Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion History Main / StupidJetpackHitler

Go To

[008] MrAHR Current Version

6th Sep '11 at 03:00:31 PM

Changed line(s) 9 from:

Also, the \

to:

Also, the \\\"handjob needs lubrication\\\" seems more subjective than anything. Some guys need \\\"wet\\\" masturbation, but others can go at it \\\"dry\\\"

----

With that being said, I don\\\'t really know how to edit this without removing it entirely, or being all nattery.

[007] MrAHR

6th Sep '11 at 02:59:50 PM

Changed line(s) 4 from:

to:

----

Changed line(s) 7 from:

Also, the \

to:

Also, the \\\"handjob needs lubrication\\\" seems more subjective than anything. Some guys need \\\"wet\\\" masturbation, but others can go at it \\\"dry\\\"

[006] Salmon

12th Jul '11 at 07:37:33 PM

Changed line(s) 9 from:

to:

The Ho-229 crashed on its second test flight; it did not perform flights (plural). It crashed because it had engine failure and assymetric thrust made it unflyable. The B-35, B-49 and the earlier Northrop flying wings (which predated Hortens work by the way) all had severe controllability problems which is why they were never accepted for operational use. In tests, both the B-35 and the B-49 were too unstable to be held in a bomb run for the required 30 seconds. They were failures, rated as being too dangerous to fly except by skilled test pilots. The B-2 was the first flying wing design to be operationally usable. It is essential for such aircraft to have computer controls if they are to be anything other than test subjects. The \\\"reconstruction\\\" Ho-229 (not flyable by the way) was part of a Gee-whiz television show and proves nothing other than how desperate the cable channel is for an audience. It signifies nothing and means nothing. If you want to be dogmatic, it can far more easily be claimed that Horten copied the de Havilland Mosquito which also used wooden construction - and did so three years earlier.

Silbervogel deserves nothing. The NASA lifting bodies may have used similar concepts but is simply the results of design teams studing the same probelm and coming up with the same solution. It would be as logical to claim that a Ferrari Testarossa is a copy of the Model T Ford because both have four wheels and one engine.

None of this Nazi-wonderweapon rubbish deserves mention except as examples of fanciful fiction. It certainly does not belong in real life.

[005] Salmon

12th Jul '11 at 07:35:35 PM

Changed line(s) 3 from:

to:

No version of the Ta-152H ever carried the armament, engine or airframe modifications you claim. The Ju-222 engine was abandoned due to complete technical failure and never used. In fact, every prototype of that engine made was a failure. Interestingly, even if it had worked, the Ju-222 compared very badly with equivalent American engines.

Changed line(s) 5 from:

to:

The Ta-152C was a zerstorer that carried a 30mm cannon and four MG-151, It had 2,100 hp with MW50 boost. The weight of that armament made it very clumsy and it was underpowered compared with allied fighters. Development of the short-wing C-models was abandoned in favor of the Ta-152H. In fact, development of the Ta-152 as a fighter was abandoned in early 1945 in favor of variants equipped as reconnaissance aircraft. The later planned versions of the Ta-152 all sacrificed a substantial proportion of their armament for cameras.

Changed line(s) 7 from:

I do notice however that you admit it would take a near-doubling of engine power, a complete aerodynamic redesign and a massively increased armament to make the Ta-152H competitive with 1945-level allied aircraft such as the P-51H and the P-47J. That makes the Ta-152 (as it really was)a pathetic dog.

to:

Changed line(s) 9 from:

to:

The Ho-229 crashed on its second test flight; it did not perform flights (plural). It crashed because it had engine failure and assymetric thrust made it unflyable. The B-35, B-49 and the earlier Northrop flying wings (which predated Hortens work by the way) all had severe controllability problems which is why they were never accepted for operational use. They were failures, rated as being too dangerous to fly except by skilled test pilots. The B-2 was the first flying wing design to be operationally usable. It is essential for such aircraft to have computer controls if they are to be anything other than test subjects. The \\\"reconstruction\\\" Ho-229 (not flyable by the way) was part of a Gee-whiz television show and proves nothing other than how desperate the cable channel is for an audience. It signifies nothing and means nothing. If you want to be dogmatic, it can far more easily be claimed that Horten copied the de Havilland Mosquito which also used wooden construction - and did so three years earlier.

Silbervogel deserves nothing. The NASA lifting bodies may have used similar concepts but is simply the results of design teams studing the same probelm and coming up with the same solution. It would be as logical to claim that a Ferrari Testarossa is a copy of the Model T Ford because both have four wheels and one engine.

None of this Nazi-wonderweapon rubbish deserves mention except as examples of fanciful fiction. It certainly does not belong in real life.

[004] Salmon

12th Jul '11 at 06:51:52 PM

Changed line(s) 5 from:

The Ta-152C carried a 30mm cannon and four MG-151, It had 2,100 hp with MW50 boost. Development of the short-wing C-models was abandoned in favor of the Ta-152H.

to:

Changed line(s) 7 from:

to:

Changed line(s) 9 from:

to:

The Ho-229 crashed on its second test flight; it did not perform flights (plural). It crashed because it had engine failure and assymetric thrust made it unflyable. The B-35, B-49 and the earlier Northrop flying wings (which predated Hortens work by the way) all had severe controllability problems which is why they were never accepted for operational use. They were failures, rated as being too dangerous to fly except by skilled test pilots. The B-2 was the first flying wing design to be operationally usable. It is essential for such aircraft to have computer controls if they are to be anything other than test subjects. The \\\"reconstruction\\\" Ho-229 (not flyable by the way) was part of a Gee-whiz television show and proves nothing other than how desperate the cable channel is for an audience. It signifies nothing and means nothing. If you want to be dogmatic, it can far more easily be claimed that Horten copied the de Havilland Mosquito which also used wooden construction - and did so three years earlier.

Silbervogel deserves nothing. The NASA lifting bodies may have used similar concepts but is simply the results of design teams studing the same probelm and coming up with the same solution. It would be as logical to claim that a Ferrari Testarossa is a copy of the Model T Ford because both have four wheels and one engine.

None of this Nazi-wonderweapon rubbish deserves mention except as examples of fanciful fiction. It certainly does not belong in real life.

[003] Salmon

12th Jul '11 at 06:51:06 PM

Changed line(s) 5 from:

The Ta-152C carried a 30mm cannon and four MG-151, It had 2,100 hp with MW50 boost. Development of the short-wing C-models was abandoned in favor of the Ta-152H.

to:

Changed line(s) 7 from:

to:

Changed line(s) 9 from:

to:

The Ho-229 crashed on its second test flight; it did not perform flights (plural). It crashed because it had engine failure and assymetric thrust made it unflyable. The B-35, B-49 and the earlier Northrop flying wings (which predated Hortens work by the way) all had severe controllability problems which is why they were never accepted for operational use. They were failures, rated as being too dangerous to fly except by skilled test pilots. The B-2 was the first flying wing design to be operationally usable. It is essential for such aircraft to have computer controls if they are to be anything other than test subjects. The \\\"reconstruction\\\" Ho-229 (not flyable by the way) was part of a Gee-whiz television show and proves nothing other than how desperate the cable channel is for an audience. It signifies nothing and means nothing. If you want to be dogmatic, it can far more easily be claimed that Horten copied the de Havilland Mosquito which also used wooden construction - and did so three years earlier.

Silbervogel deserves nothing. The NASA lifting bodies may have used similar concepts but is simply the results of design teams studing the same probelm and coming up with the same solution. It would be as logical to claim that a Ferrari Testarossa is a copy of the Model T Ford because both have four wheels and one engine.

None of this Nazi-wonderweapon rubbish deserves mention except as examples of fanciful fiction. It certainly does not belong in real life.

[002] Salmon

12th Jul '11 at 06:35:45 PM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

In the case of the X-4, yes, it was never put to operational use. Therefore, how can it be claimed it was far from useless? It never achieved anything. What we do know about the X-4 was that it used a wire guidance system that required the pilot of the aircraft to fly his aircraft with one hand and manipulate a joystick to fly the missile with the other. Trying to do that while under the stress of combat is quite impossible. We know this because the wire guidance system is used on anti-tank missiles and under benign circumstances with a slow-moving target and the gunner only controlling the missile (from a stationary firing point no less)the hit rate is way less than 6 percent. Also, simple deadly question. How many air-to-air missiles since then have used wire comanad guidance. Answer is none. Therefore we are in an excellent position to write the X-4 off as useless based on real combat experience with missiles using similar systems.

to:

In the case of the X-4, yes, it was never put to operational use. Therefore, how can it be claimed it was far from useless? It never achieved anything. What we do know about the X-4 was that it used a wire guidance system that required the pilot of the aircraft to fly his aircraft with one hand and manipulate a joystick to fly the missile with the other. Trying to do that while under the stress of combat is quite impossible. We know this because the wire guidance system is used on anti-tank missiles and under benign circumstances with a slow-moving target and the gunner only controlling the missile (from a stationary firing point no less)the hit rate is way less than 6 percent. Also, simple deadly question. How many air-to-air missiles since then have used wire command guidance? Answer is none. Therefore we are in an excellent position to write the X-4 off as useless based on real combat experience with missiles using similar systems.

Changed line(s) 9 from:

to:

The Ho-229 crashed on its second test flight; it did not perform flights (plural). It crashed because it had engine failure and assymetric thrust made it unflyable. The B-35, B-49 and the earlier Northrop flying wings (which predated Hortens work by the way) all had severe controllability problems which is why they were never accepted for operational use. They were failures, rated as being too dangerous to fly except by skilled test pilots. The B-2 was the first flying wing design to be operationally usable. It is essential for such aircraft to have computer controls if they are to be anything other than test subjects. The \\\"reconstruction\\\" Ho-229 (not flyable by the way) was part of a Gee-whiz television show and proves nothing other than how desperate the cable channel is for an audience. It signifies nothing and means nothing. If you want to be dogmatic, it can far more easily be claimed that Horten copied the de Havilland Mosquito which also used wooden construction - and did so three years earlier.

Silbervogel deserves nothing. The NASA lifting bodies may have used similar concepts but is simply the results of design teams studing the same probelm and coming up with the same solution. It would be as logical to claim that a Ferrari Testarossa is a copy of the Model T Ford because both have four wheels and one engine.

None of this Nazi-wonderweapon rubbish deserves mention except as examples of fanciful fiction. It certainly does not belong in real life.

[001] Salmon

12th Jul '11 at 06:34:26 PM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

In the case of the X-4, yes, it was never put to operational use. Therefore, how can it be claimed it was far from useless? What we do know about the X-4 was that it used a wire guidance system that required the pilot of the aircraft to fly his aircraft with one hand and manipulate a joystick to fly the missile with the other. Trying to do that while under the stress of combatis quite impossible. We know this because the wire guidance system is used on anti-tank missiles and under benign circumstances witha s low-moving target and the gunner only controlling the missile (from a stationary firing point no less)the hit rate is way less than 6 percent. Also, simple deadly question. How many air-to-air missiles since then have used wire comamnd guidance. Answer is none. Therefore we are in an excellent position to write teh X-4 off as useless.

to:

Changed line(s) 3 from:

No version of the Ta-152H ever carried the armament, engine or airframe modifications you claim. The Ju-222 engine was abandoned and never used.

to:

Changed line(s) 7 from:

I do notice however that you admit it would take a near-doubling of engine power, a complete aeordynamic redesign and a massively increased armament to make teh Ta-152H competitive with 1945-level allied aircraft. That hardly makes the Ta-152 as it really was anything other than a pathetic dog.

to:

Changed line(s) 9 from:

to:

The Ho-229 crashed on its second test flight; it did not perform flights (plural). It crashed because it had engine failure and assymetric thrust made it unflyable. The B-35, B-49 and the earlier Northrop flying wings (which predated Hortens work by the way) all had severe controllability problems which is why they were never accepted for operational use. They were failures, rated as being too dangerous to fly except by skilled test pilots. The B-2 was the first flying wing design to be operationally usable. It is essential for such aircraft to have computer controls if they are to be anything other than test subjects. The \\\"reconstruction\\\" Ho-229 (not flyable by the way) was part of a Gee-whiz television show and proves nothing other than how desperate the cable channel is for an audience. It signifies nothing and means nothing. If you want to be dogmatic, it can far more easily be claimed that Horten copied the de Havilland Mosquito which also used wooden construction - and did so three years earlier.

Silbervogel deserves nothing. The NASA lifting bodies may have used similar concepts but is simply the results of design teams studing the same probelm and coming up with the same solution. It would be as logical to claim that a Ferrari Testarossa is a copy of the Model T Ford because both have four wheels and one engine.

None of this Nazi-wonderweapon rubbish deserves mention except as examples of fanciful fiction. It certainly does not belong in real life.

Top