# Pinnacle of achievement for piston engined aircraft in WWII



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 14, 2005)

What piston engine aircraft do you think was the pinnacle of achievement during the war?

The aircraft has to have been developed during the manufacturing country's tenure as a combatant.

The aircraft has to have flown during the manufacturing country's tenure as a combatant. It doesn't matter if the aircraft saw actual combat or even became operational. 

Prototypes and experimental / developmental aircraft count as long as they were flying during the manufacturing country's tenure as a combatant.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 14, 2005)

The dH Hornet, or the Bearcat for me


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2005)

or the Do-335, possibly the sea fury..............


----------



## evangilder (Mar 14, 2005)

I'd go with the Bearcat


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2005)

but the sea fury was equal to the sea fury in many respects and often better...........


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 14, 2005)

I forgot about the Sea Fury, in that case it's that and the Hornet


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 14, 2005)

Reggiane Re-2005


----------



## DJ_Dalton1 (Mar 14, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Reggiane Re-2005



Sagettario, Not a bad plane, but you're talking 1943, though some accounts had it well over 700 kph. It was a Daimler 605A, which was a good motor but not the pinnacle. 

The Bearcat never saw the war. They were on carriers on their way but never flew a mission.

I think the P-47N made a brief appearance as well as another Mustang. The Mustang was further stripped of armor is my recollection, but i'd have to review it.

If you like fairy tales you'd have to look close at the Yak 3 with the Vk 107.

I'd vote for the FW190D-12, it was produced in very low numbers however.

If a 500 production run were added, obviously the Bf 109K is a strong contender.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 14, 2005)

What do you all think of the XP-47J?

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-16.jpg

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-17.jpg



From http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_9.html :

The fastest version of the Thunderbolt was the XP-47J, which was proposed in November 1942 as a lighter-weight version of the Thunderbolt designed to explore the outer limits of the design's basic performance envelope. The XP-47J was fitted with a 2800 hp Pratt and Whitney R-2800-57(C) housed inside a close-fitting cowling and cooled by a fan. The ventral intake for the CH-5 turbosupercharger was separated from the engine cowling and moved aft. The four-bladed propeller was fitted with a large conical-shaped spinner. The wing structure was lightened and the armament was reduced from eight to six 0.50-inch machine guns. The contract was approved on June 18, 1943. 

The XP-47J was a completely new airframe and not a conversion of an existing P-47D. The serial number was 43-46952. The XP-47J flew for the first time on November 26, 1943. On August 4, 1944, it attained a speed of 504 mph in level fight, becoming the first propeller-driven fighter to exceed 500 mph. At one time, it was proposed that the J model would be introduced onto the production line, but the advent of the even more advanced XP-72 resulted in plans for the production of the P-47J being abandoned before any more could be completed. 

A proposal to adapt the XP-47J to use contrarotating propellers with an R-2800-61 engine was dropped. 

Maximum speed of the XP-47J was 507 mph at 34,300 feet, range was 765 miles at 400 mph, 1070 miles at economical cruising speed. An altitude of 15,000 feet could be reached in 4.5 minutes. Service ceiling was 45,000 feet. Weights were 9663 pounds empty, 12,400 pounds normal loaded, 16,780 pounds maximum. Wingspan was 40 feet 11 inches, length was 33 feet 3 inches, height was 14 feet 2 inches, and wing area was 300 square feet.

From http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/P-47M.html :

The "J" was fitted with a high output version of the P&W R-2800. Specifically, the R-2800-57. This engine made 2,800 hp @ 2,800 rpm at 35,000 feet. This is in War Emergency Power. The aircraft actually attained 507 mph at an altitude of 34,300 feet. 2,800 hp is 133% of rated power. At military power (100%), the XP-47J could sustain 470 mph. 435 mph was attained at 81% of its rated power (1,700 hp). All performance figures were obtained at 34,300 feet. The "J" model was an especially good climbing fighter too. It had a climb rate at sea level of 4,900 fpm. At 20,000 feet, it was still rocketing up at 4,400 fpm, and got there in 4 minutes, 15 seconds. Time to 30,000 feet was only 6 minutes, 45 seconds. Now that's an interceptor! Yet it had a usable range of 1,075 miles. Rather impressive, don't you think? No, this was not a stripped down hotrod. It was fully armed and carried ballast in the wings equal to 267 rds per gun. The aircraft was flown to a height of 46,500 feet and was capable of a bit more.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 14, 2005)

I understand that the XP-72 (another P-47 variant) was to be armed with four 37mm cannons! That would have been pretty fearsome in a strafing ground attack.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/xp72-2.jpg

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p72-2.jpg

Specification of Republic XP-72:

Powerplant: One 3450 hp Pratt Whitney R-4360-13 Wasp Major air-cooled radial engine. Performance: Maximum speed was 490 mph at 25,000 feet. Normal range was 1200 miles at 300 mph and maximum range was 2520 miles at 315 mph with two 125 Imp. gall. drop tanks. Initial climb rate was 5280 feet per minute, and climb rate at 25,000 feet was 3550 feet per minute. An altitude of 15,000 feet could be reached in 3.5 minutes, 20,000 feet in 5 minutes. Service ceiling was 42,000 feet. Weights were 11,476 pounds empty, 14,433 pounds normal loaded, 17,490 pounds maximum. Dimensions were wingspan 40 feet 11 inches, length 36 feet 7 inches, height 16 feet 0 inches, and wing area 300 square feet.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 15, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but the sea fury was equal to the sea fury in many respects and often better...........




I'd hope it was equal to what it was...   



Reminds me of "engines measured in cubic engines..."


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 15, 2005)

Good goin', lanc!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 15, 2005)

hehe sorry meant the bearcat, the sea fury was equal if not better than the bearcat.........


----------



## evangilder (Mar 15, 2005)

Slightly different roles though, Lanc. They SeaFury is much larger than the Bearcat too.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 15, 2005)

yep, much better armed too..........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 15, 2005)

I believe they both had four 20mm's. At any rate, I think they both pale in comparison to the XP-47J and XP-72.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 15, 2005)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > but the sea fury was equal to the sea fury in many respects and often better...........
> ...



Was reading that conversation a week or so back...Ah memories!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 16, 2005)

> I think they both pale in comparison to the XP-47J and XP-72



whilst i realise no such point was made specific, i think it says allot more about the Sea Fury and bearcat that they actually entered service, i don't pay much attention to experimental types like that, unless they're british of course...........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 16, 2005)

Actually, I did address that specific point.

*"Prototypes and experimental / developmental aircraft count as long as they were flying during the manufacturing country's tenure as a combatant."*

The pinnacle of piston engined fighter development extended beyond operational service aircraft. Between the last operational service aircraft and jets, there were many impressive offerings in the works. These represent the "pinnacle" of combat fighter aircraft development.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 16, 2005)

sorry i meant to say that whilst no point was made about them not counting, and i'm not saying they shouldn't be counted, i just tend to overlook them a bit, service aircraft are IMO much more impressive.......


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 16, 2005)

The Westland Wyvern wasn't bad


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 16, 2005)

it's no sea fury though...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 16, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > I think they both pale in comparison to the XP-47J and XP-72
> 
> 
> 
> whilst i realise no such point was made specific, i think it says allot more about the Sea Fury and bearcat that they actually entered service, i don't pay much attention to experimental types like that, unless they're british of course...........



I think experimental types are often far superior to planes that saw service. Planes that see serice are more resticted In their performance, by guns, ammo, etc...


----------



## evangilder (Mar 16, 2005)

Plus the fact that the planes that are already in service are considered the previous generation. Theoretically, they should get better each generation.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 16, 2005)

The XP-47J was armed with six .50 cal. machine guns with 267 rounds per gun.

The XP-72 was armed with four 37mm cannons.

It is quite possible that the performance stats of the above aircraft were obtained through the use of unarmed aircraft (in fact I would bet so) but then again, the recorded edge of performance stats of combat operational aircraft may have been obtained using unarmed aircraft as well.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 16, 2005)

Four 37mm? Ouch.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 16, 2005)

I know. With four 37mm cannons, it would have definitely been the Grim Reaper of Strafing.


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 16, 2005)

For my money, it's definately the De Havilland 103 Hornet.....better two engines than one, and they were very sleek Merlins 130/131's... [imagine if they'd tried Griffons !!!]... but anyway, the prototype exceeded 485 mph, climb rate 4,000 - 4,650 ft/min., with 2x 200 gal. droptanks, range was 2,500 miles @ 340 mph @ 30,000 ft., all-up weight around 18,000 - 19,500 lbs., one crew except x2 in the Sea NF Hornets, 4x 20mm Hispanos, plus 8x RP's or 2,000 lbs of bombs, extremely manoevrable and durable....first flew 28 July 1944, only 13 months after commencement of design details, was used in a variety of roles until 1956....
If you would like to know the American's first reaction to the Hornet, check-out www.dhhornet50.net


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 17, 2005)

Like a Mossie, only better!


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 17, 2005)

Gentlemen,

I believe the Hornet (along with the Mosquito) would more properly belong under Posts entitled:

"Pinnacles of Aviation Carpentry" 

"Woodshop 101 - From sapling to flight" 

"Termites and the RAF - The hidden war" 

"You may see a tree but I see a multi-engined fighter/attack bomber - Visionaries of flight"

"Whittling your way to air supremacy"


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 17, 2005)

LMFAO


----------



## wmaxt (Mar 17, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> I believe the Hornet (along with the Mosquito) would more properly belong under Posts entitled:
> 
> ...



That's Bad!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 17, 2005)

that's brilliant...........

but i don't like experimantal plane because they're not really combat aircraft and there's no way they could keep those stats up if they were made combat ready.............


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 17, 2005)

I'll go for the F8F. If you really had to, standing stop to 10,000 feet in about a minute. Tough to beat.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 17, 2005)

unless you're in a lightening............

but i'd still fancy the sea fury on a dogfight.........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 17, 2005)

Acutally the XP-47J tests were conducted with an aircraft with six .50 cal. machine guns and ballast in the wings equivalent to 267 rounds per gun.

From http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/P-47M.html : 

The "J" was fitted with a high output version of the P&W R-2800. Specifically, the R-2800-57. This engine made 2,800 hp @ 2,800 rpm at 35,000 feet. This is in War Emergency Power. The aircraft actually attained 507 mph at an altitude of 34,300 feet. 2,800 hp is 133% of rated power. At military power (100%), the XP-47J could sustain 470 mph. 435 mph was attained at 81% of its rated power (1,700 hp). All performance figures were obtained at 34,300 feet. The "J" model was an especially good climbing fighter too. It had a climb rate at sea level of 4,900 fpm. At 20,000 feet, it was still rocketing up at 4,400 fpm, and got there in 4 minutes, 15 seconds. Time to 30,000 feet was only 6 minutes, 45 seconds. Now that's an interceptor! Yet it had a usable range of 1,075 miles. Rather impressive, don't you think? No, this was not a stripped down hotrod. It was fully armed and carried ballast in the wings equal to 267 rds per gun. The aircraft was flown to a height of 46,500 feet and was capable of a bit more.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 17, 2005)

full fuel load??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 17, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> that's brilliant...........
> 
> but i don't like experimantal plane because they're not really combat aircraft and there's no way they could keep those stats up if they were made combat ready.............



So what? This thread has nothing to do with combat readiness.


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 17, 2005)

I mis-spoke


> standing stop to 10,000 feet in about a minute


should have been a minute and a half, and truth be known, actually between, oh, say, 98 and 105 seconds (without going off to look it up).




> unless you're in a lightening............


 
But no, I don't think even the vaunted Lightning could go from a dead stop to 10,000 feet in a minute and a half.

Regards,

Rich


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 17, 2005)

we've been through this before, it's the lightening that stripped the F8F of it's standing stop to 10,000ft record..............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 17, 2005)

Here we go again.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 17, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> we've been through this before, it's the lightening that stripped the F8F of it's standing stop to 10,000ft record..............



Yes, but for a propellor plane the F8F was incredible.


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 17, 2005)

Well Davidicuss, nice little burst of humour there, but if you'd read up some facts, the Hornet was actually wood AND metal constructed...

In fact it was the first type of aircraft in which wood was cemented to metal, a unique method only possible by using a revolutionary new adhesive they had developed then, called Redux....so what the British achieved using WOOD, where there was a shortage of specific metal, and then later using both to create what was one of the world's fastest and most manoevrable piston-engined aircraft, can be seen as nothing less than brilliant....
Furthermore, you would have to look deeply in that era to find... [if you could], a twin that could fly on just one engine as effortlessly as the Hornet did...even with both engines feathered, it was outstanding....it was called ''glide'', something all-metal aircraft had relative difficulty with in the absence of a lot of power....

I feel they hit it right on the button with these two De Havilland aircraft...the Japanese had some of the formula, in the lightness of their aircraft, but the Mosquito and Hornet had that special balance, that gave real power, Merlin power, with an economy, range, durability and ordinance-delivery, that made them Legends......

Really like that new siggy, Lanc...


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 17, 2005)

What's that? Wood and metal? Well, in that case please accept my apology along with the following revisions:

"Pinnacles of Aviation Carpentry with some metal buttressing thrown in for good measure" 

"Woodshop 101 - From sapling to flight with the help of some sheet metal " 

"Termites and the RAF - The hidden war waged amongst a few metal cross-members" 

"You may see a tree and a wheel barrow but I see a multi-engined fighter/attack bomber - Visionaries of flight" 

"Whittling your way to air supremacy with the aid of a metal lathe"

"With my wooden leg and this shovel, we can build a Hornet and fly out of this prison camp - The Great Escape from Stalag 2"


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 17, 2005)

> we've been through this before, it's the lightening that stripped the F8F of it's standing stop to 10,000ft record..............



Ohh, Lightening, as in making it lighter. I see. And what, pray tell, was this lightening; exactly what was removed? And what would be your source for that particular piece of information? 

And I still am not aware of any other late WWII piston engined airplane that did duplicate the events, are you?

Regards,

Rich


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 17, 2005)

Gemhorse said:

"...in which wood was cemented to metal, a unique method only possible by using a revolutionary new adhesive they had developed then, called Redux ..."

Now if the Brits had just concentrated all that know how on making an effective toothpaste, they wouldn't be the brunt of all those bad teeth jokes. Of course, it has to be acknowledged that this technology did advance the science of denture adhesion which inured to the benefit of the British people.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 17, 2005)

Stop with the bad teeth jokes, you've just been watching too much Austin Powers. If you keep up with them I'll start telling stupid American jokes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 17, 2005)

Hold on, I'll make some popcorn!


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 17, 2005)

What do you call an American with one brain cell?
Lucky

What do you call an American with two brain cells?
Pregnant


----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 17, 2005)

I thought those were Newfoundlanders.  

Wait! Did I say that out loud?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 18, 2005)

Indeed I don't think I've ever heard a more stupid, American joke. 

I was thinking that instead of having aircraft named "Spitfire" "Hurricane" "Typhoon" and "Hornet", it would have been more fitting if they named their aircraft:

Supermarine Cavity

Gingivitis Mk. IV

Hawker Halitosis

De Haviland Denture


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 18, 2005)

At least we aren't sad enough to spend 5 hours a day whitening them


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 18, 2005)

Hey enough attacking each other, it was a friendly joke (I hope!  )

Anyway DAVIDICUS, bloody hilarious!  (I am actually a Brit, despite the Italian flag...its just my wishful thinking)



R Leonard said:


> Ohh, Lightening, as in making it lighter. I see. And what, pray tell, was this lightening; exactly what was removed? And what would be your source for that particular piece of information?
> 
> And I still am not aware of any other late WWII piston engined airplane that did duplicate the events, are you?
> 
> ...



Forgive the lanc his bad spelling. He means the English Electric Lightning (Not the P-38 Lightning, in case you were thinking of that...) Although it doesnt really mean much when he says it climbed faster than an F8F, because it was a jet.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 18, 2005)

I am really only kidding of course.

While I am an American, I am of Italian ancestry and plead guilty to the implications of all Italian jokes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 18, 2005)

well he said that no other plane could climb too 10,000ft in under a minute or something like that, so i was simply pointing out the fact that the lightening could do it quicker........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 18, 2005)

He actually said it would be "tough to beat". My guess is he was referring in general to piston planes. Im sure many jets can beat it.


----------



## R Leonard (Mar 18, 2005)

"Pinnacle of achievement for piston engined aircraft in WWII"

Thought that was pretty specific. Guess not. My apologies.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 18, 2005)

It was plenty specific enough, I understood. lanc kinda looks for any excuse to post...


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 19, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> hehe sorry meant the bearcat, the sea fury was equal if not better than the bearcat.........



First of all, the SeaFury did not participate as a "combatant" in WWII. It was never deployed. The Bearcat was, it just didn't reach the combat zone in time (by days).

Secondly, The Bearcat could turn circles around the Seafury, and out climb the hell out of it as well. The Seafury (Mk.10) was a little faster than the Bearcat but not that much.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 19, 2005)

Guys.... WOOD generally means heavier, not lighter!

It takes more weight in wood to achieve the same strength as in duraluminum.

For an example, look at the Yak's, the U models made of metal were lighter (though often this savings was then used to add more systems and/or fuel to the plane, making it heavier).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 19, 2005)

Yeah, but if you are in a Mosquito or Hornet, you can always bite on a chunk of splintered wood that resulted from that 20mm cannon round that blew up next to your arm to get a grip on the pain eminating from your bleeding stump. 

Try that with a piece of aluminum.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

dude i've seen a sea fury in flight, it's got a pretty damned tight turning circle..............


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

It's decent, but not fantastic. It is just a Tempest II in an RN uniform.

The Bearcat is a much smaller plane with a higher power-weight ratio and lower wingloading (and shorter range). It is also the best of what Grumman had learned building the Wildcat and Hellcat plus what they stole off the FW190A.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 20, 2005)

yes but the fury was all of what hawker had learnt, which was allot..........


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 20, 2005)

That was probably it for the Sea Fury's Lanc, although Hawker's fastest ever piston-engined aircraft was a prototype Sea Fury, LA610, which had the Centaurus replaced by a Sabre VII, and clocked around 485 mph....a real nice looking aircraft it was too, with just a slight scoop under the 4 bladed prop, compared to the big radiators the Typhoon/Tempest's had...I don't know why they didn't pursue it further...jet-age I guess....

The Reno Air Races around 1970's-80's evoked some changes to Sea Fury's, when Lloyd Hamilton and Frank Saunders raced their Furies with Pratt Whitney R-4360 ''corn-cob'' engines in place of the Centaurus, mainly because there was no adequate repair facilities and skilled people to work on the Bristol sleeve-valve engines...Called ''Super Sea Fury's'', these two battled away....Saunder's one, called ''Dreadnought'' won the Unlimited Class championship in 1983 with a speed of 446.392 mph...Seems it was a real interesting period there, they had F8F's, Corsairs, Mustangs and Furies all racing....I still catch tit-bits of the races in the ''Classic Wings'' magazine down here.....


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 8, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> This is all true and the engineers thought that the Mossy airframe could be between 15 and 20% lighter if it were made from Aluminum and mildew would not destroy it prematurely?


Congratulations...you have replied to an 11 year old post.

I think this sets a forum record...


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 8, 2016)




----------



## gjs238 (Jul 8, 2016)

Doesn't this mean he has to buy a round of beers for everyone?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 8, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> Doesn't this mean he has to buy a round of beers for everyone?


I think so...

We may need to consult the unwritten "forum customs and bylaws" handbook to be sure!


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Jul 8, 2016)

Isn't there $1000 floating around from a bet somewhere? That could buy some beer for a party.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 9, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> This is all true and the engineers thought that the Mossy airframe could be between 15 and 20% lighter if it were made from Aluminum and mildew would not destroy it prematurely?


I'm not deleting this post because I think others see what an idiot you are

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 9, 2016)

KiwiBiggles said:


> Isn't there $1000 floating around from a bet somewhere? That could buy some beer for a party.


Not if Jan (Lucky13) were around...that would just get him warmed up!


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 9, 2016)

James W. said:


> Poor Sh-ter, I (almost) 'pity the fool', as Mr T puts it..
> If only he'd learn to do a fact check.. or in fact take on board some actual knowledge..
> 
> On a technical subject though, isn't it true.. that 'US beer is so weak, that by the time its run out of the bottle neck, its exhausted'?
> ...


Some U.S. beer is crap, just like any other country's - but there are some that are exceptional, like Samual Adam's Boston Lager, which is one of the few non-German beers in the world that meets the German Purity law of 1516.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 10, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> This is all true and the engineers thought that the Mossy airframe could be between 15 and 20% lighter if it were made from Aluminum and mildew would not destroy it prematurely?



I cant quite believe I am responding to one of Shitters gormless witterings but here goes

Empty weight of a Mosquito bomber with single stage engines was about 13,000pounds. I wonder why no one managed to build a lighter twin engine bomber out of Aluminium if it was so easy. As for Mildew destroying the airframe come on everyone knows Great Britain weather is warm, dry and low humidity where would the mildew come from. Unless it was a plot by some secret agent who was playing the long game and prepared for his evil plan to take 20 years to come to fruition.

I feel dirty now

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 10, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Some U.S. beer is crap, just like any other country's - but there are some that are exceptional, like Samual Adam's Boston Lager, which is one of the few non-German beers in the world that meets the German Purity law of 1516.



20 years ago the average US beer was dreadful with all the taste and body of coloured fizzzy water. Now the rise of the microbrewery means taste has come back to the US I have recently tried several US craft beers and was blown away by how good they were.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 10, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> 20 years ago the average US beer was dreadful with all the taste and body of coloured fizzzy water. Now the rise of the microbrewery means taste has come back to the US I have recently tried several US craft beers and was blown away by how good they were.



My understanding is that US Prohibition killed the independent breweries.
Post Prohibition the US was left with industrial homogenized swill.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 10, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> As for Mildew destroying the airframe come on everyone knows Great Britain weather is warm, dry and low humidity where would the mildew come from.



In any case, in Britain during a time of war they would be quite happy for an airframe to last long enough to get mildew!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 10, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> Empty weight of a Mosquito bomber with single stage engines was about 13,000pounds. I wonder why no one managed to build a lighter twin engine bomber out of Aluminium if it was so easy.



A lot of people did, they just weren't as good 
Douglas DB7s with R-1830s
Russian PE-2s
Japanese KI-48
Others???


----------



## pbehn (Jul 10, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> A lot of people did, they just weren't as good
> Douglas DB7s with R-1830s
> Russian PE-2s
> Japanese KI-48
> Others???


B25 Mitchell.

All have defensive armament, as soon as you put defensive guns on you get a bigger heavier plane.

I am sure North American could have designed a twin engined metal bomber to rival the Mosquito if they could get anyone to think past the idea of a bomber with no guns.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 10, 2016)

Even the NA-40 prototype of the B-25 went almost 14,000lbs empty. Trying for 14,000lbs empty with a pair of R-2600s might take a bit of doing. You have about 3900lbs just for the bare(dry weight) engines. Even the starters and generators add weight. 
Planes listed had 3-4 man crews and pretty much hand aimed RCMGs so defensive armament isn't going to get much lighter. 
Point is there doesn't seem to be 3-4,000 lbs of empty weight (airframe) to spare OK n any of the small bombers that were made.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 10, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Even the NA-40 prototype of the B-25 went almost 14,000lbs empty. Trying for 14,000lbs empty with a pair of R-2600s might take a bit of doing. You have about 3900lbs just for the bare(dry weight) engines. Even the starters and generators add weight.
> Planes listed had 3-4 man crews and pretty much hand aimed RCMGs so defensive armament isn't going to get much lighter.
> Point is there doesn't seem to be 3-4,000 lbs of empty weight (airframe) to spare OK n any of the small bombers that were made.


I was thinking along the lines of the Tigercat but with a fuselage like a Mosquito.

In a hypothetical situation where NA had no work I think they could have designed a metal mosquito and if it had Merlin engines probably about the same weight.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 10, 2016)

pbehn said:


> I was thinking along the lines of the Tigercat but with a fuselage like a Mosquito.
> 
> In a hypothetical situation where NA had no work I think they could have designed a metal mosquito and if it had Merlin engines probably about the same weight.



I am absolutely sure they could have come up with a metal Mossie at about the same weight. But Shitferbrains is talking about a 20% lighter airframe and thats a massive jump. Maybe with modern composites or special Luft46 Unobtanium.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 10, 2016)

Somewhere the weight break downs for a number of air craft was posted. I believe by Neil Stirling.

Here is the thread. Structure weight data and drag analysis.

A Mosquito's wing fuselage and tail weighed under 4000lbs (just under 20% of an all up weight of just under 20,000lbs.) 
cutting 800lbs out of that might be a bit unlikely.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 10, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Somewhere the weight break downs for a number of air craft was posted. I believe by Neil Stirling.
> 
> Here is the thread. Structure weight data and drag analysis.
> 
> ...


Great post SR, you beat me to it with facts. The mosquito has an element of fable about it, calling it the wooden wonder implies that it ran on tree sap, had nectar in its bamboo oil lines and all electrical cables were made from exotic vines. It is usually described as a lightweight design made from wood, the "lightweight design" is its lack of defensive armament as much as being made of wood. It wasn't made from wood hacked from Sherwood forest is was made from very well chosen laminates. It was the material of choice for DH because you can get curves and profiles that are difficult to achieve with metal. The Mosquito looks like a sports plane and in many ways looks out of place in WW2 because it doesnt have rivets all over the place.

Thanks for giving the data to show that a Mossie 20% lighter made from aluminium needs that special aluminium that weighs as much as fresh air.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 10, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Thanks for giving the data to show that a Mossie 20% lighter made from aluminium needs that special aluminium that weighs as much as fresh air.



Or modern FEA to make every gram count.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 10, 2016)

wuzak said:


> Or modern FEA to make every gram count.


There is nothing new under the sun, The de Havilland company made racing planes before the war, how many 1930s bombers were designed with engine cooling inlets in the wing leading edge? Discussion of the Mosquito rarely gets past the fact that it was made of wood, if you could make exactly the same plane out of aluminium it would have been just as revolutionary and successful.


----------

