Aircraft growth (question starting with Art Kramer)

What reaction do you have to the size of WWII aircraft versus modern
ones, where a "lightweight" fighter such as an F-16 is probably
comparable in size to Willie the Wolf -- and a F-15 the size of a B-17.
Must be a strange sensation -- I'd like to hear your thoughts.

By the mid 1950s we were catapulting single engine jet aircraft from Navy
carriers with greater bomb loads than the WWII B-17 could carry.

WDA

end

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
What reaction do you have to the size of WWII aircraft versus modern
ones, where a "lightweight" fighter such as an F-16 is probably
comparable in size to Willie the Wolf -- and a F-15 the size of a B-17.
Must be a strange sensation -- I'd like to hear your thoughts.

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:05:59 -0700, "W. D. Allen Sr."
wrote:

By the mid 1950s we were catapulting single engine jet aircraft from Navy
carriers with greater bomb loads than the WWII B-17 could carry.

WDA

Not too sure about that. Which single engine Navy jet carried a B-17
equivalent load in the '50s. I'll concede that the A-6 certainly
could, but it isn't single engine nor is it mid-'50s. (Of course if we
start talking yields rather than pounds, there's no contest.) Don't
know that F-9s, F-11s, etc could handle much over about 2000 pounds of
iron.

Certainly the F-4 and F-105 carried equivalent iron loads
operationally and could carry double the B-17 load if all stations
were loaded up, which wasn't operationally practical but was done a
couple of times. 16x750 on a F-105 or 24xMk-83 on an F-4 is pretty
healthy.

And, we could do it at 4.5 times the speed!


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Actually, that single engine aircraft was the A-1 (AKA Spad) which relied on
a Wright R-3350 for power. The early A-4 could theoretically lift a B-17
bomb load, but not with much fuel in the aircraft.

R / John

"W. D. Allen Sr." wrote in message
...
By the mid 1950s we were catapulting single engine jet aircraft from Navy
carriers with greater bomb loads than the WWII B-17 could carry.

WDA

end

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
What reaction do you have to the size of WWII aircraft versus modern
ones, where a "lightweight" fighter such as an F-16 is probably
comparable in size to Willie the Wolf -- and a F-15 the size of a B-17.
Must be a strange sensation -- I'd like to hear your thoughts.

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Howard Berkowitz wrote:

What reaction do you have to the size of WWII aircraft versus modern
ones, where a "lightweight" fighter such as an F-16 is probably
comparable in size to Willie the Wolf -- and a F-15 the size of a B-17.

And a SPAD XIII weighed about 1,300 lbs empty compared to 'bout
7,600 lbs for an empty P-51 - 'bout a six-fold increase.

The F-15 represents only 'bout a four-fold weight increase over
the P-51. And it's certainly more than four times as capable.

Your point, exactly? One might note that the displacement of
the USS Abraham Lincoln is many times that of the USS Yorktown
and the weight of an M1A1 is many times that of a M4 Sherman.

I doubt regressing to SPAD XIII weights (and performance) is
a winning prescription in the 21st century.

"Bill" == Bill Shatzer writes:

Bill On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Howard Berkowitz wrote:

What reaction do you have to the size of WWII aircraft versus
modern ones, where a "lightweight" fighter such as an F-16 is
probably comparable in size to Willie the Wolf -- and a F-15
the size of a B-17.

Bill And a SPAD XIII weighed about 1,300 lbs empty compared to
Bill 'bout 7,600 lbs for an empty P-51 - 'bout a six-fold
Bill increase.

Bill The F-15 represents only 'bout a four-fold weight increase
Bill over the P-51. And it's certainly more than four times as
Bill capable.

Bill Your point, exactly? One might note that the displacement of
Bill the USS Abraham Lincoln is many times that of the USS
Bill Yorktown and the weight of an M1A1 is many times that of a
Bill M4 Sherman.

Bill I doubt regressing to SPAD XIII weights (and performance) is
Bill a winning prescription in the 21st century.

The flip side of this is I think that if the same capabilities were
desired, they could be squeezed out of a design much much smaller,
given the advances in miniaturazation (for example unmanned aircraft
for missile or bomb delivery). However, I believe that the
option-limiting factor on front-line fighters and bombers has always
been engine power, and that the criterion of judgement has been not
weight, but (I don't know the correct term) the excess thrust (jets)
or power over the weight. And turning that into performance.

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

Not too sure about that. Which single engine Navy jet carried a B-17
equivalent load in the '50s.

Though not a jet, the AD (later A-1) did.

What's more, the AD was nuclear-capable, which the 17 never was.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com

Subject: Aircraft growth (question starting with Art Kramer)
From: Bill Shatzer
Date: 6/6/04 12:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Howard Berkowitz wrote:

What reaction do you have to the size of WWII aircraft versus modern
ones, where a "lightweight" fighter such as an F-16 is probably
comparable in size to Willie the Wolf -- and a F-15 the size of a B-17.

And a SPAD XIII weighed about 1,300 lbs empty compared to 'bout
7,600 lbs for an empty P-51 - 'bout a six-fold increase.

The F-15 represents only 'bout a four-fold weight increase over
the P-51. And it's certainly more than four times as capable.

Your point, exactly? One might note that the displacement of
the USS Abraham Lincoln is many times that of the USS Yorktown
and the weight of an M1A1 is many times that of a M4 Sherman.

I doubt regressing to SPAD XIII weights (and performance) is
a winning prescription in the 21st century.


I can't even relate to modern jets with their super speeds and heavy bombloads
and remarkable performance. I am out of the past. An ancient soldier with no
relationship to the present.(sigh)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 14:00:31 -0600, Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:05:59 -0700, "W. D. Allen Sr."
wrote:

By the mid 1950s we were catapulting single engine jet aircraft from Navy
carriers with greater bomb loads than the WWII B-17 could carry.

WDA

Not too sure about that. Which single engine Navy jet carried a B-17
equivalent load in the '50s. I'll concede that the A-6 certainly
could, but it isn't single engine nor is it mid-'50s. (Of course if we
start talking yields rather than pounds, there's no contest.) Don't
know that F-9s, F-11s, etc could handle much over about 2000 pounds of
iron.

Certainly the F-4 and F-105 carried equivalent iron loads
operationally and could carry double the B-17 load if all stations
were loaded up, which wasn't operationally practical but was done a
couple of times. 16x750 on a F-105 or 24xMk-83 on an F-4 is pretty
healthy.

And, we could do it at 4.5 times the speed!


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

The "normal" bomb load of a B-17 was 6,000lb, while an A-4E could
carry 8,200lb. The "E" was not introduced until 1961 and the "1950's"
A-4C was limited to 5,000lb by the arrangement of the pylons.

Still, pretty impressive stats for old Heinie's Hot Rod :-)

Al Minyard

Bill Shatzer wrote:

I doubt regressing to SPAD XIII weights (and performance) is
a winning prescription in the 21st century.

That depends on the mission.

Do the names "Predator" and "Hellfire" ring a bell?




Jack