Author Topic: Me 209  (Read 3125 times)

Offline MAINER

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 607
Re: Me 209
« Reply #60 on: January 19, 2012, 06:48:02 AM »
I think DaddyKev needs to get in here and get naked...

 :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Are those our bombers?-famous last words



 Member of the congregation of The church of David Wales

Offline davidwales

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 441
Re: Me 209
« Reply #61 on: January 19, 2012, 09:40:44 AM »
anyway back to the me 209 , i know evz is a wealth of knowledge and all your information is very much appreciated the he -11 could have been another aircraft that may have taken its place had production not been stopped :airplane:

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Me 209
« Reply #62 on: January 19, 2012, 09:45:16 AM »
First flight   1 August 1938
Number built   4

Nope wasn't in production.
JG 52

Offline dirtdart

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1847
Re: Me 209
« Reply #63 on: January 19, 2012, 03:18:26 PM »
The T13E1 was a cannon.

ack-ack

A..Ha!  for some reason, don't ask me why, I thought it was a derivative of the 75mm Pack Howitzer.  I did not know it was a lighter version of the same 75mm Gun on the Sherman et al.  To be clear, in the army we define artillery armaments into three categories, Mortars, Howitzers, and Cannon.  The categories are based on their trajectories.  A tank has a "Gun", not a cannon.  Once mounted in an airplane, I really did not know where it would fall in nomenclature wise.  Thanks.  :aok
If you are not GFC...you are wee!
Put on your boots boots boots...and parachutes..chutes...chutes.. .
Illigitimus non carborundum

Offline SectorNine50

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1331
Re: Me 209
« Reply #64 on: January 19, 2012, 04:14:49 PM »
This thread is absurd... :confused:
I'm Sector95 in-game! :-D