Author Topic: Most Surprising Fighter Fact? (Read 12602 times)

Rasker · « **Reply #45 on:** December 27, 2003, 07:26:32 PM »

speaking of other largish single engine aircraft, what wrere wingspans on the Lysander or the Fairey Battle?

Halo · « **Reply #46 on:** December 27, 2003, 09:19:38 PM »

Westland Lysander 50 feet, Fairey Battle 54 feet, and single-engine bomber Vickers Wellesley 74 feet 7 inches (wider than the twin-engine B-26's 71 feet, 2 inches).

eskimo2 · « **Reply #47 on:** December 29, 2003, 06:17:14 PM »

The P-39 definitely got an unjust bad wrap. I believe it went into service before the P-38 and P-40. It was also designed with a supercharger but the army didn't want to pay for the extra expense. I believe the original contract was for a coastal patrol low alt short range fighter, a role that the P-39 did well.

I'm a bit especially biased because I live with a P-39 & P-63 pilot who had nothing but praise for those great Bell birds.

eskimo

Angus · « **Reply #48 on:** December 29, 2003, 06:42:09 PM »

From all I read about the P-39, it seems it went from a beautifully designed and flying beautifully as well, aircraft, into a modiefied flying "pig". By converting to army standards, increasing armour there and here, and etc, the flying characteristics changed drastically to the worse direction.
Makes one wonder whether the central engine mounting made the P-39 too sensible to C of G problems due to crude lift (wing) and weight (armament and armour issues) editing made after the initial designs by the requests/standards of the USAAF.
Just wondering really. Well, after all, it got stuck with the nickname "iron dog"!

HoHun · « **Reply #49 on:** December 30, 2003, 12:58:28 AM »

Hi Eskimo,

>I'm a bit especially biased because I live with a P-39 & P-63 pilot who had nothing but praise for those great Bell birds.

Did he have to fly them in combat? It seems the Bell fighters made a good impression on anyone who flew them in the friendly skies of the USA, but much less so in a hostile environment.

Chuck Yeager commented positively on the P-39, too - but he was flying P-51 in combat.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

eskimo2 · « **Reply #50 on:** December 30, 2003, 09:33:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Eskimo,

>I'm a bit especially biased because I live with a P-39 & P-63 pilot who had nothing but praise for those great Bell birds.

Did he have to fly them in combat? It seems the Bell fighters made a good impression on anyone who flew them in the friendly skies of the USA, but much less so in a hostile environment.

Chuck Yeager commented positively on the P-39, too - but he was flying P-51 in combat.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Yes & no.

He flew them stateside, but he was shot at and was “hit” hundreds of times.
My father-in-law “Bill” was a gunnery instructor in Las Vegas Nevada. He flew the P-39 in mock attacks on B-17s where students would shoot 8mm film guns at his plane. (Processed and reviewed after landing.)
The P-63s he flew were RP-63s. They had all guns removed and were armor plated. Students and instructors in the B-17s would shoot .30 Cal. Frangible bullets at his plane as he made mock attacks. The RP-63 had hit sensors and a spinner that would light up when the plane received a hit.

The P-39 was very much an early war plane and was quickly outclassed. IMO, the P-63 was to the P-39, what the F6F was to the F4F.

eskimo

HoHun · « **Reply #51 on:** December 30, 2003, 09:53:02 AM »

Hi Eskimo,

>My father-in-law “Bill” was a gunnery instructor in Las Vegas Nevada.

Hey, that's fascinating! :-)

I've read about the gunnery training in "Operation Pinball - The USAAF's secret aerial gunnery program in WWII" by Ivan Hickman. In my opinion, it's a great book about a little-known topic, with broad backgrond information, some in-depth detail, veterans' accounts capturing the atmosphere, and a good number of photographs, too.

If your father-in-law doesn't know that one yet, I imagine he would enjoy it!

In fact, I think that the "Pinball" P-63s that were given the duty of being shot at with real bullets (well, the "skin-friendly" flavour ;-) by USAAF gunners immediately qualifies as one of the Most Surprising Fighter Facts in the sense of this thread :-)

I'd actually like to recommend Hickman's book to everyone who's looking for a different perspective on WW2 air combat history :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

eskimo2 · « **Reply #52 on:** December 30, 2003, 10:00:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Eskimo,

>My father-in-law “Bill” was a gunnery instructor in Las Vegas Nevada.

Hey, that's fascinating! :-)

I've read about the gunnery training in "Operation Pinball - The USAAF's secret aerial gunnery program in WWII" by Ivan Hickman. In my opinion, it's a great book about a little-known topic, with broad backgrond information, some in-depth detail, veterans' accounts capturing the atmosphere, and a good number of photographs, too.

If your father-in-law doesn't know that one yet, I imagine he would enjoy it!

In fact, I think that the "Pinball" P-63s that were given the duty of being shot at with real bullets (well, the "skin-friendly" flavour ;-) by USAAF gunners immediately qualifies as one of the Most Surprising Fighter Facts in the sense of this thread :-)

I'd actually like to recommend Hickman's book to everyone who's looking for a different perspective on WW2 air combat history :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

We have a couple of copies of that book and have both read it.
Bill participated in just about everything described in that book and wa involved in gunnery training development throughout the war.

He had lots of great stories, and a surprising number of sad ones.

eskimo

HoHun · « **Reply #53 on:** December 30, 2003, 03:30:26 PM »

Hi Eskimo,

>We have a couple of copies of that book and have both read it.
Bill participated in just about everything described in that book and wa involved in gunnery training development throughout the war.

I guess that means he thinks the book is a keeper :-)

It's reassuring when a guy who was there and did it likes a book that looked good from the armchair perspective! :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Halo · « **Reply #54 on:** December 30, 2003, 07:04:27 PM »

After finding that Wellesley wing span so wide, can't resist infiltrating another bomber factoid into this fighter thread, i.e., the Russian four-engine Pe-8 had rear guns in the two inner engine nacelles.

One small step for streamlining, one giant step for making the best of a drag thing. Gorgeous external views of the Pe-8 and more than 100 other aircraft are in Fighter Ace.

gripen · « **Reply #55 on:** December 31, 2003, 03:47:55 AM »

One surprising fighter fact is that USAF Material Command tried to stop production of the P-51/A-36 in 1942.

gripen

Ring · « **Reply #56 on:** December 31, 2003, 03:33:29 PM »

some p39D1 info for you..

http://prodocs.netfirms.com/

Airacobra (P-39) - Preliminary handling trials, August 1941.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Airacobra - Weights and loading data, ?????.

1, 2, 3

Airacobra - Climb and level speed performance, September 1942.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Various documents on Airacobra gunnery trials, ?????

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

http://members.tripod.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/usaaf/P39D_flying.pdf

the US Army Air flight test with full charts..

HoHun · « **Reply #57 on:** December 31, 2003, 05:53:09 PM »

Hi Ring,

Thanks a lot, that's highly interesting material!

On browsing it quickly, the bits that surprised me most are about the heavy ailerons at speeds and the massive armour glass installation.

I've been trying to match the British test results with the American findings, but it seems to me that the British Airacobra could not draw even close to 70" Hg.

If I assume 990 HP @ 37" Hg, 2600 rpm, and 1350 HP @ 52" Hg, 3000 rpm, the British Airacobra might indeed outclimb the A6M2 below 2 km if allowed to use that much boost.

(Unfortunately, the A6M2 performance data posted earlier in this thread lacks information on power settings used, so I'm not quite sure if the numbers are accurately comparable.)

The Airacobra is much faster than the A6M2 even without the extra boost, which only helps at extremely low altitude only anyway. (50 - 60 km/h advantage from 0 - 5 km.)

The A6M2 conveniently outclimbs the Airacobra above 3 km, with its advantage increasing with altitude. Above 8 km, the A6M2 is both faster and climbs better.

To my surprise, the Airocobra compares better to the A6M2 than the F4F-4 does. The F4F-4 doesn't gain any speed advantage even at high altitude from its 2-speed supercharger, and while it has a higher climb rate than the Airacobra at 8 km, that's still only half the climb rate of the A6M2.

Of course, the capability to go up to the enemies' altitude (or even above for a diving attack) might have made the F4F-4 a greater threat for the Japanese nevertheless, but I'm still surprised ... :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Guppy · « **Reply #58 on:** December 31, 2003, 09:25:28 PM »

I came across a Russian site with a couple of articles in English relating to the P-39. While I can't vouch for their accuracy, they seem quite interesting, so:

http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/romanenko/index.htm
http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part3.htm

Halo · « **Reply #59 on:** January 03, 2004, 06:57:18 PM »

We always hear about the P-51 being so crucial in WWII for its role in long-range escort of B-17s over Germany, but the fighter range chart in the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft has many surprises.

(Although the chart does not specify, it seems as if the ranges are without external fuel tanks.)

For example, the P-51 range is shown as only 19th highest. Just ahead of it is ... the Brewster Buffalo (18th).

And ahead of that is the Corsair(17th).

12th is the Hellcat, and the best American showing is ... the Seversky P-35 at 9th.

Japanese fighters are credited with five of the top 10 longest ranges, No. 1 being Kawanishi N1K1-J Shiden (says chart, but plate shows N1K2-J Shiden-Kai as better with 1,293-mile range).

Four of the top eight are British, three Japanese, and one German. Five of those top eight have twin engines.

And (whew), of those top eight on the chart, the only jet is the Gloster Meteor, in 3rd place, but its plate range is given as 1,390 miles, making it best of all.

Whuda thunk a jet would have even the third best WWII fighter range, let alone possibly the best?