Shelby Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 roll'd sheet metal is more likely .060" .0625" comes out to 1/16"but wasn't most air planes made from alum sheet and not steel for weight i've been in a B29 but for got to bring along a magnet to check what out side structure was made of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killtodie Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) Fixed. I looked, and looked. I could not find limitations on the soviet Tu-4(The B-29 copy) that you speak of, especially based off of weight increase, which it would be due to metal. From Wiki "The Soviet Union used the metric system, thus 1/16th inch (1.6 mm) thick sheet aluminum and proper rivet lengths were unavailable. The corresponding metric-gauge metal was thicker; as a result, the Tu-4 weighed about 3,100 lb (1,400 kg) more than the B-29, with a corresponding decrease in range and payload." "Tu-4 engineers were under very heavy pressure to achieve an exact clone of the original B-29. Each minute alteration had to be scrutinized and was a subject to a lengthy bureaucratic process. For instance, because 1/16 inch nominal sheet thickness equals 1.5875mm, no industry in the USSR was willing to take the responsibility to produce sheets with such accuracy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4 Also, common sense, heavier plane cant fly as high or have the same range as a lighter plane. Those landing skids that fall off during take off on the U2 gain it about 3000 feet of altitude. Edited January 30, 2011 by Killtodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theRobot Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) From Wiki "The Soviet Union used the metric system, thus 1/16th inch (1.6 mm) thick sheet aluminum and proper rivet lengths were unavailable. The corresponding metric-gauge metal was thicker; as a result, the Tu-4 weighed about 3,100 lb (1,400 kg) more than the B-29, with a corresponding decrease in range and payload." "Tu-4 engineers were under very heavy pressure to achieve an exact clone of the original B-29. Each minute alteration had to be scrutinized and was a subject to a lengthy bureaucratic process. For instance, because 1/16 inch nominal sheet thickness equals 1.5875mm, no industry in the USSR was willing to take the responsibility to produce sheets with such accuracy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4 Also, common sense, heavier plane cant fly as high or have the same range as a lighter plane. Those landing skids that fall off during take off on the U2 gain it about 3000 feet of altitude. Ok, now at the same time, use your magic wiki skills, and look at the Range/Combat Range of both planes. As well as the total weight of the planes loaded. (Oh, and the ceilings are similar too. (That means they reach the same altitude.) I would agree about the payload differences, but in those days, bombers never traveled as one. Unless it was a good bomb.)The Tu-4, only weighing slightly less than the B-29, has a further range. So I dismiss your contradictory wiki citation, and repeat my note. [Further Citation Needed] Edited January 31, 2011 by theRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dred_85.5_TSI Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 the reason the Tu-4 is comparable to a B-29 is that the engines each develop 200 more HP for a total of 9,600 HP compared to the B29s 8,800 HP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiplash Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Wow alot of replies the reason i ask is a friend of mine is rebuilding his engine and his crank bearings are .50 and the rod bearings their from engine pro but can't find these any were this is the part number 12-1945AL-.50 any help. Checked dads site but can't find these Part number 12-1945AL-.50 is Clevites main bearing set MS1945AL50mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColdScrip Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 the reason the Tu-4 is comparable to a B-29 is that the engines each develop 200 more HP for a total of 9,600 HP compared to the B29s 8,800 HP 8800 to 9600 HP you say? Hmm I think I may have to do a Tu-4 or B-29 engine swap into the quest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dred_85.5_TSI Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 yeah but you would need 4, they develop 2,400hp each Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ucw458 Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 yeah but you would need 4, they develop 2,400hp each So you're saying just one of them in a SQ wouldn't be completely nuts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts