Best Heavy Fighter

[DaveBB]

Its strange that the P-51's tailwheel problem was never solved.  The P-51D had trouble with it's tailwheel coming off while taxiing.  This is why the P-51H's tailwheel is double strutted, whereas the P-51D only has a single strut on it's tailwheel.  But it looks like the P-51H opened up a whole new can of worms with the tailwheel cylinder failure issues.

As we all know, the 51-H was rated for the same G-forces as the Spitfire.  This did not save a tremendous amount of weight (300 pounds if I remember correctly, or was it 900 pounds?).  From anecdotal evidence, P-51Ds were not known for extreme construction durability in the first place.  The earlier P-51Ds (what about the Bs?) suffered from wing shedding.  The main cause of this was a landing gear down slightly drooping.  In a dive above 400mph, the door would open due to wind pressure and rip the wings off.  The rear fuselage of the P-51D was also suspect.  There were several cases of the rear fuselage breaking off during dogfights due to G-forces.  The only one I can think of off-hand is a P-51 fighting a Ki-43 over the Pacific in 1945.  No doubt metal fatigue and corrosion played a part in this, as well as an inherent design 'flaw'.

[Brooke]

Hawker were certainly 1st to prove those features in combat/heavy fighter..

The FW 190 V1 had a bubble canopy (as shown below) in 1939, before the Typhoon.  They weren't the first to use cannons, and how many you use is obvious, not an invention.  They probably weren't the first to use spring tabs in combat, but who knows unless there is some reference somewhere on their invention and history.

They can be an innovative company with some excellent aircraft and be admired for that without going overboard and crediting them with the invention of things they didn't invent or crediting them with the invention of something obvious (like using 4 guns, using bubble canopies when they were already used on other aircraft, or using spring tabs when those were probably well-known mechanisms well prior to the Typhoon).

The Hurricane was a great plane for when it was developed.  The Typhoon was a great plane.  The Tempest was an awesome plane.

The spring tab patent reference is findable,& I'll dig it up later..

Anyone can get a design patent for tweaks on an item that is already around.  That does not mean they invented the first version of it or used it first.  For example, there

[J.A.W.]

For sure, innovations that were combat proven were - sooner or later-picked up,
but sometimes there were technical issues or even N.I.H. [not invented here]
problems..

For example, the damage done by Bf 109 20mm cannon fire impressed the Brits sufficiently to get them moving on installing their own, & while the lighter Spitfire got 2, other heavier fighters [ including the early Brit ordered Mustangs] got 4..[even the Brit ordered P-39 had one in place of the 37mm].

Problems with the US made Hispano put off the USAAF from using more  of them,[1 in the P-38, but 4 in the P-61] & the USN was always more keen..

When the Tizard delegation brought the many Brit technical developments over to the US - some companies were definitely more proactive in adopting advancements, Grumman & N.A. Aviation amongst them..


The Merlin P-51s picked up the Brit -type coordinated engine management controls but the US radial fighters missed out on the German Kommando-Gerat equivalent as used on the BMW powered FW 190..

On the `51H serviceability issues, it is very probable that the SAC [ given boss C. Le May's hard-ass rep] had a better grip on them than the 'weekend warrior' ANG fly boys..

[J.A.W.]

The FW 190 V1 had a bubble canopy (as shown below) in 1939, before the Typhoon.

Its hard to tell in that pic, but AFAIR, the early FW 190 canopy was not a blown bubble which allowed views back under the tail, but - flat panels -  which restricted head movement, & available view, - only much later was it bulged out.
 For sure, both Hawker & Grumman pored over the slick BMW low drag/ positive exhaust thrust radial mill installation & adopted many of those features too..
 
The Typhoon was the 1st to prove the combat efficacy of the true blown bubble canopy, & while it did not require much in the way of fuselage modification to fit it, the improvement in pilot vision [even over the flat panelled 190, or multiple framed Japanese types] was evidence enough for the much more substantial mods to be done on the `47 & `51..

& of course, no modern fighter would be without a clear vision true blown bubble canopy..

[J.A.W.]

Brooke, Re: "...the Hawker patent spring tabs..."

See P.7 - this document..

http://www.wwiiaircraftperfomance.org/Fury/Sea_Fury_Hawker.pdf

Bob Spurdle [ my WW2 RAF fighter pilot relative] reckoned that the RAF readily adopted many of the useful LW advances, both technical & operational, like drop tanks & JABOs - for example..

[MiloMorai]

The RAF was looking at using heavier guns even before WW2 started. It had nothing to with the Germans.

Westland Whirlwind with bubble canopy and 4x Hispano 20 mm cannons
First flight: October 11, 1938
Introduced: June 1940

[J.A.W.]

Nice model, M.M..

The Whirly bird was really a bit of a dud though, wasn't a player in 1940 [no BoB service] only equipped 2 squadrons  & was withdrawn from service early after having many serviceability problems.

I note that the actual aircraft still had framing in the canopy [& was it a 2 piece & joined at the frame?] unlike a true clear vision bubble - blown from a single Perspex sheet - although - for sure, they were getting close there..

The combat proven efficacy shown by 109 cannon def' gave the RAF a hurry up [ even flying their prototype cannon armed single engine fighters in combat during the BoB] & Hawker regularised  the 4 X 20mm Hispano fit over the alternative 12 X .303 Browning MGs in the Hurricane & Typhoon, in the same time frame in which the Whirlwind actually achieved combat status.

Does anyone know if a P-38 ever tested that fierce-looking quad Hispano
nose fit out? Would've doubled the fire-power of the standard P-38..

[MiloMorai]

The last Whirlwind mission to be flown by 137 Squadron occurred on 21 June 1943, when five Whirlwinds took off on a "rhubarb" attack against the German airfield at Poix.
No. 263 Squadron, the first and last squadron to operate the Whirlwind, flew its last Whirlwind mission on 29 November 1943

What other a/c flew for 3 years without any changes?

The early Fw190A's canopy was formed from a single piece of perspex.

The MG-FF in the Bf109E wasn't that powerful a weapon.

[J.A.W.]

M.M.,
Do kindly post the actual initial combat operation debut date for the Ww..

I don't think it amounted to that much..

& just what aircraft [ offering superior performance with a single engine] replaced them, in those squadrons?

Lack of improvement is what got them dumped, including ongoing quality
control issues..

Why did it take 3+ years from the prototype - for an operational FW 190 to feature a true bulged clear-view canopy ?

[J.A.W.]

While it is true that the MG-FF compares poorly with the Hispano as a 20mm weapon, the RAF was sure impressed by the effect of its shells, compared to the bullets fired from Browning MGs, .303in - or .05in..

[J.A.W.]

& Widey, per your comment in post # 361, about no`51H service in Korea..

"...the 5th AF specifically asked Not to be sent any H models.".

You do  - of course - realize that there was very little spares commonality between the D/K & H, the airframes [including even wing aero section] being completely different, - though they were all termed Mustang/F-51.

 The probable primary reason for `51H non-employment in Korea is simply a matter of availability/logistics, & the same - likely - applies to the F8F.. 

[Karnak]

While it is true that the MG-FF compares poorly with the Hispano as a 20mm weapon, the RAF was sure impressed by the effect of its shells, compared to the bullets fired from Browning MGs, .303in - or .05in..

The RAF's decision to go to the 20mm Hispano predated WWII and had nothing to do with the effect of the MG/FF.  It was decided before the war that the heavy machine gun would have just been a stop gap on the way to cannons so they sought out a suitable 20mm cannon to license and found it in the HS.404 20mm cannon.

There were delays in getting the Hispano serviceable as demonstrated by the severe jamming issues the Spitfire Mk Ib and Mk IIb had due to mounting the cannon on its side.  The urgent need for more firepower almost certainly is responsible for the Ib and IIb being rushed into service before they were ready.  Once they redesigned the mounting to be upright the stoppage rate became acceptable, about one stoppage for 2000 rounds fired when mounted in wings.  Fuselage mounted guns as on the Whirlwind, Beaufighter and Mosquito were more rigidly secured and suffered fewer stoppages.

It is a shame the Whirlwind's engines had the problems they did as it would have been a very useful type against German bombers in 1940.

[J.A.W.]

The RAF cannon requirement did predate the war, as you correctly point out Kn.

But the literally in your face combat effects of the LW cannon certainly gave them a hurry along..
.. since the evidence from RAF bombers that did return so roughly handled told the tale.. naturally the RAF wanted to mete out like punishment..

 & also  - things like fitting  armoured windscreens became a priority..

What was it Dowding said about that?

Something along the lines of..
 'If armour glass is good enough for Chicago gangsters, its good enough for my fighter pilots'..

Early British Hispanos were [ like the MG-FF] limited to 60 round drum mags, which was all very well in a Beau', where they can be changed in flight
 -but the real answer was a proper reliable belt feed device..

The capacious Hawker heavy fighters were also 1st to combat with the lighter, more compact & faster firing Mk V Hispanos..

[MiloMorai]

M.M.,
Do kindly post the actual initial combat operation debut date for the Ww..

I don't think it amounted to that much..

& just what aircraft [ offering superior performance with a single engine] replaced them, in those squadrons?

Lack of improvement is what got them dumped, including ongoing quality
control issues..

Why did it take 3+ years from the prototype - for an operational FW 190 to feature a true bulged clear-view canopy ?

Late 1940

what qa issues

jaw, do you know why the Fw190 got it bulged canopy?

[J.A.W.]

Ww problems.. there were plenty.. from airframe to engines..

Westland as a plane maker - had a bad rep..& almost got banned.. L.O.L...

What was it Dowding said about the Ww as a fighter - which was safely tucked away in Scotland during the BoB - something like..

 "No room for passengers down south in 11 group"

AFAIK, the FW JABO pilots needed better downward vision for A2G attacks,
& since it was such an obvious O/A improvement - the long-noses got it too..