dogfight

[[email protected]]

A buddy of mine recorded some History Channel show and I watched it.
The show was "Dogfight", and this episode was on P-51s fighting
ME109s, FW190, ME262s, and some Japanese planes.

In one recreation, a P51 pilot has an unusual ME109 chasing him. The
plane is actually out performing his P51 -- that wasn't usual with
109s. I don't remember exactly how long the ME109 was on him, but it
was about to be able to lead him just enough to take him out
(according to the P51 pilot, and, how he knew that I don't know). I
liked that they actually interviewed the P51 pilots who described what
was going on.

Anyway all of the sudden the P51 pilot tries a trick: he pulls the
stick back hard against his gut, at the same time jams hard bottom
rudder, the 51 spins out, sort of flat, and as it swings around the
pilot hit the fire button and laid out a stream of .50 caliber through
which the German flew and was knocked out.

I want to learn how to do that trick!

It's a pretty cool show, amazing CGI recreations. I slow motioned the
maneuver -- all the control surfaces looked right at each stage.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:93e58032-93f3-4f75-8000-
:

> A buddy of mine recorded some History Channel show and I watched it.
> The show was "Dogfight", and this episode was on P-51s fighting
> ME109s, FW190, ME262s, and some Japanese planes.
>
> In one recreation, a P51 pilot has an unusual ME109 chasing him. The
> plane is actually out performing his P51 -- that wasn't usual with
> 109s. I don't remember exactly how long the ME109 was on him, but it
> was about to be able to lead him just enough to take him out
> (according to the P51 pilot, and, how he knew that I don't know). I
> liked that they actually interviewed the P51 pilots who described what
> was going on.
>
> Anyway all of the sudden the P51 pilot tries a trick: he pulls the
> stick back hard against his gut, at the same time jams hard bottom
> rudder, the 51 spins out, sort of flat, and as it swings around the
> pilot hit the fire button and laid out a stream of .50 caliber through
> which the German flew and was knocked out.
>
> I want to learn how to do that trick!

Snap roll. I suppose it'd do the trick allright. Dudley'd tell you.

I've seen that program and it's not bad. Some of the animation is a little
primitive. Airplanes don't move exactly like they do in the program, but it
's not bad program.
I saw a good one on Subaro Sakai's most famous battle, and a couple of good
ones about Korea, which up til now I knew little or nothing about.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

>
> Snap roll. I suppose it'd do the trick allright. Dudley'd tell you.
>

That's sort of it, and yet in this case the plane never really rolled
over -- it was never inverted.

Hard to describe, but: instead of spinning after he induced the stall,
he relaxed the stick and kicked hard bottom rudder. The plane kind of
looped sideways, if you can picture that.

That particular move may be on the "trailer" for the particular DVD
I'm talking about, the P51, on history channel's web site.

I've got to get to an airshow where a P51 is flown.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> A buddy of mine recorded some History Channel show and I watched it.
> The show was "Dogfight", and this episode was on P-51s fighting
> ME109s, FW190, ME262s, and some Japanese planes.
>
> In one recreation, a P51 pilot has an unusual ME109 chasing him. The
> plane is actually out performing his P51 -- that wasn't usual with
> 109s. I don't remember exactly how long the ME109 was on him, but it
> was about to be able to lead him just enough to take him out
> (according to the P51 pilot, and, how he knew that I don't know). I
> liked that they actually interviewed the P51 pilots who described what
> was going on.
>
> Anyway all of the sudden the P51 pilot tries a trick: he pulls the
> stick back hard against his gut, at the same time jams hard bottom
> rudder, the 51 spins out, sort of flat, and as it swings around the
> pilot hit the fire button and laid out a stream of .50 caliber through
> which the German flew and was knocked out.
>
> I want to learn how to do that trick!
>
> It's a pretty cool show, amazing CGI recreations. I slow motioned the
> maneuver -- all the control surfaces looked right at each stage.


Snap Roll. Isn't the best idea in the 51 but doable if you get the speed
down below corner. Depending on the GW; down around 250 maximum. It will
snap before it loads all the way up to max structural g which is
mandatory unless you want to leave the wings and the fuselage as 3
separate parts in the sky.

Bertie's right. The show models are good but not totally realistic. I've
seen some slew moves on the program that you would really need vectored
thrust to perform.

As to the 109 out performing the 51. The 109 in skilled hands was a
deadly opponent at low to medium altitudes. It really boils down to what
I like to call "The difference between the cockpits", or how good one
pilot is vs how bad the other one might be.




--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> wrote:
>> A buddy of mine recorded some History Channel show and I watched it.
>> The show was "Dogfight", and this episode was on P-51s fighting
>> ME109s, FW190, ME262s, and some Japanese planes.
>>
>> In one recreation, a P51 pilot has an unusual ME109 chasing him. The
>> plane is actually out performing his P51 -- that wasn't usual with
>> 109s. I don't remember exactly how long the ME109 was on him, but it
>> was about to be able to lead him just enough to take him out
>> (according to the P51 pilot, and, how he knew that I don't know). I
>> liked that they actually interviewed the P51 pilots who described what
>> was going on.
>>
>> Anyway all of the sudden the P51 pilot tries a trick: he pulls the
>> stick back hard against his gut, at the same time jams hard bottom
>> rudder, the 51 spins out, sort of flat, and as it swings around the
>> pilot hit the fire button and laid out a stream of .50 caliber through
>> which the German flew and was knocked out.
>>
>> I want to learn how to do that trick!
>>
>> It's a pretty cool show, amazing CGI recreations. I slow motioned the
>> maneuver -- all the control surfaces looked right at each stage.
>
>
> Snap Roll. Isn't the best idea in the 51 but doable if you get the speed
> down below corner. Depending on the GW; down around 250 maximum.



This is what I've understood about the airplane. I have a manual for it
describing the spin characteristics. i wouldn't want a departure at low
altitude in one of those things! The feeling has to be less than comfy.

It will
> snap before it loads all the way up to max structural g which is
> mandatory unless you want to leave the wings and the fuselage as 3
> separate parts in the sky.
>
> Bertie's right. The show models are good but not totally realistic. I've
> seen some slew moves on the program that you would really need vectored
> thrust to perform.


Yeah, those animations are pretty to watch but get very confusing when they
start manuevering hard and the airplane goes off in a different direction
to what you might expect.
>
> As to the 109 out performing the 51. The 109 in skilled hands was a
> deadly opponent at low to medium altitudes. It really boils down to what
> I like to call "The difference between the cockpits", or how good one
> pilot is vs how bad the other one might be.
>

As proven by some spectacularly one sided battles won by the underdog..


Bertie

[Jim Macklin]

Saw that episode too. It is a good show, I particularly like the
interviews.

Their CG is better than what is commonly shown and the aircraft types are
correct.

As for the ME109, I seem to remember that the Germans made some number of
modifications late in the war, with higher boost pressures.


"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
| wrote:
| > A buddy of mine recorded some History Channel show and I watched it.
| > The show was "Dogfight", and this episode was on P-51s fighting
| > ME109s, FW190, ME262s, and some Japanese planes.
| >
| > In one recreation, a P51 pilot has an unusual ME109 chasing him. The
| > plane is actually out performing his P51 -- that wasn't usual with
| > 109s. I don't remember exactly how long the ME109 was on him, but it
| > was about to be able to lead him just enough to take him out
| > (according to the P51 pilot, and, how he knew that I don't know). I
| > liked that they actually interviewed the P51 pilots who described what
| > was going on.
| >
| > Anyway all of the sudden the P51 pilot tries a trick: he pulls the
| > stick back hard against his gut, at the same time jams hard bottom
| > rudder, the 51 spins out, sort of flat, and as it swings around the
| > pilot hit the fire button and laid out a stream of .50 caliber through
| > which the German flew and was knocked out.
| >
| > I want to learn how to do that trick!
| >
| > It's a pretty cool show, amazing CGI recreations. I slow motioned the
| > maneuver -- all the control surfaces looked right at each stage.
|
|
| Snap Roll. Isn't the best idea in the 51 but doable if you get the speed
| down below corner. Depending on the GW; down around 250 maximum. It will
| snap before it loads all the way up to max structural g which is
| mandatory unless you want to leave the wings and the fuselage as 3
| separate parts in the sky.
|
| Bertie's right. The show models are good but not totally realistic. I've
| seen some slew moves on the program that you would really need vectored
| thrust to perform.
|
| As to the 109 out performing the 51. The 109 in skilled hands was a
| deadly opponent at low to medium altitudes. It really boils down to what
| I like to call "The difference between the cockpits", or how good one
| pilot is vs how bad the other one might be.
|
|
|
|
| --
| Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:8d05f97a-c082-4388-8a70-cfca37e62bc8
@e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

>>
>> Snap roll. I suppose it'd do the trick allright. Dudley'd tell you.
>>
>
> That's sort of it, and yet in this case the plane never really rolled
> over -- it was never inverted.
>
> Hard to describe, but: instead of spinning after he induced the stall,
> he relaxed the stick and kicked hard bottom rudder. The plane kind of
> looped sideways, if you can picture that.

Sounds a bit like a vertical reverse, maybe, which is sort of a partial
snap from one side to the other.
>
> That particular move may be on the "trailer" for the particular DVD
> I'm talking about, the P51, on history channel's web site.
>
> I've got to get to an airshow where a P51 is flown.


They're nice to watch do aerobatics, all right. The Merlin makes a nice
noise!



Bertie
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

> Snap Roll.

I can't find the maneuver as it was depicted in the show either in my
Aerobat manual or in Neil William's book.

The snap roll in the Aerobat manual is what I was thinking of when
Bertie mentioned snap roll -- essentially an accelerated spin in the
direction of flight which involves inversion about the longitudinal
axis. Maybe there are other versions of snap rolls that don't "invert"
you about the longitudinal axis. I dunno.

Let me describe the P51 maneuver this way: Imagine a car driving along
a gentle curve being chased by another car -- the first car hits a
patch of ice and does a rapid 360, recovering in the same direction as
it started.

That's pretty much what the plane did (although it climbed some during
whatever kind of stall this was). Anyway now imagine the headlights of
the spinning car are machine guns: as the spinning car gets to about
270 degrees from original heading and the chasing car is starting to
go past the guns start to fire, continuing to fire as the first car
spins back to its orginal heading, nailing the second car the whole
way as it goes by.

The P51 was never "upside down" as you'd expect in a snap roll. Maybe
a spin out?

Bang -- down went the 109.

Speaking of airframes coming apart, I don't recall ever reading about
such things happening in WWII dogfights. It seems it would given the
complexity and fear of the situation. Did it happen much? Maybe that
kind of thing wasn't reported because it's not exactly a heroic end to
an aircraft / pilot.

I understand disintegration was far more common in WWI.

[[email protected]]

> Yeah, those animations are pretty to watch but get very confusing when they
> start manuevering hard and the airplane goes off in a different direction
> to what you might expect.

Good point, there's really no telling whether the animators got it
right or just wanted it to look really amazing and cool. If the pilot
objected they didn't air his objections. The show isn't into that kind
of analysis. It's more of a "look at THIS!!" kinda thing.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:f28fe8d7-a571-4199-ae26-7a76108c2ca8
@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:

>> Snap Roll.
>
> I can't find the maneuver as it was depicted in the show either in my
> Aerobat manual or in Neil William's book.
>
> The snap roll in the Aerobat manual is what I was thinking of when
> Bertie mentioned snap roll -- essentially an accelerated spin in the
> direction of flight which involves inversion about the longitudinal
> axis. Maybe there are other versions of snap rolls that don't "invert"
> you about the longitudinal axis. I dunno.

Couldn;t find it on the history channel website.
>
> Let me describe the P51 maneuver this way: Imagine a car driving along
> a gentle curve being chased by another car -- the first car hits a
> patch of ice and does a rapid 360, recovering in the same direction as
> it started.
>
> That's pretty much what the plane did (although it climbed some during
> whatever kind of stall this was). Anyway now imagine the headlights of
> the spinning car are machine guns: as the spinning car gets to about
> 270 degrees from original heading and the chasing car is starting to
> go past the guns start to fire, continuing to fire as the first car
> spins back to its orginal heading, nailing the second car the whole
> way as it goes by.
>
> The P51 was never "upside down" as you'd expect in a snap roll. Maybe
> a spin out?


Doesn't really sound possible. About the only way that could happen is if
his speed was very, very low and it was some sort of precession manuever.
That's pretty unlikely. It could have been a sort of flat spin manuever.
During a snap roll, though, the pitch is pretty dramatic and if you were
trailing an airplane doing one, you'd only see it's upper side. I'd say
this is probably what he did for at least part of the maunever and the guys
doing the animation just couldn't grasp the way it works real life.
I watched one of them with an exchange between a Wildcat and a Zero and the
Wildcat pilot's description of what he was doing contained more info for me
than the animation, though the animation did help map it out.
I saw another one where they were talking about a scissors manuever. I
think it was between an F4 and a Mig 21. Again, the animations were sort of
faithful to the narrative, but just didn't make 100% sense.

The closest thing to the spin out you're talking about is a precession
manuever, though. I'd guess it's more than possible to do something like
that in a Mustang, but it would almost certainly involve a lot of roll as
well as yaw..

Bertie
>
> Bang -- down went the 109.
>
> Speaking of airframes coming apart, I don't recall ever reading about
> such things happening in WWII dogfights. It seems it would given the
> complexity and fear of the situation. Did it happen much? Maybe that
> kind of thing wasn't reported because it's not exactly a heroic end to
> an aircraft / pilot.
>
> I understand disintegration was far more common in WWI.
>

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-12-15 19:54:18 -0800, Dudley Henriques > said:

> wrote:
>> A buddy of mine recorded some History Channel show and I watched it.
>> The show was "Dogfight", and this episode was on P-51s fighting
>> ME109s, FW190, ME262s, and some Japanese planes.
>>
>> In one recreation, a P51 pilot has an unusual ME109 chasing him. The
>> plane is actually out performing his P51 -- that wasn't usual with
>> 109s. I don't remember exactly how long the ME109 was on him, but it
>> was about to be able to lead him just enough to take him out
>> (according to the P51 pilot, and, how he knew that I don't know). I
>> liked that they actually interviewed the P51 pilots who described what
>> was going on.
>>
>> Anyway all of the sudden the P51 pilot tries a trick: he pulls the
>> stick back hard against his gut, at the same time jams hard bottom
>> rudder, the 51 spins out, sort of flat, and as it swings around the
>> pilot hit the fire button and laid out a stream of .50 caliber through
>> which the German flew and was knocked out.
>>
>> I want to learn how to do that trick!
>>
>> It's a pretty cool show, amazing CGI recreations. I slow motioned the
>> maneuver -- all the control surfaces looked right at each stage.
>
>
> Snap Roll. Isn't the best idea in the 51 but doable if you get the
> speed down below corner. Depending on the GW; down around 250 maximum.
> It will snap before it loads all the way up to max structural g which
> is mandatory unless you want to leave the wings and the fuselage as 3
> separate parts in the sky.
>
> Bertie's right. The show models are good but not totally realistic.
> I've seen some slew moves on the program that you would really need
> vectored thrust to perform.
>
> As to the 109 out performing the 51. The 109 in skilled hands was a
> deadly opponent at low to medium altitudes. It really boils down to
> what I like to call "The difference between the cockpits", or how good
> one pilot is vs how bad the other one might be.

That was really the key for the Allies. I was not the planes, it was
the pilots. Japanese losses were so high that they looted all the
training schools for experienced pilots and sent them to the front.
Germany simply kept their best pilots at the front for the duration.
That is a great way for a few guys to rack up impressive totals as aces
(Germany had about a hundred pilots who had shot down more than a
hundred planes), but they never pass their knowledge on and attrition
eventually takes most of them out. The Allies continually rotated their
best pilots back to the training centers.

Sure, the 109 in skilled hands was a deadly opponent, the operative
phrase being "in skilled hands." Germany simply ran out of skilled
hands. Erich Hartmann may have survived the war, but he lost far too
many of his comrades in arms. Who knows what Marseille (for example)
would have done if he had lived? His training program and theories of
strategy and tactics were innovative for his day, to say the least. If
he had been sent back to a training school, things might have gone
harder for the Allies.

It is the same thing that the airlines are doing today: cannibalizing
all the instructors and worrying later about where the next generation
of pilots is going to come from. You wonder if the airlines will reach
the point where Germany was, trying to win the war, so to speak, with
just one pilot.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

>> Yeah, those animations are pretty to watch but get very confusing
>> when they start manuevering hard and the airplane goes off in a
>> different direction to what you might expect.
>
> Good point, there's really no telling whether the animators got it
> right or just wanted it to look really amazing and cool. If the pilot
> objected they didn't air his objections. The show isn't into that kind
> of analysis. It's more of a "look at THIS!!" kinda thing.
>

Tha's it, still, i's as colse as you're going to get 'til they invent a
time machine!

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
>> Snap Roll.
>
> I can't find the maneuver as it was depicted in the show either in my
> Aerobat manual or in Neil William's book.
>
> The snap roll in the Aerobat manual is what I was thinking of when
> Bertie mentioned snap roll -- essentially an accelerated spin in the
> direction of flight which involves inversion about the longitudinal
> axis. Maybe there are other versions of snap rolls that don't "invert"
> you about the longitudinal axis. I dunno.
>
> Let me describe the P51 maneuver this way: Imagine a car driving along
> a gentle curve being chased by another car -- the first car hits a
> patch of ice and does a rapid 360, recovering in the same direction as
> it started.
>
> That's pretty much what the plane did (although it climbed some during
> whatever kind of stall this was). Anyway now imagine the headlights of
> the spinning car are machine guns: as the spinning car gets to about
> 270 degrees from original heading and the chasing car is starting to
> go past the guns start to fire, continuing to fire as the first car
> spins back to its orginal heading, nailing the second car the whole
> way as it goes by.
>
> The P51 was never "upside down" as you'd expect in a snap roll. Maybe
> a spin out?
>
> Bang -- down went the 109.
>
> Speaking of airframes coming apart, I don't recall ever reading about
> such things happening in WWII dogfights. It seems it would given the
> complexity and fear of the situation. Did it happen much? Maybe that
> kind of thing wasn't reported because it's not exactly a heroic end to
> an aircraft / pilot.
>
> I understand disintegration was far more common in WWI.

It's hard to visualize a 51 doing a maneuver as you describe it; in the
horizontal plane and flat. A normal snap in the Mustang would be done
with no fuel at all in the fuselage tank (if installed) at an airspeed
below maneuvering speed preferably with power on up to about 46 inches
with the prop set at 2700 RPM or above; applying full back stick and as
the stall breaks hard rudder and aileron together into the snap
direction desired; preferably to the left side which gives a torque
assist and really twists the airplane around in a hurry.
The real danger is that with all that yaw induced and the power up, you
can easily snap the airplane right into a spin with power on, which is a
REAL no no in this aircraft. If this happens, the only way to recover
the airplane is to pull the power immediately and begin a power off
recovery. The altitude loss for a spinning Mustang can be tremendous and
if you don't have some air under you, you could be in for a real short day!
I haven't seen this episode, but just from what you have said, it would
appear that the 51 was defensive and possibly turning with the 109 with
the 109 at his corner speed and the Mustang above his corner velocity.
(Corner speed for both airplanes is the airspeed for each where the
application of maximum available positive g produces a maximum turn rate
and minimum turn radius. If the 109 was at his corner and the Mustang
above the Mustang's corner, the 109 could arc in the plane of the 51's
turn and pull lead due to his tighter turn radius.
If this was the scenario, the 51 was defensive against an aggressive
shooter inside gun range and depending on the angle off and closure
rate, the 51 couldn't force an overshoot until he got the airplane down
to it's corner speed as above corner the 51 would be g limited. (below
corner he would be aerodynamically limited.
Yanking into a defensive snap roll to shake the shooter would be a
desperation maneuver as it would leave the Mustang with an extremely low
Ps with no further maneuvering potential due to specific energy loss. In
other words, meat on the table for the shooter.
Your description of how the Mustang maneuvered through this snap roll of
his is puzzling to me, as the normal flight path for the airplane would
be a snap basically without a change in the velocity vector. In other
words, the Mustang should have snapped all the way around and recovered
basically along the same flight path as its entry.
What COULD have happened if the 109 was in close was that the 51 snapped
a half snap with a very high nose attitude bleeding energy like a stuck
pig and the 109 could have over shot him low. Then as the 51 went
inverted, if he pulled back pressure, he just might have slewed the
aircraft back down and fired as he pulled, nailing the 109 as he went by
low.
Mind you, I'm just guessing here, but this would be one plausible
scenario :-))
Anyway, they tell me the show is well done. Enjoy it in good health.
DH

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

> What COULD have happened if the 109 was in close was that the 51 snapped
> a half snap with a very high nose attitude bleeding energy like a stuck
> pig and the 109 could have over shot him low. Then as the 51 went
> inverted, if he pulled back pressure, he just might have slewed the
> aircraft back down and fired as he pulled, nailing the 109 as he went by
> low.
> Mind you, I'm just guessing here, but this would be one plausible
> scenario :-))

Wow -- that's quite a guess! My car description was an exaggeration of
the flatness, just to indicate that the animation didn't show an
inversion as a snap roll would have had. The plane was turning to the
left and the maneuver was done to the left.

However there was some climb (nose high) illustrated; the plane did
bleed a lot of speed, the animation showing it perform what might be
called near vertical stall turn (?) not entirely vertical, with the
tail slewing around the nose. The 109 was depicted as over shooting
low and getting blasted on the way by. The risk of the 51 snapping
into a spin was mentioned, with the associated possibility of becoming
the 109's victim.

Anyway if you guys see this episode it would be interesting to find
out if you think the maneuver shown in the animation depicts something
that is possible or not. It's the last segment just after the same
pilot managed to knock an ME262 out of action.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2007-12-15 19:54:18 -0800, Dudley Henriques > said:
>
>> wrote:
>>> A buddy of mine recorded some History Channel show and I watched it.
>>> The show was "Dogfight", and this episode was on P-51s fighting
>>> ME109s, FW190, ME262s, and some Japanese planes.
>>>
>>> In one recreation, a P51 pilot has an unusual ME109 chasing him. The
>>> plane is actually out performing his P51 -- that wasn't usual with
>>> 109s. I don't remember exactly how long the ME109 was on him, but it
>>> was about to be able to lead him just enough to take him out
>>> (according to the P51 pilot, and, how he knew that I don't know). I
>>> liked that they actually interviewed the P51 pilots who described what
>>> was going on.
>>>
>>> Anyway all of the sudden the P51 pilot tries a trick: he pulls the
>>> stick back hard against his gut, at the same time jams hard bottom
>>> rudder, the 51 spins out, sort of flat, and as it swings around the
>>> pilot hit the fire button and laid out a stream of .50 caliber through
>>> which the German flew and was knocked out.
>>>
>>> I want to learn how to do that trick!
>>>
>>> It's a pretty cool show, amazing CGI recreations. I slow motioned the
>>> maneuver -- all the control surfaces looked right at each stage.
>>
>>
>> Snap Roll. Isn't the best idea in the 51 but doable if you get the
>> speed down below corner. Depending on the GW; down around 250 maximum.
>> It will snap before it loads all the way up to max structural g which
>> is mandatory unless you want to leave the wings and the fuselage as 3
>> separate parts in the sky.
>>
>> Bertie's right. The show models are good but not totally realistic.
>> I've seen some slew moves on the program that you would really need
>> vectored thrust to perform.
>>
>> As to the 109 out performing the 51. The 109 in skilled hands was a
>> deadly opponent at low to medium altitudes. It really boils down to
>> what I like to call "The difference between the cockpits", or how good
>> one pilot is vs how bad the other one might be.
>
> That was really the key for the Allies. I was not the planes, it was the
> pilots. Japanese losses were so high that they looted all the training
> schools for experienced pilots and sent them to the front. Germany
> simply kept their best pilots at the front for the duration. That is a
> great way for a few guys to rack up impressive totals as aces (Germany
> had about a hundred pilots who had shot down more than a hundred
> planes), but they never pass their knowledge on and attrition eventually
> takes most of them out. The Allies continually rotated their best pilots
> back to the training centers.
>
> Sure, the 109 in skilled hands was a deadly opponent, the operative
> phrase being "in skilled hands." Germany simply ran out of skilled
> hands. Erich Hartmann may have survived the war, but he lost far too
> many of his comrades in arms. Who knows what Marseille (for example)
> would have done if he had lived? His training program and theories of
> strategy and tactics were innovative for his day, to say the least. If
> he had been sent back to a training school, things might have gone
> harder for the Allies.
>
> It is the same thing that the airlines are doing today: cannibalizing
> all the instructors and worrying later about where the next generation
> of pilots is going to come from. You wonder if the airlines will reach
> the point where Germany was, trying to win the war, so to speak, with
> just one pilot.

The airline situation is going to the dogs. It's actually getting to the
point now between the airlines, the FAA, and ATC, that I really don't
want my family to fly any more.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2007-12-15 19:54:18 -0800, Dudley Henriques >
>> said:
>>

>>
>> It is the same thing that the airlines are doing today: cannibalizing
>> all the instructors and worrying later about where the next
>> generation of pilots is going to come from. You wonder if the
>> airlines will reach the point where Germany was, trying to win the
>> war, so to speak, with just one pilot.
>
> The airline situation is going to the dogs. It's actually getting to
> the point now between the airlines, the FAA, and ATC, that I really
> don't want my family to fly any more.


There's a couple I definitely wouldn't let my family on, though I sometimes
have to position on them, I really don't like it.


Bertie

>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>> On 2007-12-15 19:54:18 -0800, Dudley Henriques >
>>> said:
>>>
>
>>> It is the same thing that the airlines are doing today: cannibalizing
>>> all the instructors and worrying later about where the next
>>> generation of pilots is going to come from. You wonder if the
>>> airlines will reach the point where Germany was, trying to win the
>>> war, so to speak, with just one pilot.
>> The airline situation is going to the dogs. It's actually getting to
>> the point now between the airlines, the FAA, and ATC, that I really
>> don't want my family to fly any more.
>
>
> There's a couple I definitely wouldn't let my family on, though I sometimes
> have to position on them, I really don't like it.
>
>
> Bertie
>
>
Yeah, it's getting a bit hairy out here with some of the carriers.
Of course the government will solve everything with this new "passengers
Bill of Rights" thing they just pushed through. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Dec 15, 8:54 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> wrote:
> > A buddy of mine recorded some History Channel show and I watched it.
> > The show was "Dogfight", and this episode was on P-51s fighting
> > ME109s, FW190, ME262s, and some Japanese planes.
>
> > In one recreation, a P51 pilot has an unusual ME109 chasing him. The
> > plane is actually out performing his P51 -- that wasn't usual with
> > 109s. I don't remember exactly how long the ME109 was on him, but it
> > was about to be able to lead him just enough to take him out
> > (according to the P51 pilot, and, how he knew that I don't know). I
> > liked that they actually interviewed the P51 pilots who described what
> > was going on.
>
> > Anyway all of the sudden the P51 pilot tries a trick: he pulls the
> > stick back hard against his gut, at the same time jams hard bottom
> > rudder, the 51 spins out, sort of flat, and as it swings around the
> > pilot hit the fire button and laid out a stream of .50 caliber through
> > which the German flew and was knocked out.
>
> > I want to learn how to do that trick!
>
> > It's a pretty cool show, amazing CGI recreations. I slow motioned the
> > maneuver -- all the control surfaces looked right at each stage.
>
> Snap Roll. Isn't the best idea in the 51 but doable if you get the speed
> down below corner. Depending on the GW; down around 250 maximum. It will
> snap before it loads all the way up to max structural g which is
> mandatory unless you want to leave the wings and the fuselage as 3
> separate parts in the sky.
>
> Bertie's right. The show models are good but not totally realistic. I've
> seen some slew moves on the program that you would really need vectored
> thrust to perform.
>
> As to the 109 out performing the 51. The 109 in skilled hands was a
> deadly opponent at low to medium altitudes. It really boils down to what
> I like to call "The difference between the cockpits", or how good one
> pilot is vs how bad the other one might be.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I don't know if there were any higher performance versions of the
ME-109, but the TA-152 could outperform the Mustang. It was a souped
up version of the FW-190.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Ta_152

[[email protected]]

On Dec 15, 11:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
> >> C J Campbell wrote:
> >>> On 2007-12-15 19:54:18 -0800, Dudley Henriques >
> >>> said:
>
> >>> It is the same thing that the airlines are doing today: cannibalizing
> >>> all the instructors and worrying later about where the next
> >>> generation of pilots is going to come from. You wonder if the
> >>> airlines will reach the point where Germany was, trying to win the
> >>> war, so to speak, with just one pilot.
> >> The airline situation is going to the dogs. It's actually getting to
> >> the point now between the airlines, the FAA, and ATC, that I really
> >> don't want my family to fly any more.
>
> > There's a couple I definitely wouldn't let my family on, though I sometimes
> > have to position on them, I really don't like it.
>
> > Bertie
>
> Yeah, it's getting a bit hairy out here with some of the carriers.
> Of course the government will solve everything with this new "passengers
> Bill of Rights" thing they just pushed through. :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

1. You have the right to be strip searched.
2. You have the right to be delayed for hours as little old ladies
are wanded by the TSA.
3. You have the right to drink a fifth of Vodka that you can't carry
on the plane.
4. You have the right to take off your shoes and put them through the
X-Ray machine (odor eaters are discouraged)
5. You have the right to feel like a criminal if you forget to take
you cell phone out before going through the metal detector.
6. You have the right to be "on time" an hour later than you were
scheduled to be.
I'm sure I'm missing a few here...

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:36:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:

> > Yeah, those animations are pretty to watch but get very confusing when they
> > start manuevering hard and the airplane goes off in a different direction
> > to what you might expect.
>
> Good point, there's really no telling whether the animators got it
> right or just wanted it to look really amazing and cool. If the pilot
> objected they didn't air his objections. The show isn't into that kind
> of analysis. It's more of a "look at THIS!!" kinda thing.

I enjoy the show, but it's occasionally obvious that the writers don't have an
aviation background. You get subtle misuses of terminology, sometimes. I
suspect that the on-camera interviewees have no say in how the rest of the show
is presented.

I think they sometimes "compress" maneuvers; pack them into a tighter geographic
area to increase the dramatic effect. What bugs me more is that A) They
sometimes get the physical shapes of the aircraft wrong, and B) They get the
national markings wrong on the aircraft.

The worst cases of A) have been the depiction of WWI aircraft, especially SPADs.
The landing gear seems to flip around...sometimes the forward legs are vertical
and the aft are slanted, and other times it's the other way around.

For B), they especially seem to lose track of where the US national insignia go.
Sometimes, you see the star-and-bar on the upper surfaces of BOTH wings, other
times it's on both the upper and lower surfaces of the left wing only. They
also often get the proportions wrong. I've seen problems with other country's
aircraft, too, especially German planes.

While the above make me grind my teeth a bit when it happens, I do like the
program. It's interesting to compare the technological sophistication of the
two-hour pilot (first aired about 2-3 years ago) vs. the shows they're doing
now.

Ron Wanttaja

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Dec 15, 8:54 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> A buddy of mine recorded some History Channel show and I watched it.
>>> The show was "Dogfight", and this episode was on P-51s fighting
>>> ME109s, FW190, ME262s, and some Japanese planes.
>>> In one recreation, a P51 pilot has an unusual ME109 chasing him. The
>>> plane is actually out performing his P51 -- that wasn't usual with
>>> 109s. I don't remember exactly how long the ME109 was on him, but it
>>> was about to be able to lead him just enough to take him out
>>> (according to the P51 pilot, and, how he knew that I don't know). I
>>> liked that they actually interviewed the P51 pilots who described what
>>> was going on.
>>> Anyway all of the sudden the P51 pilot tries a trick: he pulls the
>>> stick back hard against his gut, at the same time jams hard bottom
>>> rudder, the 51 spins out, sort of flat, and as it swings around the
>>> pilot hit the fire button and laid out a stream of .50 caliber through
>>> which the German flew and was knocked out.
>>> I want to learn how to do that trick!
>>> It's a pretty cool show, amazing CGI recreations. I slow motioned the
>>> maneuver -- all the control surfaces looked right at each stage.
>> Snap Roll. Isn't the best idea in the 51 but doable if you get the speed
>> down below corner. Depending on the GW; down around 250 maximum. It will
>> snap before it loads all the way up to max structural g which is
>> mandatory unless you want to leave the wings and the fuselage as 3
>> separate parts in the sky.
>>
>> Bertie's right. The show models are good but not totally realistic. I've
>> seen some slew moves on the program that you would really need vectored
>> thrust to perform.
>>
>> As to the 109 out performing the 51. The 109 in skilled hands was a
>> deadly opponent at low to medium altitudes. It really boils down to what
>> I like to call "The difference between the cockpits", or how good one
>> pilot is vs how bad the other one might be.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I don't know if there were any higher performance versions of the
> ME-109, but the TA-152 could outperform the Mustang. It was a souped
> up version of the FW-190.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Ta_152


The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes but it
was nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the F8F
Bearcat one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the meaning of the
term "prop fighter performance".
In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been mass
produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its match anywhere.
Just my opinion though. I'm not all that sure Kurt Tank might have
agreed :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

> On Dec 15, 11:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >> C J Campbell wrote:
>> >>> On 2007-12-15 19:54:18 -0800, Dudley Henriques
>> >>> > said:
>>
>> >>> It is the same thing that the airlines are doing today:
>> >>> cannibalizing all the instructors and worrying later about where
>> >>> the next generation of pilots is going to come from. You wonder
>> >>> if the airlines will reach the point where Germany was, trying to
>> >>> win the war, so to speak, with just one pilot.
>> >> The airline situation is going to the dogs. It's actually getting
>> >> to the point now between the airlines, the FAA, and ATC, that I
>> >> really don't want my family to fly any more.
>>
>> > There's a couple I definitely wouldn't let my family on, though I
>> > sometimes have to position on them, I really don't like it.
>>
>> > Bertie
>>
>> Yeah, it's getting a bit hairy out here with some of the carriers.
>> Of course the government will solve everything with this new
>> "passengers Bill of Rights" thing they just pushed through. :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> 1. You have the right to be strip searched.
> 2. You have the right to be delayed for hours as little old ladies
> are wanded by the TSA.
> 3. You have the right to drink a fifth of Vodka that you can't carry
> on the plane.
> 4. You have the right to take off your shoes and put them through the
> X-Ray machine (odor eaters are discouraged)
> 5. You have the right to feel like a criminal if you forget to take
> you cell phone out before going through the metal detector.
> 6. You have the right to be "on time" an hour later than you were
> scheduled to be.
> I'm sure I'm missing a few here...
>

I believe he's talking about the ever declining standards in pilot
training and the ever increasing irresposibility of management.
This is not true of all airlines, but suffice it to say, you get what
you pay for..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in news:4a4b3843-18c7-4881-b8b8-
:


>
> I don't know if there were any higher performance versions of the
> ME-109,


There were. there were long wing variants built later in the war
specificially for high altitude ops.

but the TA-152 could outperform the Mustang. It was a souped
> up version of the FW-190.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Ta_152
>

Well, the figures don't tell the whole story. while speed and rate of
clinmb certainly would have given an advantage, as a package, though,
it's much harder to define what makes one airplane superior to
another.Performance can be a lot more than numbers at the end of the
day...


For instance, there was a loonie Swedish count in the 1960s who
symathised with the Biafrans in their war of secession from Nigeria (
the short story here is that oil was discovered in Biafra and they
diecided to take the money and run, having been a seperate nation inthe
first place, only paired up with the rest of Nigeria by arbitrary
colonialist redefintion of nations)
Anyhoo. this guy and some of his buds gathered up the best airplanes
available to the, the Bolkow Junior, manufactured in Sweden as the Malmö
a midget little box of a thing with a Cont A75 in the nose,put some hard
points on it and off to Biafra they went. They proceeded to decimate the
Nigerian Air Force, which at that time had the very latest Russian
stuff, Mig 21s, 17s, etc by flying at treetop level to their bases and
launching their little match head missiles at them while they were still
on the grond. they'd then race back to their own lines at treetop level
at 75 knots and any Migs that got airborne found it impossible to get a
bead on them.
Eventaully, all of these mercenaries were killed (IIRC, there were
another half dozen airplanes and pilots brought it over time, also lost)
but the damage they inflicted on the vastly superior forces of the other
side were astonishing.
Just as well the NAF didn't have 150s, eh?

OK, this is an odd example, but it goes to show in a bizarre kind of way
that numbers in a performance column don't tell the whole story.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> wrote:
>> On Dec 15, 8:54 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> A buddy of mine recorded some History Channel show and I watched
>>>> it. The show was "Dogfight", and this episode was on P-51s fighting
>>>> ME109s, FW190, ME262s, and some Japanese planes.
>>>> In one recreation, a P51 pilot has an unusual ME109 chasing him.
>>>> The plane is actually out performing his P51 -- that wasn't usual
>>>> with 109s. I don't remember exactly how long the ME109 was on him,
>>>> but it was about to be able to lead him just enough to take him out
>>>> (according to the P51 pilot, and, how he knew that I don't know). I
>>>> liked that they actually interviewed the P51 pilots who described
>>>> what was going on.
>>>> Anyway all of the sudden the P51 pilot tries a trick: he pulls the
>>>> stick back hard against his gut, at the same time jams hard bottom
>>>> rudder, the 51 spins out, sort of flat, and as it swings around the
>>>> pilot hit the fire button and laid out a stream of .50 caliber
>>>> through which the German flew and was knocked out.
>>>> I want to learn how to do that trick!
>>>> It's a pretty cool show, amazing CGI recreations. I slow motioned
>>>> the maneuver -- all the control surfaces looked right at each
>>>> stage.
>>> Snap Roll. Isn't the best idea in the 51 but doable if you get the
>>> speed down below corner. Depending on the GW; down around 250
>>> maximum. It will snap before it loads all the way up to max
>>> structural g which is mandatory unless you want to leave the wings
>>> and the fuselage as 3 separate parts in the sky.
>>>
>>> Bertie's right. The show models are good but not totally realistic.
>>> I've seen some slew moves on the program that you would really need
>>> vectored thrust to perform.
>>>
>>> As to the 109 out performing the 51. The 109 in skilled hands was a
>>> deadly opponent at low to medium altitudes. It really boils down to
>>> what I like to call "The difference between the cockpits", or how
>>> good one pilot is vs how bad the other one might be.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> I don't know if there were any higher performance versions of the
>> ME-109, but the TA-152 could outperform the Mustang. It was a souped
>> up version of the FW-190.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Ta_152
>
>
> The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes but it
> was nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
> I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the F8F
> Bearcat one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the meaning of the
> term "prop fighter performance".
> In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been mass
> produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its match
> anywhere. Just my opinion though. I'm not all that sure Kurt Tank
> might have agreed :-))
>
I loveth elook of the Bearca, but for me, the FW 190 has to share the
best looking fighter of the war along with the Zero..

Bertie.

[F. Baum]

On Dec 15, 9:49 pm, C J Campbell >
wrote:
>
> It is the same thing that the airlines are doing today: cannibalizing
> all the instructors and worrying later about where the next generation
> of pilots is going to come from. You wonder if the airlines will reach
> the point where Germany was, trying to win the war, so to speak, with
> just one pilot.
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor- Hide quoted text -
>
What draws you to this conclusion ?
Do you fly at a regonal ?
FB

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns9A089F62B1341****upropeeh@
207.14.116.130:


Here's a pic of the Junior/Malmo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bolkow.junior.d-edna.arp.jpg

I couldn't find any site with the whole story of this troup of adventurers
and it's years since I read the story, so my account mightn't be 100%..

Bertie

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:
>> The airline situation is going to the dogs. It's actually getting to
>> the point now between the airlines, the FAA, and ATC, that I really
>> don't want my family to fly any more.
>
>
>There's a couple I definitely wouldn't let my family on, though I sometimes
>have to position on them, I really don't like it.
>

Can you name them? My wife and I were looking at Alaska cruises this
year, and the longer ones all seem to require you to fly on Alaska
Airlines at some point. I don't know about you, but I get the impression
that they didn't learn their lesson about shoddy maintenance after the
MD-80 jack screw crash, so I'm real reluctant to fly on them.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"I had to kill him -- he was starting to make sense."

[[email protected]]

On Dec 16, 10:03 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns9A089F62B1341****upropeeh@
> 207.14.116.130:
>
> Here's a pic of the Junior/Malmohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bolkow.junior.d-edna.arp.jpg
>
> I couldn't find any site with the whole story of this troup of adventurers
> and it's years since I read the story, so my account mightn't be 100%..
>
> Bertie

Now that's airpower!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in
:

> In a previous article, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>>Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:
>>> The airline situation is going to the dogs. It's actually getting to
>>> the point now between the airlines, the FAA, and ATC, that I really
>>> don't want my family to fly any more.
>>
>>
>>There's a couple I definitely wouldn't let my family on, though I
>>sometimes have to position on them, I really don't like it.
>>
>
> Can you name them? My wife and I were looking at Alaska cruises this
> year, and the longer ones all seem to require you to fly on Alaska
> Airlines at some point. I don't know about you, but I get the
> impression that they didn't learn their lesson about shoddy
> maintenance after the MD-80 jack screw crash, so I'm real reluctant to
> fly on them.
>
>

Don't know about them, but one of the larger bargain basement airlines
would be the one that sprang to mind first.. Think over-runs
That jackscrew accident was a bit of a wakeup for the whole industry
though. I know we looked at out lube schedules and found them wanting
afterwards.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
:

> On Dec 16, 10:03 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
>> news:Xns9A089F62B1341****upropeeh@ 207.14.116.130:
>>
>> Here's a pic of the
>> Junior/Malmohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bolkow.junior.d-edna.ar
>> p.jpg
>>
>> I couldn't find any site with the whole story of this troup of
>> adventurers and it's years since I read the story, so my account
>> mightn't be 100%..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Now that's airpower!
>

Yeah, it's a great Davey and Goliath story. Another would be the story of
Faith Hope and Charity.. Three old Gloster Gladiators on Malta. The Flying
Tigers were boxed in and outclassed in experience and equipment, but made
the most of what they had as well. History is full of these stories and it
always seems to be the guys who throw the rulebok out the window who
prevail..


Bertie

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:40:10 -0800 (PST), wrote:

> On Dec 16, 10:03 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns9A089F62B1341****upropeeh@
> > 207.14.116.130:
> >
> > Here's a pic of the Junior/Malmohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bolkow.junior.d-edna.arp.jpg
> >
> > I couldn't find any site with the whole story of this troup of adventurers
> > and it's years since I read the story, so my account mightn't be 100%..
> >
> > Bertie
>
> Now that's airpower!

A short account of the aircraft itself is at:

http://www.vectorsite.net/avsa105.html#m5

Ron Wanttaja

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes but it was
> nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
> I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the F8F Bearcat
> one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the meaning of the term "prop
> fighter performance".
> In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been mass
> produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its match
> anywhere.

Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.

Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort missions?

How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
--
Jim in NC

[F. Baum]

On Dec 16, 10:35 am, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>
> Can you name them? My wife and I were looking at Alaska cruises this
> year, and the longer ones all seem to require you to fly on Alaska
> Airlines at some point. I don't know about you, but I get the impression
> that they didn't learn their lesson about shoddy maintenance after the
> MD-80 jack screw crash, so I'm real reluctant to fly on them.

PT, Alaska may have some issues, but jack screws isnt one of them. The
entire industry learned alot from that accident.Have fun on the cruise
and remember, plenty of sunscreen.
FB

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns9A089F62B1341****upropeeh@
> 207.14.116.130:
>
>
> Here's a pic of the Junior/Malmo
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bolkow.junior.d-edna.arp.jpg
>
> I couldn't find any site with the whole story of this troup of adventurers
> and it's years since I read the story, so my account mightn't be 100%..
That looks sorta kinda like the capro, (capra, capo, something like that)
Italian made planes of late, with the shoulder mounted wings.

I have often wondered why that configuration is not more popular. I've not
flown one, but it would seem like the visibility while flying level, turning
or anytime would be superior to high or low wings, than either upward or
downward views, depending whether it is high or low wing.
--
Jim in NC

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-12-16 09:35:11 -0800, (Paul Tomblin) said:

> In a previous article, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>> The airline situation is going to the dogs. It's actually getting to
>>> the point now between the airlines, the FAA, and ATC, that I really
>>> don't want my family to fly any more.
>>
>>
>> There's a couple I definitely wouldn't let my family on, though I sometimes
>> have to position on them, I really don't like it.
>>
>
> Can you name them? My wife and I were looking at Alaska cruises this
> year, and the longer ones all seem to require you to fly on Alaska
> Airlines at some point. I don't know about you, but I get the impression
> that they didn't learn their lesson about shoddy maintenance after the
> MD-80 jack screw crash, so I'm real reluctant to fly on them.

The only glitch we had this year was coming back into Vancouver B.C.
Our ship was a little late docking because another was delayed in
departure. We had to dash to the airport and hope that our bags caught
up with us. Our bags did not arrive in time for inspection and we had
to get into the extremely long security line. Finally our bags showed
up and I held our place in line while Jane got them checked.

When we got to the initial checkpoint they took our boarding passes and
passports, but then they did not give me Jane's boarding pass back.
They denied they had ever had it until finally someone found it under
the counter where it had fallen. Another long line for x-ray screening,
well over an hour.

Then finally a mad dash with just five minutes to spare before takeoff.
I get up to the gate and the lady tells me to be patient and wait my
turn (there was no one else at the gate desk). Finally she deigns to
tell me that we are on a 15 minute delay for maintenance and that they
had announced it and that I should have known about it. I bit my tongue
hard.

Another fifteen minuted delay. Another. Another. Another. Finally, we
get assigned to a different flight three hours later. So, yeah, Alaska
still has maintenance problems, but they are of the delay type, not the
"it's broke but let's fly it anyway" type. And I loathe TSA, US Customs
(the only part of Canada we were in was the bus trip from the ship to
the airport, but we had to go through all the paperwork anyway) and all
the other bureaucratic nonsense we had to put up with.

But the cruise was great.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-12-16 07:47:04 -0800, "F. Baum" > said:

> On Dec 15, 9:49 pm, C J Campbell >
> wrote:
>>
>> It is the same thing that the airlines are doing today: cannibalizing
>> all the instructors and worrying later about where the next generation
>> of pilots is going to come from. You wonder if the airlines will reach
>> the point where Germany was, trying to win the war, so to speak, with
>> just one pilot.
>> --
>> Waddling Eagle
>> World Famous Flight Instructor- Hide quoted text -
>>
> What draws you to this conclusion ?
> Do you fly at a regonal ?
> FB

No. But I know that instructors are leaving the flight school before
they have been there a year. It takes two years of instructing before
you can make a new instructor. So I am the only one, now, and the boss
counts himself fortunate that I am there. But all the flight schools
are screaming for instructors and we can't train enough new ones with
the few that are left. Without instructors there are no new pilots. It
has reached the point where some flight schools are offering
instructors who stay (instead of going to the airlines) $59,000 a year
salary and a full benefits package.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
>> news:Xns9A089F62B1341****upropeeh@ 207.14.116.130:
>>
>>
>> Here's a pic of the Junior/Malmo
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bolkow.junior.d-edna.arp.jpg
>>
>> I couldn't find any site with the whole story of this troup of
>> adventurers and it's years since I read the story, so my account
>> mightn't be 100%..
> That looks sorta kinda like the capro, (capra, capo, something like
> that)
> Italian made planes of late, with the shoulder mounted wings.


You don't mean the little Macchis from the fifties, do you? They were
high wing but kind of swept forwards.
Might be one of the new ultralights, Might even be a warmed over version
of the Malmo.
I know someone with a Bolkow built one he has been rebuilding for years
now, so I'll eventually get to fly one. his has an O 200 in it.
It, or a derivitive, was kitted in the UK as the ARV, I think, and was
available with a Wankel/Norton rotary engine. Don't know what became of
that, though.
>
> I have often wondered why that configuration is not more popular.
> I've not flown one, but it would seem like the visibility while flying
> level, turning or anytime would be superior to high or low wings, than
> either upward or downward views, depending whether it is high or low
> wing.


It's a clever looking little airplane. I'd say it would e cheap enough
to make and might be a perfect LSA these days..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
>> The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes but
>> it was nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
>> I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the F8F
>> Bearcat one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the meaning of the
>> term "prop fighter performance".
>> In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been mass
>> produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its match
>> anywhere.
>
> Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.
>
> Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort
> missions?
>
> How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?


Faster, I believe. It held the piston speed record with mods.
Range would have been about the same with drop tanks.
It could also beat any jet to 10,000 fee well into the seventies.

I'm with Dudley. this airplane was way sexier than the Mustang in my book.
I was sorely tempted to go down to Junior Burchinal's place and blow every
penny I had on a checkout in one at one stage, but probbly found something
else to blow it on!
I know someone who did just that though. He ended up dusting for Junior and
spent every dime on flying his mustang on weekends. He also got typed in
the B-17



Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"C J Campbell" > wrote

> But all the flight schools are screaming for instructors and we can't
> train enough new ones with the few that are left. Without instructors
> there are no new pilots. It has reached the point where some flight
> schools are offering instructors who stay (instead of going to the
> airlines) $59,000 a year salary and a full benefits package.

If they keep that up, they will finally be able to keep a few, I'll bet.
Although it would hurt a little more to pay for instruction with that kind
of pay schedule, it would be great to have committed, fully qualified
instructors, instead of 100 hour wonders.
--
Jim in NC

[F. Baum]

On Dec 16, 1:42 pm, C J Campbell >
wrote:
>
> > What draws you to this conclusion ?
> > Do you fly at a regonal ?
> > FB
>
> No. But I know that instructors are leaving the flight school before
> they have been there a year. It takes two years of instructing before
> you can make a new instructor. So I am the only one, now, and the boss
> counts himself fortunate that I am there. But all the flight schools
> are screaming for instructors and we can't train enough new ones with
> the few that are left. Without instructors there are no new pilots. It
> has reached the point where some flight schools are offering
> instructors who stay (instead of going to the airlines) $59,000 a year
> salary and a full benefits package.

You bring up an exellent point, and I hope you are one of the
instructors making that much. The reason we have a shortage is because
of the low pay and working conditions over the years (For one of the
most important jobs in aviation). At 60 grand Id consider being an
instructor. Good luck,
FB

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
>> The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes but it was
>> nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
>> I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the F8F Bearcat
>> one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the meaning of the term "prop
>> fighter performance".
>> In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been mass
>> produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its match
>> anywhere.
>
> Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.
>
> Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort missions?
>
> How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
The Bear had VERY short legs and even with the drop tank would never
have made it as a long range fighter.
In close, intercept, and shoot it down fast was the Bear's prime
intended function.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:07:48 -0500, "Morgans" > wrote:

> > Here's a pic of the Junior/Malmo
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bolkow.junior.d-edna.arp.jpg
>
> I have often wondered why that configuration is not more popular. I've not
> flown one, but it would seem like the visibility while flying level, turning
> or anytime would be superior to high or low wings, than either upward or
> downward views, depending whether it is high or low wing.

Cockpit access issues and CG, would be my guesses. Kind of an awkward clamber
into the cockpit, without even a wing to stand on and nothing above you to grab
onto. Imagine trying to get into the cockpit while wearing a skirt...that was a
consideration, back in the '50s and '60s. Then again, I thought this was once
produced in Scotland, too...:-)

CG-wise, it lacks growth capacity. If you hang a bigger engine on the front,
you can't balance it by shifting the cabin back slightly because the wing spar
passes directly behind the pilot's shoulders.

Years and years ago, I looked into a VW-powered homebuilt with a similar
configuration, the HAPI Cygnet SF-2A. Geeze, I still even have the info pack.
It says, "The Cygnet is designed to use a 60HP VW engine. Anything larger will
weigh too much..." Of course, HAPI was also in the VW engine business.

Back to my first point, the brochure show a woman...in jeans...climbing in. No
way she could do it in a skirt; the cockpit side rails is pretty high.

Ron Wanttaja

[Stefan]

Ron Wanttaja schrieb:

> Cockpit access issues and CG, would be my guesses.

I don't think so. Cockpit access is no issue, and the pilot sits pretty
near the CG. But if you take a closer look, the pilot's sight is not
that great, either, at least if you believe that the pilot should be
able to look over his shoulder before turning:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Bo208C_HB-UPF_68.jpg

The main disadvantage is the wing spar which prevents a reasonable and
easy accessible luggage room behind the pilot and which limits the whole
design to two seaters.

[Dave[_1_]]

Well said...

The Mustang was (is) a fine mount, and while it shares the mantra as
the "best" fighter with others, each fighter had to be flown in it's
design environment.

It was best (designed to be) long range fighter ESCORT, which it
excelled at.

Down low and in the dirt, many other planes could out gun, out turn,
out climb and out dive it..

One of the best tactics for a P-51 pilot if caught down low was to
get outta dodge.. Some of the enemy pilots called them "runstangs"
(I forget the translation)

But >15000 ft, while other planes started to wheeze.. the stang could
still breathe, and , clearly in it's design element, was the ride to
have...up at that alt....

As a "dogfighter" ? (within the definition) .. nope...

Dave


On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

wrote in news:4a4b3843-18c7-4881-b8b8-
:
>
>
>>
>> I don't know if there were any higher performance versions of the
>> ME-109,
>
>
>There were. there were long wing variants built later in the war
>specificially for high altitude ops.
>
> but the TA-152 could outperform the Mustang. It was a souped
>> up version of the FW-190.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Ta_152
>>
>
>Well, the figures don't tell the whole story. while speed and rate of
>clinmb certainly would have given an advantage, as a package, though,
>it's much harder to define what makes one airplane superior to
>another.Performance can be a lot more than numbers at the end of the
>day...
>
>
>For instance, there was a loonie Swedish count in the 1960s who
>symathised with the Biafrans in their war of secession from Nigeria (
>the short story here is that oil was discovered in Biafra and they
>diecided to take the money and run, having been a seperate nation inthe
>first place, only paired up with the rest of Nigeria by arbitrary
>colonialist redefintion of nations)
>Anyhoo. this guy and some of his buds gathered up the best airplanes
>available to the, the Bolkow Junior, manufactured in Sweden as the Malmö
>a midget little box of a thing with a Cont A75 in the nose,put some hard
>points on it and off to Biafra they went. They proceeded to decimate the
>Nigerian Air Force, which at that time had the very latest Russian
>stuff, Mig 21s, 17s, etc by flying at treetop level to their bases and
>launching their little match head missiles at them while they were still
>on the grond. they'd then race back to their own lines at treetop level
>at 75 knots and any Migs that got airborne found it impossible to get a
>bead on them.
>Eventaully, all of these mercenaries were killed (IIRC, there were
>another half dozen airplanes and pilots brought it over time, also lost)
>but the damage they inflicted on the vastly superior forces of the other
>side were astonishing.
>Just as well the NAF didn't have 150s, eh?
>
>OK, this is an odd example, but it goes to show in a bizarre kind of way
>that numbers in a performance column don't tell the whole story.
>
>
>Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dave > wrote in
:

> Well said...
>
> The Mustang was (is) a fine mount, and while it shares the mantra as
> the "best" fighter with others, each fighter had to be flown in it's
> design environment.
>
> It was best (designed to be) long range fighter ESCORT, which it
> excelled at.
>
> Down low and in the dirt, many other planes could out gun, out turn,
> out climb and out dive it..
>
> One of the best tactics for a P-51 pilot if caught down low was to
> get outta dodge.. Some of the enemy pilots called them "runstangs"
> (I forget the translation)
>
> But >15000 ft, while other planes started to wheeze.. the stang could
> still breathe, and , clearly in it's design element, was the ride to
> have...up at that alt....
>
> As a "dogfighter" ? (within the definition) .. nope...


I'd love to find out, but basically we're arguing about which supermodel
we'd sleep with, of course.


Bertie

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:16:28 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Morgans wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>
>>> The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes but it was
>>> nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
>>> I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the F8F Bearcat
>>> one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the meaning of the term "prop
>>> fighter performance".
>>> In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been mass
>>> produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its match
>>> anywhere.
>>
>> Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.
>>
>> Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort missions?

As I recall the F8F had the most powerful piston engine ever used in a
fighter. Then later the same engine was used in the Skyraider. Now
there is one BIG airplane! Not very fast, but BIG!

Roger (K8RI)

>>
>> How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
>The Bear had VERY short legs and even with the drop tank would never
>have made it as a long range fighter.
>In close, intercept, and shoot it down fast was the Bear's prime
>intended function.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:16:28 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>>Morgans wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>>
>>>> The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes but
>>>> it was nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
>>>> I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the F8F
>>>> Bearcat one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the meaning of
>>>> the term "prop fighter performance".
>>>> In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been
>>>> mass produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its
>>>> match anywhere.
>>>
>>> Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.
>>>
>>> Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort
>>> missions?
>
> As I recall the F8F had the most powerful piston engine ever used in a
> fighter. Then later the same engine was used in the Skyraider. Now
> there is one BIG airplane! Not very fast, but BIG!
>

Nah, it only had a R2800 and not a very powerful variant at that. The P47
used a more powerful version of the same engine and there were other more
powerful airplanes out there like the later Griffon powered Spitfires and
the Hawker Sea Fury.
I don't think any of them went any better than the Bearcat, though.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:16:28 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Morgans wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>>
>>>> The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes but it was
>>>> nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
>>>> I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the F8F Bearcat
>>>> one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the meaning of the term "prop
>>>> fighter performance".
>>>> In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been mass
>>>> produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its match
>>>> anywhere.
>>> Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.
>>>
>>> Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort missions?
>
> As I recall the F8F had the most powerful piston engine ever used in a
> fighter. Then later the same engine was used in the Skyraider. Now
> there is one BIG airplane! Not very fast, but BIG!
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
>>> How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
>> The Bear had VERY short legs and even with the drop tank would never
>> have made it as a long range fighter.
>> In close, intercept, and shoot it down fast was the Bear's prime
>> intended function.

Hi Rog;

The Bear can an R2800 in it. The -2 that I flew I believe had a 2800-30
in it. The entire airplane was just a frame to support the engine.
One of the things I liked about the Bear was that Grumman drooped the
nose a bit (they did this on all their prop fighters) so you could
actually see where the hell you were going. It was an awesome airplane.
The prop at rest (had a huge Aero Products on the nose) looked like the
diameter spanned the wing tips :-)) On takeoff, it broke ground before
you could get the throttle up. Unlike the 51, you couldn't allow the
stick to come forward a bit on the takeoff roll because of the severe
lack of tip clearance on the prop. You took off 3 point and you landed 3
point in the Bearcat.
It was and still is a wonderful airplane!
I think I can say with some degree of certainty that Streak wouldn't
**** on the tires of the Bear, it was THAT pretty!!
D

--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>
>>> The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes but it
>>> was nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
>>> I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the F8F
>>> Bearcat one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the meaning of the
>>> term "prop fighter performance".
>>> In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been mass
>>> produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its match
>>> anywhere.
>>
>> Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.
>>
>> Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort missions?
>>
>> How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
> The Bear had VERY short legs and even with the drop tank would never have
> made it as a long range fighter.
> In close, intercept, and shoot it down fast was the Bear's prime intended
> function.
>
Designed to defeat Kamikazes' at a distance, no?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> You don't mean the little Macchis from the fifties, do you? They were
> high wing but kind of swept forwards.

Nope, and I'll be darned if I could find it, even with a while searching for
it. I remember it from an article in AOPA, I think. It was probably 5-7
years ago. On the cover, as I recall.

It looked a lot like this, but it was not this one:

<http://www.ldap.cz/en/mfi.htm>

I could be all wrong, but I thought it was an Italian design, that had been
certified for a while in like form, anyway. I thought it had a name like
Cappra, or something.
--
Jim in NC

[Dale[_3_]]

In article >,
Dave > wrote:


>
> As a "dogfighter" ? (within the definition) .. nope...
>
> Dave
>

Oh really? You might want to go to this link and read some of the
after action reports. I'm a Mustang fan and always thought it was as
you posted, not the airplane to be turning with but these reports made
me think differently.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> You don't mean the little Macchis from the fifties, do you? They were
>> high wing but kind of swept forwards.
>
> Nope, and I'll be darned if I could find it, even with a while
> searching for it. I remember it from an article in AOPA, I think. It
> was probably 5-7 years ago. On the cover, as I recall.
>
> It looked a lot like this, but it was not this one:
>
> <http://www.ldap.cz/en/mfi.htm>
>
> I could be all wrong, but I thought it was an Italian design, that had
> been certified for a while in like form, anyway. I thought it had a
> name like Cappra, or something.

Don't remember seeing it though I'm sure it's in my sport aviation pile
somewhere.
The link you posted above *is* the Malmo as it was modified in the UK as
the ARV, I'm pretty sure. Nice to see it being mae still. Should be a
pretty good LSA. If I were in the market for something like that the
simplicity would appeal to me in a big way.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

sean trost > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dave > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Well said...
>>>
>>> The Mustang was (is) a fine mount, and while it shares the mantra as
>>> the "best" fighter with others, each fighter had to be flown in
>>> it's design environment.
>>>
>>> It was best (designed to be) long range fighter ESCORT, which it
>>> excelled at.
>>>
>>> Down low and in the dirt, many other planes could out gun, out turn,
>>> out climb and out dive it..
>>>
>>> One of the best tactics for a P-51 pilot if caught down low was to
>>> get outta dodge.. Some of the enemy pilots called them "runstangs"
>>> (I forget the translation)
>>>
>>> But >15000 ft, while other planes started to wheeze.. the stang
>>> could still breathe, and , clearly in it's design element, was the
>>> ride to have...up at that alt....
>>>
>>> As a "dogfighter" ? (within the definition) .. nope...
>>
>>
>> I'd love to find out, but basically we're arguing about which
>> supermodel we'd sleep with, of course.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Roflamo ! True that !
>

Very! The truth is you gotta have a lotta money, time and luck to get
into either.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Morgans wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>>
>>>> The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes but it
>>>> was nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
>>>> I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the F8F
>>>> Bearcat one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the meaning of the
>>>> term "prop fighter performance".
>>>> In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been mass
>>>> produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its match
>>>> anywhere.
>>> Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.
>>>
>>> Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort missions?
>>>
>>> How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
>> The Bear had VERY short legs and even with the drop tank would never have
>> made it as a long range fighter.
>> In close, intercept, and shoot it down fast was the Bear's prime intended
>> function.
>>
> Designed to defeat Kamikazes' at a distance, no?
>
>
Not all that far really. Total fuel was 185 gals without the drop tank,
so the range was severely limited. Figuring climb, cruise and combat
power settings, I'd say less than 90 minutes to bingo fuel.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 15, 6:28 pm, wrote:
> A buddy of mine recorded some History Channel show and I watched it.
> The show was "Dogfight", and this episode was on P-51s fighting
> ME109s, FW190, ME262s, and some Japanese planes.

Dude, you're a pilot and you haven't seen the show "Dogflights"!! OMG,
dude you need to try to get all the old episodes and make sure you
Tivo the new ones. There has never been a show more perfect for pilots
than this.
-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:b722a123-240d-4475-bab9-
:

> On Dec 15, 6:28 pm, wrote:
>> A buddy of mine recorded some History Channel show and I watched it.
>> The show was "Dogfight", and this episode was on P-51s fighting
>> ME109s, FW190, ME262s, and some Japanese planes.
>
> Dude, you're a pilot and you haven't seen the show "Dogflights"!! OMG,
> dude you need to try to get all the old episodes and make sure you
> Tivo the new ones. There has never been a show more perfect for pilots
> than this.
> -Robert
>

Well, maybe the Emmanualle series.


Bertie

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:11:04 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

> On Dec 15, 6:28 pm, wrote:
> > A buddy of mine recorded some History Channel show and I watched it.
> > The show was "Dogfight", and this episode was on P-51s fighting
> > ME109s, FW190, ME262s, and some Japanese planes.
>
> Dude, you're a pilot and you haven't seen the show "Dogflights"!! OMG,
> dude you need to try to get all the old episodes and make sure you
> Tivo the new ones. There has never been a show more perfect for pilots
> than this.

That must be true; it explains why it's been canceled....

Ron Wanttaja

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Dave > said:
>The Spit, with the cannons, an early (and often "lucky", - according
>to him) short burst on the mark, and the fight was over.
>
>He claimed he could EASILY out turn the Stang, more so with the Mk5
>Spit, which he liked the best. (they used to "compare" planes, - he
>did not elaborate.. :) )

The Mark V Spitfire had cannons? I thought that one still had the 8
..303s?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-- Arthur C. Clarke

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, (Paul Tomblin) said:
>In a previous article, Dave > said:
>>The Spit, with the cannons, an early (and often "lucky", - according
>>to him) short burst on the mark, and the fight was over.
>>
>>He claimed he could EASILY out turn the Stang, more so with the Mk5
>>Spit, which he liked the best. (they used to "compare" planes, - he
>>did not elaborate.. :) )
>
>The Mark V Spitfire had cannons? I thought that one still had the 8
>.303s?

Ok, I looked it up myself. Most of the Vs had "B wing" with 2x20mm and
4x.303.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Microsoft: bringing the world to your desktop -- and your desktop to
the world.
-- Peter Gutmann

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 17, 8:07 pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:11:04 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary" >
> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 6:28 pm, wrote:
> > > A buddy of mine recorded some History Channel show and I watched it.
> > > The show was "Dogfight", and this episode was on P-51s fighting
> > > ME109s, FW190, ME262s, and some Japanese planes.
>
> > Dude, you're a pilot and you haven't seen the show "Dogflights"!! OMG,
> > dude you need to try to get all the old episodes and make sure you
> > Tivo the new ones. There has never been a show more perfect for pilots
> > than this.
>
> That must be true; it explains why it's been canceled....

I don't see any evidence of that on the History Channel's web site or
at the wikipedia entry for the show. Is there a news release for this?

-Robert

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:10:50 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

> On Dec 17, 8:07 pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:11:04 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 15, 6:28 pm, wrote:
> > > > A buddy of mine recorded some History Channel show and I watched it.
> > > > The show was "Dogfight", and this episode was on P-51s fighting
> > > > ME109s, FW190, ME262s, and some Japanese planes.
> >
> > > Dude, you're a pilot and you haven't seen the show "Dogflights"!! OMG,
> > > dude you need to try to get all the old episodes and make sure you
> > > Tivo the new ones. There has never been a show more perfect for pilots
> > > than this.
> >
> > That must be true; it explains why it's been canceled....
>
> I don't see any evidence of that on the History Channel's web site or
> at the wikipedia entry for the show. Is there a news release for this?

That's what they seem to be saying on the Forums section of the HC web page.

Ron Wanttaja

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:29:30 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:16:28 -0500, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Morgans wrote:
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes but it was
>>>>> nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
>>>>> I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the F8F Bearcat
>>>>> one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the meaning of the term "prop
>>>>> fighter performance".
>>>>> In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been mass
>>>>> produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its match
>>>>> anywhere.
>>>> Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.
>>>>
>>>> Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort missions?
>>
>> As I recall the F8F had the most powerful piston engine ever used in a
>> fighter. Then later the same engine was used in the Skyraider. Now
>> there is one BIG airplane! Not very fast, but BIG!
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>>
>>>> How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
>>> The Bear had VERY short legs and even with the drop tank would never
>>> have made it as a long range fighter.
>>> In close, intercept, and shoot it down fast was the Bear's prime
>>> intended function.
>
>Hi Rog;
>
>The Bear can an R2800 in it. The -2 that I flew I believe had a 2800-30
>in it. The entire airplane was just a frame to support the engine.
>One of the things I liked about the Bear was that Grumman drooped the
>nose a bit (they did this on all their prop fighters) so you could
>actually see where the hell you were going. It was an awesome airplane.
>The prop at rest (had a huge Aero Products on the nose) looked like the
>diameter spanned the wing tips :-)) On takeoff, it broke ground before
>you could get the throttle up. Unlike the 51, you couldn't allow the
>stick to come forward a bit on the takeoff roll because of the severe
>lack of tip clearance on the prop. You took off 3 point and you landed 3
>point in the Bearcat.
>It was and still is a wonderful airplane!
>I think I can say with some degree of certainty that Streak wouldn't
>**** on the tires of the Bear, it was THAT pretty!!
>D

Oh, if it was that pretty it'd be almost a certainty he'd go so far as
to walk up to it standing on his front feet and tail in the air just
to make sure he claimed it as his property, *properly* <:-))
You do remember that cats are possessive and quite territorial.

I've only seen one, it was one slick piece of machinery.

Roger (K8RI)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:29:30 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:16:28 -0500, Dudley Henriques
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Morgans wrote:
>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes but it was
>>>>>> nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
>>>>>> I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the F8F Bearcat
>>>>>> one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the meaning of the term "prop
>>>>>> fighter performance".
>>>>>> In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been mass
>>>>>> produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its match
>>>>>> anywhere.
>>>>> Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort missions?
>>> As I recall the F8F had the most powerful piston engine ever used in a
>>> fighter. Then later the same engine was used in the Skyraider. Now
>>> there is one BIG airplane! Not very fast, but BIG!
>>>
>>> Roger (K8RI)
>>>
>>>>> How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
>>>> The Bear had VERY short legs and even with the drop tank would never
>>>> have made it as a long range fighter.
>>>> In close, intercept, and shoot it down fast was the Bear's prime
>>>> intended function.
>> Hi Rog;
>>
>> The Bear can an R2800 in it. The -2 that I flew I believe had a 2800-30
>> in it. The entire airplane was just a frame to support the engine.
>> One of the things I liked about the Bear was that Grumman drooped the
>> nose a bit (they did this on all their prop fighters) so you could
>> actually see where the hell you were going. It was an awesome airplane.
>> The prop at rest (had a huge Aero Products on the nose) looked like the
>> diameter spanned the wing tips :-)) On takeoff, it broke ground before
>> you could get the throttle up. Unlike the 51, you couldn't allow the
>> stick to come forward a bit on the takeoff roll because of the severe
>> lack of tip clearance on the prop. You took off 3 point and you landed 3
>> point in the Bearcat.
>> It was and still is a wonderful airplane!
>> I think I can say with some degree of certainty that Streak wouldn't
>> **** on the tires of the Bear, it was THAT pretty!!
>> D
>
> Oh, if it was that pretty it'd be almost a certainty he'd go so far as
> to walk up to it standing on his front feet and tail in the air just
> to make sure he claimed it as his property, *properly* <:-))
> You do remember that cats are possessive and quite territorial.
>
> I've only seen one, it was one slick piece of machinery.
>
> Roger (K8RI)

My bad; I meant to say he WOULD **** on the tires!!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dale[_3_]]

In article >,
Dave > wrote:

> Thanks Dale!
>
> Whatta great link! (and a great read)
>
> All versions are there, but the guys/ airplanes who could NOT turn
> with them did not file reports afterward.. :(
>
> There are many variables in a turn fight, and although turn radius is
> initially important, the ability to retain ENERGY in a turn fight
> rapidly becomes the determining factor in retaining what advantage
> you may have started with. So... the LONGER the fight, the
> plane/pilot that can, 1 - handle the "G"s, and 2- RETAIN energy has
> the best chance to win the engagement.
>
>
> When people talk of "favs" of fighters, not enough credit is often
> given to the pilots who made them so..
>
> I have had (and still have) the great privilage of speaking with one
> who was there, now quite elderly of course..
>
> But he can easily put perspective on this and other matters of the
> time.....
>
> He flew Spits and Hurri's , but was well aquainted with the Stang
> drivers who had a squad very close to them..
>
> There is an old saying, "only a fool takes a knife to a gunfight"..
> and they were careful not to "'Mix it up" in situations that were not
> to their (plane or pilot) advantage. Underestimating either ,
> according to him, was costly.
>
> As defenders, the Stang was a poor choice. It was suicide to turn low
> and slow with it. The Spit was in it's element as soon as the gear was
> up, and, according to him, sometimes WHILE the gear was coming up. The
> Stang was light on arms, (no cannons) , and you needed to get a lot
> of hits to do serious damage, so you had to "out turn" your opponnent
> for some time. The Stang also looses a lot of energy turning tight,
> and had a tendency (with the laminar flow wing) to stop flying
> suddenly.
>
> The Spit, with the cannons, an early (and often "lucky", - according
> to him) short burst on the mark, and the fight was over.
>
> He claimed he could EASILY out turn the Stang, more so with the Mk5
> Spit, which he liked the best. (they used to "compare" planes, - he
> did not elaborate.. :) )
>
> He said they left the high fights to the Stang drivers . The Spit
> was " totally out of breath for fighting at high alt" (his words) and
> was "the knife in the gunfight" above 15000 ft.
>
> Command was constantly telling the Stang squads, DO NOT follow the
> fight "down" .
>
> "Pick the fight you can win" he says.. "If you don't have the
> advantage, get away"....
>
> He came home...
>
> He is getting quite feeble now, but I was present a while back when he
> kept a group of RC pilots spell bound for an hour....
>
> There are not many still with us... :(
>
> Dave

I wouldn't tell any 352FG guys that the Mustang wasn't a good defense
fighter...google January 1, 1945. <G>

Certainly a Spitfire is going to "outturn" a Mustang, it has a better
power to weight ratio.

As for the Mustangs "stop flying suddenly"...I don't buy it. I have a
whopping 1 hour of Mustang time but found that it warns you quite well
of the impending stall. Mustang pilots I've talked to say the same
thing.

I just wanted to point out that the Mustang can "dogfight". I
understand the dynamics of air to air combat (albeit all of my fights
have been a computer sim, the rules still apply - except you don't
actually bleed <G>) and believe it's the pilot that wins the fight, not
the airplane.

I'm traveling to Memphis next month to attend the 85th birthday bash of
a 307th FS, 31st FG Mustang pilot. It is wonderful to be able to talk
to the guys from WWII. I regret that I didn't start listening to them
sooner.

Dale

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:24:25 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:10:50 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary" >
>wrote:
>
>> On Dec 17, 8:07 pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>> > On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:11:04 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Dec 15, 6:28 pm, wrote:
>> > > > A buddy of mine recorded some History Channel show and I watched it.
>> > > > The show was "Dogfight", and this episode was on P-51s fighting
>> > > > ME109s, FW190, ME262s, and some Japanese planes.
>> >
>> > > Dude, you're a pilot and you haven't seen the show "Dogflights"!! OMG,
>> > > dude you need to try to get all the old episodes and make sure you
>> > > Tivo the new ones. There has never been a show more perfect for pilots
>> > > than this.
>> >
>> > That must be true; it explains why it's been canceled....
>>
>> I don't see any evidence of that on the History Channel's web site or
>> at the wikipedia entry for the show. Is there a news release for this?
>
>That's what they seem to be saying on the Forums section of the HC web page.

They must have forgotten. It was on this morning (Wed) for two hours
and I think it's listed for 6 times on Friday witht he first being at
8:00AM and a bunch in the evening starting around 8:00 PM. I only
listed out the ones in HD, but it's a long way from being canceled.

They use a mix of real life, gun camera, archival, and <gasp> sim
footage to explain or demonstrate specifics of given confrontations.

Roger (K8RI)
>
>Ron Wanttaja

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:07:38 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:11:04 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary" >
>wrote:
>
>> On Dec 15, 6:28 pm, wrote:
>> > A buddy of mine recorded some History Channel show and I watched it.
>> > The show was "Dogfight", and this episode was on P-51s fighting
>> > ME109s, FW190, ME262s, and some Japanese planes.
>>
>> Dude, you're a pilot and you haven't seen the show "Dogflights"!! OMG,
>> dude you need to try to get all the old episodes and make sure you
>> Tivo the new ones. There has never been a show more perfect for pilots
>> than this.
>
>That must be true; it explains why it's been canceled....

Still on here via DISH Network although the shows are now into reruns.

Roger (K8RI)
>
>Ron Wanttaja

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:24:30 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:b722a123-240d-4475-bab9-
:
>
>> On Dec 15, 6:28 pm, wrote:
>>> A buddy of mine recorded some History Channel show and I watched it.
>>> The show was "Dogfight", and this episode was on P-51s fighting
>>> ME109s, FW190, ME262s, and some Japanese planes.
>>
>> Dude, you're a pilot and you haven't seen the show "Dogflights"!! OMG,
>> dude you need to try to get all the old episodes and make sure you
>> Tivo the new ones. There has never been a show more perfect for pilots
>> than this.
>> -Robert
>>
>
>Well, maybe the Emmanualle series.

Ahhh.. Bertie, we're talking airplanes here, not "submarine races"
<:-)) Although you do have a point.

Roger
>
>
>Bertie

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:20:36 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:

> >> > That must be true; it explains why it's been canceled....
> >>
> >> I don't see any evidence of that on the History Channel's web site or
> >> at the wikipedia entry for the show. Is there a news release for this?
> >
> >That's what they seem to be saying on the Forums section of the HC web page.
>
> They must have forgotten. It was on this morning (Wed) for two hours
> and I think it's listed for 6 times on Friday witht he first being at
> 8:00AM and a bunch in the evening starting around 8:00 PM. I only
> listed out the ones in HD, but it's a long way from being canceled.

"Canceled," I think, in whether they're still going to make new episodes. Lotsa
shows on cable continue to run and just repeat the same shows.

One of the forum pages says, "...someone who works at the History Channel who
told me that the decision to pull the show happened back in October (after one
night of a ratings dip when the show moved to Thursday) All the shows you have
seen were already in the works when the decision was made. There are only a few
more episodes left."

They also ran something like four new episodes in one week; kind of a sign
they're just dumping them.

Ron Wanttaja

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:46:28 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:20:36 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
>
>> >> > That must be true; it explains why it's been canceled....
>> >>
>> >> I don't see any evidence of that on the History Channel's web site or
>> >> at the wikipedia entry for the show. Is there a news release for this?
>> >
>> >That's what they seem to be saying on the Forums section of the HC web page.
>>
>> They must have forgotten. It was on this morning (Wed) for two hours
>> and I think it's listed for 6 times on Friday witht he first being at
>> 8:00AM and a bunch in the evening starting around 8:00 PM. I only
>> listed out the ones in HD, but it's a long way from being canceled.
>
>"Canceled," I think, in whether they're still going to make new episodes. Lotsa
>shows on cable continue to run and just repeat the same shows.
Run and run and run and ...

Makes sense.

>
>One of the forum pages says, "...someone who works at the History Channel who
>told me that the decision to pull the show happened back in October (after one
>night of a ratings dip when the show moved to Thursday) All the shows you have

These are very low budget shows with mainly archival and sim footage
narrated and you have to admit the audience would be rather
limited/specialized. It's not as if they compete against anything, or
OTOH they compete against everything. For most of the audience these
are the shows, actually channels/networks that most people watch when
there is little else one. It's only for a few of us that they are
primary shows. That and the big games and reality show the general
public watch are what send me too these networks. Besides, many of
these shows are pretty spectacular in HD and wide screen. At least
wide screen for a small living room. <:-))

>seen were already in the works when the decision was made. There are only a few
>more episodes left."

And I believe there is a sweeps week coming up, or at least a preview
for new shows.

Not many of the series on this group of channels are noted for long
life.

>
>They also ran something like four new episodes in one week; kind of a sign
>they're just dumping them.

Yup! Pretty good indication.

Roger (K8RI)
>
>Ron Wanttaja

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 19, 7:46 pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:

> "Canceled," I think, in whether they're still going to make new episodes. Lotsa
> shows on cable continue to run and just repeat the same shows.

It seems like a pretty popular show to be canceled. Perhaps another
network will purchase it. I can't seem to figure out who makes the
show (that's not uncommon, some networks don't want the production
company to advertise the fact that they produce the show to avoid
confusing people). My brother is a TV producer and has access to a DB
that should tell us what the production company is. It would be
interesting to know if they are shoping it to other venues.

-robert

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Dec 19, 7:46 pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>
>> "Canceled," I think, in whether they're still going to make new episodes. Lotsa
>> shows on cable continue to run and just repeat the same shows.
>
> It seems like a pretty popular show to be canceled. Perhaps another
> network will purchase it. I can't seem to figure out who makes the
> show (that's not uncommon, some networks don't want the production
> company to advertise the fact that they produce the show to avoid
> confusing people). My brother is a TV producer and has access to a DB
> that should tell us what the production company is. It would be
> interesting to know if they are shoping it to other venues.
>
> -robert
Actually, from my personal experience this is not surprising to me at all.
The "excitement" of war and aerial combat in particular piqued during
and immediately after WW2. I noticed the changes taking place even then
as I toured the air show circuit with WW2 fighters. You wouldn't
necessarily notice it if outside the aviation community as the changes
have been quite subtle.
Today, especially with young people, primarily young males, ( the show's
main demographic) the interest in air combat is not anywhere near what
it used to be.
This doesn't mean it's gone by a long shot, but even from what I have
seen within my own family, the interest is waning severely.
There is still a cadre of "aficionados" out here for shows like the
dogfights History Channel project, but I fear not a large enough cross
sectional demographic to support such a show for very long.



--
Dudley Henriques

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> Actually, from my personal experience this is not surprising to me at all.
> The "excitement" of war and aerial combat in particular piqued during and
> immediately after WW2.

That is an interesting observation.

I had observed that with the Military Channel (formerly the Aviation
Channel) and the History Channel, that many people that were not diehard
aviation finatics had discovered WW II history (and after) and had
discovered the coolness of learning about military aviation.

> I noticed the changes taking place even then as I toured the air show
> circuit with WW2 fighters. You wouldn't necessarily notice it if outside
> the aviation community as the changes have been quite subtle.
> Today, especially with young people, primarily young males, ( the show's
> main demographic) the interest in air combat is not anywhere near what it
> used to be.

Again, I see that many people not excited about it before, have enjoyed
learning more about it.

> This doesn't mean it's gone by a long shot, but even from what I have seen
> within my own family, the interest is waning severely.
> There is still a cadre of "aficionados" out here for shows like the
> dogfights History Channel project, but I fear not a large enough cross
> sectional demographic to support such a show for very long.

That may be, and probably is, ultimately true. There are not enough people
out there with their heads (and soles) in the clouds. Not enough to support
programming ratings, to keep it as alive as it needs to be, anyway.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
>> Actually, from my personal experience this is not surprising to me at all.
>> The "excitement" of war and aerial combat in particular piqued during and
>> immediately after WW2.
>
> That is an interesting observation.
>
> I had observed that with the Military Channel (formerly the Aviation
> Channel) and the History Channel, that many people that were not diehard
> aviation finatics had discovered WW II history (and after) and had
> discovered the coolness of learning about military aviation.
>
>> I noticed the changes taking place even then as I toured the air show
>> circuit with WW2 fighters. You wouldn't necessarily notice it if outside
>> the aviation community as the changes have been quite subtle.
>> Today, especially with young people, primarily young males, ( the show's
>> main demographic) the interest in air combat is not anywhere near what it
>> used to be.
>
> Again, I see that many people not excited about it before, have enjoyed
> learning more about it.
>
>> This doesn't mean it's gone by a long shot, but even from what I have seen
>> within my own family, the interest is waning severely.
>> There is still a cadre of "aficionados" out here for shows like the
>> dogfights History Channel project, but I fear not a large enough cross
>> sectional demographic to support such a show for very long.
>
> That may be, and probably is, ultimately true. There are not enough people
> out there with their heads (and soles) in the clouds. Not enough to support
> programming ratings, to keep it as alive as it needs to be, anyway.
>
>
Basically the issue I think. The ratings game in TV is murderous. Unless
programs like Dogfights develops a cult following almost in real time as
it airs, I don't believe whatever cross sectional demographic that
exists out here now will support it.
I guess time will tell. Whatever happens, it will be quick :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:28:52 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Morgans wrote:
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes but it
>>>>> was nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
>>>>> I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the F8F
>>>>> Bearcat one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the meaning of the
>>>>> term "prop fighter performance".
>>>>> In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been mass
>>>>> produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its match
>>>>> anywhere.
>>>> Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.
>>>>
>>>> Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort missions?
>>>>
>>>> How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
>>> The Bear had VERY short legs and even with the drop tank would never have
>>> made it as a long range fighter.
>>> In close, intercept, and shoot it down fast was the Bear's prime intended
>>> function.
>>>
>> Designed to defeat Kamikazes' at a distance, no?
>>
>>
>Not all that far really. Total fuel was 185 gals without the drop tank,
>so the range was severely limited. Figuring climb, cruise and combat
>power settings, I'd say less than 90 minutes to bingo fuel.

I was talking with a P-40 pilot up at GDW a while back and he said
they typically fly at economy cruise to cut the fuel consumption "way
back" to only 80 gallons per hour (give or take a tad) <:-))

Roger (K8RI)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:28:52 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Morgans wrote:
>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes but it
>>>>>> was nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
>>>>>> I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the F8F
>>>>>> Bearcat one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the meaning of the
>>>>>> term "prop fighter performance".
>>>>>> In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been mass
>>>>>> produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its match
>>>>>> anywhere.
>>>>> Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort missions?
>>>>>
>>>>> How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
>>>> The Bear had VERY short legs and even with the drop tank would never have
>>>> made it as a long range fighter.
>>>> In close, intercept, and shoot it down fast was the Bear's prime intended
>>>> function.
>>>>
>>> Designed to defeat Kamikazes' at a distance, no?
>>>
>>>
>> Not all that far really. Total fuel was 185 gals without the drop tank,
>> so the range was severely limited. Figuring climb, cruise and combat
>> power settings, I'd say less than 90 minutes to bingo fuel.
>
> I was talking with a P-40 pilot up at GDW a while back and he said
> they typically fly at economy cruise to cut the fuel consumption "way
> back" to only 80 gallons per hour (give or take a tad) <:-))
>
> Roger (K8RI)

That's about right for an Allison V1710. Makes me glad to be retired :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dale[_3_]]

In article >,
"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:


>
> I was talking with a P-40 pilot up at GDW a while back and he said
> they typically fly at economy cruise to cut the fuel consumption "way
> back" to only 80 gallons per hour (give or take a tad) <:-))
>
> Roger (K8RI)

That seems to be a bit high. A quick look found this link:
http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/avia/AVIA_734
_Report_783__Part_09.pdf

If I'm reading it right it shows 30MP/2300 RPM and a fuel burn rate of
only 58.5 GPH.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 17, 8:07*pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:11:04 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary" >
> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 6:28 pm, wrote:
> > > A buddy of mine recorded some History Channel show and I watched it.
> > > The show was "Dogfight", and this episode was on P-51s fighting
> > > ME109s, FW190, ME262s, and some Japanese planes.
>
> > Dude, you're a pilot and you haven't seen the show "Dogflights"!! OMG,
> > dude you need to try to get all the old episodes and make sure you
> > Tivo the new ones. There has never been a show more perfect for pilots
> > than this.
>
> That must be true; it explains why it's been canceled....

My brother checked his producer's database. The last entry for the
show was the order for the current season last March. Right now they
would normally be in contract negotiations with History Channel for
the next season. He said its probably most likely that both sides are
positioning for the negotiations at this point. His reason for saying
that is that Dogfights and Ice Road Truckers seem to be their marquee
shows so it would be a bit surprising if they really did just decide
not to order another season. BTW: He said they are making a version of
"dogfights" that includes dinosaurs rather that airplanes. Something
like "Jurassic fights".
He has the phone number for the production company that makes
Dogfights because he did some consulting for them awhile back (In TV
people move around all the time). He said he was tempted to call them
up and ask. :) He's going to see if he knows anyone who's working on
the show though.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:28:52 -0500, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Morgans wrote:
>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes
>>>>>>> but it was nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
>>>>>>> I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the
>>>>>>> F8F Bearcat one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the
>>>>>>> meaning of the term "prop fighter performance".
>>>>>>> In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been
>>>>>>> mass produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its
>>>>>>> match anywhere.
>>>>>> Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort
>>>>>> missions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
>>>>> The Bear had VERY short legs and even with the drop tank would
>>>>> never have made it as a long range fighter.
>>>>> In close, intercept, and shoot it down fast was the Bear's prime
>>>>> intended function.
>>>>>
>>>> Designed to defeat Kamikazes' at a distance, no?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Not all that far really. Total fuel was 185 gals without the drop
>>> tank, so the range was severely limited. Figuring climb, cruise and
>>> combat power settings, I'd say less than 90 minutes to bingo fuel.
>>
>> I was talking with a P-40 pilot up at GDW a while back and he said
>> they typically fly at economy cruise to cut the fuel consumption "way
>> back" to only 80 gallons per hour (give or take a tad) <:-))
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>
> That's about right for an Allison V1710. Makes me glad to be retired
> :-))

Really? Even at cruise? Sounds high to me. I would have thought a bit
over half that anyway at say, 240 knots. We used to burn about 45 with
an 1830, for instance. I could see the allison easily burning 80 doing
aerobatics, though.


Bertie
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:28:52 -0500, Dudley Henriques
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Morgans wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all altitudes
>>>>>>>> but it was nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
>>>>>>>> I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the
>>>>>>>> F8F Bearcat one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the
>>>>>>>> meaning of the term "prop fighter performance".
>>>>>>>> In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had been
>>>>>>>> mass produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen its
>>>>>>>> match anywhere.
>>>>>>> Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort
>>>>>>> missions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
>>>>>> The Bear had VERY short legs and even with the drop tank would
>>>>>> never have made it as a long range fighter.
>>>>>> In close, intercept, and shoot it down fast was the Bear's prime
>>>>>> intended function.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Designed to defeat Kamikazes' at a distance, no?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Not all that far really. Total fuel was 185 gals without the drop
>>>> tank, so the range was severely limited. Figuring climb, cruise and
>>>> combat power settings, I'd say less than 90 minutes to bingo fuel.
>>> I was talking with a P-40 pilot up at GDW a while back and he said
>>> they typically fly at economy cruise to cut the fuel consumption "way
>>> back" to only 80 gallons per hour (give or take a tad) <:-))
>>>
>>> Roger (K8RI)
>> That's about right for an Allison V1710. Makes me glad to be retired
>> :-))
>
> Really? Even at cruise? Sounds high to me. I would have thought a bit
> over half that anyway at say, 240 knots. We used to burn about 45 with
> an 1830, for instance. I could see the allison easily burning 80 doing
> aerobatics, though.
>
>
> Bertie
>
A lot of the "savvy" guys had a tendency to run a bit on the high side
to keep the plugs cleaner. The Merlin would foul the plugs easily if you
favored low power settings and didn't blow it out every once in a while.
Not so sure about the Allison but most likely the same.

Talking min fuel only it's true you can get it down to way less with no
trouble.
The Merlin could be brought all the way back to 28.5" at 1600RPM down as
low as 5K feet and that brought the fuel burn down to around 42gph. Up
high, you could take the blower off the auto switch and into manual low
blower and get a better fuel burn up there as well.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:28:52 -0500, Dudley Henriques
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Morgans wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The 51 was a fine airplane, and it worked well at all
altitudes
>>>>>>>>> but it was nearing the end of its run at the end of the war.
>>>>>>>>> I loved the airplane and flew it often but for me, flying the
>>>>>>>>> F8F Bearcat one sunny afternoon in December, redefined the
>>>>>>>>> meaning of the term "prop fighter performance".
>>>>>>>>> In my opinion, if the war had lingered on and the Bear had
been
>>>>>>>>> mass produced for both theaters, the F8F would have not seen
its
>>>>>>>>> match anywhere.
>>>>>>>> Interesting. I had never heard that expressed, before.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would the F8F had the legs to do the long range bomber escort
>>>>>>>> missions?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about top speeds; was it as fast, or faster than the 51?
>>>>>>> The Bear had VERY short legs and even with the drop tank would
>>>>>>> never have made it as a long range fighter.
>>>>>>> In close, intercept, and shoot it down fast was the Bear's prime
>>>>>>> intended function.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Designed to defeat Kamikazes' at a distance, no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not all that far really. Total fuel was 185 gals without the drop
>>>>> tank, so the range was severely limited. Figuring climb, cruise
and
>>>>> combat power settings, I'd say less than 90 minutes to bingo fuel.
>>>> I was talking with a P-40 pilot up at GDW a while back and he said
>>>> they typically fly at economy cruise to cut the fuel consumption
"way
>>>> back" to only 80 gallons per hour (give or take a tad) <:-))
>>>>
>>>> Roger (K8RI)
>>> That's about right for an Allison V1710. Makes me glad to be retired
>>> :-))
>>
>> Really? Even at cruise? Sounds high to me. I would have thought a bit
>> over half that anyway at say, 240 knots. We used to burn about 45
with
>> an 1830, for instance. I could see the allison easily burning 80
doing
>> aerobatics, though.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> A lot of the "savvy" guys had a tendency to run a bit on the high side
> to keep the plugs cleaner. The Merlin would foul the plugs easily if
you
> favored low power settings and didn't blow it out every once in a
while.
> Not so sure about the Allison but most likely the same.
>
> Talking min fuel only it's true you can get it down to way less with
no
> trouble.
> The Merlin could be brought all the way back to 28.5" at 1600RPM down
as
> low as 5K feet and that brought the fuel burn down to around 42gph. Up
> high, you could take the blower off the auto switch and into manual
low
> blower and get a better fuel burn up there as well.
>

Yeah, sounds more like it! I presume they hat auto rich and lean rather
than manual as well. I didn't suggest taking min fuel, BTW
I talked to a P40 owner years ago at an airshow and he had come from
quite a ways away. I asked him how much it cost to get there and he told
me it was about the same as his pickup at econ cruise, about 12 mpg.




Bertie