dark light

super sioux

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 241 through 255 (of 255 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Bristol Britannia #1250653
    super sioux
    Participant

    What were the specifications for the Britannia at the time the Centaurus engine possibility was dropped and how would it have compared to the Constellation, DC4/6 etc?

    In order to fill an BOAC requirement of Dec. 1946 Bristol suggested using a licence built Lockheed Constellation powered by Centaurus engines. But this was not to be, dollar expenditure was not allowed!
    Specification 2/47 was issued calling for a new design. Bristol’s Type 175 looked best but a 32 seater with four Centaurus was thought overpowered so it was enlarged to 103,300 lb with 1,775 sq. ft. of wing and up to 48 seats.BOAC said no to a production order but the Ministry of Supply on 5 July 1948 ordered 3 prototypes. The Napier Nomad compound -diesel and turboprop Bristol Proteus were at this time viewed as possible later alternatives to the Centaurus. Later in 1948 BOAC began to show interest in the turboprop.
    The prototype Brittania made its maiden flight on 16 August 1952 with the Proteus fitted. I have not found any details about its Centaurus spec. but expect it to be no worse than the original ‘Connie’ and due to it having cabin pressurisation better to be a passenger in than the DC-4.
    Ray

    in reply to: A question about He-100s #1255288
    super sioux
    Participant

    Romanian He 112’s

    I can’t really tell you much about them, other than the details given in Heinkel: An Aircraft Album published back in 1970. This notes: “One order for new He 112s did materialise from Rumania, for 24 examples. The first 13, of the B-0 series, were delivered from May 1939, whilst the remainder, delivered in late September as B-1s, had individual exhaust stubs to provide thrust augmentation.” Sadly, no details about their use by Rumania.

    Just checked with ‘IN THE SKIES OF EUROPE’ BY Hans Werner Neulen. He states that the He 112 was to prove itself in action over Odessa and the Black Sea until surviving aircraft were passed on to flying training schools in 1943. 18 survived the war.
    Ray

    in reply to: RAF Junkers F13 J7232 #1272536
    super sioux
    Participant

    I quote from ‘European Transport Aircraft Since 1910’ by John Stroud. Published by Putnam. Because of the strength of these aircraft, a considerable number of their occupants survived crashes and forced landings which did no more than bend the structure. Nevertheless, one aircraft, G-AAZK operated by Walcot Air Lines, broke up in the air over Meopham in Kent on the 21 July, 1930, killing its six occupants. This led the RAE at Farnborough to conduct the first full scale investigation into the disintergration of a metal monoplane and the pattern of break-up, and the reassembly of the pieces by the RAE led to the knowledge of failure in the F13’s tailplane. No other failures inflight are known. End of quote.
    So the F13’s wing was a strong structure and who knows maybe the RAF replaced the one tested to destruction and it survived to be dumped for exposure tests at the end of its cost effective life.
    Ray

    in reply to: RAF Junkers F13 J7232 #1274678
    super sioux
    Participant

    Only the prototype had the 14.47 m (47ft 5.75 ins.) wingspan, the production aircraft having the ‘big’ wing of 17.75m(58ft 2.75 ins.). The Junkers F13 was produced in SIXTY variants for 320 /322 built from 1919 until 1932 the reference books I have give just a few variants. They dont even mention the RAF having one !

    in reply to: Steel Wings? #1280955
    super sioux
    Participant

    The use of non alloy or wood for aircraft was used by Junkers in 1915 when thin sheet iron was applied to the airframe of the Junkers J1 , which was nicknamed the ‘Tin Donkey’. first flown on 12 Dec 1915. Six similar aircraft were built in 1916 armed with a 7.9 mm machinegun. All later aircraft were to use light alloy and the J4 had an armoured capsule for the powerplant and crew of two for protection from small-arms fire which made it very popular with its crews. 277 were made.
    So the Germans had experience with ferrous metals from the earliest days of aircraft design and for a flying bomb with a powerful drive unit it made sense to utilise it at that stage of the war.

    in reply to: Steel Wings? #1287262
    super sioux
    Participant

    bri you should check your entries! The V1 was used in WW2 and the design of the Bristol 188 was less than 10 years later. If you raise a doubt about anything then expect your doubt to be confirmed or not as I mentioned. According to my information the 188 was designed for Spec.ER.134 issued in February 1953 for a research aircraft capable of flight at twice the speed of sound, for investigation of kinetic heating on airframes. Nothing to do with Lightnings or Buccaneers.

    in reply to: Vulcan fuel consumption #1288327
    super sioux
    Participant

    I am still searching for fuel usage which is affected by RPM, JPT and ALTITUDE but the Olympus oil consumption was 1.5 pints per hour maximum.

    in reply to: Steel Wings? #1288348
    super sioux
    Participant

    bri doubts that anything else had steel wings. The Bristol Type 188 had a stainless steel airframe! First flown on the 14th April 1962 it was intended for tests involving high kinetic energy and due to fuel limitations did not achieve a satisfactory target. How typical of the times. But if a survivor is found at least it wont be rusty!

    in reply to: Danes involved in airraids over Denmark in WW2 #1288472
    super sioux
    Participant

    Have not found any RAF squadron just manned by Danes. Is there no record of Danes fighting overseas in your government archives? The only Dane I know of served in the SAS and died fighting in northern Italy in 1945. Best of luck with your search.

    in reply to: Why didn't P-51H's and P-47N's serve in Korea? #1297108
    super sioux
    Participant

    At the end of the conflict ANG units were to be allocated P51 aircraft if west of the Mississpippi and P-47 if to the east although some units had the wrong type. The F-47N was used by fifteen units and the F-47D by ten. I think that this is the reason why the P-47 was not used in Korea. They were all out of service by 1955.

    in reply to: Why didn't P-51H's and P-47N's serve in Korea? #1297119
    super sioux
    Participant

    P-51H-1 was a supreme lightweight dogfighter with low wing loadings and the power to disengage from a fight if necessary. They never saw combat and 370 were produced by VJ-Day. Those that were still in ANG service were replaced in 1952-53 by the more numerous F-51 D that was a fighter bomber which was the type used in Korea with such good results.

    in reply to: Buried Lancasters.(2004 thread) #1305568
    super sioux
    Participant

    Spitfires buried in transit boxes! On the Central News a few good years ago there was a report from the site of the wartime Spitfire factory at Castle Bromwich. A former employee stated that he had participated in burying complete Spitfires in their transit boxes. I know how well made these boxes are from personal experience and would expect then to contain completely servicable contents. The area they were buried in is now a council owned sports ground and IF the old guy is deceased, a magnetometer survey of the site should surely find them. If I had the money and offered the council ten percent of saleable finds I think there would be permission granted for the project.
    Ray

    in reply to: The opening salvo #1307778
    super sioux
    Participant

    In ‘RAF Bomber Command in the Second World War- The Hardest Victory’ by Denis Richards on page ONE he quotes from 139 Squadron Operations Book, 3/9/1939 the following. A Blenheim that had been waiting at Wyton, crewed by pilot Flying Officer A McPherson. Naval observer, Commander Thompson and wireless operator/air-gunner Corporal V Arrowsmith took off just after midday and from 24000 feet photo’d German Naval facilities. Because the wireless went U/S, only after they landed could a force of 15 Hampdens and 9 Wellingtons be sent that evening. They failed to see any ships! As they returned they were passed by 10 Whitleys of 51 and 58 Squadrons who succesfully bombed the Ruhr and northern Germany with thirteen and a half tons of leaflets!
    Ray

    in reply to: Royal Air Force Transport Command Museum #1309095
    super sioux
    Participant

    A Spitfire should be included! Its an aircraft and the T9 carries a passenger, ergo TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT.
    Ray

    in reply to: Stuka Question #1327608
    super sioux
    Participant

    Have just checked Crowood’s aviation series title ‘Ju 87’ by Peter C Smith. The only Stuka’s that may have needed a rearview mirror were the trainers of the ‘H’ series which did not have any rear armament. I think this thread needs knotting now.
    Ray

Viewing 15 posts - 241 through 255 (of 255 total)