Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point made was...One worked properly and one never.
And the question remains. What is the comparative combat record of the two?
To put it simply, since you're valiantly trying to dodge the question: did the one that (according to you) "never worked properly" destroy more enemy aircraft during WWII than the one that did?
Presuming of course that "destroy enemy aircraft" was their intended purpose. I could be wrong...
As far as I can see, early British or American jets weren't `thrown´ much into combat. After all, the countries that produced them were, at that time, not prone, too-much, to bomber-attack. But Germany was: and, in near-desperation, it, with great passion (and impressive results) got as many jet-fighters into the air as it could, regardless of whether they were fit for it. And so they were bound to have had a high `kill-ratio´ because they had no-end of slow bombers onto which to train their guns or rockets. Therefore the comparison being made here may be unfair. In other words, were the U K or U S A being heavily-bombed, we would have designed, produced and flown a great-many jet-fighters, which, probably, would have been more impressive than the German ones. A consequence of this is that maybe till the Nineteen-Fifties, the major military powers were spending so much effort on digesting German jet-technology that they must have neglected that at-home. And, despite the stimulus of the Cold War, I think that we've been complacent since. Perhaps we need a little alien invasion to put us on our toes now
If the German jets worked well enough to down hundreds of enemy aircraft the claim they "never worked properly" may be unfair; particularly when the attempted comparison is being made to jets with so few combat kills. One can certainly argue mechanical perfection over effectiveness in meeting intended purpose; I myself see little point in doing so.
if he is going to compare english planes to everyone else s, I'll put in my .02. I have worked on a Tiger Moth and a couple of Spitfires as well as flying in both the Moth and Spitfire as well as working on a 51, P-38, P-47, Ha-1112, PT-17, AT-6.
While they are nice looking planes, both are a pain to work on when compared to the comparable US plane, The Moth is more akin to a WWI plane than the planes it was training the pilots for and is one of the slowest planes I have flown, we were overtaken by a cessna 150. It lacked differential ailerons, and had a rudder like a barn door, both the Moth and Spitfire cockpits were very cramped with little to no shoulder room. Compared to a likes of a P-40, P-51, there is none, those planes have room to move and stretch some and a P-47 has room for a dance floor.
In the Spitfire, the canopy rails were touching my shoulders, had I been wearing heavy flying gear, I would have been pinched in place, where as the P-40 and P-51 canopy rails are much lower and much wider apart.
I always wondered about the engineering ideology used on the "classic" British airplanes, like the Spitfire and Hurricane.
My only experience with British (well, technically Scottish) aircraft was flying the BA-3100, and overall, I was not impressed. Unnecessarily complex systems. If i was forced to fly an airplane through a thunderstorm, it would be that one, as it was built like a tank. Unfortunately, it flew like one too.
There wasn't a valve in the entire airplane, but plenty of c*o*c*ks and punkah louvers.
This thread is starting to remind me of the one he started in which he claimed that the Sten gun was the most effective gun of the Second World War. As evidence, he posted a still shot from the movie "A Bridge Too Far," showing Sean Connery and some other British actors carrying Stens. This thread may have the potential to become almost as funny.
In other words, were the U K or U S A being heavily-bombed, we would have designed, produced and flown a great-many jet-fighters, which, probably, would have been more impressive than the German ones.
The point of this thread was that the German jet planes were not impressive at all. I have given enough evidence to prove they were nothing of the sort.
My only experience with British (well, technically Scottish) aircraft was flying the BA-3100, and overall, I was not impressed. Unnecessarily complex systems. If i was forced to fly an airplane through a thunderstorm, it would be that one, as it was built like a tank. Unfortunately, it flew like one too.
It sounds like it did what it was designed to do. Comparing a Spitfire or Vulcan with that is rather mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
This thread is starting to remind me of the one he started in which he claimed that the Sten gun was the most effective gun of the Second World War.
The Sten was. The Brits could have armed a 40 million strong army with them. Yo really do not get it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
