#141
|
|||
|
|||
OT F-117 retired
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:43:30 GMT, Mary Pegg
wrote: Pat Flannery wrote: That's a pretty much a direct quote of a History Channel interview with a Royal Army Sherman commander, Do you mean "British Army"? ....No, he's referring to an old Royal Army commander from before the Cromwell Tyranny, who was so inept that he was assigned only one soldier under his command. A poor, half-witted slob named Roger Sherman. Sherman somehow managed to survive long enough to breed, and his descendents - Bobby and Alan - sold millions of records in the Protobubblegum Rock and Comedy genres, respectively. OM -- ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
OT F-117 retired
Mary Pegg wrote: Do you mean "British Army"? Actually, that should have been Royal Tank Regiment: http://www.royaltankregiment.com/pages/MainFrame2.htm Pat |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
OT F-117 retired
Pat Flannery writes:
I'd read up on this fault in the design, and I think what happened was that Boeing was quite conservative when designing the B-17, and built it a lot stronger than it needed to be to be on the safe side- which paid off when it came to absorbing battle damage. In the case of the B-24, the performance of the aircraft regarding range and bomb capacity took the lead, and the result was that the structure was built fairly light, and couldn't tolerate the degree of damage a B-17 could. But that did mean you needed fewer aircraft to accomplish the same mission. That means you need to look at not just % of flying a/c on 12 May who were destroyed, but also the "more B-17's needed vs -24" factor meaning that there were more 17's up there.... -- A host is a host from coast to & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
OT F-117 retired
David Lesher wrote: That means you need to look at not just % of flying a/c on 12 May who were destroyed, but also the "more B-17's needed vs -24" factor meaning that there were more 17's up there.... Of course to their aircrews, more aircraft in the air during a raid meant more aircraft the Luftwaffe's fighters might go after other than the particular one you were on. On the upside, the B-24 was apparently more optimized for mass production, in much the same way that a P-51 took nowhere near as many man-hours to make as a Spitfire. Pat |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
OT F-117 retired
David Lesher wrote:
Pat Flannery writes: I'd read up on this fault in the design, and I think what happened was that Boeing was quite conservative when designing the B-17, and built it a lot stronger than it needed to be to be on the safe side- which paid off when it came to absorbing battle damage. It's not a question of raw strength - Both the B-17 and B-24 were pretty much even in that regard when undamaged. But - the B-17 used a multi-spare wing with Warren Truss type spars. The B-24 used a single-spar (I-beam, more or less) wing. It's harder to damage a B-18 structure enough to compromise it. In the case of the B-24, the performance of the aircraft regarding range and bomb capacity took the lead, and the result was that the structure was built fairly light, and couldn't tolerate the degree of damage a B-17 could. It also used an airfoil more highly optimized for low drag at the cruise point, which gave better performance at that point, but was less well behaved when "off-design". That may not sound like much, but a B-24 formation is 15-18 airplanes wallowing around "off-design". But that did mean you needed fewer aircraft to accomplish the same mission. Only if the loss and abort rates are comparable. The B-24's less, shall we say, airplane friendly fuel, electrical, and hydraulic systems meant, on the whole, more aborts. That means you need to look at not just % of flying a/c on 12 May who were destroyed, but also the "more B-17's needed vs -24" factor meaning that there were more 17's up there.... There's something that's being passed over. here, as well. Flying Qualities. A B-17 was a delight to fly, with very little in the way of bad behavior. The airplane was as honest as the day is long. Yes, it takes some muscle to shove it around, but it responds. The bloody thing is so well-balanced that you can trim out _all_ the foot loads from asymmetric flight - (As in no rudder force to keep the pointy part forward with 2 engines out on one side. The systems were so well thought out and mature that system management was as intuitive as it would get. The B-24 was, by comparison, damned uncomfortable to fly, especially in formation. Consolidated and Sperry ended up having to develop the "Formation Stick" - a stick-steering autopilot to ease Pilot Fatigue on formation flights. The you add in the B-24's dodgy ditching characteristics, its weakness during rough landings (When the top turret would collapse into the cockpit) and general tendency to try an blow itself up whenever possible, and it all comes out as a wash. It's worth noting that the B-17 wasn't retired from the USAF until the late 1950s. (It served in Rescue, Photo-Mapping, and Weather Recon roles, as well as as a Utility Transport and Pilotless Aircraft. (AS in both a target and as an air-sampler for A-and H-Bomb tests. The B-24 was dropped like a hot potato, and was pretty much gone by 1948. -- Pete Stickney Without data, all you have is an opinion |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
OT F-117 retired
Peter Stickney wrote: [...] It's worth noting that the B-17 wasn't retired from the USAF until the late 1950s. (It served in Rescue, Photo-Mapping, and Weather Recon roles, as well as as a Utility Transport and Pilotless Aircraft. (AS in both a target and as an air-sampler for A-and H-Bomb tests. The B-24 was dropped like a hot potato, and was pretty much gone by 1948. -- Pete Stickney Without data, all you have is an opinion Welcome back to sci.space.*, Peter! You're one of the voices we always want more of (planes, rockets, computer labs, dorm fires ... we'll take it all!). /dps |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Books by ex-astronauts and retired NASA managers & engineers | Matthew Ota | History | 0 | September 11th 05 11:04 PM |
A Shuttle to be retired in 2007? | Pat Flannery | Space Science Misc | 1 | August 5th 05 11:09 PM |
NASA's B-52B "mothership" air-launch aircraft is being retired | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | December 8th 04 08:42 PM |
Light polluted and old and retired --best telescope | halfro | Amateur Astronomy | 13 | May 3rd 04 06:41 PM |
If we lost ISS would the shuttles be retired too? What of the future? | Hallerb | Space Shuttle | 17 | November 7th 03 01:42 PM |