Fw 190A vs P-47D diving from 25,000 ft to deck.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Knegel
Perhaps you should read before writing??

I dont wrote the RAE datas are wrong, but their (Browns) conclusion the P47 is useless as a high alt fighter.

This conclusion got proven as wrong(by history), not the datas.

Let's quote your (shouting) posting from above:

"And actually i dont wanna say the P47 had a higher critical mach, i only wanna say that the RAE conclusions got proven as wrong!!

The RAE also fount to be the Hurri a better fighter than the 109 and their conclusion was the 109 was obsolete in 1943."

There is nothing about Brown and infact you add more arguments against RAE.

The history part is that P-47 was mostly doing ground attack tasks in the ETO once there were enough P-51s.

[Knegel]

You still dont seems to understand that i dont dont say anything against the testdatas. Same like the other heavy and powerfull planes, the P47 got into speeds where compressions occur and it may be the P47 had a rather low tactical critical mach, i never told something different.

This whole discussion started cause someone used the RAE datas in combination with Eric Browns(RAE testpilot) statement as argument against the P47´s high alt qualitys, despite even the germans found the P47 to be a pretty good plane, specialy in the dive!!

Here is what Viking wrote again: "RAE found that the 109 and 190 had a tactical Mach limit of 0.75, the P-38 had a tactical limit of 0.68 or 0.69 (I don’t recall which) and the P-47 had 0.71. Brown said they were useless as high altitude escorts and that only the P-51 with a tactical Mach limit of 0.78 could deal with the Germans at 30k."

So it sounds to me the RAE had this conclusion, at least Brown, who did work for the RAE had this conclusion(according to Viking).  

Actually its not realy important who had this conlusion, its important that history proof this conclusion as wrong and so its not a valid argument.

In 1943/44 the P47C/D was a good high alt fighter in comparison to its common oponents, the P47C/D didnt felt appart when it got into speeds above its tactical critical mach and the P47C/D in general dont got into a death trap, if it got above its critical tactical mach.

The P47 made mostly ground attacks not cause it was bad in high alt, rather cause the P51 was not that good in low alt(couldnt take much groundfire and couldnt carry as much loadout) and cause the P51 simply was a better fighter in general.
Nevertheless the P47 made a very good job in 1943 and early 44 in high alt, the only bad limitaion was the short range of the early models, not the low critical mach. When the P47 dissapeared from the escort role, the LW already was pretty much down.

If the hint, the P47 got used most in low level, was meant as an argument against its high alt qualitys, also the Ta152H must have been a bad high alt fighter, cause it ONLY got used in low/medium level.  

[gripen]

Originally posted by Knegel
You still dont seems to understand that i dont dont say anything against the testdatas.

Well, I do understand when you shout that "the RAE conclusions got proven as wrong!!".

Originally posted by Knegel
So it sounds to me the RAE had this conclusion, at least Brown, who did work for the RAE had this conclusion(according to Viking).

That is your poor iterpration (and probably also Viking's); generally people have opinions but that does not mean that opinion of a person presents opinion of the organisation where he/she works (has worked).

Besides, presenting an opinion (founded or not) does not justify public name calling seen in this thread nor bashing of the organisation.

Originally posted by Knegel
Actually its not realy important who had this conlusion, its important that history proof this conclusion as wrong and so its not a valid argument.

Well, the true history is that the P-47 got the dive recovery flaps. Certainly for a good reason.

Originally posted by Knegel
In 1943/44 the P47C/D was a good high alt fighter in comparison to its common oponents, the P47C/D didnt felt appart when it got into speeds above its tactical critical mach and the P47C/D in general dont got into a death trap, if it got above its critical tactical mach.

RAE and Republic data is quite clear on this; the pilot was more or less a passenger at high mach numbers.

Originally posted by Knegel
Nevertheless the P47 made a very good job in 1943 and early 44 in high alt, the only bad limitaion was the short range of the early models, not the low critical mach. When the P47 dissapeared from the escort role, the LW already was pretty much down.

The P-47 was a good performer at altitude and the critical mach number difference is small if compared to German fighters (couple %). But that does not mean that there was no compressibility related problems; 8th AF certainly had a reason to sent a P-47 to the RAE for the tests.

Originally posted by Knegel
...even the germans found the P47 to be a pretty good plane, specialy in the dive!!

The dive acceleration is not the same thing as the critical mach number and other compressibility related issues.

BTW there is no reason to shout all the time.

[Knegel]

Originally posted by gripen
Well, I do understand when you shout that "the RAE conclusions got proven as wrong!!".

You clearly dont! Cause like so often you take smal things out of the whole contex!
 

Originally posted by gripen
That is your poor iterpration (and probably also Viking's); generally people have opinions but that does not mean that opinion of a person presents opinion of the organisation where he/she works (has worked).
[/B]

The datas in combination with Browns statement, who was a member of the RAE, simply came around like its the RAE conclusion. But as i wrote, its not important here, important is that its wrong.

Originally posted by gripen
Besides, presenting an opinion (founded or not) does not justify public name calling seen in this thread nor bashing of the organisation.
[/B]

I didnt bash the RAE, i only wrote they was wrong before, with their conclusions. Conclusions out of datas, to be used in future often are wrong, i did offer the Hurri/109 example to show this, not to bash the RAE in general.
If the RAE dont had Browns opinion, someone of them should clarify this, cause Brown is probably the best known member of the RAE and his words always will stay tight with the RAE.

Originally posted by gripen
Well, the true history is that the P-47 got the dive recovery flaps. Certainly for a good reason.
[/B]

What have this to do with the statement "the P47 was useless as high alt fighter"??

btw, the true history is, the dive recovery flaps rarely got used in war and  the P47 did perform good without this flaps.
True history is, at a time when no mach1 airframes was available, every modern fighter would have needed dive recovery flaps to prevent accidents.
True histoy show that also Typhoons, La´s, 109´s and 190´s, 262´s and P51´s crashed cause the pilot wasnt able to get out of the dive.  

Originally posted by gripen
RAE and Republic data is quite clear on this; the pilot was more or less a passenger at high mach numbers.

The P-47 was a good performer at altitude and the critical mach number difference is small if compared to German fighters (couple %). But that does not mean that there was no compressibility related problems; 8th AF certainly had a reason to sent a P-47 to the RAE for the tests.

The dive acceleration is not the same thing as the critical mach number and other compressibility related issues.
[/B]

This clearly show that you still dont understand that i dont argue against the RAE results, but against the "its useless statement"!!
The P47 got into compression like most modern fighters and it got send to the RAE cause this was rather new. As i wrote before, the problem wasnt a to low critical mach, the problem was the autstanding diveacceleration, which brought the P47, same like the P38, very fast into this critical mach. Of course it would have been nice, if the critical mach would have been Mach 0,9, but as the problems with the 262 and 163 show(both had a rather high critical mach), its not the value, its how fast the plane reach this speed. The P47, same like the P38, 163 and 262 had a outstanding thrust(weight + power)/drag relation, specialy in high alt, where the the normal drag dont count that much, this result into a extreme dive acceleration, which brought this planes suprising fast into their critical mach. And its this suprising factor which need a experienced pilot and made the diveflaps to a welcome addition.
For sure the P51 did a better job regarding this, but to call the P47 "useless in high alt" is a "bit" overdone.

Originally posted by gripen
BTW there is no reason to shout all the time. [/B]

I ALWAYS THOUGH THIS IS SHOUTING.  Otherwise i dont know what you want.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Knegel
You clearly dont! Cause like so often you take smal things out of the whole contex!
...

The datas in combination with Browns statement, who was a member of the RAE, simply came around like its the RAE conclusion. But as i wrote, its not important here, important is that its wrong.

Well, you take a second hand quote of a person and claim it as a conclusion of the organisation. Perhaps you should actually read the reports instead rely on second hand quotes.

Originally posted by Knegel
I didnt bash the RAE, i only wrote they was wrong before, with their conclusions. Conclusions out of datas, to be used in future often are wrong, i did offer the Hurri/109 example to show this, not to bash the RAE in general.

I can't follow your logic here, basicly you make statements about the RAE conclusions without actually reading the reports. If you actually read the RAE report on the Bf 109E, you will find out that they claim Hurricane superior only in the high speed handling and the turning circles, in practically all other performance areas the Bf 109 is claimed to be better (speed, climb, dive acceleration etc.). They just over rated close range dog fighting that time.

There is nearly allways some error in the measurements and the conclusions. However, I don't see any reason to nitpick them. And in this case it's obivious that you have not even read the reports.

Originally posted by Knegel

What have this to do with the statement "the P47 was useless as high alt fighter"??

That quote is not coming from the RAE, but a second hand opinion from a person. I have no problem to live with such opinions but apparently you have.

And the connection with the RAE tests (and Republic tests as well) is that with the dive recovery flaps the pilot could regain the control and recover from the dive.

Originally posted by Knegel

This clearly show that you still dont understand that i dont argue against the RAE results, but against the "its useless statement"!!

Perhaps you (and Viking) should leave the RAE (and actually Brown too) out of discussion then.

Besides, I don't see any reason to argue about the opinion of a person. Brown is one of the great aviators of our time and IMHO deserves some respect despite what ever you think about his opinions.

Originally posted by Knegel

I ALWAYS THOUGH THIS IS SHOUTING.  Otherwise i dont know what you want.

Well, you can shout with "!" as well and if you want to be loud, then "!!" as you do.

[Knegel]

Originally posted by gripen
Well, you take a second hand quote of a person and claim it as a conclusion of the organisation. Perhaps you should actually read the reports instead rely on second hand quotes.

Maybe you should argue with Viking, i didnt took anything than what he posted here and due to the way he posted it, i simply got the impression that was the RAE conclusion, if the RAE dont had this conclusion its even better for my argumentation. Actually i dont need to read anything than the combat reports and countless statements regarding the P47 high alt performence to disagree to the "its worthless" statement.

Originally posted by gripen

I can't follow your logic here, basicly you make statements about the RAE conclusions without actually reading the reports. If you actually read the RAE report on the Bf 109E, you will find out that they claim Hurricane superior only in the high speed handling and the turning circles, in practically all other performance areas the Bf 109 is claimed to be better (speed, climb, dive acceleration etc.). They just over rated close range dog fighting that time.

Yes, logic isnt your stron point. Basically i disagree with the "its useless statement" and similar conclusions regarding the P47´s high alt performence. And again you mix up tested datas with conclusions.
This is a RAE statement: "The Me 109 is inferior as a fighter to the Hurricane or Spitfire."
Maybe you should read more?

Originally posted by gripen
There is nearly allways some error in the measurements and the conclusions. However, I don't see any reason to nitpick them. And in this case it's obivious that you have not even read the reports.

It seems to me you realy dont get that i dont say anthing about the tested datas and the quote above show that you didnt read it.

Originally posted by gripen

That quote is not coming from the RAE, but a second hand opinion from a person. I have no problem to live with such opinions but apparently you have.

I have a problem, if such opinions get offered in a way that make belive they are RAE statements and a fact in general.

Originally posted by gripen

And the connection with the RAE tests (and Republic tests as well) is that with the dive recovery flaps the pilot could regain the control and recover from the dive.

Oh great, applaus, thats realy something new. lol

Originally posted by gripen
Perhaps you (and Viking) should leave the RAE (and actually Brown too) out of discussion then.

Besides, I don't see any reason to argue about the opinion of a person. Brown is one of the great aviators of our time and IMHO deserves some respect despite what ever you think about his opinions.

Of course Brown need respect, but if he made such a statement, it must be allowed to disagree. No??

Originally posted by gripen

Well, you can shout with "!" as well and if you want to be loud, then "!!" as you do.

Actually a "!" is made to show the reader that this sentence is more important, in his(writer) opinion. What you do is what i call nitpicking! Its realy new to me that people feel offended cause someone use a "!".

[gripen]

Originally posted by Knegel
Maybe you should argue with Viking...

I don't see any reason or sense to argue about an opinion of a person here.

There is errors in Viking's postings but the others have pointed them out allready.

However, you present this subjective opinion as a conclusion of the RAE, which is not true.

Originally posted by Knegel
This is a RAE statement: "The Me 109 is inferior as a fighter to the Hurricane or Spitfire."
Maybe you should read more?

Well, I have read the entire report and you should too before you make claims. That statement entirely based on turning circles and high speed handling, practically in all other performance areas the Bf 109 is claimed to be better. They just overestimated value of the close range dog fighting that time. Same way the the Zero can be claimed to be superior to the American fighters if compared only in slow speed close range dogfighting. In both cases the statement is correct in that particular context (in the case Hurricane also the high speed handling statement is correct).

Originally posted by Knegel
It seems to me you realy dont get that i dont say anthing about the tested datas and the quote above show that you didnt read it.

Well, you have continously claimed an opinion of a person as conclusion of the RAE.

Originally posted by Knegel
I have a problem, if such opinions get offered in a way that make belive they are RAE statements and a fact in general.
...
Of course Brown need respect, but if he made such a statement, it must be allowed to disagree. No??

I think that you should write to Mr. Brown and tell your opinion to him instead.

If you want argue about the RAE data, please dug up the reports first and read what actually is written there before you make claims.

[Charge]

This thread has turned into a garbage bin.

-C+

[Knegel]

Originally posted by gripen
I don't see any reason or sense to argue about an opinion of a person here.

There is errors in Viking's postings but the others have pointed them out allready.

However, you present this subjective opinion as a conclusion of the RAE, which is not true.

I already wrote that i had the impression its a RAE statement, not only Browns opinion, i got this impression cause it was offered by Viking in one contex with the RAE testresults. I so sorry that i got this impression, realy iam so sorry.

Originally posted by gripen
Well, I have read the entire report and you should too before you make claims. That statement entirely based on turning circles and high speed handling, practically in all other performance areas the Bf 109 is claimed to be better. They just overestimated value of the close range dog fighting that time. Same way the the Zero can be claimed to be superior to the American fighters if compared only in slow speed close range dogfighting. In both cases the statement is correct in that particular context (in the case Hurricane also the high speed handling statement is correct).

I would say you be wrong!! The statement dont base only on turning circles. Its was their conclusions regarding the potential of the 109 vs Spit/Hurri as fighter. They made more strange statement in this conclusion. For example they blame the 109´s roll ratio at 400mph, while the Spitfires rollratio was same bad.
You still dont seems to understand the different between tested datas and a conclusion.

Originally posted by gripen

Well, you have continously claimed an opinion of a person as conclusion of the RAE.

Only until i got informned that my impression that Browns statement was also the RAE conclusion is wrong, but again this wasnt important for this discussion.

Originally posted by gripen
I think that you should write to Mr. Brown and tell your opinion to him instead.

The RAE should do this, cause he is/was their man, if they dont, they shouldnt wonder that people mix up opinions of their boys with official opinions.  

Originally posted by gripen
If you want argue about the RAE data, please dug up the reports first and read what actually is written there before you make claims.

How often i need to tell you that i didnt argued the RAE datas of the P47 test. You even dont seems to see that its not important for this discussion who made this statement, neighter you seems to undertsnd that i already did understand that the RAE dont made such a statement and why i got the impression the RAE had this conclusion.

Anyway, the P47 discussion found an end, no good arguments against its high alt performence got offered(i was interested if there are more), so i dont will reply here anymore.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Knegel

I would say you be wrong!! The statement dont base only on turning circles. Its was their conclusions regarding the potential of the 109 vs Spit/Hurri as fighter.

Let's quote the whole sentence, only the high speed handling and turning circles are mentioned in that case (some details after that):

"The Me. 109 is inferior as a fighter to the Hurricane and Spitfire. Its manouverability at high airspeeds is seriously curtailed by the heaviness of the controls, while it's high wing loading causes it to stall readily under high normal accelerations and results in a poor turning circle"

Originally posted by Knegel
They made more strange statement in this conclusion. For example they blame the 109´s roll ratio at 400mph, while the Spitfires rollratio was same bad.

I don't see anything strange there; both planes were about equally bad laterally at high speed and that was confirmed by the measurements.

Originally posted by Knegel

The RAE should do this, cause he is/was their man, if they dont, they shouldnt wonder that people mix up opinions of their boys with official opinions.  

Hm... have you ever consider such remote possibility that the problem here is your (and some others) unability to tolerate different opinions.

After all Mr. Brown is one most experienced aviators around and I think that it's truly great that he still writes and travels around doing lectures etc.

[Benny Moore]

The problem is that pilots with far more experience with the P-47 than Brown disagreed with him about the dive.  Brown's no idiot, but then neither was he a P-47 ace or a Republic test pilot.

[Charge]

"Hm... have you ever consider such remote possibility that the problem here is your (and some others) unability to tolerate different opinions."



-C+

[gripen]

Well, Brown writes in the "Testing for Combat" that he did not fly much with the P-47:

"My own experience of the Thunderbolt was too short to make a thorough assessment of it, but I certainly remember it as one of the aircraft that made my adrenalin flow faster than usual."

Regarding the altitude performance Brown writes following:

"I did some general handling at 5,000 and 20,000 ft before going on up to 30,000 ft for a level speed run. It was obvious that this aeroplane was not at it's best at low level,but came into its own at high altitude. With combat emergency power I computed that after a 3 min run the true airspeed was 425 mph."

[Benny Moore]

Hmm, that definitely sounds "useless" at high altitude.  I think I'm going to let you guys think what you want to think.  Krusty, I thank you for your objectivity and your support of this fine fighter.  By the way, I'd like to point out that no U.S.A.A.F. fighter had a better kill ratio than the Thunderbolt.

[Krusty]

I think you mean somebody else?

EDIT: Don't sweat it, I been thinking 1 name and typing another quite often, as of late.