More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids, with added nationalistic abuse (was: Re: #1 Jet of World War II)

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:56:13 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

[snip agreed points... err, I mean customary imperialistic Yankee
insults and abuse]

>> They'd just re-allocate the bases to the relevant groups. Swap a
>> grass strip for an asphalt one in another Group. I don't think it's a
>> major issue.
>
>Not quite that simple, if you want to base them close to the U.S. daytime units. Who's going
>to use the grass strips 2 Gp. would be giving up? The heavies aren't.

Ironically they did have to operate heavies from grass strips in
1940-42 with all that that suggests in terms of all-weather
operational effectiveness, but in this case 3 Group has a larger
allocation of asphalt runways. They can have some of 5 Group's more
southerly ones as well, if neccessary. In this case we don't have
Harris fulminating about the USAAF getting a disproportionate
allocation of the all-weather base construction program.

>> Really? I thought it had a better range and bombload, but I'm no
>> expert.
>
>Slightly (but not significant in a tactical sense) better range, but only 3,000 lb. vs. 4,000
>lb. bombload. Going into the Ruhr by day in 1943/early '44 at 10-15,000 feet (vs. the 20,000
>feet plus of the heavies) would be a 'really bad idea' (tm).

Yes, but not a hell of a lot worse than the "Daylight Lanc" fantasy, I
mean, operational evaluation platform. I'm certain the B-25 carried
more than 3,000lbs, but maybe only over shorter distances.

>> I saw it fulfilling a diversionary/supporting role, hitting
>> airfields and less-heavily defended targets outside the major heavy
>> Flak belts and giving the Luftwaffe controllers headaches trying to
>> identify the main raiding force formations. In other words, doing for
>> the B-24s in 3 Group what the 2nd Bomb Division B-24s did for the
>> B-17s in the rest of the 8th AF historically at this point.
>
>The mediums were doing what you say, but at shorter ranges, and there was never much doubt by
>the Luftwaffe who they were owing to the very different cruise and bombing altitudes.

I still think hitting Schipol and Alkmaar with regular medium strikes
and sequential fighter sweeps before and during B-17/B24 raids being
routed over them is a good idea, and better than trying to do the same
over the Pas de Calais. Put enough B-25 raids below the higher
heavies, with enough fighter support, and the fighters with the best
opportunity for bouncing the heavies escort and forcing them to drop
external tanks will get sucked into their own private war and divert
attention from the main force.

>> The tactical bombers had to face the Flak when operating over western
>> Germany in 1945, and it was suvivable given adequate support and
>> decent planning.
>
>In 1945, when much of the defense was in a state approaching collapse, and where our airpower
>was overwhelming.

And when the Flak threat, which is the main issue we both have with
them in 1943-44, was much higher. If they were usable in 1945, their
main threat in regard to operational altitude was less capable in
1943. Obviously, the fighter threat is the real issue in 1943, but
the Luftwaffe could not afford to treat them like a Circus over the
Pas De Calais, and so their ability to concentrate on them and inflict
heavy attrition at their own leisure would be constrained.

>> And many of the tactical targets they did hit had
>> substantive flak defence (albeit nowhere near 1943 Ruhr levels, let
>> alone 1945 Politz levels). Even so, I wouldn't suggest using them as
>> a deep-penetration strategic force.
>
>Seems we agree on that, then.

I see them hitting targets in Belgium, Holland and on the fringe of
the German Bight and the Ruhr. I think that's credible: the
Luftwaffe in 1943 could have given them a hard time, but only at the
expense of ignoring the heavies which would be right behind them.

>> Of course, the key difference between a USAAF daylight strategic
>> bombing effort and an RAF one would be the greater efficiency of the
>> latter. I mean, once we factor out all those ludicrous PX
>> requirements for Coca-Cola, ice-cream and signed movie star's
>> underwear, we should free up about 50% extra import capacity for bombs
>> and replacement aircraft.....
>
>Ha! And if we could eliminate all the manhours lost/opportunites missed to morning and
>afternoon tea/brewing up, we could have won the war in 1944 at the latest;-)

I thought we were resorting to ridiculously hyperbolic stereotypes for
comic effect. I can't see anybody disputing this*. Which reminds me,
time for a large wet.

[* Notice the British war effort defeding tea-production against the
encroaching Japanese prove this: note the tea-producing areas marked
with a *

1941: Malaya - Have it.
1942: Singapore - Can't be bothered
1942: Burma - Knock yourselves out.
1943: Arakan - Yawn.
1944: Imphal & Kohima en route to Assam*: Fight to the death!

also in terms of naval history:

1941: Force Z - You've got working torpedos? Rats.
1942: Java Sea - You've still got those torpedos? Ah well.
1942: Ceylon* - Back, you slant-eyed fiends!]

Next: the impact of Dougout Doug's massive personal consumption on
the coffee supply and the consequent fall of the Phillipines, 1942.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote in message >...

>And when the Flak threat, which is the main issue we both have with
>them in 1943-44, was much higher. If they were usable in 1945, their
>main threat in regard to operational altitude was less capable in
>1943. Obviously, the fighter threat is the real issue in 1943, but
>the Luftwaffe could not afford to treat them like a Circus over the
>Pas De Calais, and so their ability to concentrate on them and inflict
>heavy attrition at their own leisure would be constrained.

While the amount of flak guns went up it appears the standard
"window" was an effective jammer until the end of the war, so
flak effectiveness seems to have gone down on a per gun
basis from mid 1943. Hence the USAAF's use of it.

I will drop this in since I have not seen it elsewhere,

From the British history Design and Development of Weapons,
M M Postan, D Hay, J D Scott.

It claims there were 4 basic Spitfire airframes which it labels
A, B, C and D

D was the mark 21 onwards,
C was the mark VII, VIII and most griffon marks up to XIX

A was the original which served for the marks I, II, IV. It was
stretched to do the Va, Vb, VI, PR VII and XIII and the Seafire I.

B was the airframe developed from the abortive mark III fighter,
it was used for the Vc, IX and XII, and presumably XVI. The
main change appears to be the "universal" wing.

I doubt this makes a major difference to CoG calculations in the
mark V though. It seems the fighter had quite a tight margin,
the report that for AB186 noting handling was worse with a
Rotol propeller, rather than the standard de Havilland propeller,
they were testing a modified elevator balance.

BR202 (tropical Vc) was tried with a 29 gallon rear fuselage tank,
requiring repositioning of the water tank, oxygen bottle and the
R3002 radio, the certificate of design was issued on 7th July 1942
along with official approval.

Some Spitfire Vs were flown from England to Gibraltar in early
1942, January I think, 5.5 hour flight.

Seen Morgan and Shacklady, page 150 in my copy, map of
Spitfire V range with extra fuel arrangements?

Ferry, full overload tanks, 5 minutes take off, cruise at 240 mph
with 20% fuel reserve, reinforcing radius 1140 miles.

Escort, 5 minute take off, 10 minute climb, 15 minutes maximum
power, remainder cruise at 240 mph, radius 540 miles. Given
the need for higher cruise and problems of slower bombers this
still should have meant around the German border at least. Note
the extra range required a bigger oil tank, from 7.5 or 8.5 to 14.4
gallons. Note the deeper noses on the PR versions. The book
does not state what fuel tankage is being used.

In early 1942 Sholto-Douglas was asking for tanks of up to 30
gallons in the wings. Fighter Command had realised it needed
more range to fight over France, it does not seem to have come
up with the idea it should try for Germany. Apparently with drop
tanks the Typhoon could make the German border. The RAF
in Ceylon recognised the need for longer range as well, noting
the Japanese capabilities.

Fuel tankage according to Morgan and Shacklady,

VIII 47 (upper) + 49 (lower) in front fuselage + 2 x14 (1 in each wing)
IX 48 (upper) + 37 (lower) in front fuselage (same as V) later 2x18
(1 in each wing) and 33 or 41 in rear fuselage.
XIV 36 (upper) + 48 (lower) in front fuselage + 2x12.75 (1 in each wing)
XVIII 36 (upper) +48 (lower) in front fuselage + 2x12.75 (1 in each wing)
+2x33 in rear fuselage. By the looks of it the FR version a camera
replaced one of the rear fuselage tanks.

The PR X, 47 (upper) + 48.5 (lower) in front fuselage + 2x66 (1 in each
wing) the cameras were in the rear fuselage.

The text mentions the mark IXe weights with 66 gallon rear tank.
As far as I can tell the idea of major Spitfire modifications keeps
running into the problem that until the P-47 was proven the allies
did not have another fighter that could be considered a match
for the Fw190A and Bf109G, hence the rush for the IX instead
of awaiting the mark VIII. The middle east had to do without
Spitfires until early/mid 1942 (Malta then Egypt), the major
withdrawal of mark IXs from fighter command to the squadrons
in Tunisia in early 1943.

As far as I can see the long range Spitfire requires a Merlin
60 series to be competitive, and for the forward CG, wing
fuel tanks, preferably a cut down rear fuselage for weight
reasons, a bigger tail (at least XIV size) and the rear fuselage
tanks, taking the best from the above you end up with 47 + 49
in the front fuselage 2 x 18 (1 in each wing) and 66 gallons in
the rear fuselage, total 198 gallons. Then add external tanks,
and remembering these are imperial gallons. Vickers
apparently had a proposal for 197 gallons of internal fuel, in
the above configuration. This would give a still air range of
around 1,400 miles. The mark IX ML186 was apparently
trialed in January 1945 with a 66 gallon rear tank and maybe
some of the other tanks, take of speed was 78 mph, longitudinal
stability started at 140 mph, flaps and undercarriage down
tended to make the aircraft stable again. The pilot had to have
his hand on the control stick at all times, cruising at 245 mph
at 12,000 feet meant the aircraft could not be trimmed. After
35 gallons of fuel from the rear tank had been burnt the aircraft
"stabilised".

Spitfire output by Supermarine works, (from a graph in Design
and Development of Weapons, which goes from January 1941
to December 1943, with a small quota of error when adding the
totals up)

columns are date / total for month / IV / VII / VIII / IX / XI / XII / XIV /
Seafire. There was 1 mark VI in November 1942.

Nov-42 112 / 3 / 3 / 6 / 58 / 3 / 1 / 0 / 37
Dec-42 106 / 5 / 2 / 8 / 54 / 8 / 2 / 0 / 27
Jan-43 130 / 4 / 4 / 10 / 63 / 10 / 3 / 0 / 36
Feb-43 114 / 2 / 1 / 20 / 48 / 11 / 6 / 0 / 26
Mar-43 117 / 0 / 4 / 40 / 24 / 12 / 20 / 0 / 17
Apr-43 98 / 0 / 4 / 46 / 10 / 8 / 17 / 0 / 13
May-43 126 / 0 / 10 / 43 / 18 / 27 / 0 / 28 / 0
Jun-43 110 / 0 / 7 / 76 / 6 / 14 / 7 / 0 / 0
Jul-43 105 / 0 / 5 / 81 / 0 / 12 / 7 / 0 / 0
Aug-43 124 / 0 / 5 / 96 / 0 / 19 / 4 / 0 / 0
Sep-43 133 / 0 / 5 / 104 / 0 / 20 / 4 / 0 / 0
Oct-43 133 / 0 / 3 / 108 / 0 / 19 / 0 / 3 / 0
Nov-43 125 / 0 / 8 / 88 / 0 / 19 / 0 / 10 / 0
Dec-43 124 / 0 / 16 / 76 / 0 / 22 / 0 / 10 / 0

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:27:07 +1000, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
> wrote:

[snip yet more tiresome rationality and logical discourse]

>I will drop this in since I have not seen it elsewhere,
>
>From the British history Design and Development of Weapons,
>M M Postan, D Hay, J D Scott.

[snipadoodledo]

>B was the airframe developed from the abortive mark III fighter,
>it was used for the Vc, IX and XII, and presumably XVI. The
>main change appears to be the "universal" wing.
>
>I doubt this makes a major difference to CoG calculations in the
>mark V though.

Actually, I think it does for the Vb vs Vc. The longitudinal
stability problems were worse in the Vb, while the Vc had some useful
things to factor into consideration like re-raked undercarriage and
bomb/drop-tank plumbing, not to mention a different internal wing
structure which might have allowed small wing tanks. I don't think
the Vb wing had that capacity due to strength issues.

> It seems the fighter had quite a tight margin,
>the report that for AB186 noting handling was worse with a
>Rotol propeller, rather than the standard de Havilland propeller,
>they were testing a modified elevator balance.

Yes, but also note the constant buggering about with different ballast
displacements for the different props, CSUs and fuselage equipment
fitting. The Vb Trops are the worst, I think, as they carried more
weight in the rear fuselage behind the existing CoG and more weight
overall.

>BR202 (tropical Vc) was tried with a 29 gallon rear fuselage tank,
>requiring repositioning of the water tank, oxygen bottle and the
>R3002 radio, the certificate of design was issued on 7th July 1942
>along with official approval.

>Some Spitfire Vs were flown from England to Gibraltar in early
>1942, January I think, 5.5 hour flight.

October 1942 was the date I have for ferry flights from Gibraltar to
Malta, using the 170 gallon Boulton Paul tank and 29 gallon rear
fuselage tank tested in the summer of '42. So far as I know they were
all shipped to Gibraltar beforehand though, just like they were
shipped to Takoradi, Egypt and later on Casablanca. The ferry Spits
weren't in combat trim.

>Seen Morgan and Shacklady, page 150 in my copy, map of
>Spitfire V range with extra fuel arrangements?

Yes, but this seems to be related to the October 1942 Gib-Malta ferry
range, and doesn't reflect a realistic combat radius with operational
load and operational fuel reserves (the escort range given would need
a 5 hour endurance on external fuel and a 270 mile range on internal
fuel excluding 15 mins combat allowance). I honestly have
difficulties seeing any LR Spit, especially a V, getting back from
Berlin on internal fuel only as that chart seems to indicate. Relying
on external tankage to get into combat and return to base is a
non-starter, and that's how I see that chart personally.

>Escort, 5 minute take off, 10 minute climb, 15 minutes maximum
>power, remainder cruise at 240 mph, radius 540 miles. Given
>the need for higher cruise and problems of slower bombers this
>still should have meant around the German border at least. Note
>the extra range required a bigger oil tank, from 7.5 or 8.5 to 14.4
>gallons. Note the deeper noses on the PR versions. The book
>does not state what fuel tankage is being used.

The extra oil was less of a problem with later single-piece engine
blocks (Merlin 50 and 60 upwards). 540 miles is a problematic figure
for a Mk V escort range on existing fuel, the deciding factor of which
would be the range on internal fuel to get home, not just the tankage
available in external stores. That's why I've been ranting about
rear-fuselage tanks in the Mk V. We're still not approaching the
ranges and endurance required for PR Spits, but even so the fitting of
a PR XI oil tank and nose profile is entirely possible.

>In early 1942 Sholto-Douglas was asking for tanks of up to 30
>gallons in the wings. Fighter Command had realised it needed
>more range to fight over France, it does not seem to have come
>up with the idea it should try for Germany.

If BC were wedded to a daylight campaign against Germany, this would
follow, pushed along by a torrent of invective in memos from Harris
and the CAS.

>The text mentions the mark IXe weights with 66 gallon rear tank.
>As far as I can tell the idea of major Spitfire modifications keeps
>running into the problem that until the P-47 was proven the allies
>did not have another fighter that could be considered a match
>for the Fw190A and Bf109G, hence the rush for the IX instead
>of awaiting the mark VIII. The middle east had to do without
>Spitfires until early/mid 1942 (Malta then Egypt), the major
>withdrawal of mark IXs from fighter command to the squadrons
>in Tunisia in early 1943.

The RAF in the MTO were still, even after Eisenhower had pushed for Mk
IXs to supplement promised deliveries of Mk VIIIs in December 1942, on
the short end of the stick for Mk IX allocations. What we need in
this TL is a senior RAF staff constituency able to take on Fighter
Command and win, in terms of dictating fighter operations, development
and production.

[snip basically agreed spec of LR Mk IX]

[Mk VIII production figures from Postan]

That gives ACM Kramer about 550 Mk VIIIs in the second half of 1943,
or about 90 per month as I suspected.

Gavin Bailey



--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[Guy Alcala]

Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:

<snip Spit production data, fuel capacities>

Thanks for all this, Geoffrey.

Guy

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:56:37 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>> >Not quite that simple, if you want to base them close to the U.S. daytime units. Who's going
>> >to use the grass strips 2 Gp. would be giving up? The heavies aren't.
>>
>> Ironically they did have to operate heavies from grass strips in
>> 1940-42 with all that that suggests in terms of all-weather
>> operational effectiveness,
>
>I know they did, and they seem to have abandoned the idea at the first opportunity.

I know, but I was working with an earlier conversion-to-daylight frame
in mind, namely the summer of 1943, ideally before Hamburg gives
Harris some unchallengeable success to rentrench his preferred
night/area bombing strategy.

>> but in this case 3 Group has a larger
>> allocation of asphalt runways.
>
>> They can have some of 5 Group's more
>> southerly ones as well, if neccessary. In this case we don't have
>> Harris fulminating about the USAAF getting a disproportionate
>> allocation of the all-weather base construction program.
>
>I just don't see the point of converting 2 Gp. to heavies with all the disruption that would
>cause, when you still want a day medium bomber force.

Yes, I was talking about 3 Group re-equipping with Liberators there.
Some of their ex-Wellington bases (like Feltwell, Methwold, etc)
weren't concreted by the summer of 1943, and they need bases with
concrete runways for the Libs.

> 3 Gp. needs to convert from Stirlings in
>any case, which are no longer participating in the main offensive, and thus (from Butch's point of
>view) are almost completely ineffective.

Again, I think you're working with a later point of departure from the
existing historical timeline than me. In the summer of 1943 the
Stirling force was actually scheduled to expand by another couple of
new squadrons. Now that you've brought them to mind, they might be
useful in shallow-penetration heavily-escorted daylight raids with
their bombload.

[B-25 ops]

>> Yes, but not a hell of a lot worse than the "Daylight Lanc" fantasy, I
>> mean, operational evaluation platform. I'm certain the B-25 carried
>> more than 3,000lbs, but maybe only over shorter distances.
>
>Not internally, it didn't. The B-25 bomb bay was smaller than the B-26's. Allowable loads were 1
>x 2,000 lb., or 2 x 1,000/1,600 lb., or 6 x 500 lb. or some larger number (8/10/12? I forget) of
>250 lbers.

The figures I have are 15,000ft loaded cruise and a 4,000lb bombload
which 2 Group were using from 1943 into 1944 from the references I've
seen. Obviously, this was for targets in France, so deeper
penetration might reduce the bombload, but it seemed to have the best
range/bombload/defensive armament characteristics of the available
bombers in 2 Group: frankly, intermediate-level penetration raids
with Bostons or Venturas (the alternatives) are a non-starter.

>At some point around 1944 they realized that the 2,000 lb. station was essentially
>never used, so it was removed and that made enough room for them to carry 1 extra 1,000 lb. bomb.

Bowyer claims the very first Mitchell raid in 2 Group in January 1943
(escorted by Mustang Is, interestingly enough) featured a bombload of
2 x 1,000lb and 4 x 500lb per aircraft. If this is correct, I think
you're underestimating the possible bombload, or I'm underestimating
the impact of increased fuel loading for more distant targets.

>The B-26 bomb bay could carry 2 x 2,000 lb. (and occasionally did), or 4 x 1,000 lb., or 8 x 500
>lb., etc. Early models (B-26, B-26A and I think some early B-26Bs) had an additional aft bomb bay
>usable for small bombs, but this had first been sealed shut as being of more use for other
>purposes, and then deleted from production altogether.

The British only got one allocation, initially of about 50 Marauders
in 1942, which were used in the MTO, so we'd need to come up with come
convincing operational justifications to grab those USAAF production
allocations. I'm not sure, if my figures are correct, there's any
need to replace the B-25 which after all is being operated by 2 Group
already with a very low wastage rate. Easier to expand an existing
resource than demand a new one entirely.

[2 Group ops]

>> I still think hitting Schipol and Alkmaar with regular medium strikes
>> and sequential fighter sweeps before and during B-17/B24 raids being
>> routed over them is a good idea, and better than trying to do the same
>> over the Pas de Calais. Put enough B-25 raids below the higher
>> heavies, with enough fighter support, and the fighters with the best
>> opportunity for bouncing the heavies escort and forcing them to drop
>> external tanks will get sucked into their own private war and divert
>> attention from the main force.
>
>Pretty much what they were doing, although perhaps not that deep.

Indeed, that's the point. The whole effort would have to be
reoriented from northern France/western Belgium to focus on Holland
and nothern Belgium. With the occasional trip to industrial targets
like Knapsack, except not with unescorted Blenheims this time.
Hitting the closer industrial targets should help diffuse the flak
deployment beyond the targets hit by the 8th.

Woensdrecht (along with Lille,
>Poix, Conches etc.) was a common target for B-26s in 1943, escorted by Spits. If the Spits could
>get them or B-25s to Eindhoven, Gilze-Rijn, Florennes etc., it would certainly be helpful,
>although the Luftwaffe was already pulling back to bases beyond medium bomber (and P-47) range in
>late '43.

The real battle would soon displace beyond Spitfire range, then beyond
LR Spit and Thunderbolt range, and then the Lightnings and Mustangs
would have to carry the brunt. But this is a complementary approach.
Extending the range of the shorter-ranged fighters is an essential
force-multiplier, and will still do valuable work even when the main
Luftwaffe fighter resistance has been pushed back from the coastal and
inland belts into Germany itself.

>I'm not sure that the flak threat in '45 _was_ higher. Even the heavies average bombing altitude
>decreased considerably in 1945, down to the mid teens.

Not over the big targets, though. Hitting smaller towns with rail
junctions as part of the transport plan, or smaller factories in
semi-rural areas wasn't the same as tackling the Ruhr or Leipzig.

>Some of that is likely due to a shift to
>more tactical (and thus less well-defended) targets, but not all of it. I imagine the disruption
>in production and more especially transport was affecting ammo supply, C2 was failing/being
>seriously degraded, and morale was undoubtedly collapsing as well. While the percentage of damage
>to flak compared to fighters was increasing, I haven't seen any evidence that it was due to
>increased effectiveness of the former; rather, it seems to be due to the ever-decreasing
>effectiveness of the latter.

My impression is that the overall flak threat on major target
complexes increased.

>> I see them hitting targets in Belgium, Holland and on the fringe of
>> the German Bight and the Ruhr. I think that's credible: the
>> Luftwaffe in 1943 could have given them a hard time, but only at the
>> expense of ignoring the heavies which would be right behind them.
>
>Fine by me. The B-26s were hitting targets there (not the Bight or the Ruhr); weren't the
>Mitchells?

Not often enough accordng to me, but then you're the man in charge of
Fighter ops administration.

> I know they were bombing the same targets in France (and presumably coastal Belgium)
>as the B-26s were. As you can see, my knowledge of 2 Gp. ops is limited.

They and the 9th hit the same kind of targets: mostly western
Holland, western Belgium and northern France, going deeper as time
progressed and the invasion period began. I want them bombing
airfields like Jever and Rheine, attempting to hit the fighter force
which will come up to dispute the path of the 8th AF. Even if the
Luftwaffe response concentrates on the tactical raids, the potential
bombing damage they can inflict will be too significant for the
experten to amble around, only looking to engage with the tactical
advantage and avoiding combat if they can't get up-sun and above in
time, like they did over the Pas de Calais. This time there will be
irate Luftwaffe brass demanding that the bombers be short down, and
never mind their attritional exchange with the enemy fighters
meanwhile. And while they were knocking down those Spitfire Vs from
the close escort, the airfield was bombed by thirty Mitchells and
another two hundred B-17s passed overhead unmolested.

Hitting more significant targets than the Circus ops will compell a
less attritionally-advantageous (for the Germans) Luftwaffe response,
and thus increase the effectiveness of the supporting raids beyond
what a couple of Typhoon squadrons bombing Poix could do.

>> I thought we were resorting to ridiculously hyperbolic stereotypes for
>> comic effect. I can't see anybody disputing this*. Which reminds me,
>> time for a large wet.
>
>That will give me just enough time to slip out and get an ice cream cone then, and drink a couple
>of bottles of coke on the way back. This silk underwear certainly does keep the thighs from
>chafing -- What, you thought we wanted the stuff for some vicarious sexual thrill? ;-)

J. Edgar Hoover, eat your heart out.

I have to add that the critical importance of tea to the British war
effort was well-understood at the time.

******
"We're out of tea - you know what that means - the men won't put up
with it and we'll come to a grinding halt."

I sent a suitably worded signal to the Commanding General of 12th TAC:
"Out of tea period the war is about to stop period".

Within six hours a Dakota landed with enough tea on board to satisfy
us for months. Attached to one of the chests was a personal message
to me: "Keep the war going we are right behind you period."
*********

From "Spitfire into Battle" by Wilfred Duncan-Smith. Interestingly,
he also claimed a Tiger by strafing in the same campaign (south of
France, 1944):

"Continuing past Vienne, and on the open road, I spotted a Tiger tank
going as hard as it could towards Lyons. More in hope than anger I
gave it all my remaining ammunition. To my utter amazement it belched
smoke and caught fire. When I gave my report to Tim Lucas, the senior
Army Liaison Officer, he did not believe me, shaking his head and
muttering that a Tiger was too tough for the shells of a Spitfire. I
got my own back when I took him to the spot in my jeep, after we got
to Lyons on 7 September, and showed him the tank. I was there, I am
pleased to say, burnt out, with 'Bravo RAF' painted on its blackened
hull. To me the sight was worth a couple of Me109s. Apparently some
armour-piercing incendiary shells had ricohetted off the tarmac road
into the oil tank and engine - pure luck, but very satisfying."

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[Guy Alcala]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:56:37 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >> >Not quite that simple, if you want to base them close to the U.S. daytime units. Who's going
> >> >to use the grass strips 2 Gp. would be giving up? The heavies aren't.
> >>
> >> Ironically they did have to operate heavies from grass strips in
> >> 1940-42 with all that that suggests in terms of all-weather
> >> operational effectiveness,
> >
> >I know they did, and they seem to have abandoned the idea at the first opportunity.
>
> I know, but I was working with an earlier conversion-to-daylight frame
> in mind, namely the summer of 1943, ideally before Hamburg gives
> Harris some unchallengeable success to rentrench his preferred
> night/area bombing strategy.

Okay, I was working on ACM Kramer's timeline, where the decision to switch was definitely fall '43.
Note that this wasn't based on the actual situation, more an "if we decided to to make this change,
what would such a decision entail?

<snip>

> >I just don't see the point of converting 2 Gp. to heavies with all the disruption that would
> >cause, when you still want a day medium bomber force.
>
> Yes, I was talking about 3 Group re-equipping with Liberators there.
> Some of their ex-Wellington bases (like Feltwell, Methwold, etc)
> weren't concreted by the summer of 1943, and they need bases with
> concrete runways for the Libs.

Okay, that clears up the confusion.


> > 3 Gp. needs to convert from Stirlings in
> >any case, which are no longer participating in the main offensive, and thus (from Butch's point of
> >view) are almost completely ineffective.
>
> Again, I think you're working with a later point of departure from the
> existing historical timeline than me.

Yes.

> In the summer of 1943 the
> Stirling force was actually scheduled to expand by another couple of
> new squadrons. Now that you've brought them to mind, they might be
> useful in shallow-penetration heavily-escorted daylight raids with
> their bombload.

Only for targets with light flak defenses, similar to those the mediums would go after. At least they
have dual controls, but they'd already been taken off day ops over France back in 1941?, and I don't
think the defenses had gotten any lighter since. BTW, do you have any idea why they didn't put some
extended tips on the Stirlings, as they did for the Halifax? Maybe it just would have taken too much of
a change to get them up to reasonable heights.

> [B-25 ops]
>
> >> Yes, but not a hell of a lot worse than the "Daylight Lanc" fantasy, I
> >> mean, operational evaluation platform. I'm certain the B-25 carried
> >> more than 3,000lbs, but maybe only over shorter distances.
> >
> >Not internally, it didn't. The B-25 bomb bay was smaller than the B-26's. Allowable loads were 1
> >x 2,000 lb., or 2 x 1,000/1,600 lb., or 6 x 500 lb. or some larger number (8/10/12? I forget) of
> >250 lbers.
>
> The figures I have are 15,000ft loaded cruise and a 4,000lb bombload
> which 2 Group were using from 1943 into 1944 from the references I've
> seen. Obviously, this was for targets in France, so deeper
> penetration might reduce the bombload, but it seemed to have the best
> range/bombload/defensive armament characteristics of the available
> bombers in 2 Group: frankly, intermediate-level penetration raids
> with Bostons or Venturas (the alternatives) are a non-starter.

Absolutely, which is why Embry wanted to go all B-25/Mosquito.

> >At some point around 1944 they realized that the 2,000 lb. station was essentially
> >never used, so it was removed and that made enough room for them to carry 1 extra 1,000 lb. bomb.
>
> Bowyer claims the very first Mitchell raid in 2 Group in January 1943
> (escorted by Mustang Is, interestingly enough) featured a bombload of
> 2 x 1,000lb and 4 x 500lb per aircraft. If this is correct, I think
> you're underestimating the possible bombload, or I'm underestimating
> the impact of increased fuel loading for more distant targets.

I suppose that load just might be possible, depending on the arrangement of the bomb racks. I don't
have a diagram of the B-25 bomb rack arrangement, and it's been awhile since I saw one up close. Plays
hell with accuracy though, carrying a mixed load like that. Max. load, internal and external, is
quoted as 5,200 lb. It's never been clear from the sources available to me whether you could carry 500
lbers externally on the wing racks the heaviest bombs specifically mentioned as carried there are 325
lb. depth charges. And a torpedo on the centerline, but I think we can ignore that. BTW, what was the
target of that first attack? Are we talking a "just nip across the channel to Calais and back" sort of
thing?

> >The B-26 bomb bay could carry 2 x 2,000 lb. (and occasionally did), or 4 x 1,000 lb., or 8 x 500
> >lb., etc. Early models (B-26, B-26A and I think some early B-26Bs) had an additional aft bomb bay
> >usable for small bombs, but this had first been sealed shut as being of more use for other
> >purposes, and then deleted from production altogether.
>
> The British only got one allocation, initially of about 50 Marauders
> in 1942, which were used in the MTO, so we'd need to come up with come
> convincing operational justifications to grab those USAAF production
> allocations. I'm not sure, if my figures are correct, there's any
> need to replace the B-25 which after all is being operated by 2 Group
> already with a very low wastage rate. Easier to expand an existing
> resource than demand a new one entirely.

Oh, I wasn't implying that we switch 2 Gp. to B-26s, as the production capacity isn't there in any case
(what with Omaha switching over to B-29s). The B-25 is fine. It's odd that the USAAF and RAF wound up
using different a/c exclusively in the ETO, when you'd think it would have been far simpler to
concentrate on a single type. Both forces uses both of them in the MTO, but the B-26 benefited most
from the shorter supply lines and better infrastructure in the ETO, as the B-25 required less
maintenance and could be flown from worse airfields.

<snip 2 Gp. ops areas of agreement>

>I'm not sure that the flak threat in '45 _was_ higher. Even the heavies average bombing altitude

> >decreased considerably in 1945, down to the mid teens.
>
> Not over the big targets, though. Hitting smaller towns with rail
> junctions as part of the transport plan, or smaller factories in
> semi-rural areas wasn't the same as tackling the Ruhr or Leipzig.
>
> >Some of that is likely due to a shift to
> >more tactical (and thus less well-defended) targets, but not all of it. I imagine the disruption
> >in production and more especially transport was affecting ammo supply, C2 was failing/being
> >seriously degraded, and morale was undoubtedly collapsing as well. While the percentage of damage
> >to flak compared to fighters was increasing, I haven't seen any evidence that it was due to
> >increased effectiveness of the former; rather, it seems to be due to the ever-decreasing
> >effectiveness of the latter.
>
> My impression is that the overall flak threat on major target
> complexes increased.

In number of guns often true, but the C2 was worse.

> >> I see them hitting targets in Belgium, Holland and on the fringe of
> >> the German Bight and the Ruhr. I think that's credible: the
> >> Luftwaffe in 1943 could have given them a hard time, but only at the
> >> expense of ignoring the heavies which would be right behind them.
> >
> >Fine by me. The B-26s were hitting targets there (not the Bight or the Ruhr); weren't the
> >Mitchells?
>
> Not often enough accordng to me, but then you're the man in charge of
> Fighter ops administration.
>
> > I know they were bombing the same targets in France (and presumably coastal Belgium)
> >as the B-26s were. As you can see, my knowledge of 2 Gp. ops is limited.
>
> They and the 9th hit the same kind of targets: mostly western
> Holland, western Belgium and northern France, going deeper as time
> progressed and the invasion period began. I want them bombing
> airfields like Jever and Rheine, attempting to hit the fighter force
> which will come up to dispute the path of the 8th AF.

Yes, those, Deelen and Twente etc. would all be useful.

<snip more noxious agreement>

> >> I thought we were resorting to ridiculously hyperbolic stereotypes for
> >> comic effect. I can't see anybody disputing this*. Which reminds me,
> >> time for a large wet.
> >
> >That will give me just enough time to slip out and get an ice cream cone then, and drink a couple
> >of bottles of coke on the way back. This silk underwear certainly does keep the thighs from
> >chafing -- What, you thought we wanted the stuff for some vicarious sexual thrill? ;-)
>
> J. Edgar Hoover, eat your heart out.

We draw the line at accessorizing with earrings and pearl necklaces; supposedly he didn't.

<snip story confirming tea as vital to the British war effort>

Guy

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 03:20:19 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

[Stirlings doing daylight tactical bombing in support of B-17s]

>Only for targets with light flak defenses, similar to those the mediums would go after. At least they
>have dual controls, but they'd already been taken off day ops over France back in 1941?, and I don't
>think the defenses had gotten any lighter since.

They weren't taken off due to heavy losses per se [3-6 Stirlings from
7 and 15 Sqns in 3 Group were used in July 1941 for Circus ops], just
that BC wanted them for the main strategic offensive and any bomber
lost in daytime or even allocated to FC was seen as a disproportionate
waste of resources from painfully small and slowly-expanding
four-engined bomber production. We're reversing that perspective
here, particularly after October 1943 when the Stirling force is baked
by sufficient production output, but by the same token is looking for
a mission as they are about to get dropped from deep-penetration
missions.

> BTW, do you have any idea why they didn't put some
>extended tips on the Stirlings, as they did for the Halifax? Maybe it just would have taken too much of
>a change to get them up to reasonable heights.

The only effort to do this that I can see came with the
"super-Stirling" using Centaurus engines mooted by Shorts in 1941.
The Centaurus wasn't going to appear in adequate numbers in time to
have an impact on Stirling usage in the real world, meanwhile in
1941-42 the MAP and AM were unhappy with Short's chronic failure to
meet existing Sitrling production targets. Any new type or equipment
change which would further hinder production seems to have been
dismissed out of hand, although that's conjecture on my part in the
absence of hard evidence.

The ceiling of the Stirling I was regarded as a problem, but it was
hoped better engines would fix the problem, rather than changing the
airframe, i.e. by the Hercules XIs used in the Stirling III.

[2 Group B-25s using 4,000lb bombloads in January 1943]

> BTW, what was the
>target of that first attack? Are we talking a "just nip across the channel to Calais and back" sort of
>thing?

Yes, the targets were on the Ghent-Terneuzen canal in Belgium; but on
the other hand they also carried 4,000lbs on deeper penetrations to
Brest and Normandy that I'm aware of. I was hoping you might have
some evidence of 12th AF range and bombloads to compare, or even from
ops in the SWP.

[cowardly and snivelling agreement by the colonialist Yanqui
running-dogs snipped]

>> J. Edgar Hoover, eat your heart out.
>
>We draw the line at accessorizing with earrings and pearl necklaces; supposedly he didn't.
>
><snip story confirming tea as vital to the British war effort>

Well, it would help if you were aiming to contribute some badly-needed
inaccurate, nationally chauvanistic-abuse to this thread, if you could
actually manage some substantive inaccuracy. I note that so far I
have been the only contributor to succeed in adding unsupported
personal abuse to the thread so far. My victory in traditional usenet
terms is, frankly, unassailable.

Gavin Bailey


--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[Guy alcala]

This and several other messages in the thread seem to have eluded my
server, so I just found them on googlegroups.

(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote in message >...
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 03:20:19 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> [Stirlings doing daylight tactical bombing in support of B-17s]

<snip>

> > BTW, do you have any idea why they didn't put some
> >extended tips on the Stirlings, as they did for the Halifax? Maybe it just would have taken too much of
> >a change to get them up to reasonable heights.
>
> The only effort to do this that I can see came with the
> "super-Stirling" using Centaurus engines mooted by Shorts in 1941.
> The Centaurus wasn't going to appear in adequate numbers in time to
> have an impact on Stirling usage in the real world, meanwhile in
> 1941-42 the MAP and AM were unhappy with Short's chronic failure to
> meet existing Sitrling production targets. Any new type or equipment
> change which would further hinder production seems to have been
> dismissed out of hand, although that's conjecture on my part in the
> absence of hard evidence.

Green says they were supposed to get new wings of 135 ft.(!) span.

<snip>

> [2 Group B-25s using 4,000lb bombloads in January 1943]
>
> > BTW, what was the
> >target of that first attack? Are we talking a "just nip across the channel to Calais and back" sort of
> >thing?
>
> Yes, the targets were on the Ghent-Terneuzen canal in Belgium; but on
> the other hand they also carried 4,000lbs on deeper penetrations to
> Brest and Normandy that I'm aware of. I was hoping you might have
> some evidence of 12th AF range and bombloads to compare, or even from
> ops in the SWP.

I'll have to retrieve a book on the B-26 from another library, as it
compares the B-25 and B-26 in North African ops. All I have handy is
a table printed in Wagner's "American Combat Planes," labeled "AAF
Bombers in the European War, 1942-45." Here's the sortie count and
bomb tonnage for the B-25 and B-26:

B-25: 63,177 sorties; Tonnage 84,980. 1.345 Tons/sortie.

B-26: 129,943 sorties; Tonnage 169,382. 1.304 Tons/sortie.

These are presumably short tons. I've always been a bit surprised
that the average bomb load is higher for the B-25, but that gets into
too many unknown variables.


> [cowardly and snivelling agreement by the colonialist Yanqui
> running-dogs snipped]
>
> >> J. Edgar Hoover, eat your heart out.
> >
> >We draw the line at accessorizing with earrings and pearl necklaces; supposedly he didn't.
> >
> ><snip story confirming tea as vital to the British war effort>
>
> Well, it would help if you were aiming to contribute some badly-needed
> inaccurate, nationally chauvanistic-abuse to this thread, if you could
> actually manage some substantive inaccuracy. I note that so far I
> have been the only contributor to succeed in adding unsupported
> personal abuse to the thread so far. My victory in traditional usenet
> terms is, frankly, unassailable.

True. I blame my upbringing. How was I to know that opinions based
rational analysis as free as possible of emotional attachment to the
subject matter, would be considered so passe'? Even when I try and
make some really outrageous, wholly partisan and wildly inaccurate
statement, I find facts and weaselly caveats creeping back in. Oh,
the shame of it, that I'm so ill-suited for the majority of Internet
discourse.

Guy

[ArtKramr]

>ubject: Re: More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids, with
>added nationalistic abuse (was:
>From: (Guy alcala)
>Date: 9/2/03 9:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

>." Here's the sortie count and
>bomb tonnage for the B-25 and B-26:

We never flew "sorties" We flew missions. Fighters flew sorties.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Guy alcala]

(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:27:07 +1000, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
> > wrote:
>
> [snip yet more tiresome rationality and logical discourse]
>
> >I will drop this in since I have not seen it elsewhere,
> >
> >From the British history Design and Development of Weapons,
> >M M Postan, D Hay, J D Scott.
>
> [snipadoodledo]
>
> >B was the airframe developed from the abortive mark III fighter,
> >it was used for the Vc, IX and XII, and presumably XVI. The
> >main change appears to be the "universal" wing.
> >
> >I doubt this makes a major difference to CoG calculations in the
> >mark V though.
>
> Actually, I think it does for the Vb vs Vc. The longitudinal
> stability problems were worse in the Vb, while the Vc had some useful
> things to factor into consideration like re-raked undercarriage and
> bomb/drop-tank plumbing, not to mention a different internal wing
> structure which might have allowed small wing tanks. I don't think
> the Vb wing had that capacity due to strength issues.

<snip>

Vader states that the Mk VIIIs had the 'C' wing, which implies that
the Mk. IXs should have been able to be given LE tanks with little
difficulty. I'm under the impression that the substantive changes to
the Mk. VII/VIII were in the fuselage, and except for the tanks the
wings were identical. Does anyone actually KNOW what the
structural/internal changes were from the Mk.V/IX etc. to the Mk.
VII/VIII? We all know about the tail wheel, but there had to be more
than that.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

ArtKramr wrote:

> >ubject: Re: More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids, with
> >added nationalistic abuse (was:
> >From: (Guy alcala)
> >Date: 9/2/03 9:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id:
>
> >." Here's the sortie count and
> >bomb tonnage for the B-25 and B-26:
>
> We never flew "sorties" We flew missions. Fighters flew sorties.

You, fighters and everyone else flew missions that involved a certain number of
sorties, effective and ineffective, and records were kept of both. If you want to
know what the average effective bombload per a/c was, just counting missions isn't
going to do it, because you need to know how many a/c flew on each mission for the
number to mean anything; in short, you need to know the number of sorties. The
figures I gave above are presumably either effective sorties (those assessed as
having dropped bombs), or at least those that were officially counted (i.e. you'd
crossed the enemy/occupied coast or whatever the criteria was in the particular
theater/timeframe).

Guy

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids,
>From: Guy Alcala

> We never flew "sorties" We flew missions. Fighters flew sorties.
>
>You, fighters and everyone else flew missions that involved a certain number
>of
>sorties, effective and ineffective,

Missions that involved sorties???? What does that mean?. I flew all missions.
No sorties

>because you need to know how many a/c flew on each mission for the
>number to mean an

We flew 56 Marauders on every mission. Max effort every time.

> The
>figures I gave above are presumably either effective sorties (those assessed
>as
>having dropped bombs), or at least those that were officially counted (i.e.
>you'd
>crossed the enemy/occupied coast or whatever the criteria was in the
>particular
>theater/timeframe).
>

Yeah, that was a bad habbit of ours. We always crossed into enemy territorry
and dumped 4,000 pounds of bombs all over them. We called these missions. Not
sorties


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 2 Sep 2003 21:17:46 -0700, (Guy alcala) wrote:

><snip>
>
>Vader states that the Mk VIIIs had the 'C' wing, which implies that
>the Mk. IXs should have been able to be given LE tanks with little
>difficulty. I'm under the impression that the substantive changes to
>the Mk. VII/VIII were in the fuselage, and except for the tanks the
>wings were identical. Does anyone actually KNOW what the
>structural/internal changes were from the Mk.V/IX etc. to the Mk.
>VII/VIII? We all know about the tail wheel, but there had to be more
>than that.

I don't know, but the internal wing spars, which I suspected would
show a difference, appear to be identical between the Vc and the VII,
in which case there should be no problem with deleting the outboard MG
positions in favour of more fuel tank capacity in the Vc-airframed IX.
The shorter-span ailerons appear to be shortened at the wing-tip end.

If there were any fuselage differences, they didn't stop the
late-production IXs getting rear-fuselage tanks anyway.

Gavin Bailey
--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[Guy Alcala]

ArtKramr wrote:

> >Subject: Re: More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids,
> >From: Guy Alcala
>
> > We never flew "sorties" We flew missions. Fighters flew sorties.
> >
> >You, fighters and everyone else flew missions that involved a certain number
> >of
> >sorties, effective and ineffective,
>
> Missions that involved sorties???? What does that mean?. I flew all missions.
> No sorties.

As explained by another poster, a sortie is one flight by one a/c. X number of
a/c in a squadron, group or what have you can all fly a single mission, which will
count as X number of sorties total. Think of a sortie as the aircraft equivalent
of a man/day. If you have a job that is supposed to take 10 man/days to complete,
then to do it you can (ignoring any practical difficulties that might preclude
some of the combinations) either use 1 man for ten days, 2 men for 5 days, 5 men
for two days, or 10 men for one day. Sorties work similarly: 1 a/c flying ten
missions, 2 a/c flying 5 missions, 5 a/c flying two missions, or 10 a/c flying one
mission, all count as ten sorties.

> >because you need to know how many a/c flew on each mission for the
> >number to mean an
>
> We flew 56 Marauders on every mission. Max effort every time.

Which is 56 sorties. But medium units didn't always fly 56 a/c. At least in
1943, it was usual to fly 36 a/c group formations (group UE was increased later)
in the ETO, and fighter and heavy bomber units had different establishments and
flew different formations consisting of different numbers of a/c. the typical
heavy bomber group in 1943 would put up between 18-24 a/c for a single mission,
i.e. 18-24 sorties.

> > The
> >figures I gave above are presumably either effective sorties (those assessed
> >as
> >having dropped bombs), or at least those that were officially counted (i.e.
> >you'd
> >crossed the enemy/occupied coast or whatever the criteria was in the
> >particular
> >theater/timeframe).
> >
>
> Yeah, that was a bad habbit of ours. We always crossed into enemy territorry
> and dumped 4,000 pounds of bombs all over them. We called these missions. Not
> sorties.

Art, not every a/c that took off crossed into enemy territory. There are
inevitably aborts for various reasons. Depending on where the abort occurred, it
might or might not count towards completing the tour requirement. The USAAF
usually defined an effective sortie as one which dropped bombs on a target. So,
for instance, on the Regensburg-Schweinfurt Raid, the 4th Bomb Wing dispatched
146* B-17s on VIIIth BC Mission Number 84, to Regensburg, or 146 sorties (*sources
are a bit schizophrenic, as most say 146, but detail 147). Of that number, 11
aborted over England or the North Sea for reasons other than enemy action, but
four were replaced by airborne spares, making 139 that crossed the coast. None of
the crews of a/c which aborted for these reasons prior to crossing the Dutch coast
were allowed to count this mission towards their tour.

By the time they got to Regensburg, fourteen more had been shot down, two more had
left the formation, dumped their bombs and were hoping to cut the corner and catch
up, and one a/c had remained in formation but had had to jettison its bombs. The
crews of these a/c were allowed to count the mission towards their tour, but none
of these sorties were counted as 'effective', because they didn't/couldn't put
bombs on target. The remaining 122 a/c were all able to bomb, so 4th Bomb Wing
recorded 146 sorties dispatched (not counting spares), but only 139 combat sorties
consisting of 122 effective and 17 ineffective sorties. Being able to bomb a
secondary or tertiary target or a target of opportunity, rather than just
jettisoning bombs, would usually be counted as an effective sortie (depended on
the time and theater); a/c which were unable to bomb an allowed target for any
reason would count as an ineffective sortie.

Guy

[ArtKramr]

>ubject: Re: More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids,
>From: Guy Alcala
>Date: 9/3/03 1:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids,
>> >From: Guy Alcala
>>
>> > We never flew "sorties" We flew missions. Fighters flew sorties.
>> >
>> >You, fighters and everyone else flew missions that involved a certain
>number
>> >of
>> >sorties, effective and ineffective,
>>
>> Missions that involved sorties???? What does that mean?. I flew all
>missions.
>> No sorties.
>
>As explained by another poster, a sortie is one flight by one a/c. X number
>of
>a/c in a squadron, group or what have you can all fly a single mission, which
>will
>count as X number of sorties total. Think of a sortie as the aircraft
>equivalent
>of a man/day. If you have a job that is supposed to take 10 man/days to
>complete,
>then to do it you can (ignoring any practical difficulties that might
>preclude
>some of the combinations) either use 1 man for ten days, 2 men for 5 days, 5
>men
>for two days, or 10 men for one day. Sorties work similarly: 1 a/c flying
>ten
>missions, 2 a/c flying 5 missions, 5 a/c flying two missions, or 10 a/c
>flying one
>mission, all count as ten sorties.
>
>> >because you need to know how many a/c flew on each mission for the
>> >number to mean an
>>
>> We flew 56 Marauders on every mission. Max effort every time.
>
>Which is 56 sorties. But medium units didn't always fly 56 a/c. At least in
>1943, it was usual to fly 36 a/c group formations (group UE was increased
>later)
>in the ETO, and fighter and heavy bomber units had different establishments
>and
>flew different formations consisting of different numbers of a/c. the
>typical
>heavy bomber group in 1943 would put up between 18-24 a/c for a single
>mission,
>i.e. 18-24 sorties.
>
>> > The
>> >figures I gave above are presumably either effective sorties (those
>assessed
>> >as
>> >having dropped bombs), or at least those that were officially counted
>(i.e.
>> >you'd
>> >crossed the enemy/occupied coast or whatever the criteria was in the
>> >particular
>> >theater/timeframe).
>> >
>>
>> Yeah, that was a bad habbit of ours. We always crossed into enemy
>territorry
>> and dumped 4,000 pounds of bombs all over them. We called these missions.
>Not
>> sorties.
>
>Art, not every a/c that took off crossed into enemy territory. There are
>inevitably aborts for various reasons. Depending on where the abort
>occurred, it
>might or might not count towards completing the tour requirement. The USAAF
>usually defined an effective sortie as one which dropped bombs on a target.
>So,
>for instance, on the Regensburg-Schweinfurt Raid, the 4th Bomb Wing
>dispatched
>146* B-17s on VIIIth BC Mission Number 84, to Regensburg, or 146 sorties
>(*sources
>are a bit schizophrenic, as most say 146, but detail 147). Of that number,
>11
>aborted over England or the North Sea for reasons other than enemy action,
>but
>four were replaced by airborne spares, making 139 that crossed the coast.
>None of
>the crews of a/c which aborted for these reasons prior to crossing the Dutch
>coast
>were allowed to count this mission towards their tour.
>
>By the time they got to Regensburg, fourteen more had been shot down, two
>more had
>left the formation, dumped their bombs and were hoping to cut the corner and
>catch
>up, and one a/c had remained in formation but had had to jettison its bombs.
>The
>crews of these a/c were allowed to count the mission towards their tour, but
>none
>of these sorties were counted as 'effective', because they didn't/couldn't
>put
>bombs on target. The remaining 122 a/c were all able to bomb, so 4th Bomb
>Wing
>recorded 146 sorties dispatched (not counting spares), but only 139 combat
>sorties
>consisting of 122 effective and 17 ineffective sorties. Being able to bomb a
>secondary or tertiary target or a target of opportunity, rather than just
>jettisoning bombs, would usually b

OK I got it now. But nobody called it that in WW II.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Billy Beck]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>OK I got it now. But nobody called it that in WW II.

Yes, they did, whether you knew it or not.


Billy

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php

[Guy Alcala]

Jonathan Stone wrote:

> In article >,
> Guy alcala > wrote:

<snip>

> >Green says they were supposed to get new wings of 135 ft.(!) span.
>
> Compared to the original design wingspan (widely cited as 112 feet)
> 135 ft. isn't such a stretch.

Compared to the Stirling production wingspan of 99 feet, it is ;-) But it
sure would be nice to see the predicted performance for a Stirling with a
112 foot span, high aspect ratio wing. That wing would be up in B-24
territory. Oh well, I can dream.

Guy

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 19:37:14 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>> And the Wellington was upgraded to become the Warwick.... Have you
>> seen the thickness of the Stirling's existing wing?
>
>Nothing like extending the tips to lower the overall t/c ratio.

Yes, but those wings needed an Atkins diet or something. They're
almost as thick as the fuselage.

>> Even moving the
>> tips out for greater wing area is going to leave it struggling with
>> poor engine output at altitude and serious airframe weight issues.
>
>The engine output should be no worse than the Halifax III, but I grant you
>the weight issues. OTOH, the Stirling seems like it was quite strong, so a
>boost in MTOW may have been possible.

Actually, reducing the weight might have helped more to raise the
ceiling, and you won't be getting many Hercules XVI engines until 1944
as the Halifax production will eat them up. You might as well stick
to using them pretty much as is as an interim type, and get another
ten squadrons to increase the short-penetration supporting missions
along with the six-eight squadrons of 2 Group. They can then re-quip
with the B-24 over time, after gaining daylight experience during the
supporting ops.

Just don't ask me to fly in them....

[snip Sabre-engined gibbering]

[B25 bombload]

>Personally, I wonder if your source that claimed 2 x 1,000 'and' 4 x 500
>should have read 'or', as that would fit better with the claimed bomb bay
>capacity in several sources. It wouldn't be the first time that has
>happened.

Agreed, and I will check the Squadron ORBs when I get the chance. Any
American stats to compare with this?

>You think the Good Old Days on Usenet (as you define them) are gone? A quick
>skim of posts on this or most any other forum will show that, as the
>Republican Party's semi-official theme song says, Happy Days are Here Again!
>But then, you've never been there and done that, you're just another wannabe
>;-)

And if you'd ever seen Serdar Argic strafing an unprotected and
immobilized newgroup with .50 calibre-crosspostings with your own
eyes, maybe your reading would be different. We never made posts in
those days, just threads. The time was this group once had real
veterans like Orville and Wilbur Wright conducting their flamewar with
Langley and Curtis, and now they've been driven off by the
wannabes.....[tirade continued ad nauseam].

Gavin Bailey


--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids,
>with added nationalistic abuse (wa
>From: (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised)
>Date: 9/5/03 1:06 AM Pacific

>e Halifax production will eat them up. You might as well stick
>to using them pretty much as is as an interim type, and get another
>ten squadrons to increase the short-penetration supporting missions
>along with the six-eight squadrons of 2 Group. They can then re-qu

>with the B-24 over time, after gaining daylight experience during the
>supporting ops.
>
>Just don't ask me to fly in them....

If you are ordered to fly them, you will damn well fly them. And nobody cares
whether you approve of the thickness of the wing or not. Or anything else for
that matter. When you are ordered to fly, you will fly.




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On 05 Sep 2003 14:55:35 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Just don't ask me to fly in them....
>
>If you are ordered to fly them, you will damn well fly them.

No I won't. What are you going to do about it? March me at gunpoint
to an airworthy B-25 and demand that I fly it?

> And nobody cares
>whether you approve of the thickness of the wing or not.

How shockingly ungrateful of the swine. I'm sure my opinion of wing
thickness on all aircraft is a matter of urgent concern to governments
and the mass of the population across the globe.

> Or anything else for
>that matter.

I'd be more impressed with this assertion about how little you or
anybody else cares about my posted opinions if you weren't constantly
following up my posts in an effort to troll me.

>When you are ordered to fly, you will fly.

You're not in a position to order me about, however much you might
want to. And nobody in their right mind was going to order me to fly
*anything* - I volunteered for the infantry (and for service in NI and
the Gulf), not aircrew training forty-five years beforehand. I do
appreciate your quest for redundancy though.

How about making similar assertions about how you would have ridden
with the Charge of the Light Brigade if you had been ordered to,
regardless of your opinion on the price of cheese or Cardigan's
tactical competance or any other matter? Seems about as relevant to
the actuality of my posts in this thread as your yibbling about WW2
airmen carrying out their orders. Of course they did. Who contended
that they didn't? If you think I did, post the proof. I'll be
waiting a long time for you to manage that, won't I?

Now, if you're going to continue to followup my posts, I suggest you
attempt to address the issues I have previously raised in response to
you, including your own apparent hypocrisy over the use of third-party
evidence to teach others, in the "Re: #1 Piston Fighter was British"
thread.

No answer? Funny that. Still, feel free to start another "wannabe"
fandago with another straw man if it makes you feel better.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[Guy Alcala]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 19:37:14 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:

<snip>

> >> Even moving the
> >> tips out for greater wing area is going to leave it struggling with
> >> poor engine output at altitude and serious airframe weight issues.
> >
> >The engine output should be no worse than the Halifax III, but I grant you
> >the weight issues. OTOH, the Stirling seems like it was quite strong, so a
> >boost in MTOW may have been possible.
>
> Actually, reducing the weight might have helped more to raise the
> ceiling, and you won't be getting many Hercules XVI engines until 1944
> as the Halifax production will eat them up. You might as well stick
> to using them pretty much as is as an interim type, and get another
> ten squadrons to increase the short-penetration supporting missions
> along with the six-eight squadrons of 2 Group. They can then re-quip
> with the B-24 over time, after gaining daylight experience during the
> supporting ops.

Assuming we can get the B-24s. Otherwise it's likely to be Halifax IIIs, in which
case we might want to take another look at those extended-tip Stirlings again.

<snip>

> [B25 bombload]
>
> >Personally, I wonder if your source that claimed 2 x 1,000 'and' 4 x 500
> >should have read 'or', as that would fit better with the claimed bomb bay
> >capacity in several sources. It wouldn't be the first time that has
> >happened.
>
> Agreed, and I will check the Squadron ORBs when I get the chance. Any
> American stats to compare with this?

Not yet, but I've got a bunch of B-25/B-26 books on order from various libraries,
so hopefully they will have something useful. I've also been reading Alfred
Price's "Spitfire: A Complete Fighting History," which has some interesting info
on Mk. V fuel burn, range, Spit drag, etc. I'll cull that and try to post the
more interesting stuff for your and Pete's benefit.

Guy

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 19:07:13 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>Not yet, but I've got a bunch of B-25/B-26 books on order from various libraries,
>so hopefully they will have something useful. I've also been reading Alfred
>Price's "Spitfire: A Complete Fighting History," which has some interesting info
>on Mk. V fuel burn, range, Spit drag, etc.

The most useful I found were the Merlin 45/46 consumption figures with
relevant TAS figures with associated rpm and boost. I can also vouch
for their accuracy, having read the original report in the PRO (which
was filed with some Fighter Command stuff from the Dieppe period
IIRC). The original Spitfire AFDU, A&AEE and RAE reports in AIR 16
were getting a little scrappy though: that particular bulging folder
has clearly been out to a few researchers before I got my paws on it.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[Guy Alcala]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 19:07:13 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >Not yet, but I've got a bunch of B-25/B-26 books on order from various libraries,
> >so hopefully they will have something useful. I've also been reading Alfred
> >Price's "Spitfire: A Complete Fighting History," which has some interesting info
> >on Mk. V fuel burn, range, Spit drag, etc.
>
> The most useful I found were the Merlin 45/46 consumption figures with
> relevant TAS figures with associated rpm and boost.

That was one I was thinking of, but if you've seen it that will save me some typing.
I think Pete will find the drag numbers more interesting, but maybe he'd want to see
the Mk. V fuel burn numbers as well. If he does and you've got a scanner (I don't),
could you send them to him?

> I can also vouch
> for their accuracy, having read the original report in the PRO (which
> was filed with some Fighter Command stuff from the Dieppe period
> IIRC). The original Spitfire AFDU, A&AEE and RAE reports in AIR 16
> were getting a little scrappy though: that particular bulging folder
> has clearly been out to a few researchers before I got my paws on it.

Hopefully someone will scan _all_ this stuff before it gets destroyed. We've got bits
and pieces here and there on the web and elsewhere.

Guy

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) writes:
> On 2 Sep 2003 21:17:46 -0700, (Guy alcala) wrote:
>
>><snip>
>>
>>Vader states that the Mk VIIIs had the 'C' wing, which implies that
>>the Mk. IXs should have been able to be given LE tanks with little
>>difficulty. I'm under the impression that the substantive changes to
>>the Mk. VII/VIII were in the fuselage, and except for the tanks the
>>wings were identical. Does anyone actually KNOW what the
>>structural/internal changes were from the Mk.V/IX etc. to the Mk.
>>VII/VIII? We all know about the tail wheel, but there had to be more
>>than that.
>
> I don't know, but the internal wing spars, which I suspected would
> show a difference, appear to be identical between the Vc and the VII,
> in which case there should be no problem with deleting the outboard MG
> positions in favour of more fuel tank capacity in the Vc-airframed IX.
> The shorter-span ailerons appear to be shortened at the wing-tip end.
>
> If there were any fuselage differences, they didn't stop the
> late-production IXs getting rear-fuselage tanks anyway.

I'm back.
I've been examining cutaways & measuring & doing sums like a numerate
Dervish, and, while I can't give a definitive answer, I can make the
following observations:
The Mk Vc wing would certainly be suitable for teh leading edge tanks.
I'd go so far as to say that if you were really concerned about volume
in that area, ditching on or both of the .303 guns in each wing would
open up a bunch of space, withoug compromising much in the way of
firepower.

The big deal with the Mk V, and volume behind the cockpit, is that
hteat's where the radios live. Going with a smaller/lighter set would
allow something like teh Mk IX's 29 Imperial Gallon tank. Note that
on the Mk IX, the only way to keep the CG acceptable with the aft tank
was to use it only in conjunction with one of the belly tanks. I
don't really view that as a big deal for an escort fighter, unless you
expect to be engaged immediately at the French Coast. The recommended
tank sequence would be, after takeoff, to use the aft fuselage tank,
then the external tank. (I keep wanting to call that marsupial-looking
excrescence the "carbuncle", for some reason) The 29 Imp Gal tank
should last somewhere between 15 minutes to 1/2 hour, depending on
power settings, so that gets you through form-up, climbout, and pretty
much across the Channel.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Guy Alcala > writes:
> The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

>> >Personally, I wonder if your source that claimed 2 x 1,000 'and' 4 x 500
>> >should have read 'or', as that would fit better with the claimed bomb bay
>> >capacity in several sources. It wouldn't be the first time that has
>> >happened.
>>
>> Agreed, and I will check the Squadron ORBs when I get the chance. Any
>> American stats to compare with this?
>
> Not yet, but I've got a bunch of B-25/B-26 books on order from various libraries,
> so hopefully they will have something useful. I've also been reading Alfred
> Price's "Spitfire: A Complete Fighting History," which has some interesting info
> on Mk. V fuel burn, range, Spit drag, etc. I'll cull that and try to post the
> more interesting stuff for your and Pete's benefit.

Here are the B-25's bomb station options, as called out in teh
U.S. Navy Standard Aircraft CHaracteristics for the PBJ (Which was a
B-25 with a different paint job)

Internal:
1 x 2,000#
or
2 x 1600#
3 x 1000# GP
4 x 1000# AP (The AP bombs are much slimmer
3 x 650#
6 x 500#
8 x 250#
24 x 100#

With the 215 (U.S> Gal Bomb Bay Tank:
2 x 1000#
2 x 1600#
2 x 650#
4 x 500#
4 x 325# Depth Charge
12 x 100#

Externally, (Bay doors open) there was provision for a Mk 13 torpedo.

As for the Stirling, well, actually, fir all its bulk, it doesn't seem
that heavy.They really should have taken the fuselage out of hte box
before they bolted the wings on, though.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> Guy Alcala > writes:
> > The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:
>
> >> >Personally, I wonder if your source that claimed 2 x 1,000 'and' 4 x 500
> >> >should have read 'or', as that would fit better with the claimed bomb bay
> >> >capacity in several sources. It wouldn't be the first time that has
> >> >happened.
> >>
> >> Agreed, and I will check the Squadron ORBs when I get the chance. Any
> >> American stats to compare with this?

<snip>

> Here are the B-25's bomb station options, as called out in teh
> U.S. Navy Standard Aircraft CHaracteristics for the PBJ (Which was a
> B-25 with a different paint job)
>
> Internal:
> 1 x 2,000#
> or
> 2 x 1600#
> 3 x 1000# GP
> 4 x 1000# AP (The AP bombs are much slimmer
> 3 x 650#
> 6 x 500#
> 8 x 250#
> 24 x 100#
>
> With the 215 (U.S> Gal Bomb Bay Tank:
> 2 x 1000#
> 2 x 1600#
> 2 x 650#
> 4 x 500#
> 4 x 325# Depth Charge
> 12 x 100#
>
> Externally, (Bay doors open) there was provision for a Mk 13 torpedo.

Yeah, I've got that too. The question is whether there is room (and shackles) for the
_combination_ of 2 x 1,000 and 4 x 500 lb. bombs, which is why I'd like to see a bomb
station arrangement diagram. The credited 4,000 lb. load appears to only be possible
carrying 4 x 1,000 lb. AP bombs. Several sources state that the 2,000 lb. station had
to be removed to allow 3 x 1,000 lb. GP to be carried, and that the 2,000 lb. station
was deleted from the production a/c at some point in 1944 or so. With the 2,000 lb.
station in place, only 2 x 1,000 lb. bombs could be carried (this assumes these sources
are accurate). The British a/c in 2 Gp. were early Cs and Ds IIRC, and they didn't
start getting Js until late in 1944. This source also doesn't list the external
station capacities, which were definitely available.

> As for the Stirling, well, actually, fir all its bulk, it doesn't seem
> that heavy.They really should have taken the fuselage out of hte box

> before they bolted the wings on, though.

The empty weight (46,000 lb. IIRR) has always seemed far higher than was the case with
the Lanc or Halifax, and the MTOW (70klb. IIRR) not that much more. It is possible
that this is a mistake and isactually the OWE rather than the empty weight losted for
the others. Still, its range with a comparable bombload is significantly less than
either, and while the wing design undoubtedly plays some part I expect the main factor
is the restricted useful load. Shorts' structural methods seem to stem from the flying
boats, and appear a bit out of date. Come to think of it, ISTR a Roy Braybrook article
in AI some years back, where he showed that their flying boats had rather poor useful
loads compared to comparable American models, for much the same reason.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) writes:
> > On 2 Sep 2003 21:17:46 -0700, (Guy alcala) wrote:
> >
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>Vader states that the Mk VIIIs had the 'C' wing, which implies that
> >>the Mk. IXs should have been able to be given LE tanks with little
> >>difficulty. I'm under the impression that the substantive changes to
> >>the Mk. VII/VIII were in the fuselage, and except for the tanks the
> >>wings were identical. Does anyone actually KNOW what the
> >>structural/internal changes were from the Mk.V/IX etc. to the Mk.
> >>VII/VIII? We all know about the tail wheel, but there had to be more
> >>than that.
> >
> > I don't know, but the internal wing spars, which I suspected would
> > show a difference, appear to be identical between the Vc and the VII,
> > in which case there should be no problem with deleting the outboard MG
> > positions in favour of more fuel tank capacity in the Vc-airframed IX.
> > The shorter-span ailerons appear to be shortened at the wing-tip end.
> >
> > If there were any fuselage differences, they didn't stop the
> > late-production IXs getting rear-fuselage tanks anyway.
>
> I'm back.
> I've been examining cutaways & measuring & doing sums like a numerate
> Dervish, and, while I can't give a definitive answer, I can make the
> following observations:
> The Mk Vc wing would certainly be suitable for teh leading edge tanks.
> I'd go so far as to say that if you were really concerned about volume
> in that area, ditching on or both of the .303 guns in each wing would
> open up a bunch of space, withoug compromising much in the way of
> firepower.

I don't think that's necessary, as the exploded view of a Mk. XIV in Price's
"Spitfire: A Documentary History" shows the L.E. tanks are inboard of the
cannon. If tanks could also be installed outboard in place of the MGs, then I'd
probably go for it and accept the somewhat greater vulnerability in combat, but
just getting standard Mk.VIII tankage (123 Imp. Gal. total) would be fine for a
start.

> The big deal with the Mk V, and volume behind the cockpit, is that
> hteat's where the radios live. Going with a smaller/lighter set would
> allow something like teh Mk IX's 29 Imperial Gallon tank.

Not sure what you mean here, as the Mk. VCs were given a 29 Imp. Gal. ferry tank
for the Gib-Malta ferry flights. The later Mk. IX/XVI had 66 Imp. gal. rear
tanks.

> Note that
> on the Mk IX, the only way to keep the CG acceptable with the aft tank
> was to use it only in conjunction with one of the belly tanks.

H'mm, at least with the Mk. XIV, the Cg moves aft when drop tanks are carried,
not forward. See

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/rb141weights.html


> I
> don't really view that as a big deal for an escort fighter, unless you
> expect to be engaged immediately at the French Coast. The recommended
> tank sequence would be, after takeoff, to use the aft fuselage tank,
> then the external tank. (I keep wanting to call that marsupial-looking
> excrescence the "carbuncle", for some reason) The 29 Imp Gal tank
> should last somewhere between 15 minutes to 1/2 hour, depending on
> power settings, so that gets you through form-up, climbout, and pretty
> much across the Channel.

Part of the pilot's notes for the F./F.R. XIV are online, and the FR. XIV flight
restrictions contains the following statement:

"On F.R. Mk. XIV a/c it is essential, for reasons of stability, that the rear
fuselage tank should be emptied before flying at altitudes in excess of 15,000
feet." It also states that the fuel tank sequence for the F.R.14 is t/o on main
tanks, switch to rear fuselage tank and empty it, then feed from drop tank. See

http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_spit14_notes_13.jpg

ISTR that this tank is ca. 33 gallons.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> I'm back.
> I've been examining cutaways & measuring & doing sums like a numerate
> Dervish, and, while I can't give a definitive answer, I can make the
> following observations:

<snip Spit comments>

BTW, I know we've been sidetracking you with work on the Spit, but were you able
to run any numbers for the Lanc B.2?

Guy

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 05:47:33 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

[welcome back Peter, with your smoking slide-rule]

>> The big deal with the Mk V, and volume behind the cockpit, is that
>> hteat's where the radios live. Going with a smaller/lighter set would
>> allow something like teh Mk IX's 29 Imperial Gallon tank.
>
>Not sure what you mean here, as the Mk. VCs were given a 29 Imp. Gal. ferry tank
>for the Gib-Malta ferry flights. The later Mk. IX/XVI had 66 Imp. gal. rear
>tanks.

The standard fuselage Mk IX/XVI got a 75 Imperial gallon rear fuselage
tank, with tear-drop canopy versions with the cut-down fuselage
getting 66 gallons. My thinking was for the 29 gallon Gibraltar ferry
rear tank, or something pressurised/self-sealing with a similar
capacity in the LR Vc, with additional wing tankage for the LR Vc or
LR VIII & IX coming from the outboard MG position's, e.g. using the
E-wing armament or even 2 x Hispanos with 2 x .303 MG's in the inboard
cannon position available in the C wing, while stuffing a further 10
gallons or so of fuel in the outboard MG positions, as Pete has
pointed out. This would be additional to the Mk VII/VIII wing tanks
with their (conservative) 25 gallon capacity which were positioned
further inboard of the first cannon mounting. Total here would be for
something like 35 gallons in the wings additional to the 85 gallon
conventional tankage, 29 gallon rear fuselage tankage and external
drop tanks of up to 90 gallons capacity.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[Guy Alcala]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 05:47:33 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> [welcome back Peter, with your smoking slide-rule]
>
> >> The big deal with the Mk V, and volume behind the cockpit, is that
> >> hteat's where the radios live. Going with a smaller/lighter set would
> >> allow something like teh Mk IX's 29 Imperial Gallon tank.
> >
> >Not sure what you mean here, as the Mk. VCs were given a 29 Imp. Gal. ferry tank
> >for the Gib-Malta ferry flights. The later Mk. IX/XVI had 66 Imp. gal. rear
> >tanks.
>
> The standard fuselage Mk IX/XVI got a 75 Imperial gallon rear fuselage
> tank, with tear-drop canopy versions with the cut-down fuselage
> getting 66 gallons.

Right.

> My thinking was for the 29 gallon Gibraltar ferry
> rear tank, or something pressurised/self-sealing with a similar
> capacity in the LR Vc, with additional wing tankage for the LR Vc or
> LR VIII & IX coming from the outboard MG position's, e.g. using the
> E-wing armament

Probably not an option, as we'd need the limited number of .50 cals for flexible nose
guns in the Halifax IIIs, if the B-24 deal doesn't come off.

> or even 2 x Hispanos with 2 x .303 MG's in the inboard
> cannon position available in the C wing, while stuffing a further 10
> gallons or so of fuel in the outboard MG positions, as Pete has
> pointed out. This would be additional to the Mk VII/VIII wing tanks
> with their (conservative) 25 gallon capacity which were positioned
> further inboard of the first cannon mounting. Total here would be for
> something like 35 gallons in the wings additional to the 85 gallon
> conventional tankage, 29 gallon rear fuselage tankage and external
> drop tanks of up to 90 gallons capacity.

Seems like it would be a lot easier to boost the forward fuselage capacity of the Mk.
V/IX up to 96 gallons by swapping in bigger tanks (we know there's room there),
before you add all those other tanks and the associated plumbing. I agree you'd still
want the L.E tanks, but let's do the easiest stuff first. The extra 11 gallons in
the enlarged forward tanks buys perhaps 10 minutes of cruise coming home: let's be
_real_ conservative and call it 30 miles. Then we'll also need to enlarge the oil
tank at some point. The outboard tanks you describe are so small that I wonder if
they're worth the weight of all the plumbing, plus the extra vulnerability (remember
that these tanks feed into the main tanks after room has been made in the latter, so
they won't be used in combat - no one's going to transfer fuel while they're
fighting).

Guy

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids,
>
>From: Guy Alcala

> The question is whether there is room (and shackles) for the

If there was "room" (stations) then shackles could be fitted.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Guy Alcala]

Guy Alcala wrote:

> The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 05:47:33 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > > wrote:

<snip>


> > or even 2 x Hispanos with 2 x .303 MG's in the inboard
> > cannon position available in the C wing, while stuffing a further 10
> > gallons or so of fuel in the outboard MG positions, as Pete has
> > pointed out. This would be additional to the Mk VII/VIII wing tanks
> > with their (conservative) 25 gallon capacity which were positioned
> > further inboard of the first cannon mounting. Total here would be for
> > something like 35 gallons in the wings additional to the 85 gallon
> > conventional tankage, 29 gallon rear fuselage tankage and external
> > drop tanks of up to 90 gallons capacity.
>
> Seems like it would be a lot easier to boost the forward fuselage capacity of the Mk.
> V/IX up to 96 gallons by swapping in bigger tanks (we know there's room there),
> before you add all those other tanks and the associated plumbing. I agree you'd still
> want the L.E tanks, but let's do the easiest stuff first. The extra 11 gallons in
> the enlarged forward tanks buys perhaps 10 minutes of cruise coming home: let's be
> _real_ conservative and call it 30 miles. Then we'll also need to enlarge the oil
> tank at some point. The outboard tanks you describe are so small that I wonder if
> they're worth the weight of all the plumbing, plus the extra vulnerability (remember
> that these tanks feed into the main tanks after room has been made in the latter, so
> they won't be used in combat - no one's going to transfer fuel while they're
> fighting).

Thinking about it further, I don't think the outboard tanks would pass muster. Where
would you route the fuel piping, through the gun bays? I'd think that would be
absolutely verboten. It makes more sense to try and enlarge the wing L.E. tanks, by not
using the inboard cannon station and move the cannon out one station. Delete the O/B MG
on each side if necessary, as weight/moment compensation. We might also want to consider
developing a drop tank for Mk. VIIIs/IX with VIII tankage to perhaps 125 Imp. Gallons,
roughly the internal capacity, just to boost the endurance a bit. We should still be
within MTOW limits with the armament installed, while use of the 170 gal. tanks puts the
a/c over gross with armament removed. Regardless, it's unlikely we'll ever be able to
get a Spit fighter to Berlin and back from the UK. The PR. XI could do it with 216 Imp.
Gal. internal (132 in the leading edges) plus a 90 gal. drop tank, but an armed a/c just
doesn't have the room for all the fuel. But no matter, by the time we're ready to go
there, the RAF will either have its own Mustangs, or be on the continent.

Guy

[Jonathan Stone]

In article >,
Guy Alcala > wrote:

>> Compared to the original design wingspan (widely cited as 112 feet)
>> 135 ft. isn't such a stretch.
>
>Compared to the Stirling production wingspan of 99 feet, it is ;-) But it
>sure would be nice to see the predicted performance for a Stirling with a
>112 foot span, high aspect ratio wing. That wing would be up in B-24
>territory. Oh well, I can dream.

The original Stirling wing (mechanical & aerodyanmics), was based
pretty heavily on the Sunderland wing. ISTR Shorts had dismantled the
Sunderland wings, and when the Lerwick turned out to be a flop in
1941, they had to rebuild the jigs to reopen the line to suppliement
lend/lease Catalinas.

Could have been a good window for you and AVM Stickney to order
112-foot wings (maybe *common* wings? on Stirlings.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Guy Alcala > writes:
> Peter Stickney wrote:

That yesterday seemed to be my day for being obfuscative.

>> I'm back.
>> I've been examining cutaways & measuring & doing sums like a numerate
>> Dervish, and, while I can't give a definitive answer, I can make the
>> following observations:
>> The Mk Vc wing would certainly be suitable for teh leading edge tanks.
>> I'd go so far as to say that if you were really concerned about volume
>> in that area, ditching on or both of the .303 guns in each wing would
>> open up a bunch of space, withoug compromising much in the way of
>> firepower.
>
> I don't think that's necessary, as the exploded view of a Mk. XIV in Price's
> "Spitfire: A Documentary History" shows the L.E. tanks are inboard of the
> cannon. If tanks could also be installed outboard in place of the MGs, then I'd
> probably go for it and accept the somewhat greater vulnerability in combat, but
> just getting standard Mk.VIII tankage (123 Imp. Gal. total) would be fine for a
> start.
>
>> The big deal with the Mk V, and volume behind the cockpit, is that
>> hteat's where the radios live. Going with a smaller/lighter set would
>> allow something like teh Mk IX's 29 Imperial Gallon tank.
>
> Not sure what you mean here, as the Mk. VCs were given a 29 Imp. Gal. ferry tank
> for the Gib-Malta ferry flights. The later Mk. IX/XVI had 66 Imp. gal. rear
> tanks.

Ah, sorry. Don't forget that I've lagged a bit here. I was just
following up on Gavin's question about squeexzing more fuel into a Mk
V. Since the engine's a lot lighter, they don't have as much moment
on the Good Side of the CG balance, and there isn't any good space
insude a Mk V for a substantial amount of fuel. The 29 Imp. Gallon
tank is all that you can get an have an airplane that isn't too
dangerous for the 1943 RAF. In irder to geep that influence to a
minimum, a medium-sized drop tank would also be necessary, to keep the
CG where it ought to be. My point about the radios was that the early
Brit TR sets were, when you include their rectifiers * transformers,
about 200# of load, and quite a bit of space. If that 200# could be
cut in half, that's 15 Imperial Gallons of fuel that yo could squeeze
in.

>> Note that
>> on the Mk IX, the only way to keep the CG acceptable with the aft tank
>> was to use it only in conjunction with one of the belly tanks.
>
> H'mm, at least with the Mk. XIV, the Cg moves aft when drop tanks are carried,
> not forward. See
>
> http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/rb141weights.html

Yep. Yhe Mk IX's got it nearly on the CG datum, though.

I'll get the tracing paper & rulers & see if I can come up with som
emore detail.

>> don't really view that as a big deal for an escort fighter, unless you
>> expect to be engaged immediately at the French Coast. The recommended
>> tank sequence would be, after takeoff, to use the aft fuselage tank,
>> then the external tank. (I keep wanting to call that marsupial-looking
>> excrescence the "carbuncle", for some reason) The 29 Imp Gal tank
>> should last somewhere between 15 minutes to 1/2 hour, depending on
>> power settings, so that gets you through form-up, climbout, and pretty
>> much across the Channel.
>
> Part of the pilot's notes for the F./F.R. XIV are online, and the FR. XIV flight
> restrictions contains the following statement:
>
> "On F.R. Mk. XIV a/c it is essential, for reasons of stability, that the rear
> fuselage tank should be emptied before flying at altitudes in excess of 15,000
> feet." It also states that the fuel tank sequence for the F.R.14 is t/o on main
> tanks, switch to rear fuselage tank and empty it, then feed from drop tank. See
>
> http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_spit14_notes_13.jpg
>
> ISTR that this tank is ca. 33 gallons.

Which is about enough to climb about 5,000' with a Griffon Spit.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) writes:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 05:47:33 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> [welcome back Peter, with your smoking slide-rule]
>
>>> The big deal with the Mk V, and volume behind the cockpit, is that
>>> hteat's where the radios live. Going with a smaller/lighter set would
>>> allow something like teh Mk IX's 29 Imperial Gallon tank.
>>
>>Not sure what you mean here, as the Mk. VCs were given a 29 Imp. Gal. ferry tank
>>for the Gib-Malta ferry flights. The later Mk. IX/XVI had 66 Imp. gal. rear
>>tanks.
>
> The standard fuselage Mk IX/XVI got a 75 Imperial gallon rear fuselage
> tank, with tear-drop canopy versions with the cut-down fuselage
> getting 66 gallons. My thinking was for the 29 gallon Gibraltar ferry
> rear tank, or something pressurised/self-sealing with a similar
> capacity in the LR Vc, with additional wing tankage for the LR Vc or
> LR VIII & IX coming from the outboard MG position's, e.g. using the
> E-wing armament or even 2 x Hispanos with 2 x .303 MG's in the inboard
> cannon position available in the C wing, while stuffing a further 10
> gallons or so of fuel in the outboard MG positions, as Pete has
> pointed out. This would be additional to the Mk VII/VIII wing tanks
> with their (conservative) 25 gallon capacity which were positioned
> further inboard of the first cannon mounting. Total here would be for
> something like 35 gallons in the wings additional to the 85 gallon
> conventional tankage, 29 gallon rear fuselage tankage and external
> drop tanks of up to 90 gallons capacity.

Those were my thoughts. After looking at the Mk IX and Mk XIV weight
& balance stuff, another odd thought just occurred - there's no good
place in a Spitfure to add anything - just about the only thing ahead
of the CG is the engine, with one exception. The 20mm guns actually
shift things forward a pretty fair bit. If the volume taken up by the
ammunition isn't too large, some of these problems could be lessened
by putting the heavier guns aboard.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Guy Alcala wrote in message >...
>Peter Stickney wrote:

>> As for the Stirling, well, actually, fir all its bulk, it doesn't seem
>> that heavy.They really should have taken the fuselage out of hte box
>> before they bolted the wings on, though.
>
>The empty weight (46,000 lb. IIRR) has always seemed far higher than
>was the case with the Lanc or Halifax, and the MTOW (70klb. IIRR) not
> that much more. It is possible that this is a mistake and isactually the
>OWE rather than the empty weight losted for the others. Still, its range
>with a comparable bombload is significantly less than either, and while
>the wing design undoubtedly plays some part I expect the main factor
>is the restricted useful load. Shorts' structural methods seem to stem
>from the flying boats, and appear a bit out of date.

From the Stirling file by Michael Bowyer

Early Stirling I, Hercules II engines, the first production aircraft N3635 came
in at 41,160 pounds tare when under trials, max take off weight 64,000
pounds initially.

Stirling III, Hercules VI/XVI tare weight 44,856 pounds, max flying weight
70,000 pounds.

The tare weights appear 2 to 3 tons more than the Lancaster and Halifax.

The books notes the advantages of the "strongly built" airframe as well
as the penalties.

Apparently the outboard sections of the wing were watertight. Interestingly
the Stirling's wing area was 1,460 square feet, Lancaster 1,297, later
Halifaxes 1,275, B-17 1,420, B-24 1,048 and B-29 1,736. The Stirling
wingspan was 99 feet 1 inch versus the B-17 103 feet 9 inches, it was
also the thickest wing, able to carry bombs in cells within the inner wing.
three cells on each side capable of carrying 500 pound bombs at least.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Geoffrey Sinclair
> writes
>Apparently the outboard sections of the wing were watertight. Interestingly
>the Stirling's wing area was 1,460 square feet, Lancaster 1,297, later
>Halifaxes 1,275, B-17 1,420, B-24 1,048 and B-29 1,736.

I'm not disputing the figures above, but I thought the B-24 had a larger
wing area than most contemporary bombers allowing it to fly higher?

--
John

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, John Halliwell
> writes
>In article >, Geoffrey Sinclair
> writes
>>Apparently the outboard sections of the wing were watertight. Interestingly
>>the Stirling's wing area was 1,460 square feet, Lancaster 1,297, later
>>Halifaxes 1,275, B-17 1,420, B-24 1,048 and B-29 1,736.
>
>I'm not disputing the figures above, but I thought the B-24 had a larger
>wing area than most contemporary bombers allowing it to fly higher?
>
Was it not the thick section Davis wing that gave it the improved lift?

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:13:14 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
> wrote:

>In article >, John Halliwell
> writes
>>In article >, Geoffrey Sinclair
> writes
>>>Apparently the outboard sections of the wing were watertight. Interestingly
>>>the Stirling's wing area was 1,460 square feet, Lancaster 1,297, later
>>>Halifaxes 1,275, B-17 1,420, B-24 1,048 and B-29 1,736.
>>
>>I'm not disputing the figures above, but I thought the B-24 had a larger
>>wing area than most contemporary bombers allowing it to fly higher?
>>
>Was it not the thick section Davis wing that gave it the improved lift?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dave

The Davis wing was a high aspect ratio wing with a low angle of
attack.

Al Minyard

[[email protected]]

Alan Minyard > wrote:

>
>The Davis wing was a high aspect ratio wing with a low angle of
>attack.
>
>Al Minyard

Is there something that I'm missing here?...how can a wing's
design decide that?...I'd think that only the elevators could
control the AOA?.
--

-Gord.

[Mike Marron]

>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>>Alan Minyard > wrote:

>>The Davis wing was a high aspect ratio wing with a low angle of
>>attack.

>Is there something that I'm missing here?...

Probably, but then, that's nothing out of the ordinary for you.

>how can a wing's design decide that?...I'd think that only the
>elevators could control the AOA?.

He obviously meant low angle-of-incidence (e.g: the acute
angle which the wing chord makes with the longitudinal axis
of the A/C). Angle-of-incidence can vary depending on the
wing design.

-Mike Marron

[Guy Alcala]

Alan Minyard wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:13:14 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >, John Halliwell
> > writes
> >>In article >, Geoffrey Sinclair
> > writes
> >>>Apparently the outboard sections of the wing were watertight. Interestingly
> >>>the Stirling's wing area was 1,460 square feet, Lancaster 1,297, later
> >>>Halifaxes 1,275, B-17 1,420, B-24 1,048 and B-29 1,736.
> >>
> >>I'm not disputing the figures above, but I thought the B-24 had a larger
> >>wing area than most contemporary bombers allowing it to fly higher?
> >>
> >Was it not the thick section Davis wing that gave it the improved lift?
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Dave
>
> The Davis wing was a high aspect ratio wing with a low angle of
> attack.

I'll step with some trepidation into Pete's territory here as he explains this
stuff far better than I do, but we've been keeping him busy doing calcs. The high
aspect ratio wing provides good L/D ratios, increasing range performance as well as
lift at low angles of attack. Here's how the a/c's aspect ratios stack up, from
low to high:

Stirling 6.72:1;. B-17, 7.58:1; Halifax (early) 7.81:1; Lancaster 8.02:1; Halifax
(late) 8.51:1; B-24, 11.55:1; B-29, 11.48:1.

As you can see, the B-24, designed a couple of years later than the British heavies
and five years or so after the B-17, has a much higher aspect ratio wing, and the
B-29 follows this practice. The wing area of the B-24 was considerably lower than
the others, for low drag. Good altitude performance requires some combination of
low wing-loading (high wing area for weight), engine thrust, and aspect ratio.

While the B-24 had good engine power at altitude and a high aspect ratio, it also
had high wing-loading compared to its contemporaries (not the B-29). It had better
altitude performance than the British a/c because of its engine supercharging, not
its wings. The B-17, with similar supercharging as the B-24 had a higher combat
and service ceiling, because although it had a moderate aspect ratio wing it also
had far lower wing-loading, and was able to fly slower. The B-24 cruised between
10-20 mph IAS faster than the B-17, but then it had to to be comfortable. The
crews hated having to fly in company with B-17s.

It's also easier to make lower aspect ratio wings of the same area stronger for the
same weight, because the stresses can be spread over a longer (and thicker) root,
which is one reason why a/c like the Stirling and B-17 have reputations for being
able to take lots of wing damage and survive, and why a/c like the B-24 had
opposite reps. However, the lower aspect ratio wing requires more area to get the
same lift at the same AoA, increasing drag.

Guy

[Mike Marron]

>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>how can a wing's design decide that?...I'd think that only the
>elevators could control the AOA?.

Also see: F-8 Crusader

-Mike Marron

[[email protected]]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>>>Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
>>>The Davis wing was a high aspect ratio wing with a low angle of
>>>attack.
>
>>Is there something that I'm missing here?...
>
>Probably, but then, that's nothing out of the ordinary for you.
>
>>how can a wing's design decide that?...I'd think that only the
>>elevators could control the AOA?.
>
>He obviously meant low angle-of-incidence (e.g: the acute
>angle which the wing chord makes with the longitudinal axis
>of the A/C). Angle-of-incidence can vary depending on the
>wing design.
>
>-Mike Marron

Really?...seems to me that the angle of incidence would be
decided by the way that the wing was mounted to the
fuselage...how could the DESIGN of the WING itself control the
angle of incidence?.

Some advice, Lay off the personal insults, they aren't helping
your image much.
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
>>how can a wing's design decide that?...I'd think that only the
>>elevators could control the AOA?.
>
>Also see: F-8 Crusader
>
>-Mike Marron
>

Why?

--

-Gord.

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> Guy Alcala > writes:
> > The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 19:07:13 GMT, Guy Alcala
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Not yet, but I've got a bunch of B-25/B-26 books on order from various libraries,
> >> >so hopefully they will have something useful. I've also been reading Alfred
> >> >Price's "Spitfire: A Complete Fighting History," which has some interesting info
> >> >on Mk. V fuel burn, range, Spit drag, etc.
> >>
> >> The most useful I found were the Merlin 45/46 consumption figures with
> >> relevant TAS figures with associated rpm and boost.
> >
> > That was one I was thinking of, but if you've seen it that will save me some typing.
> > I think Pete will find the drag numbers more interesting, but maybe he'd want to see
> > the Mk. V fuel burn numbers as well. If he does and you've got a scanner (I don't),
> > could you send them to him?
>
> I'd love to see it, if I could. If you can't scan it, or cost is an
> issue, or it's just too danged big (sheetfeed scanners are a Good
> Thing), than photocopy it, and mail it, if you wish. I'd be happy to
> scan it for you.

I haven't seen a reply from Gavin to this, so I'll just type the info in. This is from an
official memo sent around to the Fighter stations in August 1942, titled "How to Make Full
use of the Performance of the Spitfire V, VI, and IX." The fuel consumption data is from
Appendix A, "Spitfire VB and VC (Merlin 45 and 46): Approximate Petrol Consumption Figures
at Various Boost and Rev Settings." I'm going to list the data in the format ASI / TAS /
Height / Boost / Revs / Consumption in gal./hr. An asterisk following the latter says to
"Fly at these settings" (for max. range at the specified speed/height):

250 / 255 / 2000 / +4 1/2 / 2000 / 42

230 / 234 / 2000 / +2 3/4 / 1800 / 35*

- / - / 2000 / + 1/2 / 2650 / 40

200 / 203 / 2000 / - 1/2 / 1800 / 31*

- / - / 2000 / -2 1/2 / 2650 / 35

295 / 331 / 10000 / +9 / 3000 / 88

- / - / 10000 / +6 / 2650 / 70

250 / 281 / 10000 / +3 3/4 / 2000 / 42*

- / - / 10000 / +2 / 2650 / 47

200 / 225 / 10000 / -1 1/2 / 1800 / 29*

- / - / 10000 / -3 / 2650 / 35

283 / 368 / 20000 / +9 / 3000 / 88

268 / 350 / 20000 / +6 / 2650 / 70

258 / 300 / 20000 / +3 3/4 / 2650 / 65

240 / 310 / 20000 / +3 3/4 / 2400 / 50

230 / 300 / 20000 / +1 1/2 / 2400 / 46*

- / - / 20000 / +1 / 2650 / 48

200 / 263 / 20000 / -1 3/4 / 2200 / 36*

- / - / 20000 / -2 1/2 / 2650 / 40

216 / 335 / 30000 / +0 / 3000 / 47

180 / 283 / 30000 / -3 1/4 / 2850 / 41*

- / - / 30000 / -3 1/4 / 3000 / 43

Note that the 300 TAS entry for an ASI of 258 mph @ 20,000 feet is clearly a typo, either in
Price or the original. It probably should read 330 or more likely 340 TAS. The report also
states that Mk. V fuel consumption at +16 / 3000 is 150 gph. One of the paragraphs in the
report states "Spitfires are now modified to give +16 emrgency boost. It must be impressed
on pilots that this gives a great increase of speed under 21,500 feet and 18, 250 feet for
Merlin 46 and 45 engines respectively, and that if used for combat only there is no risk of
engine failure."

Here's the drag data promised, for the Mk. I. The drag is measured in pounds at a notional
speed of 100 ft./sec:

Profile Drag:

Wings, 20.3

Fuselage, 7.3

Tailplane, Fin and Rudder, 4.6

Effect of Camouflage Paint, 1.5

Total Profile Drag, 33.7


Induced Drag:

Lift, 2.4

Washout, 0.6

Total Induced Drag, 3.0


Cooling Drag:

Glycol Radiator, 6.0

Oil Radiator, 1.0

Air Intake, 1.0

Total Cooling Drag, 8.0


Miscellaneous:

Controls, 1.2

Windscreen, 1.2

Tail Wheel, 2.0

Wing/Body Interference, 1.5

Aerial Post, 0.2

Gun Holes, 0.5

Rivets and Joints, 0.5

Total Miscellaneous, 7.1


Not Accounted For, 8.4

Total Drag of Aeroplane, 60.2

There's also a fairly detailed weight breakdown for a Mk. I, but enough typing for now.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

" wrote:

> Mike Marron > wrote:
>
> >>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
> >
> >>how can a wing's design decide that?...I'd think that only the
> >>elevators could control the AOA?.
> >
> >Also see: F-8 Crusader
> >
> >-Mike Marron
> >
>
> Why?

An example of an a/c that was able to vary its wing's angle of
incidence in flight. This was presumably intended to be read as
followup to his other message, where he postulates that Al Minyard
was referring to AoI rather than AoA, but that assumes you're
familiar with the F-8. I have a slightly different reading of Al's
intent, but we can let Al tell us what he meant.

Guy

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Guy Alcala
> writes
>Alan Minyard wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:13:14 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >, John Halliwell
>> > writes
>> >>In article >, Geoffrey Sinclair
>> > writes
>> >>>Apparently the outboard sections of the wing were watertight.
>Interestingly
>> >>>the Stirling's wing area was 1,460 square feet, Lancaster 1,297, later
>> >>>Halifaxes 1,275, B-17 1,420, B-24 1,048 and B-29 1,736.
>> >>
>> >>I'm not disputing the figures above, but I thought the B-24 had a larger
>> >>wing area than most contemporary bombers allowing it to fly higher?
>> >>
>> >Was it not the thick section Davis wing that gave it the improved lift?
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >
>> >Dave
>>
>> The Davis wing was a high aspect ratio wing with a low angle of
>> attack.
>
>I'll step with some trepidation into Pete's territory here as he explains this
>stuff far better than I do, but we've been keeping him busy doing calcs. The
>high
>aspect ratio wing provides good L/D ratios, increasing range performance as
>well
>as
>lift at low angles of attack. Here's how the a/c's aspect ratios stack up,
>from
>low to high:
>
>Stirling 6.72:1;. B-17, 7.58:1; Halifax (early) 7.81:1; Lancaster 8.02:1;
>Halifax
>(late) 8.51:1; B-24, 11.55:1; B-29, 11.48:1.
>
>As you can see, the B-24, designed a couple of years later than the British
>heavies
>and five years or so after the B-17, has a much higher aspect ratio wing, and
>the
>B-29 follows this practice. The wing area of the B-24 was considerably lower
>than
>the others, for low drag. Good altitude performance requires some combination
>of
>low wing-loading (high wing area for weight), engine thrust, and aspect ratio.
>
>While the B-24 had good engine power at altitude and a high aspect ratio, it
>also
>had high wing-loading compared to its contemporaries (not the B-29). It had
>better
>altitude performance than the British a/c because of its engine supercharging,
>not
>its wings. The B-17, with similar supercharging as the B-24 had a higher
>combat
>and service ceiling, because although it had a moderate aspect ratio wing it
>also
>had far lower wing-loading, and was able to fly slower. The B-24 cruised
>between
>10-20 mph IAS faster than the B-17, but then it had to to be comfortable. The
>crews hated having to fly in company with B-17s.
>
>It's also easier to make lower aspect ratio wings of the same area stronger for
>the
>same weight, because the stresses can be spread over a longer (and thicker)
>root,
>which is one reason why a/c like the Stirling and B-17 have reputations for
>being
>able to take lots of wing damage and survive, and why a/c like the B-24 had
>opposite reps. However, the lower aspect ratio wing requires more area to get
>the
>same lift at the same AoA, increasing drag.
>
>Guy
>

Agree with all of the above analysis - and thanks for the useful summary
of aspect ratios; both the B-24 and the B-29 must have glided well...

To enlarge on my 'thick wing section' description, and working from
memory of a book read long ago (which can be fatal), I recall that Davis
conceived of a wing section that was based on a mathematically deformed
circle, which he believed would give a more laminar flow. The thicker,
'teardrop-shaped' aerofoil section that resulted was also very useful
structurally, given that he wanted to combine it with a high aspect
ratio wing.

Of course, any wing section inboard of the engines was going to have its
airflow messed up considerably by a few minor essentials; like engine
nacelles and de-icing boots etc etc, but the wing outboard of the
engines may have performed as Davis believed it should during cruise.

True that the high aspect ratio conferred most of the advantages of L/D
ratio, but perhaps Davis's ideas on the wing section itself should not
be forgotten.

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Mike Marron]

>Mike Marron > wrote:
>>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>>Is there something that I'm missing here?...

>Probably, but then, that's nothing out of the ordinary for you.

>>how can a wing's design decide that?...I'd think that only the
>>elevators could control the AOA?.

>He obviously meant low angle-of-incidence (e.g: the acute
>angle which the wing chord makes with the longitudinal axis
>of the A/C). Angle-of-incidence can vary depending on the
>wing design.

>>Really?...seems to me that the angle of incidence would be
>>decided by the way that the wing was mounted to the
>>fuselage...how could the DESIGN of the WING itself control the
>>angle of incidence?.

When Al said that the "Davis wing was a high aspect ratio wing
with a low angle of attack," rather than be contrary, nitpick, pounce
at every opportunity, misconstrue and put words in people's mouth
so as to gratuitously insult and argue for the sheer sake of arguing
like you so enjoy doing, I simply gave him the benefit of the doubt
and assumed he meant angle of INCIDENCE rather than angle of
attack.

>Some advice, Lay off the personal insults, they aren't helping
>your image much.

I'll take this unsolicited, worthless and hypocritical advice from
whence it came: the Sultan of Insults: Sourpuss Don Rickles
(aka: Gord Beaman).

-Mike Marron

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 02:23:14 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

" wrote:
>
>> Mike Marron > wrote:
>>
>> >>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>> >
>> >>how can a wing's design decide that?...I'd think that only the
>> >>elevators could control the AOA?.
>> >
>> >Also see: F-8 Crusader
>> >
>> >-Mike Marron
>> >
>>
>> Why?
>
>An example of an a/c that was able to vary its wing's angle of
>incidence in flight. This was presumably intended to be read as
>followup to his other message, where he postulates that Al Minyard
>was referring to AoI rather than AoA, but that assumes you're
>familiar with the F-8. I have a slightly different reading of Al's
>intent, but we can let Al tell us what he meant.
>
>Guy

Yep, I meant AoI, but my source called it AoA, so I slavishly copied
it that way. I agree that the F-8 was somewhat unique in its ability
to vary the AoI. Of course, with the fuselage horizontal pitch at 0,
AoI equals AoA :-)

Al Minyard

[Mike Marron]

>Guy Alcala > wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>>>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>>>how can a wing's design decide that?...I'd think that only the
>>>elevators could control the AOA?.

>>Also see: F-8 Crusader

>>>Why?

>An example of an a/c that was able to vary its wing's angle of
>incidence in flight.

Correct.

>This was presumably intended to be read as followup to his other
>message, where he postulates that Al Minyard was referring to AoI
>rather than AoA, but that assumes you're familiar with the F-8.

Incorrect. As you said above Guy, it was just an example of an A/C
that was able to vary its wing's angle of incidence in flight.

>I have a slightly different reading of Al's intent, but we can let Al tell
>us what he meant.

Like I've said, I generally tend to give people of the doubt instead
of automatically assuming they're wrong so I can come back with
some gratuitous, knee-jerk, argumentative retort like Gord does.
In other words, even my ab intitio, pre-solo student pilots know
that angle of attack is created by the tailplane providing a force
(positive or negative) in the direction of the lift of the wings.
Depending on whether the wing lift is foward or aft of the CG, the
elevator will have to produce positive or negative lift to rotate the
A/C about its lateral axis. Basic stuff, hence my willingness to
give Al the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant angle of
incidence rather than angle of attack. I could be wrongly
misinterpreting Al, but I'll sit back now and let Al tell us what he
meant.

-Mike Marron
CFII, A&P, UFI (fixed-wing, weightshift land & sea)

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 07:53:32 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
> wrote:


>Agree with all of the above analysis - and thanks for the useful summary
>of aspect ratios; both the B-24 and the B-29 must have glided well...
>
>To enlarge on my 'thick wing section' description, and working from
>memory of a book read long ago (which can be fatal), I recall that Davis
>conceived of a wing section that was based on a mathematically deformed
>circle, which he believed would give a more laminar flow. The thicker,
>'teardrop-shaped' aerofoil section that resulted was also very useful
>structurally, given that he wanted to combine it with a high aspect
>ratio wing.
>
>Of course, any wing section inboard of the engines was going to have its
>airflow messed up considerably by a few minor essentials; like engine
>nacelles and de-icing boots etc etc, but the wing outboard of the
>engines may have performed as Davis believed it should during cruise.
>
>True that the high aspect ratio conferred most of the advantages of L/D
>ratio, but perhaps Davis's ideas on the wing section itself should not
>be forgotten.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dave

Thanks. I knew that Davis had designed a laminar flow section, but was
unaware that the section had increased thickness. Interesting stuff.

Al Minyard

[Mike Marron]

>Mike Marron wrote:
>Also see: F-8 Crusader

>>Gord Beaman wrote:
>>Why?

>>>Guy Alcala wrote:
>>>An example of an a/c that was able to vary its wing's angle of
>>>incidence in flight. This was presumably intended to be read as
>>>followup to his other message, where he postulates that Al Minyard
>>>was referring to AoI rather than AoA, but that assumes you're
>>>familiar with the F-8. I have a slightly different reading of Al's
>>>intent, but we can let Al tell us what he meant.

>>>>Al Minyard wrote:
>>>>Yep, I meant AoI, but my source called it AoA, so I slavishly copied
>>>>it that way.

Common error, but I knew you meant AoI not AoA.

>>>>Al Minyard:
>>>>I agree that the F-8 was somewhat unique in its ability
>>>>to vary the AoI.

Not true. Thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of "variable
incidence" A/C (e.g: flexwing, weightshift A/C known as "trikes")
have been manufactured and are in widespread use throughout
the world as cropdusters, towplanes, aerial observation and
photography platforms, trainers, recreational and military special
forces A/C. I happen to have logged almost 2,000 hrs. in these
magical variable incidence machines myself.

Of course, trikes aren't the only variable incidence A/C, Jack
Northrop's revolutionary flying wing designs such as the XB-35
strategic bomber and XP-56 and XP-74 fighter planes were
also variable incidence. Of course, then there's the B-2 Stealth
bomber.

Unlike a conventional 3-axis A/C, the angle of incidence and
angle of attack in all of these A/C are the same during flight.
The primary difference between my own personal "variable
incidence" A/C and the B-2 with regards to stability is that
the B-2 incorporates a computerized gust load alleviation
system (GLAS) to counteract air turbulence forces whereas
I use my chest and biceps to counteract turbulence! Either
way, watching a tailless, flying wing land is pure poetry in motion
and flying one is pure sex.

>>>>Al Minyard:
>>>>Of course, with the fuselage horizontal pitch at 0, AoI equals
>>>>AoA :-)

Exactly right.

-Mike Marron

[Guy Alcala]

Dave Eadsforth wrote:

<snip>

> To enlarge on my 'thick wing section' description, and working from
> memory of a book read long ago (which can be fatal), I recall that Davis
> conceived of a wing section that was based on a mathematically deformed
> circle, which he believed would give a more laminar flow. The thicker,
> 'teardrop-shaped' aerofoil section that resulted was also very useful
> structurally, given that he wanted to combine it with a high aspect
> ratio wing.
>
> Of course, any wing section inboard of the engines was going to have its
> airflow messed up considerably by a few minor essentials; like engine
> nacelles and de-icing boots etc etc, but the wing outboard of the
> engines may have performed as Davis believed it should during cruise.

<snip>

He was quite irritated that Consolidated didn't provide full covers for the main
gear wheel wells, as he felt that defeated much of the drag reduction.

Guy

[[email protected]]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>>>>>Al Minyard:
>>>>>Of course, with the fuselage horizontal pitch at 0, AoI equals
>>>>>AoA :-)
>
>Exactly right.
>
>-Mike Marron
>
>
>
Ok, I see now why you said "see the F-8 Crusader".
John emailed me this URL which partially explains it's wing
shenanigans.
http://pacificcoastairmuseum.org/2002Site/aircraftPCAM/F8_Crusader/j.asp

Quote from URL:
"No, the wing isn't about to fall off. It was designed to do
this so that the fast moving Crusader could slow down enough to
land on the carriers. This also kept the nose of the airplane
down during landing so the pilot could see."
Unquote

I still don't see the purpose here unless it's _only_ advantage
is the second sentence in the quote there. Why would an increase
in AOA 'help the a/c slow down for a carrier landing'?...of
course it would 'slow down' BUT it'd now be way high on the
glidepath TOO. Just as it would be if you hauled back on the
stick...the _only_ advantage that I can see for this capability
of the F-8 is to lower the nose for better visibility from the
cockpit. Mind you, that must have been a large advantage imo.
'cause it seems to me that that'd be a big engineering project.

Please guys, tell me where I'm wrong here...

A/c is flying smoothly down a three degree glide-path,
the wing's AoA is 5 degrees. AoI is zero. (guesses of course)

Pilot pops the 'AoI switch', AoI becomes 5 degrees, AoA becomes
10 degrees, a/c tries to climb, pilot prevents that by pushing
stick forward, AoA now returns to 5 degrees and a/c ~returns to
glidepath. (Fuselage is now at a steeper angle than it was).

I'll tell you what will help, explain where I'm wrong in calm
terms or ignore this post. Insults about my lineage, my skin
colour, my mental capacity etc will only make you look bad to the
lurkers and won't affect me one whit. (I'm old and tough
skinned). :)



--

-Gord.

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Gord Beaman
<?@?.?> writes
>I still don't see the purpose here unless it's _only_ advantage
>is the second sentence in the quote there. Why would an increase
>in AOA 'help the a/c slow down for a carrier landing'?...of
>course it would 'slow down' BUT it'd now be way high on the
>glidepath TOO. Just as it would be if you hauled back on the
>stick...the _only_ advantage that I can see for this capability
>of the F-8 is to lower the nose for better visibility from the
>cockpit. Mind you, that must have been a large advantage imo.
>'cause it seems to me that that'd be a big engineering project.

Concorde went with physically lowering the nose (out of the pilot's
view) and cranking the AoA right up.

--
John

[Guy Alcala]

" wrote:

> Mike Marron > wrote:
>
> >>>>>Al Minyard:
> >>>>>Of course, with the fuselage horizontal pitch at 0, AoI equals
> >>>>>AoA :-)
> >
> >Exactly right.
> >
> >-Mike Marron
> >
> >
> >
> Ok, I see now why you said "see the F-8 Crusader".
> John emailed me this URL which partially explains it's wing
> shenanigans.
> http://pacificcoastairmuseum.org/2002Site/aircraftPCAM/F8_Crusader/j.asp
>
> Quote from URL:
> "No, the wing isn't about to fall off. It was designed to do
> this so that the fast moving Crusader could slow down enough to
> land on the carriers. This also kept the nose of the airplane
> down during landing so the pilot could see."
> Unquote
>
> I still don't see the purpose here unless it's _only_ advantage
> is the second sentence in the quote there. Why would an increase
> in AOA 'help the a/c slow down for a carrier landing'?...of
> course it would 'slow down' BUT it'd now be way high on the
> glidepath TOO. Just as it would be if you hauled back on the
> stick...the _only_ advantage that I can see for this capability
> of the F-8 is to lower the nose for better visibility from the
> cockpit. Mind you, that must have been a large advantage imo.
> 'cause it seems to me that that'd be a big engineering project.
>
> Please guys, tell me where I'm wrong here...

The other advantage of keeping the fuselage more level is that it provides
more ground clearance at the tail, so you can increase the AoA (and fly
slower) while still maintaining pilot view and sufficient tail clearance.

Guy

[Mike Marron]

>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>Ok, I see now why you said "see the F-8 Crusader".
>John emailed me this URL which partially explains it's wing
>shenanigans.
>http://pacificcoastairmuseum.org/2002Site/aircraftPCAM/F8_Crusader/j.asp

>Quote from URL:
>"No, the wing isn't about to fall off. It was designed to do
>this so that the fast moving Crusader could slow down enough to
>land on the carriers. This also kept the nose of the airplane
>down during landing so the pilot could see."
>Unquote

>I still don't see the purpose here unless it's _only_ advantage
>is the second sentence in the quote there. Why would an increase
>in AOA 'help the a/c slow down for a carrier landing'?...of
>course it would 'slow down' BUT it'd now be way high on the
>glidepath TOO. Just as it would be if you hauled back on the
>stick...

Haven't you heard the old axiom, "pitch for airspeed, power
for altitude?" (See below).

>the _only_ advantage that I can see for this capability
>of the F-8 is to lower the nose for better visibility from the
>cockpit. Mind you, that must have been a large advantage imo.
>'cause it seems to me that that'd be a big engineering project.

The F-8 won the Collier Trophy for the year's (mid 1950's) greatest
achievement in aviation. Besides just increasing the visibility, the
variable incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast
fighter to maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.

>Please guys, tell me where I'm wrong here...

>A/c is flying smoothly down a three degree glide-path,
>the wing's AoA is 5 degrees. AoI is zero. (guesses of course)

>Pilot pops the 'AoI switch', AoI becomes 5 degrees, AoA becomes
>10 degrees, a/c tries to climb, pilot prevents that by pushing
>stick forward, AoA now returns to 5 degrees and a/c ~returns to
>glidepath. (Fuselage is now at a steeper angle than it was).

You're not just along for the ride so before you start flipping
switches and reconfiguring the A/C for the approach and
landing you anticipate changes in airspeed, drag, power and
stick pressure etc. so as to stay on the glideslope w/o exceeding
your critical angle of attack.

In other words, in your scenario above when the pilot increases
the wing angle of incidence (7-deg's), he simultaneously adjusts
his pitch and throttle settings as needed so as to remain stabilized
on the glideslope. He just doesn't gaily "pop the AoI switch" and
then react to what the airplane does...he thinks ahead and anticipates
what the airplane will do and plans accordingly (e.g: "fly the
plane" and pitch for airspeed power for altitude" etc.).

Maybe an F-8 driver can jump in here and explain better than I can.
I can only tell you that when landing my variable incidence A/C,
I can adjust the wing's angle of incidence (instantly if I wish)
simply by pushing the control bar full forward (unlike a conventional
airplane, the stick is situated horizontally so it's called a "bar"),
or pulling the bar full aft into my gut. And I can coordinate the wing
angle of incidence/attack and throttle depending on the type
of landing (e.g: short field, soft-field, crosswind, solo or 2-up, wet
or dry wing, etc.) fully stabilized on the glideslope w/o porpoising
up and down and/or making any radical changes in airspeed...


-Mike ( could land 3 times [crowhop] on an aircraft carrier ;) Marron

[[email protected]]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>
>In other words, in your scenario above when the pilot increases
>the wing angle of incidence (7-deg's), he simultaneously adjusts
>his pitch and throttle settings as needed so as to remain stabilized
>on the glideslope. He just doesn't gaily "pop the AoI switch" and
>then react to what the airplane does...he thinks ahead and anticipates
>what the airplane will do and plans accordingly (e.g: "fly the
>plane" and pitch for airspeed power for altitude" etc.).
>

Of course Mike, I understand that but I just broke it down so
that it's easier for me to describe.

I still don't see what this AoI control will do _other_ than
give the pilot better downward visibility for landing and less
drag for high speed operation. Is there some other aspect that
I'm not seeing?...or is that it in a nutshell?...

It doesn't help to compare conventional a/c with ultra-lights
because I don't understand them very well.


--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

Guy Alcala > wrote:

>
>The other advantage of keeping the fuselage more level is that it provides
>more ground clearance at the tail, so you can increase the AoA (and fly
>slower) while still maintaining pilot view and sufficient tail clearance.
>
>Guy

Yes...that makes sense, perhaps they designed the a/c for very
high speed flight by having the AoI very low to reduce drag but
needed to increase the Aoi for landing to, as you say, allow
'eventless' landings... :)
--

-Gord.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Guy Alcala > writes:
> I'll step with some trepidation into Pete's territory here as he explains this
> stuff far better than I do, but we've been keeping him busy doing calcs. The high
> aspect ratio wing provides good L/D ratios, increasing range performance as well as
> lift at low angles of attack. Here's how the a/c's aspect ratios stack up, from
> low to high:
>
> Stirling 6.72:1;. B-17, 7.58:1; Halifax (early) 7.81:1; Lancaster 8.02:1; Halifax
> (late) 8.51:1; B-24, 11.55:1; B-29, 11.48:1.
>
> As you can see, the B-24, designed a couple of years later than the British heavies
> and five years or so after the B-17, has a much higher aspect ratio wing, and the
> B-29 follows this practice. The wing area of the B-24 was considerably lower than
> the others, for low drag. Good altitude performance requires some combination of
> low wing-loading (high wing area for weight), engine thrust, and aspect ratio.
>
> While the B-24 had good engine power at altitude and a high aspect ratio, it also
> had high wing-loading compared to its contemporaries (not the B-29). It had better
> altitude performance than the British a/c because of its engine supercharging, not
> its wings. The B-17, with similar supercharging as the B-24 had a higher combat
> and service ceiling, because although it had a moderate aspect ratio wing it also
> had far lower wing-loading, and was able to fly slower. The B-24 cruised between
> 10-20 mph IAS faster than the B-17, but then it had to to be comfortable. The
> crews hated having to fly in company with B-17s.
>
> It's also easier to make lower aspect ratio wings of the same area stronger for the
> same weight, because the stresses can be spread over a longer (and thicker) root,
> which is one reason why a/c like the Stirling and B-17 have reputations for being
> able to take lots of wing damage and survive, and why a/c like the B-24 had
> opposite reps. However, the lower aspect ratio wing requires more area to get the
> same lift at the same AoA, increasing drag.

A good job, Guy. If you don't mind, I'll dig a little deeper. into
some details.

The selection of Aspect Ratio and Wing Area are one of those tradeoff
deals. A high Aspect Ratio means that the Induced Drag (Drag due to
lift) is lower, for a given Lift Coefficient, and a low wing loading
means that the Coefficient of Lift can be lower. This is really
important at relatively low Equivalant Air Speeds, where the wing is
working hard to keep the airplane flying. As the speed goes up, the
Lift Coefficient decreases with the square of the speed, and the
Induced Drag coefficient drops with square of the lift coefficient, so
it decreases quite rapidly. Depending on what fraction of the total
drag is Induced Drag, Aspect Ratio might not be all that important.

I'll add the Stirling to the list, BTW. It should make an interesting
contrast to the Lancaster in terms of how the tradeoffs fall.

"Quest for Performance", L.K. Loftin, NASA History Office, 1985,
available online, has a quite good explanation and analysis of the
directions that designing high performance airplanes took through the
first 80 or so years. The data tables list the following values for
the various airplanes.

Airplane: Aspect Ratio Wing Loading Cruise Speed L/Dmax
B-17G 7.58 38.7 182 12.7
B-24J 11.55 53.4 215 12.9
B-29 11.50 69.1 253 16.8

Altitudes in cases would be 25,000', (Critical Altitude for the
turbosupercharged engines, in each case) and all speeds are True
Airspeed.

Note that the B-24 and B-29 have almost identical Aspect Ratios, but
the B-29 has a significantly higher wing loading. In general, this
means that the B-29 will have more induced drag than the B-24. But it
also cruises much faster. This is due to the lower total drag of the
airplane due to the much more streamlined shape.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Gord Beaman" ) writes:
> Mike Marron > wrote:
>
>>
>>In other words, in your scenario above when the pilot increases
>>the wing angle of incidence (7-deg's), he simultaneously adjusts
>>his pitch and throttle settings as needed so as to remain stabilized
>>on the glideslope. He just doesn't gaily "pop the AoI switch" and
>>then react to what the airplane does...he thinks ahead and anticipates
>>what the airplane will do and plans accordingly (e.g: "fly the
>>plane" and pitch for airspeed power for altitude" etc.).
>>
>
> Of course Mike, I understand that but I just broke it down so
> that it's easier for me to describe.
>
> I still don't see what this AoI control will do _other_ than
> give the pilot better downward visibility for landing and less
> drag for high speed operation. Is there some other aspect that
> I'm not seeing?...or is that it in a nutshell?...

No, that's pretty much it, really. The wing, for purposes of lift,
doesn't care particularly much what the attitude of teh fuselage is.
The variable incidence wing on the F-8 allowed better visibility, and,
as Guy said, better deck clearance, but it also allowed a shorter and
stronger main landing gear. This was pretty important in the
Crusader, as the loads on the gear as it trapped on the carriers of
the day were pretty much pushing the limit of what would work.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[John Keeney]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Marron > wrote:
>
> >
> >In other words, in your scenario above when the pilot increases
> >the wing angle of incidence (7-deg's), he simultaneously adjusts
> >his pitch and throttle settings as needed so as to remain stabilized
> >on the glideslope. He just doesn't gaily "pop the AoI switch" and
> >then react to what the airplane does...he thinks ahead and anticipates
> >what the airplane will do and plans accordingly (e.g: "fly the
> >plane" and pitch for airspeed power for altitude" etc.).
> >
>
> Of course Mike, I understand that but I just broke it down so
> that it's easier for me to describe.
>
> I still don't see what this AoI control will do _other_ than
> give the pilot better downward visibility for landing and less
> drag for high speed operation. Is there some other aspect that
> I'm not seeing?...or is that it in a nutshell?...

a) Improved visibility over the nose, that's good.
b) Greater clearance for the tail, that's good.
c) Thrust line stays closer to horizontal. Good? Not sure...
Any thing else?

A & b would seem significant when making carrier landings.

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Guy Alcala
> writes
>Dave Eadsforth wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> To enlarge on my 'thick wing section' description, and working from
>> memory of a book read long ago (which can be fatal), I recall that Davis
>> conceived of a wing section that was based on a mathematically deformed
>> circle, which he believed would give a more laminar flow. The thicker,
>> 'teardrop-shaped' aerofoil section that resulted was also very useful
>> structurally, given that he wanted to combine it with a high aspect
>> ratio wing.
>>
>> Of course, any wing section inboard of the engines was going to have its
>> airflow messed up considerably by a few minor essentials; like engine
>> nacelles and de-icing boots etc etc, but the wing outboard of the
>> engines may have performed as Davis believed it should during cruise.
>
><snip>
>
>He was quite irritated that Consolidated didn't provide full covers for the
>main
>gear wheel wells, as he felt that defeated much of the drag reduction.
>
>Guy
>
Some penny-pinching accountant at work perhaps?

I was always mystified by the fact that the Spitfire didn't get full
wheel-well covers until late in the war - they went to all that trouble
gluing split peas all over the wing to optimise the placement of flush
and round headed rivets and missed out on some thing that seems even
more obvious (unless the drag from the wheel well really was
inconsequential up to speeds of 400 mph or so - but that seems a bit
counter instinctive).

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Dave Eadsforth
> writes
>Some penny-pinching accountant at work perhaps?
>
>I was always mystified by the fact that the Spitfire didn't get full
>wheel-well covers until late in the war - they went to all that trouble
>gluing split peas all over the wing to optimise the placement of flush
>and round headed rivets and missed out on some thing that seems even
>more obvious (unless the drag from the wheel well really was
>inconsequential up to speeds of 400 mph or so - but that seems a bit
>counter instinctive).

I think originally it simplified the gear retraction 'hydraulics'. The
first Spits had a hand pump to retract the gear, which required IIRC 27
pumps to fully retract it. I guess the full wheel well covers probably
came along with the retractable tail wheel (possibly more important?) as
well?

--
John

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Guy alcala wrote in message

>Vader states that the Mk VIIIs had the 'C' wing, which implies that
>the Mk. IXs should have been able to be given LE tanks with little
>difficulty. I'm under the impression that the substantive changes to
>the Mk. VII/VIII were in the fuselage, and except for the tanks the
>wings were identical. Does anyone actually KNOW what the
>structural/internal changes were from the Mk.V/IX etc. to the Mk.
>VII/VIII? We all know about the tail wheel, but there had to be more
>than that.


More information from Morgan and Shacklady,
Spitfire weights, tare / take off / maximum

VA 4,981 / 6,416 / 6,700
VB 5,065 / 6,622 / 6,700
VC (B wing) 5,081 / 6,785 / 7,300
VC (C Wing) 5,081 / 7,106.5 / 7,300

So if this is correct an extra 16 pounds was added, presumably
to the fuselage, between the B and C versions. The book is also
saying the VC version is not defined by the wings fitted, A or B
or C wings, there is something else. The VC was a definite
change, and able to carry 600 pounds more weight, presumably
mainly by strengthening the undercarriage.

The second production VC AA874 (Merlin 45) was weighed with
A, then B then C wings, weights in pounds, CoG in inches

wing / tare / tare CoG / all up weight / all up CoG
A / 5,048 / 2.31 / 6,499 / 10.9
B / 5,048 / 2.31 / 6,737 / 10.9
C / 5,048 / 2.31 / 6,969 / 7.65

The mark VI, the pressure cabin version of the V, weights,

tare 5,227 pounds, take off 6,797, maximum 6,850.

AB450 was the prototype mark VII. It was a standard mark V
with the following modifications, extended wing tips, 4 bladed
propeller, retractable tail wheel, tail parachute fin guard, Merlin
61 with twin underwing radiators.

The certificate of design general description was "This
aeroplane is the prototype of the F Mk VII and F Mk VIII
production Spitfires. Components of existing types with some
modifications as used as indicated. Fuselage Spitfire Mk VI
with the forward bay reinforced for Merlin 61 engine. Spitfire
F Mk 20 tail unit, Spitfire Mk V elevator and rudder. Mainplane
Spitfire F VC with spar flanges reinforced and lead ballast
added in outer portions of the wings. Main chassis Spitfire
F Mk VC leg and support structure. Spitfire F Mk VII production
wheel and tyre equipment. Tail chassis, Spitfire F Mk VII
production. Tare weight 5,201 pounds, maximum all up 8,000."

Production VII tare weight 5,947 pounds or 5,887 pounds,
depending on the hood used, take off 7,928 pounds, maximum
8,000 pounds. This indicates there probably was some fuselage
strengthening between the prototype and production.

Morgan and Shacklady state the mark VIII had the fuselage further
strengthened over the mark VII, with the VIII weights as Tare 5,806
pounds, take off 7,779 pounds maximum 8,000 pounds. This looks
like the VII without the extra wing tips and pressure cabin gear.

Mark VIII 2 cannon and 4 browning, weights in pounds and CG in
inches tare 5,861 and 0.2 landing 6,710 and 4.9, normal load
7,831 and 5.9, 30 gallon overload tank 8,131 and 6.4, 90
gallon overload tank 8,648 and 7.0. The figures are repeated
for a 4 cannon version, interestingly tare weight is the same
but all the other weights are around 200 pounds more, and the
CG figures 0.1 to 0.3 greater. CG measured aft of datum.
Since a pair of 20 mm cannons came in at around 200 pounds
and 4 brownings at around 100 pounds this would seem to
indicate tare weights are with the armament removed.

F Mark IX tare 5,816 pounds, take off 7,295.5 pounds, maximum
7,500 pounds. After notes about overload tanks and bombs comes
the entry "ballast 92.5".

F IXE tare 5,816, take off 7,181.5, max 7,500.

Perhaps a look at the PR IV which was the PR version of the V
and normally had the cameras located behind the cockpit, they
also carried radio, TR 1133 or 1143.

Tankage front fuselage 48 upper 37 lower, same as mark V,
2 x wing leading edge tanks 66.5 gallons each, total 218
gallons. Oil tank 18 gallons in port wing between ribs 9 and 12.

Tare weight 4,935 pounds, take off weight 7,148 pounds (W),
7,155 (X), 7,119.5 (Y). Max permissible 6,500 pounds (yes
six thousand five hundred, a typo I presume). Tail ballast 17.5
pounds.

W version 2 x F8 20 inch split vertical fanned between fuselage
frames 13 and 15 inclined 10 degrees to the vertical and 20
degrees to each other.

X version 2 F24 14 split vertical fanned and 1 F24 8 or 14 inch
oblique mounted as W version with oblique over front F24.
Inclined 8.5 degrees to the vertical and 17 degrees to each other.

Y version, F52 36 inch vertical used only for bomb damage
assessment, mounted between frames 13 and 14.

PR VII, same as IV except,

Tankage front fuselage 48 upper 37 lower, same as mark V,
rear fuselage 29, total 114. Oil 5.8 gallon, in tank under engine.
No radio. Weights tare 4,985 pounds, take off 6,584 pounds,
maximum 6,590. CoG moved forward as fuel was consumed.

Cameras, G installation, F24 5 or 8 inch vertical (front) and F24
8 or 14 inch vertical (rear) between frames 13 and 14 and 1 F24
8 or 14 inch oblique mounted above front camera.

Some PR VIII had A wing armament.

From Spitfire by Peter Moss, the initial hand converted PR
versions from Spitfire I had a 29 gallon fuel tank under the
pilot's seat and a 64 pound camera installation behind
the cockpit, no radio though. It all worked because there
was 32 pounds of removable ballast in the tail to compensate
for the mark I moving to a heavier 3 bladed propeller.

If the ballast figures are correct there is obviously some room
for extra fuselage tanks, the maximum take off weight comes
into play though. It appears 315 British gallons of 100 octane
fuel comes to 2,240 pounds, for 80 Octane fuel 300 gallons
weigh 2,240 pounds.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Geoffrey Sinclair wrote in message ...

>The Stirling
>wingspan was 99 feet 1 inch versus the B-17 103 feet 9 inches, it was
>also the thickest wing, able to carry bombs in cells within the inner wing.
>three cells on each side capable of carrying 500 pound bombs at least.


I should add the Halifax also had 3 cells in each wing for 500
pound bombs, from Halifax : an illustrated history of a classic
World War 2 bomber by Kenneth A. Merrick.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Mike Marron]

(Peter Stickney) wrote:

[B-24 vs. B-29 wing specs snipped for brevity]

>But it also cruises much faster. This is due to the lower total drag
>of the airplane due to the much more streamlined shape.

Not to mention the Superfort's extra *4,000* total horsepower and four
humongous four-blade 17-ft. diameter props!

-Mike Marron

[Mike Marron]

>"John Keeney" > wrote:
>>"Gord Beaman" > wrote:
>>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>>In other words, in your scenario above when the pilot increases
>>>the wing angle of incidence (7-deg's), he simultaneously adjusts
>>>his pitch and throttle settings as needed so as to remain stabilized
>>>on the glideslope. He just doesn't gaily "pop the AoI switch" and
>>>then react to what the airplane does...he thinks ahead and anticipates
>>>what the airplane will do and plans accordingly (e.g: "fly the
>>>plane" and pitch for airspeed power for altitude" etc.).

>>Of course Mike, I understand that but I just broke it down so
>>that it's easier for me to describe.

>>I still don't see what this AoI control will do _other_ than
>>give the pilot better downward visibility for landing and less
>>drag for high speed operation. Is there some other aspect that
>>I'm not seeing?...or is that it in a nutshell?...

As I mentioned in my response to you (the important part that you
snipped), besides just increasing the visibility, the variable
incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast fighter to
maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.

In other words Gord, the variable incidence wasn't designed to give
the F-8 "less drag for high speed operation," it was designed to give
the F-8 MORE drag (as the result of more LIFT) for SLOW speed
operation in order to land aboard carriers.

Also, if you peddle back to that website that you posted depicting
a close-up of the Crusader's wing in the raised position, you will
clearly see how the raised portion of the wing assembly directly
above the fuselage is flat as a sheet of plywood and protrudes
right into the relative wind -- effectively functioning as a speed
brake.

>a) Improved visibility over the nose, that's good.
>b) Greater clearance for the tail, that's good.
>c) Thrust line stays closer to horizontal. Good? Not sure...
>Any thing else?

I could be wrong, but I don't see any reason why the thrust line
staying closer to horizontal would be a "bad" thing. In the event
of a waveoff the pilot simply has to light the burner and go around
w/o making any drastic adjustments in angle of attack because
the raised wing is already configured for takeoff.

>A & b would seem significant when making carrier landings.

Agreed. Although the 20-30 kt. wind over the deck is laminar
and smooth, the part curling down over the fantail is not which
can cause a sudden increase in rate of sink at precisely the
most inopportune time (e.g: ramp strike!)

-Mike Marron

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Mike Marron
> writes
>Not to mention the Superfort's extra *4,000* total horsepower and four
>humongous four-blade 17-ft. diameter props!

That brings a comparison between the B-29 and Shackleton wings/engines
into the equation I guess.

--
John

[Mike Marron]

>John Halliwell > wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>Not to mention the Superfort's extra *4,000* total horsepower and four
>>humongous four-blade 17-ft. diameter props!

>That brings a comparison between the B-29 and Shackleton wings/engines
>into the equation I guess.

Nah, the Shackleton was a frumpy Brit post-war bomber
hopelessly outclassed by the sleek and futuristic B-29
which actually saw combat in both WW2 and Korea and
later copied by the Soviets.

If you want to compare post-war recip bomber aircraft, you'd
have to compare the Shackleton to the B-50 in which case the
Shackleton becomes even more hopelessly outclassed:

Shackleton total HP: 9,600 (B-50: 14,000)
Shackleton max speed: 287 mph (B-50: 385 mph)
Shackleton service ceiling: 22,000 ft. (B-50: 37,000 ft.)
Shackleton range: 2,500 miles (B-50: 4,650 miles)
Shackleton bombload: 18,000 lbs. (B-50: 20,000 lbs.)


-Mike Marron

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

<snip>

> "Quest for Performance", L.K. Loftin, NASA History Office, 1985,
> available online, has a quite good explanation and analysis of the
> directions that designing high performance airplanes took through the
> first 80 or so years. The data tables list the following values for
> the various airplanes.
>
> Airplane: Aspect Ratio Wing Loading Cruise Speed L/Dmax
> B-17G 7.58 38.7 182 12.7
> B-24J 11.55 53.4 215 12.9
> B-29 11.50 69.1 253 16.8
>
> Altitudes in cases would be 25,000', (Critical Altitude for the
> turbosupercharged engines, in each case) and all speeds are True
> Airspeed.

Something appears seriously wrong with the B-17G cruise speed. At 25,000 feet, 182 TAS
works out to only 124 CAS, and we know the a/c normally cruised at 150-160 IAS (TAS about
215-240 at typical bombing altitudes) and climbed at about 130-140 IAS, vs. 160-180 IAS
cruise for the B-24. There's no way the position error is that high, and compressiblity
error is just 1-2% at that speed and altitude.

Guy

[[email protected]]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>
>As I mentioned in my response to you (the important part that you
>snipped), besides just increasing the visibility, the variable
>incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast fighter to
>maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.
>

That doesn't make sense to me Mike...as Peter and John say the
higher AoI used for landing allows the fuselage to be more
horizontal (better pilot visibility, keeps the tail higher when
in landing attitude and allows for shorter (stronger)
undercarriage...

>In other words Gord, the variable incidence wasn't designed to give
>the F-8 "less drag for high speed operation,"

I think it was, it gets the fuselage 'more in line with the wing
chord' which 'has' to reduce drag.

Why do all the engineering to design this complication if it
isn't a very important aspect?. I think that the 'only' reason
for the 'variable AoI' was to allow for low drag (and high speed)
flight yet ~normal fuselage attitude for landing (for pilot vis
plus normal u/c config)...

I think that it's possible that on an a/c with a very low AoI
like this the extreme nose up attitude of the fuselage (to get
enough AoA on short final) may not be 'liveable' because of what
John mentions (tail strikes) plus very poor pilot visibility plus
the requirement for very longlegged u/c as Peter mentioned.

>it was designed to give
>the F-8 MORE drag (as the result of more LIFT) for SLOW speed
>operation in order to land aboard carriers.
>

Why?...you won't get any more 'lift and drag'
(you can get all you want with the elevators) BUT you WILL have a
much more fuselage 'nose up' attitude if you cannot increase your
AoI for landing.


--

-Gord.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Mike Marron
> writes
>If you want to compare post-war recip bomber aircraft, you'd
>have to compare the Shackleton to the B-50 in which case the
>Shackleton becomes even more hopelessly outclassed:

Compare out-of-service dates before you get too carried away :)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Mike Marron]

>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>As I mentioned in my response to you (the important part that you
>>snipped), besides just increasing the visibility, the variable
>>incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast fighter to
>>maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.

>That doesn't make sense to me Mike...as Peter and John say the
>higher AoI used for landing allows the fuselage to be more
>horizontal (better pilot visibility, keeps the tail higher when
>in landing attitude and allows for shorter (stronger)
>undercarriage...

With regards to the the improved visibility aspect, Peter and
John didn't just say it, everybody (including you and me) said
it. Regarding the part that you don't seem to get (increasing
the angle of incidence so as to help the jet maintain slower
speeds for carrier ops), well, I've tried explaining it to you
numerous differerent ways now and you still don't/won't get it.
Therefore, I'm done. Maybe someone else can try explaining
it to you Gord.

-Mike Marron

[[email protected]]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>
>>>As I mentioned in my response to you (the important part that you
>>>snipped), besides just increasing the visibility, the variable
>>>incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast fighter to
>>>maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.
>
>>That doesn't make sense to me Mike...as Peter and John say the
>>higher AoI used for landing allows the fuselage to be more
>>horizontal (better pilot visibility, keeps the tail higher when
>>in landing attitude and allows for shorter (stronger)
>>undercarriage...
>
>With regards to the the improved visibility aspect, Peter and
>John didn't just say it, everybody (including you and me) said
>it. Regarding the part that you don't seem to get (increasing
>the angle of incidence so as to help the jet maintain slower
>speeds for carrier ops), well, I've tried explaining it to you
>numerous differerent ways now and you still don't/won't get it.
>Therefore, I'm done. Maybe someone else can try explaining
>it to you Gord.
>
>-Mike Marron
>

Ok Mike...thanks for your efforts anyway, I appreciate it.
--

-Gord.

[Mike Marron]

>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>>Mike Marron > writes

>>If you want to compare post-war recip bomber aircraft, you'd
>>have to compare the Shackleton to the B-50 in which case the
>>Shackleton becomes even more hopelessly outclassed:

>Compare out-of-service dates before you get too carried away :)

I once knew a barber who had been cutting hair for 40 years...

-Mike ( never was capable of giving a decent haircut ;) Marron

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Mike Marron
> writes
>>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>>>Mike Marron > writes
>>>If you want to compare post-war recip bomber aircraft, you'd
>>>have to compare the Shackleton to the B-50 in which case the
>>>Shackleton becomes even more hopelessly outclassed:
>
>>Compare out-of-service dates before you get too carried away :)
>
>I once knew a barber who had been cutting hair for 40 years...
>
>-Mike ( never was capable of giving a decent haircut ;) Marron

Yeah, but the B-50 was completely outclassed by the B-36 and look how
long _that_ lasted...

Meanwhile the Shackleton flew on until the 1980s, and the almost equally
ancient Canberra flies on still. When a design finds the right niche, it
can be very long-lived.

(Look at the C-130 and the B-52)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Mike Marron]

>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

>Meanwhile the Shackleton flew on until the 1980s, and the almost equally
>ancient Canberra flies on still. When a design finds the right niche, it
>can be very long-lived.

Thank gawd the Brits managed to find a niche for the Shackleton other
than as a post-war strategic bomber!

-Mike (Shackleton = easy pickins) Marron

[Greg Hennessy]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:57:15 -0400, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:


>Note that the B-24 and B-29 have almost identical Aspect Ratios, but
>the B-29 has a significantly higher wing loading. In general, this
>means that the B-29 will have more induced drag than the B-24. But it
>also cruises much faster. This is due to the lower total drag of the
>airplane due to the much more streamlined shape.

Be interesting to see how they both compared to the B-32.


greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Mike Marron
> writes
>Nah, the Shackleton was a frumpy Brit post-war bomber
>hopelessly outclassed by the sleek and futuristic B-29
>which actually saw combat in both WW2 and Korea and
>later copied by the Soviets.

I was responding to the post that suggested the B-29 performance was due
largely to lots of power and 17ft props, whilst the Shackleton with
slightly more power (4x 2,450 Vs 4x 2,200 from my sources) and contra-
props offered more mundane performance. Therefore power is not
everything and there must be a significant design difference between the
two.

--
John

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Mike Marron > writes:
(Peter Stickney) wrote:
>
> [B-24 vs. B-29 wing specs snipped for brevity]
>
>>But it also cruises much faster. This is due to the lower total drag
>>of the airplane due to the much more streamlined shape.
>
> Not to mention the Superfort's extra *4,000* total horsepower and four
> humongous four-blade 17-ft. diameter props!

Seems that this has come up before. Actually, no, the extra power
really down't enter into it.

Cruise (Max L/D) occurs at the Equivalent Airspeed where the drag is
at a minimum. This occurs at the point where the Induced Drag, which
is decreasing as the speed increases(4th root of EAS), and the Profile
Drag, which is increasing with the square of the EAS. That's the
point where the minumum amount of thrust/power to keep flying occurs.
Note that the amount of installed power doesn't enter into it at all.

High power is useful, however, for times when more power than that
requiring maintaining cruising flight is important, such as when
climbing, or for takeoff, or maneuvering flight.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Mike Marron > writes:
>>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
>>Meanwhile the Shackleton flew on until the 1980s, and the almost equally
>>ancient Canberra flies on still. When a design finds the right niche, it
>>can be very long-lived.
>
> Thank gawd the Brits managed to find a niche for the Shackleton other
> than as a post-war strategic bomber!

Erm, Mike, even though the Shack was, in fact used as a bomber (Kenya,
Aden, and, I think, Malaysia), and it was the last of the Lancaster
breed, it was never intended to be a strategic bomber. The RAF's
Strategic Bomber when the Shackleton entered service was the
Washington, am MDAP provided B-29, which filled in the gap between the
Lincoln and the Valiant. The Shackleton, as its name implies, was
always intended as a Maritime Patrol airplane for Coastal Command.
(RAF Bombers, except for the V-bombers, were named after cities.
Patrol Aircraft were named after explorers.)


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Mike Marron > writes:
>>"John Keeney" > wrote:
>>>"Gord Beaman" > wrote:
>>>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>
>>>>In other words, in your scenario above when the pilot increases
>>>>the wing angle of incidence (7-deg's), he simultaneously adjusts
>>>>his pitch and throttle settings as needed so as to remain stabilized
>>>>on the glideslope. He just doesn't gaily "pop the AoI switch" and
>>>>then react to what the airplane does...he thinks ahead and anticipates
>>>>what the airplane will do and plans accordingly (e.g: "fly the
>>>>plane" and pitch for airspeed power for altitude" etc.).
>
>>>Of course Mike, I understand that but I just broke it down so
>>>that it's easier for me to describe.
>
>>>I still don't see what this AoI control will do _other_ than
>>>give the pilot better downward visibility for landing and less
>>>drag for high speed operation. Is there some other aspect that
>>>I'm not seeing?...or is that it in a nutshell?...
>
> As I mentioned in my response to you (the important part that you
> snipped), besides just increasing the visibility, the variable
> incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast fighter to
> maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.
>
> In other words Gord, the variable incidence wasn't designed to give
> the F-8 "less drag for high speed operation," it was designed to give
> the F-8 MORE drag (as the result of more LIFT) for SLOW speed
> operation in order to land aboard carriers.

OK Mike, tell me how that would occur. The wing doesn't care whether
the fuslage is aligned with it, is hanging down a bit from a hinge,
like an F-8, or is hanging underneath it by a flexible coupleing like
your trike. An F-8 will stall at the same EAS wing up or down, flap &
slat settings being the same. There's no extra lift. As far as the
wing is concerned, the Clmax, and the Angle of Attack required to get
it, is the same.

Now, if you're trying to say that, with a Crusader's wing up, it can
reach that Angle of Attack with a lower fuselage angle, than you are
in violent agreement with the rest of us.
>
> Also, if you peddle back to that website that you posted depicting
> a close-up of the Crusader's wing in the raised position, you will
> clearly see how the raised portion of the wing assembly directly
> above the fuselage is flat as a sheet of plywood and protrudes
> right into the relative wind -- effectively functioning as a speed
> brake.

Irrelevant as far as lift is concerned. And if they needed a Speed
Drake, they'd have designed the speed brake differently. (The F-8's
board was under the fuselage, much like an F-100's, and couldn't be
used for landing.)
>
>>a) Improved visibility over the nose, that's good.
>>b) Greater clearance for the tail, that's good.
>>c) Thrust line stays closer to horizontal. Good? Not sure...
>>Any thing else?
>
> I could be wrong, but I don't see any reason why the thrust line
> staying closer to horizontal would be a "bad" thing. In the event
> of a waveoff the pilot simply has to light the burner and go around
> w/o making any drastic adjustments in angle of attack because
> the raised wing is already configured for takeoff.

Actually, with the typical AoA that a low aspect ratio jet is at
during a landing approach. there's a pretty reasonable chunk of the
jet's thrust pointed down, counteracting some of the weight. Sort of
a poor man's Harrier, if you will.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Mike Marron]

(Peter Stickney) wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>Not to mention the Superfort's extra *4,000* total horsepower and four
>>humongous four-blade 17-ft. diameter props!

>Seems that this has come up before. Actually, no, the extra power
>really down't enter into it.

>Cruise (Max L/D) occurs at the Equivalent Airspeed where the drag is
>at a minimum. This occurs at the point where the Induced Drag, which
>is decreasing as the speed increases(4th root of EAS), and the Profile
>Drag, which is increasing with the square of the EAS. That's the
>point where the minumum amount of thrust/power to keep flying occurs.
>Note that the amount of installed power doesn't enter into it at all.

>High power is useful, however, for times when more power than that
>requiring maintaining cruising flight is important, such as when
>climbing, or for takeoff, or maneuvering flight.

Interesting stuff. So lemme get this all straight: if you removed and
replaced the B-29's four R-3350's with R-1830's, that would NOT
reduce the cruise or top speed and although the Shackleton dropped
bombs from time to time it was NOT a bomber and the variable
incidence wing on the F-8 did NOT to enable it to maintain the slower
speeds necessary for carrier landings and the flat, raised portion of
the wing assembly directly above the F-8 fuselage did NOT serve
as a speed brake. Gotcha...

-Mike (mucho gracias!) Marron

[Michael Williamson]

Mike Marron wrote:
>>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>>
>>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>As I mentioned in my response to you (the important part that you
>>>snipped), besides just increasing the visibility, the variable
>>>incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast fighter to
>>>maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.
>>
>
>>That doesn't make sense to me Mike...as Peter and John say the
>>higher AoI used for landing allows the fuselage to be more
>>horizontal (better pilot visibility, keeps the tail higher when
>>in landing attitude and allows for shorter (stronger)
>>undercarriage...
>
>
> With regards to the the improved visibility aspect, Peter and
> John didn't just say it, everybody (including you and me) said
> it. Regarding the part that you don't seem to get (increasing
> the angle of incidence so as to help the jet maintain slower
> speeds for carrier ops), well, I've tried explaining it to you
> numerous differerent ways now and you still don't/won't get it.
> Therefore, I'm done. Maybe someone else can try explaining
> it to you Gord.

No offense Mike, but it doesn't make sense to me either. The
wing will produce the same amount of lift at a given airspeed/
AOA combination, regardless of its relation to the fuselage.
Pivoting the fuselage below the wing won't allow slower
flight, since the wing is the deciding factor. You will have
(again) a lower fuselage angle so that you can actually see
where you are going, but the stall speed shouldn't be affected.

Mike Williamson

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> Mike Marron > writes:
> >>"John Keeney" > wrote:
> >>>"Gord Beaman" > wrote:
> >>>>Mike Marron > wrote:
> >
> >>>>In other words, in your scenario above when the pilot increases
> >>>>the wing angle of incidence (7-deg's), he simultaneously adjusts
> >>>>his pitch and throttle settings as needed so as to remain stabilized
> >>>>on the glideslope. He just doesn't gaily "pop the AoI switch" and
> >>>>then react to what the airplane does...he thinks ahead and anticipates
> >>>>what the airplane will do and plans accordingly (e.g: "fly the
> >>>>plane" and pitch for airspeed power for altitude" etc.).
> >
> >>>Of course Mike, I understand that but I just broke it down so
> >>>that it's easier for me to describe.
> >
> >>>I still don't see what this AoI control will do _other_ than
> >>>give the pilot better downward visibility for landing and less
> >>>drag for high speed operation. Is there some other aspect that
> >>>I'm not seeing?...or is that it in a nutshell?...
> >
> > As I mentioned in my response to you (the important part that you
> > snipped), besides just increasing the visibility, the variable
> > incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast fighter to
> > maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.
> >
> > In other words Gord, the variable incidence wasn't designed to give
> > the F-8 "less drag for high speed operation," it was designed to give
> > the F-8 MORE drag (as the result of more LIFT) for SLOW speed
> > operation in order to land aboard carriers.

Bit of both, actually. Here's what Steve Pace writes (yeah, I know, but he
seems to be quoting from a CVA source here) in the Ginter book on the
Crusader:

"The Crusader's wing answered the problem of pilot visibility in a supersonic
a/c while keeping low canopy drag. Without the tilted wing, a carrier pilot
would be forced to sit higher in order to see flight decks and signal officers
due to the high AoA of a normal fixed wing, and attached fuselage, at landing
approach.

"Under the above conditions, a large canopy would be required for adequate
visibility. CVA aerodynamicists found that the required canopy size would
increase drag at supersonic speed by some 35%, so another solution was
required. Ideas considered included elevating the canopy and pilot seat upon
landing, or tilting the nose section downward. Neither idea was acceptable,
which prompted one engineer to ask, ' Why not tilt the entire wing?'

[skipping a bit] "Tilting the wing upward during landing maneuvers allowed a
relatively slow landing speed, yet kept the F-8's fuselage at an AoA of about
5.5 deg. rather than 12.5 deg. as required with its wing down."

> OK Mike, tell me how that would occur. The wing doesn't care whether
> the fuslage is aligned with it, is hanging down a bit from a hinge,
> like an F-8, or is hanging underneath it by a flexible coupleing like
> your trike. An F-8 will stall at the same EAS wing up or down, flap &
> slat settings being the same. There's no extra lift. As far as the
> wing is concerned, the Clmax, and the Angle of Attack required to get
> it, is the same.
>
> Now, if you're trying to say that, with a Crusader's wing up, it can
> reach that Angle of Attack with a lower fuselage angle, than you are
> in violent agreement with the rest of us.
> >
> > Also, if you peddle back to that website that you posted depicting
> > a close-up of the Crusader's wing in the raised position, you will
> > clearly see how the raised portion of the wing assembly directly
> > above the fuselage is flat as a sheet of plywood and protrudes
> > right into the relative wind -- effectively functioning as a speed
> > brake.
>
> Irrelevant as far as lift is concerned. And if they needed a Speed
> Drake, they'd have designed the speed brake differently. (The F-8's
> board was under the fuselage, much like an F-100's, and couldn't be
> used for landing.)

<snip>

I suppose that the extra drag might come in handy to keep the engine revs
during the landing apporach a bit higher in lieu of usable speed brake(s) (the
J57 was certainly better in spool-up time than the preceding generation of jet
engines, but it wasn't all that quick). However, the wing was also up for cat
shots, and the extra drag would be counter-productive then. I suspect the
flat section had more to do with the center section being a fuel tank than any
other purpose. I have a vague memory that the reason for it was discussed
over on r.a.m.n. in the not too distant past by one or more of the former F-8
jocks there, so if anyone wishes to pursue the reason for it further, they may
wish to post a question there.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:

> Guy alcala wrote in message
>
> >Vader states that the Mk VIIIs had the 'C' wing, which implies that
> >the Mk. IXs should have been able to be given LE tanks with little
> >difficulty. I'm under the impression that the substantive changes to
> >the Mk. VII/VIII were in the fuselage, and except for the tanks the
> >wings were identical. Does anyone actually KNOW what the
> >structural/internal changes were from the Mk.V/IX etc. to the Mk.
> >VII/VIII? We all know about the tail wheel, but there had to be more
> >than that.
>
> More information from Morgan and Shacklady,
> Spitfire weights, tare / take off / maximum
>
> VA 4,981 / 6,416 / 6,700
> VB 5,065 / 6,622 / 6,700
> VC (B wing) 5,081 / 6,785 / 7,300
> VC (C Wing) 5,081 / 7,106.5 / 7,300
>
> So if this is correct an extra 16 pounds was added, presumably
> to the fuselage, between the B and C versions. The book is also
> saying the VC version is not defined by the wings fitted, A or B
> or C wings, there is something else.

I suspect they meant it wasn't defined by the 'armament fitted' in the
wing. The something else was probably the slight change in the landing
gear angle, as well as the strengthening.

> The VC was a definite
> change, and able to carry 600 pounds more weight, presumably
> mainly by strengthening the undercarriage.
>
> The second production VC AA874 (Merlin 45) was weighed with
> A, then B then C wings, weights in pounds, CoG in inches
>
> wing / tare / tare CoG / all up weight / all up CoG
> A / 5,048 / 2.31 / 6,499 / 10.9
> B / 5,048 / 2.31 / 6,737 / 10.9
> C / 5,048 / 2.31 / 6,969 / 7.65

Again, I suspect these refer to armament differences, i.e. 8 x .303, 2 x
20mm + 4 x .303, and 4 x 20mm respectively.

<snip Mk. VI and Mk. VII data>

>Morgan and Shacklady state the mark VIII had the fuselage further

> strengthened over the mark VII, with the VIII weights as Tare 5,806
> pounds, take off 7,779 pounds maximum 8,000 pounds. This looks
> like the VII without the extra wing tips and pressure cabin gear.
>
> Mark VIII 2 cannon and 4 browning, weights in pounds and CG in
> inches tare 5,861 and 0.2 landing 6,710 and 4.9, normal load
> 7,831 and 5.9, 30 gallon overload tank 8,131 and 6.4, 90
> gallon overload tank 8,648 and 7.0. The figures are repeated
> for a 4 cannon version, interestingly tare weight is the same
> but all the other weights are around 200 pounds more, and the
> CG figures 0.1 to 0.3 greater. CG measured aft of datum.
> Since a pair of 20 mm cannons came in at around 200 pounds
> and 4 brownings at around 100 pounds this would seem to
> indicate tare weights are with the armament removed.
>
> F Mark IX tare 5,816 pounds, take off 7,295.5 pounds, maximum
> 7,500 pounds. After notes about overload tanks and bombs comes
> the entry "ballast 92.5".
>
> F IXE tare 5,816, take off 7,181.5, max 7,500.

<snip PR data>

> From Spitfire by Peter Moss, the initial hand converted PR
> versions from Spitfire I had a 29 gallon fuel tank under the
> pilot's seat and a 64 pound camera installation behind
> the cockpit, no radio though. It all worked because there
> was 32 pounds of removable ballast in the tail to compensate
> for the mark I moving to a heavier 3 bladed propeller.
>
> If the ballast figures are correct there is obviously some room
> for extra fuselage tanks, the maximum take off weight comes
> into play though.

<snip fuel weights>

Price says the Mk. I was designed to take either the two-blade wooden FP
prop or three blade metal two-pitch prop, and ballast had to be provided
accordingly. With the wooden prop (83 lb. vs. ca. 350 lb. for the metal
prop), 135 lb. of lead ballast had to be carried in the nose, on both
sides of the front of the engine at the bottom, roughly under the first
two cylinders and the aft end of the coolant tank. He includes a picture
showing the weights installed. By the time the MK.V came around the CS
prop was standard, which I believe was even heavier (can't find the figure
yet).

As always, thanks for posting the data.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

John Halliwell wrote:

> In article >, Dave Eadsforth
> > writes
> >Some penny-pinching accountant at work perhaps?
> >
> >I was always mystified by the fact that the Spitfire didn't get full
> >wheel-well covers until late in the war - they went to all that trouble
> >gluing split peas all over the wing to optimise the placement of flush
> >and round headed rivets and missed out on some thing that seems even
> >more obvious (unless the drag from the wheel well really was
> >inconsequential up to speeds of 400 mph or so - but that seems a bit
> >counter instinctive).
>
> I think originally it simplified the gear retraction 'hydraulics'. The
> first Spits had a hand pump to retract the gear, which required IIRC 27
> pumps to fully retract it. I guess the full wheel well covers probably
> came along with the retractable tail wheel (possibly more important?) as
> well?

No, they were removed to simplify things at RAF suggestion in spec. F.16/36,
dated 28 July 1936, which entailed the changes to be made from the
prototype. F.16/36 was the spec for the first production contract (on 3
June 1936) for 310 a/c, which lists thirty-three seperate paragraphs, each
entailing one change:

Para xxi: "Provided no reduction in the performance will be entailed, the
hinged flaps on the wheels may be replaced by fixed flaps which, when
retracted, will not cover the wing apertures completely." Presumably no
significant reduction in performance resulted, at least not at the speed the
a/c was then capable of attaining.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

> In message >, Mike Marron
> > writes
> >>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> >>>Mike Marron > writes
> >>>If you want to compare post-war recip bomber aircraft, you'd
> >>>have to compare the Shackleton to the B-50 in which case the
> >>>Shackleton becomes even more hopelessly outclassed:
> >
> >>Compare out-of-service dates before you get too carried away :)
> >
> >I once knew a barber who had been cutting hair for 40 years...
> >
> >-Mike ( never was capable of giving a decent haircut ;) Marron
>
> Yeah, but the B-50 was completely outclassed by the B-36 and look how
> long _that_ lasted...
>
> Meanwhile the Shackleton flew on until the 1980s, and the almost equally
> ancient Canberra flies on still. When a design finds the right niche, it
> can be very long-lived.
>
> (Look at the C-130 and the B-52)

I imagine the longevity of all of these (certainly the Shackleton) has more
to due with lack of money for replacement, than finding the right niche.
The Air Force would be perfectly happy to have an equal number of B-2s
replacing the B-52s, but couldn't convince Congress to pay for it. It would
certainly be possible to build a modern a/c design to do what the C-130,
B-52, and Canberra do cheaper and better, but that assumes that someone's
willing to pony up the money for the development and acquisition cost.
Hell, the C-130 could and probably should have been replaced by a C-14 or
C-15 25 years ago. Its longevity is due to it being the only Western a/c in
its class. If something like the AN-70 and A400M had also been available in
the west 25 years ago, would the C-130 have remained in production all these
years, given its limitations?

Guy

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Mike Marron
> writes
>>John Halliwell > wrote:
>>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>
>>>Not to mention the Superfort's extra *4,000* total horsepower and four
>>>humongous four-blade 17-ft. diameter props!
>
>>That brings a comparison between the B-29 and Shackleton wings/engines
>>into the equation I guess.
>
>Nah, the Shackleton was a frumpy Brit post-war bomber
>hopelessly outclassed by the sleek and futuristic B-29
>which actually saw combat in both WW2 and Korea and
>later copied by the Soviets.
>
>If you want to compare post-war recip bomber aircraft, you'd
>have to compare the Shackleton to the B-50 in which case the
>Shackleton becomes even more hopelessly outclassed:
>
>Shackleton total HP: 9,600 (B-50: 14,000)
>Shackleton max speed: 287 mph (B-50: 385 mph)
>Shackleton service ceiling: 22,000 ft. (B-50: 37,000 ft.)
>Shackleton range: 2,500 miles (B-50: 4,650 miles)
>Shackleton bombload: 18,000 lbs. (B-50: 20,000 lbs.)
>
And the advantage of the higher speed and service ceiling while sub-
hunting close to sea level is what?
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Guy Alcala]

Guy Alcala wrote:

> Peter Stickney wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Guy Alcala > writes:

<snip>

> > I'd love to see it, if I could. If you can't scan it, or cost is an
> > issue, or it's just too danged big (sheetfeed scanners are a Good
> > Thing), than photocopy it, and mail it, if you wish. I'd be happy to
> > scan it for you.
>
> I haven't seen a reply from Gavin to this, so I'll just type the info in.

<snip>

And of course, shortly after I do this, Gavin emails the scans in question and then some ;-)
Seems like my mail server must have been suffering from constipation, as I didn't get anything
for the last two days or so, and then that last two days of mail showed up tonight.

Guy

P.S. Thanks for the scans, Gavin.

[[email protected]]

Michael Williamson >
wrote:

>Mike Marron wrote:
>>>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>>>As I mentioned in my response to you (the important part that you
>>>>snipped), besides just increasing the visibility, the variable
>>>>incidence wing also enabled the sleek and very fast fighter to
>>>>maintain the slower speeds required for carrier ops.
>>>
>>
>>>That doesn't make sense to me Mike...as Peter and John say the
>>>higher AoI used for landing allows the fuselage to be more
>>>horizontal (better pilot visibility, keeps the tail higher when
>>>in landing attitude and allows for shorter (stronger)
>>>undercarriage...
>>
>>
>> With regards to the the improved visibility aspect, Peter and
>> John didn't just say it, everybody (including you and me) said
>> it. Regarding the part that you don't seem to get (increasing
>> the angle of incidence so as to help the jet maintain slower
>> speeds for carrier ops), well, I've tried explaining it to you
>> numerous differerent ways now and you still don't/won't get it.
>> Therefore, I'm done. Maybe someone else can try explaining
>> it to you Gord.
>
> No offense Mike, but it doesn't make sense to me either. The
>wing will produce the same amount of lift at a given airspeed/
>AOA combination, regardless of its relation to the fuselage.
>Pivoting the fuselage below the wing won't allow slower
>flight, since the wing is the deciding factor. You will have
>(again) a lower fuselage angle so that you can actually see
>where you are going, but the stall speed shouldn't be affected.
>
>Mike Williamson
>
Of course...exactly...
--

-Gord.

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 07:16:49 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>
>> In message >, Mike Marron
>> > writes
>> >>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> >>>Mike Marron > writes
>> >>>If you want to compare post-war recip bomber aircraft, you'd
>> >>>have to compare the Shackleton to the B-50 in which case the
>> >>>Shackleton becomes even more hopelessly outclassed:
>> >
>> >>Compare out-of-service dates before you get too carried away :)
>> >
>> >I once knew a barber who had been cutting hair for 40 years...
>> >
>> >-Mike ( never was capable of giving a decent haircut ;) Marron
>>
>> Yeah, but the B-50 was completely outclassed by the B-36 and look how
>> long _that_ lasted...
>>
>> Meanwhile the Shackleton flew on until the 1980s, and the almost equally
>> ancient Canberra flies on still. When a design finds the right niche, it
>> can be very long-lived.
>>
>> (Look at the C-130 and the B-52)
>
>I imagine the longevity of all of these (certainly the Shackleton) has more
>to due with lack of money for replacement, than finding the right niche.
>The Air Force would be perfectly happy to have an equal number of B-2s
>replacing the B-52s, but couldn't convince Congress to pay for it. It would
>certainly be possible to build a modern a/c design to do what the C-130,
>B-52, and Canberra do cheaper and better, but that assumes that someone's
>willing to pony up the money for the development and acquisition cost.
>Hell, the C-130 could and probably should have been replaced by a C-14 or
>C-15 25 years ago. Its longevity is due to it being the only Western a/c in
>its class. If something like the AN-70 and A400M had also been available in
>the west 25 years ago, would the C-130 have remained in production all these
>years, given its limitations?
>
>Guy

For the job it performs the C-130 is certainly a better aircraft than
the A400M. When paired with the C-17 it is unbeatable by the aircraft
you mention.

Al Minyard

[[email protected]]

Guy Alcala > wrote:

--cut--

>"The Crusader's wing answered the problem of pilot visibility in a supersonic
>a/c while keeping low canopy drag. Without the tilted wing, a carrier pilot
>would be forced to sit higher in order to see flight decks and signal officers
>due to the high AoA of a normal fixed wing, and attached fuselage, at landing
>approach.
>
>"Under the above conditions, a large canopy would be required for adequate
>visibility.

>CVA aerodynamicists found that the required canopy size would
>increase drag at supersonic speed by some 35%, so another solution was
>required.

Good God!...35% you say!, So it would seem that this following
statement could use some editing then?. :)

>>> In other words Gord, the variable incidence
>>> wasn't designed to give the F-8 "less drag
>>> for high speed operation,"

--cut--

>
>[skipping a bit] "Tilting the wing upward during landing maneuvers allowed a
>relatively slow landing speed, yet kept the F-8's fuselage at an AoA of about
>5.5 deg. rather than 12.5 deg. as required with its wing down."
>


Guy, can you expound on that a little? I can't see how the angle
of the fuselage (AoI?) has any effect on the 'landing speed'.

The only thing that the variable AoI mechanism does (essentially
- as far as I can see) is to tilt the fuselage to 5.5 deg vice
12.5. (I think the camber is changed as well - but that's a
different story)

I certainly agree with your other statements here...and thanks
for the research...interesting a/c.








>> OK Mike, tell me how that would occur. The wing doesn't care whether
>> the fuslage is aligned with it, is hanging down a bit from a hinge,
>> like an F-8, or is hanging underneath it by a flexible coupleing like
>> your trike. An F-8 will stall at the same EAS wing up or down, flap &
>> slat settings being the same. There's no extra lift. As far as the
>> wing is concerned, the Clmax, and the Angle of Attack required to get
>> it, is the same.
>>
>> Now, if you're trying to say that, with a Crusader's wing up, it can
>> reach that Angle of Attack with a lower fuselage angle, than you are
>> in violent agreement with the rest of us.
>> >
>> > Also, if you peddle back to that website that you posted depicting
>> > a close-up of the Crusader's wing in the raised position, you will
>> > clearly see how the raised portion of the wing assembly directly
>> > above the fuselage is flat as a sheet of plywood and protrudes
>> > right into the relative wind -- effectively functioning as a speed
>> > brake.
>>
>> Irrelevant as far as lift is concerned. And if they needed a Speed
>> Drake, they'd have designed the speed brake differently. (The F-8's
>> board was under the fuselage, much like an F-100's, and couldn't be
>> used for landing.)
>
><snip>
>
>I suppose that the extra drag might come in handy to keep the engine revs
>during the landing apporach a bit higher in lieu of usable speed brake(s) (the
>J57 was certainly better in spool-up time than the preceding generation of jet
>engines, but it wasn't all that quick). However, the wing was also up for cat
>shots, and the extra drag would be counter-productive then. I suspect the
>flat section had more to do with the center section being a fuel tank than any
>other purpose. I have a vague memory that the reason for it was discussed
>over on r.a.m.n. in the not too distant past by one or more of the former F-8
>jocks there, so if anyone wishes to pursue the reason for it further, they may
>wish to post a question there.
>
>Guy

--

-Gord.

[Mike Marron]

>Guy Alcala > wrote:

>I imagine the longevity of all of these (certainly the Shackleton) has more
>to due with lack of money for replacement, than finding the right niche.

Exactly right. In the grand scheme of things the RAF really didn't
have much to brag about throughout the Cold War years compared
to their American and Soviet (and even French) counterparts. The Brits
certainly produced a good number of ass-kickin' Rock 'n Roll bands
back in the '60's and 70's though. ;)

-Mike (can't get no satisfaction from a Shackleton) Marron

[Guy Alcala]

Alan Minyard wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 07:16:49 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
> >
> >> In message >, Mike Marron
> >> > writes
> >> >>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> >> >>>Mike Marron > writes
> >> >>>If you want to compare post-war recip bomber aircraft, you'd
> >> >>>have to compare the Shackleton to the B-50 in which case the
> >> >>>Shackleton becomes even more hopelessly outclassed:
> >> >
> >> >>Compare out-of-service dates before you get too carried away :)
> >> >
> >> >I once knew a barber who had been cutting hair for 40 years...
> >> >
> >> >-Mike ( never was capable of giving a decent haircut ;) Marron
> >>
> >> Yeah, but the B-50 was completely outclassed by the B-36 and look how
> >> long _that_ lasted...
> >>
> >> Meanwhile the Shackleton flew on until the 1980s, and the almost equally
> >> ancient Canberra flies on still. When a design finds the right niche, it
> >> can be very long-lived.
> >>
> >> (Look at the C-130 and the B-52)
> >
> >I imagine the longevity of all of these (certainly the Shackleton) has more
> >to due with lack of money for replacement, than finding the right niche.
> >The Air Force would be perfectly happy to have an equal number of B-2s
> >replacing the B-52s, but couldn't convince Congress to pay for it. It would
> >certainly be possible to build a modern a/c design to do what the C-130,
> >B-52, and Canberra do cheaper and better, but that assumes that someone's
> >willing to pony up the money for the development and acquisition cost.
> >Hell, the C-130 could and probably should have been replaced by a C-14 or
> >C-15 25 years ago. Its longevity is due to it being the only Western a/c in
> >its class. If something like the AN-70 and A400M had also been available in
> >the west 25 years ago, would the C-130 have remained in production all these
> >years, given its limitations?
> >
> >Guy
>
> For the job it performs the C-130 is certainly a better aircraft than
> the A400M.

Which is circular reasoning -- if you define the job the C-130 _can perform_ as
the job any replacement _should perform_ (no more, no less), then of course the
C-130 will be superior. After all, most U.S. military tactical equipment has had
its dimensions artificially limited to what will fit in a C-130 cargo bay. The
C-130's payload is size and volume-limited - U.S. military 'oversize' and
'outsize' cargo is that which _won't_ fit in a C-130. The A400M and AN-70 may or
may not be inferior to the C-130 while performing a role limited to that which
the C-130 is also capable of, but they can also take on jobs that the C-130 is
incapable of, such as carrying a considerable portion of the loads which only the
C-17 or C-5 would otherwise be able to carry. If you can only afford one
tactical airlifter, but you need to move a fair proportion of those oversize
and/or outsize loads by air, then the C-130 isn't the answer.

> When paired with the C-17 it is unbeatable by the aircraft
> you mention.

At a far higher cost if you've got to buy and operate two different a/c, IF you
are otherwise able to get by with one. For the U.S., with the potential need to
deploy big, heavy cargo into theater trans-oceanically and then make a tactical
landing with the same load, the C-17's extra speed over a turboprop may make
sense, but most countries don't have such a compelling need that will justify the
price tag. The C-130's longevity has been based on two things: first, that it
was an excellent design to start with; and second, that it was the only a/c in
its class among western a/c. Can you name another 4 turboprop western tactical
airlifter with semi-STOL capability that was available in the 1955-2008 time
frame? Is there any doubt that competition, as exists among more numerous,
smaller and cheaper twin-turboprop tactical airlifters, would have led to far
fewer C-130 sales, and its obsolescence and replacement much sooner? The C-130
was the only game in town, big brother had already paid for its development, and
in many cases was willing to help with the payments or even give the a/c away.

Guy

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Guy Alcala
> writes
>John Halliwell wrote:
>
>> In article >, Dave Eadsforth
>> > writes
>> >Some penny-pinching accountant at work perhaps?
>> >
>> >I was always mystified by the fact that the Spitfire didn't get full
>> >wheel-well covers until late in the war - they went to all that trouble
>> >gluing split peas all over the wing to optimise the placement of flush
>> >and round headed rivets and missed out on some thing that seems even
>> >more obvious (unless the drag from the wheel well really was
>> >inconsequential up to speeds of 400 mph or so - but that seems a bit
>> >counter instinctive).
>>
>> I think originally it simplified the gear retraction 'hydraulics'. The
>> first Spits had a hand pump to retract the gear, which required IIRC 27
>> pumps to fully retract it. I guess the full wheel well covers probably
>> came along with the retractable tail wheel (possibly more important?) as
>> well?
>
>No, they were removed to simplify things at RAF suggestion in spec. F.16/36,
>dated 28 July 1936, which entailed the changes to be made from the
>prototype. F.16/36 was the spec for the first production contract (on 3
>June 1936) for 310 a/c, which lists thirty-three seperate paragraphs, each
>entailing one change:
>
>Para xxi: "Provided no reduction in the performance will be entailed, the
>hinged flaps on the wheels may be replaced by fixed flaps which, when
>retracted, will not cover the wing apertures completely." Presumably no
>significant reduction in performance resulted, at least not at the speed the
>a/c was then capable of attaining.
>
>Guy
>

Thanks for that quote - ends a long-standing mystery!

Perhaps they should have stuck with that nice streamlined tailskid...

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Indrek Aavisto]

Guy Alcala wrote:
<prune>

Can you name another 4 turboprop western tactical

> airlifter with semi-STOL capability that was available in the 1955-2008 time
> frame? I

Short Belfast comes to mind. It had a similar configuration, though I daresay its
capabilities fell short, or more of them would have been built.


Cheers,


--
Indrek Aavisto
Sudbury, Ontario

"Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult" W. S. Churchill

[Guy Alcala]

Dave Eadsforth wrote:

> In article >, Guy Alcala
> > writes
> >John Halliwell wrote:
> >
> >> In article >, Dave Eadsforth
> >> > writes
> >> >Some penny-pinching accountant at work perhaps?
> >> >
> >> >I was always mystified by the fact that the Spitfire didn't get full
> >> >wheel-well covers until late in the war - they went to all that trouble
> >> >gluing split peas all over the wing to optimise the placement of flush
> >> >and round headed rivets and missed out on some thing that seems even
> >> >more obvious (unless the drag from the wheel well really was
> >> >inconsequential up to speeds of 400 mph or so - but that seems a bit
> >> >counter instinctive).
> >>
> >> I think originally it simplified the gear retraction 'hydraulics'. The
> >> first Spits had a hand pump to retract the gear, which required IIRC 27
> >> pumps to fully retract it. I guess the full wheel well covers probably
> >> came along with the retractable tail wheel (possibly more important?) as
> >> well?
> >
> >No, they were removed to simplify things at RAF suggestion in spec. F.16/36,
> >dated 28 July 1936, which entailed the changes to be made from the
> >prototype. F.16/36 was the spec for the first production contract (on 3
> >June 1936) for 310 a/c, which lists thirty-three seperate paragraphs, each
> >entailing one change:
> >
> >Para xxi: "Provided no reduction in the performance will be entailed, the
> >hinged flaps on the wheels may be replaced by fixed flaps which, when
> >retracted, will not cover the wing apertures completely." Presumably no
> >significant reduction in performance resulted, at least not at the speed the
> >a/c was then capable of attaining.
> >
> >Guy
> >
>
> Thanks for that quote - ends a long-standing mystery!
>
> Perhaps they should have stuck with that nice streamlined tailskid...

I just last night got in Price's "The Spitfire Story" at my library, which I
devoured immediately. Aside from confirming the above (that there was no
noticeable change in performance with the wheel flaps removed from the
prototype), he also says that Mitchell wanted to stick with the tailskid, but the
Air Ministry insisted on the tailwheel, because they knew (but couldn't tell
Mitchell at the time, because it was classified) that they were going to lay down
all-weather (i.e. paved) runways at all the fighter bases, and the tail skid
wouldn't last long under those conditions. This thing's just filled with great
info.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Indrek Aavisto wrote:

> Guy Alcala wrote:
> <prune>
>
> Can you name another 4 turboprop western tactical
>
> > airlifter with semi-STOL capability that was available in the 1955-2008 time
> > frame? I
>
> Short Belfast comes to mind. It had a similar configuration, though I daresay its
> capabilities fell short, or more of them would have been built.

I'd say the Belfast was more of a strategic airlifter (in cargo size) than a tactical
one. It seems to be about halfway between the C-130 and C-133 in size. I stand ready
to be corrected, but was it stressed for tactical missions, maneuverable enough to do
them, and of sufficiently low ground pressure to operate off paved runways?

Guy

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids,
>with
>From: Guy Alcala

> he also says that Mitchell wanted to stick with the tailskid, but the
>Air Ministry insisted on the tailwheel, because they knew (but couldn't tell
>Mitchell at the time, because it was classified) that they were going to lay
>down
>all-weather (i.e. paved) runways at all the fighter bases, and the tail skid
>wouldn't last long under those conditions. This thing's just filled with
>great
>info.
>
>Guy
>

It seems as though the Air Ministry didn't entirely trust Mitchell. Imagine
being an aircraft designer and having th air ministry withhold info that would
impact on your designs. The mind boggles.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Guy Alcala]

" wrote:

> Guy Alcala > wrote:

<snip>

> >[skipping a bit] "Tilting the wing upward during landing maneuvers allowed a
> >relatively slow landing speed, yet kept the F-8's fuselage at an AoA of about
> >5.5 deg. rather than 12.5 deg. as required with its wing down."
> >
>
> Guy, can you expound on that a little? I can't see how the angle
> of the fuselage (AoI?) has any effect on the 'landing speed'.

<snip>

I think you're overanalyzing this. If the wing didn't tilt, then the whole
fuselage (assuming an AoI of 0 deg.) would need to be at 12.5 deg. AoA to have a
sufficiently slow landing speed. Instead, they achieved that low landing speed by
tilting the wing, which also gave them the benefit of a lower fuselage AoA for
view/clearance.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Guy Alcala wrote:

> Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:

<snip>

> <snip PR data>
>
> > From Spitfire by Peter Moss, the initial hand converted PR
> > versions from Spitfire I had a 29 gallon fuel tank under the
> > pilot's seat and a 64 pound camera installation behind
> > the cockpit, no radio though. It all worked because there
> > was 32 pounds of removable ballast in the tail to compensate
> > for the mark I moving to a heavier 3 bladed propeller.
> >
> > If the ballast figures are correct there is obviously some room
> > for extra fuselage tanks, the maximum take off weight comes
> > into play though.
>
> <snip fuel weights>
>
> Price says the Mk. I was designed to take either the two-blade wooden FP
> prop or three blade metal two-pitch prop, and ballast had to be provided
> accordingly. With the wooden prop (83 lb. vs. ca. 350 lb. for the metal
> prop), 135 lb. of lead ballast had to be carried in the nose, on both
> sides of the front of the engine at the bottom, roughly under the first
> two cylinders and the aft end of the coolant tank. He includes a picture
> showing the weights installed. By the time the MK.V came around the CS
> prop was standard, which I believe was even heavier (can't find the figure
> yet).
>
> As always, thanks for posting the data.
>
> Guy

Okay, I've got Price's "The Spitfire Story," which is very helpful. Here's
what Wing Commander Tuttle, former head of the PRU, told Price about the
handling of the hand-modified PR.1Ds (normal 84 gallons forward, 114 gallons
in the wing L.E., 29 gallons behind the pilot, plus two cameras further back
(but no radio):

"You could not fly it straight and level for the first half hour or hour after
takeoff. Until you had emptied the rear tank, the aircraft hunted the whole
time. The center of gravity was so far back you couldn't control it. It was
the sort of thing that would never have got in during peacetime, but war is
another matter."

What may be barely acceptable for a PR bird flying solo in VFR conditions by
experienced pilots not making any radical maneuvers, is definitely
unacceptable for formation or combat flying by less experienced pilots.
Later, the production PR.1Ds had the aft tank removed, the radio reinstalled,
and the L.E. tanks enlarged from 57 to 66.5 gallons each side, to improve the
handling (L.E. tanks were forward of the datum). They also got somewhat
heavier Merlin 45s.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

ArtKramr wrote:

> >Subject: Re: More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids,
> >with
> >From: Guy Alcala
>
> > he also says that Mitchell wanted to stick with the tailskid, but the
> >Air Ministry insisted on the tailwheel, because they knew (but couldn't tell
> >Mitchell at the time, because it was classified) that they were going to lay
> >down
> >all-weather (i.e. paved) runways at all the fighter bases, and the tail skid
> >wouldn't last long under those conditions. This thing's just filled with
> >great
> >info.
> >
> >Guy
> >
>
> It seems as though the Air Ministry didn't entirely trust Mitchell. Imagine
> being an aircraft designer and having th air ministry withhold info that would
> impact on your designs. The mind boggles.

It wasn't a case of trust, just a case of need to know. Mitchell only needed to
know that a tailwheel was a firm requirement, not the rationale behind it, to
design one. I imagine the spec change to increase the armament from 4 to 6 or 8 x
..303s was handled the same way -- they told him what they wanted and asked him if
it could be done, but probably not the reasoning behind it. Whether the tailwheel
case was an example of the government being classification happy is another
matter; the Brits tended to be (and still are, to a great extent) a lot more
reluctant about releasing such details, even when they're apparently innocuous,
than we were/are. OTOH, there were some probably unnecessary security concerns
over Mitchell's technical assistant, S/Ldr H.J. 'Agony' Payn, AFC RAF (ret)
because he'd divorced and his second wife was foreign (maybe German; I forget).
After Mitchell died he was named manager of the Design Department at Supermarine
(not Chief Designer, the post which Mitchell had held). The Air Ministry forced
Supermarine to remove him from work on the Spitfire or anything else classified
because of this, and in fact the company fired him.

Supermarine tried two different designs, a single wheel and one with dual wheels
(side by side). The latter tended to get clogged with mud, so they went with the
single.

Guy

[[email protected]]

Guy Alcala > wrote:

" wrote:
>
>> Guy Alcala > wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >[skipping a bit] "Tilting the wing upward during landing maneuvers allowed a
>> >relatively slow landing speed, yet kept the F-8's fuselage at an AoA of about
>> >5.5 deg. rather than 12.5 deg. as required with its wing down."
>> >
>>
>> Guy, can you expound on that a little? I can't see how the angle
>> of the fuselage (AoI?) has any effect on the 'landing speed'.
>
><snip>
>
>I think you're overanalyzing this. If the wing didn't tilt, then the whole
>fuselage (assuming an AoI of 0 deg.) would need to be at 12.5 deg. AoA to have a
>sufficiently slow landing speed.

But saying it that way makes it seem as if 'tilting the wing up'
(which you're not actually doing of course) makes it possible to
fly slower when actually you're tilting the *fuselage down* so as
to make it possible to land on a carrier.

You're not *tilting the wing up*, you're *tilting the fuselage
down*, right?. I know that it's just semantics but saying that
this system 'allows slower flight' isn't true is it?. I suppose
you could say that it allows slower flight *without banging the
tail on the deck etc* but it doesn't allow the a/c to 'fly
slower' in the sense that flaps do right?.



>Instead, they achieved that low landing speed by
>tilting the wing, which also gave them the benefit of a lower fuselage AoA for
>view/clearance.
>
>Guy

Well now, lessee... :)


--

-Gord.

[Guy Alcala]

" wrote:

> Guy Alcala > wrote:
>
> " wrote:
> >
> >> Guy Alcala > wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >[skipping a bit] "Tilting the wing upward during landing maneuvers allowed a
> >> >relatively slow landing speed, yet kept the F-8's fuselage at an AoA of about
> >> >5.5 deg. rather than 12.5 deg. as required with its wing down."
> >> >
> >>
> >> Guy, can you expound on that a little? I can't see how the angle
> >> of the fuselage (AoI?) has any effect on the 'landing speed'.
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >I think you're overanalyzing this. If the wing didn't tilt, then the whole
> >fuselage (assuming an AoI of 0 deg.) would need to be at 12.5 deg. AoA to have a
> >sufficiently slow landing speed.
>
> But saying it that way makes it seem as if 'tilting the wing up'
> (which you're not actually doing of course)

You are, with reference to the fuselage and virtually any other a/c, but then the
whole description is relative to the datum you use.

> makes it possible to
> fly slower when actually you're tilting the *fuselage down* so as
> to make it possible to land on a carrier.
>
> You're not *tilting the wing up*, you're *tilting the fuselage
> down*, right?. I know that it's just semantics but saying that
> this system 'allows slower flight' isn't true is it?. I suppose
> you could say that it allows slower flight *without banging the
> tail on the deck etc*

That would be the correct phraseology, and includes the assumption that I (at least)
made. After all, if your a/c design can only make one landing on a carrier deck
before being hauled off for scrap, NAVAIR would probably take a few points off your
score;-)

> but it doesn't allow the a/c to 'fly
> slower' in the sense that flaps do right?.

Right.

> >Instead, they achieved that low landing speed by
> >tilting the wing, which also gave them the benefit of a lower fuselage AoA for
> >view/clearance.
> >
> >Guy
>
> Well now, lessee... :)

Very simply, the wing had to fly at a high-enough AoA to fly sufficiently slowly for
the a/c to land on Essex class carriers. In order to achieve that AoA with the wing
rigidly attached to the fuselage, they would have had to chop off the after part of
the fuselage, mount the wing at a much higher fixed AoI, and/or give the a/c a taller
landing gear (to avoid dragging the tail), any of which would have been detrimental
to its performance. In addition, the pilot would have had to be sitting much higher
to have adequate view on the approach, also at a detriment to performance. CVA had
already designed the F7U Cutlass once, and had no wish to repeat it;-)

Guy

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Guy Alcala
> writes
>ArtKramr wrote:

>> It seems as though the Air Ministry didn't entirely trust Mitchell. Imagine
>> being an aircraft designer and having th air ministry withhold info that would
>> impact on your designs. The mind boggles.
>
>It wasn't a case of trust, just a case of need to know. Mitchell only needed to
>know that a tailwheel was a firm requirement, not the rationale behind it, to
>design one. I imagine the spec change to increase the armament from 4 to 6 or 8
>x
>.303s was handled the same way -- they told him what they wanted and asked him
>if
>it could be done, but probably not the reasoning behind it. Whether the
>tailwheel
>case was an example of the government being classification happy is another
>matter; the Brits tended to be (and still are, to a great extent) a lot more
>reluctant about releasing such details, even when they're apparently innocuous,
>than we were/are. OTOH, there were some probably unnecessary security concerns
>over Mitchell's technical assistant, S/Ldr H.J. 'Agony' Payn, AFC RAF (ret)
>because he'd divorced and his second wife was foreign (maybe German; I forget).
>After Mitchell died he was named manager of the Design Department at Supermarine
>(not Chief Designer, the post which Mitchell had held). The Air Ministry forced
>Supermarine to remove him from work on the Spitfire or anything else classified
>because of this, and in fact the company fired him.
>
>Supermarine tried two different designs, a single wheel and one with dual wheels
>(side by side). The latter tended to get clogged with mud, so they went with
>the
>single.
>
>Guy
>

The 'need to know' principle is at least a couple of hundred years old
in UK government. The notion (valid, if infuriating at times) is that
even the most innocent details can be amassed and used, for instance to
gain knowledge of civil service culture to the point that someone can
masquerade as a government official and dupe another official into
giving away secret stuff. One of the acknowledged masters of building
up a mass of cultural information to get more out of people was Hanns
Scharff, who got tons of operational information out of captured allied
aircrew just by having friendly chats with them. His approach worked
where 'roughing up' had failed.

A double wheel, like the Mosquito, was it also an anti-shimmy measure?

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[[email protected]]

Guy Alcala > wrote:


>
>Very simply, the wing had to fly at a high-enough AoA to fly sufficiently slowly for
>the a/c to land on Essex class carriers. In order to achieve that AoA with the wing
>rigidly attached to the fuselage, they would have had to chop off the after part of
>the fuselage, mount the wing at a much higher fixed AoI, and/or give the a/c a taller
>landing gear (to avoid dragging the tail), any of which would have been detrimental
>to its performance. In addition, the pilot would have had to be sitting much higher
>to have adequate view on the approach, also at a detriment to performance. CVA had
>already designed the F7U Cutlass once, and had no wish to repeat it;-)
>
>Guy

ROGER!!...very good, thanks Guy...I'm sure that I understood it
properly all along but I wasn't very good at explaining my
thoughts.

Plus, I kept getting waylaid by someone who has the wrong
understanding of it, but that's fine, at least I'm comfortable
with my understanding of it now.
--

-Gord.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Mike Marron > writes:
>>Guy Alcala > wrote:
>
>>I imagine the longevity of all of these (certainly the Shackleton) has more
>>to due with lack of money for replacement, than finding the right niche.
>
> Exactly right. In the grand scheme of things the RAF really didn't
> have much to brag about throughout the Cold War years compared
> to their American and Soviet (and even French) counterparts. The Brits
> certainly produced a good number of ass-kickin' Rock 'n Roll bands
> back in the '60's and 70's though. ;)
>
> -Mike (can't get no satisfaction from a Shackleton) Marron

Oh, I dunno. As the Shackleton folks used to say when the RAF was
considering reconstituting the remaing Shack AEW Squadron as a
Canberra outfit, "Eight Screws beats two blow-jobs any time."

To each their own.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Mike Marron > writes:
(Peter Stickney) wrote:
>>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>
>>>Not to mention the Superfort's extra *4,000* total horsepower and four
>>>humongous four-blade 17-ft. diameter props!
>
>>Seems that this has come up before. Actually, no, the extra power
>>really down't enter into it.
>
>>Cruise (Max L/D) occurs at the Equivalent Airspeed where the drag is
>>at a minimum. This occurs at the point where the Induced Drag, which
>>is decreasing as the speed increases(4th root of EAS), and the Profile
>>Drag, which is increasing with the square of the EAS. That's the
>>point where the minumum amount of thrust/power to keep flying occurs.
>>Note that the amount of installed power doesn't enter into it at all.
>
>>High power is useful, however, for times when more power than that
>>requiring maintaining cruising flight is important, such as when
>>climbing, or for takeoff, or maneuvering flight.
>
> Interesting stuff. So lemme get this all straight: if you removed and
> replaced the B-29's four R-3350's with R-1830's, that would NOT
> reduce the cruise or top speed and although the Shackleton dropped
> bombs from time to time it was NOT a bomber and the variable
> incidence wing on the F-8 did NOT to enable it to maintain the slower
> speeds necessary for carrier landings and the flat, raised portion of
> the wing assembly directly above the F-8 fuselage did NOT serve
> as a speed brake. Gotcha...

Mike, Mike...
What I said, was that a B-29 cruised best at about 170 mph EAS. At
that speed, it takes about 4,000 HP to balance its drag. That's
1,000 HP/engine. Whether the R3350 could produce 2200 HP for 5
minutes at 25,000' is irrelevant to that. Top speed, of course, is
a different matter, just as I've said.

Yes, the SHackleton dropped bombs, but it was not ever intended
primarily to be a bomber. There was a C-123 flavor that dropped
bombs, too, and at one point, the Navy hwas using P-2 Neptunes as
night strafers in Viet Nam. (With a mighty pair of 7.62mm Miniguns
at that) Just becasue something did something once or twice
doesn't change its primary purpose. As we say up here, "If your
cat crawled into teh oven and had a litter of kittens, would you
call ;em biscuits?"

And again, the purpose of the tilting wing on the F-8 was to lower
the fuselage angle, not raise that of the wing. An F-8, for a
given combination of flaps & slats, stalled at the same speed wing
up as wing down.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Mike Marron]

> (Peter Stickney) wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>Exactly right. In the grand scheme of things the RAF really didn't
>>have much to brag about throughout the Cold War years compared
>>to their American and Soviet (and even French) counterparts. The Brits
>>certainly produced a good number of ass-kickin' Rock 'n Roll bands
>>back in the '60's and 70's though. ;)

>> -Mike (can't get no satisfaction from a Shackleton) Marron

>Oh, I dunno. As the Shackleton folks used to say when the RAF was
>considering reconstituting the remaing Shack AEW Squadron as a
>Canberra outfit, "Eight Screws beats two blow-jobs any time."

Riiiight...

>To each their own.

Yer ass sucks bilgewater.

-Mike Marron

[Mike Marron]

(Peter Stickney) wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>Interesting stuff. So lemme get this all straight: if you removed and
>>replaced the B-29's four R-3350's with R-1830's, that would NOT
>>reduce the cruise or top speed and although the Shackleton dropped
>>bombs from time to time it was NOT a bomber and the variable
>>incidence wing on the F-8 did NOT to enable it to maintain the slower
>>speeds necessary for carrier landings and the flat, raised portion of
>>the wing assembly directly above the F-8 fuselage did NOT serve
>>as a speed brake. Gotcha...

>Mike, Mike...
>What I said, was that a B-29 cruised best at about 170 mph EAS. At
>that speed, it takes about 4,000 HP to balance its drag. That's
>1,000 HP/engine. Whether the R3350 could produce 2200 HP for 5
> minutes at 25,000' is irrelevant to that. Top speed, of course, is
>a different matter, just as I've said.

>Yes, the SHackleton dropped bombs, but it was not ever intended
>primarily to be a bomber. There was a C-123 flavor that dropped
> bombs, too, and at one point, the Navy hwas using P-2 Neptunes as
>night strafers in Viet Nam. (With a mighty pair of 7.62mm Miniguns
> at that) Just becasue something did something once or twice
> doesn't change its primary purpose. As we say up here, "If your
> cat crawled into teh oven and had a litter of kittens, would you
> call ;em biscuits?"

>And again, the purpose of the tilting wing on the F-8 was to lower
> the fuselage angle, not raise that of the wing. An F-8, for a
> given combination of flaps & slats, stalled at the same speed wing
> up as wing down.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


-Mike (Zzz) Marron

[[email protected]]

Mike Marron > wrote:

(Peter Stickney) wrote:
>>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>
>>>Interesting stuff. So lemme get this all straight: if you removed and
>>>replaced the B-29's four R-3350's with R-1830's, that would NOT
>>>reduce the cruise or top speed and although the Shackleton dropped
>>>bombs from time to time it was NOT a bomber and the variable
>>>incidence wing on the F-8 did NOT to enable it to maintain the slower
>>>speeds necessary for carrier landings and the flat, raised portion of
>>>the wing assembly directly above the F-8 fuselage did NOT serve
>>>as a speed brake. Gotcha...
>
>>Mike, Mike...
>>What I said, was that a B-29 cruised best at about 170 mph EAS. At
>>that speed, it takes about 4,000 HP to balance its drag. That's
>>1,000 HP/engine. Whether the R3350 could produce 2200 HP for 5
>> minutes at 25,000' is irrelevant to that. Top speed, of course, is
>>a different matter, just as I've said.
>
>>Yes, the SHackleton dropped bombs, but it was not ever intended
>>primarily to be a bomber. There was a C-123 flavor that dropped
>> bombs, too, and at one point, the Navy hwas using P-2 Neptunes as
>>night strafers in Viet Nam. (With a mighty pair of 7.62mm Miniguns
>> at that) Just becasue something did something once or twice
>> doesn't change its primary purpose. As we say up here, "If your
>> cat crawled into teh oven and had a litter of kittens, would you
>> call ;em biscuits?"
>
>>And again, the purpose of the tilting wing on the F-8 was to lower
>> the fuselage angle, not raise that of the wing. An F-8, for a
>> given combination of flaps & slats, stalled at the same speed wing
>> up as wing down.
>
>ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>
>
>-Mike (Zzz) Marron

There are none so blind as those who will not see...
--

-Gord.

[Guy Alcala]

Mike Marron wrote:

> (Peter Stickney) wrote:

>To each their own.

> Yer ass sucks bilgewater.
>
> -Mike Marron

and

>"Tex Houston" > wrote:

>Sorry...the correct spelling is "Accidents" on the last entry.

As if. As if anyone gives a ****.

>Wonder if my spell checker disregards anything in quotes?

Pompous Texass ****.

-Mike Marron

Ah, well, one more for the killfile. Trolls, loons and (as in this case)
just plain rude and crude all get in.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Dave Eadsforth wrote:

> In article >, Guy Alcala
> > writes

<snip>

> >Supermarine tried two different designs, a single wheel and one with dual wheels
> >(side by side). The latter tended to get clogged with mud, so they went with
> >the
> >single.
> >
> >Guy

<snip>

> A double wheel, like the Mosquito, was it also an anti-shimmy measure?

None of the sources I have give the reasoning behind it, just that the a/c was tried
with single and dual tailwheels. Assuming the drawings are to the same scale, the
dual tires were smaller diameter than the single, around 2/3 to 3/4 of the larger
one. Ernie Mansbridge, who was Supermarine's tech. rep during the prototype service
trials by the RAF, reported the following on 6 March 1937:

"The split tail wheel has been fitted for today's flights. The pilots noted the lack
of bouncing tendency, but on the second flight the wheels were completely locked by
mud and could not be revolved until the mud had been dug out from between the
wheels."

Price writes "This type of tail wheel was not fitted again, and from then on the
single-wheel Dunlop type was used."

Guy

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Peter Stickney
> writes
>In article >,
> Mike Marron > writes:
>>>Guy Alcala > wrote:
>>
>>>I imagine the longevity of all of these (certainly the Shackleton) has more
>>>to due with lack of money for replacement, than finding the right niche.
>>
>> Exactly right. In the grand scheme of things the RAF really didn't
>> have much to brag about throughout the Cold War years compared
>> to their American and Soviet (and even French) counterparts. The Brits
>> certainly produced a good number of ass-kickin' Rock 'n Roll bands
>> back in the '60's and 70's though. ;)
>>
>> -Mike (can't get no satisfaction from a Shackleton) Marron
>
>Oh, I dunno. As the Shackleton folks used to say when the RAF was
>considering reconstituting the remaing Shack AEW Squadron as a
>Canberra outfit, "Eight Screws beats two blow-jobs any time."
>
>To each their own.
>

The Mk.3 Phase 3 gave you the best of both worlds: eight screws AND two
blow jobs (don't forget the 2 Vipers in the outer nacelles)! And all
that at a respectably leisurely pace...
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Guy Alcala
> writes
>Dave Eadsforth wrote:
>
>> A double wheel, like the Mosquito, was it also an anti-shimmy measure?
>
>None of the sources I have give the reasoning behind it, just that the a/c was
>tried
>with single and dual tailwheels. Assuming the drawings are to the same scale,
>the
>dual tires were smaller diameter than the single, around 2/3 to 3/4 of the
>larger
>one. Ernie Mansbridge, who was Supermarine's tech. rep during the prototype
>service
>trials by the RAF, reported the following on 6 March 1937:
>
>"The split tail wheel has been fitted for today's flights. The pilots noted the
>lack
>of bouncing tendency, but on the second flight the wheels were completely locked
>by
>mud and could not be revolved until the mud had been dug out from between the
>wheels."
>
>Price writes "This type of tail wheel was not fitted again, and from then on the
>single-wheel Dunlop type was used."
>
>Guy
>
>
Thanks for the detail on that. Despite the fact that the tail wheel was
intended for use on runways, I guess they thought that Spits may have to
operate from earth strips occasionally, so abandoning the double wheel
would have made sense.

I was amused by what was once said about the Mosquito and its split
'anti shimmy' wheel. Apparently, the first time any pilot flew a
Mosquito he would be warned about the tail shimmy, and so his first
landing was so carefully executed that there was no shimmy at all. Next
flight he would relax, and bingo - all over the place. Got them almost
every time...

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Peter Stickney
> writes
>
>Oh, I dunno. As the Shackleton folks used to say when the RAF was
>considering reconstituting the remaing Shack AEW Squadron as a
>Canberra outfit, "Eight Screws beats two blow-jobs any time."
>
Thanks for that little gem - it has left my aviation buddies in stitches
- and one might need some real ones as his hernia has threatened to pop
again...

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:37:54 -0400, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:


>Oh, I dunno. As the Shackleton folks used to say when the RAF was
>considering reconstituting the remaing Shack AEW Squadron as a
>Canberra outfit, "Eight Screws beats two blow-jobs any time."
>

Was there serious consideration given to hanging that skyraider radar on a
canberra ?



greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

[Grantland]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>
>>>I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
>>>Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
>>>an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
>>>instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"
>
>>Does that make the P-3 Orion a bomber? :)
>
>Does a surveillance/photo/recce/anti-submarine mission make
>the Tu-95 Bear NOT a bomber?

Dumb question. Dumb poster.

Grantland

[[email protected]]

Dave Eadsforth > wrote:

>
>I was amused by what was once said about the Mosquito and its split
>'anti shimmy' wheel. Apparently, the first time any pilot flew a
>Mosquito he would be warned about the tail shimmy, and so his first
>landing was so carefully executed that there was no shimmy at all. Next
>flight he would relax, and bingo - all over the place. Got them almost
>every time...
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dave
>

Apropos of not a bunch but the Fairchild C-119 was a bitch in
this regard...the MLG struts were so long that when the bearing
points and connections got the least bit worn then the damned
thing would shimmy like to tear the bloody gear off. Someone
actually did heavily damage the nose gear once, but it was
usually the mains.
--

-Gord.

[Mike Marron]

>Guy Alcala > wrote:

>Ah, well, one more for the killfile. Trolls, loons and (as in this case)
>just plain rude and crude all get in.

I hear ya. Pardon my transgressions (tough Sunday at work) and
I shall endeavor to wash my mouth out with soap. However,
hypocritical, pompous, disagreeable pontificators who argue just for
the sake of arguing (which is nothing more than a polite form of
trolling) are equally as "rude & crude" and killfilable in my book.

See ya around.

-Mike Marron

[Mike Marron]

>Peter Twydell > wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>Nah, the Shackleton was a frumpy Brit post-war bomber
>>hopelessly outclassed by the sleek and futuristic B-29
>>which actually saw combat in both WW2 and Korea and
>>later copied by the Soviets.

>>If you want to compare post-war recip bomber aircraft, you'd
>>have to compare the Shackleton to the B-50 in which case the
>>Shackleton becomes even more hopelessly outclassed:

>>Shackleton total HP: 9,600 (B-50: 14,000)
>>Shackleton max speed: 287 mph (B-50: 385 mph)
>>Shackleton service ceiling: 22,000 ft. (B-50: 37,000 ft.)
>>Shackleton range: 2,500 miles (B-50: 4,650 miles)
>>Shackleton bombload: 18,000 lbs. (B-50: 20,000 lbs.)

>And the advantage of the higher speed and service ceiling while sub-
>hunting close to sea level is what?

I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"

-Mike Marron

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Mike Marron
> writes
>>Peter Twydell > wrote:
>>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>
>>>Nah, the Shackleton was a frumpy Brit post-war bomber
>>>hopelessly outclassed by the sleek and futuristic B-29
>>>which actually saw combat in both WW2 and Korea and
>>>later copied by the Soviets.
>
>>>If you want to compare post-war recip bomber aircraft, you'd
>>>have to compare the Shackleton to the B-50 in which case the
>>>Shackleton becomes even more hopelessly outclassed:
>
>>>Shackleton total HP: 9,600 (B-50: 14,000)
>>>Shackleton max speed: 287 mph (B-50: 385 mph)
>>>Shackleton service ceiling: 22,000 ft. (B-50: 37,000 ft.)
>>>Shackleton range: 2,500 miles (B-50: 4,650 miles)
>>>Shackleton bombload: 18,000 lbs. (B-50: 20,000 lbs.)
>
>>And the advantage of the higher speed and service ceiling while sub-
>>hunting close to sea level is what?
>
>I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
>Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
>an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
>instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"
>
>-Mike Marron

Nobody said it wasn't a bomber. It was designed for and was doing a
different bombing job.

Get a grip.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Mike Marron]

>Peter Twydell > wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>Nah, the Shackleton was a frumpy Brit post-war bomber
>>hopelessly outclassed by the sleek and futuristic B-29
>>which actually saw combat in both WW2 and Korea and
>>later copied by the Soviets.

>>If you want to compare post-war recip bomber aircraft, you'd
>>have to compare the Shackleton to the B-50 in which case the
>>Shackleton becomes even more hopelessly outclassed:

>>Shackleton total HP: 9,600 (B-50: 14,000)
>>Shackleton max speed: 287 mph (B-50: 385 mph)
>>Shackleton service ceiling: 22,000 ft. (B-50: 37,000 ft.)
>>Shackleton range: 2,500 miles (B-50: 4,650 miles)
>>Shackleton bombload: 18,000 lbs. (B-50: 20,000 lbs.)

>And the advantage of the higher speed and service ceiling while sub-
>hunting close to sea level is what?

>>I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
>>Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
>>an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
>>instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"

>Nobody said it wasn't a bomber.

Tell your mate Peter Stickney that.

>It was designed for and was doing a different bombing job.

A "bomber" by any other name is still a "bomber..."

>Get a grip.

Put 'er in the ol' vice yourself pal.

-Mike Marron

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Mike Marron
> writes
>I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
>Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
>an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
>instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"

Does that make the P-3 Orion a bomber? :)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Mike Marron]

>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
>>Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
>>an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
>>instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"

>Does that make the P-3 Orion a bomber? :)

Does a surveillance/photo/recce/anti-submarine mission make
the Tu-95 Bear NOT a bomber?

-Mike (it wasn't called "Shacklebomber" for nothing) Marron

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Mike Marron
> writes
>>Peter Twydell > wrote:
>>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>
>>>Nah, the Shackleton was a frumpy Brit post-war bomber
>>>hopelessly outclassed by the sleek and futuristic B-29
>>>which actually saw combat in both WW2 and Korea and
>>>later copied by the Soviets.
>
>>>If you want to compare post-war recip bomber aircraft, you'd
>>>have to compare the Shackleton to the B-50 in which case the
>>>Shackleton becomes even more hopelessly outclassed:
>
>>>Shackleton total HP: 9,600 (B-50: 14,000)
>>>Shackleton max speed: 287 mph (B-50: 385 mph)
>>>Shackleton service ceiling: 22,000 ft. (B-50: 37,000 ft.)
>>>Shackleton range: 2,500 miles (B-50: 4,650 miles)
>>>Shackleton bombload: 18,000 lbs. (B-50: 20,000 lbs.)
>
>>And the advantage of the higher speed and service ceiling while sub-
>>hunting close to sea level is what?
>
>>>I dunno, but I wish you guys would make up your mind. If the
>>>Shackleton wasn't a bomber as you say, how could it destroy
>>>an enemy sub in the event it found one? Dropping depth charges
>>>instead of bombs means that it's not a "bomber?"
>
>>Nobody said it wasn't a bomber.
>
>Tell your mate Peter Stickney that.
>
>>It was designed for and was doing a different bombing job.
>
>A "bomber" by any other name is still a "bomber..."
>
Pete said it was maritime patrol aircraft, which is a bomber by another
name, innit?

How's the petard business?

>>Get a grip.
>
>Put 'er in the ol' vice yourself pal.
>
>-Mike Marron

--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[TJ]

"Mike Marron"

> Does a surveillance/photo/recce/anti-submarine mission make
> the Tu-95 Bear NOT a bomber?
>

That's because the ASW variant is the TU-142. Under treaty specs the US
agreed that the variant was not a bomber and isn't accountable. Even the
TU-95RT was limited to it's primary mission and not classed as a bomber.

TJ

[Mike Marron]

>"TJ" > wrote:

>That's because the ASW variant is the TU-142. Under treaty specs the US
>agreed that the variant was not a bomber and isn't accountable. Even the
>TU-95RT was limited to it's primary mission and not classed as a bomber.

Thanks for the explanation. What does "...isn't accountable" mean?

-Mike Marron

[Mike Marron]

(Grantland) wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>Does a surveillance/photo/recce/anti-submarine mission make
>>the Tu-95 Bear NOT a bomber?

>Dumb question. Dumb poster.

Sorry. It was modeled after the type of rhetorical "Mensa Quiz"
question from the previous Shacklebomber-is-not-a-bomber posters.

-Mike Marron

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Paul J. Adam
> writes
>Does that make the P-3 Orion a bomber? :)

Nimrod carries Sidewinders, does that make it a fighter?

--
John

[Mike Marron]

>John Halliwell > wrote:

>Nimrod carries Sidewinders, does that make it a fighter?

Speaking of Nimrod "disaster", see below:

"The interesting aspect of the market was the very high barriers to
entry. The U.K., which had been using Shackleton BOMBERS
[emphasis mine] equipped with surplus Fairey Gannett radars for
AEW, wished to avoid a multibillion-dollar acquisition of modern U.S.
replacements. The U.K. tried to develop its own system, based on
the Comet jetliner. The Nimrod AEW.3 was an unmitigated disaster
and inevitably led to a U.K. acquisition of seven E-3s in 1986. This
was the only concerted effort to develop an alternative to the two
dominant U.S. systems."

[Aerospace America May 2001]

-Mike Marron

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Greg Hennessy > writes:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:37:54 -0400, (Peter Stickney)
> wrote:
>
>
>>Oh, I dunno. As the Shackleton folks used to say when the RAF was
>>considering reconstituting the remaing Shack AEW Squadron as a
>>Canberra outfit, "Eight Screws beats two blow-jobs any time."
>>
>
> Was there serious consideration given to hanging that skyraider radar on a
> canberra ?

Not really, The APS-20 would require a bit more space for operators,
displays, plotting boards and the like than the Cranberry could
provide.

The quote BTW, is from a flight suit shoulder patch from the RAF's AEW
Squadron.
The RAF Intercept Controller that I got the patch from (A Shackleton
crewman doing a technical evaluation visit to Sanders Assoc. back in
the days when IC's were New and Zippy, like, say, 1979, told me that
the reason behin it was that the RAF was considering disbanding the
AEW squadron, and reconstituting it as a Defence Evaluation Squadron,
using ECM equipped Canberras,

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Mike Marron > writes:
>>"TJ" > wrote:
>
>>That's because the ASW variant is the TU-142. Under treaty specs the US
>>agreed that the variant was not a bomber and isn't accountable. Even the
>>TU-95RT was limited to it's primary mission and not classed as a bomber.
>
> Thanks for the explanation. What does "...isn't accountable" mean?

It means that it doesn't get counted as a bomber or strategic missile
launcher when totting up the numbers for (them) SALT and (now) START
compliance. Of course, that business as always a bit dodgy.
For examples, Tu-22Ms (Backfires) with the AAR probe were considered
as Strategic Bombers, but the same T-22M with the probe unbolted &
sitting in the back of the hangar wasn't. Or the Minuteman III ICBM
was considered to cary 5 warheads instead of 3, because somebody'd
made a short range launch of one carrying 5 instrument packages.

It's all very lawyerly.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Guy Alcala > writes:
> Peter Stickney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> "Quest for Performance", L.K. Loftin, NASA History Office, 1985,
>> available online, has a quite good explanation and analysis of the
>> directions that designing high performance airplanes took through the
>> first 80 or so years. The data tables list the following values for
>> the various airplanes.
>>
>> Airplane: Aspect Ratio Wing Loading Cruise Speed L/Dmax
>> B-17G 7.58 38.7 182 12.7
>> B-24J 11.55 53.4 215 12.9
>> B-29 11.50 69.1 253 16.8
>>
>> Altitudes in cases would be 25,000', (Critical Altitude for the
>> turbosupercharged engines, in each case) and all speeds are True
>> Airspeed.
>
> Something appears seriously wrong with the B-17G cruise speed. At 25,000 feet, 182 TAS
> works out to only 124 CAS, and we know the a/c normally cruised at 150-160 IAS (TAS about
> 215-240 at typical bombing altitudes) and climbed at about 130-140 IAS, vs. 160-180 IAS
> cruise for the B-24. There's no way the position error is that high, and compressiblity
> error is just 1-2% at that speed and altitude.

I just went and rechecked, and every source I have for the B-17G says
182 TAS @ 25,000, including Wagner, who gets his data from the
Aorcraft Characteristics Summaries.
My RAF Fortess II (B-17F) manual gives best cruise as 140 IAS, which
give a shade under 210 TAS at 25,000. This is backed up by the B-17F
Range Chart page that's posted on Zeno's Warbirds site. The G was, of
course, much dirtier, what with the chin turret, and, in the later
models, the bulged cheek gun windows & such. While 125 IAS seems a bit
on the low side, it wouldn't be impossible.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> Guy Alcala > writes:
> > Peter Stickney wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> "Quest for Performance", L.K. Loftin, NASA History Office, 1985,
> >> available online, has a quite good explanation and analysis of the
> >> directions that designing high performance airplanes took through the
> >> first 80 or so years. The data tables list the following values for
> >> the various airplanes.
> >>
> >> Airplane: Aspect Ratio Wing Loading Cruise Speed L/Dmax
> >> B-17G 7.58 38.7 182 12.7
> >> B-24J 11.55 53.4 215 12.9
> >> B-29 11.50 69.1 253 16.8
> >>
> >> Altitudes in cases would be 25,000', (Critical Altitude for the
> >> turbosupercharged engines, in each case) and all speeds are True
> >> Airspeed.
> >
> > Something appears seriously wrong with the B-17G cruise speed. At 25,000 feet, 182 TAS
> > works out to only 124 CAS, and we know the a/c normally cruised at 150-160 IAS (TAS about
> > 215-240 at typical bombing altitudes) and climbed at about 130-140 IAS, vs. 160-180 IAS
> > cruise for the B-24. There's no way the position error is that high, and compressiblity
> > error is just 1-2% at that speed and altitude.
>
> I just went and rechecked, and every source I have for the B-17G says
> 182 TAS @ 25,000, including Wagner, who gets his data from the
> Aorcraft Characteristics Summaries.

From what I recall, Wagner shows the same 1,850 miles in 8.7 hours @ 25kft. for the B-17G that
Caidin gives, or an average of 212 mph. OTOH, AFAIR neither says that this was at Vbr.

> My RAF Fortess II (B-17F) manual gives best cruise as 140 IAS, which
> give a shade under 210 TAS at 25,000. This is backed up by the B-17F
> Range Chart page that's posted on Zeno's Warbirds site.

Are we looking at the same chart?

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/B-17/17TRC.gif


> The G was, of
> course, much dirtier, what with the chin turret, and, in the later
> models, the bulged cheek gun windows & such. While 125 IAS seems a bit
> on the low side, it wouldn't be impossible.

OTOH, the late Gs (maybe all? I forget) also had the fixed waist windows, partially
compensating. But they were unquestionably draggier than the Fs. Still, combat formation was
flown at 150-160 IAS in the G (the a/c on the inside of the turn might get down to 135-140).
And watching the B-17 Flight Operations video, it's stated that best range speed, at least at
10,000 feet on 91 octane fuel, is 150 IAS. A puzzlement. I can see them wanting to fly well
above stall and maybe somewhat above best range speed to allow for bumpy air in formation, but
the same video says to climb at 135 IAS, or 160 IAS when IFR. These are for the F model, so
maybe the G really is much less. But they flew them in combat at 150-160, as with the Fs. The
B-24 speeds seem a bit low as well, but a lot closer to actual combat usage.

Guy

[Greg Hennessy]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 00:07:15 -0400, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:


>
>Not really, The APS-20 would require a bit more space for operators,
>displays, plotting boards and the like than the Cranberry could
>provide.

Thought as much.


greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 19:58:15 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>Okay, I've got Price's "The Spitfire Story," which is very helpful. Here's
>what Wing Commander Tuttle, former head of the PRU, told Price about the
>handling of the hand-modified PR.1Ds (normal 84 gallons forward, 114 gallons
>in the wing L.E., 29 gallons behind the pilot, plus two cameras further back
>(but no radio):
>
>"You could not fly it straight and level for the first half hour or hour after
>takeoff. Until you had emptied the rear tank, the aircraft hunted the whole
>time. The center of gravity was so far back you couldn't control it. It was
>the sort of thing that would never have got in during peacetime, but war is
>another matter."
>
>What may be barely acceptable for a PR bird flying solo in VFR conditions by
>experienced pilots not making any radical maneuvers, is definitely
>unacceptable for formation or combat flying by less experienced pilots.



But this is precisely the argument against any kind of rearward CoG
movement implied by any rear fuselage tanks. Note that this
configuration included up to two cameras positioned further back in
the fuselage than the fuel tanks, which I assume could only have had
an even more detrimental impact on the CoG than a 29 gallon fuel tank.


I don't think the PR Spits are a valid indicator of what was tolerable
with a fighter profile - e.g. the V's with 29 gallon rear fuselage
tanks (and 170 gallon drop tanks) used for reinforcement flights from
Gibraltar to Malta in October 1942. Now these were not in operational
fighter trim, but they were to be flown by squadron pilots. Equally,
the RAF did regard the instability involved in the 75 gallon rear
fuselage tank in the IX airframe to be tolerable when the operational
need was great enough. Tuttle's comments are identical to Quill's and
Havercroft's on the instabilty problems casued by rear fuselage tanks
in the IXs they tested with them.
[i]
>Later, the production PR.1Ds had the aft tank removed, the radio reinstalled,
>and the L.E. tanks enlarged from 57 to 66.5 gallons each side, to improve the
>handling (L.E. tanks were forward of the datum). They also got somewhat
>heavier Merlin 45s.

They also began to get drop tanks underneath the fuselage to extend
range. I think it's instructive that until alternative fuel tankage
could be provided in the wings and externally, they did adopt a rear
fuselage tank, and that was in an aircraft with an existing CoG travel
worse than the fighter versions. The CoG problems this caused were
certainly unacceptable for peacetime flight, but then - by the RAF's
standards - so were the rear-fuselage tanks in the later Spit IXs and
XVIs, which were ordered not to be used without direct orders in the
post-war Pilot's Notes. This is also reflected in the decision to
delete the rear-fuselage tank in the RAF's Mustang IIIs. All of this
stems from an institutional attitude and the extent to which it could
be influenced by operational neccessity.

The fact that late production Spitfires did get rear fuselage tanks
which the RAF considered compromised aircraft stability too much for
normal peacetime operation is instructive. If we were to take
Tuttle's comments about peacetime operations as gospel for credible
wartime developments, none of this development in regard of rear
fuselage tanks would have happened at all.

What this counterfactual stems from was the level to which the RAF was
prepared to modify peacetime levels of aircraft stability to meet
operational needs. We know their historic position, but in this case
we are positing a greater operational need for range, in which case we
need to consider what would be a credible reaction. We can all agree
that the Spitfire (and especially the Spit V) had serious constraints
involved in increasing internal tankage, and specifically in the rear
fuselage. I believe it is instructive to observe how far the RAF were
pushed down that route historically, and extrapolate on a reasonable
basis from that.

On that basis, the use of the 29 gallon rear fuselage tank can't be
ruled out on the basis that the RAF preferred not to use it. If we
left it to RAF institutional preference alone there wouldn't have been
any rear fuselage tanks at all, but then nor would there have been PR
Spitfires to start with.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[Mike Marron]

(Peter Stickney) wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>Thanks for the explanation. What does "...isn't accountable" mean?

>It means that it doesn't get counted as a bomber or strategic missile
>launcher when totting up the numbers for (them) SALT and (now) START
>compliance. Of course, that business as always a bit dodgy.
>For examples, Tu-22Ms (Backfires) with the AAR probe were considered
>as Strategic Bombers, but the same T-22M with the probe unbolted &
>sitting in the back of the hangar wasn't. Or the Minuteman III ICBM
>was considered to cary 5 warheads instead of 3, because somebody'd
>made a short range launch of one carrying 5 instrument packages.

>It's all very lawyerly.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I rest my case!

-Mike (a bomber by any other name...) Marron

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 05:35:43 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>Mike Marron wrote:
>
>> (Peter Stickney) wrote:
>
>>To each their own.
>
>> Yer ass sucks bilgewater.
>>
>> -Mike Marron
>
>and
>
>>"Tex Houston" > wrote:
>
>>Sorry...the correct spelling is "Accidents" on the last entry.
>
>As if. As if anyone gives a ****.
>
>>Wonder if my spell checker disregards anything in quotes?
>
>Pompous Texass ****.
>
>-Mike Marron
>
>Ah, well, one more for the killfile. Trolls, loons and (as in this case)
>just plain rude and crude all get in.
>
>Guy
>
And your language in this post would qualify as what?

Al Minyard

[Guy Alcala]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 19:58:15 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >Okay, I've got Price's "The Spitfire Story," which is very helpful. Here's
> >what Wing Commander Tuttle, former head of the PRU, told Price about the
> >handling of the hand-modified PR.1Ds (normal 84 gallons forward, 114 gallons
> >in the wing L.E., 29 gallons behind the pilot, plus two cameras further back
> >(but no radio):
> >
> >"You could not fly it straight and level for the first half hour or hour after
> >takeoff. Until you had emptied the rear tank, the aircraft hunted the whole
> >time. The center of gravity was so far back you couldn't control it. It was
> >the sort of thing that would never have got in during peacetime, but war is
> >another matter."
> >
> >What may be barely acceptable for a PR bird flying solo in VFR conditions by
> >experienced pilots not making any radical maneuvers, is definitely
> >unacceptable for formation or combat flying by less experienced pilots.
>
>
>
> But this is precisely the argument against any kind of rearward CoG
> movement implied by any rear fuselage tanks.

Not any kind, just the kind that can't be used in combat or in formation.
Remember, we're trying to extend the combat radius, with range being essentially
irrelevant. If you've got to burn the fuel off before you enter combat and the
only advantage is to extend the range/endurance, it's easier to just carry a bigger
drop tank. The extra internal fuel would allow you to go a bit further without
carrying a drop tank, but that's a relatively minor (but real) advantage.

> Note that this
> configuration included up to two cameras positioned further back in
> the fuselage than the fuel tanks, which I assume could only have had
> an even more detrimental impact on the CoG than a 29 gallon fuel tank.

But no radio, which appears to have been even further back, and IIRR of equal or
greater weight than the cameras (I saw the camera weight listed somewhere, and have
the radio weights). And no guns, but fuel in the L.E.s, which (unlike the gun
armament) is all forward of the datum, moving the Cg forward compared to the
fighter.

> I don't think the PR Spits are a valid indicator of what was tolerable
> with a fighter profile - e.g. the V's with 29 gallon rear fuselage
> tanks (and 170 gallon drop tanks) used for reinforcement flights from
> Gibraltar to Malta in October 1942. Now these were not in operational
> fighter trim, but they were to be flown by squadron pilots.

Two at a time, not in squadron/wing formations, and not having to take off in IFR
conditions and climb above clouds on instruments. It was recommended to send them
to Malta singly, but Park preferred two so that if one had problems, the other
would have some idea where the a/c went down, so they might have some chance of
rescuing the pilot.

> Equally,
> the RAF did regard the instability involved in the 75 gallon rear
> fuselage tank in the IX airframe to be tolerable when the operational
> need was great enough. Tuttle's comments are identical to Quill's and
> Havercroft's on the instabilty problems casued by rear fuselage tanks
> in the IXs they tested with them.

Ah, but we agree that the IX's had a more forward Cg to start with, and we don't
know the degree of instability (which is what we're waiting on Pete for). BTW, I
think I now know why the Mk. IX/XVI with cut down fuselage had 66 gal. in the rear
fuselage tanks vice 75: a simple space issue. The photo in "The Spitfire Story"
(pg. 162 in the copy I have) showing a Mk. IX with aft tanks shows that they're
stacked directly behind the pilot's back armor plate, and the upper one extends
almost to the top of the aft cockpit glazing Presumably the bubble-canopy a/c
tanks were lower.
[i]
> >Later, the production PR.1Ds had the aft tank removed, the radio reinstalled,
> >and the L.E. tanks enlarged from 57 to 66.5 gallons each side, to improve the
> >handling (L.E. tanks were forward of the datum). They also got somewhat
> >heavier Merlin 45s.
>
> They also began to get drop tanks underneath the fuselage to extend
> range.

> I think it's instructive that until alternative fuel tankage
> could be provided in the wings and externally, they did adopt a rear
> fuselage tank, and that was in an aircraft with an existing CoG travel
> worse than the fighter versions.

But was it? After all, with no armament, the Cg moved forward. No radio (mounted
aft of where the cameras would be) moves it forward again. And quite early, they
got external fuel, in 30 gal. blister tanks under the wings.

> The CoG problems this caused were
> certainly unacceptable for peacetime flight, but then - by the RAF's
> standards - so were the rear-fuselage tanks in the later Spit IXs and
> XVIs, which were ordered not to be used without direct orders in the
> post-war Pilot's Notes.

Unfortunately, we don't know the degree of instability (and Cg travel) of the
various versions, since they apparently found measuring such rather difficult at
the time. It seems to have been a question of phugoids and nothing else, which
would leave a lot up to pilot interpretation.

> This is also reflected in the decision to
> delete the rear-fuselage tank in the RAF's Mustang IIIs. All of this
> stems from an institutional attitude and the extent to which it could
> be influenced by operational neccessity.

Certainly a factor.

> The fact that late production Spitfires did get rear fuselage tanks
> which the RAF considered compromised aircraft stability too much for
> normal peacetime operation is instructive. If we were to take
> Tuttle's comments about peacetime operations as gospel for credible
> wartime developments, none of this development in regard of rear
> fuselage tanks would have happened at all.

Sure.

> What this counterfactual stems from was the level to which the RAF was
> prepared to modify peacetime levels of aircraft stability to meet
> operational needs. We know their historic position, but in this case
> we are positing a greater operational need for range, in which case we
> need to consider what would be a credible reaction. We can all agree
> that the Spitfire (and especially the Spit V) had serious constraints
> involved in increasing internal tankage, and specifically in the rear
> fuselage. I believe it is instructive to observe how far the RAF were
> pushed down that route historically, and extrapolate on a reasonable
> basis from that.
>
> On that basis, the use of the 29 gallon rear fuselage tank can't be
> ruled out on the basis that the RAF preferred not to use it. If we
> left it to RAF institutional preference alone there wouldn't have been
> any rear fuselage tanks at all, but then nor would there have been PR
> Spitfires to start with.

I think the Mk. IX could probably have gotten away with a 29 gallon tank or
something in that range, even with the original tail. I have serious doubts that
the Mk. V could have. Tuttle's comments imply negative longitudinal stability with
ANY fuel in the tank, and that means it is of no help to us for increasing fighter
combat radius. We could put the same fuel in a larger drop tank (at somewhat
higher drag, to be sure), say 120 gallons; the handling will be better than with
the rear tank, and it's a much simpler solution.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Alan Minyard wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 05:35:43 GMT, Guy Alcala
>
> >Ah, well, one more for the killfile. Trolls, loons and (as in this case)
> >just plain rude and crude all get in.
> >
> >Guy
> >
> And your language in this post would qualify as what?
>
> Al Minyard

Let's see, not rude and crude (I suppose my posting it publicly rather than
privately could be considered rude), nor is it a troll, and I presume you
aren't implying that I'm a loon. What did you think it was?

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Guy Alcala wrote:

> The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

<snip>

> > I think it's instructive that until alternative fuel tankage
> > could be provided in the wings and externally, they did adopt a rear
> > fuselage tank, and that was in an aircraft with an existing CoG travel
> > worse than the fighter versions.
>
> But was it? After all, with no armament, the Cg moved forward. No radio (mounted
> aft of where the cameras would be) moves it forward again. And quite early, they
> got external fuel, in 30 gal. blister tanks under the wings.

And before I forget, the (high altitude) PR birds like the PR. 1D also lacked
gunsights, bulletproof glass, the gun camera, and the flare chutes/ditty box (cameras
went in thatspace). So far I've been unable to find whether the (high altitude) PR a/c
also removed the armor (the very early PR a/c probably lacked it from the start), but
it might make sense to do so. The flare chutes/ditty box are no great loss from the
fighter. With the exception of the gun camera, all of these are behind the datum, and
while individually small (except the armor), they do all move the Cg aft.


> The CoG problems this caused were

> > certainly unacceptable for peacetime flight, but then - by the RAF's
> > standards - so were the rear-fuselage tanks in the later Spit IXs and
> > XVIs, which were ordered not to be used without direct orders in the
> > post-war Pilot's Notes.
>
> Unfortunately, we don't know the degree of instability (and Cg travel) of the
> various versions, since they apparently found measuring such rather difficult at
> the time. It seems to have been a question of phugoids and nothing else, which
> would leave a lot up to pilot interpretation.

Correction: We do have the Cg travel of some of the versions, but not in any
systematic fashion.

<snip>

> > The fact that late production Spitfires did get rear fuselage tanks
> > which the RAF considered compromised aircraft stability too much for
> > normal peacetime operation is instructive. If we were to take
> > Tuttle's comments about peacetime operations as gospel for credible
> > wartime developments, none of this development in regard of rear
> > fuselage tanks would have happened at all.
>
> Sure.
>
> > What this counterfactual stems from was the level to which the RAF was
> > prepared to modify peacetime levels of aircraft stability to meet
> > operational needs. We know their historic position, but in this case
> > we are positing a greater operational need for range, in which case we
> > need to consider what would be a credible reaction. We can all agree
> > that the Spitfire (and especially the Spit V) had serious constraints
> > involved in increasing internal tankage, and specifically in the rear
> > fuselage. I believe it is instructive to observe how far the RAF were
> > pushed down that route historically, and extrapolate on a reasonable
> > basis from that.
> >
> > On that basis, the use of the 29 gallon rear fuselage tank can't be
> > ruled out on the basis that the RAF preferred not to use it. If we
> > left it to RAF institutional preference alone there wouldn't have been
> > any rear fuselage tanks at all, but then nor would there have been PR
> > Spitfires to start with.
>
> I think the Mk. IX could probably have gotten away with a 29 gallon tank or
> something in that range, even with the original tail. I have serious doubts that
> the Mk. V could have. Tuttle's comments imply negative longitudinal stability with
> ANY fuel in the tank, and that means it is of no help to us for increasing fighter
> combat radius. We could put the same fuel in a larger drop tank (at somewhat
> higher drag, to be sure), say 120 gallons; the handling will be better than with
> the rear tank, and it's a much simpler solution.

Checking the Mk. IX weight and loading chart at

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ab197.html

it's stated that the a/c tare weight includes 87.5 lb. of ballast in the tail.

Guy

[Peter Stickney]

I'm back, but an ahem, "flying visit" Trade Show season for us is
coming up, and I've just shaken off a 48 hour attack of the 24 Hour
Ebola...

In article >,
Guy Alcala > writes:
> The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 19:58:15 GMT, Guy Alcala
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Okay, I've got Price's "The Spitfire Story," which is very helpful. Here's
>> >what Wing Commander Tuttle, former head of the PRU, told Price about the
>> >handling of the hand-modified PR.1Ds (normal 84 gallons forward, 114 gallons
>> >in the wing L.E., 29 gallons behind the pilot, plus two cameras further back
>> >(but no radio):
>> >
>> >"You could not fly it straight and level for the first half hour or hour after
>> >takeoff. Until you had emptied the rear tank, the aircraft hunted the whole
>> >time. The center of gravity was so far back you couldn't control it. It was
>> >the sort of thing that would never have got in during peacetime, but war is
>> >another matter."
>> >
>> >What may be barely acceptable for a PR bird flying solo in VFR conditions by
>> >experienced pilots not making any radical maneuvers, is definitely
>> >unacceptable for formation or combat flying by less experienced pilots.

I've managed to latch onto a few Spitfire Pilot's Notes.
Specifically, the Mk V/Seafire II/III, the Mk XII, the Mk XIV, and the
Seafire Fr. 46. (No Mk IX yet, dangit!) I'll gove more exact quotes
tomorrow, but I'll sum up a bit here, as appropriate.

The Spit FR. XIV is listed as having a 31 imp. gallon tank behind the
cockpit, and 2 13 imp. gallon tanks in the wing leading edges. Note that
this is only for the FR. XIV (Fighter/Recce), not the F. XIV (Pure
Fighter) or the P.R. XIV (Pure Recce). It's also worth noting that
the date of publication is early 1946, and at that time, the rear
fuselage tank is noted as "Blanked off and not to be used unless
specifically ordered by hte Operational Commander, and only for
special operations. In the Handling Section, it is noted that teh use
of the rear fuselage tank reduces stability, and the aircraft should
not be flown above 15,000' until it is empty. (That's not really a
problem with a Griffon Spit) The recommended fuel burn sequence it to
take off on the main tanks, switch to the rear tank at 2,000', and
when that's empty, (signified by the engine quitting) switching back
to the drop tank, if fitted, or the main tanks and transferring the
wing tank fuel as soon as possible.

So, it was there, adn it was a somewhat useful amount of fuel, but it
really wasn't considered a good thing.

>>
>>
>>
>> But this is precisely the argument against any kind of rearward CoG
>> movement implied by any rear fuselage tanks.
>
> Not any kind, just the kind that can't be used in combat or in formation.
> Remember, we're trying to extend the combat radius, with range being essentially
> irrelevant. If you've got to burn the fuel off before you enter combat and the
> only advantage is to extend the range/endurance, it's easier to just carry a bigger
> drop tank. The extra internal fuel would allow you to go a bit further without
> carrying a drop tank, but that's a relatively minor (but real) advantage.
>
>> Note that this
>> configuration included up to two cameras positioned further back in
>> the fuselage than the fuel tanks, which I assume could only have had
>> an even more detrimental impact on the CoG than a 29 gallon fuel tank.
>
> But no radio, which appears to have been even further back, and IIRR of equal or
> greater weight than the cameras (I saw the camera weight listed somewhere, and have
> the radio weights). And no guns, but fuel in the L.E.s, which (unlike the gun
> armament) is all forward of the datum, moving the Cg forward compared to the
> fighter.
>
>> I don't think the PR Spits are a valid indicator of what was tolerable
>> with a fighter profile - e.g. the V's with 29 gallon rear fuselage
>> tanks (and 170 gallon drop tanks) used for reinforcement flights from
>> Gibraltar to Malta in October 1942. Now these were not in operational
>> fighter trim, but they were to be flown by squadron pilots.
>
> Two at a time, not in squadron/wing formations, and not having to take off in IFR
> conditions and climb above clouds on instruments. It was recommended to send them
> to Malta singly, but Park preferred two so that if one had problems, the other
> would have some idea where the a/c went down, so they might have some chance of
> rescuing the pilot.

Oddly enough, the Spit V notes has an appendix to th handling
instruction for the 29 gallon fuselage tank/170 gallon super drop tank
combination. A few salient points: The aircraft is restricted to
straight and level flight until the drop tank and the rear fuselage
tank are empty. There are a lot of warning about how setting the fuel
cocks wrong will case teh system to siphon fuel overboard. The
sequence of use was to take off on the main tanks, switch to the
drop tank and run it dry (indicated by the engine cutting out - the
Spitfure Fuel gages must have been designed by the same bloke who did
the MG oil gage. Lucas, I think his name was.) The the rear tank is
emptied, (Same fuel gage), then the mains. The drop tank may be
jettisoned at any time, as long as you're straight and level, empty,
full, or in between. Nothing but straght and level until the rear
fuselage tank empties.

So - while it appears that the 29 gallon tank wa only intended to be
used with the 170 gallon tank for the Malta reinforcements, there's
really no reason why it might not have been considered, with the
proviso that you couldn't fly a real formation, or engage in combat
until it was empty, or that it couldn't be used with one of the
smaller "combat" tanks. Note though, that the 90 imp. gallon tank is
also restricted to straight and level flight.

That's a bit more flexible than I thought it would be.


>
>> Equally,
>> the RAF did regard the instability involved in the 75 gallon rear
>> fuselage tank in the IX airframe to be tolerable when the operational
>> need was great enough. Tuttle's comments are identical to Quill's and
>> Havercroft's on the instabilty problems casued by rear fuselage tanks
>> in the IXs they tested with them.
>
> Ah, but we agree that the IX's had a more forward Cg to start with, and we don't
> know the degree of instability (which is what we're waiting on Pete for). BTW, I
> think I now know why the Mk. IX/XVI with cut down fuselage had 66 gal. in the rear
> fuselage tanks vice 75: a simple space issue. The photo in "The Spitfire Story"
> (pg. 162 in the copy I have) showing a Mk. IX with aft tanks shows that they're
> stacked directly behind the pilot's back armor plate, and the upper one extends
> almost to the top of the aft cockpit glazing Presumably the bubble-canopy a/c
> tanks were lower.
>[i]
>> >Later, the production PR.1Ds had the aft tank removed, the radio reinstalled,
>> >and the L.E. tanks enlarged from 57 to 66.5 gallons each side, to improve the
>> >handling (L.E. tanks were forward of the datum). They also got somewhat
>> >heavier Merlin 45s.
>>
>> They also began to get drop tanks underneath the fuselage to extend
>> range.
>
>> I think it's instructive that until alternative fuel tankage
>> could be provided in the wings and externally, they did adopt a rear
>> fuselage tank, and that was in an aircraft with an existing CoG travel
>> worse than the fighter versions.
>
> But was it? After all, with no armament, the Cg moved forward. No radio (mounted
> aft of where the cameras would be) moves it forward again. And quite early, they
> got external fuel, in 30 gal. blister tanks under the wings.

Not only that, but a PR Spit wasn't expected to be maneuvering - It's
job was to be as high as possiblem where nobody had any maneuver
margin. They'd get to height as soon as possible after tankeoff, and
stay there. A good chunk of the aft fuel would get burned off in the
climb. It's also worth noting that the PR Spits had no disposable
load other than fuel. On the fighter Spits, the ammunition was aft of
the CG, (but not too much) and contributed to any stability problems.


>> The CoG problems this caused were
>> certainly unacceptable for peacetime flight, but then - by the RAF's
>> standards - so were the rear-fuselage tanks in the later Spit IXs and
>> XVIs, which were ordered not to be used without direct orders in the
>> post-war Pilot's Notes.
>
> Unfortunately, we don't know the degree of instability (and Cg travel) of the
> various versions, since they apparently found measuring such rather difficult at
> the time. It seems to have been a question of phugoids and nothing else, which
> would leave a lot up to pilot interpretation.
>
>> This is also reflected in the decision to
>> delete the rear-fuselage tank in the RAF's Mustang IIIs. All of this
>> stems from an institutional attitude and the extent to which it could
>> be influenced by operational neccessity.
>
> Certainly a factor.
>
>> The fact that late production Spitfires did get rear fuselage tanks
>> which the RAF considered compromised aircraft stability too much for
>> normal peacetime operation is instructive. If we were to take
>> Tuttle's comments about peacetime operations as gospel for credible
>> wartime developments, none of this development in regard of rear
>> fuselage tanks would have happened at all.
>
> Sure.
>
>> What this counterfactual stems from was the level to which the RAF was
>> prepared to modify peacetime levels of aircraft stability to meet
>> operational needs. We know their historic position, but in this case
>> we are positing a greater operational need for range, in which case we
>> need to consider what would be a credible reaction. We can all agree
>> that the Spitfire (and especially the Spit V) had serious constraints
>> involved in increasing internal tankage, and specifically in the rear
>> fuselage. I believe it is instructive to observe how far the RAF were
>> pushed down that route historically, and extrapolate on a reasonable
>> basis from that.
>>
>> On that basis, the use of the 29 gallon rear fuselage tank can't be
>> ruled out on the basis that the RAF preferred not to use it. If we
>> left it to RAF institutional preference alone there wouldn't have been
>> any rear fuselage tanks at all, but then nor would there have been PR
>> Spitfires to start with.
>
> I think the Mk. IX could probably have gotten away with a 29 gallon tank or
> something in that range, even with the original tail. I have serious doubts that
> the Mk. V could have. Tuttle's comments imply negative longitudinal stability with
> ANY fuel in the tank, and that means it is of no help to us for increasing fighter
> combat radius. We could put the same fuel in a larger drop tank (at somewhat
> higher drag, to be sure), say 120 gallons; the handling will be better than with
> the rear tank, and it's a much simpler solution.

See above. I was rather surprised myself. The 90 gallon tank is
pretty much out as anything but a ferry tank, but an intermediate
choice of a 50 or 60 gallon tank would provide the same fuel capacity
over the 30 gallon combat tank as the aft fuselage tank would, without
much in the way of bad effects. (Didn't the Hurricane use a 50 gallon
teardrop or torpedo shaped tank? It might even be less draggy than
the 30 gallon blister.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:01:46 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>> [I've got that book meself]
>>
>> But this is precisely the argument against any kind of rearward CoG
>> movement implied by any rear fuselage tanks.
>
>Not any kind, just the kind that can't be used in combat or in formation.

The problem is that we don't know the CoG travel involved in any of
these changes of equipment and trim. The only loading charts and CoG
details I have are for later versions of Spitfire. Nonetheless, it is
clear from the diagrams I've seen that the PR IV SLR with the 30
gallon rear fuselage tank had two cameras and their mountings,
occupying the entire fuselage at that point, mounted further to the
rear than the 29-gallon ferry tank. I don't know the weights involved
with the cameras, but in the case of the 29 gallon tank this was
mounted in the fuselage immediately behind the pilot: unless the tank
went under the pilot's seat there was no place with less of an impact
on rearwards CoG travel to put it.

Now, I fully accept that 200lbs of extra weight in the rear fuselage
in any position would make the handling of a Spit Vc deteriorate, but
I find it hard to believe that this was not a creditable proposition
within operationally tolerable limits, especially at a time when tail
ballast was being increased to test heavier Rotol propellers.

>Remember, we're trying to extend the combat radius, with range being essentially
>irrelevant. If you've got to burn the fuel off before you enter combat and the
>only advantage is to extend the range/endurance, it's easier to just carry a bigger
>drop tank.

To a point: the critical issue is the handling deterioration involved
in both cases. We know that a stock Mk IX was considered acceptable
for manoevering with 30 gallons or so consumed out of a 75 gallon rear
tank, and although this involves an aircraft with a different CoG
loadout and weight distribution, we know the RAF was prepared to
tolerate 30-40 gallons worth of weight with a detrimental impact on
longitudinal stability to increase operational radius in 1944-45.

I'm advancing the 29-gallon tank scenario because this offers the RAF
precisely this capacity in mid-1942 in plenty of time for further
exploitation in the summer of 1943. R&D workThe 29-gallon rear tank
and 90-gallon drop tank combination had already been done and offered
an "off the peg" solution for increasing the 12 Group Spit V wing's
escort ranges when this first became an issue. I'm not arguing that
this was an optimal solution, but I do think it was a possible and
credible one given the fact that it was an already-existing historical
equipment option.

I'm starting my speculation from the point of "what was actually
available" with Fighter Command escorts for US strategic raids. The
best-placed units for escorting attacks on Willhelmshaven, Bremen and
Hamburg were the 12 Group squadrons at Ludham, Coltishall, etc. These
units were considered second-line to the squadrons in 11 Group which
had priority for the Spitfire IX, and so an initial escorting solution
might have to be found which maximises their potential before major
reallocation of Mk VIIIs or anything else takes place.

Obviously, if you're positing the major change in strategic direction
under ACM Kramer in September 1943 rather than from the ground up in
June, as I am, then the whole issue of increasing the range of the Mk
V is moot.

Having said that, some figures from AVM Stickney might be interesting
to indicate precisely how much ******** I've been talking so far.

> The extra internal fuel would allow you to go a bit further without
>carrying a drop tank, but that's a relatively minor (but real) advantage.

Whatever we do, the Spit escorts beyond the Zuider Zee/German border
are going to be less effective than the P-38s or P-51s because of the
internal fuel limitations, but even a "drop external tanks, one or two
passes and then home" profile is better than no escort at all.

There's no question that MK VIII-style increased internal tankage is a
better option, as the wing leading-edge tanks and enlarged forward
tanks give greater endurance in combat trim than any external tankage
could provide.

[aftwards CoG in PR IV Spits]

>But no radio, which appears to have been even further back, and IIRR of equal or
>greater weight than the cameras (I saw the camera weight listed somewhere, and have
>the radio weights).

How much were they? In my LR Vc scenario, the radio stays where it
is, the oxygen bottles get displaced downwards and the top half of the
clear perspex frame behind the pilot now has a fuel tank. I'm not
sure what impact this would have on the pilot's armour plate: I'm
pretty convinced it would be impossible to move it aft to protect the
tank without an unacceptable impact on CoG travel.

>> I don't think the PR Spits are a valid indicator of what was tolerable
>> with a fighter profile - e.g. the V's with 29 gallon rear fuselage
>> tanks (and 170 gallon drop tanks) used for reinforcement flights from
>> Gibraltar to Malta in October 1942. Now these were not in operational
>> fighter trim, but they were to be flown by squadron pilots.
>
>Two at a time, not in squadron/wing formations, and not having to take off in IFR
>conditions and climb above clouds on instruments.

Yeah, but this was also with the 170 gallon overload tank; I don't
think we can take it as a comment on what the 29 galllon tank was like
in isolation.



>Ah, but we agree that the IX's had a more forward Cg to start with, and we don't
>know the degree of instability (which is what we're waiting on Pete for).

Precisely.

> BTW, I
>think I now know why the Mk. IX/XVI with cut down fuselage had 66 gal. in the rear
>fuselage tanks vice 75: a simple space issue.

Yep.

The photo in "The Spitfire Story"
>(pg. 162 in the copy I have) showing a Mk. IX with aft tanks shows that they're
>stacked directly behind the pilot's back armor plate, and the upper one extends
>almost to the top of the aft cockpit glazing Presumably the bubble-canopy a/c
>tanks were lower.

Yep.
[i]
>> I think it's instructive that until alternative fuel tankage
>> could be provided in the wings and externally, they did adopt a rear
>> fuselage tank, and that was in an aircraft with an existing CoG travel
>> worse than the fighter versions.
>
>But was it? After all, with no armament, the Cg moved forward.

And moved back with wing tanks....

>No radio (mounted
>aft of where the cameras would be) moves it forward again.

But the cameras moved it back again....

I agree, we can't really conclude this without some more information
on the CoG travel involved in the V and IX.

>Unfortunately, we don't know the degree of instability (and Cg travel) of the
>various versions, since they apparently found measuring such rather difficult at
>the time. It seems to have been a question of phugoids and nothing else, which
>would leave a lot up to pilot interpretation.

Exactly. But from a service which ordered single-engined fighter
pilots up at night in 1940-41 with no radar or landing aids worth the
name, or ordered a Hurricane squadron to fly off a carrier in May 1940
with no prior experience, or ordered the first Typhoon wing into
action when the engines were still blowing up and the tails falling
off, I think we can assume a certain degree of ruthlessness when it
comes to a perceived operational requirement.

[snip evidence of unprovoked agreement]

>> On that basis, the use of the 29 gallon rear fuselage tank can't be
>> ruled out on the basis that the RAF preferred not to use it. If we
>> left it to RAF institutional preference alone there wouldn't have been
>> any rear fuselage tanks at all, but then nor would there have been PR
>> Spitfires to start with.
>
>I think the Mk. IX could probably have gotten away with a 29 gallon tank or
>something in that range, even with the original tail.

Actually, they were getting the 75 gallon tank even without the
broad-chord tail.

>I have serious doubts that
>the Mk. V could have.

I can see the rationale, but I'm talking about less than half the
weight.

> Tuttle's comments imply negative longitudinal stability with
>ANY fuel in the tank, and that means it is of no help to us for increasing fighter
>combat radius. We could put the same fuel in a larger drop tank (at somewhat
>higher drag, to be sure), say 120 gallons; the handling will be better than with
>the rear tank, and it's a much simpler solution.

I see the point but once again I'd urge the constraints of actual
production availability. The 90 gallon tanks were available in
quantity in time for this: I'm sure they could have built other
tanks, but the strategy would have had to be made to work with what
was realistically available first.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[Guy Alcala]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:01:46 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >> [I've got that book meself]
> >>
> >> But this is precisely the argument against any kind of rearward CoG
> >> movement implied by any rear fuselage tanks.
> >
> >Not any kind, just the kind that can't be used in combat or in formation.
>
> The problem is that we don't know the CoG travel involved in any of
> these changes of equipment and trim. The only loading charts and CoG
> details I have are for later versions of Spitfire.

Same here.

> Nonetheless, it is
> clear from the diagrams I've seen that the PR IV SLR with the 30
> gallon rear fuselage tank had two cameras and their mountings,
> occupying the entire fuselage at that point, mounted further to the
> rear than the 29-gallon ferry tank.

I think you mean the prototype PR.1Ds, not the PR.IV per se. The latter was the
production version, and deleted the rear fuselage tank while replacing the radio ((they
may have moved it) and boosting the L.E .fuel (which was forward of the Cg) from 114 to
133 gallons, "to improve handling".

> I don't know the weights involved
> with the cameras, but in the case of the 29 gallon tank this was
> mounted in the fuselage immediately behind the pilot: unless the tank
> went under the pilot's seat there was no place with less of an impact
> on rearwards CoG travel to put it.

Yes, and the cameras were in lieu of the radio.

> Now, I fully accept that 200lbs of extra weight in the rear fuselage
> in any position would make the handling of a Spit Vc deteriorate, but
> I find it hard to believe that this was not a creditable proposition
> within operationally tolerable limits, especially at a time when tail
> ballast was being increased to test heavier Rotol propellers.

According to Vader, the early Spit Is with armor just had it at the rear of the
firewall, plus the bulletproof glass; he doesn't give the total weight. He lists 73 lb.
total weight of armor for the Mk. II, and mentions that the pilot got seat to head
protection (bad for Cg) and the glycol header tank was protected (good for Cg). He
credits the Mk. V with 152 lb. of armor, the Mk. VIII/IX with 202 lb. Most if not all of
this would likely be behind the datum. The PR.1D that Tuttle was talking about probably
had little or none of this; we know it lacked the bulletproof glass, and at most it
would have had the armor of the Mk. II. I suspect they also lacked dinghies (15 lb. @
the cockpit) at the time as well (aside; anyone know just when the RAF fighters got
them?). I suspect the Vc is starting with a Cg well aft of the PR.1D, before you add
the rear tank to either (I assume the radio balances off the cameras).

> >Remember, we're trying to extend the combat radius, with range being essentially
> >irrelevant. If you've got to burn the fuel off before you enter combat and the
> >only advantage is to extend the range/endurance, it's easier to just carry a bigger
> >drop tank.
>
> To a point: the critical issue is the handling deterioration involved
> in both cases. We know that a stock Mk IX was considered acceptable
> for manoevering with 30 gallons or so consumed out of a 75 gallon rear
> tank, and although this involves an aircraft with a different CoG
> loadout and weight distribution,

Very different. The engine alone weighs ca. 200 lb. more, all well forward of the
datum, then there's the four vice three blade prop way out in front. The Mk. IX's a lot
better place to start than the Mk. V, for performance AND Cg.

> we know the RAF was prepared to
> tolerate 30-40 gallons worth of weight with a detrimental impact on
> longitudinal stability to increase operational radius in 1944-45.

See above.

> I'm advancing the 29-gallon tank scenario because this offers the RAF
> precisely this capacity in mid-1942 in plenty of time for further
> exploitation in the summer of 1943. R&D workThe 29-gallon rear tank
> and 90-gallon drop tank combination had already been done and offered
> an "off the peg" solution for increasing the 12 Group Spit V wing's
> escort ranges when this first became an issue.

> I'm not arguing that
> this was an optimal solution, but I do think it was a possible and
> credible one given the fact that it was an already-existing historical
> equipment option.

But the Mk. VII/VIII's enlarged forward tanks and L.E. tanks were also an already
existing (and better) option, as were enlarged tanks for the Mk. IX (the prototype, a
converted Mk. VC, had 92 gallons in the forward fuselage instead of 85). If we posit a
decision to go over to daylight in 1943, then the ability to boost the fighter range
beyond medium-bomber escort radius doesn't need to be demonstrated or even shown to be
necessary on an obsolete a/c; this capability now becomes a strategic requirement. With
that premise, and with all the mods we're going to have to make to the bombers
themselves, the necessary priority would be available to modify Mk. IXs. They'd have
no choice but to boost the radius, and the obvious way to do that is to grab the
already in production mods for the Mk. VIII and put them in the Mk. IX, as well as
grabbing the Mk. VIIIs (and why not, Mk. VIIs) in the meantime.

> I'm starting my speculation from the point of "what was actually
> available" with Fighter Command escorts for US strategic raids. The
> best-placed units for escorting attacks on Willhelmshaven, Bremen and
> Hamburg were the 12 Group squadrons at Ludham, Coltishall, etc.

I'm assuming Ludham and Matlask. Of course, both of these bases were supposed to be
turned over to the 8th AF, but owing to the diversion of forces to the 15th AF in Italy,
they were never taken over by us.

> These
> units were considered second-line to the squadrons in 11 Group which
> had priority for the Spitfire IX, and so an initial escorting solution
> might have to be found which maximises their potential before major
> reallocation of Mk VIIIs or anything else takes place.

But they were only second-line because they didn't have top priority. Now we're talking
about changing almost the whole methodology of Fighter and Bomber Command. If the
necessary priority exists to change the latter, then it certainly will exist for the
former, and the Mk. IXs (or Mk. VIIIs) will be made available, one way or another. And
it's not as if 11 Group won't have any need for longer-ranged Spits themselves; for
targets on or south of a line from London through Essen and on east, the range is the
same or shorter from forward bases in Southeastern England, like Hawkinge, Lympne and
(especially) Manston. Essentially, for any target in or south of Belgium, 11 Group is in
an equal or better position.

> Obviously, if you're positing the major change in strategic direction
> under ACM Kramer in September 1943 rather than from the ground up in
> June, as I am, then the whole issue of increasing the range of the Mk
> V is moot.

I think it's moot in June, for the reasons given above. Change the strategic direction
and the priorities change as well; Fighter Command will have no choice but to conform.
Any change you make to the Mk. V can be made just as easily to the Mk. IX, and with
improved handling and performance.

> Having said that, some figures from AVM Stickney might be interesting
> to indicate precisely how much ******** I've been talking so far.

Sure would help, but since I'm not volunteering to do the number crunching (even if I
was qualified to do so), I guess we'll have to wait;-).

> > The extra internal fuel would allow you to go a bit further without
> >carrying a drop tank, but that's a relatively minor (but real) advantage.
>
> Whatever we do, the Spit escorts beyond the Zuider Zee/German border
> are going to be less effective than the P-38s or P-51s because of the
> internal fuel limitations, but even a "drop external tanks, one or two
> passes and then home" profile is better than no escort at all.
>
> There's no question that MK VIII-style increased internal tankage is a
> better option, as the wing leading-edge tanks and enlarged forward
> tanks give greater endurance in combat trim than any external tankage
> could provide.

Just for giggles, it was interesting to note that even a Mk. VIII with its normal 122
gallons internal (or 123 or 4, take your pick) PLUS a 90 gallon drop tank, still has
about 13 U.S. gallons less fuel than a P-51 with internal wing and aft fuselage tanks
full. The USAAF charts for escort radius reprinted in "America's Hundred Thousand"
credit a P-51D with a 375 mile escort radius on _internal_ fuel (with the aft tank) @
25,000 feet, with combat allowances for 5 minutes WE and 15 minutes Mil. power.

> [aftwards CoG in PR IV Spits]
>
> >But no radio, which appears to have been even further back, and IIRR of equal or
> >greater weight than the cameras (I saw the camera weight listed somewhere, and have
> >the radio weights).
>
> How much were they?

See below.

> In my LR Vc scenario, the radio stays where it
> is, the oxygen bottles get displaced downwards and the top half of the
> clear perspex frame behind the pilot now has a fuel tank. I'm not
> sure what impact this would have on the pilot's armour plate: I'm
> pretty convinced it would be impossible to move it aft to protect the
> tank without an unacceptable impact on CoG travel.
>
> >> I don't think the PR Spits are a valid indicator of what was tolerable
> >> with a fighter profile - e.g. the V's with 29 gallon rear fuselage
> >> tanks (and 170 gallon drop tanks) used for reinforcement flights from
> >> Gibraltar to Malta in October 1942. Now these were not in operational
> >> fighter trim, but they were to be flown by squadron pilots.
> >
> >Two at a time, not in squadron/wing formations, and not having to take off in IFR
> >conditions and climb above clouds on instruments.
>
> Yeah, but this was also with the 170 gallon overload tank; I don't
> think we can take it as a comment on what the 29 galllon tank was like
> in isolation.

Agreed, but it was also with only a pair of .303s installed and 350 rpg, and the slipper
tanks weren't all that far aft of the datum. (of course, there may have been separate
aerodynamic issues with the 170 gal. tank).

>
>
> >Ah, but we agree that the IX's had a more forward Cg to start with, and we don't
> >know the degree of instability (which is what we're waiting on Pete for).
>
> Precisely.

<snip agreement on reason for reduction in aft tankage on cutdown Mk. IX/XVI>
[i]
> >> I think it's instructive that until alternative fuel tankage
> >> could be provided in the wings and externally, they did adopt a rear
> >> fuselage tank, and that was in an aircraft with an existing CoG travel
> >> worse than the fighter versions.
> >
> >But was it? After all, with no armament, the Cg moved forward.
>
> And moved back with wing tanks....

I think we're talking about different a/c. The ones with the 30 gallon blister tanks
weren't the PR.1Ds or PR.IVs with aft-mounted cameras, but PR.1B/C/E with wing mounted
ones. The PR.1Fs are the only variants I can think of with blister tanks, an aft tank
and rear cameras, but the cameras seem to normally be shorter focal length (lighter)
than the PR.1D normally used, although Price does indicate that longer lenses could be
carried.

> >No radio (mounted
> >aft of where the cameras would be) moves it forward again.
>
> But the cameras moved it back again....

I was assuming the cameras were fitted, and the radio was weight compensation.

> I agree, we can't really conclude this without some more information
> on the CoG travel involved in the V and IX.
>
> >Unfortunately, we don't know the degree of instability (and Cg travel) of the
> >various versions, since they apparently found measuring such rather difficult at
> >the time. It seems to have been a question of phugoids and nothing else, which
> >would leave a lot up to pilot interpretation.
>
> Exactly. But from a service which ordered single-engined fighter
> pilots up at night in 1940-41 with no radar or landing aids worth the
> name, or ordered a Hurricane squadron to fly off a carrier in May 1940
> with no prior experience, or ordered the first Typhoon wing into
> action when the engines were still blowing up and the tails falling
> off, I think we can assume a certain degree of ruthlessness when it
> comes to a perceived operational requirement.
>
> [snip evidence of unprovoked agreement]
>
> >> On that basis, the use of the 29 gallon rear fuselage tank can't be
> >> ruled out on the basis that the RAF preferred not to use it. If we
> >> left it to RAF institutional preference alone there wouldn't have been
> >> any rear fuselage tanks at all, but then nor would there have been PR
> >> Spitfires to start with.
> >
> >I think the Mk. IX could probably have gotten away with a 29 gallon tank or
> >something in that range, even with the original tail.
>
> Actually, they were getting the 75 gallon tank even without the
> broad-chord tail.

I meant they could get away with it for combat, not endurance.

> >I have serious doubts that
> >the Mk. V could have.
>
> I can see the rationale, but I'm talking about less than half the
> weight.
>
> > Tuttle's comments imply negative longitudinal stability with
> >ANY fuel in the tank, and that means it is of no help to us for increasing fighter
> >combat radius. We could put the same fuel in a larger drop tank (at somewhat
> >higher drag, to be sure), say 120 gallons; the handling will be better than with
> >the rear tank, and it's a much simpler solution.
>
> I see the point but once again I'd urge the constraints of actual
> production availability. The 90 gallon tanks were available in
> quantity in time for this: I'm sure they could have built other
> tanks, but the strategy would have had to be made to work with what
> was realistically available first.

Were the 29 gallon tanks available in quantity at the time? They seem to have been a
limited production item. If they were limited, then it's six of one, half a dozen of
the other as far as making extra tanks, and you don't need to install all the extra
piping for the aft tank. Still, if the Mk. IX can keep it full and still have
acceptable combat handling, by all means install it.

Guy

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 01:38:38 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

>I'm back, but an ahem, "flying visit" Trade Show season for us is
>coming up, and I've just shaken off a 48 hour attack of the 24 Hour
>Ebola...

The excuses an engineer will come up with in order to lock himself
into a darkened room with his slide rule....

>I've managed to latch onto a few Spitfire Pilot's Notes.
>Specifically, the Mk V/Seafire II/III, the Mk XII, the Mk XIV, and the
>Seafire Fr. 46. (No Mk IX yet, dangit!) I'll gove more exact quotes
>tomorrow, but I'll sum up a bit here, as appropriate.

Peter, I've scanned the whole Mk IX Pilot's Notes for you and Guy, but
my last attempt to send you extracts bounced due to lack of space on
your mail account. I can't put them up on a website at the moment, so
I can only email them. Contact me at -



if you have another account I could send the scans to you at.

[rear tank in Mk XIV]

>So, it was there, adn it was a somewhat useful amount of fuel, but it
>really wasn't considered a good thing.

The FR XIV was the only XIV to get rear tanks, the fighter version
with rear tanks mutated into the Mk XVIII when it started to be
produced on the XIV production lines in the summer of 1945.

There's no doubt that that this represents further evidence of
institutional RAF intolerance to longitudinal instability caused by
rear fuselage tanks to my mind, and it reflects the post-war position
as indicated by Pilot's Notes instructions for other versions of Spit
with the rear tanks.

I can certainly accept that this institutional intolerance existed, as
I have been asserting that from the start of my contributions to this
thread, but as I've said to ACdre Alcala, that intolerance needs to be
balanced against operational need: the the case of the Spit IX/XVI
and Mustang IV, the RAF accepted rear fuselage tankage at the price of
instability for pressing operational reasons. As soon as the war ends
and those operational reasons no longer apply, the institutional norm
will obviously reassert itself. Where I think we should be careful is
using post-war, peacetime evidence of this dynamic and reading it back
into operational service requirements where evidence exists that the
RAF was prepared to compromise their attitude.

I'd love to see the Pilot's Notes for the Mustang IV, as I suspect
they will have some interesting comments on handling and use of the
rear-fuselage tank.

[snip Spit V with 170 gal overload tank and 29 gal rear fuselage tank]

>Nothing but straght and level until the rear
>fuselage tank empties.

Yes, but this is for an aircraft in ferry trim, and I don't think any
larger conclusions can be safely drawn when it's CoG standard was so
different from ordinary aircraft (no cannon, radios repositioned, etc)

>So - while it appears that the 29 gallon tank wa only intended to be
>used with the 170 gallon tank for the Malta reinforcements, there's
>really no reason why it might not have been considered, with the
>proviso that you couldn't fly a real formation, or engage in combat
>until it was empty, or that it couldn't be used with one of the
>smaller "combat" tanks. Note though, that the 90 imp. gallon tank is
>also restricted to straight and level flight.
>
>That's a bit more flexible than I thought it would be.

My thinking was for an extra 29 gallons for early formation flight on
the climb for maybe 20 minutes, with any remainder contributing to the
flight reserve fuel load. As Guy has pointed out, rear fuselage
tankage capacity which comes at the expense of stability cannot be
considered optimal or even tolerable for combat conditions. In
response my contention is that the requirement is for endurance
coverage of long oversea flights out over the North Sea to potential
combat areas over Holland and Germany in the summer of 1943, and the
29 gallon tank in addition to the 90 gallon drop tank would increase
the operational radius in this respect, even if the combat endurance
when the aircraft got there was minimal.

>> But was it? After all, with no armament, the Cg moved forward. No radio (mounted
>> aft of where the cameras would be) moves it forward again. And quite early, they
>> got external fuel, in 30 gal. blister tanks under the wings.
>
>Not only that, but a PR Spit wasn't expected to be maneuvering - It's
>job was to be as high as possiblem where nobody had any maneuver
>margin. They'd get to height as soon as possible after tankeoff, and
>stay there.

On the other hand they were required to evade contact with
manoevreability when required. PR pilots were always expected to drop
external tanks on contact.

> A good chunk of the aft fuel would get burned off in the
>climb. It's also worth noting that the PR Spits had no disposable
>load other than fuel. On the fighter Spits, the ammunition was aft of
>the CG, (but not too much) and contributed to any stability problems.

There's also the issue of aft ballast, which varied greatly over the
life of the Spitfire, and over the lifespan of individual marks. The
V is a case in point, and where the equipment loading becomes
bewildering.

>See above. I was rather surprised myself. The 90 gallon tank is
>pretty much out as anything but a ferry tank,

Ah, but it was actually used by Spitfires and Seafires (with even
worse CoG issues than the Spit V) in combat operations. Examples
include Salerno and Normandy. There was a slipper-tank version and a
later torpedo-tank version. I suspect they would have been used
despite the tank shortcomings: the stability problems would lessen as
the fuel was consumed, and the 8th AF fighters demonstrated that
unpressurised, unreliable paper-mache tanks still could give a useful
benefit to escort radius.

> but an intermediate
>choice of a 50 or 60 gallon tank would provide the same fuel capacity
>over the 30 gallon combat tank as the aft fuselage tank would, without
>much in the way of bad effects. (Didn't the Hurricane use a 50 gallon
>teardrop or torpedo shaped tank? It might even be less draggy than
>the 30 gallon blister.

They actually used a 45 gallon slipper tank as well as the 30 and 90
gallon versions. The 44 gallon Hurricane tank was an unpressurised,
unjettisonable ferry tank, with one carried beneath each wing to give
88 gallons ferry capacity. I have actually seen a photo of a Spitfire
on Malta with an improvised 2 x 44 gallon fuselage tank, although I
suspect this was a local modification made possible due to the
presence of old Hurricane ferry tanks from ferry flights from
Cyrenaica and the lack of the newer slipper tanks until later in 1942.

Whatever happened, the tanks were going to be jettisoned before
initiating combat, so I don't think the 90 gallon tanks - which should
be substantially emptied and consequently lighter before the aircraft
got to the prospective combat area anyway - would in those
circumstances impose as much of a performance restriction as we might
suppose.

Remember, I'm not asserting that any of this was an optimal solution
for long-range escorting, or could have competed with aircraft that
were better suited to expanding their internal fuel capacity. I'm
trying to work along the lines that would be dictated by operational
neccessity and addressed with existing equipment and experience in
certain circumstances.

Gavin Bailey


--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Peter Stickney
> writes
>
>I'm back, but an ahem, "flying visit" Trade Show season for us is
>coming up, and I've just shaken off a 48 hour attack of the 24 Hour
>Ebola...
>
>In article >,
> Guy Alcala > writes:
>> The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 19:58:15 GMT, Guy Alcala
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >Okay, I've got Price's "The Spitfire Story," which is very helpful. Here's
>>> >what Wing Commander Tuttle, former head of the PRU, told Price about the
>>> >handling of the hand-modified PR.1Ds (normal 84 gallons forward, 114 gallons
>>> >in the wing L.E., 29 gallons behind the pilot, plus two cameras further back
>>> >(but no radio):
>>> >
>>> >"You could not fly it straight and level for the first half hour or hour
>after
>>> >takeoff. Until you had emptied the rear tank, the aircraft hunted the whole
>>> >time. The center of gravity was so far back you couldn't control it. It
>was
>>> >the sort of thing that would never have got in during peacetime, but war is
>>> >another matter."
>>> >
>>> >What may be barely acceptable for a PR bird flying solo in VFR conditions by
>>> >experienced pilots not making any radical maneuvers, is definitely
>>> >unacceptable for formation or combat flying by less experienced pilots.
>
>I've managed to latch onto a few Spitfire Pilot's Notes.
>Specifically, the Mk V/Seafire II/III, the Mk XII, the Mk XIV, and the
>Seafire Fr. 46. (No Mk IX yet, dangit!) I'll gove more exact quotes
>tomorrow, but I'll sum up a bit here, as appropriate.
>
Is it just the MkIX fuel data you need?

From Pilot's Notes 3rd Edition Sept '46

Two tanks, a top and a bottom, forward of the cockpit.

Top tank - 48 galls
Bottom tank - 37 galls (on some aircraft 47 galls, generally those with
a 'rear view' fuselage).

Later MkIX aircraft have additional capacity in the form of two tanks
behind the canopy. These have a combined capacity of 75 gallons (66 in
aircraft with 'rear view' fuselages) but these are only to be used at
the discretion of the appropriate Area Commander for certain operations,
and when not in use the cocks should be wired off. These are never to
be used in aircraft with rear view fuselages.

(Personal comment - when building an aircraft with a rear view fuselage,
why install the tanks that are forbidden to be used? Unless a batch of
rear view aircraft were produced before the use of the aft tanks was
proved to be dangerous...)

An auxiliary blister drop tank of 30, 45, or 90 galls can be fitted
under the fuselage (170 galls on the PRXI variant). These feed the
engine directly and do not replenish the main tanks. Main tanks are
pressurised, so if holed, pressurisation should be turned off.

Hope this is what you were after - I have not been following this thread
closely.

>The Spit FR. XIV is listed as having a 31 imp. gallon tank behind the
>cockpit, and 2 13 imp. gallon tanks in the wing leading edges. Note that
>this is only for the FR. XIV (Fighter/Recce), not the F. XIV (Pure
>Fighter) or the P.R. XIV (Pure Recce). It's also worth noting that
>the date of publication is early 1946, and at that time, the rear
>fuselage tank is noted as "Blanked off and not to be used unless
>specifically ordered by hte Operational Commander, and only for
>special operations. In the Handling Section, it is noted that teh use
>of the rear fuselage tank reduces stability, and the aircraft should
>not be flown above 15,000' until it is empty. (That's not really a
>problem with a Griffon Spit) The recommended fuel burn sequence it to
>take off on the main tanks, switch to the rear tank at 2,000', and
>when that's empty, (signified by the engine quitting) switching back
>to the drop tank, if fitted, or the main tanks and transferring the
>wing tank fuel as soon as possible.
>
Biiig snip of rest

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> I'm back, but an ahem, "flying visit" Trade Show season for us is
> coming up, and I've just shaken off a 48 hour attack of the 24 Hour
> Ebola...
>
> In article >,
> Guy Alcala > writes:
> > The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

<snip>

> I've managed to latch onto a few Spitfire Pilot's Notes.
> Specifically, the Mk V/Seafire II/III, the Mk XII, the Mk XIV, and the
> Seafire Fr. 46. (No Mk IX yet, dangit!) I'll gove more exact quotes
> tomorrow, but I'll sum up a bit here, as appropriate.

<snip Spit XIV tank sequence comments>

> > Two at a time, not in squadron/wing formations, and not having to take off in IFR
> > conditions and climb above clouds on instruments. It was recommended to send them
> > to Malta singly, but Park preferred two so that if one had problems, the other
> > would have some idea where the a/c went down, so they might have some chance of
> > rescuing the pilot.
>
> Oddly enough, the Spit V notes has an appendix to th handling
> instruction for the 29 gallon fuselage tank/170 gallon super drop tank
> combination. A few salient points: The aircraft is restricted to
> straight and level flight until the drop tank and the rear fuselage
> tank are empty. There are a lot of warning about how setting the fuel
> cocks wrong will case teh system to siphon fuel overboard. The
> sequence of use was to take off on the main tanks, switch to the
> drop tank and run it dry (indicated by the engine cutting out - the
> Spitfure Fuel gages must have been designed by the same bloke who did
> the MG oil gage. Lucas, I think his name was.) The the rear tank is
> emptied, (Same fuel gage), then the mains. The drop tank may be
> jettisoned at any time, as long as you're straight and level, empty,
> full, or in between. Nothing but straght and level until the rear
> fuselage tank empties.
>
> So - while it appears that the 29 gallon tank wa only intended to be
> used with the 170 gallon tank for the Malta reinforcements, there's
> really no reason why it might not have been considered, with the
> proviso that you couldn't fly a real formation, or engage in combat
> until it was empty, or that it couldn't be used with one of the
> smaller "combat" tanks. Note though, that the 90 imp. gallon tank is
> also restricted to straight and level flight.
>
> That's a bit more flexible than I thought it would be.

I don't understand your conclusion. The pilot's notes essentially say it can't be used
for combat, which is exactly the _inflexibility_ I've been talking about. Did I get lost
somewhere? BTW, that fuel usage sequence sounds like a pure ferry setup for max. range,
unless the fuel feeds are vastly different between the Mk. V and later a/c. You'd want
to empty the drop first and retain the internal fuel, so that you could drop the external
tank for minimum drag if the winds were worse than predicted. Otherwise, for handling
purposes you'd want to empty the aft tank first, as with the Spit XIV notes.

<snip much Gavin/Guy back and forth>

> >> On that basis, the use of the 29 gallon rear fuselage tank can't be
> >> ruled out on the basis that the RAF preferred not to use it. If we
> >> left it to RAF institutional preference alone there wouldn't have been
> >> any rear fuselage tanks at all, but then nor would there have been PR
> >> Spitfires to start with.
> >
> > I think the Mk. IX could probably have gotten away with a 29 gallon tank or
> > something in that range, even with the original tail. I have serious doubts that
> > the Mk. V could have. Tuttle's comments imply negative longitudinal stability with
> > ANY fuel in the tank, and that means it is of no help to us for increasing fighter
> > combat radius. We could put the same fuel in a larger drop tank (at somewhat
> > higher drag, to be sure), say 120 gallons; the handling will be better than with
> > the rear tank, and it's a much simpler solution.
>
> See above. I was rather surprised myself. The 90 gallon tank is
> pretty much out as anything but a ferry tank,

I'm not sure what you mean by this. It seems to have been carried for combat missions
fairly routinely by Spits VIII/IX/XVI (indeed, the handling trials of the Spit XIV say
the a/c has no range without one, although that a/c admittedly has a more forward Cg than
the Merlin Spits), and while you certainly wouldn't want to get in combat with the thing
attached, it doesn't seem to have made the a/c longitudinally unstable by itself
(neutral, maybe), when full. It was certainly less Cg shift than carrying 66 or 75
gallons aft of the pilot's armor plate.


> but an intermediate
> choice of a 50 or 60 gallon tank would provide the same fuel capacity
> over the 30 gallon combat tank as the aft fuselage tank would, without
> much in the way of bad effects. (Didn't the Hurricane use a 50 gallon
> teardrop or torpedo shaped tank? It might even be less draggy than
> the 30 gallon blister.

Guy

[Peter Stickney]

Drifting through the correspondence file, which had been placed at the
bottom of the Tiger's cage.

In article >,
(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) writes:
> On 2 Sep 2003 21:09:04 -0700, (Guy alcala) wrote:
>
>>> The only effort to do this that I can see came with the
>>> "super-Stirling" using Centaurus engines mooted by Shorts in 1941.
>>> The Centaurus wasn't going to appear in adequate numbers in time to
>>> have an impact on Stirling usage in the real world, meanwhile in
>>> 1941-42 the MAP and AM were unhappy with Short's chronic failure to
>>> meet existing Sitrling production targets. Any new type or equipment
>>> change which would further hinder production seems to have been
>>> dismissed out of hand, although that's conjecture on my part in the
>>> absence of hard evidence.
>>
>>Green says they were supposed to get new wings of 135 ft.(!) span.
>
> And the Wellington was upgraded to become the Warwick.... Have you
> seen the thickness of the Stirling's existing wing? Even moving the
> tips out for greater wing area is going to leave it struggling with
> poor engine output at altitude and serious airframe weight issues.
> No, what you really wanted was improved engines and extended wings,
> with the emphasis on the former. Yes, that's right, Sabre-engined
> Stirlings blackening the sky with their trails of carbonised oil and
> ingested engine components [delusional ranting edited by men in white
> coats]

A couple of points - the Warwick has always struck me as one of those
"It's nice, but why?" airplanes. It really didn't do anything that
other airplanes did better. By the time it came off the line, the
RAF's Medium bombers were teh B-25 and B-26, (Excuse me, Mitchell and
Marauder) except in those parts of teh world where the Wellington was
still viable. The Oceam Patrol stull has being handled by the
Catalina, the Sunderland, the Liberator, the Fortress, and the
U.S. Navy's patrol forces. So why all the effort? Was it an
Industrial Policy Effort to keep Vicker's Geodesic Structures skill
up to par, in case there was an urgent need to rebuild the R-100?

As for the Stirlig's wing thickness. It's not all that bad, really.
It's just, lke the B-24 and the Davis Wing, that they stuck it onto
that godawful fuselage. (Which ended up being mainly empty space,
anyway.) It's not like Critical Mach Number improvement is going to be
high on the list of Stirling Improvements. As for teh altitude
perfomance of the Hercules, in the VI and XVI models, they really
weren't all that different than the corresponding Merlin XX-24 series,
epsecially in terms of cruise power.

Sabre engined Stirling? If you're not careful, MI-? shall be visiting
you, sir, to see why you'd wish to damage the War Effort so.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) writes:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 01:38:38 -0400, (Peter
> Stickney) wrote:
>
>>I'm back, but an ahem, "flying visit" Trade Show season for us is
>>coming up, and I've just shaken off a 48 hour attack of the 24 Hour
>>Ebola...
>
> The excuses an engineer will come up with in order to lock himself
> into a darkened room with his slide rule....

Well, we all have our faults.

>>I've managed to latch onto a few Spitfire Pilot's Notes.
>>Specifically, the Mk V/Seafire II/III, the Mk XII, the Mk XIV, and the
>>Seafire Fr. 46. (No Mk IX yet, dangit!) I'll gove more exact quotes
>>tomorrow, but I'll sum up a bit here, as appropriate.
>
> Peter, I've scanned the whole Mk IX Pilot's Notes for you and Guy, but
> my last attempt to send you extracts bounced due to lack of space on
> your mail account. I can't put them up on a website at the moment, so
> I can only email them. Contact me at -
>
>
>
> if you have another account I could send the scans to you at.

I do, and I shall.

>
> [rear tank in Mk XIV]
>
>>So, it was there, and it was a somewhat useful amount of fuel, but it
>>really wasn't considered a good thing.
>
> The FR XIV was the only XIV to get rear tanks, the fighter version
> with rear tanks mutated into the Mk XVIII when it started to be
> produced on the XIV production lines in the summer of 1945.
>
> There's no doubt that that this represents further evidence of
> institutional RAF intolerance to longitudinal instability caused by
> rear fuselage tanks to my mind, and it reflects the post-war position
> as indicated by Pilot's Notes instructions for other versions of Spit
> with the rear tanks.
>
> I can certainly accept that this institutional intolerance existed, as
> I have been asserting that from the start of my contributions to this
> thread, but as I've said to ACdre Alcala, that intolerance needs to be
> balanced against operational need: the the case of the Spit IX/XVI
> and Mustang IV, the RAF accepted rear fuselage tankage at the price of
> instability for pressing operational reasons. As soon as the war ends
> and those operational reasons no longer apply, the institutional norm
> will obviously reassert itself. Where I think we should be careful is
> using post-war, peacetime evidence of this dynamic and reading it back
> into operational service requirements where evidence exists that the
> RAF was prepared to compromise their attitude.
>
> I'd love to see the Pilot's Notes for the Mustang IV, as I suspect
> they will have some interesting comments on handling and use of the
> rear-fuselage tank.

Would you settle for the RAF Mustang III Pilot's Notes? I managed to
land a copy of those, as well. WRT the fuselage tank, the procedures
and warnings are teh same as those for the USAAF: Burn teh fuselage
tanks down below 40 gallons before switching to the drops, and avoid
fighter-type maneuvers befire then. It's interesting to note the
difference in the wording, between the two aircraft. The Spit is
definitely in the "Don't do anything!" category, and the Mustang is in
the "We really don't recommend this, but..." form. No admittedly, the
Mustang's fuel tank position is much better, in terms of its effect on
stability, and the Mustang was a bit more stable than the Spit to
begin with. I wonder how much of this is the manufacturer's bias
leaking through.

>
> [snip Spit V with 170 gal overload tank and 29 gal rear fuselage tank]
>
>>Nothing but straght and level until the rear
>>fuselage tank empties.
>
> Yes, but this is for an aircraft in ferry trim, and I don't think any
> larger conclusions can be safely drawn when it's CoG standard was so
> different from ordinary aircraft (no cannon, radios repositioned, etc)

True, but ferry trim in thas case includes the 1225#
Mondo-Pregnant-Guppy ferry tank, which had its own bad effects.
Adding the Hispano guns actually moves teh CG forward - those long
barrels & springs & things add weight forward, so that will make
things better. The Browning Guns have most of their weight in the
breech, and move teh CG aft. So, A Spit Vc with 2 Hispanos could
still work.

>>So - while it appears that the 29 gallon tank wa only intended to be
>>used with the 170 gallon tank for the Malta reinforcements, there's
>>really no reason why it might not have been considered, with the
>>proviso that you couldn't fly a real formation, or engage in combat
>>until it was empty, or that it couldn't be used with one of the
>>smaller "combat" tanks. Note though, that the 90 imp. gallon tank is
>>also restricted to straight and level flight.
>>
>>That's a bit more flexible than I thought it would be.
>
> My thinking was for an extra 29 gallons for early formation flight on
> the climb for maybe 20 minutes, with any remainder contributing to the
> flight reserve fuel load. As Guy has pointed out, rear fuselage
> tankage capacity which comes at the expense of stability cannot be
> considered optimal or even tolerable for combat conditions. In
> response my contention is that the requirement is for endurance
> coverage of long oversea flights out over the North Sea to potential
> combat areas over Holland and Germany in the summer of 1943, and the
> 29 gallon tank in addition to the 90 gallon drop tank would increase
> the operational radius in this respect, even if the combat endurance
> when the aircraft got there was minimal.

Actuall, the 29 gallons would basically get you through your 20
minutes form-up and climb. Merlins tend to be a bit thirsty at that
point, burning something on the order of 80-100 Imp. Gal/Hr.

The 90 gallon tank is pretty much useless as a combat tank. Again, no
maneuvering flight allowed, and teh tank's to be punched off
immediately when emptied. Not much use if you're in Bad Guy Country.

A 29 gallon fuselage tank, combined with a less-disruptive and more
tactically useful 50 or 60 gallon tank will give about the same amount
of fuel as the 90 gallon tank, without (after the fuselage tank's been
used) the combat restrictions, and the extra drag of teh 90 gallon
tank.

>>> But was it? After all, with no armament, the Cg moved forward. No radio (mounted
>>> aft of where the cameras would be) moves it forward again. And quite early, they
>>> got external fuel, in 30 gal. blister tanks under the wings.
>>
>>Not only that, but a PR Spit wasn't expected to be maneuvering - It's
>>job was to be as high as possiblem where nobody had any maneuver
>>margin. They'd get to height as soon as possible after tankeoff, and
>>stay there.
>
> On the other hand they were required to evade contact with
> manoevreability when required. PR pilots were always expected to drop
> external tanks on contact.

Yabbut, evading contact with maneuverability in this context consists
of seeing the Me (Fw's aren't going to get that high) coming up, and
making a course correction such that the interceptor has to make a
major change to cut you off. The changing again. Where there wasn't
much of a speed advantage, they can't get up to height in time to
catch you, amd, with an Me 109, you can very well run him out of gas.
If ye does goet up high, dogfighting isn't the high-G high-powered
affair that it is in the thicker air below 20,000'. Instantaneous G isn't
very high - on the order of 1.5-2 G, at best, and speed bleedoff is
pretty high. It's more of an Elephant Ballet than cut-and-thrust
fencing.

>
>> A good chunk of the aft fuel would get burned off in the
>>climb. It's also worth noting that the PR Spits had no disposable
>>load other than fuel. On the fighter Spits, the ammunition was aft of
>>the CG, (but not too much) and contributed to any stability problems.
>
> There's also the issue of aft ballast, which varied greatly over the
> life of the Spitfire, and over the lifespan of individual marks. The
> V is a case in point, and where the equipment loading becomes
> bewildering.

Yep. The thing with teh ballast, though, is that since its fixed, its
effects are predictable. It's teh shifting of weight around that's
the problem.

>>See above. I was rather surprised myself. The 90 gallon tank is
>>pretty much out as anything but a ferry tank,
>
> Ah, but it was actually used by Spitfires and Seafires (with even
> worse CoG issues than the Spit V) in combat operations. Examples
> include Salerno and Normandy. There was a slipper-tank version and a
> later torpedo-tank version. I suspect they would have been used
> despite the tank shortcomings: the stability problems would lessen as
> the fuel was consumed, and the 8th AF fighters demonstrated that
> unpressurised, unreliable paper-mache tanks still could give a useful
> benefit to escort radius.

Still a big drag hit, though.

the USAAF 108 gallon tanks weren't, strictly speaking, paper-mache,
they were "fiber impregnated with resin", or, in more modern terms,
epoxy over a cardboard form.

>> but an intermediate
>>choice of a 50 or 60 gallon tank would provide the same fuel capacity
>>over the 30 gallon combat tank as the aft fuselage tank would, without
>>much in the way of bad effects. (Didn't the Hurricane use a 50 gallon
>>teardrop or torpedo shaped tank? It might even be less draggy than
>>the 30 gallon blister.
>
> They actually used a 45 gallon slipper tank as well as the 30 and 90
> gallon versions. The 44 gallon Hurricane tank was an unpressurised,
> unjettisonable ferry tank, with one carried beneath each wing to give
> 88 gallons ferry capacity. I have actually seen a photo of a Spitfire
> on Malta with an improvised 2 x 44 gallon fuselage tank, although I
> suspect this was a local modification made possible due to the
> presence of old Hurricane ferry tanks from ferry flights from
> Cyrenaica and the lack of the newer slipper tanks until later in 1942.
>
> Whatever happened, the tanks were going to be jettisoned before
> initiating combat, so I don't think the 90 gallon tanks - which should
> be substantially emptied and consequently lighter before the aircraft
> got to the prospective combat area anyway - would in those
> circumstances impose as much of a performance restriction as we might
> suppose.

True - I was thinking in terms of a way to add 90 gallons to a Mk V's
fuel capacity (Which would be about 50% of total fuel anyway) withoug
the stability and drag penalties that the 90 gallon tanks imposed.
(It's not much good being an escort fighter if you cruise slower than
the bombers that you're escorting.) To my ming, 29-30 gallons
internal, with another 60 or so external would about do it, especially
if the 60 gallon tank has no restrictions.


> Remember, I'm not asserting that any of this was an optimal solution
> for long-range escorting, or could have competed with aircraft that
> were better suited to expanding their internal fuel capacity. I'm
> trying to work along the lines that would be dictated by operational
> neccessity and addressed with existing equipment and experience in
> certain circumstances.

Well, in htat case, gin up a 60 gallon tank, and add teh 2 13-gallon
leadig edge tanks. The 80 gallon tank would give you about 40% of teh
total fuel, allowing it to be empty before the target area is reached,
and the 13 gallon tanks can be swapped in as a Deport-level job. They
fit in the leading edge outboard of the 20mm gun bays. but inboard of
the .303s, and slotted in between a pair of ribs. That sort of
sheet-metal work would be well within what they could do withoug a
need fr a factory-level rebuild.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids,
>with added nationalistic abuse (was:
>From: (Peter Stickney)
>Date: 9/20/03 9:12 PM Pacific

>A couple of points - the Warwick has always struck me as one of those
>"It's nice, but why?" airplanes. It really didn't do anything that
>other airplanes did better. By the time it came off the line, the
>RAF's Medium bombers were teh B-25 and B-26, (Excuse me,

Peter as you well know in those days we flew whatever would fly. I never heard
of a crew refusing to fly a plane because they didn't like the wing thickness.
Every mission we flew was a maximum effort. Everything that could fly did fly.
That's why.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:07:09 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>Alan Minyard wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 05:35:43 GMT, Guy Alcala
>>
>> >Ah, well, one more for the killfile. Trolls, loons and (as in this case)
>> >just plain rude and crude all get in.
>> >
>> >Guy
>> >
>> And your language in this post would qualify as what?
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>Let's see, not rude and crude (I suppose my posting it publicly rather than
>privately could be considered rude), nor is it a troll, and I presume you
>aren't implying that I'm a loon. What did you think it was?
>
>Guy
>
I would think that rude would cover it. I was feeling a bit
contentious when I wrote that.

Al Minyard

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) writes:
>>Subject: Re: More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids,
>>with added nationalistic abuse (was:
>>From: (Peter Stickney)
>>Date: 9/20/03 9:12 PM Pacific
>
>>A couple of points - the Warwick has always struck me as one of those
>>"It's nice, but why?" airplanes. It really didn't do anything that
>>other airplanes did better. By the time it came off the line, the
>>RAF's Medium bombers were teh B-25 and B-26, (Excuse me,
>
> Peter as you well know in those days we flew whatever would fly. I never heard
> of a crew refusing to fly a plane because they didn't like the wing thickness.
> Every mission we flew was a maximum effort. Everything that could fly did fly.
> That's why.

Art, at the aircrew level, you're absolutely correct. You fly the
airplanes that your unit is issued, and you do your damnedest to be
effective. And yes, that's the way that it has to be.

There's other considerations, though, at higher levels of command.
Just as you as an aircrewman have an obligation to use the weapons you
have as effectively as possible, to accomplish the tasks of your slice
of the war, the people at the higher echelons have the obligation to
see that you have the most effective weapons practicable, and are
assigned the targets that make the best use of the capabilities of
your airplanes and crews toward winning the war. At the mid levels,
say, in the World War II case, the Eighth or Nonth Air Force levels,
that means making sure that you have the proper aircraft, (For
instance, concentrating the on the B-26 for the ETO medium bomber
force, rather than the B-25) and making sure that those aircraft are
supplied with fuel, parts, weapons and ammunition needed to get the
job done, and that the support crews, from the Air Base Civil Engineer
to the guy that's scrubbing the garbage cans, is providing a system
that means that when a mission is on, all the tasked airplanes and
crews are ready to go. (That also means making sure, as much as
possible, that losses in both aircrew and airplanes are sustainable -
that you're not losing more people and airplanes than you can replace.

That was one of the failings of the Lusftwaffe. They could, and did,
produce replacement machines for their losses. Basically, in the ETO,
the entire Luftaffe fighter force was destroyed and replaced 3 times
in 1944. They could replace the machines, but they couldn't, for
reasons as varying as the policy of not rotating the Experten home to
pass on their knowledge to the new pilots, to the gutting of the
flight training system to be wasted trying to fly supply flights to
Stalingrad and Tunisia, to the policies about training in general,
menat that the Luftwaffe's fighter arm had a thin shell of
irreplacable veterans surrounding a soft core of low-time unskilled,
and vulnerable New Guys. Each time the Luftwaffe, after husbanding
its resources, and launching another futile "hammer blow" that was to
knock the RAF and USAAF out of the war, they lost most of the new
recruits, and a fair number of the old guys. By 1945, they had
airplanes parked all over Germany - on airfields, in forests, under
bridges, at repair depots, everywhere. But not anywhere enough pilots
to fly them. By that time, they didn't bother repairing damaged
airplanes. If the pilot came back, they just issued him a new one.
That's unsustainable.

So, where I,m going with this ramble, is that, moving back to the
highest levels, where the production decisions are made, there's a
responsibility to be spending the reseources available (Time,
production capacity, raw materials, money) so that the best possible
weapons are available to accomplish the missions that you're
assigned. For example, somebody I got to know, a bit, was
Gen. Harrison Thyng (Now passed on). He was a very interesting man,
with quite a distinguished career, an Ace in both WW 2 and Korea.

In WW 2, he was a member of the 36th Fighter Group, one of the first
American units to deploy to England. The American fighters available
at that time, the P-39 and P-40, weren't considered viable in the
cross-channel war going on at that time, and they couldn't escort
B-17s into France, let alone Germany. The 36th FG was equipped with
Spitfire Mk Vs, and ended up being sent to North Africa as part of
Operation Torch. He later flew P-47s in the Pacific. That experience
gave him a certain persoective on how Industrial Policy affects Combat
Effectiveness.

During the Korean War, he was Commander of the 4th Fighter Interceptor
Wing, at that time the sole F-86 unit in Korea, flying the only
airplane that could meed the Soviet/Chinese/DPRK MiG-15s on an even
basis. (75 Sabres vs. 750 or so MiGs) They had everytning hard
charging fighter pilots needed - A good airplane, skilled, agressive,
experienced pilots, and a lot of targets, They only lacked one thing -
- There was a horrendous shortage of spare parts. The 4th FIW was, at
that time, only able to keep about half their airplanes Mission
Capable.
Despite requests through the Usual Channels, the priority for Sabre
spares was to Continental U.S. bases units. It's not that spares
weren't available, they weren't being sent to where the fighting was.
It took a personal message from Thyng to the Chief of Staff of the Air
Force that the spares situation was such that "The maintainance of Air
Superiority over Korea was in doubt" to shake people loose and get the
support that the Far East Air Force needed to flow into that
direction. Needless to say, that gave him a bit of persoective on the
responsibilities of the command echelons to provide the support needed
to see that the tools were available to carry out the assognments they
gave.

In the situation I mentioned of the VIckers Warwick, It's a question
of, in this case, the British government allocating resources
efficiently. The Warwick was intended to be the replacement for the
Wellington medium bomber. By the earliest time it could possibly be
ready, RAF Bomber Command had determined that twin-engined medium
bombers weren't suitable for the night bombing campaign. The tactical
air forces, who were conducting the medium bombing campaign, knew
that airplanes with the performance of the Wellington adn Warwick
weren't going to be sustainable in the day bombing that they were
using. They used Lend-Lease B-25s and B-26s to accomplish their
missions. For some reaon, the Air Ministry continued Warwick
production, and they scrambled around looking for someplace to use it.
The Warsicks eventually ended up being use as Air-Sea Rescue aircraft,
carrying droppable lifeboats. While this was a laudable task, it
could also have been (and, in fact was) filled by using the same
flying boat types that the RAF Coastal Command used, and by fitting
war-wary heavies, such as Lancasters, with lifeboats. Is it worse
planning to not build airplanes you know will be useful, or to build
airplanes that you know will be useless?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: More long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids,
>with added nationalistic abuse (was:
>From: (Peter Stickney)
>Date: 9/22/03 6:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

>Coastal Command used, and by fitting
>war-wary heavies, such as Lancasters, with lifeboats. Is it worse
>planning to not build airplanes you know will be useful, or to build
>airplanes that you know will be useless?
>
>--
>Pete Stickney


Hindsight is 20-20. And here we sit 60 years later viewing the war through rose
colored hindsights. But if you and I were senior officers in bomber command
coud we have done half as well as they did, or even just as well? And we must
consider that a thousand little details and considertations, now long
forgotten influenced their decisions. For the time, were they all that wrong?
And since in the end, they triumphed, it means that with all theri errors they
were more right than wrong. No mean feat in itself. Cut them a ltlle slack.
They deserve it.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:12:09 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

>A couple of points - the Warwick has always struck me as one of those
>"It's nice, but why?" airplanes.

Good point. The Lancaster and Halifax were in production and had been
operationally proven by the time the Warwick started to appear. I
presume it clung on due to some production commonality with the
Wellington plant which allowed Vickers at Brooklands to cling on to
stubbornly turning out at least a few of their own design before the
MAP could bear down on them and get them to change over to Lancasters.

> It really didn't do anything that
>other airplanes did better.

Or even as well.

> By the time it came off the line, the
>RAF's Medium bombers were teh B-25 and B-26, (Excuse me, Mitchell and
>Marauder) except in those parts of teh world where the Wellington was
>still viable. The Oceam Patrol stull has being handled by the
>Catalina, the Sunderland, the Liberator, the Fortress, and the
>U.S. Navy's patrol forces. So why all the effort? Was it an
>Industrial Policy Effort to keep Vicker's Geodesic Structures skill
>up to par, in case there was an urgent need to rebuild the R-100?

Probably due to all the expense and effort of getting the original
machine tools on line to produce the Wimpey airframes. Writing off
that stock would have been painful after all the problems they had in
1937-39 actually reaching Wimpey production targets.

>As for the Stirlig's wing thickness. It's not all that bad, really.
>It's just, lke the B-24 and the Davis Wing, that they stuck it onto
>that godawful fuselage. (Which ended up being mainly empty space,
>anyway.)

It's waaay thicker than the Lib wing - the wing root is practically as
deep as the fuselage. I suspect, knowing wartime working practices at
Shorts, that t was used as a bunk for snoozing workmen during
construction.

>It's not like Critical Mach Number improvement is going to be
>high on the list of Stirling Improvements. As for teh altitude
>perfomance of the Hercules, in the VI and XVI models, they really
>weren't all that different than the corresponding Merlin XX-24 series,
>epsecially in terms of cruise power.

The Stirling III and Halifax III still seem to have a major
differential in terms of operational ceiling, which I can only put
down to structure weight and the wing.

>Sabre engined Stirling? If you're not careful, MI-? shall be visiting
>you, sir, to see why you'd wish to damage the War Effort so.

True, given the total failure of Napier to even reach production
targets, let alone type reliability tests, we'd have no engines for
them anyway given that we already have several dozen Typhoon airframes
being churned out to sit in purgatory storage while Napier get their
act together. We could always use the airframes as the world's
heaviest glider or something equally critical to winning the war.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[Guy Alcala]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:12:09 -0400, (Peter
> Stickney) wrote:
>
> >A couple of points - the Warwick has always struck me as one of those
> >"It's nice, but why?" airplanes.
>
> Good point. The Lancaster and Halifax were in production and had been
> operationally proven by the time the Warwick started to appear. I
> presume it clung on due to some production commonality with the
> Wellington plant which allowed Vickers at Brooklands to cling on to
> stubbornly turning out at least a few of their own design before the
> MAP could bear down on them and get them to change over to Lancasters.
>
> > It really didn't do anything that
> >other airplanes did better.
>
> Or even as well.
>
> > By the time it came off the line, the
> >RAF's Medium bombers were teh B-25 and B-26, (Excuse me, Mitchell and
> >Marauder) except in those parts of teh world where the Wellington was
> >still viable. The Oceam Patrol stull has being handled by the
> >Catalina, the Sunderland, the Liberator, the Fortress, and the
> >U.S. Navy's patrol forces. So why all the effort? Was it an
> >Industrial Policy Effort to keep Vicker's Geodesic Structures skill
> >up to par, in case there was an urgent need to rebuild the R-100?
>
> Probably due to all the expense and effort of getting the original
> machine tools on line to produce the Wimpey airframes. Writing off
> that stock would have been painful after all the problems they had in
> 1937-39 actually reaching Wimpey production targets.
>
> >As for the Stirlig's wing thickness. It's not all that bad, really.
> >It's just, lke the B-24 and the Davis Wing, that they stuck it onto
> >that godawful fuselage. (Which ended up being mainly empty space,
> >anyway.)
>
> It's waaay thicker than the Lib wing - the wing root is practically as
> deep as the fuselage. I suspect, knowing wartime working practices at
> Shorts, that t was used as a bunk for snoozing workmen during
> construction.
>
> >It's not like Critical Mach Number improvement is going to be
> >high on the list of Stirling Improvements. As for teh altitude
> >perfomance of the Hercules, in the VI and XVI models, they really
> >weren't all that different than the corresponding Merlin XX-24 series,
> >epsecially in terms of cruise power.
>
> The Stirling III and Halifax III still seem to have a major
> differential in terms of operational ceiling, which I can only put
> down to structure weight and the wing.

<snip>

A better operational ceiling comparison would be between the Stirling III
and Halifax II, as the latter has the original 98(?) foot wing (some
sources claim that early Halifax IIIs had the original wing; I don't have
enough info to say). The Halifax II is still better but not much, and I
expect the difference is largely due to the lower weight, and maybe the
drag of the Stirling's nose turret.

Guy

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:16:49 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>> The Stirling III and Halifax III still seem to have a major
>> differential in terms of operational ceiling, which I can only put
>> down to structure weight and the wing.
>
><snip>
>
>A better operational ceiling comparison would be between the Stirling III
>and Halifax II, as the latter has the original 98(?) foot wing (some
>sources claim that early Halifax IIIs had the original wing; I don't have
>enough info to say). The Halifax II is still better but not much, and I
>expect the difference is largely due to the lower weight, and maybe the
>drag of the Stirling's nose turret.

[quick driveby]

The early Halifax II's (i.e. those produced throughout 1941-42) had
the Mk I nose turret, and clocked in at 34,980 lbs with an auw of
60,000lbs with a 98 ft 8in wingspan. The Stirling III seemed to come
in at something like 42,000lbs with auw's somewhere over 60,000lbs
(figures I have vary between 61,000 and up to 70,000lbs), so there's a
couple of tons of weight difference before the operational load gets
included.

The Stirling Mk III couldn't get above 17,000 feet (a couple of
thousand feet below routine operational heights for the Halifax), and
had a lower rate of climb than the Halifax. Early Halifax Mk IIIs did
have the shorter-span wings before they got the extended 103 ft 8in
wingspan.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) writes:

<snip>


> > Whatever happened, the tanks were going to be jettisoned before
> > initiating combat, so I don't think the 90 gallon tanks - which should
> > be substantially emptied and consequently lighter before the aircraft
> > got to the prospective combat area anyway - would in those
> > circumstances impose as much of a performance restriction as we might
> > suppose.
>
> True - I was thinking in terms of a way to add 90 gallons to a Mk V's
> fuel capacity (Which would be about 50% of total fuel anyway) withoug
> the stability and drag penalties that the 90 gallon tanks imposed.
> (It's not much good being an escort fighter if you cruise slower than
> the bombers that you're escorting.) To my ming, 29-30 gallons
> internal, with another 60 or so external would about do it, especially
> if the 60 gallon tank has no restrictions.

Pete, the drag penalty of the 90 gallon tank wasn't all that much. It knocked about 20
mph off the Spit XIV's top and max. cruise speeds, and less than 18 mph (337.5 vice 354)
off the top speed of a Mk. VC Trop, AB 320, that A&AEE tested; go here for the full report
on level and climb performance with and without the tank:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ab320.html

A Mk. VIII/IX would presumably take a speed hit in between the two, given that it's faster
than the Mk. V and slower than the Mk. XIV. In short, not significant, and there's
absolutely no danger of cruising "slower than the bombers that you're escorting." WITH
the tank, the Spit XIV was still faster than the Me-109 or FW-190A. The Mk. IX wouldn't
be, but would still be able to cruise at 300TAS or higher at the heights of interest with
no problem.

> > Remember, I'm not asserting that any of this was an optimal solution
> > for long-range escorting, or could have competed with aircraft that
> > were better suited to expanding their internal fuel capacity. I'm
> > trying to work along the lines that would be dictated by operational
> > neccessity and addressed with existing equipment and experience in
> > certain circumstances.
>
> Well, in htat case, gin up a 60 gallon tank, and add teh 2 13-gallon
> leadig edge tanks. The 80 gallon tank would give you about 40% of teh
> total fuel, allowing it to be empty before the target area is reached,
> and the 13 gallon tanks can be swapped in as a Deport-level job. They
> fit in the leading edge outboard of the 20mm gun bays. but inboard of
> the .303s, and slotted in between a pair of ribs. That sort of
> sheet-metal work would be well within what they could do withoug a
> need fr a factory-level rebuild.

Again, I'll raise a practical objection to installing tanks outboard of the guns (any
guns): where are you going to route the tank piping? You can't route it through a gun bay
(well, you could, if you didn't mind the constant danger of broken fuel pipes owing to
vibration loads when shooting, not to mention the danger of fires -- I can't see even the
most clueless RAF type signing off on this), and there's really not a whole lot of room in
the wing aft of the cannon bay (but forward of the flaps/ailerons and their actuators) to
pass them, even assuming that you're willing to make a couple of 90 degree or so bends in
the piping to do so. This is an interim mod until the RAF's Mustangs become available, so
it needs to be something that's already been done, and that's the Mk. VIII tank
installation, with maybe an aft tank added if the Cg is okay for combat (and the max.
gross weight isn't exceeded when also carrying a 90 gal. or larger drop tank).

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:16:49 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >> The Stirling III and Halifax III still seem to have a major
> >> differential in terms of operational ceiling, which I can only put
> >> down to structure weight and the wing.
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >A better operational ceiling comparison would be between the Stirling III
> >and Halifax II, as the latter has the original 98(?) foot wing (some
> >sources claim that early Halifax IIIs had the original wing; I don't have
> >enough info to say). The Halifax II is still better but not much, and I
> >expect the difference is largely due to the lower weight, and maybe the
> >drag of the Stirling's nose turret.
>
> [quick driveby]

I sure hope not. I had enough experience with those living in East Oakland in
the early '80s (per capita murder capital of the U.S. for several years).
OTOH, they had generally execrable aim, which made the intended targets
relatively safe but put the innocent bystanders at risk. The closest one I
was exposed to was at a distance of about 50 feet, but fortunately the shooter
was facing away from me and firing into a non-moving car with two guys sitting
in it, so there was little chance of me getting hit by the odd round. He and
his homeys pulled up in a stolen van, he jumped out the side door and opened
fire, but only managed to crease one guy in the arm and IIRR the other got hit
by some flying glass from one of the windows. I later counted only nine
rounds that hit the car (semi-auto machine pistol of unknown type, fired from
the hip), distributed all over it (two just creased the roof), from a distance
of about 5 ft. Pathetic aim, especially considering that these guys were
likely to return the favor. And all because the shooter's sister had taken
offense at something one of the guys in the car had said to her an hour or two
earlier.


> The early Halifax II's (i.e. those produced throughout 1941-42) had
> the Mk I nose turret, and clocked in at 34,980 lbs with an auw of
> 60,000lbs with a 98 ft 8in wingspan. The Stirling III seemed to come
> in at something like 42,000lbs with auw's somewhere over 60,000lbs
> (figures I have vary between 61,000 and up to 70,000lbs), so there's a
> couple of tons of weight difference before the operational load gets
> included.

I've often wondered at that 42,000 lb. figure, but I think Geoffrey provided
some numbers earlier in the thread.

> The Stirling Mk III couldn't get above 17,000 feet (a couple of
> thousand feet below routine operational heights for the Halifax), and
> had a lower rate of climb than the Halifax. Early Halifax Mk IIIs did
> have the shorter-span wings before they got the extended 103 ft 8in
> wingspan.

So I'd like to know how high the Halifax IIIs could operate with the short
wings.

Guy