Olham 164 Posted October 18, 2015 I even find it - sexy! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hood 2 Posted October 18, 2015 Olham,can you tell me, in simple one-syllable words how to do that ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Olham 164 Posted October 18, 2015 (edited) Olham,can you tell me, in simple one-syllable words how to do that ? You mean, to upload a photo, Hood? Well, you need the image as a Jpeg, on your computer. Best you move it to "Desktop". Next, you click under the last post on "Reply", and then on "More Reply Options", right below the answering frame, in the right corner. An additional bit will open. There you click on the "Search" button (right under "Attach Files"). You must now click your way through to where the image is - for example to "Desktop", if it is 'parked' there. Then you click on "Attach This File". When it appears, you can click on "Add to post" to make it appear in the post. That's about it. Good luck! Edited October 18, 2015 by Olham Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hood 2 Posted October 18, 2015 (edited) Thanks for your very clear instructions Olham but when i get the photos on the Reply page they are huge and require much scrolling to see.How do I reduce their size? Edited October 18, 2015 by hood Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Olham 164 Posted October 18, 2015 Hmm... No idea what programs you have; and i may not know them anyway; I use Photoshop. I guess with GIMP or PAINT it could be loaded, then the size changed, and saved again. Anyone here, who knows a basic proggy that comes with WINDOWS? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hood 2 Posted October 18, 2015 This was taken in Northern Luzon about May/June 1945.That's me on the right. The two American soldiers belong to a mortar platoon of the 37th US Infantry Division. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JimAttrill 24 Posted October 19, 2015 There is a Micro$oft photo resizer that you can download. It is handy because all you have to do is right-click on the photo in Expoder and the option is there. I normally take photos down to less than 200k before posting them. They look the same on the screen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Olham 164 Posted October 19, 2015 Ah, you got it done, great! Interesting to see a photo from that period, which is now history. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hood 2 Posted October 19, 2015 Thanks Jim.I will make a note of that. Olham, At my age I feel almost prehistoric most of the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Olham 164 Posted October 19, 2015 (edited) Olham, At my age I feel almost prehistoric most of the time. Mmuahahahahaaa!!! Yeah, you have seen so much already, and you learned to know different times and a different society. I guess it can even get hard to face where everything has come to these days? But that's life. I have only seen the film "Battle of Britain" and find it was a long time ago - but you have lived, when it really happened! My mum had been in the Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) and enjoyed it, before she was later getting shocked, when the whole truth about that regime came up. I often think: how many changes she has already seen and gone through... Edited October 19, 2015 by Olham Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hauksbee 103 Posted October 23, 2015 ...when i get the photos on the Reply page they are huge and require much scrolling to see.How do I reduce their size? Hood: There is a program in Windows already that will do it. It's called (not surprisingly), "Paint". You'll find it by clicking on the Windows logo at the far left bottom of your screen. (the "START" menu). Scroll down to "Accessories". "Paint" will be in that folder. If you think you'll be using it a lot, right-click on the Paint icon and (from the pop-up menu) select either "Pin to Start Menu" or, "Pin to Task Bar", and it will always be handy. Once you open Paint, just follow the bouncing ball shown below: . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hood 2 Posted October 26, 2015 Many thanks Hauksbee,that will be very usefull.My apologies for not achnowledging your post earlier but I haven't checked in for a while.RL does get in the way at times. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capitaine Vengeur 263 Posted October 26, 2015 I'll have a read of Captain Brown's book (he is still alive, believe it or not, at about 92) to see what he says about the Me109. As a person who flew just about every aircraft of that era he is generally very unbiased about any aircraft. The 'worst' aircraft he flew were British! I had read somewhere that Marcel Détroyat, the authoritative test pilot who convinced France to put a mass order on American Curtiss P-36 (Hawk 75 A in the French AdA), also tried the Spitfire and gave a strongly unfavourable verdict about ordering this aircraft, mostly due to its narrow landing gear. During the Battle of France, the Hawk did wonders against the 109E lacking armor, but lacking cannons, it often had to let German bombers escape while as holey as colanders. The problem was the same with the Spitfire and Hurricane during the Battle of Britain. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Olham 164 Posted October 26, 2015 ... Marcel Détroyat ... tried the Spitfire and gave a strongly unfavourable verdict about ordering this aircraft, mostly due to its narrow landing gear. A problem that the "Spit" had in common with it's German counterpart, the Bf109. Landing a Hurricane or a Focke-Wulf must have been a much safer feeling. Only landings that would have been worse than landing "Spits" or a "Messerschmidts" with their narrow landing gears, would be to land WITHOUT the gear down... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capitaine Vengeur 263 Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) A problem that the "Spit" had in common with it's German counterpart, the Bf109. Landing a Hurricane or a Focke-Wulf must have been a much safer feeling. Only landings that would have been worse than landing "Spits" or a "Messerschmidts" with their narrow landing gears, would be to land WITHOUT the gear down... Yes, landing the FW-190 may be safer than landing the 109. But after readings and repeated personal experience in UbiSoft's Il-2, taking-off is a really different matter. I won't say that the 190A killed as many rookies in take-offs as the 109 in landings, yet there may have been quite a number of them. By the way, about the most beautiful German fighter, I would place the Ta-152 above the 190D, IMHO. Looks like a glider with a Formula One engine! Indeed, landing without the gear down may prove lethal. One of the best French aces of WW2 died in such a stupid manner. Pierre Le Gloan, controversial for having scored 7 out of his 18 kills against the RAF in Syria, converted to USAAF planes after Operation Torch. In 1943, he experienced malfunctions while flying a P-39, and had to come back to base for a belly landing. Not his first crash-landing, after all. The problem is that as an old-generation pilot, he was not familiar with the belly tank his plane was carrying, and completely forgot to drop it before crash-landing his plane. Everything ended in a great fireball... Edited October 26, 2015 by Capitaine Vengeur Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Olham 164 Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) Yes, landing the FW-190 may be safer than landing the 109. But after readings and repeated personal experience in UbiSoft's Il-2, taking-off is a really different matter. I won't say that the 190 killed as many rookies in take-offs as the 109 in landings, yet there may have been quite a number of them. Well, the Bf109 was dangerous at landings AND at starts. It was said to have a tendency to break out to the left, and if it did, even experienced pilots couldn't get to grips with her again. One (forgot his name) even ran his Bf109 all the way through a barack, when his starting run went bad. By the way, about the most beautiful German fighter, I would place the Ta-152 above the 190D, IMHO.Looks like a glider with a Formula One engine! Yes, indeed. And a glider/sailplane must have been the inspiration for a high altitude fighter, which was meanly meant to be a bomber interceptor. Kurt Tank once flew a prototype himself - unarmed - when he ran into an American Mustang patrol. He pushed the throttle forward and flew away from them. Their faces must have been priceless! But the wide wingspan doesn't give it a true fighter appearance IMHO - so I'll stick with the D-9; or the D-12. Not his first crash-landing, after all. The problem is that as an old-generation pilot, he was not familiar with the belly tank his planewas carrying, and completely forgot to drop it before crash-landing his plane. Everything ended in a great fireball... Argh! Nasty! The kind of thing that might have happened to me all the time. (Well, not if it was lethal - Mmuahahahahaaa!!!) I guess as a real fighter pilot, you should have good awareness, and great concentration on the necessary. Edited October 26, 2015 by Olham Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Olham 164 Posted October 26, 2015 PS: ...look at that taxiing bit early on in this video, where the pilot makes a great curve around a ground crew man! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hauksbee 103 Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) ..about the most beautiful German fighter, I would place the Ta-152 above the 190D, IMHO. I'd have to disagree. The Fw-190 is perfect just the way it is. (If it ain't broke, don't fix it!) 'Ran into an interesting snippet of info about landing the Me-109: it was possible to lock its swiveling tail wheel in the straight-ahead position. When flying from rough forward operating bases, pilots would lock the wheel on final approach and set down in a perfect (hopefully) 3-point landing. Done properly, the 109 would keep to a straight line. Edited October 26, 2015 by Hauksbee Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Olham 164 Posted October 26, 2015 Well, the tail wheel wasn't the problem. It may have helped a bit to lock it. But if you ever get the chance to stand behind a BF109 during an engine warm up run, you will realise what power the engine produced on the propeller. And the prop wind spiral, running around the fuselage, hit the rudder fin quite hard. They had to counter that with the right amount of right rudder. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hauksbee 103 Posted October 26, 2015 Aha! That explains (I think) the rudder action on the Me-109 seen in one of your other recent videos. The one where he touches down (you can see the splash of water as he runs through a puddle) and the rudder goes full left, then full left again and again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hauksbee 103 Posted October 27, 2015 (edited) A couple of screenies downloaded from Cliffs of Dover Forum Gallery. . . Edited October 27, 2015 by Hauksbee Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JFM 18 Posted October 28, 2015 What is that image in post #41? Digital art? Where did that come from and is there more? Looks fantastic! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Olham 164 Posted October 28, 2015 What is that image in post #41? Digital art? Where did that come from and is there more? Looks fantastic! Believe it or not, it is a model, Jim! Here is the German modeller website I got it from - there are many more such "hotties". http://www.ta-152.de/category/modellbau/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JFM 18 Posted October 28, 2015 Awesome. That guy is talented! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JimAttrill 24 Posted October 31, 2015 That is one amazing model! The first balsa model I made was of a D-9. I painted it bright yellow but was scared to try to fly it as none of those scale models flew well, if at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
