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.