PDA

View Full Version : Caption this video for fun!!!!!!!



p1ngu666
11-27-2006, 09:24 AM
best said in a john wayne/southern dawl

cannons are un american boy.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666/spitfiresig.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
11-27-2006, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Thanatos833:
All of the majors powers used cannon to some extent or the other in their fighters, the Germans seemed particularly fond of them. The Americans were the opposite, most of their fighters did not have cannon. The machine guns have higher velocity lower caliber shells as opposed to the lower velocity higher caliber shells of the Cannon.

Machine gun shells have longer range but Cannon shells have more destructive potential. I was wondering why the Germans went for cannon in a big way while the Americans largely stayed away from it, the other powers of course were somewhere in the middle> Any ideas for the causes behind these trends? Simple

Cannons are needed to take out big bombers.

The USA was not under direct threat from any long range bombers big or small.. Thus no real motivation to put cannons on our fighters.. Early modles like the 38 and 39 did, but once the war got rolling and we realised nothing could touch us the fighters that followed didnt employ cannons. Why? Because most of our fighters were attacking other fighters, not big bombers, and the .50 cal is more than enough to take out a fighter.. Sure it wont blow it up into a million pieces.. but no need to, Gravity will take care of that!

Where as the Germans where very motivated to put cannons on thier fighters in that a large number of large bombers where attacking them all the time.

The USN did have to deal with bombers.. but the Jap bombers were not that hard of a target and the .50s worked fine, thus again, no real big need. Later as the komikoszies got busy the NAVY toyed with the idea, but in the end the .50 was still enough.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Kurfurst__
11-27-2006, 09:35 AM
Don't forget the Soviets and the French, they followed basically the same route as the Germans.

It's basically two types of approach, the 'Shotgun-approach' and the 'Hunter-approach'.

The former wants to bring down the target with a large number of lighter rounds fired, ensuring good chance to hit at least a few times, the other wants concentrated heavy fire and sure kill when the pilot manage to 'connect'.

I guess there were a couple of reasons, and it would be interesting to know them. Back in the 1920s, 1930s, many fighter armaments were quite similiar, a pair of engine cowling guns carried over from WW1. I wonder where the 'break' started in approaches.

For the cannon approach, it can be argued that greater effect can be achieved with less weight overall. A few cannons can be as destructive as many-many machineguns. This was probably also prompted by the changes in aircraft construction, with all-metal and aircraft armor becoming the norm. The small caliber rounds were increasingly ineffective against those, minding bombers here primary as fighters are built to shoot down bombers. Or at least they were in the 1930s - 'the bomber always gets through'.

Technical issues can be also a reason, as all combatants stuck and fought WW2 with the basic designs all originating in the 1930. Existing engines and wing structures limited what could be mounted and what not. For example, the French (and the Soviet ones copied from them) and German aero engines could fit a gun between the cylinder banks, so it was an obvious choice to put the biggest possible single piece there. The engine weight could also absorb recoil the wing would have difficulties with.

The British and American inline engines on the other hand had a layout (with the supercharger mounted right behind the engine) that did not allow for an engine gun. So the only place for guns were in the cowl (which was not preferred because of poor syncronisers available) or in the wings. The latter are lighter structure so many MGs were probably seen more feasible. Mounting cannons were generally a more difficult task. In addition, neither the Brits or the USAAF had any solid cannon designs of their own at the start of the war, but had proven MG and HMG designs. They were moving towards cannons as well, esp. the Brits, their late war fighters being all-cannon armed (Meteor, Vampire, Spit 21, Typhoon/Tempest).<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Pusk??s Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon B??k??ben - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurf??rst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

R_Target
11-27-2006, 09:46 AM
USN was eager to adopt the 20mm, hence the 2x20mm+4x.50cal Hellcats and 4x20mm Corsair. I believe both services still considered HMG the best weapon for airfield strafing however.

------>Insert Tiger tank/.50 cal joke here.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*+
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/2318/sovsigke1.jpg

Chuck_Older
11-27-2006, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
best said in a john wayne/southern dawl

cannons are un american boy.

???
the Colt M4 37mm cannon is about as American as the 4th of July<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/Jimmychamp.jpg
Flower of Scotland, will we see your like again?

JtD
11-27-2006, 10:44 AM
Wasn't 4th of July invented by some Roman guy?

More on topic, I'd like to point out that logistics are far simpler if you field ONE type of weapon throughout your air force instead of a dozen.

Aaron_GT
11-27-2006, 11:17 AM
The machine guns have higher velocity lower caliber shells as opposed to the lower velocity higher caliber shells of the Cannon.

Not necessarily true. The muzzle velocities of the Hispano II and the M2 50 cal are very similar.


The USA was not under direct threat from any long range bombers big or small..

This is flawed logic on two counts

1. It was assumed in the late 1930s that the USA itself COULD be under threat from such aircraft.

2. The Continental USA not being under threat does not mean that US air forces would never encounter bomber aircraft over US dominions (Hawaii, Aleutians, Philipines, etc, etc) or encounter them over enemy territory. Thus the capability for bomber interception remains useful even if your home territory is not under threat.

Hence in the late 1930s a number of aircraft were proposed armed with 20mm, 23mm and 37mm cannon (the P38 was proposed with all three, the P39 with one of them, and other aircraft with various types) and aircraft with light armament (.30s and .50s) also being suggested for the bomber intercept role.


I believe both services still considered HMG the best weapon for airfield strafing however.

At the end of the war the USN certainly considered the 20mm cannon to be preferred, hence the Skyraider, a dedicated ground attack aircraft intended to drop bombs, rockets, and strafe, having its fixed armament be 4 20mm cannon.


More on topic, I'd like to point out that logistics are far simpler if you field ONE type of weapon throughout your air force instead of a dozen

This, plus the US version of the Hispano being prone to jamming and the 50 cal being adequate are the real reasons, I suspect. 2 to 4 20mm cannon would have been a fine armament for US aircraft had the reliability of the US cannon been up to it, with no compromise on firing time, and little compromise on the chances of sufficient hits to down enemy aircraft. But with a reliable MG that was adequate and in volume production then swapping over to 20mm cannon in a big way would have been disruptive, and so only some moves in that direction were made.

It's similar to the story in the RAF: the hope was to move to a standard 4 20mm cannon armament far earlier than happened and specifications were issued for it (and versions of the Hurrican e and Spitfire tendered) prior to WW2, but the cannon were not sufficiently debugged for reliable wing installations until after the Battle of Britain, and even then production lagged demand.

R_Target
11-27-2006, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

At the end of the war the USN certainly considered the 20mm cannon to be preferred, hence the Skyraider, a dedicated ground attack aircraft intended to drop bombs, rockets, and strafe, having its fixed armament be 4 20mm cannon.

Good point.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

*+
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/2318/sovsigke1.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
11-27-2006, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
This is flawed logic on two counts
Not true (for proof see below)


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
1. It was assumed in the late 1930s that the USA itself COULD be under threat from such aircraft.
Which is why I pointed out that early on planes like the 38 and 39 did have cannons.. but as WWII got rolling they realised Germany and Japan did not have any bombers that could get close to our shores, thus most US planes developed during WWII did not employ cannons. Which is not to say they could not have employed them! As with the F4u-1C if needed they could have switched over to cannons.. but there was just no need.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
2. The Continental USA not being under threat does not mean that US air forces would never encounter bomber aircraft over US dominions (Hawaii, Aleutians, Philipines, etc, etc) or encounter them over enemy territory. Thus the capability for bomber interception remains useful even if your home territory is not under threat.
Again, as noted above, that was the "feeling" prior to WWII, hence the P38 and P39 with cannons.. but as WWII got rolling that "feeling" went away in that neither Germany or Japan had he means. That and the defence of the UK was up to the RAF, hence the Spitfire with cannons. Also note that Germanys bombers like Japans were nothing like the B17! Thus cannons were not really needed to knock down those small bombers, .50s were fine should a P47 happen upon a Jerry bomber.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Hence in the late 1930s a number of aircraft were proposed armed with 20mm, 23mm and 37mm cannon (the P38 was proposed with all three, the P39 with one of them, and other aircraft with various types) and aircraft with light armament (.30s and .50s) also being suggested for the bomber intercept role.
Is what I said.. but after WWII got rolling they realised quickly that this was no longer the issue.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

faustnik
11-27-2006, 12:37 PM
I think problems with the 20mm and 37mm cannon were also partly responsible for the view of the USAAF towards cannon. There were severe jamming problems with those guns initially, while the .50 was fairly reliable and at least used in banks were redundancy helped.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

Blutarski2004
11-27-2006, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
2 to 4 20mm cannon would have been a fine armament for US aircraft had the reliability of the US cannon been up to it,


..... Ironically, the US DID have a reliable 20mm gun in the Oerlikon. IIRC, about 500,000 were produced, but the output was devoted pretty exclusively to naval AAA armament.

I wonder whether it was ever considered as an a/c weapon, and, if so, why it was not adopted.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Aaron_GT
11-27-2006, 01:15 PM
Which is why I pointed out that early on planes like the 38 and 39 did have cannons.. but as WWII got rolling they realised Germany and Japan did not have any bombers that could get close to our shores, thus most US planes developed during WWII did not employ cannons.

Fair points - I rushed my reading a bit as dinner was almost ready!

The RAF faced with bombers and fighters (the same ones the USAAF was facing) still thought that 4 20mm cannon was the best armament, even in fighter-to-fighter contacts, and for projected escort aircraft as well as defensive fighters. But then I think this has a lot to do with the RAF deciding to more or less skip the 50 cal where possible and go straight for 20mm cannon, whereas the US Hispano version was initially more unreliable, forcing the USA to stick with guns longer.


..... Ironically, the US DID have a reliable 20mm gun in the Oerlikon. IIRC, about 500,000 were produced, but the output was devoted pretty exclusively to naval AAA armament.


Good question.

AKA_TAGERT
11-27-2006, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Fair points - I rushed my reading a bit as dinner was almost ready! Thought so..


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The RAF faced with bombers and fighters (the same ones the USAAF was facing) Wait one.. the USAAF was not really faced with bombers.. In that it was up to the RAF to protect the UK from bombers.. Not the USAAF's job. Granted, post D-DAY the USAAF did have to face them in the since that they had to protect thier forward bases.. but as I pointed out.. Jerry didnt really have any bomber on parr with the B17, that is to say, the .50s worked fine for medium size bombers and for the few heavy bombers Jerry might have had.. the numbers were so small relitive to the B17s that it was still not enough motivation to switch to cannons. It if was a problem, they could have simply put some P38s on the job.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
still thought that 4 20mm cannon was the best armament, even in fighter-to-fighter contacts, and for projected escort aircraft as well as defensive fighters. Can a cannon shoot down a fighter? Sure.. but the real need for cannons is to take out large targets.. For fast movig and jinking fighters your better off having multi .50s and let gravity do the rest.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
But then I think this has a lot to do with the RAF deciding to more or less skip the 50 cal where possible and go straight for 20mm cannon, whereas the US Hispano version was initially more unreliable, forcing the USA to stick with guns longer. Enh, maybe, but the P38 20mm was doing a fine job, if for some unforseen reason Jerry suddenly mustered more than 25 bombers on more than one day they could have taking the P38 off recon duty and put it into the bomber hunter roll.. You know that roll they thought they might need it for back in the 1930s<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Holtzauge
11-27-2006, 01:34 PM
As the story goes the .50 was perfectly able to deal with the fighter type opposition the US had to deal with both in the ETO and PTO (guess the same goes for Jap and German bombers when they could be found http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif)

Undoubtebly the cannon was lethal in the hands of good shots but the .50 will probably also give some hits even when poorly aimed because of the shotgun effect and the amount of lead in the air.

So in the hands of an average shot the .50 may not be such a bad idea but seeing the that most powers opted to go with cannons later on in the war I think that pretty much indicates the trend and which way things were going to go in the long run. Also the gyroscopic sights introduced at this time apparantly raised the average pilots marksmanship enormously and would probably lessen the need for shotgun pattern harmonisation.

IMHO I think it is strange however, after WW2 when good cannon designs were readily available, why put .50 in the F-86 sabre and not cannons?

jarink
11-27-2006, 01:52 PM
Intersting side notes about US cannon usage:

The B-29 was designed with 2x.50 cals and a 20mm in the tail. The cannon was usually removed since the two guns had different ballistic properties, making aiming difficult.

There was at least one B-17 that carried a 20mm gun for definsive armament.
http://home.grics.net/jrink/Jack.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

My PF movies:Aluminum Eagle (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Aluminum_Eagle/OneVisionLg.zip), Fire and Rain (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Fire_and_Rain/Fire_and_Rain.zip) Snowbirds (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Snowbirds/Snowbirds.zip)and Crew 22 (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Crew_22/Crew22.zip)

http://home.grics.net/jrink/signature.jpg

Blutarski2004
11-27-2006, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Holtzauge:
Undoubtebly the cannon was lethal in the hands of good shots but the .50 will probably also give some hits even when poorly aimed because of the shotgun effect and the amount of lead in the air.

..... I quite agree, although I think that it was only one of several fctors which resulted in the adoption and retention of the 50cal as the standard US fighter armament in WW2.



So in the hands of an average shot the .50 may not be such a bad idea but seeing the that most powers opted to go with cannons later on in the war I think that pretty much indicates the trend and which way things were going to go in the long run. Also the gyroscopic sights introduced at this time apparantly raised the average pilots marksmanship enormously and would probably lessen the need for shotgun pattern harmonisation.

..... A very astute observation. I actually suspect that we underestimate the effect of the K14 on the air war over Europe. Is it possible that some of the kudos we have customarily bestowed upon the Mustang rightfully belong to the K14?



IMHO I think it is strange however, after WW2 when good cannon designs were readily available, why put .50 in the F-86 sabre and not cannons?

..... Possibly budget issues. The USA drastically ramped down defence spending soon after the end of the war.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Klemm.co
11-27-2006, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> IMHO I think it is strange however, after WW2 when good cannon designs were readily available, why put .50 in the F-86 sabre and not cannons?

..... Possibly budget issues. The USA drastically ramped down defence spending soon after the end of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe that, or like Tagert pointed out, the USA felt that the 50cal was enough for the average target encountered to bring down.
And they HAD working and reliable 20mm cannons by the end of the war.
With hindsight it may be obvious for us, but the cannon armed Sabres performed much better than the 50cal armed ones at the end of the Korean conflict. Since some were modified and produced, this indicates that there really was a need for 20mm's in Korea. And in my opinion the US fighters would have done somewhat if not much better in WW2, if they would have had 20mm's instead of 50's.
After all, it does not take such a long time to get a good shot in combat if your'e well trained and have suitable equipment, leadership and skills. The US pilots certainly were in that category. So this somewhat negates the argument that rookies might be able to hit more with the shotgun effect, because there were not so much rookies after all!

JG53Frankyboy
11-27-2006, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Klemm.co:
............. And in my opinion the US fighters would have done somewhat if not much better in WW2, if they would have had 20mm's instead of 50's.
............

havent they done not already very good - thats my impression http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

even they were good in Korea already too, the F-86 would porpably have done even better if from the F-86A on, the Sabre would have been developped with 4x20mm canons.........
very little time window to hit an enemy at that combat speeds, so every hit counts , and a 20mm shell is than more useable than perhaps 3-4 .50cal rounds.

fordfan25
11-27-2006, 02:36 PM
yea. i have felt the 86 would have been better off with 4x20mm's. but as history has shown the 50. will get it done<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

AVGWarhawk
11-29-2006, 02:10 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-53447385157513...q=kriegsmarine&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5344738515751379753&q=kriegsmarine&hl=en)

Caption this video for fun! Let see what you come up with!

Low_Flyer_MkVb
11-30-2006, 04:53 PM
This just seems to fit right in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye8XekrZvrg<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n47/LFMkVb/1822.jpg

Waldo.Pepper
11-30-2006, 05:17 PM
This just seems to fit right in:

Does fit! Terribly funny too!

You really in your wildest dreams have no idea how much I needed a good laugh today. These last few days have been the worst in my life.

Also glad that "the group" pulled together and pulled this topic out of the fire.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/sig/p61rev.jpg

T_O_A_D
11-30-2006, 05:20 PM
What are you Thinking about? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<center>
Flying as BlitzPig_TOAD
My TrackIR fix, Read the whole thread (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=49310655&m=15310285&p=1)
Charvel's Tutorial on setting up yout Track Ir (http://www.airwarfare.com/guides/tir_setup.htm)

<A HREF="http://blitzpigs.com/forum/index.php?sid=3b61cb4521d729767adc892dfd2ceddf" TARGET=_blank>http://home.mchsi.com/~t_o_a_d/T_O_A_D.jpg
</A>
<b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">UBI[/b] Forums/IL2/FB/PF Moderator
I.O.C.L (http://www.gozr.net/iocl/)> Pictures of War (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2291023914)>My AT-6 Flight (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6641084723?r=6641084723#6641084723)>

TeufelHund84
11-30-2006, 05:27 PM
Watch the video again everyone, only when you do, be sure to have this song (http://sample.music.yahoo.com/radio/clientdata/624/player.asp?cid=624&iid=1&ltw=LaunchRadioTarget&p=6&m=0&d=0&modeInitialized=1&mode=1&resized=1&bridgeInit=1&bridgeMode=1&sids=22442148) playing when you watch it. If you've seen the movie 'Blow' with Johnny Depp you'll know. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fork-N-spoon
11-30-2006, 07:22 PM
Video caption should read, "Germans Kopy flight kharacteristics of P-38."

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/untitled.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/untitled1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/untitled2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/untitled3.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Blondes are for nancy boys. Stop the cruelty adopt a brunette today

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/brunette.jpg

Feathered_IV
11-30-2006, 07:29 PM
Presumably it was the Droopsnoot version of the P-38 they copied. Didn't need to take it so literally http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

***********************************************

http://server2.uploadit.org/files/Feathered-sigpic.jpg

"Intelligent, normally observant and answered all questions freely. He was arrogant and proud to be a pilot. Fellow prisoners in hospital consider him mentally unstable."

waffen-79
11-30-2006, 07:30 PM
LMAO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

fake german its teh funneh!!! BE SURE!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.hrservices.com.mx/signature.jpg
You need blokes like me to fly Blue side!
Banning Planes OnLine? NOT COOL, M'KAY?

M2morris
11-30-2006, 08:03 PM
"You know, you could put your eye out with that thing."

BfHeFwMe
11-30-2006, 08:06 PM
Yeah, noticed that too, P-38, how did that get pasted into the clip?
----------------------------------
Gunner to Pilot, we're suppose to patrol for enemy shipping, why are we landing?

We're going to catch some fish Shultzie, getting sick of that bland mess hall stuff.

Nice landing skipper, what kind of fish can you catch around here?

Prop cut Blackend Flying Fish. Thump! Bang...

Wow, thats impressive, you don't mess around skipper, I can already smell em cooking.

AKA_TAGERT
11-30-2006, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-53447385157513...q=kriegsmarine&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5344738515751379753&q=kriegsmarine&hl=en)

Caption this video for fun! Let see what you come up with! Germans and water just dont mix.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

TC_Stele
11-30-2006, 09:59 PM
Wow, I had no idea that could happen, pretty scarey.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

=====================
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/9899/il2siggx3.gif

Worf101
12-01-2006, 06:47 AM
Hanz: "Okay Franz why are we doing this again?"

Franz: "Because Fatboy Herman sez so."

Hanz: "What's that mean?"

Franz: "Look I'm tryin' to land this thing so try not to act as stupid as you look? Herman says, "the British have float fighters, the Itals have float fighter even the Japanese have float fighters.. WE'RE gonna have a float fighter.." now shaddup and help me land dis thing."

Hanz: "Hokay, if you say so... Okay I think she's down.. little choppy. Damn it man it's way too choppy.. slow down, slow down man..."

Franz: "Oh keep your skirt on Sissy Mary, we're down..."

Hanz: "Phew... Can we call this thing off now?"

Franz: "Nah, we're gonna have to do a take off too."

Hanz: "In dis chit? Are you outta your @$$^%#&%#!! mind?"

Franz: "You know man, you're really startin' to wear on my last one. You KNOW we have to take off again it's part of the routine. Now shaddup and help me do preflight."

Hanz: "Man I gotta bad feelin about this... Flaps!"

Franz: "Check"

Hanz: "Magneto!"

Franz: "Check!"

Hanz: "Lifeboat"

Franz: "Very funny... Prepare for take off. Full throttle."

Hanz: "Ooof, is it supposed to be this rough?"

Franz: "Shaddup!"

Hanz: "Don't you think she's hittin a little hard, maybe we oughta...

Franz: "What did I just tell you???!!"

Hanz: "Franz man she's bouncin all over the place like a 2 dollar Ho! She's gonna..."

Franz: "Oh chit!"

Hanz: "D@mn man, you broke it! See, I told it was too rough for this chit... Hey man??!!! Where's the ENGINE???"

Franz: "Will you shut the $#@% up. It's still there, somewhere. The pick up boat'll be here in a minute.

Hanz: "Man they're gonna shoot us for sure, we broke the prototype man. We're... hey, you smell gas?"

Franz: "Yeah a little, where's it comin'... Oh chit. She's burnin Hanz..."

Hanz: "What??? I can't hear you over the waves."

Franz: "I said jump for it dude she's burnin!"

Hanz: "What?? Repeat man, what? Hey Franz there's some guy swimmin' next to the plane. Franz?? Franz? FRANZ???? What the, what are you doin out there man?? What are you pointin' at? What? HOLLEEE!!!"

SPLASH!!!!

End of story.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v366/Worf101/My%20Pics/FortheGloryoftheEmpire1mod.jpg

JarheadEd
12-01-2006, 09:12 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v37/JarheadEd/Himmel.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v37/JarheadEd/Himmel2.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v37/JarheadEd/Himmel3a.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v37/JarheadEd/Himmell4.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-------"Sure, there was that obvious obesity coupled with a drinking problem and the undeniable fact that she glided like a flat iron and looked-head on-like a flying toilet seat. Yet, I'm grateful for the chance I had to pilot the Thunderbolt. It was a mighty fine, mighty machine."
Philip Savides, P-47 pilot, 50th Fighter Group -------

rnzoli
12-01-2006, 09:14 AM
Hans (the pilot):

"WOW, the cockpit view is so excellent in this aircraft, I don't have any problem seeing over the engine.... hmm.... engine... engine..? WE LOST THE WHOLE ENGINE JUST NOW!!!"<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

A "world's first": fully automatic, dedicated COOP server controller. Features and available servers here (http://web.t-online.hu/rnzoli/IL2DSC/intro-coop.html).
http://web.t-online.hu/rnzoli/IL2DSC/the_full_difficulty_COOP_server_2.JPG (http://web.t-online.hu/rnzoli/IL2DSC/intro-coop.html)

GreyBeast
12-01-2006, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-53447385157513...q=kriegsmarine&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5344738515751379753&q=kriegsmarine&hl=en)

Caption this video for fun! Let see what you come up with!

Diep P??rpel:
Smouuuuuuuuuuuuuk on ze vawter
Faya in ze skei
Na na na, na na na naaaa, na na na, na naaaaaaa<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

ALL MY RACECOURSES RE-UPLOADED!!!!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v624/GreyBeast/SIGNATUREII.jpg (http://www.savefile.com/projects/1032879)

DrHerb
12-01-2006, 07:20 PM
STIIIIMPI you IIIIIIDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"Wow, it's like I died and went to heaven, then God realized it wasn't my time yet, so He sent me back to a brewery."

"I play while you are at work so I nail your wife and then kick the dog. They both love it." Breeze147


Known as VMF-214_Prop in H/l