Best fighter

[armadillo]

yx190 thank you very much for link with Golodnikov's interview on english. I see I wasted posting here becouse you may read much perfect info about russian tactic's.

Please read all four articles - it is very interesting and important all.

Yes, dropping speed is more critical for 190s, and it's 190's serious disadvantage. Please read carefully 3rd Golodnikov's article about what abilities much important for fighter. And read about reason to enter and leave battle, especially about Muller.

If you means boomzooming as a part of dogfight, not hit&run, it is means for russian as common fight using vertical manoeuvres and no appointed especially. But not exists a reason that germans have more changes to get alt advantages than russians. So you must fighting both cases - lower or higher in the begining.

Please read again this about difference between west and east:
quote:A.S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, you have told us a great deal but nonetheless have not explained the principal reason why the Fokker did not become the “be all and end all” fighter on the Eastern Front that it was on the Western Front. Look at what James “Johnnie” Johnson (No. 1 British ace of World War II) wrote in his memoirs: “ . . . When the flight control officer told me that a group of enemy fighters had been spotted up ahead, I tried to avoid combat if the sun and altitude did not give us an opportunity for a surprise attack. The superiority of the Focke-Wulf over our Spitfires was too great in the spring of 1943.” (James E. Johnson, The Best British Ace, Moscow: “AST”, 2002). And Johnson flew the Spitfire Vb, an aircraft that in the West was considered better than the P-40 and also better than the P-39.
Even if one considers the fact that on the Eastern Front the Fokkers were often piloted by fighter-bomber pilots, who had not distinguished themselves in fighter combat, just the same this does not explain the difference in the evaluations of the effectiveness of the FW-190.

N.G. Well, perhaps the answer is rooted in the difference in employment of the Fokker. The Fokkers in our theater were employed as a front-line fighter and fighter bomber, and in the West as interceptors.
It might be that the whole explanation can lay in radar support. In the West, Fokkers were vectored by radar; that is, by the time that contact occurred the Fokkers had managed to acquire speed and to gain altitude superiority. In this case, the low acceleration rate of the Fokker did not play any special role because it had already acquired speed and altitude. The Germans were still less likely to conduct a prolonged maneuver battle.
On our front the Germans did not have the kind of radar support density that they enjoyed in the West. Both we and the Germans, on the whole, used visual means to detect the enemy. You fly and you look around. If you spot something, go to full power and engage it. In conditions of the absence of radar vectoring, the dynamic of acceleration played a crucial role in the most rapid achievement of maximum speed. The Fokker was just mediocre in this respect.
As far as I can recall, when the Germans began to employ the Fokker in the West as a fighter bomber, they also began to suffer heavier losses.
quote:N.G. What have we been talking about? You must understand that you have been making the same mistake as do all people who have no connection with combat aviation. You are confusing two concepts: maximum speed and combat speed. Maximum speed is attained under ideal conditions: horizontal flight, strict maintenance of altitude, calculated engine revolutions, and so on.
Combat speed is a range of maximum possible speeds that an aircraft can develop for the conduct of active maneuver aerial battle, and at which all forms of maneuver attendant to that battle can be executed.
When I speak to you about speed, I have in mind namely the combat speed at which I conducted battle. To me maximum speed is neither here nor there.

A.S. What if you had to chase someone down? Don’t you need maximum speed then?

N.G. Well, I caught up to them, and then what? If you get going too fast, at some point in time you will have to scrub some off or you will outrun your target. Firing accurately on a target at high speed is problematical. More precisely, if I am fortunate enough to hit the target, how many hits are sufficient—that is the question. So first I catch the target, then I slow down, fire, hit the throttle, and accelerate again. The capability of an engine to drive an airplane forward and brake it in the shortest space of time is called “responsiveness”.
Many consider that if an aircraft has a high maximum speed, then its combat speed will also be high, and this is not always so. It happens that during the comparison of two types of fighters, one of them may have a higher maximum speed and the other a higher combat speed. Such factors as responsiveness of the engine and thrust-to-weight ratio have substantial influence on the combat speed. These are the same factors that provide for maximum acceleration.
One need not look far to find an example of this. We had the fighter LaGG-3. I flew it myself. Well, in 1941 this aircraft had greater top speed than the Yak-1. It had several indisputable advantages over the Yak in addition to its higher speed. The LaGG was more durable and harder to set on fire. Why? It was made from delta wood [del’ta-drevesina]. In addition, the LaGG was more powerfully armed. But you know what? Ask any pilot who fought in the war, “Of the two fighters, the Yak and the LaGG, which would you prefer?” He would most certainly respond “the Yak”. Why? Because the Yak was a very dynamic aircraft with high responsiveness and the LaGG was a “slug”, a “boat anchor”. The LaGG was somewhat heavier than the Yak, which meant it was more inert. The maximum speed of the LaGG was higher because the aircraft was aerodynamically very “clean”. If you “poured on the coal” it would “sweat”mightily. [Think steam locomotive—Golodnikov is of that generation—JG.] If it lost speed, it was very difficult to regain it. In order not to lose speed in combat, one needed a deft touch. I had to construct my attack, combat maneuver, or dive in such a manner as to preserve my speed. And one more thing—the LaGG required decent effort on the stick for control.
The Yak had only two advantages over the LaGG, but they were significant!—outstanding responsiveness and ease of control. The Yak could regain speed that it had lost very easily—full throttle and that was sufficient. One did not have to dive; the Yak picked up speed even when the nose was up. In addition to everything else, the Yak was considerably easier to control than the LaGG. On the one hand it was stable but on the other it reacted instantly to the slightest pressure on the stick.
I only flew the LaGG-3; I never fought in it. But now, from the perspective of my combat experience, I can say that the LaGG-3 was a fair fighter. It was fully equal to the P-40 in its tactical and technical characteristics, but could contend on an equal footing with a Messer only in the hands of an experienced pilot, who really knew how to exploit its engine and was tactically skilled. An inexperienced or insufficiently trained pilot (we had many of these early in the war) in a LaGG could not in any way stand up against a Messer. He simply did not know how to take advantage of his aircraft’s strong points. A Yak offered such a pilot a significantly greater chance of survival. At the same time an experienced pilot in a Yak felt himself significantly more confident and gave little thought to any speed he might lose during the engagement.
Here is another example. Between the I-16 type-28 and the Bf-109E, the Messer had a higher top speed and the combat speeds of these two aircraft were practically equal. If one compares the type-28 with the Hurricane, the Hurricane had higher maximum speed but the I-16 higher combat speed. The Hurricane was a very sluggish fighter.
You can try, but it is a difficult and thankless task to compare the combat qualities of aircraft using reference book data. There are simply too many nuances to consider.


Let's read your own quote from Golodnikov:
quote:The ‘attack group’ engaged in and conducted battle with enemy fighters; therefore it was preferable for them to have engines that performed better at altitude. They needed to arrive at the place of battle with a reserve of altitude and more powerful armaments. The initial attack was a surprise and therefore more effective in terms of results. It was better to have heavier aircraft in this group in order to chase down Germans in a dive. The Lavochkin and Airacobra met this requirement better.
In the direct cover group it was better to have more dynamic and lighter aircraft with good vertical capabilities. They circled around the bombers and fended off German fighters who managed to break away from the "attack group". The Yaks were just this type of aircraft. It was another matter that in the direct cover group the chance to get a kill was significantly less than in the attack group. The Yak pilots were constantly unhappy about this specialization, but had to live with it. You can see that a reason for plane in attack group is engine's alt perfomance. 190 isn't better than 109.
Attack group need fast dive. I sayd before 190's DIVE ACCELERATION was lower that 109's. If you not trust me, please trust Golodnikov.
Max dive spped don't reach starting low level at battle speed.
So no reason for use 190 in attack group insteed 109.
But in cover group 190 had no reason too! Thats the way why Germans not using it wide as fighter at East.

In USSR the term "empty" means what are you named "equipped". It is a differenve between take off and load masses. Term "empty" by your means looks curiously - you can't compare different craft with different equipment.

[armadillo]

quote:you not trust me, please trust Golodnikov.
please excuse me if this sounds glaringly. you can see many links with this statement. I can found more.

[yx190]

quote:Originally posted by armadillo

quote:you not trust me, please trust Golodnikov.
please excuse me if this sounds glaringly. you can see many links with this statement. I can found more.


armadillo. Not at all. I highly respect the Russia veterans. It is Russia who made the greatest contribution to defeat the evil Nazi. The comments comes from Russia should be fully respected.

Meanwhile, I also like to hear the opinion from other side. From the book “Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Aces of the Russian Front (Osprey Aircraft of the Aces, No 6), we can see that the German pilot had high regard to FW190, even higher than 109. Because the 190 was optimized design for high speed, the German always try to stay at high speed to exploit its capability. 190 had better performance than Russia plane above 3000, if the Russia plane flew lower, it was reasonable to dive on them. For a 190 pilot, the most dangerous moment was being caught in low speed or no enough altitude to dive away.
So I always emphasize on the importance of tactical situation of operating 190. There were more ground attack 190s than fighters ones. It was very likely that Russia felt those ground attack 190s were easy to againt comparing with Bf109. However, were Russia pilots able to distinguish the difference of these 190 variants? I think it was rare. The defeat by Russia planes were caused by adversity tactical situation rather than 190’s capability.
The Russia’s aircraft designs were optimized for the maneuverability of below 3000m, speed below 400km/h. But the German’s design emphasized more on speed. In western front, fighting above 8000m and up to high speed (400 ~800 km/h) was quite normal. Speed was much more important. Maneuverability at high speed was equally or more important than at low speed.

About 190’s weakness, particularly its slow acceleration, I think Golodnikov is quite right regarding to the early subtype of 190s. However, I am not sure whether he felt the same after 1943.

Please refer following thread which talking about 190’s BMW power.
http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=29 1.topic
In fact, the maximum power of BMW engine kept same from 190A3 to A8 .Due to the manufacture shortcoming, the early BMW engine was running at ‘derated’. In other words, its maximum power 1700hp (1.42 ata) can only be used around 1-2 mins, a long running was forbidding. The engine power setting of during time was clearly lower than 1700hp. As a result, the early FW190’s cruise or combat speed was significant slower than its top speed. So it is not surprise the acceleration of early 190s was not impressive compare with light Russia plane. But BMW engine’s during time at higher power setting were increasing along with 190’s development. 190A5 was a clear step forward; the most important remedy was introducing the C3 fuel injection (Erhöhte Notleistung). So the 190’s moderate acceleration should be resolved in later variation, at lease comparing with Yak. I will say it less confident about La-5FN, La-7, this is the reason I always rate the Lavochkin as more dangerous than Yak.
Do you remember the Lipfer’s racing(in my previous post)? The FW190 accelerated quite well compared with Lipfer’s 109. I guest that ground attack 190 pilot was using C3 fuel injection.
According to various references, the Russia planes, particularly the La 5 meet those problems too.

[armadillo]

quote:The Russia’s aircraft designs were optimized for the maneuverability of below 3000m, i agree. below 5000. at 3000-5000 both side planes were good.
quote:speed below 400km/h partually disagree. And below 400, and higher.

quote:So the 190’s moderate acceleration should be resolved in later variation, at lease comparing with Yak. I will say it less confident about La-5FN, La-7, this is the reason I always rate the Lavochkin as more dangerous than Yak. I agree that later 190s has more acceleration, but it hardly to believe it has been comparing with Yak. Yak accelerations is very dangerous to ANY fighter, including 109g.

quote:But the German’s design emphasized more on speed. In western front, fighting above 8000m and up to high speed (400 ~800 km/h) was quite normal. Speed was much more important. Maneuverability at high speed was equally or more important than at low speed.
Ok, looks this is clear for both us ;).

quote:Do you remember the Lipfer’s racing(in my previous post)? The FW190 accelerated quite well compared with Lipfer’s 109. I guest that ground attack 190 pilot was using C3 fuel injection.
As I sayd below, we don't know what kind of 109 flying Lipfer. May be it has been common g2 with wing cannons and without Gm-1 or MW-50. And we don't know at what speed they are started.

quote:According to various references, the Russia planes, particularly the La 5 meet those problems too What problem? Low full power time? I think for ASh-82FN it is wrong.
quote:Supercharger on La-5 can be used freely with no constraints. It is not fully correct translate from russian. "Forsage" means "full (or "extra") power". "Supercharger" is "nagnetatel". Can you tell more about that problem?

Please to take into consideration 190s power with mw-50 and without it differently. I think use mw-50 at east was not so common. May be you have more information?

I agree that later light version 190s with mw-50 was able to dogfighting at east, but i havn't any info about using any one.
Do you know what number of 190a9 has been produced?

[Merlin2]

It kind of depends on your definition of 'best fighter'. In terms of an aircraft that was capable of almost infinite development and updating, and yet still have the last marque clearly showing it's ancestory, it's got the be the Spit. When it comes to a good all rounder I personally rate the 'Wooden Wonder'. I used to work with an old timer who flew unarmed Mozzies all over Germany with the Pathfinders. I asked him if he ever felt vulnerable over heavily defended targets and in the proximity of 'cranked up' 190s and 262s. He said, not really; so long as he remained alert and didn't get bounced, it would take some 'lucky' shooting for his aircarft to be hit. He reckoned that if a heavy bomber stream was well escorted by fighter variants, that enemy fighters were hard pressed to take any of them out. He was with the team who took a Mosquito over to the states for evaluating against the Lockheed Lightning. Just to rub Uncle Sam's nose in the brown, he ran the Mosquito on just one Merlin down the runway, did a relatively short take-off, pointed the nose to the sky and 'screwed' it into the sky. The Yanks were a bit open mouthed as the Lightning was NOT allowed to do a one engined take-off, let alone any of the other fancy stuff!

[Merlin2]

quote:Originally posted by BuzzLightyear

quote:Originally posted by GregP
As it happens, the P-47, though portly-looking, was a very clean machine and was, in fact, the fastest aircraft of WWII. An experimental version achieved 504 mph in level flight during WWII, but it was not put into production since the war was winding down anyway.



Ahhh, but it did - indirectly. The 504mph Thunderbolt was the XP-47J. That plane was the test bed for the R-2800 "C" series engine. That engine ended up powering the P-47M and N Thunderbolts.


The 'JUG'(juggernaut) was too big and cumbersome to be anything other than a 'hit and zoom' type fighter, it was really more fitted to do what Typhoons were good at - ground attack!!! Their pilots were warned not to get in close and mix it with the more agile German fighters.

[ickysdad]

armadillo,
Have you ever read "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War,Volume One: Single-Engined Fighters" by Yefim Gordon & Dmitri Khazanov?

[simon]

It is Russia who made the greatest contribution to defeat the evil Nazi. The comments comes from Russia should be fully respected.

First off, let's not have this "The evil Nazi" stuff, not only was the average German soldier, sailor or airman not a Nazi, but that kind of comment sounds like a wartime propaganda broadcast. Besides Stalinism which was afterall the system of government in Russia was a pretty evil system in itself. Gulag or Concentration camp was pretty much the same once you were on the inside. Yes the Nazis systematically exterminated 6 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, but the figures to come from the former Soviet Union regarding artificially induced famines in the Ukraine put those deaths at around 10 million.

Comments from Russia should be placed in context like any other nation. I'm assuming by "fully appreciated" you meant this, although that wasn't entirely clear in your reply. Yes, information from the former Soviet Union that is becoming available since the fall of Communism is fantastic, but much of this apparently originates from the Communist times anyway and the same way anything from the West during the Cold War is to a degree suspect and naturally tilted toward an assumed "superiority" of Western designs, Soviet material is equally likely to be biased.

Yes the Soviet Union (Not just Russia) suffered by far the greatest losses of life among any of the Allied nations, but in all liklihood overall victory would not have been possible without both of the other two groups, British/Commonwealth resilience in the early stages and US generosity and material once Lend-Lease was passed enabled a huge flow of supplies that gets largely forgotten, glossed over or dismissed, even on some modern websites.

Back on Topic...

It kind of depends on your definition of 'best fighter'.

That's basically why we're on to 51 pages and still showing no signs of reaching a unanimous consensus... ;)

[armadillo]

quote: armadillo,
Have you ever read "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War,Volume One: Single-Engined Fighters" by Yefim Gordon & Dmitri Khazanov? No. looks like this book not being printed on russian (by $ reason) But I read some KHazanov's article's and he show an "average" level of biliousness and factology mistakes. Not so bad to use him for begin discussion.

What do you want to say specifically? Any quote from KHazanov?

[yx190]

quote:I agree that later 190s has more acceleration, but it hardly to believe it has been comparing with Yak. Yak accelerations is very dangerous to ANY fighter, including 109g.
I have no data. Could you please provide some data? The Yak was light and clean but had less power.


quote:
As I sayd below, we don't know what kind of 109 flying Lipfer. May be it has been common g2 with wing cannons and without Gm-1 or MW-50. And we don't know at what speed they are started.

I have no book on hand. I guess that racing happened at late of 1944. The ground attack groups began to equip the 190F since mid of the 1944. Lipfert said his 109’s speed is not bad. But I can not confirm Lipfert’s 109’s type. But AFIAK, few pilots complains 190 lack of speed except at high altitude.

quote: It is not fully correct translate from russian. "Forsage" means "full (or "extra") power". "Supercharger" is "nagnetatel". Can you tell more about that problem?

Maybe 'problem' is not a proper term. It should be limitation. From
http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/wep.html.

The La-5FN's maximum power can only last 2 mins. That means to say La-5 still had same overheat problem as 190. Flying with canopy open was normal in early production of La-5FN. This problem was resolved on late production of La-5FN and La-7.

About the Soviet comparison report in
http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/fwcomp.html
, there are some misleading stuff . It state: Even with the MW 50 methanol -water injection system used on the Fw190A4, and the La5fn being flown with its canopy open, the latter had a 15to 25 Km/h (9.3 to 15.5 mph) higher speed upto 3,000 m and could get on the enemy's tail after the first combat turn.

Where did the Soviet find a 190A4 with MW50? The 190A does NOT has MW50 except some very few trial types. It had C3 fuel injection boost. 190 Dora had the MW50 because it burns the B4 fuel. In fact, the Dora had better performance with C3 fuel injection than B4fuel+MW50. Please refer
http://jagdhund.homestead.com/files/DoraData/horizontalgeschwindigkeiten.htm


From http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190_A5_speed.gif
You can see the 190A5 without C3 injection was still very fast. The late La-5FN and La-7 were faster than 190A5. But the comparison should be between them and 190A9 and 190 Dora.

quote:
Please to take into consideration 190s power with mw-50 and without it differently. I think use mw-50 at east was not so common. May be you have more information?

I agree that later light version 190s with mw-50 was able to dogfighting at east, but i havn't any info about using any one.
Do you know what number of 190a9 has been produced?


Even 190A with C3 injection, Dora with MW50, they can not dog fighting with light Yak-3 and La-7. The Germany designer had to make the 109 and 190 more suitable for high altitude bomber interceptor. The price was high, along with the increment of engine power and speed, the weight was up too. On the contrary, the Soviet planes became lighter and lighter. There is no way to design a plane good at everywhere. There is no ideal thing in the world.

About 190A9 production number, according to Rodeike's book, it shows about 910.

[armadillo]

I have no data on hand now too about accelaration. I'll try to find it.
quote:Maybe 'problem' is not a proper term. It should be limitation. From
http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/wep.html.

The La-5FN's maximum power can only last 2 mins. That means to say La-5 still had same overheat problem as 190. Flying with canopy open was normal in early production of La-5FN. This problem was resolved on late production of La-5FN and La-7.

About the Soviet comparison report in
http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/fwcomp.html
, there are some misleading stuff . It state: Even with the MW 50 methanol -water injection system used on the Fw190A4, and the La5fn being flown with its canopy open, the latter had a 15to 25 Km/h (9.3 to 15.5 mph) higher speed upto 3,000 m and could get on the enemy's tail after the first combat turn.

Where did the Soviet find a 190A4 with MW50? The 190A does NOT has MW50 except some very few trial types. It had C3 fuel injection boost. 190 Dora had the MW50 because it burns the B4 fuel. In fact, the Dora had better performance with C3 fuel injection than B4fuel+MW50. Please refer
http://jagdhund.homestead.com/files/DoraData/horizontalgeschwindigkeiten.htm I read this link http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/wep.html
It's a speculation only.
Of course, inproper service can get that result. But even at this link says about take-off only. I think more - if you're staying on ground with full power, engine might be overheated much faster ;) It is AIR-COOLED engine.
All La-5(F,FN) and Tu-2 instructions say 5 min for full power.
see here instruction for most planes, including on english and german.
http://airwar.ru/other/bibl_r.html
AFAIR La-7 have 10 min full power.

In don't see any russian sources declaring get enemy tail in one turn. All says 4-6.



quote:Even 190A with C3 injection, Dora with MW50, they can not dog fighting with light Yak-3 and La-7. The Germany designer had to make the 109 and 190 more suitable for high altitude bomber interceptor. The price was high, along with the increment of engine power and speed, the weight was up too. On the contrary, the Soviet planes became lighter and lighter. There is no way to design a plane good at everywhere. There is no ideal thing in the world.
I sayd the same ;) , but one thing more - 109g was able to dogfighting in some way. So i get it more than 190 - i say about east only.

Real speed both La's and 190 can be compared from different sources, not from war-time articles about captured craft.

Here analysis info about tests captured La-5.
http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/Andrey_Platonov/La-5/Testing/
Most possible testing La-5f at 43 and La-5FN at later 44 - last one produced at first half 43.

[ickysdad]

armadillo,
The book I refer to alludes to problems several Soviet fighters had in using augmented power to any great degree. I don't have it handy but will later refer to it and get back here. It seems the Soviets also had problems with some aspects of thier fighters because of the lack of certain stategic materials and having to rush productions at times ,of course niether of these reflects on the basic designs themselves.

[yx190]

quote:It's a speculation only.
Of course, inproper service can get that result. But even at this link says about take-off only. I think more - if you're staying on ground with full power, engine might be overheated much faster It is AIR-COOLED engine.
All La-5(F,FN) and Tu-2 instructions say 5 min for full power.
see here instruction for most planes, including on english and german.
http://airwar.ru/other/bibl_r.html
AFAIR La-7 have 10 min full power.


I still think the La-5FN can not always get full power with boost in 5 mins. It should be a continuous improvement progress there. That pages is not speculation, it provides some proof.

quote:
Real speed both La's and 190 can be compared from different sources, not from war-time articles about captured craft.

Here analysis info about tests captured La-5.
http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/Andrey_Platonov/La-5/Testing/
Most possible testing La-5f at 43 and La-5FN at later 44 - last one produced at first half 43.


It is a pity, I do not know Russia. But there are some figures are interesting. Are they made by Russia testing result? It seems that the 190's performance is lower than German's.

[panzerjager88]

would it not be worth to compare the russian and american figures for the 190...

IIRC the yanks compared the 190 quite favorably to the f4U and F6F

i will try and dig up the link

[armadillo]

yx190 quote:I still think the La-5FN can not always get full power with boost in 5 mins. It should be a continuous improvement progress there. That pages is not speculation, it provides some proof.
I still think this opinion need more argumentation ;)
You say russian operating manual lie our own pilots about full power time - may be for more casualties? :D Or for post-war diccussion?

Units bug reports sayd about several engine problem, but no one about too fast overheating.

Excuse me for unclear sentence. this article is a russian diccussion about german La-5 tests.
http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/Andrey_Platonov/La-5/Testing/
There sayd (linked for western sources) germans capture total 4 La-5.
2 La-5 (first 30.07.43) one La-5F and one La-5FN, captured in september 44 at Gross-Shimanen airfield in Eastern Prussia
this La-5Fn was one of fisrts La-5FN (about this talk engine's marking ASh-82FNV, later name changed for ASh-82FN) and produced at spring 43.


panzerjager88 this one?
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index1.html

ickysdad quote:It seems the Soviets also had problems with some aspects of thier fighters because of the lack of certain stategic materials and having to rush productions at times ,of course niether of these reflects on the basic designs themselves. Yes, basic design was changed for use less strategic materials and increase production, but characterictics has been reported for each case. ;)
Time to time a troubles was occured, but if at western sources this troubles might be remain unreferred each, in Russia most of that reported clear and wide in mass press. All that kind of troubles was fixing in few days. Too easy say "russian has numbers of troubles and it is enough". soviet engines has less power by poor gasoline and simply production, but decrared power was available.

[Lightning]

Hi Merlin2,

Re your April 2 posting:

Regulations against a Lightning taking off on one engine does not, by any means, mean that it could not do it. The reason for that regulation is the quite simple: It is foolish, unsafe flying for any (the Mosquito included) twin-engined aircraft (center-line-thrust types also included) to purpously take off on only one engine. If the main goal of the British team was to "rub Uncle Sam's nose in the brown", then I guess they considered a foolish (I could say "stupid" and not be wrong) act as being a justified means to a questionable end.

Also, the Mosquito was not a fighter (although it was sometimes used as such when the opposition was not very formidible). If the British team wanted to compare the Mosquito to the P-38 in terms of performance (i.e. speed, rate-of-climb, dive speed/angle, turning ability, acceleration, roll rate, and, depending on variant used, service ceiling and range), then the brown would be on the other nose.

By the way, which variants of the Lightning and Mosquito were involved in this comparison?

As far as a demonstration of the Lightning's abilities (including single-engine performance and maneuverability) is concerned, you might want to read about Lockheed-pilot Tony LeVier's spectacular flight demonstration of the P-38 at an airbase in England in 1944. I believe you'd find it quite enLight(ning)ening.

Regards,
Lightning

[ickysdad]

armadillo,
What I'm getting at is the Gordon/Khazhanov book relied on recently declassified Soviet documnets for it's reference materials.The LA-7 for instance had some pretty good problems with it's engines along with wing problems tracked down to reduced density in the spars. In fact the LA-7 was grounded for a few weeks in 10/44 because of these problems. I think it was the LA-5 whoose wing surface tore off when using augmented power. From what I've been able to gleem from sources Soviet engines suffered a rather high failure rate compared to say thier Western Allied/German counterparts . Now that being said I will allude to what I said before about lack of certain materials along with more hurried production schedule as being the culprit. If the designs had better accesss to materials and had a better production schedule then the problems would have been far less. It's also very reasonable to assume that Western Allied/German mettallurgy was ahead of the Soviets at this time.A good example is the light wieght alloys the Western allies supplied the SU with during the war.
The reason I bring all this up is that all the debate of a speed of say LA-5 or LA-7 speed compared to a FW-190 using the Soviet plane's augmented power maybe mute because of structural/engine problems some Soviet aircraft had . Way back in this thread there is some posting about this very thing but I don't know which page. I'm not knocking the Yak's & Lavochin's they are excellent fighters and it is unfair that there weren't better access to materials and more time to build them.

[armadillo]

ickysdad thank you. Could you give a name/number a quote:recently declassified Soviet documnets ? I'll get it for diccuss at russian forums.

[ickysdad]

armadillo,
I'm saying that the info from book by Gordon/Khazhanov was gleemed from such sources. Do you have a problem with these authors? It seems alot of thier performance figures are pretty close to what you have stated. I myself am very skeptical about accepting one source without some additional back up sources. I've seen alot of supposed fly-offs showing one plane being superior to another but if you read the fine print of things like manifold settings,fuel grade,load out of ammo & fuel,ect.,ect.,and ect. you find things not so convincing. Take a P-51 for example it handles one way with a fuselage fuel tank & full ammo load while quite another with said fuel tank removed or empty and maybe a half load of ammo(US planes had extraordinary large ammo loads). I'm sure that goes for all sides.

[armadillo]

ickysdad Yes, I have a problem with these authors - It difficult to read them :D
I'm only interest on facts you sayd. Can you give a document numbers?

[ickysdad]

armadillo,
There are no document numbers that I know of in the book though they do quote from certain documents and/or directives. I don't know what to say I wish I could post you some numbers of the documents and/or directives.

[pmjwright]

quote:Spits in 1944, however superior technically to 1940 Spits or even 1944 Hellcats, were a footnote because they couldn't reach the key air combat zone over Germany, could only pile on in the tactical arena over France where Allied numerical superiority was overwhelming

While the Allies clearly had air superiority with the bomber escorts and directly over the battlefield, it was often a different story for fighter squadrons based near the front from D-Day through most of 1944. For example, 127 Wing Spitfire IXs based in France routinely met odds of 2:1, 3:1 or even 5:1 when they mixed it up over Abbeville, Paris, Arnhem etc. Hardly overwhelming superiority!

They achieved excellent kill ratios against these odds, due to the combination of superior aircraft and likely declining Luftwaffe pilot skills and experience due to their continued attrition. There were certainly enough targets for the Wing to achieve well over 300 kills of 190s and 109s after D Day.

And not to mention the thousands of vehicles destroyed and damaged, hundreds of locomotives destroyed, railroads cut, etc, while on their ground-attack missions. Not the best fighter-bomber by a long shot, compared with Typhoons and Jugs, but very impressive results nonetheless.

[pmjwright]

quote:As far as a demonstration of the Lightning's abilities (including single-engine performance and maneuverability) is concerned, you might want to read about Lockheed-pilot Tony LeVier's spectacular flight demonstration of the P-38 at an airbase in England in 1944. I believe you'd find it quite enLight(ning)ening.


(this really belongs on another post--best multirole aircraft--but just couldn't resist, Lightning...) And as far as a demonstration of the Mosquito's abilities is concerned: after watching a spectacular flight demonstration, the Mosquito's speed and performance so impressed General Hap Arnold that he issued orders that at no time were the Mosquito and their "pride and joy" Lightning to be flying at the same time!

[JoeB]

quote:Originally posted by pmjwright

While the Allies clearly had air superiority with the bomber escorts and directly over the battlefield, it was often a different story for fighter squadrons based near the front from D-Day through most of 1944. For example, 127 Wing Spitfire IXs based in France routinely met odds of 2:1, 3:1 or even 5:1 when they mixed it up over Abbeville, Paris, Arnhem etc. Hardly overwhelming superiority!


It's funny how that mirrors a debate often seen at the 12 O'clock high forum where a well know author about the Eastern Front constantly denigrates the Western Allies achievements in 1944 based on overall numbers, and I find myself on the other side.

But please read what I am saying carefully, not that Allied Tactical AF fighters never met superior numbers of German fighters over occupied Europe in 1944 in particular engagements, or that order of battle numbers had a big influence in exchange rates (the implication in the 12 O'c debate, which I don't think is supported in general history of air combat). But due to the German's greatly inferior overall numbers those kill ratio's didn't make much difference; if the Germans had done better they still couldn't have seriously interfered with the Allied tactical air effort, because they were so massively outnumbered overall. Contrary to your suggestion this is partly though less true of the 8th/15th AF fighters over Germany. They outnumbered their opponents much less than TAF's did. They still did and still were outnumbered themselves frequently in particular combats. The difference is the Germans had enough fighters in homeland defense to seriously interfere with the bombers if the US fighters hadn't been superior to them. In general, with some exceptions right after Normandy and when tactical and strategic merged from the end of 1944 the Germans just didn't deploy enough fighters to the fronts (west or east by that time) to make much dent in Allied/Soviet tactical efforts unless they had an extremely favorable kill ratio.

So as I said if you downgrade Spits to P-40's in 1944 with same pilots, not much difference to *war overall*, downgrade P-51's to al ong range twin of performance like Me-110 or Ki-45, or Hellcats to Wildcats: much bigger impact on war. The Germans would perhaps have done better in the relatively few encounters with tactical AF P-40's than Spits (maybe not greatly, RAF P-40's in Italy held their own in two side documented, real kills IOW not claims, encounters with Fw190's over Italy in 1944), but just not enough cases, not enough LW fighters deployed against the Allied tac effort, to make an impact on the war. It's not denigrating Spits as combat machines, they just didn't engage in large scale critical air combat later in the war, by and large; because they couldn't reach where that combat was happening. P-51's and Hellcats were in those places because of range and large forces of US carriers carrying them to every place the Japanese were defending, respectively.

Joe

[pmjwright]

Joe, since you put it as "critical" air combat, then I'd have to agree with you--the Luftwaffe was of no tactical consequence over the western front battlefields, where the allies had total superiority. As of course the Allies had superiority overall throughout ETO by 1944.

I don't dispute any of what you say about the impact of the P-51 escorts, or Hellcats in PTO, I think you are just downplaying the impacts of the tactical air battles fought near the front at the same time.

I was pointing out two things--the Spitfires had to go looking for action, and they were still able to find lots of it. Because they were based close to the front, they could indeed reach "where that combat was happening". I'm saying it--combat--wasn't just the bomber battles over Germany, it was also throughout western Europe, including the bombing campaign over France through 1943 and especially leading up to D-Day, where Spitfires played a large escort role.

I am saying that the Spitfire offensive operations over the front contributed significantly to Luftwaffe attrition throughout 1944. That made the P-51's job easier--and vice versa. The large numbers of fighters engaged and shot down over France, Belgium and Holland were not available to the Luftwaffe had it wanted to replace the massive losses it was suffering from the P-51s over Germany. Let's face it, the Luftwaffe was getting hammered from all sides by then.

By the way, I meant 126 Wing.

[Corsarius]

I'm trying to make a conclusive 'vote' on this subject, but after re-reading the first 10 pages, I'm just going to give up. Here are the choices (after only the first 10 pages)
Fw190
Fm2 wildcat
Me 262 (got a lot of attention)
Me 109 (various marques)
Mustang
Spitfire (various marques but favouring the mk xiv)
Do 335
Ki84
Ki61
ki100
DH100 vampire
Whirlwind
He126 (was originally written as Hs126, lol)
Go229
Hurricane
PZL P11c (What the...?)
MB5
Yak3
La7
CA12
CA 15
P-38
Defiant
Roc (go figure)
M.20
F4U
Ta152
Hellcat
DH Hornet
J7W1 Shinden
Me163
Firefly

The list goes ever on and on
Down on the thread where it began
I would rather not see it gone
So I shall vote where 'ere I can
Pursuing it with eager posts
Until it joins consensus, say?
Where many planes and errors meet
And whither then? I cannot say.

[Lightning]

Hi pmjwright,

Let's assume for a moment that a general had two very capable airplanes at his disposal, one of which he liked better than the other. Both of these planes will help him defeat the enemy and thereby shorten the war, save many lives, and bolster his reputation as a winner. Do you really think he would prevent one from being used in the presence of the other merely to avoid the embarassment of his "favorite" being outperformed? I really don't believe that General Hap Arnold was that stupid. I further believe that if he issued such an order, there was a far differnt reason than vanity, and the context in which it was issued must be stated.

Also, do you really believe that any single variant of the Mosquito was faster, could fly further and higher, was more maneuverable, could out climb/dive, and carry a greater load than the P-38L? If so, which one?

The Mosquito was a great airplane, no doubt about it, but it was not even close to being a great fighter. The P-38L, on the other hand, was a great fighter, and it had the performance required to defeat other first-line fighters. The Mosquito did not have that performance. Did it shoot down any Bf 109s or Fw 190s? Certainly, but it did not do so consistently. Had it been a good fighter, it would have been used as a long-range bomber escort when the P-47s and Spitfires were unable to perform that role. With its superior range, it would have solved that very serious problem in the early days of the daylight bombing campaign. (The P-38s were capable long-range escorts, but they had been, for the most part, transferred to cover Operation Torch--the invasion of North Africa.)

Regards,
Lightning

[pmjwright]

Hi Lightning, I don't pretend to know what Hap Arnold's motivation was for making that statement. And of course it relates to demonstration flights in the US instead of combat in the skies over Europe.

Anyways, I've never suggested the Mosquito as the best fighter. Probably the most successfully versatile aircraft of the war, excelled at many roles. But let's face it, it was originally a fast bomber modified for many many roles. It was never a "fighter" in the true sense of the term in the era. i.e. pursuit/ interceptor/ dogfighter/bomber escort.

Now, as for your challenge, I'll never find a Mosquito that is more manoeuvrable than the P-38L, or rate of climb--hey, it's a bomber!--but there are marks that can fly faster (max and cruise speeds), further and carry more bomb load--B Mk XVI--and marks that can fly faster, further and just as high--NF XXX. These variants were operational in early 1944 and thus contemporary with the L, so they're a fair comparison.

The range issue is important to qualify, because the P-38L could either carry drop tanks or bombs but not both. So, on internal fuel the B XVI had a longer range (1000 miles vs 900 miles at 30000 ft, 1080 vs 900 miles at SL).

As for maximum range, the Mosquito routinely made nonstop 2000+ mile flights across the Atlantic from Newfoundland to UK. And PR versions made 2000+ mile return flights to northern Norway. Those are comparable to the L's 2260 mile max range with drop tanks, but I'll give that one to the Lightning, as it made 2000-mile combat missions.

Anyways, it's quite an accomplishment for a bomber to match up pretty well with one of the best fighters of the war!

[ickysdad]

I think we maybe missing something else here also and I'll give the following example... The RAF in North Africa conducted a raid on an Luftwaffe airbase in Cyraencia in Libya. There were I think about 20- 30 bombers with about 15-20 P-40's escorting them. When they were getting close to the base they were jumped by 20+ 109's. The escorting P-40's lost about 12 of thier number while shooting down only 5 of the 109's BUT only 2 of the RAF bombers were shot down. Now it would seem that this shows the P-40 to be substantially inferior to the '109 however the escorting fighter's job was to protect the bombers not dogfight the attacking '109's. What you have to ask is if the P-40's weren't there how many more bombers would have been shot down AND how many fewer '109's would have been lost since the bomber's defensive armament probably wouldn't have shot down 5 of the attacking fighters. You could also ask how effective would the bombing have been without the RAF fighters sacraficing themselves like that. Furthermore each bomber has how many crewman? A P-40 only has one crewman a bomber could have anywhere from 4 to as many as 10.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning


Did it shoot down any Bf 109s or Fw 190s? Certainly, but it did not do so consistently. Had it been a good fighter, it would have been used as a long-range bomber escort when the P-47s and Spitfires were unable to perform that role. With its superior range, it would have solved that very serious problem in the early days of the daylight bombing campaign.


OK, they weren't.

But you'd have to be mad to send a Mosquito fighter to defend (say) a B17 with 2600lb of bombs when you could send a Mosquito bomber with 4000lb of bombs ...

A whole range of practical problems then arise including:
1) the British didn't believe the US could mount daytime raids into Germany and (in 1943). They were right.
2) the British were themselves limited in Mosquito numbers in 1943 and total production was committed (consider the difficulties of 617 squadron in extracting a Mosquito for target marking to replace a Lancaster they had used to develop the dive-bomb method (and they later switched to a P51 because it was better)).
3) Mosquitos weren't designed or built to be dogfighters so lacked the capacity to disrupt (say) Me109s/FW190s in the vicinity of the bombers. Covering fighters are there to disrupt the defensive fighters and to protect the bombers. (Neither for that matter were P38 Lightnings dogfighters - witness the Spitfire/Lightning demonstration).

... Lightning, what would your second favourite versatile aircraft be?

[ickysdad]

Luftwaffe pilots wouldn't dogfight the P-38.

[Lightning]

Hi pmjwright,

Which Mossie variant was faster than P-38L. At WEP, the Lightning could exceed 440 mph. (The oft-quoted 414 mph was at "normal power"--1100 hp.)* CORRECTION* Should read "military power--1425 hp."

The Mk XVI Mossie was a specially modified version that was unarmed, had a special wing, and had a bulged fuselage to accommodate the 4000 lb "cookie" bomb. I also believe it had optimized engines. It certainly was not a multi-role aircraft.

The stock, unmodified P-38L, on the other hand, could carry a 4000 lb bombload while remaining fully armned for after-drop engagements with enemy aircrart or attacks on targets of opportunity. For longer missions, the Lightning could carry one 310 gal drop tank and one 2000 lb bomb.

For a long-range mission requiring a 4000 lb bombload, the Mossie was the better of the two. For a shorter-range mission requiring a 4000 lb bombload, the Lightning had the capability to accomplish the mission, and, in addition, perform offensively/defensively on the way back to base since it was armned with its normal compliment of machineguns/cannon.

Which variant of the Mosquito had greater range than the P-38L? The normal max range of the "L" was 2260 miles. The Max-to-dry-tanks was 2650 miles. Ferry range of an earlier variant was demonstrated by Lockheed pilot Jimmy Mattern to be over 3000 miles, and when he landed, he still had fuel for several hundred miles more.

Also, early versions of the Lightning were flown over the Atlantic from America to England via the northern route, and they were flown over the Atlantic from America to North Africa via the southern route. The "L" had superior range to these versions.

Although I can't use a photo/recon Lightning in the "Best Fighter" discussion, the F-5 Lightning had a max range of 3750 miles, and it was a modified P-38L.

As to altitude, the high-altitude version of the Mosqito also had a specialized wing as well as optimized engines. The un-modified P-38L (both the L-1 and L-5) had a service ceiling of 44,000 ft. Which Mossie variant could fly higher, and if so, how much higher?

To borrow a phrase from you (one that I completely agree with, by the way), it was quite an accomplishment for the P-38 (a fighter) to match up pretty well with one of the best light bombers of the war.

Note: See above correction in first paragraph--corrected 4/18/05.


Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi curmudgeon,

No matter how good a dogfighter the Spitfire was, it could never get a chance to demonstrate that ability anywhere near the maximum range at which the German fighters intercepted the bombers in the early days of the daylight bombing offensive; neither could the Thunderbolt. The P-38 (even earlier versions) could. Too bad they were all shipped off to North Africa for Operation Torch. (They were the only Allied fighters possessing the range to fly non-stop from England to North Africa.)

As to my second choice for most-vesatile aircraft of the war, it would be a tough choice between the Mosquito and the Junkers Ju 88, with the Ju 88 just nudging out the Mossie by a nose. That choice is
more appropriate to the "Best Multi-role aircraft" topic.

Regards,
Lightning

[Burt]

I too am curious about the La-15 being in Korean war.. what light can be shed on this matter >??? thanks.. B.



One question for Capilatus: do you have any reliable information/detail on the 22 Lavochkin La-15 Fantail that are supposed to have briefly served in Korea?


[/quote]

[pmjwright]

Mossie XVI was "specially modified"--that's a new one on me. I believe most (all?) were built with standard fuselages, while many were later modified to carry the Cookie in the bulged bomb bay. Yes those engines were optimized for high altitude and high speed (2-stage supercharger and "FS Gear" mode, where superchargers were set up in Fast Speed mode), but that was a common setup for many marks of Merlins, and besides Mossies was standard equipment on thousands of Spitfires and Mustangs. I've never heard of a special wing before...anyways, the B XVI maximum speed at normal power was listed in 1944 as 408 mph before target, 419 mph after target, at 28,500 ft. That's more than 414, and could the L do 408 with a bomb load?

As for range, I did clarify the comparison, and didn't I give my nod to the L?

Anyways, we're using a slightly different criteria to measure "best"--you've selected a variant, while I've selected an entire aircraft design including all its variants. Using your criteria, I agree that there is no other aircraft that could perform so many roles so well as the P-38L variant, probably nothing close. Considering all variants of aircraft, I say the DH.98 Mosquito performed the most roles the best, partly because the well-known problems the earlier P-38 variants had in Europe diminished that aircraft's success. Plus, remained in production until 1950, and NF and PR versions continued on first-line RAF and RCAF service well into the 1950s (even the '60s in civilian aerial surveying and mapping roles in northern Canada)--that says something of its superb capabilities!

With that, I'll pipe down--this is a fighter thread, let's get back to talking fighters!!

[ickysdad]

One thing about the P-38's problems in Europe it maynot have been the design for P-38's operated in the Aleutions without engine problems and there is evidence that improperly blended fuel was the problem in Europe.

[Lightning]

Hi pmjwright,

Quick responses:

Mk XVI: Unarmed. You probably got your speed/altitude specs from same site that Kutscha did. This was covered in his Feb 18 posting on p.7 and my response of Feb 25 on p.8 of "Best Multirole Aircraft" thread. Those specs don't make sense. They are unintelligible.

P-38 speed: Over 440 mph--See my April 11 posting above.

Problems with early P-38 variants have nothing to do with P-38L-5.

After end of war, US was no longer that interested in prop-driven aircraft. Very few remained in production (with exception of F4U). Britain, on the other hand, although a wartime leader in jet aircraft, lagged behind in the post-war era and continued to develop prop-driven planes like the Mosquito and Spitfire after their time had past. Not criticism--just fact.

If we are to continue this discussion, then it should be done in the "Best Multirole Aircraft" thread. Most of these points have been well-covered there, so please read over the postings before we go any further.

Regards,
Lightning

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning
After end of war, US was no longer that interested in prop-driven aircraft. Very few remained in production (with exception of F4U). Britain, on the other hand, although a wartime leader in jet aircraft, lagged behind in the post-war era and continued to develop prop-driven planes like the Mosquito and Spitfire after their time had past. Not criticism--just fact.


I find it interesting that at the end of WW II the P38 production was terminated. Yes Lockheed were working on the P80, but this wasn't the explanation ... a real problem with all early jets was range, and the P38 had range in spades. So why was the plane just dropped from production and quickly removed from inventory?

[ickysdad]

The P-38 was basically removed from production because planes like the P-51(all models) & P-47N had just as much range and were much,much cheaper to build while also being less complicated to maintain. Also performance does come into play in the period late war to post war, the P-38L certainly was equal to say the P-51 and P-47 models up to the "D" version however when you compare the P-38L to the P-51H, F4U/4-5, P-47 M & N you start seeing some gap in performance.Of course just MHO.

[Johnny G]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning



....After end of war, US was no longer that interested in prop-driven aircraft. Very few remained in production (with exception of F4U). Britain, on the other hand, although a wartime leader in jet aircraft, lagged behind in the post-war era and continued to develop prop-driven planes like the Mosquito and Spitfire after their time had past. Not criticism--just fact......



What!?!?
What about the Skyraider, Tigercat, Bearcat, Orion, Hawkeye etc. They were all post-war props developed by the US.
As for Britain lagging behind in post war jet development, its not true. Loads of British jets were developed in the 50's. The Spitfire was retired from active service in 1948, quite soon after the war. The Mosquito was kept on longer because it was a useful aircraft, not because its time had past. The Canberra jet bomber flew in 1948 and took over the Mosquitos role. Its still in service today. Check your facts!:)

[Lightning]

Hi Johnny G,

Three Points:

(1)The Skyraider, Tigercat, and Bearcat Were all designed during the war--They were not new fighters. (Actually, the Skyraider was not even a fighter.)They all (Skyraider included, I believe) were in production at war's end. Neither of the two fighters was very much developed after the war. The Skyraider was, but as an attack plane--which it was.

(2)Notice that all these planes were Navy aircraft. Because of the problems in adapting early turbojet-powered aircraft to carrier operations, the Navy maintained their force of prop-driven fighters until those problems could be ironed-out. The Navy was not behind the times; they merely had problems that the Army/USAF did not have.

(3)The other aircraft you mentioned (i.e. the Orion and the Hawkeye) are absolutely inappropriate to this discussion. You could just as easily have included the C-121, the C-124, the C-130, the B-36 (prior to the "D" model), and the B-50. At the time these aircraft were superior to proposed contemporary jet-propelled aircraft of their catagory. In fact, the C-130 is still in production and going strong.

As to British pre-Korean-War fighter designs, It is not a secret that they were, although of quality, not the equal of the F-80, F-86, F-94, F-100, F9F Panther/Cougar, and so forth.

The Suprmarine Swift,and the Hawker Hunter were good, as was the DH 110, but they came along a little later. Let's face it, 1945-1950 belonged to the US for the most part.

Again, I'm not criticising the British; no one can do that with any justification. But they had just come through a tremendously costly war, and conditions were not conducive to expensive aircraft-development projects. The US, on the other hand, was just hitting stride as a world power. It had the the funding, the expertise, and the facilities to maintain and further its newly won role.

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

Hi Lightning,

just to be awkward...[:p]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

(1)The Skyraider, Tigercat, and Bearcat Were all designed during the war--They were not new fighters.
Same as the British post-war prop-planes. And they were not developed too far either...

Aside from being a tad pedantic, yup, agreed.
When did the Canberra appear?

[Johnny G]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi Johnny G,

Three Points:

(1)The Skyraider, Tigercat, and Bearcat Were all designed during the war--They were not new fighters. (Actually, the Skyraider was not even a fighter.)They all (Skyraider included, I believe) were in production at war's end. Neither of the two fighters was very much developed after the war. The Skyraider was, but as an attack plane--which it was.

(2)Notice that all these planes were Navy aircraft. Because of the problems in adapting early turbojet-powered aircraft to carrier operations, the Navy maintained their force of prop-driven fighters until those problems could be ironed-out. The Navy was not behind the times; they merely had problems that the Army/USAF did not have.

(3)The other aircraft you mentioned (i.e. the Orion and the Hawkeye) are absolutely inappropriate to this discussion. You could just as easily have included the C-121, the C-124, the C-130, the B-36 (prior to the "D" model), and the B-50. At the time these aircraft were superior to proposed contemporary jet-propelled aircraft of their catagory. In fact, the C-130 is still in production and going strong.

As to British pre-Korean-War fighter designs, It is not a secret that they were, although of quality, not the equal of the F-80, F-86, F-94, F-100, F9F Panther/Cougar, and so forth.

The Suprmarine Swift,and the Hawker Hunter were good, as was the DH 110, but they came along a little later. Let's face it, 1945-1950 belonged to the US for the most part.

Again, I'm not criticising the British; no one can do that with any justification. But they had just come through a tremendously costly war, and conditions were not conducive to expensive aircraft-development projects. The US, on the other hand, was just hitting stride as a world power. It had the the funding, the expertise, and the facilities to maintain and further its newly won role.

Regards,
Lightning


Hi,

In your previous post you said the US wasn't interested in developing prop-driven aircraft, which is wrong. You didn't specify whether you were taking about fighters or bombers etc. Hence I talked about the Orion etc.
I'm trying to think of a British prop driven fighter that started development after WW2, and I can't. It was all jets.
As far as Korea goes, the only British jet there was the Meteor, which was obsolesent by that time, therefore its hard to compare US and UK 1950's jet fighter.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Johnny G
<BR>
I'm trying to think of a British prop driven fighter that started development after WW2, and I can't. It was all jets.
As far as Korea goes, the only British jet there was the Meteor, which was obsolesent by that time, therefore its hard to compare US and UK 1950's jet fighter.


In 1948(?) some Vampires were ferried across the Atlantic (first jet crossing) and (with DH Hornets) appeared at various air shows (opening of NY airport?). They were also flown off against P/F80s at Puxa**** (can never spell that one). Does anyone have access to the reports of that comparison?

[BuzzLightyear]

quote:Originally posted by Johnny G
I'm trying to think of a British prop driven fighter that started development after WW2, and I can't.


I can't think of any either. Even Blackburn's weird designs, a la Wyvern, began in WWII.

quote:
It was all jets.
As far as Korea goes, the only British jet there was the Meteor, which was obsolesent by that time, therefore its hard to compare US and UK 1950's jet fighter.


It's easy to compare them. But until 1954, there weren't many British jet fighters that weren't first generation jets.

Up until 1954, it was basically Vampires and Meteors. In the US it was mainly Shooting Stars, Thunderjets, Sabres, Cougars, Banshees. Not until 1954 did that British come up with their first really goodsecond generation jet fighter, the Hawker Hunter - which was just then comparable to the F-86, a fighter that had been in service since 1949. By the time the subsonic Hunter got into service, the US was producing the F-100 Super Sabre - a truly supersonic fighter.

It seems that after WWII, Britain lost it edge in fighter design. Except with a FEW notable exceptions, like the BAC Lightning, Britain stayed well behind the US in viable fighter design.

This was due to many reasons. First was a lack of funding. There was simply not a lot of money allocated to fighter developement.

The other is Britain's failure to study German designs in depth which gave both the US and the USSR valuable shortcuts in their own fighter designs.

[Lightning]

Hi Johnny G,

Re: mention of Orion and Hawkeye: This is, after all, the "Best Fighter" topic, so my comments about the US's disinterest in prop-plane development pertained to fighters. You brought up those other aircraft which promted my response pertaining to other prop-driven planes that you could have mentioned, albeit off-subject.

I took your suggestion to check my facts, with the following results:

Re: Canberra: The prototype was first flown in May 1949. It did not enter service until 1951. A warplane is irrelevant to operations until it goes into production and becomes operational. It therefore falls well outside our 1945-1950 timeframe.

Broken down by year in which they (i.e. New aircraft) became operational:

1945:
USA-- F-80; F-82 (prop-driven. See "Conclusions" below.)
UK---none

1946:
USA-- none
UK--- Vampire; Hornet (prop-driven)

1947:
USA-- Skyraider (prop-driven "attack" aircraft)
UK--- Sea Fury (prop-driven naval fighter that was Royal Navy's principal carrier fighter until 1953!); Brigand (prop-driven)

1948:
USA-- F-84; F9F (naval jet); B-45 (Not a fighter, but, since Canberra has been mentioned, is included here only for a comparison.)
UK--- none

1949:
USA-- F-86; F2H (naval jet)
UK--- none

1950:
USA-- F-89 (night/all-weather fighter); F3D (naval jet night/all-weather fighter); F7U (naval jet); B-47 (Again, for comparison with later Canberra.)
UK--- none

Conclusions:

From 1945-1950 (inclusive), the US introduced into operational status 12 New types of aircraft, nine of which were jet-propelled. In this same period, the UK introduced four New types into operational status, one of which was jet-propelled.

The F7F and F8F were WWII naval designs. They were not extensively developed after the war but were kept on as a stop-gap measure until replaced by jets. That the F7F was a late WWII aircraft is demonstrated by the fact that an F7F-1 (not an XF7F-1) was a participant in the Joint Fighter Conference held at Patuxent NAS in October 1944.

The F-82 was a borderline WWII aircraft that, although useful, was not extensively developed after the war; it was, after all, a "Twin Mustang".

During the 1945-1950 period, US jet designs progressed rapidly. The UK jet designs, on the other hand, remained somewhat stagnant.


There may be room here to debate minor differences in dates-of-service, and it is quite possible that I have left out a type or two (on either side), but I believe that my checking of the facts has adequately backed-up my original statements.

Regards,
Lightning

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

a fairly accurate account of US/UK aircraft development in the late 1940s


There were also social factors at work here. As noted previously Britain was broke from fighting WW II (almost all disposable assets were stripped during the 'cash and carry' supply from the US). Even feeding the people was difficult with rationing retained for many years after the war.

Release of UK cabinet papers has shown the US used its financial muscle frequently at this time to forbid various British technology developments ... and a lot of UK 'know-how' had been transferred during WW II (once you know how to do something you can always find another way around the legals). US jet engine development surged as a result of access to UK developed systems (e.g. the P80 first flew using a Halford H-1 engine) and it will be a point of contention the influence of seized German technology (Ohain) (legal) vs the appropriation of Metrovick developments (murky, there was a wartime technology transfer agreement) on the later US development of axial flow jet engines ...

During the late 40s and early 50s the US was pre-eminent in the World, largely driving the world economy and assisting many other countries, with other actors desperately trying to enter or keep in the same ballpark.

[yulzari]

It may be as well to remember that Britain was bankrupt by 1941. At one stage there was only 10 days of credit left to buy fuel and materials abroad.#10;After the end of the war rationing became tighter and sugar, meat, clothing and furniture were still rationed when I was born in 1953 and we were still paying borrowed dollars back to the USA in the 1960's. This was why everything had to go for export to pay back war loans (unlike France, Italy and Germany). Even Grand Prix car makers like Connaught had to rely on 'liberating' special steels from aviation industry contacts as they needed government permission to buy them and this was not forthcoming as they did not export.#10;Remember, good American friends, we owned 30% of USA industry in 1939 and sold the lot at desperation prices to fund the fight for liberty while my father and uncles went to war in 1939 and fought for 6 years so the amazing thing was that we could make anything at all in a country that was having trouble feeding itself.#10;Oh yes, and we provided you with hundreds of Spitfires that were your fighter force in Africa and Europe during 1943 and your Mediterranean night fighter aircraft (Bristol Beaufighters) and your photo recce Spitfires (which could outrange P51's and P47's) and Mosquitos.#10;Please don't take this as an anti American diatribe, I salute the brave Americans who gave their lives alongside my relatives. But I think it is as well to understand the context of history of the late 1940's and 1950's to appreciate what Britain did achieve.#10;Any takers on a debate for the best biplane fighter? Curiously the last use by Britain was in the same theatre in 1941 as the last cavalry charge and there seems something traditional in that being against the French (I believe a cousin of my father torpedoed a French destroyer in that campaign).

[ickysdad]

Guys,
This is getting pretty political here. It seems I see this alot on alot of posting boards and it seems to mainly involve UK verse US. Both countries were Allies and still are today as evidenced by the current war in Iraq. Both countries made critical errors involving Hitler ,the US can be very fairly criticised for not getting involved earlier though you can probably say in actuality it was at war,or at least a war short of war, before 12/7/41 with escorting convoys in the Atlantic and employing the oil embargo,along with the British & Dutch, on Japan basically forcing that country's hand. The Allies can also probably be criticised for not forcing Hitler's hand at the reoccupation of the Rhineland, annexing of Austria or at Munich. However it must be pointed out to critics that Britain/France weren't really ready for war in 1939 much less 1936/1937/1938 just as the US wasn't ready in 12/41. My point is that both basically saw fit for thier own best interests.
Owned 30% of US industry? The US GNP in 1937 and it was the slowest to recover from the depression of the 30's was something like $68,000,000,000.00 ,the British Empire came in at like $23,000,000,000.00. Britain,USSR,Japan,Germany,Italy, and France combined came in at like $78,000,000,000.00 .

[Lightning]

Hi All,

Before ANY of you go any deeper into the politics, social issues, and economics involved with aircraft design, development, production, and deployment after WWII, I request that you not use my postings as a springboard into your nationalistic speculations!

Go back and read what I wrote. I gave what I consider to be the reasons why the US became the leader in military aviation during the five-year period immediately following the war. I stated that Britain had just come through a difficult and costly war and had other, more-pressing, priorities. I stated flatly that I was not criticising the UK and that no one could do that with justification.

I then gave a year-by-year break-down of US vs. UK aircraft deployment to illustrate my point (which I believe that I did to a reasonable degree). I was talking AVIATION--not POLITICS!

One complaint that I have with these forums is that many times when someone's position is questioned or disagreed with, it suddenly becomes a political debate, regardless of the merits of the case.

If I want to read politics, I'll read the editorial pages of the newspaper. If I want to read about great airplanes, regardless of where they were built, I'll log on to "The Great Planes Community"

Regards,
Lightning.

[Che_Guevara]

hey all,
time to rewarm this thread :)

So I have a new favourite fighter, it´s the Fw 190 D-9. also the other Langnasen, like D-11 and D-13.
I think in the hand of a pilot with experience, it´s more effective than a P-51 D.
I also think we can´t compare german dayfighters with allied escortfighters, because the german were used against Bombers and the allied were used against fighters.
Remember, you need heavier wepons for shooting down a Bomber like B-17s and B-24s and you need also heavier protection against the fire of the reargunners, so most of german dayfighters used heavy weapon and protection and so they lost manouverablity and speed, becoming a easy target for escort fighters. *mäp*

[Wuzak]

Wouldn't that be analogous to the Hurricane during the Battle of Britain?

It was generally outclassed by the German escort fighters (Bf109E?), but was reasonably effective against bombers.

The Hurricane had a back up, however. The Spitfire was a match for the German fighters, so would engage those, whilst the Hurricanes concentrated on bombers.

[Trexx]

The P-51, especially the P-51D is a big-time favorite of mine, however the FW-190D is right there as a top-fav too. Also the Ta-152. Very special, and quite superb.
I've seen a cr*p-load of P-51s and even Alison powered P-51A's and an A-36 as well. I wish I could say the same for the enigmatic Folke-Wulfs...

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

a fairly accurate account of US/UK aircraft development in the late 1940s


There were also social factors at work here. As noted previously Britain was broke from fighting WW II (almost all disposable assets were stripped during the 'cash and carry' supply from the US). Even feeding the people was difficult with rationing retained for many years after the war.

Release of UK cabinet papers has shown the US used its financial muscle frequently at this time to forbid various British technology developments ... and a lot of UK 'know-how' had been transferred during WW II (once you know how to do something you can always find another way around the legals). US jet engine development surged as a result of access to UK developed systems (e.g. the P80 first flew using a Halford H-1 engine) and it will be a point of contention the influence of seized German technology (Ohain) (legal) vs the appropriation of Metrovick developments (murky, there was a wartime technology transfer agreement) on the later US development of axial flow jet engines ...

During the late 40s and early 50s the US was pre-eminent in the World, largely driving the world economy and assisting many other countries, with other actors desperately trying to enter or keep in the same ballpark.


Which page is this UK/US aircraft development on - I try to avoid 'best this or that' threads but blundered into this one and found this line but I'm being lazy and dont want to trawl through over 50 pages.

:):):D

[Double T]

Should come as no surprise that I would vote--in US aircraft--for the P-38L Lightning.
In British aircraft, I'll take the Mosquito. (And in a "Mossie" I'd have a 'mate" to talk to during the boring-times.)

Tim

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Double T

Should come as no surprise that I would vote--in US aircraft--for the P-38L Lightning.
In British aircraft, I'll take the Mosquito. (And in a "Mossie" I'd have a 'mate" to talk to during the boring-times.)

Tim


The P-38 is and always will be a magnificent airplane. I've (recently) seen and heard an extensive aerobatic display featuring a fine restored example.
It's truly a unique and special plane that marks an exciting and tumultuous era of fighter development.
Clarence 'Kelly' Johnson is an icon of aviation, and it's very appropriate that the P-38 is the just the beginning of a towering legacy.

[Lightning]

Hi PMN1,

See my posting, dated April 20, on p.53 of this thread. P.53 also contains numerous related postings that generated the dicussion.

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

A pretty cool pic of a P-38 in British markings...

http://www.studenten.net/customasp/axl/image/foto/3-7-2002-15-37-p-38_lightning_mk_i_raf_6_o_clock_low.jpg

[Che_Guevara]

Thats my favourite P 38, a german one:) ;)

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/american/f5-01.jpg

Cheers,
Che

[Double T]

Che:
Now why am I not surprised...?!
That is what we call "Pee-38 Envy" here in the states!
(Big Smile.)

On the subject of twin-boom fighters however, I saw a model of a strange german beast. It looked to be two Me109's grafted together in the spirit of an F-82... the twin-boom Mustang-fighter of Korean-War fame.

Tim

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by Double T

Che:
Now why am I not surprised...?!
That is what we call "Pee-38 Envy" here in the states!
(Big Smile.)

On the subject of twin-boom fighters however, I saw a model of a strange german beast. It looked to be two Me109's grafted together in the spirit of an F-82... the twin-boom Mustang-fighter of Korean-War fame.

Tim


That would be the Me109Z. It was destroyed before any test flights could take place.

http://www.luft46.com/mess/me109z.html

[Che_Guevara]

quote:Now why am I not surprised...?!
That is what we call "Pee-38 Envy" here in the states!
(Big Smile.)


borrrrrrrrr,
Germany had more P 38s then the USA [:p] ;)

http://www.lasecondaguerramondiale.it/images/imgarmi/pist_Walther_P_38.jpg

Walther (pistols) and lockheed (fighters) are nearly the same.
(Bigger Smile)

:D:D:D:D

Regards,
Che

[Trexx]

German made Walther P38s are worth nearly a $1000 dollars here, depending on condition.

[Lightning]

Hi Ricky, Che and Trexx,

Ricky- That British Lightning (they named it) was not a P-38. With its non-counter-rotating propellers and its lack of a turbosupercharger, it was a P-322. Only three were delivered. (Beautiful photo, though.)



Che- The German Lightning in your posting is not a P-38; it's an F-5.

I had a P-38 pistol exactly like the one in your posting. I loved it. I had it for many years, but I had to sell it last year when I moved to Germany (along with my other beloved firearms).


Trexx- You're right about the P-38 prices. I got a bit less, but I was pressed for time. Pitty.

Regards,
Lightning

[Double T]

Che:
'Touche' my man! You got me on that one.
And Lightning is correct. It's a photo-recon version as indicated. Of course I've read that sometimes the F-5 retained a couple .50's in the nose just in case... I'm unable to tell from the photo.
Lightning:
Are you telling me that Germany allows no private firearm ownership? I enjoy waterfowling far too much to consider parting with my Beretta O/U and Benelli autoloader. My Chesapeake Bay Retriver--Diesl--would never forgive me!

Tim

[simon]

I believe that Germany does allow licenced gun ownership, rather strict but not as draconian as current UK firearms laws. I stand ready to be corrected by any of our German residents here but as I understand it part of the requirements are a very thorough Police background check, and membership of a gun club is I think more or less mandatory.

[Ricky]

So was the Walther P-38 the best fighter plane of the war?
[:p]

[Lightning]

Hi Double T,

Firearms ownership is allowed in Germany, but it is so tightly regulated and expensive that it is not practical for the average guy (like me!).

To own a hunting gun, get a hunting license, and find a place to hunt is a nightmare of bureaucratic B.S.

By the way, I also had a Beretta O/U shotgun. It was a model BL-3 in 20 ga. I used it for rabbits, squirrel, dove, woodcock, pheasants--mostly for upland hunting. I really miss it all.

Good hunting,
Lightning

[Ricardo1174]

Does someone have information about aircraft kill/loss ratio of RAF Tomahawks against Bf109s in North Africa?

[Double T]

Lightning:
The scenario you describe mirrors what a friend--a 'bobby'in London--told me about England. (The Queen owns all the lands.)
I dated a woman from Denmark some time back and she also shared some hunting regulations and brochures with me. Quite intimidating procedures.
My area of the country is being lost to over-development. Not at all like when I was a youngster. I solved the problem by purchasing a 60 acre wetland with a few friends.
Now Diesl and I always have a place to romp, stomp and splash. We even came across a woodcock nest with 4 eggs this spring. (The nesting was successful!) We see wood ducks, mallards, blacks, teal, pintail, shovelers and canada geese--among other species. Bald eagles are also a common sight.

Tim

[Ragusa]

I'd rate the FW-190 as the best German fighter of WW-II. It outperformed the Bf-109 in all versions, was easier to handle, more versatile, more agile and had the better punch.

When it first faced the Spitfire Mk.V over the canal it became a turkey shoot that only ended when the brits introduced the excellent Spitfire Mk.IX.

I really like the Bf-109, it was a good and effective fighter aircraft, but IMO the brits have unduly iconised it after it's role in the battle of Britain. The better the Messerschmidt, the greater the glory of winning the 'Battle of Britain' :p
For that fight Germany would have needed a longer range fighter, like the twin engined FW-187, an outstanding design pretty similar in concept to the British Westland Whirlwind, and afaik superior to the Bf-109 in climbing performance and speed.

In the hands of a skilled pilot the Bf-109 was still an effective fighter at the end of the war, but skilled pilots, not aircraft output was the really scarce resource in Germany at the end of the war.

Tthe second half of the war the Bf-109 was outperformed and overshadowed by the FW-190. The FW-190 did it all - fighterbomber, dogfighter, bomber killer, reconaissance - you name it - and it did the job well.

I very much like the Ta-152 version of the FW-190; it was clearly outstanding, and only the latest griffon Spitfires and the P-51 H/ K versions came close.

Of course, the P51 D Mustang and Griffon Spitfires, as well as the Yak-9 U or the P-47 D were excellent aircraft, with the main advantage of the American aircraft being their great range, and as for the Mustang, excellent handling characteristics.

A point some people miss, I refer to earlier posts on the F6F Hellcat especially, in accessing enemy kills by type is the actual number of aircraft produced. Considering the significantly higher number of F6F in the pacific theatre, and the dominance of carrier based naval forces using it everywhere, compared to the number of P38 from land bases, the number of kills becomes unsurprising and very comprehensible. And it doesn't neccessarily give an indicator about the actual performance of the P38 compared to the F6F. In fact, it could well be, that relative to the F6F the P38 scored more kills.

Another factor is the duration of production: The Bf-109 was produced throughout the war in huge numbers - wheras other aircraft only were build for a year or two before they were being replaced, another factor. That in intensive use a decent fighter scores a lot of kills isn't in itself highly remarkable. The same applies to the Spitfire, and the Zero.

US naval aircraft like the F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair, as well as the P40 (no coincidence it was used primarily as a fighter bomber in Africa and as a fighter in Asia by the british), lacked agility and had a bad stance when they encountered the axis high performers like the FW-190 or the Messerschmidts.
The US naval fighters had their greatest successes where they could play out their strength and power against the comparately weaker japanese aircraft.

And then the Japanese had the outstanding Nakajima Ki-84 II Hayate, an excellent fighter, and the Kawasaki Ki-100-II Hien. Also, two beautyful aircraft.

The picture is a very faceted one.

[Che_Guevara]

Hey Ragusa,

welcome aboard, good to see another (german) member, hehe:)

Yep you are totaly right, the Fw 190 is the most flexible aircraft of WW2 and so it also deserves the title of "Best fighter", like many other

;)

Regards,
Che

[Eagledad]

Greetings!

No doubt the FW-190 was a great plane. But I would prefer a Me-109G over a FW-190A above 8000 meters! Remember, over Germany in 1944, lightened Me-109's served as escorts for the more heavily armed FW-190A's.

May God fly your wing always!

Eagledad

[Kutscha]

Ragusa, I see you also like the a/c of Kurt Tank.:)

"I very much like the Ta-152 version of the FW-190; it was clearly outstanding, and only the latest griffon Spitfires and the P-51 H/ K versions came close."

Is this a typo for the P-51H/K? The P-51K, with slight differences, was a P-51D but produced in Dallas rather than Inglewood. The P-51M (Dallas) was a P-51H(Inglewood).

"The second half of the war the Bf-109 was outperformed and overshadowed by the FW-190. The FW-190 did it all - fighterbomber, dogfighter, bomber killer, reconaissance - you name it - and it did the job well."

I am not a fan of the 109 but it also did what you mentioned and at a higher altitude. I know a Hungarian who would disagree with you rather strongly.:D Altitude performance of the 190A-8, A-9, D-9 suffered above 20,000ft. The Ta152H/C would have redressed this deficency. It was too bad the Fw190C was canned, for it would have been a superb a/c in 1943 giving the Allies all kind of troubles.

As a side note, slightly more Dora9s were produced than 109K-4s.

[ickysdad]

ragusa,
I would seriously dispute your contentions that the F4U & F6F weren't a match for say the '109 & '190 . Erich Brown In "Duels in the Sky" states that the F6F was superior to the 109G and every bit the equal to the '190. The F4U/1A he tested was judged as equal to the '109G and he states the '190 was superior to the Corsair however the F4U/1D would probably be superior to the '109G & quite the equal if not superior to the '190. Even the F4F would probably give a '109G a good fight. Now in the F6F/5 you get an even slightly better plane to the F6F/3. The F4U/4 would be an extremely good candidate for the best fighter of WW2 ,even if introduced somewhat late.

[Kutscha]

Did not some F6Fs, or was it F4Fs, tangle with some 109s during Operation Anvil? There was also some combat off Norway with the FAA's a/c and German fighters.

Not sure of the results, though.

[Ragusa]

Great page comparing the Spitfire Mk.V and the Fw-190 A.
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm

And I found an interesting table here:
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/specs.html

Appearing at the same time, the F6F-5 and FW-190 D-9 are direct contenders.

The F6F had a beastly power advantage over the Fw-190 A and therefor climbed faster, 3240f/min, compared to the 2350 f/min of the Fw-190 A. The FW-190 D-9, however, climbed at 3.300 feet with some 400 hp less. The D-9 achieved some 425 mph, compared to 376 mph of the F6F.
The F4U-1D would have a comparable climb, at some 3.300 f/min, and have a max speed of 425 mph.

The Fw 190 A’s performance fell off at altitudes above 20,000 feet. While this limited its effectiveness in the West, where the Allied bombers flew high, in the East, with its preponderance of low-level combat, the 190 was ideal. It was rugged, maneuverable, stable, and powerfully armed. The D-version with it's Jumo 213 had improved high altitude performance.

The Fw-190 D-9's armament was two MG-151/20 20mm cannons + 2x MG-131 13mm heavy machine guns, a quite powerful mix. The F6F as well as the F4U had 6x 12,7mm guns which was adequate, but had less punch.

The mounting of the armament synchronised in the cowling and the wing concentrated the guns close to the longitudinal axis, improving the concentration of fire at all ranges. The D-9 was a precise weapon. IIRC the USN tested the 20mm Hispano against the .50", and concluded that the Hispano was three times as effective at normal fighting ranges, even though the gun weighed less than twice as much.

The Fw-190 could also absorb a lot of battle damage and keep running; like the American P-47, tales spread of Fw 190’s making it back to base with a cylinder head shot away.

After all that, face it: The FW-190 D-9 would have a signigicant speed advantage over the F6F, and could decide by when to engage or not at whim - by simply flying away - all that with less engine power. It was simply the more efficient design. Diving performace, thanks to the injection used on the German engines, would probably also be better.

The D-9 was a superb aircraft. It was faster, climbed more rapidly, and handled better than an Anton, and almost certainly the best piston fighter to be fielded in numbers by the Luftwaffe. The Dora-Nine proved to be a nasty handful for American P-51Ds and late-mark RAF Spitfires.

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

[Kutscha]

Regusa,

here is another Dora site, if you do not know of it already.

http://jagdhund.homestead.com/files/Dora.htm

[ickysdad]

Ragusa,
The F6F could actually hit 409 MPH ,at least the ones with water injection could. All F6F-3's were brought up to mark V speca. The D-9 was introduced in late '44 ,the F6F-3 in late '42,early '43 or mid -43 at latest. In fact all F6F-3's were up to mk. V standards by march ,'44. So the D-9 doesn't have the speed adsvantage you stated. The proper contemporary of the F6F would be the 190A.

[Ragusa]

Actually, I was referring to the F6F-5 version :)

[ickysdad]

Well the F6F-5 could hit 409 MPH not 376 as you stated. In a sustained dive it would pull away from a '109 or '190. The D-9 if I'm not wrong lost some of the handling charcteristics that the A model had so while the '190 would probably have a rolling advantage ,the F6F would jump into a turn better and turn much tighter. It also had far better range,was easier to produce by far,was probably one of the easiest to train new pilots on,and was carrier capable. Another thing all the Grumman fighters had very short noses which allowed them to execute all those high deflection shots which to my knowledge only the USN trained for.

[Hastatus]

Of all the late war fighters used by the Allies and LW, the F6F-5 was amongst the slowest in comparison, doing 380 mph tops. It could climb to 20,000 ft in 7 minutes which is very good, but its not in the top performers of 44-45 fighters.

Tempest
FW 190D-9
Bf 109G-10
P-51D
Spitfire F.XIV
Spitfire L.F. IX
F4U-1D
P-47D-30

Would all outperform it in climb and/or speed.

*F6F-5 entered service in June 1944, so your dates for its intro into combat are also incorrect.
*Short noses have zip to do with high angle deflection shots. The USN only trained for deflection shooting? Gee whiz, I had no idea...
*You have no evidence it was easier to train on or easier to produce.
*CV capable means nothing in NW Europe.

The F6F was a fine fighter, for what its intended purpose was, which was CV ops against the Japanese (specifically the A6M series). Its performance was sub par to USAAF and RAF fighters operating in the ETO and it would not have done anywhere near its IJN/IJAAF kill-loss ratio vs the LW.

[Kutscha]

These are not my words but of Widewing on the AH forum.

That's not a claim, it's actually a fact. However, I will provide a reference you can verify.

In December of 1944, the Royal Navy issued a document to be distributed to all Hellcat squadrons either in or headed to the Pacific. This document, titled Naval Air Tactical Note 106, included test results of the F6F-5 conducted by the Naval Air Intelligence Center at NAS Patuxent, Maryland.

Within the document, the maximum speed of the F6F-5 was reported as 409 mph @ 21,600 feet.

The original TAIC document is currently in the National Archives.

A copy of the Royal Navy document was published by Historian Barrett Tillman in his book, "Hellcat: The F6F in World War II".

Retired Grumman test pilot Corwin Meyer described in detail why the F6F was rated below its actual maximum speed in Flight Journal magazine. It boiled down to incorrect positioning of the airspeed pitot tube. Due to this, an error of about 5 up to about 20 mph (depending upon actual airspeed) was seen on the airspeed indicator. Aircraft instrumented with independent test equipment showed this discrepancy. Grumman asked the Navy to allow them to change the location. However, the Navy did not wish to delay manufacturing (the modification wasn't a simple one) over an unimportant issue that added nothing to performance. Request denied.

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

When specifying the top (or any other) speed of an airplane, the indicated airspeed (IAS) would be useless. It is subject to too many errors and correction factors:

*Instrument Error: Since no perfect instrument has ever been made, each individual airspeed indicator has its own built-in flaws.

*Installation Error: As you described, errors will result to varying degrees depending on where and how the pitot-static system is installed.

*Correction for Altitude: Under standard conditions of pressure, temperature at sea level, and temperature lapse-rate with increasing altitude (these conditions almost never exist), the indicated airspeed will aways (except at sea level) be less than true airspeed (TAS). The difference will increase with increasing altitude but will be predictable.

*Errors Due to Non-standard Conditions: As stated above, ideal standard conditions almost never exist. The non-standard atmosphere must therefore be corrected for density altitude at the flight level i.e. changes in pressure, temperature, and temperature lapse-rate fom the ideal must be taken into account.

The above errors can be cumulative, offsetting, or anywhere in between. For accurate evaluation of the airplane's true speed through the air, however, the indicated airspeed cannot be relied upon.

The 409 mph airspeed for the F6F-5 mentioned in your posting seems quite high to me, based on all I have ever read about the plane. In fact, this is the first time I have ever seen a reference to more than about 380 mph. At any rate, the airspeed indicator error mentioned would play no part in accurate calculation of the aircraft's actual top speed (TAS) at altitude.

Which brings up my final point. The 409 mph, whether achievable by the F6F-5 or not, would have to be true airspeed and not indicated airspeed. At 21,500 ft, 409 mph IAS equals 581 mph TAS! This is far faster than any WWII propeller-driven aircraft ever flew in straight and level flight.

Regards,
Lightning

[ickysdad]

Does anybody here care to argue with Francis Dean?? He states catergorically that the F6F-3 hit 380 MPH(the ones without WEP) while the F6F-5 hit 409 MPH.I mean the F6F-3 is credited everywhere with a top speed of 380 MPH while the F6F-5 achieves the same speed when it has water-alcohol injection(for WEP) and developed 300 more HP and only wieghed about 80 lbs. more empty? By April,44 all F6F-3's were up F6F-5 standards with R-2800-10W engines with water-alcohol injection giving them WEP or in other words the top speed of 409 MPH. Look it up! In fact Dean says on page 560 in his book top speed is 410 MPH. Basically the F6F-5 is the F6F-3 with water-alcohol injection.
No evidence that it's easier to fly? Why not ask Eric Brown he flew just about everything and states that the F6F was one of the easiest and most forgivable fighter to fly especially true with new pilots. He also flew Spitfire XIV's, Spitfire IX's, FW-190's ,and Me 109G10's. He said that the F6F-3(without water injection) was superior to the 109G series and the only thing seperating the on who was better between the '190 & F6F-3 was the pilot. There are several sources that comment on the F6F's ease of manufactoring. Short noses do habve alot to do with high angle deflection shooting look up Lundstrom's "First Team " ,in a long nose fighter you loose sight of the target in a high angle deflection because of the long nose. On production matters the F6F-5 went into production in March,44 but all F6F-3's were just about up to thier standards bt that date.

[Kutscha]

So Lightning, what speed is the F6F doing if the pilot sees 380mph on his instrument?

icky, seems some want to argue with Naval Air Tactical Note 106 of the Naval Air Intelligence Center.

[ickysdad]

Kutscha,
Sometimes a person has to be careful though Eric Brown states that the Corsair would probably loose against the FW-190 though it would be very close however he was comparing the F4U/1A against the '190 now the F4U-1D would be a totally different mater being over 20 MPH faster at SL and increasing with altitude than the "A" version , climbed much better and rolled much better then the "A" versions(though the earlier Corsair model were no slouches in this matter),in fact I think in the "D" version the Corsair overtook the '190A in performance. It was just sad that both the F4U & F6F could have had WEP added much earlier but they didn't want to upset production output. What I listed above is probably the reason Eric Brown says one thing about the F4U verses the '190(to my knowledge Brown never tested the F4U-1D) as opposed what the USN had to say when they tested the '190 against the F4U & F6F.

[Kutscha]

Yes icky, general statements which do not specify the model should be taken with a grain of salt.

I don't understand why the post was directed towards me.

[ickysdad]

Kutscha,
Oh sorry!!! Didn't mean anything by directing it towards you! Just making a general statement !

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

At 21,600 ft MSL, an indicated airspeed of 380 mph would equate to a true airspeed of 540 mph (assuming standard conditions and no errors in the airspeed indicator).

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi Kutscha,

At 21,600 ft MSL, an indicated airspeed of 380 mph would equate to a true airspeed of 540 mph (assuming standard conditions and no errors in the airspeed indicator).

Regards,
Lightning


"At 21,500 ft, 409 mph IAS equals 581 mph TAS! This is far faster than any WWII propeller-driven aircraft ever flew in straight and level flight."

The P-51D did an IAS of 437mph. The Spit XIV did an IAS of 448mph. The P-47D did an IAS speed of 426mph. The Dora 9 did an IAS of 426mph. All at altitude. I could go on but you get the idea.

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

Before you stick to those "indicated airspeeds" of the P-47, P-51, Spitfire, and Fw 190D, ask your self the following two questions: (1) Were they really indicated airspeeds? (They weren't.--They were True airspeeds.) (2) If you believe that they were indicated airspeeds, at what altitude were they achieved?

None of these planes were capable of such speeds at sea level, and that's the only altitude where TAS equals IAS, and then only under standard conditions with no airspeed-indicator error.

I'm sure you know that, for a given true airspeed, indicated airspeed decreases rapidly with increasing altitude. The conversion from one to the other is a common calculation on the old E6B flight computer.

There is also a rule-of-thumb that says that indicated airspeed decreases at the rate of two percent per 1000 feet of altitude. This holds pretty true at lower altitudes, but at higher levels it begins to get a little inaccurate, although it's still ok for rough calculations.

Check it out.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi ickysdad,

Earlier I posted the following:

quote:...The 409 mph airspeed for the F6F-5 mentioned in your posting seems quite high to me, based on all I have ever read about the plane. In fact, this is the first time I have ever seen a reference to more than about 380 mph...

I went back to my referrences--about half a dozen of them--and did some reading with the following results:

The top speed given for the F6F-5 ranged from 376 mph to 386 mph. The 386 mph figure was given several times, so I feel comfortable with that. The speed for the F6F-5N night-fighter version, with its wing-mounted RADAR pod, was given as 366 mph--understandable.

These figures were for the standard F6F-5 versions which had a 2200 hp, supercharged engine with water injection. The propeller had three blades.

Upon further study, I believe I know where the previously mentioned 409 mph speed came from. In July 1944, two standard F6F-5s were fitted with the 2450 hp "type C" P&W engine swinging an oversized four-bladed propeller. These planes were designated "XF6F-6". They were specified to be capable of 417 mph.

No production order was ever issued for the F6F-6, so it was never operational, either during WWII or after. Also, the production F6F-5 never used the "type C" engine and four-bladed propeller.

Unless I've missed or am unaware of something to the contrary, I believe that my original statement is accurate.

Your thoughts?

Regards,
Lightning

[Trexx]

There was a composite powered F6F also. It had a small turbo jet in the rear fuselage and exhausted out of tail pipe. I'm not sure of the top speed but it was markedly higher than 400 MPH
The Ryan Fireball eclipsed it however...

[ickysdad]

Lightning,
having several references doesn't really matter if they get the same info from the wrong source! Francis Dean's book "America's 100,000" and in his book about trhe joint fighter conference in 1944 where the F6F-5 was tested the figure of 409-410 MPH was achieved (this book by him furthermore is basically a copy of a primary source) plus got all of it's info from primary sources . He clearly states that the F6F-3 was capable of 380 MPH ,he also goes on to state a modified F6F-3 with just water-alcohol injection(WEP) was tested in late '43 and attained 410 MPH ,this was later put into production as the F6F-5 though all F6F-3's were brought up to it's standards by march of '44. Lightning, probably all those sources used F6F-3 figures for the F6F-5 and further probably list the same top speed for both aircraft so what speed did they quote the F6F-3 as attaining? It's almost impossible for both aircraft to havve the same top speed when one has WEP and the other doesn't!!!! Also all these figures are true airspeeds and not indicated.

[Kutscha]

Lightning,

Yes I know they are TAS. It was only a 'trick' question.

No where in the Widewing quote was it mentioned that the speed of 409mph was IAS. It would seem that you jumped to that conclusion because of Meyer's comments.

The use of ADI could could boost the speed from 380 to 409 with the extra several hundred hp developed.

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

Per your Aug. 9 posting:

quote:The P-51D did an IAS of 437mph. The Spit XIV did an IAS of 448mph. The P-47D did an IAS speed of 426mph. The Dora 9 did an IAS of 426mph. All at altitude. I could go on but you get the idea.
This really doesn't look like a question, "trick" or otherwise.

As to the assumption that you were talking about indicated airspeed,
your posting spoke of what the pilot saw on his airspeed indicator; that is indicated airspeed.

My point was that an official statement of airspeed specification would not be arrived at based on an airspeed indicator reading because of all the possible errors enumerated in my earlier posting. An example of this is that when a speed record, at any altitude, is recorded, the airspeed-indicator readings in the aircraft are not used. If a manufacturer used only indicated-airspeed readings to specify his airplane's top speed at altitude, its accuracy would be very open to question.

Assuming that the airspeed in question was IAS and that it was low by 5 to 20 mph, I went back and calculated the following:

At 409 mph TAS, IAS at 21600 ft would be 288 mph. With the stated discrepencies, this would mean a variance of between 268mph and 283 mph IAS.

268 mph IAS = 380 mph TAS
283 mph IAS = 402 mph TAS

The 402 mph figure is not not that far off, and I would accept it for rough work, but it could not be seriously accepted as an official specification.

Unless the conditions of measurement are known, stated, and accurately corrected-for, the results can only be approximate.

The above results only give 402 mph when the worst-case error of -20 mph is used. Even then, the speed does not reach 409 mph. any smaller error would give slower speeds.

Again, as I said in my original posting on this subject, 409 mph for the F6F-5 seems high to me. It still does. Is it impossible? Of course not, but there are far more sources against it than for it. If a more-valid source than all those I have already seen states 409 mph, I will change my mind. Until then, I will go with the vast majority.

Also, please--no more "trick" "questions".

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi ickysdad,

The books I have gave both F6F-3 and F6F-5 specifications as follows:

F6F-3: 376 mph
F6F-5: 386 mph

I have a suggestion. There are a goodly number of us who are following this thread. We are all somewhat knowledgeable on the subject, and we all have pretty good sources of reference. Why don't we get a consensus among us as to what the actual top speed of the production F6F-5 really was? No arguments; no special cases. Just quote what your sources say.

Regards,
Lightning

[ickysdad]

Lightning,
sorry how my earlier posting may have sounded ! I was just trying to state that sometimes you can several sources quoting the same wrong info because thier sources are all the same. I've always understood that Francis Dean was just about the preeminent source on US fighter planes. However I maybe wrong!!!The F6F-3(and the F6F-5) with the water-alcohol injection R-2800-10W developed 2250 HP at SL, the earlier R-2800-10 without injection deveolped only 2000 at SL, (2135 HP @ 15,000' verses 1800 HP @ 13,500') and ( 1975 HP @ 20,000' verses 1675 HP @ 22,500' ) respectively . The USN conducted tests against the FW-190A in late '43 before any water injection models were availiable and recorded the F6F-3 as hitting 391 MPH actual airspeed with F4U-1C(I think) hitting at 403 MPH. They did have later tests using the F6F-5 & F4U-1D against the FW-190A .

[Lightning]

Hi ickysdad,

As we see here, it becomes maddening to try to find the actual performance figure for an airplane when there are so many conflicting reference sources. Can one ever be sure?

Over the weekend, I went back and reviewed the IAS vs TAS figures again. I did those initial calculations while I was at the computer on Friday--sort of "spur-of-the-moment". I have revised them a bit as follows:

At 21,600 ft, 409 mph TAS = 288 mph IAS (under standard conditions).
If the airspeed indicator was reading 20 mph low, the pilot would see 268 mph IAS. This would erroneously be interpreted as 380 mph TAS (a number close to what many references give as the F6F-5's top speed at this altitude). If the error was 16 mph low (i.e. 272 mph IAS), that would equate to 386 mph--a number given by many references.

IF the above condition actually existed, and IF the airspeed indicator readings were accepted as the official speed (both pretty big IF's), this could account for an incorrect published top speed of 386 mph when the true figure would be 409 mph.

These numbers are not far off from those of my earlier posting, but they are a bit more in favor of your original contention.
If you go back over my postings on this subject, you'll see that I always said that 409 mph for the F6F "seems" a bit high to me. I still feel that way, but this issue of airspeed indicator error has certainly opened up a can of worms.

I think that the only way this can be resolved is to find out what Grumman officially released as the F6F-5's top speed and how it was measured/determined.

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning


I think that the only way this can be resolved is to find out what Grumman officially released as the F6F-5's top speed and how it was measured/determined.

Regards,
Lightning

Why not read Naval Air Tactical Note 106 by the Naval Air Intelligence Center?

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

I think that the only way this can be resolved is to find out what Grumman officially released as the F6F-5's top speed and how it was measured/determined.
Or we could build one as new, and test it!:D

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

Grumman designed and built the F6F. As with all other manufactures, they ran an extensive testing and development program on all its variants, both accepted and experimental, from the prototype's first flight to the last version. These tests were performed under controlled, exacting conditions by high-time, professional company test pilots who knew the airplane better than any service pilot ever could. The results were well-documented and would have to be capable of being repeated upon demand.

The Navy-generated document to which you refer is almost certainly of the highest credibility attainable under the exigencies of a service at war. As a final authority on the specifications of the F6F, however, I would rely more heavily on Grumman.

On the other hand, when it comes to actual combat qualities and field maintenance experience under actual conditions, I would make the Navy my primary source of information.

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

The Northrop-Grumman website is sparse on history, but has a great gallery...

http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/gallery/historical/index.html

[Kutscha]

Lightning,

you can take the manufacturer's data, but I will take the Service test data over them anyday.

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

That's your prerogative, to be sure, but it is only a statement of your preference. I gave you mine, but I also gave you what I consider to be valid reasons for that preference. Merely stating that you hold a certain preference does not, without any rationale, make it valid. I'm sure you have your reasons.

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

Basically a discussion over the top speed of the Grumman F6F Hellcat.

Don't worry, I got lost a long while back.:D

So, eye82, what do you reckon is the best fighter of WW2, and why?

[Lightning]

Hi glove86,

Please tell us what you are trying to say, and also explain the references to poker websites. Are they relevant to this, or any other, aviation topics dicussed here?

Regards,
Lightning

[Romantic Technofreak]

Hi Lightning,

from time to time there are people turning up who have nothing to say but need to get attention. This person calling himself Glove37, Glove86, Eye82 and now camera13 is one of them. Simon banned already the first three identities and surely will the next one. We only can hope that sooner or later this guy gets tired and stops his foolish spreadings.

Regards and don´t mind,
RT

[simon]

Sorry Gentlemen.

I will do my best to try and keep this individual and their various identities under control.

In the meantime I would ask you to not reply to this individual as any response will only encourage them. Any posts from this individual will be deleted as soon as noticed.

Deliberate advertising is against the forum rules.

[dannycarroll]

Hey guys,

No doubt this was discussed many pages back - up to 3 years I see! Anyway, to save me reading through it all (I will get around to it though)can anyone answer me this.

Disregarding the combat record and history ( a big call)how can the Zero be rated as a good and effective combat aircraft when its ailerons were immovable beyond 210 kts. Considering that all one had to do was either keep the cruise speed up or if in a fight extend out to beyond 210 kts (the P40 had good acceleration in the dive and good aileron response)then simply turn in any direction to keep the angles up and you were immune.

I figure training must have been fairly poor in the initial phases of the allies war to put them at such a disadvantage against the zero. Any evidence of this?

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi Kutscha,

That's your prerogative, to be sure, but it is only a statement of your preference. I gave you mine, but I also gave you what I consider to be valid reasons for that preference. Merely stating that you hold a certain preference does not, without any rationale, make it valid. I'm sure you have your reasons.

Regards,
Lightning

Lightning,

I did not think I needed to give any reason(s) to one so knowledgable, so.

Service tests were very extensive to make sure what the manufacturers stated for the a/c is what the Service was getting. In some cases, the Service testing exceeded the manufacturer's stated numbers.

[Ricky]

Hi Dannycaroll,

Basically the Zero was largely unknown by the Allies, and the 'West' generally believed its own propaganda about the inferiority of all things Japanese (well, all things non-Western, really), believing all their equipment to be inferior copies of Western stuff, made of bamboo & paper.

Added to that, on the British side at least, you get pilots who were used to fighting an enemy whose planes had performance closely matching their own, so 'dogfighting' was the way to go. Against the very manouverable Japanese, dogfighting was the way to go west (pardon the bad joke), and boom & zoom was the ideal tactic.

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

Hi Dannycaroll,

Basically the Zero was largely unknown by the Allies, and the 'West' generally believed its own propaganda about the inferiority of all things Japanese (well, all things non-Western, really), believing all their equipment to be inferior copies of Western stuff, made of bamboo & paper.

Added to that, on the British side at least, you get pilots who were used to fighting an enemy whose planes had performance closely matching their own, so 'dogfighting' was the way to go. Against the very manouverable Japanese, dogfighting was the way to go west (pardon the bad joke), and boom & zoom was the ideal tactic.



According to a British,(possibly a Kiwi or Australian?) engineer the Americans had already fully flight tested a captured Zero well before Pearl Harbor and the details were sent to Washington.

[dannycarroll]

Groggy and Lightning,

I think it's interesting any way you look at it. There's only two ways to fight, in the horizontal or vertical. Back then there was only dogfighting, or Basic Fighter Manoeuvring (BFM). Once the fight is joined you are turning either in the horizontal or vertical. If a guy can turn inside you it simply means that he is either going slower (all things being equal) or your aircraft aren't matched and you need to change your tactics accordingly (real quick).

I haven't seen any tactics manuals (have you guys?)from those days - but they must have been severely lacking. I have read that the Germans were using combat spread back in the Spanish civil war yet the Commonwealth persisted with vics for quite some time. I wonder what Japanese tactics were like. I still can't see how the Zero hung around for so long.

My gut feeling is that most kills would have been made without the victim seeing the initial attack. Would you guys know what speeds the most common pacific fighters cruised at? Would it have been above 200kts? Also, was the Zero the most successul Japanese fighter in terms of kills?

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Groggy

According to a British,(possibly a Kiwi or Australian?) engineer the Americans had already fully flight tested a captured Zero well before Pearl Harbor and the details were sent to Washington.

Where they were filed under 'W' for 'Who cares?'
[:p]

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

Your most-recent reply seems to be a bit "edgy". Are you having a bad day?:)

Of course you don't have to give reasons for your statements, to me nor to anyone else, but it usually helps in getting one's point across.

As far as service testing generating performance figures superior to those of the manufacturer, it's not unusual for tests under less controlled conditions and over an abbreviated testing regimen to give such results. The development and testing of an airplane by the manufacturer can take well over a year (often several years). A military air-arm at war doesn't have such a luxury of time and aircraft-type-specific testing facilities; it must test multiple types, using the pilots and equipment at hand, and do it in the shortest time commensurate with getting the planes and their modifications into the fighting as soon as possible.

Regards,
Lightning

[ickysdad]

Ricky,
Your very right about the RAF having a rough time with the Zero because of facing German aircraft that they were superior to in as far as dogfighting is concerned. The '109 & '190 both were far superior divers to the Spitfire and in fact both these planes had a very rough time with USAAF fighters when they tried to use the same tatics that they used against RAF Spitfires.i.e. diving away. Even the Spitfires used in the Battle of Britain were faster,climbed better(though at a shallower angle),dived faster, and handled much better at high speeds than the Zero.

[pmjwright]

Danny, lots of good questions, I don't have the answers at hand regarding your Zero questions, but will tackle some others:quote:I haven't seen any tactics manuals (have you guys?)from those days - but they must have been severely lacking. I have read that the Germans were using combat spread back in the Spanish civil war yet the Commonwealth persisted with vics for quite some time. I wonder what Japanese tactics were like. I still can't see how the Zero hung around for so long.
Excellent point. Before and early in the war, training in tactics for USAAF and especially RAF was abysmal. They would simply teach formation flying in vics and line-astern. ACM training was usually a case of the instructor saying "OK, let's see who gets who first. Ready, Break!". And about 15 seconds later, "Ack-Ack-Ack-Ack-Ack, you're dead". Manuals--hah!

Meanwhile the Luftwaffe had learned from Spain the benefits of the Schwarm aka finger four, the tactics for using the schwarm to its full potential and for effectively engaging the vics and line-astern tactics of its opponents (pity the tail end charlie!). Its flight training was far superior at the time. So, the Luftwaffe went into the Battle of Britain with a marked advantage over RAF in terms of tactics. RAF pilots basically had to learn ACM during combat--a very harsh lesson! It's quite remarkable that the RAF did as well as it did (of course, it had advantages, too, but this isn't the time to discuss).

Amazingly, vics and line astern were still common tactics into 1943, that's how long it took for the lessons of BoB aerial combat to filter through the RAF!

quote:I figure training must have been fairly poor in the initial phases of the allies war to put them at such a disadvantage against the zero. Any evidence of this?
Not specific to allies vs Zeros, but the above deficiencies are well noted in so many biographies of American, RAF and commonwealth fighter pilots--I can't recall a pilot who felt they had adequate training during the first part of the war, even after posting to frontline squadrons. It's quite apparent, however, that USAAF and USN were quick to learn their lessons, adapt to the initial advantages of its opponents, and develop AND IMPLEMENT tactics to counter them. RAF was not nearly as adaptable, and seemed to have a real problem getting new tactics into widespread use in any reasonable time frame. (I'm criticizing the system, not the pilots!)

quote:My gut feeling is that most kills would have been made without the victim seeing the initial attack.
Yes, without seeing or without having time to evade. Not many kills occurred during sustained dogfights, unless one aircraft had a decided advantage over the other. "Unseen" also includes those frequent situations during large air swarming engagements when another aircraft joins an existing dogfight and bounces the enemy--with the pilot's attention on his no. 1 opponent, the new arrival was likely to have not been seen.

Cheers. pmjwright

[Trexx]

quote:

According to a British,(possibly a Kiwi or Australian?) engineer the Americans had already fully flight tested a captured Zero well before Pearl Harbor and the details were sent to Washington.


That is untrue.
It was a year after the Pearl Harbor attack that one crashed A6M2 Zero fighter was evaluated after being salavaged from an Alaskan island. It was from the feigned assualt that was simultaneous to the Hawaiian attack. It took a year to ship it to Long Beach California and rebuild the damaged portions.

[Lightning]

Hi Trexx,

You're right about the Zero being recovered intact after Pearl Harbor. It was in the Aleutian Islands--part of Alaska.

Regards,
Lightning

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi Trexx,

You're right about the Zero being recovered intact after Pearl Harbor. It was in the Aleutian Islands--part of Alaska.

Regards,
Lightning


Sorry Folks, Wrong, what you have posted has often been put forward to cover up the embarrassing truth, I was taken in by it as well at one time. The truth I discovered is far more interesting and bizarre.
Clues,
Where was the Zero first used in combat?
When was it first used?
What group of American Flyers were involved?
What were they called?
Who lead them?
How long was this before Pearl Harbor?

[Kutscha]

quote:Originally posted by Groggy

Sorry Folks, Wrong, what you have posted has often been put forward to cover up the embarrassing truth, I was taken in by it as well at one time. The truth I discovered is far more interesting and bizarre.
Clues,

Where was the Zero first used in combat?

central and SW China

When was it first used??

Aug 19 1940 on a bomber escort mission to Chunking

What group of American Flyers were involved?

none

What were they called??

the first contingent of AVG pilots, aka Flying Tigers, did not leave San Fran til July 10 1941

Who lead them?

Chennault

How long was this before Pearl Harbor?

almost 2 weeks after PH since the AVG did not fly its first mission til Dec 20 1941 over Yunnan Prov.


Chennault had reported the presence and 'performance' of the Zeke but there was NO flyable Zeke.

It was the Ki-43 Hayabusa the AVG met in comabt.

For your reading pleasure, http://www.flyingtigersavg.com/tiger1.htm

[Ricky]

If you are angling towards the AVG & China, I have a vague recollection that the AVG did not fight with Zeros.

I can't remember if this was because the Zero simply was not there (China was the territory of the JAAF, and the Zero was the plane of the JNAF) or whatever.

Is there a confusion between the Oscar & Zero?

[Kutscha]

Sorry Lightning for I was in a foul mood.

Reason being my HD crapped out and had to spend $1500 to buy a new system (old one was getting rather old and tired). Been rebuilding ever since last Thursday.

[simon]

Not entirely, the pre-production Zero's first missions (Basically combat flight testing in actual action) were fought in China. Zeroes did see some use in CBI, although the majority of the types encountered by the AVG would have been Oscars.

[Lightning]

Hi Kutscha,

Great posting. I think you've put the Zero-captured-in-China issue to rest.

Laying out $1500 for ANYTHING would put ANYBODY in a foul mood. :( It seems you're up-and-running now, so I guess you've got everything under control and ready for takeoff.

Good luck with your new computer system.

Regards,
Lightning

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi Kutscha,

Great posting. I think you've put the Zero-captured-in-China issue to rest.

Laying out $1500 for ANYTHING would put ANYBODY in a foul mood. :( It seems you're up-and-running now, so I guess you've got everything under control and ready for takeoff.

Good luck with your new computer system.

Regards,
Lightning



Sorry Folks,

Should Have given better clues, and I was wrong About the capture of an A6M2 Zero,At least two were in fact captured the last one P-5016 had found its way to Maxwell AFB.

Simon you are on track, the first was a A6M2-11 the 12th of 15 pre-production aircraft after it had belly landed on the beach oppisite Fainan Island. retrieved 18 th September1940.

The first Flyable aircraft was a A6M2-21 tail number V-173 full production model. Forced landed 17th February 1941, and given the Chinese serial P-5016

Flight testing and technical examination by Mr Fazarahoff and Mr Neumann thats the great Gehard Neumann, later known as "Herman the German" of General Electric.

Interesting point The Sakae 12 14 cylinder engine was designed to run on 100-octane, but the capured aircraft was flown on 85-octane.

[ickysdad]

Wasn't there an A6M/1 Zero also??????

[Kutscha]

This looks like the site Groggy is getting his info from, http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/WarPrizes.htm

quote:According to a British,(possibly a Kiwi or Australian?) engineer the Americans had already fully flight tested a captured Zero well before Pearl Harbor and the details were sent to Washington.

From the site the 2 Zekes left their base on 26 November 1941, which is only a few days before the attack on PH. Then "It took months to transport the two Zero war prizes under the noses of the Japanese army units from the Leichou coast to the inland city of Liuchow (24.5N, 109W). By summer’s end the Chinese mechanics had reassembled Zero V-172, serial number 3372. During re-assembly it was found that the fuselage panels aft of the cowling had been lost on Zero 3372 during its trip north."

[dannycarroll]

Any way you look at it, the allies must have known the essential pros and cons of the design by early 1942. What's the first bit of evidence that this info was passed onto frontline units. Im still at a loss that an F4U, F6F, P38 etc could ever have been taken by something that couldn't turn above 210 kts.

The limits of force application for a control stick sideways is considered to be 40lbs. Any body got details on the Zeros numbers. Was it ever withdrawn from front line units? Same same the Ki43?

Where's the evidence that fighting tactics were taught to newbies? Would anyone know the total average hours these guys had going into combat?

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by dannycarroll

Any way you look at it, the allies must have known the essential pros and cons of the design by early 1942. What's the first bit of evidence that this info was passed onto frontline units. Im still at a loss that an F4U, F6F, P38 etc could ever have been taken by something that couldn't turn above 210 kts.

The limits of force application for a control stick sideways is considered to be 40lbs. Any body got details on the Zeros numbers. Was it ever withdrawn from front line units? Same same the Ki43?

Where's the evidence that fighting tactics were taught to newbies?
Would anyone know the total average hours these guys had going into combat?

Hi,
Sorry I can not help with the above but will be interested in the results.

Kutscha,thanks for the interesting new source,but it is a different source that I quoted, the dates do not match??? The imformation came originaly from a chap in Auckland (N.Z.), and was published some years ago in abook by Bill Gunston, Plane Speaking, Chapter 26, 18th SEPTEMBER 1940, DICOVERING THE ZERO. and makes very interesting reading. The Zero was flown to RAF Rangoon May/June???, 1941, the British panicked because they did not want to provoke the Japs.AT THAT TIME so it was flown back to Kumming, I have read about the Rangoon incident elsewere but can not recall details. I photocopied Chapter 26 its short and makes interesting reading but do not have scanner.

[Kutscha]

Found this site with more info, http://www.warbirdforum.com/neumann.htm

Be sure to check out the whole site > lots of interesting 'stuff' to be found.

[Corsarius]

You'll find that much of the testing of the a6m 'zeke' was done right here in Brisbane, Australia. It was a cut-off wing job, otherwise known as 'hamp' (which Hap Arnold got all steamed about and made the designation be changed)

That's right. I forget the exact story, but Brisbane was the place where a) captured aircraft were secretly tested and b) code-names were assigned. Apparrently, for the women in the office, you weren't part of 'the club' until you had a bomber named after you.

I've got the whole deal in a copy of 'flightpath' magazine. I'll look through my (admittedly out-of-order) collection and see if I can type something from it later tonight.

[Mark J]

Always wondered about who did all the naming of Japanese aircraft. Look forward to your next post Corsarius.
cheers

[Corsarius]

Okay. Sorry to take so long on the research. I've finally fought off the giant mutant spiders that have taken over my boxes of flightpath magazine, and have come back with the goods, albeit a bit covered in radioactive cobwebs.

I am quoting portions of an article by Terry Gwynn-Jones from Flightpath Volume 5 no 3 entitled 'Zeros over Brisbane'. Notes not in quotes are added by me.

quote:"There were only womena dn children on the beach as the snub-nosed airplane zoomed overhead towards nearby Eagle Farm airport. It was wartime and the men were away. As it sped past an eagle-eyed nurse, on leave from the pacific war, rushed to a nearby phone box and called the police.
'there's a japanese zero fighter over the beach at Sandgate' she reported.
'Rubbish', responded the cop. 'that'll be one of those american fighters or a RAAF Wirraway'.
Like other locals, the police were not to know that enemy fighter planes were being built and tested at a clandestine 'Japanese' aircraft factory at Eagle Farm airport. Located in Hanger 7 the hush-hush US Army Air Force, USAAF, outfit was known as the Technical Air Intelligence Unit (TAIU). It played a remarkable role during WWII"

Notes for americans and other aliens:
1) Eagle Farm is now the Brisbane International Airport. We're still building aircraft there, in this case the Eurocopter 'Aussie Tiger'.

2) Shorncliffe isn't much of a famous beach, as moreton bay is rather more famous for it's sharks. Shorncliffe is a great place to go on the night of a full moon where there are lots of drums and fire-twirlers (moonfest), and on the weekend it's a great place for a BBQ or to go fishing off the pier.

quote:...When the war started, no formal register of Japanese aircraft existed. Indeed only a few types were known to the allies. As America's leading Japanese aviation historian, former National Air and Space Museum curator, Rober C Mikesh puts it: "Besides a meanigful list of Japanese aircraft types, a way was needed to identify these aircraft when encountered in combat. At that time every single-engine Japanese fighter was identified as a zero and everything else was called a Mitsubishi or a Nakajima. To sort out this dilemma became the primary responsibility of TAIU; as well as developing drawings, models adn photographs for aircraft recognition purposes"

quote:...Formed at Victoria Barracks, Melbourne in early 1942 it was under the cvommand of Captain Frank McCoy Jnr (who later became a major general in the USAF)

quote:...Soon after it was formed the unit was moved to Brisbane. As part of the US 5th air force and allied air forces, TAIU's team of technicians were assisted by the US Navy, RAF and RAAF personnel. Its administrative staff office was based in General Doublas MacArthurs headquarters in the downtown AMP Building (today's MacArthur Chambers) and the technical section was housed in Hanger 7

Note: There is now an expensive wine bar where TAIU used to be housed. I used to frequent it only for that simple reason. The booze is good, but their sandwiches are bloody horrible and massively overpriced. Don't eat them.

quote:One of the unit's first tasks was to establish a simple name code for the ever increasing array of Japanese planes. Technical Sergeant Francis Williams suggested the use of people's nicknames that would be easy for personnel in all the allied services to remember. To keep it simple fighters and floatplanes were given male names, and bombers, recon planes and flying boats were assigned femaled names. Later transport planes were given 'T' names and trainers were named after trees.
Known as the MacArthur Southwest Pacific Code Name System the list soon had over 50 names. Capt McCoy's Tennessee hill-country background showed up in names such as 'rufe', 'luke', 'nate' and 'zeke'.
Talking with Robert Mikesh about how some of the aircraft names were chosen, McCoy recalled: "Sally was named for the wife of my Group Commander, 'Claude' for an Australian friend of mine and 'Joyce' for a WAAF who worked in our section. Many were named at the suggestion of sergeant williams, one of the most brilliant men I have ever known. 'Betty', I remember, he named after a well-endowed nurse"

quote:...A major breakthrough occurred in January 1943 when allied forces in New Guinea captured Buna. Australian troops, taking control of the Buna airstrip, came across numerous aircraft, including a new model Mitsubishi fighter - the clip-winged model 32.

quote:...thought to be a completely new type, the mitsubishi was assigned the code name 'hap', in honour of USAAF commanding general Henry 'hap' Arnold. Shortly after, at a Washington riefing attended by Arnold, the general seemed annoyed when the new 'hap' fighters were mnetioned. Days later the name was changed to 'hamp'

quote: There were the remains of five model 32s at Buna. ... they could now build and fly one... On july 20, 1943, Captain william O Farrior was called in at the last minute to conduct the test flight of the first zero 32 off the hanger 7 production line. He was 'borrowed' from a nearby fighter pilot replacement pool when the original test pilot was killed in an AT-6 crash on the same day - after having refused to fly the zero due to faulty brakes

quote: Eagle Farm's Zero 32 was later flown in simulated combat against USAAF, US Navy and RAAF fighter pilots. Until then the allies only had been able to evaluate an ealry Zero model 21 - recovered from the Aleutian Islands and tested in the USA.

quote: Several of the japanese army's sleek Kawasaki Ki61 werea lso rebuilt in Hanger 7. Nicknamed 'tony' for its sleek italian looks, the fighter was equipped with a license-built, liquid-cooled Daimler Benz engine. Unfortunately, engine lubricating problems - which also plagued the japanese - prevented TAIU from getting a Tony in the air

quote:... however in June 1944 before Farrior had an opportunity to test this new find (note by corsarius: a Ki-46), TAIU was ordered back to the united states

quote:... It was no surprise that the kate, when finally evaluated, proved far superior to its US counterparts. Severl Zero model 52s were also flow before being bulldozed into scrap at the war's end. Only one TAIU Zero remains - A model 52. It is part of the peerless collection at Washington's NAtional Air and Space Museum

Here endeth the lesson.

[CAPILATUS]

Regarding my posts about La-7.

I claimed the speed of 597 at Sea Level, but I was wrong.
I saw few documents showing 597 figure of La-5FN, so I missed a thing.

La-7 could make 630km/h at Sea Level. Early versions could only about 600-610, but by the end of the war serials came very close to that figure.

[WarBirdMan]

To me the 109 represented the state of the art at his time(it had a commpresor)and it could outmanoever any early british and russian fighters.A star of the ww2 fighters!:)

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by WarBirdMan

To me the 109 represented the state of the art at his time(it had a commpresor)and it could outmanoever any early british and russian fighters.A star of the ww2 fighters!:)


Not only was it an outstanding fighter, suberb gun platform with an excellent powerplant, it was simple and quick to build. This fact is sorely overlooked... CONSTANTLY. The manufacturing techniques that were invented for it are 'standard' in factories today. Over 30,000 examples were 'stamped' out during the World War Two conflict.
That's a butt-load of weaponry...

[simon]

Bumped for B-1, a bit of light reading... :D

[GregP]

Thanks Simon. This is a good topic as indicated by the number of posts.

I lean towards the Lavochkin La-5FN or La-7 as the best in its intended role, but acknowledge the contributions of such pundits as the Spitfire XIV, FW-190D series, and P-51 family.

The P-51, in its "D" version, was VERY good fighter, but was not as good as the late model Spits. The P-51H probbaly WAS, but was late in the war.

The Corsair, particularly in the F4U-4 and -5 was very probably the best in the fighter-bomber role and was VERY dangerous as a pure fighter.

Still, everyone has an opinion!

Of them all, I'd say the F4U-4 was the best at being a fighter. Fast, rapid climb, average armament, good range, and rugged. 3 out of 4 ain't bad.

Was it better than the late model Spitfires?

Can't say but it was at least very close, and it could land on a carrier. At 470 mph, the F4U-4 could "go" very well.

[Mark J]

Yes, those little La fighters were very good, as well as the Yak 3 and 9. I have to admit the Spitfire was THE fighter for western Europe. The mk's 1, 2 and 5 seemed to rule fractionally above the Me 109 up until late 1941 when the Fw 190 appeared. There was a bleak period until the mk 9 appeared and then the mk 14 topped the list. Not taking anything from the Fw series but I feel western Europe's best was indeed the Spitfire as it was up there for the whole war not part of it.
Now, if I was to do the same on ALL fronts, I would choose the F4U Corsair and hope somebody would build it from 1939.....

Hope I havn't upset the P-51 fans :)

cheers

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Thanks Simon. This is a good topic as indicated by the number of posts.

I lean towards the Lavochkin La-5FN or La-7 as the best in its intended role, but acknowledge the contributions of such pundits as the Spitfire XIV, FW-190D series, and P-51 family.

The P-51, in its "D" version, was VERY good fighter, but was not as good as the late model Spits. The P-51H probbaly WAS, but was late in the war.

The Corsair, particularly in the F4U-4 and -5 was very probably the best in the fighter-bomber role and was VERY dangerous as a pure fighter.

Still, everyone has an opinion!

Of them all, I'd say the F4U-4 was the best at being a fighter. Fast, rapid climb, average armament, good range, and rugged. 3 out of 4 ain't bad.

Was it better than the late model Spitfires?

Can't say but it was at least very close, and it could land on a carrier. At 470 mph, the F4U-4 could "go" very well.

Read somewhere that the RNZAF fighter squadrons with J-Force (occupation of Japan) were forbidden to play games with the RAF after some Spitfires came to a sticky end attempting to follow the NZer's F4Us in simulated combat ...
The Corsair was a very good fighter

[Kutscha]

The P-51D passed its carrier qualification trials in 1944 aboard the Shangri-La. It didn't break it landing gear either like the Spitfires were prone to do.

Spifire 20 series did not have the greatest flying qualities.

[Mark J]

I don't think the 20 series of Spitfires were much better than the mk14 because of their increased weight and different wing configuration.

Kutscha, do you have a link to the naval P-51?

Curmudgeon, I've read the same thing, some time ago, I don't have the source anymore. I know it was 14 squadron, RNZAF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14_Squadron_RNZAF

cheers

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

I don't think the 20 series of Spitfires were much better than the mk14 because of their increased weight and different wing configuration.

Kutscha, do you have a link to the naval P-51?

Curmudgeon, I've read the same thing, some time ago, I don't have the source anymore. I know it was 14 squadron, RNZAF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14_Squadron_RNZAF

cheers

Interesting that the US cut off supplies of F4Us to its allies in 1944, but reinstated deliveries to the RNZAF at the insistance of the US Marine Corps. Marines at that time preferring close air support from their own air arm or RNZAF to that provided by other US forces.

[Mark J]

A different sense of discipline. The RNZAF was a little player in a big war and a common feeling flowed through the ranks, of having to perform that little bit better just to be accepted. Being a young pioneering country (like Australia) helped with the attitude and Kiwi airmen gained a reputation for getting the job done.....often at a high cost. This reputation wasn't lost on the Marines.

cheers

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

A different sense of discipline. The RNZAF was a little player in a big war and a common feeling flowed through the ranks, of having to perform that little bit better just to be accepted. Being a young pioneering country (like Australia) helped with the attitude and Kiwi airmen gained a reputation for getting the job done.....often at a high cost. This reputation wasn't lost on the Marines.

cheers

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Groggy

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

A different sense of discipline. The RNZAF was a little player in a big war and a common feeling flowed through the ranks, of having to perform that little bit better just to be accepted. Being a young pioneering country (like Australia) helped with the attitude and Kiwi airmen gained a reputation for getting the job done.....often at a high cost. This reputation wasn't lost on the Marines.

cheers



Hi Mark,

New Zealand was the first country in the world to grant women the vote; that shows the Kiwis were a bit special when freed from the old class system. First powered flight was by a Kiwi in 18??
I just hope you can keep that spirit going.

[Mark J]

Groggy, Richard Pearce (spelling) flew his monoplane at his farm not far from Christchurch back in 1903.......

Of course that is only from memory, he didn't have the benefit of camera's and reporters. The book about him is interesting!

I think an Australian was flying back then as well but managed a powered flight as early as 1899 but I am not sure about that.

.....a little different from the accepted history ah.....;)

cheers

[simon]

quote:Originally posted by WarBirdMan

To me the 109 represented the state of the art at his time(it had a commpresor)and it could outmanoever any early british and russian fighters.A star of the ww2 fighters!:)


I'm quite surprised I didn't pick up on this earlier. The Bf109E was actually less manouevrable than the Hurricane and Gladiator, although significantly faster than each, about on a par with the Spitfire MkI, some sources say the Spitfire was better, others Messerschmitt, and of course (Not surprisingly) far superior to the Defiant and Blenheim MkIF and MkIVF.

So of the 5 main early war RAF fighters the Bf109 was inferior to two, equal with one and better than two. It couldn't outmanouevre "any" of the early war RAF fighters, just some.

[Mark J]

Simon, just a thought.....

Did the RAF test the Me 109 with the leading edge flaps wired shut, or were they allowed to funtion during tight, low speed turns.....my point is, the Me 109 was capable of some tight turning if flown towards the airframes limits, something the Luftwaffe pilots didn't always do.
I don't disagree with you, it's just that I remember reading about this and wonder if it was taken into account when the Me 109 flying capabilities were first released to the RAF.

Groggy, a link to Richard Pearse, early aviator

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/pearse1.html

cheers

[mal68]

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

On the Spitfire vs. Zero debate,how many times did they meet? In those engagements over Darwin were the Spitfires the II, V, or IX models? From what I understand these engagements took place in early-mid '43. The IX appeared in mid-42 the V about a year or so earlier it seems that the IX would be far ahead of the Zero.I've read several accounts where New Zealand & Australian pilots(and Chennault's Flying Tigers definately were) flying P-40's around this time were besting the Zero if this is the case why were they having so much trouble taking it on when flying the much superior Spitfire? As compared to the P-40. I mean the P-40,as far as being an energy fighter, was faster,dived faster,and could out-roll a Zero at high speeds on top of being much tougher and better armed. It seems the Spitfire would be faster ,have better diving speeds(not as good as the P-40 though) and better high speed handling than the Zero plus the Spitfire had far better high altitude capability than the P-40. What was the difference? Seems like if the P-40 could,at the very least, hold it's own than the Spitfire should also.


The Flying Tigers never flew against the Zero, much less have a single kill of an A6M2-21 to their credit during their life as the AVG.
The "Flying Tigers" ceased to exist after they were folded into the USAAF on july 4 1942, most of their pilots and ground crews refused to serve with the follow on organization and went home.

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

Groggy, Richard Pearce (spelling) flew his monoplane at his farm not far from Christchurch back in 1903.......

Of course that is only from memory, he didn't have the benefit of camera's and reporters. The book about him is interesting!

I think an Australian was flying back then as well but managed a powered flight as early as 1899 but I am not sure about that.

.....a little different from the accepted history ah.....;)

Hi Mark

The Australian you mention is Lawrence Hargraves, possibly the 'true' father of flight (after Lilienthal). It was Hargraves who invented the boxkite (the design of which influenced ALL of the successful early aviation pioneers), and it was he who first developed a 'man-lifter' kite.

Significantly, and very much unlike two bicycle mechanics I could mention, he refused to patent any of his inventions, as he felt that this would be a limit to progress, and invention was free for all.

Another significant invention was the rotary engine.

Hargraves would likely have been the first man to have powered, controlled flight but he was limited with engines (he mainly used compressed air) and he used ornithopters rather than propellers. Still, he built a large ornithopter that flew quite a long way, some time before anyone else had even gotten anything off the ground!

[ickysdad]

Well I just couldn't help myself guys but it's been almost 4 years since this thread was active and I remember having many memorable & enjoyable times with this thread. I'm sure alot of ole time posters have come & gone since. Now my question is has any new info came about that might you all look at this thread differently? Is this the longest thread ever on this website? I mean 91 pages!!!!!

[Lightning]

Hi ickysdad,

Well I just couldn't help myself guys but it's been almost 4 years since this thread was active---.


Troublemaker! I'll bet you open cans of worms, poke sticks into hornets' nests, and start arguments on religion and politics. How could you! Oh well, have at it if you must! :D

Regards,

Lightning

[ickysdad]

Hi ickysdad,




Troublemaker! I'll bet you open cans of worms, poke sticks into hornets' nests, and start arguments on religion and politics. How could you! Oh well, have at it if you must! :D

Regards,

Lightning

It was a good thread and very informing. I'm sure new info has came around and people might want to share it.

[ickysdad]

Well I'm bumping this one up again since because of so many hard headed posters(myself excluded though!!!!!) seem to want the "British Carrier" thread to catch up to this one.

Now myself I'm saying there are quite a few "best" depending on what you want. You can't have a perfect "10" in all aspects. Anyways just trying to start some trouble!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!

[flying kiwi]

If they'd got into service just a little earlier, I think the Sea Fury, Grumman Bearcat and Lavochkin La-9 would have been the best three. As it was, the Tempest, Hellcat and La-7 were all very good, but not so obviously superior over their contemporaries. The Sea Fury, for example, seems far superior to either the Spiteful, Griffon Spitfires or Tempests, while the Bearcat was also in a class of its own. Perhaps unfortunately, they were all surpassed by jets.

[Lightning]

Hi ickysdad,

Well I'm bumping this one up again since because of so many hard headed posters(myself excluded though!!!!!) seem to want the "British Carrier" thread to catch up to this one.

That other thread may catch up to this one in quantity but certainly not in quality! This "Best Fighter" thread was in the true spirit of our forum--good-natured discussion that avoided sarcasm and disrespect while everyone stated his opinion without trying to belittle that of others. That other thread, sadly, has taken a downward turn. Right or wrong, there's a right way and a wrong way to express one's views, and when it is done in the right way, more light than smoke is the result.

Now myself I'm saying there are quite a few "best" depending on what you want. You can't have a perfect "10" in all aspects. Anyways just trying to start some trouble!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!

So right!

Regards,

Lightning

[Flo]

Would this count? :D

Although the Pfeil didn't see actual combat, it did fly, so you can take a guess about how it may have fared.

Given that the main requirements for a fighter to be successful are speed, firepower and manouevrability, the Pfeil was fast, heavily armed and, due to it's unusual engine layout, manouevrable.

True the only way to actually see whether one plane could out-manouevre another would be to fly them against each other, and that obviously isn't going to happen, but the Pfeil could out-run and out-gun a Mustang.

To continue the comparisson to another (Admitedly Jet powered) fighter, the Me262 could also out-run and out-gun Mustangs, if you take the 262's reputation, it gives you a good idea of how the Pfeil may have done.

True it might not have made a good dogfighter although there's no reason to suspect that, but it definately would have made a formidable bomber interceptor.

Will have to agree to disagree over the Mustang though. Excellent plane, I just think internationally speaking the later Spitfires get ignored a bit and they were as good as the P-51.

Clostermann came upon one (a 'pfeil', Do 335) toward the end of the war. He was flying his personal Tempest 'le Grand Charles', just about the fastest thing the Allies had for low to mid level work.

"An aircraft became visible at tree top level, approaching rapidly. A curious one, which I couldn't identify. He saw us only at the last moment, because we were just below the cloud base, in the shadows. He broke very quickly and for a moment I had a full view of him. He was obviously a Jerry- he had black crosses on the wings- but what an odd sort of bird!
Throttle full open, I tried to cut inside his turn, but he was moving astonishingly fast. Longley was better placed and fired at him, but without effect. The strange aircraft completed his turn and flew off at full speed.
He really was an extraordinary looking customer. His tail plane was cruciform and it looked as if he had not only a normal propeller in front but on top of that a pusher propeller right in the tail, behind the rudder. His front engine was an 'in-line', with a cowling like a DB 603 in a Foke-Wulf Ta 152C with a ring-shaped radiator; the other engine was buried in the fuselage, behind the pilot. The two long grey trails in his slipstream showed he was using a supercharger and the thread of white escaping from his exhausts showed he was using GM-1. I toyed with the idea of bringing my overboost into action, but even with 3040 h.p. we wouldn't be able to get him. We were doing nearly 500 m.p.h. and he was easily gaining on us."

So, what can we take from the above? Well, the Dornier was bloody quick! :D. The singleton was easily spotted by a four ship, but he failed to notice four fighters directly in his path. This may be a reflection on the poor visibility from the 335s cockpit, poor visual discipline on the Germans part or skilled use of the environment by the RAF flight. Regardless of the cause, it may demonstrate a potential advantage Allied aircrew could have utilised.
The Tempests, not particularly agile fighters, could turn inside the new aircraft. Dogfighting, in all probability, wouldn't be it's forte.
The Dornier was using both boost and injection. It saved the aircraft, but obviously this performance wouldn't be available throughout a sortie, unlike that of a jet.

My opinion: if large numbers of the Arrow went into production, they could disengage from all current Allied fighters at will. To engage enemy fighters though, they'd need surprise. That would be difficult to achieve against alert Allied aircrew flying in machines with excellent all round visibility. A valid comparison might be comparing Hurricanes to Bf 110s. The Messerschmitt was much faster and better armed, but suffered heavy losses against the agile Hawker.
Against bomber formations the Dorniers high speed and heavy armament would have given it similar advantages to German jets, without the horrendous reliability problems.
But the advantages weren't worth the resources consumed. How many conventional fighters could have been sent against the enemy if the Germans weren't developing these things? Half again? Twice as many?
For what it's worth, I'm glad the Germans were such smart a*ses. The modern world isn't perfect, but it's pretty good all the same! :D

[Lightning]

Hi flying kiwi,

If they'd got into service just a little earlier, I think the Sea Fury, Grumman Bearcat and Lavochkin La-9 would have been the best three. As it was, the Tempest, Hellcat and La-7 were all very good, but not so obviously superior over their contemporaries. The Sea Fury, for example, seems far superior to either the Spiteful, Griffon Spitfires or Tempests, while the Bearcat was also in a class of its own. Perhaps unfortunately, they were all surpassed by jets.

This is why I personally think that putting the "cut-off" at the end of the war is a good idea. During the six wartime years, very much was learned that would be incorporated into emerging designs. It was only inevitable that there would come a point where the newer fighters would be superior to those designed in the 1930s and early 1940s. The existing wartime designs were reaching the limits of their development potentials. Of course, your comment about jets says it all.

Regards,

Lightning

[ickysdad]

The Pfiel also porposed very,very badly. It was certainly not really capable of dogfighting and despite claims it's top speed was around 360 MPH at sea level ,437 MPH at 21,665' and 455 MPH at 23,295'. Climb rate was like 1.3 min to 3280;, 3 min to 6,560', 6 min to 13,125', 10 min to 19,685', 14.5 min to 26,247'. Service cieling was 31,170'.

As a night fighter man it would have been excellent with it's top speed and range whilst as a dayfighter it's high speed would have given the bombers headaches.

It was also probably as maintenance intensive as the Me. 262. Engine fires seemed to be a very ,very serious problem especially the rear one with the result that control cables could be burned into very easily and along a similar line it was very,very difficult to bail out of.

[Flo]

Specifically the F.3.

It didn't actually achieve much during the war, but the potential was there.

Not quite as fast as a 262 but a damn sight more reliable. It could out climb and out dive the Messerschmitt. It was agile enough to out turn Tempests and late model Spitfires. It was well armed- tracked a bit on longer bursts, but the cannons were accurate enough, especially with their gyro sights, and devastating to anything flying in the 40s. It even had a reasonable combat radius. But no endurance; it didn't do 'loiter', as some experienced prop jockeys found out to their cost! Excellent visibility, much better than the prop fighters that preceded it. It could even carry a decent amount of external stores.

[curmudgeon]

Specifically the F.3.

It didn't actually achieve much during the war, but the potential was there.

Not quite as fast as a 262 but a damn sight more reliable. It could out climb and out dive the Messerschmitt. It was agile enough to out turn Tempests and late model Spitfires. It was well armed- tracked a bit on longer bursts, but the cannons were accurate enough, especially with their gyro sights, and devastating to anything flying in the 40s. It even had a reasonable combat radius. But no endurance; it didn't do 'loiter', as some experienced prop jockeys found out to their cost! Excellent visibility, much better than the prop fighters that preceded it. It could even carry a decent amount of external stores.

The F.3 as introduced (Dec '44) or after the longer nacelles were fitted (immediately post war?). I expect if there had been relevant jet-jet combat then the long nacelles would have been introduced earlier (gave them an extra 75 mph with no change in the engine).
The Vampire (marking time as dH built Mosquitos) and P-80 (test aircraft sent to Europe) were potentially better Me262 killers ...

[flying kiwi]

I often wonder how well the Vampire would have done if it had seen combat before the end of the war. They seemed a lot simpler than the Meteor and had the same armament.

[curmudgeon]

I often wonder how well the Vampire would have done if it had seen combat before the end of the war. They seemed a lot simpler than the Meteor and had the same armament.

There were some major post-war exercises, flown by pilots with combat experience ...

The Vampire was half the price of a Meteor, a little slower after the introduction of the long nacelles, had a higher ceiling, could be flown from carriers ... led to the Venom which had much the same specs, so maybe there were problems with the Vampire.

[Kutscha]

One reason.

The first Vampire flight had been delayed due to the need to send the sole remaining flight engine to Lockheed to replace one destroyed in ground engine runs in the prototype XP-80.

[andrewdo335]

I want to share this blog about a surprisingly unknown plane and my vote for best fighter of the war - the Dornier Do 335 "Arrow". Claude Dornier received a patent for in line tandem engine fighter design in 1927. German Air Ministry solicited proposals for a fighter capable of 800 km hour in 1938 (?) and Dorniers' design was accepted. Pre - production (A O) version flew in 1944 with production version flying shortly thereafter. Approx. only 40 aircraft of all types were produced due to allied strategic bombing campaign but let s check out some facts about the Arrow: 3 cannon armament mounted in fuselage which eliminates gun jamming issues with wing mount guns. 1 500 kg bomb (internal). Armored radiator housings to greatly reduce risk of damage from enemy fire. engine s - 2 Daimler DB 603 inverted fuel injection liquid cooled v 12's (1800 hp each). Tricycle landing gear to enhance ease of takeoff and landing. 1st aircraft design with ejection seat and jettison ("blow off") tail. Cruciform (cross shape) tail design for excellent directional stability. Manuevers on par with best single engine fighters - an outstanding fighter and the fastest prop plane of the war (475-480 mph). Thanks for the time.:cool:

[ickysdad]

I want to share this blog about a surprisingly unknown plane and my vote for best fighter of the war - the Dornier Do 335 "Arrow". Claude Dornier received a patent for in line tandem engine fighter design in 1927. German Air Ministry solicited proposals for a fighter capable of 800 km hour in 1938 (?) and Dorniers' design was accepted. Pre - production (A O) version flew in 1944 with production version flying shortly thereafter. Approx. only 40 aircraft of all types were produced due to allied strategic bombing campaign but let s check out some facts about the Arrow: 3 cannon armament mounted in fuselage which eliminates gun jamming issues with wing mount guns. 1 500 kg bomb (internal). Armored radiator housings to greatly reduce risk of damage from enemy fire. engine s - 2 Daimler DB 603 inverted fuel injection liquid cooled v 12's (1800 hp each). Tricycle landing gear to enhance ease of takeoff and landing. 1st aircraft design with ejection seat and jettison ("blow off") tail. Cruciform (cross shape) tail design for excellent directional stability. Manuevers on par with best single engine fighters - an outstanding fighter and the fastest prop plane of the war (475-480 mph). Thanks for the time.:cool:

Please refer to post number 913.

[drgondog]

The 'Best' discussion should always take into account the criteria that make it 'the Best'. Personally, I favor the combination of long range, high performance and load capability. For aircraft that acturally flew, were assigned to squadrons and may or may not have engaged in combat I lean to the following:

In no particular order:
F4U-4, P-38L, P-51H, F6F-5, P-47N and F7F. Of these the 51H had the greatest potential as Long range interceptor/escort/air superiority, while still being capable as CAS - but less capable than the other three.

The F7F ability to effectively operate as a night fighter, CAS, Torpedo bomber, high performance interceptor made it very interesting as a Best All Around candidate if you also needed carrier/land dual capability as well as the F4U-4 and F6F-5.

For any airpower whose capabilities and strategic doctrine included Heavy Bombers and the protection thereof, would logically have to start with one of the above.

Fighters with better manueverability and some capabilities but smaller tactical and strategic footprint

Ta 152, Spit XIV, Tempest V, Ki 84/100

Fighters that fought a long war and continued to be lethal

(without version as each airframe evolved and improved capabilities)
FW 190, Spitfire, Me 109, Yak 3

[NeoConShooter]

Was obviously the P-38! Carried more bombs than a Mossy, faster and farther. Was faster than any of it's contemporaries at altitude and MCP throttle settings! It had CR Props and thus was one of the vary best gun platforms and they enhanced maneuverability too! It could easily out turn a Zero or Spit at low speeds to the left with 10 degrees of flap. Later planes with hydraulic boosted ailerons could out roll any thing but the Me-163 rocket plane making the rolling scissors fight a nearly sure winner if started when surprised from behind before they started shooting, or getting hits? Pitch authority at normal speeds was higher than any of it's contemporaries yielding transient responses that beat the heck out of most other popular planes! I discount some of the biplanes from early in the war that had better pitch response because they were sooooo slooooow!

It is almost impossible to get hits from a single prop plane while tracking a turning target because of gyroscopic precession! It had concentrated fire from CL Mounted guns that were high rate of fire, high MV and highest BC in the war! (Effective engagement range = 1,600 M! Limited by tracer burn out.)

I know that many of you will poo-poo this on many grounds, but given the right tactics and use it is almost invulnerable and easily the most deadly plane in service during the War!

[NeoConShooter]

The 'Best' discussion should always take into account the criteria that make it 'the Best'. Personally, I favor the combination of long range, high performance and load capability. For aircraft that acturally flew, were assigned to squadrons and may or may not have engaged in combat I lean to the following:

In no particular order:
F4U-4, P-38L, P-51H, F6F-5, P-47N and F7F. Of these the 51H had the greatest potential as Long range interceptor/escort/air superiority, while still being capable as CAS - but less capable than the other three.

The F7F ability to effectively operate as a night fighter, CAS, Torpedo bomber, high performance interceptor made it very interesting as a Best All Around candidate if you also needed carrier/land dual capability as well as the F4U-4 and F6F-5.

For any airpower whose capabilities and strategic doctrine included Heavy Bombers and the protection thereof, would logically have to start with one of the above.

Fighters with better manueverability and some capabilities but smaller tactical and strategic footprint

Ta 152, Spit XIV, Tempest V, Ki 84/100

Fighters that fought a long war and continued to be lethal

(without version as each airframe evolved and improved capabilities)
FW 190, Spitfire, Me 109, Yak 3


I keep forgetting about the F-7 a very good possibility that I will have to do more research on. I like the fact that you include my favorite, the P-38L. I do not know if the F-7 is competitive or not. Does it have hydraulically boosted ailerons?

I dispute your choice of the Spit XIV as it was the worlds worst gun platform, twitchy and snaky until they enlarged the rudder and vertical fin on later planes. ( Note how long between the time of the first flight and first kill during a war where they were truly desperate!)

The Ta-152H is great because of the weapons fit and performance, while the juice lasted. The all around best single engined plane surely has to be the Me-109with the single engine mounted cannon and only two MGs in the cowl. Made more A2A kills than all the rest combined! That said it all!

[Edgar Brooks]

I dispute your choice of the Spit XIV as it was the worlds worst gun platform, twitchy and snaky until they enlarged the rudder and vertical fin on later planes. ( Note how long between the time of the first flight and first kill during a war where they were truly desperate!)
Strange that not one test report mentions this "twitchy and snaky" behaviour, and the enlarged fin was fitted from the start of production; post-war it was found that a larger rudder was needed on the low-back F.R.XIVe & Mk.XVIII airframes. The XIV rudder never changed during the war. I note your final sarcastic comment, also that you don't actually tell us those dates; as a minor point, perhaps you should note that the XIV was not passed for entry into service until December 1943, and we were so desperate that we were prepared to donate the Mk.IX to the American and Russian air forces in droves.
One final point, please drop the silly red lettering; it's considered extremely rude when writiing a letter, and the same should apply on a website.

[NeoConShooter]

Strange that not one test report mentions this "twitchy and snaky" behaviour, and the enlarged fin was fitted from the start of production; post-war it was found that a larger rudder was needed on the low-back F.R.XIVe & Mk.XVIII airframes. The XIV rudder never changed during the war. I note your final sarcastic comment, also that you don't actually tell us those dates; as a minor point, perhaps you should note that the XIV was not passed for entry into service until December 1943, and we were so desperate that we were prepared to donate the Mk.IX to the American and Russian air forces in droves.
One final point, please drop the silly red lettering; it's considered extremely rude when writiing a letter, and the same should apply on a website.
About the red ink, I like to be able to tell the difference between my reply and their post that I copied over.
The initial post was from memory, not being particularly interested in Spits, I shot from the hip. I do not know the exact date of the first flight, or first kill of the Mk-XIV Spit, and do not care, but I do know that the first kill was a year later than the first flight! As to the reason you think the first planes got the enlarged rudder, when was the first Spit made with a cut down rear deck? I have no idea when the first one was made, but I thought it was in a double digit mark number before they put the really big rudder on?
I hate to use the "un identified expert" argument, but I will any way. They, (All Professional Fighter pilots rated in front line modern jets) with Micky-D, Boeing, Lockheed F-5, Tornado, Peace Sun Program and others, ALL to a man thought that the last "Good" or "Best" Spitfire was the Mark IX.
Now if I am wrong about the time interval between the first flight and first kill of a Griphon engined Spitfire, please be the first to tell me. If I am wrong about the fact that the FIRST Mk-XIVs did not have the greatly enlarged Vertical Fin and Rudder that had to be added to later marks to compensate for the five-six bladed prop and cut down fuse behind the hood because the first mini-enlarged fin/rudder did not work as well as they wanted, please tell me. Because the Test Pilot reports on the Mk-XIV Spitfire that I remember reading all stated that the five bladed prop caused the early Griphon engined planes to "Snake" and "Wander". It was my Pilot friends from the Peace Sun Program who told me that was the reason why there was such a long delay between the first flight and first kill of the Griphon engined Spitfire!

[Wuzak]

The delay was due to the first flight being a prototype and not a production machine. Productiion was delayed as they pumped out as many Mk Vs and Mk IXs as they could. The same situation as the MkVIII, which used teh same Merlin as the IX, but had airframe changes (retractable tail wheel, extra tankage in the wings)..

The stability problems and the increase of the size of the stabiliser and rudder was addressed during the flight testing of the prototypes (modified MkVIIIs).

The XIV needed a bigger rudder and vertical stabiliser because the Griffon was more powerufl and caused more torque reaction than the Merlin versions. Added to that the torque reaction was in the opposite direction.

The 5-blade propellor was used because the power it needed to absorb. It was smaller diameter and ran a little faster than the props on the Merlin variants. The prop was smaller because the Griffon was angled down slightly to give the pilot a better view over the nose, but the landing gear could not be extended.

How long between the prototype XP-38 and the first pre-pproduction P-38s, let alone production P-38s.

[Wuzak]

Was obviously the P-38! Carried more bombs than a Mossy, faster and farther.

It could carry 4000lb of bombs - same as the later Mossies. But it couldn't carry them as fast or as far as the Mossie.

[NeoConShooter]

The delay was due to the first flight being a prototype and not a production machine. Productiion was delayed as they pumped out as many Mk Vs and Mk IXs as they could. The same situation as the MkVIII, which used teh same Merlin as the IX, but had airframe changes (retractable tail wheel, extra tankage in the wings)..

The stability problems and the increase of the size of the stabiliser and rudder was addressed during the flight testing of the prototypes (modified MkVIIIs).

The XIV needed a bigger rudder and vertical stabiliser because the Griffon was more powerufl and caused more torque reaction than the Merlin versions. Added to that the torque reaction was in the opposite direction.

The 5-blade propellor was used because the power it needed to absorb. It was smaller diameter and ran a little faster than the props on the Merlin variants. The prop was smaller because the Griffon was angled down slightly to give the pilot a better view over the nose, but the landing gear could not be extended.

How long between the prototype XP-38 and the first pre-pproduction P-38s, let alone production P-38s.

It's late and I'm out of time to answer, but you are aware that the prop is a destabilising factor, it adds area and drag at the front of the plane and adding a blade requires more rudder if it, the rudder, was the right size before. All haqving nothing to do with power.

[Edgar Brooks]

The initial post was from memory, not being particularly interested in Spits, I shot from the hip. I do not know the exact date of the first flight, or first kill of the Mk-XIV Spit, and do not care, but I do know that the first kill was a year later than the first flight!
So, to paraphrase, you have no interest in, or knowledge of, the Spitfire, yet feel qualified to pontificate about it, while quoting some nebulous group of (jet aircraft) "experts," that I've never heard of, and dismissing the views of pilots who actually flew the aircraft during the war.
The first true XIVs were not delivered (to 610 Squadron, initially) until early 1944, all of the earlier airframes being converted VIIIs, not genuine XIVs. The RAF wanted to see the capabilities of the new Mark, before accepting it into service. In mid-1944, the XIVs, being the fastest Spitfires of all, were switched to "anti-Diver" patrols, shooting many of them down. Of course, this doesn't have the glamour of single combat, but did save many civilian lives, for which the British public were (and still are) extremely grateful.
The extra blade did nothing to affect the handling of the Spitfire, except for increased torque, which was countered by the (slightly) increased fin and rudder area. All Rotol props were accurately balanced, before delivery, to ensure total control. Unlike the Mustang, the Spitfire's fin had no offset, so the airframe could accept the GRIFFON (not Gryphon, do get it right, there's a good chap) engine, with minimal fuss. The extra blade was added to take advantage of the extra power of the engine, while keeping the diameter within physical limits, so your assertion that it had nothing to do with power is (as with most of your pronouncements) way wide of the mark.
The extra-large fin, rudder, tailplane and elevators were not fitted until the Mark 22, and this was due to the extra items fitted into the rear fuselage, which caused stability problems; a "bob-weight" was fitted in early Spitfires, and said weight was increased, but was only an interim measure, only solved with the bigger back-end.
No wartime Spitfire ever flew with a six-bladed propeller, though there were experiments with a six-blade contra-rotating propeller, which it was hoped could be used on the XIV, but it was not successful; some 21s were fitted, post-war, and the Seafire 47 used it, but that was all. Being a contra-prop, it had nil torque effect, so needed a slightly modified rudder.
The first "rear view" (i.e. bubble-canopy) Spitfires did not see service until Spring 1945, but this was due to the huge number of modifications, due to the inclusion of an extra fuel tank behind the pilot; these tanks (plus carriage of bombs under the wings) caused trouble, but it was largely cured by small mods to the rudder (and metal-covered elevators on the XVI only.)
I'm sure that you will dismiss, or ignore (as evinced by your refusal to spell GRIFFON properly) my item, but I'm really directing it to the other members of this forum, who have shown that they are interested in the truth.

[Kutscha]

I found this interesting. An American preferred the Spit IX over the P-51. Goodin had piloted the X-1 earlier.

On January 7, McElroy and Slick Goodlin took part in what is probably the most memorable air combat of the war.

On January 7, we had done a couple of patrols and we had been told that there was going to be a truce effective at 4:00 p.m. I was sitting in the dispersal hut down on the field at Qastina (Chatzor) with Slick Goodlin and Lee Sinclair. It was late in the afternoon; I think it was probably around 2:15 or 2:30. And I said to Slick, 'I got a funny feeling there's a patrol in the area now down around the El Arish-Auja area. Let's see if we can get a couple of airplanes and take off down there for one more patrol.'

Well, Slick said he'd go along and Lee said he wanted to go, so I went to the Engineering Officer and asked if he had two Spitfires ready to go and he said there's maybe (also) a P-51. I said, 'Fine. Slick and I will fly the Spitfires and Lee will take the P-51 and act as sort of a top cover for us and we'll go down and see what we can find.'

Slick, though an American, didn't take the P-51 because during that period he had indicated a preference for the Spit for combat work. He thought it was easier to handle and more maneuverable. Slick liked the 20mm cannon which we had in our Spits: more effective firepower. The Spitfire had two 20mm cannon and two .50-inch machine guns, the standard American weapon.

I showed the boys the area on the map where we'd go and what area we'd look for. The Engineering Officer came in and said that the P-51 was not serviceable. He had thought it was, but it wasn't. So Lee Sinclair couldn't go. Slick and I went by ourselves.

The two of us went down there, down the coast. We were flying at 16,000-18,000 feet. We didn't say much. We were trying to observe radio silence. I didn't know what effect it would have, but we didn't want too many people to know we were coming. (Rubenstein and Goldman 1978)

1948 Arab-Israeli War

[flying kiwi]

Are you sure that was a Spitfire XIV? I understood that the Jewish pilots flew Mk IXs.

[Kutscha]

Are you sure that was a Spitfire XIV? I understood that the Jewish pilots flew Mk IXs.

Sorry about that, will edit.
IAF Mk IXs vs RAF MkXIVs

Still, the Mk IX was preferred over the P-51D.

[NeoConShooter]

It could carry 4000lb of bombs - same as the later Mossies. But it couldn't carry them as fast or as far as the Mossie.

Depending on how you define range and load, the P-38 could carry two 2,240 pound Mk-13 torpedoes and twelve 5" HVARs at 140 pounds each for 6,160 pounds total. Can the Mossy do that weight? Or two 2,000 pound bombs and drop tanks, the magic combo for the range a Mossy can not match. The reason the mossy can not match that range is that it is flown low and slow, which the P-38 can do and survive because it has five guns and can out maneuver the attackers. And... The last part, the Mossy can not match that range even if it goes low and slow because it can't carry enough gas.

[Wuzak]

Depending on how you define range and load, the P-38 could carry two 2,240 pound Mk-13 torpedoes and twelve 5" HVARs at 140 pounds each for 6,160 pounds total. Can the Mossy do that weight? Or two 2,000 pound bombs and drop tanks, the magic combo for the range a Mossy can not match. The reason the mossy can not match that range is that it is flown low and slow, which the P-38 can do and survive because it has five guns and can out maneuver the attackers. And... The last part, the Mossy can not match that range even if it goes low and slow because it can't carry enough gas.

How far?

The P-38 could not carry 2 x 2000lb bombs and 2 x drop tanks.

It could carry 2 x 2000lb bombs,
Or 2 x drop tanks,
Or 1 x 2000lb bomb + 1 x drop tank.

They fitted on the same pylons.

Not sure that the P-38 coudl carry torpedoes and HVARs.

The B.XVI Mosquito could carry a 400lb bomb load around 1600miles. I doubt that a P-38 could carry the 4000lb bomb load a quarter of the distance.

It certainly couldn't carry them as fast. It's called drag NCS. The P-38 carried all its load externally, the Mosquito internally (except for the external wing tanks).

PS, not sure if it was ever tried, but the Mosquito could carry a 500lb bomb in place of the fuel tanks under each wing. As the balance could be a problem with the cookie, it probably wasn't advisable.

[NeoConShooter]

So, to paraphrase, you have no interest in, or knowledge of, the Spitfire,.
I said I had no interest in that post. It should be apparent to any one that I have at least some knowledge of the subject.

yet feel qualified to pontificate about it, while quoting some nebulous group of (jet aircraft) "experts," that I've never heard of, and dismissing the views of pilots who actually flew the aircraft during the war..
I am qualified to comment on it. At least as much and probably more than some other members of the board. As to real professional pilots looking back with the 20-20 hind sight of history and the knowledge gained over four decades of advancing aerodynamic experience, I have no doubt that they know a good deal more about aircraft than the pilots back then.

The first true XIVs were not delivered (to 610 Squadron, initially) until early 1944, all of the earlier airframes being converted VIIIs, not genuine XIVs..
Did those conversions have the intermediate of three sizes of vertical fin and rudder replace the smaller Mk-VIII fin and rudder? Or did the fly with the smaller set? Some had to fly something to learn about the need for larger surfaces?

The RAF wanted to see the capabilities of the new Mark, before accepting it into service. In mid-1944, the XIVs, being the fastest Spitfires of all,.
Were those planes all prototypes? Or, as I suspect, were they all production planes. If they were production planes as I suspect, then the service date is that date of the first flight that attempted to shoot down a buzz bomb!

In a past debate, I learned that various planes had different levels of success shooting down the Buzz Bombs. I would love to know the success rates of the various Spitfires doing that mission! I can not remember the figures, but I think, note again that I said think and that I was not sure before you rag on this comment, that Mk-XIVs did not do very well at that job! Again, from my admittedly feeble memory, so could you post those figures? Days on alert, missions launched, intercepts made and bombs destroyed, from start date to end date.


The extra blade did nothing to affect the handling of the Spitfire, .

except for increased torque, which was countered by the (slightly) increased fin and rudder area. All Rotol props were accurately balanced, before delivery, to ensure total control..

Unlike the Mustang, the Spitfire's fin had no offset, so the airframe could accept the GRIFFON (not Gryphon, do get it right, there's a good chap) engine, with minimal fuss. The extra blade was added to take advantage of the extra power of the engine, while keeping the diameter within physical limits, so your assertion that it had nothing to do with power is (as with most of your pronouncements) way wide of the mark..


The extra-large fin, rudder, tailplane and elevators were not fitted until the Mark 22, and this was due to the extra items fitted into the rear fuselage, which caused stability problems; a "bob-weight" was fitted in early Spitfires, and said weight was increased, but was only an interim measure, only solved with the bigger back-end. .
My only reply to this is; "That it is my opinion that the interim medium sized rudder/fin was not large enough to completely fix the snaking problem previously noted."

In the four/five/six decades since the Spit Mk-XIV was built, we have learned very much more and with more precision than they knew back then. At that time they thought that the prop had only a pulling force and that it's area was not destabilizing. They also tried desperately to minimize the size and area of all empennage to increase speed and range through minimization of surface drag. Those are well known design objectives as stated by all of the designers back then, including both Mitchell and Camm.

No wartime Spitfire ever flew with a six-bladed propeller, though there were experiments with a six-blade contra-rotating propeller, which it was hoped could be used on the XIV, but it was not successful; some 21s were fitted, post-war, and the Seafire 47 used it, but that was all. Being a contra-prop, it had nil torque effect, so needed a slightly modified rudder..
What do you call a six bladed contra-rotating propeller if not a six bladed prop? Right! Just pick nits all you like.
If the contra prop eliminated torque, why were the later Marks still fitted with the largest size fin and rudder? The prop is a destabilizing force and the larger it is the larger the rudder and fin must be. Read Rhymer to get a hint. His eight volume set is available at most major metropolitan libraries.

The first "rear view" (i.e. bubble-canopy) Spitfires did not see service until Spring 1945, but this was due to the huge number of modifications, due to the inclusion of an extra fuel tank behind the pilot; these tanks (plus carriage of bombs under the wings) caused trouble, but it was largely cured by small mods to the rudder (and metal-covered elevators on the XVI only.).
Most of the rest of us thought that it was the increase in size of the HORIZONTAL FIN and ELEVATOR that fixed the weight and balance problems caused by the aft fuel tank and other weight additions behind the pilot? Do you have a source for your idea?
I'm sure that you will dismiss, or ignore (as evinced by your refusal to spell GRIFFON properly) my item, but I'm really directing it to the other members of this forum, who have shown that they are interested in the truth.
I am sincerely sorry for the dissociation of the two forms of the words Griffon/Gryphon. One from antiquity and Harry Potter and the other from who knows where before the RR engine. Also under the Americans with Disabilities Act, I claim exemption due to well documented diagnosis of CFS/Agent Orange induced dementia!

[NeoConShooter]

I found this interesting. An American preferred the Spit IX over the P-51. Goodin had piloted the X-1 earlier.

On January 7, McElroy and Slick Goodlin took part in what is probably the most memorable air combat of the war.

On January 7, we had done a couple of patrols and we had been told that there was going to be a truce effective at 4:00 p.m. I was sitting in the dispersal hut down on the field at Qastina (Chatzor) with Slick Goodlin and Lee Sinclair. It was late in the afternoon; I think it was probably around 2:15 or 2:30. And I said to Slick, 'I got a funny feeling there's a patrol in the area now down around the El Arish-Auja area. Let's see if we can get a couple of airplanes and take off down there for one more patrol.'

Well, Slick said he'd go along and Lee said he wanted to go, so I went to the Engineering Officer and asked if he had two Spitfires ready to go and he said there's maybe (also) a P-51. I said, 'Fine. Slick and I will fly the Spitfires and Lee will take the P-51 and act as sort of a top cover for us and we'll go down and see what we can find.'

Slick, though an American, didn't take the P-51 because during that period he had indicated a preference for the Spit for combat work. He thought it was easier to handle and more maneuverable. Slick liked the 20mm cannon which we had in our Spits: more effective firepower. The Spitfire had two 20mm cannon and two .50-inch machine guns, the standard American weapon.

I showed the boys the area on the map where we'd go and what area we'd look for. The Engineering Officer came in and said that the P-51 was not serviceable. He had thought it was, but it wasn't. So Lee Sinclair couldn't go. Slick and I went by ourselves.

The two of us went down there, down the coast. We were flying at 16,000-18,000 feet. We didn't say much. We were trying to observe radio silence. I didn't know what effect it would have, but we didn't want too many people to know we were coming. (Rubenstein and Goldman 1978)

1948 Arab-Israeli War

I agree completely! Many people on both sides felt that the early Spit was the cats meow! The handling was light and well coordinated with benign handling and a gentile stall. Except for having well coordinated controls, the Mustang was NONE of those things. Neither was the Me-109 that had appalling control harmony, but both of those planes were better all around killers than the Spitfire.

I know this will cause all sorts of regurgitated arguments on the pros and cons of the planes, but that is not the point here. I freely admit that the Spitfire was a very appealing plane.

[NeoConShooter]

Sorry about that, will edit.
IAF Mk IXs vs RAF MkXIVs

Still, the Mk IX was preferred over the P-51D.

The Mk-IX was widely considered to be the very best Spitfire of all, at least as far as flight characteristics and control harmony. Note that I have pointed out several times so far that was the case. But my point is that those factors are not really important to a COMBAT Fighter. The idea is not to swirl around in a furious dog fight, but to swoop in and MURDER the victim and zoom away before the other guy's team knows what hit them! When compared to the P-38, the Spitfire was a dream to fly. But given the right tactics and strategy the P-38 was a much better killer. In a theoretical contest between the two types, the Spitfire would stand little chance in the long run!

[Wuzak]

Did those conversions have the intermediate of three sizes of vertical fin and rudder replace the smaller Mk-VIII fin and rudder? Or did the fly with the smaller set? Some had to fly something to learn about the need for larger surfaces?

That would have been done with the prototypes during 1943.


In a past debate, I learned that various planes had different levels of success shooting down the Buzz Bombs. I would love to know the success rates of the various Spitfires doing that mission! I can not remember the figures, but I think, note again that I said think and that I was not sure before you rag on this comment, that Mk-XIVs did not do very well at that job! Again, from my admittedly feeble memory, so could you post those figures? Days on alert, missions launched, intercepts made and bombs destroyed, from start date to end date.

I believe the XIV had a good success rate against V1s.



What do you call a six bladed contra-rotating propeller if not a six bladed prop? Right! Just pick nits all you like.
If the contra prop eliminated torque, why were the later Marks still fitted with the largest size fin and rudder? The prop is a destabilizing force and the larger it is the larger the rudder and fin must be. Read Rhymer to get a hint. His eight volume set is available at most major metropolitan libraries.

It's called production. To changethe rudder size would cause a stop in production, and incur extra cost.

Note that the MkXIV prop was smaller in diameter than the IX/VIII's 4 bladed prop.

[NeoConShooter]

How far?
The P-38 could not carry 2 x 2000lb bombs and 2 x drop tanks.
It could carry 2 x 2000lb bombs,
Or 2 x drop tanks,
Or 1 x 2000lb bomb + 1 x drop tank.
They fitted on the same pylons.
The plane that tested the twin torps also had two wet hard points under the wings out side of the engines. It could carry four 1,000 pound bombs. Given the weight lifted during that torpedo test flight, I suppose that it could also carry two each 2000 and 1000 pounders for 6000 total.

I do not know how many had the extra hard points out board of the engines, but I do know that it was more than the one or a few

Not sure that the P-38 coudl carry torpedoes and HVARs.
The B.XVI Mosquito could carry a 400lb bomb load around 1600miles. I doubt that a P-38 could carry the 4000lb bomb load a quarter of the distance.
It certainly couldn't carry them as fast..[/QUOTE]
1,780 miles, tanks dropped when empty and optimal return to base profile. The P-38 figures are from the pilots manuals, working from the maximum load/economy/range columns at minimum speed, altitude, full lean, full tanks with cold fuel and maximum TOW. How far could the B Mk-VI carry them/it? (Since it was the plane in service in numbers during the war.) At what speed and altitude? I also note that all the published speed performance figures for the Mossy are with the 2,000 pound load and WO the bulged doors.

Disclaimer; I freely admit that the Mossy could under the same conditions, if the engines hold together at the low RPM, high load and full lean settings, not things that war time R-R Merlins were well known for, probably go 2,120 miles?

[NeoConShooter]

That would have been done with the prototypes during 1943.
You mean WO the enlarged fin/rudder?

I believe the XIV had a good success rate against V1s.
There were very different rates of success with the various Marks of Spitfire and OTHER planes that flew "Diver" patrols. I was hoping that you would post those rates so that I would not have to be the bad guy who popped your balloon.

It's called production. To changethe rudder size would cause a stop in production, and incur extra cost.
And that affects the discussion how?
Note that the MkXIV prop was smaller in diameter than the IX/VIII's 4 bladed prop.
Four blades that were 10'6", IIRC in diameter were presenting less area than five blades of what length? Right!

[Wuzak]

The plane that tested the twin torps also had two wet hard points under the wings out side of the engines. It could carry four 1,000 pound bombs. Given the weight lifted during that torpedo test flight, I suppose that it could also carry two each 2000 and 1000 pounders for 6000 total.

I do not know how many had the extra hard points out board of the engines, but I do know that it was more than the one or a few

If it had wet hardpoints outboard of the engines then it was a one-off.

I doubt that the outer wings were rated for carrying anything other than HVARs.

We've had lengthy discussions on this forum on teh Mosquit vs the Lightning, but no-one has ever suggested the bomb loads you have for the P38.

In short, I think you are making that up.



1,780 miles, tanks dropped when empty and optimal return to base profile. The P-38 figures are from the pilots manuals, working from the maximum load/economy/range columns at minimum speed, altitude, full lean, full tanks with cold fuel and maximum TOW. How far could the B Mk-VI carry them/it? (Since it was the plane in service in numbers during the war.) At what speed and altitude? I also note that all the published speed performance figures for the Mossy are with the 2,000 pound load and WO the bulged doors.

I'm sure that the 1780 miles is for maximum fuel load, full ammo but no bombs.

No such thing as a "B Mk-VI". The FB.VI entered production in 1943. It had a maximum bomb load of 2000lbs - 2 x 500lbs in the bomb bay and 1 x 500lb bomb under each of the wings. It could not carry any more bombs because the cannons used part of the bomb bay.

The B.XVI entered service in March (?) 1944. Except for the first few they were all fitted with the bulged bomb bay. Maximum speed was 408mp with the 4000lb bomb load, and 419mph without.

The B.XVI could also cruise at 350mph+.


Disclaimer; I freely admit that the Mossy could under the same conditions, if the engines hold together at the low RPM, high load and full lean settings, not things that war time R-R Merlins were well known for, probably go 2,120 miles?

Now you are jut being plain silly.

[Wuzak]

And that affects the discussion how?

I see now why you get banned a lot.

You asked why the fin wasn't changed when the contra-props were introduced (on the 24 and the Spiteful, not the XIV, btw), and I told you.

[Wuzak]

You mean WO the enlarged fin/rudder?


Yes...The original prototype was a Mk.VIII taken from the production line and a Griffon fitted in place of the Merlin.

I believe that the first flight revealed the requirement for greater fin area.

Also note that the Mk.IX prototype had the Mk.V fin and rudder - it was, after all, a direct engine swap. That too required greater fin area, which the production models (and the VIII) received.


There were very different rates of success with the various Marks of Spitfire and OTHER planes that flew "Diver" patrols. I was hoping that you would post those rates so that I would not have to be the bad guy who popped your balloon.

As far as I am aware, the only Spitfire that had any sort of success against the V-1 was the MkXIV.

Go, on, pop my balloon. Post those numbers.


Four blades that were 10'6", IIRC in diameter were presenting less area than five blades of what length? Right!

Not sure, as I am away from my references.

The XIV had the engine canted down to give the pilot a better view over the nose. The prop had to be reduced in diameter to maintain ground clearence, because the landing gear could not be extended. Thus they added the extra blade.

The XII (single stage Griffon powered MkV) had the 4 bladed prop the same as the IX, IIRC.

[NeoConShooter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoConShooter
And that affects the discussion how?

I see now why you get banned a lot.

You asked why the fin wasn't changed when the contra-props were introduced (on the 24 and the Spiteful, not the XIV, btw), and I told you.
I was asking that if the fin was not changed in lite of your statement that the contra-props had no torque on one post and that the fin was enlarged because of the increase in torque from the more powerful engine on a different post.
My point was that you had first stated that the Fin and Rudder were enlarged because of the increased torque, then later stated that the contra-propped plane had no torque, but it still had the large rudder/fin. Do you see the irony of it?
It made my point that the largest fin/rudder was still required to counteract the destabilization of the larger, more bladed prop.

I do get banned for pointing out the way the discussion gets twisted when the other posters make my point and then I point that out to them. It is most embarrassing.

[Wuzak]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoConShooter
And that affects the discussion how?


I was asking that if the fin was not changed in lite of your statement that the contra-props had no torque on one post and that the fin was enlarged because of the increase in torque from the more powerful engine on a different post.
My point was that you had first stated that the Fin and Rudder were enlarged because of the increased torque, then later stated that the contra-propped plane had no torque, but it still had the large rudder/fin. Do you see the irony of it?
It made my point that the largest fin/rudder was still required to counteract the destabilization of the larger, more bladed prop.

And I told you that the larger fin/rudder was in production already, so that when the contra-props came along ithey just changed that area instead of redoing the fin/rudder to save time and money.

[NeoConShooter]

As far as I am aware, the only Spitfire that had any sort of success against the V-1 was the MkXIV.

Go, on, pop my balloon. Post those numbers.

I do not have those numbers and so I was hopping that you would dig them up and post them!

I would have to make statements from my memory witch is admitted totally FUBARED.
The guy from England who had those numbers and posted them on another forum listed the various types including the original Spit, clipped wings spit, Mossy, Mustang, Mk-XIV and the Jets.
If you divided the number of days on Diver Patrol for each type into the number of bombs destroyed divided into the number launched, you could compute an effectiveness score for each type.
IIRC, the best or second best of the bunch was the Mustang. It was a very close race and the difference between first and second was not large.
Because of health issues, I am not able to devote the time and effort to finding those facts. This time is about all I can muster these days.
However, if you can find those details, I would be most interested in seeing them again.
Sincerely,
SFD

[NeoConShooter]

And I told you that the larger fin/rudder was in production already, so that when the contra-props came along ithey just changed that area instead of redoing the fin/rudder to save time and money.
If that was the only concideration, then they certainly would have gone back to the original fin/rudder! They had all the tools and dies and it would not have cost them one second.
The reason they would have gone back to the smaller fin/rudder is that it would have added 7-9 MPH to the planes speed and saved them more than pennies too!

[GregP]

NeoConShooter,

A horizontal stab and elevator size change do not fix center of gravity issues without indtroducing a whiole plethora of new issues.

Moving the wing or changing the internal arrangement of heavy items so as to alter the CG does. The center of lift must be behind the center of gravity for a conventional aircraft and making the tail bigger is a POOR fix, especially changing the angle of incidence of the stab. That makes for horrible trim changes with speed. if you have to change the horizontal tail size, you have designed a turkey. Face it and move on.

[NeoConShooter]

If it had wet hardpoints outboard of the engines then it was a one-off.

I doubt that the outer wings were rated for carrying anything other than HVARs.

We've had lengthy discussions on this forum on teh Mosquit vs the Lightning, but no-one has ever suggested the bomb loads you have for the P38.

In short, I think you are making that up.
I used to have a link to a picture of a P-38L with two torps and the twelve rockets on the "Christmas tree" Launchers. 6X140 pounds way out on the wing is >840 pounds, a thousand closer in should be no problem. I just did a search between your post and this reply WO luck to find that pic again, but I know it is out there some place.

I'm sure that the 1780 miles is for maximum fuel load, full ammo but no bombs.

No, that is low, slow, max lean and pitch, full tanks. This is a mission profile that would never have entered their minds back then.

[NeoConShooter]

NeoConShooter,

A horizontal stab and elevator size change do not fix center of gravity issues without indtroducing a whiole plethora of new issues.

Moving the wing or changing the internal arrangement of heavy items so as to alter the CG does. The center of lift must be behind the center of gravity for a conventional aircraft and making the tail bigger is a POOR fix, especially changing the angle of incidence of the stab. That makes for horrible trim changes with speed. if you have to change the horizontal tail size, you have designed a turkey. Face it and move on.

Not me, the guys at Spit inc. They enlarged the horizontal stab and ellevator to give more control athority to better cope with the adverse weight issues. One of those reasons is the fuel tank behind the pilot. When it was full, the Spit had all the defects of the Mustang before it. The larger horizontal stab was meant to help cope with this.

[GregP]

There was no Spit Inc.; there was Supermarine, and they didn't increase the horizontal tail area until they instaled the Griffon engine, which changed the mass in front of the firewall and required more tail area. There was no "adverse weight issue." The Griffon was heavier and required some design changes. All WWII fighters got heavier as they matured, with NO exceptions. The Mk XIV got so heavy that it still had a lighter wing loading than a P-51D Mustang.

If you want to pivot more mass at the same angular rate of acceleration, you need more area ... but the CG doesn't have to change.

You are missing details that, if you are as qualified as you claim ,you shouldn't be mssing.

[Wuzak]

I do apologise NCS.

Wiki lists the armament of the P-38L

Armament

1× Hispano M2(C) 20 mm cannon with 150 rounds
4× Browning MG53-2 0.50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns with 500 rpg.
4× M10 three-tube 4.5 in (112 mm) rocket launchers; or: Inner hardpoints: 2× 2,000 lb (907 kg) bombs or drop tanks; or
2× 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs or drop tanks, plus either 4× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs or
4× 250 lb (113 kg) bombs; or

6× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs; or
6× 250 lb (113 kg) bombs

Outer hardpoints: 10× 5 in (127 mm) HVARs (High Velocity Aircraft Rockets); or
2× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs; or
2× 250 lb (113 kg) bombs


So, the inner hard points could carry a total of 4000lb.

The outer hard points maximum 500lb each.

Only the inner hard points were plumbed.

To get the maximum range requiring maximum fuel the maximum load was 1000lb of bombs.

[NeoConShooter]

There was no Spit Inc.; there was Supermarine, and they didn't increase the horizontal tail area until they instaled the Griffon engine, which changed the mass in front of the firewall and required more tail area. There was no "adverse weight issue." The Griffon was heavier and required some design changes. All WWII fighters got heavier as they matured, with NO exceptions. The Mk XIV got so heavy that it still had a lighter wing loading than a P-51D Mustang.
I would reply that that was not a bad thing.
If you want to pivot more mass at the same angular rate of acceleration, you need more area ... but the CG doesn't have to change.

You are missing details that, if you are as qualified as you claim ,you shouldn't be mssing.

You are right about at least some of that. They moved the radio farther back to compensate for the ~450 pounds of added weight on the nose. If the engine is 3' ahead of the 25% MAC that is 1350 Foot-pounds of force. If the radio is moved back five feet, just for example, that is 500 foot-pounds to partially counter balance it. All in all, it was well balanced WO fuel in the tank behind the seat and the larger elevator was to maintain pitch authority AND to help with the control issues of MOVING the CoG aft with the fuel in tank behind the pilot's seat.
BUT, none of this has to do with the "Snaking". That is all rudder and fin and has nothing to do with the elevator. PS. I also think they made the pilot's seat armor thicker to help with that?

THE entire point of my argument is that the larger prop caused aerodynamic instability that required larger tail surfaces to counter balance it. Everything else is a red herring.

[NeoConShooter]

I do apologise NCS.

Wiki lists the armament of the P-38L

Armament

1× Hispano M2(C) 20 mm cannon with 150 rounds
4× Browning MG53-2 0.50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns with 500 rpg.
4× M10 three-tube 4.5 in (112 mm) rocket launchers; or: Inner hardpoints: 2× 2,000 lb (907 kg) bombs or drop tanks; or
2× 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs or drop tanks, plus either 4× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs or
4× 250 lb (113 kg) bombs; or

6× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs; or
6× 250 lb (113 kg) bombs

Outer hardpoints: 10× 5 in (127 mm) HVARs (High Velocity Aircraft Rockets); or
2× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs; or
2× 250 lb (113 kg) bombs


So, the inner hard points could carry a total of 4000lb.

The outer hard points maximum 500lb each.

Only the inner hard points were plumbed.

To get the maximum range requiring maximum fuel the maximum load was 1000lb of bombs.

The HVAR weighed ~140 pounds each and ten was thus 1,400 pounds.

[Edgar Brooks]

Mark XII" rudder are noted, there was no need for any increase in size for the tailplanes or fin.

[Edgar Brooks]

, to enable the rudder to have some effect.

[Edgar Brooks]

[QUOTE=NeoConShooter;35556Disclaimer; I freely admit that the Mossy could under the same conditions, if the engines hold together at the low RPM, high load and full lean settings, not things that war time R-R Merlins were well known for, probably go 2,120 miles?[/QUOTE]
You have written evidence of this, of course? Time after time, I read pilot's reminiscences, where they praise the Merlin for never missing a beat, and never letting them down, so where do you get this from?

[Jabberwocky]

No, that is low, slow, max lean and pitch, full tanks. This is a mission profile that would never have entered their minds back then.

Except, when you look at the 1942 Mosquito tactical trials, three of the six different mission profiles for the FB Mk VI described include sea level cruising at max economical (2300 rpm and + 4 lbs).

B MK VI had a max loaded range with 4 x 500 lb bombs of about 1870 miles, which would give it a combat radius of 550-650 miles, depending on height and cruise conditions.

Later B Mk XVI had max loaded range of about 2040 miles with the same bombload, or 1450 with 4,000 lbs. B Mk XI could do 1370 miles with 2 x 500 lb bombs on the wings and a 4,000 lb cookie internally.

All this from the RAF wartime data sheets.

[NeoConShooter]

For some reason, this site won't allow me to use the "Wrap Quote tags," so i'll have to answer your points by number:-
1/. No, it isn't apparent, since you continually quote non-existent "problems" with the XIV; if you'd done any research, you wouldn't keep spouting this rubbish.See the Ospry book about Mk-XIV aces.
2/. How many of your experts flew the Spitfire in combat? How many of your experts have actually flown a Spitfire?Two, and there is an original Spit just down the road from me!
3/. They flew with the original Mk.VIII fin, and with an interim enlarged fin, to confirm the suspicion that a larger fin would be required.Is "The original Mk.VIII fin" larger than the earlier marks fin?
4/. They were neither, so your suspicions are false; they were conversions of Mk.VIII airframes. The first genuine XIV was not delivered until the end of 1943 (information which I gave you before, proof, if it were needed, that you don't bother to read any answers properly.)I did read them all, I would suggest that you failed to read mine. So if it was delivered in September or October and in full squadron service two or three months later, but could not score the first A2A KILL untill late March, IIRC. If the Mk.XIV had a large tail and the various Marks that followed with the five or six bladed prop that followed it(Regardless of time fraim!) makes the point that the Mk-XIV needed a larger tail!
5/. If you think that I'm going to go through various ORBs, day by day, over a period of 5 months, dream on; the books only detail operations, and I neither know, nor care, about individuals. All we know is that each pilot risked losing his life in the (possible) ensuing explosion, so sarcastic comments about what they did are totally out of place.They have a list of which types of planes with the type of planes they flew and the numbers of doodle-bugs they shot down during the months they were there. While I do not remember the exact details, I have seen the report.
EDIT:- I can quote Dr. Alfred Price, who says ,"The Spitfire pilots that scored best against the V1s all flew Mk.XIVs. F/O R Burgwal of 322 Squadron was credited with 21 missiles destroyed whilst S/L N. Kynaston and F/Lt R. Nash, both of 91 Squadron were credited with 17 & 16.5 flying bombs respectively."How did the rest of the squadron score?
6/. Noted where? There you go again, talking about the "previously noted snaking problem," but you consistently refuse to tell us where it is so noted, so that we can check on the reports. In a book on the Spitfire, more than 25 test reports are listed, not one of which mentions snaking.What book? See the Ospry book on Mk-XIV Aces.
7/. Supermarine did not "try desperately" to make the tail areas smaller, in fact they fitted a larger rudder to the XII, followed by the same item on the VIII & IX; they made the area of the elevators slightly larger, on the VIII & IX; they made the fin and rudder larger on the XIV; they made the rudder larger, again, on the low-back XIV & XVIII. The very much larger "Spiteful tail" was fitted to the 22/24 (and no other Mark of Spitfire) to counteract CoG problems, which had dogged the Spitfire from the Mk.V.So the first tail that was obviously way to small, as shown by the fact, as posted by you that the tail was enlarged several times, was not desperately designed too small?
8/. More proof that you don't bother to read what we write; I said no WARTIME Spitfire had a six-blade prop,Not even the various prototypes? and it was written as a counter to your claim about the six-blade causing problems. It's a mite difficult to have problems with a non-existent propellor.In the entire history of the Spitfire and it's various dirivitives such as the Spitefull and seafang, which I used as a way to ilistrate the point, did they or did they not enlarge the epanige?
9/. Possibly because the later Marks never used a contraprop.See answer to eight above!
10/. I have the official list of modifications needed for the XIV & XVI to have the fuselage fuel tank fitted; in the tail area, only metal-covered elevators and the "Mark XII" rudder are noted, there was no need for any increase in size for the tailplanes or fin.Did you not state above that the Mk.XII rudder/fin was larger than that in the Mk.I-II-III?

To restate my position;

1. The first version of the Spitfire was very well designed, with light and harmonious controls and the empennage sized to maximize performance. Note that little tinny things like the bumps on the wings, or open gun muzzles all reduced speed by 2-4 MPH each and that everyone at the time was glad that it was 4 MPH faster than the Me-109.

1A. The design was also very tight in that it had little margin for growth and a larger tail would have slowed it much more than that.

2. Buy your own statements, the tail was enlarged several times to combat some problem that caused the test pilots to ask for said changes.

3. Weight increases on their own, have nothing to do with those changes because if it did a plane with full tanks and several hundred pounds of ammo would exhibit those adverse traits.

4. However, each of those increases in the size of the empennage did accompany the increase in the size and or area of the Propeller. To some extent the size of the spinner is also an issue, but not large enough to be a significant part of this argument!

5. Most of the books I've read stated or quoted the fact that the last "Great handling Spitfire" was either the Mk-V or the Mk-IX!

6. No one claims that the Mk-XIV Spitfire, ( Or any other five/six bladed prop Spit!) is better handling with better harmonized controls than the earlier marks.

7. I pointed out that no RAF pilot killed any Nazi Plane in the first ( Approximately!) six months of actual service.

8. Finally, I referenced Rhymer and his seven or eight volume RDS tome as the source for my understanding of the basic problem, and no one has ever challenged that, or as far as I can see even looked at it to point out some apparent defect in his work that would make my analysis defective.

I await your reply with eager anticipation!

Sincerely,

Stewart.

[NeoConShooter]

Except, when you look at the 1942 Mosquito tactical trials, three of the six different mission profiles for the FB Mk VI described include sea level cruising at max economical (2300 rpm and + 4 lbs).

B MK VI had a max loaded range with 4 x 500 lb bombs of about 1870 miles, which would give it a combat radius of 550-650 miles, depending on height and cruise conditions.

Later B Mk XVI had max loaded range of about 2040 miles with the same bombload, or 1450 with 4,000 lbs. B Mk XI could do 1370 miles with 2 x 500 lb bombs on the wings and a 4,000 lb cookie internally.

All this from the RAF wartime data sheets.

<500' AGL, 1750 RPM, full lean, max pitch, speed 148 MPH, two Torpedoes and twelve rockets.

[NeoConShooter]

You have written evidence of this, of course? Time after time, I read pilot's reminiscences, where they praise the Merlin for never missing a beat, and never letting them down, so where do you get this from?

Can you post a list of TBOs for the various war time Merlins? Can you please post the mechanics manual that lists the conditions under which the plugs were to be changed? Can you please post a copy of the pilots manual that tells you what to do to avoid fouling the plugs?

I do not have current access to any of these documents. I have read these documents in the past and all of this is from memory, but I am certain it will surprise you.

[GregP]

Re post 556. NeoConShooter,

Yes a bigger prop and more power is destabilizing and requires more tail area. Aerodynamic works, doesn't it? But you knew that.

The Griffon Spit were not as nice-flying as the Merlin planes were, and heavier is definitely not better in many areas of the envelope. No argument there.

[Edgar Brooks]

I take my information from the test reports, on the real aircraft, done while the war was at its height, or as far back as the first tests on K5054.

[Edgar Brooks]

As I said, I'm a researcher, which involves finding the truth, not banging some Jingoistic big drum, trying to prove "my plane's better than your plane, so there."

[Edgar Brooks]

It was usually left to Beaufighters to carry torpedos at sea level, while the Mosquitoes came in, from a different direction (and higher) with rockets, to split the AA.

[Ricky]

neither did any aircraft carry torpedos and rockets on the same sortie, since the angle of approach was completely different, and no pilot would go round for a second attack, unless he contemplated suicide.

Are you calling Airfix a liar?
http://www.geedee-modelshop.com/logon/uploads/HA2301.jpg

:p

[Flo]

Are you calling Airfix a liar?
http://www.geedee-modelshop.com/logon/uploads/HA2301.jpg

:p

Proper rofl! :D

I'm still getting used to my 'new' camera Ricky. When I sort it out I'll post up my latest beastie. Could you critique? Anything beyond 'you're pants' would be helpful. Edgar's willing, too, I think.

[Edgar Brooks]

Are you calling Airfix a liar?
Just mistaken :D
I started modelling in 1952, and am just about "modelled out" (though I still buy the occasional kit,) which is why I spend more of my time in research, these days. Getting me to criticise others' work will take some persuading, since I don't feel that it's fair, when I'm not doing any myself.

[Flo]

;)

I've been lurking on Britmodeller a bit and you always make sense, Edgar. I liked your take on Spitfire weathering. The only snag is, the ones I'm really interested in are the heaviest weathered of all, the Malta Vs. Got a link somewhere...

...ah, here we go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc1Rz8aObLM

I'm not quite up to modelling such heavy wear, so mine will be closer to the ideal. Freshly delivered? ;)

[Ricky]

Proper rofl! :D

I'm still getting used to my 'new' camera Ricky. When I sort it out I'll post up my latest beastie. Could you critique? Anything beyond 'you're pants' would be helpful. Edgar's willing, too, I think.

Just to be clear, that isn't a pic of my model - I did make a Matchbox Torbeau but that was many years ago when my skills were even more limited.

Mind you, I'll happily critique. I'll even be constructive, being as it is you ;)
Maybe this forum needs a 'model pics' section...

[Edgar Brooks]

1/. No, it isn't apparent, since you continually quote non-existent "problems" with the XIV; if you'd done any research, you wouldn't keep spouting this rubbish.See the Ospry book about Mk-XIV aces.
There isn't one, at least Osprey Publishing don't list one; you have the number, of course? That is, unless you mean book no. 81 "Griffon Spitfire Aces," which includes the XII & XVIII among its subjects?

[NeoConShooter]

There isn't one, at least Osprey Publishing don't list one; you have the number, of course? That is, unless you mean book no. 81 "Griffon Spitfire Aces," which includes the XII & XVIII among its subjects?

Yes, that is probably it? Buy the way, have you ever watched gun camera film shot from Late model Spits? Have you ever watched the Fw-190 Vs P-47 film at the link I posted?
As to the "Non-existant" snaking problem; Why did they make the rudder so much larger on the Mk-20 somethings and their siblings?
Until you can answer that question, there is at least as far as I am concerned, an absolute proof that there was some sort of Horizontal Stability problem with the intermediate models of Spitfire that required the designers to enlarge the Vertical Fin and Rudder beyond the size that they enlarged it to when they made the Mk-XIV, as opposed to the size it was in the earlier versions when they made the later 20 series models.
Anecdotal evidence in the form of the wide spread and absolutely acknowledged opinion of the later Mark Spitfires that they did not handle as well as the earlier models is proof of a problem.
Further supporting evidence in the fact that the Mk-XIV was not able as a group, to kill a single Nazi plane until ~six months after it's entrance in to squadron service! It is my opinion that shooting down an enemy aircraft with guns is one of the very hardest things to do in the world. Anything that makes that the least bit harder is a major problem and a factor that reduces effectiveness tremendously!

[Ricky]

As to the "Non-existant" snaking problem; Why did they make the rudder so much larger on the Mk-20 somethings and their siblings?
Until you can answer that question, there is at least as far as I am concerned, an absolute proof that there was some sort of Horizontal Stability problem with the intermediate models of Spitfire that required the designers to enlarge the Vertical Fin and Rudder beyond the size that they enlarged it to when they made the Mk-XIV, as opposed to the size it was in the earlier versions when they made the later 20 series models.
Humour me - how does a vertical control surface cure a horizontal control problem?

Anecdotal evidence in the form of the wide spread and absolutely acknowledged opinion of the later Mark Spitfires that they did not handle as well as the earlier models is proof of a problem.
Not handling as well does not necessarily mean 'snaking'. It is not even proof of a problem. More power + more weight always detracts from agility.
Later, heavier models of almost every fighter that underwent a lot of development were almost all accused of not being as good at handling as their lighter predecessors. The 109 is a good example.

Further supporting evidence in the fact that the Mk-XIV was not able as a group, to kill a single Nazi plane until ~six months after it's entrance in to squadron service!
And it is fact that the Mk XIV spent most of those 6 months shooting down V1s, not engaging German aircraft. That is a fact that has been patiently (and impatiently) repeated to you on several occaisions and you still have not acknowledged, beyond attempting to claim that the Mk XIV had a poor record against the V1

[NeoConShooter]

Originally Posted by NeoConShooter
1/.,Did you not state above that the Mk.XII rudder/fin was larger than that in the Mk.I-II-III?See below in your reply.
To restate my position;

2/.. The first version of the Spitfire was very well designed, with light and harmonious controls and the empennage sized to maximize performance. Note that little tinny things like the bumps on the wings, or open gun muzzles all reduced speed by 2-4 MPH each and that everyone at the time was glad that it was 4 MPH faster than the Me-109.

3/.A. The design was also very tight in that it had little margin for growth and a larger tail would have slowed it much more than that.

4/. Buy your own statements, the tail was enlarged several times to combat some problem that caused the test pilots to ask for said changes.

5/. Weight increases on their own, have nothing to do with those changes because if it did a plane with full tanks and several hundred pounds of ammo would exhibit those adverse traits.

6/. However, each of those increases in the size of the empennage did accompany the increase in the size and or area of the Propeller. To some extent the size of the spinner is also an issue, but not large enough to be a significant part of this argument!

7/. Most of the books I've read stated or quoted the fact that the last "Great handling Spitfire" was either the Mk-V or the Mk-IX!

8/. No one claims that the Mk-XIV Spitfire, ( Or any other five/six bladed prop Spit!) is better handling with better harmonized controls than the earlier marks.

9/. I pointed out that no RAF pilot killed any Nazi Plane in the first ( Approximately!) six months of actual service.

10/. Finally, I referenced Rhymer and his seven or eight volume RDS tome as the source for my understanding of the basic problem, and no one has ever challenged that, or as far as I can see even looked at it to point out some apparent defect in his work that would make my analysis defective.

1/. No, I didn't; the XII rudder (alone) was larger, and was also used on (some of) the VII, VIII, IX, XI & XVI; the Spitfire fin did not change in size/area before the XIV.This last confuses me. Before you stated that the tail did not change size until the Mk-XIV, but then stated that the "Slightly" enlarged fin/rudder was used on the various marks above???(Including the Mk-IX!) The only change to the tailplane/elevators, prior to the 22/24, was a slight reshaping of the elevator horns, which made the elevator area slightly greater, and the tailplane area slightly less.This has nothing to do with the rudder/fin.
2/. Early Spitfires did not have open gun muzzles, otherwise the mechanism would freeze (as happened with the early cannon, until they fitted covers over the muzzles); they started with "covers" which went inside the gun-tunnels and ejection chutes, then graduated to self-adhesive canvas patches over the holes.Have you ever seen a list of the various "appendages" and how much speed they scrubbed off? Also applies to the bumps you referenced below.. Also, the pilots were more enthusiastic about the Spitfires ability to turn inside the 109, than they ever were about 4 mph, and the only "bumps" on the wings were a shallow bulge over the wheel well, and another over the rear of the no.4 Browning.
3/. Little room for growth, yet it went from 5,820lbs to 10,300lbs, a wing loading of 24lbs/sq.ft to 42.2 lbs/sq.ft., 1050 horsepower to 2350, speed of 362mph to 452mph, rate of climb 2,500'/min to 4,800'/min, weight of fire 4lbs to 12lbs/sec., rate of roll 14 degrees/sec to 68 degrees/sec., (this is comparing the Mk.I to the Seafire 47, which, apart from the cut-down fuselage of the latter, used identical formers.)You claim that the first and last Marks were exactly the same, or did they have major differances?
4/. The fin enlarged on the XIV/XVIII; there were three rudders through to the 21, the entire tail was enlarged for the Spitfire22/24/Seafire 40-series; that's all.Now you claim there were four sizes of Vertical fin/rudder? That seems to agree with some of my first posts. Do you think that the coincidence between the increases in the number of prop blades and the increases in the size of the fin/rudder is just a little strange? Also that the various intermediate sizes were evidence of some small problem???
5/. Don't understand your point; try it again in simple (that's me) layman's terms. All official trials were undertaken with a full war load of guns & ammunition.My point was that increases in the weight of the aircraft did not seem to affect the Horizontal Stability.( Yaw!) This point relates to several other posts that claimed the problem was related to weight increases, which would nesitate the increase in the size of the HORIZONTAL STABILIZER and ELEVATOR, not the Rudder/Vertical Fin!
6/. No, it didn't; the very much larger tail, on the 22/24, was to take account of the increase in weight aft of the CoG, which caused problems that the bobweights were designed to counteract, but they, in turn, caused problems on dive pull-outs.My point was that increases in the weight of the aircraft did not seem to affect the Horizontal Stability.( Yaw!) This point relates to several other posts that claimed the problem was related to weight increases, which would nesitate the increase in the size of the HORIZONTAL STABILIZER and ELEVATOR, not the Rudder/Vertical Fin! The 5-blade XIV prop was smaller, in diameter,Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that is now has five blades. IIRC, they were also slightly wider, or was that the Mk-IX? Thus there was more blade area! It is this blade area, not disk area, that destabilizes the aircraft and requires larger empennage. than the preceding Marks, because Supermarine had put a few degrees of downthrust into the Griffon airframe. The prop tips were nearer to the ground, so the blades needed to be shorter, so it was made 5-blade, instead of four, at the same time.
7/. So? Pilots are individuals, with individual tastes; I drink squash, or coffee, and can't stand tea.But when they all say it???
8/. It was still capable of dealing with the best that the enemy had to offer as opponents. I read pages of praise for the 109, yet a Polish pilot, who flew it post-war, said that it was a nightmare on take-off, and it was impossible to dive/zoom in a straight line, since it always came out at 90 degrees to how it went in. Do you have lists of pilots who hated the XIV?Never stated either of those things!
9/. You initially said 18 months from the first flight (my, how things change!)That was a guess from memory, but first flight to first kill was then about 15 months and six months from first squadron service to first kill? Again from memory! I repeat (I seem to do a lot of this) that the XIV Squadrons were retained in the U.K., for A.D.G.B. service, as counter to the V1. As far as I'm concerned, the V1 was a German aircraft.Piloted AC! I was referring to those Mk-XIVs sent to northern France in late '44.
10/. Never heard of him, or RDS, whatever that is; I take my information from the test reports, on the real aircraft, done while the war was at its height, or as far back as the first tests on K5054.
My question to you is; Would a reasonable person think that because the Vertical Fin/Rudder was enlarged to some extent four times, at least according to your post above, think that there was some sort of problem that required that fix?

[NeoConShooter]

1/. No, since I've no idea what a TBO is/was,TBO is the Time Between Overhaul. and this site won't allow me to post attachments, anyway. Ground crew had a Daily Inspection Schedule, which consisted of around 20 pages, and I'm not even going to think about putting that lot on here (not that I have a full set, but they are available in our National Archives and RAF Museum, if you want to purchase them.)
2/. No, but I have a copy of the leaflet, issued to the mechanic, which illustrated various exhaust flames, including one which could indicate faulty plugs.
3/. No (same reason as in 1/. above,) but, in the Pilot's Notes, he was told to switch off the main tanks booster pump, before taxying in, then "On reaching disperal," "Open up to 0 lb/sq.in boost and exercise the two-speed two-stage supercgarger once. Throttle back slowly to 800-900 rpm, and idle at this speed for a few seconds then stop the engine by operating the slow running cut-out or idle cut-off control." This is taken from the Mk.IX P.N., and I'm assuming that this was to take care of engine life.
Why should something surprise me? As I said, I'm a researcher, which involves finding the truth, not banging some Jingoistic big drum, trying to prove "my plane's better than your plane, so there."I have read several places in various on-line copies of Pilot's Manuals that state "If the engine was run at TO Power for more than five minutes, WO immediate reduction of throttle to less than METO Power for fifteen minutes, then the plugs need to be changed before the next flight if possible. Also if the engine has been run at WEP, ( War Emergency Power ) then the plugs need to be changed. Also if there was evidence of plating on the plugs, then the engine was to be over hauled, ( To replace the rings and or Pistons.) before the next use if possible.

[NeoConShooter]

Humour me - how does a vertical control surface cure a horizontal control problem?Horizontal Control is around the "YAW" axis. That is the Rudder/Fin. ( Side to side in the Horizontal plane.)
The Horizontal Stabilizer/Elevator are for control in the Vertical plane that is centered on the Axis line between the wing tips. ( Up and Down control of the nose.)
Weight and CoG considerations are things that affect the Vertical Stability.



Not handling as well does not necessarily mean 'snaking'. It is not even proof of a problem. More power + more weight always detracts from agility. Agility and Handling are not the same thing. Snaking, or hunting around the vertical axis known as YAW is a Handling Problem that has little to nothing to do with Agility! Just to make sure we are all on the same page; Agility is the ability to change directions or attitude, not the same thing, per unit of time.
Later, heavier models of almost every fighter that underwent a lot of development were almost all accused of not being as good at handling as their lighter predecessors. The 109 is a good example.Again I think you might be confusing Agility and Handling?


And it is fact that the Mk XIV spent most of those 6 months shooting down V1s, not engaging German aircraft. That is a fact that has been patiently (and impatiently) repeated to you on several occaisions and you still have not acknowledged, beyond attempting to claim that the Mk XIV had a poor record against the V1

On a post way back, I posted a link to a U-Tube video of Fw-190 Vs P-47 gun camera film. Watch that film closely. Note how the target does not stay steady in the center of the frame in any of the videos and that none of the P-47s are destroyed. That is a display of how hard it is to shoot down any plane from any other plane. Note that all of the other links to gun camera film by other posters show much the same thing! Even from early Spitfires which were some of the very best planes at it. It is EXTREMELY difficult to destroy another plane A2A with guns. Half of all Combat Fighter Pilots never did it. The lack of Horizontal Stability in the Mk-XIV made it very much harder than in earlier Marks of Spitfire.

[Flo]

On a post way back, I posted a link to a U-Tube video of Fw-190 Vs P-47 gun camera film. Watch that film closely. Note how the target does not stay steady in the center of the frame in any of the videos and that none of the P-47s are destroyed. That is a display of how hard it is to shoot down any plane from any other plane. Note that all of the other links to gun camera film by other posters show much the same thing! Even from early Spitfires which were some of the very best planes at it. It is EXTREMELY difficult to destroy another plane A2A with guns. Half of all Combat Fighter Pilots never did it. The lack of Horizontal Stability in the Mk-XIV made it very much harder than in earlier Marks of Spitfire.

Are you getting confused with the clip we were discussing a couple of days back? This one?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac70ikwpf3I
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac70ikwpf3I)

If so, then please:
Read the intro:
Film Nr. 9182
17. Angriff (attack)
Fw 190 A-7- Thunderbolt
Anflug:Kurvenkampf (High altitude approach:dogfight)
Anfangsentfarnung:300m (Starting point 328yds)
Abgang: 150m (Finish 164yds)

It's an edited record of a single combat. The Jug reversed direction, just as you described in your thought experiment. The light fighter, in this case a FW-190, stayed with him through every turn he made, just as Edgar predicted. Leading to the sad, inevitable result- the explosion and flames seen at the end of the clip. I hope the pilot survived, but regardless, it's a real world example of what happened under the starting conditions you proscribe, even down to the tactic attempted by the unfortunate victim.

I'm not sure how it has any bearing on your continuing vendetta against late model Spitfires, though?

[Edgar Brooks]

300 hours, on bombers, was extended to 420; by the end of the war transports' engines were taken to 480-500 hours.

[Jabberwocky]

The lack of Horizontal Stability in the Mk-XIV made it very much harder than in earlier Marks of Spitfire.

What lack of "horizontal" stability? Would that be directional, lateral or longitudinal?

Before you continue to go on about this, please cite the A&AEE, Supermarine or AFDU tests that report any kind of "horizontal" instability in the Mk XIV that is fundamentally different from earlier marks of Spitfire.

You haven't been able to do it on three other forums where I've challenged you about it, so I doubt you'll do it here.

Instead, when presented with evidence, you'll just ignore it and blather on about something completely tangential to the point, as is your want. Perhaps if required to do your own legwork, you'll finally learn something that I, and numerous others, have been telling you for several years.

[Wuzak]

The converted MkVIII prototypes for the XIV experienced directional problems. But they used the MkVIII rudder and fin. This was changed and improved so that by the time of the production XIVs the problem was solved.

It is my understanding that while some of the controls were heavier in the XIV than in previous marks the handling was much the same as the IX/VIII. The biggest directional problem was in T/O or landing, where the much higher torque of the Griffon over the Merlin could cause problems, especially for pilots who had just converted from Merlin variants - because the engines turned in th eopposite direction.

[NeoConShooter]

Are you getting confused with the clip we were discussing a couple of days back? This one?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac70ikwpf3I
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac70ikwpf3I)

If so, then please:
Read the intro:
Film Nr. 9182
17. Angriff (attack)
Fw 190 A-7- Thunderbolt
Anflug:Kurvenkampf (High altitude approach:dogfight)
Anfangsentfarnung:300m (Starting point 328yds)
Abgang: 150m (Finish 164yds)

It's an edited record of a single combat. The Jug reversed direction, just as you described in your thought experiment. The light fighter, in this case a FW-190, stayed with him through every turn he made, just as Edgar predicted. Leading to the sad, inevitable result- the explosion and flames seen at the end of the clip. I hope the pilot survived, but regardless, it's a real world example of what happened under the starting conditions you proscribe, even down to the tactic attempted by the unfortunate victim.

I'm not sure how it has any bearing on your continuing vendetta against late model Spitfires, though?

Yes that is one of the films remarked.

I note that the film shows the Jug moving all around the frame and during the entire clip there are very few hits. I was able to count only one or two. The burst of blank white screen about 3/4 of the way through is the sun directly in front of the line of sight. The P-47 is still there in the last frame after the Fw-190 runs out of ammo. There are other versions of this film with sound added, it's neat. Near the end, at about 1:15, a 20 MM shell hits the wing near the wing root causing a small fire that lasts a few seconds and then goes out. The P-47 flies out of the top of the frame to escape another day, unless there are more Nazi planes near by, maybe?

As to your analysis of the film, it is very flawed. It is what is known as a "Single Circle" fight conducted in a single continuous left turn by both planes. All of the movement in the film is the variation of the angle between the two planes. If the target is not centered in the frame, the target is not in the line of fire which goes from the center of the frame to the edge on the orthogonal line behind it. Note that as they circle, the P-47 changes shape as it's image is foreshortened by the change in angle between the two planes. This is a classic case of the shooter failing to have his wings perpendicular to the target's plane of maneuver. Each time he moves the stick and pedals, the Prop's gyroscopic precession causes the line of fire to veer off to the side. You can plainly see the tracers missing. Because the flight path is at an angle to the plane of maneuver, each tiny correction of it's flight controls moves the shooter in it's main axis which is of course perpendicular to the wings. Only the wings have enough area and generate enough force to make major changes to the shooter's path. The minor corrections come from the rudder pedals and are barely able to counteract the Precession above. Again, note that the target is very active and not steady in the center of the camera's frame.

[NeoConShooter]

Which proves that you are either living in a fantasy land, or are related to the Brothers Grimm (of fairy tales fame.)
I have original copies of Pilot's notes, from the Mark II through to the Seafire 47, and TO, METO, WEP never appear in any of them, the plugs are never mentioned (that was a job for the ground crew, not the pilot, something an "expert," like you should know,) neither are the pistons and rings.
Take off was to 1000', with no mention of time, maximum climb (at reduced boost) was limited to 1 hour, maximum continuous speed was regulated by engine boost, not time, and combat was limited to 5 minutes at maximum boost.
Overhaul times, on the Merlin, were dictated by hours flown, and had nothing to do with this mythical "plating on the plugs." Fighter engines started at 240 hours, before overhaul, later extended to 300, and 360 on twins; 300 hours, on bombers, was extended to 420; by the end of the war transports' engines were taken to 480-500 hours.

Those are the current terms that refer to the power settings you mention. Then the manuals must be the ground crew's?

[Edgar Brooks]

, I feel that doing the same might be the only way to get you to exhibit the courtesy of actually reading my words.

[GregP]

Good post Edgar,

Go away Neo ... or stop arguing with everyone about almost everything. State your opinion and be nice, OK? No condescinding attitude would be a nice change. There are people in here who are more experienced than you.

Please play nice going forward.

Paulo, watch this guy and please be prepared to ban him if he doesn't play nice with the forum members. opinions are welcome but fighting over everyting is pretty much a bad thing that cannont be allowed to continue or the parcipation drops drastically.

[Ricky]

Horizontal Control is around the "YAW" axis. That is the Rudder/Fin. ( Side to side in the Horizontal plane.)
The Horizontal Stabilizer/Elevator are for control in the Vertical plane that is centered on the Axis line between the wing tips. ( Up and Down control of the nose.)
Weight and CoG considerations are things that affect the Vertical Stability.
Thanks!
Despite Flo's claim of humility I think it is safe to say that I'm the least qualified here ;)



Agility and Handling are not the same thing. Snaking, or hunting around the vertical axis known as YAW is a Handling Problem that has little to nothing to do with Agility! Just to make sure we are all on the same page; Agility is the ability to change directions or attitude, not the same thing, per unit of time.
Sorry - poor word choice. I was looking for responsiveness.
Again though, my basic point is that handling worse than a previous (lighter) model of a plane doesn't prove that snaking existed. Snaking is a handling problem, it is not the only handling problem. Needing to extert more force on the controls is a handling problem. Slower response to controls is a handling problem. And so on and so forth.

Later, heavier models of almost every fighter that underwent a lot of development were almost all accused of not being as good at handling as their lighter predecessors. The 109 is a good example.Again I think you might be confusing Agility and Handling?
Nope.

From Radinger, Willy and Wolgang Otto: "Messerschmitt Bf 109 F-K – Development, testing, production" (via Wiki...;))

With the early tail unit problems out of the way, pilots generally agreed that the F series was the best-handling of all the Bf 109 series

Which means that G, H and K all had worse handling.

[Flo]

Yes that is one of the films remarked.

I note that the film shows the Jug moving all around the frame and during the entire clip there are very few hits. I was able to count only one or two. The burst of blank white screen about 3/4 of the way through is the sun directly in front of the line of sight. The P-47 is still there in the last frame after the Fw-190 runs out of ammo. There are other versions of this film with sound added, it's neat. Near the end, at about 1:15, a 20 MM shell hits the wing near the wing root causing a small fire that lasts a few seconds and then goes out. The P-47 flies out of the top of the frame to escape another day, unless there are more Nazi planes near by, maybe?

As to your analysis of the film, it is very flawed. It is what is known as a "Single Circle" fight conducted in a single continuous left turn by both planes. All of the movement in the film is the variation of the angle between the two planes. If the target is not centered in the frame, the target is not in the line of fire which goes from the center of the frame to the edge on the orthogonal line behind it. Note that as they circle, the P-47 changes shape as it's image is foreshortened by the change in angle between the two planes. This is a classic case of the shooter failing to have his wings perpendicular to the target's plane of maneuver. Each time he moves the stick and pedals, the Prop's gyroscopic precession causes the line of fire to veer off to the side. You can plainly see the tracers missing. Because the flight path is at an angle to the plane of maneuver, each tiny correction of it's flight controls moves the shooter in it's main axis which is of course perpendicular to the wings. Only the wings have enough area and generate enough force to make major changes to the shooter's path. The minor corrections come from the rudder pedals and are barely able to counteract the Precession above. Again, note that the target is very active and not steady in the center of the camera's frame.

I mean, do you honestly believe any of that waffle you've posted above? Of course the two 'planes were jockeying for position- it's called a dogfight for a reason.
Let's recap, shall we?
You proposed a thought experiment, in which a heavy fighter defeats a light fighter by employing either a flat or rolling scissors defence- you've described both, now, as well as insisting that this was a defence often employed in the Great War.
While you haven't offered any evidence of a single instance demonstrating your point, I had absolutely no difficulty in finding a Luftwaffe training film demonstrating mine.
Now you want to move the goalposts. First it was several Thunderbolts evading German attacks, now it's a single 'plane, lightly damaged. I rather suspect that regardless of what I post next, you will re-interpret the film to discount or disprove it.
I'll save you the effort. I asses that your defence doesn't work. I've linked to photographic evidence that the Luftwaffe agree with me. Respected posters on here have done you the same courtesy, offering you the benefit of their knowledge and experience.
If you have any evidence to support your proposition- anecdotal, official reports, gun camera footage, whatever- please quote or link to it.
I have no axe to grind, I participate on this forum as much for education as entertainment. If I'm wrong, I'll accept the fact. A little embarrassment is a small price to pay for learning something new.
But until you come up with something better than 'I've ridden in the back seat of a jet' or 'I read something, once, can't quite remember where' I'm going to base my opinion and belief on what far more knowledgeable posters on here can prove.

Like Greg said, play nice and you might just learn something.

[NeoConShooter]

No, I didn't; the XII rudder (alone) was larger, and was also used on (some of) the VII, VIII, IX, XI & XVI; the Spitfire fin did not change in size/area before the XIV.

.. Also, the pilots were more enthusiastic about the Spitfires ability to turn inside the 109, than they ever were about 4 mph, and the only "bumps" on the wings were a shallow bulge over the wheel well, and another over the rear of the no.4 Browning. And they were on the Mk.I, from the start, so had no extra effect on the speed.The bumps you mention above cost the production plane about 2-3 MPH from the prototype, according to several sources. When they made large bumps to cover the drum type, 60 round, magazines for the first 20 mm guns, those larger bumps caused the plane to loose about 4 mph all by them selves. The gun muzzles I mention are the long semi-exposed barrels of the 20 mm guns and the large ports/covers next to them. I can not remember how much speed it cost, as opposed to the same plane WO those long gun tubes. Note that they cut them off, giving up substantial ballistic advantage to keep the length inside the wing when they converted to the Mk-5 Hisso. But the point is that small things can make large differences!
3/. Little room for growth, yet it went from 5,820lbs to 10,300lbs, a wing loading of 24lbs/sq.ft to 42.2 lbs/sq.ft., 1050 horsepower to 2350, speed of 362mph to 452mph, rate of climb 2,500'/min to 4,800'/min, weight of fire 4lbs to 12lbs/sec., rate of roll 14 degrees/sec to 68 degrees/sec., (this is comparing the Mk.I to the Seafire 47, which, apart from the cut-down fuselage of the latter, used identical formers.)

NO I DO NOT; I said that the fuselage formers did not change, materially, from the Mark I to the 47.The point is that during that time frame, the strength of the plane went from something less to something more. About 10 up to 12 IIRC! That means major changes inside, no matter what you think, it does not get 20% stronger WO changes! The idea wether the formers was changed or not is irealivant.
4/. The fin enlarged on the XIV/XVIII; there were three rudders through to the 21, the entire tail was enlarged for the Spitfire22/24/Seafire 40-series; that's all.

Glad you see it as only a small problem; I'll repeat, there were two fins, three rudders, and a completely new fin/rudder/tailplane/elevator system on the 22/24/45/46/47.Thank you for making my point!
6/. No, it didn't; the very much larger tail, on the 22/24, was to take account of the increase in weight aft of the CoG, which caused problems that the bobweights were designed to counteract, but they, in turn, caused problems on dive pull-outs.Weight has nothing to do with Horizontal Stability! It does have something to do with Vertical Stability. The larger Horizontal Stab/fin was to deal with stability changes to do with weight, I think the fuse tank behind the pilot. The larger rudder/fin had to do with the snaking I mentioned. Again, or should I say still, confuse Horizontal Stability with Vertical Stability! They are not the same.

Answered that above.
The 5-blade XIV prop was smaller, in diameter,
The five-bladed propeller was also designed to make use of the extra power from the Griffon 60-series, which is what made the XIV so much faster than preceding Marks. The broader blades were coupled with the longer spinners, to make the root area of the propeller more efficient by eliminating gaps. THE XIV HAD A SLIGHTLY LARGER FIN (IN CHORD,) PLUS A LARGER (IN CHORD) RUDDER; THE TAILPLANE AND ELEVATORS DID NOT INCREASE IN SIZE.I never said it was. The prop is LARGER in that it has FIVE BLADES instead of four. Prop disk area is not the issue! Prop blade area is!
7/. So? Pilots are individuals, with individual tastes; I drink squash, or coffee, and can't stand tea.This is your statement, not mine.

Proof (if it was ever needed) of the truth of my comment about you being provocative and confrontational; you have no evidence that all Spitfire XIV pilots said that the XIV was no good,I never said that they said it was no good! That is twisting my words. I said that they said it did not "Handle" as well as the earlier moddles. and you know it. I know that you'll ignore it, but it's obvious that you have not read the "Griffon Spitfire Aces" book, since it quotes F/Lt Rake as saying,"It was always comforting to me to know that the increased power of the Griffon would enable me to turn inside and/or outclimb a Bf109 or Fw190." Doesn't sound like a condemnation, to me.Never said that it was! Handling is a "Feeling" as opposed to cornering power which obviously went up with the power.

9/. You initially said 18 months from the first flight (my, how things change!)
Try researching; it's much more reliable than a faulty memory.Absolutely right! When was the first flight of the prototype? I said "about" and "IIRC" which means "If I Remember Corectly", 18 months, but I was WRONG! It was only 16 months between the first flight of the prototype and the first kill of a service issue plane. Over 16 months Vs the statement of 18 months does not seem so bad to me? If you differentiate between the prototype and the first issue of service aircraft, then it was October-43 to April-44, or 6-7 months between service issue to first kill! My point was why was that also so long? See the quotes below!

"The first batch of aircraft to fly with the Griffon 60 series engines were six converted Mk VIIIs JF316 to JF321 which were designated Mk VIIIG. The first one of these was flown by Jeffrey Quill on 20 January 1943:

Changes to the aircraft were restricted to those essential to enable it to accept the new engine...I found that it had a spectacular performance doing 445 mph at 25,000 ft, with a sea-level rate of climb of over 5,000 ft per minute.[23] I remember being greatly delighted with it; it seemed to me that from this relatively simple conversion, carried out with a minimum of fuss and bother, had come up with something quite outstanding...The MK VIIIG, with virtually the same tail surfaces both vertical and horizontal as the Merlin MK VIII, was very much over-powered and the handling in the air was unacceptable for an operational type...I soon realised that a new throttle box would be needed giving a much greater angular travel for the hand lever...The next essential...was an improvement in the directional stability and control and a new fin was drawn out with a substantial increase in area (7.42 sq. ft) and a much larger rudder and fitted to the second aircraft JF317. This, though not ideal, produced a very marked improvement in directional characteristics and we were able to introduce minor changes thereafter and by various degrees of trimmer tab and balance tab to reach an acceptable degree of directional stability and control. The enlarged fin of JF317 had a straight leading edge but for production a more elegant curved line was introduced.[24]
When the new fighter entered service with 610 Squadron in January 1944 it signified a new leap forward in the evolution of the Spitfire. Jeffrey Quill flew the first production aircraft, RB140 in October 1943:

So the Mk XIV was in business...It fully justified the faith of those, who from the early days in 1939 had been convinced that the Griffon engine would eventually see the Spitfire into a new lease of life...It was a splendid and potent aeroplane. We still had some work to do to improve its longitudinal and directional characteristics, but it was powerful and performed magnificently. The only respect in which the XIV fell short was in its range.[26]
It could climb to 20,000 ft (6,100 m) in just over five minutes and its top speed, which was achieved at 25,400 ft (7,700 m), was 446 mph (718 km/h).[27][28]


610 Squadron were the first to be fully equipped, in April, 1944, and 350 Squadron destroyed a Ju188 19-8-44, which is not 6 months.Just because that squadron was the first to be fully equipped, does not mean that it is the defining moment. The first squadron service issue was in October-43. Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb, Mar, April-19-44! No mater how you count it, it is SIX or SEVEN months since first issue to first Kill. In addition, it is at least 16 months between first flight of the Prototype and first Mk-XIV Kill. If it was such a great thing, why was it so hard to do such a simple thing as it states in the test pilot's recollections? It was not a simple thing. It was an intractable problem that required significant resources and a long time to sort out. In this case, not completely finished until after the war with the introduction of the much larger rudder/fin on the last marks made!
I am amused by you telling me to read the Osprey book, since it lists 13 Griffon-engined Spitfire Aces, 11 with more than 5 claims, and 15 Aces, who achieved some while flying Griffon-powered Spitfires.It also states at some length of the Horizontal Stability Problems! You should read it all.

A reasonable person might think that Supermarine's design staff felt that the increased engine power needed some extra control, so they increased the fin size ONCE (and before the XIV entered service,) and the rudder TWICE (once for Merlin-engined airframes, and once for the XIV. I don't need to add up 1 & 2 do I?My apologies to the other members of this forum, but, since you insist on continuing with the rude red lettering, I feel that doing the same might be the only way to get you to exhibit the courtesy of actually reading my words.
My apologies to the other members of this forum, but, since you insist on continuing to misstate my words, or to insert irrealivant trivialities while ignoring the implications of the three larger fins and four larger rudders that you state they made, as they relate to the stability issue, I am forced to use yet a different color to insert my blue replies in to your posts where they would be most appropriate.

Secondly, how do you interpret the above facts, as stated buy you, that they were required according to my links to test pilot interviews, to enlarge the rudder/fin a NUMBER of times and that those enlargements coincided with the introduction of first, a four bladed then five and six bladed props?

This is my last post on this issue. If you doubt the idea of any of this, ask any aeronautical engineer about the destabilizing effects of adding prop blade area!

[NeoConShooter]

Good post Edgar,

Go away Neo ... or stop arguing with everyone about almost everything. State your opinion and be nice, OK? No condescinding attitude would be a nice change. There are people in here who are more experienced than you.

Please play nice going forward.

Paulo, watch this guy and please be prepared to ban him if he doesn't play nice with the forum members. opinions are welcome but fighting over everyting is pretty much a bad thing that cannont be allowed to continue or the parcipation drops drastically.

Edgar, What post? Should I need to read it just to keep my self on the straight and narrow.

[NeoConShooter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoConShooter
Yes that is one of the films remarked.

I note that the film shows the Jug moving all around the frame and during the entire clip there are very few hits. I was able to count only one or two. The burst of blank white screen about 3/4 of the way through is the sun directly in front of the line of sight. The P-47 is still there in the last frame after the Fw-190 runs out of ammo. There are other versions of this film with sound added, it's neat. Near the end, at about 1:15, a 20 MM shell hits the wing near the wing root causing a small fire that lasts a few seconds and then goes out. The P-47 flies out of the top of the frame to escape another day, unless there are more Nazi planes near by, maybe?

As to your analysis of the film, it is very flawed. It is what is known as a "Single Circle" fight conducted in a single continuous left turn by both planes. All of the movement in the film is the variation of the angle between the two planes. If the target is not centered in the frame, the target is not in the line of fire which goes from the center of the frame to the edge on the orthogonal line behind it. Note that as they circle, the P-47 changes shape as it's image is foreshortened by the change in angle between the two planes. This is a classic case of the shooter failing to have his wings perpendicular to the target's plane of maneuver. Each time he moves the stick and pedals, the Prop's gyroscopic precession causes the line of fire to veer off to the side. You can plainly see the tracers missing. Because the flight path is at an angle to the plane of maneuver, each tiny correction of it's flight controls moves the shooter in it's main axis which is of course perpendicular to the wings. Only the wings have enough area and generate enough force to make major changes to the shooter's path. The minor corrections come from the rudder pedals and are barely able to counteract the Precession above. Again, note that the target is very active and not steady in the center of the camera's frame.
I mean, do you honestly believe any of that waffle you've posted above? Of course the two 'planes were jockeying for position- it's called a dogfight for a reason.No, they were definitely NOT "Jockeying for Position"! The Fw-190 was solidly locked into the P-47's six! All of the movement you see in that film is from "relatively small" control stick movements as the Fw-190 pilot tried to get hits on the P-47! WO much success as you can clearly see from the film! Each time he pulls back on the stick to force his nose to point higher in the frame, the Prop's gyroscopic forces force it to the side. As he eases the stick the prop's gyro forces force it to the other side. As he shoves in rudder to point his nose to the target's side of the frame, the prop's gyro forces cause the nose to go up or down. That is, for the most part, ALL that you see!

To prove this point, look at some film of any set of planes from that era flying in formation. Note that they bounce up and down or side to side if photographed from in front, one of my favorite Spitfire flicks, or behind the bombers, one of my favorite Nazi films.

Let's recap, shall we?
You proposed a thought experiment, in which a heavy fighter defeats a light fighterNo! I proposed a well known tactic where a plane with high rates of roll defeats a plane with low rates of roll!

I'll save you the effort. I asses that your defence doesn't work. I've linked to photographic evidence that the Luftwaffe agree with me. Respected posters on here have done you the same courtesy, offering you the benefit of their knowledge and experience. Not at all! What you have shown is that it is very hard to get hits in A2A combat! The Fw-190 was famous for it's rate of roll and would have made the tactic described much easier than the example I used. I used that example in order to make the point that any plane has points in it's envelope where it can out maneuver any other plane of contemporary service. Even when it is known as a dog and it's adversary is "known" as one of the best! There are simply no bests, only places where your envelope has more area under the line than his. You just have to know what is what to beat them and it maters not one whit what you and they are flying!
If you have any evidence to support your proposition- anecdotal, official reports, gun camera footage, whatever- please quote or link to it.
I have no axe to grind, I participate on this forum as much for education as entertainment. If I'm wrong, I'll accept the fact. A little embarrassment is a small price to pay for learning something new.I habit this forum for exactly the same reason as you! I also believe that more than a little embarrassment is small price to learn something new! As I have done several times this month!
But until you come up with something better than 'I've ridden in the back seat of a jet' or 'I read something, once, can't quite remember where' I'm going to base my opinion and belief on what far more knowledgeable posters on here can prove.

Like Greg said, play nice and you might just learn something.

Which post from Greg are you refferancing?

[Wuzak]

I really hate it when people resond within the quoted post. It makes it difficult to quote them, and it gets difficult to follow the conversation.

Now, to the Spitfire XIV.

Quill's comments about the directional stability were about the converted Spitfire VIII.

He commented on the increase to fin and rudder area through the development cycle.

Quill said that the VIIIG in original guise was "overpowered", and that in addition to the fin/rudder changes a modification to the engine and prop pitch controls was done - to give the pilot more control over the extra power.


Quill test flew the first productio XIV in October 1943 - it wasn't service delivered in October 1943.

Also, since the XIV had more power and its engine turned in the opposite direction I'm sure some conversion training was required for squadron pilots.

Also note that while the first production XIV left the factory in October 1943 Supermarines and their shadow factories were still pumping out IXs and VIIIs.

[NeoConShooter]

I really hate it when people resond within the quoted post. It makes it difficult to quote them, and it gets difficult to follow the conversation.I do not "Hate" anything so trivial, but you are right about making it hard to respond after the second reply.

Now, to the Spitfire XIV.

Quill's comments about the directional stability were about the converted Spitfire VIII. Note in the second quote that he also mentions the full service Mk-XIV and later in the second quote about the later planes too!

He commented on the increase to fin and rudder area through the development cycle. Pointing out that it did not solve the problem completely!

Quill said that the VIIIG in original guise was "overpowered", and that in addition to the fin/rudder changes a modification to the engine and prop pitch controls was done - to give the pilot more control over the extra power. Then in the next sentence, he states the plane had unacceptable stability!


Quill test flew the first productio XIV in October 1943 - it wasn't service delivered in October 1943. Yes it was.

Also, since the XIV had more power and its engine turned in the opposite direction I'm sure some conversion training was required for squadron pilots.

Also note that while the first production XIV left the factory in October 1943 Supermarines and their shadow factories were still pumping out IXs and VIIIs.

Yes to both of the last sentences. But how does that relate to the fact that they had "Stability" problems?

[Ricky]

I really hate it when people resond within the quoted post. It makes it difficult to quote them, and it gets difficult to follow the conversation.


Welcome to Ricky's 'how to quote' tutorial.

simply place (quote)(/quote) around the text you wish to quote - but use square brackets - []

For Example:

I like Tea

You can even personalise it:

(quote=Ricky)(/quote)

For Example:

I like Tea

And so you can construct long, quote-by-quote discussions:

I like Tea
I like Hot Chocolate
Weirdo
Sassenach
:(
:p
Actually, Hot Chocolate is pretty nice

[Wuzak]

And if you want to discuss points quoting a long point, use the quote option, then right click in the text window and choose "Select All" and "Copy". Then you can delete all the quoted text that you don't require for your first response, and type in your response.

Then you can right click and paste the original quote text back in the box, so you can delete all but what you need for your second respnse, and so on.

The problem with writing in the quoted area is that it isn't clear, even with bolded or coloured lettering, and the next poster can't quote that response - because the quote function does not nest quotes. (You could do it using Ricky's method).

[Wuzak]

Note in the second quote that he also mentions the full service Mk-XIV and later in the second quote about the later planes too!

He said more needed to be done on the XIV. Note that the XIV didn't get modified fin/rudder after it entered service, nor did the later XVIII. He may have simply been referring to small adjustments that needed to be made.




Note in the second quote that he also mentions the full service Mk-XIV and later in the second quote about the later planes too!


What later planes?


Then in the next sentence, he states the plane had unacceptable stability!

With the original MkVIII fin and rudder.



Also, since the XIV had more power and its engine turned in the opposite direction I'm sure some conversion training was required for squadron pilots.

Also note that while the first production XIV left the factory in October 1943 Supermarines and their shadow factories were still pumping out IXs and VIIIs.
Yes to both of the last sentences. But how does that relate to the fact that they had "Stability" problems?

It doesn't. What it does relate to is how only small numbers of XIVs went into squadron service early into the model's life, explaining, in part, why the XIV didn't get a kill for some time after the prototype's flight.

FWIW, the Merlin Mustang prototype conversions (one from Rolls-Royce and one from North American) flew in Mid 1942 yet they didn't score an aerial victory until late 1943....

[Flo]

:rolleyes:

I said: "I mean, do you honestly believe any of that waffle you've posted above? Of course the two 'planes were jockeying for position...

You proposed a thought experiment...

I asses that your defence doesn't work.

I've linked to photographic evidence that the Luftwaffe agree with me.

Respected posters on here have done you the same courtesy,

If you have any evidence to support your proposition- anecdotal, official reports, gun camera footage, whatever- please quote or link to it. "

You disagree with what has been posted and linked. You will, in all probability, continue to disagree with whatever else is posted or linked. The generally accepted term for such behaviour is 'trolling'. You don't appear to enjoy that label, so disprove me and the others you disagree with- post something of your own. :p
You've made a great many claims over the last few days, Neo. Pick the easiest one, the one which you'd have no trouble explaining to a five year old niece, and offer some evidence that will suggest that you're correct. It doesn't have to be conclusive, just enough to demonstrate that you are capable of understanding whichever issue you choose.
I like contrariness, up to a point. The point being where someone stops being an interesting free thinker and just reveals themselves to be an argumentative bore.
Over to you...;)

[Edgar Brooks]

This is tantamount to having a fixed foreplane acting in the reverse sense to the fixed tailplane, and is therefore essentially destabilising."

[Edgar Brooks]

When "extras," like bombs, etc., were being hung on the IX, the XII's rudder was pressed into service.

[Kutscha]

Let's get the facts straight, once and for all; the prototype-sized fin did not change, by as much as a tiny fraction from the Mk.I to the Mk.XII. It was enlarged (once) for the XIV/XVIII/21, which brings us to the end of the Spitfire's involvement in WWII.
The rudder, also did not change in size, until a slightly larger one was fitted to the XII, and a larger one, again, was fitted to the XIV/XVIII/21. End of WW2 (again.)

Didn't some Mk IXs, XIs and XVIs get a larger fin and rudder from the Mk VIII?

[Wuzak]

Didn't some Mk IXs, XIs and XVIs get a larger fin and rudder from the Mk VIII?

They got a larger rudder, from the XII (I think Edgar mentioned that before), but no change in fin size.

[Flo]

You're deliberately baiting and trolling Edgar, who has revealed an accurate, balanced and in depth knowledge of Spitfire development you can only dream of.

Quote: "
Secondly, how do you interpret the above facts, as stated buy you, that they were required according to my links to test pilot interviews, to enlarge the rudder/fin a NUMBER of times and that those enlargements coincided with the introduction of first, a four bladed then five and six bladed props? "

You have yet to link anything, Neo. Your best attempt at a quote is to mention the publisher and subject. :rolleyes: You claim to have spoken to experts in real life, but offer only vague approximations of who they might be or what their relevant experience is supposed to prove.

You don't like Spitfires. That's fine. Let's take that as read and move on, shall we?

Here's a wee secret, Neo. Whoever the 'experts', 'vertans', pilots or engineers you claim to have spoken to in real life are, they are matched by the experts, vetrans, pilots and engineers that various posters on here have spoken to. The difference between your claims and the claims of the members of this board is that those members have demonstrated a firm grasp of the history, engineering and concepts under discussion, where all you have demonstrated is an ability to argue against anything they offer.

It's possible they're wrong. If they are, then prove it" :D! A link, quote or some workable formulae to demonstrate your point. Almost everyone daft enough to respond to you has offered considerable insight and knowledge, Neo. You'd have to trawl through scores of texts on Spitfire development to distil what Edgar has kindly provided for you. Instead of baiting a much respected gentleman, why don't you thank him for his input and state that you disagree? With some (any! :eek:) kind of proof to demonstrate why?

It's only fair to warn you, I have access to billy goats! ;)