History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:55 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 09, 2015 5:45 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:29 pm
Posts: 5285
United States
MB-1 21.67
MB-2 26.11
B-2 42.06
B-10 57.84
B-18 65.15
B-17B 123.96
B-17C 139.47
B-17D 151.63
B-17E 157.04
B-17F 152.35
B-17G 174.96
B-24A/LB-30 150.63
B-24D 162.64
B-24J 176.36
B-32 229.10
B-29 273.57
B-29A 285.01
B-29B 282.43
B-36A 497.05
B-36B 496.80
B-36D 536.38
B-36D(F-III) 526.97
B-36F 548.58
B-36F(F-III) 528.36
B-36J 556.66
B-36J(F-III) 551.07
B-47A 335.04
B-47B 344.73
B-47E 352.51
B-50 305.32
B-52B 495.92
B-52C 513.61
B-52D 557.77
B-52E 525.05
B-52F 537.26
B-52G 569.87
B-52H 613.48
B-58A 590.48
B-60 529.14
XB-70A (AV-1) 657.57
XB-70B (AV-3) 928.27
FB-111A 606.40
B-1A 694.60
B-1B 631.35
B-2A 574.96
United Kingdom
HP O/100 23.16
HP O/400 27.77
V/1500 59.08
Vimy 31.57
Virginia 39.52
Heyford 43.92
Hendon 53.03
Whitley III 77.46
Whitley V 96.03
Wellington I 95.27
Wellington III 100.55
Hampden 67.98
Stirling I 153.27
Stirling III 154.91
Halifax I 141.29
Halifax III 161.77
Manchester 98.99
Warwick 144.11
Lancaster I 170.81
Lancaster II 168.51
Lancaster III 199.19
Lincoln I 227.19
Valiant 332.46
Victor B.1 356.63
Victor B.2 437.97
Vulcan B.1 342.01
Vulcan B.2 420.31
TSR-2 618.72
Germany
AEG GIV 20.94
Gotha GIV 19.85
Gotha GV 23.10
Freidrich G.III 19.72
Zeppelin RVI 36.32
Do-11 38.72
Do-23 45.04
Do-19 62.23
Ju-89 89.95
FW-200C-1 92.17
FW-200C-3 89.26
He-177A-1/R1 160.41
He-177A-1/R2 163.90
He-277B-5/R2 180.52
Ju-290A-5 155.48
Ju-390A-1 234.09
Russia
Ilya Mumorets 25.38
TB-1 36.17
TB-3 63.35
Pe-8 129.79
Tu-4 231.42
Tu-16 336.50
Tu-95 478.90
M-4 436.60
Tu-22 398.29
Tu-22M 592.88
Tu-160 784.68
Italy
CA-1 13.13
CA-3 17.80
CA-5 19.47
P-108 115.38
0.00
France
F-50 15.74
MB-200 46.22
F-222 86.80
Mirage IV 516.76

_________________
There are 550 million firearms in the world, enough for one person in twelve of the world's population. The moral dilemma that faces us is how to arm the other eleven.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 09, 2015 8:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7440
Location: BM-9, BB-30
Fascinating that there's such a big jump between Valkyrie AV-1 and AV-3.

I assume the B-60 scores so well vis-a-vis so many of the Buffs simply on sheer bombload capacity? It makes one wonder what a "B-60H" might have been capable of...

And how is it that the B-2 scores lower than the Hustler, TSR.2, and Mirage IV? :shock: Is this an artifact of the system (speed emphasis?, not accounting well for 'smart bombs'?) or a big neon sign that when it comes to bombers speed-and-height is, indeed, armour?

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 09, 2015 8:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:13 pm
Posts: 14224
Location: PCE(R)-857
The Bushranger wrote:
Fascinating that there's such a big jump between Valkyrie AV-1 and AV-3.

I assume the B-60 scores so well vis-a-vis so many of the Buffs simply on sheer bombload capacity? It makes one wonder what a "B-60H" might have been capable of...

And how is it that the B-2 scores lower than the Hustler, TSR.2, and Mirage IV? :shock: Is this an artifact of the system (speed emphasis?, not accounting well for 'smart bombs'?) or a big neon sign that when it comes to bombers speed-and-height is, indeed, armour?


Or she just doesn't have much in the way of a non-nuke payload.

_________________
Shepard: "What kind of weapons does this thing have?"
Liara T'Soni: "It's a taxi; it has a fare meter!"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 09, 2015 8:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 5660
The Bushranger wrote:
And how is it that the B-2 scores lower than the Hustler, TSR.2, and Mirage IV? :shock: Is this an artifact of the system (speed emphasis?, not accounting well for 'smart bombs'?) or a big neon sign that when it comes to bombers speed-and-height is, indeed, armour?

No, it's a reflection of the cost of the stealth enhancements on the things we used to measure the bombers. Enhancements that result in a lower bombload, speed or range.

This was discussed in the original thread. Try a search for "silverplate"

_________________
(English doesn't) just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.--James D. Nicoll


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 09, 2015 8:44 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:29 pm
Posts: 5285
The Bushranger wrote:
Fascinating that there's such a big jump between Valkyrie AV-1 and AV-3.


AV3 had a third more fuel, was 10 percent faster and would have had all its combat systems installed

Quote:
I assume the B-60 scores so well vis-a-vis so many of the Buffs simply on sheer bombload capacity? It makes one wonder what a "B-60H" might have been capable of...


Its the bombload. The B-60 (and the B-36) had huge bombloads compared with the later types. At the Dayton meeting, we all stood inside the B-36 Bombbay and its immense.

Quote:
And how is it that the B-2 scores lower than the Hustler, TSR.2, and Mirage IV? :shock: Is this an artifact of the system (speed emphasis?, not accounting well for 'smart bombs'?) or a big neon sign that when it comes to bombers speed-and-height is, indeed, armour?

The major reason is that without its stealth capability, the B-2 is slow, low-flying, clumsy and very vulnerable. It's a night-only aircraft. It's a good bomb truck but is probably less survivable in daylight than a B-36.

_________________
There are 550 million firearms in the world, enough for one person in twelve of the world's population. The moral dilemma that faces us is how to arm the other eleven.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:37 pm
Posts: 528
It's interesting that the Tu-4 falls so far short of the B-29 - squarely between that and the previous generation of USAAF heavies, it looks like.

_________________
"Gotta say, doctor, your talent for alienatin' folk is near miraculous."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10703
Philistine wrote:
It's interesting that the Tu-4 falls so far short of the B-29 - squarely between that and the previous generation of USAAF heavies, it looks like.


That really surprised me; I was expecting it to be better due to its superior defensive armament but the power-deficient fuel-gulping engines did for it.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 12:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:44 pm
Posts: 876
Speaking of B-29 derivatives… I know the policy is "no napkinwaffe," and Wikipedia isn't a good source of data, so this isn't a serious request for a rating… But the B-54 "has" roughly 25% higher cruising speed (and slightly higher top speed), maybe 12% greater range (the only number W'pedia gives for the B-54 is a ridiculous 9,000 miles, so I'm comparing it to the 7,750 mile ferry range listed for the B-50), maybe about 8% higher ceiling, and a 28% higher bomb load than the B-50. And one more 50-cal machine gun in defensive armament.

My guess is that, working through the formula (which I don't have), the B-54 would come out with a higher rating than the earlier versions of the B-47. But, of course, by the time the B-54 was cancelled, the characteristics on which the B-47 was FAR superior (like: speed) were more important, so the putative high rating is just a sign that the formula gives only a rough estimate of the actual tactical value of the aircraft!

(Sorry-- I've been a Boeing fan ever since forcing my grandmother to read me the "Big Book of Real Airplanes" as a bedtime story in about 1950, and have a (probably unhealthy) fascination with the B-54!)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 4:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:55 am
Posts: 4696
Location: D88 by night, D20 by day
Allen Hazen wrote:
My guess is that, working through the formula (which I don't have), the B-54 would come out with a higher rating than the earlier versions of the B-47. But, of course, by the time the B-54 was cancelled, the characteristics on which the B-47 was FAR superior (like: speed) were more important, so the putative high rating is just a sign that the formula gives only a rough estimate of the actual tactical value of the aircraft!

There's also the fact that the B-54 would have been the final iteration of a concept that was on the way out, whereas the B-47 was the first iteration of a new concept that offered ample room for growth. So long as either would be adequate, the B-47 is the obvious route to take.

_________________
If the BBC told me that it was dark outside at two o'clock in the morning on a stormy day in December, I would feel obliged to check their facts.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 9:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6265
Location: Cambs, UK
For some reason I read all of that as the B-58, not the B-54, and wondering why Allen thought its performance was only slightly greater than the B-47...

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 12:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:45 am
Posts: 5105
Location: EGUD
How come the Victor is so close to the Vulcan for conventional bombing? I thought it had 50% more bombs in a conventional loadout (35,000 lbs .vs. 21,000 lbs) and was faster plus higher flying?

_________________
War is less costly than servitude. In the end, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 6265
Location: Cambs, UK
Tricky one. It's not even really down to either looks, engine noise volume or awesomeness either, they're neck and neck in those 3 all-important categories too.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10703
pdf27 wrote:
How come the Victor is so close to the Vulcan for conventional bombing? I thought it had 50% more bombs in a conventional loadout (35,000 lbs .vs. 21,000 lbs) and was faster plus higher flying?


It's another case where there's no single reason; its a little bit here, a little bit there. A lot of these figures are like that. There's no single reason why, its just the cumulative effect of a lot of small differences.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:37 pm
Posts: 528
Would it be practical to get "as built" and "current/final" ratings for long-lived, extensively upgraded types? And perhaps even for significant intermediate stages, where applicable? It might be interesting to see the progress of types like the B-52H which have been much modified over the years but never redesignated - and it might also allow for more accurate comparisons of different types with their contemporaries.

The question might be appropriate for other categories as well, but I happened to be looking at the ratings of different B-52 models when it occurred to me.

_________________
"Gotta say, doctor, your talent for alienatin' folk is near miraculous."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group