On 25/10/07, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I live on the flight path of the RAF memorial flight in its travels up
>and down the coutry to airshows. A couple of times every summer I drop
>whatever it is I am doing and rush outside to watch the Lancaster, a
>Spitfire and a Hurricane
From: Mark Roberts
> John Sessoms wrote:
>
>> >Actually, the 22,000 lb bomb did weigh 22,000 lb.
>
> I think the thread has been officially beaten to death when someone has
> to point something like this out!
>
>
>
>
Heh heh. My daddy used to say, "Drive it into the ground and bark over
t
mike wilson wrote:
>More likely due to the original organisation's recreation of the
>bombing of Hiroshima. I don't think that went down very well
>anywhere outside of a few redneck crania.
Anything like the Batley Townswomen's Guild's recreation of the battle
of Pearl Harbor?
http://www.you
frank theriault wrote:
> On 10/24/07, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>They have the throttles pretty much wide open during take-off, so all
>>you need to do is get to one of the airshows where a B-17 will be flying.
>
>
> I guess my point was that with so few of them flying, it m
frank theriault wrote:
> On 10/24/07, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Well, the B-25 only had 28 cylinders, while the Lancaster had 48. But it
>>always
>>seemed that the radials sort of rumbled while the v-12's sort of snarled. The
>>one that always sent shivers up my spine was the Beech
John Sessoms wrote:
> From: "P. J. Alling"
>
>
>>They've changed their name to the Commemorative Air Force,
>>(Confederate is so Politically Incorrect).
>
>
>
> Might have something to do with so many of them old war-birds being
> owned by people who don't owe allegiance to the old confedera
On 10/24/07, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> They have the throttles pretty much wide open during take-off, so all
> you need to do is get to one of the airshows where a B-17 will be flying.
I guess my point was that with so few of them flying, it might be
difficult to get to one of t
John Sessoms wrote:
>Actually, the 22,000 lb bomb did weigh 22,000 lb.
I think the thread has been officially beaten to death when someone has
to point something like this out!
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from t
uss Mail List"
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: Starfighters & Co.
> Which is correct, but the B-17 didn't either, it's range was quite
> restricted with an 8,000lb load.
>
> Interestingly, the RAF used stripped B-24's in the BMI theater, a
From: "John Sessoms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Why? They didn't operate under the same conditions.
No.
Regards,
Bob...
"Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection."
-Jean Luc Godard
- Original Message
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 05:39:36PM -0400, frank theriault wrote:
> On 10/24/07, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, the B-25 only had 28 cylinders, while the Lancaster had 48. But it
> > always
> > seemed that the radials sort of rumbled while the v-12's sort of snarled.
> > The
> > one
From: graywolf
> Ya, but you guys have to remember you are talking two different
> things; Weight, and explosive power. Also payload includes crew,
> ammo, and fuel as well as the bombs.
>
> A 22,000# has the equivalent power of 22,000# of TNT it does not
> weigh 22,000#.
Actually, the 22,000 l
Which is correct, but the B-17 didn't either, it's range was quite
restricted with an 8,000lb load.
Interestingly, the RAF used stripped B-24's in the BMI theater, and
carried a 12,000lb load some 1,400 miles in one case.
Note of course that the return fuel numbers are also much smaller, since
Actually, you've got it backwards. The 22,000lb bomb weighed 22,000lb,
but actually had much less explosive power (which is why the current
USAF MOAB can claim to be the most powerful conventional bomb ever
deployed, despiet weighing 1000lb less than the Grand Slam, but had
18,700lb of explosiv
From: "Bob Blakely"
> From: http://www.warbirdalley.com/
>
> B-17G, 17,600 pounds of bombs.
> Lancaster Mk I, Fourteen 1,000 pound bombs.
> B-24, 12,800 lb. maximum bomb load
>
> Bomb load could be traded for ceiling and/or range with all these.
> For example, B-17 typically flew with 6000 po
From: "P. J. Alling"
> They've changed their name to the Commemorative Air Force,
> (Confederate is so Politically Incorrect).
Might have something to do with so many of them old war-birds being
owned by people who don't owe allegiance to the old confederacy.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
On 10/24/07, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, the B-25 only had 28 cylinders, while the Lancaster had 48. But it
> always
> seemed that the radials sort of rumbled while the v-12's sort of snarled. The
> one that always sent shivers up my spine was the Beech 18 (C-45) throttled
> back
Ya, but you guys have to remember you are talking two different things; Weight,
and explosive power. Also payload includes crew, ammo, and fuel as well as the
bombs.
A 22,000# has the equivalent power of 22,000# of TNT it does not weigh 22,000#.
Just as a 5 megaton atomic bomb does not weight 5
Yes, but I assume they didn't take that load all the way to Berlin and that
they were stripped of nearly everything not absolutely necessary for flight.
Payload vs fuel is the most common trade off made. For example, the
specification for the Lancaster range with 14,000 pound load was 1,660
mil
Well, the B-25 only had 28 cylinders, while the Lancaster had 48. But it always
seemed that the radials sort of rumbled while the v-12's sort of snarled. The
one that always sent shivers up my spine was the Beech 18 (C-45) throttled back
with the 9 cyl P&W R-985 engines slightly out of sync.
f
Adam Maas wrote:
> Bob Blakely wrote:
>> From: http://www.warbirdalley.com/
>>
>> B-17G, 17,600 pounds of bombs.
>> Lancaster Mk I, Fourteen 1,000 pound bombs.
>> B-24, 12,800 lb. maximum bomb load
>>
>> Bomb load could be traded for ceiling and/or range with all these. For
>> example,
Bob Blakely wrote:
> From: http://www.warbirdalley.com/
>
> B-17G, 17,600 pounds of bombs.
> Lancaster Mk I, Fourteen 1,000 pound bombs.
> B-24, 12,800 lb. maximum bomb load
>
> Bomb load could be traded for ceiling and/or range with all these. For
> example, B-17 typically flew with
From: http://www.warbirdalley.com/
B-17G, 17,600 pounds of bombs.
Lancaster Mk I, Fourteen 1,000 pound bombs.
B-24, 12,800 lb. maximum bomb load
Bomb load could be traded for ceiling and/or range with all these. For
example, B-17 typically flew with 6000 pounds of bombs to gain range
On 10/23/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you want a great sounding bird, very little beats a Lancaster, with
> it's 4 Merlins.
>
> We get it over Toronto on a regular basis during Airshow season.
Like you, I've seen and heard that Lanc on a regular basis. IIRC, it
was built in Cana
John Francis wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 06:53:13PM +0100, mike wilson wrote:
>> Adam Maas wrote:
>>> Doug Franklin wrote:
>>>
Adam Maas wrote:
> If you want a great sounding bird, very little beats a Lancaster, with
> it's 4 Merlins.
I've never been near a running
John Francis wrote:
>The Lancaster could (when stripped down) carry as much as a
>22,000lb bomb.
Ah yes, the "earthquake" bomb. They used them to bring down bridges: It
didn't have to hit the bridge, just strike nearby where the shock waves
from the explosion (I believe they were fused to go o
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 06:53:13PM +0100, mike wilson wrote:
> Adam Maas wrote:
> > Doug Franklin wrote:
> >
> >>Adam Maas wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>If you want a great sounding bird, very little beats a Lancaster, with
> >>>it's 4 Merlins.
> >>
> >>I've never been near a running Lanc, though I've se
Adam Maas wrote:
> Doug Franklin wrote:
>
>>Adam Maas wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you want a great sounding bird, very little beats a Lancaster, with
>>>it's 4 Merlins.
>>
>>I've never been near a running Lanc, though I've seen them on static
>>display several times. I have had a B-17 and B-24 go overhe
John Francis wrote:
> I don't believe you're right. The Collings Foundation have a B-17,
> B-24 and B-25 in their "Wings of Freedom" flight, and they claim there
> are currently fourteen B-17s in flyable condition in the USA. The B-24,
> though, is apparently the only one flying.
It's entirely
John Francis wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:35:07AM -0400, Doug Franklin wrote:
>> Adam Maas wrote:
>>
>>> There's only 2 flying Lanc's, 1 in the UK and one here in Canada, based
>>> out of Hamilton, about an hour west of Toronto. A beautiful bird, but
>>> small by todays standards.
>> Yeah,
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:35:07AM -0400, Doug Franklin wrote:
> Adam Maas wrote:
>
> > There's only 2 flying Lanc's, 1 in the UK and one here in Canada, based
> > out of Hamilton, about an hour west of Toronto. A beautiful bird, but
> > small by todays standards.
>
> Yeah, I think there's only
P. J. Alling wrote:
> They've changed their name to the Commemorative Air Force, (Confederate
> is so Politically Incorrect).
Yeah, well, I'm not all that Politically Correct. ;->
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pd
They've changed their name to the Commemorative Air Force, (Confederate
is so Politically Incorrect).
Doug Franklin wrote:
> Adam Maas wrote:
>
>
>> There's only 2 flying Lanc's, 1 in the UK and one here in Canada, based
>> out of Hamilton, about an hour west of Toronto. A beautiful bird, but
Adam Maas wrote:
> There's only 2 flying Lanc's, 1 in the UK and one here in Canada, based
> out of Hamilton, about an hour west of Toronto. A beautiful bird, but
> small by todays standards.
Yeah, I think there's only one Flying Fortress (B-17) left flying, in
the Confederate Air Force of all
- Original Message -
From: "Adam Maas"
Subject: Re: Starfighters & Co.
> If you want a great sounding bird, very little beats a Lancaster, with
> it's 4 Merlins.
>
> We get it over Toronto on a regular basis during Airshow season.
The Canadian based
Doug Franklin wrote:
> Adam Maas wrote:
>
>> If you want a great sounding bird, very little beats a Lancaster, with
>> it's 4 Merlins.
>
> I've never been near a running Lanc, though I've seen them on static
> display several times. I have had a B-17 and B-24 go overhead at around
> 1,000 fee
Adam Maas wrote:
> If you want a great sounding bird, very little beats a Lancaster, with
> it's 4 Merlins.
I've never been near a running Lanc, though I've seen them on static
display several times. I have had a B-17 and B-24 go overhead at around
1,000 feet. Heard them coming and going for
Doug Franklin wrote:
> mike wilson wrote:
>
>> Still not as nice (for me) as the
>> inline(ish) Merlin, with the overlaying supercharger whine.
>
> Might be the same for me if'n I'd ever had three P-51s zoom me in V
> formation at "mess up my hair" altitude. :-)
>
If you want a great sounding
mike wilson wrote:
> Still not as nice (for me) as the
> inline(ish) Merlin, with the overlaying supercharger whine.
Might be the same for me if'n I'd ever had three P-51s zoom me in V
formation at "mess up my hair" altitude. :-)
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PD
Doug Franklin wrote:
> mike wilson wrote:
>
>
>>BTW, wind your sound up and listen to the Merlin at full blast here. Don't
>>play the Corsair one at the top, it will make you feel ill.
>>http://www.aviationshoppe.com/Sounds1.html
>
>
> There used to be a tractor pull "car" here in the US tha
I don't know what it is but it looks like it has RR Merlin engine.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
On Oct 20, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Dario Bonazza wrote:
> So here's the answer:
> http://www.dariobonazza.com/public/Fiat_G59.jpg
>
> It's a 1948 Fiat G59, a derivative of the WWII-era G55 with a
> Merlin engine.
> In Italy, it was only used as a trainer (hence the 2-seat cockpit),
> while a
> few
Of course, I missed the .com:
www.dariobonazza.com/public/Fiat_G59.jpg
Dario
- Original Message -
From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: Starfighters &
So here's the answer:
www.dariobonazza/public/Fiat_G59.jpg
It's a 1948 Fiat G59, a derivative of the WWII-era G55 with a Merlin engine.
In Italy, it was only used as a trainer (hence the 2-seat cockpit), while a
few were also built with as single-seater fighters for other armed forces.
Thanks to
>
> And now, let's discuss WWII planes with a quiz for warbird buffs
> out there.
> Please take a look at www.dariobonazza.com/public/KGP03047.jpg
> What's that?
>
> Ciao,
>
> Dario
>
Is it a Yak-9?
Evan
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.
mike wilson wrote:
> BTW, wind your sound up and listen to the Merlin at full blast here. Don't
> play the Corsair one at the top, it will make you feel ill.
> http://www.aviationshoppe.com/Sounds1.html
There used to be a tractor pull "car" here in the US that had either
five or seven Merlins
I would have guessed P51 but apparently that's not it.
I'd never heard of the Hispano Aviacion HA 1112 Buchon but I doubt that's it.
The wheels retract away from the fuselage in the photo you posted whereas in
Dario's photo they retract towards the fuselage.
Cheers
Brian
++
From: "Dario Bonazza"
> And now, let's discuss WWII planes with a quiz for warbird buffs out there.
> Please take a look at www.dariobonazza.com/public/KGP03047.jpg
> What's that?
P-51B
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE
It looks a lot like the front end of a P51 but a lot of planes noses
looked a lot like that.
Dario Bonazza wrote:
> mike wilson wrote:
>
>
>>> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Date: 2007/10/18 Thu PM 08:14:36 GMT
>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> Subject: Re: Completely and totally
No.
Dario
- Original Message -
From: "Bong Manayon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: Starfighters & Co. (was: Completely and totally OT: Politics)
>I thought it was half of a P-
Yes, it's a Merlin.
No, it's neither e Messerschmitt nor another plane developed from a ME109.
Dario
- Original Message -
From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: Starfi
>
> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2007/10/19 Fri PM 12:48:10 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Starfighters & Co.
>
> Doug Franklin wrote:
> > Dario Bonazza wrote:
> >
> >> And now, let's discuss WWII pl
I thought it was half of a P-82 Twin Mustang, but my guess its one of
those Cavalier Mustangs (Mustang II? Piper Enforcer?) ...
On 10/19/07, Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mike wilson wrote:
>
> > Civilianised P51 Mustang?
>
> Nope. You have another chance, as I wrote WWII when it's ac
Doug Franklin wrote:
> Dario Bonazza wrote:
>
>> And now, let's discuss WWII planes with a quiz for warbird buffs out there.
>> Please take a look at www.dariobonazza.com/public/KGP03047.jpg
>> What's that?
>
> Nose of an early P-51 Mustang? Or maybe a Hawker Hurricane?
>
Neither. Although it'
Dario Bonazza wrote:
> And now, let's discuss WWII planes with a quiz for warbird buffs out there.
> Please take a look at www.dariobonazza.com/public/KGP03047.jpg
> What's that?
Nose of an early P-51 Mustang? Or maybe a Hawker Hurricane?
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
Dario Bonazza wrote:
> mike wilson wrote:
>
>>> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Date: 2007/10/18 Thu PM 08:14:36 GMT
>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> Subject: Re: Completely and totally OT: Politics
>>>
>>> Well, Canada did buy a bunch of F-104's. Too bad ours were low-level nuke
>>>
mike wilson wrote:
> Civilianised P51 Mustang?
Nope. You have another chance, as I wrote WWII when it's actually post-WWII.
Dario
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above a
>
> From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2007/10/19 Fri AM 10:01:43 GMT
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Subject: Starfighters & Co. (was: Completely and totally OT: Politics)
>
> mike wilson wrote:
>
> >> From: A
Err... let's better say post-WWII.
Dario
- Original Message -
From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 12:01 PM
Subject: Starfighters & Co. (was: Completely and totally OT: Politics)
&g
mike wilson wrote:
>> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: 2007/10/18 Thu PM 08:14:36 GMT
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: Re: Completely and totally OT: Politics
>>
>> Well, Canada did buy a bunch of F-104's. Too bad ours were low-level nuke
>> ground attack birds (Absolutely
60 matches
Mail list logo
