# A-1 Skyraider vs A-26



## Zipper730 (Feb 22, 2017)

I remember that the A-26 (later B-26) Invader could turn inside an Me-109 (at least with bombs off) as crazy as that sounds. How did the A-1 compare to the Me-109 or A-26 turn-rate?


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 22, 2017)

I know it's not as simple as just looking at wing loading, but I don't see no way a A-26 could turn inside a Bf109.
Even at just 1000 lbs above it's empty weight a A-26 has a higher wing loading than a full weight Bf109G.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 22, 2017)

Arguably the Bf 109 was one of the best piston fighters ever made, at least if you go by combat record. I can't see how that's possible, myself, and would have to see it to believe it.

I doubt seriously we'd ever see a Bf 109 vs. A-26 comparison in any case.

I can believe an A-26 at light weight and best corner velocity could easily turn inside a diving Bf 109 going 450+ mph, but the same can be said of ANY WWII fighter in the same situation. Turns radius has a LOT to do with velocity. If the Bf 109 was going more or less the same speed as the A-26, it would be "no contest!"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 23, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> I remember that the A-26 (later B-26) Invader could turn inside an Me-109 (at least with bombs off) as crazy as that sounds.
> ...



Sounds crazy indeed. Don't believe it.


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 23, 2017)

I would be very suspicious of that claim, especially as maneuver would not be a primary design goal. On the other hand, I would find the idea of a P-61, P-38, or F7F being able to out-turn a Bf109 to be plausible. All had maneuverability as a design criterion, and it seems many US designs had better high-alpha handling than their contemporaries.


----------



## dedalos (Feb 23, 2017)

German pilots considered the P 38 relatively easy to out manouver
The p61 was almost 4 times heavier than a K4. The F7F almost 3 times. Both with inferior power loading. But you never know.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 23, 2017)

Nope. Not possible, not plausible. Three major problems right off the top. The B-26 was not stressed for High G maneuver. The B-26 was too underpowered to be able to sustain a decent level turn rate and still overcome the drag. Independent of the huge W/L comparison, the B-26 roll rate was inadequate to a.) initiate a quick bank and turn, or b.) follow a 109 in a turn. I suspect that a B-26 Invader would not be able to keep up with either an A-20 or a P-61 either.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 23, 2017)

tyrodtom



> I know it's not as simple as just looking at wing loading


Wing loading is just one of the variables, there's also aspect ratio, wing cross-section, and probably a host of others.


> I don't see no way a A-26 could turn inside a Bf109.


This came from a documentary on the A-26, it included a guy who flew the plane (as a fire suppression plane), as well as Paul Moga (F-22 pilot). Moga was also quite suprised it could get inside the Me-109 as well.


GregP



> Arguably the Bf 109 was one of the best piston fighters ever made


It's turning arc wasn't exactly spectacular, though I'm not sure if I'd want to call it bad. The following comparisons I've heard seem to indicate the following

*Hurricane*
Could turn inside it easily at most speeds. Turn rate seemed to come closer when the slats came out at low-speeds. I have heard some claim that it was possible to turn inside it at the bottom end of the speed-range provided one was to use full elevator and stab-trim, though aiming the guns would be difficult due to the fact that the slats would often deploy asymmetrically in rapid decelerations and this would cause the plane to wobble.

*Spitfire*
Same as the Hurricane, though it turned a slight bit slower, though still extraordinary.

*P-40 Warhawk*
Could turn slightly faster at certain speeds at least, than the Me-109, though it seemed to be fairly close.

*P-38 Lightning*
Inferior to the Me-109 without maneuvering flaps, superior to the Me-109 at some speeds and altitudes with maneuvering flaps extended.

*P-51B/D Mustang*
When light to moderately loaded it seemed to be able to turn inside the Me-109 at either low/moderate to moderate speeds, and might have compared similarly to the P-40 give or take. When heavily loaded (drop-tanks off, center tank burned down), it's turn rate seemed to be inferior from low-speed to moderate speeds; at moderate to moderate/high speeds it would be able to turn better from what I recall. It might very well have had better high altitude performance, though I'm not entirely sure if it was merely a function of having more power to carry it through the turn before dumping too much speed.


> I doubt seriously we'd ever see a Bf 109 vs. A-26 comparison in any case.


Well if we can find any data on the A-26's turning circle at varying weights and speed, we could compile our own provided we know what Me-109 variant.


swampyankee



> I would be very suspicious of that claim, especially as maneuver would not be a primary design goal. On the other hand, I would find the idea of a P-61, P-38, or F7F being able to out-turn a Bf109 to be plausible.


It sounds absurd, and I'm not sure I'd have believed it myself except for the fact that in the documentary there was a respected USAF pilot, and a former A-26 pilot who both seemed to confirm this point.


drgondog[/b]



> Nope. Not possible, not plausible. Three major problems right off the top. The B-26 was not stressed for High G maneuver.


Actually, on that note: What was the A-26/B-26 Invader's maximum g-load? I've been curious about that for some time.


> I suspect that a B-26 Invader would not be able to keep up with either an A-20 or a P-61 either.


It could outrun the A-20, but not the P-61


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 23, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Wing loading is just one of the variables, there's also aspect ratio, wing cross-section, and probably a host of others.
> This came from a documentary on the A-26, it included a guy who flew the plane (as a fire suppression plane), as well as Paul Moga (F-22 pilot). Moga was also quite suprised it could get inside the Me-109 as well.



If this actually happened in combat, the -109 driver was either very green or asleep at the stick. I'd also like to know where Moga got to fly an A-26 against a -109???

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 23, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> *Spitfire*
> Same as the Hurricane, though it turned a slight bit slower, though still extraordinary.



I think you will find that the Spitfire didn't turn as tightly as the Hurricane, but did it at a higher speed.

At a given altitude, the Spitfire could perform a level turn with a smaller radius and a higher speed than the Bf 109.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 23, 2017)

Going for the last, when talking about turning it isn't level speed that matters. It is the climb rate. The climb rate being an _indicator _of the surplus power available _at climbing speed. 
_
Please note that this also varies considerably with altitude. P-61 had hundreds more hp per engine at higher altitudes than an A-26. 

As Drgondog has repeatedly tried to tell us the drag of an aircraft turning (or climbing) is considerably higher than one flying straight and level. Plus you have a large loss of lift while turning. The manual for the A-26 says the stalling speed of the plane in a 60 degree bank was 192mph at 31,000lbs or about 42% higher than flying straight and level. And a 60 degree bank is about 2 "G"s 
A lot of these big planes simply do NOT have the power to sustain a "high" G turn without loosing considerable altitude. 
Even the single engine fighters cannot sustain 4-6 "G" turns for very long without loosing altitude. 

An A-26 even at 27,000lbs has a wing loading of 50lbs per sq ft and while wing loading alone does not tel the whole story you need quite a combination of aspect ratio, wing cross-section, and other factors to equal the lift of planes with wing loading around 80% or less of the A-26. 


Now _perhaps _a 109 pilot overshot an already banked and turning A-26 or perhaps a novice 109 pilot was not pulling anywhere near as hard as could in a turn and an A-26 turned with him for very short portion of a turn. Neither case qualifies as turning with or out turning the 109 as is commonly referred to. 

I would note that the fire suppression planes had ALL the .50 cal guns removed ( no less than six and often fourteen forward firing guns ) plus the two remote control gun turrets, plus the armor plate (although heavy gauge aluminium may remain) and the fuel tanks were had the self sealing stripped and new fuel bladders put in. .50 cal ammo weighs 30lbs per 100 rounds so An A-26 could be carrying a truck load (literally, could be well over 1200lbs ) of .50 cal ammo. Quite of few of the fire suppression aircraft had also swapped engines for commercial engines as used in DC-6s or Convair 240-440 airliners for a bit more power ( and easier parts availability) so impressions form flying such an aircraft _might _not be a good indicator of a combat equipped aircraft. 

BTW, found a "fun" online calculator for figuring turning circles and G loadings and such. Manual for the A-26 says the stall speed was 125mph clean at 31,000lbs ? 
Aircraft Turn Information Calculator


----------



## GregP (Feb 23, 2017)

Max Moga is pretty well-kown at the Planes of Fame, and he's never mentioned that anytime I've seen him there. And he was there to talk about WWII airplanes.

The turn radius is directly proportional to the square of the velocity and inversely proportional to g-load.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 24, 2017)

FLYBOYJ



> If this actually happened in combat, the -109 driver was either very green or asleep at the stick.


Towards the end of the war the pilots flying for the Luftwaffe were actually quite inexperienced, so that might be something worth considering


> I'd also like to know where Moga got to fly an A-26 against a -109???


I don't believe he did, he was talking to a guy who flew the A-26 to put out forest fires. He did express surprise about the turning rate and asked him if this was indeed correct.


wuzak



> I think you will find that the Spitfire didn't turn as tightly as the Hurricane, but did it at a higher speed.


We might be misunderstanding each other.

When I said "same as the Hurricane", I meant that it could easily turn inside the Me-109 at most speeds though it would get closer at low-speed with the slats coming out. As for turning slower I meant a lower rate of turn, the Spitfire was considerably faster than the Hurricane.


> At a given altitude, the Spitfire could perform a level turn with a smaller radius and a higher speed than the Bf 109.


Okay, so I guess the slats would simply make it close but not superior. I had been curious about that.


Shortround6



> Going for the last, when talking about turning it isn't level speed that matters. It is the climb rate. The climb rate being an _indicator _of the surplus power available _at climbing speed._


Like specific excess power (Ps?)


> Please note that this also varies considerably with altitude. P-61 had hundreds more hp per engine at higher altitudes than an A-26.


Yeah, it had a twin-stage supercharger...


> As Drgondog has repeatedly tried to tell us the drag of an aircraft turning (or climbing) is considerably higher than one flying straight and level.


That makes sense, 2g is twice the lift at 1g: I do remember hearing that L/D increases at higher AoA, but that doesn't mean that drag doesn't increase substantially, just that lift increases more so.


> Plus you have a large loss of lift while turning. The manual for the A-26 says the stalling speed of the plane in a 60 degree bank was 192mph at 31,000lbs or about 42% higher than flying straight and level. And a 60 degree bank is about 2 "G"s


I thought 2g requires the same AoA regardless of bank?


> A lot of these big planes simply do NOT have the power to sustain a "high" G turn without loosing considerable altitude.


No dispute, what I was talking about was the turning circle.


> Even the single engine fighters cannot sustain 4-6 "G" turns for very long without loosing altitude.


I was under the impression that most WWII fighters usually could pull around 2-3g in level flight at certain speeds without loss, jets seemed to be around 2-4g early on, and by the time supersonic planes came around, that number would increase (for example the F-4 could sustain around 7g, but it had a corner velocity that was over 400 kts)


> An A-26 even at 27,000lbs has a wing loading of 50lbs per sq ft and while wing loading alone does not tel the whole story you need quite a combination of aspect ratio, wing cross-section, and other factors to equal the lift of planes with wing loading around 80% or less of the A-26.


The aspect ratio of the A-26 was 9.07; the Me-109's was around 6.14.


> Now _perhaps _a 109 pilot overshot an already banked and turning A-26 or perhaps a novice 109 pilot was not pulling anywhere near as hard as could in a turn and an A-26 turned with him for very short portion of a turn.


All I heard was it could turn inside an Me-109, it would not shock me if they were already banking and the Me-109 ended up slipping in front.


> I would note that the fire suppression planes had ALL the .50 cal guns removed ( no less than six and often fourteen forward firing guns ) plus the two remote control gun turrets, plus the armor plate (although heavy gauge aluminium may remain) and the fuel tanks were had the self sealing stripped and new fuel bladders put in. .50 cal ammo weighs 30lbs per 100 rounds so An A-26 could be carrying a truck load (literally, could be well over 1200lbs ) of .50 cal ammo.


1037 pounds if you count eight in the nose, six in the wings, two in each turret, and 500 rounds per gun in the turret, 400 rounds in all the others yielding 2280 pounds of ammo. While I know they carried up to 1600 gallons of fuel, I'm not sure how much the turrets, armor, and self-sealing tanks weigh.


> Quite of few of the fire suppression aircraft had also swapped engines for commercial engines as used in DC-6s or Convair 240-440 airliners for a bit more power ( and easier parts availability)


If I recall they had about 200 extra horsepower


> BTW, found a "fun" online calculator for figuring turning circles and G loadings and such. Manual for the A-26 says the stall speed was 125mph clean at 31,000lbs ?


This weight was bombs off just past the target?


GregP



> Max Moga is pretty well-kown at the Planes of Fame, and he's never mentioned that anytime I've seen him there. And he was there to talk about WWII airplanes.


Look, I'm just remembering what I heard. It might very well be completely wrong, don't shoot the messenger 


> The turn radius is directly proportional to the square of the velocity and inversely proportional to g-load.


That's something I know: A = V^2/R


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 24, 2017)

A fire retardant A-26 would be a lightweight hot rod once it got rid of it's load in comparison to a WW2 A-26 without bombs.

I was at a base where they had both the A-26 and the A1E and A1H . but the pilots were all too busy fighting a war to play fun and games. But I noticed the A-26 never ever flew daylight missions, while the A1s were used day and night.


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 24, 2017)

Plus with all the armor, weapons, radios removed. However, I still have my doubts.


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 24, 2017)

tyrodtom,



> A fire retardant A-26 would be a lightweight hot rod once it got rid of it's load in comparison to a WW2 A-26 without bombs.


Yeah


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 24, 2017)

Until drgondog comes back with data on the A-26 maximum g-loads, anything on the A-26 is pretty much guesswork.

How did the A-1 Skyraider compare in agility in terms of rates of turn to the following

Me-109 & Fw-190 in air-to-air configuration (I was told they had similar rates of turn)
P-47D in an air-to-air configuration
P-47D with a 2,000 pound bomb-load
P-47N with a 2,000 pound bomb-load
P-51D in a long-range escort mission at moment of combat (tanks off, center tank empty, and wings full)


----------



## drgondog (Feb 24, 2017)

All prewar US bombers - were designed to +3/-1.5G Limit loading at design combat loads. I know of no reason that B-26 Invader should be different. LW doctrine to include dive bombing in the spec suggests higher AoA loading than US and GB but I have not seen a spec.


----------



## GregP (Feb 24, 2017)

An empty Skyraider is quite maneuverable. It is much less so when carting around 8,000 lbs. of bombs. But you know that.

At 15,800 lbs, it was about an 8g airplane (bottom of a dive) and could climb about 3,500 fpm. By the time it was at 22,500 lbs, it was down to a 5.9 - 6.0 g airplane or so. It could haul 6,000 to 8,000 lbs of ordnance and could loiter on-station for hours. I doubt the Skyraider had the excess power to sustain even 6 g in a level turn but, if it did, the airframe could take it easily.

I've never seen a flight envlope drawing for a Skyraider, but also never really looked for one, either. I suspect it could be quite deadly if configured for air combat, but that was never the Skyraider's primary mission, so I can't really say with any degree of certainty.

I doubt seriously if anyone ever flew air-to-air missions in a Skyraider, so getting documented evidence of the performance in that mission would be rather unlikely, to say the least. If anyone out there has it, please share!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 24, 2017)

GregP said:


> I doubt seriously if anyone ever flew air-to-air missions in a Skyraider, so getting documented evidence of the performance in that mission would be rather unlikely, to say the least. If anyone out there has it, please share!



Try; http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/AD-4_Skyraider_SAC_-_1_November_1952.pdf

Condition #2 

Climb performance falls off with altitude like a burnt-out bottle rocket. 
However at under 5,000ft it might very well surprise a few people.


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 24, 2017)

drgondog



> All prewar US bombers - were designed to +3/-1.5G Limit loading at design combat loads.


While it might sound stupid, but I'd rather sound a little stupid and be informed than stay ignorant: This figure includes or does not include the overload/ultimate load?


> I have not seen a spec.


Where would you find one?

GregP



> An empty Skyraider is quite maneuverable. It is much less so when carting around 8,000 lbs. of bombs. But you know that.


Yes


> I doubt the Skyraider had the excess power to sustain even 6 g in a level turn but


No...


----------



## fubar57 (Feb 24, 2017)

That's it, I'm outta here. I used to come to the tech section to be informed and now I spend most of the time scrolling. You guys keep him up here

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 24, 2017)

Hey Shortround,

Maybe they need to fit it with a multi-stage supercharger? Ya' think?

Of course, you didn't need one for ground attack ... but that's another story, and you never know when some poor old WW2 bomber is sneaking it at 30,000 feet to bomb the carrier, and only a Skyraider can go get it because all the jets are down for overhaul ...


----------



## wuzak (Feb 25, 2017)

wuzak said:


> At a given altitude, the Spitfire could perform a level turn with a smaller radius and a higher speed than the Bf 109.





Zipper730 said:


> Okay, so I guess the slats would simply make it close but not superior. I had been curious about that.



No, not that close in reality.

At 12,000ft the Spitfire could turn with 20% less radius, 7% more speed, 26% greater G load and complete the turn in 25% less time.

Spitfire I vs Bf 109E as tested by the RAE.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 25, 2017)

GregP said:


> An empty Skyraider is quite maneuverable. It is much less so when carting around 8,000 lbs. of bombs. But you know that.
> 
> At 15,800 lbs, it was about an 8g airplane (bottom of a dive) and could climb about 3,500 fpm. By the time it was at 22,500 lbs, it was down to a 5.9 - 6.0 g airplane or so. It could haul 6,000 to 8,000 lbs of ordnance and could loiter on-station for hours. I doubt the Skyraider had the excess power to sustain even 6 g in a level turn but, if it did, the airframe could take it easily.
> 
> ...


Well, at least one A-1 has shot down MiG-17s, which probably says more about poor MiG drivers than the air combat capabilities of the Skyraider.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Feb 25, 2017)

Hi guys,

Been a while since I've been around, but recently, been checking things out again and that's when I ran across this thread.
Not saying I have all, if any, of the answers, but the topic of turn radius ability brought up a very distinct memory in my mind.
Sometime, either during or just after, the war, the Russians did some tests on front line fighters (possibly as R&D for their own fighters).
I recall one being, simply, how fast could a certain plane could maneuver through a 180 degree turn at 2000 metres.
I think there were some British officers on hand for those tests, too.
...ring any bells out there?
Not sure where the thread is that I saw that, or the website it linked to (it was about 10 years ago that I read that), but I remember the 109 was one of the slower planes to tackle that maneuver, taking about 25-27 seconds.
Top fighters of the time, like the P-51 and the Spitfire, were around 19-23 seconds, if I recall correctly.
The P-40 was actually up in the high teens. Something like 17-19 seconds.
The one stat that surprised everyone was the lowly Brewster Buffalo had the fastest time! (or one of the fastest).
Granted, this was the much lighter first gen version we ended up selling to the Finns (aka B-239).
I think the time was about 7 seconds.
Seems there were other fighters that were close, but I don't recall any that were faster (I could be wrong, it was a long time ago).
Anyway, not sure if they tested any twin engine aircraft, but I didn't notice anyone in this thread bring that up, either.
Just thought it might be worth checking out.



Evis


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 25, 2017)

Without either speed or radius of the turn this doesn't tell us much of anything. 

A Cessna 172 _may _be able to do a 180 degree turn in about 12 seconds at 140mph while pulling 2 "G"s which is hardly fighter performance. 

The other question is _IF _the exit speed of the aircraft matched the entry speed of the turn and if NO height was lost in the turn.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 26, 2017)

Now that you mention it, I do believe there was some kind of "standard speed" they all had to maintain through the turn, because I also remember the reason for the different times was a reflection of how tight they could make that turn.
Obviously, I'm leaving a lot out, but as I stated before, it was a long time ago.
I just did a quick google check and came up with nothing, so chances are, the webpage no longer exists.

Elvis


----------



## GregP (Feb 26, 2017)

The aircraft minimum turn radius depends only on the square of the velocity divided by 1 over (g * tan [bank angle]). Naturally, the square of the velocity dominates. If they had to maintain a standard speed, then it is almost impossible for the Buffalo to have done the turn in 7 seconds when a Bf 109 took 25 - 27 seconds.

There is no way a Bf 109 could only turn 7.2° per second while a Buffalo moving at the same speed could make 25.7° per second! The power to weight ratio of the Bf 109 was one of the better ones on the Altantic side of the war. It certainly could climb away from most of the opposition.

25.7° per second may not be possible in a WWII fighter. I might believe a turn time of some 12 - 15 seconds is possible, but the Bf 109 was a strong, capable airplane, and was a considerably better fighter than any Buffalo! I hope someone manages to find that study because I suspect you may disremember a time or two in there, Elvis. 

I certainly have made a couple of memory errors in here, and it's not intended as an insult or anything like that. It's more of a "I'd love to see that study" type of thing, and make sure it wasn't released during Kruschev's time as Premier Minister in the 1960s. That was a large portion of history was re-written to suit the Party ... and they may have just been afraid of the Finns flying Buffalos, and needed an excuse to avoid being an unfortunate part of a purge.

Cheers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 26, 2017)

GregP said:


> Maybe they need to fit it with a multi-stage supercharger?


It wouldn't add any performance at low altitude far as I know, but the plane was both a heavy-attack and light-bomber in one, so it would be useful with the level-bombing variants I guess. A lot of design changes would have had to been made.



wuzak said:


> No, not that close in reality.


I didn't realize it was still that different even at lower-speeds. All I knew was that the turn-rates were closer at lower speeds than at higher ones.



swampyankee said:


> Well, at least one A-1 has shot down MiG-17s, which probably says more about poor MiG drivers than the air combat capabilities of the Skyraider.


Actually yeah


----------



## wuzak (Feb 26, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> I didn't realize it was still that different even at lower-speeds. All I knew was that the turn-rates were closer at lower speeds than at higher ones.



The report also notes that the less experienced RAF service pilots were not making the most of the Spitfire's abilities, and the RAE test pilots could often out-turn them with their captured Bf 109E.

This would, no doubt, account for the theory that the Bf 109E could turn with or out-turn the Spitfire. When, in fact, it was the skill and courage of the experten Bf 109 pilots against the relative novices of the RAF during the BoB.

But with the RAE pilots in the Spitfire (and the Hurricane also tested) they found the turning margin to be quite wide. The difference is that the RAE pilots were more comfortable flying the Spitfire much closer to the stall.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 26, 2017)

A1s encountered, and shot down 2 La-7s or La-9s around Hainan island a little after the Korean war.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 26, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Well, at least one A-1 has shot down MiG-17s, which probably says more about poor MiG drivers than the air combat capabilities of the Skyraider.


What it says more


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 26, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Well, at least one A-1 has shot down MiG-17s, which probably says more about poor MiG drivers than the air combat capabilities of the Skyraider.


What it says more about is the agility of the Skyraider at light weight and low altitude and its ability to decelerate and accelerate quickly and turn sharply with a a wingtip almost in the treetops.
Never mind the A-26 and the BF-109, the fight to watch would be A-1 vs A-10!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 27, 2017)

I've never seen a real turn comparison between equivalent Spitfire and Bf 109 models. All I have seen is people fropm both sides making claims. If would be good to see a test from both the German and the British side of equivalent aircraft versions!

I'm not making a statement either way, I'm saying I don't really know, and especially don't know what would happen at lower speeds or higher angles of attack when the Bf 109 slats come open. There have been some extraordinary claims made in here about the slats, but they only amount to about 24% of the wing's span, and basically cover the ailerons, so they do NOT affect most of the airfoil. Instead they serve to keep the ailerons effective while adding a small amount of lift.

Still the Bf 109 is one of history's greats, yet gets maligned and even ignored regularly. A definitive test from both sides would be very welcome. Until then, I'd say they swapped the title of "best fighter in the ETO" back and forth throughout the war, at least as far as British and German planes go. I'm thinking of pure fighter-interceptor roles, not of escoprt or fighter-bombers. Naturally, the mission would determine the better choice, but, in general, the Spitfire and the Bf 109 were always good ones with respect to one another.

No agenda, just wishing for a well-documented test from both sides. Haven't found it yet!

Cheers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Feb 27, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Well, at least one A-1 has shot down MiG-17s, which probably says more about poor MiG drivers than the air combat capabilities of the Skyraider.


What it says more about is the agility of the Skyraider at light weight and low altitude, and its ability to decelerate and accelerate quickly and turn sharply with a wingtip almost in the tree tops.
Never mind the A-26 and the BF-109, the fight I want to see is A-1 vs A-10!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 27, 2017)

GregP said:


> I've never seen a real turn comparison between equivalent Spitfire and Bf 109 models. All I have seen is people fropm both sides making claims. If would be good to see a test from both the German and the British side of equivalent aircraft versions!................
> No agenda, just wishing for a well-documented test from both sides. Haven't found it yet!
> 
> Cheers.



Not really a "test" but _calculations_ by the British.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn.gif

and 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn18.gif

Now if some can find the report/s or test/s that these are based on or confirmed by?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 27, 2017)

Report BA 1640, September 1940


----------



## wuzak (Feb 27, 2017)




----------



## wuzak (Feb 27, 2017)

The charts at the back are as Shortround posted, with a few extra.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 27, 2017)

That's about what I thought, an analysis and not a flight test. Still looking ... but REALLY great stuff, Wayne!

Thank you!

Don't happen to know which Spitfire and which Bf 109, do you, guys? Shortround, do you? ?

Since they quote some 24 lbs. sq ft, I am assuming a Spitfire I and maybe an early Bf 109E?

Later models had considerably heavier wing loading. So, if this light, it was early models in both cases.

VERY interesting graphs! It's especially interesting to note that, at 12,000 feet, they could only stay level at about 160 mph or less, at FULL throttle, near stall! Anything faster and they were losing altitude. About what I expected ... low excess power for hard maneuvering (very prevalent near stall at high power), especially relative to what we were all brought up on in more modern jets. Wonder what speed they could make a level turn at when at, say, 25,000 feet near stall? And what g-level? I'd bet "not much." Maybe 1.7 g or so or less, shallow banks and smooth flying required!

Looks generally as if the Spitfire could pull maybe about 0.5 more g than the Bf 109, at least on those models, when flown by British pilots.

Wonder how these graphs would have looked if flown by experienced German pilots? Of course, THEY would not be really famiiliar with the Spitfire, the same as the Brits weren't very familiar with the Bf 109s. I'd bet a difference, even if slight.

I would not be surprised at a 10% delta both ways. That is, the German test could have shown the Bf 109 as about 10% better and the Spitfire as about 10% worse, just from lack of familiarity and lack of proper engine / prop tuning and maintenance. If so, they could very slightly swap positions.

Interesting. Shows them nearly equal, and I would expect the Brits to fly their own planes somewhat harder, if only from better familiarity and perhaps better condition of the aircraft. Captured planes are not usually the "cream of the crop!" and the logixitcs chain is quite long, if it exists at all.

Wonder of these were flown at more or less equivalent weights, relative to the stock normal aircraft load capabilities? Or maybe at light Spitfire and heavier German weights? I doubt there was much pressure to find the Bf 109 as "better than a Spitfire," but could easily be wrong. Perhaps not, though ...


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 27, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> A1s encountered, and shot down 2 La-7s or La-9s around Hainan island a little after the Korean war.


How did the La-7 & La-9 compare to the La-5?




GregP said:


> I've never seen a real turn comparison between equivalent Spitfire and Bf 109 models. All I have seen is people fropm both sides making claims.


wuzak gave specific numbers it would seem


> If would be good to see a test from both the German and the British side of equivalent aircraft versions!


True shit...


> I'm not making a statement either way, I'm saying I don't really know, and especially don't know what would happen at lower speeds or higher angles of attack when the Bf 109 slats come open. There have been some extraordinary claims made in here about the slats, but they only amount to about 24% of the wing's span, and basically cover the ailerons, so they do NOT affect most of the airfoil. Instead they serve to keep the ailerons effective while adding a small amount of lift.


I didn't know that...


> No agenda, just wishing for a well-documented test from both sides. Haven't found it yet!


Sounds logical




XBe02Drvr said:


> What it says more about is the agility of the Skyraider at light weight and low altitude, and its ability to decelerate and accelerate quickly and turn sharply with a wingtip almost in the tree tops.


How did the A-1 go from a top-speed of 375 mph to 322 so early on?




Shortround6 said:


> Not really a "test" but _calculations_ by the British.
> 
> http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit109turn.gif
> 
> ...


I know this will make me sound real dumb, but does a straight climb read 8-degrees, a theta, or a phi, or an infinity sign?




wuzak said:


> Report BA 1640, September 1940


Okay, so the Germans were either ballsier in their flying, or were more comfortable pushing it to the max because of the handling characteristics of the plane; for British pilots who had more cojones and were more willing to push it, they'd get inside them easy?


----------



## wuzak (Feb 27, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Okay, so the Germans were either ballsier in their flying, or were more comfortable pushing it to the max because of the handling characteristics of the plane; for British pilots who had more cojones and were more willing to push it, they'd get inside them easy?



I would put it down to more experience. Maybe a little extra skill.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 27, 2017)

GregP said:


> That's about what I thought, an analysis and not a flight test. Still looking ... but REALLY great stuff, Wayne!
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> ...



It is either a Spitfire I or Spitfire II vs a Bf 109E.

Evidently more than one Spitfire was used too, as the report mentions dive comparisons between the 109 and Spitfires with both a 2 pitch propeller and a constant speed unit. The Spitfire could comfortably keep with the 109 in a dive.

The turn radius charts were calculations, but evaluative tests were done with the Spitfire and 109, with both experienced RAE pilots and a few service pilots. As in the section shown previously, some of the service pilots were not comfortable tightening the turn to the Spitfire's full ability, whereas the RAE pilots were.

The main areas where the Spitfire could not compete with the 109 were negative G manoeuvres and low speed/high angle climbs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 27, 2017)

Thank you


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 27, 2017)

I would guess ( and could well be wrong) that _somewhat _experienced German pilots could push a bit harder using the slats as a stall warning. Being told to expect the slats to deploy _before _stalling is a more positive indicator than being told to expect a _slight _shudder or whatever the British fighters did before stall. Slats are either out or they are not out and Shudder may differ when landing at around 70mph and under 1 G and turning at 5Gs plus and the stall speed has more than doubled.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 27, 2017)

I'll see if I can find the data from VVS tests that were here 'way back when' when Soren and Arsenal were at each other's throats. IIRC - The low level max turn rate/min 360 turn time for the Bf 109F was in the 19 sec range - and the P-40 and P-39 were in the same range with P-39 having slight edge. Level altitude turn with extrapolated CLmax in the 1.3 range for the 109.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 27, 2017)

Zipper 730 you asked how the La-7 and La-9 compared to the La-5 . I think it would be reasonable to assume that each was a improvement on it's predecessor. The La-7 was about 20 mph faster than the La-5, and greater roc. The La-9 was a post war development of the La-7, again slight improvements.
I think many of us are still waiting for some details of how a A-26 out turned a Bf109 Zipper 730.
You've hinted at a documentary, and that it might have been a fire fighting conversion A-26, so that would mean post war.
But other than the people involved you've provided absolutely no other details .


----------



## eagledad (Feb 27, 2017)

Greg

For a German view of the Spitfire's turning ability, check

Kurfürst - Vergleichsfliegen Bf 109 E, Bf 110 C, Spitfire, Hurricane und Curtiss.

Eagledad

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 27, 2017)

Thanks Eagldad,

I'll read it even though pre-disposed to ignore anything from Kurfurst. I have never found him to be believable after looking in even a little depth, but also could be wrong. When I first discovered his website, I liked it. Right up until I realized that he quoted the highest number he could find for anything German and the lowest number he could find for anything not German.

If you have, say, 5 numbers from 5 tests, all at equivalent conditions, your best estimate is the square root of the sum of the squares, not the absolute highest number! If I had 4 tests and 4 numbers were low and one was high, I'd assume the high number was an outlier and ignore it, not quote it.

A good place to look about Spitfire propellers is:

Stories of the Battle of Britain 1940 – Constant-Speed Propellers — Battle of Britain | 1940 | Reference | Spitfire Mk. I

OK, I read it and had to laugh. The 2-position prop was only used at the very start of the war, leading me to think Spitfire I or Ia. All Spitfires were converted to constant-speed by 16 Aug 1940. The rest were constant speed. They didn't give any specific models or test weights, and didn't give much in the "what altitude and g-load were yopu doing?" type stuff. It is, instead, a "flight impression" of someone very familiar with the Bf 109E and not so familiar with the enemy aircraft, as one might rather obviously expect.

This was an evaluation by a combat pilot, not a comparative test, unless I just missed the charts.

Many of the British tests are in a similar vein, with no mention oif slats open or closed, no weights, and I especially interested to read that the Bf 109 out-rolled the Spitfire, Hurricane, and Curtiss (P-36 or P-40?) since the Bf 109 was widely regarded in Allied circles as a poor roller!

Of course, I have almost always read mid-to-late-war tests, not BOB-timeframe tests. Back then, perhaps the Bf 109 DID roll better. I am under the distinct impression that the early BF 109E was a slightly better fighter than the early Spitfire, and the conversion to constant-speed props was one attempt to "close the gap." Seems that when they DID close the gap, the Germans also made imcremental improvements and the two swapped back and forth throughout the war as to which was a bit superior at any time.

It is this very swapping back and forth that make me a bit skeptical of claims that the Spitfire was vastly superior, or vice-versa. They were like the later MiG-15 and F-86, pretty close! One could be said to be better somewhere in the flight envelope, but not everywhere. Also, both were and ARE much easier to takeoff and land when on grass than when on pavement. The Spitfire is somewhat squirrely on pavement, particularly in a crosswind, but the Bf 109 is positively vicious on pavement! Maybe it would have been fine on wet steel-mat runway! Like the stuff we used in Korea later.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2017)

Kurfurst is a *former* member, although very knowledgeable with regards to the -109, he became unhinged when anyone presented any formidable data that contradicted anything from his website or archives.

Nuff said, carry on!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 27, 2017)

wuzak said:


> I would put it down to more experience. Maybe a little extra skill.


That makes sense. The reason the Germans would have had more confidence was experience: When I know what I'm doing, I tend to be more confident as a general rule.



Shortround6 said:


> I would guess ( and could well be wrong) that _somewhat _experienced German pilots could push a bit harder using the slats as a stall warning. Being told to expect the slats to deploy _before _stalling is a more positive indicator than being told to expect a _slight _shudder or whatever the British fighters did before stall.


Good observation!



tyrodtom said:


> Zipper 730 you asked how the La-7 and La-9 compared to the La-5 . I think it would be reasonable to assume that each was a improvement on it's predecessor.


I was thinking of turn-rates in specific, and faster planes can turn slower.


> I think many of us are still waiting for some details of how a A-26 out turned a Bf109


I'm mostly in need of the g-load data


> You've hinted at a documentary, and that it might have been a fire fighting conversion A-26, so that would mean post war.


The pilot who flew them was a fire-fighting pilot; Moga's narration said it could get inside an Me-109 -- implying WWII.

It has to be noted that a turning-circle isn't necessarily something that will always be useful: Roll rate too slow, not enough power to hold the turn. It's possible that it was just an interesting trivial bit.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 27, 2017)

Greg, the RAE report list st the weight of the 109 during tests as 5,580lb and the Spitfire 6,000lb.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 27, 2017)

GregP said:


> The aircraft minimum turn radius depends only on the square of the velocity divided by 1 over (g * tan [bank angle]). Naturally, the square of the velocity dominates. If they had to maintain a standard speed, then it is almost impossible for the Buffalo to have done the turn in 7 seconds when a Bf 109 took 25 - 27 seconds.
> 
> There is no way a Bf 109 could only turn 7.2° per second while a Buffalo moving at the same speed could make 25.7° per second! The power to weight ratio of the Bf 109 was one of the better ones on the Altantic side of the war. It certainly could climb away from most of the opposition.
> 
> ...


But if I can turn inside of you, GregP, then I'd be travelling a lesser distance.
Shorter distance takes less time to cover at the same speed, compared to a longer distance.
I'll see if I can dig up that thread.


Elvis


----------



## GregP (Feb 27, 2017)

Hi Joe,

No more on it from me. 

I'd still love to see *comparative testing *of the two planes from the point of view of both sides, though. Until I do, I still think of them as more or less equal under most conditions, with some conditions favoring one or the other.

The Germans didn't roll right over the British and the British (and later Allies) didn't exactly have a cake walk, either. You can't have a great mistatch for six years of total war! The only way that happens is if there is some give and take on both sides, with one side eventually getting the upper hand, by way of skill, technology, better leadership, luck, or a combination of all of the above.

It probably didn't help the Germans that the British broke their codes early on, either. Both sides still had victories and losses.

Though I look at WWII with interest, particularly in aviation, it's not something I wish I had been there for.


----------



## GregP (Feb 27, 2017)

Hi Elvis,

If you hold the speed constant, then the plane with the better coefficient of lift will turn tightest, assuming the airframe is strong enough for it and it has sufficient power available for a level turn.

If you hold the g-force constant, the plane with the better coefficient of lift will turn the slowest, assuming the airframe stays together and it has enough excess power to continue.

Once you get to the airframe limit, the g-force and speed are both constant in a level turn. Usually one plane or the other will be able to turn slightly tighter than the other one. Though exactly-matched planes are rare, they are close since both designers were trying very hard to make optimum design choices. The question whould be, exactly what was optimized?

The above assumes the total wing area will generate sufficient lift to sustain the g-load of interest at the current weight. Once weight exceeds lift available, you are stalled.

If you hold the speed and g-force constant, their turns should match. As we all know, a "standard rate" turn is 3° per second, and it results in a 2-minute 360° turn or a 1-minute 180° turn. If a standard-rate turn is done at, say, 250 knots all the way, the turn track will be the same for any aircraft, regardless of whether it is a fighter or a Boeing 747. Things such as slats or "maneuvering flaps" were attempts to momentarily generate a better corefficicent of lift, to make a tighter turn possible for some period of time or through some particular speed range.

But I'm sure you know all that, Elvis. Most people in here do, and some could write a textbook on it. Drgondog is one of those, as we both know.

The Spitfire had a wing that was complicated to build, but I would still love to have seen what slats similar to the Bf 109 slats might have done for it in a turning fight! Perhaps it wouldn't have helped because they had washout doing the same job. But, add BOTH and it might have helped more. To the Air Minstry, it might not have been worth the price to have it added on, but I bet a fighter pilot would have voted the other way, assuming it helped. Unfortunately, the accountants won most of those fights.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 27, 2017)

When comparing the roll rate or roll response of early and late war 109s you have several things to consider.
1. is the change in wing tip shape. The "E"s having a square wingtip with very little wing going beyond the end of the aileron. The "F"s and later had the round wingtips with 655/6 mm of wing tip beyond the aileron. Spitfires with "clipped" tips rolled better.
I don't know if there was a change in aileron shape/dimensions between the early and late 109s. There was a change in the gap or seal?

2. A common complaint with almost all of these aircraft is that the ailerons stiffened up with speed. If you have a 109E with a top speed (best altitude) of around 350mph and in combat often going a bit slower it will have different aileron response/roll rate than a 109 with a top speed of 380-400mph as in many equivalent situations the later plane will be going faster (even if not at top speed) and be dealing with the slowed down or heavier aileron response. 

As an example the FW 190 was supposed to roll at 135 degress a second at 290mph IAS (at 10,000ft and 50lbs stick pressure) while increasing speed to 330mph IAS lowered the roll rate to 108 degrees per second. 

I don't _know _if these factors come into play but they help explain the difference in perceived roll rate at different times. AS can the opposition. If you are flying against early Spitfires then out rolling them _may _not be that hard. A few years later with a higher percentage of clip wing Spitfires and and P-47s and P-51s which all out roll early Spitfires at high speeds and a 109 even with the same roll response as an early one could find itself at a disadvantage. 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Feb 27, 2017)

Yeah Shortround, I agree. 

WW2aircraftperformance has some charts in it, but the charts don't say which models of the fighters were used to generate them or even the timeframe of the data. Also, the roll comparison charts show a drawing of a fighter rolling, say, 90° for one plane and the same pic rolled, say, 60°, for another plane. That maybe gives you a comparison at some speed, but not a time to roll or a roll rate in ° per second.

Seems like getting quality data is so rare that it looks like nobody wanted you to be able to piece it together from one document. which is likely the exact case. They probably did that like the tech orders, so you needed a complete set to get the whole picture. 

The thing is, using a calculated expected response isn't the same as a flight test, and a flight test isn't the same as another flight test conducted by a pilot really familiar with the aircraft, particularly in actual combat. My guess is the combat pilot would probably use more force and pull a bit harder than a test pilot with no combat experience. But ... that's a guess.

Generally, the combat pilot might not care about the ease of flying formation in a plane since they are usually in rather loose formation in a combat zone. Rigid, tight formations are shot down easily because nobody is paying attention to anything except staying in formation position! And in combat, the guy who sees the enemy first is MUCH more likely to come out on top. So a combat pilot and a non-combat test pilot might like entirely different flying qualities and pay attention to entirely diffrent things when doing a flight evaluation.

I've read where some pilot liked, say, the P-39 (when down low) and others thought it was a dog. Both cannot be the case simultaneously. Probably one was paying attention to the P-39 when it was in its element down low and the other was evaluating it when it was at the altitude where he thought he needed to fly.

I'd think you would need to know your enemy, because the flight characteristics of your plane when at the best speed and altitude of your enemy were where you were most likely to encounter him if he had anything to say about it.

Just rambling, so I'll shut up now ...


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 28, 2017)

wuzak said:


> Greg, the RAE report list st the weight of the 109 during tests as 5,580lb and the Spitfire 6,000lb.


These were normal loads right?



GregP said:


> Seems like getting quality data is so rare that it looks like nobody wanted you to be able to piece it together from one document. which is likely the exact case. They probably did that like the tech orders, so you needed a complete set to get the whole picture.


It would have made espionage hard to do. Of course, in 2017, this is just pure curiosity.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Feb 28, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> These were normal loads right?



About that.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 28, 2017)

GregP said:


> Hi Elvis,
> 
> If you hold the speed constant, then the plane with the better coefficient of lift will turn tightest, assuming the airframe is strong enough for it and it has sufficient power available for a level turn.
> 
> ...


Hey GregP,

Ok, look, this is going to turn into a shouting match pretty quick if cooler heads don't prevail. You're obviously a learned guy and I can appreciate that.
Thank you for your contributions to this website.
I think I made a valid point with the fact that if one plane can turn inside the other, it _should_ be able to complete the turn quicker than the other.
I wasn't "poo-poo-ing" on anyone or any one aircraft with the figures I posted earlier.
my original point was simply to let everyone here know that there's other info out there (or maybe _was?_) that could be relevant to this thread and no one else had mentioned it yet, so I thought I would.
That was all.
Please forgive me for trying to contribute to this thread without gaining a masters in Aerodynamics first.
Still searching for that thread. That info is buried out there, somewhere. I will post a link when/if I find it, but as for the rest. I'm done.
Have fun, guys.


Elvis


----------



## drgondog (Feb 28, 2017)

Hmmm, wondering why it would turn into a shouting match. GregP presented the math to let you play with different variables and draw your own conclusions.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Feb 28, 2017)

Honest Elvis, I have never seen GregP shout at anyone, nor even seriously remonstrate. I sincerely doubt he was headed anywhere near that direction. As drgondog mentioned he was facilitating all of us to learn a bit by discussing the math involved. I think you raised some interesting points yourself, but I truly do not think GregP or anyone else was attempting to shut you down as they say. I have royally put my foot in my mouth during a few threads and GregP has always been the one to use reason not vitriol to make his point. I truly hope you did not misunderstand. Please do find the thread you were talking about and post the link. We all learn something from these conversations.


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 28, 2017)

From the little I know about any pre-missile combat flying, there's a significant amount of time spent in the high-alpha range, so behavior near stall is very important, especially so for the comparatively inexperienced pilots entering combat during, say, the Battle of Britain. I think some of that came out in the Spitfire vs Bf109 turning tests, where experienced pilots consistently got better turning performance out of the aircraft than less-experienced ones. It also places concerns for good handling and well-balanced controls in context.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Feb 28, 2017)

Elvis said:


> But if I can turn inside of you, GregP, then I'd be travelling a lesser distance.
> Shorter distance takes less time to cover at the same speed, compared to a longer distance.
> I'll see if I can dig up that thread.
> 
> ...



Elvis,

You are correct up to a certain point. If a Bf-109 was traveling North with an A-26 1500' behind and subsequently went into a hard left turn. With the trailing A-26 staying pure pursuit (pointing at the 109), he will cut across the circle and have a fleeting snap shot (as long as said 109 pilot stays in the turn - not smart). The Invader will travel less distance until he overshoots the turn circle of the 109. He flew less distance only because of angular cutoff, not because his plane turns better. After overshooting the 109, with both at best turn, the 109 will in short order run around his turn circle (smaller that I'm assuming it is as well) and arrive at a gun solution on the Invader.

It's hard to do this without a drawing, just realize that the A-26 will have a circle much larger circle than the 109. I flew the Eagle against many adversaries that had better turn circles than me, but learned there are other options / tools that worked when applied properly.

Cheers,
Biff

PS. In my opine Greg meant only to exchange info.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Feb 28, 2017)

wuzak said:


> About that.


Thanks



swampyankee said:


> From the little I know about any pre-missile combat flying, there's a significant amount of time spent in the high-alpha range, so behavior near stall is very important, especially so for the comparatively inexperienced pilots entering combat during, say, the Battle of Britain. I think some of that came out in the Spitfire vs Bf109 turning tests, where experienced pilots consistently got better turning performance out of the aircraft than less-experienced ones.


Yup. There were other things such as gunnery skill... without a lead-computing sight a lot more work had to be done by the pilot.



BiffF15 said:


> Elvis,
> 
> You are correct up to a certain point. If a Bf-109 was traveling North with an A-26 1500' behind and subsequently went into a hard left turn. With the trailing A-26 staying pure pursuit (pointing at the 109), he will cut across the circle and have a fleeting snap shot (as long as said 109 pilot stays in the turn - not smart). The Invader will travel less distance until he overshoots the turn circle of the 109. He flew less distance only because of angular cutoff, not because his plane turns better. After overshooting the 109, with both at best turn, the 109 will in short order run around his turn circle (smaller that I'm assuming it is as well) and arrive at a gun solution on the Invader.
> 
> It's hard to do this without a drawing, just realize that the A-26 will have a circle much larger circle than the 109.


From what I'm guessing you're describing something like in basketball where if I'm the defender I don't have to turn much to stay with a faster player because he's heading towards the basket and I'm already nearer. As he gets closer I have to do more and more work to stay with him.


----------



## GregP (Feb 28, 2017)

Hi Elvis,

Not upset in the slightest at anybody(excluding the odd politican or three), let alone you. If I sounded that way, I apologize ... not intended. Sometime I sound different than I intend. Seems to go with being an engineer or maybe I'm just not too good at voicing the right words.

Any plane can maybe turn inside any other plane, but if the speed and g-force are held constant, neither can since they will both fly the same track. You probably know that, while WW2 military planes are all strong, they have different amounts of excess power and differening wing sections (different lift coefficients). Usually one or the other can sustain a higher load while staying level in a turn, and it is usually called the more maneuverable aircraft of the two ... IF they need to stay level. That is not the case at 25,000 feet, but definitely IS the case if they are mere feet above the treetops over a forrest or out over the Russian steppes.

Once at ground level, the real better-maneuvering aircaft will rather quickly emerge and still be aviating.

Perhaps I was splitting hairs (unintentional), but I suppose engineers are doomed to do that most of the time.

Cheers to you!

One of the two planes usually CAN out-turn the other one, sometimes even if they are flying the same type airplane, just because one pilot or the other is slightly better at sensing his plane's condition near the stall. If he isn't very good and is low, he can easily pull just too hard and snap roll right into the ground. That happened often in Russian, according to the Soviet fighter pilots, when Bf 109s or Fw 190s tried to follow Yak-3s and La-5s in a tight turn close to the ground.

I wasn't there, but have read the reports. Of course, and as an aside ... covering their butts might also be the real case since any cowardice or even loss might have resulted in a firing squad. I don't know. It was hard not to be somewhat protective of one's reputation in the Soviet Union while Stalin was around. He wasn't known or even suspected of being exactly understanding of subordinates. And EVERYONE was a subordinate to Uncle Joe. I believe he is credited with executing some 500,000 and sending between 3 and 12 million to the labor camps (gulags) from 1934 - 1939. It was not wise to draw his attention. So maybe the victory reports were merely self-protection. Maybe not.

Nothing else implied or intended in the reply.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 8, 2017)

Two questions

1. The A-1 Skyraider was said to be an 8g airplane: Does that mean 8g ultimate or 8g x 1.5?

2. Could the A-1 generate a tighter turn-rate (sustained, instantaneous, or both) than the P-47D & N series under the following conditions

A-1 devoid of bombs, fully loaded guns, fuel-load seen after bombs away; P-47D & N without drop-tanks, fully-loaded guns, no bombs, and fuel-loads typically seen in combat missions of medium range (more specifically non escort missions where the fuel tanks are almost totally loaded)

A-1 as before; P-47D & N with a light/moderate bomb-load and fuel loads typically seen before bombs-away

A-1 with a bomb-load of around 1,000-2,000 pounds and fully loaded guns; P-47D & N with similar load and cannons loaded as much as permitted

A-1 with a 4,500 pound bomb-load, ammo as permitted; P-47D & N with maximum bomb-load and reduced gun armament as required for high weight operations


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 9, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Two questions
> 
> 1. The A-1 Skyraider was said to be an 8g airplane: Does that mean 8g ultimate or 8g x 1.5?


Think about it Zipper. If it's 8G ultimate, that makes flight limit about 5.3. Would you be willing to dive bomb the bridges at Koto Ri, through the flak and the Migs, hauling 4,000 lbs of bombs on a 5G airplane? Not this turkey!! Hell, that's only a little more than the flight limit for a Utility Category civil aircraft. (4.4G)
That rumble you're feeling underfoot is Ed Heinneman rolling over in his grave!
Cheers
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 9, 2017)

You need to read some about aircraft design.

The questions show a lack of reading about the subject, and you keep doing it on a regulat basis. We have some hundreds of threads on these topics, but the thread title doesn't aways betray the information conveyed beacause people, rather obviously including me, keep straying away from the thread subject.

This thread is not about aircraft ultimate strength or P-47s; it's about the A-1 versus A-26. Start another thread on unrelated questions, please! And ... ME too!

Aircraft strength has been very well covered in threads, as has the P-47, but the P-47and Skyraider were not contemporaries. The P-47 was rapidly replaced in service after the war, probably due to the expense of building and operating the complex systems. The Skyraider was almost cancalled several times during the 1940s/1950s, but survived to be a formidable aircraft in Viet Nam and other limited-war areas. It virtually never operated with the P-47, so I'm not sure why you'd be asking. It's like asking if we'd rather fly a Douglas Skynight or a Ta-152? They were not contemporaries, so the real answer would be, "Did you mean 1945 or 1952, day fighter or night fighter? They didn't fly the same skies!" ... except maybe in video games.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 9, 2017)

One country that did operate the P-47 in a combat role long after WW2 was the ROC, Taiwan.

If you'll look at Fahren's list of cold war shoot downs that he posted in the Lend lease during the Korean War, you'll see a lot of ROCAF P-47s getting shot down over China well into the 50's.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 9, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Two questions
> 
> 1. The A-1 Skyraider was said to be an 8g airplane: Does that mean 8g ultimate or 8g x 1.5?
> ...



G limit, on design and combat load (weight of aircraft = 15 to 15.5 thousand lb) was 6, for the AD-4. link

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 9, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> G limit, on design and combat load (weight of aircraft = 15 to 15.5 thousand lb) was 6, for the AD-4. link


So the flight limit was 6 and the ultimate around 9? Considering the instantaneous overloads encountered due to turbulence, flak, and pucker factor, dive bombing in a Spad doesn't strike me as such a wholesome activity all of a sudden. You've shattered my mystique for the old girl!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 10, 2017)

I've seen another design document for the AD-1/6 (single-seat, not 4-seat) where the limit was 7g with a light bomb load, less when heavy, and 8g when the bombs were gone but still had fuel and ammo remaining. Haven't found that one in several years, though. It WAS floating about some years back.

The intent, I surmised from the rather strange g-limits, was to have the Skyraider be at standard fighter strength when configured-by-default as a "fighter" on the way home from dropping ordnannce. But ... it may have just seemed that way to me since I KNEW the general operating history of the Skyraider in the real world.

Originally, it COULD have been intended to actually be USED as a fighter, not primarily, but if necessary, to defend carriers. The Skyraider WAS designed in WWII, and that might have been a consideration at that time ... I do not claim to know nor make that claim. It's just a thought. But we all know the g-limit falls as weight grows, and it COULD haul 8,000 pounds of bombs. It rather obviously was never going to be an 8g aircraft at that weight. When it was light, 6g may have been plenty to yank it around with all that wing area! I have always loved the dive flaps and still do when they demonstrate them at an airshow.

Before he passed away, Bob Grondzik (Skyraider Bob, aircraft number 500 for years ... AD-6) used to climb, dive and deploy the dive flaps at our annual airshow at Chino every year. Definitely worth the wait. Those speed brakes were enormous and stick out on either side and the bottom some 4 - 5 feet! Once in awhile, he'd take a passenger [in the fuselage jump seat(s)] and I'm sure they regretted being along for the ride about pullout time. They were facing backward and had a very limited view outside (small window, a few feet away from the seat). Probably had spare rags floating about in the compartment since they used several (or many) getting the oil off it when they landed, every time.

Impressive bird. I wonder who got it, but have never asked around the museum.

Here's a shot of his plane with dive brakes out:







It's SHOWN more or less horizontal above, but he never deployed them unless diving pretty steeply when I saw him do it several times. Might just be a photo shoot pic ... can't say.

The Skyraider was originally the XBT2D and the other competitors in the race were Martin XBTM Mauler, the Curtiss XBTC, and the Kaiser-Fleetwings BTK. All were competing to replace the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver. Due to the US Navy's concern that the Curtiss design was overly complex and that the company's record was particularly poor during the Helldiver's development, Martin was instructed to create an "unexperimental" design that would be a reliable platform for the Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major radial engine that powered both aircraft. So the Curtiss XBTC and Martin XBTM both used the R-4360, the XBT2D used the R-3350, and the BTK used the R-2800 (putting it as a serious power disadvantage).


The XBT2D won the competition.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 10, 2017)

GregP said:


> When it was light, 6g may have been plenty to yank it around with all that wing area!
> Before he passed away, Bob Grodzik (Skyraider Bob, aircraft number 500 for years)


When light, the Spad had amazing agility, with its powerful flight controls, its ability to "stand on the brakes" and the instant thrust available when all those 3350 cubes were unleashed. Enough to surprise and kill the occasional unwary jet over the years.
The 500 on the cowling is not an aircraft number, at least not in the sense of a serial number or a Bureau Number. It's an air wing number. Back in the day each tactical squadron in an embarked air wing had a digit assigned between 1and 9. Each aircraft in the squadron had two digits after the squadron digit that represented the place in the squadron command hierarchy of the pilot whose name was painted below the cockpit. 00 ("double nuts") wore the CO's name. The usual sequence of squadron digits, IIRC, was: fighters/fighter-bombers/light attack/all-weather attack/heavy attack/recon/ASW in that order. The detachments, helicopters and AEW, usually had their own numbering system.
Cheers
Wes

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 10, 2017)

Hery XBe02Drvr,

Probably a stupid question, but is a Be 02 basically a Beech 1900? Or is it a Beriev?


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 10, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> G limit, on design and combat load (weight of aircraft = 15 to 15.5 thousand lb) was 6, for the AD-4. link


Okay, so normal g-load is 6 and ultimate load is 9g at rated and combat load... did this apply for early variants?



GregP said:


> The questions show a lack of reading about the subject


I couldn't find anything so I asked people here. I doubt anybody else would short of somebody who flew them, hence my questions.


> We have some hundreds of threads on these topics, but the thread title doesn't aways betray the information conveyed beacause people, rather obviously including me, keep straying away from the thread subject.


The reason I went into g-load was for several reasons

A g-load provides an exact turning arc at an exact speed in level flight.

This thread was about comparisons of the A-1 and A-26: The idea was to figure out either turning circles or g-loads to figure out how they'd compare.



> This thread is not about aircraft ultimate strength or P-47s; it's about the A-1 versus A-26.


I wasn't actually focused so much on the ultimate strength in this case (far as I know it's 7.33gx1.5), it was more the turning arc as a reference point of comparison.

Provided the claim about the A-26 able to turn inside the Me-109 with bombs off being valid, I was basically curious how the A-1 compares bombs off and on
The A-1 was able to get inside the La-7 and La-9 at times during the Korean War: I attempted to find out how the performance of the La-7 & La-9 was compared to the La-5 as there's comparisons of the La-5 to the Me-109 and Fw-190; from what I got from watching a film that was in Russian and had English subtitles, the La-7 seemed quite favorably compared to the La-5 in terms of speed and was well regarded for maneuverability (same?) provided the film was accurate.
The P-47 was commonly used in ground attack and I was curious how they compared 



> The Skyraider was almost cancalled several times during the 1940s/1950s


I didn't know that...


> I've seen another design document for the AD-1/6 (single-seat, not 4-seat) where the limit was 7g with a light bomb load, less when heavy, and 8g when the bombs were gone but still had fuel and ammo remaining. Haven't found that one in several years, though. It WAS floating about some years back.


Fascinating


> The intent, I surmised from the rather strange g-limits, was to have the Skyraider be at standard fighter strength when configured-by-default as a "fighter" on the way home from dropping ordnannce.


That makes some sense


> Originally, it COULD have been intended to actually be USED as a fighter, not primarily, but if necessary, to defend carriers. The Skyraider WAS designed in WWII, and that might have been a consideration at that time ... I do not claim to know nor make that claim. It's just a thought.


Makes some sense actually, some SBD's were used to defend carriers in 1942. Ironically one pilot with mad skills managed to knock out 2 A6M's and get clipped by a third (it was counted as a kill as they went down). His name was Vejtasa I believe.


> Here's a shot of his plane with dive brakes out:


Boy, those are some big-ass brakes!


> The Skyraider was originally the XBT2D


That I know...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 11, 2017)

Hey Greg,
Don't I wish it was a Beriev! Love to log some turbine multi-engine seaplane time. That's pretty rare stuff.
Nope it's ATC code for a plain old pedestrian Beech 1900C (the hunch-back version, not the stand-up one). A blast to fly, but not much fun to ride in. 2200 horsepower on a MGTOW 17,000 pound airframe made it a lively performer though it's high lift airfoil for short runways limited its high end speed. Metroliners and Jetstreams used to blow us into the weeds (but they couldn't land on 33 Right at BOS). The engines were derated from 1400 horsepower, thus had good altitude performance, and at mid-payload weights were capable of near neck-snapping acceleration. The controls were light, smooth, well balanced, and quick, and she would stand on a wingtip in the bat of an eye if you weren't careful. Think "bank" and it happens. Regular Walter Mitty fighter plane. It was always fun flying with someone who had just transitioned from a more truckish airplane, especially retired SAC pilots, which we seemed to attract quite a few of. They had a tendency to startle the passengers until they got the hang of it.
One thing we could do that almost nobody else could, was expedite a descent AND a speed reduction simultaneously. Lose 5,000 feet and 50 knots in under 2 minutes and all without the passengers getting anxious. Very useful in crowded terminal airspace when a controller wants to make use of a gap in the traffic.
Southbound over Manhattan at 6 thousand and 210 knots: "Brockway four twenty six, your traffic is an Eastern seven two, nine o'clock two miles at two thousand northbound over the tanks on the Expressway Visual, also a Piedmont seven three over the Verazanno at three. Report in sight." "Brockway has both Boeings." "Brockway four twenty six, turn left and follow the Eastern seven two, descend and maintain two thousand. Expedite. Slow to one six zero. Expedite. Leaving three you're cleared the Expressway Visual, three-one at Laguardia. Maintain visual separation." "Piedmont six forty three, slow to one sixty, then descend and maintain two thousand. Your traffic to follow is a Beech airliner eleven thirty and five miles, out of six for two. Report in sight."
The bird was so lively and capable of scaring the passengers we used to joke about "two terrorists and nineteen hostages".
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 11, 2017)

Zipper730, where did you get the information that the A-1 could get inside the La5 or La7 ?

The only recorded incidents of A-1/ La incidents i'm aware of that resulted in shoot downs occured after the Korean war, and the A-1s came out on top mainly because the La-5, 7, or 9 were badly flown. Probably low time PROC pilots verses veteran Navy pilots.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 11, 2017)

For general rules of thumb - If you want the actual design Limit loads for any aircraft, you need to see the structural analysis. The Structural analysis report will state the +/- G for a specific weight condition and - as a rule of thumb - will be based on maximum AoA loads imposed usually in a pull out from a dive. 

The loads that are imposed on the airframe are both the aerodynamic loads, including theoretical Center of Pressure on wings and horizontal Stab/Elevator combination as well as inertial loads applied to the airframe.

The structural analysis begins with the Specification statements regarding mission and design Limit loading for the extreme 'Normal' (Dive pull out, carrier landing loads for a non-combat aircraft (COD, rudder loads due to low speed/high propeller torque, etc., etc.) where the Forces are applied to a rigid airframe conceptual model and the Force vectors are applied about the theoretical Center of Gravity and Bending moments are also calculated about the CG. The essential outcome is a Force and Moment balance about the X, Y, Z axis.

Pertinent to this forum is that not much attention was given to fatigue life or thermal stress analysis and aero elasticity considerations were in the infancy stage of analysis. Flutter analysis was also in early stages and often followed "We have a problem" during flight tests.

The initial work proceeds with Preliminary Design and is iterated during the Development process as detail design considerations are balanced with practical design approaches for such structure as wing spars, bulkheads, etc., manufacturing processes, etc. During this process issues are always uncovered with matching design to the desired Spec and compromises are developed and implemented. There is a lot more to say about this process - but.....

For WWII spec framework for US aircraft the fighters were all (to my knowledge, except for P-51H) framed around 8G Limit and 12G Ultimate in which the design limit loads were analyzed part by part to achieve (STRESS ALLOWABLE)/(STRESS ACTUAL)-1 >.01 for the material properties of the part(s).

Bombers and transports were generally designed to +3G/-1.5G for a Design/Spec Gross Mission Weight. Not overload or Maximum Gross weight, but design mission Gross weight for fuel, ammo and payload. I suspect but do not know that Dive Bombers were designed to fighter specs.

Perhaps pertinent to the wanderings regarding "turn rate" and "turn radius", it is perhaps important to re-state two or three facts about airframes with big engines in asymmetric/high Angle of Attack flight.

Airframes and wing are flexible - some more than others, When aerodynamic loads are combined with inertia loads, wings twist which affect the actual AoA achievable before a CLmax (other than theoretical airfoil and wind tunnel results for symmetric flight (no yaw for example. The aerodynamic pressure distributions are altered significantly.

Engine/Prop systems at low speeds - are a.) less efficient and b.) promote more significant gyroscopic loads, proportionally, which control surfaces must offset (a reason why that a/c turns better in one direction).

Drag - The Parasite drag increases due to increases in CL are Significant and must be accounted for in developing the forces applied to the airframe to derive 'turn performance'. Ditto Cooling Drag at relatively low speeds like Corner Velocity.
In the airframe biz for conventional aircraft, the methodology for high Aoa (climb/Turn) pointed to developing the analytics to calculate Power Available and Power Required. The reason is that the vagaries of precise calculation for Thrust (engine/prop + exhaust) is tougher.

I am not available to answer a barrage of questions at the moment, but take this to the bank. The equations developed to calculate Turn as a function of CL, GW, Wing Area, Density and Velocity fall apart when one tries to insert Theoretical CLmax for level stall. Actual CLmax is significantly less for all the reasons outlined.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 11, 2017)

Hey Zipper, ditto all above. The man knows whereof he speaks. And remember, not every kill results from "getting inside the victim's turn". A heavier more powerful aircraft will likely choose to go vertical on a lighter weight, tighter turning opponent.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 11, 2017)

I wonder how in the test they performed back in the WW2 era how they determined the diameter of the circles the aircraft turned in, they assigned values sometimes in feet, yards, or meters. They had no GPS on anything of that sort, and at the altitudes most test were performed, they'd have no way to equate it to a circle on the ground. 
Was it just a WAG?

They could tell how a certain aircraft, equipped a certain way , at a certain altitude, with a certain pilot flying , could compare to another aircraft at that time under the same variables. 
But to assign a definite fixed value to the tests ? Was it just BS to help morale ?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 11, 2017)

Radar?? An AI radar in an aircraft flying level at constant speed on a track that would bisect the circle after the turn was complete would give a series of range and azimuth plots that could be corrected for the radar aircraft's travel to give a plotted circle. Probably too sophisticated for the equipment of the time. I know the ACM range radar in my day could do it. A nugget who was not getting the most out of his airplane was readily apparent to the range operators and ACM instructors watching.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 11, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> Zipper730, where did you get the information that the A-1 could get inside the La5 or La7 ?
> 
> The only recorded incidents of A-1/ La incidents i'm aware of that resulted in shoot downs occured after the Korean war, and the A-1s came out on top mainly because the La-5, 7, or 9 were badly flown. Probably low time PROC pilots verses veteran Navy pilots.


Those PROC pilots were probably US trained. In the latter part of WWII, Chiang Kai-Shek sent hundreds of "loyal Nationalist" young men to be trained ab initio as fighter pilots. I've spoken with some of their instructors. These guys were in danger of losing their draft deferments due to the scaling back of the massive contract flight training program. It seems air combat losses were lower than forecast, while infantry losses were much higher, and there was a desperate need for cannon fodder. Well along comes this Lend-Lease Chinese training program to save the day.
They said these Chinese kids were challenging to teach, as most had been yanked right out of ox-cart culture into the twentieth century. It was especially hard to get them to think in the vertical dimension.
Well, long story short, the majority of them eventually wound up flying for Mao, albeit in aircraft and culture vastly different than their training (most didn't get to take their Mustangs or Thunderbolts with them). Also, most were grounded while they went through lengthy "political reeducation", so, far from current at flying, then subjected to a radically different aviation culture in radically different aircraft by Russian instructors who were as racially and culturally contemptuous of them as the Americans had been. Then they were issued life-limited airframes that didn't allow enough monthly flying time to achieve and maintain proficiency. The same almost-starvation monthly rationing of caloric intake that applied to the population as a whole applied to fighter pilots, too, so their G tolerance probably was far from optimum, not to mention their mental alertness and visual acuity.
Up against combat veteran Navy pilots in agile, well armed Skyraiders, not much of a fair fight. In this context, theoretical tightest turning radius of an LA-7 is hardly relevant to anything. (How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, Mr. McNamara?)
Cheers
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 11, 2017)

I fail to see what Mr McNamara has to do with any of this discussion, but who am I to judge?


One thing when comparing the AD vs WW2-era fighters, like the La-7, is that piston-engined aircraft were probably quite close to the absolute limits on possible performance: a light AD Skyraider would be closer in performance to an La-7 than the "attack" vs "fighter" classification would show: it may have been a bomb truck, but that meant that it had a big wing and a lot of surplus power at light weight. It also had all those landing on carrier concerns, so it probably has quite good behavior at high angles of attack. If the La-7 pilots are trying to get into a turning fight, this would probably not be a good plan. 

And the MiG-15/MiG-17 drivers who got shot down by ADs should just go to their commanders and volunteer for duty cleaning latrines.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 11, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> I fail to see what Mr McNamara has to do with any of this discussion, but who am I to judge?
> 
> 
> One thing when comparing the AD vs WW2-era fighters, like the La-7, is that piston-engined aircraft were probably quite close to the absolute limits on possible performance: a light AD Skyraider would be closer in performance to an La-7 than the "attack" vs "fighter" classification would show: it may have been a bomb truck, but that meant that it had a big wing and a *lot of surplus power at light weight*. It also had all those landing on carrier concerns, so it probably has quite good behavior at high angles of attack. If the La-7 pilots are trying to get into a turning fight, this would probably not be a good plan.
> ...



Using specs from Wiki I get the Skyraider had 4.433lb/hp at empty weight (ie no fuel or ammo) while the La 7 had 4.429lb/hp at gross weight.

So not a lot of surplus power.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 11, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> I wonder how in the test they performed back in the WW2 era how they determined the diameter of the circles the aircraft turned in, they assigned values sometimes in feet, yards, or meters. They had no GPS on anything of that sort, and at the altitudes most test were performed, they'd have no way to equate it to a circle on the ground.
> Was it just a WAG?
> 
> They could tell how a certain aircraft, equipped a certain way , at a certain altitude, with a certain pilot flying , could compare to another aircraft at that time under the same variables.
> But to assign a definite fixed value to the tests ? Was it just BS to help morale ?



I think they tested what they could, such as Cl, and then calculated the turn radius.

In case of the Spitfire I vs the Bf 109E, that is what the RAE did. Flight test with both aircraft were used to test different defensive and attacking scenarios, including which one out-turns the other. The results of that would show that the Spitfire could turn inside the Bf 109, and could get on the tail of the 109 in X number of turns.


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 11, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> Zipper730, where did you get the information that the A-1 could get inside the La5 or La7 ?


It was mentioned in this thread...


> The only recorded incidents of A-1/ La incidents i'm aware of that resulted in shoot downs occured after the Korean war, and the A-1s came out on top mainly because the La-5, 7, or 9 were badly flown.


That makes enough sense




drgondog said:


> For general rules of thumb - If you want the actual design Limit loads for any aircraft, you need to see the structural analysis. The Structural analysis report will state the +/- G for a specific weight condition and - as a rule of thumb - will be based on maximum AoA loads imposed usually in a pull out from a dive.


Okay


> The structural analysis begins with the Specification statements regarding mission and design Limit loading for the extreme 'Normal' (Dive pull out, carrier landing loads for a non-combat aircraft (COD, rudder loads due to low speed/high propeller torque, etc., etc.) where the Forces are applied to a rigid airframe conceptual model and the Force vectors are applied about the theoretical Center of Gravity and Bending moments are also calculated about the CG. The essential outcome is a Force and Moment balance about the X, Y, Z axis.


And I assume the math for this is quite massive?


> The initial work proceeds with Preliminary Design and is iterated during the Development process as detail design considerations are balanced with practical design approaches for such structure as wing spars, bulkheads, etc., manufacturing processes, etc. During this process issues are always uncovered with matching design to the desired Spec and compromises are developed and implemented.


Of course


> For WWII spec framework for US aircraft the fighters were all (to my knowledge, except for P-51H) framed around 8G Limit and 12G Ultimate in which the design limit loads were analyzed part by part to achieve (STRESS ALLOWABLE)/(STRESS ACTUAL)-1 >.01 for the material properties of the part(s).


Now that's interesting: I thought it was 7.33 x 1.5 (not sure where that came from).


> Bombers and transports were generally designed to +3G/-1.5G for a Design/Spec Gross Mission Weight. Not overload or Maximum Gross weight, but design mission Gross weight for fuel, ammo and payload.


Gotcha


> I suspect but do not know that Dive Bombers were designed to fighter specs.


Logical


> Perhaps pertinent to the wanderings regarding "turn rate" and "turn radius", it is perhaps important to re-state two or three facts about airframes with big engines in asymmetric/high Angle of Attack flight.
> 
> Airframes and wing are flexible - some more than others, When aerodynamic loads are combined with inertia loads, wings twist which affect the actual AoA achievable before a CLmax (other than theoretical airfoil and wind tunnel results for symmetric flight (no yaw for example. The aerodynamic pressure distributions are altered significantly.


Due to the twisting of the wings?


> Engine/Prop systems at low speeds - are a.) less efficient


Wait, I thought propellers worked better at low-speeds?


> b.) promote more significant gyroscopic loads, proportionally, which control surfaces must offset (a reason why that a/c turns better in one direction).


Not to mention torque and p-factor...


> Drag - The Parasite drag increases due to increases in CL are Significant and must be accounted for in developing the forces applied to the airframe to derive 'turn performance'.


Because of greater amounts of lift produced by pulling higher g-loads, as well as variables such as flexing of wings?


> In the airframe biz for conventional aircraft, the methodology for high Aoa (climb/Turn) pointed to developing the analytics to calculate Power Available and Power Required.


To allow accurate prediction


> The reason is that the vagaries of precise calculation for Thrust (engine/prop + exhaust) is tougher.


And cooling drag


> IThe equations developed to calculate Turn as a function of CL, GW, Wing Area, Density and Velocity fall apart when one tries to insert Theoretical CLmax for level stall. Actual CLmax is significantly less for all the reasons outlined.


So in a turn, the CLmax is less in a level stall than a turn?




XBe02Drvr said:


> Those PROC pilots were probably US trained. In the latter part of WWII, Chiang Kai-Shek sent hundreds of "loyal Nationalist" young men to be trained ab initio as fighter pilots. I've spoken with some of their instructors. These guys were in danger of losing their draft deferments due to the scaling back of the massive contract flight training program. It seems air combat losses were lower than forecast, while infantry losses were much higher, and there was a desperate need for cannon fodder. Well along comes this Lend-Lease Chinese training program to save the day.
> They said these Chinese kids were challenging to teach, as most had been yanked right out of ox-cart culture into the twentieth century. It was especially hard to get them to think in the vertical dimension.


That would explain things..


> Well, long story short, the majority of them eventually wound up flying for Mao, albeit in aircraft and culture vastly different than their training (most didn't get to take their Mustangs or Thunderbolts with them). Also, most were grounded while they went through lengthy "political reeducation", so, far from current at flying, then subjected to a radically different aviation culture in radically different aircraft by Russian instructors who were as racially and culturally contemptuous of them as the Americans had been. Then they were issued life-limited airframes that didn't allow enough monthly flying time to achieve and maintain proficiency.


So they were undertrained...


> The same almost-starvation monthly rationing of caloric intake that applied to the population as a whole applied to fighter pilots, too, so their G tolerance probably was far from optimum, not to mention their mental alertness and visual acuity.


Never thought about that


> Up against combat veteran Navy pilots in agile, well armed Skyraiders, not much of a fair fight.


No


> In this context, theoretical tightest turning radius of an LA-7 is hardly relevant to anything.


I simply brought up the La-7 because it was mentioned earlier. I see your points though.



swampyankee said:


> a light AD Skyraider would be closer in performance to an La-7 than the "attack" vs "fighter" classification would show: it may have been a bomb truck, but that meant that it had a big wing and a lot of surplus power at light weight. It also had all those landing on carrier concerns, so it probably has quite good behavior at high angles of attack. If the La-7 pilots are trying to get into a turning fight, this would probably not be a good plan.


Some truth to that


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 11, 2017)

Zipper730, i'm the one who brought up the fact that A1's had shot down some Lavochkins AFTER the Korean war, exactly what model Lavochkin nobody knew at the time. La5, 7, 9 11, ?

I'm the one that brought La? verses A1 up, me or no one else in this thread has suggested that a A1 could turn inside a Lavochkin of any model, other than you.


















t


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 12, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> Zipper730, i'm the one who brought up the fact that A1's had shot down some Lavochkins AFTER the Korean war, exactly what model Lavochkin nobody knew at the time. La5, 7, 9 11, ?
> 
> I'm the one that brought La? verses A1 up, me or no one else in this thread has suggested that a A1 could turn inside a Lavochkin of any model, other than you.


I suspect Zipper equates a kill with getting inside your victim. "Can't have one without the other!" Someday he'll learn.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 12, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> I fail to see what Mr McNamara has to do with any of this discussion, but who am I to judge?
> 
> 
> One thing when comparing the AD vs WW2-era fighters, like the La-7, is that piston-engined aircraft were probably quite close to the absolute limits on possible performance: a light AD Skyraider would be closer in performance to an La-7 than the "attack" vs "fighter" classification would show: it may have been a bomb truck, but that meant that it had a big wing and a lot of surplus power at light weight. It also had all those landing on carrier concerns, so it probably has quite good behavior at high angles of attack. If the La-7 pilots are trying to get into a turning fight, this would probably not be a good plan.
> ...


Zipper has earned the callsign "McNamara" for his obsession with mathematizing everything.
As for the Skyraider's Mig victims, they should go punch their intelligence officer in the nose for not warning them of the rattlesnake nature of their opponent. "Know thine enemy!"
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 12, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Wait, I thought propellers worked better at low-speeds?



Compared to a jet engine yes.

But a prop plane in a turn (if the turn lasts very long) is going slower than full speed, perhaps a lot slower and no propeller is equally efficient at all speeds. A reason that bombers and transport planes used bigger diameter propellers than fighters even if they used the same engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 12, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Compared to a jet engine yes.
> 
> But a prop plane in a turn (if the turn lasts very long) is going slower than full speed, perhaps a lot slower and no propeller is equally efficient at all speeds. A reason that bombers and transport planes used bigger diameter propellers than fighters even if they used the same engine.


Plus the slower the airspeed the more angle of attack it takes to stay up, so the more the thrust line diverges from the flight path. Only the flight path component of the thrust vector is useful propulsion.
Also, the greater the angle of the prop shaft to the relative wind, the more variation there is in propeller blade AOA around the propeller disc. Thus at only two positions in the propeller disc are the blades operating at the optimum AOA that the governor is seeking. Everywhere else around the disc the AOA is greater or less than optimum.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 12, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> So CLmax is less in a level stall than a turn?
> So they were undertrained...


Jees, man, get a clue! DrGondog knows his stuff and explained it in plain English, then you turn it around and get it back-to-front!
The greatest CLmax occurs in straight-and-level flight, 1G, minimum airspeed: your basic power-off stall. In an accelerated stall such as you might encounter in a combat turn the aircraft's lift vector is near 90 degrees to the force of gravity, the G load is high and so is the stall speed, and for all the reasons quoted by DrGondog, the (rather violent) stall break occurs long before the straight-and-level power-off CLmax is reached. If there's the slightest assymetry in airflow, one wing stalls a split second before the other, and the plane stalls with a neck-wrenching helmet-bashing corkscrew motion. If you're flying an early generation jet, the airflow disruption is apt to flame-out your engine. "Check six, there's a Mig on your tail!" Have fun!
Cheers,
Wes

PS: Those PROC pilots weren't undertrained, they were underproficient due to their degraded physical condition and insufficient monthly flying time to stay sharp.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 12, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> I wonder how in the test they performed back in the WW2 era how they determined the diameter of the circles the aircraft turned in, they assigned values sometimes in feet, yards, or meters. They had no GPS on anything of that sort, and at the altitudes most test were performed, they'd have no way to equate it to a circle on the ground.
> Was it just a WAG?
> 
> They could tell how a certain aircraft, equipped a certain way , at a certain altitude, with a certain pilot flying , could compare to another aircraft at that time under the same variables.
> But to assign a definite fixed value to the tests ? Was it just BS to help morale ?



If you have acceleration, true air speed, and rate of descent, you can determine turn radius.


----------



## GregP (Mar 12, 2017)

Drgondog (Bill) stated the facts. He is correct. No use trying to turn it around somehow and getting it wrong in other words. If you agree with someone, there is a little button at the bottom of the text area with a "thumbs up" icon. If you click it, it means agree. Beats the hell out of a 2-page reply of agreement.

Read it and try to understand the underlying aerodynamic phenomenon. If you do, there's no point asking if the pilot made a mistake. Bill didn't say anything about pilots; just aerodynamics. The things Drgondog quotes assume a properly-flown aircaft. The rest is human interaction, and is subject to anything. So the aerodynamicist assumes the pilot will fly it right at the edge of what is possible, because of the very fact that it is possible to get that performance. Possible aerodynamic poerformance has nothing whatsoever to do with pilot training or actual piloting.

People have been shot down because they were weary and sleepy. Doesn't mean they were normally bad combat pilots. It means they had an attention lapse (happens in a multi-hour flight, regardless of WHO you are), got caught unaware of the present circumstances, and paid for it. Combat typically leaves little room for error, and any luck is somewhat randomly good or bad luck. If your opponent is a cagey combat veteran, your luck is usually bad, but maybe not. Serendipity happens, too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Mar 12, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> I wonder how in the test they performed back in the WW2 era how they determined the diameter of the circles the aircraft turned in, they assigned values sometimes in feet, yards, or meters. They had no GPS on anything of that sort, and at the altitudes most test were performed, they'd have no way to equate it to a circle on the ground.
> Was it just a WAG?
> 
> They could tell how a certain aircraft, equipped a certain way , at a certain altitude, with a certain pilot flying , could compare to another aircraft at that time under the same variables.
> But to assign a definite fixed value to the tests ? Was it just BS to help morale ?


It could be as simple as standing next to a very visible marker in a field with a stop watch. The pilot/test a/c flies over and pulls G's keeping note of the airspeed until he comes back to the marker. Repeat process, and do not stall out. When he stalls out - the prior time rules. Get another pilot, repeat - but in opposite direction. Prior to test, report on load out and any treatment of external drag items (like covering gun ports, sanding surface with fine grit, etc).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Mar 12, 2017)

drgondog said:


> It could be as simple as standing next to a very visible marker in a field with a stop watch. The pilot/test a/c flies over and pulls G's keeping note of the airspeed until he comes back to the marker. Repeat process, and do not stall out. When he stalls out - the prior time rules. Get another pilot, repeat - but in opposite direction. Prior to test, report on load out and any treatment of external drag items (like covering gun ports, sanding surface with fine grit, etc).



Did they have G-meters then?

If they can record G levels and speed they can calculate the radius.

I believe they did have recording instruments that put the data on paper.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 12, 2017)

drgondog said:


> It could be as simple as standing next to a very visible marker in a field with a stop watch. The pilot/test a/c flies over and pulls G's keeping note of the airspeed until he comes back to the marker. Repeat process, and do not stall out. When he stalls out - the prior time rules. Get another pilot, repeat - but in opposite direction. Prior to test, report on load out and any treatment of external drag items (like covering gun ports, sanding surface with fine grit, etc).



If I understand this correctly they'd keep doing this test with pulling tighter and tighter turns until the aircraft stalls out, if you know the airspeed, and the minimum amount of time it takes you complete a non stalled 360, you can compute the turning circle diameter from that . 
OK, I can see that.


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 12, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Zipper has earned the callsign "McNamara" for his obsession with mathematizing everything.
> As for the Skyraider's Mig victims, they should go punch their intelligence officer in the nose for not warning them of the rattlesnake nature of their opponent. "Know thine enemy!"
> Cheers,
> Wes



Punching political officers (probably the same one as the intelligence officer) in the nose is probably a good idea, but also likely to be a career (or life) limiting move. Any fighter pilot should know that a swept-wing jet will not be able to hang with a straight-wing prop, regardless of what the intelligence officer is or isn't saying. Trying to hang with a Gladiator in a FW190 would be a similar error in judgement.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 12, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Punching political officers (probably the same one as the intelligence officer) in the nose is probably a good idea, but also likely to be a career (or life) limiting move. Any fighter pilot should know that a swept-wing jet will not be able to hang with a straight-wing prop, regardless of what the intelligence officer is or isn't saying. Trying to hang with a Gladiator in a FW190 would be a similar error in judgement.


True enough, but if you've just allowed one of Chairman Mao's precious airplanes to be destroyed and didn't go down with your ship, your courage (and your political reliability) are suspect, your nine lives are all expended, and you almost certainly have an appointment with a firing squad. Might as well go down swinging! Failure in combat is a crime against the people, a crime against the state, and a crime against your comrades.
As for straight wing vs swept wing, the Skyraider is a nastier customer than most due to its ability to slow down abruptly then re-accelerate quickly, and its agility at all speeds. Plus, those 20MMs can do a lot of damage.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Mar 12, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Any fighter pilot should know that a swept-wing jet will not be able to hang with a straight-wing prop, regardless of what the intelligence officer is or isn't saying. Trying to hang with a Gladiator in a FW190 would be a similar error in judgement.



Along those lines

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6PnKUEFX8g_


Camel flying at max speed, Spitfire just over stall speed.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 13, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> Zipper730, i'm the one who brought up the fact that A1's had shot down some Lavochkins AFTER the Korean war, exactly what model Lavochkin nobody knew at the time. La5, 7, 9 11, ?


Oh, I thought it was during...


> I'm the one that brought La? verses A1 up


Ok




XBe02Drvr said:


> I suspect Zipper equates a kill with getting inside your victim.


Not at all, there were many cases where aircraft used the vertical plane or some combination of the vertical and horizontal, as well as exploited a lucky opportunity.

However considering the A-26 was said to turn inside an Me-109: I just wanted to know how they compared in that parameter. It is an interesting question: Which turns better a dive-bomber or a two-engine light bomber that replaced a medium or two.

At least one of the A-26's was designed as a prototype to be a night-fighter and I'm curious if strength was built in somehow to allow it to be a competitor with the P-61.


> Zipper has earned the  callsign "McNamara" for his obsession with mathematizing everything.


Actually, my questions start out with "which could turn better" and then it turns into a discussion about mathematics, at which point I press the issue further and get called McNamara, or told I need to learn a thing or two *rolls eyes* -- well duh! If I knew why the hell would I ask the question?


> As for the Skyraider's Mig victims, they should go punch their intelligence officer in the nose for not warning them of the rattlesnake nature of their opponent. "Know thine enemy!"


Well with the MiG-17 or two that got bagged, I should point out that the North Vietnamese were not the most skilled pilots early on. Some of them would try and turn with it rather than use the vertical, and make slashing attacks.


> Plus the slower the airspeed the more angle of attack it takes to stay up, so the more the thrust line diverges from the flight path. Only the flight path component of the thrust vector is useful propulsion.


So the angle of thrust reduces effective thrust compared to flying straight at low speed at 1g; and the increase in AoA producing greater drag?

I remember being told that the Spitfire at 350 mph producing around 1,000 pounds of thrust, probably a great degree more at lower speeds owing to net thrust variation. My question is does net thrust go up at all during initial acceleration before going down? It might sound silly but it's an honest question.


> Also, the greater the angle of the prop shaft to the relative wind, the more variation there is in propeller blade AOA around the propeller disc. Thus at only two positions in the propeller disc are the blades operating at the optimum AOA that the governor is seeking. Everywhere else around the disc the AOA is greater or less than optimum.


So, the blades are sort of in a position that is progressively less ideal as the AoA increases? Is there any connection with this and p-factor (I ask because they both revolve around propeller blades at AoA that vary).


> Jees, man, get a clue! DrGondog knows his stuff and explained it in plain English, then you turn it around and get it back-to-front!


I misunderstood, I figured as AoA increased the CL goes up, so I figured he somehow wrote it backwards. My question was intended to clarify.


> The greatest CLmax occurs in straight-and-level flight, 1G, minimum airspeed: your basic power-off stall. In an accelerated stall such as you might encounter in a combat turn the aircraft's lift vector is near 90 degrees to the force of gravity


So you're producing lift sideways and upwards? Is coefficient of lift related to pressure differential?


> for all the reasons quoted by DrGondog, the (rather violent) stall break occurs long before the straight-and-level power-off CLmax is reached.


So accelerated stalls occur at lower AoA too?


> If there's the slightest assymetry in airflow, one wing stalls a split second before the other, and the plane stalls with a neck-wrenching helmet-bashing corkscrew motion.


Snap roll...


> Those PROC pilots weren't undertrained, they were underproficient due to their degraded physical condition and insufficient monthly flying time to stay sharp.


Okay



GregP said:


> Drgondog (Bill) stated the facts. He is correct. No use trying to turn it around somehow and getting it wrong in other words.


I didn't intend to get it wrong.


> People have been shot down because they were weary and sleepy.


I screwed up that one


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 13, 2017)

Hey Zipper,
Do you know how to draw a vector diagram? Look it up if you don't, then draw a side view of an airplane in a fifteen degrees nose up attitude. Assume it's flight path is horizontal. Now draw the vector diagram of its thrust with its horizontal and vertical components. You'll see what I mean. The steeper the pitch attitude the smaller the portion of the total effective thrust there is acting along the flight path.
Now draw a head-on view of a plane in an eighty degree bank and draw in the lift vector. That skinny little vertical component is all that's holding you up. Now if you make that vertical component equal to the weight of the plane, the horizontal component is turning force ACCELERATING the plane away from its original straight course, and the lift vector (hypotenuse) is the G load on the plane. Got it? Good. Now go read "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" and "Fly the Wing". Both are old standbys and the technowonks will say they're outdated and over simplified, but they'll give you a good start.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 13, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Hey Zipper,
> Do you know how to draw a vector diagram?


No, but I'm taking a look at it


> Look it up if you don't, then draw a side view of an airplane in a fifteen degrees nose up attitude.


I can actually visualize that in my head...


> Assume it's flight path is horizontal. Now draw the vector diagram of its thrust with its horizontal and vertical components. You'll see what I mean. The steeper the pitch attitude the smaller the portion of the total effective thrust there is acting along the flight path.


Yeah the thrust is pointing 15-degrees down so basically 5/6 of it is pushing forward and the other 1/6 is pushing down at an angle.


> Now draw a head-on view of a plane in an eighty degree bank and draw in the lift vector. That skinny little vertical component is all that's holding you up. Now if you make that vertical component equal to the weight of the plane, the horizontal component is turning force ACCELERATING the plane away from its original straight course, and the lift vector (hypotenuse) is the G load on the plane.


So could I put in a hypothetical bank angle that corresponds to a g-load I know (i.e. 60-degrees) for the purpose of getting the hang of the diagram, and make up a specified weight (15,000 pounds sounds good for now)? If so, I got 33,541 for the hypoteneuse, and for weight that gives me a g-load of 2.2361 rounded off. Is that the point, that you'll stall earlier than expected in level flight because the g-load is higher than it "should" be?


> Now go read "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" and "Fly the Wing". Both are old standbys and the technowonks will say they're outdated and over simplified, but they'll give you a good start.


Neither seems exceedingly expensive...[/quote][/quote]


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 13, 2017)

Hey Zipper,
This may sound pedantic, but draw it on paper, don't try to do it in your head. It's basic ninth grade trigonometry, but better to have it graphically depicted in black and white than imagined in the abstract. You went adrift somewhere along the line, as a 60 degree bank is your classic 2G turn, so your 15K airplane should have a 30K lift vector.
When your student gets a little too cocky for his own good because he's mastered 45 degree 720s, on airspeed, on altitude, rolling out on heading, you humble him up a little by having him do it at 60 degrees. A prolonged 2 Gs is daunting to most low-time students. If he/she can pull that off first try, you have another Dick Bong on your hands; send him or her to Annapolis or the Air Force Academy.
Enough of this kindergarten stuff. Come back when you've done your homework.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## GregP (Mar 13, 2017)

Your long replies are sort of wearing on everyone, Zipper. I can tell from the replies as well as my own initial responses ... before typing and committing social suicide ...

It would help a lot if you'd address one subject at a time, ON THE THREAD TOPIC, and not try to learn the entire war or all of aerodynamic theory in one post that is not about the entire war or aerodynamic theory. Just a suggestion. You are the only person in here who posts such rambling replies that cover 10+ subjects. That should tell you seomthing, right there. If you want to stray, it would help to start a new thread on it. That said, I am guilty of it, too, at times. I think we all are, but not almost every time we post.

Just as an excuse for ME only, coming up with a decent reply sometimes takes thinking and time. For myself, I don't usually have the time or inclination to address 5 - 10 things when looking one ething takes awhile. I have no kids, but wouldn't for them, either. It's like talking with someone who asks, "did you walk to work or bring your lunch?" There's no good reply ...

Maybe slow down, take your time, fit in while staying on-subject and staying reasonably short, and you might find out everything you want to know within a reasonable time, and create some good discussion, all at the same time. That's a good thing. Just saying .... you have some interesting questions, but you choose to throw them all out at the same time in a thread about a narrow subject not related to most of them.

Maybe I am seeing it wrong. If so, I am sorry and apologize.

Cheers to you and keep coming back, maybe a bit more focused on the thread topic. Discussion is a good thing, as I mentioned in a PM. If you are conversant in algebra and calculus, Drgondog can and usually does help, but not without limits, especially time limits. You may not know he is an author (I have two of his books) and is currently researching data on accurate aerial victories in a specific Allied theater of war. NOT an easy task, if you can even collect all the combat reports and missing aircrew reports (MACRs). So, while he isn't exactly the resident teacher of aerodynamics, he provides many explanations that satisfy a lot of folks in here. If you are not up on the math, explanations won't make a lot of sense at times, and it might be better to stay qualitative rather than quantitative. Saves time, too. Bill answers regularly, but not all the time. He has a life away from the internet and research to do as well as writing. Can't publish without writing ... and reviewing. I bet that takes as long as writing or longer! 

He almost absolutely WILL give textbook names and authors, for you to buy, read, and absorb. But he'll also know right away that you didn't if you keep asking questions covered in the text. Then, answers get less frequent. Many people SAY they'll get it and don't. In my case, I HAVE often gotten it, and haven't read it yet due to ongoing teaching activities. Makes no difference, but I don't argue about it much anymore. Every time I challenge Drgondog on aeroidynamics, he turns out to be right in the end. I am very glad he isn't a gunfighter. I'd be dead.

FYI, our chief moderator, DerAdler ... etc. was and maybe still IS in military heliicopters. FlyboyJ both flies and is also in aircraft maintenance, including warbirds and Reno race planes (regular race crew). Biff15, not a moderator, was an F-15 pilot until recently. And that's just three guys plus our aeronautical engineer/author/P-51 pilot, Drgondog. You know XBe02Drvr flies , too. There are many others as well as guys so well versed in engines and engine technology as to be scary. You know who they are. They are the ones who reply with meaningful information , and at length. It's hard to stump Wuzak, Shortround5, SwampYankee, MikeWint, and Kutscha, too. Apologies if I missed some, but I AM time-limited, too! A LOT of names, and all good people with good knowledge. Nobody in there wants to answer 20 questions all at once ...

You're not Macnamara because of only math, it's sort of obsession with everything, all at the same time, in ONE thread. But that can easily change, if you will. I hope you try it. We need some good discussion, a bit at a time, since a single subject opens up into others at an alarming rate ... I hope we at LEAST stay away from politics, religion, probiotics, and fluids. Well, maybe aslo ex-wives ...

Post as many salsa or beef jerky recipes as you can think of, anytime ... in any thread ... nobody will mind! They may wonder what it has to DO with anything, but some may at least try it, if it sounds good ... 

Hope it is conveyed above, but no insult intended. Trying to help out a little.

Wait! This post is as long yours above! And covers too many off-topic (A-1 Skyraider vs. A-26) subjects, too. OK, I'll shut up now.

Sorry ... rambling. D'oohhhhhhh ....... it's LATE!


_View: https://youtu.be/0bceCDG0lXk_

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
4 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Mar 13, 2017)

GregP said:


> Your long replies are sort of wearing on everyone, Zipper.
> ....
> 
> Wait! This post is as long yours above!



Irony?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 13, 2017)

Thanks, Greg! (BTW, the "X" in my handle is real. I've been grounded twenty years now.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 13, 2017)

Zipper730 you keep saying the A-26 could turn inside a Bf109, but when you're ask for proof all you can tell us is you saw it on a TV program, one of the individuals involved a well known aviation expert, and a fire bomber pilot. Other than that no details.

It's a meaningless claim without details.

I'm beginning to suspect it's like your claim that a A1 could turn inside a La-5, or La-7. When I asked for proof, you replied it was posted earlier in this thread. But that was not true, it had not been posted earlier, nor implied, nor suggested.


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 13, 2017)

Last time I try and quote something from the pit


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 13, 2017)

GregP said:


> Your long replies are sort of wearing on everyone, Zipper. I can tell from the replies as well as my own initial responses ... before typing and committing social suicide ...
> 
> It would help a lot if you'd address one subject at a time, ON THE THREAD TOPIC, and not try to learn the entire war or all of aerodynamic theory in one post that is not about the entire war or aerodynamic theory. Just a suggestion. You are the only person in here who posts such rambling replies that cover 10+ subjects. That should tell you seomthing, right there.



This is why I blocked him. Plus it makes the thread only 3 pages long(JK)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 13, 2017)

GregP said:


> Your long replies are sort of wearing on everyone


So you'd rather I post ten replies on the same thread than one that covers everything?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just a curious person with a lot of interests.


> If you are conversant in algebra and calculus, Drgondog can and usually does help, but not without limits, especially time limits.


My knowledge of calculus and trig is very little, I can learn like anybody else.


> You may not know he is an author (I have two of his books)


I had no idea


> is currently researching data on accurate aerial victories in a specific Allied theater of war. NOT an easy task, if you can even collect all the combat reports and missing aircrew reports (MACRs)


The raw numbers are staggering


> If you are not up on the math, explanations won't make a lot of sense at times, and it might be better to stay qualitative rather than quantitative.


As I said, I'm willing to learn.


> You're not Macnamara because of only math, it's sort of obsession with everything, all at the same time, in ONE thread.


That sounds about right, the obsession with figures, facts, details, concepts.


> I hope we at LEAST stay away from politics, religion, probiotics, and fluids. Well, maybe aslo ex-wives ...


I try to avoid bringing politics into the equation unless it is absolutely necessary to the discussion, as for religion, I'm not really religious, so that's not an issue, and I don't recall ever talking about probiotics.


> Post as many salsa or beef jerky recipes as you can think of, anytime ... in any thread ... nobody will mind!


Good to know, plus I'm a fan of salsa


----------



## GregP (Mar 14, 2017)

C'mon Zipper, you're doing the same thing above. There EIGHT quotes there! If I were to answer everything above, it would take a lot of time I do NOT want to dedicate to that.

But reading it, nice replies to a criticism. Cool. So ... OK, The tread topic is usually fairly narrow.

If you want to stray into areas other than the thread, the best bet is to start a thread yourself about the new topic (one topic). If you get no replies, then nobody wants to talk about it. If you DO get replies, it will go somewhere.

Saying that, I need to heed that, too! You are the first guy in here I can remember who could take criticism and still be civil, and that's a good thing! So, good on you! It's a tough thing to do, and it shows a willingness to talk. Tough for ANY of us, me included.

Offhand, I'd say 10 questions won't get answered because that is asking for a lot a dedicated time from someone who is basically in here to browse and maybe come across something interesting. They might address 1 to 3, if they answer, and then lose interest / time. Sometimes the wife / kids lets you have maybe a half hour before demanding attention.

It's like giving a presentation to management. Stay on topic and short and you have a chance. Long-winded guys and gals never get asked back for an encore. I live alone and have no "moderators," but also have things to do.

The most important aspect of WWII aerial combat was the pilot. You have already read it here, but a great pilot in a mediocre plane is better than a mediocre pilot in a great plane. Look what the Finns did early in the war with the Brewster Buffalo! That deserves an honorable mention in ANY discussion of pilot vs. aircraft quality. If we had sent them P-51Ds (not available at the time, so not possible), they might have won the war all by themselves!

Well, not really, but they were damned good at employing their planes to the best of the aircraft's capabilities. I'd say they were among the top pilots of the day, Germans included. Memo to posterity:
NEVER piss off a Finnish pilot if he is flying an armed aircraft. You may not have a nice day!

Good luck, Zipper.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Mar 14, 2017)

Well, I learned a lot (reading the meat and potatoes while discarding the fluff).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 14, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Thanks, Greg! (BTW, the "X" in my handle is real. I've been grounded twenty years now.)



there is always ultralights and sport aviation ( if you didn't fail your last med exam )....its all well and good if you can handle low, slow and no fancy maneuvers.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 14, 2017)

bobbysocks said:


> there is always ultralights and sport aviation ( if you didn't fail your last med exam )....its all well and good if you can handle low, slow and no fancy maneuvers.


Yeah, I know, I could still squeak by the eye exam and get a Waiver of Demonstrated Ability for a third class medical. My local glider club has been bugging me to come instruct for them. While that might be legal, it wouldn't be safe. Flight physical eye tests can't detect sky blindness. I have a difficult time seeing planes in the air until they're closer than is comfortable. Low contrast targets are practically invisible to me, especially if they have little to no relative motion (as in collision course). Much as I'd like to be flying, it's not the wise thing to do, given the circumstances.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2017)

GregP said:


> Your long replies are sort of wearing on everyone, Zipper. I can tell from the replies as well as my own initial responses ... before typing and committing social suicide ...
> 
> It would help a lot if you'd address one subject at a time, ON THE THREAD TOPIC, and not try to learn the entire war or all of aerodynamic theory in one post that is not about the entire war or aerodynamic theory. Just a suggestion. You are the only person in here who posts such rambling replies that cover 10+ subjects. That should tell you seomthing, right there. If you want to stray, it would help to start a new thread on it. That said, I am guilty of it, too, at times. I think we all are, but not almost every time we post.
> 
> ...




No longer in military helos here. Now I work on private and business acft. Mostly King Airs. Outside of maint., I fly small single engine acft. 

Agreed with your post though. Cheers...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Thanks, Greg! (BTW, the "X" in my handle is real. I've been grounded twenty years now.)



Good old 1900C?

Got two 1900D's in my hangar tight now.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Yeah, I know, I could still squeak by the eye exam and get a Waiver of Demonstrated Ability for a third class medical. My local glider club has been bugging me to come instruct for them. While that might be legal, it wouldn't be safe. Flight physical eye tests can't detect sky blindness. I have a difficult time seeing planes in the air until they're closer than is comfortable. Low contrast targets are practically invisible to me, especially if they have little to no relative motion (as in collision course). Much as I'd like to be flying, it's not the wise thing to do, given the circumstances.
> Cheers,
> Wes



It's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than being in the air wishing you were on the ground.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 14, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Good old 1900C?
> 
> Got two 1900D's in my hangar tight now.


Yeah, we were the launch customer for the 1900 Airliner. N6667L was UB-1, the prototype for the commuter configured version, and featured in the photos in the first edition ACFM and ACMM in our company colors. Although marketed as a 1900C, it was actually a B model. We eventually wound up with 8 UBs and 3 UCs, which were pretty much the same bird except for a wet (constantly weeping) wing with higher fuel capacity. Lighter and less powerful than your Ds, but livelier. Fuselage was a stretched King Air 300, so low ceiling and cramped seating. But she flew like a little fighter.
Cheers
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Yeah, we were the launch customer for the 1900 Airliner. N6667L was UB-1, the prototype for the commuter configured version, and featured in the photos in the first edition ACFM and ACMM in our company colors. Although marketed as a 1900C, it was actually a B model. We eventually wound up with 8 UBs and 3 UCs, which were pretty much the same bird except for a wet (constantly weeping) wing with higher fuel capacity. Lighter and less powerful than your Ds, but livelier. Fuselage was a stretched King Air 300, so low ceiling and cramped seating. But she flew like a little fighter.
> Cheers
> Wes



Yeah we have an Ameriflight 1900C based at our airport.

The 1900 is pretty much a KA on steroids.

Sorry to get off topic everyone...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 15, 2017)

I used to think civil airplanes were great until I started working aound them. It's hard to believe how bad they can get and still be technically airworthy!

I was working temporarily at an avionics shop and we had a Comanche 180 come in for a pitot-static check. The pito-static guy noticed a lot of control friction, and we started looking.

We found the cable was run by person unknown underneath the radio stack and was wearing on it. The cable was halfway through the radio mounting box and had about another 0.01 inches before sawing through the 24-volt power line on the board!

The owner said not to mind it, he'd take care of it, but we could not legally let an unairworthy condition go. We told him he could fix it or we could fix it, but it was going to be fixed or red-tagged to the FAA before it rolled away from the shop. He was not a happy camper, but he let use fix it. Turned out the control cable had 6 broken strands and needed to be replaced!

This was primary the elevator - aileron cable! and he really wasn't happy because it uncovered another host of issues that had been swept under the rug. Not by us, as were were an avionics shop only, but by a Chino A&P shop. Apparently this guy was getting "paper annuals" for several, if not many, years. I don't know the eventual outcome, but the pitot-static test failed, too and had to be repaired.

I don't care who you are, if you FIND unairworthy stuff, you have to address it!

I'm sure everyone who has worked on aircraft has a few stories, some of which are actually pretty entertaining.

Fire the retro-commode rocket, Mr, Spock! Let's crap on e'm but GOOD!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Mar 15, 2017)

GregP said:


> I used to think civil airplanes were great until I started working aound them. It's hard to believe how bad they can get and still be technically airworthy!
> 
> I was working temporarily at an avionics shop and we had a Comanche 180 come in for a pitot-static check. The pito-static guy noticed a lot of control friction, and we started looking.
> 
> ...



I so agree with that. I had the added burden of having to fly on what I fixed, get the royal treatment from aircrew if my work was less than satisfactory, plus answer not only to my squadron/group/wing brass, but also to Scott AFB (AMC). Also, having to go in behind work done by others and sign off on repairs certifying their work could be a chore.

And yeah, I've got a career's worth of entertaining stories.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 15, 2017)

""I ORDERED you to fix that f...king radar, Boy, and it's still f...king broke! My next hop is at 1400, and if you've signed it off again and it's still f...king broke, Boy, you're going to see the Skipper!"

""Sir, that radar passed all the ground checks. It ops checks OK. Can you tell me what it's doing wrong in flight, Sir?"

"I fly the f...king airplane, Boy, you fix the f...king radar! You're the f...king expert, Boy, so fix the damn thing and don't give me no twenty questions! And don't go bugging my RIO, neither!"

Homo Neanderthalis, but "an officer and a gentleman". An inspirer of entertaining stories.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 15, 2017)

Hey guys, let's get back on topic!


XBe02Drvr said:


> As for straight wing vs swept wing, the Skyraider is a nastier customer than most due to its ability to slow down abruptly then re-accelerate quickly, and its agility at all speeds. Plus, those 20MMs can do a lot of damage.



You're closing on him quickly,
Pipper's on his nose,
One more second, squeeze the trigger,
"Oh shit, where did he go?"

Madly rubbernecking,
Eyes around the clock,
Can not see, where can he be?
"Check your six o'clock!"

Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 15, 2017)

Those four M-39 cannons on the A-1 have a combined rate of fire equal to the Vulcan cannon, 6000 rounds a minute, 100 rounds a second, over 3300 fps MV too. Not a aircraft a opponent would want behind him, even for a second.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Mar 16, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> Those four M-39 cannons on the A-1 have a combined rate of fire equal to the Vulcan cannon, 6000 rounds a minute, 100 rounds a second, over 3300 fps MV too. Not a aircraft a opponent would want behind him, even for a second.



But did it use the M39 or the earlier AN/M2 Hispano-Suiza cannon?


----------



## GregP (Mar 16, 2017)

The Skyraider was absolutely the greatest thing you could possibly see in Viet Nam if the bad guys were around.

They usually travelled in groups of 4, and four of them could orbit overherad for up to maybe 3 hours ... and could either drop something or shoot at something on each and every pass!

None of the bad guys made a single move when Skyraiders were flitting about in anger! They also didn't DARE shoot one down, usually, because that only caused from 8 to 24 more of them to show up REALLY angry, and usually with a lot of stores under the wings. Definitely the King of the Hill. Has they been able to be deployed in WWII, I'm sure they would have been game changers. An Attack plane with the bomb load of a B-17. But, no such luck. The aircraft is rather firmly rooted in WWII technology, though, except for avionics updates.

I am trying to imagine a Skyraider with a Garmin GTN750 in the panel! Talk about a BAD guy! Lotsa' ordnance, can't get lost, and knows EXACTLY whe he is at all times. Could it GET any better?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 16, 2017)

GregP said:


> The Skyraider was absolutely the greatest thing you could possibly see in Viet Nam if the bad guys were around.
> 
> They usually travelled in groups of 4, and four of them could orbit overherad for up to maybe 3 hours ... and could either drop something or shoot at something on each and every pass!
> 
> ...


Can you imagine an A-26 doing as well? I can't. Zipper 23 fodder.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## GregP (Mar 16, 2017)

No I can't imagine it, but the A-26 WAS formidable, even if it never could come CLOSE to out-turning a real-world Skyraider. It was probably the best medium bomber "at the end of the war," not the one with the best war record, because it arrived late. The B-25 was there for the entire race and had immense statistics for tonnage and other variables.

There was never a B-25 that could hang with an A-26 at the speed of anger, but it did very well despite all that. The Martin B-26 turned from the "Widow Maker" and "Baltimore Whore" (no visible means of support: small wings, high stall speed) into one of the the safest medium bombers of the war, so an intial problem with an early plane was NOT the death-nell of it. Actual training helped a LOT.

Very obviously nothing you don't already know ...

Clear the relief tube! Gnarfle the Garthog! Mepps .... to quote Conehead ...


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 16, 2017)

wuzak said:


> But did it use the M39 or the earlier AN/M2 Hispano-Suiza cannon?


 Most used the M3 cannon. A development of the AN/M2, similar to the British MK 5. 
Most Vietnam Skyraiders may have had extra armor. 





There were different armor "kits" for different model Skyraiders.


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 16, 2017)

wuzak said:


> But did it use the M39 or the earlier AN/M2 Hispano-Suiza cannon?


You're right, it's the F-100 that had 4 M-39s. I think the Vietnam era A1E's and H's the AF had had been upgraded to M3's.
I doubt you could get a M39 in a A1s wing.
They did some experiments with M-39, and Vulcan pods, at NKP while I was there. 
I think gun pods hung from bomb racks weren't very accurate, but that's just what the line talk was about them.
I was just a enlisted man, I wasn't in on the official results.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 16, 2017)

Apparently ole Dave took the hint.....




​


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 16, 2017)

GregP said:


> C'mon Zipper, you're doing the same thing above. There EIGHT quotes there! If I were to answer everything above, it would take a lot of time I do NOT want to dedicate to that.


1. Quoting: I thought the general issue was quoting different members in one fell swoop (I find that difficult to do -- as it seems an urge exists to then punch out 20 replies rather than batch quote all as there's so many interesting responses!).

2. Criticism: I can usually take criticism okay, so long as it's meant to be actual advice, and not meant to just dump on, be nasty, or cruel. At that point I usually get ticked off.

3. Multiple questions in topic: When I start up a topic, I honestly don't always know where it's going to go. There are some surprising things that can pop-up in one thread! When that happens, I usually ask follow-ups to those questions. 

The P-47 question for example came into it because I was just puzzled how they'd compare in payload/range and agility to the A-1 (The P-47's were not the most maneuverable fighters and, when used as fighter bombers, usually a cover group was employed in an air-to-air trim), though I suppose I could have created a new thread around that...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 16, 2017)

wuzak said:


> But did it use the M39 or the earlier AN/M2 Hispano-Suiza cannon?


Even with the AN/M2s, an A-1 could deliver 46 2/3 rounds/sec. Don't think I'd want to be in front of that, either!
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 17, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> I think pods hung from bomb racks weren't very accurate, but that's just what the line talk was about them.
> I was just a enlisted man, I wasn't in on the official results.


I worked for a bit at GE where the Vulpod was built. You're right, it was a huge disappointment. One of the engineers had been a fighter pilot, and he said loudly from the outset it wouldn't be accurate. He understood the difference between theory and reality when it came to bomb shackles and sway braces. He was promptly shipped off to Chu Lai to do tech support.
Both the Navy and the AF shipped pods back to us and said they were misaligned. Tested good on our range. Turns out they shot straight on when freshly hung, but were useless after the first high-G maneuver. If they were fired with any G load on the aircraft, the gunsight couldn't do its prediction thing properly due to wandering bullet strike.
That was the impetus for the F-4E.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Mar 17, 2017)

Robin Olds was particularly vocal in 1967 about the need for the internal gun.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 17, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Radar?? An AI radar in an aircraft flying level at constant speed on a track that would bisect the circle after the turn was complete would give a series of range and azimuth plots that could be corrected for the radar aircraft's travel to give a plotted circle. Probably too sophisticated for the equipment of the time. I know the ACM range radar in my day could do it. A nugget who was not getting the most out of his airplane was readily apparent to the range operators and ACM instructors watching.
> Cheers,
> Wes





drgondog said:


> Robin Olds was particularly vocal in 1967 about the need for the internal gun.


Along with the "fighter mafia".


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 17, 2017)

My apologies for the irrelevant quote above about AI radar and turning circles. My not-so-smartphone is getting funky on me and every once in awhile dredges up something out of the blue or drops something I typed. Maybe my "senior moments" are contagious!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Mar 17, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Along with the "fighter mafia".


True Dat. I was at the 67 (IIRC) American Fighter Aces Reunion and Robin was holding court amongst many friendlies. With him from Viet Nam was LtCol Bob Earthquake McGoon Titus with three Mig kills, and USN Captain Billy Kidd who flew F-8s and was already 'suitably armed' with internal 20mm.

There were a lot of converging forces including John Boyd and the Pentagon 'Fighter Mafia' including General Gordy Graham. 

I had several sources with live experience that said the failure rate for the Aim 7 and Sparrow were 95+%

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 17, 2017)

One of my simulator instructors at F-15 RTU (circa 1991-1992) was a Vietnam F-4 Driver who had a gun pod kill face shot. Totally intense, but good guy. Gives credibility to the saying, "Never let a bandit cross your nose for free".

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 18, 2017)

The USN and USAF, along with VVO-Strany and the RN and RAF were all eschewing guns on fighter aircraft, especially those primarily tasked with air defense, at about that time: it was a fashion, something like plaid suits.

As an aside, and something which I do not have good sources for, I've read that F4 pilots did not get much training in fighter-fighter combat before the USN started the Top Gun program, and many of the USAF fighter pilots had a similar gap in training, and that, at least in the USN, only the Crusader pilots received regular training in fighter-fighter combat. As I said, I don't have good sources for this; if anybody does, it would be great if they would post them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 18, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> The USN and USAF, along with VVO-Strany and the RN and RAF were all eschewing guns on fighter aircraft, especially those primarily tasked with air defense, at about that time: it was a fashion, something like plaid suits.
> 
> 
> Tha





swampyankee said:


> The USN and USAF, along with VVO-Strany and the RN and RAF were all eschewing guns on fighter aircraft, especially those primarily tasked with air defense, at about that time: it was a fashion, something like plaid suits.


While that may be true, how many other countries brought out fighters, in the F-4's era, that had no guns at all ?


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 19, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> While that may be true, how many other countries brought out fighters, in the F-4's era, that had no guns at all ?


How many other countries could develop them?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 19, 2017)

Sorry, this is a bungled edit. Can't get the system to delete it.
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 19, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> The USN and USAF, along with VVO-Strany and the RN and RAF were all eschewing guns on fighter aircraft, especially those primarily tasked with air defense, at about that time: it was a fashion, something like plaid suits.
> 
> As an aside, and something which I do not have good sources for, I've read that F4 pilots did not get much training in fighter-fighter combat before the USN started the Top Gun program, and many of the USAF fighter pilots had a similar gap in training, and that, at least in the USN, only the Crusader pilots received regular training in fighter-fighter combat. As I said, I don't have good sources for this; if anybody does, it would be great if they would post them.


I worked with a Navy F-4 ACM training squadron shortly after Top Gun was established, and the instructors had all had their initial training in the pre-Top Gun era. Apparently the Navy in those days envisioned the F-4 as a long range fleet defense interceptor and nuclear weapons delivery system. Their training in air-to-air focused on long range detection and interception of Badger/Blinder/Beauty class threats with BVR missile kills. Mixing it up with single seat fighters in visual combat was just not part of the scenario. That's what the F-8 was for. ACM training was further limited by a safety-driven prohibition against dissimilar types dogfighting of any kind. The AIM-7 Sparrow spent its entire life "on the verge of" and "one tweak away from" reliable performance. Never quite got there. Kinda like the torpedo performance issues of WWII, the R&D folks never quite believed what the combat folks were telling them.
When McNamara stuffed the Navy-developed F-4 down the Air Force's gagging throat, the AF begged for at least an internal Vulcan like their Century Series had, but the answer was "WYSIWYG". The F-4C was an F-4B with a cheaper radar, a full set of flight controls in back, and softer struts. Mac couldn't even be talked into eliminating the tailhook!
Air combat doctrine of the day was predicated on the concept of "sterile airspace" where all bogies are bandits, where IFF always works, and friendly fire losses are not an issue. It took a while (years!) for the realities of Vietnam to set in.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 19, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I worked with a Navy F-4 ACM training squadron shortly after Top Gun was established, and the instructors had all had their initial training in the pre-Top Gun era. Apparently the Navy in those days envisioned the F-4 as a long range fleet defense interceptor and nuclear weapons delivery system. Their training in air-to-air focused on long range detection and interception of Badger/Blinder/Beauty class threats with BVR missile kills. Mixing it up with single seat fighters in visual combat was just not part of the scenario. That's what the F-8 was for. ACM training was further limited by a safety-driven prohibition against dissimilar types dogfighting of any kind. The AIM-7 Sparrow spent its entire life "on the verge of" and "one tweak away from" reliable performance. Never quite got there. Kinda like the torpedo performance issues of WWII, the R&D folks never quite believed what the combat folks were telling them.
> When McNamara stuffed the Navy-developed F-4 down the Air Force's gagging throat, the AF begged for at least an internal Vulcan like their Century Series had, but the answer was "WYSIWYG". The F-4C was an F-4B with a cheaper radar, a full set of flight controls in back, and softer struts. Mac couldn't even be talked into eliminating the tailhook!
> Air combat doctrine of the day was predicated on the concept of "sterile airspace" where all bogies are bandits, where IFF always works, and friendly fire losses are not an issue. It took a while (years!) for the realities of Vietnam to set in.
> Cheers,
> Wes




While it is fun to blame everything on McNamara, what did the USAF have for air combat in that era? One would also like to ask what, regardless of how good, would the AF take from the navy without gagging except budget? Pretty much nothing. Air Force and Navy purchasing decisions from the Eisenhower era were not McNamara's fault, like no guns. The TFX mess was less because of jointness than trying to stuff two wildly different missions into one airframe.

The problems in Vietnam had a lot of sources, including people whose working clothes include stars and eagles on epaulettes, not just grey three piece suits.

Sorry for the choppy writing. I'm blaming my tablet.

---------------------------------

(addendum, on a real computer)

There were, and are, a lot of political "issues" between the USAF and USN; I suspect that these have been more problematic at the higher levels of command than in the field and I suspect that they are now much less severe than they were in the 1960s. I would conclude, then that a lot of the AF's gagging at having to accept the F4H, initially as the F-110, was more due to the necessity of accepting an aircraft developed for the USN than due to problems with the aircraft. Of course, one very real issue at the time was that the USAF needed an aircraft that was better at air-air than what they had in their inventory: the F-104 was designed as a fighter, but it's air combat success was, at best, mediocre (F-104A/B in Combat with Pakistan AF) and the USAF never seemed to be enthusiastic with the type. The F-106 was, from what I've read, quite good in air combat, but it had no gun and the Falcon missile made the Sparrow and Sidewinder seem paragons of success. The F-105 was, in essence, a bomber. The F-100 was suffering from irremedial fatigue issues. The time frame was too short to get the USAF a brand-dandy new airplane uncontaminated by navy blue paint.

As an aside, quite a lot of the R&D money spent on the F-15 was so they could get the same electronic performance as in the Phantom without a back-seater.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 19, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg


Is 50 pounds of stick force the maximum for roll? It seems a decent amount but I'm just curious


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 19, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I worked with a Navy F-4 ACM training squadron shortly after Top Gun was established, and the instructors had all had their initial training in the pre-Top Gun era. Apparently the Navy in those days envisioned the F-4 as a long range fleet defense interceptor and nuclear weapons delivery system. Their training in air-to-air focused on long range detection and interception of Badger/Blinder/Beauty class threats with BVR missile kills. Mixing it up with single seat fighters in visual combat was just not part of the scenario. That's what the F-8 was for. ACM training was further limited by a safety-driven prohibition against dissimilar types dogfighting of any kind. The AIM-7 Sparrow spent its entire life "on the verge of" and "one tweak away from" reliable performance. Never quite got there. Kinda like the torpedo performance issues of WWII, the R&D folks never quite believed what the combat folks were telling them.
> When McNamara stuffed the Navy-developed F-4 down the Air Force's gagging throat, the AF begged for at least an internal Vulcan like their Century Series had, but the answer was "WYSIWYG". The F-4C was an F-4B with a cheaper radar, a full set of flight controls in back, and softer struts. Mac couldn't even be talked into eliminating the tailhook!
> Air combat doctrine of the day was predicated on the concept of "sterile airspace" where all bogies are bandits, where IFF always works, and friendly fire losses are not an issue. It took a while (years!) for the realities of Vietnam to set in.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Wes,

The AIM-7 did grow into a great missile. I liked it for it's size, wingspan, and warhead. In a turning fight, if you launched inside parameters, it worked well. Even if it didn't explode (which didn't happen as far as I know), I can't imagine what getting hit by a 500lb supersonic missile would do to a plane... The AIM-7 is gone these days, but remembered fondly. I shot a total of 7 of them and it was remarkably reliable. 

The hook remains on USAF jets, and MacDonald Douglas made a strong, non-skipping one. The F-4 had a high success / engagement rate, as does the Eagle. Our small USAF brethren have no where near the faith in theirs as we do in ours, for good reason.

The training shortfall that existed prior to Vietnam was thankfully cleared up. I flew with quite a few guys who would talk about it. Todays training has almost no limits, and is sculpted to keep you successful and alive in combat. I started doing DACT (Dissimilar Air Combat Training) in F-15 initial training and it was not treated as something "unique". I have fought F-15's (A-E models, Saudis), F-16's (US, Asian & European), Mirage 2000's, Tornado's, F-4's (US & German), F-5's, F-18's (Top Gun, USMC & Canadian), AV-8's, F-14's, Mig-29's, and have tapped A-10s, B-1's, B-52's (who can put out enough chaff to FOD our your motors), P-3's, and C-130s, plus Hind & Apaches plus some I've probably forgot.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 19, 2017)

BiffF15 said:


> ...
> I have fought F-15's (A-E models, Saudis), F-16's (US, Asian & European), Mirage 2000's, Tornado's, F-4's (US & German), F-5's, F-18's (Top Gun, USMC & Canadian), AV-8's, F-14's, Mig-29's, and have tapped A-10s, B-1's, B-52's (who can put out enough chaff to FOD our your motors), P-3's, and C-130s, plus Hind & Apaches plus some I've probably forgot.



Biff - would it be the violation of OPSEC if you post here what fighters, and/or people flying them, you consider the toughest of the bunch?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 19, 2017)

Tomo,

I will break it down into two types, 4 v 4 or greater and 1 v 1. 

4 v 4+ the Europeans (Dutch in particular) did well, but they trained to it more frequently than their US counterparts. The late model F-16 (US) guys also did fairly well as they had a very good radar, and the USMC F-18 guys were good also.

USN F-18 when operating in boat mentality needed some work. F-14s were probably the ones who needed the most help.

1 v 1 The GE powered F-16s are phenomenal. They could make some major errors and recover due to thrust alone. F-18s are a good fight. Mig-29s are also a handful but very short legged. I did a 1 v 1 with a Mig in which from take off to him calling Bingo was 12 minutes. No legs. 

Mirages never came to the merge, tactics were unrealistic. I hear it's a capable plane.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Mar 19, 2017)

Have a friend that flew the F4 in a Wild Weasel role for the USAF, if you ask me regardless of the airframe that role takes guts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Mar 19, 2017)

That's him and the family!

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 19, 2017)

As of '62/'63, USAF had numerous interceptor types, one nuclear bomber masquerading as a fighter, and one unsatisfactory day fighter that was really in concept a point-defense interceptor. It was their attempt to hold design competition to replace the aging Hun that set off McNamara. Their vision of a general purpose fighter was definitely NOT the F-4! The Phantom was too big, too heavy, too thirsty, all to lug around a massive radar set way more capable than needed for the USAF GCI-dominated environment, and a useless Guy In Back to run it. Plus, as a general purpose fighter, it ought to have integral cannons for tactical missions. (They LOVED the Vulcan). Mac, in his obsession with multi-role versatility, insisted in his ground pounder ignorance that pod guns would do the trick. And he held the purse strings. I was in high school in those days and following all these developments with avid curiosity. The local library had a subscription to Aviation Week and I had Air Progress and was in hog heaven! I figured out the F-104 was a sorry excuse long before the Luftwaffe lost all those pilots. I also had developed a healthy skepticism of the electronic BVR "sterile airspace" mindset long before the USAF and USN started shooting each other down over Vietnam.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 19, 2017)

I know the possibility was there.
But how many friendly fire aircraft shoot downs did we have during the Vietnam era ?
I'm asking air to air, not ground fire mistakes.


----------



## Robert Porter (Mar 19, 2017)

I could not find any air to air instances of friendly fire during the Vietnam war era. I did see where a Cessna Spotter plane was accidentally shot down by flying through an artillery barrage. This list from Wikipedia is fairly complete and well cited. List of friendly fire incidents - Wikipedia


----------



## Robert Porter (Mar 19, 2017)

Another list, also no air to air. US Casualties from Friendly Fire Incidents in Vietnam - Air Incidents


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 20, 2017)

I was told (anecdotally) there were several cases early on of A-4s and F-100s being shot down over the North by friendly fire. In any case, ROEs were quickly changed to require VIDs before weapons release. IAC, I wouldn't think it too farfetched to suspect the records of being "corrected" to protect the "innocent".
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 20, 2017)

With the dismal record the missiles had early on, what the chance of the few times they worked, they brought down one of our own aircraft ?
After 1965, other than Misty Fac, and Wild Weasels, the F-100 wasn't used over North Vietnam.

There's not one recorded incident of a F-100 being brought down by another aircraft during Vietnam, friendly or enemy.

In my 8 years in the USAF and Army, during the Vietnam era, I heard a lot of anecdotal tales, I didn't believe them all. I got so if I didn't see it myself, i'd file it away as only a possibility.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 20, 2017)

_WHAT???? _you mean stories told in the mess hall, hangers, latrines weren't ALL 100% TRUE historical fact??????

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Mar 20, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> _WHAT???? _you mean stories told in the mess hall, hangers, latrines weren't ALL 100% TRUE historical fact??????


You forgot strip clubs and bars... all true my friend.

Now about this one stripper, Chevelle, in Alaska.... talk about a two speed supercharger...


----------



## Peter Gunn (Mar 20, 2017)

I'm not sure what makes my head spin more, to find out all those mess hall, latrine stories aren't true or that drgondog actually used the term "True Dat"... Truly the apocalypse _MUST_ be upon us.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Mar 20, 2017)

As everyone knows, alcohol is the worlds most effective truth serum. One never lies (convincingly) when under the influence so therefor all of those stories told in bars and BBQ's MUST be true. Of course a secondary effect of alcohol is that it is also a world class means of lowering ones ability to sense deception!


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 20, 2017)

Alcohol is a two-edged sword when it comes to truth. Yes, it can result in inadvertent disclosures of the truth...but it also makes unattractive women gorgeous.

Sorry if the above is deemed sexist but I have no experience of whether alcohol makes ugly men into Brad Pitt lookalikes.


----------



## Fighterguy (Mar 20, 2017)

On the discussion of AIM-7's, they really did become more reliable in the latter years. Out of 37 missile kills during the Gulf War, 25 were made with the AIM-7M. One of the factors regarding missile reliability in Vietnam would be environmental conditions. The heat and humidity takes a toll. A couple good books to read in regards to USAF fighter tactics and design during this era (error), is 
"Fighter Pilot: The Memoirs of Legendary Ace Robin Olds," and "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War." Both describe how the "Bomber Boys," such as Curtis Lemay, relegated fighters to anti-bomber interceptor and tactical strike only, actual dogfighting was regarded as obsolete and attempts to conduct training in aerial combat were severely dealt with.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Fighterguy (Mar 20, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> While that may be true, how many other countries brought out fighters, in the F-4's era, that had no guns at all ?


Pretty sure most had guns. The Israeli's flew French made Mirage IIIC's sporting two 30mm cannons to great effect during the 1967 Six Day War. Reality was proving the missile only advocates wrong. Many of the radar systems of the time were unable to find and lock onto aircraft at BVR distances. Most air combat, even today, takes place within visual range.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 20, 2017)

All right guys, the jokes about EM club scuttlebutt and other such fairy tales are starting to wear a little thin. The anecdotes I referred to didn't come from such sources, they came from RAG squadron instructor pilots and RIOs in the course of radar intercept training. I mentioned them as anecdotal only because I didn't see them in an official publication.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 20, 2017)

Ok, but I would note that part of the P-38s poor reputation comes from USAAF instructors (or senior pilots) telling new pilots to cruise the P-38 using engine conditions _against _the recommendations of _both _Lockheed and Allison. 
US Army also told troops early in the Veitnam war that the M-16 was self cleaning  
They had to back track on that one pretty quick. 

Now perhaps a near miss was changed to a lost aircraft in the 're-telling" in order to impress on the class the importance of proper procedures and NOT to trust the equipment quite as much???
A little 'selective' exaggeration in the effort to prevent blue on blue incidents may not be a bad thing in general.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 20, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Ok, but I would note that part of the P-38s poor reputation comes from USAAF instructors (or senior pilots) telling new pilots to cruise the P-38 using engine conditions _against _the recommendations of _both _Lockheed and Allison.
> US Army also told troops early in the Veitnam war that the M-16 was self cleaning
> Now perhaps a near miss was changed to a lost aircraft in the 're-telling" in order to impress on the class the importance of proper procedures and NOT to trust the equipment quite as much???
> A little 'selective' exaggeration in the effort to prevent blue on blue incidents may not be a bad thing in general.


Dimes to dollars the P-38 engine situation was an "old dogs, new tricks" problem. Those senior types almost certainly cut their teeth on an older generation of engines with a different set of limitations and operating procedures. Early radials didn't take well to being run "oversquare"; Allisons were tougher and could take it.
"You have a problem with your M-16, son? Take it up with Mattel!"
Oh, and didn't Big Pharma assure the medical community that opioid pain relievers were non-addicting?
Your concrept of "selective exaggeration" seems plausible, I admit I never quite thought of it that way.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 21, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Ok, but I would note that part of the P-38s poor reputation comes from USAAF instructors (or senior pilots) telling new pilots to cruise the P-38 using engine conditions _against _the recommendations of _both _Lockheed and Allison.
> US Army also told troops early in the Veitnam war that the M-16 was self cleaning
> They had to back track on that one pretty quick.
> 
> ...



The USAF adopted the M-16 before the Army. I entered the Air Force in 65, qualified with the M1 carbine in basic, but as soon as got orders for SEA the next year I had to re-qualify with the M-16. The Air Force never told us the M-16 was self cleaning.

I've heard that the Army told their troops early on that the M-16 needed no cleaning but have always been skeptical about the tale.
My older brother was in the Army 51-76. And he was in Vietnam 63, 65, 67, and 71. 
In the past I asked him specifically if he was told the M-16 needed no cleaning. He said he didn't recall that, but when his unit was supplied with M-16's in country in 1965 they arrived with no cleaning kits. Him and most of the other NCOs in his unit (173rd ABN) went apeshit. They had to do a quick adaptation from other cleaning kits, like a combination 22 barrel brush, and carbine barrel brush for the chamber. Not ideal, but better than nothing. 
Other units might have had different reactions.
But this is just my memory of him recalling some of his memories.
I do know when I got into the Army in 69 they had certainly come full circle away from the M-16 being self cleaning.


----------



## GregP (Mar 21, 2017)

I found the ones where the teller of the tale was heroic were very suspect, but the ones where the facts were related, with no heroics other than the luck of the draw were more often than not, a bit closer to the facts that would later turn out to be the case. Not always, but a lot of the time. Most of the pilots I have spoken with who shot down planes in dogfights were after maybe one of them. Anything else was a lucky encounter, and luck could have gone either way.

While speaking with Ralph Parr, he related that most of his victories happened while going after one plane and then having to use all his skills, such as they were trying to avoid joining the victim or, sometimes just the target that didn't get even hit. His oft-repeated dogfight with many MiG at low level was, in his own words, a running attempt to avoid being shot down by every one of them, while shooting a few bursts at the MiGs as they were occasionally close to being in his gunsight as he evaded others and happened to notice the good sight picture. He didn't build himslef up at all and said he tried to learn from every flight and not do the same stupid things next time.

He had 10 victories oin Korea, and said he had a good, solid lock on maybe 3 of them. The rest were victories that happened but could easily have not been so. He figured he came close to being a victim at least 5 times in fights and another time when he broke hard after hearing a call to break, without ever seeing the MiG. He figured it was a bad call, but felt a thud and found a hole in the Sabre after landing. Apparently the shell didn't explode, but went right through. He sort of smiled and allowed that maybe he was holding his tongue just right and got lucky that time.

He said that you could have the best plan in the world, and SHOULD. But ALL battle plans go formly out the window when you encounter an enemy who isn't quite as surprised as you would like him to be. Once he starts doing the unexpected, which is usually, it dengerates into action - reaction. And the guy who gets you is definitely one of the many you didn't see coming. Therefore, the BEST setup is one on one. Any time there was more than one enemy plane, there was SOMEBODY you didn't see. The trick was not to be the one he was concentrating on, and you had nothing to do with that decision.

One of the funny things he said was that after every single fight, he found his fuel was less than he expected it to be. He wondered how the engine could be so frugal with fuel, except when you were in a fight, and then double the fuel consumption for only that time period. After a certian point in any flight, all decisions were based on fuel remaining, and he said the proper point in the flight was usually right after takeoff.

In Viet Nam, he said you'd take off, hit a tanker, check your watch and hit a tanker, hit the target and hit a tanker, and then fly home, almost out of fuel, wondering where the nearest tanker was ... if he was in a bar, his hero was the tanker's gas-passer (boom-operator).

I hear that in desert storm, the main heros were the controllers in the AWACS! Can't say, myself.

My hero in younger years was always Hugh Hefner ... or Paul Mantz, take your pick. Both had and did things all wanted. Women were cheaper than aircraft, but the planes never complained about anything much, either, and NEVER stole your credit card(s). So, while it COULD be a tossup, I'll take a Piper Cub today! It's cheaper and doesn't get mad at you just when you're having some fun.


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 21, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I worked for a bit at GE where the Vulpod was built. You're right, it was a huge disappointment. One of the engineers had been a fighter pilot, and he said loudly from the outset it wouldn't be accurate. He understood the difference between theory and reality when it came to bomb shackles and sway braces. He was promptly shipped off to Chu Lai to do tech support.


1. Gun-Pod Problems: Why did the pod misalign and wobble in flight? There were gun-pods and gun-packs in WWII that worked...
2. Wandering-Bullet Strike: What's that?


----------



## Greyman (Mar 21, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> 1. Gun-Pod Problems: Why did the pod misalign and wobble in flight? There were gun-pods and gun-packs in WWII that worked...



My uneducated guess is the ram air turbine that popped out the side during firing.


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 21, 2017)

Greyman said:


> My uneducated guess is the ram air turbine that popped out the side during firing.


Fascinating...


----------



## GregP (Mar 21, 2017)

Gunpods are subject to high inflight vibration. Airframe-mounted guns are not nearly to the same degree.

All stores vibrate, bar NONE, Why would you want a gun pod? There is NO reason for one.

Mount a gun or don't. A gun pod is useless ... can 't hit anything with one, but can spray an area.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 21, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> 1. Gun-Pod Problems: Why did the pod misalign and wobble in flight? There were gun-pods and gun-packs in WWII that worked...
> 2. Wandering-Bullet Strike: What's that?


1. Bomb racks have shackles to hold and release the stores and braces to keep the stores from wobbling or swaying too much under flight loads as the aircraft maneuvers. Have you done any shooting? If so, you know how a tiny displacement of your rifle at the instant of firing (such as a flinch in anticipation of the recoil) can throw your bullet strike off target at a hundred yards. Now imagine trying to hold that rifle on target at ten times that range while your seat and shooting bench are tilted and twisted and subjected to varying G loads. Get the picture? Your Vulpod is going to require an absolutely rigid mount with zero flex and zero sway to rival the accuracy of an internally mounted gun. Now take a fighter jet and fly it and maintain it and bomb with it for a year in the jungles of Southeast Asia. Then hang a Vulpod that weighs as much as a bomb on one of your bomb racks. What are your chances of achieving zero flex and zero sway under all conditions of G load, airspeed, vibration, and recoil with those tired, worn bomb shackles and braces? Any ordnance grunt working the flight line can answer that question for you, even if the suits in the front office can't.
2. Should be obvious from 1. A computing gunsight calculates bullet strike with corrections for speed, G load, deflection angle, range, trajectory, and a host of other factors, but it operates on the assumption that the gun remains rigidly aligned with the centerline of the aircraft. Any flex or sway of the mount, and all bets are off. You're not aiming, you're spraying. And as for WWII gunpacks, the ones I know of were bolted to the airplane as a semi-permanent installation, not hung from bomb racks.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Mar 21, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> *SNIP*
> 
> Him and most of the other NCOs in his unit (173rd ABN) went apeshit. They had to do a quick adaptation from other cleaning kits, like a combination 22 barrel brush, and carbine barrel brush for the chamber. Not ideal, but better than nothing.
> Other units might have had different reactions.
> ...



Small world, my older brother was in the 173rd in '71 in country.


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 21, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> 1. Bomb racks have shackles to hold and release the stores and braces to keep the stores from wobbling or swaying too much under flight loads as the aircraft maneuvers. Have you done any shooting? If so, you know how a tiny displacement of your rifle at the instant of firing (such as a flinch in anticipation of the recoil) can throw your bullet strike off target at a hundred yards. Now imagine trying to hold that rifle on target at ten times that range while your seat and shooting bench are tilted and twisted and subjected to varying G loads. Get the picture? Your Vulpod is going to require an absolutely rigid mount with zero flex and zero sway to rival the accuracy of an internally mounted gun. Now take a fighter jet and fly it and maintain it and bomb with it for a year in the jungles of Southeast Asia. Then hang a Vulpod that weighs as much as a bomb on one of your bomb racks. What are your chances of achieving zero flex and zero sway under all conditions of G load, airspeed, vibration, and recoil with those tired, worn bomb shackles and braces? Any ordnance grunt working the flight line can answer that question for you, even if the suits in the front office can't.
> 2. Should be obvious from 1. A computing gunsight calculates bullet strike with corrections for speed, G load, deflection angle, range, trajectory, and a host of other factors, but it operates on the assumption that the gun remains rigidly aligned with the centerline of the aircraft. Any flex or sway of the mount, and all bets are off. You're not aiming, you're spraying. And as for WWII gunpacks, the ones I know of were bolted to the airplane as a semi-permanent installation, not hung from bomb racks.
> Cheers,
> Wes



Wes,
You are absolutely correct about the gun pod versus internal mount! Gun pods are not a good answer (let's see how the USMC F-35 gunpod works out). Some lessons are re-learned again and again.
The Eagle gunsight also takes into account flex in the fuselage while under G.
Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 21, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> 1. Gun-Pod Problems: Why did the pod misalign and wobble in flight? There were gun-pods and gun-packs in WWII that worked...
> 2. Wandering-Bullet Strike: What's that?


 Just what gun pods are you referring to ?
The gun pods on B-25s and B-26 were solidly fixed to the airframe. The Luftwaffe had some gun pods that hung under the wings of whatever aircraft they chose, several MG 42s, but meant for ground strafing over masses of troops and soft vehicles, not hardly considered accurate.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 21, 2017)

Another problem with the gun pod Vulcans were they could be slow firing, or slow to get up to their firing rate with that ram air turbine.
Firing rate depended on the airspeed of the aircraft.
If you've ever heard a vulcan fire, you can tell the first dozen or so shells are fired at a slower rate than those later in the burst. This is with the normally powered Vulcan.

A gun pod armed F-4 coming out of a hard turn might not get much of a rate of fire out of the ram turbine powered pod.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 21, 2017)

At GE, I remember seeing three types of Vulpods, RAT, electric, and hydraulic. No idea which aircraft type or what services used each type. I'm sure the electrics and hydraulics would have had faster spin up times than the RAT.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## GregP (Mar 21, 2017)

The pods they are talking abiout were mounted to hardpoints under the wing, not to the fuselage or bolted to the. The pods that miss are the ones that use the bomb shackles as the main mount, with the small anti-vibration feet holding the pod straight.

The ones on the B-25 (we have some) are actually called machine gun blisters, if the old hands are correct, and are pretty solidly mounted. They DO cost the B-25 some 12 - 15 knots, and we typically remove them for aerial photo work to regain that speed without running the engines any harder.

Just as an afterthought, I was under the impression the F-35 has an internal 25 mm cannon. At post above mentions a gun pod, though. Would someone care to explain that? Perhaps the F-35 gun pod is an option for ground attack? Perhaps in addition to the internal gun? I'll go look myself now that it came up, and I'm not looking for an in-depth discussion (to go off-topic for very long), just a confirmation that F-35 HAS an internal cannonm as I believe it does.

Cheers!

Edit: Nevermind about the gun pod question, I found it. I am now back in the get rid of the F-35 camp, but shall stay out of that discussion in the modern forum, as I said I would. No more about it in here, either, except to say that at least the F-35A has an internal gun! Gotta' like that part!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 21, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> If you've ever heard a vulcan fire, you can tell the first dozen or so shells are fired at a slower rate than those later in the burst. This is with the normally powered Vulcan.


Everybody within 25-30 miles of the GE test range (which means pretty much all of central Vermont) could hear the Vulcans and Minis being tested, although most had no idea what it was. Sasquatch? No, just "rhino farts" and "goat farts". Never heard a jet-mounted Vulcan in action, but the test guns we heard all the time had no detectable spin-up lag. I suspect the test stands had more power available than the aircraft.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 21, 2017)

The only one i've heard is the Vulcan mounted on a M113, used for air defense in Europe in the early 70's.
I think they had a reduced rate of fire from the aircraft mounted 20mm.
But you could tell the first part of each burst was of a lower pitch growl than the rest of the burst, even if it just lasted a second.

Now the minigun I've heard quit often, and close. It seemed to accelerate up to full firing speed so fast you couldn't tell the difference between the early shots and the later shots.

But I could definitely tell it with the Vulcan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 22, 2017)

The Navy has a sort of Vulcan, but it is called a CIWS (Close In Weapons System, or Sea-Whiz [CIWS]) and is a many-barrel gattling gun that is radar-aimed and fires depleted Uranium slugs at incoming targets that are closing on a ship.

VERY impressive! Sounds like a Vulcan as described above. Maybe it IS one, but perhaps chambered differently? No idea, myself, but the sound could easily be mistaken for a Vulcan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 22, 2017)

AG Williams, the author of _Rapid Fire, _has commented about the modern Gatling guns from GE, saying that spool-up time is significant and the revolver guns can get off the first ten or so rounds out in the same time as would the Vulcans.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 22, 2017)

With a Vulcan you've got 6 20mm barrels, each with it's own breech and bolt, a significant amount of weight, you've got to have a pretty powerful power source to spin that up to the 6000 rpm firing rate.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 22, 2017)

I believe (but could be way wrong) that the Vulcan required over 20hp to drive it to full rate of fire, reduced rate of fire versions required less power. A Vulcan gun firing 6000 rounds per minute is spinning the barrels at 6000 revolutions per minute.


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 22, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> With a Vulcan you've got 6 20mm barrels, each with it's own breech and bolt, a significant amount of weight, you've got to have a pretty powerful power source to spin that up to the 6000 rpm firing rate.



Tyrodtom,

The Eagle uses its Utility B Hydraulic System to power the gun. Spin up is pretty close to instantaneous from my perspective. I didn't realize it had more than one breech and bolt. I thought it would have only 1 breech/bolt to make it a true "Gatling Gun"?

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 22, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> I believe (but could be way wrong) that the Vulcan required over 20hp to drive it to full rate of fire, reduced rate of fire versions required less power. A Vulcan gun firing 6000 rounds per minute is spinning the barrels at 6000 revolutions per minute.



SR6,

I think with each of the six barrels firing each revolution that the guns RPM would be 1/6th of 6000 RPM? Is my thinking wrong?

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 22, 2017)

One breech and bolt would make it a Hotchkiss 





ALL true Gatling guns have a breechblock/bolt for each barrel.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 22, 2017)

BiffF15 said:


> SR6,
> 
> I think with each of the six barrels firing each revolution that the guns RPM would be 1/6th of 6000 RPM? Is my thinking wrong?
> 
> ...


Nope, I screwed up

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Mar 22, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Everybody within 25-30 miles of the GE test range (which means pretty much all of central Vermont) could hear the Vulcans and Minis being tested, although most had no idea what it was. Sasquatch? No, just "rhino farts" and "goat farts". Never heard a jet-mounted Vulcan in action, but the test guns we heard all the time had no detectable spin-up lag. I suspect the test stands had more power available than the aircraft.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Wes, I have been up close and personal with both the AH-1 series (USA with miniGun. USMC AH-1J with GE XM 188 three barrel 20mm, F-105 firepower demo from 300 yards, A-10 demo (with muzzle brake) at 300 yards - and a test of the WECOM 30mm (a mod of the Mk108) on the Cobra. Loud Ripper/Zipper noise (VERY loud for the 30mm GMU8 on the A-10 -even with the muzzle brake)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 22, 2017)

BiffF15 said:


> Tyrodtom,
> 
> The Eagle uses its Utility B Hydraulic System to power the gun. Spin up is pretty close to instantaneous from my perspective. I didn't realize it had more than one breech and bolt. I thought it would have only 1 breech/bolt to make it a true "Gatling Gun"?
> 
> ...


 I've probably got my terms confused.
The Minigun operates on the same priciples as the Vulcan, but it's been a long time since I disassembled and cleaned a Minigun

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 22, 2017)

The bowl shaped valley where the test range is acts like a megaphone/amplifier and really projects the sound out there. As Drgondog says, the 30mm A-10 version is even louder and really does reach out 30 miles if you happen to be acoustically "downrange" from the site. The Vulcans are a little less, and the Minis can still be heard at 10-15 miles.
The only one I've actually heard in flight is the AH-1J 3 barrel Vulcan, and that's noticeably slower.
Greg, the Sea-Whiz is a standard 20mm Vulcan similar to the M-113 mounted Vulcan Air Defense System Tyrodtom mentioned, except "navalized" to survive in a harsh salt environment. I believe there's also (or soon will be) a 30mm version.
We had a VADS shipped to us for "damage tolerance improvement analysis" that had been hit with a burst from a VC .50 Cal M2 Browning. It was perforated like Swiss cheese and all the ammo and fuel had detonated. Phyew, what a mess! It was promptly relegated to target status for the adjacent National Guard artillery range.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 22, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> 1. Bomb racks have shackles to hold and release the stores and braces to keep the stores from wobbling or swaying too much under flight loads as the aircraft maneuvers.


So the issue isn't so much that gunpacks are useless, but the fact that the gunpods in this case were not rigidly strapped to the plane, but hanging on a pod that had a degree of flex, or would with time?


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 22, 2017)

Zipper,
Things hung from racks will wiggle, and in the case of a gun pod will introduce error particularly under G.
Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 22, 2017)

Zipper,
The trouble with the Vulpods in my day was that the stresses of flight would "wiggle" them away from their sighting-in alignment as Biff said, but when the aircraft returned to 1 G flight, the pod didn't necessarily "wiggle" back to its original alignment. Remember, these were combat aircraft, and subject to wear and tear and difficult maintenance under difficult conditions. If the pod requires perfect alignment to hit its target, and the pylons and bomb racks can't maintain that perfect alignment, the pod is useless.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 22, 2017)

BiffF15,

I got a question: I remember hearing about an F8U-3 concept that was to be sold to the RAF that had a conformal 2000 pound bomb or a gunpack. Would this arrangement wiggle as well?


----------



## pbehn (Mar 22, 2017)

Doesnt a gun rotating at 1000 RPM act as a gyroscope.?


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 22, 2017)

Bomb racks have sway braces on them that are adjustable for the different diameters of the various bombs.
On a iron bomb you could adjust the sway braces very tight, the bomb sides didn't give, but on the aluminum sides of a firebomb, even though there was structural ribs on the inside of the bomb body where the sway braces would contact the bomb body, you'd get a little movement with a napalm bomb even with the sway braces tight. You could get at the extreme tail, or nose, and push, and something gave way, the napalm bomb's sides were flexing.

I just installed bombs, not ECM pods, or gun pods, but I suspect those sway braces , no matter how tight, couldn't take all the movement out of a aluminum sided pod, and even at my strongest I couldn't put as much side force on a hanging pod as a hard maneuver could.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 22, 2017)

Right on, Pbehn! It does. However, due to the relatively small diameter and compactness of the rotating mass, the gyroscopic forces are light compared to some of the other forces at work. Gyroscopic precession, especially during the spin-up acceleration would certainly add to the side loads working on the shackles and braces, as well as influencing the trajectories of the rounds. This is something the engineers supposedly took into account in the design process.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 23, 2017)

Conformals are USUALLY rigidly attached to the airframe and are not subject to the same vibrations as hardpoints with SER, MERS, and TERS (single-ejection racks = 1 bomb, multiple-ejection racks = 2-bombs, and tripple-ejection racks = 3-bombs).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Fighterguy (Apr 8, 2017)

Airframe mounted guns can be boresighted and aligned much easier than pod mounted. They also hold zero better. As BiffF15 can confirm, we would verify and adjust the F-15 gun boresight with the gun reticle on the HUD so point of aim and point of impact matched at a given range. This was done periodically or before a special event such as weapons evaluation (WSEP). The gun was very accurate from what I had seen during the couple weapons evals I was involved in.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 5, 2017)

I was thinking of starting another thread, but I figure it could be stuffed into this thread as it relates to the same topic

How much did the AD variants cost vs the A-26/B-26 variants?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 9, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> I was thinking of starting another thread, but I figure it could be stuffed into this thread as it relates to the same topic
> 
> How much did the AD variants cost vs the A-26/B-26 variants?



That would be a difficult calculation to make, as the A-26/B-26 variants were produced during WW2, while the AD's were produced after. In any case, and with the proviso that a direct comparison may not be reliable, wikipedia (I know, I know; Douglas A-26 Invader - Wikipedia) gives $242,595 in 1942 for the A-26, and http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/a-1_skyraider.pl gives $414,000 for the Skyraider, but that was for one of the two-seat variants.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 9, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> That would be a difficult calculation to make, as the A-26/B-26 variants were produced during WW2, while the AD's were produced after. In any case, and with the proviso that a direct comparison may not be reliable, wikipedia (I know, I know; Douglas A-26 Invader - Wikipedia) gives $242,595 in 1942 for the A-26, and http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/a-1_skyraider.pl gives $414,000 for the Skyraider, but that was for one of the two-seat variants.


Where would one go to find out the costs of fighters/attack/bombers of different eras?


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 9, 2017)

Warbirds and Airshows- WWII US Aircraft Costs

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 9, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Where would one go to find out the costs of fighters/attack/bombers of different eras?


You could try the Federal Register.....


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 9, 2017)

I'm not even sure where I would look. That's a lot of stuff to sift through...


----------



## GregP (Jul 10, 2017)

Ya' gotta' do better than that, Zipper.

WE sift through stuff to find information. Why shouldn't YOU, especially when we tell you where it is?

At LEAST try "Federal Register."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 10, 2017)

Did a rudimentary search, I didn't find anything useful at this time.


----------



## Robert Porter (Jul 10, 2017)

I had never been to that site before and my google fu is weak, but I was able to locate pertinent information in less then 15 minutes.


----------



## GregP (Jul 10, 2017)

Damn Zipper. I was hoping you'd FIND it and report same. 

Always good to find new data sources.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2017)

The Army Air Forces in World War II Volume VI: Men and Planes: Chapter 10

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Jul 10, 2017)

I want to buy a P-51 at 1944 prices! But at 2017 dollars.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jul 10, 2017)

My apologies, I haven't read all of the thread. It was vaguely interesting, because Ive recently read similar claims for the DH98, being able to turn inside a spitfire.......I don't believe this claim, but it is also claimed that the mosquito managed to destroy over 600 enemy fighters in daylight, another claim to fully accept. Something like that probably, but hard to accept it in total.


----------



## GregP (Jul 10, 2017)

There are a LOT of lies out there accepted as truth.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 13, 2017)

GregP said:


> There are a LOT of lies out there accepted as truth.



Alas, quite true. Many of the historical "truths" are based on unreliable or missing data; this is especially true when looking at battle statistics from more than a century or so back (McPherson, in his _Battle Cry of Freedom_, states that Civil War casualty statistics aren't reliable; I suspect that this is even more true for earlier large-scale conflicts). Many of the other "truths" are due to deliberate concealment (the rather genocidal nature of the Indian Wars in Colonial North America and the United States, for example). I wouldn't consider the former to be "lies," and well-meaning people can (and do) defend what they learned in school even if it was bowderlized. However, holding to an opinion once there is evidence showing it to be in disagreement with fact is, at best, lying.

I think a third area where "truths" in conflict with reality arise is when people focus on one facet of a complex phenomenon, and ignore the others. Aircraft related issues that may exemplify this are that the US 0.50 in M2 machine gun was the absolute best aircraft gun of the war (it almost certainly wasn't, although it was the best available in quantity for US aircraft) or that German aerodynamics was decades ahead of everyone else (again, almost certainly not true; witness that the P-40 had performance comparable to the Bf109 despite being nearly a half-ton heavier, oh, and the Bf109, along with many other German aircraft used NACA airfoils)


----------



## soulezoo (Jul 13, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> I want to buy a P-51 at 1944 prices! But at 2017 dollars.



Ha! I still couldn't afford it! Much less operate and maintain...
I recall some airshows where the deal for a P-51 to show up included a case or two of engine oil!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 2, 2018)

This data doesn't list the maximum g-load, but it does have some data regarding g-load for the A-26B
http://napoleon130.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/flyingcharacteristics.pdf

A 3G-turn at 235 mph would yield a theoretical radius of turn of 375m, 410 yds, or 1230.8 feet. This isn't accurate for obvious reasons, it couldn't sustain 3g's in a continuous turn and would slow down through the turn. Regardless, it does give some kind of figure to work with, though the A-26 from what I remember was at least capable of 4g normal.

The AD/A-1 wasn't really listed, but the data that was gleaned from the LA-5, LA-5FN, and LA-7, seemed to indicate the following (thanks 
E
 eagledad
btw), in respective order: 275m (300.7 yds, 902.2 ft), 289m (316.1 yds, 948.2 ft), and 282m (308.4 yds, 925.2 ft).

The LA-5FN was the most commonly produced variant of the LA-5, so that seems the best figure to use for most purposes.


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 23, 2020)

Looking at a chart I found on the A-26 on Avialogs.com, listed maximum g-load figures are: A-26B/C: +4.27/-2.35g @ 26000 lb, and +2.69/-1.48g @ 36000 lb. (as of June 20, 1944).

The AD-1 also has a lower stall speed, which would allow it to get inside it without any trouble whatsoever: The AD-1 is a better plane for attack missions.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 23, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Looking at a chart I found on the A-26 on Avialogs.com, listed maximum g-load figures are: A-26B/C: +4.27/-2.35g @ 26000 lb, and +2.69/-1.48g @ 36000 lb. (as of June 20, 1944).
> 
> The AD-1 also has a lower stall speed, which would allow it to get inside it without any trouble whatsoever: The AD-1 is a better plane for attack missions.



If you want to make a better comparison, explore the AD and A(B)-26 variants that flew during the Vietnam war.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 23, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> The AD-1 also has a lower stall speed, which would allow it to get inside it without any trouble whatsoever: The AD-1 is a better plane for attack missions.


You and your turn radius obsession! The A1 is a better plane for attack missions because of its simplicity, ruggedness, smaller crew, less fuel and runway requirements, wider range of operating speeds, and greater variety of weapons delivery profiles, all with practically the same ordnance lift capacity. Turning radius has nothing to do with it, although the A1 has shot down more jets than the A26, and it was speed flexibility, not turning radius that mattered in those cases.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 23, 2020)

I know at NKP, Thailand where we had both the A1 of various marks, and A26s, both bombing the Ho Chi Minh trail, the A1 flew almost all the day missions, and the A26 were mostly night.
We were right at the end of the runway, close to the usual approach direction, and I was outside most of the time watching the aircraft. Got chewed out for it several times.

I saw very few A26s coming back during daylight hours. Most A26's I saw during daylight hours were on the flightline being worked on,.
Of coarse both day and night missions had their own unique hazards, so I don't know how you could determine which aircraft was overall the best.
Charts and calculations don't always decide what works best in real combat .

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 23, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Try; http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/AD-4_Skyraider_SAC_-_1_November_1952.pdf
> 
> Condition #2
> 
> ...



There were a few MiG drivers who got a nasty surprise, but that was most likely because they fought to the AD's strengths.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 23, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> There were a few MiG drivers who got a nasty surprise, but that was most likely because they fought to the AD's strengths.



You must treat every adversary as if he wants to kill you, and he has a skill you may not be aware of. If you don’t, you may end up as a little colored star on the side of his a/c...

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 23, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You and your turn radius obsession!


It wasn't just turn-radius, it has a better rate of climb too.


> Turning radius has nothing to do with it, although the A1 has shot down more jets than the A26, and it was speed flexibility


Actually the reason they took out jets was often because the pilots weren't exploiting the advantages of their aircraft: The MiG-17 has most of the advantages -- it has a higher sustained and zoom-climb rate, it can dive faster, probably was able to roll-faster, and sustain higher g-loads.

The only advantage the AD-1 was that it had a lower stall speed, and had better endurance down at low altitudes. The lower stall speed allows one to hit peak turning speed first; the greater endurance generally only applied if you can avoid being taken out immediately (something that happened quite a lot in Vietnam -- often by somebody they didn't know was there), but you could drag out the fight until the other guy slips up, or realizes he's running so low on gas that he has to head home real quick, but their superior speed could allow an effective disengagement.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 23, 2020)

The only advantage the AD-1 had was it was most likely flown by more experienced pilots than the Mig-17s.

The Mig pilots saw a prop plane, as they saw it, they had all the advantages, and they did.

Maybe it slipped their memory the AD-1 was armed with 4X20mm cannons.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 23, 2020)

Weren't they called A-1H's by the time of Viet Nam?


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 23, 2020)

The USAF called them A1's, I'm not sure what the Navy called them.


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 23, 2020)

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=144

"In the 1962 revision, the AD-1 Skyraider became the A-1 Skyraider and its various marks followed. A-4D became the A-1D, AD-5 was the A-1E, AD-5N was the A-1G, AD-5Q was the EA-1F, AD-6 was the A-1H, and AD-7 was the A-1J"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 23, 2020)

I don't think the AD-1 or -2 even served in Korea let alone Viet Nam The Douglas AD / A-1 Skyraider

On 20 June 1965, Lieutenants Charles Hartman and Clinton Johnson, each flying an A-1H, were credited with shooting down a MiG-17 with cannon fire; their flight had been attacked by MiGs, with the Spads then dumping their stores and going into a circle, where each could protect the tail of the other. A MiG-17 tried to break into the circle, and was promptly blown out of the sky. On 9 October 1966 Lieutenant JG William T. Patton, also flying an A-1H, shot down a MiG-17, again with cannon fire

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 23, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> The only advantage the AD-1 was that it had a lower stall speed, and had better endurance down at low altitudes. The lower stall speed allows one to hit peak turning speed first;


Once again in your obsession with turning, you overlooked the biggest advantage the Skyraider had in a jet fight: speed flexibility. Attacked by MiGs, the A1 would get down in the weeds and jink like crazy. Close to the ground, the MiGs had a hard time keeping their sights on target and their wingtips out of the treetops. The A1 would accelerate as the MiG rolled in on a firing run, then chop throttle and jink suddenly, forcing an overshoot. Eventually the frustrated MiG pilot dirties up and cuts throttle to reduce his Vc, the A1 chops throttle, throws out dive brakes and flaps, and the MiG overshoots again, whereupon the A1 cleans up, firewalls throttle, and pops up on the MiG's tail, while the MiG driver bends his throttle around the stop as his engine slowly spools up amidst a hail of 20MM fire. Scratch one MiG. This scenario repeated itself more than once.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 24, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Once again in your obsession with turning, you overlooked the biggest advantage the Skyraider had in a jet fight: speed flexibility.


You mean the ability to dump speed rapidly?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 24, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> You mean the ability to dump speed rapidly?


Yes, AND the ability to regain it quickly, which jet engines of the day lacked. Despite its rudimentary afterburner, the MiG17 couldn't accelerate quickly when spooled down, as afterburner application in that condition would flame out the engine.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 24, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> You mean the ability to dump speed rapidly?


You keep trying to put reason for the outcome on the aircraft, not the pilots.
If the Migs had been flown by pilots of equal experience to that of the A1's, the encounter very likely would have turned out different.
You had Migs with pilots of maybe, maybe, 500 hours verses pilots with maybe 1500-2000 hours.

Probably all the A1 pilots of the Vietnam era had jet experience, knew their characteristics.
While most of the NVAF pilots went from bicycles to flying. If they had any experience with prop jobs, probably it was only low horsepower training planes, then to jets.
They had no idea what high powered combat prop aircraft could do. They had never been in one, and they'd never encountered one either.
You seem to only think of the math and science of aviation, and ignore the most important part, the humans flying the aircraft.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 24, 2020)

The NVAF pilots made the most critical error of anybody in a fight: they fought to the Skyraider's strengths. In their defense, their aircraft tended to be more maneuverable (for some definitions of maneuverable) than the USAF and USN aircraft they were fighting.

Yes, it was because of lack of training.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Apr 24, 2020)

I recall reading that in Europe in WWII the 9th AF was thinking that the A-26 would make a better attack aircraft than the P-47. Experiments proved that the A-26 was just as fast a a P-47 down low and could carry a lot more ordnance, but it made a significantly larger target than the P-47 and was less manueverable, making it far more likely to get hit by German AAA and small arms fire.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 24, 2020)

tyrodtom said:


> If the Migs had been flown by pilots of equal experience to that of the A1's, the encounter very likely would have turned out different.


Agreed, but probably not a kill for the MiG. I suspect an experienced, wise MiG pilot would recognize a tarbaby when he saw one, and after a couple of unsuccessful passes, take his remaining fuel and ammo elsewhere in search of an easier target. A MiG17 is very much out of its element down in the weeds, and is a mighty thirsty beast to boot.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 24, 2020)

When I worked for Sikorsky, the US Army had been doing a lot of modeling for air combat involving helicopters. According to their simulations (of which quite a few of the Sikorsky engineers were suspicious), helicopters would regularly defeat jet fighters, as helicopters can maneuver in ways that fixed-wing aircraft cannot. 

The real issue, of course, is that a highly loaded, swept-wing fighter jet cannot try to turn with a relatively lightly loaded, straight-wing propeller aircraft. Doing so is fighting to the prop plane's strength. A P-51 pilot wouldn't try that with a Zero, nor a Spitfire pilot against a CR.42, because that's fighting to the Axis' aircraft strength.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 24, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> The real issue, of course, is that a highly loaded, swept-wing fighter jet cannot try to turn with a relatively lightly loaded, straight-wing propeller aircraft.


The USN Skyraider/MiG kills, (at least the way they were teaching it in ACM training) were attributed to the A1's decelerate-accelerate capability against a jet that had let it's engine spool down, rather than any turning advantage it had.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 24, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The USN Skyraider/MiG kills, (at least the way they were teaching it in ACM training) were attributed to the A1's decelerate-accelerate capability against a jet that had let it's engine spool down, rather than any turning advantage it had.
> Cheers,
> Wes


A-1 Skyraider vs A-26


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 24, 2020)

I've fought Mig-29s and flown their sim. I was surprised at the throttle response of it's engines, slow compared to the F100-100 (really slow compared to the -220). However, it would light the afterburner at 60k using hydromechanical engine control (wouldn't do that in a F100-100 (-220 no sweat). I've never turned with a Mig-21 / 23 but "may" have engaged them in training. The cockpit on the -29 had the -21 flap control panel, but didn't use all the buttons on it. Supposedly made the transition easier. That's how I would sell it if I were Mig...

It boils down to knowing your strengths / weaknesses, as well as his. You recognize mistakes and have an opportunity to take advantage of them. The next iteration of this will be a guy in an EMG-312 Tucano or AT-6 will spank someone making rookie mistakes...

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 25, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> A-1 Skyraider vs A-26


I'm familiar with that event, but again, the way they were teaching it in ACM training is that the MiG who tried to bust the Lufberry let his speed decay in order to get enough tracking time to take a shot. This gave the next A1 in the circle (who saw it coming) the opportunity to goose his throttle, pull an extra G or two, and get off a well aimed deflection shot as the MiG tried to cut into the circle.
As mentioned upthread, that is the varsity move of an experienced pilot, not something a low time, third world oxcart driver who's been trained in tail chase gunnery could pull off. Accurate gunnery in a high G turn is one of those esoteric skills that only comes with experience. And without its acceleration capability, that Skyraider could never have got into position for the shot, a fact that undoubtedly took the MiG driver by surprise.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

