# If you had an airforce...



## Catch22 (May 17, 2008)

If you had your own airforce, what PROPELLER DRIVEN (because obviously we'd all use 262's) aircraft from WWII would you use in it for the different roles and why?

Fighter: Fw 190
Light/Attack Bomber: Fw 190
Medium Bomber: B-25 Mitchell
Heavy Bomber: B-29
Transport: C-47

Fighter/Light/Attack Bomber: It was a tough choice between the Würger and the Corsair, but I ended up going with the 190 because you could get so much out of one airframe: high altitude fighter, low to medium altitude fighter and ground attack frame, and from a production standpoint because of the many shared components the aircraft would be easy to produce.

Medium Bomber: Once again, the Mitchell is another good multi-role aircraft. Not a really vunerable machine that can deal out a fair amount of damage. Just a good all around plane.

Heavy Bomber: The B-29 could fly higher than anything else at the time as well as carry an enormous bombload. Just another must have.

Transport: C-47. Need I say anything else?


----------



## Flyboy2 (May 17, 2008)

Ok 
Fighter -51D
Attack/Light Bomber: Mosquito
Medium Bomber: B-25 Mitchell
Heavy: B-29
Cargo: C-47

I think the Mosquito is a great choice for attack because it is extremely versatile and is lightning quick. The Mosquito could double for any other role. Other than that i pretty much agree on everything else.


----------



## Kruska (May 17, 2008)

Well, let’s forward the “perfect-dream” Luftwaffe 1944/45

Trainer: Ar396/Buecker181
Liaison: Fi156 
Fighter: Ta152/Do335
Attack/Light Bomber: Ar240
Night Fighter: He219/Ta154
Ground Attack: Hs129/Ar240
Medium Bomber: Ju 288
Heavy Bomber: He 274 and shamelessly copy a B-29 
Seaplane ASW: Bv222/Do24/Ar196
Cargo light: Ar232/Go244B
Cargo heavy: Ar232B/Ju290
Cargo Super heavy: Me323C/Bv238 
Observation Helicopter Flettner Fi282
Transport Helicopter Fa223 Drache (Pave Low III) 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## drgondog (May 17, 2008)

Catch22 said:


> If you had your own airforce, what PROPELLER DRIVEN (because obviously we'd all use 262's) aircraft from WWII would you use in it for the different roles and why?
> 
> Fighter: Fw 190
> Light/Attack Bomber: Fw 190
> ...



I probably would have picked a B-26 Marauder or Mosquito or even Ju 88 over the B-25 but all great aircaft.

The ultimate reason for picking the B-26 and F4U would be for many common parts consideration for the R-2800 engine.

I would also pick the C-46 for same reason - R-2800 engines, plus it was so much more capable, despite being a fire hazard occasionally, than the C-47


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 17, 2008)

Here's a related thread: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/pick-6-c-build-your-af-beginning-wwii-11731.html


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 17, 2008)

And I don't see anything wrong with the F4U compared to the 190, versitility was equal if not better, and altitude performance was a bit better on the F4U-1 on all production 190's up through the D-9 and A-9 with a critical altitude ~3,000 ft higher. (the F4U-4 being significantly better in this department as well)


----------



## Soren (May 18, 2008)

Airsuperiority Fighter: Ta-152H 
Fighter-bomber: F4U-4 
Night fighter: Do-335A-1 (Do-435)
Ground attack: Hs-129
Reconnaissance: Ju-388L
Medium bomber: Ju-388K
Heavy bomber: He-277
Transport light: C-47
Transport medium: Ar-232B
Transport heavy: Ju-290 
Transport super heavy: Me-323
Seaplane: BV-238


----------



## Freebird (May 18, 2008)

Catch22 said:


> If you had your own airforce, what PROPELLER DRIVEN (because obviously we'd all use 262's) aircraft from WWII would you use in it for the different roles and why?
> 
> Fighter: Fw 190
> Light/Attack Bomber: Fw 190
> ...



Didn't we already have a "best of type" thread?  

Anyways I would take the Typhoon over the 190, for its low-level performance and better payload. {depends what year and what version of the 190?}

You should also have a category for Dive bomber, TB and night fighter.


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 18, 2008)

For a disussion like this man hours and materials consumed would be very helpful... something tells me the F4U was a rather expensive beast.

But anyways:

Multirole fighter: Fw-190 A
Ground support: Fw-190 F
High altitude fighter: Fw-190 D / Ta-152

Medium bomber: B-25
Heavy Bomber: B-24
Naval Patrol: PB4Y Privateer

Medium transport: C-47
Heavy Transport: B-24

Recon: Fw-189

That's 5 planes for a pretty broad spectrum.


----------



## Kruska (May 18, 2008)

Soren said:


> Airsuperiority Fighter: Ta-152H
> Fighter-bomber: F4U-4
> Night fighter: Do-335A-1 (Do-435)
> Ground attack: Hs-129
> ...



Hello Soren,

sounds good as well - we are actually very close, *but* why would you place a C-47 instead of the Ar232/Go244B? (Rear Cargo Ramp). 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2008)

Lets see:

Fighter - Focke Wulf Ta-152H
Interceptor - Focke Fulf Fw 190A-8
Heavy Bomber - Boeing B-29
Medium Bomber - Junkers Ju 88
Light Bomber - Heinkel He 215
Night Fighter - de Havilland Mosquito NF.30
Ground Attack - Henschel Hs-129
Dive Bomber - SBD Dauntless 
Trainer - T-6 Texan
Transport - C-47 Skytrain
Carrier Fighter - F4U Corsair
Carrier Dive Bomber - SBD Dauntless
Carrier Torpedo Bomber - TBF Avenger
Recon - de Havilland Mosquito PR.XVI 
Seaplane - Dornier Do-24


----------



## Watanbe (May 18, 2008)

Fighter: Fw 190
Light/Attack Bomber: Mosquito
Medium Bomber: B25/JU88
Heavy Bomber: B-29
Transport: C-47
Night Fighter: Mosquito


----------



## Watanbe (May 18, 2008)

How about this for a question?

If you had to base your airforce around one plane, what would it be?

When considering which planes I picked for which roles I thought of a few roles which the Mossie could of been considered for. Its versatility is amazing.


----------



## Catch22 (May 18, 2008)

I didn't even think of the navy for some reason...

I'd pick the Corsair for my fighter and Avenger for torpedo bomber.


----------



## Glider (May 18, 2008)

Lets try

Fighter - Focke Wulf Ta-152H
Interceptor - Spitfire
Heavy Bomber - Boeing B-29
Medium Bomber - Do 217
Light Bomber - Mossie
Night Fighter - de Havilland Mosquito NF.30
Ground Attack - Fw 190 F
Dive Bomber - Yokosuka D4Y4
Trainer - T-6 Texan
Transport - C-47 Skytrain
Carrier Fighter - F4U Corsair
Carrier Dive Bomber - Yokosuka D4Y4
Carrier Torpedo Bomber - Aichi B7A
Recon - de Havilland Mosquito PR.XVI


----------



## buzzard (May 18, 2008)

Fighter : P-51D (Cheap, capable, RANGE!!)
Nightfighter: Mosquito NF.30
Ground Attack: P-61
Dive Bomber: Yokasuka D4Y4 'Judy'
Medium Bomber: A-26
Heavy Bomber: B-29
Recon: Lockheed F-5 (Gotta have a Lightning!)
Liason: Fi156 Storch
Transport: C-54

Navy

Fighter: F4U-4
Torpedo Bomber/ASW: TBF 
Dive-Bomber: Judy again
Long Range Patrol/ASW : PB4Y

If I was going to build my airforce around one plane, I'd go for the P-38 or the Do335. As for a one type Navy: F4U-4

JL


----------



## tomo pauk (May 18, 2008)

let's avoid mixing apples oranges, so I'd divide the dream airforce in 2: those that are available in 1940, and ones from 1st jan. 1943. 
So, the earlies:

-fighter: Spitfire
-ground attack: A-20
-medium bomber: Ju-88
-heavy bomber: ??
-transport: C-47
-night fighter: Bristol Blenheim

and the 'late' ones:
-fighter: F-4U
-ground attack: A-20G
-medium bomber: Mosquito (also the NF)
-heavy bomber: Avro Lancaster
-transport: Curtiss Commando


----------



## Soren (May 18, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello Soren,
> 
> sounds good as well - we are actually very close, *but* why would you place a C-47 instead of the Ar232/Go244B? (Rear Cargo Ramp).
> 
> ...




The Ar-232B is a medium transport a/c, that's why. 

Now if I had to choose between the two I'd always choose the Ar-232B ofcourse, as it was revolutionary for its time.

As for why I didn't choose the Go244, well it was far too slow for its role and it couldn't handle near as large a load as the Ar-232B.

Anyway let me reason all my choices:

Airsuperiority fighter: Focke Wulf Ta-152H (Reason: The best piston engined fighter of WW2, easily outperforms any Allied fighter)
Fighter bomber: Vought F4U-4 Corsair (Reason: Is similar to the Fw190 in capability but has the added benefit of being carrier capable)
Night fighter: Do-335A-1 (Do-435) (Reason: Fastest flying best armed nightfighter)
Recon: Junkers Ju-388L (Reason: Highest flying reconnaissance prop job of WW2) 
Ground attack: Henschel Hs-129 (Reason: Most stable, best armoured armed ground attack a/c of the war)
Medium bomber: Junkers Ju-388K (Reason: Highest fastest flying medium bomber of WW2 with a bomb load of 3,000 kg)
Heavy bomber: Heinkel He-277 (Reason: Highest flying heavy bomber of WW2)
Light transport: Curtiss C-47 (Reason: One of the most dependable light transport a/c of the war and faster than the Ju-52)
Medium transport: Arado Ar-232B (Reason: Most advanced, most capable and best transport a/c of WW2)
Heavy transport: Junkers Ju-290 390 (Reason: One of the largest load carrying capabilities of any transport a/c of WW2, high speed, loading ramp.)
Super heavy transport: Messerschmitt Me-323 (Reason: Absolute highest load carrying capability of any a/c of WW2)


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 18, 2008)

buzzard,

The B-17 would fit for the "earlies" maiden flight of the prototype in mid 1935. The pre-production a/c (YB-17's) were delivered in 1938, and the turbocharged B-17A in Jan 1939. And the first operational production a/c, B-17B, began deliveries in mid '39.



> In late 1937, the Air Corps ordered ten more aircraft, designated B-17B and, soon after, another 29.[26] Improved with larger flaps, rudder and Plexiglas nose, the B-17Bs were delivered between July 1939 and March 1940. They equipped two bombardment groups, one on each U.S. coast.



Early production:


> Model 299 (1) 28 July 1935
> 
> YB-17 (13) 2 December 1936
> 
> ...




And that time period concept is a point I've been meaning to make on this subject.
It's not really fair to pick a/c for the entire war that weren't, or couldnt have been, there until near the end, which is also why progressively developing a/c that remain competitive are particularly attractive, moreso with versitility. (Spitfire, 109, and particularly 190)

And you could get by with a "what if" as long as the a/c prototype flew early enough to be available in time if more pressure/priorety/attention had been given, F4U for example. It _could_ have been in service before the US entered the war, particularly if adapted as a land based version.


----------



## buzzard (May 18, 2008)

KK89,

Geeez...waddaya pickin' on me for? It's cuz I'm Canadian, isn't it? I did throw in the P-61 as my ground attack choice just to stir things up, but otherwise I was only doin' what everyone else was doing. How come I gotta be the one stuck with the old stuff? 

Just kiddin', Kool Kitty...I'm happy to play by yer rules, but I gotta think about it a bit first.

JL


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 19, 2008)

Sorry buzzard, I confused the posts (now fixed with edit) I meant to respond to:



tomo pauk said:


> let's avoid mixing apples oranges, so I'd divide the dream airforce in 2: those that are available in 1940, and ones from 1st jan. 1943.
> So, the earlies:
> 
> -fighter: Spitfire
> ...




And I think you misunderstood, I meant it wasn't fair to select mid-late war a/c to build the entire airforce since there wouldn't be anything there at the beginning. I was agreeing that the early war a/c need to be adressed. 
(and it's not my thread anyway, but in the previous thread I mentioned almost everyone was choosing late war a/c, which doesn't really work on a historical timeline even with exceptions)


Like with the Ta 152, it isn't going to be there in 1940 by any stretch.


But on that note there were alot of a/c that were close to early war or would have been if development was different. (F4U or P-38, and the Fw 190 wasn't there until after the BoB) And then a lot of mid war a/c entering late '42/early '43 that are a somewhat different category as well, but the longest competitive development life and versitile designs are still the most obviously desireable. Of course there's other considerations too. (cost, cost to operate, producabillity, ease of maintence, ease of training for and operating the type)


----------



## tomo pauk (May 22, 2008)

No problems, kool kitty, i wasn't referring to your post, but i was more in a general sense


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 22, 2008)

I agree with your statement about dates too, I've been meaning to point that out as I said.

I did point out the B-17 though as a heavy bomber for your earlies.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 22, 2008)

Yep, B-17 is a choice.


----------



## pbfoot (May 22, 2008)

I think the Wellington would be a better one then the early 17's


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 22, 2008)

But is the Wellington is a medium bomber, the B-17 is the only true heavy bomber in the early war period. (except for old designs that were considered heavies at introduction like the Russian TB-3) likewise the Wellington, while conceived as a heavy bomber, was representative of a medium bomber by WWII standards.

However a long range medium bomber can be as useful as a heavy bomber (and probably more practical considering the cost of the B-17), granted you have more of them, but he left a ? for heavy bomber category, and the B-17 was the only one I can think of.

Possibly the Fw 200, but that doesn't quite fit either, since it's bombload wasn't very large (for it's size) and most had to be carried externally.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 23, 2008)

Okay the Do 217 fits heavy bomber standards fairly well, and I forgot about the Halifax, both entered service near the end of 1940, so they should fit the 'earlies' time.

And I totally forgot the Pe-8 was introduced so early, not too bad just not very developed due to Soviet doctrine.


----------



## Glider (May 23, 2008)

KK I wouldn't consider the B17 to be a viable Heavy bomber until the E version. The RAF had a dreadful time with the C version and there is no reason why the USAAF would have done any better than the RAF in action. Its also worth remembering that Production Sterlings and Halifax's were flying before the end of 1940.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 23, 2008)

Weren't the major problems with the RAF use of the B-17 accuracy issues (as well as cold issues) from bombing at 30,000 ft. (though the C model wasn't ready for other reasons)

I think the D model was viable, albeit not as capable as the E. 

And I mentioned the Halifax, I'd forgotten it was in service so early, also commented on the Pe-8.

And as mantioned, the cost of the B-17 would detract as well.


I also agree that long range medium bombers may be more practical, but I was initially just trying to adress the heavy bombers that were available in 1940.


----------



## Glider (May 23, 2008)

The problems with the B17 were numerous. Its accuracy was very poor, the RAF took an American Bomb aimer on one mission and he couldn't hit Bremen. It lasked a viable defensive suite with problems with the guns at altitude. The Oxygen system had to be totally replaced, in operations the weather had a major factor and its range at 30,000ft was only 500 miles. On top of this its armour was deemed inadaquate, they tried improving this but the effect on performance was significant. 
Daylight operations were stopped after 51 missions.

It worth remembering that the B17 as you pointed out was supposed to be operational in the USA, but with the above problems, you have to wonder how much operational testing was undertaken before it was accepted into US service.


----------



## parsifal (May 23, 2008)

I decided to break my choices up by year, in the attached table. ive added a few categories that appear to be missing. Am not real boned up on Battlefield recce, but have always like the FW 189


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 23, 2008)

They solved a lot on the B-17D model and it was used operationally be the USAAF in WWII.




You chose the Zero over the Wildcat? (or Sea Hurricane) or other undeveloped, hypothetical choices like a navalized 190 or Bloch 157.


----------



## fly boy (May 23, 2008)

my list 
ground attack-47n
fighter-bomberp-51d
medium bomber:b-26
large bomber:b-29
carrier fighter: f4u
carrier bomber:sbd
carrier torpedo bomber:tbm
transport:c-47 of corse


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 23, 2008)

fly boy said:


> large bomber


 

fly boy, you do know that a fighter-bomber _is_ a ground attack a/c right? And the P-51D wasn't a best fit for that role. Perhaps you mean Escort Fighter?


----------



## KrazyKraut (May 24, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I decided to break my choices up by year, in the attached table. ive added a few categories that appear to be missing. Am not real boned up on Battlefield recce, but have always like the FW 189


While the list looks good it seems more of a "pick the best" for each year. I mean would you seriously need the Bloch for one year? Directly going from Spit (I, II, V) to Mustang seems more reasonable. And I think Ta-152 should be substituted by P-51 H (since you already have the P-51 in production).


----------



## Mitya (May 24, 2008)

My list: 
ground attack: IL-2 typ 3M over;
fighter-bomber: P-47;
medium bomber: Tu-2 (B-26 B-25 up to him it is far);
large bomber:b-29 (Competitors are not present);
carrier fighter: F6F (More reliable, than F4U);
carrier bomber: I don't know;
carrier torpedo bomber:I don't know;
transport:C-47 (Ли-47);
THE BEST FRONT FIGHTER IS La-5 La-7. Because he could operate in such conditions in which any western plane could not operate.
High altitude fighter: Ta-152;
High (more 5000 m) Interceptor fighter - Spitfire;
Escort (low) fighter: Yak;
Escort (high) fighter: P-51;


----------



## parsifal (May 24, 2008)

Hi KKt

I agree that my yearly list is shopping list and not all that practical. I was trying to put together a list of planes which i thought were the best at any given year. In my selection, an aircraft had to be operational for most of the year it was selected (or, in the case of the french types, potentially available). I agree that that the list as a practical excercise is not viable because I have german and allied, and japanese all mixed up. As a logistic excercise, my choice would be a nightmare. But there are some pretty cool planes in there just the same


----------



## parsifal (May 24, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> *They solved a lot on the B-17D model and it was used operationally be the USAAF in WWII*.
> 
> Wasnt the b17D a 1941 edition, if so, I think the halibag was better, if it was a 1940 edition, I should have gone for the B17D
> 
> ...



What would be your your yearly choices KK?


----------



## Vincenzo (May 24, 2008)

i post my 1939 bought air force
fighter Bf 109E 
heavy fighter Bf 110C
dive bomber Ju 87B
medium bomber S.M. 79
carrier fighter F2A
carrier dive bomber SB2U
carrier torpedo bomber TBD


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 25, 2008)

parsifal, the comments on the B-17 were for Glider, and the B-17D was first available in early 1941, the B-17E in late '41. And admitedly the D still had problems, and the E was the first really capable model, but the D was IMO at least combat capable. But anyway there were only some 50 B-17D's made (including conversions from B-17C's) so it wasn't really mass produced, and the much better E model came soon after.


I also agree on the Halifax, a more practical choice for the period. (and significantly cheaper to I think).

The Pe-8 is also somthing to consider, a capable a/c, though a bit underdeveloped and underutilized due to the Soviet doctrine. (or lack there of for long range strategic bombardment)


I'm not sure what I'd choose, particularly depending on alternate developments opposed to factual usage. (the F2A for example could have been developed a lot better, and could have been more reliable and available if it hadn't been for the lack of production capability and management problems)
Again even with the F2A-2 climb and maneuvering performance was dropping with the huge fuel load carried 242 us gallons! (compared to 162 gal for the F2A-1) That's about the same as the Corsair (w/out wing tanks) and Hellcat. It gave the F2A-2 a range (no drop tanks capable) of max 1,670 mi, ~300 mi more than the F4F with 2x 52 gal drop tanks (and about same total fual load as the F2A-2) and about equal to the A6M-2 (clean). Due to the extra weight though fuel consumption increased over the earlier model which had managed a max range of 1,545 mi on 2/3 the fuel, and both were well in excess of the F4F. 

If the'd stayed with the origninal capacity and just improved armor etc it would have had better performance (which it already did in speed and altitude over the F2A-1 with the new 1,200 hp R-1820-40 engine with high alt carburetor) and would still have had exceptional range. (probably ~1,400 mi max range, clean) Plumbing for some small drop tanks may have been good too.


So it's hard to tell the context, considering alternate developments. (similar in choosing a/c like the Bloch 157)


So I'll keep thinking, but one other category to consider is escort fighters, the only ones with sufficient range and alt least decent performance early on are the P-40, F2A, and A6M. (and the early Zero lacked armor and, more seriously, fuel tank protection, and even the later models were still rather fragile in terms of damage resistance) The P-38 beng the next, though a bit epensive. and there were still quite a few bugs to work out. 

With money and in the MTO, ETO, NA, or PTO (particularly) the P-38 would be a good choice for long range missions, and as an interceptor.

And I'm talking long range escort or pennetration missions (strafing or fighter sweeps) with a radius of ~600 mi.


----------



## fly boy (May 29, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> fly boy, you do know that a fighter-bomber _is_ a ground attack a/c right? And the P-51D wasn't a best fit for that role. Perhaps you mean Escort Fighter?



oh yea that's what i meant


----------



## Desert Fox (Jul 11, 2008)

It's a tough choice, but here's my list-

Fighter: Supermarine Spitfire Mk XIV
Fighter Bomber/Ground Attack: Hawker Tempest Mk VI
Interceptor: Focke-Wulf Fw-190D
Night Fighter: Messerschmitt Bf110
Reconnaissance: de Havilland Mosquito NF.30
Medium Bomber: B26 Marauder
Heavy Bomber: Lancaster
Transport: C47
Sea Plane/Flying Boat: PBY Catalina

Carrier Fighter: F6F Hellcat
Carrier Divebomber: SBD Dauntless
Carrier Torpedo-bomber: TBM Avenger


Tried to fit the Macchi 205 Veltro in there, but the Spitfire won in the end


----------



## Henk (Jul 15, 2008)

If I had a air force I would bomb the living sh*t out of Mugabe! Their fighters fo not have fuel or parts to get off the ground. Ha ha ha...


----------



## davparlr (Jul 16, 2008)

The American version

Air Superiority Fighter: P-51B/D. Demonstrated combat capability, demonstrated reliability, great adaptability and growth capability (P-51H, F-82, post war racers) , highly produceable.
Carrier fighter, tactical fighter-bomber: F4U-4. Demonstrated combat capability, demonstrated reliability, excellent post war performance, great adaptability and growth capability (F4U-5, F4U-5N)
Reconnaissance: P-38 (F-5) Good speed and range, very capable aircraft.
Medium Bomber: A-26. Fast, good range, long life, multiple wars.
Heavy Bomber: B-29. Milestone aircraft, carried the world into the nuclear age.
Dive Bomber: SB2C
Torpedo Bomber: TBF
Transport Light: C-47.
Transport Medium: C-54. Milestone aircraft. Performed extraordinarily well in the first Cold war confrontation.
Transport Heavy: C-97. C-69 second. Not much history in WWII, but not many to choose and these two could haul a lot, fast and long and had great after-war life.
Seaplane: What the heck, Martin PBM

This should be a war winner.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 16, 2008)

davparlr said:


> The American version
> 
> Air Superiority Fighter: P-51B/D. Demonstrated combat capability, demonstrated reliability, great adaptability and growth capability (P-51H, F-82, post war racers) , highly produceable.
> Carrier fighter, tactical fighter-bomber: F4U-4. Demonstrated combat capability, demonstrated reliability, excellent post war performance, great adaptability and growth capability (F4U-5, F4U-5N)
> ...



i would go with that list. If an Interceptor category was added I would choose the Ta 152H.

If the lists had to be pared 'way down and logistics and spares were part of the equation

I would go Pratt line up
Fighter/Fighter bomber/escort/Recce/night fighter - F4U
Transport - C46 or C-54
Light/Medium/Attack Bomber - A-26
Carrier Bomber - TBF
Heavy Bomber/Long Range Recce/Patrol - B-29 for an all Pratt and Whitney Line up with only three variants: R-2000 (if C-54), 2800 and 3350 

For Merlin/Pratt, I would substitute
P51 Escort/Recce/Fighter Bomber
Seafire-carrier and Land based Interceptor - for F4U - which adds another airframe
Mosquito for A-26 and take on Recce/Night fighter role 
Lancaster for B-29 if range not important but still need
TBF, C-46/54 with Pratt

Who wants to build around BMW or DB? or Both?


----------



## timshatz (Jul 16, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I probably would have picked a B-26 Marauder or Mosquito or even Ju 88 over the B-25 but all great aircaft.
> 
> The ultimate reason for picking the B-26 and F4U would be for many common parts consideration for the R-2800 engine.
> 
> I would also pick the C-46 for same reason - R-2800 engines, plus it was so much more capable, despite being a fire hazard occasionally, than the C-47



Smart pick Dragon. One of the better posts because it takes into account the management of the airforce. What good is an airforce is the birds are down for maintainence? Simplifying them makes the servicabliity rates go up. 

Very good post.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 16, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Smart pick Dragon. One of the better posts because it takes into account the management of the airforce. What good is an airforce is the birds are down for maintainence? Simplifying them makes the servicabliity rates go up.
> 
> Very good post.



thank you tim - of course with Government resources and risk management you don't want all your eggs in one basket.

With Hindsight the US standardizes on Merlin, Pratt for powerplant

With Hindsight, US settles early in 1941 on Corsair and Mustang and builds carrier versions/land based versions for both - both have branches for lightweight fast climbing, heavy firepower, long range capability. Lightweight Mustang out in 43, P-82 in 44. Because zero dilution of design and manufacturing resources the lightweight and Carrier qual and nightfigher versions of Mustang start in 1942. Rolls license obtained as test concept with first P-51A in early 1941.

Corsair introduced into AAF at same time as USN. AAF recognizes Mustang early for Strategic requirements. Corsair deployed to MTO instead of P-38 and P-40. P-51A in series production with Allison in 1942, but Allison dropped when 51B emerges in late 42-early 43 and assumes the North Africa/MTO role from P-51A/A36

Both F4U and Mustangs provide escort in ETO and MTO, Mustang dominant at high altitude, Corsair at medium and low altitudes. TAC air entirely F4U

P-82 Branch developed early instead of P-61 or F7F or F4U as night fighter/interceptor/extremely long range recce

USMC settles on Corsair and A-26 as primary strike combination but each base equipped with flight of Recce F-6's

Mustang series dominant long range escort of land based strike missions, recce, interceptor for USN/USMC - but carrier series qual developed in parallel as back up. A few Mustangs assigned to each CV for long range recce and early warning.

F4U dominant TAC a/c for AAF and USN and USMC and Lend Lease all purpose fighter.
Corsair series dominant Fleet series for every sea based mission, 

B-17's and B-24s redesigned for Pratt's in 1940, B-29 and B-36 design start in Parallel with differnt but communicating Pratt and Whitney Engine development groups working on the Powerplants.

Rolls supplies Whittle patents immediately in early 1941. General Electric, Rolls, Whittle and Allison dedicate top teams to jet engine designs to explore different approaches.

Lockheed and North Amercan selected for first jet airframe in competition each with one design goal. Both to develop an air superiority fighter with 500 mile operational radius.

Boeing and Consolidated selected for first jet bomber design for 600 mile operational radius, at 45,000 feet and 4,000 pound bomb load. Engine design to contemplate Merlin as primary powerplant as back up... so fuel and bomb load capacity would be to satisy minimum range, but operational ceiling with that bomb load at 35,000 feet.

I don't know what the Luftwaffe has in mind but it would be interesting based on hindsight based on the strategic mission pursued by Germany. I suspect that air superiority and tactical mission would be a better assumption.

RAF closer to US, except for delay in strategic bombing initiative.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 16, 2008)

its like a "dream team" air force isnt ?

my choices:

dorsal spin fighters: bf 109g, like germany
interceptors/special mission fighters: fw 190d
ground attack fighter: p47b

destroyer/night fighter/bomber: mosquitos/ me 210
strategical bombers: ju87
level bombers: b17


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 16, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I would go Pratt line up
> Fighter/Fighter bomber/escort/Recce/night fighter - F4U
> Transport - C46 or C-54
> Light/Medium/Attack Bomber - A-26
> ...



The R-3350 was a Wright engine.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 16, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The R-3350 was a Wright engine.



you are right KK - brain fart


----------



## Soren (Jul 17, 2008)

Air superiority fighter: Ta-152H-1 Me-262
Interceptor: Ta-152 Me-262
Escort: Ta-152H-1
Naval fighter: F4U-4
Fighter bomber: F4U-4
Nighterfighter: Ar-234B
Transport heavy: Ju-390
Transport medium: Ar-232B
Transport light: C-47
Heavy bomber: He-277
Medium bomber: Ju-388K
Recon: Ju-388L
Seaplane heavy: BV-222
Seaplane medium: PBY Catalina


----------



## drgondog (Jul 17, 2008)

Soren said:


> Air superiority fighter: Ta-152H-1 Me-262
> Interceptor: Ta-152 Me-262
> Escort: Ta-152H-1
> Naval fighter: F4U-4
> ...



What if you can only pick 5 and two engine manufacturers - preferably Allied or Axis but not both.


----------



## Ki-43-I Hayabusa (Jul 17, 2008)

Fighter: J2M3 Raiden
Nightfighter: HE 219 Uhu
Medium Bomber: P1Y1 Ginga
Heavy Bomber: Ki-67 Hityu
Transport: JU-52


----------



## drgondog (Jul 17, 2008)

Ki-43-I Hayabusa said:


> Fighter: J2M3 Raiden
> Nightfighter: HE 219 Uhu
> Medium Bomber: P1Y1 Ginga
> Heavy Bomber: Ki-67 Hityu
> Transport: JU-52



was the Raiden carrier qualified? or no carriers in your navy


----------



## Soren (Jul 17, 2008)

drgondog said:


> What if you can only pick 5 and two engine manufacturers - preferably Allied or Axis but not both.



Now that changes the picture! 

I'd go for Junkers and DB then, for which the list would be as follows:

Air superiority fighter: Ta-152H-1 Me-262
Interceptor: Ta-152 Me-262
(One engine manufacturer two a/c so far)

Transport: Ju-252
Bomber: He-277
Recce, medium bomber, night fighter: Ar-234


I really don't like this 5 a/c and 2 engine manufacturer restrictment !


----------



## drgondog (Jul 17, 2008)

Soren said:


> Now that changes the picture!
> 
> I'd go for Junkers and DB then, for which the list would be as follows:
> 
> ...



Lol - I didn't think you would. 

Now Fight Germany's war with an Allied list - same restrictions. 

BTW - pretty good choices for Germany/German a/c and manufacturers. I think I would have picked exactly the same ships - and either the Ta 152 or 262 would have been good CAS ships also... what about all piston engine choices?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 17, 2008)

The original post did specify prop driven a/c only. (and used only 5)



> Now Fight Germany's war with an Allied list - same restrictions.


How about:

1) F4U-4 (Air Superiorety Fighter, Escort Fighter, Fighter-Bomber)
2) C-46 (Transport)
3) A-26 (Day Bomber/Attack)
4) Mossie (Night Fighter, Night Bomber, and Recon)
5) Spitfire Mk.21 (Interceptor)



But, again choosing late war a/c to fight for the whole war doesn't seem to realistic. (5 choices -available at or near the start of the War- that can each be replaced once later on; might be something to think about)

Not sure what I'd choose here though. (I'm thinking mostly in terms of the US here)

Then there's the yearly selection Parsival did:


parsifal said:


>


----------



## drgondog (Jul 17, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The original post did specify prop driven a/c only. (and used only 5)
> 
> 
> How about:
> ...



It's more fun to pick one airframe and see how you do if that airframe was the only one for your mission selection - given it's first flight date and the entry into the war.

Other wise you may pick B-17 or B-24 and be ready from day 1, and B-25 instead of A-26 as your only attack/medium... but not be permitted to switch to different mfr. If so, then I woul pick B-24 and extend to B-32 rathter than B-29 and have capability from late 1942 forward..


----------



## Soren (Jul 19, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Lol - I didn't think you would.
> 
> Now Fight Germany's war with an Allied list - same restrictions.



Then the list would be as follows:

Engine manufactures are PW and RR.

Air superiority fighter: F4U-4
Interceptor: Spitfire Mk.XIV 
Fighter bomber: F4U-4

No carriers so sadly I can't utilize that feature..

So two engine manufacturers and two a/c so far:

Transport light: C-47 (I'd like bigger but atleast its dependable)
Transport heavy: C-69
Bomber heavy: B-29
Night fighter, recce medium bomber: De havilland Mosquito



> BTW - pretty good choices for Germany/German a/c and manufacturers. I think I would have picked exactly the same ships - and either the Ta 152 or 262 would have been good CAS ships also... what about all piston engine choices?



Then the list would be as follows:

Engine manufactures are still Junkers Daimler benz.

Air superiority fighter: Ta-152H-1 Fw-190 D-13
Interceptor: Ta-152H-1 Fw-190 D-13
Fighter bomber: Fw-190 D-13

Two a/c and one engine manufacturer so far.

Bomber heavy: He-277
Night fighter: Ju-388J
Recce: Ju-388L
Medium bomber: Ju-388K
Transport heavy: Ju-252

_________________________________________________

But with no engine manufacturer or a/c restriction, and regardless of where the a/c are from the ultimate list would be:

Air superiority fighter: Ta-152H-1 Me-262A-1a
Interceptor: Ta-152H-1 Me-262A-1a
Carrier fighter: F4U-4
Fighter bomber: F4U-4 Fw-190 A-9
Night fighter: Ju-388J Me-262B-1a/U4
Recce: Ju-388L Ar-234B
Zerstörrer (Destroyer): Ju-388 (Do-335 is a possible candidate)

Bomber heavy: He-277
Bomber medium: Ju-388K
Ground attack: Hs-129B-3

Transport heavy: Ju-390
Transport medium: Ar-232B
Transport light: C-47

Seaplane heavy: BV-222 (Or the BV-238 ) 
Seaplane medium: PBY Catalina


----------



## Glider (Jul 19, 2008)

Using the restrictions

Air superiority fighter: Hornet
Interceptor: Hornet
Escort: Hornet
Naval fighter: F4U-4
Fighter bomber: F4U-4
Nightfighter: Mossie
Transport: Tudor
Heavy bomber: Lincoln
Medium bomber: Mossie
Recon: Mossie
Seaplane: PBY Catalina

P&W / Rolls Royce 
6 Aircraft


----------



## Soren (Jul 19, 2008)

Errr.. why did I write RR Merlin ?? Must have thought of the Mosquito when I wrote that.


----------



## Soren (Jul 19, 2008)

Glider said:


> Using the restrictions
> 
> Air superiority fighter: Hornet
> Interceptor: Hornet
> ...




What restrictions ? Allied a/c or just your dream team ?


----------



## Glider (Jul 19, 2008)

The 5 a/c and 2 engine manufacturer restrictment, I could not get it down to 5 a/c


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 19, 2008)

Like this idea! Have to give it a good thought.... What about if we do the same for a army/tanks and for the Navy?


----------



## drgondog (Jul 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> Then the list would be as follows:
> 
> Engine manufactures are PW and RR.
> 
> ...



Too many airplanes, and no carrier Strike like TBF or SB2C or even F7F... not that F4U couldn't get the job done if only one carrier a/c permitted - but it is your airforce.


----------



## Soren (Jul 19, 2008)

Bill,

You're right about the Pratt Wright, totally slipped passed my nose.Think I'm gonna have to let RR go then and rely on the F4U-4 to do the Spitfires job, and instead of the Mosquito I'd chose the A-20G then.

As for the final list I know I went beyond the restriction, but that's how the ultimate airforce would've been equipped (Looking past the carrier bombers, which indeed need to be added).

The complete list:

Air superiority fighter: Ta-152H-1 Me-262A-1a
Interceptor: Ta-152H-1 Me-262A-1a
Carrier fighter: F4U-4
Fighter bomber: F4U-4 Fw-190 A-9
Night fighter: Ju-388J Me-262B-1a/U4
Recce: Ju-388L Ar-234B
Zerstörrer (Destroyer): Ju-388 (Do-335 is a possible candidate)

Bomber heavy: He-277
Bomber medium: Ju-388K
Ground attack: Hs-129B-3

Transport heavy: Ju-390
Transport medium: Ar-232B
Transport light: C-47

Seaplane heavy: BV-222 (Or the BV-238 ) 
Seaplane medium: PBY Catalina

Carrier dive bomber or strike a/c: TBM 



Glider said:


> The 5 a/c and 2 engine manufacturer restrictment, I could not get it down to 5 a/c



Roger. 

One question though Glider; What would your airforce do if faced with an opposing airforce equipped with jets ?? You're current choice as fighter, the De Havilland Hornet would be helples against both a Me-262, Ta-152H-1 Fw-190 D-13. Furthermore the Hornet didn't see service in WW2.

Remember this isn't about favorite a/c, its about how your airforce would be equipped, so its got to have some very capable a/c in the fighter role if it is going to be competitive with the other airforces.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 19, 2008)

no limits but common sense and consider logistics... best of breed (or close enough) with no regard for date of entry into service or different models..

Trainers - PT19, BT-13, AT-6 and AT-11. If only one trainer - BT -13
Transport - C-47 and either C-54 or C-46 (which was airborne trooper capable) and/or strongly consider Ju 290. If only one transport - C46
Glider - Horsa 
Observation/Courier - Feisler Storch
All Purpose - Mosquito/Ju 88/F7F for Attack Bomber, Recce, Land based Night Fighter, etc
If only one then F7F because of Naval strike capability
Fighters/fighter bomber - F4U, (Me 262 but no jets) and Ta 152 - if only one- F4U.
Heavy Land Based Bomber - B-29
Light/Medium - either A-26 or Do 217 (would have picked Ar 234), if only one then Do 217
Naval Strike/Torpedo - TBF and SB2C - if only one go with TBF and teach F4U drivers to dive bomb.
Naval Recon/utility - Kingfisher
Naval Patrol Bomber/Transport - PBM Mariner if just one pick
Land Based Patrol - either B-24 or teach B-29 the role

At the end if Logistics is key, the all american line up has very good to near best in every category with just two engine manufacturers - Pratt and Wright and I would still pick Horsa (no engine issues) over the Waco.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> You're right about the Pratt Wright, totally slipped passed my nose.Think I'm gonna have to let RR go then and rely on the F4U-4 to do the Spitfires job, and instead of the Mosquito I'd chose the A-20G then.
> 
> ...



I really like forcing the combat ops choices to four or five because it makes you think about being 'good enough' even if losses are higher or range/payload is less than optimum.

For example, old sparky the C-46 was far more capable than the C-47 but had this little fuel leak problem at the cross over valve area aft of pilot station. 

They lost perhaps more (C-46's) than should have been lost to German flak on the March 24, 1945 Rhine Assault - but they put 2x troopers on the ground faster, with less exposure over the DZ because they could carry twice as many troopers and supplies.

It was also much more expensive to buy and operate than the C-47 and required a longer runway so more limited in support of advanced areas.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 19, 2008)

This would be mine. I based mine off gliders....The order of aircraft...not the aircraft used

Fighter: P-51 Mustang 
Interceptor: Mosquito
Mulit-role: P-38 Lightning 
Heavy Bomber: Avro Lancaster
Medium Bomber: B-26 Marauder 
Light Bomber: He-111 or GM4-3 Betty
Night Fighter: He-219 or P-61 Black Widow
Ground attack: P-38 Lightning
Dive Bomber: SBD Dauntless 
Trainer T-6 Texan
Light Transport: Ar-232
Medium Transport: C-47
Heavy Transport: Me-323 (with air cover of course) 
Carrier Fighter: F4U
Carrier Diver Bomber: SBD Dauntless
Carrier Torpedo: TBM avenger 
Recon: Ju-86 (Could fly very high only modified planes could catch it)


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 19, 2008)

And 


Seaplane: He-115 
Medic-vac plane- C-46 or C-54


----------



## Ki-43-I Hayabusa (Jul 19, 2008)

@ Drgndog.
The J2M Raiden was a land-based navy-fighter! But, if i can choose a Carrier, i want a "Taiho"-Class Carrier with:
Fighters: A7M "Reppu".
Torpedobomber: B6N2 "Tenzan".
Divebomber: B7A2 "Ryusei-Kai".
Reconaissance: C6N1 "Saiun".


----------



## Glider (Jul 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Hornet would have the match over the 190D, hold its own against the 152 and be in trouble against the 262, but choices had to be made. Be fair its taken three of your types against one of mine.

Agree the Hornet didn't see service but it was at least an official type and in production well before the end of the war. It almost qualified for my carrier plane as well but that was just after VE day.


----------



## Soren (Jul 19, 2008)

> The Hornet would have the match over the 190D, hold its own against the 152



Performance wise ? I'm afraid not. The Ta-152H-1 Fw-190 D-13 are both far more maneuverable, far better climbers, have far higher ceilings and are either just as fast or faster (D-13). 

What use is a fighter with a service ceiling of 35 kft?? It makes it seriously vulnerable.


----------



## Glider (Jul 19, 2008)

Before you get cocky, name your 6 aircraft for the same airforce then we can have a debate. I made my choices, you make yours.


----------



## Soren (Jul 19, 2008)

Cocky ???? Glider thinking that the DH Hornet was worth anything as a fighter against what was already in service with Germany, US UK is being cocky.

But ok, I'll make my choices tommorrow, I'm going to sleep now


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 20, 2008)

I didn't really get to finish my selections posting before the forum went down... 

But on the Hornet, I also thought about it for the allied list, but the Spit 21 had better characteristics for an interceptor (generally) and was actually in service before the war's end.

And on the B-29/Wright/P&W deilemma you could always cheat and go with the "B-29D"


----------



## drgondog (Jul 20, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I didn't really get to finish my selections posting before the forum went down...
> 
> But on the Hornet, I also thought about it for the allied list, but the Spit 21 had better characteristics for an interceptor (generally) and was actually in service before the war's end.
> 
> And on the B-29/Wright/P&W deilemma you could always cheat and go with the "B-29D"



I could not figure out a decent 5-6 ship core without using two engine manufacturers.. as I remembered the B-32 was also a R-3350 a/c.

And only the P-38 (or P-82) had a chance of escorting the 29 to maximum range so that was one more engine on the list - screwing up my supply chain.

I discarded the P-51 because of 'real' carrier requirement.. and I discarded Spit because of range/escort requirement.. and so on.

I considered the Hornet also but in that choice with logistics and common parts as an important consideration, the F7F is a better choice as I build my list of great flexibility - not always the best, but still hard to beat.


----------



## Soren (Jul 20, 2008)

I really can't see anything good about the Hornet besides its decent top speed. 

Anyway here's my list:

Engine manufacturers: Junkers DB

Air superiority fighter: Ta-152H-1 Me-262A-1a (if jets are allowed)
Interceptor: Ta-152H-1 Me-262A-1a
Night fighter: Me-262B-1a/U4
Zerstörrer: Ju-388J
Recce: Ju-388L
Bomber heavy: He-277
Bomber medium: Ju-388K
Transport heavy: Ju-390 (It seems it does have a larger cargo hold Bill)
Transport medium: Ar-232B


----------



## drgondog (Jul 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> I really can't see anything good about the Hornet besides its decent top speed.
> 
> Anyway here's my list:
> 
> ...



I don't believe jets or rockets are allowed, actually my choice of Horsa earlier is out of bounds as it is not propeller driven. Thx on the Ju 390 update.

Is there anything yet on scale drawings or cut aways etc


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 20, 2008)

Soren what's prop nightfighter option?


----------



## Soren (Jul 20, 2008)

Bill,

If its props only then my previous list with this would be my choice:

Air superiority fighter: Ta-152H-1 Fw-190 D-13
Interceptor: Ta-152H-1 Fw-190 D-13
Fighter bomber, carrier fighter: F4U-4
Bomber heavy: He-277
Night fighter: Ju-388J
Recce: Ju-388L
Medium bomber: Ju-388K
Transport heavy: Ju-252

Took advantage of the new 6 a/c restriction 

That should answer your question as well Vincenzo


----------



## drgondog (Jul 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> If its props only then my previous list with this would be my choice:
> 
> ...



It does, and good choices 

- so all your torpedo and carrier based dive bombing attacks will be F4U? 

You seem a bit over loaded on high performance fighters - even with nice load capability.. but range restrictions carrying say a torpedo for the F4U reduces your offensive footprint at sea to below the attacker with TBF or SB2C with more range coupled with the bombload? In other words they can launch sooner and perhaps get to your carrier before you locate them and retaliate?


----------



## Soren (Jul 20, 2008)

To be honest I was thinking more about national safety and land based offensives than cross continental offensives. But it might be an idea to just settle with the Ta-152 and swap the D-13 for a TBM cause the Ta-152 is better anyhow, so no loss.

As for torpedo attacks, the Ju-388 is excellent at this so that would be one of its roles. 

Btw I hope we don't have go back to that two engine manufacturer restrictment  

PS: I'll try to get a hand on some detailed drawings of the Ju-390 Ju-290 for you but I can tell you that the fuselage of the Ju-390 is 6 meters longer and that the extra fuel tanks were all fitted inside the much larger wings.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> To be honest I was thinking more about national safety and land based offensives than cross continental offensives. But it might be an idea to just settle with the Ta-152 and swap the D-13 for a TBM cause the Ta-152 is better anyhow, so no loss.
> 
> As for torpedo attacks, the Ju-388 is excellent at this so that would be one of its roles.
> 
> ...



Nah won't hold you to it - did you reverse engineer the Pratt and build without a license or arrange for direct shipping from CT to GY- payment COD?

I knew the Ju 388 was versatile, which carrier did you have in mind for take off and landings for any naval engagements? 

Just kidding - from my perspective you are taking an approach of defending Germany and creating offensive capability within 1000 miles of your occupied bases - why fool with Corsair and just go with Fw series which includes all of them - in my mind including the Ta 152. It was less 'completely different' from 190D series than a 51H was from 51D.

Using that logic the Ju 88 series (including 388) gives you your medium, attack, recce and night fighter options. Destroyer for daylight not such a good choice - 190D/Ta 152 better all around interceptors in my mind even, and especially for daylight incursions.


----------



## Soren (Jul 20, 2008)

Fully agreed Bill. 

However I like the idea of having an air strike capability long out to sea, so I need the F4U TBM, and having the Ta-152 means I really don't need the D-13. The only thing which would change the picture entirely would be removal of the jet restriction


----------



## drgondog (Jul 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> Fully agreed Bill.
> 
> However I like the idea of having an air strike capability long out to sea, so I need the F4U TBM, and having the Ta-152 means I really don't need the D-13. The only thing which would change the picture entirely would be removal of the jet restriction



Yeah, but in my definition of best prop planes, I tend to think that evolutionary series which are changed materially but still have large commonality of Bill of Materials - Fw 190A, D and to a degree Ta 152 fit the profile of one named airplane - all from same manufacturer, very simlar to same structure, even if an engine change occurs. So in my world you would have Destroyer, Interceptor, Air superiority, and Fighter Bomber in 'one' with variants - so you wouldn't have to swap F4U for FW unless you need carriers in your world.

In my world the F4U-4 and -5 for example would be at a disadvantage against a Ta 152 (and a severe one above 30,000 feet) but it is 'good enough' to defend well as a long range escort where the guy that spots the other guy first has a huge advantage - and then pilot skill would have additional bearing on the outcome. To me a good analogy would be a P-51A battling a 109G-6 at 20,000 feet..where the 109 would have a distinct and multiple advantage in climb and dash speed but a lot of parity otherwise.

So the F4U for me gives me as good or better a fighter bomber than a P-47, but much better ACM on deck, nearly as good an air superiority fighter as a Mustang, with shorter but good range, at 25000 feet and more reliability with the air cooled engine, and it's carrier qualified. I see the two of them as a toss up in mid altitudes - particularly a P-51B with 1650-7 and 44-1 fuel.

But the 51 wasn't a legitimate carrier a/c because there was never a production series for that purpose.

So I went with one fighter that would be servicable as a night fighter, CAS, Recce, Interceptor, bomber destroyer and Air Superiority, with mods and versions for either all those roles or very adaptable.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 20, 2008)

Soren, do you include the short winged variants of the Ta 152 or just the H?



And Bill, the P-47N would have a longer combat radius than the P-38L.



> "America's Hundred-Thousand" by Francis Dean. On pages 599 and 600 there are AAF pictogramas depicting the combat radius of the P-38, 47 and 51.
> For the record at 25,000 feet, with 5 minutes at WEP and 15 minutes at full military power, 30 minutes
> reserve:
> 
> ...


----------



## Soren (Jul 21, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Yeah, but in my definition of best prop planes, I tend to think that evolutionary series which are changed materially but still have large commonality of Bill of Materials - Fw 190A, D and to a degree Ta 152 fit the profile of one named airplane - all from same manufacturer, very simlar to same structure, even if an engine change occurs. So in my world you would have Destroyer, Interceptor, Air superiority, and Fighter Bomber in 'one' with variants - so you wouldn't have to swap F4U for FW unless you need carriers in your world.
> 
> In my world the F4U-4 and -5 for example would be at a disadvantage against a Ta 152 (and a severe one above 30,000 feet) but it is 'good enough' to defend well as a long range escort where the guy that spots the other guy first has a huge advantage - and then pilot skill would have additional bearing on the outcome. To me a good analogy would be a P-51A battling a 109G-6 at 20,000 feet..where the 109 would have a distinct and multiple advantage in climb and dash speed but a lot of parity otherwise.
> 
> ...



I definitely understand what you're saying, and considering the logistical side your choices are great.

The reason I didn't choose the F4U-4 for the fighter interceptor role is mainly that it is at a disadvantage in maneuverability (esp. in the horizontal) and performance compared to the Ta-152H, and esp. at high alts. Also I prioritize national safety and landbased offensive strength, for which I need a fighter unrivalled in performance agility and with long range. 

Now regarding the Ju-388 Zerstörrers, they will ofcourse be accompanied by Ta-152's when'ever bomber formations with escorts were the targets. Without escorts a bomber formation would quickly be decimated by the Zerstörrers who feature extreme firepower.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 22, 2008)

Wells here's a list from wwii planes.

Defensive Homeland Fighter: Spitfire (and Hurricane, if I could have two)

Offensive Escort fighter: P-51 

Ground attack: P-47 or FW 190A?

Heavy Bomber: B-17 (for durability, not for biggest bomb load) 

Medium Bomber: Ju-88 

Light bomber: Il Sturmovik 

Carrier fighter: Hellcat or Corsair (really can't decide)

Carrier bomber: Fairey Swordfish (if I couldn't get a TBF Avenger or Dauntless)

Trainer: Gloster Gladiator 

Seaplane: PBY Catalina 

Transport, (troops, supplies): C-47 

Special Operations Figher or Recon: P-38 or Mossie? 

Nightfighter: Black Widow

Top gun ace plane: Bf 109


----------



## smg (Jul 23, 2008)

well this is my list:

Defensive Homeland Fighter:Yakovlev Yak-9

Offensive Escort fighter: p-51

Ground attack:Hawker Typhoon

Heavy Bomber:Stirling

Medium Bomber:He 111

Light bomber:Junkers Ju 87

Transport, (troops, supplies): C-47 

Nightfighter: DH.98 Mosquito

Top gun ace plane:ME 109


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 25, 2008)

For the US, I'm thinking:

*Early war:*

*USAAF:*

Fighter: Updated P-36/P-42 (with upgraded armament -4/6 .50's- and 2-stage R-1830 similar to F4F's) superceded by land based F4U when available. (probably with continued improvement and production of the Hawk as a supplemental a/c possibly re-engined with R-2000)

Tactical Fighter/Bomber (and Dive-Bomber): F4U when available.

Medium Bomber/Attack/Recon: B-25

Heavy Bomber/High-alt recon: B-17

Escort Fighter: F4U (possibly improved P-36 as intrim/supplemental)

(note: all further developments of F4U for AAF will retain, if not improve, the fuel capacity of the F4U-1, and self-sealing should be added for the wing tanks)

Light/Short Range Transport: C-47

Medium/long-range Transport: C-46 

*USN/USMC:*

Fighter: F4F-3/FM-1 to be succeded by F4U when available. (again, continuing Wildcat improvement as supplemental a/c and for use with escort carriers)

Fighter-Bomber/Dive Bomber: F4U when available

Dive Bomber/Recon: SBD (later suplemented as bomber by F4U)

Torpedo Bomber: TBF

Long range Photo Recon: F4F-7 (possibly superceded by recon variant of F4U)



--------

*Mid-Late War:*

*USAAF:*

Fighter/Fighter-Bomber/Escort Fighter: F4U-4 

Medium-Bomber/Attack/Recon: B-25 -> being superceded by A-26 when avaiable.

Heavy Bomber/High-Altitude Recon: B-17 -> being superceded by B-29

Very long range escort Fighter: P-47N

Nightfighter: P-61

Transports: C-46, C-47, C-54(or possibly C-69)


*USN/USMC*

Fighter (for escort carriers): F4F-8/FM-2, and later F8F

Fighter/Fighter-bomber: F4U-4 

Dive Bomber/Recon: Updated SBD (supplemted by F4U)

Torpedo Bomber: TBF

Long Range Photo-recon: F4F-7 (possibly F4U)


----------



## davparlr (Jul 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> 
> The complete list:
> ...




Good list, omitting the jets. I really couldn't identify other aircraft that were significantly better to consider these not acceptable (Do-335 seems weak in high altitude performance). However, I do question your selection of the He-277 over the B-29A and the Ju-390 over the C-97. Both seem to come up short in performance (I do have limited data). What is your rationale for these?


----------



## Soren (Jul 25, 2008)

I chose the He-277 over the B-29 because of the He-277's much higher ceiling, equal bombload and equal speed.

I chose the Ju-390 because of its rear loading ramp, range and unmatched loading capability (Except for the Me-323). 

As for the C-97, it wasn't a WW2 a/c davparlr, it first entered service in 1947.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> I chose the He-277 over the B-29 because of the He-277's much higher ceiling, equal bombload and equal speed.
> 
> I chose the Ju-390 because of its rear loading ramp, range and unmatched loading capability (Except for the Me-323).
> 
> As for the C-97, it wasn't a WW2 a/c davparlr, it first entered service in 1947.



Yep - the C-97 was a B-50 (B-29B) derivative. As a young kid I was homebound twice from Japan in late 1950 on the C-97 and had two serious engine fires. Mom booked a boat for the traip home after the last one.

I remember it well.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> I chose the He-277 over the B-29 because of the He-277's much higher ceiling, equal bombload and equal speed.



The B-29 had a 9,000 lb lifting advantage (empty to max TO weight) over the He-227, an extra a-bomb might come in handy. The B-29A-57 was significantly faster than the He-277, although I do not know if the -57 engine was use prior to the end of the war (I believe production stopped at wars end) however the B-29B was a bit faster at 364 mph. The B-29 was a warplane that went on to affect foreign policy for years to come. The B-29 was a proven design, with proven bomber performance, and proven growth capability. The He-277 never flew as a production plane. The B-29 was low risk and proven performance, the He-277, not past the prototype stage, was unproven and a high risk with some possible advantages and some disadvantages. And, if you want to use prototypes, a B-29 flew in May, 1945 with the P&W 4360 engine, thus a prototype of the B-50, which is a much superior aircraft. 

It does, indeed, have an impressive ceiling of which I have no doubt. However, ceiling and bomb carrying altitude can be quite a difference. The B-1 has a ceiling of 60000 ft, but with full weapons load, I have heard that it will only do about 25K.

Many aircraft had successful prototypes only to fail in application.

But, it is your selection.



> I chose the Ju-390 because of its rear loading ramp, range and unmatched loading capability (Except for the Me-323).
> 
> As for the C-97, it wasn't a WW2 a/c davparlr, it first entered service in 1947.



My research has generated only two J-390 prototypes actually flying and these were bombers. No prototype or production model of the cargo version was found. The C-97, on the other hand, did have a flying prototype which flew in December, 1944. In January, ’45, the C-97 prototype flew from Seattle to Washington D.C., averaging 383 mph carrying 20,000 lbs of cargo, setting a record. In addition, the bomber version, the B-29, had been flying for quite a while. It seems to me that the C-97 has a much better WWII pedigree than the J-390. In addition, it is much faster, 383+ mph to 317 max, and, throw into that, 50% more engines, parts, repair times, etc.

Also, the C-97 had a built-in ramp and hoist.



drgondog said:


> Yep - the C-97 was a B-50 (B-29B) derivative. As a young kid I was homebound twice from Japan in late 1950 on the C-97 and had two serious engine fires. Mom booked a boat for the traip home after the last one.
> 
> I remember it well.



The C-97 was originally derived from the B-29 (it first flew in Dec. 44, long before the B-50 came into being). For production, the B-50 engines were used. The B-50 evolved from the B-29D to XB-44, not the B, which was a lightened up B-29A.

One of my buds from pilot training, who was in the Texas Guard, went home to fly the KC-97 in 1969. Quite a backwards jump from a T-38 to a KC-97. This was about the time the President was flying the Dagger there.


----------



## Catch22 (Jul 30, 2008)

Since most of you guys have made your lists, you may as well start throwing in the jets for some fun!


----------



## Soren (Jul 30, 2008)

davparlr said:


> The B-29 had a 9,000 lb lifting advantage (empty to max TO weight) over the He-227, an extra a-bomb might come in handy. The B-29A-57 was significantly faster than the He-277, although I do not know if the -57 engine was use prior to the end of the war (I believe production stopped at wars end) however the B-29B was a bit faster at 364 mph. The B-29 was a warplane that went on to affect foreign policy for years to come. The B-29 was a proven design, with proven bomber performance, and proven growth capability. The He-277 never flew as a production plane. The B-29 was low risk and proven performance, the He-277, not past the prototype stage, was unproven and a high risk with some possible advantages and some disadvantages. And, if you want to use prototypes, a B-29 flew in May, 1945 with the P&W 4360 engine, thus a prototype of the B-50, which is a much superior aircraft.
> 
> It does, indeed, have an impressive ceiling of which I have no doubt. However, ceiling and bomb carrying altitude can be quite a difference. The B-1 has a ceiling of 60000 ft, but with full weapons load, I have heard that it will only do about 25K.
> 
> ...



The He-277 could carry just as much as the B-29 (Don't go after the number on Wiki, it's wrong), was just as fast and had a much higher ceiling. Btw, German figures are with combat load, as is all German figures for the their a/c.

Btw, take a look at the cruising speeds, the He-277 is much faster.



> My research has generated only two J-390 prototypes actually flying and these were bombers. No prototype or production model of the cargo version was found. The C-97, on the other hand, did have a flying prototype which flew in December, 1944. In January, ’45, the C-97 prototype flew from Seattle to Washington D.C., averaging 383 mph carrying 20,000 lbs of cargo, setting a record. In addition, the bomber version, the B-29, had been flying for quite a while. It seems to me that the C-97 has a much better WWII pedigree than the J-390. In addition, it is much faster, 383+ mph to 317 max, and, throw into that, 50% more engines, parts, repair times, etc.
> 
> Also, the C-97 had a built-in ramp and hoist.



I disagree, the Ju-390 is a WW2 aircraft, the C-97 is not.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 30, 2008)

Soren said:


> The He-277 could carry just as much as the B-29 (Don't go after the number on Wiki, it's wrong), was just as fast and had a much higher ceiling. Btw, German figures are with combat load, as is all German figures for the their a/c.
> 
> Btw, take a look at the cruising speeds, the He-277 is much faster.
> 
> I disagree, the Ju-390 is a WW2 aircraft, the C-97 is not.



What is you number for Max TO weight of the Ju-390.

So, you are saying that a prototype or production cargo version of the Ju-390 actually flew in WWII? The protype C-97 did fly. 

However, I would really rely on the C-54 for heavy lifting, rather than either the C-97 or Ju-390. I am firm believer that a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush and both the C-97 and Ju-390 were birds in the bush. As was the He-277. The C-5 was three times as large as the C-141, but in the 1973 war, the large brunt of the airlift was done by the C-141 not the C-5. Reliability and maintainability was the key as it was when C-54 saved a city a few years later.

You always project prototype/paper German aircraft as the same status as full production, effective aircraft.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 30, 2008)

davparlr said:


> The C-97 was originally derived from the B-29 (it first flew in Dec. 44, long before the B-50 came into being). For production, the B-50 engines were used. The B-50 evolved from the B-29D to XB-44, not the B, which was a lightened up B-29A.
> 
> One of my buds from pilot training, who was in the Texas Guard, went home to fly the KC-97 in 1969. Quite a backwards jump from a T-38 to a KC-97. This was about the time the President was flying the Dagger there.



You are right about the derivative being the D - brain fart


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 30, 2008)

Like the Ju 90 and 290 the Ju 390 had been designed as a transport, the trans-Atlantic heavy bomber concept was an afterthought.

Junkers Aircraft of WWII



> The Ju390 was intended as a widebody transporter Ju390A and long range surveyer aircraft Ju390B. Another purpose was a long range bomber aircraft Ju390C for missions to the United States (New York Bomber). It is reported that two aircraft flew from France to New York in 1944, but this seems to be wrong. The bomber version should have been able to pick up Henschel rocket bombs. Another Ju390 design saw a Mistel construction, where a Messerschmitt Me328 should have been put on the top of the Ju390. Probably at the beginning of the development of the Ju390, Lufthansa seemed to be interested in this design as well for long range air traffic after the war.





But for the more viable (or a/c that actually saw use), in addition to the C-54 there would be the Ju 290 as well.


----------



## Soren (Jul 31, 2008)

The Ju-390 not only flew, it was used by the LW for transport:


















As for the He-277, again no project, in full service in WW2 where 15 flew for the LW.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 31, 2008)

Didn't Heinkel originally begin development of the He 277 against the RLM's wishes? (they being so adamant on development of the He 177)


----------



## Soren (Jul 31, 2008)

No the budget for development of any new bomber was cut short because of the RLM's decision (Or order) to direct full attention to fighter production.


----------



## Juha (Jul 31, 2008)

Soren
Quote: "As for the He-277, again no project, in full service in WW2 where 15 flew for the LW."

Source for that, please. According to Griehl's and Dressel's Heinkel He 177, 277 and 277 in April 44 Heinkel was instructed by the RLM to suspend all work on the He 277. All components and parts in the process of manufacture were to be scrapped.

And the units which allegly used He 277s?

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jul 31, 2008)

Yeah they sure scrapped it alright 






But because of your snide remarks you are henceforth ignored.


----------



## Juha (Jul 31, 2008)

Soren
So You don't have a reliable source?
Now according to above mentioned book Heinkel didn't get ready a single He 277s IIRC and only 3 prototypes of He 177B-5s, 4th, a production proto, seemed to have been destroyed during USAAF bombing before it was completed. He 177B-5 (4 separate engines) production was first delayed because Arado got orders to concentrate first on Ar 234 and then Heinkel got orders to scrap He 177B-5 program and put all resources to he 162.

French got ready at least one He 274.

Juha


----------



## davparlr (Jul 31, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Ju-390 not only flew, it was used by the LW for transport:
> 
> As for the He-277, again no project, in full service in WW2 where 15 flew for the LW.



I have no sources to support this, and a few that counter.


----------



## Soren (Jul 31, 2008)

I already provided pictures Davparlr, they were built and flew for the LW during WW2. 

15 He-277's were finished before the project was put down and efforts were to be directed at fighter production. Juha may believe what he wants to but the below isn't a prototype and it wasn't partially finished:


----------



## Soren (Jul 31, 2008)

Ofcourse there was also the He-274 which was even faster at 580 km/h and had a slightly lower ceiling of 14,300m:

















Now this a/c only got to the prototype stage, and was pretty much finished when the project was cancelled along with the production of He-277's.


----------



## Juha (Aug 1, 2008)

Soren
production He 177 B-5 / 277 B-5 were to have twin fin, see the drawing at Luftarchiv.de. Photos on the site are of 177 V101 or V103 early on which still had unmodified He 177A-5 fuselages and so single fin.
And where you got the info on 15 in full service? You can of course believe what you want but as I have wrote a fairly new German book which specialized on He 177, 277 and 274 doesn't know anything on series production He 177B-5s/277 B-5s.

Nice that you posted photos on the both Ju 390 protos which were completed.

BTW French completed the both He 274 protos, V1 flew first time Dec 1945 and V2 Dec 1947.

Juha


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 1, 2008)

Here's a quick quote from WIKIPEDIA: 



> Only eight He 277B-5/R2 were completed before all bomber production was terminated in favor of the Emergency Fighter Program



There were 15 He 277/177B's that flew in all, including prototypes and any pre-production a/c, 8 production 277's were completed prior to the cancellation of all bomber programs to focus resourses on the Emergency fighter program.
(unfinished components on the production line may have been scrapped, but the completed bombers were not)


----------



## Juha (Aug 2, 2008)

Kool Kitty
Yes and see the sources, the claim that there were 8 production 277s is from Green, which isn't very reliable on late war types. I know because I read Green's A/c of 3rd Reich and Nowarra's thick book on German a/c around 1970.

Have you raliable source on the 277 production? And use in units? Griel and Dressel had clearly went through much archieval material for their book but the text isn't always absolutely clear. Also much of 3rd reich material was destroyed so I cannot claim that their book is error free. 

Juha


----------



## Juha (Aug 2, 2008)

Hello again, Kool Kitty
checked from Wood's and Gunston's Hitler's Luftwaffe, on page 193 there is nothing on He 277 B-5 or other He 277 production only 3 protos and several advanced proposed production versions. So it up to Green.

And even Green, in his Famous Bombers, 1975 edition p. 230 talk about 3 protos and 8 production a/c and of the latter " only two or three of these actually test flown." So max 6 test flown according to Green

According to Griel and Dressel, only 3 prototypes flew (V101-3) and V104 "A-5 rebuilt to B-5 standard. Pattern a/c for He 177B-5 series. Believed destroyed in an air raid before completion July 1944." (in page 226.)

Nowhere I have seen info on He 177 B-5 /He 277 B-5 service in combat unit. Or even a photo on He 177 B-5 /He 277 B-5 in its production form (Twin finned tail, a 4-gun tail turret and a chin turret).

Juha


----------



## Lancaster630 (Aug 2, 2008)

Fighter: Hawker Hurricane
Reason: Can take a lot of punishment and quickly be adapted to diffrent theatres

Ground Attack: Hawker Tornado
Reason: Never went into production but from I have read the Rolls Royce Vulture "behaved itself" and I like it lol 

Escort Fighter: FW190 D-9
Reason: I just feel sorry for anyone trying to get at the aircraft they are escorting

Naval Fighter: Chance Vought Corsair
Reason: Good solid aircraft, the abilitie to carry a lot of ordinance

Naval Bomber/Torpedo bomber: Fairey Swordfish
Reason: Same as the Hurricane can take a lot of punishment just a good faithful reliable plane

Light Bomber: Junkers 87 Stuka
Reason: pin point accuracy making its smaller bomb load more effective

Medium Bomber: Vickers Wellington
Reason: Good plane, reliable and can take one hell of a bashing

Heavy Bomber: Avro Lancaster B.I
Reason: Good bombload with a good future pedagrie to come after the war with the Shackleton and Lincoln

Strike Aircraft: De Haviland Mosquito B.IV
Reason: Fast, accurate with a bombload better than the B17's

Night Fighter: De Haviland Mosquito NF.II
Reason: Fast, deadly always present to cause problems to the enemy

Night Intruder: Hamker Huricane Mk.IIC with Bristol Beufighter
Reason: Hurri same as before, Beufighter had to have one somewhere lol

Photo Recon: Mosquito and Spitfire PR.XIX
Reason: Both aircraft are fast and well suited to these roles

Transport: Douglas C47 Dakota
Reason: Well proven aircraft for reliability and saftey

Glider Tug: Short Stirling
Reson: The type found a good niche here, and with the escort of FW190 D-9's would have no worries

Special Services: Westland Lysander
Reason: its more of a personal favorite  

Trainers: Tiger Moth, Miles Master III and Avro Anson


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 2, 2008)

Lancaster630 said:


> Escort Fighter: FW190 D-9
> Reason: I just feel sorry for anyone trying to get at the aircraft they are escorting



Wouldn't you want an aircraft with a bit more range for escort duty?

519mi is not very long...


----------



## Amsel (Aug 2, 2008)

Fighter-FW 190 D9,F8 Bearcat.

Interceptor-FW 190 D9

Bomber escort- P-51

Nightfighter- F-4u Corsair

Ground attack- F-4u Corsair

Med.Bomber-B-17

Heavy Bomber- B-29


----------



## Soren (Aug 3, 2008)

Here's what I have:

_Converted from an He 177A-3/R2 airframe, with four DB 603A engines, the first Heinkel He 277 prototype flew at Vienna-Schwechat in the closing months of 1943, followed by the second aircraft on 28 February 1944. Directional instability resulted in the fitting of a twin fin and rudder tail unit to the third prototype. Eight 1305kW DB 603A-powered He 277B-5/R2 production models were completed before the priority given to fighter production in July 1944 brought the programme to an end._


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 3, 2008)

Soren, What's your sourse? 

That seems to match what Wikipedia has:



> Converted from an He 177A-3/R2 airframe with four DB 603A engines, the He 277 V1 flew at Vienna-Schwechat in the closing months of 1943. The second prototype, He 277 V2, was a conversion of a standard He 177A-5/R8 airframe and was flown on 28 February 1944. Minor directional instability displayed by the V1 and V2 resulted in the fitting of a twin fin and rudder tail unit to the He 277 V3, which had carried the earlier designation He 177B-5/V101. This aircraft's first flight, marked with the Stammkennzeichen (factory radio code) NN+QQ and which had serial number 535 550, was achieved on December 20, 1943. The main production version was to be the He 277B-5/R2 intended for heavy bomber operation over long ranges and powered by four DB 603A engines. Only eight He 277B-5/R2 were completed before all bomber production was terminated in favor of the Emergency Fighter Program.


----------



## Soren (Aug 3, 2008)

It's from here:
Heinkel He 277 - bomber


----------



## Juha (Aug 3, 2008)

So we have unsourced internet source which gives same info as Green in his old A/c of the 3rd Reich. And we know that in his a bit less old Famous Bombers Green qualifies that of the 8 production He 277 B-5s " only two or three of these actually test flown."

On the other hand we have newer book specialising on He 177, 277 and 274 whose German authors write in their introduction that they had used Bundesarchiv / Militärarchiv , Wehrbereichsbibliothek IV and looked through the records of the former Heinkel AG and who wrote that only 4 He 177 B-5s (277 B-5s) were made of which the last one was probably destroyed before it was fully completed during an USAAF bombing raid. And only photos we have seen are those of V 101 which was the first proto of 177 B-5 / 277 B-5 a/c. 

And still no info on use in combat units. 

Juha

BTW if you are interested in He 177/277 find a copy of Griel's and Dressel's book, the story of He 177B-5 protos and their air testing seems to have been a bit more complicating than the internet tells and V102 was the first to have twin fin, V 103 was to have that later, V101 got only small aux. fins on its tail plane a bit like Fairey Gannet


----------



## Juha (Aug 3, 2008)

btw
according to Griehl and Dressel He 177B-5/V101 first flight happened on 20 Dec 1943. So a bit more exact info than that from Green.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Aug 3, 2008)

Hello
I even bothered to check the old Green's The Warplanes of the Third Reich.

On page 360 "Only eight production He 277s were completed of which two or three were flown before all completed aircraft and those still on assembly line were scrapped."

On page 361 "The sole He 277B-7 was destroyed shortly before the arrival of Soviet troops." 

So even according to Green there were in max. 3 protos, 8 He 277 B-5s and one B-7, of which 5-6 were ever flown. And as I have wrote I have much more faith in Griehl's and Dressel's book, according to which the series production was to begin in autumn 44 but as we know the program was axed in July 44.

Juha


----------



## Lancaster630 (Aug 3, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Wouldn't you want an aircraft with a bit more range for escort duty?
> 
> 519mi is not very long...



Thats where my strategy comes in take each place a bit at a time I hope it works


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2008)

Lancaster630 said:


> Thats where my strategy comes in take each place a bit at a time I hope it works



Didn't work for Hitler...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 3, 2008)

I think the 519 mi figure for the 190D-9 was on internal fuel and at maximum cruise (~350-360 mph), at economical cruise and max internal fuel pluss a 300L drop tank range was ~1,100-1,200 mi iirc.

Though for long range escort that still isn't too great.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 3, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> I think the 519 mi figure for the 190D-9 was on internal fuel and at maximum cruise (~350-360 mph), at economical cruise and max internal fuel pluss a 300L drop tank range was ~1,100-1,200 mi iirc.
> 
> Though for long range escort that still isn't too great.



Internal fuel is important since, as soon as you enter combat, tanks are dropped. At 400 miles deep, very little combat time is left at combat power before having to head home.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 4, 2008)

Well there's 138.4 US gallons normal, 30.4 gal more auxiliary fuel in rear fuselage tank, and 79.25 US gal in the drop tank, that's 68% fuel internal.

With some rough calculations I get ~80 gal for combat with no reserve. That gives ~25 min in combat.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 4, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Well there's 138.4 US gallons normal, 30.4 gal more auxiliary fuel in rear fuselage tank, and 79.25 US gal in the drop tank, that's 68% fuel internal.
> 
> With some rough calculations I get ~80 gal for combat with no reserve. That gives ~25 min in combat.



KK - IIRC - in the 51, the 1650-3 and -7 burned 240-260gph at full throttle, and 60-70gph at cruise.. what are the nominal comparisons for the D-9?

The 51, for example would burn at least 60 gallons in the internal tank forming up and getting to altitude and crossing the channel - then switch to external tanks.. often by the time they were at the 500 mile radius point they were still 100% for internal wing tanks plus some in fuse tank (dependent on pilot).. leaving approximately 200 gallons at the target to fight and return home. If they got ino a fight early, say around Frankfurt to Hannover, those that engaged would be turning back perhaps in the Bruswick area, because they would drop their externals and be burning up the remaining 200-220 gallons at a high rate during the fight.

If the Dora had the same basic fuel consumption during escort for the same mission (progressing as fast as the bombers they are escorting), it seems they close to only having 160+ gallons early in the outbound leg, in comparison with a Mustang having ~ 210 gallons several hundred miles deeper in penetration. 

Saying another way, the Mustang, with 108 gallon tanks has twice the fuel as the Dora 9.

Unless the Dora had much better specific fuel consumption in escort cruise, it seems they were at 300-350 for practical escort. Great for BoB but less than even the P-47-25 and above in mid 1944.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 4, 2008)

Another problem with the Dora is that, at higher altitude, performance drops off rather quickly. As you can see, it is pretty well outclassed by Spitfire XIV.
Better escorts would be the Ta-152H, P-51H, P-47N, or modified F4U-4, with the P-51H best at B-17 altitudes and the P-47N at B-29 altitudes. Higher would be the Ta-154H.

20k
*Fw-190D-9* 
a/s 428 mph
climb 3054 f/m
*Spitfire XIV*
a/s 423 mph
climb 3600 f/m

25k
*Fw-190D-9*
a/s 422
climb 2208 f/m
*Spitfire XIV*
a/s 446 mph
climb 3100 mph

30k
*Fw-190D-9*
a/s 406 mph
climb 1476 f/m
*Spitfire XIV*
a/s 443
climb 2390


----------



## Soren (Aug 4, 2008)

The Ta-152H is better than them all at all altitudes Davparlr.


----------



## fly boy (Aug 4, 2008)

ok here mine again 

carrier fighter f4u 
dive bomber sbd
torpedo plane tbm or tbf
escort/ air mastery fighter p-51
ground attack p-47
pacific ground based fighter p-38
transport c-47 
medium bomber b-26
heavy bomber ju 390
recon plane f-5 lightning or p-51A
float plane the hell with it pby


----------



## fly boy (Aug 4, 2008)

nvm about heavy bomber changed it to ju 390


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2008)

Why didn't you just edit it then?


----------



## lm2f (Aug 5, 2008)

Fighter-Bearcat, Corsair

Interceptor-152H

escort- 152H

Night fighter- Corsair

Ground attack- Corsair

Med.Bomber-Marauder 

Heavy Bomber- B-29

I try not to be too complex


----------



## davparlr (Aug 9, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Ta-152H is better than them all at all altitudes Davparlr.



Soren, I disagree with your assessment of the comparison to the P-51H, but I cannot argue your point on the P-47N.

Climb and acceleration is calculated on equivalent fuel weight (148 gal). 

As compared to the Ta-152H, the P-51H, was faster at altitudes from SL up to 25k feet, from considerable, 43 mph at SL, to substantial, 17mph at 25k, with a 34 mph average. Speed is life.

Power loading (lbs/hp) of the P-51H is better than the Ta-152H at all altitudes up to 35k, approximately 25% less weight per hp. Power loading is acceleration. The P-51H could considerably out accelerate the Ta-152H. 

The wing loading of the P-51H is approximately 10% better at all altitudes. This would provide better lift force surplus at higher speeds and, therefore, higher initial turn rate over the Ta-152H at altitudes below 25K.

The P-51H has a climb rate higher than the Ta-152H at SL, 5400-5600 ft/m to 5100 ft/min. I have very little data on climb for the Ta-152H. I have 2760 ft/m at 15k, but I have no idea at what power setting or weight, that data was taken. The P-51H will climb at 4600 at that altitude, a value the Ta-152H probably does not obtain at any power setting. It is reasonable to assume that the Ta-152H and the P-51H achieve climb parity at 25k. After that the Ta-152H has a considerable climb advantage.

Compared to the P-51H at these altitudes, the Ta-154H is substantially slower, has weaker acceleration, less climbing ability, and slower in the dive (due to less acceleration). The only advantage for the Ta-152 at these altitudes is a sustained turn rate. Something that historically has not been a strong suit to play. It cannot initiate the attack, unless undetected, it has no tools to disengage from an attack, and it cannot control the energy management. The P-51H, on the other hand, only needs to maintain airspeed to maintain higher energy levels.

With impressive advantage in airspeed and power loading, and with high speed agility and better climb ability, it is clear that the P-51H has superior performance over the Ta-152H from SL to 25k ft, which covers mid-level and lower high level bombers.

The biggest advantage the P-47N has over the Ta-152H from 25k to 35k is a slight airspeed advantage, 13mph at 35k, and massive power loading, approximately 60% of the weight of the Ta-152H per horsepower. The P-47N has twice the hp than the Ta-152H from 25k to 35k. Acceleration is no contest. 

The P-47N has a higher top speed, much better acceleration, probably much better dive (due to acceleration). The Ta-152H, has a much better climb and a much better sustained turn rate (excess P-47 hp helps it here, but I suspect, not enough offset that Ta-152H wing). In this case, the airspeed advantage of the P-47N is not enough to offset the advantage in climb and turn of the Ta-152H. In spite of the fact the P-47N could probably easily disengage an attack at will by diving away; I would give the advantage from 25k up, to the Ta-152H.

Of course, if you have data that contridicts my assessment, I will be glad to examine it, except proposed engine performance. I really have very little climb data on the Ta-152H.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 10, 2008)

all of fly boys are american ecccept the Ju-390 lol


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 11, 2008)

All of mine were American. (though I was trying to go with a simplified selection for the US's needs, and with only 2 engine manufacturers -Wright and Pratt Whitney)


----------



## Soren (Aug 12, 2008)

Hi Davparlr, sorry for the late reply, haven't been around the forum for roughly two weeks, was on a two week work course.



davparlr said:


> Soren, I disagree with your assessment of the comparison to the P-51H, but I cannot argue your point on the P-47N.
> 
> Climb and acceleration is calculated on equivalent fuel weight (148 gal).
> 
> ...



What data is it you have Davparlr ?

The climb rate of the Ta-152H-1 was in the area of 5,500 ft/min at SL, and time to climb to 10km took about the same time as the P-51H. 

But climb rate isn't everything, maneuverability is an important factor for a fighter as-well (Esp. when speed climb rate is close) and here the Ta-152H-1 has it all over the P-51H. 

And then there's service ceiling, which is very important as it allows you to always start from an advantagous point, and again here the Ta-152H has it all over the P-51H. 

As for powerloading, well as it's just a rough estimate, what one ought to be looking at is thrust, and the new advanced prop on the Ta-152H allowed it to produce 100 kgf or more thrust at the same power setting than previous FW190 fighters. So the acceleration of the two will be very close. 

But in the end if you really want to compare the Ta-152H to the P-51H (Which didn't see service until well after Germany's surrender) then atleast be realistic and let it be the Jumo 213EB equipped one as this would the one the P-51H would be facing, and the performance with the EB engine greatly surpassed that with the E engine.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 14, 2008)

Soren said:


> Hi Davparlr, sorry for the late reply, haven't been around the forum for roughly two weeks, was on a two week work course.



I've been busy myself. Did you enjoy your work course?



> What data is it you have Davparlr ?



P-51H - Corrected North American performance data validated with flight test dated 11-1-45 (probably equivalent to Focke-Wulf Ta-152H performance data). Data corrected for equivalent fuel weight. Ta-152H data, what I have, is from your posts.



> The climb rate of the Ta-152H-1 was in the area of 5,500 ft/min at SL, and time to climb to 10km took about the same time as the P-51H.





> Originally Posted by Soren
> Renrich,
> 
> 
> The Ta-152H's top speed at SL was 597 km/h (371 mph), and top speed at alt was 760 km/h (472 mph). Climb rate at SL was 5,100+ ft/min.



I think stretching the climb rate to 5500 ft/min would require more weight reduction.



> But climb rate isn't everything, maneuverability is an important factor for a fighter as-well (Esp. when speed climb rate is close) and here the Ta-152H-1 has it all over the P-51H.



Maneuverability is a factor, but design effort has always been for higher speed. Energy management is most important, and the P-51H has all the advantages here with better speed, better climb rate and better dive speed. In addition, at higher speeds, the P-51H should have an advantage in initial turn rate due to its better load factor. Again, all the P-51H pilot has to do to maintain a great advantage is to keep the airspeed up.



> And then there's service ceiling, which is very important as it allows you to always start from an advantageous point, and again here the Ta-152H has it all over the P-51H.



This is true and effective for boom and zoom but it must stay high to maintain the edge. The Mig-17 had an altitude advantage with the F-86, but was not a better fighter. Also, Ta-152H must get up there and that would be no problem with the P-51D, but a severe problem with swarming P-51Hs (certainly below 15k, where it is easily outclassed).



> As for powerloading, well as it's just a rough estimate, what one ought to be looking at is thrust, and the new advanced prop on the Ta-152H allowed it to produce 100 kgf or more thrust at the same power setting than previous FW190 fighters. So the acceleration of the two will be very close.



You said before that it was 70 kgf. Did that prop ever fly? A magical prop for a magical wing, you seem to have a infinite number of rabbits to pull out of your hat. This would make the P-51H pulling only about 80% of the weight per horsepower of the Ta-152H, a bit better but the Ta is still underpowered (at low and medium altitudes) compared to its comtemporary competition.

Some comparisons of lbs/hp at SL

P-51H 3.9
Tempest II 4.3*
Spitfire MkXIV 4.7 *
P-47M 4.6
F4U-4 4.8
Ta-152H 5.1
* Not corrected for equivalent fuel weight




> But in the end if you really want to compare the Ta-152H to the P-51H (Which didn't see service until well after Germany's surrender) then atleast be realistic and let it be the Jumo 213EB equipped one as this would the one the P-51H would be facing, and the performance with the EB engine greatly surpassed that with the E engine.



Production versions of the P-51H was available before VE day, only about three months after the production version (barely production version) of the Ta-152H. And if you want to include non-production possibilities, the P-72 was well into production at VE day, a plane much more powerful and faster than the Ta in any configuration.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 14, 2008)

Do the numbers for the P51 come from the pilots notes or are they factory numbers . if they are from the pilot note they might differ I recently found out that the german Aircraft did not have pilot notes like the Allies so all the numbers have to be factory numbers . All the LW pilot notes I've been told by 2 reputable sources were written post war


----------



## Soren (Aug 14, 2008)

Davparlr,

Check the FW AG drag chart, the Ta-152's prop generates from 70 to 200 kgf more thrust than previous FW190 props.

As for the Ta-152H-1's climb rate, well it must have been in area of atleast 5,500 ft/min as it took it the asme time to reach 10km as the P-51H which from what I can understand climb at 6,100 ft/min at SL.

Now as for the P-51H being "greatly" superior below 25kft, well that's just pure BS davparlr, the Ta-152H was nearly as fast as the P-51H and climbed at a similar rate at that alt, and on top of that the Ta-152H's energy retention in maneuvers at all alts was greatly superior.

And talking about rabbits hats, why is it you're always trying compare the Ta-152H-1 with the P-51H ? The Ta-152 saw service in the ETO, the P-51H didn't. Had the war been prolonged enough for the P-51H to enter service in the ETO then there would've been Ta-152H's powered by Jumo 213EB engines flying around, and the P-51H was no match in speed or climb rate for that at any altitude.

Anyway it's pointless debating cause the Me-262 rendered all prop fighters obsolete, and if Germany ever wanted a chance to win the airwar then this was the a/c they would've had to concentrate on. While the Ta-152H was considerably superior in speed, maneuverability climb rate to all it's adversaries it wasn't to the degree which was needed to win the airwar, it lacked the overwhelming speed and firepower of the Me-262.


----------



## Soren (Aug 14, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Do the numbers for the P51 come from the pilots notes or are they factory numbers . if they are from the pilot note they might differ I recently found out that the german Aircraft did not have pilot notes like the Allies so all the numbers have to be factory numbers . All the LW pilot notes I've been told by 2 reputable sources were written post war



German performance figures were either test flight figures from the said company and Rechlin, or very conservatively estimated figures.

As for pilot's notes I've not heard of Allied performance figures based on pilot's notes, only on test flight or estimated performance.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 15, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Do the numbers for the P51 come from the pilots notes or are they factory numbers . if they are from the pilot note they might differ I recently found out that the german Aircraft did not have pilot notes like the Allies so all the numbers have to be factory numbers . All the LW pilot notes I've been told by 2 reputable sources were written post war



The data is from what appears to be an official North American Aircraft document that indicates in words that it is based on analysis and verified with flight test. It is probably as good as any data we have. Data was retrieved from Spitfireperformance site. All data, whether flight test or analysis, has an error associated to it such that most of the arguments we have fall in or near the error of the data.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 15, 2008)

Soren said:


> And then there's service ceiling, which is very important as it allows you to always start from an advantagous point, and again here the Ta-152H has it all over the P-51H.
> 
> *The limitation of 42,500 for the P-51H was due to lack of pressurization, not hp... same as XP-51G and J and perhaps it is unrealistic to think that Ta 152's will climb to 43,000 feet to ensure an altitude advantage when they would more likerly be meeting P-47N and P-51H at 23-32,000? (Edit - Soren I am wrong on this. It was the Xp-51J that was restricted from climbing higher than 46,500 ft due to lack of pressurization- but it was 1700 pounds lighter than the P-51H)*
> 
> But in the end if you really want to compare the Ta-152H to the P-51H (Which didn't see service until well after Germany's surrender) then atleast be realistic and let it be the Jumo 213EB equipped one as this would the one the P-51H would be facing, and the performance with the EB engine greatly surpassed that with the E engine.



*First production P-51H came off the NAA lines in late February 1944... and deployment to operational units started in late March for mechanic/pilot orientation. They could have been deployed to ETO but why bother - *

Soren, on your earlier question to me on Yak 9 vs Yak 3, that was what I meant as the question was early to mid 1943. Like the P-40 and P-39 it was competitive in turn - moreso than P-47C and P-38G/H - to the Me 109G.

We will always agree to disagree on Me 109 turn capability relative to terms like 'clear superiority', 'slightly better', 'competitive' , and 'slightly inferior' when referencing Me 109 versus its contemporaries.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 15, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Do the numbers for the P51 come from the pilots notes or are they factory numbers . if they are from the pilot note they might differ I recently found out that the german Aircraft did not have pilot notes like the Allies so all the numbers have to be factory numbers . All the LW pilot notes I've been told by 2 reputable sources were written post war



Neil - the 487mph quote most often referenced is from the 1945 Flight Tests at NAA in February and March 1945. The airplane was referenced as clean, gun ports taped over and at 7500 pounds gross weight (which was slightly less than the P-51B/C/D/K) and ballast for ammo. The engine bHp in the Tests was rated at 2240BHp (Static test at SL) at 90" boost in the 1650-9.

In the High Speed Run, the engine was rated at 2160 BHp at Sea Level, Std Day.

At 9480 which was a full internal combat load of fuel and ammo the P-51H ran 475mph w/o racks in the NAA tests.

The 487mph often quoted was deemed at Interceptor Weight, the 9480 was 'combat weight after dropping tanks' but having all internal fuel and ammo... which of course means that this would be better represented with racks attached - which in turn would drop max speed another 10-12Kts.

The USAAF tests in 1946 had speed figures slightly lower but the ship they tested was in -operational configuration with no wing prep or surface treatment or gun ports taped over etc - so it represented a better picture of the 51H as it would have looked like in ETO had it been engaged.

I actually read that report when Al White was still Chief Test Pilot at NAA back in the early 60's but too stupid to get a copy - IIRC it was about 70-100pages.


----------



## Soren (Aug 15, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Soren, on your earlier question to me on Yak 9 vs Yak 3, that was what I meant as the question was early to mid 1943. Like the P-40 and P-39 it was competitive in turn - moreso than P-47C and P-38G/H - to the Me 109G.
> 
> We will always agree to disagree on Me 109 turn capability relative to terms like 'clear superiority', 'slightly better', 'competitive' , and 'slightly inferior' when referencing Me 109 versus its contemporaries.



Drgondog the Bf-109's superior turn performance was due to it's lower lift-loading and power-loading, we both know this. Now as to being clearly superior, well it's a relative term and perhaps we use it differently which is what triggers the disagreement.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 16, 2008)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> Check the FW AG drag chart, the Ta-152's prop generates from 70 to 200 kgf more thrust than previous FW190 props.



Ta-152H engines that never flew, props that never turned, configurations that never came to be.

Don’t forget, the P-51H is getting some pretty good punch from its heat exchanger.



> As for the Ta-152H-1's climb rate, well it must have been in area of atleast 5,500 ft/min as it took it the asme time to reach 10km as the P-51H which from what I can understand climb at 6,100 ft/min at SL.



To get 6100 ft/min, I calculated that the P-51H could carry only 100 gal of gas. Time to climb is interesting. I think that time to climb to 10km is approximately the same. However, the rate of climb for the P-51H starts to drop off significantly above 25k ft. At 25k the climb rate is 3400 ft/min. At 30k ft., the climb rate is only 2300 ft/min. At 33k, it is 1250. The Ta-152H climb rate is much more constant, thanks to those wings. At 29k ft, I have info, I do not know where from, that the climb rate of the Ta-12H is 2854 ft/min. I do not have good data on the Ta-152H climb rate, but I believe that it will climb increasingly, and significantly, better above 25k, than the P-51H. If so, then the P-51H must perform somewhat better below 25k ft in order to make the same time at 33k. This is consistent with the climb data I calculated on the P-51H.



> Now as for the P-51H being "greatly" superior below 25kft, well that's just pure BS davparlr, the Ta-152H was nearly as fast as the P-51H and climbed at a similar rate at that alt, and on top of that the Ta-152H's energy retention in maneuvers at all alts was greatly superior.



These are my actual quotes on this site.

“it is clear that the P-51H has superior performance over the Ta-152H from SL to 25k ft,”

It is clear that the P-51H is faster, has a better climb rate, dive speed, initial turn rate, power loading, and wing loading from SL to 25k. The only advantage the Ta-152H has in this arena is sustained turn rate, a historically insufficient capability to outclass an opponent.

“(certainly below 15k, where it is easily outclassed).” (said about the Ta-152H)

Airspeed is significantly better from SL to 20k. This is the P-51H advantage in airspeed:
SL 33 mph
5k 44 mph
10k 33 mph
15k 24 mph
20k 27 mph

The Ta-152H is not “nearly as fast”

If you are going 70 mph (113 km/h) on a interstate (autobahn), and a car goes by you at 100 mph (161 mph), you would say, wow, that guys moving!

Again, the P-51H climbs better, dives better, initially turns better, has better power loading, and better wing loading. All overpowering advantages for the P-51H below 15k!

At 25k, the differences become close although the P-51H is still 17 mph faster. But it still has dive speed, power loading and wing loading advantage.




> And talking about rabbits hats, why is it you're always trying compare the Ta-152H-1 with the P-51H ? The Ta-152 saw service in the ETO, the P-51H didn't. Had the war been prolonged enough for the P-51H to enter service in the ETO then there would've been Ta-152H's powered by Jumo 213EB engines flying around, and the P-51H was no match in speed or climb rate for that at any altitude.



Again, if this is a valid argument, and the war was continuing, and jets were not a factor, the Ta-152H with upgraded engines and prop would have met the P-72, which had already been in production for quite a while, which was much more powerful and much faster.



> Anyway it's pointless debating cause the Me-262 rendered all prop fighters obsolete, and if Germany ever wanted a chance to win the airwar then this was the a/c they would've had to concentrate on.


ABSOLUTELY CORRECT



> While the Ta-152H was considerably superior in speed, maneuverability climb rate to all it's adversaries



Not below 25k, where it was not super performer. And even above, it was not exclusively superior. The P-47M was faster from 10k to 35k and could possibly out climb it up to 33k (not enough data is available or reliable to claim this)


----------



## Soren (Aug 17, 2008)

davparlr said:


> Ta-152H engines that never flew, props that never turned, configurations that never came to be.



What's on that chart is what was used davparlr, the Ta-152H was fitted with the prop, engine, armament etc etc you see described. 

And as for your assumptions on wing loading etc etc, you couldn't be more wrong.

The Ta-152H has a far lower lift-loading from SL and up than the P-51H, far far lower.

*Ta-152H*
Weight: 4,750 kg
Wing area: 23.3 m^2
Clmax: 1.62 
__________________ 
Lift loading = *125.84 kg/m^2*

*P-51H*
Weight: 4,300 kg
Wing area: 21.64 m^2
Clmax: 1.35 
__________________
Lift loading = *147.18 kg/m^2*




> The only advantage the Ta-152H has in this arena is sustained turn rate, a historically insufficient capability to outclass an opponent.



You're 100% wrong davparlr, the Ta-152H turns a lot better both instantanously and sustained, and because of it's much much better L/D ratio it retains its energy in turns far better.



> Again, the P-51H climbs better, dives better, initially turns better, has better power loading, and better wing loading. All overpowering advantages for the P-51H below 15k!
> 
> At 25k, the differences become close although the P-51H is still 17 mph faster. But it still has dive speed, power loading and wing loading advantage.



Again no, P-51's wing loading is worse, and esp. worse in terms of lift loading. 



> Again, if this is a valid argument, and the war was continuing, and jets were not a factor, the Ta-152H with upgraded engines and prop would have met the P-72, which had already been in production for quite a while, which was much more powerful and much faster.



What do you base that on ? Are you aware of the Ta-152H-1's performance with the EB engine ? It seems not. We're talking about 520 to 530 mph performance incase you're wondering.

Btw, the Ta-152H-1 is reported to have reached 500 mph in level flight, which is faster than the P-72.


----------



## Soren (Aug 17, 2008)

Looking at the numbers the Fw-190 D-13 seems to have been Germany's go at an a/c like the P-51H.

*Fw-190 D-13*
Weight: 4,270 kg
Wing area: 18.3 m^2
Clmax: 1.58
___________________
Lift loading = 147.67 kg/m^2

Top speed: 770 + km/h
Service ceiling: 13.8 km


----------



## davparlr (Aug 18, 2008)

Soren said:


> What's on that chart is what was used davparlr, the Ta-152H was fitted with the prop, engine, armament etc etc you see described.



I am not sure of what you are saying here. Are you are saying that my data, taken from your charts, reflects the new prop, engine, armament, etc? Please explain further.



> And as for your assumptions on wing loading etc etc, you couldn't be more wrong.
> 
> The Ta-152H has a far lower lift-loading from SL and up than the P-51H, far far lower.
> 
> ...



I am no sure what you did here generate your data, variables, etc. It would help to show your work.

This data is not applicable. First, the weight of the P-51H should be 3995 kg, correcting for equivalent fuel weight. Second, I said high speed performance. This calculation is based on Clmax, something that would be unachievable at 400+ mph (below 25k ft). To be accurate, calculations should be done at much lower alpha numbers. 




> Again no, P-51's wing loading is worse, and esp. worse in terms of lift loading.



Even if the Ta-152H could initially outturn, and continuously outturn, the P-51H, the statement that turn rate by itself has historically been proven not sufficient to outclass an opponent is correct, and would be the only advantage the Ta-152H has.



> What do you base that on ? Are you aware of the Ta-152H-1's performance with the EB engine ? It seems not. We're talking about 520 to 530 mph performance incase you're wondering.



Give me the performance charts, FW analysis, something. That engine better have some substantially higher power ratings as it would have to provide an increase of 33 mph at SL just to catch the P-51H.



> Btw, the Ta-152H-1 is reported to have reached 500 mph in level flight, which is faster than the P-72.



Unless the aircraft is piloted by a test pilot and has calibrated flight test instruments, I consider “reports” near worthless. If we generated all the “reported” performances, we would have some really amazing performances. The P-72 was “reported” to have gone 480 mph without the turbosupercharger. Btw, the XP-47J flew an officially announced 504 mph, in August 1944. According to my source, the highest top speed of any propeller driven aircraft officially reported during the war.

Like the Bf-109K, the P-51H was a hot rod. They took unarguably one of the cleanest, arguably the cleanest, piston powered airframes, cleaned it up more, lightened it to British fighter standards, and added a larger engine. 

I restate my position. Even with not having a better initial turn rate (which I haven’t been convinced yet), The P-51H was superior to the Ta-152H below 25k ft and significantly superior below 15k based on higher speed, better climb, better dive, and better acceleration, thus many more tools to control energy management. Actually, the Bf-109K could probably handle Ta-152H, below 25k.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 18, 2008)

Soren said:


> Looking at the numbers the Fw-190 D-13 seems to have been Germany's go at an a/c like the P-51H.
> 
> *Fw-190 D-13*
> Weight: 4,270 kg
> ...



I don't have much data on this aircraft, but if it performs like the D-12, on first look, I have no arguments against this statement. Very impressive.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 18, 2008)

I believe the highest figure acheived for the XP-47J was 507 mph.


----------



## Soren (Aug 18, 2008)

davparlr said:


> am no sure what you did here generate your data, variables, etc. It would help to show your work.



davparlr, have you been missing in all of our forum's previous discussions on this topic ?? 

The Clmax figures are from NACA FW AG davparlr, so they are the real deal. You're welcome to look for yourself, it's report nr. 828, the P-51's Clmax is 1.35. And from another report exclusively on airfoils here is the NACA 23000 series data:







The average from 15% to 9% TR is 1.58, the exact same figure as FW AG tested as the Clmax of the Fw-190. 

The Ta-152H uses the high lift NACA 23000 series airfoil, while the P-51 uses the low drag but low lift laminar type airfoil. Furthermore the high wing AR slightly increases the Clmax, from 1.58 (FW190) to 1.62.

And as for the 500 mph performance of the Ta-152H, well Erich has available the details I would assume as he brought it up earlier on. But it makes sense as the performance figures with GM turned on are calculated, and conservatively at that.


----------



## Soren (Aug 18, 2008)

davparlr said:


> This data is not applicable. First, the weight of the P-51H should be 3995 kg, correcting for equivalent fuel weight. Second, I said high speed performance. This calculation is based on Clmax, something that would be unachievable at 400+ mph (below 25k ft). To be accurate, calculations should be done at much lower alpha numbers.



And exactly what advantage does the P-51H have in a high speed turn ? The answer is none, and esp. when you consider that the Ta-152H has lighter controls at high speed.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 18, 2008)

The Ta-152 (and 190D-12/13) had boosted aileron controls, correct?


----------



## davparlr (Aug 19, 2008)

> davparlr, have you been missing in all of our forum's previous discussions on this topic ??
> 
> The Clmax figures are from NACA FW AG davparlr, so they are the real deal. You're welcome to look for yourself, it's report nr. 828, the P-51's Clmax is 1.35. And from another report exclusively on airfoils here is the NACA 23000 series data:
> 
> ...



? Soren, what is this rambling all about? I had no question on the Cl numbers, I only said that:

1. You calculated using the wrong P-51H weight. It should have been at 3995 kg., reflecting the same fuel weight at the Ta-152H.

2. You calculated at Clmax, representing an alpha number unable to be achieved at 350-400+ mph without removing the wings from the aircraft and compressing the pilot to a 3 foot midget. High speed lift loading should be calculated at a much lower alpha. Now it may not make any difference, but it could, depending on the Cl curves of the two airfoils (I see the Ta-152H airfoil curve, but have no data on the P-51H), but certainly Clmax is not correct for high speed maneuvering.

And again, it does not change my statements that:

The P-51H was superior to the Ta-152H below 25k ft and significantly superior below 15k based on higher speed (avg. about 30 mph faster), better climb, better dive, and better acceleration, thus many more tools to control energy management. Its performance advantage was similar to the F6F’s advantage over the A6M, except the A6M could out climb the F6F.

Even if the Ta-152H could initially outturn, and continuously outturn the P-51H, turn rate by itself has historically been proven not sufficient to outclass an opponent and would be the only advantage the Ta-152H has. Indeed, the Ta-152 itself is outclassed.



Soren said:


> And exactly what advantage does the P-51H have in a high speed turn ? The answer is none, and esp. when you consider that the Ta-152H has lighter controls at high speed.



What is your source for this comparison? The 1944 Joint Fighter Conference comparing allied fighters addressed aileron control and their ratings of the P-51D ailerons were; force-1 high, 3 moderate, 16 light; Effectiveness-18 good, 10- fair, 0-poor. One comment was, “best ailerons in the show”.


----------



## Soren (Aug 19, 2008)

davparlr said:


> ? Soren, what is this rambling all about? I had no question on the Cl numbers, I only said that:
> 
> 1. You calculated using the wrong P-51H weight. It should have been at 3995 kg., reflecting the same fuel weight at the Ta-152H.
> 
> 2. You calculated at Clmax, representing an alpha number unable to be achieved at 350-400+ mph without removing the wings from the aircraft and compressing the pilot to a 3 foot midget. High speed lift loading should be calculated at a much lower alpha. Now it may not make any difference, but it could, depending on the Cl curves of the two airfoils (I see the Ta-152H airfoil curve, but have no data on the P-51H), but certainly Clmax is not correct for high speed maneuvering.



Davparlr,

The Ta-152H-1 turns better at all speeds as it has got a much higher Cl airfoil and a much much more efficient wing. Furthermore the P-51's laminar airfoil is not good for turn performance, not only because of the low Clmax, but because of the low critical AoA and nasty sudden stalling characteristics because of the sharp LE.



> And again, it does not change my statements that:
> 
> The P-51H was superior to the Ta-152H below 25k ft and significantly superior below 15k based on higher speed (avg. about 30 mph faster), better climb, better dive, and better acceleration, thus many more tools to control energy management. Its performance advantage was similar to the F6F’s advantage over the A6M, except the A6M could out climb the F6F.



Speed is the only advantage the P-51H has, and had it been introduced then it would've been facing Jumo 213EB powered Ta-152's which were just as fast.



> *Even if the Ta-152H could initially outturn, and continuously outturn the P-51H,* turn rate by itself has historically been proven not sufficient to outclass an opponent and would be the only advantage the Ta-152H has. Indeed, the Ta-152 itself is outclassed.



If ?? If ?? Now davparlr come on, there really should be no doubts. 

Ofcourse the Ta-152H will turn better at all speeds as it's got both a much lower lift loading and a much higher L/D ratio.



> What is your source for this comparison? The 1944 Joint Fighter Conference comparing allied fighters addressed aileron control and their ratings of the P-51D ailerons were; force-1 high, 3 moderate, 16 light; Effectiveness-18 good, 10- fair, 0-poor. One comment was, “best ailerons in the show”.



Ailerons don't control pitch. Like many pilots have said, flying the P-51 at high speed was like driving a truck, the elevator controls got stiff as concrete. The Fw-190 and Ta-152 however feature almost dangerously light controls at high speed, and care had to be taken regarding moving the stick around in high speed dives as you could quickly cross the structural integrity barrier.


----------



## Soren (Aug 19, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The Ta-152 (and 190D-12/13) had boosted aileron controls, correct?



Not really, unless you regard the push rod design as a boost, which it also was over wire control.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 19, 2008)

Well chock another one up to wiki...


> The D-13 also introduced a hydraulic boost system for the ailerons, which was later used on the Ta 152.


----------



## Erich (Aug 19, 2008)

well I can tell you by early September (maybe) what the new Ta 152 book will have for specs at least a tad wee bit of info as it is suppose to be somewhat technical. even the German war read-outs were not always purely correct again that is test results not actual on flight off the field in the air. Since I last gathered info last year on the bird much new info has come to light with that aspect I have tried to keep still in the matter to hold all of you is suspense ............ ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh


----------



## davparlr (Aug 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> 
> Speed is the only advantage the P-51H has, and had it been introduced then it would've been facing Jumo 213EB powered Ta-152's which were just as fast.



You forgot to mention the P-51H’s advantage in climb, dive, and acceleration. Now for the Jumo 213EB I did find a faint line on speed chart for Fw that had the EB. This is what I got, in order of fastest first (obviously, the P-51H data wasn’t on the chart).

SL
P-51H 410 mph
Fw-190D-12 381
Ta-152H-EB 374
Ta-152H 370

5k
P-51H 430 mph
Fw-190D-12 399 
Ta-152H-EB 393
Ta-152H 390

10k
P-51H 444 mph
Fw-190D-12 416
Ta-152H-EB 411
Ta-152H 397

15k
P-51H 440
Fw-190D-12 431
Ta-152H-EB 421
Ta-152H 416

20k
P-51H 465
Fw-190D-12 448
Ta-152H-EB 441
Ta-152H 436

25k
P-51H 470
Fw-190D-12 459
Ta-152H-EB 449
Ta-152H 449

So, it is apparent that the P-51H has a qualitative advantage in airspeed over all the latest Fw aircraft for the altitudes discussed.

As for as climb is concerned, it is reasonable that the Fw-190D-12 is equivalent to the Dora 9 up to about 18k and better above. Compared to the P-51H, it would be less to this altitude, but close in pretty fast up to 25k. Since the Ta-152H-EB airspeed is only about 5 mph faster than the Ta-152H, its climb would probably fall about 100-150 ft/min higher. This would not improve its performance very much relative to the P-51H.

As for power loading, the Ta-152H-EB would have to generate 2685 hp to equal the P-51H. And that hp would certainly provide more than 5 mph increase over the Ta-152H. Power increase is probably about 200 hp. The D-12 was probably close.





> If ?? If ?? Now davparlr come on, there really should be no doubts.
> 
> Ofcourse the Ta-152H will turn better at all speeds as it's got both a much lower lift loading and a much higher L/D ratio.



Did you ever recalculate lift loading at the correct weight?





> Ailerons don't control pitch. Like many pilots have said, flying the P-51 at high speed was like driving a truck, the elevator controls got stiff as concrete. The Fw-190 and Ta-152 however feature almost dangerously light controls at high speed, and care had to be taken regarding moving the stick around in high speed dives as you could quickly cross the structural integrity barrier.



Sorry about the aileron comment. I must have had a old age moment. I thought you addressed ailerons.

Okay, lets look at the elevators then. Your comment does not agree with the Fighter Conference on their evaluation. 
Elevators
Force-5 good, 2 fair, 1 poor-1 high, 2 moderate, 16 light
Effectiveness-18 good, 10 fair

Diving characteristics
Acceleration-21 good
Stick force-5 good-1 moderate, 10 light

These test where designed to compare combat capabilities. It must be noted that all of the military pilots for the P-51 were Naval aviators. Had there been any problem with the elevators or the stick forces, you can bet they would have complained, as they did about lateral control and rudders of the plane.

In addition, I read many combat reports; many included high speed dives, with no mention of problems staying with the enemy, or problems pulling out. It might be interesting to note that one pair of pilots were jumped by a pair of “long nosed Fw-190s” and one was shot up but managed to “out turn” the Fws. They disengaged. Pilot reports are interesting, aren’t they?

I don’t see anything here that indicates that the P-51 was not superior below 25k ft. The D-12 comes close.

That brings up the question, why did Germany build the Ta-152H when the D-12/13 seems to be the better performer up to about 37k ft.? There wasn’t any allied aircraft that I know that was flying above that altitude. They certainly didn’t need a long range escort.


----------



## Soren (Aug 21, 2008)

According to the chart the top SL speed with the EB engine is 605 km/h, and climb rate would increase by approx. 250 to 300 ft/min at SL but considerably more so with increase in altitude.

And regarding your question about using the right weights, yes I used the right weights, I tried with both 4,300 kg 3,900 kg, no change the P-51H still has a far higher lift-loading and much worse L/D ratio, and finally its airfoil makes for poor flight characteristics in turns.

Finally regarding the elevator control forces of the P-51, I have qoutes from -51 pilots who don't agree with you at all Davparlr! They mention that 109's pulled out of high speed dives much quicker than they ever could.


----------



## Soren (Aug 21, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Well chock another one up to wiki...



Well perhaps, I can't say. I've always known about the electric/hydraulic horizontal stabilizer control system of the D-9 series forward, so it seems logical that it was applied to aileron control as-well.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 21, 2008)

Soren said:


> Like many pilots have said, flying the P-51 at high speed was like driving a truck, the elevator controls got stiff as concrete. The Fw-190 and Ta-152 however feature almost dangerously light controls at high speed, and care had to be taken regarding moving the stick around in high speed dives as you could quickly cross the structural integrity barrier.



The elevator response was not stiff except for being deep in compressibility which would have been similar in Fw. You have a reference that says the Fw 190 had 'light' control forces for all axes in near compressibility?

Not likely. What I have read is only in high speed could a 51 match the Fw 190 roll rate - you seem to imply the opposite?

As for Yaw - The reverse boost rudder tab was intentionally designed to force more rudder control force in a high speed rolling manuever or yaw control input - again we are talking about effects > .50 Mach.


----------



## Soren (Aug 21, 2008)

Bill,

Again we're talking about pitch, which is controlled by the elevators, not roll rate which is controlled by the ailerons. Also the NACA roll rate tests you're refering to don't show the Fw190's true roll rate, which was nearer 180 degrees pr. sec at max. The result is likely due to the improperly adjusted ailerons on that bird, that would be Gene's explanation anyhow.

On another note if KK is right about the aileron boost on the D-13 Ta-152 then these would be unrivalled in high speed maneuvers.



> The elevator response was not stiff except for being deep in compressibility which would have been similar in Fw. You have a reference that says the Fw 190 had 'light' control forces for all axes in near compressibility?



Well according to Gene the control forces in pitch were very light even at the redline speed of 850 km/h, and almost to the point where it was dangerous as a rookie pilot could quickly overstress the airframe if he made a too eager pull out.

The electric/hydraulic horizontal stabilizer control obviously has something to do with this.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 21, 2008)

Soren said:


> According to the chart the top SL speed with the EB engine is 605 km/h,.



Looks to me like the dotted line is closer to 602, but, I’m old and my eyesight is, lets say, degraded.



> and climb rate would increase by approx. 250 to 300 ft/min at SL but considerably more so with increase in altitude



Your rate of climb increase doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. However, I would tend to disagree with your statement about the increase in altitude. The airspeed difference between the Ta-152H and the Ta-152H-EB does not appear great until about 9.5 km (31k ft), where it is about 15 km/hr (9 mph). This implies, to me, that hp difference is not great and therefore, neither will climb rate.



> And regarding your question about using the right weights, yes I used the right weights, I tried with both 4,300 kg 3,900 kg, no change the P-51H still has a far higher lift-loading and much worse L/D ratio, and finally its airfoil makes for poor flight characteristics in turns.



I certainly would like to see how you figured this, but I won’t argue the point.



> Finally regarding the elevator control forces of the P-51, I have qoutes from -51 pilots who don't agree with you at all Davparlr! They mention that 109's pulled out of high speed dives much quicker than they ever could.



Agree with me? You have me confused with Pax River flight test pilots (Navy) and contractor flight test pilots. Of course, what do they know? By the way, there were 38 pilots rating the P-51 and not one commented about problem of heavy elevator operations and dive was one area of evaluation. And the Navy pilots were no fans of AF aircraft!


----------



## Soren (Aug 24, 2008)

davparlr said:


> I certainly would like to see how you figured this, but I won’t argue the point.



The lift-loading part or the L/D ratio part ? The Lift loading you should know by now so it must be the L/D ratio you're questioning.

Well davparlr, the higher the wing AR the more efficient the wing is. A higher AR wing features a lower Cdi and a higher Clmax than a lower AR wing, giving the higher AR wing a higher lift to drag ratio (L/D), which is crucial to energy retention in maneuvers. 

The L/D ratio of an a/c is derived as such:

L/D ratio = Cl / Cd

Cd = Cd0 + Cdi

Cd0 = {Negligable as it always lies in the 0.02 -0.025 area}

Cdi = (Cl^2)/(pi*AR*e)

The L/D ratio of the wing alone is derived as such:

Cl / Cdi = L/D


So to demonstrate the importance of wing AR alone lets compare two similar a/c with different AR wings with the same airfoil.

For the comparison we will assume the higher AR wing has a Clmax 0.05 greater in magnitude, while both a/c have the same Cd0 of 0.02:

Aircraft Nr.1 (Wing AR = 9)
(1.35^2)/(pi*9*0.85) = 0.0758326494

Cd = 0.0758326494 + 0.02

1.35 / 0.0958326494 = 14.0870571
__________________
L/D = *14.08*

Aircraft Nr.2 (Wing AR = 6)
(1.3^2)/(pi*6*0.85) = 0.105479158

Cd = 0.105479158 + 0.02

1.3 / 0.125479158 = 10.3602863
__________________
L/D = *10.36*


L/D ratio differential = *35.9 %*

Now let's compare the Ta-152H and P-51H:

Ta-152H

(1.62^2)/(pi*8.94*0.83) = 0.112580856

1.62 / 0.112580856 = 14.3896579
__________________
L/D ratio = *14.38*

P-51H

(1.35^2)/(pi*5.8*0.82) = 0.121976402

1.35 / 0.121976402 = 11.0677146
__________________
L/D ratio = *11.06*


Difference in L/D ratio = *30 %*


----------



## drgondog (Aug 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> The lift-loading part or the L/D ratio part ? The Lift loading you should know by now so it must be the L/D ratio you're questioning.
> 
> Well davparlr, the higher the wing AR the more efficient the wing is. A higher AR wing features a lower Cdi and a higher Clmax than a lower AR wing, giving the higher AR wing a higher lift to drag ratio (L/D), which is crucial to energy retention in maneuvers.
> 
> ...



Having asked the questions I think the Ta 152 intutively will climb and turn better in a sustained combat. 

Neither one of us have the slightest idea based on the limited factual data regarding prop efficiencies, actual Cd0, thrust as function of altitude/boost, Cd0, etc what the energy profile looks like.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 25, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Having asked the questions I think the Ta 152 intutively will climb


Seems your intuitiveness is a bit off. The P-51H has a better rate of climb than the Ta-152H probably up to 25k. In time to climb, it is equal or better to 33k. This is at equivalent fuel weights.



> and turn better in a sustained combat.


Like the F6F pilot fighting a Zero, it would be unwise for the P-51H to engage the Ta-152H in a turning fight at any altitude. But it didn't keep the F6F from dominating the Zero. 

I haven't really looked at Soren's calculation. I will respond a bit more in a few weeks, when I get back from vacation.


----------



## Soren (Aug 25, 2008)

> This is an incorrect assumption - that Cd0 is the same unless you can prove it. The only detailed source for referenced wind tunnel and flight test Cdo is in Lednicers Reports which we beat to death. In that report the 51D was significantly lower than the Fw190D-9 and a lot cleaner than the Spitfire IX.
> :



No Bill, it isn't incorrect cause if you note what I said then you will see that I was comparing two *similar* aircraft just with different AR wings and same airfoil, hence the similar Cd0. 

Ofcourse the Ta152 P-51 won't have a similar Cd0 figure, they're two very different looking a/c.



> Before you start the comparison, explain why you wish to start at Max CL presumably at max AoA for both ships, further presuming either comparisons in max climb or max turn, but not at high speed?



I am comparing the a/c at Clmax because that is where they are going to be closest to in a turn fight. Remember this is about turn performance, not straight out speed. And so the 30% difference is only at the point where both a/c are pulling their hardest turn.

Furthermore Cd0 is not very important in turns, which is what we're debating here, hence why it is neglible as it always lies in the 0.02 - 0.025 region.



> And as you proceed below why you are using different airplane efficiency factors between the two ships. What is your source of data?



You mean the Oswald Efficiency factor I would presume ? Well I've been looking at NACA reports and the NACA 23000 series airfoil has a general advantage in 'e' factor over the P-51's NAA airfoil at any given planform. And so to be fair I made the difference very small, 0.82 vs 0.83, which is fair considering that on average the NACA 23000 series airfoil beats the NAA airfoil by 0.05 atleast.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 26, 2008)

Soren - we have dived down this rathole too many times to begin again.

One of the reasons i put the altitude modifications to Crumpp's performance mods on hold is two fold.

1. Reliabe Cd0 is nigh impossible to find from sources on internet for the ships of interest
2. Bhp vs Altitude for different ships at top speeds is difficult to get a.) in detail, and b. )corroborative between different flight tests with same engine and boost.

If 2. was available and reliable we could get the Thp and from that a decent approximation to the Cd0 of that airframe during the test runs and speeds.

For maneuvering fights at different altitudes both of these ships should have different advantages/disadvantages depending on the altitudes and hp characteristics of the way their engines are geared, the respective velocities and thrust state entering the turn, the rate the energy bleeds off due to the respective drag profiles as the turn proceeds.

So back to the point.. the relative Cd0 between the ships IS important when entering the turn at high speeds, 

The oswald/aircraft efficiency has a variety of factors but the most common one of imterest is tip chord ratio and then tip geometry as it influences tip vortices - winglet designs being the most important. You threw out values that were differnt. As near as I can tell there is no factual basis to asume that either they are the same Or different.

Ditto Cd0 for the reasons I cited. Unless you can point to well supported references, assuming Cd0 or 'efficiency' factors are suspect. 

At the end of the day, even Clmax is suspect unless accompanied by flight test and wind tunnel - and remember both of those are effected by aeroelastic considerations of the stiffness of the wing to resist torquing in a high G turn.

ClMax for airfoil data is largely 2-D unless other wise noted which is, as you know why AR and e are important considerations moving from theoretical to real.


----------



## Soren (Aug 26, 2008)

Bill,

The Clmax figures presented have all been established in windtunnel and flight tests, none are assumptions, they're the real thing, so there's really no point in discussing it. 

As for diving down a rathole, well what the heck is that supposed to mean ?? This isn't about CdSwet or anything like that we were discussing a long time ago.

Also why is it you keep clinging to the Cd0 ? It has close to no effect at all in turns, and again we're comparing turn performance NOT straight out speed. It is for straight out speed where Cd0 becomes important.

And finally regarding the Oswald efficiency factor, well Bill wing designers from all sides took this into account and designed their wings to have the highest value possible, altering tip geometry, thickness, wash out etc etc to reach the optimum value. 

I have an interesting chart from NACA which discusses and illustrates the difference in 'e' between different geometry wings of different thickness and AR. According to that report the Ta-152's wing design would've had a 'e' figure around 0.83 while the P-51's wing designw ould have one around 0.82 (Taking the NAA airfoil into consideration), with the 23000 series airfoil in increases to around 0.86 to 0.87. The NACA 23000 airfoil creates elliptical lift distribution which is what increases the 'e' factor.


----------



## fly boy (Aug 26, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why didn't you just edit it then?



oh yea i kinda forgot


----------



## drgondog (Aug 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> The Clmax figures presented have all been established in windtunnel and flight tests, none are assumptions, they're the real thing, so there's really no point in discussing it.
> 
> ...



??? No airfoil per se creates elliptical lift distribution, but the planform and twist of the airfoil chord wise design do influence closely, or as close as feasible, an elliptical lift distribution.

Basically All airfoils designed into an elliptical planform will give you elliptical lift distributions. Ditto all airfoils designed into trapezoidal, semi elliptical, rextangular, etc can be made to approach elliptical via twist and AR design.

A mathmatically sound elliptical lift distribution is obtained with an elliptical wing planform, and can be achieved with zero twist.. but it can still stall at the tip rather than root - hence twist.

Good news on the chart. Introducing that earlier gives you total credibility on at least one source and provides any assumptions made for your debate opponent to agree/disagree the context of your presentation?


----------



## namvet68 (Aug 26, 2008)

For Fighter - Fiat G.55
Ground Support fighter - P-47
Attack Bomber - Mosquito
Med. Bomber- B-26
Heavy Bomber - B29
Recon - P-38

This is my selection and I think people always forget about the old B-26. The P-38 was used alot during WWII for recon missions.8)


----------



## Soren (Aug 26, 2008)

Bill,

The NACA windtunnel tests were with entire wings, not just airfoils, and the established average Clmax was 1.58 for a wing with a TR of 15 to 09% and a AR of 6. And funny enough this is the exact same figure established by FW in their windtunnel and flight tests with the Fw-190. 

As for aeroelasticity, well again the Ta-152's wing featured washout to combat this, just as the Fw-190 P-51, the Fw190 just had the added advantage of achieving full elliptical lift distribution in tight turns.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> The NACA windtunnel tests were with entire wings, not just airfoils, and the established average Clmax was 1.58 for a wing with a TR of 15 to 09% and a AR of 6. And funny enough this is the exact same figure established by FW in their windtunnel and flight tests with the Fw-190.
> 
> ...



Soren, washout has one primary function - namely reduce tip stall. Adverse Aeroelastic effects to the Fw 190 wing were caused by the torsion created by the ailerons under aerodynamic load. In the lower wing in a turn the Fw 190 wing reduced local AoA at the tip causing a tip stall. 

This was an aeroelastic not aerodynamic cause. The wing was not quite stiff enough in the last 20% of the wing to resist the torque about the spar axis caused by the aileron load. Further the twist did not continue and the rotation caused by the torque caused the out board AoA to increase - and local CL increased past stall and boundary layer separation started prematurely - losing local lift at tip while the inboard half was doing fine.

More washout at the tip might have prevented this. I have no idea what the twist distribution was for the Ta 152 but the 51 was essentially steady whereas the Fw 190 was steady to about .85 span then no more twist for rest of wing.

Before diving into the great "aeroelastic' debate once more go back to the thread I posted on Aeroelasticity.

If you'll go back to your definition of 'Full Eliptical Lift Distribution' would you a.) define it mathmatically and b.) explain how the Fw 190 wing achieved it absent an elliptical wing, and c.) explain why you think the Fw 190 achieved such 'full elliptical Lift distribution" in tight turns where other aircraft did not?

All conventional plan form wings had design trade offs to reduce induced drag.

The one plan form that didn't need to compromise for minimum induced drag was the elliptical planform wing (spit close, Jug close but not as close, V1 sucked). So twist, AR and Taper Ratio and tip designs were ways a designer could closer approximate an elliptical lift distribution - but never reach it. So how do you think the Fw 190 and Ta 152 "broke the code'


----------



## Soren (Aug 28, 2008)

Bill,

The Fw-190's wing was just as stiff as the P-51's if not more, it was the difference in twist which caused the different stalling behavior, it had nothing to due with insufficient wing tip strenght and I have no idea where you got that from. 

And as for the Fw-190 achieving elliptical lift distribution in turns, it did, go ask Gene, I questioned him very directly about this:

Soren said:
_I see, so I was wrong when I said that Fw-190's wing achieved basically fully elliptical lift distribution in turns ?_

Gene said:
_No you are right. That is what causes the harsh stall._

And then regarding the 'e' factor, I dunno why you talk about "breaking the code" ? The designers went for optimal effeciency during specific conditions of flight, and in the case of the Ta-152 Fw-190 this was in tight turns. There was no optimum for all conditions, it was about compromising for a specific flight condition.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> The Fw-190's wing was just as stiff as the P-51's if not more, it was the difference in twist which caused the different stalling behavior, it had nothing to due with insufficient wing tip strenght and I have no idea where you got that from.
> 
> ...



Sigh - you missed the point. 

OK - Prove from sources that a.) the Ta 152 and Fw 190 twist, e, AR, airfoil thickness, planform, etc were designed for optimal efficiency in 'tight turns'

Prove that the Ta 152 "e' factor was .83 and the 51H was .82

Prove that the Cd0 always falls between .20 and .25.

Prove that what ever value you chose above for Cd0 is valid.

Build empirically and mathmatically that CD0 for Cd wet and Cd -other, in fact fall between .20 and .25 for the P-51H.

If you can't then just say so. If you can - do so.

End of debate


----------



## Vraciu (Aug 29, 2008)

I'll join this topic with my

VPFAF (Vraciu's Personal Air Force) VPAAF (Vraciu's Personal Army Air Force):

VPFAF (Vraciu's Personal Fleet Air Force)

Land-based fighters: N1K2-J Shiden-kai's
Land-based bombers: B-26F/G Marauders
Carrier-based fighters: F6F-5 Hellcats and F4U-1D Corsairs
Carrier-based torpedo bombers: B7A2 Ryusei's
Recon: C6N2 Saiun's, PBY Catalinas

VPAAF (Vraciu's Personal Army Air Force)

Fighters: P-47M/N Thunderbolts
Escort fighters: P-51D/H Mustangs
Mid bombers: B-26F/G Marauders, B-25J Mitchells
Heavy bombers: B-29A Superfortresses (with A bombs), Kawasaki Ki-91's
Recon: Spitfire PR XI's

Transport in both Air Forces: C-47/L2D3


----------



## Soren (Aug 31, 2008)

Bill,

I noted very carefully where I got all the information from, it's all from FW NACA, and I even told you which reports. Go check them out plz.

Regarding Cd0, well for piston engined fighters it is nearly always in the 0.02 to 0.025 area, you should be able to check that as-well. Now I could imagine that the Cd0 of the P-51H could be as low as 0.019 or 0.018, no problem, the airfoil was like a knife, but again it makes no difference in turning combat as Cd0 has close to no effect here.

And as for the FW190's wing and its stalling characteristics, well Gene has told this many times by now, the vicious stall was a combination of the elliptical lift distribution achieved in turns because of aeroelasticity (lift and G forces increase) bending the wing to the point where this was achieved, and then the already nasty stalling characteristics of the NACA 23000 series airfoil. But I'll contact Gene again and report back when he replies, no problem, but be prepared to get the exact same answer. 

But finally there's one thing I really do not understand Bill, why is it you don't contact Gene yourself, then you can be 100% sure that you get your opinion across exactly as you intend it. As an equal nitpicker I'd prefer that myself really.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 31, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> I noted very carefully where I got all the information from, it's all from FW NACA, and I even told you which reports. Go check them out plz.
> 
> ...



I am in dialogue with Gene frequently, but not in last couple of weeks. I have huge respect for Gene and his opinions, I don't need them to form my Own.

I have documented my opinions and the math behind them. Document your own and publish them - but submit your facts to support your math.


----------



## Soren (Sep 1, 2008)

> Soren - I don't have to check anything. You are trying to beat Dave into submission with 'facts not entered into evidence' as the lawyers say. YOU present them and prove your case



But how can that be true when I've provided references to everything I have put forward ? Seriously Bill.



drgondog said:


> I am in dialogue with Gene frequently, but not in last couple of weeks. I have huge respect for Gene and his opinions, I don't need them to form my Own.



Well that's fine, but Gene doesn't say something unless he's confident he is right, that you need to know.



> I have documented my opinions and the math behind them.



Ah but you haven't Bill, you haven't yet provided any mathematical proof or confirmation of your opinions at all. All you have done is say that Cd0 has a significant effect in turning combat at high speed. Where is the math, where are the equations to prove that ??



> Document your own and publish them - but submit your facts to support your math.



Fair enough Bill, but you'll have to do the same then, that you must understand.

Let me demonstrate why Cd0 has close to no effect in turning combat:

Cl = 1.5
Cd0 = 0.021 
e = 0.8

Cdi = (Cl^2) / (pi*AR*e)
Cdi = (1.5^2) / (pi*6*0.80) 
Cdi = 0.149207759

So Cd0 only represents 12.8% of the total drag, and considering that the difference in Cd0 between single seat piston engine fighters of the era generally is less than 9% (_A Cd0 of 0.019 really wouldn't change things much_) I think most people would agree that Cd0 has close to no effect in turning combat.

Now while Cd0 isn't important in turning combat, it is in straight flight, where the AoA pulled and therefore Cl is relatively low.

So now I've provided the math behind what I've been saying, now it's your turn.


Some references for people interested:
The Lift Equation
The Lift Coefficient
The Drag Equation
The Drag Coefficient

Overview:
Index of Aerodynamics Slides


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 1, 2008)

Your good at math.......**(clueless)


----------



## drgondog (Sep 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> But how can that be true when I've provided references to everything I have put forward ? Seriously Bill.
> 
> *I must have missed the references you posted for specific Cd0 for both ships. Where are they again? and do you mean Cd0 as the zero lift drag of the wing or the total parisite drag of the wing body, trim and AoA configuration? You named a NACA report but didn't show the report so nobody can read the same report and conclude or disagree with your numbers?*
> 
> ...



You have provided the equations for CDinduced, then intoduced efficiencies not yet proven by reference.

When you plug into the efficiencies not proven you derive a value for Induced Drag.

When you intorduce the force balances, you introduce an Induced Drag effect at the velocities being compared, but introduce Cd0 without sources for both ships. Nor do you explain whether you mean zero lift drag or Parasite drag

You use a propeller efficiency not introduced by reference as fact.

So, let's summarize.

Your force diagram was incomplete with respect to the forces in positive and negative x axis (level flight)

Your drag forces were incomplete. If you say they are 'close enough' then you have to provide sources for Cd0 of the wing as well as the other parasite drag components and further demonstrate the sum is result you say it is - namely between .20 and .25. But proof of the Cd0 of wing as a starting point is required.

And not just at Low Aoa, but also high AoA at max bank angle with demonstrated Power available over power required in that state. To prove your thesis, integrate the Force equation with respect to rate of change with time for those values in your drag forces to determine the rate of change of energy loss in the curvilinear path.

I repeat Soren - your equations are close enough for the max G equilibrium point where you can safely assume you have a correct Induced drag for the Net thrust and Velocity at that Bank Angle and Velocity, or

you have a correct and validated Parasite Drag for the angle of attack and airspeed at equilibrium.

I haven't a.) seen any correct figures for prop efficiency to convert Bhp to Thrust, b.) efficiency factor for each of those two, or c.) any of the parasite drag components published to support your "numbers".


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 1, 2008)

I think you guys should have a design off .  so get your French Curves,T Squares, Compasses and slide rules and go for .


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 1, 2008)

Well you know, I was gonna post a list a while back, but got caught up in reading the debate over performances...

I might not be the brightest light on the Christmas Tree when it comes to number crunching, but I can tell they're down to the smallest of percentages, and it kinda scares me.

Hell, just build it and I'll go kill something with it...


----------



## Soren (Sep 1, 2008)

Bill,

The base figures in the equation were just examplary, they're not connected to any specific a/c. I used a Cd0 of 0.021 as that is in the normal range for a piston engined fighter, and I used an Oswald efficiency factor of .80 because again the wings of most fighters are either closely at or above that.

Now as for the reports here's a chart from one of them;






As you can see trapezoidal wings can have just as high a 'e' factor as a fully elliptical wing without any twist.

Now I don't have anymore time today, so I'll soonest be back tommorrow and then I'll compare two a/c entering a turn at high speed.


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 1, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I think you guys should have a design off .  so get your French Curves,T Squares, Compasses and slide rules and go for .




Good idea I would love to see that lol


----------



## drgondog (Sep 2, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> The base figures in the equation were just examplary, they're not connected to any specific a/c. I used a Cd0 of 0.021 as that is in the normal range for a piston engined fighter, and I used an Oswald efficiency factor of .80 because again the wings of most fighters are either closely at or above that.
> 
> ...



You would be wasting your time w/o specific Bhp for the boost, the weights of the airfames you compare, the CD parasite, including Cd0. If you dally at altitudes other than SL, you need to introduce density and the Bhp to altitude charts or references. 

The latter is my personal stopping point in collaborating with Gene on a semi reasonable model to make such comparisons. 

Once again we are hijacking the thread - take it to the performance thread that you started back in the spring?


----------



## Soren (Sep 3, 2008)

Bill,

I think you're being abit too obsessed with a very small difference in figures cause wether either a/c have a 'e' of 0.80 or 0.85 doesn't really matter, so lets say they're equal in this department, I'd expect them to be.

Cd0 is the coefficient for parasite drag while Cdi is the coefficient for induced drag.

D = Cd * A * .5 * r * V^2

Cd = Cd0 + Cdi

Now you'd really need to be at a very low AoA and Cl range before Cd0 would start to make its presence felt. Cd0 really is only important when it comes to straight out speed. 

But just like the parasitic drag the induced drag rises with greater speeds as-well, and it's all about which AoA is being pulled, and in turns it tends to be in the high end of the AoA/Cl curve.

PS: Send a message to Gene regarding our debate


----------



## drgondog (Sep 4, 2008)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> I think you're being abit too obsessed with a very small difference in figures cause wether either a/c have a 'e' of 0.80 or 0.85 doesn't really matter, so lets say they're equal in this department, I'd expect them to be.
> 
> ...



You send a message - it's your thesis. The last thing he and i collaborated on was the effect of Gross weight on performance and we had fun! While the effect of 5% increse doesn't effect Vmax by the same amount - it is huge in climb and turn and power required - as well as range.

The issue Soren is you are using performzance equations, which correct for one condition in comparing the two a/c is not correct for an integrated solution, in which Power available to Power required is truly impacted by not only hte CL but also the airframe drag considerations, and all are affected by altitude comparisons as the engines perform differently.

I am dropping out of this discussion as a have lost interest in the rigor of the physics and the assumptions


----------



## moomoo2 (Sep 5, 2008)

The physics are scaring me but i think i get the idea of the original post

Fighter: Mustang
Light/Attack Bomber: Thud or FB mosquito
Medium Bomber: B26
Heavy Bomber: B-29, well it is really the only choice
Transport: ME323 for the fun value


----------



## davparlr (Sep 5, 2008)

moomoo2 said:


> Light/Attack Bomber: Thud or FB mosquito



I think you mean Jug (P-47). Thud is an F-105, which would certainly make a great WWII anything.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 5, 2008)

I posted a lift for my (more or less) optimized for a large country with extensive Land and carrier forces. (ie the US) (although I omitted listing trainer aircraft)


Something that no one has touched on yet is the spectral opposite of my choice, an airforce for a small country with limited resourses. (and using only 87 octane -or equivelent- fuels)

So what would be the best choices for a country like Finnland for aircraft they could produce domestically?


----------



## Juha (Sep 6, 2008)

Hello KK
Because our limited industrial capacity but plenty of wood around the simple answer is the Soviet types, at first I-16 then Yaks and La-5FN because plywood and metal tube and fabric construction, Blenheim and Pe-2 as bombers. Mosquito would have been nice but I’m not sure if our industry was capable to produce Merlins. And one dive-bomber type to replace Fokker C.X from 1940 onwards, maybe SBD.
The a limited run of a bomber that could carry heavier bombs, Wellington is out because no use to invest geodetic structures for a limited run type. Maybe Il-4. Ju 88 was excellent for FAF but probably too complicated for production here.

Juha


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 6, 2008)

About the Mossie, I think it would be fair to say that other engines could be adopted fairly easily. In fact it would probably be necessary, as the Merlin's performance realy wasn't too great with lower octane fuel.
So either DB 601 (or later, 605), Jumo 211, or Klimov M-105 engines. (I'd immagine the M-105 would be the easiest to produce, granted performance would be somewhat less) Assuming the Soviet fighter designs were also used, the M-105 wouls also be looking attractive. Though the DB series would be the most attractive performance wise, assuming it would be practical for Finnland to produce.


Another problem though would be the construction. Though made of wood, the Mosquito used a specialized plywood of Balsa sanwiched between layers of Birch. So unless the Finns had access to balsa (or the design could be made using more conventional plywood), it probably was not a practical choice.

More on the Mossie's construction:
de Havilland Mosquito - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The bulk of the Mosquito was made of custom plywoods. The fuselage was built by forming up a plywood made of 3/8" sheets of Ecuadorean balsawood sandwiched between sheets of Canadian birch. These were formed inside large concrete moulds, each holding one half of the fuselage, split vertically. While the casein-based glue in the plywood dried, carpenters cut a sawtooth joint into their edges while other workers installed the controls and cabling on the inside wall. When the glue was completely dried, the two halves were glued and screwed together. A covering of doped Madapolam (a fine plain woven cotton) fabric completed the unit.
> 
> The wings were similar but used different materials and techniques. The wing was built as a single unit, not two sides, based on two birch plywood boxes as spars fore and aft. Plywood ribs and stringers were glued and screwed to form the basic wing shape. The skinning was also birch plywood, one layer thick on the bottom and doubled up on the top. Between the two top layers was another layer of fir stringers. Building up the structure used an enormous number of brass screws, 30,000 per wing. The wing was completed with wooden flaps and aluminum ailerons.
> 
> When both parts were complete the fuselage was lowered onto the wing, and once again glued and screwed together. The remainder consisted of wooden horizontal and vertical tail surfaces, with aluminum control surfaces. Engine mounts of welded steel tube were added, along with simple landing gear oleos filled with rubber blocks. The total weight of castings and forgings used in the aircraft was only 280 lbs






I hadn't though of the wooden Russian fighters before you mentiond them (though it would seem the obvious choice). I had been leaning toward the Hurricane. (given the extensive use of steel, simple construction, and relatively limited aluminum) it would have to be re-engined though. (this being done historically with the DB 601)


----------



## Juha (Sep 6, 2008)

Hello KK
DB 601 and 605 would probably have been even more problematic with their injection pumps. So engine choises would have been Mercury, PW Twin Wasp or Russian engines if it would have been possible to got a licence for them, or as in real world, war booty engines with all problems that they brought with them.

Juha

Juha


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 6, 2008)

So the Jumo 211 would be out as well. (injection pumps)

The Pegasus might be a good choice though, a bit larger in diameter than the Mercury but not much heavier and had significantly better performance. (particularly the 2-speed versions, the Mk.XVIII probably being a good all-around choice) 
Given the comperable size of the Pegasus to the Wright R-1820 (which the I-16 was developed with, and used a derivative of in producion) it may have been a good fit for the I-16, probably with a significant performance increase at altitude.


Would the Ju 52 be the transport then?


----------



## Juha (Sep 6, 2008)

Hello KK
Quote: "Would the Ju 52 be the transport then?"

Now if we would have been able to produce say I-16, Yak-1/7/9 and La-5F (I made mistake earlier, -5FN had engine with fuel injection, so probably it also was too complicated to be manufactured by Finns), Blenheims and Pe-2s and some SBDs then there would not have been any capacity to produce transports. So only solution would have been same as in reality, use of planes of our national airliner and old Ju 34s etc.

FAF's Fokker C.Xs had Pegasus engines but those were probably bought from Bristol.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Sep 6, 2008)

Kinda raises a good question that perhaps deserves its own thread...."Best fighter produced by a minor nation"..."Best bomber by a minor" etc

For me the best fighter by a minor was probably the Swedish J-22. The best one to get into action was probably the Rumanian fighter IAR-80. The yugolslavs were also producing a decent fighter at the time they were overrun (IK-5 from memory). Even my own country produced a respectable fighter essentially from trainer airframe and engine parts, at a time when the country could not even build auto engines


----------



## Juha (Sep 6, 2008)

Hello Parsifal
Yes J-22 was a good fighter for its engine power but as a couple J-26 (P-51D) pilots showed to the up to then very satisfied J-22 project team it was in rather hopeless position against much faster and much better climbing J-26s if the latter play the play right. That is true to all low powered fighters. And that was the problem of minor nations, they probably would not be able to produce as powerful engines than major powers.

Juha


----------



## Marcel (Sep 6, 2008)

Juha said:


> Hello KKAnd one dive-bomber type to replace Fokker C.X from 1940 onwards, maybe SBD.


Fokker G.I would have been great for close air support, replacing the C.X, I think.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 6, 2008)

The G.I would be a bit expensive/resourse intensive for that though. (being close to the size of the Blenheim)

An excelent hypothetical engine for Finland or other smaller country would be the Pratt Whitney R-2000 Twin Wasp, a simplified R-1830 with increased bore and reduced compression designed to run on 87 octane fuel. Being similar in size and weight to the R-1830, but somewhat simpler to build and easier to maintain. On 87 octane fuel, it produced 1,300 hp for take-off.


The Yak and La-5 are pretty short ranged though (even with drop tanks) so there'd still be a need for a fighter for escort on some of the longer range bomber raids. (possibly the LaGG-3, but that would still seem a bit short perhaps if larger drop-tanks could be fitted)


----------



## Juha (Sep 7, 2008)

Finns nearly bought G.1s, our test pilot liked the plane but the C-in-C of FAF thought that the plane was too expensive and when in autumn 39 we were ready to pay the price Fokker asked Fokker could not find enough engines for the series. FAF thought the plane foremost as an heavy interceptor but also as a light bomber. 
As CAS plane maybe too big and IIRC with unprotected fuel tanks too vulnerable. IMHO in our heavily forested area a proper dive bomber would have been better. A Finnish test pilot test flew a Vought V-167F (SB2U-1) in France in 1938 or 39 but nothing came out of that maybe because of lack of funds, I cannot remember exact reasons.

Juha


----------



## Marcel (Sep 7, 2008)

Hmmm, if the Dutch as a small Aitforce could use it, so could the Finns I suppose.
Fokker G.I was also developed as a divebomber. The dutch wanted to use it as an CAS plane as well. As an interceptor, it was simple to slow with the Bristol engines.
G.I with divebrakes:


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 7, 2008)

The size and engine requirements were on thing, but I was also thinking in material availability. Such that it could be manufactured by the Finns and not just purchased. (many planes the Finns used would not have been practcal for them to build, like the all-metal Curtiss Hawk 75, and Brewster B-239)

I forgot the G.I used mixed construction (though there was still a fair amount of aluminum, but much less than, say, The Blenheim), which makes it more practical than I was thinking.

The multirole capabilities would be good too, useful as an interceptor and light bomber bomber. (and possibly dive-bomber) It wouldn't be a great dogfighter, but as I recal it was still fairly maneuverable for its size.


----------



## Juha (Sep 7, 2008)

Marcel
IIRC G.1A max speed was 475km/h, so it was faster than D.XXI. And yes I know it has dive bombing capacity but I doubt it would have been as accurate dive bomber as SBD or SB2U and IIRC the max bomb size was smaller and one needs rather heavy bombs when targeting bridges etc.

KK, IIRC the Finnish test pilot found out G.1 fairly manoeuvrable.

Juha


----------



## Marcel (Sep 7, 2008)

Juha said:


> Marcel
> IIRC G.1A max speed was 475km/h, so it was faster than D.XXI. And yes I know it has dive bombing capacity but I doubt it would have been as accurate dive bomber as SBD or SB2U and IIRC the max bomb size was smaller and one needs rather heavy bombs when targeting bridges etc.
> 
> KK, IIRC the Finnish test pilot found out G.1 fairly manoeuvrable.
> ...



Yes, but the advantage of the D.XXI over the G.I was that it could climb like hell, and the G.I couldn't. Climbing is very impotant for an interceptor. The Dutch developed the G.I as an air cruiser, a plane which would be in hte air patroling, instead of scrambling when the enemy was in sight. As a matter of fact, the D.XXI was considered unsuitable for the interceptor role as well, being to slow. Therefore they were planning for a fast interceptor, for which the He112 and the Spitfire were considered amongst others.

I don't know why you think it would be less accurate. The bomb load was smaller, that's true, so it is possibly not suitable for bridges indeed. But the G.I would be very effective against enemy ground forces, being able to bomb them, strafe them (lots of fire-power) and hold it's own against enemy fighters, so it wouldn't need much escort, while the SBD would. And as KK says, it was a mixed construct, which would not so much drain the strategic resources.


----------



## Juha (Sep 7, 2008)

Hello Marcel
I would not say that D.XXI "could climb like hell". It had reasonable climb rate for its day but unfortunately its opponents like Bf 109E, I-153 and I-16 had even better. Interceptor was maybe a wrong term for G.1 use foreseen by FAF. Idea was to use it against bombers over inner Finland.

IMHO single engined dive bombers tended to be more accurate than twins. I cannot recall any test results on the accuracy of G.1 as a dive bomber.

Juha


----------



## Marcel (Sep 7, 2008)

Hi Juha, I've read something different about the D.XXI, being able to outclimb the Bf109, but don't remember where. I'll try to look it up. And see if I can get some actual data.

The test data of the G.I on dive bombing was probably destroyed when the Germans invaded. But I'll try and see if anything is known at the G.I foundation.


----------



## Juha (Sep 7, 2008)

Hello Marcel
according to Finnish D. XXI test flights data and the usually in literature seen climb rate of Bf 109E, the latter climbed better. Also during the Winter War Finns noticed that I-153 and I-16 climbed better.

On G.1 as dive bomber. The Finnish test pilot test flew the same a/c on which you posted a photo, namely 302. According to Ehrnrooth, the test pilot, dive brakes limited the diving speed to 510km/h. Swedish dive bombing specialist captain Bjuggren was satisfied to G.1 as a dive bomber. On the other hand the diving speed of SBD-5 was 445 km/h , according to Eric Brown. And SBD's ailerons remained light at that speed when those of G.1 were heavy at high speeds according to Ehrnrooth. IMHO those facts indicate thats even if G.1 was capable to dive bombing it was not as accurate dive bomber as SBD.

Juha


----------



## Marcel (Sep 8, 2008)

Hi Juha,

I didn't know Finland also tested the 302. Thanks for the info 
Based on this info I agree with you, the G.I would not be as good as dive bomber as the SBD. 
I still didn't find the test data on the D.XXI, so for now I go with your figures.


----------

