F-35's Costs Climb Along With Concerns

Harry Andreas wrote:
In article , DeepSea
wrote:


Dive Bombing - technique that involves the release of bombs at high
speed/low altitude.


High speed/low altitude is not what dive bombing is all about.
Speed and altitude are residuals of the dive bombing process.
Dive bombing is getting the aircraft "pointed" at the target,
necessitating a dive. The bomb is released in the dive and the a/c pulls away.
High speed is not a requirement, and as practiced in WWII, not even wanted.
Hence the addition of dive (speed) brakes on the A-36 version of the Mustang.
After bomb release, the aircraft is at a lower altitude, but only by necessity.



My comments are derived from a talk I attended last year while at the US
Army's General Staff College. The talk was given by a British Army
corporal who served as a courier in the early days of the Battle of
Britain. He was wounded (badly) in one of the attacks, and spent the
rest of the war recouperating and learning to walk again. He used the
terms "most" and "dive bombing" during his talk. Over the course of
about an hour and ten minutes, he described being on the recieving end
of the German strikes. He only saw "level" bombing on one occasion
(directed at an area target), but at a relatively low level, estimated
to be less than 10,000 feet, and at night.


You were very lucky to have been able to attend such a rare event.
Those veterns are rapidly dying. I hope the interview was taped.

cheers

What was the 'A-36' version of the Mustang?

Cheers,

Ricardo

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:16:27 -0500, DeepSea
wrote:

Maybe not. I'm not a historian, I'm an engineer with an interest in
history. That being said, here's what I (think) I know.

Most - (significantly) more than half

Dive Bombing - technique that involves the release of bombs at high
speed/low altitude.

My comments are derived from a talk I attended last year while at the US
Army's General Staff College. The talk was given by a British Army
corporal who served as a courier in the early days of the Battle of
Britain. He was wounded (badly) in one of the attacks, and spent the
rest of the war recouperating and learning to walk again. He used the
terms "most" and "dive bombing" during his talk.

So you extrapolated from one man's experience the assumption that _most_
bombing of England(sic) was performed bt _Dive-bombers_?


OK, if you are an engineer, then you should start by considering that
a "corporal" courier who was wounded by a dive bomber is probably not
authoritative on what dive bombing is all about.

Now, take your engineering prowess and consider the geometry of level
versus high angle release of a bomb--by diving at the target (in the
simplest iteration) you reduce the aircraft's travel over the ground
and hence increase the accuracy.

If you wish to go to higher levels of math, you need to consider dive
angle, airspeed, bank, sight depression from flight path, wind drift
both before and after release (aircraft first then bomb),
accelerations (g-loads), aerodynamic drag of bomb and a few other
things to begin to get what dive bombing is about.

But, don't ask corporals--they may know something about their
particular field, but it may not be dive bombing.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com


I concur with Ed Rasimus's comments above...
It could be that the 'British Army Courier Corporal' - interesting that no
Regiment or Corps was cited - did actually experience situations where
_most_ of the _bombing_
was by dive-bombers. This was not the experience of the majority (=
significantly more than half) of the British population suffering from the
'Blitz' on cities. {Isn't there a saying about one swallow not making a
summer? Perhaps one Corporal's anecdotes do not a form a basis for a
deduction}.

The experiences endured by my mother and her neighbours {most of the menfolk
were on active service} is summarised on the Liverpool blitz web-site
http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/nof/blitz/index.html

extract
The seven nights of the 1941 May Blitz (1st-7th May) were the heaviest
consecutive nights of bombing experienced by Liverpool during the whole of
the Second World War. In those few nights around 681 planes dropped 870
tonnes of high explosives and over 112,000 incendiaries (firebombs) on the
area, killing over 1,700 people and making around 76,000 homeless.

/extract

Not much mention of Dive Bombers there! The Luftwaffe _did_ have
Dive-Bombers, these were aircraft specifically designed for
Close-Air-Support of advancing troops and AIUI such aircraft were directed
by their pilots along a line-of-sight towards their target; the aircraft's
systems automagically performed a J-curve manoeuvre which had the effect of
taking the aircraft away and above the target while the ordnance continued
along the line-of-sight to impact. Such aircraft were tasked against known
targets, predominantly the Chain Home stations and airfields. AIUI, the
aircraft-weapon systems was a success but not many Teutonic aircrew made a
second sortie.

--



Brian

"Ricardo" wrote in message
o.uk...


Harry Andreas wrote:
In article , DeepSea
wrote:


Dive Bombing - technique that involves the release of bombs at high
speed/low altitude.


High speed/low altitude is not what dive bombing is all about.
Speed and altitude are residuals of the dive bombing process.
Dive bombing is getting the aircraft "pointed" at the target,
necessitating a dive. The bomb is released in the dive and the a/c pulls
away.
High speed is not a requirement, and as practiced in WWII, not even
wanted.
Hence the addition of dive (speed) brakes on the A-36 version of the
Mustang.
After bomb release, the aircraft is at a lower altitude, but only by
necessity.



My comments are derived from a talk I attended last year while at the US
Army's General Staff College. The talk was given by a British Army
corporal who served as a courier in the early days of the Battle of
Britain. He was wounded (badly) in one of the attacks, and spent the rest
of the war recouperating and learning to walk again. He used the terms
"most" and "dive bombing" during his talk. Over the course of about an
hour and ten minutes, he described being on the recieving end of the
German strikes. He only saw "level" bombing on one occasion (directed at
an area target), but at a relatively low level, estimated to be less than
10,000 feet, and at night.


You were very lucky to have been able to attend such a rare event.
Those veterns are rapidly dying. I hope the interview was taped.

cheers

What was the 'A-36' version of the Mustang?

Dedicated ground attack/dive bomber variant. See:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_6.html

Brooks


Cheers,

Ricardo

In article ,
Ricardo wrote:

What was the 'A-36' version of the Mustang?

In brief, a dive bomber based on the early P-51 airframe, officially
named "Apache".

- Three-blade rather than four-blade prop.

- Allison V-1710 engine, rather than Allison Merlin, as used in
original Mustang.

- Dive brakes included on inboard underside of wings, similar to
Douglas Dauntless.

About 500 made, used mostly in CBI and Mediterranean/North African
theaters.

The Collings Foundation is restoring one in Florida.

"Ricardo" wrote in message
k...


Harry Andreas wrote:
In article , Ricardo
wrote:


The initial air assaults on Britain dispelled the myth that dive bombing
was the way forward as in the face of determined fighter opposition the
dive bombers did not fare too well - despite how well it had done in
Spain and against the low countries of Europe.

Conventional bombing was more the norm for the Battle of Britain and the
service ceiling of the German bombers was between 25,000 and 30,000 feet,
and for their escorting fighters between 35,000 and 40,000 feet, although
operationally they were likely to be a lot lower. Nonetheless height is a
crucial factor in aerial warfare and if you are 10,000 feet above your
enemy you are more likely to inflict damage and survive than if you are
5,000 feet below him and desperately climbing to reach him.



Ricardo, I believe that your figures are uniformly 10,000 feet too
high.
All the reports that I've read for the BoB mention the bombers coming in
between 15 and 20 thousand with fighter cover about 5 thousand higher.
After the BoB altitudes went higher, that was one of the lessons learned.



At the height of the Battle of Britain the country's desperate need was
for fighter aircraft - any fighter aircraft - hence purchases from
American sources. However, by the time the early Mustang came on stream
that particular battle was virtually over, allied with which British
built fighter production had gained considerable momentum.


Yet the Mustang I's equipped a large number of squadrons.

Hi Harry,

I was quoting the maximum operating heights for the categories of
aircraft but concede that much of the action took place at lower level.

The Mustang was not a participant in the Battle of Britain and, as far
as I'm aware was used for 'army liaison duties' with the Army
Co-operation Command which was established in December 1940 and also with
the Combined Operations Unit.

Only true in regards to the Mustang I and IA; the later Mustang III served
with a number of RAF units in the (primarily) air-to-air fighter role and
performed escort for both USAAF and RAF bombing missions. P-51D/K variants
served with the RAF for a couple of years after the war was over.

Brooks
The first Mustang to arrive was on 24
october 1941.

Ricardo

Ed Rasimus wrote in
:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:16:27 -0500, DeepSea
wrote:

Maybe not. I'm not a historian, I'm an engineer with an interest in
history. That being said, here's what I (think) I know.

Most - (significantly) more than half

Dive Bombing - technique that involves the release of bombs at high
speed/low altitude.

My comments are derived from a talk I attended last year while at the
US
Army's General Staff College. The talk was given by a British Army
corporal who served as a courier in the early days of the Battle of
Britain. He was wounded (badly) in one of the attacks, and spent the
rest of the war recouperating and learning to walk again. He used the
terms "most" and "dive bombing" during his talk.

OK, if you are an engineer, then you should start by considering that
a "corporal" courier who was wounded by a dive bomber is probably not
authoritative on what dive bombing is all about.

The discussion was not about "what dive bombing is all about", the
technicalities or merits of dive bombing, nor was the talk. Simply that
in his experience, he mostly saw dive bombing. This was important to my
point of view because his talk was my only exposure to primary source
material on the subject (at least until Brian posted the weblink).




Now, take your engineering prowess and consider the geometry of level
versus high angle release of a bomb--by diving at the target (in the
simplest iteration) you reduce the aircraft's travel over the ground
and hence increase the accuracy.

If you wish to go to higher levels of math, you need to consider dive
angle, airspeed, bank, sight depression from flight path, wind drift
both before and after release (aircraft first then bomb),
accelerations (g-loads), aerodynamic drag of bomb and a few other
things to begin to get what dive bombing is about.

But, don't ask corporals--they may know something about their
particular field, but it may not be dive bombing.

The question was never posed - to the corporal or this group (at least
by me). Again, my discussion with Ricardo had nothing to do with how
dive bombing was supposed to work, or even if it worked; only that it
did occur and in what relative proportion to other types of bombing
procedures used by the Germans during the Battle of Britain. I'm
reasonably certain that an expert's knowledge and experience was not
required to tell the difference between dive bombing and high altitude
"level" bombing, at least as practiced during the Battle of Britain. In
any event, your input of related information is noted and appreciated.

DS








Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"Brian Sharrock" wrote in
:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:16:27 -0500, DeepSea
wrote:

Maybe not. I'm not a historian, I'm an engineer with an interest in
history. That being said, here's what I (think) I know.

Most - (significantly) more than half

Dive Bombing - technique that involves the release of bombs at high
speed/low altitude.

My comments are derived from a talk I attended last year while at the
US Army's General Staff College. The talk was given by a British Army
corporal who served as a courier in the early days of the Battle of
Britain. He was wounded (badly) in one of the attacks, and spent the
rest of the war recouperating and learning to walk again. He used the
terms "most" and "dive bombing" during his talk.

So you extrapolated from one man's experience the assumption that
_most_ bombing of England(sic) was performed bt _Dive-bombers_?

When that and a few pictures/supporting text of the BoB found in US
history books are all you have to go on, its not that far of a reach.


OK, if you are an engineer, then you should start by considering that
a "corporal" courier who was wounded by a dive bomber is probably not
authoritative on what dive bombing is all about.

Now, take your engineering prowess and consider the geometry of level
versus high angle release of a bomb--by diving at the target (in the
simplest iteration) you reduce the aircraft's travel over the ground
and hence increase the accuracy.

If you wish to go to higher levels of math, you need to consider dive
angle, airspeed, bank, sight depression from flight path, wind drift
both before and after release (aircraft first then bomb),
accelerations (g-loads), aerodynamic drag of bomb and a few other
things to begin to get what dive bombing is about.

But, don't ask corporals--they may know something about their
particular field, but it may not be dive bombing.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com


I concur with Ed Rasimus's comments above...
It could be that the 'British Army Courier Corporal' - interesting
that no Regiment or Corps was cited - did actually experience
situations where _most_ of the _bombing_
was by dive-bombers. This was not the experience of the majority (=
significantly more than half) of the British population suffering from
the 'Blitz' on cities. {Isn't there a saying about one swallow not
making a summer? Perhaps one Corporal's anecdotes do not a form a
basis for a deduction}.

Apparently not.



The experiences endured by my mother and her neighbours {most of the
menfolk were on active service} is summarised on the Liverpool blitz
web-site http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/nof/blitz/index.html

extract
The seven nights of the 1941 May Blitz (1st-7th May) were the heaviest
consecutive nights of bombing experienced by Liverpool during the
whole of the Second World War. In those few nights around 681 planes
dropped 870 tonnes of high explosives and over 112,000 incendiaries
(firebombs) on the area, killing over 1,700 people and making around
76,000 homeless.

/extract

Not much mention of Dive Bombers there! The Luftwaffe _did_ have
Dive-Bombers, these were aircraft specifically designed for
Close-Air-Support of advancing troops and AIUI such aircraft were
directed by their pilots along a line-of-sight towards their target;
the aircraft's systems automagically performed a J-curve manoeuvre
which had the effect of taking the aircraft away and above the target
while the ordnance continued along the line-of-sight to impact. Such
aircraft were tasked against known targets, predominantly the Chain
Home stations and airfields. AIUI, the aircraft-weapon systems was a
success but not many Teutonic aircrew made a second sortie.


That would explain the British complaint with the early P-51's lack of
high altitude performance. Based on the information I had, I (apparently
incorrectly) assumed that there was no need for a fighter with good high
altitude performance - I thought that most of the action during the BoB
was down low where the early P-51 was actually pretty capable.

Thanks for the education - and that weblink.

DS

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 14:36:52 -0500, DeepSea
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in
:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:16:27 -0500, DeepSea
wrote:

Maybe not. I'm not a historian, I'm an engineer with an interest in
history. That being said, here's what I (think) I know.

Dive Bombing - technique that involves the release of bombs at high
speed/low altitude.

My comments are derived from a talk I attended last year while at the
US Army's General Staff College. The talk was given by a British Army
corporal who served as a courier in the early days of the Battle of
Britain. He was wounded (badly) in one of the attacks, and spent the
rest of the war recouperating and learning to walk again. He used the
terms "most" and "dive bombing" during his talk.

OK, if you are an engineer, then you should start by considering that
a "corporal" courier who was wounded by a dive bomber is probably not
authoritative on what dive bombing is all about.

The discussion was not about "what dive bombing is all about", the
technicalities or merits of dive bombing, nor was the talk. Simply that
in his experience, he mostly saw dive bombing. This was important to my
point of view because his talk was my only exposure to primary source
material on the subject (at least until Brian posted the weblink).

My point was the unusual nature of taking a general conclusion from a
very limited anecdotal sampling and one that was arguably not an
expert observer. It would be similar to taking testimony regarding an
individual who has been shot and extrapolating their experience to
some level of expertise in firearms.

If you were in attendance at "the US Army's General Staff College"
(can I assume you mean C&GSC?), then I would further assume a
professional military background and some exposure during your
educational background to some coverage of the Battle of Britain, the
blitz, and the bombing of London.

One could go a step further and, as Harry Andreas has pointed out,
"high speed/low altitude" is probably not the best characterization of
dive bombing either. Lay-down or skip-bombing display those attributes
more accurately.

Other than the oral history aspect of seeing a real live WW II British
Tommy, what was the point of his presentation at C&GSC? Was this part
of some larger program? Inquiring minds, etc. . . .

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

In message , Ricardo
writes
Incidentally, a few sources have claimed that the Packard built Merlin,
whilst a superb engine, lacked the power levels of the Rolls Royce
version. This, it is claimed, was because the British kept secret the
composition of the phosphor-bronze bearings that they used in the
engine. No, I can't quote a source/s.

On the other hand, I heard - from "old factory hands" lecturing on
manufacturing technique at Highbury College in 1988 - that a big
difference between Packard and Rolls-Royce was in fitting the cylinder
head.

Rolls-Royce used a precision hand-scraped metal-to-metal fit. Very
effective, though extremely demanding in scarce skilled labour.
(Attempting to 'file flat' is a useful exercise for a trainee mechanical
engineer; it teaches a certain humility in demanding surface finishes)

Packard cleaned up the castings, milled the mating faces approximately
flat (at least, compared to a metal-metal seal) and put a gasket between
them. I don't recall hearing tales of P-51s routinely or regularly
falling from the skies when their engines failed, nor of the Packard
Spitfires being execrated for unreliability (or, for that matter, lack
of horsepower).


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
(DeepSea) wrote:

That is interesting - I had no idea that British interest is
what gave the P-51 its start.

At the time Britain was buying every fighter they could get
their hands on, including the Brewster Buffalo. British and
French purchasing gave a major boost to the US aircraft industry.
The first production orders for the Airacobra were from France.

Ken Young