Re: Let's agree to disagree.

Posted by Rundquist from adsl-63-201-187-189.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net (63.201.187.189) on Sunday, February 23, 2003 at 6:37pm :

In Reply to: Let's agree to disagree. posted by graml from user-2ivev24.dialup.mindspring.com (165.247.124.68) on Saturday, February 22, 2003 at 7:01am :

: The P-39 was developed in the late 30s when the Air Corps realized it needed a design to act as a bomber interceptor. Hence the heavy cannon in her nose; it was meant for shooting down the tough-as-nails bombers some Axis countries had developed. Though in the end, it turned out to be more useful in the tank destroying capacity that marked the P-39's career. For more info, check out "Aircraft of World War II: A Visual Encyclopedia" (Sharpe, Scutts and March), page 392. Another good source is "Deadly Sky: The American Combat Airman in World War II" by John McManus, which cites numerous interviews with the Air Corps pilots. If you haven't read it, I think you might enjoy it, although McManus' approach to history is a tad scattershot...A good British source is Mondey's "American Aircraft of World War II." It's nice to see the Brits give a little credit to the guys from the 8th Air Force. :)
: As for the P-40, I think the stats you cite are more a testament to the ability of pilots of the AVG, rather than the Warhawk. Just imagine if they'd been equipped with the P-38!
: Anyhow, I apologize if I've been at all snotty and/or snooty in this thread, Rundquist. I've really enjoyed talking planes around here; I don't get a chance to do that often enough! We may have our differences of opinion, but it's nice to discover a fellow aero-nut.
: Tally-ho!
: -graml

xxxxxxxxx

Hey Graml, don't worry about anything. Whatever our viewpoints are, I don't take it personally. As for me being a plane nut, it's my father and brother that are plane crazy. I'm basically regurgitating my father, but he has been reading up on WW2 aircraft for 50 years. He's literally read hundreds of books on the subject. He's an walking encyclopedia on the subject. As far as the P-38 goes, I don't know what the AVG would have done with them. I suppose they'd have still shot down many Japanese with them. Now the P-38 is a controversial plane. It was terrible in Europe, and great in the Pacific. In fact at one point in the war they shipped all of them out of Europe and put them all in the Pacific. In Europe the pilots would freeze in them on bomber escort missions. The P-38 also had the problem of the tail snapping off in high speed dives. Those problems were gone or lessened in the Pacific theatre. The biggest problem with the P-38 was that Lockeed could never produce enough of them. In the Pacific though, she was a great plane and sexy to boot. Cheers

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:

E-Mail: ( default )

Subject:

Message:
: : The P-39 was developed in the late 30s when the Air Corps realized it needed a design to act as a bomber interceptor. Hence the heavy cannon in her nose; it was meant for shooting down the tough-as-nails bombers some Axis countries had developed. Though in the end, it turned out to be more useful in the tank destroying capacity that marked the P-39's career. For more info, check out "Aircraft of World War II: A Visual Encyclopedia" (Sharpe, Scutts and March), page 392. Another good source is "Deadly Sky: The American Combat Airman in World War II" by John McManus, which cites numerous interviews with the Air Corps pilots. If you haven't read it, I think you might enjoy it, although McManus' approach to history is a tad scattershot...A good British source is Mondey's "American Aircraft of World War II." It's nice to see the Brits give a little credit to the guys from the 8th Air Force. :) : : As for the P-40, I think the stats you cite are more a testament to the ability of pilots of the AVG, rather than the Warhawk. Just imagine if they'd been equipped with the P-38! : : Anyhow, I apologize if I've been at all snotty and/or snooty in this thread, Rundquist. I've really enjoyed talking planes around here; I don't get a chance to do that often enough! We may have our differences of opinion, but it's nice to discover a fellow aero-nut. : : Tally-ho! : : -graml : xxxxxxxxx : Hey Graml, don't worry about anything. Whatever our viewpoints are, I don't take it personally. As for me being a plane nut, it's my father and brother that are plane crazy. I'm basically regurgitating my father, but he has been reading up on WW2 aircraft for 50 years. He's literally read hundreds of books on the subject. He's an walking encyclopedia on the subject. As far as the P-38 goes, I don't know what the AVG would have done with them. I suppose they'd have still shot down many Japanese with them. Now the P-38 is a controversial plane. It was terrible in Europe, and great in the Pacific. In fact at one point in the war they shipped all of them out of Europe and put them all in the Pacific. In Europe the pilots would freeze in them on bomber escort missions. The P-38 also had the problem of the tail snapping off in high speed dives. Those problems were gone or lessened in the Pacific theatre. The biggest problem with the P-38 was that Lockeed could never produce enough of them. In the Pacific though, she was a great plane and sexy to boot. Cheers

Optional Link ( default )

URL:

Title:

Optional Image Link ( default )

URL:

This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from Cyberarmy.com