# Aviation myths that will not die



## fastmongrel (Nov 22, 2012)

How often do you come across something in print or online that makes you want to bang your head on the keyboard in frustration and cry "Oh for the love of (Insert your religous deity of choice) cant these people just read a book or even look at wikipedia".

My current No 1 aviation myth that has reared its ugly head on a facebook page I share is 

The Allison V1710 didnt have a supercharger when fitted in the P39 and P40 and if only the US govenmint[_sic_] had let the manufacturers fit a Turbinecharger[_sic_] then they would have been the greatest aircraft of WWII. When I tried to point out the error in the post I got told I didnt know what I was talking about and anyway the original writer is a well known aviation expert. If he cant even use spellcheck then hes not much of an expert 

So what myths are grinding your propellor at the moment and what would you like to do to them.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 22, 2012)

fastmongrel said:


> ...
> 
> My current No 1 aviation myth that has reared its ugly head on a facebook page I share is
> 
> ...



Care to post a link?


----------



## krieghund (Nov 22, 2012)

I know what you mean....However when famous WWII Authors promote the same "facts" its hard to get the truth out. This is an excerpt from Dr. Alfred Price's book 'Fighter Aircraft' I wonder what his sources were?


----------



## msxyz (Nov 22, 2012)

On the topic, I often realize, how many 'modern' aviation myths and false statements encountered over the Internet are generated by Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is surely an interesting tool but a big source of errors and inaccuracies, the most obvious and frequent being the incredible amount of wrong conversions between metric and imperial units (a simple multiplication by a coefficient ffs!). What I really find amazing is that the same page, but in different languages, may report different informations, sometimes even contraddicting. Sometimes the error start in the English written, 'international' page and then propagates to the various translations; sometimes the opposite is true: the page in a certain language reports better information on a subject.

Many a time, I read some odd or inaccurate aircraft description on a site, only to find the exact same piece of text on Wikipedia. Guess which is the source?  Too many people don't take their time anymore to verify and compare the sources and they simply opt to report what is written on certain sources, like Wikipedia, which are wrongly supposed to always contain accurate informations.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2012)

1. The Tuskagee Airmen never lost a bomber they were escorting.

2. The Stuka was more vulnerable than other Dive Bomber.

3. The Germans called the P-38 the Fork Tailed Devil.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## krieghund (Nov 22, 2012)

Oh yeah, the Zero was a copy of a western type aircraft. (I still haven't found it yet, let's see...carrier based, long range on internal fuel, good climb, out turn anything except the Hayabusa, excellent flight characterisitics, etc..)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 22, 2012)

The NACA _ruined_ the P-39. 

The P-40 was designed for ground attack/strafing.

The USAAF was not interested in high altitude fighters.


----------



## jimh (Nov 22, 2012)

Ha...after being on the road for 10 years with Collings I've heard alot...
1. Ball turret gunners getting squished if the hydraulics are shot out....its an electric airplane
2. Mustangs are hard to fly
3. Tuskeegee airmen didn't lose any bombers
4. B-24 pilots have massive left arms
5. the B-17 was better than the B-24 
6. the Mustang takes massive amounts of right rudder on takeoff


----------



## drgondog (Nov 22, 2012)

jimh said:


> Ha...after being on the road for 10 years with Collings I've heard alot...
> 1. Ball turret gunners getting squished if the hydraulics are shot out....its an electric airplane *Also, that it was 100% certain he was gonna die if they couldn't retract (B-24) or get out (B-17) for a wheels up landing.*
> 2. Mustangs are hard to fly
> 3. Tuskeegee airmen didn't lose any bombers
> ...



7. That it was an Air Force conspiracy that no 332FG pilot made air ace.
8. That Robin Olds didn't get number five in Vietnam

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Nov 22, 2012)

We have several threads like this and they always end up with a heated, insulting discussion between members on the fragile undercarriage of the Bf 109.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Nov 22, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 1. The Tuskagee Airmen never lost a bomber they were escorting.
> 
> 2. The Stuka was more vulnerable than other Dive Bomber.
> 
> 3. The Germans called the P-38 the Fork Tailed Devil.



1. They didn't?
2. It was?
3. Would have been cool, though.


----------



## krieghund (Nov 22, 2012)

I too after much study have concluded that the Bf109 did not process adverse landing gear problems over other types (these failures are more often than not are due to the pilot misjudging his sink rate) One area of experience in the Bf109 history that I don't think anyone has used for its defense is the experimental carrier landing Bf019Es and the production Bf109T aircraft. After reading the development testing excerpts it is amazing that the Bf109 would have to be arrested within 22 meters to a full stop. During all that testing never a gear failure. then on to produce the Bf109T which had much better handling characteristics the 'E'. Also as a matter of interest it was discovered that the Bf109F type wing was unsuitable for carrier landing as its stall was too sharp. IMHO 

I don't think the Seafire can touch this. (Now I've done it!!) Cry Havoc and Loose the Dogs of War!!!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2012)

meatloaf109 said:


> 1. They didn't?
> 2. It was?
> 3. Would have been cool, though.



Are those serious? Questions. 

If they are that is cool, and we can discuss them. I just can't tell if you are making fun of the myth or not...


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 22, 2012)

It's Loaf's typical sarcasm.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2012)

Matt308 said:


> It's Loaf's typical sarcasm.



That is what I thought, but I had to be sure...


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 22, 2012)

QANTAS has never had a hull loss...


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 22, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Care to post a link?



I had a look Tomo but the post has strangely disappered. Maybe the aviation expert has decided to slither away and hide till he has been forgotten


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Nov 22, 2012)

I'm still laughing at Meatloaf109's post. And Fastmongrel, he probably went back and did something he's never done before and checked and found out how far in the wrong he was.


----------



## N4521U (Nov 22, 2012)

I once knew a guy who would never fly because if the engine quits, you crash and die.....
Took him up, after much convincing, to 5000' in a 150, had him look at his watch, engine to idle, he got tired of looking at his watch and we were only lost 500'!


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Nov 22, 2012)

The Japanese called the Beaufighter "Whispering Death." No they didn't, it was named by RAF aircrew.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## meatloaf109 (Nov 22, 2012)

Matt308 said:


> It's Loaf's typical sarcasm.


I prefer "Witty and Urbane". (And I always thought the Germans called the P-38 the "Fork tailed Devil". Oh, well. Next you will tell me that the Japanese didn't call the Corsair "Whistling Death"!)


----------



## CobberKane (Nov 22, 2012)

krieghund said:


> I too after much study have concluded that the Bf109 did not process adverse landing gear problems over other types (these failures are more often than not are due to the pilot misjudging his sink rate) One area of experience in the Bf109 history that I don't think anyone has used for its defense is the experimental carrier landing Bf019Es and the production Bf109T aircraft. After reading the development testing excerpts it is amazing that the Bf109 would have to be arrested within 22 meters to a full stop. During all that testing never a gear failure. then on to produce the Bf109T which had much better handling characteristics the 'E'. Also as a matter of interest it was discovered that the Bf109F type wing was unsuitable for carrier landing as its stall was too sharp. IMHO
> 
> I don't think the Seafire can touch this. (Now I've done it!!) Cry Havoc and Loose the Dogs of War!!!



I never heard that the 109s gear was fragile, just that the narrow track combined with the aircrafts characteristics (lots of power in a small airframe?) made it tricky to land and take of in. Is that much true? Of course, you could say that this would only be a problem for inexperienced pilots but every pilot who ever flew a 109 was inexperienced at some stage. Idealy I suppose a fighter would combine high performance with benign handling on the ground and in the air - not an easy combination to acheive, but I suspect the 109 might have been further fron the ideal than, say, the spitfire or hurricane.
Oh I forgot to be insulting and sarcastic. You are all a bunch of wienee-whackers who wouldn't be on this site if you could get a woman. Except me, of course.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## N4521U (Nov 22, 2012)

I hope your in NZ Kane.................. I Do have a woman..... and a fine one I might add.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CobberKane (Nov 22, 2012)

N4521U said:


> I hope your in NZ Kane.................. I Do have a woman..... and a fine one I might add.....


 
Never mess with a Dude wearing an eye-patch...


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 22, 2012)

Japanese Zeroes (Zekes) were invulnerable to the Wildcat.


----------



## jimh (Nov 22, 2012)

The 109 was built for grass...AND ease of transport by truck, the landing gear width was designed to fit on flatbeds...not a myth.

JH


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 22, 2012)

N4521U said:


> I hope your in NZ Kane.................. I Do have a woman..... and a fine one I might add.....



He'd better not be..., Likewise, I have a damn fine woman - probably the best, even.


----------



## The Basket (Nov 23, 2012)

Robin Olds? 5?

Anyway....


----------



## meatloaf109 (Nov 23, 2012)

My wife is pretty decent too,....
Thought of a myth, The U.S. Guvment been flying alien craft since the 50's.
(We all know it wasn't untill the 60's)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 23, 2012)

Worst myth, to me, is that the Bf / Me 109 is a substandard fighter. It shot down more enemy aircraft than all the other fighters in all the 
air wars in history. Just the top three aces shot down almost 1,000 enemy aircraft among them! How bad can it have been? 

And you almost never see it as a candidate for BEST fighter despite its combat record. If kills aren't the yardstick, then what IS? Style?

It has glaring faults, but was generally well designed and well employed, and the faults COULD have been fixed EASILY … but weren’t ever actually fixed and it STILL was a dangerous opponent at the war's end when flown by a veteran pilot. 

So was the Zero despite being maligned as obsolete. Get careless monentarily and it could and would easily kill you.


----------



## CobberKane (Nov 23, 2012)

GregP said:


> Worst myth, to me, is that the Bf / Me 109 is a substandard fighter. It shot down more enemy aircraft than all the other fighters in all the
> air wars in history. Just the top three aces shot down almost 1,000 enemy aircraft among them! How bad can it have been?
> 
> And you almost never see it as a candidate for BEST fighter despite its combat record. If kills aren't the yardstick, then what IS? Style?
> ...


 
Some of these myths seem to be getting pretty marginal. I would have thought the the 109 being 'substandard' or the Zero being 'immune' to the Wildcat might be minority views at best. 

How about the myth that the French and Italians are lousy soldiers/pilots?


----------



## stona (Nov 23, 2012)

Too many to list and many become "facts" by endless repetition.

Better to "starve them of the oxygen of publicity".

Steve


----------



## Milosh (Nov 23, 2012)

GregP said:


> Worst myth, to me, is that the Bf / Me 109 is a substandard fighter. It shot down more enemy aircraft than all the other fighters in all the air wars in history. Just the top three aces shot down almost 1,000 enemy aircraft among them! How bad can it have been?



It also got shot down the most with less than 1000 still left out of 30,000 plus built when the war ended.


----------



## cimmex (Nov 23, 2012)

so, 29000 were shot down......by whom?


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 23, 2012)

Ah but that is part of of another myth, 11,000 of them crashed in landing and take-off accidents.  

Partial statistics tell us nothing. I can certainly find nothing wrong with the fact that it shot down more fighters than another but some of the other stuff takes quite a bit of swallowing. "It shot down more enemy aircraft than all the other fighters in all the air wars in history."

There were over 1800 aces in WW I so that is 9000 planes right there, not counting aces who shot down more than 5 planes and pilots who shot down less than 5 planes. 

It also means that the 109 would have to have shot down more planes than the American airforce fighters, the American Navy fighters, The British and British commonwealth fighters, The Russian fighters, the Japanese fighters, The Italian fighters and all the minor nation fighters _PLUS_ all the kills scored by the Fw 190, Me 110, and other German twin fighters. 

And it would have to exceed that WW II total by 12-15,000 planes to bring in the other wars.


----------



## GregP (Nov 23, 2012)

The Soviet Air Force lost 4,000 planes in the first week of their involvement of WWII alone, almost exclusively to the Me 109. The FIRST WEEK!

Sure, many were on the ground, but destroyed is destroyed. Virtually the entire Soviet Air Force was destroyed before they got their act together, moved production, and turned out modern fighters and bombers to turn the tide. That is a LOT of airplanes!

My WWII kill list shows Germany with 62,218 aerial victories awarded in WWII. I believe the bulk were Me 109 kills. I don't know how many but it must approach 40,000 and could be more.

I seriously doubt the 12 - 15,000 number for other wars since the only other war of consequence, numbers-wise was WWII and the Germans awarded 5,070 victories in WWI.

I believe that in WWII, most air forces had more operational losses than combat losses, so a good deal of the attrition was not combat related. For instance, the Hellcat had a wonderful kill to loss ratio in combat, but lost more to operational missions by a wide margin. If wasn't alone. The Me 109 had a fair number of oeprational losses, too. I was speaking strictly about losses in air combat.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 23, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> I would have thought the the 109 being 'substandard' or the Zero being 'immune' to the Wildcat might be minority views at best.



So after the first page of this thread what did you really expect? Comparisons of carberators? NACA values? Armament? After the first handfull of most significant 'myths' it boils down to individual forum member's suggested input. It's all good. Relax. We are all brothers in WWII trivia of which our dying breed is becoming smaller and smaller.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Nov 23, 2012)

Yeah, nobody loves me or my '109. 
I'll go sit in the corner and play with my airplanes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PWR4360-59B (Nov 24, 2012)

That the reason a plane will fly is because the top airfoil shape creates lift.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Nov 24, 2012)

Angels push the Me-262.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## TheMustangRider (Nov 24, 2012)

And even that did not prevent it of being zapped by a thunderbolt or two 

Good one meatloaf lol


----------



## Marcel (Nov 24, 2012)

All Fokker G1's at Bergen were distroyed in the suprise attack early in the morning may 10th 1940.


----------



## Thorlifter (Nov 24, 2012)

They have already been mentioned but the three that are the biggest to me are about the Tuskeegee Airmen never losing a bomber, the P-38 being the Fork Tailed Devil and the F4U being Whistling Death.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 24, 2012)

Amelia Earhart is alive.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 24, 2012)

To be honest, I have heard PTO vets refer to the P-38 as the fork-tail devil, but only Americans, never any Japanese.


----------



## GregP (Nov 25, 2012)

It wasn't the Japanese that were supposed to have referred to the P-38 as the Forked Tail Devil; it was the Germans ... and I haven't heard them do it either.

But, then again, I wasn't there and they well might have done so. Unless you were there, and in the German Luftwaffe at the time and KNOW one way or the other, it doesn't much matter because you don't know for sure. Neither do I.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 25, 2012)

I was given a P-38 lapel pin when I was a child (late 1960's), by a U.S. Army Air Corps pilot (later U.S. Army Air Force), Pacific Theater, who flew them and referred to it as a "Fork Taled Devil"...this is why I'm familiar with the term.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 25, 2012)

GrauGeist said:


> I was given a P-38 lapel pin when I was a child (late 1960's), by a U.S. Army Air Corps pilot (later U.S. Army Air Force), Pacific Theater, who flew them and referred to it as a "Fork Taled Devil"...this is why I'm familiar with the term.


Maybe they read Martin Cadin's book - he marketed the name!


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 25, 2012)

lmao Joe...I think that Cadin heard the expression from our guys and used it to spice up his tales


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 25, 2012)

How about "the Norden bombsite is so accurate, our bombardiers at 30,000ft can hit a pickle barrel with it.". Sort of runs along the lines of "accurate strategic day light bombing".

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 25, 2012)

wasn't there also a legend that the Stuka pilots could hit a pickle barrel with a 750Kg bomb from a 90 degree dive?


----------



## Airframes (Nov 25, 2012)

What was that relatively recent comment, concerning bombing in Afghanistan? "Strategic bombing is very effective - the bombs are guaranteed to hit the ground".

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 25, 2012)

LMAO Terry...now that has got to be a classic


----------



## Julian_S (Nov 25, 2012)

Films: Fortresses sounding like Tiger Moths or Spitfires sounding like Texans etc etc, very annoying! One suspects the producers just dub any old aero engine sound onto the film....

Julian.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Siegfried (Nov 25, 2012)

GrauGeist said:


> wasn't there also a legend that the Stuka pilots could hit a pickle barrel with a 750Kg bomb from a 90 degree dive?



Well there was a reasonable chance of hitting a fast moving light cruiser or ship or a stationary tank.

What's a pickle barrel anyway? Surely folks didn't store or ship 44 gallons of gherkins or dill pickles at a time?


----------



## Denniss (Nov 25, 2012)

Julian_S said:


> Films: Fortresses sounding like Tiger Moths or Spitfires sounding like Texans etc etc, very annoying! One suspects the producers just dub any old aero engine sound onto the film....



Or even worse with helicopters, may not be so much of an issue in the original but those adapted for local markets (Dubbing?). In 60's/70's movies turbine-powered helicopers sounded like old sikorsky helicopters with radial engine, later almost all sounded like a UH-1.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 25, 2012)

Martin Caidin may have marketed the name but it appears in a WW II training manual or pilot's notes for the P-38. Unless he helped write the manual when he was 18 he didn't "invent" the name however much he may have used it.


----------



## merlin (Nov 25, 2012)

The Incendinary ammunition used by the RAF was designed by de Wilde. Whereas their hand-made bullets could not be replicated , it was Aubrey Dixon who came up with the right combination of ingredients - the RAF kept the de Wilde ref to put the Germans off, and placate the 'de Wilde designers!
Yet, current writers still refer to the de Wilde ammo, not 'Dixon'.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 25, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> What's a pickle barrel anyway? Surely folks didn't store or ship 44 gallons of gherkins or dill pickles at a time?



In the old days (*cough*) kosher pickles used to be shipped in wooden barrels that were usually placed near the cash register so that people would pick and buy. Became an ornament at some stores.

Airplane.

I posted that just so that no one would accuse me of going Off-Topic.


----------



## egmccann (Nov 25, 2012)

One myth I'm surprised not to have seen mentioned:

The Hellcat was designed after the recovery of the crashed A6M in Alaska (and/or specifically to beat it. )


----------



## Julian_S (Nov 25, 2012)

I was once at an airshow at Duxford and the commentator stated the differences between flying a Merlin Spitfire and a Griffon Spitfire. ''In the cockpit the sound a Merlin makes resembles an engine that's about to fail, with a Griffon it sounds like it already has failed.'' 

No doubt several thousand people will be repeating this snippet of information. Having recently spent an hour in a TF51 Mustang I can report with absolute certainty that the (Packard) Merlin sounds like a noisy unsilenced V12 and emits no sound indicative of failing whatsoever!

Julian.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 25, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Martin Caidin may have marketed the name but it appears in a WW II training manual or pilot's notes for the P-38. Unless he helped write the manual when he was 18 he didn't "invent" the name however much he may have used it.


I'd like to see that manual. I think it was mentioned in an earlier thread, LW pilots didn't call the P-38 "The Forked Tailed Devil."

As far as another myth - The AVG fought against the Zero.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 25, 2012)

The pilot's manual of Aug 1945 does mention the 'Forked tail devil' as a nickname.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 25, 2012)

Thank you, It appears that Martin Caidin didn't originate the name no matter how much he used it or profited from it. That doesn't mean the Germans used it or started it either though.


----------



## Siegfried (Nov 25, 2012)

Njaco said:


> In the old days (*cough*) kosher pickles used to be shipped in wooden barrels that were usually placed near the cash register so that people would pick and buy. Became an ornament at some stores.
> 
> Airplane.
> 
> I posted that just so that no one would accuse me of going Off-Topic.



And a dangerous collateral damage target for a trigger happy USAAF bombardier in training.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Nov 25, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'd like to see that manual. I think it was mentioned in an earlier thread, LW pilots didn't call the P-38 "The Forked Tailed Devil."
> 
> As far as another myth - The AVG fought against the Zero.


And my favorite AVG myth; That they were in action well before Pearl Harbor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## muscogeemike (Nov 25, 2012)

I can’t believe that the US Army Air Corps hasn’t been listed (even on this post someone refered to an “Air Corps” WWII pilot). The “Air Corps” became the US Army Air Force several months prior to the US entering the war. THERE WAS NO “AIR CORPS” during the period of declared war between the US and the Axis!


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 25, 2012)

muscogeemike said:


> I can’t believe that the US Army Air Corps hasn’t been listed (even on this post someone refered to an “Air Corps” WWII pilot). The “Air Corps” became the US Army Air Force several months prior to the US entering the war. THERE WAS NO “AIR CORPS” during the period of declared war between the US and the Axis!


When I getting ready to join the USAF in 1965 one of my friends granddad said to me " I hear you're going to join the air corps".
There was a USAAC from 1926-41, and a USAAF only from 1941-47. The air corps was around a great deal more time so it stuck in peoples mind.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 25, 2012)

muscogeemike said:


> I can’t believe that the US Army Air Corps hasn’t been listed (even on this post someone refered to an “Air Corps” WWII pilot). The “Air Corps” became the US Army Air Force several months prior to the US entering the war. THERE WAS NO “AIR CORPS” during the period of declared war between the US and the Axis!


Actually, you're both right and wrong...

The pilot I was referring to enlisted in the USAAC in the late 30's and was transferred to the Pacific, seeing action against the Japanese for the duration.

As far as the Air Corps goes, after Congress established the United States Army Air Force in 1941, the Air Corps remained as a branch of the Army until few years after the war. 

There was a huge amount of political in-fighting over this long before the war and afterwards...


----------



## muscogeemike (Nov 25, 2012)

GrauGeist said:


> Actually, you're both right and wrong...
> 
> The pilot I was referring to enlisted in the USAAC in the late 30's and was transferred to the Pacific, seeing action against the Japanese for the duration.
> 
> ...



By order of congress the Air Corps became the US Army Air Force in June 1941. The gentleman you speak of was, prior to this date, in the Air Corps; as of that date he was in the US Army Air Force. 

I worked with a man who was an armorer in the USAAF in WWII - he refered to his service as being in the AF, he didn’t want to admit he was in the Army.

As to the “political in-fighting” when the Army requested more helicopters for casualty evacuation during the Korean War the newly formed USAAF lobbied (successfully) to prohibit this.

How many GI’s died due to the AF’s refusal?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2012)

muscogeemike said:


> By order of congress the Air Corps became the US Army Air Force in June *1991*.



Really? 

I know it is just a typo...


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 25, 2012)

muscogeemike said:


> By order of congress the Air Corps became the US Army Air Force in June 1991. The gentleman you speak of was, prior to this date, in the Air Corps; as of that date he was in the US Army Air Force.


It's entirely possible you missed the part of my post where I mentioned this...


> I was given a P-38 lapel pin when I was a child (late 1960's), *by a U.S. Army Air Corps pilot (later U.S. Army Air Force)*, Pacific Theater, who flew them and referred to it as a "Fork Taled Devil"...this is why I'm familiar with the term.


----------



## muscogeemike (Nov 25, 2012)

GrauGeist said:


> It's entirely possible you missed the part of my post where I mentioned this...



GrauGeist, I really have no issue with your post. Just like the oft mentioned Flying Fortress being named so due to its defensive firepower, it is just a pet peeve of mine that there is constant referral to the Air Corps in WWII, often by people who should know better.
You list your residence as Calif. I grew up in S. Calif; and, like you, I knew a P-38 (actually an F-5) pilot from the war, his stories are what started my lifelong love of the aircraft of this era.


----------



## bada (Nov 26, 2012)

"P-51 won the war"?...


----------



## zoomar (Nov 26, 2012)

But for Hitler's insistence the Me 262 be adapted as a high-speed bomber, the Me 262 would have been in service early enough, and in sufficient numbers, to substantially lengthen the war.

Soviet pilots flying I-16s routinely used deliberate collisions with enemy aircraft as a standard tactic

If Wever had not died, Germany would have had an effective long range heavy bomber force in WW2


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 26, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> The pilot's manual of Aug 1945 does mention the 'Forked tail devil' as a nickname.
> 
> View attachment 216992





Shortround6 said:


> Thank you, It appears that Martin Caidin didn't originate the name no matter how much he used it or profited from it. That doesn't mean the Germans used it or started it either though.




Yep - and read some of the other propaganda after the Forked Tailed Devil line. We could see where Cadin got his inspiration!


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 27, 2012)

Julian_S said:


> I was once at an airshow at Duxford and the commentator stated the differences between flying a Merlin Spitfire and a Griffon Spitfire. ''In the cockpit the sound a Merlin makes resembles an engine that's about to fail, with a Griffon it sounds like it already has failed.''
> 
> No doubt several thousand people will be repeating this snippet of information. Having recently spent an hour in a TF51 Mustang I can report with absolute certainty that the (Packard) Merlin sounds like a noisy unsilenced V12 and emits no sound indicative of failing whatsoever!
> 
> Julian.



i never heard that comment before about the mustang merlin until a couple years ago when at an air show a ww2 vet told me he always thought it sounded like it was going to "crap out" on him....


----------



## model299 (Nov 28, 2012)

bobbysocks said:


> i never heard that comment before about the mustang merlin until a couple years ago when at an air show a ww2 vet told me he always thought it sounded like it was going to "crap out" on him....



I remember the first time I heard a P38 running. Oshkosh, 1981 iffen I remember right. As it did a low flyby, I thought it sounded like 2 P51s with glasspacks.


----------



## varsity078740 (Dec 1, 2012)

Colin Kelly sank a battleship 12/10/42
B-17s sank ships in the Battle of Midway

Duane


----------



## kettbo (Dec 2, 2012)

varsity078740 said:


> Colin Kelly sank a battleship 12/10/42
> B-17s sank ships in the Battle of Midway
> 
> Duane



Duane,
I met a KELLY crewmember a few years back. Lives in my neighborhood

those myths still pop up from time to time


----------



## yulzari (Dec 9, 2012)

How about the DH Mosquito could not be used in hot humid climates as the glue would fail? 

One sub contractor was found to have done improper glueing and theirs did start to delaminate. The cause was soon identified, better procedures put into place and modern damp proof glues introduced. 

So the Mosquito was perfectly capable of operating in hot humid climates. They were made in Australia who would use them in these circumstances and Hornets were in use for some years in Malaya which is about as hot and humid as you are going to get.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## muscogeemike (Dec 9, 2012)

GrauGeist said:


> I was given a P-38 lapel pin when I was a child (late 1960's), by a U.S. Army Air Corps pilot (later U.S. Army Air Force), Pacific Theater, who flew them and referred to it as a "Fork Taled Devil"...this is why I'm familiar with the term.



This is part of my pet “myth” of WWII. The USAAC became the USAAF months before Pearl Harbor - the P-38 was not introduced into the Pacific Theater until mid 1942 - your pilot in the Pacific was not in the Air Corps - he was in the US Army Air Force.


----------



## muscogeemike (Dec 9, 2012)

model299 said:


> I remember the first time I heard a P38 running. Oshkosh, 1981 iffen I remember right. As it did a low flyby, I thought it sounded like 2 P51s with glasspacks.



In the early '50's, as a kid, I was privilaged to fly in a Lightening!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 9, 2012)

Lucky [email protected]


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 9, 2012)

> In the early '50's, as a kid, I was privileged to fly in a Lightning!


 Is that another aviation myth that will not die? 



> Lucky [email protected]


 How about that one?

I had the utmost misfortune to watch a perfectly serviceable P-38 fly into the ground at speed at an airshow in the UK in 1996 - a most horrifying thing to stand and watch unfold before your eyes. Definitely not a myth. Pilot Hoof Proudfoot and one P-38 were written off.


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 9, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> I had the utmost misfortune to watch a perfectly serviceable P-38 fly into the ground at speed at an airshow in the UK in 1996 - a most horrifying thing to stand and watch unfold before your eyes. Definitely not a myth. Pilot Hoof Proudfoot and one P-38 were written off.



that is truely unfortunate when an event that inspires and fills us with admiration has a horribly tragic moment.


----------



## baclightning (Dec 26, 2012)

The Soviets used the P-39 Airacobra primarily as a ground attack aircraft.

The Luftwaffe detroyed the Polish Air Force on the ground in September 1939.

Erich Hartmann fattened his total of 352 victories by shooting down many biplanes and other obsolete Soviet aircraft.

The Mitsubishi A6M Zero was a copy of the Hughes H-1.

The Lockheed P-38 shot down more Japanese aircraft than any other fighter.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 27, 2012)

muscogeemike said:


> This is part of my pet “myth” of WWII. The USAAC became the USAAF months before Pearl Harbor - the P-38 was not introduced into the Pacific Theater until mid 1942 - your pilot in the Pacific was not in the Air Corps - he was in the US Army Air Force.


Ok...once again...my great Uncle James Hughes joined the USAAC in the late 30's...he was Army Air Corps until the transition to the USAAF (1941 onwards) however, the Air Corps remained a combat arm of the Army Airforce until 1947.

So to sum it up, the Air Corps did not vanish from the face of the earth, it did exist for the duration of the war, it simply ceased it's administration by 1942 as the transition from Army Air Corps to the Army Airforce was complete and remained a department of the Army Airforce until, as stated before, 1947.

Therefore, my Great Uncle served in the Army Air Corps AND the Army Airforce AND later the United States Airforce.

I hope this finally ends this little episode...


----------



## Aozora (Dec 27, 2012)

Perennial Myth: *The Spitfire's maximum dive speed was ridiculously slow cf the Bf 109*:

I came across a website a couple of years ago that features a great many myths and half truths -  "Purple Fang"? Seems to really hate anything not German... 

F'r instance this myth is taken to a ridiculous extreme:  here: "Spitfire couldn't pass _400 mph_ in a dive because the "airframe (presume this meant ailerons?) went solid at 400 mph?" and several broke up because of "wing flutter". Quoting Roland Beamont...

So, let's have a look see: Alex Henshaw, Chief Test Pilot Castle Bromwich:






"Bee (Beamont) quotes a number of performance figures on both the Spitfire and the Hurricane in a surprisingly loose manner....The Vne was set by the Supermarine technical department at 470 m.p.h IAS at a height assumed to be between 5,000 and 10,000 ft....all aircraft under test were taken to 470 m.p.h IAS" You can read the rest.

Note: The following Pilot's Notes for the Spitfire VII/VIII are genuine WW2 vintage and not reproduced from a website:







470 mph IAS as noted by Henshaw:

*Bf 109E Dive speed:*








*Bf 109G-3 Limiting speeds:*








750 km/h = 466 mph. 

Fact: There wasn't a significant difference between the dive speeds of the Spitfire with the original wing design and the Bf 109 series.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 27, 2012)

Aozora said:


> I came across a website a couple of years ago that features a great many myths and half truths -  "Purple Fang"? Seems to really hate anything not German...



There was an interesting thread on that particular forum that by the use of mountains of statistics proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the LW beat the RAF in Aug/Sept 1940 and it was only by not playing fair that the sneaky British wouldnt give up and surrender as they should have done. I think its simple to say that members of that forum have a slight pro German bias


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 27, 2012)

Ah, yes, Purple Fang - the 'Spitfire was a draggy non-performer' and 'P-51 was no good' mumbling dude.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 27, 2012)

fastmongrel said:


> I think its simple to say that members of that forum have a slight pro German bias



Slight pro German bias! Now that is an understatement of an understatement.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Dec 27, 2012)

anyone know if ground pounders in the PTO called either the P-38 or F4U _*flying foxholes*_?


----------



## mhuxt (Dec 27, 2012)

Here's one:

The received wisdom about the Ta 154 is that it was cancelled just before series production began, due to an RAF raid on Wuppertal which destroyed the glue factory.

However, in his book on the subject, Dietmar Hermann says production was cancelled by the RLM for its own reasons in favour of the Do 335. He says meeting minutes only mention the glue issue once, and acknowledge that the original glue was no longer available due to air-raid damange, but that an alternative had been found and issues overcome. 

Certainly there doesn't seem to have been a raid on Wuppertal around the time of the Ta 154's cancellation - the firestorm raid had taken place more than a year earlier.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 27, 2012)

Aozora said:


> Perennial Myth: *The Spitfire's maximum dive speed was ridiculously slow cf the Bf 109*:
> 
> I came across a website a couple of years ago that features a great many myths and half truths -  "Purple Fang"? Seems to really hate anything not German...
> 
> ...



When I tried to check the website, it said the link "http kurfurst freeforums org index" was bad. Kurfurst, hmmmmm.........


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 27, 2012)

Njaco said:


> When I tried to check the website, it said the link "http kurfurst freeforums org index" was bad. Kurfurst, hmmmmm.........



Try this link Kurfürst Discussion Boards • View topic - Roland Beamont, Spit dive


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 27, 2012)

> it said the link "http kurfurst freeforums org index" was bad.



Its not the only thing about it...

Here's one I encounter on this forum from time to time; Britain had a shortage of aluminium before WW2 and that's why the Mosquito and the Hurricane are made of wood.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Dec 27, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Here's one I encounter on this forum from time to time; Britain had a shortage of aluminium before WW2 and that's why the Mosquito and the Hurricane are made of wood.


It comes up all the time; strange, when you think that there was a large factory, in Scotland, churning the stuff out by the ton, and recycling shot-down German aircraft, as well.
When Stanford Tuck, and Stainforth, were given a rebuilt Me109 (don't know if it was a -1 or -3) to test against a Spitfire I, they did several dives, at various preset settings, and found that there was no difference, worthy of consideration, between the rates of dive. They did, however, find that the 109 pilot could take higher G levels, in turns, because his legs were straighter, and higher, than those of a Spitfire pilot; this led to the two-bar rudder pedals, introduced into the Spitfire Hurricane, but too late for the majority of the Battle of Britain.


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 27, 2012)

Edgar Brooks said:


> It comes up all the time; strange, when you think that there was a large factory, in Scotland, churning the stuff out by the ton, and recycling shot-down German aircraft, as well.
> When Stanford Tuck, and Stainforth, were given a rebuilt Me109 (don't know if it was a -1 or -3) to test against a Spitfire I, they did several dives, at various preset settings, and found that there was no difference, worthy of consideration, between the rates of dive. They did, however, find that the 109 pilot could take higher G levels, in turns, because his legs were straighter, and higher, than those of a Spitfire pilot; this led to the two-bar rudder pedals, introduced into the Spitfire Hurricane, but too late for the majority of the Battle of Britain.





And replies keep coming back that the Hurricane wasn't made of wood. It had a steel tube fuselage structure just with wooden formers and stringers to round out and streamline the shape. Wooden wings on the very early models, but metal stuctured wings onall models after those first few.

But still in a few weeks or months, you'll see someone that says the Hurricane was built of wood.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 27, 2012)

> But still in a few weeks or months, you'll see someone that says the Hurricane was built of wood.



We could play W**k Bingo; the rules are for as many people to post the word 'Bingo' in the thread when it (and the shortage of aluminium story) gets used again.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 27, 2012)




----------



## Edgar Brooks (Dec 28, 2012)

yulzari said:


> How about the DH Mosquito could not be used in hot humid climates as the glue would fail?
> One sub contractor was found to have done improper glueing and theirs did start to delaminate. The cause was soon identified, better procedures put into place and modern damp proof glues introduced.
> So the Mosquito was perfectly capable of operating in hot humid climates.


An unfortunate over-simplification, since the vast majority of Mosquito major components were made here, in High Wycombe furniture factories, and were assembled using the identical glue that was used to assemble wooden chairs, etc. The glue was casein cement, a milk-based product, which had a finite pot-life, and, in the tropics, became a breeding-ground for mould spores, also attracting termites and similar insects. A chemical expert, Andrew Oliver, came up with the new urea-formaldehyde formula, which solved the problem. (To my everlasting annoyance, I worked with Mr. Oliver, for about 5 years, and never learnt of his involvement with the aircraft.)


----------



## muscogeemike (Dec 28, 2012)

varsity078740 said:


> Colin Kelly sank a battleship 12/10/42
> B-17s sank ships in the Battle of Midway
> 
> Duane



In 1989 I was in a frame shop in El Paso TX. An older gentleman was picking up a nice framed painting of Colin Kelly in his B-17 just prior to him diving into a Japanese “aircraft carrier” and sinking it.
The gentleman got very angry when I questioned this interpretation of the event. I rarely rely on just the vet’s memories of past war events.

Another myth: the influence of Italian theorist Giulio Douhet on Bomber Doctrine, According to Eric M Bergerud (FIRE IN THE SKY) he was little read by military airmen, even in his own country.


----------



## muscogeemike (Dec 12, 2013)

GrauGeist and others on this thread,

I have been going over some of my old post and realized I left this hanging.

I stand corrected, the Army Air Corps remained as an element of the Army Air force until 1947.

Another of my “myths” shattered, and Nuuumannn I did ride in a P-38 as a child in the early 1950’s.
My best friends father had flown them during the war and, along with another firefighter, bought one surplus and installed a seat behind the pilot. This was in S. CA where Lockheed is located.

My elementary school was near a Lockheed test facility and I remember seeing many of their aircraft flying over our school.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## delcyros (Dec 12, 2013)

> My elementary school was near a Lockheed test facility and I remember seeing many of their aircraft flying over our school.


I envy You.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Dec 12, 2013)

It's that ancient myth that gets me going. 
Recent discoveries in the archives of the Greek Civil Aviation Authority have revealed documented reports, which clearly state that the cause of the fatal accident involving a 'home built' piloted by one I. Carus, was due to catastrophic structural failure during an unauthorised flight of a previously un-tested and un- licenced craft, which was almost certainly due to the use of bonding materials not suitable for the conditions of flight, and not, at that time, approved by the GCAA.
The myth of flying too near to the sun does not stand up, as subsequent investigation has revealed that the type did not have the power or climb ability to exceed an altitude of approximately 5,000 feet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## N4521U (Dec 12, 2013)

I concur......................................................


----------



## rednev (Dec 12, 2013)

Airframes said:


> It's that ancient myth that gets me going.
> Recent discoveries in the archives of the Greek Civil Aviation Authority have revealed documented reports, which clearly state that the cause of the fatal accident involving a 'home built' piloted by one I. Carus, was due to catastrophic structural failure during an unauthorised flight of a previously un-tested and un- licenced craft, which was almost certainly due to the use of bonding materials not suitable for the conditions of flight, and not, at that time, approved by the GCAA.
> The myth of flying too near to the sun does not stand up, as subsequent investigation has revealed that the type did not have the power or climb ability to exceed an altitude of approximately 5,000 feet.



Sounds like a bureaucrate covering up the facts 
The design had undergone flight tests by the manurfacturers one d aedalus ,mr i carus had indeed done all of his flight training in the aircraft in question and the first aircraft succsesfully completed an international flight on the day of the accident in the same weather . It would seem to me the accident was a direct result of the pilot exceeding the design limits as set out by d aeduls aicraft company manuals . pilot error pure and simple

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 13, 2013)

could have been inferior parts used in the construction and the findings of "flew too close to the sun" is simply a smoke-screen to hide that fact.

Both of those were probably built using materials from the lowest bidder...


----------



## N4521U (Dec 13, 2013)

Yep, probably recycled glue. Re-boxed!


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 13, 2013)

Lets see now..."Sir Frank Whittle invented the Jet engine".... is that true or false? And did the Tuskogee airmen actually lose bombers under their escort??? And was "Watsons whizzers", equipped with the Me 262, the first unofficial U.S jet fighter squadron? ( the P80 being grounded at the time)..and talking of Me 262's, was the swept wing really used to balance the jet turbines, and not an aerodynamic design?


----------



## stona (Dec 13, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> .and talking of Me 262's, was the swept wing really used to balance the jet turbines, and not an aerodynamic design?



Yes it was, and we're talking the heavier than expected BMW P.3304 turbojets which were still the proposed power plant as the wing evolved.

It started life like this.







Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 13, 2013)

Watson's Whizzers was a special unit of pilots, engineers and support personnel who were assigned with the mission to capture German technology.
They weren't "assigned" warplanes, they were seizing warplanes and transporting them back to Cherbourg to be shipped back to the U.S.

They also used Luftwaffe test pilots and ground crew that helped with getting the Me262s, Me163s and many other types back safely.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 13, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> Lets see now..."Sir Frank Whittle invented the Jet engine".... is that true or false?



It's between him and a certain German if you substitute 'turbojet' for 'jet' 

How about the Wright brothers making the first powered flight in a heavier than air contraption ? There are some other candidates.....I know we have a few Kiwis here !


Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 13, 2013)

The Wright Brothers are not known for "heavier than air", but "heavier than air powered" flight.

There are plenty of others from all over the world who flew heavier than air gliders before the powered flight. That has never been disputed.

Edit: I just realized that is what you said...


----------



## davparlr (Dec 13, 2013)

stona said:


> It's between him and a certain German if you substitute 'turbojet' for 'jet'
> 
> How about the Wright brothers making the first powered flight in a heavier than air contraption ? There are some other candidates.....I know we have a few Kiwis here !
> 
> ...



Flying a heavier than air aircraft, even powered, in and of itself was not rocket science and probably several did indeed fly. However, the Wright bros without a doubt flew the first engineered aircraft with full control, and documented it. They were also, without a doubt, world leaders, probably the only ones, that really understood aerodynamics. All you have to do to see if competitors understood aerodynamics is to look at the propeller they used. The Wright Bros are given credit with inventing the modern propeller. When a duplicate propeller was built recently it was found to have an efficiency of 80%. Modern propellers are in the neighborhood of 85%, very impressive (amazing?). The Wright bros also initiated the very design process that is used today in modern aircraft development, analyze, test, evaluate, analyze, test, evaluate, etc. Being responsible for the air data system during the Tacit Blue development (look it up), I performed some wind tunnel analysis for locating air data sensors. When I looked at the Wright test papers associated with their wind tunnel test, they were very similar to those of our test of the Tacit Blue. I was struck by the fact that these men were ingenious in their knowledge of aerodynamics and aircraft engineering. Here are a couple of interesting sites, one discussing propellers and one showing Wright wind tunnel data. These men were not just bicycle mechanics but were most likely the most knowledgeable and capable aerodynamics engineers in the world at the time.


A History of Aerodynamics: And Its Impact on Flying Machines - John David Anderson - Google Books


https://www.google.com/search?q=wri...ht.nasa.gov%2Fairplane%2Fresults.html;620;466

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 14, 2013)

Which is all fine, but it is not necessarily so that they made the _first_ powered, heavier than air, flight. If someone with a less firm grasp of aerodynamics and with an inefficient propeller flew......they flew 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## wuzak (Dec 14, 2013)

Is it true that no replica of the Wright Flyer have been able to fly?


----------



## davparlr (Dec 14, 2013)

stona said:


> Which is all fine, but it is not necessarily so that they made the _first_ powered, heavier than air, flight. If someone with a less firm grasp of aerodynamics and with an inefficient propeller flew......they flew
> Cheers
> Steve



There are multitudes of claims and so far no proof. There is no doubt the Wright flyer was the first true airplane and all the aircraft flying today can trace their lineage as an integrated vehicle to the Wright flyer, and no other. In addition, they had something no other pretender to the throne had, documentation.

From Wikipedia,


> The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale described the 1903 flight during the 100th anniversary in 2003 as "the first sustained and controlled heavier-than-air powered flight."


----------



## davparlr (Dec 14, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Is it true that no replica of the Wright Flyer have been able to fly?



Wikipedia states that there were several successful test flights of a Wright Flyer replica built for the centennial anniversary of the first flight. This was built as an exact copy of the original Flyer. However, the aircraft is extremely difficult to fly which attest to the Wright brothers ability as pilots. They did, however, have years of practice in their glider, something modern pilots were not able to get. While they were experts in basic aerodynamics, they spent little time on more in-depth aero such as stability. The Model A, a two-seater, became the basis for the Military Flyer, the first military aircraft. Their later model B incorporated a more modern and more stable rear mounted elevator, and advancement over the original canard type elevator.


Another interesting point about the Wright brothers is that they designed and built (by their mechanic) their own engine for the Flyer, which I also found quite amazing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 14, 2013)

Unfortunately that replica didn't manage to get airborne for the anniversary flight in 2003 

Even an optimistic comment by the then President, "on the day they did fly, just like today, the conditions were not ideal, the Wright brothers hit some disappointments along the way" said Bush, couldn't get it into the air.

This might be the incident that 'Wuzak' is remembering.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 14, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Is it true that no replica of the Wright Flyer have been able to fly?


There is a replica of the Wright Flyer here in Redding that occasionally flies and is an regular at the Redding Airshows held at the Municiple Airport.
While it's built very close to the Wright Brother's design, it's powered by a Ford 4-cyl. gasoline engine.


----------



## stona (Dec 14, 2013)

I saw a documentary a while back about a replica built and inadvertently flown during an engine test which ended up in some trees, luckily with no serious injuries. I can't remember what happened to it but it most definitely did fly....for a bit.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 14, 2013)

A problem with trying to evaluate the replica planes is getting the power to weight ratio correct. The engine in the original was not very powerful and was 'supposed' to have lost about 4 hp as it warmed up. Trying to fly on 12-16hp can be just a wee bit difficult.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 14, 2013)

Here's a shot of that 4-cyl. that's in the Wright replica.

Now that I look closer, I don't think it's a Ford 1.6L (first impression) or a 2.0L L4.

Definately not a Chevy 153 L4, either.


----------



## Balljoint (Dec 14, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> There is a replica of the Wright Flyer here in Redding that occasionally flies and is an regular at the Redding Airshows held at the Municiple Airport.
> While it's built very close to the Wright Brother's design, it's powered by a Ford 4-cyl. gasoline engine.



I recall seeing this flight on TV.. As I recall, it wasn’t supposed to be an actual flight test. The pilot thought it felt right and lifted off. When the replica banked a bit it went into a terminal slip. Rudder yaw control was the last “problem” the Wright bros solved. Perhaps, with the unconventional roll control lever, it was a bit too much for a “low hour” in type pilot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Dec 14, 2013)

These are some pics I took of the Flyer at Millville in 2011. It was flying then!!

.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 14, 2013)

Amazing that at one time that was state of the art technology.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 14, 2013)

Balljoint said:


> I recall seeing this flight on TV.. As I recall, it wasn’t supposed to be an actual flight test. The pilot thought it felt right and lifted off. When the replica banked a bit it went into a terminal slip. Rudder yaw control was the last “problem” the Wright bros solved. Perhaps, with the unconventional roll control lever, it was a bit too much for a “low hour” in type pilot.


The one you're referring to might be the one at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. That replica was built to the exact dimensions laid out by the Wrights and used the same construction materials. The engine is of a similiar type used for that time period and it was supposed to fly at the centennial back in 2003. 

The one here in Redding is based on the second type built by the Wrights, the Wright Flyer II.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 14, 2013)

I was watching a program not too long ago where they tried to replicate Leonardo DaVinci's contraptions including his "aeroplane".

It flew.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 14, 2013)

Njaco said:


> I was watching a program not too long ago where they tried to replicate Leonardo DaVinci's contraptions including his "aeroplane".
> 
> It flew.


Was it the show with the woman "test pilot"? If so, I saw that program too, on PBS.

While I was in Venice, they had an exhibition of Da Vinci's inventions, so I had to visit. It was awe inspiring to see just how brilliant this man was. Aside from his "flyer", there were other devices like weapons, tools and even items like a spotlight that took a single candle and magnified it through a set of lenses until it was as intense as a car's headlight!

Don't want to hijack the thread with Da Vinci stuff, but in a nutshell, if the he could have figured out a propulsion system, he certainly could have been the father of powered flight...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## jimh (Dec 14, 2013)

Njaco...I think that is a Curtis Pusher...not a Wright. 

Jim


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 14, 2013)

jimh said:


> Njaco...I think that is a Curtis Pusher...not a Wright.
> 
> Jim


That's a Curtiss Model D.
You can tell by the big control wheel, ailerons between the wings, and the Curtiss on the fuel tank.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 15, 2013)

I stand corrected. Never was a big balsa wood kinda guy. 

GG, yes, that was the program.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 15, 2013)

Great shots, Njaco.


----------



## stona (Dec 15, 2013)

vikingBerserker said:


> Amazing that at one time that was state of the art technology.



It is, and only thirty (ish) years to the Spitfire. 

It's also incredible that anyone entrusted their life to such contraptions 

I was told by a guide on HMS Victory that she was 'the space shuttle of her day'. I thought that was a good analogy and puts technology in perspective.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 15, 2013)

i dont know if you could follow the wright bros schematics and still comply with current FAA regs. a place built a WB flyer II....


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXG-89vlOuQ_


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 15, 2013)

but they even had some problems...which ended in tragedy


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20tpxJYKGJ4_


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 15, 2013)

bobbysocks said:


> i dont know if you could follow the wright bros schematics and still comply with current FAA regs. a place built a WB flyer II....


The replicas are built under an Expirimental class. The one mentioned above (that crashed), the Wright B, was also listed as an Experimental.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 15, 2013)

That is a Wright B Flyer replica. The B is has an aft elevator, which makes it much more stable. In addition, I believe this replica uses normal ailerons instead of the Wright wing warping.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 15, 2013)

stona said:


> It is, and only thirty (ish) years to the Spitfire.
> 
> It's also incredible that anyone entrusted their life to such contraptions



Considering, also, you were unlikely to get pilot training.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 16, 2013)

The NTSB has released the probable cause for the July 2011 crash of a Wright “B” Flyer replica in which two people died during a test flight in Springfield, Ohio. After examining the wreck of the experimental airplane, investigators found a crack in a weld on the left propeller shaft, which, according to the NTSB report, “would have prevented the left propeller from being driven by the engine.” Further examination found that the weld was defective.

Witnesses to the accident heard changes in the engine rpm before the airplane spiraled to the ground.

While investigators included the weld issue as a contributing factor, the probable cause of the accident was listed as the “flight crew’s failure to maintain aircraft control following a partial loss of engine thrust during cruise flight.” The pilots who died in the accident, Don Gum of Beavercreek, Ohio, and Mitchell Cary of Yellow Springs, Ohio, were both commercial-rated pilots and had a total of more than 300 hours of combined flight time in the same make and model as the accident airplane, according to the Dayton Daily News. They were members of Wright “B” Flyer Inc, which has been using the airplanes to promote the aviation heritage of the Dayton area for more than 25 years.

Unlike the original Wright Flyer, which was controlled by wing warping and control levers, the Wright “B” Flyer has ailerons and a control wheel. A 225 hp Lycoming engine drives two wooden propellers, pushing the airplane to a cruise speed of 60 mph.

Faulty Weld Contributed to Wright ?B? Flyer Accident | Flying Magazine


----------



## stona (Dec 16, 2013)

Milosh said:


> Unlike the original Wright Flyer, which was controlled by wing warping and control levers, the Wright “B” Flyer has ailerons and a control wheel. A 225 hp Lycoming engine drives two wooden propellers, pushing the airplane to a cruise speed of 60 mph.



Not really a Wright Flyer at all then.

I in no way intend to trivialise a tragic loss of life.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davparlr (Dec 16, 2013)

stona said:


> Not really a Wright Flyer at all then.
> 
> I in no way intend to trivialise a tragic loss of life.
> 
> ...



They claim that it looks like one but is in reality a modern aircraft. The real Wright Flyer B, I believe, was a reasonable aircraft to fly. The original Wright Flyer was VERY difficult to fly. It uses a hip cradle to control roll, move it left and right to control wing warping. It was also very sensitive in pitch.


----------



## war eagle (Dec 20, 2013)

I keep getting told that Adolf Galland was WW2's greatest fighter pilot GRRRRRRRRR !!!!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2013)

war eagle said:


> I keep getting told that Adolf Galland was WW2's greatest fighter pilot GRRRRRRRRR !!!!!!!



Who keeps saying that? 

Never heard that one before. He was a damn good pilot, but never heard anyone call him the greatest. Never heard a myth about that either.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 22, 2013)

There are some that consider him to be *Germany's *greatest which is all relative to whatever your criteria is for "greatest". But thats the first time I've heard him being claimed as greatest for ALL nations.


----------



## stona (Dec 22, 2013)

Njaco said:


> There are some that consider him to be *Germany's *greatest



Not least Galland himself 

Steve


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 22, 2013)

Most fighter pilots think they're the greatest. 
What's news about that ?

It's what's others might call supreme self confidence, they couldn't survive without it.


----------



## stona (Dec 22, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> It's what's others might call supreme self confidence, they couldn't survive without it.



I have personally met some very modest ex fighter pilots, sadly no longer with us, who survived the war and where happy to fade if not into obscurity, then into a normal life. 

The sort of arrogance exhibited by men like Galland or Bader is not a prerequisite for being a successful fighter pilot. Maybe this should be added to this thread as it is a myth and it never seems to die.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 22, 2013)

Supreme self confidence doesn't mean you're arrogant, it just means that within you know, whatever happens, you can handle it, and if you can't, you're ready to accept the consequences.

It's the ones without that confidence that makes all the noise.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 22, 2013)

Njaco said:


> There are some that consider him to be *Germany's *greatest which is all relative to whatever your criteria is for "greatest". But thats the first time I've heard him being claimed as greatest for ALL nations.



My point exactly. I have never heard anyone that is a serious WW2 aviation historian call him that. 

Like I said damn good pilot, and I am sure in his own mind he though the was the best. That however is not necessarily a bad attribute to have as a fighter pilot, but it can also get your killed as well...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 22, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> Most fighter pilots think they're the greatest.
> What's news about that ?
> 
> It's what's others might call supreme self confidence, they couldn't survive without it.






_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYLPoTNnKAk_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Dec 22, 2013)

> "I'll take the credit if it ain't broken,
> and blame you if it breaks!"





> "Your jet may have your name on it,
> but I just made her my b!tch!!"



Thats freaking FUNNY!!!


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 22, 2013)

stona said:


> I have personally met some very modest ex fighter pilots, sadly no longer with us, who survived the war and where happy to fade if not into obscurity, then into a normal life.
> 
> The sort of arrogance exhibited by men like Galland or Bader is not a prerequisite for being a successful fighter pilot. Maybe this should be added to this thread as it is a myth and it never seems to die.
> 
> ...


 
I've known only one fighter pilot well, a cousin. But I have known several Cobra and Loach pilots, and they were the same.

Away from the cockpit their personalities varied, but when they got near or in that aircraft they changed.


----------



## Gixxerman (Dec 22, 2013)

I have the feeling that some of this 'arrogance' is deliberately cultivated by the various armed forces.
I have met several military personnel (all the peace-timers who did not see combat) and every one of them, to a man, believed that not only was he (it's always guys to date) trained to a level better than the expected opposition but that they would be fighting with better kit than the expected opposition.
Obviously there are instances of men who will take on missions knowing there are slim chances of getting back in one piece (or in the case of deterrent personnel having little to come back to if they were really called upon) but for the regular guys I doubt anyone sane could do the job unless they had a belief in their own survival.

It is also fair to say that of the previous generation(s) I have met that did see actual combat (all WW2) they were quite different in their attitudes.
They were much more reserved (maybe some of this comes from being on the winning side when the opposition is getting so desperate regarding trained units etc) I heard little in the way of 'pride' or bragging at what went on.
Clearly they all though getting rid of Hitler's gang was the right thing but in terms of the people they fought I heard a lot of regret and sadness at having to do what they did.
I'd also say that facing death by any manner (by freakish accident or through enemy action) as a regular possibility just around any corner would do that.


----------



## pattle (Dec 22, 2013)

Talking about modesty, I remember watching a TV interview with Battle of Britain fighter pilot Bob Doe in which he very convincingly joked about what a hopeless fighter pilot he was. Bob Doe had 14 confirmed kills in the Battle of Britain.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Dec 22, 2013)

Good is good. Great is great.
I have never heard any of the greats proclaim themselves as such. This includes Douglas Bader and Adolph Galland, as well as many others. When you have "been there and done that" you don't need to proclaim it. There is no need. 
Others may say things about you, but when it comes right down to it, the greats don't give a rip one way or the other.
This is evident in everyday life. If you ever meet a "War Hero" that wants to tell you just how "Bad" he was, well, he probably was not. It happens all the time. 
It is more than O.K. to be proud of your service, but I have never met a combat veteran that did not give credit to the guys that he served with over himself.
And that is the truth.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 23, 2013)

the ones that talk about it...let me rephrase that...the ones that use it for bragging rights or to make them look "HREOish"....are more than likely fakes. several months ago i got into a conversation with this guy and we start talking about life back in the 60s and 70s. he tells me what it was like to fight in Hue city during the Tet offensive. i knew he was older than me so didnt think anything of it until later on he tells me his age...i do the math real quick. tet was in 68...his age means he was born in 53....he was fighting in nam at 15. yeah right. years ago a guy told me how he jumped into cambodia on special operations....he was 2 years younger them me and i was not close to going to nam. i lose all respect for people to use that as their BS line. that is simply criminal...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Dec 23, 2013)

The fly boys that ive known are all confident and to be honest, they need to be. the last thing you want is a flyer unsure of himself. 

I dont know about this line between being self confident and being overconfident. In war time, my guess is that you have to have that sort of bravado. you have to believe in either yourself as being the greatest, or look to someone in your group as having that ability. Whatever keeps you alive and effective....It was a central plank in the experten system, and a major reason why the Soviets made it a point to go after the german experts. Shoot that guy down, and the group as a whole suffers an enormous crisis in confidence. I think it tended to hit the LW more than other air forces, because the whole system was based on the leaders doing most of the fighting. They led by example. I think it was abslutely the right approach. For them. As the war dragged on, the germans were less an less able to fill gaps with competent pilots. Theyt had to rely on an ever dwindling "few" to do the heavy lifting for them.


----------



## silence (Dec 23, 2013)

how about the great Hollywood "open a hole in the fuselage of a commercial jet and watch everyone get sucked out" myth?


----------



## pattle (Dec 23, 2013)

bobbysocks said:


> the ones that talk about it...let me rephrase that...the ones that use it for bragging rights or to make them look "HREOish"....are more than likely fakes. several months ago i got into a conversation with this guy and we start talking about life back in the 60s and 70s. he tells me what it was like to fight in Hue city during the Tet offensive. i knew he was older than me so didnt think anything of it until later on he tells me his age...i do the math real quick. tet was in 68...his age means he was born in 53....he was fighting in nam at 15. yeah right. years ago a guy told me how he jumped into cambodia on special operations....he was 2 years younger them me and i was not close to going to nam. i lose all respect for people to use that as their BS line. that is simply criminal...



The same thing happens with a lot of other things as well, I have lost count of how many people I have heard claiming they saw the Beatles in the Cavern Club or the Sex Pistols in the 100 club in 1977.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 23, 2013)

silence said:


> how about the great Hollywood "open a hole in the fuselage of a commercial jet and watch everyone get sucked out" myth?


It can happen, and it has. In April 1988, Aloha flight 243 lost it's chief flight attendant, Clarabelle Lansing, when the cabin ruptured, the decompression sucked her out at 24,000 feet. Her body momentarily stopped the decompression, but the weakened fuselage gave way and took her with it. The rest of the crew and all passengers survived the ordeal but she was never found.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 23, 2013)

pattle said:


> The same thing happens with a lot of other things as well, I have lost count of how many people I have heard claiming they saw the Beatles in the Cavern Club or the Sex Pistols in the 100 club in 1977.



My sister in law has a greater claim to fame, she has an unused ticket to see the Beatles the night that Kennedy was shot (look it up and you will know my home town), met a guy in the bar over the road and preferred his company to seeing the Beatles. That was the sixties.

I did see the Sex Pistols but after the dispute with EMI they had another name

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aozora (Dec 23, 2013)

Another old myth - everyone thinks Santa uses a sleigh pulled by reindeer... _How Wrong They Are!_

One of Santa's New Sleigh-pullers being checked out by test pilot Adelf Galland von Rein-Deere...







If you listen very carefully you'll hear the sound of eight Merlins as Santa land on your roof.

*Merry Christmas*

May the eggnog brighten your day


----------



## beitou (Dec 24, 2013)

Spits just don't look right with a shark mouth, good job it's really Santa's sleigh vismoded


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 28, 2013)

bobbysocks said:


> the ones that talk about it...let me rephrase that...the ones that use it for bragging rights or to make them look "HREOish"....are more than likely fakes. several months ago i got into a conversation with this guy and we start talking about life back in the 60s and 70s. he tells me what it was like to fight in Hue city during the Tet offensive. i knew he was older than me so didnt think anything of it until later on he tells me his age...i do the math real quick. tet was in 68...his age means he was born in 53....he was fighting in nam at 15. yeah right. years ago a guy told me how he jumped into cambodia on special operations....he was 2 years younger them me and i was not close to going to nam. i lose all respect for people to use that as their BS line. that is simply criminal...


 That really grates with me too, especially the BS 'Nam vets who I seemed to regularly bump into in pubs in the late 70's and early eighties. Maybe some of them were conscripted and actually went there, but probably as kitchen hands or store clerks. Using it as an excuse to be an alcoholic or drug addict and expecting the rest of the world to owe them one for holding off the whole NVA armed with a chopstick or some other crap. The genuine ex -servicemen that I have met, mostly through my work, are the ones that deserve respect.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 28, 2013)

Easy to seperate the Walter Mitty types from the genuine article. Veterans who saw action generally dont talk about it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aozora (Dec 28, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> Easy to seperate the Walter Mitty types from the genuine article. Veterans who saw action generally dont talk about it.



Or, if they do, they do so with great reluctance.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 5, 2014)

I actually dont agree. Some of the severely taumatised vets do have difficulty talking about their war experiences. Others that have had a more "normal experience" can usually talk about it, but dont like to, usually because people who have not been through the war experience are annoying and disrespectful toward their experience. 

The ones you have to think are suspicious are the ones that appear or claim to have been horendous wartime events, but are boastful or chatty about the experience.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 5, 2014)

When I came back I could talk to my Dad, who was a WW2 veteran, and my older brother who'd been in Vietnam 4 times, but beyond them I soon learned no one wanted to hear anything I had to say. 
At the local VFW it was like I was the poster boy for whole war, and personally responsible for it's failure. After about 4 visits I quit going, since I'd already quit drinking, it really wasn't any comfort there anyway.

I took the old saying that the real veterans don't talk as another way of people saying " We don't want to hear it, just shut up and get to work "

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 6, 2014)

It sounds like most of you guys have been dealing with older veterans, men that have had years to mature, and years to think over their experiences.

You really don't know what they might have been like when they were fresh from the war.

I had people in my own family that I could talk to, and we helped each other. I have no ideal what would have resulted if I had just kept it all inside.

I feel we do a disservice to new young veterans when we push the stereotype on them that "real veterans don't talk."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 6, 2014)

I think there is talking to family and friends in certain situations and "talking" in bars or to reporters to get publicity.


----------



## Kryten (Jan 6, 2014)

My time in the military was mostly spent faced off against the Russians hoping bugger all happened!

MY neighbour was a Polish tanker who had to bail from several tanks in the drive to Germany, really laid back guy, he said very little about the war until I joined the army, then for some reason he felt he could talk openly about it too me, even though no one ever shot at me?

The guy went through a real nightmare (from my perspective) and had the burns to remind him, yet he never seemed traumatised or resentful, he was also quite scornful of those who said nothing , thought they were playing the stiff upper lip card, just goes to show different people cope in different ways.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 7, 2014)

When I was in it (Vietnam), war wasn't fun. It was hell or close to it, on patrol / mission.

No need to talk about people who died or what I did. If you weren't there, you don't know. If you DO know, then we may have something to say to one another that is relevant.

Otherwise it was a war that was lost by political decision, not by the combatants. We could have won, but why? What were we doing there in the first place? So many killed and for what? I still don't know.

It's water under the bridge now, but I might have shot the commanders if I had seriously thought about it at the time. We dind't need to be there at all, and yet we lost many good guys in vain, in all services.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 7, 2014)

My uncle Maurie went to Viet Nam, did a 13 month tour and never talked about it to any of his family when he came back. Once when I was living in the UK I went to visit him in Australia and he sat me down and spent the next few hours talking about the war and his time there. My mother was astounded when I told her Maurie had spoken to me about his experiences. I feel very priviledged.

He told me that he used to go to memorials and march on Anzac Day (25th April), but he got sick of it because all the guys would just sit about weeping about it; it got too much for him. I don't know whether he goes at all now. Many years ago his house was broken into and a lot of stuff was stolen, including things he'd brought back with him - very sad.


----------



## model299 (Jan 7, 2014)

My dad is a former marine Korean war veteran of the Chosin reservior battle. I've never been able to get him to talk much about it, but I do know for sure he holds little regard for General MaCarthur.

As a side note, we moved him up to my hometown from KC, Mo. My brother and I were figuring out his medical options, and I brought up the fact that the Twin Cities VA hospital has a great reputation. He wanted NOTHING to do with it. In fact, any mention of the phrase "Veterans Administration" will get you a snarling pissed look and a salty, sharp rebuke. (Something about having relations with themselves, if you catch my drift.) and then that's it. We have no idea what happened and we quit trying to find out. He simply will not talk about it under ANY circumstances.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 7, 2014)

My Stepdad (former Marine) is the same way, one of his company's few survivors of Chosin. My Stepdad never told the entire experience, just bits and peices, until he had a massive heart attack several years ago. It was then he shared the entire ordeal with my Mom because it's haunted him all these years.

All the guys in my family were pretty much silent about what happened except for their exploits (bar fights, getting a buddy busted, leave adventures, etc). Much of the information was learned from the women of the family, who had to deal with them waking up in the middle of the night, reliving whatever hell they were experiencing in their nightmares.

An exception to this would be when they and thier buddies would start bending elbows, they'd reach a point of casual conversation about experiences. Then as the drinks progressed, they'd get into serious discussion and if the evening wore on, then the conversation became very somber. I overheard many of these late evening experiences, stories of having amtracs shot out from under them during landings, dealing with the terror of the 88's in north Italy, a terrifying sea battle in the slot of the Solomons, buddies being killed in front of them and the list goes on. These aren't stories of heroics, they were personal experiences that were forever etched in their memories and not once did I ever hear them brag about anything (except a good bar fight) and the only time anything was ever spoken of, was quietly, in the company of friends.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 7, 2014)

> but I do know for sure he holds little regard for General MacArthur.



Like Truman, then!


----------



## Njaco (Jan 7, 2014)

My ex-father-in-law (who I got along with better than my ex!) was detailed with body recovery (thats not the proper term) in Korea. Never said word one about what he saw or did and to be frank, I really never asked. Just didn't want to know.


Just remembered: Graves Registration. Horrible job I imagine.


----------



## Macchi (Jan 8, 2014)

I didn't read all 12 pages, so if I'm repeating something then ignore me. 



fastmongrel said:


> My current No 1 aviation myth that has reared its ugly head on a facebook page I share is
> 
> The Allison V1710 didnt have a supercharger when fitted in the P39 and P40 and if only the US govenmint[_sic_] had let the manufacturers fit a Turbinecharger[_sic_] then they would have been the greatest aircraft of WWII. When I tried to point out the error in the post I got told I didnt know what I was talking about and anyway the original writer is a well known aviation expert. If he cant even use spellcheck then hes not much of an expert


The Mustang was a disappointment until a Merlin was dropped into it. If a Merlin or equal was ever put into a P40 I'd love to hear how it performed. No matter how good an airframe is, a lesser engine choice can spoil the potential. I don't think the P39 and P40 "myths" are really myths... just opinions over what might have been possible. 



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 3. The Germans called the P-38 the Fork Tailed Devil.


In the late 1980s I lived in Munich for awhile. A German I knew there had a father who was a soldier in WWII. He'd told me that his father and such called the P38 "mann-jäger" (man hunter). The name came because some P38s were known to strafe even solo soldiers if they were found in the open. Maybe with the nose guns the P38 pilots didn't have to deal with convergence to get a hit on such a small target. Maybe some P38 pilots were just bored and didn't like coming home with unused belts.


----------



## GregP (Jan 8, 2014)

The Allison V-1710 HAS a supercharger integral to the accessory case. ALL of them do. It can't run without one. In the early 1940's a turbocharger was called a turbo-supercharger and that is perhaps the source of the confusion.

The supercharger was a single stage unit, single speed unit and Allison had several designs for multi-speed and multi-stage units with both mechanical and hydraulic clutches, but the US government declined to fund them and stuck with their original spec for the high-altitude boost system to be a turbo-supercharger. They got what they ordered.

If they had let Allison improve the powerplant, maybe it would have been different, but the high altitude boost system was specified through the end of the war to be the turbocharger and development ceased after the war due to the advent of jet engines. Production ceased rapidly after the war.

Seems ludicrous today, but the boost system was SPECIFIED and everything else developed from that spec. Ever try to get a small change through congress? Almost can't be done. Once the issues were ironed out (intake manifold, fuel, and training) the Allison was pretty good, even compared with a Merlin. Unfortunately the government intruded into engine development and the results were predictable. Today, running wiothout the turbocharger, the Allison is a robust and reliable engine. In WWII it was fine at high altitude if equipped with the turbo after about 1943, but was a lower altitude engine of not so equipped.

The P-40 DID get a Merlin. It was the P-40F and P-40L. They had a single-stage supercharger and their altitude performance improved to about 20,000 feet. If they had been equipped with a 2-stage engine, things might have been different. They weren't and it wasn't.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 8, 2014)

Macchi said:


> ...
> The Mustang was a disappointment until a Merlin was dropped into it. If a Merlin or equal was ever put into a P40 I'd love to hear how it performed. No matter how good an airframe is, a lesser engine choice can spoil the potential. I don't think the P39 and P40 "myths" are really myths... just opinions over what might have been possible.
> ....



While the Merlin Mustang was a world beater when introduced, could you please point to the Allison Mustang being called as 'disappointment' by it's users - don't remember that I've read something like that before.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 8, 2014)

Quite right, Tomo.



> The Mustang was a disappointment until a Merlin was dropped into it.



Now there's an aviation myth that will not die. Like wot's been said in other threads on the Mustang, over 600 Allison engined Mustang I, IA and IIs were supplied to the RAF to equip 22 different squadrons, a number of which were still equipped with them on VE Day. Can't have been all that bad.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 8, 2014)

The RAF army co operation squadrons loved the Allison engined Mustangs as they were faster and smoother than a Merlin Mustang below 10,000 feet. They kept them running till the spares ran out when there must have been airfields full of spare factory fresh planes aeroplanes available.

Die die die Allison myth die damn you its like trying to kill a cockroach when you have finally beaten it to death you turn round and find another hundred have turned up


----------



## pbehn (Jan 8, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> Quite right, Tomo.
> 
> 
> 
> Now there's an aviation myth that will not die. Like wot's been said in other threads on the Mustang, over 600 Allison engined Mustang I, IA and IIs were supplied to the RAF to equip 22 different squadrons, a number of which were still equipped with them on VE Day. Can't have been all that bad.



The allison engined mustangs wernt pretty and although a good aircraft at what they did they were never going to "change the game" in the way the merlin engined variant did. You cant sweep the LW from the skies by doing tactical recconaissance. As a kid I asked my mother to buy me a model of a Mustang and was shocked when she came back with a Mk 1 .....what an ugly mutha. Maybe dissappointment is too strong a word, they just wernt as spectacularly successful as the later marques ( and were fugly)


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 8, 2014)

> The Allison engined Mustangs werent pretty and although a good aircraft at what they did they were never going to "change the game" in the way the Merlin engined variant did.



Yeah, so what's your point? Merlin Mustangs were designed because of the Allison's poor altitude characteristics; when the NA-73X was designed it was intended on being fitted with the Allison to a British requirement; its designers could not have foreseen the impact the type was to have when powered by a different engine when they designed it. And before you think it, the Mustang was _not_ designed as a long range bomber escort; it was designed to a request for fighters, specifically P-40s to be manufactured by North American Aviation for the British.

In the tac recon Mustang I in service in early 1942 the RAF had an aircraft that could tackle the Fw 190 and Bf 109F on even terms, possessing performance that could match and better the two at low altitude. it was superior to the Spitfire V - the frontline RAF fighter at the time in almost every respect except altitude and turning circle. At the time of its debut it was the arguably most advanced and the best performing fighter at low to medium altitude in service in Europe.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 8, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> Yeah, so what's your point? And before you think it,
> 
> In the tac recon Mustang I in service in early 1942 the RAF had an aircraft that could tackle the Fw 190 and Bf 109F



Pardon me for living. I think I made my point. It would make no difference how good a plane was at tac recon, it would never become a legend, the LW simply didnt have to take it on at low level and it couldnt confront the LW at high level. If the Germans had continued with daylight raids the Mustang Mk1 would be close to useless and if the USA had stopped daylight raids or the bomber formations had been able to defend themselves (as they expected they could) the Mustang would be remembered as a very good plane but not a game changer. Have a nice day I will have a beer.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 8, 2014)

And the P-51's cousin, the A-36 proved to be a formidable ground attack aircraft...nothing wrong with the Allison powered P-51 at all.
Sometimes asthetics don't prove an aircraft's worth, yes the P-51D was an attractive aircraft, but the so-called "ugly" versions certainly got the job done.

I can't think of very many prize-fighters that step out of the ring and go model fashions

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Balljoint (Jan 8, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> Yeah, so what's your point? Merlin Mustangs were designed because of the Allison's poor altitude characteristics; when the NA-73X was designed it was intended on being fitted with the Allison to a British requirement; its designers could not have foreseen the impact the type was to have when powered by a different engine when they designed it. And before you think it, the Mustang was _not_ designed as a long range bomber escort; it was designed to a request for fighters, specifically P-40s to be manufactured by North American Aviation for the British.
> 
> In the tac recon Mustang I in service in early 1942 the RAF had an aircraft that could tackle the Fw 190 and Bf 109F on even terms, possessing performance that could match and better the two at low altitude. it was superior to the Spitfire V - the frontline RAF fighter at the time in almost every respect except altitude and turning circle. At the time of its debut it was the arguably most advanced and the best performing fighter at low to medium altitude in service in Europe.




Yeah, but it would have likely gone out of production but for the A-36. Or maybe it would find a mission against the JIA Oscars in China. Like the Soviets, the China air combat was low altitude from what I’ve rea.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 8, 2014)

I think there is a _lot_ of difference between "it would never become a legend" and "The Mustang was a disappointment until a Merlin was dropped into it."

Is every airplane that didn't become a "legend" a disappointment? 

BTW;
April 16th 1942 is the contract date for 500 A-36 dive bombers.
June 23rd 1942 is the contract date for 1200 P-51A fighters. In Dec 1942 this contract is cut to 310 aircraft and the balance are to be completed as P-51Bs. So A.) The A-36s were NOT the last Allison powered Mustangs and B.) It appears that the US had every intention of continuing production of Allison powered version/s even if the Merlin version never came along or didn't work. 

To stop Mustang production while continuing to build P-40s using the same engines would be rather dumb even by the worst of US standards.


----------



## bobbysocks (Jan 8, 2014)

model299 said:


> My dad is a former marine Korean war veteran of the Chosin reservior battle......As a side note, we moved him up to my hometown from KC, Mo. My brother and I were figuring out his medical options, and I brought up the fact that the Twin Cities VA hospital has a great reputation. He wanted NOTHING to do with it. In fact, any mention of the phrase "Veterans Administration" will get you a snarling pissed look and a salty, sharp rebuke. (Something about having relations with themselves, if you catch my drift.) and then that's it. We have no idea what happened and we quit trying to find out. He simply will not talk about it under ANY circumstances.



now my father loved the VA. he just knew he would be spending the whole day there as they arent in a huge rush. but because of them he was diagnosed with several life threatening issues ( like colon cancer ) that might have gone undetected at a GP Dr's. office. he told my father-in-law (korean war vet ) about it and he too loves it and recommends it to anyone he meets.


----------



## Alte Hase (Jan 8, 2014)

Macchi said:


> In the late 1980s I lived in Munich for awhile. A German I knew there had a father who was a soldier in WWII. He'd told me that his father and such called the P38 "mann-jäger" (man hunter). The name came because some P38s were known to strafe even solo soldiers if they were found in the open. Maybe with the nose guns the P38 pilots didn't have to deal with convergence to get a hit on such a small target. Maybe some P38 pilots were just bored and didn't like coming home with unused belts.



Towards the end of the war (March 1945 on), the USAAF conducted mostly strafing attacks on ground targets-air to air combat was becoming much scarcer by the day owing to the Germans' dire shortages of fuel- anything was a target...horses and carts (there's footage of P-47s strafing these somewhere I recall),civillians on foot, private vehicles, as well as troops naturally. A colleague I used to work with was married to a German woman whose mother had been a Child living in the Munich area in 1945- she recalls skating on a frozen lake (must have been in the winter of 1944-45) and an allied aircraft strafing them...they hid behind a tree on an island in the lake and although the tree was hit, none of the children were.According to her, apparently the bullets are still stuck in the tree, which is still there.


----------



## bobbysocks (Jan 8, 2014)

anything that moved ( trucks, boats, trains, etc) was generally a target....and i dont doubt there were some instances of abuse...but children skating and the like were never condoned targets. you will get the same kinds of stories from both sides..allies and axis...but i dont think that was the norm. i know a story where a FG was strafing an airdrome. at the end of it was an old woman walking carrying groceries. she witnessed the whole 15 to 20 minutes of the attack as she walked by....no one in the group took a pot shot at her...and they all saw her. she walked away unharmed...probably deaf from all the noise but otherwise intact. for the most part the guys sitting in those cockpits ( spitfires, mustangs, 109s, 190s ) were average joes who had families and moral and ethical standards...they were doing their job and not black hearted villians.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 8, 2014)

I wonder how many private motor vehicles there would be on German roads in late WW2 ? 
And how anyone flying at even 500 or whatever ft. at a couple hundred mph could tell a civilian from a military person or vehicle.
.
I'm sure they did straff everything that moved
War ain't nice.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 8, 2014)

I would think that few civilian vehicles at the tail end of the war remained in civilian possesion...most have been confiscated or commandeered by military or local "authorities" and besides, anything on the road had a relatively short life, so a civilian driving along the road was really pushing their luck!


----------



## model299 (Jan 8, 2014)

I was watching some episode on the History Channel that was dealing with the Allies strafing missions new war's end. One of the gun camera sequences showed a horse drawn cart being strafed. My son asked why the pilot did that, and I told him "Think about it, if I had to move some munitions, or maybe fuel, I'd try putting it on the cart, and covering it with hay, and hope the allied pilots will leave me alone.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 8, 2014)

> Is every airplane that didn't become a "legend" a disappointment?



Thank you, SR. Gee, he's got high standards!



> Yeah, but it would have likely gone out of production but for the A-36.



Umm, the Mustang was originally designed for the British, not the Americans. The reason why the Merlin was put in was to improve its altitude performance, again for the British, not the Americans. The fact that it had great range and potential as a long range bomber escort was seen as a consequence of fitting the Merlin, not the reason behind it. I'm pretty certain Mustang production would have continued throughout the war even if the USA decided it didn't need it - and continue P-40 production!


----------



## Macchi (Jan 9, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> While the Merlin Mustang was a world beater when introduced, could you please point to the Allison Mustang being called as 'disappointment' by it's users - don't remember that I've read something like that before.


P-51 Mustang Variants

"On April 30, 1942 Rolls Royce senior test pilot Ron Harker was invited to fly the Mustang I. He was delighted with the aircraft's handling but felt its performance was held back by its engine. He stated that the Mustang would be a natural for the Merlin 61 series."

"The first flight by Bob Chilton was on November 30, 1942. NAA was very pleased with the results (might have been some jumping up and down with excitment). The new Mustang reached 441 mph at 29,000 plus feet. At this altitude, the XP-51B would simply run away from an Allison Mustang that was nearly 100 mph slower."

'Disappointment' was my word, I think perhaps my interpretation considering the excellence of the airframe. A 100 mph difference at high altitude makes second place look like 10th place. Please note it wasn't a reference to the pilots who flew Allison Mustangs , I was talking about the development period. The Allison was nice, but without the Merlin the Mustang ceases to be an historical all-star. If the powerplant switch hadn't happened, the lost (and never known) potential would have been beyond disappointing and entered 'depressing' territory. 




GregP said:


> The P-40 DID get a Merlin. It was the P-40F and P-40L. They had a single-stage supercharger and their altitude performance improved to about 20,000 feet. If they had been equipped with a 2-stage engine, things might have been different. They weren't and it wasn't.


Sorry, I had the two stage supercharged Merlin in mind when I said that. I'd like to know how it would have performed with an XX or later. I'd slap a kitten to know how it would have performed with a RR Griffon 101 in it.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 9, 2014)

Is every airplane that didn't become a "legend" a disappointment?




nuuumannn said:


> Thank you, SR. Gee, he's got high standards!



I didnt say it was a disappointment, someone else did. Running two statements by two people together to create a new argument is a novel debating method. Now Im off.

Good day Sir.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 9, 2014)

Macchi said:


> Sorry, I had the two stage supercharged Merlin in mind when I said that. I'd like to know how it would have performed with an XX or later. I'd slap a kitten to know how it would have performed with a RR Griffon 101 in it.



The P-40 had the Merlin XX which was a two speed supercharger if not a two stage one. As for sticking a Griffon of any sort in a P-40, _WHY?_

There are a number of threads from the S.E.I.S.P.S. (Sows Ear Into Silk Purse Society) No need to really go into here. Since the P-40 was 30-40mph slower than the P-51 _at the same altitude using the same engine_ further development of the P-40 was a waste of time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Timppa (Jan 9, 2014)

Funniest that I have seen is still in Wikipedia:


> Luftwaffe issued an order to "avoid combat below five thousand metres with Yakovlev fighters lacking an oil cooler intake beneath the nose!"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 9, 2014)

> 'Disappointment' was my word, I think perhaps my interpretation considering the excellence of the airframe. A 100 mph difference at high altitude makes second place look like 10th place.



What was disappointing about it apart from its lack of altitude performance in a European context, Macchi? Like I said earlier, the Mustang I could outperform any fighter it met in combat in Europe and had superior performance in some aspects, notably range and speed at low altitude to every USAAC and RAF fighter then in service. By comparing the two, you are projecting hindsight onto historical events. Just because it doesn't perform as well as a Merlin engined Mustang, why does it "cease to be an historic All-star"?

Also, in your quote you are forgetting that the Rolls-Royce modified Merlin engined Mustang flew first. Mustang X AL975 powered by a Merlin 65 first flew on 13 October 1942.


----------



## GregP (Jan 9, 2014)

I believe the P-40F/L had a Merlin 28, not an XX.

It is still a 20-series with a 2-speed supercharger, so the "XX" isn't really that far off the mark.

Just as a point of interest, the Merlin we will install in our Hispano Ha.1112 is a Merlin 228 (Merlin 28 built by Packard). Definitely a signle stage and I'm not familiar with the gear shift, so I don't know where it changes speeds, but I will after Saturday. I'm sure Steve Hinton knows.


----------



## Macchi (Jan 10, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> What was disappointing about it apart from its lack of altitude performance in a European context, Macchi? Like I said earlier, the Mustang I could outperform any fighter it met in combat in Europe and had superior performance in some aspects, notably range and speed at low altitude to every USAAC and RAF fighter then in service. By comparing the two, you are projecting hindsight onto historical events. Just because it doesn't perform as well as a Merlin engined Mustang, why does it "cease to be an historic All-star"?



-----

_"The RAF wasn't too excited either when, shortly before Pearl Harbor, it started receiving its (delayed) Mustangs. The plane had a top speed of 380 mph, and without a supercharger wasn't much good above 12,000 feet. It was a low-altitude fighter. The British sent it to the Western Desert where, in July 1942, it made its combat debut, as a ground attack airplane, employing its eight thirty-caliber machine guns for strafing Italian and German vehicles. 

The British use of the Mustang in an attack role was mirrored by the AAF. In early 1942, as Mustang production hit its stride, almost the only person at Wright Field who believed in the plane was Ben Kelsey. To get it into mass production for the AAF he sold it not as a fighter but as a dive-bomber. Under pressure from the Army to organize eighteen dive-bomber groups, the Matériel Command ordered five hundred with dive brakes and bomb racks; it was designated the A-36A."

~ Winged Victory: The Army Air Forces in World War II_ by Geoffrey Perret

-----

Firstly, I defer to GregP's comment on page 13 that the Allison engine did have a single stage supercharger. Maybe the author Perret was wrong on that, or maybe his was a reference to a gear driven two stage supercharger or an exhaust driven turbo charger. The use of certain terminology can make us all fussy if we're not on the same page definition wise. 

I don't think I'm projecting in hindsight. Outside of NAA, few people knew at the time what they had in the Mustang airframe. I'm sure the pilots knew, but those making the decisions didn't. Maybe Rolls Royce dropped a Merlin into one because they wanted to sell more engines to the British government. Maybe they dropped in a Merlin because the RR test pilot knew what the airframe could do with a different set of cylinders. I could argue the projected hindsight is that the Merlin/Packard Mustang was such a great plane that it seems obvious to everyone now the Mustang was always a great plane. 

The Allison Mustang was a nice plane that wasn't going to put anything else out of a job. It was a fine low level performer, but the English already had that with the Spitfire. The Spitfire V itself was outclassed by the introduction of the FW 190, and the Allison Mustang was no answer to the 190. Maybe that's why the English sent it to Africa for strafing duty. The Allison Mustang was a decent plane, as was the P40 in its time. In my personal opinion, the P40 remains a popular plane today for the simple reason it looks completely bad-ass. Having the tiger teeth paint job just adds to that (thank you Australians). The Wildcat was another decent plane that did its job during its time, but I've yet to see anyone "ooh" or "aah" over one in an airshow or museum (if you can even find one). We talk about the Mustang today… "ooh" and "aah" over the Mustang because of what it became. It truly was the Cadillac of the skies…. drop dead gorgeous, dangerous at all altitudes and extremely long range. If it had stayed the Allison Mustang throughout the war it would be remembered for being the sleeker girlfriend of the tattooed P40.


----------



## Airframes (Jan 10, 2014)

Sent to the Western Desert? Combat debut July 1942 ??
The first Mustangs entered RAF service, as TAC R aircraft with Army Cooperation Command, with No.2 Sqn, at Sawbridgeworth, in April 1942, and _their_ first operational sortie was July 1942.
Apart from the fact that, in the trials at the A&AEE, Boscombe Down, the Mustang was superior to the Spitfire V below 20,000 feet, although it took longer to reach that altitude, I'm not aware of _any_ Mustang squadrons being 'sent to the Western Desert' in 1942.


----------



## GregP (Jan 10, 2014)

Hey Macchi.

I think a Merlin 60-series and a 4-bladed prop would have done wonders for the P-40. But, that's just my opinion and it never happened as far as I know.

Still, it COULD have been done and the weight penalty would surely be made up with the altitude performance. Again, just my thoughts. I believe there was room or room could have been found for the grafting. The XP-40Q showed it had potential in spades, just never got the combination into production that would wake up the P-40 at high altitudes. Too bad. Might have been a very nice combination.

The politics of the time would probably prevent it, but I can wonder about it.

I have heard that Don Berlin actually got to make a turbocharged P-40, but have never been able to verify it as true. Heard that one from his son at a talk on the P-40. I didn't get to ask him about it personally as the talk went on and he left early, before the other speakers were finished. It is classic heresay that cannot to date be verified with actual source data. So, it is grouped in there with the "might have happened but we don't know for sure" bunch of stories that are claimed to be true.

Maybe George Welch's supersonic dive before Yeager will never be proven either, but it makes for a great story, doesn't it?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 10, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> What was disappointing about it apart from its lack of altitude performance in a European context, Macchi? Like I said earlier, the Mustang I could outperform any fighter it met in combat in Europe and had superior performance in some aspects, notably range and speed at low altitude to every USAAC and RAF fighter then in service. By comparing the two, you are projecting hindsight onto historical events. Just because it doesn't perform as well as a Merlin engined Mustang, why does it "cease to be an historic All-star"?
> 
> Also, in your quote you are forgetting that the Rolls-Royce modified Merlin engined Mustang flew first. Mustang X AL975 powered by a Merlin 65 first flew on 13 October 1942.



Hi, nuuumannn - Mustang I was not able to outperform LW opposition in the ETO, at least not above 20000 ft, speed-wise. When considering RoC, LW have had better performers, probably at all altitudes. 

An excerpt from tables about US-produced engines, please note the 'supercharger' (SUPCH) column, that lists supercharger drive type, diameter and drive ratio. 'F-51A' means 'P-51A' (table is post-war); the 'F-40' means P-40. 'F-6A' is the recce plane, based on P-51 (not on P-51A!).The P-39 is listed as such. Also please note that supercharger on V-1710-81 has a different drive ratio, giving better power higher up.
The Mustang I was using V-1710-39 engine.


----------



## mhuxt (Jan 10, 2014)

While we're on the subject of RAF Mustangs - anyone know when they were first over German (as opposed to French, Belgian, Dutch, Danish or Norwegian) territory?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 10, 2014)

Mark, I doubt that Mustang l ever ventured in Germany proper - it's fuel was limited to the internal 150 imp gals. The drop tank capability was added from Mustang ll (P-51A), and those were deployed only in MTO and CBI, from second half of 1943 on.


----------



## Airframes (Jan 10, 2014)

Mustang Mk1's were the first RAF, single-engine fighters to fly over Germany, in October 1942, during a raid on the Dortmund-Ems canal. Operational radius, without drop tanks, was 300 miles.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 10, 2014)

That's interesting, Terry. Do you have more data about that?


----------



## Airframes (Jan 10, 2014)

I'll have to look it up, but the stated range (as opposed to _operational _radius) was 1,050 miles.
RAF TAC R Mustangs served right up until the end of the war in Europe, and regularly strafed airfields, railways and other targets of opportunity, in Germany, Holland, Belgium and France, when returning from a sortie. They also engaged in combat, and scored kills, against Bf109 and FW 190.
They might not have been as 'glamourous' as the later, Merlin-engined Mustang III and IV, but they certainly were _*not*_ 'also rans' !!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 10, 2014)

Actually there were supposed to have done a fighter sweep over the Ruhr (16 fighters) on July 27 1942. Which is supposed to be the first allied fighters over Germany during the war (although what happened during the "phony war" I don't know.


----------



## Airframes (Jan 10, 2014)

I don't have any specific information regarding a RAF sweep on that day, but the 'history making' sortie previously mentioned, involved RAF Mustang Mk1's escorting 22 Wellingtons on 22nd October, 1942.
On 5th May 1942, 26 Squadron launched it's first cross-Channel operation, a low-level recce flight, when F/O Dawson returned, at low level, across France, strafing Berck airfield and, later a locomotive.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 10, 2014)

That's pretty interesting.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 10, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually there were supposed to have done a fighter sweep over the Ruhr (16 fighters) on July 27 1942. Which is supposed to be the first allied fighters over Germany during the war (although what happened during the "phony war" I don't know.



This baffles me. This occurred a year and a half before P-51Bs appeared over deep Germany. They had to know that this new plane was fast! They had to know it had good range! They may have had downed P-51 (one was lost in Dieppe raid August, 1942) and I am sure others were lost over German held territory. Did they not recognize that an improved supercharger (or change to a better supercharged engine) and the simple addition of an additional tank make this plane into a very good long range escort fighter? Yet they were obviously unprepared and spent much effort to field a too late answer in the Fall of 1944. My question, why did the German not anticipate escort fighters over Germany in 1944 and field a capable defense against them? Maybe a different thread.


----------



## GregP (Jan 10, 2014)

Hi Dave,

Let's say that you are looking at it from hindsight and they were looking at it from the position of being in a relatively comfortable position through about 1942, and were increasingly in a panic after that. Getting Herr Hitler to approve planes to REPLACE the Bf 109 and Fw 190 might have been problematic since he was being fed reports that said they were winning with these exact assets.

It might be a case of nobody wanted to be the messenger that got shot and it might be that the guys writing the reports wanted to not be shot together with the messenger. I'd bet the reports Hitler got were rther carefuully scrutinized before he read them, but I wasn't there.

I'm reading between the lines here, and well might be wrong. I am also recalling the number if German General who were executed as being a rather large number. So, if you made General, you didn't exactly have any job security. Seems like they tried to fix it with incremental updates to the Bf 109 and Fw 190. Almost nothing else made it into fighter production except the jets / rockets, which could safely be recommended as new technology superseding both the pistons in terms of performance (if not range).


----------



## Macchi (Jan 10, 2014)

GregP said:


> Hey Macchi.
> 
> I think a Merlin 60-series and a 4-bladed prop would have done wonders for the P-40. But, that's just my opinion and it never happened as far as I know.
> 
> Still, it COULD have been done and the weight penalty would surely be made up with the altitude performance. Again, just my thoughts. I believe there was room or room could have been found for the grafting. The XP-40Q showed it had potential in spades, just never got the combination into production that would wake up the P-40 at high altitudes. Too bad. Might have been a very nice combination.



I would have liked to have seen that too, just out of curiosity, but I understand why they didn't spend too much energy reworking older craft. 

I have all kinds of "what if" thoughts about hardware... I'd love to see a Beaufighter or Me-410 wearing R-2800 engines... would love to see a Black Widow wearing two Wright R-3350s. For purely imagination's sake, if you could mix and match any pieces of hardware from any country during the war, what could you come up with? With the Mustang, that's sort of what happened... a Curtiss beginning, North American execution and Rolls power plant. In this case, the best possible outcome for the Mustang happened, no imagination necessary.




GregP said:


> I have heard that Don Berlin actually got to make a turbocharged P-40, but have never been able to verify it as true. Heard that one from his son at a talk on the P-40. I didn't get to ask him about it personally as the talk went on and he left early, before the other speakers were finished. It is classic heresay that cannot to date be verified with actual source data. So, it is grouped in there with the "might have happened but we don't know for sure" bunch of stories that are claimed to be true.


That would be wonderful if true, and I wonder sometimes what else is out there that doesn't get mentioned.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jan 10, 2014)

GregP said:


> Getting Herr Hitler to approve planes to REPLACE the Bf 109 and Fw 190 might have been problematic since he was being fed reports that said they were winning with these exact assets.



This.

I think the German leadership was acutely aware that they had neither the resources nor manpower for a long war of attrition they thought they could win with what they had.
Of course they had plans for what came next (and were forced by events to try leapfrog equipment generations when it went against them) but basically I think the German leadership mind-set was that the war was all but won in '42 that what they had at that stage was more than just adequate.


----------



## Juha (Jan 10, 2014)

GregP said:


> Hi Dave,
> 
> Let's say that you are looking at it from hindsight and they were looking at it from the position of being in a relatively comfortable position through about 1942, and were increasingly in a panic after that. Getting Herr Hitler to approve planes to REPLACE the Bf 109 and Fw 190 might have been problematic since he was being fed reports that said they were winning with these exact assets.
> 
> ...



Now Hitler executed a number of generals, but that was late in the war, earlier he usually only dismissed generals with whom he strongly disagree e.g. When General von Sponeck was sentenced to death by a military tribunal in early 1943 for disobeying von Manstein the sentence was commuted by Adolf Hitler and reduced to seven years imprisonment.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 10, 2014)

> and the Allison Mustang was no answer to the 190.



If you take a look at this page at WW2 aircraft performance on the Fw 190A5, scroll down to the chart titled _Fw 190A-5 level Speed performance in context 1943_, you will see that by comparison to its contemporaries, the P-51A, equivalent to the British Mustang II had superior performance to a range of types up to 16,000 ft. Sources for this information are also listed.

FW 190 A-5 Performance

Yes, Tomo, the Mustang I did not have performance to match anything up to 20,000 ft, you know that I'm aware of that. I am also aware that its rate of climb was inferior to the German fighters, it was worse than the Spitfire V, too, although at low altitude the Mustang I could outrun the Spitfire V by up to 35 mph. At low altitude however, it could match and at certain low altitudes could beat the Fw 190A and Bf 109F in level speed and in range, at all altitudes. There was no other fighter in the world, with the exception of the Mitsubishi Zero that had the same range and endurance of the Mustang I at the time.

A few facts about the Mustang I, it first entered RAF service in January 1942, when 26 Sqn pilots based at Gatwick were detailed to pick up their new mount from Speke that month. At the time the squadron also operated Lysanders and Curtiss Tomahawks. The decision to place the Mustang in the Tac R role was not just about its inferior performance at height, but because by that time Fighter Command had standardised on the Spitfire V as its primary interceptor, which enabled the Mustang to be used in other roles. We also need to remember that the aeroplane the the British Purchasing Copmmission ordered when it got promised the NA-73 was the P-40, which the Mustang I could outperform in _almost_ every respect, so a win for the RAF, receiving an aircraft which could outperform the one it was expecting.

The importance of tactical reconnaissance in warfare cannot be underestimated, although it frequently is based on some of the opinions being bandied about here. The Mustang I's Tac R ops were given high priority and the results it produced were exceptional and unable to be matched by any other type at the time owing to its good performance at low altitude.

The Mustang I's first long range recon op was on 27 July 1942, three weeks before the first Eightth Air Force B-17 raid, when 16 aircraft photographed the Dortumnd-Ems Canal. This quote from Mustang Aces of the 9th and 15th Air Forces and the RAF by Jerry Scutts (Osprey); "Such forays eventually generated a vast visual panorama of enemy territory, which quickly ran to thousands of high-quality prints for the target folders. These were distributed to RAF and USAAF Commands, the AAC Mustangs materially providing VIIIth Bomber Command with a great many of its early target photographs."

Prior to this first recon op, 26 Sqn carried out _Rhubarb_ sorties, RAF terminology for small scale harrasing ops over enemy held territory from May 1942. Scutts again; "In general AAC pilots were briefed to avoid enemy aircraft rather than to endanger themselves and their precious intelligence data, by seeking combat. Although the Mustang Mk.I could give a good account of itself against the Fw 190 and Bf 109, it was pointless to risk pilots and aircraft unnecessarily. Naturall the recon pilot did not always have the choice if he happened to be bounced by the enemy." The first Mustang victory over an enemy fighter was, interestingly by Fg Off Hollis "Holly" Hills, an American flying with the RAF in 414 Sqn, shooting down an Fw 190 over Dieppe on 19 August 1942. By the end of 1942 RAF Mustangs were on strength in 17 squadrons.

Allison Mustangs were sent to the Mediterranean in RAF hands; these were six USAAF A-36s of the 12th Air Force that were transferred to 1437 Flight, commanded By S/L S.G.Welshman, RAF, along with USAAF operated F-6As, which were early production P-51s, were sent to Malta for tac recon ops over North Africa with the US Twelfth Support Command. 1437 Flight moved to Sicily in July 1943. Strictly speaking the A-36s were not on RAF books, but were USAAF assets.

It seems that, thanks to large doses of hindsight, general opinion of the Allison Mustangs are lower than what they were at the time by those who operated the type, which is often so easily forgotten considering the exploits of Merlin engined P-51s later in the war. Pilots and planners alike praised the Mustang's long range, enabling tac R sorties at previously unheard of distances from base. Its performance as a fighter was also highly regarded, being able to tackle enemy aircraft, including the Fw 190 on level pegging, something that RAF Fighter Command in early 1942 could not do, that is until the arrival of the Spitfire Mk.IX.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 10, 2014)

You might be right, O GSXR rider. No piston fighter ever really replace either the Bf 109 or Fw 190 models, and tha could be due to either casue or partly due to both. I'll probably never know.

I have STRONG belief that the vicious stall characteristics of the Fw 190 could have rather easily been cured and made benign without a lot of trouble. I also think that the heavying up of the Bf 109 controls at higher speeds could ALSO have been cured along with adding a bit of range, even another 100 miles. I still wonder why they weren't.

If there was time to build the dizzying array of prototypes the Germans built, there was time to fix the front-line assets still coming down the line. Incredibly short-sighted not to DO it.


----------



## Juha (Jan 10, 2014)

GregP said:


> ...I have STRONG belief that the vicious stall characteristics of the Fw 190 could have rather easily been cured and made benign without a lot of trouble. I also think that the heavying up of the Bf 109 controls at higher speeds could ALSO have been cured along with adding a bit of range, even another 100 miles. I still wonder why they weren't.
> 
> If there was time to build the dizzying array of prototypes the Germans built, there was time to fix the front-line assets still coming down the line. Incredibly short-sighted not to DO it.



IIRC Tank used a great number of 190 prototypes to finalize the tail of 190 (and also to make his doctoral thesis) so probably the behavior of 190 was what he wanted. On the 109, at least some Finns thought that the heaviness of the controls of 109 at high speed was intentional to prevent overloading the airframe, which was fairly strong anyway. Maybe also to make a high speed stall unlikely. With heavy controls and LE slats 109 was almost spin-proof and could safely be flown to its limits. Very late in the war small patches were made with (argh what kevityslaippa is in English, maybe Flettner tabs) they were usually allocated to experten, who knew how to fly 109.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 10, 2014)

Juha said:


> With heavy controls and LE slats 109 was almost spin-proof and could safely be flown to its limits.



Juha,

I was under the impression that the leading edge slats of the 109 were gravity powered, and could come out individually as there was no "both or nothing interconnect". Rolling fights or g-forces would cause one to come out before the other, and if at low speed could cause a spin. 

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## GregP (Jan 10, 2014)

The slats on a Bf 109 are completely unpowered. They come in or out independently as airflow forces them. It actually requires no great force and I can move one in or out with two fingers. I could use one, but one finger on each side makes it travel in or out much more controllably on the ground.

Assuming the slats are installed, I'll get pics tomorrow.


----------



## stona (Jan 11, 2014)

Asymmetric deployment caused the ailerons to snatch at the very least. They were also known to deploy when in the slipstream of another aircraft. Brown noticed this and considered it an undesirable feature of an otherwise good system.

Franz Stigler had other reasons to like them. When asked if pilots liked the feature he replied.

"Yes, pilots did like them, since it allowed them better positions in dogfights along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling.....this was also useful when you were drunk "

Gunther Rall, when asked about the asymmetric operation of the slats, gave a sober assessment.

"Two meter slots on fore wings. The reason was to increase the lift during low speed take off and landing. To reduce the length of runway you need. In the air, if you make rough turns, just by gravity, the outer slot might get out. You can correct it immediately by release of stick, you know? Only little bit, psssssssht, its in, then its gone. You have to know that. And if you know it, you prevent it." 

Mark Hanna, a modern war bird pilot doesn't seem to believe that the slats are problematic.

"As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manoeuvring turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally."

Though he contradicts Finnish fighter ace Antti Tani

"The fact is that when you pulled hard enough the wing leading edge slats slammed open. After that the pilot could not tighten the turn. The plane would have stalled."

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 11, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> If you take a look at this page at WW2 aircraft performance on the Fw 190A5, scroll down to the chart titled _Fw 190A-5 level Speed performance in context 1943_, you will see that by comparison to its contemporaries, the P-51A, equivalent to the British Mustang II had superior performance to a range of types up to 16,000 ft. Sources for this information are also listed.
> 
> FW 190 A-5 Performance
> 
> ...



You might have noted it before - I've already agreed that Allison Mustang was an excellent aircraft. It was not an ideal aircraft, however, ie. not suited to do all of the tasks equally good. Plus, there were differences between Allison Mustangs themselves.
The Mustang I and Ia did not have had drop tanks. The internal fuel tankage was 153 imp gals. That meant the Spitfire V with a 90 gal drop tank did have more fuel aboard (174 imp gals total). LW fighters were thereabout. RAF was probably using only 45 gal drop tanks when Spit Vs were on combat, vs. 90 gal drop tank for ferry (hence Mustang I has better range, for combat)? Help!
Mustang I was good for circa 360 mph at 25000 ft - or, 30-40 mph slower than LW opposition, when introduced in (spring/summer 1942).

Mustang II (P-51A) was outfitted with new engine version, that gave more power at altitude. 390 mph was attained at 25000 ft, without wing racks. Racks slowed the P-51A some 12 mph (smaller racks were installed with P-51D, only 4 mph speed penalty there). The drop tanks really improved range/radius. Still, the P-51A did have few things going against it - Fw-190 was cleared for greater power from late 1942 on, so the P-51A still had almost 30 mph disadvantage at 25000 ft. Second, the P-51A was a bit late in the fray, in service from second half of 1943 on. 
USA did have a fighter with better range than P-51, that being the P-38. The Ki-43 was also comparable, though it's performance was not up to Western standards.


----------



## Airframes (Jan 11, 2014)

Tomo, I can't comment on the use of the P-51/P-51A at altitude, but the Mustang MkI/II in RAF service was not intended and not (generally) used at the higher altitudes. In the TAC R role, it operated where it performed best - below 15,000 feet, where it's extremely long range and superior performance to the Spitfire V, without drop tanks, enabled it to do the job it was employed to do and, if enemy aircraft were encountered, look after itself without a problem.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 11, 2014)

Roger that, Terry. 
Radius requirements for the tac-R aircraft were not same for escort fighters, so where the Mustang I was indeed capable to get in, take photos, then return back (against a 'target' 300 miles distant), the escort fighter would need to be able to combat at least 15 minutes, involving both dives and climbs, prior returning home (so, maybe 200-250 miles of radius, for same plane?). The cruise at lower altitude was more fuel efficient for most of ww2 era aircraft, too. Radius was 200 miles at 10 kft vs. 150 miles at 25 kft for Merlin Mustang, on just internal fuel. The Allison Mustang was cruising probably around 15 kft.


----------



## Juha (Jan 11, 2014)

Hello Biff
Yes, the leading edge slats of the 109 were gravity powered, and could come out individually but I'm not heard that that was a problem but some British test pilots thought that that spoiled the aim if 109 got into slip stream of an enemy a/c. Also during the landing if the end pull for 3-pointer was done too early 109 began roll slowly to the left, that could be dangerous because 109 didn't like if one of the wheel hit ground before the other.

Hello Stona
Yes, asymmetric deployment caused an aileron snatch but that was clearly milder from F onwards than in E. The Finnish test pilot Kokko wrote more or less same as Hanna.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jan 11, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> ...The Mustang I and Ia did not have had drop tanks. The internal fuel tankage was 153 imp gals. That meant the Spitfire V with a 90 gal drop tank did have more fuel aboard (174 imp gals total). LW fighters were thereabout. RAF was probably using only 45 gal drop tanks when Spit Vs were on combat, vs. 90 gal drop tank for ferry (hence Mustang I has better range, for combat)? Help!...



Pilots could use lower rpm with Allison than with Merlin, that was with the better aerodynamics the reasons why Mustang had longer range than Spit with same amount of fuel.

Juha


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 11, 2014)

Agreed about your points. We could use the data about real cruise regimes speeds for RAF Mustang Is, the low speed/low altitude cruise would be calling for troubles in the ETO. 
Spit V still had 20 imp gals more when carrying 90 gal slipper tank; again - the 45 gal tank being far more used for combat than the 90 gal one?


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 11, 2014)

Juha said:


> Hello Biff
> Yes, the leading edge slats of the 109 were gravity powered, and could come out individually but I'm not heard that that was a problem but some British test pilots thought that that spoiled the aim if 109 got into slip stream of an enemy a/c. Also during the landing if the end pull for 3-pointer was done too early 109 began roll slowly to the left, that could be dangerous because 109 didn't like if one of the wheel hit ground before the other.
> 
> Hello Stona
> ...



Juhu,
I recently read Gunther Ralls book, "My Logbook". In it he spoke of the "higher than normal" accident rate of the Me-109, especially with the new guys. I can imagine that's true due to the check out procedure of fewer hours in training (as the war wore on), first flight being solo combined with the narrow gear / high power motor. 
I've also read of of the harmonization of the flight controls in the 109, with it being sensitive in pitch (light control forces), and heavy in roll. In my opine that would make it a tough gunnery platform but Hartmann, Rall and others proved that if you flew it enough you could overcome anything.
Cheers,
Biff


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 11, 2014)

> You might have noted it before - I've already agreed that Allison Mustang was an excellent aircraft. It was not an ideal aircraft, however, ie. not suited to do all of the tasks equally good. Plus, there were differences between Allison Mustangs themselves.
> The Mustang I and Ia did not have had drop tanks. The internal fuel tankage was 153 imp gals. That meant the Spitfire V with a 90 gal drop tank did have more fuel aboard (174 imp gals total). LW fighters were thereabout. RAF was probably using only 45 gal drop tanks when Spit Vs were on combat, vs. 90 gal drop tank for ferry (hence Mustang I has better range, for combat)? Help!
> Mustang I was good for circa 360 mph at 25000 ft - or, 30-40 mph slower than LW opposition, when introduced in (spring/summer 1942).
> 
> ...



Your synopsis is well considered, Tomo, but not entirely accurate, particularly with regards to the Mustang. In trials with Mustang I AG351 at Boscombe Down in November 1941, the aircraft's maximum range of 960 miles on 130 gallons was considered "outstanding". Owen Thetford in Aircraft of the Royal Air Force since 1918 (Putnam) quotes the Mustang I's range as 1,050 miles. Mustang Mk.II's (P-51A) performance was considered "superior at low level" by Boscombe Down test pilots. I wouldn't consider mid 1943 "late in the fray" and at that time the Mustang II/P-51A's performance at low altitude better than all others in theatre at the time. See the graph I provided a link to at WW2 Aircraft Performance for evidence of this. After the P-51A entered service in numbers by the end of 1943 the majority of USAAF tac recon units converted to the Mustang, although the F-4 and F-5 Lightning was still in use, but the Allison engined Mustang became the dominant American tac recon aircraft for the rest of the war.

As for your claim that it was not suited to do all tasks equally good, I think you are missing the point; what the Allison Mustang did do well it could largely do better than anything else. Certainly at the time 1942/1943 the Mustang was regarded as one of the best fighters fighters in the world and yes, I do understand that you think the Allison Mustangs are excellent aircraft; the information I have provded is for general interest, not just for argument's sake, as is the following. Documentary evidence of how highly regarded the Mustang was at the time comes from paragraphs in a memorandum drafted by Maj Thomas Hitchcock, USAAC, Assistant Military Attache, dated 8 October 1942 titled History of the Mustang P-51 Aircraft;

"In the Air Fighting Development Unit Report No.43, dated May 5 1942, the Mustang is described as "an excellent low and medium altitude fighter and certainly the best American fighter that has so far rerached this country." Comparisons were made with the Spitfire VB in which it was faster than the VB at all alitudes up to 25,000 feet. At 25,000 feet it went about the same speed as the Spitfire VB, although at this altitude the Allison engine was developing 290 less horsepower than the Merlin engine in the Spitfire. Estimates have been made that with the same horsepower Mustang is twenty to twenty five miles per hour faster than the Spitfire VB."

"In Air Fighter Development Unit Report No.55 dated August 9 1942, on the Tactical trials of the Fw 190, in which comparisons were made of the fighting qualities of various English and American fighter planes with the Fw 190, in all respects except rate of climb the Mustang appeared to do the best against the Fw 190."

"The Mustang is one of the best, if not the best, fighter airframe that has been developed in the war up to date. It has no compressiblity or flutter troubles, it is manoeuvrable at high speeds, has the most rapid rate of roll of any plane except the Fw 190, is easy to fly and has no nasty tricks. Its development and use in this theatre has suffered for various reasons. Sired by the English out of an American mother, the Mustang has no parent in the Airmy Air Corps or at Wright Field to appreciate and push its good points. It arrived in England at a time when great emphasis was placed on high altitude performance, and because it was equipped with a low altitude engine, was of no particular interest to English Fighter Command. The Mustang was turned over to the English Army Co-Operation Command, for low altitude work. It performed well at Dieppe. The pilots who fly the Mustang are most enthusiastic about its performance."

As for its performance against German fighters at altitude, as Terry pointed out, tac recon was a low altitude task, almost entirely conducted below 10,000 ft, where the Mustang's superiorities were apparent.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 12, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> Your synopsis is well considered, Tomo, but not entirely accurate, particularly with regards to the Mustang. In trials with Mustang I AG351 at Boscombe Down in November 1941, the aircraft's maximum range of 960 miles on 130 gallons was considered "outstanding". Owen Thetford in Aircraft of the Royal Air Force since 1918 (Putnam) quotes the Mustang I's range as 1,050 miles. Mustang Mk.II's (P-51A) performance was considered "superior at low level" by Boscombe Down test pilots.



I've never questioned the Mustang's abilities to fly fast under 20000 ft, nor the distance the fighter was capable to attain. The shortcomings (lack of performance above 20-25000 ft vs. LW, low RoC above 15-20000 ft, inability to carry drop tanks until second half of 1943) still stand, and, especially for Mustang I, were recognised as such by RAF. Hence pressing the Mustang I in tac R role, while retaining armament so it can hit targets that presented themselves under 15000 ft.



> I wouldn't consider mid 1943 "late in the fray" and at that time the Mustang II/P-51A's performance at low altitude better than all others in theatre at the time. See the graph I provided a link to at WW2 Aircraft Performance for evidence of this. After the P-51A entered service in numbers by the end of 1943 the majority of USAAF tac recon units converted to the Mustang, although the F-4 and F-5 Lightning was still in use, but the Allison engined Mustang became the dominant American tac recon aircraft for the rest of the war.



Maybe I've bashed Mustang II too much when using 'late in the fray' comment. It is really too bad that it was not produced in lieu of A-36, but that were the realities back then. The Mustang II was a fine all-around fighter, unfortunately, the goal post also moved, so the performance gap vs. Luftwaffe above 20-25000 ft was still felt. As you've noted, many of the P-51As were converted into tac R role - the user acknowledging limits and capabilities of the aircraft?


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 12, 2014)

Hi Tomo, to a point you are right about its performance above 15,000 ft, but considering that the Mustang I was not likely to be flying at such altitude in the combat arena, these issues did not hamper it at all. As for the lack of drop tanks; with a range of 960 miles, did it need drop tanks? Much of its tac recon jobs took the aircraft into France and the Low Countries, with only a few forays into Germany, so long range, which it did possess without drop tanks, wasn't necessarily needed for tac recon; the RAF had PRU Spits and Mossies for long range recon. I've never seen anything that stated that the RAF were dissatisfied with the Mustang I's inability to carry drop tanks; on the contrary, its pilots and tacticians were rather astounded by its ample unrefueled range, which exceeded all expectations and enabled flexibility that the RAF had not had in such an aircraft before.

As for performance against the LW at altitude, by 1943, the RAF had the Spitfire IX - in service since June 1942, which could tackle anything the Germans threw at it at altitude at that time - again, the Mustang II was not likely to be operating at those heights and as we know, the Merlin engined Mustang was developed to rectify the Mustang's altitude shortcomings. Perhaps the biggest complaint the RAF had about Allison Mustangs was that it did not have enough owing to attrition and the seconding of Mustang squadrons away from pure photo recon jobs for ground attack ops.



> As you've noted, many of the P-51As were converted into tac R role - the user acknowledging limits and capabilities of the aircraft?



I think my statement about the USAAF preferring the F-6 photo recon variants as its predominant tac recon platform right until the war's end over the Lockheed F-4 and F-5 proves the opposite of what you are asking, Tomo; The F-6's excellent low altitude performance and range gave it advantage in that role.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 12, 2014)

Much of the astounding with it's range comes from the people that were previously dealing predominately with short range fighters, typical for late 1930s/early 1940s outfit of European airforces.



> As for the lack of drop tanks; with a range of 960 miles, did it need drop tanks?



Depends what you want to do with it. For tac R job, the fuel tankage was excellent. For proper escort (that includes essing, so escorts don't overtake the bombers, and at least 15 min of combat) and other long-range fighter job, the drop tanks can considerably increase the radius. Now, while RAF the did not have the requirements for that in ETO (LR and/or escort fighter), range/radius was a crucial asset in MTO and Asia/Pacific. So much that USAF was using it's A-36 to escort B-25s in MTO.



> Hi Tomo, to a point you are right about its performance above 15,000 ft, but considering that the Mustang I was not likely to be flying at such altitude in the combat arena, these issues did not hamper it at all.



Timeline would look like this: 1st, the Mustang I was assessed as a good low-alt fighter, but bad hi-alt one. Then, it was modified into a tac R aircraft.



> As for performance against the LW at altitude, by 1943, the RAF had the Spitfire IX - in service since June 1942, which could tackle anything the Germans threw at it at altitude at that time - again, the Mustang II was not likely to be operating at those heights and as we know, the Merlin engined Mustang was developed to rectify the Mustang's altitude shortcomings. Perhaps the biggest complaint the RAF had about Allison Mustangs was that it did not have enough owing to attrition and the seconding of Mustang squadrons away from pure photo recon jobs for ground attack ops.



Agreed pretty much.



> I think my statement about the USAAF preferring the F-6 photo recon variants as its predominant tac recon platform right until the war's end over the Lockheed F-4 and F-5 proves the opposite of what you are asking, Tomo; The F-6's excellent low altitude performance and range gave it advantage in that role.



Not sure that the preference for the F-6 does proves opposite what I've stated: "the user acknowledging limits and capabilities of the aircraft?" For about the same limitations and capabilities of the aircraft (not that exemplary hi-alt performance, good/great low-alt performance, great range/radius) as the RAF with Mustang I, the USAF decided to convert some of it's P-51As into recce machines.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 12, 2014)

Agreed with most of what you are saying Tomo, but the RAF did not have a requirement in the ETO for its tac recon Mustangs to be flying long range escort. With the range Mustangs had they could and did escort medium range bombers across the Channel, but since the RAF conducted its long range bombing ops by night, there was no requirement for their escort. Mustang Is were not hampered by the lack of drop tanks and I've never seen anything that states that the British considered this to be a flaw. 



> Depends what you want to do with it.


 You are projecting a requirement onto the type that did not exist at the time.

As for the USAAF converting P-51As into F-6s, as well as acknowledging their excellent performance attributes, I also suspect that, like the RAF, it did not have enough assets in this role; clearly with the Lockheed F-4s and F-5s, although good at what they did, there was room for improvement, so having another type carry out the role - in some ways more efficiently than the Lockheed, increases numbers of tac recon aircraft in theatre.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 12, 2014)

BiffF15 said:


> Juhu,
> I recently read Gunther Ralls book, "My Logbook". In it he spoke of the "higher than normal" accident rate of the Me-109, especially with the new guys. I can imagine that's true due to the check out procedure of fewer hours in training (as the war wore on), first flight being solo combined with the narrow gear / high power motor.
> I've also read of of the harmonization of the flight controls in the 109, with it being sensitive in pitch (light control forces), and heavy in roll. In my opine that would make it a tough gunnery platform but Hartmann, Rall and others proved that if you flew it enough you could overcome anything.
> Cheers,
> Biff



I have a really interesting article on how and when various air forces adopted check lists and and standard procedures for flight training during WW 2. An extract is attached, describing how the Luftwaffe fighters suffered high accident rates because the Luftwaffe didn't adopt standard procedure for flight training operational conversion (quoting from Rall's "My Logbook"):


> *German Pilot Culture*
> For the Luftwaffe, World War 2 started in 1939 with Germany’s invasion of Poland. Rall’s describes his transition in 1939 from training aircraft to the Messerschmitt
> Me 109, a front-line fighter. He already had almost 200 hours of flight time, but the transition was still harrowing. Rall was operating without any checklist, not even a simple memorized one such as the British used. In retrospect, the situation cried out for checklists and standardized procedures:
> "Its spindly narrow-track undercarriage is actually much too weak to cope with the enormous torque, rate of yaw, and turbulence of the airscrew. Take-off accidents are therefore commonplace, not just in the training schools, but also among front-line units... And once in the air the pilot still has his hands more than full: the undercarriage must be retracted...before a certain airspeed is reached, engine and propeller have to be set manually to cruise, the flaps cranked up by a large hand-wheel....and the now tail-heavy bird....trimmed for level flight..... [A few moments later].... frantically carrying out in reverse order everything that they had somehow successfully managed to do at take-off.
> ...



View attachment Checklist Procedures WW2.pdf

View attachment Luftwaffe flight training.pdf


----------



## stona (Jan 13, 2014)

"Its spindly narrow-track undercarriage is actually much too weak to cope with the enormous torque, rate of yaw, and turbulence of the airscrew. Take-off accidents are therefore commonplace..."

I've always considered this view, and it isn't just Rall's, both an over simplification and a cop out. The track of a Spitfire undercarriage is very similar (the _geometry_ is not) to a Bf 109 and I've never heard anyone claim that it made the Spitfire difficult to handle on the ground, land and take off.
Just saying 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GregP (Jan 13, 2014)

I have seen many reports from Luftwaffe pilots stating thaht the landing gear was well suited to forward airstrip operations. In particular, I have noted that heavy braking could be applied without fear of pitch-over, so the statement above is somewhat baffling to me after 40 years of reading otherwise.

I HAVE heard that the statement above that the 109 was not forgiving of landing on one gear leg is true, yet it doesn't seem to be an issue with the Spitfire that has similar gear width. The pilots who flew our Hispano Ha.1112 say it is a bit of a beast on the ground and can be in the air, too, but the reason we experienced a groundloop in it during the year 2000 was not poor piloting technique, but rather failure of the right brake on takeoff. Maybe you can get away with that one on grass, but not on pavement. Needless to say the brake system is getting scrutiny as it goes back together.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aozora (Jan 13, 2014)

stona said:


> "Its spindly narrow-track undercarriage is actually much too weak to cope with the enormous torque, rate of yaw, and turbulence of the airscrew. Take-off accidents are therefore commonplace..."
> 
> I've always considered this view, and it isn't just Rall's, both an over simplification and a cop out. The track of a Spitfire undercarriage is very similar (the _geometry_ is not) to a Bf 109 and I've never heard anyone claim that it made the Spitfire difficult to handle on the ground, land and take off.
> Just saying
> ...





GregP said:


> I have seen many report from Luftwaffe pilots stating thaht the landing gear was well suited to forward airstrip operations. In particular, I have noted that heavy braking could be applied without fear of pitch-over, so the statement above is somewhat baffling to me after 40 years of reading otherwise.
> 
> I HAVE heard that the statement above that the 109 was not forgiving of landing on one gear leg is true, yet it doesn't seem to be an issue with the Spitfire that has similar gear width. The pilots who flew our Hispano Ha.1112 say it is a bit of a beast on the ground and can be in the air, too, but the reason we experienced a groundloop in it during the year 2000 was not poor piloting technique, but rather failure of the right brake on takeoff. Maybe you can get away with that one on grass, but not on pavement. Needless to say the brake system is getting scrutiny as it goes back together.



See why this is in an "Aviation myths that will not die" thread? On the other hand Rall had plenty of experience in the 109, so to dismiss his opinion about how tricky it could be for a novice, and call it a "cop out" is in itself a cop out. That outward slant of the 109 undercarriage meant that anything but a perfect two-wheel landing could push the wheel sideways, which could result in a ground loop. The straight legs of the Spitfire resisted that sideways thrust, albeit a heavy landing could push the leg up through the wing. The Spitfire's biggest weakness was that it could, and did, tip up on its nose under heavy breaking, unlike the 109.


----------



## Juha (Jan 13, 2014)

Aozora said:


> ... That outward slant of the 109 undercarriage meant that anything but a perfect two-wheel landing could push the wheel sideways, which could result in a ground loop. The straight legs of the Spitfire resisted that sideways thrust, albeit a heavy landing could push the leg up through the wing. The Spitfire's biggest weakness was that it could, and did, tip up on its nose under heavy breaking, unlike the 109.



It was best to get a good 3-point landing with 109, it didn't like even a good "wheeler" and any derivation from a straight line was best to correct immediately otherwise it groundlooped easily. 109 groundlooped easily mostly because of its CG was farther back than that of Spit's ie in 109 tailwheel took greater part of the a/c's weight. From the same reason Spit nosed over much more easily.

Juha


----------



## Njaco (Jan 13, 2014)

> ....The pilots who flew our Hispano Ha.1112 say it is a bit of a beast on the ground and can be in the air, too, but the reason we experienced a groundloop in it during the year 2000 was not poor piloting technique, but rather failure of the right brake on takeoff. ....



I don't think you can really compare the Post-1946 pseudo 109s to those manufactured during the war.

In his book on the 109, Jerry Scutts talked about the manufacture of the 109 after the war. The problem they experienced with the after-market 109s, Avias, etc was with the new engines changing the characteristics of the plane.

pg 135
"....a considerable redesign was then undertaken to modify the G-14 airframe to take the 1,350 hp Junkers Jumo 211F, ample stocks of which were available......At maximum output, the DB 605A was rated at 1,474 hp, which meant that the Jumo engine was marginally less powerful; intended to power the He 111 bomber, the Jumo required, among other things, a VS 11 airscrew with paddle blades which were considerably broader than any other previously fitted to a Bf 109. The substitute engine had however led to quite substantial changes in the Bf 109's handling characteristics, not the least of which was the fact that torque from the massive airscrew induced a very strong swing during the take-off run....."


----------



## GregP (Jan 13, 2014)

Hi Aozora,

I would never dismiss Rall's comments out of hand' he was a master of the Bf 109, if ever there was one. However, it is very possible that his memories were from when he first tansitioned into it rather than from later operational flying. First flights in high-powered planes are always sharp memories. I clearly recall my first flight in a 260 HP Pitts Special since prior to that time, the highest horsepower plane I had flown was 225 HP, but the Pitts was diminutive compared with a Cessna 172. The torque difference, considering it was a conventional gear plane AND higher power AND much shorter-coupled combined for an unforgettable takeoff. When the power goes to 1,475 HP or more, the impressions must be commensurately stronger.

In many reports I have read and in talking with some former Bf 109 pilots from WWII at the musuem, I am under a strong impression that the proper way to fly a Bf 109 was carefully discussed and training was tailored to it, rendering it less daunting. If Rall trasitioned into it in 1939, then war was almost upon the Germans (or the rest of the woirld, as you care to look at it) and perhaps his training was of the "hurried" variety? Not having been there, I can't say.

But I have spoken with at least a dozen former Luftwaffe pilots who really liked the Bf 109 and its handling characteristics. They didn't view them as shortcomings and perhaps the memories are simply best recollections from a LONG time ago. Of course, they WERE operating from grass and dirt / mud, not from pavement.

All this makes for a very interesting discussion, but it hardly seem as if an unbiased flight report from a contemporary pilot will be forthcoming in the forum here to help give us closure, does it? I still think it is a strong candidate for best fighter of all times, but won't get acrimonious about it.

It is unlikely we will see closure on many of the myths that will not die anytime soon, but the discussion are always fun.


----------



## Juha (Jan 13, 2014)

Hello Greg
even if Germans and British pilots who flew both Spit Mk I and Bf 109E disagreed which was better fighter (both sides tended to think that theirs was the better one) they agreed that Spit was easier to t/o and land. Werner Mölders wrote. "It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land..."

Juha


----------



## GregP (Jan 13, 2014)

I've heard that, Juha. It doesn't make the Bf 109 difficult ... it makes the Spitfire and Hurricane seem easy.

I have seen estimates of takeoff and landing accidents run anywhere from 10% to as many as 1/3 of the 109's operated, and am skeptical of either extremity. Generally the truth is in the middle. If that is so, perhaps the Bf 109 WAS a real bear on takeoff and landing. Perhaps the trianing wasn't up to par. Perhaps a bit of both. Either way, a lot of 109's ended up in accidents. How many were write-offs I cannot say.

It argues very hard for any potential Bf 109 pilot to be very proficient in tailwheel aircraft with high power, particularly today in light of the few Bf 109's that are flyable. If I owned one, I'd try my best to fly it off grass rather than pavement, but would fly it anyway. One can wish (and buy a lottery ticket).


----------



## Aozora (Jan 13, 2014)

GregP said:


> Hi Aozora,
> 
> I would never dismiss Rall's comments out of hand' he was a master of the Bf 109, if ever there was one. However, it is very possible that his memories were from when he first tansitioned into it rather than from later operational flying. First flights in high-powered planes are always sharp memories. I clearly recall my first flight in a 260 HP Pitts Special since prior to that time, the highest horsepower plane I had flown was 225 HP, but the Pitts was diminutive compared with a Cessna 172. The torque difference, considering it was a conventional gear plane AND higher power AND much shorter-coupled combined for an unforgettable takeoff. When the power goes to 1,475 HP or more, the impressions must be commensurately stronger.
> 
> ...



Hi Greg,

Totally agree.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 13, 2014)

Just been going back through this thread, there's some interesting stuff; on the Wrights, someone could spend several pages listing claimants to powered-flight-before-the-Wrights. Some of the most notable in no particular order who have been thrust in the limelight as candidates either by their own hand or someone else's with a less-than-honourable agenda: Richard Pearse of Godzone (that's New Zealand), Aleksander Mozhaissky (not sure about the spelling) of Russia, Clement Ader of France, Alberto Santos Dumont of Brazil (living in France - Brazilians claim that the Wrights did not fly a powered aircraft in 1903, so the 14-Bis, the first heavier-than-aircraft to fly in Europe was the first), Preston Watson of Scotland, Gustave Whitehead of Teutonic origin in the USA, even Samuel Langley of the USA. 

Glenn Curtiss, in a spiteful measure after the Wrights took him to court for patent infringements tried to get around the issue by claiming that Langley's Aerodrome flew successfully before the Wright Flyer, despite its well-publicised death dive into the Potomac River. He proved it by rebuilding the Aerodrome until it looked nothing like the original and flew it as a float-plane. The Smithsonian even went as far as hanging the 'new' Aerodrome in its hall and dismissed the Wright's claim. This is why the 1903 Flyer, after rebuild, went to the UK and was there from 1912 to 1948. The very first actual engineering drawings of the Wright's first aircraft were produced by de Havilland apprentices who built an exact reproduction of it - the first of many since, which now hangs in the Science Museum in London.

Incidentally, Njaco, your great pictures of the Curtiss were taken at Millville, Indiana? Wilbur Wright was born there; I'm sure he would be rolling in his grave!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 13, 2014)

A few British myths that have been naughtily repeated in print by bad _and_ good authors since they first appeared; 

The Short Stirling's wingspan was restricted to less than 100 feet to enable it to fit in existing RAF hangars:

The origins of this myth are from an article in Flight magazine in 1942 that hypothesises, not even delibrately stipulates that the reason behind the Stirling's wingspan is because of the size of RAF hangar doors. This was repeated verbatim by an Air Historic Branch document on the development of British bombers after the end of the war and so everyone who has written about the Stirling since has repeated it. 

See here for my original source for that little snippet of information:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?119664-Aviation-Myths&p=2102408#post2102408

The RAF had hangars with door spans of 120 feet at the time that B.12/36 was issued; it was also stipulated that the aircraft had to be able to be easily maintained outdoors. The 100 foot wingspan limit was to prevent the aircraft getting too large in an attempt to keep weight growth at bay which in turn could enable the aircraft to operate from smaller grass strips. Restricting the span was seen as a suitable way of doing this; weight growth was what prolonged the Stirling's entry into service, not to mention its impact on its performance. Early Halifaxes had a similar restriction, but the Mk.III had longer spans than 100 feet, as did Lancasters.

The Westland Whirlwind was hampered by unreliable engines and fitting Merlins would have prolonged its career:

Issues with the Peregrine were rapidly sorted by Rolls-Royce. One of the big problems that pilots commented on was the fact that the engines overheated. This was not because of the engines, but because Westland had designed the radiator shutters to be linked with flap operation, so unless the flaps were dropped, these stayed firmly shut. RR chose not to continue developing and supporting the Peregrine because of limited application - only the Whirlwind was powered by it in service, and it was wiser to concentrate on Merlin and Griffon development. 

Fitting of anything other than the Peregrine would have involved much redesigning of the aircraft's structure and 'Teddy' Petter was aware of this; the aircraft was designed with as small a structure as possible and could not take another powerplant without considerable redesign, which would have had to included enlarging the airframe as well as strengthening it, which would have introduced enormous delays in production. By late 1940, the Air Ministry were regarding, perhaps unfairly, the Whirlwind as bordering on obsolescence as it was; delaying its introduction into service any more would not have been acceptable.

The problems with the Roll-Royce Vulture were never sorted and this resulted in its cancellation:

They were, in fact. The Vulture V was not hampered by the mating issues of the crank case and inadequate bolt sizes, which gave way under stress and resulted in the engine literally bursting apart and flailing itself to death. Cooling issues were sorted by introducing a more efficient fuel oil heat exchanger. The prototype Hawker Tornado was powered by the Vulture V. The engine was discontinued for the same reason as the Peregrine; limited application and continued expansion of Merlin and Griffon development.

Aaand my favourite Hobby Horse ) ); The Germans mistook Boulton Paul Defiants for Hurricanes during one day's combat over Dunkirk and fitting forward firing armament would have made the Defiant the "Bristol Fighter" of WW2:

The myth of mistaken identity was a result of the RAF scribe that produced the first official history of the Battle of Britain in 1942 and it is this that has a played a large part in defining the Defiant's post-war reputation, since almost every post-war author, apart from a very small few - like with the 100 foot hangar door limitation on the Stirling's wingspan - rehashes the myth in his or her coverage of the aircraft. On the day in question, 29 May 1940, 264 Sqn claimed 37 aircraft shot down without loss and it became known as 264's 'Day of Glory'; the actual number of aircraft shot down by the Defiants was most likely less than ten, nevertheless, apart from against six Bf 109s that attacked the formation over Dunkirk whilst looking for bombers in company with Hurricanes, it was the Defiants doing the attacking, when a formation of Ju 87s and Ju 88s escorted by Bf 110s was spotted.

Also, the Germans were well aware of the Defiant's unique armament; two weeks earlier on 13th May, five were shot down by Bf 109s whilst on patrol over the Dutch coast; this was the incident from which another myth surrounding the Defiant has sprung; that Defiants were chased by Stukas. No Stukas claimed Defiants as kills on that day and it was from 264 Sqn combat reports that the pilots had Stukas on their tails that the tale arose, particularly as the incident was witnessed both in the air and on the ground. Four Ju 87s were claimed by 264 Sqn.

As for the "Bristol Fighter of WW2" story; the Defiant's biggest deficiency was its forward speed; it was too slow and adding forward firing guns without deleting the turret would have slowed it down to prohibitive levels, not to mention reducing its range since its fuel tanks were located in its wings, so it would have been even slower and with a terrible endurance and therefore even more useless as a day fighter.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 13, 2014)

Sorry, Millville, New Jersey

Millville Army Air Field Museum | America's First Defense Airport


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 14, 2014)

> Sorry, Millville, New Jersey



Wilbur's rolling's slowed down a bit; you did mistake a Curtiss for a Wright Flyer, after all!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jan 14, 2014)

Aozora said:


> See why this is in an "Aviation myths that will not die" thread? On the other hand Rall had plenty of experience in the 109, so to dismiss his opinion about how tricky it could be for a novice, and call it a "cop out" is in itself a cop out.



I think you've missed my point (I probably could have put it better  ). The Bf 109 obviously did have some fairly malicious characteristics which made it a handful on the ground and at the very least unforgiving on take off and landing.
My point is that this had_ nothing to do with the width of the main undercarriage_ which was comparable to the Spitfire and some other types. It was a more complicated issue than that related to many other factors, the geometry of the undercarriage, the rearward CoG relative to the wheels, rudder and aileron authority (or lack of) during certain phases of take off and landing, the absence of a tail wheel lock (certainly on early versions but haven't checked) etc etc.
Rall and many, many others tended to over simplify this, blaming everything on a narrow undercarriage track. That's a cop out and ignores other problems in Willi's design which I believe would have been unacceptable to the British in a front line fighter to be flown by regular service personnel. No wonder Luftwaffe pilots found the British fighters 'childishly easy' to handle.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Jan 14, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> The myth of mistaken identity was a result of the RAF scribe that produced the first official history of the Battle of Britain in 1942 and it is this that has a played a large part in defining the Defiant's post-war reputation, since almost every post-war author, apart from a very small few - like with the 100 foot hangar door limitation on the Stirling's wingspan - rehashes the myth in his or her coverage of the aircraft.



You could extend that from the Defiant to the entire BoB. That pamphlet more or less cemented the popular version of the battle in the English speaking world. Even the normally retiring Dowding felt that he had to directly contradict some of the assertions made in it. It was published by HMSO with a definite eye on the US audience and has been responsible for many myths. It goes hand in hand with Capra's 'Why we Fight' films. Historians who really should know better have quoted from it uncritically and without reference to other sources since the day it was published.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Jan 14, 2014)

there are a lot of dynamics to tail wheel ac that can make it a beast or as docile as a dormouse. they range from the design of the linkage...size of the wheel itself...whether it is unlockable or fixed..the weight distribution..etc. the plane i am working on is said to be "quirky" ( read that as a possible high pucker factor at times ) with the standard tail wheel set up. by bumping it up to an inch bigger in diameter and changing it from a single control rod to dual rods that all goes away and tames it down quite a bit. you will never make a tail dragger as easy to fly as a tricycle gear ( nose gear ) ac. there is a "joke" in aviation where its said you arent a real pilot unless you fly a taildragger....you can guess which group made that one up....lol.

if you tap the brakesa little too much going too fast you can nose just about any tail wheeled plane over. i have seen several pics of @$$ high 51s with the prop buried in the ground.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jan 15, 2014)

Hans Kurt Graf von Sponneck gave an insight into the Bf 109 tail wheel. He was posted to Norway where he and his training squadron (10./JG3) were to be integrated into JG5. Norwegian runways were not grass but rather wood or concrete. On arriving at their Norwegian base FIVE of fifteen Bf 109 Es crashed on landing. Three of the machines had to be returned to Germany for repair. As a result of this incident a tail wheel lock was devised by the Luftwaffe repair facility at Stavanger-Forus and fitted to all Norwegian based Bf 109s.

Ernst Schroder is scathing in his criticism, believing the Bf 109 without 'Kommandogerat' and other devices was a generation behind the Fw 190. It's handling characteristics caused him to describe it as _'a scheissbock, it was a crime that it was manufactured until 1945.'_

For every experienced pilot who disliked the Bf 109 you'll find one who did. Eduard Neumann considered that_ 'Willy Messerschmitt was a genius in designing such an aircraft'_. 
Heinz Lange remembered that the Bf 109 was _'hard on the stick, but I liked it very much'._

You pays your money and you takes your pick, but all four of those above, regardless of their personal view of the 109, considered it difficult for inexperienced pilots to handle. That, in a rapidly expanding air force, engaged in campaigns which from the start caused a high rate of attrition for its pilots and resultant replacement with less capable ones, cannot be a good thing.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tengu1979 (Jan 19, 2014)

My favourite always:

Polish Air Force was destroyed on the ground on first day of campaign. Seen in many documentaries with footage from Russia (clearly visible R-5s and I-16s)


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 19, 2014)

bobbysocks said:


> ...i have seen several pics of @$$ high 51s with the prop buried in the ground.


Yeah, but nothing says "I want to be ridiculed day and night for the next 6 months" like the arse-end of a P-47 flapping in the breeze does!


----------



## stona (Jan 19, 2014)

The Luftwaffe had a name for an aircraft standing on its nose. It was a 'fliegerdenkmal' or flyer's monument.

I'd have given this one a 10/10.






I was so impressed that I made a model of it (in 1/72 which I normally avoid!)






Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 19, 2014)

BRILLIANT!


----------



## Timppa (Jun 2, 2016)

Field Marshal Keitel ordered in May 1943:
"Aviators Normandie (Niemen) shall be executed on capture"

True/plausible/busted ?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 2, 2016)

Wiki says "true"


----------



## stona (Jun 2, 2016)

Evidence? Captured allied airmen were ultimately the responsibility of the Luftwaffe.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2016)

From Wiki;

_"He signed numerous orders of dubious legality under the laws of war. The most infamous were the Commissar Order (which stipulated that Soviet political commissars were to be shot on sight) and the Night and Fog Decree (which called for the forced disappearance of resistance fighters and other political prisoners in Germany's occupied territories). Another was the order that French pilots of the Normandie-Niemen squadron be executed rather than be made prisoners of war."_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2016)

_"On 21May 1944 Keitel received a note from *WFST* to the effect that Hitler had decided that enemy fliers who had been forced down should be shot without court-martial, if. they had engaged in "acts of terror". Keitel wrote on the note "Please arrange for order to be drafted. K". (731-PS)

By 4 June 1944 Jodl and Warlimont were ready to go ahead with formulating the plans. Goering was to be asked what actions of enemy fliers should be punishable by death; the Airmen's Reception Camp at Oberursel was to be told which fliers should be delivered to the SD; and the Foreign Office was to be kept advised. (737-PS)"

"On 17 June 1944 Keitel wrote to the Foreign Office to ask their approval of the proposed measure and the agreed definition of "Acts of Terror" (730-PS). On the same day Keitel wrote to Goering to ask for his approval of the definitions of "Acts of Terror", and also to ask that he give verbal instructions to the Commandant of the camp at Oberursel to hand over fliers guilty of such acts to the SD. Both Keitel and Jodl initialled this letter (729-PS). Goering replied that fliers not guilty of acts of terror must be protected, and suggested that such matters be handled by the courts. (732-PS)"_

Wilhelm Keitel, Nuremberg Charges, 1945


----------



## stona (Jun 2, 2016)

So it was a lesser known component of the charges that led to his Nuremberg conviction and subsequent execution.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Timppa (Jun 3, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Wilhelm Keitel, Nuremberg Charges, 1945



So the Nurenberg charges don't mention Normandie-Niemen at all.
Why single out this French regiment ? There were Polish and Czech units as well in VVS.
Why not French, Polish, Czech units serving in RAF ?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 3, 2016)

Timppa said:


> So the Nurenberg charges don't mention Normandie-Niemen at all.
> Why single out this French regiment ? There were Polish and Czech units as well in VVS.
> Why not French, Polish, Czech units serving in RAF ?


Because Normandie-Niemen was a thorn in the German's side.

The Groupe de Chasse 3 was highly decorated for it's service and successes. In addition, quite a few of it's pilots were well decorated, too.


----------



## The Kohler (Jun 3, 2016)

I have two myths to share. Both are in regards to the RAF and USAAF bombing of Dresden on February 13 and 14, 1945. These myths are often mentioned by right wing folks around the yearly anniversary.


More than a quarter million Germans, mostly fugitives died during this three wave attack. Sometimes, even higher numbers of victims are mentioned.
USAAF fighters strafed civilians in and around Dresden during the 2/14/45 attack.


----------



## stona (Jun 4, 2016)

The Kohler said:


> I have two myths to share. Both are in regards to the RAF and USAAF bombing of Dresden on February 13 and 14, 1945. These myths are often mentioned by right wing folks around the yearly anniversary.
> 
> 
> More than a quarter million Germans, mostly fugitives died during this three wave attack. Sometimes, even higher numbers of victims are mentioned.
> USAAF fighters strafed civilians in and around Dresden during the 2/14/45 attack.



And they were both started and promoted by the immediate post war government of the GDR which was anything but right wing 

The first was achieved by simply and crudely adding a zero to the existing contemporary reports, the second an extrapolation of the facts of some actions which did involve US fighters in the area, at the time, though not intentionally strafing civilians.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jun 4, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Because Normandie-Niemen was a thorn in the German's side.



So were lots of other units, that doesn't wash with me. 

Keitel clearly signed orders dealing with allied airmen in general, I see no evidence that any particular unit was singled out. The idea that one was is a typical extrapolation or interpretation of known facts to suit another end, absolutely typical roots for this kind of myth to grow on. A little dash of truth makes it all the more plausible.
Unless someone shows some specific evidence then the proposition that Keitel signed an order to the effect that "Aviators Normandie (Niemen) shall be executed on capture" is busted!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 4, 2016)

The Kohler said:


> I have two myths to share. Both are in regards to the RAF and USAAF bombing of Dresden on February 13 and 14, 1945. These myths are often mentioned by right wing folks around the yearly anniversary.
> 
> 
> More than a quarter million Germans, mostly fugitives died during this three wave attack. Sometimes, even higher numbers of victims are mentioned.
> USAAF fighters strafed civilians in and around Dresden during the 2/14/45 attack.


Once in a while, I even come across someone who's using Goebbel's press release almost verbatim.

He issued a press release immediately following the bombings, claiming the city was a cultural, non-military target with over 200,000 deaths and used a small girl victim's photograph in the release. The casualty figure in Goebbel's media release was literally pulled out of the air, as the city was still burning when his release went to press.


----------



## stona (Jun 4, 2016)

Mmmmmm, Zeiss-Ikon and at least another 150 companies issued with 'ordnance codes', manufacturing for the Wermacht. Also a major communications target... good old Goebbels.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## The Kohler (Jun 4, 2016)

stona said:


> And they were both started and promoted by the immediate post war government of the GDR which was anything but right wing
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I beg to differ, at least partially, 
S
 stona
.

In the German Democratic Republic, the official number of victims was 35,000. Sometimes a much higher number was offered but these was almost always used to blame the USA and to a lesser extend the UK as “Klassenfeind”. And you are right, the GRD was not right wing. But after the end of the cold war, a relative high number of Neo-Nazis appeared, especially in the State of Saxony.



GrauGeist said:


> Once in a while, I even come across someone who's using Goebbel's press release almost verbatim.
> 
> He issued a press release immediately following the bombings, claiming the city was a cultural, non-military target with over 200,000 deaths and used a small girl victim's photograph in the release. The casualty figure in Goebbel's media release was literally pulled out of the air, as the city was still burning when his release went to press.



Correct, Goebbels used a number of several hundred thousand victims in a press release. However, on March 22, 1945, the chief of civil police Berlin reported 18,375 deaths and made an assumption that the final number might be 25,000 including foreigner.

During 2004, Dresden’s Mayor Rossberg summoned a commission of historians in order to prepare an official report about the February 1945 bombing raid. This commission came to the conclusion that the number of deaths from the February 13/14 attack must be between 22,700 and 25,000. They also debunked the stories of the manhunts by escort fighters within the vicinity of Dresden. This report, in German only, can be found here: http://www.dresden.de/media/pdf/infoblaetter/Historikerkommission_Dresden1945_Abschlussbericht_V1_14a.pdf

Also one of the best sources about Dresden during WWII is Goetz Bergander’s book “Dresden im Luftkrieg: Vorgeschichte – Zerstoerung – Folgen. ISBN: 9783453021778. Unfortunatly this book is in German only.

It was not my intention to occupy this thread with the destruction of Dresden, but this topic is very irrational discussed in Germany. And no, I’m not a German.


Cheers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 4, 2016)

stona said:


> Mmmmmm, Zeiss-Ikon and at least another 150 companies issued with 'ordnance codes', manufacturing for the Wermacht. Also a major communications target... good old Goebbels.
> Cheers
> Steve


And the nearby marshaling yards are often overlooked, Dresden being an important rail hub because of it's geographical location.

Alot of research showed that there were a great deal of refugees at the time of the bombing (many of whom perished in the town square), who were fleeing the advance of the Red Army, but one thing that is almost always over-looked, is that the Wehrmacht and other units were present, as they were streaming through the city and nearby region as the eastern and south-eastern fronts were collapsing.

So in looking at the overall picture and the inaccuracies that persist after all these years, it seems that Dr. Goebbel's ministry of disinformation was far more effective than even he could imagine.


----------



## stona (Jun 4, 2016)

Probably the best and fairly recent (last ten years or so) book in English is Frederick Taylor's "Dresden: Tuesday, February 14, 1945" which draws substantially on Bergander's work, among others.

I can't check (I'm in Barcelona and my books are in Birmingham!) but I believe that Taylor found that all US Fighters involved on the 14th were under orders to stay with the bombers on the way in and that one Group (356th) did report combat over Dresden with the Luftwaffe. This started at altitude but some aircraft did fly low along the Elbe valley and over the city, they were not however engaging targets on the ground. This might be the grain of truth that has germinated into the myth of low level attacks following eye witness testimony and publication of such by Irving et alter. It was all thoroughly debunked by Schnatz over fifteen years ago. Unfortunately some will cling to eye witness testimonies as reliable, and there are many supporting the strafings, even when they are unsupported by any other evidence.
Once released from their escort duties, on withdrawal, (this could be as much as two hours after the bombing) the fighters did indeed descend and strafe their usual targets of opportunity. The nearest to Dresden any of these low level attacks can be traced is about 100 miles to the west of the city.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jun 5, 2016)

Dresden M/Y was the specific of the 1st AD for both Feb 14 and 15, dropping 771 tons and 461 tons respectively. Part of the problem was combined visual bombing and H2X.

Nobody in 8th FC was stupid enough to look for strafing targets near the city as flak concentrations were notoriously strong around all major cities, particularly as the defense perimeter had shrunk enabling a 2X concentration of light flak all around central Germany.


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 5, 2016)

din my father's papers was an article which was more like a letter to an editor. this was supposedly penned by a bomber pilot who participated in one of the Dresden bombings. I would have to dig through the papers again to see if the author gives his name and unit. Basically what he said was " I was tasked with bombing the marshaling yards and that is indeed, what we hit." IIRC he sites that there were many industries and dwellings within close proximity and so he could see how some were hit but his orders and those of the rest of his unit were the railways and nothing else. but he also make a claim that leaflets were dropped at least once over the city announcing that the city would be bombed. how often were leaflets like this dropped? I found a couple sites that mention that they were...

The bombing of Dresden | About Dresden


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 5, 2016)

There were a great deal of leaflets dropped on Germany during the course of the war, but I have not heard of any instances where the people were warned prior to a target being attacked.

This would have allowed the Luftwaffe to mount a solid defense with disasterous results for the bombers.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jun 6, 2016)

The Corsair was the first US Fighter to reach 400 mph

The P-40 was not a good fighter


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 6, 2016)

I've seen examples of leaflets dropped by the USAAF over Japan during WW2 that warned of future bombing . 
They would leaflet several cities, but only bomb one.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 6, 2016)

pinehilljoe said:


> The Corsair was the first US Fighter to reach 400 mph
> 
> The P-40 was not a good fighter




Not myths 

Or depends on wording. The XF4U-1 was supposed to have hit 400mph Oct 1, 1940. insert either "single engine" or "carrier" between "first" and "US fighter" and it is true. 
XP-38 had 11 hours and 50 minutes of flight time before departing on the cross country flight that ended in the crash. It is possible in just under 12 hours of flight testing that they did a high speed of run of 400mph. Maybe somebody has the date of the 400mph P-38 flight? 

How good the P-40 was as a fighter depended on the opposition. In many theaters it needed top cover by other aircraft types.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 6, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> I've seen examples of leaflets dropped by the USAAF over Japan during WW2 that warned of future bombing .
> They would leaflet several cities, but only bomb one.



Dropping leaflets that said they were going to bomb certain city/s at _some _point in the future could certainly have been done and probably was, even as an exercise in physiological warfare. If even a few percent of the workers leave because of leaflets that is a cheap hit to production. 
Dropping leaflets with schedule of cities and dates and then keeping to it would have been a great gift to the defense.


----------



## stona (Jun 7, 2016)

bobbysocks said:


> Basically what he said was " I was tasked with bombing the marshaling yards and that is indeed, what we hit."



Extremely unlikely as much of the Dresden bombing by the USAAF was done by H2X. In the last 6 months of the war only 14% of 8th AF bombing was done visually, the weather in NW Europe precluded it.
50% of bombing was done through 8-9/10th cloud and 10/10 cloud. 
To give an idea of the accuracy of radar bombing in late 1944/early 1945, through 10/10th cloud just 1 bomb in 500 fell within 1000' of the aiming point, nearly 60% fell 5 miles or more from the aiming point.
These results are actually worse than Bomber Command achieved using H2S at night, probably because the 8th AF bombed from higher altitude.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Maybe somebody has the date of the 400mph P-38 flight?



The P-38 Lightning

_What was the actual maximum speed of the XP-38? To begin, it is almost certain that no attempt was made to operate the aircraft at maximum speed. The first flight almost ended in disaster when the flap operating rods broke on takeoff. There were only five other test flights used to correct the flap problem and other known defects, after which the aircraft was sent on its cross-country flight. Kelsey was a trained test pilot and the flight plan required strict adherence to specific power settings calculated to balance speed with fuel consumption. In fact, he makes a similar statement in an interview (see below). 

Warren Bodie’s definitive book on the P-38 has most of the answers concerning this question. The best data comes from an interview that took place several years after Kelsey’s retirement. It appears that he took two sets of performance readings during the flight while at high-speed cruise. He used this to calculate what the maximum speed would be at 20,000 feet at rated power. Remember that Kelsey was an MIT engineering graduate who spent much of his time estimating the performance of new airplanes. 

One of the calculations showed a maximum speed of 394 mph at 20,000 feet on 1150 hp/ engine. The other showed 399 mph at 20,000 feet if 1250 hp/ engine was used. His data and calculations were given to Kelly Johnson who came up with 403 mph at critical altitude (around 20,000 feet) on 1150 hp/ engine. Johnson also had plans to alter the design of the airplane and expected to improve the speed by around 10-mph, giving it a top speed of 413 mph. This is often quoted as the top speed of the XP-38, but as flown, it would appear to be between 394 to 403 mph. Nonetheless, this makes the P-38 the first 400-mph fighter in history. _


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 7, 2016)

So the XP-38 never actually hit 400mph in flight, it was calculated. And we are assuming that they used the correct correction factor for drag at 400mph because the P-38 famously ran into compressability problems. 
The YP-38 seemed to have a bit of trouble hitting 400mph in tests even with gun ports covered. 

Of course to be fair the XF4U Corsair's claim to 400mph is also a bit dubious. According to WIki that was the average ground speed on a flight from Stratford Ct (Chance Vought plant) to East Hartford (P & W Plant). The Flight was in a North East direction and that happens to be about the direction of the prevailing winds in the Area (I lived in Stratford for over 12 years) and distance between the two air fields in about 45 miles. It would take 6.66 minutes at the claimed 405 mph. Now just ho long was the engine _supposed_ to held at max power? 
Who was doing the timing? and what reference points were being used to start and stop the watch. 

The plane may have averaged the 405mph But I would bet it help from a tail wind. Perhaps not to the extent of the famous 400mph Hurricane though


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2016)

I think the 400 mph top speed came from the calculated times during the legs on Kelsey's cross country flight.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 9, 2016)

I believe this is true .... but it's the stuff of myths 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reytu0y5efs_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jun 9, 2016)

I don't believe that either Kelly Johnson or Ben Kelsey were fully aware of compressibility drag rise in 1938 (or 1941).

M 1 @ 20,500 feet at STP is 705mph. 400mph is ~ .56M. The very much cleaner P-51 compressibility factor at that speed is approximately 1.25 absolutely 'clean'. As much as I respect Kelly Johnson I would not trust a top speed performance analysis which yielded 400 mph. The approach 'back in the day' would have been a balance between Power Available and Power Required. The latter was based on Total Drag at that speed and altitude and it is very unlikely that the reasonable compressibility drag factor for parasite drag was even close.

Far more likely would be the ground speed estimates with variable west to east tailwinds. We might consider that the speed run was Not made east to west to average out the winds aloft.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 9, 2016)

Ground speed estimates of top speed is, in my opinion, dismissable, if that's a word.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 9, 2016)

Ground speed, as measured between two points on the ground, can be very accurate. It is the way world speed records were measured. It can also be very inaccurate, all the way down to WAG territory. 
World speed records require cameras and clocks that are synchronized at both the start and finish lines and flights to be made both ways within a short period of time to average the wind conditions. 
Flights from airport A to airport B certainly introduce a host of variables. Synchronized clocks at each airport? Pilots wrist watch? 
When was the time started? Did the plane loose altitude over the course of the flight? like drop several thousand feet over 50 miles? Tail winds were what speed at what altitude? 
However even test flights are not 100% accurate until/unless correction factors are figured into the instrument readings. 
Sometimes extra instruments were fitted to aircraft including things like recording barometers and temperature recorders (they recorded on paper drums) 






So the proper corrections could be made to the instrument readings, like the normal altimeter and air speed _indicator._
Often a new/different pitot tube was fitted to test aircraft in order to minimize errors due to pitot tube location or shape until a general correction could be worked out for production examples. Also the correction factor for the pitot tube/airspeed indicator varied a bit with the speed of the aircraft and in some cases gave higher readings than true instead of lower. 

Both the P-38 and F4U were designed with the _intention _of being 400mph aircraft. Both wound up _being _400mph aircraft, just not in their original form or using their original engines. Since due to crashes of prototypes and delays in programs they over lapped considerably the only real value in which was _first _would be to settle a bar bet.


----------



## grampi (Jun 9, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 1. The Tuskagee Airmen never lost a bomber they were escorting.
> 
> 2. The Stuka was more vulnerable than other Dive Bomber.
> 
> 3. The Germans called the P-38 the Fork Tailed Devil.



What did the Germans call the P-38?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 9, 2016)

grampi said:


> What did the Germans call the P-38?


Lightning


----------



## grampi (Jun 9, 2016)

model299 said:


> I remember the first time I heard a P38 running. Oshkosh, 1981 iffen I remember right. As it did a low flyby, I thought it sounded like 2 P51s with glasspacks.



The 38 sounded nothing like the 51...the 51 was loud...the 38 is very quiet...


----------



## grampi (Jun 9, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Lightning



So where did the Fork Tailed Devil name come from then?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 9, 2016)

Training manual writer for the Air Corp trying to boost Morale

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 9, 2016)

grampi said:


> So where did the Fork Tailed Devil name come from then?


The Americans...the nickname eventually ended up in the training manual

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 9, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Lightning


I am glad that our fellow Europeans followed the English name system rather than a nondescript number for the 
forked tailed devil/lightning.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2016)

grampi said:


> What did the Germans call the P-38?



Not the forked tail devil.

Probably the Lightning.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 9, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Ground speed, as measured between two points on the ground, can be very accurate. It is the way world speed records were measured. It can also be very inaccurate, all the way down to WAG territory.
> World speed records require cameras and clocks that are synchronized at both the start and finish lines and flights to be made both ways within a short period of time to average the wind conditions.
> Flights from airport A to airport B certainly introduce a host of variables. Synchronized clocks at each airport? Pilots wrist watch?
> When was the time started? Did the plane loose altitude over the course of the flight? like drop several thousand feet over 50 miles? Tail winds were what speed at what altitude?
> ...




Precisely!


----------



## parsifal (Jun 10, 2016)

stona said:


> So were lots of other units, that doesn't wash with me.
> 
> Keitel clearly signed orders dealing with allied airmen in general, I see no evidence that any particular unit was singled out. The idea that one was is a typical extrapolation or interpretation of known facts to suit another end, absolutely typical roots for this kind of myth to grow on. A little dash of truth makes it all the more plausible.
> Unless someone shows some specific evidence then the proposition that Keitel signed an order to the effect that "Aviators Normandie (Niemen) shall be executed on capture" is busted!
> ...


 

Of the 42 pilots shot down and captured alive by the germans from this group 38 were shot or otherwise disappeared.

hard to produce the hard evidence you are asking, but I believe that statistic and it certainly looks like the normandie gp (it wasn't awarded the honourary title "niemen' until 1944) was singled out for special treatment. The gp had caught the eye of the germans since its above average performance in the battle of france. When as a group it defected enmasse in December 1941 it enraged the Nazis. when it showed up in the East in 1943, and began shooting down large numbers of LW a/c , and generally acting as "pin up boys" for both the VVS and the FFL forces, it was a short extrapolation for the Nazis to extend their already illegal positions like the commissar orders and the commando orders to include these guys.


its not explainable why they would treat these guys differently to others, but the statistics just say that they did. Like a lot of things, the Nazis often acted without rationality or consistency.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 10, 2016)

parsifal said:


> its not explainable why they would treat these guys differently to others, but the statistics just say that they did. Like a lot of things, the Nazis often acted without rationality or consistency.


Like I mentioned earlier, Groupe de Chasse 3 was a thorn in the Luftwaffe's side.

And as we know, there was no love lost between Germany and the Soviet Union.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 10, 2016)

I should say this as a word of caution. In the book "French Eagles, Soviet Heroes", the numbers of pilots that were taken prisoner to the number I quoted above (which comes from a different source). The book says that only 8 were taken prisoner, but conversely all of those 8 were killed whilst in captivity.

I'd have to say the information does appear a little unreliable, but both sources that I know of are in unison as to proportions of pilots captured and then killed....all of them, or nearly all of them. .


----------



## Graeme (Jun 11, 2016)

I believe the origins of the Dornier Do-17, as reproduced here, is a complete myth that has been replicated in books/magazines for many decades...






The truth...


----------



## Graeme (Jun 11, 2016)

grampi said:


> So where did the Fork Tailed Devil name come from then?



Not on this list...but there are some interesting others...


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 11, 2016)

"Bf 109G was a slow fighter"


----------



## Milosh (Jun 11, 2016)

CF-100 was also called the Clunk, iirc


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 11, 2016)

Many aircraft had nicknames, some affectionate, some not. 
Nicknames that were _supposed _to be made-up by enemy troops/forces showing how terrified they were of the aircraft in question should be looked at with a fair amount of suspicion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 11, 2016)

clunk ..... from landing gear retraction


----------



## pbehn (Jun 12, 2016)

M


Shortround6 said:


> Many aircraft had nicknames, some affectionate, some not.
> Nicknames that were _supposed _to be made-up by enemy troops/forces showing how terrified they were of the aircraft in question should be looked at with a fair amount of suspicion.


I think many RAF BoB pilots referred to 109s as "snappers"


----------



## Airframes (Jun 12, 2016)

"Snappers" was a generic R/T code for enemy fighters, just as was Bandits, and later, Bogeys.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 12, 2016)

Yep, the RAF does seem to have known and used the name Jaguar for the Bf 110.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 12, 2016)

The nickname discussion got me to finally post a master list I had been working on several years ago...

Certainly not complete, but has a huge number of names on the list. 

Take a look and see which ones I may have left out!

Aircraft Nickname Master List


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 12, 2016)

I remember my father referring to the me163 as a squirt


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 14, 2016)

The CF-121 Redhawk ..... Canada's Migs. Now _this_ was a well-built myth 

The Breaking Point - Canadian MiGs test American friendship - 2011 APRIL FOOL'S HOAX > Vintage Wings of Canada

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 14, 2016)

Re: the "Goering ordered the fighters to closely escort the bombers" myth. Hans-Jürgen Stumpff, who commanded Luftflotte 5 which launched the disastrous (for the Luftwaffe) raids from Norway during the Battle of Britain, described Goering as a man 
_“with a tremendous strength; he was full of bright ideas. After each meeting with him you felt strongly inspired and filled with energy”. _
Despite surviving the war, having served with considerable distinction, he obviously didn't get the Galland et alter post war script, in which all the many failings of the Luftwaffe were blamed on Goering, hence exculpating the men who were actually responsible, Galland, who we shouldn't forget commanded Germany's fighter force later in the war, among them.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 14, 2016)

stona said:


> Re: the "Goering ordered the fighters to closely escort the bombers" myth. Hans-Jürgen Stumpff, who commanded Luftflotte 5 which launched the disastrous (for the Luftwaffe) raids from Norway during the Battle of Britain, described Goering as a man
> _“with a tremendous strength; he was full of bright ideas. After each meeting with him you felt strongly inspired and filled with energy”. _
> Despite surviving the war, having served with considerable distinction, he obviously didn't get the Galland et alter post war script, in which all the many failings of the Luftwaffe were blamed on Goering, hence exculpating the men who were actually responsible, Galland, who we shouldn't forget commanded Germany's fighter force later in the war, among them.
> Cheers
> Steve



I have read several books about Galland and I have come away from them with the feeling that Galland and the truth were sometimes not in the same room, sometimes not even in the same country. Goering was a bit of a Bullsh**er and a junkie but he was obviously not the complete buffoon some war survivors like to paint him. Without his work I doubt the LW would have been the battle winning machine it was.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 14, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> Without his work I doubt the LW would have been the battle winning machine it was.



Agree 100%

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Airframes (Jun 14, 2016)

In a filmed interview with Galland, I think in the 1980s, he is very obviously uncomfortable when answering the question regarding the shooting of aircrew under parachutes, stating that he never knew of this, and certainly not in his own unit.
Also, during the filming of the BoB movie, he is recorded as stating that Luftwaffe officers never gave the Nazi salute - there are photos of him, and other officers of JG26 giving this salute to Hitler, as he departed after a visit


----------



## stona (Jun 14, 2016)

Whilst I agree with the posts above I don't think that Galland should be singled out. He was not alone in his post war attempts to distance himself from the now defeated Nazi regime, nor in the general shellacking of Goering. It is the general acceptance of this and the resulting denigration of other leaders, not just Goering, to which I object. Anyone who knows me, even online, will know that I am no Nazi apologist, but I do endeavour to support a realistic version of history, one that does not pander to such 'myths'.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Hiromachi (Jun 14, 2016)

Oh no, many actual men responsible for failures tried to place a blame on those who were already dead or about to be executed (like Goering), since dead cant talk. I had some good time reading memoirs of Goering, including last interviews with him during Trials. It was a very different story then what one would hear from post war opinions from specific Luftwaffe veterans.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 14, 2016)

Hurricanes in the BoB attacked bombers while Spitfires engaged the 109s.


----------



## stona (Jun 14, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Hurricanes in the BoB attacked bombers while Spitfires engaged the 109s.


This was an intention but in reality squadrons were tasked to raids according to their geographical position and operational status. The primary target for all aircraft of Fighter Command was always the bombers.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pbehn (Jun 14, 2016)

stona said:


> This was an intention but in reality squadrons were tasked to raids according to their geographical position and operational status. The primary target for all aircraft of Fighter Command was always the bombers.
> Cheers
> Steve


The priority was to parry and repel the raid, it was only late in the BoB that some squadrons were paired. I dont think it was ever really an intention more an aspiration or a hope since the Spitfire was a better adversary for the 109.


----------



## Timppa (Jun 25, 2016)

Dubious claim concerning the P-63:



> By a 1943 agreement, P-63s were disallowed for Soviet use against Germany and were supposed to be concentrated in the Soviet Far East for an eventual attack on Japan.



I have not found any credible source for this. Nor does it make any sense.
There are obvious logistical reasons, but I doubt there was any "agreement".


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2016)

The vast majority of the P-63s were ferried to Russia by flying through Alaska. Don't know if this helped fuel the story.


----------



## stona (Jun 25, 2016)

I would wonder why such an agreement would have been made? I'm not aware of any other WW2 arms deals in which the end user had to agree not to use the weapon(s) in any particular geographic area.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 25, 2016)

As part of the Yalta conference the Americans got a commitment from Stalin to declare war on Japan within 90 days of peace with Germany .... as a consequence of that agreement Lend Lease supplies such as tanks and AC were _specified_ for the Japan offensive (August Storm) by the USA and were shipped into Pacific Russian ports expressly for that campaign. Western Europe held by the Soviets wasn't stripped of any military resources except Engineering and Medical units ... all the rest were mustered east of the Urals. So possibly this Yalta understanding has led to the P-63 myth.


----------



## stona (Jun 25, 2016)

michaelmaltby said:


> As part of the Yalta conference the Americans got a commitment from Stalin to declare war on Japan within 90 days of peace with Germany .... as a consequence of that agreement Lend Lease supplies such as tanks and AC were _specified_ for the Japan offensive (August Storm) by the USA and were shipped into Pacific Russian ports expressly for that campaign.



Well at least they were delivered thousands of miles from the Western Front!
I don't believe for a second that it would have stopped the Soviets using it elsewhere had they wanted to. The American idea that they could specify where it be used seems to demonstrate a rather naive appreciation of Stalin and his regime.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 25, 2016)

"... The American idea that they could specify where it be used seems to demonstrate a rather naive appreciation of Stalin and his regime."

That_ was _the case, IIRC.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2016)

The soviets made their first undertakings to attack Japan at the Teheran Conference in 1943, well before any deliveries of the p-63.
Stalin promised to enter the war in the Pacific after the German defeat in Europe in return for the Allies ' promise to open the Second Front. The allies were enthusiastic for Soviet support. The chinese had proven to be incapable of dealing with the massive Japanese army and the allies simply lacked the strength to tackle the IJA head on. The "island hopping" strategy was working, and the allies knew that the strangulation of Japan could work, in a military sense against any rational opponent, but the Japanese were anything but rational opponents. Their willingness to die to the last man for the emperor, made them a formidable and intractable opponent. At the time of Tehran, no-one could rely on the Chinese, no one could rely on the b-29, no-one could rely on the atomic bomb. The allies were aware of Japanese plans to initiate Kamikaze attacks, and the expectation was at that time that this would inflict heavy losses on the Allied fleets. The allies were just not in a position to start dictating about how the Soviets might use one type of aircraft being sent to them, es[ecioally when the Soviets were getting so much out of it

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jun 26, 2016)

47% of Lend/Lease was delivered to the Soviet Far East.



michaelmaltby said:


> As part of the Yalta conference the Americans got a commitment from Stalin to declare war on Japan within 90 days of peace with Germany .... as a consequence of that agreement Lend Lease supplies such as tanks and AC were _specified_ for the Japan offensive (August Storm) by the USA and were shipped into Pacific Russian ports expressly for that campaign. Western Europe held by the Soviets wasn't stripped of any military resources except Engineering and Medical units ... all the rest were mustered east of the Urals. So possibly this Yalta understanding has led to the P-63 myth.



Engines of the Red Army in WW2 - Routes Overview

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 26, 2016)

The figures tell the story, don't they?


----------



## wuzak (Jun 26, 2016)

Another myth is that the B-17 and B-24 were the biggest, or nearly the biggest, destroyers of enemy aircraft in the air for the Allies.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 26, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> I do not know about the first two, but my old NAZI Landlord sure did say " der Gabelschwanz-Teufel " a lot and think it was most dangerous plane we had.


Your NAZI landlord probably read too many of Cadin's books, because "Forktail Devil" wasn't a German nickname, it was coined by Americans.

And my non-Nazi German friend of the family, who was a former Luftwaffe pilot, referred to them simply as "Lightning" and they were of the least concern to the Luftwaffe pilots. He also referred to the P-51 as a "Mustang" and had a great deal of respect for it. The P-47, was called a "Thunderbolt" and he said he was always very aprehensive of them. I should also add, for the benefit of my friends across the pond, that he also thought highly of the Spitfire, both in looks and performance.

On the otherhand, my Uncle Jimmy, who DID fly them in the PTO, called it a "Forktail Devil".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Jun 26, 2016)

krieghund said:


> I know what you mean....However when famous WWII Authors promote the same "facts" its hard to get the truth out. This is an excerpt from Dr. Alfred Price's book 'Fighter Aircraft' I wonder what his sources were?



Obviously it was not the late 1960's UKCAA's Airworthiness directive controlling engine overhaul lives.
For several years it had the Allison at 600 hrs and the Merlin at 300 hours.

If anyone in the UK has access to any archives it would be worth the time to dig that document out. I stopped my subscription in 1970 and, like every other responsible LAME (the British Commonwealth equivalent of A&P) destroyed my out of date pubs.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 26, 2016)

James W. said:


> 400 mph aircraft speed as certified? Racing planes had done that a decade or so earlier..
> 400 mph fighter plane? By manufacturers estimate/testing, or by mil-spec acceptance/service tests?
> 
> Although not accepted for service, wasn't the He 100 reputedly capable of 400 mph in mil-spec trim?
> What about the MiG 3? Or Typhoon? Would the official service acceptance tests for these have predated P-38/F4U?


The He100 was never "mil-spec" since it was German designed and built. If you mean "made to RLM specifications", just say it.
As far as a record holder, yes, the He100V8 set a record of 463.9mph with a very special 2,700hp DB601 that had a life-span of 30 minutes. He100V3 and He100V8 were stripped down, modified and nothing like their military counterparts.

As it happens, the He100's world speed record didn't last, Messerschmitt's Me209 broke and held the world speed record for thirty years.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 26, 2016)

James W. said:


> Britain took the air-speed record shortly after the war.



With a jet. The Me 209 held the air speed record for piston engined aircraft for 30 years.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 26, 2016)

And Mil-Spec is a type of standard - like BS, SAE, ISO, AS, DIN, JIS.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 26, 2016)

Post was in responce to Post #281 through a chain of posts.

Relevant part of #281 was "The Corsair was the first US Fighter to reach 400 mph"



Yes a _few _ race planes from the Early 30s set speed records of over 400mph. Basically the Supermarine S6b and the Macchi M.C. 72.

I know I used the word "aircraft" when I should have used the word "fighter". The seaplanes and the other aircraft you mention don't really qualify, the seaplane racers for obvious reasons.
Planning for the F4U and and P-38 started in 1938 (if not before). Requirement for the Typhoon was "officially" from 1938 although they had been thinking about it earlier. 
MIg requirement is later but they turned it into hardware quicker. 
He 100 is a real can of worms, earlier in timing than the others it is a confused mess when trying to figure out what was "mil-spec/RLM specifications" and what was not. There is dispute about actual speeds of "service versions" vs prototypes. (leaving the record breaking aircraft out of it). That is a problem the Mig-1/3 also had. Granted the F4U and P-38 didn't have any service versions in existence in 1940. 

As a "fighter" the He 100 had little or no protection ( nothing did in 1939) and the armament was best described as pathetic. 
Please note Wiki : 

*Guns:* 1 x 20 mm (0.787 in) MG FF cannon and 2 x 7.92 mm (0.312 in) MG 17 machine guns or 20 mm (0.787 in) MG 151 cannon.
Now the problem I have with this is that the Germans were not able to get a *working* MG FF cannon firing through the prop hub into the 109 until the F model which showed up in the fall/winter of 1940, 6-9 months after production of the He 100 ended. As far as the MG 151 goes........First used (in through the prop form) by the 109F-4 in June of 1941, well after a year after they stopped building He 100s. 
Basically *any *He 100 in "service use" or exported (does that count as Mil-spec?) had a pair of 7.9mm mgs.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 26, 2016)

James W. said:


> Or is that a myth?
> The others are specific descriptors, not generally generic, like 'mil-spec', or 'metric'.



United States Military Standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A United States defense standard, often called a military standard, "MIL-STD", "*MIL-SPEC*", or (informally) "MilSpecs", is used to help achieve standardization objectives by the U.S. Department of Defense."


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 26, 2016)

James W. said:


> Or is that a myth?
> The others are specific descriptors, not generally generic, like 'mil-spec', or 'metric'.



Mil-Spec includes "everything". You want a Mil-Spec Ar-15 Rifle? *ALL *the parts have to be to the original specification alloy/s and heat treatment, not just look like the originals or even fit in an interchangeable manner.
First Colt AR-15s sold to civilians were built using _some _parts that failed US Military inspection. Let alone changes in the firing mechanism or changes in internal dimensions that prevented military trigger/group and hammer from being installed in a Civilian receiver. 
Nowadays with dozens of clones on the market it doesn't matter if company XX is using a stronger alloy or better heat treat or what ever, if not built to the original specifications (alloy/s--heat treat ,etc) it is NOT a Mil-spec gun. 

Mil-spec applied to aircraft can also get a bit 'squishy". P-40s for example. after a certain point in production (and after being used in combat for a while) P-40 weight charts delete oxygen equipment as "standard" It could be fitted but if the plane was to meet "book" gross weight something else had to be left out, like fuel or ammo.

Also fuel was somewhat iffy on the early P-40s. While the tanks could _hold _160 US gallons the "normal Gross weight" only allowed for 120 gallons. This was all internal, no drop tank. What was Mil-spec in this regard?

It was, in part, Mil-Spec that caused the trouble with the American Hispano cannon. the allowable tolerances for "cannon" were greater than they were for small arms (machine guns). The 20mm by it's bore size, fell into the cannon category.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 26, 2016)

Merlins in Meteors??

What??


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2016)

The tank engines were purpose built. Many people claim they used old aircraft engine blocks at times. This may or may not be a myth, Removing the supercharger and aircraft reduction gear is not as easy at sounds. The back of the prop reduction gear case was cast in one piece with the crankcase. The rear end of the engine may have had significant changes between the supercharger drive/and accessories and the tank accessory drive parts. Internal parts are much more interchangeable.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2016)

That's like assuming that since the M4 Sherman had a radial engine, it must be an aircraft engine.

Which is not the case.

The Caterpillar RD-1820/D200A (Diesel) and Continental R-975 (gasoline) were purpose-built for that application.


----------



## MiTasol (Jun 27, 2016)

I may well be wrong but I was always under the impression that the Continental R-975 was a Wright R-975 modified to suit tank installations with different nose case and rear cases but basically the rest was the same


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2016)

MiTasol said:


> I may well be wrong but I was always under the impression that the Continental R-975 was a Wright R-975 modified to suit tank installations with different nose case and rear cases but basically the rest was the same


key word: modified

Continental built the R-975 specifically for the M2, M3, M4, M7, M18 and Canada's version of the M3.

To convert a Continental R-975 to aircraft fitness would take some work and I don't think it would have been certified by the FAA as airworthy.

Continental did manufacture an aviation version post-war, the R9-A


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> Modified, sure same as Merlin/Meteor, but many Merlin parts, including those rejected as not of 'aviation-spec' went into Meteors.
> Funnily enough, the hard run Meteors showed the same valve gear wear issues as the Merlin, despite being de-rated.
> 
> The German & US SOHC V12s ran roller cam-followers,
> & Ford had gone DOHC for his 'improved' Merlin V12, that as the GAA ended up in tanks.


Where are you coming up with all of this sh!t?

Are you actually sober when you're posting this?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> DO you want to put a buck on the barrel head, to see who's the one " coming up...with shit"?


Hell yes, you bring it...

I've been hammering your stupid crap all night with hard fact...how much further do you want to go?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2016)

I don't do wiki

Go back over every single one of my posts and prove me wrong with legitimate sources, including authors and page numbers.

Go ahead, I'll wait.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2016)

Take a few days off from the forum and hell breaks loose. 

Remain civil!

And Shooter, I still have a lot to respond to you. Don't think I have forgotten.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Take a few days off from the forum and hell breaks loose.
> 
> Remain civil!
> 
> And Shooter, I still have a lot to respond to you. Don't think I have forgotten.


He is busy raising $1000


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> See here: www.raeme.info/ops8410.php & here: www.fordgaaengine.com
> 
> Next you'll try & dispute the fact that the USN used British Napier mills in its high-speed patrol boats in 'Nam too.
> 
> Edit: Added DOHC Ford data.



A Napier Deltic diesel is a far cry from the Napier Sabre engine. They are both internal combustion engines and that is about as close as you are going to get. The Deltic diesel used the patrol boats was basically 3 Jumo 205/7 diesels ganged together.





Very interesting engine (also used in railroad locomotives) but has got sod all to do with Napier aircraft engines or this topic, wide ranged as it is.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> A Napier Deltic diesel is a far cry from the Napier Sabre engine. They are both internal combustion engines and that is about as close as you are going to get. The Deltic diesel used the patrol boats was basically 3 Jumo 205/7 diesels ganged together.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My father used to drive them he said they were the best diesel/electrics, not sure how well they would have fitted in an airframe. Obvious when you see the graphic, I was surprised when I learned they were two strokes.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2016)

Thank you Pbehn

I would note going back to sources that it is best to be careful when citing car fanboy sites to double check things. Many of these sites think High Performance started in 1946 

From the site supplied by James W. " The Merlin's spark plugs were located on the exhaust side of the head just below the exhaust ports, whereas the GAA had its plugs centrally located in the combustion chamber, _as per modern practice_.

Italics by me. 




Cross section of a 1912/13 Peugeot Formula One engine.
Hmmm, double overhead cams, 4 valves per cylinder, central spark plug.
Modern practice dated to before the first WW I. 
There is also a lot of confusion between hemispherical combustion chambers and pent roof chambers. I have no idea where the dividing line is (in the angle between the valves) and no interest into getting into an argument over it. I would note that using a 4 valve head makes the use of true "hemi" head a bit difficult unless the valves are not only angled from the ones on the opposite side but from each other on the same side but that complicates the heck out of the valve gear

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2016)

There is little new under the sun, many of the "new" technology on motorcycles (monoshock and leading link suspension) was actually tried years ago.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2016)

Tell that to GM 

all their old industrial diesels used 4 valve heads. Air is blown in through the side through piston ports. all four poppet valves in the head are exhaust valves. Combustion chamber is flat.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> Sod all? The Jumo 2-stroke (which the Napier was based on), powered the Ju 86P high-altitude recon-bomber.


"based on" in the sense that it was a similar arrangement


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2016)

James W. said:


> Yep, so similar they had to buy a licence to build them- well until WW2 that is..


They license built an aero engine, then built a marine engine with opposed pistons.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2016)

Might have bit of trouble trying to fit a Deltic piston into a Jumo engine block.


----------



## GrapeJam (Jun 27, 2016)

The slats on the 109 allowed it to outturn Spitfire at low speed.


----------



## stona (Jun 27, 2016)

GrapeJam said:


> The slats on the 109 allowed it to outturn Spitfire at low speed.


No they did not. I'm sick of explaining why. A well flown Bf 109 could surely out turn a badly flown Spitfire but with both flown to their aerodynamic limits the Bf 109 cannot turn with the Spitfire.
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 27, 2016)

Steve - the member posted a myth ☺


----------



## stona (Jun 27, 2016)

He did,so I apologise to him!
It's just that I see this myth trotted out time and time again by people with no understanding of the relevant facts and it gets my goat
Steve


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Jun 27, 2016)

pbehn said:


> "based on" in the sense that it was a similar arrangement


No, "based-on" in that it was a development of three Napier Culverin aircraft engines, which were a license-built Jumo 204, arranged with common crankshafts. 

Junkers were in fact working on a similar arrangement, but failed to make the crucial adjustment of having the third crank turn in the opposite direction.


----------



## GrapeJam (Jun 28, 2016)

stona said:


> He did,so I apologise to him!
> It's just that I see this myth trotted out time and time again by people with no understanding of the relevant facts and it gets my goat
> Steve



Yeah, I feel ya mate, I got sick of debunking this myth over and over again whenever I see it pop up too.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 28, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Not worth comment!


That is the best post I have seen you make so far!!


----------



## stona (Jun 28, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> The Germans certainly claimed more losses, ( 9,800-10,000, IIRC?) to the B-17 than to any fighter plane in the Allied arsenal!



Did they really, any idea where I can find those figures ?

I've always had a different understanding. The USAAF won the one unequivocal victory of the combined bombing offensive between January and April 1944. In that period bomber losses rose before finally starting to fall as the Luftwaffe's fighter arm was defeated and air superiority was wrested away from the Germans. This is exactly the same period in which continually escorted missions became the norm, US fighters were omnipresent in German air space and there was nowhere for the Luftwaffe to hide....what an amazing coincidence 

Galland, April 1944, according to himself in 'First and Last'..

"The day fighters have lost more than 1,000 aircraft in the last four months, among them our best officers. These gaps cannot be filled...Things have gone so far that a risk of the collapse of our fighter arm exists."

For once his contention is supported by the facts. The pilot losses were most important. Between January and May 2,262 Luftwaffe pilots were lost (despite their invincible machines). Given an average establishment for the period of 2,283 pilots this represents a loss rate of 99% for the period.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 28, 2016)

stona said:


> Did they really, any idea where I can find those figures ?



You'll probably have to talk to his "Nazi" former landlord.


----------



## stona (Jun 28, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> They found the remains of their planes and could ascertain how they were shot down, so I would think their claims were very solid and not a myth!



By .50 calibre machine guns, common to both USAAF fighters and bombers.

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> I guess it depends on who's data you choose to believe? The Germans certainly claimed more losses, ( 9,800-10,000, IIRC?) to the B-17 than to any fighter plane in the Allied arsenal!
> They found the remains of their planes and could ascertain how they were shot down, so I would think their claims were very solid and not a myth!


This is simply nonsense, how on earth do you tell an aircraft was shot down by a B 17? Unescorted Bombers inflicted approximately 10% losses on attacking twin engined fighters but suffered prohibitive losses themselves, where were these 10000 planes based what percentage of the defending force does it represent? Why on earth did the Americans use the P51?

I suspect from your figures the LW ran out of fuel because they simply had too many planes in the sky. if 10,000 is 10% then they had 100,000 planes in service no wonder they won!


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2016)

stona said:


> By .50 calibre machine guns, common to both USAAF fighters and bombers.
> 
> Steve


Bomber crews signed all the bullets.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 28, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Bomber crews signed all the bullets.



Nah, it's all in the angles!

I've seen his explanation before.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2016)

wuzak said:


> Nah, it's all in the angles!
> 
> I've seen his explanation before.


You can say that an aircraft hit from the front was probably from defensive fire and those from behind was a fighter but no way to be sure, many were hit by both, it is impossible to say that defensive fire was from a B17, Almost all US aircraft used 0.5 Cal and so did some spitfires.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 28, 2016)

pbehn said:


> You can say that an aircraft hit from the front was probably from defensive fire and those from behind was a fighter but no way to be sure, many were hit by both, it is impossible to say that defensive fire was from a B17, Almost all US aircraft used 0.5 Cal and so did some spitfires.



I know that.

But it is Shooter's theory.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2016)

stona said:


> No they did not. I'm sick of explaining why. A well flown Bf 109 could surely out turn a badly flown Spitfire but with both flown to their aerodynamic limits the Bf 109 cannot turn with the Spitfire.
> Steve


The argument is always based on what pilots achieved not on physics. I used to race a modified 250cc motorbike, in open class races I regularly beat guys on 350cc 500cc and occasionally 1000cc machines. That does not mean my bike was faster better handling or better at stopping it means the rider or pilot makes the difference, I only beat the ACU 250cc champion once in 12 races and his bike was slower than mine.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2016)

wuzak said:


> I know that.
> 
> But it is Shooter's theory.



I could do a Rumslfeld, there are known knowns, unknown knowns, known unknowns.........yada yada yada.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2016)

pbehn said:


> The argument is always based on what pilots achieved not on physics. I used to race a modified 250cc motorbike, in open class races I regularly beat guys on 350cc 500cc and occasionally 1000cc machines. That does not mean my bike was faster better handling or better at stopping it means the rider or pilot makes the difference, I only beat the ACU 250cc champion once in 12 races and his bike was slower than mine.



But you had slats on fairing which enabled you to pull more "G"s while turning regardless of what your tires were doing on the pavement


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> But you had slats on fairing which enabled you to pull more "G"s while turning regardless of what your tires were doing on the pavement


many a true word spoken in jest, Barry Sheen did try adding slats of a sort.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 28, 2016)

pbehn said:


> many a true word spoken in jest, Barry Sheen did try adding slats of a sort.
> View attachment 347193



Are they like the winglets of the current MotoGP bikes?

http://d2d0b2rxqzh1q5.cloudfront.net/sv/3.65/dir/8a8/image/8a8984e3ab33feed077db5b24786c181.jpg


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2016)

wuzak said:


> Are they like the winglets of the current MotoGP bikes?
> 
> http://d2d0b2rxqzh1q5.cloudfront.net/sv/3.65/dir/8a8/image/8a8984e3ab33feed077db5b24786c181.jpg


Exactly, Sheens liked a short wheelbase fast steering bike but this makes it unstable at high speed, the slats mouldings winglets whatever you call them are to hold the front end down at high speed.

Times change, Sheens bike had about 120/140 BHP now MotoGP bikes are 200+BHP they actually spend a short period of time with any weight on the front wheel.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2016)

James W. said:


> Winglets banned from next season, so maybe we'll see fairing slats instead.
> 
> & Moto GP are double the capacity of Sheene's Suzuki RG 500 now, but are much heavier too.
> They also require a big electronics suite to help control all that 4-stroke inertia.
> ...


I know about the electronics suite, the previously mentioned ACU champion (his name is Mick Crick)was involved in it and slick shifters for the Petronas team when Moto GP first started.. Pat Hennen is a name from my youth, a tragic loss to racing.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 28, 2016)

I suspect a grassy knoll here.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2016)

parsifal said:


> I suspect a grassy knoll here.....


Eh? I got interested in motorbikes at 17 years old in 1977 in 1978 Pat Hennen suffered brain damage after a crash at the Isle of Man.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 28, 2016)

The claim b-17s being the main killer of LW fighters......it will be bogus but we can rely on any amount of conspiracy theorist like explanations to try and convince us.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2016)

parsifal said:


> The claim b-17s being the main killer of LW fighters......it will be bogus but we can rely on any amount of conspiracy theorist like explanations to try and convince us.


B17s carried special triangular bullets in their MGs


----------



## stona (Jul 1, 2016)

I agree that it was a dollar short, being somewhat slower than other V-1 interceptors at the requisite altitude.

We should be careful how we judge it too late. We have the benefit of hindsight and know that the last launch sites and territory within range of London would be overrun around the same time that the M series arrived in Europe (operational might be another issue), but those developing the aircraft did not. It *was* too late, but how could that have been known at the time?

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jul 1, 2016)

True, and as I said, I don't believe the M series was developed with V-1 interception in mind, it was optimised for a different role. I don't think that would have stopped it being promoted as a potential V-1 interceptor in mid 1944.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 10, 2016)

Who stated that in the 1st place?


----------



## pbehn (Jul 10, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> Who stated that in the 1st place?


I have read that particularly about the hurricane, the fact is there is nothing to keep a hurricane afloat even if you do make a good job of ditching it.


----------



## stona (Jul 10, 2016)

Ditching a Hawker Hurricane? Not advised. The last paragraph of advice in the notes, assuming no alternative, hardly inspires confidence.

_"When about to touch the water a normal banked turn, with full rudder, should be made so as to prevent 'hooking' the radiator into the water.'_

Good luck with that!

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2016)

The same for a P-51...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 10, 2016)

Was there any single engined bird that was safe to ditch, they all have scoops a prop and a big metal weight at the front.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> Was there any single engined bird that was safe to ditch, they all have scoops a prop and a big metal weight at the front.


Most of your USN types were capable of a relatively "smooth" ditching (if there is such a thing) over Army types.

The other advantage of the Navy's aircraft over the Army's, is that they had relatively better buoyancy, allowing for better escape where as the Army types seemed to sink before they touched the water!

One of the reasons a Navy type would set down better in the water than the Army's, is because thier Radial engined airframes lacked the coolers that tended to act like an arrestor.

Of course, this is assuming that conditions were perfect, like smooth seas, controllable aircraft, proper approach (slight nose-up attitude, gentle descent) and being in good physical condition to affect such a landing.


----------



## stona (Jul 10, 2016)

The Pilots' Notes for all the British singles which I have read discourage ditching in favour of abandoning the aircraft by parachute. This includes some FAA types. The one for which I don't have notes and am curious to know about is the Fairey Swordfish. Apart from the fixed undercarriage it doesn't look too bad.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2016)

I have the Aircrew Manual for the Mk.II Steve but don't see anything about ditching. Would you like it?


----------



## Greyman (Jul 10, 2016)

stona said:


> The Pilots' Notes for all the British singles which I have read discourage ditching in favour of abandoning the aircraft by parachute. This includes some FAA types.



Barracuda is comparatively rosy;

_It should be possible to ditch the Barracuda successfully, though the landing will probably be unpleasant, as the latter half of the ditching will be made with the forward part of the aircraft covered with green water and heavy spray. ... The deceleration of the aircraft, when ditched, will be similar to that experienced when the aircraft is deck-arrested on the wires._


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2016)

*LMAO!!!!!! *I love it


----------



## GregP (Jul 10, 2016)

Ditching a Barracuda definitely improved the aesthetics of the rest of the sky. People would smile and women would sing. Food would go on sale.

If ever there was an ugly aircraft, the Barracuda was one of them. Not the ONLY one, of course. One of the worst of the lot has to be the LWS-6 Zubr.






It had Jay Leno's chin, which isn't too bad on Jay, but is the pits for an airplane. Conversely, it might be Jimmy Durante's nose instead.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 11, 2016)

GregP said:


> Ditching a Barracuda definitely improved the aesthetics of the rest of the sky. People would smile and women would sing. FGood would go on sale.
> 
> If ever there was an ugly aircraft, the Barracuda was one of them. Not the ONLY one, of course. One of the worst of the lot has to be the LWS-6 Zubr.
> 
> ...


Just imagine trying to ditch that bastard...


----------



## stona (Jul 11, 2016)

fubar57 said:


> I have the Aircrew Manual for the Mk.II Steve but don't see anything about ditching. Would you like it?



If it's anything but the 1993 version, then yes....thanks

Steve


----------



## stona (Jul 11, 2016)

Excellent video above, and even a mention of Major G. J. 'Lemmie' Le Mesurier, a Commonwealth ace with 5 victories (3 CR.42s and 2 Ju 87s). He shot down two of the CR.42s flying the biplane Gladiator, one of which I was watching flying in the sunshine at Duxford yesterday. It must have looked like something from WW1 

The squadron was always the RAF's basic tactical unit. They did operate in pairs and sometimes even threes on occasion, on offensive operations.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 11, 2016)

Sorry Steve, '93 version


----------



## stona (Jul 11, 2016)

Thanks anyway!
Cheers
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Jul 11, 2016)

How about the Myth that the P-51H was 'Fragile' compared to P-51B/D?

It is true that the XP-51F and P-51H were designed to RAF standards for high AoA lods imposed by dive pull out and high G banked turns - namely 7.3G Limit Load and 11G Ultimate Load factor.

That said, the P-51 Design loads were 8G and 12G for 8000 pounds and increasing limited as the mission loads were increased from P-51 to A-36 to P-51A to P-51B/D. At the end of the P-51D design cycle the design limit Load remained 8/12G respectively for 8000 pounds, but the design full internal combat load of 269 gallons of fuel and 1800 rounds of ammunition tipped the scales at 10,200 pounds. At that Gross Weight, the P-51D limits had reduced to 64000/10200 = 6.27G Limit Load.

The P-51H, OTOH, was designed for 7.3/11G respectively for 9500 pounds at full internal combat mission weight. If you squeezed 14 more gallons to add to the 255 gallon P-51H capacity, then the GW for EXACTLY the same internal load as the P-51D increases 84 pounds to 9584 pounds GW.

At that weight the Calcs = 7.3x 9500/9584 = 7.23G Limit load.----------> 1G greater Limit Load capability for the P-51D.

Now - had the XP-51F gone into production with a design combat load of 4x50, 1000 rounds of ammo and 180 gallons of fuel it would have done so at Design full internal combat load of 7604 with 7,3/11G Limit and Ultimate Load factors. Had the production P-51F gone into combat to meet AAF projected needs of 269 gallons, plus 55 pounds for the 85 gallon tank, plus 440 more rounds of ammo to meet the P-51B spec, then the GW increases to 8339 pounds.

At that weight the Calcs = 7.3x7604/8339 = 6.66G Limit Load ---------> still greater than the P-51D and same as P-51B. But the P-51F is 1300 pounds lighter than the P-51B with slightly greater wing area, less drag.

So why did the P-51H empty weight increase over the XP-51F by 900+ pounds you ask? The structural modifications to take the loads imposed by greater Gross weight to wing spars and longerons, and skin thickness, along with adding 25 more gallons of fuel space in the wing, a 50 Gallon fuse tank w/structure to support, a longer fuselage and a bigger empennage.

Net - drop a 1650-3 or 1650-7 into the P-51H and you have a lighter, faster, better accelerating, better tuning and climbing fighter than either the P-51B or D - and stronger besides.

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 11, 2016)

Were there any important developments in materials between the b/d and the h to allow a reduction in weight without a loss of strength?


----------



## wuzak (Jul 11, 2016)

drgondog said:


> How about the Myth that the P-51H was 'Fragile' compared to P-51B/D?
> 
> It is true that the XP-51F and P-51H were designed to RAF standards for high AoA lods imposed by dive pull out and high G banked turns - namely 7.3G Limit Load and 11G Ultimate Load factor.



Bill, do you have an opinion on the myth that the Spitfire was fragile?

Teh Spitfire did grow quite a bit in weights, but it was also strengthened as it did so, in the wings and fuselage.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 12, 2016)

wuzak said:


> Bill, do you have an opinion on the myth that the Spitfire was fragile?
> 
> Teh Spitfire did grow quite a bit in weights, but it was also strengthened as it did so, in the wings and fuselage.



I reckon the Spit was as fragile as a 109s undercarriage

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 12, 2016)

This old chestnut appeared on my Facebook feed. The Me262 breaking the sound barrier even though the wings would have come off long before the plane got to Mach one

Messerschmitt Me 262 Breaking the Sound Barrier, April 9th 1945

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jul 12, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Were there any important developments in materials between the b/d and the h to allow a reduction in weight without a loss of strength?



The NAA developed their own 75ST when Alcoa could not deliver until 1945. After a dimpling process was developed to enable lighter gauge 75ST to replace thicker 24ST and still use flush rivets the skin weight was reduced.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jul 12, 2016)

wuzak said:


> Bill, do you have an opinion on the myth that the Spitfire was fragile?
> 
> Teh Spitfire did grow quite a bit in weights, but it was also strengthened as it did so, in the wings and fuselage.


I don't have access to necessary Spitfire docs regarding a.) original structural analysis, or b.) design changes to wings and empennage to account for increased gross weight and Q loads. Simple answer, No.


----------



## stona (Jul 12, 2016)

For those (or rather he) that imagine that air scoops, radiators etc would be easily stripped off an aircraft in a ditching, not 'digging in' to the water as the aircraft alighted causing serious problems I quote part of the report for the forced, wheel up, landing of the Spitfire prototype on SOLID ground.

"The intake of the radiator and oil cooler were badly torn, but the oil cooler was undamaged and the radiator appeared to be sound except for slight superficial damage to the casing...The engine bearer was badly damaged, presumably by a connecting rod coming through the crank case, but in all other respects the airframe appeared to be airworthy."

Just sayin' 

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Jul 12, 2016)

Didnt the spitfire being fragile story start with wings being wrinkled when it was used as a dive bomber, personally I would take wing that bent and wrinkled thn got me home rather than simply folding up.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 12, 2016)

A few P-51s were supposed to have come back with a few more degrees of dihedral than they took of with after the pilots got "G" suits. 
At least that is the story


----------



## stona (Jul 12, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Didnt the spitfire being fragile story start with wings being wrinkled when it was used as a dive bomber, personally I would take wing that bent and wrinkled thn got me home rather than simply folding up.



There was a 'problem' with cracks and rivet failures on the skins over the wheel wells on the Spitfire V. This typically revealed itself after approximately 100 hours flying. The Farnborough report noted that they

"..take the form of circumferential cracks between the rivets connecting the plating to the vertical wheel well. The cracks have the appearance of fatigue which suggests the presence of vibration. But the pulling out of rivets seems to confirm estimates that this panel and its attachments are highly stressed under the local pressures."

A fix was the external reinforcing strakes visible on some Mk Vs and eventually the fitting of internal reinforcement and a slightly heavier gauge skin.

There are other reports of the wrinkling of skins, but these were invariably a result of the aircraft being subjected to unusually high loading in flight. The same for the rare structural failures investigated at Farnborough. 

One tailplane failed when a certain Squadron a Craxston pulled out of a dive at 465 mph. Craxston managed to land and on examination it was established that the tail plane spars were of the non-reinforced type, having been removed from X4916 and erroneously fitted to Craxston's aircraft, AA912. Incidentally, despite the accident and wild high speed oscillatons that had been violent enough for Craxston to be "thrown about the cockpit" no damage was found on the mainplane or fuselage.

Nothing in any of the reports would indicate that the Spitfire's essential design was in any way fragile. I'd definitely call that one as a myth.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jul 12, 2016)

It's possible that the 'myth' of the Spitfire being fragile originated in Germany, prior to WW2, when, allegedly, Luftwaffe and RLM representatives, having seen one on a pre-war visit to England, called it 'The Toy.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 12, 2016)

stona said:


> There was a 'problem' with cracks and rivet failures on the skins over the wheel wells on the Spitfire V. This typically revealed itself after approximately 100 hours flying. The Farnborough report noted that they
> 
> "..take the form of circumferential cracks between the rivets connecting the plating
> 
> ...


Well certainly a weak hook to hang a hat on, to me just experience gained.


----------



## GregP (Jul 12, 2016)

We had a couple of Spitfires at the Museum for many years, a Mk. IX and a Mk. XIV.

Both were WAY more fragile than a P-51. 

By "fragile," I don;t mean it wasn't as strong structurally, I mean it is WAY easier to dent or rip something on a Spitfire than on a P-51. They put the strength where it was needed and didn't put much where it wasn't. Hence, the Spit was far lighter than a P-51, which translated into a lot more "hangar rash."

Personally, I love all Spitfires. Classics, to be sure, and beautiful. But saving a ton or more of empty weight comes from SOMEWHERE. In the case of the Spitfire, the fillets and other small things were a lot more fragile than on a US fighters in general. At least, that was our experience and we barred volunteers from working on them because a bit of ham-handedness could cause damage that a P-51 would shrug off.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 13, 2016)

Maintenance did not always live up to standards set by the manufacturer. The wings of AB200 were damaged after they were _"inadvertently subjected to high loading in flight"_ by an unnamed Squadron Leader. The assessment of the damage also noted that

_"Wheel well panels and stiffeners have the appearance of having been subjected to heavy upwards loading. The covering and stiffeners have further been damaged by hammering to accommodate wheel and by use of this area as a walkway."_

There were also occasional issues on the production lines with wrong materials, wrong rivets or screws etc being used. In November 1942 a manufacturing errors list was prepared and it finished with these words.

_"An essential part of the organisation for ensuring structural strength of aeroplanes is the arrangement whereby careful inspection is carried out at every stage from raw material right through to the finished product. As a result of non-function the structural safety of the Spitfire in certain cases is being most seriously affected."_

Again, none of this implies an inherent fragility in the aircraft itself. If you don't build something correctly or fail to maintain it correctly, then you are asking for trouble.
I agree with the post above that the margins for this kind of error were smaller on the Spitfire than on some other types. There was a constant stream of instructions and advice, issued my the various technical officers, throughout the war, in an effort to ensure proper maintenance procedures for this very reason.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Greg Boeser (Aug 18, 2016)

Oft repeated Marauder Myth: "The first 201 B-26 Marauders were used for testing and training only. The B-26A was the first model to see action, at Midway."

Fact: Well over 100 B-26 "straights" were deployed to combat theaters, the first 13 departing for Alaska in January, 1942. Five crashed enroute, but by the end of May, 1942, thirty-one were on strength with the 77th and 73rd BS (M) of the 28th Composite Group. Additionally, the entire 22nd Group was shipped to Hawaii with ca. 60 a/c that were then assembled and flown to Australia by the island hopping route. (Three wrecked in Hawaii, three lost enroute, one shot down, one written off at Midway) An additional 23 were shipped directly to Australia to be assembled as replacement aircraft. The 22nd introduced the type to combat with a raid on Rabaul on 6 April, 1942, coincidently the combat debut of the B-25C, which hit Gasmata. (Not enough range to reach Rabaul.)
No B-26A flew combat with the USAAF, but many flew with the RAF as the Marauder I in the MTO, starting in late 1942.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 23, 2016)

GregP said:


> At least, that was our experience and we barred volunteers from working on them because a bit of ham-handedness could cause damage that a P-51 would shrug off.



Problem is, Greg, Spitfires weren't designed for museums and ham-fisted volunteers. I worked at a museum once with a Spit XVI with a ding in the lower rudder. When I asked how that happened, one of the guys said that they were pushing it around outside and the smoko hooter went and they all left the aircraft standing with one bloke hanging on to it and it rolled down a slope.

Idiots! I would'a bokked the lot of them with a pair of chocks!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Dec 27, 2016)

An SR-71 Climbed so high it went into orbit and never returned...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 28, 2016)

The ham-handedness usually comes from people used to working on aircraft with skins of 2024-T3, usually 0.040" thick or so, even 0.032" will shrug off most accidental abuse. Spitfires are delicate by comparison, and that is all I'm saying, nolthing about whether or not tougher is better.

I KNOW tougher is heavier, and everyone who flies the Spitfire comments on lightness. I am not under the impression it won't take as many g's as ours, it's just more delicate. That's all. I've never heard of a Spitfire being fragile structurally unless it was damaged first by flak or enemy fire of some sort. Definitely a great aircraft if ever there was one.

I've never thought very much of the British stick that breaks halfway up the control stick, but mmy friend Bob Deford has one (a Spitfire original) in his Marcell Jurca Spitfire replica and says he likes it after flying it. I take his word for it and have sat in the cockpit. It seems to feel natural, so impressions from a picture aren't always the same as trying the real thing first hand. There's not much to dislike about a Spitfire other than the cost of owning it, unless it has a tropical filter on the front. Then it needs cosmetic surgery to restore its good looks (assuming you don't actually NEED it, that is).


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 28, 2016)

Robert Porter said:


> An SR-71 Climbed so high it went into orbit and never returned...


Whoever put that myth out there has no clue what the SR-71 capabilities are and what low earth orbit is .
SR-71 highest record was less than 90,000 feet, I'm not sure what the lowest orbiting satellite is , but Sputnik I was around 130 miles up, and it didn't stay up long because of the resistance of what little air is even at that altitude.

Even if the SR-71 could get to 100,000 ft, that would still leave it 110 miles short of a altitude that wasn't high enough to let the Sputnik I stay up very long.

Not to mention that it's about 20,000 mph short of the velocity it would need to orbit.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 28, 2016)

Never let facts get in the way of a good story.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 28, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> Whoever put that myth out there has no clue what the SR-71 capabilities are and what low earth orbit is .
> SR-71 highest record was less than 90,000 feet, I'm not sure what the lowest orbiting satellite is , but Sputnik I was around 130 miles up, and it didn't stay up long because of the resistance of what little air is even at that altitude.
> 
> Even if the SR-71 could get to 100,000 ft, that would still leave it 110 miles short of a altitude that wasn't high enough to let the Sputnik I stay up very long.
> ...




No...you're wrong, I read it on the internet so it HAS to be true...

WAIT! I just read your version on the internet as well...GAH!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Dec 28, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> Whoever put that myth out there has no clue what the SR-71 capabilities are and what low earth orbit is .
> SR-71 highest record was less than 90,000 feet, I'm not sure what the lowest orbiting satellite is , but Sputnik I was around 130 miles up, and it didn't stay up long because of the resistance of what little air is even at that altitude.
> 
> Even if the SR-71 could get to 100,000 ft, that would still leave it 110 miles short of a altitude that wasn't high enough to let the Sputnik I stay up very long.
> ...


That does not appear to deter folks that repeat these myths. Facts are simply an inconvenience. But same fellow that I heard that from also claims to have invented MS-DOS and that Bill Gates stole it from him... Elevator conversations, you just never know what you are going to hear.


----------



## stona (Dec 28, 2016)

A new one for me, very recently. FW190s had reinforced leading edges for ramming attacks...bollocks.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Dec 28, 2016)

a thread so good one almost wants to make up new myths just to keep the thread going!


----------



## GregP (Dec 28, 2016)

It works better if you sharpen the leading edges of the wings so they cut more easily ... and also speed up some to help with momentum. You know, get into the spirit of the task. Maybe you should sharpen the prop leading edges, too. I'd probably sharpen the spinner, too, and put a spike on top of the canopy just to hurt the victim a bit more.

Oh, and fire the retro-commode rocket as you pass through to empty the septic tank at the victim. It robs them of the will to continue the attack.

Seriously, there are some off-the-charts stories out there making the rounds, and nobody much seems to question them, as amply noted above.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Dec 28, 2016)

What - something like politicians are human?


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 28, 2016)

Actually, it was the A-12 that had a max. operating altitude of 95,000 feet while the SR-71 had a max. of 85,000 feet. What may be misleading to the general public, is that many photos have been taken from the SR-71 that appears to place it at the edge of space. 

However, there's still a long way to go before reaching space and the SR-71 (or A-12) would run out of usable quantities of oxygen for it's engines long before it even reached a position to enter space and gravity would become a big factor at that point.

Here's a cool infographic that puts the A-12 side-by-side with the SR-71:

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Dec 28, 2016)




----------



## herman1rg (Dec 29, 2016)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 29, 2016)

Always liked the look of the A-12 front end (without the chine) better for some reason, but liked the boat tail on the SR-71 better. Eye of the beholder I guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 29, 2016)

On Facebook just bumped into that age old myth "The P51 beat the Luftwaffe and won the war" .....Yeah I am sure all the other aircrew who battled the LW must love hearing that.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 29, 2016)

What a maroon, everybody knows that the P-51 just shot down the P-47s leavings and the P-47 destroyed the Wehrmacht too, Patton and Montgomery just swept up the remains.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 29, 2016)

On a more serious note, how about accounts that the US refused to export turbo superchargers to the British (and French?) and that is why the P 322 was built? 
Accounts are all over the place but the general drift seems to be more to do with common engines with the long nosed P-40s ordered at the same time and General Electrics inability to make timely delivery of turbos for the US aircraft. French and British in 1939/early 1940 wanted planes as soon as possible, not planes delivered 2 years down the road.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 29, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> What a maroon, everybody knows that the P-51 just shot down the P-47s leavings and the P-47 destroyed the Wehrmacht too, Patton and Montgomery just swept up the remains.



Dont forget Monty was just a stuck up arrogant cowardly moron who deliberately prevented Patton from winning the war in August 44. It must be true Hollywood said it was so.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 29, 2016)

On 28th January 1944 U 571 was bombed and sunk by a Sunderland of 461 Sqn RAAF (EK577 flown by Sqn Ldr. R.D.Lucas) which was escorting convoy SC 151, approximately 180 miles west of the mouth of the river Shannon. All 52 souls on board the boat were lost.
The myth is probably rooted in the obviously faked photograph attached.






Actually, as we all know from Hollywood, it was actually boarded by Americans, masquerading as German 'Nazi' submariners, from the cunningly disguised USN submarine S-33 on a mission to capture an enigma machine.

Hang on...did I just get that the wrong way around 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Dec 29, 2016)

Well, Monty wasn't a cowardly moron anyway.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 29, 2016)

soulezoo said:


> Well, Monty wasn't a cowardly moron anyway.



Are you saying Hollywood is wrong  What next Santa isnt real.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 29, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> Always liked the look of the A-12 front end (without the chine) better for some reason, but liked the boat tail on the SR-71 better. Eye of the beholder I guess.


I think both the A-12 and the SR-71 are beautiful machines, but the ungly-duckling of the three types, was the YF-12 that had the chines form aft of the nose-cone.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Dec 29, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> Are you saying Hollywood is wrong  What next Santa isnt real.



I get all my news and "facts" from Hollywood... didn't you know?
To listen to the "celebrities" they have all the knowledge and wisdom none of us possess!  

And I want to be a pilot like Harrison Ford!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Dec 29, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> I think both the A-12 and the SR-71 are beautiful machines, but the ungly-duckling of the three types, was the YF-12 that had the chines form aft of the nose-cone.



I agree. I think I've admired those two more than any other bird. It was confirmed for me the first time I saw one taking off when I was at Kadena years ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
 1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 29, 2016)

soulezoo said:


> I agree. I think I've admired those two more than any other bird. It was confirmed for me the first time I saw one taking off when I was at Kadena years ago.



Same here, really stunning machines. Saw one depart McDill in the mid '80's... After takeoff he did a circuit around Tampa Bay, lined up on the active, pulled up about 45 degrees and lit the burners, it left me speechless.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Dec 29, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> Same here, really stunning machines. Saw one depart McDill in the mid '80's... After takeoff he did a circuit around Tampa Bay, lined up on the active, pulled up about 45 degrees and lit the burners, it left me speechless.



Yeah, just rolling along and then "BANG!" and gone! And what a roar they make!


----------



## GregP (Dec 29, 2016)

Harrison Ford is a real aviator, just not a military aviator. And he isn't "stuck up" anout it. Just wants to be one of the guys. He comes to our Young Eagles event about every other year and gives rides in his D. H. Beaver.

Great guy as long as you don't try to take a picture of him. I went up once with a camera and could see him getting ready to jump me. I asked if I could get a shot of his airplane's instrument panel and he about choked laughing. He said, "Go for it!" and wandered away still laughing.

Also, the movie U571 wasn't a documentary. It was a good, old-fashioned war movie, not a historical attempt. The director made that clear at the initial screening, so everyone getting all up in arms about it is just silly. He never passed it off as a historic at all. In fact, he said if you weren't a fan of war movies, you probably shouldn't see it.

Given their skill with the movie, it would be nice if the same crew DID make a documentary about the capture of the Enigma, if for nothing more than to show the difference bweteen a war movie and a historic documentary to the younger folks.

They apparently can't seem to tell the difference between the two genres.

I bet they get really confused watching Star Wars!


----------



## stona (Dec 30, 2016)

GregP said:


> Also, the movie U571 wasn't a documentary. It was a good, old-fashioned war movie, not a historical attempt. The director made that clear at the initial screening, so everyone getting all up in arms about it is just silly. He never passed it off as a historic at all. In fact, he said if you weren't a fan of war movies, you probably shouldn't see it.



The problem is that the director saying that makes no difference to the perception of the film by the huge majority of the audience, and putting a brief on screen 'disclaimer' at the end (or was it the beginning) does nothing to help.

A good war film should be first and foremost a good film, U-571 does not fall into this category for me. It is an extremely silly film, even if nobody had ever captured a German code machine.

This part of one British review sums it up nicely for me.

_"A generally B-list and exclusively American cast is headed up by Matthew McConaughey, Bill Paxton and Harvey Keitel, with the tokenish addition of TC Carson as an African-American cook. After the German crew is taken prisoner, Carson jeers at them: "It's your first time looking at a black man, ain't it? Get used to it!" It's absolutely true that Nazi Germany persecuted black people. Whereas the United States in 1942, of course, was a model of racial equality, and ... oh. Never mind. Obviously, at some point during pre-production, someone asked the question: "But how can we make this film even more ridiculous?" Fortunately, the answer was readily to hand: cast poodle rocker Jon Bon Jovi as the chief engineer."_

And
_
"At the time of its release, Tony Blair condemned U-571 in parliament as an insult to the Royal Navy. A far more entertaining response would have been for Britain to fund a big-budget revenge epic, in which a small platoon of foppish yet plucky Brits swans over to Vietnam in 1968, defeats the Viet Cong, and wins the war. Moreover, it would be nearly as accurate as this."
_
Finally.
_
"The director actually has the audacity to end on a title card dedicating his film to the memory of the real sailors who captured Enigma machines. Yes, that same memory he has just desecrated. This is exactly the most tasteless gesture the film-makers could have made."_

In any case the disquiet over U-571 pales into significance when compared to the furore over 'Objective Burma' when it was released, then withdrawn, on this side of the pond.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 30, 2016)

Ham fistedness on my part 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GregP (Jan 1, 2017)

I think Patton and Monty both had pretty good egos, but I never heard he was cowardly. Tough to lead battles, win them, and be cowardly all at the same time. It might even be tough for a Brit to do it!


----------



## stona (Jan 1, 2017)

Well, whatever else Montgomery may or may not have been he was no coward. He served and was twice wounded in the first war, being awarded the DSO for,

_"Conspicuous gallant leading on 13th October, when he turned the enemy out of their trenches with the bayonet. He was severely wounded"
_
Montgomery was a relatively junior officer to be awarded a DSO under the conditions of the time. It is an award that is preceded only by his KG (Order of the Garter) and GCB (Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Bath) amongst the many he received. Only the Victoria Cross and George Cross precede the KG. These things would have been important to a man like Montgomery.

Personal bravery is not necessarily a prerequisite for leaders like Montgomery or Patton, but it helps.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jan 1, 2017)

A nice picture from the British Army Museum. Montgomery, dated, wearing, I think, not an expert, DSO ribbon. He had been awarded this in 1914.






Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 1, 2017)

Still Hollywood is the truth about Monty have a look at the film Patton.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 1, 2017)

I've never understood how people can equate being maybe overcautious with spending your men's lives to being a coward.
Monty usually insisted that everything be ready, troops, supplies, reserves, before he committed his men to battle, and because of that some opportunities might have been lost
Patton's outlook seems to have been to seize every possible opportunity to attack, right now, don't give the enemy time to dig in , thinking somewhere you'll find a weakness.

Who knows for sure, even 70 years later, which got more of our people killed when the battles were over.

But to equate either mans approach to battle with his personal bravery is stupid.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jan 1, 2017)

Almost all senior British officers in WW2 had held active commands, often as young subalterns, in WW1. Surviving , in some cases for years, which defied the odds, must have influenced their attitudes to losses and instilled caution in all but the thickest skinned.
Those young company commanders were roughly five times more likely to be killed than the men they led. This could lead to rapid promotion for those who did survive, and not always for the most able.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 1, 2017)

Monty was liked and respected by his men but he was loathed by the staff brass hats at the War Office and the politicians who thought only they knew how to win wars. Look at all the time politicians were in charge of a war.

Iraq and Afghanistan are only the latest clusterfucks run by politicians. In Britain we have a pathetic government chasing pensioners for things that happened in Northern Ireland in the 1970s when the IRA were killing members of the British Army at a rate of 1 every 4 days

Chelsea Pensioner tells of his despair at being accused of murdering IRA gunman almost 45 years ago


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 1, 2017)

To better understand Patton's WWII command, you have to look at his prior military experince.

Like during the hunt for Pancho Villa, he successfully used Dodge passenger cars to chase Villa's men.

During WWI, he became involved in tanks and deployed his tanks as he would have done with cavalry, which he was well trained in.

During the inter-war period, he worked hard at developing mechanized warfare and created the Desert Warfare Center in California for training.

Add to this, his passion and knowledge of ancient military history and modelling his leadership after General Pershing.

So it really comes to no surprise that Patton was as bold and tenacious as he was.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jan 1, 2017)

A little late, but here is my Harrison Ford story. I was on a train from New York to Florida shortly after 9/11 and ate breakfast with an aircraft mechanic. He said, based on first hand knowledge or he heard from someone who flew with the actor, that he wouldn't be surprised if the guy crashed and killed himself AND that he was not that good at navigating. Well, it looks like time has proven him wrong...so far.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2017)

Capt. Vick said:


> A little late, but here is my Harrison Ford story. I was on a train from New York to Florida shortly after 9/11 and ate breakfast with an aircraft mechanic. He said, based on first hand knowledge or he heard from someone who flew with the actor, that he wouldn't be surprised if the guy crashed and killed himself AND that he was not that good at navigating. Well, it looks like time has proven him wrong...so far.


As a mechanic and pilot, I take third hand information in a grain of salt. Unless that mechanic knew specifics, he's nothing more than a BSer. From what I've heard, Harrison Ford is said to be a good pilot and his actions during the engine failure he encountered on his PT-22 more than verifies this.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 1, 2017)

FLYBOYJ said:


> ...Harrison Ford is said to be a good pilot and his actions during the engine failure he encountered on his PT-22 more than verifies this.


Yes, that was a nasty situation and he did an amazing job of putting it down and walking away.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 3, 2017)

GrauGeist said:


> Yes, that was a nasty situation and he did an amazing job of putting it down and walking away.



Agreed, although the walking part might be a bit of a stretch... Still as I understand it his injuries were painful but not life threatening.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2017)

NTSB reports cause of Harrison Ford plane crash


----------



## soulezoo (Jan 3, 2017)

When I posted mentioning Harrison Ford, I was thinking about wanting to pilot a Millennium Falcon. (ala Hollywood)

I wasn't trying to throw shade on any real/imagined pilot ability/inability.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jan 3, 2017)

Me neither. Just adding what I heard to the conversation. Honestly I rarely, if ever, even think about him.


----------



## Token (Jan 3, 2017)

stona said:


> The problem is that the director saying that makes no difference to the perception of the film by the huge majority of the audience, and putting a brief on screen 'disclaimer' at the end (or was it the beginning) does nothing to help.
> 
> A good war film should be first and foremost a good film, U-571 does not fall into this category for me. It is an extremely silly film, even if nobody had ever captured a German code machine.
> 
> ...



I always took the movie U-571 as a Hollywood mish-mash based on several captures of submarines, with a large dose of "never let fact get in the way of a good story". But I thought it leaned more on the US capture of U-505 rather than a British capture.

T!


----------



## stona (Jan 3, 2017)

Maybe, but that wasn't until June 1944!
At least the US was in the war by then, unlike when U 110 was forced to the surface in May 1941


----------



## soulezoo (Jan 3, 2017)

Capt. Vick said:


> Me neither. Just adding what I heard to the conversation. Honestly I rarely, if ever, even think about him.



I think if I was trying to use a snarky celebrity connection, I would have said John Denver... although, his was not entirely his fault either as I understand it (it was an experimental plane with oddly placed stuff and Mr. Denver was not entirely familiar IIRC). Still....


----------



## GregP (Jan 3, 2017)

I can say this about Harrison Ford as a pilot. He is friendly, great with the young eagles kids, and flies smoothly. His takeoffs and landings are arrow straight, and he has no trouble starting up a radial without any fuss. He hasn't gotten lost in all the years he's been flying, even up in Idaho flying the backcountry, or had an incident until his engine faiure in Santa Monica.

Engines fail occasionally. Steve Hinton and son Steve-O have had engine failures, even in non-racing warbirds and down to planes as unlikely to fail as a Luscombe Silvaire. 

If we fly, we all start sometime, and nobody is all that good right when they get their license. If you look at pilot skills at 150 hours and again at 1,000 hours, you'll see a marked difference. I bet Harrison is no different, and is a much better pilot today than when he got his license. It's tough to continue flying without learning as you fly. If he ever asks, which I seriously doubt, I'd fly with him.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kai Stemm (Jan 3, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 3. The Germans called the P-38 the Fork Tailed Devil.



Franz Stigler did refer to P-38s as fork tailed devils in his memoirs

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 3, 2017)

Kai Stemm said:


> Franz Stigler did refer to P-38s as fork tailed devils in his memoirs


His memoirs were written after the war.

The myth is that Germans (or Japanese, depending on who's telling the story) called it a "fork tail devil" during the war, which is not the case.

The Germans usually referred to American fighters by the their name: Mustang, Lightning, Thunderbolt, etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kai Stemm (Jan 3, 2017)

GrauGeist said:


> His memoirs were written after the war.
> 
> The myth is that Germans (or Japanese, depending on who's telling the story) called it a "fork tail devil" during the war, which is not the case.
> 
> The Germans usually referred to American fighters by the their name: Mustang, Lightning, Thunderbolt, etc.


I see yes although some nick names were given to help remember types but I can't see naming bogey planes such mean sounding names


----------



## GregP (Jan 3, 2017)

With regard to post #450 above, the premise of Hollywood entertainment is suspension of disbelief. You are supposed to forget you are watching a movie and “get into” the story. Anyone intelligent enough to know that also should know to “reset” when the movie is over.

Right at the end of U-571 it is clearly stated that the enigma was captured by the British from U-110 in May 1941, more codes in 1942 also by the British, and that the US captured U-505 in 1944, also with an Enigma machine and codes.

There was an entire radio audience that rioted and got panicked because they broadcast H. G. Wells’ “War of the Worlds” narrated by Orson Welles. In the light of reason, they were simply stupid. The fact that it was a play was broadcast many times during the performance, but nobody listened. If anyone is dumb enough to think U-571 was an attempt at a documentary, they are as gullible as the war of the Worlds crowd was. I don’t think the radio station was guilty of anything at all. The crowd was just silly and unable to recognize it.

Bitching about the cast is just plain old backseat driving. When you pony up several million dollars to become executive producer of a movie, you get to pick the cast. Jon Bon Jovi didn’t do badly at all considering he isn’t a professional actor. I hope you can someday go see a movie you like, and take it as an entertainment, the way it was intended. Unfortunately, I’ve heard people all too often coming out of a movie saying things like, “I didn’t that was the way it happened,” or “Why did (take your pick) want to kill him?” or some other such dumb question. The only real answer is, “Because it’s in the script that way, that’s why!”

If the British were offended by a war movie, then they are just being as silly as the radio audience in 1938. Perhaps they think the old movie “The Robe” was an accurate portrayal of the times when Jesus Christ was persecuted. I wonder where they think accurate recordings of dialogue from 2,000+ years ago might come from? Perhaps Jesus and the Apostles had a recording secretary in attendance who saved everything for posterity?

Too many people today take offense over nothing and misunderstand the simplest things. I may be many things, but politically-correct isn’t one of them. Neither am I gullible enough to buy into thinking any Hollywood movie has any accuracy about it. Real life usually isn’t a good drama, and boring life tales don’t sell movies. I suppose we should all be angry at the British for coming up with James Bond movies, but I always chose to be entertained instead. Lately the wattered-down Bond stores aren't nearly so entertining now that they have to take into account everyone's delicate feelings.

I am under the impression that most posters in here know something more than usual about WWII history, and I don't think I am wrong in that belief. To a man and woman, the regular posters in here should have known it was a fictional account almost right from the start.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2017)

GrauGeist said:


> His memoirs were written after the war.
> 
> The myth is that Germans (or Japanese, depending on who's telling the story) called it a "fork tail devil" during the war, which is not the case.
> 
> The Germans usually referred to American fighters by the their name: Mustang, Lightning, Thunderbolt, etc.



Exactly, and thank you for answering...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jan 4, 2017)

U-571 is a fictional account, but loosely (very loosely) based on real events for which on this side of the pond the Americans are perceived as taking credit for something someone else did. This not new, and it must be understood in this context. It's why 'Objective Burma' caused such offence all those years ago and why U-571 caused such offence relatively recently, as the Guardian review makes clear.
It doesn't surprise me that Hollywood, in fact Americans in general, don't get this. It's why they make films like this in the first place.

I do like the idea of a bunch of foppish but brave English lads defeating the Vietnamese nationalists, but that maybe a step too far. We could make them stereotypical rough hewn Aussies and at least claim to be based in historical fact. The stretch would then be that at least in WW2 the Allies did indeed capture enigma machines and code books, and even defeated Nazi Germany.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 4, 2017)

GregP said:


> There was an entire radio audience that rioted and got panicked because they broadcast H. G. Wells’ “War of the Worlds” narrated by Orson Welles. In the light of reason, they were simply stupid. The fact that it was a play was broadcast many times during the performance, but nobody listened. If anyone is dumb enough to think U-571 was an attempt at a documentary, they are as gullible as the war of the Worlds crowd was. I don’t think the radio station was guilty of anything at all. The crowd was just silly and unable to recognize it.
> t.



The War of the World's riot is the biggest myth going. It never happened no one rioted no one got in the car to make a run for it and hardly anyone heard the broadcast. The company that collected audience data used to ring 5000 people to ask what they were listening to and the War broadcast barely registered, possibly the as few as 20,000 people listened the broadcast. Orson Welles started the myth for publicity his company was about to lose its contract and after the fuss he got what he wanted a new contract.


----------



## Denniss (Jan 4, 2017)

U-571 is a horrible movie for anyone with at least basic knowledge of WW2 military history. Mixed with average/poor acting/script.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Balljoint (Jan 4, 2017)

Denniss said:


> U-571 is a horrible movie for anyone with at least basic knowledge of WW2 military history. Mixed with average/poor acting/script.



 
Isn’t “horrible movie” a bit redundant when the subject matter is military history? The last one I saw -any movie- was Memphis Belle. Maybe with ear plugs to see the hardware.


----------



## Denniss (Jan 4, 2017)

Memphis Belle sported at least good acting and a nice story.


----------



## stona (Jan 5, 2017)

There are plenty of war movies with good actors/acting and decent stories, some based on real events. It would be quite a long list.
'The Cruel Sea', 'Carve Her Name With Pride', 'Ice Cold In Alex', 'The Admiral', 'Das Boot', 'Au Revoir Les Enfants', then, more fanciful, 'Zulu', 'Bridge On The River Kwai, 'Stalingrad' (Bondarchuk's 2013 version), even 'The Great Escape' (to include one American film among the European classics, there are many more very good US war films)....the list goes on, which makes you wonder why anyone would bother with a pile of manure like U-571.
Great acting, maybe not such a nice story, 'Der Untergang'.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GregP (Jan 5, 2017)

Personally, I was entertained and I still wonder about the prop submarine they used. It looked prtty good for a Hollywood prop. I thought it also conveyed the cramped quarters of a real submarine a LOT better than 1940s - 1970s movies did. They had enough room in "Voyage to the Bottom of eth Sea" to set up a retail store in the control room, plus wide, long hallways! And anybody could enter and destroy the "circuitry room!"

I guess it depends on whether or not you wanted to see a war movie or a flick depicting history. I remind you that the U.S.A. DID capture U-505, with an enigma machine and codes, but it was in 1944. I figured it was a sort of depiction of what they thought that mission might have been like without regard to timeframe, complete with Hollywood "updating" of the social thinking. If they ever shoot a movie with the actors portraying real WWII language and real WWII attitudes, someome would obviously "not get it" and some would come away offended.

No use risking all the money for that, huh? Not when you can throw in modern attitudes. The part I didn't enjoy was the crew wanting to ignore the new Captain. That didn't happen back then unless there was outright mutiny. It's much more of a modern attitude, and not much tolerated in any Navy. It shows up now and then during a rebellion in some country, like Russia back in the 1860s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 5, 2017)

Dang, I always thought "The Guns of Navarone" was a documentary.......

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jan 5, 2017)

my favourite war flick is still tora tora tora. compare that to its dumb f*ck cousin "pearl harbour".

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 6, 2017)

I watched We Dive at Dawn - Wikipedia over the xmas holiday and its not a bad film at all especially when you think it was filmed in the middle of a war. A friend who served in Oberon class submarines during the 70s and 80s says though the plot is a bit Hollywood the sequences aboard the boat are very realistic, especially the cramped nature and the overall grubbiness of a working boat.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 6, 2017)

I think the frustration with U-571 is that it continues a theme of apple pie-ing history. America was the arsenal of democracy and undoubtedly played the major role in winning WWII during the period 1943-45. However, we should not ignore the contributions of the other nations that were pivotal in the success. To ignore them does a disservice to the memory of those who sacrificed and misinforms later generations on those sacrifices. To pick just one example, more British and Commonwealth soldiers went ashore on D-Day than did American soldiers and yet many believe that America liberated Europe almost single-handedly. 

None of the above is meant to offend anyone, nor am I trying to start an argument. It's just frustrating when contributions from other nations get airbrushed out of the narrative.

For the record, one of my all-time favourite flicks is Twelve O'clock High. Simply marvelous...including all the contemporary footage of 303rd BG B-17s. Having lived close to RAF Molesworth, I have a soft spot for that unit.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jan 6, 2017)

fastmongrel said:


> I watched We Dive at Dawn - Wikipedia over the xmas holiday...



Is that a porno?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 6, 2017)

Capt. Vick said:


> Is that a porno?



Only if your thang is rivets


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 7, 2017)

In regards to the movie U-571 not being that accurate and possibly offensive, I just wish to state for the record that Hans Solo only did the Kessel Run in *15* parsecs! I still hold the 12 parsec record and I am highly offended that the Star Wars franchise is taking credit away from me and giving it to that broken down freighter pilot with a walking rug for a co-pilot!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 7, 2017)

Han Solo was a former Imperial TIE pilot...the only TIE/ln pilot better than Solo, was Soontir Fel.


----------



## stona (Jan 7, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> In regards to the movie U-571 not being that accurate and possibly offensive, I just wish to state for the record that Hans Solo only did the Kessel Run in *15* parsecs! I still hold the 12 parsec record and I am highly offended that the Star Wars franchise is taking credit away from me and giving it to that broken down freighter pilot with a walking rug for a co-pilot!



Yeah, fundamental Hollywood error there too. A parsec is a unit of DISTANCE not TIME, (1 parsec = 3.086 × 10 to the13 Km)
It's like saying I drove from Oxford to London in 50 miles  If you could do it in fewer miles that really would be something.
For some reason I'm not surprised by yet another type of inaccuracy in a Hollywood movie, and something that could so easily have been checked and avoided.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 7, 2017)

GrauGeist said:


> Han Solo was a former Imperial TIE pilot...the only TIE/ln pilot better than Solo, was Soontir Fel.


Ah yes but then I piloted B-Wings while he was still figuring out which end of TIE fighter pointed forward!


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 7, 2017)

stona said:


> Yeah, fundamental Hollywood error there too. A parsec is a unit of DISTANCE not TIME, (1 parsec = 3.086 × 10 to the13 Km)
> It's like saying I drove from Oxford to London in 50 miles  If you could do it in fewer miles that really would be something.
> For some reason I'm not surprised by yet another type of inaccuracy in a Hollywood movie, and something that could so easily have been checked and avoided.
> Cheers
> Steve


Actually it was intended as a measure of distance...

The *Kessel Run* was a hyperspace route[1] used by smugglers and unscrupulous freightercaptains to move spice from the spice mines of Kessel at the behest of the Pyke Syndicate, who relied on the foolhardy Kessel Runs to deliver the illicit substance to their customers.[2]. The route involves several extreme changes in velocity in order to jump to, and drop out of, light speed with the minimum time spent out of hyperspace while making drops, pick ups or tight turns. It was therefore the source of much bragging between smugglers. The time to perform the run proved too difficult to arbitrate (due to the highly relativistic distances involved) but a fierce competition developed nonetheless, for the pilot and ship able to make the run while covering the shortest overall distance demonstrating the most adept maneuverability and pilotage.[_source?_]Han Solo, captain of the _Millennium Falcon_, made the infamous run in less than 12 parsecs,[3] breaking a long-held record.[1]

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Fighterguy (Jan 7, 2017)

"It doesn't surprise me that Hollywood, in fact Americans in general, don't get this. It's why they make films like this in the first place."



Cheers

Steve[/QUOTE]

Hollywood film makers make movies to make money. Their target audience is the American ticket purchaser. Had they made a movie about the British capture of a German U-boat and Enigma machine, they likely wouldn't break even. Bias? Yes. Do Brits have a Bias? Most certainly (I see it right here). Do I want to see movies/documentaries about British WWII exploits? Most certainly. An awesome movie could be made about the British SOE's Operation Postmaster. Would American audiences pay money to see it? Maybe. Change the story around, have American OSS performing the spectacular mission, or a multinational band of misfits, and viola! Nobody's trying to deny British exceptionalism, they're trying to make as much money as possible.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 7, 2017)

You have Jennifer Lawrence portraying Hitler and naked.....I'm spending the kids college fund to see it

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Fighterguy (Jan 7, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> Actually it was intended as a measure of distance...
> 
> The *Kessel Run* was a hyperspace route[1] used by smugglers and unscrupulous freightercaptains to move spice from the spice mines of Kessel at the behest of the Pyke Syndicate, who relied on the foolhardy Kessel Runs to deliver the illicit substance to their customers.[2]. The route involves several extreme changes in velocity in order to jump to, and drop out of, light speed with the minimum time spent out of hyperspace while making drops, pick ups or tight turns. It was therefore the source of much bragging between smugglers. The time to perform the run proved too difficult to arbitrate (due to the highly relativistic distances involved) but a fierce competition developed nonetheless, for the pilot and ship able to make the run while covering the shortest overall distance demonstrating the most adept maneuverability and pilotage.[_source?_]Han Solo, captain of the _Millennium Falcon_, made the infamous run in less than 12 parsecs,[3] breaking a long-held record.[1]


That's some "Turbo Nerd" knowledge right there! Thanks for clarifying

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 7, 2017)

The only time I truly get upset is when a documentary is inaccurate. Movies are escapism pure and simple and are formulaic and designed only to satisfy their target audience and generate revenue. And as Fighterguy points out the formula used varies often on the country the movie's target audience resides in. Having spent time in Japan and having seen many movies there I can tell you in no uncertain terms that Japan did not lose WW2, it was actually won by Godzilla and Mothra and the Japanese and Americans banded together to overcome this unfortunate plague of monsters.


Fighterguy said:


> That's some "Turbo Nerd" knowledge right there! Thanks for clarifying


Hey its from the Wookiepedia no more authoritative source exists in the entire empire!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 7, 2017)

fubar57 said:


> You have Jennifer Lawrence portraying Hitler and naked.....I'm spending the kids college fund to see it


You had me at "naked" I am in for some tickets! Jennifer Lawrence, ah yup!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 7, 2017)

The further we get away from the events the less they are connected to exactly what happened. Some movies tried their best to be a historical record. The Battle of Britain may have been a bit "hammed up" but it was a pretty fair representation of what happened. OK the spitfires werent all MKIs and the 109s were Bouchons but as a portrayal it is actually better than some of the tosh I have seen on TV that were supposed to be educating me.

I read a lot of books about Nelson and his battles and Wellington in Spain and Waterloo. I have seen movies of the era and they are nothing like the reality. Nelson was walking down some steps during a battle and the officer in front had his head taken off by a cannon ball. To show what really happened would be way beyond X rated gore, and he was the victorious admiral.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 7, 2017)

Fighterguy said:


> "It doesn't surprise me that Hollywood, in fact Americans in general, don't get this. It's why they make films like this in the first place."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hollywood film makers make movies to make money. Their target audience is the American ticket purchaser. Had they made a movie about the British capture of a German U-boat and Enigma machine, they likely wouldn't break even. Bias? Yes. Do Brits have a Bias? Most certainly (I see it right here). Do I want to see movies/documentaries about British WWII exploits? Most certainly. An awesome movie could be made about the British SOE's Operation Postmaster. Would American audiences pay money to see it? Maybe. Change the story around, have American OSS performing the spectacular mission, or a multinational band of misfits, and viola! Nobody's trying to deny British exceptionalism, they're trying to make as much money as possible.[/QUOTE]


Marketing is why the Dr Strange movie had Tilda Swinton portraying a Tibetan monk. And didn't mention that Doc Strange got his power from Tibet: China doesn't like people mentioning that Tibet was independent until overrun by the PLA.

The trouble with something like U-571 isn't that the movie gets facts wrong but that people who try to get them right, in the newspapers, on the radio, or on TV or (God help us all) the Internet get shouted down.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 7, 2017)

The sad thing for me is that the battle of the Atlantic and the cracking of Enigma were fantastic examples of international cooperation between countries with a common aim, its just the parts played by the countries involved were not as seen in movies. This discussion centers on the UK and USA but many other countries were involved too and I am sure it narks the Canadians Poles and many others who played a part. The need for movie makers to make money makes them twist what actually happened which results in them making movies which in the course of time were probably best never to have been made.Some people both now and in the future may believe it actually happened as seen.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jan 8, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> Actually it was intended as a measure of distance...
> 
> The *Kessel Run* was a hyperspace route...]



That sounds like a bolt being thrown in a stable door after the horse has left 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 8, 2017)

stona said:


> That sounds like a bolt being thrown in a stable door after the horse has left
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve


Pretty much! But it is fun to see the lengths fans go to in order to fill in detail for their favorite shows!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Fighterguy (Jan 8, 2017)

Okay, so here's a couple of aviation myths that continue to pop up from time-to-time.
First we have the James Bond super bullet out of his Walther PPK. A pistol bullet fired inside the cabin of a Lockheed JetStar will not blow a huge hole and cause a rapid cabin depressurization with people getting sucked out.
Second; blood does not boil at very high altitude. According to the Armstrong limit, because of the lack of pressure above 63,000 feet, fluids will boil at 98 degrees Fahrenheit. Blood is within a contained vessel (within the bodies circulatory system) and not exposed, therefore cannot boil. Saliva and moisture in your eyes can though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 8, 2017)

Here is a question on a myth or possibly truth I just don't know. Did early jets shoot themselves down because they were faster than their bullets? Does not seem correct to me considering the FPS most military aircraft based weapons fire at in comparison to the max speed of jet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Fighterguy (Jan 8, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> Here is a question on a myth or possibly truth I just don't know. Did early jets shoot themselves down because they were faster than their bullets? Does not seem correct to me considering the FPS most military aircraft based weapons fire at in comparison to the max speed of jet.



On Sep 21, 1956 Grumman test pilot Tom Attridge shot himself down in a graphic demonstration of two objects occupying the same place at the same time—one being a Grumman F11F-1 Tiger, the other a gaggle of its own bullets.
How did this happen? The combination of conditions responsible for the event was (1) the decay in projectile velocity and trajectory drop; (2) the approximate 0.5-G descent of the F11F, due in part to its nose pitching down from firing low-mounted guns; (3) alignment of the bore-sight line of 0° to the line of flight. With that 0.5-G dive, Attridge had flown _below_ the trajectory of his bullets and, 11 seconds later, flew through them as their flight paths met..

Here's the link: F11F-1 Shoots Itself Down

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 8, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> Here is a question on a myth or possibly truth I just don't know. Did early jets shoot themselves down because they were faster than their bullets? Does not seem correct to me considering the FPS most military aircraft based weapons fire at in comparison to the max speed of jet.


 Any projectile fired from a gun begins to slow once it leaves the barrel.
A instant I read about had a USN fighter firing his cannons, in level flight, then diving , leveling out at a lower altitude, and being struck by his own bullets that he had evidently got ahead of in the dive. 
And remember, when a gun of any type is fired forward from a moving object, the velocity of the bullet is equal to muzzle velocity of the weapon, plus the velocity of whatever vehicle it's fired from.

Sounds possible, but awfully remote.

I think that was in a Ripleys believe it or not. Well, or not.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Fighterguy (Jan 8, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> Any projectile fired from a gun begins to slow once it leaves the barrel.
> A instant I read about had a USN fighter firing his cannons, in level flight, then diving , leveling out at a lower altitude, and being struck by his own bullets that he had evidently got ahead of in the dive.
> 
> Sounds possible, but awfully remote.
> ...



From what I have read on it, he basically flew into his own 20 mm projectiles and subsequently F.O.D.'d his engine. A one-in-a-million mishap. During operational testing nowadays, the flight profile is set up to ensure this type of thing doesn't occur.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 8, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> Here is a question on a myth or possibly truth I just don't know. Did early jets shoot themselves down because they were faster than their bullets? Does not seem correct to me considering the FPS most military aircraft based weapons fire at in comparison to the max speed of jet.



An F11F on test did shoot itself down, but not because it was faster than the shells from its 20 mm guns -- the F11F was barely supersonic, if at all, so its max speed was about 350 m/s, vs about 800 m/s for the shells from its guns. The story I've heard is that it fired them while climbing, then leveled off and was, by a terrible coincidence, some distance down range at the same time: the shells had a greater speed but the length of their path and their speed along the path meant they took the same amount of time to travel along that path as the aircraft did to travel along a shorter path at lower speed.



> Did early jets shoot themselves down because they were faster than their bullets? Does not seem correct to me considering the FPS most military aircraft based weapons fire at in comparison to the max speed of jet.



I believe your suspicions are absolutely corect. The reason for this is that the projectile's muzzle velocity will be added to the aircraft's speed (for forward facing guns), so the 500 m/s of aircraft velocity would add to the 800 m/s of muzzle velocity and the shell would be seen as moving at 1300 m/s to an observer on the ground (note that this is a very big deal: the ground speed of an A-10 is added to the ground speed of the GAU-8 rounds, which helps them make better holes in tanks). While the shells will slow down and the aircraft won't, they'll also fall towards the ground and the aircraft won't. Some numbers:

The Grumman Alley Cat is flying straight and level at 500 m/s, when it fires off its 20 mm gun, which has a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s. An observer on the ground sees the aircraft go 500 meters in the next second. The shells slow down, losing, say, one-half their muzzle velocity (remember this is _relative to the aircraft_) and have traveled 950 meters. OK; the plane hasn't caught up. In this second, they've also fallen 5 meters below the flight path, so the plane would fly right over them.

If I reverse that and have the plane traveling at 900 m/s and the rounds at 500 m/s, they'll still drop that 5 meters, and, assuming again they've lost half their muzzle velocity, so they're traveling at 250 m/s relative to the aircraft, they'll have traveled 250 m farther than the plane.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jan 8, 2017)

That Icarus flew too high and the sun melted the adhesive holding his wings together, when the complete opposite would have happened. Geez

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 9, 2017)

Good thing you guys aren't Hollywood execs making the calls on scripts that result in actual movies. Your profits would suffer a lot if you gave up movies that aren't historically factual ... which is maybe, say ... 99% or more. That seems to be what you want, but the general public rather obviously doesn't buy it, as Hollywood is still in a very healthy business.

Anyone who wants to read history should do exactly that, read it from multiple sources, refrain from going to movies, and THINK about what was said. Movies are ALL fiction unless the film you are watching was shot during the actual event. Unfortunately, that seems rather rare. And there are NO closeups, even of beautiful women or disasters in the making ... usually.

There are even people in here that don't understand why the attitude at the time would preclude the U.S.A. from buying foreign military items that we could make oursekves. They jusy don't GET what the thinkign was at the time. Ask anyhone who is 75 or older and LISTEN. You'll get an education.

The U-571 acting wasn't bad, but it also wasn't period behavior ... it is sort of expected today that we will express modern attitudes, isn't it? And they all did that.

Movies are the stuff of imagination and dreams, not even close to factual documentaries ... I thought that was common knowledge. Perhaps I was mistaken. It happens.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 9, 2017)

Some movies like Braveheart actually change the mind set of a nation.


----------



## stona (Jan 9, 2017)

They have always been used as propaganda tools too. You might argue that Braveheart, with its rather unconventional take on British history, was just that. If it was it worked better than some overt propaganda films.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pbehn (Jan 9, 2017)

stona said:


> They have always been used as propaganda tools too. You might argue that Braveheart, with its rather unconventional take on British history, was just that. If it was it worked better than some overt propaganda films.
> Cheers
> Steve


It was and it did. I worked with a guy who had worn out 3 VHS tapes watching it, and delighted in telling me what the ffffin English Bsuds did. I just pointed out that the "baddies" were the same "baddies" in Robin Hood movies.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 9, 2017)

Who knows if a historically accurate movie would fail, when has it ever been tried ?
And if one tried and failed, was it because of the emphasis on historical accuracy, or was there other problems ?

Historians have a hard time coming to agreement on exactly what happened most of the time.

I'm a veteran, with a Vietnam veteran brother, like me. And with a WW2 veteran father, with lots of kin, and friends that were the same. When you could get us all together years ago, there were some things that just could not be agreed on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 9, 2017)

One thing you cannot put in a modern movie is dialogue because any movie will be sold in the market of someones enemy.

Even in the 50s movie the name of Dambusters Leader Guy Gibsons dog's has been censored recently to avoid offense.


----------



## stona (Jan 9, 2017)

You can 'future proof' the language in your movie, but you have to invent your own. Anthony Burgess did just that in the novel, and it was subsequently used in the film of 'A Clockwork Orange'.
This isn't really practical for most films 

It wasn't just the dog's name, it was also one of the code words to be transmitted if/when the Mohne dam was breached and instructed the remaining aircraft to attack the Eder dam.
So, 'Goner 710A' would mean that the aircraft transmitting had successfully released its mine and that the mine had exploded against the Mohne dam, causing a large breach. This would have been followed by the transmission of the code word beginning with 'N' to instruct any other aircraft which would have attacked the Mohne to divert to and attack the Eder dam.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Jan 9, 2017)

During early ‘70s I saw a war movie about the Battle of El Alamein.

_“Battle stations!”_ a British sentinel shouted _“a Division of Italian tanks is coming to us!”_

Clearly silouetted against the sunset light there were half a dozen of … M-47s.

If Italians have had M-47s at the battle of El Alamein I think history could have been a little bit different….


----------



## yulzari (Jan 9, 2017)

One only has to look at any, and I mean any, King Arthur film or television programme. They are never dressed or behave like Romano Britons. Instead they are either Hollywood cod medieval or a biker gang doing re enactment. As an Englishman I always cheer for the Saxons. Pesky Britons. Three cheers for Hengist, Horsa and Cerdic.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 9, 2017)

GregP said:


> Good thing you guys aren't Hollywood execs making the calls on scripts that result in actual movies. Your profits would suffer a lot if you gave up movies that aren't historically factual ... which is maybe, say ... 99% or more. That seems to be what you want, but the general public rather obviously doesn't buy it, as Hollywood is still in a very healthy business.
> 
> Anyone who wants to read history should do exactly that, read it from multiple sources, refrain from going to movies, and THINK about what was said. Movies are ALL fiction unless the film you are watching was shot during the actual event. Unfortunately, that seems rather rare. And there are NO closeups, even of beautiful women or disasters in the making ... usually.



Of course most movies are not based on historical events, and so no great accuracy is required.

But when the events are based on history there should be some effort made for accuracy, or a big fat disclaimer is made up front that the events in the movie are fictional and only loosely based on actual events.

Hollywood is doing so well these days that it seems that half the movies are remakes. They may be struggling for original material.

PS: So would you think a remake of the Dambusters movie showing a brilliant scientist inventing the bouncing bomb after skipping stones over the lake near his home town in the US, going through the motions in Washington to have the weapon built, after which it is to be used by an elite band of bomber pilots and their B-17s would be more profitable than one about the actual happenings? 
PPS: A Dambusters remake is an interesting example - it could be made more historically accurate than the original, by removing some of the artistic licence used in the original (eg how the light system was developed) as well as having information which was not available for the original film makers because it was still classified.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 9, 2017)

Elmas said:


> During early ‘70s I saw a war movie about the Battle of El Alamein.
> 
> _“Battle stations!”_ a British sentinel shouted _“a Division of Italian tanks is coming to us!”_
> 
> ...



That is not an attempt to change history, but rather working with what they had. Doubtless the period accurate Italian Tanks were hard to come by, so they used a substitute. Similarly the aircraft in Battle of Britain were not accurate, but they had to work with their budget and what was available.

Now, of course, budgets for such movies tend to be bigger and CGI can be used to create realistic period vehicles.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 9, 2017)

stona said:


> They have always been used as propaganda tools too. You might argue that Braveheart, with its rather unconventional take on British history, was just that. If it was it worked better than some overt propaganda films.
> Cheers
> Steve



Myths will gain far too much traction. Braveheart's take on English-Scottish history takes more -- probably orders of magnitude more -- liberty with history than did the Hornblower and Aubrey/Maturin novels and much more than Longfellow did with "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere."

Made up history can also kill people: Google "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," which was made up by czarist-era secret police to promote pogroms.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 9, 2017)

Don't get me started on "Independence Day". Now I'm sure Randy Quiad was a hell of a pilot in Viet Nam flying F-4s/F-8s(?) but there is no way he is going to transition to an F/A-18 in 10 minutes


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 9, 2017)

fubar57 said:


> Don't get me started on "Independence Day". Now I'm sure Randy Quiad was a hell of a pilot in Viet Nam flying F-4s/F-8s(?) but there is no way he is going to transition to an F/A-18 in 10 minutes


It can't be much harder than keeping that rattle trap of an RV going can it?


----------



## parsifal (Jan 9, 2017)

a great piece of fiction with admitted inaccuracies but still showing respect to "what might be possible' was the 'The martian' I think, proving that movies can be closer or close to "the facts" and still entertaining.

There is nothing wrong with making historical license, but fiction dressed up to look like "fact" is just insulting in my opinion

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 9, 2017)

wuzak said:


> PS: So would you think a remake of the Dambusters movie showing a brilliant scientist inventing the bouncing bomb after skipping stones over the lake near his home town in the US, going through the motions in Washington to have the weapon built, after which it is to be used by an elite band of bomber pilots and their B-17s would be more profitable than one about the actual happenings?


Brilliant "hottie" female scientist. Who has a romping sex scene with the lead pilot. It would make millions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 9, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Myths will gain far too much traction. Braveheart's take on English-Scottish history takes more -- probably orders of magnitude more -- liberty with history than did the Hornblower and Aubrey/Maturin novels and much more than Longfellow did with "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere."



If Braveheart took more liberties than the "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." that means that some of the main characters names aren't even right let alone battles, locations or any actions.

For our non-American members Paul Revere never made it to either Lexington or Concord. He was stopped at a British roadblock which his two co-riders broke through (one of which joined the ride on the spur of the moment coming back from his girlfriend's house) and after being detained for a number of hours, was allowed to walk back to Boston in his riding boots while his horse "joined" the British Army. Hardly the stuff of legend.


----------



## GregP (Jan 10, 2017)

Hey, off the subject of U-571, which I understand some find less than wonderful, did anyone see the old John Wayne Janet Leigh movie "Jet Pilot?"

The acting was terrible, but the flight sequences were wonderful!

The camera plane was a B-45 Tornado and Chuck Yeager was assigned to fly the flight scenes as John Wayne's character.

The primary film location was Edwards AFB, and the other jet pilots were Major Charles R. Cunningham and the guy who flew in place of Janet Leigh was Lt. Col. Glen M. "Johnnie" Johnson (USAF Johnson).

They flew the F-86As, a Lockheed F-94 Starfire, and the "Russian" experimental plane was the actual Bell X-1! The mothership was a Boeing B-50 (basically a B-29 with R-4360 engines), and the "Yak-12" was a T-33. Tne unpainted "test" aircraft that "Olga" was assigned to fly were Northrop F-89 Scorpions.

Reportedly it was Howard Hughes' favorite movie!

So, bad acting, but GREAT flying scenes, with some rare planes caught on the silver screen flown by famous pilots to boot. Tough to beat that if you love airplanes!

Anybody have a comment or want to suggest another movie with good aerial sequences?

P.S.: Apologies if this flick has been covered. If so, I missed it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 10, 2017)

Greg, I have one for ya':
Strategic Air Command with Jimmy Stewert and all those magnificent B-36 sequences...is there any film that could possibly be better?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 10, 2017)

Not aviation related, but I've always wondered what the actors that were in the film _The Longest Day_ who served during WW2 thought of those that sat it out, such as John Wayne.

And, regarding accuracy in films based on history:


> Dwight D. Eisenhower walked out on the film after only a few minutes, frustrated by the inaccuracies.





> Lt. Col. Benjamin Vandervoort was 27 at D-Day. He was very disappointed to find that he was being played in the movie by John Wayne, since even 17 years after D-Day Vandervoort was still a decade younger than the 54-year-old Wayne.



The Longest Day (1962) - Trivia - IMDb


----------



## GregP (Jan 10, 2017)

Loved it myself, Graugeist, except for the part where he goes numb in the B-47 from the injury caused by the B-36 forced landing in snow.

From what I heard in the service (some guys still serving who actually flew in them, all about to retire ...), the pistons were pretty essential at low speeds and altitudes, like around the pattern and up to 18,000 - 25,000 feet, but the jets made it fly high and relatively fast for the size. if you were at service ceiling and lost the jets ... you weren't gonna' STAY at service ceiling.

I also heard that the spark plugs were so hard to get to in the buried engines that it was a regular occurence to have one or more of the 4360's foul plugs during a mission if your flight engineer was a bit rusty with them because they didn't get changed until they HAD to be changed due to failure.

After having helped with an annual on a Curtiss P-47G R-2800, I certainly understand that! And we only changed 36 spark plugs, not 56. I decided if I was reincarnated as a crew chief, I'd opt out of multi-row radials if I could. What a PITA!

Unless it happens to be YOUR radial and YOU want to fly it. If so, bring large quantities of rags and a girlfriend or two to help wipe down the sides and belly when the radial re-distributes a lot of the oil tank contents along same fuselage areas and gear wells ... and your flight suit (or pants) as your slide off the wing root, cursing all the way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 10, 2017)

Hollywood ALWAYS takes "cinematic license," and the "stars of the moment" are usually cast.

I seriously doubt the scene where the American squad and the German squad march past each other, both not recognizing the enemy ... except for the last 2 guys, who ignored it. But it made a GREAT scene, didn't it? We ALL laughed.

Gotta' SELL the flick!

"The League of Extraordinary Gentelmen" was a departure from that with everyone except Sean Connery being a relative unknown, at least at the time. It was entertaining ... for me, and a refreshing change since none of the actors except Connery were "hogging the scenes." And Connery was doing it mostly due to the script, not for trying to upstage the others.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 10, 2017)

I fully accept that licence is taken whenever a film is produced. I expect details to be wrong. Sometimes it's seeing an aircraft or vehicle in opposing force markings simply because there aren't enough original vehicles from that particular military. Sometimes it's the inclusion of a non-critical storyline to add humour or to move forward a plot line. Where I draw the line is claiming that a movie is "based on actual events" but then removing the actual protagonists entirely from the film. It would be like making "Remember the Titans" but translating it into a British high school rugby team...it would just be wrong, indeed the film would lose a great deal of its power simply because the UK never suffered from the racial segregation laws prevalent in parts of the US even into the start of the 1970s.


----------



## stona (Jan 10, 2017)

Segregation of US troops in Britain caused a serious headache for the British. It was an issue raised in Cabinet where it was agreed that
_"Nothing [was] to stand between a US officer and his troops; we mustn't interfere"_ but also _"If any segregation US must do it, not us. Explain US attitude and ask our people to pay attention."_

Home Secretary, Herbert Morrison, refused to allow British police to enforce segregation, presumably in public places.

Secretary State for War, James Grigg, made it clear that there would be no segregation in British Forces canteens, NAAFIs etc.

Minister for Labour, Ernest Bevin conceded that allowances had to be made for American attitudes and that British officers should be alerted to this, but that this should mean,_ "educate them, yes: but don't try to educate them into US prejudices."_

Secretary of State for the Colonies, Viscount Cranbourne, added further caution, saying the hundreds of thousands of _"coloured"_ British troops from Canada and other colonies rendered the _"not too matey principle"_ difficult. This because these men (and women) were not segregated but integrated into units and formations which might comprise people of several different races.
_"If it can be said we have advocated 'colour bar' all the coloured people here from our Empire will go back discontented and preach disaffection,"_ he added.

The British were keen to avoid friction with their principle ally, but were only prepared to compromise to a certain extent. At the end of the meeting it was agreed that a briefing document be prepared to be passed to officers in charge of regiments.

Nobody would pretend that the Britain of the 1940s was a shining beacon of prejudice free racial equality, but attitudes and certainly the laws, were very different from those that came from across the pond.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Jan 10, 2017)

wuzak said:


> That is not an attempt to change history, but rather working with what they had. Doubtless the period accurate Italian Tanks were hard to come by, so they used a substitute. Similarly the aircraft in Battle of Britain were not accurate, but they had to work with their budget and what was available.
> 
> Now, of course, budgets for such movies tend to be bigger and CGI can be used to create realistic period vehicles.



Of course I was joking ....

But to go to a war with this tank







is different than to go with this one...


----------



## pbehn (Jan 10, 2017)

stona said:


> The British were keen to avoid friction with their principle ally, but were only prepared to compromise to a certain extent. At the end of the meeting it was agreed that a briefing document be prepared to be passed to officers in charge of regiments.
> 
> Nobody would pretend that the Britain of the 1940s was a shining beacon of prejudice free racial equality, but attitudes and certainly the law..
> 
> ...


Attitudes are attitudes but the law is the law, a policeman works with only consent and if there is no law broken then he has no power in UK.


----------



## GregP (Jan 10, 2017)

Remember the movie "Airplane?"

I hooted when they showed a Boeing 707 jet airliner, but they played audio sounds consistent with a propeller aircraft. I thought that was a good joke.

It's like being an off-road motorcycle rider and seeing these old movies where they dub in the sound of a 2-stroke engine when they show a 4-stroke bike or vice versa. I always thought that was stupid ... or intentionally funny, I was never sure which. So, I chose to be entertained and laughed at it.

Hey Elmas, 

What if you wanted to make the tank movie, but the only tansk you could get were the second one?

Would you choose to no make the movie or take poetic license and do it anyway?


----------



## gumbyk (Jan 10, 2017)

GregP said:


> Remember the movie "Airplane?"
> 
> I hooted when they showed a Boeing 707 jet airliner, but they played audio sounds consistent with a propeller aircraft. I thought that was a good joke.
> 
> It's like being an off-road motorcycle rider and seeing these old movies where they dub in the sound of a 2-stroke engine when they show a 4-stroke bike or vice versa. I always thought that was stupid ... or intentionally funny, I was never sure which. So, I chose to be entertained and laughed at it.



I think for Airplane, it was done for comedic effect, and it worked!


----------



## Robert Porter (Jan 10, 2017)

GregP said:


> Remember the movie "Airplane?"
> 
> I hooted when they showed a Boeing 707 jet airliner, but they played audio sounds consistent with a propeller aircraft. I thought that was a good joke.
> 
> ...


And stop calling me Shirley!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jan 10, 2017)

Elmas said:


> Of course I was joking ....
> 
> But to go to a war with this tank
> 
> ...


The funny thing is that probably more was achieved with the first tank than was ever achieved with the second


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 10, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> If Braveheart took more liberties than the "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." that means that some of the main characters names aren't even right let alone battles, locations or any actions.
> 
> For our non-American members Paul Revere never made it to either Lexington or Concord. He was stopped at a British roadblock which his two co-riders broke through (one of which joined the ride on the spur of the moment coming back from his girlfriend's house) and after being detained for a number of hours, was allowed to walk back to Boston in his riding boots while his horse "joined" the British Army. Hardly the stuff of legend.




I suspect that Revere got more press because he had been a well-known, almost celebrity, silversmith before the war. "Revere Ware" wasn't ripping off his name; it was a descendant of his business, by some circuitous and tortuous corporate route.


----------



## Kai Stemm (Jan 11, 2017)

Not aviation...
All naval sailors want to be marines...


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 11, 2017)

Kai Stemm said:


> Not aviation...
> All naval sailors want to be marines...


what is a "naval sailor"?


----------



## Elmas (Jan 11, 2017)

GregP said:


> Remember the movie "Airplane?"
> 
> I hooted when they showed a Boeing 707 jet airliner, but they played audio sounds consistent with a propeller aircraft. I thought that was a good joke.
> 
> ...



No difficulty to build an excellent replica of the M-14 Italian tank.
Just take a Fiat "500" (old model, of course), put on the roof an empty can of sardines upside down, a peashooter in front and you'have something very similar....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kai Stemm (Jan 11, 2017)

GrauGeist said:


> what is a "naval sailor"?


lol I didn't notice I must've hit the auto type on my iPad I mean a sailor


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 11, 2017)

Once again, timing (and training) play a big part in reputation. 
The M 13/40 was a pretty good tank in the summer of 1940. With poorly trained crews and no radios it was employed poorly. By early 1942 it was totally obsolete like many 1940 tanks like American M2 light (thinner armor than M3) German MK III with 30mm armor (or less) and 37mm gun. Russian T-26.


----------



## Elmas (Jan 11, 2017)

_"Ed è con questo lamierino che volevi vincere la guerra? Firmato: Cusumano Francesco fu salvatore, Bersagliere"_
(And it is with this tin can that you wanted to win the war? Signed: Cusumano Francesco fu Salvatore, Bersagliere. "

So it an italian Bersagliere wrote at El Alamein under the belly of a destroyed M-14...

Not only M-14 were obsolete and poor equipped (no radio..) but also were badly outnumbered....

_"Carri armati nemici fatta irruzione a sud di Ariete con ciò Ariete accerchiata. Trovasi circa 5 km nord-est Bir el-Abd. Carri Ariete combattono."_

(_"Enemy tanks raided south of Ariete and with this Ariete is encircled. It is about 5 km north-east of Bir El-Abd. Ariete tanks are fighting."_
Last radio transmission from “Divisione Ariete”, El Alamein, 4th november 1942, about 15.30.)


----------



## Elmas (Jan 12, 2017)

GregP said:


> Anybody have a comment or want to suggest another movie with good aerial sequences?
> 
> P.S.: Apologies if this flick has been covered. If so, I missed it.




_View: https://youtu.be/R0d12MbOLqY

_

_View: https://youtu.be/ItT_-W7HxB4_

_"Hey! You're scaring my chickens!!"_ a farmer screams at him..

When A.M.I. "Frecce tricolori" were flying G.91s....
The complete movie it is impossible to find today.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 12, 2017)

Again, timing and perspective is everything. The US Army ordered 1000 of these in Aug 1940 when the M13/40 was entering service.




Within weeks they realized the mistake and cut production to 100 while designing the M3 and M4 tanks using the same engine transmission and suspension. Had British and American tankers been using these in 1942 in North Africa Cusumano Francesco fu Salvatore's words could well have been written by an allied soldier.
The Italians couldn't translate new ideas into production in a timely manner.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 12, 2017)

Ariete was not poorly trained. it was well trained in fact, and during the crusader battles was a stand out formation. just ask the New Zealanders. In many ways this formation was a stand out, with a fighting reputation that rivalled 21 Pz XX.

The other armoured div in the desert was generally not actively deployed until 1942. It tended to be used as a replacement source to keep Ariete up to strength. Centauro was the third Italian armoured formation and was not deployed until Tunisia.

Italian armour was typical of most of the early armoured formations. Insufficient organic infantry, artillery component too light, armoured component top heavy. There was nothing particularly wrong with the design for its time with the allies happy to use captured examples and afaik no obvious shortcomings except reliability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 13, 2017)

Hey Elmas!

Those are great clips from movies I didn't even know about. In the first one, I bet there would be a big crash if one of the lead planes had an engine problem on the takeoff roll! Cool routines!


----------



## Elmas (Jan 13, 2017)

GregP said:


> Hey Elmas!
> 
> Those are great clips from movies I didn't even know about. In the first one, I bet there would be a big crash if one of the lead planes had an engine problem on the takeoff roll! Cool routines!



Hi Greg

A movie about the “Frecce Tricolori”, A.M.I. Italian Aerobatic Team. It was filmed in 1971, when the “Pattuglia acrobatica nazionale – 313 Gruppo Addestramento acrobatico”” was mounted on Fiat G-91. Unfortunately there isn’t the complete film but probably you’ve seen that that it has been cut in eleven episodes. Funny the rivality between the “Frecce Tricolori” and “Red arrows”, with the two Commanders pulling each other’s leg…

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 14, 2017)

Most of the jet teams know each other and admire the others, whether they ever admit it or not ... that assumes a good performance at the show, of course. If not, most people understand ONE mistake or even two. A sloppy performance means loss of respect from other team, I'd imagine. Not for the country, but for the current team and leader. All assumptions.

I competed in motorcycle observed trials for some 20 years and achieved a sate championship five times ... in my class. If I saw a good rider have bad day, I didn't lose any respect because I had bad days, too. If I saw it several times in succession, I assumed he had lost the time to practice much. If I saw it over, say, four-five trials, I assumed he had "lost the edge" and didn't keep up with current obstacle requirements. That happened when the bikes took a jump in technology. The first was the monoshock, that was looked as as a kind of "cheat" at first, but rapidly became the standard. After 2 - 3 years, if you were't riding a monoshock, you simply weren't competitive anymore.

It may not be the same in aircraft since a Folland Gnat, even today, can look VERY good in aerobatic routines if he doesn't lose track of his fuel state. The Canadian Snowbirds always put on a good show and they are flying very old airplanes.

But their show isn't in the same league as a show with, say, Sukhoi Su-37s in a show designed to showcase the performance of the Su-37. The Snowbirds are just as, or maybe more PRECISE, but don't have the capability of a Pugacev Cobra, for instance, in the their CT-114 Tutors and can't go vertical forever out of sight. They fly a great routine, but have much less than a 1 : 1 thrust-to-weight ratio. Still, precision is admired by all. The Snowbirds are very entertaining to watch live, and perform a great show.

Most people who know jet teams have always enjoyed the Frecce Tricolori team, and I love the AerMacchi 339s. The team members have a tradition of staying with the team, unlike the U.S. team that rotates assignments on a regular basis. When you REALLY get to know your teammates, you fly a very precise show, and the Frecce Tricolori definitely HAVE that reputation worldwide. Perhaps not the highest-performing airframes in the business, but VERY precise. It makes for a wonderful display.

I look forward to searching for more Italian aerobatic films after seeing your post.


----------



## yulzari (Jan 14, 2017)

[/QUOTE]Once again, timing (and training) play a big part in reputation.
The M 13/40 was a pretty good tank in the summer of 1940. With poorly trained crews and no radios it was employed poorly. By early 1942 it was totally obsolete like many 1940 tanks.[/QUOTE]

It was still being used by the Egyptian Army in 1948. But then so was the M22.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 14, 2017)

There are so many WW2 myths that won't die....
that Italian soldiers, sailors, and airmen were incompetent cowards, that the French just curled up in little fetal balls when the Germans showed up, and that Polish Lancers charged German tanks with spears, .....

Myths become such because they strike some deep cultural chords, which is why they're so hard to get rid of.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 21, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think the 400 mph top speed came from the calculated times during the legs on Kelsey's cross country flight.


According to Bodie "He climbed to 16,000 feet and then drifted up to 21,000 feet to pick up a cooperative tail wind. The recorded ground speed from Enid Oklahoma to St Louis Missouri was in excess of 400 mph, even with the engines throttled back to deliver 755 hp each." Obviously its not doing 400 mph at those hp ratings without assistance
Supposedly it reached 420 mph flying from Wright to Pittsburgh, but the entire trip was poorly documented with various discrepancies in data and no accounting for wind. In view of the fact that the following models didn't reach 400 mph until the P-38G it is doubtful that the XP-38 was a true 400 mph fighter. That being said it was probably the fastest fighter in the world at that time, however it took over three years to actually enter service. The first 400 mph allied fighter to actually see combat was the Spitfire Mk IX.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2018)

Reluctant Poster said:


> According to Bodie "He climbed to 16,000 feet and then drifted up to 21,000 feet to pick up a cooperative tail wind. The recorded ground speed from Enid Oklahoma to St Louis Missouri was in excess of 400 mph, even with the engines throttled back to deliver 755 hp each." Obviously its not doing 400 mph at those hp ratings without assistance
> Supposedly it reached 420 mph flying from Wright to Pittsburgh, but the entire trip was poorly documented with various discrepancies in data and no accounting for wind. In view of the fact that the following models didn't reach 400 mph until the P-38G it is doubtful that the XP-38 was a true 400 mph fighter. That being said it was probably the fastest fighter in the world at that time, however it took over three years to actually enter service. The first 400 mph allied fighter to actually see combat was the Spitfire Mk IX.


Although you state accurate facts, the FACT that he did maintain a ground speed of 400 mph at one point or another was enough to satisfy the semantics of the XP-38 cross country recorded speed, bragging rights as well as the leadership within the USAAC. BTW the heavier YP-38 did achieve 390 mph on a test flight February 12, 1941


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 21, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The tank engines were purpose built. Many people claim they used old aircraft engine blocks at times. This may or may not be a myth, Removing the supercharger and aircraft reduction gear is not as easy at sounds. The back of the prop reduction gear case was cast in one piece with the crankcase. The rear end of the engine may have had significant changes between the supercharger drive/and accessories and the tank accessory drive parts. Internal parts are much more interchangeable.


According to the book "The Rolls Royce Meteor" early Meteors used standard Merlin blocks with the reduction gear machined away (there is a picture on page 34). As much as possible was sourced from existing stock i.e. parts that were obsoleted by the latest mods, parts that were considered not in spec for an aero engine and parts salvaged from the repair programs.
"Because Rolls Royce had at all times to give the Air Ministry first priority in engine production, there was never a question of of it producing new Meteors from scratch. As far as possible all parts, excepting the 15% unique to the Meteor, would have to be provide from existing stocks of one kind or another."
"Many Merlin engines were withdrawn from service due to obsolescence, serious damage etc. These too were included to provide a source for major components,such as crankcase and cylinder blocks. Later the crankcase was produced from a special casting, thus deleting a considerable amount of machining." 
" A typical example of salvage was a batch of 600 crankshafts from Glasgow with hairline cracks, which couldn't be used for highly boosted 1200 bhp aero-engines, but were acceptable for the less demanding 600 bhp Meteor. (Prior to release, five examples were run for a total of 740 hours without any deterioration in their integrity) 
Interestingly the tank engine ran in the opposite direction to the aero-engine in order to match the existing transmission.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 21, 2018)

GregP said:


> I believe the P-40F/L had a Merlin 28, not an XX.
> 
> It is still a 20-series with a 2-speed supercharger, so the "XX" isn't really that far off the mark.
> 
> Just as a point of interest, the Merlin we will install in our Hispano Ha.1112 is a Merlin 228 (Merlin 28 built by Packard). Definitely a signle stage and I'm not familiar with the gear shift, so I don't know where it changes speeds, but I will after Saturday. I'm sure Steve Hinton knows.


I believe you mean the Merlin 224 which was the Packard equivalent of the Merlin 24. The Merlin 28 was the Packard version of the Merlin XX except for the introduction of the 2 piece block (Equivalent to the V-1650-1). The Merlin 38 was the Packard equivalent of the Merlin 22. Engine and aircraft mark numbers were assigned by the Air Ministry and there seems to be some randomness to them.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 21, 2018)

Reluctant Poster said:


> According to the book "The Rolls Royce Meteor" early Meteors used standard Merlin blocks with the reduction gear machined away (there is a picture on page 34). .......................................................
> Interestingly the tank engine ran in the opposite direction to the aero-engine in order to match the existing transmission.



Thank you for the correction.


----------



## grampi (Oct 22, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 1. The Tuskagee Airmen never lost a bomber they were escorting.
> 
> 2. The Stuka was more vulnerable than other Dive Bomber.
> 
> 3. The Germans called the P-38 the Fork Tailed Devil.


That's funny. I have a soft cover book at home about the P-38 titled "the fork tailed devil." Where did that name come from, and what did the Germans call it?


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 22, 2018)

The "Fork-Tail Devil" name came from the P-38 pilots.

The Germans simply called it a "Lightning".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 22, 2018)

grampi said:


> That's funny. I have a soft cover book at home about the P-38 titled "the fork tailed devil." Where did that name come from, and what did the Germans call it?



The Germans called it a P-38...

The name Fork Tailed Devil term was made up by an author and reporter. There is zero factual evidence of anyone in the Luftwaffe ever calling it that.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 22, 2018)

grampi said:


> That's funny. I have a soft cover book at home about the P-38 titled "the fork tailed devil." Where did that name come from, and what did the Germans call it?



Germans called it both P-38 and Lighting. 
The 'fork tailed devil' is 1st mentioned in the manual for the P-38.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 22, 2018)

We can all imagine Gabel-schwanz-_teufel_ being shouted out over the radio, it trips off the tongue like a melody.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 22, 2018)

My great-Uncle Jimmy was calling it a "Fork-Tail Devil" during the war.
He was USAAF, stationed in the PTO...and happened to be flying the "Fork-Tail Devil"...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 22, 2018)

A Martin Caidinism. Same as the YB-40 being flown in Italy to bring down a rouge Italian pilot flying a captured P-38.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 22, 2018)

You mean that P-38 that eventually seized it's engines because of the poor quality Italian fuel?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Oct 23, 2018)

Also, so it's not true that on certain model B-17s the belly gunner could not get out of the turret in the event of a wheels up belly landing?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 23, 2018)

grampi said:


> Also, so it's not true that on certain model B-17s the belly gunner could not get out of the turret in the event of a wheels up belly landing?


The only B-17 ball turret I've seen up close and personal had an entrance hatch in the back behind the gunner. So for the gunner to enter in flight the turret had to be tilted 90° down; ditto for evacuating. Clearly, if the power drive for the turret was shot out, the gunner was trapped unless he wanted to open the hatch and fall out backwards. Most gunners couldn't fit themselves and a chute in the ball, so that didn't leave much for options if the turret wouldn't tilt and the landing gear wouldn't come down.
One of my dad's co-workers had been the smallest guy in the crew (at 6' and 195 lbs!) of a B-17 named "King Kong", so guess who got to ride the ball? Dang, I wish I still had that picture!
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## warbird51 (Nov 12, 2018)

GregP said:


> Remember the movie "Airplane?"
> 
> I hooted when they showed a Boeing 707 jet airliner, but they played audio sounds consistent with a propeller aircraft. I thought that was a good joke.
> 
> ...



The was a tv series in the late 50’s based on the comic books called Steve Canyon. One of the episodes shows a C-130A starting up with recip sounds. I LMAO when I saw it

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Freebird (Nov 12, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> There are so many WW2 myths that won't die....
> that Italian soldiers, sailors, and airmen were incompetent cowards, that the French just curled up in little fetal balls when the Germans showed up, and that Polish Lancers charged German tanks with spears, .....
> 
> Myths become such because they strike some deep cultural chords, which is why they're so hard to get rid of.


Or that Singapore was lost because the guns fired the wrong way...


Another aviation myth - the Swordfish was obsolete biplane.
As far as I know, in 1941 no other nation had a torpedo bomber with airborne search radar.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 12, 2018)

freebird said:


> Or that Singapore was lost because the guns fired the wrong way...
> 
> 
> Another aviation myth - the Swordfish was obsolete biplane.
> As far as I know, in 1941 no other nation had a torpedo bomber with airborne search radar.



The Swordfish was actually a fairly recent design to a very stringent specification, one a lot of manufacturers probably no-bid. The related myth, that “German AAA couldn’t track it because it was so slow” is, of course, utter nonsense: one doesn’t design systems that won’t work against aircraft existing during the design process, such as the Swordfish’s predecessor.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 12, 2018)

syscom3 said:


> How about "the Norden bombsite is so accurate, our bombardiers at 30,000ft can hit a pickle barrel with it.". Sort of runs along the lines of "accurate strategic day light bombing".




They could hit a pickle barrel from 30,000 ft, but _only _a pickle barrel. Cities were beyond the spec.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 12, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> They could hit a pickle barrel from 30,000 ft, but _only _a pickle barrel. Cities were beyond the spec.


Cities were known to contain many pickle barrels.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Nov 12, 2018)

Production ended in 1944. An old design probably didn't raise a lot of interest to the Allies, to bring copies back to the UK or USA, my guess is any left on the ground at the end of the War were chopped up.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 12, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Cities were known to contain many pickle barrels.



How would it know which pickle barrel?

The poor bomb probably got all confused.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tieleader (Nov 12, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> How would it know which pickle barrel?
> 
> The poor bomb probably got all confused.


Guessing the nearest one?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 12, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> How would it know which pickle barrel?
> 
> The poor bomb probably got all confused.


Any pickle barrel in a (fire)storm!


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 12, 2018)

Does anyone have any colour pics of the pickle barrel I'm building?


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 12, 2018)

This One?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Nov 12, 2018)

Wow, ask and you shall recieve.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 12, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> Does anyone have any colour pics of the pickle barrel I'm building?



Make sure it's not 30,000 ft below a bomber with a Norden bombsight!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 12, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Make sure it's not 30,000 ft below a bomber with a Norden bombsight!


Safest place to be. (Sorry, Bill) RIP


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 12, 2018)

I've set out decoys away from the target area

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 12, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> I've set out decoys away from the target area
> 
> View attachment 517317​


No fair! Gaming the spec! Oversize target!


----------



## pbehn (Nov 13, 2018)

I never grasped the strategic significance of pickle barrels, I would have thought being able to hit a factory would be more useful.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Nov 13, 2018)

Then there is *Pickleball.* A racquet sport that combines elements of badminton, tennis, and table tennis. Two, three, or four players use solid paddles made of wood or composite materials to hit a perforated polymer ball, similar to a wiffle ball, over a net. The sport shares features of other racquet sports, the dimensions and layout of a badminton court, and a net and rules similar to tennis, with a few modifications. Pickleball was invented in the mid 1960s as a children’s backyard pastime but has become popular among adults as well.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 13, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I never grasped the strategic significance of pickle barrels


That's because you misunderstood their contents. We're not talking fermented cucumbers here; those barrels are full of pickleswitches, without which the aircraft produced in the factory cannot release their ordnance. One little missing part can clog the production line for a month!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 13, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Then there is *Pickleball.* A racquet sport that combines elements of badminton, tennis, and table tennis. Two, three, or four players use solid paddles made of wood or composite materials to hit a perforated polymer ball, similar to a wiffle ball, over a net. The sport shares features of other racquet sports, the dimensions and layout of a badminton court, and a net and rules similar to tennis, with a few modifications. Pickleball was invented in the mid 1960s as a children’s backyard pastime but has become popular among adults as well.


We had those at school, no one knew what they were for.


----------



## Airframes (Nov 13, 2018)

But it wasn't just the Norden sight that made it possible to hit a pickle barrel from 30,000 ft.
It's only recently been 'de-classified', but special ordnance at the time, known as ASB ( Aroma Seeking Bombs), were used in conjunction with the Norden sight. 
A sensor in the nose of the bomb was activated approximately four seconds after release of the bomb(s), which then sought out and locked-on to the aroma of vinegar generated by pickle barrels, ensuring extremely accurate flight to target, and impact within six inches.
Unfortunately, this also lead to the destruction of numerous kitchens preparing pickled cabbage, pickled herrings and similar delicacies and it was, of course, unable to detect aromas from other sources, such as railway yards, tank factories etc etc.................

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Nov 13, 2018)

B-24 pilots have massive left arms

Wow...that's not true. Even saw a cartoon on this. I don't know what to believe anymore...


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 13, 2018)

I like pickles, stop bombing them!


----------



## Dana Bell (Nov 13, 2018)

Please tell me this wasn't invented by Field Marshal Dill...

Cheers,



Dana


----------



## herman1rg (Nov 13, 2018)

Looks like you're getting into a Dilly of a Pickle.............




I'll get my coat.


----------



## soulezoo (Nov 13, 2018)

Dilly Dilly!


----------



## Freebird (Nov 13, 2018)

Dana Bell said:


> Please tell me this wasn't invented by Field Marshal Dill...
> 
> Cheers,
> Dana



Yes, with planning input from "Vinager Joe" Stillwell...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rednev (Nov 13, 2018)

typical supply chain snafu they asked for a sight to hit picklehaubses but got sights to hit pickle barrels

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 13, 2018)

rednev said:


> typical supply chain snafu they asked for a sight to hit picklehaubses but got sights to hit pickle barrels


Damn that autocorrect, anyway!


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 13, 2018)

Capt. Vick said:


> B-24 pilots have massive left arms


A late neighbor of mine was a B-24 pilot (Ploesti 2x), and he used to chuckle over that myth. He said that saying implied you could one-hand a Liberator in a tight box formation, which as far as he was concerned was a joke. He said especially if you were tail end Charlie, it was a two handed affair and you left the throttle jockeying to your copilot and flight engineer at your command. He said that (and plenty of "stick time") sharpened copilots up pretty quickly and improved them to the point they could become replacement aircraft commanders. Not the way it was taught in training command, where the skipper drove the bird and the copilot operated the gear and flaps, sat on his hands, and stood by for emergencies.
He said by the second half of his tour he was Squadron Commander, and always flew lead, so everyone formated on him. He advanced so quickly, unfortunately, due to high attrition amongst the leadership and few experienced replacements. Ten months from 2nd Louie to Brevet Light Colonel.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tieleader (Nov 13, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> He said by the second half of his tour he was Squadron Commander, and always flew lead, so everyone formated on him. He advanced so quickly, unfortunately, due to high attrition amongst the leadership and few experienced replacements. Ten months from 2nd Louie to Brevet Light Colonel.


Unfortunately that seemed to be the reason for a lot of wartime promotions.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 13, 2018)

Tieleader said:


> Unfortunately that seemed to be the reason for a lot of wartime promotions.


And when his tour was over, they made him a brevet full bird and put him in command of a B-24 training squadron at Westover AAB. There he violated the curriculum and taught a form of crew coordination not unlike modern CRM, and achieved an accident rate that was among the best in Training Command and THE best in the northern bases. Demobilized in 1946 as a Major.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tieleader (Nov 14, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> And when his tour was over, they made him a brevet full bird and put him in command of a B-24 training squadron at Westover AAB. There he violated the curriculum and taught a form of crew coordination not unlike modern CRM, and achieved an accident rate that was among the best in Training Command and THE best in the northern bases. Demobilized in 1946 as a Major.
> Cheers,
> Wes


So for us civvies does "brevet" also mean "acting" as in "acting colonel" even though he does hold the actual rank?
BTW thanks for the background.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 14, 2018)

Tieleader said:


> So for us civvies does "brevet" also mean "acting" as in "acting colonel" even though he does hold the actual rank?


You're right, it means acting or temporary, sort of like Commodore at sea. Any officer in command of a force of vessels for a specific mission or time frame has the title of Commodore, regardless of actual rank. Commodore McDonough who won the Battle of Plattsburg Bay in 1814 was a lowly Lieutenant. Likewise, historically a brevet officer wore the rank and had the responsibility of his brevet rank, but had the pay and privileges of his permanent rank. Brevets were relatively uncommon in peacetime, except in periods of budget crunch or personnel shortage. So Dick had the responsibility of a full bird, but the social privileges and pay of a Major.
Cheers,
Wes

PS: In another interesting twist in the world of rank and privilege, there's the Limited Duty Officer. LDOs are specialists in specific fields of expertise, and not being Line Officers, have no command authority. Medical, Medical Service, Supply, Aviation Maintenance, and JAG are typical examples. Occasionally one of these specialists will be a LO who's acquired the specialty after commissioning, such as a career aviator who's flunked his flight physical and gone to AMO school. In TraDevMan school we shared a training building with AMO school and got a lot of practice in rendering a proper salute. You could tell the retread aviators from the newbies cause they didn't give a damn about formal BS, while the young guns would brace you at the blink of an eyelash and practice their DI skills on you.
Another curiosity was "mustang" LDOs, senior or exceptionally talented enlisted folk who were sent to "knife and fork school" for 90 days to "acquire couthness" and pass for an officer and a gentleman. They became "very" Limited Duty Officers whose authority only extended to the subspecialty in which they performed as enlisted. They were at the bottom of the totem pole when it came to privileges such as base housing, parking, attendance at social functions, etc.


----------



## l'Omnivore Sobriquet (Nov 15, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> A late neighbor of mine was a B-24 pilot (Ploesti 2x), and he used to chuckle over that myth. He said that saying implied you could one-hand a Liberator in a tight box formation, which as far as he was concerned was a joke. He said especially if you were tail end Charlie, it was a two handed affair and you left the throttle jockeying to your copilot and flight engineer at your command. He said that (and plenty of "stick time") sharpened copilots up pretty quickly and improved them to the point they could become replacement aircraft commanders. Not the way it was taught in training command, where the skipper drove the bird and the copilot operated the gear and flaps, sat on his hands, and stood by for emergencies.
> He said by the second half of his tour he was Squadron Commander, and always flew lead, so everyone formated on him. He advanced so quickly, unfortunately, due to high attrition amongst the leadership and few experienced replacements. Ten months from 2nd Louie to Brevet Light Colonel.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Sounds true to me.


----------



## Tieleader (Nov 15, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Likewise, historically a brevet officer wore the rank and had the responsibility of his brevet rank, but had the pay and privileges of his permanent rank.


So all the "cons" but none of the "perks". That sucks.




XBe02Drvr said:


> Another curiosity was "mustang" LDOs, senior or exceptionally talented enlisted folk who were sent to "knife and fork school" for 90 days to "acquire couthness" and pass for an officer and a gentleman. They became "very" Limited Duty Officers whose authority only extended to the subspecialty in which they performed as enlisted. They were at the bottom of the totem pole when it came to privileges such as base housing, parking, attendance at social functions, etc.


It sounds like they were sent to the kids table at an adult party.


----------



## Tieleader (Nov 15, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> They could hit a pickle barrel from 30,000 ft, but _only _a pickle barrel. Cities were beyond the spec.








From "Target Germany" 1976

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## 130fe (Nov 15, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Actually, you're both right and wrong...
> 
> The pilot I was referring to enlisted in the USAAC in the late 30's and was transferred to the Pacific, seeing action against the Japanese for the duration.
> 
> ...





Your basically correct too, most personnel did in fact belong to the Air Corp administratively, but were assigned to the US Army Air Force.


----------



## Wulfmen (Nov 16, 2018)

grampi said:


> That's funny. I have a soft cover book at home about the P-38 titled "the fork tailed devil." Where did that name come from, and what did the Germans call it?



In German the said
"Gabelschwanzteufel"


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 16, 2018)

Wulfmen said:


> In German the said
> "Gabelschwanzteufel"


Re read this thread from the beginning. That myth was debunked several pages back. My German is a little ragged, but I believe "blitzen" (lightning) is the word.
"Donner und blitzen". Thunder(bolt) and Lightning!
Cheers,
Wes


Tieleader said:


> So all the "cons" but none of the "perks". That sucks.
> 
> It sounds like they were sent to the kids table at an adult party.



Street urchins allowed into the gentlemen's dining room. In the Airedale Navy and the sub service, this sort of class distinction was somewhat less pronounced, but by all accounts in the surface Navy it was holy grail.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 16, 2018)

The myth of the "Gabelschwanzteufel" is a "caidenism" (made up).

When Luftwaffe pilots described American (or British) aircraft, they called out the Anglicized names for ID.
B-17s were "Boeings", B-24s were "Liberators", P-38s were "Lightnings", P-51s were "Mustangs", Spitfires were "Spitfires" and so on.

When Allied fighters were spotted on a mission, Luftwaffe pilots often times called "Indianer" which was a reference taken from "Cowboys and Indians".

The Fort-Tailed Devil term originated from the P-38 pilots themselves. The Japanese nor the Germans used the term and this myth has perpetuated since Martin Caidin's book was published in '73.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 16, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> mission, Luftwaffe pilots often times called "Indianer" which was a reference taken from "Cowboys and Indians".


Ahh, the enduring romance of the American west, with its bandits and its bogies! BTW, does anybody know if there's any truth to the oft-told tale that "bogies" referred to unbranded cattle of unknown ownership?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Ascent (Nov 16, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Ahh, the enduring romance of the American west, with its bandits and its bogies! BTW, does anybody know if there's any truth to the oft-told tale that "bogies" referred to unbranded cattle of unknown ownership?
> Cheers,
> Wes


I believe bogeys comes from the bogeyman and first used by the Royal Flying Corp in WWI.

I stand to be corrected though, as I'm struggling to remember where I heard it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2018)

Wulfmen said:


> In German the said
> "Gabelschwanzteufel"



That’s a myth that is not true...

Aka #FakeNews...


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 17, 2018)

Yeah, nobody's going to blurt that on the radio when bounced.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 18, 2018)

> Thunder(bolt) and Lightning!


 Very very frightening! Galileo! Galileo! Galileo! Galileo! Will you do the fandango!



> Aka #FakeNews!



Gahddamn CNN! Jim Acosta's got a lot to answer for!

Sorry. It's a slow day in New Zealand...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

