Aviation myths that will not die

[Shortround6]

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

 

[GrapeJam]

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

 

[stona]

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

 

[tomo pauk]

Steve - the member posted a myth ☺

 

[stona]

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]

"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]

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]

Not worth comment!

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

 

[stona]

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

 

[wuzak]

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

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

 

[stona]

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]

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]

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

Steve

Bomber crews signed all the bullets.

 

[wuzak]

Bomber crews signed all the bullets.

Nah, it's all in the angles!

I've seen his explanation before.

 

[pbehn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.