Af/Pak & Libya News (10/13/2011)

A minor issue about time-between-overhauls for the engines, and the
really horrible cockpit ergonomics, might be involved.

The Flanker family are aerodynamically stunning, but it's like choosing
the A6M Zero over the F6F Hellcat or even the Seafire because "the
pilots love flying it" rather than "this will win".

> Same as they didn't have the balls to buy the 'black Kalashnikov' in
> 1996/7 either.

Which one is/was the "black Kalashnikov"? AK-103, AN-94, something else?

Back in '96/97 there wasn't the credible momentum for a new rifle, it
peaked in 2001ish IIRC (hence the L85A2 update, which has to be given
credit for success) - and in the '90s the user pull was for the Steyr AUG.

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

William Black

unread,

Oct 14, 2011, 8:52:31 PM10/14/11

to

On 15/10/11 00:28, Paul J. Adam wrote:
> On 14/10/2011 11:56, William Black wrote:
>> Well they haven't the balls to buy the Su-33...
>
> A minor issue about time-between-overhauls for the engines, and the
> really horrible cockpit ergonomics, might be involved.
>
> The Flanker family are aerodynamically stunning, but it's like choosing
> the A6M Zero over the F6F Hellcat or even the Seafire because "the
> pilots love flying it" rather than "this will win".

It's considerably better than what they've got, and what they're going
to get, for some considerable time, because what they've got and what
they're going to get before 2018 at the earliest, is bugger all...

There are no Hellcats or Seafires available.

The Su-33 is available...

>> Same as they didn't have the balls to buy the 'black Kalashnikov' in
>> 1996/7 either.
>
> Which one is/was the "black Kalashnikov"? AK-103, AN-94, something else?

Can't remember, but the latest one about then, when, if I remember
correctly, there were a couple of Kalashnikovs available in 5.56 NATO.

> Back in '96/97 there wasn't the credible momentum for a new rifle, it
> peaked in 2001ish IIRC (hence the L85A2 update, which has to be given
> credit for success) - and in the '90s the user pull was for the Steyr AUG.

And, I seem to remember, a certain amount of discussion about what
should be done about the SA-80, with, as you say, the Steyr 'ray gun'
design being quite popular because the guys at what was then called 'The
School of Infantry' at Warminster (I know, the name now means something
else and the bunch at Warminster are now called the 'Small Arms School')
thought it looked really cool.

I'm also fully aware that there was deep dissatisfaction with the SA-80
from the start and it wasn't until H&K sorted it out in about 1999 that
the soldiers started to trust it. The cost of the H&K modification
programme was higher, at about £400 per weapon, than buying something
new that worked from the Russians.

Mind you, I remember the sudden intake of breath when the development
cost of the SA-80 bayonet was announced, four million quid wasn't it?

Still, it's traditional for almost all British military small arms to
be crap for the first few years of service...

Paul J. Adam

unread,

Oct 15, 2011, 9:38:14 AM10/15/11

to

On 15/10/2011 01:52, William Black wrote:
> On 15/10/11 00:28, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> A minor issue about time-between-overhauls for the engines, and the
>> really horrible cockpit ergonomics, might be involved.
>>
>> The Flanker family are aerodynamically stunning, but it's like choosing
>> the A6M Zero over the F6F Hellcat or even the Seafire because "the
>> pilots love flying it" rather than "this will win".
>
> It's considerably better than what they've got, and what they're going
> to get, for some considerable time, because what they've got and what
> they're going to get before 2018 at the earliest, is bugger all...

True, but if we buy Su-33 we've nothing to fly it off. It'll barely fit
on Illustrious, it might make it off the ski-jump clean but you'll never
land it back on, and it won't fit down the lifts or into the hangar. Not
much utility *today* for maritime use, and we're rather embarrasingly
overborne with pointy-nosed fast-movers flying from land at the moment -
don't really need any more.

As for 2018ish once we've got a deck? Well, we'll see. F-35C is still
the official favourite but we're not on contract, F-18 is looking like a
credible option (less capable on paper, but a damn sight less expensive,
and we'll have pilots trained - I know a couple of ex-Joint Force
Harrier types who will be doing tours with the USN in Hornets), Rafale
and whatever Sukhoi are offering are not impossible...

Or we end up selling the carriers for cash and doing without. Who knows?
It's getting hard to plan at the moment because everything's being
constantly buggered around.

>> Which one is/was the "black Kalashnikov"? AK-103, AN-94, something else?
>
> Can't remember, but the latest one about then, when, if I remember
> correctly, there were a couple of Kalashnikovs available in 5.56 NATO.

Would have been one of the 100-series, can never remember the exact
pattern. I *think* it's AK-101 in 5.45mm, AK-102 in 5.56mm and AK-103 in
7.62mm x 39.

>> Back in '96/97 there wasn't the credible momentum for a new rifle, it
>> peaked in 2001ish IIRC (hence the L85A2 update, which has to be given
>> credit for success) - and in the '90s the user pull was for the Steyr
>> AUG.
>
> And, I seem to remember, a certain amount of discussion about what
> should be done about the SA-80, with, as you say, the Steyr 'ray gun'
> design being quite popular because the guys at what was then called 'The
> School of Infantry' at Warminster (I know, the name now means something
> else and the bunch at Warminster are now called the 'Small Arms School')
> thought it looked really cool.

Never underestimate the "woot!" factor, especially in Urgent Operational
Requirements.

> I'm also fully aware that there was deep dissatisfaction with the SA-80
> from the start and it wasn't until H&K sorted it out in about 1999 that
> the soldiers started to trust it.

To be honest I'd say it wasn't until Iraq 2003 that it really acquired a
reputation: once the -A2 mods were in, and there was opportunity to see
how it performed compared to M16alikes, AKs and AUGs, the grumbling ceased.

> The cost of the H&K modification
> programme was higher, at about £400 per weapon, than buying something
> new that worked from the Russians.

True for the rifles (though don't discount the cost of changing
everything from the cleaning kits to the storage racks to the webbing,
and the AKs don't use STANAG magazines) but we'd *still* have been
furiously UORing LLMs, ACOG sights, Vortex flash hiders and all the
other "theatre entry standard" stuff onto the AKs.

Like many procurement sagas, it's a sorry tale but at least we ended up
with something effective. And if *I* can group better with a L85 at 400
metres, than an AK-74 managed from a bench at 200 metres, there's an
accuracy issue involved which isn't insignificant.

> Mind you, I remember the sudden intake of breath when the development
> cost of the SA-80 bayonet was announced, four million quid wasn't it?

One of those simple ideas that turned out to be far from it...

> Still, it's traditional for almost all British military small arms to be
> crap for the first few years of service...

True for just about everyone. (US insisted on the M14 and then didn't
like it much, then they jumped to the M16 and spent decades complaining
about it and are still tweaking it...)

William Black

unread,

Oct 15, 2011, 1:18:58 PM10/15/11

to

On 15/10/11 14:38, Paul J. Adam wrote:
> On 15/10/2011 01:52, William Black wrote:

>> It's considerably better than what they've got, and what they're going
>> to get, for some considerable time, because what they've got and what
>> they're going to get before 2018 at the earliest, is bugger all...
>
> True, but if we buy Su-33 we've nothing to fly it off. It'll barely fit
> on Illustrious, it might make it off the ski-jump clean but you'll never
> land it back on, and it won't fit down the lifts or into the hangar. Not
> much utility *today* for maritime use, and we're rather embarrasingly
> overborne with pointy-nosed fast-movers flying from land at the moment -
> don't really need any more.
>
> As for 2018ish once we've got a deck?

We should have some sort of big flat-top earlier than that, but no
fixed wing capacity, except that I now read that it might have...

It seem QE may have catapults and wires fitted, possibly...

Of US manufacture...

Well, we'll see. F-35C is still
> the official favourite but we're not on contract, F-18 is looking like a
> credible option (less capable on paper, but a damn sight less expensive,
> and we'll have pilots trained - I know a couple of ex-Joint Force
> Harrier types who will be doing tours with the USN in Hornets), Rafale
> and whatever Sukhoi are offering are not impossible...

I'll be prepared to bet that whatever Sukhoi offers will not be
acceptable, even if it's the best in the shop and we can have it for
the top off a Wheatabix packet.

>> The cost of the H&K modification
>> programme was higher, at about £400 per weapon, than buying something
>> new that worked from the Russians.
>
> True for the rifles (though don't discount the cost of changing
> everything from the cleaning kits to the storage racks to the webbing,
> and the AKs don't use STANAG magazines) but we'd *still* have been
> furiously UORing LLMs, ACOG sights, Vortex flash hiders and all the
> other "theatre entry standard" stuff onto the AKs.

We'd also be able to bolt dead cheap Russian optical gadgetry to them,
although knowing MoD procurement practice we'd be having the stuff
rebuilt with different sized crimp on battery connections for a
gazillion quid a copy to conform with NATO stores standards when it
would actually be cheaper and quicker to buy three copies of everything
and throw them away when they went wrong, not that Russian military
stuff goes wrong much...

> Like many procurement sagas, it's a sorry tale but at least we ended up
> with something effective. And if *I* can group better with a L85 at 400
> metres, than an AK-74 managed from a bench at 200 metres, there's an
> accuracy issue involved which isn't insignificant.

That isn't what it's for.
How often is anyone worried about hitting a point target at 400 yards
with a personal weapon?

>> Mind you, I remember the sudden intake of breath when the development
>> cost of the SA-80 bayonet was announced, four million quid wasn't it?
>
> One of those simple ideas that turned out to be far from it...

I blame the designers inviting the Brigade of Guards to have a look at
it with regards to it being used as a 'parade' weapon.

Thank God Enfield Lock managed to keep them out of the rifle's design
phase or we'd have something six inches longer that looked really good
outside Buckingham Palace.

>> Still, it's traditional for almost all British military small arms to be
>> crap for the first few years of service...
>
> True for just about everyone. (US insisted on the M14 and then didn't
> like it much, then they jumped to the M16 and spent decades complaining
> about it and are still tweaking it...)

The M-14 is a fine rifle, a nd was an excellent weapon right out of the box.

The M-16 was the US's only real cock up and reading the literature that
seems to be more a training issue than anything actually wrong with the
rifle.

Oh, except for the trapdoor Springfield, the rifle that contributed so
much to Custer and his men getting killed...

The British on the other hand can look back to the Brunswick Rifle,
described once as the worst military firearm ever issued, the five
iterations of the Enfield Rifle in a decade, the Trapdoor Schnider (I
had one once, converted to a shotgun, bloody awful thing), the Lee
Metford, the P-13 (The P-14 was a wonderful rifle, so they didn't adopt
it) the SLR (which wasn't bad, until you look at what the Canadians
got) and the EM-2, another good rifle that wasn't adopted.

All culminating in the SA-80 saga which seems to have been sorted out
after twenty odd years, except for the SA-86 which, I am informed,
still stinks...

Oh well, at least they're buying pistols from the Swiss these days...

Paul J. Adam

unread,

Oct 16, 2011, 11:48:31 AM10/16/11

to

On 15/10/2011 18:18, William Black wrote:
> On 15/10/11 14:38, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> True, but if we buy Su-33 we've nothing to fly it off. It'll barely fit
>> on Illustrious, it might make it off the ski-jump clean but you'll never
>> land it back on, and it won't fit down the lifts or into the hangar. Not
>> much utility *today* for maritime use, and we're rather embarrasingly
>> overborne with pointy-nosed fast-movers flying from land at the moment -
>> don't really need any more.
>>
>> As for 2018ish once we've got a deck?
>
> We should have some sort of big flat-top earlier than that, but no fixed
> wing capacity, except that I now read that it might have...

Change one plan, change others...

>
> It seem QE may have catapults and wires fitted, possibly...

In which case Su-33 is a contender.
>
> Of US manufacture...

Probably but not certainly. I'd be interested to see an honest
comparison of capability & cost of F-18 and Su-33, though I doubt you'd
get reliable numbers. (We can have a good idea of what a F-18 costs to
run, Su-33 is more... speculative)

> I'll be prepared to bet that whatever Sukhoi offers will not be
> acceptable, even if it's the best in the shop and we can have it for the
> top off a Wheatabix packet.

Two issues arise. One is service life: the Soviets always designed for
"by the time it wears out it'll have been shot down anyway" which is
fine for wartime but a problem for peacetime air forces that want to fly
and train fairly extensively.

The other is capability: there's a lot of bespoke kit that really would
need replacing in the export Su-33 (the radar, comms and ECM fit at
least, plus weapons integration unless we're using Russian missiles as
well) and the costs of doing that get really nasty if you can do it at
all (remember the cheap, simple, easy fix of fitting a glass cockpit to
Chinook?)

I wouldn't rule the Flanker out of consideration, but it would need its
numbers to pass the scrutineers' study.

>> True for the rifles (though don't discount the cost of changing
>> everything from the cleaning kits to the storage racks to the webbing,
>> and the AKs don't use STANAG magazines) but we'd *still* have been
>> furiously UORing LLMs, ACOG sights, Vortex flash hiders and all the
>> other "theatre entry standard" stuff onto the AKs.
>
> We'd also be able to bolt dead cheap Russian optical gadgetry to them,

We had what we thought was a very good optic on the SA80, but experience
showed us that the ACOG actually made a difference and was better. Is
there a Russian equivalent? Having enjoyed the Kalashnikov stand at
DSEi, they aren't into the same range of useful add-ons that we are: so
you're needing to put a Pictatinny rail fore-end on, which again eats
into the "quick, cheap, easy" aspect.

>> Like many procurement sagas, it's a sorry tale but at least we ended up
>> with something effective. And if *I* can group better with a L85 at 400
>> metres, than an AK-74 managed from a bench at 200 metres, there's an
>> accuracy issue involved which isn't insignificant.
>
> That isn't what it's for.

Yes, it is - close only counts in horseshoes and fragmenting munitions.

> How often is anyone worried about hitting a point target at 400 yards
> with a personal weapon?

Frequently, if they're firing from loopholes in a compound wall: if you
don't hit the loophole you might as well not fire.

An evolution in Afghanistan has been that the enemy are very fussy about
their engagement ranges: either less than 200m, or 600m plus with PKMGs
and RPGs, because AKs against M16s and L85s is a bad idea in that middle
ground. Hence the renewed interest in 7.62mm sharpshooter rifles.

Aimed fire remains very valid, though. Wildly brassing off the general
target area is fairly ineffective, uses lots of ammunition for troops
that are weight-critical already, and raises the risks of collateral
damage: while combat experience is pretty clear that your typical
Taleban seems fairly resistant to suppressive fire, and near-misses
don't achieve much of anything.

>> True for just about everyone. (US insisted on the M14 and then didn't
>> like it much, then they jumped to the M16 and spent decades complaining
>> about it and are still tweaking it...)
>
> The M-14 is a fine rifle, a nd was an excellent weapon right out of the
> box.

So good it was preferred to the inferior G3 and FN-FAL around the world?
The US could barely give them away.

> The M-16 was the US's only real cock up and reading the literature that
> seems to be more a training issue than anything actually wrong with the
> rifle.

Even by 2003, after all the evolution, they were having significant
reliability issues with the M16 family in Iraq. Nothing showstopping,
but note the groundswell of opinion that direct gas impingement really
wasn't such a good idea...

Then there was the superb M60 machine gun - replaced after only twenty
years by the FN-MAG that it was selected over (because them Belgians
can't make guns).

> All culminating in the SA-80 saga which seems to have been sorted out
> after twenty odd years, except for the SA-86 which, I am informed, still
> stinks...

Thereby hangs a tale. The LSW (L86) was acquired as an RPK-like light
support weapon, able to do accurate rapid fire but not be a bullet-hose.
Decried as ineffective, it was largely supplemented by a UOR buy of
Minimi Paras, with 200-round belt-feed and quick-change barrels, far
more popular with the troops in Iraq (and, to be fair, excellent weapons
for top-cover sentries)

And yet now it's seeing more use for its range and accuracy, because
being able to reach out and accurately touch someone is very useful in
Afghanistan - whereas the short-barrelled Minimi can only spray'n'pray
at range.

The USMC are switching from the M249 to a M16-derived light support
weapon that's basically a non-bullpup LSW... wonder what they've decided?

> Oh well, at least they're buying pistols from the Swiss these days...

And the Belgians before that, which worked pretty well. Very little
wrong with the .455 Webley in its day, and the cynic in me says that the
rather anaemic .38/200 was less likely to be lethal if you accidentally
shot yourself or a friend (the most usual cause of a revolver wounding
someone)

dott.Piergiorgio

unread,

Oct 16, 2011, 12:31:08 PM10/16/11

to

Il 15/10/2011 19:18, William Black ha scritto:

> Oh, except for the trapdoor Springfield, the rifle that contributed so
> much to Custer and his men getting killed...

with all marks from Springfield arsenal, what is the specific "trapdoor
Springfield" ?

> The British on the other hand can look back to the Brunswick Rifle,
> described once as the worst military firearm ever issued, the five
> iterations of the Enfield Rifle in a decade, the Trapdoor Schnider (I
> had one once, converted to a shotgun, bloody awful thing), the Lee
> Metford, the P-13 (The P-14 was a wonderful rifle, so they didn't adopt
> it) the SLR (which wasn't bad, until you look at what the Canadians got)
> and the EM-2, another good rifle that wasn't adopted.

well, I personally think that when the correct pattern was found,
British Army get a good and durable weapon, Brown Bess still being the
longest-service issued weapon, and the 1853 Enfield was the top dog
weapon of the mid-Victorian days, and the Webley revolver was another
long-service definitive pattern...

William Black

unread,

Oct 16, 2011, 12:59:21 PM10/16/11

to

On 16/10/11 16:48, Paul J. Adam wrote:
> On 15/10/2011 18:18, William Black wrote:

>> I'll be prepared to bet that whatever Sukhoi offers will not be
>> acceptable, even if it's the best in the shop and we can have it for the
>> top off a Wheatabix packet.
>
> Two issues arise. One is service life: the Soviets always designed for
> "by the time it wears out it'll have been shot down anyway" which is
> fine for wartime but a problem for peacetime air forces that want to fly
> and train fairly extensively.
>
> The other is capability: there's a lot of bespoke kit that really would
> need replacing in the export Su-33 (the radar, comms and ECM fit at
> least, plus weapons integration unless we're using Russian missiles as
> well) and the costs of doing that get really nasty if you can do it at
> all (remember the cheap, simple, easy fix of fitting a glass cockpit to
> Chinook?)

Well the Indians should be running the Su-33 as a carrier based aircraft
by the time we get something with a flight deck that floats and I
imagine they'd be delighted to see the Royal Navy turning up for some
advice.

> An evolution in Afghanistan has been that the enemy are very fussy about
> their engagement ranges: either less than 200m, or 600m plus with PKMGs
> and RPGs, because AKs against M16s and L85s is a bad idea in that middle
> ground. Hence the renewed interest in 7.62mm sharpshooter rifles.

That's interesting because I didn't know it.

I wonder if the Pathans, a group well know for an accuracy fetish as
bad as that in the US mid-west, will go back to something a tad more
accurate.

>> The M-14 is a fine rifle, a nd was an excellent weapon right out of the
>> box.
>
> So good it was preferred to the inferior G3 and FN-FAL around the world?
> The US could barely give them away.

Again, possibly a fashion thing. The M-14 was a lot of things, but
looking cool wasn't one of them. It looked like an M-1 with a box
magazine strapped on its bum.

The G3 was cool, it was crap and needed a specially watered down round
otherwise it would go horribly wrong, but it was cool.

The FN in British service was an odd device and, as I said before, it
was certainly inferior to the Canadian version which was also adopted by
Israel, amongst others.

> Then there was the superb M60 machine gun - replaced after only twenty
> years by the FN-MAG that it was selected over (because them Belgians
> can't make guns).

The M-60 was always a pig, but the GPMG wasn't much better...

>> All culminating in the SA-80 saga which seems to have been sorted out
>> after twenty odd years, except for the SA-86 which, I am informed, still
>> stinks...
>
> Thereby hangs a tale. The LSW (L86) was acquired as an RPK-like light
> support weapon, able to do accurate rapid fire but not be a bullet-hose.
> Decried as ineffective, it was largely supplemented by a UOR buy of
> Minimi Paras, with 200-round belt-feed and quick-change barrels, far
> more popular with the troops in Iraq (and, to be fair, excellent weapons
> for top-cover sentries)
>
> And yet now it's seeing more use for its range and accuracy, because
> being able to reach out and accurately touch someone is very useful in
> Afghanistan - whereas the short-barrelled Minimi can only spray'n'pray
> at range.

Which is why they're buying all those rather nice .338 sniper rifles,
which I hope will mean some cheap L96A1s turning up on the surplus
market, in which case I may take up long range rifle again...

>> Oh well, at least they're buying pistols from the Swiss these days...
>
> And the Belgians before that, which worked pretty well. Very little
> wrong with the .455 Webley in its day, and the cynic in me says that the
> rather anaemic .38/200 was less likely to be lethal if you accidentally
> shot yourself or a friend (the most usual cause of a revolver wounding
> someone)

Not sure about the utility of a pistol in combat anyway.

Certainly my late father always preferred a .45 weapon to a .38 in Burma
in WWII, to the extent of pinching out the rims on Thompson Gun
ammunition with a pair of pliers to load a Colt 1873 he 'acquired' in Burma.

That he had to find a local source of ammunition rather than just
swapping it for something with the US aircrew he was in contact with
every day does seem to indicate that he practised with it on a regular
basis.

William Black

unread,

Oct 16, 2011, 1:19:36 PM10/16/11

to

On 16/10/11 17:31, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
> Il 15/10/2011 19:18, William Black ha scritto:
>
>> Oh, except for the trapdoor Springfield, the rifle that contributed so
>> much to Custer and his men getting killed...
>
> with all marks from Springfield arsenal, what is the specific "trapdoor
> Springfield" ?

The 1873 one that ripped the heads off the cartridges when they tried to
eject a spent cartridge when the rifle was hot.

>> The British on the other hand can look back to the Brunswick Rifle,
>> described once as the worst military firearm ever issued, the five
>> iterations of the Enfield Rifle in a decade, the Trapdoor Schnider (I
>> had one once, converted to a shotgun, bloody awful thing), the Lee
>> Metford, the P-13 (The P-14 was a wonderful rifle, so they didn't adopt
>> it) the SLR (which wasn't bad, until you look at what the Canadians got)
>> and the EM-2, another good rifle that wasn't adopted.
>
> well, I personally think that when the correct pattern was found,
> British Army get a good and durable weapon, Brown Bess still being the
> longest-service issued weapon,

It was a very good musket, however it was the result of about 20 years
of rather 'hit and miss' experimentation.

Howard L Blackmore in his 'British Military Firearms' spends a fair
amount of time avoiding describing what came between the early military
flintlocks that were used at Sedgefield in 1685 and the first 'Long
Land' pattern matchlocks in 1722.

and the 1853 Enfield was the top dog
> weapon of the mid-Victorian days,

It was in service for only 15 years, and in that short time suffered
some three major redesigns, plus several cavalry carbines.

and the Webley revolver was another
> long-service definitive pattern...

Except it isn't.

There are two makers, Webley and Enfield, both of whom made at least
three different models, all of which look superficially similar, but
aren't.

There are also more than half a dozen different sorts of ammunition,
two or three different ejection systems and a whole host of barrel lengths.

The Webley Mk 5 in .455 is an excellent pistol, the Enfield No 2 Mk 1*
is, erm, not...

But unless you know what you're looking for they look remarkably similar.

dott.Piergiorgio

unread,

Oct 16, 2011, 2:54:29 PM10/16/11

to

Il 16/10/2011 19:19, William Black ha scritto:

>> well, I personally think that when the correct pattern was found,
>> British Army get a good and durable weapon, Brown Bess still being the
>> longest-service issued weapon,
>
> It was a very good musket, however it was the result of about 20 years
> of rather 'hit and miss' experimentation.

> Howard L Blackmore in his 'British Military Firearms' spends a fair
> amount of time avoiding describing what came between the early military
> flintlocks that were used at Sedgefield in 1685 and the first 'Long
> Land' pattern matchlocks in 1722.

Three cases:

1) I have again mangled with English

2) you have issues with the above-cited language

3) you have overlooked the first half of the phrase cited..

I'm inclined on 3), and you ?

> and the 1853 Enfield was the top dog
>> weapon of the mid-Victorian days,
>
> It was in service for only 15 years, and in that short time suffered
> some three major redesigns, plus several cavalry carbines.

15 year in mid-victorian period *IS* a remarkable long service time...

remaining on the topic of sci.military.Naval, in the year 1850, the
wooden steam three-decker was still the capital ship, in the year 1880
the capital ship was the totally different beast called "turret ironclad"

> There are two makers, Webley and Enfield, both of whom made at least
> three different models, all of which look superficially similar, but
> aren't.
>
> There are also more than half a dozen different sorts of ammunition, two
> or three different ejection systems and a whole host of barrel lengths.
>
> The Webley Mk 5 in .455 is an excellent pistol, the Enfield No 2 Mk 1*
> is, erm, not...
>
> But unless you know what you're looking for they look remarkably similar.

Agree that the webley & enfield revolver can "all look same", but the
MK.5 (and, IIRC, also the MK.4) has a long service time, spanning the
two world wars and the early cold war...

I repeat, British Army wpn design has this pattern, when the correct
pattern (UK arsenal sense) was found, the resulting weapon is excellent
and reliable, mirrored by a long service life.

Peter Stickney

unread,

Oct 16, 2011, 4:50:16 PM10/16/11

to

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 18:19:36 +0100, William Black wrote:

> On 16/10/11 17:31, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>> Il 15/10/2011 19:18, William Black ha scritto:
>>
>>> Oh, except for the trapdoor Springfield, the rifle that contributed so
>>> much to Custer and his men getting killed...
>>
>> with all marks from Springfield arsenal, what is the specific "trapdoor
>> Springfield" ?

A single-shot breechloader, firing the .45/70 (.45" caliber/ 70 grains of black powder)
rimmed centerfire cartridge. The case is about the same size and shape of a large
man's middle finger, tapered from base to cartridge. Earlier models began as
conversions of U.S. Civil war era muzzle loading Springfield rifles.
The "trap door" action was the hinged breechblock, which was hinged at the
front, and rotated up and forward to open the chamber.
The round is very accurate in a rifle. (I won't attest to the .45/50 Deringer-type
pistol, which is the moral equivalent of holding the cartridge in your fist and
whacking the primer with a hammer)
Trapdoor Springfields in one model or another were standard U.S. Army
issue from immediately after the Civil War until just before the Spanish-
American war, when they were supplanted by the .30/40 Krag.

> The 1873 one that ripped the heads off the cartridges when they tried to
> eject a spent cartridge when the rifle was hot.

Erm, no. The earlier .50 caliber copper cartridge cases were very occasionally
prone to having the case expand in the chamber, and jamming in place
(Not ripping of the cartridge base)
Although there was some speculation that this had happened at Little Big Horn,
there is no evidence that it actually occurred. Being outnumbered by about 30-40 to
1 by a mobile enemy with rapid-firing weapons (The Indians had Henry and Winchester
repeating carbines) was more than sufficient reason for the loss.

The rifle was essentially in the class of the British Martini-Henry
(Whose tendency to jam and not auto-extract its cases _was_ a directly
contributing factor to the massacre of British troops at Isandlwana).

I've put a few thousand rounds through original (not new-build reproduction)
trapdoors, including several sustained rapid fire runs, and have not had any
issues at all, other than a sore shoulder.

>>> The British on the other hand can look back to the Brunswick Rifle,
>>> described once as the worst military firearm ever issued, the five
>>> iterations of the Enfield Rifle in a decade, the Trapdoor Schnider (I
>>> had one once, converted to a shotgun, bloody awful thing), the Lee
>>> Metford, the P-13 (The P-14 was a wonderful rifle, so they didn't
>>> adopt it) the SLR (which wasn't bad, until you look at what the
>>> Canadians got) and the EM-2, another good rifle that wasn't adopted.

I concur to the P.14 - I have one, as well as a couple of its American cousin,
the Enfield M1917. One of the best Mauser action rifles ever built, although
a bit long for humping around in the trenches.

>> well, I personally think that when the correct pattern was found,
>> British Army get a good and durable weapon, Brown Bess still being the
>> longest-service issued weapon,
>
> It was a very good musket, however it was the result of about 20 years
> of rather 'hit and miss' experimentation.
>
> Howard L Blackmore in his 'British Military Firearms' spends a fair
> amount of time avoiding describing what came between the early military
> flintlocks that were used at Sedgefield in 1685 and the first 'Long
> Land' pattern matchlocks in 1722.
>
>
> and the 1853 Enfield was the top dog
>> weapon of the mid-Victorian days,
>
> It was in service for only 15 years, and in that short time suffered
> some three major redesigns, plus several cavalry carbines.
>
> and the Webley revolver was another
>> long-service definitive pattern...
>
> Except it isn't.
>
> There are two makers, Webley and Enfield, both of whom made at least
> three different models, all of which look superficially similar, but
> aren't.
>
> There are also more than half a dozen different sorts of ammunition, two
> or three different ejection systems and a whole host of barrel lengths.
>
> The Webley Mk 5 in .455 is an excellent pistol, the Enfield No 2 Mk 1*
> is, erm, not...

And the .38 Webleys were only slightly more effective than an 8mm Nambu.

--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system

William Black

unread,

Oct 16, 2011, 5:47:19 PM10/16/11

to

On 16/10/11 21:50, Peter Stickney wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 18:19:36 +0100, William Black wrote:

> The rifle was essentially in the class of the British Martini-Henry
> (Whose tendency to jam and not auto-extract its cases _was_ a directly
> contributing factor to the massacre of British troops at Isandlwana).

The major contributing factor was the Zulus turning a flank that was
extended to try and connect to .

Interestingly that's exactly what Gall did to Reno, but Reno lived...

>> and the Webley revolver was another
>>> long-service definitive pattern...
>>
>> Except it isn't.
>>
>> There are two makers, Webley and Enfield, both of whom made at least
>> three different models, all of which look superficially similar, but
>> aren't.
>>
>> There are also more than half a dozen different sorts of ammunition, two
>> or three different ejection systems and a whole host of barrel lengths.
>>
>> The Webley Mk 5 in .455 is an excellent pistol, the Enfield No 2 Mk 1*
>> is, erm, not...
>
> And the .38 Webleys were only slightly more effective than an 8mm Nambu.
>

Well I imagine they'd have been a damn sight more reliable and didn't
discharge when the frame was squeezed as the Nambu was reputed to have done.

The only .38/200 pistols I ever saw were Smith and Wesson 'Victory
models' that had been converted to .22LR in the postwar period and were
dead cheap and often used as a 'first pistol' by people just starting
shooting.

I have yet to meet anyone who saw front line service with one, or even
read any accounts of anyone issued with one for front line service.

If people in British service in WWII actually needed a pistol they
tended to either already have a Webley in .455 or were issued with a
Colt 1911A1 which was incredibly popular for some very good reasons.

Steve Hix

unread,

Oct 16, 2011, 6:44:10 PM10/16/11

to

In article <8lsrm8-...@Heimdall.local.net>,

Peter Stickney <p_sti...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 18:19:36 +0100, William Black wrote:
>
> > On 16/10/11 17:31, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
> >> Il 15/10/2011 19:18, William Black ha scritto:
> >>
> >>> Oh, except for the trapdoor Springfield, the rifle that contributed so
> >>> much to Custer and his men getting killed...
> >>
> >> with all marks from Springfield arsenal, what is the specific "trapdoor
> >> Springfield" ?
>
> A single-shot breechloader, firing the .45/70 (.45" caliber/ 70 grains of
> black powder)
> rimmed centerfire cartridge. The case is about the same size and shape of a
> large
> man's middle finger, tapered from base to cartridge. Earlier models began as
> conversions of U.S. Civil war era muzzle loading Springfield rifles.
> The "trap door" action was the hinged breechblock, which was hinged at the
> front, and rotated up and forward to open the chamber.
> The round is very accurate in a rifle. (I won't attest to the .45/50 Deringer-type
> pistol, which is the moral equivalent of holding the cartridge in your fist
> and whacking the primer with a hammer)
> Trapdoor Springfields in one model or another were standard U.S. Army
> issue from immediately after the Civil War until just before the Spanish-
> American war, when they were supplanted by the .30/40 Krag.

With some National Guard units using them until they literally showed up at the
New York docks to ship to europe in WW1. IIRC, Montana and/or Minnesota NG units
were about the last to replace them.

This is ignoring various trap-doors brought out from storage for use by sentries
at home at dams, docks, and so on as late as the beginning of WW2.

Eunometic

unread,

Oct 16, 2011, 9:29:15 PM10/16/11

to

On Oct 14, 2:55 pm, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 14/10/2011 00:16, dumpst...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Might Britain Buy the Naval Rafale?:
>

> >http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController...

>
> Will the Royal Navy buy a French aircraft for its aircraft carriers?
>
> Andrew Swallow

Navalised EurofighterOriginally proposed in the late 1990s as a
potential solution to the UK Royal Navy's need for a Future Carrier-
Borne Aircraft (FCBA) for its new ('Queen Elizabeth' class) aircraft
carriers,[19][20][21] In January 2001, the UK Ministry of Defence
formally discounted the option of a Navalised Eurofighter for its new
aircraft carriers, in favour of the STOVL ('B') variant of the F-35
Joint Strike Fighter, which (at that time) promised to be a capable,
low cost and more stealthy aircraft that would enter into service
circa 2012 – a date that tied in well with the in-service date for the
new UK aircraft Carriers as it stood at that time. It was rejected by
the United Kingdom on "cost effectiveness grounds".[22]

The UK's October 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review ("SDSR")
announced that due to timescale, cost and performance issues with the
STOVL variant of F-35 (F-35B), the UK would proceed with the CATOBAR
F-35C variant instead. This will require the UK's Queen Elizabeth
class aircraft carriers (which are already in build) to be retrofitted
with electromagnetic aircraft launch catapults. This, combined with
the escalating costs and timescales[23] of the F-35 programme, has led
to renewed calls[24] for the UK to cancel its involvement in the F-35
programme, and "navalise" the final Eurofighter production tranche
(which it is already committed to buy) for operation from the Queen
Elizabeth class aircraft carriers.[25] Despite this, as of
2011[update], the navalised Eurofighter remains only a proposal;[26]
[27] but there has been some interest expressed by other nations, such
as India, in adapting Eurofighter for aircraft carrier operations.[28]

The proposed variant design would enable the Eurofighter to operate
from carriers on a Short Take-Off but Arrested Recovery (STOBAR)
basis, using a 'ski jump' ramp for aircraft launch and arresting gear
for conventional landing.[20]

In February 2011, BAE debuted a navalised Typhoon in response to the
Indian tender. The model offered is STOBAR (Short Take Off But
Arrested Recovery) capable, corresponding to the Indian Navy's future
Vikrant class aircraft carrier. The changes needed to enable the
Typhoon to launch by ski-jump and recover by arrestor hook added about
500 kg to the airframe. If however the Indian Navy pursues a catapult
launch carrier, the Typhoon is uncompetitive against tender rivals
(e.g. Rafale and Super Hornet) since meeting "... catapult
requirements would add too much weight to the aircraft, blunt
performance and add substantially to modification costs".

Dennis

unread,

Oct 16, 2011, 11:53:06 PM10/16/11

to

The aircraft, not the carrier.

Dennis

William Black

unread,

Oct 17, 2011, 4:46:29 AM10/17/11

to

We can all cut and paste from Wikipedia, most of us acknowledge the
source that we got the stuff from.

David E. Powell

unread,

Oct 17, 2011, 12:31:39 PM10/17/11

to

On Oct 13, 11:55 pm, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 14/10/2011 00:16, dumpst...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Might Britain Buy the Naval Rafale?:
>

> >http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController...

>
> Will the Royal Navy buy a French aircraft for its aircraft carriers?
>
> Andrew Swallow

Why not? The manufacturer and source of supplies is close by and is an
ally. If F-35 isn't there, go for it. Also I am guessing that Rafale
is not just available now, while F-35 is working up, but may even be
cheaper. F-35 can be pushed down the road a bit and be used to
supplant Rafale squadrons, with both Rafales and F-35s in service.
Work up Rafales on the first new carrier, then as F-35s come in and
the second carrier spools up, split the aircraft between themm, maybe?

dott.Piergiorgio

unread,

Oct 17, 2011, 1:06:00 PM10/17/11

to

Il 17/10/2011 05:53, Dennis ha scritto:

>>> Will the Royal Navy buy a French aircraft for its aircraft carriers?
>>
>> Redesigned with the shafts and screws designed and fabricated
>> elsewhere, yes.
>
> The aircraft, not the carrier.

I'm referring to the french carrier... CdG has rather unreliable shafts
& screws, and often ends drydocked

Andrew Swallow

unread,

Oct 17, 2011, 1:27:06 PM10/17/11

to

If the Royal Navy does buy the Rafales will the US Marine Corps also buy
them? The US Government will require the planes to be manufactured in
the USA.

Andrew Swallow

Message has been deleted

William Black

unread,

Oct 18, 2011, 6:38:26 PM10/18/11

to

On 18/10/11 23:29, Eunometic wrote:

> Don't be a turkey.

So you don't deny it then...

Mind you...

You couldn't really could you...

Eunometic

unread,

Oct 19, 2011, 8:24:10 PM10/19/11

to

> If you want loyalty, buy a dog...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Blackass, no one cares about a cut and paste from wiki. I's usenet,
it wikipedia. It's not academic or for profit work.

It's also obviously a cut and paste from the half dozen foot note
references.

It's just you nit picking because I don't support your zionist ethnic
cleansing of shitreal.

Go find some pron and toss of there.

Hsving said that:

Typhoon at least would have given the Royal Navy a functioning fighter
and a bunch of British jobs too boot.

William Black

unread,

Oct 19, 2011, 8:35:00 PM10/19/11

to

Without a doubt.

But then naval version was cancelled.

Yet one more cock-up we have Gordon Brown to thank for.

Giles Ayling

unread,

Oct 21, 2011, 6:19:07 AM10/21/11

to

If we do go French - Lets hope we keep the plane as is, not try making a
Uk version which then take longer costs more etc

guy

unread,

Oct 21, 2011, 11:14:37 AM10/21/11

to

> Uk version which then take longer costs more etc- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The only vaguely sensible, (so as it depends on a sensible government
- therefore will not happen) is a STOBAR Typhoon. Massive cost
savings, will do pretty much all that is required, 'relatively' cheap
and proven. Just think of the maintenance savings.
For me the F35 is the most expensive lightweight fighter ever.

Guy

Andrew Swallow

unread,

Oct 21, 2011, 7:30:46 PM10/21/11

to

The Carrier would have to use a sky jump rather than a catapult. I
suspect changes to the automatic landing system and radar will be needed.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon_variants>

Andrew Swallow

David E. Powell

unread,

Oct 21, 2011, 8:40:22 PM10/21/11

to

They might try making U.S. Engines a la the F-4 Phantoms the British
bought. Once again they could buy Rafales to start and mix in the
F-35s later as they come online.

The numbers crisis would have been partially averted if more F-22...
yeah I know :P

They could make some other U.S. parts for the Gyrene Rafale too. It
would be a heck of a feather for Dassault and France though I can't
really recall the last French aircraft that the US Military bought,
maybe policy legacy from some decades ago?

Matt Wiser

unread,

Oct 21, 2011, 10:15:08 PM10/21/11

to

On Oct 21, 5:40 pm, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
wrote:

> maybe policy legacy from some decades ago?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Forget about the U.S. buying any combat aircraft from France, period.
NIH rears its head, and then there's Congressional opposition. Not
gonna happen anytime soon.

Matt Wiser

unread,

Oct 21, 2011, 10:33:13 PM10/21/11

to

> Andrew Swallow- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Andrew, asking the U.S to buy a foreign made combat aircraft when
there's a domestic alternative available is a waste of time. While
there have been exceptions (the B-57 and AV-8A being the two most
notable-and the latter was because there was no domestic alternative),
the NIH syndrome is alive and well in DOD. Not to mention Capitol
Hill.

Bill Shatzer

unread,

Oct 22, 2011, 12:46:53 AM10/22/11

to

David E. Powell wrote:

> They could make some other U.S. parts for the Gyrene Rafale too. It
> would be a heck of a feather for Dassault and France though I can't
> really recall the last French aircraft that the US Military bought,
> maybe policy legacy from some decades ago?

The Coast Guard bought about 100 HH-65C Dolphins although the actual
aircraft were built by a US subsidary of Aerospatiale.

guy

unread,

Oct 24, 2011, 10:07:53 AM10/24/11

to

> Andrew Swallow- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

That is no big deal compared to a catapult launched Typhoon, and India
are keen to
Guy

Eunometic

unread,

Oct 24, 2011, 9:45:02 PM10/24/11

to

> Andrew Swallow- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

A 1G acceleration gets an aircraft to 100m/s (225mph) in 25m (85ft)
A 0.5G acceleration gets and aircraft to 110m/s (250mph) in 35m
(110ft)
There seems no need for a catapult given the thrust to weight ratios
of modern jets are better than 1.1 clean.

Dean Markley

unread,

Oct 25, 2011, 7:43:55 AM10/25/11

to

But those thrust to weight ratios are in "clean" configuration. Now
load 'em up with missiles and bombs and you are going to need a
catapult.

guy

unread,

Oct 25, 2011, 11:26:18 AM10/25/11

to

> catapult.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Not according to Bae

Guy

guy

unread,

Oct 25, 2011, 11:33:18 AM10/25/11

to

> Guy- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Apologies, hit send by mistake

see
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=107272

/quote (my emphasis)
The most important element of the navalised Typhoon is that its
exceptional thrust-to-weight ratio allows the aircraft to take off
from a carrier without using a catapult but with a simple and much
cheaper “ski-jump”. Detailed simulations have shown that the aircraft
will be able to take off and land in this way with ***a full weapon
and fuel load*** – providing a truly potent and flexible naval
aviation capability
/unquote

guy

unread,

Oct 25, 2011, 11:35:23 AM10/25/11

to

On Oct 25, 4:26 pm, guy <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Guy- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Apologies accidental send

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=107272

/quote (my emphasis)
The most important element of the navalised Typhoon is that its
exceptional thrust-to-weight ratio allows the aircraft to take off
from a carrier without using a catapult but with a simple and much
cheaper “ski-jump”. Detailed simulations have shown that the aircraft

will be able to take off and land in this way ***with a full weapon

and fuel load*** – providing a truly potent and flexible naval
aviation capability

Guy

William Black

unread,

Oct 25, 2011, 11:37:46 AM10/25/11

to

I'd be interested in knowing what proportion of its fuel load it used
doing a fully loaded landing.

I seem to remember reading that a Sea harrier used about 30% of its
maximum fuel load doing that trick.

guy

unread,

Oct 25, 2011, 12:07:47 PM10/25/11

to

> If you want loyalty, buy a dog...- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

ISTR the critical part of a vertical landing in a Harrier was the
supply for the water injection system, I will check if anyone is
interested.

Guy

Paul J. Adam

unread,

Oct 25, 2011, 1:09:32 PM10/25/11

to

And one reason the SHar was retired, was that as its weight grew, in
particularly hot conditions it couldn't land with any payload at all.
Unfortunately that means you couldn't usefully fly it off a STOVL
carrier during a Gulf summer... it gets too expensive to have to
jettison warload at the end of every sortie.

However, that relates to a STOVL aircraft doing "stop, then land"; if
you're landing into arrestor wires, then fuel use is not particularly
severe (though you may want to keep a larger margin than on land, to
make sure you can divert if there's a deck problem)

Of course, that presumes you've got arrestor wires and enough deck space
to use them, and the pilot is trained to reliably achieve the feat: not
impossible at all, but very susceptible to salesmen wrapping
inconvenient details in a layer of handwavium...

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Eunometic

unread,

Oct 25, 2011, 7:56:56 PM10/25/11

to

> catapult.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

That's why I gave two takeoff lengths: 25m for fully fueled Tornado
with light armament (AA missiles)

With a fully loaded Tornado it would need 35m.

The parameters for typhoon are:

Empty weight: 11,150 kg (24,600 lb)
Loaded weight: 16,000 kg[222][223] (35,000 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 23,500 kg (52,000 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofan
Dry thrust: 60 kN (13,000 lbf) each (total thrust 12000kg)
Thrust with afterburner: 89 kN (20,000 lbf) each
(total thrust 18000kg)

The aircraft doesn't even need to use its after burners to get a full
load of fuel and 8000 kg of ordinance up to speed in 35m. Apart from
a ski jump it probably needs a restraint to allow engine spool up and
a blast shield for the engines.

bbrought

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 3:11:25 AM10/26/11

to

On Oct 25, 3:45 am, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> A 1G acceleration gets an aircraft to 100m/s (225mph) in 25m (85ft)
> A 0.5G acceleration gets and aircraft to 110m/s (250mph) in 35m
> (110ft)
> There seems no need for a catapult given the thrust to weight ratios
> of modern jets are better than 1.1 clean.

How do you get these numbers, Euno?

1G = 9.81 m/s^2

For a constant acceleration, s = (v^2 - u^2) / (2*a)
Where: v = final velocity
u = initial velocity (0 if accelerating from a standstill)
a = acceleration (1G or 9.81 m/s^2 in this case)

So, we have:
s = v^2 / (2*a)

To get to 100 m/s at 1G:
s = 100^2 / (2 * 9.81) = 509.7 m (1672.2 ft)

To get to 110 m/s at 0.5G:
s = 110^2 / (2 * 9.81 / 2) = 1233.4 m (4046.6 ft)

bbrought

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 3:31:20 AM10/26/11

to

Again, I don't understand how you got these numbers:

For your example at MTOW: m = 23,500 kg
Max dry thrust: 120,000 N
Ignoring drag and rolling friction (which are very significant, making
this very much an oversimplified ideal case exercise):
a = F/m = 120000/23500 = 5.106 m/s^2

s = v^2 / (2*a) = 100^2 / (2*5.106) = 979.2 m (3212.6 ft)

You can probably get that load off at a slightly lower speed, let's
say 80 m/s (156 knots):
s = 80^2 / (2*a) = 626.7 m (2056.1 ft)

For an empty aircraft it would be quite a bit shorter as you can take-
off at a lower speed and obviously you have a lot less mass to
accelerate, but I cannot figure out how you got to 35m.

If you did a proper take-off calculation taking drag and friction and
speed-varying thrust and lift into account, the distances would be
significantly longer.

Dean A. Markley

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 5:17:43 AM10/26/11

to

> Powerplant: 2 в Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofan

> Dry thrust: 60 kN (13,000 lbf) each (total thrust 12000kg)
> Thrust with afterburner: 89 kN (20,000 lbf) each
> (total thrust 18000kg)
>
> The aircraft doesn't even need to use its after burners to get a full
> load of fuel and 8000 kg of ordinance up to speed in 35m. Apart from
> a ski jump it probably needs a restraint to allow engine spool up and
> a blast shield for the engines.

OK, wait, now I am confused. Original topic was Rafale? Then talk
about a carrier based Typhoon? Now you are throwing in Tornados?

guy

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 6:39:59 AM10/26/11

to

> > Powerplant: 2 × Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofan

> > Dry thrust: 60 kN (13,000 lbf) each (total thrust 12000kg)
> > Thrust with afterburner: 89 kN (20,000 lbf) each
> > (total thrust 18000kg)
>
> > The aircraft doesn't even need to use its after burners to get a full
> > load of fuel and 8000 kg of ordinance up to speed in 35m. Apart from
> > a ski jump it probably needs a restraint to allow engine spool up and
> > a blast shield for the engines.
>
> OK, wait, now I am confused. Original topic was Rafale? Then talk

> about a carrier based Typhoon? Now you are throwing in Tornados?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Euno has been a bit confused a bit! Remember a million years ago
Rafale and Typhoon were the same aeroplane,but the French went thier
own way (looks like they got it right)
If the UK went for Rafale what is the point of Typhoon? Basically
identical (operationally) aircraft. From a British POV scrap Typoon
and license build Rafales. Will that happen? Guess!
I still go for STOBAR Typhoons.

Guy

Peter Skelton

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 7:47:36 AM10/26/11

to

He was claiming a jet capable of 1g could take off from my front lawn,
(or twice its length) something I doubt somehow.

--
Peter

Gernot Hassenpflug

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 8:08:22 AM10/26/11

to

>> Powerplant: 2 × Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofan

>> Dry thrust: 60 kN (13,000 lbf) each (total thrust 12000kg)
>> Thrust with afterburner: 89 kN (20,000 lbf) each
>> (total thrust 18000kg)
>>
>> The aircraft doesn't even need to use its after burners to get a full
>> load of fuel and 8000 kg of ordinance up to speed in 35m. Apart from
>> a ski jump it probably needs a restraint to allow engine spool up and
>> a blast shield for the engines.
> OK, wait, now I am confused. Original topic was Rafale? Then talk
> about a carrier based Typhoon? Now you are throwing in Tornados?

If we go on like this we'll be talking about navalized Mustangs soon....
.... taking off from the turrets of battleships!
--
Gernot Hassenpflug
Aunkai

bbrought

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 10:18:52 AM10/26/11

to

Further to my question. To get an aircraft from 0 to 100 m/s over only
25m, you would need the following acceleration:

a = v^2 / (2*s) = 100^2 / (2 * 25) = 200 m/s^2

That is 20.4G. You would need a slightly better thrust to weight ratio
than 1:1 to achieve that... Similarly, to test the equations, you can
plug the numbers in for a fighter launched on a typical aircraft
carrier catapult launch and you end up with roughly 3.2G on average
(depending on what you choose as a take-off speed), which is ballpark
for a real launch. It is obvious that your numbers for a 1G
acceleration don't make any sense.

I still don't get how you came up with those numbers - the
calculations only require very basic kinematics.

Andrew Swallow

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 10:19:37 AM10/26/11

to

Bring back the Harrier jump jet.

Andrew Swallow

Daryl

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 11:24:24 AM10/26/11

to

And lets not forget the old ICBM (Inter continental ballistic
Mustangs)

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

William Black

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 1:17:59 PM10/26/11

to

Not quite, he was claiming a jet capable of 1G and also fully laden
with fuel and external armaments could take off from your front lawn...

Dan

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 4:10:15 PM10/26/11

to

>>> Powerplant: 2 в Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofan

>>> Dry thrust: 60 kN (13,000 lbf) each (total thrust 12000kg)
>>> Thrust with afterburner: 89 kN (20,000 lbf) each
>>> (total thrust 18000kg)
>>
>>> The aircraft doesn't even need to use its after burners to get a full
>>> load of fuel and 8000 kg of ordinance up to speed in 35m. Apart from
>>> a ski jump it probably needs a restraint to allow engine spool up and
>>> a blast shield for the engines.
>>
>> OK, wait, now I am confused. Original topic was Rafale? Then talk
>> about a carrier based Typhoon? Now you are throwing in Tornados?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Euno has been a bit confused a bit!

Enough said.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 4:11:39 PM10/26/11

to

Well, if your front lawn is the length of the A-5.......

Dan

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 4:13:46 PM10/26/11

to

That actually happened. It was a super secret Nazi programme in
1944. I also have a bride to sell.

Dan

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 4:16:36 PM10/26/11

to

Rounding error along the lines of government economics?

Message has been deleted

bbrought

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 7:22:58 PM10/26/11

to

On Oct 27, 12:50 am, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> On Oct 26, 6:11 pm, bbrought <bbrou...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> > So, we have:
> > s = v^2 / (2*a)
>
> > To get to 100 m/s at 1G:
> > s = 100^2 / (2 * 9.81) = 509.7 m (1672.2 ft)
>
> > To get to 110 m/s at 0.5G:
> > s = 110^2 / (2 * 9.81 / 2) = 1233.4 m (4046.6 ft)
>

> Your ovelooked the sqaure root. See equation 5:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_of_motion

Equation 5, from your very own reference, 2nd last line:

2as = v^2 - u^2

so:

s = (v^2 - u^2) / 2a

Exactly what I used and NOT what you have! There is no square root
involved when calculating distance. Surely you should have seen from
the beginning your answers were ridiculous and something had to be
wrong in your equations.

bbrought

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 7:25:34 PM10/26/11

to

On Oct 27, 12:47 am, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > Euno has been a bit confused a bit! Remember a million years ago
> > Rafale and Typhoon were the same aeroplane,but the French went thier
> > own way (looks like they got it right)
>

> No I am not confused.
>
> Typhoon at maximum take off weight and with engines at maximum dry
> thurst can get to 220mph in less than 35m of runway/deck.
> This assumes engines are spooled up, the aircraft is released and
> ignores tyre and air restance. These factors should
> not influence the calculation more than 10%.

Regardless of the math, if you have ever been to an airshow you should
have known something doesn't look right with those figures. See my
other post and your own reference.

bbrought

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 7:26:30 PM10/26/11

to

On Oct 27, 12:44 am, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> basic equation
>
> s = SQRT(v^2/2a)

In some other universe, maybe...

Message has been deleted

Dan

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 7:31:55 PM10/26/11

to

By now you should know euno isn't fluent in algebra. Apparently he
thinks v - u = (v^2 - u^2)^-2 or something.

Message has been deleted

bbrought

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 8:19:25 PM10/26/11

to

On Oct 27, 1:49 am, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Woops my bad. Need more sleep.
>
> A 1 G acceleration to 100m/s (220mph) needs 500m of deck
> A 1 G acceleration to 70m/s (164mph) needs 245m of deck.
> A 1 G acceleration to 50/ms (110mph) needs 125m of deck
> A 1 G accleration to 40m/s (88mph) needs 80m of deck
>

Well, I salute you for admitting the mistake. I was afraid this was
going to be another of those neverending circular arguments... I still
feel you should have looked for some known numbers to check your
calculations - like a take-off performance chart from an aircraft
flight manual. I always do that (both in my work and when posting
here), even when I am initially confident of my answers. Occasionally
it helps avoid embarrassment.

Grantland

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 8:14:07 PM10/26/11

to black...@gmail.com

You should hang him next to Blair.

Grantland

Eunometic

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 9:24:10 PM10/26/11

to

> it helps avoid embarrassment.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Had a few late nights. I double checked everything, was certain.
Shows the effect of sleep deprivation.

Eunometic

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 9:22:30 PM10/26/11

to

On Oct 27, 10:22 am, bbrought <bbrou...@uiuc.edu> wrote:

Woops my bad. Need more sleep.

A 1 G acceleration to 100m/s (220mph) needs 500m of deck
A 1 G acceleration to 70m/s (164mph) needs 245m of deck.
A 1 G acceleration to 50/ms (110mph) needs 125m of deck
A 1 G accleration to 40m/s (88mph) needs 80m of deck

The trick is to add a ski jump at about 15 degrees. That sin(15) =
0.25 so we will convert about 1/4 of the forward speed to vertical
speed.

At 50m/s that will provide 12.5m/s of vertical speed which in
combination with lift from the wings will provide a few seconds to
get
to full flight speed.

Eunometic

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 9:18:27 PM10/26/11

to

On Oct 26, 11:08 pm, Gernot Hassenpflug <ger...@coda.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:

> Aunkai- Hide quoted text -
>

OK we can launch a P-51 via a compressed air catapult from a
battleship gun turret.
No problems.

Now we need to recover. The only place is on the rear deck, turret
turned aside to give us about 65m (220ft) of clear rear deck.

I suggest the following:
1 Increase wiing area by 43% (30% more span 10% more chord) this
reduces stall speed by about 17%.
2 Add full span slats and full span sloted flaps with aileron droop
flapersons this increases coefficient of lift by 230% according to
Ira
Abbots theory of wing sections which is a 35% reduction in stall
speed. We can do better with double sloted flaps.

We can probably decrease approach speed from about 110mph to about
50-55mph; the ship will turn to wind at 15-20 knots to recover thus
cutting relative approach speed to about 35 mph.

The aircraft approaches from the rear under autopilot control, using
a
3 axis autopilot.

A beam riding system trims in to the autopilot and ensures correct
approch, similar to blind landing system.

However we use an additional microwave beam, dish to ensure precise
approach slope as well. We feed doppler appraoch speed and distance
to touch down. Systems on ship are quadrouplicated and duplicated on
aircraft. The antena are to the side of the runway deck.

The P-51 carrier version is arrested normally with an array of 5
wires.

If the aicraft misses, which is unlikely, the aicraft flys into nets
and bins of water.

A crane on the turret lifts the aircraft onto the two catapults on
the
rear turret.

-

Daryl

unread,

Oct 26, 2011, 10:35:58 PM10/26/11

to

Next, we go for Water Boarding. Then we will check your figures

Jeff

unread,

Oct 27, 2011, 5:32:20 AM10/27/11

to

If you replace the P-51 with a Fairey Swordfish then all you have to do
is steam at full speed into a headwind and catch the aircraft with a
crane as it flies slowly backwards past you.

Jeff

Dean Markley

unread,

Oct 27, 2011, 9:12:18 AM10/27/11

to

Sleep deprivation does indeed cause such issues, been there done that!

Keith W

unread,

Oct 27, 2011, 2:09:47 PM10/27/11

to

Eunometic wrote:
>
> OK we can launch a P-51 via a compressed air catapult from a
> battleship gun turret.
> No problems.
>
> Now we need to recover. The only place is on the rear deck, turret
> turned aside to give us about 65m (220ft) of clear rear deck.
>
>
> I suggest the following:
> 1 Increase wiing area by 43% (30% more span 10% more chord) this
> reduces stall speed by about 17%.

And massively increases drag reducing range and top speed

> 2 Add full span slats and full span sloted flaps with aileron droop
> flapersons this increases coefficient of lift by 230% according to
> Ira

Look at a P-51 wing and then explain with diagrams how you
will fit all the stuff needed in there.

> Abbots theory of wing sections which is a 35% reduction in stall
> speed. We can do better with double sloted flaps.
>
> We can probably decrease approach speed from about 110mph to about
> 50-55mph; the ship will turn to wind at 15-20 knots to recover thus
> cutting relative approach speed to about 35 mph.
>

Bollocks

Even if you could reduce stalling speed as you claim the aircraft
control surfaces would be ineffective and you'd crash and burm

> The aircraft approaches from the rear under autopilot control, using
> a
> 3 axis autopilot.
>
> A beam riding system trims in to the autopilot and ensures correct
> approch, similar to blind landing system.
>

Technologies not available at the time and certainly too bulky to fit to a
P-51

> However we use an additional microwave beam, dish to ensure precise
> approach slope as well. We feed doppler appraoch speed and distance
> to touch down. Systems on ship are quadrouplicated and duplicated on
> aircraft. The antena are to the side of the runway deck.
>

There is no runway remember and this late 20th century tech

> The P-51 carrier version is arrested normally with an array of 5
> wires.
>
> If the aicraft misses, which is unlikely, the aicraft flys into nets
> and bins of water.
>
> A crane on the turret lifts the aircraft onto the two catapults on
> the
> rear turret.
>
> -

Guess what Euno - the USN and RN both tried this
around WW1. It turns out there are some nasty problems
not least of which are the eddies that form over the stern
of the ship due to the central superstructure. These tend to
slam the aircraft somewhere bad.

Keith

Eunometic

unread,

Oct 28, 2011, 11:28:51 PM10/28/11

to

As part of its never completed carrier program the Luftwaffe completed
the Fieseler Fi 167 biplane torpedo bomber.
The Fiesler Storch monoplane with its big wings and slats was able to
land in 20ft and takeoff in 60ft.

The Fi 167 is said to have been able to hover in a reasonable
breeze.

Like the famous Fieseler Fi 156 Storch, the Fi 167 had surprising slow-
speed capabilities; the plane would be able to land almost vertically
on a moving aircraft carrier

The Italian biplane fighters and monoplane fighters did well against
Hurricanes, though slower they were more manouveralbe and could
outclimbe the monoplanes. Could be of use if crafted with a superior
engine.

Grantland

unread,

Oct 28, 2011, 11:49:34 PM10/28/11

to

Best thing for cheap Marine CAS in number is the navalized Cavalier Mustang on a modified Wasp. Call it "Havoc"

Grantland

Eunometic

unread,

Oct 28, 2011, 11:50:42 PM10/28/11

to

On Oct 28, 5:09 am, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Eunometic wrote:
>
> > OK we can launch a P-51 via a compressed air catapult from a
> > battleship gun turret.
> > No problems.
>
> > Now we need to recover. The only place is on the rear deck, turret
> > turned aside to give us about 65m (220ft) of clear rear deck.
>
> > I suggest the following:
> > 1 Increase wiing area by 43% (30% more span 10% more chord) this
> > reduces stall speed by about 17%.
>
> And massively increases drag reducing range and top speed

Not at all. A 50% increase in area of the wing only increases wing
drag by 50% which itself is less than half of fueselage drag.

The speed decrease for a 50% overall increase in drag is given by
cube root of (1/1.50)
This is 0.874. In other words a drop in speed for an early Mustange
from about 360mph to 315mph.

For a 25% overall increase in drag the cube root of 1/1.25 is 0.92 a
drop to only 335 mph.

That sort of a wing are increase is about the same as the Ta 152C to
TA 152H series.

>
> > 2 Add full span slats and full span sloted flaps with aileron droop
> > flapersons this increases coefficient of lift by 230% according to
> > Ira
>
> Look at a P-51 wing and then explain with diagrams how you
> will fit all the stuff needed in there.

The P-51 wing was one of the thickest of all WW2 aricraft due to its
laminar profile.
A single P-51 wing could carry more fuel than a whole Spitfire I
could.

>
> > Abbots theory of wing sections which is a 35% reduction in stall
> > speed. We can do better with double sloted flaps.
>
> > We can probably decrease approach speed from about 110mph to about
> > 50-55mph; the ship will turn to wind at 15-20 knots to recover thus
> > cutting relative approach speed to about 35 mph.
>
> Bollocks
>
> Even if you could reduce stalling speed as you claim the aircraft

> control surfaces would be ineffective and you'd crash and burm.

You are effectively claiming that all light and STOL planes that
routinely use lower apprach speeds crash and burn at every landing.

>
> > The aircraft approaches from the rear under autopilot control, using
> > a 3 axis autopilot.
>
> > A beam riding system trims in to the autopilot and ensures correct
> > approch, similar to blind landing system.

Blind landing systems were in use well before the war, Lorentz had a
good buisness selling them to
airlines and airports.

>
> Technologies not available at the time and certainly too bulky to fit to a
> P-51

A P-51 could carry a training instructure and or a large 66 gallon
tail tank.
There is plently of room for the electronics and auto-pilot.

The autopilot merely opperates to maintain an airspeed of 60mph, if
the required electronic beam approach slope requires nose down or nose
up the engine is modulated accordingly.

>
> > However we use an additional microwave beam, dish to ensure precise
> > approach slope as well. We feed doppler appraoch speed and distance
> > to touch down. Systems on ship are quadrouplicated and duplicated on
> > aircraft. The antena are to the side of the runway deck.
>
> There is no runway remember and this late 20th century tech

They had vacuum tubes and enoug technology to make the SCR-584 auto-
track radar and the M9 electronic director by early 1942.
The Sperry autopilot predates WW1 even.

>
> > The P-51 carrier version is arrested normally with an array of 5
> > wires.
>
> > If the aicraft misses, which is unlikely, the aicraft flys into nets
> > and bins of water.
>
> > A crane on the turret lifts the aircraft onto the two catapults on
> > the rear turret.
>
> > -
>
> Guess what Euno - the USN and RN both tried this
> around WW1. It turns out there are some nasty problems
> not least of which are the eddies that form over the stern
> of the ship due to the central superstructure. These tend to
> slam the aircraft somewhere bad.

The use of fast acting automatic control with a full inter-related of
parameters
from air speed, gyro reference, glide slope and perhaps even angle of
attack indicator
will react to the eddies faster than a human pilot can.

The eddies can probably be calmed by the use of large folding mattress
meshes.

Grantland

unread,

Oct 29, 2011, 12:22:13 AM10/29/11

to

*Groan" ... or a Wasp UAV-carrier. Even if it drone-Cavaliers.. erk

Grantland

Grantland

unread,

Oct 29, 2011, 12:27:28 AM10/29/11

to

> *Groan" ... or a Wasp UAV-carrier. Even if it were drone-Cavaliers.. erk
>
What a grey world it threatens to be be.

Grantland

Grantland

unread,

Oct 29, 2011, 3:56:07 AM10/29/11

to

On Saturday, 29 October 2011 06:27:28 UTC+2, Grantland wrote:
> > *Groan" ... or a Wasp UAV-carrier. Even if it were drone-Cavaliers.. erk
> >
> What a grey world it threatens to be be.

Hark! but wait.. the Cavalier as drone hunter-killer. Drones don't have Situation awareness.
> Grantland

Jeff

unread,

Oct 29, 2011, 6:47:19 AM10/29/11

to

>
> As part of its never completed carrier program the Luftwaffe completed
> the Fieseler Fi 167 biplane torpedo bomber.
> The Fiesler Storch monoplane with its big wings and slats was able to
> land in 20ft and takeoff in 60ft.
>
> The Fi 167 is said to have been able to hover in a reasonable
> breeze.
>
> Like the famous Fieseler Fi 156 Storch, the Fi 167 had surprising slow-
> speed capabilities; the plane would be able to land almost vertically
> on a moving aircraft carrier
>
> The Italian biplane fighters and monoplane fighters did well against
> Hurricanes, though slower they were more manouveralbe and could
> outclimbe the monoplanes. Could be of use if crafted with a superior
> engine.

As did Malta's Gloster Gladiators against Italian Macchi's

Jeff

William Black

unread,

Oct 29, 2011, 6:52:56 AM10/29/11

to

Ah, there's a major difference between the two aircraft.

The Gladiators actually saw operational service...

--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...

Keith W

unread,

Oct 29, 2011, 7:41:35 AM10/29/11

to

Eunometic wrote:
>
> The Italian biplane fighters and monoplane fighters did well against
> Hurricanes, though slower they were more manouveralbe and could
> outclimbe the monoplanes. Could be of use if crafted with a superior
> engine.

Actually the Italian biplane fighters were sitting ducks against Hurricanes
which is why they were taken out of front line service in the west
by early 1942.

They were more manouverable but the massive difference in speed
meant the Hurricanes could use speed to make slashing attacks.
Even the Gloster Gladiator was able to fight them on superior terms.

The Germans were forced to deploy Luftwaffe units to support
the Italian air force in North Africa as the British Hurricanes
quickly achieved air superiority.

Keith

Keith W

unread,

Oct 29, 2011, 9:07:30 AM10/29/11

to

Eunometic wrote:
> On Oct 28, 5:09 am, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Eunometic wrote:
>>
>>> OK we can launch a P-51 via a compressed air catapult from a
>>> battleship gun turret.
>>> No problems.
>>
>>> Now we need to recover. The only place is on the rear deck, turret
>>> turned aside to give us about 65m (220ft) of clear rear deck.
>>
>>> I suggest the following:
>>> 1 Increase wiing area by 43% (30% more span 10% more chord) this
>>> reduces stall speed by about 17%.
>>
>> And massively increases drag reducing range and top speed
>
> Not at all. A 50% increase in area of the wing only increases wing
> drag by 50% which itself is less than half of fueselage drag.
>
> The speed decrease for a 50% overall increase in drag is given by
> cube root of (1/1.50)
> This is 0.874. In other words a drop in speed for an early Mustange
> from about 360mph to 315mph.
>

Reducing its performance considerably in fact

> For a 25% overall increase in drag the cube root of 1/1.25 is 0.92 a
> drop to only 335 mph.
>

A performance which is quite unacceptable in 1943. The increased
wing area will also adversely affect roll rate which is a crucial
attribute for a fighter.

> That sort of a wing are increase is about the same as the Ta 152C to
> TA 152H series.
>

The Ta-152H was equipped with a larger span wing for its high
altitude role not to make it easier to land as a result it did
NOT have a greatly increased wing area in fact it had a LOWER
wing area than the Ta-152C. It was a high aspect ratio wing.

Wing area

Ta-152C 290.89 sq ft
Ta-152H 252.96 sq ft

>
>
>
>>
>>> 2 Add full span slats and full span sloted flaps with aileron droop
>>> flapersons this increases coefficient of lift by 230% according to
>>> Ira
>>
>> Look at a P-51 wing and then explain with diagrams how you
>> will fit all the stuff needed in there.
>
>
> The P-51 wing was one of the thickest of all WW2 aricraft due to its
> laminar profile.

Ta 152H-1 Dimensions:

Wing span: 14.44 m
Wing area: 23.3 m2
Lenght: 10.71 m
Height: 4 m

Ta 152H-1 Aerodynamics:

Wing loading: 224 - 203 kg/sq.m
Span loading: 361 - 328 kg/m
Wing aspect ratio: 8.94
Wing profile: Root = NACA FW 23015.3 or xxx20.6 - Tip = NACA FW 23009
Wing thickness ratio: Root 15.3% - 20.6% - Tip = 9%

Power loading: 2.54 - 2.31 kg/hp

P-51 Aerodynamics:

Wing loading: 241 - 199.1 kg/sq.m
Span loading: 462 - 382.4 kg/m
Wing aspect ratio: 5.86
Wing thickness ratio: Root = 15.5% - Tip = 12%

Power-loading: 2.35 - 1.94 kg/hp

No real difference at the wing root in fact

> A single P-51 wing could carry more fuel than a whole Spitfire I
> could.
>

Indeed and the wing also contained the guns, retracted undercarriage
and lots of other structure. I repeat how do you propose to add
all this new stuff as well ?

>
>>
>>> Abbots theory of wing sections which is a 35% reduction in stall
>>> speed. We can do better with double sloted flaps.
>>
>>> We can probably decrease approach speed from about 110mph to about
>>> 50-55mph; the ship will turn to wind at 15-20 knots to recover thus
>>> cutting relative approach speed to about 35 mph.
>>
>> Bollocks
>>
>> Even if you could reduce stalling speed as you claim the aircraft
>> control surfaces would be ineffective and you'd crash and burm.
>
> You are effectively claiming that all light and STOL planes that
> routinely use lower apprach speeds crash and burn at every landing.
>
>

No I am claiming that a P-51 was not a light or STOL plane
Its best friends admitted that its low speed handling characteristics
were overshadowed by its lack of directional stability.

You seem unaware of the fact that carrier landing trials were
carried out using a modified P-51D. It was given a fin fillet extension
to improve low speed handling, a reinforced fuselage and tail
hook and modified landing gear.

The test pilot reported the following

"The margin between stall speed and maximum engagement speed was small, too
small for safety. Rudder control at low speeds and high angles of attack was
inadequate. In addition, landing attitude had to be carefully controlled to
avoid damaging the airframe upon landing."
One of the handling quirks of the Mustang was also potentially dangerous.
During a missed approach or a wave-off, power has to be re-applied gently.
If not, the aircraft could roll rapidly, or even snap-roll. At such low
speed and altitude, the result could only be fatal.

It was not considered suitable for deployment at sea and this was on a full
size carrier deck !

>
>
>
>
>>
>>> The aircraft approaches from the rear under autopilot control, using
>>> a 3 axis autopilot.
>>
>>> A beam riding system trims in to the autopilot and ensures correct
>>> approch, similar to blind landing system.
>
> Blind landing systems were in use well before the war, Lorentz had a
> good buisness selling them to
> airlines and airports.
>

Not with the precision you require

>
>
>>
>> Technologies not available at the time and certainly too bulky to
>> fit to a P-51
>
>
> A P-51 could carry a training instructure and or a large 66 gallon
> tail tank.
> There is plently of room for the electronics and auto-pilot.
>

Not using 1940's technology there isn't.

> The autopilot merely opperates to maintain an airspeed of 60mph, if
> the required electronic beam approach slope requires nose down or nose
> up the engine is modulated accordingly.
>

Well no, it also has to maintain the correct angle of attack
and the heading. Being on the right glide slope doesnt help if
you land on top of a turret or off the port side.

>
>
>>
>>> However we use an additional microwave beam, dish to ensure precise
>>> approach slope as well. We feed doppler appraoch speed and distance
>>> to touch down. Systems on ship are quadrouplicated and duplicated on
>>> aircraft. The antena are to the side of the runway deck.
>>
>> There is no runway remember and this late 20th century tech
>
> They had vacuum tubes and enoug technology to make the SCR-584 auto-
> track radar and the M9 electronic director by early 1942.

Have you looked at the size and power consumption of such devices ?

The slimmed down portable version of the SCR-584 , called the
SCR-784 weighed two tons.

The M9 director also used a two ton M-113 trailer to transport the
height finder , computor and recifier pack.

> The Sperry autopilot predates WW1 even.
>

But is unable to make automated landings, it can handle straight
and level flight. It was also too large to fit into single seat fighters.
Those P-51's with an autopilot got them as a retrofit.

>
>
>>
>>> The P-51 carrier version is arrested normally with an array of 5
>>> wires.
>>
>>> If the aicraft misses, which is unlikely, the aicraft flys into nets
>>> and bins of water.
>>
>>> A crane on the turret lifts the aircraft onto the two catapults on
>>> the rear turret.
>>
>>> -
>>
>> Guess what Euno - the USN and RN both tried this
>> around WW1. It turns out there are some nasty problems
>> not least of which are the eddies that form over the stern
>> of the ship due to the central superstructure. These tend to
>> slam the aircraft somewhere bad.
>
> The use of fast acting automatic control with a full inter-related of
> parameters
> from air speed, gyro reference, glide slope and perhaps even angle of
> attack indicator
> will react to the eddies faster than a human pilot can.
>

That was quite impossible with the technology of the day. You are
describing full autoland capability which didn't arrive until the 1970's

One of the essential pre-requisites for such a system is a
good radio altimeter. Even today most autoland sysyems cannot
handle wind shear or gusty conditions.

> The eddies can probably be calmed by the use of large folding mattress
> meshes.

Oh puleeze

Keith

WaltBJ

unread,

Oct 29, 2011, 2:24:08 PM10/29/11

to

Gee, I haven't missed much. Fog count still high on this channel.

Walt BJ

Jim Wilkins

unread,

Oct 29, 2011, 3:26:29 PM10/29/11

to

"WaltBJ" <walt...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1884c045-9e94-4282...@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

> Gee, I haven't missed much. Fog count still high on this channel.
>
> Walt BJ
>

If it clears a little we might see The Island.

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds

unread,

Oct 29, 2011, 7:34:31 PM10/29/11

to

In article <25765740.1733.1319874967092.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prlk36>,

but then, neither do you

Eunometic

unread,

Oct 29, 2011, 8:36:40 PM10/29/11

to

On Oct 30, 12:07 am, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk>

This kind of speed at sea level in 1943 was about average for the time
and above average for a Hellcat.

The reduction in speed at altitude would be 440 x 0.92 = 405mph.

>
> > That sort of a wing are increase is about the same as the Ta 152C to
> > TA 152H series.
>
> The Ta-152H was equipped with a larger span wing for its high
> altitude role not to make it easier to land as a result it did
> NOT have a greatly increased wing area in fact it had a LOWER
> wing area than the Ta-152C. It was a high aspect ratio wing.
>
> Wing area
>
> Ta-152C 290.89 sq ft
> Ta-152H 252.96 sq ft

I suspect there is something wrong with that data. One doesn't frig
around with the wing root chord.
My copy of Kosin's "The German fighter" states a wing area of 19.5
for the Ta 152 increased to 23.2sqm for the Ta 152H

Either way this favours my case. A scaling of wing of the P-51D from
11.28m span to that of 14.48 of the Ta 152H
gives and area increase of 65%. We wouldn't keep the wing root
leading edge extensions of the P-51D either.

The P-51H fixed that problem with more vertical tail and a slight tail
length increase.

>
> You seem unaware of the fact that carrier landing trials were
> carried out using a modified P-51D. It was given a fin fillet extension
> to improve low speed handling, a reinforced fuselage and tail
> hook and modified landing gear.
>
> The test pilot reported the following
>
> "The margin between stall speed and maximum engagement speed was small, too
> small for safety. Rudder control at low speeds and high angles of attack was
> inadequate. In addition, landing attitude had to be carefully controlled to
> avoid damaging the airframe upon landing."
> One of the handling quirks of the Mustang was also potentially dangerous.
> During a missed approach or a wave-off, power has to be re-applied gently.
> If not, the aircraft could roll rapidly, or even snap-roll. At such low
> speed and altitude, the result could only be fatal.
>
> It was not considered suitable for deployment at sea and this was on a full
> size carrier deck !

However when the issue was looked at with the P-51H the aircraft was
considered suitable for carrier use.

>
>
>
> >>> The aircraft approaches from the rear under autopilot control, using
> >>> a 3 axis autopilot.
>
> >>> A beam riding system trims in to the autopilot and ensures correct
> >>> approch, similar to blind landing system.
>
> > Blind landing systems were in use well before the war, Lorentz had a
> > good buisness selling them to
> > airlines and airports.
>
> Not with the precision you require

The precision needs to be better, but the weight of the equipment goes
in the ship
and we arw able to use wavelengths down to 3cm to 10cm instead of
several meters.

>
>
>
> >> Technologies not available at the time and certainly too bulky to
> >> fit to a P-51
>
> > A P-51 could carry a training instructure and or a large 66 gallon
> > tail tank.
> > There is plently of room for the electronics and auto-pilot.
>
> Not using 1940's technology there isn't.
>
> > The autopilot merely opperates to maintain an airspeed of 60mph, if
> > the required electronic beam approach slope requires nose down or nose
> > up the engine is modulated accordingly.
>
> Well no, it also has to maintain the correct angle of attack
> and the heading. Being on the right glide slope doesnt help if
> you land on top of a turret or off the port side.

The main thing is to maintain adaquet airspeed, secondly to stay
within the glide slope to the arrestor and thirdly to not excede angle
of attack limits for stall. Maintaining air speed tends to provide
that in anycase.

>
>
>
> >>> However we use an additional microwave beam, dish to ensure precise
> >>> approach slope as well. We feed doppler appraoch speed and distance
> >>> to touch down. Systems on ship are quadrouplicated and duplicated on
> >>> aircraft. The antena are to the side of the runway deck.
>
> >> There is no runway remember and this late 20th century tech
>
> > They had vacuum tubes and enoug technology to make the SCR-584 auto-
> > track radar and the M9 electronic director by early 1942.
>
> Have you looked at the size and power consumption of such devices ?
>
> The slimmed down portable version of the SCR-584 , called the
> SCR-784 weighed two tons.
>
> The M9 director also used a two ton M-113 trailer to transport the
> height finder , computor and recifier pack.

The M9 director and the SCR-584 had the circuit functions required,
however a vast amount of weight was dedicated to
extreme accuracy. Out autopilot doesn't need that much accuracy, 1-2%
is enougyh, not the kind of 0.01% accuracy these two devices needed
since it is working at close ranges.

>
> > The Sperry autopilot predates WW1 even.
>
> But is unable to make automated landings, it can handle straight
> and level flight. It was also too large to fit into single seat fighters.
> Those P-51's with an autopilot got them as a retrofit.

German aircraft were making completely automated landings by 1940,
albeit on runways.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> The P-51 carrier version is arrested normally with an array of 5
> >>> wires.
>
> >>> If the aicraft misses, which is unlikely, the aicraft flys into nets
> >>> and bins of water.
>
> >>> A crane on the turret lifts the aircraft onto the two catapults on
> >>> the rear turret.
>
> >>> -
>
> >> Guess what Euno - the USN and RN both tried this
> >> around WW1. It turns out there are some nasty problems
> >> not least of which are the eddies that form over the stern
> >> of the ship due to the central superstructure. These tend to
> >> slam the aircraft somewhere bad.
>
> > The use of fast acting automatic control with a full inter-related of
> > parameters
> > from air speed, gyro reference, glide slope and perhaps even angle of
> > attack indicator
> > will react to the eddies faster than a human pilot can.
>
> That was quite impossible with the technology of the day. You are
> describing full autoland capability which didn't arrive until the 1970's

It's only a gyroscopically controlled auto-pilot, the were already
programmable for descent rate well before WW2. All we are doing is
maitaining airspeed and taking our descent rate as a trim from the
glide slope beam instead of a dial in the cockpit.

>
> One of the essential pre-requisites for such a system is a
> good radio altimeter.

The German system was called the FuG 101a, good for about 2-3m
accuracy from about 1941 onwards.

> Even today most autoland sysyems cannot
> handle wind shear or gusty conditions.
>
> > The eddies can probably be calmed by the use of large folding mattress
> > meshes.
>
> Oh puleeze
>

> Keith- Hide quoted text -

Dan

unread,

Oct 29, 2011, 9:04:13 PM10/29/11

to

Keith, you are arguing with a fool who thinks "2 - 3 m" and "1 - 2 %"
are "good enough." He also doesn't understand the speed with which tubes
and mechanical analog computers worked would suffice for a heaving deck
landing.

I have worked with WW-2 and later gyroscopes. They weren't small,
light, accurate or low power enough for auto-land in high performance
aircraft.

dott.Piergiorgio

unread,

Oct 29, 2011, 9:10:03 PM10/29/11

to

Il 29/10/2011 12:47, Jeff ha scritto:

>> The Italian biplane fighters and monoplane fighters did well against
>> Hurricanes, though slower they were more manouveralbe and could
>> outclimbe the monoplanes. Could be of use if crafted with a superior
>> engine.
>
> As did Malta's Gloster Gladiators against Italian Macchi's

until they ends downed, IIRC two by CR.42, but the point lies in the
never-really-estimable pilot performance; biplane dogfight lies in
manoeuvrability, needing more well-trained pilots than monoplane
fighters, and already during 1930s was noticed the issues in forging
this very elite fighting men...

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

Grantland

unread,

Oct 29, 2011, 9:11:47 PM10/29/11

to

Frottage is an ugly word. And you are an ugly frotteur. You disgust me. Fuck off.

Eunometic

unread,

Oct 29, 2011, 9:21:36 PM10/29/11

to

>
> Keith, you are arguing with a fool who thinks "2 - 3 m" and "1 - 2 %"
> are "good enough."

1-2% accuracy at 50m is 1m, which is enough for a carrier landing.
1-2% accuracy at 20m is 20cm which is good enough for carrier landing.

1-2% accuracy at 5km is 50m-100m which is not good enough for gun fire
control.

> He also doesn't understand the speed with which tubes
> and mechanical analog computers worked would suffice for a heaving deck
> landing.

Baloney, the GE fire control system calculated lead, fall off, air
speed correction in realtime.

>
> I have worked with WW-2 and later gyroscopes. They weren't small,
> light, accurate or low power enough for auto-land in high performance
> aircraft.

The Gyros only have to keep the attitude within a degree or two. The
glide slope beam takes care of the path.

>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Learn to trim headers.

Dan

unread,

Oct 29, 2011, 10:06:36 PM10/29/11

to

On 10/29/2011 8:21 PM, Eunometic wrote:
>>
>> Keith, you are arguing with a fool who thinks "2 - 3 m" and "1 - 2 %"
>> are "good enough."
>
> 1-2% accuracy at 50m is 1m, which is enough for a carrier landing.
> 1-2% accuracy at 20m is 20cm which is good enough for carrier landing.

Depends on which direction and if action is required.

>
> 1-2% accuracy at 5km is 50m-100m which is not good enough for gun fire
> control.

Depends on caliber, doesn't it?

>
>> He also doesn't understand the speed with which tubes
>> and mechanical analog computers worked would suffice for a heaving deck
>> landing.
>
> Baloney, the GE fire control system calculated lead, fall off, air
> speed correction in realtime.

Ballistics and flight controls use completely different mathematics.
Have you ever worked on AFCS? I have.

>>
>> I have worked with WW-2 and later gyroscopes. They weren't small,
>> light, accurate or low power enough for auto-land in high performance
>> aircraft.
>
> The Gyros only have to keep the attitude within a degree or two. The
> glide slope beam takes care of the path.

I'm not talking displacement gyros, try rate gyros. There is a
difference.

>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Learn to trim headers.
>

This is from the fool who doesn't know how to use a spell checker.

Eunometic

unread,

Oct 29, 2011, 11:28:53 PM10/29/11

to

On Oct 30, 1:06 pm, Dan <B24...@aol.com> wrote:
> On 10/29/2011 8:21 PM, Eunometic wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Keith, you are arguing with a fool who thinks "2 - 3 m" and "1 - 2 %"
> >> are "good enough."
>
> > 1-2% accuracy at 50m is 1m, which is enough for a carrier landing.
> > 1-2% accuracy at 20m is 20cm which is good enough for carrier landing.
>
> Depends on which direction and if action is required.
>
>
>
> > 1-2% accuracy at 5km is 50m-100m which is not good enough for gun fire
> > control.
>
> Depends on caliber, doesn't it?
>
>
>
> >> He also doesn't understand the speed with which tubes
> >> and mechanical analog computers worked would suffice for a heaving deck
> >> landing.
>
> > Baloney, the GE fire control system calculated lead, fall off, air
> > speed correction in realtime.
>
> Ballistics and flight controls use completely different mathematics.
> Have you ever worked on AFCS? I have.

The M9 director could accuratly do the following to voltages
representing 'targets' using vacuum tubes:
add
subtract
multiply or divide a variable by a constant (just amplifcation or
multiplication)
It could also differentiate and integrate.

This was a very fast and accurate computation.

If two variable had to be multiplied or divided servo motors driving
variable resistors were used.
If functions such as sin, tan, log or antilog was required a servo
motor driven potentiometer was used.
Likewise for ballistcs data which were wire would resisters wound on
to cards shaped to the function.

One of your tribe "David Mindell" wrote "Between Human and Machine:
Feedback, Control, and Computing before Cybernetics" that covers this.

The Germans had an analog computer developed by Helmut Holzer for the
V2 flight computer, realy the first proper analog computer. It was
way ahead in that it could divide/multiply/square root extract without
using servo motors. They also used servo motor driven pots (via cams)
if transcendental functions such as logs/antilogs were required.

>
>
>
> >> I have worked with WW-2 and later gyroscopes. They weren't small,
> >> light, accurate or low power enough for auto-land in high performance
> >> aircraft.
>
> > The Gyros only have to keep the attitude within a degree or two. The
> > glide slope beam takes care of the path.
>
> I'm not talking displacement gyros, try rate gyros. There is a
> difference.

A great deal of accuracy still isn't required, not to the extent to
0.01% accurate power supplies are need. The guidance beam simply has
to be fast and accurate.

Dan

unread,

Oct 30, 2011, 12:26:36 AM10/30/11

to

Do try to avoid racism.

Now, back to reality. V-2 computations were still ballistic, not the
same found in AFCS.

As for guidance beams being "fast and accurate," do try to understand
how they work. Take a look at ILS.

As for computers of the era, I will say again: they couldn't be made
small enough, light enough, fast enough or energy efficient enough to
make a P-51 land on a small, heaving after deck of a battleship.

You don't understand how to make accurate gyros. When it comes to
electricity it's not as much a function of voltage as frequency
regulation when driving the motor. Gyroscopes of the day tended to use
resistance strips as sensors. That's all well and good, but they offer
mechanical resistance. Synhcros tended to be big, bulky and heavy. Such
systems could be used on naval vessels and big airplanes, but not in
fighters.

You are locked into "Nazi systems automatically trump Allied systems
even if not getting off the drawing board" fantasy world. You just don't
understand how the technology of the day actually worked.

Eunometic

unread,

Oct 30, 2011, 2:31:20 AM10/30/11

to

Take your own advice. Mindell carries on about his jewishness in his
travel blogs.

>
> Now, back to reality. V-2 computations were still ballistic, not the
> same found in AFCS.

Baloney.

http://www.cdvandt.org/archive_3_displays_5.htm

It was used as the autopilot on the V2, the only thing fast and
vibration resistant enough to do so, and it was used on the ground to
solve mathematical problems.

>
> As for guidance beams being "fast and accurate," do try to understand
> how they work. Take a look at ILS.
>
> As for computers of the era, I will say again: they couldn't be made
> small enough, light enough, fast enough or energy efficient enough to
> make a P-51 land on a small, heaving after deck of a battleship.
>
> You don't understand how to make accurate gyros. When it comes to
> electricity it's not as much a function of voltage as frequency
> regulation when driving the motor. Gyroscopes of the day tended to use
> resistance strips as sensors. That's all well and good, but they offer
> mechanical resistance. Synhcros tended to be big, bulky and heavy. Such
> systems could be used on naval vessels and big airplanes, but not in
> fighters.
>
> You are locked into "Nazi systems automatically trump Allied systems
> even if not getting off the drawing board" fantasy world. You just don't
> understand how the technology of the day actually worked.
>

Auto pilots don't require great accuracy.

Jeff

unread,

Oct 30, 2011, 4:19:57 AM10/30/11

to

Of the 'well known' Gladiators, (Faith Hope & Charity), only Charity
was shot down, Hope was destroyed in an air raid, and Faith survived the
war. There were several other Gladiators but I don't think any were shot
down.

Jeff

Ken S. Tucker

unread,

Oct 30, 2011, 5:27:39 AM10/30/11

to

On Oct 29, 10:24 am, WaltBJ <waltb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Gee, I haven't missed much. Fog count still high on this channel.
>
> Walt BJ

I'm currently reading "SR-71 Revealed", if I find some nifty tidbit
I'll
post it, but guys know alot about it, especially you.
Ken

Keith W

unread,

Oct 30, 2011, 6:09:53 AM10/30/11

to

Eunometic wrote:
> On Oct 30, 1:06 pm, Dan <B24...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ballistics and flight controls use completely different mathematics.
>> Have you ever worked on AFCS? I have.
>
> The M9 director could accuratly do the following to voltages
> representing 'targets' using vacuum tubes:
> add
> subtract
> multiply or divide a variable by a constant (just amplifcation or
> multiplication)
> It could also differentiate and integrate.
>

And it weighed TWO TONS

Try fitting that to P-51

Sheesh

Keith