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

John Halliwell wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

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

That brings a comparison between the B-29 and Shackleton wings/engines
into the equation I guess.

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.)


-Mike Marron

Peter Stickney wrote:

snip

"Quest for Performance", L.K. Loftin, NASA History Office, 1985,
available online, has a quite good explanation and analysis of the
directions that designing high performance airplanes took through the
first 80 or so years. The data tables list the following values for
the various airplanes.

Airplane: Aspect Ratio Wing Loading Cruise Speed L/Dmax
B-17G 7.58 38.7 182 12.7
B-24J 11.55 53.4 215 12.9
B-29 11.50 69.1 253 16.8

Altitudes in cases would be 25,000', (Critical Altitude for the
turbosupercharged engines, in each case) and all speeds are True
Airspeed.

Something appears seriously wrong with the B-17G cruise speed. At 25,000 feet, 182 TAS
works out to only 124 CAS, and we know the a/c normally cruised at 150-160 IAS (TAS about
215-240 at typical bombing altitudes) and climbed at about 130-140 IAS, vs. 160-180 IAS
cruise for the B-24. There's no way the position error is that high, and compressiblity
error is just 1-2% at that speed and altitude.

Guy

Mike Marron wrote:


As I mentioned in my response to you (the important part that you
snipped), besides just increasing the visibility, the variable
incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast fighter to
maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.


That doesn't make sense to me Mike...as Peter and John say the
higher AoI used for landing allows the fuselage to be more
horizontal (better pilot visibility, keeps the tail higher when
in landing attitude and allows for shorter (stronger)
undercarriage...

In other words Gord, the variable incidence wasn't designed to give
the F-8 "less drag for high speed operation,"

I think it was, it gets the fuselage 'more in line with the wing
chord' which 'has' to reduce drag.

Why do all the engineering to design this complication if it
isn't a very important aspect?. I think that the 'only' reason
for the 'variable AoI' was to allow for low drag (and high speed)
flight yet ~normal fuselage attitude for landing (for pilot vis
plus normal u/c config)...

I think that it's possible that on an a/c with a very low AoI
like this the extreme nose up attitude of the fuselage (to get
enough AoA on short final) may not be 'liveable' because of what
John mentions (tail strikes) plus very poor pilot visibility plus
the requirement for very longlegged u/c as Peter mentioned.

it was designed to give
the F-8 MORE drag (as the result of more LIFT) for SLOW speed
operation in order to land aboard carriers.


Why?...you won't get any more 'lift and drag'
(you can get all you want with the elevators) BUT you WILL have a
much more fuselage 'nose up' attitude if you cannot increase your
AoI for landing.


--

-Gord.

In message , Mike Marron
writes
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:

Compare out-of-service dates before you get too carried away

--
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

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

As I mentioned in my response to you (the important part that you
snipped), besides just increasing the visibility, the variable
incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast fighter to
maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.

That doesn't make sense to me Mike...as Peter and John say the
higher AoI used for landing allows the fuselage to be more
horizontal (better pilot visibility, keeps the tail higher when
in landing attitude and allows for shorter (stronger)
undercarriage...

With regards to the the improved visibility aspect, Peter and
John didn't just say it, everybody (including you and me) said
it. Regarding the part that you don't seem to get (increasing
the angle of incidence so as to help the jet maintain slower
speeds for carrier ops), well, I've tried explaining it to you
numerous differerent ways now and you still don't/won't get it.
Therefore, I'm done. Maybe someone else can try explaining
it to you Gord.

-Mike Marron

Mike Marron wrote:

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

As I mentioned in my response to you (the important part that you
snipped), besides just increasing the visibility, the variable
incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast fighter to
maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.

That doesn't make sense to me Mike...as Peter and John say the
higher AoI used for landing allows the fuselage to be more
horizontal (better pilot visibility, keeps the tail higher when
in landing attitude and allows for shorter (stronger)
undercarriage...

With regards to the the improved visibility aspect, Peter and
John didn't just say it, everybody (including you and me) said
it. Regarding the part that you don't seem to get (increasing
the angle of incidence so as to help the jet maintain slower
speeds for carrier ops), well, I've tried explaining it to you
numerous differerent ways now and you still don't/won't get it.
Therefore, I'm done. Maybe someone else can try explaining
it to you Gord.

-Mike Marron


Ok Mike...thanks for your efforts anyway, I appreciate it.
--

-Gord.

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Mike Marron writes

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:

Compare out-of-service dates before you get too carried away

I once knew a barber who had been cutting hair for 40 years...

-Mike ( never was capable of giving a decent haircut Marron

In message , Mike Marron
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Mike Marron writes
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:

Compare out-of-service dates before you get too carried away

I once knew a barber who had been cutting hair for 40 years...

-Mike ( never was capable of giving a decent haircut Marron

Yeah, but the B-50 was completely outclassed by the B-36 and look how
long _that_ lasted...

Meanwhile the Shackleton flew on until the 1980s, and the almost equally
ancient Canberra flies on still. When a design finds the right niche, it
can be very long-lived.

(Look at the C-130 and the B-52)

--
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:

Meanwhile the Shackleton flew on until the 1980s, and the almost equally
ancient Canberra flies on still. When a design finds the right niche, it
can be very long-lived.

Thank gawd the Brits managed to find a niche for the Shackleton other
than as a post-war strategic bomber!

-Mike (Shackleton = easy pickins) Marron

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:57:15 -0400, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:


Note that the B-24 and B-29 have almost identical Aspect Ratios, but
the B-29 has a significantly higher wing loading. In general, this
means that the B-29 will have more induced drag than the B-24. But it
also cruises much faster. This is due to the lower total drag of the
airplane due to the much more streamlined shape.

Be interesting to see how they both compared to the B-32.


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!