Talk:Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster

Military history: Aviation / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	World War II task force

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Links to Wright-Patterson AFB Website

I fixed the broken links to the Mixmaster pages. Seems Wright-Pat's website has been revised, and the domain name drastically changed. Quite a few links on other articles will no doubt need to be fixed as well. Sixty Six 14:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Is "Mixmaster" named for some perceived ressemblance to the classic kitchen blender, or for some other reason ?Eregli bob (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb load

The XB-42 (along with the XB-45 and XB-46) were the first US aircraft designed to be able to carry a British 4,000lb HC 'Cookie' bomb internally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.108 (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203111303/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil:80/shared/media/document/AFD-061222-016.pdf to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-061222-016.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Performance

Please compare!

Maximum speed: 410 mph (660 km/h; 356 kn) at 23,440 feet (7,140 m) and the XB-42 set a speed record of 433.6 mph (697.8 km/h). 2,300 miles in just 5 hours, 17 minutes So i think, Maximum speed in Specifications must be wrong and must be faster than 433.8 mph --Adama55 (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The maximum speed is a standard aircraft in standard configuration at a specific height. I suspect the record flight was not flown at the specific height all the way and it was reported had a tailwind to help. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the specific altitude is usually the altitude at which the aircraft is fastest. Long distances are usually flown at cruising speed, i.e. approx. 350 mph, with a tailwind 400 mph may be the result? I don't think the fuel would have been enough at maximum speed. But thx for fast answer.--Adama55 (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, the record flight was flown at a "True Air Speed" of about 360 MPH, which is the Maximum "Cruising speed" of that plane at that Throttle opening, altitude, weight and range requirement"! The last three things being Fungible! They had a "Tail wind" that averaged about 60-70 MPH from the "Jet Stream". The throttle opening was restricted to that which the engine could sustain continuously! Larger throttle openings cause either too much heat to build up, or some mechanical part to be broken, IF it is sustained for longer than about ten minuets on that particular type of engine. There are several different measures of air speed. They are "True Air Speed", or "TAS", which is used for navigation and planning. Then there is "Indicated Air Speed" which is used to measure flight performance parameters. This is for most aspects of flying, the most important aspect. Indicated air speed takes into account the relative density of the air which varies with temperature, altitude, and weather. It is the indicated Air Speed which determines things like the Stall Speed of the aircraft. For instance, at 30,000 feet altitude, the Indicated air speed might read 95 MPH, but the true air speed would show 400 MPH? The first shows you how close the plane is to stalling in the thin air of that altitude, a really important fact, and the TAS lets you navigate the plane from point "A" to point "B", How ever, if you are flying into a head, or tail wind, your True Air Speed Over The Ground, or "TASOTG, or SOG, or SOTG, or TSOG, all various acronyms used over the decades to indicate the same thing. which might show something else entirely so a Navigator would be required to know and use the second two types of air speed, but the Pilot only needs to know the first type as "Indicated Air Speed" is how they fly the plane. The Above taken from various open source text books, data-pages, flight logs of the record flight and air force training documents stored at the Museum of the USAF at Dayton Oh. ( you will have to make an appointment with the Curator to find and see those documents, as I can no longer remember their titles and locations in the file stacks any more.) As a pilot for the last 62 years or so, I can not remember the exact training manuals used when I was 12 years old learning how to fly my Grandfather's glider. You only need to be 14 to get a solo glider license in America, and probably the rest of the world? Also, "Maximum Speed" is always contingent on the all up weight at the time of measurement. If you took of with half a load of fuel and then measured the "Top Speed" at full, or "Wide Open" throttle, it would be one number, but as you burned off fuel, both the ceiling, service ceiling, not the same things and top speed would change. Until, you ran out of gas and the "Placard" top speed shown above, would easily be exceeded by as much as two or three dozen MPH! As long as I am on this rant, ( not really, I just do not know what to call this missive) The XB-42's Bomb Bay was designed to be long enough to carry Two Mk-13 Torpedoes side by side, and wide and deep enough to carry two American 4,000 pound bombs which are shorter, but larger in diameter than the British 4,000 pound "Cookie" side by side, or four 2,00 pound bombs, or many combinations of various bomb types. It could also carry the American 8,000 pound GP Bomb, but only if the bomb bay doors were held open 5"! It could carry the British 8,000 thin case bomb, which was related to the 4,000 pound cookie, internally. The plane could also carry the American 10,000 pound GP Bomb, but the doors would have to be open over 6"! Having the bomb bay doors open in flight, even only 5-6" would add tremendous drag and shorten range dramatically. All of the above can be found in the Archives of the Museum of the USAF in Dayton, Oh, but you have to make an appointment to see them. I sincerely hope this helps you. Please feel free to write if you have any other questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoconshooter (talk • contribs) 16:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twin canopies

The Winchester reference is cited for replacement of the double bubble canopy with a single canopy following the first flight, but the pics with the jet engines fitted still show the double bubble. Was the canopy configuration actually changed, or just suggested to be changed? Retswerb (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look closely at the tail numbers. The XB-42A with the jet engines was 43-50224. The aircraft with the single canopy was 43-50225. Evidently the prototypes were not simultaneously modified with the single canopy. I don't have any sources handy but I'll try to run this down later. Carguychris (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]