Re: Advanced V1's
- From: "vaughn" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:45:44 -0400
"Tinzinious Nicklefritz" <1978c1a@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e2a5cb4f-0433-47fa-af99-3a2bfc7fe55d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Semantic tap dancing.
How does any of that gibberish negate the ancestral validity of a
track launched, gyroscopically navigated design that was flight tested
a full 25 years before the V1?
In fact, the V1 apparently copied the Bug's method of determining
distance traveled. Yep! By counting the turns of a prop.
Operational or not, the cruise missile/flying bomb both as a concept
and testable flying hardware predates the V1 by a significant margin.
Not only that, the Bug was actually built in significant quantities. I
have seen various numbers, but there were at least dozens of the things
built. The war ended, and so did the need for, and the interest in, the
Bug. That said, there was still use for the technology. In the lineage of
the cruise missile, one must include the various generations of the humble
target drone.
I do not dispute the importance of the V1. It is not going too far to call
it the grandfather of all cruise missiles. Certainly it was slavishly
copied (and improved on) by the world's governments for years after WWII.
But even grandfathers have parents!
Vaughn
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Advanced V1's
- From: Rob
- Re: Advanced V1's
- References:
- Advanced V1's
- From: Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds
- Re: Advanced V1's
- From: Gordon
- Re: Advanced V1's
- From: Rob
- Re: Advanced V1's
- From: Tinzinious Nicklefritz
- Re: Advanced V1's
- From: Rob
- Re: Advanced V1's
- From: Tinzinious Nicklefritz
- Advanced V1's
- Prev by Date: Re: Advanced V1's
- Next by Date: Re: Gordon, ever hear of Lindi Schumann???
- Previous by thread: Re: Advanced V1's
- Next by thread: Re: Advanced V1's
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|