ME 410 - Hornets galore!

[montanamotor]

Folks,

see this, and enjoy it:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/messme410.html

Another "unsung hero" of WWII. Too bad, Willy Messerschmitt spoiled the Me 410's ancestor Me 210 so much that, even as the Real McCoy" Me Me 410 substantiated at last, it was too little, too late, too badly reputated...

Well: You can't make good a bad start - can you...?

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Red Admiral]

The Luftwaffe should have just built the IMAM Ro 58 instead. Better handling, speed and firepower and using DB601 instead of far more powerful and larger DB603.

Large twin engined fighters aren't really a good idea when facing massive inferiority in numbers.

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Montanamotor

On the Me 410 I have to disagree, after all that reworking Messerschmidt did not manage to make a silk purse out of a sows ear!

To quote my hero, Eric Brown, " it was one of those aircraft that gave, in my view, a knife-edge feeling to its pilot; it was certainly about the last aeroplane that I would have wished upon myself if returning to base in bad weather after loosing an engine."

So good on paper, but still not the "moskito killer" the Luftwaffe needed

[Kutscha]

For more detailed account of the series:

Messerschmitt Bf 110/Me 210/Me 410
Heinz Mankau and Peter Petrick

ISBN: 0764317849
Size: 8 1/2" x 11"
Illustrations: over 350 black and white photographs, line drawings
Pages: 360


Book Description

For the first time, this richly illustrated book offers a comprehensive, detailed examination of the legendary Messerschmitt Bf 110, Me 210, and Me 410 series. By 1935 the Bf 109 had made Messerschmitt the leading manufacturer of fighter aircraft in Germany. The twin-engined Bf 110 followed on its heels in 1936, a type the Luftwaffe took on in large numbers as a long-range fighter, heavy-fighter, fighter-bomber, night-fighter and reconnaissance platform. As its successor, Messerschmitt developed the better performing Me 210, which flew for the first time in 1939. But this airframe soon began manifesting serious design flaws, and accidents with the Me 210 quickly started piling up due to the type's questionable flight handling characteristics. The Luftwaffe refused to accept any more aircraft as a result, and at a stroke the type's overzealous full scale production ground to a halt. More powerful engines and a number of design changes saw this aircraft produced from 1943 to 1944 under the designation of Me 410, and as such the type gave an excellent accounting of itself in service with the Luftwaffe.

[Lightning]

Hi All,

I have to agree with ChrisMcD when he wrote:
quote:On the Me 410 I have to disagree, after all that reworking Messerschmidt did not manage to make a silk purse out of a sows ear!

In an earlier thread on this topic, I wrote:

quote:Actually, the Me 210 was a dismal failure that never had its problems solved. In fact, it was this airplane that almost destroyed Willi Messerschmidt's otherwise sterling reputation.

The Me 410, although an improvement, was also a mediocre aircraft and an embarrassment to Messerschmidt.

They were, however, nice-looking airplanes.

I have read quite a few evaluations of the '410, and they have for the most part described the airplane as being better than the '210 but still not a very good warplane.

That Eric Brown was less than enthusiastic about the '410 lends credence to this view.

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

In fact, the Me210 did have its problem fixed. There was 2 batches of production > one with the short fuselage and a second batch with the long fuselage.

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,
Quoting you:
quote:In fact, the Me210 did have its problem fixed. There was 2 batches of production > one with the short fuselage and a second batch with the long fuselage.

And neither of these "fixes" resulted in either a safe or an effective warplane!

The Me210 was a disaster from beginning to end. Messerschmitt did everything they could to salvage the '210 (as well as Messerschmitt's reputation). The latter survived but not the former; it merely evolved into the better, but still ineffectual Me410.

Regards,
Lightning

[montanamotor]

Gentlemen,

I hope not to annoy you, but there seems to be at least SOME kind of armchair-wisdom in this discussion.

I have to check my sources more closely, to give out a definite statement. But I kind of remember that, after an evaluation squadron was formed to check the faults and merits of the Me 210 by the average german "Luftwaffe-Zerstörer"-pilot in 1942, these "experts" in fact were ENTHUSIASTIC even about the 210's performance. I remember the statements going like: "Performance far superior to Me 110, behaviour a bit tricky, but clearly to master for the experienced pilot. May be a handful in the hands of inexperienced pilots, though."

It went on like, the "Front" would have accept any Me 210 the RLM or Messerschmitt had given them. Had they only given them.

Instead, after this source it was an engineer's war being fought over the Me 210. For the fighting pilots, it had been good enough. But the RLM's big brass wouldn't accept the 210 as it was. And when the 410 finally arrived at the units in 1944, it was two years late, and now it had to survive in a far more hostile environment than the one it would have met 2 years earlier.

So, I'd quote the essence of this source like: Sometimes the RLM's thrive for absolute perfection was more hostile to the own troops than the enemy was... German desease, vice versa.

Cheers,

Montanamotor

[Double T]

Without any sources or info at my fingertips to refer to...
I remember the Me410 as being most effective in the "Zerstorer" role against allied heavy bombers. There used to be an art-print acknowledging an action where Me410s decimated a flight of B-24J Liberators. I saw this in an older aviation magazine. The print was signed by some B-24 crew who ended up as POWs. Not sure if any German pilots signed that print or not.
Was the Me410 more effective in the day-time "Zerstorer" role than the Me110 it replaced?

Tim

[montanamotor]

Double T,

it was MUCH faster than the Me 110 (approx. 60 km/h), could stay aloft MUCH longer on INTERNAL fuel - no drag-prone droptanks needed - and could haul MUCH heavier armament INTERNALLY in its big bomb bay right under the cockpit. What was that? A 5 cm-"planebuster"?

Before the appearance of the P 51 in 1944, it would have been desastrous to the allied daytime-bombing-campaign. Only after the P 51 appeared, the Me 410 fell prey to the Mustang-escort-fighter-groups.

Good plane - bad timing...

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Lightning]

Hi montanamotor,

Quoting you:
quote: But I kind of remember that, after an evaluation squadron was formed to check the faults and merits of the Me 210 by the average german "Luftwaffe-Zerstörer"-pilot in 1942, these "experts" in fact were ENTHUSIASTIC even about the 210's performance.

In fact, the Me210 was strongly criticized by its test pilots and was very much disliked by the rank-and-file pilots who flew it.

As far as the "Zerstoerer" role is concerned, just about any heavily armed aircraft having performance enough to catch the Allied heavy bombers could be effective. The problems with the '210 were linked to dangerous handling characteristics on take off and landing as well as vicious stall/spin characteristics. Its performance was just not good enough to justify these serious drawbacks.

The '210 was so unsuccessful that production was terminated, and the Me110--the airplane it was supposed to replace--was put back into production! Production of the '210 was halted so abruptly that many of the uncompleted airframes were left lying on the factory floor before eventually being put into storage.

The only bright light in the history of the Me210 was that the Hungarians reworked the design after the Germans had discarded it and came up with a version that was, to them, satisfactory. It was a definite improvement but was still less than had been originally expected of the design. This model led to the development of the Me410 which was also no "world beater."

Regards,
Lightning

[GregP]

I was always under the impression that the Me 110 series of aircraft were good-flying, honest aircraft that were simply not suited to aerial combat with single-seat, maneuverable fighters. Nothing WRONG with the 110 ... it was simply not well suited to combat with the likes of the Spitfire.

I understood the Me 210 was also a pretty good airplane once the short-coupled fuselage was lengthened but, by then, the damage to its reputation had been done. The original 210 was OK in the hands of a good pilot, but would "bite" if manhandled by a novice pilot.

The Me 410 was really a "fixed" Me 210 that was redesigned a bit and redesignated. It, too, was a pretty good airplane, but was a dead end as a daytime fighter in a sky full of single engine opponents.

So, I am left with the general impression that the 110 / 210 / 410 were decent airplanes that had decent performance for the day, especially as night fighters, but that they were necessarily not as maneuverable and did not roll as quickly or turn as sharply as the dedicated single-engine fighters that were, after all, the best of the war.

Unfortunately, the dedicated single-engine fighters were in great supply in the same airspace as the Me 110 during WWII, so most twins were pretty much simply outclassed by the single-engine fighters.

An exception was the Lockheed P-38 which could turn with most of the single-engine plane and could definitely climb with most of them or outclimb them. Roll was again not as quick, but there was no real weak spot in the P-38 that stood out (except an inadequate cockpit heater).

I said in another thread that the Me 110 / 210 / 410 were dead ends. What I meant is they were dead ends as daytime fighters; OK for night fighters. They were versatile aircraft otherwise, but had no business mixing it with Spitfires, Mustangs, Tempests, and Thunderbolts.

I am under the impression that the 110 COULD mix it with a Hurricane, but that coupld be wrong. Just my impressions from reading for more than 40 years about WWII aircraft.

The U.S.A. had some twins, too, such as the Ventura / Privateer, but we never tried to make it into a fighter. One excpetion to that was when we made some A-20 Havocs into night fighters, apparently with success. But we never thought it would live as a daytime fighter escorting other types of bombers into a well-defended airspace.

Again, I am left with overwhelming impression that the Germans pursued MANY prototypes, but kept producing obsolete front-line planes in quantity, such as the Bf 110 / 210 / 410. Maybe it was the almighty "production line considerations" that were the real culprit, but there had to have been better designs available.

[Mark J]

The Luftwaffe had one of the best 'twins' available, possibly better than the P-38 Lightning but failed to use it......the FW 187. The single seat model would have been a match for most fighters.
The IMAM RO 58 would have also been better

cheers

[Kutscha]

Some 94 Me210A-0 and some 90 Me210A-1 had left the production lines with some 370 in various states of assembly when production was halted. German production was started again with wing slots and a lengthened fuselage which cured the handling problems (Me210B). Some 95 in 1942, some 89 in 1943 and some 74 in 1944 of the 'moded' a/c were delivered.

The Hungarian model was the Me210Ca.

On April 2 1944, 14 Me410s of KG51 followed the bombers of the 8th AF 2cd Div back to its bases in England. Several B-24s were destroyed for the loss of 1 Me410 to AAA. (9K+HP, WNr 420458)

Even during early 1944, the Me410s had good success against the 8th AF bombers. On April 10, some 900 bombers escorted by 6 P-51 and 4 P-38 fighter groups lost 52 B-17s, 12 B-24s and 16 fighters. Of these the Me410 destroyed some 25 bombers.

[Tophe]

quote:Originally posted by GregP
Unfortunately, the dedicated single-engine fighters were in great supply in the same airspace as the Me 110 during WWII, so most twins were pretty much simply outclassed by the single-engine fighters.
An exception was the Lockheed P-38 which could turn with most of the single-engine plane and could definitely climb with most of them or outclimb them. Roll was again not as quick, but there was no real weak spot in the P-38 that stood out (except an inadequate cockpit heater).
I said in another thread that the Me 110 / 210 / 410 were dead ends. What I meant is they were dead ends as daytime fighters; OK for night fighters. They were versatile aircraft otherwise, but had no business mixing it with Spitfires, Mustangs, Tempests, and Thunderbolts.
Addition from the twin-boom dreamer:
if the classical Me 410 was bad and the twin-boom P-38 was good, why not designing a twin-boom Me 510? :D
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/Extra1/Me510.jpg

[GregP]

Why not indeed?

I am not sure the twin-boom design was responsible for the great qualities of the P-38, but I am also not sure it wasn't.

The Mosquito, while fast, was never in the "fighter" class of aircraft. Perhaps the only two that WERE in the class were the P-38 Lightning and the FW 187. The SIAI-Marchetti S.M. 91 and 92 were also prototypes of the twin-boom variety, but are not nearly as well documented ... hence little to no knowledge of them. Also, the Grokhovsky G-38, another twin-boom design of great potential, was never flown. The Grumman F5F could have been a contender in here, but was also not proceeded with. The Dornier Do. 335 was VERY good, but had some problems with turn and roll rates.

Of these seven aircraft, the FW 187, F5F, and Do. 335 were NOT twin-boom designs.

Of these, only the P-38 and Do. 335 made it into "production," and the P-38 was the only one in widespread squadron use. So perhaps the twin-boom design WAS the real design item that made a difference. In any case, it appears that the only twin engine aircraft that could compete with dedicated single-engine fighters on equal terms was the P-38.

The Do. 335, while fast and heavily armed, was NOT a dogfighter in ANY sense of the word. Hence, my reluctance to call it a "fighter" even though it is widely perceived that way. I'd call it an attack aircraft that had the speed to attack bombers and get away with it most of the time. It was never intended for the Do. 335 to "mix it up" with Spitfires and Mustangs, and relatively few ever flew in any case; 26 according to my sources. That quantity is certainly more than a "prototype," so I reluctantly call it "production," but it also might be seen as an investigatory run of a few aircraft to see whether or not it was any good ... kind of like the very small run of Heinkel He 100s (they built 25).

[Tophe]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

The Dornier Do. 335 was VERY good, but had some problems with turn and roll rates.

I have an (English) mechanical problem to understand. As the engine weights of the Do 335 are central (not lateral as the Me 410/P-38), I thought there would be a very lower inertia resistance to roll for the Do 335. But maybe turn and roll does not mean "left wing up or down" but "nose up or down", and for that, yes, the Do 335 has a big inertia with weights very front and very aft, distant from the center of gravity. May you explain further the Me 410/P-38 advantage over the Do 335?
Thanks.

[GregP]

The engines on the Do. 335 were on the centerline. Since they both turned in the same direction, they cancelled each other out torque-wise since one was facing backwards.

Theoretically, that SHOULD mean no problem in the roll axis (left or right wing up or down) except overcoming the tendency to not roll due to self-cancelling torque, but the Do. 335 had a notoriously slow rate of roll. I have no idea why. The ailerons are not especially large and maybe they SHOULD have been, but the flaps were sorely needed to reduce the amount of pitch needed to touch down without dragging the lower fin ... flaps impart a nose-down pitch moment and allow the plane to touch down in a more level attitude. Without the flaps, the lower fin would have been damaged in a normal landing.

As for pitch (nose up or down), the Do. 335 had a large mass fore and aft to both start movong and stop moving once it started. DB engines were larger and heavier than the Merlins in any case. That means it was slower to react in the pitch axis than a single-engine fighter. Once in a steady turn, it may well have been a good turner, but had a slow initial rate of pitch, meaning that a quick pitching maneuver could move a potential victim out of the line of fire with relative ease.

When we combine the slow rate of pitch with a slow rate of roll in the Do. 335, we get a fast aircraft that did not handle like a fighter. It was well armed, but I would not choose the Do. 335 as the mount in which to dogfight a Spitfire, Mustang, Tempest, or any other single-engine fighter under ANY circumstances.

I wish I knew more about WHY the Do. 335 didn't roll quickly, but all I know is that the pilots liked it for safety, armament, and general good flying characteristics, but that they all said it was very slow to respond to control movements. I take that to mean mostly roll and pitch since these are well-known.

The Lockheed P-38 mounted the twin engines close to the center of gravity, so they did not greatly impede rate of pitch. They were also mounted fairly cose to the centerline (as close as possible), so they didn't really slow the rate of roll much either. The P-38 had pretty large ailerons in any case. Later models (J and L as I recall) had hydraulic ailerons and were even more maneuverable than before in the roll axis. Combine this with a good bunch of centerline armament and you have a winner.

The Bf 110 / 210 / 410 series of aircraft had a very large wing chord (tends to slow the roll response) and flew well ... just not as well as a single-eingine fighter in fighter-versus-fighter combat maneuvers. They never made a dedicated single-seat daytime fighter version of the 110 series, but SHOULD have. It would have had a more narrow chord wing, larger aileron, a single-place cockpit, and heavy armament ... like the FW 187! The engines were always a good choice, and the speed wasn't bad considering what it was ... but a daytime fighter it wasn't.

For comparison, the P-38L had a wing loading of 53.5 pounds per square foot at normal weight, and a span loading of 336.5 pounds per foot. The power loading was 5.5 pounds per HP.

The Messerschmitt Bf 110C-4 had a wing loading of 35.6 pounds per square foot (50.1 for the Bf 110G) at gross weight, and span loading of 277.8 pounds per foot (389.8 for the Bf 110G). The power loading was 6.7 pounds per HP (7.0 for the Bf 110G).

The Dornier Do. 335 had a wing loading of 52.7 pounds per square foot, and a span loading of 467.3 pounds per foot. The power loading was 5.6 pounds per HP.

Theoretically, the Bf 110 SHOULD have an advantage in sustained turn rate as the wing loading would indicate, but if it rolled slowly, the P-38 could get in some telling shots before the Bf 110 could get out of the way.

The span loading says the Bf 110 SHOULD have been a better aircraft at altitude, but that seriously depends on the engine characteristics. If the DBs had been optimized for 25,000 feet then maybe it WOULD have been.

The power loading indicates the P-38 should climb better and it did.

The span loading of the Do. 335 indicates it should have been the worst of the three at altitude, but the engines have a great deal to do with that and I don;t know the altitude performance of the well enough to say how it was at 25,000 feet. Power loading was good, but the slow rate of roll and pitch means the Do. 335 was not a dogfighter.

Another factor is the choice of airfoil. Since the paper numbers show the Bf 110 (at least the C-4) to have an advantage in wing loading, then any lack of turning capbility was probably airfoil or engine related ... maybe both. Maybe the elevator was undersized relaitve to the other fighters ... I can't say at this time.

On paper, the Bf 110 looks like a clear winner, but it wasn't in combat. I have no idea why in the real world, and there are few people alive who know with authority. My initial tendency is to say the engines and propellers were simply not up to the rest of the airframe, but that is not a well-researched contention.

The combat record speaks for itself and the P-38 is the CLEAR winner in all areas. I now wonder why .... I'd LOVE to see a real Bf 110 flying! :) especially with a more modern choice of propellers and supercharger gearing. We might have a new champion. As it stands, the P-38 was tops in this group by a large amount.

Let's see .... about 12,000 P-38s, 26 Do. 335s, and about 5,900 Bf 110s. I'd say the P-38s have it, if only by virtue of being there in overwhelming numbers relative to the competitors.

[Tophe]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

The Lockheed P-38 mounted the twin engines close to the center of gravity, so they did not greatly impede rate of pitch. They were also mounted fairly cose to the centerline (as close as possible), so they didn't really slow the rate of roll much either.
Dear Greg, this is right as "seriousness -1937" Lightning is concerned, but I prefer "dreams-1945" of Lightning-II.
- P-38Roll: No more war, no need of gun-nose anymore, the P-38 becoming just an acrobatic freak for airshows, a star with its weird twin-boom layout, so... the booms could come far closer to the centerline, freed by a shortened nose. To prevent from intermeshing propellers (dangerous when driven by separate engines), the port spinner/shaft is simply elongated...
- P-74C: With ejector seats coming available, the pusher propellers were less frightening, so… two tandem engines over the center of gravity are driven contra-rotating pusher-propellers...
- P-74N: With the 1942 ideas of Eng. Robert becoming public (see Patent GB605,641), lateral engines may drive central pusher-propellers without being cumbersome in the central pod, with "simply" gears and shafts...
As a conclusion: you were right as users were concerned, but engineers (and dreamers) may imagine "theoretically better"...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/Extra1/r_p38r_l.jpg

[montanamotor]

Hi, GregP,

resourcefull as always... About the Do 335's handling: Well - Basically, it was a massive, HUGE Plane. The only WW II-fighter with an internal bombbay, in fact.

It was intended to serve as a superfast fighter-bomber and bomber-destroyer, totally relying on zoom-tactics for success: Hit-and-run - get in at uninterceptably high speed, bring your heavy guns to bear (up to 3 x 30 mm MK 103 and 2 x MG 151/20) for a second or two (or - drop your explosive cargo, respectively) and run outa there, again at uninterceptably high speed, like the Devil himself was at your tail (fork-tailed devil...? :D)

The Do 335's DB 603-engines had superior high altitude performance but, again, they were very heavy, being about 33 percent LARGER in displacement than the DB 605 (DB 605: 33,9 L vs. DB 603: 44,5 L).

Well, in fact, the last thing the Do 335 really needed, was a high roll rate - neither initial, nor sustained. Instead, it was a superfast, superarmed, superchunky one-punch-at-a-time beast. This it could do with perfection. So much perfection, in fact, that it was too complex to ever see mass-production...

"Turning doesn't win battles!"

Who said so? ;)

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Kutscha]

quote:The only WW II-fighter with an internal bombbay, in fact.
montana, one of the Russian Yaks, the 9B, had an internal bomb bay that could hold 4 110kg bombs.

[montanamotor]

Well,

there's nothing new under the sun.

But you won't tell me, the Yak 9 has had two engines, 3 x 30 mm cannon and 3500 horsepower, either...? :D

By the way: The Yak 9 is one heck of a small airframe. Where would they have stored 4 x 110 kgs of bombs internally? In the pilot's compartment, leaving the flyer at home in exchange for more valuable "payload"...?????????

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Kutscha]

Bombs stored vertically behind the pilot.

http://www.russianny.com/newdesign/db/photo/index_photo.asp?todo=bigimg&imgid=7697

Note: did a bad conversion, should be 100kg.

[montanamotor]

Coool! [:p]

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[GregP]

Boy! You'd HATE to have an engine failure on takeoff with the bombs right behind your head!

Could ruin your whole day ...:D

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Tophe

quote:Originally posted by GregP

The Lockheed P-38 mounted the twin engines close to the center of gravity, so they did not greatly impede rate of pitch. They were also mounted fairly cose to the centerline (as close as possible), so they didn't really slow the rate of roll much either.
Dear Greg, this is right as "seriousness -1937" Lightning is concerned, but I prefer "dreams-1945" of Lightning-II.
- P-38Roll: No more war, no need of gun-nose anymore, the P-38 becoming just an acrobatic freak for airshows, a star with its weird twin-boom layout, so... the booms could come far closer to the centerline, freed by a shortened nose. To prevent from intermeshing propellers (dangerous when driven by separate engines), the port spinner/shaft is simply elongated...
- P-74C: With ejector seats coming available, the pusher propellers were less frightening, so… two tandem engines over the center of gravity are driven contra-rotating pusher-propellers...
- P-74N: With the 1942 ideas of Eng. Robert becoming public (see Patent GB605,641), lateral engines may drive central pusher-propellers without being cumbersome in the central pod, with "simply" gears and shafts...
As a conclusion: you were right as users were concerned, but engineers (and dreamers) may imagine "theoretically better"...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/Extra1/r_p38r_l.jpg



Nice work as usual Tophe.

Using gears and shafts it would be possible to place the engines in the centre nacelle and have the shafts drive contra props on slimmer booms, like the booms you have shown for your pusher type.

It would also be possible to move the booms closer and have intermeshing props, as the two props could be geared together (if this was desirable).

Looking at Tophe's P-74N made me think - did anyone ever try to put a turbojet in the rear of a Lightning's central nacelle?

[Kutscha]

Not quite but the Saab J21 had a simular layout.

[Tophe]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

* Using gears and shafts it would be possible to place the engines in the centre nacelle and have the shafts drive contra props on slimmer booms, like the booms you have shown for your pusher type.
* It would also be possible to move the booms closer and have intermeshing props, as the two props could be geared together (if this was desirable).
* Looking at Tophe's P-74N made me think - did anyone ever try to put a turbojet in the rear of a Lightning's central nacelle?
Thanks for these improvements, Wuzak...
So here is the batch of Wuzakheed P-74 Lightning II (if I have well understood):
- P-74Ro2: P-74Rol with intermeshing propellers geared together
- P-74J: P-74N with jet
- P-74OSh: P-74C with central engine(s) driving lateral propellers like on the Soviet Bedunkovich OSh
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/Extra1/r_p38r_o.jpg

[Wuzak]

Precisely what I meant Tophe. :D

I think you and Lightning should get onto the JSF team and make them change it to a twin boomer.

[Lightning]

Hi Wuzak,

Quoting you:
quote:did anyone ever try to put a turbojet in the rear of a Lightning's central nacelle?
Over 10 years ago there was a series of movies titled "Iron Eagle." In one of them, the plot involved using old WWII fighters flown by old WWII aces from the various combatants of the war. They rigged up a phony jet engine on the P-38!

The movie itself was a dog, but I really enjoyed the scenes of the warbird actors. (Except that, if I remember correctly, the "Zero" was a "Tora" AT-6, and the "Messerschmitt" was a painted-up P-51.)
quote:I think you and Lightning should get onto the JSF team and make them change it to a twin boomer.

What a great idea!!! Since you came up with it, Wuzak, you'll have to lead the team! When is our initial program review? :D

Regards,
Lightning

[Wuzak]

I think we need to act fast........


http://www.jsf.mil/