There's a good Wiki article that addresses the cracking issue. If I remember correctly the welded contruction of the ships didn't so much cause the cracking but it did exacerbate it. Earlier ships of the type built with conventional riveted construction methods didn't have the problem.
Flintlock76Great P-51 vs. Me-109 video you posted Balt! A much better use of my time rather than watching a dopey sitcom!
I have watched a number of Greg's videos - virtually everything he says and every assumption he formulates appears to be backed up with data from one source or another. These are not 'spur of the moment' undertakings.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Flintlock76There's a good Wiki article that addresses the cracking issue. If I remember correctly the welded contruction of the ships didn't so much cause the cracking but it did exacerbate it. Earlier ships of the type built with conventional riveted construction methods didn't have the problem.
https://metallurgyandmaterials.wordpress.com/2015/12/25/liberty-ship-failures/
BaltACD Flintlock76 Great P-51 vs. Me-109 video you posted Balt! A much better use of my time rather than watching a dopey sitcom! I have watched a number of Greg's videos - virtually everything he says and every assumption he formulates appears to be backed up with data from one source or another. These are not 'spur of the moment' undertakings.
Flintlock76 Great P-51 vs. Me-109 video you posted Balt! A much better use of my time rather than watching a dopey sitcom!
Balt, let us know if Greg does a comparison video with the later (and much more common) Merlin engined P-51D with the Me-109. His P-51A vid was great, but in the general scheme of things there weren't too many A models compared to the D.
Flintlock76 BaltACD Flintlock76 Great P-51 vs. Me-109 video you posted Balt! A much better use of my time rather than watching a dopey sitcom! I have watched a number of Greg's videos - virtually everything he says and every assumption he formulates appears to be backed up with data from one source or another. These are not 'spur of the moment' undertakings. Balt, let us know if Greg does a comparison video with the later (and much more common) Merlin engined P-51D with the Me-109. His P-51A vid was great, but in the general scheme of things there weren't too many A models compared to the D.
That would depend greatly on which model 109: Emil, Franz or Gustav?
tree68 I spent several months aboard a Liberty ship one summer while in USAF (yes, I am a Shellback). It was reconfigured (slightly) as a research vessel. The round bottom was wonderful in big waves (not). And I understand they had the undesirable habit of breaking apart at a certain frame - I think it was due to being built in two halves and being joined there. Real speed demons, too. Eleven knots at 88 turns of the triple expansion steam reciprocating engine. And if she was doing that, the whole ship felt it... But, they did what they were designed to do - haul cargo in mass quantities.
I spent several months aboard a Liberty ship one summer while in USAF (yes, I am a Shellback). It was reconfigured (slightly) as a research vessel.
The round bottom was wonderful in big waves (not). And I understand they had the undesirable habit of breaking apart at a certain frame - I think it was due to being built in two halves and being joined there.
Real speed demons, too. Eleven knots at 88 turns of the triple expansion steam reciprocating engine. And if she was doing that, the whole ship felt it...
But, they did what they were designed to do - haul cargo in mass quantities.
How many 40' boxcars did it take to fill one Liberty Ship?
And how many boxcars to a Flying Boxcar? Or a Skytrain?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70DudeHow many 40' boxcars did it take to fill one Liberty Ship? And how many boxcars to a Flying Boxcar? Or a Skytrain?
Short of finding the cubic feet capacity for each, I have no idea. Weight would also be a consideration for the aircraft, especially.
But, I can guess.
The Skytrain (Gooney Bird, C47, DC-3) probably wouldn't hold a full boxcar.
The Flying Boxcar (C119) might have held a railroad boxcar's worth of freight, or a little more.
As for the Liberty Ship - They were 441' long, had a beam of almost 57', with five holds. A WAG would put their capacity at 8-10 boxcars, depending on the commodity.
Corrections gladly accepted!
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Verbiage in the Liberty Ship video stated they were designed to haul 10K tons of cargo. During the war era, I think, 40 foot box cars had load limits of nominally 70 tons per car or less.
charlie hebdo Flintlock76 BaltACD Flintlock76 Great P-51 vs. Me-109 video you posted Balt! A much better use of my time rather than watching a dopey sitcom! I have watched a number of Greg's videos - virtually everything he says and every assumption he formulates appears to be backed up with data from one source or another. These are not 'spur of the moment' undertakings. Balt, let us know if Greg does a comparison video with the later (and much more common) Merlin engined P-51D with the Me-109. His P-51A vid was great, but in the general scheme of things there weren't too many A models compared to the D. That would depend greatly on which model 109: Emil, Franz or Gustav?
If I had to go with one, I'd go with the Gustav. Emil was pretty much out of the picture by the time the Mustangs arrived on the scene, and from what I've read Franz wasn't in production very long.
Now this might be an old wives tale, or maybe an old pilots tale? But supposedly the air force that destroyed the most Me-109's was the Luftwaffe itself.
Takeoff-and landing accidents. I saw a History Channel interview with an old Luftwaffe fighter pilot, and according to him the Me-109 was easy to fly once you were off the ground, but on take-offs and landings you really had to have your wits about you. It called for 100% of your attention, and nothing less.
Flintlock76If I had to go with one, I'd go with the Gustav. Emil was pretty much out of the picture by the time the Mustangs arrived on the scene, and from what I've read Franz wasn't in production very long. Now this might be an old wives tale, or maybe an old pilots tale? But supposedly the air force that destroyed the most Me-109's was the Luftwaffe itself. Takeoff-and landing accidents. I saw a History Channel interview with an old Luftwaffe fighter pilot, and according to him the Me-109 was easy to fly once you were off the ground, but on take-offs and landings you really had to have your wits about you. It called for 100% of your attention, and nothing less.
In a video on the ME 109-G , I think, Greg's theory of why they were so bad on the ground was that the landing gear, in it's normal locked position, was not at a 90 degree angle between the undersurface of the plane and the surface of the ground.
Greg's play list has many different comparisons
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUynGrIaI5vsJQgHJAIp9oSg
Also note how narrow the wheelbase was, which doesn't help the ground handling.
BaltACDVerbiage in the Liberty Ship video stated they were designed to haul 10K tons of cargo. During the war era, I think, 40 foot box cars had load limits of nominally 70 tons per car or less.
Weight-wise I was off by a factor of about 14.... That would be around 140 box cars, unless the cargo cubed out.
Thanks, all, for keeping the trains in Trains Forums. Tis the Season.
Steve SweeneyDigital Editor, Hobby
Hi Mr. Steve! Good to hear from you, where ya been?
Listen, as long as I've got your attention are you aware that under the "Resources" heading on the website's masthead nothing is working except for "Communtiy," "Magazine Index," and "Webcams?"
"Resources" is a very valuable tool, it's kind of frustrating not to have it functioning at peak performance.
Steve SweeneyThanks, all, for keeping the trains in Trains Forums. Tis the Season.
We employ multiple track, multiple technology principles - not Dark, Single track principles.
When you have been employeed IN the industry for over half a century, from a family whose ancestors were involved in the laying of the First Stone of the B&O on July 4, 1828 - you have observed 'railroading' having gone in multiple directions. Trucking and Airlines for a start. CSX purchasing Texas Gas Corporation that owned American Commercial Barge Lines as well as the SeaLand Container Shipping lines (the purchase of which hurt MY financial situation - and the sale of which did not benefit my finances).
Trains have affected ALL forms of human industry. This the season to celebrate all the things have have been involved in the industry from the time of its origin.
Railroading is so much more than talking about paint schemes and wheel arrangements.
And don't forget railroadings effect on wars and the ability to fight them, and the peripherals to the fighting affected by railroads.
It's been said, and probably with justification, that the fact there was 21,000 miles of railroad in the North, in fairly close proximity to one another if not directly connected, versus 9,000 miles of mostly disconnected and separated by distance trackage in the South, that the eventual outcome of the Civil War was determined long before the first shots were fired.
BaltACD Flintlock76 If I had to go with one, I'd go with the Gustav. Emil was pretty much out of the picture by the time the Mustangs arrived on the scene, and from what I've read Franz wasn't in production very long. Now this might be an old wives tale, or maybe an old pilots tale? But supposedly the air force that destroyed the most Me-109's was the Luftwaffe itself. Takeoff-and landing accidents. I saw a History Channel interview with an old Luftwaffe fighter pilot, and according to him the Me-109 was easy to fly once you were off the ground, but on take-offs and landings you really had to have your wits about you. It called for 100% of your attention, and nothing less. In a video on the ME 109-G , I think, Greg's theory of why they were so bad on the ground was that the landing gear, in it's normal locked position, was not at a 90 degree angle between the undersurface of the plane and the surface of the ground. Greg's play list has many different comparisons https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUynGrIaI5vsJQgHJAIp9oSg
Flintlock76 If I had to go with one, I'd go with the Gustav. Emil was pretty much out of the picture by the time the Mustangs arrived on the scene, and from what I've read Franz wasn't in production very long. Now this might be an old wives tale, or maybe an old pilots tale? But supposedly the air force that destroyed the most Me-109's was the Luftwaffe itself. Takeoff-and landing accidents. I saw a History Channel interview with an old Luftwaffe fighter pilot, and according to him the Me-109 was easy to fly once you were off the ground, but on take-offs and landings you really had to have your wits about you. It called for 100% of your attention, and nothing less.
More to do with the rather narrow space betwen landing struts. Few fighters in WWII had tricycle landing gear.
charlie hebdo BaltACD Flintlock76 If I had to go with one, I'd go with the Gustav. Emil was pretty much out of the picture by the time the Mustangs arrived on the scene, and from what I've read Franz wasn't in production very long. Now this might be an old wives tale, or maybe an old pilots tale? But supposedly the air force that destroyed the most Me-109's was the Luftwaffe itself. Takeoff-and landing accidents. I saw a History Channel interview with an old Luftwaffe fighter pilot, and according to him the Me-109 was easy to fly once you were off the ground, but on take-offs and landings you really had to have your wits about you. It called for 100% of your attention, and nothing less. In a video on the ME 109-G , I think, Greg's theory of why they were so bad on the ground was that the landing gear, in it's normal locked position, was not at a 90 degree angle between the undersurface of the plane and the surface of the ground. Greg's play list has many different comparisons https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUynGrIaI5vsJQgHJAIp9oSg More to do with the rather narrow space betwen landing struts. Few fighters in WWII had tricycle landing gear.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Interesting thoughts to ponder: The allies became quite proficient at train busting with airplanes. Hitler traveled a lot by train- his amoured train was named Amerika. And yet the two parties never crossed paths.
Today, Dec. 16 marks the 75th Anniversary of the start of the Battle of the Bulge. My Uncle, a forward artillery observer took a bullet or schrapnel to the head and was captured by the Germans - a German doctor treated his wounds, and when the American counter attack overrun that position - the doctor left all the injured for the Allies to find. That was the end of my Uncle's war - he was subsequently sent to a hospital in England where a permanent plate was installed in his skull.
He passed away about a decade ago - having spent his working career as Principal at multiple schools in Maryland.
Murphy Siding- Hitler's train was called Amerika- I had no idea. There was a place called Kanada because of all the riches it contained. I guess you know where it was.
I believe Kanada was a part of Auschwitz were all the valuables taken from those arriving were piled up and sorted. Sickening.
Miningman I believe Kanada was a part of Auschwitz were all the valuables taken from those arriving were piled up and sorted. Sickening.
That's exactly where it was. Sickening indeed. Even those rock-hard Red Army soldiers who liberated the place and the few prisoners who were left behind (Otto Frank was one of them) were horrified by what they saw.
Yes, but why was Hitler's train called Amerika? It was called Kanada because of "the untold riches it contained" which I've read somewhere.
Führersonderzug America was later renamed Brandenburg. All the Sonderzuege (special trains) had place names ,(Afrika, Asien, usw.) for identification.
charlie hebdo Führersonderzug America was later renamed Brandenburg. All the Sonderzuege (special trains) had place names ,(Afrika, Asien, usw.) for identification.
And probably security reasons as well. Call it the "Fuehrer Sonderzug" all the time and it would give away easily who's on board, whether he was or not.
"Amerika, Africa, Asien" or "Brandenburg" would help to keep the secret.
Did you know the Polish resistance came this close (my thumb and forefinger are about one inch apart) from blowing up the "Fuehrer Sonderzug?" It's true. They'd been tipped off the train was coming on a certain date and time, they'd planted enough explosives on the track to knock the planet off it's axis (no pun intended) and when the train came through they let 'er rip.
It was the wrong train. Hitler's train had been delayed in starting so another train had been given the go-ahead to proceed in it's place.
Truly, the Devil takes care of his own!
54light15It was called Kanada because of "the untold riches it contained" which I've read somewhere.
If I recall correctly, it was called Kanada in part because of all the 'gold' that had been 'mined' from sources I shall not mention.
The name was given by inmates, not by the SS and not just gold.
https://www.pbs.org/auschwitz/40-45/corruption/
Back to warbirds shooting at trains- Here's some Brits and Canucks flying Mustangs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmShtLOmwrA
The rail line at 1:06 looks like it's narrow gauge.
Certainly a "D" model would out-perform it, but weren't those "A" model Mustangs beautiful machines?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.