#1 Jet of World War II

Subject: #1 Jet of World War II
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 7/24/03 10:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

No, the point of the war was to fly the missions at a cost we could afford
(preferably the lowest cost to ourselves) and the highest co

You live in a dream world of unreality. Many missions had to be flown no
matter what the cost. And we flew them. And paid the price.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

ArtKramr wrote:

Subject: #1 Jet of World War II
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 7/24/03 10:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

No, the point of the war was to fly the missions at a cost we could afford
(preferably the lowest cost to ourselves) and the highest co

You live in a dream world of unreality. Many missions had to be flown no
matter what the cost. And we flew them. And paid the price.

Whatever, Art, I'm not going to waste any more energy arguing with you.

Guy

From: nt (Gordon)
Date: 7/21/03 10:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

The late model Mosquitoes could carry up to 5,000 pounds of
bombs. In theory they could carry this to Berlin from England,
at most economical cruise and with minimal fuel reserves.


I undesrtand that there was a later model Mosquito on the drawing boards in
1944 that could carry 100,000 pounds of bombs with a 10,000 mile range at
1500
miles per hour all the way. I understand one prototype was built , took off
on
a test flight in 1944 and is still up there. But I don't really believe
that
last part.Do you?

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

I have a more pertinent question - why did you attribute the posting to me? I
didn't write it.

Gordon

I have three very cool photos of it, if you'd like to see scans?

I'd be delighted.

Consider it half-completed

I'll pull and scan them in the next couple days - a bit hectic with the move
and all.

v/r
Gordon

In message , ArtKramr
writes
You fly where you are told to fly. Nobody will ever ask you for "your
definition" of anything.

The operational analyst will, these days. (If he didn't splice some
recording gear into your aircraft anyway)

Got to get as much info on what works and what doesn't, as you can:
there's a lot less margin for error these days.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

The most exciting takeoff was in a contest between an F-8F and, as I
remember it, an F-9F. They left the start at the same time and a couple of
hundred feet later the F-8 went straight up. It was at a couple of thousand
feet (maybe not quite that high) before the F-9 left the ground.

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Cub Driver wrote:

I shall have to re-play my tape of a UK airshow that Douglas Bader
narrates
and tells of his first flight in a jet it went something like "Well,
there I
sat in the cockpit ready for my first flight and braced myself.....and
you
know, the thing took off down the runway like an old lorry!"

That sounds about right. The B-47 had the advantage of peacetime
development, but its engines were so slow to spool up that the plane
had to land under power with a parachute. Lacking the power, it would
crash if it had to go around.

While correct about the B-47, you're talking about two separate issues.
The
Meteor's (and all early jets) slow accel time on take-off had nothing to
do with
spool-up time, as they'd already be spooled up prior to takeoff, and
everything
to do with their relatively low power to weight ratios and low thrust at
low
speeds. I will now make way for Mr. Stickney, who I trust will be along
any
moment now to give his thrust vs. power lecture, much as it must irritate
him to
have to constantly repeat it ;-)

Guy

P.S. Say, Pete and Urban, this is the sort of thing that definitely
belongs in
the FAQ. That will save lots of typing (and teeth-gnashing) in future.

The Kikka was a copy, not a follow on, and very few were produced. The
Sukhoi SU-9 was a single engine, delta wing design in no way related
to the 262, while I fail to see any relationship of the SU-11 to the
Me.

Al, there was an earlier Sukhoi with the same designation that was scotched by
Stalin personally, as he was convinced it was nothing more than a 262 copy
(which it was).

I am unfamiliar with the S.92, and I cannot find it in any of my
references or Google. Please let me know where I can research it.

Its a Czech version of the 262. The Nazis built some of their 262s in
waldwerks and in other out of the way places, distributing production to escape
Allied bombing (didn't work, btw - quality control was absolutely awful and
many of these a/c were "completed" but never flew). Towards the end, the trend
was reversed and gigantic, protected shelters were built to house factories
underground - made no difference of course, there were means available to
penetrate such structures as Kahla, etc.

At any rate, some of the production was shifted to Czechoslovakia and when the
curtain fell on Hitler's insane 15 minutes of fame, the Czechs found themselves
with a country littered with Nazi hardware and small production facilities.
Included in this bonanza were production lines for the 262, as well as quite a
few examples and piles of spares. These parts were assembled postwar into the
CS 92 (2-seater equating to the Me 262 B-1a dual control trainer - NOT a
nightfighter as some think) and the S-92 singleseat nightfighter. Before you
correct me as to its status as a 'follow on', I wouldn't suggest that it was -
these were essentially parts-birds. Two examples remain at the Kbely aviation
museum, I believe.

Getting back to the earlier "262-ski" built by the Soviets - it was absolutely
a follow on, albeit short lived. I think the role of the Me 262 in history was
to act as a dividing line between prop fighter supremacy and the rise of the
jet. General Arnold agreed with this and made remarks that "We were really
lucky, weren't we?", when he was given an 'airshow' with a captured example.

v/r

Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

These parts were assembled postwar into the
CS 92 (2-seater equating to the Me 262 B-1a dual control trainer - NOT a
nightfighter as some think) and the S-92 singleseat nightfighter.

#$%#&

I hate when I do that. The S-92 was a single-seat day fighter. I knew better
LOL Shows what a crappy "aviation expert" I am, eh?

v/r
Gordon

nt (Gordon) wrote:


#$%#&

I hate when I do that. The S-92 was a single-seat day fighter. I knew better
LOL Shows what a crappy "aviation expert" I am, eh?

v/r
Gordon

Dammit Gordon, that's TWO MISTAKES this YEAR...if Michael sees
this SECOND one then your goose is cooked!...
--

-Gord.