X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 2 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:17:03 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from ironport5.liveoakmail.com ([216.110.12.21] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 1967164 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:55:24 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.110.12.21; envelope-from=walter@advancedpilot.com Received: from rs5.liveoakhosting.com (HELO secure5.liveoakhosting.com) ([64.49.254.21]) by ironport5.liveoakmail.com with ESMTP; 04 Apr 2007 13:54:38 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAALiQE0ZAMf4VeWdsb2JhbACDCIx6AQEJDio X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,372,1170655200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="8218611:sNHT77174713" Received: (qmail 8338 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2007 13:54:37 -0500 Received: from 216-107-97-170.wan.networktel.net (HELO ?10.0.1.3?) (216.107.97.170) by rs5.liveoakhosting.com with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 4 Apr 2007 13:54:37 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2--162840014 X-Original-Message-Id: <5FDCCB4D-0C21-4E60-83F5-7C77818383AC@advancedpilot.com> From: Walter Atkinson Subject: Re: [LML] Re: F8F vx P-51 (was: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0) X-Original-Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:54:15 -0500 X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) --Apple-Mail-2--162840014 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed On Apr 4, 2007, at 10:54 AM, H & J Johnson wrote: the B-17 was listed as capable of lifting 17,600lbs of bombs You may want to check on that number. Not with full fuel. My B-17 POH indicates that that's high. However if the Mosquito had a payload of 4000 (don't know anything about that one), that was still considerably less than the payload of the B-17G which is listed as 6000 pounds with full fuel. If they could leave fuel behind on a short mission, I think they could "lift" as much as 10,200 pounds--IF it fit on the bomb racks. That's what I think you were referring to. Based on my B-24 POH, it carried more payload than either--they carried 8000 pounds on max range missions and as much as 12,000 pounds on shorter ones. That was the load-hauler that stopped the German production--the press the B-17 got notwithstanding. Faster, longer, more payload. What you hear about the B-124 not being able to take punishment is not supported by the data. The B-17 and B-24 lost about the same PERCENTAGE of combat-mission aircraft. The fact that there were more than twice as many B-24s produced makes the raw numbers look bad. As a Luftwaffe FW-190 ACE told me, "I'd radder attack zee B-24s. Even though zere guns vere better placed to shoot me, they vere lower and vee didn't have to climb as high to get zem! Of course, once zee P-51s came, the zest was gone from attacking eizer one." Walter --Apple-Mail-2--162840014 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Apr 4, 2007, at = 10:54 AM, H & J Johnson wrote:

the B-17 was = listed as capable of lifting

17,600lbs of bombs=A0




You may want to check on = that number.=A0 Not with full fuel.=A0 My B-17 POH indicates that that's = high.=A0 However if the Mosquito had a payload of 4000 (don't know = anything about that one), that was still considerably less than the = payload of the B-17G which is listed as 6000 pounds with full fuel.=A0 = If they could leave fuel behind on a short mission, I think they could = "lift" as much as 10,200 pounds--IF it fit on the bomb racks. <g>=A0= That's what I think you were referring to.

Based on my B-24 POH, it = carried more payload than either--they carried 8000 pounds on max range = missions and as much as 12,000 pounds on shorter ones.=A0 That was the = load-hauler that stopped the German production--the press the B-17 got = notwithstanding.=A0 Faster, longer, more payload.=A0 What you hear about = the B-124 not being able to take punishment is not supported by the = data.=A0 The B-17 and B-24 lost about the same PERCENTAGE of = combat-mission aircraft.=A0 The fact that there were more than twice as = many B-24s produced makes the raw numbers look bad.

As a Luftwaffe FW-190 ACE = told me, "I'd radder attack zee B-24s.=A0 Even though zere guns vere = better placed to shoot me, they vere lower and vee didn't have to climb = as high to get zem!=A0 Of course, once zee P-51s came, the zest was gone = from attacking eizer one."

Walter
= --Apple-Mail-2--162840014--