 | B-25 vs. Ju-88| Aviation Discuss B-25 vs. Ju-88 in the World War II - Aviation forums; Syscom, what experience have you had in structural engineering of aircraft? Be it World War II or modern day? You ... |
|
07-02-2006, 07:50 PM
|
#136 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,057
Country:  | Syscom, what experience have you had in structural engineering of aircraft? Be it World War II or modern day? You seem to be going on and on about how the other members are wrong because they haven't been mechanics on the World War II craft, but you haven't either. Yet you seem so sure that the B-25 could handle the stresses. But you've proven your complete lack of knowledge when you claim that all you have to do is add an arrestor hook to an aircraft to make it able to land on a carrier. At least these other lads have hands on experience on the structures of aircraft, and more than one has been in some form of the Navy ! I find it a shame that you're too stupid to even learn off other people.
__________________ "When you go home tomorrow, don't expect anyone to know what you have been through. Even if they did know, most people probably wouldn't care anyway. Some of you may get the medals you deserve, many more of you will not. But remember this, all of you are now members of the front-line club, and that is the most exclusive club in the world." - Lt. Col. Matthew Maer CO 1st Battalion, the Princess of Wale's Royal Regiment. Camp Abu Naji, Oct. 2004  To those in that club. | 
|  | |
07-02-2006, 08:06 PM
|
#137 | | Minister of Whoopass
Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Long Island Native in Mississippi
Posts: 12,973
Country:  | Jank, is ur brother Sal???
__________________  "Boyington was a Drunk, but He was a Drunk We'd Follow Straight Into Hell..."
-- Lt. William Northrop Case | |
| | |
07-02-2006, 08:29 PM
|
#138 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,013
Country: | Quote: |
Originally Posted by syscom3 The plane was built solid. I'm sure you remember that back in the days of slide rules (you do know what a slide rule is dont you?), the engineers fudged a lot of calculations to make sure they were stronger than figured "just in case".
And I'm sure you do realize that the design methodology in aircraft have changed a bit between 1940 and 2000? | Sure it was built solid and there was usually a 2.5x fudge factor built into the aircraft. Bottom line a B-25 was not going to last structurally if it was subject to sustained carrier operations without major modifications or redesigns to it's structure.
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"  | |
| | |
07-02-2006, 08:33 PM
|
#139 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,057
Country: | I've read a few little snippets on the internet, and most point towards the tail of the B-25 which was mostly likely to fail during any kind of carrier landing.
__________________ "When you go home tomorrow, don't expect anyone to know what you have been through. Even if they did know, most people probably wouldn't care anyway. Some of you may get the medals you deserve, many more of you will not. But remember this, all of you are now members of the front-line club, and that is the most exclusive club in the world." - Lt. Col. Matthew Maer CO 1st Battalion, the Princess of Wale's Royal Regiment. Camp Abu Naji, Oct. 2004 To those in that club. | |
| | |
07-02-2006, 08:54 PM
|
#140 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,013
Country: | There were carrier trials for the B-25. There is no evidence however that anyone involved in the Doolittle raid ever though of returning to the carriers after the fact, but I'm sure it was in the back of some folks mind, 2 1/2 years later it was decided to try it...
PBH-1H 43-4700 (BuNo 35277) was modified for aircraft carrier catapult launch and arrest retrievals. The first landings and catapult takeoffs took place aboard the USS Shangri La (CV-38 ) on November 15, 1944. Although the experiment was successful, no further work on a carrier-based Mitchell took place since American advances in the Pacific made such an aircraft unnecessary. This was an experiment, it showed it could be done, but sustained operations would of involved major modification to the aircraft. I'll bet dollars to donuts this aircraft was heavily modified structurally to complete this. Bottom line, you just don't throw a tail hook on the aircraft and go land on a carrier... 
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"
Last edited by FLYBOYJ : 07-02-2006 at 08:59 PM.
| |
| | |
07-02-2006, 08:59 PM
|
#141 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,057
Country: | That thing looks a lot bulkier compared to normal B-25s. And one test landing is hardly enough to prove that the machine could handle carrier landings day in, day out.
__________________ "When you go home tomorrow, don't expect anyone to know what you have been through. Even if they did know, most people probably wouldn't care anyway. Some of you may get the medals you deserve, many more of you will not. But remember this, all of you are now members of the front-line club, and that is the most exclusive club in the world." - Lt. Col. Matthew Maer CO 1st Battalion, the Princess of Wale's Royal Regiment. Camp Abu Naji, Oct. 2004 To those in that club. | |
| | |
07-02-2006, 09:00 PM
|
#142 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,013
Country: | Quote: |
Originally Posted by plan_D That thing looks a lot bulkier compared to normal B-25s. And one test landing is hardly enough to prove that the machine could handle carrier landings day in, day out. | Agree!!
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
07-02-2006, 10:48 PM
|
#143 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,147
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ show us where Doolittle, the USN or USAAF was planning sustained B-25 carrier ops?!?!? | They werent planning on sustained carrier ops. The origional plan was for the B25 to fly back to the carriers and land.
__________________
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?" | |
| | |
07-02-2006, 10:50 PM
|
#144 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,147
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by plan_D Syscom, what experience have you had in structural engineering of aircraft? Be it World War II or modern day? You seem to be going on and on about how the other members are wrong because they haven't been mechanics on the World War II craft, but you haven't either. Yet you seem so sure that the B-25 could handle the stresses. But you've proven your complete lack of knowledge when you claim that all you have to do is add an arrestor hook to an aircraft to make it able to land on a carrier. At least these other lads have hands on experience on the structures of aircraft, and more than one has been in some form of the Navy ! I find it a shame that you're too stupid to even learn off other people. | Actually flyboyj is the one I listen too because unlike any of you, he has worked on the old warbirds AND HE QUOTED a source that could prove me wrong.
Just because YOU claim to know better dont mean anythign UNTILL you show a source.
__________________
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?" | |
| | |
07-02-2006, 10:51 PM
|
#145 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,147
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by plan_D That thing looks a lot bulkier compared to normal B-25s. And one test landing is hardly enough to prove that the machine could handle carrier landings day in, day out. | How can you look at a picture and say it looks bulkier? You have x-ray vision?
__________________
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?" | |
| | |
07-02-2006, 11:07 PM
|
#146 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,013
Country: | Quote: |
Originally Posted by syscom3 They werent planning on sustained carrier ops. The origional plan was for the B25 to fly back to the carriers and land. | Show me that! i don't believe that was ever part of the plan...
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
07-02-2006, 11:46 PM
|
#147 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 151
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ WRONG - you cannot simply put an arresting hook on any aircraft designed from the ground up as a land based bomber, especially a B-25. When naval aircraft are designed every bulkhead and longeron are designed to include arrestor loads and that's been the norm since the 1930s, I invite you to read Aerodynamics of the airplane by Millikan, Clark Blanchard (p1941). It's an old book but it provides a lot of stress analysis to aircraft loads and if I remember correctly there's a considerable amount of information given to loads applied to naval aircraft. For the B-25 to be completely navalized I could bet dollars to donuts that a design team would of reviewed every nut and bolt of that aircraft to see if it could withstand continual carrier operations. A twin engine carrier based aircraft stayed on North American's mind as after the war it came up with the AJ-1 Savage.  | For the record, the AJ-1 Savage was a three engined aircraft. There was a turbojet in the rear fuselage. | |
| | |
07-02-2006, 11:53 PM
|
#148 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,013
Country: | yep!
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
07-03-2006, 02:58 AM
|
#149 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 29,456
Country:  | Quote: |
Originally Posted by syscom3 The reason it was discontinued was there was nowhere to stow the plane on the carrier. I dont even think the Roosevelt class carriers had elevators big enough to handle them even with folding wings. | Which means it would not be carrier operable! Read your own post!
__________________  US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | |
| | |
07-03-2006, 03:03 AM
|
#150 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 29,456
Country: | Quote: |
Originally Posted by syscom3 Actually flyboyj is the one I listen too because unlike any of you, he has worked on the old warbirds AND HE QUOTED a source that could prove me wrong. | You dont quote sources either! You bring up crap that shows your lack of knowledge and dont show a source but it requires a source from someone else!
Come on now Syscom as I said before, atleast the majority of us members will admit to being wrong or learning something that we do not know, or the fact that we dont know at all. Quote: |
Originally Posted by syscom3 Just because YOU claim to know better dont mean anythign UNTILL you show a source. | Go get an A&P Liscense or Aeronautical Engineer Degree and then come back and talk to me.
You right I have never worked on WW2 warbirds but atleast I work, fix, and fly on planes and not simulators and claim to know everything.
__________________ US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:49 PM. | | |
