FREE TAPATALK APP

Polaris · 22nd April 2012, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Russia had an obsession with big bits of kit. They had a tank with 3 turrets as well.

Which during prototype trials shot itself in a fog.

steve s · 22nd April 2012, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Comrade Raptor

I never liked the P-47, and it's hard to pinpoint precisely why.

It was dumpy looking. But nowhere near as dumpy as the B-18 Bolo.

Steve S

Comrade Raptor · 22nd April 2012, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by Polaris

A plane that had 8 .50-caliber BMGs it unleashed into the Wehrmacht on the ground, and was capable of coming back with chunks of telephone pole lodged in the wing doesn't enthuse?

Nope.

But a fixed carriage, underpowered, radial engined jalopy with 2 .30's (Ki-27) does.

It's craptacular!

See? Arbitrary.

Admittedly, it might be because so many other people enthuse about the P-47 that it just becomes noise. Who else enthuses about the Nate/Abdul? Nobody. Probably not even the people who flew it.

This is why I suspect I might be a warbird hipster.

Comrade Raptor · 22nd April 2012, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by steve s

It was dumpy looking. But nowhere near as dumpy as the B-18 Bolo.

Steve S

This is dumpier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...-1234P-073.jpg

And I like the Bolo, too.

I Ratant · 22nd April 2012, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by Comrade Raptor

Nope.

But a fixed carriage, underpowered, radial engined jalopy with 2 .30's (Ki-27) does.

It's craptacular!

See? Arbitrary.

Admittedly, it might be because so many other people enthuse about the P-47 that it just becomes noise. Who else enthuses about the Nate/Abdul? Nobody. Probably not even the people who flew it.

This is why I suspect I might be a warbird hipster.

.
Mitsubishi A5M Claude after colliding with a China Air Force Curtiss Hawk...
Returned to base safely.

Comrade Raptor · 22nd April 2012, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
Mitsubishi A5M Claude after colliding with a China Air Force Curtiss Hawk...
Returned to base safely.

I don't know whether to be more impressed that it flew home . . . or that it didn't instantly burst into flames.

steve s · 22nd April 2012, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Comrade Raptor

This is dumpier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...-1234P-073.jpg

It's not that dumpy. Now this is dumpy.

Quote:

And I like the Bolo, too.

There's no accounting for taste.

We almost went to war with that piece of carp. During the competition for a new bomber, the B-17 prototype crashed due to pilot error which removed it from the competition. Fortunately the powers-that-be were impressed enough with the B-17 to order 13 of them.

Steve S

Captain_Swoop · 22nd April 2012, 03:56 PM

Pity they didn't hold out for more Liberators.

Uncle Otto · 22nd April 2012, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Comrade Raptor

This is dumpier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...-1234P-073.jpg

And I like the Bolo, too.

No no-----dumpy and pathetic was defined by a U.S. plane----------

The Brewster F2a Buffalo --------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F2A_Buffalo

But yet in the early days in the Pacific theater, several aces used it to score their totals, and the Finns used it to good effect against the Russians. I once read an account from a Japanese pilot that said that the F2a was a nice airplane to shoot down. Apparently the poor thing couldn't get out of it's own way.

Uncle Otto · 22nd April 2012, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Pity they didn't hold out for more Liberators.

When I was a teenager, we had a next door neighbor who had been a crewman on a B-24 in the Italian campaign. He said everyone referred to them as "flying coffins". But then I suppose that could be said of any multi-engined bomber at the time. But according to him, the B-24 had a high tendency to catch fire when hit by enemy fire.

But then I seem to recall that the 4 engined heavies had a much higher loss rate than the mediums like the A20, B-25 or B-26's. I had an Uncle who was crew chief on a B-25.

Foster Zygote · 22nd April 2012, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Uncle Otto

No no-----dumpy and pathetic was defined by a U.S. plane----------

The Brewster F2a Buffalo --------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F2A_Buffalo

But yet in the early days in the Pacific theater, several aces used it to score their totals, and the Finns used it to good effect against the Russians. I once read an account from a Japanese pilot that said that the F2a was a nice airplane to shoot down. Apparently the poor thing couldn't get out of it's own way.

The early F2A was much lighter than the version used by the USN. The Finns used the earlier version to good effect against both the Germans and the Russians. And really, pretty much anything that face incredibly maneuverable Japanese aircraft like the A6M and the Ki-43 was doomed. Especially considering that it took a lot of bloody noses to gain enough experience to learn what to do and what not to do when engaging Japanese aircraft.

Foster Zygote · 22nd April 2012, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Comrade Raptor

I don't know whether to be more impressed that it flew home . . . or that it didn't instantly burst into flames.

Luckily, the fuel tanks were inboard of the gear struts.

I Ratant · 22nd April 2012, 05:44 PM

You can see he's holding a lot of aileron and some rudder.

kookbreaker · 22nd April 2012, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Russia had an obsession with big bits of kit. They had a tank with 3 turrets as well.

The T-35 technically had 5 turrets!

Corsair 115 · 22nd April 2012, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

And really, pretty much anything that face incredibly maneuverable Japanese aircraft like the A6M and the Ki-43 was doomed.

Only if you tried to fight them in the way they wanted to fight, which was low-speed dogfights. Engage them in a high-speed dogfight and your prospects of winning were pretty good, since that's not what those aircraft were designed to do. They were also rather poorly protected, which meant if you could get in the first shot you'd probably win right there.

SUSpilot · 22nd April 2012, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Pity they didn't hold out for more Liberators.

Only things wrong with the Liberators were that the tails tended to fall off and they couldn't carry ice worth a damn.

MG1962 · 22nd April 2012, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

The T-35 technically had 5 turrets!

And we will never really know how good the concept was because the darn things would break down if someone sneezed too hard

MG1962 · 22nd April 2012, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by SUSpilot

Only things wrong with the Liberators were that the tails tended to fall off and they couldn't carry ice worth a damn.

Are we talking about a bomber or a cooler

Alex Cured · 23rd April 2012, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by Uncle Otto

No no-----dumpy and pathetic was defined by a U.S. plane----------

The Brewster F2a Buffalo --------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F2A_Buffalo

But yet in the early days in the Pacific theater, several aces used it to score their totals, and the Finns used it to good effect against the Russians. I once read an account from a Japanese pilot that said that the F2a was a nice airplane to shoot down. Apparently the poor thing couldn't get out of it's own way.

clearly when that image was resized someone forgot to tick "preserve aspect ratio"

3point14 · 23rd April 2012, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by Uncle Otto

No no-----dumpy and pathetic was defined by a U.S. plane----------

The Brewster F2a Buffalo --------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F2A_Buffalo

But yet in the early days in the Pacific theater, several aces used it to score their totals, and the Finns used it to good effect against the Russians. I once read an account from a Japanese pilot that said that the F2a was a nice airplane to shoot down. Apparently the poor thing couldn't get out of it's own way.

I see the front anf the back, but someone's stolen the middle out of that plane.

Foster Zygote · 23rd April 2012, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Only if you tried to fight them in the way they wanted to fight, which was low-speed dogfights. Engage them in a high-speed dogfight and your prospects of winning were pretty good, since that's not what those aircraft were designed to do. They were also rather poorly protected, which meant if you could get in the first shot you'd probably win right there.

Oh, absolutely. But it took a while for allied pilots to learn those lessons. They'd been training against pilots flying identical, or very similar, aircraft and had to throw most of what they'd learned out the window when they faced the A6M. Ironically, the AVG had already engaged the IJAAF's similarly conceptualized aircraft like the Ki-43, but the lessons they'd learned and the tactics that they employed weren't disseminated to USN or USAAF pilots. The A6M didn't even have boosted controls, so above 200 mph they actually handled like pigs. I remember reading one Japanese pilot's account that described the stick as feeling like it was rooted in cement when he dived in his A6M. Learning not to engage the A6M in the style of combat in which it excelled, and employing team tactics like the Thatch weave helped turn things around until the arrival of planes like the F6F and the P-38.

sts60 · 23rd April 2012, 07:41 AM

My earlier post about the Avenger mentioned an Air & Space article about their fire-fighting role. Here it is. Attached are a scan of the cover, and a couple of views of the Avenger that the group bought on the flight line in Canada.

Man, it is a big plane. When it was parked next to the other single-engine planes (the Cessnas, Pipers, Mooneys, etc.) it absolutely dwarfed them.

I Ratant · 23rd April 2012, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

Are we talking about a bomber or a cooler

.
The cargo version (C-109) was called the "C-one oh boom" for its tendency to blow up when a flap motor sparked.
George McGovern flew the B-24 in Yurp during the war, and remarked at the enormous strength needed by the pilot to fly it in formation.
When the Collings Foundation came by with theirs, the PIC was a mere slip of a girl! 110 pounds max. No muscles. And there was a WASP pilot there, about the same physique, but 60 years older who'd ferried them solo.
I got photos but they're on a hard drive the computer won't recognize any more.

I Ratant · 23rd April 2012, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Oh, absolutely. But it took a while for allied pilots to learn those lessons. They'd been training against pilots flying identical, or very similar, aircraft and had to throw most of what they'd learned out the window when they faced the A6M. Ironically, the AVG had already engaged the IJAAF's similarly conceptualized aircraft like the Ki-43, but the lessons they'd learned and the tactics that they employed weren't disseminated to USN or USAAF pilots. The A6M didn't even have boosted controls, so above 200 mph they actually handled like pigs. I remember reading one Japanese pilot's account that described the stick as feeling like it was rooted in cement when he dived in his A6M. Learning not to engage the A6M in the style of combat in which it excelled, and employing team tactics like the Thatch weave helped turn things around until the arrival of planes like the F6F and the P-38.

.
The F4U was in flight test in 1940, and the test pilot for Vought, Boone Guyton, took pains to have the engineers design the control system to be responsive at very high speeds. This from the experience with the RAF in the first year of the war.

fuelair · 23rd April 2012, 08:30 AM

Some neat Nazi experimental aircraft :http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/ai...thomepage.html

Foster Zygote · 23rd April 2012, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
The cargo version (C-109) was called the "C-one oh boom" for its tendency to blow up when a flap motor sparked.
George McGovern flew the B-24 in Yurp during the war, and remarked at the enormous strength needed by the pilot to fly it in formation.
When the Collings Foundation came by with theirs, the PIC was a mere slip of a girl! 110 pounds max. No muscles. And there was a WASP pilot there, about the same physique, but 60 years older who'd ferried them solo.
I got photos but they're on a hard drive the computer won't recognize any more.

A friend of mine has a book of old Air Force cartoons that includes a picture of an AAF pilot with one arm twice as big as the other. The caption reads "You can always tell the B-24 pilots by their overdeveloped left arms".

Alex Cured · 23rd April 2012, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by fuelair

Some neat Nazi experimental aircraft :http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/ai...thomepage.html

I imagine spares might have been a problem

Damien Evans · 23rd April 2012, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

This?

http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/Hos.../KalinenK7.jpg
Kalinin K-7 Bomber

Surely couldn't fly

Akhenaten · 23rd April 2012, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

Surely couldn't fly

Not in that flying battleship configuration, but fly it most certainly did.

More informations here

Alex Cured · 23rd April 2012, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

Surely couldn't fly

Well sort of ...

Originally Posted by wikipedia-page

The K-7 first flew on 11 August 1933. The very brief first flight showed instability and serious vibration caused by the airframe resonating with the engine frequency. The solution to this was thought to be to shorten and strengthen the tail booms, little being known then about the natural frequencies of structures and their response to vibration. The aircraft completed seven test flights before a crash due to structural failure of one of the tail booms on 21 November 1933.[3] However, there appeared recently some speculations in the Russian aviation press about the role of politics and competing design office of A. N. Tupolev, suggesting possible sabotage. The accident killed 14 people aboard and one on the ground.[4] Although two more prototypes were ordered in 1933, the project was cancelled in 1935 before they could be completed

Marduk · 23rd April 2012, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Alex Cured

I imagine spares might have been a problem

no, they were falling out of the skies

a_unique_person · 23rd April 2012, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

The early F2A was much lighter than the version used by the USN. The Finns used the earlier version to good effect against both the Germans and the Russians. And really, pretty much anything that face incredibly maneuverable Japanese aircraft like the A6M and the Ki-43 was doomed. Especially considering that it took a lot of bloody noses to gain enough experience to learn what to do and what not to do when engaging Japanese aircraft.

The Australians found the Buffalo to be not much better than useless against the Japanese in the tropics. The engines tended to overheat, which would cause them to spew oil all over the windscreen, they were very slow to climb, the Japanese had much better performance.

I Ratant · 23rd April 2012, 10:20 AM

From the April 1941 issue of "Fortune" magazine..
These were in flight test in 1940!
The manufacturing of planes was just getting to the enormous rate it would achieve in the next 3 years.

I Ratant · 23rd April 2012, 10:34 AM

Noted journalist Bruce McCall found a seldom-seen Soviet bomber..
The blueprints had been damaged, and being state property, it would be a capital crime to admit to any damage, so the plane was built to the print.

Marduk · 23rd April 2012, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

Noted journalist Bruce McCall found a seldom-seen Soviet bomber..
The blueprints had been damaged, and being state property, it would be a capital crime to admit to any damage, so the plane was built to the print.

lol polet khuy

SpitfireIX · 23rd April 2012, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Marduk

no, they were falling out of the skies

Captain_Swoop · 23rd April 2012, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

Noted journalist Bruce McCall found a seldom-seen Soviet bomber..
The blueprints had been damaged, and being state property, it would be a capital crime to admit to any damage, so the plane was built to the print.

Are you sure?
I would like to see a source for that.

Blueprints for aircraft like any other engineering project run to hundreds and hundreds of drawings and revisions over years. There isn't just one sketch that gets copied.

Akhenaten · 23rd April 2012, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Originally Posted by I Ratant

Noted journalist Bruce McCall found a seldom-seen Soviet bomber..
The blueprints had been damaged, and being state property, it would be a capital crime to admit to any damage, so the plane was built to the print.

Are you sure?
I would like to see a source for that.

Blueprints for aircraft like any other engineering project run to hundreds and hundreds of drawings and revisions over years. There isn't just one sketch that gets copied.

The Other Air Forces - Humorist Bruce McCall's small fleet of little-known aircraft.

Marduk · 23rd April 2012, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Are you sure?
I would like to see a source for that.
.

from the above book, from the section entitled
Major Howdy Bixbie's Forgotten Warbirds by Bruce Mccall
from here
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/Ma...dy%20Bixby.htm

Quote:

The bent fuselage of the Snud U-14 stood for many years as a Soviet military secret; only after the last example of this little-known type had safely crashed was it revealed. During the design stage in 1938, a blueprint had been wrinkled accidentally and because nobody would own up to responsibility -since damaging state property carried the death penalty- the mistake went unchecked and into production. As a work-horse transport aircraft, this behemoth of the blue, with its four Kapodny-Gific engines, each producing 400 hp, and its vast cargo capacity, "had everything." Unusual features were tiny cockpits on each wing, where an engineer sat supervising the engines, and solid pig-iron wheels. These last ingeniously skirted the Russian rubber shortage, but caused another problem; reports claim the locomotive-style wheels so badly chewed up even paved landing strips that bringing a Snud to earth meant maximum risk to plane, crew and all nearby buildings and collective farms. Obliquely, this may explain the Soviet insistence that a Snud had set a world record for nonstop flight in 1941 -staying aloft over 64 hours while traveling nearly 3500 miles and averaging over 54 mph- and also why the pilot and navigator were transported to Siberia immediately after landing and receiving the Order of Heavy Industry.

I Ratant · 23rd April 2012, 12:43 PM

I'd first seen Bruce's air force in Car & Driver, prolly 40 years ago...

His bi-allegiance Italian fighter was quite interesting.

22nd April 2012, 02:19 PM	#121
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,229	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Russia had an obsession with big bits of kit. They had a tank with 3 turrets as well. Which during prototype trials shot itself in a fog.
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,229	__________________ "There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar "Roy Moore of Alabama. The world would absolutely benefit by him being run over by any vehicle." - Lowpro

22nd April 2012, 02:54 PM	#122
steve s Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,703	Originally Posted by Comrade Raptor I never liked the P-47, and it's hard to pinpoint precisely why. It was dumpy looking. But nowhere near as dumpy as the B-18 Bolo. Steve S
steve s Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,703	__________________ "Nature abhors a moron." -- H. L. Mencken Last edited by steve s; 22nd April 2012 at 02:56 PM.

22nd April 2012, 03:32 PM	#127
steve s Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,703	Originally Posted by Comrade Raptor This is dumpier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...-1234P-073.jpg It's not that dumpy. Now this is dumpy. Quote: And I like the Bolo, too. There's no accounting for taste. We almost went to war with that piece of carp. During the competition for a new bomber, the B-17 prototype crashed due to pilot error which removed it from the competition. Fortunately the powers-that-be were impressed enough with the B-17 to order 13 of them. Steve S
steve s Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 3,703	__________________ "Nature abhors a moron." -- H. L. Mencken

22nd April 2012, 05:19 PM	#131
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,461	Originally Posted by Uncle Otto No no-----dumpy and pathetic was defined by a U.S. plane---------- The Brewster F2a Buffalo -------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F2A_Buffalo But yet in the early days in the Pacific theater, several aces used it to score their totals, and the Finns used it to good effect against the Russians. I once read an account from a Japanese pilot that said that the F2a was a nice airplane to shoot down. Apparently the poor thing couldn't get out of it's own way. The early F2A was much lighter than the version used by the USN. The Finns used the earlier version to good effect against both the Germans and the Russians. And really, pretty much anything that face incredibly maneuverable Japanese aircraft like the A6M and the Ki-43 was doomed. Especially considering that it took a lot of bloody noses to gain enough experience to learn what to do and what not to do when engaging Japanese aircraft.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

22nd April 2012, 05:24 PM	#132
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,461	Originally Posted by Comrade Raptor I don't know whether to be more impressed that it flew home . . . or that it didn't instantly burst into flames. Luckily, the fuel tanks were inboard of the gear struts.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

22nd April 2012, 03:03 PM	#123
Comrade Raptor Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 399	Originally Posted by Polaris A plane that had 8 .50-caliber BMGs it unleashed into the Wehrmacht on the ground, and was capable of coming back with chunks of telephone pole lodged in the wing doesn't enthuse? Nope. But a fixed carriage, underpowered, radial engined jalopy with 2 .30's (Ki-27) does. It's craptacular! See? Arbitrary. Admittedly, it might be because so many other people enthuse about the P-47 that it just becomes noise. Who else enthuses about the Nate/Abdul? Nobody. Probably not even the people who flew it. This is why I suspect I might be a warbird hipster.

22nd April 2012, 03:06 PM	#124
Comrade Raptor Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 399	Originally Posted by steve s It was dumpy looking. But nowhere near as dumpy as the B-18 Bolo. Steve S This is dumpier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...-1234P-073.jpg And I like the Bolo, too.

22nd April 2012, 03:31 PM	#126
Comrade Raptor Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 399	Originally Posted by I Ratant . Mitsubishi A5M Claude after colliding with a China Air Force Curtiss Hawk... Returned to base safely. I don't know whether to be more impressed that it flew home . . . or that it didn't instantly burst into flames.

22nd April 2012, 03:56 PM	#128
Captain_Swoop Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 3,980	Pity they didn't hold out for more Liberators.

22nd April 2012, 03:56 PM	#129
Uncle Otto Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 357	Originally Posted by Comrade Raptor This is dumpier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...-1234P-073.jpg And I like the Bolo, too. No no-----dumpy and pathetic was defined by a U.S. plane---------- The Brewster F2a Buffalo -------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F2A_Buffalo But yet in the early days in the Pacific theater, several aces used it to score their totals, and the Finns used it to good effect against the Russians. I once read an account from a Japanese pilot that said that the F2a was a nice airplane to shoot down. Apparently the poor thing couldn't get out of it's own way.

22nd April 2012, 04:13 PM	#130
Uncle Otto Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 357	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Pity they didn't hold out for more Liberators. When I was a teenager, we had a next door neighbor who had been a crewman on a B-24 in the Italian campaign. He said everyone referred to them as "flying coffins". But then I suppose that could be said of any multi-engined bomber at the time. But according to him, the B-24 had a high tendency to catch fire when hit by enemy fire. But then I seem to recall that the 4 engined heavies had a much higher loss rate than the mediums like the A20, B-25 or B-26's. I had an Uncle who was crew chief on a B-25.

22nd April 2012, 05:44 PM	#133
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	You can see he's holding a lot of aileron and some rudder.

22nd April 2012, 06:00 PM	#134
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,257	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Russia had an obsession with big bits of kit. They had a tank with 3 turrets as well. The T-35 technically had 5 turrets!
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,257	__________________ Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012! Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!

22nd April 2012, 09:50 PM	#135
Corsair 115 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Tranquility Base Posts: 8,684	Originally Posted by Foster Zygote And really, pretty much anything that face incredibly maneuverable Japanese aircraft like the A6M and the Ki-43 was doomed. Only if you tried to fight them in the way they wanted to fight, which was low-speed dogfights. Engage them in a high-speed dogfight and your prospects of winning were pretty good, since that's not what those aircraft were designed to do. They were also rather poorly protected, which meant if you could get in the first shot you'd probably win right there.
	__________________ "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

22nd April 2012, 10:30 PM	#136
SUSpilot Muse Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 722	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Pity they didn't hold out for more Liberators. Only things wrong with the Liberators were that the tails tended to fall off and they couldn't carry ice worth a damn.
SUSpilot Muse Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 722

22nd April 2012, 11:08 PM	#137
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by kookbreaker The T-35 technically had 5 turrets! And we will never really know how good the concept was because the darn things would break down if someone sneezed too hard

22nd April 2012, 11:10 PM	#138
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by SUSpilot Only things wrong with the Liberators were that the tails tended to fall off and they couldn't carry ice worth a damn. Are we talking about a bomber or a cooler

23rd April 2012, 12:50 AM	#139
Alex Cured Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Terra Septentrionalis Incognita Posts: 251	Originally Posted by Uncle Otto No no-----dumpy and pathetic was defined by a U.S. plane---------- The Brewster F2a Buffalo -------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F2A_Buffalo But yet in the early days in the Pacific theater, several aces used it to score their totals, and the Finns used it to good effect against the Russians. I once read an account from a Japanese pilot that said that the F2a was a nice airplane to shoot down. Apparently the poor thing couldn't get out of it's own way. clearly when that image was resized someone forgot to tick "preserve aspect ratio"
	__________________ ^{59 dislike this!}

23rd April 2012, 02:08 AM	#140
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: London ish Posts: 3,703	Originally Posted by Uncle Otto No no-----dumpy and pathetic was defined by a U.S. plane---------- The Brewster F2a Buffalo -------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F2A_Buffalo But yet in the early days in the Pacific theater, several aces used it to score their totals, and the Finns used it to good effect against the Russians. I once read an account from a Japanese pilot that said that the F2a was a nice airplane to shoot down. Apparently the poor thing couldn't get out of it's own way. I see the front anf the back, but someone's stolen the middle out of that plane.
	__________________ Cull the delusional.

23rd April 2012, 06:07 AM	#141
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,461	Originally Posted by Corsair 115 Only if you tried to fight them in the way they wanted to fight, which was low-speed dogfights. Engage them in a high-speed dogfight and your prospects of winning were pretty good, since that's not what those aircraft were designed to do. They were also rather poorly protected, which meant if you could get in the first shot you'd probably win right there. Oh, absolutely. But it took a while for allied pilots to learn those lessons. They'd been training against pilots flying identical, or very similar, aircraft and had to throw most of what they'd learned out the window when they faced the A6M. Ironically, the AVG had already engaged the IJAAF's similarly conceptualized aircraft like the Ki-43, but the lessons they'd learned and the tactics that they employed weren't disseminated to USN or USAAF pilots. The A6M didn't even have boosted controls, so above 200 mph they actually handled like pigs. I remember reading one Japanese pilot's account that described the stick as feeling like it was rooted in cement when he dived in his A6M. Learning not to engage the A6M in the style of combat in which it excelled, and employing team tactics like the Thatch weave helped turn things around until the arrival of planes like the F6F and the P-38.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

23rd April 2012, 08:18 AM	#143
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by MG1962 Are we talking about a bomber or a cooler . The cargo version (C-109) was called the "C-one oh boom" for its tendency to blow up when a flap motor sparked. George McGovern flew the B-24 in Yurp during the war, and remarked at the enormous strength needed by the pilot to fly it in formation. When the Collings Foundation came by with theirs, the PIC was a mere slip of a girl! 110 pounds max. No muscles. And there was a WASP pilot there, about the same physique, but 60 years older who'd ferried them solo. I got photos but they're on a hard drive the computer won't recognize any more.

23rd April 2012, 08:21 AM	#144
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by Foster Zygote Oh, absolutely. But it took a while for allied pilots to learn those lessons. They'd been training against pilots flying identical, or very similar, aircraft and had to throw most of what they'd learned out the window when they faced the A6M. Ironically, the AVG had already engaged the IJAAF's similarly conceptualized aircraft like the Ki-43, but the lessons they'd learned and the tactics that they employed weren't disseminated to USN or USAAF pilots. The A6M didn't even have boosted controls, so above 200 mph they actually handled like pigs. I remember reading one Japanese pilot's account that described the stick as feeling like it was rooted in cement when he dived in his A6M. Learning not to engage the A6M in the style of combat in which it excelled, and employing team tactics like the Thatch weave helped turn things around until the arrival of planes like the F6F and the P-38. . The F4U was in flight test in 1940, and the test pilot for Vought, Boone Guyton, took pains to have the engineers design the control system to be responsive at very high speeds. This from the experience with the RAF in the first year of the war.

23rd April 2012, 08:30 AM	#145
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,320	Some neat Nazi experimental aircraft :http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/ai...thomepage.html
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,320	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

23rd April 2012, 08:43 AM	#146
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,461	Originally Posted by I Ratant . The cargo version (C-109) was called the "C-one oh boom" for its tendency to blow up when a flap motor sparked. George McGovern flew the B-24 in Yurp during the war, and remarked at the enormous strength needed by the pilot to fly it in formation. When the Collings Foundation came by with theirs, the PIC was a mere slip of a girl! 110 pounds max. No muscles. And there was a WASP pilot there, about the same physique, but 60 years older who'd ferried them solo. I got photos but they're on a hard drive the computer won't recognize any more. A friend of mine has a book of old Air Force cartoons that includes a picture of an AAF pilot with one arm twice as big as the other. The caption reads "You can always tell the B-24 pilots by their overdeveloped left arms".
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

23rd April 2012, 08:45 AM	#147
Alex Cured Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Terra Septentrionalis Incognita Posts: 251	Originally Posted by fuelair Some neat Nazi experimental aircraft :http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/ai...thomepage.html I imagine spares might have been a problem
	__________________ ^{59 dislike this!}

23rd April 2012, 08:52 AM	#148
Damien Evans Up The Irons Tagger Join Date: May 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 25,506	Originally Posted by Akhenaten This? http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/Hos.../KalinenK7.jpg Kalinin K-7 Bomber Read more Surely couldn't fly
	__________________ WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death

23rd April 2012, 09:09 AM	#149
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,749	Originally Posted by Damien Evans Surely couldn't fly Not in that flying battleship configuration, but fly it most certainly did. More informations here
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

23rd April 2012, 09:22 AM	#150
Alex Cured Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Terra Septentrionalis Incognita Posts: 251	Originally Posted by Damien Evans Surely couldn't fly Well sort of ... Originally Posted by wikipedia-page The K-7 first flew on 11 August 1933. The very brief first flight showed instability and serious vibration caused by the airframe resonating with the engine frequency. The solution to this was thought to be to shorten and strengthen the tail booms, little being known then about the natural frequencies of structures and their response to vibration. The aircraft completed seven test flights before a crash due to structural failure of one of the tail booms on 21 November 1933.[3] However, there appeared recently some speculations in the Russian aviation press about the role of politics and competing design office of A. N. Tupolev, suggesting possible sabotage. The accident killed 14 people aboard and one on the ground.[4] Although two more prototypes were ordered in 1933, the project was cancelled in 1935 before they could be completed
	__________________ ^{59 dislike this!}

23rd April 2012, 09:24 AM	#151
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by Alex Cured I imagine spares might have been a problem no, they were falling out of the skies

23rd April 2012, 10:14 AM	#152
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,466	Originally Posted by Foster Zygote The early F2A was much lighter than the version used by the USN. The Finns used the earlier version to good effect against both the Germans and the Russians. And really, pretty much anything that face incredibly maneuverable Japanese aircraft like the A6M and the Ki-43 was doomed. Especially considering that it took a lot of bloody noses to gain enough experience to learn what to do and what not to do when engaging Japanese aircraft. The Australians found the Buffalo to be not much better than useless against the Japanese in the tropics. The engines tended to overheat, which would cause them to spew oil all over the windscreen, they were very slow to climb, the Japanese had much better performance.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

23rd April 2012, 10:38 AM	#155
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by I Ratant Noted journalist Bruce McCall found a seldom-seen Soviet bomber.. The blueprints had been damaged, and being state property, it would be a capital crime to admit to any damage, so the plane was built to the print. lol polet khuy

23rd April 2012, 11:09 AM	#156
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,832	Originally Posted by Marduk no, they were falling out of the skies
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

23rd April 2012, 11:42 AM	#157
Captain_Swoop Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 3,980	Originally Posted by I Ratant Noted journalist Bruce McCall found a seldom-seen Soviet bomber.. The blueprints had been damaged, and being state property, it would be a capital crime to admit to any damage, so the plane was built to the print. Are you sure? I would like to see a source for that. Blueprints for aircraft like any other engineering project run to hundreds and hundreds of drawings and revisions over years. There isn't just one sketch that gets copied.

23rd April 2012, 12:14 PM	#158
Akhenaten Heretic Pharaoh Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia Posts: 24,749	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Originally Posted by I Ratant Noted journalist Bruce McCall found a seldom-seen Soviet bomber.. The blueprints had been damaged, and being state property, it would be a capital crime to admit to any damage, so the plane was built to the print. Are you sure? I would like to see a source for that. Blueprints for aircraft like any other engineering project run to hundreds and hundreds of drawings and revisions over years. There isn't just one sketch that gets copied. The Other Air Forces - Humorist Bruce McCall's small fleet of little-known aircraft.
	__________________ Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon The Australasian Skeptics Forum

23rd April 2012, 12:17 PM	#159
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Are you sure? I would like to see a source for that. . from the above book, from the section entitled Major Howdy Bixbie's Forgotten Warbirds by Bruce Mccall from here http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/Ma...dy%20Bixby.htm Quote: The bent fuselage of the Snud U-14 stood for many years as a Soviet military secret; only after the last example of this little-known type had safely crashed was it revealed. During the design stage in 1938, a blueprint had been wrinkled accidentally and because nobody would own up to responsibility -since damaging state property carried the death penalty- the mistake went unchecked and into production. As a work-horse transport aircraft, this behemoth of the blue, with its four Kapodny-Gific engines, each producing 400 hp, and its vast cargo capacity, "had everything." Unusual features were tiny cockpits on each wing, where an engineer sat supervising the engines, and solid pig-iron wheels. These last ingeniously skirted the Russian rubber shortage, but caused another problem; reports claim the locomotive-style wheels so badly chewed up even paved landing strips that bringing a Snud to earth meant maximum risk to plane, crew and all nearby buildings and collective farms. Obliquely, this may explain the Soviet insistence that a Snud had set a world record for nonstop flight in 1941 -staying aloft over 64 hours while traveling nearly 3500 miles and averaging over 54 mph- and also why the pilot and navigator were transported to Siberia immediately after landing and receiving the Order of Heavy Industry.
	Last edited by Marduk; 23rd April 2012 at 12:34 PM.