Random facts about planes..
Discussion
RizzoTheRat said:
Our propulsion lecturer at uni once set a question to work out the power requirement of the F1's fuel pump. Most people reckoned they'd made a mistake in the maths when they came up with an answer of 55,000 bhp! They were shifting nearly 1000 litres of fuel per second.
The new Haynes book on the Saturn V quotes 53,000 hp for the turbopumps - so your class mates weren't too far out.dr_gn said:
Ayahuasca said:
HoHoHo said:
Some googling suggests............
9. Research shows that the first 3 minutes after takeoff and the final 8 minutes before landing are when 80% of plane crashes happen.
Wrong. 100% of plane crashes happen on the ground.9. Research shows that the first 3 minutes after takeoff and the final 8 minutes before landing are when 80% of plane crashes happen.
I knew someone was going to gleefully jump up in his chair and exclaim 'mid-air collision' - even thought about putting 'except mid-air collision' in my post - but thought it would be better to keep it simple and go with my 'what, do you think the aircraft stay up there?' reply.
After having read a book about the guys in Bomber Command and their LOW survival rate, I was impressed that a few crew actually fell to the ground WITHOUT PARACHUTES and survived. Trees, barns, etc saved them.
It reminds me ofMilena Velba Vesna Vulovic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87..... she fell from 10,000 meters and survived after heir airplane exploded.
It reminds me of
greghm said:
After having read a book about the guys in Bomber Command and their LOW survival rate, I was impressed that a few crew actually fell to the ground WITHOUT PARACHUTES and survived. Trees, barns, etc saved them.
It reminds me ofMilena Velba Vesna Vulovic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87..... she fell from 10,000 meters and survived after heir airplane exploded.
My grandfather served 3 tours with bomber command. Christ only knows how he survived. It reminds me of
The 'fighter' versions of de Havilland Mosquitoes (those with machine guns in the nose) were controlled by a fighter-style joystick.
The 'bomber' versions (those with glass noses) were controlled with bomber-style yokes.
In the film '633 Squadron', 'bomber' versions had their glass noses painted over to look like 'fighter' versions, and they went on to undertake a bombing mission.
Caveat - hopefully Eric and Ginetta will overlook the imprecise terminology used above, as I could not be bothered to look up the exact model types or their individual characteristics, or indeed check whether in the film they had yokes or sticks. Feel free to add if you feel the need.
The 'bomber' versions (those with glass noses) were controlled with bomber-style yokes.
In the film '633 Squadron', 'bomber' versions had their glass noses painted over to look like 'fighter' versions, and they went on to undertake a bombing mission.
Caveat - hopefully Eric and Ginetta will overlook the imprecise terminology used above, as I could not be bothered to look up the exact model types or their individual characteristics, or indeed check whether in the film they had yokes or sticks. Feel free to add if you feel the need.
greghm said:
djc206 said:
My grandfather served 3 tours with bomber command. Christ only knows how he survived.
On a comparative scale, I think only the U-Boot Force (68% of 41,000 crews lost) was more deadly than Bomber Command (56% of 160,000 crews lost). I am quoting from memory. Ayahuasca said:
The added drag of the 'Jericho Trumpet' responsible for the characteristic scream of a diving Ju-37 Stuka caused a significant loss of airspeed, and they were eventually withdrawn. However, all war films featuring Stukas still feature them.
In every film, when an aircraft goes into a dive, it makes a Stuka-style screaming sound. I have never heard an aircraft make this sound when diving in real life. Outside of Hollywood and Blitzkrieg, does it ever actually happen?Ayahuasca said:
The 'fighter' versions of de Havilland Mosquitoes (those with machine guns in the nose) were controlled by a fighter-style joystick.
The 'bomber' versions (those with glass noses) were controlled with bomber-style yokes.
In the film '633 Squadron', 'bomber' versions had their glass noses painted over to look like 'fighter' versions, and they went on to undertake a bombing mission.
Caveat - hopefully Eric and Ginetta will overlook the imprecise terminology used above, as I could not be bothered to look up the exact model types or their individual characteristics, or indeed check whether in the film they had yokes or sticks. Feel free to add if you feel the need.
The Mossies used in 633 Squadron were neither bomber nor fighter versions - they were trainers (although they were converted from bombers). Because by 1963/64 that's all there were left flying.The 'bomber' versions (those with glass noses) were controlled with bomber-style yokes.
In the film '633 Squadron', 'bomber' versions had their glass noses painted over to look like 'fighter' versions, and they went on to undertake a bombing mission.
Caveat - hopefully Eric and Ginetta will overlook the imprecise terminology used above, as I could not be bothered to look up the exact model types or their individual characteristics, or indeed check whether in the film they had yokes or sticks. Feel free to add if you feel the need.
eldar said:
SpamCan said:
Different mission profile; the B-17 was a strategic bomber, the Lancaster, save for a few specially adapted variants, an area bomber.
What is the difference between strategic an area? You would be better off claiming both were temporal bombers, the B-17 doing days, the Lancaster doing nights.
Best summary would be to call them both bombers to bomb Germany en masse.
Edited by Gandahar on Thursday 27th April 17:43
HoHoHo said:
2. One the most deadly airplane accidents actually happened on the ground. In 1977, two fully loaded planes carrying a total of over 600 passengers collided head-on in the middle of the runway in what is now known as the Tenerife Accident, named after Tenerife Island where the accident occurred. Over 500 people died.
Not true, the KLM plane was airborne at the time.It was not head on either, the Pan Am was turning off the runway and the KLM hit it amidships whilst airborne.
Random untruths?
Eric Mc said:
Ayahuasca said:
The 'fighter' versions of de Havilland Mosquitoes (those with machine guns in the nose) were controlled by a fighter-style joystick.
The 'bomber' versions (those with glass noses) were controlled with bomber-style yokes.
In the film '633 Squadron', 'bomber' versions had their glass noses painted over to look like 'fighter' versions, and they went on to undertake a bombing mission.
Caveat - hopefully Eric and Ginetta will overlook the imprecise terminology used above, as I could not be bothered to look up the exact model types or their individual characteristics, or indeed check whether in the film they had yokes or sticks. Feel free to add if you feel the need.
The Mossies used in 633 Squadron were neither bomber nor fighter versions - they were trainers (although they were converted from bombers). Because by 1963/64 that's all there were left flying.The 'bomber' versions (those with glass noses) were controlled with bomber-style yokes.
In the film '633 Squadron', 'bomber' versions had their glass noses painted over to look like 'fighter' versions, and they went on to undertake a bombing mission.
Caveat - hopefully Eric and Ginetta will overlook the imprecise terminology used above, as I could not be bothered to look up the exact model types or their individual characteristics, or indeed check whether in the film they had yokes or sticks. Feel free to add if you feel the need.
The term "Strategic Bombing" dates as far back as World War 1 - if not even earlier. It has nothing to do with the internet.
The RAF was set up in 1918 primarilly as a Strategic Bombing Force equipped with bombers designed from the outset to conduct a strategic bombing offensive against Germany.
The people who advocated "Strategic Bombing" did not equate "Strategic" with "area bombing" or "inaccuracy". All strategic means is bombing the enemy at home - rather than in the battlefield. In other words, hitting his centres of command, industry and (not so widely promoted) the population that supports the enemy nation's industrial infrastructure.
Battlefield bombing was (and still is) referred to as "Tactical Bombing"..
Up until the 1980s, the US Air Force was organised on a "Command" basis with both a Tactical Air Command section and a Strategic Air Command" section. And for a lot of that period both SAC and TAC had their own separate fleets of fighters and bombers.
The RAF was set up in 1918 primarilly as a Strategic Bombing Force equipped with bombers designed from the outset to conduct a strategic bombing offensive against Germany.
The people who advocated "Strategic Bombing" did not equate "Strategic" with "area bombing" or "inaccuracy". All strategic means is bombing the enemy at home - rather than in the battlefield. In other words, hitting his centres of command, industry and (not so widely promoted) the population that supports the enemy nation's industrial infrastructure.
Battlefield bombing was (and still is) referred to as "Tactical Bombing"..
Up until the 1980s, the US Air Force was organised on a "Command" basis with both a Tactical Air Command section and a Strategic Air Command" section. And for a lot of that period both SAC and TAC had their own separate fleets of fighters and bombers.
Ayahuasca said:
The de Havilland Mosquito could carry the same bomb load as a B-17.
According to Famous Bombers of the 2nd World War by William Green, published 1959, and a very good read if you can get it on ebay, the Mosquito B.XVI had a maximum bomb load of 4000lb which could be carried internally or four 500lb internaly plus two 500 underwing.Meanwhile the B-17G had a maximum of 17,600lb for short ranges which is more than 4 times as much. Probably not surprising as it was 55 000lb loaded rather than 19000 lb.
Where are these random facts coming from? Fake News as Donald Trump would say. Please check your sources.
Eric Mc said:
The term "Strategic Bombing" dates as far back as World War 1 - if not even earlier. It has nothing to do with the internet.
The RAF was set up in 1918 primarilly as a Strategic Bombing Force equipped with bombers designed from the outset to conduct a strategic bombing offensive against Germany.
The people who advocated "Strategic Bombing" did not equate "Strategic" with "area bombing" or "inaccuracy". All strategic means is bombing the enemy at home - rather than in the battlefield. In other words, hitting his centres of command, industry and (not so widely promoted) the population that supports the enemy nation's industrial infrastructure.
Battlefield bombing was (and still is) referred to as "Tactical Bombing"..
Up until the 1980s, the US Air Force was organised on a "Command" basis with both a Tactical Air Command section and a Strategic Air Command" section. And for a lot of that period both SAC and TAC had their own separate fleets of fighters and bombers.
Eric, the point I am making is there was no difference between strategic and area bombing in WW2, these are made up terms to distinguish a difference on this thread which did not exist.The RAF was set up in 1918 primarilly as a Strategic Bombing Force equipped with bombers designed from the outset to conduct a strategic bombing offensive against Germany.
The people who advocated "Strategic Bombing" did not equate "Strategic" with "area bombing" or "inaccuracy". All strategic means is bombing the enemy at home - rather than in the battlefield. In other words, hitting his centres of command, industry and (not so widely promoted) the population that supports the enemy nation's industrial infrastructure.
Battlefield bombing was (and still is) referred to as "Tactical Bombing"..
Up until the 1980s, the US Air Force was organised on a "Command" basis with both a Tactical Air Command section and a Strategic Air Command" section. And for a lot of that period both SAC and TAC had their own separate fleets of fighters and bombers.
In WW2 we had mass bombings of the homeland both in Germany and Japan plus tactical fighter bombers and pure fighters.
Gandahar said:
Ayahuasca said:
The de Havilland Mosquito could carry the same bomb load as a B-17.
According to Famous Bombers of the 2nd World War by William Green, published 1959, and a very good read if you can get it on ebay, the Mosquito B.XVI had a maximum bomb load of 4000lb which could be carried internally or four 500lb internaly plus two 500 underwing.Meanwhile the B-17G had a maximum of 17,600lb for short ranges which is more than 4 times as much. Probably not surprising as it was 55 000lb loaded rather than 19000 lb.
Where are these random facts coming from? Fake News as Donald Trump would say. Please check your sources.
http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/mosquito.html
Googling suggests that only at extreme range(Berlin etc) would the payloads be the same
kowalski655 said:
Perhaps from here
http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/mosquito.html
Googling suggests that only at extreme range(Berlin etc) would the payloads be the same
B-17 with 4000lb bomb load max range 1850 mileshttp://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/mosquito.html
Googling suggests that only at extreme range(Berlin etc) would the payloads be the same
Mosquito with 4000lb bomb 1370 miles
The Mosquito could take two external 60 gallon drop tanks but I doubt that would get it another 500 miles, especially with the extra weight or drag from those drop tanks.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff