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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
ArtKramr wrote: I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more? Regards, Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer Mig 1.44? Has it ever really flown to spec? Bob -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:54:21 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote: "Scott Ferrin" Unless that's how *you* define a loser. Scott Ferrin a loser? That has been an elephant in the room for some time now. Were's those pictures of the strakes? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:39:24 GMT, Scott Ferrin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:04:18 -0500, machf wrote: On 30 Nov 2003 20:43:58 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote: I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more? Would the F-22 fit in this category, or is it too early to tell yet? Definitely not. It's met or exceeding all of it's requirements. Unless that's how *you* define a loser. It's far too early to tell. You don't know any more than I do the circumstances under which it sees action. In 10 or 20 years time, technology will certainly have advanced: it may be that the F-22 is seen as a wonder weapon, or it may be seen as technically accomplished but obsolete, like the Yamato. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse the last two letters). |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
In article Rwxyb.533404$pl3.92056@pd7tw3no,
"Ed Majden" wrote: "Chad Irby" You should remember that with small fission warheads at high altitudes, there is very little fallout, and practically zero compared to even a single megaton-level ground strike. What makes you think that these would have been high level blasts??? Because the Soviets never had anything that could make it all the way to the US at low level. And with the size of warhead we're talking about for most of these, you'd only need to be a couple of thousand feet up to eliminate fallout from a ground burst. Tactics with the B52 was a ground hugger to avoid SAMS and radar detection. ....but stayed at higher altitudes until they got in close. Not to mention the B-52 had a *lot* more range at low level, and a lot of top speed over the Bears of the period. Any Russian planes coming in over Canada could not have been running low and still plan on making it to the US. Incinerating a Bear full of nuclear warheads would have created a severe nuclear fall out problem! Not as much as you'd think. Even at close range, you wouldn't "incinerate" a plane. You'd need a fairly dead-on hit to vaporize even one. Small nukes have small fireballs. Any Soviet planes hit by one of these would prettybe blown out of the sky, but the effects would be no worse than getting shot down in the first place. Not to mention that they planned on using the same size of warhead over most of the continental US for air defense.. U.S. Bomarc sites were near the Canada/U.S. border and most intercepts would have taken place over Canada.. But there were US interceptor planes all over, and the Genie air-to-air missile was in the inventory (we built over a thousand of them), with a 1.5 kiloton warhead. It was unguided, too, and only had a 6 mile range, which made for some interesting attack plans. Then there was the Nike-Hercules SAM, with a "switchable" warhead of between 2 and 40 kilotons. I know of at least one near Dallas, and that's nowhere *near* Canada. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" Not as much as you'd think. Even at close range, you wouldn't "incinerate" a plane. You'd need a fairly dead-on hit to vaporize even one. Small nukes have small fireballs. Any Soviet planes hit by one of these would prettybe blown out of the sky, but the effects would be no worse than getting shot down in the first place. Good thing we didn't have to go through a nuclear war to see who is right! One of our base hospitals had an appropriate sign at the entrance. "What to do in case of a nuclear attack: Answer: "Stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye!" |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Hobo" wrote in message ... In article , "Tarver Engineering" wrote: Scott Ferrin a loser? That has been an elephant in the room for some time now. This is unprovoked. Hardly. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:16:03 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote: "Hobo" wrote in message ... In article , "Tarver Engineering" wrote: Scott Ferrin a loser? That has been an elephant in the room for some time now. This is unprovoked. Hardly. Yeah it really ****es you off when someone calls you on something doesn't it? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Sukhoi's SU-2. However, its engine (actuallu, its derivatives) proved itself
when mached to LaGG-3 airframe, resultig in La-5/7/9 -- Nele NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA Chad Irby wrote in message ... In article The classic turkey: The Fisher XP-75 Eagle -- supposed to become an escort fighter, built from parts of several production aircraft. One of the first real proofs that you can make all sorts of things fly with a big enough engine. Mc Donnell F3H-1 Demon -- like the "gutless Cutlass," underpowered, designed to be supersonic. ...and the corresponding "with a poor engine, any plane can be a piece of crap." Martin P5M Seamaster ("Seamonster") jet Medium bomber seaplane. P6M. The P5M was the Marlin. (Although the P6M was based off of the P5M). And let's not forget the corresponding fighter, the cool-looking but problematic Sea Dart - I would have loved to see one of these in the air. Convair XFY-1 VTOL fighter, along with the Lockheed XFV-1 -- both tailsitters. Pilots found the transition from flight to tail-first vertical landing too hard to do. Oddly enough, the tailsitter designs are coming back... without the pilots. Some of the more promising UAVs look much like the pogo planes, since the computers running them have much less trouble dealing with that transition than people do. For some reason, many pilots don't like trying to land an aircraft while lying on their backs. There are so many wonderful example of planes that sucked... The XA2D Skyshark, which showed that early turboprops often weren't ready for prime time, and reminded us that contrarotating props had their own issues. Then there's the slow but loud XF-84H, with a turboprop engine and a big fat prop up front. Which shows that you can screw up anything if you try hard enough. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Tell that to Mr. Rasimus. He will certainly disagree with You!
-- Nele NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA Frank Vaughan wrote in message ... snip Didn't one of the early MiG's (17/19/21) have such short legs that the running joke was that you needed one to guard each end of the airfield? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Frank Vaughan "Spectre Gunner" Vietnam Veteran -- AC-130E Spectre Gunships 16th Special Operations Squadron (USAF) "We were winning when I left." Visit my Gunship page at: www.gunships.org |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Majden" ) writes:
"Chad Irby" You should remember that with small fission warheads at high altitudes, there is very little fallout, and practically zero compared to even a single megaton-level ground strike. What makes you think that these would have been high level blasts??? Tactics with the B52 was a ground hugger to avoid SAMS and radar detection. Incinerating a Bear full of nuclear warheads would have created a severe nuclear fall out problem! Not to mention that they planned on using the same size of warhead over most of the continental US for air defense.. U.S. Bomarc sites were near the Canada/U.S. border and most intercepts would have taken place over Canada.. Bomarc bases were hard sites. Fighter aircraft like the CF-105 would have been dispersed all over the country to forward bases in the event of an attack. They could also have been able to be called back in case of an error. A Bomarc was a one way trip! Except there were no forward bases to deploy the Arrow from, nor did it have air-to-air refueling capacity. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | September 2nd 04 05:15 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | April 5th 04 03:04 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 1 | January 2nd 04 09:02 PM |