Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Widewing on March 28, 2005, 10:05:25 AM
-
I have a substantial library at home, nearly 1,700 books stored on shelves, in closets and stacked in the home office. Many of these are aviation books, mostly hardcovers collected over the past 30+ years.
Within these books I find several consistant errors in history, things repeated over and over by various authors that were incorrect the first time published and still finding their way into new publications. Here's a list of the more common errors of fact.
1) Britain was responsible for the P-51 being designed.
2) More Japanese aircraft were shot down by the P-38 than any other Allied fighter.
3) The P-39 was used by the Soviets as a tank-buster.
4) In air combat, the P-38 could not maneuver with the Bf 109 and Fw 190.
5) At the beginning of the war, Mitsubishi's Zero was faster than any American fighter.
6) P-51s were the first Allied fighters to fly to Berlin and back.
7) Allied bombing severely reduced Germany's factory output of war planes and armor.
8) Grumman's F6F had a maximum speed of 388 mph.
The truth:
1) Britain approached North American Aviation asking that they manufacture the P-40 under license. They even suggested that NAA consider the Curtiss XP-46. NAA bought XP-46 engineering data from Curtiss, but thought the XP-46 to be a poor design. NAA decided to propose a new design rather than build an obsolete aircraft. This was approved, but only if the prototype would be ready within 120 days. It was, but Allison was late delivering the engine. So, the P-51 was designed in spite of what the Brits had originally asked for.
2) P-38s destroyed more Japanese aircraft than any other Allied AIR FORCE fighter. In reality, Grumman's F6F destroyed more than 5,000 Japanese aircraft, almost 2 1/2 times the total of the P-38.
3) On the eastern front, the Soviets employed the P-39 as a battlefield fighter. It's primary purpose was to defeat the Luftwaffe. Ground attack was a secondary purpose. Indeed, the 37mm M2 cannon proved ineffective against tanks. Many of the Soviet Union's top fighter pilots scored all or a portion of their victories flying the P-39. While disliked by the USAAF for its poor performance above 15,000 feet, and its short range, these were not issues on the eastern front. Most combat was below 15,000 feet, usually very near the front line.
4) Early in the production run of the P-38F, the flap system was redesigned to incorporate a "maneuver" setting. The use of flaps enabled the P-38 to turn very tightly, allowing it to out-turn the German fighters at low speeds. At high altitudes, the P-38s suffered from serious compressibility problems and any Luftwaffe pilot finding himself at a disadvantage was able to disengage by diving vertically. This was not satisfactorily resolved until the summer of 1944, when dive recovery flaps began being retro-fitted to P-38Js and the newer P-38J-25-LO and P-38L-1-LO began arriving in numbers. By then, the 8th AF had already began re-equipping P-38 units with P-51s. However, the newer P-38s performed splendedly with the 15th AF flying from Italy and with the 9th Tactical AF from Britain and later from France and Belgium.
5) Althought the Zero offered great range, good climb and remarkable agility, it was not a fast fighter by late 1941 standards. Published data claims a top speed of 332 mph for the A6M2. Actual testing of the aircraft shows speeds no greater than 320 mph. When compared to the P-40 (any model), P-39D or the F4F-3, we see that the Zero was usually at a disadvantage in speed. A simple change in tactics largely neutered the Zero's advantages in maneuverability. During the course of the war, the Zero's performance increased little, while newer and far higher performance fighters coming into Allied service relegated the Zero to little more than a target by mid 1943.
6) On March 3rd, 1944 Col. Harold Rau took the 20th Fighter Group to Berlin. The 20th was flying P-38Js. 101 P-51s finally made it to Berlin on March 6th, but they were accompanied by 88 P-38s.
7) German industrial output actually increased during the height of the bombing. However, the bombing did limit the growth of industrial output. Ultimately, the concentration on destroying Germany's ability to produce fuel (by the Soviets capturing oil fields and the bombing of production facilities) did more harm than the bombing of factories.
8) Due to a design engineering error, the pitot static port was mis-located. This led to a serious error in air speed indication at high speed. When corrected on a Grumman test aircraft, maximum speed was observed as 412 mph during factory flight tests. This was verified by the Technical Air Intelligence Command (TAIC). Their testing revealed a maximum speed of 409 mph while fitted with independent air speed measuring equipment.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Point one is interesting. Evey your clarification still seems like the the british are responsible for the P51 being designed to me.
-
Very interesting Widewing, a few of those I thought I knew and a few I had no idea about. Thanks for opening this avation buffs eyes.
-
very good read!
-
You sure on the 20th and Harold Rau that were first over Berlin?
I've always understood it was Jack Jenkins in his P38 "Texas Ranger", leading the 55th FG that was first over Berlin on March 3, 1944.
Lots of publicity photos of Jenkins in that 38 because of it.
Still 38s, but a different bunch :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
1) Britain approached North American Aviation asking that they manufacture the P-40 under license. They even suggested that NAA consider the Curtiss XP-46. NAA bought XP-46 engineering data from Curtiss, but thought the XP-46 to be a poor design. NAA decided to propose a new design rather than build an obsolete aircraft. This was approved, but only if the prototype would be ready within 120 days. It was, but Allison was late delivering the engine. So, the P-51 was designed in spite of what the Brits had originally asked for.
I think this is saying the Brits ARE responsible for the P-51 being designed. Brits didnt do the designing, but if they hadnt approached NAA for P-40's would NAA have designed the Mustang? Guess we'll never know that answer :)
Good read Widewing :)
-
Thought this was interesting for 38 buffs....
20th Fighter Group Headquarters
APO 637 U.S. Army
(E-2)
3 June 1944
Subject: P-38 Airplane in Combat.
To: Commanding General, VIII Fighter Command, APO 637, U.S. Army.
1. The following observations are being put in writing by the undersigned at the request of the Commanding General, VII FC. They are intended purely as constructive criticism and are intended in any way to "low rate" our present equipment.
2. After flying the P-38 for a little over one hundred hours on combat missions it is my belief that the airplane, as it stands now, is too complicated for the 'average' pilot. I want to put strong emphasis on the word 'average, taking full consideration just how little combat training our pilots have before going on as operational status.
3. As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-five hours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod, penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM. He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavy load). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced", what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several things wrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperature with subsequent engine failure.
4. In my limited experience with a P-38 group, we have lost as least four (4) pilots, who when bounced, took no immediate evasive action. The logical assumption is that they were so busy in the cockpit, trying to get organized that they were shot down before they could get going.
5. The question that arises is, what are you going to do about it? It is standard procedure for the group leader to call, five minutes before R/V and tell all the pilots to "prepare for trouble". This is the signal for everyone to get into auto rich, turn drop tank switches on, gun heaters on, combat and sight switches on and to increase RPM and manifold pressure to maximum cruise. This procedure, however, does not help the pilot who is bounced on the way in and who is trying to conserve his gasoline and equipment for the escort job ahead.
6. What is the answer to these difficulties? During the past several weeks we have been visited at this station time and time again by Lockheed representatives, Allison representatives and high ranking Army personnel connected with these two companies. They all ask about our troubles and then proceed to tell us about the marvelous mechanisms that they have devised to overcome these troubles that the Air Force has turned down as "unnecessary". Chief among these is a unit power control, incorporating an automatic manifold pressure regulator, which will control power, RPM and mixture by use of a single lever. It is obvious that there is a crying need for a device like that in combat.
7. It is easy to understand why test pilots, who have never been in combat, cannot readily appreciate what each split second means when a "bounce" occurs. Every last motion when you get bounced is just another nail in your coffin. Any device which would eliminate any of the enumerated above, are obviously very necessary to make the P-38 a really effective combat airplane.
8. It is also felt that that much could done to simplify the gas switching system in this airplane. The switches {valve selector handles} are all in awkward positions and extremely hard to turn. The toggle switches for outboard tanks are almost impossible to operate with gloves on.
9. My personal feeling about this airplane is that it is a fine piece of equipment, and if properly handled, takes a back seat for nothing that the enemy can produce. But it does need simplifying to bring it within the capabilities of the 'average' pilot. I believe that pilots like Colonel Ben Kelsey and Colonel Cass Huff are among the finest pilots in the world today. But I also believe that it is difficult for men like them to place their thinking and ability on the level of a youngster with a bare 25 hours in the airplane, going into his first combat. That is the sort of thinking that will have to be done, in my opinion, to make the P-38 a first-class all around fighting airplane.
HAROLD J. RAU
Colonel, Air Corps,
Commanding.
-
From what I can find on the net the 55th was 1st over berlin on March 3, 1944. 1st Buffs made it on March 6th....
"Paul Selden, Stan Richardson, and Col. C. Jones (ret.) were three of the approximately 20 members of the 55th Fighter Group who were the first Americans over Berlin in the war. The first USAAF mission over Berlin was scheduled for March 3, 1944, but the mission was scrubbed due to weather. The 55th never got the recall notice, probably due to German jamming, and the group thus earned the distinction of "first over Berlin." Col. Jones was 343rd Squadron XO at the time and gave a vivid description of the instrument conditions the group struggled with on the way to the target. Selden and Richardson gave a far-ranging picture of the lives of combat pilots, including a good-natured debate over the respective merits of the P-38 and P-51. Paul clearly preferred the latter and Stan the former."
http://www.nwha.org/news_3Q2001/news_page8.html
From the little I read it seemed like the 20th went operational slightly later that month...
-
Rau didnt take command of the 20th until after Mark Hubbard was shot down (march 18, 1944). He was functioning as an A3 (staff position) prior to that so he couldnt have led the 20th over Berlin on March 3, 1944....
"After leaving the 20th., at Barksdale, I graduated from Flying School in due time and was assigned to the 1st. Pursuit Group at Selfridge Field, Mich. Field, subsequently to the 9th. Bomb Group at Mitchell Field, and then at Panama. Finally, after coming back from Panama in January, 1943, I was assigned to the New York Air Defense Wing and subsequently to the command of a newly formed fighter group known as the 356th. Fighter Group. I organized the 356th., then took them overseas and got them into combat and after a short period with the 356th. I was transfered up to the 67th. Air Defense Wing as A-3, after serving about four months as A-3 I was given command of the 20th. Group in March of 1944.
"I took command shortly after Mark Hubbard had been shot down and Johnny Johnson was acting as temporary Group Commander until I arrived. I flew 73 missions, as I recall, with the 20th. Group , about 350 some combat hours between March of '43* and December of '43*. In December I was relieved of active combat and returned to the Zone of Interior. Bob Montgomery then took over command of the outfit and had it, I believe on through most of the rest of the war, which as we all know wound up in the spring of '45."
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/6940/rau.html
-
Nice info Widewing. So, when are we getting faster F6F's in AH ?!?
Zazen
-
Originally posted by humble
5. The question that arises is, what are you going to do about it? It is standard procedure for the group leader to call, five minutes before R/V and tell all the pilots to "prepare for trouble". This is the signal for everyone to get into auto rich, turn drop tank switches on, gun heaters on, combat and sight switches on and to increase RPM and manifold pressure to maximum cruise. This procedure, however, does not help the pilot who is bounced on the way in and who is trying to conserve his gasoline and equipment for the escort job ahead.
Lloyd Wnezel of the 474th FG recalled, "we had solved the problem of predetonation at altitude because of too much cooling in th inter-cooler and did a field-fix, anchoring the nacell fillet to reduce buffet. We moved the inter-coller switch up to the control yoke and ganged that switch with the gun sight and guns' hot switch so we wouldnt forget to open it.
The 474th was the only 38 outfit in the ETO at the end of the war - we had petitioned General Pete Quesada {9th Commander} to let us keep the bird when other groups were changing to P-51s and P-47s"
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Point one is interesting. Evey your clarification still seems like the the british are responsible for the P51 being designed to me.
You can make the statement, but its not the whole truth. The USAAF had far more to do with it being built than the Brits, who really just wanted SOMETHING. They had nothing to do with pushing anyone to make something different. This is an excerpt I posted previously in another thread.
From the book WARBIRDS: American Legends of WWII
During the first months of the war the British and French renewed their efforts to purchase US-built aircraft, settling on the P-40. Lt. Benjamin S. Kelsey, head of the Army Air Corps Pursuit Projects Office at Wright Field, and his boss, Col. Oliver P. Echols regretted this since it would push a new Curtiss Fighter, the XP-46, off the assembly lines. Air Corps commander Gen. H.H."Hap" Arnold decided he could not spare the four-month lag in production to change from the P-40 to the P-46 - if America were drawn into the war, quantity would be drastically needed.
In January 1940, recalled Kelsey, "Echols made a suggestion to the Anglo-French Purchasing Commission to find a manufacturer who wasn't already bogged down with high-priority stuff. Curtiss-Wright and the Air Corps would make available all the data we had on the XP-46 in place of the P-40, to find some way of getting around the problem."
Scouting for other companies to build the P-40, the commission was drawn to North American Aviation, which had done a sterling job in providing Harvard trainers. The company made it clear they had no desire to build another firm's fighter; they wanted to design one themselves.
Donovan Berlin had spent the better part of the last two years developing the XP-46. With his go-ahead, NAA Vice President Leland Atwood bought the data, along with the results of how the aborted belly radiator scoop worked on the original XP-40 for $56,000. On 4 May, NAA signed a Foreign Release Agreement with the Air Corps permitting sale of the Model NA-73 overseas, providing that two examples were supplied to the Army. Kelsey and Echols had maneuvered hard to get their new fighter built at a time when the Air Corps had no procurement money.
................Wing designer Larry Waite incorporated, at the insistence of Edward Horkey (aerodynamicist), the NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics) laminar-flow wing section, which had not been in the original design concept. Kelsey had pushed behind the scenes ........ to get the new wing design into the project.............."All this happened," recalled Kelsey, "without anyone at Wright Field having the foggiest notion of what was going on. We had to stay out of it because it was a British procurement." The NAA team's genus resulted in the best design possible around the radical NACA laminar-flow wing section.
Though the Curtiss data was shipped by crate to California, Atwood later said not much of it was used in the final design. Others in the industry, particularly Berlin and those at Curtiss said otherwise from the time the Mustang became famous.
Whether you believe North American used the XP-46 data or not, and alot of people DONT believe it, they did buy the data on it. The USAAF wanted another fighter, but didnt have the money to develop one in the pre-war environment. The original contract allowed the USAAF to keep two of the planes built for "evaluation purposes", built on the Brit's dollar.
-
Thank you Widewing and Humble!
-
Might want to adjust 6) to "first allied day fighters"
-
Widewing, do you write for "Flight"?
-
Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced", what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. At this point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several things wrong. Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperature with subsequent engine failure.
Nice post humble... Really shows why simplicity of in-cockpit operations were as important as pure plane performance in real life.
-
Sooo....how fast is our F6F? What alt is the 409-412 speed at? I've always wondered why the F6F was so much slower than the F4U, I thought since the Aces of the Pacific days when looking at the data that it shouldnt be that much slower.
-
Our AH F6F is in the 390mph range.
Maybe you folks should send some detailed data to Pyro.
-
And Kurt Tank is not teh ghey.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
4) ...At high altitudes, the P-38s suffered from serious compressibility problems and any Luftwaffe pilot finding himself at a disadvantage was able to disengage by diving vertically. .
Can you imagine Channel 200 in 1943:
USP38Plt: COME BACK HERE YOU RUN90!!!
USP38Plt: <--------P38 over Liege, Bel
Lftweny8: Cherry picking alt monkey
USP38Plt: I PWN U!
-
Star of Africa..
I guess we agree.
"Here's a list of the more common errors of fact.
1) Britain was responsible for the P-51 being designed.
"
Britain was responsible for the P-51 being designed. No question, indisputable. Previos work by Curtis and genius by North American (influenced by Messerschmidt) led to the Pony. But Britian was responsible for the P51 being designed. Clearly.
Anything else is wishfull revisionism.
-
Originally posted by humble
From what I can find on the net the 55th was 1st over berlin on March 3, 1944. 1st Buffs made it on March 6th....
"Paul Selden, Stan Richardson, and Col. C. Jones (ret.) were three of the approximately 20 members of the 55th Fighter Group who were the first Americans over Berlin in the war. The first USAAF mission over Berlin was scheduled for March 3, 1944, but the mission was scrubbed due to weather. The 55th never got the recall notice, probably due to German jamming, and the group thus earned the distinction of "first over Berlin." Col. Jones was 343rd Squadron XO at the time and gave a vivid description of the instrument conditions the group struggled with on the way to the target. Selden and Richardson gave a far-ranging picture of the lives of combat pilots, including a good-natured debate over the respective merits of the P-38 and P-51. Paul clearly preferred the latter and Stan the former."
http://www.nwha.org/news_3Q2001/news_page8.html
From the little I read it seemed like the 20th went operational slightly later that month...
On December 28th, 1943 the 20th FG went operational.
In Carter & Mueller's Official History of The Army Air Forces in World War II: Combat Chronology, the 20th FG is credited with being the first to Berlin on March 3.
I will explain why.
For that Mission, the 20th was assigned escort for target approach and took off one hour before the 55th, who were assigned target egress escort. Despite loitering at the rendezvous point for 40 minutes, the 20th FG was still 30 miles ahead of the 55th when they over-flew Berlin.
Stan Richardsson is a friend of mine, having contributed material to several magazine article that I have written. I realize that the 55th thought they were the first to Berlin. There was some bickering about this, but the USAAF settled it with their official announcement a few weeks later. The 20th FG is officially credited with being first.
You are correct, Hubbard did lead the 20th on that mission.
Another odd attempt to get press coverage came from this mission. A P-47 pilot of the 4th FG claimed to have shot down a Bf-109 near Berlin. That was how he worded it in his report, which was endorsed by the 4th FG Command. Unfortunately, the 4th's definition of "near" was a bit ambitious. The actual shootdown occured 10 mile east of Hanover, a long way from Berlin.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing....
Certainly not in a position to argue it. From the little bit I found via google not a single mention of the 20th being involved. Was Rau even flying with them on March 3...my understanding is he didnt even join the 20th till after hubbard was shot down on the 18th of that month?
@@@....whoops didnt see the Hubbard comment...thats what was confusing to me.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Nice post humble... Really shows why simplicity of in-cockpit operations were as important as pure plane performance in real life.
I have a copy of Rau's letter, sent to me by the 20th's Arthur Heiden. I posted it to my website, where I'm sure Humble discovered it. (http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-2.html)
The entire article can be found here. (http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html)
By the way, my co-author (Dr. Carlo Kopp) also refers to the P-38 shooting down more Japanese aircraft that any other fighter. Next time I go up on the server, I'll fix that.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Nice post humble... Really shows why simplicity of in-cockpit operations were as important as pure plane performance in real life.
Note that Rau was using the P-38J-15-LO for the basis of his argument. When the P-38L showed up, it incorporated many of Rau's suggested changes as well as a reasonable cockpit heater. However, by then the Rau's Group had already began transitioning to the P-51D.
Lockheed actively pursued suggestions from combat pilots. Unfortunately, they were very much restricted on what could be changed if it impacted delivery. So, the first "all up" P-38s were the P-38J-25-LOs. Very few of these were made before the L model with more powerful engines was eased into the production line. Had a second source of supply been available, up-rated P-38s could have been in theater months sooner. While both Republic and North American were producing their aircraft at two large factories, Lockheed was limited to the one. Towards the end of the war, Vultee received a contract to built P-38Ls (P-38L-5-VN), but due to slow start-up and poor management, only about 113 were completed by VJ day. Only Curtiss and Brewster performed worse than Vultee. Curtiss was unable to deliver P-47s in a timely fashion and their quality control was a horror. Brewster delivered 735 F3A-1s, of which 430 were given to the Royal Navy. Brewster built aircraft were widely disliked for poor workmanship, whereas Goodyear built Corsairs were considered the best of the type.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
On December 28th, 1943 the 20th FG went operational.
In Carter & Mueller's Official History of The Army Air Forces in World War II: Combat Chronology, the 20th FG is credited with being the first to Berlin on March 3.
I will explain why.
For that Mission, the 20th was assigned escort for target approach and took off one hour before the 55th, who were assigned target egress escort. Despite loitering at the rendezvous point for 40 minutes, the 20th FG was still 30 miles ahead of the 55th when they over-flew Berlin.
Stan Richardsson is a friend of mine, having contributed material to several magazine article that I have written. I realize that the 55th thought they were the first to Berlin. There was some bickering about this, but the USAAF settled it with their official announcement a few weeks later. The 20th FG is officially credited with being first.
You are correct, Hubbard did lead the 20th on that mission.
Another odd attempt to get press coverage came from this mission. A P-47 pilot of the 4th FG claimed to have shot down a Bf-109 near Berlin. That was how he worded it in his report, which was endorsed by the 4th FG Command. Unfortunately, the 4th's definition of "near" was a bit ambitious. The actual shootdown occured 10 mile east of Hanover, a long way from Berlin.
My regards,
Widewing
Interesting stuff.
Ron MacKay's short history on the 20th FG says this regarding the March 3, 1944 run:
"The next day, March 3rd, saw the first abortive run to Berlin. Briefed for withdrawal cover, aborts cut the original 48 aircraft formation by 10 as the P38s forged a path through deteriorating weather conditions towards Liepzig. Finding no bomber force, Lt. Col. Hubbard took the group home"
John Gray's book "The 55th Fighter Group vs the Lufwaffe" has chapter 8 headed "First to Berlin" and then goes into detail on that flight.
Roger Freeman's book "The Mighty Eighth", under 'claims to fame' for the 55th FG lists "First 8th AF aircraft over Berlin"
Hess & Ivie's book "Fighters of the Mighty Eighth" also has the 55th being the only ones over Berlin on March 3, 1944 and include the usual photo of Jack Jenkins in Texas Ranger.
Warren Bodie's book on the Lightning also takes time to note Jack Jenkins and the 55th as the first over Berlin.
I've never seen any place else listing anyone besides the 55th FG as first over Berlin.
Guess I'll have to track down that book you mentioned. I' m really curious now as to why so many fairly reliable authors have missed this, and why it's not been corrected in books like the Mighty Eighth.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by gofaster
Widewing, do you write for "Flight"?
Flight Journal and Air Power International have published my work.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Interesting stuff.
Ron MacKay's short history on the 20th FG says this regarding the March 3, 1944 run:
"The next day, March 3rd, saw the first abortive run to Berlin. Breifed for withdrawal cover, aborts cut the original 48 aircraft formation by 10 as the P38s forged a path through deteriorating weather conditions towards Liegpzig. Finding no bomber force, Lt. Col. Hubbard took the group home"
John Gray's book "The 55th Fighter Group vs the Lufwaffe" has chapter 8 headed "First to Berlin" and then goes into detail on that flight.
Roger Freeman's book "The Mighty Eighth", under 'claims to fame' for the 55th FG lists "First 8th AF aircraft over Berlin"
Hess & Ivie's book "Fighters of the Mighty Eighth" also has the 55th being the only ones over Berlin on March 3, 1944 and include the usual photo of Jack Jenkins in Texas Ranger.
Warren Bodie's book on the Lightning also takes time to note Jack Jenkins and the 55th as the first over Berlin.
I've never seen any place else listing anyone besides the 55th FG as first over Berlin.
Guess I'll have to track down that book you mentioned. I' m really curious now as to why so many fairly reliable authors have missed this, and why it's not been corrected in books like the Mighty Eighth.
Dan/CorkyJr
If you can find The Army Air Forces in World War, by Wesley F. Craven and James L. Cates, you will be able to locate specific information. I incorrectly stated that it was in Carter & Meuller's history. They do state that 88 P-38s went to Berlin. Obviously, this means two groups as neither the 55th or 20th had more than 49 aircraft on their respective rolls.
You can find Carter & and Meuller online as the USAF has been kind enough to put the entire document up. It's located here. (http://www.usaaf.net/chron) This is a tremendous resource for those reseaching the air war. Also, I suggest Erik Hammel's Air War Europa. Erik wrote this while recovering from back surgery. He used both Craven & Cates and Carter & Mueller. He also used squadron and group combat reports to fill in the gaps.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Very nice reading Widewing.The Russians stripped out the 30 caliber wing guns,replaced the 37mm with a 20mm,put a 12.7 mm in each wing,removed every bit of extra weight they could,just leaving the pilot his armor plate protection.
The amount of weight they removed was about 1,500 lbs.They then put 500 lbs of weight back in the nose to balance the plane.The P39 could easily out turn the 109's,and even out climb them initially,but couldn't sustain the climb as well as a 109.The 190 gave the ol "IronDog"more of a problem,using it's speed,zoom climb and roll ability to outclass it.Many Russian pilots scored 50 plus kills in the the old P39.
IronDog
-
Originally posted by Widewing
If you can find The Army Air Forces in World War, by Wesley F. Craven and James L. Cates, you will be able to locate specific information. I incorrectly stated that it was in Carter & Meuller's history. They do state that 88 P-38s went to Berlin. Obviously, this means two groups as neither the 55th or 20th had more than 49 aircraft on their respective rolls.
You can find Carter & and Meuller online as the USAF has been kind enough to put the entire document up. It's located here. (http://www.usaaf.net/chron) This is a tremendous resource for those reseaching the air war. Also, I suggest Erik Hammel's Air War Europa. Erik wrote this while recovering from back surgery. He used both Craven & Cates and Carter & Mueller. He also used squadron and group combat reports to fill in the gaps.
My regards,
Widewing
Thanks for the clarification. I'm still not convinced though. There were three 38 groups up that day apparently as it was the first mission for the 364th FG and that fills out the 88 or 89 P38s dispatched depending on which book you read. Freeman's "Mighty Eighth War Diary" mentions the 89 38s from the 20th, 55th and 364th FGs. So while they were all headed for Berlin, I wonder if the 55th was the only one to get there, with Hubbard turning back the 20th after not finding the bombers near Leipzig as mentioned in MacKay's book on the 20th.
Just hard to imagine all those historians missing it, in particular if the 8th issued that document a couple weeks later clarifying it, although I guess stranger things have happened :)
Gonna have to get that book apparently :)
Now for the next question. Have you ever come across anything documenting E model 38s being retrofitted with drop tanks to bring them to F standards?
I have the 54th FS history on microfilm and they had Es. They also talk about doing some range testing in September 42 on their own with drop tanks and having a range in excess of 1100 miles with those birds. It surprised me when I came across it, considering the weather they operated in etc.
It seemed to counter all that ETO bad 38 stuff and made me wonder even more why they sent the 38s to North Africa when they could have been escorting the bombers from the time they got to England in 42.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Star of Africa..
I guess we agree.
"Here's a list of the more common errors of fact.
1) Britain was responsible for the P-51 being designed.
"
Britain was responsible for the P-51 being designed. No question, indisputable. Previos work by Curtis and genius by North American (influenced by Messerschmidt) led to the Pony. But Britian was responsible for the P51 being designed. Clearly.
Anything else is wishfull revisionism.
Buzzzzz.. Incorrect!
Dutch Kindelburger authorized initial design work on the NA-73 to begin in the spring of 1939, based upon his tour of European aviation companies in the winter of 1938-39. Much of the design was already on paper when the British Purchasing Commision came calling in 1940. Do you honestly believe that the P-51 went from contract to roll-out in 120 days without a great deal of engineering done well in advance? Both Horkey and Schmued were working on the NA-73 long before the Brits showed up. Had the Brits not come to NAA, this aircraft would have been built anyway.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Now for the next question. Have you ever come across anything documenting E model 38s being retrofitted with drop tanks to bring them to F standards?
I have the 54th FS history on microfilm and they had Es. They also talk about doing some range testing in September 42 on their own with drop tanks and having a range in excess of 1100 miles with those birds. It surprised me when I came across it, considering the weather they operated in etc.
It seemed to counter all that ETO bad 38 stuff and made me wonder even more why they sent the 38s to North Africa when they could have been escorting the bombers from the time they got to England in 42.
Dan/CorkyJr
On page 105 of Warren Bodie's P-38 book there is a photo of two 54th P-38s in flight with 160 gallon drop tanks. The tail numbers are 41-1998 and 41-2026. These two aircraft were part of the first delivery of P-38Es (115 aircraft) delivered between September of '41, thru April of '42. The serial numbers of this lot were 41-1983 thru 41-2097.
So, inasmuch as the P-38E was not built with stores pylons or the required plumbing, one must assume that they were upgraded to P-38F standards at some point and place. Probably at Lockheed.
From Carter & Meuller:
THURSDAY, 3 SEPTEMBER 1942
AMERICAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS
ALASKA
(11th Air Force): In the Aleutian Islands, of 6 bombers and 5 P-38s off to bomb Kiska Island and flying air cover over Kuluk Bay, Adak Island, 5 bombers and 3 fighters abort due to weather; the others strafe seaplanes and boats in Kiska Harbor and nearby installations; between 1 and 4 seaplanes are claimed destroyed on the water; this is the longest over-water attack flight thus far in World War II; the 2 fighters which reach the target area return from the 1,260 mile (2,028 km) round trip with only 40 US gallons (151 l) of fuel; and the 21st Bombardment Squadron (Heavy), 30th Bombardment Group (under control of the 28th Composite Group), arrives at Umnak Island from the US with B-24s.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
On page 105 of Warren Bodie's P-38 book there is a photo of two 54th P-38s in flight with 160 gallon drop tanks. The tail numbers are 41-1998 and 41-2026. These two aircraft were part of the first delivery of P-38Es (115 aircraft) delivered between September of '41, thru April of '42. The serial numbers of this lot were 41-1983 thru 41-2097.
So, inasmuch as the P-38E was not built with stores pylons or the required plumbing, one must assume that they were upgraded to P-38F standards at some point and place. Probably at Lockheed.
From Carter & Meuller:
THURSDAY, 3 SEPTEMBER 1942
AMERICAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS
ALASKA
(11th Air Force): In the Aleutian Islands, of 6 bombers and 5 P-38s off to bomb Kiska Island and flying air cover over Kuluk Bay, Adak Island, 5 bombers and 3 fighters abort due to weather; the others strafe seaplanes and boats in Kiska Harbor and nearby installations; between 1 and 4 seaplanes are claimed destroyed on the water; this is the longest over-water attack flight thus far in World War II; the 2 fighters which reach the target area return from the 1,260 mile (2,028 km) round trip with only 40 US gallons (151 l) of fuel; and the 21st Bombardment Squadron (Heavy), 30th Bombardment Group (under control of the 28th Composite Group), arrives at Umnak Island from the US with B-24s.
My regards,
Widewing
Yep, I really like that image too. Something about a pair of 38s on the prowl that looks really nice. My assumption is like you said, that they were upgraded. It's another one of those, makes sense deals, that doesn't show up anywhere as the 38 books say the E wasn't so equipped, yet the photo evidence says different.
John Mullin's book on the 1st FG "An Escort of P38s" has a photo of what is ID'd as a P38E in North Africa too. serial 41-2053, which fits the serial ranges for E models, yet the general consensus seems to be that no Es went overseas or saw combat outside of the 54th FS birds in the Aleutians.
Funny how that works :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Star of Africa..
I guess we agree.
"Here's a list of the more common errors of fact.
1) Britain was responsible for the P-51 being designed.
"
Britain was responsible for the P-51 being designed. No question, indisputable. Previos work by Curtis and genius by North American (influenced by Messerschmidt) led to the Pony. But Britian was responsible for the P51 being designed. Clearly.
Anything else is wishfull revisionism.
Responsibility is a rather broad term in this case. I dont think you can really give the kudos for the building of the plane to the Brits when they were shopping for someone to build them P-40s. I rather tend to agree with Widewing that it would have been built anyway, but theres room for argument there as well. Kelsey was head of Pursuit Projects at Wright Field, and was really anxious to see the XP-46 start on the production line. Hap Arnold decided to keep producing P-40s, because if we were going to be drawn into a war he wanted a large enough quantity of aircraft to respond. Kelsey and Echols recognized the shortcomings of the P-40, but knew there was no money for the Army for experiments in the pre-war US economy. They pushed Curtiss to sell the XP-46 data to NAA because they saw the Brit's procurement project as a good way to get their experimental aircraft built, and already have an assebly line building the planes they wanted if we got into the war. NAA was already committed to building its own plane, but lacked a customer. I seriously doubt that at that time they had a completed design, and were willing to look at the XP-46. I do believe they used some elements of that design. However, I'm also convinced they had alot of ideas already for the plane they wanted to build, and combined their ideas with the elements they still lacked from the XP-46 to create the basis for the P-51. The addition of the laminar-flow wing changed the design even more, and the end result is probably a mix of at least 3 different sources (design wise). The XP-46 designed by Donovan Berlin; the wing design by Larry Waite and Edward Horkey; and the ideas the NAA's Chief Engineer Raymond Rice must have already had on paper. It takes some reading between the lines, and I could be way off. But that's my gut feeling. NAA actually GETTING the contract though, is totally a result of the back-hall scheming of the USAAF Procurement Office.
You take any one of those elements out of the equation, and I dont think we would have had the P-51 we know today. I'm sure NAA would have built SOMETHING, and it probably would have been similar to what we know of as the P-51 Mustang, but I don't think it would have been the same thing. Again, its just an opinion.
-
Originally posted by Grits
Sooo....how fast is our F6F? What alt is the 409-412 speed at? I've always wondered why the F6F was so much slower than the F4U, I thought since the Aces of the Pacific days when looking at the data that it shouldnt be that much slower.
The Corsair (-1D) and Hellcat had virtually the same power plant and propeller. How can the Hellcat be slower?
The Hellcat was heavier.
The Hellcat had a greater drag coefficient due to:
greater fuselage cross section
greater wing area than Corsair
rougher skin (Corsair used new flush spot welding techniques)
wing fairings (Corsair had none due to wing crank)
Also comparisons need to be in the same configuration. Both the Hellcat and the Corsair were faster when "clean", i.e. all the bomb pylons and shackles removed. (e.g. F4U-1D 8mph faster on the deck just by removing bomb pylons)
All that being said, the 400+ speed would have to be at critical altitude, about 23,400 feet. My data shows F6F doing about 380 at this alt, but this is with fuselage bomb shackles and wing bomb racks, and an engine making slightly less than full rated power. I could see a clean, well tuned Hellcat doing 400+ at altitude under the right conditions. Of course, the F4U-1D would do 417mph at 20K in a clean configuration.
-
Originally posted by slaker
greater wing area than Corsair
Largest wing of any WW][ fighter:D
-
I understand the differences in the F6F and F4U drag wise, but can that account for the 30+ mph (388 vs 420) speed difference with the same engine?
I had always thought that something else was at work there, and Widewing's info about the incorrect readings from the pitot static port make sense to me. I can see, in the same configuration, the F6F being 10-15mph slower than the F4U, but 30+ is too much.
-
Uhhh, this one:
"7) Allied bombing severely reduced Germany's factory output of war planes and armor. "
Now if you skip the word "severly" the statement is right,
Put it like this:
Allied bombing reduced Germany's factory output possibilities
-
Originally posted by Angus
Uhhh, this one:
"7) Allied bombing severely reduced Germany's factory output of war planes and armor. "
Now if you skip the word "severly" the statement is right,
Put it like this:
Allied bombing reduced Germany's factory output possibilities
Germany actually increased production as the end of the war drew near.......the problem was fuel and pilots, not hardware.
-
P-51 Mustang is probably the finest Anglo-American product ever.
With this a close second ;)
(http://www.jamesmartell.com/images/james-cobra2.jpg)
You provide the airframe, we provide the engine, you provide the engine, we provide the car ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Uhhh, this one:
"7) Allied bombing severely reduced Germany's factory output of war planes and armor. "
Now if you skip the word "severly" the statement is right,
Put it like this:
Allied bombing reduced Germany's factory output possibilities
That's "industrial" or "grand strategic" bombing. It's been argued by people much more well versed in strategy than myself (like Lidell Hart) that it was a waste of resources.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Flight Journal and Air Power International have published by work.
My regards,
Widewing
Cool! I think I might even have one of your books if I'm Matlocking this right.
-
Originally posted by Widewing:
Flight Journal and Air Power International have published by work.
That's cool. I've had a couple of articles published by Flight Past. Unfortunately, they didn't give me a byline.
:)
-
Another misconception concerning aviation history is that Bud Anderson was Chuck Yeager's wingman. That never happened, and if they were flying together, Yeager would have been Anderson's wingman as he was the senior pilot with more experience.
;)
-
I aggree Star. And that is my point. Widewing has some good things that that I think are fact. And one that is just opinion in my view.
You can really see that the Brits couldnt have built the pony when you see the ugly cowls that they came up with for the merlin pony.
-
What about Kurt Tank? :D
-
We couldn't have built the pony, because we were too busy building spits, typhoons, mossies, lancs, stirlings, wellingtions, hallifax, tempests, meteors, and many other fine aircraft. As well as inventing the Jet, Radar and cracking the enigma code.
Plus we were under air attack, blockade via the Uboat and generaly fighting for survival.
We built a damn good engine though that made the pony what it was.
Also we bombed by night and therefore had no real need of a daylight escort fighter. The pony was supposed to supplement our existing fighter force I believe and only realy proved itself as the wars finest escort fighter for USAAF daylight bombing missions.
So US designed and built, British power, proven as a daylight escort fighter for USAAF
As for me I'm quite pleased we had Radar and the Spitfire and Hurricane otherwise the War in Europe may never have been there for you guys to help win.
;) :)
-
"Also we bombed by night and therefore had no real need of a daylight escort fighter. "
Which was totaly ineffective and only a waste of the lives of the men you sent and a waste of the planes you sent. Why....
Because you had no long range escort fighter.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
We couldn't have built the pony, because we were too busy building spits, typhoons, mossies, lancs, stirlings, wellingtions, hallifax, tempests, meteors, and many other fine aircraft. As well as inventing the Jet, Radar and cracking the enigma code.
Plus we were under air attack, blockade via the Uboat and generaly fighting for survival.
We built a damn good engine though that made the pony what it was.
Also we bombed by night and therefore had no real need of a daylight escort fighter. The pony was supposed to supplement our existing fighter force I believe and only realy proved itself as the wars finest escort fighter for USAAF daylight bombing missions.
So US designed and built, British power, proven as a daylight escort fighter for USAAF
As for me I'm quite pleased we had Radar and the Spitfire and Hurricane otherwise the War in Europe may never have been there for you guys to help win.
;) :)
Yeah, you guys were doing a bangup job before 12/41.
-
Easy guys. That was such an obvious troll. Leave it be.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
Cool! I think I might even have one of your books if I'm Matlocking this right.
Well, I did borrow Widewing from my friend's company, Widewing Publications. Widewing was also the Allied code name for the 8th AF HQ.
I haven't published a book as of yet. If I do, it probably won't be related to aviation.
I have have had photos published in photography anthologies. I have sold photos to magazines and newpapers.
Four years ago, I began writing with a well known aviation author. We worked for about 3 months, but the distributor put the project on hold. After 6 months of waiting, I withdrew from the project. Flight Journal is still sitting on several articles that may or may not be published... I'm not holding my breath. Oh, and when you write for magazines you should know that they pay only on publication. So unless you can wrangle a commitment from the editor, understand that your work is purely speculative.
The plus side is that I know many of the more well known aviation authors, and I do enjoy several friendships that resulted from my writing. You can't expect to make a living doing this, but you can have an enjoyable hobby that pays enough to compensate for the time and effort, if nothing else.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Nope not a troll.
Just remember not all players are from US.
Worth remembering that our country fought that war long and hard. Thats all. Oh and please don't show a lack of respect for the people over here that fought. I'm getting tired of the Euro brit bashing going on on this board and the offence taken every time I post something that does not sing and shout god praise the US of A from the rooftops. I don't have an anti american bias contrary to some people's views, just that I am proud of my country and the contribution its citizens have made. Tell me whats wrong in that!?
We couldn't have beaten the nazis and japanese without you, but remeber the operative word was "we".
-
Originally posted by indy007
That's "industrial" or "grand strategic" bombing. It's been argued by people much more well versed in strategy than myself (like Lidell Hart) that it was a waste of resources.
If you check history you'll find out the Germans had already moved much of thier manufacturing facilities to small buildings in surrounding areas. Our bombers did a so-so job at best. The Brits, who bombed at night, considered on target as being within 5 miles of the target.
Ren
________________
The Damned
P.S. Did I mention my cousin was on Omaha Beach on D-Day?:)
:
-
I thought that the only involvement on the P51 that the Brits had was the Merlin engine?
-
Me too but it was a good un!
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
We couldn't have built the pony, because we were too busy building spits, typhoons, mossies, lancs, stirlings, wellingtions, hallifax, tempests, meteors, and many other fine aircraft. As well as inventing the Jet, Radar and cracking the enigma code.
And a good job, too.
Plus we were under air attack, blockade via the Uboat and generaly fighting for survival.
What was being blockaded? U.S. Shipping.
We built a damn good engine though that made the pony what it was.
Thanks for the engine we put in our wonderful plane!
Also we bombed by night and therefore had no real need of a daylight escort fighter. The pony was supposed to supplement our existing fighter force I believe and only realy proved itself as the wars finest escort fighter for USAAF daylight bombing missions.
Brits had their butts handed to them when they bombed during daylight hours. It was turned over to the army-airforce. As I previously mentioned night bombing that hit within 5 miles of the target was considerd a good mission.
So US designed and built, British power, proven as a daylight escort fighter for USAAF.
As for me I'm quite pleased we had Radar and the Spitfire and Hurricane otherwise the War in Europe may never have been there for you guys to help win.
I thought the radar was continuously knocked out during the battle of britain and your spotters did a hellova job. As you say it took a team effort. Had you not had U.S. goods and support you might be speaking German today. In fact, we might all be speaking German, those of us they didn't murder because some didn't fit into their master race plans. Had D-Day been delayed much longer and the Germans gotten their mitts on the A-bomb we might all be eating sauerkraut right now. Had we stayed neutral there is no way britain could have survived.
So, if you here folks from the U.S. toot their horns a team player would toot their horns along with us and not complain about it. And everytime you hear anyone take a shot at the U.S. ask yourself, when have the people of the United States ever not given aid when it was needed?
Ren
___________________
The Damned
;) :)
-
Oh, some odds and ends here:
"Germany actually increased production as the end of the war drew near.......the problem was fuel and pilots, not hardware."
Well, do you think that if they had NOT been bombed, their production capacity would have been less?
Ok, Bombing affects all factors of capacity, and logistics. Shortages of this and that always slow up production.
Then this one:
"As I previously mentioned night bombing that hit within 5 miles of the target was considerd a good mission. "
All versions really. Depended on weather and many other factors.
Some night bombing missions were quite accurate while others ended 50 miles from target. So, for instance, already in 1940, the Brits bombed the Siemens factory in Berlin at night.
Somewhere I read that a post war survey demonstrated that the night bombing was actually even more accurate than the daylight bombings, much of that courtecy of the pathfinder force. Would be nice to hear more of that.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Somewhere I read that a post war survey demonstrated that the night bombing was actually even more accurate than the daylight bombings, much of that courtecy of the pathfinder force. Would be nice to hear more of that.
I don't have the sources at hand, but the explanation appeared to be this: By the end of the war (or at least by late 1944), the various electronic devices enabled the pathfinders to drop with extreme accuracy. Because the British flew in a bomber stream, rather than in formations, each bomber (in theory, at least) targeted on the pathfinders' markers. Under good conditions, this made for very accurate bombing by the entire force. I believe that the examples I've heard were mostly in transportation centers (rail yards, that sort of thing). By contrast, starting some time in early 1943, the US heavies released when their formation leader released. Under even the best conditions, the resulting bomb pattern would be scattered over the same area the bomber formation occupied.
- oldman
-
Nowt wrong in tooting your horn DamnedRen. No probs with that or any of your post. Very balanced and fair. As I said it was a team effort nice to hear it recognised.
As for the bomber campaign probably its most important effect was the tying up of man power, technical resources and fighter aircraft to defend against attacks. One reason maybe why the Germans never developed a realy effective strategic bomber, as their aircraft production was busy replacing fighters and fighter pilots.
Yes Bombing accuracy increased during the war as technology caught up with strategy.
One sad note is that despite the fact RAF and commonwealth bomber crew had a near 50% loss rate, and fought damn bravely they were never awarded a campaign medal. damn shamefull.
-
F6f is my favorite plane...
The 412 MPH story is well documented & air speed measurement error was not uncommon in those days. There are even some correction tables in some of the aircraft manuals.
But the engineers knew how to correct for measurement error and the US Navy had a standard procedure for obtaining & reporting data in its aircraft profiles.
I cannot imagine that USN would maintain a maximum speed number 24 MPH lower than the manufacturer claimed without some flight test data to back it up.
While the F6f had a similar engine to the Corsair, it was not the same engine. And while the Corsair eventually got the C series Double Wasp, the Hellcat never did.
-blogs
p.s. I know I am going to catch it...
Originally posted by Widewing
...
8) Grumman's F6F had a maximum speed of 388 mph.
The truth:
8) Due to a design engineering error, the pitot static port was mis-located. This led to a serious error in air speed indication at high speed. When corrected on a Grumman test aircraft, maximum speed was observed as 412 mph during factory flight tests. This was verified by the Technical Air Intelligence Command (TAIC). Their testing revealed a maximum speed of 409 mph while fitted with independent air speed measuring equipment.
My regards,
Widewing [/B]
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well, do you think that if they had NOT been bombed, their production capacity would have been less?
I didn't say that. What won the war was ground troops that, once they got off the beaches, raced full steam ahead into the Ruhr Valley and brought about the beginning of the end. It sure as heck wasn't bombing. One of the things bombing did was eventually use up many german fighter pilots by having them go after the buffs.
Ok, Bombing affects all factors of capacity, and logistics. Shortages of this and that always slow up production.
Only if they can hit something and most didn't.
All versions really. Depended on weather and many other factors.
Some night bombing missions were quite accurate while others ended 50 miles from target. So, for instance, already in 1940, the Brits bombed the Siemens factory in Berlin at night.
The Nordon bomb sight added the ability to compute winds into the equation. Prior to that a mile or two was considered fairly accurate. The Brits themselves wrote that 5 miles is a good hit.
Somewhere I read that a post war survey demonstrated that the night bombing was actually even more accurate than the daylight bombings, much of that courtecy of the pathfinder force.
I think it was in the '70's that the Brits released the real info. Something to do with their sercret information act. But since it was only classified it did get released. The Americans put out a lot of garbage about bombing accuracy right after the war but a later report said it was really bad. My own fathers buddy was killed by B-17's in Koln, Germany because they dropped a couple of miles short of the target. While friendly fire was not normally the case because the buffs hit inland targets it doesn't mean they could hit anything.
Ren
-
One sad note is that despite the fact RAF and commonwealth bomber crew had a near 50% loss rate, and fought damn bravely they were never awarded a campaign medal. damn shamefull.
I agree with you completely. I will say the English did a fine job considered they had out dated rules of flying. Imagine how safe it was to fly a vic and have everyone but lead look at him iso the sky for enemy dots. That prolly cost a lot of souls before the boys caught on that they need to all be looking around. I suppose it only took one sortie, if they survived it.
IMHO, one thing that always bothered me was the British Officer Corps willingness to throw soldiers lives away be sending them into un-winnable situations. I'm not talking about the Air Corps just the English Army throughout history. They were quick to say,"we learned something from it". Tell that to the foiks of those whose lives they threw away. Who was it that said "don't you die for your country, make sure the other poor bastage dies for his country instead.
Ya know, just because we toot our horns doesn't mean the Brits didn't do what they had to do to survive and they did it bravely. I don't think you'll ever hear an American say anything to the contrary.
Ren[/B]
-
Originally posted by 101ABN
I thought that the only involvement on the P51 that the Brits had was the Merlin engine?
They also provided the bases to fly from, the housing for the pilots, the women for the pilots on their down time, etc.....:D
-
But......but.......the movies! They showed them bombs hittin on them targets man! BOOM! I seen them films they took from them bombers, and it showed all those eksplosions! The narrator guy said they blowed up submarines and ball bearings (although I dont know what ball bearings ever did to anyone) and some factories. Now you folks might not think blowin up a factory does much good, but let me tell you, it'd work! I mean, how would you feel if that was the only place in town to work, and somebody blowed it up? I mean, cafeteria and all! Gone! Well, from what I was told them Germans didnt have no unemployent pay, so I can imagine they'd be purty dang depressed bein out of work and all. All you all need to stop bein so negative. Them movies was made by our guvment, so they must be true. So unpatriotic.
-
DamnedRen
The RAF only flew in Vics early in the war. they learned prety quick that it didn't work too well.
I think both our Armys had generals who were wastefull of lives.
Gen Mark Clarke rings a bell, and what about "bloody Omaha". Mr "Hobarts funnies" might have saved a few lives there if they hadn't been dismissed by the US generals.
Sadly I've heard a few on this board flaming me for having a pride in my countries achievements and struggle. You are a gent and I'm pleased to say not one of them.
-
Heh. Have you ever considered some of those "flames" you speak of were not a reaction to your justified pride in your countrymen and patriotism, but a reaction to the chip you seem to have on your shoulder every time you post? Its not what you say, its how you say it that makes the difference. Just a friendly pointer from someone who has learned that lesson the hard way.
-
The chip wasn't there until some members of this BBs developed a fixation with flaming every one of my posts. Yes It does rather p*ss me off that some people here seem to get away with pertsonal insult, baiting taunting and generaly being an ass. I guess when I started visiting here I expected better.
However I can brush it off and continue.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
The chip wasn't there until some members of this BBs developed a fixation with flaming every one of my posts. Yes It does rather p*ss me off that some people here seem to get away with pertsonal insult, baiting taunting and generaly being an ass. I guess when I started visiting here I expected better.
However I can brush it off and continue.
Thats the attitude to have.
He who spends his time fighting with small people appears to others no larger than the ones he fights.
-
Originally posted by joeblogs
I cannot imagine that USN would maintain a maximum speed number 24 MPH lower than the manufacturer claimed without some flight test data to back it up.
While the F6f had a similar engine to the Corsair, it was not the same engine. And while the Corsair eventually got the C series Double Wasp, the Hellcat never did.
-blogs
p.s. I know I am going to catch it...
My impression was that the Navy didn't care about the discrepancy. What was the Navy going to do, recall every manual they had ever issued? Why bother? Fleet pilots recognized that there was little speed difference between the F6F and the F4U.
Also, the differences between the R-2800-8W (F4U) and the R-2800-10W (F6F) are related differences in supercharger, exhaust, accessories and the like. If you look at the power curves for the -8W and the 10W, you will see the differences at various altitudes.
Oh, and the XF6F-6 was powered by the same engine as the F4U-4, the R-2800-18W C series. Of course, the F6F-6 was superfluous with the red-hot F8F-1 entering squadron service.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Remind me, when were the dates of the two tests you mentioned?
BuAer published revised aircraft charateristics charts all the time. Why don't we see a discrepancy between wartime & postwar documents?
If we suppose the F6f attains 412 MPH & the F4U-1 attains 417 MPH, that is a difference of 1 percent in max speed.
We know that that speed is a power function of horsepower, and the early versions of these planes generated comparable amounts of gross horsepower. That is probably also true of horsepower going to the propeller (but the corsair's propeller was larger).
Yet the f6f has considerably larger, thicker wings and more parasitic drag (see Dean for example). The effect of this on the horsepower required to attain any give speed also follows a power function.
How likely is it that despite all this, the two planes are within 1 percent of maximum speed? Could it be that the corsair used a significantly less efficient propeller? I've never heard anyone say that.
-blogs
Originally posted by Widewing
My impression was that the Navy didn't care about the discrepancy. What was the Navy going to do, recall every manual they had ever issued? Why bother? Fleet pilots recognized that there was little speed difference between the F6F and the F4U.
Also, the differences between the R-2800-8W (F4U) and the R-2800-10W (F6F) are related differences in supercharger, exhaust, accessories and the like. If you look at the power curves for the -8W and the 10W, you will see the differences at various altitudes.
Oh, and the XF6F-6 was powered by the same engine as the F4U-4, the R-2800-18W C series. Of course, the F6F-6 was superfluous with the red-hot F8F-1 entering squadron service.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by joeblogs
Remind me, when were the dates of the two tests you mentioned?
BuAer published revised aircraft charateristics charts all the time. Why don't we see a discrepancy between wartime & postwar documents?
If we suppose the F6f attains 412 MPH & the F4U-1 attains 417 MPH, that is a difference of 1 percent in max speed.
We know that that speed is a power function of horsepower, and the early versions of these planes generated comparable amounts of gross horsepower. That is probably also true of horsepower going to the propeller (but the corsair's propeller was larger).
Yet the f6f has considerably larger, thicker wings and more parasitic drag (see Dean for example). The effect of this on the horsepower required to attain any give speed also follows a power function.
How likely is it that despite all this, the two planes are within 1 percent of maximum speed? Could it be that the corsair used a significantly less efficient propeller? I've never heard anyone say that.
-blogs
Let's see, the TAIC report was released in fall of 1944. Grumman's testing took place in the summer of '44. I'd put more faith in the TAIC data as it represented independent testing (no axes to grind, no agendas) and reflects a fleet aircraft, not a brand new fighter right from the Grumman production line, dutifully massaged and preened by Grummans Test department mechanics.
I'd use the 409 mph from the TAIC test.
As to prop diameter, there wasn't any difference at all. Both were fitted with 13'1" HS Hydromatic props fitted with 6501-0 aluminum blades. Hubs were 23E60 for the F6F and 24E60 for the F4U. It may seem odd, the P-47 had a smaller diameter prop than the F6F (13'0"). It seemed larger due to four blades, pointing directly to its diameter.
As it was, the Hellcat had less prop-to-ground clearance than the F4U (7.31" to 9.10").
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing
This is probably all old news to you, but do you think the issue is weight?
The F6f-5 in the TAIC report comes at 12,285 lbs but the Navy SAC and Francillon report it at 12,740 (no drop tank)
Tillman's weights are lower at 12,483 for the F6f5. Francillon has the F6f-3 loaded at 12,441 lbs but with a top speed of 375.
I made a mistake before, I was looking at the propeller on the F4u-4, which is an inch longer. Dean has the propeller 3 inches longer, but I am not sure which model he is referring to.
-Blogs