PDA

View Full Version : Aviation Mythbusters ?



WTE_Galway
04-25-2010, 11:43 PM
All revealed ...

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/misc/myths1.htm

I am sure some of the "busted" myths would be argued to death on here with much flaming and trolling of course. They do want information on more myths possibly someone should tell them about bouncing 0.50 cal off the ground http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


A couple of excerpts --



"Malta was defended by three Gladiators named Faith, Hope and Charity." - Actually four Sea Gladiators (named Faith, Hope, Charity and Desperation), of 261 Squadron RAF, were involved in the early air-defence of Malta. Later supplemented by a few Hurricanes. The basis of much exaggeration.

"The Japanese Zero fighter was a copy of a Western design." Quite the contrary, as it had many technical innovations and was a completely original design.

"Early in the war, the US fighters were vastly inferior to the Japanese planes." In fact it was American tactics and pilot skill levels which were vastly inferior, as shown by the achievements of the AVG with similar equipment. After all, the Japanese had been fighting in China since the early 1930's. By using the vertical plane (ie dive and climb tactics), rather than mixing-it in turning fights with the more maneouvreable Japanese planes, the Americans were able to use their superior firepower to advantage.

"Adolf Galland rated the Spitfire so highly he told Goering 'Give me a squadron of Spitfires'." - Here's a quote from his book The First And The Last:

"The theme of fighter protection was chewed over again and again. Goering clearly represented the point of view of the bombers and demanded close and rigid protection. The bomber, he said, was more important than record bag figures. I tried to point out that the Me109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which, although a little slower, was much more manoeuvrable. He rejected my objection. We received many more harsh words. Finally, as his time ran short, he grew more amiable and asked what were the requirements for our squadrons. Moelders asked for a series of Me109's with more powerful engines. The request was granted. 'And you ?' Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group.' After blurting this out, I had rather a shock, for it was not really meant that way. Of course, fundamentally I preferred our Me109 to the Spitfire, but I was unbelievably vexed at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness with which the command gave us orders we could not execute - or only incompletely - as a result of many shortcomings for which we were not to blame. Such brazen-faced impudence made even Goering speechless. He stamped off, growling as he went."

R_Target
04-26-2010, 12:57 AM
"The Miles M.52 supersonic research aircraft was 90% complete when cancelled in 1946." - In fact construction had barely started.

PanzerAce
04-26-2010, 04:33 PM
I've never even heard of most of those "Great Myths"

Waldo.Pepper
04-26-2010, 05:18 PM
"The ________ won the war."
"The ________ won the Battle of Britain."
etc.

Choctaw111
04-26-2010, 06:10 PM
There are some interesting things in there.

Feathered_IV
04-26-2010, 07:11 PM
"The Japanese nicknamed the Bristol Beaufighter, the 'Whispering Death." - Invented by some over-imaginative journalist at a bar. In the middle of World War Two, the Japanese weren't likely to answering questions about aircraft nicknames. Similarly, the "Whistling Death" nickname allegedly given to the Chance Vought F4U Corsair by the Japanese is dubious.

I never even believed that as a child. I wonder if they did back then.

AndyJWest
04-26-2010, 07:21 PM
And then there are the endless Nazi 'Wonder Weapons' that were supposedly so advanced that had the Germans not lost the war, they would have won it...

Useful Nazi Wonder Weapons: Me 262, V1... er, that's about it.

The V2 used more German resources to produce than it removed from the Allies in bomb damage, even while using slave labour.

The Me 163 was worse economically, and apparently killed a lot of good Luftwaffe pilots.

But still you will read about some far-fetched machine or other (go to AAA for the latest in the imaginary German A-Bomb saga) that was certain to swing things, if only it was ready in time...

Wildnoob
04-26-2010, 07:42 PM
Another very popular one is the Mig-15 being a copy or based on the Ta-183.

Kettenhunde
04-26-2010, 07:44 PM
The Komet was a very successful airplane. Not so much as a fighter but as a practical foray into tailless delta wing design; it was outstanding.


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a...t/flight/flight5.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight5.htm)

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a...t/flight/flight1.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight1.htm)

AndyJWest
04-26-2010, 07:55 PM
The Komet was a very successful airplane. Not so much as a fighter but as a practical foray into tailless delta wing design; it was outstanding.
Yes, but how much did it achieve for the war effort? For something to be a Wonder Weapon, it first has to be a weapon - that was the point I was trying to make.

Treetop64
04-26-2010, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "The Japanese nicknamed the Bristol Beaufighter, the 'Whispering Death." - Invented by some over-imaginative journalist at a bar. In the middle of World War Two, the Japanese weren't likely to answering questions about aircraft nicknames. Similarly, the "Whistling Death" nickname allegedly given to the Chance Vought F4U Corsair by the Japanese is dubious.

I never even believed that as a child. I wonder if they did back then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, no kidding.

According to half of what's presented on TV the Japanese called everything "whispering death". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kettenhunde
04-26-2010, 09:08 PM
Yes, but how much did it achieve for the war effort?

Quite a bit actually in terms of engineering.

As the article points out as a fighter it was less than steller. Keep in mind, the Me-163 was never meant to be a fighter attacking the bomber stream either. It was a specialized interceptor of high altitude reconnaissance aircraft.

As the article also points out, it made possible a practical rocket fighter in the Me-263. More importantly it helped to solve some issues with mach effects along with stability and control in tailless delta wing designs.

Fortunately the war ended before the Nazi's could apply that experience and the victors made use of those lessons.

Such designs as the F-102 and F-106 are direct descendants of the Me-163. The backbone of the USAF interceptor fleet for much of the Cold War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_XF-92A

na85
04-26-2010, 09:34 PM
A lightweight and simple fighter can be as effective as heavier and more complex ones.

This one isn't a myth. I'd say the lightweight and simple Yak-3 was just as effective in the fighter role as the heavier and more complex FW190

AndyJWest
04-26-2010, 09:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Yes, but how much did it achieve for the war effort?


Quite a bit actually in terms of engineering. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Kettenhunde, you seem to be missing the point I'm trying to make - you can't win a war by superior technology alone, unless you have the infrastructure to back it up. I think that the increasing effort put by the German military into developing 'new weapons' was largely a result of a denial of the real situation confronting them - that they were being out-produced. Objective analysis would indicate that they couldn't win the war with what they had, but as long as they could believe in 'wonder weapons' such analysis could be sidestepped. A side-effect of this may possibly have been to initiate technological advances that others could later exploit, but it made no difference to the outcome of the war.

PanzerAce
04-26-2010, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
Another very popular one is the Mig-15 being a copy or based on the Ta-183.

That's one that I've always loved. Even if you point people at the Mig-9 and the evolution of that design, they still persist in thinking that it was a copy of the F-86 or Ta-183.

Kettenhunde
04-26-2010, 10:35 PM
Kettenhunde, you seem to be missing the point I'm trying to make


Nobody is missing any point you are making. Please stop being defensive as this is not an argument.

The points made about the engineering are valid food for thought. In this case, the Me-163 was a necessary step in order to advance the aeronautical engineering of the day.

That is all.

It was never intended for more than that but was rather pressed into desperate service before its time in a job it was not conceived to perform.

To view it solely in that unintended role as a bomber interceptor is a disservice to the designs significant contribution to aviation.

Consider the fact the Me-163 project was in motion long before Germany's situation became desperate or any talk of "wonder weapons" was popular.


When, in the Spring of 1941, the Generalluftzeug-meister (Director of Luftwaffe Equipment) Ernst Udet observed Dittmar make a low- altitude pass at over 400mph in the Komet 163B, he could hardly believe the plane had no engine.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a...t/flight/flight1.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight1.htm)




I think that the increasing effort put by the German military into developing 'new weapons' was largely a result of a denial of the real situation confronting them - that they were being out-produced.

True but what was the choice?

There is absolutely no chance a country the size of Montana could ever come close to out-producing the combined efforts of the United States and the Soviet Union. The physical resources are simply dwarfed by those nations capacity and its production possibility frontier is tiny in comparison.

It is easy to sit back in calm of time, out the context of the war, and say, "What a stupid decision they made in putting hope in some wonder weapon".

na85
04-26-2010, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by PanzerAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
Another very popular one is the Mig-15 being a copy or based on the Ta-183.

That's one that I've always loved. Even if you point people at the Mig-9 and the evolution of that design, they still persist in thinking that it was a copy of the F-86 or Ta-183. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fact wasn't the F-86 designed specifically as a response to the MiG-15?

na85
04-26-2010, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I think that the increasing effort put by the German military into developing 'new weapons' was largely a result of a denial of the real situation confronting them - that they were being out-produced.

True but what was the choice?

There is absolutely no chance a country the size of Montana could ever come close to out-producing the combined efforts of the United States and the Soviet Union. The physical resources are simply dwarfed by those nations capacity and its production possibility frontier is tiny in comparison.

It is easy to sit back in calm of time, out the context of the war, and say, "What a stupid decision they made in putting hope in some wonder weapon". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree. They were at war with the world's largest army (Red Army), the world's foremost Navy (Royal Navy) and the world's most powerful economy (USA). They really did have no chance but to hope for a technological advantage they could use to make up for the rapidly deteriorating military situation.

WTE_Galway
04-26-2010, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by PanzerAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
Another very popular one is the Mig-15 being a copy or based on the Ta-183.

That's one that I've always loved. Even if you point people at the Mig-9 and the evolution of that design, they still persist in thinking that it was a copy of the F-86 or Ta-183. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well the bit that IS true about the MIG15 is the Klimov RD-45 was a reverse engineered Rolls-Royce Nene.

R_Target
04-26-2010, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by na85:
In fact wasn't the F-86 designed specifically as a response to the MiG-15?

F-86 was derived from the XFJ-1, development of which began in November 1944. The USAAF contract for the first three XP-86 dates to May 1945.

PanzerAce
04-26-2010, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PanzerAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
Another very popular one is the Mig-15 being a copy or based on the Ta-183.

That's one that I've always loved. Even if you point people at the Mig-9 and the evolution of that design, they still persist in thinking that it was a copy of the F-86 or Ta-183. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fact wasn't the F-86 designed specifically as a response to the MiG-15? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Considering that the design process for the -86 started in 1944/45 as mentioned, and the soviet jet industry didn't even start until after the war, that's not very likely http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif


edit: ah, there we go, finally found the only two pictures I know of of the Mig-9M prototype, which debunks the Ta-183/Mig-15 thing fairly obviously....

http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/042-432005/bpictures/M09.jpg
http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/042-432005/bpictures/M08.jpg

na85
04-27-2010, 12:50 AM
Considering that the design process for the -86 started in 1944/45 as mentioned, and the soviet jet industry didn't even start until after the war, that's not very likely

Must have been pretty rudimentary work done in 1944, since the F-86 incorporated many design elements that were formulated as a result of German aerodynamics research done for the Me-262.

TinyTim
04-27-2010, 01:18 AM
"The modifications required for carrier service make naval fighters inherently inferior to land-based fighters. We don't need naval aviation." - This myth was not disproved until the introduction of the F6F Hellcat in 1943.

Well, I'd say it was an A6M two years earlier.

yuuppers
04-27-2010, 06:37 AM
"Malta was defended by three Gladiators named Faith, Hope and Charity." - Actually four Sea Gladiators (named Faith, Hope, Charity and Desperation), of 261 Squadron RAF, were involved in the early air-defence of Malta. Later supplemented by a few Hurricanes. The basis of much exaggeration.

Actually the naming of the Sea Gladiators was months later by a Maltese newspaper.

Further reading, http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/malta.htm

The N5520 on display on Malta is not N5520.

Wildnoob
04-27-2010, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
"The modifications required for carrier service make naval fighters inherently inferior to land-based fighters. We don't need naval aviation." - This myth was not disproved until the introduction of the F6F Hellcat in 1943.

Well, I'd say it was an A6M two years earlier.

+ 1

Wildnoob
04-27-2010, 07:49 AM
Another one is the USAAF always had massive numerical superiority over the LW.

In fact at initial phases US aircraft were actually outnumbered. Sometimes 10:1 in fighters.

Kettenhunde
04-27-2010, 10:00 AM
Another one is the USAAF always had massive numerical superiority over the LW.


That is right. It was not until we achieved massive numerical superiority and pilot qualitative superiority that we won air superiority.

R_Target
04-27-2010, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by na85:
Must have been pretty rudimentary work done in 1944, since the F-86 incorporated many design elements that were formulated as a result of German aerodynamics research done for the Me-262.

The original XFJ/P-86 design was more or less complete by 1945. NAA aerodynamicists used data from full-sweep Me262 wing studies as a starting point to develop swept wings for the P-86. A couple dates: August 14, 1945: NAA R&D order for swept wing P-86; September 18 1945: 1/4 scale wind tunnel tests; November 1, 1945: USAAF approves swept-wing P-86 design; December 20,1946: USAAF signs contract for 33 P-86A.