Placing the Bell P39 Aircobra.

[Kutscha]

Did you miss the part where Spits carried bombs beneath the wings. Hard to to put a bomb through a prop when dropped from that postion.

Think instead of parroting. An a/c shooting at an a/c (target) directly in front of it does not have the a/c (target) disappear. Now, if the shooting a/c pulls some lead, then the a/c (target) will disappear.

An a/c flying horizontal has the ground target disappear at a certain distance (speed, height and cowling size dependent). Depending on the a/c, the angle the a/c is flying (ie dive angle), this distance will decrease until the a/c is vertical/perpendicular.

So the a/c could not be vertical if the target disappeared.

A dictionary should be able to help you with the word 'almost'.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

Did you miss the part where Spits carried bombs beneath the wings. Hard to to put a bomb through a prop when dropped from that postion.

Think instead of parroting. An a/c shooting at an a/c (target) directly in front of it does not have the a/c (target) disappear. Now, if the shooting a/c pulls some lead, then the a/c (target) will disappear.

An a/c flying horizontal has the ground target disappear at a certain distance (speed, height and cowling size dependent). Depending on the a/c, the angle the a/c is flying (ie dive angle), this distance will decrease until the a/c is vertical/perpendicular.

So the a/c could not be vertical if the target disappeared.

A dictionary should be able to help you with the word 'almost'.

1. Now what are you on about? 2TAF Spitfires carried a 500 lb bomb beneath the fuselage (that could not be delivered from the vertical without destroying the propeller) and one 250 lb bomb under each wing (which could be delivered from the vertical). Typhoons carried bombs only beneath the wings. Are you getting confused?

2. I think I buy your statement about the plane not being vertical when the target disappeared. Parrotting, by the way, means mindless repetition; that does not seem to be my function, which is rather to produce evidence denying the many untruths written on this thread. That's why I only buy your statement provisionally. There is such a thing as wing incidence that is designed to be neutral in the case of an aircraft designed as a dive bomber but may affect target visibility when a failed air superiority fighter with a wing designed with significant incidence is pressed into the vertical dive bombing role. But I cannot think that one through, and is a detail for techies. It doesn't alter the conclusion that the RAF's refusal to operate the Vultee Vengeance was worse than a mistake; it was a crime.

Tony

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

to produce evidence denying the many untruths written on this thread.
Tony

Tony, you spend most of your time stating contrary opinions, which is not quite the same thing in my book as "denying untruths."

On the subject of dive-bombing in a Spitfire, you can find an interesting description in Pierre Clostermann's book of how his Squadron developed a technique.

[Jukka Juutinen]

Kutscha, 60 deg cannot be described as "almost vertical". Or would you describe 6000 euros as "almost 9000 euros"???

[Graham Boak]

Not QED at all. As has been pointed out several times, accuracy was not the only parameter going into the decision. If you restrict your argument to the RAF not using potentially the most accurate method, then you are probably right. Note "the most accurate": not the one and only holy scripture, with all other approaches satanic. To suggest that they had the wrong method for the job, in that theatre at that time, starting from where they did, facing what they were facing, is another matter altogether. As has been said.

Jukka: No. Acceleration is such as to overwhelm accuracy, regardless of quality of the pilot. Do you think that Rudel, to name the most famous divebomber pilot, operated without divebrakes - or could have? That they were only fitted into specialist designs for the benefit of inferior pilots? The answer is in the plural, and they bounce.

[Kutscha]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

Kutscha, 60 deg cannot be described as "almost vertical". Or would you describe 6000 euros as "almost 9000 euros"???

Sorry Jukka but your reading comprehension is off. How did you arrived at such a thought?

[Franek Grabowski]

Did Pe-2 or Ju 88 dive at an angle close to 90 degrees?

[Graham Boak]

I believe so, yes. This may depend upon a definition of "close", but as aircraft lacking airbrakes such as the Avenger were capable of "glide bombing" up to around 60 degrees, the use of airbrakes suggest the presence of something much steeper.

As to the thread being out of control, it does seem to have strayed far from the subject of the P-39, and gone rather theological. Tcolvin's recent posting shows a total refusal to rationally consider any of the evidence presented against his initial rant, continual slander of anyone with different opinions and continued repetition of extravagant claims and unsupportable bias. As a child of the Enlightenment, and not having any wish to be burnt on the stake of his fundamentalism, I'm ducking out.

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

I believe so, yes. This may depend upon a definition of "close", but as aircraft lacking airbrakes such as the Avenger were capable of "glide bombing" up to around 60 degrees, the use of airbrakes suggest the presence of something much steeper.

Graham, you are misled. A friendly Mustang pilot recalls that when dive bombing, the aircraft accelerated so uncomfortably, the tacho looked like a propeller. Dive brakes are as usual in perpendicular dive as they are in shallow dive.
That said, Soviets had no dive bomber in the sense of Ju 87. Americans had Dauntlesses and Japanese - D3As but that is all.

[Kutscha]

In June 1943 No. 23 Squadron's RAAF role was changed to that of a dive bomber unit and the Squadron was reequipped with Vultee Vengeance aircraft. After a period of training the Squadron deployed to Nadzab in New Guinea in February 1944 and flew its first bombing missions on 11 February. The Squadron was withdrawn to Australia and reduced to cadre status in March 1944, however, as the Vengeance was regarded as being inferior to other aircraft which had become available to Allied forces.

After completing its training on the Vengeance No. 24 Squadron RAAF deployed to New Guinea in August 1943 where it provided support to Australian Army and United States Marine Corps units in New Guinea and New Britain. The Squadron continued in this role until March 1944.

In August 1943 No. 25 Squadron RAAF was re-equipped with Vengeance dive-bombers and began air support exercises with the Army. In January 1945 the squadron was re-equipped with B-24 Liberators.

Didn't last to long in RAAF service as a dive bomber.