Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Here yeah go my young friend , Pt 1 of new series . new in the sense its less then 2yrs old on the end of Wittman . I'll ruin the ending for you he was taken out by a shot from a tank of the Royal Sherbrookes . Its a CSI type show and well done for a guy like me that knows nothing about armour guns ships stcMichael's Tiger I was either destroyed by aircraft or shot through the SIDE by an AT gun at fairly close range. His tank trundled of with only 7 others, deep into enemy territory with exposed flanks and inadquete numbers, he was taking over from a commander he considered to inexperienced. The odds were against him. There was no particular courage or ingenuinity required to opportunistically ambush the exposed tigers, which were taking an audacious risk some tacticians have condemned as foolhardy due to inadquet reconaisance.
Or this one it went something like this...."later model Bf 109s had a range in excess of 1400 km....700 out one way and 700 back". If i tried hard enough Im sure i could find this gem. Someone pointed out that would allow escorted raids to Scotland (I think that was the country mentioned). He had no problem with that.
I know, I know, there is some truth to it (yeah right).....
From that statement it seems you think war is some kind of game where you fight "fair". Tank warfare consist of basically ambush tactics whenever possible, if you're presented with a side shot, you take it. It takes courage just to stay on a battlefield and take your chances.
The western allies at that time had no tank that could go toe to toe with a Tiger I, Michael Wittman knew that, but i'm not going to be juvenile and suggest that Wittman was less courageous for taking advantage of that superority.
TRUE
Tail numbers S/N 44-83028, c/n 1007 S/N 44-83029, c/n 1008 were deployed to the 1st Fighter Group at Lesina Airfield, Italy, Joe Baugher gives references to this fact in his web site. Those 2 aircraft survived their deployment, one crashed stateside, one was later converted into a drone.
As far as what type of sorties flown? Nothing too dangerous considering that no Luftwaffe jets were anywhere close to Lesina.
Entirely possible with 200 to 210 mph.Could probably be done on a super lean mixture setting and flying no faster than 150 mph
Could probably be done on a super lean mixture setting and flying no faster than 150 mph
".... The account of the German jet program begins with a young Doctoral student freshly minted from the University of Göttingen in 1935."
The Nazis were securely in charge of the levers of power by then ...... so did Nazi science get the jet engine "right" and Frank Whittle get it "wrong" ? ... is that your personal conviction, Iron man.
Curious, not judgmental
MM
I used the Joe Baugher site and he gave references. I have found him to be very fair and accurateit is well knewn that 2 yp-80 go in 1st FG, is well knewn that they fly over italy, but that fly combat mission give me where is the reference
That means no advancing the throttle, no evasive maneuvers, straight and level. Perfect for a ferry flight, not practical in combatEntirely possible with 200 to 210 mph.
But why would I even pay attention to a paper in which there is a blatant error on the 1st page , I know squat about engines and area rule but as a person with limited knowlwedge I would hope that the man doing this would be thorogh , it make every else after a non factor to me . I'm sure this guy Busemann was a smart cookie but thats all I can sayThe paper I've cited is not my work Michael; the statements, research and conclusions reached, are those of a man who has dug long (and deep) for an appraisal of the effects (as with respect to "Paperclip") of "German science" on the postwar aviation developments in the western aerospace industry.
.
What's your definition of a "front line aircraft?" Fighter? Bomber? Can you consider a helicopter a "front line aircraft" because by the end of the decade (1950s) these fat little balls of impellers found their way into numerous helicopters and in a composite configuration, into aircraft, and they were just as, if not more advanced than their larger cousins. In their cumbersome profile, they actually offer a superior power to weight ration when applied to a different application.If pushed for a comment on the "Axial/Centrifugal" debate, I'll offer this up. By the early 1950's, centrifugal engines were increasingly banished from front line aircraft coming off of the production lines. While they have their merits, their cumbersome profiles and significant disadvantages with respect to power/weight ratios made this shift a "when"...not an "if". Axials are a whole different engineering ballgame. They are many times advanced beyond the (relatively speaking) simplistic Whittle engines.