Author Topic: Which would you rather fly if your life depended.. (Read 3547 times)

Don · « **Reply #90 on:** October 01, 2003, 05:50:01 PM »

P-47

-ammo- · « **Reply #91 on:** October 01, 2003, 05:52:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bigjava
thinking to my life....no dubt

p38!!!!

more stabile at higth altitude, accelerate in less time than p-51 and jug, less view but more strong: 2 engine means i can fly without one....

P-38 a more stable platform than the P-47 at high alt? I don't think so.

bigjava · « **Reply #92 on:** October 01, 2003, 07:47:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by -ammo-
P-38 a more stable platform than the P-47 at high alt? I don't think so.

u made me dub i have tryed a p51 and a p38 over 25k and i prefer the p38.....
but now that u make me think i never tryed a p47 at 25k or more.
i have though the p-38 are gona be more stable platform than a p47 for 3 reason:

have already a neutral trimset
have 2 engine
have more "wings" area

but if i was wrong plz tell me the details

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #93 on:** October 05, 2003, 03:51:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bigjava
u made me dub i have tryed a p51 and a p38 over 25k and i prefer the p38.....
but now that u make me think i never tryed a p47 at 25k or more.
i have though the p-38 are gona be more stable platform than a p47 for 3 reason:

have already a neutral trimset
have 2 engine
have more "wings" area

but if i was wrong plz tell me the details

I dont think any flight sim can accuratly describes a 'stable gun platform'. I have never seen a combat sim offer variable winds at altitudes. But, intuitively, I believe it all comes down to weight, primarily, with surface area opposing the winds offering some input as well. In real life, at high altitudes, wind gusts of 20-50mph are quite frequent. A spitty would have a harder time holding his sights than a jug, I would think. I also think the big span of a p38 would cause the pilot to fight the wind a bit more thatn the jug, but that is just a guess.

HoHun · « **Reply #94 on:** October 05, 2003, 04:24:44 PM »

Hi Whitehawk,

>I dont think any flight sim can accuratly describes a 'stable gun platform'.

It's my impression that planes that were not considered "stable platforms" had some undesirable control characteristics, such as pronounced adverse yaw created by aileron application, very sensitive pitch control that could lead to pilot-induced oscillations, or maybe just high rotational inertia around any axis that would cause a delayed reaction to control inputs, which in turn would cause an uncoordinated flight status.

While at high air speeds most planes would appear quite stable anyway, these effects would be more pronounced at low indicated air speeds and high angles of attack - so they could be encountered at high altitude, too.

I'm not sure which one would be better at high altitude - the P-38 suffers from high rotational inertial in roll (and yaw), but it has a low stall speed so it's at a lower angle of attack at the same speed. On the other hand, its wing is not as effective at high altitude, so it may lose somewhat in comparison to the P-51 there. (I don't know how the P-47 compares in this regard.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

-ammo- · « **Reply #95 on:** October 05, 2003, 07:25:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bigjava
u made me dub i have tryed a p51 and a p38 over 25k and i prefer the p38.....
but now that u make me think i never tryed a p47 at 25k or more.
i have though the p-38 are gona be more stable platform than a p47 for 3 reason:

have already a neutral trimset
have 2 engine
have more "wings" area

but if i was wrong plz tell me the details

You should give a P-47 a try at that alt. Hopefully you will find a fight up there. The AH P-47 really does well at those altitudes. Immels and chandelles are very easy and the AC doesn't like to drop a wing on you. The Pony, Spit9, and the P-38 perform really well at that altitude as well, but IMO, the P-47 is much less foirgiving when you are in dogfight (The Spit9 is extremely capable at that altitude too, but the speed edge belogs to the Jug).

bigjava · « **Reply #96 on:** October 06, 2003, 08:33:41 AM »

i'll give p-47 a chance

tya Ammo
i'm going to try it asap at big altitude

rshubert · « **Reply #97 on:** October 07, 2003, 11:32:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Guppy,

>Use the number of Aces lost to air combat vs ground fire HoHun and apply that to other pilots.

How many aces did the 8th Air Force have, and how many were lost to ground fire? Complete statistics could indeed tell us something, but just dropping some names can't.

>Also keep in mind the 8th policy of avoiding equal credit for ground kills on aircraft.

My point is that the vast majority of targets attacked by the Tieffliegern were less dangerous than flak-protected aircraft. Any vehicle moving on the streets was Tiefflieger prey, including horse-drawn carts and bicycles. Thousands of such targets were hit - these were the low-risk "targets of opportunity" I'm talking about. By extraordinary bad luck, you might end up over a camouflaged military installation with flak guns ready and take a beating, but other than that - easy targets.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

The USAAF strategic bombing survey states that 60% of all losses were due to ground fire.

Ouch, that is a LOT of pilots shot down by those defenseless cows.

Sox62 · « **Reply #98 on:** October 07, 2003, 01:16:47 PM »

For survivability,The P-47.

davidpt40 · « **Reply #99 on:** October 07, 2003, 04:07:58 PM »

F4U was more survivable than the P47. P47 was full of piping for its turbo charger.

-Source: Post war study conducted by the Air Corp.

Widewing · « **Reply #100 on:** October 07, 2003, 07:16:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by davidpt40
F4U was more survivable than the P47. P47 was full of piping for its turbo charger.

-Source: Post war study conducted by the Air Corp.

Yes, an AAF commitee concluded that the F4U was slightly more survivable than the P-47, but there is considerable reason to question their conclusions based upon some possibly faulty assumptions refuted by Republic and analysis performed by the test group at Langley.

Reliability had little to do with the turbo ducting. Why? Because there was a valve in the system that diverted exhaust gasses to the turbo, which could be closed by the pilot should there be a leak. Pilots could also allow the system to divert more exhaust gas to the turbo should there be an associated pressure drop. If the pilot closed the bypass valve, the R-2800 still had a single-speed, single-stage supercharger that would provide for full military power up to about 12,000 feet. There was a danger of fire should the exhaust duct be holed within 2-3 feet of the collector ring. Usually the pilot would smell the exhaust gas and close the bypass valve, dumping the exhaust to ambient through the wastegate. Even with heavy damage to the system, fires were a rare occurrance. However, the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning was serious if the pilot goes off O2 and does not open the canopy to vent the cockpit.

In terms of airframe strength, both aircraft were over-engineered. Navy and Marine types who flew both the F4U and F6F generally agreed that the Hellcat was at least as rugged as the F4U. My personal experience with Grumman aircraft led me to conclude that they were incredibly strong. We flew a Grumman C1-A over 200 miles with the keel spar broken in two and a 5 foot by 18" gash in the belly, the tail being retained by the stringers and skin. We couldn't recover on the carrier because the tailhook A-frame was bolted to the keel spar. If we were to trap, the load on the A-frame would have pulled the aircraft apart. We nursed it to Sigonella Sicily and landed it safely. Trimming the planes was nearly impossible, largely because the entire tail was twisted about 5 degrees and the skin was wrinkled like Teddy Kennedy's booze swollen mug. We earned our flight pay that day.

My regards,

Widewing

HoHun · « **Reply #101 on:** October 08, 2003, 07:34:05 AM »

Hi Rshubert,

>The USAAF strategic bombing survey states that 60% of all losses were due to ground fire.

Do you have more detailed data on that? (For example, a break-down by mission type?)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun · « **Reply #102 on:** October 08, 2003, 07:34:50 AM »

Hi David,

>Source: Post war study conducted by the Air Corp.

Do you have more details from that study? Sounds highly interesting!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun · « **Reply #103 on:** October 08, 2003, 07:58:13 AM »

Hi again,

Here some relevant information from a site pointed out by Dune in another thread:

"By 1 August 1944 the 364th had become a P-51 Group.. The difference between the P-38 and the P-51 is shown in the ratio between enemy planes destroyed versus 364th pilots lost. The P-38 was flown approximately five months and had a ratio 1.3. The P-51 was flown approximately nine months and had a ratio of 5.0."

(from http://www.web-birds.com/8th/364/364.html)

I'd assume that includes all kind of losses.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

rshubert · « **Reply #104 on:** October 08, 2003, 01:21:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Rshubert,

>The USAAF strategic bombing survey states that 60% of all losses were due to ground fire.

Do you have more detailed data on that? (For example, a break-down by mission type?)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

I have never seen the detail report, only the 30-page (or so) summary. I would really like to see that detail report, myself. It would make for interesting reading.

~~shubie~~