Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A most efficient, less expensive and easily produced strategic bomber for WW II

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    You forgot the six bladed manganese alloy props though...

    Comment


    • #47




      Paul
      ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
      All human ills he can subdue,
      Or with a bauble or medal
      Can win mans heart for you;
      And many a blessing know to stew
      To make a megloamaniac bright;
      Give honour to the dainty Corse,
      The Pixie is a little shite.

      Comment


      • #48
        Non of the experts could explain why the Mosquito built for speed used 3 blade props in 1945 and the P-51 and Spitfire used 4 blade props in 1943with the same engine. Stupidity s difficutl to explain. The vaunted Hellcat had a much more powerful engine and also 3 blade props in 1945 and all other fighters using that engine used 4 blade props in 1944 (F4U, P-47, etc,).

        BBB stands for bloody brilliant bomber

        The 6 bladed, die cast, Mn alloy props were developed in another thread by the more imaginative Soviet metallurgists.
        In this thread we're stuck with the W allies' 4 bladed prop which they did not use in the B-17 or Mosquito and the Japanese licensed for the G4M.

        Comment


        • #49
          Hmm... so that's it: delusions of grandeur. He thinks he's the world's greatest strategist, engineer, and metallurgist all rolled into one!

          Can't say I didn't see it coming...

          Comment


          • #50
            Blundering Bloated Bas.....d
            Big Bureaucratic Blunder
            Basically Brainless BS

            ....

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Draco View Post
              Stupidity s difficutl to explain.
              You do such a good job in explaining yourself, though. Or not, perhaps.

              ...more imaginative Soviet metallurgists.
              The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                Blundering Bloated Bas.....d
                Big Bureaucratic Blunder
                Basically Brainless BS

                ....
                The big bureaucratic blunders were the Alaska and second Burma road (rdiculously costly in money and labor at the most valuable time) and the Matilda, Stirling, P-39, the first US LST, whose design, tooling and production cost a fortune only to be discarded, some of them with heavy losses.

                Other huge blunders were not mass producing the F5F in 1941 and the de Havilland Hornet in 1942 (why the hell did they wait until after the war, when jets ruled?)
                The most expensive, complicated and unreliable bomber project of WW II was of course the B-29. The allies could have easily liberated Burma and China in 1942 with what they wasted flying huge t over the hump for years and on the B-29 and leveled Japan in 1943 with cheap, easily produced BBBs from China with small crews and escorted by P-51.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Again with the F5F. It was shown to be a pos lemon, and it wasn't produced because better designs existed. You haven't proven otherwise, and others have shown you reality. Get over it.
                  The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
                    Again with the F5F. It was shown to be a pos lemon, and it wasn't produced because better designs existed. You haven't proven otherwise, and others have shown you reality. Get over it.
                    No no no in his mind it was the best plane of the war, his comics said so... After all it did beat XYZ in a "competition" but was rejected because stupid navy officials did not see the potential of a high performance aircraft...

                    Even though said navy guys clearly saw a aircraft with far more development time to go, as the plane required constant modifications even before and after said competition, and that said aircraft was achieving said performance in an unarmed and unequipped state that had no value in a combat airframe.

                    Though it seems Draco has not learned the adage of the Best is the enemy of the Good, or in other words, seeking the best tool for the job often results in the discarding of many perfectly good ones that would of been available sooner and more cheaply.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Nebfer View Post
                      No no no in his mind it was the best plane of the war, his comics said so... After all it did beat XYZ in a "competition" but was rejected because stupid navy officials did not see the potential of a high performance aircraft...
                      You left off "...flown by heroic cartoon characters."

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Nebfer View Post
                        No no no in his mind it was the best plane of the war, his comics said so... After all it did beat XYZ in a "competition" but was rejected because stupid navy officials did not see the potential of a high performance aircraft...

                        Even though said navy guys clearly saw a aircraft with far more development time to go, as the plane required constant modifications even before and after said competition, and that said aircraft was achieving said performance in an unarmed and unequipped state that had no value in a combat airframe.

                        Though it seems Draco has not learned the adage of the Best is the enemy of the Good, or in other words, seeking the best tool for the job often results in the discarding of many perfectly good ones that would of been available sooner and more cheaply.
                        The F4U competed against the F5F and was beaten. It required a hell of a lot of money, time and modifications and even the final product in 1944 produced less thrust and much more torque than the F5F, was more expensive with its seagull wing and went down if the engine failed in mid Ocean.

                        The P-38 was much more expensive than the F5F and its watercooled engines were much less reliable.

                        Solving an undercarriage problem, producing large numbers of small, reliable, bored-out engines and props and using the F5F for the navy and air force and also the P-51 for the air force and marines made a lot more sense than wasting a fortune producing the lousy P-38, 39, 40, 47, F4F, F6F, F4U and causing a production, training, maintenance and logistics nightmare.
                        It only took the US about a century to develop a fighter for all armed forces and a rdicisulously expensive one.

                        But I don't expect people who regard the Doolittle raid, Nimitz, the B-29, Hellcat, Sherman, etc, as the greatest assets to ever understand that

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Draco View Post
                          3 pages on this design makes much more sense than wasting several billion dollars, huge industrial capacity, huge amounts of aluminum, engines, guns, ammo, turrets and training a huge number of aviators for years (so that most die or are captured and never complete their tour) to make, ferry, maintain and fly 50,000 complicated, vulnerable and slow, 4 engine monsters.


                          If You take 3 Mosquito fuselages 28 ft apart, w/o H stabilizer and use 4 engines on 4 identical constant section wing sections (with twice the total wing area of a Mosquito) connecting the fuselages and use 4 blade props and twice the fuel capacity and the same crew and oxygen system of a single Mosquito and windows and seats in only one fuselage, you have a plane that is much easier and faster to build in wood than 3 mosquitoes with tapered wings and H. stabilizers and is still faster (no wingtip drag and less fuel, plane and crew wt per bomb load), has a higher ceiling and is more survivable (especially since only the best crew flies it and surviving longer, they gain experience fast) and stable (less maneuverable) during the bomb run. There is only a bomb sight and a set of guns, instead of 3.

                          With the engines further from the pilots and 4 blade props, the crew endures less noise and vibration.

                          Since the Mosquito was built for speed, can anybody tell me why it used 3 blade props, instead of the better 4 blade prop used by the P-51 and Spitfire with the same Merlin engine? That and the 3 blade prop of the more powrful Hellcat seem rather dumb mistakes.
                          You are looking at the technical rather than the practical applications.

                          The Mossie has the same bomb load as the B-17 for the missions required of it. However it only needs 2 crew instead of 10, 2 engines instead of 4, has significantly less cost, and the crew are less exhausted by being in the air for a shorter period of time.

                          I really hope you had an earlier incarnation as Cheap Jeep . I loved that guy.
                          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            I wasn't going to bother as none were the wartime bomber version but just to let you know Draco:





                            Paul
                            Last edited by Dibble201Bty; 11 Jun 15, 16:10.
                            ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
                            All human ills he can subdue,
                            Or with a bauble or medal
                            Can win mans heart for you;
                            And many a blessing know to stew
                            To make a megloamaniac bright;
                            Give honour to the dainty Corse,
                            The Pixie is a little shite.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              I only spoke about fighters above, but as I mentioned in the othe rthread a dive bomber version and a torpedo bomber of the F5F eliminated the need for the slow TBF and SBD which after dropping its load make a much better fighter than the SBD or gets away much faster than the TBF.

                              A single mass produced engine and plane (the latter in 3 versions), instead of 7.

                              Nick,
                              Sorry no Jeep.

                              The triple Mosquito results in less fatigue (higher speed, less noise and vibration as the enginers are farther from the crew and more stability and 1 crew instead of 3), higher survivability, lower cost compared to 3 of Ms and 2/3 the fuel used and engine cost and maintenance for the bomb load of 3 Ms.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Draco View Post
                                The F4U competed against the F5F and was beaten. It required a hell of a lot of money, time and modifications and even the final product in 1944 produced less thrust and much more torque than the F5F, was more expensive with its seagull wing and went down if the engine failed in mid Ocean.

                                The P-38 was much more expensive than the F5F and its watercooled engines were much less reliable.

                                Solving an undercarriage problem, producing large numbers of small, reliable, bored-out engines and props and using the F5F for the navy and air force and also the P-51 for the air force and marines made a lot more sense than wasting a fortune producing the lousy P-38, 39, 40, 47, F4F, F6F, F4U and causing a production, training, maintenance and logistics nightmare.
                                It only took the US about a century to develop a fighter for all armed forces and a rdicisulously expensive one.

                                But I don't expect people who regard the Doolittle raid, Nimitz, the B-29, Hellcat, Sherman, etc, as the greatest assets to ever understand that
                                You've not proven to anyone that this F5F junkheap was any better or could have performed any better in actual combat. It required way too much work to make it viable. The other craft you poo-poo were examples of outstanding engineering and while it can be debated that there could have designed an even better warplane, it just didn't happen because what we had was as good as it gets at that time. The records of the Corsair and Lightning, for example, during the war(s) is enough for them to stand strong. Doesn't seem there was a need for this fantasy F5F super fighter.
                                The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X