Asymmetric loads on WW2 fighters
guy
typical WW2 fighter? e,g, a Hurricane carrying a 44 gal drop tank
under one wing and a 500lb bomb or 4 rockets (about the same weight)
under the other.
I assume that the drop tank would be emptied first and the associated
weight changes progressively trimmed out. But when the bomb is
released how would you handle the sudden trim change?
This trim change was enough to cause, on one occaision at least) a
Typhoon to crash when one of its two 1000lb bombs hung up.
Did any US fighters carry asymmetric loads of this sort?
Guy
Dan
If memory serves P-38 did.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
T.L. Davis
Memory serves. During the mission flown to intercept and shoot down
Japanese Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto, a group of 16 P-38s (Gs or Hs if I
recall) flew with asymmetrical drop tanks 25-50 feet above the Pacific
for several hours. Imagine the fuel handling on that one. Not to
mention maintaining formation altitude and radio silence. Not to
mention arriving right on time to down 2 Betty bombers with Zero
escorts and making it back home with the loss of only one ship.
More than 60 years ago, AAF guys did what today seem like incredible
things, despite all the whiz bang electronics we have these days. They
had tube radios, that's it.
T.L. Davis
CCBlack
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would think that a asymmetrical load on a P-38 wouldn't be that much
of a problem ( compared to a Mustang, Hurricane, Thunderbolt etc. )
because the fuel tank pylons are closer to the center line.
Even in the modern " whiz bang " error, jet fighters carried
asymmetrical loads when the need called for it.
' Operation Bolo ' commanded by Robin Olds in Vietnam is a good
example. The plan was to take F-4's into North Vietnam ... but trick
the the Vietnamese into thinking that it was a flight of F-105's.
In order to do this ... they needed to carry AN/ALQ-71 jamming pods
and mimic Thuds in spaced " pod jamming " formations. But ... the
only way to carry the pod was to wire them to one of the outside
pylons normally used to carry fuel tanks.
But they still needed the fuel from the 370 gallon on the left wing.
I suspect an F-4 takeoff in that configuration might be kind of a
bitch.
However ... the mission was a success ... with 7 Mig-21's downed that
day.
Chris
Ed Rasimus
<ccbla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Even in the modern " whiz bang " error, jet fighters carried
>asymmetrical loads when the need called for it.
>
>' Operation Bolo ' commanded by Robin Olds in Vietnam is a good
>example. The plan was to take F-4's into North Vietnam ... but trick
>the the Vietnamese into thinking that it was a flight of F-105's.
>
>In order to do this ... they needed to carry AN/ALQ-71 jamming pods
>and mimic Thuds in spaced " pod jamming " formations. But ... the
>only way to carry the pod was to wire them to one of the outside
>pylons normally used to carry fuel tanks.
>
>But they still needed the fuel from the 370 gallon on the left wing.
>
>I suspect an F-4 takeoff in that configuration might be kind of a
>bitch.
>
>However ... the mission was a success ... with 7 Mig-21's downed that
>day.
>
>Chris
Mostly correct Chris, except!!!!! Initially the only station wired
adequately for the pod (QRC-160) was the outboard. The assymetric tank
load had not been tested and Robin wasn't eager to have the whole
force, six flights from Ubon and three more from Danang to cover the
Haiphong area, in an untested configuration.
He got his maintenance chief to rig some wiring to the inboard
station, got an old friend from OAAMA (Oklahoma Air Materiel Area at
Tinker AFB) which had responsiblity for the F-4 to ship the necessary
cannon plugs to enable the pods, and had all the airplanes fitted in
time for the mission.
Just this weekend, his daughter Christina Olds and I are putting the
final touches on the manuscript for his memoir to be published by St.
Martin's Press next summer. We've got the story in his own words, so I
think it is pretty reliable.
With the pods on the inboards, he also had his munitions guy fabricate
shims to space the AIM-9s away from the pylon side so that they could
still carry the missiles with the pod.
Olds flight got three MiGs that day (Robin scored his first Vietnam
kill), Chappie James "Ford flight" got one, and JB Stone's "Rambler"
got three more--one of them a probable for Pete Coombies which was
later confirmed.
Total, as you state, seven MiG-21s killed in one fourteen minute air
battle over Phuc Yen airfield.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org
CCBlack
>
> - Show quoted text -
Um ... but Ed. They talk about the mission AND the asymmetrical loads
right here in this book ... " USAF F-4 Phantom II MiG Killers 1965-68
".
I also have a painting ( print ) by Keith Ferris tittled " Operation
Bolo - MiG Sweep ".
It shows Robin Olds F-4 with the load configuration I describe ( minus
the fuel tanks because they obviously already blew them for the
dogfight ... but with the jamming pod on the right outside pylon ) in
a barrel roll about to come in behind a MiG-21. I'm sure you've seen
this painting before.
Hey ... I think that is wonderful news about Mr. Old's memoir.
Are you writing it ? Can't wait to read it.
Chris
CCBlack
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh ... hey I found it. Here is that painting by Keith Ferris that I
was talking about.
http://keithferrisart.com/search_result_image.asp_Q_Product_ID_E_024MiGSweep
( notice the jamming pod on the outside right wing pylon )
My Dad had this print in his office at the Air Force base for years.
Chris
Ed Rasimus
I can't explain Ferris' painting because it conflicts with the written
record we've got of Robin's own description of the pod problem. The
painting is very accurate in all other aspects. By that time in the
battle, Robin had already fired two Sparrows (the front missile wells
you will note are empty) and one Sidewinder (there's only one shown on
the right pylon).
The relationship between the MiG and Robin's F-4C is accurate and
exactly as he describes it.
As for "authorship" of the book, the author line on the contract is
both Christina Olds and Ed R. Exact wording on the book cover is still
to be determined. The manuscript is a compilation of Robin's writing
over the years, so it is a first person account by Robin himself.
Bob
The pods flew outboard. They did not fly inboard until months later.
Bob
You have your apples and oranges mixed up.
The only mod for BOLO was the pod mounting hardware.
In maintenance speak the hardback and lugs were changed New Years eve
in a nose doc between the flightline and the ECM shop.
The inboard mod with aircraft power to the pod came months later.
Since MMS you might say owned the pylons a couple people from MMS and
ECM did the mod wiring down at MMS. All I remember was hearing them
talk about sending a couple ECM people to work with MMS.
Bob
wrote:
I always like answering myself.
Anyway...
"Major General Donovan Smith, 7th AF Director of Operations, suggested
that QRC-160 ECM pods be used to assist with the deception. This led
to Air Force-wide sourcing to obtain the required number of pods and
adaptors for the mission."
Just google the above and you will find the pdf.
The "adapters" were the hardbacks.
Somewhere it says why adapters were required, but I can't find it now.
The "adapters" for the F-4 were the plates and lugs. The lugs are what
the pylon hooks held the pod to the pylon with. The F-4 "adapters" and
lugs were massive compared to the plates and lugs for the F-105.
Ed Rasimus
wrote:
My sincere thanks to all who had added expertise to this discussion.
I'm now going back to Christina to have her review Robin's notes on
this and to touch base with JB Stone (who led Rambler flight on Bolo).
Bob's comments on the "hardback" of the pod track well with my
recollection. The F-105 outboard pylons were the smaller ones. They
were both wired for QRC-160 during a summer '66 TCTO, and they were a
direct suspension piece of gear, i.e. no adaptor needed to carry
anything with 14" lugs.
The F-4 outboard was the heavy pylon with fuel tank capability, while
the inboard was the smaller, light weight station. All F-4 pylons
required some sort of adaptor to fit the store to be carried whether
MER/TER, fuel tank or missile rails. That's why Bob's statements make
sense.
Keith Ferris, whom I've conversed with on several occasions, is always
meticulous in his research so that his paintings are very precise and
specific to mission, time of day, relative orientation, weather and
configuration. I'm sure he would have had it right.
I'm also going to go back regarding the "shims" to set the AIM-9s off.
The adaptor for AIM-9 at that time was a "inverted T" sort of double
rail which was suspended from the inboards. It required no spacing to
keep the missiles clear of tanks, pylon or each other. The
"side-saddle" brackets that put the missiles on the side of the pylon
stub so that a TER could be carried on the station didn't appear on
any F-4 that I saw until '72 during Linebacker.
This has been a valuable contribution. Thanks to all!
CCBlack
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:08:10 -0800, Bob <coldsig...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:09:54 -0800, Bob <coldsig...@hotmail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ed ... I'm imploring you ... you and Mr. Olds daughter HAVE to have
that Kieth Ferris painting on the cover of the book.
I'm telling you ... not only would it look cool and fit right in ...
but it would also be eye catching and sell a lot of books.
=]
Let us know what you find out after you talk to Mr. Stone will ya ?
( contact me directly by e-mail if you want )
Thanks Ed for the discussion. It was very interesting.
Chris
Ed Rasimus
<ccbla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Ed ... I'm imploring you ... you and Mr. Olds daughter HAVE to have
>that Kieth Ferris painting on the cover of the book.
>
>I'm telling you ... not only would it look cool and fit right in ...
>but it would also be eye catching and sell a lot of books.
That was my thought initially as well. It's a great painting and I'm
sure Keith would give approval--I used his "Thud Ridge" for the cover
art of When Thunder Rolled. He even let us air brush the JV tail code
out because we didn't have tail codes when I was at Korat.
But, Christina has suggested "Phantom Strike" by Robert Taylor. It
depicts the mission Robin describes as the toughest he ever flew, a
low altitude strike on the steel mills at Thai Nugyen.
See it here:
http://www.leisuregalleries.com/phantom.html
Mr. Taylor has already offered it for our use, and even plans a
promotion offer with a print and a copy of the book.
Regardless of our recommendation, however, the publisher has final
authority for cover art. The folks at St. Martin's Press are very good
at their stuff and I'm confident they will have a striking cover and
the authors will have an input in the decision.
Bob
I can't find the main reference online that I think was in an AFA
article.
There is another I don't remember:
http://combat-skyspot.tripod.com/wolfpack.htm
"It had required a massive Air Forcewide effort to bring Bolo into
being. The entire 8th TFW's energy was thrown into overcoming last
minute problems, with the support troops working all night long. (A
typical glitch involved the sway braces on the F-4C. They were located
differently than on the F-105, and the shell of the QRC-160 pod had to
be reinforced in order to fit well.)"
We hung pods directly on the pylon for awhile and then on the bottom
of another rack. A bomb on each side and the pod below. The pod
antennas were with a few inches of the concrete.
Any mention in his notes about his peptalk to the maintenance troops
when little things started going wrong because of the high ops tempo?
Crew chiefs clean canopies because a speck could look like a Mig off
in the distance, and ECM it would be nice if you installed a control
box so we can turn the jamming pod on. Guess who "ECM" was in that
little mistake?
Ed Rasimus
wrote:
You and CC were correct. And, I was guilty of misreading the notes.
The quicky effort to carry the pods and complete the F-105 profile
deception required hauling the pods on the right outboard. The problem
of the wiring not being available at the inboard stations was
identified and Robin worked the issue so that by the time the ALQ-71
pods arrived for regular carriage by the F-4C and D fleet they had the
necessary mods completed.
Remember that QRC was Quick Reaction Concept and was a fast track
effort to get a noise jammer in the field. Lots happened very quickly.
Those first pods (and a lot of USN pods subsequently) were
self-generating with little props on the front to spin a generator to
create their own power source. There was little more info in the
cockpit at first than an On/Off switch. Later it was the simply
control box with a switch, an "on" light and a fault warning light
that told you to cycle on and off to regain jamming...like you were
supposed to be looking at that while flying in SAM country.
We'll have it correct in the manuscript.
Bob
<rasimus...@verizon.net> wrote:
Watch out on that Ed about Robin working the inboard problem.
At the time I thought it was a local mod, but I believe it came out of
the same base in Vietnam as the gun pod mod.
Inboard wiring also included a three phase plug to power the pod off
internal power. We were having problems with the RATS failing and for
awhile there we didn't have enough dummy nose cones with the control
plug and power plug on top so we had to do a local quickly mod on the
access door underneath between the RAT and pod main body and add a
power plug. When we loaded pods on the multiple bomb rack we had to
run the power wires out in the open and clamp it in a couple places
on the pylon and pod so we could plug into the plug on the access
door. A real Rube Goldberg way of doing things, but it worked.
We flew some with frozen RATS with internal power and that caused one
crew during preflight to go ballistic when they went to spin the RAT
and it was locked tight.
>Remember that QRC was Quick Reaction Concept and was a fast track
>effort to get a noise jammer in the field. Lots happened very quickly.
>Those first pods (and a lot of USN pods subsequently) were
>self-generating with little props on the front to spin a generator to
>create their own power source. There was little more info in the
>cockpit at first than an On/Off switch. Later it was the simply
>control box with a switch, an "on" light and a fault warning light
>that told you to cycle on and off to regain jamming...like you were
>supposed to be looking at that while flying in SAM country.
Ours from the start at Ubon were the regular control boxes.
In maintenance we didn't pay much attention to whether a pod was
ALQ-160 or ALQ-71. They all looked the same.
I remember even after the inboard mod we were still scrambling at
times to get enough pods to load. Plane land and before the engines
stopped turning we had the pod off and over to another flight ready to
go. It was crazy on the flight line. I called in once that ECM had the
frag uploaded and the answer back was download the frag. Grumble,
grumble and the game goes on!
When they brought in the -8 or ALQ-87 late 1967 that one was over my
head. They had a cheat sheet for debriefing. Was that a fast blink or
a slow blink or.. Give me a break.
T.L. Davis
REALLY? Maybe you should ask John Mitchell or Rex Barber how easy it
was. "Not that much of a problem?" Anyone who thinks a P-38 was
easier to fly than any single engined fighter of WWII under any
circumstances should ask someone who did it first before assuming it's
true.
BTW, your initial posting was regarding WWII fighters. If you
intended to post on a Vietnam era operation, why didn't you just post
it in the first place?
It's amazing to me how easily very difficult things done 65 years ago
are dismissed by folks these days as being "no big deal". I'd like to
see you try it, pal... By the way, you can't take your GPS and it's
not an X-Box mission. Still up for it???
T.L. Davis
CCBlack
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey look ... first off ... take a chill pill. And it wasn't MY post.
" Guy " was the poster asking about asymmetrical loads on U.S.
fighters.
I didn't say there was anything easy about the mission to kill
Yamamoto.
I merely pointed out that a asymmetrical load on the P-38 ( one big
drop tank on one side, and one smaller on the other ) was something
that
wasn't a HUGE problem for the aircraft.
BECAUSE the pylons are close to the centerline.
( once again ... put it in perspective ... I'm not saying flying low
level in a P-38 with different sized fuel tanks is easy ... but the
highly experienced pilots could handle it for this mission )
My statement is backed up here ( read it yourself ) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Isoroku_Yamamoto
quote : " Despite the differences in size, the tanks were located
close enough to the aircraft's center of gravity to negate any
performance problems. "
I brought up the Vietnam reference ( operation Bolo ) to point out
that the same sort of asymmetrical load was done with F-4's ( 23 years
or so after operation Vengeance ).
You know it seems to me your anger is misdirected. The pilots
themselves did a heroic job in operation Vengeance ... but squabbled
for years afterwords over who actually
shot down Yamamoto's aircraft.
Ridiculous In my opinion.
Maybe you should be even more upset by the fact that even though the
P-38 pilot's were under strict radio discipline, as Lanphier
approached Henderson Field, he radioed the Guadalcanal fighter
director that "I got Yamamoto", breaching security on the mission.
Even more ridiculous.
That's the problem with operation Vengeance. There will always be an
( * ) in history books because of the squabbling over which pilot
actually put rounds into the aircraft that Yamamo occupied and then
plunged into the jungle.
Really stupid IMHO.
Chris
guy
SNIP
> " Guy " was the poster asking about asymmetrical loads on U.S.
> fighters.
Actually primarily British fighters, as I know the asymmetric loads
they carried.
Guy
SNIP
Peter Stickney
Well, as it happens, I've been looking into that very subject -
but in the context of asymmetric stores way out on the wings -
think the tip tanks and bomb shackles on an F-80 or T-33.
Sorting through the manual collection, asymmetric loading wasn't
even mentioned for most U.S. fighters - apparently they didn't have
any problem trimming out the roll that you'd get from an asymmetric load.
The exception to this was the F8F Bearcat family, which fit the lower limit
for stability - It had a restriction of no more than a 250# difference
between weight on pylons in the landing configuration. There were other
restrictions in minimum airspeed at higher weight asymmetric loads -
250 KIAS for a 500# imbalance, and 300 KIAS for a 1000# imbalance.
Oh, and for the F-80 - If the aileron boost was oparating, a 1000# imbalance
(1 of the smaller teardrop shaped underslung tip tanks) was marginally
tolerable. Without the boost, or with the bigger tanks (Either the extended
Misawa or the T-33 type Fletcher tanks,) you weren't going to land it.
--
Pete Stickney
Any plan where you lose you hat is a bad plan
guy
Thanks for the info Peter, I was not so much thinking about drop
tanks, where the weight is progressively lost, but where a bomb is
released from under one wing only, giving an instantaneous imbalance,
generally at low level.
Guy
Dan
I think a Ploesti raid was done by P-38s with a bomb on one side and
a fuel tank on the other.
Ed Rasimus
<guyswe...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>Thanks for the info Peter, I was not so much thinking about drop
>tanks, where the weight is progressively lost, but where a bomb is
>released from under one wing only, giving an instantaneous imbalance,
>generally at low level.
>
>Guy
The critical issue is G-loading. Many aircraft can handle an
asymmetric load quite nicely in unaccelerated flight, but when you
load up the wing, that asymmetry compounds with the G.
We had a couple of losses of F-105s when carrying the M118 3000 pound
bomb. Failure to release of one bomb could be handled if you were
prepared. If you simply assumed a parallel release and snatched in
four or more G for recovery from a dive bomb run, the airplane could
snap violently.
I had a 1000 pound Mk-83 hang up on an outboard pylon one day over NVN
when we had found a convoy of several hundred trucks along a road in
RP II. We stayed around to make five strafe passes with the asymmetric
load hanging out there.
With the F-105G in later years carrying the AGM-78 Standard ARM, it
was always an asymmetric load, balanced at takeoff by a 450 gallon
tank on the opposite wing.
guy
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:50:40 -0800 (PST), guy
>
Thanks Ed, that makes sense to me, generally the attacks that I am
thinking of would be made in about a 30 degree dive, guessing 350
knots at 1000 feet(?) I do not know the G involved in the pullout, any
idea?
The Typhoon crash I mentioned was as a result of a high G manoeuver to
avoid flak with one bomb on board, which fits with your observations.
cheers
Guy
damarkley
the AGM-78 as you saw it?
Dean
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Ed Rasimus
<deanm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> With the F-105G in later years carrying the AGM-78 Standard ARM, it
>> was always an asymmetric load, balanced at takeoff by a 450 gallon
>> tank on the opposite wing.
>Hi Ed, would you care to comment on the accuracy and effectiveness of
>the AGM-78 as you saw it?
>
>Dean
>** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
I discuss the Standard a bit in Palace Cobra.
In my experience (which, by definition limits the data), the weapon
never lived up to its potential. It had excellent range, excellent
discrimination for frequencies, an excellent payload and some
interesting features like home-on-jam and memory to pursue an attack
after shutdown of a targetted signal.
Problems were that it was large & heavy, necessitating the asymmetric
load. That its profile precluded monitoring flight to the target. That
it often lost signal and went ballistic and that it required
considerable pre-launch programming by the Bear.
Typically it was F-105G Weasel practice to fire it at the first
available signal on entering the target area. This would lighten the
aircraft load and free up maneuvering potential for serious SAM site
engagement.
I describe in Palace Cobra one instance in which the missile was
launched, turned upward (typical profile) and then came back down
through our flight about two minutes later. Disconcerting to say the
least!
CCBlack
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:50:16 -0500, damarkley
>
Hey Ed ... can you field another missile question ?
My father ... Jon D. Black ... was assigned to the 555th at Ubon as an
F-4D pilot ( the D model was new at that time ... D's without the IR
probes under the nose ). Robin Olds was still the commander of the
8th.
My Dad was shot down on his 7th counter ( I believe sometime in May of
1967 ) up North over Vietnam and subsequently became a POW.
What's interesting is that months earlier ... Olds may have had
sidewinders for operation Bolo ... but my father stated the D models
he flew at the time were still equipped with the AIM-4 Falcon missile.
The question I had was ... my father has often stated that the Falcon
missile was really ridiculous for operation over North Vietnam. He's
stated that by the time a pilot went through all the procedures for
arming the missile ( cooling the heat seeker etc .) that a MiG would
have been out of the picture by then.
Is that about right ?
Chris
Ed Rasimus
Absolutely correct. Robin was adamant that the AIM-4 IR missile was
worthless for fighter air-to-air. It was barely adequate for
interceptor launch against an unmaneuvering bomber.
To improve IR discrimination and sensitivity the AIM-4 had a cooled
seeker head. This was done by a bottle of compressed nitrogen which
was a "one shot" deal. When you anticipated engagement, you cooled the
seeker. You were then good for about three or four minutes before the
seeker cooling expired and the missile was inert.
Additionally, it had contact fusing only. No proximity fuse, so a
direct impact was required.
Olds got the D's at the 8th wing rewired and was carrying Sidewinders
by the start of summer '67.
Which isn't to say that the AIM-9B was all that capable. It had a
large front lens which was prone to shattering from rain or hail
impacts if you flew through heavy precipitation. I saw it several
times when we carried the missiles on the F-105.
It also had a fairly narrow field of view for target acquisition. It
did not bias prior to launch for lead pursuit as did later versions
like the D, E, M, P and J.
Probably worst was a 2.5 G launch limitation. If you shoot with more G
than that the missile gyro gimbal limits were exceeded with the first
control command after launch and it went ballistic.
Gives you an appreciation of what those early Vietnam War MiG killers
had to deal with.
CCBlack
>
> - Show quoted text -
My father said the F-4's he flew in his time there were never even
loaded with Falcon's. They just left them off. Maybe that was
because of the type of missions he was flying ... or the Triple Nickle
was so disgusted with them they didn't even bother.
I built a model of an F-4D one time for him. The ordinance I chose
( without even asking him ) was the two 370 gallon wing tanks ... 3
750 lb bombs on TER's ( for a total of six ) on the inboard pylons
( minus any missiles - Sidewinder or Falcon ) and a gun pod on the
centerline.
He took one look at it when I was done and said ... " I flew many
missions with that exact load ".
I must have got it right.
Interesting ...
Thanks again Ed.
Chris
CCBlack
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> My father said the F-4's he flew in his time there were never even
> loaded with Falcon's. They just left them off. Maybe that was
> because of the type of missions he was flying ... or the Triple Nickle
> was so disgusted with them they didn't even bother.
>
> I built a model of an F-4D one time for him. The ordinance I chose
> ( without even asking him ) was the two 370 gallon wing tanks ... 3
> 750 lb bombs on TER's ( for a total of six ) on the inboard pylons
> ( minus any missiles - Sidewinder or Falcon ) and a gun pod on the
> centerline.
>
> He took one look at it when I was done and said ... " I flew many
> missions with that exact load ".
>
> I must have got it right.
>
> Interesting ...
>
> Thanks again Ed.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh yeah ... I forgot the AIM-7's up in the wells.
He said on one mission he fired off his Sparrow's at a MIG ( which he
never even saw ). His GIB had the MIG on radar though.
His flight got credit for a ' probable ' that day.
Funny war indeed.
Chris
T.L. Davis
Apparently, everybody paid for Lanphier's false boasting and dreams of
political grandeur, as well as both Lanphier and Barber's statements
to the press after the mission. It cost at least Mitchell (and maybe
the four shooter pilots) a Congressional Medal of Honor.
Does that take anything away from the difficulty of the mission
itself?
No.
And I should be angry with Lanphier and Barber? Why?
"once again ... put it in perspective ... I'm not saying flying low
level in a P-38 with different sized fuel tanks is easy ..."
Thanks, just makin' sure.
T.L. Davis
CCBlack
> Apparently, everybody paid for Lanphier's false boasting and dreams of
> political grandeur, as well as both Lanphier and Barber's statements
> to the press after the mission. It cost at least Mitchell (and maybe
> the four shooter pilots) a Congressional Medal of Honor.
>
> Does that take anything away from the difficulty of the mission
> itself?
>
> No.
Yes. Point out a reference on the subject that DOESN'T bring up the
controversy.
> And I should be angry with Lanphier and Barber? Why?
You stated it above ... it would seem obvious.
> "once again ... put it in perspective ... I'm not saying flying low
> level in a P-38 with different sized fuel tanks is easy ..."
>
> Thanks, just makin' sure.
The men who led the attack on Yamamoto were, for the most part, all
veteran fliers.
Despite the differences in size, the tanks were located
close enough to the aircraft's center of gravity to negate any
performance problems.
Why don't you prove otherwise since you made such a big stink about
it ?
Chris
avna...@yahoo.com
On 29-Nov-2008, Ed Rasimus <rasimus...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Regardless of our recommendation, however, the publisher has final
> authority for cover art.
That's really a shame. I just finished reading your book "Palace Cobra" in
paperback, and couldn't help but notice the F-4S (Navy/Marines version of
the F-4) on the cover. With all the great photos of F-4Es that are
available, they couldn't use one of them...
I enjoyed both of your books very much, by the way. I hope you have more
coming!
Scott Wilson
Gernot Hassenpflug
<hoping this works, hhe> I guess the inherent stability of the planes
made a big differnece too? Maybe an A-36 or Hurricane in close-support
would have a better chance of survival than a spitfire. I admit that
G-limits would screw any plane...
guy
>
> - Show quoted text -
lol thanks Gernot:-)
Guy
Peter Stickney
guy wrote:
> Thanks for the info Peter, I was not so much thinking about drop
> tanks, where the weight is progressively lost, but where a bomb is
> released from under one wing only, giving an instantaneous imbalance,
> generally at low level.
In some respect, weight's weight. If you're dropping full tanks, and one
hangs up, it's the same thing.
That being said, while there was some roll from dropping a single bomb, for
most airplanes, where the weight is at less than mid-span, it's not a big
issue.
In the specific case of the Tempest, there are some interesting factors -
(I've now been unpacking my RAF Pilot's Notes collection.)
Fist off - the Tempest, didn't have any roll trim. They were also unstable
in pitch, and had a greater degree of coupling between pitch, yaw, and roll
than other fighters of the same vintage. They also had little or no stall
warning when pulling Gs, and rather poor spin recovery behavior.
It is quite reasonable that a Tempest dropping a single bomb, and pulling Gs
in a jinking pullout would stall and enter a spin (especially with a 1000
pounder under one wing) and not be able to pull out.
By the way - the local Air Museum near here in Lakeland Florida (USA), has
a very nice Tempest II. It's a danged big airplane - every bit as big as a
P-47. Pity that it didn't carry much fuel.
guy
SNIP
> By the way - the local Air Museum near here in Lakeland Florida (USA), has
> a very nice Tempest II. It's a danged big airplane - every bit as big as a
> P-47. Pity that it didn't carry much fuel.
a shame it would only fly near enough 3000miles...
Guy
>
> --
> Pete Stickney
> Any plan where you lose you hat is a bad plan- Hide quoted text -
Peter Stickney
> On 5 Dec, 06:10, Peter Stickney <p_stick...@verizon.net> wrote:
> SNIP
>
>> By the way - the local Air Museum near here in Lakeland Florida (USA),
>> has a very nice Tempest II. It's a danged big airplane - every bit as
>> big as a P-47. Pity that it didn't carry much fuel.
>
> a shame it would only fly near enough 3000miles...
Uhm, Guy, pull the other one - it's got bells on.
The RAE's own figures give a range with 2 90 Imp. Gal tanks as
about 1200 miles.
Note that for combat, 2 90 gallon tans is as much as you'd add.
More than that, and you've got more than half you fuel in the drops -
which means that if you enter combat at the target area, you won't have the
fuel to return.
I appreciate your enthusiasm - but extraordinary claims require some proof.
Do you have a cite for the 3,000 mile figure?
guy
Certainly
From 'The Hawker Typhoon and Tempest' Mason:-
7 july 1943 LA607:-
Still air range on internal fuel 1150 statue miles at 235 mph
with 2 45 gal drop tanks 1740 miles at 225 mph
(later)
with 2 90 gal drop tanks 2410 miles
with 1 90 gal drop tank and 2 1000lb bombs combat ***radius***
1000miles with reserves
Range check by Humble in PR550, May 1946, total fuel load 430 gals
(presumably 3 90 gal drop tanks), take off weight 13850lbs, range 2950
miles
Guy
guy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Note when carrying the 2 x 1000lb bombs and 1 x 90 gal tank ammunition
was only carried for 2 of the 4 cannon.
Guy
Peter Stickney
Guy,
I'm sorry, but that doesn't pass the Smell Test.
From the Tactical Trials - Tempest II, Comparison With Tempest V and
Thunderbolt II, Central Fighter Establishment. 5 May, 1945
C.F.E> Ref: CFE/S2/1/AIR
(Available online at http://wwiiaircraftperformance.org )
Lists the following - I'll paraphrase a bit for brevity.
For a max range mission -Engine Start, Warm Up, Takeoff, Climb, and Combat
allowance:
68 Imperial Gallons, covering 88 miles.
Range Cruise at 1600 RPM/-2# Boost, yielding 48 Imp. Gal/Hr and 250 mph TAS,
with 2 45 Imp. Gal tanks: an additional 948 miles, for a total of 1036
miles without reserves. (Standard Deduction by the CFE for reserves and
airplanes performing below the median (Of which half the airplanes will)
is 20%. Applying that, we get a usable range of 829 miles in that
condition.
Applying the same formula to a case of 3 90 Imp. Gallon tanks, the costs
for Takeoff, Warmup, Climb and Combat are the same - 68 Imp. Gal. for 88
miles. With 3 90 gallon tanks, and allowing for no significant drag
penalty, Best Cruise with the remaining fuel (362 Imp. Gal.) gives
7.54 Hrs worth of fuel. At 250 mph TAS, that gives 1885 miles.
Total range is, therefore, 1973 miles.
Factor in the 20% correction, and we get a range of 1578 miles.
Now - 1973 miles is respectable, but it's still 1,000+ miles short of
3,000. Maybe with a 90 mph tailwind...
Another question, I've been poring through all my stuff on the Tempest II,
including the Pilot's Notes, and I've seen no mention of any external hard
points other than the 2 wing racks and the rocket rails on the wings.
The fuel system is set up to feed from the 2 wing pylons.
I've found no photos or drawing of a Tempest with a centerline rack.
If you can provide a steer, I'd really appreciate it.
--
Pete Stickney
Geography is just physics slowed down, with a couple of trees stuck in it.
guy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well I am just quoting what the test pilot reported;-)
The 2950 miles on 430 gals gives a fuel consumption of 6.86 mpg, and
at its optimum range settings (200mph at 17,000 feet) a fuel
consumprtion of 7.4 mpg was commonplace, this again from Mason
The centreline position was introduced for far east service to allow
the carriage of 2 1000lb bombs plus the droptank. It was not a feature
of the Tempest V, only the II and IIRC VI
I have just had a quick look, but have not found a pic showing the
centre line store posiition in use, if I find one I will post it.
cheers
Guy
Eunometic
In regards to the asymmetric load issue; I suspect that it depended
somewhat on which side the load was on, if the load was on the
appropriate side it would be canceled out by propeller torque and
wash. WW2 single engine fighters were far from symmetric in the first
place.
You will note the Blohm & Voss BV 141 which had excellent handling and
stabillity but was highly asymetric. Although it was asymetric in
appearence in terms of the forces on play on the airframe it was
symetric:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_&_Voss_BV_141