Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: earl1937 on June 25, 2013, 06:16:07 PM
-
:airplane: Which, in your opinion, was the best fighter-bomber of all time? It flew in 2 "wars" and 1 police action....just wondering what you guys think!
-
F4U-4 Corsair and varients
-
Hmmm
hogs or 38's
-
:airplane: Which, in your opinion, was the best fighter-bomber of all time? It flew in 2 "wars" and 1 police action....just wondering what you guys think!
Earl, if you're telling everyone facts about a specific plane, that pretty much leaves out any opinions other than yours.
if you're actually looking for an opinion...the best fighter bomber of "all time" is a tie between the f4 phantom and the f-14 tomcat.
-
Single engine prop -- easy: A-1 Skyraider.
Range, endurance, payload, and even killed a couple of MiGs in Vietnam.
-
F-117
-
Single engine prop -- easy: A-1 Skyraider.
Yup.
- oldman
-
I can't agree that the A-1 Skyraider was the best single engined fighter-bomber as it really isn't a fighter, kills of MiGs or not.
P-47 or F4U would have to be the leading contenders for prop jobs in that category.
-
"Best" is such a subjective term, but I'd be willing to bet no other prop fighter/bomber had the same superior combination of speed, firepower, load capacity, survivability, and destroyed as many enemy tanks and vehicles than this:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/fw190F-8.jpg)
-
Not many got to fly the skyraider "clean" of it's 3,237 drag inducing hardpoints but dad said every skyraider pilot contemplated risking his career if one happened to be around "clean" because it flew like a fighter.
Here's a story of skyraider vs F8F bearcat as told here.....
http://skyraider.org/skyassn/warstor/Grishamwarstor.htm
Having not been able to do any aerobatic flying since the days of flying the SNJ, every AD pilot desired to spend a little time having fun and diversion from restricted flying such as was required in the TBM. So at the end of each instrument flight, it was common practice to do a little "Blue Angel" flying in close formation, performing smooth aerobatic maneuvers. This actually was just a "tail chase" with the wingman holding a close position behind and under the leader.
Ensign Grisham, having been the safety plane pilot, became the wingman. He positioned himself behind and below Ensign Earl's plane with his propeller about a three-foot clearance from Earl's tail hook. Ensign Earl happened to be older than the skipper but he acted as if he were still nineteen very aggressive and fearless.
During the tail chase exercise, Grisham was so focused on the lead plane, that he had no idea if he was upside down, right side up, or vertical going up or down. He maintained constant vigilance on maintaining his formation position.
SUDDENLY Grisham detected a closure on his leader's plane and jammed the stick forward to avoid a mid-air collision. To this day he does not understand how his vertical stabilizer did not strike Earl's propeller as he sped forward and under his leader's plane. Grisham pulled out to one side and attempted to execute a rendezvous with his leader. When he approached Earl's plane, and to remain behind him, he had to swing wide on each side to kill speed and realized that Earl's plane had no power, as Grisham had to keep his throttle at idle just to remain anywhere near behind his leader. Grisham immediately thought Earl's plane had experienced an engine failure, but he recounted that he had not seen any smoke from the engine which was a common factor with an engine failure either black smoke or blue smoke. (Unknown to Grisham, Earl had pulled off his power, and Earl never explained why he had to do so.)
As he was deciphering all these factors, and attempting to join formation, and was just about to press his microphone button to ask about any problems, Grisham saw an F8F flash by. Immediately, Grisham thought, "We have been jumped by a "Bear Cat" and he wants to dog fight. Ensign Grisham happened to be in the right position as the two Skyraiders turned toward the attacking F8F and began weaving as in a one-on-one dog fight. Ensign Earl dropped back on Grisham's tail and maintained formation during the next four-fighter weaves.
As things seemed to be pretty even, Grisham deducted that if he should make a sloppy or slow turn, and if Earl is on the ball" he could make a quick maneuver and get on the opponent's tail before the opponent could get his guns bearing on Grisham with any good tail or deflection shot. Earl was on the ball, and as Grisham executed his sloppy turn, he called out on the radio, "Get him Earl!" Earl immediately responded, "I got him."
Earl had pulled up in a Chandelle, rolled over, split his large dive brakes and completed the last part of a "Split-S." He was immediately on the tail of the Bear Cat to the total surprise of the F8F pilot.
The Bear Cat pilot had been sold a "bill of goods" in that he was flying the aircraft that held the world's climb record from sea level to 10,000 feet in 90 seconds. So he calculated that he could out climb this large 50-foot wing span dive/torpedo bomber in order to get away from him.
So beginning at about 8,000 feet, the F8F pilot applied full throttle and pointed his nose for open sky, envisioning that his little aircraft was climbing like a "home sick angel." When he reached 18,000 feet he thought that he had left the AD far behind in his "wake," so he turned with the idea of going back and fight the Skyraider. But to the F8F pilot's surprise, the AD was tucked neatly under his tail, and had no problem staying with the 36-foot wing span scooter. For the next fifteen minutes, the F8F pilot attempted every maneuver in the book to "shake" the AD, but to no avail.
In the mean time, Grisham was all by himself at 8,000 feet. His immediate thought was that these guys don't go around by themselves, so there had to be another F8F some place nearby. With a swivel neck, Grisham looked for that second F8F. Finally he saw him diving toward him. Either the other F8F pilot knew what he was doing or he was lucky in that he was diving out of the sun.
Ensign Grisham applied full throttle and pulled the nose of his AD toward the attacker. They passed each other in a flash the F8F was doing at least 450 knots, while the AD was doing about 80 knots.
At this point it is interesting to note that Ensign Earl had had only two dog fight lessons in an SNJ almost two years previously, while Ensign Grisham had had only one dog fight lesson at that same time. They were far from being trained "dog fighters."
Grisham immediately turn toward his attacker, and immediately knew that the F8F pilot had made his first mistake. He had failed to convert his high airspeed into altitude, thus Ensign Grisham maintained altitude advantage and could press the fight to his advantage.
The two adversaries, the AD and the F8F began their dog fight weaving, which seemed to remain on an equal level of performance for about eight weaves. At about this time Grisham was about to call it a draw, until Grisham noticed he was gradually out turning the F8F, so he continued to press the fight until he was on the tail of the F8F.
The F8F pilot rocked his wings in acknowledgement that he had been "shot" down, and the fight was over.
Ensign Grisham called to Ensign Earl. "It's time to go home, Earl. Join up." In a matter seconds, Earl swooped into place on Grisham's wing and they dove for home NAS Alameda. As they entered the "break" over the end of the duty runway, an F8F flew by and pulled up into a victory roll. In the traffic pattern, he had made a gunnery run on the two Skyraiders.
As the two AD drivers walked to the hanger, they conversed about the incident, and agreed they would not mention it to anyone. They were fearful that they may have encountered some senior officers in the fighter squadron, and they didn't want any trouble to fall their way. It was during this little talk that Grisham discovered that Ensign Earl had actually initiated the dog fight, and Grisham never saw them during their "Blue Angel" act he was concentrating on his leader's plane too much to see anything else.
After lunch, a couple of other AD driver "nuggets" asked how our flight went. We casually respond, "Pretty good. If you have been on one instrument hop you have been on any another." Then Midshipman Ed, a Holloway Plan aviator, said that an F8F pilot, a Lieutenant Junior Grade from VF-193, was bragging at the BOQ dinning hall that he had shot down a couple of ADs that morning. Adding "It took me fifteen minutes to shake the first one off my tail, but" At this time the room roared with laughter, and he was reminded, "Man, you had been dead for fifteen minutes." Midshipman Ed reported that the other Lieutenant Junior Grade confessed that he had a real fight on his hands and that he gotten shot down by an AD.
This was all good news to all the frustrated fighter pilots that had been "Shanghaied" to a "lousy" torpedo squadron. Some inexperienced Ensigns had proven that they had a real airplane to fly and not some old lumbering torpedo/dive bomber, like the TBM or SB2C.
The irony of this event was that the two LTJGs had been trained as fighter pilots, now assigned to the, supposedly, newest, most maneuverable plane in the Navy's inventory, and the two nuggets had been trained as torpedo pilots.
After this incident, all the no longer frustrated fighter pilots in VA-195 felt that any F8F in the air was fair game for a dog fight. This severely curtailed the fighter squadrons training as they were constantly "jumped" whenever they placed their landing gear in the wheel wells.
Interesting enough, the bragging LTJG only attained the rank of commander, while the honest, confessing LTJG attained the rank of Rear Admiral. Did integrity have something to do with a couple of careers?
-
It may have turned like a WWII fighter, but with a top speed of 322 mph at 18k it was slower than the early-war fighters. It would have been slaughtered by Spit I's.
-
Interesting enough, the bragging LTJG only attained the rank of commander, while the honest, confessing LTJG attained the rank of Rear Admiral. Did integrity have something to do with a couple of careers?
Naw, these guys must have had luck on their side to reach those ranks. Anyone in the know would understand. ;)
-
I've always said the best two were the P-47 and FW-190 series. Both could adapt to new roles and environments to for fill the demands increase of aircrafts where most other aircrafts couldn't.
When you compare both planes, the P-47 takes the lead, while FW190 is a close second, while the P-38 actually falls in line, it was not a dominate fighter as both the 47 and 190 was, as for classic planes like the P51 and Spitfire, neither could adapt to different roles.
I vote the 47 has the best all around fighter of Ww2, the Hellcat and Corsair are rather even in the PTO theater, biggest problem for the corsair was it couldn't be suitable for carrier use, and the D model came rather late in the war.
-
biggest problem for the corsair was it couldn't be suitable for carrier use, and the D model came rather late in the war.
:headscratch: you sure you're thinking f4u corsair?
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7146/6620129377_2c229c2f3b_z.jpg)
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/aircraft/fighter/vought-f4u-corsair-fighter/vought-f4u-corsair-fighter-with-fleet-air-arm-02.png)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2Id5PNS_zQw/T0KN_PZBq5I/AAAAAAAAEXg/GO5gDZyEmK8/s1600/F4U-1_VMF-213_on_USS_Copahee_1943.jpg)
korean war...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF9vZp7e4FI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF9vZp7e4FI)
-
the 190 was versatile but different models were required for different roles...grab a P47D25+ and you either have a good high altitude air superiority fighter, or an effective ground attack plane.
At first I was thinking A1 skyraider, but the fighter role hasn't been demonstrated for it
-
You can hang the same guns, rockets and bombs on a 190A-8 as on a 190F-8; they have the same wings and centerline hardpoint. The F-8 just had more armor protection, a bigger canopy for better over-the-nose view, and a 14-blade cooling fan for the motor (two more than on the A-8).
-
Single engine prop -- easy: A-1 Skyraider.
Range, endurance, payload, and even killed a couple of MiGs in Vietnam.
:airplane: Having talked with guys who flew the A1's and variants, it, in the opinion of several vetran pilots, the best all around single engine, prop driven aircraft ever produced! It could carry a bigger bomb load than a B-17 or B-24. It could carry up to 14 5.5 inch rockets as well. Then there was the damage issue! While this aircraft was the largest single engine aircraft ever produced in large numbers, it could take a hammering from ack and 37MM and keep right on flying! They were called "Sandy" in the Vietnam war and many a foot solder was glad to see them over head as they could loiter for hours if need be! The only aircraft ever built which could carry more payload weight than its empty weight! Empty weight, 11,968 lbs, max allowable takeoff weight, 25,000 lbs. And if need be, could do ACM as proven by 2 Navy pilots During the war, U.S. Navy Skyraiders shot down two North Vietnamese Air Force (NVAF) Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17 jet fighters: one on 20 June 1965, a victory shared by Lieutenant Clinton B. Johnson and Lieutenant, junior grade Charles W. Hartman III of VA-25; and one on 9 October 1966 by LTJG William T. Patton of VA-176.
When you ask "which is the best fighter" ever built, prop driven, I would have to say the P-51K, but when you ask which is the best "fighter-bomber" ever built, I rest my case on the A1!
-
Still lacks the "fighter" in fighter-bomber. It was a pure, purpose built attack aircraft.
-
When you ask "which is the best fighter" ever built, prop driven, I would have to say the P-51K, but when you ask which is the best "fighter-bomber" ever built, I rest my case on the A1!
Actually, the P-51K is considered to be one of the lesser of the Mustang variants due to its Aeroproducts propeller, which was used because Hamilton Standard couldn't keep up with demand for their 11'2" 4-blade propeller. The "K"s were built with the Aeroproducts 11'0" 4-blade, which was substandard compared to the Hamilton Standard 11'2" 4-blade prop. The only difference between the "D" and "K" models were the propellers and location of manufacturer, other than that the "D" and "K" were the same plane.
As for the A1, it wasn't a fighter. It was a pure attack aircraft and never used in a fighter role, so it doesn't qualify for consideration for the 'best fighter-bomber'. One can make the argument for the Corsair though, it was an excellent attack platform, performed just as good in that role as dedicated dive/attack bombers (like the SBD, SB2C) and was able to take far more punishment from ground fire than the Mustang. While an excellent fighter, the Mustang was an average attack plane. The Mustang was extremely vulnerable to ground fire, while the Corsair wasn't. In addition, the Corsair a far more stable and accurate attack platform than the Mustang.
ack-ack
-
Actually, the P-51K is considered to be one of the lesser of the Mustang variants due to its Aeroproducts propeller, which was used because Hamilton Standard couldn't keep up with demand for their 11'2" 4-blade propeller. The "K"s were built with the Aeroproducts 11'0" 4-blade, which was substandard compared to the Hamilton Standard 11'2" 4-blade prop. The only difference between the "D" and "K" models were the propellers and location of manufacturer, other than that the "D" and "K" were the same plane.
As for the A1, it wasn't a fighter. It was a pure attack aircraft and never used in a fighter role, so it doesn't qualify for consideration for the 'best fighter-bomber'. One can make the argument for the Corsair though, it was an excellent attack platform, performed just as good in that role as dedicated dive/attack bombers (like the SBD, SB2C) and was able to take far more punishment from ground fire than the Mustang. While an excellent fighter, the Mustang was an average attack plane. The Mustang was extremely vulnerable to ground fire, while the Corsair wasn't. In addition, the Corsair a far more stable and accurate attack platform than the Mustang.
ack-ack
All true, however, the Mustang always has the advantage as it could attack faraway places others fighters wouldn’t dare to go.
-
Where would that be?
-
F4U for all the reasons ack ack listed. I'd put the Jug second and the 190 third.
If the question was sexiest fighter - bomber, it has to be the 38. :)
-
Ack-Ack nailed it...
The F4U-4 was the best fighter/bomber of WWII, that saw combat. The F8F-1 was likely the best air to air dogfighter, but it missed combat by a week or two. The F7F-1 was superior to the F4U-4 in almost every measure of fighter/bomber standard, but it also missed combat by the scantest of measures.
We must not overlook the Mosquito, which could do virtually anything it was tasked to do....
-
Ah... The F4U-4. It's contemporary 190A/F would be the -9. Produced from September 1944 in its last version it had the uprated BMW 801F motor that delivered 2,400 hp. The 190F in the Smithsonian has this engine. That's more power than the F4U-4 in an airframe that's 2,000 lbs lighter and less draggy.
So I'm curious of what advantage the F4U proponents in this thread think the Corsair had over its contemporary 190?
-
:headscratch: you sure you're thinking f4u corsair?
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7146/6620129377_2c229c2f3b_z.jpg)
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/aircraft/fighter/vought-f4u-corsair-fighter/vought-f4u-corsair-fighter-with-fleet-air-arm-02.png)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2Id5PNS_zQw/T0KN_PZBq5I/AAAAAAAAEXg/GO5gDZyEmK8/s1600/F4U-1_VMF-213_on_USS_Copahee_1943.jpg)
korean war...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF9vZp7e4FI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF9vZp7e4FI)
The Corsair wasn't carrier capable for much of the pacific war, arriving to late on carriers to play a decisive role. The British were the first to put them on carriers, however they had such a very small carrier group to even make a dent in the war (look at the FAA kill list to determine this).
In my opinion the hellcat then wildcat played a more decisive role, if only the corsair wasn't plagued so heavily from a lack of carrier operation, it would of easily been the star of the pacific.
-
Fight? Yes
Bomb? Yes
Strafe? Yes
Rocket? yes
Pick up downed pilots? yes
Carry a nuke to russia? yes
I believe my dad's seen north of 400mph in one during combat.
-
In what?
-
The P-47 had a larger bombload, was faster, was more survivable, I'd hazard the 8 0.50s were better for ground attack then the two MGs and 2 cannon of the 190, had a longer range, was more effective as a fighter. It was the ultimate ground pounder/versatile Jabo. The F4U was a better dog fighter then the 190F, and I always thought it was much faster.
The 190 was a remarkable air frame tho. It was a nasty shock to the Allies.
Ah... The F4U-4. It's contemporary 190A/F would be the -9. Produced from September 1944 in its last version it had the uprated BMW 801F motor that delivered 2,400 hp. The 190F in the Smithsonian has this engine. That's more power than the F4U-4 in an airframe that's 2,000 lbs lighter and less draggy.
So I'm curious of what advantage the F4U proponents in this thread think the Corsair had over its contemporary 190?
-
Very subjective question, and the different answers prove that.
The P-47D, specifically the later models are arguably given their overall abilities. Rugged, powerful, awesome gun platform, and heavy ordinance pay load rank it up there. It's high altitude performance with its turbo/SC made it a great interceptor too.
The F4U and F6F were also gifted airframes with several of the same attributes, however their high altitude performance was not as good as the jug - the exception being the F4U-4.
The Mosquito and FW190 were also great fighter bombers.
My .02
Ammo
-
was more effective as a fighter.
How so? What made it more effective as a fighter?
-
How so? What made it more effective as a fighter?
Offhand? It was faster and climbed better. It also dived and rolled with the best of them. This is compared to the 190F.
-
In what?
In this.
(http://www.midwaysailor.com/midway1960/va25ne577-001b.jpg)
-
Offhand? It was faster and climbed better. It also dived and rolled with the best of them. This is compared to the 190F.
The P47D40 and the 190F has nearly identical wep speeds up to 18K where the jug leaps away. The 190 is a bit slower even down low, but historically it had MW50 enough for 30 minutes.
Pretty much the same with the climb rate, except the jug is leading more in this and the 190 just falls behind over 17K.
I would not argue about the dive as nothing on earth could every dive away from my 190 except a 262, felt very simmilar to a jug, but i found your comment about the jugs better roll rate to be absolutely nonsense.
Oh and now i was comparing the worstest 190 (F) with the bestest jug (D40)
-
The P-47 had a larger bombload,
The 190 and 47 had very similar bombloads. Both typically carried between 1,000 and 2,000 lbs on operational sorties. Both could potentially carry upwards of 3,500-4,000 lbs; if fitted with an extended tail wheel the 190 could even carry the big ~4,000 lbs bomb the AH stuka carries. I consider the two aircraft equal in this regard.
was faster
Up high the 47 was faster due to it turbo-supercharged engine. However up high is not the realm of the Jabo. The Jabo flies low as a necessity of its mission.
was more survivable,
I regard both aircraft as equal in this regard. Both had tough radial engines and had tough structures that could take a lot of punishment.
I'd hazard the 8 0.50s were better for ground attack then the two MGs and 2 cannon of the 190,
I'm quite sure they weren't. While the .50 cal worked well against soft skinned vehicles they were practically useless against infantry and armor. The 190's 20mm fired a combination of AP and HE shells that had greater penetration against armor (AP) and much higher lethality against infantry (HE). A .50 cal round landing one inch from a soldier's boot does nothing. A 20mm HE shell landing ten feet from a soldier's boot will burst his eardrums and shower him in light shrapnel; at best he will only be a casualty, at worst a fatality.
had a longer range
Both aircraft had similar range on internal fuel. As Jabo the majority of sorties would be close air support for ground forces with the Jabos flying from forward airfields. However, for longer range missions both aircraft had the option to sacrifice ord for external fuel; usually a centerline droptank. For even longer range droptanks could be carried on the wings while carrying a single bomb on the centerline hardpoint. In this configuration I consider the 190 to be somewhat better than the 47 since it could carry a 1,100 lbs bomb.
(http://www.aer.ita.br/~bmattos/mundo/images4/fw190x.jpg)
was more effective as a fighter.
Only at higher altitudes. At lower altitudes (where Jabos need to be) the 190 was the better fighter IMHO.
It was the ultimate ground pounder/versatile Jabo.
It was very good indeed, but I consider the 190 to be superior in the Jabo role.
The F4U was a better dog fighter then the 190F, and I always thought it was much faster.
The 190 has always had a speed advantage against the F4U (not by much late in the war though). Even in 1941 the 190 was a 400+ mph fighter and rudely demonstrated that turning never wins an air battle.
-
In this.
(http://www.midwaysailor.com/midway1960/va25ne577-001b.jpg)
Ah... Sure it could do 400+ mph... in a dive. Like I said in my previous post, the Fw 190 was a 400+ mph fighter in 1941.
-
P47 :aok
Good durability, firepower, speed, reasonable selection of different bombs/rockets. That is what I would fly.
I am a little biased because it is also the most awesome looking prop plane in my opinion.
-
Offhand? It was faster and climbed better. It also dived and rolled with the best of them. This is compared to the 190F.
Up high it was faster, and climbed better, but down low the 190 was faster and the better climber (190A/F-8 vs 47D-25/40). As for diving, the 47 had a critical Mach problem; the only allied fighters that could match or best the 109 and 190 in dives were the Spit and 51. That doesn't mean the 47 wasn't successful in bouncing 109s and 190s from altitude. However in a side-by-side dive from the same alt and speed against the 109 and 190 the 47 would lose the race to the deck.
-
F4U-1 had a top speed of ~417mph. It's faster than all of the 190s in AH except the Dora and Ta-152. This includes the 1944 A8. The F4U-1D, slightly slower than the -1 due to the fixed pylons and which is a better comparison, still maintains a marginal speed advantage over the same models.
Still wish HT would add the 2000lb centerline bomb option for the late hogs. 4000lbs (2000lber on the center, a pair of 1000lbers on the left and right pylons).
-
The Corsair wasn't carrier capable for much of the pacific war, arriving to late on carriers to play a decisive role. The British were the first to put them on carriers, however they had such a very small carrier group to even make a dent in the war (look at the FAA kill list to determine this).
In my opinion the hellcat then wildcat played a more decisive role, if only the corsair wasn't plagued so heavily from a lack of carrier operation, it would of easily been the star of the pacific.
you might want to check the carrier ops time periods for the u.s. again. true they weren't used on carriers as much as the f6f but, if i remember correctly, the 1d model got the needed upgrades that made it more suitable for carrier ops than it's predecessors. considering the role the corsair played in the pto delivering a large amount of ordnance and achieving an 11:1 kill ratios, i would have to disagree that the hellcat and wildcat play a more decisive role. the hellcat in the same role didn't have the same impact.
Ah... The F4U-4. It's contemporary 190A/F would be the -9. Produced from September 1944 in its last version it had the uprated BMW 801F motor that delivered 2,400 hp. The 190F in the Smithsonian has this engine. That's more power than the F4U-4 in an airframe that's 2,000 lbs lighter and less draggy.
So I'm curious of what advantage the F4U proponents in this thread think the Corsair had over its contemporary 190?
how is the 190a9 a contemporary of the f4u? it couldn't carry near the playload, operate at near the altitude nor did it have the same speed.
and where did you get the 801f as being the primary power plant for the a9? all i've ever seen documented was the 801s or ts.
the a9 had a top speed of what, 419mph at altitude and 360mph at sea level?...the "draggy" corsair could do 453mph at altitude and 446mph at sea level.
-
The 190 and 47 had very similar bombloads. Both typically carried between 1,000 and 2,000 lbs on operational sorties. Both could potentially carry upwards of 3,500-4,000 lbs; if fitted with an extended tail wheel the 190 could even carry the big ~4,000 lbs bomb the AH stuka carries. I consider the two aircraft equal in this regard.
All around, I am of the opinion that both were effective FBs; however, the P-47 had better characteristics enabling it to handle heavy payloads better than the FW190.
Up high the 47 was faster due to it turbo-supercharged engine. However up high is not the realm of the Jabo. The Jabo flies low as a necessity of its mission.
The argument is which was the best all around FB - not just in the JABO role.
I regard both aircraft as equal in this regard. Both had tough radial engines and had tough structures that could take a lot of punishment.
I agree to an extent - but I can't believe the FW was more rugged (take more punishment) than the Jug. I have read too many books - accounts from both sides - and the Jug had mucho respect from both sides in this regard. You just don't hear or read in documented history about the FW190 being rugged, but is a common theme with the Jug.
I'm quite sure they weren't. While the .50 cal worked well against soft skinned vehicles they were practically useless against infantry and armor. The 190's 20mm fired a combination of AP and HE shells that had greater penetration against armor (AP) and much higher lethality against infantry (HE). A .50 cal round landing one inch from a soldier's boot does nothing. A 20mm HE shell landing ten feet from a soldier's boot will burst his eardrums and shower him in light shrapnel; at best he will only be a casualty, at worst a fatality.
The allies had API, and it was very effective against medium armor and personnel. I read recently where the Jug was responsible for the destruction of over 30,000 armored vehicles, trains, and assorted military vehicles in the ETO.
The MG 151/20 were very effective against AC - to be sure. However Egon Meyer (spelling?) couldn't down Bob Johnson's D5 with a full load.
The 50 cal had a rate of fire of 800 RPM. Times that by 8 - 6400 rounds per minute - 106 rounds per second. That is an incredible amount of fire focused on a target. The fire rate of the MG 151/20 was slightly inferior to the M2, but makes for it with energy.
I consider the 190 to be superior in the Jabo role.
How do you come that opinion? I'm a P-47 homer - no doubt, so its easy for me to recognize "homerism". which this looks like:)
-
the a9 had a top speed of what, 419mph at altitude and 360mph at sea level?...the "draggy" corsair could do 453mph at altitude and 446mph at sea level.
446 at sea level might be a bit much, bruh ;)
-
I found your comment about the jugs better roll rate to be absolutely nonsense.
The FW190 roll rate was one of its trademark advantages, and I know of no USAAF AC that had a better roll rate. Reading accounts of ETO pilots supports this.
-
how is the 190a9 a contemporary of the f4u? it couldn't carry near the playload, operate at near the altitude nor did it have the same speed.
They entered service approximately at the same time during the closing months of the war in Europe. Their normal payloads were similar, though the 190 could carry upwards of 4,000 lbs for special missions. The 190's gun package was also better for air to mud operations. Up to about 15k the 190A/F-9 was faster than the F4U-4.
and where did you get the 801f as being the primary power plant for the a9? all i've ever seen documented was the 801s or ts.
The BMW 801F was always the engine meant for the -9, however the late 1944 production models got the S because the F wasn't quite ready yet. Beginning in January 1945 the F engines started to become available and hundreds of 190A/F-9 were build with the T engine.
the a9 had a top speed of what, 419mph at altitude and 360mph at sea level?...the "draggy" corsair could do 453mph at altitude and 446mph at sea level.
Altitude performance is not very important for a Jabo. The S/L speed of the A/F-9 was equal to the D-9 at 610 kmh according to German tests. That makes it just as fast on the deck as the F4U-4 and faster up to about 15k due to the F4U-4 losing power rapidly as altitude increases above S/L. I'll consider your claim of 446 mph at S/L as a typo or brain fart on your part.
-
F4U-1 had a top speed of ~417mph. It's faster than all of the 190s in AH except the Dora and Ta-152. This includes the 1944 A8. The F4U-1D, slightly slower than the -1 due to the fixed pylons and which is a better comparison, still maintains a marginal speed advantage over the same models.
Still wish HT would add the 2000lb centerline bomb option for the late hogs. 4000lbs (2000lber on the center, a pair of 1000lbers on the left and right pylons).
You're absolutely right that the F4U-1/1a was faster, but it was no fighter-bomber. I've compared the 190 to the F4U-1D which was an excellent fighter-bomber.
-
All around, I am of the opinion that both were effective FBs; however, the P-47 had better characteristics enabling it to handle heavy payloads better than the FW190.
I'm not sure what you mean by "better characteristics"; both aircraft typically carried similar payloads.
The argument is which was the best all around FB - not just in the JABO role.
Jabo means fighter-bomber. I'm not sure what you mean by "all round FB".
I agree to an extent - but I can't believe the FW was more rugged (take more punishment) than the Jug. I have read too many books - accounts from both sides - and the Jug had mucho respect from both sides in this regard. You just don't hear or read in documented history about the FW190 being rugged, but is a common theme with the Jug.
The Jug is a much more celebrated and written about aircraft, so that's hardly surprising. The Jug was very big and could absorb a lot of punishment, but "a lot" in this regard is a couple of 20mm shells. In real life a short burst of cannon fire would destroy any and all aircraft, including the Jug. Bob Johnson was simply an incredibly lucky man.
The allies had API, and it was very effective against medium armor and personnel. I read recently where the Jug was responsible for the destruction of over 30,000 armored vehicles, trains, and assorted military vehicles in the ETO.
.50 cal API wasn't effective against anything but the lightest of armor and soft skinned vehicles, and you'd have to hit a soldier directly. By comparison the MG 151/20 is firing 10 shells per second with about 2-3 of them being pure AP with much more energy than a .50 cal, and 7-8 being HE/HE(T) which are like small hand grenades against ground targets.
The MG 151/20 were very effective against AC - to be sure. However Egon Meyer (spelling?) couldn't down Bob Johnson's D5 with a full load.
Meyer was out of 20mm. He only had the 7.98mm MGs left. Still Johnson's survival is astounding. I've seen guncam footage showing a P-47 disintegrating after being hit by a burst of 20mm; all the shells and bullets must have missed every critical part that would have destroyed him.
The 50 cal had a rate of fire of 800 RPM. Times that by 8 - 6400 rounds per minute - 106 rounds per second. That is an incredible amount of fire focused on a target. The fire rate of the MG 151/20 was slightly inferior to the M2, but makes for it with energy.
There is nothing focused about wing mounted guns, and strafing at convergence is nearly impossible. The cannon's advantage over the machine gun is not only the kinetic energy, but the chemical energy. An autocannon is literally firing a stream of shells about as powerful as hand grenades.
-
What a 20mm strafing run looks like. Of course the M61 has a much higher rate of fire than two MG 151, but you get the idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy9VPTWyLh0
-
They entered service approximately at the same time during the closing months of the war in Europe. Their normal payloads were similar, though the 190 could carry upwards of 4,000 lbs for special missions. The 190's gun package was also better for air to mud operations. Up to about 15k the 190A/F-9 was faster than the F4U-4.
the cosair was capable (though very rarely done) of taking a single 2,000lbs bomb on the centerline and 2x1000lbs on the wings...from land bases. standar load out was more like 2500-3000lbs. where did you find information that claims any -a model 190 carried 4,000lbs?
The BMW 801F was always the engine meant for the -9, however the late 1944 production models got the S because the F wasn't quite ready yet. Beginning in January 1945 the F engines started to become available and hundreds of 190A/F-9 were build with the T engine.
it may have been intended but until there is some document that shows the a9 coming out of the factory with that engine, it was just a dream. every piece of data readily available on the 190-a9 and the 801f says there were production problems which kept it from being delivered.
Altitude performance is not very important for a Jabo. The S/L speed of the A/F-9 was equal to the D-9 at 610 kmh according to German tests. That makes it just as fast on the deck as the F4U-4 and faster up to about 15k due to the F4U-4 losing power rapidly as altitude increases above S/L. I'll consider your claim of 446 mph at S/L as a typo or brain fart on your part.
ya typo, i was looking at mil power at 27,000ft. test data shows 377mph at sea level under max power, and i believe sea level in the tests was 500 feet or something like that. but from what i've been able to find over the years, the germans used something like 500meters as "sea level", unless they were typos.
-
I'd say the two are about equal. In its best ground attack configuration, it is superior to the P-47 as a JABO. In addition to carrying a comparable load, it was better distributed for general close support. 4 50kg bombs will be more effective against infantry than one 500lb bomb. And the 190 could carry a couple different rockets, from huge 280mm atg rockets, and IIRC, even 82mm rockets based off a mortar round.
In a cleaner, lighter version , it was a superior fighter at lower altitudes.
What the P-47 did well was mix the two. While not as good as either the best bomb truck 190, or the best dogfighting 190, it was could outfight the one, and out bomb the other.
I'd say the jug is more of a swing role fighter, while the 190 was more of a multi role fighter.
-
The S/L speed of the A/F-9 was equal to the D-9 at 610 kmh according to German tests.
Could you point me to a source saying this? Don't recall seeing this data off hand.
-
In this.
(http://www.midwaysailor.com/midway1960/va25ne577-001b.jpg)
<S> to your dad! Glad to see so many responses to my post, but some have missed the point, SINGLE ENGINE, PROP DRIVEN aircraft. One thing everyone seems to forget, the A1 is the only aircraft listed which could take off with a full combat load out, gross weight 25,000 lbs, from a aircraft carrier! The F4U series of aircraft were restricted to 3 500lb bombs and rockets because the carriers of that era did not have the capability of launching the F4U aircraft at full gross weight.
The A1 had a P&W R-3350-26WA engine which developed 2,700 horse power. This was the same engine which was on the B-29 and with WEP engaged, developed an extra 400 horsepower for short field takeoffs. It could carry 8,000 lbs of ords on 15 hard points located on wing and fuseledge.
Case closed!!
The F4U-4 had a P&W R-2800-18W engine and could only carry 2,000 lbs of bombs and 4, 5 inch rockets.
-
<S> to your dad! Glad to see so many responses to my post, but some have missed the point, SINGLE ENGINE, PROP DRIVEN aircraft. One thing everyone seems to forget, the A1 is the only aircraft listed which could take off with a full combat load out, gross weight 25,000 lbs, from a aircraft carrier! The F4U series of aircraft were restricted to 3 500lb bombs and rockets because the carriers of that era did not have the capability of launching the F4U aircraft at full gross weight.
The A1 had a P&W R-3350-26WA engine which developed 2,700 horse power. This was the same engine which was on the B-29 and with WEP engaged, developed an extra 400 horsepower for short field takeoffs. It could carry 8,000 lbs of ords on 15 hard points located on wing and fuseledge.
Case closed!!
The F4U-4 had a P&W R-2800-18W engine and could only carry 2,000 lbs of bombs and 4, 5 inch rockets.
the f4u-4 could carry up to 6,000lbs of ordnance (in testing). the standard load out was 2000lbs, heavy was 3000lbs.
you seem to have forgotten that the f4u-4/5 operated from carriers in korea...successfully. and they fought mig-15s, successfully.
the a1 in a clean configuration could not hang with an f4u-4 in level flight or maneuverability. it didn't have the altitude capability of the f4u-4. though being able to carry heavier ords loads, it lacked in the ability to dogfight.
-
<S> to your dad! Glad to see so many responses to my post, but some have missed the point, SINGLE ENGINE, PROP DRIVEN aircraft.
Again, the Skyraider was not a fighter bomber, it was a pure attack craft and designated as such and never used in the fighter role in Korea or Vietnam. So, according to your own criteria (Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven) the Skyraider doesn't qualify.
ack-ack
-
the cosair was capable (though very rarely done) of taking a single 2,000lbs bomb on the centerline and 2x1000lbs on the wings
I keep asking for the center rack 2000lber option.
The F4U-4 had a P&W R-2800-18W engine and could only carry 2,000 lbs of bombs and 4, 5 inch rockets.
Double the number of rockets. Our F4U-1D and F4U-4 carries eight 5" HVARs. That's still well below what the actual capabilities of the aircraft was as noted in gyrene's post. I DROOL at the thought of rolling with a 2000lber, a pair of 1000lbers, and eight rockets.
-
Offhand? It was faster and climbed better. It also dived and rolled with the best of them. This is compared to the 190F.
My response was in answer to the F4U-4 VS the 190F. Not the P-47.
but i found your comment about the jugs better roll rate to be absolutely nonsense.
And I find your misquote to be even more utter nonsense.
A .50 cal round landing one inch from a soldier's boot does nothing. A 20mm HE shell landing ten feet from a soldier's boot will burst his eardrums and shower him in light shrapnel; at best he will only be a casualty, at worst a fatality.
Really? With 8 0.50s spitting 850 rounds per minute what do you think the chances are you will only get ONE 600+ grn bullet landing an inch from your boot and not getting hit anywhere else? If you are anywhere within the convergence of those 8 guns you are dead, or, you probably will wish you were. If the 20mm was so effective against armor then the LW wouldnt have kept trying to improve their ability to tank bust, which of course they did. The fact is against "most" targets the 20mm would be good against the 0.50s would do just fine. In fact against many targets, most of all people, I'd bet 8 0.50s would be marginally better.
The 190F was a fine airplane. Im not saying it wasnt. Against aircraft the MG 151/20 cannon was far superior.
-
the f4u-4 could carry up to 6,000lbs of ordnance (in testing). the standard load out was 2000lbs, heavy was 3000lbs.
you seem to have forgotten that the f4u-4/5 operated from carriers in korea...successfully. and they fought mig-15s, successfully.
the a1 in a clean configuration could not hang with an f4u-4 in level flight or maneuverability. it didn't have the altitude capability of the f4u-4. though being able to carry heavier ords loads, it lacked in the ability to dogfight.
I'm biased because it allowed my dad to return from combat safely.
It was maneuverable enough for my dad to maneuver a mig17 off his six and shoot it down.
Against enemy fighters, the skyraider has a higher than 1/1 kill/death ratio........and that's mostly against jets but two did tangle with LA9s and shot them down.
It could do radar and electronic countermeasures.
It could fight at night.
It could cover a large area with anti-personnel mines.
It could deliver a nuke to russia.
It could drop radios and survival gear to downed pilots.
It could drop torpedos and blow up a dam with them that the B29s had tried with no success.
(http://www.wardogs.com/images/burrows_skyraider.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51YomPdsyTL.jpg)
It could drop one of these.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/A-1E_1SOS_PavePat_1968.jpg/800px-A-1E_1SOS_PavePat_1968.jpg)
(http://a-1combatjournal.com/jpg_gifs/ordims/sandylod.jpg)
(http://a-1combatjournal.com/jpg_gifs/ordims/a1ord1.GIF)
(http://a-1combatjournal.com/jpg_gifs/ordims/a1ord2.GIF)
I addition to the ord shown, it also carried 4x20mm cannons with 180 rounds each.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG0IItDqYfI
Also......remember that many "fighters" used as fighter/bombers were not doing any fighting but rather had others in a pure fighter role to provide cover.
It could bring many times the destructive force of any other single engine prop. plane and fight it's way home after a 10+hour mission.
-
Out of curiosity, how was the Sea Fury as a fighter-bomber?
-
Your dad killed a mig! :O
Out of curiosity icepac, has your dad ever seen AH? Specifacally has he "flown"the hogs?
-
Earl1937, sir...I salute you and your enthusiasm for the A-1 Skyraider! I also am a fan of the "Sandy" having served in RVN. However, you asked the following:
(Title of thread...emphasis is mine)
Best Single Engine fighter-Bomber(Prop Driven)
(Initial question asked...emphasis is mine)
Which, in your opinion, was the best fighter-bomber of all time? It flew in 2 "wars" and 1 police action....just wondering what you guys think!
I am providing two links, and I know wikipedia is not the best source of information, but it does provide a quick and simple contrast of the two aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-1_Skyraider
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F4U-4_Corsair
From these two links you can see that the F4U was developed to be a fighter, and as such, it earned an 11:1 kill ratio. The Corsair was also adapted to the air-to-ground role, a role in which it also excelled. The F4U has a rich history of switching between the two roles claiming its last air-to-air victories in 1969.
The A-1 was developed to be an air-to-ground weapon from it's inception. Although it is credited with some air-to-air victories, it was never intended to be, nor did it ever serve in Squadron strength as a pure fighter (to my knowledge), in the same fashion as the F4U. And thus, in my opinion, it cannot be considered as a "fighter-bomber". I will agree that the "Sandy" is one hell of an "attack" aircraft par excellance, and has certainly earned its place in history.
...just my thoughts.
-
Patches,
while the Corsair is an excellent fighter and jabo aircraft, its 11:1 win ratio against the Japaneese is largely influenced by the numbers and the training quality of each side.
Im not saiying that it wasnt a MUCH better aircraft than its counterparts, with equal numbers and training, it could still win easily. Just not 11 times better.
-
Debrody, Sir,
My intent was not to hark the 11:1 kill ratio, but rather to prove the Corsair was a fighter first, and then adapted to the air-to-ground role as well.
There were many excellent fighter produced by all combatants in WWII and they all earned their places in history.
-
Your dad killed a mig! :O
Out of curiosity icepac, has your dad ever seen AH? Specifacally has he "flown"the hogs?
He flew warbirds for a little while until some swabbie talked smack and I think he's still interested in meeting the guy in real life.
Dad holds a grudge.
-
You cannot trump the nuke..........the nuke trumps all.
-
It was maneuverable enough for my dad to maneuver a mig17 off his six and shoot it down.
Very interesting! AFAIK there were two MiG-17s shot down by Skyraiders during Vietnam war.
Your father is one of these guys then? Is he Mr.Patton considering that is the only victory that involved only one shooter?
"During the war, U.S. Navy Skyraiders shot down two North Vietnamese Air Force (NVAF) Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17 jet fighters: one on 20 June 1965, a victory shared by Lieutenant Clinton B. Johnson and Lieutenant, junior grade Charles W. Hartman III of VA-25;[17] and one on 9 October 1966 by LTJG William T. Patton of VA-176."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider)
I'd love to hear more!
-
It could deliver a nuke to russia.
Interesting. I did not know it was tasked with that mission. I thought it was all Jets in tactical "special" delivery. Thunderjets, SkyHawks, T-Chiefs, Phantoms, Intruders. Ya learn something every day.
-
the cosair was capable (though very rarely done) of taking a single 2,000lbs bomb on the centerline and 2x1000lbs on the wings...from land bases. standar load out was more like 2500-3000lbs. where did you find information that claims any -a model 190 carried 4,000lbs?
It was very rare, like your 4,000 lbs bomb load F4U. Normally the maximum load was limited to 2,200 lbs in the configuration with one 500 kg bomb on the centerline hardpoint, and one 250 kg bomb on each wing hardpoint.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/fw190-3bomb.jpg)
However when fitted with the Schlos 1000 or 2000 in place of the ETC 501 rack the 190 could carry the 1,000 kg, 1,400 kg, 1,600 kg, and 1,800 kg bombs. The largest two of these required a special extended tail wheel to make the bomb clear the ground, however in the field the ground crew would instead modify the bomb casing by removing one of the bomb's fins. In the few instances were the massive 1,800 kg bomb was used the Fw 190 was carrying over 4,000 lbs of bomb+rack (Bomb alone weighed 3,968 lbs).
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/fw190sc1800.jpg)
it may have been intended but until there is some document that shows the a9 coming out of the factory with that engine, it was just a dream. every piece of data readily available on the 190-a9 and the 801f says there were production problems which kept it from being delivered.
The motor wasn't the problem, it had been in production since December 1943 and was used on bombers. The problem was fitting it on the 190 since it meant redesigning the engine cowling and re-balancing the aircraft. This was done by January 1945 and 190A/F-9s with th 801F started arriving at Luftwaffe units in the East in February 1945. Like I mentioned earlier the 190F at the Smithsonian has this engine. The confusion comes from the fact that the engine was originally designated TH and later TS. So every 190A/F-9 you see mentioned with a TS motor is in reality an F. This was a very confusing time in Germany.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/190A-9_801F.jpg)
-
The motor wasn't the problem, it had been in production since December 1943 and was used on bombers. The problem was fitting it on the 190 since it meant redesigning the engine cowling and re-balancing the aircraft. This was done by January 1945 and 190A/F-9s with th 801F started arriving at Luftwaffe units in the East in February 1945. Like I mentioned earlier the 190F at the Smithsonian has this engine. The confusion comes from the fact that the engine was originally designated TH and later TF. This was also a very confusing time in Germany.
the fact that the one in the smithsonian has what is claimed to be an -f motor does not mean that was the standard engine. like i said, paperwork, and every piece i've found so far (not saying it's everything out there) says there were production problems that prevented the -f motor from being put on the a9 from the factory, and that all available -f motors were allocated to other aircraft.
-
I made a few clarifications to my previous post...
-
Really? With 8 0.50s spitting 850 rounds per minute what do you think the chances are you will only get ONE 600+ grn bullet landing an inch from your boot and not getting hit anywhere else? If you are anywhere within the convergence of those 8 guns you are dead, or, you probably will wish you were. If the 20mm was so effective against armor then the LW wouldnt have kept trying to improve their ability to tank bust, which of course they did. The fact is against "most" targets the 20mm would be good against the 0.50s would do just fine. In fact against many targets, most of all people, I'd bet 8 0.50s would be marginally better.
It is obviously a matter of opinion, but explosive shells which have a blast/fragmentation radius is generally far, far better than a direct-hit weapon. A single 20mm round striking close to a group of soldier can potentially kill them all, even if they're behind cover that would protect them from direct hits. There are good reasons for why every nation that fields APCs and IFVs have up-gunned their vehicles to autocannons ranging from 20mm to 40mm in caliber. They are still useless against tanks, but much more effective against infantry and lightly armored vehicles.
If a number of .50 cals would be more effective against ground targets I'd expect they would have put them on the Sandy too, a dedicated ground attacker, but no; they put cannons on it. Same with every ground attack platform since, including attack helicopters.
-
I made a few clarifications to my previous post...
:neener: thanks for posting the top of that document...it reminded me of a website i found that gave the same scoop on the motor and just a tidbit more...
Die Serienproduktion der etwa 200 FW 190 A-9 begann im September 1944. Als Motoren wurden mehrere verschiedene eingesetzt. Der BMW 801 TU, TS und TH, alle als standardisierte Wechseltriebwerke. Dadurch war es immer möglich diese durch den häufigeren 801 D-2 zu ersetzen. Eigentlich sollte der BMW 801 F Motor in der A-9 Verwendung finden doch dieser war erst gegen Ende der Serie in wenigen Exemplaren verfügbar. Es wurde wiederum die Panzerung verstärkt und zwar vor allem die Rückenpanzerung. Die verwendeten Rüstsätze waren fast die selben wie schon bei der A-8, und zwar R1-R3, R6-R8 und R11 sowie R12.
http://www.focke-wulf190.com/die_fw_190_a_2.htm (http://www.focke-wulf190.com/die_fw_190_a_2.htm) now if i can just find the other german webpage that had similar info... :headscratch:
It is obviously a matter of opinion, but explosive shells which have a blast/fragmentation radius is generally far, far better than a direct-hit weapon. A single 20mm round striking close to a group of soldier can potentially kill them all, even if they're behind cover that would protect them from direct hits. There are good reasons for why every nation that fields APCs and IFVs have up-gunned their vehicles to autocannons ranging from 20mm to 40mm in caliber. They are still useless against tanks, but much more effective against infantry and lightly armored vehicles.
If a number of .50 cals would be more effective against ground targets I'd expect they would have put them on the Sandy too, a dedicated ground attacker, but no; they put cannons on it. Same with every ground attack platform since, including attack helicopters.
eh, there are a lot of factors that go into determining what guns to use on ground vehicles, and there is a good reason for .50cal and 7.62mm to still be placed on the vehicles as secondary defensive weapons. don't forget, the 20-40mm rounds used on ground vehicles today are different from the ones used on aircraft in ww2. against ground targets and armor, the 20mm meingenschloss round used in german aircraft was minimally effective compared to the armor piercing .50 ammo used in u.s. fighters. and a standard .50 ball round can penetrate more armor than a round from a mg151/20 at 1000yards.
if it came down to being in a light armored vehicle and having to choose between a mg151/20 and a browning m2, i'd choose the mg151/20 because i know it would explode on impact and have lower penetration.
-
The German quote basically says the same as I. At the end of the A/F-9 production run (end of war in Europe) a number of 190s were built with the 801F engine.
The M-Geschoss rounds would not be used for ground attack, but rather the AP, HE and HE(T) in various mixed belts (it was up to the pilot). The ammunition now and then is not that different.
-
The German quote basically says the same as I. At the end of the A/F-9 production run (end of war in Europe) a number of 190s were built with the 801F engine.
where did you say that? :headscratch:
The M-Geschoss rounds would not be used for ground attack, but rather the AP, HE and HE(T) in various mixed belts (it was up to the pilot). The ammunition now and then is not that different.
that's the great thing about the browning m2 machine gun on ww2 fighters...no need to make a choice, the basic .50 cal ball ammo was multi-purpose.
-
Ah... The F4U-4. It's contemporary 190A/F would be the -9. Produced from September 1944 in its last version it had the uprated BMW 801F motor that delivered 2,400 hp.
"In its last version"
And...
The BMW 801F was always the engine meant for the -9, however the late 1944 production models got the S because the F wasn't quite ready yet. Beginning in January 1945 the F engines started to become available and hundreds of 190A/F-9 were build with the T engine.
And to clarify again... The T (TS, TH) version was the early F version before they changed the designation. I've heard that about 60 aircraft were built after the switch to the F designation in the closing weeks of the war in Europe, although I cannot substantiate that number in any way.
-
that's the great thing about the browning m2 machine gun on ww2 fighters...no need to make a choice, the basic .50 cal ball ammo was multi-purpose.
I'm sorry but that's just laughable.
-
Earl1937, sir...I salute you and your enthusiasm for the A-1 Skyraider! I also am a fan of the "Sandy" having served in RVN. However, you asked the following:
(Title of thread...emphasis is mine)
(Initial question asked...emphasis is mine)
I am providing two links, and I know wikipedia is not the best source of information, but it does provide a quick and simple contrast of the two aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-1_Skyraider
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F4U-4_Corsair
From these two links you can see that the F4U was developed to be a fighter, and as such, it earned an 11:1 kill ratio. The Corsair was also adapted to the air-to-ground role, a role in which it also excelled. The F4U has a rich history of switching between the two roles claiming its last air-to-air victories in 1969.
The A-1 was developed to be an air-to-ground weapon from it's inception. Although it is credited with some air-to-air victories, it was never intended to be, nor did it ever serve in Squadron strength as a pure fighter (to my knowledge), in the same fashion as the F4U. And thus, in my opinion, it cannot be considered as a "fighter-bomber". I will agree that the "Sandy" is one hell of an "attack" aircraft par excellance, and has certainly earned its place in history.
...just my thoughts.
:airplane: You have a good point, as the order to the USAF and Navy, was for a ground attack aircraft, but able to defend itself! While there were no A1's assigned as a fighter, many times it was forced into that role, downing several LA7's and YAK's during the Korean conflict. Any aircraft which could do all the USAF and Navy ACM's, in my view, qualifies as a fighter! There were several aircraft designed to do one thing, but also did several other things to an acceptable level. Example: the Lockheed P-38 was designed by "Kelly Johnson" as a pure interceptor, but stood out as a air to ground attack role.
-
If a number of .50 cals would be more effective against ground targets I'd expect they would have put them on the Sandy too, a dedicated ground attacker, but no; they put cannons on it. Same with every ground attack platform since, including attack helicopters.
The Browning 0.50 has had a long, long life and is still with us on almost all its old platforms. With aircraft, after WW2, ground attack moved more and more towards the use of evolving munitions and farther away from strafing. Really could you compare one 20mm, even a Vulcan, to 8 0.50s for strafing personal and light targets? Ground attack moved more towards munitions and cannons moved more toward ATA, eventually becoming a 2nd to missilry as well. Hell an F4 Phantom could carry about 9,000 lbs of ords. Jet aircraft carried more and better ground attack munitions due to thrust/weight.
Thing is if your going to pick just ONE gun to put on an airplane of course you'll pick the 20mm, either Hispano OR Vulcan, over a 0.50. And of course 4 Hispanos would be better then 8 0.50s. The 20mm's were/are great guns.
But here is a movie that shows what those poor IJN sailors were up against when 6 gun Hellcats repeatedly strafed one side http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0451845/ I had a friends who flew P-47s during the war and he used to tell me about their strafing runs. they would just chew up trains and their engines which are a pretty hard target and the poor Krauts they caught in the open would just get shredded.
-
Example: the Lockheed P-38 was designed by "Kelly Johnson" as a pure interceptor, but stood out as a air to ground attack role.
P-38 stands out not because of its ground attack abilitities, it stands out because was the plane flown by the top two US fighter aces in WW2.
ack-ack
-
P-38 stands out not because of its ground attack abilitities, it stands out because was the plane flown by the top two US fighter aces in WW2.
ack-ack
:salute Good point, I should have said, "in addition" to being an interceptor, it also stood out as a fighter-bomber!
-
The Browning 0.50 has had a long, long life and is still with us on almost all its old platforms. With aircraft, after WW2, ground attack moved more and more towards the use of evolving munitions and farther away from strafing. Really could you compare one 20mm, even a Vulcan, to 8 0.50s for strafing personal and light targets? Ground attack moved more towards munitions and cannons moved more toward ATA, eventually becoming a 2nd to missilry as well. Hell an F4 Phantom could carry about 9,000 lbs of ords. Jet aircraft carried more and better ground attack munitions due to thrust/weight.
Thing is if your going to pick just ONE gun to put on an airplane of course you'll pick the 20mm, either Hispano OR Vulcan, over a 0.50. And of course 4 Hispanos would be better then 8 0.50s. The 20mm's were/are great guns.
But here is a movie that shows what those poor IJN sailors were up against when 6 gun Hellcats repeatedly strafed one side http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0451845/ I had a friends who flew P-47s during the war and he used to tell me about their strafing runs. they would just chew up trains and their engines which are a pretty hard target and the poor Krauts they caught in the open would just get shredded.
The Browning M2 is a great weapon; in my opinion second only to the Berezin UBS as an aircraft machine gun. I instructed on the M2HB during my service in the Army, so I both love and know it well. However, while it packs a lot of kinetic energy and thus penetration, is lacks the advantage of having effective explosive power. That is, until the advent of MP ammo for it in the '90s (invented and made by NAMMO (then Kongsberg) btw.).
I just love that sound, and eight would totally rock...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB5GYjjH2ek
But for strafing I would rather have one of these...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW0ob523z7k
-
The Browning M2 is a great weapon; in my opinion second only to the Berezin UBS as an aircraft machine gun. I instructed on the M2HB during my service in the Army, so I both love and know it well. However, while it packs a lot of kinetic energy and thus penetration, is lacks the advantage of having effective explosive power. That is, until the advent of MP ammo for it in the '90s (invented and made by NAMMO (then Kongsberg) btw.).
Since you mentioned Nammo.... We are about to begin advanced development testing of the new Fuze for the M72 ASM FFE... We are developing the impact sensor for Nammo Talley, Mesa, Arizona. Should begin live fire tests mid August.
Nammo is a great company to work with. One of our favorite customers, with an outstandingly bright and fun Engineering staff.
-
Pretty cool! If it was one thing we hated about the classic M72 it was the back blast. Now that's a thing of the past.
-
I think the biggest reason the .50 has stuck around so long isn't because its good for everything, but more because we haven't really developed a new round in its caliber range with sufficiently superior performance to warrant replacing it.
And out of curiosity, is there any other HMG round besides the US .50 and Russian .51 in widespread use?
-
P-38 stands out not because of its ground attack abilitities, it stands out because was the plane flown by the top two US fighter aces in WW2.
ack-ack
Yes, but the P-38 still turned out to be an extremely effective ground attack platform. A stable gun platform, with center mounted machine guns and cannon, twin engine redundancy, load capacity, and a relatively small target from the front or rear.
Still, the later of the F4U series is probably a better all around fighter/bomber, and pure toughness gives the P-47 an edge in ground attack, but that is offset by a desire to be anything but relatively low and slow in a P-47.
-
I'm so glad to see the different definitions of "best" come to light. :aok In actuality, there is no "best". Only "better" in certain areas. If I were to make a list of "best", I'd have to break it down per category.
I'd take one of the later Spitfire models as an air superiority fighter.
P47M as a bomber escort.
One of the 190 models as fighter/bomber (catch all) plane. (190F-8, I do believe) This would also be a back up to the main air superiority fighter.
Ta152 as a bomber interceptor.
I see the P38 (not single engine, but same class) as too expensive and too difficult to maintain. I see the P51x as an escort fighter and the P47 is better for that, imo. The IL-2 is too slow and limited in the direct support role. Spitfire could do it all very well, only really best in range and ord capacity (not primary attributed of an air superiority fighter anyways).
-
I'm so glad to see the different definitions of "best" come to light. Thumbs UP! In actuality, there is no "best". Only "better" in certain areas. If I were to make a list of "best", I'd have to break it down per category.
I'd take one of the later Spitfire models as an air superiority fighter.
P47M as a bomber escort.
One of the 190 models as fighter/bomber (catch all) plane. (190F-8, I do believe) This would also be a back up to the main air superiority fighter.
Ta152 as a bomber interceptor.
I see the P38 (not single engine, but same class) as too expensive and too difficult to maintain. I see the P51x as an escort fighter and the P47 is better for that, imo. The IL-2 is too slow and limited in the direct support role. Spitfire could do it all very well, only really best in range and ord capacity (not primary attributed of an air superiority fighter anyways).
-
P-38 stands out not because of its ground attack abilitities, it stands out because was the plane flown by the top two US fighter aces in WW2.
ack-ack
And because it was designed by a graduate of the University of Michigan! :D
-
And because it was designed by a graduate of the University of Michigan! :D
Because he designed such a wonderful airplane, I won't hold it against him that he was a Wolverine.
ack-ack
-
By the way, Ack-Ack, I have begun flying the P-38J for the majority of my flying in AH. If you guys notice that the K/D for the J has gone down, I'm probably the reason, but I will get better as time goes on! (I generally pick a particular plane and fly that around as my main ride for several tours. P-39D was my previous one.)
I'd like to fly the G, but I can't see well through the dark glass put in on the gunsight (which shouldn't be there by default -- it was an optional thing put in or not at pilot's choice).
-
By the way, Ack-Ack, I have begun flying the P-38J for the majority of my flying in AH. If you guys notice that the K/D for the J has gone down, I'm probably the reason, but I will get better as time goes on! (I generally pick a particular plane and fly that around as my main ride for several tours. P-39D was my previous one.)
I'd like to fly the G, but I can't see well through the dark glass put in on the gunsight (which shouldn't be there by default -- it was an optional thing put in or not at pilot's choice).
I like to fly the G as well but have the same problem you do with the gunsight so I don't take it up very often.
ack-ack
-
The corsair is the best single engine piston powered fighter ever. It has the longest production run of any piston engine fighter aircraft. The Brits were using corsair 1's (birdcage corsairs) off of carriers (1943) long before the US navy adapted them for carrier service,(April 1944), and the French used them long after WWII ended. The last corsair rolled off the assembly line in 1953. Of course I'm biased as I've been a corsair fan since childhood. :airplane:
Everyone knows that navy wings are made of gold, and air force wings are made of lead. :neener:
-
I got to hear a talk by pilots who flew Corsairs in the Korean war (and just last weekend ones who flew off the Bunker Hill and survived the kamikaze hits).
The ones in the Korean war carried a very heavy load of bombs on occasion.
-
I got to hear a talk by pilots who flew Corsairs in the Korean war (and just last weekend ones who flew off the Bunker Hill and survived the kamikaze hits).
The ones in the Korean war carried a very heavy load of bombs on occasion.
I think I read somewhere the AU-1s were being loaded with as much as 8000lbs of ordinance.
-
I think I read somewhere the AU-1s were being loaded with as much as 8000lbs of ordinance.
I don't remember the number, but it was at least 4000 lbs sometimes. One of their missions was taking out a train tunnel, and so they flew along the tracks at treetop level toward the tunnel and skidded delayed-fuse bombs into it (pulling up very hard to avoid the mountain, of course).
The guys who flew off the Bunker Hill had some great stories as well. They all loved the Corsair.
One of them was Dean Caswell, pilot depicted in this painting:
(http://www.museumofflight.org/files/imagecache/lightbox/caswell-2.jpg)
-
One of the Corsair pilots (Raymond Swalley) also flew F8F's after the war. He said "It was like flying a bumblebee." :)
(http://www.ray-ban.com/_repository/_resources/_breel/lite/assets/images/modal/30s/s30_image_2.png)
-
A1 - absolutely without a doubt. One of the guys at my old airport was telling my stories about flying it in Vietnam - apparently one day his plane got hit by 2 37mm rounds - one completely knocked off his left horizontal stabilizer and the other took out the outboard 5' of his left wing. He made an emergency landing at some army base. I didn't know if he was telling the truth or not because it seemed a little far fetched, but after I saw the A1 lose twice that much wing in the mid air at Duxford I believed every word he said.
The FW190 may have been good, but the germans lost and it's service length is incredibly short compared to the Sandy - an integral part of what would make something the "best ever" it also couldn't take a fraction of the punishment that the Sandy would.
-
The Sandy is still not a fighter... An integral part of a fighter-bomber... ... ... And the Sandy lost its war too...
-
The Sandy may have had a long career, but only 3,180 were made. The Fw 190 on the other hand may have had a short career, but it is one of the most produced aircraft of all time with more than 20,000 made. It also fought in the greatest conflict of all time (the Eastern Front) and not some UN police action or limited war against jungle insurgents in a small country in Southeast Asia.
-
The Sandy is still not a fighter... An integral part of a fighter-bomber... ... ... And the Sandy lost its war too...
The Sandy didn't lose it's war, the powers to be lost it. Just like the power to be lost it in WWII.
-
Thank you.
-
I'll bet the body count of the skyraider is more than triple any other fighter/bomber.
-
I'll bet the body count of the skyraider is more than triple any other fighter/bomber.
:airplane: I assume you are talking about enemy body count, not A1 pilots! Again, I will say this again, the reason I include the A1 series of aircraft in the fighter category is simply this: It can do all the required ACM's by all three branches which used the aircraft, USAF, Navy and Marines. (I think the Marines used it, but not 100% sure.) Where are not it actually was a scheduled fighter is beside the point! It did see air to air combat and destroyed 4 aircraft that I know of in actual combat.
-
I'll bet the body count of the skyraider is more than triple any other fighter/bomber.
I bet you're wrong.
-
:airplane: I assume you are talking about enemy body count, not A1 pilots! Again, I will say this again, the reason I include the A1 series of aircraft in the fighter category is simply this: It can do all the required ACM's by all three branches which used the aircraft, USAF, Navy and Marines. (I think the Marines used it, but not 100% sure.) Where are not it actually was a scheduled fighter is beside the point! It did see air to air combat and destroyed 4 aircraft that I know of in actual combat.
The B-17 destroyed a lot more aircraft than that. Wasn't a fighter either, and we don't call it a fighter-bomber. The Sandy could barely exceed 300 mph in level flight clean... It would even have been massacred in the Battle of Britain.
-
Earl,
There are pretty good odds that the Il-2 shot down a few enemy fighters with its main guns, but I still wouldn't consider it a fighter. Both the SBD and D3A were tasked with CAP missions when there weren't enough F4Fs or A6Ms to spare, yet neither ought to be considered a fighter.
The A-1 was a great attack aircraft, but it really cannot be considered a fighter-bomber. It completely lacks credentials in the fighter part of that role. Even if you give it the benefit of the doubt on that it would still not be the best fighter-bomber of all as while it does very well on the bomber part of the role it is very weak on the fighter part of the role. To be considered the greatest fighter-bomber the winning unit needs to be able to do both roles effectively, not just sort of on an emergency basis when pressed into it. The Spitfire LF.Mk IXe/Spitfire Mk XVI is probably a better balanced fighter-bomber than the A-1 is.
The Fw190, F6F, F4U, P-47, Typhoon and Sea Fury are examples of single engined aircraft that could do both roles, being competitive with their contemporaries in the fighter role while still being effective attack aircraft. The A-1 was simply not remotely competitive with its contemporary fighters in the fighter role.
Realistically this means the best prop driven single engine fighter bomber is almost certainly going to be a late F4U or the Sea Fury simply due to the fact that they were the end of the line for prop fighters. If were pick the best based on its capability related to its fighter and fighter bomber contemporaries the question is a lot more interesting.
-
the reason I include the A1 series of aircraft in the fighter category is simply this: It can do all the required ACM's by all three branches which used the aircraft, USAF, Navy and Marines. (I think the Marines used it, but not 100% sure.) Where are not it actually was a scheduled fighter is beside the point! It did see air to air combat and destroyed 4 aircraft that I know of in actual combat.
Cool, the Ju-87 was a fighter then, too. :aok
-
Skyraider has the nuke.
-
Skyraider has the nuke.
Doesn't matter. So long as the fighter rating remains that low, increasing the bomber rating won't help it in the fighter-bomber category.
-
By comparison, the other planes fall short in the ord delivery department.
The stats are just as skewed against other fighter/bombers vs the skyraider concerning total ord dropped as the stats are against the skyraider in the "fighter" department.
The skyraider spent 3 years dropping ord in Korea and spent 10 years dropping ord in Nam.
Some South Vietnamese pilots had 1000 hours of missions in the skyraider.
The south Vietnamese pilots loaded 9,900 pounds of ord on thier planes often.
It could carry 3 torpedos.
It could carry 12 troops or 2000 pounds of cargo and still carry ord externally up to 8000 for ground ops and around 6000 for carrier ops.
In aces high, it could white flag a town, strafe the ack down, and drop troops for the capture by itself.
I don't think any other single engine prop plane came close to the amount of destruction to enemy assets over it's career.
-
By comparison, the other planes fall short in the ord delivery department.
The stats are just as skewed against other fighter/bombers vs the skyraider concerning total ord dropped as the stats are against the skyraider in the "fighter" department.
The skyraider spent 3 years dropping ord in Korea and spent 10 years dropping ord in Nam.
Some South Vietnamese pilots had 1000 hours of missions in the skyraider.
The south Vietnamese pilots loaded 9,900 pounds of ord on thier planes often.
It could carry 3 torpedos.
I don't think any other single engine prop plane came close to the amount of destruction to enemy assets over it's career.
Yeas, it was a great attack plane. Being a great bomber doesn't make it a great fighter-bomber anymore than being a great fighter makes a plane a great fighter-bomber. The nature of a fighter-bomber requires it to be both and the A-1 simply wasn't.
-
By comparison, the other planes fall short in the ord delivery department.
The stats are just as skewed against other fighter/bombers vs the skyraider concerning total ord dropped as the stats are against the skyraider in the "fighter" department.
The skyraider spent 3 years dropping ord in Korea and spent 10 years dropping ord in Nam.
Some South Vietnamese pilots had 1000 hours of missions in the skyraider.
The south Vietnamese pilots loaded 9,900 pounds of ord on thier planes often.
It could carry 3 torpedos.
It could carry 12 troops or 2000 pounds of cargo and still carry ord externally up to 8000 for ground ops and around 6000 for carrier ops.
In aces high, it could white flag a town, strafe the ack down, and drop troops for the capture by itself.
I don't think any other single engine prop plane came close to the amount of destruction to enemy assets over it's career.
Great stats for an attack plane.
ack-ack
-
:airplane: I assume you are talking about enemy body count, not A1 pilots! Again, I will say this again, the reason I include the A1 series of aircraft in the fighter category is simply this: It can do all the required ACM's by all three branches which used the aircraft, USAF, Navy and Marines. (I think the Marines used it, but not 100% sure.) Where are not it actually was a scheduled fighter is beside the point! It did see air to air combat and destroyed 4 aircraft that I know of in actual combat.
During the Battle of the Coral Sea, Lt. "Swede" Vejtasa, shot down 3 Zekes in his SBD. Does that make the SBD a fighter? Nope.
ack-ack
-
During the Battle of the Coral Sea, Lt. "Swede" Vejtasa, shot down 3 Zekes in his SBD. Does that make the SBD a fighter? Nope.
ack-ack
Great minds think alike... I was going to mention that the SBD was frequently used for CAP early in the war. It's a pretty good ride for what it is. But, what it is is a dive bomber.
The AD-1 was designed to replace the TBM and Curtiss Helldiver, which it certainly did. Unloaded, its wing loading allows for a surprisingly agile "attack" plane. It was well armed, specifically for strafing, not air to air. It's an attack platform, like the A-4, A-6 and A-7 series that followed it. Comparable Navy fighter/bombers would include the FJ-4, F3H-2, F-8E and F-4B/F4-J.
-
Icepac, I know it's your dad's plane and you're proud of it; you have every reason to be. However it just doesn't fit the bill as a fighter-bomber. If this debate had been about the best CAS plane of all time the Sandy would have been a top candidate for sure.
-
the Sandy
Must say it, 'cause it's finally starting to make me twitch.
SKYRAIDER. Sandy was a specific mission profile, (SAR escort) NOT an aircraft.
-
Must say it, 'cause it's finally starting to make me twitch.
SKYRAIDER. Sandy was a specific mission profile, (SAR escort) NOT an aircraft.
Grunts called them "Sandys", we in the Navy called them Spads.
-
Must say it, 'cause it's finally starting to make me twitch.
:lol
Sorry about that :)
-
Icepac, I know it's your dad's plane and you're proud of it; you have every reason to be. However it just doesn't fit the bill as a fighter-bomber. If this debate had been about the best CAS plane of all time the Sandy would have been a top candidate for sure.
wait so was that icepacs dad on dogfights :O :O :O :O
-
Grunts called them "Sandys", we in the Navy called them Spads.
Spads are bicycles over here :D
-
:airplane: Which, in your opinion, was the best fighter-bomber of all time? It flew in 2 "wars" and 1 police action....just wondering what you guys think!
:airplane: Where are not we can all agree on which was the best "Fighter-Bomber", there has been some interesting replies to this question and I appreciate everyone replying, as I have certainly learned some things about other aircraft in this game and that really was the intent of the post!
-
wait so was that icepacs dad on dogfights :O :O :O :O
I've only seen one MiG-17 by Skyraiders in the dogfights series. There were exactly two MiG-17 kills scored in the Vietnam War.
But yeh, as said I'd be very interested to know which one of these three gentlemen was icepac's dad...
Very interesting! AFAIK there were two MiG-17s shot down by Skyraiders during Vietnam war.
Your father is one of these guys then? Is he Mr.Patton considering that is the only victory that involved only one shooter?
"During the war, U.S. Navy Skyraiders shot down two North Vietnamese Air Force (NVAF) Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17 jet fighters: one on 20 June 1965, a victory shared by Lieutenant Clinton B. Johnson and Lieutenant, junior grade Charles W. Hartman III of VA-25;[17] and one on 9 October 1966 by LTJG William T. Patton of VA-176."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider)
I'd love to hear more!
hmm...
-
:airplane: Where are not we can all agree on which was the best "Fighter-Bomber", there has been some interesting replies to this question and I appreciate everyone replying, as I have certainly learned some things about other aircraft in this game and that really was the intent of the post!
The consensus seems to be that the Skyraider was a great attack plane during it's time, probably the best (I think the A-10 now takes that crown) while the Corsair was the best fighter-bomber of the period.
ack-ack
-
I've only seen one MiG-17 by Skyraiders in the dogfights series. There were exactly two MiG-17 kills scored in the Vietnam War.
But yeh, as said I'd be very interested to know which one of these three gentlemen was icepac's dad...
hmm...
You are referring to 2 MiG-17 kills by Skyraiders only, correct?
-
You are referring to 2 MiG-17 kills by Skyraiders only, correct?
He is, he's referring to a comment icepac made saying his dad was the one that shot them down.
ack-ack
-
You are referring to 2 MiG-17 kills by Skyraiders only, correct?
Correct, it ("by Skyraiders") was in the sentence I had structured in my head but my hands didn't type it in for some reason. A lot of similar stuff going on as of late for me, starts to get on my nerves...
There are sources talking about third probable kill as well.
-
BTW, forgot to mention that in the MA icepac said that Mr. Clinton Johnson is his father.
-
Correct, it ("by Skyraiders") was in the sentence I had structured in my head but my hands didn't type it in for some reason. A lot of similar stuff going on as of late for me, starts to get on my nerves...
There are sources talking about third probable kill as well.
Two kills by Skyraiders tells me that two MiG pilots did something remarkably stupid to find themselves under those four cannons...
-
Two kills by Skyraiders tells me that two MiG pilots did something remarkably stupid to find themselves under those four cannons...
In one of the two cases, it was eight cannons to be exact. :D The MiG went head on with two Skyriders in tight line abreast...
-
So 2 a2a kills make it fighter. :rolleyes: There are many Fw190F aces with double digit a2a kills. Oberleutnant August Lamber claiming 116 Russian aircraft was the highest scoring Schlachtflieger.
-
Well I certainly don't think it's a fighter.
-
So 2 a2a kills make it fighter. :rolleyes: There are many Fw190F aces with double digit a2a kills. Oberleutnant August Lamber claiming 116 Russian aircraft was the highest scoring Schlachtflieger.
Wasn't the FW190F-8 considered a fighter bomber or was it classified as just an attack plane?
ack-ack
-
Wasn't the FW190F-8 considered a fighter bomber or was it classified as just an attack plane?
ack-ack
IIRC, it was considered a Jagerbomber, since the F-8 specifications could be met with various Rüstsatz or Umrüst-Bausatz upgrades of the Fw 190 fighter airframe, and still had the performance, if not the handling, of a fighter.
-
In a quick count I got 158 air-to-air kills by Mosquito FB.Mk VIs in Europe during WWII. It isn't single engined, but it was manifestly considered a fighter-bomber by the RAF, hence the "FB" tag.
-
IIRC, it was considered a Jagerbomber,
Which is pretty much the same thing as a fighter-bomber.
ack-ack
-
The 190 F-series is just a re-designation of specific factory conversion kits (Umrüstbausatz) to the A-series. The F-1 was earlier known as the A-4/U3, the F-2 and F-3 were the A-5/U3 and U17 respectively. F-4 to F-7 were not produced. The last F-series 190 produced was the F-9 that had the uprated engine of the A-9 and the new Ta 152 tail unit. 147 F-9s were built in January '45 and perhaps a few hundred more before VE-Day.
-
:airplane: Where are not we can all agree on which was the best "Fighter-Bomber", there has been some interesting replies to this question and I appreciate everyone replying, as I have certainly learned some things about other aircraft in this game and that really was the intent of the post!
We agree - the P-47D was the best single-engine FB of all time! We being me, Discovery Channel (Wings), and the mouse in my pocket :D
Ammo - out
-
There's one aspect that I don't think anyone has considered...
What contributes to the F4U-4 being the premier single engine fighter/bomber of WWII is its ability to operate from land or sea. That advantage is actually, huge.....
-
There's one aspect that I don't think anyone has considered...
What contributes to the F4U-4 being the premier single engine fighter/bomber of WWII is its ability to operate from land or sea. That advantage is actually, huge.....
I think that's definitely something being overlooked. The Fw-190 and P-47 (even the later, longer-ranged models) can't really compare to the potential force projection of an F4U-4 staging from an aircraft carrier.
-
But the P-47N could reach Tokyo or Berlin from Kansas, so it didn't need carriers. ;)
-
BTW, forgot to mention that in the MA icepac said that Mr. Clinton Johnson is his father.
and who is that? :headscratch:
-
There's one aspect that I don't think anyone has considered...
What contributes to the F4U-4 being the premier single engine fighter/bomber of WWII is its ability to operate from land or sea. That advantage is actually, huge.....
If the nation in question needs a navy to get to its enemies, sure. Russia and Germany had no such needs. If they had, then I'd think the 190 could have easily been converted to carrier use like the Hurricane, Spitfire and 109 was early in the war. It already had a sturdy structure, excellent wide track landing gear, and reliable radial engine.
-
I am pretty sure a navalized Fw190 would have been a much better carrier plane than the Bf109, Hurricane or Spitfire, though it may have needed its wing loading reduced by enlarging the wings a bit. The Bf109 was about the most wrong plane for the job one can imagine. Spitfire wasn't too far behind the Bf109 in being bad for the job.
-
If the nation in question needs a navy to get to its enemies, sure. Russia and Germany had no such needs.
...errmmm.....wasn't Germany fighting...you know...England...?
- oldman (not intending to derail the thread!)
-
...errmmm.....wasn't Germany fighting...you know...England...?
- oldman (not intending to derail the thread!)
No Germany was fighting the UK (England, Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland). Carriers couldn't operate in the North Sea > they would be juicy targets for annihilation.
-
...errmmm.....wasn't Germany fighting...you know...England...?
- oldman (not intending to derail the thread!)
Yeah... They needed invasion barges and landing craft. They already had the huge carrier "KM Frankreich" parked just off the coast of England... ;)
-
The 190's airframe was built to withstand a landing with a sink rate of 15ft/sec, roughly twice the standard tolerances. Also, an A5 is entirely capable of taking off from a carrier, even if it gets a tad sketchy at high weights.
Now, if Germany had needed that type of navy, the 190 would have made an excellent carrier fighter.
-
There's one aspect that I don't think anyone has considered...
What contributes to the F4U-4 being the premier single engine fighter/bomber of WWII is its ability to operate from land or sea. That advantage is actually, huge.....
That's a very good point WW. However that attribute is best measured in potential, not historical results.
If measured by the latter, IMO, that leaves the P-47D, FW190, F4UD, and F6F as the front runners for best single engine FB.
-
There's one aspect that I don't think anyone has considered...
What contributes to the F4U-4 being the premier single engine fighter/bomber of WWII is its ability to operate from land or sea. That advantage is actually, huge.....
That's a very good point WW. However that attribute is best measured in potential, not historical results.
If measured by the latter, IMO, that leaves the P-47D, FW190, F4UD, and F6F as the front runners for best single engine FB.
Perhaps I'm a bit off topic here, and perhaps a bit undereducated, but I am wondering which of these aircraft, other than the F4U, answers the OPs original question: P47D, FW190, F6F?
-
All og them? Depending om preference.
-
All og them? Depending om preference.
I believe he means to take the original question literally: 2 "wars" and 1 police action. That would certainly lead to the conclusion of the F4U.
But I agree with you; all of them based on personal opinion. The answer will be subjective.
-
Check this out..
www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o rg/Fury/Sea_Fury_Flight.pdf
Howzat!
-
BTW, forgot to mention that in the MA icepac said that Mr. Clinton Johnson is his father.
Pretty Rad....if thats the case.
http://www.vnafmamn.com/Skyraider_vs_MIG17.html (http://www.vnafmamn.com/Skyraider_vs_MIG17.html)
:cheers:
-
and who is that? :headscratch:
Icepac's Dad flew Skyraiders in Vietnam. He shared a Mig-17 kill with another pilot from VA-25.
-
This state of the art piece of machinery was by far thee best fighter-bomber ever. :old:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Sopwith_7F.1_Snipe.jpg)
-
Well, if that is the moteur-cannon equipped Spad, then you're onto something..
Or - if it is only a lousy flyweight Nieuport - then maybe you're on something,
-or need to be..
-
Well, if that is the moteur-cannon equipped Spad, then you're onto something..
Or - if it is only a lousy flyweight Nieuport - then maybe you're on something,
-or need to be..
Wrong and wrong. Guess again. :rock
-
Snipe?
-
Snipe?
Correct! :aok
I read a book years ago written by a Snipe pilot who spoke of dropping 25 pound bombs on the trenches and during German charges in no man's land. He said it wasn't the fastest or best performer but it was manuverable and stable for shallow angle bombing. It was probably one of the least known pioneers of the close support fighter-bomber role that eventually lead to all of your much celebrated Corsair's Thunderbolts and 190s.
-
Spit16
-
Were Snipes used in the famous occasion at Nablus in Palestine on 21st Sept
1918 - where for the 1st time..[P. 57 Guinness History of Air Warfare]
'...a major ground force was virtually annihilated by aircraft alone.'
'The RAF found the Turkish 7th Army retreating on the Tulkeram-Nablus road
...& strafed it with great effect'.
...'The road was bordered by steep ravines, & the RAF's attack continued all day, 2 aircraft appearing every 3 minutes, with an additional 1/2 doz each 1/2 hour. Initial attacks blocked the head of the column, & thereafter chaos ensued
& multiplied.
By the end of the day the 7th Army had to all intents & purposes ceased to exist, & it was only necessary for the advancing British troops to round up the prisoners.'
A prototype for the Falaise Gap/Gulf War Iraqi retreat from Kuwait strafings..
-
& 'bout ~30 years later, the RAF were getting busy in the same region,
flying the potent prop fighter-bomber Tempest F6..
See here, paragraph 21..
http://www.hawkertempest.se/Tempests19471949.htm
-
:airplane: Which, in your opinion, was the best fighter-bomber of all time? It flew in 2 "wars" and 1 police action....just wondering what you guys think!
:airplane: The "Skyraider" was the best all around fighter bomber, single engine, prop propelled aircraft of all time. I am basing that on history reports, personal stories from pilots who flew them. It could deliever more ords than a B-17 or B-24 did in the second world war. It could take more ground ack than F4U's, P-47D40's, "Nancy" jugs and all of the German single engine aircraft which flew in WW2. And last but not least, could loiter over target area longer than practically all other fighter-bomber aircraft.
The one thing which must be taken into consideration is the "useful" load! The AD-7, final variant of 40 variants built, could carry 8,000 lbs of ords, only 72 were built, powered by the same engine as the B-29C, P&W R-3350-26wb and had 4 20MM, M2 cannon.
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/sandy_zps5bd4f908.jpg) A wing load of ords!
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/220px-A-1J_Skyraider_VA-176_Vietnam_1966_zpsfa4f8b01.jpg)
As far as defending itself in a "dog fight", against other aircraft build as fighter-bombers, such as the D40 Jug, I believe it could prevail because of the cannon.
For true stories of this great aircraft visit this web site listed below. True stories from the guys who flew the "Skyraider"
http://www.skyraider.org/skyassn/index.htm
BTW, everyone agrees that the F8F was a top notch Navy fighter in its day, but check out this dog fight between the "Sandy" and an F8F
http://www.skyraider.org/skyassn/warstor/Grishamwarstor.htm#anchor279778
-
In my honest opinion the Skyraider fails in the "fighter" category. A 1940 Spitfire I or 109E could run it down and kill it.
-
Didn't we have that discussion about the Skyraider before?
Yes, it was a supreme mud mover, and probably the best CAS aircraft in history until the A-10 was introduced, but the Skyraider was in NO WAY a fighter. It was a bomber that could protect itself in a pinch, pure and simple.
-
Skyraider was not a fighter-bomber, thus is not in contention. A fighter-bomber must be able to fill the fighter role with a realistic chance of success that doesn't rely entirely on the incompetence of the opposition.
A squadron of Mosquito FB.Mk VIs (the FB means fighter-bomber) were attacked by a staffel of Fw190s. End result was four Mossies and four Fw190s lost. Would the A-1 manage that against a contemporary fighter?
-
In my honest opinion the Skyraider fails in the "fighter" category. A 1940 Spitfire I or 109E could run it down and kill it.
:airplane: Neither aircraft you mention are true fighter-bombers! fighters, yes, but ground attack aircraft no!
-
Didn't we have that discussion about the Skyraider before?
Yes, it was a supreme mud mover, and probably the best CAS aircraft in history until the A-10 was introduced, but the Skyraider was in NO WAY a fighter. It was a bomber that could protect itself in a pinch, pure and simple.
:airplane: A quote from Columbo: Icepac's Dad flew Skyraiders in Vietnam. He shared a Mig-17 kill with another pilot from VA-25. What you are over looking is the capibilty of being both a bomber and a fighter. The A-10 was a great aircraft, but not in class we are talking about!
-
:airplane: Neither aircraft you mention are true fighter-bombers! fighters, yes, but ground attack aircraft no!
That wasn't his point. His point was that a 1950s era aircraft that would likely lose to a 1940 fighter cannot be considered a fighter-bomber as it completely fails the fighter portion of the test. It doesn't matter how good a bomber it is if it can't pass muster as a fighter.
:airplane: A quote from Columbo: Icepac's Dad flew Skyraiders in Vietnam. He shared a Mig-17 kill with another pilot from VA-25. What you are over looking is the capibilty of being both a bomber and a fighter. The A-10 was a great aircraft, but not in class we are talking about!
That does not make it a fighter anymore than such kills make the Il-2 or SBD a fighter.
-
The fact that the USAAF would operate a old Navy bird proves it was a useful Attack unit,
but being a decent bomb truck don't make it a any more of fighter - than a Ju 87 Stuka was..
-
Skyraider was not a fighter-bomber, thus is not in contention. A fighter-bomber must be able to fill the fighter role with a realistic chance of success that doesn't rely entirely on the incompetence of the opposition.
A squadron of Mosquito FB.Mk VIs (the FB means fighter-bomber) were attacked by a staffel of Fw190s. End result was four Mossies and four Fw190s lost. Would the A-1 manage that against a contemporary fighter?
It might not manage that against P-51's and 109K's.
-
Skyraider was not a fighter-bomber, thus is not in contention. A fighter-bomber must be able to fill the fighter role with a realistic chance of success that doesn't rely entirely on the incompetence of the opposition.
A squadron of Mosquito FB.Mk VIs (the FB means fighter-bomber) were attacked by a staffel of Fw190s. End result was four Mossies and four Fw190s lost. Would the A-1 manage that against a contemporary fighter?
:airplane: True, it was not designed as a fighter, but neither was any of the Jugs, except the M and N models!
On 26 July 1954, two Douglas Skyraiders from the aircraft carriers USS Philippine Sea and Hornet shot down two Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force La-9s off the coast of Hainan Island while searching for survivors after the shooting down of a Cathay Pacific Skymaster airliner three days previously, also by La-9s.
-
& Rudel made A2A ace status in his Stuka.. so what..
-
That wasn't his point. His point was that a 1950s era aircraft that would likely lose to a 1940 fighter cannot be considered a fighter-bomber as it completely fails the fighter portion of the test. It doesn't matter how good a bomber it is if it can't pass muster as a fighter.
That does not make it a fighter anymore than such kills make the Il-2 or SBD a fighter.
:airplane: Do you think that they put 4 20MM cannon on this aircraft for killing ground troops. As far as GV's, it was about as effective as the 20MM in this game, M3's not withstanding.
-
& Rudel made A2A ace status in his Stuka.. so what..
:airplane: A Stuka could not defend itself, except against far inferior aircraft, but the "Spad" could and proved it on several occasions.
-
The USN got the message on 4 X 20mm cannon sure,
but how many years after they'd proved so good as a standard fit
on Hurricanes, Typhoons & Tempests?
-
It might not manage that against P-51's and 109K's.
The A-1 would not against those. It might not against the Bf109E-4 and Spitfire Mk Ia.
:airplane: True, it was not designed as a fighter, but neither was any of the Jugs, except the M and N models!
On 26 July 1954, two Douglas Skyraiders from the aircraft carriers USS Philippine Sea and Hornet shot down two Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force La-9s off the coast of Hainan Island while searching for survivors after the shooting down of a Cathay Pacific Skymaster airliner three days previously, also by La-9s.
P-47 was designed as a fighter. What made you think otherwise?
:airplane: Do you think that they put 4 20MM cannon on this aircraft for killing ground troops. As far as GV's, it was about as effective as the 20MM in this game, M3's not withstanding.
Yes, the purpose for the 20mm cannons was ground attack as well as self defense. They were not for offensive air-to-air actions.
:airplane: A Stuka could not defend itself, except against far inferior aircraft, but the "Spad" could and proved it on several occasions.
No more than did the Stuka. You're relying on the inadequacy of the attacker's skills in both cases.
-
Rudel making ace showed that the better pilot could use his plane's positive attributes to his advantage,
even in A2A against nominally superior opposition..Still dont make it a fighter though..
-
Rudel making ace showed that the better pilot could use his plane's positive attributes to his advantage,
even in A2A against nominally superior opposition..Still dont make it a fighter though..
:airplane: A fighter aircraft is one designed for air to air superiority or interceptor of other aircraft. A fighter-bomber is one designed to excel in air to ground attack mode, but able to defend itself against other aircraft. I think the Skyraider does that better than any other aircraft designed as a fighter-bomber. That basically was the question asked to begin with.
-
I see earl is using the same "LALALALALA I can't hear you!" defense as he used on the A-26/B-26 lineage debate.
-
:airplane: A fighter aircraft is one designed for air to air superiority or interceptor of other aircraft. A fighter-bomber is one designed to excel in air to ground attack mode, but able to defend itself against other aircraft. I think the Skyraider does that better than any other aircraft designed as a fighter-bomber. That basically was the question asked to begin with.
Your definition of fighter-bomber doesn't match the common definition of fighter-bomber. It matches the definition of an attack aircraft. If you wanted the answer to be "A-1 Skyraider" you ought to have titled the thread "Best Single Engine attack aircraft(Prop Driven)".
-
Your definition of fighter-bomber doesn't match the common definition of fighter-bomber. It matches the definition of an attack aircraft. If you wanted the answer to be "A-1 Skyraider" you ought to have titled the thread "Best Single Engine attack aircraft(Prop Driven)".
:airplane: The P-47 proved to be a formidable fighter-bomber due to its impressive armament, bomb load and ability to survive enemy fire. The Thunderbolt's eight .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns could inflict severe damage on lightly armored targets. In a ground attack role, the armor-piercing (AP), armor-piercing incendiary (API), and armor-piercing incendiary tracer (APIT) ammunition proved useful in penetrating thin-skinned and lightly armored German vehicles and exploding their fuel tanks, as well as occasionally damaging some types of enemy armored fighting vehicles (AFVs). USAF definition of the P-47 fighter-bomber!
P-47 pilots frequently carried two 500 lb (227 kg) bombs, using skip bombing techniques for difficult targets (skipping bombs into railroad tunnels to destroy hidden enemy trains was a favorite tactic). The adoption of the triple-tube rocket launcher with M8 high-explosive 4.5 in (110 mm) rockets (with an explosive force similar to a 105 mm artillery shell) significantly increased the P-47's ground attack capability. Late in the war, the P-47 was retrofitted with more powerful 5 in (130 mm) HVAR rockets.
A link to "Fighter-Bomber" commands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fighter_squadrons_of_the_Unit ed_States_Air_Force
-
I'm with Karnak on this one.
"fighter-bomber
n
(Military) a high-performance aircraft that combines the roles of fighter and bomber."
The Skyraider clearly fails in the performance/fighter part, not only against its contemporaries, but against fighter aircraft designed in the 1930s. The Skyraider was designed to meet USN requirements for a carrier dive/torpedo bomber. It does not possess the performance required to be used in a fighter role. It isn't in any conceivable way a fighter.
To say that the 190F is a pure fighter or interceptor and not a purpose-built ground attack aircraft is a mistaken belief. It is based on the 190A fighter, but extensively modified to carry out the role of bomber/CAS aircraft. However it retains much of its performance and potential as a fighter. Thus it is a fighter-bomber. The same can be said for many other fighter-bombers that started life as pure fighter designs, but with maturity and modifications became formidable ground attack aircraft as well. Typhoon, Thunderbolt and Corsair are obvious examples. The Mossie is an odd one that started life as an unarmed bomber, but because of its tremendous performance was modified to also be a fighter.
-
The P-47 was regulated to a secondary role of ground attack when the P-51 replaced in the escort/fighter role.
-
The P-47 was regulated to a secondary role of ground attack when the P-51 replaced in the escort/fighter role.
But that had nothing to do with the P-47s air-to-air capability, and was almost entirely because the P-47s didn't have the range (until later models like the P-47N) to stay with the bombers. The P-51 did, so got the job instead.
-
It was also based on a recommendation from RAE after General Doolittle got them to test the fighters available to the USAAF early in 1944. RAE found that the P-38 and P-47 lacked the tactical Mach numbers necessary to effectively fight at high altitudes against German fighters, and recommend that the P-51 be used for that purpose.
-
http://vimeo.com/67010924
Skip to about 20 minutes in...
-
But that had nothing to do with the P-47s air-to-air capability, and was almost entirely because the P-47s didn't have the range (until later models like the P-47N) to stay with the bombers. The P-51 did, so got the job instead.
Agreed.
-
So, what does the A1 do, Vmax/Vne -wise in the A2A role?
High enough critical Mach to compete with the top prop fighters?
-
Eric Brown was only a wee fella & found wrestling the Tempest at Mach 0.87
a bit of a handful, but other, stronger men used its high Vne rating in combat,
& routinely, according to official reports & memoirs.
http://www.hawkertempest.se/Testingforcombat.htm
-
A-1 Vne is 330 knots if I'm not mistaken.
-
It was also based on a recommendation from RAE after General Doolittle got them to test the fighters available to the USAAF early in 1944. RAE found that the P-38 and P-47 lacked the tactical Mach numbers necessary to effectively fight at high altitudes against German fighters, and recommend that the P-51 be used for that purpose.
Brown seems to interchange critical Mach with his tactical Mach term. Both Langley and NACA reported the critical Mach of the P-47 as Mach 0.73, a bit higher than Brown states. Later P-47s had dive recovery flaps, which mitigated some of the high Mach effect. Herb Fisher repeatedly demonstrated that the P-47 could be flown as fast a Mach 0.83 and still have some minimal control (using the recovery flaps). A few things Brown doesn't state, is that the Bf 109 was nearly worthless at Mach 0.75, it controls far too stiff for anything resembling maneuvering. He doesn't mention that above 25,000 feet, early 1944 190s were well above their FTH, and on the backside of the power curve. P-47s handily out-performed the primary Luftwaffe fighters at the altitudes the bombers typically flew at the time.
Brown's version of history seems a bit skewed (as is common for Brown). Someone forgot to tell the 8th AF Fighter Command that the P-47 was not adequate for killing the Luftwaffe. Someone also forgot to the tell the Luftwaffe as well.
The fact remains that Doolittle changed the tactics in the early spring of 1944. He adopted Zemke's idea of having a portion of the escort fan out well ahead of the bombers to disrupt the assembly of German fighter formations. Doolittle also turned the fighters loose to pursue and destroy the Luftwaffe wherever they could be found. When Doolittle took over the 8th AF, there was a sign above the door at 8th AF Fighter HQ that read, "The Duty of the Fighters is to Protect the Bombers". He had it replaced with his order... "The Duty of the Fighters is to Destroy the Luftwaffe". Indeed, Doolittle used the bombers as bait to lure up the Luftwaffe. That was the primary goal of Big Week.
Eric Brown has never been accused of being unbiased.
-
If you are correct, then 330 knots wont cut it..
Pilots notes give the following Vne IAS speeds < 10,000ft..
Tempest - 540 mph,
Typhoon - 520 mph,
Mustang - 505 mph,
Thunderbolt - 500 mph,
Spitfire XIV, Fw 190, Bf 109, - 470 mph,
USN, P-38 & Mosquito - ~440 mph
The Tempests also attained their Vne speed quicker & held it longer in a zoom..
The Spitfire had good Mach potential but didn't accelerate quickly enough
in the dive to catch the LW pair when they went for the deck..
The addition of 'dive flaps' to the `38 & `47 enabled better control of
compressibility problems/fatal terminal dives, but did not increase the Vne
speeds to any useful proactive tactical combat advantage..
-
Earl, the 190F-8 was not just a fighter A-8 with bombs on it. It was very much a different plane.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/fw190F-8.jpg)
The engine was optimized for low altitude operation and a bigger cooling fan was added. The engine, underside of the fuselage and cockpit had additional armor. The canopy was changed to a bubble-type (later also used on the Dora) and the pilot seat was raised to give the pilot better view for ground attack. The radio was different to allow for better cooperation with ground forces. The G-8 also had an autopilot and additional oil tank in place of the cowl armament. The landing gear was strengthened. Outboard gun armament was removed to allow for additional hardpoints under the wings. In the G-8 they also added plumbing in the wings for carrying droptanks.
-
If you are correct, then 330 knots wont cut it..
That number is probably with stores though. In a clean config it is probably higher.
-
That number is probably with stores though. In a clean config it is probably higher.
:airplane: Douglas says 347 knots top speed, 405 VNE.
-
Too slow even so, & that model pic posted of the Skyraider packing max ordnance on folded wings, I doubt they did that in full-scale..
-
Brown seems to interchange critical Mach with his tactical Mach term. Both Langley and NACA reported the critical Mach of the P-47 as Mach 0.73, a bit higher than Brown states. Later P-47s had dive recovery flaps, which mitigated some of the high Mach effect. Herb Fisher repeatedly demonstrated that the P-47 could be flown as fast a Mach 0.83 and still have some minimal control (using the recovery flaps). A few things Brown doesn't state, is that the Bf 109 was nearly worthless at Mach 0.75, it controls far too stiff for anything resembling maneuvering. He doesn't mention that above 25,000 feet, early 1944 190s were well above their FTH, and on the backside of the power curve. P-47s handily out-performed the primary Luftwaffe fighters at the altitudes the bombers typically flew at the time.
Brown didn't test "later P-47s" with dive recovery flaps. They were added exactly because of the P-47s shortcomings. Same with the 38. Recovery flaps did just that; allow the pilots to recover from an uncontrollable dive. The flaps didn't give the pilot more control in the dive. Nor did they allow the 47 to dive as fast as the 109s and 190s. Spits didn't need recovery flaps, 109s and 190s didn't need recovery flaps and could trim out of dives quite easily unlike the 47 or 38. P-51 didn't need recovery flaps.
At 30,000 feet Mach 0.75 is 508 mph TAS. That is about 60 mph faster than the max level speed of a 109K, or 85 mph more than that of a 109G-6/AS, and it is still quite maneuverable at those speeds. So I agree with Brown that the 109s tactical Mach number is about 0.75. Perhaps even a bit more if the pilot has above average upper body strength.
Brown's version of history seems a bit skewed (as is common for Brown). Someone forgot to tell the 8th AF Fighter Command that the P-47 was not adequate for killing the Luftwaffe. Someone also forgot to the tell the Luftwaffe as well.
Not at 25-30,000+ feet against 109 AS versions. The AS 109s were faster than the 47D at all altitudes up to about 40,000 feet, and could dive faster. At the lower altitudes the 47 worked well, and Brown points this out. The 8th AF did realize that the 47 was "not adequate for killing the Luftwaffe". That's why the 47 ended the war in Europe relegated to secondary roles like ground attack. The 38 was all but withdrawn from the ETO.
Eric Brown has never been accused of being unbiased.
And his detractors have never managed to do anything except "accuse" him of bias. Whenever I see "enthusiasts" accuse a professional test pilot of bias I go "riiiight". Yeah, there's bias alright, but it is not Brown's.
-
Has to be stated,- wee Winkle Brown is quite overt in his bias application..
As a Navy man, & little guy, ol' Eric gives highly opinionated views which
may not be supported by actual test data, or validated empirically by combat..
-
For some reason around 15,000 P47s were manufactured. I would assume there is a reason.
It's shortcoming was range. And at altitude with bombers it did well. It also was devastating
in the ground attack role. The amount or ord it carried and it's ruggedness made it the best
of all prop planes during the war in the FB role. That's not by consensus on a games BBS but by consensus
of those who flew them and the enemy. A sortie to loss ratio of less then 1%.....in well over
Half a million sorties. That's a lot of sorties for an inferior aircraft eh?
-
Brown didn't test "later P-47s" with dive recovery flaps. They were added exactly because of the P-47s shortcomings. Same with the 38. Recovery flaps did just that; allow the pilots to recover from an uncontrollable dive. The flaps didn't give the pilot more control in the dive. Nor did they allow the 47 to dive as fast as the 109s and 190s. Spits didn't need recovery flaps, 109s and 190s didn't need recovery flaps and could trim out of dives quite easily unlike the 47 or 38. P-51 didn't need recovery flaps.
At 30,000 feet Mach 0.75 is 508 mph TAS. That is about 60 mph faster than the max level speed of a 109K, or 85 mph more than that of a 109G-6/AS, and it is still quite maneuverable at those speeds. So I agree with Brown that the 109s tactical Mach number is about 0.75. Perhaps even a bit more if the pilot has above average upper body strength.
Not at 25-30,000+ feet against 109 AS versions. The AS 109s were faster than the 47D at all altitudes up to about 40,000 feet, and could dive faster. At the lower altitudes the 47 worked well, and Brown points this out. The 8th AF did realize that the 47 was "not adequate for killing the Luftwaffe". That's why the 47 ended the war in Europe relegated to secondary roles like ground attack. The 38 was all but withdrawn from the ETO.
And his detractors have never managed to do anything except "accuse" him of bias. Whenever I see "enthusiasts" accuse a professional test pilot of bias I go "riiiight". Yeah, there's bias alright, but it is not Brown's.
109 AS types were relatively rare...
Despite the best efforts of the Luftwaffe, it was crushed in the west by escort fighters. I recall that the P-47 shot down far more Expertan than the P-51 did. It was the P-47 to forced the Luftwaffe to withdraw most of the fighters into Germany, beyond the Jug's range.
The P-38 was not withdrawn from the ETO, they were transferred to the 9th AF, and were still numerous in the MTO until late in the war, escorting bombers into Germany and Austria. P-47s were flying escort right up until Germany surrendered. P-47s had the lowest loss to sortie ratio of any Allied fighter in the ETO.
The P-51 would have benefited from dive recovery flaps, because they frequently got into compressibility trouble too.
History often disagrees with Brown.
-
Tempests were utilized in the tactical air-superiority role by the RAF 2nd TAF,
& shot down most every type of jet flown operationally by the LW..
How did the 9th AF '38's go against them LW turbine 'blow-jobs' ?
-
There was almost 1400 Bf109G-14/AS built.
-
There was almost 1400 Bf109G-14/AS built.
If they were built in 1944 they were having trouble finding someone qualified to fly them.
Experienced pilots were few.
-
Yes, though - for sure -
- despite crushing odds & cruel attrition, the LW kept going up -
- to the bitter end..
At wars end, "the RAF Disarmament Teams alone neutralised 4,180 different types of German aircraft" in the British sector..
[cited P.68, Tank Buster Vs Combat Vehicle]..
-
If they were built in 1944 they were having trouble finding someone qualified to fly them.
Experienced pilots were few.
From Sept 44 to Mar 45.
-
A fair few LW aces did survive the war too..
-
From Sept 44 to Mar 45.
Yes Milo that about proves it. The LW flew at that time of course, fighters were drawn back to Germany.
And at that time the 8th Air Force had trouble finding fighters to fight. The LW rarely came up in number.
They did on some occasions, albeit with inexperienced pilots. Cannon fodder except for the experienced
262 Pilots, and they were few in number. FW190 D9s in most cases relegated to hovering over 262 fields
to protect the 262s on landing. The bottom of the D9s were often painted in a red and white candy stripe
scheme so that field ack could identify them when they were up over the field covering 262 landings. I believe
we have a D9 or two in our skins with that camo on them in game
-
I suggest Don Caldwell's 'JG 26 Top Guns of the LW'
as a reasonably well researched/accurate appraisal of the situation..
As he notes.
Resistance was put up by the LW & cost the Allies - right to the end..
& Clostermann wrote [P.166, The Big Show],
"All in all the average standard of German fighter pilots was much higher at the turn of the year '44-45 than at any other time since 1940"
"...the heroic band of 'the old stagers' of the LW, the real veterans, with 3 or 4,000 hours of flying.
These pilots trained in the school of the Spanish Civil War, survivors of the successive campaigns of the LW from 1940 onwards, knew their job inside & out, with all the refinements. Both prudent & sure of themselves, masters of their machines, they were very dangerous."
-
Yes it cost....very little if and when the LW showed up after mid 1944.
LW Pilots after the war being interrogated (Heinz Barr, Galland, Priller etc. gave a different view then Caldwell)
Fuel short supply if any, Pilots that could actually get a 109 off the ground without ruining the plane, let alone landing it.
They had planes, just nobody to fly them, and also fuel was in such short supply at the end they rarely launched
unless there were few escorts and the target was of utmost importance. Without fuel they simply couldn't fly.
And those that did usually got killed because of their inexperience. The 8th taunted them and wanted them to come up.
fact is at that time....they rarely came up. Look at 8th airforce records and 8th AF squadron figures late war and
8th AF fighter Pilot accounts. It became very rare to see a LW fighter in a lot of instances.
-
Yes Milo that about proves it. The LW flew at that time of course, fighters were drawn back to Germany.
And at that time the 8th Air Force had trouble finding fighters to fight. The LW rarely came up in number.
They did on some occasions, albeit with inexperienced pilots. Cannon fodder except for the experienced
262 Pilots, and they were few in number. FW190 D9s in most cases relegated to hovering over 262 fields
to protect the 262s on landing. The bottom of the D9s were often painted in a red and white candy stripe
scheme so that field ack could identify them when they were up over the field covering 262 landings. I believe
we have a D9 or two in our skins with that camo on them in game
Where does that nonsense about the Dora come from?
-
There is a new Caldwell book, wherein he reveals the LW response day by day to the 8th AF, & notes that the majority of JG efforts were directed against the tactical airforces of the enemy, on both fronts, east & west..
Check also the US Strategic Bombing Survey, which gives the figures for LW av-gas stocks captured intact at the war's end, they were considerable too..
-
Too slow even so, & that model pic posted of the Skyraider packing max ordnance on folded wings, I doubt they did that in full-scale..
:airplane: Well, maybe the pic's below will give you a better appreciation of the capability of the load carry of the "Spad"
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/wingloadedae1_zpsb59050d1.jpg)
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/rampparkeda1e_zpsfc350679.jpg)
The "Sandy" could carry up to 8,000 lbs of ords, with a 5 hour range of fuel. Don't know of any other single engine aircraft which could come close to that!
-
The "Sandy" could carry up to 8,000 lbs of ords, with a 5 hour range of fuel. Don't know of any other single engine aircraft which could come close to that!
Nor I, but that isn't the issue the A-1 has about not being a fighter-bomber. It is a great bomber for a single engined plane, as those numbers support.
-
Milo toward the end of the war a lot of 190D's were used to cover 262s on landing.
As I stated that is why you see some with the red and white candy stripe on the bottom of the aircraft.
The 262 were most vulnerable on take off and landing. It is not nonsense. Allies had air supremacy
at that time and would go to known 262 bases to do just what I described. Easier to get them then
then in the air.
-
Milo toward the end of the war a lot of 190D's were used to cover 262s on landing.
As I stated that is why you see some with the red and white candy stripe on the bottom of the aircraft.
The 262 were most vulnerable on take off and landing. It is not nonsense. Allies had air supremacy
at that time and would go to known 262 bases to do just what I described. Easier to get them then
then in the air.
The red/white Doras were part of JV44, less than a staffels worth. Jet bases had up to 200 barrels of flak for defense and were lined up beside the take off and landing lanes.
Wiki because it is easy
Because of the greater length of runway it required, and the slow acceleration it had at low speeds, the Me 262 was especially vulnerable during take-off and landing. Galland thus established his own protection flight. Five Fw 190D-9s and D-11s were attached to JV44, the Platzschutzstaffel (Airfield protection squadron), headed by Leutnant Heinz Sachsenberg, to provide air cover for takeoffs and landings. Flights were to be undertaken in a two-aircraft Rotte up to altitudes of 500 metres, covering both the Me 262s taking off or landing and monitoring the surrounding skies for Allied fighters.
The Platzschutzstaffel flew the long-nosed 'Dora', Fw-190 D-9, or Fw-190 D-11 variant of the well-known Fw 190. These aircraft were painted bright red on their wings' undersurfaces with contrasting white stripes so anti-aircraft batteries could distinguish them from Allied piston-engined aircraft, leading to their humorous postwar nickname of the Papagei Staffel (Parrot squadron). The Staffel was nicknamed "Die Würger-Staffel", a play on the common nickname for the BMW 801 radial-engined original A-version of the Fw 190, which was Würger or Butcher-bird.
-
The red/white Doras were part of JV44, less than a staffels worth. Jet bases had up to 200 barrels of flak for defense and were lined up beside the take off and landing lanes.
Wiki because it is easy
Because of the greater length of runway it required, and the slow acceleration it had at low speeds, the Me 262 was especially vulnerable during take-off and landing. Galland thus established his own protection flight. Five Fw 190D-9s and D-11s were attached to JV44, the Platzschutzstaffel (Airfield protection squadron), headed by Leutnant Heinz Sachsenberg, to provide air cover for takeoffs and landings. Flights were to be undertaken in a two-aircraft Rotte up to altitudes of 500 metres, covering both the Me 262s taking off or landing and monitoring the surrounding skies for Allied fighters.
The Platzschutzstaffel flew the long-nosed 'Dora', Fw-190 D-9, or Fw-190 D-11 variant of the well-known Fw 190. These aircraft were painted bright red on their wings' undersurfaces with contrasting white stripes so anti-aircraft batteries could distinguish them from Allied piston-engined aircraft, leading to their humorous postwar nickname of the Papagei Staffel (Parrot squadron). The Staffel was nicknamed "Die Würger-Staffel", a play on the common nickname for the BMW 801 radial-engined original A-version of the Fw 190, which was Würger or Butcher-bird.
I believe that is what I said. maybe I did not make it clear.
-
With regard to the role of critical mach, I think that scenarios show its practical outcome vs. other aspects well. It is easier for a 190 or 109 to escape at high speed from a P-38 because of the P-38's relatively lower critical mach, however, it is very hard for any plane (P-51 included) to shoot down anything when it is going, say, 550 mph. What generally happens in using high speed escape is that the 109 or 190 goes tearing out of the bomber stream as fast as it can and doesn't have to fear getting shot down by anything until either the pilot chooses to slow down to get into a fight or gets to the deck and starts slowing down to max level speed (at which point it has to worry about whatever has either a higher top speed or enough alt to chase it down regardless of critical mach).
So, in my view, critical mach is one factor but is not the most-important factor.
-
With regard to the role of critical mach, I think that scenarios show its practical outcome vs. other aspects well. It is easier for a 190 or 109 to escape at high speed from a P-38 because of the P-38's relatively lower critical mach, however, it is very hard for any plane (P-51 included) to shoot down anything when it is going, say, 550 mph. What generally happens in using high speed escape is that the 109 or 190 goes tearing out of the bomber stream as fast as it can and doesn't have to fear getting shot down by anything until either the pilot chooses to slow down to get into a fight or gets to the deck and starts slowing down to max level speed (at which point it has to worry about whatever has either a higher top speed or enough alt to chase it down regardless of critical mach).
So, in my view, critical mach is one factor but is not the most-important factor.
Critical altitude seems to be of greater importance in scenarios. From my experience flying 109's and the Ki-84 in scenarios, the problem we ALWAYS face is the allies being at least 3k above us, and are at their peak performance, or still on the lower part of their curve. Our 109's, however peak at 20k, and we're routinely operating at 30k, well above our critical altitude, and it shows.
-
Milo toward the end of the war a lot of 190D's were used to cover 262s on landing.
As I stated that is why you see some with the red and white candy stripe on the bottom of the aircraft.
The 262 were most vulnerable on take off and landing. It is not nonsense. Allies had air supremacy
at that time and would go to known 262 bases to do just what I described. Easier to get them then
then in the air.
A lot is not less than a dozen.
The Ta152Hs were suppose to protect the jets but that is a myth also.
No you were not clear.
-
A lot is not less than a dozen.
The Ta152Hs were suppose to protect the jets but that is a myth also.
No you were not clear.
My apologies for not being clear. In any case, finding axis fighters to fight at that time was difficult.
-
My apologies for not being clear. In any case, finding axis fighters to fight at that time was difficult.
I thought you were very clear. Both your and Milo's posts were in sync. I don't understand why Milo thought it necessary to post after yours.
-
...
-
The first AS engined 109G-6/AS were produced from December 1943 and entered service with JG 1, JG 3, JG 5 and JG 11 the following months. DB 605ASB and ASC engines adopted most of the modifications made for the planned DB 605DB and DC (K-4) (mainly the larger supercharger of the DB 603 was bolted on the DB 605) and were later kept in production in parallel with DB and DC versions to increase production. These engines were all rated for 1800 PS. The 109G-6/AS had similar high-altitude performance in early 1944 as the 109K in late 1944, differing only in structural details (G-6 wings and tail unit, armament etc.). The streamlined engine cowling of the G-10/K-4 was adapted from the 109G-6/AS. In late summer 1944 they added MW50 injection for increased low altitude performance creating the DB 605ASM that powered the 109G-14/AS. G-14/AS and G-10 are practically the same aircraft differing only in minor details and red tape.
Beginning in December 1943, 686 G-6/AS aircraft were built or converted from existing airframes, along with 76 G-5/AS, 16 G-5/R2/AS, and 68 G-5/R6/AS. The number of DB 605AS and ASM engined G-5s, G-6s and G-14s during 1944 was approx. 2500 aircraft. In addition to these, DB 605D engined G-10s and K-4s entered service in late 1944.
Thousands of high-altitude AS engined 109s flew in 1944, almost exclusively on the western front. They were not "rare" by any definition of the word.
The AS 109s were tasked with protecting the bomber interceptors by engaging the Allied escorts. These were the Luftwaffe aircraft the Allied fighter pilots were actually fighting with. These were the fighters that were not ordered to just run away.
IMHO in all 1944 scenarios the Luftwaffe should be given 109K-4s to simulate 109G-6(14)/AS interceptor escorts.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/109G-6AS.jpg)
Bf 109G-6/AS (W.Nr. 412 179) "black 14" belonging to Fw. Horst Petzschler of 2./JG 3, early spring 1944 (winter camo). Fw. Otto Büssow was killed in this aircraft in May 1944 while fighting P-51s.
-
I completely agree GScholz.
-
The P-38 was not withdrawn from the ETO, they were transferred to the 9th AF, and were still numerous in the MTO until late in the war, escorting bombers into Germany and Austria.
So you're saying they were not withdrawn from the ETO, but transferred to the MTO... Select choice of words there Widewing. :aok
The 9th in the MTO generally operated at lower altitudes than the 8th, and thus the P-38 could operate there more effectively.
P-47s had the lowest loss to sortie ratio of any Allied fighter in the ETO.
No wonder. The Luftwaffe could just ignore them for most of the war.
The Thunderbolt ended the war in the Mustang's shadow, and did not get to go to Korea with the Mustang and Corsair. Unlike the Mustang, Spitfire, and ironically even the 109, production of the Thunderbolt was halted at war's end.
-
I have long advocated for the Bf109G-6/AS to be added so that the German side has a fighting chance in Mighty Eighth scenarios.
-
Earl, they are nice airshow pix of dummy ordnance,
have you got a authentic shot of an A-1 parked on a CV,
ready for action that matches your scale model?
As for the contention that the LW wasn't flying in `45..
Clostermann wrote, [P.161 The Big Show].
"What was the LW up to? For the general public, naturally, Germany
had no aircraft & no pilots left. This belief was carefully fostered by
the Allied information services for a variety of reasons.
In the 1st place, the large scale bomber offensive against the Reich's
aircraft factories... didn't seem to have produced any visible reduction in the strength of the LW.
This caused an awkward situation, esp' as the Americans published
figures of German fighters shot down in the 2 or 3 hundreds
after every raid over Germany. As these results were gained at the cost of colossal losses...which made the American public blench, a discrete veil
had to be drawn over the activity of the LW.
For us who were in daily contact with it & from whom it was impossible
to hide the real state of affairs, the optimism of the American O.W.I.
was not without a certain piquancy. The more Hun fighters the Americans
shot down, the more there were!"
& so it seems that the propaganda promulgated way back then, is still
believed today..
-
I have long advocated for the Bf109G-6/AS to be added so that the German side has a fighting chance in Mighty Eighth scenarios.
Yes it would be very nice to have. However, as a stopgap measure the AS 109s can be substituted by the K-4. The G-14/AS is for all intents and purposes a G-10 anyways, and the G-6/AS had worse performance only at lower altitudes (no MW50).
-
A bit of thread drift maybe,
- are high alt' variant `109s - fighting in the stratosphere,
- relevant to the JABO discussion?
Of possible interest, C.Goss wrote 'L.W.F.B.s over Britain',
a book which gives an informative appraisal of the development of JABOs
& counter measures to them..
-
We're on page 16, what do you expect? Just be glad we're not discussing Barbra Streisand by now...
-
Cue South Park.. "You basterds!"
Fair enough, given Earl's bizarre crusade to make a silk purse out of a sows ear,
A-1.. as top gun-wise..
-
So you're saying they were not withdrawn from the ETO, but transferred to the MTO... Select choice of words there Widewing. :aok
You may want to reread his quote
-
Yes, I think he has mistaken 9th TAF in the ETO for 15th AF in MTO..
Incidentally, the P-38 wasn't all that hot in the MTO either.
The top-gun USAAF fighter group in the MTO - flew Spitfires/Mustangs..
-
My apologies for not being clear. In any case, finding axis fighters to fight at that time was difficult.
For the British it was but not for the 8th and 15th AFs who were still being attacked right up to the end.
-
Not so, in fact the British 2nd TAF were the primary opponents of the LW's
'Top Guns' - JG 26 - from the invasion to the war's end..
Since the LW Command determined that fighting JABOs was the best
use of their resources..
& the RAF sent their best - Tempests & Spitfire XIVs - in the air-superiority role specifically to suppress them..
-
You may want to reread his quote
Yeah, my mistake.
-
This will give an idea of the job the Tempest Squadrons had against the LW,
- in the 2nd TAF during `44-45.
http://www.hawkertempest.se/Victories.htm
& some of the fighting did indeed involve high Mach pursuit/shoot downs..
http://www.hawkertempest.se/441006.htm
-
Not so, in fact the British 2nd TAF were the primary opponents of the LW's
'Top Guns' - JG 26 - from the invasion to the war's end..
Since the LW Command determined that fighting JABOs was the best
use of their resources..
& the RAF sent their best - Tempests & Spitfire XIVs - in the air-superiority role specifically to suppress them..
WEDNESDAY, 4 APRIL 1945
2 missions are flown. Mission 926: 1,431 bombers and 866 fighters are dispatched to hit airfields, a shipyard and a U-boat shipyard in Germany; they claim 30-4-30 Luftwaffe aircraft; 10 bombers and 4 fighters are lost. 1. 438 B-24s are sent to hit Parchim (33) and Perleberg (29) Airfields; 97 hit Wesendorf Airfield, the secondary; attacks are visual; they claim 6-4-6 aircraft; 6 B-24s are lost, 1 damaged beyond repair and 76 damaged; 1 airman is KIA and 59 MIA. Escorting are 324 P-47s and P-51s; the P-47s claim 14-0-20 aircraft and the P-51s claim 9-0-3 aircraft; 1 P-47 and 3 P-51s are lost. 2. 443 B-17s are sent to hit Fassberg Airfield (149); secondary targets hit are Hoya (37) and Dedelsdorf (13) Airfields; targets of opportunity are Unterluss (39) and other (24); bombing is visual; 1 B-17 is lost, 2 damaged beyond repair and 58 damaged; 1 airman is KIA, 6 WIA and 4 MIA. The escort is 220 of 232 P-51s; 1 is lost. 3. 505 of 526 B-17s hit the Deutsche shipyard at Kiel using H2X radar; 2 others hit Eggebeck Airfield, a target of opportunity; 3 B-17s are lost and 50 damaged; 27 airmen are MIA. 208 of 223 P-51s without loss. 4. 22 of 24 B-17s fly a DISNEY mission attacking the Finkenwarder U-boat yard at Hamburg without loss. 5. 19 P-51s fly a scouting mission and claim 0-0-1 aircraft. 6. 25 P-51s escort 8 F-5s and 2 P-38s on photo and radar reconnaissance missions over Germany, claiming 1-0-0 aircraft. 7. 16 P-51s escort 1 OA-10 and 2 B-17s on air-sea-rescue patrols.
-
Hawker Tempests made 240 claims during WW2.
-
Tempests were kept busy from June `44 shooting down 800+ V1 cruise missiles as well.
& glad you put 'claim' in bold there, M.M., how many of those claims were confirmed by gun-cam or were matched with LW loss records do you reckon?
You do know that 8th AF allowed friendly-fire claims confirmed [caught on film]
to stand - as kill credits..
-
M.M. can you find the A2A claims for 9th TAF P-38 units as a comparison?
-
So you're saying they were not withdrawn from the ETO, but transferred to the MTO... Select choice of words there Widewing. :aok
The 9th in the MTO generally operated at lower altitudes than the 8th, and thus the P-38 could operate there more effectively.
No wonder. The Luftwaffe could just ignore them for most of the war.
The Thunderbolt ended the war in the Mustang's shadow, and did not get to go to Korea with the Mustang and Corsair. Unlike the Mustang, Spitfire, and ironically even the 109, production of the Thunderbolt was halted at war's end.
Argh.... The 9th AF was in the ETO... They provided fighter cover for 9th AF medium bombers as well as tactical air support for ground ops. They engaged the Luftwaffe with great frequency.
In the MTO, 15th AF B-17s and B-24s flew at the same altitudes as in the ETO (see the report below). The fighters didn't fly lower. Indeed, Gen. Twining refused to follow Doolittle's example and insisted on the fighters flying close escort, surrendering tactical advantage. P-38s flew escort until the end of 1944 (at least), long after the 8th had sent their P-38s to the 9th AF (which flew out of Britain, and later operated from bases on the continent).
(http://www.1fgww2.org/IMAGES/m1198a.jpg)
As to when the P-47 ceased production.... The Last N models were delivered in December of 1945, about the same time the last P-51D was delivered. P-51H deliveries ended in 1946. Both companies saw contracts cancelled, and both were gearing up for the manufacture of jet fighters.
As to the speed of the 109G-6/AS...
Performance of the Me 109 G with DB 605 AS.
Test Report Nr. 109 20 L43
Date 22.1.44
Copy 4
Dept. Flight Testing
Group Performance
1.) Speed at sea level: 315 mph
2.) Speed at FTH: 406 mph
3.) Full throttle height: 27,231 ft.
And this:
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109-gj-fx.jpg)
-
WEDNESDAY, 4 APRIL 1945
2 missions are flown. Mission 926: 1,431 bombers and 866 fighters are dispatched to hit airfields, a shipyard and a U-boat shipyard in Germany; they claim 30-4-30 Luftwaffe aircraft; 10 bombers and 4 fighters are lost. 1. 438 B-24s are sent to hit Parchim (33) and Perleberg (29) Airfields; 97 hit Wesendorf Airfield, the secondary; attacks are visual; they claim 6-4-6 aircraft; 6 B-24s are lost, 1 damaged beyond repair and 76 damaged; 1 airman is KIA and 59 MIA. Escorting are 324 P-47s and P-51s; the P-47s claim 14-0-20 aircraft and the P-51s claim 9-0-3 aircraft; 1 P-47 and 3 P-51s are lost. 2. 443 B-17s are sent to hit Fassberg Airfield (149); secondary targets hit are Hoya (37) and Dedelsdorf (13) Airfields; targets of opportunity are Unterluss (39) and other (24); bombing is visual; 1 B-17 is lost, 2 damaged beyond repair and 58 damaged; 1 airman is KIA, 6 WIA and 4 MIA. The escort is 220 of 232 P-51s; 1 is lost. 3. 505 of 526 B-17s hit the Deutsche shipyard at Kiel using H2X radar; 2 others hit Eggebeck Airfield, a target of opportunity; 3 B-17s are lost and 50 damaged; 27 airmen are MIA. 208 of 223 P-51s without loss. 4. 22 of 24 B-17s fly a DISNEY mission attacking the Finkenwarder U-boat yard at Hamburg without loss. 5. 19 P-51s fly a scouting mission and claim 0-0-1 aircraft. 6. 25 P-51s escort 8 F-5s and 2 P-38s on photo and radar reconnaissance missions over Germany, claiming 1-0-0 aircraft. 7. 16 P-51s escort 1 OA-10 and 2 B-17s on air-sea-rescue patrols.
I wonder if those include claims on the ground? Sometimes that narrative separates air-to-air and air-to-ground, sometimes apparently not.
-
Argh.... The 9th AF was in the ETO...
Like I said, my mistake. And my apologies.
As to when the P-47 ceased production.... The Last N models were delivered in December of 1945...
Production canceled in August at war's end. Last aircraft came off the production line in December.
As to the speed of the 109G-6/AS...
Performance of the Me 109 G with DB 605 AS.
Test Report Nr. 109 20 L43
Date 22.1.44
Copy 4
Dept. Flight Testing
Group Performance
1.) Speed at sea level: 315 mph
2.) Speed at FTH: 406 mph
3.) Full throttle height: 27,231 ft.
And this:
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109-gj-fx.jpg)
Let me just repost that image of yours...
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109-gj-fx.jpg)
Quite right. 405 mph at Kampfleistung. At Notleistung its speed would be about 430 mph.
That chart shows 648 km/h at Kampfleistung. That's 408 mph.
That chart shows 690 km/h at Notleistung (MW50 Leistung). That's 428 mph.
That's performance similar to real-life K-4s. In AH we have the best possible version of most aircraft flying with closed radiators and polished, waxed surfaces. In real life you'd be hard pressed to find a 450 mph 109 anywhere.
Kampfleistung: Combat power/max continuous power (usually limited to 30 min).
Notleistung: Emergency power. Allowed duration varied between engine models.
-
The ol' 109 - when updated & skilfully flown in a reasonable tactical situation - [& even against the best performing contemporary Allied planes], was still able to give a good account of itself.
The`45 R.K. Ace-flown lightweight Erla-fettled 109 running C3 @ 1.98 ata?
& were ANY A2A claims made/established by P-38 units for Ta 152 or jet types?
-
Like I said, my mistake. And my apologies.
Production canceled in August at war's end. Last aircraft came off the production line in December.
North American had P-51 contracts cancelled or significantly reduced too. All manufacturers suffered this. The war was over, fighter inventory was bloated.
-
& the USAAF, like the RAF, only had eyes [& funds] for them new-fangled jets..
-
The`45 R.K. Ace-flown lightweight Erla-fettled 109 running C3 @ 1.98 ata?
With C3 the DB 605DC produced 2000+ hp. We don't have that. However, the Allied rides don't have 145/150 octane fuel either.
-
& were ANY A2A claims made/established by P-38 units for Ta 152 or jet types?
No.... Ta 152s were as rare as chicken teeth. P-38s claimed no 262s.
-
The 2nd TAF Tempests of 122 Wing tasked with the air-superiority role did get into 'em..
Recording take downs & losses too, - to the armed ones,
including the He 162..
From Air Enthusiast/48 P.49,
"The last 122 Wing Tempest to be shot down was flown by F/O M Austin
from 486 Sqd. He was shot down by a Heinkel He 162 lightweight jet fighter."
-
The 2nd TAF Tempests of 122 Wing tasked with the air-superiority role did get into 'em..
Recording take downs of every operational jet & the Ta 152.
But losses too, - to the armed ones,
including the He 162..
From Air Enthusiast/48 P.49,
"The last 122 Wing Tempest to be shot down was flown by F/O M Austin
from 486 Sqd. He was shot down by a Heinkel He 162 lightweight jet fighter."
Whoops, sorry, I cocked that one up a bit...
-
No.... Ta 152s were as rare as chicken teeth. P-38s claimed no 262s.
What are you talking about, there were what, 1 or 2 accounts of it ever appearing in combat! ;)
-
Here is the official RAF combat report, of the Tempest - Ta 152 shoot down..
The pilot mistook the Ta for a 109 [ he'd obviously never seen one either]
but the gun-camera film showed it to be a 152..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/486-shaw-14april45.jpg
-
Critical altitude seems to be of greater importance in scenarios. From my experience flying 109's and the Ki-84 in scenarios, the problem we ALWAYS face is the allies being at least 3k above us, and are at their peak performance, or still on the lower part of their curve. Our 109's, however peak at 20k, and we're routinely operating at 30k, well above our critical altitude, and it shows.
I'm not sure about other events, but in scenarios that have 109's and 190's vs. high-alt bombers and escorts, we are usually at the same altitude as the allies or above them on 1st intercept (for 109's of any model and 190D's) as there is generally an alt cap, and we are at it. Also, we are generally up near top speed, but the escorts aren't (as they are staying near bombers). After 1st intercept, when people are all over the place and at various altitudes, then it depends. Even if the enemy is at full speed, at high alt, once they to a 180 or even 90 degree turn, it bleeds off enough speed that they can't catch you for a very long time.
Ki-84's haven't been in scenarios all that much -- Operation Downfall and Philippine Phandango I think is all. In Downfall, it was an axis rout of the allies, so I don't think that the Ki's had trouble there. In Philippine Phandango, yes, axis planes were getting hit by allies with altitude on them, but I'm not sure if that was a result of alts given in orders or capabilities of planes.
-
I wonder if those include claims on the ground? Sometimes that narrative separates air-to-air and air-to-ground, sometimes apparently not.
It doesn't matter as the Americans found 60+ German a/c while the Tempest found none. JAW is a little short on details for the rest of the 2TAF.
-
I'm not sure about other events, but in scenarios that have 109's and 190's vs. high-alt bombers and escorts, we are usually at the same altitude as the allies or above them on 1st intercept (for 109's of any model and 190D's) as there is generally an alt cap, and we are at it. Also, we are generally up near top speed, but the escorts aren't (as they are staying near bombers). After 1st intercept, when people are all over the place and at various altitudes, then it depends. Even if the enemy is at full speed, at high alt, once they to a 180 or even 90 degree turn, it bleeds off enough speed that they can't catch you for a very long time.
Ki-84's haven't been in scenarios all that much -- Operation Downfall and Philippine Phandango I think is all. In Downfall, it was an axis rout of the allies, so I don't think that the Ki's had trouble there. In Philippine Phandango, yes, axis planes were getting hit by allies with altitude on them, but I'm not sure if that was a result of alts given in orders or capabilities of planes.
The problem is that the 109G-6 does 370 mph on WEP at 30k. A G-6/AS could cruise at 400 mph on MIL at that alt, and on WEP it would be a wee bit faster than a P-51D.
-
The problem is that the 109G-6 does 370 mph on WEP at 30k. A G-6/AS could cruise at 400 mph on MIL at that alt, and on WEP it would be a wee bit faster than a P-51D.
I don't dispute that the AS is a faster version. It's just that I find the G-2 and G-6 already decent vs. P-51's, and for late war, we use 109K's in the mix.
I like my G-6 just fine. :)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame1/004-p47kill-Image-0007.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame1/025-blast47-Image-0042.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame2/011-stillLots-Image-0018.jpg)
And my G-14.
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame3/009-hit51-Image-0014.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame3/010-51dead-Image-0016.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame4/011-down47-Image-0017.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame5/013-crossingShot-Image-0033.jpg)
-
It doesn't matter as the Americans found 60+ German a/c while the Tempest found none. JAW is a little short on details for the rest of the 2TAF.
I was referring to the Tempest Wing [122] a single unit within 2nd TAF, the 2nd were also operating thousands of other tactical aircraft, Typhoons/Spitfires/Mosquitos/Mustangs & etc..
The Tempests did find, & shoot down the Ar 234, Me 262, He 162, & Ta 152,
the P-38s did not.. But the RAF did not count GA claims = A2A..
There are good histories available, which give daily ops returns & likewise the US 9th TAF were flying thousands of aircraft on tactical ops too..
The point being that the LW was not grounded, or absent - as suggested..
They did put nearly a thousand strafing aircraft over Allied lines on 1-1-45..
-
I don't dispute that the AS is a faster version. It's just that I find the G-2 and G-6 already decent vs. P-51's, and for late war, we use 109K's in the mix.
I like my G-6 just fine. :)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame1/004-p47kill-Image-0007.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame1/025-blast47-Image-0042.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame2/011-stillLots-Image-0018.jpg)
And my G-14.
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame3/009-hit51-Image-0014.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame3/010-51dead-Image-0016.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame4/011-down47-Image-0017.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame5/013-crossingShot-Image-0033.jpg)
At 30k they're not decent, they're struggling. Only superior skill will let you win over a Pony at that alt in a G-6 or G-14, or if you can trick them to follow you down to more favorable altitudes.
Nice screens btw. :aok
-
According to Don Caldwell's JG 26 history, the weather on 4th April
1945 meant no ops were flown by that unit,
& likely that coincides with no A2A claims by the Tempest Wing that day,
- if they were up flying in the same local conditions..
-
At 30k they're not decent, they're struggling. Only superior skill will let you win over a Pony at that alt in a G-6 or G-14, or if you can trick them to follow you down to more favorable altitudes.
Nice screens btw. :aok
G-6's outclimb and outturn P-51's at 30k. Also, since everything struggles up there, you don't get extended turning fights. Almost all of the fights that start up there involve someone diving out or pulling a hard diving turn or hard split s, so the fights rarely stay up high. In scenarios with G-6's vs. P-51's, P-47's, and P-38's and fights starting at 30-34k, I think that the G-6's have done fine overall (not just among superior pilots, but average over all pilots).
-
G-6's outclimb and outturn P-51's at 30k. Also, since everything struggles up there, you don't get extended turning fights. Almost all of the fights that start up there involve someone diving out or pulling a hard diving turn or hard split s, so the fights rarely stay up high. In scenarios with G-6's vs. P-51's, P-47's, and P-38's and fights starting at 30-34k, I think that the G-6's have done fine overall (not just among superior pilots, but average over all pilots).
Brooke, in RL I believe that the missions often had somewhere in the 1000+ planes, we don't have that many players, nor do the arenas ever have that many members in one arena, so how accurately are the scenarios scaled down?
-
I remember watching an interview with a P-51 pilot on Wings, and him saying that while escorting B-17s at 25k, he looked up and saw little specks above him. He knew they were 109s, and went on to say that he couldn't compete with them at those altitudes.
Sorry I dont have any more info than that on the interview. Maybe I'll run across that Wings episode again.
-
Brooke, in RL I believe that the missions often had somewhere in the 1000+ planes, we don't have that many players, nor do the arenas ever have that many members in one arena, so how accurately are the scenarios scaled down?
It depends on what you are modeling. In those 1000+ raids, the fighting generally was not hundreds on hundreds in one big melee but rather several nearly independent fights at portions of the overall air armada. A couple of those regions is more akin to what we model.
Also, though, not all of the fighting in Europe was 1000 US planes. Many were a lot smaller than that. Scenarios like Battle Over Germany and Der Grosse Schlag had around 150 bomber aircraft up at one time.
-
What a portion of that looks like:
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame2/011-stillLots-Image-0018.jpg)
-
The problem is that the 109G-6 does 370 mph on WEP at 30k. A G-6/AS could cruise at 400 mph on MIL at that alt, and on WEP it would be a wee bit faster than a P-51D.
The P-51B can cruise along at 440 mph at 30k in MIL power.... Pretty sporty.
-
G-6's outclimb and outturn P-51's at 30k. Also, since everything struggles up there, you don't get extended turning fights. Almost all of the fights that start up there involve someone diving out or pulling a hard diving turn or hard split s, so the fights rarely stay up high. In scenarios with G-6's vs. P-51's, P-47's, and P-38's and fights starting at 30-34k, I think that the G-6's have done fine overall (not just among superior pilots, but average over all pilots).
The 109G-6 neither outclimbs nor out-turns a P-51B at 30k. It has a very small advantage in climb over the P-51D. The B model's V-1650-3 was engineered for high altitude, and it quite easily out-performed the D model at 30k. At 30k the 109G-6 can't quite manage 1,400 fpm, while the P-51B can just exceed 2,000 fpm. At that altitude, the 109G-6 simply lacks the power to sustain maneuvering without losing big chunks of altitude. The 109G-6 faces the same issues against the P-47D-25 at 30k. The Jug is still making sea level HP at 30k. It can dump flaps to maneuver, where doing so in the 109G-6 means an unwanted stall if any attempt is made to match the Jug.
If I were to pick a fighter for high altitude bomber escort, I'd pick the P-51B. The Spitfire Mk.XIV has similar speed at 30k, but lack the legs to go more than a couple of sectors.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=15&p2=45&pw=1>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
-
From Air Enthusiast/48, P. 31 - Re: Air Superiority by John T Smith;
"It is nearly impossible for ground forces to operate effectively without adequate air cover. Although the LW was restricted by the Allies overwhelming
superiority in numbers, the Allies were never able to achieve true air superiority.
The Germans were able to impose losses on the Allies to the very end.
The German light flak being especially effective.
In the Gulf War the Allies obtained air superiority within several days, but true air superiority was never achieved against the Germans."
-
The P-51B can cruise along at 440 mph at 30k in MIL power.... Pretty sporty.
Yes, I need some fertilizer. :x
-
From Air Enthusiast/48, P. 31 - Re: Air Superiority by John T Smith;
"It is nearly impossible for ground forces to operate effectively without adequate air cover. Although the LW was restricted by the Allies overwhelming
superiority in numbers, the Allies were never able to achieve true air superiority.
The Germans were able to impose losses on the Allies to the very end.
The German light flak being especially effective.
In the Gulf War the Allies obtained air superiority within several days, but true air superiority was never achieved against the Germans."
I think Mr. Smith fails to understand what air superiority is. It has nothing to do with "light flak". Moreover, it is easy to obtain brief local air superiority. The Luftwaffe could do that right up until the surrender. However, it was very local and usually very brief.
A good definition of air superiority is: That level of control in the air space of one air force over another that permits the conduct of air operations of said air force at a given time and place without significant interference by an opposing air force.
The Gulf War was a case of air supremacy. By April of 1945, the Allies were in a position of air supremacy. The Luftwaffe was, essentially, combat ineffective. The handful of aircraft that could be put in the air was completely inconsequential. Not even amounting to minor annoyance in the scope of what the Allies put up daily.
-
Yes, I need some fertilizer. :x
In game...
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=45&p2=0&pw=0>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
-
Ww, Smith quotes USAF Gen W.Momyer in his article [P.18]..
"The most precious thing an air force can provide
an army or navy is air superiority, since this gives to surface forces the ability to carry out their plan of action without interference from an enemy air force. Without air superiority, tactical flexibility is lost."
& Smith adds,
" Against a resourceful & well equipped enemy, air superiority may never be finally achieved or may have to be fought for again & again."
For M.M., here is the RAF Mustang III Merlin /3 powered data sheet..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-III-ads-3.jpg
-
In game...
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=45&p2=0&pw=0>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
So max speed is now cruise speed. OK got it.
-
Yes it says max cruise speed > 395mph @ 20kft
-
From D.Caldwell's JG 26 history P.369,Re: Action 29th April;
"At 1230, Lt Soeffing led 6 1st Gruppe aircraft to attack the leading British armour near Lauenburg. In a battle with Spifire XIVs, Soeffing shot down one, but the unit lost Fw. H. Walter. Walter was the last of 763 JG 26 pilots to be killed in the course of the war. Later in the afternoon, Soeffing led 7 aircraft in an escort mission for 14 SG 151 FW 190Fs..."
"On the 30th, the 2nd Gruppe joined the 1st in the Neumuenster area. Both Gruppen spent the day attempting to attack British armour while avoiding 2nd TAF fighters."
& Ww, if your son was one of those lost in these actions, would it be an 'inconsequential, minor annoyance'?
-
So max speed is now cruise speed. OK got it.
Do you fly Aces High?
Unless you have a need to conserve fuel, you push the throttle to max power and keep it there. No time limit in game. No risk of damage. No concerns for oil or cylinder head temps. Climb out to 30k, level off and let it run. Once it peaks at 440 mph, you cruise to where you are headed. The P-51B is top tier at high altitude.
-
From D.Caldwell's JG 26 history P.369,Re: Action 29th April;
"At 1230, Lt Soeffing led 6 1st Gruppe aircraft to attack the leading British armour near Lauenburg. In a battle with Spifire XIVs, Soeffing shot down one, but the unit lost Fw. H. Walter. Walter was the last of 763 JG 26 pilots to be killed in the course of the war. Later in the afternoon, Soeffing led 7 aircraft in an escort mission for 14 SG 151 FW 190Fs..."
"On the 30th, the 2nd Gruppe joined the 1st in the Neumuenster area. Both Gruppen spent the day attempting to attack British armour while avoiding 2nd TAF fighters."
& Ww, if your son was one of those lost in these actions, would it be an 'inconsequential, minor annoyance'?
Complete strawman argument. We are discussing the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the Luftwaffe in the closing weeks of the war. Caldwell's description is that of a small number of fighters doing what they could in the face of overwhelming enemy superiority. A gnat bite on the backside of the elephant. Sure, they could shoot down an Allied fighter here and there. Hell, even a blind pig finds the corn sometimes.
-
Wow Ww, & written in the best tradition of disregarding losses..
Stalin wrote something similar - even about his own son..
Fact is, those on the receiving end would not agree that those LW dropped butterfly bombs were equivalent to 'straw'..
Here are some air-cooled vs liquid cooled cruising speed match-ups,
R-2800 vs Griffon & Sabre..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/hellcat-II-ads-a.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/corsair-II-III-ads-b.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47_thunderbolt2-aircraftdatasheet.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempest-v-ads-sabre-IIb.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-XIV-ads.jpg
-
The 109G-6 neither outclimbs nor out-turns a P-51B at 30k.
Sorry -- I meant the D and should have been more clear and said "the G-6 outclimbs and outturns the P-51D at 30k." I think that the G-6 might outturn both the P-51B and D at 30k, but I would have to test it to know for sure and thus could be wrong in my current suspicion.
At 30k the 109G-6 can't quite manage 1,400 fpm, while the P-51B can just exceed 2,000 fpm. At that altitude, the 109G-6 simply lacks the power to sustain maneuvering without losing big chunks of altitude. The 109G-6 faces the same issues against the P-47D-25 at 30k. The Jug is still making sea level HP at 30k. It can dump flaps to maneuver, where doing so in the 109G-6 means an unwanted stall if any attempt is made to match the Jug.
If I were to pick a fighter for high altitude bomber escort, I'd pick the P-51B. The Spitfire Mk.XIV has similar speed at 30k, but lack the legs to go more than a couple of sectors.
P-51's and P-47's (and especially Spit 14's, but they are rare in scenarios) are great planes at 30k -- I'm not saying otherwise. I do agree that P-51's and P-47's are better than 109's in some ways. It's just that I feel that 109's are better in turning and sometimes, depending on which particular matchup and which alt, at climbing. In scenarios, the 109's, including the G-6 and G-2, do OK vs. P-51B's, P-51D's, P-47's, and P-38's at all altitudes up to 34k. Neither dominates the other overall in scenarios, and they are well matched in that environment. What ends up being much more important is numbers and group tactics.
One would think (I did think it too, until I flew the 109 many times in high-alt scenarios) that the P-51's and P-47's would have such significant advantages at 30k or 34k that the G-2 and G-6 would be annihilated. But I found that not to be so in the scenario environment. One big aspect is that everything has constraints at 30-34k. Up there, one hard turn blows such huge amounts of energy that even a slower G-6 to blow through P-51 and P-47 sweeps more often than not (talking from much personal experience here flying them in scenarios at 34k against a wide assortment of pilots, some of them very good pilots who are the opposite of inept). Also, it's hard to kill anything at 30-34k if the opponent is willing to pull a decent number of g's to get out of your way, no matter whether you are the P-51 trying for the 109 or vice versa. Most dogfights starting at 30-34k don't get resolved until a much lower altitude (unless it is against an escort who isn't evading as hard as possible because he is trying to stay with the bombers). Many-on-many fighting changes the dynamics of the fights as well.
The toughest plane I ever fought at high alts in scenarios has been the Spit 14. That one, I do think is better than any 109 model in every way at high alt. Still, even there, high alt and many on many are the great equilizers, and the groups I was in did OK against them in 109K's (The Final Battle) and 190D's (Winter Sky).
-
The P-51B can cruise along at 440 mph at 30k in MIL power.... Pretty sporty.
Yes it is a superb high altitude fighter with that -3 engine. Don't get to see them very often in 1944 scenarios though, mostly D-Ponies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't most 51Bs re-engined to the -7 in 1944?
-
With the introduction of the P-51C-5-NT onto the Dallas production line and the P-51B-15-NA in the Inglewood production line, the Packard V-1560-7 engine was adopted as standard. It offered 1450 hp for take off and a war emergency rating of 1695 hp at 10,300 feet. Maximum speed at 20,000 feet was reduced from 440 to 435 mph, but increased from 430 to 439 mph at 25,000 feet. 398 P-51B-10-NAs, 390 P-51B-15-NAs, and 1350 P-51C-10-NTs were built, all powered by the V-1650-7 engine.
Serial numbers of P-51Bs:
43-12093/12492 North American P-51B-1-NA Mustang
(NA-102) c/n 102-24541/24940. 400 aircraft
43-6313/7112 North American P-51B-5-NA Mustang
(NA-104) c/n 104-22816/23305, 24431/24540, 24941/25140.
800 aircraft
43-7113/7202 North American P-51B-10-NA Mustang
(NA-104) c/n 104-25141/25230. 90 aircraft
42-106429/106540 North American P-51B-10-NA Mustang
(NA-104) c/n 104-25231/25342. 112 aircraft
42-106541/106738 North American P-51B-10-NA Mustang
(NA-104) c/n 104-25343/25540. 198 aircraft
42-106739/106978 North American P-51B-15-NA Mustang
(NA-104) c/n 104-25541/25780. 240 aircraft
43-24752/24901 North American P-51B-15-NA Mustang
(NA-104) c/n 104-25781/25930. 150 aircraft
total of 1990 P-51Bs
Serial numbers of P-51Cs:
42-102979/103328 North American P-51C-1-NT Mustang
(NA-103) c/n 103-22416/22765. 350 aircraft
42-103329/103778 North American P-51C-5-NT Mustang
(NA-103) c/n 103-22766/22815, 103-25933/26332. 450 aircraft
42-103779/103978 North American P-51C-10-NT Mustang
(NA-103) c/n 103-26333/26532. 200 aircraft
43-24902/25251 North American P-51C-10-NT Mustang
(NA-103) c/n 103-26533/26882. 350 aircraft
44-10753/10782 North American P-51C-10-NT Mustang
(NA-111) c/n 111-28886/28915. 30 aircraft
44-10783/10817 North American P-51C-11-NT Mustang
(NA-111) c/n 111-28916/28950. 35 aircraft
44-10818/10852 North American P-51C-10-NT Mustang
(NA-111) c/n 111-28951/28985. 35 aircraft
44-10853/10858 North American P-51C-11-NT Mustang
(NA-111) c/n 111-28986/28991. 6 aircraft
44-10859/11036 North American P-51C-10-NT Mustang
(NA-111) c/n 111-28992/29169. 178 aircraft
44-11037/11122 North American P-51C-11-NT Mustang
(NA-111) c/n 111-29170/29255. 86 aircraft
44-11123/11152 North American P-51C-10-NT Mustang
(NA-111) c/n 111-29256/29285. 30 aircraft
total of 1750 aircraft
If an engine change was required and there was -7 engines available is possible.
-
RAF aircraft data sheets for Mustang III & IV,[B/C & D/K] Merlin - 7;
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-III-ads-7.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-IV-ads.jpg
-
Yes it is a superb high altitude fighter with that -3 engine. Don't get to see them very often in 1944 scenarios though, mostly D-Ponies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't most 51Bs re-engined to the -7 in 1944?
Later in 1944, should a B model require a replacement engine, the general tendency was to change to the -7. However, some pilots preferred the -3 and were not happy. Likewise, some pilots were less than thrilled to surrender their tired B models for new D models. Some came around after flying the D, others found that their original skepticism was reinforced. Personal taste and the natural resistance to change.... A common facet found in every air force.
-
Wow Ww, & written in the best tradition of disregarding losses..
Stalin wrote something similar - even about his own son..
Fact is, those on the receiving end would not agree that those LW dropped butterfly bombs were equivalent to 'straw'..
Not disregarding losses; accepting the reality of war. One needs a perspective that is relevant.
Losses are always saddening. Nonetheless, losses are expected and tolerated if within acceptable numbers. That is the nature of war.
If your air force flies 1,500 sorties a day, you can expect a percentage will not come back. Some lost to enemy action, some lost to operational mishaps.
-
& not to discount the influence of rank/ace status,
in being able to cherry pick/claim the best performing plane on base,
& have it well fettled/personalised by the top ground crew..
Re: air superiority, well - the fact is, the LW's ability to - in the face of overwhelming/crushing Allied numbers - to provide any measure of organised defence/counter attack was actually fairly remarkable, & creditable..
-
Sorry -- I meant the D and should have been more clear and said "the G-6 outclimbs and outturns the P-51D at 30k." I think that the G-6 might outturn both the P-51B and D at 30k, but I would have to test it to know for sure and thus could be wrong in my current suspicion.
P-51's and P-47's (and especially Spit 14's, but they are rare in scenarios) are great planes at 30k -- I'm not saying otherwise. I do agree that P-51's and P-47's are better than 109's in some ways. It's just that I feel that 109's are better in turning and sometimes, depending on which particular matchup and which alt, at climbing. In scenarios, the 109's, including the G-6 and G-2, do OK vs. P-51B's, P-51D's, P-47's, and P-38's at all altitudes up to 34k. Neither dominates the other overall in scenarios, and they are well matched in that environment. What ends up being much more important is numbers and group tactics.
One would think (I did think it too, until I flew the 109 many times in high-alt scenarios) that the P-51's and P-47's would have such significant advantages at 30k or 34k that the G-2 and G-6 would be annihilated. But I found that not to be so in the scenario environment. One big aspect is that everything has constraints at 30-34k. Up there, one hard turn blows such huge amounts of energy that even a slower G-6 to blow through P-51 and P-47 sweeps more often than not (talking from much personal experience here flying them in scenarios at 34k against a wide assortment of pilots, some of them very good pilots who are the opposite of inept). Also, it's hard to kill anything at 30-34k if the opponent is willing to pull a decent number of g's to get out of your way, no matter whether you are the P-51 trying for the 109 or vice versa. Most dogfights starting at 30-34k don't get resolved until a much lower altitude (unless it is against an escort who isn't evading as hard as possible because he is trying to stay with the bombers). Many-on-many fighting changes the dynamics of the fights as well.
The toughest plane I ever fought at high alts in scenarios has been the Spit 14. That one, I do think is better than any 109 model in every way at high alt. Still, even there, high alt and many on many are the great equilizers, and the groups I was in did OK against them in 109K's (The Final Battle) and 190D's (Winter Sky).
One of the factors in scenarios is the likelihood that very few players have experience fighting at high altitude. It's a different world up high. When I was a trainer, I would run clinics on high altitude fighting. With practice, one can learn that indicated airspeed is what one watches. Those who plan to fly in a high altitude scenario should practice first. I suggest using the TA where there are 30k air spawning fields.
Wotan and I flew a P-47D-25 vs a 109G6 at 30k. Up that high, the 109 was outclassed. Wotan had to take the fight down hill. At 25k it was closer to even. At 20k the 109 began to show it's strength. Below that, the 109 was notably better (I'm talking maneuver fighting). It clearly showed us the relative strengths of both types. 190Ds are pigs at 30k. Still carry some speed, but they maneuver like dump trucks up that high.
-
If your air force flies 1,500 sorties a day, you can expect a percentage will not come back. Some lost to enemy action, some lost to operational mishaps.
Yes, the USAAF flying against the LW suffered
higher combat casualties than the USMC grunts in the PTO..
I understand that the comparatively uncomplicated flying technique required
to operate the `51 was also a factor in it being preferred by the 8th AF..
-
One of the factors in scenarios is the likelihood that very few players have experience fighting at high altitude. It's a different world up high.
Absolutely. Scenario regulars have experience in high-alt fighting, but non regulars usually don't. It would be nice if they would get some experience in it, but most players do not practice much for a scenario and gain their experience the harder way. ;) Most scenarios have higher-alt fighting as part of it, and any scenario with 8th AF has lots of extremely high-alt fighting. Also a factor in scenarios is that the fights almost always start out as many on many, which changes the character enormously from one on one.
Wotan and I flew a P-47D-25 vs a 109G6 at 30k. Up that high, the 109 was outclassed. Wotan had to take the fight down hill. At 25k it was closer to even. At 20k the 109 began to show it's strength. Below that, the 109 was notably better (I'm talking maneuver fighting). It clearly showed us the relative strengths of both types. 190Ds are pigs at 30k. Still carry some speed, but they maneuver like dump trucks up that high.
I don't doubt that an expert in a one on one fighting at 30k will have advantages in a P-47 or P-51. In scenarios, G-6's do OK, though, and actual outcome in the scenario seems to me a direct measure of their suitability for that environment. There are various reasons that they do OK in that environment. One is that the 109's are often moving ahead to find bombers, and the sweep P-51's encountering them are heading in the opposite direction. The P-51's have to reverse course to chase the 109's, whereas the 109's can just keep flying ahead. That 180 saps a lot of speed at 34k and takes a lot of time and distance to complete. Or the P-51's and P-47's are escorts going a lot less than what otherwise would be their top speeds, so G-6's at a G-6 top speed are faster than they are. Many, many times, I have taken 109 groups up the tail of the bomber stream forcing escorts to maneuver or get shot, and it isn't the result of inexperienced or inept escort pilots -- those escort pilots are some of the game's and scenarios' most-experienced, best pilots. It's just one of the dynamics of escorting. There is the aspect you point out, too -- the G-6 in a mix-it-up fight starting at high alt brings the fight lower (as do most people fighting starting at high alt just as a natural part of what happens once they start mixing it up). The many-on-many aspect reduces the relative importance of various performance differences in the aircraft as well. A P-51 or P-47 can't lead turn into the pack of 109's, or he is subject to getting shot in the tail; and if he goes after the trailing 109, maybe that tail-end Charlie (or two or three) is in trouble, but the rest of the guys blast ahead toward the bombers.
190D's absolutely have problems turning much or climbing at 30k or 34k. But again I have flown them a lot at high alts in scenarios (Winter Sky and DGS II) in groups that have done OK vs. P-51's, P-47's, P-38's, Tempests, and even Spit 14's for reasons like the above. 190D's are worse at turning at climbing at those extreme alts than 109's, but they are very fast, handle very crisply (in roll and pitch), have great guns, and lots of ammo. I love the 190D in scenarios.
Another example was 190A-5's vs. Spit IX's in Enemy Coast Ahead. I expected the 190's to get annihilated by the horde of Spit IX's, but to my surprise they did very well against the Spit IX's. They were very well suited to the style of scenario fights. Scenario fighting is a much different world of fighting, I find.
Widewing, do you fly in scenarios? If not, it would be great to have you join us, and I think you might enjoy it.