PDA

View Full Version : DAK Luftwaffe


Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5]

RangerCharlie
18 November 2005, 06:36
Looks like they took a big hit. That B-17 was in many pieces when i was there.
Sucks that they lost most of them..

Doogie320
18 November 2005, 06:48
Looks like they took a big hit. That B-17 was in many pieces when i was there.
Sucks that they lost most of them..

Well, moving to Douglas, GA is a big enough hit.:D

What's interesting is that Douglas has a big airshow every year, we did some demo jumps into it in 97 or so, maybe 98. No clue why they would live in Douglas because it is 2 hours+ to Macon, 3 or more to Atlanta, 90 minutes to Moody AFB... just an odd location for a museum/ restoration hangar.

Matchanu
18 November 2005, 12:58
I love this thread.

RangerCharlie
18 November 2005, 13:19
Well, moving to Douglas, GA is a big enough hit.:D

What's interesting is that Douglas has a big airshow every year, we did some demo jumps into it in 97 or so, maybe 98. No clue why they would live in Douglas because it is 2 hours+ to Macon, 3 or more to Atlanta, 90 minutes to Moody AFB... just an odd location for a museum/ restoration hangar.

Free/cheap hanger space??

RangerCharlie
18 November 2005, 13:21
I love this thread.

You have been slacking adding to this thread :(
Go back to your old job...

Matchanu
18 November 2005, 13:29
You have been slacking adding to this thread :(
Go back to your old job...


Eat my ass.


I just don't have anything good to add right now.

ET1/ss nuke
18 November 2005, 13:31
The British attacks on the French Navy are still something of a sore point in France today. On the other hand, reportedly most of the French pilots dropped their loads short or neglected to arm the fuses on their bombs.


French pilots without the heart to bomb people? French bombs that don't go boom? Who would have suspected the French of waffling at the moment of decision? By the way, the Argentines seemed to have a lot of trouble with French made Exocets that didn't explode when they hit British ships. I'm not sure if that is a sign of French worthlessness, or of British invulnerability to French attacks, or both.

specwarnet
18 November 2005, 13:33
I have a picture of a couple of Flak 88 models (one in what I belive is DAK markings) that showed up at my local model meeting this last weekend I can add if anyone would like to see. It's german at least :D

Oh wait, I saw a Me-262 yesterday, the one on the left (http://www.stormbirds.com/project/index.html). The one on the right is sitting own at SeaTac waiting to clear the State Department and they're hoping Homeland Security doesn't get involved.

RangerCharlie
18 November 2005, 13:47
I hope they are updating the engines a wee bit...
I think more 262's were lost due to engine problems than combat

tony762
18 November 2005, 14:38
JU87 Stuka had the siren, don't recall the 88 having one...

Typo, my mistake, thanks RC.

You might like this place in Suffolk VA.

http://www.fighterfactory.net/

RangerCharlie
18 November 2005, 15:18
Typo, my mistake, thanks RC.

You might like this place in Suffolk VA.

http://http://www.fighterfactory.net/

for some reason that link dumps me to MS home because you have double http in there!
Do pushups! Now!!!!

tony762
18 November 2005, 16:36
OOOOPS! all fixed and push ups done! :)

Doogie320
18 November 2005, 21:50
Free/cheap hanger space??

I guess. Douglas is..... in the middle of nowhere.

airbornelawyer
18 November 2005, 21:58
Not as sleek as some, but cute nonetheless. ;)

Doctor_Doom
19 November 2005, 00:47
Not as sleek as some, but cute nonetheless. ;)

The Polikarpov... wasn't in front line service very long, was it?

specwarnet, that Me262 on the left from the project seems to be a trainer version, is that the reason for the weird canopy?

Doctor_Doom
19 November 2005, 00:48
French pilots without the heart to bomb people? French bombs that don't go boom? Who would have suspected the French of waffling at the moment of decision? By the way, the Argentines seemed to have a lot of trouble with French made Exocets that didn't explode when they hit British ships. I'm not sure if that is a sign of French worthlessness, or of British invulnerability to French attacks, or both.

They were reluctant to bomb their own erstwhile fleet... I don't think that's such a bad thing.

tony762
19 November 2005, 10:06
The Polikarpov... wasn't in front line service very long, was it?

specwarnet, that Me262 on the left from the project seems to be a trainer version, is that the reason for the weird canopy?

http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/i16.html

The Polikarpov was the most numerous soviet fighter at the start of Barbarossa, It didnt last much longer than the end of WW2 and wasnt flown again until a New Zealander Sir Tim Wallis went to Russia and recovered a few of them, had them restored and got them flying again, i was at the air show where they had their big debeut.
Quite cool things to watch fly, i think there were about 6 of them racing around at the show.
But you could easliy tell why the ME109's extracted such a heavy toll on them.

RangerCharlie
22 November 2005, 09:07
So was the Mosquito truly a stealth aircraft?
Seems every WWII show I see says the wooden wonder was invisible to radar....

Doogie320
22 November 2005, 09:26
Look at the quality of radar back then. They wouldn't be stealthy by today's standards but by yesterday's they were.

I'll ask our radar guys in a few minutes and see if they know anything.

So was the Mosquito truly a stealth aircraft?
Seems every WWII show I see says the wooden wonder was invisible to radar....

tony762
22 November 2005, 09:37
So was the Mosquito truly a stealth aircraft?
Seems every WWII show I see says the wooden wonder was invisible to radar....


I know alot of the time when the mozzies were flying certain missions they flew very low, therefore making them invisible to rader that way, but i dont recall off the top of my head reports they were invisible in a stealth sense.

I was in the imperial war musem in london once and there was a flight sim ride there, it was the raid by mozzies against the gestapo prision in france, where they bombed the outer wall to release the maquis people held there, the mozzies had cameras rolling throughout the entire mission, so the flight sim was the mission from take off to bombing to landing, very cool.

Matchanu
22 November 2005, 11:12
Not a chance.


The Mossie was low profile and the wooden structure made it less visible as it did not reflect as much radar image.

The first real stealth aircraft was the Go229.

Ironically, it was unintentional.

MBTex
22 November 2005, 16:19
Good Site about WW I Aces, and Aircraft.

http://www.theaerodrome.com/

airbornelawyer
22 November 2005, 16:50
Where am I?

tony762
22 November 2005, 16:55
Finland?

Attila175
22 November 2005, 17:41
Romanian Air Force in Russia

airbornelawyer
22 November 2005, 17:48
Romanian Air Force in Russia
Ding!ding!ding!

Another from the Romanians:

Doctor_Doom
23 November 2005, 00:59
I was in the imperial war musem in london once and there was a flight sim ride there, it was the raid by mozzies against the gestapo prision in france, where they bombed the outer wall to release the maquis people held there, the mozzies had cameras rolling throughout the entire mission, so the flight sim was the mission from take off to bombing to landing, very cool.

I did that ride, it blew! :D

Ever been to the IWM aerodrome at Duxbury? That was awesome.

tony762
23 November 2005, 09:19
I did that ride, it blew! :D

Ever been to the IWM aerodrome at Duxbury? That was awesome.


HAHAHA wanker! :D

no i never got to Duxbury, i missed the Tank museum as well, but its only over the pond so i'll see it one day.

i did go to the 2001 war and peace show in beltring though, that was COOL! got to ride on a Chiefton MBT!

Doogie320
23 November 2005, 10:34
Re: The Mosquito and stealth, from our radar folks.

The Soviet AN-2 when flying at low level is almost invisible to our modern radar sets, land and air. Given that a Mosquito has a similar construction and radar wasn't as advanced as it is today, it would appear to be stealthy, but the "invisibility" was more from the poor performing radar of the day and their altitude. I doubt anyone was drawing up a wooden aircraft thinking "Hey, this new fangled radar system won't see it!"

I also recall that wood was used, as in the Hurricane, to try and minimize the amount of aluminum and steel in an a/c thanks to those pesky U-boats.

tony762
23 November 2005, 11:21
I also recall that wood was used, as in the Hurricane, to try and minimize the amount of aluminum and steel in an a/c thanks to those pesky U-boats.


Both the Hurricane and the Mozzie were designed before the war

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/mosquito1.html

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/hurri3.html

The U-boats were not a factor in the materials used.

Doogie320
23 November 2005, 11:32
Both the Hurricane and the Mozzie were designed before the war

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/mosquito1.html

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/hurri3.html

The U-boats were not a factor in the materials used.

Cool. Thank you for jogging my memory!

Class29wc
25 November 2005, 13:58
60 years ago this month Hitler's bad boys were on trial in Nuremberg.
Listed below is what happened to the top 18.

1. Hermann Goering, commander of air force and departments of SS elite
forces. Escaped the gallows by committing suicide.


2. Rudolf Hess, Hitler's deputy. Sentenced to life imprisonment;
committed suicide in 1987.


3. Alfred Jodl, senior military official and strategic adviser to
Hitler. Hanged.


4. Ernst Kaltenbrunner, high-ranking SS official. Hanged.


5. Wilhelm Keitel, commander of armed forces. Hanged.


6. Joachim von Ribbentrop, foreign minister. Hanged.


7. Alfred Rosenberg, Nazi party philosopher. Hanged.


8. Fritz Sauckel, headed slave labor program for German factories.
Hanged.


9. Julius Stretcher, anti-Jewish propagandist. Hanged.


10. Hans Frank, leader of occupied Poland. Hanged.


11. Wilhelm Frick, interior minister. Hanged.


12. Arthur Seyes-Inquart, instrumental in takeover of Austria. Hanged.


13. Erich Raeder, head of German navy to 1943. Life in prison. Realeased
in 1955 due to illness. Died in 1960.


14. Baldur von Schlrach, head of Hitler Youth. Twenty years. Released in
1966, died in 1974.


15. Albert Speer, minister of armaments. Twenty years. Released in 1966,
died in 1981.


16. Karl Doenitz, head of German bavt from 1943. Ten years.


17. Walter Funk, minister of economics. Life imprisonment.


18. Konstantin von Neurath, protector of Bohemia and Moravia, resigned
in 1943. Fifteen years.

My trivia questions:

1.How many engines did the He 177 Greif have?
2. How many propellers?
3. What unusual thing did the main gear do when retracted?

Bravo_One_Three
25 November 2005, 14:10
1. 4
2. 2
3. No idea

Doctor_Doom
29 November 2005, 03:01
Something about the main gear being two struts that split down the middle and retracted sideways into the wing, designed to handle the extra weight. But the nosewheel retracted and rotated 90 degrees to lie flat? I don't remember exactly...

Too many Nazi's escaped justice...

RangerCharlie
29 November 2005, 09:27
What was the Me-323 and how many engines did it have?

And what event hastened its use far from front lines?

MBTex
29 November 2005, 11:28
http://www.constable.ca/me323.jpg

6 Engines Troop Transport. 4 rockets on each wing to assist takeoff.

airbornelawyer
29 November 2005, 12:03
I'm not sure where Class29wc's list came from, but there are a lot of errors there.

Goering held a slew of titles besides head of the Luftwaffe, including honorary SS and SA ones, but he had no command over any SS formations.

Colonel General Jodl was chief of the operations branch of the Armed Forces High Command (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, or OKW).

Ernst Kaltenbrunner was more than just a "high-ranking SS official"; he was the most senior SS official in custody, since Himmler had committed suicide shortly after being captured. Kaltenbrunner was head of the RSHA, the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reich Security Central Office), which controlled the SD, Gestapo and criminal police agencies.

Field Marshal Keitel was not commander of the armed forces; Hitler was. Keitel was Chief the OKW. After Hitler forced out the Defense Minister in 1938, there was no military officer with command responsibility for the armed forces.

Alfred Rosenberg was the Nazi's "philosopher", but his primary reason for being at Nuremberg was his role as Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories.

Stretcher should be Streicher.

"Arthur Seyes-Inquart, instrumental in takeover of Austria" - Seyss-Inquart was Chancellor of Austria when he "invited" the Nazis to take over. His culpability at Nuremberg, though, was mainly for his actions as Reichkommissar for the Netherlands.

Baldur von Schlrach should be Schirach. He was head of the HJ until 1940, when he became Gauleiter of Vienna. His role in deportations from that city was more of a factor than his HJ role (his successor as HJ leader, Arthur Axmann, got three years and lived to 1996).

"Karl Doenitz, head of German bavt from 1943." - Großadmiral Doenitz was Commander-in-Chief of the Navy from 1943. His trial was one of the more interesting ones as he was represented by a brilliant German navy lawyer, Flottenrichter Dr. Otto Kranzbühler, who deposed Fleet Admiral Nimitz, among others, as part of a defense strategy to show that German unrestricted naval warfare was little different than American. Doenitz was mainly found guilty for matters relating to Navy implementation of the commando order, which called for summary execution of captured Allied commandos as unlawful combatants.

Constantin Freiherr von Neurath was Foreign Minister until 1938. He was not a Nazi Party member until 1937, but was one of the conservative politicians who stayed in the government after 1933 to keep control over that Nazi rabble. That really worked out well.

specwarnet
29 November 2005, 12:37
A bunch of them got shot down in one mission. I couldn't remember the particulars but this site (http://stonebooks.com/archives/020407.shtml) a good enough recount.

RangerCharlie
29 November 2005, 12:54
Yeah the evact from Africa, a bunch of 323's and tri-motors got nailed....
From what I recall, B-25's had the highest talley of them...

Matchanu
29 November 2005, 13:44
Too many Nazi's escaped justice...


Don't worry, they will find you eventually.

Matchanu
29 November 2005, 13:45
Yeah the evact from Africa, a bunch of 323's and tri-motors got nailed....
From what I recall, B-25's had the highest talley of them...

B-25 J's?

The Me 323 was really one of the first tactical transport aircraft capible of delivering tanks.

tony762
29 November 2005, 15:38
Nuremberg was in no small part a series of show trials to placate the victors etc...

RangerCharlie
29 November 2005, 15:45
B-25 J's?

The Me 323 was really one of the first tactical transport aircraft capible of delivering tanks.

I'll have to dig for it. I know the P-40's hit them but I remember the 25's being in their also...

Doctor_Doom
29 November 2005, 17:20
http://www.constable.ca/me323.jpg

6 Engines Troop Transport. 4 rockets on each wing to assist takeoff.

The Gigant was originally a glider, and was to be used in the invasion of England. I think it could transport Panzer Mark I's but not anything larger. Note the multiwheel landing gear, which I think was nicknamed the millipede.

Doctor_Doom
29 November 2005, 17:23
Don't worry, they will find you eventually.

Where did that come from?

airbornelawyer
29 November 2005, 20:12
The Gigant was originally a glider, and was to be used in the invasion of England. I think it could transport Panzer Mark I's but not anything larger.
The glider RFP came after Sea Lion was already cancelled, in October 1940. It could carry somewhat heavier payloads than a Mark I, but not much. Here is a Marder, on a Mark II chassis.

airbornelawyer
29 November 2005, 20:14
Halftrack prime-mover and 15cm heavy field howitzer:

airbornelawyer
29 November 2005, 20:22
Panzerspähwagen, not sure which model:

tony762
29 November 2005, 20:58
not sure which model:


Tisk tisk, sloppy intel ;)

RangerCharlie
29 November 2005, 20:58
Panzerspähwagen, not sure which model:
Oddly, that 323 only has two blade props...

Matchanu
30 November 2005, 08:15
Note the multiwheel landing gear, which I think was nicknamed the millipede.


The "millipede" was a different transport. Smaller.

I'll see if I can dig it up.

Here it is.

Arado Ar 232 Tausendfüssler

http://www.studenten.net/customasp/axl/plane.asp?cat_id=10&ple_id=451&page=0

Matchanu
30 November 2005, 08:18
Where did that come from?

Oh, we all know about your secret allience to the evil doctors union that meets semi-annualy in a hollowed out volcano in the Pac Rim.

You and Doctor Mengela will be captured soon, and your cheap plastic surgery disguse isn't fooling anyone.



;)

ET1/ss nuke
15 December 2005, 15:40
This is the thread that does not end,
It just goes on and on my friend,
Some people started replying not caring what it was,
And they'll just keep extending it forever just because ...

Matchanu
16 December 2005, 10:48
Nazi Foo Fighter Program


Bizzare!



http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/editorialdiscs.shtml



http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/abwatch/naziufo/naziufo2.html..



http://www.unmuseum.org/germufo.htm



http://www.thewhyfiles.net/foo_fighters.html

RangerCharlie
16 December 2005, 11:21
Did the Brits or Germans ever us aircraft to go behind the lines covert style in Africa? Sorta like the germans using B17's to track bomber formations...

Matchanu
16 December 2005, 11:32
Did the Brits or Germans ever us aircraft to go behind the lines covert style in Africa? Sorta like the germans using B17's to track bomber formations...


There were a lot of pilot rescues done beind enemy lines by the Luftwaffe. daring landing on fields.

There were glider attacks by all sides.

Doctor_Doom
17 December 2005, 01:24
Oh, we all know about your secret allience to the evil doctors union that meets semi-annualy in a hollowed out volcano in the Pac Rim.

You and Doctor Mengela will be captured soon, and your cheap plastic surgery disguse isn't fooling anyone.



;)

LOL

Dude, you are weird... hilarious, but weird...

specwarnet
20 December 2005, 15:29
Ran across something interesting today... I'd never heard of the Bf-109G V-tail (http://hsfeatures.com/features04/bf109g0vtail32ir_1.htm) before.

RangerCharlie
23 December 2005, 08:09
One of my favorite JU88 pics...

Doctor_Doom
3 January 2006, 03:26
What version is that?

Kretin II.
4 January 2006, 20:17
Looks like the A-4.

RangerCharlie
4 January 2006, 21:45
Looks like the A-4.

I'm pretty sure yes...

Doctor_Doom
5 January 2006, 17:33
Oddly, that 323 only has two blade props...

There were two French engines used IIRC (both Gnome-Rhone's), maybe that's why? Could be wrong though...

RangerCharlie
6 January 2006, 08:06
a little journal blip:

http://afmuseum.com/friends/journal/frj_213.html

tony762
6 January 2006, 18:16
Intertesting RC thanks

Matchanu
20 January 2006, 15:25
ID ME!.

Matchanu
20 January 2006, 15:26
Another view.

Class29wc
20 January 2006, 15:38
Doctor Doom & RangerCharlie

The 2 blade props are "Heine" hand carved out of wood. Adj. props were not needed on short hops and they were easier to control. The pilot had no direct control of the engines or propellers, this was done by a flight engineer located in each wing root, must have been fun on take-offs and landings.
On April 22, 1943 the South African Air Force shot down 12 of the Giants killing 119 officers and NCOs including the group commander Lieut. Commander Stephan.
RD

specwarnet
21 January 2006, 02:09
ID ME!.

Ringtrichterrichtungshoerer. I had to google the exact term but I'd seen them before. I think the Japanese rolling tuba ones look more fun though... sorta like Terry Gilliam's work.

Doctor_Doom
21 January 2006, 02:18
Doctor Doom & RangerCharlie

The 2 blade props are "Heine" hand carved out of wood. Adj. props were not needed on short hops and they were easier to control. The pilot had no direct control of the engines or propellers, this was done by a flight engineer located in each wing root, must have been fun on take-offs and landings.
On April 22, 1943 the South African Air Force shot down 12 of the Giants killing 119 officers and NCOs including the group commander Lieut. Commander Stephan.
RD

Good dope sir, thanks!

Doctor_Doom
21 January 2006, 02:20
Ringtrichterrichtungshoerer. I had to google the exact term but I'd seen them before. I think the Japanese rolling tuba ones look more fun though... sorta like Terry Gilliam's work.

For locating aircraft, no?

specwarnet
21 January 2006, 02:55
yeah, you'll find more information here (http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/COMMS/ear/ear.htm). I first ran across it a while ago when reading about a british effort to preserve some of the acoustic locator dishes (aka sound mirrors or acoustic radar) on the east coast. Went looking for it but can't find it. This may be of interest though (http://www.doramusic.com/soundmirrors.htm).

Radar and the ever increasing speed of airplanes (gave them less time to be effective) rendered them pretty useless during the war.

airbornelawyer
1 February 2006, 21:00
I have no idea if we've already addressed this or if the answer is otherwise easily googleable, but maybe you guys know: Why weren't B-29s used in the ETO?

specwarnet
1 February 2006, 21:09
It was a combination of logistics and the fact that they weren't really necessary. The B-29's main advantage was its range. Bomb capacity was larger as well but the B-17 and B-24 were sufficient for the ETO and the range was definately necessary for the Pacific. Due to production levels they couldn't support using them in two theaters, so the Pacific got them since the need was greater there.

tony762
5 February 2006, 23:06
I just watched a doco about the B-29, they said that they beleived the B-17 etc... was doing an able job, and as was previously stated the B-29's range was more needed in the PTO.

airbornelawyer
6 February 2006, 14:26
I can understand the argument that B-29s were preferred over B-17s in the Pacific. I just have a hard time understanding why, with American production capacity, there was not a shift toward them in the ETO. I'm not sure that the lack of production capacity works for me as an explanation.

Regarding whether B-29s might have been necessary and whether the B-17 was doing the job, by the numbers:

B-17 Flying Fortress:

Sorties flown: 291,508
Tonnage dropped: 640,036
Aircraft losses: 4,688
Aerial victories claimed: 6,659
Sorties per loss: 62.18
Tons of bombs dropped per loss: 136.53
Aerial victories per loss: 1.42

B-24 Liberator:

Sorties flown: 226,775
Tonnage dropped: 452,508
Aircraft losses: 3,626
Aerial victories claimed: 2,617
Sorties per loss: 62.54
Tons of bombs dropped per loss: 124.80
Aerial victories per loss: 0.72

B-29 Superfortress:

Sorties flown: 36,612
Tonnage dropped: 169,421
Aircraft losses: 437
Aerial victories claimed: 1,935 (plus 350 ground kills)
Sorties per loss: 83.78
Tons of bombs dropped per loss: 387.69
Aerial victories per loss: 4.43

I'm not sure what you can read into these statistics, given the differences in the various theaters. I also can't find easily digestable statistics for the Mediterranean Theater or for B-17/B-24 operations in the Pacific Theater.

In Europe, at least, B-17s and B-24s appear comparable in terms of missions and tonnage dropped for aircraft lost, although B-17s were twice as likely to shoot down enemy aircraft. This is, I suppose, partly a function of the B-17's better armor and armament, and partly a function of a more target-rich environment, given the targets B-17s were tasked to hit and the efforts of the Luftwaffe directed against them.

B-29s carried bigger payloads, as can be seen by a statistic I didn't break out, but is apparent in the numbers - the ratio of tons dropped to sorties flown. B-29s were also bristling with armament, and took a significantly greater toll on Japanese aircraft than B-17s and B-24s took on German aircraft. Less effective Japanese aerial tactics might also have played a role. Another was timing. I suppose a lot of Eighth Air Force losses were earlier in the aerial campaign, when the crews were less experienced, the Luftwaffe better equipped and trained, and the bombers were flying without escort for longer legs. A comparison of data for the last year or so of the war, when all three types were flying in significant numbers and when both the Luftwaffe and the IJNAF/IJAAF were more degraded, might yield different results.

Another factor which goes to the logistics point is cost. A B-29 cost about three times as much as a B-17. In 1944, when presumably any decision to shift production would have to take place, a B-29 cost an average of $605,360. A B-17 cost $204,370 and a B-24 cost $215,516. By 1945, the B-29 cost had gone down to $509,465 and that of the B-17 to $187,742.

Looking at production numbers, though, a (possibly) interesting thing jumps out: we usually focus on B-17s and B-29s as emblematic of the bomber war, but beginning in May 1943, B-24 production, which had been about the same as B-17 production for most of the war, began to increase rapidly, and until the end of the war in Europe, far more B-24s were produced than any other bomber, indeed any other aircraft type. The top 8 US Army aircraft factory acceptances, with over 10 thousand made, between June 1940 and August 1945:

1. B-24: 18,190
2. P-47: 15,585
3. AT-6: 15,094
4. P-51: 14,501
5. B-17: 12,692
6. P-40: 13,738
7. BT-13/15: 11,537
8. C-47/DC-3: 10,323

Kind of sad that the workhorse B-24 and P-47 often get overlooked in favor of the B-17 and P-51.

Matchanu
6 February 2006, 15:09
My .02.

I think the B-29 was a protected product because of the advanced technology. Using the B-29 in the ETO had a much higher chance of being recovered by our enemies (Germany/Russia) than in Japan, (surrounded by miles of ocean). Although Russia did end up capturing two B-29's and sequestering the crew for many years.

The Germans had already devolped a long range bomber that had many startling characterists of the B-29. Just another one of the "Amerika Bomber" development progams that never made it to full production. A working model was built and flown.

I'll post the link.

Bravo_One_Three
6 February 2006, 15:11
The B-24 had some advantages in construction. It cost less to build, but had a better "normal" payload and range than a B-17. The B-24 sacrificed altitude and speed in exchange for ease of maintnance, construction and higher normal payload.

The B-24 had some wing issues that other aircraft didn't have. There is a famous image of a B-24 suffering a hit at the wing root, and the whole wing falling off of the aircraft. One of the reasons this image was able to be captured is that it wasn't that uncommon of an event. B-24's burned easily, and were not nearly as robust as B-17's. However, if you could build two B-24's in one third less time than you could build one B-17 and come up with a cost savings, AND have a mission capable airframe...

Unlike the B-17, B-25, P-47, and P-51, the B-24 was retired immediately after the war.

Why didn't they use the B-29 in the ETO? Why would they? The US could fill the skies over any target in Europe with B-17's, B-24's, and Lancasters. You couldn't hit Japan from the available bases in China with B-17's/B-24's. It makes sense to put your assets to their best use, and that is what the allies did.

I suppose that if D-Day had gone sour, or Hitler had managed to stop the allies with the winter offensive, and we decided to drop Little Boy on Berlin we would have been able to do so with a small scale deployment of B-29's to England, or simply used a Lancaster.

specwarnet
6 February 2006, 15:18
I *don't* have any good sources in front of me, so this is off of memory until I can double check at home.

The issue with the B-29 wasn't with the airframe so much as it was the engines. They were having reliability issues and it was a newer engine so the production wasn't as high as, say the B-17 & 24's R-1820 or the R-2800s. There were a lot of problems with the Turbo super chargers in the Pacific, due to heat I think. But they might have put them there initially as opposed to a cooler Europe because there was less high-altitude action going on.

I've got some books at home I'll go through later tonight.

Matchanu
6 February 2006, 15:22
This is what I was talking about. There are some other examples of the prototypes, both built and drawing board only of the Luftwaffe's design for a long range heavy bomber.


http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/me264.html
http://www.luft46.com/fw/fw238.html




Junkers Ju 390
Junkers Ju 488
Messerschmitt Me 264
Heinkel He 177/He 274/He 277
Dornier Do 317
jet bombers
Arado Ar 234
Junkers Ju 287
High altitude / High Speed / Long Range bombers
Junkers Ju 290
Junkers Ju 388
Junkers Ju 188
Dornier Do 217
Junkers Ju 86
Focke-Wulf Fw 191
Junkers Ju 288

RangerCharlie
6 February 2006, 15:34
The B-29 wasn't ready till 1944, by then the war in Europe was thought to be winding down. Plus the numbers available meant they couldn't divide them up to the two areas. Add in crew retraining, plus the ground crews, you can easily see why they didn't put the plane into use in Europe.

tony762
6 February 2006, 16:54
Although Russia did end up capturing two B-29's and sequestering the crew for many years.


Do you have any details about this?
when, where, how, etc...

RangerCharlie
6 February 2006, 16:57
The russkies built the TU-4 as a direct copy of the B-29, even the flaws.

http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/03RelatedStories/03.03shortstories/03.03.10contss.htm

Matchanu
6 February 2006, 17:18
Do you have any details about this?
when, where, how, etc...



I'll see what I can dig up.

I saw it on the History Channel a while back.

Matchanu
6 February 2006, 17:19
Do you have any details about this?
when, where, how, etc...


Check out Charlies link, it's all there.

tony762
6 February 2006, 17:20
Cool, thanks mate.

airbornelawyer
6 February 2006, 17:45
I suppose that if D-Day had gone sour, or Hitler had managed to stop the allies with the winter offensive, and we decided to drop Little Boy on Berlin we would have been able to do so with a small scale deployment of B-29's to England, or simply used a Lancaster.
Indirectly, this is actually what got me thinking about this topic.

A few days ago, the History Channel re-ran one of those documentaries on wonder weapons of the Luftwaffe or the Imperial Japanese. I think we've discussed the Luftwaffe one, but the Japanese one focused on the Japanese version of the Me-262 and Me-163, helicopters, and other weapons on the drawing board or prototype stage. Like the Luftwaffe one, this one was filled with CGI modelling of these aircraft, and breathless "analysis" of what these aircraft would do to Allied bombers and ships.

As I was watching this, my first thought was, what about Allied "wonder weapons"? If WW2 had extended into 1946, maybe the Luftwaffe would have had some more jet fighters, but the USAAF would have had more B-29s with atomic bombs, more of everything else, and even more jets. Whether the P-80 was superior to the Me-262 or other German jets would be somewhat immaterial if the Americans had hundreds more, and more and better trained pilots (another year of war wouldn't solve Germany's manpower problems, and lack of fuel meant the pilots they did have got less training before having to face Allied air formations). As with the Sherman, which may have been inferior to the Panther, but was available in far greater numbers, Allied numerical superiority was evidence that quantity is its own quality.

For that matter, US Army armored divisions were already trading out Shermans for Pershings in the spring of 1945.

So it strikes me that for every wonder weapon the Germans or Japanese might have had if the war had dragged on, the Allies would have had something of their own, or more like ten of their own.

As an aside, and back to Bravo_One_Three's comment - what would have been the most likely target for an atomic bomb in the ETO? I actually doubt Berlin would have been, for a variety of reasons. What would have been the German equivalent of Hiroshima or Nagasaki - legitimate military targets due to military industry and military facilities, but also big targets for which the psychological impact would be great?

RangerCharlie
6 February 2006, 17:59
Some kind of smart bomb to take out Hitler....using a nuke on European soil would have caused a rif?? in the allies

I don't think the allies had that many wonder weapons on the drawing boards as did the germans

Matchanu
6 February 2006, 18:00
Indirectly, this is actually what got me thinking about this topic.





[QUOTE=airbornelawyer]As I was watching this, my first thought was, what about Allied "wonder weapons"?

Good question, what were allied plans? I pretty much thought they crapped out of ideas untill they got their hands on German technology.



If WW2 had extended into 1946, maybe the Luftwaffe would have had some more jet fighters, but the USAAF would have had more B-29s with atomic bombs, more of everything else, and even more jets.

And the Luftwaffe probably would have had bomber that could reach the contintal U.S., dropping "dirty bombs", the same for Japan dropping "Flea bombs" on the U.S. west coast. Could have made a substancial difference in production, but not moral.


Whether the P-80 was superior to the Me-262 or other German jets would be somewhat immaterial if the Americans had hundreds more, and more and better trained pilots (another year of war wouldn't solve Germany's manpower problems, and lack of fuel meant the pilots they did have got less training before having to face Allied air formations). As with the Sherman, which may have been inferior to the Panther, but was available in far greater numbers, Allied numerical superiority was evidence that quantity is its own quality.

The fuel argument doesn't really hold, as any combustuable fuel would work for jet aircraft. Manpower was the key issue. No matter how good the technology, you simply cannot deal with the mass numbers.



So it strikes me that for every wonder weapon the Germans or Japanese might have had if the war had dragged on, the Allies would have had something of their own, or more like ten of their own.

Again, I would like to see what the allies had on the drawing board.

As an aside, and back to Bravo_One_Three's comment - what would have been the most likely target for an atomic bomb in the ETO? I actually doubt Berlin would have been, for a variety of reasons. What would have been the German equivalent of Hiroshima or Nagasaki - legitimate military targets due to military industry and military facilities, but also big targets for which the psychological impact would be great?

Moot point. Germany was already desimated. An A-bomb was pointless as most of the German High Command were attempting truces and surrender by the end of the war, not so with the Japanese.

Bravo_One_Three
6 February 2006, 18:15
As an aside, and back to Bravo_One_Three's comment - what would have been the most likely target for an atomic bomb in the ETO? I actually doubt Berlin would have been, for a variety of reasons. What would have been the German equivalent of Hiroshima or Nagasaki - legitimate military targets due to military industry and military facilities, but also big targets for which the psychological impact would be great?

Regansberg, Munich (symbolic), Kiel, Stuttgart, Frankfurt, or possibly Erfurt.

A total failure of Operation Overlord opens the target list up a bit: Brest, Lyon, any headquarters area in France for an SS Panzer Division...

airbornelawyer
6 February 2006, 18:27
The fuel argument I was make was as regards training. By 1944, the Luftwaffe was short of instructor pilots and fuel for training flights, as both were shifted to operational uses. The problems then fed on each other - pilot trainees were learning from less experienced instructors, and getting far less time behind the stick before being sent into combat. Pilots like Erich Hartmann often complained about the increasingly poor quality of replacement pilots. A USAAF pilot reporting to his unit generally had several hundred more hours in the cockpit than a Luftwaffe pilot reporting to his.

Bravo_One_Three
6 February 2006, 18:32
I agree with your assumptions about the wonder weapons. By the time the Germans had fielded their 2nd generation of jet fighters, we'd have fielded the B-32, and would be dumping 20 tons of bombs per plane on any patch of German real estate we wished from 40,000 feet. They would have to contend with hundreds of P-80's, and eventually P-84's, Meteors, and whatever else the Brits were working up. This in addition to not having the pilots or the fuel to even protect their own airfields. Where Germany's wonder weapons could have been a real threat was in SAM development.

The Japanese would have never had a chance at the kind of production that would lead to a meaningful threat to our air power. But lets suppose that we had not choked them to death with submarines. If that were the case, then they would have the fuel, but not the pilots. Either way, we still would have been able to bomb them at will.

Class29wc
6 February 2006, 21:51
http://www.luft46.com/vaart/lufartva.html

Some pics of speculative recip and jet "America Bombers".
RD

Doogie320
7 February 2006, 00:27
The first B-36 went operational in 1948, but the maiden flight was in 1946. The B-47 was designed starting in 1945, prototype flown in 47, and operational delivery in 1952.

The first operational jet squadron in the Navy to fly from a carrier was in 1948 with FH-1 Phantoms.

A quick google didn't yeild much regarding American Wonder Weapons. I'm sure something exists but I didn't see it in the first 3 pages or so, my search string is probably jacked. It stands to reason though the above timelines would be shifted forward and the operational dates accelerated by some years owing to the war.

Japan was being strangled by our subs as previously mentioned, they were losing the only real issues were time and cost in lives. So, even if we fail at Normandy Japan is going nowhere....and the real wildcard isn't the Axis powers it is the Communists. Mao was going to win in China and the Soviets were pushing from the east. The Nazis would still have to te down troops in France and Italy to deal with us there and I don't think the Soviets would have stopped unless their country was totally destroyed.

Even if we failed at Normandy I think it was a matter of time before the Axis would lose. The noose was closing around them and the Axis only had a finite amount of metal and POL resources and their manpower was slowly being bled down. Wonder weapons or not they were doomed.

specwarnet
7 February 2006, 02:50
Well, a couple of my B-29 books are AWOL so I'll just agree with Charlie.

The US didn't really need wonder weapons; we had the biggest one of them all, and I'm not talking about the bomb. Our industrial output in general was so great that some companies (thinking about Grumman right now) were actually asked to slow down....

Matchanu
7 February 2006, 09:19
The fuel argument I was make was as regards training. By 1944, the Luftwaffe was short of instructor pilots and fuel for training flights, as both were shifted to operational uses. The problems then fed on each other - pilot trainees were learning from less experienced instructors, and getting far less time behind the stick before being sent into combat. Pilots like Erich Hartmann often complained about the increasingly poor quality of replacement pilots. A USAAF pilot reporting to his unit generally had several hundred more hours in the cockpit than a Luftwaffe pilot reporting to his.


I agree that there was very little the Germans could have done by the time America had entered the war.

Alternativly, if Germany had kept it's truce with Russia untill North Africa and England were taken, the entire outcome of the war may have been completely different.

RangerCharlie
7 February 2006, 09:24
We had some wonder weapons on the plans but nothing like the Germans, their designs were far above ours in thought. Swept wings for example...

Class29wc
7 February 2006, 17:07
The B-29 cost more than the A-Bomb to develop.

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/st/~plewis/page2.html



"In the end, the B-29 Superfortress would be one of the greatest industrial feats of modern warfare. Their production itself was revolutionary, using 55,00 numbered parts, thousands of miles of electrical wiring, and more than 1,000,000 rivets each, the B-29 was a mechanical masterpiece. Constructed in pieces around the country, the finished bombers came together on the most advanced assembly lines to date. The "3 Billion Dollar Gamble" was now ready to become the "3 Billion Dollar Miracle"

RangerCharlie
7 February 2006, 17:16
Info on early canceled US planes

http://www.strange-mecha.com/aircraft/Cancel/USAF-CF0.htm
http://www.strange-mecha.com/aircraft/Cancel/USAF-CF1.htm
http://www.strange-mecha.com/aircraft/Cancel/USAF-CB.htm

specwarnet
7 February 2006, 17:27
Before someone says that most of that was based on German technology (IE Swept wings), let's not forget the Northrop N-1M (http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/northN1M.htm) and N9M (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_N9M). I know the Luftwaffe '46 stuff gets lots of press but they weren't the only ones trying radical concepts. The Bell X-1 contract was issued in March of 1945.

Matchanu
7 February 2006, 17:51
Before someone says that most of that was based on German technology (IE Swept wings), let's not forget the Northrop N-1M (http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/northN1M.htm) and N9M (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_N9M). I know the Luftwaffe '46 stuff gets lots of press but they weren't the only ones trying radical concepts. The Bell X-1 contract was issued in March of 1945.


I've seen this plane fly in San Diego. Pretty awsome bird.

Still, Germany was really the forerunner of airplane technology. The U.S. had some great aircraft, and the B-29 was a technological masterpiece, but Germany seemed to have more imagination.

specwarnet
7 February 2006, 18:06
They had a lot of good imagination for areodynamics and enginneering, I just don't see that they spent as much of that creativity on production engineering as the US did. I could be wrong though, the ETO's not my schtick and they had the added adversity of bombers paying their factories a visit.

I wish I could remember the source, but I remember reading that the Me-262s swept wings came about not because of aerodynanmic reasons but because of weight reasons... as the Jumo's got heavier and heavier they needed to do something to move the weight backwards to keep the plane within CG (Center of Gravity). So they swept the wings back, which changed it from a straight-winged tail dragger to a swept wing tricycle gear. This is just apocraphyl for now though.

Class29wc
7 February 2006, 20:36
You have all heard the story of how the test pilot of the conventional geared 262 got the tail off the ground, right?
RD

airbornelawyer
8 February 2006, 00:29
No doubt the Germans advanced farther in R&D, albeit to their detriment. The US, USSR, Britain and France benefited greatly in the post-war era from German technical innovations. The Germans, not so much... :rolleyes:

The P-51, Corsair and other weapons systems demonstrate, though, that the US didn't have to have the most advanced design, just a pretty good one and thousands of them.
The first B-36 went operational in 1948, but the maiden flight was in 1946. The B-47 was designed starting in 1945, prototype flown in 47, and operational delivery in 1952.
B-47 design ran from September 1943 to November 1944. The technology demonstrator/prototype stage ran from December 1944 to August 1948, and full-scale development from September 1948 to December 1950. First flight was in December 1947. US aircraft manufacturing went on a serious downturn in 1945, though, as the Army Air Force and Navy cancelled orders and the US began to flood the world market with surplus aircraft. Had the war been ongoing, prototype and FSD stages would likely have been much more compressed.

As for Convair, the B-36A first flew in August 1946, the B-36B in July 1948. B-36 full-scale development began in January 1944. XB-46 prototype stage was January 1944 to August 1947, and the first flight was April 1947. Design of Convair's B-58 Hustler actually began in October 1946, but this one took a long time to develop, not flying until November 1956. When I was a kid that was one of my favorite planes; when I was a teenager my attention shifted to the magazine.

Design of Douglas' X-3 Stiletto (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf58.htm) began in December 1943.

Some other designs begun during the war: Douglas XB-42A Mixmaster (http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/douglas_xb42.htm), Martin XB-48 (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b4/b4-35.htm), McDonnell F2 Banshee (http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/hist024b.htm), McDonnell XF-85 Goblin (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap38.htm), North American B-45 Tornado (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf10.htm), Northrop XB-35 Flying Wing (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b3-66.htm), and the Vought F6U Pirate (http://www.aero-web.org/specs/vought/f6u-1.htm). And of course the already mentioned F-80, F-84 and F-86.

I spent a good half hour googling and Yahoo!ing to try to find a book on the history of US aircraft design I had come across a while ago, to no avail. Turns out I had a link to it about 300 posts back in this thread: The Cutting Edge: A Half Century of U.S. Fighter Aircraft R&D (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR939/index.html). :rolleyes:

tony762
8 February 2006, 00:34
I spent a good half hour googling and Yahoo!ing to try to find a book on the history of US aircraft design I had come across a while ago, to no avail. Turns out I had a link to it about 300 posts back in this thread: The Cutting Edge: A Half Century of U.S. Fighter Aircraft R&D (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR939/index.html). :rolleyes:


LMAO!

Class29wc
9 February 2006, 16:12
"You have all heard the story of how the test pilot of the conventional geared 262 got the tail off the ground, right?
RD"





"On 1 June, 1942 the first two Jumo were delivered to Messerschmitt and installed into Me 262 -V3. At 8:40AM, 18 July, 1942 the first purely turbojet flight was made. Total time was 12 minutes trouble free - well almost. The first Me 262s were of 'tail dragger' configuration. It was found that while on takeoff roll the elevator was ineffective - the pilot(Fritz Wendel) could not raise the tail to put the plane in the proper attitude for takeoff. While braking hard to avoid crashing into the end of the field suddenly the tail came up! Applying the brakes became the prescribed method of raising the tail for takeoff."

"Clearly, tricycle landing gear was called for, but rather than relocating the wing spar or wheel attachment points so late in its development, Willi Messerschmitt simply swept the Me-262's wings back to get the center of gravity forward of the wheels, allowing the fighter to rest on its new nosewheel. (And you thought it was for aerodynamic reasons.) Surprise! The handling improved with the swept-back wings. But it wasn't until Edgar Schmued's F-86 Sabrejet (see Chapter Eight) nearly ten years later that an American fighter adopted the new swept-wing configuration."

specwarnet
9 February 2006, 17:13
But it wasn't until Edgar Schmued's F-86 Sabrejet (see Chapter Eight) nearly ten years later that an American fighter adopted the new swept-wing configuration."

Haah? :confused:

First flight of the F-86 was October of 1947.. barely 5 years later.

Fun story though.

Class29wc
9 February 2006, 17:34
I thought that the flight in Oct. of 1947 was the XP-86 with straight wings?

Bravo_One_Three
9 February 2006, 17:54
Development history of the Saber: http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/NorthAmerican-XP-86/Sabre.htm

Class29wc
9 February 2006, 18:09
I stand corrected. The XP-86 had swept wings. My error.
RD

"In August of 1945, project aerodynamicist L. P. Greene proposed to Raymond Rice that a swept-wing configuration for the P-86 be adopted. Wind tunnel tests carried out in September of 1945 confirmed the reduction in drag at high subsonic speeds as well as the beneficial effect of the slats on low speed stability. The limiting Mach number was raised to 0.875.

Based on these wind-tunnel studies, a new design for a swept-wing P-86 was submitted to the USAAF in the fall of 1945. The USAAF was impressed, and on November 1, 1945 it readily approved the proposal. This was one of the most important decisions ever made by the USAAF--had they not agreed to this change, the history of the next forty years would undoubtedly have been quite different.

North American's next step was to choose the aspect ratio of the swept wing. A larger aspect ratio would give better range, a narrower one better stability, and the correct choice would obviously have to be a tradeoff between the two. Further tests carried out between late October and mid November indicated that a wing aspect ratio of 6 would be satisfactory, and such an aspect ratio had been planned for in the proposal accepted on November 1. However, early in 1946 additional wind tunnel tests indicated that stability with such a narrow wing would be too great a problem, and in March the design reverted to a shorter wingform. An aspect ratio of 4.79, a sweep-back of 35 degrees, and a thickness/chord ratio of 11% at the root and 10% at the tip was finally chosen.

All of these changes lengthened the time scale of the P-86 development in comparison to that of the Navy's XFJ-1. The XFJ-1 took to the air for the first time on November 27, 1946, but the XP-86 still had almost a year more of work ahead of it before it was ready for its first flight.

On February 28, 1946, the mockup of the swept-winged XP-86 was inspected and approved. In August of 1946, the basic engineering drawings were made available to the manufacturing shop of North American, and the first metal was cut. So excited was the USAAF over the performance of the XP-86, on December 20, 1946, a Letter Contract for 33 production P-86As was approved by the USAAF. No service test aircraft were ordered. Although the 4000 lb.s.t. J35 would power the three XP-86 prototypes, production P-86As would be powered by the General Electric TG-190 (J47) turbojet offering 5000 lb.s.t.

The wing of the P-86 was to be constructed of a double-skin structure with hat sections between layers extending from the center section to the outboard edges of the outer panel fuel tanks. This structure replaced the conventional rib and stringer construction in that region. This new construction provided additional strength and allowed enough space in the wing for fuel tanks.

The wing-mounted speed brakes originally contemplated for the XP-86 were considered unsuitable for this type of wing, so they were replaced by a hydraulic door-type brake mounted on each side of the rear fuselage and one brake mounted on the bottom of the fuselage in a dorsal position. The speed brakes opened frontwards. These speed brakes had the advantage in that they could be opened at any attitude and speed, including speeds above Mach One.

The first of three prototypes, 45-59507, was rolled out of the Inglewood factory on August 8, 1947. It was powered by a Chevrolet-built J35-C-3 turbojet rated at 4000 pounds of static thrust. The aircraft was unarmed. After a few ground taxiing and braking tests, it was disassembled and trucked out to Muroc Dry Lake Army Air Base, where it was reassembled.

Test pilot George "Wheaties" Welch took the XP-86 up into the air for the first time on October 1, 1947. The flight went well until it came time to lower the landing gear and come in for a landing. Welch found to his shock that the nosewheel wouldn't come down all the way. After spending forty minutes in fruitless attempts to shake the nosewheel down into place, Welch finally brought the plane in for a nose-high landing. Fortunately, the impact of the main wheels jolted the nosewheel into place, and the aircraft rolled safely to a stop. The swept-wing XP-86 had made its first flight.

The maximum speed of the XP-86 was over 650 mph, 75 mph faster than anything else in service at the time. With the bubble canopy, the pilot's field of vision was excellent. The noise and vibration levels were considerably lower than those of other jet-powered aircraft. However, the J35 engine did not produce enough thrust, and the XP-86 could only climb at 4000 feet per minute. However, since production P-86As were to be powered by the 5000 lb.s.t. General Electric J47, no one was too worried.

On October 16, 1947, the USAF gave final approval to the Fixed Price contract for 33 P-86As, plus they authorized 190 P-86Bs. The P-86B was to be a strengthened P-86A for rough-field operations.

There is actually a possibility that the XP-86 rather than the Bell XS-1 might have been the first aircraft to achieve supersonic flight. During some of his early flight tests, George Welch reported that he had encountered some rather unusual fluctuations in his airspeed and altitude indicators during high speed dives, which might mean that he had exceeded the speed of sound. However, at that time, North American had no way of calibrating airspeed indicators into the transonic range, so they were not sure just how fast Welch had gone. On October 14, 1947, Chuck Yeager exceeded Mach 1 in the XS-1. Although the event was kept secret from the general public, North American test crews heard about this feat via the grapevine and persuaded NACA to use its equipment to track the XP-86 in a high-speed dive to see if there was a possibility that the XP-86 could also go supersonic. This test was done on October 19, five days after Yeager's flight, in which George Welch was tracked at Mach 1.02. The tests were flown again on October 21 with the same results. Since Welch had been performing the very same flight patterns in tests before October 14, there is the possibility that he, not Chuck Yeager, might have been first to exceed the speed of sound.

In any case, the fact that the XP-86 had exceeded the speed of sound was immediately classified, and remained so for several months afterward. In May of 1948, the world was informed that George Welch had exceeded Mach 1.0 in the XP-86, becoming the first "aircraft" to do so (an aircraft being defined as a vehicle that takes off and lands under its own power). The date was set as April 26, 1948. This flight did actually take place, but George Welch was not the pilot. In fact, it was a British pilot who was checking out the XP-86 who inadvertently broadcasted that he had exceeded Mach 1 over an open radio channel. However, the facts soon became common knowledge throughout the aviation community--the June 14, 1948 issue of *Aviation Week* published an article revealing that the XP-86 had gone supersonic.

The XP-86 could go supersonic in a dive with only a moderate and manageable tendency to nose-up, although below 25,000 feet there was a tendency to roll which made it unwise to stay supersonic for very long. Production Sabres were limited to Mach 0.95 below 25,000 feet for safety reasons because of this roll tendency.

XP-86 number 45-59597 was officially delivered to the USAF on November 30, 1948. By that time, its designation had been changed to XF-86.

Phase II flight tests (those flown by USAF pilots) began in early December of 1947. . An Allison-built J35-A-5 rated at 4000 lbs of static thrust was installed for USAF tests. The second and third XP-86 prototypes (45-59598 and 45-59599 joined the test program in early 1948. There were different from the first prototype as well as being different from each other in several respects. Nos 1 and 2 had different fuel gauges, a stall warning system built into the control stick, a bypass for emergency operation of the hydraulic boost system, and hydraulically-actuated leading-edge slat locks. The number 3 prototype was the only one of the three to have fully-automatic leading-edge slats that opened at 135 mph. Nos. 2 and 3 had SCR-695-B IFF beacons and carried the AN/ARN-6 radio compass set.

For the second and third prototypes, the ventral brake was eliminated, and the two rear-opening side fuselage brakes were replaced by brakes which had hinges at the front and opened out and down. These air brakes were adopted for production aircraft.

Prototype number 3 was the only one to be fitted with armament. The armament of six 0.50-inch M3 machine guns were mounted in blocks of three on either side of the cockpit. Ammunition bays were installed in the bottom of the fuselage underneath the gun bay, with as many as 300 rounds per gun. The guns were aimed by a Mk 18 gyroscopic gunsight with manual ranging.

In June of 1948, the new US Air Force redesignated all Pursuit aircraft as Fighter aircraft, changing the prefix from P to F. Thus the XP-86 became the XF-86. XP-86 number one was officially delivered to the USAF on November 30, 1948. The three prototypes remained in various test and evaluation roles well into the 1950s, and were unofficially referred to as YP-86s. The number 1 prototype crashed in September of 1952 after logging 241 flying hours, whereas numbers 2 and 3 were finally retired from service in April of 1953."

Source: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_1.html

RangerCharlie
12 February 2006, 07:51
It lives! in Kalamazoo Michigan Air Zoo

XP-55
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v614/ninjrk/IMG_5666.jpg

RangerCharlie
12 February 2006, 07:52
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v614/ninjrk/IMG_5667.jpg

specwarnet
12 February 2006, 13:23
Wow, I didn't know there were any left! I've got an unbuilt 1/48th model of one... actually quite a few of the experimental US stuff exisits in my model closet :D

Class29wc
7 March 2006, 13:05
Can you name this plane? Official and nic name.

Bravo_One_Three
7 March 2006, 13:59
Sach AS-6 "Flying Beer Tray". I don't remember the official name.

Doctor_Doom
7 March 2006, 17:11
"You have all heard the story of how the test pilot of the conventional geared 262 got the tail off the ground, right?
RD"

"On 1 June, 1942 the first two Jumo were delivered to Messerschmitt ... new swept-wing configuration."

Hey sir, what's the source on that info?

Doogie320
7 March 2006, 22:27
I'm sure this was covered in the first 40 pages or so, but it is a good starting point for American aircraft, experimental and operational.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/rsrch.htm

specwarnet
7 March 2006, 23:46
Sach AS-6 "Flying Beer Tray". I don't remember the official name.

I'm not sure it ever had one as it never flew. Got a model of one but it's so ugly I'm not sure I ever want to build it :D

Short History of the SAK AS-6 (http://www.luft46.com/misc/sackas6.html)

Class29wc
8 March 2006, 01:26
Hey sir, what's the source on that info?

Doctor Doom
I first heard the story on a school bus in 1952. After that it was common knowledge between teen age wanna be pilots. Just about any hanger you went into during the 50s and 60s had some pilot or mechanic that liked to tell the story. What I did was google fritz wendell me-262 brake till I found something that closely agreed with the books that I have so I wouldnt have to type so much. Should have read the last part closer.
The following pics are from the book "Messerschmitt Me 262" by Willy Radinger and Walter Schick.
Pic one shows Fritz Wendell taxing at 100+ mph with the tail stuck down
Pic two he has just hit the brakes and the tail lifts speed about 125 mph.
pic three the log entries by Wendell, first flight as shown in the pics is 5888.

Class29wc
8 March 2006, 01:32
Here is the log entry of the first flight, the one where he stomped the brakes.
Very low key # 5888

Class29wc
8 March 2006, 15:08
The one in front is easy and the one in back even easier, now name the plane tucked up under the wing.

Class29wc
10 March 2006, 22:54
The Amerika Bomber, the Bomb and New York, 1945 almost.

Doogie320
3 April 2006, 20:52
I just had the good fortune to visit the Fantasy of Flight museum, http://www.fantasyofflight.com/. I'll post pics and thoughts when I have a moment. It is well worth the trip if you are in the Orlando area.

RangerCharlie
15 April 2006, 23:27
Pretty neat 1943 News Movie

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7190729941856831289&q=guns&pl=true

specwarnet
22 April 2006, 03:09
Hey guys, Hyperscale has a ridiculously simple quiz to win some Luftwaffe oriented books (http://www.clubhyper.com/ospreycomp_0406.htm) online until the 21st of May.

Doctor_Doom
28 April 2006, 00:54
I just saw a program on History Channel about development projects of the Soviet Union. Very interesting, especially the rocket aircraft program.

Let me reiterate how tired I've become of everyone making the claim "...if such and such aircraft was created in numbers, it would have changed the course of the war..." :rolleyes:

specwarnet
28 April 2006, 02:26
Repeat something often enough and it becomes fact... ask any politician :D

Finishing up a model of a Ki-115 Tsurugi tonight... there's one plane I wish the Japanese had built more of.

4-8-8-4
9 May 2006, 12:06
The one in front is easy and the one in back even easier, now name the plane tucked up under the wing.

Me 323 for the big guy, He 111Z for the tug (I think)...as far as that tiny thing under the starboard wing, well, at least I got the easy ones.


I've got a Veltro model kit hidden somewhere that I haven't gotten around to fooling with. Personaly, I think the MC 205 is one of the more 'sexy' aircraft of the era, although I'm sure others disagree. ;)

http://www.museoscienza.org/english/aereo/mc205.html

RangerCharlie
15 May 2006, 21:37
http://www.stormbirds.com/project/general/updates.htm

ME-262's flying over Germany again! Exciting project for sure.

Doogie320
16 May 2006, 01:21
Heritage Flight photos, links have the ability to DL a full version.
P-47, P-51, F-4, F-16:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123020299&page=1

B-17, B-52 in formation:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123020299&page=2

tony762
22 May 2006, 21:44
http://www.battle-of-britain.com/BoB2/Downloads/Sounds.htm

Class29wc
24 July 2006, 00:27
Me 323 for the big guy, He 111Z for the tug (I think)...as far as that tiny thing under the starboard wing, well, at least I got the easy ones.


I've got a Veltro model kit hidden somewhere that I haven't gotten around to fooling with. Personaly, I think the MC 205 is one of the more 'sexy' aircraft of the era, although I'm sure others disagree. ;)

http://www.museoscienza.org/english/aereo/mc205.html

4-8-8-4
You are right on both counts. The "thing" under the 323's wing is the fuselage of a Me.262

mangda
24 July 2006, 03:42
http://www.acesofww2.com/australia/Scherf/theEND.jpg



More of Squadron Leader Scherf’s Exploits

"The last trip I made before my tour finished was a bit spectacular.

We went to an airfield in France and spotted three aircraft at one end, so we came in at zero feet and blew them up with our cannon machine-gun fire. When I say blew up - that’s just what they did. One exploded right in front of me and I flew through a cloud of wreckage. Then we went to another airfield and we saw what we thought was a formation of fighters. I said on the inter-comm. to my other Aussie pilot: "Hey Cobber [Caine]. There are four of them and two of us… Let’s have a crack just the same." When we came closer we saw that they were gliders - they were being towed by an odd contraption that I identified as a Heinkel tug. It looked just like two aircraft flying alongside one another, with their wings joined up and an engine stuck in the join. The other pilot took the right-hand glider and made short work of it. I circled and came in on this second glider. which was going pretty slowly and as I passed it I took some pictures of it with my camera gun, and then let him have it. That guy just came to bits in the air and I had to fly through its wreckage. When I got back I found bits of its wood stuck in my radiator.

Then we concentrated on the extraordinary aircraft that had been towing the blighter. It was one of the funniest sights I’ve ever seen. Two twin-engine Heinkels stuck together as it were, and the engine on the join. On my first attack I set the two right-hand engines on fire, then Peter went after the middle one.

By that time I’d circled round again and set the remaining two engines alight. The Heinkel or Heinkels - I don’t know which - crashed just outside of - …

When we got back to base we claimed that Heinkel. as two aircraft destroyed."

RangerCharlie
2 August 2006, 08:24
Actual scanned P-51 Pilot reports. Interesting reading!

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports.html

mangda
2 August 2006, 20:58
Interesting to read the effectiveness of the P51 tail warning radar system.

specwarnet
28 August 2006, 03:26
A little closer to the original subject...

Eduard Models (http://www.eduard.cz/) has released a couple of Bf-108 Taifun models... neat little liason aircraft the luftwaffe used. I just ran across (and had to buy) their "weekend edition" of the kit today priced at an amazing thirteen dollars (http://www.eduard.cz/products/card.php?id_product=4903). I guess "weekend edition" means it's missing the photo-etch details and canopy masks their kits regularly contain, but those are cream, and $13 is excellent for a high-quality 1/48th model.

So far everything's going together very well, so if you want a good cheap model of a DAK Luftwaffe airplane this would be a good one. I'll post some pics as I get things assembled.... this could be a nice, fast build.

Anyone got and good photos of DAK Luftwaffe airfields or hardstands? :D

Matchanu
5 September 2006, 12:30
http://www.danielsww2.com/page4.html


Check out the gun cammera footage.

RangerCharlie
3 November 2006, 13:37
Recovery of a FW190 in Norway
http://www.luftwaffe.no/wreck/index.htm

http://www.luftwaffe.no/wreck/source/image/img_8368.jpg





A Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-2/3 was recovered from a watery grave near Bergemn, Norway, today where it has been hidden from humans eyes since 1943.

The aircraft is in a remarkably good state, considering the time it has spent in salt water. Markings and colours are still visible, as may be seen here:


The aircraft is a Fw 190A-2 we believe, but final confirmation of the identity is still pending. It was attached to 12./JG 5 when it ditched in late 1943, the pilot was rescued by Norwegians and in return a Norwegian captive was released.

The aircraft was marked Yellow 16 at the time of its emergency landing, but there are evidence of at leat two former identities below this marking (one being Black 6) and we are currently trying to find out more about this aircraft's operational career.

The most interesting discovery are the two emblems carried by the aircraft, one of which has never been documented on any aircraft before and is one associated with 12. Staffel in 1943/44.

RangerCharlie
3 November 2006, 13:47
good gun camera video. Amazed that they could do rear attacks like that

specwarnet
3 November 2006, 15:03
Recovery of a FW190 in Norway

She looks in reasonably good shape; I've seen far worse restored.

RangerCharlie
3 November 2006, 22:30
Truly DAK
Recovery of a JU-87
http://www.haf.gr/en/news.asp?id=378&archive=2&page=1

Johan
9 December 2006, 07:45
What discussion! :) I cannot believe I have not seen this before.

Some general comment after reading much of this discussion.

Some ask about Luftwaffe Special Operations. This unit was KG 200. Very best pilot of Luftwaffe go here. By 'best' - best at flying at night, in bad weather, navigation in night and bad weather, and so on. They use captured enemy aircraft to place intelligence agent behind lines. Part of KG 200 is responsible for recovery of all downed allied aircraft in German controlled territory to rebuild and have spare part. If you follow history of German night fighters very close, you will see sometimes mention of very superior night fighter pilot. He shoot down many enemy aircraft, is promoted, should normally go to command squadron, and instead he disappear from reports. This is because he is taken into KG 200.

Some Luftwaffe pilots are asked about KG 200 decade after war, and still they are very quiet on topic. If there is interest, I will try to find some data from Bundesarchiv on this, as I will be home for Christmas holiday.

It is also KG 200 who fly B-17 to shadow bomber formation.

P-51 is very revolutionary design. Wing design (very thin wing) is what allows this aircraft to reach such high speed (430+ MPH) with less HP than most other fighter aircraft with same maximum speed. Frontal area of this aircraft in effective square feet for purposes of drag is very, very low. All of this also allows P-51 to cruise at decent speed with very low fuel burn rate, which increase range. Quote from LW is "When there is report of P-51 crashed near Berlin, we know war is lost". When enemy can project fighter presence this deep into Germany...big trouble.

B-24/B-17/B-29 - B-29 is far superior in many ways, especially in difficulty of intercept for enemy fighter. Ceiling is greater, speed is greater, both of these make setup of proper attack by interceptor more difficult and require much more time. And after 1 good attack (front quarter, from slightly above target was tactic of time), maybe twice as much time to set up similar attack. Only so long before B-29 is heading home, and towards fresh fighter escort, and so on.

It seems there is much interest in world war 2 aviation here. If you have technical interest, please look into NACA archives. NACA = NASA during world war 2. Many report relating to wartime development and test of combat aircraft.

NASA technical report home (you can search by year, which will give you world war 2 or other era): http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp

NACA 'collection': http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=17&Ne=2

-as example, results if 'P-51' is entered in search field: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=17&Ntk=all&Ntx=mode%20matchall&Ntt=P-51

-another example is .pdf, "Flying Qualities and Stalling Characteristics of North American XP-51 Airplane", from 1942: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930092575_1993092575.pdf

Happy searching and reading. :)

Johan
9 December 2006, 08:16
Interesting story behind that guy. The high command hated him. He had some personality issues.


The criteria for a kill with the Luftwaffe was far different than the U.S. or others. A kill had to be confirmed, could not be a ground kill, (shooting planes on the ground), could not be a shared kill, etc..etc..

The Luftwaffe had some hot shit pilots.

Marseille is superb shooter, and deliberately enter spin to get out of trouble because flying skills are so good he can recover at will in an instant.

His aircraft develop engine problem. Smoke into cockpit. He bail out, but does not keep aircraft in correct attitude for bail out, probably because of effect of smoke. So when he bail out, he strike vstab or hstab on bail out, does not regain senses or consciousness before he fall to earth.

A Luftwaffe pilot used for training lesson is Addi Glunz. Fly over France and Germany in last half of world war 2, where quality and numbers of enemy fighter is very high. He is never shot down in combat, and never lose wingman in combat. This is very remarkable, but he is often not known because his total number of confirmed kill is not in 200+ range like many more famous Luftwaffe fighter pilot.

As I say in other message, I am sorry to reply to old message. I just now see this discussion and think you are probably still interested in this topic.

specwarnet
9 December 2006, 11:39
P-51 is very revolutionary design. Wing design (very thin wing) is what allows this aircraft to reach such high speed (430+ MPH) with less HP than most other fighter aircraft with same maximum speed. Frontal area of this aircraft in effective square feet for purposes of drag is very, very low.

One other thing that helped the P-51 was it's radiator.... it was a very low-drag design but also contributed a *little* bit of jet thrust.

B-24/B-17/B-29 - B-29 is far superior in many ways, especially in difficulty of intercept for enemy fighter.

Accurate but not really a fair comparison; the B-29 was developed much later than the other two; there were B-17s and B-24s at Pearl Harbor during the attack!

Johan
9 December 2006, 18:14
Accurate but not really a fair comparison; the B-29 was developed much later than the other two; there were B-17s and B-24s at Pearl Harbor during the attack!

There is misunderstanding here, please excuse. I do not slight B-24 or B-17, they are greatest level bomber of their era. Many times B-29 is said to be 'superior' because of bomb load, and is aircraft to use nuclear weapon, and so on. But ceiling and max. speed, even though maybe 10-15% (?, this is estimation, I do not have data memorized) superior to that of B-17, this extra ammount make B-29 almost two times as difficult for most interceptor of world war 2 to attack multiple times with ideal attack profile.

Axis fighter best suited to engage B-29 does not fight it, Me 262 and Ta-152 of Luftwaffe.

specwarnet
25 December 2006, 19:14
As promised before... some photos of the 1/48th Eduard Bf-108 TaifunI'm doing in DAK Luftwaffe markings. Cockpit's 90% done, just need to paint the gas cap and pop in the instrument panel. After that I dip the canopy in future (http://www.swannysmodels.com/TheCompleteFuture.html), mask it, glue it on, and start painting!

http://www.specwarnet.net/MW/Bf-108_1.jpg

http://www.specwarnet.net/MW/Bf-108_2.jpg

http://www.specwarnet.net/MW/Bf-108_3.jpg

The base is also in progress and is a German european concrete runway that I'm doing for an AR-234. The Bf-108's a little lost on it :D

Greenhat
26 December 2006, 03:14
I wonder what WWII era fighter had the best post WWII record for kills?
I would think the P-51, but didn't Israel use the Spit during the Independance battles?


F4U. Flew into the 60s, and scored kills against jets.

Johan
27 December 2006, 01:26
The base is also in progress and is a German european concrete runway that I'm doing for an AR-234. The Bf-108's a little lost on it :D

Good work! :)

Have you constructed Ar 234? Do you have photos of this as well? If you do, please share them with me.

specwarnet
27 December 2006, 01:38
I'll try and get some for you in a couple of days.... I actually bought it mostly assembled but unpainted (It's the Hobbycraft kit). I'm part of the way through painting the cockpit and then need to finish the canopy, which is a two piece affair that was glued so-so... the seem is very visible (hard to avoid on a clear part though). I'm going to "fix" it by making the flange that bolted these two parts together out of sheet styrene and glueing it so that it hides the joint and plastic discoloration. Lots of test fitting on that though and I haven't worked up enough desire yet.

Johan
31 December 2006, 01:22
More aviation links - many of these writeup are very informative and detailed. I believe you will find new data when reading from here.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/

American aircraft; http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/

Other aircraft; http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/

For Mr. Matchanu, Fighter Pilot 'ace' list;
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/aces.html

For all with interest in B-29, very good article on development of this aircraft;
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/b29.html

Enjoy!

Kretin II.
31 December 2006, 13:18
On the subject of the Brandenburger, the Bundesarchiv has recently compiled and publicized some material, which is accessible under the following link:

http://www.bundesarchiv.de/aktuelles/aus_dem_archiv/galerie/00131/index.html

Doctor_Doom
4 January 2007, 07:14
I'll try and get some for you in a couple of days.... I actually bought it mostly assembled but unpainted (It's the Hobbycraft kit).

What markings are you going to put on the Arado?

I see I neglected to reply to your PM from, ahem, last year... sorry, I'll get to it when I have a free minute. :)

specwarnet
4 January 2007, 10:07
What markings are you going to put on the Arado?

No worries about the PM... I don't even remember what it was about anyway :confused: :D

It's a Hobbycraft Canada (http://www.hobbycraft.com/product_search.php?product_line_string=Hobbycraft) kit, and they're known for decent, but basic kits. It's a AR-234C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_234#Ar_234C) and the markings given are pretty basic, just some crosses and three of the tail serial numbers. The kit's not as good or detailed asthis one (http://hsfeatures.com/features04/ar234cba_1.htm) but the markings anr scheme are pretty much the same.

RangerCharlie
26 February 2007, 16:20
Interesting thread on KO'd tanks

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=42446&highlight=damaged

Johan
4 March 2007, 17:35
Mr. Specwarnet, Mr. Doctor Doom (and others)-

http://www.markwaki.com/pages/Focke%20Wulf%20190%20D9%20page1.htm

Link is to award winning, scratch built 1/32 Fw 190D-9. Detail is amazing.

Regards,

specwarnet
4 March 2007, 21:02
Very well done, I can see why it was a winner!

Speaking of which, if there's anyone here who wants to learn modeling I can recommend this set of DVDs (http://www.masterclassmodels.com/disk1.html). I picked up a set to watch and it's a good set for someone who's never built one before or maybe only a couple. The relevance to this discussion is that they take a Bf-109 from bare plastic to finished as their subject. It's a med bird and not DAK, but the cockpit colors and certainly modeling techniques should be the same.

It is a little pricy though...

Matchanu
5 March 2007, 09:35
Mr. Specwarnet, Mr. Doctor Doom (and others)-

http://www.markwaki.com/pages/Focke%20Wulf%20190%20D9%20page1.htm

Link is to award winning, scratch built 1/32 Fw 190D-9. Detail is amazing.

Regards,



Excellent!

Doctor_Doom
6 March 2007, 04:03
Mr. Specwarnet, Mr. Doctor Doom (and others)-

http://www.markwaki.com/pages/Focke%20Wulf%20190%20D9%20page1.htm

Link is to award winning, scratch built 1/32 Fw 190D-9. Detail is amazing.

Regards,

Holy crap! That is awesome!! Thanks for the link!

Typhoon
6 March 2007, 10:17
Link is to award winning, scratch built 1/32 Fw 190D-9. Detail is amazing.
It sure is. That takes me back to my childhood days when I built a lot of plastic aircraft models and probably got a bit of dain bramage from all of the glue fumes. Needless to say that my work was not nearly as good as the FW-190 in the link. Thanks for posting the link, Johan...

Johan
9 March 2007, 06:18
Some rare footage.

Ju-87G in action against ship: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg&NR

Hans Rudel propoganda. Rudel was superb athelete, sadly also devout nazi. But some things interesting to see, even if it is propoganda movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPEQt7_3-_s

Hans Rudel, against soviet pz.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAePP1EEsqM

More Stuka: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M-NJApQtDs. I wonder sometimes, if you ask A-10 Pilot if they would like Horns of Jericho on their wings when attacking Taliban, what would answer be? I think the horns would still have effect on target, no? :)

Edit: This is maybe best of video shown in related link. Aircraft are Ju-87D (no spats, 2cm cannon), note close formation 2+2 diving attack on target: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCXsu7yWGwo

There is some irony when you look at skill of Rudel and some other very experienced Stuka pilot. They are so effective, so accurate, they create results out of proportion. These results are entirely based on great ammount of experience - such as Ju-87 of Richtofen being able to put 500kg bomb into specific factory window at Stalingrad.

They are so effective, they delay introduction of Fw-190F, Fw-190G as primary aircraft of ground attack for LW. These aircraft are superior platform for ground attack (air cooling for engine, greater speed, true fighter-bomber, better armor protection), and standard tactics are much safer (shallow dive + high speed attack) but there is common argument "Rudel shows Stuka is viable", when really after 1941 Stuka is only viable if flown by Rudel or other very experienced pilot.

Enjoy,

RangerCharlie
14 December 2007, 11:35
Me-262 Pilot training film

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-898913230269210306

ET1/ss nuke
14 December 2007, 11:44
I wonder if any other thread has ever lasted this long?

Matchanu
14 December 2007, 11:52
I wonder if any other thread has ever lasted this long?


Hollywood shootout thread is the winner for that I think.

This is a close second.

RangerCharlie
25 January 2008, 15:08
http://www.stage6.com/History---World-War-II/videos/group:51671

One of the best places I have found with WWII videos

airbornelawyer
27 January 2008, 14:18
Another source of video footage: http://www.efootage.com/

Seach page: http://www.efootage.com/search.php

Johan
21 February 2008, 02:22
Translated to english, Bf 109K-4 aircraft handbook:
http://mc01.equinox.net/users/k/kchap/File%20Library/Translation.pdf

Bf 109K-4 cockpit layout:
http://mc01.equinox.net/users/k/kchap/File%20Library/109K-4Layout.jpg

Bf 109K-4 was one of great 'hot rod' of world war 2. Late war fighter, light, great power, great torque (which could cause some problem- Bf 109K-4 at mil+boost, at high altitude, would skid because near full rudder required to counter torque).

Enjoy,

Johan
30 April 2008, 03:46
In March of this year, Franz Stigler- LW Pilot of world war 2, passed away.

http://www.legacy.com/can-vancouver/Obituaries.asp?Page=Lifestory&PersonId=106541121

He is 1 of 2 Pilot in famous encounter during world war 2, famous only decades after war is over.

When an Enemy Was a Friend

By John L. Frisbee
Published at Air Force Magazine, January 1997, Vol. 80, No. 1

Brown's B-17 was perhaps the most heavily damaged bomber to return from combat. It survived because of an enemy's act of chivalry.

Dec. 20, 1943, was a typically cold, overcast winter day in Britain as 2d Lt. Charles L. Brown's B-17F lined up for takeoff. It was 21-year-old Charlie Brown's first combat mission as an aircraft commander with the 379th Bomb Group, the target an FW-190 factory at Bremen, Germany. He and his crew of Ye Olde Pub were to become participants in an event probably unique at that time in the air war over Europe--a mission that would remain shrouded in mystery for many years.

The bombers began their 10-minute bomb run at 27,300 feet, the temperature: negative 60 degrees. Flak was heavy and accurate. Before "bombs away," Brown's B-17 took hits that shattered the Plexiglas nose, knocked out the number two engine, damaged number four--which frequently had to be throttled back to prevent overspeeding--and caused undetermined damage to the controls. Coming off target, Lieutenant Brown was unable to stay with the formation and became a straggler.

Almost immediately, the lone and limping B-17 came under a series of attacks from 12 to 15 Bf-109s and FW-190s that lasted for more than 10 minutes. The number three engine was hit and would produce only half power. Oxygen, hydraulic, and electrical systems were damaged, and the controls were only partially responsive. The bomber's 11 defensive guns were reduced by the extreme cold to only the two top turret guns and one forward-firing nose gun. The tailgunner was killed and all but one of the crew in the rear incapacitated by wounds or exposure to the frigid air. Lieutenant Brown took a bullet fragment in his right shoulder.

Charlie Brown figured the only chance of surviving this pitifully unequal battle was to go on the offensive. Each time a wave of attackers approached, he turned into them, trying to disrupt their aim with his remaining firepower. The last thing oxygen-starved Brown remembers was reversing a steep turn, becoming inverted, and looking "up" at the ground. When he regained full consciousness, the B-17 was miraculously level at less than 1,000 feet.

Still partially dazed, Lieutenant Brown began a slow climb with only one engine at full power. With three seriously injured aboard, he rejected bailing out or a crash landing. The alternative was a thin chance of reaching the UK. While nursing the battered bomber toward England, Brown looked out the right window and saw a Bf-109 flying on his wing. The pilot waved, then flew across the B-17's nose and motioned Brown to land in Germany, which the aircraft commander refused to do. After escorting them for several miles out over the North Sea, the Luftwaffe pilot saluted, rolled over, and disappeared. Why had he not shot them down? The answer did not emerge for many years.

The B-17 did make it across 250 miles of storm-tossed North Sea and landed at Seething near the English coast, home of the 448th Bomb Group, which had not yet flown its first mission. The crew was debriefed on their mission, including the strange encounter with the Bf-109. For unknown reasons, the debriefing was classified "secret" and remained so for many years. Lieutenant Brown went on to complete a combat tour, finish college, accept a regular commission, and serve in the Office of Special Investigations, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and in other Air Force and State Department assignments until his retirement. He now lives in Miami, Fla., where he is founder and president of an energy and environmental research center.

The image of his strange encounter with the Bf-109 remained firmly embedded in Charlie Brown's memory. In 1986, he began a search for the anonymous pilot. Finally, in 1990, former Oberleutnant Franz Stigler, now living in Canada, responded to a notice published in a newsletter for German fighter pilots. By comparing time, place, and aircraft markings, it was determined that Stigler was the chivalrous pilot who had allowed Brown's crew to live. Not surprisingly, Brown and Stigler have become close friends.

On that December day in 1943, there had been two persuasive reasons why Stigler should have shot down the B-17. First, earlier in the day, he had downed two four-engine bombers and needed only one more that day to earn a Knight's Cross. Second, his decision to not finish off the aircraft was a court-martial offense in Nazi Germany and if revealed could have led to his execution. He considered these alternatives while flying formation with the B-17, "the most heavily damaged aircraft I ever saw that was still flying." He could see the wounded aboard and thought, "I cannot kill these half-dead people. It would be like shooting at a parachute."

Franz Stigler's act of chivalry has been justly, though belatedly, honored by several military organizations here and abroad. On the other hand, Charles Brown was not decorated for his heroism over Germany, which never was reported by the 448th Bomb Group at Seething to his commanders. Such are the fortunes of war and its aftermath.

There are some rare photograph of him here:

http://wikipedia.ketsujin.com/index.php/Franz_Stigler

And he is source of one of greatest quote about Bf 109:

Q:Did pilots like the slats on the wings of the 109?

A:Yes, pilots did like them, since it allowed them better positions in dogfights along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling.....this was also useful when you were drunk.

:)

Regards,

WS-G
30 April 2008, 17:42
Translated to english, Bf 109K-4 aircraft handbook:
http://mc01.equinox.net/users/k/kchap/File%20Library/Translation.pdf

Not a bad general description, but completely devoid of procedures and performance data. The "full kiebasa" versions of this aircraft's manuals can be obtained from an Ohio-based company called ESSCO. Try Googling them if you're interested; they've also been advertising in Trade-A-Plane for decades.

WS-G
30 April 2008, 18:14
P-51 is very revolutionary design. Wing design (very thin wing) is what allows this aircraft to reach such high speed (430+ MPH) with less HP than most other fighter aircraft with same maximum speed.

The late Italian aircraft designer Stelio Frati incorporated the very same wing design (i.e.: same section and planform) into his design of the F8L Falco; the rights to the design were acquired by Sequoia Aircraft years ago. The Falco, even fitted with a 150 bhp engine and fixed pitch prop, can still exceed 200 KTAS. A 160 bhp engine with constant-airspeed prop improves performance markedly, while "upgrading" to 180 bhp provides little more than shorter takeoff runs and greater rate-of-climb while doing nothing at all for cruise performance except to increase fuel burn. So yes, increasing power does have a point of negative returns.

Another point about this aircraft is that its airframe is crafted almost entirely from plywood. Originally intended as a highly affordable military primary/basic trainer (one marketing point was the fact that all components could be fabricated by modestly equipped cabinetmaking shop), the design didn't sell except as a niche market in civil aviation.

Oddly, the somewhat larger, all-metal SF.260 series --- another Frati design which was merely an outgrowth of the F8L --- was a remarkable success, and is still used in the trainer, FAC and COIN roles by many of the world's air arms today (most notably the SF.260TP and SF.260W).
NACA = NASA during world war 2.
NACA: National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics. Founded in the mid-1920's and continued until 1958, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was established as a separate agency and NACA's functions were absorbed (mostly) by NASA. As government agencies go, our FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) also conducts research in addition to its regulatory role.

Johan
30 April 2008, 20:11
Mr. WS-G,

Thank you for the education.

Regards,

WS-G
1 May 2008, 15:51
Bitte sehr, Herr Johan.

Not as sleek as the SF.260, but the Piaggio P.149 was in roughly the same league and saw some considerable service in one of the "C" Fliegerschule curricula at one time if I recall correctly. Approximately the same period when the post-war Luftwaffe's fast-jet students were still flying the CM.170 and T-33 locally rather than spending a year in the US as has been the case since the T-38 was introduced.

Doctor_Doom
18 October 2008, 23:15
For unknown reasons, the debriefing was classified "secret" and remained so for many years.

It would not do for the enemy to have a heroic and human face. The British had to ban the use of positive descriptions of Rommel for a while in the desert, although that was also for morale purposes.

RangerCharlie
19 December 2008, 14:59
http://images.trademe.co.nz/photoserver/2/36863502_full.jpg

RangerCharlie
19 December 2008, 16:14
Also I didn't realize the Stuka started out with a Rolls Royce engine.

Fofo
19 December 2008, 17:43
Yup, the first prototype of the Bf-109 used a Rolls Royce Kestrel powerplant as well.

Any background on that photograph? Bad landing? Shot or forced-down? Abandoned?

RangerCharlie
19 December 2008, 20:10
Picture from a Brit serving there, not sure what happened to it.

Johan
11 March 2009, 08:05
Mr. WS-G, Mr. Matchanu, others-

'Sit' in Bf 109, Fw 190.

http://www.360cities.net/image/luftfahrtmuseum-40 (Bf 109)
http://www.360cities.net/image/luftfahrtmuseum-39 (Fw 190)

Enjoy! ;)

Fofo
11 March 2009, 15:54
Very cool Herr Johan, thank-you for posting!

I knew the BF 109 had a cramped cockpit, but that panorama showed just how tight it must be.

The Spitfire XIV is cool too. :cool:

RangerCharlie
11 March 2009, 16:22
Cool shots, thanks!

Doctor_Doom
6 June 2009, 20:26
I don't know how many have seen the 109 in real life, but remember being surprised that it was so small.

RangerCharlie
8 June 2009, 08:48
Anyone know what this is?

http://www.airportjournals.com/Photos/0811/X/0811013_13.jpg

Starlight
8 June 2009, 09:45
Bf 108?

Fofo
8 June 2009, 14:26
It's a Nord Noralpha. The Bf-108 production line was transferred to France during the war and after a two prototypes were built, of an Me 208, this aircraft was made.

One prototype survived liberation and further developed into the Noralpha.

Johan
1 August 2009, 16:48
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH1LhX3W6VA

'Fw 190' = power plant is not BMW 801. However, there is possibility that Fw 190 will be flying with BMW 801 in future.

For good example of roll rate of Fw 190, understand that rolls you see are at ~1/4 of maximum rate, or slower. And due to design, roll rate is not reduced at higher speeds.

Enjoy,

eltrane
1 August 2009, 17:31
Is that some sort of strafing version of the B24 in the rear?

Johan
1 August 2009, 17:59
Is that some sort of strafing version of the B24 in the rear?

I think maybe you are referring to B-25H. It is attack variant, 8(?)x 12.7mm MG firing forward (4 nose, 2 each side forward fuselage). Used in Pacific to attack ship and ground target. Some later version even have 7.5cm cannon in nose. It is one of my favorite attack aircraft.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b25_15.html

I am looking for example for you, and find movie that is excellent- Allies propaganda film for Battle of Bismarck sea. This battle involve one of my other favorite attack aircraft- Beaufighter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH1LhX3W6VA

Enjoy,

RangerCharlie
25 March 2011, 09:14
With the new action going on in Libya maybe they need to find some old vets to see how they imposed their own no fly zone way back then!

Doctor_Doom
25 March 2011, 16:04
'Fw 190' = power plant is not BMW 801.

I think you are wrong; every model of the FW190 except for the D models and the early prototypes were powered by some version of the BMW 801. The initial prototypes were powered by the BMW 139 and the Langnase D models were powered by the Jumo 213.

Geronimo82
25 March 2011, 17:30
With the new action going on in Libya maybe they need to find some old vets to see how they imposed their own no fly zone way back then!

Probably with a few dozen of these. :biggrin:

RangerCharlie
1 April 2011, 08:12
Ah yes, imagine ground engaging with that thing!

Doctor_Doom
2 April 2011, 10:17
Quad .50's... awesome.

Not much of a no-fly zone in WWII right? The DAK Luftwaffe was pretty weak.

ET1/ss nuke
2 April 2011, 11:32
Is that some sort of strafing version of the B24 in the rear?

Looks like a Martin B-26.

X18BSOCAL
17 May 2011, 02:50
Is that some sort of strafing version of the B24 in the rear?

Douglas A-26 Invader

ET1/ss nuke
19 May 2011, 22:55
Douglas A-26 Invader

I thought the same thing, but the shape of the cockpit and that top turret didn't look right to me. It looks like an A-26 nose, a B-26 cockpit, and a B-26 turret moved to where it would be on an A-26. Maybe it is an earlier version of the A-26 than the one I have in mind.

Fofo
19 May 2011, 23:09
It's definitely an A-26 Invader. From what little can be seen of it, this one looks like an earlier variant - I'm thinking the solid-nosed A-26B. There were six, and eight .50 cal nose variants produced. The six gun model had the guns spaced-out horizontally in the nose.

Johan
20 May 2011, 20:04
I think you are wrong; every model of the FW190 except for the D models and the early prototypes were powered by some version of the BMW 801. The initial prototypes were powered by the BMW 139 and the Langnase D models were powered by the Jumo 213.

Doctor_Doom-

You misunderstand me in my post. I am saying that Fw 190 that is flying in video is not powered by actual BMW 801 (yet ;) ). ;)

Regards,

X18BSOCAL
20 May 2011, 23:23
Doctor_Doom-

You misunderstand me in my post. I am saying that Fw 190 that is flying in video is not powered by actual BMW 801 (yet ;) ). ;)

Regards,

Are you talking about a FlugWerke replica FW-190? I understand that they also attached an inverted Allison V-12 in one of theirs to make it into a FW-190D "langenasen Dora". Their current FW-190s are powered by some type of Russian radial.

Consider me an FW-190 fan. :biggrin:

What I'd really like to see fly is a TA-152 but there is only one in existence and it's sitting in storage at the Smtihsonian in Washington, DC.

X18BSOCAL
20 May 2011, 23:27
I thought the same thing, but the shape of the cockpit and that top turret didn't look right to me. It looks like an A-26 nose, a B-26 cockpit, and a B-26 turret moved to where it would be on an A-26. Maybe it is an earlier version of the A-26 than the one I have in mind.

Many restored warbirds are actually put together from mismatched parts. You could be correct on your observations.

RangerCharlie
13 December 2011, 10:09
Beware of the Hun in the Sun!

http://lh6.ggpht.com/-FEhqZcMVC10/TinYpMtcWcI/AAAAAAAACKI/rIv_WyurH9s/BoB-Hun-in-the-Sun2.jpg

JK07
24 July 2013, 14:22
Just finished reading over this epic thread and it seems like theres a vast amount of WWII knowledge around here.

The reason for resurrecting it is to ask if anyone can recommend a book that covers the overall history of the war? I.E- The Second World War by Anthony Beever or Inferno: The World at War by Max Hastings?

Oldpogue
24 July 2013, 15:31
Just finished reading over this epic thread and it seems like theres a vast amount of WWII knowledge around here.

The reason for resurrecting it is to ask if anyone can recommend a book that covers the overall history of the war? I.E- The Second World War by Anthony Beever or Inferno: The World at War by Max Hastings?

I just finished "Inferno". I found it quite interesting in terms of coming to grips with WWII in one volume. If you are looking for a book that gets deep into strategies and tactics, this is not the book. However, there is much anecdotal stuff that brings the war down to a personal level which I found interesting. I already have 30 plus books on the war discussing this campaign or that battle so I was looking for something a little different and enjoyed "Inferno."

Johan
2 November 2013, 04:19
Some very interesting.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kemon01/sets/72157624920630336/

Enjoy,

WS-G
2 November 2013, 16:47
Many restored warbirds are actually put together from mismatched parts....
It's exceedingly rare to find one which isn't. A single, marginally airworthy example restored anytime within the past 40 to 50 years will typically comprise major components scavenged from at least half a dozen airframes, with small parts recovered from many more, and even more of the latter reverse-engineered and crafted locally if something in current production couldn't be adapted to make something work or look like the original.

Whether the custom-made components are better than, equal to, or worse than the originals can be very much a crap-shoot. It depends not only on the skill and resourcefuness of the fabricator, but also on how much the person or persons subsidising the work are willing to pay. I used to work for a guy back in the late '80s who would actually try and jury-rig subsystems using car parts and items from the local hardware store where he thought he could get away with it. I butted heads with him a few times over that issue because I insisted on doing things correctly -- versus "if I don't get caught having a mishap and an FAA Inspector doesn't see it, it must be safe and it must be legal..." -- and still ended up getting over-ruled.

Nonprofit groups funded by donations and using all-volunteer technicians working pro bono have tended to put out the safest, best quality restorations. Restorations done by small businesses trying to squeeze a profit from cutting every possible corner (such as my aforementioned ex-employer)? Expect to find sh*t wrong! Beware especially the fout-fout pretty exterior paintjob-bearing airframes from these companies: that paintjob is usually a smokescreen!

Oldpogue
2 November 2013, 19:12
Some very interesting.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kemon01/sets/72157624920630336/

Enjoy,

Some good shots of the ME-262. It could have been a game changer if it had been developed a years earlier. I think piloting the ME-162 would have been a virtual death sentence.