Twin Engine Fighters

[GregP]

That last one looks like the designer was a bit drunk at the time, or maybe just got a divorce ... or something.

I can't really see having an asymmetric horizontal tail when you don't have an asymmetric rudder, but then agian, I never liked ugly airplanes so I never tried messing with them as RC models.

 

[tomo pauk]

The 1st proposal seem to have too smal props - 2m/6.5ft diameter? As for the second - agree with Greg, asymetric aircraft have 'ugly' written all around them.

 

[EKB]

The following book might be of interest to anyone reading this thread. Some of you might be surprised at what the author wrote after he evaluated and compared the combat effectiveness of the Messerschmitt 110 vs. the Messerschmitt 109.


Battle of Britain: An Epic Conflict Revisited: Christer Bergström: 9781612003474: Amazon.com: Books

 

[awack]

Just checked it out, some one posted some numbers that I believe are from the book, British fighters shot down 1275 German aircraft and the German fighters shot down 1050 British aircraft, it seems due to attrition and production the British had a lot more aircraft in December than the Germans.

 

[pbehn]

Just checked it out, some one posted some numbers that I believe are from the book, British fighters shot down 1275 German aircraft and the German fighters shot down 1050 British aircraft, it seems due to attrition and production the British had a lot more aircraft in December than the Germans.

The numbers are always open to debate, the critical numbers were of experienced pilots and aircrew. I believe in total the LW shot down more British aircraft, frquently bomber command and coastal command A/C are omitted as they were not critical to the BoB result.

 

[bobbysocks]

That last one looks like the designer was a bit drunk at the time, or maybe just got a divorce ... or something.

I can't really see having an asymmetric horizontal tail when you don't have an asymmetric rudder, but then agian, I never liked ugly airplanes so I never tried messing with them as RC models.

the last one looks like B&V designed it or the idea was ripped off from them. I have a hard time thinking that horizontal stabilizer wouldn't suffer damage in hard maneuvers. that would have had to have been a recon ac.

I love the rocket, evo, etc..... there is an RV4 in the hangar next to me that took some minor land damage. its still too much money for my pocket book right now....maybe someday. till then I will stick to my max.

 

[GregP]

Hi bobbysocks,

I liked the F1 Rocket Evo until I got a chance to ride in one and fly it awhile.

Now I love it unashamedly.

It was exhilarating to pull up from liftoff and see a 3,800 fet per minute climb rate. The roll rate means you can basically complete a roll in about 2.5 - 3.0 seconds. Pull up the nose a few degrrees, remove the back pressure, full aileron and you're around before you can do anything stupid. Of course, if you DON'T release the back pressure, you can be over redline in a heartbeat. You can also throttle back to 45% and cruise with your RV friends and get into and EASILY out of almost anyplace they can. The F1 Evo does need a bit more landing roll than a stock RV. It barely needs a takeoff roll.

You can even cruise with P-51s since they mostly stay beloew 10,000 feet where the speed limit is 250 knots. So they mostly cruise at 235 knots, too. When they want to leave you behind, though, they disappear in a heartbeat. They can't really out-turn you since the F1 Evo is a 6-g airplane, but they can extend rapidly and dwindle into the distance.

Is that Max you're talking about an airplane (as in MiniMax), a motorcycle (maybe a V-Max), or your favorite horse?

 

[Juha]

The numbers are always open to debate, the critical numbers were of experienced pilots and aircrew. I believe in total the LW shot down more British aircraft, frquently bomber command and coastal command A/C are omitted as they were not critical to the BoB result.

Not necessarily, I haven't count the losses from Chorley's and Ross' books, but the old figures for RAF were 367 bombers, 1140 fighters and 96 other operational types = 1603 altogether and 1733 for LW.

 

[pbehn]

Not necessarily, I haven't count the losses from Chorley's and Ross' books, but the old figures for RAF were 367 bombers, 1140 fighters and 96 other operational types = 1603 altogether and 1733 for LW.

Juha, apologies if you felt I was dismissive of your post I didnt mean to be. I didnt re check your figures I was making a general point. The successes or not of Bomber command would only be significant if fighter command was beaten so many historians accounts discount them. It is common to count machines and fighter strength, during the BoB fighter command were rarely short of machines, with Beaverbrooks improvements in production as the fight went on the situation as far as new RAF fighters got better not worse. For the RAF the problem was always experienced pilots and squadrons who were not exhausted. For the LW the problem was both loss of pilots/crews and machines.

 

[Juha]

Juha, apologies if you felt I was dismissive of your post I didnt mean to be.

No need at all.

I didnt re check your figures I was making a general point. The successes or not of Bomber command would only be significant if fighter command was beaten so many historians accounts discount them.

IMHO it is entirely ok to incl. at least the losses of those bombers which operated against a/fs and harbours/invasion fleet plus the losses of those CC strike a/c which operated against the same targets.

It is common to count machines and fighter strength, during the BoB fighter command were rarely short of machines, with Beaverbrooks improvements in production as the fight went on the situation as far as new RAF fighters got better not worse. For the RAF the problem was always experienced pilots and squadrons who were not exhausted. For the LW the problem was both loss of pilots/crews and machines.

I agree, at the end of the BoB the LW had more operational 109s than combat ready pilots to fly them.

 

[pbehn]

I agree, at the end of the BoB the LW had more operational 109s than combat ready pilots to fly them.

Purely from memory I think the situation with bombers was much worse. They take more resources to build and are a bigger target to hit. Rifle calibre guns were not the best at taking down a L/W bomber but were quite effective at making them unserviceable and killing or injuring the crew. The massed raids on London had a big fighter to bomber ratio. While the glamour is always in the fighters, as I recall the LW had lots of fighters fewer pilots for them even fewer bombers and yet fewer crews for them. That is from memory I would have to read some books again grrrrrrrrr.

 

[bobbysocks]

minimax......with a 1835cc great plains type 1 vw engine so the model is called a Vmax. I got it a while back and am restoring it...but had to deal with other project first. HOPEFULLY I can start wrenching on it again this spring...and in the air this summer.

 

[GregP]

Good luck! Gonna' fly it in something? Or just rebuild it and maybe make a motorcycle?

Good luck with whatever you are goiing to use it for.