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
Belisarius1234    Raply 1.   1/30/2013 11:13:17 AM
http://www.highironillustrations.com/rogues_pics/b17_bombdrop.jpg" />
 
One picture negates a thousand foolish words.
 
http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/photos/p_tallboy3.jpg" /> 
 
Two pictures destroy an aviation ignoramus' words completely. Note the physics at work? Tallboy release is in the direction of the plane motion and is POINTED without wobble. Left-right wander is virtually ZERO. If the release point before impact is anywhere near accurate that bomb will hit just short, bury; go off on delay and no more bridge.     
 
So easy to shoot Shooter DOWN; so easy.
 
B.
 
 
 




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

Belisarius1234    On second look...   1/30/2013 11:35:44 AM
That might be a Grand Slam?
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    How could I possibly know this?   1/30/2013 11:43:23 AM
 
I'm NOT an idiot, Shooter?
 
B.
 




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

Belisarius1234    They attacked in pairs.   1/30/2013 11:51:13 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UNRZfcIeeGU/UMelYdXyDeI/AAAAAAAABU4/tvGwTvAFLVk/s400/scrage+music.jpg" />
 
 
How's your German? So easy.
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/30/2013 6:25:10 PM



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UNRZfcIeeGU/UMelYdXyDeI/AAAAAAAABU4/tvGwTvAFLVk/s400/scrage+music.jpg" />

 

 

How's your German? So easy.

 

B.

Do you not understand the word "Most"?

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/30/2013 6:28:04 PM

http://www.highironillustrations.com/rogues_pics/b17_bombdrop.jpg" />
 
One picture negates a thousand foolish words.
 
http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/photos/p_tallboy3.jpg" /> 
 
Two pictures destroy an aviation ignoramus' words completely.
 
  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!







How does the one pic you post dispute the hundreds of fraims I posted showing clead drops and my addmission that I could only find the one instance, that you showed? See yellow highlite.

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/30/2013 6:31:12 PM

 
I'm NOT an idiot, Shooter?
 No, you are actually quite cunning. What part of that manual disputes anything I have said?
B.
 




From that manual, on page 7 or 8?

"RANGE (under still conditions at 15,000 ft with no allowance for climb):
With minimum bomb load: 2700 miles"
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/30/2013 6:34:07 PM

 
One picture negates a thousand foolish words.
B.
 If that were true, why not post a pic of the bomb scatter plot on the Tirpitz and viaduct missions? And then compair that to American tests with those same bombs from B-29s????
 
 









 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    One picture...   1/30/2013 10:55:47 PM
of true AVERAGE conditions.All that is needed.
 
What has the Tirpitz got to do with anything? (By the way a TALLBOY went RIGHT THROUGH the MIDDLE of the ship's bow. Damned good accuracy for lousy bombing conditions, Shooter)
 
 
10/10 cloud cover. Operation Paravane. The British didn't know Tirpitz was ruined.
 
So... you were ignorantly claiming as usual?
 
Face it.  You post drivel, lie, and demand people accept or disprove your non-facts. 
 
How much HUMILIATION are you gonna take?
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/31/2013 5:09:15 PM
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?
from all accounts the Lanc had no problem with such weights at that distance from the CoG in fact it was tested with far greator weights positioned even further from the CoG, in fact the Lanc showed an amazing resiliance to load changes, I know you think otherwise or you wouldnt have raised it but I can find no accounts of Lancs having issues with this, and a bomber that not only can fly on two engines (on the sames side) out and still turn in either direction tends to indicate that balance was not an issue a B17 could and did fly with the whole ball turret missing (dropped to save weight on damanged aircraft) and that would have a far greator effect, in fact thier are cases of Lancs losing tail turrets which would have a far greater effect than a bomb hanging up
 
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.
 
reserve control authority is eactly what it says, the amount of control your control surfaces have in any circumstance, if you have zero reserve you cannot effect the attitude of the aircraft, ie in a dive if you have zero reserve then you cannot reduce the dive angle, however I can find no reference to this being a issue with the Lanc can you provide a source to say that the lanc controls lacked authority at limits? accounts say that the Lanc had wonderfull controls that maintained axis control in all direction upto and beyond design limits (corkscrewing a 4 engined heavy with 14000lbs of bombs on board would tend to support such an argument, never heard of a B17 managing it even with its 6000lbs load)
 
also their are documented reports of Lancs returning with missing rudders and elevators (one report has a lanc with 3 engines out and most of the covering of the tail surfacing missing making a safe landing back in lincolnshire)
 
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