Old plane buffs?

[Sardondi]

1/3 scale B25. Twin 400cc Moki radials..How gorgeous does this sound?...
But if you're using one 400cc Moki...build this.. at about a minute in, this made the hairs on my arms stand up..That sound!..

Ho...leeee crap. I had no idea. Simply no idea....

And a P-47 "Razorback"! (I personally prefer the bubble canopy of the later Ds and following models.) And I caught how its pilot zoomed up at about 60° even before his wheels were fully up. Of course I think the only way I'd let anyone near one of these flights would be if they signed an ironclad waiver of damages/injury. I can just picture catching a little crosswind trying to land and then nosing in, causing one of those 3' propellers to go scything toward the onlookers a hundred yards away....

Regardless, these are the fulfillment of every boys fantasy. Of course our...at least my...most pornographic military model fantasies involved having flyable miniatures fully weaponized, so that we could enjoy the full warbird experience, bombing and strafing treehouses and formations of toy soldiers! Hmmm, finding/making 3-lb. cast-iron contact-fuzed aerial bombs might be a little tough, but any machinist worth his salt could fabricate a set of fully automatic .22 caliber mgs, with a 500-round magazine, no problem. Imagine that B-25 with a bomb-bay full of pipebombs, 4 .22 rimfire cal. mgs in the forward-firing fixed cheek blisters, all remote operated. Of course a tiny video camera to give a pilot's eye view would be a must. Tell me some crazy engineer somewhere hasn't gone whole hog and done exactly this for an ultimate Man Toy? And then re-enacting the Raid on Ploiești, complete with 1-gallon and even 5-gallon metal containers of kerosene (gasoline would be insane).

For the money to burn crowd there would have to be batteries of AAA, perhaps in the guise of 10 ga. and 12 ga. shotguns? Although wouldn't it be neat to fabricate AA counterparts to the 1/3 flying models, along the lines of .410 shotgun shell size, but brass cartridge case and, if possible (and now we're talking PowerBall lottery wealth) , explosive projectiles.

And all assuming the ATF being totally ignorant of these gross violations of federal firearms and explosives statutes. Possible only in the Western deserts, and then only slightly. I mean, even assuming 1) no one will be close enough to see pterodactyl-size WWII model aircraft and not be curious as hell, and 2) that any guy who has the least knowledge of such a fulfillment of an ultimate boy's fantasy would not spread word of it quicker than that story in the 6th grade about Ryan Hufnagel being in the closet for 10 minutes with Mary Jane Piscarkewicz, just how do you hide such stuff these days?

But we can dream. Oh, the dream. Just think of it: armed and armored 1/3 models of WWII tanks. A Tiger II, the Konigstiger, "King Tiger"; over 8 feet long, 4' wide, 3 ½' high, with a Barrett .50 cal. rifle in the turret, comes across a somewhat smaller British Sherman "Firefly" configuration...

[Yorkshire pud]

A bit of a sad story behind this..Took him years to build. And I read he died a few years ago. His wife put the engine in the garbage; she was disgusted it took so many years out their marriage. 



Rolls Royce Merlin 1/5 scale model by Barrington Hares




These are the parts..


http://www.enginehistory.org/ModelEngines/merlin_xx.shtml

[ItsOver]

Here's a "classic," so to speak.






Only one K-7 was ever constructed and it crashed.  Stalin had the designer executed in 1938 as an enemy of the state.  Seems reasonable.

[onan]

Here's a "classic," so to speak.






Only one K-7 was ever constructed and it crashed.  Stalin had the designer executed in 1938 as an enemy of the state.  Seems reasonable.

That is the same contract I signed.

[Yorkshire pud]

Ho...leeee crap. I had no idea. Simply no idea....

And a P-47 "Razorback"! (I personally prefer the bubble canopy of the later Ds and following models.) And I caught how its pilot zoomed up at about 60° even before his wheels were fully up. Of course I think the only way I'd let anyone near one of these flights would be if they signed an ironclad waiver of damages/injury. I can just picture catching a little crosswind trying to land and then nosing in, causing one of those 3' propellers to go scything toward the onlookers a hundred yards away....

In the UK (The US has it's equivalent) we have the British Model Flying Association. Membership isn't mandatory to fly a radio control (or indeed free flight) aircraft; but as it also includes insurance up to about $ 9 Million, it's worthwhile. They're also a good hub to contact other affiliated clubs. Each year they organise a big event at a full size airforce airfield called the 'NATS' (Nationals)..it's an opportunity for all those with more money than sense to show off! There is a Top Gun event in the US each year too, that attracts entries from all over the world.


On the subject of actual insurance pay outs..The highest pay out in the Uk was from a chuck glider hitting a child in the eye.. Several years ago in Hungary there was a tragic accident when an aircraft being flown (Radio control) lost it's radio signal (I think there was talk of swamping of the frequency band by a very high powered non model radio transmitter) and crashed into the spectators, and killed a married couple. The guy on the sticks was arrested I believe, and although it was later proven it wasn't his fault, it fucked him up mentally and he never flew again.

Regardless, these are the fulfillment of every boys fantasy. Of course our...at least my...most pornographic military model fantasies involved having flyable miniatures fully weaponized, so that we could enjoy the full warbird experience, bombing and strafing treehouses and formations of toy soldiers! Hmmm, finding/making 3-lb. cast-iron contact-fuzed aerial bombs might be a little tough, but any machinist worth his salt could fabricate a set of fully automatic .22 caliber mgs, with a 500-round magazine, no problem. Imagine that B-25 with a bomb-bay full of pipebombs, 4 .22 rimfire cal. mgs in the forward-firing fixed cheek blisters, all remote operated. Of course a tiny video camera to give a pilot's eye view would be a must. Tell me some crazy engineer somewhere hasn't gone whole hog and done exactly this for an ultimate Man Toy? And then re-enacting the Raid on Ploiești, complete with 1-gallon and even 5-gallon metal containers of kerosene (gasoline would be insane).

Well, a fantasy it will have to remain! The fundamental problem with model aircraft is their power/weight ratio. The two models (B25 and P47) featured also lack what their full size counterparts have; variable pitch propellers and gearboxes. So the only way they can g faster is the crude method of opening the throttle and letting the engine alone do the work-some modelers/engineers have made mechanisms to make props change their pitch, but it isn't common. It's why unless the correct prop pitch is chosen, scale models can sometimes look to be flown 'too fast'. The pitch is determined by how much grunt the engine can give, and at what rpm.


If you look on the YT, there's a channel made by a very capable modeler who started and got very near to the end of a 13 feet long B1 bomber.
His father custom made the fully accurate undercarriage (It's a work of art in itself!), and was to be powered by four P80 Jetcat model turbines. These things are about $2200 and weigh 25lbs each! They also need servicing every twenty something hours running time, the ceramic bearings need replacing.


Anyway..he made the plugs, moulds and all the parts himself, and it all came together--he even tok the nearly finished model to a B1 sqn air display and it was the centre piece at their dinner. The problem he realised was the engines; although they generated 22lbs of thrust each, they'd be using 80% of their power just to keep the aircraft in the air. The safety margin there is dire. If he lost a turbine in flight it would go down pretty damn quickly and it wouldn't end well, unless he was in circuit and able to glide it back too make a once only landing with no chance for a go around.


It's a long winded way of saying model aircraft don't have the power/weight ratios of full size. Quite apart from the CAA (Civil Aviation authority) getting twitchy about armed aircraft! Models and their flyers come under the jurisdiction of the CAA, and although my involvement with them t arrange NOTAMS for events I've run have been nothing else but helpful, professional and friendly, they can and do come down on those who mess about. Even full size private ex military jets are not allowed their ejection seats to be operational because they carry an explosive charge.


At model air displays, they frequently drop smoke bombs and sweets for the kids though..but not ordnance 

For the money to burn crowd there would have to be batteries of AAA, perhaps in the guise of 10 ga. and 12 ga. shotguns? Although wouldn't it be neat to fabricate AA counterparts to the 1/3 flying models, along the lines of .410 shotgun shell size, but brass cartridge case and, if possible (and now we're talking PowerBall lottery wealth) , explosive projectiles.

And all assuming the ATF being totally ignorant of these gross violations of federal firearms and explosives statutes. Possible only in the Western deserts, and then only slightly. I mean, even assuming 1) no one will be close enough to see pterodactyl-size WWII model aircraft and not be curious as hell, and 2) that any guy who has the least knowledge of such a fulfillment of an ultimate boy's fantasy would not spread word of it quicker than that story in the 6th grade about Ryan Hufnagel being in the closet for 10 minutes with Mary Jane Piscarkewicz, just how do you hide such stuff these days?

But we can dream. Oh, the dream. Just think of it: armed and armored 1/3 models of WWII tanks. A Tiger II, the Konigstiger, "King Tiger"; over 8 feet long, 4' wide, 3 ½' high, with a Barrett .50 cal. rifle in the turret, comes across a somewhat smaller British Sherman "Firefly" configuration...

Funny you say that! There is a company that makes model tanks that cost a fortune but fully functioning..I think they're about 6 feet long, but I'm sure you can google it and find out..I know they're not cheap!

[Yorkshire pud]

Someone put me onto this: I wasn't aware there was an airworthy one in New Zealand...from the cockpit those spinning discs look scarily close!

Flying DH Mosquito KA114.

[Yorkshire pud]

I'm not sure you'll be able to watch this if you're in the US because of licensing agreements etc..



http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-plane-that-saved-britain/4od#3551114

[Yorkshire pud]

The vernacular is 'kinell. 

Spitfire under bridge

[Unquenchable Angst]

I kind grew up around planes.
My father ended WWII as a B-29 A/C, Had been an instructor to B-24 before going to 29's. Later he was chief pilot with Ford till 1954.
Later when we had moved to NC he had a succession of Cesena's, Pipers and later an Aero Commander. In the 60's he worked for a man that was crazy about amphibians and had a PBY Catalina.
I knew Martin Caiden when I lived in Florida. At one time he had a Bf-109 he had found in South America.That was during the early 60's. Later he had a Ju-52. The one Lufthansa flys today was Caiden's plane.
Lower Left is my dad.

[ItsOver]

There is a company that makes model tanks that cost a fortune but fully functioning..I think they're about 6 feet long, but I'm sure you can google it and find out..I know they're not cheap!

I favor the R/C 1/16 Tamiya tanks.  Incredibly detailed with a number of standard features.  I've got a Tamiya Tiger I under sloowww construction in my hobby room.  It should be a nice project to finish off while listening to Art's new show. 

1/16 Sherman & Tiger rc battle tank Tamiya in winter snow

[scottydawg]

Way back in 1990 at the EAA convention in Oshkosh WI Jaguar Motors sponsored a "Battle of Britain" display at the show.
I got to work security in the tent at night. It was the 50th Anniversary of the BOB. I had grown up watching the movie on late night television. When I reported for duty the tent was closed up for the night, when I walked into the tent it was like Christmas morning . Inside on loan was 3 aircraft on loan from the Royal Air Force Museum, A Spitfire, A ME-109 and a Mosquito Recon Bomber. And the ribbon on the box so to speak was the the Spitfire and the Messerschmidt were actually certified to have participated in the Battle of Britain! Talk about a Doctor Who/Indiana Jones moment ! I was in awe all night my brain buzzing just looking back and forth at those 2 planes and knowing their very important place in history. I told my boss the next day he didn't even have to pay me for the nights work, that for me it was a privilege to stand watch over those aircraft. (but I did get paid anyway!)

[scottydawg]

On the subject of the beautiful and rare p-61 black Widow, the Mid Atlantic Air Museum is restoring to flying condition one of the last ones left.
Here is the link        http://www.maam.org/p61.html
They are 90 percent finished, I can't wait to see this beautiful lady fly again!

[Sardondi]

On the subject of the beautiful and rare p-61 black Widow, the Mid Atlantic Air Museum is restoring to flying condition one of the last ones left.
Here is the link        http://www.maam.org/p61.html
They are 90 percent finished, I can't wait to see this beautiful lady fly again!

I just get jazzed looking at these beautiful, old warbirds. I realize I had forgotten just how damn big the P-61 was. I've never made a real study of nightfighters, but I know just about all kinds of fighters and even bombers were tried out in the role. But it's my impression that as the class became more specialized that the bigger planes were used. Now, maybe that was because the single-seat fighters were all necessary as daytime frontline aircraft. I know that its complete failure as a day fighter is the reason the British using the otherwise totally sad big-ass Boulton-Paul Defiant in a nightfighter role. (Although I don't think it was much more successful as a nightfighter than as the sitting duck it was for Me-109s.)

But the P-61 is a big plane, just as were most of Germany's nightfighters. The Ju-88 and Me-110 were both fitted for the upward firing Schräge Musik configuration of 20mm cannon, and were deadly against Lancasters.

So why did big, two- and more-seater planes tend to be used as nightfighters? Was it because they were leftovers? Doesn't seem that way with the German experience, since Me-110s and Ju-88s were welcome in a daytime role too. Did it have to do with nose or fuselage capacity for radar arrays, which got bigger and bigger? Or that they had more room to fit multiple cannon in them? (Although the British fought most of the Battle of Britain shooting down Heinkel 111s, Dornier 17s and even Junker 88s with 8 little .303 caliber machine guns which the Hurricanes were fitted with.)

Any ideas?

[Yorkshire pud]

So why did big, two- and more-seater planes tend to be used as nightfighters? Was it because they were leftovers? Doesn't seem that way with the German experience, since Me-110s and Ju-88s were welcome in a daytime role too. Did it have to do with nose or fuselage capacity for radar arrays, which got bigger and bigger? Or that they had more room to fit multiple cannon in them? (Although the British fought most of the Battle of Britain shooting down Heinkel 111s, Dornier 17s and even Junker 88s with 8 little .303 caliber machine guns which the Hurricanes were fitted with.)

Any ideas?

I can try and find out on one of the other forums why the Germans and the Allies had different strategies; but my guess was one of expediency. The Germans started with their military upgrades well before 1939.. When war broke out and the bombing on the UK began, they targeted the hitherto car factories and steel works that were being used to manufacture aircraft, the guns that went in them and the engines.

Sheffield was the biggest producer of steel at that time, and was absolutely flattened by the German bombers. Manchester too (They were after Metropolitan Vickers, amongst others) as well as the ship canal that went to Liverpool. London obviously, Bristol docks, Liverpool docks, Hull docks, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Southampton, the list goes on. Germany could use French and Dutch airfields so Britain was well within reach.

They couldn't produce enough aircraft to keep up with losses, let alone make special night fighters..Hurricanes outnumbered Spitfires by a big margin, and so they could afford to press them into service. The Mossie was wood, so didn't use valuable metal. The Germans meanwhile, had the luxury of having their factories deep in Germany; our bombers could reach them, but without fighter escort that couldn't. The accuracy was woeful. Something like 3% of bombs got within 5 miles of their intended target. When the Mossie was pressed into service in the pathfinder squadrons to drop flares and phosphorus bombs that accuracy increased, but the bombers were still vulnerable.

So the allies had to make do and mend, the Germans had the time and ability to specialise. Our breakthrough of course was radar, I think if we hadn't had that, things would have been very different. I watched a documentary a few weeks ago the details escape me, but it was ultra low frequency base stations I think, that could find German bomber formations in the air deep in enemy territory.

A quick Wiki look has the stark statistics. Of 125000 RAF bomber command aircrew; 58680, nearly 45% were killed. Nearly 8500 wounded, nearly 10000 were POW's. The most jaw dropping figure is out of 100 crew 27 were expected to survive a tour of operations. ONE tour.

The 8th AF who did the daylight raids had 350000 aircrew, they lost 26000 with 23000 POW's.

All of the above were kids really and had courage I can't comprehend. WCmdr Guy Gibson who led the Dambusters was 24 at that time. Interestingly, a Boston bomber's aircrew that was killed on the final day of the war in Europe..They flew out of Italy.. The crew of four ranged from 20-21 years of age; their remains were discovered in 2011 by archaeologists and were recently buried in Italy with full military honours.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23344399

[scottydawg]

P-61 and other early Nightfighters were so big due to the size of the equipment. The radar-dome/antenna were just a small part of the equipment. Remember the main part of the unit took vacuum tubes! Plus the early display was a cathode ray tube. Plus add in cooling equipment to keep the unit from overheating.  A big fuselage was needed.

[Flaxen Hegemony]

P-61 and other early Nightfighters were so big due to the size of the equipment. The radar-dome/antenna were just a small part of the equipment. Remember the main part of the unit took vacuum tubes! Plus the early display was a cathode ray tube. Plus add in cooling equipment to keep the unit from overheating.  A big fuselage was needed.

This is a really interesting point.  I recall seeing some aviation tech equipment at a ham radio festival, probably WW2-Korea era.  It was for sale and functional (and tempting), but the sheer weight of the stuff drove everyone off.  The guy advised someone would need a decent quality two axle hauler to carry it. 

I assume there's a thumbnail equation somewhere that breaks down an aircraft's mass across control, tech, engine, armament, structure, etc. categories.  Over time, solid state electronics has certainly reduced the control and tech components, perhaps in favor of engine and armament strength, therefore requiring stronger structure as well?  We certainly seem to pack a whole lot more destructive power in fewer cubic meters these days.

[Yorkshire pud]

I assume there's a thumbnail equation somewhere that breaks down an aircraft's mass across control, tech, engine, armament, structure, etc. categories.  Over time, solid state electronics has certainly reduced the control and tech components, perhaps in favor of engine and armament strength, therefore requiring stronger structure as well?  We certainly seem to pack a whole lot more destructive power in fewer cubic meters these days.

We have a resident aeronautical engineer on this thread I believe; I've tried to find the threads on another forum I subscribe to posted by an engineer who works for BEA systems at Farnborough. The above subject came up and he gave a lengthy synopsis of the hows and whys of aircraft design. He was discussing modern aircraft of course and I'm sure the demands and capabilities of WW2 were different, but having said that, engineers have a spec that they try to fulfill. There is some mathamatical formula that is used to the power of *9 (from memory) that takes the component and it's strength capability is this..The components are as strong as they need to be to comply with this formula. He was quite dismissive about "over engineering"; As he put it: It's either engineered correctly or it isn't. It's the half full, half empty glass scenario..Engineers would make the glass the right size in the first place!

[Sardondi]

...He was quite dismissive about "over engineering"; As he put it: It's either engineered correctly or it isn't. It's the half full, half empty glass scenario..Engineers would make the glass the right size in the first place!

I don't understand. I see "over-engineering" as building in exaggerated tolerances and performance and the like. (Am I misusing "design"?) Was he saying it wasn't necessary; or it didn't work (i.e., as soon as one component is over-spec'd, another necessarily becomes the weak link even at normal tolerances?

The way I'm reading his proposition, there should never be successive "improved" models since they are unnecessary. But every war aircraft ever built, at least the successful ones, had an incredible number of improvements made during their operational lives. The Spit Mk II was "perfectly engineered" - yet design and materials improvements to the Spit resulted in enough variants that models up through Mk XVI were produced, IIRC. But I'm guessing I'm crossing wires somehow about what he meant.

[Yorkshire pud]

I don't understand. I see "over-engineering" as building in exaggerated tolerances and performance and the like. (Am I misusing "design"?) Was he saying it wasn't necessary; or it didn't work (i.e., as soon as one component is over-spec'd, another necessarily becomes the weak link even at normal tolerances?

I'm looking through his threads (I'm at p48 of 350 something so far, with ten posts per page); but the constraints of flight are of course the aircraft has to fly using the (if a powered aircraft) proposed power plant, be it IC, turbine or dilithium crystals, with a proposed wing area, with the intended purpose of the aircraft deciding those two..So is it a fighter? Bomber? Transport/ Passenger carrying (both)..will it take off from and land  on the land (tarmac runway/ rough strip) , is it amphibious, carrier borne etc..

Then it's expected range, cruising altitude, maximum take off weight, maximum landing weight, expected service intervals, longevity etc, are all woven in...Now we'll assume that the politicians aren't going to stick their noses in, and the people who know what they're doing are left to get on with the job (Highly unlikely, but for simplicity we'll make that assumption). Each and every component that will be going into that aeroplane has to be "just" strong enough for it's intended purpose (obviously aircraft "just" strong enough isn't the same as a car coming off a line at the end of sunday night shift)..But because it and a million other components is dead weight, it has to be light..take fastenings for instance.. Certainly all western commercial and military aircraft have verifiable sourced fastenings; right down to the metallurgy.. They may have special coatings applied depending on what they're coming into contact with, to resist corrosion etc. These fasteners will not be cheap, they might be down to a weight tolerance of less than half a gram each, because a few thousend will obviously add up to the dead weight. A 747 engine pod for instance is held on with eight bolts, each bolt is £500 (I'm guessing about $750).

So to "over engineer" a bolt or whatever and make it slightly bigger (heavier) than it needs to be can add up to a lot of lard, and probably negligible structural integrity. With aircraft it's making a light as possible structure as strong as it's expected to be. There is a figure that every aeroplane has; VNE..Velocity not exceed..It's the thing that test pilots find out...it's when the wings or other surfaces let go of their intimacy with the rest of the airframe..It's that point that the expected strength has been tested and the black boxes within are dug out of the crash site.

The way I'm reading his proposition, there should never be successive "improved" models since they are unnecessary. But every war aircraft ever built, at least the successful ones, had an incredible number of improvements made during their operational lives. The Spit Mk II was "perfectly engineered" - yet design and materials improvements to the Spit resulted in enough variants that models up through Mk XVI were produced, IIRC. But I'm guessing I'm crossing wires somehow about what he meant.

No he's not saying that; each and every variant would be built to be "just" good enough. But as I said earlier, the aircraft of WW2 had very different demands and constraints from modern aircraft. The biggest of course was expediency brought on because of the war at the time. The Spitfire mentioned, was a fine aeroplane, but the last Mk 46 and 47 Seafire variants were completely different to the Mk1 used in the Battle of Britain.

In the 50's Blackburn won the contract for a RN strike bomber. Carrier based with no self defence provision it was designed to carry rockets (later missiles) or bombs, including a nuclear weapon. The design was revolutionary using area rule principles basically making the shape of the aircraft as smooth as possible to enable it to fly at 500-600 mph at less than 100 feet off the waves (Which was it's defence-nothing could catch it, and they'd either crash or run out of fuel trying)). It was named the Buccaneer, but it's crews knew it as Easy Rider. Each of it's main undercarriage legs was made from a solid billet of aluminium and the spec was so high that 19 out of 20 billets X Rayed for imperfections were discarded before being manufactured into legs. I've been up close to one of these fine aeroplanes and it's massive, the undercarriage is huge. But it had to be, as it was expected to take the hammering of landing on a pitching aircraft carrier. But even so, they were built "just" good enough and not over engineered.

[Yorkshire pud]

This is fascinating stuff, I was put onto it on another forum.

Greatest Mysteries of WWII: Secret Soviet Aircraft

[McPhallus]

Surprised no one has mentioned the Messerschmidt ME-262, one of the first jets used in combat.  It certainly had its flaws, but what an amazing machine.

[ItsOver]

Surprised no one has mentioned the Messerschmidt ME-262, one of the first jets used in combat.  It certainly had its flaws, but what an amazing machine.

The Germans had so many advanced aerospace technologies they were pursuing I can see why people speculate they had some kind of divine connection with aliens.  One of my favorites was the Horton brothers' work on the flying wing. 

Hitler's Stealth Jet Fighter | National Geographic Military Documentary

[Yorkshire pud]

Surprised no one has mentioned the Messerschmidt ME-262, one of the first jets used in combat.  It certainly had its flaws, but what an amazing machine.

We'd have got round t it eventually; as you have done.    But you're right. Originally a tail dragger and later trike undercarriage..A very striking aircraft.

[Sardondi]

Surprised no one has mentioned the Messerschmidt ME-262, one of the first jets used in combat.  It certainly had its flaws, but what an amazing machine.

What if it had gone fully operational as a fighter in, say, January of 1944, with a commitment to using the 262 as a bomber interceptor? It would have been useful only against the daylight attacks of the US 8th Air Force, so the RAF's Bomber Command would have been for the most part spared the potentially devastating attacks by massed squadrons of 262s carrying the horribly effective R4M rockets and the MG 108 30mm cannon . I shudder to think of how D-Day would have changed. 

[Insanity]

What if it had gone fully operational as a fighter in, say, January of 1944, with a commitment to using the 262 as a bomber interceptor? It would have been useful only against the daylight attacks of the US 8th Air Force, so the RAF's Bomber Command would have been for the most part spared the potentially devastating attacks by massed squadrons of 262s carrying the horribly effective R4M rockets and the MG 108 30mm cannon . I shudder to think of how D-Day would have changed.

It seems to be a widely held opinion that if hiter wasnt an idito obessed with bombing, and had not required the me-262 to the a fighter/bomber, it could have made masseive changes in how the war played out. IIrc, the me262 was functional as a fighter earlyer in the war, but was delayed by hitlers insitance that it carry bombs too.

[Sardondi]

It seems to be a widely held opinion that if hiter wasnt an idito obessed with bombing, and had not required the me-262 to the a fighter/bomber, it could have made masseive changes in how the war played out. IIrc, the me262 was functional as a fighter earlyer in the war, but was delayed by hitlers insitance that it carry bombs too.

I think that's how it actually played. It's not that he wanted it to be solely a bomber as is often told; it's that he wanted it to have the bomb-carrying capacity as well. That dispute meant they couldn't settle on a final design, and so they just didn't commit to an all-out building program until it didn't matter any more. Thank goodness. When I think of how things might have changed if other decisions had been made (some not all that earth-shatteringly difficult to have been made - like what if Goering had kept up his attacks on the radar installations and RAF fighter fields in August 1940, or what if Hitler had gotten Barbarossa started on, say, May 1st instead of June 22d, 1941), I shudder to think what would have happened. And before the US was even in the war.

[Yorkshire pud]

I watched again "The first of the few" yesterday. It's the story of the Spitfire designer, Reg Mitchell. It begins with him presenting designs for the Schneider trophy seaplanes, through to the S6; With his test pilot friend and colleague Geoff Crisp, they won the last one before the war-financed by a  wealthy benefactor (the government wouldn't pay for it). What happened then was a fluke of history. Before the war he took his wife and Crisp to Germany where they were hosted by a very enthusiastic German crowd made up of ex pilots from WW1, designers (Including Messerschmitt) who told him in no uncertain terms the Treaty of Versailles had been torn up. This was highly significant because it meant that Germany were now saying they would build military powered aircfart; something specifically forbidden in the treaty (It's why their gliders were so good!)...Mitchell and Crisp returned to England seeing the writing on the wall; This galvanised Mitchel to design the Spitfire (It wasn't that simple of course, wading through the bureaucracy)...Ultimately it killed him. The countless hours with it saw to that. He did however see it fly. Absolute genius, propelled by the product of that other genius Henry Royce.

[West of the Rockies]

I'm house-sitting for someone who has TV (I don't).  Saw a program on the Smithsonian Channel (I didn't know such a station existed) about the ten weirdest planes in history.  The Goblin, in particular, was a pretty freaky little craft.  I would buy a model-kit of the plane if such existed.  I am drawn to goofy-looking planes.

[Sardondi]

I'm house-sitting for someone who has TV (I don't).  Saw a program on the Smithsonian Channel (I didn't know such a station existed) about the ten weirdest planes in history.  The Goblin, in particular, was a pretty freaky little craft.  I would buy a model-kit of the plane if such existed. I am drawn to goofy-looking planes.

I think kit planes are incredible, although they seem too often to be under-powered and under-strength (design-wise). But little planes like the Goblin and "kit" planes are the closest we can get to the absolute freedom of a "Jetson's flying car", which is really what we want, and what we're trying to get to with these designs. So cool.

[RealCool Daddio]

That is the same contract I signed.

Frikken ObamaCare.