B-25 vs. Ju-88

[Glider]

An arrestor hook does not weigh 1000 pounds.

The -25 airframe proved very robust and it could have handled a couple of carrier launch/land cycles.

The Japanese had no desire for the German aircraft in 1941 or 1942. The Japanese had their own doctrine and tactics that the German aircraft couldnt do. Their "Betty" bomber was faster and longer ranged than the -88, and they had no interest in it. More than one German military attache's were told that the IJAAF/IJN types were perfectly capable of handling allied aircraft in the PTO.

Re the weight
I know the hook wouldn't weigh 1000lb, but that is why I explained the 10-1 rule of thumb. If it weighed 100lbs (which is more than likely) then 1000lb woud be added to the take off weight if you wanted to keep the same performance

Re the B25 being strong enough to take one or two life cycles, No it wouldn't. The plane would have touched down, the hook would be ripped out of the aircraft and the plane go over the side.
Has been known to happen today. The arrestor gear is set for the weight/speed characteristics of the plane comming in to land. In the 70's if you set it for an F4 and an A4 came in, the same thing would happen. The settings would be too stiff, the A4 would lose its arrestor gear as it was over stressed and the A4 would have to go around and the pilot eject.

The B25 would lose the hook because it wasn't stressed.

As for the Japenese needing German Planes. Be fair, I did say that they had every confidence in their own aircraft but The Japanese did admire the 190. As for the Betty having a long range. It certainly did but the Betty was only one of many Japenese bombers and we all know how the Betty achieved such a range and the penelty they incurred for doing so.

 

[Glider]

B25 = robust 1930's technology with lots of margins

Blackhawk = modern technology with no margins

Note to Deradler......... I didnt know you were a B25B airframe specialist. When did you learn about the airframe?

No technology, not even 1930's NAA technology would allow a none load bearing member to take the stress of an aircraft the size of a B25 going from touchdown speed to zero in say 200ft without breaking.

In case your wondering, I was an aircraft engineer in the Fleet Air Arm specialising on Airframes and Engines, and am old enought to have seen and be briefed on the arrester / catapult gear fitted to the old Ark Royal.

 

[syscom3]

No technology, not even 1930's NAA technology would allow a none load bearing member to take the stress of an aircraft the size of a B25 going from touchdown speed to zero in say 200ft without breaking.

In case your wondering, I was an aircraft engineer in the Fleet Air Arm specialising on Airframes and Engines, and am old enought to have seen and be briefed on the arrester / catapult gear fitted to the old Ark Royal.

If in 1942 the NAA engineers determined that an arresting hook could be attached to a B25 with little fanfare, then accept it as such.

Youre not an expert in B25B airframes and do not have the qualifications that the engineers who designed and built the aircraft did.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

B25 = robust 1930's technology with lots of margins

Blackhawk = modern technology with no margins

Note to Deradler......... I didnt know you were a B25B airframe specialist. When did you learn about the airframe?

Note to Syscom......Since when did you become a specialist in anything having to do with airframes? Atleast I have experience working on aircraft. Jack ***!!!!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Youre not an expert in B25B airframes and do not have the qualifications that the engineers who designed and built the aircraft did.

Now you are starting to go too far! Post your ****ing sources or your posts have no meaning what so ever all!!!!

Oh and when you have experience working on aircraft then you can ****ing talk!

 

[syscom3]

Now you are starting to go too far! Post your ****ing sources or your posts have no meaning what so ever all!!!!

Oh and when you have experience working on aircraft then you can ****ing talk!

If Jimmy Doolittle said they were origionally going to land the planes back on the carriers then thats an unimpeachable source.

Just add an arresting hook and some plates to the frame and theyre in business. If it wouldnt work the NAA engineers would have nixed the idea.

 

[syscom3]

Now you are starting to go too far! Post your ****ing sources or your posts have no meaning what so ever all!!!!

Oh and when you have experience working on aircraft then you can ****ing talk!

It sounds like you have lots of experience with modern airframes, but have you ever worked on an old 1940 b25 airframe?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Have you? I did not think so. Shut up!

 

[lesofprimus]

Just add an arresting hook and some plates to the frame and theyre in business.

Its not quite that simple sys... And since they never tried installing an arrestor hook into a B-25 and land it several times, the engineers and Doolittle himself honestly were guessing...

Contrary to ur obviously biased opinion, engineers dont know everything, and theoretical hypothesis and guesstimating dont count for jack sh*t...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Thats what we have been trying to tell him, but he is stuborn as a mule and knows everything!

 

[Soren]

Soren,

The 99% figure came from you as in "Also if the weapons are made with the same tools and with the exact same specifications, then whatever deviation that might occur during firing is 99% contributed by the fired round itself."

So what gun and ammunition were you referring to? Sounds like you were making a sort of blanket statement in general.

I do handload. I have a Springfield M1A and an Armalite AR-15 and handload for both. I also handload for .45ACP and 12 GA shotgun.

"All I'm saying is the V0 hasn't varied more than 10 m/s between my two guns during any chronograph test of mine"

You said that "usually they don't vary at all really -there being only 1-3m/s between them."

I think usually means most of the time as in 10m/s would be out of the norm from the usual 1-3 m/s. As I have already said, you are full of crap. Since we're on the subject of crap though, where did you get your 11 fps SD on the 196 gr load at 2,600 fps -- cause that's crap too.

50,000cup is no different than a 30/06. The case capacity of the 8X57 is 5 grains less than the 30/06. No, it won't "go higher" than a 30/06. The limiting factor is the strength of the action and not the cartridge.

As you may know (although we both know you don't), the hotter you load a cartridge, the more radical the SD becomes. Again, you are full of **** if you are saying that your 2,600 foot per second load at 50,000cup is varying by only 11 feet per second.

Soren, why don't you just admit that you have never fired a real gun and at any rate, don't own a chronograph and don't handload.

Oh please, spare me your whining Jank ! :rolleyes

Obviously you're the one who hasn't shot a gun in life, or just doesn't know s*** about whats going on inside of them.

A variation of 5-10-20 fps between 10 rounds at supersonic velocities are very common, something you'd know if you actually ever chronograph'ed more than just a couple of rifles in your life - Ofcourse your excuse could be your handloading skills might seriously hamper such attempts

I shoot 7.92mm Turkish surplus allot, and its a 154gr S* projectile propelled at around 2,900 - 3,000 ft/min (Depending on which rifle you're using ofcourse - 600mm or 740mm barrel), heck some rounds even having an extreme spread easily reaching +3,100 ft/min! (And yes these are VERY high pressure rounds!) But even these by far tend to have a S.D. of only 10-20 fps, with extreme spread rarely surpassing 60-70fps, and they were made in the freaking 40's and 50's !! Even with me and my buddy(s) Turkish M48's (590mm barrel), the v0 will very rarely deviate more than 15-20 fps shooting Turkish ammo.

And about your little theory that because the 30.06 cartridge has a slightly larger powder capacity than the 7.92x57mm cartridge(100 vs 97%) then it must be better, well, incorrect ! The small advantage the 30.06 might have in its charge is totally and utterly negated by the fact that the 8x57mm's charge has more surface area to shove against ! (Less pressure the heavier the round) - Thats why at the same pressure the Turkish 8mm surplus will usually seriously kick the 30.06's *** in terms of v0 at the same projectile weight ! And lets see if a 30.06 will shove a 200gr projectile at the same speeds as the 7.92x57mm without the cartridge having been heavily modified, shall we ?! Thats right, it won't !

Oh and just incase you don't know where to start with the handloading(Which you don't), here's the recipe for some hot 8mm loads : Real Guns - Handload Data - 8x57mm JS Mauser (Oh and note these are at 56,000 psi only)

So Jank, why don't you just admit it, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about !

 

[pbfoot]

I bet after every landing with a hooked b25 you have to locate a new center of gravity because i think the 25 would stretch a little with every landing not even thinking of a reniforced undercarriage

 

[syscom3]

And perhaps it wouldnt.

 

[Jank]

Soren said, "A variation of 5-10-20 fps between 10 rounds at supersonic velocities are very common, something you'd know if you actually ever chronograph'ed more than just a couple of rifles in your life ..."

Soren a variation of 5 fps would be very, very rare even at about 1,100 fps which would be "supersonic velocity." Supersonic velocity, Soren, is achieved at about 1,100fps. Hell, my .45ACP will easily achieve "supersonic velocity." The fact that you would use the term "supersonic velocity" in an argument about the SD of rifle artridges really establishes that I'm dealing with a dolt.

"And about your little theory that because the 30.06 cartridge has a slightly larger powder capacity than the 7.92x57mm cartridge(100 vs 97%) then it must be better, well, incorrect?"

And what "theory" was that? It was you who said, "+50,000 CUP, std.German military load my friend, try it ! Heck it'll even go higher than a 30.06 at the top!"

I never said the 30/06 was better. Both cartridges were really quite equal in terms of terminal effects and effective range. I said the 8x57 couldn't be "loaded higher" which is what you said and pointed ou that the 30/06 case has 5 grains more capacity. Soren, the maximum cup on the 8x57 cartridge will not "go higher" than the 30/06. Again, you are a dolt. The cases of both the 8x57 and the 30/06 must be fully supported because they will blow apart. The strength of a rifle's action will dictate the maximum pressure that can be safely achieved. You can produce no evidence (because none exists) that the action on a K98 is any stronger than that of a Springfield M1903.

I stand by my assertion that you do not handload, have never chronographed a load, do not own a chronograph and are making up your claim that usually, the SD between your "full power" (still chuckling over that one) 8x57 loads are only 1-3 meters per second. That's a joke.

Your quick internet research on this subject does not cloak your ignorance.

Back to the original point though, as you have caused me to stray, the standard deviation in velocity between two identical MG131 fresh off the assembly line would not be 99% attributable to ammunition and 1% attributable to the guns themselves. You are such a retard that you haven't even noticed that the arguments you advanced in your last few posts have undercut your original position. Can you see it now?

You are basically saying that the SD of ammuniton is very, very small. Well, that necessarily means that the amount of variance due to the guns would have to be correspondingly larger. It's like a pie Soren. Let's call it a Standard Deviation pie. If you slice up the pie so that less of the standard deviation goes to ammuntion, more of the standard deviation is left to the gun.

As I have indicated, brand new sporting rifles (same make and model) vary between one another outside the parameters of the SD attributable to the cartridges often by 30 or more feet per second. If you really knew what you were talking about, you would know this.

I just purchased (last month) a Ruger GP100 and am disatisfied with the cylider gap which I have measured at .007". My brother has the same gun (I liked his which is why I bought one myself) and his cylinder gap is a very nice .004". After doing some research I discovered that the allowable variation in the industry is from .002" to .010".

Military rifles have greater tolerances than sporting arms to facillitate reliable operation. Do some internet research on the difference between the .223 Remington and the 5.56 NATO. Then do some research on the .223 Wilde (which is an attempt to split the difference). You can't let powder residue, dirt, sand and such stop your rifle from functioning. The larger tolerances in the chamber and throat give rise to greater velocity fluctuations than with sporting arms. Now, I'm just talking about today's military rifles. In WWII, the realities of mass production and lack of quality control meant more and greater variations in tolerances from manufactured piece to manufactured piece than those of the military rifles that are manufactured today.

I feel like I'm trying to teach a brick wall here so why don't you just go ahead and have the last word and we'll agree to disagree.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And perhaps it wouldnt.

And that is the point, unless you have a source that says the whole thing can be done, dont bring it up at all.

 

[syscom3]

Its preposterous for you to think that a robust airframe like the B25 couldnt have a simple arresting hook attached to it.

Its a tricycle landing gear arrangement and not much weight is aft. Since the airframe proved more than capable of handling hard landings by student pilots (post war), its proof the airframe was solid.

 

[pbfoot]

The reason they probably discontinued the project was after you would have carrier readied the B25 its useful payload would've gone down by a least a thousand pounds making it uneconomical as a combat aircraft when compared to other options like the Helldiver plus you can hanger more Helldivers on carriers . To upgrade to carrier standards the Brewster Buffalo was neutered by the additional weight required so imagine how much weight the B25 would've required upgraded undercarriage strengthing the frame even the mid upper would have required work

 

[Glider]

Note to Syscom......Since when did you become a specialist in anything having to do with airframes? Atleast I have experience working on aircraft. Jack ***!!!!

Seconded.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Its preposterous for you to think that a robust airframe like the B25 couldnt have a simple arresting hook attached to it.

Its a tricycle landing gear arrangement and not much weight is aft. Since the airframe proved more than capable of handling hard landings by student pilots (post war), its proof the airframe was solid.

Syscom no where did I say it could not be attached. Get your head out of your ****ing *** and read the posts and maybe we would not be getting into these damn arguements.

It is not whether it is possible or not to do it is the forces applied to the fricken airframe when the things lands. It does not roll to a slow stop, it is jerked and stopped with a fierce force. That will cause cracking, binding, and warping of the airframe, stringers, longerons, etc...

The airframe would have to be reinforced. If you look at aircraft that were designed for that purpose they are built reinforced in those areas. The B-25 was not built in that manner and would have to be modded and reinforced and strengthened.

Is that really so hard to understand, or you just being complicated so that people will think that you are stupid.

Trust me on this syscom3, I dont claim to know everything there is to know about aircraft but I do have experience working on them, fixing them, and modding them.

The forces applied by students laning the plane hard are not the same forces that would be applied to the area of the arrestor hook on a carrier landing. I really dont understand how you come up with this stuff, it really shows lack of knowledge and worse not wanting to learn.

Atleast I will owe up to things that I am wrong in when I am corrected or proven wrong....

 

[Glider]

Its preposterous for you to think that a robust airframe like the B25 couldnt have a simple arresting hook attached to it.

Its a tricycle landing gear arrangement and not much weight is aft. Since the airframe proved more than capable of handling hard landings by student pilots (post war), its proof the airframe was solid.

Think it through Syscom. Hard landings are fairly easy to stress for in as you are beefing up parts of the plane that are doing what they are designed to do in particular the undercarridge and the mountings.

That is a whole world of difference from stressing the aircraft to do what it wasn't supposed to do ie stop 10 tons of aircraft in 200ft (roughly). Almost every part of the plane will need strengthening. It doesn't matter if the weight is at the front, back or anywhere else. What matters is that the weight exists, and needs to be slowed from flying speed to zero in a couple of seconds.

Re your 'observations' about the difference in technology comparing B25B to the planes that I worked on and the modern aircraft of today. It might suprise you but the rules of Physics haven't changed in that time.