Chat Forum
It is currently Thu Jun 04, 2020 1:50 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2239 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 52, 53, 54, 55, 56  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 9:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3831
dont have much time…..but NACA were very much at the forefront of aerodynamics

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi ... 007250.pdf

Quote:
Much progress was made in aeronautical research during the first 20 years of the NACA. Some of the accomplishments were the engine supercharger; high-speed airfoil design; basic NACA airfoil research; the NACAcowling; drag cleanup studies; high-liftdevices; stressed-skin construction; retractable landing gear; cantilever wings; enclosed cockpit; and so on. These developments were directed toward increased efficiency; increased speed; increased safety and comfort; increased utilityand productivity.


Do you really think engineers and designers in the 30’s didn’t realise liquid cooled engines were more vulnerable to battle damage than air cooled ones? I will certainly concede that it wasn’t the most important decision, but it certainly was a factor.

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=vUI ... le&f=false

This is the first link that came up, but let’s just agree to disagree on this one as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 9:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Posts: 575
Calculus wrote:
dont have much time…..but NACA were very much at the forefront of aerodynamics

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi ... 007250.pdf

Quote:
Much progress was made in aeronautical research during the first 20 years of the NACA. Some of the accomplishments were the engine supercharger; high-speed airfoil design; basic NACA airfoil research; the NACAcowling; drag cleanup studies; high-liftdevices; stressed-skin construction; retractable landing gear; cantilever wings; enclosed cockpit; and so on. These developments were directed toward increased efficiency; increased speed; increased safety and comfort; increased utilityand productivity.


Do you really think engineers and designers in the 30’s didn’t realise liquid cooled engines were more vulnerable to battle damage than air cooled ones? I will certainly concede that it wasn’t the most important decision, but it certainly was a factor.

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=vUI ... le&f=false

This is the first link that came up, but let’s just agree to disagree on this one as well.





There were probably alot of factors they took into account, using air cooled motors means you don't have to take up space below decks on an aircraft carrier storing glycol. I think the fleet air arm were the only carrier fleet using inline motors , they also used a lot of US made raidial engined planes too.


Last edited by Harvey2.0 on Fri May 15, 2020 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 9:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21217
Calculus wrote:
dont have much time…..but NACA were very much at the forefront of aerodynamics

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi ... 007250.pdf

Quote:
Much progress was made in aeronautical research during the first 20 years of the NACA. Some of the accomplishments were the engine supercharger; high-speed airfoil design; basic NACA airfoil research; the NACAcowling; drag cleanup studies; high-liftdevices; stressed-skin construction; retractable landing gear; cantilever wings; enclosed cockpit; and so on. These developments were directed toward increased efficiency; increased speed; increased safety and comfort; increased utilityand productivity.


Do you really think engineers and designers in the 30’s didn’t realise liquid cooled engines were more vulnerable to battle damage than air cooled ones? I will certainly concede that it wasn’t the most important decision, but it certainly was a factor.

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=vUI ... le&f=false

This is the first link that came up, but let’s just agree to disagree on this one as well.


Oh they were at the forefront in theory - just not great in the 30’s or getting it into fighters (bombers were much better and almost as fast). The mustang was their first real leader in aerodynamics - and that didn’t have radial (nor did the p38 of course)

What youve linked there was about the hellcat so yes by then, damage to gunfire was deffo an issue in consideration - doesn’t say that it was a factor anyone had thought of in 20’s or 30’s though for an initial preference, which was what I disagree with you with.


Oh and by accomplishments, are you saying naca invented high lift devices and cantilever wings?
Enclosed cockpits? If so, then various people like Junkers would say ‘oi’ and they certainly were not put into operational practice . Landing gear was what I always associate with us navy aircraft being first with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 10:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21217
Harvey2.0 wrote:
Calculus wrote:
dont have much time…..but NACA were very much at the forefront of aerodynamics

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi ... 007250.pdf

Quote:
Much progress was made in aeronautical research during the first 20 years of the NACA. Some of the accomplishments were the engine supercharger; high-speed airfoil design; basic NACA airfoil research; the NACAcowling; drag cleanup studies; high-liftdevices; stressed-skin construction; retractable landing gear; cantilever wings; enclosed cockpit; and so on. These developments were directed toward increased efficiency; increased speed; increased safety and comfort; increased utilityand productivity.


Do you really think engineers and designers in the 30’s didn’t realise liquid cooled engines were more vulnerable to battle damage than air cooled ones? I will certainly concede that it wasn’t the most important decision, but it certainly was a factor.

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=vUI ... le&f=false

This is the first link that came up, but let’s just agree to disagree on this one as well.





There were probably alot of factors they took into account, using air cooled motors means you don't have to take up space below decks on an aircraft carrier storing glycol. I think the fleet air arm were the only carrier fleet using inline motors , they also used a lot of US made raidial engined planes too.


In theory the German carrriers would have as a navalised version of me109 was made, with an inline engine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 10:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3831
Quote:
What youve linked there was about the hellcat so yes by then, damage to gunfire was deffo an issue in consideration - doesn’t say that it was a factor anyone had thought of in 20’s or 30’s though for an initial preference, which was what I disagree with you with.


FFS read the rest of p134. if you are agree it was a factor but not the principle one, I will agree with that.

Im saying exactly what i wrote about NACA, if you disagree, that's fine


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 10:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21217
Calculus wrote:
Quote:
What youve linked there was about the hellcat so yes by then, damage to gunfire was deffo an issue in consideration - doesn’t say that it was a factor anyone had thought of in 20’s or 30’s though for an initial preference, which was what I disagree with you with.


FFS read the rest of p134. if you are agree it was a factor but not the principle one, I will agree with that.

Im saying exactly what i wrote about NACA, if you disagree, that's fine


Your first post about this said that it was THE main factor in the 1920’s decision - and that is bollocks. If you are changing what you are saying now then that’s fine.

To be clear, this is what you wrote, and what I disagreed with:
“Writing from memory but the US navy in the 1920’s specifically requested navel planes using a radial engine due to them, or rather the absence of a water cooling system, being less vulnerable to AA fire”

In the 20’s there is no way that AA gunfire was even mentioned as being a decision , It was congress wanting things cheap and easy and easy to maintain. By the time hellcat was being built then yes , wartime survivability was a factor as there was wartime experience . Iirc wasn’t the hellcat actually part designed by naval pilots input , like high cockpit for view for landings , made radial engine in a deep fuselage a good choice ? (In the exact manner the Corsair wasn’t!)


Last edited by backrow on Fri May 15, 2020 10:24 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 10:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Posts: 575
backrow wrote:
Harvey2.0 wrote:
Calculus wrote:
dont have much time…..but NACA were very much at the forefront of aerodynamics

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi ... 007250.pdf

Quote:
Much progress was made in aeronautical research during the first 20 years of the NACA. Some of the accomplishments were the engine supercharger; high-speed airfoil design; basic NACA airfoil research; the NACAcowling; drag cleanup studies; high-liftdevices; stressed-skin construction; retractable landing gear; cantilever wings; enclosed cockpit; and so on. These developments were directed toward increased efficiency; increased speed; increased safety and comfort; increased utilityand productivity.


Do you really think engineers and designers in the 30’s didn’t realise liquid cooled engines were more vulnerable to battle damage than air cooled ones? I will certainly concede that it wasn’t the most important decision, but it certainly was a factor.

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=vUI ... le&f=false

This is the first link that came up, but let’s just agree to disagree on this one as well.





There were probably alot of factors they took into account, using air cooled motors means you don't have to take up space below decks on an aircraft carrier storing glycol. I think the fleet air arm were the only carrier fleet using inline motors , they also used a lot of US made raidial engined planes too.


In theory the German carrriers would have as a navalised version of me109 was made, with an inline engine.


They had plans for a carrier Ju 87 too. The landing gear of the me 109 would have been worse than a seafires on a carrier imho. The fw 190 would have probably been a superior carrier plane.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 10:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21217
Harvey2.0 wrote:
backrow wrote:
Harvey2.0 wrote:
Calculus wrote:
dont have much time…..but NACA were very much at the forefront of aerodynamics

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi ... 007250.pdf

Quote:
Much progress was made in aeronautical research during the first 20 years of the NACA. Some of the accomplishments were the engine supercharger; high-speed airfoil design; basic NACA airfoil research; the NACAcowling; drag cleanup studies; high-liftdevices; stressed-skin construction; retractable landing gear; cantilever wings; enclosed cockpit; and so on. These developments were directed toward increased efficiency; increased speed; increased safety and comfort; increased utilityand productivity.


Do you really think engineers and designers in the 30’s didn’t realise liquid cooled engines were more vulnerable to battle damage than air cooled ones? I will certainly concede that it wasn’t the most important decision, but it certainly was a factor.

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=vUI ... le&f=false

This is the first link that came up, but let’s just agree to disagree on this one as well.





There were probably alot of factors they took into account, using air cooled motors means you don't have to take up space below decks on an aircraft carrier storing glycol. I think the fleet air arm were the only carrier fleet using inline motors , they also used a lot of US made raidial engined planes too.


In theory the German carrriers would have as a navalised version of me109 was made, with an inline engine.


They had plans for a carrier Ju 87 too. The landing gear of the me 109 would have been worse than a seafires on a carrier imho. The fw 190 would have probably been a superior carrier plane.


For sure . Suspect, like the US choosing radial engines, it was done for ease & cost purposes ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 10:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3831
Harvey2.0 wrote:
. I think the fleet air arm were the only carrier fleet using inline motors , they also used a lot of US made raidial engined planes too.


Imperial jap navy had the D4Y1 and D4Y2


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 10:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21217
Anyhows, I now have a ww2 boner so am going to play a flight sim and ignore my kids for 4 hours
:o


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3831
backrow wrote:
Calculus wrote:
Quote:
What youve linked there was about the hellcat so yes by then, damage to gunfire was deffo an issue in consideration - doesn’t say that it was a factor anyone had thought of in 20’s or 30’s though for an initial preference, which was what I disagree with you with.


FFS read the rest of p134. if you are agree it was a factor but not the principle one, I will agree with that.

Im saying exactly what i wrote about NACA, if you disagree, that's fine


Your first post about this said that it was THE main factor in the 1920’s decision - and that is bollocks. If you are changing what you are saying now then that’s fine.

To be clear, this is what you wrote, and what I disagreed with:
“Writing from memory but the US navy in the 1920’s specifically requested navel planes using a radial engine due to them, or rather the absence of a water cooling system, being less vulnerable to AA fire”

In the 20’s there is no way that AA gunfire was even mentioned as being a decision , It was congress wanting things cheap and easy and easy to maintain. By the time hellcat was being built then yes , wartime survivability was a factor as there was wartime experience . Iirc wasn’t the hellcat actually part designed by naval pilots input , like high cockpit for view for landings , made radial engine in a deep fuselage a good choice ? (In the exact manner the Corsair wasn’t!)


Sure, ill will just agree with the author then that apparently from the mid 20’s the navy felt the simplicity and reduced vulnerability to gunfire more than offset any disadvantages in terms of greater frontal area. That’s about an exact quote and I’m pretty sure the author knows a lot more than you or me about this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 10:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Posts: 575
Calculus wrote:
Harvey2.0 wrote:
. I think the fleet air arm were the only carrier fleet using inline motors , they also used a lot of US made raidial engined planes too.


Imperial jap navy had the D4Y1 and D4Y2


Just reading the wiki page on that, the navy wanted it to be radial and later models were though.

The Italians were planning to put Re 2001s on the Aquila


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 10:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3831
one of the better looking dive bombers

Image

one of the first jap navy fighters also had an inline engine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_1MF


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 10:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21217
Calculus wrote:
backrow wrote:
Calculus wrote:
Quote:
What youve linked there was about the hellcat so yes by then, damage to gunfire was deffo an issue in consideration - doesn’t say that it was a factor anyone had thought of in 20’s or 30’s though for an initial preference, which was what I disagree with you with.


FFS read the rest of p134. if you are agree it was a factor but not the principle one, I will agree with that.

Im saying exactly what i wrote about NACA, if you disagree, that's fine


Your first post about this said that it was THE main factor in the 1920’s decision - and that is bollocks. If you are changing what you are saying now then that’s fine.

To be clear, this is what you wrote, and what I disagreed with:
“Writing from memory but the US navy in the 1920’s specifically requested navel planes using a radial engine due to them, or rather the absence of a water cooling system, being less vulnerable to AA fire”

In the 20’s there is no way that AA gunfire was even mentioned as being a decision , It was congress wanting things cheap and easy and easy to maintain. By the time hellcat was being built then yes , wartime survivability was a factor as there was wartime experience . Iirc wasn’t the hellcat actually part designed by naval pilots input , like high cockpit for view for landings , made radial engine in a deep fuselage a good choice ? (In the exact manner the Corsair wasn’t!)


Sure, ill will just agree with the author then that apparently from the mid 20’s the navy felt the simplicity and reduced vulnerability to gunfire more than offset any disadvantages in terms of greater frontal area. That’s about an exact quote and I’m pretty sure the author knows a lot more than you or me about this.


Your conprehension is odd - your quoted author mentions ‘gunfire’, you wrote about ‘AA’ which I took to mean only from ships or ground emplacements - ships in the 20’s had barely any anti aircraft facilities at all.
2 quite different things there chap ! It’s moved the topic from 1920’s AA gunfire was THE reason (which I disagreed with) to over ten years later and a different kind of gunfire being A reason but not THE reason.

Nothing there to dissuade that US in 20’s and 30’s did things for a cost and not performance reasons , which were clearly shown anyways by the low speeds of their fighters at the start of ww2.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 10:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21217
backrow wrote:
Nope, can’t find it right now , soz

Altitude was another factor -naval planes didn’t need to fly as high, and needed to be stronger so were heavier planes than pure land ones ; this suited radials better due to cooling and being nearer to ground fire as you say.


It was the Breguet 691, Bill Gunston wrote ‘the 695 was hastily put into production with the American P&W twin wasp junior which was lighter and more powerful , but actually harmed flight performance handling and pilot view’


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 11:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3831
I never said it was the only reason and I meant antiaircraft fire as in firing at enemy aircraft. I should have been clearer. Glad we can agree on the quote :thumbup:

Quote:
Nothing there to dissuade that US in 20’s and 30’s did things for a cost and not performance reasons , which were clearly shown anyways by the low speeds of their fighters at the start of ww2.


hang on, cost was obviously a factor but for the US the war didn't start until the Japanese attacked pearl harbour. At that time the p-38, possibly the fastest and most expensive contemporary fighter, had already been in service with the US air force for some time. Combat performance and cost are not in any case directly related to top speed, figures for which are notoriously unreliable in any case.


Last edited by Calculus on Fri May 15, 2020 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 11:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21217
Lolz, you are such a bullshitter - you clearly did mean it to be THE reason, you know AA fire means from poms poms or Flak only and not from other aircraft , and you also know that I don’t wholly agree with that quote that you’ve so badly mangled !

This is bimbo levels of BS from you !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3831
backrow wrote:
Lolz, you are such a bullshitter - you clearly did mean it to be THE reason, you know AA fire means from poms poms or Flak only and not from other aircraft , and you also know that I don’t wholly agree with that quote that you’ve so badly mangled !


only the last statement is (partly) correct, but believe what you want. Your dismissive attitude of non-British engineering and designing achievements is quite funny though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 11:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21217
Calculus wrote:
backrow wrote:
Lolz, you are such a bullshitter - you clearly did mean it to be THE reason, you know AA fire means from poms poms or Flak only and not from other aircraft , and you also know that I don’t wholly agree with that quote that you’ve so badly mangled !


only the last statement is (partly) correct, but believe what you want. Your dismissive attitude of non-British engineering and designing achievements is quite funny though.


Hey, bimbo2, I’m not dismissive at all , you are inventing that, plus I mentioned junkers as having invented 2 of the things you seem to want to give the yanks credit for over a decade later - no pro British stuff there from me especially as I started saying the fw190 was awesome.

If you really stand by your AA comment, then that is Boris levels of bluster

I also said that radial v inline wasn’t a ‘which was better’ - you were the one starting to suck American cock for some reason - if they really did have he best engines and aeronautics , then why were their 1930’s fighters so shite ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 1:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 7:12 pm
Posts: 2969
Calculus wrote:
hang on, cost was obviously a factor but for the US the war didn't start until the Japanese attacked pearl harbour. At that time the p-38, possibly the fastest and most expensive contemporary fighter, had already been in service with the US air force for some time. Combat performance and cost are not in any case directly related to top speed, figures for which are notoriously unreliable in any case.



This gives all the info on the P-38
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Eq86xuVGW8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21217
Calculus wrote:
I never said it was the only reason and I meant antiaircraft fire as in firing at enemy aircraft. I should have been clearer. Glad we can agree on the quote :thumbup:

Quote:
Nothing there to dissuade that US in 20’s and 30’s did things for a cost and not performance reasons , which were clearly shown anyways by the low speeds of their fighters at the start of ww2.


hang on, cost was obviously a factor but for the US the war didn't start until the Japanese attacked pearl harbour. At that time the p-38, possibly the fastest and most expensive contemporary fighter, had already been in service with the US air force for some time. Combat performance and cost are not in any case directly related to top speed, figures for which are notoriously unreliable in any case.


Wiki says first lightening was in service April 1942, and was recon model with no guns in Pacific. First ones reached uk bases in June 1942. Top speed of prototype 393mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38.html

Mark 9 spitfire of that time max speed was 409mph
Me109 G1 was 410mph
Can’t find quickly what a 190’s top speed in 1942 was but as the early A’s was 400mph, it was probably fastest of the lot.

The p38 was no slouch and cost I’m uncertain / uninterested about tbh, but when it started service it wasn’t fastest and of course, had in line engines not radials. None of this backs up why early ww2 fighters were suited or benefitted performance wise from having radial engines apart from being cheap and reliable.

Mosquito of the time was 380mph but had of course a larger body and span because it was planned as a bomber.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 9:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Posts: 575
@backrow

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 10:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3831
backrow wrote:

Wiki says first lightening was in service April 1942, and was recon model with no guns in Pacific. First ones reached uk bases in June 1942. Top speed of prototype 393mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38.html

.


From wiki


Quote:
On 20 September 1939, before the YP-38s had been built and flight tested, the USAAC ordered 66 initial production P-38 Lightnings, 30 of which were delivered to the (re-named) USAAF in mid-1941, but not all these aircraft were armed.
Also
The first unit to receive P-38s was the 1st Fighter Group. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the unit joined the 14th Pursuit Group in San Diego to provide West Coast defense.



BTW, you do realise the spitfires wing used a NACA airfoil right?

Anyway, this "discussion" is getting a bit boring so I'll let you have the last word, but if you seriously want to learn more about the design philosophy, aerodynamics and engineering aspects of ww2 fighters I would thoroughly recommend Greg s airplanes on YouTube.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 10:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21217
Calculus wrote:
backrow wrote:

Wiki says first lightening was in service April 1942, and was recon model with no guns in Pacific. First ones reached uk bases in June 1942. Top speed of prototype 393mph
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38.html

.


From wiki


Quote:
On 20 September 1939, before the YP-38s had been built and flight tested, the USAAC ordered 66 initial production P-38 Lightnings, 30 of which were delivered to the (re-named) USAAF in mid-1941, but not all these aircraft were armed.
Also
The first unit to receive P-38s was the 1st Fighter Group. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the unit joined the 14th Pursuit Group in San Diego to provide West Coast defense.



BTW, you do realise the spitfires wing used a NACA airfoil right?

Anyway, this "discussion" is getting a bit boring so I'll let you have the last word, but if you seriously want to learn more about the design philosophy, aerodynamics and engineering aspects of ww2 fighters I would thoroughly recommend Greg s airplanes on YouTube.


Y in the YP38 designation means they were still officially prototypes - hence why I’ve always gone on about service delivery of operational aircraft, not the testing stage. On that very same page you will see that in Nov 1941 lightenings were still flying into the ground because of design faults .

“On 4 November 1941, Virden climbed into YP-38 #1 and completed the test sequence successfully, but 15 minutes later was seen in a steep dive followed by a high-G pullout. The tail unit of the aircraft failed at about 3,500 ft (1,000 m) during the high-speed dive recovery; Virden was killed in the subsequent crash. ”

I think mr Virdens family would not agree with you that USA at that time led the way in anything aeronautical based tbf

Oh and even if they were the service full operational status aircraft in 1941, last time I checked 393mph was still less than those other countries fighters in service
(But the p38 was faster than all Italian biplanes, that much I will give you)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2020 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21217
Think about it - if it was in full service , why were they still doing tests on Y designated aircraft that still caused crashes ? Or take six months to deploy them anywhere ?
Sometimes, wiki should not be fully relied on - and when you provide a link, prob best have one that supports your line of argument rather than completely destroy it !

You have a very odd logic process - make one statement, change what you meant , go off on tangents about a date despite speed still being slower no matter if 41 or 42 as well as a glorious fob off attempt over what ‘AA’ meant.

I will concede that I didn’t know off the top of my head what airfoil the spitfire had, it’s a plane more famous for its low drag eliptical wing shape than the airfoil (one reason it was in production throughout the full war not just when American was in it)

I don’t find this stuff boring at all, and look forward to some of your other links that disprove what you claim , saves me having to go looking. :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2020 11:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11122
New tv series "tank heroes of WW2", hope it's as good as some of the submarine or fighter plane ones


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2020 4:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21217
Calculus may say the Sherman was introduced in 1938 and was better than the t34 and tiger 2 combined and had a 180mm laser cannon pew pew pew pew


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2020 9:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Posts: 575
backrow wrote:
Calculus may say the Sherman was introduced in 1938 and was better than the t34 and tiger 2 combined and had a 180mm laser cannon pew pew pew pew


The yanks came up with the M18 Hellcat to take on tanks and it was far more successful that the Sherman at that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat

Love seeing the old guy reunited with his old tank destroyer in this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtHQC5m9HF4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2020 9:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1923
lorcanoworms wrote:
New tv series "tank heroes of WW2", hope it's as good as some of the submarine or fighter plane ones


Is it not the series from 2013?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2020 9:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11122
OhNo wrote:
lorcanoworms wrote:
New tv series "tank heroes of WW2", hope it's as good as some of the submarine or fighter plane ones


Is it not the series from 2013?

So I just discovered, very basic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2020 10:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1923
lorcanoworms wrote:
OhNo wrote:
lorcanoworms wrote:
New tv series "tank heroes of WW2", hope it's as good as some of the submarine or fighter plane ones


Is it not the series from 2013?

So I just discovered, very basic.


Was getting excited they had done a season two. It is good and well worth a watch. Wish they would do more similar series.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2020 10:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5107
Location: Te Ika a Maui
Battle experiences: Kiwis in combating German Tiger I tanks in Northern Italy in 10 images


In the battle for Florence contact was made by 2nd New Zealand Division for the first time with Tiger tanks in any number. The following are several of the New Zealand antitank gunners' experiences in combating Tiger tanks of special interest during the Battle of Florence. The events described are from the fighting by the 2nd New Zealand Division to capture the Paula Line which was defended in part by the s.Pz.Abt. 508 equipped with the Tiger I. These events were reported in the January 1945 issue of the Intelligence Bulletin:

A Tiger was observed about 3,000 yards away, engaging three Shermans. When it set one of the Shermans afire, the other two withdrew over a crest. A 17-pounder was brought up to within 2,400 yards of the Tiger, and engaged it from a flank. When the Tiger realized that it was being engaged by a high-velocity gun, it swung around 90 degrees so that its heavy frontal armor was toward the gun. In the ensuing duel, one round hit the turret, another round hit the suspension, and two near-short rounds probably ricocheted into the tank. The tank was not put out of action. The range was too great to expect a kill; hence the New Zealanders' tactics were to make the Tiger expose its flank to the Shermans at a range of almost 500 yards, by swinging around onto the antitank gun. The Tiger did just this, and, when it was engaged by the Shermans, it withdrew. The enemy infantry protection of half a dozen to a dozen men was engaged by machine guns.

At the junction of a main road and a side road, a Tiger was just off the road, engaging forward troops in buildings. Another Tiger, about 50 yards up the side road, was supporting the first. A field-artillery concentration was called for. It appeared to come from one battery only. Although no hits were observed, both Tigers withdrew.

A Tiger on a ridge was engaged by what appeared to be a battery of mediums. After the first few rounds had fallen, the crew bailed out. (It is not known why.) Shortly afterward, while the tank still was being shelled, a German soldier returned to the tank and drove it off. About 10 minutes later, the remainder of the crew made a dash along the same route their tank had taken.

A tank hidden in the garage of a two-story house ventured out for about 20 yards, fired a few harassing rounds, and returned to its shelter. Many hits on the building were scored by 4.2-inch mortars firing cap-on, but little damage was visible. Each night the tank was withdrawn from the area, even though it was in an excellent concealed position and was protected by infantry. Later the house was examined. Although it had suffered appreciable damage — and there were several dead Germans about there was no evidence that damage had been done to the tank itself.

Image
Looking along the turret of the first Tiger Tank to be knocked out by New Zealand tanks, during the advance to Florence [DA-06426, Via natlib.govt.nz]

Image
Tiger and Sherman tanks just before entering Florence [DA-14337-F, Via natlib.govt.nz]

Image
Tracks of a German Tiger tank which fell to the guns of the New Zealand Armoured Regiment during the advance towards Florence, 1944 [PA1-Q-300-3126, Via natlib.govt.nz]

Image
This NZ Sherman tank was knocked out by the German Tiger [tank], which was destroyed in turn by a 'stonk' from the guns of NZ Div Arty [DA-06510-F, Via natlib.govt.nz]

Image
The first German Tiger tank to be knocked out by NZ tanks during World War II. It fell to the 18th NZ Armd Regt during the advance to Florence, Italy [DA-06424-F, Via natlib.govt.nz]

More piccies and info on tactics at the site.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2020 10:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11122
Charles Lindbergh flew a P-38 and did some useful experiments proving the plane could be flown at low throttle without fouling the engines.
Which greatly extended the range on missions such as the Yamamoto one.
Way too slow on the turn and easily picked off by ze Bosch.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2020 2:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21217
how on earth could the p38 be slow in the turn if it was the fastest fighter with the best aerodynamics ???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2020 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22877
backrow wrote:
how on earth could the p38 be slow in the turn if it was the fastest fighter with the best aerodynamics ???

Poor aerodynamics assist rapid turning.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2020 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 7:12 pm
Posts: 2969
I just happened on this on YouTube Very interesting to see the story from the other side.

The Battle of Midway 1942: Told from the Japanese Perspective

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd8_vO5zrjo


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2020 9:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:43 am
Posts: 3305
Lots of good reconstructions on YouTube. I can recommend:

Kings and Generals:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmaBzfCCwZ2KqaBJjkj0fw

Baz Battles:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx-dJoP9hFCBloY9qodykvw

HistoryMarche:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8MX9ECowgDMTOnFTE8EUJw


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2020 9:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:43 am
Posts: 3305
happyhooker wrote:
backrow wrote:
how on earth could the p38 be slow in the turn if it was the fastest fighter with the best aerodynamics ???

Poor aerodynamics assist rapid turning.


That's the trade-off. More wings = more maneuverable (WWI). Fewer wings = more speed (WWII). More/bigger engines = more power. More/bigger engines = more weight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2020 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22877
GWO2 wrote:
I just happened on this on YouTube Very interesting to see the story from the other side.

The Battle of Midway 1942: Told from the Japanese Perspective

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd8_vO5zrjo

really enjoyed that, thank you


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2020 11:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22877
Lacrobat wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
backrow wrote:
how on earth could the p38 be slow in the turn if it was the fastest fighter with the best aerodynamics ???

Poor aerodynamics assist rapid turning.


That's the trade-off. More wings = more maneuverable (WWI). Fewer wings = more speed (WWII). More/bigger engines = more power. More/bigger engines = more weight.

modern fighters are now constructed to be deliberatley unstable because it aides manoeuverability.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2239 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 52, 53, 54, 55, 56  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BlueThunder, Clogs, Deadtigers, goblack, Google Adsense [Bot], JB1981, Jeff the Bear, Mr Mike, MungoMan, New guy, Nieghorn, sockwithaticket, sonic_attack, Wignu and 63 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group