[ARC5] [Milsurplus] More Moron-ities. This Will Turn Your Stomach

[Francesco Ledda]

The only difference with Octane rating is the amount of compression the
gasoline will withstand, before self-igniting. 130 Octane is no more
"powerful" than 90 Octane.

Yes, but this means that the pilot cannot boost the supercharger like if he
had 130 octanes and get full takeoff power!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

You just don't know what you don't know!

-----Original Message-----
From: milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net
[mailto:milsurplus-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of J. Forster
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 12:02 PM
To: Francesco Ledda
Cc: arc5 at mailman.qth.net; milsurplus at mailman.qth.net; wa5cab at cs.com
Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] More Moron-ities. This Will Turn Your Stomach

> John,
>
> I am one of those "glorified bus driver", but let's forget that title for
> a minute.
>
> Now, the pilot job is safety of flight.  The WW2 airplanes are old, spare
> parts are becoming rare, engines are very expensive and 130 octane
> gasoline is no longer available (inform yourself about the difference in
> performance between 130 and 100 octane gasoline).

The only difference with Octane rating is the amount of compression the
gasoline will withstand, before self-igniting. 130 Octane is no more
"powerful" than 90 Octane.

Organizations like the CAF are
> focused on showing flying WW2 airplanes.
>
> Now, airplane performance is tied their weight. Engine life is pretty much
> determined by how they are used; the least amount of time the engine is on
> takeoff power, the longer for the engine. Therefore, the sooner the
> airplane
> reaches safe altitude, the sooner the engine can be throttle back.
> Furthermore, single engine performance is very dependent on weight
> (Climbing
> with a failed engine).  This is the reason why non flight critical items
> are
> removed.

The current show planes carry neither weapons or bomb load, so are
considerably underweight at takeoff, compared to their design loads. A
complete WW II avionics setup weighs less than a single 500 pound bomb.

> No pilot with a working brain will load the aircraft with extra useless
> weight. In certain circumstances, that extra weight may kill him.

Doing silly things, like shortening wings and stunts are a far more likely
cause of disaster.

> So, before you start talking, with such arrogance, about a topic that you
> don't understand, inform yourself or politely ask questions.

OK. What use would the planes have been in WW II w/o electronics?

You forget the primary mission of bombers was to deliver ordinance on
target. That would have been difficult, at best, w/o RADAR and radio aids
to navigation.

Look at the current Preditors and Reapers. Is a pilot necessary?

> Now, I take offence in being called a Glorified Bus Driver, especially
> when
> said in a degrading way.  I worked my butt off to get my licenses, and I
> am very proud of them.

And the original designers, the engineers, that designed and buiilt the
ARC-5s or whatever had no clue as to their profession? And their stuff has
to be "converted" to be useful? A graduate engineer has far more training
that a pilot. Years, not months.

> I don't find writing this email very fun. Please, stop insulting people no
> matter if Hams doing radio conversions, bus driver or trash haulers.
> Please, grow some social skills, if it is not too late.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Francesco Ledda

What made WW II different from previous wars was the advances in
electronics, from RADAR to the Prozimity Fuze to Nav Aids.

What makes current weapons different from WW II stuff is the electronics,
from GPS to 'puters, to multi-spectral imaging.

YMOV,

-John

================



______________________________________________________________
Milsurplus mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html