History misconceptions

[DamnedRen]

Originally posted by Angus
Well, do you think that if they had NOT been bombed, their production capacity would have been less?

I didn't say that. What won the war was ground troops that, once they got off the beaches, raced full steam ahead into the Ruhr Valley and brought about the beginning of the end. It sure as heck wasn't bombing. One of the things bombing did was eventually use up many german fighter pilots by having them go after the buffs.

Ok, Bombing affects all factors of capacity, and logistics. Shortages of this and that always slow up production.

Only if they can hit something and most didn't.

All versions really. Depended on weather and many other factors.
Some night bombing missions were quite accurate while others ended 50 miles from target. So, for instance, already in 1940, the Brits bombed the Siemens factory in Berlin at night.

The Nordon bomb sight added the ability to compute winds into the equation. Prior to that a mile or two was considered fairly accurate. The Brits themselves wrote that 5 miles is a good hit.

Somewhere I read that a post war survey demonstrated that the night bombing was actually even more accurate than the daylight bombings, much of that courtecy of the pathfinder force.

I think it was in the '70's that the Brits released the real info. Something to do with their sercret information act. But since it was only classified it did get released. The Americans put out a lot of garbage about bombing accuracy right after the war but a later report said it was really bad. My own fathers buddy was killed by B-17's in Koln, Germany because they dropped a couple of miles short of the target.  While friendly fire was not normally the case because the buffs hit inland targets it doesn't mean they could hit anything.

Ren
 

[DamnedRen]

One sad note is that despite the fact RAF and commonwealth bomber crew had a near 50% loss rate, and fought damn bravely they were never awarded a campaign medal. damn shamefull.

I agree with you completely. I will say the English did a fine job considered they had out dated rules of flying. Imagine how safe it was to fly a vic and have everyone but lead look at him iso the sky for enemy dots. That prolly cost a lot of souls before the boys caught on that they need to all be looking around. I suppose it only took one sortie, if they survived it.

IMHO, one thing that always bothered me was the British Officer Corps willingness to throw soldiers lives away be sending them into un-winnable situations. I'm not talking about the Air Corps just the English Army throughout history. They were quick to say,"we learned something from it". Tell that to the foiks of those whose lives they threw away. Who was it that said "don't you die for your country, make sure the other poor bastage dies for his country instead.

Ya know, just because we toot our horns doesn't mean the Brits didn't do what they had to do to survive and they did it bravely. I don't think you'll ever hear an American say anything to the contrary.

Ren[/B]

[SKJohn]

Originally posted by 101ABN
I thought that the only involvement on the P51 that the Brits had was the Merlin engine?

They also provided the bases to fly from, the housing for the pilots, the women for the pilots on their down time, etc.....

[StarOfAfrica2]

But......but.......the movies!  They showed them bombs hittin on them targets man!  BOOM!  I seen them films they took from them bombers, and it showed all those eksplosions!  The narrator guy said they blowed up submarines and ball bearings (although I dont know what ball bearings ever did to anyone) and some factories.  Now you folks might not think blowin up a factory does much good, but let me tell you, it'd work!  I mean, how would you feel if that was the only place in town to work, and somebody blowed it up?  I mean, cafeteria and all!  Gone!  Well, from what I was told them Germans didnt have no unemployent pay, so I can imagine they'd be purty dang depressed bein out of work and all.  All you all need to stop bein so negative.  Them movies was made by our guvment, so they must be true.  So unpatriotic.

[Skydancer]

DamnedRen

The RAF only flew in Vics early in the war. they learned prety quick that it didn't work too well.

I think both our Armys had generals who were wastefull of lives.

Gen Mark Clarke rings a bell, and what about "bloody Omaha". Mr "Hobarts funnies" might have saved a few lives there if they hadn't been dismissed by the US generals.

Sadly I've heard a few on this board flaming me for having a pride in my countries achievements and struggle. You are a gent and I'm pleased to say not one of them.

[StarOfAfrica2]

Heh.  Have you ever considered some of those "flames" you speak of were not a reaction to your justified pride in your countrymen and patriotism, but a reaction to the chip you seem to have on your shoulder every time you post?  Its not what you say, its how you say it that makes the difference.  Just a friendly pointer from someone who has learned that lesson the hard way.

[Skydancer]

The chip wasn't there until some members of this BBs developed a fixation  with flaming every one of my posts.  Yes It does rather p*ss me off that some people here seem to get away with pertsonal insult, baiting taunting and generaly being an ass. I guess when I started visiting here I expected better.

However I can brush it off and continue.

[StarOfAfrica2]

Originally posted by Skydancer
The chip wasn't there until some members of this BBs developed a fixation  with flaming every one of my posts.  Yes It does rather p*ss me off that some people here seem to get away with pertsonal insult, baiting taunting and generaly being an ass. I guess when I started visiting here I expected better.

However I can brush it off and continue.

Thats the attitude to have.  

He who spends his time fighting with small people appears to others no larger than the ones he fights.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by joeblogs

I cannot imagine that USN would maintain a maximum speed number 24 MPH lower than the manufacturer claimed without some flight test data to back it up.

While the F6f had a similar engine to the Corsair, it was not the same engine. And while the Corsair eventually got the C series Double Wasp, the Hellcat never did.

-blogs

p.s. I know I am going to catch it...

My impression was that the Navy didn't care about the discrepancy. What was the Navy going to do, recall every manual they had ever issued? Why bother? Fleet pilots recognized that there was little speed difference between the F6F and the F4U.

Also, the differences between the R-2800-8W (F4U) and the R-2800-10W (F6F) are related differences in supercharger, exhaust, accessories and the like. If you look at the power curves for the -8W and the 10W, you will see the differences at various altitudes.

Oh, and the XF6F-6 was powered by the same engine as the F4U-4, the R-2800-18W C series. Of course, the F6F-6 was superfluous with the red-hot F8F-1 entering squadron service.

My regards,

Widewing

[joeblogs]

Remind me, when were the dates of the two tests you mentioned?

BuAer published revised aircraft charateristics charts all the time. Why don't we see a discrepancy between wartime & postwar documents?

If we suppose the F6f attains 412 MPH & the F4U-1 attains 417 MPH, that is a difference of 1 percent in max speed.

We know that that speed is a power function of horsepower, and the early versions of these planes generated comparable amounts of gross horsepower. That is probably also true of horsepower going to the propeller (but the corsair's propeller was larger).

Yet the f6f has considerably larger, thicker wings and more parasitic drag (see Dean for example). The effect of this on the horsepower required to attain any give speed also follows a power function.  

How likely is it that despite all this, the two planes are within 1 percent of maximum speed? Could it be that the corsair used a significantly less efficient propeller? I've never heard anyone say that.

-blogs

Originally posted by Widewing
My impression was that the Navy didn't care about the discrepancy. What was the Navy going to do, recall every manual they had ever issued? Why bother? Fleet pilots recognized that there was little speed difference between the F6F and the F4U.

Also, the differences between the R-2800-8W (F4U) and the R-2800-10W (F6F) are related differences in supercharger, exhaust, accessories and the like. If you look at the power curves for the -8W and the 10W, you will see the differences at various altitudes.

Oh, and the XF6F-6 was powered by the same engine as the F4U-4, the R-2800-18W C series. Of course, the F6F-6 was superfluous with the red-hot F8F-1 entering squadron service.

My regards,

Widewing

[Widewing]

Originally posted by joeblogs
Remind me, when were the dates of the two tests you mentioned?

BuAer published revised aircraft charateristics charts all the time. Why don't we see a discrepancy between wartime & postwar documents?

If we suppose the F6f attains 412 MPH & the F4U-1 attains 417 MPH, that is a difference of 1 percent in max speed.

We know that that speed is a power function of horsepower, and the early versions of these planes generated comparable amounts of gross horsepower. That is probably also true of horsepower going to the propeller (but the corsair's propeller was larger).

Yet the f6f has considerably larger, thicker wings and more parasitic drag (see Dean for example). The effect of this on the horsepower required to attain any give speed also follows a power function.  

How likely is it that despite all this, the two planes are within 1 percent of maximum speed? Could it be that the corsair used a significantly less efficient propeller? I've never heard anyone say that.

-blogs

Let's see, the TAIC report was released in fall of 1944. Grumman's testing took place in the summer of '44. I'd put more faith in the TAIC data as it represented independent testing (no axes to grind, no agendas) and reflects a fleet aircraft, not a brand new fighter right from the Grumman production line, dutifully massaged and preened by Grummans Test department mechanics.

I'd use the 409 mph from the TAIC test.

As to prop diameter, there wasn't any difference at all. Both were fitted with 13'1" HS Hydromatic props fitted with 6501-0 aluminum blades. Hubs were 23E60 for the F6F and 24E60 for the F4U. It may seem odd, the P-47 had a smaller diameter prop than the F6F (13'0"). It seemed larger due to four blades, pointing directly to its diameter.

As it was, the Hellcat had less prop-to-ground clearance than the F4U (7.31" to 9.10").

My regards,

Widewing

[joeblogs]

Widewing

This is probably all old news to you, but do you think the issue is weight?

The F6f-5 in the TAIC report comes at 12,285 lbs but the Navy SAC and Francillon report it at 12,740 (no drop tank)

Tillman's weights are lower at 12,483 for the F6f5. Francillon has the F6f-3 loaded at 12,441 lbs but with a top speed of 375.

I made a mistake before, I was looking at the propeller on the F4u-4, which is an inch longer. Dean has the propeller 3 inches longer, but I am not sure which model he is referring to.

-Blogs