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

In article ,
Mike Marron writes:
(Peter Stickney) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Not to mention the Superfort's extra *4,000* total horsepower and four
humongous four-blade 17-ft. diameter props!

Seems that this has come up before. Actually, no, the extra power
really down't enter into it.

Cruise (Max L/D) occurs at the Equivalent Airspeed where the drag is
at a minimum. This occurs at the point where the Induced Drag, which
is decreasing as the speed increases(4th root of EAS), and the Profile
Drag, which is increasing with the square of the EAS. That's the
point where the minumum amount of thrust/power to keep flying occurs.
Note that the amount of installed power doesn't enter into it at all.

High power is useful, however, for times when more power than that
requiring maintaining cruising flight is important, such as when
climbing, or for takeoff, or maneuvering flight.

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

(Peter Stickney) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

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."

Riiiight...

To each their own.

Yer ass sucks bilgewater.

-Mike Marron

(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.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


-Mike (Zzz) Marron

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.

Mike Marron wrote:

(Peter Stickney) wrote:

To each their own.

Yer ass sucks bilgewater.

-Mike Marron

and

"Tex Houston" wrote:

Sorry...the correct spelling is "Accidents" on the last entry.

As if. As if anyone gives a ****.

Wonder if my spell checker disregards anything in quotes?

Pompous Texass ****.

-Mike Marron

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

Guy

Dave Eadsforth wrote:

In article , Guy Alcala
writes

snip

Supermarine tried two different designs, a single wheel and one with dual wheels
(side by side). The latter tended to get clogged with mud, so they went with
the
single.

Guy

snip

A double wheel, like the Mosquito, was it also an anti-shimmy measure?

None of the sources I have give the reasoning behind it, just that the a/c was tried
with single and dual tailwheels. Assuming the drawings are to the same scale, the
dual tires were smaller diameter than the single, around 2/3 to 3/4 of the larger
one. Ernie Mansbridge, who was Supermarine's tech. rep during the prototype service
trials by the RAF, reported the following on 6 March 1937:

"The split tail wheel has been fitted for today's flights. The pilots noted the lack
of bouncing tendency, but on the second flight the wheels were completely locked by
mud and could not be revolved until the mud had been dug out from between the
wheels."

Price writes "This type of tail wheel was not fitted again, and from then on the
single-wheel Dunlop type was used."

Guy

In article , Peter Stickney
writes
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.


The Mk.3 Phase 3 gave you the best of both worlds: eight screws AND two
blow jobs (don't forget the 2 Vipers in the outer nacelles)! And all
that at a respectably leisurely pace...
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

In article , Guy Alcala
writes
Dave Eadsforth wrote:

A double wheel, like the Mosquito, was it also an anti-shimmy measure?

None of the sources I have give the reasoning behind it, just that the a/c was
tried
with single and dual tailwheels. Assuming the drawings are to the same scale,
the
dual tires were smaller diameter than the single, around 2/3 to 3/4 of the
larger
one. Ernie Mansbridge, who was Supermarine's tech. rep during the prototype
service
trials by the RAF, reported the following on 6 March 1937:

"The split tail wheel has been fitted for today's flights. The pilots noted the
lack
of bouncing tendency, but on the second flight the wheels were completely locked
by
mud and could not be revolved until the mud had been dug out from between the
wheels."

Price writes "This type of tail wheel was not fitted again, and from then on the
single-wheel Dunlop type was used."

Guy


Thanks for the detail on that. Despite the fact that the tail wheel was
intended for use on runways, I guess they thought that Spits may have to
operate from earth strips occasionally, so abandoning the double wheel
would have made sense.

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

--
Dave Eadsforth

In article , Peter Stickney
writes

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."

Thanks for that little gem - it has left my aviation buddies in stitches
- and one might need some real ones as his hernia has threatened to pop
again...

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:37:54 -0400, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:


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."


Was there serious consideration given to hanging that skyraider radar on a
canberra ?



greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!