Text 16024, 117 rader
Skriven 2011-03-31 12:44:13 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
  Kommentar till text 16006 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: Re: Them damn French Warmonge
=====================================
RW>WD> ... a freight flight after hostilities ended with mail bags on a B17
RW>WD> which was quickly abandoned. No passenger flight. You've obviously
RW>WD> never been in a B17 in flight or you wouldn't say such a thing.
 
RW> You're saying that a commercialized B17 couldn't carry one extra person?
RW> I think that's ludicrous in the face of what that craft could carry as
RW> a bomber.
 
I'm saying that a B17 was used on a handful of occasions only to carry mailbags
between Sweden and the North American continent with 4-5 stops. Very
uneconomical.
 
You cannot commercialise a B17 to carry pasengers or freight. Even a B17 is
subject to the laws of "weight and ballancing" of an aircraft, also in time of
war. The bombload could only be held by placing it immediately below the center
wingspar (as with most bombers from that era). Bombs were not held in bombracks
all through the fuselage but in a not too well accessible enclosure technically
under the wing. Do not believe there is an enormous cavernous area as with e.g.
a B29.
 
Therefore a B17 could carry some freight but never be converted into a
freighter. The fuselage is narrow and cramped, try visiting one, try flying on
one ... I've been on a B17 and a Lancaster, you have no idea of how cramped,
cold, noisy, uncomfortable that it is ... even for a 15min spin.
 
RW> Not impossible. Flying over the waters of the Baltic between Norway and
RW> Denmark wouldn't bring much attention to the flight. They must have done
RW> something similar, since they did fly to Scotland during the war.
 
There have been a few flights making a stop in Norway to be checked by the
Germans. Mostly international red cross related for POW's and under supervision
of the Nazis. Never think this was a commercial line. The Nazis even informed
the Brits such a flight was on its way and the Brits sent fighters in order to
shoot it down at the first sign of "an issue".
 
RW>WD> 2) over the top of the world there are no servicing spots, no
RW>WD> refueling, no
RW>WD>    landing at all until Newfoundland. Svalbard was unavailable then
 
RW> Iceland was occupied by the US Army Airforce. There must have been
RW> something there to land on besides your imagination.
 
You used the term "over the top of the world". Flying via Iceland is not "over
the top of the world", Iceland's even below the Arctic circle.
 
Read more books, you can learn these things from 'm.
 
RW>WD> A B17 cannot fly Sweden to Newfoundland non-stop.
 
RW> The B17 service ceiling was 35,800 ft. (10,850 m), with a max. range of
RW> 3,400 miles (5,471 km). So, it can fly there. And if not directly, by
RW> making one or two stops along the way. In fact many B17s had done just
RW> that several times.
 
The range of a B17 is 1,738 nautical miles, 3,219km ... with rubber fuel bags
inside that distance could be stretched but then with reduced payload (the fuel
complements the payload) ... what would be the use for a freighter able to
carry zero-payload? That is the reason why a B17 on average made 4-5 stops
across the Atlantic.
 
Gander-Gothab/Nuuk: 919nm about 6.5-7hrs flying in an empty B17
Gothab/Nuuk-Keflavik: 750nm about 5.5hrs flying in an empty B17
Keflavik-Prestwick: 741nm about 5.5hrs flying in an ampty B17
 
These are the flying times and trips made on an eastbound trip. On a westbound
add at least 2hrs for headwinds. "The Lost Squadron" is a great book, contains
a wealth of factual information of the B17's that crashlanded in Greenland.
 
RW>WD> 3) Navigation ... navigation at that time was 100% inertial.
 
RW> Meaning in this case, inertial forces. Which do not exist in the real
RW> world.
 
It seems you do know what the term "inertial navigation" means.
 
RW>WD> The more to the north (and south) you go, the less reliable it
RW>WD> becomes.
 
RW> "Many people have the impression that aerial navigation is an elaborate
RW> and formidable science, difficult to master. Actually, it is a clear-cut,
RW> logical, scientific art. ...
 
Funny ... even the Air Force 1 B747 has been known to become lost across the
Atlantic, and that's hi-tech navigation.
 
Transatlantic and transpacific flights routinely went of-course across oceans.
The 50nm track separation across the Atlantic is because the deviation on
inertial navigation without a single waypoint is less.
 
And Noonan didn't find Howland Island either.
 
RW> Meanwhile you continue to blather in ignorance of WW2 aircraft not having
RW> the capability of flying from Sweden to the UK or the US if they had to.
 
I've never said they couldnt, merely that they didn't.
 
RW> "After leaving Denmark in the dramatic day and night (October 1943) when
RW> most Jews were able to escape to Sweden due to exceptional circumstances
RW> (see Rescue of the Danish Jews), Bohr was quickly asked again to join the
RW> British effort and he was flown to the UK. He was evacuated from
RW> Stockholm
 
Bohr went by freighter vessel to England from Sweden.
 
RW> in 1943 in an unarmed De Havilland Mosquito operated by British Overseas
RW> Airways Corporation (BOAC). Passengers on BOAC's Mosquitos were carried
RW> in an improvised cabin in the bomb bay.
 
You've obviously never seen a Mosquito nor its bomb bay. There simply is no
space to fit anything nor anyone in it other than 4 bombs or a camera.
 
You're good at cut-and-pasting, Roy, but you know so little about this.
 
 \%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.59
 * Origin: Many Glacier / WikiLeaks http://213.251.145.96 / (2:292/854)