Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
syscom3 said: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.
syscom3 said: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?
Glider said: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 said: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?
syscom3 said:Youre not an expert in B25B airframes and do not have the qualifications that the engineers who designed and built the aircraft did.
DerAdlerIstGelandet said: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!
DerAdlerIstGelandet said: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!
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...Just add an arresting hook and some plates to the frame and theyre in business.
Jank said: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.
syscom3 said:And perhaps it wouldnt.
DerAdlerIstGelandet said: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 ***!!!!
syscom3 said: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.
syscom3 said: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.