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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Andreas wrote:
In article , wrote: P-47C, 2,220. P-47D-25, 2,540. Very interesting post Guy. Question, I Thought the D-25 had a much more powerful engine and the 4 blade prop. Both had 4-blade props, although the D-25 had the paddleblade prop. I don't think the t/o power was substantially different (Pete Stickney undoubtedly has the numbers), just the D-25 had water injection for a W.E. rating. Is it that much heavier that it has a longer take-off roll than a C model? P-47C (block unstated), 13,582 lb. P-47D-25, 14,411 lb., 829 lb. difference or a 6.1% increase. Guy |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Guy Alcala writes: Harry Andreas wrote: In article , wrote: P-47C, 2,220. P-47D-25, 2,540. Very interesting post Guy. Question, I Thought the D-25 had a much more powerful engine and the 4 blade prop. Both had 4-blade props, although the D-25 had the paddleblade prop. I don't think the t/o power was substantially different (Pete Stickney undoubtedly has the numbers), just the D-25 had water injection for a W.E. rating. A quick search tells me that there isn't any real difference. The -21, -57 and -63 were all Factory TSB1 models. The only differences were the water injection kits on the -57 adn -63, and a different ignition harness on the -63. Dry ratings certainly won't be any different. The first big change in P-47 engine ratings was when the 'C' series engines were introduced on the P-47M and N models. Is it that much heavier that it has a longer take-off roll than a C model? P-47C (block unstated), 13,582 lb. P-47D-25, 14,411 lb., 829 lb. difference or a 6.1% increase. I'm not certain wht the effect would be. A lot depends on the propeller efficiency at low speeds, as well. As a side note - I've had some mail server problems (House server), and soem connectivity problems. It's likely that my attention will be a bit spotty for the next week or so. Guy, did you get the F-102 stuff I sent? -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net... "John Keeney" wrote in message ... Way back when Wings was on the Discovery channel instead of being a channel (that I don't get) they had one episode that was basicly the P-47 in the PTO. That episode had a fair amount of footage showing Jugs being catapulted off a carrier. Are you sure they were catapulted and not simply flown off? What I saw, they used a catapult. They showed a fair amount of footage hooking them up and talked about the rate they launched them; I don't recall the number but I was impressed and though it compared favorably with modern carrier ops. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomdenton" wrote in message ... Actually only four. BuNos 01209-01212. Correct designation was FO. It appears four is the correct number. Angelucci and Bowers state "10 F-5Bs given by the USAAF to the U.S.Navy. New serial numbers: 01209/01212." I assume the authors could count and it's a publisher's error. But the correct designation was indeed FO-1. In the Navy's pre-1962 designation system all aircraft had a series number, -1 in this case, even if there was only one series, as in this case. Note that that's not consistent with the manufacturer's model number. The first model of a basic mission type by a particular manufacturer had no model number. As an example, the first Navy fighter built by Grumman was the FF-1, the second was the F2F-1. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Guy Alcala" wrote in message . .. From at least 1944 on, all American fighters were equipped for or with catapult hooks, so they could be air-delivered to forward airfields by CVEs. I've never heard of that, do you have a reference? In the specific case of the P-47, I'm guessing you'd need about a 50-60 knot WoD to make a successful free take-off from a CVE. Checking "America's Hundred Thousand," it lists the P-47C takeoff run with full internal fuel and ammo (13,582 lb.) @ SL, zero wind, hard surface runway, and t/o power, as 2,220 ft. That may be, but there'd be no need to takeoff with full internal fuel and ammo just to deliver the airplane. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"John Keeney" wrote in message ... What I saw, they used a catapult. They showed a fair amount of footage hooking them up and talked about the rate they launched them; I don't recall the number but I was impressed and though it compared favorably with modern carrier ops. If they showed it I accept it. "Wings" has a lot of good footage, but the narration tends to be rather poor. The narrator frequently refers to the 50 millimeter machine guns on US aircraft of WWII. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Stickney wrote:
In article , Guy Alcala writes: Harry Andreas wrote: In article , wrote: P-47C, 2,220. P-47D-25, 2,540. Very interesting post Guy. Question, I Thought the D-25 had a much more powerful engine and the 4 blade prop. Both had 4-blade props, although the D-25 had the paddleblade prop. I don't think the t/o power was substantially different (Pete Stickney undoubtedly has the numbers), just the D-25 had water injection for a W.E. rating. A quick search tells me that there isn't any real difference. The -21, -57 and -63 were all Factory TSB1 models. The only differences were the water injection kits on the -57 adn -63, and a different ignition harness on the -63. Dry ratings certainly won't be any different. That's what I thought, although I had a vague memory that some models were rated at 2,100 vs. 2,000 hp. snip As a side note - I've had some mail server problems (House server), and soem connectivity problems. It's likely that my attention will be a bit spotty for the next week or so. Guy, did you get the F-102 stuff I sent? Nope, haven't seen anything. What day did you send it? It's possible that I deleted it unwittingly as Spam, but I check the senders and subjects (fairly quickly) before they go to the trash. Guy |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Guy Alcala" wrote in message . .. From at least 1944 on, all American fighters were equipped for or with catapult hooks, so they could be air-delivered to forward airfields by CVEs. I've never heard of that, do you have a reference? In the specific case of the P-47, I'm guessing you'd need about a 50-60 knot WoD to make a successful free take-off from a CVE. Checking "America's Hundred Thousand," it lists the P-47C takeoff run with full internal fuel and ammo (13,582 lb.) @ SL, zero wind, hard surface runway, and t/o power, as 2,220 ft. That may be, but there'd be no need to takeoff with full internal fuel and ammo just to deliver the airplane. Which I mentioned in my post. Depending on how far away they were at launch, and the tactical situation at the landing field, they could be carrying a variable amount of fuel and ammo. I still very much doubt that a P-47 could make a running t/o from a CVE under likely WoD conditions (the ships themselves were only good for about 18 kts), no matter how light it was. High enough winds that would allow a running takeoff would most likely occur with sea states that would cause flight ops to be shut down owing to ship pitch, roll and yaw. Guy |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
"Guy Alcala" wrote in message . .. From at least 1944 on, all American fighters were equipped for or with catapult hooks, so they could be air-delivered to forward airfields by CVEs. I've never heard of that, do you have a reference? snip From Friedman's "Carrier Air Power," pp 98-9: "Catapults also made possible the delivery of land-based fighters by escort carriers; . . . .The first such delivery occurred during the North African invasion [Guy: P-40Fs IIRR], when paratroopers captured an airfield, and the techique was particularly common in the Pacific. Thus by the end of the war all Mustangs and Thunderbolts assigned to the Pacific received their (removable) catapult fittings on the assembly line. The United States continued to use escort carriers for aircraft delivery postwar, and indeed continued to experiment with catapult fittings for land jet fighters. However by the early 1950s even light fighters required such powerful catapults that existing transport carriers had to be reduced to carrying their aircraft cocooned on deck, and all had their catapults removed in 1952." Guy |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Guy Alcala wrote:
Peter Stickney wrote: snip Guy, did you get the F-102 stuff I sent? Nope, haven't seen anything. What day did you send it? It's possible that I deleted it unwittingly as Spam, but I check the senders and subjects (fairly quickly) before they go to the trash. Which reminds me, have you seen the F-104A and F-105B "Phase II Flight Evaluation" files at Stinet? Good Stuff. Unfortunately, I don't seem to qualify under any of the appropriate categories to order any of the stuff that isn't online (maybe I can become a student at a Historically Black College), so I can't get my hands on "A Comparative Analysis of USAF Fixed-Wing Aircraft Losses in Southeast Asia Combat", record number ADC016682. Guy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: Strikemaster, Lightning F-1A, Jet Provost Mk.3, plus more lots - TBD, SBD, Pe-2, Intl OK | Tom Test | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | December 1st 04 04:36 PM |
lightning bug homebuilt | news.west.cox.net | Home Built | 1 | February 26th 04 10:46 PM |
BAC Lightning ejection | weremoth | Military Aviation | 7 | January 3rd 04 02:27 PM |
White Lightning? | Kevin O'Brien | Home Built | 0 | August 23rd 03 07:34 AM |
white lightning | mansour | Home Built | 16 | July 10th 03 08:46 PM |