B-25 Mitchell in World War II

B-25 Mitchell in World War II The evolution of the North American B-25 Mitchell began in 1936 when the company began work on its first twin-engine military design. Dubbed the NA-21 (later NA-39), this project produced an aircraft that was of all-metal construction and powered by a pair of Pratt Whitney R-2180-A Twin Hornet engines. A mid-wing monoplane, the the NA-21 was intended to carry a payload of 2,20o lbs. of bombs with range of around 1,900 miles. Following its first flight in December 1936, North American modified the aircraft to correct several minor issues. Re-designated the NA-39, it was accepted by the US Army Air Corps as the XB-21 and entered into competition the following year against an improved version of the Douglas B-18 Bolo. Further altered during the trials, the North American design proved to have consistently superior performance to its competitor, but cost significantly more per aircraft ($122,000 vs. $64,000). This led to the USAAC passing on the XB-21 in favor of what became the B-18B. Development Utilizing the lessons learned from the project, North American moved forward with a new design for a medium bomber which was dubbed the NA-40. This was spurred on in March 1938 by USAAC circular 38-385 which called for a medium bomber capable of carrying a payload of 1,200 lbs. a distance of 1,200 miles while maintaining a speed of 200 mph. First flying in January 1939, it proved under-powered. This issue was soon remedied through the use of two Wright R-2600 Twin Cyclone engines. The improved version of the aircraft, the NA-40B, was placed into competition with entries from Douglas, Stearman, and Martin, where it performed well but failed to secure an USAAC contract. Seeking to take advantage of Britain and Frances need for a medium bomber during the early days of World War II, North American intended to build the NA-40B for export. These attempts failed when both countries elected to move forward with a different aircraft. In March 1939, as the NA-40B was competing, the USAAC issued another specification for a medium bomber requiring a payload of 2,400 lbs., range of 1,200 miles, and a speed of 300 mph. Further revising their NA-40B design, North American submitted the NA-62 for evaluation. Due to a pressing need for medium bombers, the USAAC approved the design, as well as the Martin B-26 Marauder, without conducting the usual prototype service tests. A prototype of the NA-62 first flew on August 19, 1940. Design Production Designated B-25 Mitchell, the aircraft was named for Major General Billy Mitchell. Featuring a distinctive twin tail, early variants of the B-25 also incorporated a greenhouse-style nose which contained the bombardiers position. They also possessed a tail gunner position at the rear of the aircraft. This was eliminated in the B-25B while a manned dorsal turret was added along with a remotely operated ventral turret. Around 120 B-25Bs were built with some going to the Royal Air Force as the Mitchell Mk.I. Improvements continued and the first type to be mass-produced was the B-25C/D. This variant increased the aircrafts nose armament and saw the addition of improved Wright Cyclone engines. Over 3,800 B-25C/Ds were produced and many saw service with other Allied nations. As the need for effective ground support/attack aircraft increased, the B-25 frequently received field modifications to fulfill this role. Acting on this, North American devised the B-25G which increased the number of guns on the aircraft and included the mounting of a 75 mm cannon in a new solid nose section. These alterations were refined in the B-25H. In addition to a lighter 75 mm cannon, the B-25H mounted four .50-cal. machine guns below the cockpit as well as four more in cheek blisters. The aircraft saw the return of the tail gunner position and the addition of two waist guns. Capable of carrying 3,000 lbs. of bombs, the B-25H also possessed hard points for eight rockets. The final variant of the aircraft, the B-25J, was a cross between the B-25C/D and the G/H. It saw the removal of the 75 mm gun and the return of the open nose, but the retention of the machine gun armament. Some were built with a solid nose and an increased armament of 18 machine guns. B-25J Mitchell Specifications: General Length: 52 ft. 11 in.Wingspan: 67 ft. 6 in.Height: 17 ft. 7 in.Wing Area: 610 sq. ft.Empty Weight: 21,120 lbs.Loaded Weight: 33,510 lbs.Crew: 6 Performance Power Plant: 2 Ãâ€" Wright R-2600 Cyclone radials, 1,850 hpCombat Radius: 1,350 milesMax Speed: 275 mphCeiling: 25,000 ft. Armament Guns: 12-18 Ãâ€" .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine gunsBombs: 6,000 lbs. max. or 8 x 5 rockets 3,000 lbs. bombs Operational History The aircraft first came to prominence in April 1942 when Lieutenant Colonel James Doolittle used modified B-25Bs in his raid on Japan. Flying from the carrier USS Hornet (CV-8) on April 18, Doolittles 16 B-25s struck targets in Tokyo, Yokohama, Kobe, Osaka, Nagoya, and Yokosuka before flying on to China. Deployed to most theaters of the war, the B-25 saw service in the Pacific, North Africa, China-India-Burma, Alaska, and the Mediterranean. Though effective as a level medium bomber, the B-25 proved particularly devastating in Southwest Pacific as a ground attack aircraft. Modified B-25s routinely conducted skip bombing and strafing attacks against Japanese ships and ground positions. Serving with distinction, the B-25 played key roles in Allied victories such as the Battle of the Bismarck Sea. Employed throughout the war, the B-25 was largely retired from frontline service at its conclusion. Though known as a forgiving aircraft to fly, the type did cause some hearing loss problems among crews due to engine noise issues. In the years after the war, the B-25 was used by a number of foreign nations.

Organizational synchronicity Essays

Organizational synchronicity Essays Organizational synchronicity Essay Organizational synchronicity Essay By definition, synchronicity means that two things are happening at the same time but having no causal relationship at all. They are said to be simultaneous and are co-incidences. According to Lundstrom, Carl Jung said that synchronicity is based on â€Å"acausal connecting principle that links mind and matter. He said this underlying connectedness manifests itself through meaningful coincidences that cannot be explained by cause and effect. Such synchronicities occur, he theorized, when a strong need arises in the psyche of an individual† (1996). For instance, a mother cooks pesto which she unusually does and her daughter comes home from school unexpectedly with a friend who craves and loves the said dish. Organizational synchronicity means that one entity works with the rest of the organization which is not necessarily of causal nature. For example, in a customer service office, an employee has prepared template answers to customer queries just at the same time as her supervisor thinks of preparing a database of template responses to clients. Another example would be in an office, where the quality checker does an impromptu check on all employees’ work areas. One worker, who normally is untidy, just a few minutes before the check, cleaned up his work station. Meanwhile in business, organizational synchronicity between products, its value and quality, as well as customer service attract more clients to patronize the product. Cultural synchronicity is when two entities of different cultures either consciously or unconsciously work together. An example would be a teacher who is an American having Asian students. The students learn the teacher’s language and grasp them while the teacher, at some level, learns the student’s humor to establish a fun learning atmosphere and good learning relationship with his/her students. Reference Lundstrom, M. (1996). A wink from the cosmos. Flowpower website. Retrieved April 8, 2008 from flowpower. com/What%20is%20Synchronicity. htm.

Internet and Ideology Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Internet and Ideology - Assignment Example By contrast science’s acceptance was objectively linked with the perception of agreement among the scientists. Rejection of scientific propositions repeatedly implicates conspiracist ideation even without insufficient empirical evidence. Lewandowsky et al. analyzed the response of climate blogosphere to LOG12 publication and followed the hypotheses surfacing in response to LOG12. The multi-phased search involved sampling of LOG12-related Internet activity and deriving six criteria to permit hypotheses’ classification pertaining to potentially conspiracist LOG12. Use of established criteria showed how many hypotheses reflected counterfactual thinking and conspiratorial material. Conspiracist ideation possibly has a role in the rejection of science. To explore the relative importance of projecting alternative explanations in contrast to rejecting conventional explanations for events, Wood and Douglas studied conspiracist and conventionalist comments on news websites. They found conspiracist commentators having greater tendency to argue against opposing interpretation and lesser tendency to argue for their own interpretation or to put forth an account explicitly whereas conventionalist commenters demonstrated the reverse trend. Research led to identification of a range of differences between conspiracists and