If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker
On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 08:53:46 -0800, Savageduck
wrote: On 2011-11-12 01:00:30 -0800, Eric Stevens said: On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:33:16 -0600, John Turco wrote: --- snip --- P-40 happened to quailfy. Dutch Kindelberger said NA could build a better fighter for them than that with the same (Allison) engine, and the agreement led to the P-51, often called the best fighter of that war. The Republic P-47 "Thunderbolt" is more deserving of that title. It caused Germany's "Wehrmacht" untold misery, both as a fighter and as a fighter-bomber. But at a cost; a considerable cost. However, what made the P-51 great was a different engine, the Rolls-Royce Merlin. Most opinion is that it was not outstanding with the original Allison -- and P-40s continued to use the Allison. Had P-40s been given the same engine their reputation would probably be better than it is. Nevertheless, the P-40 continued to be developed and fought successfully in different theaters. The Allison engines lacked turbochargers, so it's unfair to compare them with Merlins. Why? The Merlin lacked turbochargers also. But they did have highly efficient superchargers. --- snip --- Regards, Eric Stevens Actually the Allisons provided in the P-40 went through some changes as did some of the naming of the aircraft as it went through the Tomahawk/Kittyhawk/Warhawk variants. The basic Allison they were fitted with was the Allison V-1710. It had a gear driven single-stage supercharger which under went several changes through the war by the incorporation of a two-stage supercharger which had none of the intercooler, aftercooler, or backfire screen features found on the Merlin engine. You should try and get hold of 'Not Much of and Engineer' by Sir Stanley Hooker http://www.amazon.com/Not-Much-Engin...1131612&sr=1-1 Its also available in a Kindle edition. The same variants of the V-1710 were used in the P-39 and P-51A. The US P-38 also used the V-1710 which was fitted with the turbo-supercharger. The legend was the turbo-supercharger was top secret, so the British Lend-Lease "Lightning" MkI & MkII, and the "Mustang" MkI were delivered without superchargers. The fact of the matter was the Air Ministry and the RAF in their misguided thinking actually ordered those aircraft to be fitted with the same V-1710 as used in the P-40 "Tomahawk II" for economy of maintenance. This proved to be in the case of the "Lightning MkI & MkII", a stupid error, as they lost both the Turbo-supercharger which provided the high altitude performance lacking with the P-40, and the counter rotating props which created handling issues. For the "Mustang MkI & MkII" the fortuitous test with a Merlin led to the P-51D and Packard production of many variants of the Merlin, since British production could not keep up with demand. So many of the later run Lancasters, Mosquitos, Spitfires, and Hurricanes were powered with Packard-Merlins. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker
On 11/11/2011 9:34 PM, John Turco wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote: John Turco wrote: heavily edited for brevity In reality, it was the United States' refusal to join the League of Nations, that led to WWII. snort That's another joke, right? Like the Maginot Line thing? Definitely not! The U.S. has taken an active role in preventing World War III...don't you think WWII could've been avoided, if the country hadn't gone back into its shell, after WWI? WWI was inevitable, given the unrealistically harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles. WWII could have been prevented if Chamberlain had any balls. A majority of the German officer Corps. was ready to arrest Hitler if he moved into Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain did as much to cause WWII as Hitler. -- Peter |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker
On 2011-11-12 18:31:07 -0800, PeterN said:
On 11/11/2011 9:34 PM, John Turco wrote: Neil Harrington wrote: John Turco wrote: heavily edited for brevity In reality, it was the United States' refusal to join the League of Nations, that led to WWII. snort That's another joke, right? Like the Maginot Line thing? Definitely not! The U.S. has taken an active role in preventing World War III...don't you think WWII could've been avoided, if the country hadn't gone back into its shell, after WWI? WWI was inevitable, given the unrealistically harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Are you in some time-warp. WWI was 1914-1918 Versailles was signed in 1919. WWII could have been prevented if Chamberlain had any balls. A majority of the German officer Corps. was ready to arrest Hitler if he moved into Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain did as much to cause WWII as Hitler. Chamberlain, was actually worse than the simplified history tells the story. His appeasement policy started with Mussolini and the invasion of Ethiopia. He went against the advice of Anthony Eden, and effectively recognized the fascist occupation of Ethiopia. He also compounded the Italian & German involvement in the Spanish Civil War. Mussolini out maneuvered him in that arena. When it came to confronting Hitler at Munich, Chamberlain undermined French Prime Minister, Edouard Daladier who was in the process of organizing a Three Power summit to settle the Sudeten question. Chamberlain made his agreement with Hitler, deliberately avoiding consulting the French. The French failure to deal with Germany militarily had nothing to do with their political will, but fell on their planners and military leaders. Only De Gaulle voiced opposition to the French defense philosophy but at that time he was small fry, a colonel at the French military academy. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker
On 11/13/2011 12:07 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-11-12 18:31:07 -0800, PeterN said: On 11/11/2011 9:34 PM, John Turco wrote: Neil Harrington wrote: John Turco wrote: heavily edited for brevity In reality, it was the United States' refusal to join the League of Nations, that led to WWII. snort That's another joke, right? Like the Maginot Line thing? Definitely not! The U.S. has taken an active role in preventing World War III...don't you think WWII could've been avoided, if the country hadn't gone back into its shell, after WWI? WWI was inevitable, given the unrealistically harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Are you in some time-warp. WWI was 1914-1918 Versailles was signed in 1919. Typo alert WWII could have been prevented if Chamberlain had any balls. A majority of the German officer Corps. was ready to arrest Hitler if he moved into Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain did as much to cause WWII as Hitler. Chamberlain, was actually worse than the simplified history tells the story. His appeasement policy started with Mussolini and the invasion of Ethiopia. He went against the advice of Anthony Eden, and effectively recognized the fascist occupation of Ethiopia. He also compounded the Italian & German involvement in the Spanish Civil War. Mussolini out maneuvered him in that arena. When it came to confronting Hitler at Munich, Chamberlain undermined French Prime Minister, Edouard Daladier who was in the process of organizing a Three Power summit to settle the Sudeten question. Chamberlain made his agreement with Hitler, deliberately avoiding consulting the French. The French failure to deal with Germany militarily had nothing to do with their political will, but fell on their planners and military leaders. Only De Gaulle voiced opposition to the French defense philosophy but at that time he was small fry, a colonel at the French military academy. IIRC DeGaulle was ridiculed for his position. I don't recall if he was actually disciplined. -- Peter |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker
John Turco wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote: John Turco wrote: There are still more Americans of at least part German descent than of any other nationality, I understand. That is probably changing even as we speak, but as of tonight I think it's still the case. Right; to my knowledge, these are the top three: Germans (60 million) Irish (40 million) English (35 million) Thanks, I had no idea what the numbers were. How's that for a switch, Neil? (Besides, it means you, yourself, could be an undocumented pretzler.) No, I know the village in Cork my paternal grandfather came from. And in that village, people can still be found who will reply when queried about him, "Oh, Harrington who went to America!" Of course, they may just be saying that in hopes of an invite to the local pub. My paternal grandmother, on the other hand, was a nice Bavarian girl from Munich. But not undocumented. So, my suspicion was one-quarter correct? Better than that, actually, one-half correct if the previous generation is included. My grandparents on my mother's side were both U.S.-born but *their* parents were again Irish and German, in the same combination. In any event, beer must've flowed freely in that housewhold, during both Saint Patrick's Day and Oktoberfest! Actually we never paid any particular attention to either the saint's day or the fest. Strong drink flowed at pretty much the same adequate rate the year round. Coincidentally, I had an in-law aunt from Germany, who died in 2008. My condolences. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker
John Turco wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote: John Turco wrote: Neil Harrington wrote: edited for brevity The Wright brothers vs. Chanute, Lilienthal and others for the airplane. The Wrights actually invented nothing except wing warping for lateral control linked to the rudder for preventing adverse yaw. Every other part oftheir airplane had been invented and in use long before them -- and their rudder linking design was essentially worthless and ignored by aircraft builders. Nevertheless they received patents which, they believed, entitled them to licensing fees extracted from anyone who built an airplane, anywhere. You're wrong about the Wrights (pun intended). They were superb engineers, whose humble origins as bicycle mechanics belied their genuine greatness. Foo. What marvelous feats of engineering did the Wright brothers perform? What did they do for aviation *at all* after 1912? Aviation advanced rapidly while the Wrights did practically nothing but stew in their envy and resentment of Curtiss. They boldly went, where no man had gone before (sorry, Trekkies). Their special target was Glenn Curtiss, who built airplanes and simply ignored their claims for licensing fees -- and after Curtiss, soon every other aircraft builder did the same. The Wrights sued Curtiss in 1912, and then over and over, and I think they actually won most of their lawsuits; but by appeals and/or other devices Curtiss kept building airplanes and refused to acknowledge the Wrights' claims. Curtiss flying boats were the first to cross the Atlantic (or one of them did, in stages, and with considerable difficulty) in 1913. During WWI he made a fortune building the now-famous Curtiss "Jenny".trainer, both in the U.S.and in Canada, for the military. After the war his company continued to make successful fighters and other military aircraft for the U.S. and various other nations, and some commercial aircraft as well. Glenn Curtiss was a thief, plain and simple. It was bad enough that Europeans didn't honor U.S. patents, yet...he ripped off his own countrymen, the Wright Brothers. That was the Wright brothers' baseless complaint, yes. What exactly did Curtiss steal from them? Their airframe design? The Wrights got that from Chanute, for the most part. The internal combustion engine? No, that already existed. The propeller? No, Maxim had used propellers on his steam-powered attempt at an airplane (of sorts) I think back in the 1880s. Steamships of course were already using them, similar in principle if not appearance. Did they invent the airfoil? Of course not; they got that from Chanute and the Lilienthal brothers et al., along with a great deal of other information about designing flying machines. The Wright Brothers brought it all together, into a satisfactory package (i.e., their "Wright Flyer"). What else? Their weight-driven launching catapult? That wasn't a very practical idea and was short-lived. Crank-started cars were less than ideal, as well. Big deal. All they had to patent as far as I'm aware was their system of wing warping for lateral control, coupled with the rudder to prevent adverse yaw. I don't think Curtiss *ever* used wing warping -- he used ailerons for lateral control. What do we use now, wing warping? No, we use ailerons and have been doing so ever since Curtiss. Wing warping went out completely about two years into WWI. So what did Curtiss "rip off" from the Wright brothers? Whatever they said he did. guffaw! That's all it takes, huh? So Curtiss kept building airplanes, and the Wright brothers (or anyway the surviving one) kept suing him. Curtiss finally made some undisclosed settlement with Wright in 1940, by which time he was no longer building airplanes anyway and had no further interest in aviation. Curtiss P-40 fighters flew for various Allied nations in WWII, and Curtiss P-36s flew for the Vichy French. In other words, he produced junkers. I don't know that *he* was producing anything in that line by 1940 -- his company went on developing Curtiss Hawk fighters, as they had through the '20s and '30s. I believe most of our Army Air Corps and Naval Aviation fighters through those decades were Curtisses, and popular fighters they were. They sold well in various parts of the world. Glenn Curtiss himself had drifted out of aviation by the end of the '30s, I think. Again, what did the Wright brothers (or the remaining one) do over all those years from WWI onward that was of any importance to aviation? Nothing, right? Nothing. Was there ever a Wright wartime trainer, or fighter, or dive bomber, or flying boat, or transport? Curtiss produced all of those. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 20:02:04 -0600, John Turco
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:33:04 -0600, John Turco wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:07:23 -0500, John Turco wrote: France was then the most powerful country in continental Europe, and should've been able to stand up to Germany, single-handedly. Sadly, it proved to be a paper tiger, and the myth of the supposedly invincible panzer hordes began. Its not a myth. One of Guderian's problems was that the 'panzer hordes' did in fact advance so rapidly that the German conventional units were left far behind. No one, French, Belgian, British or German, were prepared for what Guderian could do once his Panzer units were unleashed. Regards, Eric Stevens An influential U.S. newspaper (the "New York Times") created the mythical "blitkrieg" concept. Alas, research has failed to uncover any evidence that the Germans practiced such a military doctrine. Germany's hordes promptly plowed through lightweights (such as Poland and the Netherlands), to nobody's amazement. When the same thing happened to big, bad France, it was simply assumed that a revolutionary new way of "lightning warfare" had been invented. No, it wasn't that the Germans were unstoppable. They faced either minor powers (e.g., Poland) or incompetent major ones (France). With respect, your claims are a load of cobblers. :-) Poland was an obvious pushover, whereas France had the muscle to give Germany a tussle (my, how poetic of me!). Do you dispute either of those points? Thanks to Guderian, in 1940-41 the Germans had a style of warfare which completely overwhelmed even the most determined opposition. You're not paying attention, my fine, feathered kiwi! The Germans hadn't faced any "determined opposition" by the Poles, Dutch, Norwegians and French. What? The same French who you have just said 'had the muscle'? Even the Russians fled in disarray, until they realized the gravity of their situation. Indeed, the French army was better equiped than Germany's, and far more mechanized. When coupled with the formidable Maginot Line, they had every means to bloody the Germans' noses, at the very least. [Did they presume the latter were just stupid (or too "honorable") to invade neutral Belgium?] Shockingly, the French quickly collapsed and then, Herr Schicklegrubber became bold enough to attack the Soviet Union. The Russians' early lack of preparedness further contributed to many German victories, and the blitkrieg legend grew out of control...it survives to this day, largely unchallenged. Quite true, but it is a mistake to interpret this as signifying the Germans had nothing special. They must've been practically orgasmic, after their first encounter with the U.S. Army. In 1943 (February 19–25), at Kassarine Pass, Tunisia, the Germans prevailed...and decisively. Alas, the American troops were inexperienced and under British command. Eventually, they would evolve their own able leaders (e.g., the armor magician, General George S. Patton) and regularly clobber the Germans. Late in WWII, the Army often encircled and captured vast numbers of German soldiers. Far more importantly, Kassarine Pass was the only main battle that Germany won against the U.S.A., during the entire war! If "blitkrieg" ever existed as a genuine military doctrone, Patton deserves credit for it. The speed of his fabled "Third Army" overwhelmed the staunch German defenses in France, and the rest is history. Germany's superb officer corp was the real key to its success. Equivalent leadership was sorely absent among the other European combatants' armed forces (Britain included). In the end, the crucial Battle of France was won by men, not machines. Fans of the blitkrieg theory conveniently overlook this fact, and prefer to dwell in their fantasy world(s). Fact? It sounds more like an unsupported opinion. Much corroboration exists; I'm not spinning stories, here. You should read 'Panzer Leader' by General Heinz Guderian. Regards, Eric Stevens I've read Patton's "War As I Knew It" (originally published in 1947, some two years after his tragic 1945 death). That was way back in 1984 or '85, and I don't remember much of it; nor am I willing to unearth my paperback edition of the book. My vivid memory of its painted cover is a different matter. It features a striking and colorful scene of Patton, about to draw his sidearm. He's readying to shoot a stubborn burro, blocking a narrow mountain pass in Sicily. The unfortunate animal's carcass went over the cliff, enabling Patton's tanks to proceed. [Tastefully depicted in "Patton" (1970), with George C. Scott in the title role. That Hollywood movie was based on Ladislas Farago's "Patton: Ordeal and Triumph" (a 1964 biography), also lying around here, somewhere.] In any event, both Guderian's and Patton's words should be viewd with caution. Their respective perspectives were at the tactical level and hence, too narrow to be of value in understanding the broader strategic issues of WWII. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker
On 11/20/2011 9:02 PM, John Turco wrote:
PeterN wrote: On 11/11/2011 9:34 PM, John Turco wrote: Neil Harrington wrote: John Turco wrote: heavily edited for brevity In reality, it was the United States' refusal to join the League of Nations, that led to WWII. snort That's another joke, right? Like the Maginot Line thing? Definitely not! The U.S. has taken an active role in preventing World War III...don't you think WWII could've been avoided, if the country hadn't gone back into its shell, after WWI? WWI was inevitable, given the unrealistically harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Such "harsh terms" have been common, throughout human history. Germany's Herr Schicklegrubber merely used Versailles as a pretext, to start WWII. He did not use it as a Pretext. He stated the obvious, and promised relief from its harsh terms. Just because harsh terms were historically common, doesn't make them not short sighted and stupid. Think our civil war. Had we hung Lee we might easily still be fighting. If the more objective U.S. leaders had stepped in, to help negotiate a fairer treaty, the war may likely have never begun, in the first place. They were unconcerned with the bitterness of European squables; thus, Germany probably would've been spared undue punishment and humiliation. True. WWII could have been prevented if Chamberlain had any balls. A majority of the German officer Corps. was ready to arrest Hitler if he moved into Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain did as much to cause WWII as Hitler. That's exactly why theU.S. needed to become involved! Leaving matters to sniveling weaklings (e.g., Britain's Neville Chamberlain) was sheer shortsightedness on the Americans' part, and had tragic consequences. -- Peter |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker
John Turco wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote: John Turco wrote: Neil Harrington wrote: heavily edited for brevity So what did Curtiss "rip off" from the Wright brothers? Whatever they said he did. guffaw! That's all it takes, huh? No, but, it's a good start. So Curtiss kept building airplanes, and the Wright brothers (or anyway the surviving one) kept suing him. Curtiss finally made some undisclosed settlement with Wright in 1940, by which time he was no longer building airplanes anyway and had no further interest in aviation. Curtiss P-40 fighters flew for various Allied nations in WWII, and Curtiss P-36s flew for the Vichy French. In other words, he produced junkers. I don't know that *he* was producing anything in that line by 1940 -- his company went on developing Curtiss Hawk fighters, as they had through the '20s and '30s. I believe most of our Army Air Corps and Naval Aviation fighters through those decades were Curtisses, and popular fighters they were. They sold well in various parts of the world. Glenn Curtiss himself had drifted out of aviation by the end of the '30s, I think. If he was so great, why did he quit the aereonatical racket? Made his fortune in it and decided to move on, I presume. He had gone from motorcycles to airplanes in the first place, you know. He had set the unofficial word speed record for motorcycles in 1903 on a machine of his own design, and again in 1907 (when his speed of 136 mph stood as a record for over 20 years). The Wrights never designed an airplane that went anywhere near that fast. My notion is that it was too tough for him, if he couldn't keep stealing ideas from more talented engineers (such as the Wrights). Again, what did the Wright brothers (or the remaining one) do over all those years from WWI onward that was of any importance to aviation? Nothing, right? Nothing. Was there ever a Wright wartime trainer, or fighter, or dive bomber, or flying boat, or transport? Curtiss produced all of those. Their company built aircraft engines and propellers, which were I'm sorry, "their company"? "THEIR company"?! I presume you mean the Curtiss-Wright Corporation. Notice whose name got top billing. crltical to the Allied victory in WWII. By then, Curtiss (the man) had already slunk into obscurity! Curtiss-Wright made engines and propellers in WW II all right but they were clearly secondary to Pratt & Whitney engines and Hamilton Standard props (related companies). The "Wright" engines of that time had nothing to do with the surviving Wright brother anyway, who probably couldn't even have explained how a twin-row radial engine worked. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
This guy mattered more than Jobs the Toymaker
John Turco wrote:
PeterN wrote: On 11/11/2011 9:34 PM, John Turco wrote: Neil Harrington wrote: John Turco wrote: heavily edited for brevity In reality, it was the United States' refusal to join the League of Nations, that led to WWII. snort That's another joke, right? Like the Maginot Line thing? Definitely not! The U.S. has taken an active role in preventing World War III...don't you think WWII could've been avoided, if the country hadn't gone back into its shell, after WWI? WWI was inevitable, given the unrealistically harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Such "harsh terms" have been common, throughout human history. I don't think so. No such harsh terms ended the previous major European war (1870-71) or the Napoleonic wars. The Treaty of Versailles seems exceptional in its vindictiveness. One can understand the French being particularly ****ed about the whole thing, since almost the entirety of the land war in the European theater was fought on French soil, and the destruction of real property there was enormous. Other than a few air raids (relatively trivial in effect in those days) and of course the effects of blockade, the war was never carried to Germany. There had not been any war like it before, and for sheer bitterness it probably rivaled our so-called Civil War. (There has never actually been a civil war in the U.S.) Germany's Herr Schicklegrubber merely used Versailles as a pretext, to start WWII. (a) Germany had a legitimate grievance, to say the least, and (b) Hitler did not start WW II. If the more objective U.S. leaders had stepped in, to help negotiate a fairer treaty, the war may likely have never begun, in the first place. They were unconcerned with the bitterness of European squables; thus, Germany probably would've been spared undue punishment and humiliation. WWII could have been prevented if Chamberlain had any balls. A majority of the German officer Corps. was ready to arrest Hitler if he moved into Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain did as much to cause WWII as Hitler. That's exactly why the U.S. needed to become involved! Leaving matters to sniveling weaklings (e.g., Britain's Neville Chamberlain) was sheer shortsightedness on the Americans' part, and had tragic consequences. The U.S. did not "need to become involved" in either European war, 1914-18 or 1939-45. The first was entirely brought on by European treaties, alliances, rivalries and commercial issues. None of that was any of our business and we literally had no dog in that fight. Wilson had promised during his 1916 reelection campaign to keep us out of it, and should have kept his word. Roosevelt did the same thing in 1940, of course: repeatedly promised American mothers that "your boys will not be sent to fight in a foreign war" while in fact he was scheming to do exactly that. So we defeated Germany (not originally our enemy) and thus made eastern Europe communist -- the communists WERE our enemy, remained a threat to us for the next half a century and where they exist today still are a threat to us. And we defeated Japan, which had never been our enemy either (was our ally in fact in WW I, and during the Boxer Rebellion) -- and thus made most of Asia communist as well. So apart from helping to make half the world communist, what exactly did our "becoming involved" in what turned into another world war do for us? We lost 400,000 men and boys in the second war, fighting on the side of the communists -- and then lost close to 60,000 more in the Korean War, fighting communists, and about that many again in Vietnam, again fighting communists. Would all those communist armies even have been there if we hadn't made all of east and southeast Asia safe for them by crushing Japan? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
jobs | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | April 5th 08 12:31 PM |
Online Jobs.Earn $500 or more per month.Part time Data Entry Jobs.No | nario | Digital Photography | 1 | March 14th 08 01:54 AM |
New Jobs Available For 2008 | n3hl7oyf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | December 18th 07 03:05 PM |
GET YOUR DESIRE JOBS | sudi | Digital Photography | 4 | June 19th 07 10:14 AM |
Kodak to shed 600 UK jobs | takeone | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 9 | October 12th 04 02:31 AM |