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

This NG is turning



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 13th 04, 04:37 PM
George Z. Bush
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"David Wallace" wrote in message
...
George Z. Bush wrote:

I remember reading stories about the air war in WWI, and I always wondered
why
Fokker included a third wing on that unique three-winger fighter the Germans
used and why. I don't believe any other aircraft manufacturer built a line
model with three wings, but I could be wrong about that.


Probably to increase wing area and still maintain a small profile. They
are tiny planes even when compared to the small size of the Sopwith Pup
and Camel. Sopwith came out with a 3-decker prior to the Fokker, but
neither of them remained in service very long. The DR1 was mainly active
between Nov 1917 and May 1918 and of the 320 or so made a large number
crashed due to structural failures. They sure look cute in the flesh
though.

Out of curiosity, did you ever fly the C-46 at all, and if so, how did
it compare to the C-47? I've often wondered what the difference in run
length for take offs and landings was.


Finally.....somebody asked me something I can speak about from personal
experience. Yes, I had about a thousand hours or so in C-46s, most in the left
seat. In its day, the C-46 was the Mack truck of the airborne trash hauling
business. From my failing memory, the max gross on the gooney bird was around
28,000 lbs, whereas the same limitation on the 46 was 35,000, although we pretty
much routinely took off with 40,000 lbs. (or even a little more) during active
operations. Needless to say, it required a bit more run length for T/Os and
landings. In the air, unless the hydraulic control boosters were operable, it
handled about like what I imagine picking up a horse one handed might be.
However, it did have two of those P-47 sized R-2000 engines, which had a lot of
muscle compared to the goonie's R-1280s.

The gooney bird, OTOH, was God's gift to any pilot who needed to fly a
transport. She handled well in the air, flew well on one engine (and could even
climb 2-300 fpm on one engine if you weren't loaded, and was the most forgiving
airplane ever designed by a human being. It was able to haul two CG-4(?)
gliders in a twin tow pretty easily if you didn't mind staggering through the
air at about 90-85 mph, and could also handle one of those big RAF Horsa
gliders. I recall once (as a lark) taking off a PSP runway in Italy on a
training flight with the wind directly on the nose at about 25 mph on cruise
settings just to see if it would do it. Needless to say, since I'm telling you
about it, it did. Pretty stupid, right? But then, I was young then and never
bothered to think of what the options were going to be if it couldn't break
ground. With clear headed thinking like that, I'd probably have become a
statistic if I'd ended up in fighters.
(^-^)))

George Z.


  #22  
Old September 13th 04, 04:56 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
DunxC wrote:
Yep, this group is turning alright. Years ago you could guarantee

reasoned
questions & answers on military aviation topics. Seems to be 90%

off-topic (at
a very rough non-scientific guess).

Any chance of some on-topic chat?


I remember reading stories about the air war in WWI, and I always wondered

why
Fokker included a third wing on that unique three-winger fighter the

Germans
used and why. I don't believe any other aircraft manufacturer built a

line
model with three wings, but I could be wrong about that.


Sopwith also built a triplane.



Comments?

George Z.

PS - Like you, Duncan, I'm tired of having to wade through so much

seasonal
political bull**** in RAM in order to read of things military aviation.

In the
interests of subject purity, I've given up even commenting on such impure
intrusions on our "raison d'etre" and encourage others to follow my lead.


Bullpoopie; you have been a continual and rampant poster of political,
economic, etc., diatribes--stop acting as if you have somehow been above the
fray. Crap, you are about as dishonest about this as Art has proven to be.

Brooks

Let's
just ignore that stuff when it shows up and limit our responses to a

simple
two-letter "OT" if we feel obliged to say anything at all and then move

on.
Most of us have made up our minds already anyway, so look at all the

bandwidth
we'll be able to save.




  #23  
Old September 13th 04, 05:50 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

I remember reading stories about the air war in WWI, and I always wondered
why Fokker included a third wing on that unique three-winger fighter the
Germans used and why. I don't believe any other aircraft manufacturer
built a line model with three wings, but I could be wrong about that.

Comments?


It wasn't unique, it wasn't even first. The British Sopwith Triplane
preceded the Fokker Dr.1. The British also produced the unsuccessful
Blackburn Triplane and the Germans the Pfalz Dr.1.


  #24  
Old September 14th 04, 12:15 AM
J Haggerty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



ArtKramr wrote:
A while ago the posts here were 95% pro war, pro neocon. Today they at least
60% anti-war and anti Bush administration. Things are looking up.Kerry may take
the day after all.


You're right about it turning; it's turning from a "military aviation"
website to a "political rant by Art Kramer" website, and half of those
anti-Bush posts are initiated or continued by you! Perfect example is
this post you started; what does it have to do with military aviation?
PS. By your logic, you're not qualified to speak about Iraq, because you
weren't there!


JPH
  #25  
Old September 14th 04, 12:23 AM
Pooh Bear
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

ArtKramr wrote:

A while ago the posts here were 95% pro war, pro neocon. Today they at least
60% anti-war and anti Bush administration. Things are looking up.Kerry may take
the day after all.


Pro *which* war.

Surely an effective military is there to help stop wars from happening in the first
place mainly ( they're expensive ).


Graham

  #26  
Old September 14th 04, 01:06 AM
Leslie Swartz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Like any good democrat (oxymoron) Art just assumes he gets to vote as many
times as he hits the return key . . .

Steve Swartz

"Jack G" wrote in message
news:Cf51d.1487$bj2.680@trnddc08...
Are those percentages derived from actual numbers or just crude estimates?
If you can show the numbers used in your calculations I'll believe you.
Otherwise this gets the same regard as the other drivel you post here.

Jack G.


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
A while ago the posts here were 95% pro war, pro neocon. Today they at

least
60% anti-war and anti Bush administration. Things are looking up.Kerry
may

take
the day after all.


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





  #27  
Old September 14th 04, 01:09 AM
Leslie Swartz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ahh, more wisdom from the

"If you didn't ride around in B-26s in the ETO you don't know jack about
[Brain surgery, opinion polling, political science, economics, whatever]"
gasbag.

I can only imagine- it must physically hurt to be so stupid AND ignorant
simultaneously.

Steve Swartz




"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: This NG is turning
From: "Jack G"
Date: 9/12/2004 4:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: Cf51d.1487$bj2.680@trnddc08

Are those percentages derived from actual numbers or just crude estimates?
If you can show the numbers used in your calculations I'll believe you.
Otherwise this gets the same regard as the other drivel you post here.

Jack G.



Speaking of drivel would you tell us all about your combat experiences?


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



  #28  
Old September 14th 04, 01:26 AM
B2431
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

George Z. Bush wrote:

I remember reading stories about the air war in WWI, and I always wondered

why
Fokker included a third wing on that unique three-winger fighter the

Germans
used and why. I don't believe any other aircraft manufacturer built a line
model with three wings, but I could be wrong about that.



As usual you are wrong. The Brits had the Sopwith triplane.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
  #29  
Old September 14th 04, 02:11 AM
ArtKramr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Subject: This NG is turning
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 9/13/2004 8:56 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
DunxC wrote:
Yep, this group is turning alright. Years ago you could guarantee

reasoned
questions & answers on military aviation topics. Seems to be 90%

off-topic (at
a very rough non-scientific guess).

Any chance of some on-topic chat?


I remember reading stories about the air war in WWI, and I always wondered

why
Fokker included a third wing on that unique three-winger fighter the

Germans
used and why. I don't believe any other aircraft manufacturer built a

line
model with three wings, but I could be wrong about that.


Sopwith also built a triplane.



Comments?

George Z.

PS - Like you, Duncan, I'm tired of having to wade through so much

seasonal
political bull**** in RAM in order to read of things military aviation.

In the
interests of subject purity, I've given up even commenting on such impure
intrusions on our "raison d'etre" and encourage others to follow my lead.


Bullpoopie; you have been a continual and rampant poster of political,
economic, etc., diatribes--stop acting as if you have somehow been above the
fray. Crap, you are about as dishonest about this as Art has proven to be.

Brooks

Let's
just ignore that stuff when it shows up and limit our responses to a

simple
two-letter "OT" if we feel obliged to say anything at all and then move

on.
Most of us have made up our minds already anyway, so look at all the

bandwidth
we'll be able to save.




George went to war. I went to war. You went to **** you lying cowardly pile of
dung. You fought no one. You flew nothing.You are a totally worthless phony.


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

  #30  
Old September 14th 04, 02:42 AM
Bob Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"ArtKramr" wrote

George went to war. I went to war. You went to **** you lying cowardly pile of
dung. You fought no one. You flew nothing.You are a totally worthless phony.


But you went to war with a racist crew, so it doesn't count.


 




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
more radial fans like fw190? jt Military Aviation 51 August 28th 04 04:22 AM
Turning performance of SEA fighters Wolfhenson Military Aviation 19 August 16th 04 05:41 AM
Changes to Aircraft Approach Categories?! skyliner Instrument Flight Rules 10 February 9th 04 09:55 PM
Eurofighter is turning into German nightmare Chad Irby Military Aviation 45 October 4th 03 03:18 AM
Riddle me this, pilots Chip Jones Instrument Flight Rules 137 August 30th 03 04:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:58 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.