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       1/26/2013 5:17:24 PM
JFKY writes:

Lots of this stuff above is true and some is not. But that is not the idea to argue. The Adaptability of ALL aircraft to do things they were not designed for is inhearant in the details of any machine with such a high P/W ratio. The fact that the B36/47/52/1/2 all were modified to do other missions is testament to their greatness, not the failure of their design. I would point out that the B-29/50/36 were not modified to remove the gun turrits until long after tests to determin the ability of primitive/early jets to intercept them were done.
*******************************
 
1. Aircraft are limited by choice. Airfoil, airframe design, overall planform for three axis control, the engines chosen, aspiration into the chosen engines, (even for JETS). limits what a plane can do. That is the reason we have engineers to make those CHOICES. Hopefully their intent, when they designed the plane, matches what the plane is supposed to do. The BREDA Ba-88 is an example of what happens when the intent does not match the RESULT.    
 
So the first statement, you make, is engineering nonsense. Intent-> initial result is the criterion for success.
 
2. Planes are modified for one of two reasons. Either they are so great at what they do, that the operators want to stretch the design to the limits (F-4, F-15, F-16, Mirage III, Mig 21, Su-27). Or they did are not doing the job at all.  Plainly the B-17 (and B-24) did not do the job as designed, for all pretense of daylight precision bombing as it was popularly advertised (daylight, high altitude, point targets) was USAAC abandoned. The bombers often went in at medium altitude and tried to carpet bomb entire areas with high explosive bombs with the hope that maybe 2% of the bombs would hit the intended factory or other industrial target. The planes could fly the distance and they could drop bombs, but at surviving the experience and hitting anything ACCURATELY? They stank like overage fish at King Claudius' coronation banquet.
 
 So the B-17, B-24, and the B-29 failed to function as intended as designs for their original INTENDED purpose in WAR. That is not only failure of design intent, but failure of actual use. The operators had to MODIFY the planes and the doctrine for which those planes were designed. Even then they had to add, tweak, and fiddle, because right through to the end of the world war, they were not getting satisfactory reported results. After the war. the USSBS showed them just how far they fell short of their intent with the systems they had. We are STILL analyzing and debating that overall mission FAILURE. A consensus is that the technology used was not up to the goal, but that it COULD have been if someone actually had sat down and designed a weapon system properly to address the predictable factors of fighters, weather, FLAK, and bomb instability and WARGAMED it with actual exercises to simulate what to expect.
 
The B-36, postwar, continued the lunacy of porcupine gun-skinned bombers that sought to bomb from high altitude. Black Tuesday in 1952 Korea SHOULD have put a stop to the B-36 program, and rushed the further development of the B-47 and the B-52 as interim measures, until a proper cruise missile carrier, and precision guided bomb launcher aircraft could have been designed. Come to think of it, LeMay pushed hard for SRAM and the Boeing jets, as soon he heard of Black Tuesday. He also instituted WARGAMES to simulate opposed missions to see if what he could do with the CRAP he had.
 
 (next post)
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234       1/26/2013 5:35:06 PM
JFKY writes:
 
Lots of this stuff above is true and some is not. But that is not the idea to argue. The Adaptability of ALL aircraft to do things they were not designed for is inhearant in the details of any machine with such a high P/W ratio. The fact that the B36/47/52/1/2 all were modified to do other missions is testament to their greatness, not the failure of their design. I would point out that the B-29/50/36 were not modified to remove the gun turrits until long after tests to determin the ability of primitive/early jets to intercept them were done.

****************
 
Should I point out that the B-36 grew some jetpods on its wings in a desperate attempt to add speed to a badly designed draggy porcupine-gunned bomber. Still could not outrun Migs. Still couldn't hit anything with dumb bombs from six miles up. Would have been a one way kamikazi if WWIII went hot. The planes' crews knew they were dead meat. LeMay didn't lie about that to them.  He accepted the B-36, hoping that if he threw enough of them at the USSR, enough would make it to their targets to get it done.  80% mission fail is acceptable if you can still hit 150-200 targets.
 
3. I will note, finally, that LeMay removed the gun-turrets on B-2s in late 1944, AND THAT fuel tank (WHY if range was a problem?)  He RESTRICTED burden and payload on the B-29 to meet the range and area bombing accuracy, for a bomber that was originally designed for high altitude cruise and precision bomb drop, so it could intrude Japanese airspace at medium to LOW altitude, to accurately lay mines as well as fire-bomb Japanese cities. So, JFKY, it appears that a mission incapable plane that was NOT properly designed for its intended mission, and which at the time LeMay's crews gutted the planes to turn them into ersatz DASH-bombers, WAS stripped of its guns and cleaned up for SPEED in thick air, so that it could marginally do what it was supposed to do.  
 
One more thing....
 
Should I point out that the B-36 grew those jetpods on its wings in a desperate attempt to add speed to a badly designed draggy porcupine-gunned bomber and that the Air Force accepted the CUT IN RANGE for that modification to outrun the Mig 17s and 19s they knew were coming into service. Still could not outrun the Migs. Still couldn't hit anything with dumb bombs from six miles up. Would have been a one way kamikazi if WWIII went hot. The planes' crews knew they were dead meat. LeMay didn't lie about that FACT to them.  He accepted the B-36, warts and all, hoping that if he threw enough of them at the USSR, enough would make it to their targets to get it done.  80% mission fail is acceptable if you can still hit 150-200 targets with atomic bombs.
 
That was the math. 80% MISSION FAIL with atomic bombs=acceptable success.
 
Now is that the kind of mathematics that proves a plane is great?
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    error.   1/26/2013 5:38:28 PM
B-2s should read "B-29s".

Knowing how Shooter is, I have to dot all the eyes and cross all the tees.

B. 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/27/2013 2:38:46 PM


JFKY writes:
1. Aircraft are limited by choice. Airfoil, airframe design, overall planform for three axis control, the engines chosen, aspiration into the chosen engines, (even for JETS). limits what a plane can do. That is the reason we have engineers to make those CHOICES. Hopefully their intent, when they designed the plane, matches what the plane is supposed to do. The BREDA Ba-88 is an example of what happens when the intent does not match the RESULT.    
I would counter that intent did not meet the design? Or that intent was beyond the state of the art as the Itallions knew it at the time.
 
So the first statement, you make, is engineering nonsense. Intent-> initial result is the criterion for success.
Why? People INTEND lots of things, but often fail to acheave them.
 
2. Planes are modified for one of two reasons. Either they are so great at what they do, that the operators want to stretch the design to the limits (F-4, F-15, F-16, Mirage III, Mig 21, Su-27). Or they did are not doing the job at all.  Plainly the B-17 (and B-24) did not do the job as designed, How can you make this asertion? for all pretense of daylight precision bombing as it was popularly advertised (daylight, high altitude, point targets) was USAAC abandoned. That is a statement based on ignorance of the facts, or down right avoidance of them. Germany and Japan were both brought to their knees by day light precision bombing, not area bombing as you hypothesize. It was Mines dropped in strategicaly placed harbor entrances that finnished the Japs and the systamatice slaughter of the Luftwaffe brought on by precision day light bombing that finished Germany.

After the war. the USSBS showed them just how far they fell short of their intent Failure to reach the INTENDED results does not invalidate the actual results that were acheved! with the systems they had. but that it COULD have been if someone actually had sat down and designed a weapon system properly to address the predictable factors of fighters, weather, FLAK, and bomb instability and WARGAMED I love this statement, since it was how I earned my living at one point in time! And that so many here have Pooh-Poohed it so freverantly! it with actual exercises to simulate what to expect.
The B-36, postwar, continued the lunacy of porcupine gun-skinned bombers that sought to bomb from high altitude. Black Tuesday in 1952 Korea SHOULD have put a stop to the B-36 program, and rushed the further development of the B-47 and the B-52 as interim measures, until a proper cruise missile carrier, and precision guided bomb launcher aircraft could have been designed. There are at least three things wrong with this statement. 1. That you state ideas such as cruise missiles and precision weapons that were far ahead of their time. 2. That the B-36 was a failure, but ignore the fact that General Le May flew them in formation over Moskow at high noon, just to proove a point to the Ruskies. and 3. that one piece of luch should change the course of a program. Come to think of it, LeMay pushed hard for SRAM and the Boeing jets, as soon he heard of Black Tuesday. He also instituted WARGAMES to simulate opposed missions to see if what he could do with the CRAP he had. Did you ever think to actually read the summaries of those WAR GAMES?


To many deffects in the thought processes to be taken serriously.
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Says Shooter.   1/27/2013 3:01:48 PM
Must be some logic to that ad-hominem, but I don't see it apply to AIRCRAFT.
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Says Shooter.   1/27/2013 3:03:02 PM
P.s. Ever hear of the BAT, Shooter?
 
I didn't think so.
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/27/2013 3:05:52 PM

Should I point out that the B-36 grew some jetpods on its wings in a desperate attempt to add speed to a badly designed draggy porcupine-gunned bomber. Lets see how many defects of both fact and logic we can find with this one statement; 1. That the B-36 was badly designed. By what standard? and why? It was and still is a marvel of engineering and accomplishment! ( Yes they did add four jet engines to is and for the reasons you did state, but only because the original design at the TIME it was done was the ONLY way to accomplish the mission objective. Which by the way, still to this day, can not be done by all other recip engined aircraft! Still could not outrun Migs. When has any bomber been able to out run any fighter? Still couldn't hit anything with dumb bombs from six miles up. Bombing tests with Iron bombs and the film availible on U-Tube disprove this point! Would have been a one way kamikazi if WWIII went hot. Once again you fail to know the actual performance charicteristics! The planes' crews knew they were dead meat. Also not true!  LeMay didn't lie about that to them. Transcripts of his speaches and his Briefing note are availible through FOTA make this statement a lie. He accepted the B-36, Because at that time and in the near future, it was the only plane on the planet that could carry out that mission! Period! hoping that if he threw enough of them at the USSR, enough would make it to their targets to get it done. That is why three plane Vics flying over Moskow at high neen were such a failure in the fact of M-15s!  80% mission fail Who ever said this canard and where did you find it? is acceptable if you can still hit 150-200 targets. A serrious failure of the thought processes is all I can say. Do you know how many cities and discrete industrial target complexes were on the Nuclear target War Plan? Obviously not!
   
 

3. I will note, finally, that LeMay removed the gun-turrets on Some B-29s in late 1944, AND THAT fuel tank ? (WHY if range was a problem?) Who ever said Range was a problem?  He RESTRICTED Lets see, he increased the average bomb load from 12,000 pounds to 20,000, so how did he restrict anything? burden and payload on the B-29 to meet the range and area bombing accuracy, This sentance is just silly. for a bomber that was originally designed for high altitude cruise and precision bomb drop, so it could intrude Japanese airspace at medium True, but this was a function of load, not desire. to LOW Never. altitude, to accurately lay mines Off shore, in broad day light! as well as fire-bomb Medium altitude at night to avoid the flak. Japanese cities. So, JFKY, it appears that a mission incapable plane that was NOT properly designed for its intended mission, This statement is silly! It was designed for it's mission and did so as designed. It was only after the mission was changed that they did alter the tactics to meet the new criteria. This of course has nothing to do with intent at the time of the design! and which at the time LeMay's crews gutted the planes to turn them into ersatz DASH-bombers, ??? This was silly as the speed at such heavy weights and medium altitudes precluded high speed. WAS stripped of its guns and cleaned up for SPEED Again, not true at all! They were stripped because the Japs could not mount an effective deffense and to MAXIMISE bomb load! in thick air, so that it could marginally do what it was supposed to do.   It did exactly what it was supposed to do! It is your assumption that it was designed to do something else that is the center of the failure of your thought processes.

 



So many failures, so little time to document them.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/27/2013 3:10:29 PM


P.s. Ever hear of the BAT, Shooter?

Absolutely! 

I didn't think so.

 

B.

 

What do you know about it's performance?

 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    BAT   1/27/2013 5:35:46 PM
Radio-controlled Navy developed semi-active radar homing glide bomb. Max effective-range approximately 18000-25000 meters. Impact speed varied with release height but 200 m/s was the expected HORIZONTAL impact speed.  Was USED in 1945 to sink and damage Japanese ships in a CLUTTERED signal return environment. Was designed as a glide bomb around a conventional 1000 pounder by NISTI. Delivered to target either by Avengers or modified Liberators as launch platforms and target illuminators. BOMB self-steered in  a two axis left right up down signal chase logic similar to the one used on FIDO. Accuracy in WAR 25% hits or better CONFIRMED.     
 
Now what were you asking, Stuart?
 
Be CAREFUL what you ask. This is NOT the Douglass twin-engine plane that failed because the Continental LC IC hyper-engine intended for it did not work 
 
Satisfied? You are not the expert here.
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/28/2013 9:50:42 AM
I feel that both tese arguments are valid and cannot be taken in islolation.
 
Any plane that is designed for a purpose MUST be judged on how well it performs that role, that it performs another role is valid assesment but can it be the whole?
 
If a design team new that a plane would fail in its design role would they continue?
 
if hat plane was unavailable (say due to being required to perform its design role) would another aircraft have forefilled it?
 
 
 
 
 
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