1. #1
    Zyzbot's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    668
    I wouldn't call it trolling. Just about every combat plane had troubles that had to be overcome as it was developed.
    Share this post

  2. #2
    fordfan25's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,276
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_Prop:
    whatever, call it trolling ect, but hey with any warbird, you gotta take the bad with the good right?

    http://yarchive.net/mil/p51.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


    eh im an f4u guy any way.
    Share this post

  3. #3
    LeadSpitter_'s Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    4,103
    The poster in those newsgroups just is a BS'r i visit the news groups and hes been one of the no proof anti american bashers.

    while somethings did happen 3 reports of B D models with the tail problem surfaces shedding off in high speed dives, and the loss off a p-51D wing during a high speed dive bomb with 2 1000lbers did happen.

    theres not one ac in wwii that did not suffer from many airframe fatigue accident and highspeed dive and recovery accidents

    if you dont believe me go and search his name to see all his posts and you will understand.

    cdb100620@AOL.COM

    From: cdb100620@AOL.COM (CDB100620)
    Subject: Re: Cannon v. machineguns
    Date: 12 Sep 1997
    Newsgroups: soc.history.war.world-war-ii

    &gt;October 14 1943, The American aircrews claimed a total of 186 kills, when
    &gt;the Luftwaffe actually lost 31 fighters shot down and 12 written off as
    &gt;unrepairable.


    The breakdown of losses is interesting: 24 Bf 109 and only 2 FW 190 (plus
    3 Bf 110 and 2 Me 410). There were more 109s than 190s engaged, but the
    fact that the 109s suffered so severely is an indication of the
    vulnerability of the Bf 109 to .50 cal projectile strikes in particular and
    the liquid-cooled engine in general.
    It's worth noting that the liquid-cooled reciprocating aircraft engine
    disappeared abruptly with the end of WWII while the, air-cooled
    reciprocating aircraft engine is with us still. Big radial and corncob
    engines powered the postwar prop airliners such as the Constellation,
    Stratocruiser, DC-6 and DC-7 and boxer engines are found in practically all
    of today's general aviation aircraft. The liquid-cooled reciprocating
    aircraft engine is one bit of WWII-era technology that had a very short
    lifespan.
    Share this post

  4. #4
    Dear All,

    What I find most interesting with these articles is that one can only find them a long time after the confilict that they were involved in is long over. How often do we read how the Japanese fighters always suffered from maintenance problems and drops in performance as if to say that they may have been 'potentially' better than their opponents but the mechanical failures drastically reduced their effectiveness. A good example was the good old KI84, where if I remember rightly some in these forums were complaining about maximum speed, manoeuverability, altitude performance etc and generally complaining at Oleg for having it in the game in its current form.
    When viewed against the current document it might not be so different to the P51 OR the P47 which also had 25% of squadron strengh lost due to engine failures as I recall.
    I also remember people were asking Oleg to model these reliability problems which thankfully he did not do.......I should think there would be many packing it all in by now if that idea had been implimented...
    Best Regards
    SLP
    Share this post

  5. #5
    Bearcat99's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,022
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PikeBishop:
    Dear All,

    What I find most interesting with these articles is that one can only find them a long time after the confilict that they were involved in is long over. How often do we read how the Japanese fighters always suffered from maintenance problems and drops in performance as if to say that they may have been 'potentially' better than their opponents but the mechanical failures drastically reduced their effectiveness. A good example was the good old KI84, where if I remember rightly some in these forums were complaining about maximum speed, manoeuverability, altitude performance etc and generally complaining at Oleg for having it in the game in its current form.
    When viewed against the current document it might not be so different to the P51 OR the P47 which also had 25% of squadron strengh lost due to engine failures as I recall.
    I also remember people were asking Oleg to model these reliability problems which thankfully he did not do.......I should think there would be many packing it all in by now if that idea had been implimented...
    Best Regards
    SLP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Speaking of Japanese planes...... I dont know how true this is but..... was the Zero a knock off of Howard Huges' experimental plane?
    Share this post

  6. #6
    ploughman's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6,503
    Leonardo di Caprio claimed so in "The Aviator" but by then the Mr Hughes character was skiing down the slope to paranoia and insanity and the script was getting out of control. That was the first I'd ever heard of it.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    Zyzbot's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    668
    "... during the war, Allied intelligence repeatedly suggested that the Zero was a copy of various other types of foreign aircraft, such as the Howard Hughes 1935 air racer and particularly the the Vought 143, a one-off prototype fighter that the Japanese purchased. This was a stretch, since the Vought 143 really didn't look that much like a Zero and was a detestable aircraft in the first place. The idea that a fine machine like the Zero was a copy of it strained all logic. According to Horikoshi, the influence of the Vought 143 on the Zero was limited to the design of the landing gear."
    Share this post

  8. #8
    No, bear, the zero was a totally oringinal
    design

    the JP bought the one off Vought 143, and many have said it was copied and imporved as the zero, but thats BS

    the V-143 was indeed useful to the JP, but only inasmuch as it demostrated up to date contrruction methods, general arraingment, etc

    the only real example of JP ever "copying" a US type during, or just previous to WWII was the DC 4E, which was too complicated for even dougles to bother really developing...the JP basically took its wings and tail and made a 4 engine bomber, that although a good preformer, was too late to see production or service


    i saw the movie "the aviator", and despite having dicapri in it, was actually not bad...but dont believe that **** about hugues designing the connie, he merely added certain specs he wanted in regards TWA, thats all///and funny thing is, when he meets lockheed brass about the connie, they are in a hangar with the X 11, that wasnt built unitl 43 or 44, and the first connie was already built in 38-39....sheesh! hollywood has to be destroyed!
    Share this post

  9. #9
    ****, two got in by the time i finished my post, lol
    Share this post

  10. #10
    lrrp22's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    991
    Just realize that the poster has an obvious agenda. While there is a grain of truth in most of what he says, his claims are rather heavily exaggerated at the very least, and often inaccurate. His statements about the PTO are totally unsupported.
    Share this post