SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I know. I tried looking them up once after reading the reviews here.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
He has removed my posts before.
I just looked again and see that you are correct.I was able to have a direct conversation with Caliban on his P-51 video where he explicitly tells people to watch Greg's legendary range video. I give him credit for being willing to listen but it hasn't been enough for him to fix it or release a correction (that I've seen).
I just looked again and see that you are correct.
I did reply to Greg's "thank you for mentioning me (Greg)" comment. One of the many things I said to Greg (and Caliban) on Caliban's thread was 'have you considered' that both you and Caliban went into detailed calc for P-47D combat radius- but I never saw how you represented the requirements to stay attached to a Bomber box at the same 'block' airspeed of 150mph IAS at 25000 feet - by Essing over the formation"?
I just sent Caliban an email- will be curious how (if) he replies. I have found him to be a far better listener than Greg.
Tomo - I did't even bother to comment on those points but you nailed it. The usable fuel was 180/184 + 85 when topped off.He better be
Caliban seems to expect the P-47 will use 150 US gals of fuel to climb to 25000 ft, covering some 123 miles, and apparently it will use 45 gallons 'just for take off from the ground'. Internal fuel is strictly 305 gals for the P-47 per him, and it was always able to carry crop tanks, for total of 721 gals. Apparently the 200 gal belly tank was standard on the 47s.
P-51 was strictly with 245.4 gals of internal fuel - no ifs, no buts per Caliban.P-51 will be also doing 557 mph (!!!) worth of ground speed, with 11.3 mpg - bonkers. Apparently, on later P-51s the drop tanks fed into fuselage tank.
(video I'm talking about)
tl;dr - he managed to spell even more disinformation than Gerg in his P-47 range video
Where a faster escort has to S turn or manoeuvre to stay close to slower aircraft, the total time taken for the slower aircraft to be escorted must be used against the fuel consumption in Gal/hr of the faster escort to calculate the time that the escort can accompany. Additionally, consumption in all the turns is increased and could be considerable. Having assessed the time that the escort has in company, the distance will be given by the slow aircrafts groundspeed. Fuel burn available in company will also depend upon Bingo fuel, pre join-up burn and reserves/combat fuel etc.Tomo - I did't even bother to comment on those points but you nailed it. The usable fuel was 180/184 + 85 when topped off.
Kartveli only built a few of the 205gal 'tub' ferry tanks but IIRC they were only used for three or four missions before the new 75gal combat tank arrived in quantity - and were used exclusively for August 17th Schweinfurt-Regenburg mission. Further, they were superior in that they functioned at 25K and the P-47 cruised 30-40mph faster (anecdotally as I have not seen the flight test data for the 205gal tank with the 'fin' modification).
The biggest face palm for both Caliban and Greg in the 'calculated' combat radius 'proofs' was the simple fact that a.) the P-47 escort had to mainain combat cruise in the 220mph IAS range WHILE Essing across the bomber box, so during escort their average mpg was lower along the straight line heading of the much slower bombers.
I know you get it but some may not quite understand the point so for the few
Imagine a 10 foot garden hose in a straight line representing 100 miles of escorted travel - laying on the ground.
Lay a 15 foot garden hose weaving from side to side over the 10 foot hose - terminating with the 10 foot hose.
The P-47 travels the 15 feet at cruise settings but only covrs 10 feet of bround in the same time.
Had either noticed that point about ETO ops
The whole bomber mafia conspiracy theory depends on believing that the bomber mafia were obsessed with losing bombers with crews over Germany. A major cornerstone of the argument is that the USAAF had 200 gal tanks but preferred not to use them because they were an evil bomber mafia. Did I mention The Bomber Mafia, it is essential to repeat those three words often and in low grave tones, to convince yourself that it existed. No explanation of why this mafia wanted to kill their own people and destroy the machines that gave The Bomber Mafia its name is ever given. Greg has been told all the facts but with the facts he has no conspiracy theory for people to get outraged about, so no "clicks" for revenue.I figured out how Greg invented his imaginary Republic 200 gallon high altitude tank that he claims in his video was ignored deliberately by the Army Air Force. He specifically claims it wasn't the ferry tank.
Gregs's Imaginary 200 gallon drop tank (Debunkings Gregs P-47 Range Video)
I was going to make an entire video on this, but quite frankly I am exceedingly lazy so this is going to have to do. Ever since Greg made is absurd video on the P-47s range where he argues that the so called "bomber mafia" deliberately were holding back the P-47 from its true potential I have...ww2aircraft.net
Yeah the Bomber Mafia thing irritates me to no end.The whole bomber mafia conspiracy theory depends on believing that the bomber mafia were obsessed with losing bombers with crews over Germany. A major cornerstone of the argument is that the USAAF had 200 gal tanks but preferred not to use them because they were an evil bomber mafia. Did I mention The Bomber Mafia, it is essential to repeat those three words often and in low grave tones, to convince yourself that it existed. No explanation of why this mafia wanted to kill their own people and destroy the machines that gave The Bomber Mafia its name is ever given. Greg has been told all the facts but with the facts he has no conspiracy theory for people to get outraged about, so no "clicks" for revenue.
However, they did not. They perfected it.I do like his video on "yes, the Wright Brothers did indeed invent HTL flight".
I think we should be able to award multiple "Like" icons, I would give you "Bacon", "Winner" and "Funny", not to mention the obligatory "Like".However, they did not. They perfected it.
The first engine powered, HTL aircraft to fly, was John Stringfellow's steam powered proof of concept aircraft (in-manned) in 1848.
In 1874, Felix du Temple made the first manned, powered flight.
My advice to dear Greg:
View attachment 750640
Many of these commentators could keep themselves out of trouble by inserting one word in the sentenceHowever, they did not. They perfected it.
I forgot to put HTL in quotes ("HTL"), not sure where Greg came up with that connection, as "HTL" actually stands for "Helicopter, Training, Bell Aircraft" per USN nomenclature - Bell AC was denoted as "L", since Beech already had the "B". An example, the XFL Airobonita (Navalized P-39) was "Experimental Fighter, Bell Aircraft".? What the heck does "HTL" stand for in the above posts? The only HTL I could find related to flight was the IATA 3-letter code for Houghton Lake Airport (HTL).
Inquiring minds want to know.
Perhaps.I wonder if he meant HTA (Heavier Than Air), that would at least make sense.