Author Topic: Capt. Eric M. Brown at the Norwegian National Aviation Museum 25 April 2007 (Read 2283 times)

Knegel · « **Reply #30 on:** May 02, 2007, 12:59:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
This is … incorrect. The P-47 would “tuck under” when approaching critical Mach thus forcing the plane into an even steeper dive. Of all the WWII fighters Brown flew only three suffered from “Mach tuck”: The P-38, P-47 and F8F Bearcat.

Afaik Brown never got into a "mach tuck" in a P47!!

The 109 did suffer this problem as well, the 262 did suffer it, the 163 did suffer it, simply all planes with normal wings design suffer this.

The propeller planes in gegeral got out of the problematic speed in lower altitudes(less cold = lower mach numbers and more thick air), while the 262 and 163 rather got into a "mach trap", cause they missed the needed propeller drag to get out of this speed.

Greetings,

Knegel

Viking · « **Reply #31 on:** May 05, 2007, 09:10:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Knegel
Afaik Brown never got into a "mach tuck" in a P47!!

Why do you use exclamation marks so much?

"Before the next flight a Machmeter was fitted to the aircraft, and as instructed I climbed to 35,000 ft, carried out a 2 min level run at full power and trimmed the aircraft before pushing over into a 30 degree dive. At Mach=0.72 the aircraft began to buffet slightly and pitch nose down, requiring a strong pull force to maintain the dive angle. At Mach=0.73 the buffeting increased severely and the nose-down pitch was so strong that it needed a full-blooded two-handed pull to keep dive angle constant. I had to hang on grimly in this situation, unable to throttle back until Mach number decreased as altitude was lost. The pull-out was not effected until 8,000 ft. Analysis showed that a dive to M=0.74 would almost certainly be a 'graveyard dive'."

- Capt. Eric M. Brown

So you see … he did.

Knegel · « **Reply #32 on:** May 05, 2007, 11:14:04 PM »

Hi,

what P47 did he fly and when??

Its new to me that he took part fo the P47 tests.

Greetings,

Knegel

BlauK · « **Reply #33 on:** May 06, 2007, 11:34:48 AM »

P-47C and between late January - early March, 1944.
(source: Brown, "Wings On My Sleeve", pp. 70-72)

He also mentions that these RAE tests were requested by Lt.Gen. Jimmy Doolittle, who had just taken over command of the 8th USAAF.

Benny Moore · « **Reply #34 on:** May 06, 2007, 11:45:45 AM »

It's amazing how "Viking" can take any subject from any source and turn it into an America-bashing spree. It's also incredible that's he's trying to paint the Republic P-47 as a ship that wasn't a great diver.

BlauK · « **Reply #35 on:** May 06, 2007, 11:56:36 AM »

It is amazing how some insecure people sometimes see "America-bashing" in just about any discussion with some criticism and varying sources which might rattle and shake their "american beliefs" = absolute and indisputable truths

I am not saying that Brown is right or wrong, but where the heck do you see America-bashing here???

Knegel · « **Reply #36 on:** May 06, 2007, 05:44:30 PM »

I also dont see "american bashing" here. The RAE statements are a fact and not made by Viking!!

Nevertheless, history did show the ability of the P47 and even the P38 to fight in high alt and did proof the RAE wrong, with their comclusions.

And it looks like also the analysis that the P47C in a Mach0,74 dive would be in a death trap got proven as wrong.

Greetings,

Knegel

Squire · « **Reply #37 on:** May 06, 2007, 08:12:45 PM »

The prejudice that the some in the RAF and the USAAF as well, had for the P-47 when it first came to England is well known. They didnt see it as a fighter that could fight in the ETO because of its size. I also think you see some of that "projection" in the RAE docs. Thats not surprising, being that the Spitfire and 109 were @6-7k pounds, and there is this P-47 at 10k pounds.

As for the P-38, the version the RAF got (Lightning I) was a non-turbocharged, non-counter rotating propeller version, and they were very unhappy with it. Its no surprise they were not fond of it either. Also, the notion of twin engined day fighters to operate against other fighters, was not pursued by the RAF or the LW over France in 1941-3, so again, they were suspicious of the very notion of it.

But a/c get improvements, and sometimes the testing on early types does not jibe with how they do in actual combat.

Benny Moore · « **Reply #38 on:** May 06, 2007, 10:46:15 PM »

In Bodie's book, he says that the common belief that the United States would not allow export of the turbosuperchargers is false. Britain ordered the castrated Lightnings just the way they got them, because they wanted to use P-40 engines in them.

Benny Moore · « **Reply #39 on:** May 07, 2007, 11:37:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by BlauK
I am not saying that Brown is right or wrong, but where the heck do you see America-bashing here???

... In every post ever made by "Viking." Check out the other P-47 thread right above this one right now; Widewing and a few other people seem to also share my sentiment about "Viking" presenting a slanted argument against American airplanes, in this case the Republic P-47 and the Lockheed P-38. So it's not just me that sees it. However, you Krauts are never going to see things my way, so I'm not going to continue this discussion (except to add input on the actual airplane, if necessary).

In "Viking's" world, German airplanes could dive like peregrines, and American airplanes couldn't keep up. That's quite amusing; if it were opposite day, I'd agree and chime in that American fighters easily out-turned those heavy Japanese Zekes and Oscars. And Russian pilots were highly skilled but constantly out-numbered.

Viking · « **Reply #40 on:** May 07, 2007, 02:08:26 PM »

Unlike Benny Moore here I debate my opponent’s arguments, not their person. Nor do I lie by putting words in other people’s mouths. In "Viking’s" world indeed!

Wmaker · « **Reply #41 on:** May 07, 2007, 02:14:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Benny Moore
However, you Krauts are never going to see things my way,

Knegel · « **Reply #42 on:** May 08, 2007, 12:20:34 AM »

crap, now i have to change my opinion regarding the P38/47, cause Krauts never going to see things your way and the RAE was penetrated by Krauts.

Benny Moore · « **Reply #43 on:** May 08, 2007, 12:26:15 AM »

I've always found you to be objective and fair, Knegel; my comment was not directed at you. I was addressing Viking and Blauk, who are in Norway and Finland, respectively. Being a Kraut isn't about one's homeland, it's about one's state of mind; when I hear "Ve ist der master rrrace," then I call Kraut. Oh, well ... this Amerikan pig-dog is tired of arguing. I don't know why I let myself get started here; the kind of person who is going to listen to "Viking" is going to do so no matter what I or anyone else says.

Brooke · « **Reply #44 on:** May 08, 2007, 04:03:17 AM »

There has been a lot of argument and acrimony in this topic, but I would like to thank Viking for taking the time to record and then post Brown's lecture at the fine museum that he visited.

Also, even though the discussions have become heated, these discussions are on interesting topics. We are all passionate about these things, and a passionate discussion on these topics, even if heated, is at least to me far preferable to no discussion at all.

I like being among my kind -- WWII aviation zealots -- even when we don't all agree!

In fact, having different points of view makes it more interesting.

Now, if we can just keep this topic from turning into a scene out of the movie Team America World Police, we'll be all set.