PDA

View Full Version : B2 Stealth bomber linked to Horten 229



Pages : [1] 2

dazza9806482
11-23-2005, 07:21 AM
Thought this was interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4443934.stm

nakamura_kenji
11-23-2005, 07:27 AM
i thought b-2 design base bomber kurfust claim no exist though they photo of fly ^_^

BaldieJr
11-23-2005, 07:34 AM
Imagine the face of europe toaday had all this information fallen into Stalins hands.

The only thing worse would be european nations getting it and exacting thier dreams for colonial oppresion and single european rule.

Not that I think europeans have some kind of history or whatever.

stathem
11-23-2005, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Imagine the face of europe toaday had all this information fallen into Stalins hands.

The only thing worse would be european nations getting it and exacting thier dreams for colonial oppresion and single european rule.

Not that I think europeans have some kind of history or whatever.

Nice theory. Can we discuss it later after I've been for lunch at McDonalds? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

dazza9806482
11-23-2005, 08:08 AM
Arf!

Airmail109
11-23-2005, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Imagine the face of europe toaday had all this information fallen into Stalins hands.

The only thing worse would be european nations getting it and exacting thier dreams for colonial oppresion and single european rule.

Not that I think europeans have some kind of history or whatever.

Nice theory. Can we discuss it later after I've been for lunch at McDonalds? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMFAO!

neural_dream
11-23-2005, 08:16 AM
Was there ever any doubt that the B-2 was linked to the 229 or that the sudden technological advances of the Soviets and the Americans were because of the German superscientists and superdesigns? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif.

Low_Flyer_MkII
11-23-2005, 08:17 AM
Tee hee! Nice one stathem. Porno'd, or whatever it is you young shavers say nowadays.

neural_dream
11-23-2005, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Imagine the face of europe toaday had all this information fallen into Stalins hands.

The only thing worse would be european nations getting it and exacting thier dreams for colonial oppresion and single european rule.

Not that I think europeans have some kind of history or whatever.

Nice theory. Can we discuss it later after I've been for lunch at McDonalds? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Unknown-Pilot
11-23-2005, 08:18 AM
Well, it is from the BBC. I have seen and heard things from them that were arguably anti-american (but only slightly so).

That article, though interesting, and mostly true, reads like an accusation and seems to be about causing ire.

Northop engineers DID examine the 229 in the NASM facility, but IIRC, much of the B2 work had already been done, it was just to see if anything new could be gleaned from it. IOW - the B2 is based in the flying wing work that Jack Northrop had done parallel to the Horten brothers.

But that wouldn't exactly fit in with the tone of that article, now would it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

dazza9806482
11-23-2005, 08:23 AM
@Neural Dream:

I see your point mate, but I was just unaware that it was possible to trace such a direct tangible link from the 229 to the b2.

As Unknown-Pilot suggests its not quite in fitting with the articles purpose to more properly state that the US (and Uk) was possessed of some excellent scientists and engineers who had already developed parallel lines of enquiry and ground breaking achievements. Its interesting to me (who knows little) to wonder just how much of a boost these German recruits gave to the respective development programs....

neural_dream
11-23-2005, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Well, it is from the BBC. I have seen and heard things from them that were arguably anti-american (but only slightly so).
If you think the BBC are anti-americans or anti-anything ... you've probably haven't watched or read enough BBC. It represents perfectly the Brit culture (that I'm very fond of), which is about being sarcastic against ANYTHING which deserves to be a target of sarcasm. On the other hand, if they are proved wrong they won't hesitate to apologise. The BBC is generally very annoying for someone who doesn't know that they are like that for everyone including themselves. Lovely culture http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif.

BaldieJr
11-23-2005, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Imagine the face of europe toaday had all this information fallen into Stalins hands.

The only thing worse would be european nations getting it and exacting thier dreams for colonial oppresion and single european rule.

Not that I think europeans have some kind of history or whatever.

Nice theory. Can we discuss it later after I've been for lunch at McDonalds? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sound goood. Which McDonalds, South Africa or Vietnam?

neural_dream
11-23-2005, 08:32 AM
Moscow

http://www.rumble.net/travel/photos/russia/mcdonalds.jpg

Unknown-Pilot
11-23-2005, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Well, it is from the BBC. I have seen and heard things from them that were arguably anti-american (but only slightly so).
If you think the BBC are anti-americans or anti-anything ... you've probably haven't watched or read enough BBC. It represents perfectly the Brit culture (that I'm very fond of), which is about being sarcastic against ANYTHING which deserves to be a target of sarcasm. On the other hand, if they are proved wrong they won't hesitate to apologise. The BBC is generally very annoying for someone who doesn't know that they are like that for everyone including themselves. Lovely culture http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me put it this way - they have a very CNN nature.

neural_dream
11-23-2005, 08:40 AM
I don't watch or read CNN http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

SkyChimp
11-23-2005, 08:41 AM
And Germany's V-2 was a scaled up clone of US scientist's Goddard's rocket. Of course the German version had a bomb on top.

Not many Germans know, or even accept that fact.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_shee.../goddard/goddard.htm (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/general/goddard/goddard.htm)

Funny how technology passes back and forth.

diomedes33
11-23-2005, 08:41 AM
Jack Northrop was developing his own flying wing the same time the Horton brothers were. Northrop had to create his own company in order to build it though.

The "radar absorbing" skin of the Horton was a fluke. Unless you can prove otherwise, it was more because of material shortages than anything else. Just like the swept back wings on the Me-262 was a fluke. The only reason Messerschmitt swept them back was to move the cg further aft. People believed at the time that the sound barrier was a barrier and would be certain death for anyone trying to cross it. A lot like people believe today that nothing can travel faster than light. Germany did have a jump on the allies in propulsion though.

As far as I've been able to find the horton series of wings had about 3 test flights before they lost one due to an engine failure and their factory was over run. Northrop successfully built and tested then N-1M and N-9M before the wars end, and was working on the YB-35 and YB-49. The YB-49 was ordered for production in 1948, but then was canceled.

Northrop-Grumman developed the B-2 completely with computers and advanced materials. From the onset, the aircraft was to be quiet and invisibile to radar. I don't see the hortan haveing an active stability system, radar reducing shape that took a bank of incredibly powerful computers to determine, specially designed engine nacelles that reduce ir signature and noise, and whatever top secret goodies.

This is like comparing a horse and buggy to forumla one race car. They both have four wheels, so the f1 is based on the buggy.

Low_Flyer_MkII
11-23-2005, 08:51 AM
On an intersting cultural note, the BBC hands over to an American news station when the BBC 2 channel stops it's own broadcasts in the early hours of the morning.

berg417448
11-23-2005, 08:53 AM
I'd say that these planes are linked to the B-2

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/fta/fta198.htm

Unknown-Pilot
11-23-2005, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
I don't watch or read CNN http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Let me put it this way, to those with a head on their shoulders, CNN is justly known as the Communist News Network.

They lean so far that if they were in a boat, they'd capsize it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Unknown-Pilot
11-23-2005, 09:02 AM
Apparently Northrop had to use hydraulic controls due to a control force reversal that he was never able to sort out. And the prop version's nacelles provided vertical suface that had to be replaced with small tail fins when it was converted to jet power.

Like it or not, Reimar was ahead of Jack. But that doesn't mean that the 229 is the basis of the B2 either.


As for the V2, there was a lot more work done into making it work on that scale than some here wish to acknowledge.

Just as a point of logic, if it was so easy to do and no furhter research or pioneering had been done, it would not have been necessary to put von Braun in charge ot NASA.

WOLFMondo
11-23-2005, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
I don't watch or read CNN http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Let me put it this way, to those with a head on their shoulders, CNN is justly known as the Communist News Network.

They lean so far that if they were in a boat, they'd capsize it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By anyone other than an Americans standards there biased and right wing but there easily better than Fox, the only news company to fire someone for not being patriotic enough http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

diomedes33
11-23-2005, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Like it or not, Reimar was ahead of Jack. But that doesn't mean that the 229 is the basis of the B2 either.


Do you know if the Horton wing was tested enough to determine if it has this problem too? I'm just curiouse and didn't know about this.

-----------------
Dazza not directed at you, more at the article in bbc.

This thread just pushed me the wrong way. Every couple months a thread states, the Americans stole this, the Americans stole that. It really irks me when people tell me that the work is all borrowed and everything we ever do is stolen property. Even more so because I'm an aerospace engineer.

Unknown-Pilot
11-23-2005, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by diomedes33:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Like it or not, Reimar was ahead of Jack. But that doesn't mean that the 229 is the basis of the B2 either.


Do you know if the Horton wing was tested enough to determine if it has this problem too? I'm just curiouse and didn't know about this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Al then moved on to the area of control. He related this to making crosswind landings where you would need a 3-axis control system. The Hortens used a blended surface where they had multiple trailing edge surfaces that all moved in pitch or roll, but they didn't move proportionally to each other. However, what you notice about the system is that no matter what trim angle of attack you use all the control surfaces have some deflection since you can't choose a trim angle of attack where they are all at zero when tested (the aircraft was out of rig). Northrop was an airfoil aerodynamicist and what he did was use the middle surfaces for pitch and roll, and the outboard surfaces trimmed only in pitch and split to act as drag rudders. If the stick is pulled all the way back what you have done is induce mechanical washout in the middle section and washin at the tips. This is a good recipe for loosing the tip and having a stall/spin problem. One of the solutions was to try and put slots out towards the tips, which helped the stall problem but not that of spin. However, when the airflow over the slots separates it does so with a lot of hysteresis and a small decrease in angle of attack doesn't result in airflow reattachment. It takes a large change in the angle of attack to get the flow to reattach. This was a characteristic of the type of slots that he used. The good news was, of course that it helped the stall.

The next thing on his agenda was adverse yaw. As most sailplane pilots know this is the effect you get when inputting a roll to right and having the nose move towards the left because of the aileron's deflection. Horten had postulated that if you use a bell shaped lift distribution you wouldn't have this problem, and this has been proven to be the case. This is because the tips are loaded down so you end up with a little bit of pro-verse yaw. Another solution is to put verticals on the surface, but now you have additional profile drag from the surface and interference drag from the corners and joints.

Another thing you can encounter is control force reversal. Northrop overcame this problem by using a hydraulic control system. Horten never seemed to have this problem throughout his designs, but Al didn't have an answer as to why this was the case. Horten had obviously found something that worked, but apparently it's not discussed or defined in his works.

Al felt that Horten, with his bell shaped spanloader, was willing to suffer some of the induced drag to prevent adverse yaw without having vertical surfaces, a design compromise. Philosophically, he believed the Horten sat down and figured this would be more advantageous than having verticals. When Horten received his Ph.D., his teacher was Ludwig Prandtl who came up with the elliptical spanload distribution, yet Horten threw out the idea and proceeded with his own design theories.

Those are all from Albion H. Bowers, of the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, presented to the members of The Wing Is The Thing (TWITT) on September 20, 1997, at Gillespie Field in El Cajon, CA..

SkyChimp
11-23-2005, 02:56 PM
Comparing Horten and Northrop tailess designs is very difficult, since they did not produce very similar designs.

To suggest Horten developement went smoothly ignores the fact that Horten designs evolved over time to correct design and performance defects.

Hortens gliders, up to the Horten IV suffered from excessive wing twisting resulting in adverse yaw effect. They had excessive aspect ratios which resulted in structurally unsound wings. The gliders were VERY unstable if a side breeze existed.

To correct this, as seen in the powered Horten V, the leading edge of the wing had two distinct sweep angles. While no "tail fin" existed, deep wheel fairings served a similar function. The second Horten V crashed during landing due to is inability to cope with side wind.

The Horten VI, aka the parabolic Horten, suffered from poor wing structural strength as well.

The Horten VII, fitted with two Argus As 10C engines was designed to familiarize pilots with tailess aircraft, but directional stability was so poor only one was built - despite an order for 23.

The Horten VIII was never completed.

The Horten IX was completed as a fixed gear glider and handling characterisitics are not known.

The Go-229 A-0 only logged a few hours of flight, so complete handling characterisitics were never known.

(All this from the book GERMAN AIRCRAFT OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR, Kay and Smith)

To suggest the Hortens had it "all worked out" is simply wrong. They didn't. They weren't "problem free," they simply suffered from their own set of problems. One thing is equally clear, they never flew wings as big as Northrop, and never had to contend with the problems associated with flying a wing that big.

Chuck_Older
11-23-2005, 03:18 PM
Yes, Jack Northrop didn't exist and neither did his work on his own flying wing that had zero to do with the Horten's

All a propagandist hoax. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

sgilewicz
11-23-2005, 03:27 PM
Yep, we stole the F-86 from the Spanish and copied the F-15 from the Lithuanians http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I'm so ashamed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

KIMURA
11-23-2005, 03:36 PM
SkyChimp, even Northrop's design were plaqued with alot of problems - including stability problems during flight which made them very difficult to handle. To say that Northrop's design were better or bader than Horten's is neither fair nor correct. Both companies hadn't reliable technique at hand to garantee a trouble-free handling.
(also keep in mind that Horten was forced to stop any developements after 1945, while Northrop developed further)

flockzap
11-23-2005, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
And Germany's V-2 was a scaled up clone of US scientist's Goddard's rocket. Of course the German version had a bomb on top.

Not many Germans know, or even accept that fact.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_shee.../goddard/goddard.htm (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/general/goddard/goddard.htm)

Funny how technology passes back and forth.


You´re right

http://www.gpc.edu/~shale/humanities/composition/assign...iment/paperclip.html (http://www.gpc.edu/~shale/humanities/composition/assignments/experiment/paperclip.html)

"After WWII ended in 1945, victorious Russian and American intelligence teams began a treasure hunt throughout occupied Germany for military and scientific booty. They were looking for things like new rocket and aircraft designs, medicines, and electronics. But they were also hunting down the most precious "spoils" of all: the scientists whose work had nearly won the war for Germany. The engineers and intelligence officers of the Nazi War Machine.

The U.S. Military rounded up Nazi scientists and brought them to America. It had originally intended merely to debrief them and send them back to Germany. But when it realized the extent of the scientists knowledge and expertise, the War Department decided it would be a waste to send the scientists home. Following the discovery of flying discs (foo fighters), particle/laser beam weaponry in German military bases, the War Department decided that NASA and the CIA must control this technology, and the Nazi engineers that had worked on this technology.

There was only one problem: it was illegal. U.S. law explicitly prohibited Nazi officials from immigrating to America--and as many as three-quarters of the scientists in question had been committed Nazis.
Data-Points:

Convinced that German scientists could help America's postwar efforts, President Harry Truman agreed in September 1946 to authorize "Project Paperclip," a program to bring selected German scientists to work on America's behalf during the "Cold War"

However, Truman expressly excluded anyone found "to have been a member of the Nazi party and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Naziism or militarism."

The War Department's Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA) conducted background investigations of the scientists. In February 1947, JIOA Director Bosquet Wev submitted the first set of scientists' dossiers to the State and Justice Departments for review.

The Dossiers were ****ing. Samauel Klaus, the State Departments representative on the JIOA board, claimed that all the scientists in this first batch were "ardent Nazis." Their visa requests were denied.

Wev was furious. He wrote a memo warning that "the best interests of the United States have been subjugated to the efforts expended in 'beating a dead Nazi horse.'" He also declared that the return of these scientists to Germany, where they could be exploited by America's enemies, presented a "far greater security threat to this country than any former Nazi affiliations which they may have had or even any Nazi sympathies that they may still have."

When the JIOA formed to investigate the backgrounds and form dossiers on the Nazis, the Nazi Intelligence leader Reinhard Gehlen met with the CIA director Allen Dulles. Dulles and Gehlen hit it off immediatly. Gehlen was a master spy for the Nazis and had infiltrated Russia with his vast Nazi Intelligence network. Dulles promised Gehlen that his Intelligence unit was safe in the CIA.

Apparently, Wev decided to sidestep the problem. Dulles had the scientists dossier's re-written to eliminate incriminating evidence. As promised, Allen Dulles delivered the Nazi Intelligence unit to the CIA, which later opened many umbrella projects stemming from Nazi mad research. (MK-ULTRA / ARTICHOKE, OPERATION MIDNIGHT CLIMAX)

Military Intelligence "cleansed" the files of Nazi references. By 1955, more than 760 German scientists had been granted citizenship in the U.S. and given prominent positions in the American scientific community. Many had been longtime members of the Nazi party and the Gestapo, had conducted experiments on humans at concentration camps, had used slave labor, and had committed other war crimes.

In a 1985 expose in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Linda Hunt wrote that she had examined more than 130 reports on Project Paperclip subjects--and every one "had been changed to eliminate the security threat classification."

President Truman, who had explicitly ordered no committed Nazis to be admitted under Project Paperclip, was evidently never aware that his directive had been violated. State Department archives and the memoirs of officials from that era confirm this. In fact, according to Clare[nce] Lasby's book [Project] Paperclip, project officials "covered their designs with such secrecy that it bedeviled their own President; at Potsdam he denied their activities and undoubtedly enhanced Russian suspicion and distrust," quite possibly fueling the Cold War even further.

A good example of how these dossiers were changed is the case of Wernher von Braun. A September 18, 1947, report on the German rocket scientist stated, "Subject is regarded as a potential security threat by the Military Governor."

The following February, a new security evaluation of Von Braun said, "No derogatory information is available on the subject...It is the opinion of the Military Governor that he may not constitute a security threat to the United States."

Here are a few of the 700 suspicious characters who were allowed to immigrate through Project Paperclip.
ARTHUR RUDOLPH

During the war, Rudolph was operations director of the Mittelwerk factory at the Dora-Nordhausen concentration camps, where 20,000 workers died from beatings, hangings, and starvation. Rudolph had been a member of the Nazi party since 1931; a 1945 military file on him said simply: "100% Nazi, dangerous type, security threat..!! Suggest internment."

But the JIOA's final dossier on him said there was "nothing in his records indicating that he was a war criminal or and ardent Nazi or otherwise objectionable." Rudolph became a US citizen and later designed the Saturn 5 rocket used in the Apollo moon landings. In 1984, when his war record was finally investigated, he fled to West Germany.
WERNHER VON BRAUN

From 1937 to 1945, von Braun was the technical director of the Peenemunde rocket research center, where the V-2 rocket --which devastated England--was developed. As noted previously, his dossier was rewritten so he didn't appear to have been an enthusiastic Nazi.

Von Braun worked on guided missiles for the U.S. Army and was later director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. He became a celebrity in the 1950s and early 1960s, as one of Walt Disney's experts on the "World of Tomorrow." In 1970, he became NASA's associate administrator.
KURT BLOME

A high-ranking Nazi scientist, Blome told U.S. military interrogators in 1945 that he had been ordered 1943 to experiment with plague vaccines on concentration camp prisoners. He was tried at Nuremberg in 1947 on charges of practicing euthanasia (extermination of sick prisoners), and conducting experiments on humans. Although acquitted, his earlier admissions were well known, and it was generally accepted that he had indeed participated in the gruesome experiments.

Two months after his Nuremberg acquittal, Blome was interviewed at Camp David, Maryland, about biological warfare. In 1951, he was hired by the U.S. Army Chemical Corps to work on chemical warfare. His file neglected to mention Nuremberg.
MAJOR GENERAL WALTER SCHREIBER

According to Linda Hunt's article, the US military tribunal at Nuremberg heard evidence that "Schreiber had assigned doctors to experiment on concentration camp prisoners and had made funds available for such experimentation." The assistant prosecutor said the evidence would have convicted Schreiber if the Soviets, who held him from 1945 to 1948, had made him available for trial.

Again, Schreiber's Paperclip file made no mention of this evidence; the project found work for him at the Air Force School of Medicine at Randolph Field in Texas. When columnist Drew Pearson publicized the Nuremberg evidence in 1952, the negative publicity led the JIOA, says Hunt, to arrange "a visa and a job for Schreiber in Argentina, where his daughter was living." On May 22, 1952, he was flown to Buenos Aires.
HERMANN BECKER-FREYSING and SIEGFRIED RUFF

These two, along with Blome, were among the 23 defendants in the Nuremberg War Trials "Medical Case." Becker-Freysing was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison for conducting experiments on Dachau inmates, such as starving them, then force-feeding them sea water that had been chemically altered to make it drinkable. Ruff was acquitted (in a close decision) on charges that he had killed as many as 80 Dachau inmates in a low-pressure chamber designed to simulate altitudes in excess of 60,000 feet. Before their trial, Becker-Freysing and Ruff were paid by the Army Air Force to write reports about their grotesque experiments.
GENERAL REINHARD GEHLEN

It was five years after the end of WWII but one of Hitler's chief intelligence officers was still on the job. From a walled-in compound in Bavaria, General Reinhard Gehlen oversaw a vast network of intelligence agents spying on Russia. His top aides were Nazi zealots who had committed some of the most notorious crimes of the war. Gehlen and his SS united were hired, and swiftly became agents of the CIA when they revealed their massive records on the Soviet Union to the US.

Gehlen derived much of his information from his role in one of the most terrible atrocities of the war: the torture, interrogation and murder by starvation of some four million Soviet prisoners. Prisoners who refused to cooperate were often tortured or summarily executed. May were executed even after they had given information, while others were simply left to starve to death. As a result, Gehlend and members of his organization maneuvered to make sure they were captured by advancing American troops rather than Russians, who would have executed them immediatly.

Two months before Germany surrendered in 1945, the Gehlen organization made its move. "Gehlen and a small group of his most senior officers carefully microfilmed the vast holding on the USSR in the military section of the German army's general staff. They packed the film in watertight steel drums and secretly buried it in a remote mountain meadow scattered throughout the Austrian Alps.

General William Donovan and Allen Dulles of the CIA were tipped off about Gehlen's surrender and his offer of Russian intelligence in exchange for a job. The CIA was soon jockeying with military intelligence for authority over Gehlen's microfilmed records--and control of the German spymaster. Dulles arranged for a private intelligence facility in West Germany to be established, and named it the Geheln Organization. Gehlen promised not to hire any former SS, SD, or Gestapo members; he hired them anyway, and the CIA did not stop him. Two of Gehlen's early recruits were Emil Augsburg and Dr. Franz Six, who had been part of mobile killing squads, which killed Jews, intellectuals, and Soviet partisans wherever they found them. Other early recruits included Willi Krichbaum, senior Gestapo leader for southeastern Europe, and the Gestapo chiefs of Paris and Kiel, Germany.

With the encouragement of the CIA, Gehlen Org (Licio Gelli) set up "rat lines" to get Nazi war criminals out of Europe so they wouldn't be prosecuted. By setting up transit camps and issuing phony passports, the Gehlen Org helped more than 5,000 Nazis leave Europe and relocate around the world, especially in South and Central America. There, mass murderers like Klaus Barbie (the butcher of Lyons) helped governments set up death squads in Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, and elsewhere.
KLAUS BARBIE

Known as the Nazi butcher of Lyons, France during World War II, Barbie was part of the SS which was responsible for the and death of thousands of French people under the Germany occupation.
HEINRICH RUPP

Some of Rupp's best work was done for the CIA, after he was imported in Operation Paperclip. Rupp has been convicted of bank fraud. He was an operative for the CIA and is deeply involved in the Savings and Loan scandals. A federal jury has indicated they believe testimony that Rupp, the late CIA Director William Casey - then Reagan's campaign manager, and Donald Gregg, now U.S. Ambassador to South Korea, flew with George Bush to Paris in 1980, during the election in which Bush was on the ticket with Ronald Reagan. The testimony states that three meetings were held on October 19 and 20 at the Hotel Florida and Hotel Crillion. The subject? According to the court testimony, the meetings were to sabotage President Jimmy Carter's reelection campaign by delaying the release of American hostages in Iran. The hostages were released on January 20, 1981, right after Reagan and Bush were sworn into office. Iran was promised return of its frozen assets in the United States and the foundation for the Iran- Contra deal was set into motion.
LICIO GELLI

Head of a 2400 member secret Masonic Lodge, P2, a neo-fascist organization, in Italy that catered to only the elite, Gelli had high connections in the Vatican, even though he was not a Catholic. P2's membership is totally secret and not even available to its Mother Lodge in England. Gelli was responsible for providing Argentina with the Exocet missile. He was a double agent for the CIA and the KGB. He assisted many former Nazi high officials in their escape from Europe to Central America. He had close ties with the Italian Mafia. Gelli was a close associate of Benito Mussolini. He was also closely affiliated with Roberto Calvi, head of the scandal-ridden Vatican Bank. Calvi was murdered. Gelli's secret lodge consisted of extremely important people, including armed forces commanders, secret service chiefs, head of Italy's financial police, 30 generals, eight admirals, newspaper editors, television and top business executives and key bankers - including Calvi. Licio Gelli and others in P2 were behind the assasination of Pope John Paul I.

The central figure in Europe and South America that linked the CIA, Masonic Lodge, Vatican, ex-Nazis and several South American governments, the Italian government and several international banks was Licio Gelli. He, with Klaus Barbie and Heinrich Rupp, met with Ronald R. Rewald in Uruguay to arrange for the Argentine purchase of the French-made Exocet missile, used in the Falkland Island attack to kill british soldiers.

Who is Gelli and why was he so important?

To understand Gelli, one must understand the complex post war years of Europe. The biggest threat to Europe in pre-war times was Communism - it was the great fear of Communism that gave birth to the Fascists and the Nazis. Though both sides were dreaded, the Fascists represented right-wing government, while the Communist represent left-wing government. It was the right-wing that the United States and the Catholic Church desired over Communism - because Communism would destroy the capitalistic system. This is why the CIA and the Vatican had go through with Operation Paperclip. The Nazis had massive amounts of Soviet intelligence, had infiltrated Communist partisans, and were in no way going to be given up to the Soviet Union.

Gelli worked both sides. He helped to found the Red Brigade, spied on Communist partisans and worked for the Nazis at the same time, a double agent. He helped establish the Rat Line, which assisted the flight of high ranking Nazi officials from Europe to South America, with passports supplied by the Vatican and with the full acknowledgment and blessing of the United States intelligence community. While on one hand, the U.S. participated in the war crime tribunals of key Nazi officials and maintained an alliance with the Communist Soviet Union, secretly, the U.S. was preparing for the cold war and needed the help of Nazis in the eventual struggle the U.S. would have with the Soviet Union. Gelli's agreement with U.S. intelligence to spy on the Communists after the war was instrumental in saving his life. He was responsible for the murder and torture of hundreds of Yugoslavian partisans.

The Vatican provided support to Nazis and Fascists because the Communists were the real threat to the Church's survival. The Italian Communists would have taxed the Church's vast holdings and the Church has had a dismal experience with Communist governments throughout the world - where religious freedom was stamped out.

Gelli was well connected with the Vatican from the days of the Rat Line and he worked for American intelligence, as well. Gelli formed the P-2 Masonic Lodge-which did not follow the direction of any Grand Lodge-and it was supplied with a sum of $10 million a month by the CIA. Its membership was a Who's Who in the intelligence, military and Italian community. So prominent was Gelli's influence, that he was even a guest of honor at the 1981 inauguration of President Ronald Reagan.

Gelli used blackmail in order to gain prominent members of his P-2 lodge, its membership is estimated at 2400 members, including 300 of the most powerful men in the Western World.. He was a close friend of Pope Paul VI, Juan Peron of Argentina, Libyan Dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi, and many high officials in the Italian and American governments - he is also reported to have had some financial dealings with the George Bush for President campaign.

Gelli and his P-2 lodge had staggering connections to banking, intelligence and diplomatic passports. The CIA poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Italy in the form of secret subsidies for political parties, labor unions and communications businesses. At the same time the Agency continued its relationship with far- right and violent elements as a back-up should a coup be needed to oust a possible Communist government. This covert financing was exposed by the Prime Minister of Italy in a speech to Parliament. He indicates that more than 600 people in Italy still remain on the payroll of the CIA. Licio Gelli was an ardent Nazi and a perfect asset of the CIA. As part of Reinhard Gehlen's intelligence team, he had excellent contacts. Licio was the go between for the CIA and the Vatican through his P2 Lodge.

Project Paperclip was stopped in 1957, when West Germany protested to the U.S. that these efforts had stripped it of "scientific skills." There was no comment about supporting Nazis. Paperclip may have ended in 1957, but as you can see from Licio Gelli and his international dealings with the CIA in Italy/P2, and Heinrich Rupp with his involvement in October Surprise, the ramifications of Paperclip are world-wide. The Nazis became employed CIA agents, engaging in clandestine work with the likes of George Bush, the CIA, Henry Kissinger, and the Masonic P2 lodge. This is but one of the results of Operation Paperclip. Another umbrella project that was spawned from Paperclip was MK-ULTRA.

A secret laboratory was established and funded by CIA director, Allen Dulles in Montreal, Canada at McGill University in the Allen Memorial Institute headed by psychiatrist Dr. Ewen Cameron. For the next several years Dr. Ewen Cameron waged his private war in Canada. What is ironic about Dr. Cameron is that he served as a member of the Nuremberg tribunal who heard the cases against the Nazi doctors.

When it was at its height in drug experiments, operation MK-ULTRA was formed. This was the brainchild of Richard Helms who later came to be a CIA director. It was designed to defeat the "enemy" in its brain-washing techniques. MK-ULTRA had another arm involved in Chemical and Biological Warfare (CBW) known as MK-DELTA. The "doctors" who participated in these experiments used some of the same techniques as the Nazi "doctors". Techniques used by Dr. Cameron and previous Nazi scientists include electro shock, sleep deprivation, memory implantation, memory erasure, sensory modification, psychoactive drug experiments, and many more cruel practices.

Project Paperclip brought us MK-ULTRA. Paperclip ultimately brought in key players involved in the Assassination of Pope 1, October Surprise (sabotage of Carter's peace talks), and a great many other things still classified to this day. The results of Project Paperclip were devastating, and very far reaching. I guess that is what you would expect from collaborating with Nazis."


Flockzap

SkyChimp
11-23-2005, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by KIMURA:
SkyChimp, even Northrop's design were plaqued with alot of problems - including stability problems during flight which made them very difficult to handle. To say that Northrop's design were better or bader than Horten's is neither fair nor correct. Both companies hadn't reliable technique at hand to garantee a trouble-free handling.
(also keep in mind that Horten was forced to stop any developements after 1945, while Northrop developed further)

I NEVER said one was better than the other. Reread what I wrote. BOTH designers had difficulties to overcome.

SkyChimp
11-23-2005, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by flockzap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
And Germany's V-2 was a scaled up clone of US scientist's Goddard's rocket. Of course the German version had a bomb on top.

Not many Germans know, or even accept that fact.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_shee.../goddard/goddard.htm (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/general/goddard/goddard.htm)

Funny how technology passes back and forth.


You´re right

http://www.gpc.edu/~shale/humanities/composition/assign...iment/paperclip.html (http://www.gpc.edu/~shale/humanities/composition/assignments/experiment/paperclip.html)

"After WWII ended in 1945, victorious Russian and American intelligence teams began...


Flockzap </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So instead of giving credit for rocket developement to those to whom it is due, you want to discuss the use of Germans in after-war rocket development. Sorry, not interested.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Robert_Goddard.htm

After the war, Goddard had the opportunity to examine a V2. He found that a lot of the work on the V2 copied his own work. The Nazis had taken his papers and read his 200 patent applications.

"Copied" however, is too strong. The Germans never apparently had a copy of Goddard's rocket. What they did examine were his patents which they used in their own design. These were valuable short-cuts in the developement of their own rocket, sort of in the like swept-wing technology provided valuable short-cuts to the Americans and Russians post-war.

flockzap
11-23-2005, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flockzap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
And Germany's V-2 was a scaled up clone of US scientist's Goddard's rocket. Of course the German version had a bomb on top.

Not many Germans know, or even accept that fact.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_shee.../goddard/goddard.htm (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/general/goddard/goddard.htm)

Funny how technology passes back and forth.


You´re right

http://www.gpc.edu/~shale/humanities/composition/assign...iment/paperclip.html (http://www.gpc.edu/~shale/humanities/composition/assignments/experiment/paperclip.html)

"After WWII ended in 1945, victorious Russian and American intelligence teams began...


Flockzap </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So instead of giving credit for rocket developement to those to whom it is due, you want to discuss the use of Germans in after-war rocket development. Sorry, not interested.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Robert_Goddard.htm

After the war, Goddard had the opportunity to examine a V2. He found that a lot of the work on the V2 copied his own work. The Nazis had taken his papers and read his 200 patent applications. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see.

But I just gave you credit...

Flockzap

Kurfurst__
11-23-2005, 04:26 PM
If Gibbage sees this, he will get a heart attack and will get his caps lock stuck. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

'WHAT DOES STUPID GERMANS DIDNT INVENT ANYTHING, IT WAS ALL IN DESPERATIONS BLAHBLAHBLAH..' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Unknown-Pilot
11-23-2005, 05:03 PM
While it's true that nothing the size of the YB-49 was flown by the Horten, Northrop started small too, and the Hortens did have larger designs in on the board.

The issue of control force reversal is a big one though. With hydraulics, you add weight to the airframe and also increase the risk of the pilot overcontrolling the airframe (which isn't that much of an issue in a normal configuration, but spins can be fatal in a wing). Since you don't have the parasitic drag of a fuselage and empennage, and don't have to waste the weight of a an empennage either (weight = induced drag), you end up with such a clean design that you don't really need laminar flow. I'm guessing that this was Reimar's thinking - saving the weight and complexity of the haudraulics while also decreasing the risk of overcontrol were seen as benefits to the reduced drag of laminar flow wings.

Additionally, his design (for the IX) increased directional stability as lift increased.

I do agree with Albion though, it would have been really interesting to see what would have come out of a collaboration of the 2.

What is really perplexing though is that, despite (falsely) beleiving that the 229 is the progenitor of the B2, people still insist on believing that flying wings couldn't possibly be designed or fly without the aid of computers.

arcadeace
11-23-2005, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Yes, Jack Northrop didn't exist and neither did his work on his own flying wing that had zero to do with the Horten's

All a propagandist hoax. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Where's the competition for a... different point of view? Have some pity.

Even the BBC could learn from...
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y194/Steevo37/my%20album/cnn.gif

Xiolablu3
11-23-2005, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
I don't watch or read CNN http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Let me put it this way, to those with a head on their shoulders, CNN is justly known as the Communist News Network.

They lean so far that if they were in a boat, they'd capsize it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure thats only from the right wing gun totin' yankees.

CNN seems ok to me with a balanced view.

What you have to remember is that not being a republican or right wing is seen as being a communist to the conservatives in the US http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

berg417448
11-23-2005, 05:36 PM
The left wing does a fair bit of demonizing themselves. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

neural_dream
11-23-2005, 05:39 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif There's left wing in the States? To my knowledge, partially acquired in this forum, it's insulting to call someone a socialist there. So, what left are you talking about? What I get from what Americans post here is that Left wing means Europe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif.

berg417448
11-23-2005, 05:48 PM
There are plenty of folks in the US who proudly proclaim themselves to be members of the left wing.

Bearcat99
11-23-2005, 06:11 PM
Yeah the radar absorbing qualities of the Horton were discovered by accident. During one of the test flights an operator glanced over at the screen.... and realized the plane he was looking at wasnt on it... or so the story goes. Everyone was busy looking at the plane no one was looking at the screen. I mentioned this a while back but someone who said they had a personal relationship with one of the developers of the B-2 said that they used little from it's design. I disagree though.... While true Northrop was working on it's own wing...even back then.... once they got wind of the 229s anti radar traits they went to the hanger in MD where it was kept and looked to see what was so unique about it. The result was the B-2.

SkyChimp
11-23-2005, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
What is really perplexing though is that, despite (falsely) beleiving that the 229 is the progenitor of the B2, people still insist on believing that flying wings couldn't possibly be designed or fly without the aid of computers.


Agree 75%. Northrop's smaller designs were flown w/o computer controls, and at least one is still flying. And it reportedly has very good handling characteristics.

Northrop's larger designs had good characteristics in all but some attitutdes as well. But to do the job Northrop wanted his bombers to do - safely - he needed another method. Unfortunately, he never pursued a solution and Northrop (the company) had computers on hand when they decided to redevelope the wing.

I would have liked to see what the two could come up with as well. Unfortunately, it appears Horten and Northrop lost interest, and funding, and the USAF was too short sighted to see the real benefits of a flying wing until decades later.

SkyChimp
11-23-2005, 06:22 PM
One of the characterisitics that gave the Go-229 a low radar signature was a fair amount of wood in its construction. Wood is naturally radar absorbant. The Mosquito benefitted from this as well. The other characteristic was a small frontal area. Even Northrop's bomber's had small radar signatures.

neural_dream
11-23-2005, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Yeah the radar absorbing qualities of the Horton were discovered by accident. During one of the test flights an operator glanced over at the screen.... and realized the plane he was looking at wasnt on it... or so the story goes. Everyone was busy looking at the plane no one was looking at the screen. I mentioned this a while back but someone who said they had a personal relationship with one of the developers of the B-2 said that they used little from it's design. I disagree though.... While true Northrop was working on it's own wing...even back then.... once they got wind of the 229s anti radar traits they went to the hanger in MD where it was kept and looked to see what was so unique about it. The result was the B-2.
That's more or less what I knew too and thought was common knowledge. Weird so many people disagree http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

SkyChimp
11-23-2005, 06:55 PM
One of the neat things about making US weapons and creditting German technology as the inspiration is the fact that when you do so, you get around US patent infringements.

In the case of Goddard and the V-2, the US purportedly developed its own rocket technology from captured German technology. Nevermind the fact that German technology used Goddard's patented inventions. Once the US claimed its technology was a derivative of German technology, it didn't have to pay to use Goddard's patented inventions. It's a very interesting way around this high cost.

These schemes and "legal" infringements on Goddards work are detailed in the book Rocket Man: Robert Goddard and the Birth of the Space Age.

Gibbage1
11-23-2005, 11:04 PM
Wow. This topic always comes up once a year. Always ends badly when the truth comes out.

#1. I spoke with a man on the Northrup design team. He said "Yes, we did go check out the Horten at the Smithsonian, but we did not learn anything new, and not one design element was used from the Go-229." I asked him about the exhaust, the ONLY visible feature the two have in common, and he said it had already been designed in before the Horten visit, and it was to block IR signitures from the ground.

#2. Both the B-2 and the B-35 have the EXACT SAME WING SPAN! Horten did not even get close to building a larg flying wing.

#3. The B-35 and B-2 HAVE THE EXACT SAME CONTROLE LAYOUT! Horten had small retractable air brakes on the wing tips for the rudder. The B-2 and B-35 have the same split aileron design Northrop pioneered in 1939 in the N9 series. Also that aileron system was used on many other Northrop aircraft.

The N9M fly's WONDERFULLY. Its one of the most, if not THE most gracefull aircraft I have ever seen fly. I have seen it fly about 5 times in my life, and I consider myself blessed every time I see it in the air. Its VERY VERY nimble, and VERY stable. The pilot told me "Its like flying a Cadalack.". The B-35 and B-49 were both very good flying aircraft. The Northrop designer I spoke with said the only reason it failed as a bomber was 2 reasons.

#1, bad lateral controle. Its not published, but 1 B-49 had an advanced COMPUTER CONTROLED stability system. They did not get a chance to test it before that prototype crashed. The aircraft they did simulated bombing runs with had no such system, and its accuracy was poor due to its lateral controle.

#2, flying wings produce a huge slip stream under its wing. Right were the bomb bay is. This slip stream caused the bomb to "pause" on release as it rode this slip stream. In some cases, the bomb would bounce OFF this slip stream, and come BACK into the bomb bay!!!! This was a critical flaw, and you simply CANT have something like this ON A BOMBER!!! The Northrop engineer told me the B-2 fixed this by putting two small air brakes in front of the bomb bay.

You can see them here.

http://www.studenten.net/customasp/axl/image/foto/29-4-2002-16-36-b-2_spirit_of_florida.jpg

Dr Goddard invented the liquid fuel rocket, and about 10+ patents including controle system, gyro system and many other things that went into the V2. An American invented it, and a German turned it into a weapon that killed many civilians.

BBB_Hyperion
11-24-2005, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
One of the neat things about making US weapons and creditting German technology as the inspiration is the fact that when you do so, you get around US patent infringements.

In the case of Goddard and the V-2, the US purportedly developed its own rocket technology from captured German technology. Nevermind the fact that German technology used Goddard's patented inventions. Once the US claimed its technology was a derivative of German technology, it didn't have to pay to use Goddard's patented inventions. It's a very interesting way around this high cost.

These schemes and "legal" infringements on Goddards work are detailed in the book Rocket Man: Robert Goddard and the Birth of the Space Age.

Did you ever though about the problems putting up a Rocket much bigger than Goddard's , maybe you need to add a book about liquid rocket developement for higher payloads to your collection. Just copying Goddard's basic rocket layout didnt work , so it is old tech in "new" form with some small additions and extras that allows the construction of usefull liquid rockets with considerable payloads. When it was so easy why didnt the US proceed with their own heavy rockets plans without help. Even when they wanted these scientists under control (avoid them working for the russians)why put them in such high positions ? Anyway Russians had Sputnik first anyway and that alone proofed the ICBM capebilites they had. While US Rocket developement was behind.

neural_dream
11-24-2005, 04:12 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Isn't it beautiful? The B-2 I mean http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif.

polak5
11-24-2005, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
Was there ever any doubt that the B-2 was linked to the 229 or that the sudden technological advances of the Soviets and the Americans were because of the German superscientists and superdesigns? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif.


Lets just go ahead and get it out of the way.. if it wasent for the germans we woulnt have gotten to the moon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kurfurst__
11-24-2005, 04:33 AM
"In 1920, Goddard wrote a report about his rocket engine tests and sent it to the Smithsonian Institute. It was called "A method of reaching extreme altitude". The New York Times got hold of a copy and severely criticised Goddard and his work. It claimed that Goddard lacked the knowledge given out to pupils in school on basic physics.

Rather than dishearten Goddard, the criticism spurred him into 20 years of intensive research. In 1926, Goddard launched his first prototype rocket, called Nell, at his aunt€s farm. Nell stood 10 feet tall. When its oxygen-gasoline fuel mix was ignited, nothing happened€¦.at first. Then the ignition caught and Nell was launched at 60 mph and climbed to a modest 14 metres before falling back into a cabbage patch."


I see a slight difference between this thing and the V-2 that reached into space in flight and traveled at 5 Mach.

Chinese invented rockets thousends of years before Goddard.
Goddard stole it from the Chinese.
Germans stole it from Goddard.

Sure. Bedtime story for never grown-up nationalist children.

p1ngu666
11-24-2005, 06:48 AM
kurfy lots of v2's failed on takeoff, its actully pretty normal from little ive seen/read about rockets.

theres plenty of footage of v2's going wrong, one of my favourites is one that takes off perfectly, few metres up the engine cuts, and down it comes (still pointing straight up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif).

more people died making the V2's than where killed when it bombed them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

luftluuver
11-24-2005, 07:20 AM
von Braun's first experiment with rockets (solid fuel, not liquid fuel) was no roaring success, except for the explosion at the end of the run that destroyed his 'little red wagon'. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Viper2005_
11-24-2005, 08:09 AM
http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Horten_Nurflugels/horten_nurflugels.html

From the credits section of the above website:



Almost all of the Horten text and pictures come from the excellent book " Nurflügel ", by Dr. Reimer Horten and Peter Selinger, and is used with the kindly permission of Jan Scott.

IMO the most interesting thing about the Horten wings is their lift distribution, which was pretty unique...

However, it is worth pointing out that by virtue of said lift distribution, operation of Horten wings under negative "g" would be a rather interesting proposition. Methinks an aptitude for tap dancing would be something of a requirement...

dazza9806482
11-24-2005, 08:37 AM
Im sure I read somewhere, probably here, that the Horten was developed to meet a requirement by Goering for a 1000 plane, an aircraft that could carry a 1000 pound payload, 1000 miles and at 1000 kph.

someone please put me out of my ignorance!

MrBlueSky1960
11-24-2005, 09:45 AM
Well, I've come to believe that any claims of just who invented what and when must be taken with a huge pinch of salt... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif And especially if it's aviation based technology coming from over the pond. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Miles M-52 anybody... Don't mind if I do...(Bells Team)

skabbe
11-24-2005, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Imagine the face of europe toaday had all this information fallen into Stalins hands.

The only thing worse would be european nations getting it and exacting thier dreams for colonial oppresion and single european rule.

Not that I think europeans have some kind of history or whatever.

yes, they should really have left the indians alone.

Unknown-Pilot
11-24-2005, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by dazza9806482:
Im sure I read somewhere, probably here, that the Horten was developed to meet a requirement by Goering for a 1000 plane, an aircraft that could carry a 1000 pound payload, 1000 miles and at 1000 kph.

someone please put me out of my ignorance!

The aircraft was developed independently of the directive (which was Kg/Km/Kph btw http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ), but was the plane to come the closest in terms of speed. (the He-162 came **** close too though)

Unknown-Pilot
11-24-2005, 12:13 PM
I want one of these! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Horten_Nurflugels/PUL-10/new_pul-10-2.jpg

SkyChimp
11-24-2005, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
"In 1920, Goddard wrote a report about his rocket engine tests and sent it to the Smithsonian Institute. It was called "A method of reaching extreme altitude". The New York Times got hold of a copy and severely criticised Goddard and his work. It claimed that Goddard lacked the knowledge given out to pupils in school on basic physics.

Rather than dishearten Goddard, the criticism spurred him into 20 years of intensive research. In 1926, Goddard launched his first prototype rocket, called Nell, at his aunt€s farm. Nell stood 10 feet tall. When its oxygen-gasoline fuel mix was ignited, nothing happened€¦.at first. Then the ignition caught and Nell was launched at 60 mph and climbed to a modest 14 metres before falling back into a cabbage patch."


I see a slight difference between this thing and the V-2 that reached into space in flight and traveled at 5 Mach.

Chinese invented rockets thousends of years before Goddard.
Goddard stole it from the Chinese.
Germans stole it from Goddard.

Sure. Bedtime story for never grown-up nationalist children.

Isegrim, even YOU know better than that. Well, maybe not. Your heros used something like 250+ of Goddards patented inventions in the construction of their V-2. But they did do something novel - they put a bomb on top to kill civilians. BRILLIANT!

WTE_Ibis
11-24-2005, 11:42 PM
I'm glad the allies didn't kill any civilians SkyChimp.

Will WW2 never end.


.

WTE_Ibis
11-24-2005, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
I want one of these! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Horten_Nurflugels/PUL-10/new_pul-10-2.jpg



Me also. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

.

JG27_Stacko
11-25-2005, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by diomedes33:
Jack Northrop was developing his own flying wing the same time the Horton brothers were. Northrop had to create his own company in order to build it though.

The "radar absorbing" skin of the Horton was a fluke. Unless you can prove otherwise, it was more because of material shortages than anything else. Just like the swept back wings on the Me-262 was a fluke. The only reason Messerschmitt swept them back was to move the cg further aft. People believed at the time that the sound barrier was a barrier and would be certain death for anyone trying to cross it. A lot like people believe today that nothing can travel faster than light. Germany did have a jump on the allies in propulsion though.

As far as I've been able to find the horton series of wings had about 3 test flights before they lost one due to an engine failure and their factory was over run. Northrop successfully built and tested then N-1M and N-9M before the wars end, and was working on the YB-35 and YB-49. The YB-49 was ordered for production in 1948, but then was canceled.

Northrop-Grumman developed the B-2 completely with computers and advanced materials. From the onset, the aircraft was to be quiet and invisibile to radar. I don't see the hortan haveing an active stability system, radar reducing shape that took a bank of incredibly powerful computers to determine, specially designed engine nacelles that reduce ir signature and noise, and whatever top secret goodies.

This is like comparing a horse and buggy to forumla one race car. They both have four wheels, so the f1 is based on the buggy.

LOL how foolish...

obviously the news atcle highlights the advantages received through the use of captured german technology.

You would have to be stupid or in denial if you look at the Horton and not see the similiarities between it and the b-2... is that a fluke?

The germans were far behind the allies in the field of radar technology. But they surely new that radar is about bouncing a frequency back to the receiver/transmitter, and lower profile objects reflect less in that regard. US designers may of had some form of primative computer design but surely they would of maximised the potential of the shape from the "incidental" benefits of the low profile Horten.

and you say fluke... I say pull your head out of your a$$, I didnt need an article to tell me this, I could just look at pictures from the library books and draw the dots... Thanks for the article though, its just a shame that it pulls out the usual ubi board jack-asses that dispute everything on principle

Regards

Badsight.
11-25-2005, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by JG27_Stacko:
LOL how foolish...

obviously the news artcle highlights the advantages received through the use of captured german technology.

You would have to be stupid or in denial if you look at the Horton and not see the similiarities between it and the b-2... is that a fluke?

The germans were far behind the allies in the field of radar technology. But they surely new that radar is about bouncing a frequency back to the receiver/transmitter, and lower profile objects reflect less in that regard. US designers may of had some form of primative computer design but surely they would of maximised the potential of the shape from the "incidental" benefits of the low profile Horten.

and you say fluke... I say pull your head out of your a$$, I didnt need an article to tell me this, I could just look at pictures from the library books and draw the dots... Thanks for the article though, its just a shame that it pulls out the usual ubi board jack-asses that dispute everything on principle actually the low radar signal of the Go-229 wasnt knowen about till the test flight

it wasnt a design feature , they just lucked out with the shape & wood/glue mix

the Horten brothers were not doing anything that wasnt already being done in the states

the B2 has no family history dating back to war-time germany Horten brother designs

Aaron_GT
11-25-2005, 01:59 AM
Let me put it this way - they have a very CNN nature.

Remember that CNN is no longer owned by Ted Turner but by a conservative.

Aaron_GT
11-25-2005, 02:02 AM
Neither the Horten brothers nor Jack Northrop were the first to experiment with tailless designs.

Aaron_GT
11-25-2005, 02:06 AM
Skychimp wrote:

Once the US claimed its technology was a derivative of German technology, it didn't have to pay to use Goddard's patented inventions

The patent protection lasts 17 years and as far as I know the last of the Goodard patents was in the early 1930s so by 1945 the patents had already expired, so no issue with patent infringement.

[Correcting myself here - he did get patents in the late 1930s for things such as gyro stablised guidance systems. Von Braun was doing the same at the same time, so they may have simply had similar research trajectories, or Von Braun might have been reading the patents.]

Xiolablu3
11-25-2005, 03:47 AM
I wish people would just accept that Germany were far ahead in terms of techonlogy throughout most of the war, it was only lack of resources/interfering Hitler that proved their undoing,

1936-1941 At LEAST the 1st EQUAL fighter aircraft in the world with the 109.

1941-1943 At LEAST the 1st equal fighter in the world with the FW190

1944-45 Best and only Jet fighter in proper service with the Me262 (Meteor wasnt in proper service as it wasnt allowed out of Britain)

Basically Invented the Cruise missile with the Doodlebug V1.

Basically invented the tactical ICBM with the V1.

Best Tanks in the world thruout the whole war/ only the T34 threatened this with its numbers in 1942 and Germany were soon on top (with quality) again with the Tiger/Panther.

One of the best if not THE best air to air cannon - MK108

Best Infantry Gun of the war (which totally changed gun design from that point on) - STG44

Best Machine Gun - MG42

So Germany and the US were both using flying wings, this means they were first equal at the very LEAST.

There are obviously more but I think you get my point. It was sheer weight of numbers which was their downfall in the end, but you have to admit, they had the best equipment on average of any nation fighting in WW2.

I salute you German engineering.

Fortunately for Europe/the world -
'Quantity has a quality all of its own' - Russian proverb.

diomedes33
11-25-2005, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by JG27_Stacko:
You would have to be stupid or in denial if you look at the Horton and not see the similiarities between it and the b-2... is that a fluke?


The only similarities I see is they both have two engines and are both flat. Internally they are two completely different airplanes, plus they serve different missions.

I'm not putting down the advancements of the Germans at all, but its not the basis of every technology being developed in the world today either.

Aaron_GT
11-25-2005, 12:18 PM
One of the best if not THE best air to air cannon - MK108

Actually it wasn't the best air to air cannon of WW2. That was probably the 213 not the 108. It didn't see service but was the basis of a series of weapons including the Aden, and was an important step in multiple barrel and chamber aircraft cannon.

Aaron_GT
11-25-2005, 12:22 PM
Skychimp wrote:

Your heros used something like 250+ of Goddards patented inventions

Edit from my original post. Are you sure he had 250+ patents? I have seen figures as low as 70. Is there an official number (short of going to the patent office?)

Kocur_
11-25-2005, 12:27 PM
Seems to me, that those BBC guys simply wanted to have a STORY, so put connection between Hortens and B-2. As if von Braun was not enough (but that was a while ago, who cares about Saturn today...)As if there were no Jack Northrop and B-35 and -49... But it might "work" for general public, sadly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Goddard was indeed man of vision! He did invent all major components of liquid rocket engine: turbo fuel pump, cooled combustion chamber, gyro stabilisation, steering system with surfaces in jet stream. But I really dont think Germans around von Braun didnt invent those things "again" independently. You know, like bow, printing, paper etc. Not to say that Goddard's succesful rockets (L series) were rather small compared even to A3, and those with most of his inventions included (turbo pump as the most important - the R series) didnt fly well at all (R-23 achieved 100m alt on 9 august 1940, the last one reached 75m alt on 8 may 1941.). Its just that Goddard worked with VERY small team, while German project was on industrial scale.

Bremspropeller
11-25-2005, 12:34 PM
pingu, the Russians and Yanks went through the same problems during their first "full-scale" test-launchs after the war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
11-25-2005, 08:26 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">One of the best if not THE best air to air cannon - MK108

Actually it wasn't the best air to air cannon of WW2. That was probably the 213 not the 108. It didn't see service but was the basis of a series of weapons including the Aden, and was an important step in multiple barrel and chamber aircraft cannon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My god Aaron, I had never heard of this beast...just googled it. 1200-1400 rpm of 30mm cannon! Thats nearly as fast as a MG42....

DO you know what the plans were for it and which planes was it going to be mounted on?

Sorry to take this off topic but the thread has almost finished anyway...(no replies for a while)

Badsight.
11-25-2005, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
My god Aaron, I had never heard of this beast...just googled it. 1200-1400 rpm of 30mm cannon! Thats nearly as fast as a MG42....

DO you know what the plans were for it and which planes was it going to be mounted on?
the Mauser MG 213

a sort of gatling gun type cannon

except instead of multiple barrels spinning like on a Gatling gun , you have a multiple ammo round chamber feeding the single barrel

it was a development based on experience trying to destroy bombers - which the current guns of the LW were not up to doing

you either fired one large round with enough explosive to bust apart the target , or you fired more rounds in a shorter span of time

better ROF/Ballistics were the preferred option

the 50mm fitted to the Me-262 fired rounds that were considered large enough - 450 grams of explosive per shell - but the difficulty in hitting the target with the weapon shows why ROF & ballistics were persued rather than shell size

of course with a massive ROF all going out one barrel you are looking at a short lifespan with a higher chance of warping & jamming in that barrell

the A10 Warthog has a multiple barrel gatling cannon & when its used at its highest firing speed there is supposed to be a delay between bursts & a limit on firing burst time

Xiolablu3
11-25-2005, 11:21 PM
Thanks for the info badsight, I couldnt find much info by googling.

I did find out that most of the A/C cannons from 1945 onwards were based on the MK213 design, lucky the germans never got it into production in WW2.

Viper2005_
11-26-2005, 12:53 AM
So how many of you looked at the link I posted?

tsk tsk tsk

If you're going to bang on about stealth all day you might as well get it right.

F-117 works by taking a pilot and a warload, fitting a stealth shape around them and applying thrust to make the whole assembly fly, whilst using computers to deal with the various stability and control issues that this approach presents.

The problem with this approach is that as your L/D is strictly limited (~4.5ish for F-117) you end up having a very limited range (see the Breguet Range Equation...).

B-2 used more advanced computational techniques in its design, allowing for a slightly more reasonable trade between RCS and L/D. However it's far from perfect. It has a rather low critical Mach number, and if operated above said critical Mach number, tends to tow its own private cloud around with it. So you can't see it on RADAR, but you can see it visually from quite some distance.

Anyway, stealth is a very strong function of wavelength, so that it's very difficult to avoid detection by both airbourne and ground based RADAR systems, especially if the guys hunting you have access to some reasonable computing technology.

The Horten approach to flying wings is interesing primarily because it provides directional stability without the need for artificial stability.

It's somewhat span inefficient, but it's very efficient with regard to wing root bending moment, and therefore the high aspect ratios implied by the adoption of sin^x lift distributions (where x>2.5) tend not to "hurt" too much.

I of course invite you to call my bluff by doing the sums if you feel that way inclined.

As for all this guff about Goddard, I would point you towards the work of Tsiolkovsky who was essentially responsible for the theoretical framework around which rocketry was built. His work dates from ~1903.

Goddard's innovation was the use of liquid fuel/oxidizer combinations. Whilst this was of considerable importance, without Tsiolkovsky's work it would have served no useful purpose.

Please compare with this (somewhat politically "corrected") website:

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_shee.../goddard/goddard.htm (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/general/goddard/goddard.htm)

Note that even according to NASA, Goddard does not predate Tsiolkovsky, even with regard to solid fuel rocketry.

Likewise, "stealth" is a somewhat ancient invention. The only "innovation" associated with modern stealth aircraft is that they attempt to reduce their electromagnetic signature outside of the visual spectrum.

This is hardly a ground breaking innovation.

It so happens that flying wings tend to exhibit a relatively low RCS; apart from anything else, they lack 90º intersections as generally associated with empennage design.

Thus the Horten approach to aircraft design (which originally was developed in an attempt to increase the L/D of gliders for soaring competitions) happened to result in aeroplanes with a relatively low RCS.

The fact that the Horten wings were mostly made of wood helped to further reduce their RCS.

However, it is fair to say that the Horten wings of WWII were not substantially more stealthy than most gliders - try getting a RIS near Rufforth on a nice summer's day if you don't believe me!

The Horten approach to aircraft design is far more interesting when applied as originally intended - namely to the attainment of high L/D performance when span is not constrained. This is ideal for light aircraft and open class gliders. It would also be great for airliners if the 80 m box issue could be circumvented (folding wings being the obvious solution).

Gibbage1
11-26-2005, 01:21 AM
I find it interesting how people are ignoring that a Northop engineer that worked on the B-2 said because they "feel" there is a connection.

There is no winning an Internet debate. So why bother.

Xiolablu3
11-26-2005, 03:34 AM
Forget the 'winning' and the 'losing', its the taking part that counts, and you/I/he/she may also learn something we didnt know. (because noone knows it all, do they? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Kocur_
11-26-2005, 06:10 AM
MG213 (designed both in 20 and 30mm caliber) was not Gatling type gun. Such is with block of multiple barrels with locks, being rotated by external power source (although soviets managed to produce gas operated types...). MG213 was a revolver cannon: one barrel with rotating block of chambers behind it-exactly like in revolver. Thing is, that when cartridge is being fired in one chamber, extraction is being done in previous, ejection for another, chmbering for another etc.
One could not hear of MG213, but probable did about French DEFA and British ADEN - both are MG213's direct derivatives.

Seems to me MG213 is modelled in Go-229.

Xiolablu3
11-26-2005, 07:29 AM
The gun in the Go229 is the Mk103, a big heavy 30mm cannon, too big to be used by fighters, really. Although it was mounted in some, it severely hampered performance and little ammo could be carried so the MK108 was developed.

The Mk103 is more powerful than the Mk108 , but not really practical for mounting in a fighter.

See the MK103 vs other rounds here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.inert-ord.net/luft02h/

BaldieJr
11-26-2005, 08:00 AM
Could someone recap this thread really quick? I don't feel like reading it.

Bremspropeller
11-26-2005, 08:01 AM
So the ADEN and the DEFA are virtually the same guns ? - Would make sense since the Brits use the ADEN in their Jags while the French use the DEFA in there.

BaldieJr
11-26-2005, 08:04 AM
wot?

Kocur_
11-26-2005, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The gun in the Go229 is the Mk103, a big heavy 30mm cannon, too big to be used by fighters, really. Although it was mounted in some, it severely hampered performance and little ammo could be carried so the MK108 was developed.

The Mk103 is more powerful than the Mk108 , but not really practical for mounting in a fighter.

See the MK103 vs other rounds here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.inert-ord.net/luft02h/

MK-103 was not used in fighters (except for some U-sets for Fw-190 with pair of MK-103 in gondolas and some Do-335). MK-103 wouldnt firt above engine in Bf-109 so they developed MK-103M with gas system redesigned, so it would fit between rows of DB-605 cylinders. But it happened too late, teething probs werent solved before war ended.

Cannon in Go-229 fires very fast, and MK-103 ROF was merely 420rpm - less than MK-108 (above 600rpm). MG-213 would definately fit (both geometricallywise and scenario-wise http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) in what-if Go-229.


So the ADEN and the DEFA are virtually the same guns ? - Would make sense since the Brits use the ADEN in their Jags while the French use the DEFA in there.

Well Im not sure if "virtually the same" is valid, as they were developed completely independently, but are very, very close to each other since both are derivatives of the same MG213. Also ammo is interchangeable.

So there you go: Europe's own "nazi-connected" weapons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif
(http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif M39 20mm cannon is based on MG213 too, yet its further derivative than ADEN/DEFA)

BaldieJr
11-26-2005, 08:20 AM
yer messin up my run dagnabit.

Unknown-Pilot
11-26-2005, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I find it interesting how people are ignoring that a Northop engineer that worked on the B-2 said because they "feel" there is a connection.

There is no winning an Internet debate. So why bother.

True.

Almost as interesting as people who come in and post diatribes on something that has already been covered as though they were bestowing knowledge on the teeming masses. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (the long post just above yours)

Xiolablu3
11-26-2005, 03:27 PM
Even worse are the people who assume because they have read it before, so has everyone else.

I hadn't read that info before, I found his post interesting. Not everyone has been here for as long as you.

I guess you think people shouldnt make informative posts, as you already know everything, ever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BaldieJr
11-26-2005, 03:31 PM
I hate knowing everything. Its burden in certain circles.

MEGILE
11-26-2005, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Could someone recap this thread really quick? I don't feel like reading it.

Germany invented America using Chineese patents, and not necesarily in that order.

Unknown-Pilot
11-26-2005, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Could someone recap this thread really quick? I don't feel like reading it.

Germany invented America using Chineese patents, and not necesarily in that order. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Unknown-Pilot
11-26-2005, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Even worse are the people who assume because they have read it before, so has everyone else.

I hadn't read that info before, I found his post interesting. Not everyone has been here for as long as you.

I guess you think people shouldnt make informative posts, as you already know everything, ever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Is your name viper? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

SeaNorris
11-26-2005, 04:25 PM
Disagree 100%

Badsight.
11-26-2005, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Seems to me MG213 is modelled in Go-229. ROF in the Go-229 is much slower than in Mk-108 planes

cant see how you could ever think otherwise

personally being a crack shot makes me want the mk-103 fitted in every plane i fly rather than the horrid shotgun mk-108

Kocur_
11-27-2005, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Seems to me MG213 is modelled in Go-229. ROF in the Go-229 is much slower than in Mk-108 planes

cant see how you could ever think otherwise
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right! I was fooled by watching track "Go229 vs B17".

darkhorizon11
11-27-2005, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I wish people would just accept that Germany were far ahead in terms of techonlogy throughout most of the war, it was only lack of resources/interfering Hitler that proved their undoing,

1936-1941 At LEAST the 1st EQUAL fighter aircraft in the world with the 109.

1941-1943 At LEAST the 1st equal fighter in the world with the FW190

1944-45 Best and only Jet fighter in proper service with the Me262 (Meteor wasnt in proper service as it wasnt allowed out of Britain)

Basically Invented the Cruise missile with the Doodlebug V1.

Basically invented the tactical ICBM with the V1.

Best Tanks in the world thruout the whole war/ only the T34 threatened this with its numbers in 1942 and Germany were soon on top (with quality) again with the Tiger/Panther.

One of the best if not THE best air to air cannon - MK108

Best Infantry Gun of the war (which totally changed gun design from that point on) - STG44

Best Machine Gun - MG42

So Germany and the US were both using flying wings, this means they were first equal at the very LEAST.

There are obviously more but I think you get my point. It was sheer weight of numbers which was their downfall in the end, but you have to admit, they had the best equipment on average of any nation fighting in WW2.

I salute you German engineering.

Fortunately for Europe/the world -
'Quantity has a quality all of its own' - Russian proverb.

This always turns into a fist fight over the Germans being smarter or superior to the Americans...

I think the BIG thing to point out is that the Germans were amazingly resilient. But the reason they were so far ahead was because the Allies really didn't have any interest in many of these projects before the war, (except for GB to an extent). Germany was gearing up for war, America was not, for the most part.

The first rockets were Chinese thousands of years ago. The first liquid fueled and modern rocket was built by Goddard (an American) and flown in the twenties. I tip my hat to Von Braun for his ingenuity and making it fly higher and faster. But remember, even today, not only is Goddard the father of modern rocketry, but his work impressed Von Braun in Germany. Perhaps Goddard could claim some credit to the V2 as well. And the V2 is hardly an ICBM, in fact IIRC the V2 was totally guided by gyros and mechanics, with no electric systems or computers at all. This would hardly suffice when trying to guide a nuclear missile 20000 miles.

Same deal for jet aircraft. Remember Whittle designed the first jet engine, and the Air Ministry did take some interest in the project, just not as quickly as Germany. The first British jet flew in May 1941 less than two years after the Heinkel.

In fact, the Allies actually didn't get very much in the way of jet engines from Germany, thats in the whole axial vs. centrifugal flow thing. If anything the sweptback design of the German jets was what the allies were most interested in, the designers of the F-86 Supersabre claimed that German experiments and designed pushed them forward about two years.

The 262 vs. YP-80 and Meteor argument is fruitless. The only reason the Meteor wasn't pushed was because there was no need. Germany on the other hand was desperate. The Meteor however was used in some strafing and ground attack missions. A squad of Meteors actually did spot some FW-190s in formation in early spring of 45 but they were bounced by Spits who mistook them for 262s and were forced to disengage. The same goes for the YP-80, there were a swath of them ready for the invasion of Japan in August of 45 had it occurred and more probably could have been ready earlier for Europe if deemed necessary.

Next the V1 was also a unique aircraft but not necessarily ground-breaking. The concept of a "cruising missile" was, but the pulse-jet engine hardly had any furthur usage. The U.S. was planning on using JB-2 Loons for the invasion of Japan but after the war better designs were quickly sketched up, and the pulse-jet engine was soon surpassed. The JB-2 and V1 were obsolete even before the war ended with aircraft now capable of catching them in level flight.

I'm not a tank buff so I'll give the spotlight here to a higher authority but from what I've read its generally been accepted that the T-34 was superior to the Tiger.

Same deal for the .50 cal vs. MG-42, the MG-42 had something like 500RPM rate of fire, but couldn't be used for more than about 5 or 6 seconds at a time and wasn't really that accurate. More of a just a spray weapon and was known mostly for the scare factor it had on the troops that never ran into it before. Both guns are still used today and really its a fight of tactics than gun vs. gun there.

Now there were some areas that the Germans were ahead of the Allies and vice versa. One you didn't mention was submarines. The hull design of the German long-range VIIC? submarine was advanced beyond anything we had designed and later influenced the nuclear subs of the 50s and 60s. Guided weapons were also pioneered the Germans, but never used effectively. On the other hand the Americans and British really pushed radar. Probably one of the key factors in the victories of the west. It was pivotal in saving Britain from the LW in 1940 and later was successfully attached to aircraft, something Germany was never even close too.

Either way its not necessarilly German technology that was better, maybe just the imagination and motivation that got them these weapons first. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Gibbage1
11-27-2005, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Seems to me MG213 is modelled in Go-229. ROF in the Go-229 is much slower than in Mk-108 planes

cant see how you could ever think otherwise
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right! I was fooled by watching track "Go229 vs B17". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fly the FW-190 with the Mk=103 wing pods, and fire them. Then go in and fire the Go-229. As the one who modeled the aircraft, it was armed with 2 Mk-103's. There was a model planned with 4 Mk-108's but that was a night fighter version. I have some VERY detailed scematics of the Go-229 and NONE show the 4 Mk-108's mounted. Only the 2 Mk-103's. Mk-103 use the same shell as the Mk-108, but have a much bigger charge and MV.

Xiolablu3
11-28-2005, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:


This always turns into a fist fight over the Germans being smarter or superior to the Americans...



Does it? I was just saying the Germans had better weapons than all the other nations which is true. I wasnt suggetsing anyhting about the Americans, just saying people should admit that the Germans were on top of the tech tree thruout the whole war. I think your desire to think that the US weapons were better than they actually were is clouding your judgement (possibly cos you are American? (not sure if you are or not http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

The T34 is nowhere near the quality of the Tiger or Panther, sorry but you have totally wrong info there. The T34 was the first Russian tank in number to be able to combat the Panzer 4 effectively, which was why it gave the Germans a shock. The Tiger and Panther were far superior.

The US Bearcat was made after examining a captured FW190A.

The M60 was a (bad) American copy of the MG42, as they realised it was far superior to their Mgs. The MG3 is still in use today and is basically an MG42.

The Americans were smart and realised the Germans had great weapons and either copied them or took their designers back home. Americans dont need to be defensive, you sure are at the top of the tech tree right now. But Germans were ahead in WW2. (Apart from the Atomic bomb http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

I'd put the US/Brits/Japs on around the same levels of tech thru the war, but Germans ruled it for most of WW2. :P

Of course you are free to argue otherwise, in fact thats what I'm hoping, I may learn something! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

nakamura_kenji
11-28-2005, 04:09 AM
guess because russian people forget russia also good heavy tank is-2 is-3 which after war became t-10/t-10m.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/IS-3_Snegiri_2005_01.jpg

if remember correct german consider actul consider produce t-34 copy but instead make panther. problem german technology was it good but they over complicate thing huge way this result make thing hard produce/maintain and use compare allie equipment t-34/sherman

ImpStarDuece
11-28-2005, 04:37 AM
Germany also copied weaponry from other nations.

The MG34 (and hence the MG42) was actually based on a Czech design.

The Panzerschrek was a German copy of the US 'Bazooka', enlarged to the size that the designer had originally wanted the weapon to be.

After the first encounters with T-34s there was some serious discussion in Germany of making an improved copy of the tank. As it was the Germans borrrowed lots of design features when designing a tank to be explicitly superior to the T-34 (Panther).

I wouldn't put the Germans ahead in terms of technology, just in directly observable martial applications of technology to the battlefireld. Jets, tanks and missles are what strike the imagination, but they don't win the war alone. Desperation drives innovation.

Away from the direct battlefield, the Allies were clearly ahead in terms of technology. In areas like RADAR, ASDIC/Sonar, HF/DF, cryptography and electronic warfare the Allies had a large advanage both in technology and application to service. You have other Allies technology like the radio-proximity fuse and the automatic gun laying RADAR. Allied jet engines were behind Germany in operatonal status, but well ahead in terms of power and quality.

The Germans may of had the 'sexy' toys; the best tanks, fastest planes and best machine guns but the Allies countered tactical level shortcomings with strategic and operational level superiority.

Kocur_
11-28-2005, 06:53 AM
the V2 is hardly an ICBM, in fact IIRC the V2 was totally guided by gyros and mechanics, with no electric systems or computers at all.
Not an INTER-CONTINENTAL Ballistic Missile at all surely! Unless fired over Bosfor or Bering strait http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But V2 was the first non-tacticlal ballistic missile indeed. It had all the systems required to think of it as "IC"BM. They were different technologically than modern ones, but were the same funtionally.

F-86 Supersabre
Surely you mean F-86 Sabre. There was also F-100 Supersabre but later - designed in early 1950s.

Same deal for the .50 cal vs. MG-42, the MG-42 had something like 500RPM rate of fire, but couldn't be used for more than about 5 or 6 seconds at a time and wasn't really that accurate.
First: its not proper to compare MG-42 and M2HB - those are weapons of different categories really. MG-42 ROF was 1200 to 1500rpm - high ROF, but that was not a problem in terms of barrel heat - barrels were quick changeable (really quick: open 'door' on the right of receiver, shake hot barrel out, insert cold barrel, close door). Today US Marines machine guns manual lets fire M240 for a minute at 950rpm - then barrel change.

More of a just a spray weapon and was known mostly for the scare factor it had on the troops that never ran into it before.
MG-42 was general puropse mg, so it could be mounted on a tripod - MG-Lafette 34 and used as mg. The tripod had spring device to increace stability. It had also device to...increace dispersion in controlled way - for mg is not point target weapon but area target weapon - i.e. you dont aim at separate human targets, but at formations or areas where you expect them. MG-42 firing fast, short bursts was very deadly used that way. So deady US Army tried to replicate the idea. One way was adopting aerial .30 AN M2 for ground use. Prob was: high ROF, but no way to change barrels quickly... Second was actually copying MG-42. Project produced T-44 prototype, which somehow didnt work right. Only after they discovered there was an error while measuring parts of disassembled MG-42 - T44 had receiver a bit too short http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif
MG-42 was used after the WW2 too: in West Germany, Yugoslavia, Italy and virtually every country which bought small arms in Germany. It was rechambered for 7,62mm x 51 NATO and with slight improvements used as MG-42/59. Today slightly improved version is used as MG3. And belt moving system designed for MG-42 (half a link in recoil, another half in counter-recoil) is used in almost all belt-fed mgs today.

The M60 was a (bad) American copy of the MG42, as they realised it was far superior to their Mgs. The MG3 is still in use today and is basically an MG42.
M60 is not a copy of MG-42: MG-42 was short recoil operated, while M60 was (it is almost entirely replaced with M240 in US service) gas operated. M60 has operating rod and bolt from FG-42 (Fallschirmjaegergewehr-42) coupled with MG-42 belt moving mechanism.

The T34 was the first Russian tank in number to be able to combat the Panzer 4 effectively, which was why it gave the Germans a shock.
In 1941 T-34 was a quantup leap ahead to all German tanks - was invulnerable to all tank guns, being able to kill all enemy tanks. It changed after Pz. Kpfw. IV F2 with long barrel 75mm gun was and frontal armour increaced by applying 30mm plate on 50mm basic armour was introduced in 1942. Both Pz.Kpfw.V Panther and Pz.Kpfw.VI Tiger were superior to T-34 (both /76 and /85) in every aspect but...quantity: 50.000+ T-34s vs 1300 Tigers, 6000 Panthers...(not to mention 40.000+ Shermans)

The MG34 (and hence the MG42) was actually based on a Czech design.

MG-34 and -42 are two very diffrent weapons, -42 is not derivative of -34. The only thing common is principle of action: short barrel recoil. MG-34 has bolt locked by rotation, and un-locking is coupled with acceleration of bolt by rotating bolt by cams in receiver. MG-42 has bolt locked with pair of rollers, which also work asaccelerator.
I know nothing on any Czech origins of MG-34, if there are any non-German ones, those would be more Swiss (Solothurn).
I think you might mean British Bren lmg - which is little more than British version of Czech ZB-30 lmg, and another, less known one, i.e. Besa tank mg, being actually Czech ZB-53 mg.

After the first encounters with T-34s there was some serious discussion in Germany of making an improved copy of the tank.
Even a prototype was produced! But was rejectd in favour of better project, i.e. future Panther.

As it was the Germans borrrowed lots of design features when designing a tank to be explicitly superior to the T-34 (Panther).

Pros of oblique armour plates were known widely long before T-34 was produced. Take look at many 1930's French tanks, British Crusader or even at Germany own Sd.Kfz.251 (German half-track APC). In fact if I wanted to be mean to a Russian I could say to him that T-34 was nothing but enlarged Walter Christie tank (with BT series, A-20 and T-32 between them), powered by "slightly" improved WW1 Liberty engine - so T-34 is actually "American" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Away from the direct battlefield, the Allies were clearly ahead in terms of technology. In areas like RADAR, ASDIC/Sonar, HF/DF, cryptography and electronic warfare the Allies had a large advanage both in technology and application to service. You have other Allies technology like the radio-proximity fuse and the automatic gun laying RADAR.

Agreed. Allies were much, much ahead in electronics! As much as it was about equal in terms of submarine warfare ( Zaukoenig vs. Fido - both acustic, passive homed, electric powered torpedoes) in everything else Allies desigs were better by far! Germans kept just chasing Allies radar technology; first electronic (not mechanical or electromechanical) computer was British Colossus; first radio artilery proximity fuse was American device, and on top of that all is Bat! The US Navy designed Bat bomb was ACTIVELY RADAR homed. The idea the same as in AIM-120 but realised in 1940's electronic technology! No German WW2 design was even close to advancement of that one.

nakamura_kenji
11-28-2005, 07:09 AM
the russia also have t-44 in 1945 but was not use frontline becuase new tank and need retrain crew/spare part not as comman t-34-85 ect

basic it t-54 hull with t-34-85 turret

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/06017.jpg

armour gap no big as people think. russian 2nd generation tank design very much amaze start from bt-7 fast tank end t-62 each one evolution one before end generation when go t-62 -> t-64 which 3rd gen

christie tank->Bt-7 fasttank->t-34->t-44->t-54->t-55->t-62

BlitzPig_DDT
11-28-2005, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The US Bearcat was made after examining a captured FW190A.

And what is your source for this BS?

The F8F was an extension of the 'cat design philosophy. When the Navy needed something faster than the Wildcat, Grumman knew it needed a bigger engine. However, the F4F frame would not accept the engine they were going to use, so it got a new one. Part of the design specs were also more range and increased payload, this meant even bigger still (with appropriate increase in lift as well). The result was the F6F.

When the F6F was at the end of it's useful life, there was a need for speed, climb rate, and agility. (fleet defense) The answer was to take a powerful engine, cut back it's payload and range capability, and essentially, wrap just enough airframe around it (the engine) to fly. THAT is where the F8F came from, and it was a world beater. And it's why it was expressly barred from PF even back when this was little more than a concept project.

The testing done showed that the F6F and F4U were both better climbers, faster, better divers, and FAR more agile than the 190. The F4U and 190 were equal in roll, and that's where the F6F fell behind. High altitude performance of both USN fighters were superior to the 190 as well.

Even IF Grumman wanted to build a 190-like fighter (the copy you claim), why would they not simply copy the F4U instead, which was in effect, the US 190 (since it couldn't turn and was only good in slashing runs).

That wouldn't have bought much though because the truth is that the F4U-1(any) wasn't all that much faster than the F6F-5. Despite what the fanboi's here, and Oleg, claim. (Corky Meyer trumps both of those groups here as far as I'm concerned)

Unknown-Pilot
11-28-2005, 07:26 AM
Germany/Axis and Allies both have their fanboys. Both are irritating. But sadly, the allied fanboys are the worst of the lot, by far.

I love how the claims of "they didn't know more, they just pursued things more because they were desperate". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Make all the excuses you want, the FACT of the matter is that much fielded German equipement WAS ahead of the allies, and the plans Japan had cooking up (needing only time) would have shocked the s#!7 out of the US too.

Could the allies have been right there under other circumstances? Probably. Were they though? No. End of discussion.

The drive behind the research and engineering work is irrelevant.

The race by both the US and the commies to scoop up tech and scientists is clear evidence of this. They both knew that those toys and scientists could give them an edge and move them forward a few years. They'd get there without them, but it was a short cut.

(Yes, the US was just as interested in keeping this stuff out of commie hands as they were in getting it for themselves, but they didn't share it much with their other allies, and if it was merely to prevent the knowledge from falling into the wrong hands, they'd not have been put in such positions of prominence, like the head of NASA, just for one small example. And how likely do you think the Manhattan Project would have been if Einstein had not been chased out of Germany?)

luftluuver
11-28-2005, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The US Bearcat was made after examining a captured FW190A.

And what is your source for this BS?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saying the F8F was a copy of the 190 is incorrect.

Saying that the F8F was influenced by the 190 is correct.

BlitzPig_DDT
11-28-2005, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The US Bearcat was made after examining a captured FW190A.

And what is your source for this BS?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saying the F8F was a copy of the 190 is incorrect.

Saying that the F8F was influenced by the 190 is correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"luftluuver" eh? Makes the statement not so surprising.

Prove it.

luftluuver
11-28-2005, 08:27 AM
Test pilot Bob Hall went to England and test flew a captured 190. He was so impressed by the 190 he hurried back to report to Leroy Grumman.

His report convinced Grumman that their entry into the F6F successor competition should be a be a small lightweight fighter designed for optimum performance.

Suck on that Pig. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kocur_
11-28-2005, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Test pilot Bob Hall went to England and test flew a captured 190. He was so impressed by the 190 he hurried back to report to Leroy Grumman.

His report convinced Grumman that their entry into the F6F successor competition should be a be a small lightweight fighter designed for optimum performance.

Suck on that Pig. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I was just typing quotation from Squadron/Signal "F8F Bearcat in Action" stating that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Unknown-Pilot
11-28-2005, 08:44 AM
Actually, he's right luuver. The 2 planes have NOTHING in common. The F8F is lightweight, a fast climber, and highly agile. It is more lightly armed than most US planes, and doesn't have much capacity for ordnance at all. It's purpose in life is fleet defence, which means taking off quickly, and climbing fast, to reach a target that is already at altitude and speed, and then being able to turn well to be able to come in behind that same enemy.

The 190 is an all around fighter, much more like the P-47 or F4U. It's good at high speed, but really only shows that in a dive. It's a mediocre climber. It's heavily armed. And it has a large capacity for ordnance.

Plus, what you claim isn't any sort of proof. You know this place - land of "got documentation?". So you're gonna have to do better than that.

Not to mention, he made a good point about the F4U - that is the US 190 - except that it climbs and turns better and is faster. And so was the Hellcat too. Using the 190 as an influence would be a step backwards. IF anything were to be that sort of an influence, it would be a Corsair.

luftluuver
11-28-2005, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Actually, he's right luuver. The 2 planes have NOTHING in common. The F8F is lightweight, a fast climber, and highly agile. It is more lightly armed than most US planes, and doesn't have much capacity for ordnance at all. It's purpose in life is fleet defence, which means taking off quickly, and climbing fast, to reach a target that is already at altitude and speed, and then being able to turn well to be able to come in behind that same enemy.

The 190 is an all around fighter, much more like the P-47 or F4U. It's good at high speed, but really only shows that in a dive. It's a mediocre climber. It's heavily armed. And it has a large capacity for ordnance.

Plus, what you claim isn't any sort of proof. You know this place - land of "got documentation?". So you're gonna have to do better than that.

Not to mention, he made a good point about the F4U - that is the US 190 - except that it climbs and turns better and is faster. And so was the Hellcat too. Using the 190 as an influence would be a step backwards. IF anything were to be that sort of an influence, it would be a Corsair.

You have a reading comprehension problem? Get out a dictionary and look up the word <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">influence</span>.

You should really look at the F8F more closly > 4 20mm cannons, bombs/rockets under the wing. Even the empty weight of the F8F is almost the same as the 190's empty weight.

Kocur_
11-28-2005, 08:58 AM
I guess that lightly loaded Fw190 must have made very positive impression on someone knowing F6F and possibly P-47 - small plane with big radial somewhere between 1700 and 2000ps. Lets have in mind that Fw-190A-1 to-5 was quite different plane to later ones, especially in weight and empty weight/power ratio was better for those Fw190s than to US fighters with R2800 - until F8F. Or perhaps "insta-stop" is purely American...?

But if I may go back to engines in the game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif:
I've been flying different Mustangs lately - all have one thing in common - their Merlins can be stopped by single or very few - even mg- hits, and its often. Does that happen to Merlins in Spitfires too?

Unknown-Pilot
11-28-2005, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Actually, he's right luuver. The 2 planes have NOTHING in common. The F8F is lightweight, a fast climber, and highly agile. It is more lightly armed than most US planes, and doesn't have much capacity for ordnance at all. It's purpose in life is fleet defence, which means taking off quickly, and climbing fast, to reach a target that is already at altitude and speed, and then being able to turn well to be able to come in behind that same enemy.

The 190 is an all around fighter, much more like the P-47 or F4U. It's good at high speed, but really only shows that in a dive. It's a mediocre climber. It's heavily armed. And it has a large capacity for ordnance.

Plus, what you claim isn't any sort of proof. You know this place - land of "got documentation?". So you're gonna have to do better than that.

Not to mention, he made a good point about the F4U - that is the US 190 - except that it climbs and turns better and is faster. And so was the Hellcat too. Using the 190 as an influence would be a step backwards. IF anything were to be that sort of an influence, it would be a Corsair.

You have a reading comprehension problem? Get out a dictionary and look up the word <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">influence</span>.

You should really look at the F8F more closly > 4 20mm cannons, bombs/rockets under the wing. Even the empty weight of the F8F is almost the same as the 190's empty weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have both an attitude and number recognition problem.

The F8F-1 had 4 M2s.

The payload capability was all but non-existant nor part of it's intended use. And it was an extreme lightweight by US standards.

Oh, and it could turn with a Yak3 and outclimb a 109K4.

Not even remotely related.

We are still waiting on your scanned documentation to back up your claim. And from original sources.

Unknown-Pilot
11-28-2005, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
I guess that lightly loaded Fw190 must have made very positive impression on someone knowing F6F and possibly P-47 - small plane with big radial somewhere between 1700 and 2000ps. Lets have in mind that Fw-190A-1 to-5 was quite different plane to later ones, especially in weight and empty weight/power ratio was better for those Fw190s than to US fighters with R2800 - until F8F. Or perhaps "insta-stop" is purely American...?

But if I may go back to engines in the game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif:
I've been flying different Mustangs lately - all have one thing in common - their Merlins can be stopped by single or very few - even mg- hits, and its often. Does that happen to Merlins in Spitfires too?

Yes, such an impression.

The general opinion of the pilots who made the comparative tests is that the FW 190 is an extremely simple airplane to fly and is designed for pilot convenience, but it is not equal to the Hellcat and Corsair in combat. The simplicity of the cockpit in the FW 190 was in contrast to the cockpit of the Hellcat and Corsair. However, it is felt that although more automatic features are provided in the FW 190, less direct control over variable settings is provided and the pilot has, as a result, less actual control over the engine performance. All the pilots agreed that the Hellcat and Corsair would be preferred in actual combat operations."

From the January '44 test by the Navy. And they were using a -3 Hellcat, not the -5 which had a few hundred more horsepower and better roll rate.

Kocur_
11-28-2005, 09:21 AM
Oh, and it could turn with a Yak3

Ehmmm...RL Yak-3 , not "Yak-3" in the game, turned not better than Bf-109G2http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Just not the best available reference (Spitfire V?).
Btw: F-8F-1 could carry bombs and rockets from the beginnig. And would probably receive 4 x 20mm if they werent in the rush to make it produced and used before war ends (not to mention probs with US Hispanos) - as in 1944 Joint Fighter Conference the only bad thing about Bearcat they could find was inadequate armament.

Unknown-Pilot
11-28-2005, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oh, and it could turn with a Yak3

Ehmmm...RL Yak-3 , not "Yak-3" in the game, turned not better than Bf-109G2http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Just not the best available reference (Spitfire V?).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but that was too chopped to follow. Could you repeat it differently?



Btw: F-8F-1 could carry bombs and rockets from the beginnig. And would probably receive 4 x 20mm if they werent in the rush to make it produced and used before war ends (not to mention probs with US Hispanos) - as in 1944 Joint Fighter Conference the only bad thing about Bearcat they could find was inadequate armament.

It was produced before the war ended. It was enroute to Japan.

4 M2s were sufficient for it's purpose - to fight Japaense planes. It was not intended for the CAS role. Nor would it see use in the CAS role either when the Navy had Corsairs that could carry more than P-47s.

That's also why it was not used in Korea - too short ranged and too low a capacity for ordnance. It was an air superiority fighter from stem to stern. (and by Korea, the USN wanted nothing to do with props for fleet defense or air superiority. It's also why the XF5U was dropped.)

luftluuver
11-28-2005, 09:31 AM
The attitude is all yours.

The F8F-1 is still a F8F as is the F8F-2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You want original docs >> write to Grumman and ask for them.

The F8F-1 was authorized to carry:
centre rack: 1 100gal dt or 150gal dt or 1 50lb bomb or 1 1000lb bomb

wing racks: 100gal dts, or 500lb bombs or1000lb bomb or Tiny Tim rockets or 3"AR rockets, or 5" AR rockets or 5"HVAR rockets

These were all cleared months before the a/c entered service.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Germany/Axis and Allies both have their fanboys. Both are irritating. But sadly, the allied fanboys are the worst of the lot, by far.</span>

Unknown-Pilot
11-28-2005, 09:37 AM
lol! You come on with insults then accuse the other party of having attitude. How sad.

F8F-1 and -2 were very different beasts. I suppose then, from your perspective, 109K4 and 109F4 could be considered the same, since afterall, they were both 109s, right?

Also, I will point out - you are making an outrageous and unfounded claim. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you.

Kocur_
11-28-2005, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oh, and it could turn with a Yak3

Ehmmm...RL Yak-3 , not "Yak-3" in the game, turned not better than Bf-109G2http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Just not the best available reference (Spitfire V?).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but that was too chopped to follow. Could you repeat it differently?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Soviet propaganda always claimed Yak-3 to be "the most manouverable WW2 fighter"". Reality was that Yak-3 having heavier wingloading, lower aspect ratio and marginally (60ps) more power than Yak-1b, was worse turner than the latter. 360deg horizontal turn by Yak-1b was ~18sec, while Yak-3's - 21sec. Captured Bf-109G2 turn times established by soviets were around 21sec too.

luftluuver
11-28-2005, 09:43 AM
Insults? What insults?

The main difference between a -1 and a -2 was the engine. Because of the more powerful engine the tail was increased in height.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Germany/Axis and Allies both have their fanboys. Both are irritating. But sadly, the allied fanboys are the worst of the lot, by far.</span>

Kocur_
11-28-2005, 09:45 AM
Umm and what about F-8F-1B? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Unknown-Pilot
11-28-2005, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Insults? What insults?

The main difference between a -1 and a -2 was the engine. Because of the more powerful engine the tail was increased in height.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Germany/Axis and Allies both have their fanboys. Both are irritating. But sadly, the allied fanboys are the worst of the lot, by far.</span>

You now claim to not know what you type in your own posts?

Main difference between the 109F4 and 109K4 is engine and armament. You're sinking on that argument.

luftluuver
11-28-2005, 10:04 AM
I know what I asked you. Is that an insult?


F8F-1 and -2 were very different beasts. Forget what you wrote? They were slightly different unlike the F and K 109s which are very different.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Germany/Axis and Allies both have their fanboys. Both are irritating. But sadly, the allied fanboys are the worst of the lot, by far.</span>

Unknown-Pilot
11-28-2005, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
I know what I asked you. Is that an insult?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">F8F-1 and -2 were very different beasts. Forget what you wrote? They were slightly different unlike the F and K 109s which are very different.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Germany/Axis and Allies both have their fanboys. Both are irritating. But sadly, the allied fanboys are the worst of the lot, by far.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you're blatantly lying about your own actions. Not to mention contradicting yourself.

This is the bottom line - you are defending (and overly emotionally so at that) an outrageous and unfounded claim - the burden of proof remains on you.

Unless you provide scans of that proof, then you are just blowin' smoke and full of c r a p. (stupid word filter lol)

Estocade85
11-28-2005, 10:33 AM
You two both suck.

*snaps*
"Security? Take them away please"

Aaron_GT
11-28-2005, 12:42 PM
F8F-1, 3207kg empty, 2100hp, max speed 420, ROC 3000 ft/min
Fw190A9, 3170 emoty, 2000hp, max speed (A8) 408, ROC 4500 ft/min

Pretty similar apart from ROC and armament

With regards to the cannon, the USN wanted cannon in the F8F by 1945, but realised that there would be insufficient time to redesign prior to the end of WW2.

Aaron_GT
11-28-2005, 12:44 PM
Main difference between the 109F4 and 109K4 is engine and armament.

Engine, armament, landing gear, tail, some differences in construction technique, and some aerodynamic changes of the wing. The F4 and K4 were born of the same redesign that led the F series and it was not the same jump as E to F, but there were still quite a bit of differences.

berg417448
11-28-2005, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The US Bearcat was made after examining a captured FW190A.

And what is your source for this BS?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saying the F8F was a copy of the 190 is incorrect.

Saying that the F8F was influenced by the 190 is correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"luftluuver" eh? Makes the statement not so surprising.

Prove it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"In early 1943, Grumman officials were invited to England to see the captured fighters of the Axis powers and to fly some of them. The test team included: Leroy Grumman, president of Grumman and test pilot during and after WW I; Bud Gillies, vice president flight operations and a test pilot current in all American airplanes at that time; and Bob Hall, chief engineerexperimental, a famous test pilot of Grumman and other airplanes of the Gee Bee era.
Of all the airplanes they saw, they were most fascinated with the Focke-Wulf 190. It not only offered sprightly performance, but it also had excellent flight characteristics with a gross weight of 8,750 pounds and only 1,730hp. The Hellcat was 3,200 pounds heavier with just 270hp more. Both Gillies and Hall evaluated the Fw 190 and found it to be the aircraft they would have liked to have designed themselves. It was exactly what the Hellcat follow-on aircraft should be. The only things the Fw 190 lacked were a good gunnery-lead computing angle of vision over the nose and a structure that would withstand carrier operations.

The Focke-Wulf impressed them so much they felt compelled to hurry home and put together an airplane of this gross weight in time for the water-injected Pratt & Whitney R-2800 C model engine of 2,400hp (War Emergency Power) to be installed. This would give our naval aviators a big performance increase over the newer Japanese fighters and would still retain the proven performance of the P&W R-2800 series production engines installed in the Hellcat. "

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199808/ai_n8826530

darkhorizon11
11-28-2005, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The US Bearcat was made after examining a captured FW190A.

And what is your source for this BS?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saying the F8F was a copy of the 190 is incorrect.

Saying that the F8F was influenced by the 190 is correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"luftluuver" eh? Makes the statement not so surprising.

Prove it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



The FW-190A was captured and examined by the USAAF and RAF. Somebody posted an article about its examination I posted a link at the bottom where the FW-190 was tested against the F4F. Either way the examiners were impressed by the performance of the radial, its roll rate of course and manuevability. In another article they did mention it would be great as a carrier borne aircraft. So yeah, it did influence the Bearcat, but it was definetly more than just a copy of the 190. The aircraft don't even look too similar.

Unknown-Pilot
11-28-2005, 01:41 PM
"The Bearcat was intended as an interceptor fighter, operating from carriers. In modern vernacular, it might have been called the "Hellcat Lite," designed for the smallest and lightest airframe that could support the Pratt & Whitney R-2800-34 radial engine, its fuel, weapons, and armor. The US Navy order two prototypes, XF8F-1, in November, 1943. First flown nine months later, the Bearcat prototype outperformed its heavier predecessor, notably with a thirty percent better climb rate. Grumman then delivered the first production model in February, 1945, only six months after first flight!

The F8F featured all-metal construction, a cantilever low-wing monoplane design, folding wings for carrier operations, self-sealing fuel tanks, four .50 caliber machine guns, pilot armor, a retractable tailwheel, and the 18-cylinder P&W powerplant.

With no early end to WWII in sight, the Navy was preparing for the long haul, and ordered four thousand Bearcats in 1944 (roughly 2,000 each from Grumman and General Motors). VF-19 actually took delivery of its Bearcats in May, 1945 and was still familiarizing with the airplane when the war ended in August. The Navy cancelled the entire GM order and cut 1258 from the Grumman order. "

Wheee! I can do that too!

Scanned documented proof of this non-sense? Still waiting.

Let's do a quick review -
the 190 (one of my favorite planes BTW), was built as a land based fighter under the LuftWaffe doctrine of close air support. (This means short range)

It was designed to be a high speed, low maneuverability slash and run fighter with devestating armament which doubled splendidly in the ground attack role.


Further, the existing F6F was already superior to the 190 in every combat aspect that matters, and already plenty superior to the only forces it would be facing (the Japanese). It had more range than the 190, was tougher, was already radial engined, handled better, flew slower, was better at high altitudes, dove better, and as a result was suited (amazingly suited) for carrier ops.

Pilots familiarized with the 190 for the 1/1944 test by the US Navy all stated (that's unanimously) that both USN fighters were superior in combat and is where they would feel safest.

Meanwhile (and this is important, please read this as many times as is needed), the F4U-1 Corsair had a roll rate equal to that of the 190 (as proven in the US Navy test), also had more range than the 190, was faster, tougher, could carry more ordnance, was better at high altitudes, and was already carrier qualified (though less than ideal thanks to that nose which, in Oleg-world, we can somehow mystically see BETTER over than the Hellcats, go figure).

Do you realize that? The US Navy was already fielding a BETTER 190 than the 190. AND the Hellcat was also better than the 190.

Now let's get back to desgin purpose - a land based multi-role fighter has nothing in common with a carrier based fleet defense/interceptor.

If anything, by virtue of the fact that it was an interceptor, it actually has more in common with the 109.

Never mind the fact that it was designed to turn incredibly well to boot, something which the 190 was expressly designed NOT to do.

lrrp22
11-28-2005, 02:41 PM
Aaron,

That rate of climb for the Bearcat is way too low. Typically climb is quoted as somewhere between 4,570 and 5,000 fpm- sometimes higher.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
F8F-1, 3207kg empty, 2100hp, max speed 420, ROC 3000 ft/min
Fw190A9, 3170 emoty, 2000hp, max speed (A8) 408, ROC 4500 ft/min

Pretty similar apart from ROC and armament

lrrp22
11-28-2005, 02:51 PM
Unkown,

That Navy test doesn't really provide an accurate picture due to the fact that the 190 tested was hardly representative of the best of the fighter Fw 190A's at that point.

The conclusion regarding the Hellcat's superiority is especially suspect. Sustained turn rate, range and docile handling would be the Hellcat's only real advantages. A fighter Fw 190 would have considerable advantages in virtually every other performance measure.


Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:

Further, the existing F6F was already superior to the 190 in every combat aspect that matters, and already plenty superior to the only forces it would be facing (the Japanese). It had more range than the 190, was tougher, was already radial engined, handled better, flew slower, was better at high altitudes, dove better, and as a result was suited (amazingly suited) for carrier ops.

Pilots familiarized with the 190 for the 1/1944 test by the US Navy all stated (that's unanimously) that both USN fighters were superior in combat and is where they would feel safest.

Meanwhile (and this is important, please read this as many times as is needed), the F4U-1 Corsair had a roll rate equal to that of the 190 (as proven in the US Navy test), also had more range than the 190, was faster, tougher, could carry more ordnance, was better at high altitudes, and was already carrier qualified (though less than ideal thanks to that nose which, in Oleg-world, we can somehow mystically see BETTER over than the Hellcats, go figure).

Do you realize that? The US Navy was already fielding a BETTER 190 than the 190. AND the Hellcat was also better than the 190.

Professor_06
11-28-2005, 03:00 PM
very poorly written article. " US Cruise missles are based on the V1 missle. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
YEEAAA RRRRight!!!!

ROGLMAO....

and the computer is arguably based on the workings of the ancient Abacus...So the ancient chinese were "arguably" the first developers of modern computerized aviation.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif dont believe everything you read...

well that was good for a laugh........

Bearcat99
11-28-2005, 03:04 PM
My my this thread has sure taken a few turns..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

ImpStarDuece
11-28-2005, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:

Further, the existing F6F was already superior to the 190 in every combat aspect that matters, and already plenty superior to the only forces it would be facing (the Japanese). It had more range than the 190, was tougher, was already radial engined, handled better, flew slower, was better at high altitudes, dove better, and as a result was suited (amazingly suited) for carrier ops.

Pilots familiarized with the 190 for the 1/1944 test by the US Navy all stated (that's unanimously) that both USN fighters were superior in combat and is where they would feel safest.

Meanwhile (and this is important, please read this as many times as is needed), the F4U-1 Corsair had a roll rate equal to that of the 190 (as proven in the US Navy test), also had more range than the 190, was faster, tougher, could carry more ordnance, was better at high altitudes, and was already carrier qualified (though less than ideal thanks to that nose which, in Oleg-world, we can somehow mystically see BETTER over than the Hellcats, go figure).

Do you realize that? The US Navy was already fielding a BETTER 190 than the 190. AND the Hellcat was also better than the 190.


Well, compared to the Hellcat the Fw-190 climb better, was faster at altitudes below 27,000 feet, accelerated better, rolled better, possesed equal zoom climb capabilities, had lighter control forces, better all around vision and was more than twice as heavily armed. I also question your opinion that the Hellcat was better in a dive, as the USN tests have no direct dive comparison and the Fw-190 was noted for its excellent initial dive acceleration. Remember too that the USN tests were of a converted Fw-190A5/U4, hardly the most agile or best performing of the FockeWulf family.

Sorry, but I don't see how the Hellcat is better in "every combat aspect that matters". What I do see is that the Fw-190 is superior in a high speed E-fight and B and Z regiemes to the Hellcat, while being inferior in a slow speed sustained turning combat. Sort of reversing the Hellcat-Zero situation found in the Pacific.

Kocur_
11-28-2005, 03:49 PM
What is US WW2 single engined fighter with the greatest wing area?
P-47? Nope: F6F.
Before F8F they tried to keep all features balanced. Like: ok, we have 1130kg, 2000ps engine, so its gonna be faster than F4F, but we got to keep it turning nice too: so lets enlarge wings, to keep wingloading within limits of nice handling in turns.
When designing Fw190 Tank did not try to make it turn nice AT ALL. Speed, acceleration and roll rate were important. How to get lesser wetted area, when fuselage is already as small as can be? Wings can be cut smaller: less drag and more speed, less weight and better acceleration. When weight of prototypes grew too much - enough to make it too nasty to fly, a bit larger wing had to be fitted, but still it was fighter optimised for high speed and acceleration - who cares about sustained turning!?
Similar process happened in P-51 case. But here more speed and better acceleration by less drag was achieved in 'smarter' way, i.e. laminar wing. Still however, due to poor lift vs. AoA properties of laminar airfoils turning was sacrificed. For: who cares about sustained turning!? Turning around eachother in 4000kg+ planes making over 600kmh easily!? BS!
Fw-190, P-51 and P-47 are most significant planes of second generation of low wing monoplanes - products of dropping idea of turning as key, or even among the most important factors in air combat. Was Fw190 an inspiration for Grumman team? I bet it was! Grumman fighters kept growing bigger and heavier over the years as their engines were growing more powerful and heavier. That tendency was stopped and pushed back with F8F, which reportedly made very good impression on Grumman test pilot. Hmm!
Why is it so difficult to think something from abroad was merely an INSPIRATION!? For how could anyone think F8F was not a better fighter than Fw190! How could it have been worse if was designed like 4-5 years later? Simply the best radial engined fighter of the previous generation INSPIRED them to make their G-58 something similar, but better!

Aaron_GT
11-28-2005, 04:06 PM
That rate of climb for the Bearcat is way too low.

I posted the lowest rate I've seen referenced. Some suggest that the -1 could do better, but I am a little sceptical as it would mean that the -2, with a more powerful engine had the same ROC as the -1. I am open to being persuaded, but I wonder if the ROC of the -2 sometimes gets ascribed to the -1. 4500 is still pretty healthy in the ROC department, though, on a par with 'rocket' planes such as +25 Spit IXs and K4s.

Aaron_GT
11-28-2005, 04:07 PM
US Cruise missles are based on the V1 missle

The first one (the Loon) was!

ElAurens
11-28-2005, 05:37 PM
Hmmm...

It seems that some of you are making the argument that if the FW 190 had not been built (I'm taking this to extremes here, but so are all of you...), that the F8F would not have been built either.

Pretty laughable on the face of it.

Sometimes I get the impression that the fans of German aircraft think that no one in the world ever had an original idea except for Kurt Tank and Willey Messerschmidt.

Again pretty laughable.

All designers, no matter what they design, are influenced by the work of others. this is indisputable.

But to say that the F8F is somehow directly linked to the FW190 is one of the funniest things I've read here in 4 years.

Be sure.

Daiichidoku
11-28-2005, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Hmmm...

It seems that some of you are making the argument that if the FW 190 had not been built (I'm taking this to extremes here, but so are all of you...), that the F8F would not have been built either.

Pretty laughable on the face of it.

Sometimes I get the impression that the fans of German aircraft think that no one in the world ever had an original idea except for Kurt Tank and Willey Messerschmidt.

Again pretty laughable.

All designers, no matter what they design, are influenced by the work of others. this is indisputable.

But to say that the F8F is somehow directly linked to the FW190 is one of the funniest things I've read here in 4 years.

Be sure.



* gets into my asbestos tux


im of the opinion that as brilliant as willy was, most of his successes benefitted greatly from earlier developments by others

darkhorizon11
11-28-2005, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
I know what I asked you. Is that an insult?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">F8F-1 and -2 were very different beasts. Forget what you wrote? They were slightly different unlike the F and K 109s which are very different.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Germany/Axis and Allies both have their fanboys. Both are irritating. But sadly, the allied fanboys are the worst of the lot, by far.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think your proving yourself wrong with that statment.

Badsight.
11-28-2005, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
I was fooled by watching track "Go229 vs B17". that track was recorded by a Maddox Games staff member at half or quarter speed , when played at normal game speed it looks impressive indeed

Kocur_
11-28-2005, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Hmmm...

It seems that some of you are making the argument that if the FW 190 had not been built (I'm taking this to extremes here, but so are all of you...), that the F8F would not have been built either.

Pretty laughable on the face of it.

Sometimes I get the impression that the fans of German aircraft think that no one in the world ever had an original idea except for Kurt Tank and Willey Messerschmidt.

Again pretty laughable.

All designers, no matter what they design, are influenced by the work of others. this is indisputable.

But to say that the F8F is somehow directly linked to the FW190 is one of the funniest things I've read here in 4 years.

Be sure.

Me perhaps? I did not invent idea that captured Fw190 was inspiration for G-58 designers. I read it. And than looked at Hellcat, Fw190 and Bearcat.
Wouldnt F8F be built without Fw190? BS! Surely would! But would it be smaller and lighter than previous Grumman's fighter? Or would it be another one larger than previous and powered by even more powerful engine, say R3350 or R4360? I have no idea. Still Bob Hall flew in England what he did and tried to convince Roy Grumman to built G-58 as small as possible. Did he have that idea in his mind already or Bill Schwnedler did? Most probably. Still Hall liked Fw190 and wrote Grumman about it.
Inspiration - nothing more. And if it was so - then its just favour returned - as H-2 was Tank's inspiration to design Fw190. And even more that Donovan Berlin's (whooopshttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif) Northrop Alpha, Beta and Gamma were inspiration for EVERY modern airplane after. Not to mention P-51 being inspiration for La-11. It goes and goes around the world...

Badsight.
11-28-2005, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
And what is your source for this BS? its commen knowledge that grumman engineers knew about , & inspected the captured FW-190 A5 & they were highly impressed with it


Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
And it's why it was expressly barred from PF even back when this was little more than a concept project. Leuither intially posted that he had NO PROBLEMS with the Kyushu Shinden or the Bearcat or the Tigercat being added , this was in the first couple of weeks of the PF forum being up

then the attitude changed dramatically

no no to late war

a big no

Badsight.
11-28-2005, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
The testing done showed that the F6F and F4U were both better climbers, faster, better divers, and FAR more agile than the 190. The F4U and 190 were equal in roll, and that's where the F6F fell behind. High altitude performance of both USN fighters were superior to the 190 as well. read the test of that captured crash landed Jabo A5 FW-190

it ran without its boost system enabled

it out-sped the Hellcat & was just faster than the Corsair

it out-climbed them both in high speed climbs

it rolled faster than both

Badsight.
11-28-2005, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Actually, he's right luuver. The 2 planes have NOTHING in common. The F8F is lightweight, a fast climber, and highly agile. It is more lightly armed than most US planes, and doesn't have much capacity for ordnance at all. It's purpose in life is fleet defence, which means taking off quickly, and climbing fast, to reach a target that is already at altitude and speed, and then being able to turn well to be able to come in behind that same enemy. armament aside , (the most produced Bearcat were armed with Four 20mm cannon) Bearcats do resemble FW-190s in more ways than just looks

climb rate being different doesnt nullify the design philosphies behind the planes

i just read your replys to other posters . . . .

your a fanboy

Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Oh, and it could turn with a Yak3 if you have any books you could refer me too , or even better post scans or jpegs of Bearcat info regarding tuning ability id be most gratefull

its very hard to come across & considering the weights , wing areas ect ect , your claim is screaming BS

Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Do you realize that? The US Navy was already fielding a BETTER 190 than the 190. AND the Hellcat was also better than the 190. you have that round the wrong way dude , consider that the FW-190 was in a well used , crash landed condition when it was captured for testing , & consider also that it wasnt tested using the boost system

& on top of that it got improved on beyond the A5 model

& that it was faster with a higher ROC at high speeds than either the Corsair & Hellcat models tested . . . . . & you will get closer to the truth & further away from blind fanboy-ism . . . .

Badsight.
11-28-2005, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
Aaron,

That rate of climb for the Bearcat is way too low. Typically climb is quoted as somewhere between 4,570 and 5,000 fpm- sometimes higher. maybe on cruise power!

imagine that high a ROC on just cruise setting!

real max ROC was around 6300 fpm

fastest climbing Piston/Prop plane of the 1940's & 1950's

its true the Bearcat was like an "ultimate Hellcat" , but its a fact that the Grumman engineers knew & had a look at the captured FW-190


Originally posted by Kocur_:
Not to mention P-51 being inspiration for La-11. It goes and goes around the world... the La-9 followed the Lavochkin development path laid down in the beginning by Lavochkin

i doubt you could say the mustang had a dirct influence with any proof - maybe it did but the La-9 was just a more aerodynamic La-7 (& the La-11 was a La-9 with bigger internal fuel tank capacity) La-7 moved the oil cooler because of things knowen about the La-5's mount position (& problems with) . all La-5s became slightly more aerodynamic with the La-7 being a big step foward & the La-9 prototype being a mere metal skinned La-7 replica ( by production the wing & elevator shape were changed)

mayby the speedy-for-its-HP Mustang did influence lavochkin - interesting thought

Aaron_GT
11-29-2005, 01:33 AM
real max ROC was around 6300 fpm

What's the source for that as I've never seen a figure so high for a standard F8F-1. The highest I've seen is 4800 ft/min, which also seems to be the commonly quoted figure for the F8F-2, hence suggesting 4500 ft/min as a conservative figure (still impressive).


fastest climbing Piston/Prop plane of the 1940's & 1950's

I've seen that claimed for several aircraft, including, for example the Hornet (4500 ft/min). The F8F-2 would seem to beat the Hornet by a bit, but for a production version I doubt 6300 ft/min.

Badsight.
11-29-2005, 01:59 AM
ok my bad

6100 feet/minute

the climb-to-time record , specifically the 0 to 3K (10,000 feet) . a STANDARD navy spec bearcat flowen by a navy pilot set the climb to time record that stood for 2 decades unbeaten by anyplane untill the first model F-16 Fighting Falcon beat it

10,000 feet in 96 seconds

the only thing changed on the normal Navy bearcat was the throttle allowed to pull WEP/Max MP with the gear down

this was restricted untill the gear was raised in service bearcats

i forget now if they carried ammo , but they had guns & were fully operational navy Bearcats

this was just a year or two after WW2 ended & the record stood untill a F16 beat it , forum member Skychimp has a family contact with one of the Bearcat pilots that day IIRC

ImpStarDuece
11-29-2005, 02:24 AM
The record was set with an F8F-2, which wasn't operational until the second half of 1948.

Ugly_Kid
11-29-2005, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
ok my bad

6100 feet/minute

the climb-to-time record , specifically the 0 to 3K (10,000 feet) . a STANDARD navy spec bearcat flowen by a navy pilot set the climb to time record that stood for 2 decades unbeaten by anyplane untill the first model F-16 Fighting Falcon beat it

10,000 feet in 96 seconds

Me-163 was in 40000 ft in 3 minutes...

Aaron_GT
11-29-2005, 03:28 AM
the climb-to-time record , specifically the 0 to 3K (10,000 feet) . a STANDARD navy spec bearcat flowen by a navy pilot set the climb to time record that stood for 2 decades unbeaten

How does that fit with the F4F record to 15,000m in 115 seconds, or was that not from a standing start?

berg417448
11-29-2005, 08:20 AM
I found and saved this once...I cannot recall the source:


€œThis was €œOperation Pogo Stick" conducted as a demonstration at the Cleveland Air Race, November 22, 1946. An F8F-1 piloted by Cmdr. Bill Leonard set a new time to climb record, from a dead stop to 10K feet in 97.8 seconds, including a 150 foot take off run. Unfortunately, he didn't get to keep the record very long. Lt.Cmdr. Butch Davenport came along about 15 minutes later and set the next new record of 94 seconds, also in an F8F-1 in a 115 foot take off run. Leonard's take off was into an estimated 30 kt head wind, by the time Davenport took off the head wind was over 40 kts. These wind speeds helped to reduce the time on the ground. Both were assigned to TACTEST at the time; Cdr Leonard was TACTEST projects officer. Lt Cdr Davenport was the F8F project officer. The F8F€s used were the standard Navy aircraft, armed, with ammunition. The planes were modified, however, to allow full emergency military power with the landing gear down, something you couldn€t do in a stock airplane due to safety locks.€

aMacGregor
11-29-2005, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Hmmm...

It seems that some of you are making the argument that if the FW 190 had not been built (I'm taking this to extremes here, but so are all of you...), that the F8F would not have been built either.

Pretty laughable on the face of it.

Sometimes I get the impression that the fans of German aircraft think that no one in the world ever had an original idea except for Kurt Tank and Willey Messerschmidt.

Again pretty laughable.

All designers, no matter what they design, are influenced by the work of others. this is indisputable.

But to say that the F8F is somehow directly linked to the FW190 is one of the funniest things I've read here in 4 years.

Be sure.

I think more people need to read and pay attention to posts like yours, sir.

I recently got involved with this product and was talked into looking at the forums, and when I do, what do I see? Nothing but "conversations" (if I can use such a word as a description) like in this topic.

Real nice place here. I think I may well not be bothered with coming back.

Regarding the plane - The mere fact that a captured example was flown, or even liked, does not indicate a connection. That is truly reaching.

Would a test pilot like the 190? Sure. Who wouldn't? Light controls, a beautifully laid out cockpit, built-in simplicity.... it was a pilot's plane. Any pilot of the era, particularly test pilots (who often did not fly in combat) would be taken by such a machine.

But again, that does not mean that there is any connection between designs. At least, beyond what this gentleman above pointed out.

If flying a captured enemy aircraft is somehow "proof" of design influence (at least to many of you), than it is more likely to have been a Zero that was the influence. Both because they had a captured example (which also was a pilots aircraft, but in a different sense), and, more importantly, because it was the type of opponent that the future designs would be fighting.

It is foolhardy to design a plane based on a design meant to do a job that yours will not be doing, and to fight a type of enemy that yours will not be facing.

You will recall that in addition to a captured Zero, they also had a problem with Kamikaze attacks, as well as newer, faster, more capable Japanese fighter types (such as the Ki-84) to deal with.

A fleet defense interceptor was required. This called for a plane that was fast, had a phenomenal climb rate, and an excellent turning ability. It also meant (and this is related to the last point) that it had to be carrier qualified, which meant it had to be able to fly very slowly.

Since Close Air Support was not a primary concern, that meant long range wasn't as much of a concern. And since it would be facing relatively fragile Japanese aircraft, heavy armament wasn't necessary.

The best way to accomplish this was to take a powerful engine, and wrap just enough airframe around it to meet carrier and handling requirements.

Relative wing loading could not be sacrificed on a carrier plane because low speed handling is vital. The way to increase speed then is to reduce weight, mostly for the induced drag reduction, but also to make the plane as small as possible (another carrier operations design element).

(And to the person who suggested that building bigger was some sort of design philosophy - the reason the Hellcat is larger than the Wildcat is laid out above. It's also why the F-14 has swing wings - carrier operations demand good low speed handling. If you increase the weight, you need to increase the wing. That is the reason that the Hellcat was larger, the Navy wanted more range, more speed, and more ordnance capability. The only way to do all that meant a bigger plane, and the only way to make that a good carrier plane was more wing.)

The design criteria that lead to each plane in question are radically different from one another as their intended use (which dictates much of design criteria) were radically different from one another.

The Japanese did more to influence Grumman than the Germans did.

Aaron_GT
11-29-2005, 09:43 AM
If flying a captured enemy aircraft is somehow "proof" of design influence (at least to many of you), than it is more likely to have been a Zero that was the influence.

Why would you let an outdated design such as the Zero, designed for TnB combat, be an influence for a later generation of aircraft after the dominant mode of employment had changed to BnZ. That would be mad. The latest Japanese designs, not the old ones, would surely have been more prescient?

Aaron_GT
11-29-2005, 09:47 AM
I'm a bit confused as to how the 1972 F8F record with a plane without armour, guns, and with a 4000hp engine only beat a stock F8F-1 with 2100hp with guns AND ammunition even with a 40kt headwind to 10,000 ft by 3 seconds. Unless the F8F-1 in the record wasn't stock.

Xiolablu3
11-29-2005, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Professor_06:
very poorly written article. " US Cruise missles are based on the V1 missle. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
YEEAAA RRRRight!!!!

ROGLMAO....

and the computer is arguably based on the workings of the ancient Abacus...So the ancient chinese were "arguably" the first developers of modern computerized aviation.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif dont believe everything you read...

well that was good for a laugh........

The V1 was the first proper cruise missile. Therefore the cruise missiles of today are based on that original design,

Much like the airplane is based on the wright brotherds original plane.


The Bearcat WAS heavily influenced by the FW190.


Thats a good point Kocur makes about electronics. The Allies were far ahead in codebreaking and electronic warfare. Also the Americans were far ahead in artillery support, having it on standby at all times if needed.

I still stand by my statement that the Germans in general had the best weapons in WW2. Please argue and tell me otherwise, I like the debate and I may learn something. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

darkhorizon11
11-29-2005, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Professor_06:
very poorly written article. " US Cruise missles are based on the V1 missle. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
YEEAAA RRRRight!!!!

ROGLMAO....

and the computer is arguably based on the workings of the ancient Abacus...So the ancient chinese were "arguably" the first developers of modern computerized aviation.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif dont believe everything you read...

well that was good for a laugh........

The V1 was the first proper cruise missile. Therefore the cruise missiles of today are based on that original design,

Much like the airplane is based on the wright brotherds original plane.


The Bearcat WAS heavily influenced by the FW190.


Thats a good point Kocur makes about electronics. The Allies were far ahead in codebreaking and electronic warfare. Also the Americans were far ahead in artillery support, having it on standby at all times if needed.

I still stand by my statement that the Germans in general had the best weapons in WW2. Please argue and tell me otherwise, I like the debate and I may learn something. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree and disagree with you X. The V1 was definetly the first cruise missile. I mean thats exactly what it is. Its launched from a rail, flys independently to the target (hopefully since V1s were only about 20% accurate) then sheds its wings and explodes.

The USAAF copied the V1 after the war and Ford Motor Co. built it as the JB-2 Loon. In fact we planned to use JB-2s against Japan had the actual invasion taken place. Like I said the technology wasn't really that ground-breaking but the concept was as it took a huge burden off manned bombers and it allowed for 24/7 harassment on a target area with minimum man power.

My question though involves the design of the Bearcat around the FW-190. How much? All the LW fanboys claim it was greatly influenced, I say prove it. Given the Allies were impressed with the FW-190 but nobody has actually posted proof or info about any of the aircraft system or features (besides the big old radial engine) that were copied.

darkhorizon11
11-29-2005, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by aMacGregor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Hmmm...

It seems that some of you are making the argument that if the FW 190 had not been built (I'm taking this to extremes here, but so are all of you...), that the F8F would not have been built either.

Pretty laughable on the face of it.

Sometimes I get the impression that the fans of German aircraft think that no one in the world ever had an original idea except for Kurt Tank and Willey Messerschmidt.

Again pretty laughable.

All designers, no matter what they design, are influenced by the work of others. this is indisputable.

But to say that the F8F is somehow directly linked to the FW190 is one of the funniest things I've read here in 4 years.

Be sure.

I think more people need to read and pay attention to posts like yours, sir.

I recently got involved with this product and was talked into looking at the forums, and when I do, what do I see? Nothing but "conversations" (if I can use such a word as a description) like in this topic.

Real nice place here. I think I may well not be bothered with coming back.

Regarding the plane - The mere fact that a captured example was flown, or even liked, does not indicate a connection. That is truly reaching.

Would a test pilot like the 190? Sure. Who wouldn't? Light controls, a beautifully laid out cockpit, built-in simplicity.... it was a pilot's plane. Any pilot of the era, particularly test pilots (who often did not fly in combat) would be taken by such a machine.

But again, that does not mean that there is any connection between designs. At least, beyond what this gentleman above pointed out.

If flying a captured enemy aircraft is somehow "proof" of design influence (at least to many of you), than it is more likely to have been a Zero that was the influence. Both because they had a captured example (which also was a pilots aircraft, but in a different sense), and, more importantly, because it was the type of opponent that the future designs would be fighting.

It is foolhardy to design a plane based on a design meant to do a job that yours will not be doing, and to fight a type of enemy that yours will not be facing.

You will recall that in addition to a captured Zero, they also had a problem with Kamikaze attacks, as well as newer, faster, more capable Japanese fighter types (such as the Ki-84) to deal with.

A fleet defense interceptor was required. This called for a plane that was fast, had a phenomenal climb rate, and an excellent turning ability. It also meant (and this is related to the last point) that it had to be carrier qualified, which meant it had to be able to fly very slowly.

Since Close Air Support was not a primary concern, that meant long range wasn't as much of a concern. And since it would be facing relatively fragile Japanese aircraft, heavy armament wasn't necessary.

The best way to accomplish this was to take a powerful engine, and wrap just enough airframe around it to meet carrier and handling requirements.

Relative wing loading could not be sacrificed on a carrier plane because low speed handling is vital. The way to increase speed then is to reduce weight, mostly for the induced drag reduction, but also to make the plane as small as possible (another carrier operations design element).

(And to the person who suggested that building bigger was some sort of design philosophy - the reason the Hellcat is larger than the Wildcat is laid out above. It's also why the F-14 has swing wings - carrier operations demand good low speed handling. If you increase the weight, you need to increase the wing. That is the reason that the Hellcat was larger, the Navy wanted more range, more speed, and more ordnance capability. The only way to do all that meant a bigger plane, and the only way to make that a good carrier plane was more wing.)

The design criteria that lead to each plane in question are radically different from one another as their intended use (which dictates much of design criteria) were radically different from one another.

The Japanese did more to influence Grumman than the Germans did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said El Aurens until someone posts a link or document showing copied aircraft systems, blueprints for each, or a document saying specifically that the Bearcat was a copy of the FW I remain skeptical.

Funny thing is we started this coversation talking about nurflugels.

http://www.nurflugel.com

luftluuver
11-29-2005, 02:52 PM
Influence does not mean copy. Why do people think influence = copy?

Both Boeing(XF8B) and Curtiss(XF14C) were proposing large a/c to replace the F6F. So was Grumman thinking of a large a/c until Hall impressed by the 190 suggested and convinced Grumman to design a small a/c.

Kocur_
11-29-2005, 02:52 PM
The V1 was definetly the first cruise missile.
Nope! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif The first one was 'The Kettering Aerial Torpedo', known as the The Bug (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/early_years/ey3a.htm)


Well said El Aurens until someone posts a link or document showing copied aircraft systems, blueprints for each, or a document saying specifically that the Bearcat was a copy of the FW I remain skeptical.
And dont ever lose that attitude, for F8F definately was not a copy of Fw190! And you (all) know what? Nobody here said anything like that! The "worse" one was "The US Bearcat was made after examining a captured FW190A.", which is simply true, but, in my understanding, very far from implying that F8F was Fw190 copy. Nevertheless the latter was inspiration for Grumman team (again: to build smallest possible plane with R2800 rather than something, that would be to F6F what the latter was to F4F), which resulted in building a plane of generation next to Fw190's and far better than the latter, which many of us read in books on Bearcat - not German books btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Xiolablu3
11-29-2005, 05:26 PM
Kocur, I htink you have put 'true' where you meant to put 'untrue in the post above?

The Bearcat for sure wasnt a copy of the FW190, it just got a lot of ideas from it. Therefore it was well influenced by it. I dont think anyone is saying it was a copy.

The F8F would of course have been built, it just would have been different and not as good a plane as if it hadnt borrowed ideas from the FW190 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SkyChimp
11-29-2005, 08:23 PM
The F8F-1 set that impressive time-to-climb record during an exhibition at the National Air Races in Cleveland, Ohio on 20 November 1946. The pilot was Lt. Cdr. M. W. "Butch" Davenport.

The plane was a stock F8F-1 without ammo, and with the engine rigged to achieve combat power with the gears down.

The FR-1 Fireball was also part of the Navy exhibition and performed a similar climb that was only a few seconds off the Bearcat.

I actually had a chance to speak to Bill Leonard's son who sent me this photo, among others, of the pilots and planes that participated in that event:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/pogo.jpg

10,000 feet in 1 minute 34 seconds.


BTW, that time-to-climb records was unofficial. And it was beaten several times before the F-16 was glimmer in anyone's eye. I know it was beaten by the McDonnell Deamon and Douglas Skyray.

darkhorizon11
11-29-2005, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
[QUOTE]The V1 was definetly the first cruise missile.
Nope! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif The first one was 'The Kettering Aerial Torpedo', known as the The Bug (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/early_years/ey3a.htm)

Well slap my *** and call me donkey. You guys still get the point of my post though.

ElAurens
11-29-2005, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Kocur, I htink you have put 'true' where you meant to put 'untrue in the post above?

The Bearcat for sure wasnt a copy of the FW190, it just got a lot of ideas from it. Therefore it was well influenced by it. I dont think anyone is saying it was a copy.

The F8F would of course have been built, it just would have been different and not as good a plane as if it hadnt borrowed ideas from the FW190 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Groundless fanboi speculation. Especially the last sentance.

Prove just one of your baseless speculations.

But wait, you can't.

What ideas exactly were borrowed from the FW190? The fact that it was a low wing monoplane with a radial engine?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Badsight.
11-29-2005, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by aMacGregor:
I think more people need to read and pay attention to posts like yours, sir. . . . . . . . . . . . . The Japanese did more to influence Grumman than the Germans did.



Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Well said El Aurens until someone posts a link or document showing copied aircraft systems, blueprints for each, or a document saying specifically that the Bearcat was a copy of the FW I remain skeptical..


Originally posted by ElAurens :
What ideas exactly were borrowed from the FW190? The fact that it was a low wing monoplane with a radial engine?


im a fan of the best of the best , & the Grumman F8F is one of those . other Bearcat fans tho seem to be offended by the idea of the German FW-190 having an influence on the American grumman F8F

i dont know why - the Beacat is an interceptor but to name any other plane that resembles a FW-190 more than the Bearcat . . . . . i cant think of any . . . . .

anyway here is a link :

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199808/ai_n8826530

its already been posted here

i hope people are reading this stuff with an open mind , considering the job the Bearcat had to do you couldnt call it a FW-190 copy

Badsight.
11-29-2005, 10:43 PM
in case you dont want to open the link , heres a copy & paste

Corky Meyer

Grumman test pilot , Bearcat development pilot

In early 1943, Grumman officials were invited to England to see the captured fighters of the Axis powers and to fly some of them. The test team included: Leroy Grumman, president of Grumman and test pilot during and after WW I; Bud Gillies, vice president flight operations and a test pilot current in all American airplanes at that time; and Bob Hall, chief engineerexperimental, a famous test pilot of Grumman and other airplanes of the Gee Bee era.

Of all the airplanes they saw, they were most fascinated with the Focke-Wulf 190. It not only offered sprightly performance, but it also had excellent flight characteristics with a gross weight of 8,750 pounds and only 1,730hp. The Hellcat was 3,200 pounds heavier with just 270hp more. Both Gillies and Hall evaluated the Fw 190 and found it to be the aircraft they would have liked to have designed themselves. It was exactly what the Hellcat follow-on aircraft should be. The only things the Fw 190 lacked were a good gunnery-lead computing angle of vision over the nose and a structure that would withstand carrier operations.

The Focke-Wulf impressed them so much they felt compelled to hurry home and put together an airplane of this gross weight in time for the water-injected Pratt & Whitney R-2800 C model engine of 2,400hp (War Emergency Power) to be installed. This would give our naval aviators a big performance increase over the newer Japanese fighters and would still retain the proven performance of the P&W R-2800 series production engines installed in the Hellcat.

The F8F design was started immediately on the trio's return. Mr. Grumman took a direct hand in its design. As the design progressed, it became obvious that meeting the 8,750-pound gross weight of the Focke-Wulf would be difficult. The structure required to withstand the loads encountered during carrier operations hadn't been required in the Fw 190 and would impose significant weight penalties on the new design. its better sometimes to not be such big doubters . . . .

Professor_06
11-29-2005, 10:54 PM
The correct word is "influenced." The front end is closer to the shape of a F4U Than FW. The article only suggest that the designers liked the idea of cutting 3000lbs off the Hellcat to put it in the FW weight class. Carrier based planes have completely different design needs than land based.

Now the Russians know how to copy a plane. They took a B29 apart piece by piece and copied the whole thing. Even its proclivity to overheat. Thats copy with a C.

Gibbage1
11-29-2005, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
The only things the Fw 190 lacked were a good gunnery-lead computing angle of vision over the nose

This MUST be a false quote since EVERYONE in the forums BUT OLEG says the FW-190 had GREAT forward visibility over the nose!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Badsight.
11-29-2005, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by Professor_06:
The article only suggest that the designers liked the idea of cutting 3000lbs off the Hellcat to put it in the FW weight class.. that article suggests a LOT more than wanting just a lighter Hellcat , the typed text is in plain english

they loved the FW-190 based on their inspection

who here , besides the doubting bearcat fan , has said "its a FW-190 copy" ?


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
This MUST be a false quote since EVERYONE in the forums BUT OLEG says the FW-190 had GREAT forward visibility over the nose!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif care to back that claim up ?

i know about the bar complaint - i dont recall people exaggerating it by that much tho

dont make me bust out the FW-Spitfire FB foward view comparison jpg

Gibbage1
11-29-2005, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
care to back that claim up ?

i know about the bar complaint - i dont recall people exaggerating it by that much tho

dont make me bust out the FW-Spitfire FB foward view comparison jpg

You dont take sarcasm very well, do you?

But now that you mention it, when people bring up the FW bar, they always have the quote from the Spitfire pilot who says the forward visibility of the FW-190 was better then the spit as proof that the bar should not be there. But when you look at the cockpit of the FW-190, the panel is so high, roof so low, I cant see how anyone could see over the nose. Its a case of the aircraft being designed, and the pilot an after thought in my openion.

luftluuver
11-29-2005, 11:08 PM
I think there are some apoligies due from some flag waving rah rah Amibois, would you not say Badsight?

Thanks for posting. Why they could not have done some searching themselves instead of getting a big knot in their knickers?

Gibbage, remember the Ami Naval fighters had great view over the nose, compared to the 190, since the cockpit was set high. It all depends on what one is used to.

Badsight.
11-29-2005, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
when people bring up the FW bar, they always have the quote from the Spitfire pilot who says the forward visibility of the FW-190 was better then the spit as proof that the bar should not be there. come on , im kidding with you

IIRC that Spitfire pilot was meaning all-round vision - side , back , & the window panes on either side of the main foward one especially give good vision downwards in the FW-190 . considering the stick-forces id say the 190 was designed with the pilot in mind - the pilots who liked high speed & killing in one pass that is . . . .

the bar is a refraction issue , not going to be changed for one A/C only

Gibbage1
11-30-2005, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:

Gibbage, remember the Ami Naval fighters had great view over the nose, compared to the 190, since the cockpit was set high. It all depends on what one is used to.

Not true with the F4U. The pilot may be set higher then the FW-190, but the hose nose had an issue due too its fitting name http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif In comparison, the F6F, F8F and even the P-47 had great over the nose views with the same engine.

Gibbage1
11-30-2005, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
come on , im kidding with you


Good. Cuz in a thread were they say the B-2 was a copy of the Horten, saying the F8F was a copy of the FW-190 is not as far off as you would think http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



IIRC that Spitfire pilot was meaning all-round vision - side , back , & the window panes on either side of the main foward one especially give good vision downwards in the FW-190.


Thats been my point all along! The FW-190 view whiners ALWAYS bring up that quote, but ALWAYS asume it means FORWARD visibility, not all around. I would agree that the FW-190 DOES have better all-around vision due to the canopy, and even left and right of that armored window, but the gap between the dash and top of the windshield frame is just insanly small at an extreme angle. It hampers the forward visibility GREATLY, then add the flat non-sloping forward section and it gets worse.

Im guessing if you have any video's of FW-190's taxiing, they are in a wheev pattern like they did with the F4U's since they cant look down the runway at all. Even once the nose is up, its all guesswork with whats under your nose!

But thats off topic.

P.S. The J7M was a copy of the P-55. Be sure!

CUJO_1970
11-30-2005, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Thats been my point all along! The FW-190 view whiners ALWAYS bring up that quote, but ALWAYS asume it means FORWARD visibility, not all around.



The forward, gunsight view was specifically singled out as being better in the FW190.

FORWARD view.

CUJO_1970
11-30-2005, 01:17 AM
Badsight,

Please don't provide accounts from people who were actually there.

I mean, why would you?

We have the expert authorities right here in this thread, and it is positively laughable to them that the FW190 would have any influence on the F8f.

So please, don't confuse them with facts.

Gibbage1
11-30-2005, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:


I love your sig. The pilot needs to kiss the gunsight in order to see anything. Helps make your point about great forward visibility.

Badsight.
11-30-2005, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
P.S. The J7M was a copy of the P-55. Be sure! Gibbage . . . . . sometimes you go TOO FAR . . . .

it was Eric Brown , the quoted british pilot about the FW-190 ? what was there that he didnt get to fly ?!?

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/FWview1.jpg
i dont feel shortchanged at all . . . . .

Gibbage1
11-30-2005, 02:32 AM
Im glad I did not model the Spitfire cockpit. I cant be blamed for that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

nakamura_kenji
11-30-2005, 02:35 AM
well did do ki-43 rear view ^_^ but that oleg fault for way implement telescope sight.

i never see why people complain fw190 view it much good espcial clear room able see either side of dashboard guage area

Gibbage1
11-30-2005, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
well did do ki-43 rear view ^_^ but that oleg fault for way implement telescope sight.

i never see why people complain fw190 view it much good espcial clear room able see either side of dashboard guage area

I did not. Only external model.

The only cockpit models I did was P-38, P-63, P-80 and Go-229. The rest I had other people do.

nakamura_kenji
11-30-2005, 02:43 AM
i joke anyway ^_^ nice external

luftluuver
11-30-2005, 04:55 AM
Im guessing if you have any video's of FW-190's taxiing, they are in a wheev pattern like they did with the F4U's since they cant look down the runway at all. Even once the nose is up, its all guesswork with whats under your nose!
Hate to inform you but all tail dragging single engine fighters had to snake while on the ground. They all had to guess what was under the nose when in the air.

You making a joke with the P-47? From the wing leading edge to the front of the cowl was a greater distance on the P-47 (~7ft) than on the F4U(~5.5ft). From the rear of the windscreen to the front of the cowl, the F4U was ~12" further than on the P-47. Not that mattered much as the P-47 pilot could not see his a/c's nose while the F4U pilot could.

Now which a/c had a big nose?

nakamura_kenji
11-30-2005, 05:02 AM
this aircraft big nose ^_^

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/phalcon_c2.jpg

but think would find corasir, fw-190D9/ta-152 horrible taxy becuase nose long. can understand long nose fw because inline engine but why so long f4u consider same engine f6f ????0_0????

R_Target
11-30-2005, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
can understand long nose fw because inline engine but why so long f4u consider same engine f6f ????0_0????

F4U was originally planned to have only two MG's in wings. When this was changed to six MG's, fuel tanks were taken out of the wings and put behind the engine. Cockpit had to be moved back about three feet to make room. Vey long nose.

nakamura_kenji
11-30-2005, 06:23 AM
guess would have unbalence plane to put behind pilot?

have picture orignal f4u as never see early only inservice version whith huge nose?

stathem
11-30-2005, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:

im a fan of the best of the best , & the Grumman F8F is one of those . other Bearcat fans tho seem to be offended by the idea of the German FW-190 having an influence on the American grumman F8F

i dont know why - the Beacat is an interceptor but to name any other plane that resembles a FW-190 more than the Bearcat . . . . . i cant think of any . . . . .

anyway here is a link :

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199808/ai_n8826530

its already been posted here

i hope people are reading this stuff with an open mind , considering the job the Bearcat had to do you couldnt call it a FW-190 copy

I'm loathe to add another thing in to argue about, but the Tempest Light Fighter, soon to become the Fury and Sea Fury, were also heavily influenced by that same captured FW190, particularly with regard to the routing of the exhaust.

The Fury is (sort of) a Tempest II with a section of wing removed.

Sounds familiar?

R_Target
11-30-2005, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
have picture orignal f4u as never see early only inservice version whith huge nose?

This isn't perfect scale, but it should give you an idea of the difference. Top plane is the prototype XF4U.

http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/8110/hoggnoze1bl.jpg

As for why they didn't put it behind the pilot, I'm not sure. Maybe the combined weight of the tank and armor for the tank would unbalance the plane.

stathem
11-30-2005, 07:55 AM
I find it ironic that, whilst everyone's talking about how wonderful and influential the Anton was, (which it surely is, I hasten to add, before the villagers arrive with the flaming torches) actual Focke-Wulf develoment went the other way, aquiring an inline and a superior turning ability.

Ugly_Kid
11-30-2005, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
I find it ironic that, whilst everyone's talking about how wonderful and influential the Anton was, (which it surely is, I hasten to add, before the villagers arrive with the flaming torches) actual Focke-Wulf develoment went the other way, aquiring an inline and a superior turning ability.

Mmm...they went for the inline out of desperation since after all that time they still could not get serial solution for BMW high altitude performance, which was desperately needed. It was an act born out of desperation, using a bomber engine and it worked amazingly well, which made an pretext for Ta. That was merely band-aid.

As for the turning performance - again high altitude, they needed lower wingloading and longer slender wings - not to turn but in order to get high altitude performance. Of course, the by-product was a good turning performance too, but that wasn't the driver.

Viper2005_
11-30-2005, 11:55 AM
It's almost like the story of Tempest development in reverse http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I'm pretty certain there's some irony in there somewhere...

womenfly
11-30-2005, 01:22 PM
http://www.kheichhorn.de/assets/images/horton_229_2.jpg

Cool ..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

neural_dream
11-30-2005, 02:11 PM
they are both beauties, especially the new one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Gibbage1
11-30-2005, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by womenfly:
http://www.kheichhorn.de/assets/images/horton_229_2.jpg

Cool ..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I made a render of the B-35, Go-229 and B-2 like that. The B-35 had the exact same wingspan, and the Go-229 was drawfed.

Xiolablu3
11-30-2005, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Kocur, I htink you have put 'true' where you meant to put 'untrue in the post above?

The Bearcat for sure wasnt a copy of the FW190, it just got a lot of ideas from it. Therefore it was well influenced by it. I dont think anyone is saying it was a copy.

The F8F would of course have been built, it just would have been different and not as good a plane as if it hadnt borrowed ideas from the FW190 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Groundless fanboi speculation. Especially the last sentance.

Prove just one of your baseless speculations.

But wait, you can't.

What ideas exactly were borrowed from the FW190? The fact that it was a low wing monoplane with a radial engine?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not a FW190 fanboy, I dont fly it often.

If the features it borrowed werent improvements, then why bother? What would be the point? If they could make it better without borrowing, then hell, make it better.

I dont know the exact features it borrowed, but I have read this in 3 different sources that the F8F was well influenced by a captured FW190A.

If you can prove these sources wrong then please , find some info that says it wasnt influenced b the FW190.

OK, here is my 'baseless' speculation.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/F8F%20Bearcat

http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/portland/971/Reviews/50s/bearcat.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/f8f-bearcat

http://airmodeller.tripod.com/48UsaF8f.htm

These were the first 4 links google threw up.^ It is mentioned in the first paragraph of EVERY link.

Quote - 'The F8F Bearcat was the successor to the great F6F Hellcat. Depsite the Hellcat's success against the Japanese in the Pacific, it was known that a successor would soon have to come into being to keep up with the rapid pace of aeronautical development. About the same time, some of Grumman's engineers were invited to check out a captured Focke-Wulf FW-190. They were so impressed with this fighter that they decided to make a similar aircraft for the Navy. Thus, the F8F was born'


Quote - '(Talking about the bearcat) - Many features of its design were inspired by a captured Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Fw 190 was a single-seater, single-engine fighter aircraft of the Luftwaffe, and one of the best fighters of its generation. '



'Quote' - 'The Bearcat made its maiden flight on 21 August 1944. The plane was supposed to be the successor to the F6F Hellcat, another Grumman plane. Bob Hall, the then Grumman chief engineer went to Britain in 1943, to evaluate a captured German Fw-190. He was so impressed by the performances of that compact fighter that the design of the Hellcat successor was already in his mind.'


I think I have proved it as much as I can. Please DISPROVE me.

Badsight.
11-30-2005, 08:08 PM
forget it Xiolablu3 , they want to think about the Bearcat as being all american & good for them . whatever its heritage it doesnt alter what kind of plane the Grumman F8F is .
& why does it matter what they think when you have those references right in front of you
Originally posted by stathem:
but the Tempest Light Fighter, soon to become the Fury and Sea Fury, were also heavily influenced by that same captured FW190, particularly with regard to the routing of the exhaust.

The Fury is (sort of) a Tempest II with a section of wing removed.

Sounds familiar? Stathem , its so funny you should say this as i found these last week reading about Tempests

http://xs57.xs.to/pics/05484/avcfury3.png

http://xs57.xs.to/pics/05484/avcfury5.png
the Sea Furys lineage from the Typhoon/Tempest is obvious , not a high speed Spitfire fighter at all & this was the direction the RAF went for

the La-9 & Bearcat strike me as opposite types of fighters with manouverability still being given importance

SkyChimp
11-30-2005, 08:21 PM
If the Fw-190 were really the inspiration for the F8F, you'd think Rene Francillon in his book Grumman Aircraft: Since 1929 would have mentioned it. Instead, he wrote a bunch of gobbly-**** about the need to design a small, high-performance carrier fighter that could operate from small decks.

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/bearcat.jpg

darkhorizon11
11-30-2005, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Kocur, I htink you have put 'true' where you meant to put 'untrue in the post above?

The Bearcat for sure wasnt a copy of the FW190, it just got a lot of ideas from it. Therefore it was well influenced by it. I dont think anyone is saying it was a copy.

The F8F would of course have been built, it just would have been different and not as good a plane as if it hadnt borrowed ideas from the FW190 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Groundless fanboi speculation. Especially the last sentance.

Prove just one of your baseless speculations.

But wait, you can't.

What ideas exactly were borrowed from the FW190? The fact that it was a low wing monoplane with a radial engine?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not a FW190 fanboy, I dont fly it often.

If the features it borrowed werent improvements, then why bother? What would be the point? If they could make it better without borrowing, then hell, make it better.

I dont know the exact features it borrowed, but I have read this in 3 different sources that the F8F was well influenced by a captured FW190A.

If you can prove these sources wrong then please , find some info that says it wasnt influenced b the FW190.

OK, here is my 'baseless' speculation.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/F8F%20Bearcat

http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/portland/971/Reviews/50s/bearcat.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/f8f-bearcat

http://airmodeller.tripod.com/48UsaF8f.htm

These were the first 4 links google threw up.^ It is mentioned in the first paragraph of EVERY link.

Quote - 'The F8F Bearcat was the successor to the great F6F Hellcat. Depsite the Hellcat's success against the Japanese in the Pacific, it was known that a successor would soon have to come into being to keep up with the rapid pace of aeronautical development. About the same time, some of Grumman's engineers were invited to check out a captured Focke-Wulf FW-190. They were so impressed with this fighter that they decided to make a similar aircraft for the Navy. Thus, the F8F was born'


Quote - '(Talking about the bearcat) - Many features of its design were inspired by a captured Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Fw 190 was a single-seater, single-engine fighter aircraft of the Luftwaffe, and one of the best fighters of its generation. '



'Quote' - 'The Bearcat made its maiden flight on 21 August 1944. The plane was supposed to be the successor to the F6F Hellcat, another Grumman plane. Bob Hall, the then Grumman chief engineer went to Britain in 1943, to evaluate a captured German Fw-190. He was so impressed by the performances of that compact fighter that the design of the Hellcat successor was already in his mind.'


I think I have proved it as much as I can. Please DISPROVE me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that is probably was influenced. I was just arguing it wasn't copied. There is a difference. Not anti-German 100% American views there. Although I still wonder exactly what systems were copied, the links only say blah blah blah after looking at the plane... Like I said, its got big radial on the front and is small, but I was hoping for something more aviation savvy.

SkyChimp
11-30-2005, 08:51 PM
As far as the Bearcat's blistering climb-rate goes, here is a comparison of the XF8F to other contemporary fighters. 5,850 feet per minute ain't too shabby.

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/bear2.jpg

XF8F was the designation for the first 23 Bearcat fighters (there were no YF8Fs). The first few were powered by the R-2800-22W, and the rest by the R-2800-34W. They had the same power ratings. The F8F-1 was powered by the R-2800-34W

XF8Fs were very much similar to the production F8F-1 in that they had full armor, fuel and weapons. According to "Grumman Aircraft: Since 1929" the empty weight of the XF8F was 6,733, and loaded weight was 8,788. Empty weight of the F8F-1 was 7,070, and loaded weight was 9,386.

I suspect the XF8F climb rate of 5,850 fpm listed in that chart was a WEP climb rate. The F8F manual lists the following time-to-climb numbers for the F8F-1 @ 9,215 lbs:

1 minute to 5,000 feet
2.13 minutes to 10,000 feet
3.36 minutes to 15,000 feet
4.80 minutes to 20,000 feet
6.60 minutes to 25,000 feet

Interestingly, these appear to be Military Power Climb rates. The chart in the manual does not show any performance on WEP and states War Emergency Power ratings had not yet been established at the time. These are ratings on 100/130 grade fuel.

I don't think 5,850 fpm climb rate for a lightly loaded F8F-1 is out of the question. 5,500 fpm for a normally loaded plane seems perfectly plausible. The 6,100 fpm climb rate I see bandied about every so often MAY be a WEP climb rate on 115/145 grade fuel and higher MAP. The 4,500 fpm climb rate may be a Normal Power climb rate.

ElAurens
11-30-2005, 09:35 PM
Not to belabor the point, but all the links posted by darkhorizon11 seem to be copys of the same text. (Or perhaps 2 texts).

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/F8F.jpg

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/fw190_1.jpg

You think these aircraft are somehow linked?

Bizzare, simply bizzare.

ElAurens
11-30-2005, 09:38 PM
Oh, and note the wonderful forward visibility offered by the FW190...

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

Xiolablu3
11-30-2005, 10:12 PM
I posted the links, not darkhorizon,

You asked me to prove that the FW190 inspired the Bearcat.

I took some quotes fromt he links I posted, thats all. I can find hundreds more I'm sure if you still dont believe me.

I dont know a lot about the bearcat, but it seems its a cross between the small carrier based fighter that Skychimp desribes, (ie the F6F) with added features from the FW190.


Sorry to OP for taking this OT, I guess it warrants its own thread.

Badsight.
11-30-2005, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
You think these aircraft are somehow linked?. i didnt , untill i read about its development & how the Grumman engineers came back so impressed with the Focke Wulf 190

side by side i ask you what plane looks more like a FW-190 than the Bearcat - but looks are besides the point , the point was the FW-190 gave inspiration for the Grumman F8F

& does that peice of Grumman history touch a nerve or what!

a carrier capable interceptor , a shrunken Hellcat <~~~ doesnt sound like a FW-190 does it

Gibbage1
12-01-2005, 12:00 AM
I think the A6M influanced the F8F more then the FW-190 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif They also look more alike.

SkyChimp
12-01-2005, 05:07 AM
I guess the obvious question is what portion of the F8F is influenced by the Fw-190???

I think someone made it up and all these websites that have substatially the same text as each other perpetuate that myth.

Roy Grumman wanted a small high performance fighter he could market to the Navy that could fly off small carriers. So Grumman looked at an Fw-190 to see how it should be done??? That makes sense.

ElAurens
12-01-2005, 05:15 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:

side by side i ask you what plane looks more like a FW-190 than the Bearcat -

Wow, I guess your online nom de plume is more accurate than I first thought.

luftluuver
12-01-2005, 06:13 AM
SkyChimp your image says Roy Grumman sent a memo out late July 1943. The test of the Fw190 was done in early 1943. July is not early but mid 1943. Do you not think that the memo was sent out after RG read the report from Bob Hall?

Xiolablu3
12-01-2005, 06:21 AM
El Laurens, I cant believe after the big fo-par you just made that you are ripping on Badsight. Is it to throw attention off yourself, the fact that you were completely wrong? You still have not found ANY sources which say this is a myth.


Also, I cant understand why anyone thinks its a myth? With so many different sources saying the same thing.

I also cannot see why everyone WANTS to think its a myth like they need the F8F to be some kind of All-American super-plane.

Is there ANYWHERE that says this is a myth?

Whats so terrible about Grumann borrowing ideas from the FW190A? And why is it so unbelievable to the Yanks?

I give you more quotes :-

Quote - 'Grumman€s design team, headed by Bob Hall, therefore began with the engine, the 2100 hp Pratt and Whitney R-2800-34W Double Wasp radial used in the F6F, and set about designing the smallest and lightest fighter that could be built around that engine and an armament of four .50 caliber machine guns. In early 1943, Hall had the opportunity to test-fly a captured Focke-Wulf FW-190. He was favorably impressed by it, and incorporated many of the features of the FW into the new fighter which was being built as a private initiative under the designation G.58.'

Quote - 'Grumman, however, favored a lighter and more maneuverable design more like the German Focke Wulf Fw 190, of which a captured example was flown by Grumman test pilot Bob Hall in England.'

Quote - 'The design was inspired by the Focke-Wulf Fw-190 after captured examples were evaluated by Grumman test pilots sent to England for this very purpose. Their conclusions were transferred to paper in the form of a proposal to mate the most powerful version of Pratt & Whitney€s R-2800 Twin Wasp into an all-new Wildcat-sized airframe.'


Thats 7 quotes altogether, and I can find many many more, are they all wrong?

SkyChimp
12-01-2005, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
SkyChimp your image says Roy Grumman sent a memo out late July 1943. The test of the Fw190 was done in early 1943. July is not early but mid 1943. Do you not think that the memo was sent out after RG read the report from Bob Hall?

Hmmmm. Roy Grumman builds carrier planes. He builds the most successful carrier plane of all time. He knows its performance is not going to remain competitive. He knows he needs to develope a fast, high performing, carrier fighter which can operate from small carriers.

So, instead of relying on his decades of experience, he now needs to turn to the Germans for inspiration.

Ah, it all makes sense now.

SkyChimp
12-01-2005, 06:48 AM
Xiolablu3, which Fw-190 features were incorporated into the F8F? Simple question?

The four-bladed prop?
True bubble canopy?
Conventional folding wings?

Which Fw-190 features were incorporated into the F8F??????

Xiolablu3
12-01-2005, 06:57 AM
I have no idea SC, sorry. I dont know much about the plane at all.

All I can find is hundreds of quotes saying the FW190A was its inspiration.

Quote -'WWII CREW TO A CLOSE just as a whole generation of advanced combat aircraft was entering service in the U.S. armed forces. One of the most impressive of these was the Grumman F8F-1 Bearcat, which was literally en route to the Pacific Theater at the time of Japan's surrender. Although the family resemblance to its famous forebear, the F6F Hellcat, is apparent, the Bearcat owed its inspiration to a detailed study of a captured German Focke-Wulf 190A.'

If I find anything more detailed I will post it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


EDIT: Sorry I edited this after you replied.

SkyChimp
12-01-2005, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I have no idea SC, sorry. I dont know much about the plane at all.

If I find anything I will post it.

The idea of mating the most powerful engine to the smallest possible frame wouldn't have been inspired by the Fw-190. Not even the Fw-190 did that.

I'm not saying there weren't characterisitcs of the Fw-190 that didn't impress the Grumman crew. But the principal inspirtation for the F8F seems to have been the need for a small, fast, high performing carrier fighter, along with Roy Grumman's know-how.

Xiolablu3
12-01-2005, 07:13 AM
The most detailed thing I have found so far is the actual quotes-

'It was literally a Hellcat with all the lessons of the Fw 190 incorporated into it.'

'Its design lineage mixes equal parts Gee Bee racer, Focke Wulf Fw-190 and F6F Hellcat. The result was a compact airframe sized for performance while operating off of a Navy aircraft carrier.'

Can't find anything else and I've looked thru the first 4 pages of google, just more general statements like 'F190A was the inspiration for the Bearcat' nothing detailed.

Can anyone else jump in here and confirm/disprove this?

I would like to know the facts, I never saw any reason to dispute this as its what I have always read? I know very little about the Wildcat/Hellcat/Bearcat family.

EDIT: This is quite detailed but doesnt tell you what parts are from FW190A. :-

http://warbirdaeropress.com/articles/HotestCats/HotCats.htm

Kocur_
12-01-2005, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I have no idea SC, sorry. I dont know much about the plane at all.

If I find anything I will post it.

The idea of mating the most powerful engine to the smallest possible frame wouldn't have been inspired by the Fw-190. Not even the Fw-190 did that.

I'm not saying there weren't characterisitcs of the Fw-190 that didn't impress the Grumman crew. But the principal inspirtation for the F8F seems to have been the need for a small, fast, high performing carrier fighter, along with Roy Grumman's know-how. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As no systems of Fw-190 were copied in F8F (as opposite to Tempest Mk.V or La-5FN/7/9/11) AFAIK, I think the "principal inspirtation" for F8F was Fw -190 and Bob Hall feeligns about it indeed.
Was there any US fighter powered by R-2600 engine or larger, with empty, fully equipped weight around 3000kg or 7000lbs before F8F?
Was there any other case than F8F, that US fighter of next generation from 1940s on, would be smaller and lighter than previous?
Did US engineers/flyers meet any examples of types of fully operational, adequatly armed, armoured and durable figters, powered by radial engines of weight above 1000kg and producing more than 1700ps, other than Fw-190 Bob Hall flew in England?

If 'not' I will still think, that what they write in some books on F8F about Fw-190 impressing and inspirating Grumman guys is simply true. Merely INSPIRATING to try to build a fighter as small and light as possible and still powered by R-2800, rather than to build a fighter powered by an engine heavier and more powerful, say R-3350 or R-4360, as it was done before.

I dont understand what is so unpleasant about idea that a good piece of engineering could have inspired someone to produce his own, similar in idea, but even better. I really dont.

darkhorizon11
12-01-2005, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I posted the links, not darkhorizon,

You asked me to prove that the FW190 inspired the Bearcat.

I took some quotes fromt he links I posted, thats all. I can find hundreds more I'm sure if you still dont believe me.

I dont know a lot about the bearcat, but it seems its a cross between the small carrier based fighter that Skychimp desribes, (ie the F6F) with added features from the FW190.


Sorry to OP for taking this OT, I guess it warrants its own thread.

Yeah he did post them I just quoted his thread with the links in them. But one plane inspiring another doesn't really mean THAT much. I'm not doing this to be an @sshole, I'm honestly curious to see what traits of the FW were copied into the Bearcat. Airfoils maybe? Coolant system? such a powerful engine must get extremely hot very fast...The landing gear configuration is somewhat similar... What type of engine does the Bearcat, how does it compare to the BMW on the FW? Besides them both being radials...

darkhorizon11
12-01-2005, 10:59 AM
And you gotta admit it looks a lot more like the Hellcat and Wildcat than the FW.

ElAurens
12-01-2005, 11:01 AM
Guys, it's the way the argument is being made. The tone of every post supporting the FW 190/F8F connection is the same condescending BS that permeates any online discussion about all things German. And it fits in well with some member's obvious anti-American thinking. The basic line of thought is the same, regardless if the discussion is about aircraft, small arms, automobiles or sausage. It goes something like this: "The Germans invented it, everyone else copied it, Americans have never had an original engineering thought, etc...etc..."

To which I politely say BUNK.

And BTW I almost never fly US aircraft online, so this has nothing to do with the P51 won the war c r a p. It is my observation of how buisness is conducted on these boards for the last 4 years.

And if you can look at photos, or real, F8Fs and FW190s and say that they are related then you need glasses.

Daiichidoku
12-01-2005, 11:16 AM
ALL types in ALL times with desirable features and/or intangible concepts are likely to influence, inspire, or even be a souce of some ammount of copying by others

can one say the I-16 has been ripped off by every other type in history with retract gear? nonsense, im sure there were other types (non-military) that featured retract gears, no?

the F8F may have had some thought given to its design in light of the 190..but then, it may have also had many other ideas in it borrowed from grumman's own predecessors, or any other number of types, from all around the world

P 47s started its development studies from what was learned in europe ot that point, and was intended to be a "lightweight" fighter, P-43 notwithstanding...look how it turned out


that the 190 didnt have a hand in the F8F is poppycock, remember, it may have shown grumman what NOT to do with the F8F, who knows?

that the 190 DID have a direct, and huge signifigance ot the F8F is poppycock, too


unclench, guys

luftluuver
12-01-2005, 11:21 AM
There is nothing anti-American, so why the paranoia? BoB Hall went to Roy Grumman after flying the 190 and said Grumman should build a small a/c for the competition for the F6F's replacement. Roy Grumman agreed.

Why are some people reading more into it than that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

It should be mentioned that both Curtiss and Boeing were designing huge a/c for the F6F replacement competition.

Aaron_GT
12-01-2005, 12:16 PM
"The Germans invented it, everyone else copied it, Americans have never had an original engineering thought, etc...etc..."

To which I politely say BUNK.

But noone is saying that, you just seem to infer what people aren't implying! All anyone has said is that there seems to have been an influence, in the sense that they are both relatively small, light(ish) planes with powerful radial engines. I.e. the principle might have been one worth examining when presented with a plane that did it well.

With regards to what Skychimp said, just because the Fw190 wasn't a carrier plane doesn't mean that it couldn't have been an influence. Ignoring a plane that was good just because it wasn't a carrier plane would be very shortsighted, and it is unlikely Mr. Grumman would be that shortsighted. All aviation developments were likely important to him as combining new developments into a novel aircraft is what gave him the competitive edge.

Xiolablu3
12-01-2005, 12:44 PM
Trying to prove it more is just stupid, its quite obvious now that the F8F was a mix of F6F and FW190A tech.

Quote - 'Its design lineage mixes *EQUAL PARTS* Gee Bee racer, Focke Wulf Fw-190 and F6F Hellcat. The result was a compact airframe sized for performance while operating off of a Navy aircraft carrier.'

http://warbirdaeropress.com/articles/HotestCats/HotCats.htm


Not gonna keep going on and on posting more quotes.

El Laurens paranoia that the Americans may have copied some of Germans great tech, like many nations did after the war is just stupid. People arent being condasending, they are just correcting ignorance, of which some people seem to not beleive even when the facts are staring them in the face. You wrote the most condacending post in this thread I think...

Quote from El LAurens to me - 'Groundless fanboi speculation. Especially the last sentance.
Prove just one of your baseless speculations.
But wait, you can't.'

I think I did prove it. Bet you dont apologise tho.


Its common sense that if you are trying to build a great fighter, to examine and borrow bits from one of the existing best piston engine fighters is just obvious.

The Sea Fury was inspired by the FW190A too, I am British and I dont find this offensive/condacending, in fact I think it was a great idea to borrow bits from a great fighter.

Unknown-Pilot
12-01-2005, 01:07 PM
lol

What's common sense is that the F4U-1 had more advantages than the FW-190 that was looked at.

The only thing, from a US perspective, that was any good about the FW-190 mark tested was it's roll rate and automation, plus perhaps it's working environment.

What's common sense is that the US needed a fleet defense interceptor.

What's common sense is that the planes are diametrically opposed to one another as their mission requirements are also.

What's common sense is that an expert aeronautical engineer like Roy Grumman would know that a fleet defense interceptor did not need massive range or ordnance capability, that it was not meant to (or going to) replace the F4U. Coupled with a desire to make something for SMALL CARRIERS, it's common sense that it would be small, with low weight.


El is right. You people are trying to LOOK objective, but it's a bunch of **** because you are fighting too hard for this BS cause of yours.

The kicker is that you take this one event, draw ridiculous conclusions from it that have no foundation in logic or common sense, and use nothing but web searches to support your claim.

The very same people that denounce web results any other time.

Funny how that works out.

I could point out to you that very often a mistake or lie is assumed to be true, used as the source for second generation matieral, which in turn is used as the source for subesquent generation material. But I'm sure it wouldn't do much good. Sure, you have umpteen web sites stating it. And.....? Between this factoid and the fact that they are nothing but web sites renders them completely and totally null and void.

Remember, the "concrete" elevators of the 109 is a myth too. It was the Emil that had the problem, the F's on were not *nearly* as bad. But how many source claim all 109s had the problem? If you've followed those threads here, you'd see, one hell of a lot. Doesn't mean that it's true just because all those sources claim it. Likewise, nobody seems to realize that the P-51 was "a true two hander" with very heavy control forces. No, it was just the 109. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Gibbage1
12-01-2005, 01:35 PM
I THINK that they are saying the Bearcat barrowed the concept of a light airframe mounting the most powerfull possible engine. The thing is, that concept is not new or original to the FW-190!!! Its been around a long long time. Like the Write Brothers? In that day, they had to use the most powerful engine possible to lift the lightest airframe. Also, the Japanese used this to GREAT extent in not only the Zero, but previous fighters!!! The US took another approach in design making a big airframe, mounting a big engine, and giving it lots of fuel and armor for miltiple roles and long range. US really had no PURE dogfighting aircraft like the Zero, 109 or Spitfire till the F8F.

The future did not lie in limited roal pure fighters. They scrapped the F8F's and kept the bigger multi-role aircraft like the F4U and F7F after the war. And today that same concept exist's of larger multi-roll fighters that the P-51, P-47 and P-38 pioneered.

I still think the P-38 represented the future of modern aircraft more then any other aircraft in WWII.

faustnik
12-01-2005, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
US really had no PURE dogfighting aircraft like the Zero, 109 or Spitfire till the F8F.



How about the P-36 and P-40?

berg417448
12-01-2005, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
US really had no PURE dogfighting aircraft like the Zero, 109 or Spitfire till the F8F.



How about the P-36 and P-40? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's true. The P-36 was well known for its ability to turn.

Gibbage1
12-01-2005, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
US really had no PURE dogfighting aircraft like the Zero, 109 or Spitfire till the F8F.



How about the P-36 and P-40? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both were not our mainstay fighter once we entered the war. Some groups did use the P-40 in the Pacific and North Afrika, but even later models of P-40 got heavier and had good bomb capability. But look at our 3 main USAF and 3 main Navy aircraft.

P-51, P-47 and P-38.
F4F, F6F, and F4U

The F4F is also considered a pure fighter with very limited ground attack, but it was dropped early for the F6F and F4U. FM2's were used on small escort carriers.

All but 1 of those 6 main fighters are big, heavy long range and could carry out a multitude of roles OTHER then just fighting other fighters. Thats my point.

faustnik
12-01-2005, 02:36 PM
The P-51 was designed as a fighter, right? I mean it may have been used in other roles but, it was designed as a fighter?

I', really not sure what you are saying? Are you saying the US didn't design turnfighters after 1940?

ElAurens
12-01-2005, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
How about the P-36 and P-40?

Let's not forget the CW 21. A very light airframe that placed a premium on rate of climb and turning ability.

Daiichidoku
12-01-2005, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The US took another approach in design making a big airframe, mounting a big engine, and giving it lots of fuel and armor for miltiple roles and long range. US really had no PURE dogfighting aircraft like the Zero, 109 or Spitfire till the F8F.



shame on you of all ppl., Gibbage

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/xp77-4.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/xp77-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/xp77-6.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/xp77-5.jpg

SkyChimp
12-01-2005, 05:20 PM
No mention of the Fw-190 influence in the booksUnited States Navy Aircraft: since 1911 (Swanborough & Bowers) and The American Fighter (Angelucci & Bowers.

I wonder how respected researchers missed the Fw-190 connection althogether, while amatuers who run websites caught it? I wonder why these authors concluded the F8F was a continuation of he highly successful "-cat" line of fighters which was intended to provide the Navy with a very fast, high performing fighter for the Navy, while websites suggest such a design would not have been thought of had it not been for the Fw-190.

uglyohyeah
12-01-2005, 05:39 PM
I was under the impression that the FW190 had a very close cowled radial engine with a geared cooling fan to help with the overheating that a close fitting cowl would normally cause.

I think many aircraft manufacturers examined it especially if they were fitting a radial engine to an airframe previously fitted with an inline engine. Close cowling the radial engine made it easier to blend the new nose into the slender airframe. e.g. la 5, Ki100, maybe a few others as well.

I think another pretty neat feature of the FW was it's wing design, wasn't in manufactured in one piece and very simply attached to the fuselage with a couple of bolts.

I can't quote sources but I think it was the FW190 that the brits looked at when they started to consider radial engined variants of the tempest too.

Gibbage1
12-01-2005, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:


shame on you of all ppl., Gibbage


How many P-77's flew in combat? None. Why was it not addopted by the US airforce? It was too small and too short ranged.

Cw-21B is another very small fighter we had but never used.

Daiichidoku
12-01-2005, 05:49 PM
Gibbage~"US really had no PURE dogfighting aircraft like the Zero, 109 or Spitfire till the F8F."

ok, US didnt "have" this one (xp77), in production, so shame on me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


certainly was a different approach for US..couldnt worked with good engine?

Daiichidoku
12-01-2005, 05:52 PM
dammit! i was interuppted tween posts, hehe

but, yea.

Daiichidoku
12-01-2005, 06:04 PM
fixed

Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The US took another approach in design making a big airframe, mounting a big engine, and giving it lots of fuel and armor for miltiple roles and long range.

xp77blabla lol



also

I still think the P-38 represented the future of modern aircraft more then any other aircraft in WWII.

totally...the philosophy behind the design, more than the airframe itself to do-it-all, in a bigger, better aircraft

Gibbage1
12-01-2005, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Gibbage~"US really had no PURE dogfighting aircraft like the Zero, 109 or Spitfire till the F8F."

ok, US didnt "have" this one (xp77), in production, so shame on me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


certainly was a different approach for US..couldnt worked with good engine?

For what role? US needed long range escorts. Not short range fighters. What would something like the P-77 do for the US if it was in our inventory? Luftwaffe was beaten by the time we had any airbases in France, and the Pacific still needed long range aircraft for long over-water flights. Only in North Afrika did we need a short range fighter, and the P-40 did well in that roll. P-38 was also used and did a MUCH MUCH better job at hurting the Axis since it was using its long range and intercepted the Axis supply flight comming in from Italy on Ju-52's.

What has a bigger impact on the war? A P-40 shooting down a 109, or a P-38 shooting down a Ju-52 loaded with fuel and ammo for a group of 109s?

Badsight.
12-01-2005, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Guys, it's the way the argument is being made. The tone of every post supporting the FW 190/F8F connection is the same condescending BS that permeates any online discussion about all things German. And it fits in well with some member's obvious anti-American thinking. yes & here is the crux of the issue

the knee-jerk reactions of allied plane fans cant take any more hearing about wartime germany

when "inspiration" is said it registers as "copy" & the red mist comes up

semantics are the clear winner here

& yes El , the F8F looks 100% like a Grumman FW-190

no other plane looks so much like a wannabe Wurger as the Bearcat , nothing wrong with either my Aim or my Eyesight

only an idiot would say the Bearcat is Grumman version of the FW-190 , & that isnt whats being meant when i say the FW-190 gave inspiration to the Bearcat , another poster said to "unclench" & thats what im reccommending here too

i only hold this opinion from what ive read about the Bearcat online , anyone else without a closed mind can see the same thing

Badsight.
12-01-2005, 09:20 PM
for me it comes down to what Corky Meyer had to say in his article

Bearcat Development Pilot :


In early 1943, Grumman officials were invited to England to see the captured fighters of the Axis powers and to fly some of them. The test team included: Leroy Grumman, president of Grumman and test pilot during and after WW I; Bud Gillies, vice president flight operations and a test pilot current in all American airplanes at that time; and Bob Hall, chief engineerexperimental, a famous test pilot of Grumman and other airplanes of the Gee Bee era.

Of all the airplanes they saw, they were most fascinated with the Focke-Wulf 190. It not only offered sprightly performance, but it also had excellent flight characteristics with a gross weight of 8,750 pounds and only 1,730hp. The Hellcat was 3,200 pounds heavier with just 270hp more. Both Gillies and Hall evaluated the Fw 190 and found it to be the aircraft they would have liked to have designed themselves. It was exactly what the Hellcat follow-on aircraft should be. The only things the Fw 190 lacked were a good gunnery-lead computing angle of vision over the nose and a structure that would withstand carrier operations.

The Focke-Wulf impressed them so much they felt compelled to hurry home and put together an airplane of this gross weight in time for the water-injected Pratt & Whitney R-2800 C model engine of 2,400hp (War Emergency Power) to be installed. This would give our naval aviators a big performance increase over the newer Japanese fighters and would still retain the proven performance of the P&W R-2800 series production engines installed in the Hellcat.

The F8F design was started immediately on the trio's return. Mr. Grumman took a direct hand in its design. As the design progressed, it became obvious that meeting the 8,750-pound gross weight of the Focke-Wulf would be difficult. The structure required to withstand the loads encountered during carrier operations hadn't been required in the Fw 190 and would impose significant weight penalties on the new design. ^^ that isnt an internet web-page - its a print on an article written by a Bearcat Development pilot

Both Gillies and Hall evaluated the Fw 190 and found it to be the aircraft they would have liked to have designed themselves. It was exactly what the Hellcat follow-on aircraft should be.

Badsight.
12-01-2005, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
For what role? US needed long range escorts. Not short range fighters carrier defense wouldnt require range to be given priority

Gibbage1
12-01-2005, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
For what role? US needed long range escorts. Not short range fighters carrier defense wouldnt require range to be given priority </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And thus the Bearcat was born. But that role was being filled by the F6F and F4U very well. Plus the F6F and F4U were very capable at long range and mud mooving. The FM2 was for light carrier point defense. What they REALLY needed was a defense against Kamakazi pilots. F6F and F4U were fast, but took time to get to altitude. The F8F on the otherhand was a prop rocket! Very fast, and climed like no other prop aircraft could! GREAT for intercepting aircraft.

What happened to such a fine aircraft in Korea? Ow ya. No aircraft to intercept around the carriers. F4U lived on since it was multi-roll capable. How many fighter intercepters does any country have anymore? None. They are almost ALL multi-roll aircraft. F8F was the best prop fighter ever. But it was an out-dated concept, like the 109 and Zero.

Badsight.
12-01-2005, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
And thus the Bearcat was born. But that role was being filled by the F6F and F4U very well. Plus the F6F and F4U were very capable at long range and mud mooving. The FM2 was for light carrier point defense. What they REALLY needed was a defense against Kamakazi pilots. F6F and F4U were fast, but took time to get to altitude. The F8F on the otherhand was a prop rocket!

How many fighter intercepters does any country have anymore? None. They are almost ALL multi-roll aircraft. F8F was the best prop fighter ever. But it was an out-dated concept, like the 109 and Zero. so because range wasnt a necessity then the XP-77 has a use ?

fighter planes these days are jets , they are costly to develop & buy , they cant fund 5 different kinds , when 2 can get most of the job done , but be sure that a specific design can get a specific job done better than any multi-role at that specific job

Gibbage1
12-01-2005, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:

fighter planes these days are jets , they are costly to develop & buy , they cant fund 5 different kinds , when 2 can get most of the job done , but be sure that a specific design can get a specific job done better than any multi-role at that specific job

How many types of aircraft are in the US inventory?

F-16, F-18, F-22, F-15, A-10, B-52, B-2, F-117, B1B, and soon the F-35. Thats more then 5 differant kinds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Even the F-16 is multi-roll capable. The last 5 I mentioned are not, but are strictly bombers. Not a single pure fighter in the group, even though the F-16 was originally designed as a pure air-superiority fighter. Even the F-22 and F-35 have some ground capability.

Again, the time of the pure-bread fighter was gone after BoB, and the 109 and Zero were totally out-dated.

Daiichidoku
12-02-2005, 12:02 AM
anybody got a spare 2 mil for a guy down on his luck?
http://www.mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/p51sforsale/bearcat95255apr2005.shtml

Kocur_
12-02-2005, 09:11 AM
Let me repeat:
1. Was there any US fighter powered by R-2600 engine or larger, with empty, fully equipped weight around 3000kg or 7000lbs before F8F?
2. Was there any other case than F8F, that serially produced US single piston engined fighter of next generation from 1940s on, would be smaller and lighter than previous?
3. Did US engineers/flyers meet any examples of types of fully operational, adequatly armed, armoured and durable figters, powered by radial engines of weight above 1000kg and producing more than 1700ps, other than Fw-190 Bob Hall flew in England?

Gibbage1
12-02-2005, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Let me repeat:
1. Was there any US fighter powered by R-2600 engine or larger, with empty, fully equipped weight around 3000kg or 7000lbs before F8F?
2. Was there any other case than F8F, that serially produced US single piston engined fighter of next generation from 1940s on, would be smaller and lighter than previous?
3. Did US engineers/flyers meet any examples of types of fully operational, adequatly armed, armoured and durable figters, powered by radial engines of weight above 1000kg and producing more than 1700ps, other than Fw-190 Bob Hall flew in England?

The US started looking at light radials once they met the Japanese Zero. F6F and F4U are all re-war designs. Again, I say the F8F was more influanced by the Zero

Kocur_
12-02-2005, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The US started looking at light radials once they met the Japanese Zero. F6F and F4U are all re-war designs. Again, I say the F8F was more influanced by the Zero

The US? The US what? USN? USAAF? US Mail? What was the program codename? What plane was result of that supposed program to replace? Did you just suggest, that US enigneers did not realize lighter planes are better than heavy ones, before "met the Japanese Zero".

F6F was not developed before war on Pacific. Some very important decisions about it were made BECAUSE OF A6M: XF-6F-1 flew first on 26 june 1942. It was powered by R-2600-16. Midway battle was 3-6 june 1942, so USN had very fresh, balanced forces situation (opposite to Philippines or other Japanese early advances) experience with A6M, and so had some thoughts about A6M and its new carrier fighter. Result was they decided, that F6F had to be changed. Did they decide to make it lighter? Reduce wingspan? Reduce armament and/or equippment? No! They decided to replace R-2600 with more powerful and heavier R-2800, i.e. opposite to decision on Bearcat, which was: the same engine as previously, but smaller and lighter airframe.
Nakajima Sakae 21 dry weight was 533kg. R-2800: 1100+kg. You do notice the difference? Weight of engine directly affects weight of airframe. So I ask again:
1. Was there any US fighter powered by R-2600 engine or larger, i.e. engine TWICE as heavy as A6M engine, with empty, fully equipped weight around 3000kg or 7000lbs before F8F?
2. Was there any other case than F8F, that serially produced US single piston engined fighter of next generation from 1940s on, would be smaller and lighter than previous or was it that EVERYTIME before F8F next one was more powerful and heavier than previous one?
3. Did US engineers/flyers meet any examples of types of fully operational, adequatly armed, armoured and durable figters, powered by radial engines of weight above 1000kg and producing more than 1700ps, i.e. of VERY different class than A6M, other than Fw-190 Bob Hall flew in England?

Gibbage1
12-02-2005, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
2. Was there any other case than F8F, that serially produced US single piston engined fighter

I dont know of any single piston engined fighter ever. Only small RC aircraft.

Unknown-Pilot
12-02-2005, 05:20 PM
Good lord. LOL


Originally posted by Kocur_:
<lots of hysterical ****>
:::snip:::


1. Was there any US fighter powered by R-2600 engine or larger, i.e. engine TWICE as heavy as A6M engine, with empty, fully equipped weight around 3000kg or 7000lbs before F8F?

Yeah.... I'd like to see you try to pull some relevency out of your *** for that question. lol




2. Was there any other case than F8F, that serially produced US single piston engined fighter of next generation from 1940s on, would be smaller and lighter than previous or was it that EVERYTIME before F8F next one was more powerful and heavier than previous one?

Was there any other case than the F8F where long range and high payload were less important than the previous aircraft?



3. Did US engineers/flyers meet any examples of types of fully operational, adequatly armed, armoured and durable figters, powered by radial engines of weight above 1000kg and producing more than 1700ps, i.e. of VERY different class than A6M, other than Fw-190 Bob Hall flew in England?

So according to Kocur_ (and all the other fanbois here), the FW-190 is based on a French plane! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif The Bleriot IX. Which itself is based on an American plane, the first plane actually. And of course Tank ripped off another American invention for control of his aircraft too, they have a French name and mean "little wing". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Aaron_GT
12-02-2005, 05:33 PM
The US started looking at light radials once they met the Japanese Zero

Ah, so the F8F isn't a copy of of the Fw190 it's a copy of the Zero! :-)

ElAurens
12-02-2005, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Good lord. LOL

And of course Tank ripped off another American invention for control of his aircraft too, they have a French name and mean "little wing". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Yup, first used on a powered aircraft designed by Glenn Hammond Curtiss.

So the F8F is has a direct lineage to the Curtiss June Bug.

Isn't history interesting?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

JadehawkII
12-02-2005, 09:23 PM
OHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh my head hurts after reading 13 pages of all this. "SLAP"! I got way too much time on my hands...