Best Fighter

• Jan 2, 2005

• #621

GermansRGeniuses

Tech Sergeant

2,031

4

Dec 26, 2003

www.barryboys.co.uk

Nope, the F-2 has a 15mm in the nose and two 7.92mm machine guns above the engine, but the F-4 and G-2 both have a 20mm cannon in the nose and two synchronized 7.92mm machine guns above the engine...

 

• Jan 2, 2005

• #622

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

Weren't post-war 109s fitted with RR engines? Those never looked right to me.

 

• Jan 3, 2005

• #623

GermansRGeniuses

Tech Sergeant

2,031

4

Dec 26, 2003

www.barryboys.co.uk

Nah, those were licence-built Hispano Ha-112, "Buchons," made in Spanien...

 

• Jan 3, 2005

• #624

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

And Pre-War -109 prototypes were fitted with RR Kestrels.

 

• Jan 3, 2005

• #625

GermansRGeniuses

Tech Sergeant

2,031

4

Dec 26, 2003

www.barryboys.co.uk

Didn't the Ju-87 V-0 and V-1 have that engine since the Jumo had problems?

 

• Jan 3, 2005

• #626

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

I don't know about that one, RR engines were sluts of the aviation world they got around a bit. So it's possible.

 

• Jan 3, 2005

• #627

GermansRGeniuses

Tech Sergeant

2,031

4

Dec 26, 2003

www.barryboys.co.uk

Just checked, they did indeed...


I always found the V-1 interesting, if only so for its engine and twin-tail...

 

• Jan 3, 2005

• #628

GermansRGeniuses

Tech Sergeant

2,031

4

Dec 26, 2003

www.barryboys.co.uk

Better photo...

8)

 

• Jan 3, 2005

• #629

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

I've seen that picture before, I just didn't know anything about it.

 

• Jan 3, 2005

• Thread starter
• #630

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Why was the twin tail ditched? Surely it would have increased stability?

 

• Jan 3, 2005

• #631

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

I'm not sure it would. The single tail probably offered a greater surface area. It's interesting to note that some of the last versions of the B-24, the PB4Y2 and the B-24N featured a single tail in place of the twin fins of the earlier models.

 

• Jan 3, 2005

• Thread starter
• #632

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

I thought that the width of the twin tail would make it more stable. Avation obviously different to motoring in that respect then.

 

• Jan 3, 2005

• #633

Yeomanz

Senior Airman

317

0

Nov 25, 2004

UK

planes fly cars dont

 

• Jan 3, 2005

• Thread starter
• #634

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Unless youre driving a Lamborghini Miura, which was so unaerodynamic it began to take off at 80mph...seriously

 

• Jan 3, 2005

• #635

M

Medvedya

Master Sergeant

2,358

12

Nov 9, 2004

Bristol, UK

Yeomanz said:

planes fly cars dont

Click to expand...

What about the Hafner Rotabuggy then eh? eh? eh?

 

• Jan 4, 2005

• #636

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

Those late B-24s weren't Liberators were they? They were called Privateers?

 

• Jan 4, 2005

• #637

GermansRGeniuses

Tech Sergeant

2,031

4

Dec 26, 2003

www.barryboys.co.uk

No, Privateers were totally (not by much) aircraft, kinda like Wellingtons and Warwicks...


Fairly similar but acutally different planes.

 

• Jan 4, 2005

• Thread starter
• #638

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Whats a Warwick?

 

• Jan 4, 2005

• #639

Nonskimmer

Captain

8,620

9

Nov 11, 2004

Halifax, Nova Scotia

Basically, a bigger version of the Wellington. I don't think many were used.
Could be wrong, I'll have to look it up.

 

• Jan 4, 2005

• Thread starter
• #640

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

There we go. I think it was a transport rather than a bomber.