Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Agree!!plan_D said:That thing looks a lot bulkier compared to normal B-25s. And one test landing is hardly enough to prove that the machine could handle carrier landings day in, day out.
FLYBOYJ said:show us where Doolittle, the USN or USAAF was planning sustained B-25 carrier ops?!?!?
plan_D said:Syscom, what experience have you had in structural engineering of aircraft? Be it World War II or modern day? You seem to be going on and on about how the other members are wrong because they haven't been mechanics on the World War II craft, but you haven't either. Yet you seem so sure that the B-25 could handle the stresses. But you've proven your complete lack of knowledge when you claim that all you have to do is add an arrestor hook to an aircraft to make it able to land on a carrier. At least these other lads have hands on experience on the structures of aircraft, and more than one has been in some form of the Navy ! I find it a shame that you're too stupid to even learn off other people.
plan_D said:That thing looks a lot bulkier compared to normal B-25s. And one test landing is hardly enough to prove that the machine could handle carrier landings day in, day out.
Show me that! i don't believe that was ever part of the plan...syscom3 said:They werent planning on sustained carrier ops. The origional plan was for the B25 to fly back to the carriers and land.
FLYBOYJ said:WRONG - you cannot simply put an arresting hook on any aircraft designed from the ground up as a land based bomber, especially a B-25. When naval aircraft are designed every bulkhead and longeron are designed to include arrestor loads and that's been the norm since the 1930s, I invite you to read Aerodynamics of the airplane by Millikan, Clark Blanchard (p1941). It's an old book but it provides a lot of stress analysis to aircraft loads and if I remember correctly there's a considerable amount of information given to loads applied to naval aircraft. For the B-25 to be completely navalized I could bet dollars to donuts that a design team would of reviewed every nut and bolt of that aircraft to see if it could withstand continual carrier operations. A twin engine carrier based aircraft stayed on North American's mind as after the war it came up with the AJ-1 Savage.
syscom3 said:The reason it was discontinued was there was nowhere to stow the plane on the carrier. I dont even think the Roosevelt class carriers had elevators big enough to handle them even with folding wings.
syscom3 said:Actually flyboyj is the one I listen too because unlike any of you, he has worked on the old warbirds AND HE QUOTED a source that could prove me wrong.
syscom3 said:Just because YOU claim to know better dont mean anythign UNTILL you show a source.
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:Which means it would not be carrier operable! Read your own post!
plan_D said:I never said you had to listen to me, although I know I'm right because it's common sense. But you do not listen to Adler, Glider or anyone else with aircraft experience. And Glider was in the FAA! As Glider says, physics hasn't changed. And Flyboy has never worked on the B-25.
You haven't provided a single source, syscom. And just look at the B-25, look at the depth of the fuselage.
Go to the Raider's site and half a dozen other sites about the raid and that's never mentioned. Maybe he knew something Doolittle didn't?!?syscom3 said:As I mentioned, my source was one of Doolittle raiders who mentioned that they were origionally going to fly back to the carriers untill the idea was nixed by the Navy.
He was talking to me (among others) at a 50th anniversary gathering.