# Weird World War 2 Facts



## Smokey (Jul 1, 2005)

According to this site
http://www.world-war-2.info/facts/

Here are a few of them.....

* A number of air crewmen died of farts. (ascending to 20,000 ft. in an un-pressurized aircraft causes intestinal gas to expand 300%!)

The dangers of unpressurised aircraft 

* 80% of Soviet males born in 1923 didn't survive World War 2

* Germany lost 40-45% of their aircraft during World War 2 to accidents

Had to be the BF109's landing gear

* The Russians destroyed over 500 German aircraft by ramming them in midair (they also sometimes cleared minefields by marching over them). “It takes a brave man not to be a hero in the Red Army”. - Joseph Stalin

* Generally speaking, there was no such thing as an average fighter pilot. You were either an ace or a target. For instance, Japanese ace Hiroyoshi Nishizawa shot down over 80 planes. He died while a passenger on a cargo plane.

* It was a common practice on fighter planes to load every 5th found with a tracer round to aid in aiming. That was a mistake. The tracers had different ballistics so (at long range) if your tracers were hitting the target, 80% of your rounds were missing. Worse yet, the tracers instantly told your enemy he was under fire and from which direction. Worst of all was the practice of loading a string of tracers at the end of the belt to tell you that you were out of ammo. That was definitely not something you wanted to tell the enemy. Units that stopped using tracers saw their success rate nearly double and their loss rate go down.

* More US servicemen died in the Air Corps that the Marine Corps. While completing the required 30 missions, your chance of being killed was 71%. Not that bombers were helpless. A B-17 carried 4 tons of bombs and 1.5 tons of machine gun ammo. The US 8th Air Force shot down 6,098 fighter planes, 1 for every 12,700 shots fired.

* 6 bomber crewmen were killed for each one wounded

* Over 100,000 Allied bomber crewmen were killed over Europe

* 2/3 of Allied bomber crews were lost for each plane destroyed

* 12,000 heavy bombers were shot down in World War 2

* The highest ranking American killed was Lt. Gen. Lesley McNair, killed by the US Army Air Corps.

* The first American serviceman killed was killed by the Russians (Finland 1940).

* The first German serviceman killed in the war was killed by the Japanese (China, 1937)

* The MISS ME was an unarmed Piper Cub. While spotting for US artillery her pilot saw a similar German plane doing the same thing. He dove on the German plane and he and his co-pilot fired their pistols damaging the German plane enough that it had to make a forced landing. Whereupon they landed and took the Germans prisoner. It is unknown where they put them since the MISS ME only had two seats.

* Following a massive naval bombardment, 35,000 US and Canadian troops stormed ashore at Kiska. 21 troops were killed in the fire-fight. It would have been worse if there had been Japanese on the island.

 

* The Graf Spee never sank, The scuttling attempt failed and the ship was bought by the British. On board was Germany’s newest radar system.

* The German Air Force had 22 infantry divisions, 2 armor divisions, and 11 paratroop divisions. None of them were capable of airborne operations. The German Army had paratroops who WERE capable of airborne operations.

* The average German officer slot had to be refilled 9.2 times

* Air attacks caused 1/3 of German Generals' deaths

* Most members of the Waffen SS were not German

There are many more on the site

http://www.world-war-2.info/facts/


----------



## evangilder (Jul 1, 2005)

I find some of those a bit suspicious.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2005)

I don't take many of those as 'facts'. They'd need to be proved.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 1, 2005)

Me too.


But this one is just funny 



> * Following a massive naval bombardment, 35,000 US and Canadian troops stormed ashore at Kiska. 21 troops were killed in the fire-fight. It would have been worse if there had been Japanese on the island


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2005)

Yeah: T
The Graf Spee did sink!


----------



## Smokey (Jul 1, 2005)

Yeah I found some of them suspicious as well, particularly the claim about the Graf Spee not sinking


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2005)

I wonder where they got that stuff from?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2005)

Probably because there's no pictures of the Graf Spee actually sinking, only of it on fire. They wanted to fool young children into believing that it's the truth! Poor young children...poor-poor-poor young children...

It's the same kind of thing when people say "Dogs can't look up" and stupid people believe them without actually thinking to themselves..."What do wolves do when they howl?" or "They look up at me all the time"


----------



## Smokey (Jul 1, 2005)

I found this on the following site
http://www.wilk4.com/humor/humorm175.htm
_The Graf Spee never sank. The scuttling attempt failed and the ship was bought as scrap by the British. On board was Germany's newest radar system._

The Graf Spee did sink when scuttled, but only in waters less than 25 ft deep. It was not bought as scrap by the British, and in fact lay in the silt in the River Plate estuary in Uruguay. An effort is being made to raise her to turn her into a ship museum. See "Salvage Team Prepares to Raise WWII Ship" for more details of her sinking and the recovery effort. (Thanks to Lewis Perelman for the info)
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1104786,00.html

Bado said the recovery team would first try to remove a 27-ton communications tower equipped with early radar and what was then sophisticated sighting equipment for its 11-inch guns.

“The radar was one of the first to be used in that era,” said Bado, whose group has private funding and Uruguayan government backing for the operation which could take years.

“(The Graf Spee) will be rebuilt on land and will be the best ship museum in the world," said Bado. "This is the last salvageable German battleship."









So it sank in shallow waters and is being recovered

http://www.lummifilm.com/grafspee/about.html




http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/panzerschiffe/admiralgrafspee/photos.html


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 1, 2005)

When I was about 7 my cousin told me Michael Jackson was dead. I belived it for about 4 years


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2005)

If only it was true. Shame on your cousin for getting your hopes up like that!


----------



## Smokey (Jul 1, 2005)

_A number of air crewmen died of farts. (ascending to 20,000 ft. in an un-pressurized aircraft causes intestinal gas to expand 300%!)_
With increasing altitude, gases within body cavities expand (according to Boyle’s law; see above and Table 2-6). Such expansion does not result in any difficulty if the concomitant pressure can be relieved. However, if the gases are "trapped" in an organ with inelastic walls and the gases continue to expand within the walls of the organ, some degree of pain and other clinical symptoms and signs may be experienced.




Flight at even low cabin altitudes may cause sutures to rupture. Gas can expand, exerting pressure on the blood vessels and the optic nerve. This could lead to internal bleeding.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fnihb/ons/nursing/resources/transportation_guidelines/chapter_2.htm

Gases expand by a factor of 2.4 at 20,000ft. That is an expansion of 140% and could be bad news in an unpressurised aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 1, 2005)

mm, i'd rather see sorces for some of those stats....


----------



## Glider (Jul 1, 2005)

The Graff Spree didn't sink. She was scuttled but in shallow water and was boarded soon after. In the after magazine they found a fused 11in shell hanging over a pile of shells on a chared rope that hadn't broken. 
We were able to get a lot of information from the wreckage.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2005)

Just because it only went down in 25 feet (which has been mentioned previously), it doesn't mean it didn't sink. Also, what did we learn from the ship? 

Also, is it Graf Spree or Graf Spee? I see it different all the time, it's quite annoying. Especially when you're trying to say it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 2, 2005)

i've always seen it as Spee...........


----------



## Smokey (Jul 2, 2005)

It sounds like it took some time to sink, allowing search parties to have a look around before it sank.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2005)

Its Graf Spee.

And it seems they are going through with it.



> More than 64 years after the Graf Spee's captain scuttled his pocket battleship off Uruguay to stop it falling into British hands, divers have raised part of the vessel.
> 
> 
> A part of the Graf Spee is raised
> ...



Personally I hope they send it back to Germany and allow it to be rebuilt there. Just my opinion but that is where she belongs.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jul 2, 2005)

I dont know of anyone dying of rupture due to internal gas but I wouldnt doubt that it could happen.

One WWII and Korea vet Ive talked to many times who was a B-17 Top Turret gunner / Flight Engineer stated he knew of a few instances where bombers would turn back because one of the crew couldnt relieve the pressure. He said it happened to him once as well but only slightly. He said they completed the mission but he was in a decent amount of pain the entire time. After that he stated that he altered his diet somewhat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2005)

I know that sometimes when we fly at high alltitudes and we are not pressurized just like the B-17 and B-24, if you have a built up of gas it can cause some pain in your abdomen that can feel pretty bad. When this happens we just go back down to a lower alltitude. Most of the time thought it is only noticed when we do a really fast climb or so. Most of the time though you never feel something like this.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 4, 2005)

This's quite remarkable, did you know that the highest known interception by an unpressurized, was made by G. Reynolds breathing only a conventional air supply, at 49,500ft!! This was in a "speacailly prepared" Spitfire VC operating from No.103MU near alexandria in august 1942, when he damaged a pressurised Ju-86P......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 4, 2005)

Interesting, since the Ju-86P couldnt fly at 49,500ft....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2005)

No the Ju-86P could not fly that high however the Ju-86R could. It may have been a Ju-86R which was built in limited production being only a few.



> In January 1940 the Luftwaffe tested the new prototype Ju 86P that had a longer wing span, pressurized cabin, Jumo 207A diesel engines with twin turbochargers and only two man crew. The Ju 86P could fly at heights of 12,000 m, where it was safe from enemy fighters.
> 
> Some 40 old bombers were converted to Ju 86P-1 high altitude bombers and Ju 86P-2 photo reconnaissance aircraft. Those operated successfully for some years over Britain, the Soviet Union and North Africa. In August 1942 a modified Spitfire V shot one down over Egypt, and when two more were lost, Ju 86Ps were withdrawn from service 1943.
> 
> ...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 4, 2005)

No the Ju-86R couldnt either. Only a bit higher than the Ju-86P.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2005)

I dont know I have read conflicting reports on that, that say the Ju-86R could climb to 16000m which is about 48,000ft. I have also seen reports that say it was only about 45,000ft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 5, 2005)

Well CC, the nice people at GUINNESS, the poeple that do all this record stuff, state only that the spitfire intercepted and destroyed a "Ju-86P-2 high altitude pressurised aircraft" and that the altitude the aircraft was intercepted at, 49,500ft, is eqivilant to 15,090m, and quite frankly, i trust them far more than i trust you..........

is it not also possible that the -86, if it was a P and not an R, was also flying higher than normall?? when an aircraft reaches the ceiling used in all the books, it won't suddenly stop, she will be able to gain altitude still.........


----------



## plan_D (Jul 5, 2005)

Not for very far though. My dad was in Germany with a Wessex and they went out for a buzz with the Luftwaffe SAR Hueys. And they climbed up the side of a mountain in their helicopters and the Wessex had to stop because it reached it's ceiling, the pilot sat one wheel down on the mountain while the Huey kept rising. 

Anyway, I believe lanc because I've read reports of Spitfire VI and VII intercepting Ju-86s at altitudes from 45,000 feet to 50,000 feet.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jul 5, 2005)

Im going with Lanc and saying its true. Ive read before that the P and R could get upwards of 52000'!! These were books I was checking out in the library so I dont exactly remember what they were.

Just for example that the listed ceiling isnt the limit the highest flying B-29 was Frank Armstrongs Fluffy Fuzz IV, it went higher than 49000' when the listed ceiling for a B-29 was around 31000'. This was a basic run of the mill B-29 too.

Ive also talked to a few veterans who flew in B-36's during the Cold War. They had Featherweight III's and a few talked about going over 65000' and being required to wear pressure suits!


----------



## plan_D (Jul 5, 2005)

It's the same with the EE Lightning, it's always reported as having an altitude of 60,000 feet but that's only because it's altimeter only goes up to 60,000!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2005)

I think where the confusion lies here is what type of ceiling are we talking about. "Service Ceiling" is the maximum density altitude where the best rate-of climb airspeed will produce a 100 feet-per-minute climb at maximum weight while in a clean configuration with maximum continuous power. Now as you can see this definition is given in "Density Altitude" which changes with temperature and air pressure. I have found that many publications imply that this is the maximum altitude the aircraft could fly. NOT TRUE. If you notice the key is the ability of the aircraft to still produce 100' per minute in a climb. Now "Absolute Ceiling" is the height that an aircraft horizontal in flight can maintain and ususally this speed is just above the aircraft's stall speed providing the engine is still producing thrust. There's a big difference between the two.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 5, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think where the confusion lies here is what type of ceiling are we talking about. "Service Ceiling" is the maximum density altitude where the best rate-of climb airspeed will produce a 100 feet-per-minute climb at maximum weight while in a clean configuration with maximum continuous power. Now as you can see this definition is given in "Density Altitude" which changes with temperature and air pressure. I have found that many publications imply that this is the maximum altitude the aircraft could fly. NOT TRUE. If you notice the key is the ability of the aircraft to still produce 100' per minute in a climb. Now "Absolute Ceiling" is the height that an aircraft horizontal in flight can maintain and ususally this speed is just above the aircraft's stall speed providing the engine is still producing thrust. There's a big difference between the two.



Exactly right! Good explanation Flyboy.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > I think where the confusion lies here is what type of ceiling are we talking about. "Service Ceiling" is the maximum density altitude where the best rate-of climb airspeed will produce a 100 feet-per-minute climb at maximum weight while in a clean configuration with maximum continuous power. Now as you can see this definition is given in "Density Altitude" which changes with temperature and air pressure. I have found that many publications imply that this is the maximum altitude the aircraft could fly. NOT TRUE. If you notice the key is the ability of the aircraft to still produce 100' per minute in a climb. Now "Absolute Ceiling" is the height that an aircraft horizontal in flight can maintain and ususally this speed is just above the aircraft's stall speed providing the engine is still producing thrust. There's a big difference between the two.
> ...



Thanks wmaxt!


----------



## Smokey (Jul 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> It's the same with the EE Lightning, it's always reported as having an altitude of 60,000 feet but that's only because it's altimeter only goes up to 60,000!



The altimeter only goes up to 60,000 ft? Is that because the designers thought the fuel would run out before it reached 60,000 ft?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 5, 2005)

It can reach 60,000 feet in just over one minute. Are you saying the EE Lightning can only fly for 2 minutes?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2005)

An aneroid altimeter looses it effectivness at those altitudes as well.


----------



## Smokey (Jul 6, 2005)

Well, I heard the Lightning was a very thirsty bird 
I also heard it could supercruise back in the 50s.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

I never said I was not against Lanc, I am just going by the figures but as he stated in most cases an aircraft flies higher than what it says. It is completly possible what Lanc is saying.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 6, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think where the confusion lies here is what type of ceiling are we talking about. "Service Ceiling" is the maximum density altitude where the best rate-of climb airspeed will produce a 100 feet-per-minute climb at maximum weight while in a clean configuration with maximum continuous power. Now as you can see this definition is given in "Density Altitude" which changes with temperature and air pressure. I have found that many publications imply that this is the maximum altitude the aircraft could fly. NOT TRUE. If you notice the key is the ability of the aircraft to still produce 100' per minute in a climb. Now "Absolute Ceiling" is the height that an aircraft horizontal in flight can maintain and ususally this speed is just above the aircraft's stall speed providing the engine is still producing thrust. There's a big difference between the two.



Viable explanation 8) The figures I was basing my point of view on were service ceiling. This explains it 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

So then what would be the Absolute Cieleings?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 6, 2005)

The EE Lightning was thirsty, it only achieved a combat radius of 450 miles. It wasn't designed to go any further, it was an interceptor. I've never heard of the Lightning achieving super-cruise. It's cruise speed was Mach 0.87 - if I remember correctly.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

Could she really achieve 60,000ft in just over a minute. That seems a bit high.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 6, 2005)

I believe it.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 6, 2005)

Initial climb rate of 50,000 feet per minute - it could do another 10,000 feet in a few seconds at full re-heat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

Actually you are right I just looked it up myself and it says 50,000ft per min initial climb rate.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So then what would be the Absolute Cieleings?



Many aircraft manufacturers won'tpost that. WHY? Because folks will try to fly it! Case in point - Very recently two commuter pilots took a Bombardier RJ up to it's max service ceiling. Within 5 minutes at 42,000 the aircraft experienced a double flame out. These guys crashed and died. I think it's in the NTSB blotter.

This is your brain. This is your brain at max service ceiling


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

Well yeah I can understand that but you would think for the old WW2 aircraft and such that wuold be known.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 6, 2005)

Hmmm, lets see, brains, speed and altitiude. I guys those idiots had 2 out of three!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2005)

Yep- I think sometimes the numbers are published, mainly in recip aircraft, they are a bit more forgiving at their absolute altitude.

Jets are not fun when they flame out and airstarts, if successful usually mean hot section inspections at a minimum!


----------



## evangilder (Jul 6, 2005)

Very dangerous position to be in. I have seen it on numerous occasions. They have all been "sphincter tinglers"


----------



## Glider (Jul 7, 2005)

I am not familiar with the phrase super cruise, but the lightning could go supersonic without using afterburner if that is what you mean by supercruise. This doesn't mean that it could be considered a cruise speed which I think most people would consider to be a speed that could be maintained for a considerable time. 0.87 sounds about right for a true cruise speed.
The extra thrust without going to afterburner was sometimes used to give the aircraft acceleration and regain energy without draining the tanks dry which was sometimes the only option with other planes of the era.

The lightning had a number of other firsts for which it wasn't given credit for. The Red Top guided missile was the first Infa Red missile that had a head on (or all aspect) capability which is a significant tactical advantage.
The radar was also unusually automated for the time which also helped.
The climb rate of 60,000ft/min is accurate and it was interesting when Phantoms took on Lightnings in exercises as USA Phantom pilots tended to go vertical which didn't work against the Lightning. 
One quirk was that when fitted with drop tanks they were above the wing not below. The range was poor but no worse than the F104, Mirage or Mig 21 which were its main rivals. F4's could of course go a lot further.

The lightning could almost the a contender for the best plane that never sold in signifiant numbers award.


----------



## Smokey (Jul 7, 2005)

From Thunder Lightnings http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/memories.html


> They developed a powerful air conditioning system to keep the pilots cool. Semi-conductors would not work above 65°C, so they stuck to using vacuum-tube avionics, even for the radar. It was a monster item of equipment, weighing in at slightly over half a ton. Its pulse-Doppler search and track were basic, but the valve technology and its awesome power gave it unmatched power to burn through the thickest electronic jamming to a range of fifty miles, *it would kill a rabbit at one kilometre if activated on the ground.*



Is this true?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 7, 2005)

I do not know about the part you made bold but the Lightning had an impressive 120 degree RADAR. That's more coverage than many RADARs on aircraft these days - that's because aircraft these days use AWACs to guide them.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 7, 2005)

Having worked around that stuff in the air force, I kind of doubt it. The reason is that it only had a 50 mile range, so the power coming out of the feedhorn should not have been that hot. But the sentence is worded oddly, so it may mean that it could get 50 miles _through_ jamming. Now if that is the case, I can believe it. Standing in front of it would have been dangerous for anyone or anything on the ground.

But I do have a question. Where did they mount that gear and more importantly, where did they mount the radar antenna? Couldn't have been in the nose.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

I believe it was placed in a cone in the inlet.



> The P.1 was retroactively designated the "P.1A". The P.1B was to feature twin Rolls-Royce Avon afterburning engines; a larger tailfin; airborne intercept (AI) radar in a cone in the inlet, which was changed from elliptical to circular
> http://www.vectorsite.net/aveeltg.html


----------



## evangilder (Jul 7, 2005)

Hmm, didn't know that. I would think vibration and possible heat might cause problems with that. But then again, I only worked on the ground based stuff.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

I might be wrong, I am just going off of what I read in the last few minutes through a search.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2005)

Smokey said:


> From Thunder Lightnings http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/memories.html
> 
> 
> > They developed a powerful air conditioning system to keep the pilots cool. Semi-conductors would not work above 65°C, so they stuck to using vacuum-tube avionics, even for the radar. It was a monster item of equipment, weighing in at slightly over half a ton. Its pulse-Doppler search and track were basic, but the valve technology and its awesome power gave it unmatched power to burn through the thickest electronic jamming to a range of fifty miles, *it would kill a rabbit at one kilometre if activated on the ground.*
> ...



TRUE - I read te MIG-25's Radar could do the same!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

How effective was the Mig-25's radar. How far out could it detect enemy aircraft and such not.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2005)

In it's day it was the most powerful airborne radar. I'm not in a position to post stats (traveling again for work) but I've read this on several occasions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

I also have heard the same as you are stating it was built to combat the high flyng US spy planes and such not.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 7, 2005)

I hope your some place nice, FBJ.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I hope your some place nice, FBJ.



Thanks Evan - I'm in temecula again, working on a twin otter, hopefully it will fly today. Had a fuel leak yesterday


----------



## evangilder (Jul 7, 2005)

Temecula, not bad! Ugh, fuel leaks! I was hoping you might be up our way. Oh well, maybe one of these days.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Temecula, not bad! Ugh, fuel leaks! I was hoping you might be up our way. Oh well, maybe one of these days.



Yea, I'm hoping! If the Camarillio airshow doesn't work out, I'm going to try to hook up with Doug (the guy who owns the L-29 I fly) and od Point Mugu.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 7, 2005)

That'd work, just down the street from the museum.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

Damn that sucks, I hate working with anything that has to do with the fuel system.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2005)

Fixed it! Pilots are here, hopefully the FCF will go well!


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jul 7, 2005)

I really really doubt it would kill a rabbit or much less anything else especially at that distance. Power dissipates at 1/R^2 (not to mention antenna focus and pulse power) so by one km your down considerably from what you started with. If you think about it and this radar was so powerful why not use it as a death ray of sorts.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 7, 2005)

I remember when I was in the AF, radar maintenance was working on an antenna and had the thing facing downward. Someone inadvertently turned it on for a moment while it was in that position. It bubbled the paint off a staff car 100 yards away! It was a damn good thing no one was standing out there, or in the staff car.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jul 7, 2005)

I'm not discrediting that at all Evan. But you'd have to have a damn lot of power to kill a rabbit. I'd really like to see some info on this radar! Maybe I'll get to finally use some of those equations that were driven into my brain last semester!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2005)

This has been documented, I'll have to find it.

I worked on B737-800s, it had very powerful weather radar. We were told this could also "cook things" that ran in front of the radome. It was able to paint terrian targets (buildings and mountains) when sitting on the ground.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 7, 2005)

I hear you, Dave. Alot of it depends on beam focus. If tight from the feedhorn and the geometry of the dish is to the right spec, you can have a very narrow beam leaving the dish that has a majority of the power in a tight circle. I worked on tropo shots as well as other radio gear in the AF. Depending on the power output, you can cook something very quickly.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2005)

Well our aviation technicians use some kind of hand held radar (do not ask me too much info about it I do not know what kind or how powerful it is but I will ask them at work tomorrow) that can supposably fry your nuts if you are in front of it. 

It wont kill you but will make you shoot blanks for the rest of your life. They use it to test out our APR-39's which let us know the location of SAM's.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 13, 2005)

Continuous wave radar of the type found in the majority of fire control systems focuses the beam along a steady bearing as it illuminates a target, and they're very powerful. They can and will kill unprotected creatures, even at fair distances. The frequency, power, and beam focus of tactical and higher powered navigational pulse and pulse-doppler radars _will_ cause harm to anyone standing in front of them, but I didn't think EE Lightnings carried anything quite powerful enough to kill rabbits from the air _or_ the ground.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2005)

Interesting info there NS good stuff.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 17, 2005)

My understanding on this was the radar could kill critters while the aircraft was on the ground.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 17, 2005)

Oh probably, I was just being a smartass. 
Seeing as how it's PD's fav plane and all.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 17, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Oh probably, I was just being a smartass.
> Seeing as how it's PD's fav plane and all.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 17, 2005)

You know, NS, I'm going to get a F.6 Lightning to fly Mach 2.3 and ram it's pitot right up your arse. How's that sound?  

I don't know if the Lightning's RADAR could kill a rabbit - but then they hardly turned their RADAR on while on the ground anyway, maybe that's why. You'd get loads of dead rabbits all over the airfield...


----------



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

and they'd proberly all get sucked into the engines as it was taking off


----------



## plan_D (Jul 17, 2005)

There is actually such thing as rabbit strike. When one is stupid enough to be on the runway when an aircraft is landing or taking off. It's never too healthy for the undercarriage - a bit messy too, I'm told. Several Lightnings took rabbit strikes to their undercarriage - at a 190 MPH landing speed, the rabbit doesn't have much a chance to get out of the way.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2005)

Damn that would suck. Bird strikes suck pretty bad. We had one go through the center windscreen at 150kts. You heard a really loud pop and then a large splatter of blood everywhere and then a poof of feathers all through the cockpit and cabin. The passengers thought we had been hit and the crew wounded because there was blood everywhere and they were screaming. It sucked but I could do nothing but laugh afterwards.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 18, 2005)

If the crew had been hit, how would they explain the cloud of feathers?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 18, 2005)

When I was working Flight for Life, my helicopter got a birdstrike a year before I started. The crew was transporting a baby, a Hawk just missed the flight nurse's head! The pilot, an old Viet Nam Loach pilot landed the heicopter on a football field with no further damage. The heilcopter was repaied and put back into service. When I was woking there and pulling major inspections, once and awhile I would still find feathers!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 18, 2005)

God bless the old timers.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 18, 2005)

In the Nimrod station in RAF Finningley they used to have pictures of aircraft that had landed after bird strikes - they can cause some serious damage! Wings with massive holes in them, engines ripped to shreds, tails almost cut in half! If anyone is wondering why there was a Nimrod at Finningley (which you're probably not) it's what they trained AWACs flight crews - Finningley became a training base - and then add Nimrod to the list of aircraft my dad has worked on.   

An airliner landed here yesterday (at the airport - yes, we have an airport!  ) that suffered a bird strike to the tail. They had to replace the whole leading section of the tail because of a massive dint in it.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> An airliner landed here yesterday (at the airport - yes, we have an airport!  ) that suffered a bird strike to the tail. They had to replace the whole leading section of the tail because of a massive dint in it.



A number of years ago here at Mountain Home AFB, there was a F-4 Phantom that had a bird srike which destroyed the canopy and severly injured the pilot. The RIO managed to land the aircraft safely without throttle control but it was a very close thing.

wmaxt


----------



## plan_D (Jul 18, 2005)

They test every single airliner windscreen by firing a pigeon at it at 400 knots with a gas powered cannon. If it cracks - the windscreen fails, just to avoid any thing like that ever happening.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> They test every single airliner windscreen by firing a pigeon at it at 400 knots with a gas powered cannon. If it cracks - the windscreen fails, just to avoid any thing like that ever happening.



STORY-TIME: When I worked for Lockheed, I used to audit purchase orders for procurement requirements and someone was buying 2 dozen chickens, so naturally I question this....

The engineer who wanted these items told me they were for testing of a new L1011 windshield configuration being offered to operators as an optional service bulletin, so naturally they had to used the chicken for the bird strike testing.

The first round of testing didn't go to well. The company hired by Lockheed to conduct the test used an old Locomotive as a test platform for the newly designed windshield. (Apparently the dimensions of the locomotives windshield was similar to the 1011s). When they fired the first "bird" at the windshield, it crashed through the plexiglass and frame, broke the "pilot's seat back off the rest of the chair and went through the bulkhead behind the "pilot." It turned out the chickens were frozen, no one told the test engineers to defrost them for the tests! Believe it or not these brainiacks did it again and destroyed both windshield test assemblies before they realized something was wrong!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 18, 2005)

Ah, engineers! They can tell you the square root of a pickle jar, but damned if they know how to get the lid off!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 19, 2005)

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> that story's brilliant.........



The whole program was put 2 months behind schedule because of the frozen chickens!


----------



## trackend (Jul 19, 2005)

Perhaps they where trying to cover all the bases and thinking of birds that could fly too fifty thousand feet then suffer from frost bite.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 19, 2005)

I had heard that story before, but with a slightly different twist. It's funny either way! So the moral of the stroy, FBJ is while flying, avoid the frozen chickens!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2005)

3 things I lay claim to being involved with in my aviation career....

1. The frozen chicken

2. the $700.00 P-3 toliet seat

3. B-2 #5 AKA "Christine"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> If the crew had been hit, how would they explain the cloud of feathers?



That is why I was laughing. They obvioulsy were so scared that they did not even think it could have been a bird.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 20, 2005)

Im sure ive heard that story before too, great


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2005)

The chickhen story spread like wildfire after I heard about it.....

The P-3 toilet seat was a one piece fiberglass fire-resistant assembly. It was a seat and cover combined, about the size of a medium size TV. It actually costs $670.00 with a 10% profit margin. When the media got a hold of this story they so twisted it around it was criminal. Lockheed actually overcharged the government about $35.00


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2005)

The companies overcharge the government all the time though. A bolt that costs 10 cents to make they sell for 10 dollars.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2005)

Yep! I heard a story where Boeing wanted to charge the Air Force $800.00 for a kit of washers used to put seats on the KC-135. An enterprising mechanic drilled holes in pennys and used them for the washers!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2005)

It really is crazy. The troop seats in the blackhawk cost over a hundred dollars I could go to th store buy the same material and make it myself and save the army about 50 bucks.


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 20, 2005)

I agree the price is sometimes way to high but something to consider

I spent 3 years converting the production line from the mid '90s mid sized Chevy cars to the '98+ models. Total program cost from design to production was over a Billion dollars. Just designing the tools and converting the plant cost over 100 million and took 3 1/2 years (the first 3 involved 1 production line installed, tested and developed the proper tool configurations) with as many as 1,000 people on it at one time on the demo/install alone.

The tremendos cost is the work behind the product and the infrastructure.

I'm sure I just stated what you already know but interestingly I heard once that things got cut back on a few programs about 20% (in the '80s) and the contractors managed just fine.  

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2005)

You are pretty much correct but it still could be cut down.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2005)

But that is an internal expense to deliver a product wmaxt. Where the thievery lies is in the spares market. When a government contractor ups spares prices 1000% well, they should be shot!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2005)

Agreed!


----------



## wmaxt (Jul 20, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> But that is an internal expense to deliver a product wmaxt. Where the thievery lies is in the spares market. When a government contractor ups spares prices 1000% well, they should be shot!



I agree with the spares/replacement part, I just wanted to point out some of the hidden costs. However if it's a 1 off item without any remaining tooling, allowances need to be made. In construction we have "Time and Materials" clause for things like that.

The other thing is that many times the product costs suddenly get better when a recession threatens cancelation of that product. 

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > But that is an internal expense to deliver a product wmaxt. Where the thievery lies is in the spares market. When a government contractor ups spares prices 1000% well, they should be shot!
> ...



Yep - same thing in aircraft manufacturing, and that's reasonable when its put out on the table. Many defense contractors "slip" these ridiculous costs through green procurement "specialists" who don't know the difference between the elbow and arsehole!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2005)

LOL I like the way you put that one.


----------



## batsguy (Jul 22, 2005)

I am new to this site and an trying to ask if there is any information about a Mark Willey relating to the ME-262?


----------



## evangilder (Jul 22, 2005)

That's a bit vague, batsguy. What info do you have and what are you looking for?


----------



## batsguy (Jul 22, 2005)

sorry about the Vague...What I understand is that this Mark Willey worked on the Me-262 project...there was a recent (1943) quote about a request by Adolf Hitler for info on the bomb rack implementation on the Jet. Apparently this Mark Willey worked under Herman Goering. I just wanted to know if there was some history on this guy.


----------



## vanir (Jul 23, 2005)

I read something about MiG 25 radars, one of the aircraft of which I've got plenty of stats laying around.


> How effective was the Mig-25's radar. How far out could it detect enemy aircraft and such not.


Sapfire-25 fire control Radar. Search range 100km. Tracking range 75km. Contained in nose forward of avionics compartment housing RSBN-6S short range navigational radar, SP50 ILS, RVUM radio altimeter and ARK10 radio compass (among other things).

I've also read rabbits were sometimes fried on the runway due to its power. Cold war interceptors especially were designed with very powerful, focused beams due to the advent of countermeasures.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 23, 2005)

Focused beams are a standard property of fire-control radars. That's how they function. They illuminate a target for missiles to lock onto. In the case of passive homing missiles, like the old AIM-7 Sparrow, the aircraft's fire-control radar must remain locked onto the target so that the missile can track it. Newer types like the AIM-120 AMRAAM have their own built in active radar. "Fire and forget."


----------



## vanir (Jul 23, 2005)

I was under the impression pulse-doppler radars used a pulse and doppler effect rather than outright signal strength to "paint targets" with, overcoming distance and countermeasures obstacles differently.
Just my own assumption, I'm no tech expert on radars.

This includes the assumption early fire-control radars provided a very narrow tracking beam compared to the pulse-doppler, which allowed the advent of "lookdown-shootdown" capability and as avionics evolved, multiple target tracking.

AIM 7's were brought out with the F4, which pioneered pulse-doppler radar for the US air arms, bringing lookdown-shootdown in on the F4N, I think.
Fire control radar was generally used with much earlier IR guided missiles, with typical tracking ranges not more than 5km (MiG 21). The MiG 25 offered 50km range SARH AAM's, typically two carried with two IR AAMs of the same type. As such it was a bit of an oddity using a basic, although very high powered fire control radar with a medium range, radar guided missile. However this system was unreliable enough to maintain the carriage of IR seeker heads on half its MRMs.

Part of the infamous "turkey shoot" against Libyan MiG-23's by US F-15's and F-16's was due to the export MiGs being fitted with the MiG-21's basic fire control radar from its original pulse-doppler, which downgraded their weapons capabilities significantly.

Again, I'm not an expert though and I guess I'm just posting anecdote at best.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 23, 2005)

Pulse-doppler radar is used to track targets, yes. But what are generally referred to as "fire-control" radars use the continuous wave principle. That is, they emit a steady, focused, high powered wave that continuously illuminates a target for missiles to lock onto, and in the case of passive homing missiles like the AIM-7, to "track". The missile basically follows the radar wave to the target. Most modern fighter radars employ both functions anyway. Some shipboard radars do too.
Most newer radar guided missiles have built-in active tracking/homing radar that works by pulse-doppler, so this could all just be confusion due to context. 

Infrared missiles (IR) use thermal detectors to track an enemy's heat signature. It's not radar.


----------



## Smokey (Jul 23, 2005)

Heres an early IR missile, the Messerschmitt Enzian ("Gentian Violet")

















http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/enzian.html
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/rpav_germany_mess.html
http://www.walter-rockets.i12.com/missiles/enzian2.htm



> The first flights which began in May 1944 (1-12), were made to investigate the performance of the power plant, launching units, launch conditions and longitudinal stability.Dr Wurster and Willi Messerschmitt were both certain that Enzian was a viable unit, but the project was cancelled early in 1945, officially coming to a halt on 17th January when a general order stopping work on all projects was issued.



Imagine if this had more investment and went operational in 44.


----------



## vanir (Jul 23, 2005)

> I was under the impression pulse-doppler radars used a pulse and doppler effect rather than outright signal strength to "paint targets" with, overcoming distance and countermeasures obstacles differently.
> 
> 
> > Pulse-doppler radar is used to track targets, yes. But what are generally referred to as "fire-control" radars use the continuous wave principle. That is, they emit a steady, focused, high powered wave that continuously illuminates a target for missiles to lock onto, and in the case of passive homing missiles like the AIM-7, to "track". The missile basically follows the radar wave to the target. Most modern fighter radars employ both functions anyway. Some shipboard radars do too.
> > Most newer radar guided missiles have built-in active tracking/homing radar that works by pulse-doppler, so this could all just be confusion due to context.


Okay so it's unresolved. It'd be interesting to get a handle on this...wasn't there a radar operator or tech on the site somewhere?


> Infrared missiles (IR) use thermal detectors to track an enemy's heat signature. It's not radar.


Yes but early fighters like the F-104 and MiG 21 used fire control radars in conjunction with both (often narrow aspect) IR seeker heads and radar linked gunsights in combat. They didn't use radar homing missiles at all. These are typically very short range systems however, since continuous signal strength has a wide range of problems over large distances, namely it disperses and is refracted easily by nothing more than atmosphere and weather.
Early US testing with radar homing missiles was of dubious accuracy, again accepted by military doctrine at ranges of around 5-10km at best until the advent of the pulse-doppler/AIM-7 system.
The F4B I think used early fire control radar in conjunction with AIM-7's but their success rate was marginal compared to early AIM-9's. Pilots celebrated the introduction of the F4N for its ability to use the medium range missiles with some degree of accuracy, aside from the obvious benefits of lookdown-shootdown capability which the earlier fire control radar did not have.
This suggests to me the pulse-doppler and early fire control radar use completely different signals to guide SA radar homing missiles with.

I mean it seems to me with a bit of imagination, a pulse doppler would be different to fire control radar tracking systems in the way its guides missiles thus:
continuous signal strength, disperses widely over short distances and is refracted easily, missile guidence heads (SARH), need to be set not too sensitively so as not to go chasing every cloud that reflects a bit of signal or shooting off when a cold weather patch is crossed. Short range is best (ie. falcon missiles)
pulse-doppler effect, radar pulses are combined with avionics software to identify and range targets across a wider band of signal dispersion, less likely to follow refractions of signals that don't add up to primary target-lock ranging, guidence heads (SARH) can be set more sensitively. Long range should present fewer troubles (ie. sparrow missiles).
But importantly radar search ranges prior to and after the adoption of pulse doppler tracking systems was not significantly altered. Generally when I read "fire control radar" as opposed to "pulse doppler radar" the text is describing the way weapons are delivered by that aircraft's avionics.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 23, 2005)

vanir said:


> Okay so it's unresolved. It'd be interesting to get a handle on this...wasn't there a radar operator or tech on the site somewhere?


Yes there is. Me.


vanir said:


> Yes but early fighters like the F-104 and MiG 21 used fire control radars in conjunction with both (often narrow aspect) IR seeker heads and radar linked gunsights in combat. They didn't use radar homing missiles at all. These are typically very short range systems however, since continuous signal strength has a wide range of problems over large distances, namely it disperses and is refracted easily by nothing more than atmosphere and weather.


Absolutely true. Early pulse and pulse-doppler radars were and are used for tracking targets as I said. The target lock of an IR missile still depends on acquiring a thermal lock though. No heat signature, no kill. The pulse-doppler radar of the aircraft has nothing to do with the actual missile lock, only the tracking of the target by the aircraft.


vanir said:


> Early US testing with radar homing missiles was of dubious accuracy, again accepted by military doctrine at ranges of around 5-10km at best until the advent of the pulse-doppler/AIM-7 system.
> The F4B I think used early fire control radar in conjunction with AIM-7's but their success rate was marginal compared to early AIM-9's. Pilots celebrated the introduction of the F4N for its ability to use the medium range missiles with some degree of accuracy, aside from the obvious benefits of lookdown-shootdown capability which the earlier fire control radar did not have.
> This suggests to me the pulse-doppler and early fire control radar use completely different signals to guide SA radar homing missiles with.


Yes, early test results were highly dubious. Ya got me there.



vanir said:


> I mean it seems to me with a bit of imagination, a pulse doppler would be different to fire control radar tracking systems in the way its guides missiles thus:
> continuous signal strength, disperses widely over short distances and is refracted easily, missile guidence heads (SARH), need to be set not too sensitively so as not to go chasing every cloud that reflects a bit of signal or shooting off when a cold weather patch is crossed. Short range is best (ie. falcon missiles)
> pulse-doppler effect, radar pulses are combined with avionics software to identify and range targets across a wider band of signal dispersion, less likely to follow refractions of signals that don't add up to primary target-lock ranging, guidence heads (SARH) can be set more sensitively. Long range should present fewer troubles (ie. sparrow missiles).
> But importantly radar search ranges prior to and after the adoption of pulse doppler tracking systems was not significantly altered. Generally when I read "fire control radar" as opposed to "pulse doppler radar" the text is describing the way weapons are delivered by that aircraft's avionics.


Well, like I said, modern active scan homing missiles mostly use pulse-doppler, and modern combat aircraft tend to employ multi-function radar systems utilizing both pulse-doppler and continuous wave (bore sighting) capability. Continuous wave radars do require a very high power setting over a narrow bandwidth to prevent dispersion. That's correct.

The Sparrow missile is guided by CW, not pulse-doppler.


----------



## vanir (Jul 24, 2005)

Oh cool. Thanks for the clarification, I've often wondered about that.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 24, 2005)

But don't take strictly _my_ word for it. 
If you're really that interested in radar theory, the web is full of folks who are far better able (and willing to take the time.  ) to go in-depth with it. It really is an interesting field. 


Just to give a brief idea:

http://www.radarworks.com/
http://www.radarpages.co.uk/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/CE/technical/mod_radar.html
http://www.meteor.wisc.edu/~hopkins/aos100/rad_sum.htm

You may have seen these already, I don't know. These sites aren't devoted to the more modern developments pertaining to military applications, but it gives one a general idea.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 24, 2005)

Keep in mind that the Dopler effect is essentially the principle behind radar. It is how the wave is reflected and changed when it returns to the antenna. To give a great example of Doppler shift, stand next to a train. As the train approaches, the sound appears to go higher. This is caused by the waves compressing as they travel toward you. After it passes, the picth changes again because the waves are stretching as they travel away from you. They aren't really stretching and compressing, they just get that way from the movement of the object.

So how the wave is returned to the radar indicates the direction of the aircraft in the radar range.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 24, 2005)

See? I told ya there were better people to explain these things.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2005)

batsguy said:


> sorry about the Vague...What I understand is that this Mark Willey worked on the Me-262 project...there was a recent (1943) quote about a request by Adolf Hitler for info on the bomb rack implementation on the Jet. Apparently this Mark Willey worked under Herman Goering. I just wanted to know if there was some history on this guy.



I could not find anything on this guy at all except for a musician and an author.


----------



## batsguy (Jul 25, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Udet,
> as Lune said the Hitler's order to make the 262 a bomber did not hold back the a/c. Messerschmitt was all ready looking at attaching bomb racks to the a/c before Hitler's order.
> 
> When Goering told Willey that Hitler wanted bombs on the 262, Willey replied that 'we have always provided for 2 bomb racks' When asked how long to add, Willey replied '2 weeks'. The only thing to be done was add fairings to the racks. This was on Nov. 2 1943.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2005)

He is talking about Willy Messerschmitt not a "Willy"!


----------



## batsguy (Jul 25, 2005)

Wow! for a moment there I thought I had an unknown relative working on the 262.

Thanks,
Glenn Willey


----------



## vanir (Jul 25, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Keep in mind that the Dopler effect is essentially the principle behind radar. It is how the wave is reflected and changed when it returns to the antenna. To give a great example of Doppler shift, stand next to a train. As the train approaches, the sound appears to go higher. This is caused by the waves compressing as they travel toward you. After it passes, the picth changes again because the waves are stretching as they travel away from you. They aren't really stretching and compressing, they just get that way from the movement of the object.
> 
> So how the wave is returned to the radar indicates the direction of the aircraft in the radar range.


Yes but my point was, isn't the purpose behind the specificatin of pulse-doppler radar that the technique was not utlised by the technology in early fire-control radars?

And the question remains as to whether then, SARH missiles are guided by pulse-doppler technique (as was my assumption), or by continuous signal strength, therefore making no use of ranging and directional details but simply following the strongest emanations to their source, as has been suggested?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 25, 2005)

Ah. My bad. I need to refresh myself on basic terminology.  
Yes, Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) missiles use CW for guidance. The Sparrow is one such missile. "Passive" homing missiles actually home in on emissions from the target. They're either IR (thermal) signatures or radio/radar signal emissions, depending on the missile type. Sorry about that.


----------



## vanir (Jul 25, 2005)

*bangs head repeatedly on desk*

Okay, I'll try this.

You've got the latest AIM-7F Sparrows on your Canadian Hornet. Sure some AIM-120's would've been nice but the defence budget just isn't there.

You fire one. The aircraft keeps the target painted on its tracking avionics, so the missile can home in.
Is the avionics using pulse-doppler or CW mode at that moment.

Reason I ask is that CW can't do lookdown-shootdown and can't track multiple targets. As far as I know you've got to point the aircraft directly at the target with CW radar.
You can fire Sparrows at multiple targets. This is because of pulse-doppler radar.
Sparrows coincided with the introduction of pulse-doppler. The only SARH AA missiles in US service before pulse-doppler were short range AIM-4's of which you had to fire at one target at a time (but you could get a nuclear tipped Genie variant...).
Same with the overpowered CW radar on MiG-25's, perhaps the reason two MRM IR missiles were carried in conjunction with SARH missiles (so multiple targets could be engaged using multiple seeker head types rather than advanced avionics).

So far it's been said pulse-doppler radars use a CW mode when engaging targets. How are they doing lookdown-shootdown or multiple target tracking in CW mode...by gimballing multiple radar dishes??


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 25, 2005)

*Sighs in frustration, rapidly growing tired of game*

I'll be straight up: Shipboard radars are really my thing. I'm in the Navy, and while the principles are exactly the same, the system-specific qualities of the F-18 radar sets are unknown to me. I've never bothered to research them, but I _do_ know that they're multi-function units that utilize CW and pulse-doppler.

I was unaware that the latest airborne variants of the Sparrow could be fired at multiple targets, as I haven't been keeping up on the latest developments of the AIM-7, but a SARH missile does require CW guidance. That's the whole idea behind "Semi-Active" Radar Homing. If multiple missiles were to be fired at independent targets, they would each require a dedicated CW signal. Perhaps the AIM-7F is "Active" after all? You tell me.


----------



## vanir (Jul 26, 2005)

No, multiple target tracking and lookdown-shootdown associated with pulse doppler has always allowed multiple target engagement with SARH AAM's since the radar type's inception.

MiG 29's can engage multiple targets with their SARH R-27's simultaneously and can target designate "off aircraft-axis" with the helmet mounted HUD.

Tomcats can track up to 24 and engage up to 6 simultaneously with combined AIM-7/AIM-54 loadouts, but their AA avionics are older.

The Sukhoi "superflankers" can acquire targets at 400km with its multimode doppler with combined search-while-track capability, track 15 and simultaneously engage up to 6 with its typically SARH loadouts (although AMRAAM style R77's may be fitted underwing, the various R-27 SARH types are more commonly loaded with R-73 "sidewinder class" missiles at the outboard stores and ECM pods at wingtips...R77 "AMRAAM class" are more commonly fitted to MiG-29M's).

I think most earlier pulse doppler setups could simultaneously engage up to 2 targets and track about 4, but this is an assumption.
Early fire control radars can engage 1 and track only what is in the immediate field of view (ie. directly in front of the aircraft), I think all they could do is search and range actually.


I should make clear everything I say here is mostly what I can surmise reading Jane's and that sort of thing. I have no real technical knowledge of radar and missile systems.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 26, 2005)

I am not well versed on missile technology, but I can tell you that there is a big difference between pulse and CW. Pulse is just that, pulsed, meaning that it is toggling off and on, or that it is pulsing through different frequencies. CW means _continuous wave_. So CW is always on and always at the same frequency. Radar is not a "simple" technology per se, so it is sometimes difficult to put some of these things in laymans terms.

Keep in mind that some of the missiles also have homing/tracking capability and the on-board aircraft radar only paints the target and locks that target to a particular missile. The "fire and forget" technology.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 26, 2005)

As far as how all of that is actually accomplished through the systems associated with those various aircraft vanir, I don't know. I'd have to trace through the specs myself. Whether it's through some sort of time sharing or whatever, I really don't know. All I can really say is, evan's simplified explanation is spot on, even though I now realize that you desire much more specific information. I hope you find your answers, and quite honestly you've piqued my curiosity a bit as well. Maybe I'll do some light reading and research later.


----------



## vanir (Jul 27, 2005)

Sorry, didn't mean to detract from the thread so completely.

Interesting WW2 facts...
Hmm...a prewar one, in 1921-22 the militant "brownshirts" or SA of the National Socialist Workers movement numbered 1.3 million in demonstrable, uniformed individuals whereas the German military arguably under Hindenberg, restricted by the Treaty of Versailles numbered some 200,000 total personnel. That meant support and administration included, it was the total personnel allowed in the armed services under the treaty (with a 7.65 caliber weapon, equivalent to the .32ACP in the US the largest caliber allowed).
No wonder the existing government was powerless.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 27, 2005)

I think I read somwhere that even though they walked out of the League of Nations, Japan cried foul at the beginning of WW2 because allied aircraft had guns larger than .30. Anyone else recall this?


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jul 27, 2005)

Yeah, I think I remember something about that somewhere. I know they also complained that the allies violated some of the Geneva Conventions when they didn't ratify that either. (In 1942 however they did "promise"  to observe rules of the convention...... and we all know those were adhered to  )


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 27, 2005)

Nice to see u again Dave... Long time...


----------



## vanir (Jul 27, 2005)

I'm not aware of any restrictions on aircraft armament calibers, 20mm was already encounterable throughout Europe by the mid-30's.

As far as I knew the point of contention during the League of Nations talks was the US contravension of the battleships treaty which restricted displacements to 35,000(?) tons and 15" guns during the 20's and 30's.

However Italy, England, the US and secretly Japan and Germany had promptly ignored displacement restrictions. And Italy, the US and secretly Japan had promptly ignored 15" gun restrictions.

Cruisers were limited to 20,000(?) tons displacement and Germany had loudly and publicly ignored this, building heavier cruisers armed like battleships, inventing the "pocket battleship" and causing a controversy over prewar military buildup (the Luftwaffe and army were one thing, but messing with the navies of the world = naughty).
Germany was not allowed to build battleships but also did that anyway, a little more quietly.

The US armed their oversized battleships with 16" guns and the comedic part was, for all their displeasure over it, Japan was fitting 18" guns to their top secret project which was also the largest battleship ever built.

Small arms caliber restrictions applied to Germany under the Treaty of Versailles and related to military and domestic forces, restricting caliber to a 7.65mm (a police officer could not lawfully equip a 9mm for example as this is a military arm and anti vehicle sized weapons in the 12-13mm range was definitely a no-no). They were also unable to equip artillery or heavy weapons emplacements.
Aircraft armaments were restricted to the same 7.65mm caliber under the treaty although it is reasonable the local production of 7.92mm caliber machine guns (probably 7.65mm inside barrel diameter anyway), was no problem. 12.7mm and 20mm armament calibers used elsewhere in Europe were definitely out of the question.

Needless to say Germany was in direct contravension of the treaty by 1923 at least domestically, more officially as elements of the National Socialists became the integrated Nazis Party as they gradually took over government. Individual military production warehouses were telephoned and advised well in advance of an impending treaty inspection, tanks and artillery were then moved out into nearby fields and cars and trucks placed in production warehouses for that week.
SA troops were rotated around 2-3 year army conscriptions to get more than 2 million trained by the 30's, whilst still keeping a maximum allowable of 200,000 under the treaty (I think officially increased from the original 100,000 at Hindenberg's request to the treaty nations, my memory's getting vague here).
Other troops were also trained in the Soviet Union prior to the war, away from the eyes of the treaty nations and of course the Spanish Civil War gave them combat experience.

Although there was little ignorance about Germany's contravension of the treaty, the extent of it was not known until the mid-30's, hence the uproar at the blatant appearance of oversized and overgunned cruisers, the so called "pocket battleships."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2005)

The Germans actually built Pocket Battleships (Battle Cruisers if you like) to keep under the displacement. They were light weight but good armor and armament.


----------



## R988 (Nov 23, 2005)

Smokey said:


> From Thunder Lightnings http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/memories.html
> 
> 
> > They developed a powerful air conditioning system to keep the pilots cool. Semi-conductors would not work above 65°C, so they stuck to using vacuum-tube avionics, even for the radar. It was a monster item of equipment, weighing in at slightly over half a ton. Its pulse-Doppler search and track were basic, but the valve technology and its awesome power gave it unmatched power to burn through the thickest electronic jamming to a range of fifty miles, *it would kill a rabbit at one kilometre if activated on the ground.*
> ...



Sorry to dredge it up but this quote IS about the MiG-25 not the Lightning that some people were under the impression of.


----------



## Aggie08 (Nov 23, 2005)

kill a rabbit one one kilometer... suspicious...


----------



## Smokey (Dec 2, 2005)

I read about a P47 that landed back at base after a mission, then seemed to roll along the runway normally- but when the ground crew got to the plane they found that the pilot was dead.
Apparently he had landed heavily and the upright sitting posture had transmitted the shock directly through the poor guy's spine, killing him instantly
Another argument for the prone pilot position


----------



## reddragon (Dec 3, 2005)

Interesting stuff even if some of it is in error.


----------



## hunter0f2 (Jun 21, 2008)

My father was Sgt. Tech Instruct. Ground crew with 625 Sqn at Kelstern in 1945. On checking Lancasters over for the next Op , He did what he called his Taste Test for leaks. He said he could tell what a leaking fluid was by taste, Fuel, Glycol, Oil, Hydraulic Fluid etc. 
On one occasion he came across an unknown leak taste, so he stood back from he Lanc. to give it some thought. He did not know any one was in the aircraft, untill he spotted the Skipper in the cockpit ,doing his own checks.He shoutd up to the skipper to tell him the location of the unidentified leak. The skipper replied " Sorry about that Sarge, I was busting just a a quick Pee! over the Main Spar." Frm then on , my father told me ,he allways checked the aircraft was empty before doing his Taste Checks!!


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 21, 2008)




----------



## wilbur1 (Jun 21, 2008)

Ya might want to check the dates on the last post here


----------



## hunter0f2 (Jun 22, 2008)

Kelstern Closed May 1945!!


----------



## Robert T (May 4, 2009)

which was roughly to deck level. There are photos and film from an aircraft of the sunken listing ship. The Brits jumped aboard and immediately checked out the Admiral Graf Spee's gun laying radar which was found to be more accurate and of longer range than the Brit's own. (Germans did and do make great electronics). The confirmation of that came when the Bismarck sank the Hood at just within visible range, and sank a destroyer off the coast of northern Holland beyond visible range.
Just because their superstructure still showed doesn't mean that newspapers and the military didn't think that the West Virginia and North Carolina weren't sunk at Pearl Harbor. Out of action is out of action, and out of action and abandoned is as good as sunk.

Robert T.


----------



## Robert T (May 4, 2009)

Admiral Graf Spee was a count (Graf) of the district of Spee who was an Admiral. Try Wikipedia for details on him.
Robert T.


----------



## Colin1 (May 4, 2009)

evangilder said:


> I find some of those a bit suspicious.


I think this one would take some proving, half a dozen bombers in a defensive box could tag a fighter, each one convinced they were the one who shot it down so for one kill read six kills



Smokey said:


> The US 8th Air Force shot down 6,098 fighter planes, 1 for every 12,700 shots fired


----------



## Robert T (May 4, 2009)

packed 2 20mm cannon and came into service in late 1940. I assume that their protest pre-dated that, but the design had been in process for 2 years so this was probably a pre-emptive manoeuver on their part. Besides, since Japan's primary ally Germany pioneered the use of cannon in aircraft, what were they thinking of?

Robert T.


----------



## flakhappy (Sep 12, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> I think this one would take some proving, half a dozen bombers in a defensive box could tag a fighter, each one convinced they were the one who shot it down so for one kill read six kills



In real life, it was one job of the interrogator after every bomber mission, to avoid this business of multiple credits for every plane shot down. His job was difficult, but a good interrogator could sort out the shoot-down claims and arrive at a fairly accurate estimate of enemy losses.


----------



## trackend (Sep 12, 2009)

I've heard it all now, a ship that is sitting on the bottom and is incapable of floating is not sunk because you can see the top


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 12, 2009)

trackend said:


> I've heard it all now, a ship that is sitting on the bottom and is incapable of floating is not sunk because you can see the top



Come again?


----------



## drgondog (Sep 13, 2009)

Smokey said:


> According to this site
> World War 2
> 
> Here are a few of them.....
> ...



The tracer sequence and frequency varied, There is no metric that I am aware of that could ever prove the thesis that 'units that stopped using tracers saw their success rate nearly double and their loss rates go down"


----------

