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

In article , Mike Marron
writes
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.)

And the advantage of the higher speed and service ceiling while sub-
hunting close to sea level is what?
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

Guy Alcala wrote:

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:

snip

I'd love to see it, if I could. If you can't scan it, or cost is an
issue, or it's just too danged big (sheetfeed scanners are a Good
Thing), than photocopy it, and mail it, if you wish. I'd be happy to
scan it for you.

I haven't seen a reply from Gavin to this, so I'll just type the info in.

snip

And of course, shortly after I do this, Gavin emails the scans in question and then some ;-)
Seems like my mail server must have been suffering from constipation, as I didn't get anything
for the last two days or so, and then that last two days of mail showed up tonight.

Guy

P.S. Thanks for the scans, Gavin.

Michael Williamson
wrote:

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.

No offense Mike, but it doesn't make sense to me either. The
wing will produce the same amount of lift at a given airspeed/
AOA combination, regardless of its relation to the fuselage.
Pivoting the fuselage below the wing won't allow slower
flight, since the wing is the deciding factor. You will have
(again) a lower fuselage angle so that you can actually see
where you are going, but the stall speed shouldn't be affected.

Mike Williamson

Of course...exactly...
--

-Gord.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 07:16:49 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

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)

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.
The Air Force would be perfectly happy to have an equal number of B-2s
replacing the B-52s, but couldn't convince Congress to pay for it. It would
certainly be possible to build a modern a/c design to do what the C-130,
B-52, and Canberra do cheaper and better, but that assumes that someone's
willing to pony up the money for the development and acquisition cost.
Hell, the C-130 could and probably should have been replaced by a C-14 or
C-15 25 years ago. Its longevity is due to it being the only Western a/c in
its class. If something like the AN-70 and A400M had also been available in
the west 25 years ago, would the C-130 have remained in production all these
years, given its limitations?

Guy

For the job it performs the C-130 is certainly a better aircraft than
the A400M. When paired with the C-17 it is unbeatable by the aircraft
you mention.

Al Minyard

Guy Alcala wrote:

--cut--

"The Crusader's wing answered the problem of pilot visibility in a supersonic
a/c while keeping low canopy drag. Without the tilted wing, a carrier pilot
would be forced to sit higher in order to see flight decks and signal officers
due to the high AoA of a normal fixed wing, and attached fuselage, at landing
approach.

"Under the above conditions, a large canopy would be required for adequate
visibility.

CVA aerodynamicists found that the required canopy size would
increase drag at supersonic speed by some 35%, so another solution was
required.

Good God!...35% you say!, So it would seem that this following
statement could use some editing then?.

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

--cut--


[skipping a bit] "Tilting the wing upward during landing maneuvers allowed a
relatively slow landing speed, yet kept the F-8's fuselage at an AoA of about
5.5 deg. rather than 12.5 deg. as required with its wing down."



Guy, can you expound on that a little? I can't see how the angle
of the fuselage (AoI?) has any effect on the 'landing speed'.

The only thing that the variable AoI mechanism does (essentially
- as far as I can see) is to tilt the fuselage to 5.5 deg vice
12.5. (I think the camber is changed as well - but that's a
different story)

I certainly agree with your other statements here...and thanks
for the research...interesting a/c.








OK Mike, tell me how that would occur. The wing doesn't care whether
the fuslage is aligned with it, is hanging down a bit from a hinge,
like an F-8, or is hanging underneath it by a flexible coupleing like
your trike. An F-8 will stall at the same EAS wing up or down, flap &
slat settings being the same. There's no extra lift. As far as the
wing is concerned, the Clmax, and the Angle of Attack required to get
it, is the same.

Now, if you're trying to say that, with a Crusader's wing up, it can
reach that Angle of Attack with a lower fuselage angle, than you are
in violent agreement with the rest of us.

Also, if you peddle back to that website that you posted depicting
a close-up of the Crusader's wing in the raised position, you will
clearly see how the raised portion of the wing assembly directly
above the fuselage is flat as a sheet of plywood and protrudes
right into the relative wind -- effectively functioning as a speed
brake.

Irrelevant as far as lift is concerned. And if they needed a Speed
Drake, they'd have designed the speed brake differently. (The F-8's
board was under the fuselage, much like an F-100's, and couldn't be
used for landing.)

snip

I suppose that the extra drag might come in handy to keep the engine revs
during the landing apporach a bit higher in lieu of usable speed brake(s) (the
J57 was certainly better in spool-up time than the preceding generation of jet
engines, but it wasn't all that quick). However, the wing was also up for cat
shots, and the extra drag would be counter-productive then. I suspect the
flat section had more to do with the center section being a fuel tank than any
other purpose. I have a vague memory that the reason for it was discussed
over on r.a.m.n. in the not too distant past by one or more of the former F-8
jocks there, so if anyone wishes to pursue the reason for it further, they may
wish to post a question there.

Guy

--

-Gord.

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

Alan Minyard wrote:

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 07:16:49 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

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)

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.
The Air Force would be perfectly happy to have an equal number of B-2s
replacing the B-52s, but couldn't convince Congress to pay for it. It would
certainly be possible to build a modern a/c design to do what the C-130,
B-52, and Canberra do cheaper and better, but that assumes that someone's
willing to pony up the money for the development and acquisition cost.
Hell, the C-130 could and probably should have been replaced by a C-14 or
C-15 25 years ago. Its longevity is due to it being the only Western a/c in
its class. If something like the AN-70 and A400M had also been available in
the west 25 years ago, would the C-130 have remained in production all these
years, given its limitations?

Guy

For the job it performs the C-130 is certainly a better aircraft than
the A400M.

Which is circular reasoning -- if you define the job the C-130 _can perform_ as
the job any replacement _should perform_ (no more, no less), then of course the
C-130 will be superior. After all, most U.S. military tactical equipment has had
its dimensions artificially limited to what will fit in a C-130 cargo bay. The
C-130's payload is size and volume-limited - U.S. military 'oversize' and
'outsize' cargo is that which _won't_ fit in a C-130. The A400M and AN-70 may or
may not be inferior to the C-130 while performing a role limited to that which
the C-130 is also capable of, but they can also take on jobs that the C-130 is
incapable of, such as carrying a considerable portion of the loads which only the
C-17 or C-5 would otherwise be able to carry. If you can only afford one
tactical airlifter, but you need to move a fair proportion of those oversize
and/or outsize loads by air, then the C-130 isn't the answer.

When paired with the C-17 it is unbeatable by the aircraft
you mention.

At a far higher cost if you've got to buy and operate two different a/c, IF you
are otherwise able to get by with one. For the U.S., with the potential need to
deploy big, heavy cargo into theater trans-oceanically and then make a tactical
landing with the same load, the C-17's extra speed over a turboprop may make
sense, but most countries don't have such a compelling need that will justify the
price tag. The C-130's longevity has been based on two things: first, that it
was an excellent design to start with; and second, that it was the only a/c in
its class among western a/c. Can you name another 4 turboprop western tactical
airlifter with semi-STOL capability that was available in the 1955-2008 time
frame? Is there any doubt that competition, as exists among more numerous,
smaller and cheaper twin-turboprop tactical airlifters, would have led to far
fewer C-130 sales, and its obsolescence and replacement much sooner? The C-130
was the only game in town, big brother had already paid for its development, and
in many cases was willing to help with the payments or even give the a/c away.

Guy

In article , Guy Alcala
writes
John Halliwell wrote:

In article , Dave Eadsforth
writes
Some penny-pinching accountant at work perhaps?

I was always mystified by the fact that the Spitfire didn't get full
wheel-well covers until late in the war - they went to all that trouble
gluing split peas all over the wing to optimise the placement of flush
and round headed rivets and missed out on some thing that seems even
more obvious (unless the drag from the wheel well really was
inconsequential up to speeds of 400 mph or so - but that seems a bit
counter instinctive).

I think originally it simplified the gear retraction 'hydraulics'. The
first Spits had a hand pump to retract the gear, which required IIRC 27
pumps to fully retract it. I guess the full wheel well covers probably
came along with the retractable tail wheel (possibly more important?) as
well?

No, they were removed to simplify things at RAF suggestion in spec. F.16/36,
dated 28 July 1936, which entailed the changes to be made from the
prototype. F.16/36 was the spec for the first production contract (on 3
June 1936) for 310 a/c, which lists thirty-three seperate paragraphs, each
entailing one change:

Para xxi: "Provided no reduction in the performance will be entailed, the
hinged flaps on the wheels may be replaced by fixed flaps which, when
retracted, will not cover the wing apertures completely." Presumably no
significant reduction in performance resulted, at least not at the speed the
a/c was then capable of attaining.

Guy


Thanks for that quote - ends a long-standing mystery!

Perhaps they should have stuck with that nice streamlined tailskid...

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

Guy Alcala wrote:
prune

Can you name another 4 turboprop western tactical

airlifter with semi-STOL capability that was available in the 1955-2008 time
frame? I

Short Belfast comes to mind. It had a similar configuration, though I daresay its
capabilities fell short, or more of them would have been built.


Cheers,


--
Indrek Aavisto
Sudbury, Ontario

"Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult" W. S. Churchill

Dave Eadsforth wrote:

In article , Guy Alcala
writes
John Halliwell wrote:

In article , Dave Eadsforth
writes
Some penny-pinching accountant at work perhaps?

I was always mystified by the fact that the Spitfire didn't get full
wheel-well covers until late in the war - they went to all that trouble
gluing split peas all over the wing to optimise the placement of flush
and round headed rivets and missed out on some thing that seems even
more obvious (unless the drag from the wheel well really was
inconsequential up to speeds of 400 mph or so - but that seems a bit
counter instinctive).

I think originally it simplified the gear retraction 'hydraulics'. The
first Spits had a hand pump to retract the gear, which required IIRC 27
pumps to fully retract it. I guess the full wheel well covers probably
came along with the retractable tail wheel (possibly more important?) as
well?

No, they were removed to simplify things at RAF suggestion in spec. F.16/36,
dated 28 July 1936, which entailed the changes to be made from the
prototype. F.16/36 was the spec for the first production contract (on 3
June 1936) for 310 a/c, which lists thirty-three seperate paragraphs, each
entailing one change:

Para xxi: "Provided no reduction in the performance will be entailed, the
hinged flaps on the wheels may be replaced by fixed flaps which, when
retracted, will not cover the wing apertures completely." Presumably no
significant reduction in performance resulted, at least not at the speed the
a/c was then capable of attaining.

Guy


Thanks for that quote - ends a long-standing mystery!

Perhaps they should have stuck with that nice streamlined tailskid...

I just last night got in Price's "The Spitfire Story" at my library, which I
devoured immediately. Aside from confirming the above (that there was no
noticeable change in performance with the wheel flaps removed from the
prototype), he also says that Mitchell wanted to stick with the tailskid, but the
Air Ministry insisted on the tailwheel, because they knew (but couldn't tell
Mitchell at the time, because it was classified) that they were going to lay down
all-weather (i.e. paved) runways at all the fighter bases, and the tail skid
wouldn't last long under those conditions. This thing's just filled with great
info.

Guy