SBD Dauntless Discussion Group

FLYBOYJ said:

syscom3 said:

Also, wasnt it fowler flaps that increased wing area?.

Click to expand...

All flaps increase wing area when deployed - fowler, split, zap, or slat.....

Click to expand...

Only the Fowlers, since they extend backwards when extended. Split flaps are hinged and only drop down. They change the camber of the lower wing airfoil.

Slats are not really flaps, in my book.

What is a zap?

The opposite of a zip???

"zip flaps"..... hehehehe

They were named after Northrop engineer Edward Zap, who invented them.

I think they were retractable flaps that extended the whole span.

Im probably wrong on this, so someone correct me.

And If I had left out the times what happens to your argument?
- If you left out the times, I would have asked you if you had more evidence.

Click to expand...

-- Presuming, of course, that you knew I had the times.

And in the course of an action where there's enemy planes about, do you always expect someone to look down at his watch and take out a pencil and note the time?
- Actaually yes. All pilots were asked to give the best estimate of time of events as it happened. The pilots actually had clocks in the cockpit for them to look at from time to time. If the AAF could do it, the surface ships do it (when they were shooting at enemy planes and ships) then I think it would be resonable for the naval Air Arm to request the same things from their pilots.

Click to expand...

-- Oh gee, I didn't know instrument panels had clocks! Who would have thought; what a clever idea. In you own words "best estimate of time of events as it happened" and maybe that's the best they could have done under some circumstances. Also we're not discussing pilots.

And the fact that some of these only gives a range of time in which an action occurs makes them "unbelievable"?
- Yes. to say "i shot down a plane sometime between the following 30 minutes in the air. I cant remember it though." would be a flag for anyone to question the validity of the claim.

Click to expand...

-- Evidently the debriefers don't share your august opinion; especially since they rated 7 other gunners claims as only probables and another 13 as only damaged.

And the fact that several of the credits occurred in the same area makes the unbelievable?
- The fact several gunners made claims at the same time at the same location is most probably the result of them all shooting at the same plane

Click to expand...

-- And you can make this determination without any knowledge of the engagement itself?

And how do you draw that conclusion?
- Logical conclusion as proven many times in tallying up the results at the end of the war. The gunners of the planes in formation did not all talk amongst themselves on who was going to shoot at which plane.

Click to expand...

-- Ahh, I see, logic, but not based on any actual knowledge of the circumstances.

Do you know with what other aircraft these were operating?
- Irrelevent to this discussion

Click to expand...

-- Ummm, well, I suppose I can see how the number of aircraft involved on both sides of an engagement would be irrelevant to how many were shot down; especially since it is equally obvious that it is apparently, in your world, impossible for than one plane to be shot down in any one engagement. Give me a break.

Do you know who may have witnessed the events?
- the ones that had precise times of their kill, or of shared kills I counted as valid. That is good evidence there were multiple witness's

Click to expand...

-- And so anyone else who witnessed an action is dismissed out of hand, right?

Are you aware of the circumstances of the action?
- Irrelevent to this discussion '

Click to expand...

-- The circumstances of an action would seem to drive the results. Certainly more relevant than your opinion.

Please describe the action so that we may share your insight.
- Irrelevent to this discussion

Click to expand...

-- You don't mean you have no idea what occurred? And you presume to pass judgment?

What makes you think a credit is shared when it is not so noted, were you there?
- When the times matched at the same location, that was a shared kill, with all gunners shooting at the same plane. By the way, were you there too?

Click to expand...

-- See above regarding circumstances surrounding the action. Here you sit in front of your PC 60 years later with apparently no knowledge of the events and pontificate and pass judgment on what has been recorded. Must be nice to be omniscient.

And when were you certified as an ACIO?
- Did you get yours over the internet? I have a CCNA and a white chevy. Do you?

Click to expand...

-- Apparently you have no idea what is an ACIO, which probably explains a lot. Wouldn't drive a chevy if you paid me.

Facts, not opinion. Show me some evidence.
- Im questioning the evidence in that the kills claimed were exagerated. It's perfectly valid to interject personal opinion into an argument, as long as you dont declare it fact. You seem to be attacking me for asking questions. Are you hiding something?

Click to expand...

-- Hardly can be hiding if I can provide you with information you obviously do not have yourself in the first place. Glad to see that you aren't declaring anything as fact, merely your opinion to which you certainly entitled, regardless how uninformed.

Oh, you have none?
- Your evidence sounds mighty slim. Attack the questioneer, not discuss the facts as you see them.

Click to expand...

-- If I can cite the instances of the claims and you cannot, that seems that I have evidence of the claims and you have naught but your self esteemed opinion.

Oh, that's right, I forgot, you don't need no stinkin' evidence do you?
- Im asking the questions. I dont need evidence. Im just pointing out some area's of the claims that need further clarification and study.

Click to expand...

-- No actually, you do need the evidence. You are the one challenging the established record. In order for your challenge to stand you must offer something beyond your opinion which would effect a change to the record. You, since you are questioning their validity, must examine the claims "that need further clarification and study." Anything else is just BS.

Your considered opinion means nothing without something to back it up.
- I dont think youre helping your argument by continuing to attack me, and not expanding on your evidence. Ive already stated that some of those claims didnt sound "kosher". Others did make sense.

Click to expand...

-- If challenging your opinion as having no basis in fact or research is attacking you, then so be it. I am questioning an obvious inability to offer any concrete refutation of the record beyond just your opinion. Opinions don't count.

Lawd, lawd, I've seen folks grasp at straws before, but this is prime.
- Ive seen some of the Luftwaffe experts in the other threads do a professionally good job backing up their claims. I dont think youre doing a good job at all. Its like youre not sure of the evidence.

Click to expand...

-- If you are expecting me to do your research for your contention, you can guess again. If you're nice, I might consider citing the reports where you could find the info, but don't hold your breath and, somehow, I just don't think you'd bother to follow up.

-- You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as I've said, but you should take care to couch it as such, rather than as some vaguely disguised fact. Always helps to start out with "I don't know for certain because I wasn't there and haven't read the reports, but in my opinion . . ." That's a little easier to digest and then all you'd hear from me is "my, that is certainly interesting . . . I think, on the basis of the record, you are perhaps mistaken, but it's not my job to change your mind."

Regards,

Rich

syscom3 said:

"zip flaps"..... hehehehe

They were named after Northrop engineer Edward Zap, who invented them.

I think they were retractable flaps that extended the whole span.

Im probably wrong on this, so someone correct me.

Click to expand...

There spoilers on the surface of the wing usualy about 1/3 to 1/4 of the outer span. They "spoil" the lift on that wing and are very effective in terms of roll effectiveness. A great shot of how they work is on the F-14s in "Top Gun", note the elevators are also linked in modern aircraft which is only possible in computer assisted/controlled aircraft.

By the way the ailerons were only used on the P-61 because the Spoliers were not accepted by conventional pilots.

wmaxt

FLYBOYJ said:

syscom3 said:

Also, wasnt it fowler flaps that increased wing area?.

Click to expand...

All flaps increase wing area when deployed - fowler, split, zap, or slat.....

Click to expand...

? They normaly increase lift and drag.

A fowler opens and extends creating more wing area.

Plane flaps, like those on the P-51 and F4U just pivot down, extending the curve of the wing but not wing area.

With split flaps, just the underside pivots down and uses the void created to draw the air down creating the airflow effect of both added area and extended curve for the wing.

Slats do extend the area a little but mostly control and smoth the air flow.

Spoilers (Zap) are mid chord (depending on purpose) and kill lift/change airflow, again depending on purpose but they open out of the skin without adding area.

Only Fowler flaps add phisical area, all other flaps just create the effect of added area but slats kill lift (except rare cases like the P-38 and P-47 where they impead supersonic airflow and restore lift).

wmaxt

wmaxt said:

FLYBOYJ said:

syscom3 said:

Also, wasnt it fowler flaps that increased wing area?.

Click to expand...

All flaps increase wing area when deployed - fowler, split, zap, or slat.....

Click to expand...

? They normaly increase lift and drag.

A fowler opens and extends creating more wing area.

Plane flaps, like those on the P-51 and F4U just pivot down, extending the curve of the wing but not wing area.

wmaxt

Click to expand...

Actually they do increase wing area - as you stated they extend the curve of the wing. Add in that "curve" and the wing area will increase. And you are correct, lift and drag are increased

FB, if one measure the distance to the from the leading edge to the hinge line (a) and then the distance from the hinge line to the trailing edge of the flap (b), one arrives at the same total distance (c).

a + b = c, not c'

KraziKanuK said:

FB, if one measure the distance to the from the leading edge to the hinge line (a) and then the distance from the hinge line to the trailing edge of the flap (b), one arrives at the same total distance (c).

a + b = c, not c'

Click to expand...

He's technicaly correct. The wing flap exposes a couple of inches as the hinge point rotates. In other words the point the flap starts in the up position and as it rotates it exposes some ammount of the inner curve of the flap changing the equasion to A+B+C=D and then you get A+B +B'+C =D'
B being the flap reveal line at the edge of the wing and flap in the up position, and B' being the new point at the wing edge, flap meeting point.

It becomes obvious if you mark a door hinge (both the part on the frame and the door) and then close the door and the marks will now be in different places.

I hope I was clear.

wmaxt

KraziKanuK said:

FB, if one measure the distance to the from the leading edge to the hinge line (a) and then the distance from the hinge line to the trailing edge of the flap (b), one arrives at the same total distance (c).

a + b = c, not c'

Click to expand...

I know what you'rre trying to say and how it may seem but you're measuring the angle of flap with relationship to the flap bay. Measure the entire camber....

Maybe I should of said lifting area insted of wing area

Copied the drawing from a link I had in my "conehead" file, this explains the effects of a split flap and then moving it to the rear - should of looked at this to start with

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1932/naca-tn-422/index.cgi?page0001.gif

OK Leonard, this is the end of the discussion.

I asked you origionaly if these claims had been compared to Japanese records, and the answer is clear. No they havent. So I guess we will have to put an asterisk around your datafile as saying it needs further analysis. I'd say about 1/5th to 1/4th of the claims could be suspect.

Now since you seem to be a scholar of sorts, I challenge you to locate Japanese records and sources and compare it to each and every claim. It would make one heck of a good book when youre done. Maybe you could submit it to peer review and have it published.

Now if youre wondering why I put such an emphisis on the time each kill occured...... its simple. Back then, navigation over the sea was dead reckoning. Plot board, compass heading and elapsed time. All naval pilots kept a close eye on the time, cause if they didnt, they would get lost real fast.

End of discussion, over and out.

I certainly don't need a lecture on navagation at or over sea. I suspect I probably know a little bit more about naval aviation doctrine and practices than you.

If you wish to pursue the Japaneses records, as I stated long ago, please be my guest.

Bottom line, I think there is overwhelming evidence that Swede Vejesta shot down 3 Zeros in an SBD, his gunner and other aircraft confirmed it, he probably out maneuvered his opponents by using flaps and high Gs - the man knew what he was doing because he went on the be a double ace. Enough Said?!?

And the ground crew would have seen the oil on his windscreen, engagemnt and hit would be a definate.

I dont see why he could not have shot down 3.

Its possible, but in my humble opinion, improbable. I could accept one kill, but no way two and three.

My opinons only.

I just dont see where the Dauntless would have the power to maneuver around like that with the Zero.

syscom3 said:

Its possible, but in my humble opinion, improbable. I could accept one kill, but no way two and three.

My opinons only.

I just dont see where the Dauntless would have the power to maneuver around like that with the Zero.

Click to expand...

If you manage your energy better than your opponent, power is irrelevant

Yeap and the wierdest things happen in combat anyhow. The will to live can help you accomplish many things. I dont doubt his claim, I dont see a reason to.

Why dont we drop the fuck ing subject about Swede before I blow my fuck ing top.... I know the truth, and if some lame ass wants to deny to truth, fine.....

But I will not put up with syscom calling him a liar again......

Do u hear me???? Whether or not u think its true, I KNOW ITS TRUE.... He was called "Uncle Swede" in my house, and if u decide ur going to insult his memory, honesty and intergrity, we are going to have BIG problems syscom....

Ur opinion is irrelevant to the truth in this matter, as the truth is known and confirmed by others WAYYYY more enlightened than urself....

Understand???