B-25 vs. Ju-88

[plan_D]

I never said you had to listen to me, although I know I'm right because it's common sense. But you do not listen to Adler, Glider or anyone else with aircraft experience. And Glider was in the FAA! As Glider says, physics hasn't changed. And Flyboy has never worked on the B-25.

You haven't provided a single source, syscom. And just look at the B-25, look at the depth of the fuselage.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Its no use pD.

[Soren]

Jank,

I have reached the point where I really don't care discussing this with you anymore, cause you obviously haven't got a clue what you're talking about. You sound like some dumb hunter who has tried chronograph'ing his two completely different rifles with soft point hunting ammunition. Well wake up Jank, we're talking military rifles and ammunition here.

Your ignorance on this subject also completely shines through when you try to compare pistols with rifles, something only some dumb texan gun-nut/hunter would do. (And even worse its revolvers which you are comparing rifles with !)

And about your dis-satisfaction with my mentioning of Supersonic velocities, obviously all you're looking for is to be right, and the more brutal your posts sound the better, well that's just childish and stupid Jank ! What would you have wanted me to say ? Hypersonic velocities ?

Also don't try to lecture me on military small-arms, you can perhaps attempt to discuss it with me when you've tried operating them for three decades, otherwise I suggest you just keep your hands off the keyboard.

I also suggest you get out abit Jank, talk to people who shoot full power military rifles and ammunition on a daily basis, learn about their experiences, cause then you'll realize that even a variation as small as 5 fps between 5-10 rifle rounds is in reality a common event - and between two identically designed and good quality rifles, a variation of just 5 fps is common as-well. (As I said me and my buddy's M48's usually don't vary any more than 15-20 fps between each other with the old turk stuff)

And to your last comment; Yes Jank, I completely disagree with you.

Oh, and go ahead and have the last word, I don't give a rats a**, cause I'm out this discussion, period.

[davparlr]

To get this thread back to some original discussions, does anyone have a break down on the Ju-88A-4 bomb load verses range data? I have couple of points for the A-1, 620 miles w/3600lbs and 1550 miles w/2200lbs, but only max for the A-4 of around 5500lbs (with no range). I know the A-4 has larger engines but also has a higher empty weight. I kind of suspect that the A-4 would still fall a bit short of the 2000 miles and 2000lbs of bombs that was the requirement of the Tokyo raid.

Also of note, I understand that the B-25 was not really stripped (defensive armament removed) and loaded with max fuel until they had to launch 300 miles short.

Another note, launching from a carrier was greatly aided by the ship itself. Airflow over the wings on the carrier deck had been measured at 45 kts. during a test run. I suspect that the take off speed was not a whole lot faster than that. Indeed, most of the B-25 jumped off the deck, except one who had forgotten to set the flaps (you can see pictures of this one settling towards the water until finally gaining altitude).

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Which means it would not be carrier operable! Read your own post!

The navy had the option of stowing them on deck.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by plan_D

I never said you had to listen to me, although I know I'm right because it's common sense. But you do not listen to Adler, Glider or anyone else with aircraft experience. And Glider was in the FAA! As Glider says, physics hasn't changed. And Flyboy has never worked on the B-25.

You haven't provided a single source, syscom. And just look at the B-25, look at the depth of the fuselage.

As I mentioned, my source was one of Doolittle raiders who mentioned that they were origionally going to fly back to the carriers untill the idea was nixed by the Navy.

He was talking to me (among others) at a 50th anniversary gathering.

[syscom3]

Soren, just say theres a standard deviation in all wepaons, whether ammo or the bore of a rifle (or cannon).

Its all mathematics and statistics.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by syscom3

As I mentioned, my source was one of Doolittle raiders who mentioned that they were origionally going to fly back to the carriers untill the idea was nixed by the Navy.

He was talking to me (among others) at a 50th anniversary gathering.

Go to the Raider's site and half a dozen other sites about the raid and that's never mentioned. Maybe he knew something Doolittle didn't?!?

[lesofprimus]

Well it aint in Doolittles book, nor the other 2 members of the raiding party whose books I have read....

I think someone was telling Sea Stories....

[Jank]

View from Soren's driver's side window:

[Glider]

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?

Unlike you and most, if not all the people on the thread, I have used a slide rule to do my stress analysis calculations. Still keep it and use it to confuse my son when he gets a bit too big for his boots. Suggest you don't insult those engineers of any nation, who used such tools to design such capable aircraft by accusing them of fudging things

As I recall, my instructors were not that keen on fudging things, so don't belittle those of us who have used them for serious work. Remember we flew in the planes that we fixed and I am very confident that anyone who has flown off the back of a small frigate during heavy weather in a single engined Wasp will tell you that fudging things wasn't a basis to work on.

Design methodologies have actually stayed pretty constant Syscom, its the materials that have changed. As I said earlier the rules of Physics haven't changed, unless you know better.

In case anyone is wondering just how old I am in case you think I am all Grey hair and false teeth, I joined the RN as an Artificer Apprentice at 16 in 1973 and am just the right side of 50. I took and passed the entrance exam at 15 but had to wait, my mother didn't know if she should hug me or deck me when I asked her to sign the release.
It wasn't a Junior Unit and I was the youngest in the unit by two years, no favours were granted and it wasn't easy keeping up with the others at work or at play.

[plan_D]

You did the same thing as my dad to get into the forces, Glider. He was straight out of school and into the RAF as an aircraft electrician. I take your opinion to mind everytime, even if I did disagree on the Rapiers in Falklands discussion. But my dad was there, and he tells me that he saw them bounce off ... I take his word on that one.

Back to the discussion, there's no proof that the B-25 without extensive modification could land on a carrier time and time again. There has not been one single strip of evidence. The pictures of one landing are there, but it only did it once and it's stated to be heavily modified.
If the B-25 could operate successfully off Carriers, and it was proven as such then I would give it. Until then, no it can't.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And there is no proof, because people like myself, FBJ, and Glider who by the way have all worked on aircraft not that it is not that easy as syscome who by the way has never worked on aircraft and has all his knowledge from a). books or b) so called sources.

Have you noticed that it is just more bull after bull right now coming from him. No more lengthy non sourced comments. He knows he is wrong but his pride wont let him give him.

I will admit that is one of the reasons why I like syscom though.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I will admit that is one of the reasons why I like syscom though.

I have to agree with that as well, but why Syscom, do you have to make it so easy for us?

[syscom3]

Actually I like for you guys to prove your assertions.