How’d we even get into the spitfire debate? Ah, I remember, someone used it’s unit cost as an example.
IIRC, the benefit of faster transit offset the increase in fuel consumption. And the transit from piston to jet was made before the 1970’s Oil Crisis, when fuel prices exploded. Plus civil airliners don’t use afterburners. Also, the formula for kinetic energy dictates than to go twice as fast requires 4 times the energy. And if props are so lousy, then why does the C-130, Americas most successful transport since the C-47, have props rather than pure jets? Oh & also, it’s be very hard to build a piston engine that could move a Boeing 747, Jets scale up far easier. But we’re not talking about civilian aircraft, we’re talkin’ about SMALL warplanes.
Why? The engine is big enough, so power:weight ratio is not an issue, and with single engined aircraft like the F-16 engine failure is an acceptably low cause of aircraft loss (with many of these losses being due to issues that would also down a twin engined aircraft, such as fuel starvation).
Most of the prejudice about single engined aircraft comes from the early days of aviation, where piston engines were massively unreliable and lots were needed to ensure some were still working throughout the flight. With modern gas turbines, that simply isn’t an issue any more.
It’s not about reliability, it’s about if combat damage takes out an engine. How many A-10’s would we still have if they crashed each time an engine was taken out? Or Apaches & Blackhawks w/ 1 engine to fly on?
[QUOTE]
Why? In a hover, if one engine was lost then unless you have a massive and dangerously complex gearbox arrangement (like the V-22 - where it is arguably the biggest single problem with the project) then a failure of either engine will cause the loss of the aircraft through loss of control. Hence, a twin engined Harrier would not only be lost at nearly twice the rate through engine failures, but due to the asymmetric nature of the failure far fewer of the pilots would be able to successfully eject.
Asymmetry? Who thought I was talking about a side-by side design? You know what they say about assumptions… The British Lightning, as monstrously ugly as it was proved that the over-under design could work. A Harrier type V/STOL w/ twin turbofans would have more power and be able to carry a larger payload. As for the reduced chance of ejecting, the Yak-28 had an auto-eject function to compensate for more dangerous flight eccentricities. Deviate from know safe parameters & WHOOSH you’re getting some hang time while the V/STOL eats dirt.
The Harriers don’t operate off aircraft carriers, they operate off the helicopter carriers, which the A-10 would not be able to do. Were they to operate off the USN nuclear carriers, there would be major issues with the air group - and as the USMC are very much a second class type of citizen so far as the USN are concerned this won’t happen.
I KNOW what Harriers fly from, the Tarawa & Wasp class LHA/LHDs.You’re saying an A-10 can’t take off from the 800 feet of deck on an assault ship? Other countries (Russia) have flown bigger jets (Su-27K) than the A-10 from ski-jumps. They also have an A-10 analog (Su-25K). So a Marine flattop could be modified during it’s next SLEP to fly STOL attack planes to augment the lightweight harriers. Besides, the Navy used AD-1 Skyraiders in Korea & 'Nam off their flattops, IIRC. They’re basically the step-dad of the Warthog. And Marine F/A-18’s fly from Navy Carriers all the time. Also, when we retire our old Navy Carriers, they could be "hand-me-down"ed to the marines like the WW 2 escort carriers were. Replace the reactors w/ gas turbines Add some troop accommodations & a vehicle park & you’ve got yourself a Heavy Marine Assault Ship.
Irrelevant - that was the scale of effort required to get a bomb that size onto a small target at a significant range from base - a bomb of the same size and at the same range that an F-15 could easily do. Given the nature of the Afghan war, much of the air support still comes from similar or greater distances due to the lack of in-country airbases.
It’d be cheaper to station STOL COIN in Afghanistan close to the action. We’re supposes to be their to help build their Democratic military aren’t we? A number of airbases all over the country would kill 2 birds w/ one stone. And serve to bring development to far flung villages too, like medical aid.
Except many of the situations which enabled the lighter bombers to be so cost-effective were created by those very strategic bombers. Go look up the casualties suffered early in the war by very similar bombers in the Battle of France to see what I mean - on several raids none of the attacking aircraft survived to return home.
By SMALL groups of poorly armed planes! The Blenheim & Battle were PATHETIC in self defense! Plus they had no escorts attached to them. Comparing OUR Light & Medium bombers to the sad jokes the British & French used is a very bad analogy.:rolleyes:
Attacks by A-26s used formations of a hundred planes & up. Plus the A-26 could outrun & out fight most German fighters. And the P-51’s had overwhelming advantage over the Luftwaffe. W/out heavy bombers, we’d have resources for more fighters & medium bombers.
Lt. Col Clifford Erly (In the book “The Encyclopedia of Aircraft of WWII” by Amber Books.) “Once rid of it’s bombs, it was a real fighter. Not only were we as fast as any fighter, we were almost as maneuverable. I have never heard of a fight successfully attacking an A-26 because we had the choice. We could run away in the straight-way or we could turn and fight.”
About as much as I resent people who can’t tell the difference between a mousetrap and a feather duster.
That analogy make no sense. A spitfire has more in common w/ a F-15E than a mousetrap does w/ a feather duster. Now if you compared a hammer to a mousetrap, THAT would be a good analogy because both can kill mice, just one does it much better. But the other is more versatile.:mrgreen:
In that case, don’t get involved in Afghanistan in the first place.
So you’re saying we should just let the Taliban continue to tear the place apart? I’m still pissed they blew up those priceless Buddha Statues! It’s be like blowing up the Sphinx of the pyramids because Muslims didn’t build them. And you’re forgetting the OPIUM! We’ve fought a 40 year war in Columbia over drugs & Afghanistan is a new front in that.
Since about 200 B-17s were required, this is really, really obviously going to cost more for the B-17 - so why undermine your own argument?
Wrong, my argument was on how a Tactical/ Coin aircraft was preferable to a fleet of high flying ducks wallowing slowly towards a small target surrounded by thousands of civilians who were far more likely to get hit while burning huge loads of fuel in the process (a very good reason why the Germans didn’t try doing the same to Britain). Or a $50 million dollar Mach 2.5+ gas guzzler which is only advantageous against enemies w/ very advanced air defenses, which MOST of the world lacks. How much would that F-15 burn on a typical mission? I usually see them w/ at least 1x600 Gal tank externally, that’s probably more than a spitfire can carry internally. So it has more range, so? It’s like an argument I read about F-14’s vs B-2s during allied force. The B-2s had to fly all the way from Missouri to Serbia & back while the F-14s only had to go from the Adriatic, a fraction of the distance. It was in an issue of Flight Journal. I wasn’t trying to compare B-17 fuel use to an F-15s
Why should the Russians make your lives easy for a small payment? Besides, hitting pre-designated targets is a very small fraction of what tactical aircraft do in Afghanistan right now - they are used far more often as sensor platforms or in a presence role to scare off attack.
I was saying why we don’t need AIR SUPERIORITY fighters anymore. We can destroy any enemy air force on the ground the moment we feel we gotta go to war. I mentioned Russia because we can’t deploy Tomahawks or other cruise missiles from ground launchers because we signed the INF treaty w/ Russia. But countries tend not to interfere w/ us if we bribe them.
If you want more money from the government, vote for a socialist party who will withdraw from foreign entanglements and give you money taken from richer people. Don’t whine about the cost of something you don’t understand.
Speaking of Gov’t cost, the Death Penalty uses a lethal injection, TWO actually! And they flush the line clean before using the second chemical. And apparently, they even use an alcohol wipe before putting the needle in. That ain’t cheap. A bullet costs a few cents & you can use a policeman’s sidearm for it, or a length of rope.
(We fed our German POWs a measly 1000 calories a day & denied them Red Cross aid, at least 70,000 died & we hung most of those we charged w/ war crimes only a year after they surrendered. Khalid Sheik Muhammad is still alive [for now]. And they fought w/ more honor & courage than terrorists.)
Of course the money spent on executing criminals is WAY exceeded by other prison costs.And the death penalty was halted AGAIN, last I heard.
As for voting, both parties refuse to respect my values, so I will withhold my vote until a new party rises to supplant them. As least someone is trying to think outside the box.
Of course, the hardships imposed by the Versailles Treaty & the occupation of Germany Proper & expulsion from Alcace/Lorraine caused the death rate of the Flu to increase more than in many other countries.