Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: First critical element of WW-II fighter plane effectivness?
45-Shooter    1/18/2013 9:22:46 PM
Given that the "typical" WW-II Single engine fighter could be spotted at 1-2 miles, depending on aspect, about half the time, I propose that the smaller the plane, the more effective it will be! Sort of a semi-stealth solution to the "Spotting" problem?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21   NEXT
45-Shooter       1/28/2013 3:27:46 PM

As we have answered one, (1) the plane must at least fit its role the most efficiently it can, meaning in the bomber example, that a bomber must be able to carry bombs efficiently a set distance and drop them, which is why the JU-288 was better designed as a bomber than the B-17 to do the same exact thing Not true at all. There were vastly different criteria that led to the two designs and the vast differences in them. (same bomb-loads on half the engines, crew, and 2/3 fuel for the same range). A short synopsis of the detail differences;

1. The B-17 had 4,800 total HP availible to get it off the ground.
 2. The Ju-288 had well over 5,300 HP. See; Wiki- Specifications (Ju 288B)

General characteristics

  • Crew: 4
  • Length: 17.8 m (58 ft)
  • Wingspan...: 22.7 m (74 ft 4 in)
  • Height: 4.50 m (14 ft 9 in)
  • Wing area: 64.6 m² (696 ft²)
  • Loaded weight: 20,950 kg (46,186 lb)
  • Max. takeoff weight...: 21,000 kg (46,300 lb)
  • Powerplant...: 2 × Daimler-Benz DB606... 24-cylinder "coupled" engine system, made from twinned DB 601 inverted V12 engines, 2,700 PS (1,985 kW, 2,663 hp) each

Performance

Armament


 

So you think a higher wing loading is good for a plane designed to operate at 30+K'?

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/28/2013 3:45:40 PM


 

The parent weapon was PELICAN.
And this relates to the argument about the "BAT" how?
 
 I admit that I misremembered hit accuracy (50%!!!! not 25%)

 

But I do KNOW my guided missiles, Shooter. Unlike you I am not a LIAR. Exactly where in my reply about the Bat did I lie? Which refferance was wrong?

 

B.

 


Sincerely,
Stewart.
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/28/2013 3:47:45 PM








 



The parent weapon was PELICAN.



And this relates to the argument about the "BAT" how?

 
 I admit that I misremembered hit accuracy (50%!!!! not 25%)

 

But I do KNOW my guided missiles, Shooter. Unlike you I am not a LIAR. Exactly where in my reply about the Bat did I lie? Which refferance was wrong?

 

B.

 

PS. What about the other 5 mistakes highlighted in yellow on the first post you made? Those mistakes in the second PP of the first post! Etc...
 


Sincerely,
Stewart.
 



 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    HMMMMM>   1/28/2013 11:33:41 PM
Most of your links did not work. Those of yours that did work, confirmed what I said, but in all your efforts to LIE, about what the content was, you MISSED the truth. Didn't YOU read the contents? Apparently NOT, or you did not understand what was written.
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    HMMMMM>   1/28/2013 11:40:09 PM
What DID I say?
 
I'll leave that for you to puzzle out. But here is a hint; everything you posted is irrelevant, not applicable, shows you do not understand what I wrote. Is WRONG, or just plain stupid as in sheer FANTASY about the issues I discussed.
 
In other words, you are looking at the wrong things, and you don't know HOW PLANES WORK.
 
Its that SIMPLE.
 
B.

Take that last utterly STUPID comment you wrote.
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    HMMMMM>   1/28/2013 11:43:27 PM

What DID I say?

 

I'll leave that for you to puzzle out. But here is a hint; everything you posted is irrelevant, not applicable, shows you do not understand what I wrote. Is WRONG, or just plain stupid as in sheer FANTASY about the issues I discussed.

 

In other words, you are looking at the wrong things, and you don't know HOW PLANES WORK.

 

Its that SIMPLE.

 

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888











As we have answered one, (1) the plane must at least fit its role the most efficiently it can, meaning in the bomber example, that a bomber must be able to carry bombs efficiently a set distance and drop them, which is why the JU-288 was better designed as a bomber than the B-17 to do the same exact thing Not true at all. There were vastly different criteria that led to the two designs and the vast differences in them. (same bomb-loads on half the engines, crew, and 2/3 fuel for the same range). A short synopsis of the detail differences;





1. The B-17 had 4,800 total HP availible to get it off the ground.



 2. The Ju-288 had well over 5,300 HP. See; Wiki- Specifications (Ju 288B)

General characteristics

Performance

Armament







 




So you think a higher wing loading is good for a plane designed to operate at 30+K'?

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

Take that last utterly STUPID comment you wrote.

 

B.

 


 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    HMMMMM>   1/28/2013 11:48:51 PM
Its spelled REFERENCE.
 
You might try rereading Naval Proceedings, Stuart, and then write:
 
"I'm sorry, because I did not understand what the author said I erroneously assumed that I knew more than the man who told me about the Bat from the top of his head, after I desperately wasted hours of my life trying to prove him wrong and could not."
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/29/2013 8:02:02 AM
2. If a design team knew that a plane would fail in its design role would they continue? Serrious failure here! Why would any designer continue IF he knew it would fail?
 
dont know, why did the US keep producing P40s after they realised that they were obsolite?
Let's try the cargo plane as an example. (Bomber versus airliner) 2. If the plane is supposed to carry people, then you want the main wingspar at the BOTTOM of the fuselage.
 
 yet high wing airliners exist and are succesfull!
tends to disagree with your argument, prop aricraft tend to have higher wings as it makes prop clearance easier, also means an airliner(prop) will have high or low wings so as to keep the fuelage clear for passengers,
 a bomber doesnt  need this so the wings were more central,
 so then where to put bombs, well the wings were a poor idea, you can only carry small bombs internally and anyting external is going to slow it down a lot. so you have left the fuselage,
so how to fit it in, you can shoehorn it between sparsbut this limits your options or you can spead your load out on a load bearing floor,
the US like the first option and the RAF liked the second (the germans went for both but tended to have central on conversions and longditudinal on specically desgined bomber)
 
If the plane is supposed to carry bombs? A bomb is about the heaviest most concentrated piece of mass a plane can carry. Fair enough. You want that load UNDER OR in the wing as between the spars. the wing, or immediately before and after it No, experiance has shown this to be the wrong choice IF it can be avoided! as a pendulum load as close to the center of mass and center of gravity on the aircraft as you can manage.True!
 
  that is only relavent if you dont allow for it in the design, have a look where the B52 has its bomb bays or a B29 or a B36 STRENGTH of airframe versus weight demands this.Absolutely true and why the B-17/24 is stronger than the Lancaster. but its not, at least you havent given no evidence that it was, the standard evasion echique for Lanc was the corkscrew can a B17 perform this with 12000lbs of bombs (well of course not as it cant actually carry that), also the Land was stressed for catapult launch so hardly weak
 
  It's simpler to design a bomb shackle system that hangs from the main strength member of the aircraft (fuselage spine spar off a wing or the wing spar itself, than it is to hang the bomb shackle off the FUSELAGE ROOF.
 
Really? its easier to design a shackle thathas to hold a bomb at right angles to gravity than it is to hang it vertically down wards? sounds like a bodge to me
 
 Not really! An added advantage is that under the wing, you can have LONG bomb bays with LONG skinny bombs if you design the aircraft properly. this, as we now know, is a huge mistake!
 
when was this decided? because I do know that the short bomb bay of the B17 severly restricted it meaning that only 2 2000lbs could be carried internally leaving the B17 little better than a medium bomber
 
  It almost certainly led to the loss of many Lancs when a shakle failed to release it's bomb far from the Center of Balance,
 
  from all the reports I can find no Lancs were lost due to hang ups so provide a source or will assume its aother fabrication by yourself
 
  most likely on one of the last three racks.
 
basedyou your knowledge that you have so far displayed I doubt anyone will consider this to be anything but fantasy
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Hmmmm. Lot's wrong.   1/29/2013 10:51:11 AM

oldbutnotwise       1/29/2013 8:02:02 AM

2. If a design team knew that a plane would fail in its design role would they continue?

===================================

Shooter ignorantly wrote:

Serious failure here! Why would any designer continue IF he knew it would fail?
===================================

Don't know, why did the US keep producing P40s after they realized that they were obsolete?

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

[Because the P-40 DID what it was supposed to do as intended; and it did it very well. Earlier, if anyone had paid attention to what I wrote, I told you that the US Army wanted a lot of close air support aircraft and not so many strategic fighters and bombers in the run up to war. That means a plane that fights well at low to medium altitudes. The P-40, against most Euro-fighters, until late 1943-1944 was DEADLY below 17,000 feet. It also was a good strafer and could carry an adequate bomb load for front-line CAS as understood in 1940-1943. It liked thick air. From 1943 on the P-47 was a better (radial AC engine vs V-LC engine) CAS aircraft.]

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

Let's try the cargo plane as an example. (Bomber versus airliner) 2. If the plane is supposed to carry people, then you want the main wingspar at the BOTTOM of the fuselage.

===================================

 Shooter not knowing why a DeHavilland Flamingo was made the way it was (short hangers and large props.), wrote:

 yet high wing airliners exist and are successful!

===================================

Tends to disagree with your argument, prop aircraft tend to have higher wings as it makes prop clearance easier, also means an airliner(prop) will have high or low wings so as to keep the fuselage clear for passengers,

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

[Yaw and pitch of a distributed long load transverse to and perpendicular to lift. Add the vectors up to get the composite control force inputs, OBNW. You want that load above lift, not below it, so you can input correction before, not after induced yaw and pitch.]

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

 A bomber doesn't  need this so the wings were more central, so then where to put bombs, well the wings were a poor idea, you can only carry small bombs internally and anything external is going to slow it down a lot. so you have left the fuselage, so how to fit it in, you can shoehorn it between spars, but this limits your options or you can spread your load out on a load bearing floor,

the US like the first option and the RAF liked the second (the Germans went for both but tended to have central on conversions and longitudinal on specially designed bomber)

8888888888888888888888888888

[The HE-111 was designed by a company that designed AIRLINERS. So was the B-17 designed by such a company. Look at MARTIN who designed BOMBERS and look at JUNKERS. There is a reason for WRONG and it is often surprisingly simple. OBNW. Note how Boeing designed the B-47 and B-52? Experience with what works and what doesn't. You have to make your mistakes to learn.]

88888888888888888888888888888888

If the plane is supposed to carry bombs? A bomb is about the heaviest most concentrated piece of mass a plane can carry.

========================

Shooter wrote:

Fair enough.

[But he doesn't know why.]


[next post]


 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Hmmmm. Lot's wrong.   1/29/2013 11:09:22 AM

[Continue]

You want that load UNDER OR in the wing as between the spars. the wing, or immediately before and after it...

================================================

Shooter wrote:

No, experiance has shown this to be the wrong choice IF it can be avoided!

================================================

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

[Sheer ignorance of physics from that ignoramus.]

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

as a pendulum load as close to the center of mass and center of gravity on the aircraft as you can manage.

=============================================

Shooter wrote

True!

=============================================

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

[As he CONTRADICTS himself without understanding WHY I wrote what I wrote.]

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

That is only relevant if you don't allow for it in the design, have a look where the B52 has its bomb bays or a B29 or a B36 STRENGTH of airframe versus weight demands this.

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

[Not true for the B-36]

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

=============================================

Shooter wrote ignorantly:

Absolutely true and why the B-17/24 is stronger than the Lancaster.

=============================================

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

[Note that the B-24 had a wing with a well-known weak point at the fuselage shoulder joint, that the Germans exploited?

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

But it's not, at least you haven't given no evidence that it was, the standard evasion technique for Lanc was the corkscrew can a B17 perform this with 12000lbs of bombs (well of course not as it cant actually carry that), also the Land was stressed for catapult launch so hardly weak.

 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

[That is a pack of Shooter fantasy. Note the truth. The Lancaster's wing-box was FAR STRONGER than the B-17's (about 2x) because there was not that big freaking damned BOMBBAY hole (B-17) in the middle of the Lanc's wing-spar! Simple things, that a aviation ignoramus would not notice, EVEN WHEN I SHOW IT TO HIM are evident to those people of average intelligence-like me.

The Lanc losses were usually due to engines shot out, hydraulics and aircraft control system failure, not structure.]

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

  It's simpler to design a bomb shackle system that hangs from the main strength member of the aircraft (fuselage spine spar off a wing or the wing spar itself, than it is to hang the bomb shackle off the FUSELAGE ROOF. 

Really? its easier to design a shackle that has to hold a bomb at right angles to gravity than it is to hang it vertically down wards? sounds like a bodge to me

 [next post explains why you have that wrong, OBNW.]

 

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics