I thought what a prime target such helicopter would be for a NVAF Mig.
The Gulf of Tonkin is the body of water off the North Vietnam coast, it doesn't extend down to northern South Vietnam.
I was also a Crew Chief/ doorgunner in Vietnam.
improving the 109??
- Thread starter bobbysocks
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I thought what a prime target such helicopter would be for a NVAF Mig.
The Gulf of Tonkin is the body of water off the North Vietnam coast, it doesn't extend down to northern South Vietnam.
I was also a Crew Chief/ doorgunner in Vietnam.
Very true. I have a good 650+ hours of combat time, and almost all of it was spent 25 to 100 ft over the ground.
Being up at 5000 ft. would just make you a juicy target.
wuzak
Captain
Did you ever have so much trouble with sharks that you would use them as target practice?
Or were sharks the last thing you worried about when going to or from a combat zone?
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
At an altitude of 5,000 feet, almost a mile, it would be just about ****ing impossible to see a target worth shooting at with a M60 or any other GMPG, even if the bl**dy thing could reach that far, and get the rounds in the same bl**dy County !!!!
Or was that a M60 tank ??!!!
Or was that a M60 tank ??!!!
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Would you guys believe that there is a gaming mouse out there, with a model number M60?
It's designed for First Person Shooter (FPS) games and guess what?
It has a dedicated "Sniper" button...
It's designed for First Person Shooter (FPS) games and guess what?
It has a dedicated "Sniper" button...
Shortround6
Major General
Well, that explains a few things.........
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
As did just about any tail dragger fighter during WW2, especially during training.
Rubbish, and I have just re read Bungays "The most dangerous enemy" during the height of the Battle of Britain the accident loss rate of RAF single seat fighters was approximately 20% of all losses, this was high because the RAF were starting night time sorties.
All combat aeroplanes had a short life expectancy. Tthe RAF rarely had any more than 1000 Spitfires in service. In service spifires with more than 250 hrs were in need of overhaul.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It's quite evident you're not a pilot and know little about flight training during WW2 aside what you're reading in books. Tail draggers will ALWAYS have a higher accident rate when operated in a combined fleet. I know of many pilots with thousands of hours of tail dragger time and they have had at least one ground loop. Please understand that some of the members here are actively engaged in aviation, flying or maintaining warbirds.
The Spitfire 22/24 is shown here its wing is nothing like a Mustangs, neither was the Spitefuls although it looked more like it.
Supermarine Spitfire (Griffon-powered variants) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As soon as they do that, why all the "beautiful" handling the Spit was famous for goes away and it was a trade off and they chose to limit manufacture of Spit's with clipped wings to those intended to chase buzz bombs.
Here is a pic of a Spitfire tipping a V1, the V1 was famous for its very low roll rate and the spit has its wing tip on.
http://www.vcepinc.org/RareWWIIphotos.htm
Supermarine Spitfire (Griffon-powered variants) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As soon as they do that, why all the "beautiful" handling the Spit was famous for goes away and it was a trade off and they chose to limit manufacture of Spit's with clipped wings to those intended to chase buzz bombs.
Here is a pic of a Spitfire tipping a V1, the V1 was famous for its very low roll rate and the spit has its wing tip on.
http://www.vcepinc.org/RareWWIIphotos.htm
Last edited:
No, why should I. Your claim is ridiculous, as with all your claims. You conclusively prove that the Luftwaffe won the Bttle of Britain with all your posts, the fact is they didnt. In peacetime almost al losses are to accidents, when in combat during the BoB the losses to accidents of all types was 20% and as I said that is all accidents not just take off and landing when night time activites were starting.
Yes combat planes that werent in combat lasted longer than those that didnt you have hopped from the 109 to the P40 to the Spitfire and now were are into Allison powered planes.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Reading is fundamental...
GrauGeist said: ↑
Wrong.
If you take the time to look at a Bf109 cockpit, you'll see the trim wheel on the lower left of the cockpit, next to the flap adjustment.
The Elevator was trimmable, not the ailerons. Or the Rudder! Which was a much larger problem. As the thrust, and thus speed changes the amount of Rudder off set must change. In the 109 this is done buy the Pilot stomping his foot on the rudder pedal and holding it there with as much as 150 pounds of force depending on how fast he was going in the dive! At "normal" cruising speeds it was little more than half that much force, but still a pain in the rear.
150 pounds of force? Really?
That is a myth. Inexperience is the biggest killer of pilots, not conventional versus tricycle gear. This is simple not true at all! Look up a comprehensive list of German Ace Pilots and their causes of death. Mike Spik wrote one of the best and it's only a buck or so on Amazon! ( Plus $3.99 S&H!)
Do you know what an Ensign killer is? No, of course you don't...silly me for asking.
You know how many U.S. fighters had tricycle gear? 2 Almost RIGHT, it was actually over 20,000, but much more importantly, how many foreign planes in full service before 1945 had it? ZERO! Do not bring up the Me-262 as it hardly reached full service even by wars end.
Let's see:
P-38
P-39 (excluding the tail-dragger prototype made for the USN)
That's two.
And yes, we CAN use the Me262, as it was a mass-manufactured heavy fighter that saw significant action during the latter half of the war. Then there was the He162, He219 and Ta154...all used in a fighter/night fighter capacity. Some saw more action than others, but all were built, used and in the process of being mass manufactured by war's end.
That's two out of the eight types that the U.S. forces used during the war. But it was 20,000 and we made over 100,000 total! Except for the Germans, no other country made 30,000 fighters and we made more planes with Tricycle gear than the RAF made Spitfires during the war. Also many of our late war planes were tail draggers because of government forced economics, not choices.
As I said, eight TYPES, not production units. If you want to engage in a discussion, learn before you speak.
Let me help you grasp the meaning of types:
F4F Wildcat
F6F Hellcat
F4U Corsair
P-38 Lightning
P-39 Airacobra
P-40 Tomahawk/Kittyhawk/Warhawk
P-47 Thunderbolt
P-51 Mustang
Here's your eight primary TYPES used by U.S. forces during the course of the war. Note that TWO of the TYPES listed had tricycle gear, six out of the eight TYPES did not.
Not really that difficult to understand for most people...
The Spitfire's maingear was as narrow as the Bf109, just set at a different camber. The Bf109's gear simplified production and contributed to a reduction in weight. It also allowed the Bf109 additional options for transport and it allowed extensive servicing without additional maintenance equipment.
And more Spits crashed and burned on take off and landing than were destroyed by enemy action! So what does that say about it's landing gear?
It says the same thing as does any other TYPE in the hands of inexperience: ground errors.
Now provide some factual references to the amount of Spitfires involved in landing/takeoff incidents versus enemy action...I'll be looking forward to your sources.
GrauGeist said: ↑
Wrong.
If you take the time to look at a Bf109 cockpit, you'll see the trim wheel on the lower left of the cockpit, next to the flap adjustment.
The Elevator was trimmable, not the ailerons. Or the Rudder! Which was a much larger problem. As the thrust, and thus speed changes the amount of Rudder off set must change. In the 109 this is done buy the Pilot stomping his foot on the rudder pedal and holding it there with as much as 150 pounds of force depending on how fast he was going in the dive! At "normal" cruising speeds it was little more than half that much force, but still a pain in the rear.
150 pounds of force? Really?
That is a myth. Inexperience is the biggest killer of pilots, not conventional versus tricycle gear. This is simple not true at all! Look up a comprehensive list of German Ace Pilots and their causes of death. Mike Spik wrote one of the best and it's only a buck or so on Amazon! ( Plus $3.99 S&H!)
Do you know what an Ensign killer is? No, of course you don't...silly me for asking.
You know how many U.S. fighters had tricycle gear? 2 Almost RIGHT, it was actually over 20,000, but much more importantly, how many foreign planes in full service before 1945 had it? ZERO! Do not bring up the Me-262 as it hardly reached full service even by wars end.
Let's see:
P-38
P-39 (excluding the tail-dragger prototype made for the USN)
That's two.
And yes, we CAN use the Me262, as it was a mass-manufactured heavy fighter that saw significant action during the latter half of the war. Then there was the He162, He219 and Ta154...all used in a fighter/night fighter capacity. Some saw more action than others, but all were built, used and in the process of being mass manufactured by war's end.
That's two out of the eight types that the U.S. forces used during the war. But it was 20,000 and we made over 100,000 total! Except for the Germans, no other country made 30,000 fighters and we made more planes with Tricycle gear than the RAF made Spitfires during the war. Also many of our late war planes were tail draggers because of government forced economics, not choices.
As I said, eight TYPES, not production units. If you want to engage in a discussion, learn before you speak.
Let me help you grasp the meaning of types:
F4F Wildcat
F6F Hellcat
F4U Corsair
P-38 Lightning
P-39 Airacobra
P-40 Tomahawk/Kittyhawk/Warhawk
P-47 Thunderbolt
P-51 Mustang
Here's your eight primary TYPES used by U.S. forces during the course of the war. Note that TWO of the TYPES listed had tricycle gear, six out of the eight TYPES did not.
Not really that difficult to understand for most people...
The Spitfire's maingear was as narrow as the Bf109, just set at a different camber. The Bf109's gear simplified production and contributed to a reduction in weight. It also allowed the Bf109 additional options for transport and it allowed extensive servicing without additional maintenance equipment.
And more Spits crashed and burned on take off and landing than were destroyed by enemy action! So what does that say about it's landing gear?
It says the same thing as does any other TYPE in the hands of inexperience: ground errors.
Now provide some factual references to the amount of Spitfires involved in landing/takeoff incidents versus enemy action...I'll be looking forward to your sources.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
With that said, I'm amazed by your response, it seems you know little about flying a tail dragger
Re: Clipped wing Spitfires. Why don't we use a few established facts (from Boscombe Down) rather than rather vague suppositions .
This had absolutely nothing to do with chasing V-1s.
First tests, with a Spitfire V, were conducted in November 1942, long before any V-1s had been launched.
The effect on performance was established by comparative trials and is not as significant as has been suggested above.
Time to 10,000ft increased from 3.7 minutes to 3.9 minutes. Time to 20,000ft increased from 7.4 to 7.9 minutes.
The aircraft were intended for operation at lower altitudes and the service ceiling fell to 36,200ft from 38,000ft.
Maximum speed was measured at several altitudes from 17,000ft to 26,000ft and barely changed.
It was a simple matter to change the wingtip on any war time Mark of Spitfire. It was common practice to remove them and put them in the cockpit for transport!
Cheers
Steve
This had absolutely nothing to do with chasing V-1s.
First tests, with a Spitfire V, were conducted in November 1942, long before any V-1s had been launched.
The effect on performance was established by comparative trials and is not as significant as has been suggested above.
Time to 10,000ft increased from 3.7 minutes to 3.9 minutes. Time to 20,000ft increased from 7.4 to 7.9 minutes.
The aircraft were intended for operation at lower altitudes and the service ceiling fell to 36,200ft from 38,000ft.
Maximum speed was measured at several altitudes from 17,000ft to 26,000ft and barely changed.
It was a simple matter to change the wingtip on any war time Mark of Spitfire. It was common practice to remove them and put them in the cockpit for transport!
Cheers
Steve
You are still wrong, the Spiteful wing did not copy the Mustang. There were so many marques of the Spitfire because it had to fight a war from 1939 to 1945 against opponents like the Me109 and Fw190 in addition to taking down bombers.
from wiki
By 1942, Supermarine designers had realised that the characteristics of the Spitfire's wing at high Mach numbersmight become a limiting factor in increasing the aircraft's high-speed performance. The main problem was theaeroelasticity of the Spitfire's wing; at high speeds the relatively light structure behind the strong leading edge torsion box would flex, changing the airflow and limiting the maximum safe diving speed to 480 mph (772 km/h)IAS.[nb 1] If the Spitfire were to be able to fly higher and faster, a radically new wing would be needed.[1]
Joseph Smith and the design team were aware of a paper on compressibility, published by A D Young of theR.A.E, in which he described a new type of wing section; the maximum thickness and camber would be much nearer to the mid-chord than conventional airfoils and the nose section of this airfoil would be close to an ellipse.[nb 2] In November 1942, Supermarine issued Specification No 470 which (in part) stated:
A new wing has been designed for the Spitfire with the following objects: 1) To raise as much as possible the critical speed at which drag increases, due to compressibility, become serious. 2) To obtain a rate of roll faster than any existing fighter. 3) To reduce wing profile drag and thereby improve performance.
The wing area has been reduced from 242 sq ft (22.5 m2) to 210 sq ft (20 m2) and a thickness chord ratio of 13% has been used over the inner wing where the equipment is stored. Outboard the wing tapers to 8% thickness/chord at the tip.[1]
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I'm assuming military flying clubs. Let's see - Point Mugu? China Lake? EDW? Vandenberg? What years?
