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

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

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

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

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

(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

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

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

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

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

"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