buffnut453
Captain
I understand it gave the whitest whites...and had a wicked spin cycle.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
High-powered washing machine . . . hmmm . . . a Brewster Buffalo with a Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engine?
Not sure what gauge of wire was used for a typical USAAF transmitter, but they were high-powered output and should have required either 6 or 8-gauge stranded core supply wire from the battery to the transceiver assembly. When the radio transmitted, it would have had a booster motor that upped the transceiver's voltage/amps to transmit.
Just 20 feet of 8-gauge THHN wiring can weigh a few pounds and the motor assembly weighed about 12 pounds (at least the GE motors I worked with did) and the weight came from the iron core and copper windings in a cast aluminum housing.
I don't suppose you would like to enlighten us with your qualifications and experience would you?Please give up on trying to educate me. I already have way more education than I can ever use. Thank you.
Early transmitters used lower frequencies with elevated wattage to be able to transmit over long distances.An increased range implies a larger power transformer for the amp as well, and that's already one of the heaviest pieces in the rig. And the weight rises disproportionate to the output in amps from this era.
Not to mention the motor/generator style inverter to supply the 115V 400 Hz current some of the flight instruments and most of the radio gear required. The one in our club's T34 weighed 31 pounds bare and 35 with mounting bracket and wiring. The plane was built in the early 50s with all tube radios, but ours used "modern" Bendix 12VDC nav/coms. The only items that still used 115VAC/400Hz were the three gyros and their synchros.When the radio transmitted, it would have had a booster motor that upped the transceiver's voltage/amps to transmit.
Throughout the war British area bombing and AAF pinpoint bombing never exceeded 50% of bombs landing within a THREE MILE radius of the target (Wiki). The BoB was before most of the British and AAF bombing.Can we please have a source for the statement that most bombs dropped from 20,000ft "didn't hit anything. Farmland, a lake, absolutely nothing of importance"?
Can you please provide a source for the doctrine or directives of ANY air force, anywhere, anytime which states that they should only intercept those enemy aircraft that have a chance of bombing something important?
Yet again, you are failing to even read any of the posts that other members are providing. Per @Andrew Arthy post 2104, the Me109 bombers didn't necessarily bomb from 25,000ft. The SOP for at least one Staffeln was to dive to 16,000ft and drop.
Again, you're ENTIRELY MISSING THE POINT....Fighter Command's responsibility was to DEFEND UK AIRSPACE FROM ENEMY AIRCRAFT. PERIOD. It doesn't matter if they came over in high-powered washing machines, the job of the Hurricanes and Spitfires was to intercept them. That's the purpose of gaining/maintaining air superiority.
Can you compare to daylight bombing? I believe the British destroyed many barges in ports along the French and Belian coast during the Battle of Britain while the USA managed to bomb the wrong country in 1945. Everyone can select their own factoids cant they? Irritating isnt it?Throughout the war British area bombing and AAF pinpoint bombing never exceeded 50% of bombs landing within a THREE MILE radius of the target (Wiki). The BoB was before most of the British and AAF bombing.
Throughout the war British area bombing and AAF pinpoint bombing never exceeded 50% of bombs landing within a THREE MILE radius of the target (Wiki). The BoB was before most of the British and AAF bombing.
Honestly, this is getting increasingly silly, to use a good old British word including, if not synonymous with, groundhuggery.Throughout the war British area bombing and AAF pinpoint bombing never exceeded 50% of bombs landing within a THREE MILE radius of the target (Wiki). The BoB was before most of the British and AAF bombing.
It's a talent.I really got to hand it to a couple of our posters. I try to come up with patently ridiculous claims for an absurd position and I run out of steam. I don't know how they do it.
I know right? My first Rat motored Chevelle but it was one of the County Sheriff's daughters...Hey, I think I KNOW that cop you're talking about above ...
Well the unspoken issue would be the reduction of range, dragging your a... tailpipes will negatively effect fuel consumption. How can you not admit some of these simple cardynamic issues?It's already been posted here that rearward c.o.g. doesn't affect performance.
Like I said, I don't know how they do it.Well the unspoken issue would be the reduction of range, dragging your a... tailpipes will negatively effect fuel consumption. How can you not admit some of these simple cardynamic issues?
In reading stuff for the other groundhog thread and stuff I remember from here and there the deception plan Fortitude for D-Day was interesting. It is impossible to guarantee that no recon planes would get over south England so they prepared for such a plane to find what was expected to be there. The fictitious army in Kent under Patton had inflatable tanks and aircraft out in the open. The real army to the west, all over the countryside north of Southampton and Portsmouth were heavily camouflaged/ disguised. Naval assets around Portsmouth and Southampton would be a logical holding place for action in the Pas de Calais. So the intention was that any recon that happened would confirm what was wanted to confirm, the Landing would be in Calais.Great post
fourthly, the threat from high flying aircraft was not only bombing. Italy is the only major combatant of which I have no positive knowledge of any actual development of at least prototypes of high attitude fighters. The Ju- 86 may have had the ability to carry a few bombs, but the real significance of the plane was its ability to gather intelligence. a concept not to be dismissed. While we can only speculate it is fair to assume that could Germany have photographed the build up to Overlord, the operation may have proved far more costly. I know about those things called clouds, but before you quote some Englishman that it always rains over all of England (hint, you can find him on this very forum), I will only budge if presented with hard meteorological data that this was in fact the case from some point in 1943 to mid 1944.
or "I give you books and you eat the covers"!Old saying: You can lead a horse to water but you can`t make it drink.
In two of the pictured Bf109s in the link they are carrying 4x 110Lb bombs, a third of Bf109 Jabos were this type so it isnt certain that they were only dropping one 550Lb bomb.So you're taking an average across all daylight and night-time bombing efforts? Yeah, not the most relevant of statistics. However, let's use your 3-mile figure just for grins to show the irrelevance of your statement.
Per the Wiki page on the Blitz (The Blitz - Wikipedia), the size of London in 1940 was about 750 square miles (it held about one-fifth of the population of Britain). Treating that area as a circle, just to keep things simple, gives us a radius of about 15.4 miles from the centre of London to its edge. If the aim point for the Jabo raids is the centre of the city then, per your statistic, 50% of all the bombs would fall within 3 miles....but that still leaves 12.4 miles of London's radius for the remainder to fall in. Thus, for a large area target like London, the vast majority of the Jabo bombs would hit "something"...not farmland, not lakes, but people, property, industry, businesses, government etc. Again, why would Fighter Command ignore that threat? Still awaiting an answer on that.
But wait...there's more. The Jabo raids didn't only bomb from 20,000 ft. Per this site (Jabo over England I), high-altitude attacks were only used against large area targets like cities. Even then, the Me109 fighter-bombers would dive to improve weapon aiming, a tactic that was mentioned earlier in this thread. Attacks against point targets employed low-level bombing at 1000-1500ft were employed which would greatly increase the precision and accuracy of those attacks....but just because you bomb at low-level does NOT mean the entire sortie was flown at low level. Hi-lo-hi is a very common ground attack flight profile against which FC had to respond.
So...back at you again. Please explain why FC was wrong to intercept these raids.
You can force me to school but you can't make me think.Old saying: You can lead a horse to water but you can`t make it drink.