The Picard ManeuverM to [email protected] • 4 months agoDon't like the sound of thatlemmy.worldimagemessage-square67arrow-up1759arrow-down136
arrow-up1723arrow-down1imageDon't like the sound of thatlemmy.worldThe Picard ManeuverM to [email protected] • 4 months agomessage-square67
minus-squareFlying Squidlinkfedilink11•4 months agoPlenty of biplanes in WWII as well. http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/biplanes.htm
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish2•4 months agoAlso plenty of monoplanes in WWI, most notably the Fokker Eindeckers,.
minus-squareFlying Squidlinkfedilink2•4 months agoGood point. And, not to glorify warfare, but the synchronization gear was an amazingly innovative piece of technology.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish2•4 months agoIt was certainly better than the initial French attempt to solve the problem, which was so good they named a tennis stadium after it.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•4 months agoThere were monoplanes in WWI, most notably the Fokker Eindeckers which kicked the snot out of the Allies for most of 1915 and on into 1916, though largely because of their synchronized machine guns rather than any superiority in their design.
Plenty of biplanes in WWII as well.
http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/biplanes.htm
Fair enough
Also plenty of monoplanes in WWI, most notably the Fokker Eindeckers,.
Good point. And, not to glorify warfare, but the synchronization gear was an amazingly innovative piece of technology.
It was certainly better than the initial French attempt to solve the problem, which was so good they named a tennis stadium after it.
Yes, but not other way around
Not a lot of WWII in biplanes?
There were monoplanes in WWI, most notably the Fokker Eindeckers which kicked the snot out of the Allies for most of 1915 and on into 1916, though largely because of their synchronized machine guns rather than any superiority in their design.