An era has passed...

Completely wrong.

The origins of the jet engine lie firmly in Frank Whittle patents of the

1920's and both te UK and the German WWII jet engines are based on his patents.

The germans spent more money and had one in the air and operational first, but the UK engine was what went to the US first.

The russians never had jet engines till post war,

Total garbage.

The russians had no radar either.

Radio location was developed and used by both the UK and Germany during WWII. The key breakthrough was teh replacment of teh kylstron by te cavity magnetron, a device o serte that it was not allowed to be flown in aircraft over germany til late in the war.

USA and USSR both raided the battlefield for technology, and developed their post ware stuff based on what had been looted, or in the case of the UK, taken in return for financial support.

the interesting fact is that while the american turbojet

I don't know where you get that from.

UK radar led the world until the 1960s.

USA radar is as good as anyones today..

Death, and Taxes..

IIRC it was first flown in the P-59 experimental fight...a real dog by any standard.

And the British GAVE it to them after a game of billards or was it snooker I forget, any way the bet was for a doezen or so of the most advanced british turbojet at the time. They figured out the metalurgy useing a very "james bond" use of a pair of sticky shoes worn during a visit to the RR factory. The Soviets THEN made an exact reverse engineered copy much like they copied the B-29 (they had 4 to clone) thus creating the TU-4 'Bear'. 8^)

The germans were also the FIRST country to put into combat airborne radar in night fighters...or any other type of aircraft.

Which is why the Mig-15 and F-86 and an initial wing sweep that was within 5deg of each other (yes I could be off a couple, no coffee yet and I'm going by memory.)

But it is fair to note the russians were the first to link flir to radar and to impelement successfully deploy data/target data between aircraft in an operational manner. They also make some of the BEST ejection seats. Remember the Paris airshow? the nose was just touching the ground when ejection occured and the pilot walked away with barely a few scrapes...that seat is a good piece of kit imnsho.

-- Keith

Taxes? I pay then they give it all back! No cheating honest...and we aren't really hurting pay wise. ;^)

As for death...I would but I don't know HOW. Oh I understand the mechanics of it. It's the HOW that's the problem. Too many time I ought to have bought the farm and all I got was bruises, bone bruises, sprains, a displace pelvis, 106F fever etc. I'm starting to think I was a Fox .35 stunt in a previous life...for all practical purposes unkillable and still functional even when totally worn out.

8^) Trust me more than once dead would have felt alot better.

-- Keith

I mostly agree. BUT I find the forums way to censored and if that's what those people want then...the first amendment is on it's way out. I prefer usenet over for the simple reason that you can say exacty what you think, using the words you choose. Those who can't handle people that say what they think EXACTLY how they think should do as the bard said "Get thee to a nunnery" and live out their sterile, cloistered, sheltered, regulated, empty, numb, worthless lives.

Some of us would rather weather the storm interface to interface than sit inside the safe confines of the sheltering electrons of a supposedly benevolent dictator...I mean moderator. p.s. I'll take my chances with the wolves instead of running with the herd.

-- Keith

considering my fat mouth, loathing of racists and haters in general. Considering that I like to bait said types virulently, publicly on the net and IRL. It's plausable you could out live my by a big margin...but the stack of the heads of my foes will make a funeral bier that will rival anything the aztecs ever dreamed of. ;^) What can I say I've finally found something to be intolerant of, oh the irony intolerant and hating the haters and the intolerant...

-- Keith Hanger rash makes me cower in the corner

I don't think so. It was in the air in 1941 in the UK,.

Mig 15 was a direct copy of the F86, but had less transonic performance, because the USA copied the all moving tail of the UK Miles project that was 'lent' to them, whilst the russians copied the F86 but put elevators on it.

I first saw an ejection OFF THE GROUND in about 1962, At the Farnborough airshow. Martin Baker rocket seat. British company. Developed for carrier aircraft where things go wrong fast at low altitude.

HA HA HA!!!! Oh, my... Let me catch my breath... HA HA HA!!!! You just made my day.

I mean, originally, when I read the "sticky shoes" anecdote, I wanted what that guy was smoking. But now, forget about it! I want, want, WANT the stuff you are on. I mean that must be some seriously crazy shit! "Mig 15 was a direct copy of the F86". Wow! The wackos from "Sabre had

13:1 kill ratio against Mig" religion must be snorting some very heavy stuff, but they are kindergarteners compared to "Mig 15 was a direct copy of the F86" formula users.

To others: Whew... (Trying to suppress the laughter). On a serious note, you see what is caused the demise of the Usenet? Even the remotely serious people with at least basic understanding of the topic left elsewhere, and those who are still here are just clowns, even when they are trying to stay on topic.

Horse feathers!

The MIG 15 was faster and more agile than the F-86 and clearly was an independent design. They may have use the smarts taken from the Germans, but they failed to share it with their pilots which is why the F-86 bested the MIG 15 at a better than 10 to 1 rate.

Check your facts the next time you are sober.

Er... I don't know how sober you are, but the best F-86 could do against MiG-15 was 2:1 and even that statistics could only be produced by rather "creative" selection of the narrow time frame immediately after the introduction of F-86 into the conflict, when it had the element of a surprise. (Not much of it though). It was a very short lived period, after which the overwhelmingly better vertical performance of the MiG completely wiped out any chances of success on F-86 side. The final overall kill tally is still heavily in MiG's favor at about 4:1 ratio. Note, BTW, that all this comes from American sources, which are not exactly known for accuracy in such propaganda-related issues. IF we go to independent sources, I'm sure we'll find out that the F-86 performance was still exaggerated.

It is also interesting to know what "their" pilots are you referring to. It is a well-known fact (not from American sources, of course) that except for a few very educational attempts, American pilots never engaged in combat with Soviet pilots simply because Americans never stood a chance in such an encounter, F-86 or not. To a trained eye, an Asian pilot is easy to tell from a European one due to naturally lower tolerance to high Gs in the Asians. And they, of course, had much poorer training that Soviet pilots.

Check your facts the next time you are sober. And don't use comic books as for factual information.

Why does each generation always think the change is for the worse? Is it human nature?

Anyway, I meant "just the beginning" in a more immediate sense... as in the next four years. I spent a lot of my R/C budget on guns and ammo this year. You know... just in case. :-)

I'll change when I'm damn good and ready, desmobob ;-)

Cite your sources.

BULL utter BULL..not only that the US developed the flying tail FIRST. They came up with it whilst conducting experiments with the Bell X-1.

Yes...but the couldn't do it inverted. Nor did anyone else succede until the Russians.

-- Keith

SNIP

I AM NOT A CLOWN. Just the comedy relief.

-- Keith

It's par for the course for old farts to hang on to the ways they are used to holding on to - er, or something like that.

Yeah, I still have my stash from Y2K and have just thought about selling some of them off. But to replace them with a nice Remington 700 with scope. You never know when that friendly neighborhood deer might need to end up on the dinner table. I have a 30-30 Winchester that would do the job, but I hate that offset scope. shoulda bought a Marlin. And not in 30-30. A 30-06 would have been much better, though I doubt if the deer could tell the difference.

I'm not a hunter, by the way, but I'm sure you could tell.

Now I'm selling off R/C stuff that is too large to haul in a small car - might next investment. You know as well as I that the Iranians are going to close the Straight of Hormoooooooooos (however you spell it) when they get sufficiently pissed. I want a doodle bug that will also run on ethanol. I was going for a Diesel, but they are too expensive and finicky. Folks don't realize that Diesel vehicles require much more upkeep than gasoline engines. You really have to stay on top of them or they break. The advantage of being able to run vegetable oil will be lost when lines start forming at all of the fast food joints, just to buy their used cooking oil.

On the other hand, many US southerners have some experience at making ethanol. At least the older ones do. (wink)

Ed Cregger

Thats the whole point. It was a copy. And they missed the good bits. They assumed that getting the wing the same shape and the tail the same shape would make it fly as well.

It wan't. It had severe issues as it approacjed MaCh 1. It might have been fatser in level flight, but the F86 was able to retain control in a dive far better.

So I guess that would explain why I'm rebuilding that old Suzuki T-500 Titan...this particular bike is the FIRST I ever rode on my own. At I might add the ripe old age of 11. 8^) I learned REAL fast to not flood a large bore 2-stroke.

Odd I've found I only need my old Glenfield nee' Marlin 30-30 with look through scope mount. I ditched the 4x32 scope as at 300m I don't need it for any deer or elk.

Not at all...I'm not a handgunner either but couldn't turn down a nice Colt Navy .44.

SNIP

True words those.

Some of us younger ones also...though I may run methanol instead. It's for the planes.

-- Keith

I shot a Navy cap and ball pistol once. I think it was .36 caliber, but could be wrong. Nice weapon, but very heavy. I'd hate to have to carry that around on my side all day.

I chose ethanol for a fuel alcohol because I figured it would be easier to make. Plus, it has medicinal purposes...

Oh well. Back to the dungeon to fondle my engines.

Ed Cregger

------------

So I guess that would explain why I'm rebuilding that old Suzuki T-500 Titan...this particular bike is the FIRST I ever rode on my own. At I might add the ripe old age of 11. 8^) I learned REAL fast to not flood a large bore 2-stroke.

Odd I've found I only need my old Glenfield nee' Marlin 30-30 with look through scope mount. I ditched the 4x32 scope as at 300m I don't need it for any deer or elk.

Not at all...I'm not a handgunner either but couldn't turn down a nice Colt Navy .44.

SNIP

True words those.

Some of us younger ones also...though I may run methanol instead. It's for the planes.

-- Keith