PDA

View Full Version : Space suits for the Ho IX?



VonGrantoven
06-16-2008, 09:54 AM
I came across a very interesting picture of a pilot of a Ho IX.

Anyone have any info on this very 'Flash Gordon' looking rig?
http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff292/VonGrantoven/ho9v1_pilot.jpg ?

Gibbage1
06-16-2008, 02:33 PM
It was just a pressure suit for high altitude combat. Due to the Go-229's design, it was impossible to pressurize the cockpit, so this was there solution. Most likley, this was tested due too the leaked B-29 threat from the US. The USA leaked the spec's for the B-29 to the Germans, in hopes that they would dump a lot of resources into combating a high-alt high-speed heavy bomber. It worked, and worked very well.

stalkervision
06-16-2008, 02:39 PM
I didn't know Flash Gordon flew the Ho IX! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VonGrantoven
06-16-2008, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
It was just a pressure suit for high altitude combat. Due to the Go-229's design, it was impossible to pressurize the cockpit, so this was there solution. Most likley, this was tested due too the leaked B-29 threat from the US. The USA leaked the spec's for the B-29 to the Germans, in hopes that they would dump a lot of resources into combating a high-alt high-speed heavy bomber. It worked, and worked very well.
Interesting. I suspected it must be something of the sort.
Still, its an unbelievably cool retro-future setup!
Love the fishbowl helmet, the pipes, and especially the sexy curve on the cockpit frame.
The guy even has a little trapdoor on the front so he can grab a sandwich inflight!

Anyone have any more pics of this showing the full suit?

Gibbage1
06-17-2008, 12:49 AM
I gotta say, he looks very displeased about bring in that contraption....

PanzerAce
06-17-2008, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
It was just a pressure suit for high altitude combat. Due to the Go-229's design, it was impossible to pressurize the cockpit, so this was there solution. Most likley, this was tested due too the leaked B-29 threat from the US. The USA leaked the spec's for the B-29 to the Germans, in hopes that they would dump a lot of resources into combating a high-alt high-speed heavy bomber. It worked, and worked very well.

I don't suppose you have ANY evidence to support the claim that the US leaked the specs to the Germans?

Skoshi Tiger
06-17-2008, 01:18 AM
I want one! Would even consider driving to work in it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If they had it I wonder if the Germans passed the information on to the Japanese where it could have been used or if it was too secret squirrel and hush hush!

Gibbage1
06-17-2008, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by PanzerAce:
I don't suppose you have ANY evidence to support the claim that the US leaked the specs to the Germans?

None what-so-ever. Then again, you dont have any evidence that supports the claim that the US didnt leak the specs.

Ow, wait... Blohm & Voss BV 155 and the Ta-152.. =)


From Wiki
"Due to the difficulties German interceptors were having when battling American B-17s, and in light of rumors of new B-29 bombers with better capabilities, the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (German Air Ministry, or "RLM") requested proposals from both Focke-Wulf and Messerschmitt for a high altitude interceptor. Messerschmitt answered with the Bf 109H, and Focke-Wulf with the Fw 190 Ra-2 and Fw 190 Ra-3, which soon became the Ta 152B and Ta 152H, both based on the then successful Fw 190 D-9."

"The Blohm & Voss BV 155 was a German high-altitude interceptor aircraft intended to be used by the Luftwaffe against raids by USAAF B-29's. Work started on the design in 1942, but the design went through a protracted development period and was still under construction when World War II ended."

Considering how much money they sunk into that BV-155, I would say it worked.

Capt.LoneRanger
06-17-2008, 01:23 AM
You're all wrong. The Ho IX could also work as a submarine! You guys never saw Thunderbirds?

Gibbage1
06-17-2008, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
You're all wrong. The Ho IX could also work as a submarine! You guys never saw Thunderbirds?

Hay you! Stop trying to sink my fishing trip! Its been a while since I trolled for Lufties. Looks like I got a big one!

VonGrantoven
06-17-2008, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I gotta say, he looks very displeased about bring in that contraption....
Actually he doesn't look entirely human... Kind of a strange shape to his eyes and a disquieting width to his forehead...

I always wondered about where the Germans got all that advanced technology. Perhaps all those stories of Foo fighters and Nazi UFOs wasnt all bumpf after all?

ytareh
06-17-2008, 02:15 AM
'Disquieting ' is putting it mildly he looks positively evil and considering the horrific experiments carried out on inmates in concentration camps to research this kind of technology its not surprising...

stalkervision
06-17-2008, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by ytareh:
'Disquieting ' is putting it mildly he looks positively evil and considering the horrific experiments carried out on inmates in concentration camps to research this kind of technology its not surprising...

I don't recall any inmates from concentration camps ever given suits like this. Research into high altittude effects on the body were studied. That was without any suits whatsoever though.

stalkervision
06-17-2008, 06:15 AM
If one looks at the helmut it is designed like a ball turret. I don't believe molding plexiglass into round shapes was very advanced in germany at the time. This is probably why it looks that way.

VonGrantoven
06-17-2008, 07:24 AM
The ball turret resemblance is the first thing that struck me.
In fact, at first glance I thought it might be a sort of 'wearable' canopy!

I am wondering why the Ho IX should be be any more difficult to pressurize than any other aircraft? I mean, if they could seal up a bus bus like a B-29, a single seat fighter should be a snap.

Aaron_GT
06-17-2008, 07:49 AM
Ow, wait... Blohm & Voss BV 155 and the Ta-152.. =)

BV-155 development started in early 1942, and it's not the sort of thing you develop on a whim. So the wikipedia quote about B-17s doesn't really apply as there were few sorties of B-17s over Germany in late 1941. The BV-155 or the concept of high altitude fighters wasn't exactly out of the blue even then as all major WW2 participants had looked at the idea from the end of the 1930s, with various levels of issuance of specification or development.

Perhaps the spur for the BV-155 might have been the realisation that if Germany was capable of developing high altitude recon bombers (Ju-86P) then other nations could too and they'd better have a counter to any future deployment of high altitude bombers. The high altitude capabilities of the B17 weren't exactly news in late 1941, but the entry of the USA into the war was.

In this sort of vein the UK started development of high altitude fighters before the Ju-86P had flown over the UK.

Given that the development of other types was turning out to be very protracted (the same was true of high altitude fighter development in the UK and USA) the Ta-152 was an engineering solution to the problem of protracted development - take an existing type and modify it rather than starting from scratch.

Aaron_GT
06-17-2008, 07:53 AM
I am wondering why the Ho IX should be be any more difficult to pressurize than any other aircraft?

A combination of construction materials (a high level of wood) and the shape. Typical pressure vessels of the time were based on cylindrical volumes. Trying to put a cyclindrical pressure vessel into the Ho would have been challenging. If you look at planes like the B-29 you see that the fuselage is circular and so easier to fit in the pressure vessels. It was also easier in the 109, but that was pressurised to a relatively low degree.

Gibbage1
06-17-2008, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
If one looks at the helmut it is designed like a ball turret. I don't believe molding plexiglass into round shapes was very advanced in germany at the time. This is probably why it looks that way.

Molded plexiglass tech was definitely lacking in Germany, noted by the extreme lack of full 1 peace bubble canopies. Even the FW-190's canopy had a brake down the center. The Japanese and Russians also had trouble making a full bubble 1 peace canopy. The US and Brit's seemed to have almost a monopoly on them, with the P-51D, P-47 and Typhoon, Tempest. It was definitely an advantage in dogfights.

luftluuver
06-17-2008, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:


Molded plexiglass tech was definitely lacking in Germany, noted by the extreme lack of full 1 peace bubble canopies. Even the FW-190's canopy had a brake down the center. The Japanese and Russians also had trouble making a full bubble 1 peace canopy. The US and Brit's seemed to have almost a monopoly on them, with the P-51D, P-47 and Typhoon, Tempest. It was definitely an advantage in dogfights.

Agh, for a modeler your lack of knowledge is showing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The 190's canopy was split because the track the canopy ran in narrowed towards the rear.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
06-17-2008, 04:26 PM
*Ahem!*

Gratuitous pre-war bubble canopy shot:


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/capture_03062008_100001.jpg


Now, can we expect to see vision-obstructing helmet bars in future versions of the Ho? We all seek authenticity after all, don't we?

Good to see you again, Mr Gibbage.

ploughman
06-17-2008, 04:35 PM
Nice retractable tail wheel there Grommit.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
06-17-2008, 04:51 PM
...And Fowler flaps and Handley-Page slats and four cannon and a little box to collect spent cartridges...and projected interchangeable weapon modules for the nose...years ahead of its' time you know... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Gibbage1
06-17-2008, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Agh, for a modeler your lack of knowledge is showing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The 190's canopy was split because the track the canopy ran in narrowed towards the rear.

Sounds like a lack of engineering too me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif So what our saying was, the split was because the canopy warped as it was retracted? Honestly, thats rather... Stupid. I expected better from Kurt Tank. Also, notice that the Go-229's canopy is split down the middle, and thats NOT due to the track.

Gibbage1
06-17-2008, 05:49 PM
I just wish they developed a 1 peace bubble for the P-38. =~( They tried, but like the P-38K, the war department thought the production was too important to stop.

luftluuver
06-17-2008, 06:54 PM
No Gibbage it was because the fuselage tapered. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Also if you looked a just wee bit closer you would see that the rear portion of the canopy where the antenna exists had no join line. So with all your knocking of Germany's inability to form large one piece canopies, they did so on the 190. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

As well if you really knew what you were talking about, you would know the Brits and Americans had lots of rejects when forming their 1 pc canopies.

With the above, you should be able to see that the German canopies was good engineering and good logistics (only one part of the canopy had to be replaced if damaged).

Now hard large are the nose pieces on the Ar234?

Aaron_GT
06-17-2008, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ow, wait... Blohm & Voss BV 155 and the Ta-152.. =)

BV-155 development started in early 1942, and it's not the sort of thing you develop on a whim. So the wikipedia quote about B-17s doesn't really apply as there were few sorties of B-17s over Germany in late 1941. The BV-155 or the concept of high altitude fighters wasn't exactly out of the blue even then as all major WW2 participants had looked at the idea from the end of the 1930s, with various levels of issuance of specification or development.

Perhaps the spur for the BV-155 might have been the realisation that if Germany was capable of developing high altitude recon bombers (Ju-86P) then other nations could too and they'd better have a counter to any future deployment of high altitude bombers. The high altitude capabilities of the B17 weren't exactly news in late 1941, but the entry of the USA into the war was. Edit: probably worth noting the 155 was projected to have an operating altitue far in excess of that of the B-29, and in the region of the proposed Vickers Victory bomber. If leaked information was the spur to the BV-155 then the Vickers would make more sense.

In this sort of vein the UK started development of high altitude fighters before the Ju-86P had flown over the UK.

Given that the development of other types was turning out to be very protracted (the same was true of high altitude fighter development in the UK and USA) the Ta-152 was an engineering solution to the problem of protracted development - take an existing type and modify it rather than starting from scratch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage1
06-18-2008, 12:43 AM
That reminds me. The Apex of late-war fighter's didnt even have a 1 peace canopy? Me-262? Also, there are more places to put a radio wire then through the canopy, and all the other fighters that HAD bubble canopy's prove that.

Ya. The Ar-234 had a sizable peace of plastic, but its to bad it really didnt need one. What REALLY needed them was fighters, since its a lot more critical for them. Oddly, none got them....

luftluuver
06-18-2008, 05:44 AM
Grasping at straws Gibbage, you are.

Choctaw111
06-18-2008, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
*Ahem!*

Gratuitous pre-war bubble canopy shot:


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/capture_03062008_100001.jpg


Now, can we expect to see vision-obstructing helmet bars in future versions of the Ho? We all seek authenticity after all, don't we?

Good to see you again, Mr Gibbage.

I was going to ask about the helmet bars. I would imagine they would really get in the way of looking around effectively.

DuxCorvan
06-18-2008, 09:33 AM
Well, maybe the US id not leak the B-29 specs. Maybe the Germans had spies that were, well, good.

I don't think the US wanted Germany to employ so many resources in attempting to intercept their B-29s, when they didn't know yet if they'd have to use B-29s over Germany in the end.

Had the war in Europe gone bad after the Bulge, Hisroshima's nuke sure was intended to be on Berlin or Hamburg.

And then, Germany having a fleet of anti-B-29 fighters wasn't a good thing after all.

Aaron_GT
06-18-2008, 10:48 AM
Very true, DuxCorvan. Plus if you are intending to counter the B-29 why design the BV-155 which was intended to have a ceiling of 50,000+ ft if the target has a ceiling of 34,000 ft (same for B-17 and B-29)?

If the BV-155 was in response to anything than the Vickers Victory specification would make more sense (projected ceiling 50,000 ft)!

If, however, you knew that you could get your own recon bombers to 45,000 ft you might want to start development of something effective at that altitude or above just in case your enemies were doing the same. So the BV-155 and other high alitude projects were going to get some development time with or without supposed leaks of B-29 specs, just as (as an example) the British issued specifications for fighters with ceilings of around 40,000 feet two or more years prior to the Ju-86P putting in an appearance. You always have developments in hand against potential threats, especially ones that could counter the sort of things you yourself are developing as you assume that an enemy with equal industrial power is capable of thinking along the same lines!

As I noted before the BV-155 was far too ambitious, and the existing Luftwaffe fighters were having problems engaging US bombers at high altitude, and the Ta-152 is an engineering solution to that problem - enhance and modify an existing design. The USA certainly did it, e.g. making the longer range P-47N, or the twin fuselage P-82 for the Far East.

chunkydora
06-19-2008, 06:03 PM
His mouth hung open in childish fascination, his eyes round as little blue marbles, as he stared at the screen.

"You do y'all know so much?"

PanzerAce
06-19-2008, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Well, maybe the US id not leak the B-29 specs. Maybe the Germans had spies that were, well, good.

I don't think the US wanted Germany to employ so many resources in attempting to intercept their B-29s, when they didn't know yet if they'd have to use B-29s over Germany in the end.

Had the war in Europe gone bad after the Bulge, Hisroshima's nuke sure was intended to be on Berlin or Hamburg.

And then, Germany having a fleet of anti-B-29 fighters wasn't a good thing after all.

Except that at that point in the war, NOTHING was going to stop the russians, and since THEY were the army that took Germany, the only difference would have been how far west the Russians got before Germany was gone.

leitmotiv
06-20-2008, 03:31 AM
The Japanese were aware of the capabilities of the B-29 before one ever flew over Japan. I believe this is in ZERO! by Jiro Horikoshi (designer of the A6M) and Martin Caiden. The British flew B-17 missions over Germany in 1941 in the export version of the B-17C. The British discovered the difficulties of flying high altitude bomber missions and the Germans discovered the difficulty of repelling them.

Aaron_GT
06-20-2008, 06:40 AM
Leitmotiv - the B-29 and B-17 have the same service ceiling, but could the B-29 have been a more effective bomber, given the pressurisation, etc. at 30,000 feet than the B-17? If the Germans simply had the details of the service ceilings of the B-17 and B-29 there would be no particular reason to panic any more than in the late 1930s given the service ceiling figures unless there was a feeling that it would be more effective at that altitude. Germany had its own bomber research programme for 30,000 ft altitude and above so would have been well aware of the issues around operating aircraft at that altitude (with essentially the same solutions envisaged as for the B-29).

In reality the USA, UK, and Germany all had high altitude research programmes and specifications for high altitude bombers and fighters from the late 1930s. In the late 1930s high altitude was considered to be the 30,000-35,000 ft range. By 1941 it was, for all nations, considered to be in the 40,000-50,000 ft range. In the end it was the Germans who actually deployed aircraft at this altitude in this period, if only really as a nuisance or for recon.

Given that the research programmes existed already I don't really buy the idea that the B-29 was the reason why the Ta-152 and BV-155 were developed. The only thing that would make sense is if the information about the B-29 released was deliberately inaccurate - e.g. that it would be flying at 45,000 ft, which would make sense in conjunction with the planned service ceiling of the BV-155 of 50,000 ft. But then the amount of effort expended on a high altitude research programme would not be that crippling, and would lead to too many useful developments for it to make sense to try and cripple the German war effort by working on it. If you can develop systems for working at 50,000 ft you'd end up with potentially engines and systems that would boost performance at the sort of altitude that B-17s and B-24s actually operated at, which would mean the USA would have been shooting itself in the foot.

luftluuver
06-20-2008, 07:40 AM
The B-29's pressurization was to be 'turn off' when in combat. In other words, for crew comfort it was 'on' til enemy a/c showed up. It was turned back 'on' when the enemy a/c left.

Why did the B-29 have so many small plexi panels in the cockpit area?

Aaron_GT
06-20-2008, 09:43 AM
My guess about the panels was to make it easier to pressurise. If you look at some of the other high altitude test planes in WW2 they either have a small domed perspex vision area for the pilot (e.g. various Vickers aircraft, and very similar to that of the Canberra, and also pretty much the same as the vision domes for the gunners of the B-29) or lots of small windows. Creating a large pressurised blown hood with decent vision wasn't an option then - the small domes tended to be quite thick as it was and a big hood would need to be even stronger and obstruct vision with refraction artefacts even more *. The allies had issues with blown teardrop canopies deforming when moved backwards and forwards on the rails and this causing problems with emergency exits (or even just on the ground sometimes). This (plus it being hard to pull them back against airflow anyway) being the reason why they were equipped with quick release mechanisms after this issue emerged.

* By which that total refraction is higher in a thicker moulding, which means that there is more chance of having imperfections causing distortions.

Jaws2002
06-20-2008, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
If one looks at the helmut it is designed like a ball turret. I don't believe molding plexiglass into round shapes was very advanced in germany at the time. This is probably why it looks that way.

Molded plexiglass tech was definitely lacking in Germany, noted by the extreme lack of full 1 peace bubble canopies. Even the FW-190's canopy had a brake down the center. The Japanese and Russians also had trouble making a full bubble 1 peace canopy. The US and Brit's seemed to have almost a monopoly on them, with the P-51D, P-47 and Typhoon, Tempest. It was definitely an advantage in dogfights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Chew on this late 1930's design Gib. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif


http://www.aviatia.info/2iar80.jpg

DKoor
06-20-2008, 11:41 AM
Whow, excellent pic Jaws http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif .

stalkervision
06-20-2008, 11:58 AM
Romanian aircraft don't count. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif The Romanian's are well known for two things,making round plexiglass shapes and beer hopps boilers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Jaws2002
06-20-2008, 12:39 PM
While not exactly a full bubble canopy it sure was way better then what was available at the time.

Molding plexiglass was not that hard to do by mid 1940's. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
More pics:

http://phlairline.com/ency_i/IAR_80A.jpg

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/4974/iar80backbf4.jpg

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/3605/iar8001xv8.jpg

stalkervision
06-20-2008, 03:10 PM
another question you have to ask yourself is "were these bubble canopies pressure tested and capable for very high altitudes? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

luftluuver
06-20-2008, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
another question you have to ask yourself is "were these bubble canopies pressure tested and capable for very high altitudes? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

The crappy canopy of the Ta 152H, the same as on all late model Fw190s, certainly was. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
06-23-2008, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:

The crappy canopy of the Ta 152H, the same as on all late model Fw190s, certainly was. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Those still had a split down the middle.

Metatron_123
06-23-2008, 09:02 AM
Mustangs were very colourfull. This proves that the German paint industry was well behind the allied one.

Ever wonder why there's more colour photos from the allied side??

Now you know. It's because the germans only had black and white.

The Mustang won teh war. I rest my case.

DuxCorvan
06-23-2008, 10:17 AM
http://www.productwiki.com/upload/images/nubrella.jpg

luftluuver
06-23-2008, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Those still had a split down the middle.

Keep trying Gibbage. It had nothing to do with the Germans inability to form the plexi.

Bremspropeller
06-23-2008, 11:40 AM
I wonder why Gibbage advocates draggy teardrop-designs when a simple, flush design offered almost the same visibility...

Gibbage1
06-23-2008, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I wonder why Gibbage advocates draggy teardrop-designs when a simple, flush design offered almost the same visibility...

Your joking, right? How many modern day fighters have flush designs instead of tear-drop canopies?

http://www.commutefaster.com/F-22.jpg

Something like ALL modern day fighters have bubble canopies, so there must be some benefit too it. Your only lying too yourself if you think otherwise.

Bremspropeller
06-23-2008, 01:07 PM
The difference between now and then is, today we're not in a strive for topspeed.
Also, high-performance jet engines deliver a lot of excess-power that'll easily cope with the drag added by the bubble-canopy.

Back then however, when engineers tried to get every little HP out of an engine in order to improve topspeed by a handfull of mph, a flush design with almost as good visibility was certainly a better trade-off, than a draggy design in the first place.
It's a matter of design-optimizing.

It's not that the bubbletops didn't bring a couple of aerodynamic problems - at least for the Mustangs...

Gibbage1
06-23-2008, 02:05 PM
The two most aerodynamic aircraft of WWII had bubble canopies. P-51, and the P-80. The problem the bubble gave the P-51 was lack of body aft of the cockpit. P-47 also had this problem. Both aircraft were fixed by a larger rudder or fillet. Not a big deal.

Bremspropeller
06-23-2008, 02:16 PM
The bubble-canopy cost quite a few mph on the Mustang and on the Jug.

Ever thought about that?

Of course not - doesn't fit your agenda.

Gibbage1
06-23-2008, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The bubble-canopy cost quite a few mph on the Mustang and on the Jug.

Ever thought about that?

Of course not - doesn't fit your agenda.

Do you have proof of this? Of course not. Your just assuming.

My point is this. YOUR saying that #1, "flush design offered almost the same visibility", and #2, teardrop was "draggy". So your saying there was 0 benifit to having a bubble type canopy. The problem I have is that IF THERE WAS NO BENIFITS, AND ONLY DRAWBACKS, WHY ARE THEY ON ALL MODERN FIGHTERS?

Its simple. One or both of your assumptions are false. Modern fighters are so refined, they wouldn't go with a design that had no benefits in some way. Also, at Mk 1.5-2.2, even with a very strong engine, aerodynamics are VERY VERY important. The faster you go, the more important they are. Yet, we have Mk 2.5+ fighters with bubble canopy's like the F-15.

Bubble canopies greatly enhance the pilots vision and situational awareness. Its both stupid and ignorant to think otherwise.

As for your "draggy" BS, the P-51D had a top speed of 437MPH at 25K with 1695HP. P-51B did 430MPH at 25K with 1620HP. If your statement was true, and the P-51D did in fact loose a few MPH, then it would, or be even. But no. It got faster, with only 75 more HP, even though it got two extra guns and gained about 300lb.

So. Whats your excuse now?

Bremspropeller
06-23-2008, 03:31 PM
LoL, I don't HAVE to excuse myself dude.
I'm studying aeronautical engineering, in fact, I don't need to b1tch around with you - I KNOW better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

I'm putting up FACTS - ask Lufti or some other guy with a big library on allied fighters. I guess he can give you book, chapter, page and line if neccessary to prove what I wrote.

There's no need in playing the lil boy just b/c your fishing-line has been cut. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You've been proven wrong and your agenda has been blown.

The spree's over, face it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Bremspropeller
06-23-2008, 03:46 PM
http://www.commutefaster.com/F-22.jpg

That's a flush design, btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Gibbage1
06-23-2008, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
http://www.commutefaster.com/F-22.jpg

That's a flush design, btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Its a 1 peace bubble. Flush is more like a 109 in that the area aft of the cockpit is just as high as the apex of the canopy. As you can see, the F-22 truly is a bubble.

http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/michael_block/f-22a_raptor/images/f-22a_raptor_03_of_81.jpg

But its still funny that you COMPLETELY dodged the FACT that the P-51D with its bubble canopy is faster then the B.

Bremspropeller
06-23-2008, 05:08 PM
It's flush http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Freiwillige
06-23-2008, 05:35 PM
"But its still funny that you COMPLETELY dodged the FACT that the P-51D with its bubble canopy is faster then the B."

No its not. P-51b 441 MPh at 25k. P-51d 437 MPh!

Gibbage1
06-23-2008, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:

No its not. P-51b 441 MPh at 25k. P-51d 437 MPh!

Whats your source?

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_8.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p51_8.html)

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_10.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p51_10.html)

P-51b gets 440MPH at 30K, not 25K.

Then again, the P-51B and D have different engines, that get different HP at different alt. If you want to compare apples to apples, lets take the P-51C and P-51D. They both have the -7 engine and have the same hp/alt curve.

At 25K, the P-51C gets 439MPH. 2MPH above the P-51D with the same engine and HP. You may say "Hay, that proves my point about the canopy!!" but lets see the differences between the two aircraft.

The P-51C has 4 .50 cal's. P-51D has 6. That means the P-51 has two extra gun ports in the wing, plus ammo chutes under the wing. Adding drag. Also, the P-51D has an increased wing rood chord, and about 300lb extra weight. Even after all that, its ONLY .4% SLOWER then the P-51C with the SAME engine and "less draggy" canopy? So, just how much of that .4% do you think is contributed to the canopy, and not the other changes? Even at the most, its still totally negligible.

PanzerAce
06-23-2008, 06:57 PM
HEY LOOK, MY E-***** IS BIGGER THAN YOURS.


Seriously you two, people don't care. Take this to PMs *rolls eyes*.

Daiichidoku
06-23-2008, 07:05 PM
more IAR pics please

Jaws2002
06-23-2008, 07:17 PM
Let Cabage chew on it slowly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/005.jpg

This is is one of the two replicas. The better one. Made with some original parts. They still need to replace the front sindscreen.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/Muz__Aviatiei_025.jpg

Jaws2002
06-23-2008, 07:33 PM
Look at this:

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Aircraft/Naval/F4fChino2004.jpg

With those thick frames no wonder so many pilots fly with the canopy open.

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Aircraft/Naval/F4fBanking06.jpg

http://www.86fighterbombergroup.com/images/P-47ThunderboltsFormationlarge.tif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

james_ander
06-23-2008, 08:02 PM
The fishbowl helmet was built to contain the pilots head when it exploded because of the insane g-forces. Rather than clean up a whole cockpit, the ground crew would only have to rinse out the helmet in the sink, place it in the dish drainer....

Oh wait, something's wrong with my logic....damned drinking....

Metatron_123
06-24-2008, 12:12 AM
Jaws, what is the deal with that out door aeronautical museum in Bucharest?

You have all these rare birds like Yak-23 and La-9 exposed to the elements. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Shame really.

PanzerAce
06-24-2008, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
Jaws, what is the deal with that out door aeronautical museum in Bucharest?

You have all these rare birds like Yak-23 and La-9 exposed to the elements. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Shame really.

Not that uncommon. At the Castle Air Museum in A****er, California, the ONLY RB-36 Peacemaker that still exists is outside, 24/7/365, in the smog/rain/fog/wind/sun. Sometimes, museums just don't have the choice of putting it inside.

PanzerAce
06-24-2008, 01:01 AM
uh, wtf? I think the word filter needs to be fixed if it is censoring city names *rolls eyes*.

Fine, the city just north west on Merced, CA on Hwy 99.

Or @water

(stupid fcking censoring)

Jaws2002
06-24-2008, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
Jaws, what is the deal with that out door aeronautical museum in Bucharest?

You have all these rare birds like Yak-23 and La-9 exposed to the elements. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Shame really.

I'm not sure what exactly the deal is now, I didn't see it since 93-94.
Cheap idiots in charge. People that have nothing in comon with aviation. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Gibbage1
06-26-2008, 11:47 PM
Castle Air Museum

That museum looks VERY interesting. Its a shame its a bit far north for me. It would be one heck of a trip on my motorcycle! I live in LA. I guess Chino will do for now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif