Skip to comments.
Man gets to keep rare WWII airplane
Pioneer Press ^
| 5-11-05
| DAVID HAWLEY
Posted on 05/11/2005 8:04:35 AM PDT by Rakkasan1
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 last
To: Skooz
41
posted on
05/11/2005 10:15:44 AM PDT
by
jscd3
To: Rakkasan1
Shortly after the crash, a Navy report noted the death of the pilot, Marine Lt. Robin C. Pennington, and described the plane as "demolished." Maybe the fact that the pilot died in the crash had something to do with it?
To: Rakkasan1
It is this simple, the Government hates the individual and loves the collective. That is basically a characteristic of government and is the reason why so many of the early Americans feared a strong central government.
43
posted on
05/11/2005 10:17:36 AM PDT
by
yarddog
To: SJSAMPLE
Didn't think of that. Imagine if somebody wanted to salvage the Lexington or Yorktown. The German Prinz Eugen survived an atomic test to capsize on a reef and it might still be accessable.
44
posted on
05/11/2005 10:21:22 AM PDT
by
Little Ray
(I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
To: Strategerist
Well, almost.
American pilots who had transferred from the ETO had to learn how to fight basically from scratch because they were used to duking it out one-on-one against ME-109s and FW-190s. Dogfighting was the name of the game and American and Brit pilots did it well against the Germans.
To do so against Zeros was suicide. Japanese planes were far too maneuverable. To dogfight was to play into the strengths of the enemy. In Europe, it was almost the only way to kill an opposing fighter.
In terms of durability, there is no comparison. Zeros paid for their incredible maneuverability and speed by being fragile, compared to US planes.
And the tactics which gave the F4F a positive kill ratio did not make the F4F a better plane than the Zero. It just hid the chronic weaknesses of the F4F, which was obsolete at the beginning of the war.
45
posted on
05/11/2005 10:23:51 AM PDT
by
Skooz
(Jesus Christ Set Me Free of Drug Addiction in 1985. Thank You, Lord.)
To: sasportas
46
posted on
05/11/2005 10:32:36 AM PDT
by
Skooz
(Jesus Christ Set Me Free of Drug Addiction in 1985. Thank You, Lord.)
To: reagan_fanatic
What a thrill it must be to fly one of those. You can say that again. But from what I've heard, they area royal beeyatch to land...being a tail dragger with that huge front end sticking out makes it very hard to impossible to see the tarmac.
47
posted on
05/11/2005 10:37:32 AM PDT
by
Bloody Sam Roberts
(This tagline will be destoyed to make way for a new Hyperspace bypass.)
To: Skooz
P-38 could carry twice as much of a bombload . . . 8P
To: Strategerist
Sorry, there was really nothing wrong with Allied training at the time. Allied pilots were overconfident, flying inferior aircraft, and/or using the wrong tactics. First we developed the tactics to deal with the Zero - guys in Wildcats and P-40s developed these tactics but paid a heavy price in the process. When they got Hellcats and P-38s, it became a route.
Nor Zero was not overrated. The Zero was a superb aircraft within its limitations. It was faster, could out-climb, and outmaneuver any fighter in the world at the time it was introduced.
The trade for this was a relatively flimsy airframe, unprotected fuel tanks, and a lousy armament (the 20mm's were low velocity and slow firing - not very good in a dogfight...). It also had a poor rate of roll at higher speeds.
The issue really came down to the engine - the Zero did what it did on about 900 HP (and some say it was a copy of the P&W twin Wasp!). The Japanese could never produce in large quantities a really powerful and reliable engine. Without that, they never had a chance of producing a fighter to rival or beat allied fighters. The prototype Japanese A6M Reisen (Zero) went to the airfield in an ox cart - in the US we would call this a "clue."
49
posted on
05/11/2005 10:48:12 AM PDT
by
Little Ray
(I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
To: Bloody Sam Roberts
"...from what I've heard, they area royal beeyatch to land...being a tail dragger with that huge front end sticking out makes it very hard to impossible to see the tarmac."
Yes, particularly when that tarmac is attached to a rolling, pitching carrier deck! The Corsair was slow to be implemented as a carried-based aircraft because of that problem.
Also, had the war dragged on a bit longer, the F2G-2 "Super Corsair" would've gone beyond limited production. That variant was designed with fleet defense in mind - it was a fast-climbing answer to the Kamikaze threat. With ten additional cylinders of Pratt & Whitney power up front (and an even *longer* snoot) and a Mustang-like bubble canopy, the Super Corsair would've been an impressive warplane.
To: Charles Martel
3000 horsepower! Hooowah!
51
posted on
05/11/2005 11:09:49 AM PDT
by
Bloody Sam Roberts
(This tagline will be destoyed to make way for a new Hyperspace bypass.)
To: jscd3
Sure am glad we have people like your Dad protecting us! I understand that that plane was a hand full to control and an unexperienced pilot could get behind the eight ball fast flying one. Great plane with a great history.
52
posted on
05/11/2005 2:30:58 PM PDT
by
reagandemo
(The battle is near are you ready for the sacrifice?)
To: SJSAMPLE
If somebody lays claim to a US Navy ship sitting on the bottom of the ocean, the Navy will immediately assert their legitimate claim. If they raise it and float it, why the hell should the Navy care ?
53
posted on
05/11/2005 2:38:16 PM PDT
by
Centurion2000
(The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who don't)
To: Strategerist
The Japanese also didn't believe in armor for their aircraft, or self-sealing gas tanks. This made the plane a lot lighter, faster, and more manuverable that it would have been had it been designed and built by most other countries. The downside of this is that 6 .50 machine guns on a U.S. fighter had the effect of a buzzsaw on these guys.
54
posted on
05/11/2005 2:43:19 PM PDT
by
tarawa
To: Centurion2000
IIRC, the US Navy considers all of its wrecks as monuments, wherever they lie. I'm sure there are other reasons (gravesites, unexploded ordnance, et al).
55
posted on
05/11/2005 3:00:46 PM PDT
by
SJSAMPLE
To: Rakkasan1
I wonder how Clive Cussler handles this problem.
To: Skooz
The P-47 was also a truly great fighter-bomber. As to which is best, the Air Force and Army would probably vote for the P-47, Navy and Marines, the F4U.
In the fighter capacity, the F4U was probably better being more maneuverable; in the bomber capacity, the P-47 could probably haul more ordnance. It was one more huge ordnance platform.
To: RSmithOpt
The Zero got most of it's ability from sacrificing
pilot protection, they also didn't use self sealing fuel
tanks till late.
58
posted on
05/11/2005 5:00:07 PM PDT
by
tet68
( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson