#1 Jet of World War II

In message , ArtKramr
writes
I undesrtand that there was a later model Mosquito on the drawing boards in
1944 that could carry 100,000 pounds of bombs with a 10,000 mile range at 1500
miles per hour all the way. I understand one prototype was built , took off on
a test flight in 1944 and is still up there. But I don't really believe that
last part.Do you?

I saw it go overhead this evening. Mind you, it was being chased by the
"Berlin Bomber Marauder", the "Moscow Patrol Spitfire (from Thorney
Island)", the US "Surrender Or Else" B-29, and the German "We Won The
War, No, We Mean It!" Me-262 among many other types. All of them had
serious influence on post-war debate. None of them really existed.


It would be a very committed or foolish person who decided that
Marauders and Mosquitos were interchangeable. Mosquitoes carried more
bombs further, but a Marauder formation had many guns to fire at
attacking fighters and were much better able to survive fighter attacks
or flak, fired at a tight formation. (Mossies lived by being too quick
for the enemy)

The speciality Marauder missions (attacking bridges comes particularly
to mind) would have been suicide for Mosquitos, just as Marauders would
have performed poorly in a night bomber stream.

Key point... by the end, the enemy had to fight B-17s, B-24s, B-25s and
B-26 formations during the day, then fight Halifax, Lancaster and
Mosquito raids at night, across the whole range of targets, while also
dealing with all the fighters who had been told to expend their
ammunition on enemy targets (the US and allies has such a swarm of
fighters that finding airborne targets is a routine problem?)

Just how do you write tactics to answer that? Especially while the
medium bombers are ripping your transport infrastructure to pieces,
while the heavies are depriving you of the fuel to move your forces or
fight them once in theatre?

Airpower may have been oversold lately, but that doesn't change its
fundamental value.

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

Paul J. Adam

Subject: #1 Jet of World War II
From: "Emmanuel Gustin"
Date: 7/21/03 12:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

I undesrtand that there was a later model Mosquito on the drawing boards
in
1944

What was on the drawing boards in 1944 was the Canberra,
of course. The formal spec was issued in 1945 and called for
the highest max continuous cruise speed at 40,000 feet, but not
less than 440 knots (506 mph) and a ceiling of at least 50,000 ft;
a short range was undesirable but the RAF was willing to accept
1400 nautical miles (1610 statute miles) with a 6,000 lb bomb
load if nothing better was on offer. By the standards of the day,
that was ambitious enough...

--
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel.Gustin -rem@ve- skynet.be
Flying Guns Page: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/



Who said Belgians have no sense of humor? (grin)

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

In article , ArtKramr
writes
Subject: #1 Jet of World War II
From: "Emmanuel Gustin"
Date: 7/21/03 12:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

I undesrtand that there was a later model Mosquito on the drawing boards
in
1944

What was on the drawing boards in 1944 was the Canberra,
of course. The formal spec was issued in 1945 and called for
the highest max continuous cruise speed at 40,000 feet, but not
less than 440 knots (506 mph) and a ceiling of at least 50,000 ft;
a short range was undesirable but the RAF was willing to accept
1400 nautical miles (1610 statute miles) with a 6,000 lb bomb
load if nothing better was on offer. By the standards of the day,
that was ambitious enough...

--
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel.Gustin -rem@ve- skynet.be
Flying Guns Page: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/



Who said Belgians have no sense of humor? (grin)

They do, but the problem is their accents! :-)

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

In article ,
(ArtKramr) writes:
Subject: #1 Jet of World War II
From: nt (Gordon)
Date: 7/21/03 10:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

The late model Mosquitoes could carry up to 5,000 pounds of
bombs. In theory they could carry this to Berlin from England,
at most economical cruise and with minimal fuel reserves.


I undesrtand that there was a later model Mosquito on the drawing boards in
1944 that could carry 100,000 pounds of bombs with a 10,000 mile range at 1500
miles per hour all the way. I understand one prototype was built , took off on
a test flight in 1944 and is still up there. But I don't really believe that
last part.Do you?

Well, you see, it ran out of gas, and therefore couldn't land. The
last transmission from the pilot was "If you can't get liquid petrol
up to me I'll never play t eviolin again - it's a petrol driven
violin, you know!"

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

Subject: #1 Jet of World War II
From: (Peter Stickney)
Date: 7/21/03 7:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) writes:
Subject: #1 Jet of World War II
From: nt (Gordon)
Date: 7/21/03 10:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

The late model Mosquitoes could carry up to 5,000 pounds of
bombs. In theory they could carry this to Berlin from England,
at most economical cruise and with minimal fuel reserves.


I undesrtand that there was a later model Mosquito on the drawing boards in
1944 that could carry 100,000 pounds of bombs with a 10,000 mile range at
1500
miles per hour all the way. I understand one prototype was built , took off
on
a test flight in 1944 and is still up there. But I don't really believe
that
last part.Do you?

Well, you see, it ran out of gas, and therefore couldn't land. The
last transmission from the pilot was "If you can't get liquid petrol
up to me I'll never play t eviolin again - it's a petrol driven
violin, you know!"


That violin has strings attached you know.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: #1 Jet of World War II
From: "Geoffrey Sinclair"
Date: 7/21/03 10:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time

No, none of the 9 diagrams showing different bomb bay load
configurations includes one for napalm, not even incendiaries
are shown, just HE and AP bombs.

I presume the napalm is listed under class C-Fire in the USAAF
statistical digest, 12,200 used, they came in 50, 75, 100 to 110
and 150 to 165 gallon sizes.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.



I remember the morning we flew that Nepalm mission. They scared the **** out
of us.We never heard of jellied gasoline and we were instructed that it was a
very dangerous load and under no circuimstances were we to bring it back. If it
hung up in the bombays and we couldn't salvo it, we were to bail out rather
than try to land with it. Felt good to get the green bombay light at bombs
away, feel Willie lift, and get Griego's report that the bombay was clear...
and home we went to Florennes. Never so glad to get rid of a bomb load in my
life.




Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Cub Driver wrote:

I shall have to re-play my tape of a UK airshow that Douglas Bader narrates
and tells of his first flight in a jet it went something like "Well, there I
sat in the cockpit ready for my first flight and braced myself.....and you
know, the thing took off down the runway like an old lorry!"

That sounds about right. The B-47 had the advantage of peacetime
development, but its engines were so slow to spool up that the plane
had to land under power with a parachute. Lacking the power, it would
crash if it had to go around.

While correct about the B-47, you're talking about two separate issues. The
Meteor's (and all early jets) slow accel time on take-off had nothing to do with
spool-up time, as they'd already be spooled up prior to takeoff, and everything
to do with their relatively low power to weight ratios and low thrust at low
speeds. I will now make way for Mr. Stickney, who I trust will be along any
moment now to give his thrust vs. power lecture, much as it must irritate him to
have to constantly repeat it ;-)

To quote Lazlo, the Human Cannon Ball, "Once more into the Breech!"

I'm going to make this a bit elementary, in some ways. Not
patronizing, by any means, but it's kinda late, and I'm a bit
Elementary right now myself. I just want to keep the context clear.

So, let's define what our terms are. What's Power? Power is the
amount of force required to move a certain mass a certain distance in
a certain time. The usual measure is Horsepower, which corresponds to
the effort required to lift 550 lbs 1 foot in 1 second, or, to put it
another way, 550 lbs-ft/sec. (You metric folks would read this as
about 0.75 Kilowatts.)
snip
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Actually, power is the product of the amount of force
required to move a certain mass a certain distance in a
certain time times that distance and the reciprocal of that
time.

Joe


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"Joe Osman" wrote in message
...
Peter Stickney wrote:



Actually, power is the product of the amount of force
required to move a certain mass a certain distance in a
certain time times that distance and the reciprocal of that
time.

Joe

Huh

If the body is in steady motion then neglecting friction the power
requirement would be zero, since friction varies enormously this
is clearly NOT a valid definition

Quite simply power is a measure of energy production per unit
time or put another way the rate of doing work

The velocity of the engine or the vehicle its mounted in is irrelevant.

Keith

"Joe Osman" wrote in message
...
Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Cub Driver wrote:

SNIP

That sounds about right. The B-47 had the advantage of peacetime
development, but its engines were so slow to spool up that the plane
had to land under power with a parachute. Lacking the power, it would
crash if it had to go around.

This is not accurate. However, I once saw a British-produced video dealing
with the Comet/Nomrod in which this canard apparently first appeared. The
narration suggested that US jetengine was so deficient that the B-47
NEEDED JATO assist for ALL takeoffs, and confused the use of drag 'chutes
for reduced landing distances with a lack of power for a go-around.

The B-47 used six engines approximately the same as the four used for
supplementary power on B-36s; as fas as spool-up times are concerned, in the
typical useage by the B-36, the pilots would start and bring the four
engines up to speed even as the a/c was in its takeoff roll under the power
of its six piston engines. By the time the B-36 reached takeoff speed, all
four jets were at maximum thrust. Not a long spool-up time at all.

In article ,
"Lawrence Dillard" writes:

"Joe Osman" wrote in message
...
Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Cub Driver wrote:

SNIP

That sounds about right. The B-47 had the advantage of peacetime
development, but its engines were so slow to spool up that the plane
had to land under power with a parachute. Lacking the power, it would
crash if it had to go around.

This is not accurate. However, I once saw a British-produced video dealing
with the Comet/Nomrod in which this canard apparently first appeared. The
narration suggested that US jetengine was so deficient that the B-47
NEEDED JATO assist for ALL takeoffs, and confused the use of drag 'chutes
for reduced landing distances with a lack of power for a go-around.

The B-47 used six engines approximately the same as the four used for
supplementary power on B-36s; as fas as spool-up times are concerned, in the
typical useage by the B-36, the pilots would start and bring the four
engines up to speed even as the a/c was in its takeoff roll under the power
of its six piston engines. By the time the B-36 reached takeoff speed, all
four jets were at maximum thrust. Not a long spool-up time at all.

The B-47 did have, as they say today, some "issues" with taking off
and landing. The airplane was entirely opimized for cruising at 'bout
500 kts/35,000', with all other considerations being very much
secondary. This meant that it had a pretty small wing/high wing
loading, very low drag, and even more than most other early jets, was
seriously underpowered at low speeds. It didn't matter what the
engine spoolup times were (About 8-12 seconds, IIRC). The biggest
probelm were wer getting the thing to speed up at all at low speeds,
or takeoff, and getting it to slow down. (The bicycle gear, which
meant that you couldn't adjust AOA on takeoff or landing didn't help,
either.) A B-47 certainly could take off withoug JATO, it just took,
for a B-47E, about 10,500' of ground run to do so. the JATO buttle cut
about 3500' off of that. (Standard day, don't try it in the summer.)
The lack of drag was a problem in the approach and landing. The
airplane didn't respond well to power changes. You could haul the
throttles all the way back, and it just kept going. Maintaining
proper speeds in the pattern (And, with that bicycle gear, you only
landed at the exact right speed - too fast, and you'd either glide the
length of the runway or bounce it off the nose truck) made things
rather tough. The solution was to carry and stream an "Approach
Chute", a 16 diameter parachute that added enough drag that it would
actually slow down when you chopped the throttles. The Braking Chute
was a 32' job. (Ground roll was 4600' without the Brake Chute, and
2600' with. If you could take it off from a field, you could land it.
(All numbers from the B-47E-IV SAC Chart, Feb. 1966)
The difficulties of getting a B-47 off of, and onto the ground, and
the very dicey takeoff behavior of the Comet I (A Comet I had to be
rotated to an AOA of 10 degrees at exactly the right spot in the
takeoff run. At 9 degrees, it wouldn't fly from any runway known to
Man, God, or Republic Aviation (Who knew a lot about long ground runs)
At 11 degrees, you generated so much induced drag that you'd never
reach takeoff speed. Most of the COmet accidents were takeoff
crashes, not the two in-flight breakups. (Nearly half the Comet I/IAs
wer written off) U.S. airlines rather suspicious of jet airliners in
general. It took live demonstrations of tbe Boeing 367-80 to convince
the airlines that a jet airliner that flew like an airliner was possible.

That being said, it does sound like the Brit Documentary makers were
waxing a bit hyperbolic. Not that USAnian documentarists are any
better.

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