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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
B-17 with V-1 Missile Pic
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: 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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
(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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Kearton wrote:
Weren't Loons to be launched from surfaced submarines ? Yes, using a solid-rocket booster and a short launch rail. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote:
Too bad they are wrong in using that particular choice of verbage, [...] Admitted (see my other posting). Andreas |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
V-4 Missile Possibilities | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 42 | January 23rd 04 05:40 AM |
Australia to participate in US missile defence program | David Bromage | Military Aviation | 40 | December 13th 03 01:52 PM |
Titor's Time Machine... USAF Missile Box??? | Jason Strong | Military Aviation | 8 | November 28th 03 12:51 AM |
AIM-54 Phoenix missile | Sujay Vijayendra | Military Aviation | 89 | November 3rd 03 09:47 PM |
Surface to Air Missile threat | PlanetJ | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | August 14th 03 02:13 PM |