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
oldbutnotwise       1/29/2013 11:18:26 AM
[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.]
 
 
The US kept producing P40s well after it was replaced in font line service, a large proportion of late production P40s were shipped directly to the scrappers
 
the usual explanation is that the US govenment signed a contract for x'000 P40s couldnt get out of it and curtis couldnt improve the P40 enough for it to be used in front line service even as a CAS aircraft yet they still churned it out
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Hmmmm. Lot's wrong.   1/29/2013 11:22:23 AM

 

 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

88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

[That is not what I said OBNW. What I said, (let me use a different way to say it), is that a truss suspension load in the direction of aircraft motion is more stable and less periodic on the bomb than an arch suspension load mounted transverse to direction of aircraft motion. One solution (B-17 and arch) you are forced to hang short fat wobbly objects from that arch that crosses over them with a lot of wiggle as side-shove forces that crab the bomber (cross wind) act also on the short fat objects inside the bomb bay. This causes bomb TUMBLE on release, and makes it impossible to design spin fins into the bomb to POINT it as it is too fat and short (wrong ogive and LENGTH) to work as a nose point spin-stabilized projectile (bullet).

A longitudinal truss-load hang (Lancaster and Ju-88) means three suspension points on the bomb, not two, because the bomb is now potentially long and skinny. You damp out bomb wriggle as you carry the damned thing with the third point. You CAN put spin fins on that bomb and aerodynamically damp out release tumble gyro-fashion through induced spin as the fins bite air. You are dropping a skinny spinning arrow, not a short fat wobbly tumbling brick.

Remember what I said about solving accuracy IN THE BOMB? If a long skinny bomb (TALLBOY) is the goal, then the Lancaster is the (accidental) right solution.

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

Shooter wrote, rather foolishly:

 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 severely restricted it meaning that only 2 2000lbs could be carried internally leaving the B17 little better than a medium bomber.

88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

[See what I wrote about the real reason you want long skinny bomb bays. OBNW. Accuracy of nose point orientation in fall helps reduce bomb drift left-right, and even helps a bit with over and short.]

88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

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

Shooter wrote:

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 another fabrication by yourself

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

Shooter wrote

  most likely on one of the last three racks.

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

Based on your knowledge that you have so far displayed I doubt anyone will consider this to be anything but fantasy.

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Follow up.   1/29/2013 11:42:57 AM
The P-40 still had a market in Russia where it did very well for the very reasons it remained US frontline until '43. Same for P-39. That explains the life beyond 43 obsolescence and P-47 replacement.
 
 
Now about Shooter and the B-17.
 
Stuart cannot think and he cannot interpret data. The B-17 by BRITISH design standards was an average or below average load structure bearing aircraft airframe. It actually earns its TOUGHNESS reputation from a number of not-obvious- to-the-ignorant-of-them factors. 
 
The plane had AC RADIAL engines built as unit isolated. That gave it a magnitude advantage over LC Vee engined aircraft. No coolant circuit cycle failure. Oil cycle better protected.  Fire suppression systems were outstanding as was fuel cutoff in the bird. Hydraulics and electricals were well-conduited. There were many redundants. A cave-man cable flight control input being an example.
 
You had to blow that plane apart physically to actually down it. A single pilot kill, or an engine fire was not going to do it in. It was very bullet and cannon shell resistant to mission zero internal criticals. 
 
The Lanc wasn't. Stronger structurally, but internally it was a MESS of shoot-me-here points-especially around the bomb-bay and the cockpit.  
 
Hydraulics runs through the BOMB-BAY being obvious. The Germans put Schlage Musik on their NFs for a good reason.
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Error   1/29/2013 12:02:01 PM
That should be "Schrage Musik".
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/29/2013 3:29:13 PM
The P-40 still had a market in Russia where it did very well for the very reasons it remained US frontline until '43. Same for P-39. That explains the life beyond 43 obsolescence and P-47 replacement.
The P40 was still being produced after supplies to the Russians had ceased, they were being produced and shipped directly to dismantalers they could give them away
Now about Shooter and the B-17.
Stuart cannot think and he cannot interpret data. The B-17 by BRITISH design standards was an average or below average load structure bearing aircraft airframe. It actually earns its TOUGHNESS reputation from a number of not-obvious- to-the-ignorant-of-them factors.
The plane had AC RADIAL engines built as unit isolated. That gave it a magnitude advantage over LC Vee engined aircraft. No coolant circuit cycle failure. Oil cycle better protected. 
 
The merlin engine in the Lanc was what was known as a power egg, it was self contained having only fuel external
 
 Fire suppression systems were outstanding as was fuel cutoff in the bird. Hydraulics and electricals were well-conduited. There were many redundants. A cave-man cable flight control input being an example.
You had to blow that plane apart physically to actually down it. A single pilot kill, or an engine fire was not going to do it in. It was very bullet and cannon shell resistant to mission zero internal criticals. 
The Lanc wasn't. Stronger structurally, but internally it was a MESS of shoot-me-here points-especially around the bomb-bay and the cockpit. 
Hydraulics runs through the BOMB-BAY being obvious. The Germans put Schlage Musik on their NFs for a good reason.
 
the SM was designed as an attack from below as the attacking aircraft was all but invisible and allowed it to get in close and hit with heavy firepower right in the center on mass, unlike shooters world a strike like that was fatal to any bomber in the real one,
 
by the way I wasnt disagreeing with you on the bomb bay only shooter, the B17 was very restrictive, both in length and width, a 2000lb would bearly fit, a 500lbs would only fit one other the other so limiting what couls be carried,
whilst a long thin bomb was better for accuracy bomb design was poor on the whole, new bombs were often unreliable so they tended to stick with what they knew worked which is why the standard bomb in 1945 was the same one as the USAAF had in 38
 
the point I was making was that the bombs in a B17 were mounted to a virtical(ish, as they slanted towards each other) this means that the mounts were at the side rather than the top this is compounds the effects you mention even if the mounts were identical
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234       1/29/2013 4:55:20 PM
Not withstanding that the belly-rake into ANY bomber of six to eight 20 mm cannons was not going to do it any good, the LANC  had a lot of exposed plumbing (hoses) through its bomb-bay and the Germans knew it.  
 
The bad thing about a V-block Merlin engine is that it is unitary. One bullet hole into the block jacket and the whole engine ist kaput. Oil and coolant leak either one circuit each to any two engines and DOWN you go. Lancs fell more to engine hits than any other cause.
 
Not saying its a bad bomber (its an excellent design), but like any plane, it had its known issues and exploits.
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/30/2013 1:37:53 AM

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

What I said, (let me use a different way to say it), is that a truss suspension load in the direction of aircraft motion is more stable and less periodic on the bomb than an arch suspension load mounted transverse to direction of aircraft motion. One solution (B-17 and arch) you are forced to hang short fat wobbly objects from that arch that crosses. This causes bomb TUMBLE on release, and makes it impossible to design spin fins into the bomb to POINT it as it is too fat and short (wrong ogive and LENGTH) to work as a nose point spin-stabilized projectile (bullet). Ever watch film of B-17 bomb drops? They fall straight and true more often than not. By the way, bomb shakles have to support thier cargos both fore and aft as well as side to side. Arches like those on the B-17 are technicly more like piramids and braced front to back at three to four points each with those braces tied to the main spars at both ends. See vids below to see what I mean. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...at 1:06 in the film, you see dozens of bombs fall away in slo-mo with out a wobble in the bunch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s6ppWbgqTc Watch the pics at the end of this one! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRLk9b9AcY Off topic, but a great one! This one is the best! look at ~4:20 a stick of heavy bombs! Measure the size of the bombs in relation to the size of the fuselage. Then compute the size of the bombs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcL9M9PQlIQ WOW! Off topic again, but look at ~3:20 or so, read the title about the range at which he is shooting at the P-38!

 Continued in next post.


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/30/2013 1:39:18 AM

  

A longitudinal truss-load hang (Lancaster and Ju-88) means three suspension points on the bomb, not two, because the bomb is now potentially long and skinny. Then it is one less point of contact than American systems. You damp out bomb wriggle as you carry the damned thing with the third point. Looked and looked, but I could not find a single vid of Lancs dropping typical bombs from the bay to proove this next point. Because of the long shallow bomb bay, there is much more turbulence in it and the bombs are much more likely ( certain) to wobble as the leave the plane. This was also true of the B36 and 52, but was cured by adding spoilers and deflectors to the bays on both AC. You CAN put spin fins on that bomb and aerodynamically damp out release tumble gyro-fashion through induced spin as the fins bite air. Yes this is true, but not as necessary on the B-17 which had one of the cleanest relieces of all heavies! You are dropping a skinny spinning arrow, not a short fat wobbly tumbling brick. The videos above show this to be a poor chunk of thought.

Remember what I said about solving accuracy IN THE BOMB? If a long skinny bomb (TALLBOY) is the goal, then the Lancaster is the (accidental) right solution. True, but not the only solution.

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! 

I do know that the short bomb bay of the B17 severely restricted it meaning that only 2 2000lbs could be carried internally leaving the B17 little better than a medium bomber. If you had read the other posts, you would know that the standard load was up to 8,000 pounds in the B-17.

[See what I wrote about the real reason you want long skinny bomb bays. OBNW. Accuracy of nose point orientation in fall helps reduce bomb drift left-right, and even helps a bit with over and short.] This is wrong on both counts. How many of the 19 Tallboys droped on Tirpitz the last time landed with in 400 Meters of the ship? By your argument, the Lanc/Tallboy should have been the ultimate accuracy combo! But wait, even with TB, the Lanc had trouble hitting even close to the target.
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 another fabrication by yourself How could they tell how a lanc was lost in the middle of the night? IIRC, ~3,500 of the 7,000 were lost in combat! That seems like a bad ratio to me? Given that they were bombing at night when it is several orders of magnatude harder to do that? There are stories of American crews going into the bomb bay and kicking/stomping and prying the stuck bomb from the sticky rack/shackle. How can they do that in a Lanc?A hanging bomb was an every mission sort of thing on ever type of plane during WW-II! Only in some planes it was the last three seconds of controlled flight.


most likely on one of the last three racks.

Based on your knowledge that you have so far displayed I doubt anyone will consider this to be anything but fantasy.

Then, bowing to your vastly superior knowledge of aerodynamics, I would counter with this question; What would happen to any plane if it suddenly had an UN-BALLENCED weight far from the CG, far out of the permitted range? You tell us all! Did you know that one of the reasons why they used end plate rudders was to reduce the size of the required tail plane. As a side effect of that choice, the plane had far less "Reserve Control Athority"! You do know what that is and means do you not? Regardless of everything else that has gone before, answer these TWO questions to poove your knowledge.

 

 


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/30/2013 1:50:52 AM

by the way I wasnt disagreeing with you on the bomb bay only shooter, the B17 was very restrictive, True!  both in length and width, a 2000lb would bearly fit, a 500lbs would only fit one other the other so limiting what couls be carried,
whilst a long thin bomb was better for accuracy Not true!  bomb design was poor on the whole, new bombs were often unreliable so they tended to stick with what they knew worked which is why the standard bomb in 1945 was the same one as the USAAF had in 38 Again not true. Do more research!
 
the point I was making was that the bombs in a B17 were mounted to a virtical(ish, as they slanted towards each other) this means that the mounts were at the side rather than the top this is compounds the effects you mention even if the mounts were identical   The B-17 was an excellenr relese vehicle! Their was less turbulence in the bay and under it. The bombs hardly ever wobbled, or tumbled and then, usually because one of the two shackle hooks hung up! I posted half a dozen films to prove that point. Watch them! In all of those films there is only one example of a wobbler! One! In one of those films, you can watch the bombs fall 30,000' WO a wobble and the film shows the target patern. Amaising! if we want to talk about acuracy, how many Talboys missed Tirpitz by more than 400M out of the 19 or so they dropped the last time around?


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/30/2013 1:56:14 AM

Not withstanding that the belly-rake into ANY bomber of six to eight 20 mm cannons was not going to do it any good, the LANC  had a lot of exposed plumbing (hoses) through its bomb-bay and the Germans knew it.   Most of the "Slanted Music" installations I can remember only had two guns. 20 MM on smaller/less powerful types and 30 MM on the others. But as a point of record, the aim point on the Lanc was the wing between the first engine and the fuse. There was a large fuel tank there and once it was burning...
 
The bad thing about a V-block Merlin engine is that it is unitary. One bullet hole into the block jacket and the whole engine ist kaput. Oil and coolant leak either one circuit each to any two engines and DOWN you go. True. Lancs fell more to engine hits than any other cause.
How could you possibly know this? The Germans were the only ones with acess to the wreckage.
Not saying its a bad bomber (its an excellent design), but like any plane, it had its known issues and exploits.

 

B.



 
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