Yep, for the first time in 15+ years there's one back in the air... the last one to fly was lost at an airshow in '96
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vQOY3d89JE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEyDlgJYIF8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPujvcNTqHU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNzDg_6uLZQ
engine start at 1:55 on this one
This one last flew in 1945 and had clocked up 3 hours of flying time when this was filmed yeaterday... this one is scheduled to go to the USA...
Pretty Badass plane! :)
NOW - you did it!
Where's my DVD of 633 Squadron! :P
Da da da, da da da, da da...; da da da, da da da da... ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-nFa6R0qFU
Quote from: TBird1958 on September 30, 2012, 01:48:19 PM
Pretty Badass plane! :)
... and you're getting the beast... not the UK...
wow thats cool.i wish i had been there.
I think it was a '70s thing, but did you guys Stateside get comic books such as "Commando", "War Picture Library" or "Battle"?
Eg.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/14-Commando-Comics-4028-4299-VGC-/130772474949?pt=UK_Books_comics_Magazines_UK_Comics_ET&hash=item1e72a59c45
Out of them all Commando was my favourite, I had stacks of them. One of my top ones was IIRC called "Lone Wolf" about a pilot who was grounded from a squadron of Mosquitos for whatever reason, so he cannibalised all the wrecked ones to build his own 'plane, which he painted all black and flew on solo missions.
I was about 12 at the time & bought an Airfix Mosquito to paint up as the comic book. It was the type with 4 machine guns and 4 cannons in the nose.
I have been following this through some aviation mags. Great to see one back in the air! 633 is on of the best aviation movies of all time. I thought the Mosquito's nick name was Mossie ????? I was absolutely fascinated with this plane when I was a kid. Certainly one of the most beautiful planes ever built.
Quote from: godofthunder on October 01, 2012, 05:44:19 AM
I thought the Mosquito's nick name was Mossie ?????
U say pot-ah-toe, I say pot-a-toe... ;D
Moss-E would be the literal pronounciation, as in "a north facing roof will get mossie", but I believe either way has been used... as for the esthetic beauty of this aircraft, I'm torn between this and the Spit'
There is a great 1/24 Airfix kit with a ridiculous level of detail but the cost is ridiculous too... :o
Stu - a couple of great Chindit books in those series of books have passed along my field of view during my research too...
Tony... how far is that field from you...? I have your addy squirreled away somewhere but not to hand to check... if you get the chance you have just got to get there - I'm sure there will be some more proving flights before she gets shippped out Stateside...
Quote from: HERBIE on October 01, 2012, 11:15:41 AM
There is a great 1/24 Airfix kit with a ridiculous level of detail but the cost is ridiculous too... :o
Yeah, saw one in a shop in Yorkshire £115!!! Doubtless it'll be higher now. My other half was with me and I got a :rolleyes: "Don't even think about it look".
I did have the 1/24th Me109 as a kid, the detail is fantastic.
I had the 1/24 Spit'; also the Harrier, and a beautiful 1/32 F86 - I'm starting to build up a collection of unbuilt kits again - seriously troubling - recently got the 1/72 XB70 which is an absolute monster... If SWMBO susses this out I'm for it... ;D
My little stash of kits..........................it has grown since this pic.(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v102/godofthunder59/models001.jpg)
Quote from: HERBIE on October 01, 2012, 11:15:41 AM
U say pot-ah-toe, I say pot-a-toe... ;D
Moss-E would be the literal pronounciation, as in "a north facing roof will get mossie", but I believe either way has been used... as for the esthetic beauty of this aircraft, I'm torn between this and the Spit'
There is a great 1/24 Airfix kit with a ridiculous level of detail but the cost is ridiculous too... :o
Stu - a couple of great Chindit books in those series of books have passed along my field of view during my research too...
Tony... how far is that field from you...? I have your addy squirreled away somewhere but not to hand to check... if you get the chance you have just got to get there - I'm sure there will be some more proving flights before she gets shippped out Stateside...
As for beauty it's like comparing Redheads and brunettes both have their charms. ;)
Mozzie's have a nice pair... ;)
I missed all those Hawk kits last time you posted that one - nice Hellcats too... (where's Mark hiding...? :P)
Quote from: Big_Stu on October 01, 2012, 05:14:56 AM
I think it was a '70s thing, but did you guys Stateside get comic books such as "Commando", "War Picture Library" or "Battle"?
Eg.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/14-Commando-Comics-4028-4299-VGC-/130772474949?pt=UK_Books_comics_Magazines_UK_Comics_ET&hash=item1e72a59c45
They were popular downunder too - I bought heaps of those comic books
Me too! My dad had a workmate who collected them; so he used to take mine that I'd read a few times & swap them with his mate.
I bought a book about the cover artists a few years ago for a project I was working on; and it was part-written by James May off Top Gear, who also collects them.
Some footage from within the cockpit in flight; take-off to touch-down; some formation flying (Spitfire and a Venom?) - listen through headphones, as loud as you can tolerate, and it still won't be loud enough - maybe through a good sound system, with a mega SUB-WOOF... ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGfQQWOsoB8
wow that must have surpised a few people in downtown auckland.
One of my favorite planes! Scott, I had several of those models that you have in your collection. I really loved building the Revell 1/32 scale aircraft.
Watched this movie more than a few times. :)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064699/
(http://i49.tinypic.com/1zgev5l.jpg)
When oh when will there ever be a movie devoted to the beloved (by me) Hörnisse? ;)
(http://i46.tinypic.com/w14ozc.jpg)
Quote from: HERBIE on October 28, 2012, 01:57:31 PM
Some footage from within the cockpit in flight..........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGfQQWOsoB8
Brilliant! So good I felt a little airsick in the turn!
Quote from: Big_Stu on October 01, 2012, 05:14:56 AM
I think it was a '70s thing, but did you guys Stateside get comic books such as "Commando"?.........One of my top ones was IIRC called "Lone Wolf" about a pilot who was grounded from a squadron of Mosquitos for whatever reason, so he cannibalised all the wrecked ones to build his own 'plane, which he painted all black and flew on solo missions.
It was called "Black Mozzie" apparently, now I have to find & buy one without getting a :rolleyes: off my other half!
Quote from: Hörnisse on October 28, 2012, 07:04:18 PM
When oh when will there ever be a movie devoted to the beloved (by me) Hörnisse? ;)
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the top two results of a search for "Hörnisse" are at bassoutpost.com
Time for some pest control me thinks, nothing that a hearty 4 x 30 mm cannon round can't solve with a wooden airframe:
(http://www.baileyprints.com/wp-content/uploads/two-minutes-to-midnight.jpg)
The airframe wouldn't even slow a 30 mm round!
That's quite a piece of art tho!
Has that 262 pilot been eating carrots too to be able to find a mossie in the dark, let alone hit it, with no radar antennae?
Is there much info on confirmed "kills" for ME262's...?
The 262 was pretty much the only thing that might have been able to catch a Mozzie but from what I understand, nowhere near as maneuverable...
Quote from: Big_Stu on October 29, 2012, 04:14:50 PM
Has that 262 pilot been eating carrots too to be able to find a mossie in the dark, let alone hit it, with no radar antennae?
Only the early two seat night fighter Me 262s had the antenna jungle up front, later versions hid everything aerodynamically in the snout, we're an engineering nation, you know how we develop things! But when I first saw that pic I thought too: What a howler, they forgot the radar!
I have no idea whether there are confirmed battles between Me 262 nightfighters and Mosquitos, especially as German pilots were pretty appalling in telling Allied airplane types apart (so many Hurricanes were shot down as P-40ies in North Africa and vice versa, Tempests and Typhoons as Thunderbolts, Mosquitos as Lightnings, Air Cobras as Hurricanes, Mustangs as Spitfires etc), but I do remember an Me 262/Mosquito Airfix battle set so there might at least be some lore about it ("fastest German fighter against fastest English one", there were apparently no battles between Me 262s and Meteors, by the time the few meteors arrived, most Me 262s were grounded for lack of kerosene and spare parts). As Mosquitos were often used for target marketing for the RAF bomber fleets, there was at least an instigation for the Me 262s to hunt and shoot them down rather than save their cannon shells for the big ones.
The Me 262's strength was certainly not manoeuvrability - is that even feasible that a jet figther can be as manoevrable as a propeller one of similar size? -, but it could outclimb, outdive, out-speed, out-altitude and out-gun pretty much anything around in German skies 1944-45. I would imagine that in a nightfight scenario the poor Mossie had little chance to use its manoeuvrability superiority, the Me 262 would creep up from behind and be so fast coming in that by the time the RAF men noticed it, the 30 mm shells had already wreaked havoc - and you didn't need to hit with a lot of those to down any Allied aircraft, wooden frame or not.
Wait for it! Look what I just found:
http://www.2worldwar2.com/me-262.htm
"Feb. 1945 - An attempt by bomber pilots flying the Me-262 to intercept allied heavy bombers ends with failure. Six of the ten Me-262s are shot down for one damaged American bomber. The night-fighter version of the Me-262 makes its debut. The small jet night fighter unit has just 10 aircraft, and it flies a total of just 70 sorties until the end of the war, but they shoot down 48 allied aircraft, including 43 Mosquitoes."
Pest control alright! :mrgreen:
Impressive research Uwe!!
I vaguely remember a story of prop/jet dogfights in Korea; with a piston engined aircraft shooting down a Mig15 due to tighter turning circles.
Danke! Here is more, inter alia documenting that the manoeuvrability of the Mossie could indeed save it in daylight (the 30 mm shells, lethal as they were, had a slow shell rate which didn't make hitting a moving target any easier, their purpose was to down lumbering four engine bombers with one burst, not dog fighting with another fighter):
http://www.mossie.org/stories/Norman_Malayney_2.htm
Quote from: uwe on October 30, 2012, 04:44:08 AM
The Me 262's strength was certainly not manoeuvrability - is that even feasible that a jet figther can be as manoevrable as a propeller one of similar size? -, but it could outclimb, outdive, out-speed, out-altitude and out-gun pretty much anything around in German skies 1944-45.
Nowadays, with better understanding of aerodynamics, small jet fighters are extremely maneuverable, but they're mostly trainers because modern missiles and bombs generally require larger aircraft. The F-5/T-38, BAE Hawk, Yak-130, and quite a few other small jets are roughly equivalent to WWII prop fighters in size. The ME-262's most comparable modern analog is the A-10 Warthog, which even without modern missiles, radar, and extremely tough airframe, would make shot work of an ME-262 because it has enough wing area for (what is now) low speed turning. It also has a 30mm cannon which can punch holes in modern tanks. Ironically much of its (and its Soviet counterpart the Su-25) design was directly influenced BY the ME262, but that can be said of literally every modern jet.
Don't feel bad about losing your technical marvels to arguably inferior aircraft. Even the mighty F-14 Tomcat was shot down by an Iraqi Mig-21 (after it had already splashed a Mig 23 and suffered an engine failure.) Lest you feel I'm being unjustly American 'cowboy proud,' I think you should look into the Nellis exercises where current Eurofighters heartily embarassed the F-22 Raptor. The F-22 and F-35 have a LONG way to go before they ever even begin to claim anything against their modern adversaries.
The Mosquito is a marvel; prettiest and meanest piece of flying furniture ever, IMO (not an insult BTW.) Its closest WWII US counterpart was the P-38, and its pilots learned VERY quickly to engage in high speed and altitude diving attacks against Japanese Zeros because turning dogfights were likewise their Achillies heel. The difference was the US had enough experienced pilots to utilize its aircraft properly. By the time the ME-262 came along, the Luftwaffe was a desperate shadow of its former self with few pilots who could appreciate and take advantage of its capabilities.
True for FW 190 and Me 109 pilots, but the few fighter Me 262s only got into the hands of very experienced pilots or even aces. That didn't help you though when a rednosed Mustang strafed you on the ground at the airfield or you lacked kerosene and ammo for longer engagements.
The P-38 did well in the Pacific, but Luftwaffe pilots were largely unimpressed. Of course it was at the time the only US fighter with the range and altitude capabilites to guard the B-17 and -24 fleets. The Luftwaffe pilots respected the Thunderbolt though it wasn't really what they regarded a proper fighter. The first US fighter that really impressed them was the P-51, I guess it met more with their concept of what a fighter should look and feel like when being flown.
The Luftwaffe never had a fighter with really good manoeuvrability. As such, the Me 262's bad turn radius was nothing new for them and did not warrant adjustment of tactics, they had all lived and breathed that you could almost always outdive Allied fighters, often outclimb them, but almost never outturn them. The Me 109, small as it was, could be outturned by nearly any Allied fighter, the late-war Gustav version was even more unmanoeuvrable. The Focke-Wulf 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Me 109 but still less manoeuvrable than almost all other Allied single engine opponents. Of course, the crux of the Focke Wulf 190 A (the air-cooled engine model, the D model with its liquid-cooled engine was excellent at high altitudes, but only came out in September 44 when quality had become largely irrelevant versus quantity) - was its rapidly deteriorating performance at 20,000 feet and above, but that was the altitude where most of the Western Front air battles from late 1943 onwards took place, which is why the Focke-Wulf did better in Russia where low altitude fighting was the norm. That said, Russian pilots deemed the Me 109 the more formidable opponent while Western Allied pilots flying captured Me 109s and FW 190ies preferred the latter for its more good-natured handling.
Quote from: uwe on October 30, 2012, 04:53:33 PMTrue for FW 190 and Me 109 pilots, but the few fighter Me 262s only got into the hands of very experienced pilots or even aces. That didn't help you though when a rednosed Mustang strafed you on the ground at the airfield or you lacked kerosene and ammo for longer engagements.
True, but what few aces remained were literally writing the book on its tactics in combat. It flew, accelerated, and climbed faster than anything they had every piloted to return in (see the ME-163) and had a much wider turn radius than even they were used to. The difference in acceleration and accompanying gravity alone probably inadvertently felled nearly as many ME-262's as US .50 shells. The US and Soviets studied the ME-262 for almost five years trying to figure out what to do with it and took nearly ten to come up with consistently superior craft. It wasn't until the MiG-15 and F-86 that the ME-262's potential was fully realized.
QuoteThe P-38 did well in the Pacific, but Luftwaffe pilots were largely unimpressed. Of course it was at the time the only US fighter with the range and altitude capabilites to guard the B-17 and -24 fleets.The Luftwaffe pilots respected the Thunderbolt though it wasn't really what they regarded a proper fighter.
...but that didn't stop the Jug, the P-38, and the Mustang from chewing them up fairly regularly in the air and on the ground, cementing the idea of air superiority in the US military psyche. In a small irony, "Warthog" is just the A-10's unofficial name. Officially, they are the "Thunderbolt II," and were the Cold War guardians of Deutschland to make it a bigger speedbump for the hordes of T-72 and T-80 tanks from the Warsaw Pact had the scripted version of WWIII ever have been fought with conventional weapons.
Is there anything a Lightning could do better than an Me 109 Gustav other than longer range and higher altitude? It couldn't outspeed it and not outclimb it, I have doubts whether it could outdive it, the Gustav dropped like a stone. And horrible turn radius the Gustav had, the P-38's was probably even worse.
I agree that by 1944, the Luftwaffe consisted of a tiny minority of Experten and a mass of freshfaced kids with too little flying experience. Four war years had taken their toll.
And the Me 262 introduction was delayed for no good reason. What flew in late 1944 was hardly different to the prototype that flew three years before, had that plane be produced in massive quantities from 1942 onwards, you can bet that two years later an improved B version would have been an even more formidable weapon (though pressure on the Allies to develop something similar would have probably seen them bring out a mass-produced jet fighter earlier too). That said: Good that we lost and that the war didn't last any longer than it already did (more Germans died and more assets in Germany were destroyed in the last 12 months of the war than in the five years of war before)!
One thing I smiled about yesterday was what Russian pilots said about the FW 190 A subversion with the four 20 mm cannons and two cowling machine guns (you could heap a lot of weaponry on a Focke-Wulf and it still wouldn't fly as nasty as an Me 109, it was a great gun platform). Those FW 190ies had a habit of doing frontal attacks on Russian aircraft because they would smother anything with shells and the air-cooled engine could take a few shots from the opponent too, they almost always came out as winners. That changed though when the Russkies took a liking of the lend-leased P-39 Aircobra, not only because it could stand Russian winter cold and still get off the ground like no other fighter, but because of its solitary 37 mm gun in the propeller hub. "You just needed to hit with one shell with that in a frontal attack and the engine of the FW 190 was destroyed and its pilot most likely dead". The Focke-Wulf pilots changed their tactics subsequently!
Aside from the firepower the P-39 had good radios something Soviet aircraft lacked.
That was a weakness of the Red Army as such. Only one out of five T-34s had radio. Communication was made with handsigns and signals. It greatly hampered tactical flexibility of an otherwise very good tank and was responsible for the high Red Army tank losses. Tanks could be replaced, but the experienced crews could not.
The P-39 was one ugly duckling, but if you look at the Russian aircraft of the time, it somehow fitted the mold! And a 37 mm gun is reassuring.
Speaking of reassuring, so was the Henschel 129 tankbuster:
(http://weltkrieg2.de/Waffen/Kampfflugzeuge/Bomber/deutsche/Henschel-Hs129/Bilder/Hs129-04-px300.jpg)
75 mm is kind of ample for most purposes really.
Gotta find a Ki 109 pic.......
(http://www.daveswarbirds.com/Nippon/photos/Ki-109.jpg)
Look at these Japs, ripping everything off even back then!!! :mrgreen: (It's a joke, Hieronymous, as your former Axis buddy, I am the only one allowed to make it here!)
No idea these existed, I'm crappy at Japanese WW II aircraft, so this was then a "Flying FLAK" for the B-29s if I'm not mistaken? Kind of desperate if you ask me.
They certainly wouldn't have needed it for US-tanks, 20 mm cannons would do just fine against those ... :mrgreen:
There you go.
I'll admit to not knowing much of anything about this plane, my next door neighbor when I was young had built the model - I remember the kit's box art, vividly depicting several B-29's with shattered wings from this plane...........
I still think that anybody that flew in WWII had to be a courageous soul.
Quote from: uwe on October 31, 2012, 10:03:11 AMThey certainly wouldn't have needed it for US-tanks, 20 mm cannons would do just fine against those ... :mrgreen:
That's a bit overkill for a Ronson isn't it?
Look who's talking!!! :mrgreen: With the quality of home produce Limey tanks, you guys should have been grateful for anything!
"Ronson Lighter" is mean, mean, mean for the Sherman, but also hilarious. Love it.
If truth be told: From above into the engine, even 20 mm shells could do serious damage to most tanks (eg even the T 34), that was their badly armored Achilles Heel.
With a 75 mm, otoh, you could probably destroy four "Ronsons" if they were nicely parked behind each other. :mrgreen:
German Armor, for all it's good points in battle it broke down and needed service far more often than Allied stuff - keeping them fueled was aproblem too.
True. Undermotorized and gas guzzlers. Anything larger than a Panther was diminsihing returns. The Kingtiger guzzled 1.000 liters at 100 km range, a gun platform with limited movement. With less than 10 hp per ton of weight.
Rest assured, whenever the Sherman/Ronson outnumbered Panzer IVs, Panthers, Tigers and Kingtigers 10:1 - and most of the time it did - it didn't fare too badly!
I think we just sent so many over that you finally ran out ammo! ;D
I recently read a good side-by-side history/comparison of Rommel and Patton, as part of it U.S. armoured doctrine of the period was explained. Interestingly, the idea was of course to make rapid, mobile thrusts along with motorized infantry - set battles with the opponents tanks were to be avoided. Shermans were mobile, easily mass produced and importantly, transported across the entire world on railroads, or in the holds of Liberty ships. By contrast no Tiger moved any distance without a special railroad flatcar of which there were very few of.......
U.S. M-10 and M-36 Jackson are 90mm gun Tank Destroyers, they are Sherman chassis, designed to give a somewhat better account of themselves head-to-head with German tanks.
Quote from: uwe on October 31, 2012, 11:19:32 AM
"Ronson Lighter" is mean, mean, mean for the Sherman, but also hilarious. Love it.
It's a contemporary quote of the time, from their British crews, taken from Ronson's own slogan
http://www.finepipes.com/articles/ronson-lighter.html
I thought the Matilda was a tough nut to crack, but didn't have much to pop back with was more than a match for the Panzer I & II that it was intended to be up against.
Almost all French and English tanks were overarmored and underarmed at the beginning of WW II. German tanks initially went the other way, the Blitzkrieg demanded quick armored divisions, basically search and destroy. Tiger and Kingtiger were anything but Blitzkrieg - they were products of their time, post-Stalingrad and North Africa defeat, Germany was already on the defensive and these tanks were largely defensive weapons that were supposed to stem the tide of T-34s and Shermans - both tanks much more Blitzkrieg than their mighty German opponents - rather than conquer anything swiftly on agile missions. By 1942 all the German Reich had to conquer was the shortage in raw materials.
The first modern tank of WW II was the T-34, ahead of Panzer I, II, III and IV as well as any Western Allied tank of the time. The latter day much improved Panzer IV, Panther, Tiger and Kingtiger were all rushed reactions to the T-34. But you could build two T-34s in the timespan you needed to build one Panther. At half the price and half the raw materials. And T-34 production speed even doubled in later years as the Russians gained experience while German Panzer production periods became longer and longer.
(http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff246/tonypbass/mosquito001.jpg) from the rnzaf airforce news.
8)
http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewtopic&t=14429 (http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewtopic&t=14429)mosquito shots and a lot more....
I was in NZ a few years ago with the old man, and saw a mozzie being restored, when he sent me the pictures of these ones recently I assumed it was the same one, but apparently its a different one, so soon there will be 2
Whodathunk that I could learn more about WWII aircraft on a bass site than any number of other sites.
Come to think of it, I learned more about vacuums on the FDP than any consumer site.
was that the mozzie at the musuem of transport and technnology(MOTAT) in auckland? is saw one being restored there years ago.
yeah that was the one, they had most of the body done and they'd just replaced the wing roots. they reckoned it was a couple of years away from flying, but then that was 3 years ago :) I think there were issues with the engines too, i seem to recall it had a merlin in one side and an allison in the other.
Wow thats been a long hard road.i remember seeing it there in 1972