Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Alot of information was lost during the course of the war, Henkel and the He100's details are a prime example. So too, were the design elements of the Me509 proposal.What was the Me-509? Can you please post a link to more info? Sincerely.
Which British WW1 type was deliberately given these attributes?It is an allegory based on the planes attributes being biased just like a WW-I plane! Turn performance before speed. The ability of RCMGs to kill the unarmored pilot. Flimsy construction to save weight over strength of the air frame. Narrow track landing gear to save weight at a horrendous accident rate that supposedly destroyed more planes than the enemy? Single Spar wing to save weight which let the wing twist on application of Aileron. Short range over Combat Persistence, etc...
How many things do I have to list?
It is up on You-Tube, but the very best one is the old Spitfire Pilot from Malta, also on You Tube. But if it is books you like, read all of the best three books on the oral history of the P-38 and it's pilots!
It is an allegory based on the planes attributes being biased just like a WW-I plane! Turn performance before speed.
It is an allegory based on the planes attributes being biased just like a WW-I plane! Turn performance before speed. The ability of RCMGs to kill the unarmored pilot. Flimsy construction to save weight over strength of the air frame. Narrow track landing gear to save weight at a horrendous accident rate that supposedly destroyed more planes than the enemy? Single Spar wing to save weight which let the wing twist on application of Aileron. Short range over Combat Persistence, etc...
How many things do I have to list?
Then Compare it to the Me-109 and all the attributes the RAF likes are absent from the -109, but the 109 was unquestionably the most efficient killing machine of the war! The second and third closest place killers were different models of the Me-109 and fourth was not even a fighter plane at all, but the B-17!!! ( The B-24 was fifth!)
You have to go a long way down the list to find the Spitfire and it was the second, or very close third in numbers produced! More or less tied with the Fw-190 at about 20,000 made...
So, adjusted kills about 4200, or 4400, I can not remember, for 20,000 made and how many lost in combat, or to all causes? Right!
Long live the Me-109!
The Germans were the ONLY ones to have figured it out and the best plane of the war, which could have been the most magnificent winner of all had it had the correct tactics from the start was an accident! But America had it's collective head up it's rectum and failed to learn the lessons of WW-I and ignored the rust to war, so did not spend the money to have the world beater from the get go. They were as far as I know, the only National Air Force to recognize that the stronger plane would need bigger guns and do the testing to find out what worked. But even then, we listened to England, France and the rest of Europe and then ignored our own knowledge! Boy did we screw the pooch!
That's not an answer. I asked for evidence, the one thing you have provided remarkably little of in any respect. In fact I haven't seen an archive reference or even name or book title in any of your posts. You can't expect me to take seriously an argument you propose when you give me no means of checking the validity of the sources on which you base it.
Hearsay and recollection is very unreliable. For example, more than 100 people gave evidence to say they were attacked by US fighters following the bombing of Dresden, but we can prove that this was not so.
Cheers
Steve
[QUOTE="Ascent, post: several ww1 aircraft had a single spar lower wing albatross dv dva (d5 d5a) being just one example and yes it caused problems[/QUOTE][QUOTE="gumbyk, post: What WW1 types had a single-spar wing (excepting, of course very early ones that utilised wing-warping)
WW1 aircraft range/endurance was limited by the load of fuel, which was in turn a function of the power and speed of the aircraft - not structural strength.
Another great myth. The British (and French) ordered (or explored) P-38 variants not only without turbochargers but with the same long nose engines used in the early P-40s instead of the Spur gear engines used in the the early P-38s. They did this in the interest of simplifying the spare engine/spare parts situation. Allison Factory was over 3000 miles away. it also meant the engines both rotated the same direction.
Simple deleting the turbos would have left the counter rotating engines and offered an extra 100hp for take-off at the cost of really poor high altitude performance. (early P-38s used 6.44 supercharger gears).
I would also note that the British got approval to order the "secret" turbocharges by June 5th of 1940 and ordered 524 MK II Lightings with turbos on that date.
Yes, I agree! But once again, I did not start the P-40 argument, but certainly did contribute to it. So did others. I have a valid point to make about how to improve the Me-109. See;
Me-109 images - Google Search
A combat ready P40 didn't exist at the BOB so you can buy what you like, but all it would be is a very expensive flaming coffin for the pilots that flew it.This is all true, but not relevant. The original premise, not stated by me, was that the P-40 would have made a better option for the RAF, if they had been bought before the BoB. All I did was agree with and defend that point of view!
Do you have any supporting information for these claims?It depends entirely on the weapon launching it! because the mounts in the Spit's wings were so flimsy, the dispersion out of the gun, which would normally shoot less than 4 MOA, was 1.1 Meters, or 44 inches at 100 yards!
The exact same gun mounted more ridgedly in the Hurricane wing shot into less than 9" at 100 yards, plus the guns were grouped into a single battery where the bullet streams of all four guns were parallel to one another and thus much more effective at much longer ranges, typically Zeroed at 250 Yards rather than the Spit's 200.
The guns in the P-40 were typically Zeroed at 400 yards, but the CL mounted .50s were effective at twice that range.
PS, I have a friend at the Club who has a Lee Enfield Sniper rifle in .303 that shoots crap ammo into less than 1.5" at 100 yards! His own, hand loaded match ammo goes into less than 3/4"! So it all depends on the platform.
Do diesels count? (Jumo207)In fact, no European plane actually entered Service with a Turbocharger during WW-II!
While much is made of the "Aileron Reversal" problem, very few people understand that it is not something that suddenly happens, but gradually intrudes into the performance as the speed increases. So while the Spit is very easy to fly at 100-165 MPH, by the time you get to 200 the twisting wing starts to reduce the rate of roll enough that it starts to become a problem. By 250 MPH it has reduced the rate of roll enough to make high speed dog fights very dangerous with the Me-109, IF the Messer's pilot knew his business. And that was a very big IF in the prior sentence. Even after all of the various "Strengthening" projects, it took an entirely new wing WO the fancy elliptical planform to make the Spit competitive with 4-5 year old planes! One of the "Critical" design objectives stated in the contract was to to make the Spit's rate of roll a world beater, instead of last place!