Comments for RetroMechanix.com http://retromechanix.com Yesterday's Wings of Tomorrow Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:11:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on Rocket-Boosted North American P-51D Mustang (1945) by GClarkhttp://retromechanix.com/article/fighters/rocket-boosted-north-american-p-51d-mustang-1945/#comment-1132 GClark Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:11:04 +0000 http://retromechanix.com/?p=3109#comment-1132 Claims require proof.I'm from Missouri. Show me.Either post a link or an apology. Claims require proof.

I’m from Missouri. Show me.

Either post a link or an apology.

]]> Comment on Rocket-Boosted North American P-51D Mustang (1945) by P. Lublinerhttp://retromechanix.com/article/fighters/rocket-boosted-north-american-p-51d-mustang-1945/#comment-1114 P. Lubliner Tue, 27 Mar 2012 03:24:30 +0000 http://retromechanix.com/?p=3109#comment-1114 I do not know why not one of these article correctly mentions that yes, the aircraft were absolutely involved in successful aerial testing. There is extant, 16mm Kodachrome (color) footage of both the ground tests as well as air to air views clearly demonstrating the speed differential from the chase/camera P51 at full throttle to the test plane when the rocket is lit. I therefore must presume the conclusions here are as suspect as the lack of awareness of those successful aerial tests indicates. I do not know why not one of these article correctly mentions that yes, the aircraft were absolutely involved in successful aerial testing. There is extant, 16mm Kodachrome (color) footage of both the ground tests as well as air to air views clearly demonstrating the speed differential from the chase/camera P51 at full throttle to the test plane when the rocket is lit. I therefore must presume the conclusions here are as suspect as the lack of awareness of those successful aerial tests indicates.

]]> Comment on Curtiss-Wright XF-87 Turboprop Fighter-Bomber Proposal (1949) by Evanhttp://retromechanix.com/article/fighters/curtiss-wright-xf-87-turboprop-fighter-bomber-proposal-1949/#comment-924 Evan Thu, 08 Mar 2012 03:42:05 +0000 http://retromechanix.com/?p=3422#comment-924 So, how does the USAF rejection compare, timewise, with their experiences with the same engine in the XF-84H and the USN's experience with several aircraft using it (XA2J-1, XFV-1, XFY-1, R5Y-1, etc.)? If they already had bad experiences with this engine, I can't see Curtiss' proposal getting any kind of enthusiastic welcome. So, how does the USAF rejection compare, timewise, with their experiences with the same engine in the XF-84H and the USN’s experience with several aircraft using it (XA2J-1, XFV-1, XFY-1, R5Y-1, etc.)? If they already had bad experiences with this engine, I can’t see Curtiss’ proposal getting any kind of enthusiastic welcome.

]]> Comment on Douglas Model 1209 High Speed Composite Bomber by adminhttp://retromechanix.com/article/bombers/douglas-model-1209-high-speed-composite-bomber/#comment-462 admin Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:08:58 +0000 http://retromechanix.com/?p=1458#comment-462 I think you may be correct; changed the date accordingly. I think you may be correct; changed the date accordingly.

]]> Comment on Douglas Model 1209 High Speed Composite Bomber by overscanhttp://retromechanix.com/article/bombers/douglas-model-1209-high-speed-composite-bomber/#comment-14 overscan Sat, 23 Apr 2011 02:48:29 +0000 http://retromechanix.com/?p=1458#comment-14 Enhancing the image, the date looks more like 9/10/50 to me, but you probably have a higher resolution scan to work from. Enhancing the image, the date looks more like 9/10/50 to me, but you probably have a higher resolution scan to work from.

]]>