caldrail

There were saxon populations in the Thames Valley during Roman times and I know that sdaxon burials have been found in Wiltshire (not far south of me) that confirm habitation of the area at the same time. As far as I know however there are no older germanic settlements in Britain. It appears the Gauls did that first with two succesive migrations that heralded in the Iron Age in Britain. That doesn't discount small numbers arriving individually, just that there's no evidence to show for it. In fact, although Britain is visible from the Pas De Calais coastline, it was the gauls who occupied those sites and who had problems with the german tribes further east, thus the germanic tribes of inner europe at least had other things to worry about. Further, it's questionable whether the saxons had any tradition of sailing and piracy before the Romans came to their attention. If they did, it was so small scale to avoid our attention. I have sometimes speculated that the saxons learned about ship-building from Roman contact, and that later that knowledge reached the vikings who developed it further and used it so notoriously.

You are correct. Some aircraft weren't amenable to development as like the Hurricane or P40, revisions and redesigns never caught on, whereas aeroplanes like the Spitfire changed considerable\y over the course of the war and in fact the later versions were virtually new aircraft designs with different engines. One of the most significant variations was of course the engine itself. The early mustangs for instance had poor altitude performance from their allison v12's, but when fitted with supercharged merlins, became one of the better fighters of the war - and arguably, one of the most significant in the european theatre of war because the long range of later versions meant bombers could reach Berlin with escort, thus forcing the Germans to hold back valuable fighter strength in defence. However, with the general migration toward more powerful engines we have to accept that aircraft also needed to carry more weight, such as fuel, bombs, ammunition, as adaptions to changing war conditions and filling roles that would otherwise need expensive and long winded design work to produce new designs. Although in terms of performance aircraft were obviously improving, that's not neceessarily true of important qualities like handling. Most fighters suffered in terms of 'flyability' as their weight escalated, though in fairness this was obvious to aircraft manufacturers who went to considerable length to eradicate any dangerous tendencies in flight behaviour.

The Romans ate meat but the availability of it was another matter. You could of course buy the Roman equivalent of a burger from street vendors. Handouts of exotic meat from animals hunted in the arena and butchered afterward was a regular feature of imperial life, not to mention a welcome bonus for the poor. Legionary camps show the remains of cooked animals. However, the Romans of the early republic were derided as 'porridge eaters' by other cultures.

Once again the weathermen have triumphed. The storms have crossed the west country overnight and left us with a wet and rainy day. In fact this rain is a bit unseasonal, but at least it wasn't a hurricane. By chance I was watching CBS news last night. I wouldn't normally bother because for some reason I can't fathom, american news channels are almost unfathomable. Not this time. The arrival of Hurricane Irene was causing worry for everyone living on the east coast and it seems weather of that scale is something that happens only once every 75 years. It reminded me of one particular in 1987. A friend of mine worked for a logistics company but because he'd gotten off with a lady at one of his drop-off points, he wanted a day off every week to bonk her senseless, so he got me to sub in for him which was fine because the cash in hand was useful to me. The problem was that no-one realised we were going to get a hurricane. So I set off early one morning to discover that southern england had been turned into a warzone, with trees uprooted everywhere and lorries overturned in droves. I guess the earth might not have moved her that day, but pretty much everything else did. Pickups Come Of Age Awhile back Top Gearproved beyond shadow of a doubt how impossible it was to stop a Toyota Hilux pickup truck from working. It was an imppressive level of toughness, but I sort of wondered at why a vehicle built for such mundane purposes needed the ability to survive armageddon as a selling point. As I continue to watch events unfolding in Libya, it occurs to me that at last the pickup truck has found its true vocation. I always wondered what people did with that useless space on the back. Now I see the point of it, as trucks drove here and there with 20mm AA quad cannons or missile launcher twinpacks. I wonder if the Australians wish they'd thought of it as they rebelled against the evil kangaroo regime. A few heavy weapons might have swung it for them. On the other hand, perhaps the autralians had indeed seen the future, as Libya turns ever more toward a real life Mad Max. Pickups Of The Future This morning I noticed that astronomers have discovered a planet apparently made of diamonds. it's four thousand light years away, and orbits a nasty neutron star, so getting your wage slaves there and back with spaceships full of expensive conumer luxuries isn't going to be easy. We defintely need the interstellar equivalent of a pickup truck. Perhaps the original Star Trek was again being a little prophetic because some of those symbols on starfleet sweatshirts look remarkably like Toyota badges.

I doubt they go faster than gravitational pull. The below suggests to me that weight is always helping push you into a faster dive. But GRANTED the effect will be small and sometimes washed out by factors of a low drag design or powerful engine. We're talking WW2 fighters here. They're quick aeroplanes to begin with, and believe me, aeroplanes accelerate even quicker when they're pointed downhill. A crash at Thruxton in the 90's saw a Beech Baron stall and nose in from 400 feet, hitting the ground at more than four times its original flying speed. You cannot achieve thrust by creating drag. Radiators create drag. They are designed to cool engines. They are not engines in themselves. You do not obtain thrust from radiators. All you casn achieve is to minimise drag. You cannot create thrust by forward motion alone - that breaks the laws of physics no matter what that article claims - in order to change interia, you need to add force by using additional energy, and since a radiator is designed to dissipate that energy, I don't see any evidence for your statements. Incidentially your estimations of aeroplane factors aremn't that accurate. The P47 is, according to you, a draggy aeroplane. That was a criticism applied to radial engined fighters before WW2, and it was proved wrong. The teardrop shape is better aerodynamically than that despite the blunt face (which allows some air passage through it via cooling gills) and if proof were needed, I would like to point out that the P47 accelerated well and had a high top speed, so clearly drag was not that great an issue.

I understand your point but strictly speaking that experience is only valid for the period the historian fought in. Also, it would tend to colour his opinions toward periods which don't necessarily conform to the psychology, methodology, and organisational emphasis he is familiar with. There's far too much scope for taking things out of context, especially now that the widespread use of the internet allows some extraordinary myths to be spawned and disseminated. In fact, military experience is not a guarantee of historical authority. How can anyone know exactly what the Roman legions were actually like unless they served in them? The Romans tell us various things, but notice how easily their writings are conveniently ignored if someone is constructing a comparative model with their own experience? The magic word is context - something soldiers are never too hot on.

You don't have to look very hard to find stately homes in englands green and pleasant land. So prevalent was the landscaped parkland of the 18th century that people believe english countryside is supposed to look like that. Therefore to get our cultural fix, we english people sometime visit these stately homes and their pastoral surroundings. I've been dragged around a fair few stately homes as a child. They all seemed to be the same. Pastel labyrinths of grandiose furniture and anonymous portraits of very important people. The thing is, for all the display of opulence and excess, I always found it impossible to imagine life in the homes of the rich and powerful. Perhaps when I become rich and powerful I'll finally understand. I think the government have discerned my master plan because now they're planning a Mansion Tax. I've been visiting the grounds of Lydiard Park, our local stately home, since I was a child. Back then it really was in the countryside. Now it's a popular venue for walking dogs and kicking footballs for the local residents, although none of them could afford to live there either. Given the neighbours would use the front lawn as a playground, I can see why they wouldn't want to if they could afford it. But in all that time I've never been inside the house itself. Yesterday I was invited to visit that very house. Yes, I know, the first thing you see is a pastel labyrinth of grandiose furniture and anonymous portraits of very important people. That is of course expected of a stately home and indeed, it always was, even when they were lived in. And what a crowd lived in that house over the years. Some of them were important politicians in their day. One was a hellraising horse fanatic. One member of the family, Barbara Villiers, turns out to have been a lover of Charles II. She was, by all accounts, utterly shameless. Mind you so was he. That of course was the usual public tour. Everyone who goes inside the house discovers these things. However, as an invited guest, I got to see their cellars. Not a single skeleton. Imagine my disappointment. After years of Dungeons & Dragons you learn to expect certain standards. Better yet was a visit to the attic level. After following the crude walkways under the rafters I was shown small bedrooms here and there, tiny hovels for servants to stay out of the way when not being bossed about. No skeletons there either, but quite an insight to life among the slightly less well off in the days when owning a stately home was financially possible. Palace of the Week Of course if you own oil reserves a palace might not be beyond your resources, although I do note that it's difficult to avoid intervention from the armed forces of the western world if you do. Saddam Hussein owned thirty odd palaces and look what happened to him. I had to laugh at the news reports now that libyan rebels have broken in to one of Gaddafi's oil-funded homes. Expensive clothes? Conspicuous consumption? Why was anyone suprised?

The possibilty of slaves running away to find freedom in the legions was the reason that penalties existed for slaves who got caught trying it. There was of course the problem that although admired as fighters, slaves were not the same status as citizens, and therefore to fight alongside as equals in what was regarded as an admirable profession meant not only that these slaves were somehow as good as citizens, but also that the citizens were no better than slaves. As it happens I'm really not that bothered what you call the slave militias of Otho's defence other than we note that regarding them in the same way as legionaries, or even auxillaries, would have been scandalous and insulting to Roman sensibilities. That was after all the most likely motivation for the absence of their commanders before the crossing of the river took place.

The phrase 'allies' is used because gladiators were not accorded warrior status among legionaries, were not trained for military service (despite skills at arms they performed badly as soldiers), and there's no indication of whether the gladiators were volunteers or indentured into military service. It's worth remembering that gladiators were slaves and as such, not technically human and thus not accorded what passed for human rights in Roman culture. It would seem perfectly reasonable from that point of view to describe them as allies as they aren't regulars nor mercenaries in any accepted sense. At some point definitions become.. What's the word?... But I'm sure you don't to get into that argument again.

Even as late as last night the weather map on television was not encouraging. Great swathes of bright blue covered southern england and that means rain. Wet weather is a fact of life in Britain. British tradition is to start conversations with strangers about the weather. Our country is famous for getting wet. I'm not quite that famous, but I do get wet now and then myself. The promised downpoor has already passed us by. It's still damp and grey out there, but most people are plodding around in tee-shirts and shorts, typical summer wear. Big C plods into the library foyer wearing his standard rubber flip-flops. Actually, that's not entirely true. The older people are draping raincoats over the chairs as they sit down for their computer session on a library computer. Experience you see. They've had years of getting caught out by british weather just as much as me. it's the youngsters who generally brave a drenchuing by refusing to wimp out with proper protective clothing. perhaps they have good reason. The fashion police have taken to drinking at a pub just along the road, a converted ex-cinema with street-side seating which has become popular in Britain lately, in clear violation of every ounce of commonsense when dealing with the British weather. Anyhow, these people do like commenting on passers-by. Sadly I don't score very highly in their estimations and thus run the gauntlet of a drubbing as I stroll by. Funnily enough I don't drink there. Once you get judged on what what you wear rather than what you do, it's time to move on. Sadly this also includes many employers whose younger managers deem office fashion as the defining factor for success. That means I don't have enough money to socialise with the fashion dummies of the pub down the road. Not that it matters. Laugh Now! So much of our culture has become judgemental. We have programs like Big Brother where idiots are voted out of the house if they don't amuse the public sufficiently. Programs like X Factor try to sift through the ranks of the talentless for that next big break, but actually getting there is diminished by the opportunity to judge the ham-fisted numpties and don't we all enjoy their tantrums when their efforts are slighted? Then there's endless programs showing members of the public falling over, bumping into things, or watching helpless while an ordinary day collapses around their ears. Someone has an accident and we're being taught that this is funny? Listen Now! Most of the news is concerned with the advance of rebels in Libya and the possible overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi. I must admit, the rantings of that female newsreader in Tripoli as she waved her pistol around and threatened to shoot anyone who came into her studio made me laugh. I'm sure she was serious, but realistically, how long was that hissy fit going to keep rebels armed with automatic rifles at bay? She is, I 'm afraid, in danger of becoming unfashionable.

You misunderstood what I meant. Gladiators were employed as soldiers now and then, never successfully (not just because of battle performance, but also because of social issues), but the phrase 'regular' applies to soldiers signed on as professionals for a fixed term of service as opposed to troops hurriedly raised as an emergency measure as 'allies'. I realise our sources don't actually differentiate when discussin the events of ad64, but neither do they suggest the employment of gladiators as soldiers was a permanent situation, and indeed the only reason the story is detailed is because of the folly of employing slave lowlifes in an honourable capacity. To us, it's a historical oddity. To the Romans, it was more scandalous.

I can see the phrase 'net thrust' is causing confusion. I would never use the term, it's inherently misleading and used out of context in many cases, especially by internet experts. 'Gross Thrust' (though no-one ever uses that term) is what the engine gives you. For all intents and purposes, it's a fixed value for our calculation. The engine will only give you so much thrust. That's the only source of impetus in straight and level flight. You cannot find anything else to push the aeroplane forward against inertia. So we'll simply call it 'thrust', yes? By definition, 'net thrust' means the impetus left after losses are factored in, which means drag and so forth, because ineffeciencies in the engine are measured at the output end in which case are already factored in our thrust figure. Therefore, an increase in 'net thrust' is not added impetus, but a decrease in drag or external inefficincies which allow more of the 'thrust' to be effectively used. I recommend you ignore the term 'net thrust'. It's hugely misleading and remains an artifical concept. It's called compressibility because that was all they understood. As speed increased an aircraft usually buffeted and broke up. They did not understand the aerodynamics of transonic flight and hadn't even invented the term to cover it. This sort of thing is typical of the nonsense I see posted about aeroplanes on the internet by people who have the benefit of hindsight and cannot discuss aviation without reference to modern aerodynamics and aircraft features. The Gotha 229 is regaularly described as a 'stealth fighter' now. Nonsense. Even if Reimar Horten believed the shape would deflect radar emissions (it wouldn't - that shape reflects radar like any other curved surface) or included charcoal in the glue to absorb radar (it wouldn't - the radar boubnces off the external surface and the wooden part of the airframe was restricted to the outer wing panels), these were likely to be retrospective comments quoted out of context. No-one was building stealth fighters in 1945 and note that no-one (including Reimar Horten) said anything about stealth technology before the phrase was regularly touted on the internet. Whilst I'm not disputing the evident superiority of the Corsair, please bear in mind that the Hellcat socred 400 kills for 18 losses in the Marianas Turkey Shoot. It was also employed succesfully after WW2, and also employed succesfully against german and italian opposition in smaller numbers. yet pilots of the P47 were very enthusiastic about their mounts. I think you might be quoting internet experts there. So did all the other US fighters toward the wars end. There weren't enough luftwaffe aircraft left to go around. Never ever believe anything you hear said on television documentaries. They are extremely suspect sources of information. In any case, a pilots vulnerability was hardly likely to be a point of target. Aircraft were targeted as a whole and what you actually hit depended on all sorts of factors, whivh is why pilots were taught to get up close. Physics 101. All objects fall at the same speed, and I quote the experiment of a hammer and a feather dropped on the moon that did impact at the same time. However, a storch is nowhere near as fast an aeroplane as the P47 nor lacks the accelerative potential, and since it's inherently a draggier design, it reaches it's terminal velocity sooner (assuming it's still in one piece). I would suggest you be more discerning in your choice of sources when learning about aeroplanes, and get some instruction on the fundamentals of physics and aerodynamics which you clearly lack. Coming out with this sort of stuff doesn;'t impress me. I might not be an expert as such, but I have dealth with aircraft design before and have practical experience of aviation spanning some thirty years or more. Also, I remember the time when people read aviation publications that were written by serious authors, not sensationalist journalists chasing ideas on the internet.

Here we go then, monday morning. By the time I've posted this most people have alreadty had the bad news from their boss or failed utterly to get to work thanks to illness, car reliability, road maintenance, idiot drivers, or simply a desire to avoid monday morning at all. I'm not one for pulling 'sickies' but I know some people do. There used to be a guy at work who always seemed to phone in sick every friday. His boss realised quickly he was getting drunk on thursday evening with a paypacket in his hand. So he got every friday off unpaid, with moday to thursday thrown in as a bonus. That wasn't me, by the way. One Of Our Arrows Is Missing Over the weekend I looked out the back window as I often do when I want to get a breath of fresh air and save myself from tearing my hair out with yet another dispute over who whether me or my computor is in charge. Among the ragged grey and white clouds stretching toward the horizon I could see what looked like a trail of smoke from an air display somewhere. It was a curious omen because I later discovered the tragic news of a Red Arrows aircraft crashing after a display at Bournemouth. In my younger days the Red Arrows regularly got featured on the annual televised broadcast of the Farnborough Airshow. Raymond Baxter would provide the commentary in perfect queens english and at the end of the show he would say "And here come the Red Arrows..." It was expected. Part of British culture, in a way, but then people were more air-minded back then. I've only seen the Red Arrows live once during a Great Warbirds display at Wroughton in the nineties. The show had gone quiet and everyone knew they were arriving shortly. I happened to look over my shoulder and they they were, approaching low and fast across the english countryside before blasting overhead barely more two hundred feet over the audience before going into a low level routine that I have to say was incredibly impressive. Naturally I'm saddened that one highly skilled pilot has lost his life in the entertainment of the crowd and the advertisement of RAF flying skills. Things can happen very quickly in aviation especially when you're in a fast aeroplane. I've been lucky during my flying career. Although I've had close calls here and there, nothing happened that was actually serious. Only once did I wonder if I'd blown it spectacularly but as it transpired I got out of that predicament unscated . For some people though, luck runs out, and as my instructors used to impress upon me at every opportunity, low flying is inherently dangerous. They were right. Douglas Bader lost his legs before WW2 because he responded to a taunt and disobeyed orders regarding low flying and aerobatics in his Bulldog fighter. It is ironic that someone whose inspirational determination to get back in the cockpit was the result of his own foolishness, but I can't take his personal courage away from him. I also remember a tale about two typhoon pilots who decided to indulge in a mock dogfight during a training mission. Being competitive types, neither would give in, and they ended up chasing each other between trees with engines bellowing, completely unable to grasp the risks they were putting themselves in. I'm not suggesting for a moment that the pilot at Bournemouth was doing anything foolhardy, being a professional and highly trained air force officer in the modern safety minded world. Flying isn't actually dangerous as such. Rather it's a very unforgiving enviroment when something goes horribly wrong. That so few accidents happen regarding aeroplanes is a testament to the efforts made by authorities, air traffic control, engineers, and those very same pilots themselves to prevent disasters. I remember an in-cockpit film of a test pilot trying out a new helicopter, commenting on why he was constantly looking out the window rather than concentrating on the camera and his commentary. He explained "There are three things I want to take care of. An expensive aircraft, my passengers, but most of all, me."

It is called the Meridith effect, and was apparently introduced in the Spitfire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_Effect . Same principle as a nuclear thermal rocket - apply a heat source to incoming fluid and expel the expanding fluid in a way that provides some thrust without stagnanting the incoming fluid flow. I think some confusion comes from sloppy wording that implies oil coolers provide NET thrust rather than a partial offset of the vent's drag. I speculate that the Spitfire offsets a tiny part of the oil cooler drag, and the Mustang offsets a small amount. The effect is insignificant. Unfortunately for fans of jet mustangs, there's something called thermodynamics which gets in the way. Part of that is the fact you cannot get something for nothing. In order to provide thrust you need to supply energy in such a way as to push the aeroplane forward. The whole point of a radiator is to get rid of that heat. There is no function of a radiator that mysteriously pushes an aeroplane forward. If you ran a mustang on the ground without a propellor, I guarantee it won't go anywhere. Quite why anyone imagines a P51 has anything in common with a nuclear thermal rocket is beyond me. You have to understand that over the last few decades there's been a lot of re-invention of world war two aeroplanes fuelled by sensationalist reporting particularly on television, whose authority on technical subects usually borders on the laughable. But this meredith effect? Put your hand in front of your face and blow on it. Not diifcult I guess, and you feel the impact of moving air on your hand. Now do the same but blow down a drinking straw. The air definitely feels like it's a more powerful draught doesn't it? Strictly speaking, it is. However you might want to note how harder it is to blow down the tube and that the overall effect is is limited in scope, and in the case of the P51 does not provide any measurable net thrust compared to the backdraft of the propellor and instead does what I said it did in the first place, reducing drag by forming a boundary layer control under the rear fuselage. The P51 wasn't designed for transonic speeds. No-one in 1941 knew anything about transonic flight or even if it was possible. The spitfire has two underwing coolers in the early versions but I understand they cool different things and the assymetric aspect was a solution to aerodynamic and engineering compromise. As for the BV155, the position of the intakes had nothing to do with torque whatsoever. It's an engineering issue. They were present on both sides afterall. The Hellcat was still a capable aeroplane in 1945 if not a podium finish anymore, such is the progress of performance. I would like to point out that removal of a type from service removes those airframes from action, and unless you can have better replacements available, you have no choice but to contiue using the older ones. In any case, the Hellcat was not regarded as a poor design, and remained competitive at the end of the war because it was still flying against older japanese aircraft. The japanese were never able to supply their newer and more capable aeroplanes wholesale. High altitude performace is necessary if the enemy are going to fly higher than you. Further, as an escort fighter, high altitude performance was necessary to protect high flying bomber formations. Further, air begins to thin appreciably from 8000ft above sea level thus to be competitive at twice that height, the only way to derive maximum output from an engine was to supercharge it in some way, and the P47 employed turbines for that purpose. Ducts do not provide any particular protection for the pilot being built of sheet metail which is easily penetrated by cannon rounds. Weight means very little regarding dive performance since the aeroplane is accelerating faster than gravitional pull.

The use of horses was an expedient measure used in the field for convenience. Sometimes transport wasn't available, or they had no fuel, or simply that roads were impassible to vehicles. Also, we have to realise that although the Germans did experiment with some clever stuff (such as camera guided missiles - yes, they really tried that) a lot of it was the first steps in those fields and thus prone to development and operational problems. Production in Germany peeked in early to mid 1944 despite the allied bombing effort because of dispertion and camouflage initiatives. However, the emphasis of allied bombing changed to disrupting field supplies before D-Day because the allied high command correctly ascertained that fuel was Germany's achilles heal. In terms of exotic ideas remember that the german authorities quoshed a lot of them. Many of those wierd and wonderful early jet designs were put in front of the air ministry and refused contracts and funding. Also, the Germans had to focus on strategy and couldn't afford to wander off at all manner of strange tangents, though the search for a advantage in their ever more desperate defense of the Reich would mean that creativity had an necessary outlet.

Sculptures are not reliable sources as in at least one case they show soldiers without armour at all. That wasn't to depict vulnerable infantrymen but to avoid distracting the viewer from the central figure by unnecessary detail, although we also have to concede that sometimes the Romans painted details on rather than carved them, thus the information available to us is hampered by weathering.

Regarding thrust from a P51 radiator, this a common urban myth caused by a misunderstanding (or complete ignorance of) the physics and engineering involved. There's a lot of such myths floating around at the moment unfortunately. Liquid cooled engines transfer heat generated by combustion and friction via the coolant to the radiator where the heat is allowed to escape the system. In effect, this transfer of heat therefore occurs twice. The coolant circulates in the sytem so the heat does not boil the fluid - which renders the cooling system temprarily inoperative - and the fluid is exposed to moving air in the radiator to get rid of that heat by 'wind chill'. Think about that. If you stand in a strong wind, the movement of air past you will cool you down. There is no thrust moving you into wind, and in fact, the wind is forced to go around you, thus causing pressure and a static 'drag' effect. It's no different for radiators. They stand in the way of airflow and cause drag. The air passing through is warmed momentarily and continues on its way. The amount of heat carried off by each molecule is not huge but the total effect is a lifesaver for engines. For this reason however there is no rapid expanison of air, because the amount of warming is slow and uncontained. Therefore there's no pressure other than the airflow pushing through thus no pre-explosive expansion to create thrust. I know it's sometimes quoted that exhaust pipes are angled backward to produce a measure of thrust. That's correct. A small amount of air and volatile fuel mixed together in a confined space creates a lot of pressure when ignited, so much so that it pushes a piston that turns a crankshaft that rotates a propeller that makes an aeroplane go. So inevitably, the expansion rate of combusting fuel/air is enough to cause a small amount of thrust when sent back through a directed exhaust. In other words, the only way to get thrust from a radiator is to dump fuel into the back of it and ignite it. But if you do that, how does that cool the engine? If you find that your radiator is creating thrust, I would recommend you consider leaving the aeroplane as soon as possible because in that hypothetical situation your engine has but minutes to live.

Well, some say the laminar (non turbulent) flow airfoil design did the trick but others say laminarity was lost the moment you hit some insects or raindrops. Others claim the oil cooler cancelled out it's drag with a bit of hot air thrust vs. much draggier competing designs. But it was really key that Mustangs needed the British engine upgrade or else it was mediocre. Aaargh! There is no thrust from the radiator efflux whatsoever. Quite the reverse. The advantage, as recognised by the designers of the 1938 Napier-heston racer, was that a radiator in such a position produced cleaner boundary layer air under the rear fuselage and thus that reduced drag. No. The position of the turbocharger wasn't uncommon in those days. The P38 fitted theirs in the tail booms. The german BV155 design has huge intakes in the mid-rear fuselage for this reason. It's a matter of engineering a turbocharger large enough to boost an aero engine of 20 or 30 litres in capacity and still balance the airframe. Also the P47 wasn't as aerodynamically bad as you suggest. It was a very fast aeroplane that was able to dive away from german fighters. The Hellcat was not a low performance aeroplane. It was a frontline fighter for the second half of the war. Stall characteristics are sometimes a bit scary in aeroplanes of that generation, some behave better than others, but I do accept the Hellcat was a 'frendlier' aeroplane to fly - not such a bad characteristic even in war. There was a flight computer of a sort in the FW190 which was designed to take some of the work out of handling the engine and as I understand it worked just fine. Anything that keeps a pilot from being occupied with stuff inside the cockpit can't be a bad thing, surely? I agree. The Ta152 was a step up and a serious contender over the skies of Germany but for a lack of fuel, parts, and pilots. Every fighter is an exercise in compromise to achieve a desired result. RJ Mitchell certainly had an eye for a beautiful design, but a gimmick? No, I doubt Mitchell was thinking in terms of gimmicks. He was aiming to create an efficient fighter for the RAF and incorporated what he considered the best cutting edge features. The spitfire wing is known to be very efficient. Even at 60mph a pilot needs to be wary because his plane can readily float on landing.

http://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/5635-trade-and-more/page__p__52931__hl__%2Bindian+%2Bocean__fromsearch__1#entry52931

The introduction of lorica segmentata has been dated to around ad45, in the reign of Claudius, although some fragmentary evidence suggests an earlier introduction of ad20-30. There is a school of thought that states the banded armour was inspired by crupellarii gladiaters from the ludus at Autun. That is possible, but it may simply be that the knowledge of making articulated armour was known to the Romans and that at some point they were bound to try it. There were also variations. Some banded armour extended down over the thighs, or the upper in arms in fewer cases. In addition, there is a case for believing that legionaries used arm and leg protectors also. Armm protection is known to have been used as early as the 2nd century BC, though leg protection appears to be a feature of imperial times. The lack of evidence might mean this was not a common occurence and therefore perhaps an individuals initiative, showing some tolerance for variation in the ranks rather than the strict regimentation we normally ascribe to Roman legions. Alternatively, the find of a leather leg guard in the harbour of Narbonne might also suggest that the evidence for wider use of extra protection is missing. It's also worth noting that scale armour had been introduced at around the same time, in this case a style imported from the east and another example of Romans adopting ideas from occupied provinces. Scale armour did not feature heavily in the west until the 4th century, and although the lorica segmentata is said to have fallen out of use in the 3rd century (I've said the same thing previously), it lingered on as chainmail resumed its dominance of Roman protection.

The danger here then is an over zealous need to categorise. Roman helmets were subject to some variety being essentially hand made rather than mass produced. Nonetheless, cross pieces are not unusual before Trajans campaigns.

Don't discount the social ramifications of given allies the same equipent as citizens. The Romans were much more concious of social status than we are.

It is worth ointing out the 'Weisenau' gallic helmets are dated as far back as the reign of Augustus and recovered examples have cross pieces fitted.

There were some BoB veterans who state they preferred the Hawker Hurricane largely because it was a sturdy and stable gun platform. The Hawker tempest was developed interestingly enough as part of a program to find a replacement for the Hurricane. The sister design, the Tornado, never progressed very far, but the typhoon entered service and was found to be a flawed design which was better suited to an attack role. The Tempest was an attempt to improve on that and in a sense, restore Hawkers reputation as a designer of front line fighters, though in the event it was also used in an attack role. The radial version, the Bristol Centaurus powered Tempest II, was intended primarily as a pacific theatre fighter that would have been part of Britains 'Tiger Force' sent east after the cessation of hostilities against Germany. in any event, it was liekly the aeroplane would have been succeeded by the Hawker Fury in both land and naval versions had the conflict persisted. The reason the Corsair made a poor start was down to its origins as a naval fighter and the demanding nature of the design for shipboard operation. The US Navy initially thought it was dangerous and foisted the production of early examples onto the Fleet Air Arm (who proved the design could be used effectively) Only later, with British and US MArine experience, was the fighter better utilised. The Mustang was a longer range fighter with excellent energy retention characteristics, and often quoted as the best all round fighter in WW2, but as I understand it the contemporary spitfires still had a tighter turning circle. It is remarkable for a fighter initially designed as a commercial competitor to the P40 for the european market at short notice, that it proved to be such an adaptable and capable design.

Which is often the aspect of history most open to interpretation and therefore never completely accepted, because we only have the evidence that survives and more than once it's sent researchers on wild goose chases on the basis of flawed interpretation regarding 'spot and context'. Also the need to prove a certain idea sometimes causes people to assign evidence a certain significance. In an extreme example, we have Chretien De Troyes inventing a strange ritual object as a prop in his unfinished story Percival and the christian connection given to it by later authors such as Robert De Boron to complete their own versions of the tale and exploit their christian readers has given rise to a ludicrous industry dedicated to finding the missing piece in real life.