# MOST OVERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 12, 2005)

Which aircraft achieved a popular reputation that far exceeded their actual performance or capability?



Gentlemen, let the mud slinging begin.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 12, 2005)

I'll start the mud throwing.

Spitfire.

Good, but many planes were better in most categories, such as the La-7.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 12, 2005)

P-51 Mustang 

(It stole the P-47 Thunderbolt's rightful place in history)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2005)

P-51 - I think the Corsair was superior. Just ask Capt. Fernando Soto of the HAF - He shot down a Mustang During the Soccer War, 1969

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

Well of course his 1947 F4U-5 totally outclassed the P-51D he was facing. Just because the F4U Corsair was a truely great plane does not make the P-51 "over-rated".

I'd probably have to say the Zero was the most over-rated plane of WWII. It had a few strengths but once it was a known quantity it was defeated even by early war contemporaries such as the F4F Wildcat.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 13, 2005)

Either the Zero or the Stuka, both had reputations of "invincibility" which were dispersed when they came up against serious opposition

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 13, 2005)

I'd say Spitfire. From the BoB onwards, popular history treats it like the ONLY RAF fighter. This of course, totally discounts the contributions made by planes like the Hurricane, Typhoon and Mossie, which all served in the same thetres and roles as the Spit, but hardly seem to get a mention, despite all having thier own advantages over the Spit.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 13, 2005)

I'll agree with that, but the Spit was active in all theatres in large numbers


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Well of course his 1947 F4U-5 totally outclassed the P-51D he was facing. Just because the F4U Corsair was a truely great plane does not make the P-51 "over-rated".
> 
> I'd probably have to say the Zero was the most over-rated plane of WWII. It had a few strengths but once it was a known quantity it was defeated even by early war contemporaries such as the F4F Wildcat.



I think the earlier F4U were superior as well, but I do agree the Zero has gotten a lot of attention for no real reason!


----------



## evangilder (Apr 13, 2005)

I would say the Zero as well. Because of misconceptions about Japanese capabilities, it had an air of invincibility early in the war. It didn't take long to figure out that it was pretty vulnerable. The only armor on the Zero was a small plate behind the pilot. And that armor was pretty weak. I once heard Steve Barber say that the glass directly ahead of the pilot (which by the way is bullet-proof on the Hellcat) wouldn't stop a mosquito (the bug, not the airplan, guys!) at high speed.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 13, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> I'll agree with that, but the Spit was active in all theatres in large numbers



Granted, but it was outnumbered 2 to 1 in the BoB by Hurris alone. I'll dig up some stats, but I get the feeling it wasnt the pricipal type in the MTO or NW Europe in terms of numbers deployed, or percentage of squdrons equipped with the type.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 13, 2005)

Ill have to say the Spitfire too.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 13, 2005)

B-17 

sorry, had to say it...........


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 13, 2005)

I dont think the B17 was overrated. Its limitations were known, and the continual upgrades managed to keep it servicable. I'll grant it is now treated like the only bomber the 8th AF flew, but you could say that about Bomber Command and a certain Avro design... (based, I believe on one of the worst a/c ever to serve with the Command?) 

***Lights blue touch paper and retires***


----------



## trackend (Apr 13, 2005)

I'll throw my two pence worth into the ring HE 262 unreliable engines prone to flame out, slow throttle up 
Stoppage problems with the MK 108 cannons and I believe only 300 saw active service as most where destroyed on the ground.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 13, 2005)

You mean the Me-262? I tend to disagree...


----------



## trackend (Apr 13, 2005)

I did CC I also thought that would upset one or two


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 13, 2005)

Bf 110 or Ju 200

Matt


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Apr 13, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> P-51 - I think the Corsair was superior. Just ask Capt. Fernando Soto of the HAF - He shot down a Mustang During the Soccer War, 1969



He also shot down a couple Corsairs as well.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 13, 2005)

I will go for the Me-262, too. A damn good (pioneering) plane, yes. But hey, it could never, never, never win the war for the axis or even turn the tide as it can be read in nearly every second book. That´s what I call a overrated plane...


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 13, 2005)

I'm going to have to say B-17 aswell, it had a very light bombload for a heavy bomber


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 14, 2005)

It could carry a fairly large bombload - Just not terribly far


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2005)

CC it never really carried it's full load in combat, most books or films will say the B-17 was one of the best bombers of the war, if not THE best, whereas that is far from the truth..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 14, 2005)

I know. But I was just saying that it did have a high payload butcouldnt carry it far. I was never making any implications about its full load being used in combat or that it was the best bomber of the war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2005)

besides, there was no point in having a large-er then normal payload if you can't make it past Dover


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 14, 2005)

The B-17 could carry 6,000 lbs of bombs to a target about 1100 miles away at 25,000 feet. However, for such a long range mission typcially only about 4000 lbs were carried to provide more form-up time at the start of a mission.

The Lancaster could carry about 12,000 lbs of bombs to a target 1100 miles away at about 15,000 feet, or 14,000 lbs of bombs at about 10,000 feet.

If the B-17 were to limit its altitude to 15,000 feet and not have to form up into a bomber box, it could carry 8,000 lbs further to a target further than 1000 miles away.

So yes, the Lancaster did carry a bigger bombload, but it also was much less durable and would have been slaughtered much worse than the B-17 had it undertaken the same daylight missions.

Some other points to be made:

First the specs of the aircraft:

The B-17F had four Wright R-1820-97 Cyclone radials rated at 1200 hp takeoff, 1000 hp @ 25,000 feet, 1380 hp WEP for brief intervals. Max. speed was 299 mph at 25,000 feet, 325 mph at 25,000 feet (war emergency). Cruising speed was ~200 mph. Climb to 20,000 feet could be attained in 25.7 minutes. Defensive armament: 1 x .30 M2 mg + 11 x .50 M2 hmg's. Production: ~12,750 Sorties flown: ??? Bombs dropped: 500,000 - 640,000 tons in the ETO (sources differ).

The Lancaster Mk.III had four Rolls Royce or Packard Merlin 28 or 38 inverted-Vee, rated at 1460 hp (no WEP figure given). Maximum speed was 281 mph at 11000 ft. Cruising speed was 227 mph at "optimal cruising altitude" (?). Climb to 20,000 feet could be attained in 41 min 24 sec. Defensive Armament: 8 x .303 Brownings. Production: 7377 Sorties flown: 156,000 Bombs dropped: 608,000 tons HE plus more than 51 million incendiary bombs.

Of the 7377 Lancasters (there may have been a few more but not many) at least 3460 used the American built Packard Merlin, and many RR Merlins used some American built parts. The Lancaster had about 1000 HP more than the B-17, and almost half of them were using American built engines which could have been used in a B-17 or B-24 variant which would have made them substantially faster.

Which brings up another point. Neither the B-17 nor the B-24 used an engine which could have reasonably powered a fighter. It could well be argued that the production of Lancasters cost the British/Americans something around 8,000 Spitfires, 8,000 Mustangs, and another 6,000 Mosquitos! Just food for thought.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 14, 2005)

But why argue it? The Merlins powered the Lancaster as beautifully as they would have any fighter, and there wasn't exactly a shortage of them. Fighters either, for that matter.


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 14, 2005)

I believe the Bf-110 was hopelessly over-rated, as it found-out during the BoB, and perhaps the Ju-87....all very well during the Blitz over European countries prior to the BoB, but both were hopeless against fighter-opposition......Furthermore, neither were particuarly developed further despite these operational setbacks, the Bf-110 worked better in the dark as a NF, but the Stuka plodded-on in spite, only good for bombing escaping refugees and outmanoeuvred infantry.......

I take exception to the Spitfire being drawn into this....The British Empire would be talking German now if the Spitfire was 'over-rated'....read your bloody history!!...sure the Hurricane was on the scene first, but these two worked in concert during the BoB, then the Spits escorted Hurri-bombers into Europe and the MTO....and both served in various theatres respectively with distinction.....

I also feel the Corsair could've been used more extensively than it was, but the inter-service mascinations of the US Forces dictated it staying in the PTO....the Mustang earned it's rep, useful in all it's versions, excelling in the 'D' model..... again why the P-47 didn't receive more glory was it's deployment - same thing occurred with the Typhoon too....

The B-17 was a good aircraft but it's deployment as an aerial fortress was the cause of many lives lost....they refused to listen to lessons already learned by Bomber Command.... then they had to resort to Bomber Command tactics to make the B-29 viable in Japan....height and firepower aren't everything, if 'foxy-tactics' can be used........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 14, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> ...The British Empire would be talking German now if the Spitfire was 'over-rated'...


The whole Empire? New Zealand, Australia, and India would be speaking Japanese and Canada would've eventually been absorbed by the USA, meaning we'd all be speaking English with a Texas drawl. 

Go Spitfire!


----------



## Soren (Apr 14, 2005)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> I'll start the mud throwing.
> 
> Spitfire.



I will agree that the Spitfire is overrated by some, but it was also probably the best pure fighter of WW2. So the Spitfire kinda earns its respect.



> Good, but many planes were better in most categories, *such as the La-7*.



Now THATS an overrated plane by far !! 

If the Spit XIV and La-7 ever met(Considdering both pilots are equal), the Spit would totally trash the La-7 ! (That includes below 3,000m !)

German flight-tests also proves that the Lavochkin is a VERY overrated fighter ! (During the war, German aswell as Finnish 109's walked all over them.)

Most overrated airplane of WW2= The Lavochkin series !


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 14, 2005)

I would go for the Me-262 or the Me-163 Comet, sure they had a lot of speed but they also had a nasty pilots reputation for fires, and crashes due to no landing gear. They also had a relatively low aerial endurance factor, which means that they can't go too far to actively seek bombers and fighters to destroy. Also there is the He-177 Grief or the Martin Marineer I think the Allied one is, both of these had nasty nicknames, the He-177 Grief was called the Flying Coffin, the Martin Marineer was called the Flying Gas Can. These are certainly aircraft which had a potential to be said to be dangerous and bad for the pilot's health. I don't think the Me-163 and Me-262 were ever intended to serve for long periods. They were only ever intended to serve until Germany developed the better replacements that were on the drawing board back then.


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 15, 2005)

B-17 and the Lancaster.

Kiwimac


----------



## Udet (Apr 15, 2005)

This can be an interesting topic.

First off. I would have to say, the super gold medal as the most overrated plane of the entire conflict, ETO and PTO alike, goes flat straight to the soviet IL-2.

You name it, either the single seat or two seat versions the famous Shturmovik are as overinflated as any of those silly basketball or baseball players who by playing a game make millions and millions of dollars a year.

Perhaps the most famous flight simulator of the world bears its name.

The Germans captured numbers of intact IL-2s throughout the war, had them tested and were themselves amazed to realize such a piece of crap had been put into very massive production.

It would not be daring to say the IL-2 is the most shot down plane of the entire conflict.

Its 1 ton of armor while helped well against personal -rifle- caliber guns greeting it from the ground, was of little help against cannon equipped fighters and/or low altitude flak batteries.

It could hardly manouver. Its manouvering was not any better than that of the four engine heavy bombers of the USAAF and you are talking about a single engine plane.

Climbing was miserable, so was the turning radius. Roll was kind of out of the question.

Its only good points were (i) a powerful punch in the form of wing fitted cannons and (ii) the numbers in service, especially during 1944. Period.

Following the fashion of their western allies, the soviets credit the IL-2 with destroying "thousands" of German tanks; while soviet sources can never be expected to be objective, the outcome of the IL-2s charges against German armor, when one takes into account the capabilties of the plane and of its pilots, can not have a different outcome to that gained by the USAAF and RAF fighters committed to ground attack missions over Normandy in 1944.


To some extent, the IL-2 in the air, made the equivalent of soviet infantry: sent en mass to smash the enemy with complete disregard of the cost. A high casualty rate was gladly accepted by the soviet command.

That the shturmovik helped the soviet war effort very much is true. 

But its massive production was devoted mainly to replace the horrific losses the plane suffered everywhere it operated.


The soviet claims of a "superb", "superior" ground attack plane can not withstand the most basic of the scrutinies.

IL-2 pilots were hastily trained. Even in 1944, a good number of them shturmoviks carried no radios; many crews were never issued parachutes.

Accident ratio was horrific for IL-2 crews.

The soviets never had time to create a highly trained air force as a whole. Sorry for General Aleksandr Novikov and the credit soviet official history gives him. The beatings they took in 1941-42 deprived them of the necessary timeframes to produce a new breed of pilots.

Even at Kursk, during the first day of operations at the salient, the German fighters shot down nearly 370 soviet planes, that in the first 12 hours of the battle; if you read soviet accounts, Kursk is depicted as the "first hammer" delivered to the Luftwaffe. Non sense. 

Also the famous Kuban air battles of 1943, saw a VVS uncapable of gaining air superiority. The IL-2s opeated in numbers there and failed big time. The Kuban bridghead was evacuated by the Germans when the front in the Ukraine was crumbling and not because they got defeated in the northwestern tip of the Caucasus.

Stalin while demanding the opening of new fronts to his western allies, always saw the allied advance in the west as a threat to his future geo-political plans in Europe.

So, the last thing he was interest in was to give the new pilots proper training. His orders were to advance, at all cost, as fast as possible. He did not trust the western allies. 

I recall reading somewhere an account, that in late 1945, well after the end of the war, the soviets conducted combat trials in the Baltic Sea. The target: a Kriegsmarine war prize -one of the German light cruisers, forgot the name-. Perfect weather. Target speed: zero. No AA fire. 

The IL-2s had a terrible time in finding the mark. 

The shturmovik had its prime moment when the Luftwaffe decided to strip the east of its fighter strenght sending many gruppen west to deal with the heavy bomber menace.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 15, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> But why argue it? The Merlins powered the Lancaster as beautifully as they would have any fighter, and there wasn't exactly a shortage of them. Fighters either, for that matter.



Merlins were the limiting factor in P-51 production.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 15, 2005)

Good point Udet. This was such a field expedient airplane, even the rear gunner's seat consisted of only a small strap between stringers.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> The B-17 could carry 6,000 lbs of bombs to a target about 1100 miles away at 25,000 feet. However, for such a long range mission typcially only about 4000 lbs were carried to provide more form-up time at the start of a mission.
> 
> The Lancaster could carry about 12,000 lbs of bombs to a target 1100 miles away at about 15,000 feet, or 14,000 lbs of bombs at about 10,000 feet.
> 
> ...



oh boy that was a good laugh, RG, how far could the B-17 carry it's maximum payload?? the grandslam could be hauled 1,550 miles, whereas the B-17 couldn't even lift a grandslam!! ALL the grandslam were dropped by day without loss, and the lanc did in fact bomb by day, and you think the B-17 could haved bombed by day without fighter escort?? they tried and failed, badly................



> and almost half of them were using American built engines which could have been used in a B-17 or B-24 variant which would have made them substantially faster.



awww, it's the poor little american feeling left out to the british  DUDE!!! the americans weren't even producing the merlin before they were needed for the lanc, and do you actually think they were gonna use them on the B-17 and B-24!!

i'm just so pissed off with your utter ignorance at the moment i can't even argue with you anymore, go away, do some heavy reading on the lancaster, then come back and try and argue your points then...........


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 15, 2005)

Geez. Somebody ate a bad taco.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just insult his mother?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2005)

i would say i'm sorry but i'm not, he doesn't have a clue............


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 15, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Merlins were the limiting factor in P-51 production.



I guess Allison should have got their finger out of their anus and produced a capable engine.




> The Lancaster Mk.III had four Rolls Royce or Packard Merlin 28 or 38 inverted-Vee



Inverted Vee engines?? Sure, if you say so.


----------



## Soren (Apr 15, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> I guess Allison should have got their finger out of their anus and produced a capable engine.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Merlins were the limiting factor in P-51 production.
> ...



LOOK AT THIS - I THINK THE FINGER WAS REPLACED BY THEIR HEADS! v-3420 - TROUBLE 2X


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 15, 2005)

*Now that would have been some engine to stick in a P-51!!!*

But since you want to play.  

The Rolls-Royce Eagle 22 > 3550 hp @ 3500rpm from 2807ci


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

But at least its a RR! IT WOULD OF WORKED


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2005)




----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 15, 2005)

The Lancaster was certainly an excellent bomb delivery vehicle. It had a superb payload and excellent range.

I never did like it's low tolerance to damage or it's feeble defensive armament. 

That and the fact that it's British. I wish there were some way for me to hack in and change that caption on Lanc's picture to: 

*The Lancaster Smells Like Ass - Oh wait, that's just the crew's bad breath from poor dental hygeine.*

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> The Lancaster was certainly an excellent bomb delivery vehicle. It had a superb payload and excellent range.
> 
> I never did like it's low tolerance to damage or it's feeble defensive armament.
> 
> ...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2005)

hey at the time of design, the lancs armourment wasn't weak, and she could take more damage than most people realise.........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 15, 2005)

Just like every other combatant country, the British were capable of modifying their aircraft as changing circumstances required. For example, the Lancaster II was built with radial engines when it was believed that that in lines would be in short supply. (About 300 were built but production was shut down when the shortage never materialized.)

My point is that there was no good reason to maintain a defensive armament of .303's throughout the production of the Lancaster. The British had some sort of perverted love affair with the .303. (perhaps the cartridge size made their penises look larger) The .303 was installed as an armament on fighters throughout the war as well.

An attacking German fighter pilot would most definitely rather face .303's than .50's, one round of which could really ruin his day.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 15, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> *The Lancaster Smells Like Ass - Oh wait, that's just the crew's bad breath from poor dental hygeine.*


Canadians do brush our teeth, y'know. 
I'm sure Australians and New Zealanders do too.


----------



## trackend (Apr 15, 2005)

If I post them to you will you brush mine while you at it please skim


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2005)

Ugh thats ing!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 15, 2005)

*GAAHHH!!!*


----------



## trackend (Apr 15, 2005)

Well 2 of them aint bad but I think he's wasting the paste on the rest ugh


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Apr 15, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Merlins were the limiting factor in P-51 production.
> ...



Na, they should've hurried up and got a second blower stage.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

What Model Lanc did he fly


----------



## Udet (Apr 15, 2005)

I find it interesting to discover there are guys nominating the He 177 and the Bf 110 to get the overrated tag.

First off. The He 177 never saw action in any significant numbers. Like most planes going through developtment, it had its shortcomings, most of them got corrected. Also there is absolutely no evidence that could help you affirming the Germans ever said it was a wonderful bomber.

So the overrated tag does not fit in the case of this particular bomber.


The Bf110 was certainly a plane with high expectations placed upon it.
Fared very well during Fall Weiss, Fall Gelb and the battle in Norway, to take a mauling during the Battle of Britain.

Overrated? Not at all. It was like if you were affirming the pilots, officers and commanders of the Zerstorerwaffe were idiots. They immediately learned it could not manouver the way of both Hurricanes and Spitfires.

The Germans would eventually find the hunting ground more than suitable for the Bf 110: the night fighter role. I can assure you many RAF bomber command veterans will argue the comment the Bf 110 is overrated.

It had a fearsome punch in the nose, it was fast and had a large range.



The Spitfire is certainly an overrated plane. Its glorious episode was a brief one, known as the Battle of Britain. From 1941 to early 1943, the Channel/France region became a secondary theather of operations for the Luftwaffe. 1941 was the year when the strenght of the jagdwaffe was deployed in the east.

1941 sounds likely to have been the year for RAF fighter squadrons to rest, refit and to have their suffered wounds licked after the BoB, for after all, they took a mauling there as well, and the enemy was by then working heavily in the east digesting the soviet air force.

But if you conduct a follow up research on the performance of RAF fighter squadrons from 1941 to late 1942/early 1943, when they faced the "Schlageter" boys of JG 26 and those of JG 2, they proved uncapable of repeating the deed of 1940, suffering tremendous losses at the hands of both the Bf 109s and the new Butcher bird. (i.e. The Dieppe raid and the Channel Dash of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau can help as evidence)

I am convinced the bottom of the channel contains far more carcasses of Spitfires than of any other plane who saw action in the area.

It was not until the build up of the USAAF had begun in the island when Spitfires showed any improvement.

However you can never compare the Spitfire case with that of the IL-2. 
The propaganda of the soviet union took the Il-2 up to levels if insanity.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 15, 2005)

As far as the Lancs defensive armament was concerned, it wasnt just weak, it was badly thought out. I know this discussion has been had, but I'll say it again... 

The nose turret was pointless - if a nightfighter was daft enough to fly straight at a bomber in the dark, the gunner would hardly have enough time to fire, assuming he ever saw the fighter. Far better to remove the turret and fit some kind of vebtral mount instead. That way, the nightfighters wouldnt be able to just slide up and blow the Lanc apart with Schrage Musik. I will never understand why RAF night bombers didnt have ventral guns. Just two 303s would have been enough...it wouldnt take a lot to hit an enemy a/c thats forming up on you, after all!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2005)

> It was not until the build up of the USAAF had begun in the island when Spitfires showed any improvement



so now you're claiming it's the americans that made the spit the amazing plane it was, interesting


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 15, 2005)

Nah! Obviously it was the Canadians.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2005)

well that still makes more sence that the americans making it waht it was..........


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Apr 15, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > It was not until the build up of the USAAF had begun in the island when Spitfires showed any improvement
> 
> 
> 
> so now you're claiming it's the americans that made the spit the amazing plane it was, interesting




Actually I think your reading it wrong. I believe what he's saying is the British had really starting improving on the Spitfire around the time the US started arriving.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 15, 2005)

The Lanc was fitted with a ventrall mount but it was discarded because it couldn't carry as many bombs


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 15, 2005)

So ... would you say that the removal of the ventral mount constituted the castration of the Lancaster?

I always thought she looked rather feminine.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 15, 2005)

Actually, that paints a rather interesting picture:

Momma Lancaster gives birth to her many explosive little bomblings.  
Awwww, it gets ya right in the ol' heart!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> So ... would you say that the removal of the ventral mount constituted the castration of the Lancaster?
> 
> I always thought she looked rather feminine.



So does a Lancastrian count as a sex change?

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 15, 2005)

A pregnant B-17


----------



## Soren (Apr 15, 2005)

> so now you're claiming it's the americans that made the spit the amazing plane it was, interesting



Heinkel designed the Spit's elliptical wings, so the Spit is really half German !


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2005)

Soren said:


> > so now you're claiming it's the americans that made the spit the amazing plane it was, interesting
> 
> 
> 
> Heinkel designed the Spit's elliptical wings, so the Spit is really half German !



*IT THAT LIKE THIS?*


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 17, 2005)

Soren said:


> > so now you're claiming it's the americans that made the spit the amazing plane it was, interesting
> 
> 
> 
> Heinkel designed the Spit's elliptical wings, so the Spit is really half German !



I never actually knew that, but it does make sense as the He-112 had elliptical wings and was designed somewhat earlier than the Spit 8)


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

My understanding is their was no connection between the He112 and the Spitfire. Supposedly R.J. Mitchell pretty much freehanded the eliptical shape, inspired by






rather than by applying any real math or science to it.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

Don't forget this thing, It first flew in 1933, way before the Spit and 112


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 17, 2005)

Alright, I'll ask the obvious question: What the hell is it?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

K-7 Bomber - Russian


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 17, 2005)

Ah yes. Just like it says below the picture.  
Thanks.


----------



## trackend (Apr 17, 2005)

Its a Aboriginal Bull roarer with engines


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

trackend said:


> Its a Aboriginal message stick with engines


----------



## trackend (Apr 17, 2005)

sorry fly wrong name


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

what's up with the tail of that thing?? it looks like it has two P-38 parasite fighters..........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

You're right, I guess the designer was trying to impress Stalin


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

that's a float plane isn't it??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

No its was supposed to be a bomber


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

firstly, you can see the floats, and secondly in 1933 i doubt the russians would have an airfeild capable of taking that thing........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 17, 2005)

Where do you see the floats?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

just ourboard of the inboard engines................


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 17, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> firstly, you can see the floats, and secondly in 1933 i doubt the russians would have an airfeild capable of taking that thing........



Using the Goggle image search turns up all kinds of things.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

hey they could very well be floats


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

I don't think those are floats, but seeing it now it reminds of of something else that might float!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 18, 2005)

Thats one ugly plane.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 18, 2005)

Agreed, Adler. It looks like it had influence from some of those French bombers!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 18, 2005)

not only do i love the looks of french bombers but i love the looks of that plane as well..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Agreed, Adler. It looks like it had influence from some of those French bombers!



And a Tour Bus!



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> not only do i love the looks of french bombers but i love the looks of that plane as well..........



Yeah but you think some of the most hideous aircraft are good looking!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2005)

Yes, that plane is filth  It should carry a government health warning


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 19, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> not only do i love the looks of french bombers but i love the looks of that plane as well..........



That is understandable since you like the looks of the Lanc.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2005)

LOL, I was not going to go that far as to say that. I am glad you did!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2005)

but what do you know KK, you're a lowly Lt. General.........


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 19, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but what do you know KK, you're a lowly Lt. General.........



That is because I usually don't spam with one liners to increase my rank.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2005)

are you implying that i do Lt. General??


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 19, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> That is because I usually don't spam with one liners to increase my rank.


Zing!!  

Wait, I guess I'm not one to talk am I?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 19, 2005)

lanc, I don't see many posts by you with more than 1 line of text.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 20, 2005)

go to any topic where we're talking about the lanc...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2005)

But what if its not about the Lanc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 20, 2005)

then i don't really say much.............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 21, 2005)

___


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 21, 2005)

yeah just like that................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 21, 2005)

I figured I would give it a try.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 21, 2005)

Yep, spamming is fun!
Most overrated plane is the Stuka IMO- any lack of air superiority and it was a turkey shoot


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 21, 2005)

I will agree that the Stuka was overated. But I would not say the most overated. I will have to think of this one for a while.


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 21, 2005)

I disagree with Udet's assertion concerning the Spitfire....
It did it's part in the BoB, and as stated once before, when asked if they wanted anything, Goering's pilots asked for a Squadron of Spitfires...then not long after, Hitler cancelled 'Operation Sealion'...- After that, Spits were kept busy dealing with the low-flying 'Sneak Raiders' and flying the 'Big Wings' over France and the Low Countries to try and draw-up those 'Top Luftwaffe Geschwaders' you were talking about, which I may add, got as good as they gave.....Even with the intro of the then superior Fw-190, the Mk.V Spits kept taking it to them, and there were plenty of Luftwaffe carcasses left in the Channel, even our RAF 485 [NZ] Sqn. chewed a few out.....From 1942 on, Spitfires were often engaged escorting USAAF bombers in out of Europe, until they got their own escorts sorted-out, and escorting Hurri-bombers and other types on bombing missions.....The only thing Spitfire fighters lacked was a greater range, but the PR models still continued their exemplary service throughout the War.....

As for the Lancaster, it greatly enhanced the effectiveness of Bomber Command when introduced in March 1942.....The first 4,000 lb'er was dropped a year earlier, and the first 8,000 lb'er a month before the Lancaster's intro, so when saddled with them, it was ''Destruction-Deutschland''...[not to mention the really big-bombs, eh Lanc ??]...... 
As far as it's armament went, I'm not that chuffed with it either, but effective-enough it was, not many NF's came back for seconds [if you've read the history], and the sustained-damage that these aircraft managed to return with, was impressive not only to their manufacturer, but also in the courage skill of their Aircrew; many made it back shot to pieces on just one engine....To imply this aircraft was 'over-rated', implies you haven't learn't to read your WWII Aviation History properly...... 

The Bf-110 WAS over-rated....'Destroyer' indeed; it was stuffed without an escort in daylight, found a role as a NF, as it could keep-up with RAF Bombers...[a role which the bigger Ju-88 excelled in]....why the Bf-210 'successor' was even worse !!....The Bf-110 belongs with the Ju-87, real great shooting-up ground-targets, until there's fighter-opposition...... And if we're gonna add the Il-2, we may as well add the Hs-129......


----------



## Udet (Apr 21, 2005)

Gemhorse:

I am sorry to inform your comments are quite unaccurate.

JG 2 and JG 26 gave the RAF a tremendous pounding from 1941 to early 1943.

The Schlageter and Richtofen geschwadern kept a kill ratio of nearly 4:1 over the RAF through the entire 1942.

Have you read about the Dieppe raid?
There, the Luftwaffe fighters shot down nearly 110 British planes, the majority of them Spitfires. The Germans lost about 20 fighters and about 10-15 bombers.

110 British planes destroyed in just a few hours of fierce combat?
Was there any day when the RAF -even during the BoB- came close to destroy such number of German planes in combat -in one single day-?

The Spitfire never had the level of the Fw 190, much less the Mk V version who is recorded to have been slaughtered by the Butcher Bird. 

Before the Dieppe Raid, the Channel Dash, when Admiral Otto Ciliax took "Scharnhorst", "Gneisenau", "Prinz Eugen" and their escorts out of Brest forcing the Pas de Calais, turned out another day of total disaster for the RAF. Beginning with a number of torpedo armed Swordfish biplanes who got exterminated to the very last, ending -again- with the Spitfires who got slaughtered, showing the RAF was still far from being capable of challenging the Luftwaffe on its own -also speaking of the capabilities of the Royal Navy-.

These are recorded facts.


----------



## trackend (Apr 22, 2005)

Its amazing how the RAF survived isn't Udet with all this slaughtering going on If these various aircraft where so Superior to the Spites and Hurries as you intermate how come they lost the BoB (let me guess, they could have won but it was a political decision to ease off and nothing to do with unsustainable losses inflicted upon the Luftwaffe by the RAF) Its hardly surprising the 6 Swordfish got blown out of the sky's going against ships which consisted of (under Vice-Admiral Otto Ciliax,) the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prinz Eugen, plus ten destroyers, 15 fast torpedo boats and three flotillas of E-boats , Jagdgeschwader 1, 2 and 26 of Luftflotte 3 of the Luftwaffe. Perhaps the FAA pilots new what the odds against them where and what the out come would be and this was the reasons for the VC's being awarded.
As for the event its self what did it achieve. Zero, it consisted of a fleet of ships going through the channel no attacks on the UK ports no bringing the RN into a major navel action it was exactly as it is now known a dash to try and get through and not get obliterated. The German surface fleet in WW2 was the most insignificant arm of the German forces this is why it spent most of its life sitting in various ports when it did try to venture out with the purpose of engaging the enemy in any force they got sunk. Some didn't even make it out of port for more than a few days.


----------



## Schöpfel (Apr 22, 2005)

Yes Udet, we would have won the war if it began in Januar 1942 and ended, oh about Autumn 1942 before the spitfire 9 came out in competitive numbers  No doubt!! Start the war in 1939 or even 1943? hmm... I wish, but doubtful


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 22, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> The Bf-110 WAS over-rated....'Destroyer' indeed; it was stuffed without an escort in daylight, found a role as a NF, as it could keep-up with RAF Bombers...[a role which the bigger Ju-88 excelled in]....why the Bf-210 'successor' was even worse !!....The Bf-110 belongs with the Ju-87, real great shooting-up ground-targets, until there's fighter-opposition...... And if we're gonna add the Il-2, we may as well add the Hs-129......



I agree the 110 was overated. Maybe not the most over rated but very overated. The Me-410 however was not bad. It was a good versatile aircraft that was just not produced eneogh nor entered service in time.

Me-410

Type: Two-seat tactical aircraft for fighter, attack and recon duties plus specialized variants
Origin: Messerschmitt AG
Models: A and B series
First Flight: December 1942
Service Delivery: N/A 
Final Delivery: N/A
Engine:
(A) Two Daimler-Benz DB 603A inverted liquid cooled V12
Horsepower: 1,750 hp ea.
(B) Two Daimler-Benz DB 603G inverted liquid cooled V12
Horsepower: 1,900 hp ea.

Fuel:
Capacity: N/A
Type: N/A

Dimensions:
Wing span: 16.4m (53 ft. 7.75 in.)
Length: 12.45m (40 ft. 10 in.)
Height: 3.10m (14 ft. 0.5 in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A

Weights:
Empty: 6,150kg (13,560 lbs.)
Maximum: 10,650kg (23,483 lbs.)
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 620km/h (385 mph)
Initial climb: 2,133ft/min (650m/min)
Range (with full bomb load): 1,447 miles (2330 km)
Service Ceiling: 32,800 ft. (10,000m)
Armament:
Two remotely controlled powered barbettes on sides of fuselage each housing one 13mm MG 131
And
Internal weapons bay housing various combinations of weapons ranging from 7.92mm MG 17 machine guns, MG 151's, Mk 108 30mm cannon, BK5 50mm cannon with 21 rounds all the way up to 210mm rockets in a rotary tube configuration (tested, but poor results prevented front-line use).
Or
Two 1,102 lb. (500kg) Bombs
And
External Racks for two 1,102 lb. (500kg) Bombs
Plus
Two Ruestatz external packs housing Mg 151, Mk 108 or Mk 103 cannons were fitted to some variants

Avionics:
SN-2 Lichtenstein Radar on Me 410A-2/U-2 Night Fighter
FuG 200 Hohentwiel ASV (air/surface vessel) Radar on Me 410B-6 Anti-Shipping variant.

Udet you also have to remember that during the BoB the Germans were fighting the British over England. There are going to be more losses like that because there are more aircraft. The same was true for the Germans when the allies were fighting the Luftwaffe over Germany.



Schöpfel said:


> Yes Udet, we would have won the war if it began in Januar 1942 and ended, oh about Autumn 1942 before the spitfire 9 came out in competitive numbers No doubt!! Start the war in 1939 or even 1943? hmm... I wish, but doubtful



Even as a German who loves Germany very much I am glad we lost the war. The world is better off that way.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 22, 2005)

> Fuel:
> Capacity: N/A



interesting............


----------



## Udet (Apr 22, 2005)

Gentlemen:

The "if their planes were soooo superior...why did they lose the war..." tone can lead one to assume you are running out of sound arguments -or the lack thereof-.

What came of "Scharnhorst", "Gneisenau" and "Prinz Eugen" after the Channel Dash is not an issue here. It lacks relevance.

The issue was rather the absolute failure of both the RAF and Royal Navy to hinder the enemy move; such failure impliying important losses for the RAF.

"Well, they broke through but after that, those heavy units achieved nothing, therefore it was a victory". Non-sense.

Not that this is a place to discuss naval issues, but the Admiralty could not have a clear idea of what the heavy Kriegsmarine units would do in the future. They would have done everything possible to hinder the move and in attempting that they failed.

Trackend, your comment is like a looping torpedo threatening with destroying the vessel that fired it.

If the RAF had superior planes -bringing the BoB forward as evidence- and the Royal Navy could handle the Kriegsmarine at will, how come they failed in such a manner?

Note i have not suggested the Spitfire to be placed in the "most overrated" category. It was simply overrated. A fine and capable plane which also had its limitations.


The bravery of the Swordfish pilots who were sent to carry on with such a ludicrous task , like attacking a powerful naval fleet enjoying important air cover- is not an issue either. Their bravery is doubtless, but not a topic for discussion here.

Perhaps, and i repeat perhaps, they recalled the Bismark episode and believed a similar hit could be repeated. I doubt it. Conditions had no paralelisms at all. Bismark lacked air cover in high seas, but during the Channel Dash, the Butcher Bird was on stage. I heard someone saying the annihilation of the entire Swordfish flight was kind of a less publicized debt the Germans finally collected. 


If you want to continue denying that after the Battle of Britain, when the Sptifire had to leave the den and pursue the enemy, the British fighter proved uncapable of gaining air superiority, then all i can say that is your own business.

It was not until the build up of the USAAF in England became significant, mainly the long range ability of US fighters -late 1943- that the Spitfires showed any improvement in their performance. Now the hardships were to be shared with the P-47s and later on with the P-51s.

Shared risks, shared profits.


----------



## tail_gunner (Apr 22, 2005)

I agree the Zero was overrated, but i'd also have to nominate the IL-2.

It was poorly made in mass numbers and only completed missions because there were so many swarming the skies.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 22, 2005)

I'll agree with the IL-2


----------



## trackend (Apr 23, 2005)

Udet I did not bring up the subject of the swordfish you did so the irrelevance lies with yourself as it was the Spitfire you where talking about if you believe this is not the place to discuss naval matters then I will not pursue the matter even though it was yourself that bought the subject into the conversation. oh just one little thing at what point did I say it was a victory for the British because the channel dash failed to achieve anything.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 23, 2005)

and tell the crew of the tirpitz that the RAF couldn't stop naval units........


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 24, 2005)

Ah Udet, you may not have studied your history that well.....What makes you think the 'Channel Dash' was a failure on the part of the British ?...You don't want to talk about the German battleships AFTER the event, so what about before ?....

Naturally Britain wanted those ships sorted-out, they were hindering the RN's activities, and having them floating around causing trouble, it was better they were back in German ports where they could be bombed. Britain had already sorted-out the Bismarck, the Prinz Eugen escaped and joined the Scharnhorst Gneisenau in Brest on June 1, 1941. Please note that the Gneisenau had already been torpedoed and severely damaged by a Beaufort [from 22 Sqn.] on April 6, '41, and then clobbered 5 nights later by Bomber Command....
Come July, the Prinz Eugen was seriously damaged by a bomb-hit on the night of the 1-2nd by BC....Then on the 23rd, the Scharnhorst, after refitting, had sailed for La Pallice for proving trials, but got hit by 5 bombs dropped by Halifax's of BC the following day, and limped back to Brest for lengthy repairs.... Further air raids on Brest wasn't inflicting much damage, so British High Command had a think about it all, and come up with a plan to draw them out, which they called 'Operation Hardboiled'.... They decided to make a fake attack on Stavanger, on the Norwegian coast, which was deliberately gossiped about around London, and naturally it got back to the German High Command. So when the attack on Norway went ahead on the 26th Dec. '41, Blenheims bombing the fighter airfield at Herdla, near Bergen, and Commandos raiding the nearby islands of Vaasgo and Maaloy, Hitler's famous 'intuition' flared, and because he was real panicky about his Swedish iron-ore supplies, he ordered Admiral Raeder to bring the ships up from Brest, a.s.a.p, in the first lot of dirty weather........
In the meantime, BC had been extensively mining along the coast through the Frisian Islands, and all the Joint Commands were ready and waiting.........
Well, the German Fleet indeed picked a spot of real dirty weather, leaving Brest in the evening of Feb. 11th, 1942, they nearly got clobbered by a BC raid of 18 Wellingtons, but finally got going by about 11 pm. ''The fickle finger of Fate'' intervened, they passed close to the sub HMS. Sealion, which had been lurking around Brest, and passed five different Hudsons, 3 of whose ASV radar was on the blink, and by extraordinary coincidence, passed neatly through the Coastal Command's surveillance screen..........
Now Adolf Galland was in charge of Air Cover and had 270 fighters at his disposal, which he deployed with his usual consumate skill, so that the Force always had 30 aircraft in the defensive umbrella....From about that point on, yeah, the British Joint Commands made a series of cock-ups mostly due to the rotten weather and German jamming of their communications, costing the Brits about 32 aircraft, plus damaged ones, for 7 German, plus damaged..........
But sure enough, the Germans had fallen into the main trap, and at 1430 hrs on the 12th, the Scharnhorst hit a mine, then at 1955 hrs, the Gneisanau hit one off Terschelling, and limped off to park-up in the mouth of the Elbe with the Prinz Eugen for the night - Then, at 2130 hrs, the Scharnhorst hit one too, far worse than earlier, and limped into Wilhelmshaven the next morning for extensive repairs....But hey !...10 days later, the Prinz Eugen was torpedoed by HMS. Trident, which parked her up for the rest of the War, and on the night of the 26th Feb., a bomb from a BC raid on Kiel hit the Gneisenau, putting her outa the War too !....The Scharnhorst went down with 1,800 crew on Dec. 26 '43, off the North Cape of Norway after a sound 'boxing'... [Boxing Day ?..get it!?]...by Royal Navy warships..... 

In his memoirs, Admiral Raeder wrote; ''for Germany it was a tactical victory and a strategic defeat''......

[no wonder you didn't want to talk about it !!!]....The inter-force rivalry of the British Armed Forces has always been there, in fact it's in most country's keen forces, and that may have had something to do with the British muddle too, but they had a plan and it worked, with typical British stubborness. 
As far as the Spitfire goes in all this, the Mk.V's could still down the odd Fw-190 and more regularly, Bf-109F's, the Mk.IX's certainly evened it up on it's introduction....The Fw-190 may have had an ascendancy then, but they were still shot down, just not in great numbers; I've got RAF 485 [NZ] Sqn.'s updated ORB figures in front of me, and our more seasoned chaps were shooting them down in their Mk.V's, these 'Top Geschwader' pilots....I still refute the Over-rated bit, as quite frankly, they were all fairly well matched;- new variants came in, shot down a few, then the other side would bring out a new one...etc, etc, and also, both the British and German fighters were small, compared to the American fighters, but that's all we had, and they were modified to accomodate the changing situations.............


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2005)

great post and great story there, i must admit i didn't know most of that..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> Ah Udet, you may not have studied your history that well.....What makes you think the 'Channel Dash' was a failure on the part of the British ?...You don't want to talk about the German battleships AFTER the event, so what about before ?....



Very good point the German battleships were rendered useless during the war. The only major accomplishment of a German battleship I can think off was the sinking of the Hood by the Bismark. Not too say that the German battlehships were not good. They were very good ships but they did nothing to help the war effort for Germany.

Besides what does any of this have to do with *MOST OVERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII*?


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 24, 2005)

At the start of the war, Italy had a very impressive navy as well. What a waste!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2005)

yeah i think when the italians are mentioned it's time we get back on topic...........


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 24, 2005)

I love these threads. Good post.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2005)

well thank you...........


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 24, 2005)

Geez this is an active thread. I'm going to have to start posting what I mean to respond to. No insult intended to you Lanc.


----------



## Concorde247 (Apr 24, 2005)

I think that the overrated Aircraft were the Russian IL-2 Stuka.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2005)

no they both did play a major part in the war.........


----------



## Concorde247 (Apr 24, 2005)

Yes, they played a big part, but were still overrated.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 24, 2005)

I think the P-51 is most over rated aircraft. I think it was a good compettive fighter. However I don't think it was:
The Best Fighter ever (in it's own time) Discover Wings Poll
The plane that turned the tide in WWII
The best Piston Fighter
The plane that destroyed the Luftwaffe.

These are used to describe the Mustang very often, not that it was compettive and after help from planes like the P-47, and Spitfire short range and the P-38 in the long range missions durring the most criticle period of the air war in Europe and then smothered what was left of the Luftwaffe.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 24, 2005)

Agreed.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 24, 2005)

Okay. So where does that leave us. I can't include the P-51, it was a great plane, accomplished what its rumours, history, and legends indicate. Even if the P-51s accomplishments were achieved by sheer numbers alone (which we all know is not solely true), the accomplishments are undeniable.

I still think that the most overrated fighter was the Zeke (Zero). An excellent fighter that turned out to be a paper tiger. And I do mean an excellent plane with more than commendable characteristics (range!!, maneuverability, firepower and reliability). But it did have its shortcomings (ability to absorb battle damage, diving speed, armour protection, self sealing fuel tanks, etc). Further, I don't think you can decouple any airplane from the pilots who flew them and Japan made a grave mistake by not rotating their best seasoned pilots homeside to train new cadre. Attrition was the final blow to the Zeke as surely as the obsolesence of the airframe and its weapons. Keeping these two in perspective provides insight into the basis for any airplane's fame...or its relagation to mediocrity. Fate has many faces. Ask the Italians about their G.55 or Macchi MC205 or the Regiane 2000 series. Surely world class fighters if their ever were ones.

Early in the war, the Zeke was credited with being undefeatable.
Did turn the tide in Japan's favor in early WWII.
Was considered the best piston fighter by many world powers at the beginning of the war.
And was credited with the defeat of China and winner of early US battles.


...but turned out to be a relatively toothless dog if treated with distance.

Aren't we talking about airplanes that were credited with great accomplishments, but by definition of 'overrated' were not worthy of the moniker?

Perhaps some others might include the Bf110 (not really much of a Destroyer after all), Mitsubishi G4M (the Flying Cigar...'nuff said), or maybe the Soviet Petlyakov Pe-8 (long range, but unreliable and subject to constant upgrades...not good for a superpower's only strategic bomber which constantly broached Berlins defenses).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 25, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> I think the P-51 is most over rated aircraft. I think it was a good compettive fighter. However I don't think it was:
> The Best Fighter ever (in it's own time) Discover Wings Poll
> The plane that turned the tide in WWII
> The best Piston Fighter
> ...



This I will agree with you that I think it was overated but not the most overated. The 51 was a great aircraft just not the best. Personally it is my favorite allied aircraft but I think the P-38 was much better and gets overshadowed by the P-51 a lot. 

I think the most overated would have to go to the Ju-87 Stuka, Bf-110 (it was okay though in the night fighter role), and the Zero.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 25, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> I think the P-51 is most over rated aircraft. I think it was a good compettive fighter. However I don't think it was:
> The Best Fighter ever (in it's own time) Discover Wings Poll
> The plane that turned the tide in WWII
> The best Piston Fighter
> ...



Oh man RG is going to flip out, here we go again. You are burning his baby.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 25, 2005)

it's true though.......


----------



## Geronimo (Apr 25, 2005)

Zero is definitly not overrated. It just could not fight well against the more modern fighters, like the hellcat. Japs made big mistake by only updating the zero instead of producing new airplane(yes they did create shiden and raiden later, but that was too late).Zero was not good enough to fight the hellcat, for it had little less manuverability but much higher speed and better armor(hellcats 8 machineguns could rip the zero apart very quick,while zero had to spend half of his 20mm ammo to kill it).
But zero fought its contemporaries with great succes. It, in combination with great japanese pilot flying it, was more than a mach to all fighters it fought in 39-42(I-16,P-40,P-36,P39,Wildcat).Was any of those planes beter than it?
So do not bash the zeke untill you find a historical evidence, for it was not overrated, just not well suited for operations from 43 on, because USAAF and USN pilots developed tactics and improved planes to fight it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 26, 2005)

Geronimo said:


> Zero is definitly not overrated. It just could not fight well against the more modern fighters, like the hellcat.



And you just helped my point. Thankyou. The Zero was overated. It may have been fast at the beginning and could maneuver well but it was very weak in armor and was outdated very early on. What you just said pretty much confirmed my overated status for the Zero, thankyou again.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 26, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > I think the P-51 is most over rated aircraft. I think it was a good compettive fighter. However I don't think it was:
> ...



I think the P-51 is a very good plane just not the very best. 

I just think the P-38, Spitfire, fw-190 and the F4U are shall we say Number 1. The P-51, me-109, and the P-47 1b very compettitive but a little behind.

The redesigned P-51H and P-47N/M maybe even the Ta-152 could have become the 1s and religated the P-38, Spit, fw-190 and Corsair to the 1bs or even possibly the 2s. They didn't get the chance

The P-38 needed the redesign upgrades the P-51H, P-47 and Ta-152 got - lighter weight, Laminar wings etc. to get there even the K wouldn't quite have gotten it there. P-38 would still be compettitive though.

The later models of the Spit and the Corsair were in the ballpark too.

Also remember I'm talking Fighter here where range and payload etc is not an issue.

The Zero was overated at first but once the shock wore off I think it was regaurded as just another problem to deal with.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 26, 2005)

That is pretty much what I agree with what you said about the number 1 and 1b's. The zero however I think was overated by 1942.


----------



## Udet (Apr 26, 2005)

I detect some confused people around.

It appears to me you are mingling concepts here. That a particular plane got defeated does not imply, at all, it was overrated; even if it performed in a superb fashion in the beginning.

Most planes facing the Zero in the early stages of the war flatly died. You name them and i will tell you they died. Whether British or USA, they perished.

The fact it did not develop well enough to keep up with the pace of newer enemy planes arriving to the front does not imply it was overrated either.


Quite actually, i am not even sure if there is anything like "the most overrated plane". Most planes which saw action in significant numbers certainly helped the side fielding it in one level or another.

The point would rather be some of the combatant nations give some of their planes characteristics they did not have, or better said, they describe them as capable of achieving things that do not fit with battle field facts.



For those tagging the Stuka as overrated, well, it can lead me to believe they have got some reading pending.

The Stuka record is proven. Hand in hand with the Wehrmacht proved to be one of the most efficient and destructive weapons ever.

The accounts of many eastern front veterans of the Wehrmacht tell that when on the march forward, after a fierce battle, they were astonished to see vast areas littered with countless enemy tanks, vehicles and artillery horribly and utterly shattered to pieces. Tons and tons of charred and twisted metallic carcasses. The authors of such destruction had been the Panzer spearheads, the STUKAS and German powerful artillery barrages moving ahead the marching infantry.

That in the end, especially in the west, the Stuka was mainly used for night harassment missions does not make it "overrated". Conditions for deploying it following the original Stuka notion had ceased to exist past half the war. Again, that does not make it overrated.


Two overrated types, that of course played their part for final victory over the enemy, are the Spitfire and the IL-2. The gold medal being awarded to the IL-2.

It was not an efficient tank destroyer as the soviets depict it. It was slow, clumsy and extremely vulnerable to enemy fighters. But hell yes, it helped the soviets a good deal.



I have stated my ideas on the Spitfire. It is one of the great fighters of the war. Glory was brief but relevant: Battle of Britain. 

Yes many of my British mates here do not like it, but i will repeat it, when the Sptifire had to leave its cave and attempted going out after the enemy the type proved to be not a succesful toy.


That is one of the Victor´s drunkness symptoms: victory turns them into pretentious beings. They will not admit "well, some of our weapons were not that good; furthermore, some of the enemy toys were well ahead ours. Still our weapons helped us good in defeating the enemy." Impossible. You will not witness such a thing.

They want to make it clear their hardware was superior in every possible aspect. There are cases, however, when that turns out impossible to prove.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 26, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is pretty much what I agree with what you said about the number 1 and 1b's. The zero however I think was overated by 1942.



Yes I agree about the Zero. It was common knowledge at the start of the war that the Japanese were short, blind and dumb. then for a year or so they were invincable. By the time Guadalcanal was in the middle of it's struggle (October or so) it was known that tenacity and tactics evened things up. New Superior planes and equipment was on the way too. The Myth was shattered.

After mid/late 42 or so I think the Zero was well respected but not considered invincable anymore. I read a comment from that time period that went this way: with a F4F-4 "Your outnumbered 1 on 1 with a Zero you have to attack in numbers". I think thats just being smart. even the early P-38s fought Dive and slash in numbers with the Zero. Even though there are a few accounts of P-38s out manuvering Zeros, it wasn't a good idea to try.

wmaxt


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 27, 2005)

I don't think the Zero was 'overrated', it WAS deadly and held ascendancy until basically the Hellcat Lightnings came into it, but the 'dive and slash' technique was developed in the P-40's, principally by the AVG in the North Asia, and the USAAC, Aussies and Kiwis in the South-west Pacific. The Wildcat also 'held the line' on carriers against the Zeros until the Hellcat came.... 
It was hugely 'underestimated' initially by the British High Command, which was one of the direct causes of the loss of Singapore, but it wasn't totally indestructible, one of our guys got 3 of 'em in the Buffalo, and they weren't flukes, just spot-on timing in an inferior aircraft....
Once tactics were sorted-out to deal with them, and they held a numerical superiority for a while too, the Japanese did indeed fail to seriously improve or replace the Zero....so I don't believe it was really a case of being 'overrated' as such.......

I guess if the Stuka was THE anti-armour aircraft of the German Invasion of Europe and Russia, and in this it was successful, and then it's opposite would have to be the Il-2, which was successful in the sense that the Russians won the overall battle, but the Hs-129 wasn't so hot, although being heavily-armoured, it was slow and lacked rear defence.

The Bf-110's only area of achievement was as a NF, so I feel it WAS overrated....

Spitfires continued their work after the BoB, going on the offensive despite losses, assisted in the Invasion build-up and continued on into Europe right up to the end, Udet, so I can't see why you feel it was 'overrated'...it may have been 'over-shadowed' somewhat by the US escort fighters, but many bomber pilots were still grateful for them.....


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 27, 2005)

To be honest, the Spitfire did not have it's moment of glory in the BoB. Hurricanes equipped more squadrons and shot down more aircraft. Most BoB aces were Hurricane pilots (Bader and Stanford Tuck to name two). The Spit IS over-rated and the BoB was the start of the myth. While it's true that Spits played an important part in ops over Europe, in bomber escort and in Operation Overlord, they did not have the same dramatic effect on the air war as, say, the arrival of the P-51 in the ETO, on the first meeting with the Zero in the Pacific.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 27, 2005)

The Spit may have been a little over glorified in the beginning, but I don't think it was overrated really. The early marks had their troubles, but as it developed it became a worthy match for almost anything it faced. There came "better" fighters certainly, but she pulled through many an Allied ace.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2005)

yes it is really quite hard to exaggerate the role of the spit in the RAF, she was in no way overrated, exept maybe during the BoB, but she was not over rated...........



> they did not have the same dramatic effect on the air war as, say, the arrival of the P-51 in the ETO



ah the P-51, now she WAS over rated............


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 27, 2005)

This was one of the images appearing on the homepage of this site. Yes, the P-51 was certainly overrated. (Perhaps not the most overrated but quite overrated)


----------



## Maestro (Apr 27, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes it is really quite hard to exaggerate the role of the spit in the RAF, she was in no way overrated, exept maybe during the BoB, but she was not over rated...........



Hmmm... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's the first time that I hear you say that the Spitfire was NOT overrated.  

By the way, I think the Spitfire and the P-51 were _may be_ a little overrated, but not that much. And certainly not during the last year of the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 27, 2005)

Udet said:


> I detect some confused people around.
> 
> It appears to me you are mingling concepts here. That a particular plane got defeated does not imply, at all, it was overrated; even if it performed in a superb fashion in the beginning.
> 
> ...



The Zero was a great plane at the beginning of the war but she lacked the necessary traits to be of great effectiveness after 1942. She was outclassed by that time which to me makes her overated. The Japanese had better aircraft then the Zero after 1942 but they chose to keep there beloved aircraft. Sorry to me she was overated.



Udet said:


> For those tagging the Stuka as overrated, well, it can lead me to believe they have got some reading pending.
> 
> The Stuka record is proven. Hand in hand with the Wehrmacht proved to be one of the most efficient and destructive weapons ever.
> 
> ...



No sorry she was overated. The Stuka was too slow, not armored eneogh, and not maneuverable eneogh. Yes she was the best dive bomber at the beginning of the war and yes she helped to account for many victories during the Blitz's of the first 3 years of the war however she was clearly outclassed past 1942 and 1943 latest. Without sufficient aircover she was helpless on her own. 




Udet said:


> Two overrated types, that of course played their part for final victory over the enemy, are the Spitfire and the IL-2. The gold medal being awarded to the IL-2.
> 
> It was not an efficient tank destroyer as the soviets depict it. It was slow, clumsy and extremely vulnerable to enemy fighters. But hell yes, it helped the soviets a good deal.
> 
> ...



I will agree with you on the Il-2. To me she falls in the same boat as the Stuka and was overated as much as the Stuka. But if you are going to say the Stuka was not overated for the reasons that you state above, then I think you are being nothing more then a hippocrit. The Il-2 was just as responsible for Soviet victories as the Stuka. The Il-2 was better armored then the Stuka. The Il-2 could carry more armament then the Stuka. The Il-2 was more maneauverable then the Stuka. I think you need to research this as much. The Il-2 was possibly more capable of destroying tanks then the Stuka and had a better chance of survival then the Stuka. I dont like the Il-2 but I would fly one of them before I would fly a Stuka into combat.

I do not agree on the Spitfire. I will agree she was overated in the BoB. The Hurricane was true warrior of the BoB. The Spitfire however was a great aircraft and was well matched with the Me-109. If you are going to say the Spitfire was overated then you have to say the same of the Me-109 and I will not do so.


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 27, 2005)

BombTaxi said:


> To be honest, the Spitfire did not have it's moment of glory in the BoB. Hurricanes equipped more squadrons and shot down more aircraft. Most BoB aces were Hurricane pilots (Bader and Stanford Tuck to name two). The Spit IS over-rated and the BoB was the start of the myth. While it's true that Spits played an important part in ops over Europe, in bomber escort and in Operation Overlord, they did not have the same dramatic effect on the air war as, say, the arrival of the P-51 in the ETO, on the first meeting with the Zero in the Pacific.



The Dramatic effect of the Mustangs is crap. The Dramatic effect was Escort Fighters. For the first Three months it was P-38s only and the loss rate dropped from 9/10% to 4/5% and the first 3/4% of that was the loss rate to AAA that the fighters could not stop. This rate was never bettered even in late 44 wnen it was almost all P-51 with as many as 1,500 planes over Germany each mission.

It wasn't untill mid June '44 that P-51 numbers equaled P-38 numbers on the escort missions and the 9 months previous to that was 
a) when the tide turned for the air war over Germany.
b) When the major portion of the Experten Pilots were lost.

Durring that time the P-38s outnumbered the P-51s and were as much or more instrumental by that percentage of P-38/P-51.

This is exactly why I think the P-51 is the most overrated.

One good redily available site is the "Planes and Pilots of WWII" web site. http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html

wmaxt


----------



## Udet (Apr 27, 2005)

Your only correct points about the IL-2:

(i) it was better armored, and
(ii) it could carry more armament.


More manouverable? I would not be so sure on that.

Point (i) was the result of a rough 1 ton of extra armor fitted to the plane.
It only made it an armored flying turkey. It turned out to be a double edged knife. While it could help well aganst rifle caliber guns greeting it from the ground, it made it helpless against interceptors.

Yes, heavily armored still German pilots found the weak spots very very fast. Yes, heavily armored and an impaired manouvering.

I have done my homework. I happen to have a good number of German guncamera footage showing the IL-2s getting shot to smithereens.
You can see some rear gunners jumping down covered in flames.

More manouverable than the Stuka? You ought to double check that. It was as clumsy as a four engine heavy bomber of the USAAF, and the soviet model was a single engine craft.

The Stuka and the IL-2 had about identical maximum speed.

Better chances of surviving than the Stuka? A "yes" would come only in theory, when reading some of the specifications, mainly the armor issue.

Battlefield records show the IL-2 not only proved highly vulnerable to interception; the loss rate for the Shturmovik was prohibitive.

So I do not think the IL-2 had better chances of surviving.

The IL-2 had its prime when the Luftwaffe stripped the jagdwaffe ost to deal with the heavy bomber threat in the west. It was only then when it could work.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2005)

I cannot see how anyone could consider the Spitfire over-rated. After all it's only reputation beyond the Battle of Britain is that it was a magnificant plane to fly and a brutal challenge for any who opposed it, not to mention it's wonderful looks. 
I also fail to see how the Spitfire became unworthy of respect 'out of it's cave'. It performed fighter sweeps over the channel throughout the entirety of the war. If these sweeps had continually been a failure, the Fighter Command would have halted them to avoid losing much needed aircraft for the defence of Britain. 

The Spitfire continued through the war, escorting bombers over the channel (which was still hot with the Luftwaffe right up until around '44), performed fighter sweeps over France, covered the D-Day landings, flew over Africa, flew over the CBI, covered both landings on Italy, was in the RAF, RAAF, RNZAF, VVS, USAAF and FAA. For an aircraft designed for intercept duties, never intended to go far reaching out of British airspace it performed remarkably well throughout the war. The Luftwaffe certainly did not enjoy it's presence in any engagement. 

In the Battle of Britain I will agree the Spitfire is given too much glory. The Hurricane deserves the most, but never all as the Spitfire did perform there too. The Spitfire was hitting them hard and fast, just as the Hurricane was.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 27, 2005)

I just can't believe you left out the RCAF. 
What _is_ this wacky world coming to?


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2005)

Sorry. It served with the RCAF (I put it first, just for you), RNZAF, RAAF, RAF, VVS, USAAF and FAA. Really though, do we care about Canada? I mean, seriously.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 27, 2005)

That hurt, it really did.
Ah well.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2005)

Are you going to need counselling, NS?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 27, 2005)

Perhaps. 
Maybe next week, I'm feelin' kinda lazy right now.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2005)

You DO know they let you sit down, right?


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 27, 2005)

At last !...a strong clear voice rises above the muttering....and thank you for putting 'RNZAF' second....The highest scoring RAF pilot was Canadian, and I believe his successful mount was the Mk.IX Spitfire....

But I agree with all you've said plan_D, although I believe it was more a case of the Hurricane not being fully appreciated and acknowledged, like with all the glory bestowed on the Spit....It really was a better weapon's platform too, and I can't understand why they didn't improve on it more; perhaps Hawker's efforts all went into the Typhoons etc., afterward, also 
another aircraft that deserved 'glory'....

Also, on this topic generally, there is a difference between ''overrated'' and ''outclassed'', which occurred to aircraft such as the Zero.... 

Interestingly, the Zero and Hurricane were of a kind really, both into it early as interceptors, but the Hurricane's range of duties-performed was much wider, geographically, and from the first to carry RP's, to having 2x 40mm's underwing....She was also the first British NF......She was definately ''overshadowed'' by the Spitfire....not as fast.....but far more versatile.

Speaking of armour, the Hs-129 also carried plenty, but although it had success against Soviet tanks, from the start of 'Operation Bagration', late June 1944, what followed was a huge defeat of the German Forces, the Hs-129 was seriously in decline....It was only good for 200-250 mph, so it was at the mercy of any interceptors and although heavily-armed and armoured, it was mostly AA fire that was their undoing....So how would you classify this ? - 'overrated or out-classed ?'.....

So just outa interests sake, how would the 'Buffalo' be categorised here ?


----------



## delcyros (Apr 28, 2005)

Just keep design strategies in mind. Hs-129, Ju-87 and IL-2 are designed for the ground attack role, only. Tactics require air superiority or a sudden strike. For that aim they are pretty planes, no other allied plane has nearly the records of IL-2 as well as no axis plane contributed that much to ground operations as the Ju-87. Without fighter cover, these planes are easy prey, no doubt. Bu if they can move freely, they are able to wreak havoc under their targets in uncomparable quality.
I still stay for the Me-262, altough I like all ww2 jets, it seems to be overrated in many books ("..could have changed the outcome and such things...nonsense!).
Not intending to denie it was a good plane


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2005)

yeah there was no way, even if the -262 was around at the start of '44, it would have made a difference to the war for the germans, the way i see it only the Fw-190 could have saved the germans, the A to take out the bombers, the D to deal with the fighters............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 28, 2005)

And that is what I am getting at. Udet claims the Stuka was the greatest but the Il-2 was complete crap. I am not a Il-2 fan and I think the Il-2 was overated however just as much as the Stuka. The Stuka was just as much of a sitting duck as the Il-2. I dont understand how you can not see the Udet. 

Udet you also claim the Spit was overated however if you are going to claim this then you have to realize the 109 was just as overated and I would not put the 109 in the overated catagory and neither would I put the Spitfire in this cattagory. Both were great planes and did a great job.

I will concede now on the Zero and will rather classify it as outclassed and not overated.

However the Stuka was deffinatly overated. It did a great job in the beginning but just like the Il-2, Udet it was a sittind duck and an easy target.


----------



## Kongo Otto (May 11, 2005)

Most overrated WW2 airplanes:
Brewster Buffalo
Fairey Battle
Boulton-Paul Defiant
Vultee Vengeance
SBU-2 Vindicator
Blackburn Roc


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2005)

OVERrated?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2005)

yeah CC, you know, maybe we aren't giving the roc enough credit


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2005)

No, Over rated means giving it too much credit


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2005)

that's what i meant ............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2005)

Maybe saying it was the worst plane of the war just isnt hard enough...worst plane of all time?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2005)

but how can it be, it's not french..........


----------



## BombTaxi (May 11, 2005)

Kongo Otto said:


> Most overrated WW2 airplanes:
> Brewster Buffalo
> Fairey Battle
> Boulton-Paul Defiant



These three weren't over-rated at all. If anything, they are under-rated!

Ok,ok I know that sounds totally crazy, but think of it this way. The Buffalo, although slaughtered in the hands of the RAF and NEIAF, was not just a sacrificial lamb. A number of kills were scored against the 'invincible' Zero by Buffalo pilots. The B-239 (a Buffalo derivative) was a successful fighter in the Baltic until 1943. In fact, a Finnish B-239 holds the record for the most air-to-air kills ever made by a single airframe - 73 with three different pilots IIRC. Considering that by the Continuation War, the Russians were introducing modern MiG and Yak fighters, this would seem to suggest that the Buffalo wasn't that bad an airframe.

The Battle was out-classed from the start. That makes it even more amazing that it did the damage it did in France. Im not going to pretend it saved the BEF or anything like that, because it didnt. However, the strikes which cost so many Battles did hold the Germans up - and any time bought for the BEF during the retreat to Dunkirk was precious.

The Defiant was actually quite a successful dayfighter until the Germans got over the novelty value of it. It snared a fair few 109s, and against the 110s and bombers, it functioned much as expected - the pilot maneuvered into position, and the four tightly spaced .303s shredded the hapless victim. In fact, the Defiants greatest advantage was that it didnt have to attack bombers from the two most dangerous angles, ahead and astern. It just snuggled up alongside and let rip...on most German bombers of the time, beam armament was non-existent, so there was nothing they could do to defend themselves.
After the jagdgeschwader got over the initial shock of meeting the Defiant, they were able to reassess the situation. They improved thier aircraft recognition, worked out new responses to the threat, and the Defiant died much the same kind of conceptual death as the Bf110 had over England.
Like the 110, the Defiant became a nightfighter. Being single-engined and having no radar, it wasnt as much of a success as its larger, radar equipped adversary. However, it was, with the Hurricane, a vitally important stopgap until the Beaufighter and Mossie arrived in signifiacant numbers to give the nightfighters the upper hand against the later episodes of the Blitz. 

So, if anything, these three aircraft should, IMHO, be found in the 'Most UNDER-RATED Aircraft of WW2' thread 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2005)

Modern MiG fighters? The MiG-3!?! That was a dump aircraft. Sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2005)

Dont apologise, its true


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2005)

I think the Me-110 was a lousy aircraft until it was used as a night fighter. I think as a night fighter it did just fine.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 11, 2005)

Yes, but when it got intercepted either day or night it was mincemeat 90% of the time


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2005)

It was not very impressive in maneuaverability that is for sure and she was not very fast compared to her adversaries so yes she was pretty ate up most of the time.


----------



## MildExplosion (Feb 22, 2016)

Me-262. While yes indeed, it was the first combat operational jet fighter, it had far too many technical flaws, and was too little too late to have any effect on the war.


----------



## johnbr (Feb 22, 2016)

Me the Me-262 needed the he-30/oo6 engine in it.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 22, 2016)

Wow, did you guys really just resurrect an eleven year old thread?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 22, 2016)

it's not dead until it has a wooden stake through it's heart


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 22, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> it's not dead until it has a wooden stake through it's heart




Good point!


----------



## grampi (Feb 22, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> P-51 - I think the Corsair was superior. Just ask Capt. Fernando Soto of the HAF - He shot down a Mustang During the Soccer War, 1969



Put that same Corsair driver up against a P-51H and he would've gotten waxed...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 22, 2016)

grampi said:


> Put that same Corsair driver up against a P-51H and would've gotten waxed...


That 11 year old comment was more cynical than anything else BUT
If that P-51H was flown by a "SAF regular" the outcome would have possibly been the same!!!


----------



## grampi (Feb 22, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If that P-51H was flown by a SAF regular the outcome would have possibly been the same!!!



I doubt it...the "H" model Mustang was so superior to any model Corsair, even in the hands of a bad pilot, it still would probably come out on top...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 22, 2016)

grampi said:


> I doubt it...the "H" model Mustang was so superior to any model Corsair, even in the hands of a bad pilot, it still would probably come out on top...


I'll call BS on that - an old neighbor Col Mike Alba trained the HAF Corsair pilots including Colonel Fernando Soto. He set up a dedicated air combat school similar to what was found in the US with emphasis on aerial and ground gunnery. When the shooting started it was quickly discovered the SAF was poorly trained and eventually sought mercenaries to fly their aircraft. The war ended before El Salvador could counter the losses of 3 mustangs.

El Salvador could of had F-86s - if you didn't have the trained pilots to fly them they become a non event

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Feb 22, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'll call BS on that - an old neighbor Col Mike Alba trained the HAF Corsair pilots including Colonel Fernando Soto. He set up a dedicated air combat school similar to what was found in the US with emphasis on aerial and ground gunnery. When the shooting started it was quickly discovered the SAF was poorly trained and eventually sought mercenaries to fly their aircraft. The war ended before El Salvador could counter the losses of 3 mustangs.
> 
> El Salvador could of had F-86s - if you didn't have the trained pilots to fly them they become a non event



Then I guess I don't understand the original point...if the SAF's pilots were that bad, then Soto could've shot down their Mustangs with a Buffalo Brewster...it had nothing to do with the Corsair being better than the Mustang...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 22, 2016)

grampi said:


> Then I guess I don't understand the original point...if the SAF's pilots were that bad, then Soto could've shot down their Mustangs with a Buffalo Brewster...it had nothing to do with the Corsair being better than the Mustang...


And I'll refer you back to my original statement - *"That 11 year old comment was more cynical than anything else." *


----------



## gumbyk (Feb 22, 2016)

Brian Cox - NZ Corsair Pilot over in the Japanese occupation force, says that the NZ pilots would 'engage' Australian pilots over Japan in mock dogfights, but not the Americans.

The key difference was the pilots experience - the US pilots were battle-hardened, but the Aussie pilots weren't.


----------



## pbehn (Feb 22, 2016)

Whether a P51H would or would not beat a F4U Corsair has no bearing on whether they should have been cancelled. World history would not change one iota without a P51H taking to the air. Obviously a different story for the B/C and D models. As a carrier or land based SE fighter bomber the Corsair has its place in history, as does the land based escort fighter P51. Neither should have been cancelled except for the P51H which (in hindsight) did not justify the money spent purely because the war was over.


----------



## grampi (Feb 23, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Whether a P51H would or would not beat a F4U Corsair has no bearing on whether they should have been cancelled. World history would not change one iota without a P51H taking to the air. Obviously a different story for the B/C and D models. As a carrier or land based SE fighter bomber the Corsair has its place in history, as does the land based escort fighter P51. Neither should have been cancelled except for the P51H which (in hindsight) did not justify the money spent purely because the war was over.



I think you're thinking of another discussion...this isn't the "Which plane should've been canceled" topic....


----------



## LisaM (Mar 4, 2016)

Here is where I offend everyone ....the P-38 what a heap of badly built and expensive junk. Lockheed practicing for the F-35.....

Poor quality control in manufacturing with leaks in the turbo piping being being common at manufacture, let alone after front line use, absurdities like ever more powerful engines.. that couldn't be utlised because of a terrible intercooler design.

Draggy, horrible mach limit (worse operating restrictions on diving than a Lancaster). Did I mention unrealiable, hard to maintain. Horrible pilot work load, too busy just trying to fy the thing to actually fight.
So-so guns crippled by a low ammo load (I mean 50 rounds for its 20mm cannon).
Oh and that mach limit, top level speed of a later model barely under its 'lawn dart' speed.

Expensive...the list goes on and on and on....... In reality the Me-110 was a better plane, at least it made a great night fghter.

The USAAF dumped them as fast as they could, even preferred Spits and Mossies for recon planes.... 

On the plus side at least it wasn't as bad as a Me-210 or a Do-335......


----------



## CarlAce (Mar 4, 2016)

LisaM said:


> Here is where I offend everyone ....the P-38 what a heap of badly built and expensive junk. Lockheed practicing for the F-35.....
> 
> Poor quality control in manufacturing with leaks in the turbo piping being being common at manufacture, let alone after front line use, absurdities like ever more powerful engines.. that couldn't be utlised because of a terrible intercooler design.
> 
> ...



No matter how bad it was, it's still bad ass looking.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 4, 2016)

LisaM said:


> Here is where I offend everyone ....the P-38 what a heap of badly built and expensive junk. Lockheed practicing for the F-35.....


What an achievement it was for the pilots to achieve what they did then, in what amounts to a piece of junk.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Mar 4, 2016)

LisaM - That would be a harsh judgment on the P-38. It was designed as an interceptor and would have been superb in that role. It did what was asked of it as an air superiority fighter in the MTO and PTO and CBI and Aleutians. It was extremely versatile in roles ranging from Recon, escort, fighter bomber. It was in high demand in every theatre including ETO and only achieved marginal results as a long range escort.

"Draggy, horrible mach limit (worse operating restrictions on diving than a Lancaster). Did I mention unrealiable, hard to maintain. Horrible pilot work load, too busy just trying to fy the thing to actually fight.
So-so guns crippled by a low ammo load (I mean 50 rounds for its 20mm cannon).
Oh and that mach limit, top level speed of a later model barely under its 'lawn dart' speed.

*True - it was draggy but still faster than say an F6F and about the same as the F4U-1D, had the best acceleration of all of our fighters from medium range airspeeds, out climbed most of the fighters we built, had a smaller 3G turning radius than P-47D and F4U-1D.

IIRC the 20mm ammo load was 125 (or 150) rounds - but I could be wrong. That said, it was deemed a better gun platform than either the P-51 or P-47 and the centerline armament was much more effective than any wing mount scheme. Compared to six 50 caliber armament, it was more powerful with the 20mm.*

*Mods such as the dive flap made control in a dive much better, the boosted ailerons made it roll much better - on par with both the P-51, P-47, Bf 109, F4U. 

As far as limit dive speeds, it couldn't hang with the 109 or 190, but neither could the F4U, F6F, P63, P40, or P-39. * 

Expensive...the list goes on and on and on....... In reality the Me-110 was a better plane, at least it made a great night fghter.

The USAAF dumped them as fast as they could, even preferred Spits and Mossies for recon planes...."

*The 8th AF dumped them - but the 15th AF P-38 Fighter Groups remained intact and fought through VE Day. The P-38s were never converted in MTO and PTO combat leaders begged for them. Your remarks above apply to 8th AF only, including Recon and Fighter Bomber role.

Talking to guys that fought (successfully) in both the P-51 and P-38 would lend a different perspective to the relative merits. Robin Olds had to be pressed pretty hard to favor the P-51D (and did) but he also loved the P-38 and was an ace in both airplanes.*

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 4, 2016)

LisaM said:


> Here is where I offend everyone ....the P-38 what a heap of badly built and expensive junk. Lockheed practicing for the F-35......



It does help when criticizing an aircraft to get the majority of your facts right. Especially the easy to check ones.

IF _ANY _P-38s went into action with only 50 rounds for the cannon it was because of an ammo shortage, not because of a limitation on the gun feed system. Not sure if any P-38s were built with a drum feed (D's or E's?) but the drum held 60 rounds. The belt feed used on the F's and later planes held 150 rounds.

Edit< BTW the .50 cal guns were provided with space for 500 rounds per gun. I don't know if they always filled the ammo bins or traded ammo weight for bombs/fuel, 2000 rounds of linked .50 cal being about 620lbs. 

Most turbo-charged aircraft were maintenance hogs. With leaks in both the exhaust pipes/ducts and air ducts. (Some mechanical two stage engines had trouble with air leaks in the air/intercooling ducting). Any twin is going to be more maintenance than a single. Nose wheel landing gear needs more maintenance than tailwheel gear (makes up for with fewer accidents) .

Good to know that those 1325HP engines used in the F's and G's couldn't actually be used to get the plane of the ground with the increased load of drop tanks or bombs compared to the older planes with 1150 hp engines.

You also have the problem of what were you going to use instead? The First combat Mission of a Lightning (F-4 recon) was 19 months before the first combat mission of Merlin powered P-51.

P-39s and P-40s aren't going to cut it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 4, 2016)

LisaM said:


> Here is where I offend everyone ....the P-38 what a heap of badly built and expensive junk. Lockheed practicing for the F-35.....
> 
> Poor quality control in manufacturing with leaks in the turbo piping being being common at manufacture, let alone after front line use, absurdities like ever more powerful engines.. that couldn't be utlised because of a terrible intercooler design.
> 
> ...



You didn't offend me Lisa, you just showed me you haven't a clue what you're talking about with regards to your comments about the P-38 AND F-35, and I'm being kind with regards to this critique. Are you getting your information from Osprey books or are you drawing your conclusions from armchair generals who never worked on or flew aircraft? If the P-38 was so bad, I guess the 100 pilots in the PTO who became aces must have been super human to fly such an piece of junk and destroy over 1,800 aircraft.

If you want to discuss your view of "quality issues" on this aircraft or any other, I'll be more than glad to school you since not only did I work at Lockheed's Burbank facility, but I worked with people who built and flew P-38s

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 4, 2016)

I think the only person that would agree with LisaM's assessment of the P-38 would be Admiral Yamamoto!

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 4, 2016)

What was so terrible about the Do-335?

I also don't think the P-38 was as bad as it is made out to be by Lisa here.


----------



## LisaM (Mar 5, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What was so terrible about the Do-335?
> 
> I also don't think the P-38 was as bad as it is made out to be by Lisa here.



I'll come back to the P38 later,but I always see the Do-335 as one of those ideas you have with workmates over too many drinks on a Friday...then you come back sober on Monday and then realise how stupid it was.

The probem was to 'solve'a prpblem (drag) it made a whole new bunch of other complex problems The contemporary DH Hornet was just as fast (475mph, 490 in some tests, and outclimbed a Spt XIV. 1,500 miie range on internal fuel) was superior in every other way and it was a conventional twin design. Just that DH paid careful attemtion to reducing drag where it mattered, the end result was a plane with astonishing performance, easier to make (maintain, etc) and almost certainly cheaper as well.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2016)

There are more ways to skin a cat. The conventional layout of the Hornet has it's advantages - no new, unknown tech, easy installation of armament, in most of the cases easy additon of second crew meber, can be much lighter than twin boom - too bad Lockheed did not came out with P-38 in calssic layout.
The push-pull has it's advantages, that grew lesser with increase in engine power and approaching the 450-500 mph speed range, though they avoid the venturi effect that plagued P-38. What P-38 have had against Hornet and Do 335 was that it really was there when mattered, timing being a major thing for a wepon of war.
We can also recall that Hornet did it's job on next-gen aircraft engines, while Do 335 used 'legacy' engines for same turn of speed.

As a what-if, too bad Dornier did not went out earlier with such a concept, employing two Jumo 211 or DB 601/605 engines.

Re. 20 mm cannon ammo count for the P-38 - it was 60 rd drum up until -G, while the -H (1st delivery March 1943) got belt-fed cannons, 150 rpg.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Mar 5, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> Re. 20 mm cannon ammo count for the P-38 - it was 60 rd drum up until -G, while the -H (1st delivery March 1943) got belt-fed cannons, 150 rpg.



Fwiw please see, TACTICAL SUITABILITY OF THE P-38F TYPE AIRPLANE, 6 March 1943:- page 1

Also from AFDU P-38F Tactical Trials, November 21, 1942

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 5, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> There are more ways to skin a cat. The conventional layout of the Hornet has it's advantages - no new, unknown tech, easy installation of armament, in most of the cases easy additon of second crew meber, can be much lighter than twin boom - too bad Lockheed did not came out with P-38 in calssic layout.
> The push-pull has it's advantages, that grew lesser with increase in engine power and approaching the 450-500 mph speed range, though they avoid the venturi effect that plagued P-38. What P-38 have had against Hornet and Do 335 was that it really was there when mattered, timing being a major thing for a wepon of war.
> We can also recall that Hornet did it's job on next-gen aircraft engines, while Do 335 used 'legacy' engines for same turn of speed.
> 
> ...



Problem for the P-38 in "classic" layout is that once you stick on the turbos and stick the radiators way back you have really long nacelles anyway. Please remember that they did sketch out many alternatives.










Hornet used very late model Merlins that offered (using 20lbs of boost) 70hp more than the DB603A 700ft lower (1690hp/18,000ft vs 1620hp/18,700ft) but were 300lbs lighter _dry weight _and a bit smaller. You don't get a 44 liter V-12 for the same frontal area as a 27 liter V-12. 

Erection manuals for the P-38 show the 150 round feed at least as early as the P-38F-5 model. It may be even earlier.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2016)

Thank you for setting my numbers right, folks 



Shortround6 said:


> Problem for the P-38 in "classic" layout is that once you stick on the turbos and stick the radiators way back you have really long nacelles anyway. Please remember that they did sketch out many alternatives.
> ...



I'd stick the radiator in the front of the nacelle. That also saves weight for the cooling system. Add the saved weight from going on with classic layout, along with now lighter U/C that can be used means smaller and thinner wing can be used, for the same wing loading and better speed.
Better yet, stick the proper intercoolers in the nose, burry the radiators in the outer wing section, like at Airacuda.
Plenty of space in the fuselage for fuel now.


----------



## LisaM (Mar 5, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> ...., while Do 335 used 'legacy' engines for same turn of speed.
> 
> As a what-if, too bad Dornier did not went out earlier with such a concept, employing two Jumo 211 or DB 601/605 engines.
> .



Hornet used 130/131 Merlins, a further development of the well used 113, hardly radical. The big changes were the single point fuel injection aliowing 20lb boost on 100/130 octane (better metering) whoch was downdraught allowing a closer fitting cowling) and a more radical cam (in fact the only Merlin wih a different camshaft profile).
Despite giving away 17 litres about the same power as a DB-603A when on 100/130 fuel and a lot smaller and lighter

The most most commonly quoted DO-335 performance was 426mph without WM-50, 474 with..21.000lb vs 16,.000lb so guess what is going to;climb faster (and the Hornet had the lift affect of airflow from the props over the wings). So the Hornet was as fast,, climbed much better and was more agile (44lbs per sq wing loadibg vs 51lbs)..

A Do-335 with a DB-605? Roughly 200bhp lower power (with or wthout MW-50) puts its performance in the 450/400 class (with or wthout MW-50) Not particularly radical for late '44. A big plane like that would have been a nice target at altitude for the Mustangs and Spit XIVs of the time. And if MW-40 wasn't available (common) or if it ran out it would have been a dog.

And there were still serious development issues like overheating in the rear engine to overcome. 

DH threw the Hornet together in about a year from mock up (Sea Hornet took a bit longer) and it was near pefect out of the box. The prototypes were puling 490mph, dropping to 475mph in service condition.

So there was no real comparison DH took the sensible engineering approach building on their Mosquito and Vampire (also in development) experience using a further development of the tried and tested Merlin. Dornier went down a daft route, over focusssed on one issue (that could be dealt wth in other ways , the Ta-154 did as well) and created a lot of whole new problems for themselves, compromised other performance elements (like climb) as well as making the whole thing rediculously complex and tied themseves to that other disaster the DB-603. Hardly an uber plane.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2016)

The Merlin 130 series were from 1945, the BD 603A was from late 1942, so yes the Hornet used the engine that was one, if not two generations ahead. Hence far better power despite smaller weight and bulk.The term 'single point injection' is a better looking name for 'injection carburetors'? 
It were strengthenings of the engine that enabled +20 psig boost on 130 grade fuel, not the fuel metering.

I'm not suggesting Do 335 with DB 601/605, but a fighter similar to the Do 335 with plain vanilla engines. So 300 sq ft wing instead of ~400 sq ft, 6 tons instead of 7.5 (empty), 12 meters length instead ~14.

Developmnet of the Hornet was indeed fast, there was Mosquito, Whirlwind and Welkin to see what can go and what need to be avoided. Neither P-38's nor Do 335's designers posessed such luxury. The Do 335 was no more complex than P-38, nor it's development looked like a protracted thing


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 5, 2016)

LisaM said:


> I'll come back to the P38 later,but I always see the Do-335 as one of those ideas you have with workmates over too many drinks on a Friday...then you come back sober on Monday and then realise how stupid it was.
> 
> The probem was to 'solve'a prpblem (drag) it made a whole new bunch of other complex problems The contemporary DH Hornet was just as fast (475mph, 490 in some tests, and outclimbed a Spt XIV. 1,500 miie range on internal fuel) was superior in every other way and it was a conventional twin design. Just that DH paid careful attemtion to reducing drag where it mattered, the end result was a plane with astonishing performance, easier to make (maintain, etc) and almost certainly cheaper as well.



There is nothing stupid about the design. Interresting and complex, but not stupid.

Sure it had it's design flaws, and problems, but what new aircraft does not?

I think it was a waste of resources, but the design worked.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2016)

Lisa, still waiting on your perceived "quality issues" with the P-38. So far you've shown little to support your rant.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 5, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> Thank you for setting my numbers right, folks
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are using present day knowledge as to the smaller and thinner wing. Only difference in weight for the cooling system is the weight of the pipes going back and forth. 
Not sure about the weight saving of the classic layout, several hundred pounds or 50lbs? 
Gee, you might have saved enough to clip 2 sq ft from each wing 
When the P-38 was first designed those "proper" intercoolers may not have existed ( the one in the P-39 was certainly a dog's breakfast) and the B-17 had more volume to put things than they knew what to do with. 

And pick what you want and stick with it. 







It is easy to bury radiators in a wing when the wing is almost thick enough for a man to crawl though. Airacuda had tunnels through the inner sections of the wing between the nacelles and Fuselage. 
You can get a wing that will easily hold radiators AND be thin if you use a wing bigger than the one on a B-25


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2016)

The knowledge that lower weight means smaller wing was present before ww1. Smaller wing can be thinner in absolute terms, if not in percentage.
Weight of fuselage:
Hornet: 561 lbs + nacelles of 141 lbs = 702 lbs (link); same for Sea Hornet
P-38 (pod, booms): 1454 + engine section 471 lbs = 1925 lbs

Less weight away from centreline, along with smaller wing also means improvement in rate of roll, no booms means less blind spots for the pilot. A bit smaller A/C, of non-distinctive shape, means that enemy pilots will need to come in closer to judge what is trying to do that aircraft over there.
The Whirlwind managed with burried radiators despite the wing of smaller profile, granted the 'P-38' will need bigger radiators, but it will also have bigger wings.


----------



## stona (Mar 5, 2016)

I'm currently building a model of the Do 335 M13 (prototype for the B-2 zerstorer). Whilst I agree that there were problems with the design it can't be described as stupid or absurd. It would have made a formidable aircraft with 3 x 30mm and 2 x 20mm cannon.
Here's where I'm at, showing the extended wing.






The most over rate aircraft of WW2 that actually saw significant service......the Me 262.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 5, 2016)

I am still not sure how the P-38 can be "over rated"...it provided a great deal of contributions in all theaters during the war, including high-speed PRU.

It never reached "legendary" status like the P-51, Spitfire or Bf109 and if it were removed from the historical timeline, would have left quite a vacuum.

Two very famous people who's lives were directly affected by the P-38: Admiral Yamamoto and Antoine de Saint Exupery.
This of course, doesn't include the number of enemy A/C downed or targets eliminated by it.

If we want to go by sentiment, then I would suggest the A6M was a little "over rated", as everyone was referring to Japanese fighters encountered, as a "Zero" when it was often times other types and it was not as invincible as it was made out to be.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 5, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> The knowledge that lower weight means smaller wing was present before ww1. Smaller wing can be thinner in absolute terms, if not in percentage.
> Weight of fuselage:
> Hornet: 561 lbs + nacelles of 141 lbs = 702 lbs (link); same for Sea Hornet
> P-38 (pod, booms): 1454 + engine section 471 lbs = 1925 lbs
> ...



Lockheed as a company had built 3 different twin engine all metal monoplane airliners _before _working on the P-38 and was working on an extended fuselage version of the last one at about the same time as the P-38. One has to figure that Lockheed as a company (even if not individual designers) had a pretty fair idea of what conventional fuselages would weigh compared to the pod and boom arrangement. Hornet was designed about 5-6 years after the P-38 and incorporated a lot that had been learned in the mean time. It even used a lot that had been learned since the Mosquito was NOT simply a skinny fuselage Mosquito. The Hornet also needed a bit of a learning curve as they found that using props that rotated the same as the P-38s but found that this blanked the fin and rudder and affected low speed control so the engines were swapped and Hornet props rotate inward at the top of their arc. 
This was flying 6 years before the P-38 and was considered pretty "hot stuff" in 1931-32. 






Most twins are going to have a distinctive shape compared to single engine fighters. 

Maybe you can put the radiators in the wing roots. Now you have to put the fuel (or most of it) in the fuselage and it either has to go on the center of gravity (cockpit way forward or way aft) or sandwich the cockpit with fore and aft tanks and have the pilot switch back forth to maintain trim. P-38 pilots had to do that any way with the four wing tanks. Also please note that P-38 eventually wound up with engines that needed almost twice the cooling capability as the Whirlwinds engines. Might not want to make the wings too small or too thin if that is where the radiators are going.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2016)

Curiously enough, Hornet's wing was heavier than of the P-38s, it was also a little bigger but of thinner profile. The wood is not carbon fibre, expecting that DH gained so much expertise that they will just on that account be able to cut structural weight by 60% is far fetched to me.
'Alternative P-38' will still have a 20% bigger and maybe 25% thicker wing than Whirly. Poor pilots were messing with 6-8 fuel tanks in the P-38, hopefully we could cut this down number by one.
Lockheed never produced a twin boom aircaft prior P-38?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> Poor pilots were messing with 6-8 fuel tanks in the P-38, hopefully we could cut this down number by one.



Please explain?!?!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2016)

Later model P-38s had either a four or five way fuel selector that included a crossfeed detent. This was no more complicated than other twin or multi engine aircraft of the period, in fact similar fuel selectors can be found on many aircraft built in the post war period and even today.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Please explain?!?!



My proposal, or what was historically fitted?

Anyway - historical start was with 4 tanks, two at each inner wing, thier places separated with main spar. Two drop tanks added. Two leading edge tanks, each 55 gals, were added with change of intercooler type and location. Makes for total of 8 tanks.

Having the 'classic' fuselage should allow for some decent fuel tank there, whether with 100, or 150, or maybe 200 gals, so there is no need for LE fuel tanks, hence 1 fuel tank less.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 5, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> Lockheed never produced a twin boom aircaft prior P-38?


No, the P-38 was Lockheed's first "twin-boom" airframe. They did have two other projects that fell along the P-38's configuration: XP-49 and XP-58, only one airframe of each type were built.

Keep in mind that Lockheed did have a great deal of success with their prewar twin engine types, the Electra being the most widely recognized.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> My proposal, or what was historically fitted?
> 
> Anyway - historical start was with 4 tanks, two at each inner wing, thier places separated with main spar. Two drop tanks added. Two leading edge tanks, each 55 gals, were added with change of intercooler type and location. Makes for total of 8 tanks.
> 
> *Having the 'classic' fuselage should allow for some decent fuel tank there, whether with 100, or 150, or maybe 200 gals, so there is no need for LE fuel tanks, hence 1 fuel tank less*.



The fact that there were 8 tanks had little to do with the pilot. He managed the Reserve, Mains, drop tanks and when necessary, crossfeed.

All good providing you could accomplish this structurally. One of the reasons why you have multi fuel tanks is because the fuel system is built around the structure - during design the usual "pecking order" is aerodynamics, structure and then systems. I've seen engineers of the 3 disciplines want to choke each other at times.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2016)

The P-38's twin boom design was an answer to an engineering problem that would satisfy the AAC specification that led to the P-38 development.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The fact that there were 8 tanks had little to do with the pilot. He managed the Reserve, Mains, drop tanks and when necessary, crossfeed.
> 
> All good providing you could accomplish this structurally. One of the reasons why you have multi fuel tanks is because the fuel system is built around the structure - during design the usual "pecking order" is aerodynamics, structure and then systems. I've seen engineers of the 3 disciplines want to choke each other at times.



No problems with later paragraph. 
We know that even the tiny fuselage of Bf 109 managed to have installed a bit over 100 gals of fuel, plus the extra MW-50 tank. 

As for the 1st paragraph, you may note that pilot was using two 4-way switches in pre-J models of P-38, or two 5-way switches in P-38J and -L. Child's play for a seasoned 'twin' pilot, a real hassle for a pilot fresh from flying shcool, with few hours of conversion to P-38, as noted by Col. Rau's letter.



FLYBOYJ said:


> The P-38's twin boom design was an answer to an engineering problem that would satisfy the AAC specification that led to the P-38 development.



99.9% of aircraft were a response to requirement. While I like P-38, I don't regard it as holy cow, any more than other aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> No problems with later paragraph.
> We know that even the tiny fuselage of Bf 109 managed to have installed a bit over 100 gals of fuel, plus the extra MW-50 tank.


True, but I guarantee you the size and location of the fuel tanks (as well as the MW50 tank) was dictated by the structure


tomo pauk said:


> As for the 1st paragraph, you may note that pilot was using two 4-way switches in pre-J models of P-38, or two 5-way switches in P-38J and -L. Child's play for a seasoned 'twin' pilot, a real hassle for a pilot fresh from flying shcool, with few hours of conversion to P-38, as noted by Col. Rau's letter.


All true and that's why flying the P-38 (or any high performance twin) was a different breed and required a lot more training then the AAC initially gave. Many of the more successful P-38 drivers checked out in the B-25 or A-20 to gain twin experience. Rau's letter condemnation of the P-38 was seen as an across the board assessment by many, when in fact it should be looked upon as a major flaw in AAF training. Even his critique of instrument and switch placement was arguable as the P-38s cockpit arrangement was comparable to many twins of the period. Bottom line, he (and many others) didn't like flying twin engine aircraft, especially in combat!


tomo pauk said:


> 99.9% of aircraft were a response to requirement. While I like P-38, I don't regard it as holy cow, any more than other aircraft.


True, but what makes the P-38 unique was the way Lockheed approached the engineering problem - an aircraft that flew 400 mph when the Biplane was still considered contemporary.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2016)

Oh - and let's not forget - despite it's accolades and flaws, triumphs and fails, it was never intended to build more than 75 P-38s, the only US fighter in production before the start of the war and to remain in production till the end.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## LisaM (Mar 5, 2016)

Ok lets get started on the P-38, bit by bit.

First the astonishing inability of Lockheed to upgrade the cooling system (inc intercoolers) to deal wth the greater power developed by Allison.

This meant the performance was officialy fixed across multiple models:
"_The maximum speed and climb performance of the various P-38 models is, however, something of a mystery. Although rated takeoff power from the XP-38 through the P-38H increased from 1150 bhp to 1425 bhp the Tactical Planning Charts issued by Wright Field show all variants with a similar speed. Closer examination of the charts will reveal that all P-38 powerplants, through the H model, are limited to 1150-1240 bhp, due to "inadequate cooling."_ "
The P-38 Lightning

Now can you imagine if Suprmarine, Republic, DH, NA (etc) had said "ok you have upgraded engines but because we cannot be bothered to upgrade the cooling system so you can't use the perfomance"? Heads would have rolled but somehow Lockheed got a pass on that.

Now this, plus the extreme (and unnecessary) complexity of the controls was probably the major factor in the incredible engine unreiability suffered when in service in the 8th. What happened was many undid the stops on the throttle/boost controls and blew their engines up through overheating. That makes much more sense that the claim that the 'low' temps seperated the lead from the fuel, because the P-38 suffered from excessive temps, not too low ones. Amazingly other planes with much hgher intercolooling didn't suffer from this.

Even without this unofficial tweeking they were easy engines to blow because of poor controls and cooling (not Allison's fault):
"_As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-five hours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod, penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM. He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavy load). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced", what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight. 

At this point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several things wrong. 

Most common error is to push the throttles wide open before increasing RPM. This causes detonation and subsequent engine failure. Or, he forgets to switch back to auto rich, and gets excessive cylinder head temperature with subsequent engine failure."

"The large number of engine failures deep inside enemy airspace exacerbated the problem, and the aggregate exchange rate, accidents inclusive, dropped to about 1:1.5 in favour of the Lightning by 1944.". _
Now that is the claims/loss rate, given the usual 2:1, or 3:1 overclaiming rate P-38s were dying in larger numbers than they were killing
_
"To aggravate these problems, inadequate cockpit heating resulted in severe pilot frostbite, while the Luftwaffe quickly learned about the compressibility problems in dives, with German pilots evading the P-38s by executing a split-S at high speed. The initial roll rate was not spectacular and the easily recognized planform provided the Luftwaffe with yet another advantage to play."

"Poor serviceability and engine problems meant that initially 50 or less aircraft were available for such missions, including the first escorts over Berlin"_
Der Gabelschwanz Teufel - Assessing the Lockheed P-38 Lightning

Then the miserable mach limit, a problem right from the beginning:
"_The XP-38 airframe proposal carried 400 USG of fuel internally, employed a near to symmetrical NACA 23016/4412 section and grossed out at 11,400 lb. Designed for 1,150 HP engines, the Model 22 was built to exceed 360 kts at altitude, stunning performance for the time. Johnson had at the time commented in detail on the possibility of compressibility affecting the handling of the aircraft, this was later to prove to be a major issue."

"The 322 (RAF version) had by that time also demonstrated problems due compressibility in dives which caused 'Mach tuck', a severe nose down pitching moment due to the aft of the CoP. This often led to the breakup of the aircraft and usually, loss of the pilot"._

Now the P-47 also had a poor mach limit (though better than the P -38) but you had a better chance of survival in it provided the pilot had enough altitude and kept their head until a lower altitude was reached. The problem was the difference between the max level speed, lawn dart speed and 'tear the plane to shreds' speed were much too close in the P-38.

Now the eventually fitted dive recovery flaps saved a lot of iives, not because they improved the mach limit by much (they didn't) but, provided there was enough altitude, they alowed a gentle pull out that didn't overstress the airframe.

So there are two major long known about problems that Lockheed took ages to alleviate, with the third, control complexity, never fixed.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 5, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> ...the only US fighter in production before the start of the war and to remain in production till the end.


Don't forget that the last Wildcat was delivered in August of '45.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2016)

LisaM said:


> Ok lets get started on the P-38, bit by bit.
> 
> First the astonishing inability of Lockheed to upgrade the cooling system (inc intercoolers) to deal wth the greater power developed by Allison.
> 
> ...



*You make this very simplistic - Lockheed couldn't just go out uncontracted and start doing modifications, all modifications were approved by Wright Patterson and during this period all this took time. If you look at the time line between the first contracts, when early issues were discovered and when fixes were implemented and bounce this against when the US entered the war, things moved relatively quickly after that.*



LisaM said:


> Now this, plus the extreme (and unnecessary) complexity of the controls was probably the major factor in the incredible engine unreiability suffered when* in service in the 8th.* What happened was many undid the stops on the throttle/boost controls and blew their engines up through overheating. That makes much more sense that the claim that the 'low' temps seperated the lead from the fuel, because the P-38 suffered from excessive temps, not too low ones. Amazingly other planes with much higher intercolooling didn't suffer from this.



*How about the PTO? ETO?*



LisaM said:


> "_As a typical case to demonstrate my point, let us assume that we have a pilot fresh out of flying school with about a total of twenty-five hours in a P-38, starting out on a combat mission. He is on a deep ramrod, penetration and target support to maximum endurance. He is cruising along with his power set at maximum economy. He is pulling 31" Hg and 2100 RPM. He is auto lean and running on external tanks. His gun heater is off to relieve the load on his generator, which frequently gives out (under sustained heavy load). His sight is off to save burning out the bulb. His combat switch may or may not be on. Flying along in this condition, he suddenly gets "bounced", what to do flashes through his mind. He must turn, he must increase power and get rid of those external tanks and get on his main. So, he reaches down and turns two stiff, difficult gas switches {valves} to main - turns on his drop tank switches, presses his release button, puts the mixture to auto rich (two separate and clumsy operations), increases his RPM, increases his manifold pressure, turns on his gun heater switch (which he must feel for and cannot possibly see), turns on his combat switch and he is ready to fight.
> 
> At this point, he has probably been shot down or he has done one of several things wrong.
> 
> ...



*You're now quoting the memo from Col Rau, how novel! That memo been beat to death throughout this forum and mentioned two posts ago. 3/4 of what Rau said "Could have" been addressed with better multi engine training stateside. There were other comments that were either half-true or not true. *
_
_


LisaM said:


> Now that is the claims/loss rate, given the usual 2:1, or 3:1 overclaiming rate P-38s were dying in larger numbers than they were killing



*Your reference for that? Again PTO???? If you do some research you'll find the ACTUAL kill/ loss rate form the P-38 in the ETO was something closer to 1:1. *

_


LisaM said:



"To aggravate these problems, inadequate cockpit heating resulted in severe pilot frostbite,

Click to expand...

_
*The initial heating system was ACCEPTED by the air corps during the delivery of the first YP-38 prototypes. There was no plans to fight a war in Europe, in the winter at high altitudes, that simple. Once given the go-ahead by Wright Patterson, Lockheed modified the heating system and the P-38J had no such issues.*

*Kind of funny though - early P-38s fought over the Aleutians - no issues from Alaska!!!*

_


LisaM said:



while the Luftwaffe quickly learned about the compressibility problems in dives, with German pilots evading the P-38s by executing a split-S at high speed. The initial roll rate was not spectacular and the easily recognized planform provided the Luftwaffe with yet another advantage to play."

Click to expand...

_
*True, no argument there*
_


LisaM said:



"Poor serviceability and engine problems meant that initially 50 or less aircraft were available for such missions, including the first escorts over Berlin"

Click to expand...

_Der Gabelschwanz Teufel - Assessing the Lockheed P-38 Lightning[/quote]

*50 aircraft out of how many being operated by the unit? Do you have info on these issues?The reference your trying gives no specifics for this as well*



LisaM said:


> Then the miserable mach limit, a problem right from the beginning:
> "_The XP-38 airframe proposal carried 400 USG of fuel internally, employed a near to symmetrical NACA 23016/4412 section and grossed out at 11,400 lb. Designed for 1,150 HP engines, the Model 22 was built to exceed 360 kts at altitude, stunning performance for the time. Johnson had at the time commented in detail on the possibility of compressibility affecting the handling of the aircraft, this was later to prove to be a major issue."
> 
> "The 322 (RAF version) had by that time also demonstrated problems due compressibility in dives which caused 'Mach tuck', a severe nose down pitching moment due to the aft of the CoP. This often led to the breakup of the aircraft and usually, loss of the pilot"._
> ...



*And the P-38 was the FIRST aircraft to encounter compressibility, something that no aircraft company had known to exist prior, and again hind sight is always 20-20 of what should have been done. The P-38 was a ground breaker despite it's problems - yes it had issues but the ETO was not it's only theater of operation, something you seem to be conveniently ignoring.*

*Kind of funny though - the site you use as a reference has this quote in the middle of the assessment - *

*"The P-38 was without doubt the strategically most important American fighter of World War II."*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Don't forget that the last Wildcat was delivered in August of '45.


I believe the last FM-2s were built in early August of 1945. The P-38 production line stopped during the last weeks of august 1945 IIRC. That meant the P-38 was in production from July 1939 through Late August 1945 (XP-38 first flew January 1939) although the production line first moved at a snail's pace. The F4F was produced from mid 1940, I think the first deliveries were made in December 1940


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2016)

Lisa - since you liked that site sooo much, here's another piece that you neglected to post.

_*"The quality of multi-engine training during World War II bordered on the ridiculous. I am convinced that with training methods now in use we could take most of civilian private pilots who might be about to fly the Aztec or Cessna 310, and in ten hours, have a more confident pilot than the ones who flew off to war in the P-38.* A P-38 pilot usually got his training in two ways. The first way, of course, was twin-engine advanced training in Curtiss AT-9s, which had the unhappy feature of having propellers you couldn't feather. After sixty hours of this, the student received ten hours of AT-6 gunnery, although he might get his gunnery training in the AT-9, since AT-6s were in short supply."_

_"At this point he had his chance to fly the RP-322 for another twenty hours. The 322, as you know, was the British version of the airplane, and they came with assorted equipment and things on them that nobody could predict. Upon graduation from the RP-322 he was assigned to a P-38 Replacement Training Unit (RTU) or an Operational Training Unit (OTU) for 100 hours or more of fighter training. A second way to get into the P-38 was to transition from single engine fighters. In this event, someone probably took him up in a multi-engine transport or bomber and demonstrated engine shutdown a couple of times after skimming the tech order, a blindfold check, and then Ignoring the check list (not for real fighter pilots!), he blasted off. More than one neophyte has described his first "launch" in a P-38 as being hit in the ass with a snow shovel."_

_*"Either method of training, probably, made little difference as neither guy knew that much about multi-engine operations and procedures.* True, he had been warned about the magic number of 120 miles per hour his Vme (editor:Vmca) or single-engine control speed. He had swam in glue during a couple of prop featherings while in formation with his instructor. He was, also, warned never to turn into a dead engine, never put down the gear until he had made the field, and never to go around with one caged. That was about it until shortly thereafter the old Allison time bomb blew up, and he was in business the hard way. Right on takeoff. "Some people lucked out if the runway was long enough. Some overshot or undershot and they bent the whole thing. Some tried a single-engine go-around anyway, usually with horrible results. Such happenings would make a son of a bitch out of any saint."_

*"Tony Levier's spectacular demonstrations were an attempt to rectify all these problems, but the damage had been done. The Air Corps, as far as I knew, never did change its pilot training."*

_"For perspective, it must also be remembered that two other significant events had taken place in training (in England). Theater indoctrination at Goxhill in England had received the same overhaul that had occurred in the States. The most important of all may have been the training units set up by the combat organizations themselves. Here it was possible to up-date training to the latest information and for individual commanders to put their special stamp on things and develop new tactics. "But and this is giant towering BUT this was all for the P-51 pilots."_

*"What would have happened if the P-38 pilots and their units could have been blessed with the same wonderful opportunity?"*

*And from this site you used...*

*The P-38 Lightning*

*The P-38 Lightning turned out to be a real "work horse" for the USAAF. It served around the world as a fighter, fighter-bomber, and photographic/ reconnaissance aircraft and will always be considered one of three great USAAF fighters of World War II.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 5, 2016)

LisaM said:


> ...Then the miserable mach limit, a problem right from the beginning:
> "_The XP-38 airframe proposal carried 400 USG of fuel internally, employed a near to symmetrical NACA 23016/4412 section and grossed out at 11,400 lb. Designed for 1,150 HP engines, the Model 22 was built to exceed 360 kts at altitude, stunning performance for the time. Johnson had at the time commented in detail on the possibility of compressibility affecting the handling of the aircraft, this was later to prove to be a major issue."
> 
> "The 322 (RAF version) had by that time also demonstrated problems due compressibility in dives which caused 'Mach tuck', a severe nose down pitching moment due to the aft of the CoP. This often led to the breakup of the aircraft and usually, loss of the pilot"._
> ...


The P-38 cannot be condemned for it's "miserable mach limit" as all airframes by all nations during the war, possesed a "miserable mach limit".

As Joe mentioned, the P-38 was advanced enough that it was one of the first to realize that there was, in fact, a mach limit.

So going by this allegation, ALL aircraft of WWII had these same limitations.

And as rugged as the P-47 was, if there wasn't enough altitude for the pilot to effect a pull out, it would become a massive lawn dart, and there's plenty of accounts where this happened.

The same goes for the Soviet aircraft and what's worse, was that in a terminal dive, control surfaces would tear away on types like the YaK-1, sealing the pilot's fate.

The Me262 suffered compressibility and would enter a "mach tuck" (nose down tendency) and if the pilot had enough strength and altitude, could push the stick foreward in an attempt to save the aircraft. Several pilots weren't able to.

So in a nutshell, any aircraft has it's safe-to-operate limits and none are exempt from overspeed.


----------



## stona (Mar 6, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The P-38 cannot be condemned for it's "miserable mach limit" as all airframes by all nations during the war, possesed a "miserable mach limit".



That's all relative. Several others had lower critical Mach numbers of 0.8 + (I'm not entering a debate about the +). That's a lot better than the P-38.
I read or heard somewhere that the P-38 suffered fewer losses due to compressibility issues than either the P-47 or P-51. Does anyone one have comparative figures to confirm or deny this?
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 6, 2016)

The P-38 have had bad Mach limit, worse than P-47, much worse than P-51 or Spitfire. 
More on that topic: link

On the other hand, main shortcoming was that there was not enough of them (no second source, or that Lockheed at Burbank wasn't made P-38-only factory once they received both European and US orders).


----------



## LisaM (Mar 6, 2016)

Well Calos Kopp has a reputation for being brilliant at colecting data...then drawing totally the wrong conclusions...he liked the F-22 for example. To claim the P-38 was "*strategically most important American fighter"* is nonsense. the P-47, the P-51, Wildcat, Dakota, B-24, etc, etc, yes you can make good arguments for all of them. but not the P-38 (I pick the VLR B-24 as the single greatest strategic contribution by the way)..

If the P-38 had not been available then maybe efforts to increase the P-47's range and P-51's availability would have been greater? Maybe the Merlin XX Mustang would have got up? Quicker drop tanks for the P-47? On that basis it was a *strategic liability* because it slowed down taking the correct actions until the 8th realised it was a dud..

To survive in the ETO you needed a tactical mach limit of 0.75-0.8. You also needed a gentle transition to warn the pilot. The P-51 showed mach efffects at about 0.75, as did the 109 and 190, but there was enough margin to the limit of 0.8 to warn the pilot and they could push it when needed.. The P-38 was abrupt and its absolute limit of 0.68 was far too low to be compettitive, or even just safe..

Back to the cooling, how come NO other aircraft manufacturer had issues with it when they increased their power? Hurrcane 1,000 bhp to about 1,400 no issues. Spit 1,000 to over 2,000 no issues, Mustang, P-47, P-40, etc, etc, etc. 

Lockheed...years to fix it pumping out a sub-standrd crippled plane.

"Here's the Spit IX, but we didn't increase the cooling so it still has the same performance as a Spit V". Yeh how well would that have gone down?

And there was a lot Lockheed could have done to improve it if they had actually listened to real world experience. The primary thing was to make it far simpler to fly with far better controls, interconnected throttle/boost for example so a pilot could just firewall it without blowing up an engine. How hard woud that have to be?. That and others would have meant a lot more pilots gettng more out of it and not blowing it up...and surviving.

So there was something wrong at Lockheed in their attitude and somehow they got a pass from the various authorities that no other manufacturer would have been allowed. It never would have been a great plane, but it could have been a lot better with a bit of thought and effort..Though I'd still argue that it should never have been used at all anywhere, because it delayed the introduction of far better alternatives. The British tests on the 322 should have been a real wake up call.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 6, 2016)

To be fair, engine cooling was without problems at P-38, it was intercooling that was problematic. The users of BMW 801, DB 605, Ha 40, Sabre, Homare, R-3350 would've given their 1st born for having engine reliability of P-38s V-1710.

P-38 have had it's share of problems, but it was not a cripled airplane.

Before we talk about how great P-47 was (it was), let's recall that P-47B was so bad that never left the continental US - USAF have had it's 'Typhoon' (a potential worldbeater, but initially a dangerous fighter for it's pilots, with desintegrating airframe), fortunately for the USAF pilots that was the case. The P-47C and early -D were with problems (radio, engine) that meant usefulnes was not achieved before April 1943, the workable drop tank were installed by June 1943, and the radius is still much worse than what P-38 was making. Let's also recal that P-47 was slated for production in 3 factories, once of them erected in record time in area were nobody produced aircraft before. P-38 have had no such luxury - having a second surce means easier introduction of modifications. Anybody recalls the slogan 'you can have more Spitfires, or better Spitfires, but not both more and better', despite multiple sources?
A work on P-38 does not take anything away from P-47, it is actually too bad that Republic didn't licensed the wing drop tank facility (and that USAF didn't insisted) from P-38 for P-47s as early as 1942.

The P-51 can't put the blame on the P-38 either, it was USAF that didn't jumped into opportunity for earlier, more and better Mustangs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 6, 2016)

Once again Lisa you pick and choose what you want to make an issue out of...



LisaM said:


> Well Calos Kopp has a reputation for being brilliant at colecting data...then drawing totally the wrong conclusions...he liked the F-22 for example.


 I like the F-22 AND The F-35, The F-22 is probably the most capable air-to-air combat aircraft in service today - how is this even relevant?




LisaM said:


> To claim the P-38 was "*strategically most important American fighter"* is nonsense. the P-47, the P-51, Wildcat, Dakota, B-24, etc, etc, yes you can make good arguments for all of them. but not the P-38 (I pick the VLR B-24 as the single greatest strategic contribution by the way)..


 All a matter of opinion, I would have chosen the C-47 for all round aircraft and the P-51 for fighters, but his points far negate the P-38 from being considered the most over-rated fighter of WW2 or any where sub standard as you are trying so hard to show here.


LisaM said:


> If the P-38 had not been available then maybe efforts to increase the P-47's range and P-51's availability would have been greater? Maybe the Merlin XX Mustang would have got up? Quicker drop tanks for the P-47? On that basis it was a *strategic liability* because it slowed down taking the correct actions until the 8th realised it was a dud..


 "Would have, could have should have." You have excellent 20-20 perspective. If you follow the gestation period of both the P-47 and P-51 you will find that there was no way possible to push them ahead in development and production and in the end there was no reason to. Once again you keep making comments about the 8th, but no mention of the 5th Air Force in the Pacific (You seem to have a lack of grasp that there was a shooting war going on on the other side of the world). The 5th AF couldn't get enough P-38s.


LisaM said:


> To survive in the ETO you needed a tactical mach limit of 0.75-0.8. You also needed a gentle transition to warn the pilot. The P-51 showed mach efffects at about 0.75, as did the 109 and 190, but there was enough margin to the limit of 0.8 to warn the pilot and they could push it when needed.. The P-38 was abrupt and its absolute limit of 0.68 was far too low to be compettitive, or even just safe.


 And you came up with this how? Pilot reports? Flight Simulators? Video Games?


LisaM said:


> Back to the cooling, how come NO other aircraft manufacturer had issues with it when they increased their power? Hurrcane 1,000 bhp to about 1,400 no issues. Spit 1,000 to over 2,000 no issues, Mustang, P-47, P-40, etc, etc, etc.


 Do you know that for certain?

_*"The first Spitfire to be sent overseas in large numbers was the Mk Vc (trop). The majority of these were used by Allied squadrons in the Mediterranean theatre (including North Africa), Burma and in Australia with No. 1 Fighter Wing RAAF. The Vc initially suffered a high rate of mechanical failure in Australia, due to corrosion in engine cooling pipes that were unfilled and exposed to salt air, while being shipped from the UK"*_

Alfred Price, Spitfire aces

I could list a laundry list of issues with ever top fighter aircraft built during WW2 when they first entered service


LisaM said:


> Lockheed...years to fix it pumping out a sub-standrd crippled plane.


Years? you need to learn how to read a calendar! The US Entered the war in December 1941. Issues with the P-38 were identified by mid 1942 and corrections started. the P-38J eliminated most of those early issues (Intercoolers, cockpit heating, etc.) and that entered service in *August of 1943*. Considering that a production line and other manufacturing commitments had to be supported, I'd say a little more than a year from the US entry into WW2 and about a year from the first P-38 combat operations was an excellent response!


LisaM said:


> "Here's the Spit IX, but we didn't increase the cooling so it still has the same performance as a Spit V". Yeh how well would that have gone down?


About the same as it did for the P-38


LisaM said:


> And there was a lot Lockheed could have done to improve it if they had actually listened to real world experience.


Once again you have no proof or basis for this comment, total rubbish - they did listen to "real world experience" and almost from the beginning of the war was improving an aircraft that was never intended to be placed in large scale production. There were tech reps all over the globe providing the factory with input, trouble reports and suggestions for improvements, and don't forget the tours by Tony LeVier and Charles Lindberg!!!



LisaM said:


> The primary thing was to make it far simpler to fly with far better controls, interconnected throttle/boost for example so a pilot could just firewall it without blowing up an engine. How hard woud that have to be?. That and others would have meant a lot more pilots gettng more out of it and not blowing it up...and surviving.
> 
> So there was something wrong at Lockheed in their attitude and somehow they got a pass from the various authorities that no other manufacturer would have been allowed. It never would have been a great plane, but it could have been a lot better with a bit of thought and effort..Though I'd still argue that it should never have been used at all anywhere, because it delayed the introduction of far better alternatives. The British tests on the 322 should have been a real wake up call.


I think you need a history and geography lesson. Your condemnation for this aircraft is based on the European experience(and even there many of your comments are just baseless - 322 experience! Bringing that up is almost laughable) but you continue to ignore how the aircraft performed in the MTO and PTO which tells me you're just naturally biased or just tying to be dumb on purpose. We could discuss the dismal showing to the Hurricane and Spitfire during the early stages of the war over Burma and Australia but yet by late 1942 early 1943, the sub standard and poorly designed P-38 took control of the skies over the south west Pacific and were just about slaughtering the Japanese from New Guinea to the Solomons, and Philippines . Were American Pilots Super human Pilots? Were Japanese fighters just junk? By ignoring this just shows how much tunnel vision you have and again I remind you that there were over 100 P-38 aces in the PTO.

So please Lisa, expand your horizons and do some more research as you're only telling half the story.

Oh and I'm also waiting to hear about your perspective on "Quality Issues" on the P-38 or for that matter any other aircraft...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 6, 2016)

An honest ETO assessment from Joe Baugher

_The story of the P-38 continues with an account of its service in the European theatre. 

Having conducted service testing of the YP-38 in the late spring of 1941, the 1st Pursuit Group at Selfridge Field, Michigan was selected to become the first unit to receive P-38s and P-38Ds. The first Lightnings they received did not have their cannons fitted. The 1st Pursuit Group participated with some success in the Louisiana maneuvers of September 1941. Two days after Pearl Harbor, the Unit moved to NAS San Diego and joined the March Field-based 14th Pursuit Group, then transitioning to P-38D/P-38E. Although these fighters were not yet combat ready, these outfits had the only truly modern fighters then available to the USAAF, and provided West Coast defense at a time that Japanese attacks on the US mainland were believed to be imminent 

Even though the defense of the US west coast initially took priority, plans were made in the spring of 1942 to deploy Lightning squadrons to Britain. This deployment caused logistical problems, since the U-boat menace made shipping across the Atlantic quite risky. However, development by Lockheed of reliable drop tanks for the P-38F-1-LO increased the ferry range from 1300 to 2200 miles. Test pilot Milo Burcham actually demonstrated a maximum range of over 3100 miles. This made it possible to ferry the Lightnings from Maine to the UK via Goose Bay, Labrador to Bluie West One (Greenland) to Reykjavik, Iceland and finally to Prestwick, Scotland. Following the victory at Midway, the USAAF felt sufficiently confident that the Japanese fleet was not about to show up off Santa Barbara that they decided to redeploy the 1st and 14th Fighter (renamed from Pursuit in May 1942) Groups to Britain. By August 1942, 81 P-38Fs of four of the six squadrons of the 1st and 14th Fighter Groups had arrived in Great Britain to complete the first transatlantic crossing by single-seat fighters. Two other Lightning squadrons (the 27th and the 50th) were held over in Iceland to assist the Curtiss P-40Cs of the 33rd Fighter Squadron in the flying of defensive patrols over the Atlantic. On August 14, 1942, a P-38F flown by 2nd Lieut Elza Shaham shared with a P-40C in the destruction of a Focke- Wulf FW-200C-3 to obtain the first victory over a Luftwaffe aircraft. 

The P-38F-equipped 82nd Fighter Group arrived in Northern Ireland in November 1942. 

After flying 347 practice and sweep sorties during which there was no contact with the Luftwaffe, the 1st, 14th and 82nd Fighter Groups were transferred to the 12th Air Force in North Africa. While in transit from Britain to Algeria, pilots of the 82nd Fighter Group were credited with the destruction of two Ju-88 bombers over the Bay of Biscay. The Lightnings were soon in regular combat in the North African theatre. The first of these took place on November 19, 1942 when the P-38Fs of the 1st Fighter Group escorted B-17s on a bombing raid on the El Aouina airfield at Tunis. The three P-38 groups contributed a great deal toward the establishment of local air superiority in the area. On April 5, 1943, 26 P-38Fs of the 82nd Fighter Group claimed the destruction of 31 enemy aircraft as against the loss of six Lightnings. In these air battles, mixed success was obtained Because of the tactics of the enemy, the Lightnings were forced to fight at lower altitudes of 15,000 feet, and in battles against fighters it was not entirely successful. The twin engines restricted maneuverability to some extent and the Lightning had a wheel control instead of the conventional stick, which may also have restricted maneuverability. Nevertheless, the Lightning was effective against bombers and had a sensational zoom climb that could rarely be matched. It wreaked great havoc among Rommel's air transport well out to sea, earning for itself the German nickname "der Gabelschwanz Teufel"--the Fork-Tailed Devil. 

All Axis forces in the area surrendered on May 13, 1943, due in no small part to the contribution of the Lightning in cutting off Rommel's air supply route. 

Already prior to the Axis defeat in Tunisia, the Northwest African Air Forces (of which the Twelfth Air Force was a component) had begun preparations for the invasion of Sicily. Attacks on Sicily, on Pantelleria and on Lampedusa were stepped up in preparation for Operation Husky, the invasion of Sicily on July 10, 1943. Lightnings were in the midst of the fray until Sicily fell on August 17. The three P-38 Fighter Groups then concentrated their efforts against the Italian mainland. On November 1, 1943, they were transferred to the 15th Air Force. By that time, 37 Twelfth Air Force Lightning pilots had made ace, the top scorer being Lieut W. J. Sloan of the 82nd Fighter Group with 12 kills. Lieut H. T. Hanna of the 14th Fighter Group made ace in one day by destroying five Ju 87 dive bombers on October 9, 1943. 

Following their transfer, the 1st, 14th and 82nd Fighter Groups concentrated on escorting the B-17 and B-24 bombers of the Fifteenth Air Force in their raids on targets in Austria, the Balkans, France, Greece, and Italy. However, on occasion, they escorted the medium bombers of the Twelfth Air Force. 

The first Lightning-escorted raids on Germany began in February 1944 with raids on aircraft factories in the southern part of that country. In April 1944 the Lightnings escorted bombers in raids on the oil refineries at Ploesti in Rumania. Bomb-carrying Lightnings also visited Ploesti on June 10, 1944 when 46 aircraft of the 82nd Fighter Group each carrying 1000-pound bombs paid a visit to the Romano Americana Oil Refinery under the protective escort of 48 P-38s of the 1st Fighter Group. On that raid, good bombing and strafing results were obtained, but in fighter actions against the Luftwaffe twenty-two P-38s were lost against 23 enemy aircraft claimed destroyed. 

Six weeks later, Lightnings flew their first shuttle mission to Russia and returned to their Italian base after spending three days at a Soviet base in the Ukraine. Along with their P-51 escorts, they shot down thirty German planes and destroyed twelve on the ground. The last Lightning shuttle mission was flown on August 4/6 and was marked by the daring rescue of a downed pilot by Lieut R. J. Andrews who landed his Lightning in an open field to pick up Capt R. E. Willsie. 

The three Lightning Groups also took part in the August 1944 Allied landings in southern France. After that, they returned to providing fighter escort for bombers operating against strategic targets. By the end of the war, 28 of these Lightning pilots had made ace. 

The departure of the 1st and 14th Fighter Groups for North Africa in November 1942 left the Eighth Air Force without Lightnings until September 1943, when the 55th Fighter Group arrived in England with its P-38Hs. It began combat operations on October 15, 1943, making its first kill on November 2. The next month, the outfit converted to P-38Js. On March 3, 1944, the 55th flew to Berlin for the first time, a round trip of 1300 miles. The 20th, 364th and 479th Fighter Groups soon became operational in England with P-38s. 
_
*However, in air combat over Germany, the Lightning was generally outclassed by the more maneuverable Fw 190 and the later marks of the Bf 109, especially at medium and low altitudes. However, the Lightning had a much faster top speed, a higher rate of climb and operational ceiling and was much better armed. Once pilots had perfected fighting tactics which suited the Lightning's unique characteristics, they had better success. The usual tactics was for the P-38 to climb to a high altitude and then dive down on the enemy, attacking him with a burst of firepower and then zoom back up out of harm's way. 
*
*The later versions of the P-38 were equipped with maneuvering flaps, and when their pilots learned how to use these flaps properly, the P-38 could hold its own when maneuvering against German fighters, often being able to turn inside their Fw 190 and Bf 109 opponents. *

*So I guess Lockheed DID listen to those in combat!!!!*
_
The large size of the P-38 was both an advantage and a disadvantage in combat. The P-38 was quite large for a fighter, and Luftwaffe pilots could usually spot the Lockheed fighter at much larger distances than they could Allied single-engined fighters which were appreciably smaller. In addition, the twin-boomed configuration of the P-38 made it instantly recognizable to the enemy. However, this ease of recognition was not always a disadvantage--P-38s would often feel free to pursue Luftwaffe fighters right through Allied bomber formations with little fear of receiving friendly fire from the gunners. 

*The Allison engines of the Lightnings proved to be somewhat temperamental, with engine failures actually causing more problems than enemy action. It is estimated that every Lightning in England changed its engines at least once. Nevertheless, the ability of the Lightning to return home on one engine was exceptional and saved the life of the pilot of many a wounded Lightning. Experienced pilots could handle the Lightning satisfactorily at high altitude, but too many of the Eighth Air Force pilots did not have the training or experience to equip them for flying this temperamentally-powered aircraft in combat. *_

*THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CASE FOR ANY OTHER TWIN FIGHTER AS WELL!!!*
*
The powerplant problems were not entirely the Allison engine's fault. Many of the reliability problems were actually due to the inadequate cooling system, in particular the cumbersome plumbing of the turbosupercharger intercooler ducting which directed air all way from the supercharger out to the wingtips and back. In addition, the lack of cowl flaps were a problem. In the European theatre of operation, temperatures at altitude were often less than 40 degrees below zero and the Lightning's engines would never get warmed up enough for the oil to be able to flow adequately. Octane and lead would separate out of the fuel at these low temperatures, causing the Allisons to eat valves with regularity, to backfire through the intercooler ducts, and to throw rods, sometimes causing the engine to catch fire. 

These problems bedeviled the Lightnings until the advent of the J version with its simplified intercooler ducting and the relocation of the oil cooler to a chin position underneath the propeller spinner. When the P-38J reached the field, the Allison engine was finally able to attain its full rated power at altitude, and the engine failure rate began to go down. 

Earlier Lightnings had problems with high-speed dives. When the airspeed reached a sufficiently high value, the controls would suddenly lock up and the Lightning would tuck its nose down, making recovery from the dive difficult. In the worst case, the wings of the Lightning could be ripped off if the speed got too high. This problem caused the Lightning often to be unable to follow its Luftwaffe opponents in a dive, causing many of the enemy to be able to escape unscathed. The problem was eventually traced to the formation of a shock wave over the wing as the Lightning reached transonic speeds, this shock wave causing the elevator to lose much of its effectiveness. The problem was not cured until the advent of the P-38J-25-LO, which introduced a set of compressibility flaps under the wing which changed the pattern of the shock wave over the wing when they were extended, restoring the function of the elevator. *
_
*The P-38J version of the Lightning cured many of the ills that had been suffered by the earlier versions of the Lockheed fighter, producing a truly world-class fighter which could mix it up with virtually any other fighter in the world. *

In April 1944, the Lightnings of the 20th Fighter Group began low level fighter sweeps over the Continent. That same month, the 55th Fighter Group used the "Droop Snoot" P-38J for the first time as a leader for other Lightnings in a bombing raid on the Coulommiers airfield. Both types of operations proved successful, and these techniques were later used extensively by P-38s of the Ninth Air Force. 

The P-38s of the Eighth Air Force were rapidly phased out of service in favor of P-51 Mustangs--The 20th, 55th, and 364th Fighter Groups converted to P-51s during July 1944, and in September the 479th Fighter Group traded in its P-38Js for P-51Ds. 

The Ninth Air Force was assigned a tactical role (in contrast to the strategic role of the Eighth Air Force), and retained its P-38J/L fighters a bit longer. Its first Lightning group was the 474th, which flew its first combat mission on April 15, 1944. It was soon joined by the 367th and 370th Fighter Groups. However, in March of 1945 these two latter groups converted to P-47Ds and P-51Ds respectively. By V-E day the 474th was the only Fighter Group still operating P-38s. 

More than one in eight Lightnings were either completed by Lockheed as photographic-reconnaissance aircraft or were so modified after delivery. Over 1400 F-5 and F-5 aircraft were delivered to the USAAF. Photographic Lightnings saw widespread service throughout the war. F-4s were first flown in combat beginning in November 1942. They were operated initially by the 5th and 12th Photographic Reconnaissance Squadrons. Later, these units and two other squadrons of the 3rd Photographic Reconnaissance Group operated various versions of the F-5. In the North African theatre, the 154th Reconnaissance Squadron obtained its photographic Lightnings when its maintenance personnel modified a number of P-38Fs in the field. The F-5-equipped 5th Photographic Reconnaissance Group was initially assigned to the Twelfth Air Force and became operational in September 1943. However it was transferred to the Fifteenth Air Force thirteen months later. In the European theatre, where the 3rd PRG had briefly been based before transfer to North Africa, the first operational sorties by photographic Lightnings was flown by F-4As of the 7th PRG on March 28, 1943. This group successively operated F-4As, F-5As, F-5Bs, F-5Cs, and finally, during the last year of the war, F-5Es. Operating initially from bases in England but later moving to the Continent, the Ninth Air Force had for Photographic Reconnaissance squadrons (the 30th, 32st, 33rd, and 34th), which flew various versions of the F-5 from the spring of 1944 until the end of the war. 

The F-4/F-5s usually flew alone without fighter escort and in spite of heavy losses, especially when facing radar-controlled Luftwaffe fighters, they proved to be of unequalled value. 

The Forces Aeriennes Francaises Libres also received photographic Lightnings. They operated as an attached squadron with the 3rd PRG of the Twelfth Air Force. One of their pilots was the well-known author Antoine de Saint-Exupery, who was lost off southern France on July 31, 1944 while on a combat sortie. _


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 6, 2016)

LisaM said:


> Ok lets get started on the P-38, bit by bit.
> 
> First the astonishing inability of Lockheed to upgrade the cooling system (inc intercoolers) to deal wth the greater power developed by Allison.



Ok there were two things going on here. one was cooling the engine it self. Late models got larger radiators for engine coolant. 2nd is the intercooler problem which had a number of aspects. Please note that Lockheed did not build the new model intercoolers used on the J and L models. It was supplied by an outside vendor and initially production was slow enough that H and J models were intermingled on the production line for several months as production of the new intercoolers got up to speed. I would also note that the Bell P-63 was _supposed _to have intercoolers but the supplier for model model intercooler failed completely to get into production with a suitable model. 



> Now this, plus the extreme (and unnecessary) complexity of the controls was probably the major factor in the incredible engine unreiability suffered when in service in the 8th. What happened was many undid the stops on the throttle/boost controls and blew their engines up through overheating. That makes much more sense that the claim that the 'low' temps seperated the lead from the fuel, because the P-38 suffered from excessive temps, not too low ones. Amazingly other planes with much hgher intercolooling didn't suffer from this.



Care to enlighten us on the _extreme (and unnecessary) complexity _of the engine controls?
I would also note that the P-38 actually saw very little service with the 8th Air Force in regards to the early models. The Became operational on Sept 16th 1942, fly their first escort mission on Oct 15th and on Oct 31 are pulled from operations to take part in the North Africa Campaign. P-38 fighters are *not *operational in Europe until almost year later, Oct 15th of 1943 at which point there are already 7 fighter groups using P-47s and P-51Bs are rolling out of the Factory at between 200 and 300 a month. Blaming Lockheed for failing to get the P-38 up European standards when the P-38 wasn't being used in Europe at the time seems more than a bit unfair. 
You, of course, have proof that many of blown up engines were due to pilots/ground crew adjusting the throttle stops beyond factory recommendations?
In actual fact the P-38 intercoolers _could _overcool the intake charge _at cruising speeds, _even the early ones. The was made worse by the Army refusing to use the cruise settings recommended by both Allison and Lockheed. That is use low rpm and high boost (the high boost from the turbo would keep the intake charge warm/hot) and would reduce wear on the engine and increase range. The Army wanted the pilots to use high rpm and low boost, perhaps thinking that it would give them faster response if bounced. It didn't. 
There was never a question of the lead separating out of the fuel but instead of certain heavy fuel compounds separating out. There had been a change in the fuel specification in early 1943 that allowed more of these heavy compounds to be used to stretch the fuel supply. This problem of seperation had been anticipated and Allison had been working on a new intake manifold to combat it from the spring of 1943. It went into production in the fall of 1943 but many P-38s built in the Fall didn't get it. Later ALL Allison engines got the new manifold regardless of supercharger type. 

There are between 5 to 7 reasons for the "Allison time bomb" in the P-38, I would also note that the engines, turbos, turbo controllers were all government finished equipment and out of control of Lockheed. 

More later 

_
_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 6, 2016)

*And let's not forget the PTO as some tend to do!!!*

T_he story of the Lightning continues with an account of its service in the Pacific. 

The first lightnings to be deployed overseas in the Pacific theatre were the small number of P-38Ds and P-38Es which were rushed to Fairbanks and Anchorage for service with the Alaska Defense Command. However, these aircraft were not considered combat ready. These were soon replaced by P-38Es of the 54th Fighter Squadron which were modified by Lockheed to P-38F-1-LO standards with two drop tanks. Following the Japanese invasion of Kiska in June, 1942, the 54th Fighter Squadron was transferred to an airstrip at Ft Glenn on Umnak Island in the Aleutians. On August 4, two P-38 pilots, Lieutenants K. Ambrose and S. A. Long, shot town two four-engined Japanese H6K4 (code name *Mavis*) flying-boats to claim first blood for the Lightning. Later, during operations against Japanese-held Kiska, the Lightnings encountered opposition from Nakajima A6M2-N (code name *Rufe*) floatplane fighters. However, the Lightnings soon gained control of the air and by July 1943 the Japanese were forced to leave the Aleutians. 

*In the Aleutians, the initial batch of P-38Es of the 54th Fighter Squadron were supplanted by a specially-winterized version of the Lightning, the P-38G-10-LO. Later they acquired P-38Js. However, the Eleventh Air Force was never able to receive enough Lightnings fully to equip its 343rd Fighter Group. Three of its four squadrons flew a mix of P-38s and P-40s alongside the P-38 equipped 54th Fighter Squadron. The 343rd Fighter Group flew its Lightnings on fighter sweeps and escort sorties to the Kurile Islands up until V-J Day. *_

*So much for the "heater problem" of the ETO!*
_
In India, P-38Hs were first operated by the 459th Fighter Squadrons of the 80th Fighter Group in September 1943. This squadron later was equipped with P-38J/P-38Ls and kept them until the end of the war. The other three squadrons of this group flew P-40s and P-47s. The 449th Fighter Squadron of the 51st Fighter Group flew Lightnings in China while the group's other squadrons flew other types. The 33rd Fighter group in Burma flew a mixture of P-38s and P-47s. 

The first P-38Fs to reach Australia during 1942 were assigned to the 39th Fighter Squadron of the 35th Fighter Group. This unit traded in its Bell Airacobras for the Lightnings at Amberley in Queensland before returning to combat operations at Port Moresby in Papua, New Guinea. Its first success took place on December 27, 1942 when its pilots claimed eleven kills for the loss of only one P-38F. Two of these kills were claimed by Richard I. Bong, who was to go on to claim a total of 40 kills, all of them while flying the Lightning. 

The limited number of Lightnings available during late 1942 and early 1943 had to be used to make up attrition in the 39th Fighter Squadron and to equip only a single squadron in each of the 8th and 49th Fighter Groups of the Fifth Air Force in New Guinea, and of the 18th and 347th Fighter Groups of the Thirteenth Air Force on Guadalcanal. 

During this time, two P-38Fs of the 6th Fighter Squadron of the 18th Fighter Group were equipped with radar as single seat night fighters operating from Henderson Field to curb the activities of "Bedcheck Charlie", a Japanese aircraft flying nuisance sorties over Gualdacanal at night. 

Two P-38J-20-LO single-seat night fighters were fitted at Townville with AN/APS-4 radar in a pod under the starboard wing. These were operated during the winter of 1944-45 by the 547th Night Fighter Squadron. One of them, operating from Tacoban, Leyte, scored its first kill on January 9, 1945. 

The Lightning was ideally suited for the Pacific theatre. It possessed a performance markedly superior to that of its Japanese opponents. It possessed a range significantly better than that of the P-39s, P-40s and P-47s available in 1942 in the Southwest Pacific, and its twin engines offered an additional safety factory when operating over long stretches of water and jungle. The Lightnings proved to be extremely rugged and could take a lot of battle damage and still keep flying. Missions lasting 9, 10, or even 12 hours became routine, and many wounded Lightnings were able to limp home on only one engine. The maneuverability of the Lightning was inferior to that of its nimble Japanese opponents, but by the use of appropriate tactics--for example the avoidance of dogfighting at low altitudes and the use of fast diving attacks--enabled the P-38 squadrons in New Guinea and the Solomons to achieve impressive results. 

When compared with the Zero, the Lightning came off badly in terms of speed and maneuverability at medium and low altitudes, but had a far higher top speed, rate of climb and operational ceiling and was much better armed. When the P-38 tried to outturn a Zero at low altitudes, it usually ended up second best. However, when the unique attributes of the Lightning were used to best effect, the results were devastating. The best tactic was for the Lightnings to loiter at high altitudes and then dive down on Zero formations in a blaze of concentrated firepower, using the Lightning's impressive climbing rate to zoom back up out of harm's way. If this did not work, the wise Lightning Lightning pilot would then use his superior speed to make good his escape. 

Spurred by these impressive results, the commanders of the Thirteenth Air Force kept pressing the USAAF for more Lightnings. Unfortunately, because lower priority had been given to the Pacific theatre once the initial Japanese thrust had been checked, the requests for more Lightnings went largely unheeded. 

One of the most famous Lightning operations during these early months was the killing of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the commander in chief of the Combined Fleet of the Japanese Navy. U. S. Navy cryptographers had intercepted and decoded a Japanese communication which said that Admiral Yamamoto would be flying out to visit the Ballabe airfield on Shortland Island on April 18, 1943. The Thirteenth Air Force was ordered to attempt to intercept and destroy Yamamoto's aircraft. A consignment of 165 and 310 US gallon drop tanks were flown out especially for the operation. On the appointed day, sixteen P-38F/P-38Gs from the 18th and 347th Fighter Groups took off from Henderson Field, Guadalcanal and flew 500 miles to Shortland Island. They reached their target on schedule just as Yamamoto's flight was coming in. In the ensuing battle, two bomber-transports and at least five Japanese fighters were destroyed at the cost of the loss of one P-38. Captain Thomas Lanphier, Jr. was credited with downing the aircraft in which Admiral Yamamoto had been flying. 

In August 1943, the first all-Lightning Fighter Group of the Fifth Air Force, the 475th, began combat operations. Later in the year, continuing shortage of P-38s forced both the 35th and 49th Fighter Groups to convert their single P-38 squadron to P-47Ds, thus leaving the Fifth Air Force at the end of 1943 with only four P-38 squadrons versus eight squadrons with P-47s and three with P-40s. At that time, the Eighth Air Force in England had six squadrons of P-38s and 27 squadrons of P-47s. 

In the summer of 1944, the Fifth and Thirteenth Air Forces had been reorganized into the Far East Air Force in preparation for the invasion of the Philippines. By that time, the shortage of P-38s had been alleviated somewhat and there were five Fighter Groups fully equipped with P-38s--the 8th, 18th, 49th, 347th and 475th. The 475th was perhaps the best known of these, since it contained among its personnel the top three-scoring aces in the Pacific--Richard I. Bong (40 kills), Thomas B. McGuire, Jr. (38 kills) and C. H. MacDonald (27 kills). *By the war's end, no fewer than 38 other pilots from the 475th had achieved ace status while flying exclusively P-38s. *

The late-model P-38J with its powered ailerons, its dive brakes, and its combat flaps could if flown properly by an experienced pilot actually hold its own against a nimble Zero in a dogfight at low and medium altitudes. However, it was generally a good idea to follow the advice of experienced combat veterans and avoid such dogfights against the Zero. 

For a while, the 475th included among its personnel the famous pilot Charles Lindbergh. He was serving with the Group as a technical representative from the United Aircraft Corporation. Lindbergh flew a number of combat missions with the Group in June/August 1944 as a civilian to instruct pilots on how to use their cruise control to get maximum range and endurance from their P-38Js. On July 28, Lindbergh was credited with shooting down a Japanese Mitsubishi Ki-51 over Elpaputih Bay in the Netherlands East Indies. 

By the end of the Pacific War, P-38s were flying from bases on Ie Shima and in the Philippines on sorties ranging as far as Formosa, Korea, and the Ryukyus. *They are credited with the destruction of more Japanese aircraft than any other type of US fighter. *_

*This is not true as we know this credit belongs to the F6F, but until the USN began its assault towards Japan, the P-38 held this distinction. *
_
In 1945, three Night Fighter Squadrons (421st, 547th, and 550th) were sent to the Pacific zone with P-38M night-fighter Lightnings. 

Reconnaissance Lightnings were used in the war against Japan, with F-4s being initially operated in the summer of 1942 by the 18th Composite Group in Alaska, the 8th Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron in New Guinea, and the 9th Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron in India. They served with the following groups: the 4th (17th, 18th and 38th Squadrons), the 6th (8th, 25th 26th, and 27th Squadrons) and with the 71st (82nd Squadron) as well as with the 28th, 35th, and 41st Squadrons. They took part in the India-Burma campaign with the 8th Photographic Reconnaissance Group (9th and 40th Squadrons). In the United States, they served with the 2nd Group (7th, 10th, and 29th Squadrons). The F-4/F-5s usually flew alone without fighter escort. 

On August 25, 1945, a pair of P-38s piloted by Colonel Clay Tice and his wingman were the first American aircraft to land in Japan after the surrender on August 15. They later claimed that this unauthorized landing was due to "engine difficulties", a somewhat suspect explanation. Nevertheless, this was a fitting recognition for an aircraft which had contributed so much to victory. _


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 6, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> *I would also note that the engines, turbos, turbo controllers were all government finished equipment and out of control of Lockheed*.



Something that few understand!!!


----------



## stona (Mar 6, 2016)

_"All Axis forces in the area surrendered on May 13, 1943, due in no small part to the contribution of the Lightning in cutting off Rommel's air supply route."_

Rubbish!

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Mar 6, 2016)

Between November 1942 and January 1943 the P-38 equipped 14th FG, based in Algeria, lost 32 of 54 pilots and ended up with just 7 operational aircraft. Rommel must have been quaking in his boots.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 6, 2016)

stona said:


> Between November 1942 and January 1943 the P-38 equipped 14th FG, based in Algeria, lost 32 of 54 pilots and ended up with just 7 operational aircraft. Rommel must have been quaking in his boots.
> Cheers
> Steve


Despite this the 14th, 1st and 82ne FGs quickly turned things around.

_"On Sept. 3, 1943, as the Allied invasion of Italy got underway, the Italians threw in the towel. Even so, there were to be many months of fighting before German troops were driven out of the peninsula in a bloody campaign that absorbed virtually all Allied military power in the Mediterranean. 


While granting that Italy had first priority in the Med, Winston Churchill also had his eye on another prize--the Greek Dodecanese Islands lying off the southwest coast of Turkey in the Aegean Sea. They were garrisoned largely by Italian troops who, Churchill judged, would cooperate if the islands could be seized before the Germans took over. Capturing the islands, he thought, might bring neutral Turkey into the Alliance and open the Dardanelles and Bosporus as a short supply route to beleaguered Russia. But Allied forces in the eastern Med had been stripped to support the Italian campaign and to prepare for the Normandy invasion. About all that was left was a Royal Navy squadron of a dozen ships and a few RAF aircraft. 


Churchill's plea for a minor diversion from Italy fell on nearly deaf American ears. Finally, General Eisenhower agreed to send some long-range P-38 fighters and a few cannon-carrying B-25s to help out. The 14th Fighter Group was moved from its base in Tunisia to Gambut 2, an RAF strip of sand near Tobruk, a few miles west of the Egyptian border. From that desert paradise they were to escort Royal Navy ships and to attack German convoys headed for the Greek islands. 


The group's 37th Squadron was commanded by Maj. William L. Leverette, who had arrived in North Africa late in August. Leverette was not your average replacement. He had spent two years teaching fighter tactics in the States, had more than 1,000 hours in fighters, and was no stranger to the gunnery range. 


On Oct. 9, Leverette led seven P-38s on a mission to protect Royal Navy warships near the island of Rhodes. As they reached the ships, a formation of some 30 Ju-87 Stuka dive bombers was sighted approaching from the west. Leverette dispatched one flight of three P-38s to fly top cover while his flight closed with the Stukas. 


The Stuka was not a particularly nimble aircraft, but it wasn't to be approached casually, either, especially when encountered in wholesale lots. In addition to wing-mounted guns, it carried a rear gunner manning a flexible machine gun. And with so few hunters (Leverette's wingman was a new, nervous, slightly trigger-happy lad) attacking so many targets, conserving ammunition was the key: "Get in close and make every round count." What happened in the next few minutes is best described by Leverette himself in this debriefing account: 


"We peeled off into the middle of them, and I got two almost before they knew we were there. The gunner in the first started to fire, but stopped as soon as I let go. We came back behind them and I got on the tail of another. His gunner stopped firing as soon as I opened up, and the pilot bailed out. My fourth was a 30-degree deflection shot from 200 yards. Then I gave a lone plane a burst of cannon and machine-gun fire from a 20-degree deflection. That finished him. 


"I came in directly behind the sixth. His gunner opened up before I did, but I got him with my first shots. The plane nosed down a little, and I gave him a burst in the belly. I was closing fast and had started to go under him when he nosed almost straight down, his propeller shot off. I tried to dive under him, but didn't quite make it. My left prop cut two feet into his fuselage as he went down. My last hit was the best. I was closing on him from the right when he turned into me. I rolled into a steep bank to the left and got him while firing from an almost-inverted position." 


While all this was going on, the leader of Leverette's second element downed five Stukas, and his wingman got three. After disposing of a Ju-88 that was escorting the dive bombers, the top-cover flight came down to drop another Stuka. A few got through to make their bomb runs; the rest either jettisoned, headed for home, or ended up in the sea. 

For his combat leadership and individual performance, Leverette was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, this nation's second highest award for valor. But his combat career didn't stop there. The group soon returned to the Italian campaign where again, Leverette downed two Me- 109s and two, Me-110s for a total of 11 victories, ending his war as one of the top 20 aces in the Mediterranean theater."

USAAF MTO Aces of World War Two_


----------



## stona (Mar 6, 2016)

They made a contribution, as did many. To suggest that Rommel's aerial supply line was broken _"in no small part" _due to the presence of the P-38s is, as I said rubbish. 
The P-38 really struggled against the Luftwaffe's single engine fighters of this period. That doesn't make it a bad aircraft, in fact I believe it was a rather good one, as well as an important one, more so in other theatres than than the ETO/MTO.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 6, 2016)

stona said:


> They made a contribution, as did many. To suggest that Rommel's aerial supply line was broken _"in no small part" _due to the presence of the P-38s is, as I said rubbish.
> The P-38 really struggled against the Luftwaffe's single engine fighters of this period. That doesn't make it a bad aircraft, in fact I believe it was a rather good one, as well as an important one, more so in other theatres than than the ETO/MTO.
> Cheers
> Steve


And agree 100% Steve. As shown with Joe Baugher's articles, When the P-38J came along, *(and to once again remind some, 1 year 9 months after Pearl Harbor)* many of the P-38s limitations were addressed. For one to say that Lockheed didn't listen or took too long to address problems is just plain nonsense. Having worked for Lockheed the P-38 has always been special to me, I will never argue to say it was the "best" but it did many thing well and made the difference in many combat theaters. The P-38 was certainly not "overrated" as LisaM is so feebly trying to prove, evidently she chooses to ignore certain facts about the aircraft and the training of US pilots that flew the aircraft. I have flown turbo boosted reciprocating engine aircraft and you could easily destroy an engine on a turbo Cessna 210 as easily as you could on an early P-38 if you weren't trained and fully understood that happens when you overboost an engine, in fact I'd bet dollars to donuts to say that many of those early "overboost explosions" were due to pilot error, as with many of the other so-called issues with the P-38.

From Shortround's earlier post - he nails it.

_*"Blaming Lockheed for failing to get the P-38 up European standards when the P-38 wasn't being used in Europe at the time seems more than a bit unfair. You, of course, have proof that many of blown up engines were due to pilots/ground crew adjusting the throttle stops beyond factory recommendations?

In actual fact the P-38 intercoolers could overcool the intake charge at cruising speeds, even the early ones. This was made worse by the Army refusing to use the cruise settings recommended by both Allison and Lockheed. That is use low rpm and high boost (the high boost from the turbo would keep the intake charge warm/hot) and would reduce wear on the engine and increase range. The Army wanted the pilots to use high rpm and low boost, perhaps thinking that it would give them faster response if bounced. It didn't.

There was never a question of the lead separating out of the fuel but instead of certain heavy fuel compounds separating out. There had been a change in the fuel specification in early 1943 that allowed more of these heavy compounds to be used to stretch the fuel supply. This problem of separation had been anticipated and Allison had been working on a new intake manifold to combat it from the spring of 1943. It went into production in the fall of 1943 but many P-38s built in the Fall didn't get it. Later ALL Allison engines got the new manifold regardless of supercharger type."*_

The P-38 was certainly not the most over rated fighter of WW2, if anything it was probably a bit under rated.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 6, 2016)

For anybody who wants to really explore some of the P-38 engine problems I suggest this magazine/article.

TMV1N2

It is a 7-8page article (my paper copy of the magazine is in storage) and has the same author as "Vees for Victory" using, in part, information NOT in the book. 

I would say that the P-38 was of strategic importance during the war, It _might _ be, for the US, the _fighter plane _ (not bomber or transport) that allowed the US to switch from a defensive posture to an offensive posture. So in that sense it was of strategic importance. Not that it was a fighter escort for long range strategic bombing. 
I am not saying it was a better fighter or escort than the P-51B/D but it was earlier in timing and it was better at air to air combat than the P-39 and P-40. It was often tasked with flying top cover for those aircraft it areas where ranges allowed all three to be used. It allowed offensive operations in areas that were beyond the range of P-39/P-40. 
This time period also meant the P-38 Pilots were often up against Axis forces that had not suffered as much attrition as Pilots in 1944 faced. Granted Axis pilots had better planes in 1944/45 than P-38s faced in late 1942 and 43.

With P-47s not going into action until April of 1943 the P-38 was the premier American fighter for most 1942 and early 1943 and was the _fighter _plane that often decided what actions could take-place and where. AS in allowing the US to under take the Torch Landings (or at least have a fighter that stood a chance of _equaling _the German fighters in NA. It helped cover the Sicilian landings from bases in North Africa. It's long range missions in the Pacific and the India/China/southwest asia areas also allowed the projection of power well beyond what the P-39/P-40 and early P-47 could do.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## LisaM (Mar 7, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> For anybody who wants to really explore some of the P-38 engine problems I suggest this magazine/article.
> 
> T AS in allowing the US to under take the Torch Landings (or at least have a fighter that stood a chance of _equaling _the German fighters in NA. It helped cover the Sicilian landings from bases in North Africa. It's long range missions in the Pacific and the India/China/southwest asia areas also allowed the projection of power well beyond what the P-39/P-40 and early P-47 could do.



There was not a single; P-38 involved in the Torch landings...not one. It was all carrier planes. Sicily was carrier planes and cover from Malta (all Spits).Its contribution in NA was limited. P-40s, Spits and Hurricames were the main ones.


----------



## stona (Mar 7, 2016)

LisaM said:


> There was not a single; P-38 involved in the Torch landings...not one.



Correct, in act they weren't even operational in North Africa at the time of the landings.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Mar 7, 2016)

I dont accept the argument that the P38 was junk because the P51 was better, for a long time it wasnt there.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 7, 2016)

LisaM said:


> There was not a single; P-38 involved in the Torch landings...not one. It was all carrier planes. Sicily was carrier planes and cover from Malta (all Spits).Its contribution in NA was limited. P-40s, Spits and Hurricames were the main ones.



Very true on first sentence. , however, on the 8th of November 42, the first day of the landings ground personnel of the 1st fighter group go ashore. 
Nov 14th sees the 1st and 14th fighter groups transfer from England to NA. 
Nov 16th sees the 14th fighter group declared operational.
Nov 18th sees the first mission and on the 21st P-38s escort A-20s on a raid to Bizerte, five enemy planes claimed for 5 P-38s lost. 
in Dec the 82nd Fighter group (80 aircraft) flies from England to North Africa, claiming 2 Ju 88s on the way. 

The importance of the P-38 to the Torch landings, or perhaps it is better wording to say *to *"Operation Torch" was that it gave the American forces a fighter plane, available in numbers (three fighter groups in 4-6 weeks) capable of fighting the Germans on a one for one basis. Reinforcements were routinely flown from England and it is almost 1200 miles from Plymouth to Casablanca in a straight line (over the tip of Breast and over Spain east of Portugal). 
Trying to reinforce or bring 200*+ more* P-40s and /or P-39s to North Africa in 2-6 weeks after the first landings instead of using P-38s would be quite trick. The USS Ranger (the largest US Carrier in the Atlantic at the time) could carry 70+ P-40s at a time and did Bring P-40 replacements to NA in Feb of 1943. But took well over a week one way. Ranger used it's regular carrier planes to cover the actual landings. 
AS for Sicily. The Three P-38 fighter groups in NA had been doing ground attack missions on Sicilian targets before the landings and continue after the invasion as bomber escorts and ground attack. 
Granted 3 fighter groups is not a large number of aircraft in overall scheme of things but they were there and doing things other aircraft could not do. You can only base so many planes on Malta and the P40s and P-39s didn't have the range to fly missions from North African bases over Sicily so for the Americans it was P-38s or nothing (reverse lend-lease Beaufighters?) over Sicily until they could establish air fields on Sicily. 

Sorry, this attempt to discredit the P-38 doesn't seem to hold up either. The P-38 offering strategic _options _to operation planners that the two other main US Army fighters did not at the time.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 7, 2016)

LisaM said:


> There was not a single; P-38 involved in the Torch landings...not one. It was all carrier planes. Sicily was carrier planes and cover from Malta (all Spits).Its contribution in NA was limited. P-40s, Spits and Hurricames were the main ones.


It seems to me that you're simply arguing for the sake of an argument.

Operation Torch does not refer only to the landing, it encompases the entire invasion: 8th of November through the 16th of November, 1942.

Now, as for the P-38F fighters that PARTICIPATED in Opertion Torch, *they were transferred from England in late October to Tarfouri.* These were elements of the 8th AF being transferred to the 12th AF.

One of the first incidents of a P-38 being downed by enemy action that come to mind, would be on 27 November, when Lt. Elliot (48 FS, 14 FG) received damage to his aircraft during strafing attacks against Axis targets in Kasserine pass. Because of the late hour, failing engine and no navigational aids, he (and his wingman) set down in a dry lake bed and hitched a ride back to base. Sadly, Lt. Elliot was killed a few days later (5 December) during an encounter by Bf109s of Jg51.

There's plenty of other incidents up or down the invasion/post-invasion timeline, but the fact remains, P-38s were in North Africa during Operation Torch.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Mar 7, 2016)

The P-38 was operational in ETO before being yanked to support North Africa campaign and operational in December 1943 in MTO getting its first victories in December 1942. The P-38 carried the major escort load in the MTO until the introduction, in short timeframe, of first the P-47D, then the P-51B/C in April 1944. The P-38 after June 1944 was relegated to Penetration and Withdrawal escort for long range penetrations to Austria, Czechoslovakia and Germany where the P-51B/D took over.

The P-38 of the 1st FG got first air VC of 8th AF on 8-14-42, moved to Algeria in November 1942, thence to Tunisia, Sardinia and Italy. The 14th started Ops in Algeria in October 1942, operated as a two squadron FG until withdrawn to re-organize with the 3rd FS and back in ops in May 1943. The 82nd FG was combat operational in December 1942 based in Algeria, thence to Tunesia after Sicily campaign, then Italy.

While the comment about TORCH, above, are strictly true as the landings, fighting and surrender of Vichy forces was over quickly. The P-38s were on the way in November after the surrender and setting up early in the Tunisia ops.

Between August 1942 and October 1942, two squadrons arrive at Guadalcanal and have first combat encounter at the end of December, 1942.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Mar 7, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Operation Torch does not refer only to the landing, it encompases the entire invasion: *8th of November through the 16th of November, *1942.
> 
> One of the first incidents of a P-38 being downed by enemy action that come to mind, would be on* 27 November, *when Lt. Elliot (48 FS, 14 FG) received damage to his aircraft during strafing attacks against Axis targets in Kasserine pass. .





The P-38s were not operational during 'Torch'. This has nothing to do with the aircraft's capabilities in any case.

They were operational shortly thereafter and did their bit. There were never many of them compared to other types but they could and did do things the others could not.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 7, 2016)

The problem with the P-38s in North Africa, is that they had a steep learning curve. The first ones deployed were the F model, soon to be replaced by the P-38G. Before this, there really hadn't been a "baptism of fire".

The Axis, particularly the Luftwaffe, operated at lower altitudes (below 12,000 feet) in this theater, which saw the P-38 at a disadvantage. When the Luftwaffe realized this, they developed a tactic where they would "bait" the Lightnings down and engage them. The Allied response to this, was to "split" the P-38 flights, part of the group would go down to engage and the other half would remain as top cover to prevent a "bounce". This of tactic of course, was learned the hard way.

So this tends to paint the P-38 as a failure to some people, however any aircraft will have strong and weak points.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 7, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The problem with the P-38s in North Africa, is that they had a steep learning curve. The first ones deployed were the F model, soon to be replaced by the P-38G. Before this, there really hadn't been a "baptism of fire".
> 
> The Axis, particularly the Luftwaffe, operated at lower altitudes (below 12,000 feet) in this theater, which saw the P-38 at a disadvantage. When the Luftwaffe realized this, they developed a tactic where they would "bait" the Lightnings down and engage them. The Allied response to this, was to "split" the P-38 flights, part of the group would go down to engage and the other half would remain as top cover to prevent a "bounce". This of tactic of course, was learned the hard way.
> 
> So this tends to paint the P-38 as a failure to some people, however any aircraft will have strong and weak points.



Here's another account showing the strong and weak points of the P-38 - From Wackypedia...

_"After 347 sorties with no enemy contact, the 1st, 14th and 82nd Fighter Groups were transferred to the 12th Air Force in North Africa as part of the force being built up for __Operation Torch__. On 19 November 1942, Lightnings escorted a group of __B-17 Flying Fortress__ bombers on a raid over Tunis. On 5 April 1943, 26 P-38Fs of the 82nd claimed 31 enemy aircraft destroyed, helping to establish air superiority in the area, and earning it the German nickname "der Gabelschwanz Teufel" – the Fork-Tailed Devil. The P-38 remained active in the Mediterranean for the rest of the war. It was in this theatre that the P-38 suffered its heaviest losses in the air. On 25 August 1943, 13 P-38s were shot down in a single sortie by __Jagdgeschwader 53_ _Bf 109s__ without achieving a single kill. On 2 September 10 P-38s were shot down, in return for a single kill, the 67-victory ace __Franz Schiess__ (who was also the leading "Lightning" killer in the Luftwaffe with 17 destroyed). __Kurt Bühligen__, third highest scoring German pilot on the Western front with 112 victories, recalled later: “The P-38 fighter (and the B-24) were easy to burn. Once in Africa we were six and met eight P-38s and shot down seven. One sees a great distance in Africa and our observers and flak people called in sightings and we could get altitude first and they were low and slow.” General der Jagdflieger __Adolf Galland__ was unimpressed with the P-38, declaring, "it had similar shortcomings in combat to our __Bf 110__, our fighters were clearly superior to it."_

So like any other fighter of the war, the P-38 had it's triumphs and tragedies. Again I'll point out that this was a state of the art aircraft when it was first developed and no more than a handful was ever planned to be built. It revealed compressibility and gave a prelude to challenges to be faced for later trans and super sonic aircraft. It could be clearly shown that Lockheed *DID LISTEN* to those in the field and did recognize the limitations of the P-38F and G. Some issues were addressed on the P-38H but as earlier stated, when the P-38J and L came along, the P-38 could compete with any front line fighter of the period. And I'll repeat myself, the fact that the P-38J made it's appearance a little more than a year and a half after the war started showed the commitment to improve this fighter. Unfortunately in the ETO the P-51B came along and changed everything.

I'll mention again my old friend, the late Ltc. Mike Alba who flew P-38s and P-51s with the 338FS, 55th FG. He pointed out they were both great planes but in some cases preferred the P-38.

Alba Michael Capt

Over-rated? Total nonsense!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 7, 2016)

I'll have to look for the date, but while elements of the 82nd FG were making the transit to Africa from the UK, surprised and downed two Ju88s along the way.

And I know I've mentioned this before, but my Great Uncle certainly appreciated his P-38 far above and beyond the P-39.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 7, 2016)

I would note that the P-39 was available in less numbers on the North Western African front and even the P-40 was available at times in fewer numbers than the P-38 on the North Western African Front. And that is what matters to US planner,not how many British fighters were available. Even for allied planners it was how many planes could be gotten into the area in the shortest amount of time. They tried flying P-39s but lost 15 or more interned in Portugal.78 P-40Fs were flown off the escort carriers Chenango and Archer. 2 are lost and 17 suffer damage on landing. The remaining 30 or so P-40s are delivered on D+5 and 4 crack up. 

You have units assigned to the Invasion force on paper and you have the ones that showed up over a period of time. 

See this website for the tables of organization at the times in question.

The 489th Bombardment Squadron on Corsica

Nobody _knew _how long French resistance would last or how fast the Germans would react. 
And if the Germans were shooting down green pilots in P-38s I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope for Green pilots in P-39s and P-40s.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 11, 2016)

The P-38 seems to have been roughly 3 different airplanes.

The early models in combat are the E,F and G, and here it is important to note how fast the different models came along and how long it took to deploy American aircraft in general in order to get feed back from combat. 
The P-38 E was first delivered in Oct of 1941 and 210 were built.
The F (with Maneuver flap) was coming off the production line in March of 1942 and 527 are built. A small group of F-4 recon planes arrive in Australia in April 42. 25 P-38Es are sent to Alaska at the end of May 1942, June and July see the crossing of the Atlantic by P-38s by air. 
*June 42 *sees the production line switch from the F to the G model. 1082 G models will be built. 
August 9th 1942 see the first victory's by P-38s. Those E models in Alaska shoot down 2 Japanese flying boats. Not a lot of worthwhile combat information from that encounter. 
August also sees the first P-38s show up on Guadalcanal and the end of the month sees the 1st fighter group declared "operational" in England. 
Sept 1942 sees the P-38s in England gaining 'experience' by flying fighter sweeps over France and the low countries but the Luftwaffe refuses to come out and play. 14th of Sept is when the plans are made to transfer 4 P-38 groups to operation Torch. Please note that this is before a single air to air combat takes place in Europe. Plans change and only 3 groups actual go.

We now get to the 2nd and 3rd P-38s. 
*March 43, *sees the P-38H replace the G on the production lines deliveries start in April, The Tunisian campaign is winding down. 
Here is were things get a bit interesting. The Lockheed model number for the P-38H is model 422-81-20 while the model number for the P-38J is model 422-81-14. Why does the later plane have an earlier model number? Could it be that Lockheed was fully aware of the inter-cooler problem and was working on a solution? Could it be that the *H *was interim model to be produced while the engine installation on the J was sorted out, most especially from the parts/components supply stand point?
Please remember that at this time Generals in the Pacific, South East Asia, the Mediterranean and in England were screaming for every P-38 they could get their hands on. 
The *J *went into production in Sept of 1943, Before the P-38 groups that had gone to the Mediterranean came back to England to support the Bomber campaign. 
For a period of time *H *and *J *models were intermingled on the production lines. Lockheed being greedy and using up old parts or the inter-cooler supplier (outside contractor) unable to deliver the required number of units? 
Please remember that contracts _could _be modified, adjusted or canceled with new ones written to supersede old ones. 
US army was responsible for the delivery of engines, props, turbos, turbo-controllers and other parts (generators?) to the Lockheed factory. 
The *J *is in production (planning/drawing started much earlier) the same month the first _production_ P-51B shows up in England and roughly at the time when P-47s start getting 108 gallon drop tanks in numbers. 

more later.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2016)

*"US army was responsible for the delivery of engines, props, turbos, turbo-controllers and other parts (generators?) to the Lockheed factory."
*
Also known as "GFE," Government Furnished Equipment and ALL aircraft manufactured during WW2 had many critical components supplied as "GFE".


----------



## KellyUSN (Mar 12, 2016)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> B-17
> 
> sorry, had to say it...........


I completely agree, if you were a commander you'd want Lancasters, heavier bomb load. If you were crew I'd want a B-17 it's proven ability to keep flying when other aircraft were plowing into the ground is something crewmembers really liked.


----------



## MrMojok (Mar 15, 2016)

Rau was concerned about seeing inexperienced pilots perform no maneuvers after the bounce call on the radio, he supposed this was because they were struggling with the cockpit workload involved with transitioning from cruise to combat (and there can be little question that he was correct on this score), and he was correct to write the memo. His concerns were valid. What is wrong with the memo, or wrong with talking about it on these forums?

It seems like the P-38 was a good aeroplane with a few great characteristics, and like every single other plane it had its flaws that were gradually corrected if possible as the war continued. I wouldn't call it overrated, but I would also never say it was "*the most strategically important American fighter of World War II." *(I realize it wasn't actually said here, someone cribbed it from a webpage)


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 15, 2016)

I don't think there is anything wrong with talking abut it but one has to remember that no one man's opinion/report is the 100% gospel.

His concerns were certainly valid. Wither his solutions were the only ones may be subject to debate. 

The US put a fair amount of effort into multi engine training, however for many types of aircraft it wasn't enough (and the training varied during the war or didn't stay constant) and training on small/low powered twins that didn't have all the systems of larger aircraft (fixed pitch props on the trainer, no supercharger so no boost gauges or boost management) isn't a substitute for at least some minimum number of training hours in the actual combat type. All too often P-38 "training" consisted of "class room" (even if under the wing of the aircraft) and a few rides crammed in behind the pilot and trying to peer over his shoulder/s while certain techniques were demonstrated before the new pilot was turned loose on his own. This _might _be OK if the new pilot in question was actually a combat veteran in another type of fighter. It probably was not satisfactory training for pilots coming from training programs to active squadrons.


----------



## MrMojok (Mar 15, 2016)

Yes, I must confess I was not too familiar with the training received by pilots in the P-38 pipeline. I have now read a little about it in this thread and in the other Colonel Rau memo thread I found on here. I can see how their training would have contributed to the issues Rau wrote about.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2016)

MrMojok said:


> Rau was concerned about seeing inexperienced pilots perform no maneuvers after the bounce call on the radio, he supposed this was because they were struggling with the cockpit workload involved with transitioning from cruise to combat (and there can be little question that he was correct on this score), and he was correct to write the memo. His concerns were valid. *What is wrong with the memo, or wrong with talking about it on these forums?*


 There's nothing wrong with talking about his memo, as long as one knows to put it into perspective and also knows a little bit about flying a twin engine aircraft. While his condemnation of the P-38 got much attention, on the other side of the world the same aircraft wrestled air superiority away from the Japanese. The 5th AF had inexperienced pilots as well, were the 8th AF inexperienced pilots even more inexperienced???


MrMojok said:


> It seems like the P-38 was a good aeroplane with a few great characteristics, and like every single other plane it had its flaws that were gradually corrected if possible as the war continued. I wouldn't call it overrated, but I would also never say it was "*the most strategically important American fighter of World War II." *(I realize it wasn't actually said here, someone cribbed it from a webpage)


Agree...


----------



## grampi (Mar 16, 2016)

Looks like this has turned into a P-38 thread....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 16, 2016)

grampi said:


> Looks like this has turned into a P-38 thread....



A "prove the P-38 was over rated thread."


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 16, 2016)

grampi said:


> Looks like this has turned into a P-38 thread....


In all honesty, I can toss out an opinion like "the Spitfire is grossly over rated" or the "P-51D is just a glory bird" but without any real stats to back it up, it's just an opinion.

The P-38 certainly has it's share of opinions, good and bad, but in this case, there's been a rich discussion offering both good and bad points to help put it's place in history into better perspective.

To be honest, I've enjoyed it


----------



## MrMojok (Mar 16, 2016)

Did Rau maybe just have a batch of really undertrained pilots all at once? 

The P-38 is intriguing to me, because it really seems like maybe the most maligned fighter of the war. And if you read pilot accounts, interviews, and memoirs for years, you become used to inconsistencies/contradtictions. But the sheer amount of them for the P-38 is baffling. You get some people saying its rate of roll was horrid, others say it's decent. Some say it wasn't a great turner, others say (perhaps later versions G or J??) with combat flaps it could turn with anything, and could hold right on the edge of a stall, etc. I suppose as with all fighters later models performed better and better, but it doesn't seem to quite account for the wild variations in the accounts.

Despite my avatar I'm not a fanboy, except of WW2 aircraft in general. Nor am I a hater. I'm well familiar with how things work on boards like these, where often you have people with agendas and want to defend a plane, or all of a nation's planes, or tear down a particular plane. But I'm not into that. Sorry for the P-38 derail.


----------



## MrMojok (Mar 16, 2016)

One last note-- I was at the "Gathering of Mustangs and Legends" in Columbus, OH in 2007, and there was a P-38 there. First time I've ever seen one fly, and the thing that's always stuck out in my mind about it was how eerily quiet it was!

You would hear this kind of high-pitched... I don't know if I would call it a whine, or a hiss, from a distance. As it got closer you could hear the engines, but the engines were SO quiet compared to every other fighter that was flying. Made me think it would have been real good at sneaking up on troops/vehicles...

I have a video of this somewhere at home, if I recall a P-47 flies by followed by the Lightning, and the sound difference between the two, and between it and the Mustangs, was amazing.


----------



## grampi (Mar 16, 2016)

MrMojok said:


> One last note-- I was at the "Gathering of Mustangs and Legends" in Columbus, OH in 2007, and there was a P-38 there. First time I've ever seen one fly, and the thing that's always stuck out in my mind about it was how eerily quiet it was!
> 
> You would hear this kind of high-pitched... I don't know if I would call it a whine, or a hiss, from a distance. As it got closer you could hear the engines, but the engines were SO quiet compared to every other fighter that was flying. Made me think it would have been real good at sneaking up on troops/vehicles...
> 
> I have a video of this somewhere at home, if I recall a P-47 flies by followed by the Lightning, and the sound difference between the two, and between it and the Mustangs, was amazing.



I never could figure out why it was so quiet either...


----------



## Gixxerman (Mar 16, 2016)

grampi said:


> I never could figure out why it was so quiet either...



Would that not be a by-product of the turbo-supercharging?
Rather than vent exhaust gasses directly to the atmosphere through some kind of short manifold (as with non-turbo engined aircraft) they are piped to spin the turbo-charger & then exhausted out, I'd expect a notable silencing effect.

The same ought to be true of the P47, how does it compare, in the air, to an F4 (ie turbo R 2800 verses supercharged R2800)?


----------



## soulezoo (Mar 16, 2016)

Gixxerman said:


> Would that not be a by-product of the turbo-supercharging?
> Rather than vent exhaust gasses directly to the atmosphere through some kind of short manifold (as with non-turbo engined aircraft) they are piped to spin the turbo-charger & then exhausted out, I'd expect a notable silencing effect.
> 
> The same ought to be true of the P47, how does it compare, in the air, to an F4 (ie turbo R 2800 verses supercharged R2800)?


This is correct. The noise attenuation has to do with the exhaust being routed to turbines rather than hot, rapidly expanding gases that include an amount of unburned fuel directly into the atmosphere.


----------



## MrMojok (Mar 16, 2016)

That makes sense, thank you.


----------



## Token (Mar 20, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> A "prove the P-38 was over rated thread."



I have seen this on a few forums over the years, folks badmouthing the P-38, and I have never really understood why.

Each major aircraft had its strong and weak points. If the P-38 had been given the upgrade priority that the P-51 received the P-38 may have been a much better aircraft. The smarter decision was to put that level of effort and material into the P-51, the aircraft being less complex and cheaper to build with arguably more performance overhead easier to achieve. Upgrades, of course, occurred with the P-38 also, but less focused and less pressing.

Regardless, the P-38 was not a bad aircraft, no matter what some people today may think. Just on the surface, the P-38 produced the top two American aces of the period (and 3 of the top 10 overall US aces). In order to find the top P-51 ace you have to first go past the top P-38, P-47, F4F, F6F and F4U ace, with the P-51 coming in 9th of the top 10.

Yes, I understand different tasking. Yes, I understand different target environments. But for such a 'bad' aircraft the P-38 did pretty well.

T!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Mar 20, 2016)

I can't agree with the A6M as being overrated. If you consider raw performance statistics against later aircraft, it does come out looking pretty mediocre. But at the time and place it was introduced it was a literally a terrifying development. No aircraft in WW 2 was so dominant over its competition during the the first year after its introduction. Sure, beginning in late 1942, it became progressively less dominant and began showing signs of its eventual eclipse even when pitted against early, prewar models such as the F4F and the P-40, as the mystery surrounding its performance evaporated. But during that first year, it's ability to inspire terror among its opponents is, I believe, unequaled in air combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 20, 2016)

MrMojok said:


> Did Rau maybe just have a batch of really undertrained pilots all at once?


Undertrained in flying twin engine aircraft and I would even guess himself included.


----------



## VALENGO (Apr 16, 2016)

Bf 110 was an escort fighter... that needed fighter escort!.


----------



## stona (Apr 16, 2016)

VALENGO said:


> Bf 110 was an escort fighter... that needed fighter escort!.



It was used as an escort fighter, not designed as one. The 'zerstorer' concept envisaged a role clearing the way for bombers that was not really the same as the bomber escort role that developed, though the two do share some similarities. It wasn't just the Germans who underestimated the effects of the quantum leap in single engine fighter performance and armament in the immediate pre-war period.

The Bf 110 was also an excellent fighter bomber, ground attack aircraft and night fighter. The attacks of Erprobungskommando 210 during the BoB period include some of the most successful operations of the Luftwaffe during that period.

It was planned to replace it, but the Me 210/410 debacle delayed those plans. The Bf 110 was still in service and production at the end of the war. All in all it was one of the most successful aircraft of the period and it's a good job the Germans had it in 1939...and 1945.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## VALENGO (Apr 16, 2016)

stona said:


> It was used as an escort fighter, not designed as one. The 'zerstorer' concept envisaged a role clearing the way for bombers that was not really the same as the bomber escort role that developed, though the two do share some similarities. It wasn't just the Germans who underestimated the effects of the quantum leap in single engine fighter performance and armament in the immediate pre-war period.
> 
> The Bf 110 was also an excellent fighter bomber, ground attack aircraft and night fighter. The attacks of Erprobungskommando 210 during the BoB period include some of the most successful operations of the Luftwaffe during that period.
> 
> ...


Well, one way of overrating a machine is to try to use it for a purpose other than that for which it was conceived.
It was exactly the case with Bf 110 in BoB. Germans believed that their machine had the ability to withstand single engine fighters when it didn´t. It fits one definition of overrating.


----------



## stona (Apr 16, 2016)

VALENGO said:


> Well, one way of overrating a machine is to try to use it for a purpose other than that for which it was conceived.
> It was exactly the case with Bf 110 in BoB. Germans believed that their machine had the ability to withstand single engine fighters when it didn´t. It fits one definition of overrating.



Yes. The British and the Germans thought their bombers could operate in daylight, so in that sense all their bombers were over rated too 
The Bf 110 gets under rated as an aircraft because of its difficulties against Fighter Command in 1940. It couldn't really compete with the single engine fighters of the RAF, though it shot plenty of them down. It showed itself in various roles and many different theatres to be a good aircraft.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## VALENGO (Apr 16, 2016)

stona said:


> Yes. The British and the Germans thought their bombers could operate in daylight, so in that sense all their bombers were over rated too
> The Bf 110 gets under rated as an aircraft because of its difficulties against Fighter Command in 1940. It couldn't really compete with the single engine fighters of the RAF, though it shot plenty of them down. It showed itself in various roles and many different theatres to be a good aircraft.
> 
> Cheers
> ...


I agree, steve. Indeed, I can´t imagine, in middle of a brutal war, some leader with an attitud like "well, our aircraft is a more or less decent machine, acceptable performance, etc.". 
Cheers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2016)

There was a lot of fuzzy thinking going on in the 1930s about what types of aircraft were needed. And what kind/s of tactics to use. The 110 was able to fulfill it's intended role in Poland and to some extent in France. The French counterparts didn't do so well. The Japanese Ki-45 also failed a a long range escort. What complicates things is that when these aircraft were _conceived_ single engine aircraft could NOT do the job/s envisioned. However the progress in engines/fuel/aerodynamics and structure was so fast that some of them only had a small window of opportunity to operate in their intended roles/s as single engine aircraft improved. Some had no opportunity depending on development time. 
Some of the resulting aircraft were adaptable to other roles and some were not. 
The 110s may not have been able to fulfill their intended role over Britain but that may be because of the different conditions. Instead of being able to catch the defenders on the Ground or climbing at low altitude and speed the Radar gave better advanced warning. Bomber crews could not see advanced fighter sweeps and could only see British fighters attacking them and no or few German fighters in sight leading the the claims that the 110s were not helping them. 

Throw in a few bombastic claims by certain leaders and/or newsreel footage/propaganda and some planes got a rather overblown reputation among the public that they may not have had in the units that used them or in the headquarters that planned operations.

Plenty of planes were over rated by their users in the first year of the war, some air forces just learned quicker than others.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2016)

VALENGO said:


> I agree, steve. Indeed, I can´t imagine, in middle of a brutal war, some leader with an attitud like "well, our aircraft is a more or less decent machine, acceptable performance, etc.".
> Cheers.



Trouble is, in a brutal war, what do you have as an alternative? 
What factories are tooled up and building the superior machine with outstanding performance so you can stop building the "decent machine". 
In most air forces that survived 1940/41 the light bomber class disappeared (Russia and Japan excepted?), replaced by older types of fighters. One reason the P-40 was kept in production so long. 
Radar equipped night fighters tended to be small bombers due to the space needed for equipment despite the low performance. 
The Germans had the 110 in production in several factories and even if not a good daylight fighter it made a good light bomber/strike aircraft. It's large cockpit had room for electronics for night fighting and it had better performance than the converted bombers. The better aircraft were one to three years away and several fell on their faces when tried out needing extensive modifications before being acceptable for service use. 
For some of these "secondary" roles being easy to fly was as important as the last 10-20mph in top speed (night landings and take-off, take-offs with heavy bombs from crappy runways,etc).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Apr 16, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> What complicates things is that when these aircraft were _conceived_ single engine aircraft could NOT do the job/s envisioned. However the progress in engines/fuel/aerodynamics and structure was so fast that some of them only had a small window of opportunity to operate in their intended roles/s as single engine aircraft improved. Some had no opportunity depending on development time.



Precisely what I was alluding to with my reference to the _"quantum leap in single engine fighter performance and armament in the immediate pre-war period."_

Two major tenets of British fighter design policy fell foul of this. The first was no allowance shooting which was dependent on an unmolested attack on a formation which did not break up or manoeuvre. The second was the entire turret fighter concept, which was based on a similar idea. In the same way many of the Fighting Area tactics developed between the wars also proved more or less useless.

The Bf 110 still did sterling service daytime in almost all theatres apart from NW Europe and even there it was a successful night fighter.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 16, 2016)

For the most overrated my vote goes to the A6M Zero, the bushido infalible lighter, for the most underrated and somewhat ridiculized...the Messerschmitt 110 heavy fighter.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2016)

CharlesBronson said:


> For the most overrated my vote goes to the A6M Zero.



I tend to agree - there was much hype about the Zero and its performance (Especially after Midway) but I believe much of that hype was based on propaganda (make your enemy look formidable and it serves well with the public when you win a major battle). 

As we know "Bloody Shambles" does a great job in documenting the Zero's combat record early in the war, and although Zero equipped IJN units did well considering their logistic challenges, the end result did not coincide with the hype and as discussed many times before, there are many reasons for this.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 18, 2016)

The IJN (and IJA -with the more modestly performing Ki-43 at that) pilots deserve more credit than the Zero and did so in spite of some heavy limitations of their aircraft. (ironically, something closer to the qualities of the F2A-1 or F2A-2 might have been more formidable in their hands while retaining the extremely long range required to reach as far as the Zero managed: even without armor or self-sealing tanks, the F2A was still a more rugged aircraft built to take much higher G-loads and higher dive speeds all while having far lighter stick forces and -like most American fighters- having light ailerons with good roll rate at low speeds and retaining that quality at high speeds, while the Zero was more like the Hawker Hurricane in that respect)


----------



## pinsog (Apr 18, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I tend to agree - there was much hype about the Zero and its performance (Especially after Midway) but I believe much of that hype was based on propaganda (make your enemy look formidable and it serves well with the public when you win a major battle).
> 
> As we know "Bloody Shambles" does a great job in documenting the Zero's combat record early in the war, and although Zero equipped IJN units did well considering their logistic challenges, the end result did not coincide with the hype and as discussed many times before, there are many reasons for this.



I'm not sure I agree with you FLYBOYJ. After reading The First Team recently, I think the Zero was every bit as deadly as its reputation said. I believe the Japanese made a few errors in using it that really cost them. As was pointed out in The First Team, why would a Zero make a pass at an F4F and then pull up and away? If you are following a slower, slower climbing, less maneuverable airplane with no tail gunner, why wouldn't you just park on his tail and sit there and hose him until he went down or you ran out of ammunition? The Zero more than handled the vaunted Spitfire over Darwin and that was after flying a LONG way. I think there was a lot of luck for the Wildcat to hold its own against the Zero. The F4F happened to have the right weapon for the job, with a good rate of fire and enough ammo, it was tough enough to take a beating and keep flying, we just happened to teach our Navy pilots the art of deflection shooting and the Japanese using bad tactics, making firing passes at the F4F instead of parking on his tail and finishing him


----------



## Glider (Apr 18, 2016)

I think the different training priorities should be taken into account. The IJN pilots were trained and encouraged to fight as individuals which is far less effective than fighting as a coherent unit. The Wildcat was able to do what it did because of its strength and good enough performance (but not great performance) but also because the pilots taught to support each other.
Had the IJN the same level of tactical training then I have little doubt the USN navy losses would have been a lot higher and the real capabilities of the Zero more apparent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2016)

pinsog said:


> ...making firing passes at the F4F instead of parking on his tail and finishing him


Several accounts by Japanese plots (Sakai's account comes to mind) where they did "park" on a Wildcat's six and literally emptied all their ammo into it with no "kill" for their effort.

Oblique passes allowed the Zero (or other IJN/IJA fighters) the opportunity to deliver engine strikes, hits on the cockpit/pilot and other vulnerable areas.

This can be compared to the frustration that Luftwaffe pilots had when attacking a P-47 from dead-astern and again, several accounts where they emptied their stores into the P-47 without bringing it down.


----------



## pinsog (Apr 18, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Several accounts by Japanese plots (Sakai's account comes to mind) where they did "park" on a Wildcat's six and literally emptied all their ammo into it with no "kill" for their effort.
> 
> Oblique passes allowed the Zero (or other IJN/IJA fighters) the opportunity to deliver engine strikes, hits on the cockpit/pilot and other vulnerable areas.
> 
> This can be compared to the frustration that Luftwaffe pilots had when attacking a P-47 from dead-astern and again, several accounts where they emptied their stores into the P-47 without bringing it down.



Sakai attempted to finish off "Pug" (can't remember his last name) with his 7.7 LMG, and couldn't do it (although from the description Sakai gave I'm not sure he could have gotten back to the airfield and landed) then he switched on his cannon and finished it off. But still, why make a pass and break off when there is little to no chance that an F4F could get away from you, especially if you are at low level?


----------



## stona (Apr 18, 2016)

_"The Zero more than handled the vaunted Spitfire over Darwin"_

Did it?
First is the tactical situation. If you conscientiously go after the bombers then you accept the chance of being 'bounced' by the accompanying escort and this is precisely what happened to 1 Fighter Wing on several occasions.
Then there is the woeful performance of the pilots of what were three very typical and ordinary mid war fighter squadrons. They couldn't hit anything. Peter Stanley has calculated that it took 9 gunnery passes to shoot down or write off a Japanese bomber. There were other systematic problems resulting from inadequate training and undeveloped tactical doctrine. Here we must be careful not to offend certain Australian Sacred Cows 
None of this is the fault of the Spitfire, other problems were. Perhaps most notable was the unreliability of the Hispano cannons, meaning that often when a pilot had closed the range the cannon were no longer working and he was left with just four .303 machine guns. There were also well documented problems with the CSUs.
When all the combats over North West Australia are totted up we find that 1 Fighter Wing wrote off 28 Japanese aircraft (15 bombers, 7 reconnaissance aircraft and 6 fighters) for 28 Spitfires. This 1:1 ratio is about par for RAF fighter units in the early period of the war, similar to the Spitfire I in the BoB, and a lot better than the Spitfire Vs other major campaign in the 'lean forward' into France in 1941-42.
The Allies were victorious in numerous campaigns, even when the enemy fighters substantially and consistently outscored them. The air war in North Africa would be the best example. Both the Germans and Japanese seem to have espoused the notion that sheer will or mental strength in battle can overcome material shortages, but an air campaign is a numbers game, and the Allies had the numbers. In the end 1 Fighter Wing did enough.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2016)

pinsog said:


> I'm not sure I agree with you FLYBOYJ. After reading The First Team recently, I think the Zero was every bit as deadly as its reputation said.* I believe the Japanese made a few errors in using it that really cost them.* As was pointed out in The First Team, why would a Zero make a pass at an F4F and then pull up and away? If you are following a slower, slower climbing, less maneuverable airplane with no tail gunner, why wouldn't you just park on his tail and sit there and hose him until he went down or you ran out of ammunition? The Zero more than handled the vaunted Spitfire over Darwin and that was after flying a LONG way. I think there was a lot of luck for the Wildcat to hold its own against the Zero. The F4F happened to have the right weapon for the job, with a good rate of fire and enough ammo, it was tough enough to take a beating and keep flying, we just happened to teach our Navy pilots the art of deflection shooting and the Japanese using bad tactics, making firing passes at the F4F instead of parking on his tail and finishing him


I think you partially made my point - just look at the combat record of the Zero when the dust settled. It had it's days of glory but those days were quickly minimized. Even though it was faster than the Wildcat (for example), we well know that much of the Zero's maneuverability, especially around the longitudinal axis went to hell when it reached higher speeds. Aside from it's ability not to be able to withstand combat damage, maintenance and component interchangeability (like many Japanese aircraft) was poor. A change in tactics quickly diminished the Zero threat. Like any fighter of the period it could always be deadly given the right situation. but the numbers at the end of the war don't remotely match it's reputation. We also have to consider that some consideration had to be given with the confusion between the Zero and Oscar.


----------



## pinsog (Apr 18, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think you partially made my point - just look at the combat record of the Zero when the dust settled. It had it's days of glory but those days were quickly minimized. Even though it was faster than the Wildcat (for example), we well know that much of the Zero's maneuverability, especially around the longitudinal axis went to hell when it reached higher speeds. Aside from it's ability not to be able to withstand combat damage, maintenance and component interchangeability (like many Japanese aircraft) was poor. A change in tactics quickly diminished the Zero threat. Like any fighter of the period it could always be deadly given the right situation. but the numbers at the end of the war don't remotely match it's reputation. We also have to consider that some consideration had to be given with the confusion between the Zero and Oscar.



Oh, you bring up another good point from The First Team. The ability of the Zero to take damage. For 35 years everything I have ever read said that a dirty look would cause any Japanese aircraft to burst into flame. The First Team talks about Zero's, Betty's and other Japanese planes limping back to base (during Guadalcanal campaign) shot to shreds but never burning. Or in the case of the Torpedo Squadron commander at Midway, Tomonagua or something like that, his plane caught fire but it blew out and he flew back to the Hiryu and led his 1 way mission against the Yorktown.

As far as the turning of the Zero going to hell over 300 mph. The guy who led the defense at Darwin did a head to head test against a Spitfire MarkV and said the Spitfire had no advantage at all over the Zero below 19 or 20,000 feet and only a little advantage above that. Someone posted the test on here somewhere


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2016)

pinsog said:


> Oh, you bring up another good point from The First Team. The ability of the Zero to take damage. For 35 years everything I have ever read said that a dirty look would cause any Japanese aircraft to burst into flame. The First Team talks about Zero's, Betty's and other Japanese planes limping back to base (during Guadalcanal campaign) shot to shreds but never burning. Or in the case of the Torpedo Squadron commander at Midway, Tomonagua or something like that, his plane caught fire but it blew out and he flew back to the Hiryu and led his 1 way mission against the Yorktown.


 And these are specific incidents and I'm sure there were many, but in how many of these situations were these shot up aircraft repaired and placed back into service? Aside from technical and tactical errors, attrition consumed much of the IJN ad JAAF because of supply and interchanbility issues.


pinsog said:


> As far as the turning of the Zero going to hell over 300 mph. The guy who led the defense at Darwin did a head to head test against a Spitfire MarkV and said the Spitfire had no advantage at all over the Zero below 19 or 20,000 feet and only a little advantage above that. Someone posted the test on here somewhere


 And that is probably true but the fact remains that the Zero COULD NOT maintain superiority. You could look at all the campaigns it flew and point to either tactical blunders or operational limitations. For this aircraft that was supposed to be the scourge of the Pacific, it was basically neutralized within a year into the war.


----------



## pinsog (Apr 18, 2016)

stona said:


> _"The Zero more than handled the vaunted Spitfire over Darwin"_
> 
> Did it?
> First is the tactical situation. If you conscientiously go after the bombers then you accept the chance of being 'bounced' by the accompanying escort and this is precisely what happened to 1 Fighter Wing on several occasions.
> ...



I would like to point out that that record is no better than an F4F-4 Wildcat flying from Guadalcanal. A plane with a climb rate that isn't much better than a B17. F4F-4 from Guadalcanal were also intercepting bombers, defending ships etc. I would think that the vaunted Spitfire, which always ranks in the top 1, 2 or 3 in greatest interceptors when they have a poll, would have to do better than an over loaded, underpowered, F4F-4

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Apr 18, 2016)

pinsog said:


> I would like to point out that that record is no better than an F4F-4 Wildcat flying from Guadalcanal. A plane with a climb rate that isn't much better than a B17. F4F-4 from Guadalcanal were also intercepting bombers, defending ships etc. I would think that the vaunted Spitfire, which always ranks in the top 1, 2 or 3 in greatest interceptors when they have a poll, would have to do better than an over loaded, underpowered, F4F-4



As I said, it depends on the tactical situation, tactics employed (the Spitfire wing brought Big Wing thinking in its baggage) and the training and ability of the pilots. The raw figures from a fairly minor stop/start campaign tells us next to nothing about the capabilities of either aircraft. 
The record of the tropicalised Spitfire Vs in NW Australia compares well with Spitfires just about anywhere else in the world during the mid war period, and is substantially better than 1941-42 flying against the Bf 109 F which was a significantly better aircraft then the 'Zero'. 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2016)

pinsog said:


> Sakai attempted to finish off "Pug" (can't remember his last name) with his 7.7 LMG, and couldn't do it (although from the description Sakai gave I'm not sure he could have gotten back to the airfield and landed) then he switched on his cannon and finished it off. But still, why make a pass and break off when there is little to no chance that an F4F could get away from you, especially if you are at low level?


Because while you're sitting there pecking away at him, his wingman may be closing in on you for the kill.

Tactics are most often developed through trial and error and with the sturdy American fighters, the Japanese discovered (the hard way) that it didn't pay to camp out on their six and use up most (or all) of their ammunition to bring the aircraft down.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 18, 2016)

Part of the problem is that the engagements are too small to get a valid statistical analysis. Several squadrons or a group/wingwing vs several squadrons or a group/wing operating over a few weeks or months time can produce wildly (and I do mean wildly vs widely) different statistical numbers from several thousand planes operating over several years. They can produce wildly different numbers from a few squadrons or a wing/group operating in a different theater. 

One also has to be careful when comparing different aircraft that you are really comparing like models and take into account local conditions. Not just tropical filters but decreases in performance due to temperatures affecting both power and lift.

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


----------



## pinsog (Apr 18, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Part of the problem is that the engagements are too small to get a valid statistical analysis. Several squadrons or a group/wingwing vs several squadrons or a group/wing operating over a few weeks or months time can produce wildly (and I do mean wildly vs widely) different statistical numbers from several thousand planes operating over several years. They can produce wildly different numbers from a few squadrons or a wing/group operating in a different theater.
> 
> One also has to be careful when comparing different aircraft that you are really comparing like models and take into account local conditions. Not just tropical filters but decreases in performance due to temperatures affecting both power and lift.



I agree with the small groups can skew numbers and there simply weren't the numbers of aircraft in the Pacific that there were over East and Western Europe.

On the other hand, blaming a planes lack of performance on tropical filters etc isn't really fair. If a Spitfire has to wear a tropical filter to survive dusty conditions and it degrades its performance to below that of the Zero, which is flying from the same conditions, then that just means the Spitfire isn't as good as the Zero in that area. Is is no different then adding carrier equipment to an airplane. A land based Spitfire, based in England, with no tropical filter, might well whip a Zero 99 times out of 100. But they weren't based in England, the conditions were dusty, the filter was needed and the Spitfire did not cope well with the Zero in that setting.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 18, 2016)

Actually I was referring to comparing the F4F and the Spitfire but it is quite possible to make unwarranted assumptions on too little data.

Perhaps the British did screw up but the Spitfire used an updraft carb and had it's air intake on the bottom of the nose, not an ideal location for dirty conditions. The P-40 with Allison used down draft carb and air intake on the top of the nose. P-40s in North Africa needed with Allisons needed significantly fewer engine replacements than P-40s with Merlins (Low air intake) flying from the same or nearby air fields. 

The Zero used an air intake at the top leading edge of the cowl. Luck or good planning? Or shortest distance to the down draft carb? 
A number of Japanese aircraft had overheating problems due to too small openings in the cowl, testing planes in Japan's home climate doesn't prepare them for use in the tropics.

Without knowing actual times between overhaul's or replacement for the planes under consideration and knowing both the "normal" expected life and the life in difficult conditions ( how much dirty conditions shortened life) we can read too much or too little into accounts of shortened engine life or the need for filters.
With replacement engines/parts having to come from England trying to ensure that the engines lasted as long as possible was probably the right decision. 

Perhaps somebody does know if the Japanese suffered shorter life for their engines in dirty conditions or perhaps it is better said, just how much shorter was Japanese engine life than "normal" conditions and what they did about it. Internal filters? Dirt trap in the curve leading to the carb? accepting shorter engine life and providing (or trying to) extra engines? 

Apparently the Spitfires that went to Australia were predominately fitted with Merlin 46 engines (?) and while this gave better high altitude performance than the Merlin 45 it gave less power at low and medium altitudes and and for a period of time in question was limited to 9lbs of boost? 
With tropical equipment and the Merlin 46 engine the Spit V may have been 1 min and 20 seconds slower climbing to 20,000ft than a MK V with a Merlin 45 without tropical equipment. 
Perhaps the Zero was better in certain locations ( pilots were more likely to be combat veterans) but saying the Zero was better than "the vaunted Spitfire, which always ranks in the top 1, 2 or 3 in greatest interceptors when they have a poll" when the Spitfire in question was about the worst performing model in 1942 and "polls" often only consider the best models (MK XII with Griffon engine was being tested by the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford at about the same time the Australians were trying to remove the Vokes filters from the MK Vs). This also rather shows the disconnect between what the RAF was using at home and what the Squadrons in the far east were using. Mk IX Spitfires leaving the factory in June of 1942 while the Australians were using MK Vs well into 1943. 
See this website for more information: http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=articles


----------



## pinsog (Apr 18, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually I was referring to comparing the F4F and the Spitfire but it is quite possible to make unwarranted assumptions on too little data.
> 
> Perhaps the British did screw up but the Spitfire used an updraft carb and had it's air intake on the bottom of the nose, not an ideal location for dirty conditions. The P-40 with Allison used down draft carb and air intake on the top of the nose. P-40s in North Africa needed with Allisons needed significantly fewer engine replacements than P-40s with Merlins (Low air intake) flying from the same or nearby air fields.
> 
> ...



I understand all the technical reasons you just laid out, but the terribly sad fact is that the F4F was at least 40 mph slower and around 2,000 fpm slower climb rate (that is probably very optimistic) flying from even more primitive conditions achieved around the same kill ratio. (They should have used unloaded B17's as interceptors at Guadalcanal. Without bombs they would climb about as fast as an F4F-4, were about as fast without bombs, and had better loiter time to orbit over the field, not to mention better defensive capability) The Japanese weren't exactly masters of resupply themselves, I doubt that the Zero's facing Darwin were factory fresh museum quality equipment. It's really kind've funny, but everyone makes excuses for the Spitfire when it comes to Darwin. No one makes excuses for the P39 getting whipped by the Zero and yet below 15,000 feet the P39 was about a match for the Spitfire or the Me109. Maybe, just maybe, the Zero was everything it was cracked up to be until 1943. It climbed great, had good firepower, unmatched low speed turn and exceptional range. I mean they flew to Darwin and fought until some of the Spitfires ran out of fuel and then flew home. Good thing the Japanese didn't have better fighter tactics


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2016)

So how does that 40mph slower speed equate to a turning fight?

Very rarely does an encounter between warplanes means top speed is maintained for the duration. The top speed is good for the bounce and can be a great tool for getting out of trouble, but when the fur flies, it comes down to pilot skill and firepower.

The F4F proved that while it wasn't a record-setting thoroughbred, it was sturdy, reliable and packed a punch.

I might add that at the start of the war, the Japanese had extremely well trained pilots, most with combat experience. The U.S. pilots had training, but little experience and were at a disadvantage in terms of engaging the enemy. - especially on the enemy's terms. It would be quite a while before the U.S. and Allies were able to pick and choose where the fight would be. So with this in mind, the fact that the F4F not only stood up to the KI-43 and A6m, but had an impressive kill record to it's credit, speaks volumes about the Wildcat and it's pilot's determination.

As far as the B-17 comment goes, you're joking, right?


----------



## pinsog (Apr 19, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> So how does that 40mph slower speed equate to a turning fight?
> 
> Very rarely does an encounter between warplanes means top speed is maintained for the duration. The top speed is good for the bounce and can be a great tool for getting out of trouble, but when the fur flies, it comes down to pilot skill and firepower.
> 
> ...



Yes the B-17 comment was tongue in cheek, but, did you know that during the Guadalcanal campaign it was actually suggested that B-17's fly CAP missions over I think the Enterprise battle group due to the shortage of fighters? It was a serious suggestion , but was not done. It was covered in The First Team

I think the main reason the Wildcat was able to deal with the Zero was: 1. US pilots were taught deflection shooting. Any Japanese plan within range was a fair target, they didn't have to get behind them 2. The F4F was tough. US pilots could take quite a beating waiting for an opportunity to get in a quick snap shot that would bring down a Zero 3. Zero pilots used poor tactics. With equal numbers they should have dropped down on the Wildcats and stayed on their tail unit they shot them down instead of making diving passes and pulling away.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 19, 2016)

In the early months of the war, the SBD doubled as top cover for the fleet and proved itself effective for the task


----------



## stona (Apr 19, 2016)

If you read the contemporary reports from the fighting over NW Australia it becomes evident that the RAAF was well aware of the problems with both its pilots and tactics. The 'Capstan'/Spitfire was not considered the main problem, despite some well known technical problems.

This report summarises the reason for the loss of seven Spitfires quite bluntly.







This is just the end of a report listing a catalogue of errors and failings in the interception of one of the raids. Again, nothing to do with the aircraft apart from that last entry. No service likes to see phrases like 'lack of leadership' in any type of after action report.






And finally what the men who were actually flying the Spitfires, rather than we sitting in our armchairs 70+ years later, thought about the two protagonists.






Thanks to, I think, Aozora for the reports. Apologies if it was someone else.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Apr 19, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> In the early months of the war, the SBD doubled as top cover for the fleet and proved itself effective for the task



Yes. The SBD was used at low level for anti-torpedo bomber patrol. I was amazed, after reading The First Team, at just how aggressive the SBD pilots were. It seemed like those guy weren't afraid of anything. The seemed to have absolutely no fear whatsoever of Kates and Vals. If they saw a Kate or a Val they would attack immediately. Happened several times during the Guadalcanal campaign when opposing strikes passed each other going home after the attack. There were at least a couple of times where an SBD pilot would see a Zero and if the Zero didn't see him, the SBD pilot would dive on the Zero! I thought that seemed like the mouse going after the cat!

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


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 19, 2016)

Thank you, Steve.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2016)

The Spitfires over Darwin would only be able to outclimb F4F-4s by 2000fpm if they used JATO rockets. 

Granted test results are a bit confusing but the Darwin Spitfires are rated at about 2480fpm at sea level using 2850rpm and 9lbs boost.
using 3000rpm and 9lbs boost may get you a bit more in pinch but is not to be used for climbing to operational height. Climb at 20,000ft was 2250fpm (2850rpm and 7 1/2lbs boost) and at 25,000ft it was 1600fpm at 2850rpm and 3 1/2lbs. 

The F4F-4 was good (in clean condition) for a bit over 2000fpm up to around 11-12,000ft after which it dropped off, around 1200fpm at 20,000ft and 750-800fpm at 25,000ft. 
Wildcats were not allowed to use "Military" power in high supercharger. While 2700rpm was allowed for take-off and low altitude work once the aux supercharger was in high gear the engine was restricted to 2550rpm although they were permitted to run at that rpm and what ever boost they could get for as long as they wanted subject to fuel and temperature limits. Wither pilots in combat obeyed that limit or not I don't know. 
Also be aware when comparing test results that American tests for time to altitude are _usually _done at Military power for the first 5 minutes and at normal power (max continuous) for the rest of the climb so they are bit below what the plane could do in combat. For the F4F-4 this means at middle altitudes it could do a bit better than the time to altitude would suggest. 

Yes the Spits could climb much better but not by 2000fpm and not any better than the Zeros. 

There is a Navy test showing the F4F-4 still climbing at 1500fpm at 16,000ft. the difference in speed at rated altitude between 2550rpm and 2700rpm was 2.5 knots which may explain why the Navy didn't allow or bother with it.


----------



## stona (Apr 19, 2016)

It is too the Australians' credit that they did try to build locally and improved air intake to replace the Vokes filters with which their aircraft were fitted. No.1 A.D. Laverton built a cowl described as 'approximately' like those used on temperate Spitfires in England. Despite initial enthusiasm, these efforts did not result in a significant improvement in performance. Nothing is as easy in practice as in theory when making alterations to carefully designed parts of a high performance fighter.
The Australians noted.
_"Air intakes for modern high speed aircraft require careful design and attention to detail. It is apparent that the stub intake that has been used in this case has created very unsteady airflow conditions - upsetting mixtures and boost settings and thus creating engine roughness and loss of power."_
This also means that the technicians at 103 MU at Aboukir either understood the issues better or just got lucky when they designed their improvement to the Vokes filter.
Eventually the Australians sent to England for drawings of the standard air intake and cowl.
They also tried to improve performance by polishing their aircraft. In one signal the sender bemoans the fact that no proper polishes or compounds are available locally. I think it easy to forget just how far from help and support the Spitfires were operating. Another signal is an urgent request for fasteners, as again, none were available in Australia. They would either have to be fabricated locally or sent from the UK.
Australia in 1942 was not the same as Australia in 2016. I'm certain such things could be easily *and quickly* fabricated today.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pinsog (Apr 19, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> The Spitfires over Darwin would only be able to outclimb F4F-4s by 2000fpm if they used JATO rockets.
> 
> Granted test results are a bit confusing but the Darwin Spitfires are rated at about 2480fpm at sea level using 2850rpm and 9lbs boost.
> using 3000rpm and 9lbs boost may get you a bit more in pinch but is not to be used for climbing to operational height. Climb at 20,000ft was 2250fpm (2850rpm and 7 1/2lbs boost) and at 25,000ft it was 1600fpm at 2850rpm and 3 1/2lbs.
> ...




More like 1,700 - 1,900 for the F4F-4. Spitfire beats it by 1,300-1,500 fpm but the Spitfire test is from June, 1941. Not sure how much effect the tropical filter had on climb, but I'm sure it was substantial


F4F Performance Trials

F4F-4 October 21, 1942 fighter bomber fighter overload

Initial rate of climb at sea level (ft./min.) 1920 1810 1690 
Time to climb to 10000 ft. (min.) 5.7 6.0 6.5
Time to climb to 20000 ft. (min.) 12.7 13.1 14.7


Spitfire Mk V Performance Testing

Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment 
Boscombe Down
_18 June 1941_

Spitfire Mk. VB W.3134
(Merlin 45)
Brief Performance Trials

SUMMARY



.......Brief performance trials were required of a Spitfire Mk VB fully operationally equipped for comparison with two other aircraft of the type not operationally equipped and previously tested at this establishment.

top Speed M.P.H Time to Climb mins. Rate of climb

S.L. . 0 .
2,000 . 0.6 3240
5,000 . 1.5 3240
10,000 331 3.1 3250
15,000 351 4.6 3250
20,000 371 6.4 2440
25,000 359 . .
30,000 . 12.2 1170


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2016)

pinsog said:


> More like 1,700 - 1,900 for the F4F-4. Spitfire beats it by 1,300-1,500 fpm but the Spitfire test is from June, 1941. Not sure how much effect the tropical filter had on climb, but I'm sure it was substantial
> 
> F4F Performance Trials
> 
> ...



What you have is the "projected" or estimated performance figures for the F4F-4

a later chart is as follows: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4.pdf

The Navy sometimes differed from the army (especially early war) in giving performance figures for normal power instead of military power. Please note that Military power is pretty much only available below 14-15,000ft in these charts.

You also have the wrong Spitfire chart as in the wrong engine. The MK Vs in Australia had Merlin 46 engines which used a 10.85 in dia impeller instead of the 10.25in impeller used in the Merlin 45. It allowed more power at higher altitudes (1100hp at 22,000ft at 9lbs boost) but cost 85hp at take-off at 3000rpm and 12lbs boost and cost roughly 85-100hp at the lower altitudes until the high teens or low 20s were reached.

Once again, please see: http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=performance-of-spitfire-vc-tropicalised-version-2


----------



## stona (Apr 19, 2016)

*"Not sure how much effect the tropical filter had on climb, but I'm sure it was substantial"*

It depends what you call substantial. The Australians asked for the figures when they were assessing their new home built cowlings and received a signal with figures for the Spitfire VC with Merlin 45.
This was because _"reliable performance figures for the tropicalised VC with Merlin 46 are not available." _The Australian request could_ "best be satisfied by quoting figures for tropical and non tropical versions of the VC with Merlin 45."_
Time to 20.000 feet increased from 7 minutes to 7.4 minutes with the Vokes filter fitted. I'm not sure that 24 seconds is that substantial, it represents about a 6% drop in performance from the standard time. The tropicalised Spitfire also weighed about 150lb more.
Cruise speed at 20,000ft was just 10 mph less (322mph and 312mph).
Maximum speeds were 369 mph at 19,500 feet for temperate and 352 mph at 18,500 feet for tropicalised Spitfires. This is actually remarkably close to the 15 mph often quoted.

This data was sent on 14th January 1943, in the signal covering the Supermarine drawings for the temperate cowl which the Australians had requested.

Not all aircraft are created equal. In other trials the time to 30,000ft measured by the Australians varied considerably for different aircraft tested. The average time was 17 minutes with a Vokes filter, worse by about 1 minute to the average time with a temperate cowl, but some aircraft were faster with the Vokes filter than others without. This is why it is so dangerous to quote test data for service aircraft.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 19, 2016)

The last part is also why operational ceiling for even small formation is 3-5,000 ft below the "service ceiling" and effective combat ceiling is even lower. 
Australians started the program to remove the Vokes filter before they had done testing based on rumors that it cost 20mph in speed. Actual tests showed the difference was somewhat less.


----------



## stona (Apr 19, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Australians started the program to remove the Vokes filter before they had done testing based on rumors that it cost 20mph in speed. Actual tests showed the difference was somewhat less.



At least 20 mph. On 11th December 1942 a Wing Commander Hey (whose exact role I don't know, he signs as 'TSI') wrote.

_"The main reason for the suggested removal of the air cleaner from the Capstan aeroplane is the assumed reduction in speed when compared with the original installation. Therefore, a great deal depends on whether or not the reduction of speed of 20 to 30 mph is correct...."_

Capstan was the code name for the Spitfire. 

The British had assured the Australians that the reduction in speed caused by the fitting of all items to tropicalise a VC was _"to reduce the speed at 370 mph by only 2 per cent., which is 8 mph." _

The truth lay between the two figures. Those provided later by the British, which I posted above, would be more accurate, around 15-20 mph. The reduction in performance was less than the Australians feared and, in any case, they struggled to manufacture a better or even workable replacement intake, filter and cowling assembly locally.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Apr 19, 2016)

The developments and timeline in the Darwin Spitfire link above tally very well, give or take minor differences in the figures from different sources, with that I have pieced together.


----------



## RCAFson (Apr 22, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> The Spitfires over Darwin would only be able to outclimb F4F-4s by 2000fpm if they used JATO rockets.
> 
> Granted test results are a bit confusing but the Darwin Spitfires are rated at about 2480fpm at sea level using 2850rpm and 9lbs boost.
> using 3000rpm and 9lbs boost may get you a bit more in pinch but is not to be used for climbing to operational height. Climb at 20,000ft was 2250fpm (2850rpm and 7 1/2lbs boost) and at 25,000ft it was 1600fpm at 2850rpm and 3 1/2lbs.
> ...



This test shows the climb rate at full military power (F4F-4 has no combat engine rating):





This test shows a Spitfire Vc climbing using the combat rating and normal ratings:






OTOH, the Capstan Spitfire V used the Merlin 46 which gave less power at low altitude but more at high altitude.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 22, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> This test shows the climb rate at full military power (F4F-4 has no combat engine rating):
> 
> This test shows a Spitfire Vc climbing using the combat rating and normal ratings:
> 
> ...



And that last is the problem. The Merlin 46 was being limited to 9lbs boost at the time in Australia (from the tests in Australia?) . Please note that even using the Merlin 45 dropping from 16lbs boost to 9lbs boost in the chart you provided drops the rate of climb from around 3700fpm down to around 26-2700fpm. 
There is no question the Spitfire could out climb the Wildcat, just not by 2000fpm for the version of Spitfire in question.


----------



## RCAFson (Apr 22, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> And that last is the problem. The Merlin 46 was being limited to 9lbs boost at the time in Australia (from the tests in Australia?) . Please note that even using the Merlin 45 dropping from 16lbs boost to 9lbs boost in the chart you provided drops the rate of climb from around 3700fpm down to around 26-2700fpm.
> There is no question the Spitfire could out climb the Wildcat, just not by 2000fpm for the version of Spitfire in question.




All versions of the Merlin 45/46 were limited to 9lb/2850rpm boost _*except *_when using the (post Jan 1942:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin-ratings_3jan42.jpg ) 16lb/3000rpm combat rating of the engine, which could always be used at the pilot's discretion. When the F4F-4 used Military Power and the Spitfire used Combat Power the Spitfire V would have a ~2000fpm advantage up to about 9000ft and a ~1500fpm advantage to about 18k ft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 22, 2016)

Once again, please see the chart at: http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=performance-of-spitfire-vc-tropicalised-version-2

see 3rd chart on page, no mention of boost over 9lbs. I have no idea why. 

Part of the problem over Darwin was climbing to the altitude the Japanese were coming in at with the amount of warning time they had.
Thrashing the engine with over 9lbs of boost *before* you are anywhere near (thousands of feet below and dozen or more miles away) the enemy is only going to make for more breakdowns and overheated engines, There may not have been a _strict _5 minute rule but using over 9lbs boost and over 2850rom climbing to operational altitude and then continuing those power levels for the ensuing combat is going to be mighty hard on the engines. Especially considering that Australian temperatures are a lot warmer near ground level than British temperatures.


----------



## RCAFson (Apr 22, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Once again, please see the chart at: http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=performance-of-spitfire-vc-tropicalised-version-2
> 
> see 3rd chart on page, no mention of boost over 9lbs. I have no idea why.
> 
> ...



Combat boost is usually listed in a separate entry in the Pilot's notes and it was unusual for the RAF to perform testing at the combat rating but this doesn't mean it couldn't be used. Here's the Merlin 46 static output at 16lb boost:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Merlin_46_47_Power_Chart.jpg

I agree that pilots wouldn't usually "pull the plug" unless there was very compelling reasons to do so but I'm certain that the RAAF Spitfires had access to the full combat rating of the engine if they wished to use it.

HANDLING AND FLYING NOTES FOR PILOT
NOTE: The flying technique outlined in these Notes is based on AP.129,
Flying Training Manual Part 1, Chapter III and AP.2095, Pilot’s
Notes General, to which reference should always be made if further
information is required.
1. Engine data: Merlins 45, 45M, 46, 50, 50A, 50M. 55 and 55M.
(i) Fuel: 100 octane only.
(ii) Oil: See AP.1464/C.37.
(iii) Engine limitations:
R.p.m Boost lb/sq.in Clnt.Temp ºC Oil. Temp ºC
Max take-off to 1,000 feet 3,000 +12 - -
Max climing 1 hr, limit 2,850 +9 125 90
Max rich continuous 2,650 +7 105 (115) 90
Max weak continuous 2,650 +4 105 (115) 90
Combat 5 ins limit 3,000 +16 +18 135 105
NOTE:
(a) +18 lb/sq.in. boost is obtained, only on “M” type engines, by
moving the throttle lever through the gate. On other engines +16
lb/sq.in. boost is obtained by operating the boost control cut-out.
(b) Combat boost is permitted only at 2,850 to 3,000 rpm.
(c) The figure in brackets is permitted for short periods if necessary.​


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 22, 2016)

Kinda shows that a R-2800 powered fighter, from Pearl Harbor on, woud've come in handy for the needs of USA/USMC and the Allies that otherwise received Wildcat


----------



## pinsog (Apr 22, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> Kinda shows that a R-2800 powered fighter, from Pearl Harbor on, woud've come in handy for the needs of USA/USMC and the Allies that otherwise received Wildcat



Or the F5F Skyrocket

Wow, the tropicalized Spitfire is 10 mph slower than a Wildcat at sea level and only 10 mph faster at 10,000 feet. I wouldn't have believed that if someone had told me.


----------



## RCAFson (Apr 23, 2016)

pinsog said:


> Or the F5F Skyrocket
> 
> Wow, the tropicalized Spitfire is 10 mph slower than a Wildcat at sea level and only 10 mph faster at 10,000 feet. I wouldn't have believed that if someone had told me.



Here's proof that that's not true and proof that the RAAF used 16lb boost:

To RAAF HQRS

From OHQ RAAF KWAY

6 Sept 1943




Spitfire Aircraft Engineering.


5 Spitfire Mk 5 aircraft given extensive test fights here successively with each of the following types of of air intake assembly and engine cowling. (A) original tropical (B) New Tropical with bypass valves (C) Temperate.

Average max speeds were

1 sea level) A) 312 B) 312) C) 316

2 10000ft) A) 355.5 B) 355.5 C) 360

3 at FTH ) A) 357 B) 358.5 C) 363

Considered that improvements in speed were too small to warrant departure from original type tropicalization hence new scheme will not be applied retrospectively to Mk5 aircraft. Latest tropical intake with bypass valve will be incorporated Mk 8 aircraft.​
from Australian Archives:
Title
DTS [Directorate Technical Services] - Spitfire Aircraft - Performance comparison - tropical and non-tropical types
Contents date range
1942 - 1944
Series number
A705

BWOC here's the RAE chart for Spitfire V speed with 16lb boost pencilled in:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Spitfire_V_Level_Speed_RAE.jpg


----------



## stona (Apr 23, 2016)

The Australians went from a position where they were seriously worried about the effect on performance of the Vokes filter on their Spitfire Vs, to one where they realised the effect was nowhere near as deleterious as they had feared.

They also discovered that there were much simpler ways of improving performance which did not involve developing new filter systems and cowlings. They could just about compensate for the Vokes filter by treating the leading edge of the wing, something that was introduced into production slightly after this date and cleaning up the surface of the aircraft. It was also important to ensure the fit of all cowlings and access panels to ensure they were a sealed fit and did not allow air to pass inside them. This is just an aspect of good maintenance, something sadly lacking, not just in Australia, much to the dismay of the Air Ministry (UK) and manufacturers.
A Spitfire wing's leading edge has a butt join between the upper and lower skins and two rows of rivets attaching these skins to the internal structure. It is an obvious area for smoothing.






Whether the ejector exhausts were available in Australia I doubt, but other measures could be taken locally.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Hiromachi (Apr 23, 2016)

Right, so before you will conclude that Zero is overrated (though some already did) it would be fair to provide some actual arguments, rather then feelings and presumptions. 



> even without armor or self-sealing tanks, the F2A was still a more rugged aircraft built to take much higher G-loads and higher dive speeds all while having far lighter stick forces and -like most American fighters- having light ailerons with good roll rate at low speeds and retaining that quality at high speeds, while the Zero was more like the Hawker Hurricane in that respect)


This I dont understand, A6M was build to sustain up to 12.6 G structural load. That is quite a lot for aircraft of that time (even though there were aircraft that went even beyond that), the mentioned F2A (dash 3 variant) had positive 11.5 or something like that. And those are still more of a theoretical limits, since any pilot going over 8 Gs for more than a second might loose consciousness, so practical limit is pilot, not machine. 

Also, you have any specifics on F2A stick forces and A6M. I am aware that latter one had heavy ailerons which was true and often criticized even by Japanese test pilots, but elevators construction and arrangement was one of the most positive sides of Zeke. Particularly if you would read a Report published in '60s at University of Tokyo explaining the reduced stiffness concept applied to elevator control systems, which used as an example A6M - first Japanese fighter to take advantage of that. 



> Several accounts by Japanese plots (Sakai's account comes to mind) where they did "park" on a Wildcat's six and literally emptied all their ammo into it with no "kill" for their effort.


The quote you have in mind comes from Samurai by M. Caidin. There are however other quotes: 



> "The decision to adopt the 20mm cannon on the Zero is generally believed to be an epoch making advance in fighter design. However, having used the cannon in combat, I had always held this weapon in doubt, despite its great destructive power. In fact, I would go as far as to say that I regarded the cannons in disfavor. "
> 
> "*70% of my kills in fighter vs fighter combat was made with 7.7mm machine guns*"


Zero-sen no Shinjitsu , Saburo Sakai ISBN 4-06-205886-3 by j-aircraft.com, a6m quotes section. 



> Like any fighter of the period it could always be deadly given the right situation. but the numbers at the end of the war don't remotely match it's reputation.


Is that really related to the aircraft itself or to overall situation on the fronts. Zero lacks after 1943 are more than known, but its not only aircraft issues, rather a multidimensional problem of logistics, aircraft, lack of pilots, great numerical advantage of allies and so on ...



> For this aircraft that was supposed to be the scourge of the Pacific, it was basically neutralized within a year into the war.


Thats quite a bit of a statement, the Zero could hold more than on its own until late 1943. Its not true and fair to say that it was "basically neutralized" within a year.



> Tactics are most often developed through trial and error and with the sturdy American fighters, the Japanese discovered (the hard way) that it didn't pay to camp out on their six and use up most (or all) of their ammunition to bring the aircraft down.


I'd say that it would be fair if someone actually brought any description of Japanese tactics, even in brief form.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Apr 23, 2016)

IMO the A6M remained very formidable in the hands of an experienced pilot all the way through the war. Its limitations were a.) speed disadvantage against all Allied front line fighters from 1943 forward, including level and insufficient dive speeds, and b.) limited high altitude performance at USAAF typical bombing altitudes. 

The result was limited 'escape' options for the Zero and increasingly limited interception capability- combined with increasing performance disadvantage versus US fighters (after P-39/P40 were replaced by P-38, F6F, F4U, P-47 and P-51). 

I also believe that philosophically, the Japanese military culture did not encourage formation and flight discipline required to efficiently engage against trained Allied pilots who were well prepared for unit disciplines in the face of superior numbers or tactical disadvantage.. 

That said, it was superb in the escort role for Japanese bombing doctrine, superb in intercept role versus US fighter and escorted bombers in medium altitudes, and superb given pilot skill equality in air to air combat role from the deck to 20,000 feet. .

The Allies tend to gloss over the lack of Pilot replacement strategy as well as inadequate logistics/repair capability in places like the Solomon's before the Allies built up dominant air/land and sea capability.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 23, 2016)

That Zeros have had cannons installed certainly counts on the benefit side. It were the cannons that Zeros used to kill Allied bombers in many instances.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 23, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> *Is that really related to the aircraft itself or to overall situation on the fronts*. Zero lacks after 1943 are more than known, but its not only aircraft issues, rather a multidimensional problem of logistics, aircraft, lack of pilots, great numerical advantage of allies and so on ..


The aircraft and the situation it was placed in, and agree with your statement. There were a multitude of elements playing against the Zero from 1943 on and in the end we can only go by the final outcome IMO. As you know, American propaganda really played up the Zero (even though some of the mystique was unintentionally blended with the Oscar). Considering some of the performance advantages the Zero had, it was not able to decisively counter the allied offensive, even when inferior equipment was being used (ex. P-39/ P-40/ F4F). Again, we have to look at pilot skill, numerical advantages and logistics.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hiromachi (Apr 23, 2016)

> There were a multitude of elements playing against the Zero from 1943 on and in the end we can only go by the final outcome IMO.


But that will never be positive for the Zero, just like it wont be for 109 or any other axis aircraft. One side lost that war (thankfully), the other won. The final outcome will always favor allied fighters, regardless of the actual airframe. 



> As you know, American propaganda really played up the Zero (even though some of the mystique was unintentionally blended with the Oscar).


Maybe the newspapers, but the tests they performed on captured and damaged airframes were opposite, underestimating the true potential of the machine.
Untitled Document



> Considering some of the performance advantages the Zero had, it was not able to decisively counter the allied offensive, even when inferior equipment was being used (ex. P-39/ P-40/ F4F). Again, we have to look at pilot skill, numerical advantages and logistics.


No fighter can counter any offensive, to stop the offensive one needs bombers. And Americans could bring them down then Japanese could deliver, or as a matter of fact same could be said of a Zeros. Americans had a great industry allowing to replace any loss at desired moment.

Also, I am not sure if P-40 or P-39 can be called inferior equipment, they did fairly well in Russia(P-39) and Africa (P-40). The AVG more then held their own, even though they still refuse to recognize that they overclaimed by a bit. They certainly cant be compared directly to later P-51s or P-47s, but they were there and they did their job.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hiromachi (Apr 23, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> That Zeros have had cannons installed certainly counts on the benefit side. It were the cannons that Zeros used to kill Allied bombers in many instances.


But that was Saburo Sakai opinion, I think the man who was there and did what he did is entitled to have his own opinion. Even if we dont like it and disagree with it.



> I also believe that philosophically, the Japanese military culture did not encourage formation and flight discipline required to efficiently engage against trained Allied pilots who were well prepared for unit disciplines in the face of superior numbers or tactical disadvantage..


I just waited for it ... fortunately, I was able lately to obtain some documents including one titled "Japanese Aerial Tactics - Excerpts from a professional notebook, undated. Captured on Peleliu.", this is a Cincpac-Cincpoa Special Translation No. 57.

Notebook was written by Lt Nagamoto, and is split into four detailed sections. The first section is unique in that it is the first (by the time of its capture) complete official statement of Japanese doctrine for carrier plane operations yet recorded. This doctrine is embodied in an order issued by the carrier fleet of the Japanese Navy, the Third Fleet on July 19th, 1943. The emphasis here is on tactics for air attack units, while tactics for striking force as a whole were analyzed in a different document. 

Second section discusses fighter tactics with the aid of a number of sketches of attack situations. Third section lists torpedoes and bombs in present use and gives notes on attacking ships and airfields. 
The fourth section discusses reconnaissance and tracking methods in considerable detail. 

Here I bring quotes from Section 2 - Aerial Combat :
"1. The essence of attacking formation, is to exploit our maneuverability to its utmost and neutralize the enemies combined fire power with speedy, daring, coordinated attacks, thereby inflicting the maximum amount of damage upon the enemy.

2. It is necessary to keep close signal contact constantly between the planes and to keep flight in formation. For this reason it is necessary to determine the various methods of coordinated attack that are to be used so that during actual combat, the method can be indicated in a simple manner. In choosing the method of coordinated attack, therefore, the performance and armament of both sides, the enemy's customary tactics, etc., must be considered so as to insure maximum results. 

3. During approach, the leader deploys the formation at the proper time by ordering the method of attack (tactics) to be used. It is difficult to set standard time and method of deployment and essentials of the maneuvers after the deployment, since these depend upon the situation. The emphasis should be placed on method taken. All planes (formations) should make it a point to cooperate closely and evaluate the situation so that they may commence attacks at the proper moment and from an advantageous position. 

4. When there is a possibility of the enemy easily escaping, by reason of his high speed, by course-changing evasive tactics or when it is planned to make a frontal attack with at least a part of his forces, a portion is sent to hit the front while the rest are deployed beyond the wings to take care of any enemy plane that may change its course. 

5. When a coordinated attack from the same direction is to be made, a large number of planes attack at once or in rapid succesion so that the enemy is given no time to regroup or concentrate his fire power. Care is necessary, however, not to hamper one-other's maneuvers or to endanger friendly planes attacking. 
At the same time, the size and movements of the enemy formation should constantly be watched so that we can attack freely without fear of mishaps among our own planes. 

6. It is obvious that even when coordinated attacks from different directions are made, all planes should attack simultaneously or in rapid succession. "

I'd say that this basic example from the material brings a different light on things as the emphasies was placed on tactics, formation maneuvers and coordination, and I think it is supported by general changes employed by Japanese during 1943 period (introduction of 4-man formation, instead of older 3-man Shotai) and so on.
However it is intention, based on what I read I get the impression that those new young pilots did not receive such training. In Dan King's book "The Last Zero Fighter ..." it is stated in last 2 chapters related to fighter pilots, that amount of formation flying and gunnery practice before the arrival to the front (from 1943-1944 period are those memoirs) was null. Young pilots were expected to get that once they reached frontlines and veterans would introduce them to those key features of combat flying. Yet the events were going so fast, that many never received more than few hours of such training and could not do much to change it. 

So no, it had less to do with military culture as Japanese recognized the problem and were aware of hit and run tactics as well as maneuvers like Thach weave, so precautions were taken and specific documents written, but the application during the war in fast happening events requiring great amount of fresh pilots failed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Apr 23, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> But that will never be positive for the Zero, just like it wont be for 109 or any other axis aircraft. One side lost that war (thankfully), the other won. The final outcome will always favor allied fighters, regardless of the actual airframe.
> 
> 
> Maybe the newspapers, but the tests they performed on captured and damaged airframes were opposite, underestimating the true potential of the machine.
> ...



The Allies did some testing that closely replicated actual performance at military power:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/RAAF_Hap_Trials.pdf

but they also used captured IJN documents where possible and then circulated the performance as stated by the IJN:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Zeke-32-TAIC-102C.pdf

The performance curves are at military power but the War Emergency rating of the engine is clearly stated.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 23, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> But that will never be positive for the Zero, just like it wont be for 109 or any other axis aircraft. One side lost that war (thankfully), the other won. The final outcome will always favor allied fighters, regardless of the actual airframe.


 Disagree to a point. It's quite evident that the -109 will be well thought of in performance by those who flew it and flew against it. It never had the same "meltdown' the Zero had from 1943 onward.



Hiromachi said:


> Maybe the newspapers, but the tests they performed on captured and damaged airframes were opposite, underestimating the true potential of the machine.


 I would guess dollars to donuts that those tests were not made readily available to the public. The hype was the US was facing superior enemy so we had to fight harder and give all support we can, I'm old enough to remember my wartime relatives talk about this.



Hiromachi said:


> No fighter can counter any offensive, to stop the offensive one needs bombers. And Americans could bring them down then Japanese could deliver, or as a matter of fact same could be said of a Zeros.


 Not during the early part of the war. The US did have an advantage that eventually overwhelmed the Japanese but look at the state of US affairs during the summer of 1942. In many areas (Guadalcanal, Rabual, the Solomons) the Japanese were being slowly contained and in some cases beaten back with a USAAF consisting of P-39s and P-40 as front line fighters. The P-38 entered the fray in December 1942 and almost from it's first operational mission, the tides quickly turned.


Hiromachi said:


> Also, I am not sure if P-40 or P-39 can be called inferior equipment, they did fairly well in Russia(P-39) and Africa (P-40).


IMO you cannot compare the Russian experience with the P-39 and P-40 to the South pacific in any way, shape or form. Entirely different environment, tactics, mission and logistics structure.


Hiromachi said:


> The AVG more then held their own, even though they still refuse to recognize that they overclaimed by a bit. They certainly cant be compared directly to later P-51s or P-47s, but they were there and they did their job.


The AVG NEVER fought the Zero - that's a myth that is rolled into the Zero mystique!!!


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 23, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> But that was Saburo Sakai opinion, I think the man who was there and did what he did is entitled to have his own opinion. Even if we dont like it and disagree with it.



I'm not sure what is the problem with my statement. I've talked about one type of target, Sakai about another. Since you've researched Japanese hardware extensively, I'll politely ask what was opinion of Japanese pilots regarding shooting down of Allied bombers (from 1- to 4-engined) by what kind of on-board guns.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 23, 2016)

If it was a Saburo Sakai quote mentioned by Martin Cadin, I'd would only believe it if another witness was there to verify it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Apr 23, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> .
> 
> 
> However it is intention, based on what I read I get the impression that those new young pilots did not receive such training. In Dan King's book "The Last Zero Fighter ..." it is stated in last 2 chapters related to fighter pilots, that amount of formation flying and gunnery practice before the arrival to the front (from 1943-1944 period are those memoirs) was null. Young pilots were expected to get that once they reached frontlines and veterans would introduce them to those key features of combat flying. Yet the events were going so fast, that many never received more than few hours of such training and could not do much to change it..



This was not just a problem for the Japanese.
Pilots of all nationalities fall into three types. All this is borne out by statistics which I can't be bothered to look up and reproduce here. 
First there are the hunter killers who will shoot down the vast majority of enemy aircraft that are destroyed in air to air combat. These men are very few. 
Then there are the prey, usually inexperienced, who essentially serve as targets for the first group, these become more numerous as the quality of pilots and their training decreases.
Finally there is a third intermediate group comprised of pilots who have survived for long enough to gain the experience to evade the hunter killers and acquired enough skill to themselves occasionally score a victory.
What good training and sound tactics does is allow many of the most vulnerable prey group to survive long enough to become part of that intermediate group. This will limit overall casualty rates by denying the enemy's hunter killers the easy victories they are looking for. It is obvious that in a war of attrition, as all the various campaigns fought around the world were, the side with the best training and pilots, not necessarily the side with the best aircraft, will eventually prevail.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Hiromachi (Apr 23, 2016)

> The Allies did some testing that closely replicated actual performance at military power:


This HAMP was rebuilt from multiple machines laying across the New Guinea and it certainly did not replicate the full performance. Not to mention that actual engine specifics were not met as well, I dont know what exactly did not work but regardless, the NK1F (Sakae 21) had following revolutions and manifold pressures :
- Take-off / emergency - 2750 RPM / 41.7"Hg (In english nomenclature also Military Rating) 
- Rated power - 2700 RPM / 37.8"Hg
- Cruising - 2520 RPM / 32.8"Hg 

So in RAAF evaluation both the revs and manifold pressures are not matching and results can be seen in HP section as less power was delivered, aircraft even at military power was not meeting the specification (at 10,000 ft it was making 512 km/h, the original specification indicated 518 km/h at 3250m, but at RATED POWER. Same for 2nd critical altitude, at 6150 m A6M3 model 32 should reach 538-540 km/h, in the test it however reaches only 521 km/h, and max achieved in test is 527 km/). 
The engine specifications are messed in that test as well as performance is not correct. 

And in regard to taic, its only theoretical calculation. I dont spend much time reading calculations ...



FLYBOYJ said:


> Disagree to a point. It's quite evident that the -109 will be well thought of in performance by those who flew it and flew against it. It never had the same "meltdown' the Zero had from 1943 onward.


Numbers speak otherwise. 109 G-10 and K-4 were a good performance mostly, but the airframe was outdated. And the requirements for modern fighter were met a lot easier by 190 D-9. Even Messerchmitt was aware at that time that new airframe should be produced. 



FLYBOYJ said:


> In many areas (Guadalcanal, Rabual, the Solomons) the Japanese were being slowly contained and in some cases beaten back with a USAAF consisting of P-39s and P-40 as front line fighters.


Japanese were reaching limits of their expansion, Guadalcanal is prime example of airfield build against the rules, far away from any other airfield that could provide any support. Normal Navy instructions required airfields to be constructed in some decent radius from the others, and this is not the case here. 



> The P-38 entered the fray in December 1942 and almost from it's first operational mission, the tides quickly turned.


Not true at all. It was a process of turning the tides.

Have you ever heard of St. Valentines Day Massacre ? 
Pacific Wrecks

The actual records indicate that at least until mid 1943 Zeke could hold on its own staying in 1:1 range, hell, even in 1944 there were events when Corsairs and P-38s took a beating : 
WildEagles: Mitsubishi A6M "Zero" - Rabaul - pt4. - video stills

Air combat doesnt become always and instantly one sided just because new aircraft is introduced, pilots must learn to take advantage of it as well.



FLYBOYJ said:


> The AVG NEVER fought the Zero - that's a myth that is rolled into the Zero mystique!!!


I'm more then aware of that. But it doesnt really matter. They fought Oscars, not incredibly different aircraft from Zeros. And what matters is that they used P-40s to its limit. 



tomo pauk said:


> Since you've researched Japanese hardware extensively, I'll politely ask what was opinion of Japanese pilots regarding shooting down of Allied bombers (from 1- to 4-engined) by what kind of on-board guns.


I dont know answer to every question Tomo  
But based on general readings, 20 mm was considered crucial by the Navy for those 2-4 engined big birds. Army managed to find proper tactics to bring down even B-24s and B-17s with 12.7 mm's only. 
Navy pilots also often envied American Brownings for great ballistics allowing for deflection shooting from greater ranges. This came in particular to my attention when reading stories of 343rd Kokutai fighting Hellcats and Corsairs.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 23, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > The AVG NEVER fought the Zero - that's a myth that is rolled into the Zero mystique!!!
> ...


By saying "it doesn't really matter" sort of contradicts the whole discussion, doesn't it?

The AVG encountered the Ki-27, Ki-43 and occasionally, the Ki-45 aircraft. An A5M was even downed near an airfield in Burma.


----------



## Hiromachi (Apr 23, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> By saying "it doesn't really matter" sort of contradicts the whole discussion, doesn't it?


Not exactly, Oscars and Zeros were often misidentified for their appearance and they had similar flight characteristics, with some differences like greater rate of roll of Ki-43 but more smooth and stable controls of A6M. Performance was also not tremendously different, Zero was faster but had inferior rate of climb. 

Though if you want to be that precise, then yes, A6M was a better aircraft then first Oscar and AVG would most likely had harder time with Zeros. 



GrauGeist said:


> The AVG encountered the Ki-27, Ki-43 and occasionally, the Ki-45 aircraft.


True that.


----------



## RCAFson (Apr 23, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> This HAMP was rebuilt from multiple machines laying across the New Guinea and it certainly did not replicate the full performance. Not to mention that actual engine specifics were not met as well, I dont know what exactly did not work but regardless, the NK1F (Sakae 21) had following revolutions and manifold pressures :
> - Take-off / emergency - 2750 RPM / 41.7"Hg (In english nomenclature also Military Rating)
> - Rated power - 2700 RPM / 37.8"Hg
> - Cruising - 2520 RPM / 32.8"Hg
> ...



The RAAF test shows speeds about 3.5% below your rated speeds but there is not that much difference between the military rating and the rated output so the test is only marginally inaccurate especially since service aircraft are usually a bit slower than when factory new,

The TAIC report is not a theoretical calculation but basically a translation of IJN performance specifications.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 23, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> I dont know answer to every question Tomo
> But based on general readings, 20 mm was considered crucial by the Navy for those 2-4 engined big birds. Army managed to find proper tactics to bring down even B-24s and B-17s with 12.7 mm's only.
> Navy pilots also often envied American Brownings for great ballistics allowing for deflection shooting from greater ranges. This came in particular to my attention when reading stories of 343rd Kokutai fighting Hellcats and Corsairs.



I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, or unpleasant otherwise. We know that Mitsubishi steadily improved firepower of the Zero, so there was evident need to the improvement. We also know that, at least when reading Shattered Sword, that 7.7 was not a good weapon when a sure/fast kill was needed.
Further - not every pilot was of Sakai's, Moelders (who allegedly said one prop gun was worth 2 in the wings), Malans or Thatch's ('who cannot hit with 4 guns, cannot do it wit 6/8') caibre. Run-on-the-mill pilots needed all the help they could get, especially against demanding targets (rugged, or fast, or maneuverable, or a combination of those properties).


----------



## Hiromachi (Apr 23, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> The RAAF test shows speeds about 3.5% below your rated speeds but there is not that much difference between the military rating and the rated output so the test is only marginally inaccurate especially since service aircraft are usually a bit slower than when factory new,



Military power in this document is equal to Take-off/Emergency Rating, it is even labeled as 5 minute rating.

Japanese Rated power is a 30 minute rating, and as it should be compared to Max Continous Power (Rated) power in document (page 3).

In this case Hamp is not even reaching the speeds at the 5 minute emergency rating, which normally are reached at 30 minute Rated Power. The actual result is more then just 3%, not to mention the critical altitudes which indicate that something is wrong with supercharger.

Compare it to A6M2 engine specifications, Sakae 21 in this document has performance rather similar to a single-stage, single-speed Sakae 12 and its perfectly visible in the HP ratings.



tomo pauk said:


> I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, or unpleasant otherwise. We know that Mitsubishi steadily improved firepower of the Zero, so there was evident need to the improvement. We also know that, at least when reading Shattered Sword, that 7.7 was not a good weapon when a sure/fast kill was needed.


Point is that most of the victories achieved by Sakai were against fighters, and hence why his statement doesnt sound weird. Especially if compared to one before, regarding duel between Sakai and "Pug" in his F4F.
7.7 certainly is not up to a task against bombers.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 23, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> Though if you want to be that precise, then yes, A6M was a better aircraft then first Oscar and AVG would most likely had harder time with Zeros.


The AVG was also getting improved P-40 aircraft, though. They started with the P-40B (Tomahawk IIa) and ended with the P-40E (Kittyhawk Mk Ia), each having it's own performance profile with the P-40E being quite superior to the B in engine power, armor, armament and flight performance.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 23, 2016)

The P-40E was the worst performer of all P-40s, -B included. It was especially a bad climber, past 10000 ft. Engine power wasn't much better than with P-40B, again bar low altitudes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Apr 23, 2016)

Here's what the Allies knew in mid 1943:

ZEKE: [email protected],000' clean, [email protected],000' with drop tank.

HAP: [email protected],000' clean, [email protected],000 with drop tank
HyperWar: Japanese Military Aircraft (ONI 232)


----------



## cherry blossom (Apr 23, 2016)

My take is that the Zero's greatest problem was its development. The A6M2 entered service at approximately the same time as the Spitfire II. The A6M2 was still the aircraft used against Guadalcanal in late 1942 and against Darwin in early 1943. The Buna Zero from mid 1943 is an A6M3, which had actually entered service about a year earlier but had less range than the A6M2 and had thus not been able to quickly replace it. The A6M3 is thus the contemporary of the Spitfire IX. Early A6M5s were available for the Battle of the Philippine Sea and thus these are contemporaries of the Spitfire XIV. Notice that the power available to a Spitfire pilot in an emergency had increased rather more rapidly than the power available to a Zero pilot between 1940 and 1944.

Part of the problem was a simple failure of the IJN command as the Kinsei 60 series (AKA Ha-112 II) was being installed in prototypes of the Ki-46 in late 1942 and in the production Ki-46 III during 1943. Thus the IJN could have flown the A6M8 for the Battle of the Philippine Sea although that would not have changed the result given the previous pilot loses.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 23, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> Have you ever heard of St. Valentines Day Massacre ?
> Pacific Wrecks



I have - and that was one encounter where the Japanese bloodied the nose of US forces. From Mid-1942 on the 5th AF conducted numerous raids that prevented the Japanese from holding on to their empire. In April 1943 Yamamoto tried to take the advantage back by launching operation I-go and later operation A against Guadalcanal and Port Moresby and the whole thing failed miserably.
Are you aware of this battle? The P-38's combat introduction in the PTO...

_"December 27, 1942, was the day the P-38 began to take over the skies of the Southwest Pacific. A flight of 12 Lightnings was sitting strip alert at Laloki Aerodrome at Port Moresby when they got word that a large Japanese formation was headed their way. Captain Thomas J. Lynch, who had already achieved some success in P-39s, led the P-38s off the ground and climbed to intercept the formation of 25 Japanese fighters and dive-bombers._

_When the battle ended, 15 of the Japanese formation had been claimed (the official history of the Army Air Forces in WWII lists nine Japanese fighters and two dive-bombers destroyed). Lynch himself claimed two, as did Bong. Lieutenant Kenneth Sparks also claimed a pair of Japanese fighters."
_
Warfare History Network » The Lockheed P-38 Lightning

And even though that was ONE battle, look at what the participants eventually achieved (Bong, 40 kills, Lynch, 20 kills, Sparks 12 kills)



Hiromachi said:


> The actual records indicate that at least until mid 1943 Zeke could hold on its own staying in 1:1 range, hell, even in 1944 there were events when Corsairs and P-38s took a beating :
> WildEagles: Mitsubishi A6M "Zero" - Rabaul - pt4. - video stills



Do you have PROOF that the Zeke maintained a 1:1 ratio against US forces in 1943??? Was it against the F4F? I'd like to see that.

Video stills are meaningless unless you have comparative data to match them up against (your example shows this but this was ONE battle that in the end didn't go well for the Japanese, they lost their objective). We could see 1000s of video stills of Me 109s and Fw 190s tearing in to B-17s and B-24s but in the end do they paint a true picture???



Hiromachi said:


> Air combat doesnt become always and instantly one sided just because new aircraft is introduced, pilots must learn to take advantage of it as well.



Of course not, but you can look at one engagement that would begin to set the precedence of things to come, and this encounter was one of them.

_"On __April 30, 1942__ took off from __7-Mile Drome__ near __Port Moresby__ at 13:00. One of eleven Airacobra led by Lt. Col Boyd D. "Buzz" Wagner on a strafing mission against __Lae Airfield__, the 8th Fighter Group's first combat mission. The AIracobras strafed the airfield at 14:37, hitting parked aircraft and seaplanes, then departed. A6M2 Zeros of the Tainan Kōkūtai scrambled, and attacked the Airacobras while they were near __Salamaua__._

During that mission Wagner shot down 3 Zeros in a *P-39!*


----------



## Hiromachi (Apr 25, 2016)

Please forgive me for late reply, was spending weekend in Netherlands (was amazing!) and driving back takes both time and energy, so only now I've found some time to write a reply. Hope you dont mind 



FLYBOYJ said:


> Are you aware of this battle? The P-38's combat introduction in the PTO...


Yes Flyboyj, I'm aware. One thing that makes me always wonder with those kinds of articles is complete like of reference nor details, I would be really pleased to find out what units, Japanese in particular, participated in the fight. 
By any chance you know further details ?



FLYBOYJ said:


> And even though that was ONE battle, look at what the participants eventually achieved (Bong, 40 kills, Lynch, 20 kills, Sparks 12 kills)


S. Sakai, H. Nishizawa, T. Iwamoto, Jun'ichi Sasai, ... aces dont win the wars, if they would then Germans would by all means rule the world. 



FLYBOYJ said:


> Do you have PROOF that the Zeke maintained a 1:1 ratio against US forces in 1943??? Was it against the F4F? I'd like to see that.


I cant obviously copy everything and post here, but can write up a quote and leave further reference.

Quote comes from Richard Dunn book, so often quoted by me, Exploding Fuel Tanks by Richard L. Dunn
" Chapter VII. Tactical Consequences - 1943, Page 107 and 108
Optimistic claims tended to give each side an exaggerated view of the relative performance of its aircraft. However, the facts suggest the two sides were relatively evenly matched in early 1943. While Japanese bombers only rarely visited Allied main bases in daylight, the same was true of Allied bombers. After suffering losses to unescorted B-17s and B-24s over Rabaul in January 1943 the US 5th Army Air Force abandoned daylight raids on the target until October 1943. Following losses suffered in escorted raids against Buin in the Solomons in February, heavy bombers did not return to that target in daylight until July. 

In a series of fighter vs fighter combats near Guadalcanal in the first half of 1943 the results were recorded by post-war Allied historians based on Japanese and Allied records as follows :
a) April 1 Claims - Japanese 40 and Allies 18: 
Actual loss - Japanese 9 and Allies 6

b) May 13. Claims - Japanese 28 and Allies 16:
Actual loss - Japanese 4 and Allies 5.

c) June 7. Claims - Japanese 33 and Allies 23:
Actual loss - Japanese 9 and Allies 9.

d) May 12. Claims - Japanese 25 and Allies 31:
Actual loss - Japanese 7 and Allies 6.

Despite the fact that these combats occurred close to the American bases on Guadalcanal and the Russell Islands and up to 300 miles from the Japanese base at Buin the results were roughly a draw with the Japanese losing 29 Zeros and the Allies losing 28 fighters (and at least 3 others damaged beyond repair). Allied losses included eleven new high performance F4U Corsairs and P-38s. Both sides had additional aircraft damaged. "

Further details, not in English anymore though, can be found here : 
No. 1 - 海軍零戦隊撃墜戦記１: 昭和１８年２月－７月、ガダルカナル撤退とポートダーウィンでの勝利 (IJN Zero battle diary #1 - Victories and losses for Zero over Solomon from February to July 1943) :
Amazon product
_View: http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E6%B5%B7%E8%BB%8D%E9%9B%B6%E6%88%A6%E9%9A%8A%E6%92%83%E5%A2%9C%E6%88%A6%E8%A8%98%EF%BC%91-%E6%98%AD%E5%92%8C%EF%BC%91%EF%BC%98%E5%B9%B4%EF%BC%92%E6%9C%88%EF%BC%8D%EF%BC%97%E6%9C%88%E3%80%81%E3%82%AC%E3%83%80%E3%83%AB%E3%82%AB%E3%83%8A%E3%83%AB%E6%92%A4%E9%80%80%E3%81%A8%E3%83%9D%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88%E3%83%80%E3%83%BC%E3%82%A6%E3%82%A3%E3%83%B3%E3%81%A7%E3%81%AE%E5%8B%9D%E5%88%A9-%E6%A2%85%E6%9C%AC-%E5%BC%98/dp/4499230624_




FLYBOYJ said:


> Video stills are meaningless unless you have comparative data to match them up against (your example shows this but this was ONE battle that in the end didn't go well for the Japanese, they lost their objective). We could see 1000s of video stills of Me 109s and Fw 190s tearing in to B-17s and B-24s but in the end do they paint a true picture???


You misunderstood the idea as well as the contents of the link. It was only supposed to present that even as late as in 1944 there were occasions where Japanese could do very well and bring down high performance aircraft such as P-38 or F4U with little own losses, those were only occasional successes but that was exactly the point. 

And text provides all the important data. 



FLYBOYJ said:


> During that mission Wagner shot down 3 Zeros in a *P-39!*


You mean Wagner claimed 3 Zeros in his P-39 ? Because thats what happened.

On April 30, 1942 both sides presented a considerable activity in a quite confusing manner. It involved early defense of Lae by Tainan Kokutai against B-26s and later P-39s, but also separate actions as far as Horn Island.
First, the Maruders from 19th Bombardment Squadron attacked Lae at 6:40, dropping their 100 lb pills. Japanese scrambled their machines trying to catch the intruders, but despite Lt. Sasai claim of single B-26, none was in fact lost.
Then, action moved to the Horn Island where 8 Rikkos (Navy bombers) armed with 60 kg bombs escorted by six Tainan Ku Zeros, where escorting Zeros spotted four B-26s and decided to carry on attack on Maruders and then satisfied with it, went for a strafing of the airfield. Then bombers dropped their ordnance, damaging and destroying RAAF No. 24 Squadron Wirraways. No losses were recorded here for the Japanese, though one of the pilots was hit by a single round.

Now we come to the Cobra raid, which you're quote was focusing on. As said 11 Aircobras of 8th Fighter Group carried an attack on Lae, with Lt. Colonel Boyd D. 'Buzz' Wagner. Over the target there was a CAP, so when strike was delivered at 14:37 at Lae Aircobras were spotted by Japanese, but still in a swift manner managed to strafe the field and riddled one Zeke and one G4M, while they claimed five bombers destroyed. Then fighters flew offshore, shooting the floatplanes of Kiyokawa Maru Hikokitai, eventually leaving and heading directly across Huon Gulf for Salamaua's.

Eventually Tainan launched more fighters and flew straight at Salamaua, where they caught Aircobras and a fierce dogfight ensued. But how stretched that day was Tainan Ku is underlined by the fact that FPO2c Izumi Hideo was flying his third mission !

So about eight Zeros threw themselves into the Aircobras, and based on the claims Allies were granted 11 victories including machines destroyed and damaged on the ground. However 3 pilots went missing, that was Andres, Bevlock and Durand. Allied pilots were gathered by Wagner and discussion ensued, in which they concluded that Zeros were definitely more maneuverable but Cobra was as fast as Zero and could dive away from it if needed. 
On the other side of the Owen Stanley ridge, Tainan pilots landed safely except for missing (lost and killed) FPO2c Izumi Hideo. And that is the only loss recorded by Tainan that day, however based on the confusion in dogfight it is hard to conclude who delivered the killing blow - could be Wagner, could be someone else like Greene. Japanese claimed 2 Aircobras shot down and 2 as probables. 
Other losses were 3 fighters damaged beyond repair on the ground and 7 other receiving lighter damage, while Dai-4 Kokutai had 10 rikko damaged on the flightline.

Fact stays, that Wagner did not shoot down 3 fighters but 1 at best, though its still impossible to distinguish who was the actual killer of Izumi Hideo. 

Source : Eagles of the Southern Sky



cherry blossom said:


> Early A6M5s were available for the Battle of the Philippine Sea and thus these are contemporaries of the Spitfire XIV.


Ekhem, production of A6M5 started in August 1943. And first models were delivered to Rabaul in the same month or next. A6M5s were in combat since mid 1943, not mid 1944. 



cherry blossom said:


> Part of the problem was a simple failure of the IJN command as the Kinsei 60 series (AKA Ha-112 II) was being installed in prototypes of the Ki-46 in late 1942 and in the production Ki-46 III during 1943. Thus the IJN could have flown the A6M8 for the Battle of the Philippine Sea although that would not have changed the result given the previous pilot loses.


And still that A6M8 returns ... the relative performance increase was minimal or in fact there was little to none if compared to A6M5. 
Ha-112-II delivered almost 1250 HP at 6 km, that is 250 more than Sakae 21. At the same time aircraft was a lot heavier and airframe produced far more drag then A6M3-A6M5 - Cd0 0.0215. I had no idea what was the propeller efficiency of prop used in A6M8, it was larger then Sakae one (3.150 m if compare to 3.050 of A6M5) but if it was any better ? So on a rough calculation I got Cd0 close to 0.0240 which is quite a drastic increase. 

A6M8 was a dead end. Just because someone attaches big engine to a small airframe, it wont make it a great or even decent aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 25, 2016)

I liked the post, but still - the A6M8 was an improvement over the A6M5*c*, the variant of the Zero that featured protection, along with heavi(er) armament. The clean, loaded A6M5c weighted exactly as much as the A6M8, and A6M8 was faster by 22 km/h.
A6M5c was heavier, in clean & loaded state, some 400 kg than A6M5.
The A6M8 was indeed the dead end, the 560 km/h fighter aircraft were outmoded by 1941/42.


----------



## Hiromachi (Apr 25, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> I liked the post, but still - the A6M8 was an improvement over the A6M5*c*, the variant of the Zero that featured protection, along with heavi(er) armament. The clean, loaded A6M5c weighted exactly as much as the A6M8, and A6M8 was faster by 22 km/h.


In that way, yes, that was an upgrade. But A6M5c was introduced to service in mid October 1944. Cherry Blossom however mentioned A6M8 in regard to Battle of the Philippine Sea, which saw A6M5-A6M5b models. And generally speaking A6M8 was no better performer than A6M5. 

But again, if we would believe Jiro Horikoshi, as long as Navy wouldnt be stubborn and A7M from the day 1 would be powered by Mitsubishi MK9A engine, then the aircraft would make it by the mid 1944. And that was something, that Navy should put utmost attention to !


----------



## Venturi (Apr 25, 2016)

"Speed is life."

Erik Shilling would have something to say about the Zero's supposed superiority!


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 25, 2016)

You not only have to consider speed but climb rate and the A6M8 _may_ have had a better climb rate. Source is old and may not be right but the A6M8 _may_ have been around 1 minute quicker to 6000 meters than the A6M5c. Climb rate is important as it _indicates _surplus power at less than full speed. Surplus power that can be used to help turning performance, not in a smaller turning circle but in the ability to better maintain speed in a turn/maneuver or recover speed after a turn/maneuver, without loosing altitude. 
Having better protection and still keeping as good or slightly better performance is not a small thing either. 

The Zero did have a rather overblown reputation in the first year of the Pacific war (or at least the first 6-8 months). This was for a variety of reasons. The word "neutralized" is way too strong and perhaps better wording would be "normalized" as in while the Zero was still a threat the Allies had learned it was a threat that could be dealt with or managed using proper tactics/techniques. Perhaps not always in favor of the allies in a one on one or even for a particular action but the Zero could no longer advance the Japanese forces in general (not that the Zero was 100% responsible for the Japanese advances in the first 6 months of the war, that took some help from allied bumbling and a lot of help from Japanese soldiers, sailors and airmen using other types of aircraft.) The Zero could not defend the Japanese held areas well enough from 1943 on for a variety of reasons. The Japanese could no longer inflict disproportional losses on the allies as they did early in the war which it what they needed to do to have a hope in a war of attrition.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 26, 2016)

Venturi said:


> Erik Shilling would have something to say about the Zero's supposed superiority!



I'm sure he did but, then again, he never encountered the Zero in combat so his comments must be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Better yet, apply his comments to the aircraft he did face in combat, the Ki27 and Ki43.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 26, 2016)

The KI-43 was a very capable fighter but it was woefully underarmed. This was perhaps, it's biggest shortcoming.


----------



## GregP (Apr 26, 2016)

The Japanese were combat veterans when we were rank beginners. So the early actions SHOULD well have favored them.

As they lost veterans they got less good in the air and we got better as we were training a very large cadre of pilots. The Japanese never did get their training up to the needs of the wartime attrition rate, and never got their aircraft up to the standard of the Hellcat, overall. They had the raw material in the J2M Raiden, but didn't ever get it heading in the right direction, production-wise. 

They suffered from it as a direct result.


----------



## Hiromachi (Apr 26, 2016)

Venturi said:


> Erik Shilling would have something to say about the Zero's supposed superiority!


Oh yes, Erik Shilling had a PhD in how to beat a Zero : AVG Flying Tigers combat tactics (Erik Shilling)
The P-40 (Erik Shilling; John Lundstrom; Steven Vincent; CDB100620)
Except neither he, nor AVG as a formation ever encountered any Zero. For the most they were fighting Ki-27s with addition of Ki-43s (one has to remember that at the oubreak of the war only two units were equipped with Ki-43-I - that would be 59th and 64th Sentai), both were even more nimble then Zero and Oscar had a better rate of roll but they were also slower (in particular Nate) and weaker armed. 



Shortround6 said:


> You not only have to consider speed but climb rate and the A6M8 _may_ have had a better climb rate. Source is old and may not be right but the A6M8 _may_ have been around 1 minute quicker to 6000 meters than the A6M5c. Climb rate is important as it _indicates _surplus power at less than full speed. Surplus power that can be used to help turning performance, not in a smaller turning circle but in the ability to better maintain speed in a turn/maneuver or recover speed after a turn/maneuver, without loosing altitude.
> Having better protection and still keeping as good or slightly better performance is not a small thing either.


Again, if we compare it to A6M5c then yes. It had greatly improved rate of climb and acceleration. But the weight increase over original A6M5 was more then noticeable, that affects the stall speed which in turn affects the maneuverability and other flight characteristics. 

But idea to which I referred was that what would it be, if A6M8 would be present at Battle of the Philippine Sea. And if compared to the Zeros present there A6M8 did not possess any performance increase, while it had inferior flight characteristics. Sure, it had a better protection and armament but what would change in the battle outcome ? 
Nothing. 



GrauGeist said:


> The KI-43 was a very capable fighter but it was woefully underarmed.


It seems that two 12.7 mm machine guns with special ammunition were usually up to a task in fighter vs fighter combat, they however obviously were not enough against robust allied bombers. Even though Army developed a tactics allowing Oscars to make frontal attacks on B-24s over Burma, which proved both effective and successful as they brought down multiple bombers in late 1943.

But yes, overall, the armament was biggest shortcoming of Oscar indeed.



GregP said:


> never got their aircraft up to the standard of the Hellcat, overall. They had the raw material in the J2M Raiden, but didn't ever get it heading in the right direction, production-wise.


I believe that general opinion was that N1K George was equal or even superior to the Hellcat. Of course it never appeared in sufficiently large numbers, even despite the fact that Navy ordered more than 6000 of those, Kawanishi was simply not capable of delivering as many airframes in 1944-1945 period.

I've recently bought a new Osprey book, "J2M Raiden and N1K1/2 Shiden/Shiden-Kai Aces" by Yasuho Izawa with Tony Holmes.
The overall impression I have, is that J2M was considered a big failure. Development started slowly in October 1938 but aircraft wasnt operationally ready until end of 1943, since the first batch of Raidens was accepted in December and still had issues. It took only few months for the Navy to realize that continuing problems with the airframe as well as reliability will not make of it a main fighter, so decision was made to adopt and mass manufacture a faster and more reliable Kawanishi fighters. Raidens would be kept in production only until A7M became available (which did not happen until July-August 1945).
On contrary as I've learnt reading the book, Kawanishi N1K1-J and N1K2-J were a private developments of the company which were approved by IJNAF HQ Technical Director for Aircraft, Vice Admiral Rikizo Tada. No official specifications were issued, however Kawanishi was certain they can build a machine better than any in the service or under development. 
And as we know well from 343rd Ku their final result was more than pleasing and was totally capable of meeting allied fighters like Corsair or Hellcat on equal terms.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 26, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> Please forgive me for late reply, was spending weekend in Netherlands (was amazing!) and driving back takes both time and energy, so only now I've found some time to write a reply. Hope you dont mind
> 
> 
> Yes Flyboyj, I'm aware. One thing that makes me always wonder with those kinds of articles is complete like of reference nor details, I would be really pleased to find out what units, Japanese in particular, participated in the fight.
> By any chance you know further details ?


11th Sentai against the 35th FG, 39th FS, and my text is from the book "Peter Three Eight" by John Stanaway. Much of his research was based on face to face interviews with members of the P-38 pilot's association . BTW an other battle ensured the next day with similar results. I don't have the book in front of me but it was one of Richard Bong's first missions.



Hiromachi said:


> S. Sakai, H. Nishizawa, T. Iwamoto, Jun'ichi Sasai, ... aces dont win the wars, if they would then Germans would by all means rule the world.


Agree - but what that battle showed the trend, and although you pointed out some battles where the Japanese had the upper hand, this trend was to continue until the Japanese capitulated in the SE Pacific.



Hiromachi said:


> I cant obviously copy everything and post here, but can write up a quote and leave further reference.
> 
> Quote comes from Richard Dunn book, so often quoted by me, Exploding Fuel Tanks by Richard L. Dunn
> " Chapter VII. Tactical Consequences - 1943, Page 107 and 108
> ...


 You're basing your claim in only one portion of the Pacific over the course of one month. One needs to look at the entire PTO during the course of the entire year, an yes I understand that BOTH sides overclaimed.



Hiromachi said:


> You misunderstood the idea as well as the contents of the link. It was only supposed to present that even as late as in 1944 there were occasions where Japanese could do very well and bring down high performance aircraft such as P-38 or F4U with little own losses, those were only occasional successes but that was exactly the point.
> 
> And text provides all the important data.



"Occasions." There was one occasion in 1944 where the IJA/ IJN lost 600+ aircraft

Great Marianas Turkey Shoot - WW2 Timeline



Hiromachi said:


> You mean Wagner claimed 3 Zeros in his P-39 ? Because thats what happened.
> 
> On April 30, 1942 both sides presented a considerable activity in a quite confusing manner. It involved early defense of Lae by Tainan Kokutai against B-26s and later P-39s, but also separate actions as far as Horn Island.
> First, the Maruders from 19th Bombardment Squadron attacked Lae at 6:40, dropping their 100 lb pills. Japanese scrambled their machines trying to catch the intruders, but despite Lt. Sasai claim of single B-26, none was in fact lost.
> ...


Wagner was eventually credited with 3 Zeros and probably received those credits with intelligence officers believing that some of the aircraft damaged in the air were actually brought down. Point here is the tide was turning and these types of raids cost the Japanese terribly because they were not able to suffer these losses and sustain operations.

Bottom line, the IJN units operating the Zero were not about to counter the eventual onslaught and in my earlier post I stated why. The Zero couldn't completely maintain aerial superiority, even when the P-39 and P-40 were being operated in the air-to-air role, and in your post you actually stated the errors in trying to expand the design to keep up with it's contemporaries, something that failed miserably.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 26, 2016)

GregP said:


> The Japanese were combat veterans when we were rank beginners. So the early actions SHOULD well have favored them.
> 
> As they lost veterans they got less good in the air and we got better as we were training a very large cadre of pilots. The Japanese never did get their training up to the needs of the wartime attrition rate, and never got their aircraft up to the standard of the Hellcat, overall. They had the raw material in the J2M Raiden, but didn't ever get it heading in the right direction, production-wise.
> 
> They suffered from it as a direct result.


The IJN had probably the best trained pilots in the world. Their selection and training regiment was brutal and if I remember one in 35 recruits made the cut. The mistake made that their whole pre war training program did not account for the rate of pilot attrition encountered after Pearl Harbor. Here's a good piece that breaks it down;

Japan's Fatally Flawed Air Forces in World War II | HistoryNet


----------



## Hiromachi (Apr 26, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *11th Sentai* against the 35th FG, 39th FS, and my text is from the book "Peter Three Eight" by John Stanaway. Much of his research was based on face to face interviews with members of the P-38 pilot's association . BTW an other battle ensured the next day with similar results. I don't have the book in front of me but it was one of Richard Bong's first missions.



Now I get it. I was expecting only and exclusively Zeros. But there were also Oscars from 11th Sentai. 11th was a first Army fighter regiment to make it to South East Pacific theater of operations, they reached Rabaul (stationed at Vunakanau airfield) arriving from Truk on December 18th, 1942 with 60 Ki-43-I. The unit suffered tremendous losses and by late June 1943 it was pulled back to Japan. 1st Chutai led by Capt Shigenori Miyabashi was first unit that became active in New Guinea, and they made a first attack on Dobodura on 26th December. 
11th Sentai was no fresh formation, they had very experienced and skilled pilots who participated as early as in Nomonhan Incident, but formerly they have seen far less service then famous 59th or 64th. 11th received their Oscars in June 1942 in Japan and eventually returned to Burma in October, though in November they had to move, collecting on the road to South West Pacific left behind Ki-43-I of 50th and 64th Sentai (while those received a new Ki-43-II).

I'm not surprised they were surprised like that.
They were flying older machine that barely made it over 500 km/h in which they had little to no combat experience, their former experience was against Hurricanes, P-40s and whatever else was in early 1942 when they were flying their Nates.
Now this front was largely considered as secondary by the Army. When Japanese Navy requested Army air support the army not only doubted whether it was really needed, i.e., Navy could have reinforced themselves, but JAAF did not consider its training, equipment or doctrine well suited to operate over large expanses of water but was focused on war on the Asian mainland. It was thus reticent to provide support much less its latest and best fighters and bombers (the light bomber units sent there were former training units hastily re-equipped and brought to operational status).

But afaik, 11th Sentai pilots claimed on that day 7 Lightnings for a single Oscar loss (+ 1 pilot was MIA). So 11th Sentai suffered no unusual losses. The other units participating in the combat were 582nd Kokutai which was a composite air group which operated D3A dive bombers and A6M fighters. 
Here is a quote from John Stanaway "P-38 Lightning Aces of the Pacific and CBI", page 8 :
"Tom Lynch was was leading the interception at the head of 'Trapeze Red Flight' in P-38 G-1 42-12715 'White 19', whilst Ken Sparks and Dick Bong closely followed behind. The flight soon sighted the 'Oscars' and dove in to attack, Lynch quickly claiming two Ki-43s shot down. One of these was apparently blown in half by an accurate burst from the Lightning's formidable armament. Meanwhile, Bong and Sparks became involved with the Zeros, and as a result of their subsequent action reports, each pilot was credited with a single kill. Bong only got a very short burst in at the Zero from just 50 ft away, but was later persuaded to claim the fighter by other observers of the combat. The pair also reportedly destroyed a 'Val' apiece directly over the Dobodura strip. 
Other claims for the day included Zeros for Lts Hoyt Eason, Charles Gallup and Stanley Andrews - in total, some 11 confirmed kills and three probables were granted on mostly visual evidence from eyewitnesses. Japanese records admit the loss of two 'Oscars' (Sgt Kurihara got as far as New Britain in his damaged aircraft, before he crash-landed and was subsequently picked up by a Japanese naval flying boat, whilst WO Yoshitake failed to return from the mission) and one Zero (which crash-landed back at Rabaul), whilst a 'Val' was listed as missing and another returned to based badly damaged. 
The only American loss was Ken Sparks's P-38 F-5, which was so badly damaged that he had to force-land it on the Dobodura strip."

So for 11 victory claims and 3 probables actually 3 fighters (2 Oscars, 1 Zeke) and one Val were the victims. Americans suffered a single loss in form of crash landing Ken Sparks. 

Nothing unusual. And far from official history of the US Army Air Forces, listing nine Japanese fighters and two dive-bombers destroyed.



FLYBOYJ said:


> You're basing your claim in only one portion of the Pacific over the course of one month. One needs to look at the entire PTO during the course of the entire year, an yes I understand that BOTH sides overclaimed.


April, May, June ... looks like more than one month. Besides, I did not claim that it was equal for the whole 1943. I said specifically that at least until mid 1943 Japanese could keep it in 1:1 range. 

Also, I was thinking that at that time Lightnings and Corsairs were only present over SWPA and Solomon islands ? So how is the rest of the Pacific related ? 



FLYBOYJ said:


> "Occasions." There was one occasion in 1944 where the IJA/ IJN lost 600+ aircraft


And how is that even related to what we discuss ? I mean, unless you assume that all the fault for incredible losses in this battle has to be placed on Zeros. 



FLYBOYJ said:


> Wagner was eventually credited with 3 Zeros and probably received those credits with intelligence officers believing that some of the aircraft damaged in the air were actually brought down. Point here is the tide was turning and these types of raids cost the Japanese terribly because they were not able to suffer these losses and sustain operations.


That's April 1942, and for the next few months Tainan Ku would be beating plenty of those Aircobra pilots. So far nothing indicated that tides were turning and Navy could not replace the losses. 



FLYBOYJ said:


> Bottom line, the IJN units operating the Zero were not about to counter the eventual onslaught and in my earlier post I stated why. The Zero couldn't completely maintain aerial superiority, even when the P-39 and P-40 were being operated in the air-to-air role, and in your post you actually stated the errors in trying to expand the design to keep up with it's contemporaries, something that failed miserably.


No, a carrier borne fighter designed in late '30s and serving up to 1944 as the only Navy fighter could not maintain the aerial superiority. Certainly. 
Also, I dont see anything particularly weird that aiframe for carrier borne fighter, designed 5-6 years earlier was not suitable for engines over 50 % more powerful and more heavy, to keep the competition with land based fighters designed over engines with twice as much horsepower.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 26, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> April, May, June ... looks like more than one month. Besides, I did not claim that it was equal for the whole 1943. I said specifically that at least until mid 1943 Japanese could keep it in 1:1 range.
> 
> Also, I was thinking that at that time Lightnings and Corsairs were only present over SWPA and Solomon islands ? So how is the rest of the Pacific related ?



It's related because had the Japanese kept a 1:1 kill ratio through out the pacific and had non-combat attrition favored their operation, they would have faired a lot better. I don't believe they would have turned the tide of the war, perhaps made it last longer.



Hiromachi said:


> And how is that even related to what we discuss ? I mean, unless you assume that all the fault for incredible losses in this battle has to be placed on Zeros.


No it's a snapshot in time - one battle, just like the one's you shown.


Hiromachi said:


> That's April 1942, and for the next few months Tainan Ku would be beating plenty of those Aircobra pilots. So far nothing indicated that tides were turning and Navy could not replace the losses.


Those Aircobras (and P-40) were maintaining a 1:1, 1: 5 ratio.And were holding the line. In the Bigger Picture the Japanese could not take back Guadalcanal and as stated in my earlier posts but of Yamaoto's attempts at a counteroffensive failed. the Japanese could not gain total air superiority and supply their troops.



Hiromachi said:


> No, a carrier borne fighter designed in late '30s and serving up to 1944 as the only Navy fighter could not maintain the aerial superiority. Certainly.
> Also, I dont see anything particularly weird that aiframe for carrier borne fighter, designed 5-6 years earlier was not suitable for engines over 50 % more powerful and more heavy, to keep the competition with land based fighters designed over engines with twice as much horsepower.


 You're right - and that's one of the reasons why I believe the Zero was over rated!


----------



## Hiromachi (Apr 26, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No it's a snapshot in time - one battle, just like the one's you shown.


Not exactly. What mostly favored the outcome of the Battle of Philippine Sea was the radar, the skilled pilots in their brand new Hellcats and complete lack of the experience of their opponents, who were sent with small fighter cover and in groups.
Turkey Shoot was a consequence of well directed VFs, knowing where and when the prey will be, able to drop on them with altitude advantage. It was like a wolf feast over unaware lamb. 

Could the same be said of the combat from the link ? Rabaul certainly had a radar installations, but its ability to guide Zeros was far inferior. Zero pilots were not complete newcomers with no experience, and could engage their opponents - of which they were aware and which did not possess complete advantage. 



FLYBOYJ said:


> Those Aircobras (and P-40) were maintaining a 1:1, 1: 5 ratio.And were holding the line.


Based on the linked book which contains both Japanese and Allied records (for RAAF wings, for USAF squadrons and Japanese air groups) Tainan Ku managed to bring down in a period of April 1 to November 15 1942 81 allied aircraft with 148 aircrews on boards. 
Those were : 
17 - P-40E Kittyhawks
5 - B-17 E/F Flying Fortress
38 - P-39 D/P-400 Aircobras
5 - A-24 Banshee
10 - B-25 Mitchell
1 - Lockheed Hudson
5 - B-26 Marauder

At the same time Tainan lost 18 machines to the allied fighters, 6 to bomber defensive fire, 2 were shot down by ground fire and 5 were written off. 8 were lost/became not operational by other, non combat reasons. So overall to direct combat actions Tainan lost 31 machines. 18 of those could be attributed to P-40 / P-39 pilots. That gives Tainan about 3 to 1 kill ratio for given period of time in fighter vs fighter combat in New Guinea. 
If something was holding the line then I'd say it was P-40.



FLYBOYJ said:


> In the Bigger Picture the Japanese could not take back Guadalcanal and as stated in my earlier posts but of Yamaoto's attempts at a counteroffensive failed. the Japanese could not gain total air superiority and supply their troops.


They couldnt take it back becuase the Navy split the efforts between 3 areas (Port Moresby/New Guinea, Milne Bay and Guadalcanal) and air support could not be provided from Rabaul in any sufficient form except for attacks on Henderson Field. Otherwise Japanese had to travel over 1000 km to have a chance to bomb it. It wasnt until November 1942 that Kahili Airfield was constructed. 
So of course they could not gain air superiority. 



FLYBOYJ said:


> You're right - and that's one of the reasons why I believe the Zero was over rated!


Because a fighter thats design is 6 years old cannot keep running forever against a newer and newer opponents makes it over rated ?
Well, I'm sorry but what does it make of F6F ? 
Fighter that entered service in late 1943 and by mid 1945 was already obsolete and being replaced by F8F ? 

In 1930s-1940s technology was quickly becoming old, with the amount of development and new discoveries the progress was tremendous.


----------



## MrMojok (Apr 26, 2016)

Stuff like this has always blown my mind, about the Japanese in WWII:

"Because the army and navy did not cooperate, army aircraft on New Guinea had to fly 1,500 miles to Manila for engine changes even though the navy had major maintenance assets as close as Rabaul. "

(From Flyboy's link)


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 26, 2016)

A number of planes had rather overblown reputations at times. In some cases the reputation was lost/destroyed in just a few months and in other cases it lasted quite while. 
The Stuka had quite a reputation after Poland and into France in 1940, it was synonymous with the Blitzkrieg, rightly or wrongly. The reputation lasted right up until the English channel. It may have worked well on ships in the channel while escorted but it's ability to penetrate British airspace even escorted was limited. It's actual ability hadn't changed but the perception certainly had. The Stuka could certainly perform certain functions/missions but it wasn't the war winning weapon it's early reputation/German propaganda made it out to be.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 26, 2016)

cherry blossom said:


> The A6M3 is thus the contemporary of the Spitfire IX. Early A6M5s were available for the Battle of the Philippine Sea and thus these are contemporaries of the Spitfire XIV. Notice that the power available to a Spitfire pilot in an emergency had increased rather more rapidly than the power available to a Zero pilot between 1940 and 1944.





Hiromachi said:


> Ekhem, production of A6M5 started in August 1943. And first models were delivered to Rabaul in the same month or next. A6M5s were in combat since mid 1943, not mid 1944.



Production of the Spitfire XIV started at a similar time, though it did not enter combat as quickly.

Still, the Spitfire IX had been in production since 1942 and would still have superior performance to the A6M5.

And the Spitfire XII was in production from late 1942, 100 only made, and its performance was superior to the A6M5. Its first combat was in April 1943.


----------



## Hiromachi (Apr 27, 2016)

Right, there was Spitfire IX that had a better performance indeed. There was also FW-190 A-5, 109 G-4 and whatever else you name.
Only problem I see ... none of this aircraft could take-off and land on aircraft carrier nor the range to perform the tasks expected of a fighter flying over the ocean. So in this case their "superiority" would last for as long as they had fuel, then they would go to Davy Jones Locker.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 27, 2016)

The thing with the Zero was that it was a good airplane, in fact it was very good at number of things.
It just wasn't quite as good as it's opponents believed it to be. Or perhaps not as good as they pretended it to be to cover some of their own mistakes. Like the British and Americans depending on 2nd (or even 3rd) rate aircraft for defense in the Pacific in 1941/early 42. 
The Zero (and Ki 43) being better than expected caught the British and Americans off guard. With veteran pilots flying them (and veteran bomber crews) the Japanese inflicted disproportionate losses on the allies almost wherever they showed up. 
This doesn't mean the Japanese planes were invulnerable or couldn't be shot down. It means their loses (of planes anyway) were acceptable given the results. Elimination of existing forces in the areas the Japanese were interested in. 
The Allies countered with better planes, however in some cases these were still not the best that could be built/provided. British didn't send Spitfires for quite some time. Americans used P-39s and P-40s because that was what was in production to help cover things (hold the line) while the planes the Army really wanted were being worked on (P-38s and P-47 had been ordered in 1940). 
US planners also bumbled things by installing too much armament for the airframe/engine in the P-39/P-40 as opposed to the Japanese Army that installed too little in the Ki 43. 
The Zero failed to keep up, though not from lack of trying. Unfortunately adding guns, ammo and decent protection without increasing power put them in the same situation as the P-39s/P-40s. A late model Zero had the firepower of a P-40 or F6F/F4U, just not as much ammo as the last two. But trying to carry that amount of guns on 11-1200hp killed some of the performance. 

I would note that a great many planes were fitted with more powerful engines than they were designed for and worked pretty well. 
P-36 first flew with an experimental 900hp engine that never entered production. It ended as the P-40 with Allisons of 1400-1500hp in WER. Spitfire went to the Griffon engine. A number of Italian fighters went from 840/870hp engines to 1100hp engines and one went to 1475hp ( the other two used new airframes). The Japanese swapped engines on the Ki 61 to make the Ki 100.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 27, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> Not exactly. What mostly favored the outcome of the Battle of Philippine Sea was the radar, the skilled pilots in their brand new Hellcats and complete lack of the experience of their opponents, who were sent with small fighter cover and in groups.
> Turkey Shoot was a consequence of well directed VFs, knowing where and when the prey will be, able to drop on them with altitude advantage. It was like a wolf feast over unaware lamb.
> 
> Could the same be said of the combat from the link ? Rabaul certainly had a radar installations, but its ability to guide Zeros was far inferior. *Zero pilots were not complete newcomers with no experience, and could engage their opponents - of which they were aware and which did not possess complete advantage*.


 Even against inferior equipment?



Hiromachi said:


> Based on the linked book which contains both Japanese and Allied records (for RAAF wings, for USAF squadrons and Japanese air groups) Tainan Ku managed to bring down in a period of April 1 to November 15 1942 81 allied aircraft with 148 aircrews on boards.
> Those were :
> 17 - P-40E Kittyhawks
> 5 - B-17 E/F Flying Fortress
> ...


Agree to a point but some of those numbers need to be broken out by Squadrons and Groups and I'm pretty certain you'll find some of them were at least (I believe the 80th FG was one) 1: 1.5 until equipped with the P-38.



Hiromachi said:


> They couldnt take it back becuase the Navy split the efforts between 3 areas (Port Moresby/New Guinea, Milne Bay and Guadalcanal) and air support could not be provided from Rabaul in any sufficient form except for attacks on Henderson Field. Otherwise Japanese had to travel over 1000 km to have a chance to bomb it. It wasnt until November 1942 that Kahili Airfield was constructed.
> So of course they could not gain air superiority.


Mute point then



Hiromachi said:


> Because a fighter thats design is 6 years old cannot keep running forever against a newer and newer opponents makes it over rated ?


Because the Japanese did not design or pursue growth into the design, it couldn't keep up with newer opponents (you even covered that in your earlier post). There were also interchangeability, maintenance and operational issues with the aircraft as well.


Hiromachi said:


> Well, I'm sorry but what does it make of F6F ?
> Fighter that entered service in late 1943 and by mid 1945 was already obsolete and being replaced by F8F ?


Actually the F6F was in use well after the war in reserve and training squadrons.


Hiromachi said:


> In 1930s-1940s technology was quickly becoming old, with the amount of development and new discoveries the progress was tremendous.


Agree


----------



## Hiromachi (Apr 27, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Even against inferior equipment?


Maybe its my lack of English understanding, as it is not my native language, but could you please what exactly you mean by this question ?



FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree to a point but some of those numbers need to be broken out by Squadrons and Groups and I'm pretty certain you'll find some of them were at least (I believe the 80th FG was one) 1: 1.5 until equipped with the P-38.


As you wish. I can break down the losses of the 17 P-40s and 38 P-39s/P-400s, though this is pretty tough work. Hope it will be appreciated. 
In some cases I could not find details, so you have to forgive me.

April 6th, 1942 :
- Kittyhawk A29-9 - Flt Lt Les Jackson - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron
- Kittyhawk A29-32 - P/O Edmund Johnson - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron

April 9th, 1942 :
- Kittyhawk A29-24 - Sqd-Ldr John Jackson - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron

April 11th, 1942 :
- Kittyhawk A29-38 - Sgt Don Brown - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron
- A6M2 V-109 - Flyer1c Tanji Jufuku - Tainan Ku (shot down by RAAF pilot)

April 17th, 1942 :
- Kittyhawk A29-7 - Sqd-Ldr Barney Cesswell - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron
- A6M2 V-122 - FPO2c Sakai Yoshimi - Tainan Ku (shot down by RAAF Kittyhawks)

April 18th, 1942 : 
- Kittyhawk A29-47 - Flt A.H Boyd - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron

April 24th, 1942 :
- Kittyhawk A29-43 - Oswald Channon - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron
- Kittyhawk A29-29 - F/Sgt Michael Butler - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron
- Kittyhawk A29-76 - Bob Crawford - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron

April 28th, 1942:
- Kittyhawk A29-8 - Sqd-Ldr John Jackson -RAAF No. 75 Sqadron
- A6M2 V-110 - FPO3c Maeda Yoshimitsu - Tainan Ku 

April 30th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7128 - 1/Lt Edward Durand - 8th FG
- A6M2 - FPO2c Izumi Hideo - Tainan Ku (shot down by 8th FG)

May 2nd, 1942 :
- Kittyhawk A29-48 - Sgt D.W Munro - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron

May 1st, 1942 :
- A6M2 V-112 - FPO2c Arita Yashisuke - Tainan Ku (shot down by 8th FG)

May 2nd, 1942 :
- A6M2 V-104 - Flyer 1c Kawanishi Haruo - Tainan Ku (shot down by 8th FG)

May 3rd, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39D #41-6909 - 2/Lt Joseph Lovett - 8th FG
- Airacobra P-39D #41-6956 - 2/Lt Charles Schwimmer - 8th FG

May 4th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39D #41-6971 - 2/Lt Patrick Armstrong / 2/Lt Jefford Hooker / 2/Lt Victor Talbot - 35th FS (3 Aircobras went missing and there was a single claim that day made by WO Handa Watari, which would indicate that at least one of those 3 pilots was his victim)

May 8th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7188 - 2/Lt Guy Alva Hawkins - 36th FS of 8th FG

May 12th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39D #41-6802 - 2/Lt Robert Wilde - 36th FS of 8th FG

May 13th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39D #41-6945 - 1/Lt Hervey Carpenter - 
- A6M2 V-104 - FPO3c Honda Toshiaki - Tainan Ku (shot down by 8th FG)

May 17th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7122 - Lt Jessie Bland - (8th FG ?)

May 18th, 1942 :
- Airacobra (Serial no. unknown) - 2/Lt William Plain (40th FS)

May 26th, 1942 : 
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7221 - 2/Lt Arthur Schulz (35th FS of 8th FG)

May 27th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7153 - 2/Lt Alva Hawkins (36th FS of 8th FG)
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7162 - Capt. T.W Hornsby (36th FS of 8th FG)

May 28th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39D #41-6970 - Lt Ward (36th FS of 8th FG)
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7190 - Capt. Wyatt Exum (36th FS of 8th FG)
- Airacobra (Serial no. unknown) - 2/Lt Art Andres (36th FS of 8th FG)

May 29th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7116 - 2/Lt Grover Gholson (36th FS of 8th FG)
- A6M2 - FPO2c Komori Hisao - Tainan Ku (damaged by 8th FG and force landed)

June 1st, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39D #41-6942 - 2/Lt Thomas Rooney (36th FS of 8th FG)
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7200 - 2/Lt William Hosford (35th FS of 8th FG)
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7194 - 2/Lt Gerry Plunkett (35th FS of 8th FG)
- A6M2 V-114 - WO Miyazaki Gitaro - Tainan Ku (shot down by 8th FG)

June 9th, 1942 :
- A6M2 V-117 - WO Yoshino Satoshi - Tainan Ku (shot down by 39th FS)

June 16th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7204 - 2/Lt Harvey Rehrer (39th FS)
- Airacobra P-400 British no. AP 348 - 1/Lt Thomas Lynch (?)
- Airacobra P-39F #41-6941 - 2/Lt Paul Magre (40th FS)
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7136 - 2/Lt Stanley Rice (40th FS)
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7222 - 1/Lt William Hutcheson (40th FS)
- A6M2 - Flyer 1c Hidaka Takeichiro - Tainan Ku (shot down by 39th FS pilot)

June 18th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-400 British no. BX 169 - 1/Lt Carl Rauch (39th FS) 
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7140 - 1/Lt George Bartlett (39th FS)
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7222 - 1/Lt Donald Greene (39th FS)

June 26th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7137 - 1/Lt William Stauter (?)

July 4th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-39F #41-7148 - 2/Lt James Foster (39th FS)
- Airacobra P-400 British no. AP 378 - 2/Lt Frank Angier (39th FS)
- Airacobra P-39F #41-714x - 2/Lt Wilmott Marlott (39th FS)

July 6th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-400 British no. unknown - 2/Lt Howard Welker (40th FS)

July 11th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-400 British no. unknown - 2/Lt Orvile Kirtland (40th FS)

July 25th, 1942 :
- Airacobra Serial no. unknown - 2/Lt Frank Beeson (?)
- Airacobra P-400 BW 117 - 2/Lt David Hoyer (?)

August 2nd, 1942 : 
- Airacobra P-400 British no. AP 290 - 1/Lt Jess Dore (41st FS)
- Airacobra P-400 British no. AP 232 - 1/Lt Jesse Hague (41st FS)

August 11th, 1942 :
- RAAF Kittyhawk A29-123 - F/O Mark Sheldon (RAAF No. 75 Sqadron)
- RAAF Kittyhawk A29-93 - F/O Albert McLeod (RAAF No. 75 Sqadron)
- RAAF Kittyhawk A29-100 - W/O Francis Shelley (RAAF No. 75 Sqadron)
- RAAF Kittyhawk A29-84 - F/Sgt George Inkster (RAAF No. 75 Sqadron)

August 26th, 1942 :
- Airacobra P-400 British no. BW 112 - 2/Lt Gerald Rogers (80th FS)
- A6M2 - FPO3c Nakano Kiyoshi - Tainan Ku (shot down by 80th FS)

August 27th, 1942 :
- RAAF Kittyhawk A29-108 - P/O Stuart Munro (RAAF No. 75 Sqadron)
- A6M2 - FPO1c Yamashita Sadao - Tainan Ku (shot down by RAAF No. 75 Sqadron)
- A6M2 - Flyer1c Ninomiya Kihachi - Tainan Ku (shot down by RAAF No. 75 Sqadron)
- A6M2 - FPO3c Matsuda Takeo - Tainan Ku 

November 1st, 1942 :
- P-40 E-1 #41-36173 - 2/Lt Glenn Wohlford 
- A6M2 - FPO1c Kaneko Toshio - 251st Ku (shot down by 8th Fighter Squadron P-40)

80th Fighter Squadron (if thats what you mean) arrived on July 20th, and by the time it started serious flying it was August. Tainan Ku from August 7th was mostly occupied with Guadalcanal operations as well as many other Navy units in the area. Thus it is possible that 80th FS could achieve some success at that time (though I couldnt find any details), given only small detachment of Zeros was kept at Buna at that time. And not so long after, Navy would request Army support in New Guinea. 



FLYBOYJ said:


> Because the Japanese did not design or pursue growth into the design, it couldn't keep up with newer opponents (you even covered that in your earlier post). There were also interchangeability, maintenance and operational issues with the aircraft as well.


 Well, considering the amount of requirements to satisfy Horikoshi did as much as he could, to envision the need of a Zero to tackle with P-38 and F4U is a bit too much to ask. Still, Horikoshi admitted that he did not design A6M specifically to fight in the Pacific War, if he knew of the Navy plans and possible changes then he would approach the topic differently.
But Zero was based on experiences gathered in China. 

Afaik, I was always tempted to ask the question, how well would American constructors do given the specification issued by the Japanese Navy. How much "better" could Grumman or Vought do. 



FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually the F6F was in use well after the war in reserve and training squadrons.


Reserve and training squadrons ...

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


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 27, 2016)

Thank you very much for the effort to find & post the data.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 27, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> Maybe its my lack of English understanding, as it is not my native language, but could you please what exactly you mean by this question ?


Even though they were flying distances and were not newcomers (as you say) they were still flying against aircraft that they technically outclassed and many times came away inflicting higher losses then they received but still did not achieve victory - my point.



Hiromachi said:


> As you wish. I can break down the losses of the 17 P-40s and 38 P-39s/P-400s, though this is pretty tough work. Hope it will be appreciated.
> In some cases I could not find details, so you have to forgive me.


No apologies necessary and do appreciate the work - we could all learn from this.



Hiromachi said:


> April 6th, 1942 :
> - Kittyhawk A29-9 - Flt Lt Les Jackson - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron
> - Kittyhawk A29-32 - P/O Edmund Johnson - RAAF No. 75 Sqadron
> 
> ...


That's what I was looking at with regards to some of the more successful P-39 operations, again thanks you for this list, I'll go though it when I have more time, I'm at break at work.




Hiromachi said:


> Well, considering the amount of requirements to satisfy Horikoshi did as much as he could, to envision the need of a Zero to tackle with P-38 and F4U is a bit too much to ask. Still, Horikoshi admitted that he did not design A6M specifically to fight in the Pacific War, if he knew of the Navy plans and possible changes then he would approach the topic differently.
> But Zero was based on experiences gathered in China.


And that's all true - remember the p-38 was never intended to be placed in full scale production, let alone fight a war in Europe at altitude.


Hiromachi said:


> Afaik, I was always tempted to ask the question, how well would American constructors do given the specification issued by the Japanese Navy. How much "better" could Grumman or Vought do.


Hard to say - but considering that both F6F and F4U were being designed before WW2 says a lot of the forward thinking of their designers. One thing American manufacturers would have never considered was the lack of pilot survivability (minimal armor protection). 



Hiromachi said:


> Reserve and training squadrons ...


And in the US military they remained operationally prepared to be activated until the 1950s. It was determined that there was a viable use for these aircraft and they had the maintenance and logistic support. There were plenty combat US aircraft from WW2 that served an effective role well after WW2.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 27, 2016)

A few points if I may.

The Zero was bit earlier in timing to the F4U. but the F4U was _started_ in June of 1938 in reply to a Navy request for a single engine fighter (there was also a request for a twin engine fighter) with the "maximum obtainable speed, and a stalling speed not higher than 70 miles per hour (110 km/h). A range of 1,000 miles (1,600 km) was specified.[11] The fighter had to carry four guns, or three with increased ammunition. Provision had to be made for anti-aircraft bombs to be carried in the wing." from wiki. 
The Prototype F4U first flew 29 May 1940. 
First Zero prototype flew 1st of April 1939 but that was with the Mitsubishi Zuisei engine. first prototype with a Sakae engine flew in Jan of 1940. 
Development of the F4U was held up by changing requirements and acceptance tests that date from biplanes, like a full speed dive of 10,000ft which with monoplanes either started so high that compressability problems started or if started lower, didn't allow enough room for pull out. 
The F6F was somewhat later in timing. The mock up being inspected in Jan 1941, modifications were requested and two prototype aircraft were ordered 30 June 1941, the same date Vought got a contract for 584 production aircraft. 
The F4U was started before WW II started (unless you consider China as the start) but the F6F was started before the Japanese attacked but well after the Germans started the war in Europe. 
F4U was started before protection was required. It was added after the first prototype flew in addition to changing the armament and about 798 other changes  
The F6F was started after protection had become a requirement (argument can be made on this as Grumman had worked on designs 33 and 33A as follow ons to the WIldcat and then worked on design 50 after a two year lapse. and the XF6F-1 was about 2 feet longer, had 1ft 4 in more wing span and 44 sq ft more wing area than design 50 so trying to figure out what requirements were added when is rather difficult) 

Some WW II aircraft lasted for years in the jet age in US Air Force or Navy service, others were gotten rid of with almost indecent haste (Martin B-26 for one) . and few were never even offered as surplus with a valid airworthiness certificate (AT-9 trainer). While not fool proof how fast a particular aircraft was gotten rid of is some measure of the regard they were held in.


----------



## Hiromachi (Apr 28, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hard to say - but considering that both F6F and F4U were being designed before WW2 says a lot of the forward thinking of their designers.


That true, there was a lot of vision put into those aircraft but one must remember that both went through horrendous amount of modifications before they reached the front service. In particular F6F got a new engine, since Wright R-2600 was deemed not enough and R-2800 was placed to power Hellcat. 
F4U was also largely modified from its original design, to adjust it for the needs. 

One must remember that both Vought and Grumman had more room to make changes and adjust aircraft to the needs, given their aircraft would be powered by 2000 HP engine.

At the same Mitsubishi wanted a fighter powered by 870 HP Zuisei (later swapped for 950 HP Sakae 12, a comparison to R-2600 and R-2800 comes to the mind a bit ), able to reach more than 500 km/h top speed, reach 3000 meters in less than 3.5 minutes. Have a flight endurance of 6 to 8 hours on economic cruising speed, take off distance of less than 70 meters with a head wing of 12 m/s and importantly no worse dogfight performance than Type 96 fighter - A5M. The wingspan was specified to be as 12 m, armament was specified as well.
This basically called for an interceptor that can dogfight as well as escort and protect bombers. Machine that can fly fast and climb fast, but with a great wing and rather weak 870 HP engine. 

In my opinion it required a lot of mind stretching to satisfy all of this at once. 



FLYBOYJ said:


> One thing American manufacturers would have never considered was the lack of pilot survivability (minimal armor protection).


As Shortround6 said, its not exactly correct. Before the war no country except for Soviet Union provided any kind of protection to its warbirds. First to catch up were British and Germans, while Americans decided to focus in 1940-1941 period on designing and testing best possible protective features, which resulted in all rubber fuel cells. 
I think I've already addressed that in the other thread : 
Top 3 mistakes per country, in field of military aviation


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 28, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> That true, there was a lot of vision put into those aircraft but one must remember that both went through horrendous amount of modifications before they reached the front service. In particular F6F got a new engine, since Wright R-2600 was deemed not enough and R-2800 was placed to power Hellcat.
> F4U was also largely modified from its original design, to adjust it for the needs.


Once the F6F received the R-2800, there was little modification from the original design, and if I remember correctly, it had the least amounts of design changes of all US fighters. I think the only noticeable design change was the installation of a window behind the pilot's head on later versions.


Hiromachi said:


> One must remember that both Vought and Grumman had more room to make changes and adjust aircraft to the needs, given their aircraft would be powered by 2000 HP engine.


And that's the case of those powerplants becoming available in a mass production basis.


Hiromachi said:


> At the same Mitsubishi wanted a fighter powered by 870 HP Zuisei (later swapped for 950 HP Sakae 12, a comparison to R-2600 and R-2800 comes to the mind a bit ), able to reach more than 500 km/h top speed, reach 3000 meters in less than 3.5 minutes. Have a flight endurance of 6 to 8 hours on economic cruising speed, take off distance of less than 70 meters with a head wing of 12 m/s and importantly no worse dogfight performance than Type 96 fighter - A5M. The wingspan was specified to be as 12 m, armament was specified as well.
> This basically called for an interceptor that can dogfight as well as escort and protect bombers. Machine that can fly fast and climb fast, but with a great wing and rather weak 870 HP engine.


 Availability? 


Hiromachi said:


> In my opinion it required a lot of mind stretching to satisfy all of this at once.


That's the ongoing situation when designing combat aircraft - then and now.



Hiromachi said:


> As Shortround6 said, its not exactly correct. Before the war no country except for Soviet Union provided any kind of protection to its warbirds. First to catch up were British and Germans, while Americans decided to focus in 1940-1941 period on designing and testing best possible protective features, which resulted in all rubber fuel cells.
> I think I've already addressed that in the other thread :
> Top 3 mistakes per country, in field of military aviation


Aside from just bolting armor plating into fighter aircraft, self sealing tanks and 'wet wing' technology that was "mass production friendly" just being introduced when WW2 was beginning. No one in the 1930s (at least in the US) envisioned the way aerial combat would have taken place during WW2 and that's why you have US combat aircraft produced with little or no pilot protection. Once it was discovered the amount of combat damage a fighter could be exposed to, this was reversed and made a priority. Self sealing tanks were first introduced during WW1 and were sometimes not considered because a self sealing fuel tank carries less fuel than a conventional fuel cell or for that matter, an entire wet wing. I think I read somewhere that Martin was the only company that featured self sealing fuel tanks in their aircraft prior to WW2.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 28, 2016)

The Book "Aircraft Power Plants" by Arthur P. Frass copyright 1943 has a short section on self sealing tanks and states, as Flyboyj did that self sealing tanks date from WW I. They went out of favor during peacetime due to weight and being cumbersome. 

A rough comparison is that integral tanks weigh about 1/4 pound per gallon. 
Sheet aluminium tanks weigh 3/4lb per gallon decreasing to 3/8lb per gallon for large tanks (100 gallons and over).
Bullet proof tanks can weigh between 0.7 to 1.5 lb per gallon.

Tank weight is pretty much dependent on the surface area of the tank/s and the more volume per unit of surface area you have the lower the pounds per gallon of tank weight. Large flat tanks and/or multiple small tanks having a higher weight penalty than the same volume of fuel in single (or few) squarish tanks.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 28, 2016)

Glen Martin applied for the patent in 1917


----------



## stona (May 1, 2016)

I thought the original patent was applied for by George Murdock. The Glenn Martin Company used this system but either bought the patent or payed a royalty to Murdock.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 5, 2016)

The P-40 and P-39 were better off than the F4F given their lower drag and superior speed, dive acceleration and speed retention using dive and zoom tactics.

With proper energy tactics against early-war Japanese fighters, and proper exploitation of the superior roll rate and high-speed maneuverability, the P-40 and P-39 should have been all-around superior fighters. However, if the fight went down low (and the American fighter didn't break off and run when they still had speed), there'd obviously be trouble. (though the Flying Tigers style head-on approach still applied at low altitude, that wasn't so useful if you've already started maneuvering ... which, granted, wouldn't really fit into the AVG's tactics anyway) Even the F2A was better off using those tactics, particularly as its weight went up, but even aside from that it had the common advantage of superior high-speed control and maneuverability. (even if it didn't handle high-G terminal dive pull-out stresses as well as some other American Fighters -incidents like ailerons tearing off during 400+ MPH pull-outs during dive bombing practice in Hawaii pre-war ... though that case may have been more related to balooning aileron skin than just structural limitations)


Now, the more intrinsic problems with the US aircraft, even using the best tactics, came as interceptors. Without stripping the things down and pushing the engines out of spec (both of which the Flying Tigers sometimes did for special interception duties) you'd be rather slow climbing and ill suited to reaching bombers quickly, let alone escorting fighters. (George Welch did exceptionally well in his P-40B during Pearly Harbor in spite of the extremely late warning -and initial lack of .50 cal amunition, but those were also extremely low-flying aircraft, not level bombers at altitude) They were all better offensive aircraft than defensive ones, though. (be it ground attack/strike aircraft or medium/low-altitude bomber escorts -OTOH the Hurricane IIA or Spitfire II might have made pretty good interceptors against 1940/41 Japanese bombers ... while being terrible escorts or fighter-bombers, though the Buffalo I with minimal interceptor fuel load and -relatively typical- .303 nose gun conversion might have been equal or better in climb and firepower -given the wing-mounted .50s effectiveness against the externally self-sealing fuel tanks of Japanese bombers -at least some pre-war IJA bombers had external self-sealing)

Aside from the F2A, none of the US fighters of the time came close to the Zero's maximum range either (the P-40B at ideal manual lean cruising conditions and overload fuel still couldn't compete with the unprotected A6M ... the unprotected P-40 might have managed it though, especially if the wing guns were omitted).



US and Commonwealth forces were nearly always at tactical disadvantages early war on top of having less experienced pilots and more often than not using less than advantageous tactics for their aircraft while the Japanese usually used their aircraft to best ability. Had the IJA fielded a 1940 equivalent of something closer to the Ki 44 in place of the Ki 43, I'd imagine IJA pilots would use their speed and diving ability to good effect in the same way they relied on climb and turning performance of the Ki 27 and Ki 43.

The Ki 43 wasn't necessarily a very well-liked aircraft by the pilots who flew it either, and not just because of the armament. Structural strength (and build quality) and limited performance both came up in this interview:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-eBmnpCO18_


----------



## GrauGeist (May 5, 2016)

stona said:


> I thought the original patent was applied for by George Murdock. The Glenn Martin Company used this system but either bought the patent or payed a royalty to Murdock.
> Cheers
> Steve


Ahh yes, I meant George Murdock...thanks for catching that!

Funny how George Murdock and Glenn Martin have the same initials!!


----------



## gumbyk (May 5, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Ahh yes, I meant George Murdock...thanks for catching that!
> 
> Funny how George Murdock and Glenn Martin have the same initials!!



and General Motors, who got a Government bail-out...



I smell a conspiracy...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hiromachi (May 7, 2016)

kool kitty89 said:


> The P-40 and P-39 were better off than the F4F given their lower drag and superior speed, dive acceleration and speed retention using dive and zoom tactics.


On performance level indeed, P-40 and P-39 could outperform Wildcats but there is so much more than this. Wildcats were often flown by better trained pilots and could count on a better tactical situation (vide Guadalcanal where sufficient warning time would be given so machines could reach altitude allowing to take advantage of their high speed performance). 



kool kitty89 said:


> With proper energy tactics against early-war Japanese fighters, and proper exploitation of the superior roll rate and high-speed maneuverability, the P-40 and P-39 should have been all-around superior fighters.



But first up high were Japanese with their vastly superior climb performance. 



kool kitty89 said:


> Aside from the F2A, none of the US fighters of the time came close to the Zero's maximum range either (the P-40B at ideal manual lean cruising conditions and overload fuel still couldn't compete with the unprotected A6M ... the unprotected P-40 might have managed it though, especially if the wing guns were omitted).



I have yet to see P-40 that can stay in the air for 12 hours. But i like being positively surprised, so who knows, maybe it is possible 



kool kitty89 said:


> The Ki 43 wasn't necessarily a very well-liked aircraft by the pilots who flew it either, and not just because of the armament.


Make no mistake, Mr. Hinoki refers directly to first Oscars. Ki-43-I indeed had issues with structural integrity during high G maneuvers. Especially the machines delivered before 1942, the first ones, could be even dangerous.

But after initial discoveries, Army obliged Nakajima to strengthen the construction and add additional bolts in crucial places. And issue was not even mentioned in Ki-43-II which appeared by the end of 1942. But as Mr. Hinoki said in 5:22, when Oscar II became available it had greater firepower and improved integrity (shorter wingspan) as well as higher top speed. A fighter to fly with confidence. The only issue is that it came a bit too late and lacked performance for the new type of tasks.


----------



## Greyman (May 8, 2016)

Hiromachi said:


> But after initial discoveries, Army obliged Nakajima to strengthen the construction and add additional bolts in crucial places. And issue was not even mentioned in Ki-43-II which appeared by the end of 1942. But as Mr. Hinoki said in 5:22, when Oscar II became available it had greater firepower and improved integrity (shorter wingspan) as well as higher top speed. A fighter to fly with confidence. The only issue is that it came a bit too late and lacked performance for the new type of tasks.



A telling bit from the third volume of Shores' "Air War for Burma":

_A bad day, 81 got a completely new opinion of the Japs. Reckon ME and UK squadrons would be very surprised. Most of their (81 sqn.) aircraft u/s for rippled skins and warped engine bearings! We've had a bit of it too."_
- Dudley Barnett, 136 Squadron RAF (15 February '44)​
*EDIT*: sorry, should provide some context - this was after a running fight from Buthidaung to Akyab, where 29 Spitfire VIIIs from 81, 136 and 607 Squadrons battled a reported 60+ Japanese Army fighters.


----------



## Hiromachi (May 10, 2016)

> This combat also illustrates that despite its exceptional high altitude performance the P-38 did have limitations fighting the nimble Type 1 fighter at low level. Five of the 9th’s pilots encountered a single OSCAR with the following results:
> 
> “By this time, the enemy fighters were well thinned out, I saw one below me on the water being worked over by two P-38s. Three more of us joined the party. For 15 minutes the five of us made pass after pass at this fighter, although we didn’t get it. When he got the opportunity the pilot would straighten momentarily up-coast, sucking us with him. He never seemed to have much throttle on and lazily turned toward us when we got in range, but never came head-on at anyone or fired a shot. Its canopy must have been open the whole time…15 minutes of this maneuvering and we returned to base.”
> 
> Another of the P-38 pilots reported “This pilot was pretty good. He kept close to the water and would turn gradually until we were on him, then would slip down to the water in a tight turn.” He also observed, “This Oscar had a green fuselage and brown spots in leopard fashion.”


- R. Dunn, Tuluvu's Air War, Chapter V, Untitled Document

Oscar wasn't defenseless, for many in turned out to be a tough nut to crack due to great maneuverability and good rate of climb.


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 4, 2016)

Spitfire, great plane for a 1930's design. A great intercepter but lacked the range to take the fight to the enemy.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> Spitfire, great plane for a 1930's design. A great intercepter but lacked the range to take the fight to the enemy.



That is why it was an interceptor, not an escort fighter...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 4, 2016)

The Spitfire was developed as a single engine fighter. The tag "interceptor is applied to it to hide its inability to compete with the P-51 in terms of range and thus versatility. The Spitfire is a great aircraft, but still overrated.


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 4, 2016)

Shooter, is that you?


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 4, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> The Spitfire was developed as a single engine fighter. The tag "interceptor is applied to it to hide its inability to compete with the P-51 in terms of range and thus versatility. The Spitfire is a great aircraft, but still overrated.


You don't design an aircraft to have a 1000 mile range when the enemy is at your doorstep - that would just be a waste of time and money.


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 4, 2016)

gumbyk said:


> You don't design an aircraft to have a 1000 mile range when the enemy is at your doorstep - that would just be a waste of time and money.


You would if you considered yourself an "Empire" and you had the ability.


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 4, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> You would if you considered yourself an "Empire" and you had the ability.



Why?
Prior to 1939, Britain's Empire was based around Naval supremacy. The Spitfire was there to do a job - protect Britain. By the time the US entered with the P-51, the requirement had changed, and there was a need for escort fighters.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2016)




----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 4, 2016)

gumbyk said:


> You don't design an aircraft to have a 1000 mile range when the enemy is at your doorstep - that would just be a waste of time and money.



And performance.

BLine22 realize that the Spit was designed as what today is called a point defense fighter (as well as the Me-109 and FW-190). It did not need to go far but it did need to be a hot rod. A comparison would be a NASCAR racer designed to do the entire 500 mile race on one tank of gas. It's competition will gas up several times during the race. Who will cross the finish line first? The winner of that race can be seen any weekend during race season.

The paradym shift in WW2 ETO was the Merlin powered Mustang. Not only did it carry enough fuel to do the entire race without stopping, it also could more than hold its own over Berlin in a fur ball with Germany's best, then fly back to the UK.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 5, 2016)

BiffF15 said:


> And performance.
> 
> BLine22 realize that the Spit was designed as what today is called a point defense fighter (as well as the Me-109 and FW-190). It did not need to go far but it did need to be a hot rod. A comparison would be a NASCAR racer designed to do the entire 500 mile race on one tank of gas. It's competition will gas up several times during the race. Who will cross the finish line first? The winner of that race can be seen any weekend during race season.
> 
> ...


I understand the differences between the Mustang and the Spitfire and how they came about. The range of the Spitfire is similar to most pre-war fighters. This thread is about the most overrated aircraft. If you think of the different fighter missions; Intercepter, Air superiority, Ground Attack, Escort, any top ranked fighter should be able to accomplish all of these missions. I don't think the Spitfire does these missions as well as other aircraft such as the P-51 or F4U but may people will argue that it is the greatest fighter ever. Thats why I think it is overrated.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 5, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> I understand the differences between the Mustang and the Spitfire and how they came about. The range of the Spitfire is similar to most pre-war fighters. This thread is about the most overrated aircraft. If you think of the different fighter missions; Intercepter, Air superiority, Ground Attack, Escort, any top ranked fighter should be able to accomplish all of these missions. I don't think the Spitfire does these missions as well as other aircraft such as the P-51 or F4U but may people will argue that it is the greatest fighter ever. Thats why I think it is overrated.



A jack of all trades and master of none?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 5, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> I understand the differences between the Mustang and the Spitfire and how they came about. The range of the Spitfire is similar to most pre-war fighters. This thread is about the most overrated aircraft. If you think of the different fighter missions; Intercepter, Air superiority, Ground Attack, Escort, any top ranked fighter should be able to accomplish all of these missions. I don't think the Spitfire does these missions as well as other aircraft such as the P-51 or F4U but may people will argue that it is the greatest fighter ever. Thats why I think it is overrated.



I don't think its necessarily the best, and by the end of the war there were certainly other aircraft that were better than it, but its a bit of a stretch of the imagination to say it was the most over-rated.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 5, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> The Spitfire was developed as a single engine fighter.



No. It was developed as a home defence fighter and to be the sharp end of an integrated air defence system being developed by the British at the same time.
Like all aircraft it was a compromise and speed and fire power were prioritised at the cost of endurance. This was done intentionally as any number of discussions and meetings from the period clearly demonstrate. I have posted excerpts from the minutes of some of these meetings in other threads.
The Spitfire was developed as an interceptor and its range was optimised for this role.

The issue of the Spitfire's range only became a problem when it was used in roles for which it was never intended, nor designed.

Incidentally as early as November 1934 the minutes of a meeting of the Air Fighting Committee refer explicitly to Hawker's submission to Specification F.7/30, which eventually became the Hurricane, as _"the Interceptor Fighter design from Hawker". _It too was quite explicitly designed for that role and to specifications tailored to that role.

Why let the facts get in the way of prejudice? The fact that the Spitfire and to a lesser extent the Hurricane, did prove competent in several other roles is a testament to the strength of their design. They were both good aircraft, the Spitfire was exceptional, undoubtedly one of the best aircraft of the era.

Cheers

Steve

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


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2016)

The P51 benefitted from the failure of US bombers to protect themselves, it was designed as a fighter, the idea of an escort fighter only came into being when it was needed and could be produced. To say that the Spitfire did nothing after 1940 is nonsense it outlived the planes that were supposed to replace it. The P51 was a 1940s design, how would it perform with a 1000BHP 1940 engine? I suspect its rate of climb would make it of less use than a Hurricane. Dissing the Spitfire invites people to have a go at the P51 which is a waste of effort, the P51 was a fine machine even with an Allison engine, it was even better with a British engine, canopy, airfield and gun sight.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 5, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> I understand the differences between the Mustang and the Spitfire and how they came about. The range of the Spitfire is similar to most pre-war fighters. This thread is about the most overrated aircraft. If you think of the different fighter missions; Intercepter, Air superiority, Ground Attack, Escort, any top ranked fighter should be able to accomplish all of these missions. I don't think the Spitfire does these missions as well as other aircraft such as the P-51 or F4U but may people will argue that it is the greatest fighter ever. Thats why I think it is overrated.


The war started in 1939, the spitfire out performed the P51B/C in 1939 1940, 41, 42 and most of 43 did the P51 ever out perform the Mk XIV? The Tempest or P47 Only as an escort fighter was the P51 exceptional in other roles it was very good or good.


----------



## grampi (Jul 5, 2016)

pbehn said:


> did the P51 ever out perform the Mk XIV?



I believe the "G" and "H" models did.


----------



## My109 (Jul 13, 2016)

Probably the p51 mustang, in my opinion.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 13, 2016)

What always struck me and I think what many tend to forget is that the Mustang was besting whatever the Germans could throw at it while still carrying around a lot more fuel doing it. I'm not talking total amount, but the amount they had when involved in any sort of furball over the Reich, after dropping the externals you still were going into combat with what, both wing tanks full or close to it? Not to mention what might be left in the fuselage tank. The interceptors had no such extra weight on board, those here more knowledgeable than me can set that record straight and correct me if I'm wrong.

Also the fact that I believe in half as many sorties as the P-47, it has twice as many kills. Again, those more in the know can correct me on this if I'm off base.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 13, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> Also the fact that I believe in half as many sorties as the P-47, it has twice as many kills. Again, those more in the know can correct me on this if I'm off base.


That may be correct but the P47 was doing escort missions to and from Germany where the germans were not likely to attack outward and inward, if only the P51 was used the score wouldnt have improved by much at all, it was the range of the P51 hat made the difference,

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (Jul 13, 2016)

My109 said:


> Probably the p51 mustang, in my opinion.



I think the 51 was overrated in some areas, and underrated in others...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 13, 2016)

The P-51 was a game changer. Without it the one unequivocal victory of the combined bomber offensive, the destruction of the Luftwaffe (or German Air Force as the Americans liked to call it) would not have been possible.
It might be over rated in some respects as a fighter, but it is impossible to over rate it's impact on WW2 in Europe.
Cheers
Steve

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 13, 2016)

To try to figure out if a fighter (or other aircraft) was just good or truly great try plugging into other aircraft's jobs/missions. 
Not every aircraft can do all missions (you can't swap P-51s and Hellcats, either way) but the P-51 can do _more _of the missions that were required in 1944/45 than any other fighter of the time period and do them _well_ even if not the _best_ at some.
A P-51D might not be the best for intercepting 4 engine bombers but with six .50s it should have done fairly well (better than planes with a single 20mm and a pair of smaller machineguns).
It might not have been as good as a Typhoon or Tempest for strafing or bombing (less armor?) but it could carry a similar bombload and was about as fast lowdown. 
And so on, 
There were few, if any jobs, done by single seat land based , single engine day fighters that the P-51 couldn't do and do well.
How many other fighters can say that?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 13, 2016)

I think the Mustang may tend to get overrated due to a lot of people not appreciating just how much the strategic situation was on the USAAF's side during it's time in the spotlight.


----------



## GregP (Jul 13, 2016)

The strategic situation was where it was because of earlier actions. 

It didn't just evolve all on its own to suit the USAAF. Germany was PUT in that situation by the earlier war actions. Hitler was a former enlisted man, but even he should have know that a 3-front war is lost.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 13, 2016)

The Strategic situation was what it was but even given the situation what other single seat land based day fighter could have done as well as the P-51B,C,D ? 
The P-47 wouldn't have the range needed until the N showed up and that was too late. 
The P-38 was the other US choice and while it sometimes is not given the credit it is due for the late versions they still weren't as good as the P-51.
The US might have been able to smash the Luftwaffe using P-47Ds and P-38J/Ls but it would have taken longer and cost more US lives. 

What British fighter could have substituted for the P-51 from the spring of 1944 on? 
Swap it around:
What German fighter could have flown the same escort missions?
What Russian fighter could have flown the same escort missions?
What Japanese fighter could have flown the same escort missions?

And P-51s could play fighter bomber and other missions (V-1 interceptor?)
P-51 not only maxed out with a 1000lb bomb under each wing, it could carry a pair of 500lb bombs on a mission radius of 400 miles if fitted with rear tank.

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


----------



## pbehn (Jul 13, 2016)

The P51 was a pure enigma, no one can take away from its performance as Shortround has pointed out. However I would point out the following.

If the British didnt need fighters in 1940 it would not exist
If the British didnt take a chance on a new design it would probablynot exist.
If NA didnt produce it in the agreed time frame it would probably not exist
If the Merlin didnt fit in it it would have been a very sound but unremarkable tactical recon fighter
If German industry was as far away as Moscow it would be of n use and if it was as close as Belgium it wouldnt be needed.
If it didnt have a US champion to keep it in production as a dive bomber it probably would have been a "what if"
The role of escort fighter was first considered unnecessary and then considered impossible, when the role was proved to be needed and the P51 could do it it suddenly became obvious how great it was. Whether it was under rated or over rated it was surely the luckiest piece of machinery to exist. It combines the product of two industrial competitors doing a job that didnt exist before it took flight.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 14, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> The US might have been able to smash the Luftwaffe using P-47Ds and P-38J/Ls but it would have taken longer and cost more US lives.



'Big Week'/Operation Argument in February 1944 was really the beginning of an effort to fulfill the requirements of the Pointblank Directive promulgated nine months earlier. It also announced a change in USAAF tactics. It is no coincidence that the date of 'Big Week' coincides with the culmination of the initial build up of US fighter forces in NW Europe AND the arrival of the P-51. From around this time the 8th AF fighter force essentially started to convert to the P-51, retaining almost none of the other types except in specialist roles (like P-38 reconnaissance types) and at 'stick in the mud' Groups like the 56th. The P-38 otherwise almost disappeared from this theatre, and the P-47 took on other important and complimentary roles with tactical forces.
It was clear to the 8th Air Force Command that the P-51 was the tool for the job, and with hindsight it is clear to us that it was correct.







At the time of 'Big Week' only a small proportion of 8th AF fighters were P-51s, but by the time the Luftwaffe was defeated towards the end of the year there was hardly anything else.

It's difficult to see how the P-51 can be overrated for it's effect on the campaign. It did a lot of things well and a few very well. You can say the same about any good aircraft.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jul 14, 2016)

pbehn said:


> The P51 was a pure enigma, no one can take away from its performance as Shortround has pointed out. However I would point out the following.
> 
> If the British didnt need fighters in 1940 it would not exist
> If the British didnt take a chance on a new design it would probablynot exist.
> ...



All pretty good 'what if's' except that the 'US Champion' that found a way to bridge the end of the Mustang I and IA contract for NAA was Hap Arnold. He had made up his mind to a.) proceed forward with an AAF contract based on the merits demonstrated at Wright Pat and NACA Langley as well as the concept of armed recon, but had no clue regarding Merlin mod and b) pick the unused funding for additional Dive Bombers. That said, it is almost certain that he would have pushed for funding from another source absent the Dive Bomber slot. In rapid fire, the Brits completed their initial testing of the Mustang I and published the results on 1 May, 1941. In that report was the first push to try installing a Merlin 61. Then:

The A-36 contract was let April 16, 1942 - two weeks before the legendary "go Merlin decision had been made by RR/RAF' decision
NAA was drawn into the plan in late May. 
The P-51A contract was let in June with a proviso that AAF could convert the balance of the orders with a P-51B should they so choose. The XP-51B contract was let in July,1942.
The P-51B contact in August, 1942
All before the first flight of the Mustang X.

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


----------



## drgondog (Jul 14, 2016)

stona said:


> 'Big Week'/Operation Argument in February 1944 was really the beginning of an effort to fulfill the requirements of the Pointblank Directive promulgated nine months earlier.
> 
> *A slightly different POV. Operation Argument was stimulated/prioritized as a subset of POINT BLANK when it became clear that the Combined Bomber Offensive failed to eliminate the threat that the LW posed to the Invasion. This was the true source of Doolittle's pronouncement (and incentive plan to rank a ground score the same as air to air toward "Ace") to "Destroy the LW in the air and on the Ground".*
> 
> ...



The key attribute of the P-51B/C was that they made possible the continuation of the Daylight phase of Operation and were the main contributor to the daylight destruction of the LW prior to D-Day. Take what you want relative to its mantle of most important fighter in 1944, 1945 but defeat of Germany was #1 Priority of the Allies..

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 14, 2016)

drgondog said:


> All pretty good 'what if's' except that the 'US Champion' that found a way to bridge the end of the Mustang I and IA contract for NAA was Hap Arnold. He had made up his mind to a.) proceed forward with an AAF contract based on the merits demonstrated at Wright Pat and NACA Langley as well as the concept of armed recon, but had no clue regarding Merlin mod and b) pick the unused funding for additional Dive Bombers. That said, it is almost certain that he would have pushed for funding from another source absent the Dive Bomber slot. In rapid fire, the Brits completed their initial testing of the Mustang I and published the results on 1 May, 1941. In that report was the first push to try installing a Merlin 61. Then:
> 
> The A-36 contract was let April 16, 1942 - two weeks before the legendary "go Merlin decision had been made by RR/RAF' decision
> NAA was drawn into the plan in late May.
> ...


Great post, I was quoting from memory, the story is convoluted and much of it written in hindsight.

Just one question, would it have been commercially possible for the British to specify a plane designed around the Merlin in 1939/40. I know merlins were wanted by all branches of the british military but if the first flight of the Mustang was with a Merlin it may have speeded things up.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Great post, I was quoting from memory, the story is convoluted and much of it written in hindsight.
> 
> Just one question, would it have been commercially possible for the British to specify a plane designed around the Merlin in 1939/40. I know merlins were wanted by all branches of the british military but if the first flight of the Mustang was with a Merlin it may have speeded things up.


 It wouldn't have speeded things up by much, even assuming you could find a few spare Merlins in the fall of 1940. The single stage Merlins were roughly 250-300lbs lighter than the 2 stage engines, the P-51B used a prop that weighed roughly 100lbs more than the prop on the Allison models. SIngle stage Merlins and Allisons need different radiators and oil coolers from each other. The two stage engine is going to need bigger radiators and oil coolers let alone adding the inter-cooler so the whole radiator/oil cooler duct would have to be redone in any case. 

There were roughly 1580 Allison powered Mustangs (counting A-36s) and they were used in Europe, the Med and the Far East. Coming up with 2100-2400 extra Merlins (including spares) during late 1941-42 and early 43 might be a bit of a problem without shorting several other programs. _MAYBE _you could swipe *all *the Merlins used to power the P-40Fs and Ls, Not sure how that would play out with more Es, Ks and Ms in use and needing more Spitfires and single stage Merlin Mustangs to fly top cover for them?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jul 15, 2016)

Pbehn asked "Just one question, would it have been commercially possible for the British to specify a plane designed around the Merlin in 1939/40. I know merlins were wanted by all branches of the british military but if the first flight of the Mustang was with a Merlin it may have speeded things up.


The Merlin availability was the gating factor. Not just availability, but track record solid enough to prioritize as The in-line power plant - solid enough to bet the farm at NAA during pre-design of NA-73, solid enough to re-direct Griffon and other in-line engine production to Merlin to meet demand. I don't think it was a commercial issue, but a timing and reputation and foreknowledge of the Merlin development potential.

I don't recall that RR had the manufacturing capacity to keep pace with the Hurricane, Spitfire, Mosquito, Lancaster development and production - nor supply RCAF production

Regarding earlier development of the P-51B? Had Packard Merlin started delivering 1650-1's in early 1939 (impossible based on RR Merlin development lifecycle, the License discussion cycle, much less the amount of time to reproduce to US tooling and parts standards), then the 1650-1 may have been the selected engine for the XP-51... and the airframe would have been ready earlier (nearly, because the two stage S/C required changes to firewall and engine mounts).

As SR noted, Introducing the 1650-3 would have required changes to Radiator/oil cooler system but would not have to move the wing and change the firewall which were Major structural changes 

But recall that NAA had more than 100 P-51B-1 airframes completed awaiting deliveries of the production 1650-3 engines caught up to NAA production from May to July, 1943. 

That is an incredible stretch given AAF high command inclination to 'buy American' and not much was even known about the Spitfire and no two stage two speed in-line engines were ready to drop in. Had Allison been funded in 1938 with high altitude performance as a spec - then perhaps the Mustang could have been immediately available in 1942.

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


----------



## pbehn (Jul 15, 2016)

Great info guys. One part of my question was about the legality, would the USA sanction airframes being shipped abroad given a hypothetical abundance of merlins from the merlin tree?


----------



## drgondog (Jul 15, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Great info guys. One part of my question was about the legality, would the USA sanction airframes being shipped abroad given a hypothetical abundance of merlins from the merlin tree?


 The US approved British order for Model 322 Lightnings in June 1940.


----------



## Timppa (Jul 15, 2016)

Ilyushin Il-2.

Known for its toughness, yet shot down in droves.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 15, 2016)

drgondog said:


> The US approved British order for Model 322 Lightnings in June 1940.


 A correction from "AHT" The British ordered 143 model 322s in March of 1940.
June 5th 1940 saw the US give approval for an order of 524 Lightning MK IIs with turbo superchargers.

1939 and 1940 certainly saw the delivery of hundreds of Hawk 75s, some Hawk 81s, and plenty of Lockheed Hudsons, Martin Marylanders, Douglas DB-7s/Bostons/Hovacs and Grumman Wildcat/Martlets and others. Doesn't seem to be a big problem although a few planes did have to resort to some sort of skulduggery in order to make it out of the country.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 17, 2016)

Here's a question from left field. Could the the two stage supercharger for the Merlin been adapted to Allison engine, and, if so could it have been produce quicker and in sufficient quantities to upgrade the Allison P-51s and provide a very capable high altitude fighter maybe a year earlier? Does the the development of the two stage supercharger support this scenario?


----------



## wuzak (Jul 17, 2016)

davparlr said:


> Here's a question from left field. Could the the two stage supercharger for the Merlin been adapted to Allison engine, and, if so could it have been produce quicker and in sufficient quantities to upgrade the Allison P-51s and provide a very capable high altitude fighter maybe a year earlier? Does the the development of the two stage supercharger support this scenario?



Yes, it could have.

I think that, if anything, the conversion would take longer. It would require setting up the supercharger manufacturing facility and modifying the design to suit the Allison. It would then need to go through reliability testing, etc.

Packard were already building the V-1650-1. It was far easier for them to change to 2 stage production (the V-1650-3) than it would be for Allison.

The V-1710 was run in conjunction with a Merlin 2 stage supercharger (around 1944 IIRC), but it wasn't connected directly to the engine. Performance was near enough identical to the Merlin.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 18, 2016)

In a lot of engines the "back half" of the supercharger is part of the engine casting or at least the mounting bosses/points are. adding and subtracting superchargers is _not _ quite as easy as doing it on car engines. Perhaps _all _that is needed is a new crankcase mold for casting, perhaps not.
Aircraft superchargers take several hundred horsepower to drive. The two stage superchargers could take 3-400hp and so need substantial drive mechanisms. It took Allison about a year to deliver single stage engines using 9.60 drive gears because they needed to increase the thickness of the drive gears to handle the load over using 8.80 gears. This required new castings. The Merlin required new supercharger drive components to go from 15lbs boost to 18lbs and above. They broke supercharger drive shafts on occasion in testing
when trying for 18lbs boost.
IIRC correctly Allison went through several (3?) Merlin superchargers when doing the testing referred to by Wuzak. They suffered bearing failure in the superchargers. The first stage of the Merlin supercharger was an 11.5- 12in diameter impeller spinning at 24,000rpm plus so any misalignment or vibration in the drive system could mess things up in a hurry. How much the crankcase acted like a heat sink or contributed to the supercharger cooling might also be a factor. AIr in the supercharger could easily be at a higher temperature than the engine coolant and oil. Perhaps the bearing failures were due to excessive oil temperature in the bearings?
_Service _use of the copied supercharger could only come at the end of a thorough testing phase.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 19, 2016)

Thanks wuzak and SR6 for the great info, as I expected from you guys. I was just thinking that it would have been easier to adapt another supercharger than to create an entirely new engine plant, but that would have been needed anyway.


----------



## V-1710 (Jul 21, 2016)

Take a look at the 2 stage supercharged Allison used in the P-63. It was a novel design, using a fluid coupling to drive the second stage, and performed well at high altitudes. May not have been practical for installation in a Mustang though.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jul 21, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Great post, I was quoting from memory, the story is convoluted and much of it written in hindsight.
> 
> Just one question, would it have been commercially possible for the British to specify a plane designed around the Merlin in 1939/40. I know merlins were wanted by all branches of the british military but if the first flight of the Mustang was with a Merlin it may have speeded things up.



I forgot to answer this. According to Lee Atwood, the NAA contract with the British Purchasing System agreed to Brit authority for all Brit furnished equipment, including engine change if so specified.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 21, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> It wouldn't have speeded things up by much, even assuming you could find a few spare Merlins in the fall of 1940. The single stage Merlins were roughly 250-300lbs lighter than the 2 stage engines, the P-51B used a prop that weighed roughly 100lbs more than the prop on the Allison models. SIngle stage Merlins and Allisons need different radiators and oil coolers from each other. The two stage engine is going to need bigger radiators and oil coolers let alone adding the inter-cooler so the whole radiator/oil cooler duct would have to be redone in any case.
> 
> There were roughly 1580 Allison powered Mustangs (counting A-36s) and they were used in Europe, the Med and the Far East. Coming up with 2100-2400 extra Merlins (including spares) during late 1941-42 and early 43 might be a bit of a problem without shorting several other programs. _MAYBE _you could swipe *all *the Merlins used to power the P-40Fs and Ls, Not sure how that would play out with more Es, Ks and Ms in use and needing more Spitfires and single stage Merlin Mustangs to fly top cover for them?



I suspect that the UK would have been willing to forgo some Hurricane production if it meant fitting their engines into Mustangs. Also if Ford hadn't decided to pull out of the Merlin engine deal, Ford would probably have had the Merlin in volume production ~6 months sooner than Packard and Ford volume production would have been somewhat higher, sooner, compared to Packard.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 21, 2016)

However, if Ford diverted resources to produce Merlin engines, how would it have effected the output of their other wartime production lines, such as B-24s, Tanks, Trucks, Jeeps, and other materials?

Ford was approached to manufacture 9,000 Merlins and they originally accepted the deal, but then Henry turned the contract down, claiming that he would only build for U.S. defense. there must be more to the story that we're not being told, but as it is, Ford's plant in Trafford Park produced over 35,000 Merlins.

Packard had a modern, state of the art manufacturing facility, producing roughly 55,000 V-1650 engines...a total actually higher than Ford's Trafford Park plant.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 21, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> However, if Ford diverted resources to produce Merlin engines, how would it have effected the output of their other wartime production lines, such as B-24s, Tanks, Trucks, Jeeps, and other materials?
> 
> Ford was approached to manufacture 9,000 Merlins and they originally accepted the deal, but then Henry turned the contract down, claiming that he would only build for U.S. defense. there must be more to the story that we're not being told, but as it is, Ford's plant in Trafford Park produced over 35,000 Merlins.
> 
> Packard had a modern, state of the art manufacturing facility, producing roughly 55,000 V-1650 engines...a total actually higher than Ford's Trafford Park plant.


As you say Packard had modern plants, so they could have picked up what Ford had to turn down to build the Merlin. Ford had much greater engine manufacturing and production capacity than Packard. Henry Ford's political leanings are well known.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 21, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> As you say Packard had modern plants, so they could have picked up what Ford had to turn down to build the Merlin. Ford had much greater engine manufacturing and production capacity than Packard. Henry Ford's political leanings are well known.


Keep in mind that Ford's aircraft engine plant in Dearborn was already laid out, tooled and committed to manufacturing radial engines.

During the war, this plant produced 57,851 (Pratt&Whitney) R-2800 engines.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 21, 2016)

The availability of the Merlin XX for the XP-51 (version 2) in parallel with the Mustang I production series would have enabled the NAA design team to solve about six months of May-November 1942 time to go from P-51-1/Mustang 1A to P-51B. The whole airframe/Carb/firewall/ dropped wing/radiatior issues would have been solved by the time the Merlin 61 was available in spring 1942.

That said, it had to be in the hands of the Brits to define the engine as British GFE.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 21, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Keep in mind that Ford's aircraft engine plant in Dearborn was already laid out, tooled and committed to manufacturing radial engines.
> 
> During the war, this plant produced 57,851 (Pratt&Whitney) R-2800 engines.


Ford initially agreed to produce Merlins. Are you saying that he was planning to use the same production facility that had already been laid out for the R-2800? It seems more likely that Ford would have used alternate production facilities for a Ford Merlin.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 21, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> Ford initially agreed to produce Merlins. Are you saying that he was planning to use the same production facility that had already been laid out for the R-2800? It seems more likely that Ford would have used alternate production facilities for a Ford Merlin.


Not all of Ford's facilities were geared toward engine manufacturing, the ones that were, had already been dedicated to production of vehicles, tanks and (as already mentioned) aircraft.

He initially agreed to 9,000 engines, not a full production committment. 9,000 engines would not have been entirely out of the question, as it wouldn't have tied up his already busy foundry facilities.

Packard, on the otherhand, was able to engage and fully commit their foundry for a dedicated production run.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> I suspect that the UK would have been willing to forgo some Hurricane production if it meant fitting their engines into Mustangs. Also if Ford hadn't decided to pull out of the Merlin engine deal, Ford would probably have had the Merlin in volume production ~6 months sooner than Packard and Ford volume production would have been somewhat higher, sooner, compared to Packard.


I am not sure where the 6 month advantage comes from. It might have been closer to 2 months, if that. 
Talks with Packard started within just a few weeks of the Ford deal falling though (June 1940) and Packard got most of the drawings and the sample engines a few weeks after that. The deal may not have been "signed" until Sept 1940 but Packard was at least making plans before then. 
Ford had started work on the R-2800 plan during July and August. Edsel Ford had visited the P & W Plant on 8-22-1940. Ground was broken on the NEW factory Sept 17 1940, the same day payment of 14 million dollars was made to Ford for the factory construction.
Obviously some preliminary discussions and plans had gone on before this official dates. 
Ford pretty much duplicated the P & W factory layout. 
Ford had very little existing machinery from the car factories that was suitable for aircraft engine production. 
How much Packard had is certainly debatable and their old aircraft machinery may very well have been tied up making PT-boat engines. Not that they made aircraft engines by the hundreds in any case (except perhaps Liberty engines). 

I am afraid the idea the Ford could make hundreds of engines months sooner than Packard doesn't hold up very well. 
I would also note that engine production is related to the resources allocated to it and not some "magic" from one company or engineer.
The Ford aircraft engine factory was "planned" to build 800 engines a month. It did reach 2400 a month at one point but that point was only reached after the floor space ( and machinery) had been tripled in size from the original plan. 
A lot of the machinery for these plants was either supplied by the government or allocated by the government in a ration scheme. No company could go out on the open market and purchase hundreds of new machine tools. Allison at one point in 1940 was short almost 800 machine tools and it had an a A1A priority rating.

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


----------



## drgondog (Jul 22, 2016)

The Only path that shortens the delivery of the Mustang with Merlin is for BPC to specify the Merlin as Brit GFE and supply the Merlins. And, BTW, the Brits often engaged in dialogue to get manufacturing license with NAA - so it isn't inconceivable.

Take Ford out of the equation. The early Mark I's Could have been designed around the Merlin had the Brits committed to the idea and gambled that they could supply the Merlins, slow down the Hurricane, until the 1650-1 and then 1650-3 came off the Packard production lines.

With that substitution, the Mustang I flies in 1940, maybe delayed - but the XP-51B is ready to go in June/July 1942 rather than November 1942.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 22, 2016)

So if the XP-51B is ready in June 1942, does that mean we'd have operational Mustangs (P-51B edition) in the ETO sometime in June/July 1943?


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 22, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not sure where the 6 month advantage comes from. It might have been closer to 2 months, if that.
> Talks with Packard started within just a few weeks of the Ford deal falling though (June 1940) and Packard got most of the drawings and the sample engines a few weeks after that. The deal may not have been "signed" until Sept 1940 but Packard was at least making plans before then.
> Ford had started work on the R-2800 plan during July and August. Edsel Ford had visited the P & W Plant on 8-22-1940. Ground was broken on the NEW factory Sept 17 1940, the same day payment of 14 million dollars was made to Ford for the factory construction.
> Obviously some preliminary discussions and plans had gone on before this official dates.
> ...


Ford MC was far far larger than Packard. Ford had far greater engineering capability and manufacturing capacity. Ford actually went on to design a Merlin competitor, in record time, and build a variant of it for use in tanks:
Ford GAA Engine

IMHO Ford could have gotten the Merlin into production (~6 months) sooner and achieved higher volume sooner than Packard.

BTW, Packard was given the same 9000 engine contract as Ford.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 22, 2016)

I wouldn't say far far larger, more spread out perhaps, after all, the Packard factory was HUGE, I think their manufacturing and engineering capability was pretty close to Ford. They built better cars as well (personal opinion).

The Ford GAA, well, yeah, not sure the wisdom of designing a piston aircraft engine at the dawn of the jet age but opinions vary, especially considering the excellent V-1710 already in production.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 22, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> So if the XP-51B is ready in June 1942, does that mean we'd have operational Mustangs (P-51B edition) in the ETO sometime in June/July 1943?



A lot of other moving parts were running along the A-36 and P-51A designs that were crucial to the P-51B. The most important was migrating to a true mass production line when the funding for the A-36/P-51A materialized in April-June 1942. The second most important derivative of the A-36 was the external bomb rack/fuel tank design to augment internal fuel.

In parallel with those two initiatives, were the efforts to stimulate the development of ferry tanks then combat tanks. Independent of the P-51B, the pressurized 75 gallon tank and the systems in the airframe to manage the pressurization were in the formative stage and I don't see that problem being solved any sooner. The 85 gallon tank initiative started after February 20 meeting driven by Arnold to solve the Long Range Escort 'problem'.. so the XP-51B had been flying 80 days and the first P-51B-1 was near starting on the production line. The first flight was mid July in a highly modified P-51B-1 and the production drawings completed by first of September. The first Base Depot mod was in early November. (That timeline doesn't change so the March, 1944 Berlin mission wasn't happening any sooner.)

So the answer to the question is "yes, with a caveat". Given the introduction of the Merlin based on BPA making the Merlin decision in 1940 - then the answer is Yes. That said, the P-51B would have been deployed in time to match the 353rd, 352nd, 355th, 356th as well as 9th AF 354th FG's in parallel with their operational deployment.

The limit of escort however would have been limited to Hamburg, Brunswick, and Ulm - Additionally, the 8th AF really didn't have the airplanes and crews to execute the Combined Bomber Directive to Joint Chiefs satisfaction in June-August 1943. Nor could they have prevented the Schweinfurt/Regensburg, Munster thumpings. To be sure the 8th AF losses would have been less and the LW operational losses greater.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 22, 2016)

mistaken post


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 22, 2016)

Another possibility would be to fit Allisons into some Hurricanes to free up RR Merlins for Mustangs.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 22, 2016)

Allisons had too high priority to export. P-38, P-40, P-39.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 22, 2016)

drgondog said:


> Allisons had too high priority to export. P-38, P-40, P-39.


Sir you jest, nothing could serve the allies better than putting Allisons into Hurricanes, what the Brits really needed was to introduce a new engine, the ground crews were bored and needed amusement and the supply chain was under used

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> Ford MC was far far larger than Packard. Ford had far greater engineering capability and manufacturing capacity. Ford actually went on to design a Merlin competitor, in record time, and build a variant of it for use in tanks:
> Ford GAA Engine
> 
> IMHO Ford could have gotten the Merlin into production (~6 months) sooner and achieved higher volume sooner than Packard.
> ...



Ford had bigger manufacturing capacity but as note it was scattered around and was mostly building


RCAFson said:


> Ford MC was far far larger than Packard. Ford had far greater engineering capability and manufacturing capacity. Ford actually went on to design a Merlin competitor, in record time, and build a variant of it for use in tanks:
> Ford GAA Engine
> 
> IMHO Ford could have gotten the Merlin into production (~6 months) sooner and achieved higher volume sooner than Packard.
> ...



Sorry but this doesn't seem to hold up.
Packard was given a the contract for 9000 Merlins and built a factory capable of building 800 engines a month. The "deal" was signed in Sept of 1940 although Packard had some of the preliminary drawings and at least on sample engine in either late July or early August. 
Packard hit 801 engines in July of 1942.
Ford likewise signed the "Deal" for the R-2800 factory in Sept of 1940 but had been in talks earlier. The Ford factory was also supposed to build 800 engines a month. Ford built 798 engines in Dec of 1942. Their peak until March of 1943 but construction at the factory (1st expansion) may have disrupted things. 
Granted the R-2800 is a larger heavier engine with 18 cylinders but even measured by the horsepower of engines built (plus spares) Packard built 1,248,000 hp worth of engines/parts in July of of 1942 while Ford built 1,147,000 hp worth of engines/parts in the same month. (570 engines at 2000hp each plus spares?) 
Now consider that Packard had to redraw thousands (if not tens of thousands) of drawings/blue prints to US standards, had the on site help of only two RR engineers and had to adapt the engine to a US propshaft, a US carb and a US (Packard) supercharger drive. 
Detroit is over 3600 miles form Derby.
Ford got all the drawings for the R-2800, didn't have to redraw anything (duplicate yes), got the P & W factory layout and parts flow diagrams, and was only 540 miles From Hartford. Ford did change from the "A" series to the "B" series R-2800 engines but built pretty much standard R-2800 engines. At times they may have used different magnetos depending on supply. 

I am just not seeing how Ford was going to gain 6 months on Packard.

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the Ford V-1650 either. It's easy to design/build a prototype engine. Getting to pass a type test and fly (even in a test hack) takes lot longer. P & W started work on the R-2800 "C" series in May of 1940, first test engine ran in Sept 1940, 150 hour model test of the single stage engine was completed in Sept of 1943 and the 150 hour model test of the two stage engine was completed in Jan of 1944.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> Another possibility would be to fit Allisons into some Hurricanes to free up RR Merlins for Mustangs.



Just what the Hurricane pilots needed, less power for take-off and less power at altitude. 
Why not just shoot the Pilots as they lined up next to their planes and save the gas ???

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 22, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> Another possibility would be to fit Allisons into some Hurricanes to free up RR Merlins for Mustangs.



The problem with that is that the RAF were desperate for every airplane they could lay their hands on - especially fighters. Its teh reason the Hurricane remained in production and that the Spitfire went from Mk II to Mk V since going to the superior Mk III would have cost too much production.

Changing the Hurricane to the V-1710 would surely have cost more production than the change from Hurricane I to Hurricane II.

Also, I'm not sure the production of the V-1710 at the period in question was sufficient to support Hurricane production. Which would mean even fewer aircraft for the RAF.

It also makes the supply line very vulnerable. Shipping Merlins west and Allisons east. Over the U-Boat hunting grounds. Sure, the British could have taken engine-less P-51s and installed the Merlins in the UK. But they would still have to ship V-1710s from the US to the UK.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 22, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Ford had bigger manufacturing capacity but as note it was scattered around and was mostly building
> 
> 
> Sorry but this doesn't seem to hold up.
> ...



The R-2800 had a rather tortured development and it wasn't ready for volume production until 1942 (and not really then), unlike the Merlin which had been in volume production from 1937. You can't expect Ford to mass produce an engine that was still in design and development.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 22, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Just what the Hurricane pilots needed, less power for take-off and less power at altitude.
> Why not just shoot the Pilots as they lined up next to their planes and save the gas ???


C'mon that's a bit extreme.
The Hurricane was essentially a low altitude ground attack aircraft from 1942 onward. I'm sure that Hurricane pilots would have preffered to fly with the Allison if they had Merlin engined Mustangs as an escort.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 22, 2016)

wuzak said:


> The problem with that is that the RAF were desperate for every airplane they could lay their hands on - especially fighters. Its teh reason the Hurricane remained in production and that the Spitfire went from Mk II to Mk V since going to the superior Mk III would have cost too much production.
> 
> Changing the Hurricane to the V-1710 would surely have cost more production than the change from Hurricane I to Hurricane II.
> 
> ...


The Hurricane was being produced in Canada with the first Canadian built aircraft flying in 1939 but production was hobbled due to the lack of Merlins. Hurricane production would have increased if some or all Cancar Hurricanes used Allisons,


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 22, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Sir you jest, nothing could serve the allies better than putting Allisons into Hurricanes, what the Brits really needed was to introduce a new engine, the ground crews were bored and needed amusement and the supply chain was under used



That's why, in 1941, the RAF introduced the Allison engined P-40 into North Africa...


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 22, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> That's why, in 1941, the RAF introduced the Allison engined P-40 into North Africa...



But they preferred the Merlin engined P-40.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> The R-2800 had a rather tortured development and it wasn't ready for volume production until 1942 (and not really then), unlike the Merlin which had been in volume production from 1937. You can't expect Ford to mass produce an engine that was still in design and development.



Ah, not really. 
P & W production for the R-2800 in 1941 was 1461 single stage A series engines, 2 single stage B series engines and 6 two stage B series engines. 
Ford built 262 single stage A series engines in 1941 and 2 single stage B series engines. 
Even early 1942 saw a flood of R-2800 engines coming out of the two factories, 
Jan 1942 saw P& W build just 49 single stage A engines and that was the end of them, but 220 B series single stage engines. Ford in Jan of 1942 cranked out 229 A series engines and 36 B series (Ford never built a 2 stage engine unless it was equipped with a turbo).
Feb saw P & W build 349 single stage Bs and 5 two stage Bs while Ford built 238 A series and 63 B series.
March saw P & W build 358 single stage Bs and 15 two stage Bs while Ford built 225 A series and 150 B series.
Over 500 engines a month is hardly an engine still in design and development. By the fall of 1942 (say September) P & W was building around 500 R-2800s a month and Ford was building 640 a month and numbers were still rising. 
Three reasons for large incenses in 1943 production for the R-2800 are not getting problems fixed but the facts that Nash-Kelvinator joined in as 3rd production source and the Ford plant was doubled in size (sq footage) to a capacity of 1600 engines a month and extra plants were built in Connecticut as feeder plants to supply the main factory. P & W production hitting over 800 engines month while building up to 1000 R-1830s a month at the same time. 

It takes time to build and equip factories and train workers. Many times the American automotive plants were simply shuttered and management and many of the workers moved to new, specially equipped factories for war production. Or sometimes only part of the automobile plants were kept open to supply certain parts. 
Just like you don't build tanks in car factories you don't build large aircraft engines in factories that built 3.3 liter cast iron 4 cylinder and 3.6 liter cast iron V-8s. You may be able to make some parts but trying to handle things like 400-500lb crankshaft forgings requires over head cranes that the auto engine factories either didn't have or only had in small numbers,

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> The Hurricane was being produced in Canada with the first Canadian built aircraft flying in 1939 but production was hobbled due to the lack of Merlins. Hurricane production would have increased if some or all Cancar Hurricanes used Allisons,



Allison built 24 engines in the first four months of 1940, things speeded up after that but there were only 138 Mustangs built in 1941. Any allocation of Allisons over and above that would have had to come from P-38, P-39 or P-40 production. 
And using early Allisons (like the -39 used in the early Mustangs) means about 100-150 less hp at any given altitude or for take-off compared to the Merlin XX. 
The 1325hp for take-off Allisons don't become available until well into 1942. May of 1942 for the P-40K and later for the A-36. 

More but less capable aircraft doesn't really seem like a good plan.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 23, 2016)

One other thing to consider: in addition to Packard producing the V-1650, they also produced engines for U.S. boats equipped with the M-5200 series engine, such as: the PT Boat, the USAAF rescue boats and the British Vosper. They also produced spare engines and parts for Canadian, British and Russian boats, too.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 23, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Ah, not really.
> P & W production for the R-2800 in 1941 was 1461 single stage A series engines, 2 single stage B series engines and 6 two stage B series engines.
> Ford built 262 single stage A series engines in 1941 and 2 single stage B series engines.
> Even early 1942 saw a flood of R-2800 engines coming out of the two factories,
> ...


Which R-2800 powered fighter was combat ready in 1942?

Ford started later with the R-2800 and got it into production sooner than the Packard Merlin, but t*he first B series R-2800 wasn't built by P&W until Dec 1941*, almost 2 years later than the first RR Merlin XX. The A series engines were useless for fighters so Ford was slowed by the development of the engine where Packard had a fully developed design to work with. Why would Ford or P&W produce R-2800 variants that their customers didn't want?

None of the R-2800 powered fighters were combat ready before mid 1943 because the R-2800 just wasn't fully developed before then. AFAIK, R-2800 engine production matched demand


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 23, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Allison built 24 engines in the first four months of 1940, things speeded up after that but there were only 138 Mustangs built in 1941. Any allocation of Allisons over and above that would have had to come from P-38, P-39 or P-40 production.
> And using early Allisons (like the -39 used in the early Mustangs) means about 100-150 less hp at any given altitude or for take-off compared to the Merlin XX.
> The 1325hp for take-off Allisons don't become available until well into 1942. May of 1942 for the P-40K and later for the A-36.
> 
> More but less capable aircraft doesn't really seem like a good plan.



So a Merlin engined Mustang is less capable than a Hurricane? If all Allisons allocated to the Mustang were given to Cancar for Hurricanes, then there could have been sizable numbers of Merlin XX engined Mustangs in 1941/42.


----------



## stona (Jul 23, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> If all Allisons allocated to the Mustang were given to Cancar for Hurricanes, then there could have been sizable numbers of Merlin XX engined Mustangs in 1941/42.



Wouldn't any Merlin XX freed up have gone into the Lancaster, Halifax, maybe Beaufighter etc ?

Cheers

Steve


----------



## wuzak (Jul 23, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> So a Merlin engined Mustang is less capable than a Hurricane? If all Allisons allocated to the Mustang were given to Cancar for Hurricanes, then there could have been sizable numbers of Merlin XX engined Mustangs in 1941/42.



No, an Allison engined Hurricane is less capable than a Merlin XX engined Hurricane.

There weren't a "sizeable number" of Mustangs available in 1941/42, regardless of the engines that powered them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 23, 2016)

stona said:


> Wouldn't any Merlin XX freed up have gone into the Lancaster, Halifax, maybe Beaufighter etc ?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



Agreed. They tended to go into bombers first.

Also, don't forget the Mosquito.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> Which R-2800 powered fighter was combat ready in 1942?
> 
> Ford started later with the R-2800 and got it into production sooner than the Packard Merlin, but t*he first B series R-2800 wasn't built by P&W until Dec 1941*, almost 2 years later than the first RR Merlin XX. The A series engines were useless for fighters so Ford was slowed by the development of the engine where Packard had a fully developed design to work with. Why would Ford or P&W produce R-2800 variants that their customers didn't want?
> 
> None of the R-2800 powered fighters were combat ready before mid 1943 because the R-2800 just wasn't fully developed before then. AFAIK, R-2800 engine production matched demand



Changing the argument?
You said the the R-2800 wasn't ready in 1942,
In fact this is what you said;
"The R-2800 had a rather tortured development and it wasn't ready for volume production until 1942 (and not really then)"

Which is obviously false. 
Now you want to claim it was "fighter" Versions of the R-2800 that weren't ready? and until mid 1943?

You are confusing service introduction with production ready which is two totally different things.
The US simply didn't build fighters powered by single stage R-2800s because they had the time to develop (or took it) the fighters with two stage engines. 
P & W built 1019 two stage R-2800s in 1942. That doesn't quite sound like the engine wasn't ready to me. 
Nash built 6 in Dec of 1942.

By the end of 1942 they built 532 P-47s (OK most of them weren't combat ready) and 178 Corsairs and 10 Hellcats. 
By the end of June 1943 Republic had built another 1412 P-47s, Vought had built 583 F4Us and Grumman had built 609 F6Fs.
Planes rolling out factory doors in the US are months away from entering combat in battle zones thousands of miles away.
By the end of June 1943 Nash had built 437 R-2800 two stage engines (Nash would build *only *2 stage engines ) and would build 2692 by years end.
P & W built 2071 two stage R-2800s in the first 6 months of 1943 so it certainly doesn't sound like a shortage of engines was the problem. 

As far as this sentence goes "Ford started later with the R-2800 and got it into production sooner than the Packard Merlin, but t*he first B series R-2800 wasn't built by P&W until Dec 1941*, almost 2 years later than the first RR Merlin XX."

Depends on what you mean by production I guess. Packard built 2 engines in Sept of 1941, Ford built 0, October saw Packard build 5 engines and Ford 1, Nov saw Packard build 10 engines and Ford build 99. Dec 1941 through March of 1942 Saw Ford outproduce Packard after which Packard built more engines in any given month most of the time through the end of 1944. 
"Starting" dates for both companies are a little grey with official contracts or transfers of funds being within days of each other but both companies doing some preliminary work at least several weeks in advance of the "official" date. Packard certainly didn't have a -2-3 month head start. 
As to how ready the B series R-2800 was, that can be answered by the production numbers, While P & W built only 2 in Dec of 1941 (along with 6 two stage "B" s) they built 220 in Jan and 359 in Feb. Jan saw the end of production of the A model in East Hartford. 

I never knew that that the RR Merlin XX engine was in production in Dec of 1939??

You are also confusing production engines with experimental or development engines. P & W had completed 100 hours of development testing and 180 hours of endurance testing on the "B" series as of May 24th, 1940. By August of 1940 a Bill of materials had been released to the Production dept for the B series engine, Ford got the Bill of Materials for the "B" series engine on Oct 17th 1940, This was the same date that the 150 hour model test for the two stage engine started. 

It takes time to bring an engine into production, lots of time and most factories took almost a year from first engine out the door to reaching anything near full capacity.

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


----------



## drgondog (Jul 23, 2016)

From the "go date' between BPC and NAA, given the AAF indifference to the Mustang, there is no scenario that I can think of that would result in more P-51 airframes in 1941-1942.

NAA needed the investment decision by AAF made in April 1942 to occur in April 1940 to stimulate the production planning, training, and tooling to drive the production efficiency achieved in late 1943.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 23, 2016)

wuzak said:


> Agreed. They tended to go into bombers first.
> 
> Also, don't forget the Mosquito.



Indeed, it was the allocation of the Merlin XX that led to the demise of the Spitfire III. Vickers-Armstrong (Supermarine) were told by the Air Council Subcommittee on Supply that the engine would not be available on 28th May 1940. 
This did lead indirectly to the Merlin 45 and Spitfire V, so it could have been worse 
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 23, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> One other thing to consider: in addition to Packard producing the V-1650, they also produced engines for U.S. boats equipped with the M-5200 series engine, such as: the PT Boat, the USAAF rescue boats and the British Vosper. They also produced spare engines and parts for Canadian, British and Russian boats, too.



I think you meant to type M-2500


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 23, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> I think you meant to type M-2500


yes, that was a typo...I could perhaps blame the ipad's keyboard, but it's probably more dyslexia than anything 

The marine engines Packard produced during the war were:
3M-2500
4M-2500
5M-2500

And contrary to popular belief, these were not based on the RR Merlin, but the Liberty L-12 that had it's roots in WWI.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The marine engines Packard produced during the war were:
> 3M-2500
> 4M-2500
> 5M-2500
> ...



Actually they were pretty much a clean piece of paper design. Aside from being a V-12 and having an overhead cam there wasn't a much in common between the Liberty and the Packard. Packard had built Liberty engines in WW I and the Packards were pretty good Liberty engines, quality varied tremendously between different suppliers. But Packard figured they could do better in the 1920s and built about 250 of the 1500 cu in Packard engine and about 330-335 of the 2500 cu in aircraft engines. 

Please note that the weight given for the PT boat engines may include the clutch/gearbox.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 23, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Changing the argument?
> You said the the R-2800 wasn't ready in 1942,
> In fact this is what you said;
> "The R-2800 had a rather tortured development and it wasn't ready for volume production until 1942 (and not really then)"
> ...


The Merlin was combat ready before 1939. The two stage/turbo versions of the R2800 were not combat ready until 1943 nor were their associated fighters, mainly due to engine problems. Consequently, Ford could not ramp up to full production as the assembly line was constantly being altered. Every B series engine produced before 1943 probably ended up on the scrap heap before ever seeing combat, along with their early variant aircraft.

This is a look at the severe problems associated with R-2800 development.
http://www.enginehistory.org/NoShortDays/Development of the R-2800 Crankshaft.pdf

Comparing Packard building a developed design versus Ford building a design in development is not a straightforward look at numbers of engines built. Additionally the 18 cylinder R-2800 was a very complex design.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 23, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Changing the argument?
> 
> 
> I never knew that that the RR Merlin XX engine was in production in Dec of 1939??



First build of a production engine doesn't imply that it was ready for volume production. There was a lengthy gap between first builds and volume production.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> Every B series engine produced before 1943 probably ended up on the scrap heap before ever seeing combat, along with their early variant aircraft.



You do of course have some sort of proof of that or reference? 

P & W built 4,300 B series engines (single stage) in 1942. Ford built 5,711 in 1942 so you are saying that over 10,000 engines ended up being scrapped along with their aircraft before seeing combat in the middle of WW II and nobody knows about it ???

*WOW!!!!
*
I wonder if the B-26 crews that flew at Midway knew their planes had been scrapped before they attacked the Japanese fleet? 
Likewise the B-26 crews in the Aleutian Islands in 1942 or the RAF crews in No 14 Squadron or the crews of the 22nd and 38th bomb groups operating out of Australia in early 1942. 
A lot of crews flying around in imaginary aircraft if you are correct. 

Not mention what happened to hundreds of P-47Cs? Just what were those P-47 Groups in England flying in the Spring of 1943? 
In Feb of 1943 Republic delivered it's 602 and last P-47C and rolled out it's first P-47D-1. But I guess all the R-2800s built in 1942 were scrapped so those fighters were re-engined with 1943 production delivered by submarine to the cargo ships transporting the fighters to Europe with crews working under tarps by flashlight so the merchant seamen wouldn't find out? 



> This is a look at the severe problems associated with R-2800 development.
> http://www.enginehistory.org/NoShortDays/Development of the R-2800 Crankshaft.pdf


http://www.enginehistory.org/NoShortDays/Development of the R-2800 Crankshaft.pdf

An interesting document but doesn't seem to make any mention of mass scraping of engines???
It also makes very little reference to the _practical _problems they were trying to solve. Like time between failures or time between overhauls. New Crankshaft and dampers that allow 5-600hrs between overhauls vs 300-350 hours???
I don't know the actual numbers but a lot of that document is reference to the later C and CA engines and post war commercial engines. 
Maybe I missed it. please give a page number or section in that document that says the Early R-2800s were failing at a high rate (aside from the Ford built ones failing due to being improperly cleaned of casting sand) 



> Comparing Packard building a developed design versus Ford building a design in development is not a straightforward look at numbers of engines built. Additionally the 18 cylinder R-2800 was a very complex design.



The R-2800 was complex and Ford did do a tremendous job but so far you have failed to show they could have cut months off the delivery time over Packard. Ford would have had to start with a bare plot of land just like they did with the R-2800 factory, they would have had to redo all the drawings/blueprints just like Packard did. They would have had to design the factory and tooling pretty much from scratch like Packard did instead of sending 15-20 engineers to the P & W factory for several weeks to study how P & W was doing things and then pretty much coping the P & W factory. And P & W was only 3-4 hours away by slow airplane or overnight by train. 

and as for "_The two stage/turbo versions of the R2800 were not combat ready until 1943 nor were their associated fighters, mainly due to engine problems. Consequently, Ford could not ramp up to full production as the assembly line was constantly being altered_."

Ford *never *built a 2 stage mechanically supercharged R-2800 engine. Ford also never built a "C" series engine. 

Ford Built 11 different models of the R-2800 and only 6 of those models were before Dec of 1942.

the -5s of 1850 hp (A series) went into B-26s and few experimental aircraft ( B-23 and XC-46)
the -21 of 2000hp that went into a variety of P-47s. 
the -51 of 2000hp that went into variety C-46s 
the -43 of 2000hp that went into C-46s and B-26s 

and that brings us to Nov of 1942 when Ford started building 2 new models although production of some of the old ones kept going.
They built 262 of the -27 model and that went into a variety of experimental aircraft and some Douglas A-26s.
The -31 engine (built to a total of 6088 engines) for Lockheed Venturas and Ventura variants was added. 

Yeah, I can see how confused and discombobulated Ford must have been dealing with single speed and two speed superchargers during their first year of production. 

Ford did reach full production about as fast as any other factory reached full production It took Buick and Chevrolet over a year each from first production engine to get close to full production building R-1830s, It took Nash about 16 months for the R-2800 it took Studebaker over a year to get production of the Wright R-1820 anywhere near up to speed. Studebaker built 4 engines in Feb of 1942 and finished 1942 with 6091 engines. they hit 2000 engines a month in May of 1943 and never fell below 2000 engines a month until some point in 1945. 
Sorry, nothing points to Packard either being slow or to Ford being super fast. All of these companies did a tremendous job but claiming that company "A" could have beaten company "B" into production by months (like by 25-33%) takes some real proof.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 23, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually they were pretty much a clean piece of paper design. Aside from being a V-12 and having an overhead cam there wasn't a much in common between the Liberty and the Packard. Packard had built Liberty engines in WW I and the Packards were pretty good Liberty engines, quality varied tremendously between different suppliers. But Packard figured they could do better in the 1920s and built about 250 of the 1500 cu in Packard engine and about 330-335 of the 2500 cu in aircraft engines.
> 
> Please note that the weight given for the PT boat engines may include the clutch/gearbox.


Right, the last of the evolved Liberty engines would have been the 3M.
The 4M was from a fresh piece of paper but, it's design was still based on what did and did not work on the late Liberties and was quite successful.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 23, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Right, the last of the evolved Liberty engines would have been the 3M.
> The 4M was from a fresh piece of paper but, it's design was still based on what did and did not work on the late Liberties and was quite successful.



What's the story with the Nuffield Liberty's?
Where they a similar evolution like the Packard engines?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 23, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> What's the story with the Nuffield Liberty's?
> Where they a similar evolution like the Packard engines?


With the war coming on, Britain was ramping up it's military assets and the Nuffield Liberty engine was one such project. They bought the license to produce the Liberty L-12 for their tanks and while it didn't see quite the evolution as Packard had done over the interwar years, Nuffield did make about a half dozen variants.

If memory serves right, it had pretty much the same horsepower as the L-12 engines, about 350 or so - if I get more time, I'll look up the specs, but they were underpowered for their applications and prone to such problems as overheating, which I suspect was more of a problem with the tank's engine compartment design and cooling system than the engine itself.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2016)

Here is a list of all Packard aircraft engines:
http://www.enginehistory.org/Packard/StatsAllPackardAero.pdf

The PT boat engines were modified/developed from the 2500 series aircraft engines. 
Different bore than a Liberty, different stroke, different number of valves per cylinder, different angle between the cylinder banks.
Given the number of different engines Packard built attributing the PT Boat engines to the Liberty seems a bit of a stretch. 
The details of the Packard built Liberty engines are in the list.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 24, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Here is a list of all Packard aircraft engines:
> http://www.enginehistory.org/Packard/StatsAllPackardAero.pdf
> 
> The PT boat engines were modified/developed from the 2500 series aircraft engines.
> ...


As has been mentioned before, the Marine engines (X)M-XXXX series were derived from the Aircraft (X)A-XXXX series.

Because of Packard's evolving marine engines, especially the 1M-2500 used to set speed records in the 1930's, that Packard was approached by the Navy for building and powering, the PT boats. The 3M-2500 was the last in the long line of highly evolved Liberties. The 4M-2500 was a fresh start and incorporated 2 spark plugs and 4 valves per cylinder, compression ratio of 6.4:1, a centrifugal supercharger and a Holley 1685F aircraft carb.

Packard even hosted a "university" at their plant for instructing Navy techs proper maintenance on the engine and drive coupling systems.

So the point being that Packard had extensive knowledge and experience with large displacement engines, particularly V-12s. So when they accepted the Merlin contract, they were in a good position to get the engine into production without a lengthy delay while producing their 4M-2500 engines without interruption.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 24, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Right, the last of the evolved Liberty engines would have been the 3M.
> The 4M was from a fresh piece of paper but, it's design was still based on what did and did not work on the late Liberties and was quite successful.





Shortround6 said:


> You do of course have some sort of proof of that or reference?
> 
> P & W built 4,300 B series engines (single stage) in 1942. Ford built 5,711 in 1942 so you are saying that over 10,000 engines ended up being scrapped along with their aircraft before seeing combat in the middle of WW II and nobody knows about it ???
> 
> ...


Production of R2800 powered aircraft to Dec31 1942:

P47 532
F4U 178
F6F 12

B26 ~200? (edit = ~600)
C-46 ~200?
----------
~1150 (Edit = ~1500 with ~2300 engine installations)

There was a handful of other prototype aircraft built as well. It's easy to see that there was little pressure to built the R-2800 in large numbers before 1943 and the large numbers of engines actually produced must have waited for suitable airframes, or been put aside in favour of later built R-2800s that had fewer problems.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2016)

Once again, please document the problems with the R-2800, or at least the ones that led to the wholesale scrapping of engines that you claim while the British struggled with the Napier Sabre? 

There were over 1000 B-26s built before the end of 1942. in the last few months of 1942 B-26 production was running close to well over 100 planes a month. 
BTW they had completed 210 B_26 bombers by some point in Oct of *1941* at which point production switched to the B-26A. Over 1100 B-26s were on order at this point. 

At one point in the middle of WW II England had almost 3000 Merlins in store. Did they scrap them or put them aside for later models?
Or did airframe construction catch up with engine production.
Source for the 3000 Merlins is "Planning in Wartime" by Sir Alec Cairncross.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 24, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Once again, please document the problems with the R-2800, or at least the ones that led to the wholesale scrapping of engines that you claim while the British struggled with the Napier Sabre?
> 
> There were over 1000 B-26s built before the end of 1942. in the last few months of 1942 B-26 production was running close to well over 100 planes a month.
> BTW they had completed 210 B_26 bombers by some point in Oct of *1941* at which point production switched to the B-26A. Over 1100 B-26s were on order at this point.
> ...



B-26 Production:

*B-26 PRODUCTION SUMMARY
________________________________________________________________________

variant built notes
________________________________________________________________________

B-26 201 201 built for test, evaluation, & training. (first build Feb 1940 first flight = Nov 1940!)
B-26A 139 52 provided to UK as "Marauder I". (first build = Oct 41)
B-26B 1,883 19 provided to UK as "Marauder IA". (first build = April 1942 Last build = ~Jan 1944)
B-26C 1,210 100 provided to UK as "Marauder II". (first build = ~Jan 1943)
XB-26D - 1 B-26 converted for de-icing test.
B-26E - Lightweight version, not built.
B-26F 300 200 provided to UK as "Marauder III".
B-26G 893 150 provided to UK as "Marauder III".

TB-26B (AT-23A) 208 Trainer / target tug.
TB-26C (AT-23B) 375 Trainer / target tug, 225 to USN as "JM-1".
JM-1P - JM-1s converted to reconnaissance spec.
TB-26G 57 Trainer / target tug, 47 to USN as "JM-2".
XB-26H - B-26G converted for bicycle landing gear tests.
________________________________________________________________________

SUM 5,266 (spread over 6 years) (My comments italicized in brackets source =The Martin B-26 Marauder and others )
*
I underestimated B-26 production but total production to Dec 31 1942 was probably about 600-700. 
*
*


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2016)

Actual B-26 production was a bit over 4 years. From Feb 1941 (get to this later) to April of 1945. That is at Martin Baltimore.
Martin Omaha started delivering B-26s in Aug 1942 with 3 planes completed. Martin Omaha finished 86 B-26s in 1942 but stopped production in April of 1944 when the Martin Omaha plant was converted to B-29 production. 

Trying to estimate monthly (or yearly) production based on averaging total production over a number of years fails to take into account the learning curve in production and multiple sources (which rarely had the same production capacity as the Home factory, in some cases it was greater).

It took Martin 3 times longer to go from the 5th production B-26 to the 500th than it did to go from the 501st to the 1000th. This "learning curve or ramp up" was pretty typical during WW II with some early aircraft taking much longer due to prewar small production batch orders. Exception the other way was the P-40 but then the P-40 took over P-36 production lines instead of starting from scratch. 

Getting back to the Feb 1940 "start" of production. That is a misprint. With the First B-26 flying for the first time in Nov 1940. Depending on source the 2nd or 2-4 Aircraft were delivered to the Army in Feb 1941. 

You can estimate all you want. The Statistical Control Office, Air Technical Service Command, Wright Field thought that 1000 B-26s had been delivered _before _the end of 1942. Before meaning several weeks.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 25, 2016)

drgondog said:


> A lot of other moving parts were running along the A-36 and P-51A designs that were crucial to the P-51B. The most important was migrating to a true mass production line when the funding for the A-36/P-51A materialized in April-June 1942. The second most important derivative of the A-36 was the external bomb rack/fuel tank design to augment internal fuel.
> 
> In parallel with those two initiatives, were the efforts to stimulate the development of ferry tanks then combat tanks. Independent of the P-51B, the pressurized 75 gallon tank and the systems in the airframe to manage the pressurization were in the formative stage and I don't see that problem being solved any sooner. The 85 gallon tank initiative started after February 20 meeting driven by Arnold to solve the Long Range Escort 'problem'.. so the XP-51B had been flying 80 days and the first P-51B-1 was near starting on the production line. The first flight was mid July in a highly modified P-51B-1 and the production drawings completed by first of September. The first Base Depot mod was in early November. (That timeline doesn't change so the March, 1944 Berlin mission wasn't happening any sooner.)
> 
> ...




Much appreciated, it's a "what if" that I've mulled over for many years. I didn't think there was a way to really get the Mustang into combat much earlier than they did but didn't know why. It was always easy for me to look at the issue and be confused as to why you couldn't get the -B into combat in 1942. I thought in terms too much like the old hot rodder that I am, hey just stick the bigger engine in and let's go.

What I've learned here in the last few months has made me realize not only was that not going to happen, but if it was, it would have taken the hand of God to make it a reality. It has also made me realize how much I DON'T KNOW about these issues, but be patient...I'm learning.

Thanks again.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 25, 2016)

Still not seeing how Ford could have done better than Packard in this scenario, in fact my opinion is they might have not done as good.

Ford was good at producing cheap affordable cars for the everyman, Packard built luxury quality cars and V-12 Boat/Aircraft engines. It's no coincidence Gar Wood used Packard -12's, especially as the first one to do two miles a minute over open water.

The design and engineering staff at Packard were second to none and SR6's post #437 is a good summation of the situation IMO.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 25, 2016)

The military seemed fine using Ford's GAA, GAF, GAN as well as the GAC engines.

Ford GAA engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 25, 2016)

Well, limit the RPM to 81-87% (unless you believe the 3600rpm redline in which case the tank engine was limited to 72% of the rpm of the aircraft engine) rip off the supercharger a thus lower combustion pressure dramatically and throw the planned fuel injection in the trash bin and use dual carbs and the stress on the internal parts was much reduced. It also simplified development considerably, tank engines rarely having to operate upside down 

I would note that Chrysler Started work on their V-16 in May of 1940 and got a contract offer in June of 1940 (Hmmm, coincidence??) and managed to get the engine airborne for the first time 26 July 1945. Not sure what the Problem was as aircraft engines are really simple to design/build. 

As a comparison P & W started work on the R-4360 in Nov 1940. First engine ran April 28th 1941 but used the front cylinders from an R-2800, the rear cylinders from an R-2800, connecting rods from the R-2180 (limited production engine around 30 built) and the salvaged reduction gear from an experimental H 24 cylinder sleeve valve engine. It also used a _cast _crankshaft. 
By the end of 1941 P & W had completed 500 hours of full scale operation (four 28 cylinder engines), 176 hours on a single row test rig and 1412 hours of single cylinder testing. First flight in a test hack was May 25th 1942 and in 1943 ten engines were built for installation in experimental prototype aircraft. ( a number of development engines had been built before this) Several of which flew during 1944 but use in a production aircraft was only started in the summer of 1945. Perhaps in part due to lack of demand, Shoehorning this thing into existing Aircraft like the F4U and P-47 was possible but obviously only certain aircraft were going to be able to take it (and a few of the early installations left something to be desired. On one aircraft the cowl had to be extended 6 inches). 

Not sure how Ford was supposed to get their V-12 in production as an aircraft engine in time to do much during the war. 
Large staff can only do so much, It's a bit like the old joke about making a baby. It takes one woman 9 months but nine women cannot do the job in one month.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 25, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> I would note that Chrysler Started work on their V-16 in May of 1940 and got a contract offer in June of 1940 (Hmmm, coincidence??) and managed to get the engine airborne for the first time 26 July 1945. Not sure what the Problem was as aircraft engines are really simple to design/build.



And they had a starting point in the USAAC's "hyper" cylinder, developed in the late 1920s/early 1930s. The V-16 shared many of the "hyper" cylinder's design features, such as a hemispherical combustion chamber with two overhead valves per cylinder.

Though similar in power and capacity, the IV-2220 was about half as long again as a two stage Griffon 60-series and slightly heavier. And that doesn't take into account the weight of the turbo system required for altitude performance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 26, 2016)

Here is a concept drawing of the Ford engine.






While the basic engine may have been of sound design Ford was planning on direct fuel injection like the German engines.
The concept was well known but the execution may have been a problem. Other American engine builders relied on separate/specialized Carburetor manufacturers.
Ford apparently was depending on using a single stage turbo supercharger with *NO* mechanical supercharger. and was planning on developing their own compressor and turbine. Exhaust gases from turbo were to be vented directly to the rear of the engine Which makes another snippet of information from one source a little questionable. The source claims it was the Navy that was interested (Army was still fooling with Continental and Lycoming engines) but doesn't state what aircraft it was intended for. While that turbo location and exhaust vent doesn't for sure mean it can't be used in a single engine aircraft it does make one wonder. 
Whole developing several subsystems in addition to the main power section can mean a dramatic improvement over existing engines it also means the whole project falls apart if one of the subsystems doesn't work. 
A quick google search turns up no photographs of the Ford V-12 aircraft engine although a few photos of wooden mock up can be found and at least one photo of a 2 cylinder test rig. 
If someone can find pictures of the _aircraft _engine and not the V-12 tank engine (or recent hot rod versions of the tank engine) I would be grateful.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 26, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> Still not seeing how Ford could have done better than Packard in this scenario, in fact my opinion is they might have not done as good.
> 
> Ford was good at producing cheap affordable cars for the everyman, Packard built luxury quality cars and V-12 Boat/Aircraft engines. It's no coincidence Gar Wood used Packard -12's, especially as the first one to do two miles a minute over open water.
> 
> The design and engineering staff at Packard were second to none and SR6's post #437 is a good summation of the situation IMO.



I wonder why the Packard engines didn't go on to power US tanks and other armored vehicles.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 26, 2016)

Considering the Ford engines didn't power anything past the M26 Pershing in the heavy/medium tank line.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 26, 2016)

The US had a large number of engine makers in the 1930s and not all engines are the best choice for different jobs. Chrysler used FIVE six cylinder Plymouth car engines ganged together for one of the alternative M3/M4 medium tank engines. The Australians used THREE Cadillac V-8 car engines to power the Sentinel tank which used a modified M3 transmission and M3 running gear/suspension.
another M3/M4 engine combo was side by side 6-71 Detroit diesel straight 6 engines.
M-24 "light" tank used a pair of Cadillac V-8s of 110hp each but as they were 349 cu in engines they had a lot more torque than an 85 hp Ford V-8
Tanks cannot use car engines, even large car engines without resorting to multiple units.
The US Army decided to go with air cooled engines pre war for power and compactness but was stopped by the need for even low powered (250hp and up) air cooled aircraft engines for trainers and transports. Which resulted in the substitute standard engines listed above. 
Post war they moved for air-cooled engines again and Continental responded with a 1790 cu in air cooled V-12;
Continental AV1790 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A flat six version using the same cylinders was used in the M-41 "light" tank and it's family of fighting vehicles (Self propelled guns,etc)

A pre-war list of American stock, industrial and Marine engines (includes bus and truck) engines runs to 41 companies and 483 engines. This does not include aircraft engines or regular car engines unless modified for non-car use.
The Need for Packard to build tank engines didn't exist considering what else they were doing for the war effort.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 26, 2016)

I assume that it's easier to use engines already available than develop new ones.

This excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Jacob L. Devers is interesting:
Jacob L. Devers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_Often against the views of his superiors, Devers lobbied for a still more heavily armored and better armed medium tank, the M4 Sherman. He played an important role in the M4's design, development and manufacturing, particularly its engine and armament. Throughout his tour as Chief of the Armored Force he worked closely with the Ordnance Department, manufacturers and the Armored Force Board at Fort Knox on the research and testing of tanks, guns, armored vehicles and ammunition. The biggest obstacle was engines. Those of pre-war tanks were rated at 250 horsepower (190 kW), which was insufficient for a 35 short tons (32 t) medium tank. Devers wanted an 800 horsepower (600 kW) engine, but this was beyond the ability of the American automotive industry to produce. Extraordinary efforts resulted in the development of a number of 400 horsepower (300 kW) engines. He controversially rejected the General Motors 6046 diesel engine in favor of gasoline engines. Battlefield experience would demonstrate that the diesel engine was superior. The quest for a better engine eventually settled on the Ford GAA engine,[59][60] but there was a persistent shortage of tank engines.[61] Some 49,234 of the reliable, versatile, low-cost M4 Sherman and its variants would be produced.[62]_

I find this interesting because we were recently discussing the Packard engines used in the PT boats.
Packard 1A-2500 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
These engines were developed through the 20's and 30's and seemingly could have been what Devers was looking for.
Of course, the Wiki article could be wrong - something we keep running into.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 26, 2016)

We are getting rather far afield but tank engines are a special breed unto themselves. The weight of tank engine is not particularity important compared to an aircraft engine. However size/volume is very important to a tank engine or more correctly the size/volume of the engine installation is _very important. _
The Original Shermans using using Wright (or Continental built Wrights) 9 cylinder radial engines were shorter in length than the liquid cooled versions. the weight of the armor used to cover the extra length of the hull (steel is roughly 40lbs per sq ft of 1in/25.4mm thickness) can easily out weigh the difference between two different engines.
I would note that the 250hp engine referred to by Wiki was a 7 cylinder Continental radial used in the light tanks. The M2/M3/M4 were based on the 975 cu in Wright Whirlwind 9 cylinder radial and the M6 heavy tank used the 1820 cu in Wright Cyclone 9 cylinder radial but they didn't want to use B-17 (Or SBD dive bomber)engines in tanks. 
You also have to figure the actual width of the available engine compartments and the ability to service the engine/s. The Grant/Sherman being designed for the radial did have a wide and high engine compartment. While the air cooled engines requires fans and ducts they were smaller than the fans/ducts and radiators needed for liquid cooled engines. Not to mention air cooled engines didn't have the coolant leak problems the liquid cooled engines did. 
Need for an 800hp engine for a 35 ton tank was much more theoretical than practical. Once you have left paved roads behind the cross country ability of a tank is dependent on the suspension and the ability of the crew to survive repeated impacts against the interior of the tank. 
A Demonstration of an early British tank for the King of England during WW I left a large part of the crew unconscious after about a 4mph impact. Tank went very nose high climbing an obstacle and the ensuing drop threw the crew around.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_0i_g2PpEU_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 26, 2016)

Didn't the use of radial engines in tanks create relatively tall tanks due to the height of the driveshaft?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 26, 2016)

A quick list of U.S. engines used in American AFVs:
Cadillac series 42
Cadillac series 44
Cadillac 4T24
Caterpillar D-200
Chrysler A57
Continental R-670
Continental R-975
Ford GAA
Ford GAF
General Motors 6046
Guiberson T-1020
Hercules JXD
International Harvester RED-450
Lycoming O-435
Studebaker 6-170
White 160AX
Wright G-200

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 27, 2016)

Peter Gunn said:


> Considering the Ford engines didn't power anything past the M26 Pershing in the heavy/medium tank line.



I actually wasn't trying to be snarky, I had a thought in mind when I started this post and someone came into my office, (geez, aren't I paying these guys to fix problems?) and hit the "Post" button out of habit. I was going to elaborate on tank engines a bit but SR6 did a much better job than I would be able to do.

1. Sorry gjs, didn't mean to come off as a bit of a jerk, my apologies.

2. Thanks SR6, you've pretty much nailed what I wanted to say before being rudely interrupted (by work of all things).

Thanks for your patience.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 27, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> Didn't the use of radial engines in tanks create relatively tall tanks due to the height of the driveshaft?


Yes, no and maybe. 









Given the front transmission and the need for the drive shaft to run under the fighting compartment (or through it as it was in a tunnel/hump) I am not sure that the type of engine affected the overall height by more than a few inches, The US also used the space on each side of the drive shaft for storage. The Sherman carried over twice the MG ammo as a German MK IV tank. 
I don't know if they just filled up the empty space or if the storage requirements carried over from the M2/M3 tanks and so low height wasn't a priority.

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


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 27, 2016)

Unlike the German tanks, or the M18 tank destroyer, the M3 and M4 mediums did not used the intermediate gearbox that lowered the driveshaft, and hence the hull. M18 used the radial engine plus that gerbox, the hull was consideraby low slung.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 27, 2016)

On the topic:

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 27, 2016)

Thank you Tomo.
I would note that it was quite common for engine production to run ahead of airframe production by a number of months.
On-time control of inventory didn't really become a big thing in industry until the 1960s if not later. Given WW II transportation (mostly rail) having several weeks in not a couple of months worth of engines in stock wasn't considered excessive. It could take a number of weeks for a single airframe to make it from start to finish even if dozens were being rolled out the door every week so a plant working on multi engine aircraft could have dozens of engines on the floor in semi finished airframes at any given time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 28, 2016)

Doesn't quite agree with the "America's Hundred Thousand" number, does it?

Somebody could mistaken by a few ...


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 28, 2016)

gjs238 said:


> I find this interesting because we were recently discussing the Packard engines used in the PT boats.
> Packard 1A-2500 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> These engines were developed through the 20's and 30's and seemingly could have been what Devers was looking for.
> Of course, the Wiki article could be wrong - something we keep running into.



I have seen a Packard V2500 in a museum. There were no other engines to compare it to but it did seem a big (particulary tall) engine a good bit larger than a Meteor. Of course now I have just doomed myself and someone will post the figures to prove the V2500 was about as big as a tin of beans.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 28, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> I have seen a Packard V2500 in a museum. There were no other engines to compare it to but it did seem a big (particulary tall) engine a good bit larger than a Meteor. *Of course now I have just doomed myself and someone will post the figures to prove the V2500 was about as big as a tin of beans.*


No worries, you're safe! 

The 4M-2500 was a beast.

Here is by far, one of the best illustrations I have ever seen regarding the 4M-2500, and may help give you an idea of it's dimensions:
(you can click on the image to see it full resolution)

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


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> On the topic:
> 
> View attachment 349176



Ok, so I underestimated B-26 production but I overestimated C-46 production. Anyways, considering 1942 fighter aircraft production:
P47 532
F4U 178
F6F 12

and adding in B-26 production we can see that there about 2700-2800 R-2800 installations versus about 10,000 R-2800s built in 1942. There was a rather large surplus of engines in 1942 and probably not that much pressure to produce more. Subsequent to 1942 R-2800 production seems to have kept pace with airframe production.


----------



## ChrisMcD (Jul 28, 2016)

Just to add a few comments.

Ford were involved in three separate projects with the Merlin.

1) USA - Edsel did a deal to make Merlins that was scuppered by old man Henry - but they got a good look a the plans!

Edsel Ford agrees to manufacture Rolls-Royce engines for war effort - Jun 12, 1940 - HISTORY.com

There are lots of explanations - leaving aside Henry's questionable politics - he was probably delighted to wind up Knudsen, who had left him and done a superb job at GM

2) Ford France were asked to manufacture it at their "Fordair" plant in Bordaux but RR realised that they were not realistic after a huge amount of perliminary work had been done.

3) Ford's Trafford plant at Manchester made some 34,000 Merlins and Hooker reckoned they were some of the best made anywhere - and built to finer tolerances on specialised tooling

Ford Trafford Park Factory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, if Henry Ford had really wanted to he could have made Merlins in the US - or probably produced a superb aero engine - he just didn't want to!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 28, 2016)

Still haven't seen any reference or source for scraping R-2800s prior to 1943 or scraping any airframes associated with them.
Nothing about how troubled the R-2800 program was in 1940-41-42.
The "C" series engines were higher powered and had a higher rpm limit and used a different crankshaft (and everything else) than the A&B so troubles or tests on the "C" series engine doesn't mean anything for the A&B.
150 Vickers Warwick's with R-2800s were ordered in Dec of 194O and hundreds of Lockheed Ventura's, B-34s and B-37s were also ordered in multiple contracts during 1940 and 1941: deliveries really didn't get going on some of these until 1942 although the first Ventura I was turned over to the British in Sept 1941. Army relinquished most of their orders to the Navy and the first Navy PV-1s were delivered in Dec 1942. Production of the Lockheeds is hard to track.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 28, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> No worries, you're safe!
> 
> The 4M-2500 was a beast.
> 
> ...



It is a beast, bigger than I remembered 100" x 48" x 40" is going to need a big engine bay particulary lengthwise.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2016)

We're still only looking at ~3000 engine installations by Dec 1942 versus ~10,000 engines produced.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 28, 2016)

RCAFson said:


> We're still only looking at ~3000 engine installations by Dec 1942 versus ~10,000 engines produced.



Wouldnt engine and other component production be several months ahead of airframe production. I believe engines were bought by and supplied by the government to the airframe manufacturer as required which would mean a good stock of engines would be needed before the airframe production line could be started.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 28, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> It is a beast, bigger than I remembered 100" x 48" x 40" is going to need a big engine bay particulary lengthwise.


Now add two more: as the U.S. PT boats were powered by three of those...


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 28, 2016)

Let's get back to aircraft designs, and on that note

Why was the Spitfire considered overrated? It had a remarkable rate of turn, a high top-speed, one of the best top speeds in dives?


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 28, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> Wouldnt engine and other component production be several months ahead of airframe production. I believe engines were bought by and supplied by the government to the airframe manufacturer as required which would mean a good stock of engines would be needed before the airframe production line could be started.


No doubt, but by December 1942 the R-2800 was being produced well above the airframes delivery rate in early 1943, which amounted to ~5000 F4U and F6F, and 4400 P-47s plus 2400 B-26s and maybe a thousand other twin engined aircraft, for the entire year. So we have demand for 16000-18000 engines, which was about equal to or less than 1943 production.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 28, 2016)

Near as I can figure there were about 875 Lockheed Ventura Is and IIs built Using R-2800s between start of production in 1941 and end if of production in Dec of 1942 when the Navy Ventura PV-1 took over. 1600 of theses were built between Dec of 1942 and May of 1944 when the lines switched to the PV-2. 
The Ventura production _IF _allocated the near standard 50% spare engines would account for about 2600 engines by the end of 1942. 
The Warwick needed somewhere between 300 and 450 engines depending on spares allocation. 

Still looking for those thousands of engines scrapped before 1943???
Over produced for number of airframes built during the same time period does not mean excess was scrapped. 
Still looking for associated airframes scrapped before going into combat. 
Granted some B-47Bs used as trainers may have been scrapped after accidents, likewise some early B-26s and some of the Venturas the US took over from the British after Pearl Harbor but that is a whole different thing than scrapped because of engine problems isn't it??


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 28, 2016)

Surely everyone tried to produce more engines than there were aircraft to receive them, if at all possible.
You had to have spares. It's a lot quicker to replace a engine than overhaul it.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2016)

tyrodtom said:


> Surely everyone tried to produce more engines than there were aircraft to receive them, if at all possible.
> You had to have spares. It's a lot quicker to replace a engine than overhaul it.


 50% extra engines (or the equivalent in spare parts) was a pretty standard allowance. The US tried for 20-25% spare Merlins for the P-40Fs and Ls used in North Africa and got caught badly. The lower air intake on the Merlin ingested more dust/sand than the Allison and neither engine on the P-40 had a good sand/dirt filter. The British gave the US about 600 used Merlins to be broken down for parts to assist the overhaul program in North Africa.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 29, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Now add two more: as the U.S. PT boats were powered by three of those...



Imagine the racket below decks when full speed ahead


----------



## stona (Jul 29, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> At one point in the middle of WW II England had almost 3000 Merlins in store. Did they scrap them or put them aside for later models?
> Or did airframe construction catch up with engine production.
> Source for the 3000 Merlins is "Planning in Wartime" by Sir Alec Cairncross.



I'll have to dig out my battered copy of Cairncross, but I'm surprised by that figure. Is it actually engines in hand or orders in hand? Rolls Royce operated with a six or eight month carry over period at various times. If, say, the Air Ministry/MAP wanted 500 engines a month, then on an eight month carry over the firm would require orders in hand for 4,000 engines. In the early war period Rolls Royce sought clarification and confirmation that such figures would be required _before_ it was prepared to invest, for example, in the second section of the Crewe factory and an extension at Derby.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 29, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> Imagine the racket below decks when full speed ahead



Music


----------



## drgondog (Jul 29, 2016)

The delivery schedule by Packard on the 1650-3 was behind the airframe construction of NAA. The XP-51B first flight was delayed almost 45 days, and subsequently approximately 40-50 P-51B-1-NA's were completed in April, 1944 but not ready to fly because Packard deliveries had not ramped to meet NAA production as yet.

The combined delayed delivery of the first several 1650-3 also had an impact on a.) detecting a cooling system issue clogging the radiator, and b.) subsequent schedules for AAF acceptance and delivery to ETO by perhaps 45 days.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 29, 2016)

stona said:


> I'll have to dig out my battered copy of Cairncross, but I'm surprised by that figure. Is it actually engines in hand or orders in hand?


The passage is on Page 83 and is subject to a bit of interpretation I am afraid. 

" In the meantime a large stock of Merlin 28s had accumulated in the United Kingdom in 1941-42, 3000 were delivered before the 1st Lancaster III flew at the end of 1942. These engines had been arriving since September 1941 but it was not until nine months later, in June 1942, that MAP suddenly discovered that they could not be fitted to power plants for lack of certain engine accessories known as DIS(B) items (mainly pumps and drives) which had not been put on order along with the engines. The discovery came at a time when the programme provided for the installation of 1600 Merlin 28s by the end of 1942" 

It goes on say Rolls Royce made a great effort to supply 1000 sets using British components and 800 of these sets were finished by the end of the year. 

How many Merlin 28s were actually on hand at any given time I don't know, my apologies.


----------



## stona (Jul 29, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> The passage is on Page 83 and is subject to a bit of interpretation I am afraid.



It does, but I agree that it implies a significant number of engines were waiting to be fitted to the relevant air frames.

To put whatever the number was in context, the British aero engine industry (not just RR) produced 36,578 engines of all types in 1941. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jul 30, 2016)

I've dug out my copy and I think when reading the entire text under the heading 'Delay in Fitting Packard Merlins' the situation is explained.
It is important to know that the Lancaster was the only British built aircraft to which Packard built engines were fitted in any numbers during this period.

_"In the meantime a large stock of Merlin 28s had accumulated in the United Kingdom in 1941-42; 3000 were delivered before the first Lancaster III flew at the end of 1942. These engines had been arriving since September 1941 but it was not until nine months later, in June 1942, that MAP suddenly discovered that they could not be fitted to power plants for lack of certain engine accessories known as DIS(B) items (mainly pumps and drives) which had not been put on order along with the engines. The discovery came at a time when the programme provided for the installation of 1600 Merlin 28s by the end of 1942. There was no possibility of receiving deliveries in time from the United States but Rolls Royce made a great effort to supply 1000 sets using British components and succeeded in reaching a total of 800 by the end of the year.
The delay in fitting Merlin 28s made it necessary to go on fitting Rolls Royce Merlins until near the end of 1942. That we were able to find engines for the Lancaster in 1942 in spite of these difficulties was attributable to the rapid expansion in production at the new factories making Merlin engines at Ford in Manchester and at Hillingdon in Glasgow. Between the first quarter and the last in 1942 output rose from 1500 a month to nearly 2000. But with the continuing rise in Lancaster production in 1943 it was vital to draw on the supply of American engines from the beginning of the year, and this we were able to do.
For the moment we had a stock of Merlin 28s that could be drawn upon for Lancaster production in 1943. But the bomber programme was still expanding and there were doubts whether engine capacity was sufficient. The demand for Merlins came from four different countries - the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Australia - and five, possibly six, different aircraft - the British Lancaster, the American Mustang, the Canadian Mosquito and Lancaster, the Australian Mosquito and possibly also the British Mustang. The demand was for one-stage and two-stage engines with no certainty as to the date of introduction of the aircraft using the two-stage engine or as to the timetable for the changeover from one engine to another."_

So, the British planned to fit 1600 Merlin 28s by the end of 1942, but the failure to order American parts to go with the engines and Rolls Royce's ability to provide only 800 such kits left a shortfall of 800 engines which was made up by British production. This still left a handy reserve of American Merlin 28s which would help to alleviate the fears for engine supply for the Lancaster III in 1943.
To put the number of 3000 Merlins into further perspective, it represents about 6 weeks late 1942 production from the British engine plants. In the grand scheme it is not a very large number of engines, and at least 800 were in any case used by the end of 1942.
The lead in time for fitting the American engines is surprisingly long. It was nine months between the first engines arriving in the UK and someone realising that they could not be fitted in the Lancaster, but this implies that the engine and air frame programmes for the type had somehow managed to get out of step and (from personal experience of different types of projects) some unjustified assumptions may have been made.
Professor John Jewkes, the Oxford economist who served in the Aircraft Scheduling Unit during the war commented that the United States was too often treated as _"a shop to be entered at any time"_ rather than _"as a farm to be harvested."_

It is certainly not the case that at any time the British were 'sitting' on 3000 Packard built Merlins. Eventually all these engines found their way into Lancaster production.

Cairncross wrote that what stood out in his memory from his time at MAP was _"first and foremost the incessant uncertainty and confusion."_ It was the men like him that managed that uncertainty and confusion that provided the aircraft with which the war was prosecuted. Mistakes were of course made, but over all they did a pretty good job.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2016)

Thank you.

The US may have had similar problems in long range planning. How many aircraft programs ran late or were canceled (or individual contracts canceled while other contracts for the same planes were completed) while engine makers kept fulfilling their contracts. 
Engines were government furnished equipment and not ordered (or paid for) by the airplane companies. In only a few cases were airplane makers held up by a shortage of engines and then it was only for a few weeks at a time. It was not chronic like in some other countries. 
In regards to the R-2800 and the P-47, while the total of 592 planes is correct for 1942 that includes the first 10 planes from the Evansville plant and 6 P-47Gs from Curtiss. Both orders were placed in Jan of 1941 with 1050 ordered from Evansville and 354 from Curtiss. Construction on the Evansville plant didn't start until March and the first P-47 was being test flown Sept 19, 4 days before the plant is declared completed (how many parts came form parent factory?) Curtiss rolls out it's first P-47G in Oct. Curtiss goes on to make a hash out of P-47 production. 
They couldn't wait to see how fast (or slow) factory construction would be or even exactly which aircraft programs would be chosen when building and equipping the engine factories. Buick, Chevrolet and Studebaker had all been brought into aircraft engine production in the fall of 1940 after FDRs speech announcing a goal of 50,000 aircraft per year, in addition to Ford and Packard, Nash wasn't far behind. Dodge joined later making engines for B-29s. The US made roughly 10 times the engines in 1943 that it made in 1940. With such a rapid increase in production it is no doubt that mistakes in scheduling were made but it is highly unlikely that hundreds let alone thousands of defective engines were built that were scrapped before being used.


----------



## stona (Jul 30, 2016)

The British adopted a central planning policy early on, but nonetheless there were many parties with vested interests. As Jewkes remarked after his first year at MAP, aircraft production since the war began was run by,
_"quack efficiency experts, broken down businessmen and temperamental Air Marshals."_
At least everyone agreed that any efficient planning of aircraft production had to be coordinated with the aero engine production programme(s) 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## airminded88 (Jul 30, 2016)

drgondog said:


> The delivery schedule by Packard on the 1650-3 was behind the airframe construction of NAA. The XP-51B first flight was delayed almost 45 days, and subsequently approximately 40-50 P-51B-1-NA's were completed in April, 1944 but not ready to fly because Packard deliveries had not ramped to meet NAA production as yet.
> 
> The combined delayed delivery of the first several 1650-3 also had an impact on a.) detecting a cooling system issue clogging the radiator, and b.) subsequent schedules for AAF acceptance and delivery to ETO by perhaps 45 days.



Did Packard get penalized in any way for the delay given the urgency to bolster the 8th AF with longer ranged fighters?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 30, 2016)

*"Engines were government furnished equipment and not ordered (or paid for) by the airplane companies." 
*
Please remember this folks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 30, 2016)

airminded88 said:


> Did Packard get penalized in any way for the delay given the urgency to bolster the 8th AF with longer ranged fighters?



It's not Packard's fault that the customer neglected to order the necessary DIS(B) items.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 30, 2016)

airminded88 said:


> Did Packard get penalized in any way for the delay given the urgency to bolster the 8th AF with longer ranged fighters?



It would depend on the contract wording. 

Packard had made 850 engines in both Dec 1942 and Jan 1943 and 864 engines in Feb, these were all single stage engines.
March saw only 615 single stage engines and 3 two stage engines. 
April saw 607 single stage and 1 two stage.
May saw 1222 single stage engines and 16 two stage.
June was 1002 and 56
July was 1142 and 184
Aug was 964 and 371.
The Original contract not only called for 9000 engines, it called for 800 a month _once _production reached full capacity. In 1942 Packard had 5 months in a row of 800 engines a month. 
The original contract was completed about the end of Feb 1943. 
follow on contracts had been placed _before_ the first was completed and required plant expansion. 
Since a lot of the machine tools were also controlled by the government, failure of the Government to supply needed machine tools on time (or even to supply structural steel for the building) could mean that Packard might be held blameless for delays of certain time length. 
AS long as a company delivered engines (or air-frames) according to a previously agreed schedule it could not be penalized for a change in the tactical or strategic situation that made faster deliverers desirable. 
Failure to meet agreed to schedule might result in penalties. But change overs from one version to another often meant a drop in production. The actual drop was much harder to predict and was allowed for in planning, or at least attempts to allow for it were made. 
In 1944 Packard sometimes built over 2000 engines a month. Peak production was Aug of 1944 with 737 single stage engines and 2017 two stage engines.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hickam Field (Jul 31, 2016)

My submission would be the IL-2. Reason being that for a designated ground attack/support aircraft, it's ordinance capacity though historically adequate, was unimpressive compared to other a/c of the same role. The Typhoons, Fw-190F's and G's, Corsairs, and Thunderbolts all carried equal or heavier bomb/rocket loads than the VVS poster child.... Not to mention that those other a/c had solid single engine fighter characteristics as well.

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


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jul 31, 2016)

_Vis_ the R-2800, The -5 was the initial production model of the R-2800. About 1450 were produced. The -5 production was slated to equip the B-26 program, but did not produce the promised power output. R-2800-5 engines equipped all 201 B-26 "straights", 30 of the B-26As, and 307 of the initial run of B-26Bs. So nearly 1100 were initial equipment, plus ca 50% spares. As the uprated -41 and -43 became available, these were retrofitted to just over 200 of the initial contract B-26Bs and were standard on the B-26B-2 and beyond. The excess -5s were undoubtedly not scrapped, but used as replacements for the earlier model aircraft. B-26 "straights" were still in combat as late as January of 1944, and B-26As and Bs continued to be used in training until the end of the war.

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


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 31, 2016)

Greg Boeser said:


> _Vis_ the R-2800, The -5 was the initial production model of the R-2800. About 1450 were produced. The -5 production was slated to equip the B-26 program, but did not produce the promised power output. R-2800-5 engines equipped all 201 B-26 "straights", 30 of the B-26As, and 307 of the initial run of B-26Bs. So nearly 1100 were initial equipment, plus ca 50% spares. As the uprated -41 and -43 became available, these were retrofitted to just over 200 of the initial contract B-26Bs and were standard on the B-26B-2 and beyond. The excess -5s were undoubtedly not scrapped, but used as replacements for the earlier model aircraft. B-26 "straights" were still in combat as late as January of 1944, and B-26As and Bs continued to be used in training until the end of the war.



Could the subpar performance of the -5 have contributed to the infamous issues of the B-26 "straights"?
Might have the B-26 "straights" had less issues if the engines had performed as intended?


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jul 31, 2016)

The design originally envisioned a more powerful engine. The -5 was all that was available when production started. The -43 was not a big improvement, so the whole B-26 program was always saddled with underpowered engines. That's a factor in aircraft development. You can't use what's not available. Then once production is in full swing, its hard to make major changes.
The B-26 involved so many untried systems that its not surprising that the early versions had a lot of issues. The Curtiss Electric prop was notorious for failing at high power.
The biggest problem was the flood of inexperienced pilots stuffed into them right out of flight school.
The 22nd BG and 28th BG, manned by crews trained prewar that flew them in action loved them. They were fast enough to outrun Zeroes, something the B-25 could not do.
The 22nd lost only a handful to fighters while flying the B-26, never more than one on a given mission, the 3rd BG flying B-25s at the same time lost five on one mission alone.

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


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 31, 2016)

Greg Boeser said:


> *The design originally envisioned a more powerful engine. The -5 was all that was available when production started. The -43 was not a big improvement, so the whole B-26 program was always saddled with underpowered engines.* That's a factor in aircraft development. You can't use what's not available. Then once production is in full swing, its hard to make major changes.
> The B-26 involved so many untried systems that its not surprising that the early versions had a lot of issues. The Curtiss Electric prop was notorious for failing at high power.
> The biggest problem was the flood of inexperienced pilots stuffed into them right out of flight school.
> The 22nd BG and 28th BG, manned by crews trained prewar that flew them in action loved them. They were fast enough to outrun Zeroes, something the B-25 could not do.
> The 22nd lost only a handful to fighters while flying the B-26, never more than one on a given mission, the 3rd BG flying B-25s at the same time lost five on one mission alone.



Interesting.
Did the B-26 design envision a more powerful R-2800, or a different engine?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 31, 2016)

The Douglas A-26 (clean) could outrun an A6M, the Martin B-26 could not.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 1, 2016)

It may depend on altitude. The Lockheed PV-1 could outrun some Japanese fighters but only at low altitude.
It may also depend on the A6M.
It may also depend on the weight of of the B-26/A
The engines used in these aircraft would only hold Military power ( the 1850hp) to about 2700ft (no ram) the alter 2000hp engines would only hold the 2000hp to 1500ft. getting caught at 7-8000ft would mean several hundred hp less.
In one test on a B-26A it was able to do 285mph at 5000ft using only 1350hp per engine (2400rpm), test was on a wing profile modification which may no difference to high speeds. It also made no difference to stall and so was dropped. 
The B-26A had a single .30 cal out the nose, the two gun top turret and a single .50 out the back, no chin guns and one, 30 cal gun firing out the belly. Nose .30 was often replaced by a .50 but these early B-26s were a lot lighter than than the later ones. 
With bombs gone and a fair amount of the fuel burned off they may have been able to outrun the A6M2 with its single speed supercharger at low altitude. The A6M3 with two speed supercharger may have been a different story as it picked up 150-180hp (?)at low altitude.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hiromachi (Aug 1, 2016)

Those things are relative, a bomber after bombing run is much lighter and pilots put their machines in a small descent to get away as quick as possible. That of course adds to the current airspeed and may prevent scrambling fighters from intercepting. On the other situation, Zeros may have no issue with catching B-26 if they are high above and could trade altitude for speed.


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 1, 2016)

Greg Boeser said:


> _Vis_ the R-2800, The -5 was the initial production model of the R-2800. About 1450 were produced. The -5 production was slated to equip the B-26 program,* but did not produce the promised power output.* ....





Greg Boeser said:


> *The design originally envisioned a more powerful engine.* The -5 was all that was available when production started. The -43 was not a big improvement,* so the whole B-26 program was always saddled with underpowered engines. *
> ...



Thank you for the input.
I'd kindly ask for sources for the bolded part of your posts, however.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 1, 2016)

From Joe Baugher's web site. 
" On March 11, 1939, the Air Corps issued Proposal No. 39-640 for the design of a new medium bomber. According to the requirements listed in the specification, a bombload of 3000 pounds was to be carried over a range of 2000 miles at a top speed of over 300 mph and at a service ceiling exceeding 20,000 feet. The crew was to be five and armament was to consist of four 0.30-inch machine guns. The proposal called for either the Pratt & Whitney R-2800, the Wright R-2600, or the Wright R-3350 radial engine."

Now please note that the R-2800 had not yet flown in a test hack and it took until May of 1940 for the 5th R-3350 to be accepted.

"Proposals were received from Martin, Douglas, Stearman, and North American."
"Detailed design of the Model 179 was completed by June of 1939. On July 5, 1939, the Model 179 was submitted to a Wright Field Board. The Martin design was rated the highest of those submitted, and on August 10, 1939, the Army issued a contract for 201 Model 179s under the designation B-26. This contract was finally approved on September 10."

Also "The engines were to be a pair of 1850 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-5 Double Wasp air-cooled radials, which were the most powerful engines available at the time."

As it turns out, even though Wright started first on the R-3350 vs the R-2800 it was put on the back burner while they sorted out the R-2600 so that P & W caught up fairly well at this time. Due to the time delay and Wright changing head designers *and *Wright diverting into the R-2160 Tornado program the R-3350 fell so far behind that it required a total redesign before being used in the B-29. 
In the Spring/Summer of 1939 the R-2800 may very well have been the most powerful engine that looked _likely _to make it into production first. 
If comparing the R-2800-5 to the R-3350 make sure to compare to the *early *R-3350 that was actually only flown in the B-19 and a few other experimental aircraft. 
I would also note that P & W only started design work on the "B" series R-2800 of 2000hp in *MAY 1940. *

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


----------



## BLine22 (Aug 1, 2016)

The 2800-5 engines were rated at 1850hp and the -43 at 2000hp. The R-2600-92 on the B-25H rated at 1700hp. MTOW of 37k and 35k respectively. I wouldn't consider the B-26 to be underpowered having a power to weight ration similar to A-26 and PV-1.


----------



## Conslaw (Aug 2, 2016)

IMHO, it's really hard coming up with a most overrated aircraft of World War II, especially in the context of this board. If nothing else, the strengths and weaknesses of each type are well-discussed in this forum, so I think the B-26 and other aircraft are rated accurately. It is easier coming up with an "underachieving" aircraft. The two leading contenders for me would be the A-26 Invader, which should have been THE standout medium bomber of the war, but was so delayed getting into combat that its effect was negligible (despite first flying in 1941). It showed its capabilities in Korea and Viet Nam. The second candidate for under achiever would be the P-61 Black Widow. The reason for the P-61's underachievement is a combination of its high development costs and its limited availability in combat zones truly under threat. When it did get into combat zones, it often wasn't supported by ground radar assets suitable for getting it into intercept position.


----------



## GregP (Aug 3, 2016)

The Martin B-26 Marauder wound up as a safe medium bomber in USAAF service, so perhaps speed wasn't everything. They called it the "Baltimore Whore" due to small wings (no visible means of support) and the widow maker, but all that really happened is the pilots learned how to fly it in landing configuration so 90 mph on final didn't seem way too fast. Bad safety record at the start of service and a pretty good one by the time it was retired (loss per sortie at 0.0070 --- the BEST loss per sortie was the A-26 Invader at 0.0058, but it flew less than half of the sorties the B-26 did).


----------



## Peter Gunn (Aug 3, 2016)

GregP said:


> The Martin B-26 Marauder wound up as a safe medium bomber in USAAF service, so perhaps speed wasn't everything. They called it the "Baltimore Whore" due to small wings (no visible means of support) and the widow maker, but all that really happened is the pilots learned how to fly it in landing configuration so 90 mph on final didn't seem way too fast. Bad safety record at the start of service and a pretty good one by the time it was retired (loss per sortie at 0.0070 --- the BEST loss per sortie was the A-26 Invader at 0.0058, but it flew less than half of the sorties the B-26 did).




"A Marauder a day in Tampa Bay"


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 3, 2016)

GregP said:


> so 90 mph on final didn't seem way too fast.



Wasnt the safe landing speed more like 140mph. Imagine coming from your little 600hp Beechcraft or Cessna trainer that would land at 60mph and getting into a 4,000hp fire breathing monster like the Marauder.


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 3, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> Wasnt the safe landing speed more like 140mph. Imagine coming from your little 600hp Beechcraft or Cessna trainer that would land at 60mph and getting into a 4,000hp fire breathing monster like the Marauder.



*It was a ruthless plane to fly...*

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Aug 3, 2016)

William Wolf, _B-26 Marauder, the Ultimate Look_, is a good synopsis on the development of the B-26. Martin had proposed designs with several different engines, unsupercharged and supercharged R-2600s, unsupercharged and supercharged R-2800s and R-3350s. The Army selected the version with the unsupercharged R-2800s. This is the design that beat out the North American entry by 150 points.
Hindsight being 20/20, its clear that the B-25 turned out to be the better investment. The B-25 proved more versatile, cheaper and easier to build and maintain, easier to fly.
The A-26 was a whole generation later.


----------



## GregP (Aug 4, 2016)

About the speed in final ... my mistake, it was about 150 mph. Duuhhhh ....


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 4, 2016)

Greg Boeser said:


> William Wolf, _B-26 Marauder, the Ultimate Look_, is a good synopsis on the development of the B-26. Martin had proposed designs with several different engines, *unsupercharged* and supercharged R-2600s, *unsupercharged* and supercharged R-2800s and R-3350s. The Army selected the version with the *unsupercharged* R-2800s. This is the design that beat out the North American entry by 150 points.
> Hindsight being 20/20, its clear that the B-25 turned out to be the better investment. The B-25 proved more versatile, cheaper and easier to build and maintain, easier to fly.
> The A-26 was a whole generation later.



Good points, but the bolded part. 
Nobody was flying military aircraft with unsupercharged engines from early 1930s on. Americans even used supercharged engines on their tanks.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 4, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> Good points, but the bolded part.
> Nobody was flying military aircraft with unsupercharged engines from early 1930s on. Americans even used supercharged engines on their tanks.




I guess that means with a turbo.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Aug 4, 2016)

Right.
Martin expected turbocharged R-2800s or R-3350s would push the B-26's top speed to 368 to 400 mph.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2016)

In this case I believe the terms supercharged and unsupercharged refer to being turbo-charged. The turbo R-2600 never did work out and the Turbo R-3350 took a long time to get service ready. 

I believe the superchargers on the radial engines used in some US tanks were geared low enough that they were little more than "mixing fans" that assured an even mixture distribution to all the cylnders.


----------



## BLine22 (Aug 4, 2016)

I wouldn't say the B-25 was a better investment. The B-26 had an excellent combat record in the ETO. USAAF didn't deploy B-25s to the ETO, they were used in the Pacific, Mediterranean and sent to USSR via lend-lease. Neither aircraft served a frontline role after the war but the Mitchell served as a trainer and other secondary roles because of its better flying characteristics.

B-25 vs B-26 could be a separate thread.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 4, 2016)

The B-25 did see some action in southern Europe with the USAAF, but it was also operated by the RAF as the Mitchell and saw extensive use from 22 January 1943 onwards. After D-Day, the RAF kept their Mitchells at forward bases in France and Belgium.


----------



## Conslaw (Aug 15, 2016)

I think the AAF did a pretty good job at using both the B-25 and the B-26 to their best advantage. The B-25 was cheaper, but the US invested in manufacturing capability for both types and for both R2600 and R2800 engines, so it made sense to use them both. The aviation geek in me thinks the Army should have never shortened the wings of the B-26, but the realist knows with the wartime pilots, it was worth marginally slowing down the plane in combat if operational and training losses could be greatly reduced, and that seems to be what happened with the longer wings.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 16, 2016)

Actually the larger wing didn't do a whole lot for operational safety as they raised the gross and empty equipped weights by substantial amounts and brought the wing loading to pretty much what the short span airplanes had. The long wing was introduced on the B-10 series and B-20 has twelve .50 cal guns. The four package guns on the outside of the fuselage and the tail mount was changed from manual to power operated. Different aux fuel tank set ups were used and later models got additional armor. 
It may have helped for state side training with less (much less) than operational loads.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 16, 2016)

Conslaw said:


> I think the AAF did a pretty good job at using both the B-25 and the B-26 to their best advantage. The B-25 was cheaper, but the US invested in manufacturing capability for both types and for both R2600 and R2800 engines



How was the B25 cheaper than the B26 I dont know a great deal about either aircraft but a quick comparison on wiki shows them to be not too far apart in terms of airframe weight about 4,000 pounds. So apart from roughly 2 tons of Duralium what made one more expensive than the other.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 16, 2016)

fastmongrel said:


> How was the B25 cheaper than the B26 I dont know a great deal about either aircraft but a quick comparison on wiki shows them to be not too far apart in terms of airframe weight about 4,000 pounds. So apart from roughly 2 tons of Duralium what made one more expensive than the other.


The B-26 was probably more expensive and possibly more difficult to manufacture and there could be a whole bunch of factors that contributed to that. According to common internet sources the B-26 costs $192,000 the B-25 $142,000. These prices may have varied during production.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 16, 2016)

And we might add are those airframe prices or complete aircraft prices.

You don't get 1850-2000hp 18 cylinder engines for the same price as 1700hp 14 cylinder engines. 
You don't get 4 blade props of that size for the cost of 3 blade props.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 16, 2016)

GFE important but weight of aluminum and quantity of rivets is a better indicator for production costs as a general rule.

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


----------



## GregP (Aug 17, 2016)

Especially number of rivets. Since I do restoration, I can agree there.

That said, I've never seen a rivet total for any WWII aircraft ... though I'd certainly like to see one. Wonder if these statistics are even available? It would be illuminating.


----------



## gumbyk (Aug 17, 2016)

GregP said:


> Especially number of rivets. Since I do restoration, I can agree there.
> 
> That said, I've never seen a rivet total for any WWII aircraft ... though I'd certainly like to see one. Wonder if these statistics are even available? It would be illuminating.


Mossie must have been dirt cheap then...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Aug 17, 2016)

Game boards are full of _rivet counters_. They should know.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 17, 2016)

Didn't there used to be "Board Reports" that had material totals required per production unit?

The report accounted for everything from engines and tires to x-amount of fasteners, x-amount of feet of hydraulic line, etc. used per serial numbered unit completed.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 18, 2016)

Problem with counting rivets is that if you stuff one up, you drill it out and redo it. How many times did that happen with unskilled labour under pressure working long-as shift patterns? Pretty hard to keep track of. I don't know how they did it in wartime, but rivets are counted by weight, not quantity, You don't order the amount you need, but stipulate a weight, or just help yourself from the free-issue boards, which are stocked up by Stores.


----------



## davparlr (Aug 20, 2016)

Conslaw said:


> it was worth marginally slowing down the plane in combat if operational and training losses could be greatly reduced, and that seems to be what happened with the longer wings.



In comparing the early B-26, the B-26B-2 with the post wing change B-26B-10.

Wing area 

B-2 602 sqft

B-10 659 sqft

Weight empty

B-2 22,380 lbs

B-10 24,000 lbs

Weight loaded

B-2 29,725 lbs

B-10 38,200 lbs

Wing loading empty

B-2 37 lb/sqft

B-10 36.4 lb/sqft

Wing loading loaded

B-2 49 lb/sqft

B-10 58 lb/sqft

Max speed

B-2 317 mph at 14,500 ft

B-10 282 mph at 15,000 ft

Cruising speed

B-2 260 mph

B-10 214 mph

Modifications between -2 and -10 were wing span (adding 57 sqft area), increase of 4 .50 machine guns (for data base aircraft), miscellaneous internal equipment, and empennage update (?).

Assumption. Referenced performance data taken at loaded weight.

As can be seen, there is a significant performance between the -2 and -10 aircraft. The B-26 lost 35 mph in top speed, over 10%, and 46 mph from cruise speed, 18%. But the question is how much is that allocated to the form drag of the wing and how much is allocated to induced drag of the extra weight.

As an incompetent amateur aerodynamicist, I conjured up some data points. Using a drag allocation drawing for an Bf 109 (I know, there is not much similarity to a B-26 but it is an airplane and the only one I have for drag allocation), wing form drag is a significant contributor to aircraft drag, almost 40% for the Bf. Induced drag, drag due to lift, is relatively small, about 7%. After some drag computations, adding 6’ to wing span is about equal in drag as adding about 8500lb to load (however, some of this load is due to the added weight of the redesigned wing). So, I would say that max speed lost by just adding the wing is 17 mph and 23 mph to cruise. Now 17 mph doesn’t sound fast but at 317 mph, the Zero was only 15 mph faster than the -2, not much of an overtake , However, with a 32 mph advantage over the -10, the overtake of the Zero is twice as fast. Indeed, the Japanese at Midway considered the early pre-wing mod B-26s blazingly fast and difficult to bring down.


I think the change was more than “marginally” slowing down the plane, but rather a significant change. As Shortround6 said, added weight negated the big wing. Comparing the wing loading of the empty -2 to the -10 makes you wonder if the wing was increased for load carrying, more that reducing wing load, which it really didn’t do.

The B-26 was a tough old bird and a formidable, and survivable, bomber when flown by an experienced crew.

Most data taken from "Deadly Duo" by Charles Mendenhall.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Aug 20, 2016)

According to Peyton Magruder, the wing was changed in response to the USAAF desire to decrease wing loading. This was necessary due to the lower than design spec take off power of the early R-2800. But he then goes on to lament the massive increase in gross weight imposed on the design by the USAAF. The B-2 had marginally more powerful R-2800-41 engines, 1920 bhp for take off, compared to 1850 bhp for the -5s in the B-26, B-26A and the first 81 B-26Bs, but the B-26B-10 got no increase in power to offset the increase in gross weight.

A good "what if?" how much better would the B-26 have been with the same engines installed in the exalted A-26? We'll never know, because design improvements were halted in 1943. Even the canted wing of the F/G versions was snuck in and only retroactively approved.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 20, 2016)

Dave - IF the values for best cruise speeds you showed above (214mph for 38,200lbs and 260mph for 29,735lbs) were the same and say that is 15000 feet, then:

Q= 108.53 psf for the -2and 73.52 psf for the -10
CL(-2) = 29725/(108.53*602) and 38200/(73.52*659)

CL(-2) = .455 and CL(-10) = .788 leading to CDi= (CL)^^2/(pi*AR*e).

AR(-2)= 65*65/602 = 7.01; AR(-10) = 71*71/659 = 7.65, assume Oswald efficiency = .85

CDi(-2) = (.455)^^2/(3.1416*7.01*.85) = .011; CDi(-10) = (.788)^^2/(3.1416*7.65*.85) = .030

At cruise, the Induced drag of the B-26B-10 is nearly 3x over the B-26B-2.

The additional Drag components lead to increased Parasite Drag Co-efficient of the -10 to account for 20% more surface area of the wing, increased surface area for the larger empennage, increased 'misc' parasite drag (independent of AoA) due to the cheek guns and leaks and surface roughness increase due to area increases, increased Form drag due to AoA to maintain .788 CL vs .455 to name a few. All the Parasite Drag components of the basic airframe (except racks, guns, are Reynolds Number dependent and the values are obtained via wind tunnel and correlated by flight tests.

The RN of the B-26B-10 at 214mph is 82% of the RN of the B-26B-2 if the mean aerodynamic chords are the same.

Net - the maximum Gross weight increase mandated by AAF is the speed and range killer, although the parasite drag increase due to the bigger wing/empennage and cheek guns are also important to the comparison of total drag between the models.

That said, Optimal cruise for a particular altitude (say 15000 feet) is that airspeed for which Induced Drag equals Parasite drag for that specific GW for that airplane. The challenge for Flight test engineers was to find the cruise settings to map the fuel flow/rpm/throttle settings around the velocity envelope.

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


----------



## GregP (Aug 20, 2016)

Seems to me as if WWII was full of some pretty good aircraft from all sides. Even the ones that were "overrated" seem pretty good when they were used to their strength side.


----------



## Venturi (Aug 28, 2016)

I have followed this thread with interest.

A question,

Below 15,000', why are you all considering the Allison engined P51 as inferior to the Merlin engined P51?

The only time fighter aircraft typically climbed above this altitude was to escort or intercept high altitude bombers... before 1944 this must not have happened much, at all.


----------



## stona (Aug 28, 2016)

The Allison engined P51 was useless to the British in 1940 precisely because of the ever increasing altitude of combat in N W Europe. In the latter stages of the BoB the Luftwaffe was arriving at altitudes in excess of 30000 ft


----------



## Venturi (Aug 28, 2016)

Yes, but as I said, below 15,000'. Obviously the P51 was not ready in Aug 1940.

My understanding is that the subsequent fighter combat on the Allies' side did not revolve around high altitude combat again until the bombing campaign got underway some years later.

Contrary to what sometimes appears to be widespread popular belief, fighter combat still took place in the ETO/MTO after the Battle of Britain and before strategic daylight bombing... in fact it was a very significant drain on the Luftwaffe.

My understanding is that below 15,000' the Allison engined Mustang was in fact faster than the Merlin engined Mustang. Additionally it could run at lower RPM than the Merlin which extended range, was lighter, and had better overall durability, especially in the desert as has already been brought up.

So I am curious as to why the P51A gets no love? Perhaps we need a "most underrated aircraft of WW2 thread".


----------



## airminded88 (Aug 28, 2016)

Venturi said:


> Contrary to what sometimes appears to be widespread popular belief, fighter combat still took place in the ETO/MTO after the Battle of Britain and before strategic daylight bombing... in fact it was a very significant drain on the Luftwaffe.



Although pressure was maintained over the LW by the RAF in western Europe after the BOB, it is my understanding that rodeo missions had mixed results as LW fighters simply refused to take the bait for the most part.
The strategic bombing campaing first aimed at U-boat bases in coastal France and later on gradually into Germany would alter LW priorities and the more substantial draining of assets would begin.
The fight over Africa and Russia was starting to get momentum and they would of course bring a whole new level of dynamics and strain for the LW.

Welcome aboard!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 29, 2016)

Sorry, I was on my phone and meant P-40 in 1940, similar engine.

Timing is important, there is a tendency to telescope time when looking back at these events. When did the Mustang I A enter service with the RAF? Early 1942, first operational use was around May, I think. 

Circus operations were carried out throughout 1941 by the available types and the low level operations (Rodeos and Rhubarbs) were relatively few when compared with the fighter sweeps (Ramrods), baited with bombers or otherwise.
There is a tendency to see the former in terms of the sort of operations carried out much later in the war. In fact in early 1941, after the BoB,* no *British fighter aircraft was equipped to carry bombs and intruder type raids, strafing air fields etc were relatively few. The first 'fighter-bomber' raid in Europe was carried out by Hurricanes of No. 607 Squadron on 30th October 1941. Hurricanes had carried out low level 'Rhubarbs' (attacking targets of opportunity) in the two months prior to this.

It seems to me that the British only used relatively few aircraft in low level offensive roles through 1941, before the Mustang I became available, and that they had plenty of Hurricanes (which were obsolescent in the out and out fighter role by mid 1941 in NW Europe) and then a few Whirlwinds which were looking for a role and that these served the purpose well enough. 
Once the Mustang I became available in numbers it was certainly used in low level roles, army co-operation, tactical reconnaissance and low level attack. By the end of 1943 no fewer than 16 squadrons (including the Poles) were operating the aircraft in this way, which tends to argue against the British under rating the aircraft once it became available in numbers.

Cheers

Steve

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 29, 2016)

In some of these offensive sweeps the "bait" aircraft were flying at fairly low level ( and in the early operations might include Blenheims)
but the "trap" aircraft flew higher in order to get the "bounce" on the German aircraft which were flying higher than the "bait" aircraft in order to both bounce them and to even see them. Operations were different but sometimes the bait aircraft were flying at 1000ft or under and trying to spot them with interceptors flying at 1000ft or under might be difficult. 
It also good to remember that the *very Early* Allison Mustangs were _not _rated for War Emergency power and they didn't climb all that well even at low altitudes even though they were fast. What squadrons in the field did could vary from squadron to squadron and between the early Mustangs, the A-36s and the later Allison mustangs there were 3 different Allisons in use. The Early -39 engine used a different crankshaft and crankcase than the later ones and while it did get a WEP rating (late 1942) it was lower than the later engines. 
Also remember that in North Africa, however well (or poorly) the Tomahawks and Kittihawks did against the Germans they often had a top cover of Spitfires escorting them. Germans had a choice of coming high and running into the Spitfires or coming in low and engaging the Hawks and getting out before the Spitfires arrived.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 29, 2016)

And the Kittyhawks could carry bombs. From memory No. 112 Squadron was the first to operate the type in this secondary role around May 1942. 
Previously in North Africa some old Hurricane Is of No 80 Squadron had been rigged to carry eight 40lb fragmentation bombs.They operated against Axis ground forces in November 1941 during Operation Crusader. The risk and losses delivering this paltry load outweighed any effect and by January the squadron had re-equipped with IICs and reverted to a fighter role.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## yulzari (Aug 29, 2016)

stona said:


> And the Kittyhawks could carry bombs. From memory No. 112 Squadron was the first to operate the type in this secondary role around May 1942.


To quote from a contemporary 112 Squadron song: 'the Flying Fortress flies at forty thousand feet but it only carries a teeny weeny bomb."


----------



## airminded88 (Aug 29, 2016)

Did Flying Fortresses really fly at 40,000 feet over the desert?


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 1, 2016)

Greg Boeser said:


> According to Peyton Magruder, the wing was changed in response to the USAAF desire to decrease wing loading. This was necessary due to the lower than design spec take off power of the early R-2800. But he then goes on to lament the massive increase in gross weight imposed on the design by the USAAF. The B-2 had marginally more powerful R-2800-41 engines, 1920 bhp for take off, compared to 1850 bhp for the -5s in the B-26, B-26A and the first 81 B-26Bs, but the B-26B-10 got no increase in power to offset the increase in gross weight.
> 
> A good "what if?" how much better would the B-26 have been with the same engines installed in the exalted A-26? We'll never know, because design improvements were halted in 1943. Even the canted wing of the F/G versions was snuck in and only retroactively approved.



British 'aircraft data card' gives 2000 HP for the R-2800-43 (onborad of Marauder III), for 305 mph at 15000 ft, so there is next to no improvement with engines from A-26 that were of same generation and power as the -43*. What A-26 have had was the next-gen wing, with slotted Fowler flaps - one enables both high speed, other the docile low-speed handling. Unfortunately, Mr. Marguder will not cover the question of why there were no Fowler flaps installed, if even of 1st generation, on the B-26. 
The USAAC/USAAF was probably to blame for B-26 having how much - 7 to 9 crew members, a thing that pushed the size & weight of the fuselage; a mistake that was not repeated with A-26. 
An even better what if would've been the 'thin fuselage' B-26 tailored for 4-5 crew max, hence much lighter, where the historical engines & wing will suffice, hopefully with ejector exhausts, if not of 2-stage or turbo varety, .

*that is for ww2 machines

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 1, 2016)

Venturi said:


> I have followed this thread with interest.
> 
> A question,
> 
> ...



Hello 

The Allison engined P-51 still has much less power under 15000 ft than the Merlin Mustang, also the Mustang I/P-51 does not have drop tanks. It won't climb very when compared with light weight Euro/Japanese competition.
Before 1944 there was plenty of escort done, both by Axis and Allied air forces; eg. the Fw 190 drivers feared the escorting P-47s in second half of 1943, as we could read on the documents kindly provided by Steve/Stona.



Venturi said:


> ...
> My understanding is that below 15,000' the Allison engined Mustang was in fact faster than the Merlin engined Mustang. Additionally it could run at lower RPM than the Merlin which extended range, was lighter, and had better overall durability, especially in the desert as has already been brought up.
> 
> So I am curious as to why the P51A gets no love? Perhaps we need a "most underrated aircraft of WW2 thread".



I'm not sure that Allison Mustang was faster at any altitude than Merlin Mustang.
P-51A and P-51 are not the same aircraft. The P-51A/Mustang II was a later model (Euro/Asian use from Sept 1943 on) with better engine, drop tanks and only 4 .50s. With only 310 examples produced, it was hardly in position to carve it's name.


----------



## Venturi (Sep 1, 2016)

Hi Tomo!

The Packard Merlin V-1650-3 at 60.5" of boost (sea level), regulated, made 1450hp

The Allison V-1710-39 at 56" of boost (sea level), regulated, made 1470hp

The Allison which was not regulated (by omission of manifold pressure regulator) theoretically could produce up to 65" of boost at sea level without ram and there are anecdotal stories of this occurring with the Mustang I in British use.

I agree the Merlin was a better performer overall due to it's more advanced supercharger.

But the basic Allison was a pretty good unit.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 1, 2016)

The V-1650-3 operating on 60.5 in Hg is making military power (15 min duration), contrary to the V-1710-39 making war emergency power (5 min) on 56 in Hg. When on WER, the V-1650-3 will be doing 67 in Hg on 130 PN fuel, meaning the power of ~1600 HP.
At 10000 ft, the V-1710-39 will do ~1250 HP, vs. 1600+ for the V-1650-3.



Venturi said:


> ...
> I agree the Merlin was a better performer overall due to it's more advanced supercharger.
> 
> But the basic Allison was a pretty good unit.



Agreed all the way.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Sep 2, 2016)

Tomo, I always wonder how the Marauder II is rated differently than the B-26C, which it essentially was. I suppose it has to do with the weight at which the aircraft was tested. Or was it good Martin Co. propaganda? The R-2800-43 was rated at 1920 bhp for takeoff. I'm not that well informed about the model installed in the A-26.
As far as design decisions, the route that Martin took was to build the aircraft around the bomb bay. They copied the bomb bay of the B-17, which determined the circumference of the fuselage. So in effect, they were shrinking a heavy bomber to fit the specifications of a fast medium, and in the process, retained much of the heavy bomber's baggage.
The A-26 was a bigger, more powerful A-20, and retained the compactness of the light bomber. The same could be said for the B-25, which was a bigger version of their failed NA-40.


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 2, 2016)

6 books on the B-26 and not one mentions "....the route that Martin took was to build the aircraft around the bomb bay. They copied the bomb bay of the B-17, which determined the circumference of the fuselage...." The USAAC wanted a medium bomber that could carry..."the same bomb load as on the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress four engine heavy bomber and a top speed of 300mph..."


----------



## drgondog (Sep 2, 2016)

The Allison 1710-81 in the P-51A will pull a P-51A at MP faster than the 1650-3 and -7 in the P-51B/D under 12000 feet. Both weight of airframe (induced drag), and excellent performance at low/medium altitudes for the 1710 contributed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Sep 3, 2016)

Fubar, vis the USAAC specification, you are correct. Wolf's _Martin B-26 Marauder, the Ultimate Look: From Drawing Board to Widow Maker Vindicated,_ states that the bomb bay was designed based on the measurements copied from the bomb bay of the B-17. However, I confess that the book also states that the fuselage diameter was determined by the width of the cockpit. The USAAC requirement to carry thirty 100 lb bombs was the reason that the aft bomb bay was added to the design, since the B-17 bomb bay had only 20 stations.

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


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 4, 2016)

Greg Boeser said:


> Tomo, I always wonder how the Marauder II is rated differently than the B-26C, which it essentially was. I suppose it has to do with the weight at which the aircraft was tested. Or was it good Martin Co. propaganda? The R-2800-43 was rated at 1920 bhp for takeoff. I'm not that well informed about the model installed in the A-26.
> As far as design decisions, the route that Martin took was to build the aircraft around the bomb bay. They copied the bomb bay of the B-17, which determined the circumference of the fuselage. So in effect, they were shrinking a heavy bomber to fit the specifications of a fast medium, and in the process, retained much of the heavy bomber's baggage.



The Marauder III in RAF nomenclature was a cumulative name for several B-26F sub-variants. I agree pretty much re. bolded part; quirk is they (USAAC? Martin?) also retained such a hefty crew requirement that furthed drove the size & weight of fuselage up.
The A-26 is noted as B-26 in the attached table, eg. as per post-war nomenclature. The (X)R-2800-27 was the during-the-war engine used on the A-26B.








> The A-26 was a bigger, more powerful A-20, and retained the compactness of the light bomber. The same could be said for the B-25, which was a bigger version of their failed NA-40.



The A-26 emerged from a clean sheet of paper, incorpotating then-current cutting edge in aerodynamics, plus with remotely operated powered turrets. With the wing span of 70 ft it was hardly within confines of light bomber category IMO.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 4, 2016)

drgondog said:


> The Allison 1710-81 in the P-51A will pull a P-51A at MP faster than the 1650-3 and -7 in the P-51B/D under 12000 feet. Both weight of airframe (induced drag), and excellent performance at low/medium altitudes for the 1710 contributed.



A quick glance at Williams' site shows P-51B (-3 engine) doing 3500 fpm at 10000 ft, vs. P-51A doing 3250 fpm; granted the P-51A is faster at 10400 ft. However, the P-51D matches the P-51A at 10000 ft in speed, and it is further superior in climb.

The P-51A produced instead A-36 would've been a major boon to the Allies IMO.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 4, 2016)

Tomo - the sole point I was making is that the P-51A with the 1710-81 (more powerful than -39) was faster in MP than the P-51B/D in MP under 12000 feet. The P-51B always out climbed it.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Sep 4, 2016)

Tomo, when the Martin B-26 was designed, power turrets were in their infancy. The Martin turret, developed specifically for the B-26 was a very successful design, used in nearly all US bombers during the war. Remote turrets were not yet perfected, the Bendix turret most commonly used in the early war was notably inferior.
There were many proposals to modify the Martin B-26, with an eye toward reducing weight, however, few were ultimately accepted due to the impact on production rates. In 1943 a USAAF directive basically froze Marauder development in place. The B-26 soldiered on with its inherent limitations, while Douglas had the luxury of developing the Invader using technology that came of age after the Marauder was introduced.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 4, 2016)

Greg, don't get me wrong - I'm not criticizing Martin for a non-installation of a power-opearted turret (whether remotely- or 'directly-' controled) in the early days of the B-26. 

Had the costumer (USAAC) been more modest (realistic?) with some requirements, esp. re. crew size/accomodation, had Martin/Marguder installed better Flap system, had the best possible R-2800 got installed, had the, now USAAF managed to restrain themselves from again upping the capability (= weight) - then yes, we'd see the B-26 making 350 mph by 1943. But too many 'if they only did this is' are involved, and B-26 historically went to the ever increasing weight & drag spiral, with engine power increased just a bit, and result was the slow bomber for standards of 1943 and later.
BTW - looking here, the wings were not that thick on the early B-26 - 16.7% at root. 

The A-26 was ordered as an attack aircraft, that probably kept the crew size low, and indeed it used newer aerodynamics and other technological advances to it's advantage. The only 'legacy', or low hech items in 1944 were the engines, single stage supercharged R-2800s, B series, in production from late 1941/early 1942.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 4, 2016)

drgondog said:


> Tomo - the sole point I was making is that the P-51A with the 1710-81 (more powerful than -39) was faster in MP than the P-51B/D in MP under 12000 feet. The P-51B always out climbed it.



Bill, the V-1710-81 was making less power in 'militar power' setting than -39, 1125 HP vs. 1150 (under 12000 ft, no ram). Deficit of 25 HP was due to the increased gearing of the S/C; benefit was that power was bigger at high altitudes.
In military power, the P-51A does ~375 mph at 10000 ft (chart), vs. the P-51B with -3 engine doing 395 mph (chart). The P-51D doing 400 mph at 10000 ft, mil power (chart).


----------



## Venturi (Sep 4, 2016)

I see 394mph at 10000' for the P-51B at 1485hp output, while I see 375mph at 10000' for the P-51A at 1125hp. These are both "military power" ratings, however,

the P-51A seems to be good for 415mph at 10000' and 1485hp.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Sep 4, 2016)

Tomo, it would appear that the Army did recognize the error of their ways in the decision to terminate the B-26 and B-25 programs in favor of the A-26 when it was finally ready. But the A-26 wasn't ready until late '43, and didn't enter combat until '44.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 4, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> Greg, don't get me wrong - I'm not criticizing Martin for a non-installation of a power-opearted turret (whether remotely- or 'directly-' controled) in the early days of the B-26.
> 
> Had the costumer (USAAC) been more modest (realistic?) with some requirements, esp. re. crew size/accomodation, had Martin/Marguder installed better Flap system, had the best possible R-2800 got installed, had the, now USAAF managed to restrain themselves from again upping the capability (= weight) - then yes, we'd see the B-26 making 350 mph by 1943. But too many 'if they only did this is' are involved, and B-26 historically went to the ever increasing weight & drag spiral, with engine power increased just a bit, *and result was the slow bomber for standards of 1943 and later.*
> BTW - looking here, the wings were not that thick on the early B-26 - 16.7% at root.
> ...



But how did the B-26 compare to its competitors (B-25)?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 4, 2016)

They were pretty close in many regards. 

The Problem with 'claiming' that the B-26 Marauder was "stuck" in development and didn't get "improvements" rather overlooks the change in thinking in the Army Air Force. Early B-17 and B-24 operations showed that the high altitude bombing accuracy was more than bit less than expected. Once the Air Corp/Force dropped the high altitude (say 20,000ft and up ) requirement the _advantage _of "better" R-2800 engines tended to disappear. The two stage engines (mecanical or turbo) needed inter-coolers in order to deliver the rated power at altitudes over 15,000ft. They were heavier, more expensive (both to buy and to maintain) and offered no performance advantage at the lower altitudes the Air Corp/Force no intended to use the medium bombers at. 
In addition to large increases in weight the B-26 got more than a little bit dirtier as it aged.





Early B-26 engine Nacelle.




Later Nacelle. Increase in size of the upper scoops was to house sand filters. They were not always fitted but ALL planes could be fitted with them in the field if needed as the room was provided. 
Now add the scoops needed for the inter-coolers and drag goes up and speed goes down at the altitudes below 15,000ft and only would show a real advantage near 20,000ft and above. 
Other changes. Early tail




Late tail




Much better for defense but it cost speed. 
Pulling guns and fairing over openings was not going to get the B-26 going fast enough no matter what engines were stuck in it if you want to carry a worthwhile bomb load over any distance. 

The Manual for the early B-26 is on this web site
Martin B-26A B Marauder B-26.bmp

The early ones supposed to hit 323-326mph at a weight of 26, 734lbs. at 14,500ft. 
Unfortunately they had an empty weight of 21959lbs which doesn't leave a lot of weight for equipment, crew, fuel, and bombs. Crew was 5 men. Why the gunner only weighed 170lbs compared to the 200lb Pilots, co-pilots and Navigators I have no idea. Guns were a .30 out the nose, two .50s in the turret (with 200rpg) , a .30 out the tunnel and a .50 in the tail ( 5 man crew.....4 weapons stations???). Weight with crew, guns, a mere 465US gallons of fuel and 42.3 gallons of oil total plus a 2086lb bomb load (four 500lb bombs) could bring the weight to 28,400lbs 
Filling the wing fuel tanks to 962 gallons could add about 3000lbs and filling the oil tanks could add another 300lbs. Even burning off a couple of hundred gallons of fuel could see a B-26 entering enemy territory at over 2 tons heavier than the weight the Performance numbers were figured for. 
A B-26 could burn 45 gallons of fuel just climbing from 15,000ft to 20,000ft. at 32,000lbs. 

Adding several hundred pounds of engines and intercoolers plus the additional drag doesn't seem like it is going to do much of anything for the vast majority of missions the B-26 actually flew let alone the intended missions (turbo charged torpedo bomber????)

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


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 5, 2016)

Adding two pairs of cheek guns also added to the drag, without adding to the engine power, unlike it would've been a case for the intercooled 2-stage R-2800s 
The torpedo bombing missions were few and far between, with better 'altitude-performing' engines the B-26 should be able to fly with decent speed at Sl, as well as at 10000 ft, and at 18000 ft. By 1944 the water injection would've been a reasonable oportunity, the A-26 got that after the ww2. Another thing to improve would've been the engine installation itself, with multiple exhaust stacks instead of collector exhaust, while maybe relocating the oil cooler on the wing leading edge.
Cutaway (link) noting how much the accomodation for 2 crew members, between the pilot's cabin and (front) bomb bay adds to the size of the fuselage. Actually, the total volume used for crew accomodation needed 3-4 times the voulme of the bomb bay.
Added size = added weight = lower performance or worse low speed handling.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 5, 2016)

Uh, Tomo, the artist may have used a bit of artistic license in his drawing. The two guys behind the pilot didn't really have armchairs  
NMUSAF - B-26G Radio Operator Station

Part of the problem with the B-26 (and the B-25) was the disconnect between what the Army wanted in 1940-41 and how the planes were actually used 2-4 years later. 
The torpedo bomber capability was a very large part of the thinking, unfortuanly the Navy screwed up the torpedo situation leaving the Army planes with few, if any, torpedoes to drop for several years (especially ones that actually worked). But since the Army didn't _KNOW _ when the torpedo situation would be straightened out it was all to likely that the switch to high altitude engines and the deleivery of such planes would coincide with the Navy delivering good torpedoes in quantity  

Shortening the fuselage really isn't going to buy you much in speed (compare the speeds of various airliners with extended fuselages) 
and it rather ignores where the US Army was coming from and what they expected from their medium bombers. 

The Mosquito was a _light _bomber intended to replace the Fairey Battle and Bristol Blenheim. Both were 3 man bombers with a bomb laod of four 250lbs, That was the design load for the Mosquito and in fact that was the load for the first 10 Mosquito Bombers off the Production line. Mosquito bombers don't go into action until a few weeks before Midway. Cutting one crew man and ditching the rearward firing gun wasn't that big a change. 

The American Medium bomber goes back to the B-10 at least 




A four man aircraft with 3 flexible guns and a max bomb load of 2260lbs (two 1130lb bombs although a single 2000lb might have been able to be carried externally. A more normal bomb load was 5 five 300lb bombs.) 
Went into service in Dec of 1935. replaced by 




A six man bomber also with 3 flexible guns. Range in overload condition could be 1200 miles with 4400lbs of bombs, Normal load was 2200lbs. Ferry range could be 2200 miles or more. Note RDF loop above/behind cockpit. The US may have placed more importance on navigation and radio equipment/operation than some European nations. It is longer from Chicago to Los Angles than from London to Moscow. Just flying around the US was hard enough without deploying to the Panama Canal zone or to To Hawaii.
The last 38 B-18A's were completed as B-23s (Wright R02600 engines) with a contract change order from 1938, First was delivered in July of 1939 right in the middle of the initial B-26 design process. The B-23 had a six man crew- pilot, bombardier, navigator, radio operator, camera operator, and tail gunner. Normal range 1400 miles with 4000 pounds of bombs, maximum range 2750 miles. 
High speed bombers would not have the range or payload the the US was looking for even if you left out a few gunners and a few guns.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Venturi (Sep 6, 2016)

Gawd that is one ugly beast.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 7, 2016)

Other reasons for the US medium bombers being the size they were include the fact they were intended to be somewhat multi-role to begin with. The B-26 for example being outfitted with a reconnaissance camera in the rear compartment that was aimed through the floor hatch used by the ventral gun on the early version. One of the crew was assigned the "job" of camera operator, whatever that may have entailed (changing film?). 
Radios, navigation equipment and cameras all evolved during the war as did the experience in using them. In some cases later equipment became easier to use or longer ranged for the same weight or complexity. 
Different Air forces had different requirements for both equipment and the space needed to work the equipment in different types of aircraft. 
The US not only had the size of the continental United States to consider but had the overseas possessions of Puerto Rico, several Caribbean Islands, the Panama Canal Zone, The Aleutian Islands, Hawaii and other Pacific islands and the Philippines as well. 
Using a B-26 for photo recon over Europe in 1942 would not have been a good idea but for photographing many islands for _possible _signs of enemy activity the range and communications/navigation ability of a multi-crew aircraft may have been useful. 
I have no idea if it was a US Army requirement but the crew on a B-26 can move from the front of the aircraft to the rear going through the bomb-bay. This allows the radioman and/or navigator to help man rear gun stations. On a B-25 it was possible to crawl over the top of the bomb bay





Perhaps the US could have built bombers with smaller fuselages but they would have lost some of the utility and they already had the A-20 and had seen several other prototype attack bombers, by Boeing-Stearman (XA-21), Martin (XA-22/Maryland) and a paper study by Bell so they had a pretty good idea of what was possible and what they wanted in medium bombers and light (attack) bombers. 
Perhaps they were wrong but without _really knowing_ all the factors going into the decisions it is hard to say.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 23, 2016)

Should we put the Ta 152 on the over-rated list?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Sep 23, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> Should we put the Ta 152 on the over-rated list?




Yes.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 23, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> Should we put the Ta 152 on the over-rated list?


Compared to what? It was a superb design, with early production issues compounded by quality issues due to circumstances.

Off hand I see no other piston engine fighter with a clear performance advantage

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Venturi (Sep 23, 2016)

Those long wings must have sacrificed something, though.


----------



## Ascent (Sep 24, 2016)

I think the issue with the Ta-152 is that it didn't really do anything. It certainly had a lot of potential and if the war had continued it would probably have made its mark but in the end it was too little too late.


----------



## stona (Sep 24, 2016)

Ascent said:


> I think the issue with the Ta-152 is that it didn't really do anything..



Exactly, so it can't really be rated.

It's performance was generally comparable with its late war Allied opponents, making it a decent aircraft at least, but that's about all we can say.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 24, 2016)

drgondog said:


> Compared to what? It was a superb design, with early production issues compounded by quality issues due to circumstances.
> 
> Off hand I see no other piston engine fighter with a clear performance advantage



Bill - on what accounts it was a superb design, and how real was it's performance advantage vs. major Allied types of 1945? 
How many negative points does it score due to the H-1 having half of it's fuel tankage in non-self-sealing tanks? 
How many due to it's low G limit, even on light weight (5G at 4500 kg = no GM-1 nor MW-50 mixtures are carried, half of ammo, fuel only in lower fuselage tanks, obvoiusly no drop tank)?


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 24, 2016)

Venturi said:


> Those long wings must have sacrificed something, though.



Roll rate and G limit.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Venturi (Sep 24, 2016)

It was limited by using the "wrong" engine (DB603 was preferred by Herr Tank), by using steel beams for wing mainspars (due to Al shortage), by being overly specialized for a single job (shooting down high alt bombers), and quality and quantity were insufficient too.

It sure would be neat if the last Ta-152 extant was restored, though.

It is elegant looking to be sure, but I think the vanilla Fw-190D was actually a more well rounded design for a fighter aircraft.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 24, 2016)

It used the right engine, the Jumo 213E being the best piston engine produced & used in Germany in ww2. The 'right' time for theDB 603A/E (sans that abomination of the turbo) was 1944, aboard the Fw 190C.
The 2-stage supercharged DB 603L and 603LA were running a bit late after the Jumo 213E.


----------



## stona (Sep 24, 2016)

Actually the requirement issued by the RLM which should have had a firmer grasp on engine avialability than Kurt Tank was for the installation of the Jumo 213 A "with minimum modifications". Hardly surprising as the DB 603 was still not fully developed at the time.
The possibility of installing other engines, including the DB 603 G was to be retained.

I'm not sure that the wing spar was steel. It maybe that the piece added to extend the wingspan was in early versions, but the entire spar? In the later two part wing versions? I'd like to see the evidence for that.
The fuselage was certainly strengthened with steel rather than light alloy extrusions.

The Ta 152 H may have been a high altitude interceptor, but there were other versions planned.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2016)

The Ta 152 was a superb design. Second to none with great performance.

It's only fault was it arriving so late, and being too little too late.

For it's intended purpose I don't see any reason it would not have performed excellently. Of course you still habe to take into account the German fuel situation and quality of pilots at the time.

In the end it is a mute point however. We simply shall never know.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Venturi (Sep 24, 2016)

I believe these guys own the last example. A good read.

Focke-Wulf Ta 152 H-0/R11


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2016)

Venturi said:


> I believe these guys own the last example. A good read.
> 
> Focke-Wulf Ta 152 H-0/R11



I wish they would put it on display.

Was just there a few weeks ago. Would have been great to have seen it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mstennes (Sep 24, 2016)

Gemhorse said:


> I believe the Bf-110 was hopelessly over-rated, as it found-out during the BoB, and perhaps the Ju-87....all very well during the Blitz over European countries prior to the BoB, but both were hopeless against fighter-opposition......Furthermore, neither were particuarly developed further despite these operational setbacks, the Bf-110 worked better in the dark as a NF, but the Stuka plodded-on in spite, only good for bombing escaping refugees and outmanoeuvred infantry.......
> 
> I take exception to the Spitfire being drawn into this....The British Empire would be talking German now if the Spitfire was 'over-rated'....read your bloody history!!...sure the Hurricane was on the scene first, but these two worked in concert during the BoB, then the Spits escorted Hurri-bombers into Europe and the MTO....and both served in various theatres respectively with distinction.....
> 
> ...


They didn't resort to bomber command tactics witj B29's in Japan. They went to lower levels because they were not hitting as they should have because of how strong the jet stream was. No one wanted to be that low, but it was the only way to hit the targets. Buildings and houses were very combustible in Japan so setting everything ablaze was easy, or so they thought. When they started bombing the bombs were miles upon miles off target, the jet stream would grab them and send everything off course, once Lemay changed the tactics to lower elevations then the bombing became effective, but at a higher cost to the planes and crews.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 24, 2016)

mstennes said:


> They didn't resort to bomber command tactics witj B29's in Japan. They went to lower levels because they were not hitting as they should have because of how strong the jet stream was. No one wanted to be that low, but it was the only way to hit the targets. Buildings and houses were very combustible in Japan so setting everything ablaze was easy, or so they thought. When they started bombing the bombs were miles upon miles off target, the jet stream would grab them and send everything off course, once Lemay changed the tactics to lower elevations then the bombing became effective, but at a higher cost to the planes and crews.


You do realize that you replied to a post that is 11 years old? I doubt you'll get a response from that member. He hasn't been here in at least 5 years.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 25, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> Bill - on what accounts it was a superb design, and how real was it's performance advantage vs. major Allied types of 1945?
> How many negative points does it score due to the H-1 having half of it's fuel tankage in non-self-sealing tanks?
> How many due to it's low G limit, even on light weight (5G at 4500 kg = no GM-1 nor MW-50 mixtures are carried, half of ammo, fuel only in lower fuselage tanks, obvoiusly no drop tank)?



Tomo - the H was one of two viable variants, including the C. The H was developed for High Altitude and while a 4.5 turn Limit Load is not the same as Allied, most Allied fighters are stalling in turns above 30K so there is a trade off. Given a few minutes of alert, the Ta 152H can climb to any altitude - and higher than its allied counterparts plus throttle up to speeds and altitude that will always give it choice of Fight or run. 

Among the attributes included a.) Pressurization enabling ceiling higher than any Allied fighter by far, and only topped by 1000 feet by MiG 15. b.) advanced avionics enabling auto pilot, nav and poor weather landings, c.) Introduction of GM-1 Nitrous Oxide boost, d.) extremely heavy firepower, e.) exceptional performance (Spit could out climb and out turn the C but not H, P-51B/D with 150 octane fuel could out run and out turn H and C on the deck and middle altitudes, e.) both C and H had extremely good acceleration, the C retained the roll characteristics of the A and D, f.) the range was exceptional compared to every Allied fighter except the Mustang, P-47N and P-38.

And, yes - firepower combined with speed and ceiling to take out any Allied bomber in existence or on the drawing board, including the B-36.

A few of those attributes will ordinarily garner some praise as 'Noteworthy of High Ranking"

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 25, 2016)

Thank you very much for the overwiev. I agree that it deserves a high ranking.

What is your take on how much of the 'book' performance would've been lost if the Ta-152 was actually loaded with full fuel, since the available performance charts are just for case with half of the internal fuel? A combat aircraft with non-self-sealing tanks in 1945? 
The Spitfire XIV/18/21, Merlin Mustang nor P-47D/M/N should've not stalled above 30kft?

The P-51H have had, with full internal fuel and ammo, the G limit of 7.33.


----------



## stona (Sep 25, 2016)

I doubt that a Griffon Spitfire XIV, contemporary of the Ta 152, with a *service* ceiling (max. weight) of 43,500 feet was stalling in turns at 30,000feet.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 25, 2016)

Gents,

Any aircraft will stall if you pull hard enough, or if at the wings upper altitude limit if you pull at all. A comparison is an F15 at 350kts at 5k is a different beast than one at 350kts and 30k. At 5k the motor makes great power (but never enough) and in full A/B can probably sustain 4-6 Gs & level flight depending on stores and weight. At 30k it in A/B at 350 you are coming down if you want more than 3-3.5 Gs period. The plane flies the same for a given airspeed at a given altitude for the most part, but the difference, and it drastically affects your maneuvering, is the power your motor or motors put out.

Bill please feel free to "clean up" any misspeaks i made as a "user" (not an engineer).

An aircrafts G limit only matters if the plane can generate enough lift to get there. I have merged / turned with plenty of Vipers and Hornets at 30k+, and none of us were at the G limits of the aircraft. I can't speak for the F22, but suspect his limits are a similar curve, just MUCH higher.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Sep 25, 2016)

I agree, my point was that a an aircraft whose configuration was good enough for a service ceiling well over 40,000ft would not be incapable of maneuvering at 30,000ft. The Spitfire wing being what it was I suspect it would not have been outclassed in this respect by the Ta 152 H, even given its extended wing, still based on that of the Fw 190.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Sep 25, 2016)

Biff nailed my point about turns becoming increasingly tenuous. Sorry that everybody inferred that 30K was a hard threshold.

Simply, Lift is proportional to density and CL if speeds are the same. Induced Drag is proportional to CL^^2 and inversely proportional to Aspect ratio.

The fact that the Ta 152H could lift a 12,000 pound airplane 6-8K higher than a 4000 pound lighter Spit XIV with the same basic wing area should make the point about growing turn (and climb) performance as a function of altitude.

That said - I am quoting weights and performance from multiple sources - none of which include actual flight test data with specified conditions.

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


----------



## drgondog (Sep 25, 2016)

drgondog said:


> Biff nailed my point about turns becoming increasingly tenuous. Sorry that everybody inferred that 30K was a hard threshold.
> 
> Simply, Lift is proportional to density and CL if speeds are the same. Induced Drag is proportional to CL^^2 and inversely proportional to Aspect ratio.
> 
> ...



Forgot to mention that the AR of the Ta 152H at 9.3 was nearly 60% better (as in the case of Induced drag - leading to improved climb and ceiling performance). .

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 25, 2016)

Thank you again.
This table (link) shows the Ta-152H-1 with take off weight of 4760 kg (~10500 lbs) with service ceiling of 45600 ft. Now, loaded weight of the Ta-152H-1, with full fuel, ammo, GM-1 and MW-50 tanks full is 5217 kg (~11300 lbs) - to what loss of climb performance, speed and ceiling? 
Spitfire XIV has service ceiling of 43500 ft at 8488 lbs. Re. heavy armament - Spitfire 21 has 4 x 20mm cannons (data sheet), with ceiling of 43 (=9186 lbs) to 44 kft.

I'm afraid that Ta-152 did not offered in 1945 such an advantage in performance (speed, climb, ceiling) vs. range as it was the case when drop-tank equipped P-38, -47 and Merlin Mustang and were introduced in 1942-43, and Ta-152 accepted several important compromises in order to achieve it's high performance.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 25, 2016)

tomo pauk said:


> Thank you again.
> This table (link) shows the Ta-152H-1 with take off weight of 4760 kg (~10500 lbs) with service ceiling of 45600 ft. Now, loaded weight of the Ta-152H-1, with full fuel, ammo, GM-1 and MW-50 tanks full is 5217 kg (~11300 lbs) - to what loss of climb performance, speed and ceiling?
> Spitfire XIV has service ceiling of 43500 ft at 8488 lbs. Re. heavy armament - Spitfire 21 has 4 x 20mm cannons (data sheet), with ceiling of 43 (=9186 lbs) to 44 kft.
> 
> I'm afraid that Ta-152 did not offered in 1945 such an advantage in performance (speed, climb, ceiling) vs. range as it was the case when drop-tank equipped P-38, -47 and Merlin Mustang and were introduced in 1942-43, and Ta-152 accepted several important compromises in order to achieve it's high performance.



Tomo, how can a Spitfire get to that height at max weight? It had to burn fuel to get there so would not be at max weight.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 25, 2016)

Applies for most of the aircraft....


----------



## Milosh (Sep 25, 2016)

But a/c carried different amounts of fuel.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Venturi (Sep 25, 2016)

At altitudes that were found in missions other than strategic bomber interception, would the Ta152 

(I don't specify the H version because the H was the only model built, as the low alt versions did not give any perf improvement over the fw190d, but I digress)

have still held overall performance advantage over any of the allied designs of similar age, except perhaps in a straight line?

Agree it's possibly not the most overrated, but I find most German fighters post 190d to be near experimental designs with serious compromises made in construction due to labor/materials deficits. Not the fault of the designers, of course. But it does affect ultimate performance.


----------



## stona (Sep 25, 2016)

Milosh said:


> But a/c carried different amounts of fuel.



maximum weight for the Spitfire simply means that it took off fully loaded with fuel and armament and climbed to service ceiling. This was tests carried out at Boscombe Down. The details will be available somewhere, maybe Mike Williams site?

As Tomo points out, the data often quoted for the Ta 152 is for something less than its maximum weight, which will have an effect on its ceiling(s).

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 25, 2016)

Hence the reason I put some caveats on my comments. Any more discussion needs Test results for better insight.

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


----------



## wuzak (Sep 25, 2016)

In _Wings of the Luftwaffe_ Eric Brown opined that the Spitfire XIV was superior to the Ta 512H up to 30,000ft, they were evenly matched from 30,000ft to 35,000ft, the Ta 152H being superior above that altitude.


----------



## Venturi (Sep 25, 2016)

While I'm courting controversy, how about......?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 25, 2016)

How is the Me262 considered over-rated?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> How is the Me262 considered over-rated?



It's not...

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


----------



## Thorlifter (Sep 26, 2016)

Really the ONLY knock on the 262 was take off and landing performance and long term engine reliability, but that was hardly the 262's fault. It was simply the growing pains of advanced technology. Once the Jumo's spooled up, the plane was very good, wicked fast, and heavily armed!!!!

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


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 26, 2016)

... it must have been very frustrating for the 'experten' to be so vulnerable on landings and take-offs


----------



## stona (Sep 26, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> How is the Me262 considered over-rated?



I agree that today it is not overrated.However, I would argue that there were some influential officers in the Luftwaffe who overrated it in 1944/45. It was not the war winning (should that be war saving?) machine that they thought it could be. Germany would have needed to produce many thousands of them, _and provided the pilots to fly them_, to have had any significant impact on the air war, and they would still have lost the war anyway.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thorlifter (Sep 26, 2016)

Steve, I agree that the influential leaders assessment of the 262 was over rated and that there wasn't enough planes and pilots to make Germany victorious, but that doesn't make the plane over rated.


----------



## stona (Sep 26, 2016)

I don't think we overrate it today. With hindsight we can make realistic assessments of its capabilities and limitations. We know it was a sign post to the future, though not in itself the future. 

I think today some do overrate its influence on subsequent aircraft design.

Some Germans overrated it at the time, I'm just pointing out that its contemporaries did this. They saw it in similar terms to other wonder weapons, something we will hardly do today.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## airminded88 (Sep 26, 2016)

There is one key figure who certainly underrated its potential as a lethal bomber destroyer and as such killed any further advantage it could had provided to the LW in their defense of the reich: Hitler


----------



## stona (Sep 26, 2016)

airminded88 said:


> There is one key figure who certainly underrated its potential as a lethal bomber destroyer and as such killed any further advantage it could had provided to the LW in their defense of the reich: Hitler



Hitler saw it as a fast bomber and saw the advancing Allied armies, particularly those of the Soviet Union, as the most deadly threat to Germany.
It is not surprising that the Luftwaffe saw the Allied bombers as the main threat to Germany, nor that Hitler saw the Allied armies as the main threat.
In this case Hitler was probably correct, it was those Soviet armies that fought their way into Berlin. The loss of territories denied Germany more resources than all the efforts of the combined bombing offensive. I suspect, however, that most members of a modern WW2 aircraft forum will probably take the same view as the Luftwaffe did 
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 26, 2016)

The problem with the Me262 as a "Schnell Bomber" was that was not designed for that role - stopping it's production and then redesigning it for that role was a terrible mistake and created a great deal of delays.

Especially in light of the fact that the Ar234 was already in the works and was introduced into service just a few months after the Me262 was put into service at Lechfeld.

If anything about the Me262 is to be considered over rated, it would be the German Leadership's intelligence...


----------



## stona (Sep 26, 2016)

The P-47, Typhoon and many others were not designed as bombers. Messerschmitt himself told the leadership that he could convert the Me 262 to this role, he was never one to mistake which way the wind was blowing or to miss out on an opportunity. He was more responsible for the delays than any other person or organisation.
I'm not suggesting that the Jabo role was the most appropriate for the Me 262, but I can understand why the decision to go down this route was taken. In a dire situation, when confronted by several threats, you apply the best of limited means to confront the one which you rate as the most immediate and dangerous of them. It was NOT an irrational decision taken by a deluded leader, as is so often and simplistically asserted in many standard histories.
We suffer from the post war tub thumping of men like Galland and many others in this respect, always attempting to distance the most thoroughly Nazi of all the services (excepting of course organs of the party, SA, SS etc) from the regime and to deflect responsibility for its failings on to others, unable to defend themselves.
I am no apologist for Nazism, but discounting the failings of entire programmes and blaming them on a delusional or even insane leadership does nothing to help explain the history.
Cheers
Steve

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 26, 2016)

However, if we go back and look at Willy's original designs and concept, there was no provision for hardpoints for bombs under the nose _until_ Der Fuhrer had an epiphany. 

He (Willy) had already adjusted the wing design to adjust the CoG during it's development...but when Hitler asked him if he could make it into a bomber, just imagine the awkward silence while he formulated the correct answer...

The Me262, like a good many of the excellent designs that came off the drawing board of Messerschmitt, Heinkel, et. al. ended up spawning countless variants that were costly, time consuming and created ruinous delays.


----------



## Denniss (Sep 26, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> The problem with the Me262 as a "Schnell Bomber" was that was not designed for that role - stopping it's production and then redesigning it for that role was a terrible mistake and created a great deal of delays.
> 
> Especially in light of the fact that the Ar234 was already in the works and was introduced into service just a few months after the Me262 was put into service at Lechfeld.
> 
> If anything about the Me262 is to be considered over rated, it would be the German Leadership's intelligence...


Sorry but that's a common myth, production was neither stopped nor the 262 redesigned. 262 was always held back by availability of its engines.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 26, 2016)

Denniss said:


> Sorry but that's a common myth, production was neither stopped nor the 262 redesigned. 262 was always held back by availability of its engines.


Nonsense...they were not just taking completed A-1a aircraft, removing two Mk108 cannon and sticking hardpoints under the nose at random, and sending them on their way.


----------



## Venturi (Sep 27, 2016)

Because it represented a technological evolution in aviation, the Me262 was a great plane. Especially if you ignored the fuel consumption, abysmal power and acceleration at low speeds, 12hr engine lifespan, and propensity to catch fire if throttled up too fast. It provided top speeds and climbrate which no prop plane of the era could match.

The more germane question is, exactly what was asked. Is the 262 over-rated? Over rated does not mean bad. It doesn't even mean mediocre. It could theoretically encompass very good aircraft. It just means, rated better than it actually was.

The point was made in a recent scholarly work, The German War, (recommended) that the disproportionately expensive weapons like the Me262 were most useful as moral support for the Deutsche Volk, who desperately needed to believe in something which could deliver them from the doom of the collapsing fronts and the daily bombings. People need hope and Hitler was a shrewd, if inhuman, man.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Sep 27, 2016)

Venturi said:


> The point was made in a recent scholarly work, The German War, (recommended) that the disproportionately expensive weapons like the Me262 were most useful as moral support for the Deutsche Volk, who desperately needed to believe in something which could deliver them from the doom of the collapsing fronts and the daily bombings..



This is why the Me 262 tended to be lumped in with other wonder weapons. The Luftwaffe presented (and presents) a united front, that by using the type as a fighter bomber rather than an out and out fighter, a chance to turn the air war in the West was lost. This was nonsense then and it is nonsense now. It is in this sense that the aircraft was overrated at the time.

The decision by Hitler to develop the Me 262 as a fighter bomber was taken sometime after a demonstration he saw on 26th November 1943, flown by the Me 262 V-6 (the V-4 flown by Bauer suffered a flame out on take off and did not perform). It was confirmed in a telegram to Goering on 5th December. I'm afraid that the argument that this somehow upset ongoing fighter production, bolting ETC racks onto existing fighters does not stand up, given this timeline. This is around the time that the Me 262 V-8 and V-10 were delivered to the flight testing centre at Rechlin and before any series production. 

A more rational programme for an out and out interceptor might have been the He 162. It was never properly developed, but crucially it only used one engine, and it was the engines which were the major impediment to all jet programmes.
Willy Messerschmitt is on the record as strongly objecting to the He 162 programme (but then he would), and others including Galland did too. The RLM/Luftwaffe always suffered from confused priorities, this was just one more example.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Denniss (Sep 27, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Nonsense...they were not just taking completed A-1a aircraft, removing two Mk108 cannon and sticking hardpoints under the nose at random, and sending them on their way.


Get your facts right. The airframe was basically ready for production in later 43 but the engines were only available in numbers by spring/summer 44.
And they actually built two models in 1944 as the normal A-1a and the FB version A-2a, from late 44 on they just produced the A-1a which they could adapt to FB role by removing/installing required equipment.


----------



## Juha2 (Sep 27, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> However, if we go back and look at Willy's original designs and concept, there was no provision for hardpoints for bombs under the nose _until_ Der Fuhrer had an epiphany.
> 
> He (Willy) had already adjusted the wing design to adjust the CoG during it's development...but when Hitler asked him if he could make it into a bomber, just imagine the awkward silence while he formulated the correct answer...
> 
> The Me262, like a good many of the excellent designs that came off the drawing board of Messerschmitt, Heinkel, et. al. ended up spawning countless variants that were costly, time consuming and created ruinous delays.




Not true, the Project proposal IV of Messerschmitt AG dated on May 8 1943 was for ”Me 262 Jäger und Jabo”. It gave for first time detailed plans for series production for Me 262 versions existing at that time and as we know Jabo = fighter bomber. As a Jabo 262 would have had a max bomb load of 700 kg.


It seems that the main reason for the delay besides the problems in the jet engine development was Willy, who desperately wanted to put Me 209 back to production plans and even went to Hitler to critize 262 and praise 209 and succeeded to get 209 reinstalled to the production plan and then took resources away from 262 development to 209 development.

And the future deployment of Ar 234 didn’t destroy Hitler’s logic for a Me 262 Jabo. His main aim was to have a plane capable to hit the Allied forces on D-Day, not 3 months later.


And IMHO even excellent planes can be over-rated, be it Supermarine Spitfire, Bf 109F-4, P-51D, Ta-152 or Me-262.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Sep 27, 2016)

Juha is correct about the Me 209. On 27th June 1943 Willy Messerschmitt argued against mass production of the Me 262 in a meeting with Hitler, and succeeded in obtaining a Fuhrer Order overturning Milch's earlier (25th May) cancellation of the Me 209!

This is all about timing. The Me 262 was conceived as a fighter and that is what was intended with the issuing of the initial order for five prototypes (V series) and twenty pre-production (0 series) aircraft, on 25th July 1941.

Plans for various bomber versions certainly date from early 1943, Messerschmitt had some inkling of what might be required. As I said before, he wasn't one to mistake which way the wind was blowing.
This is hardly surprising, given the terms of Protokoll Nr. 9 of 4th March 1943.

_"...as per the Fuhrer Befehl, every fighter must henceforth be capable of performing in the fighter-bomber role. An installation capable of carrying 500 KG bombs is foreseen for the Me 262, according to drawing Nr.II/141."_

The order had been issued in February 1943 and covered *all fighter aircraft*, it was as a result of this that the *first project for a fighter bomber version of the Me 262 was started on 26th March 1943.*

When Hitler made his comments to Goering, on 27th October, about jet fighter bombers screaming at top speed along the beaches to attack an Allied invasion, the plans for a fighter bomber had been in existence for at least seven months. Ten days earlier the V6 had flown for the first time (the first aircraft to have a fully retractable tricycle undercarriage and the first to be fitted with Jumo 004 B-0 engines). We are still a distance from series production.

The fighter bomber capability was not imposed on an a fighter already in production, it predated it by a considerable period. It was a requirement, at least theoretically, for all Luftwaffe fighters in the face of the threats to which I alluded in an earlier post. The Anglo-American bombing offensive was not the only, nor the most deadly, threat to face Germany at this time. The Me 262 was in no way singled out for some kind of special treatment in this respect. Being an aircraft still in development it should have been easier to convert it for a fighter bomber role than other aircraft already in service, particularly as its designer kept insisting that it could easily be done!

I know sometimes it seems almost a shame to allow the facts to get in the way of the 'mad Fuhrer and his idiotic decisions' school of history, but 70+ years after the events we should be looking at more balanced views. 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Sep 27, 2016)

I learned more about the politics behind the Me 262 in the last 24 hours than I ever knew/believed before.


----------



## stona (Sep 27, 2016)

I'd also add, regarding the engine situation, that whilst it is true that the 900 engines promised by Junkers for 1943 never materialised, Messerschmitt AG only had plans to build ten (that's just ten) V series aircraft in that year. 

To give an idea of the way in which the company dragged its feet, in January 1943 it proposed a jet powered version of the Me 109, the Bf 109 TL (based on a combination of parts from the Me 155 and Me 309) as it feared problems with the Me 262. This came to nothing, but wasted more time. All the evidence suggests that neither Messerschmitt himself, nor the company, were fully behind the Me 262 project until it was too late. Over a year later, in March 1944, Messerschmitt was still complaining that the RLM had hampered development of the Me 262 by not having determined the priority of the type, despite the Me 262 being given the highest priority (DE) on 22nd January 1943. Messerschmitt simply ignored this and accorded a higher priority internally to the Me 209 project, which by his own admission resulted in a reduction in the Me 262 design work and delayed that project by months.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 27, 2016)

Please also bear in mind that in Germany in 1944/45 it was more important to be involved in a "project" than not to be, there were approximtely 200 people working on plans for the breitspurbahn broad gauge railway throughout the war. Not being involved in a project could result in a rifle being thrust into your hand.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Sep 27, 2016)

Whether the Me 262 was overrated or not is a complex question. In 1944-45 it was certainly a threat to daylight bombing but I don't believe it could have provided air superiority over Germany without a powerful supporting cast protecting the airfields, where the Me 262 was most vulnerable. Post D-day, the Western allies had just too many aircraft to flood the air. But it, along with the poorer aero-designed Meteor, ushered in a new epoch in air warfare and travel. But both were dead end streets of jet fighter designed. Both were designed with specific requirements that hampered follow-on fighter designs and this was the wing nacelle mounted engines. Both the P-59 and the P-80 laid out the engine configuration for the future jet fighter, the P-59 with its conformal engine mounts, although hampered by poor aero design including a 60% increase in wing area over the Me 262, and the P-80 with its large single engine buried in the fuselage, which, by the way was incorporated in the earliest British and German test planes. The big impact on future jet fighter designs were the very late German aircraft designs including the P 1101 and German research. So, other than ushering jet fighter operations, both the Me 262 and Meteor contributed little to follow on jet fighter designs and were therefore overrated in that regard.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 27, 2016)

The Early jet aircraft designs were overtaken by the rapid progress in Jet engines. In 1942 it wasn't possible to build an effective fighter using a single jet engine. For the Americans the P-80 was initially designed for a 3,000lb thrust engine but soon switched to the 4,000lb thrust J33 which first ran in Jan 1944 (although note at full rating?) which was over double what any engine in 1942 was achieving. 
Granted the J33 was heavy but with the need for two engines the placement of the engines did tend to limit placement. How much the desire to keep the engines separated by a certain amount of distance in order to make sure a malfunction (thrown turbine blades) in one engine didn't take out the other influenced things I don't know.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (Sep 28, 2016)

Given that the Gloster E28/39 had a single engine buried in the fuselage the P-80 probably had less influence than you think.

Also edited to add that (according to wiki at least) design work for the De Havilland Vampire started in 1941.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Sep 28, 2016)

Ascent said:


> Given that the Gloster E28/39 had a single engine buried in the fuselage the P-80 probably had less influence than you think.



As did the Heinkel He 178.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 28, 2016)

wuzak said:


> As did the Heinkel He 178.


Which first flew in 1939

Regarding the embedded engines, the Germans were well aware of the advantages of the embedded engines over the underslung engines, but they were limited by the low thrust of the engines in the early designs.

If you look at the later concepts and projects, including Messerschmitt's next generation Me262 design (HGIII), you'll find that the trend for embedding the engines was well underway. The Me P.1101 (Bell X-5) was a good enough proof of that concept.


----------



## stona (Sep 28, 2016)

Many of the projected early versions of what became the Me 262 had engines mounted centrally in the wings rather than under slung. I don't think the fuselage was an option given the need for two engines, given the size of WW2 fighters generally, and a requirement for the armament to be in or close to the fuselage.

The early engines were so short lived and unreliable that having them fitted under the wings, almost as a modular power egg arrangement, may have been a significant operational bonus.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 28, 2016)

Ascent said:


> Given that the Gloster E28/39 had a single engine buried in the fuselage the P-80 probably had less influence than you think.
> 
> Also edited to add that (according to wiki at least) design work for the De Havilland Vampire started in 1941.



The Gloster E28/39 was also _supposed _to be a fighter prototype although the four .303 guns were never fitted. However four .303 guns and with speeds no higher than piston engine planes were achieving in 1943 plus the short endurance the Gloster E28/39, while a truly significant aircraft, shows that an aircraft using a single jet engine of the time (1940-43) would NOT be an _effective _fighter plane. 

AS for the Vampire, keep reading Wiki. the answer is there. 
"for the projected fighter Halford decided to go ahead with the design of a "straight through" centrifugal engine of what was at the time the very high thrust of 3,000 lb, that was to emerge as the Halford H.1. Design of the engine was complete in April 1941, the first engine running one year later."
and it took almost another year before the engine was flown in a Meteor. 5 March 1943 
Flight in the Vampire was delayed when the available engine was sent to Lockheed for the prototype P-80 so the Vampire Flew in Sept 1943. 
However early production engines were of 2700lbs thrust and went to 3000lbs thrust for the actual production Vampire I aircraft.
Which had a few problems with range/endurance. As in only 202 imp gallons of fuel in internal tanks. Quickly supplemented by 50/100 gal drop tanks and the MK II Vampire with 354 imp gallons of internal fuel. 

Getting the right balance of engine power and performance (speed/climb) vs weight of armament and fuel load (endurance/range) was a bit tricky in the early years of jet design/development as the engine power was changing so fast. Faster than airframes could go from drawing board to production.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (Sep 28, 2016)

My point was more about the fact that the design was being worked on before they would have been aware of the P-80 rather than the success or otherwise of the aircraft itself.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 28, 2016)

For a lot of aircraft engine installations the location/layout is pretty simple. For an experimental aircraft it is often desirable to use a single engine. For jet that really gets simple because it pretty much has to go the the centerline and that means it can go pretty much in the center or center rear of the fuselage in order to leave room on the CG for the fuel tanks. Vampire layout was an attempt to limit losses in intake and exhaust ducts as was the Hawker Seahawk. Once you get those out of the way you get things like the He 162 and the Yak-15.





If you are starting with a clean sheet of paper and not trying to use as much as possible of an existing fighter the Yak-15 route is not the way to go.
The He 178, the Gloster E28/39 and the XP-80 all used the most logical arrangement for a single engine jet. Engine close to the CG, Thrust line close the center of the fuselage, not high or low, and least amount of frontal area (drag) possible given the size of the engine/s in use. The He 162 and the Yak using axial flow engines considerably smaller in diameter than the three aircraft mentioned.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 29, 2016)

The He162 would still have drag penalties for the engine being mounted above the fuselage.

As far as the Me262 HGIII is concerned, the engines weren't to be embedded in the fuselage, but rather the wing-root. While it's not the ideal layout in comparison to second generation jets, it was a huge step forward from the He280, Me262A, Ar234, etc.






As was mentioned before, the idea of the embedded engine was not lost to the Germans but it was the low power of the engines that was keeping them shackled to twin engines (along with Allied counterparts) - perhaps the Ho.IX would be the best example of embedded engines of the day! 

The He162 was a departure from that by virtue of it's lightweight construction, as was the Hs132.

The Ta183 and Me P.1101were examples of thinking smaller.

The Bell X-5 based on the P.1101:

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Sep 29, 2016)




----------



## BLine22 (Oct 1, 2016)

Wing mounted jet engines may not have been the future for fighters, but the concept seems to have worked well for Boeing, Airbus and others.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 8, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> The Early jet aircraft designs were overtaken by the rapid progress in Jet engines. In 1942 it wasn't possible to build an effective fighter using a single jet engine. For the Americans the P-80 was initially designed for a 3,000lb thrust engine but soon switched to the 4,000lb thrust J33 which first ran in Jan 1944 (although note at full rating?) which was over double what any engine in 1942 was achieving.
> Granted the J33 was heavy but with the need for two engines the placement of the engines did tend to limit placement. How much the desire to keep the engines separated by a certain amount of distance in order to make sure a malfunction (thrown turbine blades) in one engine didn't take out the other influenced things I don't know.



No disagreements here. There is no doubt that engine development was the critical design driver where the Allies, US and Britain, had a significant advantage over the Germans by wars end. They had the big engines, effectively in production.



Axcent said:


> Given that the Gloster E28/39 had a single engine buried in the fuselage the P-80 probably had less influence than you think.
> 
> Also edited to add that (according to wiki at least) design work for the De Havilland Vampire started in 1941.



Which is what I stated, “large single engine buried in the fuselage, which, by the way was incorporated in the earliest British and German test planes.” Neither the Gloster E28/39 nor the He 178 led to any production aircraft and each countries design went to a different place. The Vampire got a raw deal when their engine went to the P-80, maybe preventing it from being available in WW2. In my opinion, it would have been a formidable opponent to the Me 262, which I don’t think the Meteor really was.



Wuzak said:


> As did the Heinkel He 178.




See above.




GrauGeist said:


> The Me P.1101 (Bell X-5) was a good enough proof of that concept.





As I said “The big impact on future jet fighter designs were the very late German aircraft designs including the P 1101 and German research.” I think the P 1101, with its ground adjustable wing sweep could have evolved quickly into the first swept wing fighter.



Stona said:


> The early engines were so short lived and unreliable that having them fitted under the wings, almost as a modular power egg arrangement, may have been a significant operational bonus.




Which is what I meant when I said “Both were designed with specific requirements that hampered follow-on fighter designs and this was the wing nacelle mounted engines.”


Both the P-80 and the Vampire uncovered a new aerodynamic challenge, high speed ducted inlet design, something that has become much more important in the world of stealth design. In fact the damage done to the first P-80 was due to a collapsed inlet. This was the engine replaced by the Vampire engine.

The lineage for the Me 262, Meteor, and Vampire designs ended very quickly, but the P-80, and even the poorly specified twin engine P-59 design, can be traced to modern aircraft. I’m not saying the P-59 or P-80 specifically influenced follow-on aircraft, several designs started before these, but rather they represent the first of a long line of successful design concepts. Attached are some examples of the lineage of the two design concepts. Pictures are out of order should be P-80, F9F, Hunter, F-35 and P-59, F-4, F-22.


----------



## zulu fox (Nov 22, 2017)

The Mustang had a one of the top kill to loss ratios in the war. Definitely sounds like the most overrated aircraft of the war.


----------



## Zipper730 (Nov 23, 2017)

davparlr said:


> In fact the damage done to the first P-80 was due to a collapsed inlet.


Collapsed? Like the inlet caved?


----------



## Milosh (Nov 23, 2017)

A flyable Halford engine was delivered to Lockheed in mid November of 1943. The de Havilland-built Halford H.1B turbojet had a bench thrust of 3000 pounds at 10,500 rpm and an installed thrust of 2460 pounds at 9500 rpm. On November 17, 1943, while the H.1B engine installation in the XP-80 was undergoing ground testing, *both intake ducts collapsed, and the ingestion of debris damaged the engine.* While waiting a replacement engine, the ducts were strengthened. The British selflessly rushed over a replacement engine which had been intended for the number 2 Vampire fighter. The replacement engine arrived on December 28 and was promptly installed in the XP-80. The XP-80 was finally ready for its maiden flight.

Lockheed XP-80 Shooting Star

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 24, 2017)

Most overrated?

Me262. Trivial effect on the war, but lots of effect on the fanboys. Certainly, using it as the ancestor of all *swept-wing* jets is nonsense; its wings were probably swept because somebody screwed up the c/g calculation, not because of compressibility.

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2017)

I don't think the 262 is overrated at all. Regardless of ones thoughts, it was the most advanced fighter aircraft built during WW2. Whether one likes it or not, it impacted future jet aircraft design. Fact is fact, period.

Now yes, its impact on the war was negligible because of teething problems. Now imagine though it would have been entered into service earlier..

Overrated? Hardly. Just as some people like to overstate its impact and call it a "Wunder Weapon", others just like to understate it. Probably because it was a German built aircraft. Had it been built by Lockheed or any other US manufacturer, it would have been the greatest single invention in the history of mankind. Hailed as the best of the best in every history book written, in every museum, and hollywood movie ever made. *(Not saying anyone here is like that, just pointing out an observation I see on the interwebs...). *Extreme "fanboys" on both sides of the argument cloud the reality.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Nov 24, 2017)

On the 262? If the 9th AF had been offered 262s instead of P-47s I suspect they would have traded up.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 24, 2017)

There is a thread on most over rated aircraft, the planes considered to be most over rated (by the poll) are some of those considered the highest performers P51, F6F, Spitfire etc.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2017)

pbehn said:


> There is a thread on most over rated aircraft, the planes considered to be most over rated (by the poll) are some of those considered the highest performers P51, F6F, Spitfire etc.



I was one of the ones who voted for the P-51. Not because of its performance or service history. It’s performance and service record are amazing. To me it was the fighter aircraft that impacted the war more than any. It was not the best in every catagory, but it was great in all catagories. It was the aircraft that took the fight to the Germans. One of the greatest ever built.

The reason I voted for it, is because I believe so many other great aircraft that contributed so much are forgotten because of the P-51. If Hollywood made a new BoB movie, the Brits would be using P-51’s...

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


----------



## pbehn (Nov 24, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I was one of the ones who voted for the P-51. Not because of its performance or service history. It’s performance and service record are amazing. To me it was the fighter aircraft that impacted the war more than any. It was not the best in every catagory, but it was great in all catagories. It was the aircraft that took the fight to the Germans. One of the greatest ever built.
> 
> The reason I voted for it, is because I believe so many other great aircraft that contributed so much are forgotten because of the P-51. If Hollywood made a new BoB movie, the Brits would be using P-51’s...


The P 51-D steals the thunder of all the other aircraft involved in the daylight bombing offensive mainly because it is so photogenic, it is rare for an article to show a picture of a P51-B/C in media articles published today let alone the P-47 or P-38 and the Spitfire never gets a mention. In British media the role of the Hurricane in the BoB is sometimes almost forgotten, "WW2 fighter pilot" and "Spitfire pilot" are seen as synonyms forgetting the Hurricane, Typhoon and Tempest completely. Having said that a BoB movie with P-51s would be cool, with the LW using Vulcans and Valiants.


----------



## Dana Bell (Nov 24, 2017)

Most over-rated? That would have to be an aircraft that is still held in high esteem but that completely failed to perform up to its reputation. For me that would be the P-61 Black Widow. The "Queen of the Midnight Skies" failed to meet its minimum performance goals from its first evaluations through the end of the war. The "flyoff" against the British Mosquito was rigged against the Mossie, and proved only that the P-61 was the best available aircraft for US forces - the Mosquito was not available. By late 1944 Wright Field was wondering what to do about the aircraft, pulling the plug on further "improvements" and looking for a replacement aircraft.

The P-61 did have some successes, due to the aggressive nature if its crews, but overall too many enemy aircraft were able to escape before the P-61 could get close enough to engage.

Cheers,



Dana
(BTW - it's fun to see an old thread revisited eleven years later, then re-revisited a year after that!)

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


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 24, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I don't think the 262 is overrated at all. Regardless of ones thoughts, it was the most advanced fighter aircraft built during WW2. Whether one likes it or not, it impacted future jet aircraft design. Fact is fact, period.
> 
> Now yes, its impact on the war was negligible because of teething problems. Now imagine though it would have been entered into service earlier..
> 
> Overrated? Hardly. Just as some people like to overstate its impact and call it a "Wunder Weapon", others just like to understate it. Probably because it was a German built aircraft. Had it been built by Lockheed or any other US manufacturer, it would have been the greatest single invention in the history of mankind. Hailed as the best of the best in every history book written, in every museum, and hollywood movie ever made. *(Not saying anyone here is like that, just pointing out an observation I see on the interwebs...). *_Extreme "fanboys" on both sides of the argument cloud the reality._



Yes. I've seen, though, that many people tend to exaggerate German technical and engineering expertise, especially in aviation. Overall, the technological level between the major belligerents was very similar.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Yes. I've seen, though, that many people tend to exaggerate German technical and engineering expertise, especially in aviation. Overall, the technological level between the major belligerents was very similar.



That does


swampyankee said:


> Yes. I've seen, though, that many people tend to exaggerate German technical and engineering expertise, especially in aviation. Overall, the technological level between the major belligerents was very similar.



I won’t disagree with any of that, but the same can be said about any “side”.

Fact though is that all of them despite relatively similar, each had some things more advanced, some less. It is what it is.


----------



## rochie (Nov 25, 2017)

Always find it funny that the P-51, Bf 109 and Spitfire seem to be near the top of both best and most over rated WW2 aircraft polls

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Nov 25, 2017)

To be fair, 'best' and 'most overrated' aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 25, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That does
> 
> 
> I won’t disagree with any of that, but the same can be said about any “side”.
> ...




Very true. Of the four largest powers -- US, UK, Germany, USSR, I think only the USSR could be regarded as significantly lagging, and starting from a relatively undeveloped Russian economy, followed by a decade of quite bloody civil war, this is hardly surprising.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2017)

rochie said:


> Always find it funny that the P-51, Bf 109 and Spitfire seem to be near the top of both best and most over rated WW2 aircraft polls



It’s a popularity contest.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 25, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Very true. Of the four largest powers -- US, UK, Germany, USSR, I think only the USSR could be regarded as significantly lagging, and starting from a relatively undeveloped Russian economy, followed by a decade of quite bloody civil war, this is hardly surprising.



I would note, that in my opinion (won't even get you low calorie sweetener for your coffee let alone buy the coffee), that the Russians could come up with ideas/theories but, for the reasons you mentioned, could not turn most of them into serviceable hardware.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 25, 2017)

rochie said:


> Always find it funny that the P-51, Bf 109 and Spitfire seem to be near the top of both best and most over rated WW2 aircraft polls


 well, if something is on the _worst_ list it is rather unlikely to be over rated


----------



## rochie (Nov 25, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It’s a popularity contest.


Bingo !!!!


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 25, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> If Hollywood made a new BoB movie, the Brits would be using P-51’s...


And they'd be flown by adventure seeking Yanks!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 25, 2017)

Even the obligatory nurse/s would be American women volunteering

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 25, 2017)

Naw, Americans find women speaking in an English accent to be sexy.
Of course, it could be American actresses _faking_ English accents! That's always funny.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 25, 2017)

Greg Boeser said:


> Naw, Americans find women speaking in an English accent to be sexy.
> Of course, it could be American actresses _faking_ English accents! That's always funny.


So a cast of Americans surrounded by sexy sounding women and men that sound like psychopaths, deviants and criminal masterminds?


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 25, 2017)

I see blockbuster written all over it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2017)

Greg Boeser said:


> And they'd be flown by adventure seeking Yanks!



You are absolutely correct. And then everyone in the US would talk about how they saved the British during the BoB.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 25, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You are absolutely correct. And then everyone in the US would talk about how they saved the British during the BoB.


In my experience only about 25% know what Great Britain is, they just think it is all England.


----------



## rochie (Nov 25, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You are absolutely correct. And then everyone in the US would talk about how they saved the British during the BoB.


But you did !
I saw that Ben Afleck documentary, pearl harbour....

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


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 25, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You are absolutely correct. And then everyone in the US would talk about how they saved the British during the BoB.



But we all know it was the Poles!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2017)

Greg Boeser said:


> But we all know it was the Poles!



I figured it was the Brazilians...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2017)

pbehn said:


> In my experience only about 25% know what Great Britain is, they just think it is all England.



Most at first thought Atlanta was under attack when the Russians rolled into Georgia...

My first day in High School in North Carolina after moving from Germany, a fellow student asked how long the drive was. I told him 2 weeks after they build the bridge. The teacher had to explain to him that you have to fly or take a boat. I’m serious...

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


----------



## fubar57 (Nov 25, 2017)

The brazilions of who?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2017)

fubar57 said:


> The brazilions of who?



Indians


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 25, 2017)

I haven't read any books on how the Brazilians saved the British during the BoB, but there are scads about the Poles.
_A Question of Honor
The Forgotten Few_
etc.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Nov 25, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Most at first thought Atlanta was under attack when the Russians rolled into Georgia...


We have some Moldovans working at our shop. Their family lives in Atlanta. When I asked them where they were from they said "Georgia".
I replied "Stalin came from Georgia too, comrade."

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 25, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Most at first thought Atlanta was under attack when the Russians rolled into Georgia...
> 
> My first day in High School in North Carolina after moving from Germany, a fellow student asked how long the drive was. I told him 2 weeks after they build the bridge. The teacher had to explain to him that you have to fly or take a boat. I’m serious...


It is actually a phenomena, most people who have worked with US citizens have at least one story to tell. I worked with an American guy in Saudi Arabia who claimed he hadn't heard of either New Zealand or Australia. There was an Iranian passenger plane shot down at the time
Iran Air Flight 655 - Wikipedia

He always referred to it as an Iraq plane, and always maintained that Iran and Iraq were actually both the same.

A similar phenomena comes from Glasgow in Scotland, I have met more than a few who are really happy if you cant understand what they say, as this "proves" they have their own language, actually they just speak English badly. With Americans I believe they don't learn geography because it is a way of saying and thinking nothing outside matters, because it is impossible to reach 26 years old and never to have heard of either Australia or New Zealand.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 25, 2017)

Greg Boeser said:


> I haven't read any books on how the Brazilians saved the British during the BoB, but there are scads about the Poles.
> _A Question of Honor
> The Forgotten Few_
> etc.


The Poles and Czechs performance in the Battle of Britain deserves to be lauded. Czechoslovakia and Poland are on the east side of Germany, it took a massive effort for so many ace pilots to reach the UK a complete contrast to the French who were just across the channel and had one of Europes largest air forces. Some French did join the RAF but if 200 or 300 front line experienced pilots had come to the UK when France fell, the Battle of Britain would not have been close.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2017)

Greg Boeser said:


> I haven't read any books on how the Brazilians saved the British during the BoB, but there are scads about the Poles.
> _A Question of Honor
> The Forgotten Few_
> etc.



I wasn't being serious...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2017)

pbehn said:


> It is actually a phenomena, most people who have worked with US citizens have at least one story to tell. I worked with an American guy in Saudi Arabia who claimed he hadn't heard of either New Zealand or Australia. There was an Iranian passenger plane shot down at the time
> Iran Air Flight 655 - Wikipedia
> 
> He always referred to it as an Iraq plane, and always maintained that Iran and Iraq were actually both the same.
> ...



It shames me to actually say I get the same feeling...

We are getting way off topic though.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 27, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It shames me to actually say I get the same feeling...
> 
> We are getting way off topic though.


Heck, I get the same feeling talking to Americans and I am one. 

Back onto something resembling topic, Polish cryptanalysts were very important, possibly crucial, to breaking the Enigma cipher.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 27, 2017)

As times goes on I think planes like the Spitfire and Lancaster on the UK side become increasing over rated because all others are forgotten. Away from this and other similar places any discussion of WW2 aviation concentrates on these two to the exclusion of all others.
I think it's caused by the demise of young people making models. Every British kid made a model spitfire at one stage, having made that you go into a model shop and look for another, the Airfix catalogue was full of all sorts of aircraft, I learned the word asymmetric from the Airfix description of the BV 141. In the late sixties and early seventies, the instructions were a long hand description which told you the name of each part and at the start was a fairly comprehensive description and history of the aircraft modelled. With the switch to international pictorial instructions the history was shorter and I noticed I was just joining pieces together, I had no idea what they were.

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2017)

pbehn said:


> As times goes on I think planes like the Spitfire and Lancaster on the UK side become increasing over rated because all others are forgotten. Away from this and other similar places any discussion of WW2 aviation concentrates on these two to the exclusion of all others.
> I think it's caused by the demise of young people making models. Every British kid made a model spitfire at one stage, having made that you go into a model shop and look for another, the Airfix catalogue was full of all sorts of aircraft, I learned the word asymmetric from the Airfix description of the BV 141. In the late sixties and early seventies, the instructions were a long hand description which told you the name of each part and at the start was a fairly comprehensive description and history of the aircraft modelled. With the switch to international pictorial instructions the history was shorter and I noticed I was just joining pieces together, I had no idea what they were.



Exactly those reasons why I voted P-51. The aircraft itself certainly was not overrated. It’s just if you ask a kid today what aircraft dropped the atomic bomb, the answer would be _”Why the P-51 of course. Don’t you know silly, it was the only aircraft built and used by everyone for everything.”_

Ok, that was a bit of an exaggeration...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Nov 28, 2017)

Greg Boeser said:


> We have some Moldovans working at our shop. Their family lives in Atlanta. When I asked them where they were from they said "Georgia".
> I replied "Stalin came from Georgia too, comrade."



Earlier this year I was holed up in Yakusk Siberia, couldn't fly the An 2 into a mine site due to weather. Siberian's (Asiatic people) actually love Georgian food so the place has a great Georgian restaurant. "Khachapuri" Georgian wine is superb as well. I became friends with a team of Boeing engineers when I pointed them to that resturaunt. This is the coldest city and airport on earth. They had flown across from Seattle to get "conditions" for testing some "product", they must have wanted -50C or less. They wouldn't talk about what it was. They were glad to find a nice restaurant. It has a nice Irish Pub as well which the Siberian girls do a good job in.

The girls in Moscow and St Petersberg look like Swedes. The media teaches us nothing but lies and crap about people. Russians, Germans whatever. 

We're not far from totalitarianism as well.

The Georgian staff in this restaurant were impeccable. Really polite and orderly.

Khachapuri
Ulitsa Yaroslavskogo, 13/2, Yakutsk, Саха /Якутия/ Републиц, Russia, 677000
+7 411 226-16-01
Google Maps


----------



## pbehn (Nov 28, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Exactly those reasons why I voted P-51. The aircraft itself certainly was not overrated. It’s just if you ask a kid today what aircraft dropped the atomic bomb, the answer would be _”Why the P-51 of course. Don’t you know silly, it was the only aircraft built and used by everyone for everything.”_
> 
> Ok, that was a bit of an exaggeration...


Perhaps not, my daughter would probably say "B 52, well its a letter and a number anyway, so, what is a B52 then"


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 28, 2017)

B-52? Isn't that the quirky band that managed to wrangle "narwhal" into the lyrics of one of their songs?

Yeah...I know. Coat time (AGAIN)!


----------



## pbehn (Nov 28, 2017)

buffnut453 said:


> B-52? Isn't that the quirky band that managed to wrangle "narwhal" into the lyrics of one of their songs?
> 
> Yeah...I know. Coat time (AGAIN)!


yup, I would say that B52 is the only military aircraft she knows because she likes music, if indeed she does, lol.


----------



## Greyman (Nov 28, 2017)

I remember when I was little I asked my parents what airplane my great uncle was in during World War II;

"I'm not sure. I think a B52."

He was a Lancaster rear gunner.

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


----------



## ChrisMcD (Nov 29, 2017)

buffnut453 said:


> B-52? Isn't that the quirky band that managed to wrangle "narwhal" into the lyrics of one of their songs?
> 
> Yeah...I know. Coat time (AGAIN)!



How about Enola Gay?


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5XJ2GiR6Bo

Not sure whether it is black humour, irony or what?_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## billrunnels (Nov 29, 2017)

stona said:


> Many of the projected early versions of what became the Me 262 had engines mounted centrally in the wings rather than under slung. I don't think the fuselage was an option given the need for two engines, given the size of WW2 fighters generally, and a requirement for the armament to be in or close to the fuselage.
> 
> The early engines were so short lived and unreliable that having them fitted under the wings, almost as a modular power egg arrangement, may have been a significant operational bonus.
> 
> ...


I had a long conversation with a Me 262 pilot who was an Ace credited with 17 kills. He said two things of interest, they could get only two flights on the engines and the air time was about 55 minutes. Even so, they were a real threat.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2017)

billrunnels said:


> I had a long conversation with a Me 262 pilot who was an Ace credited with 17 kills. He said two things of interest, they could get only two flights on the engines and the air time was about 55 minutes. Even so, they were a real threat.



Bill did you ever encounter or see any 262's while on a bombing mission?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## billrunnels (Nov 29, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Bill did you ever encounter or see any 262's while on a bombing mission?


I am happy I can say no

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## airminded88 (Nov 30, 2017)

billrunnels said:


> I had a long conversation with a Me 262 pilot who was an Ace credited with 17 kills. He said two things of interest, they could get only two flights on the engines and the air time was about 55 minutes. Even so, they were a real threat.



Did he achieve kills while flying the Me-262 Bill?

Cheers


----------



## billrunnels (Nov 30, 2017)

airminded88 said:


> Did he achieve kills while flying the Me-262 Bill?
> 
> Cheers


He didn't specify.


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 30, 2017)

Bill,

On the missions you flew do you recall the predominate type of fighters you saw, and if so the tactics they preferred?

Thanks,
Biff


----------



## billrunnels (Nov 30, 2017)

BiffF15 said:


> Bill,
> 
> On the missions you flew do you recall the predominate type of fighters you saw, and if so the tactics they preferred?
> 
> ...


Biff....I only saw two aircraft in the air, ME 109 and an ME 210. The ME 210 was under us headed east as we were leaving headed west. Broken clouds prevented me from seeing him until the last minute. He was close enough to shoot had I seen him sooner.

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


----------

