A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

OT - Military Channel



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old August 18th 09, 05:56 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default OT - Military Channel

Brian Thorn wrote:

True, but look at our *second* jet, coming down the pike not far
behind and really intended to be the first US jet to go into combat.
The Lockheed P-80. The odds would have been even.


It would have been fascinating to see those two mix it up, and see who
would win. The engine on the P-70 was certainly a lot more reliable than
those on the Me-262.
According to Eric Brown in his "Wings Of The Luftwaffe" book, the little
He-162 could fly like a bat out of hell, and might have been a real
problem for a P-70 to run into: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162

Pat


  #32  
Old August 18th 09, 06:08 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Rick Jones[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 587
Default OT - Military Channel

Jeff Findley wrote:
Ya I was thinking A-10 when I typed that, what's an A-20?


WWII era twin-engined light bomber.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-20_Havoc

rick jones
--
The computing industry isn't as much a game of "Follow The Leader" as
it is one of "Ring Around the Rosy" or perhaps "Duck Duck Goose."
- Rick Jones
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
  #33  
Old August 18th 09, 06:35 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Rick Jones[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 587
Default OT - Military Channel

They are running it right now coincidentally.
It was a under-appreciated aircraft given its versatility... sort of the
American equivalent of the Ju-88.
Ever seen this BTW?:
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Mo...voc_Stuff.html


I might have, but had forgotten about the site - thanks.

Somewhere out there there used to be a site maintained on the 410th
Bomb Group that had a picture of my father Richard E. Jones, standing
with some other flyer.

rick jones
--
Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are affected by the effects of events.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
  #34  
Old August 19th 09, 01:08 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default OT - Military Channel


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
news
Brian Thorn wrote:

True, but look at our *second* jet, coming down the pike not far
behind and really intended to be the first US jet to go into combat.
The Lockheed P-80. The odds would have been even.


It would have been fascinating to see those two mix it up, and see who would
win. The engine on the P-70 was certainly a lot more reliable than those on
the Me-262.
According to Eric Brown in his "Wings Of The Luftwaffe" book, the little
He-162 could fly like a bat out of hell, and might have been a real problem
for a P-70 to run into: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162


Looking at that pic of the 162, my first question is how did they bail out with
the intake right behind the seat? I found this, seems the Germans were first
at ejection seats too....

"The first ejection seats were developed independently during World War II by
Heinkel and SAAB. Early models were powered by compressed air and the first
aircraft to be fitted with such a system was the Heinkel He 280 "

"In late 1944, the Heinkel He 162 featured a new type of ejection seat, this
time fired by an explosive cartridge. In this system the seat rode on wheels
set between two pipes running up the back of the cockpit. When lowered
into position, caps at the top of the seat fitted over the pipes to close them.
Cartridges, basically identical to shotgun shells, were placed in the bottom
of the pipes, facing upward. When fired, the gases would fill the pipes,
"popping" the caps off the end, and thereby forcing the seat to ride up
the pipes on its wheels and out of the aircraft.,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejection_seat

Pat





  #35  
Old August 19th 09, 01:08 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default OT - Military Channel


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
news
Brian Thorn wrote:

True, but look at our *second* jet, coming down the pike not far
behind and really intended to be the first US jet to go into combat.
The Lockheed P-80. The odds would have been even.


It would have been fascinating to see those two mix it up, and see who would
win. The engine on the P-70 was certainly a lot more reliable than those on
the Me-262.
According to Eric Brown in his "Wings Of The Luftwaffe" book, the little
He-162 could fly like a bat out of hell, and might have been a real problem
for a P-70 to run into: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162


Looking at that pic of the 162, my first question is how did they bail out with
the intake right behind the seat? I found this, seems the Germans were first
at ejection seats too....

"The first ejection seats were developed independently during World War II by
Heinkel and SAAB. Early models were powered by compressed air and the first
aircraft to be fitted with such a system was the Heinkel He 280 "

"In late 1944, the Heinkel He 162 featured a new type of ejection seat, this
time fired by an explosive cartridge. In this system the seat rode on wheels
set between two pipes running up the back of the cockpit. When lowered
into position, caps at the top of the seat fitted over the pipes to close them.
Cartridges, basically identical to shotgun shells, were placed in the bottom
of the pipes, facing upward. When fired, the gases would fill the pipes,
"popping" the caps off the end, and thereby forcing the seat to ride up
the pipes on its wheels and out of the aircraft.,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejection_seat

Pat





 




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
OT - Military Channel Pat Flannery History 0 August 15th 09 05:47 AM
Around the world, organized military forces of governments have manydifferent types of military uniforms that they wear. Clearly being one of thefounding fathers of the uniform, the militaries of countries have contributedgreatly towards what constit [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 April 20th 08 06:44 PM
GPS and Military Use Rich Webb Amateur Astronomy 0 August 14th 07 05:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.