Twin Engine Fighters

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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 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.
 
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.
 

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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
pbehn said:
Juha, apologies if you felt I was dismissive of your post I didnt mean to be.
Click to expand...

No need at all.

pbehn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


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

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
Twin engine Tornado
Replies
15
Views
860
wuzak
W
A
Any good twin engined CAS aircraft?
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
Jabberwocky
J
S
State-of-the-art Japanese fighters with western engines
Replies
5
Views
194
GregP
K
Japanese Twin-engine bombers shot down 24 October 1944
Replies
0
Views
646
Keith1967
K
Curtiss P-36 with the Wright R-2600 Twin Cyclone (hypothetically)
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register