B-17 with V-1 Missile Pic

[robert arndt]

http://www.aerofiles.com/boe-b17gv1.jpg

Rob

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)
>
>
>http://www.aerofiles.com/boe-b17gv1.jpg
>
>Rob
>

Nice pic, but that's not a V-1. It's a USAF Loon which was U.S. made.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: B-17 with V-1 Missile Pic
>From: (B2431)
>Date: 1/22/04 10:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>From: (robert arndt)
>>
>>
>>http://www.aerofiles.com/boe-b17gv1.jpg
>>
>>Rob
>>
>
>Nice pic, but that's not a V-1. It's a USAF Loon which was U.S. made.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Speaking of loons.....(grin)




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[robert arndt]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: (robert arndt)
> >
> >
> >http://www.aerofiles.com/boe-b17gv1.jpg
> >
> >Rob
> >
>
> Nice pic, but that's not a V-1. It's a USAF Loon which was U.S. made.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Sorry, the aerofiles site has that photo labeled as a captured V-1 but
since it came from Wright Field testing it had to be a JB-2 Loon.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/loon.htm

Notice, however, that the Loon is also described as being catapult
launched since the "pulsejet would only operate in forward flight". So
nice of that to be mentioned.

Rob:)

[Dave Kearton]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...

| Sorry, the aerofiles site has that photo labeled as a captured V-1 but
| since it came from Wright Field testing it had to be a JB-2 Loon.
|
| http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/loon.htm
|
| Notice, however, that the Loon is also described as being catapult
| launched since the "pulsejet would only operate in forward flight". So
| nice of that to be mentioned.
|
| Rob:)



Weren't Loons to be launched from surfaced submarines ?



ISTR a Glenn Ford movie on the subject - that's proof enough for me. ;-)





Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Andreas Parsch]

robert arndt wrote:

>
> Sorry, the aerofiles site has that photo labeled as a captured V-1 but
> since it came from Wright Field testing it had to be a JB-2 Loon.
>
> http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/loon.htm
>
> Notice, however, that the Loon is also described as being catapult
> launched since the "pulsejet would only operate in forward flight". So
> nice of that to be mentioned.


Just to clarify this: I wrote this article, and while I indeed thought
that a pulsejet needs at least some mimimal forward velocity to
operate properly, I've now learned (in the ongoing discussion here on
r.a.m.) that this is not the case. I really regret this error, and
have already rephrased the sentence in question in the original
article on my own site.

Regards
Andreas

[Andreas Parsch]

Dave Kearton wrote:

>
> Weren't Loons to be launched from surfaced submarines ?


Yes, using a solid-rocket booster and a short launch rail.

[Cub Driver]

>Nice pic, but that's not a V-1. It's a USAF Loon which was U.S. made.

I haven't read the earlier posts, but if the question is whether a
B-17 ever carried a V-1, the answer is yes.

Glen Edwards was the test pilot in Utah on this project. The B-17
carried a captured V-1 under each wing. See Glen Edwards: Diary of a
Bomber Pilot www.warbirdforum.com/order.htm


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Kevin Brooks]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> (B2431) wrote in message
>...
> > >From: (robert arndt)
> > >
> > >
> > >http://www.aerofiles.com/boe-b17gv1.jpg
> > >
> > >Rob
> > >
> >
> > Nice pic, but that's not a V-1. It's a USAF Loon which was U.S. made.
> >
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Sorry, the aerofiles site has that photo labeled as a captured V-1 but
> since it came from Wright Field testing it had to be a JB-2 Loon.
>
> http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/loon.htm
>
> Notice, however, that the Loon is also described as being catapult
> launched since the "pulsejet would only operate in forward flight". So
> nice of that to be mentioned.

Too bad they are wrong in using that particular choice of verbage, since we
KNOW the Loon's engine could indeed operate and produce thrust in a static
mode; the catapult just shortens the required take-off length to a
manageable amount (there is no doubt that if you fired one up on a
long-enough runway that it could accelerate to a speed sufficient to get it
airborne, but then you'd have to have an undercarriage of sorts, etc.). As
has been pointed out to you by many posters, some of whom have demonstrated
one hell of a lot more expertise in the subject matter than you have, the
pulse jet can indeed operate and produce thrust in a static mount, and some
can even be started without any external forced air supply. Why you are
being so hard-headed in the face of proof, both verbal and visual, that your
rants are wrong is beyond me.

Brooks

>
> Rob:)

[Andreas Parsch]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

>
> Too bad they are wrong in using that particular choice of verbage, [...]


Admitted (see my other posting).

Andreas

[Kevin Brooks]

"Andreas Parsch" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> >
> > Too bad they are wrong in using that particular choice of verbage, [...]
>
>
> Admitted (see my other posting).

Sorry, Andreas--that was not intended as any kind of shot at your efforts.
Rob OTOH has persisted to argue outright falshoods in spite of his having
been provided overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He could take a lesson
grom the graciousness you have exhibited in admitting your own minor error
in wording. My compliments to you.

Brooks

>
> Andreas
>

[Andreas Parsch]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

>
> Sorry, Andreas--that was not intended as any kind of shot at your efforts.


Thanks - but I already knew that :-). Anyway, I felt a bit embarrassed
to be quoted in favour of a "lost cause", so I just wanted to confirm
again that I do no longer support that statement.

Andreas

[Bruce Simpson]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:08:59 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>Too bad they are wrong in using that particular choice of verbage, since we
>KNOW the Loon's engine could indeed operate and produce thrust in a static
>mode; the catapult just shortens the required take-off length to a
>manageable amount (there is no doubt that if you fired one up on a
>long-enough runway that it could accelerate to a speed sufficient to get it
>airborne, but then you'd have to have an undercarriage of sorts, etc.). As
>has been pointed out to you by many posters, some of whom have demonstrated
>one hell of a lot more expertise in the subject matter than you have, the
>pulse jet can indeed operate and produce thrust in a static mount, and some
>can even be started without any external forced air supply. Why you are
>being so hard-headed in the face of proof, both verbal and visual, that your
>rants are wrong is beyond me.

Perhaps we should all remember that the Tomahawk crusie missile is
usually either air-droopped or launched using a solid rocket booster
-- is this because the gas-turbine engine that powers it is incapable
of operating without forward airspeed? Hell no -- its because it's
not only dangerous but quite impractical for a cruise missile (V1 or
Tomahawk) to take off like a conventional aircraft using a runway.

The V1 catapault served the same purpose as the Tomahawk's SRB --
simply a method of getting the entire craft up to flying speed in the
shortest amount of time and distance.

--
you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/