#1 Jet of World War II

Subject: #1 Jet of World War II
From: vzlion
Date: 7/8/03 7:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time

My hat is off to them. But, it's just not
the same as combat with something that can shoot back at you.

Walt

The subject is not "you" It is defending your country from attack while
destroying enemy assets. They did all that.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

nt (Gordon) wrote:

Too late in
arrival to be other than a "flash in the pan".

That "flash" turned out to be the death kneal for several entire classes of
aircraft, that only months previously were considered the best in the world.
Prop combat aircraft of all types were on notice that they now represented
antiquated technology. It signalled to all the other nations that what used to
be good enough was now entirely obsolete - a watershed moment in aviation
history.

v/r
Gordon

Masterfully put Gordon (not quite as well spelled but what the
hay)

I particularly like your last sentence. One must give credit
where due and the Germans certainly did themselves proud in this
ground-breaking mechanical engineering feat.
--

-Gord.

Gordon (not quite as well spelled but what the
hay)

Dammit, my spelling poodle must have dozed off again. Would you believe I now
type with a central Texas twang...? No...? Not buying it, are we. ? Shoot.

One must give credit
where due and the Germans certainly did themselves proud in this
ground-breaking mechanical engineering feat.

I think the 262, like the X-1, are on a par in level of importance. The X-1
was capable, marginally, of supersonic flight but only for a brief period. So
what? It signalled to all that supersonic flight was viable and the way to the
future. In the same manner, the Me was the historical dividing line for
fighter aircraft, the machine that proved jet fighters were a viable and
superior alternative to propeller-driven machines. From that moment on, prop
fighters were an anachronism and every Allied pilot that saw one knew it.

If it was a Grumman product, I'd love it even more. Perhaps thats why I love
the Panther as well! )

v/r
Gordon

On 08 Jul 2003 18:29:09 GMT, nt (Gordon) wrote:

If it was a Grumman product, I'd love it even more. Perhaps thats why I love
the Panther as well! )

Just think of the lovely fuel bills....

Gavin Bailey

--

"...this level of misinformation suggests some Americans may be
avoiding having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
- 'Poll shows errors in beliefs on Iraq, 9/11'
The Charlotte Observer, 20th June 2003

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 20:42:14 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Why isn't the V-1 an enemy aircraft?

It doesn't have a pilot. It was a missile, not an aircraft.

--
Phil
"If only sarcasm could overturn bureaucracies"
-- NTK, commenting on www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_29.html

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:07:56 GMT, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 06:08:42 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote:

Shooting down V-1s, Piper Cubs, and unarmed transports may be a worthy
war-winning goal, like typing up the morning report, but it's not what
makes a fighter pilot--or plane.

Few people risked death typing up morning reports. Pilots did die as
consequences of Anti-Diver patrols. The level of risk is not
equivalent.

True but irrelevant; we were discussing the Meteor's ability as a
fighter aircraft, for which what is relevant is its record in combat
with other aircraft, especially fighters and bombers with a
capability to fight back.

--
Phil
"If only sarcasm could overturn bureaucracies"
-- NTK, commenting on www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_29.html

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"vzlion" wrote in message
...

Well, the difference is that the bomber has the potential to detect
the enemy night fighter and fight back, the V-1 doesn't. It just flies
along until it quits or is shot down.


But if the bomber doesn't detect the enemy fighter it won't fight back.
It
will just fly along until it is shot down.

And in the case of the Mosquito had no guns to shoot back with.

Keith

Emphasis on the word *back* of course !

:-) PB

But if the bomber doesn't detect the enemy fighter it won't fight back.
It
will just fly along until it is shot down.

And in the case of the Mosquito had no guns to shoot back with.

Keith

Emphasis on the word *back* of course !

The Mosquito bomber had no guns to shoot with, front or back, PB. The FB did,
but that is not what Keith was referring to.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

vzlion wrote in message
...
The pilots who destroyed the V-1s did an outstanding job and deserve
all our respect. Thay had a job to do and they did it, and very
effectively. And I'm sure they wouyld rather have been downing a
manned fighter or bomber. My hat is off to them. But, it's just not
the same as combat with something that can shoot back at you.

I don't know...
Seems to me when you're trying to blow up that much high-explosive,
at fairly close range, it might as well be shooting back.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Keith Willshaw wrote:



Emphasis on the word *back* of course !


The pure bomber variants had no guns at all , they
dropped the forward firing weapons in favor of a
glazed nose

Keith