If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: #1 Jet of World War II
From: vzlion Date: 7/8/03 7:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time My hat is off to them. But, it's just not the same as combat with something that can shoot back at you. Walt The subject is not "you" It is defending your country from attack while destroying enemy assets. They did all that. Arthur Kramer Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Gordon (not quite as well spelled but what the
hay) Dammit, my spelling poodle must have dozed off again. Would you believe I now type with a central Texas twang...? No...? Not buying it, are we. ? Shoot. One must give credit where due and the Germans certainly did themselves proud in this ground-breaking mechanical engineering feat. I think the 262, like the X-1, are on a par in level of importance. The X-1 was capable, marginally, of supersonic flight but only for a brief period. So what? It signalled to all that supersonic flight was viable and the way to the future. In the same manner, the Me was the historical dividing line for fighter aircraft, the machine that proved jet fighters were a viable and superior alternative to propeller-driven machines. From that moment on, prop fighters were an anachronism and every Allied pilot that saw one knew it. If it was a Grumman product, I'd love it even more. Perhaps thats why I love the Panther as well! ) v/r Gordon |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 20:42:14 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Why isn't the V-1 an enemy aircraft? It doesn't have a pilot. It was a missile, not an aircraft. -- Phil "If only sarcasm could overturn bureaucracies" -- NTK, commenting on www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_29.html |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:07:56 GMT, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 06:08:42 -0400, Cub Driver wrote: Shooting down V-1s, Piper Cubs, and unarmed transports may be a worthy war-winning goal, like typing up the morning report, but it's not what makes a fighter pilot--or plane. Few people risked death typing up morning reports. Pilots did die as consequences of Anti-Diver patrols. The level of risk is not equivalent. True but irrelevant; we were discussing the Meteor's ability as a fighter aircraft, for which what is relevant is its record in combat with other aircraft, especially fighters and bombers with a capability to fight back. -- Phil "If only sarcasm could overturn bureaucracies" -- NTK, commenting on www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_29.html |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Keith Willshaw wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message rthlink.net... "vzlion" wrote in message ... Well, the difference is that the bomber has the potential to detect the enemy night fighter and fight back, the V-1 doesn't. It just flies along until it quits or is shot down. But if the bomber doesn't detect the enemy fighter it won't fight back. It will just fly along until it is shot down. And in the case of the Mosquito had no guns to shoot back with. Keith Emphasis on the word *back* of course ! :-) PB |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
But if the bomber doesn't detect the enemy fighter it won't fight back. It will just fly along until it is shot down. And in the case of the Mosquito had no guns to shoot back with. Keith Emphasis on the word *back* of course ! The Mosquito bomber had no guns to shoot with, front or back, PB. The FB did, but that is not what Keith was referring to. v/r Gordon ====(A+C==== USN SAR Aircrew "Got anything on your radar, SENSO?" "Nothing but my forehead, sir." |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
vzlion wrote in message ... The pilots who destroyed the V-1s did an outstanding job and deserve all our respect. Thay had a job to do and they did it, and very effectively. And I'm sure they wouyld rather have been downing a manned fighter or bomber. My hat is off to them. But, it's just not the same as combat with something that can shoot back at you. I don't know... Seems to me when you're trying to blow up that much high-explosive, at fairly close range, it might as well be shooting back. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... Keith Willshaw wrote: Emphasis on the word *back* of course ! The pure bomber variants had no guns at all , they dropped the forward firing weapons in favor of a glazed nose Keith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | July 16th 04 05:27 AM |
FS: 1996 "Aircraft Of The World: A Complete Guide" Binder Sheet Singles | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | July 14th 04 07:34 AM |
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | January 26th 04 05:33 AM |
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | December 4th 03 05:40 AM |
FS: 1984 "Aces And Aircraft Of World War I" Harcover Edition Book | Jim Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 11th 03 06:24 AM |