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
|
|||
|
|||
PZL 62 Aircraft Claim
http://www.miramex.com.pl/jwsoft/193...e/pzl62_01.JPG
A strange old Polish guy sent me a drawing of this basically unknown aircraft and claimed that it would have swept the skies of the German invaders if it were built. He further claimed it would have been superior to the Spitfire. What is this guy talking about? The Me-109E was more than a match for that obsolete looking crate and the German pilots already had experience in Spain. Now, what comments can I add regarding to the Spitfire claim? Rob |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
robert arndt wrote:
http://www.miramex.com.pl/jwsoft/193...e/pzl62_01.JPG A strange old Polish guy sent me a drawing of this basically unknown aircraft and claimed that it would have swept the skies of the German invaders if it were built. He further claimed it would have been superior to the Spitfire. What is this guy talking about? The Me-109E was more than a match for that obsolete looking crate and the German pilots already had experience in Spain. Now, what comments can I add regarding to the Spitfire claim? Rob He's likely a kook. You get the same kind of kooks claiming that (for instance) German aircraft were superior to allied aircraft, that they designed and in some cases began building supersonic, long range aircraft that would have allowed them to bomb the United States, and stuff like that. Best to ignore them Mike |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:16:05 -0700, Michael Williamson
wrote: He's likely a kook. You get the same kind of kooks claiming that (for instance) German aircraft were superior to allied aircraft, that they designed and in some cases began building supersonic, long range aircraft that would have allowed them to bomb the United States, and stuff like that. Best to ignore them ROFLMAO! greg -- Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland. I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan. You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
You make a war with the weapons you really have, not with those you plan
to have.... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Williamson wrote in message ...
robert arndt wrote: http://www.miramex.com.pl/jwsoft/193...e/pzl62_01.JPG A strange old Polish guy sent me a drawing of this basically unknown aircraft and claimed that it would have swept the skies of the German invaders if it were built. He further claimed it would have been superior to the Spitfire. What is this guy talking about? The Me-109E was more than a match for that obsolete looking crate and the German pilots already had experience in Spain. Now, what comments can I add regarding to the Spitfire claim? Rob He's likely a kook. You get the same kind of kooks claiming that (for instance) German aircraft were superior to allied aircraft, that they designed and in some cases began building supersonic, long range aircraft that would have allowed them to bomb the United States, and stuff like that. Best to ignore them Mike Yeah, kinda like some of the RAM kooks that don't believe the German windtunnel data, thousands of tons of captured German documents and FE (foreign equipment) flown at Wright Field/Patterson had ANYTHING to do with the US postwar success in the space race and military aviation. Point well taken... I ignore them too! Rob |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
robert arndt wrote:
Yeah, kinda like some of the RAM kooks that don't believe the German windtunnel data, thousands of tons of captured German documents and FE (foreign equipment) flown at Wright Field/Patterson had ANYTHING to do with the US postwar success in the space race and military aviation. Given that the Russkies had the lead in the space race right up into the late 60's, such equipment didn't seem to benefit the US much; at least not in space. SMH |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
robert arndt wrote: Yeah, kinda like some of the RAM kooks that don't believe the German windtunnel data, thousands of tons of captured German documents and FE (foreign equipment) flown at Wright Field/Patterson had ANYTHING to do with the US postwar success in the space race and military aviation. Given that the Russkies had the lead in the space race right up into the late 60's, such equipment didn't seem to benefit the US much; at least not in space. SMH I would hardly call saving the West a decade in aerospace research non-beneficial. The windtunnel data alone is invaluable. The West got much more documents and scientists than Russia did and it took years to evaluate what was worth pursuing and what wasn't. The Russian approach was different. The forced their captured scientists and families to relocate to the USSR, virtually prisoners, and forced them to work on the most cost-effective systems along with their Russian counterparts. They had but one goal- beat the West. In the end, however, the US beat them in the air and space with a lot more experimentation with German designs than Russia could ever afford. Only now in the 21st century are we getting away from evolutionary designs that lead all the way back the Third Reich. Rob |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:03:27 -0500, Stephen Harding wrote:
robert arndt wrote: Yeah, kinda like some of the RAM kooks that don't believe the German windtunnel data, thousands of tons of captured German documents and FE (foreign equipment) flown at Wright Field/Patterson had ANYTHING to do with the US postwar success in the space race and military aviation. Given that the Russkies had the lead in the space race right up into the late 60's, such equipment didn't seem to benefit the US much; at least not in space. SMH Actually, the Soviets were killing launch crew and cosmonauts on a continuing basis. They simply did not report the things that went "BOOM". They never had a significant lead, if they had a lead at all. Al Minyard |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 10:16:05 -0700, Michael Williamson wrote:
robert arndt wrote: http://www.miramex.com.pl/jwsoft/193...e/pzl62_01.JPG A strange old Polish guy sent me a drawing of this basically unknown aircraft and claimed that it would have swept the skies of the German invaders if it were built. He further claimed it would have been superior to the Spitfire. What is this guy talking about? The Me-109E was more than a match for that obsolete looking crate and the German pilots already had experience in Spain. Now, what comments can I add regarding to the Spitfire claim? Rob He's likely a kook. You get the same kind of kooks claiming that (for instance) German aircraft were superior to allied aircraft, that they designed and in some cases began building supersonic, long range aircraft that would have allowed them to bomb the United States, and stuff like that. Best to ignore them Mike Very well said :-)))) Al Minyard |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"robert arndt" wrote in message om... http://www.miramex.com.pl/jwsoft/193...e/pzl62_01.JPG A strange old Polish guy sent me a drawing of this basically unknown aircraft and claimed that it would have swept the skies of the German invaders if it were built. He further claimed it would have been superior to the Spitfire. What is this guy talking about? The Me-109E was more than a match for that obsolete looking crate and the German pilots already had experience in Spain. Now, what comments can I add regarding to the Spitfire claim? Rob The PZL-62 was designed as a low wing cantilever monoplane, all-metal fighter with a retractable undercarriage automatic slats and integral tank inside wing. Armament consisted of eight machine-guns. The designed top speed was around 650 km/hr which all other things being equal would have made it competitive with the Spitfire 1 or Me-109E. However without an efficient command and control system they would have been at a severe disadvantage and it seems unlikely that the possession of a few squadrons of such aircraft would have materially affected the course of the campaign. Keith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 | June 2nd 04 07:17 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | May 1st 04 07:29 PM |