shackleton bombload: 18,000 lbs. (B-50: 20,000 lbs.)

And the advantage of the higher speed and service ceiling while sub-
hunting close to sea level is what?

I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"

Nobody said it wasn't a bomber.

Tell your mate Peter Stickney that.

It was designed for and was doing a different bombing job.

A "bomber" by any other name is still a "bomber..."

Get a grip.

Put 'er in the ol' vice yourself pal.

-Mike Marron

In message , Mike Marron
writes
I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"

Does that make the P-3 Orion a bomber?

--
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:
Mike Marron wrote:

I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"

Does that make the P-3 Orion a bomber?

Does a surveillance/photo/recce/anti-submarine mission make
the Tu-95 Bear NOT a bomber?

-Mike (it wasn't called "Shacklebomber" for nothing) Marron

In article , Mike Marron
writes
Peter Twydell wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Nah, the Shackleton was a frumpy Brit post-war bomber
hopelessly outclassed by the sleek and futuristic B-29
which actually saw combat in both WW2 and Korea and
later copied by the Soviets.

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:

Shackleton total HP: 9,600 (B-50: 14,000)
Shackleton max speed: 287 mph (B-50: 385 mph)
Shackleton service ceiling: 22,000 ft. (B-50: 37,000 ft.)
Shackleton range: 2,500 miles (B-50: 4,650 miles)
Shackleton bombload: 18,000 lbs. (B-50: 20,000 lbs.)

And the advantage of the higher speed and service ceiling while sub-
hunting close to sea level is what?

I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"

Nobody said it wasn't a bomber.

Tell your mate Peter Stickney that.

It was designed for and was doing a different bombing job.

A "bomber" by any other name is still a "bomber..."

Pete said it was maritime patrol aircraft, which is a bomber by another
name, innit?

How's the petard business?

Get a grip.

Put 'er in the ol' vice yourself pal.

-Mike Marron

--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

"Mike Marron"

Does a surveillance/photo/recce/anti-submarine mission make
the Tu-95 Bear NOT a bomber?


That's because the ASW variant is the TU-142. Under treaty specs the US
agreed that the variant was not a bomber and isn't accountable. Even the
TU-95RT was limited to it's primary mission and not classed as a bomber.

TJ