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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
In message , vincent p.
norris writes The point I was making was that the "Fortress" was unable to protect its crews as the USAAC (and other air forces) had fondly believed before the war..... I don't think anyone could possibly dispute that! and that aerial bombardment in WWII by and large failed to live up to the hopes and fears of the generals The "Strategic Bombing Survey" conducted after the war came to the same conclusion. German production actually increased during the war. German production increased after about '43 because they drafted women into the factories and also put most of the factories on a 3-shift 24 hour day. Mike -- M.J.Powell |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The point I was making was that the "Fortress" was unable to protect
its crews as the USAAC (and other air forces) had fondly believed before the war, and that aerial bombardment in WWII by and large failed to live up to the hopes and fears of the generals, at least until Little Boy made accuracy irrelevant. When noting that at one point 63% of bomber crews failed to complete their tours, you could have added that towards the end of the campaign -many- completed their tours and never even saw a German fighter. But you didn't do that. Walt |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
When noting that at one point 63% of bomber crews failed to complete their tours, you could have added that towards the end of the campaign -many- completed their tours and never even saw a German fighter. But what did this have to do with the Fortress's ability to protect itself? Toward the end of the campaign, that job was done by fighter pilots in P-51 Mustangs. Actually, I didn't say that of one sample, 63 percent failed to complete their tours. I said that 63 percent of the men were killed or captured before completing 25 missions. Crikey, we might as well have sent them to war in yellow school busses. You also seem to misunderstand the purpose of a book review. I reviewed the book that was written. If you write a different one, and if it is as good as Air Power, maybe I'll be given the assignment to review it. www.warbirdforum.com/airpower.htm all the best -- Dan Ford email: (put Cubdriver in subject line) The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Cub Driver writes:
It was the work of Ludwig Prandtl, and was the culmination of WWI design. It had long, narrow wings for a superior lift-to-drag ratio. The wings had blunt leading edges, which generated more lift (other Prandtl designs also used this feature) especially a high angles of attack, so it was less likely to stall out. The thicker airfoil also allowed interior bracing, so the D VIII needed no struts or wires. (It was given one, for psychological reasons, but was still much cleaner than the other aircraft of the time.) The Armistice document listed the war material that Germany was required to turn over. Only one aircraft was named, the Fokker D VIII. Dan, I don't have the background to decide whether you made a typing error or not. The original poster asked about the biplane Fokker D.VII, not the monoplane D.VIII. -- G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:37:43 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug
wrote: Dan, I don't have the background to decide whether you made a typing error or not. The original poster asked about the biplane Fokker D.VII, not the monoplane D.VIII. Arggh! all the best -- Dan Ford email: (put Cubdriver in subject line) The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I wondered about that myself. If it was a typo, Dan was consistant!
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
It was the work of Ludwig Prandtl, and was the culmination of WWI
design. It had long, narrow wings for a superior lift-to-drag ratio. The wings had blunt leading edges, which generated more lift (other Prandtl designs also used this feature) especially a high angles of attack, so it was less likely to stall out. The thicker airfoil also allowed interior bracing, so the D VIII needed no struts or wires. (It was given one, for psychological reasons, but was still much cleaner than the other aircraft of the time.) The Armistice document listed the war material that Germany was required to turn over. Only one aircraft was named, the Fokker D VIII. You're confusing the D VII (biplane, probably the best all-around fighter of the war) with the D VIII (parasol monoplane with rotary engine, not as well regarded). R / John |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Rule 4: Integrity is not negotiable!
"Matthew G. Saroff" wrote in message ... Looking at the stats, it seems fairly ordinary for late WWI fighters, but it's always described as dominating the skys over the Western Front. -- --Matthew Saroff Rules to live by: 1) To thine own self be true 2) Don't let your mouth write no checks that your butt can't cash 3) Interference in the time stream is forbidden, do not meddle in causality Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | March 1st 04 07:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | February 1st 04 07:27 AM |
Conspiracy Theorists (amusing) | Grantland | Military Aviation | 1 | October 2nd 03 12:17 AM |
A Good Story | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 15 | September 3rd 03 03:00 PM |