Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?

(ArtKramr) wrote in
:

A V-1 striking the heart of London can do far more damage than any
single ME-109. Should those who killed V-1's be held in higher
esteem?

Shooting or tipping a V-1 was a fairly hazardous activity.
Shooting could set off the warhead as evidenced by some of the
surviving gun camera footage and tipping the beast was essentially
a controlled mid-air collision.

IBM

__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

In article , IBM
writes
Shooting or tipping a V-1 was a fairly hazardous activity.
Shooting could set off the warhead as evidenced by some of the
surviving gun camera footage

And when it did explode, the fighter was flying towards the explosion at
400mph+.

and tipping the beast was essentially
a controlled mid-air collision.

Yes, although the idea was not to come in contact (aircraft aluminium
and V-1 steel wings don't mix very well), just disturb the airflow over
the wing, then get out of there before it rolled towards the fighter.

--
John

IBM wrote:

(ArtKramr) wrote in
:



A V-1 striking the heart of London can do far more damage than any
single ME-109. Should those who killed V-1's be held in higher
esteem?



Shooting or tipping a V-1 was a fairly hazardous activity.
Shooting could set off the warhead as evidenced by some of the
surviving gun camera footage and tipping the beast was essentially
a controlled mid-air collision.

Did the aircraft actually make physical contact? Or, did it lower it's
wing tip in front of the V-1 tip thereby disrupting the airflow and
causing the V-1's wing to drop?

--mike


IBM

_________________________________________________ _____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source




--
Michael J. Dargan
http://mingo.info-science.uiowa.edu/~dargan

Mike Dargan wrote:

IBM wrote:

(ArtKramr) wrote in
:



A V-1 striking the heart of London can do far more damage than any
single ME-109. Should those who killed V-1's be held in higher
esteem?



Shooting or tipping a V-1 was a fairly hazardous activity.
Shooting could set off the warhead as evidenced by some of the
surviving gun camera footage and tipping the beast was essentially
a controlled mid-air collision.

Did the aircraft actually make physical contact? Or, did it lower it's
wing tip in front of the V-1 tip thereby disrupting the airflow and
causing the V-1's wing to drop?

Neither. The recommended procedure was for the fighter to fly parallel to the V-1 and
place the fighter's wingtip several inches to a couple of feet under the V-1's
wingtip. The airflow would cause the V-1 to roll AWAY from the fighter, tumbling the
gyro. It was sometimes necessary for the fighter to bank slightly away from the V-1 to
bring the wings into close enough proximity, but physical contact was not intended.

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote:

Mike Dargan wrote:

IBM wrote:

(ArtKramr) wrote in
:



A V-1 striking the heart of London can do far more damage than any
single ME-109. Should those who killed V-1's be held in higher
esteem?



Shooting or tipping a V-1 was a fairly hazardous activity.
Shooting could set off the warhead as evidenced by some of the
surviving gun camera footage and tipping the beast was essentially
a controlled mid-air collision.

Did the aircraft actually make physical contact? Or, did it lower it's
wing tip in front of the V-1 tip thereby disrupting the airflow and
causing the V-1's wing to drop?

Neither. The recommended procedure was for the fighter to fly parallel to the V-1 and
place the fighter's wingtip several inches to a couple of feet under the V-1's
wingtip. The airflow would cause the V-1 to roll AWAY from the fighter, tumbling the
gyro. It was sometimes necessary for the fighter to bank slightly away from the V-1 to
bring the wings into close enough proximity, but physical contact was not intended.

Guy

That sounds reasonable, Mike's 'method' sounds sort of
'self-defeating' (big time) to me.
--

-Gord.