Fighter: Flop or Not

[XBe02Drvr]

I must admit I was surprised when I flew over my home at 40,000ft on the way from London to Anchorage

Boston to Munich, we flew over Goose and Gander and could see Iceland off the left wingtip. Landfall over Ulster.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[swampyankee]

Mercator projections are the worst possible maps to use to teach geography, but guess what all the Boards of Ed buy because they're cheaper?

Next, start making sure that schools start teaching that Euclidean geometry is just a special case.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

guess what all the Boards of Ed buy because they're cheaper?

Not only because they're cheaper, but also because globes are awkward and fragile, and those damn "orange peel" maps are too confusing, and besides most school boards are cartographically illiterate! (as are most Americans) I was the only guy in my boot camp company of 88 sorry-ass recruits who could read a map properly. Guess who got stuck teaching "night school"? We only had 41 high school graduates in the company.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Euclidean geometry is just a special case.

They ought to call it "Euclidean Logic". It's the "Unmath"!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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.

When my wife was studying in Anchorage, Alaska I flew direct from Frankfurt, Germany to Anchorage, Alaska. Probably flew the same route. Sure as hell beat the alternative which was Frankfurt to Chicago to Seattle to Anchorage.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Boston to Munich, we flew over Goose and Gander and could see Iceland off the left wingtip. Landfall over Ulster.
Cheers,
Wes

Flew the route to Frankfurt via Goose and Gander many times. Flying Tigers Airways...

 

[Zipper730]

Canada cannot possibly "have the back" of the USA because Canada lies between the USA and Russia with the exception of Alaska.

Perhaps we are having communications troubles: If I say "do you have my back" it means "will you come to my aid"?

 

[pbehn]

Perhaps we are having communications troubles: If I say "do you have my back" it means "will you come to my aid"?

Canada and USA are approximately the same size (despite what the map looks like) but Canada has approximately one tenth of the population. Since Canada lies between USA and Russia there cannot be any question of "having my back" they will always be in the same fight and so must have joint arrangements and agreements for mutual benefit.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Since Canada lies between USA and Russia there cannot be any question of "having my back" they will always be in the same fight and so must have joint arrangements and agreements for mutual benefit.

And we did....long before NORAD put a name to it. And it's a shame we have to rely on a gracious British gentleman to educate one of our own.
Jees, we Americans are as illiterate historically as we are geographically. Ever since history, geography, economics, civics, sociology, psychology, and anthropology all got rolled into "social studies", it's been nothing but a downhill slide.
I spent the last 17 years of my working life as a technician at one of the better high schools in my state, and some of the things I saw were appalling. The pressure to concentrate on STEM subjects and the amount of time devoted to remediation of elementary education deficiencies made it impossible to devote the necessary resources to "social studies". To the detriment of us all, since we made a point of "involved citizenship" and registered them to vote the day they turned 18. The failure of the elementary school system to deal effectively with our large "underclass" population impacts the high school's ability to deliver graduates with a "well rounded" education.
Apologies for the rant. Not being part of the solution makes me part of the problem, so I'll call a halt here before I step into a political "pasture plop"!
Cheers,
Wes

 

[pbehn]

And we did....long before NORAD put a name to it.
Jees, we Americans are as illiterate historically as we are geographically. Ever since history, geography, civics, sociology, psychology, and

I know, I was pointing out the rather fanciful notion that the USA and Canada woke up one morning in the fifties noticed there was a cold war and decided what they would do about it. WW2 protection of convoys demanded close cooperation for mutual benefit while on D Day young men from both nations landed on what was essentially the same beach.

 

[swampyankee]

Not only because they're cheaper, but also because globes are awkward and fragile, and those damn "orange peel" maps are too confusing, and besides most school boards are cartographically illiterate! (as are most Americans) I was the only guy in my boot camp company of 88 sorry-ass recruits who could read a map properly. Guess who got stuck teaching "night school"? We only had 41 high school graduates in the company.
Cheers,
Wes

I could get into a very long rant here, but let's just say my experience is that in US schools, "student-athlete" is an oxymoron.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

"student-athlete" is an oxymoron

Not here! We have at U-32 around 70-75% student body participation in interscholastic athletics, few championship teams, and nearly all of our best students are also athletes. We have so many teams in so many sports it taxes the school busses and the budget, but it keeps the kids fit and it keeps them coming to school, and it keeps them studying if they want to stay on the team. We always have trouble finding enough qualified coaches for all the different levels of teams, but never hesitate to fire them if they pressure teachers about grades.
Soccer, football, field hockey, cross country, basketball, ice hockey, Nordic ski, alpine ski, gymnastics, indoor track, lacrosse, baseball, softball, track & field, tennis. Boys. Girls. 7th grade, 8th grade, Freshman, Junior Varsity, and Varsity. That's a lot of coaches. And a lot of busses. For a school of just over 700 kids. Somehow it works.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Hey, didn't we get a long way from Thunderjets and long range interceptors? At a glance it looks as if the CF-100 grew up to be the plane the F-89 dreamed of being, but I confess to ignorance (and arrogance) "just another copycat Canuck!". What do you think, troops?
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Zipper730]

And we did....long before NORAD put a name to it.

I didn't know the details..

Jees, we Americans are as illiterate historically as we are geographically. Ever since history, geography, civics, sociology, psychology, and anthropology all got rolled into "social studies", it's been nothing but a downhill slide.

I spent the last 17 years of my working life as a technician at one of the better high schools in my state, and some of the things I saw were appalling. The pressure to concentrate on STEM subjects and the amount of time devoted to remediation of elementary education deficiencies made it impossible to devote the necessary resources to "social studies".

Well it really illustrates one fact: The powers that be (and by that I mean not heads of state, but a network of international banking, transnational corporations, foreign policy institutes, and complicit politicians) do not want us to be politically literate, capable of critical thinking, knowledgeable on economics, as well as science and technology.

They basically want a population that's smart enough to work the machines, scientifically just smart to create various gadgets useful for those in power to maintain it, but lack the critical thinking skills needed to have a meaningful say in our leadership, the wisdom to determine whether the gadgets we build should be, the ability to understand complicated political issues (like illegal immigration -- PM me if you want to take this further this is way off the scope of the matter), and and the ability to understand how basically modern banking creates money out of thin air...

Apologies for the rant.

I don't see anything you have to be sorry for. And for not knowing what to do is not necessarily a problem -- the first step towards solving any problem is realizing there is one.

Hey, didn't we get a long way from Thunderjets and long range interceptors?

Topics have a way of meandering. At least somebody usually realizes they've drifted off topic.

At a glance it looks as if the CF-100 grew up to be the plane the F-89 dreamed of being

You actually do make a good point on that.


Peter
BTW: Some of the stuff I wrote about the education, the political establishment, and stuff of that nature should one desire to respond to it... send it via PM

 

[Zipper730]

Regarding the F-84

I think, because of early problems, some surprising for Republic aircraft, it seems to be underappreciated.

I have been meaning to ask this for some time... why were the problems surprising?

Zipper stated the F-84 could have used a little more agility and a lot less weight. No. What it really needed was more thrust.

Of course, but if you can't get more thrust the best option is to trim the plane's weight...

Regarding Dive Bombing & Tactical Bombing

I suspect that there was more than one case where domestic developments were ignored until they were used by a foreign power. I don't know if this could have happened with dive bombing and the USAAC (I suspect the answer, if it exists, is complex, e.g., the USAAC may have decided the USMC's experience in dive bombing insurrectionists [or whatever the he** they called them] in Central America wasn't applicable against a European country or Japan, or the USAAC may have found he Marines' evaluation of effectiveness dubious, or the USAAC didn't even know the USMC was doing dive bombing from sources they considered reliable.)

Why would they have found the evaluation dubious, or useless in Europe?

Regarding USN & USAF Doctrine

In hindsight, the admirals missed the boat. The US had been involved in dozens of armed interventions where nuclear weapons would have been worse than useless (the banana plantations would get ruined, for example), as opposed to a war with competing great powers. All the conflicts were on the periphery . . .

. . . All the conflicts between the US and the USSR were on the periphery, while the US and USSR may have been, at many times, at daggers drawn, there were only a very few incidents were direct conflict was likely, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis (I remember those circles indicating where the missiles based on Cuba would reach. I was in range). The Navy, with its ability to apply fine gradations of force, from hanging around threateningly, through blockade, to actual shooting, was probably critical in that crisis's peaceful resolution: an air force doesn't have those increments, as there's really nothing between threatening, but brief, visits, and large explosions.

I'm curious why so few realized this from 1945-1962: There were periods of time (1950-1953; 1954-1957 where the exact role of "overwhelming force") where it would have been a logical policy.

Regarding Aerial Refueling

Of course it was, but it was also understood that the hose and grapnel was just a temporary demonstrator. The flying boom and the probe and drogue systems were both on the drawing boards, but it was easy for the AF to persuade Congress that their system had more potential.

When did the RAF start developing the probe and drogue?

Regarding the A3J/A-5 Vigilante

That tubular bomb bay was designed with the idea of ejecting the bomb while going supersonic at zero altitude without endangering the aircraft. (Time delay of course)

I thought it was for high altitude release...

The designers' "slipstick math" failed to accurately predict the power of the slipstream pocket behind the aircraft.

I've often wondered how they failed to grasp that (you'd have a huge suction pocket behind the plane).

 

[Shortround6]

Of course, but if you can't get more thrust the best option is to trim the plane's weight...

That depends on who you are talking to. The engines used in the early F-84s were well short of the promised power and durability. Until they could get the durability problem solved increasing the power was pretty much out of the question. Now do you pay Republic to redesign the aircraft to "lighten" it up (and quite possibly cut armament) or do you give Allison more money to straighten out the engine mess and deliver what they promised?
Republic is going to claim the performance shortfall in the aircraft is not their fault, they were promised engines of at least 4000lbs thrust if not higher. The original target goal for the J-35 engine was 4000lbs back in the middle of WW-II. It took until 1949 for service engines to break that 4000lb thrust barrier. When they did they jumped to 4900lbs and then to 5600lbs pretty quickly.

We don't know what GE and then Allison were promising for thrust for engines to be delivered in 1947 or 48 or 49 back in 1944 when design work started. The US had ordered 400 F-84s in March of 1945. contracts were cut with the end of the war.

The early F-84s weighed close to what a P-47 did, had a 2400lb engine, six 50 cal guns with 300rpg and 416gal of internal fuel, what are you going to take out to lighten it up? It could also do over 590mph at sea level so cutting structural weight might not be the best idea ever.

 

[swampyankee]

There's also the problem of engine/airframe integration, which is not trivial. Long inlets and long exhaust ducting and the resulting pressure losses could cause quite serious performance losses, while short inlets could cause pressure distortions at high angles of attack. Supersonic flight added more inlet woes.

An engine could easily lose 10% of its thrust from installation problems.

 

[Zipper730]

That depends on who you are talking to.

davparlr was the person who said it...

Now do you pay Republic to redesign the aircraft to "lighten" it up (and quite possibly cut armament) or do you give Allison more money to straighten out the engine mess and deliver what they promised?

I was mostly curious as to why the F-84 had so many structural problems to begin with, and why the plane gained so much weight?

An engine could easily lose 10% of its thrust from installation problems.

WOw

 

[Shortround6]

I was mostly curious as to why the F-84 had so many structural problems to begin with, and why the plane gained so much weight?

It may have had problems because it was the first US service plane to fly at those speeds. They were operating in unknown areas.

The plane didn't really gain that much weight. Empty weight for an F-84B was 9539lbs and the last ones (of the straight wing models) were 10,300lbs for an E and 10,025lbs for a G.

Don't go by gross weights as they added bigger internal tanks, bigger external tanks and added equipement, none of which has much of anything to do with the aircraft structure aside from some modest beefing up.

Just for external fuel the plane went from a pair of 185 gallon wing tip tanks to a a pair of 230 gallon wing tip tanks and a further pair of 230 gallon tanks could be carried on the bomb pylons.

All of this information is available on this web site: Standard Aircraft Characteristics Arcive

which you have been told about before.

I would also note that the P-47 went from 9346lbs for a "B" to 9900lbs for a "C" to 10200lbs for a late model D to 11000lbs for an "N" all empty weights.
Now how about we ask why it gained so much weight?

 

[Zipper730]

It may have had problems because it was the first US service plane to fly at those speeds.

Huh? The P-80/F-80 was similar in speed...

The plane didn't really gain that much weight. Empty weight for an F-84B was 9539lbs and the last ones (of the straight wing models) were 10,300lbs for an E and 10,025lbs for a G.

I was mostly using the F-80 as a comparison... it was considerably lighter.

I would also note that the P-47 went from 9346lbs for a "B" to 9900lbs for a "C" to 10200lbs for a late model D to 11000lbs for an "N" all empty weights.

True enough, but if they were going for a new design, why not try and go lighter?