Fighter: Flop or Not

[XBe02Drvr]

years of stoking destroyers and trains leave a mark. He had a grip like a vice, I don't know about superhuman but it was unnerving to strangers when they shook hands.

The entire crew of this Museumbahn train were railroad retirees and museum volunteers and I got four bone-crushing handshakes after my "five minutes of fame" and two breath-taking slaps on the back. The Danes aren't known for their demonstrativeness, but these old guys were a lot of fun.
Cheers
Wes

 

[pbehn]

The entire crew of this Museumbahn train were railroad retirees and museum volunteers and I got four bone-crushing handshakes after my "five minutes of fame" and two breath-taking slaps on the back. The Danes aren't known for their demonstrativeness, but these old guys were a lot of fun.
Cheers
Wes

Yup, as a child he felt un naturally strong as if he had no idea of his own strength, I grew out of play fighting before I ever managed to move him an inch, the other thing about his hands was they were softer and smoother than most womans are, but then again people use charcoal in face packs, coal dust probably does the same thing.

I've only met a couple of Danes, they are like Germans, very few fit the national stereotype, most are a great laugh and very tactile, especially after a beer.
North York Moors Historical Railway Trust - NYMR | Home

 

[Zipper730]

I honestly have no idea, like many men in the war he never spoke about it

That was a common theme in those days, come to think of it...

When we ate together at my grans house (his mother) he always appeared at exactly 12.30 just as the food was served. He couldn't bear the smell of meat cooking, it reminded him of the smell of aircraft he had cleaned out with burned crews.

The smell of burning flesh can be really traumatic to some people (others are unaffected for some reason), and the sight of burned corpses is not pleasant to say the least.

I only know he was a gunner because he wasn't a pilot or navigator.

Makes enough sense...

the only thing he ever discussed at any length was D Day. He was with another Brit doing four hour stints spotting planes and calling in fire on a US gunship. The American gunships crew were straight from the states with no combat experience or real knowledge of allied / enemy aircraft. He only saw five minutes of action but got a written commendation from the captain, who said that Johns soft deep calm Yorkshire voice kept the whole gunnery crew calm, and justified all the time spent in training and putting him on the ship.

Yeah, it's important to have a cool head in charge...

John was the custodian of a Norman Castle

That's pretty cool!

 

[swampyankee]

A 23mm canon fired a 175gram projectile and had roughly twice the explosive of a 20mm projectile. The Muzzle velocity was a bit low but then the interceptors pretty much had to use a tail chase pursuit.
The "idea" that one airplane or another could be armed with longer ranged guns and "hold" it's position/range seems to have been popular at times but putting it into practice was almost impossible. A TU-4 had 10 cannon and an interceptor would be in the field/s of fire of 4-6 of them most of the time. At long ranges time of flight for the shells could be between 1 and 2 seconds, and the planes were fling at hundreds of feet per second.
The question isn't so much that of accurate range of of 23mm cannon but if the interceptor (of whatever kind) could get in a firing pass and escape without getting hit badly by the defensive guns. Ad if the interceptor's guns could inflict fatal damage in a single firing pass.



I have no idea where this comes from, a B-36 out turning a fighter? Aside from your strange fascination with large aircraft out turning small ones the B-36 as originally conceived and built had no hope of doing such a thing. Remember the multi-year programs? The B-36 project started before Pearl Harbor. First prototype was rolled out of the factory (but not flown) on Sept 8th 1945, less than a month after the Japanese surrender. Performance of the early models was hardly sparkling. SO much so that in 1948 Convair suggested adding the underwing jet engines. Things promptly got turned on their heads when the Soviets flew Mig-15 fighters in the May 1949 fly-over. The First operational Mig 15 would not be examined by the US until late 1953. However it is highly doubtful that a B-36 without jet engines could perform any sort of maneuvers at the high end of it's altitude range that would enable it to even avoid Mig-9s or Yak-23s.
There were a number of congressional hearings about the Navy/Air Force "battle" but the idea that the B-36 was the deciding factor (or profits from it) were a deciding factor seems rather dubious when one looks at the contracts Boeing was getting (and continued to get) for the B-50, B-47 and B-52 (a 30 million dollar contact for design and construction of two prototypes in 1948?)

A friend knew a pilot who flew F-86Ds for the USAF. It was relayed to me that this pilot said the Saber Dog could not get two passes on a B-36 at its operating altitude. After the first pass, the fighter didn't have the performance to maneuver and re-engage. I think this was the driver for supersonic speeds, as the interceptor needed nearly double the bombers' speed to get a second pass.

 

[pbehn]

That was a common theme in those days, come to think of it...
The smell of burning flesh can be really traumatic to some people (others are unaffected for some reason), and the sight of burned corpses is not pleasant to say the least.
Makes enough sense...
Yeah, it's important to have a cool head in charge...
That's pretty cool!

Zipper, I am no longer going to reply to this type of post.

 

[Zipper730]

Zipper, I am no longer going to reply to this type of post.

Too much cut and paste?

A friend knew a pilot who flew F-86Ds for the USAF. It was relayed to me that this pilot said the Saber Dog could not get two passes on a B-36 at its operating altitude. After the first pass, the fighter didn't have the performance to maneuver and re-engage.

That's a major problem... could any aircraft of that era achieve two passes?

I think this was the driver for supersonic speeds, as the interceptor needed nearly double the bombers' speed to get a second pass.

From what I remember you needed around 0.5 to 1.0 Mach over the bomber's speed

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Too much cut and paste?

That's a major problem... could any aircraft of that era achieve two passes?
From what I remember you needed around 0.5 to 1.0 Mach over the bomber's speed

With the anemic engines of the time that just wasn't going to happen. When the Pratt J57 showed up, then it began to be sort of feasible.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Zipper730]

With the anemic engines of the time that just wasn't going to happen.

Well, technically there was the XF-91 Thunderceptor. It did manage to achieve Mach 1.71 at least once. That would provide against a 0.95 mach margin over a bomber doing 0.76 (around what the B-47's typically did), 0.845 mach over a target doing Mach 0.865 (B-47 maximum speed), and 0.76 over a bomber capable of doing 0.95 Mach (around the V-bombers typical speeds).

Considering the XF-91 early on had a J47 with four rocket motors; later on a J47 with afterburning and four rocket motors; and at some point a radar thimble was added to the nose: I'm not sure under what conditions, what was do-able with what.

I'm also not sure if the maximum altitude listed was subsonic or supersonic, and it's range may very well have been poor if the rockets were used.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Considering the XF-91 early on had a J47 with four rocket motors; later on a J47 with afterburning and four rocket motors; and at some point a radar thimble was added to the nose: I'm not sure under what

Sure, four rockets and a J47 might give you an impressive mach number in a one-time supersonic dash, but how practical is such a contraption as a long range interceptor? And given the technology of the time, how likely would you be able to do it with a large enough dish in the nose to give your radar the range a long range interceptor needs. Remember the battleground here is over northern Canada or the Arctic icepack where GCI won't be as capable or precise as over CONUS. Imagine running a dragster on a road course such as Monaco or Watkins Glen against Formula One cars.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Zipper730]

Sure, four rockets and a J47 might give you an impressive mach number in a one-time supersonic dash, but how practical is such a contraption as a long range interceptor?

Well, I figured the range would be poor... I just said it could achieve enough speed

I'm not sure how much range it had while supersonic and how that would translate to endurance (a certain amount of time/distance is acceleration and climb, a certain amount would be supersonic outbound dash and interception profile, a certain amount would include provisions for maneuvering, and the last amount would be the amount to fly home, loiter, divert).

And given the technology of the time, how likely would you be able to do it with a large enough dish in the nose to give your radar the range a long range interceptor needs.

The XF-91 used the AN/APS-6. Same as on the F-86D.

Remember the battleground here is over northern Canada or the Arctic icepack where GCI won't be as capable or precise as over CONUS.

Such interceptors were often designed to launch a certain number of miles out, blow up (or turn-back) a bomber. Interceptor bases were all over CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

It's a long way from CONUS to the interception zone over Canada's north coast, no jet of that period could fly that kind of mission at supersonic speeds on its launch fuel, and the tankers will all be busy with the outgoing retaliatory strkes. Can you spell "one way mission"?
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Zipper730]

It's a long way from CONUS to the interception zone over Canada's north coast, no jet of that period could fly that kind of mission at supersonic speeds on its launch fuel

That's not what I was talking about: What I said was that interceptor bases were located all over CONUS, Alaska, and Hawaii: Those based over Alaska could take care of attacks on Alaska and some coming over the pole towards Canada and the rest of the continental US; the CONUS bases could take care of attacks from the northern border, and the coasts; and Hawaii would basically defend itself.

The RCAF also had interceptor bases of it's own, and quite a number of interceptors as well: I wouldn't be surprised if they had the willingness to take our back (particularly since they have targets of value too), and could at the least thin down the numbers prior to them reaching the US border.

 

[fubar57]

The RCAF also had interceptor bases of it's own, and quite a number of interceptors as well: I wouldn't be surprised if they had the willingness to take our back (particularly since they have targets of value too), and could at the least thin down the numbers prior to them reaching the US border.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I wouldn't be surprised if they had the willingness to take our back

Don't they teach history anymore? Anybody ever heard of NORAD? CF-100, CF-101, anybody?? How about DEW Line? BOMARC? SAGE? BMEWS? You listening, Zip?

 

[Zipper730]

Don't they teach history anymore? Anybody ever heard of NORAD? CF-100, CF-101, anybody?? How about DEW Line? BOMARC? SAGE? BMEWS?

Well, I meant before 1958 when NORAD was established.

However, I should point out that when it comes to the so called "humanities" (which includes history), it has been on quite a decline

 

[pbehn]

Well, I meant before 1958 when NORAD was established.

However, I should point out that when it comes to the so called "humanities" (which includes history), it has been on quite a decline

The subject starts with Geography, far too many people think they live on a flat earth which is represented by a map that has Alaska on the left and Russia on the right, look at a map projected from the North Pole to gauge who has whos back and whos interests are where.
North Pole Arctic Map - Arctic Tundra, Arctic Circle, Arctic Ocean Map- Worldatlas.com

 

[Zipper730]

The subject starts with Geography, far too many people think they live on a flat earth

Most of those people are either trolls, or gullible people who have fallen prey to it: I know the earth is a close enough to a sphere (it's technically slightly larger in equatorial diameter than polar due to the rotation of the earth and centrifugal force).

It is sad that one has to start with this, isn't it?

 

[pbehn]

Most of those people are either trolls, or gullible people who have fallen prey to it: I know the earth is a close enough to a sphere (it's technically slightly larger in equatorial diameter than polar due to the rotation of the earth and centrifugal force).

It is sad that one has to start with this, isn't it?

Canada cannot possibly "have the back" of the USA because Canada lies between the USA and Russia with the exception of Alaska. They are not "trolls" when an engine exploded on an Airbus A380 going between France and Los Angeles many people posted that it must have been off course when the wreckage was found in Greenland.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

when an engine exploded on an Airbus A380 going between France and Los Angeles many people posted that it must have been off course when the wreckage was found in Greenland.

Blessed be they that trot the globe in great circles for they shall be known as the Big Wheels!
It takes a globe to enlighten a child.
Blessed are those that accept Senor Mercator at face value, for they shall be known as the Ignorami.

 

[pbehn]

Blessed be they that trot the globe in great circles for they shall be known as the Big Wheels!

What was very scary was the number of people stating that Greenland is not between Paris and L.A. and the even bigger number of people giving the posts "up votes". I must admit I was surprised when I flew over my home at 40,000ft on the way from London to Anchorage I never really thought that Anchorage is almost exactly due north when you think about it, they are 180 degrees apart on a standard map.