Why is it that everybody who writes about FAA aircraft, are, according to you complete liars?
That comment is a lie in itself. Saying someone is wrong is not calling them a liar. Embellishment during wartime for propaganda or morale purposes is not lying. You, and everybody else here, know that I have never before called anybody in this forum a liar--not in eight years; not in over 2500 postings, and not in hundreds of threads. If you want to make a statement, at least be accurate in your wording, and quit trying to put words in the mouths of others.
I have repeatedly pointed out where you have made grievous errors regarding a whole range of aeronautical concepts, yet you blithely carry on as though you are the sole
repository of aeronautical truth and are uniquely gifted to judge the veracity of others.
I have made some errors. So have you. The main difference between us is that I admit it when I am wrong whereas you don't. I can't think of a single time that you have
acknowledged having been wrong in this longest thread in the history of this forum, and I call upon our colleagues who have participated to verify this. You are incapable of acknowledging error! Your ego won't allow it. Your strategy, when successfully challenged on a point, is to tap dance around the issue by providing documents that seemingly agree with you but, when examined closely, have important details that you have conveniently left out. In addition to that, you present your own presumptions, assumptions, and opinions couched in terms that you try to pass of as fact. Then, when there is no way to deny that someone else has made a valid point, you simply ignore that point in subsequent postings as though it were never raised. The one thing that you will never do is admit that you are wrong--And your credibility suffers as a result.
Every time you cite a source as agreeing with your position, you accept it as absolutely accurate and dependable, even if it is obviously not. On the other hand, when someone provides a reference that refutes a contention of yours, you belittle it by calling it "a work of complete fiction," an exaggeration, an under-or over-estimation or some other disparaging term. If a source provides performance figures or specifications that are significantly below what you state for an airplane, you say that the airplane, under actual conditions, actually out-performed those specifications. When published specifications for an airplane are higher than you say they were, you say that, under actual conditions, it under-performed those figures and that they refer to a "fantasy airplane." When you try to prove your point, you give range, speed, climb, altitude, load, etc. figures that are not to be found in the vast majority of references (if in any)--even ones that you yourself have cited when trying to make previous points.
As to knowledge of those aeronautical concepts to which you refer, you have often parroted the numbers given in documents, tables, charts, etc. without really knowing where they came from or how they were arrived at. You make uninformed, incorrect statements about how a biplane has twice the lift of a monoplane. You expound on how a wing with more area has more lift than one with less area, without regard to factors like aspect ratio and airfoil section. You make statements about cruise and climb with complete disregard for the differences between climb- and cruise-props and their affect on performance. You confuse the importance of lift-weight ratio and excess-power as to their effect on climbing ability. You seem to be oblivious to the "cube law" and how it affects top speed vs cruising speed. If "grievous" errors have been made, it is you who have made them. Yes, I make mistakes, but my knowledge of these things is certainly not second to yours (I am being kind here), and when it comes to the actual flying of airplanes, you don't have a clue. When I make a mistake, I admit it. We have yet to see evidence of that quality in you, and I doubt we ever will!
The author of the article states that the aircraft achieved 385 mph during the flight on which he was an observer. He then goes on to describe FAA TB doctrine and the use of dive brakes, but he does not refer to dive brakes during his dive where he observed a speed of 385mph... In Carrier Observer, Wallace (p182) describes how some FBII pilots prefered to dive with the flaps normal, and then use the elevator trim tabs to pull out, he states that this overstressed the wings, and was officially frowned upon, but was probably a widespread practise amongst FBII pilots.
He was being given a demonstration of torpedo bombing as carried out by the FAA. Such a demonstration, being given to a member of the US press and in full view of official FAA observers on the ships, would have been conducted according to FAA doctrine, which you admit called for diving with dive brakes extended. The writer, whether he was in the aircraft or not, described the procedure according to that doctrine, and his description includes retraction of the dive brakes toward the end of the dive, clearly indicating that the dive was to be conducted with extended dive brakes. Do you really believe that the pilot would violate doctrine with an audience of his superiors watching while he flew a civilian foreign correspondent in an extended high-speed dive without dive brakes at 385 mph from 12,000 feet all the while putting the plane, the correspondent, and himself in danger of having a wing failure? Can you imagine the public relations disaster throughout the US had that correspondent been killed under those circumstances?
Also, you state that the correspondent observed a speed of 385 mph. If he truly observed that speed, it had to be on the airspeed indicator i.e. it was indicated
airspeed . That would equate to a TAS of 454 mph at 12,000 ft and 418 mph at 6000 ft! This is obviously ridiculous, so there is no way that he "observed" a speed of 385 mph--dive brakes or not.
The VNE of FBII was 300mph with Dive Brakes and 360 mph w/o, both speeds being IAS, so a TAS of 385 mph with the flaps in the normal position is quite possible in a dive from 12000ft.
If that plane were put into an extended 75 deg dive at 12,000 feet with no dive brakes--especially with that 1550 lb torpedo--the speed would have increased to beyond Vne in short order. (Remember when you kept harping on the fact that the TBD in only a 45 deg dive, would quickly accelerate beyond Vne?)
A TAS of 330 to 360 mph is also possible with the dive brakes deployed
At 360 mph TAS with dive brakes, the Vne of 300 mph IAS would be exceeded at 12,500 feet. At 330 mph TAS with dive brakes, that 300 mph IAS would be exceeded at 6700 feet. In the first case, a Vne dive with dive brakes could not be made below 12,500 feet. In the second case, over half the dive from 12,000 feet would remain when speed would have to be reduced. Either the pull-up would would have to be initiated too high, or the speed would have to be significantly reduced during a major portion of the dive.
...and 385mph is certainly possible in dives from higher altitudes
Not below 17,000 feet with dive brakes without exceeding Vne, and what good is diving from so high at 385 mph on a dive- or torpedo-bombing mission when speed has to be constantly reduced after passing through 17,000 feet? Also, 17000 feet is about the service ceiling of the Barracuda.
Without dive brakes, a dive at 385 mph TAS the Vne of 360 mph (is that 360 mph Vne with a torpedo attached?) would be exceeded at 5000 feet. At 8000 feet, the TAS would be 400 mph at Vne. I don't believe dives at over 400 mph in a plane like the Barracuda are practical even though theoretically possible. Even if the dive brakes were retracted, a speed of 385 mph would have to be progressively lowered below 5000 feet to maintain Vne. This is also not practical because it would result in an extended dive at Vne. And again, diving without dive brakes on a torpedo mission would violate doctrine.
The FB was designed in response to a 1937 air ministry specification which was not even published in its entirety until early 1938 (6 Jan.). The first prototype flew in Dec 1940, but was then extensively redesigned and the 2nd prototype didn't fly until 29 June 1941, and the first production FBI was 18 May 1942, and the first production FBII was 26 Dec 1942. The type was known by name to the public in 1943, but no official information regarding appearance and performance was released until spring 1944 (hence the above article, which doesn't mention the FBII by name or show photos. The Flightglobal archive has no mention of the aircraft until 1943 and no photos until 1944...
So, you admit that the Barracuda was not a "new type torpedo bombing monoplane." Photographs and information on the plane may not have been released until spring 1944, but the design was, by that time, seven years old, the prototype had already flown over three years earlier, and the public was already aware of it for over a year. Hardly a new type in the spring of 1944--not even new to the public, who, as stated, were well aware of its existence.
The fact that a dive of ~30 seconds is referred to as a few seconds is simply journalistic license.
As is much of those articles you cite.
An aircraft which is diving, and levels off at a few hundred feet, might also be stated to have pulled out at a few hundred feet. Technically, until the aircraft levels off, it
is still diving.
I agree, but in an example you gave in a much earlier posting, your source said that the vertical dive had been "held" until 200 feet above the water. You accepted that without question and cited that source as proving your point--physics and aeronautical principles be damned. (That was one of those issues about which you never acknowledged being wrong). At a 300 mph IAS vertical dive speed (i.e. Vne with dive brakes), a 6g pull-out would have to be initiated at 1200 feet in order to be level at 200 feet.