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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I call BS!
The effective range of the M-60 is 1200 yards. 5000ft is 1600 + yards. Then you have to take into account the effect of the rotorwash and the wind caused by the moving aircraft. All of this with a suppression weapon.
Before you go any further, I was a US Army helo Crew Chief/Door Gunner and used the M-60.
Take your "No shit there I was..." story somewhere else.
Now get on topic. This thread is about the Bf 109. Got it?
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.
That is why the chart posted later shows the fall off in Rate of Roll at 220 MPH in the standard Spit?
As did just about any tail dragger fighter during WW2, especially during training.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?
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.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?
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.Part 2. Not all planes had short life expectancies when supercharged by any means. By that I mean both blown conventionally and turbo'd.
.
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.I do not know. I thought we had a better handle on conversion than that here? We alone used two stage training, did we not? First the Bipe, then the mono-wing, then possibly a much faster trainer before finally converting to the actual fighter plane?
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.And you do not think that was much higher than the enemy's kills?
Could you, for the record, please post a list of Spit losses from all sources for all here to see? Preferably broken down by periods?
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.Almost all true. Not all combat planes had such short life expectancies! That most combat planes failed to last that long is very true! But their life "Expectancies" in some cases were very much higher! While most R-R built Merlins had a "Life Expectancy" of 150 hours, most lasted much less than half that, at least early in the war, while the early Allison had a LE of 1,000 hours and might last 300, or more. All of this depending on how they were used. Full throttle could shorten any engines life to minutes, not hours and this was/is a fact of life. But actual life and expected life were two very different things for the most part and should not be confused.
I was actively engaged in flying, maintaining and building from scratch many aircraft. I was an EAA Menber, I flew at every Base that had a Flying Club and often rented interesting planes on the open market after leaving the Service and becoming an "Independent Contractor and Civilian Consultant to the DoD, State Department and Various foreign governments" when I had such "Disposable income" that I could afford it.
As to your post, I would not think that different Squadrons with different types of planes would constitute a "Combined fleet", but that is just my opinion?
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.You are right and I was wrong! This is the new wing I refer to;
http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/england/supermarine_spiteful.gif
I was confused by the existence of so many Mk-#s that I just blew it completely!
I am sorry and you are right.
I flew at every Base that had a Flying Club
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?