Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Bosco123 on June 17, 2009, 12:22:13 PM
-
Why would the Brits make a circle for steering? what's the gain of using that, as opposed to using a regular flight stick? what's the disadvantage?
-
Why would the Brits make a circle for steering? what's the gain of using that, as opposed to using a regular flight stick? what's the disadvantage?
Easier to get both hands on it when pulling out of those really fast dives.
-
Easier to get both hands on it when pulling out of those really fast dives.
Yet, a regular flight stick will feel more natural
-
Why would the Brits make a circle for steering? what's the gain of using that, as opposed to using a regular flight stick? what's the disadvantage?
Why did they put a steering wheel on the P-38, that was typically used on bombers not fighters.
-
This reminds me of something I read about the Mosquito. The first Mossies were unarmed reconnaisance aircraft or bombers which had a rotating control yoke for roll control like all British bombers. De Havilland kept this yoke for the cannon armed fighter bomber version prototype but were told to change it to a control stick by RAF Fighter Command. It was pointed out that the pilot could use his muscles more effectively with a yoke than a stick and that using a stick would therefore reduce the roll rate of the aircraft. Not only that but the change in design would delay the introduction of the new type and cost more. Still, the RAF insisted it was changed. In their minds bombers had yokes and fighters had sticks and that was that.
In a small aircraft like a Spitfire I can see where a yoke might obscure a lot of the instrument panel's gauges and switches, but in a large cockpit like the Mosquito had this was less of an issue.
-
Why did they put a steering wheel on the P-38, that was typically used on bombers not fighters.
The P38 is a bomber
-
The P38 is a bomber
I know it carries and drops bombs but the "P" designation says it's a fighter. I have a felling your just being fascias.
-
better question: why did the RAF move over to regular sticks?
nothing ergonomic about the vertical stick, i mean when you're cruising in a car with one hand on the wheel, does you hand go naturally to the 1-2 oclock position, or to dead 3 oclock with your grip vertical?
afaik the usual pilot position for a kill in a spitty would have been hunched down into the sight, knees under your chin with your feet on the upper set of rudder pedals (reduces G-effects) with both hands on the stick, elbows braced hard against the side of the cockpit. bit different from lounging at a desk :)
-
The P38 is a bomber
:furious Friggin' Lutefisk eating Norwegians!
ack-ack
-
I presume you refer to the steering of...a Spitfire?
-
Dunno 'bout this one. Have an interview in which John Cunningham said he preferred the yoke to the stick.
Not sure why (if?) Fighter Command would insist on a stick, already had plenty of Beaus with "spectacles", so far as I know, unless one of the Beaufighter nerds has more info.
-
:furious Friggin' Lutefisk eating Norwegians!
ack-ack
And he is still right.
-
I presume you refer to the steering of...a Spitfire?
Almost all RAF fighters. I had this thought today when I was looking at my cockpit kit for my new Seafury that we are building and they have the same concept. I was curious.
-
All Lavochkin aircraft upto the La 5FN also had a circular (oval) grip. (AH has an La7 stick in its La5FN)
It enabled the pilot to over come extreme stick forces using two hands.............. in the case of lavochkins the stick forces were reduced when subtle changes were made to the control surface actuaters and this enabled the single handle stick to be implemented in the La7.
-
Real life pilots must've been glad they didn't have the twisty stick!
-
I know it carries and drops bombs but the "P" designation says it's a fighter. I have a felling your just being fascias.
Wrong.
A = Ground Attack
B = Bomber
C = Transport (Cargo)
F = Fighter
P = Pursuit (Patrol)
X = Experimental
-
I know it carries and drops bombs but the "P" designation says it's a fighter. I have a felling your just being fascias.
fascias: A sheet or band of fibrous connective tissue enveloping, separating, or binding together muscles, organs, and other soft structures of the body
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
-
Wrong.
F = Fighter
P = Pursuit (Patrol)
I thought P was used instead of F because "Pursuit" sounded less aggressive than "Fighter" despite them having the same roles, ie just a PR thing?
-
I thought P was used instead of F because "Pursuit" sounded less aggressive than "Fighter" despite them having the same roles, ie just a PR thing?
He mentioned "designations", I only posted WWII designations. But someone called the P-38 a "bomber" and that is incorrect.
-
Wrong.
A = Ground Attack
B = Bomber
C = Transport (Cargo)
F = Fighter
P = Pursuit (Patrol)
X = Experimental
not sure what your trying to prove here, P was for pursuit, for obvious patrol planes like the PBY, PB2Y, PB4y. PB standing for patrol/bomber. The F for fighter designation did not become implemented until after WW2
-
And he is still right.
:furious Friggin' Kalakukko eating Finns!
ack-ack
-
fascias: A sheet or band of fibrous connective tissue enveloping, separating, or binding together muscles, organs, and other soft structures of the body
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
Hows "FACTIOUS " then, are you happy?
-
Hows "FACTIOUS " then, are you happy?
I think the word you're looking for is facetious.
ack-ack
-
I think the word you're looking for is facetious.
ack-ack
fac·tious Pronunciation (fkshs)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, produced by, or characterized by internal dissension.
2. Given to or promoting internal dissension. See Synonyms at insubordinate.
-
not sure what your trying to prove here, P was for pursuit, for obvious patrol planes like the PBY, PB2Y, PB4y. PB standing for patrol/bomber. The F for fighter designation did not become implemented until after WW2
P-51 Mustang
P-47 Thunderbolt
P-39 Warhawk
You're trying to be condescending and failing miserably. The P-38 was stated on the first page as being a BOMBER, I corrected that error.
Yeah, you're right, we never had the F6F, F4U or F4F in WWII. Maybe we can get them to add those planes to a Post WWII Arena?
-
Hows "FACTIOUS " then, are you happy?
Ya, I'm pretty happy. Good wife, two kids who don't drive me totally insane. House is paid for, so are the cars. I get this lower back pain if I... Oh nevermind.. I think Ack-Ack nailed what you meant.
-
the situation actually used to be far more complicated than it is now before 1962. At the time there were two different designating systems: one for the US Army Air Force (as the US Air Force was a part of the US Army until 1948), and a separate one for the US Navy.
The US Army Air Force (USAAF) had these P = Pursuit designations for its aircraft. This practice was introduced on 7 March 1925, when the US Army ordered the first series of 15 Curtis XPW-8B fighters under the official designation P-1. The same type, with some modifications, was then introduced with the US Navy as F6C, with the US Navy designating its planes according to the producer (in this case it was F=fighter, 6=6th fighter type by Curtis, C=third version produced). A good example for the USN designating system was the Grumman FF1: although built years after the F6C, it was the first fighter the USN purchased from Grumman, therefore F1 (which was later developed in the F2F that - via the F3F - became the F4F Wildcat after lots of further developement)
Sorry for the confusion, I was only refering to army aircorp planes since the P-38 was of that service. As you can read above there were duifferences between the US Navy and the US Army Aircorp designations and the US Army Aircorp didn't change the designation until after WW2
The USAAF then established a similar system for bombers, starting with the B= bomber, starting with the B-2 Condor, developed in 1924, but introduced in service only in 1929, and - sometimes in between also the A= attack designation was introduced, with one of the first "attackers" of the USAAF being the Northrop A-17.
Now, some classic examples of the USAAF fighter designations:
Seversky P-35
Curtis P-36 Hawk
Lockheed P-38 Lightning
Bell P-39 Airacobra
Curtis P-40 Warhawk, Mohawk, Tomahawk
Republic P-43 Lancer
Republic P-47 Thunderbolt
North American P-51 Mustang
Bell P-59 Airacomet
Bell P-63 Kingcobra
Northrop P-61 Black Widow
Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star
North American F-82 Twin Mustang
The last two were the last fighter-designs for USAAF which carried the P designation. Already the next Republic's fighter became the F-84, and North American then followed with the F-86. Both were, namely, introduced in service only after the USAF was taken out of the US Army and became an independent service. In the same move, also all the former Ps became F=fighters, so during the Korean War, the following designations appeared:
F-51 Mustang
F-80 Shooting Star
F-82 Twin Mustang
-
Ya, I'm pretty happy. Good wife, two kids who don't drive me totally insane. House is paid for, so are the cars. I get this lower back pain if I... Oh nevermind.. I think Ack-Ack nailed what you meant.
He did ......but both would be applicable . Too many words have similar meanings and are spelt similar ;) my bad.
Glad to here your doing fine. I don't quite have my house paid off (almost) but even in this market I have over 1,000,000 equity. Now if anybody including myself could afford to buy it is another thing altogether. Not many people now days can qualify for squat. I have my wife's 2005 Sequoia paid off one more year on my Tacoma and about 7 years on my airstream. Other then that I'm clear. My wife is a mortgage broker and I have never taken any money out of my house to buy stupid things like cars, boats or RV's. I still have one daughter living with me while going to school, 3 dogs 4 parrots and a Koi pond. Oh yeah my wife has a horse which costs me more then all the rest of my pets put together.
I also have back problems, ruptured a disk about 7 years ago and have never been the same. Hang in there.... I hear ceramic spines are only a few years away :lol
-
P-51 Mustang
P-47 Thunderbolt
P-39 Warhawk
You're trying to be condescending and failing miserably. The P-38 was stated on the first page as being a BOMBER, I corrected that error.
Yeah, you're right, we never had the F6F, F4U or F4F in WWII. Maybe we can get them to add those planes to a Post WWII Arena?
God, the Sweeb got it all wrong. It's Airacobra, the P40 is a warhawk.
-
F6C, with the US Navy designating its planes according to the producer (in this case it was F=fighter, 6=6th fighter type by Curtis, C=third version produced)
I thought the trailing letter in Navy type designations ('C' in F6C) referred to the manufacturer, in this case, Curtiss. Like how the 'U' in F4U refers to Vought, G = Goodyear, D = Douglas, H was McDonnell in the 50s, etc.
-
I thought the trailing letter in Navy type designations ('C' in F6C) referred to the manufacturer, in this case, Curtiss. Like how the 'U' in F4U refers to Vought, G = Goodyear, D = Douglas, H was McDonnell in the 50s, etc.
I know it's very confusing. For some reason the US complicates things like this. For example why would they use the fighter squadron designation the way they did and do. It's not like there was 357 fighter groups or 321 squadrons within that group. To me the German system seemed a lot less complicated, JG1, JG2 and so on and so on.
-
I thought the trailing letter in Navy type designations ('C' in F6C) referred to the manufacturer, in this case, Curtiss. Like how the 'U' in F4U refers to Vought, G = Goodyear, D = Douglas, H was McDonnell in the 50s, etc.
That's almost what he said. He counted his "C" twice I believe. Both for Curtis and and the same "C" for the third version.
It should have probably read: F6C-C
wrongway
-
God, the Sweeb got it all wrong. It's Airacobra, the P40 is a warhawk.
Regardless, BigPlay is proving what I said in my first post. Meh, I'm human. Sweeb!
-
you all missed that the N-ilsen stand for N(orvegian) - troll :p
-
I thought the original mention of the P38 being bomber was a shot at all us cartoon B-38 pilots :)
-
I thought the original mention of the P38 being bomber was a shot at all us cartoon B-38 pilots :)
Don't fret...It was. :D
-
I know Nilsen was fooling around, but others then took that ball and ran with it.
-
Regardless, BigPlay is proving what I said in my first post. Meh, I'm human. Sweeb!
hehehe, Someone has to get on your cas sometimes ;)
<S>
-
I know it carries and drops bombs but the "P" designation says it's a fighter. I have a felling your just being fascias.
actually, the "P" designation says it's a pursuit aircraft. :D
-
not sure what your trying to prove here, P was for pursuit, for obvious patrol planes like the PBY, PB2Y, PB4y. PB standing for patrol/bomber. The F for fighter designation did not become implemented until after WW2
because(i think) the p51, 47, 38, etc., were originally intended to chase down bombers, escort our bombers, and chase bad guys away(hopefully)......thus the "pursuit" designation. that's also why in reality, these aircraft had such a hard time in a tight turning fight with little wiggly things like the me109, zeeks, etc.......the f4f could sorta kinda handle zeeks, and i think the f6f was designed specifically to fight the zeeks.
i could be wrong though.....
-
because(i think) the p51, 47, 38, etc., were originally intended to chase down bombers, escort our bombers, and chase bad guys away(hopefully)......thus the "pursuit" designation. that's also why in reality, these aircraft had such a hard time in a tight turning fight with little wiggly things like the me109, zeeks, etc.......the f4f could sorta kinda handle zeeks, and i think the f6f was designed specifically to fight the zeeks.
i could be wrong though.....
Shhhhh. Go easy on him, after all, he tried to take a cheap shot and only repeat what I said.
-
because(i think) the p51, 47, 38, etc., were originally intended to chase down bombers, escort our bombers, and chase bad guys away(hopefully)......thus the "pursuit" designation.
Except P-51 was of course originally designed as low altitude reconnaissace and tactical support fighter. Even as a dive bomber. Before the actual high altitude fighter versions came along :)
-
Except P-51 was of course originally designed as low altitude reconnaissace and tactical support fighter. Even as a dive bomber. Before the actual high altitude fighter versions came along :)
hence it's original title of A-36 apache. A=Attack.
-
Shhhhh. Go easy on him, after all, he tried to take a cheap shot and only repeat what I said.
you trolling for something??????? I am not making a cheap shot at anyone. I also said the P-38 carries bombs but was a fighter. I never said it was a bomber. Now hopefully that is clear. However P-38's were used in a low level mission against the ploesti old fields and I'm almost sure they had bombs.
-
because(i think) the p51, 47, 38, etc., were originally intended to chase down bombers, escort our bombers, and chase bad guys away(hopefully)......thus the "pursuit" designation. that's also why in reality, these aircraft had such a hard time in a tight turning fight with little wiggly things like the me109, zeeks, etc.......the f4f could sorta kinda handle zeeks, and i think the f6f was designed specifically to fight the zeeks.
i could be wrong though.....
USAAF aircraft designations explained (http://orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/013_usa/_aircraft_usaf.htm)
ack-ack
-
I questioned the foundation of that same B-38 about 2 years ago:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,202566.0.html
;)
-
I thought the original mention of the P38 being bomber was a shot at all us cartoon B-38 pilots :)
I think it's like the F-117; designate a bomber as a fighter, and you'll get fighter pilots to drop bombs. It's still a bomber, but no one has the heart to tell them. ;)
-
I think it's like the F-117; designate a bomber as a fighter, and you'll get fighter pilots to drop bombs. It's still a bomber, but no one has the heart to tell them. ;)
@%@$#%@$#%@#$!
ack-ack
-
I love this thread! :aok
-
This is kinda off topic, but why do the British fighters have weird looking sticks? The one with the loop on the end of it.
-
Um, that's the topic of this thread, actually.
@%@$#%@$#%@#$!
ack-ack
Oops, I guess I let the cat out of the bag. :uhoh
-
This is kinda off topic, but why do the British fighters have weird looking sticks? The one with the loop on the end of it.
:rofl :aok :rofl
if i had tto guess, i would think it would allow the british pile-it to gain better leverage by having convenient placement of both hands in hard maneuvers.
-
The Brits (on their rainy island) are so used to sticks with roundish handles (umbrellas) :D ;)
-
The Brits (on their rainy island) are so used to sticks with roundish handles (umbrellas) :D ;)
:rofl
-
:rofl :aok :rofl
if i had tto guess, i would think it would allow the british pile-it to gain better leverage by having convenient placement of both hands in hard maneuvers.
Yeah, it was something about how the ovaly top and joint at the middle made better usage of the muscles, allowing for better control on ailerons at high speeds.
-
I think it's like the F-117; designate a bomber as a fighter, and you'll get fighter pilots to drop bombs. It's still a bomber, but no one has the heart to tell them. ;)
:rofl :rofl that has just made my day :aok
-
hence it's original title of A-36 apache. A=Attack.
From P-51 Mustang in detail & scale:
With no funds for pursuit aircraft, as fighters were then called, Lt. Kelsey came up with a way to beat the system and get some additional Mustangs on order for the USAAC. Using some remaining funds for attack aircraft, Kelsey asked North American to develop a dive bomber version of the NA-73. Choosing A-36, which was the next available attack designation, Kelsey ordered 500 of these dive bomber versions on April 16, 1942.
wrongway
-
Err since this is already way off topic:
I always thought the references to P38 bombers was all about the droop-snoot version? This, I believe, saw some use over Europe, contained a bomb aimer and Norden bomb sight. I have also read that there was an interface that allowed the lead bomb aimer to automatically drop the bombs for the rest of the squadron.
The P38 had a version that really was a level bomber.
Here's a quick Google grab:
http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/aca/kit_aca_2158.shtml (http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/aca/kit_aca_2158.shtml)
-
Err since this is already way off topic:
I always thought the references to P38 bombers was all about the droop-snoot version? This, I believe, saw some use over Europe, contained a bomb aimer and Norden bomb sight. I have also read that there was an interface that allowed the lead bomb aimer to automatically drop the bombs for the rest of the squadron.
The P38 had a version that really was a level bomber.
Here's a quick Google grab:
http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/aca/kit_aca_2158.shtml (http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/aca/kit_aca_2158.shtml)
The running joke in here is that due to its large size it's more of a bomber than a fighter. It was the same in AW as well because in that game we had hit bubbles that were determined by the length of the wings. So naturally, with its large wingspan, the P-38 has the same size hit bubble as any of the bombers in AW.
ack-ack
-
Ah thanks for that. Learned something again today! :aok