"Priceless" in Afghanistan

On 2/28/04 9:28 PM, in article , "John
Carrier" wrote:

Two utterly different issues.

1. BRAC. Someone posted a question. I posted a pretty good reply and
hoped to stir some interest. Result: NADA. We can run a thread for days
about bull****, but a pretty significant issue that will effect many
individuals and military readiness .... nada. Sigh.

2. Shimano. Heard they've run Branford Bike out of the Shimano
distribution business. Hmmm.

R / John X
Still alive (till BRAC 2005) in rural MS



John,

I didn't see your BRAC question. What was it? I used to know something
about BRAC because I was the aide (i.e. fly on the wall) watching a flag
officer defend one of his bases (Pt. Mugu) in 1995.

--Woody

John- 2. Shimano. Heard they've run Branford Bike out of the Shimano
distribution business. Hmmm. BRBR

They are just whinning along with Lictons, I think. They don't think it's fair
for shimano to try to protect their distribution and try to raise who deals
with their equipment to a higher level. Branford and Lictons are just concerned
about $$.

They could both resell shimano via MO or the internet, they just have to agree
to sell it in a MSRP range, or no supply. Too bad, I like they way the playing
field has been leveled.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

I'll tell ya another frustration. I read Kerry's voting record and the weapons
systems it involved. Some made sense(like the B-2) but others didn't like his
nay vote on the F-14A(what keep the F-4???) , F-15C and F-16. W/o those
programs we would have been in deep kimchee for GWI and II.

Bush seems like a deer in the headlights and Kerry seems like McGovern
reincarnated...yikess...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

On 29 Feb 2004 15:04:08 GMT, (Pechs1) wrote:

...and Kerry seems like McGovern reincarnated...yikess...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Looking at history as a guide it appears to me that Kerry might have
more in common with Neville Chamberlain. Imagining Kerry waving a
piece of paper signed by Saddam and BinLaden saying we'd have peace
forever......
***********************************************
ACC USN ret.
NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR
67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
&
74-77

Co-founder of newsgroup - RAMN
Anti-spam measures in action.
For e-mail response delete "nospam"

***********************************************

Doesn't that thing do over the shoulder nuke deliveries? Pull up, throw
nukeout, continue over the top, 1/2 cuban 8 type thing, accel and run like
hell???I'll bet it does...

It was designed to do "lay down" nuclear bomb runs, not loft. I've seen them do
some pretty agressive (for a big plane) pitch outs, but I'm not sure if they
could execute an immelman or not.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR wrote:

Doesn't that thing do over the shoulder nuke deliveries? Pull up, throw
nukeout, continue over the top, 1/2 cuban 8 type thing, accel and run like
hell???I'll bet it does...

It was designed to do "lay down" nuclear bomb runs, not loft. I've seen them do
some pretty agressive (for a big plane) pitch outs, but I'm not sure if they
could execute an immelman or not.

Don't see why not. If the high-altitude designed B-47s could do them (admittedly,
with some serious wing fatigue problems as a result), then the low-altitude
stressed B-1 shouldn't mind.

Guy

Don't see why not. If the high-altitude designed B-47s could do them
(admittedly,
with some serious wing fatigue problems as a result), then the low-altitude
stressed B-1 shouldn't mind.

It's not a stress issue, it's an excess thrust issue. The Bone may be able to
pull off an immelman,but I'm betting you won't find too many pilots eager to
test out that theory.

By the way, the B-47 could do many things niether the B-52 or B-1B can do.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) writes:
Don't see why not. If the high-altitude designed B-47s could do them
(admittedly,
with some serious wing fatigue problems as a result), then the low-altitude
stressed B-1 shouldn't mind.

It's not a stress issue, it's an excess thrust issue. The Bone may be able to
pull off an immelman,but I'm betting you won't find too many pilots eager to
test out that theory.

If it's qn excess thrust issue, than that would weight it even further
into the "Yes, sure the B-1 can do an Immelman" side. Of all the
things the B-47 didn't have, thrust was probably the most obvious.
According the the B-47S Standard Aircraft Characteristics, Takeoff
Ground Roll for a loaded B-47E-IV, without RATO, could be upwards of
10.500'. That's not exactly a high t/w. (A better context for excess
thrust numbers woudl be SEP at Combat Weight - in that case, the B-47E
data gives us 4450 '/mion @ Sea Level, a 1965-era B-52H gives
6500'/minute. (Score one for the Buff)

For that matter, I've flown planty of Immelmans in sailplanes - it's
hard to find a lower T/W than 0. (Although the roll at the top _was_
kinda sloppy_ What would be more important is Drag/Weight. If you'ge
got a really slippery shape, you won't lose speed as quickly with the
nose high.
If thrust exactly equalled drag (SEP = 0), it'd take _anything_ pulled
straight up anout 260 seconds to lose 300 KTS. Your entry adn exi t
speeds would be rather dependant on the airplane, of course. but
there's plenty of energy for a 2-3 G pull through 180 degrees.


By the way, the B-47 could do many things niether the B-52 or B-1B can do.

Well, fly around the pattern trailing a parachute is one...
Tobogganing behind an overstressed KC-97 would be another.

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

If it's qn excess thrust issue, than that would weight it even further
into the "Yes, sure the B-1 can do an Immelman" side. Of all the
things the B-47 didn't have, thrust

Remember, the B-47 did their immelmans from high altitude (and entered from a
dive obviously), the Afghanistan Bone would be entering from straight and
level, thus it becomes an excess thrust issue.

Well, fly around the pattern trailing a parachute is one...
Tobogganing behind an overstressed KC-97 would be another.


Cruising around, fully loaded (albeit a smaller load than a BUFF or Bone) at
40K+ and .90 mach. Doing an immelman at high altitude (not possible for a
BUFF...maybe for a Bone, but not from 30K+).




BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) writes:
If it's qn excess thrust issue, than that would weight it even further
into the "Yes, sure the B-1 can do an Immelman" side. Of all the
things the B-47 didn't have, thrust

Remember, the B-47 did their immelmans from high altitude (and entered from a
dive obviously), the Afghanistan Bone would be entering from straight and
level, thus it becomes an excess thrust issue.

Are you sure about that? Remember, the wing loading's a lot higher
than that of the B-52. Not a whole lot of excess G at altitude.
They did use Immelmans as an escape maneuver when they decided tht low
level was the way to go, and that the best way to do that was with a
LABS delivery. It didn't last long though, In the first 3 months that
they tried it in the field, they lost 3 airplanes due to structural
failure. They modified their technique to a low-level ingress with a
pop up to about 10-12,000' to drop a drogued weapon, and a diving turn
away immediately after weapon release.


Well, fly around the pattern trailing a parachute is one...
Tobogganing behind an overstressed KC-97 would be another.


Cruising around, fully loaded (albeit a smaller load than a BUFF or Bone) at
40K+ and .90 mach. Doing an immelman at high altitude (not possible for a
BUFF...maybe for a Bone, but not from 30K+).


Well, I'll admit I'm a little on the young side to have flown a
B-47. (But I was at Pease when the last one in service was flown in
to be a gate guard - U.S. Navy markings, and a North American
Autonetics crew. That was 76 or 77 or so) But I've known plenty of
peolple who have. For a loaded B-47, 40 Kft was about all you'd get.
Placard Limits are 425 KIAS up to Mach 0.86, meeting at 'bout 17.500'
I could run a o.86 at 36,000 (tropopause), but that was about it.
The 425 KIAS limit was pretty definite. Aince the wings were so
flexible, the ailerons would twist the wings, reducing, and eventually
reversing roll control. 425 KIAS was the point where you didn't have
any roll control.


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