B wrote: that nose, okay, I see your good point, but didn't you mean CANOPY, too? There you don't have a choice. You have to have blow-out panels for either manual bail-out or ejector seat. That sheeting is THICK and HEAVY. Skin thicknes was less than ONE Milimeter thick! So how is it thick and heavy? If this is proof of your aerodynamic engineering knowledge???
I prefer 100% electrical control and feed. Hydraulics may seem lighter but in reality not. Electrical allows fine control and slam stop with variable slew elevate track. Plus there is FIRE hazard with hydraulics.
Again failing to understand what the numbers represent.
How have I "failed to understand" the fact that the RAF/Lanc dropped fewer bombs for more caualties per ton of bombs?
You have been told many times that your headline figures do not tell the story, its like saying that the B17 in British service was the worst bomber of the war as it lost more aircraft per ton of bombs than any other (including the Battle) this is a true fact but is it a fair and accurate assessment of the B17 - no because there are facts behind it that make a big difference.
The facts being:
The bomber was an early model, not hardened for battle damage.
The early model bomber used de-rated engines that affected performance.
The model (export) was shoddily manufactured. There were thousands of lessons learned design changes that had to be made (the tail being the major one)
[If] the B17 engines were actually very unreliable especially the turbo units Then how do you account for the fact that the USAAF flew more missions in less time than the RAF BC?
More aircraft? BC never had the numbers the USSAF had at the end of the war (easier missions helped too)
4: More mechanics, BETTER mechanics, more spare engines to swap out, plus as the war dragged on the engines got much better.
5. NOTHING was like Black Thursday. Nothing. Bomber Command had its Gethsemane, but it was not an epiphany like that was to the USAAF. Things changed.
More aircraft? True! huge supply of spares? Also true, but less realivant because the radial engine was both more durrable and more reliable. but no there can be only only reason even if that reason goes against known facts
Actually the radial in the B17 does not show this it was reknown for leaking head gaskets, and numerous other issues
The Wright R-1820s were CRAP. Should have gone with Pratt R-1830s or R-2000s.
You are the one making these points, not me. I just pointed out the facts that they would have been better served by planes with air cooled radial engines bombing from higher altitudes in day time with fighter escort.
Actually y late war BC was bombing more accurately than USAAF (its why the USAAF adopted the British bombing aids), Daylight raids were bait for geman fighters
because that played right into the turrets strong point it was for most practical purposes a fixed read mount, it was a bodge as the tail of the B17 had never been designed to take a turret. the most critical defensive position and the B17 was designed without it
And this applies to the B-17 E-F-G?
Yes, the G model still had MANUAL guns in the tail even when, by then, it was common knowledge that manual guns were not up to defense against fast fighters
Do you mean the Cheyenne turret?
It had powered traverse/manual elevate. Rotten mixed solution as clock range rating was impossible.
The Read project would have fixed these issues but was canned, I was also surprised on how sensitive the B17 was to change in CoG.
Why? Given that pitch was sensitive to the point of absurdity and the beast trimmed out yaw heavy why would load distribution issues be a surprise? I told you Boeing made a lot of mistakes applying airliner logic to a bomber.
OBNW writes:Given the huge differences in control authority between the B-17 and Lancaster, in the B-17's favor, I mean just look at the differences in tail plane size to know the lie this is, How can you make this canard?
Pitch control was a problem but YAW (rudder control) was more so.
So wait a minute the fact that the B17 was unstable and needed vast increase in tail surfaces makes it better than a Lanc (which actually REDUCED tail surfaces over the Manchester) and yet the Lanc was regarded as being not only easy to control but actually could be slung around like a light bomber,
I've noted with some surprise how SMALL the Lancaster is.
About 21 meters long, 31 meters main wingspan and 6.25 meters from wheels to canopy.
About 22 meters long 31.5 meters main wingspan and 6 meters from wheels to canopy.
Where on earth did you get this idea? I mean I raised it as a very real problem with the Lanc's long bomb bay and now you bring it up out of the blue? Why? What are your sources?
I provided my source, where yours to say that the Lanc had problems? Because you haven’t provided one yet
Stuart wrote (and lied since he hasn't READ IT, Should proof your copy before you gaffe up like that Stuart.
B17 The story.................., by Roger Anthony Freeman I just ordered it! Will see what it states. Can you list a page number for your claims above? In total 364,514 operational sorties were flown by the RAF, 1,030,500 tons of bombs were dropped and 8,325 aircraft lost in action. From American Combat aircraft by Wagner on page 133 the USAAF flew 762,462 sorties and dropped 1,396,816 tons of bombs for only 9,937 aircraft lost in European combat! How can you make lite of these figures?
Plucked from Wiki. Note the dishonesty?
On the stats, themselves, I already noted that twice the sorties to produce equivalent tonnage dropped exposed twice as many machines and men to combat; means the USAAF was four times mechanically less efficient than the RAF over Germany. Fewer casualties per bomb? Rough equivalence (actual NUMBERS of fail to return not Stuart fantasyland) means the RAF was ½ as efficient at crew defense as the USAAF. Better bailout from dead Lancasters and fixing that Schrage Musik problem would have cut those numbers in HALF.
Can you list like for like missions? if not then these figures are not comparable and makes as much sense are compare BC in ww2 to USAF in Vietnam
And understanding that those stats mean is key, and you are certainly not doing that, stats are meaningless unless you understand what they are telling you and to do that you need context but when that is provided you ignore it and spout the figures anyway
Why? Given that pitch was sensitive to the point of absurdity and the beast trimmed out yaw heavy why would load distribution issues be a surprise? I told you Boeing made a lot of mistakes applying airliner logic to a bomber because the reports online didnt mention them its only when you investigate actual performance does it come to light
� 1998 -