Most agile four engined aircraft ww2?

[Thumpalumpacus]

The State Dept (IIRC) shut down the project from ever flying again, classifying it as still Nuclear capable. I remember the work out at Great Southwest airport in late 69, but don't recall much about the actual build as AA also interferred when they took over Great Southwest for their HQ site as DFW completed.

As I saw the plane in my time stationed at Carswell, there's no way I'd want that plane to fly again. It looked so rotten even from a mile away on White Settlement Road that I wouldn't trust t to hold together, even after a years-long rebuild.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I grew up to the thunder of B-36 and C-124 and will never forget the sound or sight of six turning and four burning running up on the active. The last generation will never have a clue.

I've never heard this myself, but I "liked" your post because even hearing 7BW doing a MITO exercise with eight -52s and four -135s was a sinus-clearing event, mouse-ears be damned.

 

[special ed]

In my teen years (1950s) I could hear and feel the B-36 and C-124 at altitude overhead. Unless one has felt the vibration, it is difficult to describe but unforgettable.

 

[GrauGeist]

I've never heard this myself, but I "liked" your post because even hearing 7BW doing a MITO exercise with eight -52s and four -135s was a sinus-clearing event, mouse-ears be damned.

Your best chance of hearing a B-36 in it's full operational range, would be the movie "Strategic Air Command" (starring Jimmy Stewart).
While it's not the same as the real deal, it does have excellent sights and sounds.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Your best chance of hearing a B-36 in it's full operational range, would be the movie "Strategic Air Command" (starring Jimmy Stewart).
While it's not the same as the real deal, it does have excellent sights and sounds.

I've seen the movie, yeah. I've also played gigs and listened back to those recordings, and believe me when I say it's not the same thing, as you yourself point out. Very much how I imagine the difference between "flying" a sim and flying an airplane. Watching that movie, you're hearing the speakers, not the engines. And more to the point, you aren't feeling the engines.

 

[Shortround6]

And more to the point, you aren't feeling the engines.

You just need bigger speakers and more amps........................................
And tolerant neighbors

 

[GrauGeist]

I've seen the movie, yeah. I've also played gigs and listened back to those recordings, and believe me when I say it's not the same thing, as you yourself point out. Very much how I imagine the difference between "flying" a sim and flying an airplane. Watching that movie, you're hearing the speakers, not the engines. And more to the point, you aren't feeling the engines.

However, you can tell that the sound of those engines in some of the sequences, was overdriving the analog audio input.

And I *may* have turned the volume up on my theater system for that immersion.
Pretty sure my neighbors were sharing in the experience of six turning and four burning, too!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

However, you can tell that the sound of those engines in some of the sequences, was overdriving the analog audio input.

And I *may* have turned the volume up on my theater system for that immersion.
Pretty sure my neighbors were sharing in the experience of six turning and four burning, too!

You just need bigger speakers and more amps........................................
And tolerant neighbors

My god, you heathens. Y'all need to experience the roar of fifty simple watts here with your ears, and you'll understand what I'm saying. You will know when you're in the presence!

Recording and playback doesn't capture the experience, because of input compression and speaker limitations. I write this as someone who's owned a home studio for a while, and plays and records loud guitar (on occasion).

The word of the day is dynamics. That's how your ears know if your neighbor is cranking his stereo or if he's hosting a gig, even without looking. His stereo will be more compressed than the live sound. The exact same thing is true of aircraft noises vs recorded aircraft noises. If I parked a truck on the street out of your front door and blasted the sound of an F-4 taking off, you would sure as hell know it was not the real thing.

 

[Shortround6]

I didn't have a studio system, but the 15in woofer (4 cubic ft enclosure ) had it's own 200 watt amp. The main amp was good for 105 watts a side (conservative) the main speakers had 12in wolfers. (JBL 4313B's)

Small stuff and not really good for ear bleeding sound, but it defiantly rattled windows and you felt it in your chest.

Got rid of the sub woofer, amp and cross-over many years ago as chances to turn it up were few and far between.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I didn't have a studio system, but the 15in woofer (4 cubic ft enclosure ) had it's own 200 watt amp. The main amp was good for 105 watts a side (conservative) the main speakers had 12in wolfers. (JBL 4313B's)

Small stuff and not really good for ear bleeding sound, but it defiantly rattled windows and you felt it in your chest.

Got rid of the sub woofer, amp and cross-over many years ago as chances to turn it up were few and far between.

The speakers impose a limit all their own. What's the largest fanblade or turbine you've seen in an airplane? I can guarantee you with those sizes involved, the amplitude is larger than what a speaker can pump. It's physics. A speaker is neither as small as the throat of songbird, nor as large as a jet's turbine. That right there will tell you which is real and which is being played back.

 

[wjkuleck]

Having heard this DB 605 at full chat close up...there is no way to reproduce this sound. It's more than a sound, it's literally a visceral experience.

 

[muskeg13]

What about this one? The Republic F-12 Rainbow didn't quite make the war, but it was close.

 

[Frog]

Most agile and good looking : Farman F.220 series.
Just joking.

 

[special ed]

All of this technical talk brings me back to 1961 when a couple of friends invited me to see/hear another friends new sound system. Sterophonic was the new thing and the fellow was setting up a band. It was after dark at the old house he rented in an old neighborhood. Inside there was the ampsetup, turntable and four large speakers, about 2 1/2 X 4 feet. He sat us in the middle of the room to listen to the demo record with the "train running through the house". Then he brought out two more large speakers which he put on the ends of the front porch outside. With all the windows open, the system up, he selected the track on the demo record of a DC-4 take off. Dust fell from the ceiling, walls shook and people's lights came on all up & down the street with people outside looking up into the sky. The fact that it was a mile or so from the airport helped. The fellow told us he couldn't do this demo often as it caused complaints to the airport management.

 

[SplitRz]

The Arado Ar 234C Blitz was what jumped to mind, despite my general disdain for "German Secret Weapons." That's based purely on its intended role (recce), crew of one, petite dimensions and weight rather than any specific commentary on the subject I have read. The story of the first Allied kill of an Ar 234

Arado Ar 234 - Fighting Hitler's Jets

Arado Ar 234 - Fighting Hitler's Jets - by Robert F. Dorr

erenow.net

leaves some questions, but since it was being used as a bomber and was loaded at the time, and was the pilot's first mission, I can't discount the possibility that even if it wasn't agile for its size, its size more than compensates because of physics. The roll rate of aircraft such as the B17, or Lancaster with twice the wingspan is unlikely to be anywhere near that of the Blitz.


The question is little like, "Which aircraft carrier would be the best fishing trawler?" There is little call for agility in aircraft requiring four engines. Four engined aircraft would mostly be bombers, cargo, or patrol aircraft for which stability rather than agility is a virtue, I think it unlikely that the answer would have been a successful bomber, cargo or patrol aircraft that was ever described as "a joy to fly." The Arado is a bit of an anomaly in that it had four engines rather than two solely because of the limitations of the jet engines of the time. I may be wrong, but lacking definitive data I'd put my money on a possibly stiff or ill-tempered pony rather than an amiable Clydesdale.

The B-29 is definitely not the answer with a 24 second barrel roll and 2 g turn:
"Roll rate: Approx. 15 deg/sec at 210 mph IAS @ 10,000 feet."
"Turning rate, in Gs: Approx. 2 Gs at 210 mph"

FirePower Plane Profiles - IGN

The Boeing B-29A Superfortress was America's answer to the question of how to strike at the very heart of Japan. An enormous undertaking, the Superfort's early days were fraught with trouble. The Wright R-3350 engines were prone to overheating and often caught fire with disastrous consequences...

www.ign.com

Nor is the Lancaster with 20 seconds and 2 g's
"Roll rate: Approx. 18 deg/sec at 160 mph IAS."
"Turning rate, in Gs: Approx. 2.0 Gs with full elevator deflection at 160 mph in a steep turn."

FirePower Plane Profiles - IGN

The famed Lancaster was Britain's mainstay in that country's bomber…

www.ign.com

B-17 is slightly better:
"Roll rate: Approx. 18 deg/sec at 180 mph IAS."
"Turning rate, in Gs: Approx. 2.2 Gs with full elevator deflection at 180 mph in a level turn."

FirePower Feature - IGN

The B-17 Flying Fortress has become one of the most revered of all WWII allied warplanes. The long-range medium bomber, which went through many modifications leading to the B-17G model, had a maximum speed of 287 mph, a range of 2000 miles, a service ceiling of 35,800ft, 13 machine guns, and 4...

www.ign.com

The Ar 234 will pull more g's
"The Arado 234 is exceptionally maneuverable for a bomber. Rate of roll is high and the radius of turn is restricted due to structural load limitations; however, maximum forces tested were approximately 3 g's. "

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ar234/AR-234-AAF.pdf

I know I'm disinterring an old comment from 6 months ago. But this series of assertions got me thinking.

"There is little call for agility in aircraft requiring four engines. Four engined aircraft would mostly be bombers, cargo, or patrol aircraft for which stability rather than agility is a virtue"

Really? Hmmm. Manoeuvrability is clearly going to be a factor of size, power to weight, wing-loading etc - and obviously providing a stable bomb platform is important (though providing a stable GUN platform for an attacking fighter is just as much an asset if not taken to excess). But its also a clear indicator in an age of crude auto-pilots and unpowered controls of structural integrity, control harmony, power reserves and likely ease of flying when overloaded, damaged, one or more engines out, or with some tyro pilot with a lack of experience behind the yoke on his first few missions. Being able to make the plane do what you want seems a pretty fundamental thing - something which flies like a brick isn;lt going to give you. A plane which is pleasant to fly is probably going to be easier and less tiring to fly, whilst also instilling confidence.

I would imagine that whilst speed and an altitude are probably the most important key performance assets into getting to and from Dodge unholed, what comes next for a four engined bomber? Probably bombload, so, presuming you have a reasonable bombsight, you don't have to come back and subject yourself to the danger of doing it again if the target isn't destroyed first time round.

But from there, things surely get more nuanced? Your assertion conjures up images of massed, tight formations of bombers doggedly ploughing towards their destinations, making simple, coordinated turns along the route. However, for many nations and bombing operations, this was *not* the tactic or doctrine employed.

For Bomber Command, whilst seeking more speed, altitude and bombload was always going to be a priority, its absolutely clear that manoeuvrability was of huge, huge importance. Tight turns, the ability to rapidly change course and altitude were key to evasion - as illustrated in the earlier post which shows the cork-screw manoeuvre. And again, as pointed out previously, restricted maneuverability put early marks of the Halifax at an extreme disadvantage and higher loss rate, because of their handling and aerodynamic problems.

All that anecdotal evidence and favourable comment from the pilots of the time shows something - as do the combat reports. The first priority of any pilot under attack was to keep his aircraft. crew safe and his mission on track - and it seems there are multiple examples of the manoeuvrability of their aircraft being critical to achieving that - especially when under attack from German night fighters. It extended beyond the pure bombers too - the Short Sunderland was a famously surprisingly agile aircraft which will also go a long way to explaining its surprising success in avoiding destruction by interceptors. And when it comes to landing aircraft on short or damaged runways, avoiding terrain in unpleasant weather, other aircraft (whether friendly or not!) - surely they are all situations in which you want your aircraft to be as manoeuvrable as possible, whether its a fighter or a 4-engined bomber, transport or airliner?

Its a doctrine the British continued after WW2. Their immediate post war V Bombers were all manoeuvrable - especially the Vulcan which at altitude could turn inside almost all other aircraft even at the end of its career.

 

[JDCAVE]

The speakers impose a limit all their own. What's the largest fanblade or turbine you've seen in an airplane? I can guarantee you with those sizes involved, the amplitude is larger than what a speaker can pump. It's physics. A speaker is neither as small as the throat of songbird, nor as large as a jet's turbine. That right there will tell you which is real and which is being played back.

A buddy of mine had a collection of Altec "Voice of the Cinema" speakers. He was a location sound mixer in the movie business. They Came in matt black plywood cabinets. Those were pretty loud. He collected them 30 years ago when nobody wanted such things.

Jim

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

A buddy of mine had a collection of Altec "Voice of the Cinema" speakers. He was a location sound mixer in the movie business. They Came in matt black plywood cabinets. Those were pretty loud. He collected them 30 years ago when nobody wanted such things.

Jim

Altec speakers are something else. Fender used them in 100w Twin Reverbs, two 12" Altecs, in an amp that was designed to forestall harmonic distortion. They will deafen you (at least temporarily) without ear-protection, no doubt. They were the premiere hi-repro speakers of their era and are not to be messed with.

JBLs as well had the capability to reproduce high freqs at SPLs that would cut you, without flubbing out. Highly valued by country players who wanted zero-point-zero speaker distortion and giving you 100w clean RMS with full freq range.

Plug a Strat or Tele into either one, and be careful of the ice-pick coming your way.

I saw Omar and the Howlers at the old Caravan of Dreams in Fort Worth in 1992, sitting right in front of the stage. Omar Dykes was playing a Strat through a Super Reverb (4x12 Altecs) at high volume. My ears literally rang for three days. It was murderous. Hi-def speakers are not to be sneezed at.

 

[chris ballance]

I don't know how you would judge their agility, but USN VPB-102 few up-gunned, but otherwise stripped down PB4Y-1s on "fighter escort" missions in the Pacific. Don't know how successful they were in the role, but even without modifications, they were pretty aggressive in going after Japanese seaplanes and twin engine land based reconnaissance aircraft.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What about this one? The Republic F-12 Rainbow didn't quite make the war, but it was close.
View attachment 678805

Was it agile? What's the power to weight ratio, wing loading and rate of climb?

 

[Admiral Beez]

With its four small engines the Piaggio P50 had a good top speed despite its weight.