Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Missile tactics versus gun tactics.
Maratabc    4/26/2013 1:07:57 PM
This will be a discussion of why the Americans and British made a serious technical error in the 1950s and 1960s.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   NEXT
45-Shooter       7/30/2013 8:06:58 PM


Something like this.
   


Never saw that page pop up! I wonder what the difference is?
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       7/30/2013 8:09:10 PM


Something like this.

Never saw that page pop up! I wonder what the difference is?
Still waiting for your WAG about what the required wing loading would be to get the Lancaster up to a 35,000' Service Ceiling? Or to admit that some weight would have to be removed to increase the ceiling over it's present limit?
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/30/2013 8:18:19 PM
You have again demonstrated that you know nothing.
 
 
A tailplane, also known as horizontal stabilizer (or horizontal stabiliser), is a small lifting surface located on the tail (empennage) behind the main lifting surfaces of a fixed-wing aircraft as well as other non-fixed-wing aircraft such as helicopters and gyroplanes.
 
Kind of screws the Lancaster dose it not? But wait, the Spitfire with the same engine could reach 35,000'? Why can't the Lanc do the same? nor was landing gear the limiting factor. Prove it instead of making idiotic assertions!Wing bend moment was. Again you are wrong! The B-17's wing was much stronger than the Lancaster's wing as shown by the number of damaged AC that successfully RTB'd!

 
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/30/2013 8:22:09 PM

Now that we proved  that you are a LIAR, what is your current excuse for not admitting that you still lie about this?
In what way have you proven anything? The link does not work from my computer. I think it times out while waiting for the connection/download? But I could not have posted the screen grab showing the failure with that address if it did not happen!


Obviously, when you said you could not get the third link to work on the homepage you CALLED YOURSELFA LIAR.

Bet you didn't see that answer coming did you, Stewie?  
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/30/2013 8:33:27 PM



Something like this.


Never saw that page pop up! I wonder what the difference is?
Still waiting for your WAG about what the required wing loading would be to get the Lancaster up to a 35,000' Service Ceiling? Or to admit that some weight would have to be removed to increase the ceiling over it's present limit?


Don't have to WAG it. I can do math. You would need about 24% more work from the engines and a Hamilton Standard  propeller or about 87 % efficiency for 5000 unneeded feet. Not economical.
 
You could always go the Ashton route. The Lincolmn could be modified to take JET ENGINES. The B-17 could not be. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/31/2013 3:29:58 AM
If they wanted the extra altitude they could achieve it on the existing power by increasing the length of the wing, something that was STANDARD practice in aero design and proven to work - nearly all high altitude aircraft were modified aircraft given extra wing length ie the Junkers, the Spit the 109 the FW190D etc etc
 
oh and they show that not only was this possible but easily possibly as they did it with the Lincoln
 
the fact that the B17 could operate efectively at 35000 ft might have had something to do with at 35000 ft you need a pressurized enviroment to work in (see the B29 and the work undertaken to enbale it to operate at those altitudes)
 
the human body is not designed to work at high altitude and above 20000ft works very badly, above 24000ft and it cannot survive without artificial means and above 30000ft it will have big probelms even with oxygen, b17 crews were found to be only able to stay above 30000ft for short periods and as many as 4/10 could not take the altitude at all
 
so why would the RAF want a 35000ft bomber when they knew by 1941 that to fly that high needed a fully presurized aircraft (see Barnes Wallis and the Vickers high altitude projects) information passed to the US
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       7/31/2013 7:10:52 AM
The average Human has trouble with pressures at 1/4 standard atmosphere. He's already on oxygen above 5,000 meters and at  9,000 meters he's freezing to death, dehydrating and miserable.   
 
 
Observe where the cutoff line is. About 30,000 feet. or 9,000 meters
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       8/2/2013 4:48:29 PM


Kind of screws the Lancaster dose it not? But wait, the Spitfire with the same engine could reach 35,000'? Why can't the Lanc do the same? nor was landing gear the limiting factor. Prove it instead of making idiotic assertions!Wing bend moment was. Again you are wrong! The B-17's wing was much stronger than the Lancaster's wing as shown by the number of damaged AC that successfully RTB'd!



 







Still waiting for you to answer the question about reduction in wing loading required to get a Lancaster up to 35,000'!

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       8/2/2013 4:51:33 PM


I was not talking about the home page, but the one that did not work as shown before!
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       8/2/2013 5:02:16 PM

But the Merlin already has 40% more power than the B-17's R-1820s, so that is plainly NOT the answer! Since the early Spitfire could reach 35,000' all we have to do is decrease the Lanc's wing loading to less than that of the Spitfire.
 
 

You could always go the Ashton route. The Lincolmn could be modified to take JET ENGINES. The B-17 could not be. 
Why would you think this?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   NEXT



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics