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    What part of the manual disputes what Shooter said?    1/31/2013 5:46:35 PM
Why ALL of it, Stuart.
 
Didn't you read the part where it outlined what I knew about the Lancaster (and said) and you said I couldn't possibly know what I knew? 
 
 
Of course, I also read flight reports of GERMAN test pilots who FLEW captured Lancasters, so I KNOW what they learned, too.
 
The Germans were impressed.
 
 
You KNOW I am laughing, right?
 
B.
 

 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       1/31/2013 8:15:02 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.



The RAF used Lancaster bombers to carry 6-short-ton (5.4 t) Tallboy bombs... to penetrate the ship's heavy armour.[62]... The first attack, Operation Paravane..., took place on 15 September 1944; operating from a forward base at Yagodnik... in Russia, 23 Lancasters (17 each carrying one Tallboy and six each carrying twelve JW mines...), scored a single hit on the ship's bow. (1/17=0.588%) with in 400 M of the aim point!
 
A force of 32 Lancasters from Nos. 9 and 617 Squadrons dropped 29 Tallboys on the ship, with two direct hits and one near miss. (2-1/2 into 29 =  8.62%) There were, IIRC, a total of five hits within 640 M of the target, counting the hits and near miss. (Inside the torpedow net.)
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/31/2013 8:26:56 PM

10/10 cloud cover. Operation Paravane. The British didn't know Tirpitz was ruined.
10/10 Cloud Cover at 28,000' or 9,000' above the bombers
 
So... you were ignorantly claiming as usual?
What exactly did I claim?
 
You claimed that the Lanc-tallboy was the cats meow. Yet that combo was amost as good as the same number of B-17s bombing the same size target from half again as high?
By the way, I forgot about the third attempt;

The RAF made a second attempt on 29 October, after the ship was moored off Håkøya Island outside Tromsø. Thirty-two Lancasters attacked the ship with Tallboys during Operation Obviate....[53]... As on Operation Paravane, No. 9 Squadron... and No. 617 Squadron... carried out the attack together, which resulted in only one near miss 
( 0.5/32=1.5625%!)
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/31/2013 8:57:54 PM

I accedently turned your words below RED. My answers are in yellow below.
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,
Given the published data on the "Range of CoG" as posted here, I know this is not true.  in fact the Lanc showed an amazing resiliance to load changes, Once again, not according to the published CoG range!  I know you think otherwise or you wouldnt have raised it but I can find no accounts of Lancs having issues with this,  Could you re-post the CoG figures? I have tried to get the recomended Books on the Lanc, but so far have been busted.  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 It has good rudder athority! Nothing to do with Ballence and CoG!  balance was not an issue. A B17 could and did fly with the whole ball turret missing (dropped to save weight on damanged aircraft) Two different AC. The B-17 had more than twice the control athority of the Lanc. Just look at planform and Moments. But all that weight was well distributed and a much smaller moment than a hung bomb on the last row of racks in the Lanc.  and that would have a far greator effect, No it would not. multiply wieght times distance from the CoG. in fact thier are cases of Lancs losing tail turrets which would have a far greater effect than a bomb hanging up One more time. Losing the tail turit would be an UP Moment and is thus easily comp'd. A hanging bomb would be a Down Moment and very much harder to Comp. The tail is in fact there to push down and has the most athority in that direction.
 
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? Yes. The published CoG Limits tell all who look with those facts. The Lanc had CoG limit problems.  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)
  The "Corkscrew" maneuver is a positive G maneuver and is easy to do with any plane that can pull positive Gs!
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)
  The rudder has absolutely nothing to do with the Horizontal Control forces. The Vertical Stab does as it is part of the end plate horizontal stab. Missing one entire half of the Horizontal stab and elevator was a trick done many times in B-17s. The B-17 has about twice the control athority of the Lanc. It can therefore do any maneuver the Lanc can do with in it's load limits, which I freely admit not knowing for either AC. But given the realitive wing loadings, power loadings, control athorities, Aspect Ratio, Etc... I believe that a B-17G would out maneuver the Lancaster. This is to address the "Corkscrew" coment above.


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/31/2013 9:16:23 PM

Of course, I also read flight reports of GERMAN test pilots who FLEW captured Lancasters, so I KNOW what they learned, too.
The knowledgeable reader will understand that it took quite some time to
familiarise oneself with just the most important controls. It was not only a
question of knowing the levers and controls for the propellers, undercarriage,
landing flaps, trim, engine superchargers, fuel mixture control, coolant system,
fuel, pneumatic and hydraulic pumps, and the fuel tank selector cocks. What were
far more critical were the various little levers further back and below where
some of the visitors and ‘experts’ had fiddled around.
 I also looked at what the Germans had to say about the B-17! 
 
The Germans were impressed. With the B-17!
B.
 
 No, you are actually quite cunning. What part of that manual disputes anything I have said?
Still waiting for the answer to this and the prior questions.

Still waiting for lots of answers.

 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    First raid.    2/1/2013 1:40:37 AM
Operation Paravane. 10/10 through almost solid overcast with mixed rain and patchy holes  (means radar bombing, Stuart) , Tirpitz took a bomb straight through the bow that RUINED her. The British did poor BDA. They did not realize how GOOD they were with that TALLBOY strike.
 
The Germans coffer-dammed the wreck and moved it to Tromso (towed) to serve as a (useless) floating battery.
 
So the follow up raids were a waste of time and bombs. Further (7-8%) accuracy (your numbers Stuart) from high altitude of effective strikes on a narrow long target no larger than an average factory, by WW II standards is GOOD. The USAAF would have loved those numbers.  
 
As for demanding answers. I answer what I choose. I don't answer pure BS, nonsense, or irrelevances or especially your lies. 
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/1/2013 3:42:47 AM
 Given the published data on the "Range of CoG" as posted here, I know this is not true
you know nothing, the bomb bay was designed within the tolerance's of the aircraft weight distribution and test weights ALWAYS exceed posted weights, you haven't explained how it can lose its rear turret and yet not suffer the problems you feel it should?
 
. in fact the Lanc showed an amazing resilience to load changes, Once again, not according to the published CoG range!  
rubbish and you know it
  Could you re-post the CoG figures?
 
i can yes, can you? as you are using them as an argument I assume you have them in front of you, else how can you say they exceed them?
 
 I have tried to get the recommended Books on the Lanc, but so far have been busted.
 
 
 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 It has good rudder athority! Nothing to do with Balance and CoG! balance was not an issue. A B17 could and did fly with the whole ball turret missing (dropped to save weight on damaged aircraft) Two different AC. The B-17 had more than twice the control athority of the Lanc.
 
evidence? IIRC the B17 needed significant increase in rudder area whilst the Lanc didn't this sounds like a "shooter fact" or lie as most people call it
 
Just look at planform and Moments.But all that weight was well distributed and a much smaller moment than a hung bomb on the last row of racks in the Lanc. and that would have a far greater effect, No it would not. multiply times distance from the CoG. in fact their are cases of Lancs losing tail turrets which would have a far greater effect than a bomb hanging up one more time. Losing the tail turret would be an UP Moment and is thus easily comp'd. A hanging bomb would be a Down Moment and very much harder to Comp.
 
in what world? the bomb hang isn't a down change its a reduction in up change (don't forget you have just dumped a significant weight out which will cause a severe up change)  the short answer is that such a hang could be countered by trim it didn't even need elevator change.
I have also been looking at instances of bomb hang ups and it would seem that the US suffered far heavier issues with this than the RAF, their are few records that show Lanc returning with bombs hung up (on ANY shackles) whilst it seems it was a regular occurrence on B17s
 
 
 The tail is in fact there to push down and has the most athority in that direction.
 irrelevant
 
reserve control authority is exactly 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? Yes. The published CoG Limits tell all who look with those facts.
 
so you have NONE then I thought so
 
The Lanc had CoG limit problems. accounts say that the Lanc had wonderful controls that maintained axis control in all direction up to 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)
  The "Corkscrew" maneuver is a positive G maneuver and is easy to do with any plane that can pull positive Gs!
 
firstly a corkscrew was a negative and positive G manouver, secondly the positive G acting on a 14000lb bomb load! yet you dismiss it, shows how much flying you have done
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/1/2013 3:45:13 AM
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)
  The rudder has absolutely nothing to do with the Horizontal Control forces.
what the RUDDER has Nothing to do with HORRIZONTAL Control forces? would you please explain what does as I was under the impression that it was the HORRIZONTAL CONTROL
The Vertical Stab does as it is part of the end plate horizontal stab. Missing one entire half of the Horizontal stab and elevator was a trick done many times in B-17s.
if it was done many times how come the ONE aircraft that i can find a record of ended up in time magazine? sounds like a one off to me
The B-17 has about twice the control athority of the Lanc.
repeating a lie does not make it true
It can therefore do any maneuver the Lanc can do with in it's load limits,
evidence? no i thought not
which I freely admit not knowing for either AC. But given the relative wing loadings, power loadings, control authorities, Aspect Ratio, Etc... I believe that a B-17G would out maneuver the Lancaster. 
but we know that you cannot conceive a Brit aircraft being superior, and we know that you have a dubious grasp of aerodynamics and we know that you haven't got the required information(by your own admission) then this can be taken as "I don't know but will guess based on my prejudices" and remember figures on paper do not always match the result
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/1/2013 3:53:32 AM
You claimed that the Lanc-tallboy was the cats meow. Yet that combo was amost as good as the same number of B-17s bombing the same size target from half again as high?
 
what rubbish, the US drastically reduced bombing heights as they found that they hit nothing, a B17 20000ft+  and the accuracy of US bombing is nothing like what you are implying B17 (which was designed and built as a antiship weapon BTW) had a record of never hitting a ship, US attacks on German Capital ships resulted in NO hits, US attacks on Japanese ships by B17 resulted in NO hits
 
so where do you get that the B17 was as good? in your dream world as usual
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Terminology garble...   2/1/2013 4:15:02 AM
I understand positive (UP Nose) and negative (DOWN nose) , left wander (NOSE) and right wander (NOSE) as in PITCH and YAW  aircraft off center-line vector axis displacement.
 
BUT if Shooter can't keep these terms straight, (and it appears to me that he can't, because he uses the term correctly one time, and then the very next sentence uses it BACKWARDS.) how the hell can we even tell if in his disordered thinking, he can understand what we discuss?  
 
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