Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
But the Zero was light enough to glide..!Hello Dan Fahey,
I seem to remember that was a "Saburo Sakai flying the A6M" feature.
He decided to fly until he ran the tanks dry and glide in for a landing just to see what the actual endurance was.
- Ivan.
Well in the US you had Allison, Curtiss-Wright, Pratt and Whitney and Packard all making piston engines, then Westinghouse and G.E. making jet engines, plus G.E. also making turbochargers. So that's more like 5 or 6 companies.
That said, I don't think the Soviets were slacking on engine development, I just think they could have, if they'd really felt the need, put more into engine development vs. manufacture or design of fighters, or bombers, or trucks or tanks or small arms or submarines or whatever. I don't think they felt the deficiencies of the Klimov etc. engines as sorely as it may appear they should have to some.
Hey, just a minute. The original comparison wasn't how many plants were building engines, it was how many major design/build organisations (or "brands") did each country have in the recip arena. That leaves out all the outfits copying or copying/modifying someone else's design. AFAIK, there was no totally indigenous design US jet engine in WWII that was free from British input.Well in the US you had Allison, Curtiss-Wright, Pratt and Whitney and Packard all making piston engines, then Westinghouse and G.E. making jet engines, plus G.E. also making turbochargers. So that's more like 5 or 6 companies.
Hey, just a minute. The original comparison wasn't how many plants were building engines, it was how many major design/build organisations (or "brands") did each country have in the recip arena. That leaves out all the outfits copying or copying/modifying someone else's design. AFAIK, there was no totally indigenous design US jet engine in WWII that was free from British input.
Cheers,
Wes
ANY airplane is light enough to glide! It's a function of L/D, and weight doesn't change it. The kicker is that the speed (and hence, sink rate) at which optimum L/D is achieved by such bricklike objects as an F104 or F4 makes for a pretty dicey landing (think Space Shuttle) that the landing gear may not withstand. OTOH, there've been, I believe, at least two instances of F16s making dead stick landings, one of them in night IMC.But the Zero was light enough to glide
ANY airplane is light enough to glide! It's a function of L/D, and weight doesn't change it. The kicker is that the speed (and hence, sink rate) at which optimum L/D is achieved by such bricklike objects as an F104 or F4 makes for a pretty dicey landing (think Space Shuttle) that the landing gear may not withstand. OTOH, there've been, I believe, at least two instances of F16s making dead stick landings, one of them in night IMC.
Cheers,
Wes
Packard had their own indigenous V12 design for marine use, to which they adapted some Merlin technology, making the PT boats into fast movers. And they had fooled around with V12 aero engines and superchargers in the 20s and early 30s, working on a follow-on to the Liberty engine of WWI. But AFAIK, they never produced an in-house designed V12 aero engine after that.As to whether Packard counts, it's true they adapted Rolls Royce engines but weren't they doing their own engine research and variants of the engine (for example with marine engines)? Maybe it's a stretch.
IF they happened to graduate UPT when Eagle pipeline inputs were happening!If only those Viper guys would have done just a touch better at Pilot Training then they to could have got a fighter with two engines instead of one..
I think that's a fair statement. Certainly not unreasonableI am not saying it was ineffective, I am saying that it's record may not be quite as spectacular as it's purported to be, as a consequence of overclaiming.......if you have aspirins would you mind PM'ing me one?
Once read a pilot discribe the glide characteristics of a Phantom as that of an anvil. He may have been using a bit of hyperbole.............but maybe not too much.ANY airplane is light enough to glide! It's a function of L/D, and weight doesn't change it. The kicker is that the speed (and hence, sink rate) at which optimum L/D is achieved by such bricklike objects as an F104 or F4 makes for a pretty dicey landing (think Space Shuttle) that the landing gear may not withstand. OTOH, there've been, I believe, at least two instances of F16s making dead stick landings, one of them in night IMC.
Cheers,
Wes
The Phantom's Martin-Baker seats, which were zero-zero rated and would preserve your posterior if you punched out sitting on the flight line, wouldn't save you if you did it in a steady state dead stick glide below 3000 feet. The sink rate would put you outside the seat's envelope and you wouldn't get enough separation to avoid the aircraft's point of impact.Once read a pilot discribe the glide characteristics of a Phantom as that of an anvil. He may have been using a bit of hyperbole.............but maybe not too much.
This isn't the one I was looking for but Axis Order of Battle in June 1943 (just before the invasion of Sicily) included. This is from MAW IV pages 158-159.
Germans
Bf 109 - 165 (mostly G-2 and G-4 with some F-4)
Bf 109 - 7 (recon units)
Fw 190 - 54 (these were jabo units)
Fw 190 - 60 (these were attack 'schlacht') units, stationed in Sardinia)
Me 110 - 44 ('zerstorer' units)
Total 165 front line fighters, plus another 125 assigned to fighter bomber, attack or recon
Italians
Bf 109 - 6 (all G model, another 40 unservicable)
MC 205 - 11 (another 20 unserviceable)
Re 2005 - 10
MC 202 - 32 (another 80 or so unserviceable)
MC 200 - (4 all unserviceable)
Dewoitine D.520 - 4 (9 unserviceable)
CR 42 - 17 (used as fighter bombers)
All of the above were in Sicily by the time of operation Husky unless otherwise stated
In reserve in Italy they also had another 13 MC 200
Total 59 front line fighters, 8 second line fighters, 17 fighter bombers, with 13 more second-line fighters (MC 200) in reserve in Italy.
Altogether for the Axis 224 front line fighters, plus the 114 Fw 190s which are no slouch, and 61 obsolescent fighters.
Against this the US had 100 Spitfires, 182 P-38s (three fighter groups plus recon), and 266 P-40F/L s, plus 120 P-51 dive bombers or recon planes, 116 P-39s, and 48 Beaufighters. (this is from pages 156-157 in the same book.) So roughly double the number of fighters. Plus the RAF was involved.
I believe the Lockheed J37 was started prior to the arrival of the British technology, but was essentially a DOA program.Hey, just a minute. The original comparison wasn't how many plants were building engines, it was how many major design/build organisations (or "brands") did each country have in the recip arena. That leaves out all the outfits copying or copying/modifying someone else's design. AFAIK, there was no totally indigenous design US jet engine in WWII that was free from British input.
Cheers,
Wes
Did it fly? Did it fight? DQ.I believe the Lockheed J37 was started prior to the arrival of the British technology, but was essentially a DOA program.
Nope, like a myriad number of other engines, protracted development, and lack of a patron killed it. But according to Kay design work started in 1938.Did it fly? Did it fight? DQ.