Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: earl1937 on November 13, 2013, 11:06:46 AM
-
:airplane: One type of aircraft we all fly almost everyday is the fighter with ords! Everybody has their favorite "ride", but begs the question, "Which is the best air to ground fighter in the Game"!
I have always found the 51D to be a stable gun platform, but not a lot of ords for GV killing, just enough to kill one hangar, 2 1,000lbers and 6 rockets. The D40 and "Nancy" jug carries a fair amount of ords and can stand its on in the right hands in a air to air fight.
The F4U series of aircraft also carry a fair amount of ords and can hold its own in a fight, but doesn't accelerate very good, about like the "jugs".
The 190's are good in fight, but doesn't carry much ords and is a little slow on the top end, all though the "Dora" does pretty good on the top end of the speed range of the fighters in this game.
I personally think that the fighter which can deliver a fair amount of ords and still be capable of winning a one on one fight with any fighter in the game should be the gauge which we use to arrive at the answer to the question, "The best air to ground attack fighter is_____________________"!
-
It really seems like you're just fishing for "'Murica!!!" answers. More specifically for the Corsair.
"Best air to ground" has nothing to do with air to air combat. Yet not only do you include air to air capabilities, but 1v1 capabilities in your judgment.
But really, we'll arrive at the same conclusion as your other thread: a competition between the F4U-1C/D, the P-47, and the 190 A/F.
-
Fw 190F-8
+ Fast enough to escape Spit16 and other turners.
+ Good guns for strafing.
+ Anti-tank rockets.
+ Good bomb load.
+ Heavy armor.
+ Small target.
- Can't turn well.
-
Fw 190F-8
+ Fast enough to escape Spit16 and other turners.
+ Good guns for strafing.
+ Anti-tank rockets.
+ Good bomb load.
+ Heavy armor.
+ Small target.
- Can't turn well.
:airplane: That is the kind of discussion that I think this thread should provide! I would guess from your answer that the F-8 is your favorite "ride"!
-
It really seems like you're just fishing for "'Murica!!!" answers. More specifically for the Corsair.
"Best air to ground" has nothing to do with air to air combat. Yet not only do you include air to air capabilities, but 1v1 capabilities in your judgment.
But really, we'll arrive at the same conclusion as your other thread: a competition between the F4U-1C/D, the P-47, and the 190 A/F.
:airplane: Your missing the point of the post! WHICH aircraft, in your opinion is the best at air to ground and air to air combat! We all know some aircraft excel in one category or the other, but which in your opinion comes closest to meeting both categories!
The op concerns aircraft which are flown in this Aces High game sir!
-
"The best air to ground attack fighter is.... the you do well in and will do the job you are asking it to do"!
Your question is like "which tire is best?" Snow tires suck on a race track, slicks suck in the snow.
-
:airplane: That is the kind of discussion that I think this thread should provide! I would guess from your answer that the F-8 is your favorite "ride"!
I don't do much air-mud except in scenarios. If I did the 190F would probably be my ride of choice, or perhaps the 110G; it has amazing air-mud option and can still fight pretty good in a furball. Corsair-D is also good, but the guns are lacking; cannons are preferable against ground ack since you only have to hit close to the guns to kill the crew. The .50 cal only gun pack is a drawback with most US fighters. Mossie would also be a good choice, perhaps better than the 110G...
-
Fw 190F-8
+ Fast enough to escape Spit16 and other turners.
+ Good guns for strafing.
+ Anti-tank rockets.
+ Good bomb load.
+ Heavy armor.
+ Small target.
- Can't turn well.
I'm not sure what flight sim you've been playing but in AH the Spitfire 16 can catch the 190A-8/F-8 in 95% of the scenarios. Other than that, I agree. The 190F-8 is a fun ride when it has the time to be able to do what it does best: hammer ground targets. :D
The 'murica planes have the advantage in a lot of ways. Mostly, a great many of them can carry a pair of 1000 lb bombs and that is truly "easy mode". A few, like the P47 and P40N can carry 3/500 bombs, but are plagued by a seven year itch slow climb rate (ditto for the Stuka and 3/250kg bombs). I really like the Mossi armed with 4/500 lb bombs for working gv's, it is fast, climbs very well, and the nose mounted quad 20mm's are lights out for any soft armored gv. But, it is a large target for wirbys so pick your poison.
If you have cover, some aircraft off more than others. If you want to be able to knife fight once the ords are gone then your choices are more limited.
In general, I suggest to NOT pick one and stay with it. That robs you of all the different things AH has to offer. There are a whole host of "heavy fighters" that can do a lot of things well and may serve a few specific roles "best", but there are too many tertiary issues to rest only on a few things (best guns, best speed, best weight, best bomb number, etc).
-
190F needs to stick to the deck to get away, and there is little room for mistakes. However the 190's WEP lasts twice as long as the Spit's, so if enough initial separation is achieved there is really nothing the Spit can do to catch up.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=41&p2=86&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
-
IMO, the P-47D hands down.
-
Mossie, P-38L, P-47N or Fw190F-8.
I take the Mossie, but I can't ding guys who take other stuff.
Fast (357mph on the deck which is 12mph faster than the Spit XVI and Ki-84), four 500lb bombs, center mounted quad 20mm Hispano cannons, pretty tough (somewhat nullified by its size), climbs well with ordnance and long ranged.
-
IMO, the P-47D hands down.
Yep. And so is the:
P-38L
+ ideal for initial bomber escort and then attack a secondary shorter range target
+ dual engines for reliability
+ decent turner
+ lots of rocket and bomb options.
+ good acceleration
- poor ground/underneath visibility
- fuel pig
- big target
CHOG
+ mean mo-fo with those Hispanos
+ decent turning machine
+ decent top speed and dive bombing capabilities
+ good weapons loadout
+ excellent strike fighter from a CV and then sticks around after dropping bombs
- fuel pig
- bigger target
P-51D
+ ideal for high altitude bomber escort for the entire trip or long range airfield strikes
+ excellent top end speed
+ excellent B&Z + turn fighter (except against other turn fighters)
+ good weapons options
+ fuel economy is top notch
+ excellent visibility
+ excellent dive bombing
+ small target
+ accelerates like a SOB in a dive and holds E well in a climb
- accelerates like a slug horizontal
F6F
+ excellent B&Z + turn fighter
+ good weapons options
+ excellent dive bombing
+ very durable
- big target
- rear visibility is poor
- fuel pig
- aerodynamics of a shoebox
Mossie
+ good long range bomber/attack platform
+ excellent against strike and run targets
+ fast in/out platform
+ good weapon options
+ decent fuel economy for it's size
+ best for the fast in - fast out strikes
- wood construction for some components
- really big target
-
I prefer the P38L or the P47D40 or N for jabo. The 38 climbs so well heavy it has more of a chance to get above the riffraff on the way to target. For sheer payload though, the 47 with 2x1000, 1x500 and rockets, plus the ability to fight after it drops makes it a strong contender in my book.
The Corsairs are adequate, and the carrier capability can come in handy, but from a land base I'd much rather take one of the other two I mentioned.
Wiley.
-
It would have to be the Mossie for me.
-
IMO, the P-47D hands down.
I am going with Ammo on this one. You can't beat the load out of the P47D40. The D40 is solid fighter too boot.
A very, very close second is the P38L. Either bird suits me. The 47D gets the slight edge with its extra 500 bomb and it is a bit more durable to ground fire albeit the 38 does have the spare engine.
-
Wait until the 190F gets more of its options.
8 50kg bombs
4 50kg bombs + 12 rockets
3 250kg bombs
2 250kg bombs + 1 500kg bomb
1 1000kg GP bomb
1 1000kg AP bomb
210mm a2g rockets
R4M roclets
Hell, depending on how HTC would treat it, it might even get the 1800kg bomb one of these days.
-
Wait until the 190F gets more of its options.
8 50kg bombs
4 50kg bombs + 12 rockets
3 250kg bombs
2 250kg bombs + 1 500kg bomb
1 1000kg GP bomb
1 1000kg AP bomb
210mm a2g rockets
R4M roclets
Hell, depending on how HTC would treat it, it might even get the 1800kg bomb one of these days.
P47Ds eat 190-Fs in dogfights
-
:airplane: One type of aircraft we all fly almost everyday is the fighter with ords! Everybody has their favorite "ride", but begs the question, "Which is the best air to ground fighter in the Game"!
I have always found the 51D to be a stable gun platform, but not a lot of ords for GV killing, just enough to kill one hangar, 2 1,000lbers and 6 rockets. The D40 and "Nancy" jug carries a fair amount of ords and can stand its on in the right hands in a air to air fight.
The F4U series of aircraft also carry a fair amount of ords and can hold its own in a fight, but doesn't accelerate very good, about like the "jugs".
The 190's are good in fight, but doesn't carry much ords and is a little slow on the top end, all though the "Dora" does pretty good on the top end of the speed range of the fighters in this game.
I personally think that the fighter which can deliver a fair amount of ords and still be capable of winning a one on one fight with any fighter in the game should be the gauge which we use to arrive at the answer to the question, "The best air to ground attack fighter is_____________________"!
:airplane: Great replies guys, have already learned serveral things about the different aircraft mentioned that I did not know! I am taking notes! LOL
-
Yep. And so is the:
P-38L
+ ideal for initial bomber escort and then attack a secondary shorter range target
+ dual engines for reliability
+ decent turner
+ lots of rocket and bomb options.
+ good acceleration
- poor ground/underneath visibility
- fuel pig
- big target
CHOG
+ mean mo-fo with those Hispanos
+ decent turning machine
+ decent top speed and dive bombing capabilities
+ good weapons loadout
+ excellent strike fighter from a CV and then sticks around after dropping bombs
- fuel pig
- bigger target
P-51D
+ ideal for high altitude bomber escort for the entire trip or long range airfield strikes
+ excellent top end speed
+ excellent B&Z + turn fighter (except against other turn fighters)
+ good weapons options
+ fuel economy is top notch
+ excellent visibility
+ excellent dive bombing
+ small target
+ accelerates like a SOB in a dive and holds E well in a climb
- accelerates like a slug horizontal
F6F
+ excellent B&Z + turn fighter
+ good weapons options
+ excellent dive bombing
+ very durable
- big target
- rear visibility is poor
- fuel pig
- aerodynamics of a shoebox
Mossie
+ good long range bomber/attack platform
+ excellent against strike and run targets
+ fast in/out platform
+ good weapon options
+ decent fuel economy for it's size
+ best for the fast in - fast out strikes
- wood construction for some components
- really big target
You forgot to add a big minus for the P-51D, it's belly which was a major Achilles for the Mustang on ground attack sorties and wasn't as rugged as the Thunderbolt or Lightning in that role.
ack-ack
-
P-38L. All other talk is for second place.
Enough ords to take out a hangar/GV's with leftovers for deack/more mud moving
Twin engine/rudder redundancy
Rock solid gun platform
Center mounted guns with cannon for excellent long range strafing
Able to maintain +/- 2,000 fpm climb fully loaded without WEP
Excellent high speed roll rate to aid in wirb/manned ack sissy avoidance
Top notch, versatile fighter once ords are away
Looks mean and sexy. Sometimes targets just evaporate from fear/envy.
To those too ignorant to understand her, she's called a buff. To those of us who know and love her, she's the queen of swing! :rock
-
I am going with Ammo on this one. You can't beat the load out of the P47D40. The D40 is solid fighter too boot.
A very, very close second is the P38L. Either bird suits me. The 47D gets the slight edge with its extra 500 bomb and it is a bit more durable to ground fire albeit the 38 does have the spare engine.
P-47s don't carry their ordnance well compared to any twin engined fighter, or even the P-51D.
-
P-47s don't carry their ordnance well compared to any twin engined fighter, or even the P-51D.
What do you mean? They climb, albeit slow, and then drop their 2500 lbs+rockets and and they are a fighter again.
-
For Aces High I'd say P38L...fastest fighter carrying enough ord to nuke a hangar plus some more. And it holds a hispano, which helps a LOT for deacking.
It's a shame aces high emphasises (?) so much on the ability for a fighter to drop a hangar on his own.
My personal favourite is the 110G2
-
What do you mean? They climb, albeit slow, and then drop their 2500 lbs+rockets and and they are a fighter again.
They climb like a fat girl going upstairs to eat a salad. *
*© Hlbly 2013
-
They climb like a fat girl going upstairs to eat a salad. *
*© Hlbly 2013
:rofl
-
They climb like a fat girl going upstairs to eat a salad. *
*© Hlbly 2013
You underestimate the old girl
-
You underestimate the old girl
No. That's one weakness of a fully loaded Jug. She has to burn WEP to maintain a respectable climb rate.
I like ye ol' Jug. A fine bird. She's just overweight and only has one screw. :)
-
What do you mean? They climb, albeit slow, and then drop their 2500 lbs+rockets and and they are a fighter again.
They both climb very slowly with ordnance and fly very slowly with ordnance. P-47s take a larger hit to performance than do the other fighter-bombers, but they also carry a bit more.
They are back to their normal P-47ish ways once they drop it though.
-
P47Ds eat 190-Fs in dogfights
Actually, below 5k (where ground support fights are fought) the 190F outperforms the P-47-D40. Especially if you consider the 190 has twice the WEP duration.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=27&p2=41&pw=2>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=27&p2=41&pw=2>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
-
Actually, below 5k (where ground support fights are fought) the 190F outperforms the P-47-D40. Especially if you consider the 190 has twice the WEP duration.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=27&p2=41&pw=2>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=27&p2=41&pw=2>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
I would like to test that theory with you.
-
I would like to test that theory with you.
I'm sure you would.
-
For me it's the F6F-5.
It's one of the most stable dive platforms and suffers no compression or control stiffness at virtually any speed although you have to be carefull not to break a wing pulling out at very high speeds, especially if you've dropped only one of two 1000 lb bombs.
It carries enough ord to drop a single hanger or get 5 GV kills in a typical sortie although you have to target Panzers or weaker with the rockets (salvo 2 for Panzers and flaks, salvo 1 for less armored GV's) and it's a great fighter once the ord is gone.
In fact it's such a good fighter I've scored kills in turn fights while fully loaded with ord and if I do have to drop my bombs to defend myself I almost never release the rockets. IMO dropping my ord before I get to use it wastes my mission so I've learned to fight with it as much as possible.
The downsides are that it's kind of slow, doesn't like to climb without E and has poor rear views but if you let someone slip onto your dead six then you made your mistake much earlier.
Besides all that you can fly it from a carrier, it was by the Grumman Ironworks and who could possibly argue with it's war record.
Hellcat FTW!
-
Actually, below 5k (where ground support fights are fought) the 190F outperforms the P-47-D40. Especially if you consider the 190 has twice the WEP duration.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=27&p2=41&pw=2>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=27&p2=41&pw=2>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
I think its some eager expectation. Youre bringing up a very marginal difference in the engine power while in almost every other factor is pretty much at the jugs favour.
This is coming from one who isnt flying anything, but 190s, and maybe isnt the worst one doing (trying?) it.
-
I Tried the F8 in fighter mode for a month in August.
I killed 189 and got killed 19 times in it.
Reason for flying the F8 was to see if a single player can change the total k/d by selecting another plane.
I wanted the F8 to get 1:1 k/d during the month.
It compares much with the A8
However compared with the A8:
It cannot turn sh*t even compared with the A8.
Can typically withstand 4-6 auto-ack hits without going down (compared 3-4 hits on the A8).
Only 2*20mm against buffs.
Much less prone to get engine oiled.
Since its a much more stable platform, its hard to out-scissor opponents.
Accelerates slower.
Correctly flown, the F8 have small problems with spit16/ k4's, and much more problems with the 51D and the 190dora and the La-7
If I disected those 19 deaths :
Spit16s got me 3 times ( compared with numbers flown quite low)
Dora 2
Wirby 2
However, 51d and la7 and k4 run you down and force you to turn making you primary target for slower planes.
one 262 got me as well.
-
double post
-
:aok
-
My first thought was the corsair but then I haven't flown the 109f or at least in a long while.
-
For all around balance, nothing beats the P-47D-40. I'll load 3x500 and the rockets for ground work. That's enough ord to take out 4 pieces of armor. Then you have 3400 rounds of ammo for light GVs or aircraft.
With the 1k bombs you can take out a hangar, wipe the town clean of Auto guns, still have an egg left over to bomb a heavy piece of armor or a cluster of buildings, and (after all that) it still has ammo in the wings to fight air contacts when you're done which, unlike the F8, the jug can do well.
If your goal is to get in, drop, and get out... I see your F8 and raise you a P-47N which is not only faster but a more capable dog fighter when that LA-7 finally runs you down.
-
P-47s don't carry their ordnance well compared to any twin engined fighter, or even the P-51D.
If I am traveling with a mustang, I leave off the extra 500 pound'er and use WEP for climb out. No Problem.
Another advantage of the P38. No Oiled Canopy!
-
Another advantage of the P38. No Oiled Canopy!
Just a bloody mess instead ;)
-
Still wishing we could get that center rack and 2000lb'er option for the F4U-1D/C.
The weird thing is if you look at the skins, it looks like the mesh for the rack is still there.
-
While I agree the 47 do a better job of out-turning an La-7, its very seldom la-7 get you, you are forced to turn into the conga-line of Zeke's, Niki's and Spit16s, Yak3s waiting in double digit numbers to get you.
Also, the 47s wings fall off suspiciously easy, and are impossible to miss whereas the little 190F8 snirk around at 400mph after a short dive in between trees with 10 min wep, mostly because it does not have the option to do anything else.
Nothing, including a Me262, can dive with a F8/A8s at top dive speed without their wings trembling.
-
Good try but the P38 is the obvious choice there. And the horde seems to agree
-
Survivability of the P-38 against ground ack and defenders is not very good. It's a big aluminum cloud and the pilot is especially vulnerable.
-
Since the damage model update (thank you HT) the 47 absorbs a tremendous amount if punishment. It'll shrug off ack hits absorb 20mm strikes and is more like its legendary reputation. A few months ago, in a single sortie, I took out the ord at 1 medium, and two small bases. I took no less than 10 hits from auto ack, and survived a slashing pass from a picking pony. I also killed that pony, a spit16, and a Dora. What finally brought me down was the Dora caught up with me as I was RTB at reduced power to conserve fuel. He came in and set up a ZnB never got a shot on me but made me burn up my fuel in the fight. He fell to the 7 .50s I had left (only damage i took was a single .50) about 15 seconds before I ran out of gas.
I don't think a 38 or a FW or a F4U could've made that run. The 38 would've been crippled by the auto guns and the FW would've fallen to one of the fighters and the Corsair would've run out of fuel before reaching the third base.
The D-40 is simply the most versatile. It doesn't do anything great but does everything really well.
-
Mossie shrugs off auto ack in my experience as well. Doesn't carry as heavy a bomb load as the P-47, but has better guns. As to air-to-air at low altitudes, I'd favor the Mossie over a 47D.
-
Well, the Mossie does carry 2000 lbs of bombs + 8 rockets, and has excellent range on internal fuel only. The only drawback I can see with the Mossie is its size. Below 10k the Mossie should own a 47D.
-
the best heavy fighter, is a light bomber
-
Apparently nobody read my first post in this thread. All other talk here is for second place.
Also, my dad can beat your dad up. :old:
-
Apparently nobody read my first post in this thread. All other talk here is for second place.
Also, my dad can beat your dad up. :old:
mom can beat your dad up :neener:
-
mom can beat your dad up :neener:
That's because your mom is a Sasquatch. :old:
-
That's because your mom is a Sasquatch. :old:
that makes her a legend :D
-
Typhoon.
Yes her ord choices are light and slim and she can't take down a hanger easily...but she's mean as h3ll to GVs with her rockets, is one of the fastest planes below 5K that can carry ords and arguably has the best gun package of any fighter in the game. Keep her fast and you will be ok. :aok
-
Me410 has much better guns than the Typhoon.
Those 2*30mm mk103 reach out and touch, in addition to its 2*20mm mg151 and 2*13mm
-
Typhoon.
Yes her ord choices are light and slim and she can't take down a hanger easily...but she's mean as h3ll to GVs with her rockets, is one of the fastest planes below 5K that can carry ords and arguably has the best gun package of any fighter in the game. Keep her fast and you will be ok. :aok
But if you take ord you can't take drop tanks.. Which means you'll be lucky to get to the target before you run out of fuel. :neener:
-
But if you take ord you can't take drop tanks.. Which means you'll be lucky to get to the target before you run out of fuel. :neener:
Fuel is indeed another weakness.
Me410 has much better guns than the Typhoon.
Those 2*30mm mk103 reach out and touch, in addition to its 2*20mm mg151 and 2*13mm
Pure weight of fire, sure. But balistics and rate of fire give me four hispanos any day....
-
the P38 is the fastest 2K carrying fighter, has 10 rockets AND the 20mm which makes a huge difference against acks and planes on the ground. The over nose view makes spotting your target from altitude easier. Also while its a big target, it has twin engine that don't ruin your vision when the ack hits your oil and will permit you to loiter when an engine goes.
The initial dive can be tricky tho, as bishops demonstrate quite often :D
-
Well, the Mossie does carry 2000 lbs of bombs + 8 rockets, and has excellent range on internal fuel only. The only drawback I can see with the Mossie is its size. Below 10k the Mossie should own a 47D.
Sadly, no. It is 2,000lbs of bombs or 1,000lbs of bombs and eight rockets.
the best heavy fighter, is a light bomber
A-20G is meat on the table to any fighter being discussed in this thread, pilots being anywhere near equal. It also has the advantage of very questionable durability modeling.
Pure weight of fire, sure. But balistics and rate of fire give me four hispanos any day....
MK103s actually have better ballistics than the Hispano. Too bad they can't be fired without the MG151/20s and that they are saddled with the Me410 as a platform.
-
What is the criteria being measured? Without that it is a bar room debate with drunks! :O
I would say that classic definition is the ability to fight in and fight out with no escorts. That changes things a bit.
The 47 is a monster for load though it has almost no ability to fight in. At the first sign of opposition it would have to drop much of its ordinance just to take the 'Thatch Weave' serious. The 38 might be better at the self escort.
I suspect the better at self-escort would be the Navy birds: F6F-5 and F4U series. They have a pretty good load and with proper alt could engage in 'Thatch Weave" without dumping their ordinance.
The 190F is great but has a more limited ordinance package and less of a fighter once clean.
After much thought I am going to have to go with the wildcard. It is the Fw-190A5. Carries a single bomb just fine, once clean kills all (when flown by the right stick) and with a USB port has surround sound for some classic rock like Queen! BAM!!
boo
-
It also has the advantage of very questionable durability modeling.
:rofl :aok
MK103s actually have better ballistics than the Hispano.
Rate of fire as well?
-
:rofl :aok
Rate of fire as well?
Nope, the Hizookas had a greater ROF. However, the Mk103 was a a beast. I had no idea either.
Check this link:http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
Obviously, I am assuming the wuthor's analysis and resulting data is correct.
-
After much thought I am going to have to go with the wildcard. It is the Fw-190A5. Carries a single bomb just fine, once clean kills all (when flown by the right stick) and with a USB port has surround sound for some classic rock like Queen! BAM!!
boo
If we're dropping the bomb load down to Fw190A-5 levels that opens up other things like the Ki-84, N1K2-J and Spitfire Mk XVI as contenders.
-
Nope, the Hizookas had a greater ROF. However, the Mk103 was a a beast. I had no idea either.
Check this link:http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
Obviously, I am assuming the wuthor's analysis and resulting data is correct.
Yup, it's the most powerful aircraft gun of WWII.
-
Nope, the Hizookas had a greater ROF. However, the Mk103 was a a beast. I had no idea either.
Check this link:http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
Obviously, I am assuming the wuthor's analysis and resulting data is correct.
Holy crap. I wasnt aware of this either. Yeesh.
Still, I'll happily take on a 410 in a Typhoon any day....but I know that wasn't the focus of the original question... :)
-
What is the criteria being measured? Without that it is a bar room debate with drunks! :O
I would say that classic definition is the ability to fight in and fight out with no escorts. That changes things a bit.
The 47 is a monster for load though it has almost no ability to fight in. At the first sign of opposition it would have to drop much of its ordinance just to take the 'Thatch Weave' serious. The 38 might be better at the self escort.
I suspect the better at self-escort would be the Navy birds: F6F-5 and F4U series. They have a pretty good load and with proper alt could engage in 'Thatch Weave" without dumping their ordinance.
The 190F is great but has a more limited ordinance package and less of a fighter once clean.
After much thought I am going to have to go with the wildcard. It is the Fw-190A5. Carries a single bomb just fine, once clean kills all (when flown by the right stick) and with a USB port has surround sound for some classic rock like Queen! BAM!!
boo
:airplane: Sir, the thatch weave is a two aircraft maneuver, just to watch one another's 6 while on patrol.
-
:airplane: Sir, the thatch weave is a two aircraft maneuver, just to watch one another's 6 while on patrol.
It was a maneuver to CLEAR one another's 6 in a fight.
-
:airplane: Sir, the thatch weave is a two aircraft maneuver, just to watch one another's 6 while on patrol.
though that is what it was eventually adopted to...it was not how the "beam defense" was presented by then LtCdr Thach. the concept works with 2, 4 or 6 planes flying in pairs...a sort of loose deuce tactic.
good read...
http://www.amazon.com/Thach-Weave-The-Life-Jimmie/dp/1591142482 (http://www.amazon.com/Thach-Weave-The-Life-Jimmie/dp/1591142482)
http://combatgears.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/air-combat-maneuver-thach-weave/ (http://combatgears.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/air-combat-maneuver-thach-weave/)
2 plane thach weave maneuver...
(http://combatgears.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/tachw-wave.jpg)
-
Sadly, no. It is 2,000lbs of bombs or 1,000lbs of bombs and eight rockets.
A-20G is meat on the table to any fighter being discussed in this thread, pilots being anywhere near equal. It also has the advantage of very questionable durability modeling.
MK103s actually have better ballistics than the Hispano. Too bad they can't be fired without the MG151/20s and that they are saddled with the Me410 as a platform.
have to disagree,it can hold its own quite well with jugs and 38L and mossi
but then again your mossi biased,so why even argue with you
-
have to disagree,it can hold its own quite well with jugs and 38L and mossi
but then again your mossi biased,so why even argue with you
Against reasonably equal pilots who aren't clueless any of those will eat it for lunch and you know it. Only your constant pushing of the A-20 to be used in a role it is not ideal for keeps you from admitting it. Why I couldn't guess as admitting where it really stands makes what you do in it all the more impressive.
The A-20G has one thing only over those, a smaller turn radius. The P-47s, P-38s, Bf110s and Mossie out everything else the A-20G to one degree or another.
Your insistence on how great it was caused me to include it on my fighter-bomber test plan and it is very much out performed by the other twin engined fighters and the P-47s.
-
I'm also HIGHLY suspicious of the A-20's durability, given that steel is steel, and its not a great deal heavier than a 110 or a P-38, and its not much bigger.
-
Flying against the A20 with a good extra gunner shooting from top turret makes the A20 a good contender though.
Not many planes can fight in a tight turning circle and hammer you until parts fly off from top gunner, and get you dispatched at 1k when you break off, by the front guns, only to see the darn thing drop 2000lb bombs e 30 seconds later. :headscratch:
-
I know the "Thatch Weave" and mentioned it in the context of a squad of heavy fighters having to fight their way into a target. A 47 loaded with 10 rockets, and 3 heavy bombs I believe would really struggle to execute the Thatch Weave with any ability to save themselves.
Boo
-
though that is what it was eventually adopted to...it was not how the "beam defense" was presented by then LtCdr Thach. the concept works with 2, 4 or 6 planes flying in pairs...a sort of loose deuce tactic.
good read...
http://www.amazon.com/Thach-Weave-The-Life-Jimmie/dp/1591142482 (http://www.amazon.com/Thach-Weave-The-Life-Jimmie/dp/1591142482)
http://combatgears.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/air-combat-maneuver-thach-weave/ (http://combatgears.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/air-combat-maneuver-thach-weave/)
2 plane thach weave maneuver...
(http://combatgears.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/tachw-wave.jpg)
I love the story of, I think it was, Nishizawa coming home fuming after an engagement because every time he got saddled up on a target, the wingman was right there pouring fire into him and he had to break off or eat a face full of .50cal.
-
have to disagree,it can hold its own quite well with jugs and 38L and mossi
but then again your mossi biased,so why even argue with you
The A20 is a surprisingly good dogfighter, but still inferior to most fighters in the game. Without F3 view, the rear is completely blind. It cannot handle speeds very well. It has two key features that work for it - one is the laser guns that reach out almost to 1k out. Nose mounted cannons in 110/mossie still hit hard at that distance but disperse a lot, while the 0.5s lose energy but keep a narrow cone. The other is the tank-like durability which makes it nearly impervious to snapshots, so attacking planes have to either hit it repeatedly in multiple shot solutions or saddle up and start hammering at it - both give a good A20 pilot a second third and fourth chances to reverse the situation.
-
And exactly thats what Cobia is using. Plus he knows how to fight, if that means something :aok The A-20 is still very far from being OP though.
-
A-20 isn't nor every was a 'heavy fighter'.
ack-ack
-
Most twin-engined bombers are able to turn pretty tight circles when loaded very light. Some bombers were used in the daylight heavy-fighter role, like the Ju 88, but they were never meant to go up against fighters, but bombers and maritime patrol planes. The A-20G is pretty nimble, but like the Ju 88 and other bombers it suffers from very poor roll rate, so it always gives away its intentions long before it actually starts using that turn rate/circle.
-
I'm also HIGHLY suspicious of the A-20's durability, given that steel is steel, and its not a great deal heavier than a 110 or a P-38, and its not much bigger.
The big weakness in a 38 is the booms if you give the bad guy a clear shot.
A20s, take quite a bit of 50 caliber hits before they go down I have found when using an all 50s plane but go down about the same as any other plane with a bit of canon. My take on it anyway.
-
I have no problems with A20s without extra gunner on board due to the fact I fly fast in battle. Its the extra gunner, if he is good that gives that plane the edge
-
A20s are yummy. They go well with fava beans and a good chianti. :D
-
I'd say the Tempest. 4x20mms and 2 1,000lb bombs give it significant air-to-ground punch. Unlike the P-40D, this aircraft is an uber-fighter, too. Yes, the P-40 carries a bit more ordnance. It doesn't have the four 20s, though. Drop your bombs and the Tempest is the most lethal prop aircraft in the game. Honorable mention goes to the F4U-4. Two 1,000lb bombs and weight rockets. It, too, is an awesome fighter but it lacks the 20s.
-
I'd say the Tempest. 4x20mms and 2 1,000lb bombs give it significant air-to-ground punch. Unlike the P-40D, this aircraft is an uber-fighter, too. Yes, the P-40 carries a bit more ordnance. It doesn't have the four 20s, though. Drop your bombs and the Tempest is the most lethal prop aircraft in the game. Honorable mention goes to the F4U-4. Two 1,000lb bombs and weight rockets. It, too, is an awesome fighter but it lacks the 20s.
OK, WTH is a P-40D? Also, how many times have you seen a Tempest doing JABO duty?
I'm sure it happens, but I certainly haven't witnessed it.
-
OK, WTH is a P-40D?
Model H87A-2 :D
-
This article shows JABO fit-outs for later prop Hawker heavy fighters,
& although specific to Fury/Sea-Fury,
the same armament options also applied to the Tempest..
www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o rg/Fury/Sea_Fury_Flight.pdf
-
I'd say the Tempest. 4x20mms and 2 1,000lb bombs give it significant air-to-ground punch. Unlike the P-40D, this aircraft is an uber-fighter, too. Yes, the P-40 carries a bit more ordnance. It doesn't have the four 20s, though. Drop your bombs and the Tempest is the most lethal prop aircraft in the game. Honorable mention goes to the F4U-4. Two 1,000lb bombs and weight rockets. It, too, is an awesome fighter but it lacks the 20s.
Who the heck uses Tempests as fighter bombers?
-
Who the heck uses Tempests as fighter bombers?
Somebody with lots of perks?
-
Somebody with lots of perks?
LOTS of perks. Especially since NOTHING is all that survivable in JABO mode. Unless you're gonna drop and go, anyway, in which case the strafing ability of the Tempest is irrelevant.
-
I used a tempest for Jabo earlier this week. The question wasn't "What is the best non-perk heavy fighter?", it was "What is the best heavy fighter?". It might be fun to run a tempest jabo mission...
-
Hands down in real use the P47 wins hands down. It was proven during WWII. Others may compete but the Jug did the job best.
In game....here....it's a popularity contest. With a loss to sorties rate of .07 the Jug was the most dependable and the most deadly to the enemy.
Nuff said. Hell, the squadron leader of the 61stFS /56thFG flew one into a telegraph pole on a strafing run at Lille and flew home with
part of the telegraph pole imbedded in the aircraft. That says it all. 51s and 38s were pretty but fragile. 47s rugged and dependable
and carried a bigger wallop. Historically proven.
-
LOTS of perks. Especially since NOTHING is all that survivable in JABO mode. Unless you're gonna drop and go, anyway, in which case the strafing ability of the Tempest is irrelevant.
What will I spend my 6000+ perks on? On my last perked sortie I used a 262 to strafe the radar and deack a field.
-
Hands down in real use the P47 wins hands down. It was proven during WWII. Others may compete but the Jug did the job best.
In game....here....it's a popularity contest. With a loss to sorties rate of .07 the Jug was the most dependable and the most deadly to the enemy.
Nuff said. Hell, the squadron leader of the 61stFS /56thFG flew one into a telegraph pole on a strafing run at Lille and flew home with
part of the telegraph pole imbedded in the aircraft. That says it all. 51s and 38s were pretty but fragile. 47s rugged and dependable
and carried a bigger wallop. Historically proven.
P-47 also had the greatest opportunity to do all that. The F4U's were mostly in the PTO, and the Allies were dominating the skies in the west, where the other heavy hitters were operating (so no direct comparison to German aircraft can accurately be made). So it would only be fair to say the P-47 is the best Allied JABO aircraft in the ETO.
The 190F racked up an impressive record on the eastern front, also sported a tough radial engine, was also heavily armored, and could also carry ordnance out the wazzu.
-
I am not convinced the P-47 was better than the Mossie in the ETO. Both were tough, good strike aircraft.
-
P-47 went on tactical strike as a fall-back when it was dumped like a sweaty smurfy chick
-from all but one 8th AF fighter group - when the pretty hot P-51 showed up in numbers.
However, once palmed off with dozens of jug squadrons the 9th AF, had to put them to tactical use.
The turbo jug was best performing at high altitude, & kinda sluggish on the deck,
& the Soviets had P-47s but didn't use 'em as mud-movers..
Twins like the Mossie & P-38 proved to be large & expensive targets for LW flak,
& the high loss rates on ops curtailed their use in close support roles.
-
I am unaware of Mosquito fighter-bomber efforts being curtailed.
-
I am unaware of Mosquito fighter-bomber efforts being curtailed.
Was it ever used in the close support role?
-
Was it ever used in the close support role?
Not sure. I can't recall such a use, but it is possible.
-
Check out 'Operation Clarion'
- which was a maximum effort ground attack /strafing of most of Germany
- in early `45, & too many Mosquitos got the chop..
Like-wise with P-38s, [as with P-47s] although turbo-powered & best performing at high altitude
- they had been relegated - displaced from the fighter role by P-51s.
& due to losses in strike/attack -ended up doing [ & not too well at that] a medium bomber job..
-
Operation Clarion was an Allied campaign of Strategic bombing during World War II which attacked 200 Nazi Germany communication network targets to open Operation Veritable/Grenade.
-
Op' Clarion involved the Allied Tactical AFs as well as Strategic..
Literally - thousands of sorties.
In his auto-biography Chuck Yeager describes his role in it as..[P.90]
'zapping farmers' & is unequivocal in his description of it as an 'atrocity'.
It was likely pay-back for being caught with their arse showing on 1-1-45,
-something kinda along the lines of..
'You call that a JABO strike, this is a JABO strike'..
-
One must remember the P51 arrived late on the scene. In 1944 the LW had its' best fighter production of the war.
Problem was they had no pilots. The 51s fought less experienced fighter pilots by in large.. The Jug fought the best of them
simply for the fact they were there first. 51 was a spectacular fighter to be sure. But most of those 51 drivers were shooting
down LW pilots in Jugs or 38s before the P51 showed up. 51 was a late comer to the ETO. They made around 15,000 Jugs
for a reason you know :aok
-
In the AvA during late war setups with the Tempest - they are a beast. JABO - faster in and out than a Tiffie, and can then stick around and eat up FW's and Bf's as a dessert. Not much fun with them around unless you're in a Me-262 or Fw-190D9 or Bf-109K4.
I forgot about the Tempest, she's a beast for JABO but a complete fuel pig as she's also very thirsty. Good for short range jumps and patrols.
-
P-47 went on tactical strike as a fall-back when it was dumped like a sweaty smurfy chick
-from all but one 8th AF fighter group - when the pretty hot P-51 showed up in numbers.
However, once palmed off with dozens of jug squadrons the 9th AF, had to put them to tactical use.
The turbo jug was best performing at high altitude, & kinda sluggish on the deck,
& the Soviets had P-47s but didn't use 'em as mud-movers..
Twins like the Mossie & P-38 proved to be large & expensive targets for LW flak,
& the high loss rates on ops curtailed their use in close support roles.
As for it being a less then stellar fighter. The 56th who flew it continuously during the War
listed 42 aces. That proves it was efficient in the right hands. And as I stated in an earlier post,
when the pony entered service most of the best LW pilots were gone. Only a few remained.
And the ones they fought at that point of the war were ill trained at best. The LW killed
most of their experienced pilots instead of sending them back to train new ones. They flew
until they couldn't fly anymore from injury or death. The 51 had a tad easier road to hoe.
Oh....btw......what did the highest scoring ace in the ETO fly? Yep...ya got it the P47.
Your honor I rest my case :aok
-
Not as thirsty in reality as the fat hog `47, & the N-series was a virtual
flying gas tank.
& while they churned them `47s out like sausages, they still didn't cut the mustard with the Mustang results-wise, not in A2A - or JABO roles.
The 56th solely kept flying them in the 8th AF, for largely political reasons,
& ostensibly to test the 'hot-rod' M-type, which was supposedly built to catch
V1 cruise missiles - but in fact, again the `51 was the only US fighter to have
the speed on the deck to do that too..
The USAAF dropped the`47 & the`38 pretty quick-smart post-war,
since they were too expensive for results obtained..
-
They sold the P47s to other countries and they flew for years afterwards.
51s were regarded as fragile even in the fighter role. Their reliability in the JABO role
was significantly lower then the P47s. History tells us that.
-
Here's some history then, as cited in 'Tank Buster Vs Combat Vehicle' P.68..
Tactical losses for `47s from invasion to VE day = 1,374 aircraft..
150 of those being lost in Feb alone..
& the USAF chose the P-51D for the GA role in Korea, not the P-47..
-
I assumed were talking WWII here. After all this is a WII combat sim...or at least I thought it was.
If you read a lot I suggest two books. Both by Warren Bodie (and btw Widewing is a noted author on WWII aircraft)
Both are in depth studies of the perspective aircraft. Regarded as the most comprehensive on the subject.
The titles are Thunderbolt and The Lockheed P38 lightning. Will list every craft made, it's tail number, model, plant it
was made and the complete development and use. Also.....don't believe everything you read on facts and figures.
Just as in real life there are those that are most educated on the subject then some others. I always use WIDEWING
and Guppy for possible sources since they both researched the planes and pilots of WWII heavily and thoroughly.
-
Somebody said the corsair was a big target, compared to what? It's smaller than the f6 and the p47.
-
I assumed were talking WWII here. After all this is a WII combat sim...or at least I thought it was.
If you read a lot I suggest two books. Both by Warren Bodie (and btw Widewing is a noted author on WWII aircraft)
Both are in depth studies of the perspective aircraft. Regarded as the most comprehensive on the subject.
The titles are Thunderbolt and The Lockheed P38 lightning. Will list every craft made, it's tail number, model, plant it
was made and the complete development and use. Also.....don't believe everything you read on facts and figures.
Just as in real life there are those that are most educated on the subject then some others. I always use WIDEWING
and Guppy for possible sources since they both researched the planes and pilots of WWII heavily and thoroughly.
Also in the assembly of the three planes the P51 was the cheapest as I recall to build. It made sense in 1944 since the
threat of the LW or the Japanese air and naval air forces were on the decline and very low in number, to go with the
cheapest to build in an economic sense. The threat to the allies was lessened or almost completely eliminated in both
the ETO and the PAC. (reminds me of the F14, best fleet defense fighter but most costly, so the navy chopped it.)
-
The F4U IS powered by the same size of fat lazy gas-hog [R-2800] though..
The US forces chose/choose their best weapons - given availability..
[& which does include major ideological/political/budgetary issues].
-
The Corsair ruled the Pacific. You will note that the Navy used radial engine aircraft for obvious reasons.
Reliability and ruggedness being the two most important factors. The R2800 radial in most cases gave
more horsepower and wasn't as fragile and finicky as the Merlin. The F4U4 being much faster then the
P51 at altitude. Again....radials don't sip fuel, they gulped it.
-
Typhoon.
Yes her ord choices are light and slim and she can't take down a hanger easily...but she's mean as h3ll to GVs with her rockets, is one of the fastest planes below 5K that can carry ords and arguably has the best gun package of any fighter in the game. Keep her fast and you will be ok. :aok
The Mossie has better guns the c-hog has more ammo the 410 carries the high velocity version 30mm and the low velocity 30mm are still quite good at destroying structures. In fact a 262 has enough ammo to take a hangar down. Before it was nerfed the typhoon was much more capable dogfighter and was about as common in the ma as the n1k2 and f4u.
-
The Corsair ruled the Pacific. You will note that the Navy used radial engine aircraft for obvious reasons.
Reliability and ruggedness being the two most important factors. The R2800 radial in most cases gave
more horsepower and wasn't as fragile and finicky as the Merlin. The F4U4 being much faster then the
P51 at altitude. Again....radials don't sip fuel, they gulped it.
The F6F ruled the Pacific.
-
Really, then which fighter was tasked with escorting those 1/2 million+ bucks a piece B-29s to Tokyo? yep, the `51 - again..
-
Really, then which fighter was tasked with escorting those 1/2 million+ bucks a piece B-29s to Tokyo? yep, the `51 - again..
What a/c was around before those P-51s, that only arrived in 45 when Japan was in its death spiral?
-
Nothing that could do the job..
Without them the B-29s were forced to fly at night!
-
Really, then which fighter was tasked with escorting those 1/2 million+ bucks a piece B-29s to Tokyo? yep, the `51 - again..
That is because the blue fighters are not escorts AMD never meant to be. In addition, I have some reason to believe that the B29 did not take off from a carrier.
P47N were also escorting B29s and are better than the 51 at those altitudes.
-
Really, then which fighter was tasked with escorting those 1/2 million+ bucks a piece B-29s to Tokyo? yep, the `51 - again..
:airplane: No question about the F4U aircraft, they were all great aircraft, but I think the range may have had something to do with the 51's being the ones which escorted the 29's.
And I think the inter service rivalry also had some bearing on that decision.
-
Nothing that could do the job..
Without them the B-29s were forced to fly at night!
What a/c helped in the capture of the islands the B-29s and P-51 took off from and then landed on?
The Marianas chain of islands, consisting primarily of Saipan, Tinian, and Guam, were considered as being ideal bases from which to launch B-29 operations against Japan. The islands were about 1500 miles from Tokyo, a range which the B-29s could just about manage.
Even the P-51 could not really escort from them, so the Navy/Marines had to take IwoJimo for the P-51s.
-
The F6F ruled the Pacific.
Beat me to it.
-
The PTO was largely a technical back-water, after all which heavy fighter
was the mount of the US's highest scoring aces?
It wasn't the F6F, & yet it turned out to be a dud in the ETO..
-
The PTO was largely a technical back-water, after all which heavy fighter
was the mount of the US's highest scoring aces?
It wasn't the F6F, & yet it turned out to be a dud in the ETO..
FYI, P-38 wasn't exactly a dud in the ETO. It had problems operating at altitude but down lower it did just fine.
-
Lets see now..
P-38 was best performing at high altitude due to its turbo mills,
but due to lame Vne, couldn't cut it against the LW or P-51 up there..
So, like its fellow failed expensive high alt' turbo stable-mate P-47,
it was then relegated to the tactical strike role..
But, due to being a big flak target & fragile, losses got so bad that it was
again relegated - to the medium bombing role..
& it wasn't too good at that either..
To sum up, in the ETO, the P-38 couldn't hack the pace.. a dud..
-
I wouldn't call the P-38 a dud, but nor was it the "fork-tailed devil" of fame. I do agree with the PTO being a technological "back-water", just compare the capabilities of the 1942 aircraft in the PTO and ETO. People think of the start of the WWII air war as the Battle of Britain and Pearl Harbor. Most do not consider that these two battles are years apart, yet the aircraft that fought in the BoB compare favorably to those that fought over Pearl Harbor.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=66&p2=61&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=71&p2=60&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
It's astounding that these aircraft are almost two years removed yet still would dominate their PTO adversaries.
-
To be fair the two Pacific theater fighters were carrier aircraft which had historically performed worse that land based fighters. The 109 and Spitfire would have been useless duds in the Pacific compared to the A6M and Wildcat due to range and carrier suitability.
-
Well, in the ETO the RAF was keen to use the P-51,
- even keeping the Allison engine variants in service 'til VE day.
But while accepting the P-47, they deemed it fit for service only against
the Japanese, to replace their ancient Hurricanes, & didn't want
P-38s at all.
If the RAF had organised an air defence of Singapore - equivalent to that run by Park on Malta, then things might well have developed quite differently..
-
Actually Karnak, those were the best American and Japanese fighters of that time. The IJA and USAAF fighters of that time were not better.
-
& in`42 the ETO had the 109G/190A & Typhoon/Spitfire IX entering service..
-
Just looking at it from a speed perspective the USAAF's P-39D and P-40C look more competitive:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=73&p2=61&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=93&p2=60&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
Mind you, in an actual fight the A6M and F4F are probably superior.
-
Remember Karnak, we're comparing 1940 ETO vs 1942 PTO. If we were were to compare 1942 ETO planes their superiority is just... staggering. In a "what if" Germany and UK in the PTO with carriers we could have had carrier versions of Fw 190As and advanced Seafires. Neither would have had the Zeke's tremendous range, but the Zeke would have been completely useless in combat against them.
-
Note also that the Navy type-0 long range flight planning involved flying at very low air-speed/altitude, & that's fine over empty ocean, but it would not work
over Britain or France/Germany in `42..
-
Remember Karnak, we're comparing 1940 ETO vs 1942 PTO. If we were were to compare 1942 ETO planes their superiority is just... staggering.
And then the Corsair arrives in the beginning of 1943, and the capabilities of naval fighters catch up with land-based machines.
-
Don't think so, the F4U could not match the P-47 performance at altitude,
& even the mighty jug got benched when the `51 swished in..
Could the F4U do the `51's bomber escort job up high?
Or -beat the Typhoon/Tempest on the deck?
Or the 190/109/Spitfire in A2A?
Ah, No..
-
JAW, why do you hate the F4U? I mean I hate fighting them, since they're one of the more dangerous aircraft in the game, but I don't hate the plane.
-
Don't hate the F4U, 'Ensign Eliminator' or no, just the hype..
The Aces High distortion/manipulation..
of actually validated performance is another thing..
-
Don't hate the F4U, 'Ensign Eliminator' or no, just the hype..
The Aces High distortion/manipulation..
of actually validated performance is another thing..
Yeah, but you're not going to convince anyone that their favorite plane isn't as good as they think it is. Its literally the same a dealing with another more specific, less annoying Schlowy.
-
Well, just because exposing foolishly delusional ideas & emotionally bound fantasies to a reality check can be a buzz harshing, dirty job, it don't mean it aint needful..
-
Funny thing about being convinced..
The Soviet VVS accepted P-47s, but found the idea of using them as..
A. a substitute for their light fighters in the low level tactical A2A role
Or,
B, a substitute for their Sturmovik in the tactical strike role.
As quite unconvincing..
They kept them for their high altitude interceptor units.
I wonder if they were ever used to try & intercept RAF PRU Spitfires snooping
around after VE day?
-
They kept them for their high altitude interceptor units.
That is what they acquired them for in the first place. For close support you need a slow expendable plane like the IL2. They built thousands of those, so why waste your few best high alt fighters?
There are two things that made the P-51 such a success: one is the large fuel tank connected to a relatively fuel-efficient engine, and the other is a modest price tag. True the rest of the package was a decent fighter, but it was generally not better than a late model Spit or P-47 as a pure fighter at high altitudes.
To be a success and get the kills, one needs to reach the enemy. P-47s could barely, even though the one fighter group that kept their Jugs is the most successful one in the 9th air force. F6F ruled the pacific not because it was a better fighter than the F4U - it did it by being there when the big battles happened, while the F4U was still not qualified for deck operations. By the time the F4U did and was slowly rolling out the production line, Grumman has already broke every production rate record in order to fill the navy with F6Fs. At their peak, Grumman produced over 300 F6Fs a month - that is enough to fully equip a new squadron every two days...
Now, this thread is about the best "heavy fighter". I always thought that term referred to heavily armed twin engine fighters meant to destroy bombers while still able to dogfight. For example: 110, Whirlwind, Beaufighter, P-38, Mosquito. It seems that most people here thinks it means the best JABO. In any case, the P-51 is neither. Sending the P-51 to do ground attack is a folly, just as it was to send the Spitfires to do this mission. They simply ran out of planes to fight in the air, while there was still a fight to be won on the ground. Many good pilots lots their lives because of that, but perhaps they saved lives on the ground, so in the grand cynical scheme it was worth it. "The best" tool in a war sometimes just means "available", "cheapest", or "expendable".
-
That is what they acquired them for in the first place. For close support you need a slow expendable plane like the IL2. They built thousands of those, so why waste your few best high alt fighters?
There are two things that made the P-51 such a success: one is the large fuel tank connected to a relatively fuel-efficient engine, and the other is a modest price tag. True the rest of the package was a decent fighter, but it was generally not better than a late model Spit or P-47 as a pure fighter at high altitudes.
To be a success and get the kills, one needs to reach the enemy. P-47s could barely, even though the one fighter group that kept their Jugs is the most successful one in the 9th air force. F6F ruled the pacific not because it was a better fighter than the F4U - it did it by being there when the big battles happened, while the F4U was still not qualified for deck operations. By the time the F4U did and was slowly rolling out the production line, Grumman has already broke every production rate record in order to fill the navy with F6Fs. At their peak, Grumman produced over 300 F6Fs a month - that is enough to fully equip a new squadron every two days...
Now, this thread is about the best "heavy fighter". I always thought that term referred to heavily armed twin engine fighters meant to destroy bombers while still able to dogfight. For example: 110, Whirlwind, Beaufighter, P-38, Mosquito. It seems that most people here thinks it means the best JABO. In any case, the P-51 is neither. Sending the P-51 to do ground attack is a folly, just as it was to send the Spitfires to do this mission. They simply ran out of planes to fight in the air, while there was still a fight to be won on the ground. Many good pilots lots their lives because of that, but perhaps they saved lives on the ground, so in the grand cynical scheme it was worth it. "The best" tool in a war sometimes just means "available", "cheapest", or "expendable".
It was actually an 8th AF unit - the 56 Fighter Group. They did well in the P-47 throughout the entire war. At the end of hostilities, the 56 FG distinguished itself by destroying more enemy (Axis) aircraft in the ETO than any other Allied unit in the 8th AF; 677 AC destroyed in Air-to-Air combat. The final kill made by a 56 FG pilot was a ME-262 beloging to the famed JG 7. The 56 FG also produced 39 aces - all in P-47s
-
It was actually an 8th AF unit - the 56 Fighter Group. They did well in the P-47 throughout the entire war. At the end of hostilities, the 56 FG distinguished itself by destroying more enemy (Axis) aircraft in the ETO than any other Allied unit in the 8th AF; 677 AC destroyed in Air-to-Air combat. The final kill made by a 56 FG pilot was a ME-262 beloging to the famed JG 7. The 56 FG also produced 39 aces - all in P-47s
Only because the P-47 had a head start. In the last 18 months in the ETO the P-51 score more than the P-47.
-
There is no head start - the accomplishment is enemy AC destroyed. Just so happens it was done by a unit that flew the P-47 until the end. ;)
-
There is no head start - the accomplishment is enemy AC destroyed. Just so happens it was done by a unit that flew the P-47 until the end. ;)
P-47s had years head start.
The first P-47 combat mission took place 10 March 1943 when the 4th FG took their aircraft on a fighter sweep over France.
The first American P-51 mission was in late Dec 1943.
So if Dec 1943 comes before Mar 1943, the P-47s had a head start.
-
So you understand why the 56 FG accomplishment is outstanding. The 56th FG arrived in England in January 1943. The 4th FG was already tyhere, and they received their P-47's before the the 56th. The 4th was made up of the "Eagle Squadrons". Also, the 78th FG arrived about the same timke. So, the 56th FG was one of the frist three U.S. fighter groups in the UK. Additionally, the 4th and the 78th began operations BEFORE the 56th. The 78th and the 4th both transitioned to the P-51 later while the 56th kep the Jug. So, the 56th, compared to the 4th and the 78th, still has the distinguishment of the Group that scored the most A2A kills in the ETO.
Yes, the P-51 equiped units did well, and together account for more kills from Fall 1944 until the end. But that makes sense, right? They had the opportunity given their daily missions (all P-47 units except the 56th FG were in the 9th AF - totally different mission set). That does not take away the legitimacy of the 56th FG's accomplishment and does say much to the effectiveness of the P-47 in the A2A role.
-
It was actually an 8th AF unit - the 56 Fighter Group.
I was referring to the 56th. 9th AF is a typo.
-
Happy to see I'm not the only one effing up these things... :)
-
I am surprised a fully loaded P51 climbs well in AH. I would have thought the wing angle of attack to lift that much weight would produce a lot of drag. The 47 has a better weight lifting wing than the 51 I would think.
I also noted some internet sources(not traceable) suggested the P51 load-out was 2000#s of bombs OR rockets, not both. If that was factual, in AH should not take out a hanger.
-
I am surprised a fully loaded P51 climbs well in AH. I would have thought the wing angle of attack to lift that much weight would produce a lot of drag. The 47 has a better weight lifting wing than the 51 I would think.
I also noted some internet sources(not traceable) suggested the P51 load-out was 2000#s of bombs OR rockets, not both. If that was factual, in AH should not take out a hanger.
Well, the P-51 holds a special place in HiTech's heart ;)
-
In the last 18 months in the ETO the P-51 score more than the P-47.
There's a reason for that. More P-51s flying escort missions than P-47s. P-51s replaced P-47 and P-38 units and still couldn't wrestle the lead away.
-
P-47s had years head start.
The first P-47 combat mission took place 10 March 1943 when the 4th FG took their aircraft on a fighter sweep over France.
The first American P-51 mission was in late Dec 1943.
So if Dec 1943 comes before Mar 1943, the P-47s had a head start.
So, exactly how many "years" is it from March of 1943 and December of 1943?
I'm just askin'.
-
The p-51 was not what I consider a heavy fighter, its a long range escort fighter. In a pure fighter role, its not even that good (compared to a spitfire), it just has range like no other fighter.
I would consider the p-47/me410/mossy more akin to a heavy fighter.
-
Credit when due, the P-51 provided an excellent blend of airframe/engine
efficiency at the right price, & right from the beginning of 8th AF Ops
showed itself superior performance-wise to the `38 & `47..
A check of 'Big Week' operations claim/loss ratios clearly demonstrate this, & with the new commanders pushing for optimum efficacy the 56th was kept
on `47s - largely as a political measure - & to run new T-bolts such as the M
in combat [ M was ostensibly built to catch V1 cruise missiles, but was too
late & too slow down low].
Heavy fighters [ & no competitive US built fighters were Yak 3 light] can carry heavy armament & or external ordnance/tankage, whereas light fighters can't..
-
Opportunity is what it is all about. The highest scoring Canadian squadron was 418 which flew Boston Mk IIIs and then Mosquito Mk VIs. I don't think anybody is going to claim the Mosquito is better than the Spitfire for air-to-air combat, but due to its greater range it put its pilots where they could actually encounter the Luftwaffe.
-
True, look at Canadian Spitfire ace-in-a-day Dick Audet for example..
-
& as for the proud claim of the well run & aggressively boosted 56th to be
the hottest fighter unit in the 8th AF, isn't it true that the top scoring USAAF
fighter group in the ETO was actually - a 9th AF Mustang unit?
-
Here's some history then, as cited in 'Tank Buster Vs Combat Vehicle' P.68..
Tactical losses for `47s from invasion to VE day = 1,374 aircraft..
150 of those being lost in Feb alone..
& the USAF chose the P-51D for the GA role in Korea, not the P-47..
The only reason why the P-51D was selected over the P-47 to serve in Korea was the simple fact the US had more P-51D in USAAF and ANG inventory than the P-47. The P-47, due to being more rugged and a more stable attack platform would have probably done a better job in the ground attack role than the Mustang did.
ack-ack
-
The PTO was largely a technical back-water, after all which heavy fighter
was the mount of the US's highest scoring aces?
It wasn't the F6F, & yet it turned out to be a dud in the ETO..
The P-38 wasn't a dude in the ETO, it didn't have a good service history with the 8th AF, largely due to internal USAAF politics within the 8th AF. The P-38 served quite well with squadrons in the 9th and 15th AF in both the ETO and MTO.
ack-ack
-
People think of the start of the WWII air war as the Battle of Britain and Pearl Harbor. Most do not consider that these two battles are years apart, yet the aircraft that fought in the BoB compare favorably to those that fought over Pearl Harbor.
You forget that those RAF planes that fought in the BoB had their arses handed to them when they ran into the Zero and Ki-43 over Rangoon and Australia when the RAF/Commonwealth pilots thought their Spitfires and Hurricanes were more than a match for the Zero and Ki-43. Just like the early USAAF/USN pilots, the RAF pilots learned the hard way not to turn with the Japanese.
People also tend to to forget that at the beginning of the war, the Japanese were amongst the best trained and on average already had more combat experience than both the RAF and Luftwaffe (due to the 2nd Sino-Japanese War). For example, only a very small handful had combat experience with the Luftwaffe at the start of the BoB, while the majority of the pilots that took part in the Pearl Harbor raid, Philippines and the attacks on RAF/Dutch/French colonies already had combat experience.
ack-ack
-
Lets see now..
P-38 was best performing at high altitude due to its turbo mills,
but due to lame Vne, couldn't cut it against the LW or P-51 up there..
So, like its fellow failed expensive high alt' turbo stable-mate P-47,
it was then relegated to the tactical strike role..
But, due to being a big flak target & fragile, losses got so bad that it was
again relegated - to the medium bombing role..
& it wasn't too good at that either..
To sum up, in the ETO, the P-38 couldn't hack the pace.. a dud..
The P-38 wasn't fragile, it was a rather robust aircraft known to be able to take damage. If was for more rugged than the P-51, that's for sure. It was also successful as a ground attack, due to being able to carry a nice payload and accurate/stable gun and attack platform. It was never 'relegated' to the medium bombing role nor does the occasional mission level bombing mission make it so. Mustangs and Thunderbolts also flew level bombing missions, does that mean they too were relegated to the medium bomber role? Of course not, just means the mission of the day called for them to level bomb their targets.
As I mentioned, the P-38 had a good service record with the 9th and 15th AF in the ETO and MTO.
ack-ack
-
A.A. you've got some of your history wrong, since - stupidly - no Spitfires were sent overseas to fight 'til later in`42, & the whole far eastern allied air effort `41-42 was well summed up by the book - 'A Bloody Shambles'..
As I posted earlier, if they'd had Keith Park running the show as well he had the BoB & Malta, things would not have been so dire..
P-38s were in fact less robust than P-51s, this was commented on in official USAAF technical documents, & loss reports - which admitted they were basically past their best-by-date for use in the ETO..
If the P-38 had been up to it, the 8th AF would have kept them, or at least one unit, for development purposes, like the 56th with its `47Ms..
But the results gained vs losses stats - clearly showed they weren't up to the hot pace of the ETO..
& do please cite an example of the single engined fighters being relegated to the medium bomber/level bombing routine.
AFAIK neither the `47 or `51 were modified to carry a dedicated bombardier
like the `38..
& the 8th AF even preferred using lend-lease British Spitfires & Mosquitos for their PRU units - over the Lightning recon variants..
As for P-47/38 vs P-51s the USAAF stats show that the Mustang was overall the superior fighter, in both A2A & GA, as well as being ~1/2 the price to buy & operate compared to them..
-
Not that the Mustang was the 'be all & end all'
of air-superiority fighters in the ETO.
The RAF chose to replace its Mustangs [used in 122 Wing 2nd TAF for the tactical air-superiority role - with Tempests], for the push to the Reich - once
the mass V1 cruise missile assault on Britain had been dealt with..
Like-wise the RAF felt that their Spitfire XIV had certain A2A advantages
over the Mustang for high alt' combat roles.
-
You forget that those RAF planes that fought in the BoB had their arses handed to them when they ran into the Zero and Ki-43 over Rangoon and Australia when the RAF/Commonwealth pilots thought their Spitfires and Hurricanes were more than a match for the Zero and Ki-43. Just like the early USAAF/USN pilots, the RAF pilots learned the hard way not to turn with the Japanese.
People also tend to to forget that at the beginning of the war, the Japanese were amongst the best trained and on average already had more combat experience than both the RAF and Luftwaffe (due to the 2nd Sino-Japanese War). For example, only a very small handful had combat experience with the Luftwaffe at the start of the BoB, while the majority of the pilots that took part in the Pearl Harbor raid, Philippines and the attacks on RAF/Dutch/French colonies already had combat experience.
ack-ack
A.A., by `43 the Spitfire VIII was available for A2A combat in Burma[& Australia],
- by using LW-style B & Z tactics - they soon got the measure of the Nippon fighters.
From 'Aircraft vs Aircraft' P. 143, experienced Kiwi pilot Alan Peart wrote:
"They were not heavily armoured & our .303s could put a lot of destructive metal into them. The cannons caused obvious & serious damage.
This was not the case with Me 109s where I have hit one with machine guns from behind only to see the bullets ricocheting off."
"Our tactics were to position ourselves above the Oscars, attack at speed using the sun, surprise if possible & power to climb away out of range.
Thus we could mount continuous attacks with relative impunity".
"The Japanese defence was to fly in circles, each fighter covering the one in front & taking snap shots at the Spitfires as they passed."
"I never did see a Japanese pilot bail out"..
"The Mk VIII had a considerable advantage over the Oscars & Zekes,
being armoured, more highly powered, faster & better armed.
The Japanese on the other hand were extremely manoeuvrable, had great endurance in the air & generally outnumbered the intercepting Spitfires."
"...the Japanese suffered severe fighter losses & lost a lot of their aggressiveness. Until then they'd appeared to roam at will over Allied territory."
So, a repeat effect really - of the impact of the high powered Merlin engine fighter's belated appearance in the MTO & over Germany too [in the 8th AF Mustangs]..
-
So, a repeat effect really - of the impact of the high powered Merlin engine fighter's belated appearance in the MTO & over Germany too [in the 8th AF Mustangs]..
This didn't have a thing to do with the Merlin engine. The same thing was being done with the Allison-powered P-40s and P-38s, and the R-2800-equipped F4U and F6F.
-
`Cept them gas-hog R-2800 or Allison powered planes couldn't do it escorting B-17 & B-24 formations over Berlin, nor B-29s over Tokyo, could they..
Hi-po Merlin Mustangs could & did..
Nor did those P-40/38s do so in Africa against the 190A/109Gs..
Hi-po Merlin Spitfires could & did..
-
`Cept them gas-hog R-2800 or Allison powered planes couldn't do it escorting B-17 & B-24 formations over Berlin, nor B-29s over Tokyo, could they..
The first US fighter over Berlin was the P-38, when the 55th FG was tasked with escorting bombers to Berlin.
ack-ack
-
Ok, & PRU Spitfires regularly did trips to the 'Big City' too..
Question is, what damage did they do to the LW there?
Frighten a little mouse under a chair at the Air Ministry, perhaps?
Actually, what was it Goering said about - when he knew the war was lost?
When he saw Lightnings over Berlin? No.. it was Mustangs, wasn't it..
-
Actually, what was it Goering said about - when he knew the war was lost?
When he saw Lightnings over Berlin? No.. it was Mustangs, wasn't it..
And when C47s were flying over Berlin EVERYONE knew the war was lost.
What does that tell you?
-
It tells me that it was in 1948, & the Cold War..
Try flying a C-47 over Berlin in `44 & see how long you stay airborne.
-
A check of 'Big Week' operations claim/loss ratios clearly demonstrate this, & with the new commanders pushing for optimum efficacy the 56th was kept
on `47s - largely as a political measure - & to run new T-bolts such as the M
in combat [ M was ostensibly built to catch V1 cruise missiles, but was too
late & too slow down low].
The M was not built to catch V1s. At the altitudes V1s were flying the M is not a stellar performer. What the M was in practice is an official and manufacturer-certified version of the field-moded P47s. None of the major aerodynamic modifications of the XP-47J were implemented. It was simply a D-40 with a slightly modified engine and other minor changes, very similar in practice to the over-boosted P-47 that the 56th were already using. They were unofficially boosting their engines to M levels while they were still flying razorbacks, after demonstrating that the engines could take it. The M was not a huge leap forward for them.
The rest is my guess - I assume that the latest and highly boosted R-2800 engines were meant for the N, but since Republic had a few D-40 frames still coming out of the production line and the N was not ready, they simply decided to put the new engines into a few D frames, label it M and ship it to the 56th. That is why it was a very short production run. Once they started rolling out the Ns all available engines went into that.
-
'Ostensibly'a V1 catcher, but that was just hype..it was a day late & a $ short..
Neither turbo boosted P-38 or P-47 had the low level speed to catch V1s..
My understanding is that the `47M was a match-up of N fuselage & D wings..
Rushed into service & it had plenty of serviceability issues.
If you check out the data sheets I posted on the 'Best Fighter-bomber' thread,
you can see how ephemeral the lazy air-cooled R-2800 was in making
continuous max cruise speed & how slow/draggy the fat T-bolt was at S.L..
In reality the max weak mixture cruising speed of the gas-hog R-2800
powered fighters was `bout ~100mph slower than a Merlin Mustang or
Sabre Tempest at 20kft..
-
it just has range like no other fighter.
We hear so much praise for the p51d's range that i think people forget that before there even was a USAAF the a6m had longer range than the p51d ever would. And it had one of them gas guzzling radial motors.
-
We hear so much praise for the p51d's range that i think people forget that before there even was a USAAF the a6m had longer range than the p51d ever would. And it had one of them gas guzzling radial motors.
And P-47Ns were doing the VLR escort thing in the PTO (range of over 2000 miles) well before the Mustang (surprise, range of ~1650 miles) got there.
Frankly, JAW, you're accusing me of bias just by saying the Corsairs were competitive with fighter designs in the ETO (and that's ALL I said. So what if one aircraft might have an advantage in certain areas? P-51 a better high-alt, long range escort? Without question. But the Corsair was certainly the better all-around dogfighter below 20,000ft, and by FAR superior as a ground-attack aircraft. And calling the F4U-4 the best all-around fighter of WWII comes from a lot of people who research this stuff for a living) but I'm seeing a LOT of bias out of you.
-
And P-47Ns were doing the VLR escort thing in the PTO (range of over 2000 miles) well before the Mustang (surprise, range of ~1650 miles) got there.
Was just thinking the same thing. 301st Fighter Wing flew B-29 escort missions from Saipan, not Iwo.
And ultimately even the D models were able to range as far as Berlin.
- oldman
-
Of all the egg-planes the P-47 is the one that doesn't really look that different from the real thing.
(http://www.hobzob.com/files/models/album_hasegawa_p47_thunderbolt_eggplane/49ec2985343bc/DSCN1384JPG_Thumbnail1.jpg)
:P
-
Of all the egg-planes the P-47 is the one that doesn't really look that different from the real thing.
(http://www.hobzob.com/files/models/album_hasegawa_p47_thunderbolt_eggplane/49ec2985343bc/DSCN1384JPG_Thumbnail1.jpg)
:P
:lol
-
Of all the egg-planes the P-47 is the one that doesn't really look that different from the real thing.
(http://www.hobzob.com/files/models/album_hasegawa_p47_thunderbolt_eggplane/49ec2985343bc/DSCN1384JPG_Thumbnail1.jpg)
:P
:rofl :cheers:
-
Of all the egg-planes the P-47 is the one that doesn't really look that different from the real thing.
(http://www.hobzob.com/files/models/album_hasegawa_p47_thunderbolt_eggplane/49ec2985343bc/DSCN1384JPG_Thumbnail1.jpg)
:P
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
-
. . .
But the Corsair was certainly the better all-around dogfighter below 20,000ft, and by FAR superior as a ground-attack aircraft. . . .
I think this is true if both plane have nearly the same E but what the mustang does best is reset a bad or going bad situation.
-
Ok, & PRU Spitfires regularly did trips to the 'Big City' too..
Question is, what damage did they do to the LW there?
You'd have to look at the BDA and AAR reports from the B-17 crews that flew those missions, the P-38 was in the escort role.
Frighten a little mouse under a chair at the Air Ministry, perhaps?
Actually, what was it Goering said about - when he knew the war was lost?
When he saw Lightnings over Berlin? No.. it was Mustangs, wasn't it..
For some reason you're under the misconception that I stated somewhere the P-38 was a better over all plane than the P-51, which I clearly have not. I've said the P-38 was a better ground attack platform and not as vulnerable to ground fire as the P-51. The fact is the P-51 was very susceptible to ground fire, its Achilles' heel was its cooling system in the belly which led to many losses during ground attack missions.
In Korea, a lot of the P-51 pilots would have their ground crew install extra armor on the Mustang because of how vulnerable the Mustang was to ground fire.
ack-ack
-
Has anyone got a copy of the `44 USN 'fighter conference'?
Where they tested the USAAF birds against the Navy types?
From memory, there was a poll taken, with the pilots voting on attributes..
The `47 beat out the Navy R-2800 types for best hi-alt' performer,
& the `51 was best <25kft & O/A best..[P-38 didn't rate].
The USN knew they'd had it pretty easy air-wise in the PTO,[compared to combat against the LW] & they even went to the trouble of checking out the `51 on a CV..
A.A., please find the G/A claim/loss stats to back up your P-38 belief..
AFAIR, the size, fragility & instant ID factors all contributed to the `38
being flak bait in the GA role, which why it was relegated to the
medium bomber/level bombing routine.
Navy planes in the PTO, [esp' Zero] could eke out long ranges by flying real low & slow over open ocean, that would get you dead quick smart over CAP/flak happy Europe , or a fleet at sea..
& G.S., so true - your `47 egg pic is a great yolk..
-
Urban Drew flew `51Ds in the ETO, & `47Ns in the PTO.
He preferred the pony ride to the porky gas-hog..
One of the reasons the `47 was not used in Korea was the fact that
a max load T-bolt needed a l-o-n-g 5kft take-off roll..
& Gen C. Le May like-wise preferred/stipulated the P-51 for B-29 escort.
Sm, the RNZAF operated the F4U in the Solomon Is [PTO],
but dumped them for `51s when they could get 'em.
-
Has anyone got a copy of the `44 USN 'fighter conference'?
Where they tested the USAAF birds against the Navy types?
From memory, there was a poll taken, with the pilots voting on attributes..
The `47 beat out the Navy R-2800 types for best hi-alt' performer,
& the `51 was best <25kft & O/A best..[P-38 didn't rate].
The USN knew they'd had it pretty easy air-wise in the PTO,[compared to combat against the LW] & they even went to the trouble of checking out the `51 on a CV..
A.A., please find the G/A claim/loss stats to back up your P-38 belief..
AFAIR, the size, fragility & instant ID factors all contributed to the `38
being flak bait in the GA role, which why it was relegated to the
medium bomber/level bombing routine.
Navy planes in the PTO, [esp' Zero] could eke out long ranges by flying real low & slow over open ocean, that would get you dead quick smart over CAP/flak happy Europe , or a fleet at sea..
& G.S., so true - your `47 egg pic is a great yolk..
Where do you get the incorrect idea that the P-38 was relegated to the medium bombing role?
ack-ack
-
'Droop Snoot', where the effort to make a Mosquito-type bomber out of the P-38 - complete with Norden bomb-aimer in the nose - was expended..
Of course this was in the ETO, where the P-38 was out of its depth
as a primary A2A fighter/bomber, it was still up to that role in the PTO..
-
'Droop Snoot', where the effort to make a Mosquito-type bomber out of the P-38 - complete with Norden bomb-aimer in the nose - was expended..
Some P-38s were converted to Droop Snoops to act as pathfinders, doesn't mean the P-38 was relegated to the medium bombing role.
ack-ack
-
Well, that D.S. sure looks like a lot of trouble to go to,
The other top-line ETO fighter-bombers didn't need it..
Why did the `38? - if not because of the loss rate in G/A?
The D.S. mission profile was clearly a medium/level bomber role,
but the `38 didn't have a bomb bay like a purpose-built bomber.
It was really a 1/2 arsed kind of thing to give the
`38 units some employment without murderous loss rates..
-
Well, that D.S. sure looks like a lot of trouble to go to,
The other top-line ETO fighter-bombers didn't need it..
Why did the `38? - if not because of the loss rate in G/A?
The D.S. mission profile was clearly a medium/level bomber role,
but the `38 didn't have a bomb bay like a purpose-built bomber.
It was really a 1/2 arsed kind of thing to give the
`38 units some employment without murderous loss rates..
What the hell are you drinking? Whatever it is, give me some, cause I want to get goofy too.
-
And P-47Ns were doing the VLR escort thing in the PTO (range of over 2000 miles) well before the Mustang (surprise, range of ~1650 miles) got there.
Frankly, JAW, you're accusing me of bias just by saying the Corsairs were competitive with fighter designs in the ETO (and that's ALL I said. So what if one aircraft might have an advantage in certain areas? P-51 a better high-alt, long range escort? Without question. But the Corsair was certainly the better all-around dogfighter below 20,000ft, and by FAR superior as a ground-attack aircraft. And calling the F4U-4 the best all-around fighter of WWII comes from a lot of people who research this stuff for a living) but I'm seeing a LOT of bias out of you.
Sm, 'Just the facts ma'am' as Sgt Friday would say.. No 'bias', no B.S...
The F4U-4 entered [combat] service post VE day, so was really a contemporary of the P-51H, & in reality, based on the service acceptance testing performance envelopes, the Army boys would have no problems establishing A2A dominance in a khaki-on-blue show-down between the 2..
-
What the hell are you drinking? Whatever it is, give me some, cause I want to get goofy too.
Huh? You can read, right?
So, what is your explanation for all that D.S. add-on crap..
-
Huh? You can read, right?
So, what is your explanation for all that D.S. add-on crap..
You know your argument isn't valid, correct? Use in a secondary role does not necessarily imply ineffectivness in the primary role. Look at all the nightfighter versions of bombers like the Ju-88, Do-217, Ju-188, etc. That doesn't mean they weren't some of Germany's best bombers.
-
`Cept them gas-hog R-2800 or Allison powered planes couldn't do it escorting B-17 & B-24 formations over Berlin, nor B-29s over Tokyo, could they..
Hi-po Merlin Mustangs could & did..
Nor did those P-40/38s do so in Africa against the 190A/109Gs..
Hi-po Merlin Spitfires could & did..
Hmmm....
(http://www.swannysmodels.com/images/P47N/boxart.jpg)
I guess those guys in the P-47Ns were just lost?
-
Well, that D.S. sure looks like a lot of trouble to go to,
The other top-line ETO fighter-bombers didn't need it..
Why did the `38? - if not because of the loss rate in G/A?
The D.S. mission profile was clearly a medium/level bomber role,
but the `38 didn't have a bomb bay like a purpose-built bomber.
It was really a 1/2 arsed kind of thing to give the
`38 units some employment without murderous loss rates..
I hate to burst your bubble but P-47s and P-51s (like the standard P-38) also did the occasional level bombing mission with a pathfinder leading the flight to act as the lead bomber. In most cases, when the standard fighters dropped their payload on command of the pathfinder/lead, the fighters would then dive to the deck and strafe targets of opportunity.
The number of P-38s that were converted to Droop Snoots numbers no more than 123 converted. The exact number isn't known but 23 were converted at the Langford Lodge factory and an additional 100 kits were produced for P-38s in all theaters. So out of the 10,000+ P-38s produced during the war, 123 or less were Droop Snoots.
Why was this done for the P-38 and not the P-47 or the P-51? Because neither of those planes could be modified like the P-38 was able to be in terms of adding a glass nose, bomb sight and an additional crewman. The only reason why it was even thought up, is that two officers in the 8th AF were looking at ways to make the P-38 more accurate when bombing with a full payload since they couldn't dive bomb when carrying 4,000 pounds of bombs (usually 2x 2,000 pounders). Colonels Cass Hough and Don Ostrander came up with the idea of modifying a P-38 and Lockheed conducted the tests using a P-38H.
ack-ack
-
Hey Rino,
Thanks, thats some cool box-top art, now how 'bout some facts on actual
B-29 escort ops, got any to post?
& T-A/A.A, what do you reckon the modification to the P-38 D.S. cost?
To get approval for a program like that, there had to be a pretty major
motivating factor..
Esp' since the job it did do was no better than the B-25/26..
Check the`38 G/A loss rates, if you doubt it..
-
Once converted to a D.S., the `38 is no longer a fighter, & with the extra load, it wasn't even a bomber, either..
-
Once converted to a D.S., the `38 is no longer a fighter, & with the extra load, it wasn't even a bomber, either..
4000lb of ord qualifies as bomber in my book. The B5N is a bomber..so is the TBM.
-
4000lb of ord qualifies as bomber in my book. The B5N is a bomber..so is the TBM.
Ah, sorry S.N., but actually the D.S. couldn't/didn't tote 4,000lbs of ord'..
-
Once converted to a D.S., the `38 is no longer a fighter, & with the extra load, it wasn't even a bomber, either..
No kidding the Droop Snoot wasn't used as a fighter, no one said it was. Just because less than a 123 P-38s were converted to Droop Snoots, doesn't mean the standard P-38 was then relegated to the bomber role. It's operational history doesn't back up your claims as it was used in both the fighter and ground support role up until the end of the war in the PTO, CBI, ETO and MTO. The 474th continued to fly P-38s in the long penetration fighter role up until VE-Day, in addition to ground support duties.
ack-ack
-
Care to provide the ETO USAAF claim/loss ratios & show how the `38 stacked up against the others then, A.A.?
I note that the Mosquito FB VI managed to do the fighter-bomber/intruder-ranger gig ok, but - like the `38 - was deemed too vulnerable to flak to do the down & dirty close support/tank-busting stuff like the T-bolt & Typhoon..
-
You know your argument isn't valid, correct? Use in a secondary role does not necessarily imply ineffectivness in the primary role. Look at all the nightfighter versions of bombers like the Ju-88, Do-217, Ju-188, etc. That doesn't mean they weren't some of Germany's best bombers.
T-A, You do realize that the `38 was dumped from the 8th AF?
That does more than 'imply ineffectiveness in the primary role' - correct?
-
After reading all of J.A.W.'s post's I think his day job is adding content to Wiki both are often wrong and misleading
-
I note that the Mosquito FB VI managed to do the fighter-bomber/intruder-ranger gig ok, but - like the `38 - was deemed too vulnerable to flak to do the down & dirty close support/tank-busting stuff like the T-bolt & Typhoon..
And where exactly did you read it was deemed too vulnerable to flak? I'd like to read that too. The mossies were of too high demand in their other roles to send them on such high-risk menial jobs as close support. Mossies VIs did a lot of interdiction work close behind the enemy line, so I have no idea where you get the idea that they were considered vulnerable. With coastal command FB.IVs were strafing flak ships. That is just about the most dangerous interaction with flaks you can imagine. Of course they did it after flying across the north sea - the typhoons would not have made it even half way.
T-A, You do realize that the `38 was dumped from the 8th AF?
That does more than 'imply ineffectiveness in the primary role' - correct?
The P-38 had several issues with its role as a high alt escort. That is just about the only role it had any problems with and it excelled at everything else it was used for. Insisting on trying to make it work better with the 8th AF would have been stupid given that it was in very high demand in the Pacific and Med.
-
After reading all of J.A.W.'s post's I think his day job is adding content to Wiki both are often wrong and misleading
After reading this post by T.B., I think it is clear he has failed to provide anything remotely resembling validity to back his assertions..
-
True - the Coastal Command FBs did wreak havoc, but when tasked to the G/A role over Germany for the maximum effort Operation Clarion, the Mossies copped plenty in return.. see the 2nd TAF history on that..
As for Typhoon anti-ship efficacy, I suggest you look up the infamous
'friendly-fire' Typhoon vs RN minesweeper action.. nasty stuff..
[& don't even mention the dreadful 'Cap Ancona' incident]
Indeed, F-F accounts involving Typhoon air to surface attacks on Allied units give grim validation of their destructive powers..
-
Ah, sorry S.N., but actually the D.S. couldn't/didn't tote 4,000lbs of ord'..
This is a picture of the S-1 bomb racks on a P-38J Droop Snoop. The S-1 had the capacity to hold 2x 2,000 pound bombs or 4x 1,000 pound bombs.
(http://clubhyper.com/images/11%20-%20P-38L%20Droop%20Snoot%20-%2043-56295%20and%2056281%20-%2024%20Aug%201945%20-%20S-1%20bomb%20racks,%20inner%20wing,%20right%20-%20568-10.jpg)
The most common load out though was either 2x 1,000 pound bombs or 6x 500 pound bombs like in this picture below.
(http://vcdn.valka.cz/html_images/light/01/01/500xNxdropsnoot.jpg.pagespeed.ic.C7sRiu01MO.jpg)
The Droop Snoop were also used as navigational lead planes.
ack-ack
-
Thanks A.A.,but a Lockheed public relations pic is one thing,
& a flight plan using the USAAF mission profile manual is another..
What was the D.S. max permissible take-off weight?
Effective range at speed/heights at max ordnance loading?
Was such a load practicable or just more hype - like twin torpedos?
Any verifiable actual historical mission data to post?
[& again, they really are starting to look like try-hard medium bombers..]
AFAIK, the Norden bombsight was operationally speed limited to ~180 mph too.
-
Mosquito FB VI tactical trials..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Mosquito-VI-tactical.pdf
Note - that while considered capable of some Typhoon roles, it was not able to compete with the Typhoon in low level speed, A2A , or Vne..
-
True - the Coastal Command FBs did wreak havoc, but when tasked to the G/A role over Germany for the maximum effort Operation Clarion, the Mossies copped plenty in return.. see the 2nd TAF history on that..
Mossies of 2 TAF flew just over 1700 daylight sorties in 1944, the majority before the invasion, losing 18 of their number.
Clarion was hardly representative - targets for the Mossies were up near Bremen when the Allies were still west of the Rhine, and the vast majority of crews were undoubtedly on their first daylight op.
-
I feel like we're arguing with someone who is wilfully dumb.
-
I feel like we're arguing with someone who is wilfully dumb.
Be fair, Earl hasn't done his Skyraider boosting for wee while..
As for yourself,
well, you could try putting up some real data, rather than 'dumb' opinion..
-
Relevant data has already been posted. You're the one who is misinterpreting it.
-
Thanks A.A.,but a Lockheed public relations pic is one thing,
& a flight plan using the USAAF mission profile manual is another..
The top picture is one of the 23 P-38s being converted to the Droop Snoot at Lockheed's Langford Lodge factory and not a P.R. picture you try to dismiss it as. The 2nd picture is of a Droop Snoot from the 474th getting ready to taxi to the flight line before a mission.
What was the D.S. max permissible take-off weight?
Effective range at speed/heights at max ordnance loading?
Not at home so I can't look it up but from what I remember, ordnance payload was the same as the standard P-38.
Was such a load practicable or just more hype - like twin torpedos?
What load? Don't know why you brought up the test with the torpedoes, no one has claimed it was done beyond a single test nor even relevant to this discussion.
Any verifiable actual historical mission data to post?
[& again, they really are starting to look like try-hard medium bombers..]
Verifiable mission data for what? Here is a video of the 430th FS in action over Germany, you'll see the use of the Droop Snoot in the mission. In the video it also explains why Droops Snoots were used, in missions "where risky, precision dive bombing was unnecessary - rail yards, dock yards - doing level bombing from higher altitudes."
430th FS in action over Germany (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e64O_6XXk-M)
AFAIK, the Norden bombsight was operationally speed limited to ~180 mph too.
And?
ack-ack
-
Relevant data has already been posted. You're the one who is misinterpreting it.
Not so, & again you present no data, only your opinion..
-
The top picture is one of the 23 P-38s being converted to the Droop Snoot at Lockheed's Langford Lodge factory and not a P.R. picture you try to dismiss it as. The 2nd picture is of a Droop Snoot from the 474th getting ready to taxi to the flight line before a mission.
Not at home so I can't look it up but from what I remember, ordnance payload was the same as the standard P-38.
What load? Don't know why you brought up the test with the torpedoes, no one has claimed it was done beyond a single test nor even relevant to this discussion.
Verifiable mission data for what? Here is a video of the 430th FS in action over Germany, you'll see the use of the Droop Snoot in the mission. In the video it also explains why Droops Snoots were used, in missions "where risky, precision dive bombing was unnecessary - rail yards, dock yards - doing level bombing from higher altitudes."
430th FS in action over Germany (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e64O_6XXk-M)
And?
A.A., thanks, some good stuff there, but this this the kind of mission profile stuff I meant..[see post #18]
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,356037.195.html
[ P-38 as bomber thread currently running on the aircraft of ww2 forum,
-in case that link wont play]
ack-ack
-
Torpedo load-out for P-38 is listed as example of Lockheed hype in trying to eke out [unlikely] alt' roles for the P-38, when it is benched as an A2A/escort..
Equally as unlikely is the D.S. carrying the same ordnance load as its single seat brethren, how much did that conversion weigh/add?
& how many D.S.'s went on a mission - per squadron of `38s in the M/B role?
The 'risky dive-bombing' was obviously too costly for P-38s,& a job reserved for T-blots & Typhoons?
& a M/B attack speed of ~180 mph is a bit of a come down for a 400+mph
fighter-bomber aint it? Bet those fighter jocks wished they were in a `51 unit.
See this relevant thread [post #18]for the mission profile stuff..
http://www.ww2aircraftforum.net/forum/aviation/p-38-bomber-39178-2.html
-
J.A.W., I'm more convinced with every post you make that you lack basic knowledge of WWII aviation history. You will find, if you bother to pay attention, that there are many members of this group with great resources and knowledge of the topic. Several of these are published authors and historians. So, you'll have to excuse them if some dismiss you as a windbag and a troll. You have an opinion on everything. Just keep in mind that opinions are conclusions drawn in the absence of adequate facts.
-
Yes, I reckon the same about you too - Ww,
& many writers like Bodie are like-wise opinion driven..
Far too ready to 'dismiss' ideas that don't meet their fixed ideas,
then use emotively laden terms like troll to discount/demonise..
He makes a favourite of the given subject, [likely to sell more copies to fans],
& then does the same for his next.
i.e. the P-38 is the best, [except in his P-47 book - then the `47 is, eh..].
That is why I prefer to post links to primary info sources,
rather than rely on revisionism of doubtful value/validity..
& let the facts speak, rather than agenda bearers.
Doolittle made the call re P-51, & was proved correct..
-
JAW has been banned from several boards because of his trolling.
-
Yes, I reckon the same about you too - Ww,
& many writers like Bodie are like-wise opinion driven..
Far too ready to 'dismiss' ideas that don't meet their fixed ideas,
then use emotively laden terms like troll to discount/demonise..
He makes a favourite of the given subject, [likely to sell more copies to fans],
& then does the same for his next.
i.e. the P-38 is the best, [except in his P-47 book - then the `47 is, eh..].
That is why I prefer to post links to primary info sources,
rather than rely on revisionism of doubtful value/validity..
& let the facts speak, rather than agenda bearers.
Doolittle made the call re P-51, & was proved correct..
What have you written, edited and published?
Bodie loved the P-38. It doesn't take any analysis to see that in his writing. However, that isn't a basis for not accepting the facts presented. Warren was an opinionated man. I know that first hand, having worked with him for three years. However, he wasn't obtuse and recognized the P-38's faults and limitations.
Oh, and what were Doolittle's reasons for opting for the P-51? There were many....
Did you ever sit down with the men who flew these various aircraft? Johnson, Gabreski, Ilfrey, Heiden, Shilling, Smith and the like... How about some of the test pilots? How about some of those who fly them today?
I know, we hear the tired argument that anecdotal accounts are rife with error and opinion. Easy to say... But usually devoid of solid reasoning. All history is anecdotal. Someone recorded what was seen or occurred. That record invariably reflected that individual's mindset. Can't be avoided.
-
JAW has been banned from several boards because of his trolling.
He's a troll, clearly, but also a well-read troll and, if I guess correctly, a person of mature years.
One of the useful lessons I've learned is this: Say that what you want to be true, is true, and rely on others to disprove it. Quite often they won't, for any number of reasons.
I'm still waiting to see his response to evidence that P-47s escorted B-29s and that P-47s ultimately ranged to Berlin.
- oldman
-
So, M.M. telling tales, drops the 'troll' bomb eh,
usually the resort of one bereft of facts, it would seem..
& I.M.O. - your view of what constitutes 'trolling' is patently suspect.
If you have never been banned from a forum, then in my 'opinion'
I'd reckon you are not much more than a lurker..
I'm still waiting to see the facts about P-47s over Berlin & Tokyo
['cept for a toy plane box-art imagining] but I am always pleased to go with reliable data sets , if & when posted, - since I am not emotionally attached/fixed on favourites -[but truly, P-51s did it do it better]..
Being an 'author' don't mean much in itself - Mein Kampf is a best seller,
& still in print - after all.
Yes Ww, my mothers great uncle was S/Ldr Bob Spurdle, a Kiwi RAF fighter pilot, who flew 550+ op sorties - from the BoB & catapult Hurricanes on the Atlantic convoys - to the Rhine Crossing, & also shot down Zekes in a lousy
P-40 in the Solomon Is `43..
He really liked flying the Tempest - leading 80 Sqd post invasion[& also survived having a Spitfire disintegrate on him in a terminal dive chasing a 109]..
He was a real no-B.S. bloke, & that pugnacious character is a familial thing, I am told..
-
Notwithstanding Bodie's 'love' -[ugh] - for the P-38, history records that
for the established 8th AF purpose of grinding down the Jagdwaffe, it WAS [ & justifiably so, based on cost effectiveness/results] - the 3rd string USAAF fighter in the ETO.
Being generous, I'd venture that it - might, just - squeeze into a [very] low spot on a 10 best [based on performance envelope/A2A capability] ETO fighter list..
-
If you have never been banned from a forum, then in my 'opinion'
I'd reckon you are not much more than a lurker...
:rofl
-
If you have never been banned from a forum, then in my 'opinion'
I'd reckon you are not much more than a lurker..
(http://freakoutnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Orly1.jpg)
-
(http://freakoutnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Orly1.jpg)
'Nice' selfie [self-portrait] there [for a 'bird-brain'], T-A,
& isn't 'Orly' somewhere near Paris?
Or is that Roland Garros?..
[the famed WW 1 French Ace Bosche-flieger-raptor/jager?] L.O.L
Anyhow, T-A - given the standard of your recent posts [as seen so far], I doubt there is any real prospect of you contributing something worthwhile to the thread,
so why not just blather [& troll, actually] on..
Next...
-
Why anybody would ban anybody for trolling is beyond me. Trollers are here to remind us how stupid and idiotic it is to get emotional about intertext. The troll says to us all, HEY DUMAS, IT'S THE INTERNET, IT'S NOT REAL.
-
BTW, in real life no f4u has ever been shot down by a p51, but p51s have been shot down by f4us.
The p51 is basically a p40 upon which designers threw new ideas and waited to see which one's stuck, which explains it's hideous form. It's a square aeroplane in more than one sense of the word. It's as if it was built by fascist germans, they love right angles and straight lines. Even the sides of the p51's fuselage are flat and the cross section is rectilinear. And then the grotesque profile, with the afterthought air intake and coolers suspended, stuck where they were thrown, barely clearing the ground. Imagine the offspring of a dachshund and a dairy cow, now you've taken your first step into understanding just how sick a person would have to be to enjoy looking at a p51. And if that wasn't nauseating enough, after the B model they ditched the fast back and stuck on a bubble top. To their credit I guess they were going for symmetry, a bulbous deformity on the top to match the bulbous deformity on the bottom.
-
This is a picture of the S-1 bomb racks on a P-38J Droop Snoop. The S-1 had the capacity to hold 2x 2,000 pound bombs or 4x 1,000 pound bombs.
The Droop Snoop were also used as navigational lead planes.
ack-ack
Thanks for that great picture. That explains the three 500# racks under each wing in the picture in my thread and the P51 rocket thread.
-
BTW, in real life no f4u has ever been shot down by a p51, but p51s have been shot down by f4us.
Oooh, Soccer War. Nice reference!
-
Mosquito FB VI tactical trials..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/Mosquito-VI-tactical.pdf
Note - that while considered capable of some Typhoon roles, it was not able to compete with the Typhoon in low level speed, A2A , or Vne..
Read again and read the addendum. The original test was done with a Merlin 23 version. The change to a Merlin 25 made a huge difference to sea level performance. Still could not flat out outrun a Typhoon, but could out-run all spits including the XII, and climb better and turn as well as Typhoons.
A day fighter is just about the only role the Mosquito was never meant to fill. de-Havilland did a preliminary study of a day-fighter version, but the RAF were not interested and rightly so. They had Spits and tempests that they were happy with (and cheaper) and de-Havilland could not keep up with the demand for more bomber/recon/night-fighter/fighter-bomber versions as it was. Eventually they built their fighter under the name Hornet as a completely new plane and it was a monster.
FB.VI did surprisingly well in air-to-air engagement with 190s and 109s, though these engagements were not common. I think that coastal command is the only service in which mossies were engaged in large-scale dogfights. Some were shot down, but they got about as many in return (I dont have exact numbers unfortunately). This is considered good given that the pilots were not focused on dogfighting in their training and the engagements typically started with the LW bouncing the mosquitoes as they were coming out of a strike, escorting flak-damaged planes and many burdened with rocket rails.
-
"FB.VI did surprisingly well in air-to-air engagement with 190s and 109s, though these engagements were not common. I think that coastal command is the only service in which mossies were engaged in large-scale dogfights. Some were shot down, but they got about as many in return (I dont have exact numbers unfortunately). This is considered good given that the pilots were not focused on dogfighting in their training and the engagements typically started with the LW bouncing the mosquitoes as they were coming out of a strike, escorting flak-damaged planes and many burdened with rocket rails."
Indeed, as it seems that the Mossie was hindered from turning tightly due to 9lbs inertia weight which restricted the maneuvering above 3G the Mossie had to be truly awsome. :D
-C+
-
The fact that with equivalent spec Merlins fitted,[like the Mustang]
the Mosquito was faster than the Spitfire, shows something.
The Vne of 450mph IAS <10kft
is only ~20mph less than the Spitfire & 109/190,
[but faster than P-38/USN types]
& that clean aero airframe allowed the
Mosquito to power on & evade most others if seen in time.
Ironically one of the few aircraft that could catch & kill the Mosquito
in a high speed tail chase was the Mustang, there are a number of recorded
incidents of this..
[ 8th AF `51 jocks awarded kill credits, even after gun-cam clearly show that their 'Me 410' - wasn't ], so the 8th AF painted their Mossie tails red..
-
F4U-4 & P-51H were contemporaries,
- but that little V-1650-9 Merlin could hack 90in boost on ADI,
so the pony could really take it to the fat lazy gas hog R-2800 powered Corsair..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-4-80765.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/F-51H_Mustang-SAC_-_22_March_1949.pdf
-
By `45 air forces were jet focussed & didn't really want any more recip'
fighters ['cept maybe VLR stuff like the P-82 & DH Hornet] but the Navies
had to wait for competitive jets..
Here is the British RN replacement for their Corsairs..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Fury/Sea_Fury_Flight.pdf
Note: the liquid cooled Fury out-performed the radial variant too..
-
By `45 air forces were jet focussed & didn't really want any more recip'
fighters ['cept maybe VLR stuff like the P-82 & DH Hornet] but the Navies
had to wait for competitive jets..
Here is the British RN replacement for their Corsairs..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Fury/Sea_Fury_Flight.pdf
Note: the liquid cooled Fury out-performed the radial variant too..
Better check your reference sources again.
Hawker Fury used an air cooled Bristol Centaurus 18 18-cylinder twin-row radial.
This Fury used a liquid cooled engine,
(http://fighterfactory.militaryaviationmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/hawker-fury.jpg)
Be sure this is the a/c the RN replaced the Corsairs with.
-
F4U-4 & P-51H were contemporaries,
Those two types never engaged each other in combat. During the Soccer War the Salvadoran air force operated P-51D/Ks and Mustang Mk IIs, along with FG1-Ds. The Honduran air force operated F4U-4N/Ps and F4U-5s.
ack-ack
-
Those two types never engaged each other in combat. During the Soccer War the Salvadoran air force operated P-51D/Ks and Mustang Mk IIs, along with FG1-Ds. The Honduran air force operated F4U-4N/Ps and F4U-5s.
ack-ack
Not only that, but the P-51H was basically a stripped-down hot rod to get that sort of performance, and never saw combat. Largely because it was a stripped-down hot rod that never would have held up in combat.
-
Better check your reference sources again.
Hawker Fury used an air cooled Bristol Centaurus 18 18-cylinder twin-row radial.
This Fury used a liquid cooled engine,
(http://fighterfactory.militaryaviationmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/hawker-fury.jpg)
Be sure this is the a/c the RN replaced the Corsairs with.
M.M., that is funny, somehow I doubt if bi-plane Fury would last long being hauled around by a 3,000+ hp Napier Sabre mill..
& A.A., I`ll bet there were a few 'blue-on-blue' A2A tangles between USAF & USN fighter jocks, & even if they didn't unload on each other, the slick H-model pony had the performance to put the slap down on those fat hogs..
-
J.A.W., I'm more convinced with every post you make that you lack basic knowledge of WWII aviation history.
Agreed Widewing, but I also feel he is purposefully mixing up figures and history to irritate the forum.
JAW has been banned from several boards because of his trolling.
I'm looking forward to the troll ban on this one, Milo. In the meantime, I think the below idea is the best to handle this one.
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.
-
Not only that, but the P-51H was basically a stripped-down hot rod to get that sort of performance, and never saw combat. Largely because it was a stripped-down hot rod that never would have held up in combat.
Ah, no Sm,& did you read the SAC document provided in the link?
If you are suggesting that SAC boss C. Le May would tolerate a non-combat ready aircraft operating in his command, then you'd be very wrong..
-
Agreed Widewing.
I'm looking forward to the troll ban on this one, Milo. In the meantime, I think the below idea is the best to handle this one.
Why bother with the big noting then D? - L.O.L.
Just pointless posting.. another form of trolling..
-
I`ll bet there were a few 'blue-on-blue' A2A tangles between USAF & USN fighter jocks, & even if they didn't unload on each other, the slick H-model pony had the performance to put the slap down on those fat hogs..
So you're betting or in other words assuming.. Are you not the guy yesterday that said people on this board need to post hard evidence? You know, real stats like the last two confirmed air to air kills by Corsairs were P-51s in the Soccer War..
-
M.M., that is funny, somehow I doubt if bi-plane Fury would last long being hauled around by a 3,000+ hp Napier Sabre mill..
& A.A., I`ll bet there were a few 'blue-on-blue' A2A tangles between USAF & USN fighter jocks, & even if they didn't unload on each other, the slick H-model pony had the performance to put the slap down on those fat hogs..
If there were any friendly fire incidents between USAF pilots flying the P-51H and USN flying F4U-4/5s, there are no official records of it and those incidents would have been recorded. Unless you're referring to mock dogfights, well, since there is no record of these mock engagements, one can hardly make the conclusion with a straight face that the P-51H came out on top.
Records do show however that the F4U-4 engaged and shot down P-51D/Ks and a few Mustang Mk IIs for good measure. Of course, it really boiled down to respective pilot skill, the Honduran Air Force was better trained and coordinated then the Salvadoran Air Force, which had to scrounge the private sector to come up replacement Mustangs to replace those lost in combat.
ack-ack
-
That is certainly true, in the Central America combat situation - but the variables involved were likely more than the small sample out-come can validate in terms of a true contest..
A USAF/USN match-up is likely to be closer in skillset/serviceability equivalence..
Maybe one of the 'author' members has some research from interviews of veterans of the era & can chime in on the reality of a little 'blue-on-blue' inter-service showdown stuff..
However going by the published data of service acceptance testing then pilots of equal ability ought to be able to assert themselves in the machine with superior power-to-weight ratios & more advanced aerodynamics..
-
Ah, no Sm,& did you read the SAC document provided in the link?
If you are suggesting that SAC boss C. Le May would tolerate a non-combat ready aircraft operating in his command, then you'd be very wrong..
Maybe you're confused because your name is an acronym for something, but mine is not. Want to shorten it, then Sax is fine. SM just makes me sound kinky.
Anyway, as others noted: Where's your evidence that P-51Hs spank the F4U-4 in combat? What's the difference between YOU speculating on results and everyone else speculating, other than the fact that YOUR speculation is always right?
There were no incidents of combat (mock engagements or otherwise) between the two for you to go on. In fact the only information on combat between Corsairs and Mustangs (outside of AH, where unless that P-51 REALLY knows what he's doing, is lunchmeat) as previously noted results in downed Mustangs.
-
Sax, do read the actual performance specs of the planes..
The RNZAF replaced their Corsairs with Mustangs, for various reasons..
A.A., Mustang IIs were Allison powered, did the RAF really sell them?
[ & by blue-on-blue, I didn't mean to imply actual shoot-to-kill stuff, just the
traditional inter-service rivalry & what was khaki-on-blue went to blue-on-blue
when the USAF dumped the A for Army stuff.]
-
While there are bound to have been unrecorded/unofficial encounters between USAF & USN planes [ fighter jocks being fighter jocks, after all..].
Does anyone know if there were actual SAC vs Navy 'war game'
exercises carried out, back in the day?
Is there any documentation of this?
Were there any more 'fighter conferences' that compared the different service aircraft in an official test setting?
-
P-51H vs F4U-4..
`51H has significant superiority in climb rate, Vmax, Vne & pilot view..
If that does not offer a combat advantage, I'd be surprised.
The H was not sold overseas, & AFAIK the British were the only foreigners to get one..
-
I'm sure they had all the time they needed for mock wars and were fighting to the edge all the time, not like its dangerous or anything :lol
I'm not sure the aces high P51D - F4U-1D matchup is as one sided as you guys seem to think. The P51D has less drag penalty for using his flaps than the F4U, and his nose up ability on the long run is better. Flap management is crucial.
-
I suggest you read the Chuck Yeager memoir then..
Both as service combat pilot & test pilot, he really 'pushed the envelope'..
-
I suggest you read the Chuck Yeager memoir then..
Both as service combat pilot & test pilot, he really 'pushed the envelope'..
now you've done it, quoting chuck yeager :)
-
If you are suggesting that SAC boss C. Le May would tolerate a non-combat ready aircraft operating in his command, then you'd be very wrong..
Then why was the P-51H kept from Korea? It was kept out because it was considered not suitable for combat in Korea as it was too substitutable to ground fire for the missions it would fly.
ack-ack
-
Don't know if H was any worse than D in that aspect, A.A.,
But - there were other reasons such as..
1, Availability - there were thousands of D's built & spares for them,
whereas the majority of H/L production orders were cancelled after <600 built.
2, Serviceability - the V-1650 was out of production & the highly strung -9
was a bit of a hot-rod mill, fettling/rebuilding them in primitive conditions in Korea would be a big ask, & further, the SAC had the luxury of huge concrete
run-ways for the smaller/lightweight H model wheels, no rough & ready strips
to have to cope with..
3, Would've SAC handed over their assets to Tactical Command?
They pulled back their F-82s from Korean ops for strategic defence pretty quick.
-
Don't know if H was any worse than D in that aspect, A.A.,
But - there were other reasons such as..
1, Availability - there were thousands of D's built & spares for them,
whereas the majority of H/L production orders were cancelled after <600 built.
That was part of the reason, there were far more P-51D/Ks in USAF and ANG inventory and more available spare parts. However, because of the high rate of USAF and ROKAF Mustangs losses due to enemy ground fire, the P-51H was considered to be more vulnerable to ground fire because of its lighter weight construction and considered unsuitable for the type of missions it would be tasked with.
2, Serviceability - the V-1650 was out of production & the highly strung -9
was a bit of a hot-rod mill, fettling/rebuilding them in primitive conditions in Korea would be a big ask, & further, the SAC had the luxury of huge concrete
run-ways for the smaller/lightweight H model wheels, no rough & ready strips
to have to cope with..
With the lack of spare parts for the H, compared to the D/K, serviceability I imagine would be an issue, even more so if the H Mustang would be based in Korea. With the Mustangs range, the H could have been kept in Japan and sortied out of our bases there. Though problems with spare parts would still be present.
3, Would've SAC handed over their assets to Tactical Command?
They pulled back their F-82s from Korean ops for strategic defence pretty quick.
SAC had no choice during the Korean War. When war broke out, the F-82 was the only USAF fighter able to fly the entire Korean peninsula from our bases in Japan. If anything, the Korean War might have prolonged the service life of the F-82. The F-82 was intended to be a stop gap measure until the USAF had enough jet fighters and by 1950 the F-82 was starting to be phased out, with some US based squadrons replacing their F-82s with jets. By 1951, the USAF had enough jets in the Korean theater that the F-82 was able to be withdrawn and was finally retired in 1953.
ack-ack
-
F4U-4 vs Sea Fury?
Well, lets see, going by the figures in the posted links..
S.L. Vmax :303knots vs 402 mph,
S.L. Climb : 3,760ft/min vs 5,050ft/min,
Roll rate : 89'/sec vs 100'/sec
Add a Vne advantage of ~100mph, plus superior pilot vision
& the Brit machine is looking dominant over the hog too..
"Squeal like a pig, boy.."
Note: the Napier Sabre powered Fury went even harder..
-
A.A.,
The early jets did not have the range/endurance capability of the F-82,
& the SAC wanted to ensure that those nuke toting VVS Tu-4's [B-29 clone]
were intercepted as far away from U.S. assets as was practicable..
-
A.A., Mustang IIs were Allison powered, did the RAF really sell them?
With the exception of the Cavalier Mustang, the Salvadoran Air Force acquired their Mustangs from the private sector to avoid the arms embargo we placed on them.
ack-ack
-
A.A., are you sure they were Mustang IIs?
The U.S. govt insisted in having approval over where its ex-lend-lease stuff went,[not that Stalin complied with that stipulation, naturally] but maybe that didn't apply to those few RAF Allison powered survivors of a long ETO war?
Perhaps they'd been 'cash & carry' items that the Brits were free to dispose of as they liked?
-
Wow -- lots of nonsense being spouted about the P-38 here (like "relegated to being a bomber" total falsehood, as if 100 planes out of 10,000 determines anything).
I assume that people who have read a lot about P-38's have covered all of this already, but just in case:
The P-38 wasn't moved out of the ETO because it was a bad fighter but because of several other factors. One was that there were folks (including some with the ability to determine what was used) who thought that the P-51 was a better choice. (Note that "P-51 is better" is not the same as "P-38 is bad" -- both can be good, but one can still be better.) One was because the commanders in North Africa and MTO were clamoring for more P-38's specifically as a critical element to victory, and for more than were able to be supplied solely by new production of P-38's. One might have been as simple as inadequate cockpit heating in P-38's, which was sometimes a problem at high alts in the ETO.
The P-38 had a very long range, was an extremely sturdy plane (far sturdier than a P-51, regardless of statements here to the contrary), was used extensively in multiple theaters, acquitted itself decently vs. LW and Japanese fighters, and was excellent in ground attack. Notable achievements: first US fighter sweep over Berlin, shoot down of Yamamoto, top two leading US aces.
I've talked to many WWII pilots (several of them aces) who flew the P-38 (some in PTO, such as George Chandler; and some in ETO such as Bill Allen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J0lEHyKInw ; some who flew the P-38 and the P-51; some who flew the P-38, P-47, and P-51; one who flew P-38 recon in the PTO, including flights at 40k). Of the ones who flew the P-38 and P-51, most liked the P-51 better for the role it was mainly used for, but every one of them thought that the P-38 was a great airplane as well. I don't remember one of them saying that they thought the P-38 was bad and were glad to get out of it into the P-47 or P-51, and they were always asked what they thought of the P-38 vs. the other aircraft they flew.
Good books on the P-38:
The Lockheed P-38 Lightning, by Bodie
America's Hundred Thousand, by Dean (chapter on the P-38)
Top Guns, edited by Joe Foss and Matthew Brennan (chapter written by John Lowell, who flew P-38's and P-51's in the ETO)
Fork-Tailed Devil, by Caiden (I've seen people crab about it, but I liked it)
Fighter Pilot, by Olds
-
A.A., are you sure they were Mustang IIs?
The U.S. govt insisted in having approval over where its ex-lend-lease stuff went,[not that Stalin complied with that stipulation, naturally] but maybe that didn't apply to those few RAF Allison powered survivors of a long ETO war?
Perhaps they'd been 'cash & carry' items that the Brits were free to dispose of as they liked?
Yeah, the planes are listed as Mustang Mk II's, don't have the serial numbers but I have the FAS number markings.
FAS-401
FAS-403
FAS-404
FAS-405
The only Mustang that was "legally" purchased by El Salvador was the Cavalier Mustang. The Salvadorans ordered 7 Cavaliers but the US and other countries placed an arms embargo on El Salvador and Honduras, so the Salvadorans only received one Cavalier before the embargo kicked in. The Salvadorans then sent out agents and were able to procure through shady means, the rest of their Mustangs from private owners and in one case, seize a P-51D-25-NA (44-73273/YS-210P) from a collector living in El Salvador.
The Mustang Mk IIs were probably from Lend-Lease surplus after the RAF stopped using the Mustangs and then sold into the private sector. Being 1969, I'm sure there were a lot of surplus RAF Mustangs for sale and/or in private hands.
ack-ack
-
I'm guessing each of those ~120 D.S. medium bomber P-38 conversions led a Sqd or group of regular P-38s?
& for straight from the horses mouth, the official USAAF report summary on the `38J features some unequivocal terms.."airspeed limitations are low...
caution must be used.....definitely objectionable...cause structural failure''.
I have not seen a USAAF P-51 report containing similar stuff..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-67869.htm
-
It really seems like you're just fishing for "'Murica!!!" answers. More specifically for the Corsair.
"Best air to ground" has nothing to do with air to air combat. Yet not only do you include air to air capabilities, but 1v1 capabilities in your judgment.
But really, we'll arrive at the same conclusion as your other thread: a competition between the F4U-1C/D, the P-47, and the 190 A/F.
And it seems like you're just trolling or can't read because he clearly sated the FW-190s.... so thats "Murcia" i guess
Also air to air combat for an ATTACK plane is kinda needed given you don't have any other defense.... unless its German i guess because they are uber
-
Also, was there some doubt that P-47N's didn't escort B-29's to Japan and go on fighter sweeps over Japan? That's easily verified.
-
I'm guessing each of those ~120 D.S. medium bomber P-38 conversions led a Sqd or group of regular P-38s?
Yes. Usually each squadron in the P-38 groups would have a Droop Snoot and they would then lead a squadron/flight of standard P-38s. The standard P-38s would then drop on the Droop Snoots command. There was a device that could be equipped on the standard P-38s that allowed the bombardier on the Droop Snoot to drop bombs for everyone else. If there were non-visual conditions then instead of a Droop Snoot, a P-38J/L equipped with a AN/APS-15 navigation/attack radar, would then lead the flight.
ack-ack
-
Good books on the P-38:
Fork-Tailed Devil, by Caiden (I've seen people crab about it, but I liked it)
Oh, Brooke, Brooke, Brooke....
You so did not mean to include that one, please say so...
- oldman
-
F4U-4 vs Sea Fury?
Well, lets see, going by the figures in the posted links..
S.L. Vmax :303knots vs 402 mph,
S.L. Climb : 3,760ft/min vs 5,050ft/min,
Roll rate : 89'/sec vs 100'/sec
Add a Vne advantage of ~100mph, plus superior pilot vision
& the Brit machine is looking dominant over the hog too..
"Squeal like a pig, boy.."
Note: the Napier Sabre powered Fury went even harder..
Talk about cherry picking data.... You used data for the Sea Fury F 10, 50 built.
How about the FB 11, the common service example, 615 built?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Fury/Sea_Fury_Hawker.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Fury/Sea_Fury_Hawker.pdf)
How about this data on the F4U-4?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-4-detail-specification.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-4-detail-specification.pdf)
How does this compare, F4U-4 vs Sea Fury FB 11?
S.L. Vmax: 377 vs 380
S.L. Climb: 4,360 fpm vs 4,320 fpm
Best Speed: 453 mph @ 26.2k vs 450 mph @ 20k
Roll Rate: 120 dps* vs 100 dps *Vought data, speed 350 mph IAS
Seriously, your attempt to cherry pick the data and your "squeal like a pig" comment reveal the genuine nature of a troll.
-
Oh, Brooke, Brooke, Brooke....
You so did not mean to include that one, please say so...
- oldman
Heh! I knew I'd get some guff on that. ;) But I did like the book. Maybe it isn't perfect, and I read it eons ago when I was but a wet-behind-the-ears WWII enthusiast, so I don't remember many details from it. What in there do you dislike so much?
-
Heh! I knew I'd get some guff on that. ;) But I did like the book. Maybe it isn't perfect, and I read it eons ago when I was but a wet-behind-the-ears WWII enthusiast, so I don't remember many details from it. What in there do you dislike so much?
Oy. Where to begin? I suppose all the fantasy that Caidin presents as fact would be a good place to start. The Italian pilot in the captured P-38 being lured to his doom by the B-17 pilot taunting him about his girlfriend. The dead pilot making a perfect landing in North Africa. I've repressed others no doubt.
Or possibly his pathetic stretch to make the P-38's record in the 8th AF look good by eliminating losses from this and losses from that so that by the time he's done you wonder why we ever built anything besides the P-38.
Sorry for the hijack.
- oldman
-
Sorry for the hijack.
- oldman
No problem, JAW's been doing that with his inline engine lovefest for the last half a dozen pages, anyway.
-
Back to AH's best heavy fighter. The P38 can get the ords there and put them on target as good or better than any other planes but . . . it is like the cherry on top of a ice-cream sunday, you eat it first. I have experienced this often.
If a 51, a 47 and a P38 drops ords on a red's field 3/4's of the red guys will try to take the P38 out first. Sometimes all of them. In real life that may not have happened but in AH it is a fact of P38 life.
I wonder sometimes if some of the problem is the shinny metallic reflection that shows a P38L out like a lighted Christmas tree no matter which skin you use. Since some folks do not download skins, I think I will make a wish to change the default skin on the P38L. Maybe that would help.
-
If a 51, a 47 and a P38 drops ords on a red's field 3/4's of the red guys will try to take the P38 out first. Sometimes all of them. In real life that may not have happened but in AH it is a fact of P38 life.
Well, there's also the fact the P-38 actually stays around to fight, while the P-51 has already motored home screaming like a little girl the second a red con so much as looks his way. :D
-
Also that P-38's are universally hated due to the bish P-38 raids.
-
Oy. Where to begin? I suppose all the fantasy that Caidin presents as fact would be a good place to start. The Italian pilot in the captured P-38 being lured to his doom by the B-17 pilot taunting him about his girlfriend. The dead pilot making a perfect landing in North Africa. I've repressed others no doubt.
Or possibly his pathetic stretch to make the P-38's record in the 8th AF look good by eliminating losses from this and losses from that so that by the time he's done you wonder why we ever built anything besides the P-38.
Sorry for the hijack.
- oldman
It's a good discussion and not a hijack, I don't think, since we are talking about the P-38 in the role of best heavy fighter.
I remember the Italian pilot story. I don't remember any dead pilot making a perfect landing. I remember him describing an incident where a plane came apart over the field, and a body came down in a parachute. Is that the one you mean? Is there a reference somewhere that lists what Caiden got wrong and gives pointers to references that give the true info, or that gives just a list of what people consider to be wrong in the book?
-
If a 51, a 47 and a P38 drops ords on a red's field 3/4's of the red guys will try to take the P38 out first. Sometimes all of them. In real life that may not have happened but in AH it is a fact of P38 life.
Best way to deal with that is to come with a few P-38s so enemy attention is divided.
Alternatively, have a mosquito flying next to your P-38. On second thought it may not be a bright idea - a P-38 and a mossie together will attract every enemy fighter within 3 sectors. Then its a moot question who they attack first, but boy oh boy it is fun when they come to you instead of making you chase them.
-
Best way to deal with that is to come with a few P-38s so enemy attention is divided.
Alternatively, have a mosquito flying next to your P-38. On second thought it may not be a bright idea - a P-38 and a mossie together will attract every enemy fighter within 3 sectors. Then its a moot question who they attack first, but boy oh boy it is fun when they come to you instead of making you chase them.
A P-38, Mosquito and Me410 fly into a sector....
-
A P-38, Mosquito and Me410 fly into a sector....
And a P-47D11 kills them all...
-
And a P-47D11 kills them all...
:rofl
No. P-47D-11 is at a significant disadvantage against two of those.
-
:rofl
No. P-47D-11 is at a significant disadvantage against two of those.
Not when certain pilots are flying it
-
A P-38, Mosquito and Me410 fly into a sector....
The P-38 looks over at the Mosquito and says . . .
-
The P-38 looks over at the Mosquito and says . . .
why the long face :headscratch:?
-
I personally think that the fighter which can deliver a fair amount of ords and still be capable of winning a one on one fight with any fighter in the game should be the gauge which we use to arrive at the answer to the question, "The best air to ground attack fighter is_____________________"!
Earl, thanks for the topic. Over the years, I've spent much time in Doras, Ponies, and Jugs for porking. Fwiw, that's my favorite part of the game: taking out ord and barracks especially.
This month, I've begun flying F4U's, for one reason or another, I've neglected them.
Also, what trips my trigger in AH is a successful sortie: accomplishing my task and landing safely. I'm not a "fly until I die" sort of player.
I can't pick the "best" one from amongst the Dora, Pony, Jug, or Hog. They each shine in different ways.
What I will say is that I've dedicated the latter part of this month to the Hog because even with the best planning and timing, things go awry, and I find myself having to fight my way out of an enemy airfield or fight my way back home. The Hog gives me an edge when things get lower and slower.
As to the Jug, I love it. If left unmolested at an enemy field, the Jug's load-out accomplishes much.
As to the Pony, a good solid Jabo says I; and as we all know, with enough E one stands a good chance of making it home.
Lastly, the Dora holds a special place in my heart, for it was the plane I flew when I learned to dive-bomb accurately. Again, great speed to get home with unless a LA-7 is 3K behind and we're both on the deck. Love the Dora's canon as well. I don't use it much anymore because with 6 rockets, 8, or 10, I can destroy ack without having to stick my nose in it as with the Dora. Lastly about the Dora, great if you're with 3 to 5 guys all in Doras: porking done fast and easily.
Apologies that I will not pick "the best" jabo. When all of you have shot me down or will shoot me down in the future, likely you'll find me in a Jug, Pony, Hog, or the occasional Dora. All four are great aircraft.
Thanks again for the Topic.
<S>
-
Not when certain pilots are flying it
Equal pilots. You'd beat me no matter which you were flying and which I was flying.
-
why the long face :headscratch:?
The Mosquito looks back over at the P-38, and replies . . .
-
I found this collection of accounts from P-38 pilots. Interesting stuff.
http://www.ausairpower.net/P-38-Analysis.html#mozTocId128086
-
I found this collection of accounts from P-38 pilots. Interesting stuff.
http://www.ausairpower.net/P-38-Analysis.html#mozTocId128086
:airplane: Good info sir! I look forward to your replies on this forum as they are always interesting and informative. :salute
-
Talk about cherry picking data.... You used data for the Sea Fury F 10, 50 built.
How about the FB 11, the common service example, 615 built?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Fury/Sea_Fury_Hawker.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Fury/Sea_Fury_Hawker.pdf)
How about this data on the F4U-4?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-4-detail-specification.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-4-detail-specification.pdf)
How does this compare, F4U-4 vs Sea Fury FB 11?
S.L. Vmax: 377 vs 380
S.L. Climb: 4,360 fpm vs 4,320 fpm
Best Speed: 453 mph @ 26.2k vs 450 mph @ 20k
Roll Rate: 120 dps* vs 100 dps *Vought data, speed 350 mph IAS
Seriously, your attempt to cherry pick the data and your "squeal like a pig" comment reveal the genuine nature of a troll.
Seriously Ww, you need to actually read the post, before going off 1/2 cocked..
[As a 'troll' might well do..]
I wrote, "going by the figures in the posted links."
& I would place more store in the findings of the USN, than Vought..
The Fury still had good roll performance well above the Corsair's Vne..
& also as posted, & like the `51H, the liquid cooled Sabre-Fury had better performance than its much larger displacement radial brethren..
See here,
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946%20-%202181.html
That heavy fighter might make a cool addition to Aces High..
-
I found this collection of accounts from P-38 pilots. Interesting stuff.
http://www.ausairpower.net/P-38-Analysis.html#mozTocId128086
Thanks, yes interesting..
& usefully [ in amongst the hype] was the actual data about the P-38's Vne being as low as 420 mph IAS , <10kft..
So - the USAAF tester who reported that "airspeed limitations are low"
was being fairly mild, in fact, & no wonder 'risky dive bombing' was out..
-
Has anyone got a copy of the `44 USN 'fighter conference'?
Where they tested the USAAF birds against the Navy types?
From memory, there was a poll taken, with the pilots voting on attributes..
The `47 beat out the Navy R-2800 types for best hi-alt' performer,
& the `51 was best <25kft & O/A best..[P-38 didn't rate].
You should go back and read the report again. The two best fighters overall (in the opinion of the pilots) were the XF8F-1 and the F7F-1. Both blue and both powered by the R-2800. Indeed, a unmodified F8F-1 held the time to climb record from 1946 into the mid 1980s. From a standing start to 10,000 feet in 96 seconds. I've spoken to pilots who currently fly the F8F-2, F7F-3N and P-51D. All readily concede that either Grumman would easily abuse a Mustang. Both Grumman planes climb much, much faster. Both accelerate much, much faster. The Bearcat easily out-turns the Mustang (the Bearcat's turn radius is slightly greater than the FM-2). The F7F can stay with the P-51 through any maneuvers its pilot may attempt, and can break off combat at will by simply taking the fight vertical.
I've got more than 3,200 hours behind R-2800s and R-1820s.... How many do you have?
-
No problem, JAW's been doing that with his inline engine lovefest for the last half a dozen pages, anyway.
Ok, Sm, ah, sorry - Sax, [ I wouldn't want to imply any 'kinky lovefest' stuff]..
But remind the forum - if you will -just which type of mill [ liquid or air cooled]
has powered the Reno Gold Champ race winning heavy fighter in recent times..
-
You should go back and read the report again. The two best fighters overall (in the opinion of the pilots) were the XF8F-1 and the F7F-1. Both blue and both powered by the R-2800. Indeed, a unmodified F8F-1 held the time to climb record from 1946 into the mid 1980s. From a standing start to 10,000 feet in 96 seconds. I've spoken to pilots who currently fly the F8F-2, F7F-3N and P-51D. All readily concede that either Grumman would easily abuse a Mustang. Both Grumman planes climb much, much faster. Both accelerate much, much faster. The Bearcat easily out-turns the Mustang (the Bearcat's turn radius is slightly greater than the FM-2). The F7F can stay with the P-51 through any maneuvers its pilot may attempt, and can break off combat at will by simply taking the fight vertical.
I've got more than 3,200 hours behind R-2800s and R-1820s.... How many do you have?
What "record" would that be?
An airshow stunt in a hot-rodded Bearcat?
That aint a kosher record..
How many hours have you got behind a V-1650-9 @ 90in boost?
Or WFO behind a Napier Sabre?
How many of those F8F jockeys mentioned have `51H stick time?
I suggest you go back to the wwiiaircraftpeformance website & run the numbers of a mil-spec F8F vs `51H, it wont cut it against the equivalent
load out toting `51H..
& [from memory] didn't Corky Meyer [Grumman test pilot] concede that the XF8F needed a lot of work to solve directional stability issues, & would be unacceptable to the USN as a service fighter until they did?
I note that Grumman had finally got around to fitting a decent blown bubble canopy of the kind used in operational service by Hawker fighters for quite some time already..
-
JAW's posts are like Chick Tracts: Aircraft Edition.
-
Well, you sure picked the right BBs name because you do like to JAW but I noticed every once in a while you must like, sleep or something.
Anyway, this is tiresome... time for bed. :old:
-
JAW's posts are like Chick Tracts: Aircraft Edition.
"Chick tracts" , Sm?
Again with the "kinky lovefest" stuff? L.O.L...
& if you think original USAF documents are that, then you are ill-educated..
-
Well, you sure picked the right BBs name because you do like to JAW but I noticed every once in a while you must like, sleep or something.
Anyway, this is tiresome... time for bed. :old:
Real useful post there.. not..[ more like trolling really]..
& I'm not interested in your bed time habits either..
Are you the 'Orly' bird in T-A's earlier post, by the way?
-
Real useful post there.. not..[ more like trolling really]..
& I'm not interested in your bed time habits either..
Are you the 'Orly' bird in T-A's earlier post, by the way?
Nah, just thought I'd post something as worthless as you've been doing.
You are super-building your post count though. :aok
-
So what, at least they aren't pointless blather - like your last couple of posts..
-
So what, at least they aren't pointless blather - like your last couple of posts..
That's debatable.
-
You'd surely lose that 'debate' - old boy..
Given that you have posted no actual relevant data,
& have been checked, on the - 'tiresome' - blather issue..
Off to bed now, there's a good ol' birdy...
-
You'd surely lose that 'debate' - old boy..
Given that you have posted no actual relevant data,
& have been checked, on the - 'tiresome' - blather issue..
Off to bed now, there's a good ol' birdy...
Not really interested in debating it, not likely to post any relevent data and don't really care what you think of my posts.
BTW, just got my second wind.
-
2nd wind? ewwww.. So lucky we don't have a smellivision feature..
Just what ARE they feeding you raptor-types these days?.. L.O.L..
Why not bring some meat to the table, if you want to play..
-
Keep following me down the rabbit hole Alice.
-
Well, that a very kind offer, - thanks - Humpty-Dumpty,
but I'll have to give it a miss, & now for something completely different..
..to your weird blathering..
Here are some hog-whipping `51H climb performance graphs..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-booklet-pg15.jpg
-
Don't try to change the topic.
-
T-A, You do realize that the `38 was dumped from the 8th AF?
That does more than 'imply ineffectiveness in the primary role' - correct?
"While in the pilot's lounge at Santa Maria Air Base, California, I overheard three P-38 students scorning their airplane. They were saying the P-38 would not operate above 25,000 ft, or if it would, their instructor would not take them. I found out their Instructor's name and cleared a flight with the students. My briefing was short and to the point: "We're going to take this four-ship formation up and we will continue to climb until one of you say 'Uncle'." With that we took off, at 42,800 ft indicated on the altimeter, I heard a garbled "uncle" being transmitted by a throat mike. One hundred percent oxygen under pressure made it difficult to speak at high altitude. The formation was climbing at 500ft per minute when the flight was terminated. That flight convinced them that the P-38 was a high altitude aircraft." - Lt. Frank Shearin Jr, 343rd FG, Aleutians, 1943.
You're right, it was "ineffective". :rofl The P-38 was a very effective and versatile tool in the USAAF's toolbox and still maintained a proven track record. You seem to cherry pick data from topic to topic, all the while playing shell game. The Sea Fury F 10 drivel was about as exciting as watching a bag full of pitons tumble down the rock face. Almost every post of yours in thread is ad-hominem. Because you go from one gear to another, skipping any relevant data along the way.
BTW, you never answered Widewing's simple question that you blatantly ignored. Please answer this:
I've got more than 3,200 hours behind R-2800s and R-1820s.... How many do you have?
-
"While in the pilot's lounge at Santa Maria Air Base, California, I overheard three P-38 students scorning their airplane. They were saying the P-38 would not operate above 25,000 ft, or if it would, their instructor would not take them. I found out their Instructor's name and cleared a flight with the students. My briefing was short and to the point: "We're going to take this four-ship formation up and we will continue to climb until one of you say 'Uncle'." With that we took off, at 42,800 ft indicated on the altimeter, I heard a garbled "uncle" being transmitted by a throat mike. One hundred percent oxygen under pressure made it difficult to speak at high altitude. The formation was climbing at 500ft per minute when the flight was terminated. That flight convinced them that the P-38 was a high altitude aircraft." - Lt. Frank Shearin Jr, 343rd FG, Aleutians, 1943.
You're right, it was "ineffective". :rofl The P-38 was a very effective and versatile tool in the USAAF's toolbox and still maintained a proven track record. You seem to cherry pick data from topic to topic, all the while playing shell game. The Sea Fury F 10 drivel was about as exciting as watching a bag full of pitons tumble down the rock face. Almost every post of yours in thread is ad-hominem. Because you go from one gear to another, skipping any relevant data along the way.
BTW, you never answered Widewing's simple question that you blatantly ignored. Please answer this:
Doolittle didn't want `38s for the 8th AF - Period - Not even one FG..
But at least the 56th FG got to keep their `47s..
Did a `38 FG unit A2A high score in ETO or MTO?
No..
How did their actual claim/loss stats compare with `47s & `51s in Europe?
Not real good..
How many hours do you have up - on posting here?
I have been in the cockpit behind a couple of radial types,
Bristol Hercules & in a DC-3.. So what?
Relevance to the facts about the thread topic is...what?
& an apparently snide tag-line threat of banning?
Not real cool, man .. talk 'bout playing the man, not the ball...
[ad-hominem, indeed..]
-
Relevance to the facts about the thread topic is...what?
That Widewing has a TON of personal hands-on experience with these aircraft and engines, so he probably knows a thing or two about how they work and how they perform in relation to one another.
You just come across as a punk kid who picks out one or two things that you think proves your point, while throwing out everything else that proves you actually don't have a clue. ESPECIALLY when you decided to start throwing insults when it started to be clear the ground you're standing on started crumbling away.
-
& Sm..
Do you maybe have a clue?
'bout when Ww might ante-up with a reply on the `51H stick time question?
Unless, its that you - don't want pesky ol' facts clouding the issue - now, huh..
-
Not real cool, man .. talk 'bout playing the man, not the ball...
You've already reponded to the name Alice. Who's the man you refer to?
-
Wonderwall.. an Oasis of inanity in a sometimes cogent thread..
What is your ETOH blood level currently Eagledad?
Bit slurrry there perhaps..L.O.L..
To quote Hal 9000, further response to your posts in this time frame
"can serve no purpose"..
-
What "record" would that be?
An airshow stunt in a hot-rodded Bearcat?
That aint a kosher record..
How many hours have you got behind a V-1650-9 @ 90in boost?
Or WFO behind a Napier Sabre?
How many of those F8F jockeys mentioned have `51H stick time?
I suggest you go back to the wwiiaircraftpeformance website & run the numbers of a mil-spec F8F vs `51H, it wont cut it against the equivalent
load out toting `51H..
& [from memory] didn't Corky Meyer [Grumman test pilot] concede that the XF8F needed a lot of work to solve directional stability issues, & would be unacceptable to the USN as a service fighter until they did?
I note that Grumman had finally got around to fitting a decent blown bubble canopy of the kind used in operational service by Hawker fighters for quite some time already..
The F8F-1's climb record was recognized as a legitimate record by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. The aircraft was unmodified. The record was broken by modified F8F-2, Rare Bear, which currently holds the absolute speed record for piston engine aircraft.
You never answer a question, do you? What experience do you have with these engines? Ever fly any aircraft powered by anything beyond a rubber band?
Since you seem to be at odds with everyone, one should recognize that it's very unlikely that the problem resides with everyone.
The P-51H was a terrific performer in terms of speed. It was not nearly as agile as the F8F, and far less durable. Too late for WWII and considered too frail and unreliable to be employed as a fighter-bomber in Korea, it never flew a single combat sortie. All were relegated to ANG service rather quickly as they were obsolete as fighters by 1948. The lightweight structure of the H model made them less suitable for the air to ground mission than the stronger, but heavier P-51D.
-
Ah yes, 'answering questions' eh,
- here a few more for you Ww..
You get that `51H stuff from Wiki did you Ww?
Got a link to verify your 'FAI' ratified USN time-to-climb Bearcat record claim?
How is it that the F-51H operational service documents
[that I have provided a link to] - are under SAC auspices & dated 1949?
Do you actually read the posts/data links provided?
[- Since the real reasons as to why the `51H was not utilized in Korea have already been discussed - & do tell us about the F8F service in Korea too.. l.o.l..].
AFAIK, that USN stunt - 'record' - was not FAI recognised, & did not meet existing FAI rules or categories..
That airshow stunt Bearcat was indeed modified from mil-spec & took off into a very stiff headwind.. a cheater, in fact..
The USAF was very likely not interested in trying for climb records with its recips' - since that might well make its new turbo-jets look lame.. although the need for the long range abilities of the Mustang [ see P-82 'Betty Joe' record]
kept them in the service of the SAC..
But if you are serious in your assertion that an F8F could beat a 1950's era
USAF F-104 or RAF E.E. Lightning interceptor climb rate, let alone `70s F-15 ["time to climb until the 1980s"..] well, then your credibility is to put it mildly, ah, suspect..
& what about the `51H stick time question,- is Wiki really the best you can do?
L.O.L...
& as to being 'at odds with everyone' well, frankly if it comes down to
'everyone' vs the original data sets - as documented in official service acceptance test programs - then I'll definitely give the weight of validity to the established facts - over your unsubstantiated 'opinion'...
-
Doolittle didn't want `38s for the 8th AF - Period - Not even one FG..
But at least the 56th FG got to keep their `47s..
Did a `38 FG unit A2A high score in ETO or MTO?
No..
How did their actual claim/loss stats compare with `47s & `51s in Europe?
Not real good..
How many hours do you have up - on posting here?
I have been in the cockpit behind a couple of radial types,
Bristol Hercules & in a DC-3.. So what?
Relevance to the facts about the thread topic is...what?
& an apparently snide tag-line threat of banning?
Not real cool, man .. talk 'bout playing the man, not the ball...
[ad-hominem, indeed..]
Absolutely ad-hominem. Doolittle flew the 38 while in the ETO and said that it was "the sweetest-flying plane in the sky". Mark Hubbard was one of the biggest critics of the Craft, not Doolittle. So enough with the Doolittle criticisms.
In the ETO, P-38s had around 130,000 sorties with a loss of 1.3% overall. ETO P-51s which posted a 1.1% loss, considering that the P-38s were vastly outnumbered and suffered from poorly thought-out tactics.
100+ Aces were made in the PTO.
But again, how many hours do you have flying R-2800 engine aircraft? Sitting in a cockpit doesn't count.
-
Indeed, a unmodified F8F-1 held the time to climb record from 1946 into the mid 1980s. From a standing start to 10,000 feet in 96 seconds.
If I remember right it was the Army's giant, lifting helicopter that beat that record.
-
Ah yes, 'answering questions' eh,
- here a few more for you Ww..
You get that `51H stuff from Wiki did you Ww?
Blah, blah, blah...
I have more primary source documents in my collection than you can possibly imagine. Almost all have been digitized, filling two 1 terabyte drives. I also have a vast collection on books and manuals.
The F8F's time to climb record was for Piston Engine aircraft. Be that as it may, A jet didn't beat it for about 8 years. Oh, and that "stiff headwind" is hysterical.
How about a recent comparison? At the 2011 Jacqueline Cochran Air Show, an F8F-2 and P-51D took off side by side. Okay, not really. The F8F was passing 2,000 feet before the Mustang had the gear coming up.
Watch the first 30 seconds...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5HfqMtksBI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5HfqMtksBI)
I also like this brief video... The F8F pilot makes a couple of high speed passes at MIL power, which you will never see at an airshow....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw6UWPaTUt0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw6UWPaTUt0)
My friend Chris Fahey is a pilot for the Planes of Fame Museum. Chris was a career F-16 pilot and currently flies for Delta. Chris has many hours in the F8F-2, P-51D, P-38J, F6F-5, F-86 and MiG-15 to name just a few. I asked him, what in his experienced opinion was the best air to air prop fighter ever made. Without hesitation, Chris stated, "the F8F Bearcat". He called it the closest thing with a propeller to an F-16.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/465066_818325417274_672004471_o.jpg)
Left to right... Steve Hinton, John Hinton, Chris Fahey, Stewart Dawson, Kevin Eldridge and the mighty F7F-3N Tigercat.
-
Here's an interesting link to air to air kill totals for US fighters, fighter bombers and light bombers.
http://www.warbirdsandairshows.com/aircraftvictorieswwii.htm (http://www.warbirdsandairshows.com/aircraftvictorieswwii.htm)
-
Wonderwall.. an Oasis of inanity in a sometimes cogent thread..
What is your ETOH blood level currently Eagledad?
Bit slurrry there perhaps..L.O.L..
To quote Hal 9000, further response to your posts in this time frame
"can serve no purpose"..
:airplane: Ok, didn't mean to start a argument, so let me put the 8th Air Force records into the discussion, during WW2. First, here is the official Aces records in the ETO:
Francis "Gabby" Gabreski 28.0 DSC 56FG P-47
Robert S. Johnson 27.0 DSC 56FG P-47
George Preddy 26.8 DSC 352FG P-51
John C. Meyer 24.0 DSC 352FG P-51
Ray Wetmore 22.6 DSC 359FG P-51
David C. Schilling 22.5 DSC 56FG P-47
Dominic Gentile 21.8 DSC 4FG P-47
Fred J. Christensen 21.5 SS 56FG P-47
Walker M. 'Bud' Mahurin 20.8 DSC 56FG P-47
Glenn E. Duncan 19.5 DSC 353FG P-47
As you can see, these are the top ten aces, but what I was asking about was the "best" fighter-bomber of WW2. There are serveral factors which should be considered, Range: P-47D, 800 miles, P-38, 1300 miles, the P-51D's, 1650 miles. Now this is with a normal combat load for that aircraft. I am sure that the ranges of all three could be extended by adjusting ord loadout, but for the purposes of this discussion, we will use load out range.
Next, service ceiling: P-51D, 41,900 feet, P-47D, 43,000 feet, the P-38, 44,000 feet. Service ceiling is defined as when the aircraft will no longer sustain a 100 foot per min climb, and with out ords and probalay just enough fuel to get them to their respective service ceiling and back to base.
Next, ord load outs: P-51D,2,000 lbs of bombers and or 10, 5" unguided rockets, the P-47, 2,500 lbs AND 10, 5" unguided rockets, the P-38, 4,000 lbs of bombs and or 10, 5" unguided rockets, and with 2500 lbs of bombs, could also carry a M10, 4.5" rocket rack.
One of the things which we should consider is this: The P-47's were first in air to air combat of the three in the ETO and were fighting against the "elit" of the German fighter pilots. The P-51D's were not introduced to the ETO until early 44, and by then, a lot of the first class German pilots were taking the big "dirt" nap. The P-38 was never really used as a straight intereceptor except under extreme conditions. But what we are talking about is one which can act as a fighter-bomber, yet still be able to defend itself if need be. All three of these aircraft meants that quailification, so back we go to the Main question".
I vote for the P-38J for one reason, it had 20MM cannon to help defend itself as well as ground attack activities.
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/P38-joltin_zpsd8df5749.jpg) A restored and privately owned P-38, in "D" day colors!
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/p47-4490368-mainP-47M_zps04c0245c.jpg) A great pic of the "Jug"
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/P-51sinformation9-25-2010_zps46ca6621.jpg) A beautiful sight!
We all have our "favorite" ride, so I guess that it is a subjective matter as to which is the best over all!
-
Here's an interesting link to air to air kill totals for US fighters, fighter bombers and light bombers.
http://www.warbirdsandairshows.com/aircraftvictorieswwii.htm (http://www.warbirdsandairshows.com/aircraftvictorieswwii.htm)
Always wondered how many victories the Corsair would have ended with had it been declared fit for carrier service from the start, and Vought been able to keep up with the manufacturing demands.
-
Absolutely ad-hominem. Doolittle flew the 38 while in the ETO and said that it was "the sweetest-flying plane in the sky". Mark Hubbard was one of the biggest critics of the Craft, not Doolittle. So enough with the Doolittle criticisms.
In the ETO, P-38s had around 130,000 sorties with a loss of 1.3% overall. ETO P-51s which posted a 1.1% loss, considering that the P-38s were vastly outnumbered and suffered from poorly thought-out tactics.
100+ Aces were made in the PTO.
But again, how many hours do you have flying R-2800 engine aircraft? Sitting in a cockpit doesn't count.
R-2800s make perfectly adequate bomb truck, or transport mills - sure,
where a dedicated flight engineer can fart about fettling throttle/boost/mixture/cooling gills & etc..
All stuff a fighter jock don't need with a Messerschmitt up his arse..
& stuff a `51 pilot [& even a radial powered 190 jockey] didn't have to do..
You are the one being 'absolutely ad-hominem'..
- how much `51H stick time do you have? L.O.L...
-
R-2800s make perfectly adequate bomb truck, or transport mills - sure,
where a dedicated flight engineer can fart about fettling throttle/boost/mixture/cooling gills & etc..
All stuff a fighter jock don't need with a Messerschmitt up his arse..
& stuff a `51 pilot [& even a radial powered 190 jockey] didn't have to do..
You are the one being 'absolutely ad-hominem'..
- how much `51H stick time do you have? L.O.L...
So you have 0. Pretty much sums up your posts in this thread.
-
Blah, blah, blah...
I have more primary source documents in my collection than you can possibly imagine. Almost all have been digitized, filling two 1 terabyte drives. I also have a vast collection on books and manuals.
The F8F's time to climb record was for Piston Engine aircraft. Be that as it may, A jet didn't beat it for about 8 years. Oh, and that "stiff headwind" is hysterical.
How about a recent comparison? At the 2011 Jacqueline Cochran Air Show, an F8F-2 and P-51D took off side by side. Okay, not really. The F8F was passing 2,000 feet before the Mustang had the gear coming up.
Watch the first 30 seconds...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5HfqMtksBI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5HfqMtksBI)
I also like this brief video... The F8F pilot makes a couple of high speed passes at MIL power, which you will never see at an airshow....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw6UWPaTUt0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw6UWPaTUt0)
My friend Chris Fahey is a pilot for the Planes of Fame Museum. Chris was a career F-16 pilot and currently flies for Delta. Chris has many hours in the F8F-2, P-51D, P-38J, F6F-5, F-86 and MiG-15 to name just a few. I asked him, what in his experienced opinion was the best air to air prop fighter ever made. Without hesitation, Chris stated, "the F8F Bearcat". He called it the closest thing with a propeller to an F-16.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/465066_818325417274_672004471_o.jpg)
Left to right... Steve Hinton, John Hinton, Chris Fahey, Stewart Dawson, Kevin Eldridge and the mighty F7F-3N Tigercat.
"Blah, blah, blah" indeed - the `51D Grumman contemporary is the F6F..
How would that match-up go.. L.O.L.
As the service test programs verified & published performance data sets show,
[& which you studiously ignore Ww..]
the `51H would cream that tubby F8F - if both were in true mil-spec..
Yes Ww, that F8F airshow stunt stiff headwind was hysterical, equivalent to a CV
steaming on flying ops.. [& don't mention that the fix was in on the ADI boost control, too]..
Say, just how much stick time does C. Fahey have in a '51H on 90in boost?
As much as you? L.O.L...
& you finally post a link with some worthwhile info, which confirms the 3rd rank USAAF status of the P-38 in the ETO..
Good effort Ww.. Keep it up..
-
So you have 0. Pretty much sums up your posts in this thread.
You do know what ad-hominem means don't you?
If I happened to be an ex-B.A. Concorde Captain with more Mach 2 hours than you have [zero is it?] - would that mean your ability to discuss the facts about supersonic flight is zero?
-
damn, that F8F takeoff is impressive. Never seen a prop plane take that kind of angle in an air show...this is jet territory
-
I like pie. :D
-
I like pie. :D
Me too, with a light firm golden pastry holding big chunky pieces of juicy beef steak in a rich tasty gravy..
...mmm..savoury..aarrrgghh.. as Homer J. would say..
-
Ok, here are the USN/USAF Service documents showing performance characteristics of standard F8F & 51H aircraft..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/F8F/F8F-2_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/F-51H_Mustang_SAC_-_22_March_1949.pdf
Note: neither of these US hot-ship recip's could match the
419 mph S.L. speed of the mil-spec Sabre powered Hawker Fury..
..Although to be fair, it did have 3,000+hp to spend doing it..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Fury/Sea_Fury_Flight.pdf
-
The P-51H seems like a performance monster on WEP (climb rate of 5500 fpm), but more like a typical Mustang without WEP:
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-altperf-91444.jpg)
You can find Bearcat performance without WEP here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/F8F/F8F-2_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/F8F/F8F-2_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf)
The Bearcat without WEP is much a better climber than the P-51H without WEP, but what are they both with WEP?
For Bearcat climb rate with WEP, my best reference is this one (written by the test pilot's son, who has access to his dad's log book):
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/goodyear-f2g-vs-grumman-f8f-bearcat-33022-5.html#post911193
This gives the Bearcat's WEP climb rate as about 5900 fpm and explains how the F8F might have had time to climb record yet still not be in FAI records (as FAI wasn't keeping such records until 1951).
-
Note: neither of these US hot-ship recip's could match the
419 mph S.L. speed of the mil-spec Sabre powered Hawker Fury..
The chart shows sea-level speed of the Centaurus-powered Sea Fury to be 402 mph. Where are you getting the 419 mph number for a Sabre-powered version from?
This reference (Sea Fury FB Mk II) gives 380 mph as top sea-level speed (probably not WEP, I'm guessing):
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Fury/Sea_Fury_Hawker.pdf
Top sea-level speed of the P-51H on WEP was 424 mph. For the Bearcat without WEP, it was 386 mph.
-
Yes thanks for that link Brooke, since it confirms that the USN stunt F8F was
not true mil-spec & the conditions [ very stiff headwind] didn't meet FAI record requirements..
& of course the little V-1650-9 had to be wound up hard & be lightly loaded to beat those big R-2800 powered F8F figures..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-booklet-pg15.jpg
-
The chart shows sea-level speed of the Centaurus-powered Sea Fury to be 402 mph. Where are you getting the 419 mph number for a Sabre-powered version from?
This reference (Sea Fury FB Mk II) gives 380 mph as top sea-level speed (probably not WEP, I'm guessing):
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Fury/Sea_Fury_Hawker.pdf
Top sea-level speed of the P-51H on WEP was 424 mph. For the Bearcat without WEP, it was 386 mph.
Brooke, for Sabre-Fury specs see the link in post #282, this thread.
& the USAF figures give 358 knots/406 mph for max boost `51H S.L. speed..
-
This article has a graph - line marked 'Standard Tempest 6'
- which shows that the post-war Sabre-Tempest running 17.25lb boost
could do 'bout 418mph at S.L. too..
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1948/1948%20-%201660
-
"Blah, blah, blah" indeed - the `51D Grumman contemporary is the F6F..
How would that match-up go.. L.O.L.
As the service test programs verified & published performance data sets show,
[& which you studiously ignore Ww..]
the `51H would cream that tubby F8F - if both were in true mil-spec..
Yes Ww, that F8F airshow stunt stiff headwind was hysterical, equivalent to a CV
steaming on flying ops.. [& don't mention that the fix was in on the ADI boost control, too]..
Say, just how much stick time does C. Fahey have in a '51H on 90in boost?
As much as you? L.O.L...
& you finally post a link with some worthwhile info, which confirms the 3rd rank USAAF status of the P-38 in the ETO..
Good effort Ww.. Keep it up..
Aside from being remarkably ignorant on the topics (which you change every time your argument gets squashed), you don't understand the various circumstances that determine the outcome of air combat. Want to see how the P-51D stacks up against the F6F-5? Join Aces High and I'll show you. You won't like the result.
By the way, the climb rate shown in that public relations document you referenced for the F8F-2 is for MIL power, not combat power with water injection. See below for performance for both F8F types using combat power.
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/8917/tz0u1uchww5udq8fg.jpg)
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/1d9b/stm1vdsvfh9ri1lfg.jpg)
-
Yes thanks for that link Brooke, since it confirms that the USN stunt F8F was
not true mil-spec & the conditions [ very stiff headwind] didn't meet FAI record requirements..
The relevant reference (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/goodyear-f2g-vs-grumman-f8f-bearcat-33022-5.html#post911193 (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/goodyear-f2g-vs-grumman-f8f-bearcat-33022-5.html#post911193)) confirms the opposite of that. It explains that it wasn't a stunt (but part of testing that they did with lots of other aircraft as well), doesn't say that there was any headwind, gives time to climb for four different tests on four different days in three different aircraft, verifies that the planes were normal Bearcats loaded with ammo, armor, and 50% fuel, and says that the FAI wasn't officiating any time-to-climb records at that time (let alone having any associated record requirements).
-
You are too funny Ww, & who changed the topic from `51H vs F4U-4 to F8F?
-
Brooke, for Sabre-Fury specs see the link in post #282, this thread.
There was only LA610 and it was a company hack testing various things.
-
The relevant reference (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/goodyear-f2g-vs-grumman-f8f-bearcat-33022-5.html#post911193 (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/goodyear-f2g-vs-grumman-f8f-bearcat-33022-5.html#post911193)) confirms the opposite of that. It explains that it wasn't a stunt (but part of testing that they did with lots of other aircraft as well), doesn't say that there was any headwind, gives time to climb for four different tests on four different days in three different aircraft, verifies that the planes were normal Bearcats loaded with ammo, armor, and 50% fuel, and says that the FAI wasn't officiating any time-to-climb records at that time (let alone having any associated record requirements).
Do take the time to read the whole thread Brooke, the 'record' time was done into a headwind, & no, as I wrote , it didn't make any FAI record book, & the ADI control was not mil-spec standard..
Ww, if you think official USN documentation containing technical specs are just publicity material, why not discuss that with some authors of USN history & see what response you get..
-
There was only LA610 and it was a company hack testing various things.
Wrong again M.M., just read the article, the RAF didn't order any more recip's
from Hawker, & VP 207 was the 2nd Sabre Fury, which test pilot & world speed record holder Neville Duke said was the best performing recip' he'd flown..
LA 610 was in fact a Fury prototype - which flew with all three 2,000+hp Brit recip' mills, - but was fastest when Sabre powered..
-
Brooke, for Sabre-Fury specs see the link in post #282, this thread.
Roger that -- I see it. 419 mph it is. Very snappy! I don't dispute that it was a great plane or that any of the latest-war or just-after-war prop fighters were great (P-51H, F8F, F7F, Do. 335, Fury, F2G, Spitfires/Spitefuls, etc.).
& the USAF figures give 358 knots/406 mph for max boost `51H S.L. speed..
The actual flight-test data I posted above gives 424 mph at sea level at 90" Hg and 3000 RPM for the P-51H. What's the link to your figures of 406 mph, and what was the manifold pressure and RPM used?
-
The relevant reference (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/goodyear-f2g-vs-grumman-f8f-bearcat-33022-5.html#post911193 (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/goodyear-f2g-vs-grumman-f8f-bearcat-33022-5.html#post911193)) confirms the opposite of that. It explains that it wasn't a stunt (but part of testing that they did with lots of other aircraft as well), doesn't say that there was any headwind, gives time to climb for four different tests on four different days in three different aircraft, verifies that the planes were normal Bearcats loaded with ammo, armor, and 50% fuel, and says that the FAI wasn't officiating any time-to-climb records at that time (let alone having any associated record requirements).
Indeed... Not a stunt.
Posted by R. Leonard:
"I am often amazed at the contortions exercised by those, who were probably, at best, babes in arms at the time of events past, or, more likely, not even a gleam in someone’s eye, to denigrate or cast aspersions, in of course their apparent expert opinion, when the events in question do not meet their preconceived notions. It is certainly gratifying to see so many skilled F8F drivers and experienced military/naval test pilots wade in with their insights. And that is about as polite as I can put it.
Let see . . . entries from Leonard pilot’s log book for November 1946 . . .
5 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 90438 - - pilot remarks: “test climb to 10000. 2:15 to get up 1:55 to get down (wheels touching)”
8 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94803 - - pilot remarks: “test climb 2 mins 15 secs to 10000 from standing start - military power”
8 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 90438 - - pilot remarks: “test for combat power. Torquemeter reading 113 and 108”
15 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94880 - - pilot remarks: “test combat power and general handling for climb test. 1 climb 10000 ft - 2 min”
20 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94880 - - pilot remarks: “Patux to Cleveland on Air Show Duty. Operation Pogo Stick”
22 Nov - - F8F-1 b/n 94880 - - pilot remarks: “climb standing start to 10000 feet 1 min 40 seconds record take off 150 feet”
As an aside, at the completion of this particular flight, Leonard had totaled 1681.6 hours. 635.3 of those were recorded in a log book lost aboard USS Yorktown in June 1942. Of the 1046.3 Midway-forward hours, all but 92.3 were in fighter types. His first flight in an F8F was on 22 Dec 1945 at NAS Patuxent, oddly enough, in b/n 90438 mentioned above.
And no, contrary to one apparent expert opinion, this was not a hold a stop watch in the other hand as the plane passes through 10000 feet.
Behind the pilot was installed a piece of equipment called a “theater”. This was a small instrument board, about one foot square, that had as it’s most important feature a movie camera that recorded time, altitude, and various goings on in the cockpit. This camera was calibrated by NAA personnel for the attempts at the Cleveland Air Show. By reviewing the film it was relatively academic to determine the time take to reach 10000 feet or 3000 meters, which ever you wanted to look at. The camera was actuated thusly: The pilot taxied the airplane to his starting point and flipped a switch to activate the camera. At that point, when the pilot releases his brakes, another switch is automatically thrown and the camera starts recording events. Simple, eh? These pilots and airplanes were from TacTest where testing airplane performance was what they did. The list of airplanes they were operating in the 1945-1950 period is lengthy and included German, Japanese, British as well as American. It was not unusual to have this “theater” equipment installed as a matter of course and it was their job to push their mounts to the limit.
Years ago, having tired of dealing with experts, an inquiry made to the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale produced the following from Thierry Montigneaux, Assistant Secretary General of the at FAI:
“The 'time to climb' record category was proposed to FAI by the National Aeronautic Association of the USA at the June 1950 FAI General Conference. It was then added to the Sporting Code.
“The first mention of a 'time to climb' world record in our books was for a flight made by a British pilot onboard a Gloster Meteor on 31th August 1951.
“No performance set in 1946 could therefore have qualified as an official ‘world’ record, as this category of record did not exist then. However, it may well be that the NAA had accepted a category of ‘national records’ for time-to-climb prior to their June 1950 proposal to FAI.”
So, in 1946 there was no “World Record” class for climb to time. No wonder no one can find one.
An inquiry to the National Aeronautic Association produced this response from Art Greenfield, Director, Contest and Records:
“It's difficult to determine from the file, but the U.S. national record in 1946 was either ‘Fastest Climb to 10,000 Feet,’ or ‘Time to Climb 3,000 Meters.’ The switch from feet to meters occurred around that time, presumably to gain acceptance from the international community at FAI.
“In any event, both performances were calculated and the time to 10,000 feet was 97.8 seconds; the time to 3,000 meters (9,843 feet) was 96.1 seconds.
“The record I quoted was set by LCDR M.W. Davenport in a Bearcat on November 22, 1946, in Cleveland."
And lastly, one evening before his passing, whilst pondering the remains of dinner, I took the opportunity to raise this subject of this long ago event with Bill Leonard, the same Cdr. Leonard who made the attempt prior to Davenport’s record. He confirmed that the only performance modification to the F8F’s was to bypass the safety lock on the emergency war power setting to allow water injection with the landing gear in the down position. These were standard F8F’s. His plane was armed, with ammo, armor in place, and loaded with 50% fuel. Butch Davenport’s F8F was configured the same only without the ammunition.
Last, obviously, I have the log book where Leonard’s flight is recorded.
Good enough? Sorry if that doesn’t match an expert analysis of internet posted performance statistics, I can't help that. Guess short of being there (and I wasn't even a gleam at the time), an official record as recorded in a pilots log and a statement from the NAA records guy will just have to do."
-
Do take the time to read the whole thread Brooke, the 'record' time was done into a headwind, & no, as I wrote , it didn't make any FAI record book, & the ADI control was not mil-spec standard..
You don't need to read the whole thread. This link points right to the relevant post, so you need do nothing other than click on it and read, no searching needed. The post is only about half a typewritten page in length. It shows exactly what I posted above: no mention of headwinds, was no FAI record book:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/goodyear-f2g-vs-grumman-f8f-bearcat-33022-5.html#post911193 (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/goodyear-f2g-vs-grumman-f8f-bearcat-33022-5.html#post911193)
What do you mean by "ADI control"?
-
ADI [anti-detonant-injection/MW-50]= 'wet' for max boost WEP, & the stunt F8F had its control re-rigged from mil-spec to allow max power from 1st throttle opening, not post wheels up..
That ww2aircraft post links to further discussion which does disclose the stunt nature of the time-to-climb 'record'..
& Ww, does that last post of yours mean you are going to admit you were wrong about your 'FIA record' claim?..
Brooke that SAC [see post # 321, this thread] document has the actual `51H service performance figures, is the graph you posted N.A.A. manufacturers data, not perhaps quite as reliable?..
-
who changed the topic from `51H vs F4U-4 to F8F?
All of that is off topic, as it's a topic about "best heavy fighter", which probably precludes P-51H.
Still, interesting discussion, though, so I'm glad things strayed off topic.
We can always bring it back on topic and discuss the other stuff, too.
-
F8F was a very impressive machine...
...but not a heavy fighter.
:P
-
Yes, the `51H & F8F were both regarded as too lightweight to hack mud-moving duty in Korea.. Sea Fury did it though..
-
Can anyone find/post a documented faster S.L. speed for a heavy fighter than that Tempest 6 doing 418 mph?
-
ADI = 'wet' for max boost WEP, & the stunt F8F had its control re-rigged from mil-spec to allow max power from 1st throttle opening, not post wheels up..
Give me the aircraft schematic and 10 minutes and I could bypass the "weight on gear" switch to allow voltage to the ADI solenoid with the gear down. Any Plane Captain (ground crew chief) could do that too. Understand even without bypassing the "weight on gear" switch, ADI is available as soon as the main struts extend enough allow the gear microswitch to close. Thus, normally you can have ADI with the gear down, but not bearing the weight of the aircraft.
-
ADI = 'wet' for max boost WEP, & the stunt F8F had its control re-rigged from mil-spec to allow max power from 1st throttle opening, not post wheels up..
Ah, cc.
Well, that is easy to recalculate if you don't like it. You will find it doesn't matter much. The difference between that plane (using WEP from standstill) and one using WEP only upon gear up is mainly the difference between time to gear up using WEP and time to gear up not using WEP. You can come up with a conservative estimate of that. Take the time for a Bearcat to go from stopped to gear up -- that's 14 seconds in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5HfqMtksBI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5HfqMtksBI)). Let's assume a Bearcat with WEP can go from stopped to gear up in half that time (probably I'm giving the WEP way more credit than due by this estimate). That's 7 seconds. Thus, add 7 second to the time to climb, and you have a conservative estimate of what it would be for a standard Bearcat using WEP only on gear up.
-
Yes, & who signs off on the S.O.P. violation & faces court-martial proceedings if there is a take-off crash?
& Ww, maybe you'd like to go on about 'flimsy' F8F wing tips breaking off & killing pilots..
What calc's do you have for difference in available thrust at [wet] WEP for take off vs mil-spec WEP [dry, no ADI]?
What is the thrust/acceleration time/speed/distance equation?
-
Also, although the main reference on the time-to-climb tests does not say there was a headwind, like with WEP on roll vs. WEP on gear up, it doesn't matter much.
The time difference between a plane taking off with the headwind and one without is no more than the time for a plane in no wind to accelerate to the speed of the headwind. If the headwind is, say, 30 mph, a Bearcat accelerates to 30 mph in, what, 2-3 seconds? If you want to account for a nonstated 30 mph headwind, add 3 seconds to the times to climb.
-
What calc's do you have for difference in available thrust at [wet] WEP for take off vs mil-spec WEP [dry, no ADI]?
What is the thrust/acceleration time/speed/distance equation?
You don't need that. See above for a way to calculate the difference.
-
Check those USN F8F operating spec' charts again Brooke, Navy pilots knew full well the advantage in IAS provided by their CV steaming into the wind @ 30+ knots & similarly what a stiff headwind on a ground strip - will likewise offer..
-
Check those USN F8F operating spec' charts again Brooke, Navy pilots knew full well the advantage in IAS provided by their CV steaming into the wind @ 30+ knots & similarly what a stiff headwind on a ground strip - will likewise offer..
Yes, 3 seconds difference in takeoff time is very important when X seconds means that you are in the air and X+3 means that you are in the water. Here are a couple carrier takeoffs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dySbhK1vNk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZNbbsvpTRY
If you take a look, and when the plane lifts off, count "one Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Mississippi", you will see that the plane is generally past the end of the deck by then. In these cases, 3 extra seconds added to roll would put them in the drink and is why the CV is putting 30 mph wind over the deck.
3 extra seconds added to a time to climb of about 120 seconds isn't significant, however.
-
& add also the extra 10% in take-off power by using the 'wet' cheat..
No wonder they got better figures than the USN 'Standard Characteristics'..
I doubt if that airshow F8F in the video shown climbing out had armour/self-sealing tanks & etc fitted, that mil-spec machines were loaded with - either.
-
& add also the extra 10% in take-off power by using the 'wet' cheat..
No, the way to account for it is as I posted above. Difference is time for takeoff roll between WEP and no WEP, which is insignificant.
I doubt if that airshow F8F in the video shown climbing out had armour/self-sealing tanks & etc fitted, that mil-spec machines were loaded with - either.
Doesn't matter. Even the P-51 has gear up at 24 seconds. If you want, assume a standard Bearcat not using WEP will take as long to gear up as the P-51 (likely a huge overestimate) and that a WEP-on standard Bearcat (with armor, ammo, 50% fuel) is like the airshow Bearcat at 14 seconds. The difference is 10 seconds. Add 10 seconds to the time to climb to get your estimate of what would happen if the Bearcat didn't use WEP on takeoff roll. It still is not significant.
-
Yes, & who signs off on the S.O.P. violation & faces court-martial proceedings if there is a take-off crash?
& Ww, maybe you'd like to go on about 'flimsy' F8F wing tips breaking off & killing pilots..
What calc's do you have for difference in available thrust at [wet] WEP for take off vs mil-spec WEP [dry, no ADI]?
What is the thrust/acceleration time/speed/distance equation?
You've not served in the military, I take it.....
-
& add also the extra 10% in take-off power by using the 'wet' cheat..
Well, actually, if you want me to do it that way (which is more work and not as conservative as I've already done):
Thrust is approximately proportional to power, and F = m * a, so 10% more thrust is 10% more acceleration (i.e., a_wep = 1.1 * a_nowep). (F = m* a is a rough approximation not including drag, but including drag won't matter since the time difference below is already so low as to not matter.)
dv/dt = a, so v = a * t, and t = v / a. Takeoff and wheels up is determined by when you hit takeoff speed (with distance and time depending on when you reach the appropriate speed). In other words, t_wheelsup = v_wheelsup / a.
Without wep, t_wheelsupnowep = v_wheelsup / a_nowep.
With wep, t_wheelsupwep = v_wheelsup / a_wep.
Thus, t_wheelsupnowep / t_wheelsupwep = a_wep / a_nowep = 1.1
We have an airshow Bearcat with t_wheelsup = 14 seconds. Let's look at both ends of a way to estimate our standard Bearcat. If the airshow Bearcat is like a standard Bearcat (with armor, ammo, 50% fuel) and no WEP, then t_wheelsupnowep = 14 seconds, and t_wheelsupwep = 14 / 1.1 = 13 seconds. If the airshow Bearcat is like a standard Bearcat and full WEP, then t_wheelsupwep = 14, and t_wheelsupnowep = 14 * 1.1 = 15 seconds.
So, what is the difference in time between using WEP until wheels up and not using WEP until wheels up? In one case it is 14 - 13 (1 second), and in the other case it is 15 - 14 (1 second). In either case, the difference is 1 second.
That is even far less than my huge overestimate of 7 seconds.
-
B, add 10% power [+250hp in the F8F - from ADI use] to any vehicle,
& you will increase acceleration potential.. & if it was only one lousy second,
why would they have bothered with that cheat..
Ww, if you seriously mess with - or crash - most any Gov't vehicle, there is quite likely to be some form of inquiry, with an adverse findings out-come
- that if proven to be a case of improper operation contrary to regulations - may well result in serious sanctions.. - & like you didn't know that..
-
B, add 10% power [+250hp in the F8F - from ADI use] to any vehicle,
& you will increase acceleration potential.
See above.
Let me reiterate to be clear. Neither wind nor WEP during takeoff roll matters significantly in the time to climb.
-
Take off power/weight ratio & effective AS/lift ratios - are in fact critical - to climb performance, Brooke.
If you start the clock from wheel roll, maybe some measure it from lift off?..
For a recip' heavy fighter that Tempest 6 S.L. Vmax/Vne of 418/540mph is pretty impressive..
-
Take off power/weight ratio & effective AS/lift ratios - are in fact critical - to climb performance, Brooke.
If you start the clock from wheel roll, maybe some may measure it from lift off..
You are confused about what we are talking about.
No one is arguing about WEP causing faster climb.
What we are arguing about is:
Case 1: A standard Bearcat uses WEP from start to wheels up, then uses WEP from wheels up throughout climb.
Case 2: A standard Bearcat does not use WEP from start to wheels up, then uses WEP from wheels up throughout climb.
Time to climb we are discussing is given as time from standing stop to 10,000 ft. (i.e., it includes the time from start to wheels up).
You say that Case 1 and Case 2 will result in significantly different times to climb. I proved that they do not.
-
Thanks for making the effort of going through the maths, B.
But what did the empirical USN results show?
Which system ['wet' or dry - WEP roll out] did they use to claim their 'record'?
& if their ADI cheat didn't help, why would they have risked it?
-
Thanks for making the effort of going through the maths, B.
Most welcome! <S>
But what did the empirical USN results show?
What we already talked about:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,356037.msg4722462.html#msg4722462
Which system ['wet' or dry - WEP roll out] did they use to claim their 'record'?
Seemingly WEP from start.
& if their ADI cheat didn't help, why would they have risked it?
I doubt they saw it as a risk or a cheat, and when you are going for records you use everything that you think is acceptable. Maybe there were other aircraft that they were comparing to that enabled WEP right from the standstill, and they wanted an even comparison. Maybe they thought that Bearcats would always have that disabled in the field in normal use. Who knows?
The point is that, if you feel that it is inappropriate, you can figure out what the number would be if they hadn't used it and then have that number as your preferred one instead.
-
No, I think we've just about got it covered there, thanks again, B.
But - given the modifications from mil-spec for airshow purposes..
Would anyone be interested in running a new thread comparing mil-spec
[recip'] aircraft Vmax performance at the Reno race height of ~8kft?
-
Did anyone else notice in reply #321 by J.A.W. in the link for the F-51H (PDF page 3) that structural strength was increased 10% over its immediate predecessor? I've read where the landing gear wasn't as strong as the P-51D which would have been a problem in Korea, but to call the P-51H frail and less durable than a P-51D is a little over the top and probably not a reason it wasn't used in Korea at least according to the link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/F-51H_Mustang_SAC_-_22_March_1949.pdf
-
Some references talk about the P-51H having a lower g limit than the P-51D, which would imply less structural strength. I don't know if the F-51H increased structure strength mentioned in the document means that it was then up to strength of the P-51D or more. Being able to take 2000 lbs of bombs and rockets seems to indicate good strength, but better would be g limit.
-
Some references talk about the P-51H having a lower g limit than the P-51D, which would imply less structural strength. I don't know if the F-51H increased structure strength mentioned in the document means that it was then up to strength of the P-51D or more. Being able to take 2000 lbs of bombs and rockets seems to indicate good strength, but better would be g limit.
There were other issues with the H model. They suffered so many failures of the tail wheel cylinder (tail wheel not coming down), that some ANG units removed the hydraulic cylinders and bolted the tail wheel down. The V-1650-9 had a significantly higher rate of failures than did the -7. Largely due to the high boost pressures. Some ANG units limited MAP to 75". The biggest issue was propagating cracks in the main wing spars of several well used P-51Hs. This was not a common problem, but it didn't take many incidences to convince the USAF not to use the H as a fighter bomber. Indeed, the 5th AF specifically asked NOT to be sent any H models.
There's a great deal written about the P-51s in Korea. A good place to start is with Mustangs Over Korea, by David McLaren (Schiffer). P-51s (F-51D) did excellent work in Korea, despite being terribly vulnerable to ground fire. 474 were lost in Korea, the vast majority to ground fire.
-
Yeah Ww, & as previously posted - we've actually already gone over why the `51H wasn't selected for service in Korea, so what have you got on `51H's USN counterpart, the F8F? & why the USN didn't want them for Korea either..
Its hardly a surprise 'bout flak being the major reason for fighter bomber losses, esp' in the absence of serious A2A opposition,[ jets suffered too].
But what can you reveal about the Corsair & its being 'terribly vulnerable' too..
What about the Corsair in Korea & its dreaded oil-cooler vulnerability..
& do those 474 Mustangs you list as lost include those flown by other UN air forces, such as the RAAF,SAAF & South Koreans?
-
Yeah Ww, & as previously posted - we've actually already gone over why the `51H wasn't selected for service in Korea, so what have you got on `51H's USN counterpart, the F8F? & why the USN didn't want them for Korea either..
Its hardly a surprise 'bout flak being the major reason for fighter bomber losses, esp' in the absence of serious A2A opposition,[ jets suffered too].
But what can you reveal about the Corsair & its being 'terribly vulnerable' too..
What about the Corsair in Korea & its dreaded oil-cooler vulnerability..
& do those 474 Mustangs you list as lost include those flown by other UN air forces, such as the RAAF,SAAF & South Koreans?
F8Fs didn't serve in Korea because they were no longer deployed aboard carriers. They has been replaced by the F9F and the F2H. By the early 1950s, F8Fs were being transferred to reserve units and some were sold to other countries, with France receiving a significant number. The French used them very effectively as fighter bombers in Indochina.
And yes, the 474 include all P-51s lost by UN forces to all causes.
-
Thanks for the reply, Ww,
& do you know if Marine units ever operated F8Fs, or if Marines flew Korean A2G missions from shore bases, like in WW2?
-
There were other issues with the H model. They suffered so many failures of the tail wheel cylinder (tail wheel not coming down), that some ANG units removed the hydraulic cylinders and bolted the tail wheel down. The V-1650-9 had a significantly higher rate of failures than did the -7. Largely due to the high boost pressures. Some ANG units limited MAP to 75". The biggest issue was propagating cracks in the main wing spars of several well used P-51Hs. This was not a common problem, but it didn't take many incidences to convince the USAF not to use the H as a fighter bomber. Indeed, the 5th AF specifically asked NOT to be sent any H models.
There's a great deal written about the P-51s in Korea. A good place to start is with Mustangs Over Korea, by David McLaren (Schiffer). P-51s (F-51D) did excellent work in Korea, despite being terribly vulnerable to ground fire. 474 were lost in Korea, the vast majority to ground fire.
Thanks for the info.
Looking at the huge boost on the P-51H figures above (90" Hg!), I wondered if there would be problems there. Did the -7 use 90" for WEP?
-
No, since 90in required ADI & earlier Mustangs were not so equipped..
However, use of high-test 150 grade Av-gas[ from mid `44] by increasing TEL [lead] content did provide improved performance,via useful boost increases, & at some serviceability cost [ leaded plugs, shorter TBO intervals & etc] but the performance increase was more so on liquid cooled mills,
[ or at least 'til R-2800s began using ADI - or internal liquid cooling - in fact].
But since radials also had to run extra rich gas mixture settings [as another internal cooling measure] - they would always remain gas-hogs in high out-put high speed fighter use, anyhow..
See here,
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/rae1501-fig8.jpg
-
The P-51H seems like a performance monster on WEP (climb rate of 5500 fpm), but more like a typical Mustang without WEP:
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-altperf-91444.jpg)
You can find Bearcat performance without WEP here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/F8F/F8F-2_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/F8F/F8F-2_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf)
The Bearcat without WEP is much a better climber than the P-51H without WEP, but what are they both with WEP?
For Bearcat climb rate with WEP, my best reference is this one (written by the test pilot's son, who has access to his dad's log book):
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/goodyear-f2g-vs-grumman-f8f-bearcat-33022-5.html#post911193
This gives the Bearcat's WEP climb rate as about 5900 fpm and explains how the F8F might have had time to climb record yet still not be in FAI records (as FAI wasn't keeping such records until 1951).
Brooke,
- FYI, in your post quoted above, where you have written
"Bearcat performance without WEP"
- in referring to the 'Standard Characteristics' - well, actually the USN term 'combat' power = WEP.
Also it is noted that the F8F is using ADI - same as the `51H,
& see therein, '16 gallons of water is supplied for water injection'.
I wonder why F8F's were not used in the fighter-bomber role in Korea, since they are listed there as being cleared to tote 3.5klbs of bombs..
-
Also of possible interest is, not only did Grumman pick up the Hawker-type blown bubble canopy for the F8F, & the 4 X 20mm Hispano cannon, but the Hawker patented aileron spring tabs too, which increased high speed roll rate [by reducing stick forces] significantly..
-
Brooke,
- FYI, in your post quoted above, where you have written
"Bearcat performance without WEP"
- in referring to the 'Standard Characteristics' - well, actually the USN term 'combat' power = WEP.
You could be right. It's odd though -- manuals for the F4U and F6F (and P-51, P-38, and P-47N), for example, refer to it as "war emergency power" and not as "combat power". Could combat power be just a particular setting of manifold pressure and RPM without pushing the throttle past its normal stops and without water injection being engaged? The F8F reference (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/F8F/F8F-2_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/F8F/F8F-2_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf)) on page 3, it shows that combat power is only a little higher than takeoff and military power, and on the last page, it lists combat power as lasting at least 10 minutes, which seems long for WEP for a US plane. But it does seem that combat power, listed as a higher power setting than military power, should be WEP, as you say.
I wonder why F8F's were not used in the fighter-bomber role in Korea, since they are listed there as being cleared to tote 3.5klbs of bombs..
Maybe not many of them around to press into service.
-
Also of possible interest is, not only did Grumman pick up the Hawker-type blown bubble canopy for the F8F, & the 4 X 20mm Hispano cannon, but the Hawker patented aileron spring tabs too, which increased high speed roll rate [by reducing stick forces] significantly..
I don't think that Hawker invented the bubble canopy (see history of that Malcolm Hood and the Miles M.20), use of 4 guns as armament (in the realm of patent law, that would not surmount an obviousness rejection), or the spring tab (as it was one among many standard trimming and force-reduction mechanisms commonly known about -- but I don't know who invented it, so maybe it was Hawker). Regardless, they did put all of those things to good use.
-
Hawker were certainly 1st to prove those features in combat/heavy fighter..
The spring tab patent reference is findable,& I'll dig it up later..
& I should add H.U.D. [head up display] - when they adapted the reflector sight to dispense with its regular screen & project directly onto the integral armour glass front windscreen/shield..
The P-47, P-51, FW 190, Spitfire & others later all jumped on board the blown canopy band-wagon..
Yet, oddly the P-38 always stuck with its [vision obstructing] framed canopy..
& too bad it didn't tote the standard Brit heavy fighter 4 X 20mm Hispano set,
but at least it did get powered ailerons - in its late production series..
-
(http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l23/chris7421/miles001.jpg)
(http://airpigz.com/storage/2010-september/Focke_Wulf_FW-190_V1_Pic2.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1285417681732)
-
Thanks for posting those M.M., but obviously the poor old Miles was never gonna see production/combat, with that undercart..
& the FW 190 didn't get a blown bubble canopy 'til years later in the JABO & late Dora variants..
The earlier Typhoons [prior to adopting the Miles pioneered B.B. type] featured a canopy very like the He 112 - as well as P-39 like 'car' doors..
-
Brooke,
- FYI, in your post quoted above, where you have written
"Bearcat performance without WEP"
- in referring to the 'Standard Characteristics' - well, actually the USN term 'combat' power = WEP.
Also it is noted that the F8F is using ADI - same as the `51H,
& see therein, '16 gallons of water is supplied for water injection'.
I wonder why F8F's were not used in the fighter-bomber role in Korea, since they are listed there as being cleared to tote 3.5klbs of bombs..
By 1944, virtually all R-2800 fighters were employing water injection. By the way, when the ADI was in use, it reduced the volume of fuel consumed. Not that this was a significant fuel savings.
The Allies were a bit late to the water injection solution in their water cooled engines, especially relative to Germany.
-
Its strange that the P-51's tailwheel problem was never solved. The P-51D had trouble with it's tailwheel coming off while taxiing. This is why the P-51H's tailwheel is double strutted, whereas the P-51D only has a single strut on it's tailwheel. But it looks like the P-51H opened up a whole new can of worms with the tailwheel cylinder failure issues.
As we all know, the 51-H was rated for the same G-forces as the Spitfire. This did not save a tremendous amount of weight (300 pounds if I remember correctly, or was it 900 pounds?). From anecdotal evidence, P-51Ds were not known for extreme construction durability in the first place. The earlier P-51Ds (what about the Bs?) suffered from wing shedding. The main cause of this was a landing gear down slightly drooping. In a dive above 400mph, the door would open due to wind pressure and rip the wings off. The rear fuselage of the P-51D was also suspect. There were several cases of the rear fuselage breaking off during dogfights due to G-forces. The only one I can think of off-hand is a P-51 fighting a Ki-43 over the Pacific in 1945. No doubt metal fatigue and corrosion played a part in this, as well as an inherent design 'flaw'.
-
Hawker were certainly 1st to prove those features in combat/heavy fighter..
The FW 190 V1 had a bubble canopy (as shown below) in 1939, before the Typhoon. They weren't the first to use cannons, and how many you use is obvious, not an invention. They probably weren't the first to use spring tabs in combat, but who knows unless there is some reference somewhere on their invention and history.
They can be an innovative company with some excellent aircraft and be admired for that without going overboard and crediting them with the invention of things they didn't invent or crediting them with the invention of something obvious (like using 4 guns, using bubble canopies when they were already used on other aircraft, or using spring tabs when those were probably well-known mechanisms well prior to the Typhoon).
The Hurricane was a great plane for when it was developed. The Typhoon was a great plane. The Tempest was an awesome plane.
The spring tab patent reference is findable,& I'll dig it up later..
Anyone can get a design patent for tweaks on an item that is already around. That does not mean they invented the first version of it or used it first. For example, there
-
For sure, innovations that were combat proven were - sooner or later-picked up,
but sometimes there were technical issues or even N.I.H. [not invented here]
problems..
For example, the damage done by Bf 109 20mm cannon fire impressed the Brits sufficiently to get them moving on installing their own, & while the lighter Spitfire got 2, other heavier fighters [ including the early Brit ordered Mustangs] got 4..[even the Brit ordered P-39 had one in place of the 37mm].
Problems with the US made Hispano put off the USAAF from using more of them,[1 in the P-38, but 4 in the P-61] & the USN was always more keen..
When the Tizard delegation brought the many Brit technical developments over to the US - some companies were definitely more proactive in adopting advancements, Grumman & N.A. Aviation amongst them..
The Merlin P-51s picked up the Brit -type coordinated engine management controls but the US radial fighters missed out on the German Kommando-Gerat equivalent as used on the BMW powered FW 190..
On the `51H serviceability issues, it is very probable that the SAC [ given boss C. Le May's hard-ass rep] had a better grip on them than the 'weekend warrior' ANG fly boys..
-
The FW 190 V1 had a bubble canopy (as shown below) in 1939, before the Typhoon.
Its hard to tell in that pic, but AFAIR, the early FW 190 canopy was not a blown bubble which allowed views back under the tail, but - flat panels - which restricted head movement, & available view, - only much later was it bulged out.
For sure, both Hawker & Grumman pored over the slick BMW low drag/ positive exhaust thrust radial mill installation & adopted many of those features too..
The Typhoon was the 1st to prove the combat efficacy of the true blown bubble canopy, & while it did not require much in the way of fuselage modification to fit it, the improvement in pilot vision [even over the flat panelled 190, or multiple framed Japanese types] was evidence enough for the much more substantial mods to be done on the `47 & `51..
& of course, no modern fighter would be without a clear vision true blown bubble canopy..
-
Brooke, Re: "...the Hawker patent spring tabs..."
See P.7 - this document..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperfomance.org/Fury/Sea_Fury_Hawker.pdf
Bob Spurdle [ my WW2 RAF fighter pilot relative] reckoned that the RAF readily adopted many of the useful LW advances, both technical & operational, like drop tanks & JABOs - for example..
-
The RAF was looking at using heavier guns even before WW2 started. It had nothing to with the Germans.
Westland Whirlwind with bubble canopy and 4x Hispano 20 mm cannons
First flight: October 11, 1938
Introduced: June 1940
(http://modelingmadness.com/review/allies/gb/grenwhirla.jpg)
-
Nice model, M.M..
The Whirly bird was really a bit of a dud though, wasn't a player in 1940 [no BoB service] only equipped 2 squadrons & was withdrawn from service early after having many serviceability problems.
I note that the actual aircraft still had framing in the canopy [& was it a 2 piece & joined at the frame?] unlike a true clear vision bubble - blown from a single Perspex sheet - although - for sure, they were getting close there..
The combat proven efficacy shown by 109 cannon def' gave the RAF a hurry up [ even flying their prototype cannon armed single engine fighters in combat during the BoB] & Hawker regularised the 4 X 20mm Hispano fit over the alternative 12 X .303 Browning MGs in the Hurricane & Typhoon, in the same time frame in which the Whirlwind actually achieved combat status.
Does anyone know if a P-38 ever tested that fierce-looking quad Hispano
nose fit out? Would've doubled the fire-power of the standard P-38..
-
The last Whirlwind mission to be flown by 137 Squadron occurred on 21 June 1943, when five Whirlwinds took off on a "rhubarb" attack against the German airfield at Poix.
No. 263 Squadron, the first and last squadron to operate the Whirlwind, flew its last Whirlwind mission on 29 November 1943
What other a/c flew for 3 years without any changes?
The early Fw190A's canopy was formed from a single piece of perspex.
The MG-FF in the Bf109E wasn't that powerful a weapon.
-
M.M.,
Do kindly post the actual initial combat operation debut date for the Ww..
I don't think it amounted to that much..
& just what aircraft [ offering superior performance with a single engine] replaced them, in those squadrons?
Lack of improvement is what got them dumped, including ongoing quality
control issues..
Why did it take 3+ years from the prototype - for an operational FW 190 to feature a true bulged clear-view canopy ?
-
While it is true that the MG-FF compares poorly with the Hispano as a 20mm weapon, the RAF was sure impressed by the effect of its shells, compared to the bullets fired from Browning MGs, .303in - or .05in..
-
& Widey, per your comment in post # 361, about no`51H service in Korea..
"...the 5th AF specifically asked Not to be sent any H models.".
You do - of course - realize that there was very little spares commonality between the D/K & H, the airframes [including even wing aero section] being completely different, - though they were all termed Mustang/F-51.
The probable primary reason for `51H non-employment in Korea is simply a matter of availability/logistics, & the same - likely - applies to the F8F..
-
While it is true that the MG-FF compares poorly with the Hispano as a 20mm weapon, the RAF was sure impressed by the effect of its shells, compared to the bullets fired from Browning MGs, .303in - or .05in..
The RAF's decision to go to the 20mm Hispano predated WWII and had nothing to do with the effect of the MG/FF. It was decided before the war that the heavy machine gun would have just been a stop gap on the way to cannons so they sought out a suitable 20mm cannon to license and found it in the HS.404 20mm cannon.
There were delays in getting the Hispano serviceable as demonstrated by the severe jamming issues the Spitfire Mk Ib and Mk IIb had due to mounting the cannon on its side. The urgent need for more firepower almost certainly is responsible for the Ib and IIb being rushed into service before they were ready. Once they redesigned the mounting to be upright the stoppage rate became acceptable, about one stoppage for 2000 rounds fired when mounted in wings. Fuselage mounted guns as on the Whirlwind, Beaufighter and Mosquito were more rigidly secured and suffered fewer stoppages.
It is a shame the Whirlwind's engines had the problems they did as it would have been a very useful type against German bombers in 1940.
-
The RAF cannon requirement did predate the war, as you correctly point out Kn.
But the literally in your face combat effects of the LW cannon certainly gave them a hurry along..
.. since the evidence from RAF bombers that did return so roughly handled told the tale.. naturally the RAF wanted to mete out like punishment..
& also - things like fitting armoured windscreens became a priority..
What was it Dowding said about that?
Something along the lines of..
'If armour glass is good enough for Chicago gangsters, its good enough for my fighter pilots'..
Early British Hispanos were [ like the MG-FF] limited to 60 round drum mags, which was all very well in a Beau', where they can be changed in flight
-but the real answer was a proper reliable belt feed device..
The capacious Hawker heavy fighters were also 1st to combat with the lighter, more compact & faster firing Mk V Hispanos..
-
M.M.,
Do kindly post the actual initial combat operation debut date for the Ww..
I don't think it amounted to that much..
& just what aircraft [ offering superior performance with a single engine] replaced them, in those squadrons?
Lack of improvement is what got them dumped, including ongoing quality
control issues..
Why did it take 3+ years from the prototype - for an operational FW 190 to feature a true bulged clear-view canopy ?
Late 1940
what qa issues
jaw, do you know why the Fw190 got it bulged canopy?
-
Ww problems.. there were plenty.. from airframe to engines..
Westland as a plane maker - had a bad rep..& almost got banned.. L.O.L...
What was it Dowding said about the Ww as a fighter - which was safely tucked away in Scotland during the BoB - something like..
"No room for passengers down south in 11 group"
AFAIK, the FW JABO pilots needed better downward vision for A2G attacks,
& since it was such an obvious O/A improvement - the long-noses got it too..
-
Ww problems.. there were plenty.. from airframe to engines..
Westland as a plane maker - had a bad rep..& almost got banned.. L.O.L...
Little short on specifics jaw.
-
To cut to the chase..
..After the slow & painful production of ~100 Ww's
Westland were told -
..'don't bother with any more, build something useful instead - Spitfires.'
But they were shockers at doing that too..
-
still a wee bit short on specifics jaw
-
If you're the Ww fan-boi - M.M., you can look it up & post it..
..It is really a bit too lame - to interest me any further than that..
-
If you're the Ww fan-boi - M.M., you can look it up & post it..
..It is really a bit too lame - to interest me any further than that..
you are the one making the statement so it is up to you to back up the statement.
-
Ah, wrong again there M.M.,
I have summarised the facts.. ..period..
But - if you are keen on the Ww minutia - you can post it..
You will indeed find - that it won't contradict my cogent summary..
& just may embarrass you further..
-
you made the statement, it is up to you to post the minutia jaw.
why would it embarrass me?
-
Well if you have no shame - it might not..
But by way of explanation.. ..& since you insist...
..the following Homer J. quote might do nicely..
DOHHH!...
-
Look M.M., it comes down to this..
I don't mind digging the dirt to 'demolish'[ as Widey put it] the P-38 myth..
But the Ww is just so low on the 'best heavy fighter' list..
.. & that it is - is so self-evident - that no more time need be wasted on it ..
Got it , now?
-
& actually, that is what the British - MAP & RAF - thought too..
-
right TROLL.
-
Yeah, right ..L.O.L..
& M.M., kindly refer to the apropos quote in post # 305, this thread..
That is all...
-
Yup, be sure a TROLL.
-
Nup, that'd be Milo Minderbinder..
Still - that low flying sequence in the movie was bloody impressive..
-
Look M.M., it comes down to this..
I don't mind digging the dirt to 'demolish'[ as Widey put it] the P-38 myth..
But the Ww is just so low on the 'best heavy fighter' list..
.. & that it is - is so self-evident - that no more time need be wasted on it ..
Got it , now?
So basically, you can't back up your inane crap, and so you're going to say its not worth your time to avoid looking like an arse. I mean do you really, honestly think you're fooling anyone?
Because quite frankly, you're transparent as glass, and stupid to boot. Do you even remember that M.M. (because god forbid you take the 5 seconds to type out MiloMorai, instead of using those lazy, careless initials) isn't arguing the Whirlwind is the best heavy fighter? He's just using it as an example to show you that Hawker was by no means first to use a bubble canopy, or 20mm's. You come out saying the whirlwind sucked, and when he merely asks about the problems you attribute to the Whirlwind, you post uncited quotes as evidence, and then say that its Milo's job to do what you should have done about 13 posts back.
Besides that, the last 2 pages have had barely a thing to do with heavy fighters. Instead its just been you spewing your drivel, like hawker being the first to use bubble canopies, and implying that quad 20mm's is somehow innovative, and others trying to talk sense to you.
And before that, it was you trying to argue (and making a complete hash of that, I might add) over high altitude performance, which is ENTIRELY irrelevant for a JABO aircraft. And before that, it was you wacking off to your inline engines, and calling the radials "fat" and "lazy".
Oh, and I'm curious as to your obsession with initials. What do yours stand for, "jack-arse banana"?
-
Does anyone know if a P-38 ever tested that fierce-looking quad Hispano
nose fit out? Would've doubled the fire-power of the standard P-38..
Not that I'm aware of. There were some field mod tests of P-38s with more than 4 .50 cals, I think one field test had 8 .50 calibers. In any case, the P-38 didn't need an increase in firepower, it's guns were more than enough to do the job.
ack-ack
-
The probable primary reason for `51H non-employment in Korea is simply a matter of availability/logistics, & the same - likely - applies to the F8F..
No, the primary reason, as already stated, the H model was more vulnerable to ground fire than the D model was and was not suited for the combat missions it would have been tasked with.
ack-ack
-
What is your ETOH blood level currently T-A?
Are you drunk - or simply purblind?
If you really want to play the 'Lets have fun with the name' - game
Would you mind awfully - if I ask nicely - does T-A represent Tanked-Arse?
-
A.A. since the Mustang H was significantly faster than the D/K, & was powered by essentially the same mill/cooling arrangement, the H was very probably less vulnerable to flak..
& if you do not understand logistics, look it up..
..since the `51D losses in Korea alone would've come close to the
complete total of `51H Mustangs available to the USAF at the time..
-
A.A. the RAF [& the USN] felt 4 X 20mm Hispano were the right fit for a heavy fighter, [ & the USN rated the Hispano to be worth three 0.5in MGs]..
But then again, the RAF didn't want P-38s anyway..
-
Keep in mind at the end of the war airplane malefactors would have an eye on business after the war. The best designers would have already been moved to post war projects. The light weight mustang construction as an example was probably a manufacturing test bed for future projects at tax payers expense.
-
But then again, the RAF didn't want P-38s anyway..
What would the RAF use the P-38s for?
At the time it was available, the RAF was bombing at night, defending against the LW at night and day fighter fighter/bomber force was operating at relatively short ranges. The P-38 was not meant to be a night fighter and at short ranges A2G and A2A, Typhoons and Spitfires were very good and cheaper alternative. Photo-recon and long range attack was already well covered by the Mosquitoes.
Eventually, the RAF did need some long range fighters and they got a few Mustang squadrons for that - the P-51 was initially built especially for the British. So why would they buy more expensive P-38s to do just this work? It is not that they found the P-38 incapable, it just did not fit them. OK, there is this story about them trying out early 38s without handed engines, but I am sure they were aware of the American models and their performance, which for 1943 was very good.
The P-38 was excellent for the Americans that operated in a completely different way than the RAF and did not have Typhoons and Mosquitoes. Its multi-role talent allowed them to plug a few holes in their roster simultaneously - from photo-recce through long range escort to ground attack. The P-38 was easily the best suited land-based fighter for the Pacific.
-
I don't mind digging the dirt to 'demolish'[ as Widey put it] the P-38 myth..
I didn't notice any demolishing of any myths about the P-38. All that was established was:
-- It was a decent plane at air-to-air combat.
-- It was a great plane for ground attack.
-- It was a very sturdy plane.
-- It had very long range.
-- It was used a lot in all theaters.
-- P-51's replaced it and P-47's in the ETO escort role not because P-38's or P-47's were bad (they weren't) but because people judged the P-51 to be a better fit.
-- Most comments from pilots who flew both the P-38 and P-51 are that the P-38 was good but that the P-51 was a better choice for the ETO role.
-- It is a reasonable inclusion in a list of candidates for best heavy fighter and best fighter-bomber in AH.
-
The ETO was, without doubt, the toughest combat zone of the WW2 air-war, both in scale & in technological development terms.
The LW & RAF duked it out from start to finish, & the USAAF weighed in with its massive strength from 'bout 1/2 way through..
The LW found that fighter combat on the eastern front, as the USAAF did in the PTO - to be more of a battle against operating conditions - but a bit of a 'rest cure' in combat intensity terms.
The RAF & USAAF had to put their very best fighters up against the LW, & the LW kept their very best units [ i.e. JG 26] equipped with their top aircraft -in the west to oppose them.
Aircraft which had good - or even excellent - records in lesser theatres of operation were found wanting in the ETO.
The RAF, through lend-lease, freely had their pick of US aircraft..
They gratefully received & operated their carefully evaluated choice of them..
The Soviets demanded P-51s - & were turned down.
The RAF solely wanted P-51s - from USAAF types - for ETO fighter combat..
They usefully operated their P-47s against the Japanese.
They didn't find a role for P-38s..
Neither did the Soviets...yet they really liked the Bell birds..
The USAAF rated [& combat stats confirmed] the P-38 as their 3rd ranked fighter in the ETO, although it had a fine record in the PTO..
Of an ETO [ inc' Soviets] list of the top ten fighters..
& - based on A2A combat performance attributes - the P-38 might,- just squeak in there - but [very] close to the bottom of the list..
-
What in god's name is wrong with you?
If you're talking A2A capabilities (in general, not just at ultra-high 30+K alt), the top 10 fighter list would likely be comprised of the following, in no particular order.
P-51B
F4U-1A
P-38L
Bf 109G-10
Fw 190D-9
La-7
Some later model Spitfire (the XII? or XVI?)
Tempest
Yak-9U
P-47M
Based on overall combat capabilities, the P-38L would likely be superior to aircraft like the Yak-3, and Tempest, if for no other reason than its superior high altitude performance, greater combat endurance, and larger load of ammunition.
-
T-A, still hungover, huh?
Give it some more thought,
& come back with some actual fact-based parameters..
Like Vmax, Vne, climb, dive & zoom speeds, turn radius , roll rate,
fire-power, combat vision, engine management/user friendliness & etc..
For example, from the invasion to VE-day both the P-38 & Tempest were
tasked with tactical operations, & the Tempest bagged every type of LW jet & FW long-nose flying, while the P-38 did not..
Do you think performance attributes might've had something to do with that?
Well, duhh..
-
Given how the Tempest bagged its Ta152, I'd say luck to simply encounter Ta152s had a lot to do with it as well for that one.
-
& if it had been 1-on-1 P-38 vs Ta 152,
the P-38 would've needed luck a plenty - even with Dick Bong aboard..
& don't forget, the Tempest units were kept busy from June to Sept `44
stopping 800+ V 1 cruise missiles from hammering down on London..
The P-38 didn't have the performance to do that gig either..
-
come back with some actual fact-based parameters.. jaw
Like Vmax, Vne, climb, dive & zoom speeds, turn radius , roll rate,
fire-power, combat vision, engine management/user friendliness & etc..
add number available, shoot downs per sortie (+/-), number of sorties.....
Not that we will get an answer from jaw.
btw tank-Ace jaw means to talk a lot but don't say much
-
Too funny [as usual] M.M.,
& you do know what irony means, don't you?
Your last post is a perfect example, - if you don't know..
& since you want to play the 'name game' - like your little buddy T-A,
Mickey Mouse, is apt, indeed..
Put up , or shut up..
-
Since you haven't put up jaw, does that mean you will shut up?
It should be noted hat jaw is a prolific poster on Barbi's board. Does anything else have to be said?
-
M.M. do - kindly - look up the meaning of irony..
[& just quietly, - you are humiliating yourself, again]..
-
Since you haven't put up jaw, does that mean you will shut up?
It should be noted hat jaw is a prolific poster on Barbi's board. Does anything else have to be said?
Yes, - M.M. likes telling tales.. just like a silly school girl..
& sadly, imagines it is a substitute for a reasonable topic-based discussion..
-
& sadly, imagines it is a substitute for a reasonable topic-based discussion..
That is hilarious coming from you. keep on jawing jaw.
-
T-A, still hungover, huh?
Give it some more thought,
& come back with some actual fact-based parameters..
Like Vmax, Vne, climb, dive & zoom speeds, turn radius , roll rate,
fire-power, combat vision, engine management/user friendliness & etc..
For example, from the invasion to VE-day both the P-38 & Tempest were
tasked with tactical operations, & the Tempest bagged every type of LW jet & FW long-nose flying, while the P-38 did not..
Do you think performance attributes might've had something to do with that?
Well, duhh..
Assuming our AH charts are accurate (and they almost always are), the P-38L looks to be about 10mph faster than the Tempest at 25K. At 30K the disparity has grown to roughly 20mph, still in favor of the P-38L. Its comical to note that the Tempest's speed at 30,000ft is not significantly greater than that of the 190A-5 or 109G-2, both 1942 fighters.
Climb rates look to be roughly equal at 16,000ft, but above that, the P-38 has an advantage in climb rate of no less than 500 feet per minute, and is such that at 25,000ft, the P-38L is climbing at a rate almost 1000 feet per minute greater than that of the Tempest. At 30K, the tempest's climb rate has dropped to roughly 750 feet per minute, while the P-38 is still climbing at a rate of ~1600 feet per minute.
In terms of climb rate, the Tempest is actually the inferior of both the Fw 190A-5 and Bf 109G-2 at 30k, both performing about as well as the P-38.
The Hawker Tempest has a shorter range than the P-38L by 560 miles. Or if you wish to look at it this way, the P-38's range was 173% that of the Temest's. In other words, the Tempest would be totally unsuitable to the role of escort fighter, which constituted much of the war.
As for the rest, you seem to be under the impression that the typical WWII fight was like an AH dogfight, which is not true. From what I can find, and what other members have posted in other threads, typical WWII combat much more closely resembled the slash, dive, and run tactics used by pony dweebs in AH. Especially at 30k, where the rarefied atmosphere makes maneuvering more difficult, this would undoubtedly be the norm. In such a fight, the P-38's lower roll rate would not adversely affect it to any significant degree.
Nose mounted weapons means the P-38 suffers no convergence issues, unlike the Tempest. The P-38 also had a superior view over the nose, which eases deflection shooting (most of the shots in WWII ETO).
No idea as to the turn radius at 30k, but again, it would be rather irrelevant.
The P-38 also possesses redundant engines. One hit in the wrong spot, and your tempest is going to be written off as total loss, no matter how hard your pilot "thrashed" his engine. If anything, that would merely exacerbate any combat damage, hastening his forced landing. But a P-38, on the other hand, could theoretically take even a 120mm APFSDS round from an M1 abrams through an engine block and make it back home.
Oh, the P-38 also had significantly greater ordnance carrying capacity than the Tempest, and more importantly, it could distribute that load more usefully than the Tempest's 2 1000lb bombs. In WWII, even 500lb bombs were overkill for many targets. When attacking front lines, the Germans even opted for a larger number of 50kg fragmentation bombs over the larger 250 or 500kg weapons. The biggest issue is that infantry tends to take cover, which shields them from casing fragments, and blast in large measure. Thus 8 50kg bombs dropped in 8 locations will do more damage to entrenched infantry than 2 500lb bombs dropped in 2 different locations.
-
Well, something constructive - at last - from T-A..
Tempest Vne was ~100mph faster than the P-38, & firepower double..
& in the actual historical tactical role, < 10kft,
.. the Tempest would absolutely murder the P-38..
Vmax, climb, B & Z, roll & turn, combat vision - the lot..
Here is the actual Tempest data sheet..
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempest-v-ads-sabre-IIb.jpg
& what was it bad boy ace Robin Olds said about the P-38?
Something like..
"I often flew home from Germany in the P-38 on one engine - I always flew home from Germany on one engine - in the Mustang.."
-
Well, something constructive - at last - from T-A..
Unlike your contributions jaw.
-
Of an ETO [ inc' Soviets] list of the top ten fighters..
& - based on A2A combat performance attributes - the P-38 might,- just squeak in there - but [very] close to the bottom of the list..
Bottom of what list? List of best point-defense fighters? List of best fighter bombers? List of best long-distance fighters? As pointed out by pilots who flew various fighters in WWII when asked "which one is best," many of them will reply with "best for what?" The P-38 is definitely not down near #10 in a list of:
-- long-range escort fighters
-- fighter bombers
For example, the Spitfire is great at point defense. It is very bad as a long-range escort or as a fighter bomber. So is the Spitfire good or bad? It depends on "for what."
-
A2A combat ETO late `44, so range aint an issue - for a start..
[ Soviet fighters were really too light for the A2G gig]..
-
A2A combat ETO late `44, so range aint an issue - for a start..
I think that escort missions were still long range and that range did still very much matter.
[ Soviet fighters were really too light for the A2G gig]..
So, yes, they weren't nearly as good at it as P-38's, and the P-38 isn't near the bottom of the list for that (which was my point).
-
A2A combat ETO late `44, so range aint an issue - for a start..
[ Soviet fighters were really too light for the A2G gig]..
So basically you want to look at less than a year of the war, with the Allies facing a much diminished Luftwaffe (and virtually all of its remaining strength concentrated around manufacturing cities, and on the Eastern front) plagued with shortages of all kind, and fielding many more inexperienced pilots?
-
At the climax of the war, with the futuristic jets entering combat..
& the very best the Allies could put up against them.
& P-38s weren't flying escort missions by late `44..
& if you check the actual Tempest data provided, its range,
for tactical air-superiority ops from forward bases wasn't too shabby..
1-on-1, with pilots of high proficiency, in the authentic historical tactical combat environment in which they were employed, late`44, Tempest vs P-38..
No contest, really ..
.. as was shown by the actual A2A results achieved against the LW..
-
Tempest vs. P-38 at 15k isn't the defining characteristic of whether or not the P-38 was a decent plane as a long-range fighter and escort and as a fighter bomber.
Also, again, even in late 1944, escort missions were long.
-
Not for P-38s in the ETO, since they were in the 9th Tactical AF..
So, the mission specific comparison is valid.
'Cept of course Tempests weren't tasked with that P-38 medium bomber role, since the RAF had Mosquitos for that gig..
& T-A, why were you going on about high alt' performance?
I quote you from your post - #361, this thread ..
"...high altitude performance which is ENTIRELY irrelevant..."
& Naturally, for the drive into the Reich, & from forward bases - the RAF 2nd TAF had the high alt' A2A job covered by the Spitfire XIV, which would kick the P-38's arse upstairs - just as comprehensively as the Tempest does down on the deck..
See..
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-XIV-ads.jpg
-
& don't forget, the Tempest units were kept busy from June to Sept `44
stopping 800+ V 1 cruise missiles from hammering down on London..
The P-38 didn't have the performance to do that gig either..
Sure it did, it just wasn't tasked for it.
The low altitude performance of the Spitfire LF.Mk IX and the P-38L are quite similar, and the Spitfire LF.Mk IX was one of the fighters tasked with V1 interception.
V1 Interceptors:
Meteor Mk I
Mosquito Mk VI
Mustang Mk III
Mustang Mk IV
P-51B
P-51D
Spitfire LF.Mk IX
Spitfire Mk XIV
Tempest Mk V
-
& T-A, why were you going on about high alt' performance?
I quote you from your post - #361, this thread ..
"...high altitude performance which is ENTIRELY irrelevant..."
I'm talking high alt because you were talking air to air (in general, not at any specific altitude band) at that particular point in the thread.
Of an ETO [ inc' Soviets] list of the top ten fighters..
& - based on A2A combat performance attributes - the P-38 might,- just squeak in there - but [very] close to the bottom of the list..
And aerial combat on the western front was predominately high altitude until the Allies firmly established themselves on the continent. Thus a comparison of high altitude performance is most representative of WWII aerial combat.
But if you want to do a comparison of very late war fighters, the 262 is the obvious winner in that competition. To such a degree that, assuming equal pilot skill, the tempest would be hard pressed to even get a shot where hes not just praying for a golden bb.
Naturally, for the drive into the Reich, & from forward bases - the RAF 2nd TAF had the high alt' A2A job covered by the Spitfire XIV, which would kick the P-38's arse upstairs - just as comprehensively as the Tempest does down on the deck..
So the P-38 beats the Spit XIV on the deck, and the Tempest up high.
Also, lets not forget that the P-38 not only made its first flight 5 years before the Tempest, but also made its first kill before the Tempest even made it wheels up.
-
I reckon it would it be fair to rank the P-38 - in its ETO 9th TAF service -
in a tactical [low level] A2A air-superiority role on 1-1-45 thusly..
As clearly below: Tempest, P-51, Spitfire XIV, FW 190D, La 7, Bf 109K & Yak 3..
& fighting real hard to beat out Spitfire XVI, Typhoon, P-47M, FW 190A & Yak 9
For a spot in the top ten..
-
Sure it did, it just wasn't tasked for it.
The low altitude performance of the Spitfire LF.Mk IX and the P-38L are quite similar, and the Spitfire LF.Mk IX was one of the fighters tasked with V1 interception.
V1 Interceptors:
Meteor Mk I
Mosquito Mk VI
Mustang Mk III
Mustang Mk IV
P-51B
P-51D
Spitfire LF.Mk IX
Spitfire Mk XIV
Tempest Mk V
Typhoons got them too, inc' one which scored with its rockets!
Those Merlins were boosted to +25lbs for extra speed & Allison mills weren't cleared for that much..
-
I'm talking high alt because you were talking air to air (in general, not at any specific altitude band) at that particular point in the thread.And aerial combat on the western front was predominately high altitude until the Allies firmly established themselves on the continent. Thus a comparison of high altitude performance is most representative of WWII aerial combat.
But if you want to do a comparison of very late war fighters, the 262 is the obvious winner in that competition. To such a degree that, assuming equal pilot skill, the tempest would be hard pressed to even get a shot where hes not just praying for a golden bb.
Turbo jets were not included in the thread topic, but Tempests did bag 'em , unlike the P-38..
Spitfires were shooting down 'Huns' when the P-38 wasn't even operational,
yet on 1-1-45 in the ETO, they weren't past their best by date, unlike the `38,
& any Spit pilot worth his wages flying a XIV wouldn't hesitate to take on a `38 in an A2A contest - at any alt'..
-
& any Spit pilot worth his wages flying a XIV wouldn't hesitate to take on a `38 in an A2A contest - at any alt'..
Please set the caca del toro shovel down, you look tired.
-
List of allied fighters which shot down the Me 262..
USAAF - P-47, P-51.
RAF- Spitfire, Tempest, Typhoon.
VVS - La 7..
-
Please set the caca del toro shovel down, you look tired.
As the Spit said to the P-38...L.O.L...
-
No point, the ignorance is strong with you.
-
Read it & weep.. Caca-masher..
Spitfire XIV low level speed - at high boost - for V1 catching.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/rae1501-fig8.jpg
-
Turbo jets were not included in the thread topic, but Tempests did bag 'em , unlike the P-38..
Irrelevant; we're not discussing these fighters in the context of the OP. You're trying to discuss low-altitude air superiority work, not which is the best prop-driven heavy fighter. In such a contest, everything fielded in WWII invariably loses to the 262, assuming equal pilot skill
If you DO want to discuss things in the context of the OP, then the P-38 is inarguably the Tempest's superior. It simply a much better platform for air to ground work.
Spitfires were shooting down 'Huns' when the P-38 wasn't even operational,
yet on 1-1-45 in the ETO, they weren't past their best by date, unlike the `38,
& any Spit pilot worth his wages flying a XIV wouldn't hesitate to take on a `38 in an A2A contest - at any alt'..
And no spitfire could even hold a candle to the P-38's range, combat endurance, and ordnance capacity. The Spitfire was a superior short-range air to air fighter at low altitude, I will admit that point (with exception to the Mk XIV, which was not well suited to low altitude, and could reasonably be ranked on par with the P-38).
But the P-38 is a better escort, its a better ground attack aircraft, and better high altitude fighter (with the sole exception of the Spitfire Mk XIV). Hell, it was simply a better aircraft than most 'Limey' fighters.
Fact of the matter is that no fighter the UK built could do the jobs that the P-38 as effectively. The Mossie would be the only fighter capable of escorting bombers to Berlin, and it doesn't look like it could have effectively protected them from 110's, much less 109's and 190's.
Oh, and check out the P-38K. P-38 was in now way past its "best by" date.
-
Irrelevant; we're not discussing these fighters in the context of the OP. You're trying to discuss low-altitude air superiority work, not which is the best prop-driven heavy fighter. In such a contest, everything fielded in WWII invariably loses to the 262, assuming equal pilot skill
If you DO want to discuss things in the context of the OP, then the P-38 is inarguably the Tempest's superior. It simply a much better platform for air to ground work.
And no spitfire could even hold a candle to the P-38's range, combat endurance, and ordnance capacity. The Spitfire was a superior short-range air to air fighter at low altitude, I will admit that point (with exception to the Mk XIV, which was not well suited to low altitude, and could reasonably be ranked on par with the P-38).
But the P-38 is a better escort, its a better ground attack aircraft, and better high altitude fighter (with the sole exception of the Spitfire Mk XIV). Hell, it was simply a better aircraft than most 'Limey' fighters.
Fact of the matter is that no fighter the UK built could do the jobs that the P-38 as effectively. The Mossie would be the only fighter capable of escorting bombers to Berlin, and it doesn't look like it could have effectively protected them from 110's, much less 109's and 190's.
Tank Ace. We have had our go arounds in the past, but please heed this. Stop feeding into his demented game of shifting gears. You won't win, he will always come up with another topic to skirt answering direct questions. He hasn't even answered if he has a current in game account, much less hours in R-2800 engined craft. His silence on those, resounds as a "No."
You're wasting your time with him.
-
Typical T-A..
Just ignore the validated performance data, the actual mission parameters
& of course the results that were, in fact -achieved..
Your spurious objections are quite patently - worthless..
-
Just as typical - ol' Mashie goes solely ad-hominem,
since he has no valid data to contribute,
& anyway refuses to read it - even when - it is in his face..
-
Tank Ace. We have had our go arounds in the past, but please heed this. Stop feeding into his demented game of shifting gears. You won't win, he will always come up with another topic to skirt answering direct questions. He hasn't even answered if he has a current in game account, much less hours in R-2800 engined craft. His silence on those, resounds as a "No."
You're wasting your time with him.
DavidWhales?
*edit*
No, after reviewing his post history, he's not asking for any inane crap. Worst 'theme' to his posting so far is just a deep hatred of radial engines for some reason.
-
T-A, do you read the posted info?
The RAF could've had P-38's for free via lend lease..
But they had no requirement for a 3rd rate USAAF cast off..
[Hell, they didn't even want the 2nd rate USAAF P-47 for ETO service]
Because..in REALITY..
Typhoon was superior for A2G.
Tempest & Spitfire were superior for A2A.
Mustang was superior for long range escort.
Mosquito was superior for intruder/medium bomber..
Got it - now?
-
No 'hatred' whatsoever for radial mills..
They make perfectly adequate bomb-truck & transport mills,
where a dedicated flight engineer can pamper them.
Its just a matter of fact - that they are not so good for fighter use..
For example, check that Tempest data sheet I posted..
If you look - the most economical cruising speed delivered by the Sabre is
fairly close to the max continuous speed listed for the R-2800 fighters..
& the Sabre gives a max continuous cruise of ~100mph faster than the R-2800s, as does the Merlin in the P-51..
An analogy is Euro sports cars vs US muscle cars, or putting a truck engine in a race car, they'll work, but just not as well..
-
T-A, do you read the posted info?
The RAF could've had P-38's for free via lend lease..
But they had no requirement for a 3rd rate USAAF cast off..
[Hell, they didn't even want the 2nd rate USAAF P-47 for ETO service]
Because..in REALITY..
Typhoon was superior for A2G.
Tempest & Spitfire were superior for A2A.
Mustang was superior for long range escort.
Mosquito was superior for intruder/medium bomber..
Got it - now?
No, you're explaining it poorly :noid.
-
Well, sorry - for not being a teacher specialised in training 'tards.. L.O.L...
-
Wondering what kind of brainiac thinks a water cooled engine is better for air to ground than a
radial? :rolleyes:
-
Stalin, for one..
Like to see you tell him he's wrong..L.O.L.
-
Not for P-38s in the ETO, since they were in the 9th Tactical AF..
So, the mission specific comparison is valid.
No, you are changing your own line of argument. You said that the P-38 is a poor fighter in the overall ETO -- poor in the 8th AF for its entire deployment therein and now arguing poor in the 9th TAF as well. I and others countered with, no, it is a decent fighter overall, good at long-range escort, excellent at very-long-range fighter operations, and great in the fighter-bomber role.
You said that the P-38 was a poor fighter in the ETO. That is incorrect.
Note that plane A being better than plane B does not mean that plane B is bad.
'Cept of course Tempests weren't tasked with that P-38 medium bomber role, since the RAF had Mosquitos for that gig..
As pointed out several times, whatever 100 airplanes out of 10,000 were used for is irrelevant.
-
No, you are changing your own line of argument.
A lot of people here are being eaten by the troll.
Just thought I'd mention that.
- oldman
-
No, you are changing your own line of argument. You said that the P-38 is a poor fighter in the overall ETO -- poor in the 8th AF for its entire deployment therein and now arguing poor in the 9th TAF as well. I and others countered with, no, it is a decent fighter overall, good at long-range escort, excellent at very-long-range fighter operations, and great in the fighter-bomber role.
You said that the P-38 was a poor fighter in the ETO.
Brooke,
do kindly note: - each of that those 100+ expensively converted [ who paid I wonder - Lockheed - perhaps, desperate to 'stay in the game' ETO-wise?] Droop Snoot P-38s led a unit of regular P-38s on medium bomber missions,
AFAIK, no other fighters in the ETO went that far from the A2A or F.B. role..
The reason? P-38 loss rates in F.B. roles..
The P-38 was squeezed out of the prime 8th AF glamour role - by the P-51,
& played 2nd fiddle to the P-47 in the 9th TAF, too
This clearly makes it the 3rd string USAAF fighter in A2A or A2G roles in the ETO..
Nor did the RAF or Soviets want them..
Simple reason, & backed by the stats..
[ even for Big Week - when the P-38 had the chance to show it was better than the 'new kid on the block' P-51 in the 8th AF]..
The P-38 simply could not compete favourably, against the LW, or the P-51 for ETO service in the USAAF or RAF, in A2A or F.B. roles..
&, 'poor' is a harsh term, but - yes it is a fact, that while the P-38
did do well in the PTO, - in the max-intensity ETO, it truly was an also-ran..
-
A lot of people here are being eaten by the troll.
Just thought I'd mention that.
- oldman
Beaten down by cruel harsh reality oldman,
I guess its a real bummer when a fantasy bubble pops in your face, eh?
& gotta reach for the T-word cheap shot when you aint got nothin'..
-
Who'll be 1st to post the USAAF ETO kill/loss ratios for A2A & A2G?
Here's a chance to show just where the P-38 stands against its direct brethren.
I'll find & post the 8th AF Big Week stats shortly..
-
This site has some interesting info, & those P-38s were kinda pricey..
http://www.usaf.net/digest/t.82.htm
How does this sound, P-38 in ETO: 1,758 losses vs 1,771 victory claims..
& 8th AF Big Week..
P-47: 11 F.G.s claim - 78 e/a.
P-51: 2 F.G.s claim - 64 e/a.
P-38: 2 F.G.s claim - 10 e/a.
-
Brooke,
do kindly note: - each of that those 100+
Again, whatever is done with 100 planes out of 10,000 is irrelevant to this discussion. For all I know, 17 of the 1700 Tempests made were turned into couriers for high-priority mail. That doesn't make the Tempest a mail cargo plane, and it doesn't matter at all to the discussion of whether or not the Tempest was a good fighter plane.
The P-38 was ...
Yes, the P-51 was better suited to its ETO role, but again, plane A better than plane B doesn't make plane B bad. The P-38 was not a poor fighter plane.
My point is not that the P-51 or P-47 were worse planes. They weren't. They were better in some ways (although not all ways). My point is that the P-38 was a good fighter.
The P-38 simply could not compete favourably, against the LW, or the P-51 for ETO service in the USAAF or RAF, in A2A or F.B. roles..
As long as "favorably" in this context means "hold its own", the P-38 could and did compete favorably with LW planes in air-to-air combat, not just in the ETO but also in the MTO and North Africa. And it certainly was a very good aircraft as a fighter bomber -- better than the P-51, Spitfire, and Bf 109 in that role.
in the max-intensity ETO, it truly was an also-ran..
And still was a good fighter, a very good long-range escort, and an excellent fighter bomber in the ETO.
-
*snip*
*snip*
*snip*
*snip*
(http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/idiot-41423.jpg)
-
How does this sound, P-38 in ETO: 1,758 losses vs 1,771 victory claims..
There you have it -- proof that the P-38 was just as good as Bf 109's and FW 190's.
(And this leaves out many mitigating circumstances in the use of P-38's, such as fuel qualities for the P-38 being botched, level of experience of those P-38 pilots being far less than the LW pilots they faced, and often times the P-38's being outnumbered by the attacking LW planes because the few P-38's were the only fighters that could make it far enough in the earlier days. In contrast, later P-51's were there when fuel problems were worked out, when a great number of experienced LW pilots had been lost, and when the allies had enormous numerical superiority in most fights.)
-
Brooke,
Those Droop Snoots didn't fly alone you know,
& those were mass-type medium bomber missions..
Tempests never flew them..
& No, P-38s were superior to LW twin engine types in A2A combat,
109s & 190s, not so much..
& try as you will to find wriggle room for the P-38, but Doolittle knew better..
-
Brooke,
Those Droop Snoots didn't fly alone you know,
& those were mass-type medium bomber missions..
Tempests never flew them..
It is irrelevant as to whether or not the P-38 or Tempest were good fighters. They could have been used as target towers -- it doesn't matter at all to the discussion at hand.
-
Ok, Brooke,
The Tempests,
- in the tactical role - were specifically tasked to shoot down German jets.
'Rat catching' it was called & they did it, successfully.
P-38 got zip, zero, nix, nada, nil... jets..
While the P-38 got the sorry medium bomber gig.
Guess that shows relative performance attributes huh..
-
& '100 out of 10,000' ..
I don't think there were that many P-38s in the ETO.
But - did Droop Snoots operate anywhere else?
-
No, P-38s were superior to LW twin engine types in A2A combat,
109s & 190s, not so much..
As a 109 and 190 pilot in the game, I have to say you're an absolute moron to assert as much. The 190 had problems maneuvering at altitude, and both were slower untill the high altitude As verisons came out, and the 190D was introduced.
The P-38 can hold its own against the 109K at high altitude as well, and is superior to all other 109's.
At mid altitude, it is my opinion that the P-38J/L are the equal or better of all but the 109K. At medium altitude, the P-38 is obviously the equal or better of any 190, save the Ta-152, and possibly the 190D.
At low altitude, the P-38 J/L is inferior to the K4, equal to the G-14, and slighty superior to the G-2 and G-6. It is the equal of the 190A-5, superior to the A-8 and F-8, and is inferior to the Ta-152 and 190D.
-
Ok, Brooke,
The Tempests,
JAW, I'm not arguing that the Tempest isn't great. I *agree* with you on the Tempest being awesome and admirable.
I'm arguing that the P-38 was a decent fighter, a good long-range escort, and a great fighter bomber, not that it is better than a Tempest in all regimes (which isn't so).
By your own stats, it held its own against 109's and 190's (and so was at least as good as they were in fighting and thus a decent fighter), was one of the few aircraft that could do long-range escort (the Spit, Typhoon, Bf 109, and FW 190 couldn't do that, and the P-47 couldn't initially do that, so it was clearly good in that capacity compared to the other aircraft), and it was a sturdy plane that had a successful history of *a lot* of fighter bomber work in the ETO, MTO, North Africa, and PTO (so was a great fighter bomber).
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Brooke, those stats are - by USAAF standards - pretty shocking,
compare them to how well the P-38 did in the PTO..
& on a cost analysis alone, it shows a significant win for the LW..
They could not do that against the top fighters,
& [from memory] the Spit XIV was running 'bout 7-1 ahead..
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Pretentious, - Moi?
L.O.L.....
-
See Rule #4
-
P38 was good in its role as an escort fighter in ETO , and as an attack plane.
190 and 109 pilots knew they could always dive away from the p38s when at disadvantage, escaping the p38 meant they could not attack the buffs, in return making the 38 successful as an escort fighter.
Germans always preferred to fight the P38 at low altitude from 1943 onwards compared to other allied fighters.
Source jg26 war diaries.
JAW, I'm not arguing that the Tempest isn't great. I *agree* with you on the Tempest being awesome and admirable.
I'm arguing that the P-38 was a decent fighter, a good long-range escort, and a great fighter bomber, not that it is better than a Tempest in all regimes (which isn't so).
By your own stats, it held its own against 109's and 190's (and so was at least as good as they were in fighting and thus a decent fighter), was one of the few aircraft that could do long-range escort (the Spit, Typhoon, Bf 109, and FW 190 couldn't do that, and the P-47 couldn't initially do that, so it was clearly good in that capacity compared to the other aircraft), and it was a sturdy plane that had a successful history of *a lot* of fighter bomber work in the ETO, MTO, North Africa, and PTO (so was a great fighter bomber).
-
See Rule #4
-
Until the p38L, p38s couldn't turn with 109s, but p51s and p47s could out turn 109s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSU_T3VM22g
-
Brooke, those stats are - by USAAF standards - pretty shocking,
compare them to how well the P-38 did in the PTO..
They aren't shocking if you consider a simple thought experiment. What if in the days before the P-51, instead of P-38's, the USAAF used 109's and 190's that could do long-range escort (i.e., other than magically giving them range, the same aircraft that the LW flew), gave them similarly experienced pilots to the Luftwaffe, and put them up in similar numbers to the Luftwaffe. In air to air combat, there would then be little difference between the USAAF and the LW, and they would thus lose similar numbers of aircraft in fighting each other. Now, if you substitute the P-38 for the USAAF fighters instead of 109's and 190's, and give them less-experienced pilots, and in lower relative numbers than the LW, and they *still* are about even, then you can judge that that P-38 is a decent fighter.
& on a cost analysis alone, it shows a significant win for the LW..
Indeed, the P-38 was a relatively expensive airplane. That's another good aspect for the P-51, which was relatively inexpensive. However, what hampered the LW later in the war was not cost of airplanes or production of airplanes but rather lack of pilots. The same was true for Japan. So history shows that plane cost is secondary.
They could not do that against the top fighters,
& [from memory] the Spit XIV was running 'bout 7-1 ahead..
Again, plane A < plane B does not mean that plane A is bad.
-
Until the p38L, p38s couldn't turn with 109s, but p51s and p47s could out turn 109s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSU_T3VM22g
That sounds like the source is including roll rate into his definition of turn capability (i.e., hydraulic-assist ailerons). Late-model P-38J's had hydraulic assist, too. P-51's and P-47's had good roll rate without it.
I wouldn't put too much stake in anecdotal statements of performance, though. Flight-test data is the best source of opinions on performance.
-
If you put a new, average rated pilot in a P51D and the same type pilot in a P38L, the P51D average pilot would have a better chance to live long enough to gain that needed combat experience I would think. After the learning curve would think all things would equal out.
-
That sounds like the source is including roll rate into his definition of turn capability (i.e., hydraulic-assist ailerons). Late-model P-38J's had hydraulic assist, too. P-51's and P-47's had good roll rate without it.
I wouldn't put too much stake in anecdotal statements of performance, though. Flight-test data is the best source of opinions on performance.
Yeah it's because of the aileron boost. Now shut up and watch the video.
-
& P-38s weren't flying escort missions by late `44..
The 474th FG kept flying long range escort missions until the end of the war.
ack-ack
-
I don't mind digging the dirt to 'demolish'[ as Widey put it] the P-38 myth..
The only myth about the P-38 being thrown around is your myth about the P-38 being relegated to a medium bomber in the ETO. Just because you think it was doesn't make it so and you've shown nothing that proves your "myth".
When you've been shown to be wrong about something, you quickly change the subject, like when you claimed the RAF only started to look at arming their planes with cannons after seeing how effective they were on Luftwaffe planes. Milo showed that you were wrong, the RAF was already developing planes armed with cannons prior to the war starting, so you quickly changed the subject to the Westland Whirlwind's service life to try and prove your point. You're not interested in any sort of discussion, you want to troll in the hope someone blows their cool and gets banned.
ack-ack
-
He's craving for attention and recognition.
For now I only recognized that he is deep and dark at the bottom.
-
Yeah it's because of the aileron boost. Now shut up and watch the video.
:lol
I did, and it is a great video. Thanks for the link.
I loved this comment from Jim Beyers (P-38 pilot), speaking of the P-38L, at 16:53:
"We could outturn 'em, we could outclimb 'em, we could outdive 'em, we could outlast 'em, and we could outgun 'em."
There's a P-38 pilot who disagrees with JAW about the P-38 being a poor fighter. (Not that one pilot's opinion is the whole and final truth about an airplane -- it's just an example, like I talked about, that many P-38 pilots did not think that the P-38 was bad.)
-
I wouldn't put too much stake in anecdotal statements of performance, though. Flight-test data is the best source of opinions on performance.
Speaking of flight test data: I was reading the actual US BuAer comparison tests between the F6F-3, F4U-1 (a 1D was tested, which was a bit slower than the birdcage and 1A due to the fixed pylons) and 190A5 the other day. Conclusion from the flight test data was the F4U-1 was superior to the 190 in all aspects except for firepower (due to the cannon) and climb at speeds above 140kts (Corsair was superior in the low-speed climb). The 190's simplified engine controls were noted to be handy and convenient, but nothing that conferred it a particular advantage in combat (and according to the report, was actually a DISADVANTAGE in some ways) over the two American aircraft. It's unclear whether the 190 had the water injection system installed, but the airframe was otherwise confirmed to perform well within the known capabilities of a typical A5 fighter variant.
One of the things I noticed in the report was that the F4U was stated to have the best roll rate at all airspeeds of the three. That's NOT the case in Aces High, where the 190 is one of the few aircraft that will out-roll the Corsair.
-
The P-38L with most of the high-alt cooling problems fixed, dive-flaps and boosted ailerons was a competitive aircraft in the ETO. However it arrived late in the war and the P-51 had already shown its worth and was selected as the primary USAAF fighter in the ETO. For comparison, the P-38L and the Me 262 entered service at about the same time in the summer of 1944.
-
A thing that amazes me about the 262 is that first flight of the jet-powered prototype was in 1942.
-
Two years from flying prototype to service is pretty much the standard of those days. Fw 190 first flew in 1939 and entered service in 1941. In many respects the 262 was still "experimental" when it was pressed into service, but the enemy was, quite literally, at the gates.
-
Until the p38L, p38s couldn't turn with 109s, but p51s and p47s could out turn 109s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSU_T3VM22g
Wally Groce - 56th FG pilot responsible for a ME-262 kill. Thanks for the link
-
Karnak, those V 1 pursuit hi-boost R-R mills were running 150 grade petrol..
Note: grade, not octane..
Brooke, for cost of lost P-38s, vs 109/190s,
- include 2 engines, & most every pilot. LW pilots jumping out could fly again..
Obviously - 'Bad'...
[ & I do not describe the P-38 as 'poor' - except by direct comparison with its 'better' rivals - & the P-38 had a 'poor' Vne,- that is a fact]
...planes don't pass service acceptance tests, but a 'better' plane gets 'better' results & a 'better' commander will make 'better' use of them..
[The P-38's 'poor' Vne was not a big factor in the PTO, since most of its opposition had fairly 'poor' Vne performance too..]
Fighters expensively modified to carry out medium bomber missions because fighter bomber A2G missions are TOO expensive [losses-wise] for example..
Doolittle - correctly - determined that the better plane [P-51] got the star gig..
A.A., I never claimed that LW cannon fire caused the RAF to START fitting their own cannon, I stated that it gave them a proper wake up to bloody well get on with making them work in their major combat types..& just because you fail in your argument, you reach for the T-bomb.. ..weak mate, piss weak..
Gs, P-38 'dive recovery flaps' did not improve the Vne.. the P-38 was fundamentally incapable of matching or beating either LW 109/190 or P-51
in terms of dive performance/Mach limit..
-
Two years from flying prototype to service is pretty much the standard of those days. Fw 190 first flew in 1939 and entered service in 1941. In many respects the 262 was still "experimental" when it was pressed into service, but the enemy was, quite literally, at the gates.
True, but it is so amazing that those folks were working on such a jet fighter starting in 1939 or so and then flew it with jet engines in 1942.
-
Speaking of flight test data: I was reading the actual US BuAer comparison tests between the F6F-3, F4U-1 (a 1D was tested, which was a bit slower than the birdcage and 1A due to the fixed pylons) and 190A5 the other day. Conclusion from the flight test data was the F4U-1 was superior to the 190 in all aspects except for firepower (due to the cannon) and climb at speeds above 140kts (Corsair was superior in the low-speed climb). The 190's simplified engine controls were noted to be handy and convenient, but nothing that conferred it a particular advantage in combat (and according to the report, was actually a DISADVANTAGE in some ways) over the two American aircraft. It's unclear whether the 190 had the water injection system installed, but the airframe was otherwise confirmed to perform well within the known capabilities of a typical A5 fighter variant.
One of the things I noticed in the report was that the F4U was stated to have the best roll rate at all airspeeds of the three. That's NOT the case in Aces High, where the 190 is one of the few aircraft that will out-roll the Corsair.
Sm,
Those tests were a bit self-serving on behalf of the USN..
They were trying to 'prove' that no new-fangled Nazi scientific gadgets were better than their good ol' US know how..
AFAIK, the radial '190s used hi-test C3 Fuel - with extra injected as a form of ADI, rather than MW-50 or 'water injection' used as internal liquid cooling for WEP on the R-2800s.
& of course, the Kommando-Gerat engine management coordination was better for a fighter pilot concentrating on his combat flying than having to faff about fettling the myriad R-2800 engine control systems - that were really a flight engineers job - in a regular radial bomb-truck/transport application..
The USAAF were pleased to pick up the similar coordinated throttle/prop/mixture/boost controls with the Merlin for the Mustang..
There is some question also, as to the '190 on USN test's ailerons being incorrectly rigged & therefore giving less than optimal [ or LW standard]
performance..
-
Karnak, those V 1 pursuit hi-boost R-R mills were running 150 grade petrol..
Note: grade, not octane..
Brooke, for cost of lost P-38s, vs 109/190s,
- include 2 engines, & most every pilot. LW pilots jumping out could fly again..
Are you trying to claim that majority of pilots that bailed out of the P-38 didn't survive? If you are, USAAF records don't back up your 'myth'.
ack-ack
-
No, but if they landed safely in Nazi occupied Europe, then they were 'lost' to the USAAF for service in Britain..
-
Karnak, those V 1 pursuit hi-boost R-R mills were running 150 grade petrol..
Note: grade, not octane..
They were also at +21lbs boost, not the +25lbs boost shown on the chart you linked. Note that chart is also calculated performances, not flight data. WWIIaircraftperformance.com has flight data for the Spitfire Mk XIV at +21lbs boost, fyi.
-
A.A., What do you know of the "Fork tailed Devil" P-38 myth?
& if the LW actually called them such..
As opposed to it being a another bit of propaganda hype..
-
Fighters expensively modified to carry out medium bomber missions because fighter bomber A2G missions are TOO expensive [losses-wise] for example..
Only up to 123 P-38s were converted into Droop Snoots, and the primary ground attack missions flown by the P-38s were dive bombing, not level bombing missions with a Droop Snoot in the lead. Please show some official USAAF records that show otherwise.
ack-ack
-
Karnak, if you are interested in the subject, Mike Williams has a wealth of original documentation on it at his www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o rg site..
-
True, but it is so amazing that those folks were working on such a jet fighter starting in 1939 or so and then flew it with jet engines in 1942.
Indeed. They were ahead of their time in several areas of technology, but thankfully it wasn't enough for them to prevail.
-
Karnak, if you are interested in the subject, Mike Williams has a wealth of original documentation on it at his www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o rg site..
They were also at +21lbs boost, not the +25lbs boost shown on the chart you linked. Note that chart is also calculated performances, not flight data. WWIIaircraftperformance.com has flight data for the Spitfire Mk XIV at +21lbs boost, fyi.
Karnak, as well as many others are very familiar with Mike's site.
-
Karnak, if you are interested in the subject, Mike Williams has a wealth of original documentation on it at his www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o rg site..
Indeed, as you may note I referenced that very site and I have read all of the Spitfire evaluation documents there.
Mk XIVs on 150 ran at +21lbs boost, not +25lbs boost.
-
Karnak & M.M., instead of 'troll'-type repetition- why don't you post some actual data, or links to the specifics?
You might learn the reason why Griffon boost was limited to +21lb..
[ Main bearings failing - when run at +25lb]..
& the full RAE report on hi-boost/150 grade V 1 catching FLIGHT TESTS
is there too..
-
Karnak & M.M., instead of 'troll'-type repetition- why don't you post some actual data, or links to the specifics?
You might learn the reason why Griffon boost was limited to +21lb..
[ Main bearings failing - when run at +25lb]..
& the full RAE report on hi-boost/150 grade V 1 catching FLIGHT TESTS
is there too..
As stated, contrary to the chart you posted the Mk XIV ran at +21lbs boost on 150 fuel. You're being childish in your attempt to evade that correction.
-
Those tests were a bit self-serving on behalf of the USN..
So let me get this straight, you're calling for people to
why don't you post some actual data, or links to the specifics?
and then when they do and it doesn't agree with your viewpoint, you're dismissing it as being "self-serving."
FYI, if you've read that report, the F6F was noted as inferior to the 190 in a number of performance categories, so no, this wasn't just the USN trying to promote its own machines over the 190.
-
A.A.,
That Droop Snoot program, [123 P-38 conversions which were then useless as fighter bombers] had to be pretty expensive.. so, who paid, Lockheed?
The D.S. P-38s then led hundreds of regular P-38s on mundane medium bomber missions..
Why ? Was there a shortage of B-26s?
Or had a cost/benefit analysis shown that even the expensive D.S.
program was cheaper than using P-38s for "risky dive bombing"
missions - like the other JABOs routinely did..
Of course the USAAF might well have said to Lockheed..
'You pay to fix the P-38 for a sustainable cost/benefit mission, or we'll withdraw them from the ETO altogether"..
Sounds reasonable, otherwise, it does seem a lot of trouble to go to, if the P-38
was as good a fighter bomber as its ETO rivals..
-
Sm, you can read, right?
By 'self-serving' - I was referring to the USN doing the 'sour grapes' routine about the '190s K-G control unit..
& I post plenty of supporting data links, - more than many others post..
-
Kn, go back & look at that chart..
Both R-R mills [Griffon & Merlin] are noted as running +25lb boost..
Flight testing had revealed a number of problems, [ over the direct TEL level issue] including..
- Griffon main bearing failure,
which necessitated a reduction to +21lbs boost.
& De Havilland CSU/propellor failures on Tempests, which then got Rotol
props, so enabling the Sabre to run at higher outputs for more speed..
-
For example, from the invasion to VE-day both the P-38 & Tempest were
tasked with tactical operations, & the Tempest bagged every type of LW jet & FW long-nose flying, while the P-38 did not..
On 7/29/44, Capt. Arthur Jeffrey, flying the P-38J-15 (42-104425) "Boomerang" shot down a Me 163 Komet. The other thing that makes Jeffrey's kill noteworthy is that when chasing the Me 163 in a dive, he exceeded 500mph as he shot down the Komet. He probably would have had an easier time if he had a J-25L0 with the dive flaps but according to his AAR, he didn't experience any undue difficulties in recovering from the high speed dive.
ack-ack
-
What? - So, you mean he shot down a dead engined.. glider.. good work..
Every P-38 at 500mph was per-se out of control..
& maybe his ASI was over its redline too, like the '700mph dive' P-38 myth..
Was it caught on gun-camera? Got a link to the footage?
-
But then again, the RAF didn't want P-38s anyway..
You don't take into account the P-38 the RAF evaluated for purchase was the Model 322B, which the Lockheed engineers snidely referred to as the 'castrated' P-38 because of the British request to remove the supercharger and make both engine right turning instead of counter-rotating. The Lockheed engineers protested and told the British that this would seriously effect the P-38s performance and they were proven correct.
When the RAF evaluated a standard P-38F, the RAF found it was faster than the Spitfire Mk IX at low to medium altitudes with the Spitfire Mk IX being faster at high altitudes. When the RAF was doing evaluations of the P-47C, they flew it against a P-38F and the RAF test pilot at the conclusion of his report stated that if he had a choice between the Thunderbolt and the Lightning, he would pick the Lightning. In the P-47C evaluation, it was also flown against a Typhoon IB and the Mustang X.
Tactical Trials - P-38F "Lightning" (http://www.mediafire.com/view/1h34nshqgh6hqea/P-38%20Tactical%20Tests.pdf)
"Thunderbolt" Aircraft (P.47C) (http://www.mediafire.com/view/d83eh6xs3dgkn51/P-47%20report.pdf)
ack-ack
-
A.A. Fair enough, & I stand corrected..
Tempests shot down every type of LW TURBO jet.. & P-38s did not..
Rockets, while technically 'reaction jet propelled [ when running at least] are in fact usually referred to as 'rockets' rather than 'jets'..
-
A.A., What do you know of the "Fork tailed Devil" P-38 myth?
It was most likely made up by an Allied war correspondent because it made a good headline and it was then played up by Lockheed and the USAAF stateside. I'm not aware of any records (official or pilot accounts) of any German pilot referring to the P-38 as that.
ack-ack
-
Yes, ok, & thanks for that trials info too, A.A.
There was a program whereby the USAAF evaluated British aircraft too,
both in Britain & at the Wright Field test facility stateside..
The British also got the lightweight Mustangs in their hands, & obviously,
if they'd wanted P-38s for the RAF, they would've got them too..
They didn't..
-
What? - So, you mean he shot down a dead engined.. glider.. good work..
The Komet was going faster than 500mph, hardly an easy target.
Every P-38 at 500mph was per-se out of control..
& maybe his ASI was over its redline too, like the '700mph dive' P-38 myth..
As I mentioned, once you're faced with facts that show you to be wrong, you just dismiss them.
Since Jeffrey was able to exceed 500mph in a dive and pull out without difficulties, he obviously wasn't flying a plane that was out of control. Then again, Jeffrey, like the other Riddle's Raiders, had many hours of training in the P-38 (in the P-38G and H) before deploying to England in the P-38J. Jeffrey was one of the more experienced Lightning pilots in the ETO.
I don't know where you're getting the "700mph dive P-38 myth" from. No one in this thread has even stated that at all, but it fits your typical MO when faced with facts that show you to be wrong you toss out straw man attacks.
Was it caught on gun-camera? Got a link to the footage?
I have no idea if it was caught on a gun camera. Whether it was or not, does not invalidate the USAAF official records giving Capt. Jeffrey credit for a kill on a Komet.
ack-ack
-
J.A.W., what is your handle in Aces High please?
-
Are you kidding?
I "take the 5th" on that question..
-
J.A.W., what is your handle in Aces High please?
Sounds like someone that has had his arse handed to him many times by a P-38 in game.
ack-ack
-
A.A., the P-38..
[ see already posted info - the E. Brown video & Mach limiting speed charts]
WAS out of control at speeds above ~440mph [ Vne below 10kft].
The pilot may have seen it on his ASI, but like the mythical '700mph'
P-38 dives it had to be an ASI correction error..
If he still had control to aim & shoot down the `163,
then he was NOT doing 500mph..
-
Are you kidding?
I "take the 5th" on that question..
I'm not asking for your real name and home address sir. I'm asking for who you are playing in the game. I don't understand why you would refuse to let that be known. This game is a "community" of people playing a game together. I just want to know who my new neighbor is sir.
No, I am not kidding.
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
Anyone who has negative waves to direct at me, my AH handle is the same as my BB ID: "Brooke". Please come shoot at me any time on line. :aok
-
See Rule #4
-
L.O.L... Brooke.. you cannot be serious..
Kindly show me some of the flak that's has come your way..
I've seen zip directed at you..
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
L.O.L... Brooke.. you cannot be serious..
Kindly show me some of the flak that's has come your way..
I've aint seen zip directed at you..
Oh, there is plenty. Just not in this thread. Regardless, I'm always happy to have people come after me in the game -- having folks to fight is what makes it fun.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
But - given the intensity of negative waves directed at me here,
by some - who ought to demonstrate a more highly developed
level of emotional maturity & proper conduct..
I feel that I might be well be the focus of needless attention game-wise..
You're aware they can't see your name until after one of you has shot the other down, right? Or am I just not using the right icon mode??
Also, "straw man" isn't a name Ack is calling you...it's him pointing out your use of a logical fallacy. See here for clarification: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
-
See Rule #4
-
However, you should know that Spit IXs were fitted with altitude specific Merlin variants, & if flown in A2A combat at those actual operational sortie heights,
the apparent P-38 advantage would vanish..
So let me get this straight, it's unfair to compare the Spit IX to the P-38 when equipped with an altitude-specific Merlin that puts the Spit IX at a disadvantage, but TOTALLY acceptable when you're talking about doing the opposite, and how another aircraft is vastly superior to the P-38 in an altitude range for which the 38's engine is not tuned?
-
Good spirit sir, if only I had your buoyant, sporting, confidence...
Thank you. <S> Those things, though, are free -- and you can have them, too! :aok
-
I predict jawing jaw will get a png.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
Of course the USAAF controllers determined that to keep the P-38 loss rates in check, they ought to be given the medium bomber gig..
.
Why do you keep repeating this myth that you've been unable to back up with any proof? The P-38 was not relegated to the 'medium bomber' gig at all nor does the fact some P-38s were converted to Droop Snoots make your claim true. Show the orders from the USAAF stating that due to losses, the P-38 was going to be relegated for the rest of the war as a medium bomber.
Do yourself a favor and read about why the Droop Snoot idea came about, it had nothing do with the loss rate of the P-38 and everything to do with the loss rate the 8th AF bombers were suffering at the time.
ack-ack
-
A.A., I ask, why are you purblind to the reality of the D.S. program?
Why don't you post the D.S. mission stats,
& if they were negligible in terms of O/A P-38 ops flown in same the time frame fine.. but then that begs the question, why go to all that cost & bother..
-more D.S. conversions than total Whirlwind production..
& you were wrong about the deleted turbos on the Brit ordered Lightning/322s.
It was the US Gov't who deleted them [too secret] & then the performance was so lame the Brits said 'keep 'em for yourselves'..
Later, the Brits had their pick of US planes, free via lend-lease, & they wanted Mustangs, even the Allison powered types [which they kept in ETO service through VE -day] & F4U/F6F types - but not P-38s - of any kind..
-
Here's what P.Clostermann, Free French fighter ace reckoned re P-38..
From 'Flames in the Sky' P.103,
"...it was never as good as the P-51, or even that big brute the P-47 Thunderblot. A very few pilots...took on the standard single-engine fighters successfully, thanks to a special & difficult team-work technique, but they
were exceptions.
At Fassberg in 1945 I saw a combat film of Hans Phillip shooting down the 4 Lightnings of a section one after the other.
It might have given budding P-38 pilots something to think about, but luckily the war was over."
& A.A.,
Do kindly explain how taking P-38 fighters off-line to modify them for the medium bomber role has any thing to do with 8th AF strategic ops..
In fact it may well have more to do with P-51s arriving in sufficient numbers
to displace the `38 from its [ 'poor'] escort performance yet still find some 1/2 -way useful employment for them.
Indeed a fair old effort was being put into bombing the V1 launch sites 'round about then, & since the P-38 was - for sure - too slow as a fighter to catch V1s in flight, well then, finding a relatively low loss rate way of making a meaningful contribution - via medium bombing - likely seemed reasonable..
P-47s [also displaced from the 8th AF - but for the 56th F.G.] had the real down & dirty 9th AF tactical A2G role sewn up..
-
Hans Priller vs four unknown, probably relatively inexperienced, P-38 pilots that it seems he bounced is not exactly a clinical evaluation of the relative merits of the P-38 and the fighter he was flying.
-
Goes to the fact - that bunnies [novice pilots] & P-38 were a 'poor' combo..
Although, to be fair - Clostermann was frank 'bout the Brit heavy fighters he flew, Typhoon & Tempest - not being the pick for bunnies either..
-
After a successful tour flying Spits, Clostermann returned to combat status,
& experienced pilots were wanted for the Tempest Wing..
Clostermann found a Typhoon test flight a bit of a handful, but commented..
"I realized with satisfaction that as far as speed was concerned this was much better than a Spitfire. What would it be like in a Tempest!"
& when the Kiwi Spitfire unit 485 Sqd, was transitioning to Tempests,
one pilot commented that he "found the ASI difficult to believe"..
..but not because the accuracy was out - like an "over 500mph" P-38,
but only 'cause of what he was used to seeing in his Spit XVI..
-
& when the Kiwi Spitfire unit 485 Sqd, was transitioning to Tempests,
one pilot commented that he "found the ASI difficult to believe"..
..but not because the accuracy was out - like an "over 500mph" P-38,
but only 'cause of what he was used to seeing in his Spit XVI..
No 485 Squadron RNZAF
Formed as the first New Zealand fighter squadron in the UK on 1 March 1941 at Driffield. It was equipped with Spitfire Is and remained in No 12 Group in Yorkshire until July when it moved south to Redhill, where it began to take part in offensive sweeps and Circus operations.
In October 1941 it moved to Kenley and operated from there and later Kingscliffe until October 1942, when it was sent to Northern Ireland for a rest, returning to Kingscliffe, still equipped with Mk V Spitfires the following month.
From July 1943, equipped with Spitfire IXs, it operated as part of the Biggin Hill Wing and from October as part of the Hornchurch Wing but this was short-lived as the following month it was sent to Drem in Scotland, where it remained (using Spitfire Vs) until Mar 1944.
Its return south coincided with the build up for Overlord and equipped with Spitfire IXs again, it joined No 135 Airfield on 28 March 1944. Initially based at Hornchurch, No 135 Airfield, later renamed No 135 Wing, carried out dive bombing and tactical reconnaissance sorties prior to during and following the D-Day landings.
In August 1944 No 485 moved over to the continent and followed 21st Army Group through Belgium and Holland until February 1945. It was then brought back to the UK to re-equip with Tempests, although these were replaced in March by Typhoons and then in April Spitfire XVIs returned and the squadron returned to the continent, where it remained until disbanding at Drope on 26 August 1945.
-
Goes to the fact - that bunnies [novice pilots] & P-38 were a 'poor' combo..
Although, to be fair - Clostermann was frank 'bout the Brit heavy fighters he flew, Typhoon & Tempest - not being the pick for bunnies either..
No, it is completely meaningless and useless.
Should we evaluate the F4U based on Hiroyoshi Nishizawa's first encounter with one? Does that mean the A6M3 was better because he shot the F4U down?
Using an ace's, in anything, combat against anything as evidence of that thing's inadequacy is useless and trying to do so shows that you either don't understand basic things or that you are willing to make disingenuous statements if you think it might help you "win".
-
"Meaningless & Useless"?
Not at all,
since Clostermann rightly made his point from an insiders [experienced pilot] perspective.
However, the USAAF ( Colonel Rau) wrote an official report on the P-38 being a handful for
inexperienced fliers, & cited this as a contributing reason for preferring the Mustang in 8th AF service.
& in the USN - the "Ensign Eliminator" nick-name was applied to the F4U, due to its rep
for being a bit of an unforgiving beast for inexperienced pilots to operate.
-
"Meaningless & Useless"?
Not at all,
since Clostermann rightly made his point from an insiders [experienced pilot] perspective.
However, the USAAF ( Colonel Rau) wrote an official report on the P-38 being a handful for
inexperienced fliers, & cited this as a contributing reason for preferring the Mustang in 8th AF service.
& in the USN - the "Ensign Eliminator" nick-name was applied to the F4U, due to its rep
for being a bit of an unforgiving beast for inexperienced pilots to operate.
The P-51 you've been humping this whole thread was a tricky machine to fly, too. Especially when the fuselage tank was full.
Going back further, the Sopwith Camel is probably the DEFINITION of the unforgiving fighter, but was also the single top-scoring Entente fighter of WWI.
So what's the point you're trying to make?
-
The point the 8th AF made..
..the P-51 was their pick - over the P-38 (or P-47D) & the ability to be combat
effective even when flown by fairly new-fledged pilots..
& With the P-51 full fuel instability issue not really being a combat problem, since it was ( by mission profile) used & gone by the time combat was likely..
Unlike the Camel, the P-38 was never the top gun ETO [or even US] - fighter, so
the decision not to keep it in the 8th AF wasn't solely due to a cost/complexity problem.
& was the Camel really any as better as a fighter - than the SE 5A?
The Snipe replaced the Camel, but the SE 5A was kept in service..
Got any comparative data, including non-combat crash rates?
( & Red Baron von Richthofen included 8 Camels & 5 SE 5A's in his total of 80 victories)
Certainly - the Camel was not forgiving of tentative newbies..
-
& Sm, as far as P-51 'humping' goes, hey - how's this,
..from Bob Spurdle's memoir 'The Blue Arena' P.201,
"On Sortie No 551 some USAAF Mustangs jumped us.
Enraged, I turned on my particular tormenter & scared him fartless by firing bursts first on one side, then the other - while he twisted & turned helpless against the far superior Tempest.
Formating alongside, I shook my fist at the stupid jerk & then zoomed away.
We should have hacked a few down to teach them aircraft recognition.
We were sick of their trigger-happy stupidities."
-
against the far superior Tempest.
Except above about 22k.
-
The P-51 was cheaper than the P-38 or P-47 while still being a good fighter.
It'd be neat to know what the long range Spitfire experiments done by both the RAF and USAAF would have resulted in had the Merlin P-51 not happened. Spitfires over Berlin flown by American pilots might have happened.
-
Well Brooke, they did want to come down & play in the mud, didn't they?
So, they can hardly complain if they then get their faces rubbed in it by the big boys..
2nd TAF had air-control advisory - forward based in liberated Europe, viz 'Kenway',
- who would direct/vector the Tempests via radar plots (& etc) of e/a activity,
& I'm guessing - the 9th AF maybe ran a similar tactical system.
The 8th AF Mustangs went on defacto 'Ranger/frei-jagd' duties -
- once homebound when released from heavy bomber escort,
but didn't [AFAIK] get the same benefit of radar guided ground control.
-
Knak, according to the USAAF stats, the P-51 also got the best results of the 3 fighter types they operated into Germany, both A2A, A2G & on cost/benefit - win/loss ratios..
Certainly the LW couldn't have afforded to run either the `38 or `47 - in gas bills alone..
& Brooke, the 2nd TAF also operated Spitfire XIVs in the air-superiority role, & they
had the high alt' zone - top covered [ & yes, they'd also kick the `51's butt - above '22,000ft'].
-
Knak, according to the USAAF stats, the P-51 also got the best results of the 3 fighter types they operated into Germany, both A2A, A2G & on cost/benefit - win/loss ratios..
They didn't operate at the concurrently, entering the war in similar strengths at the same time so cannot be directly compared without consideration of other factors. The P-47 and P-38, as well as the Spitfire, faced a much more consistently veteran Luftwaffe than did the P-51s. You keep trying to compare things directly without considering contributing factors to the respective results.
The Marianas Turkey Shoot shot the Hellcat's win/loss ratio through the roof, but you can't directly compare the Wildcat's performance to that as when it was our first line carrier fighter it was engaged in the destruction of the very well trained pre-war Japanese pilots who were much more capable of defending themselves. What you are doing with the P-51 when you compare it like that to the P-38 and P-47 is the same kind of action.
-
Well Brooke, they did want to come down & play in the mud, didn't they?
So, they can hardly complain
I'm not complaining. Just pointing out that the P-51 was a better plane above about 22k.
The Tempest was an awesome plane below that and especially down low.
-
& Brooke, the 2nd TAF also operated Spitfire XIVs in the air-superiority role, & they
had the high alt' zone - top covered [ & yes, they'd also kick the `51's butt - above '22,000ft'].
The Spit 14 is also a marvelous plane. It is great at high altitude. Without WEP, the P-51D is substantially faster below about 15k. With WEP, the P-51D is only a very tiny bit faster below about 15k. The Spit 14 is a lot faster than the P-51D at about 27k on up. The P-47M and N are a lot faster still.
In some of the late-war scenarios, I got to fight against Tempests, P-51's, and Spit 14's while flying Bf 109K-4's and FW 190D-9's. Interestingly, despite what the matchups might be like in 1 on 1's, in the scenario environment, those planes are competitive against each other.
-
Indeed Brooke, those top performing late war recip' fighters were closely matched-
as you describe, with certain performance advantages
giving a combat edge under specific circumstances.
But - for Knak's benefit I will point out that the 8th AF had the pick of the USAAF types & settled on the P-51 as best for the job they were tasked with, & the results - even when all 3 types were operated in the same missions - showed they were right to do so.
Interestingly, the RAF chose to use their combination of Tempest/Spitfire XIV in
2nd TAF tactical air-superiority roles & sent their Merlin Mustangs back to the UK for
long range escort duties too.
-
Knak, the USAAF did fly Spitfires over Berlin [ albeit PRU types] ,
& it sure is a matter of speculation - as to if they'd use them in the fighter role -
instead of `38s & `47s,- if Merlin Mustangs weren't available.
I doubt it though, & the `51 really did just hold all the best cards for escorting 8th AF heavy bombers, & wasting the Jagdwaffe by attrition.
I know that in the MTO, Allison powered Mustangs flew escort for medium bombers,
but lacked the alt' performance of the turbo boosted birds.
Brooke, about hi-alt performance of Griffon Spitfire vs P-47, here's a scenario
I wonder if even the `47N could tote enough gas/run its R-2800 long enough at high power,
- to fly an intercept vector on a high/fast flying PRU Spit XIX?
Post war trials showed that the new-fangled RAF Meteor jets couldn't do it.
& does anyone know - if the Soviets ever used their Thunderblots to try & intercept RAF PRU
snoopers prowling high over the iron curtain - post VE-day?
-
Knak, the USAAF did fly Spitfires over Berlin [ albeit PRU types] ,
& it sure is a matter of speculation - as to if they'd use them in the fighter role -
instead of `38s & `47s,- if Merlin Mustangs weren't available.
I doubt it though, & the `51 really did just hold all the best cards for escorting 8th AF heavy bombers, & wasting the Jagdwaffe by attrition.
You mean the already greatly diminished and weakened Luftwaffe?
-
Why not just post the LW Jagdwaffe loss/USAAF FG claim stats from 1-1-44 to D-day?
& all can see what proportion was attributable to the FGs of the 8th AF
Any bets as to how the P-51 stacks up vs its turbo-brethren?
The 'greatly diminished & weakened' LW was still bombarding London in `44, both with
bomber aircraft & later by V1 cruise missiles, killing & wounding thousands..
& on 1-1-45, - somehow the 'greatly diminished & weakened' LW put nearly
a thousand fighters over Allied airfields on strafing duty..
-
The Marianas Turkey Shoot shot the Hellcat's win/loss ratio through the roof, but you can't directly compare the Wildcat's performance to that as when it was our first line carrier fighter it was engaged in the destruction of the very well trained pre-war Japanese pilots who were much more capable of defending themselves.
Wonder what the K/D of the Hellcat would be if you did factor out the Turkey Shoot.
-
& on 1-1-45, - somehow the 'greatly diminished & weakened' LW put nearly
a thousand fighters over Allied airfields on strafing duty..
and generally failed.
-
But not due bad heavy fighters.
and generally failed.
-
Brooke, about hi-alt performance of Griffon Spitfire vs P-47, here's a scenario
I wonder if even the `47N could tote enough gas/run its R-2800 long enough at high power,
- to fly an intercept vector on a high/fast flying PRU Spit XIX?
The P-47M and N are faster under non-WEP than the Spit 14 above about 35k, so up there I'd think that they would have enough gas or flight time.
-
Why not just post the LW Jagdwaffe loss/USAAF FG claim stats from 1-1-44 to D-day?
& all can see what proportion was attributable to the FGs of the 8th AF
Any bets as to how the P-51 stacks up vs its turbo-brethren?
The 'greatly diminished & weakened' LW was still bombarding London in `44, both with
bomber aircraft & later by V1 cruise missiles, killing & wounding thousands..
& on 1-1-45, - somehow the 'greatly diminished & weakened' LW put nearly
a thousand fighters over Allied airfields on strafing duty..
Because even by 1-1-44, the Luftwaffe had already taken one hell of a beating. Because it completely ignores the 4 previous years of war, during which the majority of kills were made, and the luftwaffe reached its peak.
You really seem to be physically incapable of looking at anything prior to 1944, when the Allies reached the height of their airpower, and the Germans were weaker than they've ever been since the start of WWII.
The fact is the P-38, P-47, and Typhoon all faced much better pilots on average than the P-51 and Tempest did.
-
The fact is the P-38, P-47, and Typhoon all faced much better pilots on average than the P-51 and Tempest did.
great point.
-
& in the final 18 months there were more LW fighters available than at any previous time in the war, most units having been drawn back to Germany, including the 'experten' who were flying the newest equipment, plus the fanatical defenders of the fatherland, ready to fight to the death for their folk & Fuhrer..
The PTO, & even the Russian front was of a much lower intensity than the ETO.
There was never a 'Turkey Shoot' against the LW, & by Schweinfurt they had the 8th AF stalled
-'til the P-51 showed its stuff over Berlin in 'Big Week'..
& Bodenplatte - surely - ought to have been a 'T.S'., instead of an Allied embarrassment..
-
My understanding was despite the increase in production through '44 in war equipment, the LW didn't have enough fuel so having the planes was useless.
-
In mid `44 the LW shut down most bomber production & operations [ 'çept for JABOs & Jets],
& redirected [not altogether successfully] bomber pilots to the Jagdwaffe.
When the Allies did a post VE-day inventory they found fairly large stocks of av-gas,
- as well as planes.
& in fact, the LW had finally started using their hi-test C3 juice in `109Ks & `190Ds to
enable higher boost/performance in their V 12s.
-
P-51D has always served my preference for an air to ground fighter. I can fling bombs a mile with high accuracy. Rockets are amazing as well, I can fire all 6 off with direct hits before even being in range of auto ack. It doesn't prove to have the heaviest of loadouts though. For me it's all about being accurate, in any other aircraft for ground bombing it can prove difficult. Factor in how many seconds you can survive auto ack and other threats it can be difficult to have a definitive answer.
-
Both the LW and the Japanese had a shortage of experienced pilots by the later stages of the war. That makes a huge difference.
-
Fighter production is less important than actually getting those fighters in the air, and in combat.
I'll try and find some sources, but IIRC, in September of 1944 almost 30% of German fighters were inoperable due to lack of maintenance materials alone. Of those that were operational, fewer had the fuel to fly.
And again, you completely ignore the quality of the pilots. Drop the pilots from 1942 into the 1944 and '45 airframes, and the K/D ratio of every allied fighter in the ETO would plummet.
-
The pilot experience factor was a big thing.
The Allies ran 'tours' of ops for pilots, then rotated them out of combat, into support roles
whereas the Axis kept their pilots in service [with leave & course/promotion breaks]
until lost by death, injury or capture.
This meant that while the wartime standard of training was better for the Allies,
a disproportionate number of the really expert ace pilots,
with hundreds of op sorties flown - were Axis.
The analysis of combat claims shows that experts/aces shot down most of the e/a
claimed, way out of proportion to their actual numbers in service.
This is part of the reason that they had higher victory totals too.
It is interesting to read combat reports which comment on A2A against these
aces & the obvious differences in impact they had.
The Axis AFs were ground down by sheer weight of numbers, but the technical
standards were highest in the ETO, which meant that it was real tough,
& the LW considered fighting the Soviet VVS a much lower intensity deal.
The fact that P-38 aces [& the USN] did so well in the PTO - also shows it was of a lower
technological level than the ETO, where only the best could make a real impression.
A surprising number of Axis aces survived the war.
-
Wartime recognition film in early `44 of series one 486 NZ Squadron Tempest V.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKq51LdJ-ZU
Listen to those 24cyls purr.. & good - for 4,000 RPM - in 540 mph Vne combat dives.
-
Sure there was a large stock of avgas at the end of the war.
(http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/images/ussbs/fig22.gif)
http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/ussbsoil.html
-
& in fact, the LW had finally started using their hi-test C3 juice in `109Ks & `190Ds to
enable higher boost/performance in their V 12s.
109s were using C3 fuel in late 1940.
When did the Jumo 213 start using C3 fuel?
-
M.M., do try to post some data of what quantities were actually captured & assessed by the Allies,
post VE-day..
The graph does show stocks of ~100,000 tons in Feb '45,
- not much for thousands of thirsty turbo-charged radial ops daily perhaps,
but plainly enough for LW Jagdwaffe operations to continue 'til the end..
AFAIK, until the end of `44, C3 was reserved for BMW radials, since they needed it, & V12s didn't..
The V12s would make more boost/power/performance on C3 though.
There are documents relating to this on the www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o rg site,
& Barbi/Kurfurst has some on her site too..
-
Incorrect. 109's began using C3 fuel in 1940, although they weren't running on it exclusively by any means. And the 801C engine, as used on the Fw 190A-1 and A-2, used B4 fuel, while the D2 as used on the A-3 through A-8.
And on the point of fuel reserves and Luftwaffe operations, while they continued, there certainly wasn't enough fuel for them to operate anywhere near to their maximum potential.
-
The USSBS is a US government document.
What Luftwaffe a/c were using radial turbocharged engines? There was a Fw190 that tried turbocharging but it never got past the experimental stage.
Bf109s were using C3 fuel from late 1940.
In late April 1945, some pilots from JG53 went to pick up some new Bf109s and their tanks were only half filled due to fuel shortage.
:x Kurfurst is now a female. When did he have a sex change operation?
Fw 190 D-9, Climb and Level Speed Performance with C3 Fuel (calculated estimate)
I didn't see any mention of C3 for 210001 and 210002.
-
M.M., How many 109E's were operational in late `44? Or 190A3's T-A? Not many..
In normal ops up to end `44, V12s ran B4 & BMW radials C3,
& the BMW ADI used C3, not MW-50..
& Barbi is a girls name isn't it? L.o.l...
The USAAF had many thousands of thirsty turbo-charged radials flying over Germany,
-my point was, while ~100,000 tons wouldn't last long for them, it was enough for Jagdwaffe ops.
If particular LW airbases were having logistical supply difficulties in the last year of the war,
that is hardly a surprise, as the USSBS [& thanks for the excerpt, M.M.- now find the real deal],
pointed out..
-
M.M., How many 109E's were operational in late `44? Or 190A3's T-A? Not many..
In normal ops up to end `44, V12s ran B4 & BMW radials C3,
& the BMW ADI used C3, not MW-50..
Irrelevant, you made a factual error and I was correcting you.
Also, the end of '44 has nothing to do with C3 fuel usage in the early-mid war period.
-
But the 109E/190A2 are quite irrelevant to the discussion point T-A,
i.e. fuel availability in the late war period.. ..as is mention of A3 fuel..
So I am 'correcting you'..
-
But the 109E/190A2 are quite irrelevant to the discussion point T-A,
i.e. fuel availability in the late war period.. ..as is mention of A3 fuel..
So I am 'correcting you'..
I never said they were relevant. You said something that was false and something that wasn't entirely true, and I simply corrected you and provided more information.
-
Data must be in context to retain validity T-A..
Posting of irrelevancies - such as obsolete aircraft types & training aircraft fuel is more like trolling..
-
Back on topic. Best heavy fighter is arguably the P-47D
-
But the 109E/190A2 are quite irrelevant to the discussion point T-A,
i.e. fuel availability in the late war period.. ..as is mention of A3 fuel..
What is this A3 fuel?
~ 50% of Luftwaffe fighters in 1945 were BMW801 powered
only a hand full of DB engines used C3 fuel
any Bf109 with red u/c used C3 fuel
How about you provide the real deal jaw, re German avgas stock
the LW had finally started using their hi-test C3 juice...
If you had not said finally there would have been no comment
Kurfust's original nick was Barbarossa Isegrim which got shortened to Barbi
-
Back on topic. Best heavy fighter is arguably the P-47D
I don't think there is anything to argue about. If you look up heavy fighter in the dictionary, there's a picture of a Jug.
-
Back on topic. Best heavy fighter is arguably the P-47D
Jup, they are quite good. Their only opponents are the D-hogs.
-
there is a case for the 110G2.
That plane holds so much destructive power that HTC had to increase the town size :rock
-
there is a case for the 110G2.
That plane holds so much destructive power that HTC had to increase the town size :rock
It is super capable in that role, but I don't think it is was as survivable as the corsair and jug
-
I rate my heavy fighters by how many passes you can make on a small field with full ack and fly away. The P47 three passes. The P38 two.
-
190F-8: the ack recognizes it can't but scratch you, and respects your strength by holding fire :D.
-
What is this A3 fuel?
~ 50% of Luftwaffe fighters in 1945 were BMW801 powered
only a hand full of DB engines used C3 fuel
any Bf109 with red u/c used C3 fuel
How about you provide the real deal jaw, re German avgas stock
If you had not said finally there would have been no comment
Kurfust's original nick was Barbarossa Isegrim which got shortened to Barbi
M.M., So, Barbi as a nickname, how nice...
Here is a document.. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/German_Fuel_Consumption.pdf
It lists late war LW fuel particulars, types ( A3, B4, C3 & J2) & usage..
Given the dire war situation, & difficulties resulting - it was remarkable the level of effort the LW
could put up, burning ~30,000 tonnes of juice even in March `45..
The point being that J2 (jet fuel) was in more use, & use of C3 in V12s as a performance measure
( DB 605 @ 1.98 ata) were issues..
-
Back on topic. Best heavy fighter is arguably the P-47D
Well, if by 'best' heavy fighter - you mean porkiest, then the juggernaut is a contender, sure..
The Soviets grabbed a few dozen, but found the idea of using them in AG2 ops as ludicrous..
The RAF didn't think they cut it against their Typhoons for the hi-intensity ETO,
but felt the P-47 was capable of giving the Nippon johnnies a bit of a tickle-up in Burma..
-
Well, if by 'best' heavy fighter - you mean porkiest, then the juggernaut is a contender, sure..
The Soviets grabbed a few dozen, but found the idea of using them in AG2 ops as ludicrous..
The RAF didn't think they cut it against their Typhoons for the hi-intensity ETO,
but felt the P-47 was capable of giving the Nippon johnnies a bit of a tickle-up in Burma..
Over 3500 air victories, 80,000 rail cars, 9000 locomotives, 6000 armored vehicles, and 68,000 trucks.
Brits and Russians must've been doing it wrong.
-
The Soviets grabbed a few dozen, but found the idea of using them in AG2 ops as ludicrous..
Soviets grabbed more than a few dozen, more like 203 P-47D-22-RE and 27-RE's. The Soviets did an evaluation on the P-47 to see if it was suited to be used from air stations in the polar regions. In that test, 3 things were being evaluated:
- Bomber escort
- Horizontal and dive bombing
- Attacking ship escorts
The results of the tests were favorable and this led the way for some of the Thunderbolts to be sent to Soviet Naval air defense squadrons. The issue the Soviets had with the P-47 had nothing to do with its ground attack capabilities, that wasn't the main reason why the P-47 was sent to them. The Soviets needed fighters, but they didn't need high altitude escort fighters, which the P-47 was. They needed fighters that could dog fight at low altitudes, which was more in tune with how the aerial combat on the Eastern Front was, as such the P-47 was not suited in that style of combat as opposed to the high altitude combat mostly seen on the Western Front. This is why most of the Soviet Thunderbolts saw service with the various air defense units and not front line aviation units.
ack-ack
-
Indeed, A-A,
& while both expensive USAAF turbo-charged heavy-fighters were optimised for the hi-alt role,
the purty pony got their upstairs gig (& the stats show it was better than them on the deck too)..
AFAIK - the VVS `47s didn't see combat, but I do wonder if they ever attempted an
intercept on the RAF's nosy PRU Spitfires wandering about over the iron curtain post-war..
-
From 'Tank Buster vs Combat Vehicle P.67 re Battle of the Bulge..
"During the period 16-27 Dec' the 9th AF flew a total of 4,860 sorties against all kinds of ground targets. The recorded claims of their P-47 groups totalled 479 tanks & other AFVs & 1,356 motor
vehicles destroyed or damaged.
During the same period the LW achieved more than 1,600 sorties by day, but it is not known if any of these involved the use of airborne anti-tank weapons."
& P.68, re losses to A2G heavy fighters..
"There was no gradual decline of these losses until the last month of fighting; even in Feb' 1945,
just 2 months before the end, 150 P-47s & 57 Typhoons were lost."
The Germans also tried night A2G attacks.. P.68.
"...attempts were made to attack Allied armour, motor vehicles, HQs & dumps at night by Ju 87D-7
night-attack bombers usually working in pairs, while NSGr 20 operated at night with FW 190G-2 fighter-bombers, but this was hardly 'tank busting'."
& P.46 -47,
"...the most suitable fighter types had also been narrowed down, & thanks to its inherent stability & rugged construction the P-47 was a clear favourite."
"Of the 18 FGs under the 9th AF on 5 June `44, no less than 13 were equipped with the P-47
Thunderbolt, by then already established as the most powerful contemporary American fighter-bomber."
-
Best way of disabling a tank is to deny it repairs and supply. Capturing enemy territory denies them reclaiming broken down tanks, forcing them to destruct them themselves.
-
Yes, & tricks were employed by the Germans under A2G attack too..
From 'T-B vs C-V' P.65,
"...an order issued on 4th August `44 by 12th SS HJ to drivers of all vehicles who had to be on the move in daylight: 'If your vehicle is attacked by JABOs, drop a smoke candle (Rauchkorper)
close to the vehicle.
When the pilot thinks he has hit the target he usually sheers off.
Never drop the smoke candle before the 1st burst of fire, or the e/a will notice the trick...in
future every vehicle is to equipped with 2 smoke candles."
-
AFAIK - the VVS `47s didn't see combat,
The P-47 may not have seen air combat with the VVS, but it did with the Fleet Naval Aviation's Baltic and Northern arms. They used it for long-range high-altitude recon, level bombing, shallow-angle dive bombing, bomber escort and straffing naval targets.
-
& does anyone know if there is any recorded P-47 vs LW A2A combat - in Soviet service?
Or P-47 A2A combat - in RAF service against the forces of Nippon?
Or Soviet P-47 intercept (& was/is it even possible - flight plan-wise) attempts
on RAF PRU Spitfire XIX - over the iron curtain - snooping flights?
-
With Soviet records being as scarce and unreliable as they are, I don't think there's any way to know for sure. Not unless the Luftwaffe recorded encounters with them.
-
Yeah,
-it'd be interesting to know if the LW had recorded evidence of Soviet P-47 or P-63 use in combat..
& true - the Stalin regime was rather scathing/begrudging in acknowledgement of gifts..
Maybe its coz they dipped out on getting that hot little filly - Merlin Mustang.. l.o.l...
-
Don't believe any of the Soviet Thunderbolts saw combat action with any of the air defense squadrons.
ack-ack
-
Here is a document.. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/German_Fuel_Consumption.pdf
It lists late war LW fuel particulars, types ( A3, B4, C3 & J2) & usage..
When the Allies did a post VE-day inventory they found fairly large stocks of av-gas,
- as well as planes.
The link is only an estimate of Luftwaffe fuel consumption done during the war. There is no mention of large stocks of avgas post war.
Estimated Luftwaffe fuel consumption for March 1945 > 23,500tons; production was virtually nil.
In July, 1939, an official German review of the fuel situation showed that Hitler hand only:
480,000 tons of aviation gasoline, enough for 3.1 months of war. (this is with less a/c than the Germans had when the war ended in Europe)
That is ~5 times what was on hand when the war ended in Europe.
jaw, do try to post some data of what quantities were actually captured & assessed by the Allies, post VE-day..
-
At this point - it is only from memory, I read about the British finding fairly large quantities of av-gas ( as well as thousands of aircraft) in their sector of occupation - suitable for many LW ops at their `45 level of serviceable combat aircraft deployment.. but the actual full USSBS may well also hold that data too - if you choose to reference it - m.m..
In any case - both already posted fuel data sets confirm that - contingent to the war situation,
the LW was - not in fact - substantially constrained from combat ops - primarily due to fuel shortage..
-
Yeah,
-it'd be interesting to know if the LW had recorded evidence of Soviet P-47 or P-63 use in combat..
& true - the Stalin regime was rather scathing/begrudging in acknowledgement of gifts..
Maybe its coz they dipped out on getting that hot little filly - Merlin Mustang.. l.o.l...
More a case of not wanting it, rather than wanting and not getting.
The Soviets tested the P-51A (actually Mustang Is) in August 1942 and the P-51B in late 1944 and decided they could do without either.
The few ex-RAF Allison-powered P-51s they got were mostly used as trainers. Three aircraft served on the front lines, but never encountered any enemy aircraft.
The Soviet view on both the Allison and Merlin-powered versions wasn't particularly favourable. They felt the Mustang I was oversized and underpowered and too slow in the climb. Similarly the P-51B was considered overweight, slow in the climb and poor in horizontal manuverability. Its positive qualities (high speed, good medium altitude manuverability, decent firepower and long range) were seen as unneeded given the characteristics of the East front air war.
At low altitudes, they felt their own aircraft and the more recent German types were better close in fighters and they didn't see the need for the P-51's fighter-bomber capabilities, as they had the IL-2 for ground attack.
-
Really? AFAIR, the Soviets specifically demanded Merlin Mustangs & were denied them..
None to spare.. & Curtiss Le May would've had a bloody fit - if Stalin gottem before him..
-
At this point - it is only from memory, I read about the British finding fairly large quantities of av-gas ( as well as thousands of aircraft) in their sector of occupation - suitable for many LW ops at their `45 level of serviceable combat aircraft deployment.. but the actual full USSBS may well also hold that data too - if you choose to reference it - m.m..
In any case - both already posted fuel data sets confirm that - contingent to the war situation,
the LW was - not in fact - substantially constrained from combat ops - primarily due to fuel shortage..
memory :rolleyes: Doesn't matter how much fuel there was if it isn't at the bases where it is needed.
How many of those 1000s were actually capable of flight?
Yup that is why a/c were towed to the take off position and engines were shut down after landing and the a/c then towed to dispersal.
-
Well m.m., many thousands of LW aircraft..
& according to 'Tank Busters vs Combat Vehicles' P.68:
"...the RAF Disarmament Teams alone 'neutralised'4,810...& 12,800 aero engines..."
& if trawling your memory gives you googly eyes, I suggest you seek appropriate assessment..
-
Luftwaffe Order of Battle 9 April 1945
Serviceable Aircraft Strengths
Single-engined fighters 1305
Night fighters 485
Ground-attack aircraft 712
Night harassment aircraft 215
Multi-engined bombers 37
Long-range reconaissance aircraft 143
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft 309
Coastal aircraft 45
Transport aircraft 10
Misc. aircraft (KG 200) 70
Total 3331
So the RAF Disarmament Teams alone 'neutralised' 4,810, yet there was total of 3331 serviceable Luftwaffe a/c one month before wars end.
-
3,000+ is.. wait for it.. THOUSANDS.. Do you know how many others were awaiting delivery?
The Allies experienced nearly a thousand LW fighters actively straffing their airbases on 1-1-45,
& intruders were attacking bases in Britain later in `45 too..
Plus LW bombers were launching V1 cruise missiles against British cities..
As posted earlier, the realities of war that would've utterly crushed most other AFs,
were dealt with pretty bloody well by the LW - considering all the pressures..
-
3,000+ is.. wait for it.. THOUSANDS.. Do you know how many others were awaiting delivery?
Do you?
-
You could check & cite the actual-real-deal USSBS, maybe?
Anyhow, there were plenty, as P. Clostermann - who was there at the time - commented..
( see post#224 on the 'Best Single Engine F-B [Prop-driven] thread - for what he wrote on it..)
-
You could check & cite the actual-real-deal USSBS, maybe?
Anyhow, there were plenty, as P. Clostermann - who was there at the time - commented..
( see post#224 on the 'Best Single Engine F-B [Prop-driven] thread - for what he wrote on it..)
plenty,, or thousands. Isn't normally excepted here to readily,,,, most here like for the one telling it to back it up with the info,, I.E. Links and such ,, most also don't like being told to go " LOOK IT UP"". Just an FYI So why don't you copy and paste or at least supply the links to the info you've sited,, otherwise just state, to my knowledge , but I don't have a clue where I found that, or how to get back there,, it doesn't mean your wrong or right, it just explaines your position a great deal better.
I'd like to know more about much of this info you have as well, but reading your posts for the last few hours, it seems like your just going around telling everyone how they don't know what they're talking about and you're the authority on all matters planes and such,, it comes off a little hard to believe that out of the blue, someone could posses such great amounts of knowledge, yet still talk about PLENTY, or many thousands, instead of actual numbers,,, just my opinion tho
-
You could check & cite the actual-real-deal USSBS, maybe?
Lots of blah blah blah but when it comes down to details to support your blah blah blah you have nothing.
In other words, you can't, as you are just jawing again.
-
What is with all the 'negative waves' & '3rd degree' interrogative guff?
Do I sense.. some kind.. of.. hostility here?
Well, - there is a term for that.. "Cognitive Dissonance"
Simply put it - comes down to..
.. Don't like the message.. blame the messenger..
Cite a post where I wrote "... they don't know what they're talking about.."
Or where I claim to be the "authority".. as for plenty/thousands, well obviously..
what was plenty to the Allies was undreamed of riches.. resources-wise for the hard-pressed LW..
Compare the efficacy of the LW with the Allies in similar circumstances, & they did pretty well
with what they had, combat-wise..
& is it really so hard to do an inter-web fact check? Or find a #224 post as cited?
Put together a post that proves me wrong.. on basis of the facts.. & I'll gladly stand corrected..
& m.m. posted an excerpt from the USSBS,but cant be bothered to reference the real thing..
There it is.. that's how I roll.. ..just as Jack Black put it..
Now.. drop the ad-hominem crap - why don't you..
-
Really? AFAIR, the Soviets specifically demanded Merlin Mustangs & were denied them..
None to spare.. & Curtiss Le May would've had a bloody fit - if Stalin gottem before him..
I don't recall reading anything about the Soviets wanting Merlin engined Mustangs. They had some P-51B/C and P-51Ds that were recovered from Operation Frantic and were repaired and put into service with rear air units. Soviets didn't like the Mustang because it didn't suit their needs, like the Thunderbolt didn't suit their needs.
ack-ack
-
Well A-A, maybe do some more reading on Lend-Lease..& get back to us with kosher details..
AFAIR - 'bout the only USAAF P-bird Stalin didn't want.. was the.. P-38..
& given the supply/demand issue for the P-51, a sour grapes Soviet response would be S.O.P..
He hung on to the B-29s in his hands like Scrooge too..
-
Well A-A, maybe do some more reading on Lend-Lease..& get back to us with kosher details..
More blah blah blah
How about you supply the details as it is your claim the Soviets wanted Mustangs.
-
Or P-47 A2A combat - in RAF service against the forces of Nippon?
http://www.amazon.com/RAF-Mustang-Thunderbolt-Aces-Aircraft/dp/1846039797/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1386959172&sr=8-1&keywords=osprey+p-47+raf
"RAF Mustang and Thunderbolt Aces," by Thomas. For the P-47, focus is on the CBI theater. You can get the kindle edition for $10.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51IXBSYuMwL._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopRight,1,0_SH20_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
-
AFAIR - 'bout the only USAAF P-bird Stalin didn't want.. was the.. P-38..
The Soviets didn't want the Mustang or the Thunderbolt either, so?
ack-ack
-
Stalin got several dozen T-bolts ( ~200) & plenty of Bell-birds, P-40s & etc..
A handful of purloined Mustangs & Superforts ( He flat refused to hand them back)..
Mustangs were pretty sought after planes..
Apart from the USAAF & the Brits, who else got them (officially) in wartime?
They were popular post-war too..
RAAF & RNZAF replaced their Spitfires & Corsairs (respectively) with `51s too..
There were instances of Mustangs engaging VVS fighters in 'mistaken ' combat,
& AFAIK, the pony jocks had them Ruskies on toast..
Brooke, thanks for posting that Osprey title..
-
There were instances of Mustangs engaging VVS fighters in 'mistaken ' combat,
& AFAIK, the pony jocks had them Ruskies on toast..
Sure they did.
Ivan Khozedub's got two P-51s to his personal kill tally, which he got when a flight of US P-51s misidentified his radial-engined Lavochkin and attacked the Soviet planes thinking they were FW-190s.
-
Sure they did.
Ivan Khozedub's got two P-51s to his personal kill tally, which he got when a flight of US P-51s misidentified his radial-engined Lavochkin and attacked the Soviet planes thinking they were FW-190s.
An ace's results are not a very good test case. Aces tend to handily beat normal pilots even when the normal pilot is in something like a P-51, F4U or Tempest and the ace is in something like a Ki-43 or A6M.
-
I've read that ol' Kohz was a Stalin special propaganda star..
& his P-51/Me 262 claims may not stand actual scrutiny..
Anyone here seen the supposed Soviet P-51 shoot-down gun-cam footage,
which is most likely.. over-dubbed LW stock?
& Knak, you are correct about pilot ability,
AFAIK ..the P-51 FGs in Britain would keep an old hack P-40 on hand to demonstrate to the
cocky new-fledged Mustang jocks what a real top-gun fly-boy could do.. even in a junker..
-
There were instances of Mustangs engaging VVS fighters in 'mistaken ' combat,
& AFAIK, the pony jocks had them Ruskies on toast..
Brooke, thanks for posting that Osprey title..
Boy you need to do some reading because these is absolutely false. Both russian and Americans took a beating when they faced each other, more of a bloody nose (few losses each side). Neither side did overwhelming good.
The Russians were escorting some B-17s and P-51 pilots though the B-17s were under attack, Mistaking La-7's for Fw-190s.
Russian ace claimed "2" kills, while americans claimed 2 russians - however I am not entirely sure on the battle or the russian ace to confirm this, its one of those stories I can't confirm and secondly his book is in russian and I can't translate it.
A second fight Between Yaks and P-38s ended up with.........2 losses each! P-38s were on ground attack mission (I think?) and were jumped, one was claimed by AAA the other a Yak, the Yaks took two losses.
So 4-4 is the score that I know of.
-
4-4!
US vs Ruskies... Whaaaa?
Naww.. ..jest caynt be...
Say now boy, you aint one o' them gardamn carmunists - are ya?
..L.O.L...
-
4-4!
US vs Ruskies... Whaaaa?
Naww.. ..jest caynt be...
Say now boy, you aint one o' them gardamn carmunists - are ya?
..L.O.L...
More blah blah blah.
How about you post the details and the results of these US vs Soviet combats.
-
You CAN look things up m.m., ..but can you do a useful post.. ..rather than a snarky one?
-
You CAN look things up m.m., ..but can you do a useful post.. ..rather than a snarky one?
More blah blah blah.
You made the statement, so you back it up with examples.
-
You just made my ignore list blah boy..
-
You just made my ignore list blah boy..
I see a png coming soon so everyone will be on your ignore list.
-
J.A.W. could you please put me on your ignore list too?
-
Boy you need to do some reading because these is absolutely false. Both russian and Americans took a beating when they faced each other, more of a bloody nose (few losses each side). Neither side did overwhelming good.
The Russians were escorting some B-17s and P-51 pilots though the B-17s were under attack, Mistaking La-7's for Fw-190s.
Russian ace claimed "2" kills, while americans claimed 2 russians - however I am not entirely sure on the battle or the russian ace to confirm this, its one of those stories I can't confirm and secondly his book is in russian and I can't translate it.
A second fight Between Yaks and P-38s ended up with.........2 losses each! P-38s were on ground attack mission (I think?) and were jumped, one was claimed by AAA the other a Yak, the Yaks took two losses.
So 4-4 is the score that I know of.
I read a book last spring (The German Aces Speak) and I believe it was Edouard Neumann that witnessed Russian and U.S Mustangs engage on the Eastern battle lines. Obviously it was late in the war. That kind if stuff happened late. A good example of the fog of war.
-
J.A.W. could you please put me on your ignore list too?
'Nonsense'...L.O.L..
-
I read a book last spring (The German Aces Speak) and I believe it was Edouard Neumann that witnessed Russian and U.S Mustangs engage on the Eastern battle lines. Obviously it was late in the war. That kind if stuff happened late. A good example of the fog of war.
Yeah, & I have read some accounts written by RAF pilots referring to encounters with the VVS,
describing them as a flying 'rabble' - no formation discipline, & seemingly no ground control
support..
RAF chaps felt they could've given them a decent thrashing, had it been required..
& certainly - that was the LW view too, they found the Western front much tougher..
-
Yeah, & I have read some accounts written by RAF pilots referring to encounters with the VVS,
describing them as a flying 'rabble' - no formation discipline, & seemingly no ground control
support..
RAF chaps felt they could've given them a decent thrashing, had it been required..
& certainly - that was the LW view too, they found the Western front much tougher..
Interesting, can you please share where you got this info? I've never heard it before - ever, in the thousands of books I have I don't recall many instances where either side mentioned much of anything, one of the reasons for this is many aces after the war for the russians did not write books as well as combat records were almost forgotten on the russian side. Interesting how the Luftwaffe felt the Russians were terrible considering they were ordered to not engage any Yaks late in the war. Fact is Luftwaffe planes were dropping like flies on the west and eastern front.
Early in the war? sure I can see the Russians lack formation discipline or no ground control, late in the war? It would be hard to compare the US, British and Russia considering the Luftwaffe was all but smashed in 1945. Then again you claim the Russians were a joke, yet the Luftwaffe had standing orders not to engage certain russian aircraft, why is this? If they are subhuman they should not be to worried about how good an aircraft is, unless the pilot happens to be just as good.
The Germans had a war on two front's, I don't think any country during WW2 could of handled this scenario - even the mighty US.
-
Check the memoir of top ETO Allied ace Johnny Johnson, "Wing Leader"..
He used the term 'rabble'..to describe the VVS units he encountered..
The LW were capable of putting up organised air-combat sorties - limited of course - in scale,
though - by comparison to the Allies massive available strength.
Still the LW were flying ( largely) technically competent & organised ops, albeit affected by the realities of war situation - which obviously caused logistic difficulties plus the severe pressure from
attacks on their airfields , infrastructure, & sheer numbers of allied planes in the air..
But they were flying, fighting & claiming victories against the Allies - right to the final days of the war, with remarkably creditable effort, considering..
& AFAIK, that 'do not engage' order to the Jagdwaffe - is just another propaganda myth..
From memory - the VVS only accounted for ~15% of LW A2A losses..
& the LW ratio of victory-to-loss on the Eastern front was always higher too..
-
It is not a propaganda myth, just the typical modification that happens. Ever play the game where a person whispers something in someones ear and it is passed down the line? The final is nothing like the original.
It has been discussed on many boards over the years. What emerged was that some commander sent a notification to some other commanders that the Soviets had a new fighter that was very similar to one already in service. This new a/c was much more dangerous than the other a/c.
-
The Germans had a war on two front's, I don't think any country during WW2 could of handled this scenario - even the mighty US.
But, we did.....
-
Yeah right, massive Nippon bomber fleets were roaming at will over the 48 states.. L.O.L...
-
Yeah right, massive Nippon bomber fleets were roaming at will over the 48 states.. L.O.L...
I see you've reached a new low in being a chitforbrains.....
-
<sigh>
-
But.. hey Ww,- what happened to the 'love-muffin' you were offering.. ..L.O.L.
Clearly Ww, if the USA had been subject to an equivalent level of e/a activity in its continental airspace - as Germany had to cope with, it would've found this a tad more stressful than what did
occur, right?
-
Japan was a formidable opponent.
For anyone who doesn't think so, there are some excellent books on the topic (such as "With the Old Breed", by Sledge and "Neptune's Inferno," by Hornfischer).
-
It is not a propaganda myth, just the typical modification that happens. Ever play the game where a person whispers something in someones ear and it is passed down the line? The final is nothing like the original.
It has been discussed on many boards over the years. What emerged was that some commander sent a notification to some other commanders that the Soviets had a new fighter that was very similar to one already in service. This new a/c was much more dangerous than the other a/c.
Could be something like what you suggest M.M.,
but 'Chinese Whispers' def' aint in the same category as an officially promulgated 'order'..
..by any means..
-
Check the memoir of top ETO Allied ace Johnny Johnson, "Wing Leader"..
He used the term 'rabble'..to describe the VVS units he encountered..
Yes, I read the book, a number of times, however the comment that the VVS were not disciplined is completely false, early in the war I can agree with this assessment, however by late 1942 the luftwaffe and Wehrmacht were stopped not by the West bombing - while they still took losses,
they still were refining the tactics (given they have only been at war for one year now). To the credit, they VVS did a remarkable turn around considering what they lost in Barbarossa.
Still the LW were flying ( largely) technically competent & organised ops, albeit affected by the realities of war situation - which obviously caused logistic difficulties plus the severe pressure from
attacks on their airfields , infrastructure, & sheer numbers of allied planes in the air..
But they were flying, fighting & claiming victories against the Allies - right to the final days of the war, with remarkably creditable effort, considering..
Wouldn't you if you knew the Russians were outside of Berlin already and the West was no where near? The last major offensive the Luftwaffe put up was 1/1/45 and it turned out pretty bad, read up on Operation Bondenplatte, do you really think they were "remarkably coordinated still?" No, the Navy didn't know, let alone the Wehrmacht, quite a few Luftwaffe planes were shot down by their own anti aircraft artillery. 7 Airfields took heavy damage and 6 took almost no damage, let alone the few that took slight damage. The operation met tactical surprise, but considering the Luftwaffe lost over 150 pilots, they never recovered from this. Period. It was not even an Operation, it was a last ditch gamble to win air supremacy from the allies for Battle of the Bulge and it was a remarkable failure, the damage inflicted the allies could replace in 1 week, the lost of that many german pilots? forget it. Sure the luftwaffe had some victories up until the last day of the war, hell france fought too until the last day, doesn't mean they did very well.
& AFAIK, that 'do not engage' order to the Jagdwaffe - is just another propaganda myth..
Its an internet myth, actually the myth is not to engage "certain" soviet fighters, the real story is Gruppenkommandeur's warned pilots not to fly against certain soviet aircrafts, i.e the Yak and La7 at certain altitudes, because these fighters outclassed the luftwaffe planes. However the story being told so many times by people who read wikipedia, it ends up as "luftwaffe orders were not to engage certain targets". Not true, the allies didn't run because an Me-262 showed up, they were warned of its speed and firepower. Milomorai is correct in how it gets passed down the "line".
-
In fact, while Bodenplatte was fairly ill-considered.. & poorly executed in parts..
It is the Allied AFs - who should be ashamed of their performance on 1-1-45..
They let the opportunity to have the mother-of-all A2A battles & 'Turkey Shoot' the Jagdwaffe,
go begging & got caught with their pants down pissing instead..
The stats of LW A2A combat vs RAF/USAAF compared with LW vs VVS don't bear out your
fairly high opinion of the Ruskies either..
The Jadgwaffe thought of the Eastern front as a bit of a 'rest-cure' in A2A terms really..
How many LW aces got victory scores - in the hundreds - in the West?
-
& AFAIR, the LW operated 'Zircus Rosarius' a unit flying captured e/a,
who would demonstrate their attributes to LW units - with a view to learning best combat tactics..
Have you read H-W Lerche's memoir about LW test-flying e/a at Rechlin,
& finding out their performance attributes, like-wise?
Perhaps you are a bit to quick to dismiss J.J.'s description of VVS 'rabble' flying..
I have no doubt he accurately recorded his observations, & don't mistake poor flying discipline
for poor military discipline either, didn't the VVS have political commissars flying too?
Those basterds could have you off to Siberia, or shot summarily - if they saw fit...
& B, you cannot be serious trying to compare the Allied debacle in 1940 (or in the far east `41-42),
with what the Germans managed post D-day..
Even with massive over-kill, it took 11 months for them to do what took less than 11 weeks in `40..
-
In fact, while Bodenplatte was fairly ill-considered.. & poorly executed in parts..
It is the Allied AFs - who should be ashamed of their performance on 1-1-45..
They let the opportunity to have the mother-of-all A2A battles & 'Turkey Shoot' the Jagdwaffe,
go begging & got caught with their pants down pissing instead..
Yes the Allied AFs (2TAF, 9th AF) did really bad with 40% of the attacking force of fighters and fighter-bombers destroyed or damaged. (32% destroyed)
Of the 213 Luftwaffe pilots lost, 45 were experienced pilots of which 22 were unit commanders.
-
There were nearly a thousand bloody LW fighters milling about, they should've been toast..
Here's what an RAF S/Ldr who was there... reckoned..
Form Bob Spurdle's memoir, 'The Blue Arena' P. 205.
"The Jerries had taken advantage of our known weakness for whooping it up at New Year.
They'd mounted a massive fighter strike against the 20 odd airfields in the British sector
in Holland & Belgium."
"A blanket of secrecy hid the true facts, but one thing was sure- we'd suffered a mighty blow...
...it was a major defeat brought on us by complacency & lack of foresight.
We were just too confident..."
& P. Clostermann wrote, in 'The Big Show' P.170,
"The American censorship & the Press services, in a flat spin, tried to present this attack as a great Allied victory, by publishing peculiar figures. We pilots were still laughing about them 3 months later. The LW...succeeded in nearly paralysing the tactical airforces for more than a week."
-
Maybe you should read some modern publications on Bodenplatte.
Bodenplatte was to have happened 2 weeks before the date it did happen. So much for the New Years day nonsense.
There was ~850 Luftwaffe fighters and fighter-bombers participating. What is 40% of 850?
485 Sqd sure took a whooping with 13 Cat E a/c and 2 Cat B a/c.
Allied a/c losses had been replaced within a week.
Yah right, the press is going to going to put out the truth. :rolleyes: Never have and never will.
-
They ought to have been up in force & bagged the bloody lot!
What happened to 'Ultra' then, & why no warning?
& I'd reckon the guys who were there might know some things about it..
Bob Spurdle commanded 80 Squadron, a Tempest unit within 122 TAF Tempest Wing..
He wrote..re Bodenplatte..
"We never discovered the fool at Eindhoven who could have called on 5 squadrons of the
world's most formidable fighters. He should have been shot."
"Scuttle-butt garnered over the next few months put our losses at over 300 machines destroyed on the ground in just a few minutes."
RAF Wing Leader Johnny Johnson was appalled too, both by the lack of Allied preparedness & by the poor shooting by the LW, he reckoned if they'd been his boys doing it - he'd have kicked their arses - for their slack work ethic..
-
Which 5 squadrons of Typhoons/Spitfires?
Scuttlebutt, is that like the press?
I guess Spurdel and Johnson, as well as other commanders, should have been brought up on incompetence charges for not have a/c in the air at first light.
-
Scuttlebutt = discussions amongst the servicemen, & no press or public relations-B.S.
Spurdle meant Tempests, they were un-hit by the LW & could've been vectored in A2A attack..
No ground control alert - or orders to intercept either, a real cock-up..
They were based at Volkel, & many were up on patrol elsewhere.. & weren't recalled soon enough..
As you noted, M.M.- most TAF Spitfire & Typhoon units had been strafed..
& where were the mighty P-38/47/51s in their thousands? They should've been waiting in ambush..
-
Scuttlebutt = discussions amongst the servicemen, & no press or public relations-B.S.
Agh, rumors, speculation.
-
M.M., are you really so uninformed?
Have you ever seen a news report - about which - you have 1st hand knowledge?
Or about something that happened when you were there & were involved in?
& do you know how military propaganda.. ..'spin' works? Its all basically B.S..
That is why the guys in the know, & who were there, know for sure - it was a debacle, really..
-
Spurdle meant Tempests, they were un-hit by the LW & could've been vectored in A2A attack..
And many Tempests were already flying a mission.
#3 took off at 08:20 for Paderborn Gone to far to be recalled
#56 took off shortly before 09:00 for Munster Gone to far to be recalled
#486 took off at 09:15 for Hanover Requested a return and was so granted when reports of e/a the B-80 area.
So why didn't Spurdel and and Baird (#274) put a/c in the air? Incompetence on their part.
-
& where were the mighty P-38/47/51s in their thousands? They should've been waiting in ambush..
9th AF
Over the Bulge and Alsace/Loraine doing what they were suppose to be doing.
(Eighth Air Force):: 2 missions are flown. Mission 774: 845 bombers and 725 fighters are dispatched to hit oil installations and rail bridges and junctions in W Germany visually and by PFF; they claim 23-1-3 Luftwaffe aircraft including a jet fighter; 8 bombers and 2 fighters are lost: 1. 451 B-17s are sent to hit an oil refinery at Magdeburg (11); secondary targets are the Henschel marshalling yard at Kassel (292) and the Gottingen marshalling yard (26); targets of opportunity are Hadamar (12), Wetzlar (12), Dillenburg (15), Koblenz (11), Wetter (12), Limburg (8), Kirchbunden (7) and other (22); 2 B-17s are lost, 3 damaged beyond repair and 71 damaged; 10 airmen are KIA, 8 WIA and 18 MIA. Escorting are 327 of 374 P-51s; they claim 17-1-1 aircraft; 2 P-51s are lost (pilots MIA) and 1 damaged beyond repair. 2. 109 B-17s are dispatched to hit oil industry targets at Dollbergen (54) and Ehmen (24); targets of opportunity are the Koblenz marshalling yard (12), Limburg (4) and other (5); 3 B-17s are damaged beyond repair and 43 damaged; 10 airmen are KIA. Escort is provided by 199 P-47s and P-51s without loss. 3. 273 B-24s hit the Lutzel (56) and Guls (30) rail bridges at Koblens, the Irlich rail bridge (57) and the Remagen rail bridge (6); targets of opportunity are Andernach (26), Engers rail bridge (9), Trier (1) and others (6); 1 B-24 is lost, 4 damaged beyond repair and 63 damaged; 20 airmen are KIA, 8 WIA and 10 MIA. The escort is 66 of 70 P-51s without loss. 4. 12 of 12 B-17s fly a screening force mission; they are 8 minutes late for their escort and are attacked by Fw 190s when 50 miles (80 km) ahead of the bombers; they claim 6-0-2 aircraft; 5 B-17s are lost and 1 damaged beyond repair; 45 airmen are MIA. Escort is supposed to be 23 of 26 P-51s. 5. 2 of 5 B-17s fly an APHRODITE mission against Oldenburg without loss. 6. 11 of 11 P-51s escort 9 F-5s and 1 Spitfire on a photo reconnaissance mission over Germany without loss. 7. 25 P-47s and P-51s escort 3 of 4 Mosquitoes on a special operations mission without loss. Mission 775: 5 B-24s and 3 B-17s drop leaflet on Belgium and Germany during the night without loss.
-
M.M., are you really so uninformed?
Have you ever seen a news report - about which - you have 1st hand knowledge?
Or about something that happened when you were there & were involved in?
& do you know how military propaganda.. ..'spin' works? Its all basically B.S..
That is why the guys in the know, & who were there, know for sure - it was a debacle, really..
Agh yes, the fog of war.
-
What happened to 'Ultra' then, & why no warning?
How could Ultra (radio intercepts) be off when land lines would do the job.
correction
it would appear #3 and #56 did get a recall for they made 6 claims in the Eindoven area between 09:35 and 10:05.
#3 took off at 08:20 for Paderborn Gone to far to be recalled
#56 took off shortly before 09:00 for Munster Gone to far to be recalled
-
This is how Bob Spurdle learned about the attack..
"New Years Eve came & went with a big thrash & we staggered off to bed confident it would be our last year of war.
Next day, as we drove along the road from Uden to Volkel, I spotted some low-flying planes heading our way. It was about 9 o' clock.
'109's! Out!' & we slid to a stop & rolled out & into a snow-filled ditch. The Jerries roared across the airfield in front of us, firing in a sustained crackle of MG & cannon-fire.
They didn't turn for another go, but continued on towards Eindhoven, some 12 miles away.
We dusted ourselves off, & climbing back into the Jeep, sped off to dispersal.
'What's up?' I asked the duty airman.
'We've just been strafed! They just made one pass!'
'Right! Have you rung Ops?'
'Yes - the officer just said they were too busy to talk to me. They won't answer our phone calls!'
This was madness."
Spurdle ordered a section scramble for airfield defence & climbed into his own Tempest..
"...on taking off my wind-shield got covered in oil - someone hadn't cleaned out weepage trapped in the spinner... I was furious at having to abort,
& even more so when the others returned after a hectic hour.
They had intercepted some 190's at tree-top height & 'Judy' ( F/O J.W. Garland) had shot 2 down in flames."
&,
"From prisoner interrogation we learned that Volkel was to have been hit by a force of 90 machines,
but due to a fluke only 4 or 5 arrived & they continued on to Eindhoven where almost complete
carnage wiped out the Canadian, Polish & 124 Wing's planes."
Bit of a poor show, all around - apparently..
-
So.... Does anyone remember what this thread was even about anymore?
-
So.... Does anyone remember what this thread was even about anymore?
No, but at least this thread went 5 full pages before jaw showed up. :cheers:
-
So.... Does anyone remember what this thread was even about anymore?
The P-38. :)
-
Good one on Sm,& funny, coz I know he done rate the F4U over that thing..
Yeah, & those two previous posts sure add some useful & interesting contributions to the subject..
Oh, wait.. no they don't..
So..
Why not step up guys, produce some goods..
& you don't - ..really.. ..surely.. - have to be quite so bloody lame..
-
I don't know how anyone would call Operation Bodenplatte as a success for the Luftwaffe. The only success the Luftwaffe enjoyed was tactical surprise but failed to capitalize on it and achieve tactical and strategic air superiority and paid dearly for it.
Adolf Galland said Operation Bodenplatte was "the final dagger thrust into the Luftwaffe's Breast".............The Luftwaffe received its death blow at the Ardennes offensive"
ack-ack
-
Yeah, & those two previous posts sure add some useful & interesting contributions to the subject..
Oh, wait.. no they don't..
So..
Why not step up guys, produce some goods..
& you don't - ..really.. ..surely.. - have to be quite so bloody lame..
The OP asked what we thought was the best heavy fighter in the game. I gave my opinion and a few reasons behind it.. Stop being a such a tard.
Thank you and good luck.
-
Correct A-A, but Bodenplatte was an embarrassment for the Allies too..
& Galland, to be fair - had a conflict of interest there..
He'd been harbouring those fighters to use in a massive 'Big-Blow' against the 8th AF..
But ol' boss-man Adolf H was always more keen on attack..
& got his 'bomber baron' Peltz to take over..
Galland was doing a bit of a 'dummy spit' over being side-lined..
-
The OP asked what we thought was the best heavy fighter in the game. I gave my opinion and a few reasons behind it.. Stop being a such a tard.
Thank you and good luck.
Well, - you were tardy.. ..L.O.L...
& Bodenplatte was a big 'heavy fighter' action don't you know, all the best ETO types were there..
-
Well, - you were tardy.. ..L.O.L...
& Bodenplatte was a big 'heavy fighter' action don't you know, all the best ETO types were there..
L. O. L. No. I was here before you. Therefore, - I win.
& what's the deal with the excessive dash and - ampersand usage?
-
L. O. L. No. I was here before you. Therefore, - I win.
& what's the deal with the excessive dash and - ampersand usage?
I think that this should be:
J., L. O. L... No.. - I was here before you..
& Therefore.. - I win..
& what's the deal with the excessive dash..
& - ampersand [and brackets and pseudoellipses] usage?..
-
FYI - '&' was once a - genuine & respected - symbol..
& member of the ABC line-up - when back in the day - kids rote learned it..
If that's of any interest to the - thread hi-jacking - punctuation police.. ..L.O.L...
-
FYI - '&' was once a - genuine & respected - symbol..
& member of the ABC line-up - when back in the day - kids rote learned it..
If that's of any interest to the - thread hi-jacking - punctuation police.. ..L.O.L...
Oh. So that's why you're doing it? To return us all to a time when the ampersand was loved and respected? I kinda figured it was just some edgy writing style I didn't know was edgy, - or something.
& with that, I bid you adieu, - for now.
-
Oh. So that's why you're doing it? To return us all to a time when the ampersand was loved and respected? I kinda figured it was just some edgy writing style I didn't know was edgy, - or something.
& with that, I bid you adieu, - for now.
:lol
:aok
:salute
-
Spurdle ordered a section scramble for airfield defence & climbed into his own Tempest..
"...on taking off my wind-shield got covered in oil - someone hadn't cleaned out weepage trapped in the spinner... I was furious at having to abort,
& even more so when the others returned after a hectic hour.
They had intercepted some 190's at tree-top height & 'Judy' ( F/O J.W. Garland) had shot 2 down in flames."
&,
"From prisoner interrogation we learned that Volkel was to have been hit by a force of 90 machines,
but due to a fluke only 4 or 5 arrived & they continued on to Eindhoven where almost complete
carnage wiped out the Canadian, Polish & 124 Wing's planes."
scuttlebutt
garland is not listed in the claims by 83 Group
and more scuttlebutt
material losses
#438 - 4
#439 - 7
#440 - 13
#400 - 11
#414 - 5
#430 - 10
no Polish squadrons at B-78
#137 - 3 (including 1 Hurricane)
#181 - 1
#182 - 13
#247 - 6
#168 - 2
-
Yeah well m.m. its certainly true that memoir written from memory can make factual errors..
But some of Spurdle's stuff is straight from his log-book, as written at the time..
& for sure, you weren't there..
For all you know m.m., 'Judy's' claims might've been credited to flak..
There were instances of Allied flak units being given claim precedence - for 'morale' reasons..
Historians - years after the fact- & even official service-written historical documents can get things wrong too..
Especially if there is a downright embarrassing episode that needs a cover-up..
There are Brit WW2 documents - that are still hidden - under the 100 year rule too.
A lovely bit of bogus 'struck off-charge' paper-work bumf - is just the ticket - to hide the true situation..
Just look up the Allied B.S./Secrecy cover-up over another embarrassingly damaging LW air attack,
that on Bari, in Italy a bit over a year earlier..
Or the false loss reports written & applied to 'friendly-fire' incidents & covert ops - that went bad..
Not so much 'fog of war' .. as deliberate B.S./smokescreen..
As evidence for one of his experiences, -an HO attack that put a hole through one his Spit's prop blades..
'
Ol' Bob kept the blade, to show anyone who called 'scuttlebutt'/B.S. on him about it..
Last I saw it, it was in the Kiwi Fighter Pilot Museum in Wanaka, NZ...
-
& FYI, m.m.,
On 1-1-45, F/O J.W. J. ['Judy'] Garland,
flying Tempest W2-B (EJ 774) of 80 Squadron, 122 Wing 2nd TAF, RAF,
was indeed, awarded a victory claim - for an FW 190 shot down 15 miles north of Munster..
-
Munster is no where near Eindoven.
-
Munster is no where near Eindoven.
They are both in Europe, aren't they?
-
131 Wing (Polish) with #302, #308 and #317 was at B-61 and came out on the positive, 25:19.
-
Attack on Bari was the best executed bomb-attack Germans did from 1943 on, and with JU88s only.
-
On 1-1-45, F/O J.W. J. ['Judy'] Garland,
flying Tempest W2-B (EJ 774) of 80 Squadron, 122 Wing 2nd TAF, RAF,
was indeed, awarded a victory claim - for an FW 190 shot down 15 miles north of Munster..
Garland's claim of 2 Dora 9s was not part of the Bodenplatte battle.
-
Attack on Bari was the best executed bomb-attack Germans did from 1943 on, and with JU88s only.
There is also the raid on Corsica in May 1944.
-
Raid on B-17s at Poltava wasn't bad either.
-
Raid on B-17s at Poltava wasn't bad either.
The US was hampered in that raid, the Soviets wouldn't allow the US to up their P-51s to defend the base and Soviet AA was so terrible, that they didn't hit one German aircraft.
ack-ack
-
I'm not sure what good the P-51s could have done since the attack took place at night. The airfield was illuminated by flares dropped by German pathfinders half past midnight before more than 300 He 111s from KG 4, KG 27, KG 53 and KG 55 attacked the field en masse.
-
The Bari raid was so successful much of the offensive planning in Italy had to be cancelled for months
-
& FYI, m.m.,
On 1-1-45, F/O J.W. J. ['Judy'] Garland,
flying Tempest W2-B (EJ 774) of 80 Squadron, 122 Wing 2nd TAF, RAF,
was indeed, awarded a victory claim - for an FW 190 shot down 15 miles north of Munster..
Looks like jaw is on a wee vacation. :banana:
To quote Chris Thomas:
Garland's combat report (and 2nd TAF Vol3 p394, plug!) gives the time of the combat as 1130 hrs. The CR gives the 'place of attack' as approx 15 miles NW Munster but in the narrative gives the crash locations as "approx 8 miles SE Rheine" and "approx 16 miles due west of Osnabruck".
The second Dora was described as "camouflaged light blue".
-
The Bari raid was so successful much of the offensive planning in Italy had to be cancelled for months
The result is irrelevant to the proficiency of how the attack was executed.
Attack on Bari was the best executed bomb-attack Germans did from 1943 on, and with JU88s only.
-
Hardly irrelevant, since an incompetently executed attack or when attack is successfully contested by defences..
- would make a big difference in outcome.. See Operation Steinbock
What about the He 177 missile attack on the Rhona troop-ship - packed with GI's - too?
-
Interesting, a full LW late war KG bomber selection at hand..
Bari & Corsica ops with Ju 88's,
Poltava with He 111,
Roma with Do 217 (& Fritz-X),
Rhona with He 177 ( Hs 293),
& Steinbock with 88/188/177/190/217..
& Ju 87 doing tactical night strike, while He 111's performed stand-off cruise missile ( V1) duty..
-
Quote from top-scoring RNZAF Evan Mackie (m'kay) who made ace status on Spitfire & Tempest..
"The Spitfire was a great machine, & after 805 hours on the various marks I grew really used to it,
but it did not take me long to realize that the Tempest was ever so much superior in many ways,
both as a fighter & a ground attack machine.
At the the closing stages of the European conflict I had the option of changing to the Meteor jet aircraft,
but turned it down in favour of the tried & proven Tempest.
The harder they were flown, the better they went, & despite their almost 7-ton weight they could be
thrown around the sky like a piece of paper."
Heavy fighter fan, then E. Mackie - it appears..
-
Mackie flew Spitfire Mk Vs (primarliy) and Mk VIIIs. Its little wonder he would label the Tempest V as "superior in many ways" - moving from a 1,720 hp, 7,800 lb fighter to a 2,200 hp, 11,500 lb fighter might do that.
If he'd moved to Spitfire Mk XIVs, I wonder what he might have said?
-
Well since he was also Wingco of 122 2nd TAF which had Spit XIVs attached, & being a Spit fan too,
its very likely he'd have no problem blagging one for an 'air-test' ,& it'd be in his log-book, I suppose..