# P-51 Mustang



## Anonymous (Jan 3, 2004)

In my opinion the Mustang was the best piston powered aircraft of the secound world war.If it wasnt for the Mustang the outcome of the war may have been difrent. It was a difficult oposition for any axis plane and shot down many german and jappanese aircraft. It could also be a ground attack aircraft,it could have napalm to antiship missles. It was used also in korea and could be a forimidable opponent for even jets

reply on what you think of the P-51


----------



## Viper (Jan 3, 2004)

This forum was created by me but my computer fouled up and didnt put my name in,sry


----------



## Crazy (Jan 4, 2004)

Viper said:


> This forum was created by me but my computer fouled up and didnt put my name in,sry



the _forum_ was created by you? all of it?  

This is a thread.

Anywho, I agree on most of your points, but...

Do you really think the war might have been lost without the Mustang? Not sure that any single piece of weaponry could tip the balance of the whole war. But that's just me.

There is the whole "for the want of a horseshoe nail" deal, though...

my somewhat abbreviated .02


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2004)

no way could the p-51 have won the war on its own. While it is impressive that it was built and designed in only 117 days, and it could outperform allot of aircraft, it came a bit late, and it couldn't have done it by it's self


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 8, 2004)

evrything is just great on this websight


----------



## corpcasselbury (Jan 10, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> no way could the p-51 have won the war on its own. While it is impressive that it was built and designed in only 117 days, and it could outperform allot of aircraft, it came a bit late, and it couldn't have done it by it's self



Well, of course not. But it did save the American daylight bombing offensive.


----------



## Erich Hartmann (Jan 11, 2004)

NO plane could ever win a war by its self. But your right, it did help us a lot. It was one of our most publicized planes throughout the war and still is known among people today as a great plane.


----------



## Viper (Jan 11, 2004)

I said the outcome could be diffrent as in more bombers lost and more men killed not the whole war lost or won. I agree no plane could have won a war, sry if you took it the wrong way.


----------



## Erich Hartmann (Jan 11, 2004)

No, not at all, I was just a bit addled at the time, I wasn't mad...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 14, 2004)

yeah i think the p-51 is a pretty good plane too, but i know nothing


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 16, 2004)

true, it did save the american bombers, just anouther example of how good British bombers were, we didn't need fighter escort.


----------



## Erich Hartmann (Jan 16, 2004)

With out it, our bombers would be clay pidgeons


----------



## Hokum (Jan 17, 2004)

I think the spitfire and hurricane where the war winners, with out them the battle of Britain would of been won by Germany and the whole of Europe would of been in the hands of the Germans, then they could of focussed all their forces on Russia, and they may of been able to take even them out. 

Then America would of been alone with the Germans on one side and the Japanese on the other. P-51 is a good fighter but I think the spit and the hurricane were the war winners.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 17, 2004)

the planes that won the battle of britain were exelent, but don't forget, the pilots "behind the weel" as it were showed emmence bravery and courage to which everyone not only in europe, but in america to owes their lives, as without them, we wouldn't be here today.


----------



## Crazy (Jan 17, 2004)

thank you lanc. seems like there's a lot of USAAF bashing around here. bah humbug


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 25, 2004)

yes, i should think there should be alot of usaaf bashin, with a plane like the b-17, can you blame us?


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 25, 2004)

...............still think the Spit XIV was a better Plane  

He He

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 25, 2004)

well that goes without saying, 'cos it's Brittish, but it was better for other reasons, however it did save the b-17 when bombing over europe


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 25, 2004)

True, but it needed a British Engine to do so  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 26, 2004)

good point, i like your way of thinking, very brittish


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 26, 2004)

.............and it makes me sound very old  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 27, 2004)

not at all, i'm only thirteen meself..........


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 27, 2004)

who knows anything about world war 2 planes


----------



## Crazy (Jan 27, 2004)

damn USAAF-bashers.

Get outta my house!!    


*Grabs loaded shotgun*


----------



## Viper (Jan 27, 2004)

Erich Hartmann said:


> NO plane could ever win a war by its self. But your right, it did help us a lot. It was one of our most publicized planes throughout the war and still is known among people today as a great plane.


u guys really gota calm down i didnt say that it could win the war


----------



## Viper (Jan 27, 2004)

matt said:


> who knows anything about world war 2 planes


wuts ur prob dude,lots of people do,get a life


----------



## Viper (Jan 27, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> true, it did save the american bombers, just anouther example of how good British bombers were, we didn't need fighter escort.


dude,#1,were talking about usaf,#2,brit bombers needed esscort as well,they arnt invinceible


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 28, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> not at all, i'm only thirteen meself..........



It does..............I'M IN MY 40's   

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 28, 2004)

really, well in that case, i'm 50, feel better?


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 28, 2004)

Not really, no..............you're 13  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 28, 2004)

yeah the lanc. is pretty smart, hes probably the youngest on the site but he sure knows his stuff  im only 14 and i know nothing!


----------



## Viper (Jan 28, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes, i should think there should be alot of usaaf bashin, with a plane like the b-17, can you blame us?


  the B-17 was a exelent bomber,Lancasters got shot down alot as well,maybe you should try reading up on the B-17 a bit and look at Britesh loses as well,AND remember the britesh bombed in the darkness of night!!! while the B-17's bombed in the day,if lancs bombed more in the day they would be shot down more than the B-17's


----------



## Viper (Jan 28, 2004)

Im 14 too,i noe alot about planes


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2004)

> the B-17 was a exelent bomber,Lancasters got shot down alot as well,maybe you should try reading up on the B-17 a bit and look at Britesh loses as well,AND remember the britesh bombed in the darkness of night!!! while the B-17's bombed in the day,if lancs bombed more in the day they would be shot down more than the B-17's


okok, take it easy, it's only a bit of friendly rivalry.................


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 29, 2004)

Let's put it this way guy's:

1. The Lancaster could carry the greatest bomb load of any WWII bomber, but couldn't really defend it's self too well - not so good  

2. The B-17 could defend it's self very well, but had the same bomb load as a twin engined Mosquito - not so good  

Hot Space


----------



## Crazy (Jan 29, 2004)

Well said Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 30, 2004)

yes, good points (i like the brittish bais)


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 30, 2004)

Not really, both were good in some points, but not other's, M8  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2004)

oh, you just ruined what was other wise a good speech


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 31, 2004)

I alway's ruined everything   

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Jan 31, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> true, it did save the american bombers, just anouther example of how good British bombers were, we didn't need fighter escort.


WUT!!!,I think you should read up on Brit bomber loses and come back to reality,brits got shot down alot also


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 1, 2004)

u done this before, and once again, IT'S A JOKE!


----------



## Viper (Feb 2, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> u done this before, and once again, IT'S A JOKE!


ok ok,not very funny but o well


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 3, 2004)

NOT VERY FUNNY!!!!!!!!! you should be supporting me, allot of lancasters were built in canada you know......................


----------



## Viper (Feb 4, 2004)

the Lancaster kicks ass said:


> NOT VERY FUNNY!!!!!!!!! you should be supporting me, allot of lancasters were built in canada you know......................



I do like lancs alot but I like B-17's more,lol


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2004)

where's your pride tut tut


----------



## Crazy (Feb 5, 2004)

Viper said:


> the Lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > NOT VERY FUNNY!!!!!!!!! you should be supporting me, allot of lancasters were built in canada you know......................
> ...



Good man, Viper!


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 5, 2004)

I like the Sopwith Camel  

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 5, 2004)

Hot Space said:


> I like the Sopwith Camel
> 
> Hot Space


lol,I guess they were awsome 80 years ago


----------



## Viper (Feb 5, 2004)

Hey lanc,have u ever been in a real lancaster before? i've been in one theres one 50 miles from were i live in a museum,it doesnt fly but its all fixed up. They are really small inside,wow.


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 5, 2004)

The Turrets are even smaller.

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2004)

what and the B-17 wasn't small i suppose? and no i havn't been in one, i live in cornwall and the closest one is proberly in london somewhere


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

Any Turret in any plane was small, M8   

In fact the B-17 and B-24 Ball Turret was the worst one going.....

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2004)

thank you........................


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

Anytime my dear chap  

Anyway I'm off for a bite to eat so I'll catch ya later or tomorrow maybe  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2004)

typical brittish........................

p.s. this is me first post with a signinture, hope it works


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2004)

crap, it didn't work, again, any help?


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

Yep. You need to put http:// before www in your Sig, M8 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 6, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> what and the B-17 wasn't small i suppose? and no i havn't been in one, i live in cornwall and the closest one is proberly in london somewhere


Actually the B-17 is massive ive been in one of them also,the lanc is reaaaly cramped cuz of the huge bombay,since the B-17 doesnt have a big one its bigger inside.


----------



## Viper (Feb 6, 2004)

Hokum said:


> I think the spitfire and hurricane where the war winners, with out them the battle of Britain would of been won by Germany and the whole of Europe would of been in the hands of the Germans, then they could of focussed all their forces on Russia, and they may of been able to take even them out.
> 
> Then America would of been alone with the Germans on one side and the Japanese on the other. P-51 is a good fighter but I think the spit and the hurricane were the war winners.


I know but if it went for the americans the brits would be on there own!!! and they couldnt have won without the yanks so the stang really helped out. Yes i totaly agree with the part about how the spit a hurricane won battle of britten though but theres no way the brits coulda won on their own


----------



## Crazy (Feb 6, 2004)

the Allies were all interdependent (if it's not a word, I'm making it one!  )

Without the yanks, the Brits would have got their asses beat.

But without the... uhhh... well ok, so the U.S was pretty independent 8)


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

You must remember it took the Rolls-Royce Merlin to make it a Top Class Fighter  

Hot Space


----------



## Crazy (Feb 6, 2004)

too true


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 7, 2004)

you see crazy, you can't beat the brittish


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 7, 2004)

yup, we may be small but we pack a punch


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 7, 2004)

less of the small cheddar cheese.................


----------



## Archer (Feb 7, 2004)

AFAIK the best plane didn't need any Brit help to get it flying well, they just beat the Yanks to using it on carriers operationally


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 7, 2004)

but we are a small country, you cant deny it lanc.... and anyway it would be better saying that we are small cos it makes us sound better than if we say were large  sorry im just rambling on about crap now


----------



## Viper (Feb 7, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> less of the small cheddar cheese.................


 B-17's were better and still are lol,but lancs are pretty good


----------



## Viper (Feb 7, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> less of the small cheddar cheese.................


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 8, 2004)

i don't see the B-17 flying UNDER a bride, say the Sydney harbour bridge like the lancaster did.........................


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 8, 2004)

When did a Lanc fly under Sydney Harbour Bridge, M8?

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 8, 2004)

i'm not sure when, but i know it holds the record for being the biggest aircraft to do so


----------



## Archer (Feb 8, 2004)

It flew under the Sydney Harbour bridge for a war bonds promotion. The pilot (and I'd assume the rest of the crew) were pathfinders in Europe before returning to Australia with their plane Q for Queenie. It flew around Australia on a war bonds tour and as a promotion it flew under the bridge. The pilot was Isaacson or something similar. All I can find about it are a couple short paragraphs.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 8, 2004)

and for my next trick, watch me fly concorde under the humber suspension bridge in bristol


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 8, 2004)

Archer said:


> It flew under the Sydney Harbour bridge for a war bonds promotion. The pilot (and I'd assume the rest of the crew) were pathfinders in Europe before returning to Australia with their plane Q for Queenie. It flew around Australia on a war bonds tour and as a promotion it flew under the bridge. The pilot was Isaacson or something similar. All I can find about it are a couple short paragraphs.



I'll have to see what I can find on the Net  

Thanks, M8 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 9, 2004)

see, told you so


----------



## Crazy (Feb 9, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i don't see the B-17 flying UNDER a bride



Poor girl.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 9, 2004)

why? it would only crash anyway..........


----------



## Crazy (Feb 9, 2004)

Phew, right over his head


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 9, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i don't see the B-17 flying UNDER a bride



What Crazy is pointing out here, M8 is that you've mis-spelt bridge   

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 9, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i don't see the B-17 flying UNDER a bride, say the Sydney harbour bridge like the lancaster did.........................


so.........thats wonderful,they wouldnt do that now since theres only two in flying condition and 18 altogether,while there is 50 17's, a 17 could prolly go under the golden gate


----------



## Viper (Feb 9, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> and for my next trick, watch me fly concorde under the humber suspension bridge in bristol


wut kinda plane is in ur pic?


----------



## Viper (Feb 9, 2004)

Memphis Belle traveled around the u.s selling bonds ect....like the lanc you guys are talking about,the real belle is even still around


----------



## Crazy (Feb 9, 2004)

That would be a Piaggio P-108, Viper. Some obscure Italian bomber that cheese came upon somehow  


http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150


I've been in the Belle. Really cool experience. 8)


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 9, 2004)

If only..........    

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 10, 2004)

he came accross it a a pack of pollitically incorrect top trumps


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 10, 2004)

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 10, 2004)

oh, if i was to start pionting out the things on the cards that were wrong, you'd get bored after the 100 reason, and there's only 32 cards


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 10, 2004)

yup, and they're made in west germany in about 1976, which explains a lot


----------



## Viper (Feb 10, 2004)

wut are we talking about?


----------



## Crazy (Feb 10, 2004)

The P-108, I think


----------



## Viper (Feb 10, 2004)

hmmmm never heard of it.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 11, 2004)

hurrah for the P-108  it the one in my pic by the way


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 11, 2004)

it may have been good, but not as good as the lancaster  .............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 11, 2004)

hey lanc, was it better than the b-17? thats all i want to know...... then ill stop sticking up for the b-17 and concentrate on my own fave bomber


----------



## Archer (Feb 11, 2004)

The SBD and TBM were better than the Lancaster, B-17, and P-108, so why bother knowing which bomber is the next best?


----------



## Viper (Feb 11, 2004)

just admit it lanc,the 17 conquers all


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 11, 2004)

I think out of all of this both the Lancaster and the B-17 are just as good as each other. Just like the SBD, Sallys, TBM, Swordfish etc...

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 13, 2004)

yeah, but the B-17 had a rubbish payload, i mean 6000lb, that's little more then the mosquito


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 13, 2004)

hey, does anyone know the payload of the P-108?


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 13, 2004)

Here's a Link that will tell ya:

http://www.tgplanes.com/planfile.asp?idplane=96

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 13, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yeah, but the B-17 had a rubbish payload, i mean 6000lb, that's little more then the mosquito


It doesnt really matter,remember most american planes in ww2 had double row radial engines that put out almost 2500 hp.the 17 only had 4 single row 1200 hp engines,if they made them with double radials it and modifi the bomb bay to be bigger it could probually hold more than the lanc.But yes it is sad because the A1-skyradier (one of my favorite planes)with a single engine could hold more than a b- 17.


----------



## Viper (Feb 13, 2004)

why are we talking about bombers here???we should move to my other subject on 17 vs lanc and talk about it there,this is sopposed to be about the mustang,lol


----------



## Archer (Feb 13, 2004)

Why would anyone want to talk about Mustangs?????


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 14, 2004)

the argument between the mighty and gracefull lancaster and the crappy B-17 always ends up in every topic at some point


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 14, 2004)

anyone know what 3500kg is in pounds? (lb)


----------



## Archer (Feb 14, 2004)

7 716.178666 lbs


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 14, 2004)

dont tell me, that's the payload of the P-108?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 14, 2004)

bet it is and i know how u guys complain about b-17 payload and it was pretty high its just that the bomb bay was tiny and that the usaac preferred armor and defensive guns over huge bomb loads with the surplus power


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 14, 2004)

thanks 

ok, so the payload of the P-108 is 7,716lbs (i rounded it down) but thats still more than the b-17 and i think the P-108 looks better  and they only made 35 P-108's, so quite rare too


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 14, 2004)

WRONG! b-17 could hold more than that AND they made 103 P-108's so think before you speak (sorry for smuttiness)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 15, 2004)

don't you think there could have been another reason for only making 35 or 103 (depends who's side you're on) P-108's? think about it?


----------



## Archer (Feb 15, 2004)

WRONG! they made 163 P-108's so think before you speak (http://www.comandosupremo.com/P108.html and http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2000/12/stuff_eng_ibes_p108.htm)

But wait! They also only made 35 (http://www.tgplanes.com/planfile.asp?idplane=96)

I think we should just say that not many were built rather than argue about the number built


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 15, 2004)

perhaps they were so secret that they didn't want people to know how many there were?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 15, 2004)

the lanc said the b-17 could only hold 6,000lbs  im confused now


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 15, 2004)

the lanc lies cuz it can hold 17,600lb max


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 16, 2004)

yea, but that's with huge midifications, the lanc could carry 14,000lb on a regular basis


----------



## Viper (Feb 16, 2004)

Archer said:


> Why would anyone want to talk about Mustangs?????


cuz mustangs are awsome,better than corsairs,corsairs are awsome but stangs are better.


----------



## Viper (Feb 16, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> the argument between the mighty and gracefull lancaster and the crappy B-17 always ends up in every topic at some point


...........lanc,admit it,ive said it before and ill say it again,sure the lanc was a way better bomber,but the fort was a way better plane,the lancaster graceful???? YEA RIGHT,ANYTHING BUT!!!. i think the word you are looking for is clumbersome and large and ugly


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 16, 2004)

Shall we get back to the Mustang now  

Hot Space


----------



## Archer (Feb 16, 2004)

Viper said:


> cuz mustangs are awsome,better than corsairs,corsairs are awsome but stangs are better.


Inline engines couldn't take much of a beating, whereas the Corsair (and all other planes with R-2800 and probably some other radials too) could lose a few cylinders and still get home. Not only that, but the Corsair was a lot better ground attack aircraft, and lastly, it operated from carriers.

I'd put the P-47 befor the P-51 as well, for the same reasons, except for the landing on carriers bit. 

I will sadly admit that the Mustang was good fighter (and now is a good plane), it _may_ slightly edge out the Corsair as a better fighter too, but it isn't nearly as good of a ground attack plane. Finally, it was ugly


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 16, 2004)

I will say one thing about the Mustang, simply because I'm a Spitfire lover and this little phrase (by a Mustang pilot mind you!) tickled my funny bone: 

"A Mustang won't do what a Spitfire will do, but it will do it over Berlin"

-- Chris


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 16, 2004)

LOL      

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 17, 2004)

> Finally, it was ugly


i would only say the one's with in-line cockpits were ugly


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 17, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > Finally, it was ugly
> 
> 
> with in-line cockpits were ugly



A?

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 18, 2004)

some had in line cockpits, most had bubble canopies


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 18, 2004)

I think you mean Hoods and Bubble Canopies, M8  

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 19, 2004)

about archers comment that stangs are ugly.....they arnt even close to ugly,corsairs look better i think but mustangs look awsome too,exsept the early models with a closed canopy,i like them better with the bubble.


----------



## Viper (Feb 19, 2004)

I cant belive that my gramp could have had a mustang from bolivia for 12grand american,i could have held my head and cried.....


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 19, 2004)

And now we are talking maybe a Million or so   

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 19, 2004)

2 for a nice one that has seen combat.....(sigh)


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 20, 2004)

mustangs were a lot better than corsairs because of the rasnge that they had, and thier ability to take air supremisy from the germans shortly after they entered the war. not to mention thier ability to take hits and still survive.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2004)

well, the corsair could take damage to................


----------



## Archer (Feb 20, 2004)

Viper: That little smilie afterwards meant I was joking  Mustangs aren't all that ugly, just uglier than Corsair, Thunderbolts, Spitfires, Yak-3s, and probably a few more, IMO.

Guest: Don't forget few Corsairs fought in Europe, all that I know of being from Royal Navy carriers. Yes, Mustangs had an extra 150 mile range or so, but they couldn't land on carriers  Mustangs also couldn't take much damage to their engines, no inline engine could take much damage. Lastly, they were flown by the USAAF and not the USN and USMC, which has an adverse effect on how good they are


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 21, 2004)

it it just me, or does the mustang look like the yak-3 ?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 21, 2004)

what does IMO mean m8?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 21, 2004)

don't worry, i didn't know what it ment either to begin with, it means "in my opinion"


----------



## Viper (Feb 23, 2004)

corsairs could take alot of damage,so could the stang unless it took a slug through the intake.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2004)

what are you implying?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2004)

what if the corsair took up a sea snail?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2004)

yeah, could happen!


----------



## Viper (Feb 24, 2004)

slug as in bulet....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2004)

sorry, just ive never heard a bullet being referred to as a slug before  ironic really seen as slugs are slow and bullets are fast


----------



## Viper (Feb 25, 2004)

sry,thats just the term some of us use here,its not sopposed to make sense


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2004)

lol, i gathered it werent to supposed to make sence but i just love questioning the irony of things


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 26, 2004)

I have to say (at the risk of cousing a riot) i think the P-51 was a bit ugly and dull...the later models built had such a huge belly (for some reason) they looked like they were pregnant! they look about as streamlined as an elephant!   


http://www.flightjournal.com/images/plane_profiles/p-51/sideview_2_lg.jpg


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2004)

that belly you're on about is the air intake


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2004)

youre right, they werent the best of lookers 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2004)

i would make a connection about the mustangs belly and the fact that it was american, but i wont, and the risk of being linched 8)


----------



## Viper (Feb 27, 2004)

dull??ugly??? everything but........i agree their intake was abit large but they wernt ugly


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2004)

hey look a mustang! oh no, its a fish......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2004)

nice pic on top


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2004)

yes it is, and maybe my fish was a bit of an exaggeration but hey, you get the point 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2004)

would have been more funny if you put a pic of the car


----------



## Archer (Feb 28, 2004)

Personally I think the air intake looks okay. But the wings...come on...everyone knows fighters need bent wings to look half decent 

Great pic BTW (This in no way endorses the Mustang or suggests it is a good looking plane  )


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 29, 2004)

you want a pc of the car? fine


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 29, 2004)

it doesn't look as good as the plane, bet it aint as fast either


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 29, 2004)

Still, it is a classic!

Kiwimac


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 29, 2004)

ay the lanc u have some typos in your signature like tirpiz =P sorry for smuttiness


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 29, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> ay the lanc u have some typos in your signature like tirpiz =P sorry for smuttiness



I'm Smutty all the time and I couldn't see any they  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 1, 2004)

nor can I?


----------



## Viper (Mar 1, 2004)

how many fighters do you noe with a bent wing
not very many rite...
but yes they do look cool


----------



## Archer (Mar 1, 2004)

Corsair, the only fighter that matters


----------



## Viper (Mar 1, 2004)

wel....i think thats over doing it a bit


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2004)

yup  cant really imgine intercepting 109s in the BoB with wellingtons


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 2, 2004)

A little hard, I thought   

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 2, 2004)

well, they could take damage........................


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 2, 2004)

wo


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 2, 2004)

> nor can I?


well there is only one real typo not counting the capitalization errors but i mean its Tirpitz not Tirpiz


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2004)

8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 3, 2004)

well, that was uncalled for...........


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 3, 2004)

what? my smuttiness or c.c.'s spam?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 4, 2004)

he probably means my spam 8)


----------



## Viper (Mar 4, 2004)

we need mustang talk


----------



## Crazy (Mar 4, 2004)

Picture= 1000 words


----------



## Archer (Mar 4, 2004)

That first Mustang has a very ugly paint scheme...but the second one isn't too bad.

Here's my contribution:

























And different but still nice


----------



## Crazy (Mar 4, 2004)

Mmmmm...


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 5, 2004)

This is better    






Nice Propeller's  

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Mar 5, 2004)

who is that hot space?,and those pics equal about 10000words lol


----------



## Viper (Mar 5, 2004)

sweet stang pics


----------



## Viper (Mar 5, 2004)

bridge runner,nice plane


----------



## Archer (Mar 6, 2004)

Ridge Runner's sweet, the other one is okay, but that car....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 6, 2004)

the top pis's a good one, but the second one is ruined by the car


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 6, 2004)

Yep, who is he   

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 6, 2004)

nowt wrong wth the car


----------



## Viper (Mar 6, 2004)

theres nothing wrong with a ford mustang


----------



## Viper (Mar 6, 2004)

better than the car i mean


----------



## Crazy (Mar 6, 2004)

The second and third pics are SWEET!! 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 7, 2004)

why is the incredidble Hulk's younger brother flying the last one?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 12, 2004)

???? lou ferrigno's brother? or whatever his name is... if so, why do you even know that?

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2004)

its mysteriously back...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 12, 2004)

what is................................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 14, 2004)

this thread  it disappeared for a while


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2004)

yeah, perhaps it went to the toilet to get rid of some of the crap in here................................


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2004)

see waht i did there 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2004)

yup, you also trying to be like me 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 21, 2004)

no, just trying to annoy you..................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 26, 2004)

Viper said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > true, it did save the american bombers, just anouther example of how good British bombers were, we didn't need fighter escort.
> ...



I really miss viper don't you guys?


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 26, 2004)

well, if i had to be honest..i would...i have no one to abuse.....only kidding guys!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 26, 2004)

i think the mustang has nice jugs 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 4, 2004)

Still don't like the Mustang...dullsville


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2004)

and it had to have a brittish engine, bet the yanks were sooooooooo, proud of themself's.................................


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 4, 2004)

The P-47D model had almost the same speed as the P-51 but it flew 100 feet higher up to 42,000 feet Only the P-38 flew higher to 44,000 feet but the P-38 only flew 414 mph. Methinks I would rather be flying the P-38 then the P-51 or P-47D


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

me too, i like the P-38, id be willing to fly 20mph slower for an extra 2000ft altitude, and not many planes of the time could go up to 44,000ft, the only ones i can think of at the moment are the westland welkin (44,000ft), focke-wulf ta-152 (48,560ft) and the gotha go229, which was a kind of early stealth bomber wich could go over 50,000ft 8)


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 6, 2004)

The Mosquito NF.Mk.XV made it to 44,600ft , a version made from the B.Mk.IV in 1943 to counter Ju.86P's - As for the Mustang, it was and still is a superb aircraft, it's range and speed contributed largely to the success of the Day-bombing Offensive. I think the laminar-flow wing design and the Merlin in them combined with 6 X .50's, made it the success it was - It also excelled earlier in the War in the RAF's PR Sqn.'s in the earlier variants.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 9, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> me too, i like the P-38, id be willing to fly 20mph slower for an extra 2000ft altitude, and not many planes of the time could go up to 44,000ft, the only ones i can think of at the moment are the westland welkin (44,000ft), focke-wulf ta-152 (48,560ft) and the gotha go229, which was a kind of early stealth bomber wich could go over 50,000ft 8)


 it wasnt a bomber, it was a fighter!!!! the B-2 Spirit was based on it because america is too stupid to be imaginative so they copied the honorable germans!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2004)

i think i'd rather have a P-47 than the P-38 or P-51........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

nah, the p-38 joins an elite list of american planes i actually like


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 21, 2004)

i still prefer the P-47, it looked well good....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

it looked ok, but i wouldnt say it was a great looking plane


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

better than most....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

yes, i just saw a pic of it and it does look pretty cool 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2004)

not as good looking as the lancaster though............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2004)

better looking, the lancaster is ugly as sin


----------



## garoquel (May 1, 2004)

Guys check out some of my work  P-51 mustang

11 X 17 Print Available. contact for pricing:

[email protected]


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

I've always liked the P-51, but I am definitely partial to the P-38. This will probably cause controversy but . . . I think the role of the P-51 in Europe has been overplayed. I'm not saying that it was a bad fighter or that it didn't deliver the coup de grace to the Luftewaffe. The fact of the matter is that by the time the P-51 became opertaional in numbers, mid '44 or so, the attrition of nearly five years of war was taking it's toll on the Luftwaffe. Or perhaps you would like to consider this quote from Authur Heiden of the 20FG with time in both the -38 and the -51. "The Mustang was a delight to fly, easier to maintain cheaper to build and train pilots for, and had long legs. In those respects you can rightfully call it better, but it could not do anything better than a P-38J-25 or L. Just remember who took the war to the enemy and held on under inconceivable odds. Enough of the crap."


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

i agree with you, the P-51's role was often "overplayed", like you say, it was a great fighter but it didn't have as much impact on the war as a 109 or spit.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

the P-38 is my fave american plane, ive never really showed much interest in the 'stang 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

i thought the B-17 was your favourite american plane.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

Hey, I'm always happy to see people give the Lightning its due.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 2, 2004)

garoquel said:


> Guys check out some of my work  P-51 mustang
> 
> 11 X 17 Print Available. contact for pricing:
> 
> [email protected]


 i like it mate! but i just have one suggestion... how about in "Armament", where it says the rounds and such, how about making it "1,800 rounds" instead of "Rounds 1,800"? i like the Detroit Miss one that you have as well


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

> Hey, I'm always happy to see people give the Lightning its due.



and i'm equaly happy if anyone feels like backing me up with the lancaster................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

Oh I love the Lanc (especially all the technology it introduced).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

thank you, would you say it was better than the B-17, i would...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

no, the b-17 is my 3rd fave american plane 8) the lightning was a superb plane


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

may i ask what your second favourite is..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

I can't make that call either way. A Fort couldn't bomb at night and the Lanc couldn't at day. But during their respective arenas (day/night) they were both superb.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

whilst that is a valid pint, ,i think that the lancasters stats atleast make it out to be a better plane...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

nope, i fell the b-17 was better than the lancaster 8)

btw, 2nd is the b-29 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

Being the champion of the P-38 that I am . . . I feel the need to correct some information from a couple of pages back. I'm not sure were the common 414 mph top speed came from but it doesn't make sense to me. the L model had an extra 250hp at WEP. According to the chart below, the L would have topped 440mph and could outrun a P-51D from about 15,000 feet up.


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2004)

The Lightning and Mustang were both great planes, but the Mustangs role isn't overplayed. It was the first thing getting the bombers to Berlin and back, the Lightning was a brilliant aircraft, and a great interceptor but the Mustang was the center point of escorts, the Luftwaffe wasn't completely destroyed you can ask B-17 crews about that.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

I've mentioned on here somewhere before that it was the P-38 that was the first Allied fighter over Berlin. In every theatre, besides Europe, it was considered to be THE fighter and its replacement in Europe was mostly an economical decision.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2004)

but only half way through the war the lightening was outdated...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

The Lightning was never outdated. I think it says something that an Allison-engined Lightning could hang with a Merlin-engined Mustang.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

The Lightning being the first fighter over Berlin doesn't mean anything towards it being the better one. The Russians bombed Berlin before the Americans, are you going to say they did more damage? 

It's not only getting there, it's protecting the bombers on the way. Combat uses up more fuel than a standard full cruise flight.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

it's like sayin that in the BoB the 109s had 10 minuite of fuel over london before they had to turn back, but many would often use up fuel before they even got to london................


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Exactly but it was 15 minutes loiter over London, well that's what I read.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

I've seen both the 10 and the 15 min about the 109s in the BoB. My point was that a huge deal is often made about the P-51 escorting bombers "all the way to Berlin." Well it was not the only Allied fighter capable of doing so.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Yes, but it did it the most. And I see it as the most ideal one.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

well i think the lightning is an incredible plane, ive always been intrigued by it 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

i only like it for it's looks, one of the better looking planes of the USAAF...........


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

I do like the plane, it's good looking and well performing, how we all want our women.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

well performing aslong as you don't mention handling............

1st love's like a firsrt car, you don't care what she looks like aslong as she's cheap, fast and fun to ride ...............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Good one.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

you just don't tell her that ..............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

I think we all know the reaction of her if you did.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

it's obvious, she would jump straight in bed with you, after all, that's the best compliment she'll ever get.............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Well if you picked the right one, of course.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

car or chick?

cos if you think about it, if your first car's a really good one, it's a complimet..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 5, 2004)

hey, my first love is nothing like that 8) neither was my first car either come to think of it


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Haha.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

the lanc wont post here for a while now, he cant hack it when hes wrong


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

Wait a minute, off the chick thing for just a minute second, car: cheap, fast and fun to drive..yours isn't that C.C? Why do you have it then!?!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

my car wasnt cheap, it cost me a bloody bomb in metal, its not fast, it was the slowest car in my class (i still won races though, cos im such a great driver...) it was fun to drive though, cant beat minis for handling


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

Yes, they do stick like sh*t to a blanket. A friend of mine has one, and there's this really tight roundabout near where I live and he just throws it around with ease at like 50 mph, where as others have to go round at like 30. 
It's not too much fun getting in being 6'1 though.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

im 6 foot 3, i have to have the sunroof open  i have 2 minis, im a bit of a fanatic


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

Haha, I imagine that must be fun. If I didn't know better I'd think you were the friend of mine I mentioned, but then again the other mini is his dads...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

im only 14, i shouldnt have 2 minis, but i do, and i have a metro to boot


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

Being 14, you're not the friend I mentioned, haha. I'm 17, armed to the teeth with a saxo  IT WAS CHEAP!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

nowt wrong with saxos


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 7, 2004)

speaking of being armed, did you know that in the UK you can apply for a shotgun licence at any age, as long as you can sign your own name.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

yup, you told me earlier


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

I knew that. My saxo isn't so great now, it's axle isn't in the best of conditions.


----------



## Maestro (May 7, 2004)

That's weird...

An other weird thing about weapons. Here in Canada, to be allowed to pocess a personnal firearm, you must be part of a shooting club. But in U.S.A., anybody can buy firearms.

So we can say that our gouvernment is sooooooo intelligent that he makes sure that robbers knows how to use them before selling firearms to them. (It was a dismal attempt on a joke.)


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

Well Canada has far less gun crime than America, so it's doing something right.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 7, 2004)

Canada has far less people . . .


----------



## Maestro (May 7, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> Canada has far less people . . .



Yeah, 30 billions for the Canada compared to 300 billions for the U.S.A..


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

I meant gun crime per person. Making them be part of a gun club is a lot smarter, you have all that own a gun on record then.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

what i think is really stupid is that the home office say not to store the ammo with the gun (for obvious reasons) but if you read an insurance form, if they mention guns, it will proberly say you should keep the ammo with the guns, and they wonder why we don't trust them.............


----------



## Maestro (May 12, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> what i think is really stupid is that the home office say not to store the ammo with the gun (for obvious reasons) but if you read an insurance form, if they mention guns, it will proberly say you should keep the ammo with the guns, and they wonder why we don't trust them.............



Yeah, it's the same thing here. Police Forces says : "Don't store ammo with the gun." But insurance companies "almost" suggest us to keep our gun loaded.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

That's why you don't trust Insurance companies, and that's why you use common sense instead of what Insurance companies tell you.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

the other day some guy reversed into my dads van and he wants to pay it direct instead of through the insurance company


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

Why do you think that is C.C?
It's because if he pays through the insurance company his insurance premium will go up, in standard English, he'll have to pay more for his insurance if he pays through insurance.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

hmmmmm, im not familiar with insurance yet, i dont have a driving licence yet remember  thanks for the explanation though


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2004)

yet another example of why we don't trust insureance.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Yes, but you can't go driving on the roads without insurance that's illegal


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

yup, damn law


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2004)

it's stupid aint it, next they'll be making us insure our houses, how stupid would that be.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Requiring insurance is a fine law. If you have ever been rear-ended by someone with out insurance you know exactly what I am talking about. And you can drive without insurance, just be prepared to pay the fine if you are stopped by an officer or involved in an accident.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

or even better, you've stopped because of an acident with the officer in question ..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

Now that would royally suck.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Yes, it would. I think it's a £200 fine for driving without insurance here, not nearly high enough, as insurance itself on average is about £300 a year.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

Being stopped without insurance is a $500 here.


----------



## Maestro (May 17, 2004)

And forgetting your driver's licence at home is 600 $ Can. here.  
Using a personnal car as a work car (example : delivering pizza with your own car) is 1000 $ Can.

In Québec, I ever heard that I was FORCED to have car insurances though. But I must say that we have the SAAQ (Société de l'Assurance Automobile du Québec). It's a kind of gouvernemantal insurance. But it's still a good idea to also buy an insurance from a company.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Now there's a weird system.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 17, 2004)

not as weird as our government.............


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Our government is just not organised, not weird.


----------



## Maestro (May 17, 2004)

Yeah, I must admit that our system is weird...

... So weird that if ever you drive a car while you're drunk, you got an accident, kill somebody and got badly hurt, of corse you'll lose your driver's licence and go in jail. But you'll got a compensation from the SAAQ for the wounds you had. If you can't work anymore (example : you're paralysed), they'll give you a life compention. That's the "no-fault" system. This system is so weird that we're trying to "reform" it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 17, 2004)

i can't blame 'em, that's crap..............


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

My God, that is stupid.


----------



## Maestro (May 17, 2004)

I have to agree. Laws here are sometimes very stupid.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

in alabama (i think its alabama) youre allowed to drink whilst driving and fire a gun whilst driving as long as your not pointing it at anyone


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

OK! I happen to be a resident of Alabama! And you are dead wrong on both of those!


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

He said, he thinks it's alabama...calm down.


----------



## Maestro (May 18, 2004)

An other weird law...

All across the Canada, it's illegal for all women to be topless on beaches... except in Ontario !

Honestly, who would be bothered to see a cute woman topless on the beach ?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

I didn't even know they had beaches in Canada.


----------



## Maestro (May 18, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> I didn't even know they had beaches in Canada.



Oh... Their is beaches in Canada. But I must admit that they are not as sunny as US or Australian beaches.

Their is beaches all along the St-Laurent river, around the "Grands Lacs" (I'm sorry, I don't know the English name of that), on the West cost in British Columbia, in New-Brunswick and in Nova-Scotia. These are the most famous ones, but I'm sure their is many more.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 19, 2004)

Great Lakes, if you are referring to what I think you are referring to. Anyway, I appreciate the info. Thanks.


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2004)

I'd imagine where there's a coastline there's a beach, even if it's shingle. Anyway, topless women isn't always good, what about if it's a huge orge of a woman, or like an old biddy. The minority of women are worth looking at


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 19, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2004)

so you whach topless women allot then do you??


----------



## Maestro (May 19, 2004)

plan_D said:


> I'd imagine where there's a coastline there's a beach, even if it's shingle. Anyway, topless women isn't always good, what about if it's a huge orge of a woman, or like an old biddy. The minority of women are worth looking at



You've got a good point.  

But most of the time, huge orge of a woman or old biddy rarely take off their top.

And Lanc, I don't know if you were talking to me or to Plan_D, but you're right. I like to look at cute women, topless or not.  

I'm a man, after all. 8)


----------



## Maestro (May 19, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> Great Lakes, if you are referring to what I think you are referring to. Anyway, I appreciate the info. Thanks.



You're welcome. 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 19, 2004)

Maestro said:


> And Lanc, I don't know if you were talking to me or to Plan_D, but you're right. I like to look at cute women, topless or not.
> 
> I'm a man, after all.


Damn straight...
That's how it should be! Down with the gay movement!
We don't have to be like Hitler and kill them, but we should at least stop the homos...

OT, but did you know that Hitler never persecuted lesbians?
Three Reasons!
One: He couldn't understand why a German woman wouldn't want to bear children for the Reich
Two: Women were considered less important
Three: "No woman could possibly resist the charm of an Aryan man"
(I didn't make that up, I got it from _Smoke and Ashes: The Story Of The Holocaust_)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

I had never heard that about Hitler and the lesbians. That's very interesting.


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

That's funny. 

Lanc, do find something wrong with me looking at topless women? I'm a man, and as a man I should be doing that, and I have and will be doing that.  

Have you seen that Bud advert? That's what I'm talking about.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

he y im in full support of gays  im highly camp anyway


----------



## Maestro (May 21, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> Maestro said:
> 
> 
> > And Lanc, I don't know if you were talking to me or to Plan_D, but you're right. I like to look at cute women, topless or not.
> ...



Speaking about "women bearing children for the Reich". Did you know that girls began to get "raped" for the Reich (Yes, raped. We can't say they were asking for it.) at the age of 12 years old ? Dammit ! 12 years old ! They're still childrens themselves.

And concerning the homos, I agree with you... We shouldn't allow them to get wed. In Canada, there is a new law that authorize gay couple to get wed. When the law was approved, there was a picture of two man kissing on the first page of every newspaper. Yurk !


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

The women, and girls under Nazi control got Mother medals, bronze, silver and gold for bearing a certain amount of children. I think 8 and above was a Gold mother medal.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

Gay marriage is a huge issue right here as well.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 21, 2004)

i don't see why gays shouldn't get married..............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 21, 2004)

A child should have a dad, a mom, or even better, both. It's that simple. It also simplifies the child's life and makes living a lot easier for them.
I want to be a psychologist or a lawyer and perhaps a part-time historian, so I believe a child should be raised in a normal home. Two gays for parents=another/other gay/gays.


----------



## Maestro (May 21, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> A child should have a dad, a mom, or even better, both. It's that simple. It also simplifies the child's life and makes living a lot easier for them.
> I want to be a psychologist or a lawyer and perhaps a part-time historian, so I believe a child should be raised in a normal home. Two gays for parents=another/other gay/gays.



Damm good point, GRG.

I would add that if a child is raised in a "gay family", he/she will think that loving an other boy/girl is normal. This will "screw his mind up" for ever. And it will make a new patient for you, GRG... If you become a psychologist...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

Great point by GRG.


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2004)

Honestly, I don't care if they get married. If they get married, it makes them happy, and they shut up for a few months because they got what they wanted. I don't like gays, I hate gays, and I strongly disagree with how the governments bend over to change the world in their favour but we have bigger problems here, gay marriage is the least of them. 

Now Gay couples having children is a completely different matter, it shouldn't be allowed, it's ing, vile and inhumane. The child (as rightly stated by GRG) will be screwed up. And that's just wrong.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 22, 2004)

The problem with granting gay marriage is that that will only "shut them up" for a few months. Appeasement never solves anything. Everyone on this site should be well aware of that.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 22, 2004)

Can you say Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

> The problem with granting gay marriage is that that will only "shut them up" for a few months



what else do they want??


----------



## Maestro (May 29, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > The problem with granting gay marriage is that that will only "shut them up" for a few months
> 
> 
> 
> what else do they want??



The right to adopt a child. I don't know for Great-Britain, but in Canada this right comes automatically with the right of getting married.

The best way to screw up a children's mind is giving two parents of the same sex.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

> I don't like gays, I hate gays



stop discriminating gays, theres nothing wrong with em, i know lots of gays and there thoroghly nice people  (in fact one of my dads best friends is gay)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

i take the same view, but in saying that, if one came on to me (and who could blame 'em), i'd run a mile..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

me too, but i dont have to worry about that


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

It will only shut them up for a few months, yes. That is better than nothing, as the Munich pact shut the Germans up but not for long, we are looking toward something a lot worse. 

Maybe the peadophiles will protest against discrimnation, after all, in their mind it is right. They should be allowed to do it, exact same circumstances for gays.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

did that say paedophiles have a right to do what they do?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 31, 2004)

No, he was taking the argument against gay discremination to the extreme in order to illustrate how ridiculous the argument is. There have to be some objective standards of morality and behavior or else society falls apart.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2004)

i think it's about time we got back to the P-51....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

really?


----------

