A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Aircraft that never lived up to their promise



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 1st 03, 04:23 AM
BOB URZ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



ArtKramr wrote:

I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?

Regards,

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


Mig 1.44? Has it ever really flown to spec?

Bob



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
  #22  
Old December 1st 03, 04:46 AM
Scott Ferrin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:54:21 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin"

Unless that's how *you* define a loser.


Scott Ferrin a loser?

That has been an elephant in the room for some time now.



Were's those pictures of the strakes?
  #24  
Old December 1st 03, 05:13 AM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article Rwxyb.533404$pl3.92056@pd7tw3no,
"Ed Majden" wrote:

"Chad Irby"
You should remember that with small fission warheads at high
altitudes, there is very little fallout, and practically zero
compared to even a single megaton-level ground strike.


What makes you think that these would have been high level blasts???


Because the Soviets never had anything that could make it all the way to
the US at low level. And with the size of warhead we're talking about
for most of these, you'd only need to be a couple of thousand feet up to
eliminate fallout from a ground burst.

Tactics with the B52 was a ground hugger to avoid SAMS and radar detection.


....but stayed at higher altitudes until they got in close. Not to
mention the B-52 had a *lot* more range at low level, and a lot of top
speed over the Bears of the period. Any Russian planes coming in over
Canada could not have been running low and still plan on making it to
the US.

Incinerating a Bear full of nuclear warheads would have created a severe
nuclear fall out problem!


Not as much as you'd think. Even at close range, you wouldn't
"incinerate" a plane. You'd need a fairly dead-on hit to vaporize even
one. Small nukes have small fireballs. Any Soviet planes hit by one of
these would prettybe blown out of the sky, but the effects would be no
worse than getting shot down in the first place.

Not to mention that they planned on using the same size of warhead over
most of the continental US for air defense..


U.S. Bomarc sites were near the Canada/U.S. border and most intercepts
would have taken place over Canada..


But there were US interceptor planes all over, and the Genie air-to-air
missile was in the inventory (we built over a thousand of them), with a
1.5 kiloton warhead. It was unguided, too, and only had a 6 mile range,
which made for some interesting attack plans.

Then there was the Nike-Hercules SAM, with a "switchable" warhead of
between 2 and 40 kilotons. I know of at least one near Dallas, and
that's nowhere *near* Canada.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
  #25  
Old December 1st 03, 05:37 AM
Ed Majden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Chad Irby"
Not as much as you'd think. Even at close range, you wouldn't
"incinerate" a plane. You'd need a fairly dead-on hit to vaporize even
one. Small nukes have small fireballs. Any Soviet planes hit by one of
these would prettybe blown out of the sky, but the effects would be no
worse than getting shot down in the first place.


Good thing we didn't have to go through a nuclear war to see who is
right! One of our base hospitals had an appropriate sign at the entrance.

"What to do in case of a nuclear attack: Answer: "Stick your head
between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye!"


  #26  
Old December 1st 03, 06:16 AM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Hobo" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


Scott Ferrin a loser?

That has been an elephant in the room for some time now.


This is unprovoked.


Hardly.


  #27  
Old December 1st 03, 08:13 AM
Scott Ferrin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:16:03 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Hobo" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


Scott Ferrin a loser?

That has been an elephant in the room for some time now.


This is unprovoked.


Hardly.



Yeah it really ****es you off when someone calls you on something
doesn't it?
  #28  
Old December 1st 03, 09:11 AM
Nele_VII
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sukhoi's SU-2. However, its engine (actuallu, its derivatives) proved itself
when mached to LaGG-3 airframe, resultig in La-5/7/9

--

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
Chad Irby wrote in message ...
In article


The classic turkey: The Fisher XP-75 Eagle -- supposed to become an
escort fighter, built from parts of several production aircraft.


One of the first real proofs that you can make all sorts of things fly
with a big enough engine.

Mc Donnell F3H-1 Demon -- like the "gutless Cutlass," underpowered,
designed to be supersonic.


...and the corresponding "with a poor engine, any plane can be a piece
of crap."

Martin P5M Seamaster ("Seamonster") jet Medium bomber seaplane.


P6M. The P5M was the Marlin. (Although the P6M was based off of the
P5M). And let's not forget the corresponding fighter, the cool-looking
but problematic Sea Dart - I would have loved to see one of these in the
air.

Convair XFY-1 VTOL fighter, along with the Lockheed XFV-1 -- both
tailsitters. Pilots found the transition from flight to tail-first
vertical landing too hard to do.


Oddly enough, the tailsitter designs are coming back... without the
pilots. Some of the more promising UAVs look much like the pogo planes,
since the computers running them have much less trouble dealing with
that transition than people do.

For some reason, many pilots don't like trying to land an aircraft while
lying on their backs.


There are so many wonderful example of planes that sucked...

The XA2D Skyshark, which showed that early turboprops often weren't
ready for prime time, and reminded us that contrarotating props had
their own issues.

Then there's the slow but loud XF-84H, with a turboprop engine and a big
fat prop up front. Which shows that you can screw up anything if you
try hard enough.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.





  #29  
Old December 1st 03, 09:28 AM
Nele_VII
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tell that to Mr. Rasimus. He will certainly disagree with You!

--

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
Frank Vaughan wrote in message
...
snip

Didn't one of the early MiG's (17/19/21) have such short legs
that the running joke was that you needed one to guard each end
of the airfield?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Frank Vaughan "Spectre Gunner"
Vietnam Veteran -- AC-130E Spectre Gunships
16th Special Operations Squadron (USAF)
"We were winning when I left."
Visit my Gunship page at: www.gunships.org



  #30  
Old December 1st 03, 01:20 PM
Darrell A. Larose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ed Majden" ) writes:
"Chad Irby" You should remember that with small fission warheads at high
altitudes,
there is very little fallout, and practically zero compared to even a
single megaton-level ground strike.


What makes you think that these would have been high level blasts???
Tactics with the B52 was a ground hugger to avoid SAMS and radar detection.
Incinerating a Bear full of nuclear warheads would have created a severe
nuclear fall out problem!

Not to mention that they planned on using the same size of warhead over
most of the continental US for air defense..


U.S. Bomarc sites were near the Canada/U.S. border and most intercepts
would have taken place over Canada.. Bomarc bases were hard sites. Fighter
aircraft like the CF-105 would have been dispersed all over the country to
forward bases in the event of an attack. They could also have been able to
be called back in case of an error. A Bomarc was a one way trip!

Except there were no forward bases to deploy the Arrow from, nor did it
have air-to-air refueling capacity.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 40 October 3rd 08 03:13 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 October 1st 04 02:31 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 September 2nd 04 05:15 AM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 April 5th 04 03:04 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 1 January 2nd 04 10:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.