Man, now *this* one's got me smiling....

http://www.starshipmodeler.org/galle...mox_junior.jpg

...For some reason I've never even *thought* about doing Shuttles in
military attack colors :-(

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

OM wrote:

http://www.starshipmodeler.org/galle...mox_junior.jpg

..For some reason I've never even *thought* about doing Shuttles in
military attack colors :-(


I always wanted to do a North Dakota ANG F-117 stealth fighter; bottom-
sky blue with "V" formation of migrating geese on it; top- checkerboard
pattern of fields; side- perfectly straight brown bottom half/sky blue
top half paint division, to accurately represent North Dakota horizon.
Then of course there is the NDANG Aggressor squadron. Tail markings are
Teddy Roosevelt with a hammer and sickle on his cowboy hat.

Pat

Ohf course, the first stealth fighter was the De Haviland Mosquito in WW2,
made of wood so it would not show on the primitive radar of the time.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
|
|
| OM wrote:
|
| http://www.starshipmodeler.org/galle...mox_junior.jpg
|
| ..For some reason I've never even *thought* about doing Shuttles in
| military attack colors :-(
|
|
| I always wanted to do a North Dakota ANG F-117 stealth fighter; bottom-
| sky blue with "V" formation of migrating geese on it; top- checkerboard
| pattern of fields; side- perfectly straight brown bottom half/sky blue
| top half paint division, to accurately represent North Dakota horizon.
| Then of course there is the NDANG Aggressor squadron. Tail markings are
| Teddy Roosevelt with a hammer and sickle on his cowboy hat.
|
| Pat
|


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.672 / Virus Database: 434 - Release Date: 28/04/04

Brian Gaff wrote:

Ohf course, the first stealth fighter was the De Haviland Mosquito in WW2,
made of wood so it would not show on the primitive radar of the time.

Errr... it was made of wood because wood was what the Brits had at the
time, and because it made the plane light and fast. Radar wasn't much of
an issue during it's development, I believe.



--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

Brian Gaff wrote:

Ohf course, the first stealth fighter was the De Haviland Mosquito in WW2,
made of wood so it would not show on the primitive radar of the time.



Actually, the wooden construction was primarily to build an aircraft
without making excessive demands on strategically critical metals while
at the same time letting the British woodworking industry be used in the
war effort- subassemblies could be made in scattered woodworking
factories to let the aircraft's production be less vulnerable to German
bombing. The stealth was a unforeseen benefit AFAIK.
During W.W. I , the Germans experimented with fabric-covered aircraft
where the framework was painted silver-gray to match the sky, and the
covering material was transparent Cellon plastic. The idea was that the
aircraft would achieve low visibility by being largely transparent;
ground gunners would look right through it!
It never worked out though- the Cellon got soggy, heavy, and loose in
wet weather, and reflected sunlight like a mirror on sunny days; the
crew had a hard time seeing out of the aircraft due to internal
condensation of humidity on the plastic.

Pat

In article ,
Scott Lowther wrote:
Ohf course, the first stealth fighter was the De Haviland Mosquito in WW2,
made of wood so it would not show on the primitive radar of the time.

Errr... it was made of wood because wood was what the Brits had at the
time, and because it made the plane light and fast. Radar wasn't much of
an issue during it's development, I believe.

Everything I've seen agrees with Scott on this -- the motive for the
Mosquito's timber-and-plywood construction was to minimize dependence on
scarce strategic materials (aluminum) and the specialized facilities used
to work with them. Unusual durability and low radar cross-section were
unintentional side effects.

(As were susceptibility to rot, and a tendency for cracks to develop near
glue joints in climates that alternate long dry periods and long wet
periods (because timber and plywood swell and shrink by different amounts
as their water content changes). And the hope of avoiding specialized
manufacturing facilites was partly defeated by the idiosyncrasies of wood,
not all of which were fully understood at the outset, which tend to
require loving care by skilled labor to get consistently good results.)

Note that a wooden aircraft still has a significant radar return, although
not as much as a metal aircraft, partly because wood does reflect radar
somewhat and partly because there's still a lot of metal in engines,
wiring, etc.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Scott Lowther wrote:
Ohf course, the first stealth fighter was the De Haviland Mosquito in WW2,
made of wood so it would not show on the primitive radar of the time.

Errr... it was made of wood because wood was what the Brits had at the
time, and because it made the plane light and fast. Radar wasn't much of
an issue during it's development, I believe.

Everything I've seen agrees with Scott on this -- the motive for the
Mosquito's timber-and-plywood construction was to minimize dependence on
scarce strategic materials (aluminum) and the specialized facilities used
to work with them. Unusual durability and low radar cross-section were
unintentional side effects.

(As were susceptibility to rot, and a tendency for cracks to develop near
glue joints in climates that alternate long dry periods and long wet
periods (because timber and plywood swell and shrink by different amounts
as their water content changes). And the hope of avoiding specialized
manufacturing facilites was partly defeated by the idiosyncrasies of wood,
not all of which were fully understood at the outset, which tend to
require loving care by skilled labor to get consistently good results.)

Note that a wooden aircraft still has a significant radar return, although
not as much as a metal aircraft, partly because wood does reflect radar
somewhat and partly because there's still a lot of metal in engines,
wiring, etc.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |




The radar return in not a reflection, but a sympathetic resonance of
the target.

On a basic skin paint, edges normal to the observer count for most of
the radar signature.

Edges like sheet metal fairings, cowlings, struts, wires, engine parts
(wood pistons won't help much),propeller, etc.

In article ,
"Brian Gaff" writes:
Ohf course, the first stealth fighter was the De Haviland Mosquito in WW2,
made of wood so it would not show on the primitive radar of the time.

No, the Dh.98 Mosquito was made out of wood because DeHavilland knew
how to make fast airplanes from wood. (Not always with success - the
immediate ancestor to the Mosquito, the Albatross 4-engine airliner,
was a structural disaster of incredible proportions. Actually, DH
(Great Britain) seems to have never quite caught on to getting
monoplane airliners quite right)

The main reason for using molded wood in the Mosquito was to get the
smoothest surface possible. Wood, with a doped fabric cover. (Note:
to reduce the deterioration of the fabric cased by sunlight, the
underlayers of the dope used on the fabric has a fair bit of
Alumin(i)um powder stirred into it - negating any "stealth" effects
from the wooden skin/structure)

In terms of radar signature reduction, nothing could be done about the
engines, or the radiators and oil coolers which had to be open to the
outside, and (due to space limitations) perpendicular to the airframe.
Or, for that matter, the contribution to the radar signature by the
propellers. Not only do the props give you two highly reflective
disks 12' in diameter bolted to the front of the aircraft, but they
have a unique signature - they case the radar return to scintillate.
This scintillation was, in fact, used by the Germans to separate
aircraft returns from chaff clouds.

Mosquitos were hard to intercept because they flew fast Long range
cruising was typically around 200 mph IAS at 25,000', compared with a
B-17's 140 IAS or 160 IAS for a Lancaster (Which couldn't fly that
high anyway. (Note to the groundlubbers: These are Indicated
Airspeeds, which are a measure of the dynamic pressure on the airframe.
Because the air's thinner at altitude, the True Airspeeds are higher.
In this case the Mosquito cruise is 300 mph/25,000', the B-17G is 208
mph/25,000' and the Lancaster weighs in at 220 mph/20,000' (Cause it
couldn't ever make 25,000')) While it may seem that the Luftwaffe's
interceptors had a hefty speed advantage, even over the Mosquito, it's
not really true. While their flat-out Maximum speeds were higher,
their endurance at those power levels was short - about 3-5 minutes
(Before the engine came apart) at full power, and a fuel-limited 30
minutes at Maximum Continuous power. This meant that, in order to
intercept a Mosquito, a properly-based Schwarm or Me 109s could, with
enough warning, take off, form up, and, if they didn't have to
displace laterally too much, (The target cooperates by flying directly
at them) _might_ be able to climb to altitude in time to make one pass.

The Mosquitos also flew as singles, not in large formations that were
much easier to detect, easier to track, and which eliminated the
ability of single aircraft to maneuver to evade attack.

So. Not stealthy, just swift and devious. (And pretty danged good at
that).

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

Actually, DH
(Great Britain) seems to have never quite caught on to getting
monoplane airliners quite right)


But boy could they make ugly biplane ones....did you ever notice how
much the fuselage on the H.P. 42 looks like that of a B-52?:
http://www.geo-davison.demon.co.uk/HP42.jpg

The Mosquitos also flew as singles, not in large formations that were
much easier to detect, easier to track, and which eliminated the
ability of single aircraft to maneuver to evade attack.

So. Not stealthy, just swift and devious. (And pretty danged good at
that).


IIRC, it had the lowest loss rate of any W.W. II combat aircraft.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

Actually, DH
(Great Britain) seems to have never quite caught on to getting
monoplane airliners quite right)


But boy could they make ugly biplane ones....did you ever notice how
much the fuselage on the H.P. 42 looks like that of a B-52?:
http://www.geo-davison.demon.co.uk/HP42.jpg

The Mosquitos also flew as singles, not in large formations that were
much easier to detect, easier to track, and which eliminated the
ability of single aircraft to maneuver to evade attack.

So. Not stealthy, just swift and devious. (And pretty danged good at
that).


IIRC, it had the lowest loss rate of any W.W. II combat aircraft.

Pat


After the war, I read that one of the first indications of the
use of jet fighters by the Nazis was that there was an increase of
the loss rate of Mosquitos because the jets were able to easily
overtake it.

I don't know how true that is and Nazi use of jet fighters came
very late in the war. Most of them were shot down by allied
fighter craft lurking near German airfields. The jets returning very
low or gliding in out of fuel were easy targets then.

Mike Walsh