|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 2, 2017 9:24:57 GMT -7
One of the ultimate expressions of the Army Air Forces' power was the experimental long range bomber program of the 1930's, and the Douglas XB-19 (XBLR-2) was the ultimate result of it. When this beast was rolled out it was the largest aircraft in the World. Towering to 42 feet at the top of her rudder, she was 132 feet 4 inches long, with a wingspan of 212 feet: and when fully loaded she weighed 140,000 pounds. To support this weight on the ground, she set on a tricycle landing gear, the first on a US bomber, with 8 foot diameter tires on the main gear wheels. This monster was even larger then the Boeing B-29 Superfortress. The "Beast", as Douglas designers called her, was delivered in November, 1941, so she flew her entire flight test program with fully armed defensive armaments. These actually included two 37mm cannon as well as machine guns. The "Hemisphere Defender" would have been able to carry a smaller bomb load (2,500 lbs) over 7,000 miles. Her max internal bomb load was 16,000 lbs, but she could also carry another 20,000 lbs externally, but this was never done, it was only theoretical, because even though she was propelled by four R-3350-5 2,000hp engines, she was still under powered and this made her slow. With a full internal bomb load of 250 lb general purpose bombs, the ordinance count was a full gross of 144 bombs, that's a lot of rain..... Given the 1934 requirements this monster was designed to meet, she was considered a success, but like the XBLR-1, she was so complicated to design and build that Doughlas asked the Army to relieve them of the project!!!
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 2, 2017 11:08:14 GMT -7
starcruiser: This one is for you.... And yes the Curtiss P-6E is very much a pleasure to fly....it is also worthy to note that the vee inline 12-cylinder Curtiss V-1570 Conqueror used a supercharger and developed 600hp propelling the plane almost to that 200 mph mark that wouldn't be broke in the Army Air Corps until the introduction fo the P-26 And I even like the color... I am glad you like her...i hadn't flown her in awhile...it was nice to walk around her, dust her off, and take her up in the virtual world...I had really forgotten what a joy she is to operate...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2017 12:15:41 GMT -7
cowboy40, have you ever gotten thermals to work in ACOF? Any time I gab a glider, it's just a slow descent to the ground.
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 2, 2017 13:58:03 GMT -7
i have but it works better FSX
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 2, 2017 14:08:14 GMT -7
For purposes of comparison, I am posting the Sikorsky S-51. The S-51 was a redesign of the S-48. The redesign was mainly done to improve the capabilities in passenger and loads. The improvements involved widening the Fuselage and moving the pilot to the front seat. This allowed the inclusion of a bench seat in the back for two persons. This aircraft was known as the HO3S in the navy and in the days of the Army Air Forces it was known as the R-5D (the S-48 was the R-5A), and when the USAF was formed the designation was changed to H-5D. The FAA and RAF continued to call the machine the Dragonfly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2017 14:57:03 GMT -7
i have but it works better FSX Dang... I gotta buy an out-of-date flight sim... how hard can that be
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 2, 2017 15:18:19 GMT -7
i have but it works better FSX Dang... I gotta buy an out-of-date flight sim... how hard can that be You know its funny, these Microsoft Flight Sims have been around forever, but i can't call them out of date. I find that they still faithfully demonstrate flying very well. You have to remember that it is a combination of many things that make these sims still good. Microsoft Flight Sim FS2004 is very diverse in what you can do with it. It has the advantage of being around for over decade. and it has been developed fully by the community that flies in it. Myself i have back dated my FS9 install to the early 50's and early 60's. Microsoft Flight Sim X is finally getting to that point in the community that it can be just as diverse. Now what i am using for most of the pictures i do here in this thread is done in Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator II: World War II in the Pacific, but our community has made it possible to use this sim to replicate any theater of WW2. We have also made it possible to fight over Korea to get the feel for those first jet duels. Some of us also use CFS2 to fight the Great War in the air...and now we are starting to put together a Vietnam install for it...Vietnam has been in the works for about five years now, but it is finally coming together... These sims may be old, but they have matured well and they are still viable for the community that loves them..
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Aug 2, 2017 18:48:57 GMT -7
Cheese and rice - I haven't had a copy of MSFS in many ... many years...
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 2, 2017 19:37:30 GMT -7
here is what i keep installed on my large hard drives
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 backdated with masses of retro scenery and aircraft from the 50's to the 60's with some modern military jets
Microsoft Flight Simulator X: Accelerated...
and of course
Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 2 but in about five different installs..
I use to have CFS1 and CFS3, but i find CFS2; meets all my needs..
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 2, 2017 21:03:50 GMT -7
I know some people don't like the early Allison V-1710 equipped aircraft, but i have always enjoyed planes with these engines, because the V-1710 can take a hell of a beating and keep flying. There are stories of P-39 and P-40 planes coming home still flying on only four or five cylinders and with no coolant left in the radiators. It was a very tough engine. And so were the aircraft that used it...Here is a member of the Curtiss Hawk 81 family, in this case an Army Air Corps Curtiss P-40B Warhawk...
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Aug 2, 2017 21:16:00 GMT -7
Powerful engine - at modest altitudes. The P-40 could out-perform many supposedly superior aircraft, as long as the pilot used it correctly.
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 2, 2017 22:19:45 GMT -7
Powerful engine - at modest altitudes. The P-40 could out-perform many supposedly superior aircraft, as long as the pilot used it correctly. Yes that is true of both the P-39 and the P-40 early models, but later machines were able to compete well with other aircraft at higher altitudes. The early machines were able to fight well under 15,000 feet, and when in that eliment, they could knock the stuffings out of a BF109, and they could even take on a Spitfire...
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 3, 2017 0:09:00 GMT -7
Personally this is my favorite bomber of all times. I love the Consolidated B-24, and it doesn't get the limelight that it deserves. It is a much more modern design the That Other Bomber (TOB), the B-17. The B-24 could carry a larger payload faster and further, and the simple fact is when you take production of the variants into account, there were many more of them built. This ability was achieved by the use of the Davis Wing, of fluid flow, airfoil: that was similar to the laminar flow wings being used on fighters like the P-51 Mustang, but instead of the thickest part of the wing being in the center of the airfoil, it was a bit further back, and this decreased the drag on the wing. It also allowed the wing to gain left at a lower aspect angle then most wings. The wing also allowed for a heavier load to be lifted in comparison to a wing of conventional airfoil (B-17 wings) with similar wing area...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2017 4:37:15 GMT -7
I know a guy (Mr. Bacon) who was a waist gunner in B-24's. Got shot down twice over Germany. Managed to get back to his squadron the first time, not so lucky the second time. He was talking to a new beekeeper to the area (he and my dad are both beekeepers), and said "Is that a German accent?". The guys said "Yes. I am from Dusseldorf. Have you ever been?". Mr. Bacon winced and said, "I may have flown over it a few times in the 1940's". They quickly changed topics. Last i heard, Ole Mr. Bacon is still kicking around and taking care of his bees.
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Aug 3, 2017 6:05:53 GMT -7
Only issue with the B-24 was that it kinda had a "glass jaw" compared to the B-17. Just couldn't take as much punishment in action.
Other than that, it was an impressive aircraft and did the job well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2017 6:12:50 GMT -7
It was faster than the B-17... and built by Ford (against Lindbergh's advice - he thought the B-17 was a better plane, but it was harder to build)! I used to hunt deer at a gravel airstrip in MI. It was used as the first stop on the Liberator's trip to the UK. They were flown by ladies, and if any problems cropped up, there was a maintenance crew there to get the planes all fixed up for the rest of the trip.
I also worked at the airport where the Ford built the Libs - Willow Run in Ypsilanti, MI (a little outside of Detroit).
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 3, 2017 7:07:56 GMT -7
Only issue with the B-24 was that it kinda had a "glass jaw" compared to the B-17. Just couldn't take as much punishment in action. Other than that, it was an impressive aircraft and did the job well. This is a Myth... the Libs like most American planes could eat a lot of punishment. They took surprising amounts of it. The B-17 fill to German guns just as fast as the Libs did...and both planes would bring you home if shot up... Again this is a case of the B-17 getting all the glory. Regardless of what type you were in...you still had a worse chance of coming out alive then the Infantry did....
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 3, 2017 8:34:45 GMT -7
The Me 262, what an airplane. It was a good design, but it didn't reach its full potential due to Hitler insisting it be used as a fighter bomber. The aircraft also had some major drawbacks, even though it was fast it couldn't manouver as well as many of the piston powered machines it fought. A mustang could easily out turn and turn inside the Swallow. It also required a long, low and slow approach to land, and this is where many of them were picked off. But, its biggest problem was its own engine. It was as touchy as a nerve cell...meaning if you put on the throttle to fast and flooded the combustion chamber with fuel to fast, those engines blew up like firecrackers. SIDE BAR I almost didn't post this aircraft, because of its markings. Many people find the Swastika on the tail of German aircraft to be offensive. I present it here as history. I am not a revisionist and i am not political correct, so i say as a historian if it bugs you...i am sorry...and then I will tell you to get over it...IT was the way the aircraft was painted while it was in service...I in no way support the Nazi agenda from World War II, but I won't ignore facts either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2017 8:38:28 GMT -7
That is something Mr. Bacon could confirm. I remember him telling my dad and I how the planes would come back with huge holes in them. They would have holes in the wings that a guy could jump through spread-eagle and not touch anything - and they came back.
Sadly, more guys died in the 8th Air force alone, than in the entire US Marine Corps. If you're ever in Savannah, GA, stop by the Mighty 8th museum - it is humbling.
I'm not offended by the swastika. It serves as a reminder of what was, and what could happen again. Besides, context is important, most people are too lazy to think that hard.
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Aug 3, 2017 9:13:30 GMT -7
And the symbol is NOT guilty of the offenses of the regime that used it...
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 3, 2017 9:13:48 GMT -7
Talking about how the Jumo turbojet would explode when the fuel was dumped into the combustion chambers to fast, I wonder why the American engines didn't do the same...the American early turbojets all used 100/130 octane gasoline...just your everyday standard AVGAS...
The British used a Karoline based fuel...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2017 10:36:26 GMT -7
It might be that centrifugal-flow, can-type (combustion chamber) engines that the UK and US used were a bit more resilient than the German axial-flow, annular-type Jumo 004's...
Might be a fun research project.
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Aug 3, 2017 11:50:05 GMT -7
SIDE BAR I almost didn't post this aircraft, because of its markings. Many people find the Swastika on the tail of German aircraft to be offensive. I present it here as history. I see nothing wrong with posting images that depict "offensive" symbolism in this context. Now if you wanted a swastika as your forum avatar there would be some harder questions asked.
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 3, 2017 12:00:55 GMT -7
The Westinghouse J30 as used in the McDonnell FH Phantom was an axial-flow, annular-type turbojet engine that ran on the 100/130 octane AVGAS...it didn't seem to blow up...lol
I also think it was a smart move by the US to use AVGAS, because it kept the fuel supply line simple, because the furl could be used with anything in the air at the time.....
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Aug 3, 2017 12:07:26 GMT -7
SIDE BAR I almost didn't post this aircraft, because of its markings. Many people find the Swastika on the tail of German aircraft to be offensive. I present it here as history. I see nothing wrong with posting images that depict "offensive" symbolism in this context. Now if you wanted a swastika as your forum avatar there would be some harder questions asked.I like my M48 tank!!!
|
|