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.