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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
(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 |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids (was: #1 Jet of World War II) | The Revolution Will Not Be Televised | Military Aviation | 20 | August 27th 03 09:14 AM |