Foo Fighters

BiffF15 said:

Which aircraft are you classifying as death traps and based on what criteria?

Cheers,
Biff

Click to expand...

A-20 is an excellent example. Yes the Red Army air force sings its praises, as do other services, whose generals and propaganda ministers are highly trained and paid to do as ordered.


USAAF 1944 training video: it's not at all an aerobatic airplane. Stalls at over 200 in a steep bank. Stalls right ahead and recovers nicely with power off, but don't _DO_NOT_ try a power-on stall because it spins viciously.
If you find yourself in a spin below 5000', bail out, but first make sure you stop and feather both engines or you might as well ride it down.
Easy meat for any fighter; Just look at it, and it's as good as dead. It's anybody's guess how many crews it killed with such awful handling.
There have been others accepted into services, and maybe tried out until they're too terrible and quietly phased out. History is full of such things.

Early Japanese planes were also. Some with barely better flying characteristics, and flammable as anything a Chinese theater pilot could hope for.
The Russian Il-2 was pressed into manufacture exactly as the first models to take to the air because Stalin liked them and he'd execute any engineer who said it might need development time. Who knows if it was good or not, except by listening to the Red Army propaganda, all of whom would be executed if they said anything different.
The Sherman is hailed as winning the war, but the crews know it had one of the highest kill and casualty rates of any part of the service. Known as the Ronson, outclassed by almost anything in the European theater. The Escort and light carriers were tinderboxes, just waiting for any fire or hit near a magazine. Most Japanese ships too. Liberty ships broke up handily when hit.
Crews knew that about any of these things, no matter the propaganda of service or manufacturers or politicians in whose districts they're made.

Not too sure a medium bomber was meant to be an "aerobatic aircraft"

John Frazer said:

A-20 is an excellent example. Yes the Red Army air force sings its praises, as do other services, whose generals and propaganda ministers are highly trained and paid to do as ordered.


USAAF 1944 training video: it's not at all an aerobatic airplane. Stalls at over 200 in a steep bank. Stalls right ahead and recovers nicely with power off, but don't _DO_NOT_ try a power-on stall because it spins viciously.
If you find yourself in a spin below 5000', bail out, but first make sure you stop and feather both engines or you might as well ride it down.
Easy meat for any fighter; Just look at it, and it's as good as dead. It's anybody's guess how many crews it killed with such awful handling.
There have been others accepted into services, and maybe tried out until they're too terrible and quietly phased out. History is full of such things.

Early Japanese planes were also. Some with barely better flying characteristics, and flammable as anything a Chinese theater pilot could hope for.
The Russian Il-2 was pressed into manufacture exactly as the first models to take to the air because Stalin liked them and he'd execute any engineer who said it might need development time. Who knows if it was good or not, except by listening to the Red Army propaganda, all of whom would be executed if they said anything different.
The Sherman is hailed as winning the war, but the crews know it had one of the highest kill and casualty rates of any part of the service. Known as the Ronson, outclassed by almost anything in the European theater. The Escort and light carriers were tinderboxes, just waiting for any fire or hit near a magazine. Most Japanese ships too. Liberty ships broke up handily when hit.
Crews knew that about any of these things, no matter the propaganda of service or manufacturers or politicians in whose districts they're made.

Click to expand...

John Frazer,

The A-20? By what standards, todays or the late 30s / early 40s? Aviation did not have its act together then as it does now. And yes, at that time in the war you took what you had and worked with it and learned what worked or didn't as you went along.

The Japanese didn't care if they lost pilots, they were basically expendable. Why would aircraft represent a different philosophical view than they had of their own pilots. Russia wasn't much better. Joe Stalin really did not value any life other than his own, and every part of how they approached war reflected that. The Brits started with the long game, the BoB forced them into a fight for survival (short term), then back to the long. The Germans went from what I call the medium game to eventually the short game as the war wore on. Still they made pressurized fighters and bombers. Those were inventions that looked out for the aviators.

The US took the long game point of view but it wasn't perfect by any means. Everything was being done on a scale not seen before or since. So much of aviation was new or undiscovered and it was learned as things progressed. Look at the performance of a fighter built in 39 vice one in 45. G suits, survival gear, clothing, all improved or were invented as they went along. Gun sights, fuel, guns, ammo, fuel systems, blowers, turbos, the list goes on. What didn't improve?

I think you are looking at isolated events vice the system as a whole.

Just my opine.

Cheers,
Biff

A-20

Easy meat for fighters??

One Russian pilot used one to photograph well over a score of eastern european cities on photo recon missions. Single plane (unescorted) in daylight.

The A-20 had a much better combat record than you suggest. A number of pilots used them to score air to air victories as intruders over German AIrfields during the night Blitz.

A number of crews made it home flying on one engine.

The Be2c of WW I was a wonderfully stable airplane. It was so stable the pilot had to use all his strength to get it to turn or maneuver which meant it was shot down in droves by twitcher, less stable aircraft. Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

GregP said:

It managed 311 mph in 330 lbs of thrust. If any modern fighter could do that, we all jump up and down. To achieve the same sped to thrust, an English Electric Lightning would have had to go 30,157 mph, or faster than the Space Shuttle. To be fair, the F-15 would have to go 45,085 mph to get the same effeciency.

Click to expand...

So we're looking at a thrust to speed ratio of close to 1:1?
For the same time period check out the Somers Kendall SK-1. It had a slightly better thrust to speed ratio than the Katy (named after Payen's daughter) using the same engine, plus you get a retractable undercarriage, better climb and range and with more cockpit space - enough for a passenger. Also looks like a miniature He-162....which is kinda cool.

Somewhere around 1:1.28

And very light.

Jet version of the Cri-Cri...

Colomban Cri-cri - Wikipedia

John Frazer said:

It's not a question about it fitting the mission, it's about it being a safe forgiving aerodynamic design, and without extensive expensive training and especially computerized control maintaining stability and flyability, it isn't.
Wrong handling and no expensive controls or sensors, and it dies. At least in a 747 or Cessna, you have some kind of chance if things are less than 100% peachy.

That there are finned tailed planes that fly only with expensive controls doesn't change my statement about tailless-all-wings.

Click to expand...

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but all your postulations smell considerably of opinion and speculation, as opposed to positions backed by fact and hard data.

Whatever faults the A-20 had, it would sound pretty sweet to all those crews coming off Blenheims ...

John Frazer said:

And it does fit the B2. Only 20 made, already being phased out and horribly expensive, all are besides the point of aeronautics I was making.

Click to expand...

It's quite obvious that you have some arm chair opinions here, so I'll re-educate:

21 B-2s were built because the original contract of 165 was cut by George Bush, a result of the end of the cold war. It was a costly program but with 30 years of steady service, it served well. Although it's successor is on the horizon, I see it serving for at least another 10 years. With over 30 years of steady service and each aircraft has about 6000 flight hours, there was one class one accident in 30 years. Do the math.

John Frazer said:

The military has no problem putting crews into horrendous death traps and the contractors and military big-wigs sing their praises and throw money at them to keep them flying.

Click to expand...

This is one of the most ignorant comments I've read on here in quite a long time. In today's world it seems you have no concept of the value the US military places on the lives of it's aviators (and I'm speaking all branches). I'd like you to accurately quantify that statement with facts. Unless you've served in the military and/or worked on these "horrendous death traps." I suggest keeping the bollicks to a minimum as it makes you look quite foolish to those of us who worked on these machines. (I was on the B-2 program in 1990)

Greyman said:

Whatever faults the A-20 had ...

Click to expand...

Cherry-picked quotes ... but everything the British had to say about the flying characteristics/maneuverability of the aircraft is pretty glowing.

A&AEE handling trials on a French DB7, April 1940:
The aeroplane is very pleasant to fly, has no vices and is easy to take-off and land. Handling with one engine cut is exceptionally good.

Summary of flying characteristics. This aeroplane represents a definite advance in the design of flying controls. The designer has achieved controls which, while being light enough to obtain full movement at quite high speeds, are in no way overbalanced for small movements. As a result the aircraft is extremely pleasant to fly and manoeuvre. The tricycle undercarriage makes take-off, landing and ground handling very simple, and pilots should be able to fly the type successfully with the minimum of instruction.

AFDU Tactical Trials on a Boston II, July 1941:
The Boston can easily evade all attacks except for an astern attack by turning steeply towards the attacking fighter.

When attacked from astern, the Boston should evade either by a series of skids as it tries to draw the enemy away or by a tight turn. If the aircraft is slowed down and 15-30 degrees of flap applied it can practically out-turn a Hurricane.

AFDU Tactical Trials on a Boston III, May 1942:
General The Boston III is an extremely manoeuvrable aircraft, the controls being light and positive, only stiffening very slightly at high speed. The single engine flying characteristics are good and the aircraft can still manoeuvre well if one engine is out of action. ...

A single Boston can present a fighter with a very difficult target and can on occasion bring its own four front guns to bear if the fighter breaks away on the bow. Skidding, undulating and throttling back are useful forms of evasion but by far the most effective are a tight turn if menaced by only one fighter, or a corkscrewing movement against several fighters.

John Frazer said:

The whole question of "if they were good, where are they today" is a red herring. "The market" had no interest in a good thing. It's not the first time in aviation history that a good idea withered on the vine because of customer inattention. Again, that doesn't speak against the concept or model type.

Click to expand...

It does if the market and conditions don't change or change slowly.

Market forces include cost of construction and operating costs (fuel costs) among others.


Very slow aircraft have little market appeal. Especially today. Airfields, even ones for general aviation are much larger than they were in the 20s and 30s and STOL designs, while fascinating, are not needed for the vast majority of aircraft.

Efficiency can change radically with speed, an efficient aircraft just over 100mph can be a high drag fuel hog at higher speeds. Likewise a low drag/high speed design can be inefficient/high drag when configured for low speed (slats and flaps out and high angle of attack).

When thinking about some of these old aircraft we also have to careful not to confuse cause and effect.

ARUP S-2


not the best downward vision for landing for a light plane. But the thick monoplane wing offered a freedom from the wires and struts common to aircraft of it's time. Landing gear looks pretty good for an airplane of it's era too. Was the speed because of the novel wing planform or in part due to the absence of struts/wires?

another picture


Forward vision doesn't look good let alone downward. Great streamlining didn't always make for a marketable plane for the masses.

Later (larger) versions moved the cockpit forward.

S-4 may have performed well but it may have been a bit lacking in some other areas. It used an 85hp Cirrus engine that burned about 6 gallons an hour and had a 16 gallon fuel tank.

The Fairchild C-8 (beginning of the Fairchild 24 series) used a 95hp Cirrius at 6,5 gallons an hour and had a 24 gallon capacity and could hold 236lb of passenger and baggage. Yes it was slower than the Arup S-4 but you could enter through doors in the side. It had better vision downward.

The empty weight for the S-4 as given in Wiki seems a bit low but it could be a mistake, we have no payload or gross weight to judge load carrying ability.

The NACA was interested in all sort of aircraft or design features at the time (late 20s and the 30s) that doesn't mean they all were good ideas that got ignored.

The Concord is not a good example as it is a classic case of changing markets. It was introduced in the mid 70s although first flight was in 1969. It started service just a few years after the great gas/oil crunch of 1973 and even jet fuel had skyrocketed in price so much that the whole operating economics of operating these aircraft had to be rethought. A large reason that only 14 went into commercial service. In the 13-14 years before the gas crunch the price of gas and jet fuel had been pretty stable or at least risen on a somewhat predictable path.
The early environmental movement also targeted them. Sometimes stupidly. A number of years later there was talk about allowing them to land at Hartford/Springfield Airport and protests marches were planned to "Stop the Concord". a lot of effort for minimal result. the plane had gone out of production years before and no more were going to made and the only reason to land one at Hartford/Springfield Airport was in an emergency or in case it's real destination was closed due to weather.

Graeme said:

Somewhere around 1:1.28

And very light.

Jet version of the Cri-Cri...

Colomban Cri-cri - Wikipedia

View attachment 547529

Click to expand...

He looks like Super Dave Osborne...

BiffF15 said:

John Frazer,

The A-20? By what standards, todays or the late 30s / early 40s?

Click to expand...

Greyman said:

Cherry-picked quotes ...

Click to expand...

Apparently by the standards of the USAAF in '44, it came with severe cautions.
Again, whatever some pilots of other services said about it, this is what the Army told its pilots.

Shortround6 said:

Very slow aircraft have little market appeal.

Click to expand...

97mph on 37 HP for 900lbs, isn't that slow. NACA was impressed with it.

Hatfield practically bragged about efficiency. Are you saying he was lying, exaggerating/deluded? NASA report about the Facetmobile said it was slick and efficient, other "all-wing" or fuselage-less planes have also done very well for speed / power and fuel / range. What else is there?

not the best downward vision for landing for a light plane.

Click to expand...

By some reports, USN gave up on the Corsair as a naval plane because it had atrocious vision and their pilots couldn't see the ship to land it on. The RAF must have had a few older biplane pilots, because the pilot sits in the back.

(I said RAF, of course I meant RN)

WHAT???????????????? I was suspicious at first but this guy is definitely a troll

Highly expensive and risky military plane does not make a successful commercial or forgiving plane design. Whatever you say about the B-2, it isn't.
I stand by what I said about the Ford and other tail-less planes.

John Frazer said:

Highly expensive and risky military plane does not make a successful commercial or forgiving plane design. Whatever you say about the B-2, it isn't.
I stand by what I said about the Ford and other tail-less planes.

Click to expand...

And again its apparent you have neither the experience or credentials to make such a statement.

FLYBOYJ said:

And again its apparent you have neither the experience or credentials to make such a statement.

Click to expand...

One design? of a military pane that cannot lead to a commercial advance?

fubar57 said:

WHAT???????????????? I was suspicious at first but this guy is definitely a troll

Click to expand...

Blah blah blah blah blah.
No substantive answers, just personality attacks and bluster.

John Frazer said:

Blah blah blah blah blah.
No substantive answers, just personality attacks and bluster.

Click to expand...

Yep - and now it's your turn to take a time out

Someone who doesn't know that the FAA flew the Corsair