Recent content by Frankenerd

Not quite right. The Spiteful had an entirely new and larger tail.

I dispute your claim that the Spit-IX had an "Excellent" combat record. In "Circuses" type fighter sweeps over France it got it's butt handed to it's pilots at a horrific rate with many more losses than wins, which was never made public until many years after the war and then not widely...

Except that the 109 was identical from the firewall back through most of the models. I think it had the absolute highest parts through put between models of any plane in the war. The new mods had different numbers, but some had significant carry over of major sections. This can not be said of...

Damage resistance is a function of only two major items! How thick the aircraft skin is and whether or not it has an air cooled engine! All other aspects of damage resistance are insignificant in comparison to either of those two factors! American Aircraft were made with thicker and stronger...

Had nothing to do with "Ancient Mystics" but everything to do with the minimum width of a two man, two horse chariot's axel and wheels!

Not true at all. All of the things you mention have to do with car design, not gage. There were plans way back in the 1840-50s to make the gage 3.2 M for all the right reasons but one, cost of conversion. So it got shelved. Put any current car on a set of 3.2 Meter trucks and it can go MORE...

Many mistakes. The rectilinear Mustang wing gave more total lift than the larger elliptical Spitfire wing! The thinner Spit wing had a lower CL and more wash out that greatly reduced the total lift. But the Spit was more than a ton (2?) lighter and thus had a lower wing loading. If you look at...

Well actually, the small engined GeeBee Racers of the mid '30s had significantly better CD than other radial engined planes of the time and even later into the early 40s.

This has little to do with aerodynamic performance and everything to do with weapons systems! The Me-262 had 4X 30 MM Mk-108s and could not hit a maneuvering target with them. That is why prop fighters shot down many more jet fighters than vice verse. The 4X 20s in the GM had a flat trajectory...

I am just listing the actual K/L Ratios. Many here list the bombers as targets argument, but that is not relevant. They only killed 12 for a loss of ten when on this side of the channel and the throttle restrictions I mention are on the Germans not the Brits. They were reluctant to use full...

I have one, but it is packed away and I can not remember it's title at this moment? Do a better search? Ah Haaa! The Junkers Ju-87 Stuka, by Peter Smith?

Have you ever actually looked at any WW-II fighter plane with the cowl panels open? WO knowing the exact dimensions, I suspect it would fit into a Me-109, IF the mounting beams - system was redesigned? Go to the web page for the Museum of the USAF at Wright-Patt and look up the pics of their...

Well yes, it did make over 2900 HP! See any of the books on German aero engines.

This is a neat argument as no car on the road today can match the power/weight/TBO of a WW-II aero engine. They can make more power per unit of displacement, but not much more power per unit of piston crown area. Then when modern car engines are run at power levels that a WW-II engine can last...

Lets look at the Spit/Merlin combo; The Spit was barely competitive with the Me-109 over England, with K/L ratios about 1.2/1, mainly because of throttle limits imposed by the return trip on the Germans. When the Spit/Merlin flew across the channel to France, they had their collective butts...