dark light

Malcolm McKay

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 196 through 210 (of 1,462 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • Malcolm McKay
    Participant

    TIGHAR have a little problem with alternative universes. Gardner Island had a comprehensive record of human settlement that shows occupation for relatively lengthy periods going back to the late 19th century and the Arundel plantation. There’s the Norwich City wreck in 1929 then from 1937 onwards several survey parties and then after 1939 until 1965 we have the Phoenix Island Settlement occupation. But in the TIGHAR universe they are able to reduce all of this activity to claim that there is one site and a couple of camp fires that are unique due to the fact that …. well they’re unique that’s why.

    I expect at some stage there will be a special scholarly paper to show absolutely undeniable proof that a gnawed seagull bone has Amelia Earhart’s teeth marks on it. That will be released after a public search for photos of Amelia with her mouth open wide enough to show her teeth. If you think I jest we need look no further than the recent hunt for pictures of Amelia with her sleeves rolled up so that her arm length can be demonstrated. It’s sort of a cloud funding style of scientific research. Find a bunch of amateurs and allow them to contribute opinions then average those results out and bingo – scientific proof. 😀

    in reply to: Lockheed Hudson upper turrets WWII #795750
    Malcolm McKay
    Participant

    Well its drag inducing qualities were bad enough in the Halifax, so what could they have been thinking fitting it to the Hudson in a position where its position would only exacerbate the problem. There are such things as really bad engineering decisions made by people who should have known better because they had the equipment and data at the time to avoid doing it so hind sight doesn’t get a look in. It’s sort of like what Ralph Nader wrote about in Unsafe at any Speed when he took the US automobile industry to task. Isn’t war dangerous enough without governments deliberately sanctioning the use of demonstrable equipment duds – like the Hudson as a bomber or the Lerwick, Battle, Roc, Botha etc. If they wanted those factories producing aircraft then why didn’t they turn them over to the production of proven performers.

    in reply to: Lockheed Hudson upper turrets WWII #795754
    Malcolm McKay
    Participant

    I still say that wherever the horrible thing was designed to fit it still was an example of failure to properly test its built in drag problems. It was bad enough on the Halifax – what were they thinking.

    in reply to: A-W Meteor NF.14 WS788 Restoration Thread #795924
    Malcolm McKay
    Participant

    Wonderful Blue_2. I can now attack the coming week inspired as usual by your efforts. Just remember to reassemble things without any left over bits. :eagerness:

    in reply to: Lockheed Hudson upper turrets WWII #796847
    Malcolm McKay
    Participant

    And the Blackburn Roc, Saro Lerwick, Blackburn Botha etc.

    In the case of the Roc it was taking a reasonable dive bomber (the Skua) and slowly destroying the combat potential it had (think Douglas Dauntless) by equipping it with a turret then following that act of aerodynamic silliness, compounding the problem by putting it on floats. You’d think by that stage someone would have woken up, nope they then went on to pretend that the enemy wouldn’t notice that it was the world’s slowest and most torpid interceptor.

    And the least said about those marvels of engineering practice the Lerwick and the Botha the better – except that in the case of the Botha as it was clear even before it actually entered service that it wouldn’t be fitted with its intended engines that would mean that it had no chance of ever meeting the criteria it was designed for. I suspect that the Lerwick got through to production because someone forgot to check the designers’ calculations in a wind tunnel. No hindsight here – these were easily avoided mistakes if the engineering practices of the time had been followed as they were in the case of other aircraft that went on to useful operational careers.

    in reply to: Lockheed Hudson upper turrets WWII #796973
    Malcolm McKay
    Participant

    Actually I’ll repeat what I said above. The BP turret was a bulbous drag producing excrescence that if it had been subjected to any half way competent aeronautical engineering consideration would never have been used. Engineering is not a perfect science, in fact the world of engineering, not just the aeronautical side, abounds with known second rate ideas that are allowed to to be put into production at great detriment to the final product – that isn’t the wisdom of hindsight speaking that is recognition that even the simplest of wind tunnel tests (absolutely available at the time) would have demonstrated the drag inducing performance detracting features of the design.

    One can only assume that people responsible for the decision to go ahead with the turret may have had some shares in Boulton Paul. One need look no further than its inclusion in the early marks of the Halifax which was one of a number of unwise design decisions that managed to turn what might have been a reasonably efficient aircraft into something that required a major design halfway through its production to get rid of all of its inbuilt drag. If the Hudson which was never intended for operations in true front line bombing campaigns (having only achieved that dubious honour due to shortages of better designed aircraft in 1941 in Malaya) had needed some rear protection then the simple lighter and far less drag inducing Blenheim style turret would have provided some relief. But then the Hudson was like the Battle and a couple of other poor military designs simply a means to convey a crew to certain loss rather than a serious attempt at actually winning the fight. Designs put into production to fill production capacity rather than produce aircraft with some real military value.

    in reply to: Lockheed Hudson upper turrets WWII #799024
    Malcolm McKay
    Participant

    That great bulbous Boulton Paul turret was a monument to induced unnecessary drag. I wonder why the much smaller turret design that was a feature of the Blenheim couldn’t have been used.

    in reply to: A-W Meteor NF.14 WS788 Restoration Thread #800450
    Malcolm McKay
    Participant

    Fascinating as usual – thanks.

    in reply to: A-W Meteor NF.14 WS788 Restoration Thread #801320
    Malcolm McKay
    Participant

    More good work Blue_2.

    Keep the work up at that rate and I might become spoilt. 😀

    in reply to: A-W Meteor NF.14 WS788 Restoration Thread #801910
    Malcolm McKay
    Participant

    Never boring – in fact if you could do something every day it would be appreciated 😀

    in reply to: A-W Meteor NF.14 WS788 Restoration Thread #769030
    Malcolm McKay
    Participant

    Well I suppose that everyone has some vice. 😀

    Excellent stuff as usual Blue_2.

    in reply to: A-W Meteor NF.14 WS788 Restoration Thread #769583
    Malcolm McKay
    Participant

    Another great start to my week – thanks from this antipodean.

    in reply to: A-W Meteor NF.14 WS788 Restoration Thread #773156
    Malcolm McKay
    Participant

    To be authentic you must fit it with a replica piece of wood.

    in reply to: UK Tempest restoration.. #773856
    Malcolm McKay
    Participant

    Wonderful to see all those projects ticking along nicely.

    in reply to: A-W Meteor NF.14 WS788 Restoration Thread #773949
    Malcolm McKay
    Participant

    Thanks Blue_2 I can now face the coming week invigorated.

Viewing 15 posts - 196 through 210 (of 1,462 total)