Youtube comments of Barrie Rodliffe (@barrierodliffe4155).
-
46
-
38
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
20
-
19
-
@psk1w1
The Mosquito was good, bomber, night fighter, fighter bomber, photo reconnaissance, strike fighter.
The Spitfire fighter, photo reconnaissance, fighter bomber, dive bomber, escort fighter.
I would rate them both as the best of their type, the Beaufighter comes a close second to the Mosquito and the Tempest comes a close second to the Spitfire.
18
-
16
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@Sevastous
Maybe you can give a few examples of this in real combat reports because I have not seen any such thing and of course Rolls Royce was working on the problem which was much improved by the Battle of Britain and completely solved in 1941.
RAF pilots did not seem to have much trouble either and it was hardly just the Spitfire. It was never a fatal flaw, just a small problem and a compromise since the smaller Merlin engine gave more power than the Db 601.
Who wants to talk about the Bf 109 fatal flaws?
..Longitudinally the aeroplane is too stable for a fighter. There is a large change in directional trim with speed. No rudder trimmer is fitted; lack of this is severely felt at high speeds, and limits a pilot's ability to turn left when diving.
.......Aileron snatching occurs as the slots open. All three controls are far too heavy at high speeds. Aerobatics are difficult.
.......The Bf 109 is inferior as a fighter to the Hurricane or Spitfire. Its manoeuvrability at high speeds is seriously curtailed by the heaviness of the controls, while its high wing loading causes it to stall readily under high normal accelerations and results in a poor turning circle.
RAF pilots seem to have managed rather well, maybe you should read a few German reports.
Albert Kesselring " The Spitfire was the main reason the Luftwaffe failed to stop the Dunkirk evacuation"
Adolf Galland " I am very impressed by the Spitfire"
This was in the Battle of Britain.
This is from an RAF report.
The pilot of the Spitfire reduced his revolutions to 2,650 rpm and was then able to overtake and outclimb the Bf 109. At 4,000 ft, the Spitfire pilot was 1,000 feet above the Bf 109, from which position he was able to get on its tail, and remain there within effective range despite all efforts of the pilot of the Bf 109 to shake him off.
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
I remember how difficult a baby can be and it can be frustrating not knowing why the baby is crying and just wanting it to stop but I can't understand the brutality of this crime, my two babies are now 44 and 40 years old, my daughter nearly died from a brain tumour at the age of 4,I have spent a lot of time with children when I was working and even at shops, I smile and wave to children and they smile and wave back, I talk to many children from 3 years old and up, how can anyone hurt a young child, I currently have a mother cat and her growing kittens, the mother is afraid of any people but she is gradually starting to trust me, I have no idea of her history but she must have been mistreaed badly, again some people are just not humane
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Poor little willy.
The less powerful, less reliable Allison as used on the P 38 was not very good, Lockheed wanted to change to the much better Rolls Royce Merlin.
While Britain was very far ahead on supercharging, USA made poor superchargers and tried to make turbochargers, even the single stage Merlin was better than the Allison, as for the two stage Merlin developed in 1941 and used very effectively from mid 1942 on all Spitfire Mk IX, Mk VII, Mk VIII, Mk XIV, Mk XVIII, Mk XIX and Mk 21. You do not even know the difference between 80 series which never existed and 60 series.
It really is funny how USA was protective of old technology.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@pippilongstocking-qs7fm I was getting a lot, and I tried different things to wind them up, one with a very Indian accent so I said what is the weather like in India today, he said it is raining a bit then a pause and why do you think I am in India, too late I know. the call ended quickly.
I had one who started with is it ok if I ask you a few questions, they are all yes or no answers, so I said ok, first question what suburb do you live in, I said No, then a pause what is your post code I said No, then a bit flustered she started again same result after all she had told me to say yes or no, She was now geting angry and she said what game are you playing, I said No, she then said I am not going to waste my time on you, I said No. end of call.
After a number of other attempts to scam me I now only get the odd call.
I love to waste their time playing a rather vague old man.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The excellent Griffon engine in the Spitfire was the fastest piston engine fighter and it performed well from sea level to 44,000 feet.
How is it the Spitfire Mk XIV in 1943 did 448 mph and climbed faster than any other fighter in the war?
How is it that the Griffon as used in the Spitfire produced over 2,300 hp when the Merlin was getting just over 1,700 hp?
The extra prop blade was used to give thrust and keep the prop revs down. Just as the Merlin went from 2 to 3 then 4 blades as power went up.
Shall we look at the fastest Merlin engine Spitfire, the Mk VIII with 1,710 hp and a top speed of close to 420 mph, the Mk XIV 448 mph. then if we take acceleration and climb, the Merlin Spitfire was very good, the Griffon Spitfire better.
I wonder what the issues were? as many pilots said the Spitfire was the best fighter in WW II and after, that is either with a Merlin or when faster with a Griffon engine. The Spiteful was very fast but it would have been better if it had the original Spitfire wing and the Griffon engine with 6 blades. It may have been even faster, the Spiteful never entered service.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Seven Sevens?
Dates and times for what?
Germany started the war on the 1st of September 1939 and the started bombing cities with civilians and no military then. They bombed towns and cities in Norway then Holland, Belgium and France The first bombing of any German city was the 10th of May 1940, Freiberg. that was done by the Luftwaffe by mistake for a French city .
The so called accidental bombing of London on the 24th of August. Before then the first raids on England were on the 5th of June with small scale raids, on the 18th of June there was a bigger series of raids ranging from Kent to Yorkshire. On the 3rd of July there were 15 killed in Guildford alone. numerous small raids were made from then on through August and September, some of the targets were military but there was also an attempt to create terror of the civilian population. In August there were 4 major raids and over 1,000 small raids spread across Britain.
August the 19th when bombs fell on suburban areas around Croyden, Wimbledon and the Maidens.
The 24th when the so called accidental bombing of central London occurred, bombs also fell on Croyden, Uxbridge, Banstead, Lewisham., Harrow and Hayes.
For information on the state of the RAF compared to the Luftwaffe I suggest reading accounts by RAF and Luftwaffe fighter pilots, it is very interesting.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Kirthe Avenger.
262 never fought the Spitfire?, How about the 27th of September 1944, a Me 262 damaged by a Spitfire Mk IX, 30th September another Me 262 also damaged by a Spitfire, both were not near the Me 262 bases. 5th of October an Me 262 which tried to dive away from a flight of Spitfires, a couple of the Spitfires followed , the Me 262 pilot then tried to climb but he met the other couple of Spitfires still up at 13,000 feet, the wreck of the Me 262 fell into allied territory.
23 December a Spitfire chased an Me 262 from Antwerp to Eindhoven, damaging the Me 262.
25 December a Spitfire shot down an Me 262, another Spitfire also shot down an Me 262 the same day.
26 December a Spitfire Mk IX damaged an Me 262. near Julich, another Me 262 was also damaged by a Spitfire near Syavelot
27 December an Me 262 damaged by a Spitfire Mk IX near Aachen.
This is just a small incomplete list and just 1944 when the Me 262 was not encountered often.
Not one Spitfire was ever shot down by any Me 262`s, not even the unarmed photo reconnaissance Spitfires, Me 262`s were used to chase these since Germany had no other fighter able to catch one except the Me 163 which was more dangerous to it`s own pilots.
The Spitfire range was increased by extra internal fuel, the Spitfire Mk VII had 124 gallons as standard but could carry up to almost 200 and could carry a 90 or even 170 gallon drop tank, some Mk IX were fitted with up to 171 gallons internal fuel and again with a drop tank, escort missions of USAAF bombers were happening before the P 51 was able to escort a thing.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Digital Nomad.
When the B 17 entered the war it was incapable of doing much at all, the RAF tried it and found it to be unsuitable for bombing in Europe at all as did the USAAF. The first use of the B 17 by the USAAF in Europe was August 1942, they were escorted by Spitfires.
From mid-1942 to mid-1943, Mosquito bombers flew high-speed, medium or low-altitude missions against factories, railways and other pinpoint targets in Germany and German-occupied Europe.
Obviously the RAF carried out most of the attacks on targets like rail, canals, bridges, viaducts, tunnels submarine pens and other targets that required greater accuracy and better bombs than the B 17 could carry.
The relevant figures you give are for a Spitfire Mk I of 1940 and a P 51 of 1944.
The range of the P 51 with full internal fuel qhd external tanks 1650 miles.
The Spitfire MK IX with extra internal fuel which a lot did have and a 90 gallon drop tank, well over 1,000 miles.
The Spitfire was never relegated to anything, it carried out many roles that the P 51 could not do, the USAAF used the Spitfire just as they used the Beaufighter and Mosquito.
Goring had already said he knew the war was lost when he saw Mosquito`s over Berlin and he had no fighters that could do anything about it, USA likes to steal a lot including sayings.
That the B 17 was useless and needed a lot of modification is evidence that it was bad.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Antbrain.
Try looking it up, Spitfires 20,351, Hurricanes 14,583, P 51 , over 15,000, P 47 15,636.
Of these about 20,000 Spitfires were made during the war, about 200 - 300 post war some of the P 51 post war. The Hurricane is recognized for playing a part during the Battle of Britain and in North Africa and Malta, The Spitfire as the fighter that played a very big part in every major action in the war.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Little Blockhead.
Hitler did not issue the halt order of Army group A, he merely confirmed it. Army group B had no such order.
There is just a little of the history of the Dunkirk evacuation below, I would suggest reading.
The German decision to halt the advance of the Panzers for three days. This let-off has given rise to the bizarre idea that it was a deliberate decision by Hitler to provide a ‘golden bridge’ for Britain, consciously choosing not to utterly humiliate his opponent in the hope of reaching a negotiated peace.
How could the most formidable military machine on the planet at this time, which was on the verge of shattering what had previously been seen as the greatest military power in Europe, have made such an elementary mistake? Why would it voluntarily choose to leave the trap open, allowing the prey to escape? It must have been a deliberate decision… hence the golden bridge theory. This was initially propagated by Hitler to explain how he let strategic victory against Britain slip through his fingers; the refrain was eagerly taken up after the war by some surviving German generals who were quite happy to shift responsibility on to the conveniently dead führer – and was spread by Basil Liddell Hart, who was perhaps a little too inclined to take the word of captured German officers, especially when they talked up the influence upon them of his interwar ideas. Nonetheless, the idea really is the most ridiculous nonsense.
First, even on its own terms, it does not make any sense. While there is room to doubt the coherence of Hitler’s strategy towards Britain in 1940, it is not implausible to suggest that he would have welcomed a negotiated peace. His prospects of achieving this would have been immeasurably improved by the additional bargaining chip of a quarter of a million British prisoners, to say nothing of the psychological blow to Britain of losing the best-trained part of her small army.
Second, the theory does not fit the facts. If the Germans really were trying to allow the British Expeditionary Force to escape, then they displayed an unusual level of incompetence: only Army Group A actually paused – and only in part, as it still captured Calais and Boulogne – and only for three days before continuing. Army Group B and also the Luftwaffe continued to attack the Allies with all of their strength. This hardly amounts to a free pass or allowing the British to slip away.
Third, there is a perfectly good explanation available that does not require a far-fetched conspiracy theory – and which, incidentally, is whole-heartedly accepted by every serious work on the subject that uses German sources. Many senior German officers were nervous from the outset about the bold changes made to the original, more traditional plan for the attack on France, and in particular about the envisaged rapid advance of the Panzers that would involve outpacing their infantry, artillery and logistic support. This bold vision was undoubtedly risky; the advancing armour could have faced a serious defeat if the Allies had been able to launch a coherent counter-attack against its flanks or rear. We now know that the German offensive had precisely the effect it was designed to in paralysing the Allied high command, shattering its will and ability to devise and execute an effective counter stroke; but this was not known to the Germans in May 1940. Moreover, there had been a warning sign of precisely what some of the more cautious German commanders feared when the British launched a small-scale counter-attack near Arras on 21 May. This limited and short-lived success played into a growing sense of unease among those German officers inclined to worry that their success was too good to be true, and wary of pushing their attack beyond its culminating point. The Arras counter-attack achieved only local tactical success, but it exerted a decisive influence on a debate that was already underway in the German high command.
The Panzers badly needed a pause to rest, repair and reconstitute, and to bring forward support and supplies. There was no need to risk them in unfavourable terrain, when there was a perfectly good alternative in the form of Army Group B and also the Luftwaffe, whose leadership (not least the influential Göring) were keen to seize their place in the sun – a rare case where the overclaiming of air power enthusiasts was to the benefit of the Allies. The tanks would be needed for the rest of the campaign and the push to Paris, taking on the bulk of the French Army, which still comprised a large and powerful force. The Allied armies in the north had been defeated, were nearly encircled and only needed to be mopped up. Why take a risk in rushing these closing moves of the first stage of the operation?
This last question suggests an important point about the whole debate: there is actually far less of a puzzle here than has been suggested. Why on earth would it occur to a continental power that evacuation on any significant scale was possible? After all, even the British Admiralty believed at the outset of the operation that at best, maybe 45,000 men could be rescued. There is no mystery in the fact that Germany was not alert to this possibility. The British were trapped and there was no reason for the Germans to suspect that their fate would be anything other than what would, three years later, befall Axis forces after their defeat in North Africa: without a Navy that was willing and able to go to such lengths to rescue them, 230,000 Axis troops were captured and only a few hundred escaped. It is only hindsight and the knowledge it presents of the stunning success of the Allied evacuation that raises the question in the first place with respect to Dunkirk. Considered in this light, the apparent mystery simply melts away.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
David Siebert.
The Spitfire which was used for dive bombing and attacking many places that required high accuracy, did far more than you think. German planes, trains, trucks, V 1 and V 2 launch sites, even far more V 1`s than the P 51, the P 47 was not fats enough for that job. CAP over the front line was the Spitfires job, The Mediterranean, invasion of Sicily ( Seafires provided cover for that), Italy, it was Spitfires, D Day when 55 squadrons of Spitfires assured air superiority and all the way into Germany the Spitfire was flying from airfields close to the front. The short range Spitfire which do missions of over 4 hours or over 1,000 miles and fight.
In fact without Spitfires D Day would have been much harder, Spitfires flew photo reconnaissance all along the coast and they attacked radar sites to confuse the Luftwaffe, even spotting for the ships guns was done by Seafire since it could do the job and look after itself.
The F 4F, F 6F and F 4U in particular could only fly from large aircraft carriers, the Seafire was flown from small escort carriers.
The Spitfire was the best fighter the allies had from before the war, it was still in front line service well after the war. Israel used both the Spitfire and P 51 but the pilots preferred the Spitfire.
Many air forces used the Spitfire after the war, including the RAF. The Seafire was still in use in Korea.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Gamerboy.
The F 35 has such a wonderful coating that does not like to get wet, it also has a weird shape, it is so stealthy that it can be detected at long range. Have you ever heard of Pirate? Just as well it is not something the Russians have yet.
The Flop 35 is hardly ready to do a thing, if it doesn`t get wet it will most likely catch fire and that is if the software even works. The F 22 can hardly protect itself, it is only available in small numbers and mostly sitting in hangars getting much needed maintenance, still having many problems.
The powerful F 35 is heavy and does not have great performance, the thrust to weight is only 0.87 or 1.07 with a low fuel load, that compares very badly to a Typhoon. As for the performance Mach 1.6 is nothing to write home about, the Typhoon does over mach 2.3, many missiles can fly at mach 4, the F 35 has no way to fire before being detected because it can be detected outside the range of it1s missiles unless they replace the Amraam missiles with the better Meteor missiles.
The F 35 has some good systems, Iris T for short range, but it still has to fly to be any good but being underpowered is a big handicap if it gets off the ground.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@hurri7720
Very silly to compare the P 80 which saw a bit of action in Korea as did the Meteor, the Meteor also saw action against Germany, the P 80 didn't, the Meteor saw action in Israel, the P 80 didn't, the Meteor saw action in the Argentine revolution in 1955.
If we really look we find that not only was the P 80 inferior to the Me 262 but inferior to the Meteor which wasn't inferior to the Me 262, the RAF tested a Meteor against a Tempest and concluded the Meteor was better in almost every way, considering that the Me 262 never shot down a single jet or RAF Tempest or Spitfire, I conclude that the Me 262 was not a good fighter. The Meteor did account for a few Mig 15's, in Korea, not bad for the first jet fighter.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@wilburfinnigan2142
The Merlin in the Mk V while not a high altitude engine could go higher than the P 51 in 1942 and of course the Spitfire Mk IX in 1942 was faster again and went much higher than any P 51. every Mk IX, Mk VII, Mk VIII, Mk XI, Mk XIV and Mk XIX were not single stage, that is thousands of engines. The USAAF had nothing able to go as high as a Spitfire Mk IX, VII, VIII, XI, XIV or XIX. Maybe they did the USAAF used Spitfire Mk IX, VIII and XI Duh poor little Willie.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@sandervanderkammen9230
You really do confirm that you have no idea. Ohain copied Whitle's designs which included axial and centrifugal jet engines, Ohain went with the centrifugal and after being briefly test flown it was found to be useless, Ohain got it wrong. Then we have BMW and Junkers who copied Whittles design for axial engines, they got that wrong too and never made a good engine.
The Me 262 was not operational until late 1944, the Meteor in July 1944.
The Me 262 did shoot down maybe 150 aircraft mostly bombers, not RAF fighters, the Meteor did fly over Germany and destroyed some 46 German aircraft and not a single combat loss.
You can't explain why the wonderful Me 262 couldn't shoot down any Meteors or Spitfires and Tempests when these were all flying over Germany. Even in late 1944 when photo reconnaissance Spitfires were flying all over Germany the Me 262 could do nothing about them.
An unarmed Mosquito flew to Poland and back, supposedly escorted by 4 P 51's but 1 dropped out, the other 3 had trouble keeping up, over Poland the P 51's and 3 Me 262's had an inconclusive fight, 1 Me 262 tried to catch the Mosquito but failed, on the return trip the Mosquito was chased by 4 Me 262's but they couldn't catch up.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Boeing has gone downhill, I for one will not fly in a Boeing again after reading the following.
In 2015, an auditor with the Federal Aviation Administration discovered a Boeing subcontractor was falsifying certifications on cargo doors for hundreds of 777s and had been doing so for years, according to interviews and government documents.
Boeing mechanics were leaving tools inside plane wings, precariously close to the cables that control their movements. Workers also were improperly installing wires in 787s, which could increase the risk of shorts or fires, FAA officials found.
Repeatedly, safety lapses were identified, and Boeing would agree to fix them, then fail to do so, the FAA said. The agency launched or was considering more than a dozen legal enforcement cases against the company for failing to comply with safety regulations, a review of FAA records shows, with fines that could have totaled tens of millions of dollars.
So FAA officials tried a new approach. Rather than pursue each violation separately, agency officials bundled them together and negotiated a broader deal.
In 2015, the FAA decided to try to get Boeing to meet, then go beyond, federal safety requirements by addressing broader corporate culture and governance issues, including what agency officials considered a lack of transparency.
The week before Christmas of that year, Boeing and the FAA signed a five-year settlement agreement that was unprecedented in scope. The company paid a modest $12 million penalty, but it agreed to make significant changes in its internal safety systems and practices for “ensuring compliance” with regulations.
In the days after the agreement was signed, top U.S. officials cast it as a powerful reminder that every company, no matter its size, must comply with minimum safety standards.
But Boeing’s profits after signing the deal topped $20 billion by the end of September 2018, making the company’s $12 million penalty easy to gloss over despite occasional press reports of the firm’s shortcomings.
The company committed to improving the quality and timeliness of information it provides to the FAA. But in the case of the 737 Max, the FAA said, it took Boeing more than a year to notify it about a software problem that disabled a crucial warning light connected to the automated system at the center of the tragedies.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
crossdresser the engineer?
is that what you calll yourself when playing with your toy tractors? The US might build more but not better, they had to copy Rolls Royce for the Merlin engine and for jet engines. Did the Wrights claim to have made aero engines? They went shopping for engines, they went to Bleriot and many others because they did not know how to make engines.
Packard used bearings of local production, they were not better than the bearings Rolls Royce used before Packard were given the engine to copy and Rolls Royce continued to use the same bearigs rather than the US ones. The result was the RR made Merlin was more reliable and able to handle higher boost .
Unlike Packard who had to be shown how to make the engines by Rolls Royce, the enines built in Britain worked well and that includes the mass produced engines made before Packard even started to assemble any. Maybe you missed out on how many cars you import from everywhere else? Most of your cars are European, Japanese or Korean.
In 2008 the UK automotive manufacturing sector had a turnover of £52.5 billion, generated £26.6 billion of exports and produced around 1.45 million passenger vehicles and 203,000 commercial vehicles. In that year around 180,000 people were directly employed in automotive manufacturing in the UK, with a further 640,000 people employed in automotive supply, retail and servicing
In 2016 car and truck production was higher than it had been since 1999. with a forecast at the time that production would exceed the peak of 1972.
You might not know it but you import a lot from Britain.
Never mind snoring crossdresser you can go back to riding on your plastic toy tractors.
3
-
3
-
3
-
I have trouble understanding him, he talks a lot but says little, one thing struck me, he was going on about how people hate him and write bad things about him but it doesn't bother or affect him, it is all about him, he has never once said sorry for the people he killed and injured or their families, he is full of excuses.
In life we have choices, some are easy to make, some difficult. When he drove intoo the parade he had choices, he could have stopped and the police would have directed him away, at that stage it would be no big deal, he didn't stop, he kept going then he could have stopped when the police got in front of him and tried to stop him, he didn't, he kept going, he could have stopped when he hit someone, he didn't, he kept going, all of those people he just drove into and over and he kept going. I just don't understand him.
I certainly take issue with some of what he sais " Nobody is better than the next person" I have done wrong at times but I have not murdered people and I feel sorry if I ever hurt anyone, I have done good and gone out of my way to help people at times, I don't feel better than other people but I am not a selfish cowardly murderer. I couldn't live with my self if I had killed innocent people.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Small and light Merlin engine gave more power than the DB or Jumo engines. Britain built 3 refineries for 100 octane fuel before the war, one in Britain and two in the West Indies.
The RAF had sufficient stocks by the Battle of Britain for the fighters.
Both the Spitfire and Hurricane had three blade constant speed props before the Battle of Britain. They worked well enough to give the Luftwaffe a hiding.
The Bf 109 had a big problem with its landing gear, ground loops were quite common, not a problem for the Spitfire which used grass airstrips rather than paved runways.
The Spitfire handled better at high speed than the Bf 109, the rate of roll was not a problem until the Fw 190 arrived in late 1941, the clipped wing which was a very easy change made a big difference.
What reliability problems?
The Spitfire did not seem to have much trouble climbing against the Bf 109, I have read many combat reports and in a lot of the RAF reports the pilots mention having no trouble out climbing the Bf 109.
How was the German armament more effective, the cannon were very low muzzle velocity and did not always do much damage if they hit anything.
Self sealing and protected fuel tanks as well as fire protection in behind the firewall, or as one RAF pilot put it, would you rather have fuel in front of you or be sitting on top of it.
A de Wilde bullet in a Bf 109 tank and the poor pilot would be sitting in the flames.
Sometimes pilots had trouble with the canopies early on, but at least a Spitfire pilot could get out if his plane was upside down, the Bf 109 then became a big problem.
All planes had flaws but you really are clutching at straws trying to make out the Spitfire was not good.
Try to learn a bit before making a complete fool of yourself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Overall the Bf 109 had no advantage in the Battle of Britain, it did earlier until the Spitfire got the constant speed prop and the use of +12 lbs boost, then the Spitfire climbed better and it had an advantage in a turning fight.
The Spitfire had many upgrades, the Mk I had the Merlin III and got the constant speed prop and was able to use + 12 lbs boost by the Battle of britain, the Mk II was the same but used the Merlin XII, there was meant to be a MK III which had shorter wingspan and retractable tailwheel and when flown in June 1940 with the Merlin XX engine was considerably faster than the Mk I or II, but it never went into production, the Mk IV had the Griffon engine, the Mk V was a MK I or II modified for the more powerful Merlin 45, it used more fuel but had a higher cruising speed and about the same range.
The Mk IX which could be put into production very quickly and was in service earlier than the Mk VII or MK VIII, it did perform very well. Negative G was completely solved on the Merlin 45 in the Mk V.
All from the Mk I had the Malcolm hood until late production Mk IX`s which had the teardrop canopy, as did many Mk XIV, XVI and XVIII.
Some Mk IX`s had 2 x 20 mm and 2 x 0.5. some also had extra fuel in the fuselage up to 171 gallons internal fuel, while the Mk VII and VIII had 14 gallons in each wing giving up to 199 gallons internal fuel.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Poor David.
Did you get a fright?
You probably did because you have not heard a sonic boom before. The Typhoon was on QRA and that is the only time they are allowed to break the sound barrier over land these days, a real pity, I loved it when they could do so especially planes like the English Electric Lightning.
I have heard many planes and been directly below when they were flying supersonic, including the Concorde.
The thing is the Typhoon was at very low altitude and the effect is more but at cruising height the Concorde would not break windows or rattle anything much.
According to this article, windows were smashed as a result. Interesting.
So who pays to fix the windows? If my window suddenly smashed, who would I turn to in order to get a free repair? Do the government pay for it? Would the police sort it out?
That is very relevant, the first question, who would I turn to in order to get a free repair.
Having lived directly under the flight path of the fairey Delta II when they were testing it in the 1950`s and it certainly was going supersonic at high altitude and barely visible except for the vapour trail.
I know what it sounds like, I also know that it did not break or even rattle our windows, there were many claims for damage and some could not be proved one way or the other, some were just people looking for free repairs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The 4 foot ten car has no outside mirrors, some cars have very small mirrors which do not stick out a foot from the side of the car, I can ride with my wheels within 6 inches of the side of a road and even a poor cyclist should be able to ride within 2 feet from the side, that leaves over 7 feet and sure if a 5 foot car goes past it is tight but few roads have lanes that are less than 10 feet wide. How about riding on a road that is onlt 12 foot or less, then 2 cars can barely pass and usually what happens is one car stops to let the other go past, I have ridden for many miles and if a car comes the other way, I stop and pull into the hedge to give room, I do the same if a car catches up. Then when it is safe to do so I may pass the same cars if they are held up for some reason, I do not go to the left but go past in the middle of the road. If these same cars catch up I ;let them go again, no one loses out and everyone is happy but if an idiot on a bike assumes he has the right to block the road and be an ass then I hope he gets a gentle push off the road. Very few traffic lanes are 9 feet wide except in some European villages which is why small cars are more popular there, like Fiat 500 `s that are just over 5 feet wide, the old Fiat 500 was smaller. As for being blown off the road, I have been passed by busses and trucks within 2 feet and not blown off the road, cars do not affect me.
The idiots in this video do not even allow room for other cyclists or motorbikes to pass
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
jadger1871
Maybe I am assuming the Spitfire would survive a first pass because that is exactly what so often happened, Spitfires were often attacked by other fighters from above, that includes USAAF the P 47 and P 51 because of very poor aircraft recognition. They never shot down a single Spitfire.
If a Spitfire was flying at high cruising speed and bounced from above by any plane the Spitfire pilot could evade it if he saw it coming and then have the height advantage.
As for the Mk IX which had a similar top speed to the Fw 190 A and the Spitfire turned tighter, climbed faster.
The Fw 190 D 9 which was not as fast as the Spitfire Mk XIV in service 6 months earlier, the F w 190 D 9 top speed 440 mph. The Spitfire Mk XIV 448 mph.
The RAF used a Spitfire Mk XIX in mock combat with an English Electric Lightning because they still had Mk XIX Spitfires in service, the Spitfire was far superior to the P 51, it was faster with better maneuverability, climb and acceleration, if the Lightning could handle a Spitfire, the P 51 would be a walk in the park.
No American fighter in the war could match a Spitfire. The P 47 did not, P 51 did not, the F8F which was too late for the war did not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
GamerzHistory
You said a lot but you understand very little, the F 22 is so awesome it has done almost nothing.
Getting wet adversely affects the coating and it is very costly and time consuming to repair it.
Radar is not the only way to detect a plane, Passive Infrared works very well at long range and a coating and weird shape do nothing about that, even the F 35 is getting Pirate if the F 35 ever works.
The F 18 is not all that fast but much faster than the very slow F 35, remember just one engine which is a big handicap, some modern fighters have two powerful engines, even the F 22 has. Again the poor thrust to weight ration makes the F 35 a poor performer and the top speed of mach 1.6 is beaten by many fighters from the 1960`s on, The old English Electric Lightning is much faster and so is the Tornado, the Typhoon and all the Mirages, Rafale, Saab Draken, Viggen, Gripen, the F 14, F 15, F 16, F 18 and F 22 none of these faster planes can outrun a mach 4 + missile, the slow F 35 can`t outrun a slow 40 year old fighter, are much faster.
The 43,000 lbs thrust P & W F 135 in the F 35 is not even the most powerful combat engine in the world, it lags a long way behind the Kuznetsov NK 32 which gives 55,000 lbs thrust,4 of these on the Tu 160 make it very much faster than the single P & W F 135 on the F 35. The Typhoon has two engines and weighs a lot less than the F 35, the lightest version of the F 35 weighs 29,098 lbs empty compared to the Typhoon which weighs just 24,000 lbs.
Explain again how a plane that has a top speed of just 1,200 mph can outrun a missile which has a speed of over 3,000 mph.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@WilhelmKarsten The obsolete centrifugal jet engine was the best way to go, axial flow took longer to get working well, the Germans never managed to, the French took a German design and had to make so many changes that they could have started from scratch and done a better job, all new engines owe their existance to the British. the best jet engines until the 1950's were British centrifugal jet engines, the Gnome, Derwent, Nene and Tay, the best axial flow engines in the 1950's were British, the RR Avon, and Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@w8stral Which Fw 190 are you referring to and when? as for turning the Spitfire could easily turn inside a Fw 190 or P 51, the Spitfire would win a fight against the P 51 as was shown many times, a USAAF squadron were given new P 51's in 1933 to replace their old Spitfires and to decide which was better two top pilots went up for a mock combat, first one got onto the tail of the other and the lead pilot tried to shake off the other one, the Spitfire pilot had no trouble staying with the P 51 no matter what he tried, or leaving the P51 well behind again no matter what the P 51 pilot tried. Another classic example is that a USAAF pilot flying an unarmed Spitfire Mk XI was attacked by 4 USAAF P 51's, the Spitfire pilot had no trouble turning and evading them, he even had time to take note of their markings before flying away leaving them well behind. These were Rolls Royce Merlin engine Spitfires which served well to the end of the war, The Mk XIV was in another class and unequalled by any other fighter. Both the Spitfire Mk IX and Mk XIV exceeded 5,000 ft/min and went to over 40,000 feet faster than anything except for the Me 163.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheDannyWinther I have looked at Norway and I found the MX 30 starts at about 28,000. I could get an MG ZS EV, new for less but where I live the MX 30 starts at $74,490, I can get an MG ZS new for about $48,000, I can get a new Tesla 3 for a little less than the Mazda. Now since not everyone lives in Norway your claim of 26,000 is nonsense.
I mean Tesla 3 or Mazda Mx30 such a hard choice. If I want a short range car I could buy an early Nissan Leaf, under $ 10,000 or for about $ 15,000 a Leaf 30 kw. I do not want or need a short range car so the MG is the cheapest option right now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I keep on hearing that but my old British cars did not seem to have much of a problem, I owned MG's, Sunbeam, Morris, Austin and Ford, when it comes to reliability I would rate Austin, Morris and MG as among the best I have owned and Japanese as not so good having had brake, suspension and electrical problems on Mazda, Toyota and Nissan. I now have a Korean and a German car. My van is a Ford but with a Mazda engine and it has needed quite a lot of work, mostly the fuel system, electrics and gear linkages, all of which I have sorted out and it is much improved, I no longer have misfiring, backfiring and a slow awkward gearchange.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Lets look at the A6M2, it entered service in July 1940 so after the Spitfire Mk I and about the same time as the Mk II some Mk II had 20 mm cannon.
The A6M2 was not able to be developed as much so it was good for a short time.
The Fiat G 55. would have little trouble against P 38's and P 51's but against the Spitfire it would be up against it, the top speed similar, acceleration and climb would go to the Spitfire M VIII which would reach 25,000 feet over two minutes faster and the Spitfire had a higher service ceiling.
P 51 D in mid 1944 when it entered service top speed 703 kmh, Spitfire Mk XIV in late 1943 720 kmh, acceleration and climb the Spitfire was much better.
The P 51 D dive speed limited to mach 0.8, the Spitfire mach 0.86.
The heavy P 51 would enter a dive faster but the Spitfire could follow and out turn and outclimb the P 51 so it is no contest.
The P 47 is not even close, dive speed about mach 0.7.
The Spitfire was used in combat quite often, it was before D Day and apart from when it was used for chasing V 1's which it was better than the P 51 for, that was from the 13th June the P 47 never used for chasing V 1's, but by August 1944 the V 1 threst was less and the Mk XIV went back to combat, soon being based in Belgium and Holland and flying all over Germany.
The P 38 L was slower than most fighters, 414 mph and not great climb, sure t had about the speed of a 1941 Fw 190 A, the P 38 was the last fighter to be shot down by a biplane. The USAAF used Spitfires a lot until they got P 51's. The P 38 had a worse dive speed than even the P 47.
Ki 84.
entered service a year after the Spitfire Mk XIV but lets compare it to the Spitfire Mk VIII, Similar top speed, rate of climb goes to the Spitfire which also went higher, similar armament, the Ki 84 had good range but the Mk VIII range was not too bad.
The Bf 109 had fuel injection which Rolls Royce did not use because it was less efficient, the smaller RR engine gave more power.
The Spitfire MK XIV was contemporary to the Bf 109 G 10 but lets see how the Bf 109 K 4 compares to the Spitfire MK XIV.
The Bf 109 K4 had similar top seed to the Spitfire Mk XIV from sea level to 25,000 feet but then the Spitfire was faster all the way.
That is fine except before the Bf 109 K 4 arrived the Spitfire Mk XIV's had been approved to use + 21 lbs boost and that meant the spitfire was faster all the way except about 25,000 feet where the speed was similar,
Rate of climb the Spitfire was better all the way.
The 30 mm was prone to jamming leaving the poor pilot very much outgunned by the Spitfire.
The Bf 109 like the Spitfire was in action right through the war.
Fw 190 A. The Spitfire from the Mk IX on had an advantage and there were no special clipped wing versions, the wingtip could be changed very quickly as was sometimes done between operations.
The Fw 190 D arrived over 8 months after the Spitfire Mk XIV which maintained a decisive advantage.
The Yak 3 which had engine overheating issues, most combat took place at low altitude because apart from the Spitfire and Bf 109 there were no fighters that could manage high altitude.
The comment from a Luftwaffe pilot who fought on the Eastern front.
In the closing stages of the war the USAAF and RAF were appearing and the fighter we feared most was the Spitfire, followed by the P 51.
The La 7 max speed 661 kmh at 6,000 metres or similar to a spitfire Mk IX.
at sea level the La 7 was quite good, but beaten by the P 51, Tempest Mk V and Spitfire Mk XIV.
The Tempest Mk V was like the Spitfire Mk XIV used against the V 1
but also like the spitfire Mk XIV they were based in Belgium and Holland and flew over Germany a lot.
The Tempest Mk V it was fast in a dive, it would enter a dive faster but the Spitfire had a higher mach limit than even the Tempest, the only fighter to achieve over 1,000 kmh in a dive without damage.
2
-
Berhnit.
The A6M2 was no match for the Spitfire Mk V in Burma.
The Spitfire Mk V did very well against the Fiat G 55, it was the Spitfire along with the Seafire that gave air superiority until the Spitfire Mk IX and VIII came along.
The P 47 D and P 51 D which were much later than the Spitfire Mk IX yet did not accelerate or climb with the Spitfire at any height and they could not go as high.
P 47 D as flight tested in September 1943 rate of climb drops to 0 by 40,000 feet. 35,000 feet climb rate 550 ft/min.
WEP was not available until 1944, but the P 47 D was still not up to even the P 51D for climb rate
P 51 D as tested in June 1945 rate of climb drops to 0 at 42,300 feet
climb at 36,000 feet 850 ft/min time to 40,000 feet 22.4 mins
these figures are at WEP.
The P 38 G as tested in February 1943
time to 39,400 feet 22.04 mins.
rate of climb at 39,700 feet 0.
P 38 J as tested in February 1944
time to 40,000 feet 25.14 mins
rate of climb at 40,500 feet 0
Spitfire Mk IX as tested in October 1942 rate of climb at 42,400 feet still 100 feet/min. climb rate at 40,000 feet 480 ft/min. climb rate at 36,000 feet 1,140 ft/min time to 40,000 feet 20.6 mins.
These figures are at normal rating with a drop tank.
The Ki 84 might have fought on equal terms with the P 51 D, P 38 L, F 4 U and P 47 N ( the P 47 M was not in the Pacific ). They were not Spitfires.
The Bf 109 in the Battle of Britain had a slight altitude advantage but most combat took place at about 15,000 feet where the Spitfire held the advantage.
After the Battle of Britain the Bf 109 was unable to match Spitfires, the Bf 109 G was beaten by Mk IX and Mk VIII, the Bf 109 K 4 on paper may have been a match for the Spitfire Mk XIV but in practice it wasn't.
The Fw 190 A had an advantage over Spitfire Mk V's but from the Mk IX on that was gone. The FRw 190 D was good and certainly P 51 and P 47b pilots would have a bit to be afraid of but against a Spitfire Mk XIV which had better climb and maneuverability, no as for dive the Fw 190 D was only faster at the start of a dive and no match on a long dive, when they pulled out of a dive the Spitfire was faster and better.
RAF pilots reported in late 1944 that the Me 262 was not quite as rare as it had been but not very dangerous, in fact no Spitfires were ever shot down by any Me 262's, Spitfires did shoot down Me 262's.
Strange how on the Eastern front the Luftwaffe pilots reported that late in the war USAAF and RAF fighters were appearing and the most feared fighter was the Spitfire, followed by the P 51 D, no mention of the Yak or La.
I prefer to take the opinions of pilots including USAAF and Luftwaffe about which was the best fighter rather than someone who hates the Spitfire because it is British.
2
-
2
-
2
-
No he was ground maintenance in a Fairey Battle squadron in France before D Day the back in England and West Africa at different stages of the war, he was involved with Bristol Beauforts, Lockheed Hudsons and later DH Mosquitos. after the war he worked for Miles and DH.
I have long been interested in aircraft and lucky enough to have met WW II pilots including one who flew Typhoons and the WW II test pilot Alex Henshaw, I also worked for a while with the late John Frost on a project of his, he was a designer who worked with Airspeed, Miles, Blackburn, Westland and DH before moving to Avro Canada.
I have been researching the Spitfire for some time and rate it very highly, in fact even if it had not been a great fighter it earned a place in history for how it was a symbol for Britain.
I haven't been to Duxford but am involved with a museum in New Zealand, not aviation but technology, I have been lucky enough to go to many airshows in Britain and have seen many WW II aircraft in flight.
I inherited a lkot of books from mu father and have managed to increase the collection, some years ago I bought 3 of a series, 1 on Spitfires, 1 on Bf 109's and 1 on Fw 190's. I still think of these 3 as the best fighters of the war. I also have books on the Mosquito which was a remarkable aircraft.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
vinDimwit.
The Spitfire and Hurricane won the Battle of Britain, more Hurricanes but the Spitfire had the performance to take on the Bf 109. The Bf 109 was in Northern France in bigger numbers than both Spitfires and Hurricanes in the South East of England. That is why even when very outnumbered by experienced B f 109`s the Spitfire won so often, like when Adolf Galland was leading a flight of 40 Bf 109`s and tehy were attacked by just 12 Spitfires, the Spitfires won that little fight. In the Pacific the Spitfire was outperformed by what, Wildcat slower than a Hurricane, Hellcat about as fast as a Mk I Spitfire. In fact no fighter in the Pacific could match the Spitfire, the best fighter of the war.
We owe it to try to be accurate, you do not try.
Goring never said any such thing to Hitler idiot Galland said that to Goring and Galand said more, he said more than once how impressed he was with the Spitfire and most Luftwaffe pilots were afraid of spitfires not p 51`s, P 47`s or p 38`s.
William R. Dunne an American who flew with 71 (Eagle) squadron Said "Once you`ve flown a Spitfire, it spoils you for all other fighters. Every other
aircraft seems imperfect in one way or another.”
Eric Brown (RN test pilot and holder of the world record for number of types of aircraft flown): "I have flown both for many hours, and would choose the Spitfire [over the Mustang] if given a choice in a fight to the death."
Writer Jerry Scutts, quoting German pilots in his book JG 54: "The Jagflieger had to keep a wary eye out for enemy fighters, particularly Spitfires, a type JG 54's pilots had developed a particular aversion to...Pilot reflections do not, surprisingly enough, reflect over-much respect for the Mustang or Lightning"
Karl Stein, Luftwaffe Fw 190 pilot (who served mainly on the Eastern front): "English and American aircraft appeared on the scene in those closing days of the European war. Spitfires were the most feared, then Mustangs..."
USAAF pilot Charles McCorkle (who flew both in combat), reporting on a mock combat between a Spitfire and Mustang in 1944: "Now we could see which was the better aircraft...a Mustang and a Spit took off for a scheduled 'combat', flown by two top young flight commanders. When the fighters returned, the pilots had to agree that the Spitfire had won the joust. The Spit could easily outclimb, outaccelerate, and outmaneuver its opponent."
I have much more including when the RAF received Spitfires in Burma and turned the tables on the Japanese
Are all these pilots so wrong then?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pedrogarciaborges2455
Just to get the facts straight, Senna did manage to catch Prost by 3 seconds on a lap but not every lap, by lap 26 Senna was 11 seconds behind and by lap 32 Senna was 7.5 seconds behind. I make that just about 1/2 a second a lap and at that rate it would have taken another 15 laps to catch up if Prost who was pacing himself rather than driving flat out did not respond to Senna catching up. On lap 26 when the conditions got worse Prost did signal to Jacky Ickx for the race to be stopped but it was not stopped for three more laps and Prost did not signal the last couple of laps.
There was never any shame in winning a race especially in the conditions and with problems including locking brakes.
Prost was struggling with a misfiring TAG engine and was further hindered by Corrado Fabi’s stricken Brabham just before the entrance to the tunnel. The incident led to Prost hitting a marshal who was trying to push Fabi’s car out of the way. Thankfully he wasn’t injured.
On lap twenty three Lauda spun off into retirement thanks to his carbon brakes locking continually, a result of the cool and wet conditions not allowing the pads to generate enough heat. The problem was also affecting Prost in the sister McLaren.
The Toleman team reported that Senna's suspension was so damaged, Senna would have only lasted a handful more laps.
Ayrton went to Monaco with confidence despite the fact that he would race in Monaco for the first time. Toleman had introduced the TG184 during the Grand Prix of France, the race preceding Monaco, a new design involving Rory Byrne and Pat Symonds. The car still used the 1,500 cc Straight 4 Heart engine.
"This new car is really very good, very competitive and very fast. There are still some things missing, but I am sure this car will take us further", Senna said.
In the chase of Keke Rosberg, Ayrton braked into the chicane. The chicane at the exit of the tunnel in 1984 had a different configuration to how it is today. The chicane in that year was smoother and faster. Ayrton bounced over the kerbs here which damaged his suspension.
Senna believed he had been the deserving winner and didn’t hide his aversion to Prost after the race. Much later it emerged that Senna had damaged the car’s suspension earlier in the race by clattering a kerb; mechanics at Toleman estimated that the car may only have gone on for another four or five laps before the stress would have snapped the suspension completely.
Senna’s Toleman had an overheating engine, as well as suspension damage that his mechanics said would have ended his race within a few laps.
The truth about Senna's suspension is all over the place, I did not know about the overheating engine but Senna had slowed down over the last few laps and Bellof was catching up quite fast.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@finallyfriday. Longer range at lower speed, less firepower, more payload at low performance, poor gun platform lower survivability due to unreliable engines, terrible roll over tendency when one of the unreliable engines fails, unable to stay with real fighters, tricycle landing gear means little compared to a lower landing speed and not needing a long paved runway, poor visibility of what is below you, The Spitfire was phased out in the 1950's, the P 38 barely made it to the end of the war in very limited numbers. Spitfires flew where the fighting was rather than stay out of danger like the P 38, Spitfires did more different jobs than the P 38 which was a poor fighter, poor at photo reconnaissance, poor at ground attack.
The Spitfire was the fighter that won the battle of Britain, the Hurricane certainly helped. Just like Montgomery did more than any US general, the Spitfire did more than any US fighter.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jasonclarke6194
I only just saw your reply, I wonder if you know about the raids on dams which were at night and very accurate. Or Transport.
An outstandingly successful attack was made on the railway centre at Giessen on the night of 6 December. After two hundred Lancasters had been over in clear weather, craters studded the marshalling yards, engine sheds were wrecked, and other buildings destroyed; three weeks later the marshalling yards were still completely out of action.
What about the canals?
The reconstruction was completed by 21 November and on that day the canal was being filled with water. The same night 228 RAF bombers attacked again, scoring at least four direct hits on the aqueduct and breaching the embankment on both sides of the safety gates.
Or oil production
Bomber Command entered the oil campaign with an initial list of ten synthetic plants in the Ruhr. Here in the past few months the Americans had sustained fairly heavy casualties from flak, and the accuracy of their daylight attacks had been considerably reduced by the ever-present industrial haze; however, it was hoped that Bomber Command, with its new navigational aids, would be able to overcome this obstacle even though its attacks would be launched at night. The first RAF attack took place on the night of 12 June when some three hundred aircraft were sent to bomb the Nordstern plant at Gelsenkirchen, one of the largest in Germany. Bombing on markers dropped by Oboe-equipped pathfinders was very effective and photographic reconnaissance revealed widespread damage over the entire area of the plant. Most of the subsequent attacks were equally successful and by the end of September British crews had dropped 12,600 tons of bombs on all ten of their allotted targets.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kal El.
OK they did not scrap the useless XB 70 they retired it for good, having long since dropped the idea of turning it into a production aircraft.
To make it into a passenger plane it would be very simple, get rid of two engines, change the fuselage completely, change the wings and it would be far easier to make a new plane, still too difficult for Boeing to achieve. You forget Boeing spent a fortune and never got off the ground.
Boeing also tried to make a plane that could only fly at half the speed of Concorde, another fail.
We have nothing as bad as the F 35 or F 22. USA has had to modify the F 15 because the F 22 does not do the job it was meant to.
I never want to fly in a Boeing again when there is a far better alternative, 777, no thanks I prefer to fly in comfort in an A 340
As for the nightmare liner, not a chance.
The new British carriers were not designed to have a catapult, unfortunately the British government bought into the useless F 35 which was not supposed to need a catapult.
Concorde, the only successful SST ever made, USA could not make one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperBeaker1
True the P 51 D in 1944 did 437 mph, I believe later they got up to about 442 mph. the kill ratio is not able to be confirmed because of overclaiming and inconsistencies.
The speed of a Spitfire can be proven, the Mk I in 1939 did about 362 mph, and that is 65 mph less, but then we have the Mk II, Mk V, Mk VI, Mk VII, Mk VIII, Mk IX, Mk XII and Mk XIV and that is up to the end of 1943, the Spitfire Mk IX in 1942 did 404 mph and a bit more later, the Mk XIV in late 1948 did 447 mph and more later, I make that faster than the P 51, and also the rate of climb, even the Spitfire Mk IX of 1942 had better rate of climb and acceleration and went higher.
I am pretty sure the Spitfire had a better kill to loss ratio but as I say it is not able to be confirmed.
It would be strange for goring to say the war is lost in 1944, he had already said that a year earlier when DH Mosquitos dropped bombs on berlin and Goring had nothing to catch them, Hollywood often distorts history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dukecraig2402
Really little boy so Henry Ford built a factory to make bombers for bombing Germany before anyone in USA knew that USA was going to fight Germany ever. just like your claim about US and high altitude aero engines. In 1940 Henry Ford was happily supplying Nazi Germany and he had a Bust of Hitler on his desk.
Your previous comment that Rolls Royce made aero engines after Packard is another case of you being wrong.
Packard’s early efforts with aero engines was to make some of the successful Liberty V12, which arrived several months after the United States’ April 1917 entry into World War I. Rolls-Royce began producing its Eagle V12 in early 1915.
You really do not understand hand fitting which was done to much better tolerances than anything from Packard and Rolls Royce had already made changes for mass production before Packard made a single Merlin engine to Rolls Royce design specifications.
"The received wisdom, at least in America, usually runs along the lines of: If Rolls-Royce birthed a stupendous engine, Packard brought American mass-manufacturing know-how to the equation, perfecting the design and mechanizing production.
I was told very matter-of-factly (and by a Brit, if that makes any difference) that Rolls built a more precisely fitted, finely tuned engine that had higher performance potential for a given unit. Packard, by contrast, built one that was ultimately easier to construct consistently and overhaul at specified intervals—and that one of the ways Packard accomplished this was by building Merlins with looser tolerances than its counterpart on the other side of the Atlantic.
You could always take notice of Robert J Neal who wrote the following
"" The British did not specify tolerances and fits, and Packard had to take parts from an existing engine and make measurements to determine these specifications as best as they could, using engineering judgement where necessary."
All of this seems to back up the claim that Packard went its own way when building the Merlin, at least when it came to tolerances. This is a little misleading: The Merlin II service manual, released May 1938 (you can get a PDF copy), lists exacting fits and tolerances for the engine and every subsystem on it.
Neal and others must be referring to the fit and tolerances of the parts produced, rather than as-installed—a distinction that will make more sense as we explore Rolls-Royce's prewar manufacturing methods.
I really should not need to go on but there is so much more that makes nonsense of the writings of Neal and others who try to perpetuate the US myth.
Also if Rolls Royce did not use mass production how do you explain Rolls Royce making many more engines.
Your so called facts have only been established in the minds of anti British morons like you.
Rolls Royce were not film makers and unlike you I have worked with a Rolls Royce engineer who I am sure would know far more than you, he showed me how to hand fit bearings. and it was very accurate work, time consuming but far more accurate than anything Packard could do with the bearings supplied to them.
The difference is the bearings are made to a standard and by hand fitting you are working to a higher standard. looser tolerances might be before hand fitting. You do realize Rolls Royce were and still are the best engine makers in the world and Packard were going broke until Rolls Royce paid them very well and once Rolls Royce stopped paying Packard soon went bust.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wilburfinnigan2142
The Spitfire got many jobs done from the beginning of the war to the end, in fact more jobs done in 1944, the only time the extra range of the P 51 made any difference and the 1 job the Mustang did was defending USAAF bombers, it did not do that in 1942 or 1943, the Spitfire did, the P 51 did escort USAAF bombers from March 1944 but by August 1944 the range was no problem. The USAAF paid for their own P 51's except Rolls Royce had already paid for all the Merlin engines and given the carburetor used on the Merlin engine to Bendix, note given, Bendix did not pay a cent. Just as we gave you so many things free of charge. Britain paid for every little thing they got from USA.
The 5 Mustangs fitted with Rolls Royce engines worked and showed up the poor Allison for the dog it was, 40 mph faster.
You cowardly Finnigan's did not save anyone and no USA never saved Britain, in fact without Britain Germany would not have been kicked out of North Africa, Sicily would not have been taken, there would have been no invasion of Italy and no USAAF bombing in 1943, 1944 or 1945, no D Day and the British were also fighting the Japanese. We the allies did beat the Germans not all of whom were Nazi's unlike some of your pro Nazi people, we the allies also beat the Japanese.
USA, the country that came late did little and tries to take all the credit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When you grow up and start to learn you might just get somewhere.
The first Bf 109 used a RR Kestrel engine and the last Bf 109`s made in Spain used the Merlin engine.
The Kestrel was a reliable well liked engine, the Merlin also was well liked and reliable before WW II started.
The Merlin as used in the Spitfire and Hurricane in the Battle of Britain weighed about the same as the DB 601 A but the Merlin gave more power.
100 octane fuel was not so rare that the RAF had enough for the Battle of Britain.
The Bf 109 had a problem for take off and landing, there were quite a lot of accidents.
High speed the Bf 109 E in the Battle of Britain was not good, the Spitfire was better and the Spitfire turned better.
Early on when the Spitfire had the original 2 blade prop the Bf 109 had an advantage but the 3 blade constant speed prop and using + 12 lbs boost the Spitfire would leave the Bf 109 in a climb.
The Spitfire had no great problem with the props, maybe Bf 109 pilots could not hit the right areas.
There are always claims but the only way to get an accurate picture is for the same pilot to fly both planes as several pilots did, the result is that most if not all prefered the Spitfire over any other fighter at the time.
Fuel tanks did not explode, the fuel caught fire. Fuel would not stream out into the face of a Spitfire pilot since the fuel tanks were in front of the firewall and also the cockpit was protected by a thick asbestos sheet. The Luftwaffe pilot sitting on top of the fuel tank was more likely to get burnt as did happen quite often, the de Wilde bullets had that effect.
The 15 mm was ok and so were the 0.303, both worked and if the Spitfiore was as bad as you try to make out the Luftwaffe should have won the Battle of Britain and again Malta, Sicily, Italy and any time they met in combat.
Pilots did not just flip the plane when making an emergency landing, if they got it wrong and ground looped which the Bf 109 was prone to do then they would not have time.
So many trapped? not that many in Spitfires as the figures show.
The Merlin being smaller gave more power, more drag and yet the spitfire was faster.
These Captured Spitfires re engined with DB`s were which Spitfire Mk and which DB were they re engined with?
To re engine a 1940 Spitfire with a 1942 engine maybe.
The weight of a Bf 109E was about 200 kg less than a Spitfire Mk I, yet the Spitfire had better climb performance. Less drag should mean faster,that was not the case.
You have a strange attitude, maybe you are just a disgruntled pro Nazi who hates it that you lost the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Britain was making self sealing fuel tanks for the Defiant, Spitfire and Hurricane before the Battle of Britain.
I would not say many pilots were burnt to death, some were in Spitfires and Hurricanes but so were some in Bf 109`s.
Early Bf 109`s would not reach 800 kmh.
The Bf 109 G was limited to a maximum of 750 kmh IAS at low altitude, reducing to 450 kmh IAS at 29,000 feet.
The early Spitfire was limited to 450 mph IAS as a safe limit, many pilots exceeded that and the Spitfire was recognized as the fastest plane in a dive in the war
At low speeds the aileron control is very good, being similar to that of the Curtiss H-75 ; there is a positive " feel ", there being a definite resistance to stick movement, and response is brisk. In these respects the Me.109 ailerons are better than those of the Spitfire, which become so light at low speeds that they lose all " feel ".
As the speed is increased the ailerons gradually become heavier, but response remains excellent. They are at their best between 150 m.p.h. and 200 m.p.h., and are described as " an ideal control " over this speed range. Above 200 m.p.h. they start becoming unpleasantly heavy, and at 300 m.p.h. are far too heavy for comfortable maneuvering. Between 300 m.p.h. and 400 m.p.h. the ailerons are described as " solid " ; at 400 m.p.h. a pilot, exerting all his strength, cannot apply more than about fifth-aileron.
That is just rate of roll, turning is another matter.
Comparative Turning Performance of Me.109 and Spitfire. – During the dog-fights against the Hurricane and Spitfire, it became apparent that our fighters could out-turn the Me.109 with ease when flown by determined pilots. Since the minimum radius of turn without height loss depends largely on stalling speed, and hence on wing loading, the poor turning performance of the Me.109 may be ascribed to its high wing loading, 32.2 lb./sq. ft. compared with 24.8 lb./sq. ft. on the Spitfire. It was thought of interest to go into the matter a little more deeply, and to calculate the relative performances of these aircraft in circling flight, so that the sacrifice of turning performance entailed by the Me. 109's high wing loading could be assessed qualitatively.
The Spitfire and Hurricane both have about the same turning performance.
1
-
1
-
Poor Fabian.
You seem so stuck on your anti British stance.
The Yak 1 in 1941 was rather slow, poorly armed and did not climb so well, it was the best Russian fighter at low level but very out classed by the Bf 109 and more so by the Spitfire.
In 1944 the Yak 3 was slow and lacked climbing ability.
1 20 mm and 1 0.5`s being nothing much to write home about.
The Yak 7 about as fast as a Spitfire Mk I with a worse climb rate.
The rear fuel tank was a poor point since it was very vulnerable.
The Yak 9 was not much faster.
The Yaks being prone to rot was not such a good point.
The Bf 109 F was not superior to the Spitfire Mk V, as for the Bf 109 G how was that even equal to the Spitfire Mk IX? Not in top speed and certainly not in climb, many Luftwaffe pilots preferred the F to the G.
Armament no winners, Except the Spitfire did have the guns to do the job and they were not low velocity 20 mm like the Luftwaffe, by 1941 the Hispano 20 mm was reliable and very effective.
There is a very good reason I rate the Spitfire as the best fighter, it started life before the war and it did take on the Bf 109 even when the Luftwaffe pilots were more experienced in the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire went on through the war and was still capable of taking on any fighter at the end of the war and well after.
The Spitfire was used for many tasks other than just air superiority which it did very well. photo reconnaissance, fighter/bomber, dive bomber, shooting down V 1`s, attacking V 1 and V 2 launching sites, fighter reconnaissance, escort fighter, Even used as a good carrier fighter.
Israel had the Czech built Bf 109, the P 51 and the Spitfire, their pilots rated the Spitfire best,
USAAF pilots who flew the Spitfire rated it better than any American fighter, Luftwaffe pilots rated the Spitfire as the only fighter they really feared.
1
-
The Mk II was 1940, early 1941 the MK V came into service. by June 1941 there were only 92 Yak 1`s
The Yak 1 in 1941 did just 592 kmh and a climb of 15.4 m/s.
The Mk V did 603 kmh and a climb rate of 15.9 m/s,
The Mk V was given different engines which considerably increased the climb.
The Yak 3 did not enter service until 1944, the Mk IX 1942.
The Yak 3 in 1944 did 655 kmh or about the same as the two year old Spitfire Mk IX, slower than the 1944 Spitfire Mk VII, VIII and VIII and considerably slower than the late 1943 Spitfire Mk XIV.
The Yak 3 18.5 m/s, the Spitfire Mk iX in 1942 19.5 m/s.
I am not anti Russian, just anti lies.
The P 38 was useless, the P 39 and P 40 were not bad but not great, the P 47 was very heavy and expensive and no dogfighter.
The P 51 only good after it got the Merlin engine.
The Spitfire had no trouble taking on the Bf 109 which slautered the Russian fighters in 1941, only the Fw 190 troubled the Spitfire and that was only for a short time.
The Bf 109 T if Germany had built a carrier, it would still have had the problems of the 109 on landing.
The Spitfire bomb load was 500 kg from the Mk V on.
Being racist is to insult other races, not to tell the truth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually twice as many Hurricanes shot down less than twice as many Luftwaffe planes, especially fighters and more than twice as many Hurricanes were shot down than Spitfires. so the Spitfire had a better record and after the Battle of Britain the Hurricane was at the end of it`s development, the Spitfire was able to be developed to fly almost 100 mph faster than the 1940 Spitfire which was faster than the Hurricane and more than keep up with any other fighter right through the war. In Malta the Spitfire took over from the Hurricane and defeated the Italian and .German air forces there, in North Africa the Spitfire took over from the Hurricane and P 40, the Spitfire provided air superiority for every major action right through the war.
To get back to the topic, the early Merlin engine was more efficient than the larger German engines, the carburetor gave more power. Sir Stanley Hooker knew about fuel injection and the problems that had as well.
The Hurricane used the same Merlin at the time, same problem.
The Merlin had the well known problem of a momentary cut out when negative G was encountered but the RAF pilots did not just nose over into a dive, they rolled over into a dive which meant no cut out and they could keep the Bf 109 in sight and catch up in the dive.
A Spitfire pilot would not bunt into a dive to escape, he could simply do a climbing turn and the Bf 109 could not follow.
If the Spitfire was so bad, why was it that there were more Spitfires and less Bf 109`s at the end of the Battle of Britain than at the start?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
fishbrain.
You are a complete moron and have never given anything to support the many lies you tell.
Luftwaffe pilots did fear the Spitfire and it shows by what they had to say.
Adolf Galland liked the Bf 109 but as he said the Spitfire was better for the job it had which was attacking the bombers than the Bf 109 was for the job it had defending bombers.
Writer Jerry Scutts, quoting German pilots in his book JG 54: "The Jagflieger had to keep a wary eye out for enemy fighters, particularly Spitfires, a type JG 54's pilots had developed a particular aversion to...Pilot reflections do not, surprisingly enough, reflect over-much respect for the Mustang or Lightning.
Karl Stein who flew Fw 190`s said Spitfires were the planes they most feared.
Galland was shot down 3 times by Spitfires.
Even American pilots liked the Spitfire, they must have since they used them so often.
William Dunn (US fighter ace who flew Spitfires, P-51s, Hurricanes, and P-47s): “ The Spitfire was a thing of beauty to behold, in the air or on the ground, with the graceful lines of its slim fuselage, its elliptical wing and tail plane. It looked like a fighter and certainly proved to be just that in the fullest meaning of the term. It was an aircraft with a personality all of its own – docile at times, swift and deadly at others – a fighting machine par excellence.
One must have really known the Spitfire in flight to fully understand and appreciate its thoroughbred characteristics. It was the finest and in its days of glory, provided the answer to the fighter pilots dream – a perfect combination of all the good qualities required in a truly outstanding fighter aircraft. Once you`ve flown a Spitfire, it spoils you for all other fighters. Every other aircraft seems imperfect in one way or another.”
USAAF 31st FG War Diary (when transferring from Spitfires to P-51s): "Although pilots think that the P-51 is the best American fighter, they think the Spitfire VIII is the best fighter in the air."
USAAF pilot Charles McCorkle (who flew both in combat), reporting on a mock combat between a Spitfire and Mustang in 1944: "Now we could see which was the better aircraft...a Mustang and a Spit took off for a scheduled 'combat', flown by two top young flight commanders. When the fighters returned, the pilots had to agree that the Spitfire had won the joust. The Spit could easily outclimb, out-accelerate, and outmaneuver its opponent...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wilburfinnigan2142
The Germans continued to produce trucks with the engines and many other parts from USA.
Why do you think, if Ford or GM had nothing to do with their German companies, that both sued the US government for the bombing of their factories by the USAAF.
Charles Higham.
"I had been born to a patriotic British family. My father had raised the first battalions of volunteers against Germany in World War I, and had built the Star and Garter Hospital at Richmond, Surrey, for ex-servicemen. He had been knighted by King George V for his services to the Crown and had been a member of Parliament and a Cabinet member. I feel a strong sense of loyalty to Britain, as well as to my adopted country, the United States of America. Moreover, I am part Jewish. Auschwitz is a word stamped on my heart forever.
It thus came as a severe shock to learn that several of the greatest American corporate leaders were in league with Nazi corporations before and after Pearl Harbor, including I.G. Farben, the colossal Nazi industrial trust that created Auschwitz. Those leaders interlocked through an association I have dubbed The Fraternity. Each of these business leaders was entangled with the others through interlocking directorates or financial sources. All were represented internationally by the National City Bank or by the Chase National Bank and by the Nazi attorneys Gerhardt Westrick and Dr. Heinrich Albert. All had connections to that crucial Nazi economist, Emil Puhl, of Hitler's Reichsbank and the Bank for International Settlements.
The tycoons were linked by an ideology: the ideology of Business as Usual. Bound by identical reactionary ideas, the members sought a common future in fascist domination, regardless of which world leader might further that ambition.
Several members not only sought a continuing alliance of interests for the duration of World War II but supported the idea of a negotiated peace with Germany that would bar any reorganization of Europe along liberal lines. It would leave as its residue a police state that would place The Fraternity in postwar possession of financial, industrial, and political autonomy. When it was clear that Germany was losing the war the businessmen became notably more "loyal." Then, when war was over, the survivors pushed into Germany, protected their assets, restored Nazi friends to high office, helped provoke the Cold War, and insured the permanent future of The Fraternity. "
That is just a very small bit but he has done extensive research as have some others and the results are not very pleasant reading for ignorant people like you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
poor soaring liar.
Maybe i should remind you of a few of your lies.
1. it was not until 1943 that the Brits had the 60 series high altitude engine in service, before that the Merlin could only manage about 34,000FT
Spitfire Mk I as tested in 1939 34,400 feet. Spitfire Mk II in 1940 37,000 feet, Spitfire Mk V in 1941 37,700 feet, Spitfire Mk IX in 1942 43,400 feet
The Merlin 60 engine was in use.in the Wellington VI and 109 squadron changed from the wellington to the Lancaster in 1942. the Spitfire Mk IX in July 1942 had the Merlin 61 engine.
2. that 150 octane gas and increase in boost raised hell with the spark plugs and engines, very short lived.
Not according to squadron records in 1944.
3. there were no numbers of shitfire mk IX in service in 1942, some expermental.
Spitfire Mk IX in service in July 1942, 4 squadrons used for one operation in August 1942. Many Mk IX's were converted from Mk V on production lines while others were built as Mk IX's from scratch.
I could carry on for hours showing you up for the pathetic liar you are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fish brain.
If you do not look behind to see if there is time to make the turn but just stick your arm out and turn you are very stupid, I look behind and if there is a gap back to the next car I signal and move over, if the car is close I let it go first, does that not sink in to your tiny brain?
Since there are no roads with only bicycles then your comment is just silly.
As I said the two idiots who did not even look and did not signal but just moved out to take the lane just as I was about to pass them were lucky i was aware of it. They were not even aware I was there and how is driving too close overtaking which i was entirely entitled to do, I was only close because the idiots moved out. The cycle lane in this case is easily wide enough for two cyclists, about 7 feet wide and the traffic lane about 11 feet wide. Maybe you do the same, I look behind before moving, I find it is safer for me and other road users.
I have no plan to run anyone over, but as I said if and when it happens it might teach the idiots to learn how to ride.
I have a good traffic calming device on my car, it is called a horn, it works very well when I am 10 feet behind a road hog on a bicycle. They really get out of the way fast.
Now carry on being ignorant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nemo.
The Spitfire Mk XIV was faster from 5,000 feet up.
During the Spitfire evolution an increase of 100 mph is a lot.
The Spitfire could turn tighter and faster than most other fighters, it pulled more G and completed a turn 6 seconds before a Bf 109, also 200 feet tighter radius turn than a P 51.
All planes had problems with COG, the P 51 when fully laden with fuel could only fly slow, straight and level, the COG was too far back, the same as a long range Spitfire, which was in service a year earlier than the P 51 with a Merlin engine, many Spitfires were flying escort and long sweeps in 1943.
The Spitfire was designed as a fighter, so was the P 51, even if it was not good at it and the P 51 with a Rolls Royce Merlin which did have long range did nothing until 1944.
The Spitfire and Hurricane both did a lot of ground attack and they proved to be good at it, 3,500 P 47`s never got back so how good were they at ground attack?
1
-
jagder.
the 3,500 is losses and 3,499 kills is what I found from one source, I have just checked again and find 3077 combat losses and 3082 kills for the P 47.
Turn isn`t everything, no but turn, acceleration, rate of climb and speed are all important, the Spitfire was very good at all of them and above 5,000 feet even the Tempest could not match it.
They were the two best fighters from the end of 1943 to the end of the war.
Any pilots would try to use height, the Bf 109 in a dive did have a slight advantage at the start of the dive but the Spitfire would catch up if the bf 109 pilot kept diving, if he levelled off he was as good as dead and in a climb or turn the Spitfire had the advantage.
The same applies to American fighters, due to being heavy they might enter the dive faster but the Spitfire will catch up and go faster if the dive is prolonged, the Spitfire pilot could easily avoid any American fighter by simply turning and climbing, not one America plane could get close.
The Spitfire Mk V had trouble with the Fw 190, the Spitfire Mk IX and all subsequent Spitfires turned the tables.
1
-
jagder.
Since the Mk XIV had a top speed of 448 mph and it reached that in 1943 with a fully equipped fighter, even the older Spitfire Mk IX and the Vii and VIII would easily top 400 mph. The Fw 190 D when it entered service over 6 months after the Spitfire Mk XIV, did not have MW injection and only had a top speed of 360 mph according to Hans hartig. Even with the MW it could not catch the Spitfire in top speed, climb or acceleration.
As for range, the Spitfire had enough to chase, catch and shoot down the few fw 190 D`s that were there, the Luftwaffe were still relying heavily on the old Fw 190 A. The Spitfire Mk XIV had greater range than the Fw 190 D.
Even German flight tests of the Fw 190 D 9 do not show the 440 mph which I have seen elsewhere until 1945, 413 mph at 6,150 metres, or about the same as an older Spitfire Mk IX and much slower than the Spitfire Mk XIV. of quite a few flight tests and engine or supercharger failures the Fw 190 D9 did eventually manage 437 mph in a flight test with MW 50. Also with C 3 fuel it managed just 441 mph in March 1945, that does not compare well to 448 mph in 1943.
Adolf Galland who was there at the time and rated Spitfires very highly had this to say about the Spitfire mk XIV.
"The Griffon-powered Spitfire fighters were so lethal that the best thing about the Spitfire Mk XIV was that there were so few of them".
Since the Spitfire had a cruise speed of close to 400 mph, it would not take long to catch up, it certainly accounted for quite a few Fw 190`s as well as Me 262`s.
The Spitfire Mk XIX which the RAF still had was not a static display, it had been in use for THUM. and it was ready for flight when in 1957 the RAF wanted to see how to combat the P 51, the Spitfire having better performance and maneuverability was a good choice since if the Lightning could beat the Spitfire a slower P 51 which did not turn or climb like a Spitfire would be easy. Why get a non working P 51 and have to get it airworthy when the Spitfire already was.
1
-
jagder.
Hans Hartig was right the Fw 190 D did not have MW 50 when first put into service. It took some time to get the MW 50 working, even the flight trials showed that they had poor reliability and lacked performance until well into 1945 or much later than the Spitfire was doing 448 mph.
Galland commanded an Me 262 squadron with 16 Me 262`s, they did meet Spitfires including the Mk XIV.
The Spitfire used for the trials had been withdrawn from active service in 1957 but kept in flying condition as part of the RAF historic aircraft flight. No need to replace it since it had no mechanical issues.
Your point is just silly. If you want to see how to combat a fighter which has a top speed of 437 mph and a climb rate of 3,200 feet/ min. then why not test the planes against a more agile fighter with better performance, if the Lightning could take on the Spitfire it certainly could take on the P 51, why try to get hold of a P 51 that is less likely to be reliable and takes time to get to Britain and make airworthy, far more time than an airworthy Spitfire already there.
The exercise showed how the Lightning could combat the Spitfire, having done that it would easily do the same to the P 51.
The P 51 top speed 437 mph, Spitfire 450 mph, Lightning 1,500 mph.
P 51 rate of climb 3,200 ft/min, Spitfire 5,040 ft/min, Lightning over 50,000 ft/min.
The Spitfire turned over 200 feet smaller radius than the P 51 and pulled more G. If a P 51 pilot tried to maneuver with a Spitfire the wings would come off.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Many Luftwaffe claims were just not true.
Kurt Welter claimed many more DH Mosquitos than were lost at the time.
Marseille claimed a Spitfire on a day when there were no Spitfires there at the time, he claimed 2 hurricames on a day only 1 was lost, he claimed 6 P 40's out of 10 claimed by his unit and only 5 in total were lost.
"In the 1990s, the German archives made microfilm rolls of wartime records, not seen since January 1945, available to the public. These showed that while in theory the Luftwaffe did not accept a kill without a witness, which was considered only a probable, in practice some units habitually submitted unwitnessed claims and these sometimes made it through the verification process, particularly if they were made by pilots with already established records." "In 1943 the daily OKW communiques (Wehrmachtbericht) of this period habitually overstated American bomber losses by a factor of two or more. Defenders of German fighter pilots have always maintained that these were reduced during the confirmation process. But the microfilms prove this not to be the case. "
A certain Mike Gee who is rather well known for lying said
"people claim the spitfire was so great BUT the Germans shot down MORE Spitfires (especially in the Battle of Britain) than spitfires did german bf109s and FW190s..."
Not too intelligent this Mike Gee, the Fw shot down nothing in the Battle of Britain, it was not in service until late 1941, he also does not know how many Spitfires there were in the Battle of Britain or that there were Hurricanes there too, he also does not know the RAF were more interested in shooting down bombers and some of the losses of both Spitfire and Hurricane were to bombers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Prizrak-hv6qk
The I 16 advanced is a bit of a myth, it started out under powered and did not even have a tail wheel until late versions, it eventually was almost as fast as a Hurricane. By 1941 Germany had lost out to the RAF, they never made up their losses. Luftwaffe pilots on the Eastern front late in the war rated the Spitfire as the most dangerous, the Yak 3 was ok but not great. I would love to know when this Yak 3 supposedly took out an Me 262 in a dog fight, especially since Me 262 pilots were not meant to get into dog fights.
In February 1945 an Me 262 was shot down by an La 7, it seems the Me 262 pilot did not see the La 7 which was able to catch up and get close without being seen, not a dog fight.
For your claim to have any meaning you would have to give some details, I know the first Me 262 shot down in combat was by a Spitfire Mk IX on the 5th of October 1944, it was a shared victory, quickly followed by quite a lot more combat which the Spitfire never lost.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wilburfinnigan2142
Rolls Royce paid a fortune for second rate engines from Packard, even the Spitfire Mk V with a single stage Rolls Royce Merlin went higher and had much better climb than the P 51 with an Allison engine. If USA could not improve the P 40 by replacing the poor Allison, Rolls Royce could have, they certainly did to the P 51, a genuine Rolls Royce Merlin in 1942 and immediately 40 mph faster, it took NAA over a year to put them into production.
P 40 D P 40 F Spitfire Mk V
Max speed 354 mph 365 mph 375 mph
rate of climb 2580 ft/min 2210 ft/min 3140 ft/min
Ceiling 31,600 feet 35,500 feet 37,700 feet
I wonder why the Spitfire Mk V was faster, with much better climb and went higher, they all had a single stage supercharger.
No wonder RAF pilots in North Africa were so happy to replace the P 40's with the Spitfire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I know more about Europe, and I know more about the Spitfire than you do.
If that makes me British then my knowing more about the P 51 than you do makes me what?
As for you know more about the Pacific, you have not shown much knowledge so far,.
Did you know that up to 1944 britain had more forces fighting the Japanese than USA did.
Did you know that during the latter half of 1944, the Seafire became a part of the aerial component of the British Pacific Fleet, where it quickly proved to be a capable interceptor against the feared kamikaze attacks by Japanese pilots which had become increasingly common during the final years of the Pacific War.
Did you know that Battleships and aircraft from the British Pacific Fleet also attacked the Japanese home islands. The battleship King George V bombarded naval installations at Hamamatsu, near Toyohashi; the last time a British battleship fired in action. Meanwhile, carrier strikes by British naval aircraft were carried out against land and harbour targets including, notably, against two Japanese escort carriers Shimane Maru which was sunk and the Kaiyō which was disabled. Although, during the assaults on Japan, the British commanders had accepted that the BPF should become a component element of the US 3rd Fleet, the US fleet commander, William Halsey, excluded British forces from a raid on Kure naval base on political grounds. Halsey later wrote, in his memoirs: "it was imperative that we forestall a possible postwar claim by Britain that she had delivered even a part of the final blow that demolished the Japanese fleet.... an exclusively American attack was therefore in American interests."
The BPF would have played a major part in a proposed invasion of the Japanese home islands, known as Operation Downfall, which was cancelled after Japan surrendered. The last naval air action in World War II was on VJ-Day when British Seafires shot down Japanese Zero fighters.
Hollywood leaves out a lot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When he mentioned the Mk 24 the photo is of a Mk IX, also there were not 20 fighter versions of Spitfire, MkI, Mk II, Mk V, Mk VI, Mk VII, Mk VIII, Mk IX, Mk XII, Mk XIV, Mk XVI, Mk XVIII and Mk 21 during the war and Mk 22 and Mk 24 post warmakes14, there were many other errors and I did not watch the rest of the video after the Spitire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Beware of Boeing.
In 2015, an auditor with the Federal Aviation Administration discovered a Boeing subcontractor was falsifying certifications on cargo doors for hundreds of 777s and had been doing so for years, according to interviews and government documents.
Boeing mechanics were leaving tools inside plane wings, precariously close to the cables that control their movements. Workers also were improperly installing wires in 787s, which could increase the risk of shorts or fires, FAA officials found.
Repeatedly, safety lapses were identified, and Boeing would agree to fix them, then fail to do so, the FAA said. The agency launched or was considering more than a dozen legal enforcement cases against the company for failing to comply with safety regulations, a review of FAA records shows, with fines that could have totaled tens of millions of dollars.
So FAA officials tried a new approach. Rather than pursue each violation separately, agency officials bundled them together and negotiated a broader deal.
In 2015, the FAA decided to try to get Boeing to meet, then go beyond, federal safety requirements by addressing broader corporate culture and governance issues, including what agency officials considered a lack of transparency.
The week before Christmas of that year, Boeing and the FAA signed a five-year settlement agreement that was unprecedented in scope. The company paid a modest $12 million penalty, but it agreed to make significant changes in its internal safety systems and practices for “ensuring compliance” with regulations.
In the days after the agreement was signed, top U.S. officials cast it as a powerful reminder that every company, no matter its size, must comply with minimum safety standards.
But Boeing’s profits after signing the deal topped $20 billion by the end of September 2018, making the company’s $12 million penalty easy to gloss over despite occasional press reports of the firm’s shortcomings.
The company committed to improving the quality and timeliness of information it provides to the FAA. But in the case of the 737 Max, the FAA said, it took Boeing more than a year to notify it about a software problem that disabled a crucial warning light connected to the automated system at the center of the tragedies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have seen a lot of videos of Brooks but only just came tot his one. Brooks is a cowardly cry baby, he isn't crying for the people he killed or injured, he is crying because he was caught and has no defense, he blamed everyone else, the people who didn't get out of his way, the police, the car, he even blamed god.I once hit a man when driving, he ran out in front of me between cars and I swerved and braked but couldn't avoid hitting him, he wasn't badly injured and was able to get up and walk away because of my quick reactions, I still felt bad and know that if Ihad killed or inured anyone I would have trouble living with it, especiaclly if it was a child.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@w8stral I do ignore the hysterical, but what else should we expect from people who don't have a clue? At any speed the Spitfire turned better than most fighters certainly the P 51, P 47 and P 38 but also better than the Bf 109 and Fw 190, wing loading did increase for the Spitfire but that applies to all fighters of WW II and the Spitfire late in the war was still light compared to other fighters. No real pilots were so stupid that they didn't use their fighter to it's best advantage and that included getting into a turning fight.
The very strong Spitfire wing was far better than most if not all.
The funny thing is that Supermarine in 1940 flew the Spitfire Mk III which among other changes had a smaller wingspan, the fact that the Mk III didn't go into production but the Mk V did and the simple matter of removing the wing tip and fitting a short or long wingtip was the work of a few minutes. I don't pretend anything, the Mk IX was based on the Mk V, in fact they came from the same production lines, the Mk IX with the same wings but changes to the fuselage worked extremely well and just like later Spitfires still turned very well, this is from a squadron of Spitfire Mk XIV's which were heavier and had the more powerful Griffon engine, they were attacking a train when set upon by late versions of the Bf 109 " they really caught us this time but using our stunning turn and climb we easily evaded them even taking a couple of them for no loss.
What about a USAAF squadron which was given new P 51's to replace their old Spitfires, we sent up two top pilots for a mock combat, they took turns, first one getting onto the tail of the other, afterwards bot pilots agreed that while the P 51 couldn't stay with the Spitfire the Spitfire could stay with the P 51 no matter what the P 51 pilot tried to do.
The reason why Spitfires only had partly flush rivets was that it was found that it made no difference in much of the aircraft.
IN 1947 there was an air race in USA, all of the aircraft were much modified except for one, it was an ex RCAF Spitfire Mk XIV, all they did was remove the guns and radio and paint it, nothing else, the funny thing is it came 3rd overall. Highly modified P 51's and whatever else they had but only two beat the Spitfire and not by much.
The Spitfire was still the top fighter at the end of the war, in fact it was truly the fighter that took us from the biplane age to the jet age, they defeated Me 262's quite easily.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Spitfire Mk I, II, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XII, XIV, XVI and XVIII and those are just the fighter versions.
This was a WW II Mk IX which was converted to a two seat trainer after the war.
The MK I, II and V and VI had the original radiator on one side and an asymmetric appearance, the rest looked more like this one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lately I have been getting phone calls about suspicious activity on my online trading account, the last one was that they are investigating my case, the funny thing is that they clame to know everything but can't tell me anything much, he wanted to know how much I have invested or lost, I sounded rather vague saying I don't know, he started hinting at numbers $10,000 or $20,000 and said we can get your money back, So I said why not more, he said $60,000 or $80,000, I said $ 100,000 is a nice round number, he then said you have lost $100,000? I said you should know, you know everything, he said we only know the profit they have made on your money, it is $ 132,000. I said fine continue to investigate then send me the money, I really don't see why you need me to tell you anything, he kept insisting I tell him how much, I said about two fifty, he said $250 and sounded a bit unhsppy at the low amount, I said no, $2.50. he said $250, I said no, $2.50. he hung up.
Some of these scammers are not very good at it, I recently had a call from the NSA which I know is the National Security Agency in USA, but he was using a UK number to call me in New Zealand so I said where are you? he said USA, I said where am I? he said New Zealand, so I said then why are you using a fake UK number? he said because it is cheaper. That didn't work and I told him that is stupid.
I had another call from UK, A girl who said she was in the Serious Fraud Office, I said I am very frightened, next you will tell me I have suspicious activity on my online account, she said yes, I said and next you will tell me that I am in big trouble and it will cost me to get you to sort it out. She hesitated so I said but in reality you are in a scam call centre and the voices I can hear in the background are others like you trying to steal money, She sounded rather frightened and said how do you know this, I said because I know all about your scam call centre and my real name is then after a short pause in a deeper voice Ji, Browning, she went silent then hung up. Obviously she was a bit rattled that I knew her script.
.
I have been doing this for some time and I use different tactics each time, once I said OK to everything, that upset the scammer, another said I want to ask a few question and the answer will be yes or no to each question, big mistake because before she got to the questions she asked what suburb do you live in, I said No, she asked what is your post code, I said no, she tried again, same result, then she got very angry but she did tell me to say yes or no.
Funny how so many of them sound Indian, I had one using a fake New Zealand number but I was a bit busy so I asked what is the weather like in India today, he said it is raining a bit, a short pause then he said why do you think I am in India? I said now I know you are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
William Dryden It wasn't so much the vehicles as the company. I owned a very good 1985 Montego for over ten years, it was 5 years old when I bought it, one of the most reliable economical cars I have owned, better than Toyota, Mazda or Nissan.
The 2 litre engine also gave good performance.
Problems with Toyota, electric switches that stopped working and were very hard to get replacements for, not very economical and the seats, I couldn't go on a long drive they were terrible, the handling was awful. The Nissan while bigger than the Toyota was economical and had better handling, both not as good as the Montego but not bad, the heater controls failed and were difficult to do much about, the brakes were not good, I have never had brakes that faded so badly, new pads didn't help. Mazda, reliability was a problem, beware overheating. points and condensers fail easily, even spark plug leads can be a problem and the handling rather odd.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anderspersson6134 We have three, a Kia which my wife likes, a VW which my daughter likes and a Mazda which does not get much use and only I drive it but I more often drive one of the other two. You could almost call the Golf a workhorse since it gets used for shopping and for carrying and fetching including transporting ovens, clothes dryers and air conditioning units. It was very cheap and had a couple of faults when I bought it, quite easy for me to fix, it is now very reliable and a good car. When I replace it I will either get a similar size car which is mostly for use around town but it won't be an expensive Mazda, in fact I would rather get an old Nissan Leaf for that, it could replace the VW and the Mazda, the Kia I would replace with an MG 5, Hyundai Ioniq or Tesla 3. Here the Mazda costs at least $74,900 which is 47,187 Euro, the Tesla 3 starts at $ 73,900 or slightly less than the Mazda.
1
-
1
-
@oneclaydoll Fine if a short range overpriced little car is right for you but it is very limited. If you drive slow you can do 150 miles, that would be no good for me at all. Quality is questionable, safe is also rather questionable as for handling I doubt you really know much about handling, I would bet you leave the stability control on and rely on the car to get you out of trouble.
I do not live in USA and where I do live in New Zealand it starts at $74,900 which is 46438 Euro. I can get a Tesla 3 for less. The Renault Zoe is far better so is the Ora Cat or Neo or BYD or many other cars.
Renault Zoe from 24,187 and a range of 245 miles. Peugeot e 208 from 26,160 and a range of up to 217 miles, Mini Electric from 28,220 and a similar range to the Mazda, Vauxhall Corsa E from 23,712 range up to 222 miles, MG ZS EV from 26,995 range up to 273 miles, Hyundai Kona from 28,353 range up to 301 miles and the list goes on. These are prices of EV's in England in 2022. If I lived in England I would have a big choice, here the best value for money is the MG ZS EV at $ 48,000, the worst value for money would be the Mazda $ 74,900 or Honda E which is $ 63,880 or 39,605 Euro.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@exomnius I am seriously amazed that anyone in their right mind likes it but then there are some very strange people, I did call one out for telling fibs, his story changed from he was going to order one to he had ordered one to he had bought one, he claimed to live in Norway but didn't know the exchange rate for NOK to Euro's. People who seem to like it take it personally when anyone comments on the drawbacks. If I have watched all of the videos? all which videos, all two on the Mazda and I only did because they came up when I was looking at more interesting EV's. The funny thing is one of the videos I watched compared a number of EV's and the Mazda was the first to be dropped.
Comfort? that doesn't seem to be very good, as for handling, it handles rather like a truck but then SUV's are not sports cars. If you think the Mazda has good handling I wonder what you have driven before? I certainly will not buy one, I gave several reasons why and for the high cost I can get far better. If I could buy a new one for under $30,000 I still wouldn't buy it. Very difficult choices, Tesla S, Tesla 3, Hyundai Kona, Hyundai Ioniq, Kia Niro, Kia Soul, Nissan Leaf 40 kw, Renault Zoe, Peugeot E 2008 or E 2008, Citroen E C4, MG 5, MG ZS or Mazda MX 30. so hard but one is off the list before I start. I am so sorry it is your favourite car.
1
-
@arcanondrum6543 XXX Corps had to put up a Bailey bridge at Son en Bregel, the bridge was destroyed because the US 101st failed to take it, XXX Corps then made up the time and arrived at Nijmegan on schedule but had to stop and take the town and bridge due to the failures by the 82nd airborne. I will tell you why the XXX Corps didn't advance further once they took the bridge at Nijmegan, they had to go without the support that was planned to go with them, due to supplies being given to Patten who was doing almost nothing. XXX Corps had to stop at Son en Breugel and put upa Bailey bridge, a delay of 12 hours, they then made up the time when they reached Nijmegan and had to take the town and bridge, along the way they had to leave tanks and troops on the way to take care of German counterattacks, they had to leave tanks and troops at Niemegan and having fought to cross the bridge they had only three tanks left.
When it came to strategy the British were a long way ahead, saving the Americans in the Battle of the Bulge and taking the surrender of all German forces in Holland, North Germany and Denmark on the 4th of May and all German forces in Norway on the 5th of May.
If we go further back it eas British strategy that took Sicily, British strategy that took Italy when Clark stuffed up, British strategy that took Normandy and France.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jack O'hara
The Spitfire was the ultimate piston engine fighter, the later Mustang never had the performance to match it, in December 1941 the Mustang was not ready, by the time it arrived it had poor performance and was unsuited for a combat fighter, America did not add an updated engine, Rolls royce put Merlin engines in a few Mustangs and it took NAA until late 1943 to put them into production, remember the Rolls Royce Merlin was a British engine. The Spitfire certainly had many more kills than the Mustang.
The Spitfire although it was designed much earlier was able to be developed and even the Spitfire Mk IX in 1942 had a higher service ceiling, better climb rate, acceleration and maneuverability than the P 51 D of 1944.
The P 51 after it got the rolls royce Merlin engine had good range but even that is exaggerated, the Spitfire when it carried extra internal fuel and a drop tank could go quite a long way, the USAAF once flew two of them across the Atlantic.
1
-
Sniper Shotgun.
The P 51 B/C in 1944 faster than a 1942 spitfire but not the Spitfire Mk XIV, longer range when full of fuel and with two British drop tanks but the Spitfire Mk XIV carried extra internal fuel and a drop tank meaning the range difference was not as much as some think, more firepower, the P 51 did not have cannon so no it had less firepower, the Spitfire is a far better looking fighter.
Maybe the true figures are of interest.
P 51 B 1944 Spitfire Mk IX 1942 Mk XIV 1943
Max speed 442 mph 408 mph 448 mph
best climb 3,450 ft/min 3,860 ft/min 5,040 ft/min
ceiling 42,000 feet 43,400 feet 43,500 feet
The Spitfire Mk IX not only climbed faster it had better acceleration, better maneuverability and as pilots said it was much nicer to fly. The Mk XIV is another step up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I talk to scammers and waste their time, they get angry and I enjoy making them even angrier, it is satisfying to wind them up, sometimes I play along for some time but I always hint that they are scammers from the start.
I always check the number of incoming calls and I know that scam calls use fake numbers, if they use a UK number the one place they are not is the UK, I ask questions like where are you if they answer London, I say, I used to live in London I know it very well, which part of London West London, I say OK but where, then if they give a street, I already have Google Earth even if I don't know the area well, then I ask what is close to there, that gets a response and one time the response was a park, I said which park, her answer was there is only one park near here, I know there are several but I played along which park is that, she said I know bit I am not going to tell you. It is funny how long you can play them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheDannyWinther Or barely 200 km in ideal conditions in summer and under 150 km in a mild winter.
Try not to exaggerate. I guess some people only drive very short distances like you so they do not ever go out of town or away on holiday. Some of us like to get away at weekends, When I lived in London I would go away, and I would drive over 120 miles close to 200 km after work on Friday to a place I used to stay at on the coast near Bournemouth then I would spend the weekend visiting places and people then drive back home on Sunday evening. Just imagine how many times I would have to charge your car up for that. I didn't go away every weekend but I did at least twice a month. I used to cruise at 70 mph which would make the short range even worse, I could do that easily in an MG ZS, Ora Cat or Renault Zoe, I could also pick up the odd hitch hiker which I did at times, one time it was two foreign tourists with their backpacks, these went into the boot along with my luggage and the two had a comfy ride, one was Swedish, the other German, no stupid rear door to get past.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danbenson7587
Just a small point about victory going to see who saw the other first, that did apply quite often as did numbers, to quote Luftwaffe Fw 190 pilots, "the fighter we feared most was the Spitfire, not so much the P 51 or P 38 unless we met them in overwhelming numbers". I am not sure why no mention of the P 47, I would have thought that was more of a threat than the P 38
When seeing the other first did not work includes this from a small flight of Spitfire Mk XIV's which were attacking a train. They were attacked by Bf 109's, " They really caught us by surprise this time but by using the Spitfires stunning turn and climb we were able to turn the tables and shoot a couple down for no loss."
Of course since the Spitfire did escort bombers, do ground attack and fly sweeps over enemy territory there was not much it didn't do. The figures for the Spitfire speak for itself, very reliable, quick turn around, many more produced than any other allied fighter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sturdevantphotography5726 Wrong, the Spitfire had 8 x 0.303 which in 1940 was more than US fighters and enough, Britain didn't choose the 0.303 as their main aircraft gun, it was used as an interim gun while the Hispano was being developed into the best aircraft gun of the war. THe Spitfire Mk VII could fly for 4 or more hours, it was used for escorting RAF bombers on missions including 900 miles or more, all the way, the Lancaster did about 200 mph cruising speed so that would be 4 1/2 hours. By the time the P 51 had the Rolls Royce Merlin engine the P 51 was only about 20 mph faster than a Spitfire Mk IX and it was slower than the Spitfire Mk XIV. The Spitfire was very effective not only for defense but for taking the fight to the enemy, it was better than the P 47 and P 51. The Spitfire landing gear was ok, it was the first fighter to land and operate in France from D Day, They went forward with the army, using forward airfields and grass strips.
1
-
I bought a new car and I paid most of it up front but borrowed some from a finance commpany it was all prearranged and approved before I took the car then not long after I got an Email, supposedly from the finance company asking for my bank account details, and of course including a link to click on, I did click but noy on the link, I clicked on the delete, I might have been born yeterday but my yesterday is far enough back that I do not easily fall for scams, I have had lots of emails about a parcel or multiple parcels, some days two or three that couldn't be delivered for some reason, I have ordered some things on line and track the delivery so I have a fair idea what is oming and when, the funny thins is if a parcel can't be delivered because I am out they take it to the Pst Office depot and leave a note in my letterbox.
I also get lots of scam calls, the last one I borrowed from Atomic Shrimp and as soon as the caller said she was from Charity Prime who deal with all main charities, I used to get a lot of calls from Charity Prime , Indian scammers so I just said "OK", she said "do you mind if I ask a few questions" " OK" "what suburb are you in" " OK" " what city do you live in" " OK" she then started again " what suburb do you live in" " OK " she then lost her temper and said "what are you playing at, I do not need to waste my time " "OK" she swore at me using some rather bad language "OK" end of call.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
poor ignorant soaring liar.
The Spitfire used different wings?
the Mk I, Mk II and Mk V were very much the same, they did fit different engines, the wings stayed the same, the Mk IX was basiclly a Mk V with the Merlin 60 series engine, the Mk VII and VIII were new and had a few changes, still the same wing but a retractable tail wheel. the fuselage was longer on the Mk XIV, still the same wing, in fact the first change to the wing was for the Mk 21, before then the only changes were the wingtip which could be changed between missions and the changes for fitting different guns. The late versions had a bigger tail but the Spitfire wa still very much the same, unlike the changes from the early to the late P 51.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I haven't been on a toll road for years, I once stopped at toll gates on an Italian motorway, the funny thing is the manned toll gates were left empty for a while with queus of traffic because the gatekeepers were all looking at and in my car, this was in 1970, land of Ferrari, Maserati, Lamborghini, Lancia and Alfa Romeo. What exotic car was I driving that had them so excited, Hard to believe but an AUSTIN MAXI, that is right, the same car that also got me an escort into Rome by two motorcycle cops.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I can't do much against scammers but I do like to waste their time, I had one try to tell me that a company had taken $ 250 from my account and used it to make $82,000 in a year and that they would get my money, the $ 82,000 for me if I gave them 5 % or $4,100 first, I said " they have taken $ 250 and turned it into $ 82,000 in a year, wow I think they deserve to keep it. the reply was but they can't, they have gone into liquidation and the money is frozen, this went on for over half an hour and I kept saying that I hadn't lost $ 250 but if I had then I never missed it, I even said there is no $ 250 and no $82,000 but that didn't sink in, after half an hour I repeated that there was no money and they could whistle for the $ 4,100
I got a very angry " why have you been wasting my time" "Because I can and you are a dirty scammer"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
garyseesnothing.
Educated as in being able to look for myself rather than play on a pc. I much prefer to read real combat reports by real pilots than take notice of games. Maybe your gameplayer children friends can explain why the Luftwaffe kept losing to the RAF so much, the Battle of Britain, Malta, North Africa, Sicily, Italy, France, Belgium, Holland and Germany.
Then another thing I do is read what the Luftwaffe had to say about the Spitfire. Kesselring credited the Spitfire as stopping the Luftwaffe from destroying the troops at Dunkirk.' Galland said " I am very impressed by the RAF and the Spitfire. Luftwaffe Fw 190 pilots said " The Spitfire is the fighter we fear most.
When Britain fought and beat the Luftwaffe it was mostly British pilots, some did come from other countries but we never had to ask them to, Polish and Czech pilots were more than happy to get the chance to have a go at the Nazi's and in good aircraft, the few US pilots who volunteered had to break US law to do so. Gangsters and cowards hide behind women and children and murder women and children, that is what the Nazi's did.
Germany did not lack pilots until they lost out to the RAF.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What are all these more battles?
Dunkirk both, Malta both, North Africa both, USSR both, Burma both, Sicily Spitfire, Italy Spitfire, Normandy Spitfire, sweeps over France Spitfire, escorting bombers Spitfire, Chasing V 1's Spitfire. The Hurricane did its bit and is not underrated by those who really know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, there was never any danger and why the pilot came back and looked at the wing is not a cause for panic. His instruments would show fuel levels, maybe they had a suspected fuel leak, but with a number of tanks it is not cause to panic, unlike a car with just 1 tank, I had an old car with no fuel guage and one time the warning light started flashing on a motorway, no cause for alarm, I still had enough to get home, then the warning light came on continuous, ok, I should still be ok but I decided to take the next exit, but just before the exit the.motor started to cough, I coasted and made it half way up the exit ramp, I walked to a garage and got a can of fuel, then found the leak and fixed it.
I would hate to be on a flight with someone who panics for no good reason.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@747heavyboeing3 There is a problem on some, it is fixable and unlike Boeing not a killer of passengers.
In 2015, an auditor with the Federal Aviation Administration discovered a Boeing subcontractor was falsifying certifications on cargo doors for hundreds of 777s and had been doing so for years, according to interviews and government documents.
Boeing mechanics were leaving tools inside plane wings, precariously close to the cables that control their movements. Workers also were improperly installing wires in 787s, which could increase the risk of shorts or fires, FAA officials found.
Repeatedly, safety lapses were identified, and Boeing would agree to fix them, then fail to do so, the FAA said. The agency launched or was considering more than a dozen legal enforcement cases against the company for failing to comply with safety regulations, a review of FAA records shows, with fines that could have totaled tens of millions of dollars.
So FAA officials tried a new approach. Rather than pursue each violation separately, agency officials bundled them together and negotiated a broader deal.
In 2015, the FAA decided to try to get Boeing to meet, then go beyond, federal safety requirements by addressing broader corporate culture and governance issues, including what agency officials considered a lack of transparency.
The week before Christmas of that year, Boeing and the FAA signed a five-year settlement agreement that was unprecedented in scope. The company paid a modest $12 million penalty, but it agreed to make significant changes in its internal safety systems and practices for “ensuring compliance” with regulations.
In the days after the agreement was signed, top U.S. officials cast it as a powerful reminder that every company, no matter its size, must comply with minimum safety standards.
But Boeing’s profits after signing the deal topped $20 billion by the end of September 2018, making the company’s $12 million penalty easy to gloss over despite occasional press reports of the firm’s shortcomings.
The company committed to improving the quality and timeliness of information it provides to the FAA. But in the case of the 737 Max, the FAA said, it took Boeing more than a year to notify it about a software problem that disabled a crucial warning light connected to the automated system at the center of the tragedies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I get a lot of calls and many of them are an accounts manager, I ask where are you and they say England, I say you don't sound English, where in England, London, I say London is quite big where in London, they keep trying to get back to there script but I persist then when they give a location I say really are you sure, tell me what is close to there, this can go on for ages and they get frustrated that I know where they are claiming to be better than they do. I once did this with someone claiming to be in Switzerland, Zurich and when he gave an adress, he knew three restaurants close by but not a swimming pool and leisure complex that was right there. if they get back to the scam I ask questions and make it as hard as I can
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wrong,
1 ; taking off and landing was easy in a Spitfire, the not so narrow track compared to a Bf 109 was just fine.
2, Many planes would overheat if they were standing still for long, it was a worse problem on the P 47.
3, The wings were complex but very strong and they were the secret of the high speed the Spitfire could reach in a dive, the fastest plane of the war.
4, The RAF knew that the machine gun was not as good as the 20 mm that is why they used 8 until cannons were ready, the Bf 109 had cannons but they did not work well, low muzzle velocity meant less accuracy and range.
The Hurricane had the same 8 guns as the Spitfire and no RAF pilots ever said that, especially since the spitfire had a higher kill ratio and lower loss ratio.
The popularity of the spitfire was that it was better than the Hurricane, faster, better climb and went higher.
Spitfires were more often sent after the fighters leaving the slower Hurricane to deal with the bombers, Spitfires got 20 mm cannon before the Hurricane since the Hurricane needed the more powerful engine they got late in 1940 before they could carry 20 mm.
The Typhoon was not good at first, it took time to sort out some of the problems and it still did not climb like a Spitfire or go as high, the Typhoon eventually made a good ground attack plane to take over fro Hurricanes which were used for ground attack while the Spitfire was still the air superiority fighter.
Many Germans did say they had been shot down by a Spitfire and not all of them were but quite a lot were.
There is a reason that the Eurofightr Typhoon is called a Typhoon just as there was a reason the Panavia Tornado was called Tornado, if they eventually make a replacement for the Typhoon they may call it Tempest. No reflection on the Spitfire, the best fighter of the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are plenty of scams targetting New Zealanders, I get a lot of phonre calls, a common one is to do with Bitcoin or similar, then there is a scam by a so called organisation Charitiy Prime who represent all major charities, I keep making them work hard for nothing, they want to ask questions but I take control and get away from their script, a good one is to ask where they are and I have had Australia, London, Zurich and a number of other places, too bad if they have never been outside of India, I simply aask where and hint that I do not believe them, this gets the response of an adress but I am already on google maps and ask them what is close to there, one supposedly in London gave me the street name and said it is close to a park, so I asked which park is that since there are several within a short walk. that didn't go down too well, the reply was there is only one park, even if I didn't know London very well I could name many parks in London and the park they were implying would have been Richmond Park but along the same road there are three other smaller parks.
I caught one out one day, he started talking but I cut in with " what is the weather like in India today" he replied " it is raining a bit" then hastilly said " why do you think I am in India?" I said "I know you are"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I get a lot of calls and love to waste their time, I had one who said that a company had taken $250 from me and turned it into $ 82,000 in a year, I said "WOW, that is amazing, they really deserve to keep it" she said "but they have gone into liqudation and the money is frozen" " OK, I will book a flight to Antarctica and get it" she ignored this and went back to her script " we can get this money back for you and all we want is 5%" I said " that is great, you get it back, take your $ 4,100 and I will give you an adress to send me the rest" she sad "it doesn't work like that" you have to send the $4,100 first and give me a bank account number so we can let you have the money" I dragged this on for half an hour and she was getting frustrated so I said " there was no $ 250, there is no $82,000 and you will not get any money or information from me" " she said "why have you been doing this all this time" I said " I told you at the start there was no $250 but you didn't listen" she was rather cross and said "WHY HAVE YOU BEEN WASTING MY TIME THEN" I said " because I can and I do not like DIRTY SCAMMERS LIKE YOU."
I am normaly softly spoken but I can shout if I want to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@crustyoldfart
I see the British being slow to make changes, they had the best radar and aircraft control system in the war, hardly slow there, they kept developing the best fighters of the war, hardly slow there, they even had the Gloster Meteor in operational service in July 1944, it took Germany until late 1944 before the Me 262 was in an operational squadron.
Britain had four 20 mm cannon in use in the Westland Whirlwind in 1938, at the time the heaviest armed fighter in the world there was a problem fitting the same gun in a Spitfire but when turned on its side and with a change to belt fed ammunition it worked very well. Again not really slow. The Hurricane wing could take the cannon but it was not until the use of the Merlin XX in late 1940 that they had enough power.
The reason Rolls Royce used the carburetor was that it gave the smaller Merlin engine more power. the fact that the engine did not stall, at most a momentary cut out which RAF pilots got around quite easily, Rolls Royce had solved the problem completely in 1941. If fuel injection worked then it would have been used sooner, as it was the German engines had more than their fair share of problems, not least unreliability caused by the fuel injection. If the team at Rolls Royce did not continuously work along with SU on improving carburetors and not desperately but methodically and SU came up with a speed density carburetor which was given to the US, then went onto a system using an injection pump which injected fuel under pressure into a throttle body or as some call it an injection carburetor.
You seem stuck on the idea that the British were too busy sat around drinking tea to do any development, I give you radar, the jet engine, the Merlin and Griffon engines continuously developed to give more power while remaining reliable and much more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WilhelmKarsten Only the dummy doktor bummer, Sandybum and little willie make up such nonsense, the Me 262 first flew with a single piston engine, staright wings and a tail wheel, after being fitted with the BMW jet engines it still had straight wings and a tail wheel, it was very hard to take off and both jet engines failed, the pilot flew back to base using the piston engine, The jet engines were changed to the heavier Jumo engines, the nose wheel was addaed and the tail wheel removed, at the same time the wings were slightly swept to improve the centre of lift but as even German wartime research showed just 18.5 degrees of sweep had no real aerodynamic benefit, you would need at least 30 to 35 degrees.
Now on to your uneducated nonsense that the Meteor killed Britidsh pilots during WW II, I would like some proof of that, the Me 262 certainly managed to kill a number of German pilots and was a failure, most of them never got off the ground, of those that did they couldn't take on RAF fighters like the Spitfire or Tempest.
Du bist ein Feigling und Idiot
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TruthHurtzButHealz No guarantee of anything in life well brought up children go off the rails, I knew a father who had three children, he was kind but strict, one grew up ok but married the wrong girl according to his father, one got pregnant and married at 16, later she got rid of her husband who ended up in prison and she did fine eventually, the youngest was a really lovely child but but had a complete breakdown as a teenager and I hope she recovered but the last I heard was still having treatment many years later. Some killers do not come from a broken home, some just seem to be born bad, some people come from broken homes and turn out really well, there is no escuse for Chile, he is old enough to have learnt about life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesnoonan9302 I have driven in a parade, with a trailer with children on throwing sweets out to other children lining the road, there were also groups walking and dancing , it was at low speed with the road blocked off, everyone knew that and no one tried to drive through the parade with crowds of people.
I have also hit a pedestrian once, he ran out between stationary vehicles, he didn't see me until too late and I didn't honk, I hit the brakes and turned to try to avoid him, almost driving into oncoming traffic, he was uninjured because my car only hit him at low speed and didn't run him over, I was really shaken up by it and it was all I could do to drive and park the car, I was on my way back to work and let my brother drive the car home, I went to a pub for a few drinks and caught a bus home, I was still shaking when I got to the pub.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The climb rates I gave were from 1940 or almost a year earlier, the figures you gave were from a Mk I with 2 x 20 mm and 4 x 0.303, but by then the Mk II and even Mk V were around.
The Spitfire Mk IX in 1942 with the Merlin 61 engine using just + 15 lbs boost 3,860 ft/min at 12,600 feet and still 3,020 ft/min at 25,200 feet.
The Mk IX with the Merlin 66 engine 4,620 ft/min ate sea level, 4,700 ft/min at 7,000 feet and 3,860 ft/min at 18,000 feet, 2,125 ft/min at 30,000 feet
Then the Mk IX at + 25 lbs boost as tested in October 1943
5,740 ft/min ate sea level, 5,080 ft/min at 10,000 ft, 4,470 ft/min at 15,000 feet and 3,720 ft/min at 20,000 feet and 2,200 ft/min at 30,000 feet
Bf 109 K 4 4,800 ft/min at sea level, 4050 ft/min at 10,000 feet, 3,700 ft/min at 15,000 feet, 3,550 ft/min at 20,000 feet and 1,900 ft/min at 30,000 ft
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In 2015, an auditor with the Federal Aviation Administration discovered a Boeing subcontractor was falsifying certifications on cargo doors for hundreds of 777s and had been doing so for years, according to interviews and government documents.
Boeing mechanics were leaving tools inside plane wings, precariously close to the cables that control their movements. Workers also were improperly installing wires in 787s, which could increase the risk of shorts or fires, FAA officials found.
Repeatedly, safety lapses were identified, and Boeing would agree to fix them, then fail to do so, the FAA said. The agency launched or was considering more than a dozen legal enforcement cases against the company for failing to comply with safety regulations, a review of FAA records shows, with fines that could have totaled tens of millions of dollars.
So FAA officials tried a new approach. Rather than pursue each violation separately, agency officials bundled them together and negotiated a broader deal.
In 2015, the FAA decided to try to get Boeing to meet, then go beyond, federal safety requirements by addressing broader corporate culture and governance issues, including what agency officials considered a lack of transparency.
The week before Christmas of that year, Boeing and the FAA signed a five-year settlement agreement that was unprecedented in scope. The company paid a modest $12 million penalty, but it agreed to make significant changes in its internal safety systems and practices for “ensuring compliance” with regulations.
In the days after the agreement was signed, top U.S. officials cast it as a powerful reminder that every company, no matter its size, must comply with minimum safety standards.
But Boeing’s profits after signing the deal topped $20 billion by the end of September 2018, making the company’s $12 million penalty easy to gloss over despite occasional press reports of the firm’s shortcomings.
The company committed to improving the quality and timeliness of information it provides to the FAA. But in the case of the 737 Max, the FAA said, it took Boeing more than a year to notify it about a software problem that disabled a crucial warning light connected to the automated system at the center of the tragedies.
1
-
Why I hate scammers, some of them have litterally caused a few people to take their own lives, I love to wind scammers up, I get a lot of emails and used to get a lot of phone calls, they hate to be called sammers and the hate it when you destroy their script, especially if they claim to be in a country that they obviously are not, if they say England I ask them where in London, then by the time they tell me I already have google maps up and start to ask them what is nearby, I had one said a park, I said there are lots of parks, she said but only one here, I could see at least three in a short walking distance, what is the park called, she said I know but I am not telling you. Really. , that makes sense, I just told her you are wasting your time, I am not ready to be scammed today, she got rather angry to say the least. I am quite happy if I waste their time and get a few swear words aimed at me, I have had death threats a few times but I just say good luck, you don't even know where you are caiming to be, how are you gong to find me, one extreme example was in an exchange of emails and there were millions of people on their way to murder me, I said good, they might be noticed if they try to fly, as for swim, I do not think that will happen, three months later I sent a reply " I am still waiting, these millions haven't arrived yet"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adrianmartin7344
These inexperienced pilots include Kurt Welter, Heinrich Bar, Georg Peter Eder, Walter Schuck, Theodor Weissenberger, Adolf Galland, Heinz Arnold, Johannes Steinhoff, Heinrich Ehrler and Wolfgang Späte, along with many more, they all have one thing in common, years of active service, some over ten years.
Two seat trainer versions of all fighters were lacking so experienced pilots were shown the controls and they learnt to fly the Me 262 just as all fighter pilots went from low powered training aircraft to powerful fighters.
Compared to many fighters the Spitfire was a wonder plane.
If you want to tell lies expect to get caught out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have had a lot of scammers try to take my money, the last was based in USA at the NSA, he called my New Zealand number using a fake British phone number, I called him out on it by saying where are you, USA, where am I New Zealand. then why use a fake UK number because it is cheaper. He tried to say that there was suspicious activity on my online trading account, and that they had all of my information, full name, email and pone number, well they had my phone number but when I said what is mt name, he got it wrong and he got my email wrong then he tried scare tactics saying that if the information is wrong I must have given false information and he would report me, I laughed and said go ahead report away scammer, he hung up. Two things I know for sure, he isn't in USA or UK.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I got a call last night supposedly from NSI, about my online account, it seems that there was illegal activity on my account, I don't have an onlie trading account so I said I know, there probably is, that didn't go down too well, he said there either is or isn't. So I said OK, noow you are going to tell me you can get my money back and you only want a small percentage, he said we don't want any money so I said well what do you want? he said we have all of your information, full name, email and phone, so I said what is my name, he got it wrong and the email wrong so I said wrong, try again, he was getting angry and he said if it is wrong you deliberately gave the wrong information and we can report you for that, I said go ahead report me, I don't care, this went on for a bit until he hung up, I guess he didn't like being called a scammer, the funny thing is he said at the start that NSI is a US organisation and has branches in Australia and New Zealand, he didn't say which country he was in but since he used a UK phone number and I an in New Zealand, I knew he was a scammer and not in UK, Australia or New Zealand, funny how he sounded like an Indian.
There is an NSI in New Zealand but it is different from NSI in USA. In New Zealand it is National Student Index while in USA NSI is a partnership among federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement that establishes a national capacity for gathering, documenting, processing, analyzing, and sharing SAR information—also referred to as the SAR process—in a manner that rigorously protects the privacy and civil liberties of Americans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Quite simply the XP 47 J was not a fighter and according to some of the people there at the time it only did about 480 mph. The Bearcat when it entered service did 421 mph so far from fast. The Tempest I was not a failure, it didn't enter service because it had one of the optional engines and the Tempest V and Tempest II were used in service. The CAC Kangaroo in 1947 was as fast as the Spitfire Mk XIV in 1943, not really impressive. The Spitfire Mk 21 did enter ervice in early 1945, but the Spitfire Mk XIV which did 447 mph in 1943 and much more by 1944 should be counted especially since it was the fastest fighter in service during the war. The Ta 152 had issues and onky just saw combat, of the 7 claims one of the pilots was credited with 3 but he said that he never shot down a single aircraft when flying the Ta 152, 3 Ta 152's were shot down by Spitfires. One Tempest crashed in a fight but the pilot was inexperienced and 2 Ta 152's were lost in the same encounter.
There was a Yak 3M 108 which with a light fuel load and no armament did 463 mph, does an unarmed aircraft count as a fighter? Also the engine overheating issues meant that only 1 hr and 17 minutes of flight testing was completed. The Shinden prototype looks like a copy of the Miles Libellula, but not a fighter. The speed for the F 4 U 4 seems a bit higher than was achieved in post war flight tests. The P 47 M may have achieved 470 mph but reliability was an issue and they were barely in the war when they had to be grounded for replacement engines, the speed with the new engines may well have been considerably lower but no one seems to know. The Hornet did enter sergvce after the war but was delayed due to DH being busy on other aircraft, the prototype achieved 485 mph during the war. The Do 335 had serious issues with overheating of the rear engine, they only got into a test squadron. The Spiteful was fast or an armed fighter so should count, Supermarine made the Attacker and the Swift which set the world air speed record but gets overshadowed by the Hawker Hunter. The P 51 H which had an estimated top speed of 487 mph but thid esd revised by NAA to 472 mph but in flight tests in 1946 and 1946 it barely did 450 mph, I am inclined to believe it could have done 472 mph if the water injection worked but Packard doesn't seem to have solved the issues. The XP 72 was another experimental aircraft so once more not a fighter. I don't count the Spiteful F XVI since it never went into production but that appliies to a number of other aircraft on this list.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@metoo3773 It would depend on the speed limit, how often can you do 200 km? In France on a highway heading towards Paris there was a 130 kmh speed limit which reduced to 110 kmh and then to 90 kmh, I did suffer range anxiety in the Toyota I was driving, in New Zealand the maximum open road speed limit is 100 kmh, in USA I have mostly seen 70 mph or about 110 kmh. Australia 100 kmh or 110 kmh.
I doubt there are any petrol or diesel cars that can do 200 kmh for 800 kms, range goes down with speed once you go over 100 kmh. I drive a route of 500 kms and I stop at least three times, I usually drive the first 140 kms which I have done in 1 1/2 hours since it involves a lot of winding road and a bit of climbing, at that point I am ready for a break, remember the 1 1/2 hours I have done twice, once in a BMW, the other time in an MG Montego, I have driven the same route in Toyota, Nissan and Mazda and they have taken longer, probably about 1 3/4 hours. The range anxiety I have encountered in Mazda and Nissan on the return since the last 140 kmh there is only one garage and it is not always open, I have topped up with a 1/4 tank which should be enough to get home but are you going to say that you have never stopped for fuel when the tank had less than a 1/4 left? The test I mentioned was in Australia so they would have been doing about 100 kmh and both cars would have to stop at least once, the cars were from memory both Hyundai, being the same car but one the Kona EV and the other the petrol version, I believe the EV had to stop three times, the petrol just once for fuel but two of the stops for the EV were quite short, the petrol car driver had to stop at least three times so even if he had a range of 800 kms which he didn't he would still have to stop for food or a quick break. I have timed my journeys in petrol cars for this very reason and as long as I can do 160 kms realistic range which means stopping to charge at 20 % or so and maybe only charging to 80 % I could manage quite well without long stops, there are enough charging locations now to make it quite realistic, there are EV's which can top 300 kms quite easily.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I get lots of phone calls from scammers, at one time it was 14 in a day, si I try winging them up, I ask where they are from, and google earth or google maps comes in handy if I do not know the place, I say OK, I used to live there oe I have spent a lot of time there, this upsets them as it takes them away from their script and even more when I challenge them with some knowledge of where they claim to be, recently I had a scam call and just said ok, taking the cue from Atomic Shrimp, Thie last one went like this, "I am from Charity Prime we work with all main charities" "OK" " Do you mind if I ask you a few questions" "OK" "What suburb are you in" "OK" "No, what city are you in" "OK" "are you there" "OK" "can you here me" "OK" "Lets start again" "OK" " what suburb are you in" "OK" "WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS" OK " I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS, YOU ARE WASTING MY TIME" "OK" "I AM ENDING THIS CALL" "OK" Next time I might just say " NO" and see how that goes, but I always use a cheerful polite tone, especially when the scammer start to get mad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sandyum. From Wikipedia. The prototype made a hop into the air during taxi trials on 28 February 1954 and flew about five feet (1.5 m) off the ground for a short distance, but this was not counted as a first flight. On 4 March, Lockheed test pilot Tony LeVier flew the XF-104 for its first official flight. He was airborne for only 21 minutes, much shorter than planned, due to landing gear retraction problems.[18][19] The second prototype was destroyed several weeks later during gun-firing trials when the hatch to the ejector seat blew out, depressurizing the cockpit and causing the pilot to eject in the mistaken belief that a cannon mishap had crippled the aircraft.[20] Nevertheless, on 1 November 1955 the remaining XF-104 was accepted by the USAF.[21]
The F 104 was the first US fighter to reach mach 2, many of them crashed before they got to mach 3.
The F 104 had a nasty habit of killing it's pilots, in Germany the F 104 had a 30 % crash rate, in Canada it was 46%, also Italy and USA lost a lot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheDannyWinther poor little Danny boy, you hate it that I do not like your blob car, I can afford a new car and it certainly will not be the Mazda, I have 3 petrol cars right now, my wife loves the Kia, My daughter loves the VW and I like both, the Mazda does not get much use and will be the first to go, it could easily be replaced by a Nissan Leaf, The VW could be replaced by an E Golf or some other make, not Mazda and the Kia could be replaced by a Tesla 3 or MG 5, both far more useful and better than the expensive Mazda.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blackpowder4016 Packard made 0 changes to the engines they were given to copy, maybe Packard had trouble with their castings but what else is one to expect? No changes that Rolls Royce had not already incoroporated in their engines. I do not care if people in USA use the Packard conrod, probably because they are using the Packard engines. Packard did use a US supercharger which was heavier and less efficient. Packard also used locally available bearings only because they were locally available, for no other reason. RR did have the two speed supercharger for the Merlin engine it was being fitted to Merlins in 1941 and used on the production Merlin 60 series. Packard didn't make any copies of the merlin 60 until later. SU not a subsidiarry of Rolols Royce was approached by RR to see if they could make a larger version of the speed density carburetor which was very efficient, SU did and they worked together. After Miss Shilling and her team at RR had improved the negative G problem in 1940 they went on to fully solve it in 1941. They then went to SU and RR Used the Speed denisity carburetor on Merlin engines, RR also gave this to Bendix whocopied it and that is what went onto Packard Merlin engines but Bendix still called it a pressure carburetor.
Now you really show how little you know RR used to take parts like Bearings and hand fit them, they used a practice which allowed for the bearings to be gently scraped to fit, it takes expertise which Packard never had, I know because i have done it when working with a retireed RR engineer many years ago. Packard just slapped any bearing in and hoped for the best. I managed to fit bearings to very fine tolerances after a little practice.
The rest is pretty much US propaganda.
So Ford of Britain did a good job, RR also did very well and not only many more Merlin engines but RR was also making all of the RR Grifffon engines, jet engines and other designs along with all of the development. Then there was the plant set up in Britain by RR just to fix problemson new Packard delivered engines. Your comic books do not tell you that do they?
No wonder your rant ended up in my trash folder, I only just noticed it today.
1
-
It is very hard to help people, I have been tartgetted by phone and email scams and now i know what to look for but I almost fell for one which was from a finance company asking for my bank details to do with a car loan I had recently taken out, I hesitated because the loan had been approved by my finance company, I did wonder how they knew I had just bought a car but I thought it must be a scam so ignored it.
I get many calls and they seem to think that I am old which I am and stupid which I hope I am not, the last was from the NSA in USA but it came from a UK number, I asked where are you? USA, where am I? New Zealand, so why are you using a fake UK number? It is cheaper. he then said there has been suspicious activity on your online trading account and we have all your information, full name, email and phone, he got my name and email wrong, I called him out on it then he said the only reason we have the wrong details is if you gave false information, and we will report you, scare tactics, he mentioned the FBI and CIA, so I just said report away, NSA is not in New Zealand, he then said we are world wide, the problem is I know the NZ equivalent is NZSIS. , he gave up with a couple of swear words.
1
-
MG TC over 10,000, MG TD over 30,000. MG A over 100,000, MG Midget over 200,000, MG B, MGC and MGB V9 was over 500,000, I would say that is getting on for 900,000 but if you add all the people who bought them second hand then it would easily be in the millions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1