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!

Peter Twydell wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

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?

I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"

-Mike Marron

In article , Mike Marron
writes
Peter Twydell wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

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?

I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"

-Mike Marron

Nobody said it wasn't a bomber. It was designed for and was doing a
different bombing job.

Get a grip.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

Peter Twydell wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

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?

I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"

Nobody said it wasn't a bomber.

Tell your mate Peter Stickney that.

It was designed for and was doing a different bombing job.

A "bomber" by any other name is still a "bomber..."

Get a grip.

Put 'er in the ol' vice yourself pal.

-Mike Marron

In article , Mike Marron
writes
Peter Twydell wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

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?

I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"

Nobody said it wasn't a bomber.

Tell your mate Peter Stickney that.

It was designed for and was doing a different bombing job.

A "bomber" by any other name is still a "bomber..."

Pete said it was maritime patrol aircraft, which is a bomber by another
name, innit?

How's the petard business?

Get a grip.

Put 'er in the ol' vice yourself pal.

-Mike Marron

--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

In message , Mike Marron
writes
I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"

Does that make the P-3 Orion a bomber?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"

Does that make the P-3 Orion a bomber?

Does a surveillance/photo/recce/anti-submarine mission make
the Tu-95 Bear NOT a bomber?

-Mike (it wasn't called "Shacklebomber" for nothing) Marron

Mike Marron wrote:

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"

Does that make the P-3 Orion a bomber?

Does a surveillance/photo/recce/anti-submarine mission make
the Tu-95 Bear NOT a bomber?

Dumb question. Dumb poster.

Grantland

(Grantland) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Does a surveillance/photo/recce/anti-submarine mission make
the Tu-95 Bear NOT a bomber?

Dumb question. Dumb poster.

Sorry. It was modeled after the type of rhetorical "Mensa Quiz"
question from the previous Shacklebomber-is-not-a-bomber posters.

-Mike Marron

"Mike Marron"

Does a surveillance/photo/recce/anti-submarine mission make
the Tu-95 Bear NOT a bomber?


That's because the ASW variant is the TU-142. Under treaty specs the US
agreed that the variant was not a bomber and isn't accountable. Even the
TU-95RT was limited to it's primary mission and not classed as a bomber.

TJ