![]() |
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I was not 100% correct when stating that the plywood tanks were used in BoB. They were used and developed before BoB and they had a tendency to "unglue" themselves, causing terrible leaks. They did develop a metal variant for the E-7 but the drag penalty showed to be quite critical, especially for an aircraft designed as a "clean fighter" such as the 109.
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
That is a website that lists no references.
Here are some of our 300 Liter Drop tanks: http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/droptank.jpg http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/shop1.jpg Quote:
Quote:
Simply put, your source makes some pretty hard to swallow claims without referencing a single source. Here is a Henschel 123 with a Drop Tank in Spain... http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KezhQ6waZT...600-h/dfgt.jpg Here is more info on the Allied paper drop tanks.... Quote:
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well if you should find these claims hard to swallow, Crummp, that is pretty much your problem. So instead of posting USAF and RAF solutions to the droptanks(which has very little to do with the Luftwaffe versions BTW), you could always prove me wrong instead of acting like a wounded pig.
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
I simply point out that your proof is "somebody wrote it on the internet" and you think I am somehow wounded?
![]() The correct response is to find a credible source. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
No, when you challenge someone upon any matter YOUR correct response would be to counter the info in an orderly fashion using facts, not just going on and on about other solutions that doesn't relate. Otherwise you pretty much come out as a whiner.
Prove me wrong and I'll stand corrected, nemas problemas. Last edited by kimosabi; 02-03-2010 at 03:55 PM. |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
What?
You made the claim the Germans couldn't build a drop tank that worked. I asked for your source and you gave out a gaming site that does not reference any sources either. In fact, it not only makes unsubstantiated claims but erroneously tries to link the issues with the Ta-154 laminates. The Ta-154 laminates occurred because of the harmonics of the aeroelasticity properties of the wing. Germany did not have the large scale high velocity wind tunnels that would have caught this issue in development. In fact, nobody had them in the 1940's. The epoxy used was too strong in the Ta-154 for the application and broke down the structure of the supporting wood. The epoxy was changed to a reduced strength formula with more flexibility and this issue was solved. Your article sounds stupid when it tries to link chemical breakdown of the glue due to fuel and the Ta-154 development. To test adhesive resistance to chemical compounds simply involves the very difficult process of dropping a hunk of dried glue you think is suitable for your application into a jar of the chemical compound and letting it set. You pull it out on occasion to check to see if the hunk of glue is still solid.... You think maybe the Germans were smart enough to use the industry standard of dropping a chunk of dried glue into a jar of gasoline and watching it for weeks? |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
I find your theories hard to swallow, Crumpp. Got any source on that?
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|