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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"M. H. Greaves" writes: I read a book recently about a fighter group who flew with one under wing tank, and a bomb under the other, with P51's, the drag must have been hellish! The U.S. used the P47, and the P38's to great advantake for ground attack, the RAF used the typhoon, the tempest, the beaufort, these are the most prominent ones i can remember. Not a whole lot of Beuforts used as Firgter-Bombers or Light Bombers. They were tasked as Torpedo Bombers, for antishipping work. (As were, in fact, most Beaufighters) By mid '44, the usual RAF Light Bomber was the Mosquito FB.VI. The P51's mainly carried two under wing tanks, which they used first, them when the time came to dog fight, they would let them go; they had a big fuel tank in behind the pilot to fall back on. A little bit oof there. For P-51s with the aft fuel tank, the sequence was to burn the fuel in the aft tank first, then the drops. A full aft tank moved the Center of Gravity to the extreme back end of its allowable range, and caused a tendency to overshoot in pitch (pulling G, for instance) that wasn't acceptable in combat. Return fuel would have been in the normal wing tanks. Any fighter bomber that had say small bombs would execute their primary objectives first,i.e. drop the bombs first because to dog fight with a bomb under neath could be too risky, the drag, extra weight, and the damger of the bombs being hit while still attached., they would not be required to go any great distance with the bombs; this was the medium, and heavy bombers task, if the fighters carried a bomb or two they would be used to soften a target with aswell as others straffing, and perhaps those doing the straffing would cover thos carrying the bombs. It perhaps should also be pointed out that the bombs were the fighter-bomber's most effective weapons, so naturally they'd be used first. Bombs are pretty inseneitive to damage from things like bullets & fragments. That's why they require special fuzes and booster charges (Which are in the fuze wells in the center of the bomb) to set them off. The danger of a hung bomb comes from two sources - if the arming wire's been pulled, allowing the vanes onthe fuze to turn, moving the firing mechanism into alignment, then it can go off with a sufficient impact in the right direction. If the rack didn't release all the way, or if one lug has released and the other hasn't then the bomb could fall of its own accord at just about any time, and if it doesn't release cleanly can casue severe damage to teh airframe. USAAF firghter-bombers, (And RAF Mustangs used as fighter-bombers) were quite wide-ranging. The first RAF fighter over Germany were Mustang Is (Allison engines, and no fuselage tank) flying Armed Recce missions past Kiel in early 1942. (Brit built fighters just never had much in the way of range, carrying bombs or not). Ta answer the previous poster's question (And this is why Top Posting is abhorrent - it breaks up the flow of the conversation): It depends on the situation. If the fighter-bombers are being escorted, and the escorts can handle teh attackers, then they'd probably keep the bombs and press on to the target. If the attacking fighters don't have enough of a performance advantage to be able to catch the fighter bombers in good time - tail chases are slow - then it would be a jusdgement call. The drag of bombs was about the same as that of an equivalaently sized drop tank. "zxcv" wrote in message ... Would a fighter plane (say a P-51 or P-40 for example) that was on mission to drop some tactgical bombs and encountered some any fighters generally drop its bombs before engaging the enemy? or just try to run away? or fight with them still hanging on (sounds pretty dangerous to me with the extra weight and the BOMBs hanging under their wings)? -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Okay Peter, thanks for setting me straight on a point or two there! it seems
on the top posting/bottom posting that i'm stuck between a rock and a hard place: if i top post people complain, if i bottom post people complain, i'm not getting at you, its just that i was in another n/g that had a rather large debate cum argument online about people that top or bottom post; nowadays i dont bother either way, if it annoys people that much whether i top post or bottom post then thats just too bad, i'm sorry and all that but who really cares!??? i dont, i just scroll down to where the latest comments are! "Peter Stickney" wrote in message ... In article , "M. H. Greaves" writes: I read a book recently about a fighter group who flew with one under wing tank, and a bomb under the other, with P51's, the drag must have been hellish! The U.S. used the P47, and the P38's to great advantake for ground attack, the RAF used the typhoon, the tempest, the beaufort, these are the most prominent ones i can remember. Not a whole lot of Beuforts used as Firgter-Bombers or Light Bombers. They were tasked as Torpedo Bombers, for antishipping work. (As were, in fact, most Beaufighters) By mid '44, the usual RAF Light Bomber was the Mosquito FB.VI. The P51's mainly carried two under wing tanks, which they used first, them when the time came to dog fight, they would let them go; they had a big fuel tank in behind the pilot to fall back on. A little bit oof there. For P-51s with the aft fuel tank, the sequence was to burn the fuel in the aft tank first, then the drops. A full aft tank moved the Center of Gravity to the extreme back end of its allowable range, and caused a tendency to overshoot in pitch (pulling G, for instance) that wasn't acceptable in combat. Return fuel would have been in the normal wing tanks. Any fighter bomber that had say small bombs would execute their primary objectives first,i.e. drop the bombs first because to dog fight with a bomb under neath could be too risky, the drag, extra weight, and the damger of the bombs being hit while still attached., they would not be required to go any great distance with the bombs; this was the medium, and heavy bombers task, if the fighters carried a bomb or two they would be used to soften a target with aswell as others straffing, and perhaps those doing the straffing would cover thos carrying the bombs. It perhaps should also be pointed out that the bombs were the fighter-bomber's most effective weapons, so naturally they'd be used first. Bombs are pretty inseneitive to damage from things like bullets & fragments. That's why they require special fuzes and booster charges (Which are in the fuze wells in the center of the bomb) to set them off. The danger of a hung bomb comes from two sources - if the arming wire's been pulled, allowing the vanes onthe fuze to turn, moving the firing mechanism into alignment, then it can go off with a sufficient impact in the right direction. If the rack didn't release all the way, or if one lug has released and the other hasn't then the bomb could fall of its own accord at just about any time, and if it doesn't release cleanly can casue severe damage to teh airframe. USAAF firghter-bombers, (And RAF Mustangs used as fighter-bombers) were quite wide-ranging. The first RAF fighter over Germany were Mustang Is (Allison engines, and no fuselage tank) flying Armed Recce missions past Kiel in early 1942. (Brit built fighters just never had much in the way of range, carrying bombs or not). Ta answer the previous poster's question (And this is why Top Posting is abhorrent - it breaks up the flow of the conversation): It depends on the situation. If the fighter-bombers are being escorted, and the escorts can handle teh attackers, then they'd probably keep the bombs and press on to the target. If the attacking fighters don't have enough of a performance advantage to be able to catch the fighter bombers in good time - tail chases are slow - then it would be a jusdgement call. The drag of bombs was about the same as that of an equivalaently sized drop tank. "zxcv" wrote in message ... Would a fighter plane (say a P-51 or P-40 for example) that was on mission to drop some tactgical bombs and encountered some any fighters generally drop its bombs before engaging the enemy? or just try to run away? or fight with them still hanging on (sounds pretty dangerous to me with the extra weight and the BOMBs hanging under their wings)? -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"M. H. Greaves" wrote in message ... Okay Peter, thanks for setting me straight on a point or two there! it seems on the top posting/bottom posting that i'm stuck between a rock and a hard place: if i top post people complain, if i bottom post people complain, i'm not getting at you, its just that i was in another n/g that had a rather large debate cum argument online about people that top or bottom post; nowadays i dont bother either way, if it annoys people that much whether i top post or bottom post then thats just too bad, i'm sorry and all that but who really cares!??? i dont, i just scroll down to where the latest comments are! There are several very good reason for bottom posting. Firstly and most importantly replies can read in the context of the original post. Secondly in a post to which there are several responses its much easier to keep track of who said what and when. Keith |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
yes, thats true, i appreciate that, and like i say i wasnt getting at you
mate! just expressing an opinion thats all regards, Mark {:-)} "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "M. H. Greaves" wrote in message ... Okay Peter, thanks for setting me straight on a point or two there! it seems on the top posting/bottom posting that i'm stuck between a rock and a hard place: if i top post people complain, if i bottom post people complain, i'm not getting at you, its just that i was in another n/g that had a rather large debate cum argument online about people that top or bottom post; nowadays i dont bother either way, if it annoys people that much whether i top post or bottom post then thats just too bad, i'm sorry and all that but who really cares!??? i dont, i just scroll down to where the latest comments are! There are several very good reason for bottom posting. Firstly and most importantly replies can read in the context of the original post. Secondly in a post to which there are several responses its much easier to keep track of who said what and when. Keith |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
-cut- There are several very good reason for bottom posting. Firstly and most importantly replies can read in the context of the original post. Secondly in a post to which there are several responses its much easier to keep track of who said what and when. Keith But only if people would keep the quoted amount within reason...I hate it when I select a msg in an interesting thread, scroll down to see what it's about then scroll through innumerable lines to see the new stuff then again and again...how come people can't learn to remove all that superfluous text? Why quote the old stuff over and over? I think there's a conspiracy afoot to change me over to a top-poster!... -- -Gord. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Gord Beaman wrote:
But only if people would keep the quoted amount within reason...I hate it when I select a msg in an interesting thread, scroll down to see what it's about then scroll through innumerable lines to see the new stuff then again and again...how come people can't learn to remove all that superfluous text? Why quote the old stuff over and over? I think there's a conspiracy afoot to change me over to a top-poster!... I generally hate top posting if there's more than a paragraph quoted. Frankly, I hate bottom posting under the same conditions. I do believe that bottom posting under a very sparse quotation makes for an easier flow of ideas, as in who said what. There's no need to requote an entire conversation in order to give context. -- Mortimer Schnerd, RN http://www.mortimerschnerd.com. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Gord Beaman" wrote in message ... "Keith Willshaw" wrote: snip But only if people would keep the quoted amount within reason...I hate it when I select a msg in an interesting thread, scroll down to see what it's about then scroll through innumerable lines to see the new stuff then again and again...how come people can't learn to remove all that superfluous text? Agreed Keith |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:24:15 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote: But only if people would keep the quoted amount within reason.. Amen! all the best -- Dan Ford email: (requires authentication) see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
ya never know!!???
"Gord Beaman" wrote in message ... "Keith Willshaw" wrote: -cut- There are several very good reason for bottom posting. Firstly and most importantly replies can read in the context of the original post. Secondly in a post to which there are several responses its much easier to keep track of who said what and when. Keith But only if people would keep the quoted amount within reason...I hate it when I select a msg in an interesting thread, scroll down to see what it's about then scroll through innumerable lines to see the new stuff then again and again...how come people can't learn to remove all that superfluous text? Why quote the old stuff over and over? I think there's a conspiracy afoot to change me over to a top-poster!... -- -Gord. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"M. H. Greaves" writes: he dropped the wing tank firstm then the bomb! "Cub Driver" wrote in message ... I read a book recently about a fighter group who flew with one under wing tank, and a bomb under the other, with P51's, the drag must have been hellish! Did the pilot pickle them off at the same time? I rather doubt it. I had occasion to pull out the F-51's -1, and there isn't any provision to drop from each station individually. Both stations go at the same time. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canadian fighter squadrons during WWII | Ed Majden | Military Aviation | 10 | March 8th 04 05:34 AM |
German forward swept wing WWII fighter projects. | Charles Gray | Military Aviation | 4 | January 11th 04 01:49 PM |
Guns on a WWII fighter... | Kurt Jeffery | Military Aviation | 15 | December 14th 03 11:48 PM |
Kadena honors legendary WWII fighter ace | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | November 23rd 03 02:58 AM |
V engined bombers (was: #1 Piston Fighter was British) | John Keeney | Military Aviation | 0 | July 1st 03 06:06 AM |