# Eric Brown's "Duels in the Sky"



## Francis marliere (Oct 13, 2011)

Gentlemen,

I have just finished Eric brown's "Duels in the Sky" and I am surprised by some of the comments he made. 

He quotes some planes with rate of climb that are not coherent with other sources and 'conventional wisdom' (4.000 fpm for A6M2 and D.520, 3.300 fpm for Wildcat II, 2.400 for F4U-1, etc.).

He also says :

"In a dive, the Wildcat and the Zeke were virtually equal"

"Both (F6F-3 and Fw 190) were very maneuvrable" 
I don't understand : I know that Fw 190 has an outstanding roll of rate but the Hellcat is neither a first class roller or turner.

The Ki.61 "handled like the Hurricane"
The Tony is most commonly described to be like a P-40 or Me 109 (not a first class turner but a good diver).

The Mustang "had a rate of roll bettered only by that of the Fw 190". Commonly this is rather said of the P-47 (or F4U, P-40) not the P-51.

The Hurricane has superior rate of roll and acceleration in the dive than the F4F-4. The Wildcat has stepper angle of climb than the Hurricane.
I thought that the Hurricane is neither a great roller nor a great diver but climbs better than the Wildcat.

Well I don't know what to think about. I one hand, all that appear surprisingly strange, but in another hand, I guess that someone such as Eric Brown knows what he is talking about.

What is your opinion ?

Best regards,

Francis


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 13, 2011)

Anything that Eric Brown writes about should be taken with a grain of salt.

He's highly biased.


----------



## Erich (Oct 13, 2011)

not really he just did not operate A/C during combat conditions so his judgement was and still is not sound.........


----------



## stona (Oct 13, 2011)

Erich said:


> not really he just did not operate A/C during combat conditions so his judgement was and still is not sound.........



Yes, a quick assesment followed by his opinion. Valid but hardly an unbiased test programme. He did fly an awful lot of different types.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## vanir (Oct 13, 2011)

It was discovered in the 60s iirc that the Fw-190D-9 that Brown evaluated, which formed the entire basis of all western appreciation on the combat performance of Doras, wasn't a D-9 at all but a D-12 with a completely different engine fitment. It was much rarer, hand assembled and reflected neither the build quality nor the performance and character of most Doras that fought. For a start the D-12 was fitted with an extremely complicated multiple stage and automatically geared blower system with a throttle altitude boost and an emergency overboost facility, all weather pilot equipment (radio navigation and other new technologies), it was a very well equipped and futuristic fighter, very much like the sort of specification you'd expect from a piston fighter-bomber in Korea era, like an F4U-4 or a Seafury.

An American postwar evaluation on a rebuild true D-9 at Wright Patterson gave completely different results to Brown's tests of course, nowhere near the performance superiority he found. They characterised it as a hotrod built in a backyard shed and were amazed it could keep pace with a Mustang without falling apart, it was very rough to fly. Brown's was much faster at sea level and had far better altitude performance plus it was just an all round nicer pilots plane. What really doesn't help is the fact FW company documentation gives almost exclusively calculated figures so common perceptions are completely misled, you need to speak with dedicated specialists in the specific field and aircraft type, and the tendency to take pilots at their word like Brown is high, but there is no reason to assume his accounts taken with more authority than wartime pilot accounts, which officially had an error margin.

There is a factor brought into consideration during the 50s-60s when wartime documentation and captured materiél had been collated and it was discovered many assumptions about captured models was incorrect, particularly about the plethora of late war German types which were much more random in build quality and equipment fit than previously assumed. It was thought Luftwaffe fighter model designations are progressive for example but this is not the case, all wehrmacht nomenclature is purely utilitarian and describes role and service delivery, not specification which varied tremendously.

For example, the way G-14 comes before G-10 and is really just a late G-6, but then in 1945 the G-14/AS received the new 605ASB motor that brought it to K-4 standard, which a G-10 replicates, finally the type of engine sent to specific squadrons depended on the fuel stocks assigned to their airfields, some received exclusively C3 fuel in early 45 and their squadrons had to operate bmw801D and db605asm/am/dc/asc motors ie. the 2000hp jobs, I/JG301 iirc. Another airfield only got B4 so no BMW Focke Wulfs could be sent there, only Doras and db605a/as/db/asb motor Messers. So performance in these late war Messers is a case of individual example, aircraft sent to both fields may have come from the same production batch. At Luftwaffe Experten you know what they do? They research individual tail numbers and say they can't give any premature conclusions on performance specification or equipment fit until the research on its specific tail number is completed.

The very specification of late war German birds is very much an individual case basis, engine/equipment fit and performance could vary so dramatically. Most captured aircraft British Ministry based their assessments on were non-aerial combat craft, they were fighter-bomber and bomber-interceptor trim Gustavs with surplus engine fitments and heavy stores bolted. Actual performance of the very rare, fighter-only trim 109K-4, Erla G-10 and a Feb45 vintage G-14/AS shocked allied pilots in sparse encounters with clean flying examples on fighter sweeps. Most were laden with bombs or extra guns and had older engines fitted, the vast majority were cannon fodder by this stage of the war, not to mention build quality disappeared after 1943.

I have wartime comparative evaluations of the Me-109E and G and Fw-190A vs the Spit I, V, IX, XIV, Tempest V and Hurricane, the Me-109G with boost restriction and in heavy bomber-destroyer trim is actually better in dives and sustained climbs than all of them believe it or not and turns better than most. Griffons and Tempests accelerate away eventually in dives but not for a while. In zooms they're the same. In sustained climb the Messer just keeps pulling when the others stall out if they start from the same speed, they just love to slow climb like a tractor and simply never run out of puff doing it.
The British Air Ministry conclusions were that Tempests and Griffon Spits should use their speed against the Messer, don't turn fight and don't follow it into a climb. It warns pilots not to follow the Me-109G into a sustained climb.

So finally I'd reiterate that whilst Browns testing is valid, his assertions are just a single documentarian source with an inherent error margin. It's the same for the other extreme, engineering documentation tends to provide some calculated performance that may never be achieved in real flight, and you find out by getting someone like Brown to try it.
Information then, but not gospel and should always be corroberated for several case specific reasons.


----------



## renrich (Oct 13, 2011)

Eric Brown I believe has more carrier landings than any other pilot in the world. He also has flown many AC and has some combat experience. Having said that his book and the statements in it "Duels In the Sky," has a lot of bias and other stuff which does not even make sense. The most obvious is his bias against the Corsair and his love of the Hellcat. His statements about them do not hold water and are at complete variance with USN comparisons. He is also very euro centric which may be understandable. I have the book and have filed it in the fantasy section..

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vanir (Oct 13, 2011)

There's so much interesting about this subject actually one could talk on and on about it. I might add separately here some notes I've read on warbird comparative performances, I've tried to get my hands on various wartime evaluations and engineering reports and just plain pricked my ears up at every story I heard. Harassed my (German) grandma's friends for war stories, we're all like this, man it's interesting stuff and some of them appreciate it being openly discussed.

So I read a great war story at a Pacific forward base during the island hopping campaign, the base commander had a choice of Army or Marine airfield cover, the other would do escorts. So he had the P-40E and F4F-3 do mock combat over the field for himself and the air group commanders to watch, it was a competition, best of three, two on two planes.
The Wildcats ran rings around the Warhawks, the Army Air officer couldn't believe how easily and consistently they could get on the Warhawk tails. The did head ons and turns, split-s or immelman, one at alt advantage, one at alt disadvantage, one at same alt. Wildcats every time and easily.

I've also got the USN Paxton report on the A6M5 versus the FM-2 which rates them about equal in the power/speed stakes, Zeke has superior altitude, turn and climb performance and Wildcat has superior high speed performance through all manoeuvres (Zeke controls freeze up at high speed). Sidenote, total accident with the Thatch Weave is that in the Wildcat you can only sustain it near the speeds the Zeke controls start to get musclebound, part of it could've been placebo and the advantage mechanical. Worst thing to do in a Wildcat is enter climbing manoeuvres with a Zero, by contrast it is the best thing to do in a Hellcat.

The thing about the Fw-190A isn't just its roll rate which the Doras had too, small wings and long torquey fuselage, but it was a radial torque manoeuvre combined with a marginal instability inherent to the Fw-190 (it didn't warn before a stall and loved to enter a spin in slow speed banks), there was a little trick the more experienced pilots learned to do (prob started by I/JG26) where you could snap-roll the Anton on the starboard wing with a bootfull of rudder and it would flip into a completed Split-S in the blink of an eye, a few hundred metres below your position facing the other way (or any direction I suppose). No other fighter in the war could match the manoeuvre, not the Thunderbolt or anything. The British Air Ministry specifically warns about this manoeuvre in flight comparative testing documentation, it says pilots should break and extend immediately and never attempt to follow an Anton they suspect is about to do this, apparently a lot of people get cannon raked undersides otherwise. Only an experienced pilot could pull it off correctly and consistently mind you, it's a controlled stall unique to that type. Most often it was used as an escape manoeuvre.

The Tony did have thick wings and a workmanlike design very much like a Hurricane, which did dive well by the way. The thing about the Hurricane and I can see the Tony being very similar in this, is that it bleeds airspeed in sustained manoeuvres quickly. Hurricanes handle great but are a victim of their own terrific stability, if you don't stick to textbook manoeuvres and unload G repeatedly then it just saps all your energy. You fly them by the book and they're surprisingly high performing, but you do unorthadox things like aerobatics in them and they start to feel like someone bolted wings on a lorrie and expects it to be a ballet dancer. I could see the Tony as having that character despite the Daimler motor, you know it's the small casing export blower fitment with the low throttle heights don't you?

Also angle of climb and rate of climb are different. The Zero has the highest climb angle of any fighter but several others have much higher climb rates. It just looks like it's suspended on its tail sometimes in manoeuvres, that's all. The Wildcat is a bit like that too, but aircraft with sleeker performance and good lift, like the Hurricane may have faster climb rates. You don't point the nose skyward for very long in a Hurricane though if you want to stay in the air, but it has an excellent climb rate.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 13, 2011)

That's pretty interesting vanir.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 13, 2011)

Actually it was the DB 605 ASC(M) with 2000ps. The DB 605 ASB(M) as you stated was 1850ps. The G-14 wasn't a late G-6, it was an attemp to standardize the G-series airframes. Most likely, rebuild airframes. The G-10 contrary to myth, is a brand new airframe, not a recycled one. the west generally used C3 more often then the east, and all units used the 2000ps motors at some point. Though some units got the better airframes before others. As far as allied pilots beings "shocked" by the clean lines of the G-14/AS ~ G-10 ~ K-4's.. doubt it, as they already ran into G-5/AS's G-6/AS's. 

LEMB is a nice place to visit, but I'd rather post here or at 12oclock high.


----------



## davebender (Oct 13, 2011)

Britain produced more Spitfire MkVs then any other version and quite a few were still in front line service during 1944. I've always wondered about that decision. Weren't they out classed by most German and many Italian fighter aircraft by 1943? Did the older MkVs get sent to the Pacific?


----------



## GregP (Oct 14, 2011)

The F6F Hellcat wasn't a world-class roller, but as a turner, it was bettered ony by the A6M ... of the major opponents, and then only at low speed, les than 220 mph.

Indeed, it was a world-class turner, with the largest wing area of any WWII single-engine fighter.

Don't knwo where anyone got the idea it wasn't a great turner. I have sat in on lectures by more than 50 Hellcat pilots from WWII, and most said it turned better than any other aircraft they ever flew. Some had flown Spitfires, Corsairs, P-38's, P-40's,and other aircraft. Most said the Hellcat, at about 250 - 330 mph+, was the best turner they ever flew. A few said they remember it more for being rugged, and all said it was fun and relatively east to fly, climbed well and was very forgiving of mistakes.

As an aside, the Hellcat had the best kill ratio of nay WWII fighter, and that was not by accident. It had world-class credentials in at least some areas or it would NOT have had the success it had. Corsairs and Hellcats came into service at almost the same time ... perhaps 1 month apart, and Hellcats shot down about twice as many Japanese aircraft as Corsairs. The Axis were lucky it wasn't used very much in the ETO.


----------



## krieghund (Oct 14, 2011)

Looks like the Tony is turning pretty good here;


----------



## Francis marliere (Oct 14, 2011)

Greg,

I don't understand why the hellcat is said to turn so well. I am not an engineer and may be mistaken, but as far as I know, the ability to turn depends on wing loading. According to many sources, including "official" ones, the WL of the Hellcat is 37.2 lb/sq ft. Please correct me if I am wrong. Once again, I may be mistaken, but there are plenty aircraft whose WL is lower (Spitifres, Hurricane, Fulmar, Gladiator, Wildcat, Zeke, Oscar, CR42, MC200, G50, ...) or roughly equal (P-39, P-40, Bf 109, Ki.61, MC202, etc.). Hence, the only aircrafts which have greater WL than Hellcat are late war energy fighters (Fw190, P-38, P-47, P-51, F4U, etc.).

Best regards,

Francis


----------



## riacrato (Oct 14, 2011)

vanir said:


> It was discovered in the 60s iirc that the Fw-190D-9 that Brown evaluated, which formed the entire basis of all western appreciation on the combat performance of Doras, wasn't a D-9 at all but a D-12 with a completely different engine fitment. It was much rarer, hand assembled and reflected neither the build quality nor the performance and character of most Doras that fought. For a start the D-12 was fitted with an extremely complicated multiple stage and automatically geared blower system with a throttle altitude boost and an emergency overboost facility, all weather pilot equipment (radio navigation and other new technologies), it was a very well equipped and futuristic fighter, very much like the sort of specification you'd expect from a piston fighter-bomber in Korea era, like an F4U-4 or a Seafury.


 
Is there a source for that? Not doubting you, but it's the first time I hear it.


----------



## Wildcat (Oct 14, 2011)

davebender said:


> Britain produced more Spitfire MkVs then any other version and quite a few were still in front line service during 1944. I've always wondered about that decision. Weren't they out classed by most German and many Italian fighter aircraft by 1943? Did the older MkVs get sent to the Pacific?



Yes. The spitfires that defended Darwin in 1943 were all MkVc's.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 14, 2011)

Many thanks for contributors here


----------



## davparlr (Oct 14, 2011)

vanir said:


> very much like the sort of specification you'd expect from a piston fighter-bomber in Korea era, like an F4U-4


The F4U-4 began combat operations in May, 1945, probably not very long after the Fw-190D-12 would have.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 14, 2011)

vanir said:


> At Luftwaffe Experten you know what they do? They research individual tail numbers and say they can't give any premature conclusions on performance specification or equipment fit until the research on its specific tail number is completed.


No need for that, as long as you have a W.Nr., some visual clues one knows what engine it came with. For example all of the Mtt-Reg W.Nr.130 XXX batches came with the DB 605DB/DC (no DB 605/ASC or ASB were used). DB 605DB, standard MW-50 equipment, 1850PS, B4 fuel or the DB 605DC, standard MW-50 equipment, 2000PS, C3 fuel. Erla W.Nr.490 000 – 490 800 many came with the DB 605/ASBM or ASC(M) engines, etc., etc.. This was due to a temporary lack of DB 605D engines. Erla/WNF used alot of subplants to maufacture thier still continuing G-series right to the end of the war. After Mtt-Reg(Main) produced thier G-10's, they solely concentrated on K-series production and we know they only came with the DB 605D series engines. Going down the line we also know that G-1 through G-6 Came with the DB 605AB(m), DB 605AC(m), DB 605/ASB(m) or ASC(m) and finally, the DB 605AC with GM-1.

Now as far as LEMB goes with a complete researched W.Nr., I don't know how they can possibly due that, especially with the lack of records for the subplants of Mtt-Reg/Erla/WNF used throughout WWII.


----------



## stona (Oct 14, 2011)

Take a look at the Bf109 in the Australian War Memorial Museum in Canberra. It's a mongrel,rebuilt and re-engined. You may be sure how something left the factory but not how it ended up in service. You can see it today more or less as it was captured in 1945.
Steve


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 14, 2011)

Yep. Its also in the book Augsburgs Last Eagles. Its an interesting Bf 109G-6/U4R3 W.Nr. 163 824. Mentions nothing about it being re-engined. Thanks for that info.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 14, 2011)

GregP "As an aside, the Hellcat had the best kill ratio of nay WWII fighter, and that was not by accident. It had world-class credentials in at least some areas or it would NOT have had the success it had. Corsairs and Hellcats came into service at almost the same time ... perhaps 1 month apart, and Hellcats shot down about twice as many Japanese aircraft as Corsairs. The Axis were lucky it wasn't used very much in the ETO. "

The Hellcat had far more air combat opportinities as the carrier task forces were the point of the spear... it is impossible to state that the Hellcat for example is 2x better because it had 2x more scores during the approximate same time.

As for terrorizing the Axis that is another claim difficult to substantiate given the lack of turbosupercharger for high altitude performance a la P-47 for ETO level escort duties? It might out turn an Fw 190 or 109 but would not have the tactical speed advantage to engage/withdraw that the 51 and 47 had - or the range of the 51, or the dive speed or the roll rates IIRC so where in your mind does the F6f suddenly bring to the ETO a capability not possessed by say the P-51B?

Put in TAC role and I buy your thesis.


----------



## GregP (Oct 14, 2011)

A turn is composed of two things, instantaneous turn rate (comes into play in the first 45° to 75° of the turn) and sustained turn rate (after the instantaneous turn rate drops off). The instantaneous turn rate is tied to wing loading and the sustained turn rate is tied to the airfoil (the lift potential of the wing) and excess power available for turning (producing a centrepital lift vector). The Hellcat did not have a particularly high-speed airfoil, but it was definitely a thick wing producing a lot of lift at its corner velocity (top left of the V-N diagram), and it had a good excess of power, as did most R-2800-powered aircraft.

I don't claim the Hellcat could out-turn a Spitfire, but the Spitfires were not much used on the PTO. Yes, they were there, but were never a major foce there. Also, the Spitfire could not out-turn a Zero either, particularly at low to medium speeds. I believe we coverd that in earlier posts.

In trials against a captured A6M Model 52 Zero, the Zero had a slight climb margin over the Hellcat below 14,000 feet and the Hallcat had a slight climb margin over the Zero above 14,000 feet. The Hellcat was faster at all altitudes. The Zero was, by far, the more maneuverable at low speed, but they were much closer at higher speeds. The Hellcat rolled better above 235 mph, but not by a large margin. The Hellcat could dive better than the Zero at all altitudes and in all circumstances.

So, the Hellcat could initiate or terminate combat with the Zero in most circumstances. The only caveat was to not try to turn with a Zero at low to medium airspeeds. Other than that limitation, which was pretty much the same for ALL Allied fighter types ... the Hellcat was a better fighter than the Zero ... which was, after all, its main opponent for the bulk of the war. As for amrament, it had the standard American armament of the time, six 50 cal (12.7 mm) MG Brownings. The Corsair, Mustang and P-40 had the same armament. The P-47 had eight Brownings. The P-38 had four Brownings and one cannon and, I think, the best combination of guns since they were on the centerline of the aircraft.

While the total population of Mustangs shot down a few more enemy aircraft than the Hellcats did, they were deployed almost everywhere and had a lot more opportunities. The Hellcat was deployed almost but not quite exclusively to the Pacific, and shot down about twice as many aircraft as the Corsair, which was in service almost the same time as the Hellcat and in the same theater. It ended the war with an overall 19 : 1 kill ratio (proven) and, if you believe Wiki, had a kill ratio of 13 : 1 against Zeros; 9.5 : 1 against the Ki-84 Frank; and 3.7 : 1 against the Mitsubishi J2M Raiden during the last year of the war. I have no way to confirm or deny the individual figures by type from Wiki. I have records of the kills by pilot and date, but the victims are not identified, just a victory. I know we lost 270 Hellcats in air-ti-air combat, but I don't have the details, especially the type aircraft of the victor. In fact, we lost more Hellcats on operational sorties and training sorties with no enemy contact than we did in combat!

People might tend to think of the Hellcat as "homely," but it could and did deliver the goods while also being capable of taking a considerable amount of damage and still getting the pilot home to fight another day. People have argued that kill ratio over enemy aircraft is not the best criterion for the "best fighter." Usually these people are big fans of some other aircraft than the Hellcat, so they have come up with an excuse to dismiss it. In reality, it was in all the major battles in the Pacific after its introduction, beat the enemy every time in the major battles and in most minor battles, and swept the skies clean pretty much wherever it went. That's a hard plane to ignore if you are talking about war winning performance. 

Last, I wonder where the story of the dogfight between the P-40 and Wildcats came from? And I wonder if the Wildcats were flown by veterans and the P-40's by new pilots. If they had switched the pilots, I bet the P-40's would have won, assuming the fight actually took place. I have never seen or heard that story before and have been reading about WWII aircraft for more than 40 years. Not saying it didn't happen, just strange to hear about it after all this time. Never heard that one in all the lectures at the Planes of Fame Museum from WWII combat pilots, many of whom were serving in the PTO. Source please? Just curious, not being picky.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 14, 2011)

Problem being the japs for the most part didn't believe in pilot protection, or plane armor for that matter. Most jap planes that got hit even by a few rounds, lit up easily. The Hellcat flying in the ETO wouldn't be the best choise imo.


----------



## stona (Oct 14, 2011)

The Werknummer indicates it's original manufacture as a G6 during autumn 1943 by Messerschmitt at Regensburg. It may have started out as a 'standard' G-6 but the rear part of the bulge associated with the DB605D and DB605AS engines has been removed from both sides.The airframe seems to have been adapted to something closer to a G-5. In early 1944 the aircraft was re-built as a G6/AS with the more powerful DB605/AS engine that required the installation of new panels/fairings. The aircraft PROBABLY went to JG1,the two adjacent Werknummers were lost by I./JG1 in May. It was then damaged on a ferry flight and re-built again by Ludwig Hasen (?),Flugzeug-Repararatur-Werk,Munster in December 1944.It was now that it acquired the MK 108 cannon (U4) and the equipment for the 300 litre drop tank (R3).
You've got Green's book so you will be aware of the odd panels,bumps etc on this very interesting airframe,worth a thread of its own!
The final specification/identity which you correctly quoted has little to do with the aircrafts original 1943 identity.

All this from notes from various sources (much of it from Brett Green's book that you mentioned) that I made before a trip to Australia and a LONG diversion to see this machine 'in the flesh'.

(?) Can't read my handwriting! Hasen or Hansen I think

Cheers
Steve


----------



## riacrato (Oct 14, 2011)

There is no need for an excuse, the Hellcat entered the war in numbers when the IJN fighter force was more or less beaten with barely any capable pilots left. It is not very surprising to have more non-combat write-offs than actually "killed" planes and it's probably the case for most fighter aircraft that served in WW2. Exchange ratios reflect the whole situation not just the quality of the plane so the wiki figures just prove that the Japanese situation was abysmal and that relatively, the J2M was their most capable adversary against the Hellcat (even that is a bold statement as it assumes all other things are equal). I wonder how the exchange ratio of the P-51 was against the Me 262 but I wouldn't be surprised if it was in the same ballpark (~3:1). The 1945 Fw 190 D-9s is said to be about equal to the P-51, combat had also shifted to more favourable heights for the Jumo 213, but I bet its exchange ratio against e.g. the P-51 is pretty bad.


----------



## renrich (Oct 14, 2011)

Corsair went into combat in mid February 1943. The Hellcat did not go into combat until the end of August, 1943. The USN decided to replace all Hellcats with Corsairs in May, 1944 because the Corsair was the best all around Navy fighter available and a suitable carrier fighter. Read the comparison beween the FW190, the F6F and F4U on the Williams site and then decide which was the best fighter of the two Navy AC. With equal pilot skills a 1v1 between Hellcat would almost always turn out to the advantage of the Corsai. The marginal performance advantage of the Hellcat over the IJN fighters was always a source of concern.


----------



## GregP (Oct 14, 2011)

I thoroughly enjoy reading Mr. Brown's books and articles, but I take his opinions as the opinion of a very good test pilot who is not necessarily familiar with the individual intracasies mounts he flew. 

To clarify, I think a Corsair pilot with 500+ hours in type would likely wax Mr. Brown's tail in a dogfight, but Eric Brown could certainly fly a good test card, stick to the test plan and come back with good, reliable data. He might NOT have been able to wring the best performance out of a particular aircraft, and very probably knew that, but his impressions were from the point of view of a top-notch test pilot.

In a combat aircraft, I'd sooner take the opinions of Jounnie Johnson, Clive Caldwell, David McCampbell, Erich Hartmann, or Sailor Malan.

While Eric Brown wasn't a famous combat pilot, as a test pilot, Eric Brown's opinions were spot on, even if he might disremember a few numbers 40+ years after the fact. To me Eric Brown ranks right up there as one of the best, with Chuck Yeager, Bob Hoover, Steve Hinton, Roland Beaumont, Hans-Werner Lerche, Fritz Wendel, Victor Pugachev, Janusz Żurakowski and quite a few more great stcks.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 14, 2011)

Chuck Yeager said at 100ft altitude, nothing could beat a P-39, is that a accurate statement? Eric Brown also said the P-47 in a dive exceeding mach .75 was a death sentence. He also said a Bf 109G could do mach .85 in a dive, again, accurate statements?


----------



## GregP (Oct 14, 2011)

Thanks, but I've read the comparisons. Most were written to promote one particular aircraft, not to do an objective comparion. It shows up even in the fighter conference proceedings.

Since I volunteer at an active WWII flying museum, work on them, and build Allison engines, and have been researching WWII planes for more than 40 years, I pretty much already have my opinions and I decidedly have all the performance numbers that are published. 

I've seen test where a particular Corsair variant is rated at some speed WAY faster than a Hellcat, but when they cruise around side by side at the same power settings and rpm, it makes the numbers look might suspicious! ... especially to the pilots flying them. The only thing the Corsair has the Hellcat doesn't in the engine department is ram air, and that won't make a difference as wide as the published numbers indicate. 

Our Corsair (F4U-1D) has the same engine and prop as the Hellcat we had for years until recently. By same, I mean same same propeller number down to the blade part numbers. The Corsair has a -8W engine and the Hellcat has a -10W engine, but they had the same rpm and power ratings. They flew side-by-side at identical power settings in lo and high blower, with the Corsair having a very slight edge in the main stage due to the ram air induction. The Hellcat didn't have ram air in the main stage to prevent carb icing around the carriers.

Anyone is free to have their favorites and we all do, as I notice from posts. It would be a boring workd if we all thought the same, wouldn't it?


----------



## GregP (Oct 14, 2011)

You tell me Ratsel.


----------



## renrich (Oct 14, 2011)

From "America's Hundred Thousand" "A modern evaluation of a Corsair found it to be "the weapon of choice" over a P51D, a P47D and an F6F5. A WW2 pilot noted the Corsair as a "high strung predator" while the Hellcat was a "nice safe pussycat." Why would the Navy state that the Hellcats should be replaced ASAP by Corsairs if the Corsair was not superior? As a matter of fact, post war, the Bearcats in the fleet were replaced by Corsairs because the Corsair was a better fighter-bomber.


----------



## GregP (Oct 14, 2011)

The Hellcat WAS a nice safe pussycat. it was easy to fly slow and easy to fly near the edge since it talked to the pilot aerodynamically. The Corsair was much more abrupt and had much worse slow-speed manners and stall manners ... and the visibility was abysmal. But, it certaily had been designed to carry bombs from the outset and the Hellcat wasn't designed for that task to the same extent, and it wasn't in the original spec, either. 

Sounds to me as if the Navy decided that the war was winding down and they thought they were going to be flying more ground support than they anticipated (invasion of Japan and all ...), so they made the logical choice. No use keep two types if you can perform the duties with one ... and they had the same engine, so the engine spares could be kept.

Hey, I didn't say the Corsair was a bad choice and it wasn't. I said the Hellcat was a great fighter and it was. If you disagree, then we'll have to disagree, and that's OK. 

But the Hellcat still shot down about twice as many enemy planes as the Corsair, and all the Corsair fans in the world can't change that. to me, that means the Hellcat made a much bigger contribution to winning the war, which is what defines a great warplane. Winning battles doesn't cut it if you lose the war. And if the Hellcat made those kills against a less well-trained Japanese pilot force, then so did the Corsair since the Corsair flew in the same theater and at about the same timeframe, so the same enemy pilots fought both types.


----------



## jim (Oct 14, 2011)

I posses 3 of Mr Browns Books. In my opinion are very interesting and often provide information which is dificult to obtain . He does say thinks that disagree with other sources. E.G in diving speed of Bf 109 g disagrees with Helmut Lipferts diary. That s normal. A combat pilot is more willing to approach the maximum limits of its aircraft than a test pilot. On the other hand he claims that a P51 can outurn a Bf 109 which of course is not true. I dont believe he is biased. He reports his personal experiences flying specific examples of varius aircrafts often with varius limitations.
e.g. german aircrafts were poorly maintained during alleid slavery and -as he admits- no Mw50 was available. Also he then had not the extreme knowledge that we have today about types,sub types etc..
But he was an anlosaxon that lived in germany and spoke the language .So he had a good image of both worlds. So its comment, while with inaccurancies provide a balanced image of the aircrafts evolution. Perhaps that balance is which disturbs some english speaking people who are familiar with sites that "prove" how superior and untouchable angloamericans aircrafts were. (I admit however that its critisism against F4U is too much)
Mr Vanir 
Even if he flew a D12 ,that would made a difference over a D9 only at altitude. Jumo 213F and 213A both had an unboosted rating of 1750 hp at 0m . I dont understand your comment that a D9 was slower at sea level than a D12 . And how trust you have in those american that rebuilt the D9? What experience they had in german systems? Jumo 213A often underperformed even in german service..And anyway D12 was in production in1945 and thus more indicative of german aircraft maximum capabilities .


----------



## GregP (Oct 14, 2011)

You think a P-51 can't out-turn a 109? Why in the world would you think that? I'd agree if the opponent were Me 109F, but the P-51D usually fought against the G and later variants, with equal wing loading, so the instantaneous turn rates would be very similar, with the sustained turn rates being related to the airfoils and excess power. Most aerial attacks were decided well before the sustained turn rates would come into play.

The Me 109G was a good plane with known faults, particularly in roll and yaw, and was about equal to the P-51D in turn rate (pitch), and perhaps a bit better at low speed due to the slats ... but a decent P-51 driver would not GET to slow speeds, would he? he woudl separate and re-attack at higher speed.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 14, 2011)

separate and re-attack... really? with other enemy planes all over? more then likely he disengaged the 109 becouse dropping the 51 flaps still couldn't turn with it either. you seem to forget that some of these 109 pilots knew every trick in the book on what there aircraft can do. Example: the Legend of Y-29, fw. Franz Meindl 31 kill ace Bf 109G-14 WNr.784 765 'blaue 11' of 8./JG11, made three seasoned P-51 pilots look like complete factory fresh green rookies (all were dogfighting at the same time). Then a fourth P-51 pilot came in, same results. Some say the forth P-51 pilot got Meindl, but Uwe Benkel, internationally known historic wreck recoverist, found Meindl Plane, which showed a ginormous flak hit that most probably killed him. When your time is up, its up.


----------



## kettbo (Oct 14, 2011)

Too many hounds are the death of the fox


----------



## GregP (Oct 14, 2011)

Ratsel, I didn't forget anything and your analysis of what might happen is conjecture on your part. Sure, the Germans had good pilots, even great ones. Hartmann, Barkhorn and Rall come to mind right away. Best of the best in anybody's book. 

The Allies had good pilots, too, and the P-51 was more than a match for the Me 109 from the time it first escorted a bomber into Europe. 

In the end, the Allied side won. Near the end of the war the real problem for a typical Mustang pilot was finding an Me 109 in the air, not shooting it down. 

I was speaking from the wing loading numbers, which are easily calculated, and from numerous WWII reports of Mustangs shooting down Me 109s in turning dogfights. You can find gun camera films of it easily on youtube and google.

It is not necessary to for you to attack me personally because I don't agree with you. It's OK not to agree. So, please make your points without assuming I personally forget things or went otherwise mentally unstable. Your own reasoning, if valid, is very probably more compelling than questioning mine and makes your points well enough. I'll strive to do the same for you and everyone else.


----------



## GregP (Oct 14, 2011)

Good one, kettbo! 

There is a simlar story of what happened to Saburo Sakai when he was caught by a gaggle of Hellcats and survivied by snap-rolls when attacked ... until the Hellcats got tired of it and flew away. More likely they ran low on fuel and broke off before swimming home. I heard him talk about in in Arizona in the 1980's. He also told us of a Hellcat pilot who was caught by 20+ Zeros and survived by superior flying. Methinks it happened on all sides, and wasn't aircraft-related.

It ain't the quality of the airplane, it's the quality of the man flying it. Everyone had great pilots, including the numeriocally smaller air forces in the conflict.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Oct 14, 2011)

Ratsel _"Chuck Yeager said at 100ft altitude, nothing could beat a P-39" _ I have read that before and love it! Thats why I would cruise my Cobra at 200ft, and dive to combat altitude when jumped!!! ha ha!

I think there is merit in both arguments about the Hellcat. It was in a position to get air to air kills against the Japanese, that no other plane was afforded. I also think that the Pacific fighters, and the Hellcat in particular, are more often overlooked because the "foe" wasn't as great as the Allies faced against the Luftwaffe.

I have read 1 of Brown's books. I think he is biased. But thats ok, what he offers is worth the trade-off.


----------



## vanir (Oct 14, 2011)

The P-47 flown was by Lindberg not Yaeger, it was a C model and the air force wanted to investigate its dive speed limitations compared to manufacturer quotes. He found Republic Air overstated its safe dive speed by more than 100mph and discovered some unairworthy features under aerobatic combat conditions, so the P-47D series was meant to fix those. The D has a higher safe dive speed than the C.

The Messer had a very clean and streamlined, lightweight airframe with a good divespeed, but suffered elevator and other control issues at very high speed. Despite the fact its airframe Mach limit is comparatively high (beaten only by things like the Spit and Mustang), it isn't much more than a thrown stone at that speed. These kind of figures are really just the bonus round on a gameshow, you've already lost control of the aircraft and corkscrewed 15km in a plummet and incredibly when most fighters would've desintegrated you're in one piece, but if you ever manage to land the thing it'll be joining the scrap heap.

Ratsel that's a very big can of worms you've opened but I don't think I'm really up to it today. In October 44 southern Germany and Bohemia trust me they were putting whatever was laying around the factory floor in anything except the K-4, G-10 and Erla lines (they made G-10 and K-4). Believe me some G-14 had 605A-1 crate motors in them and were barely more than restamped G-6s with an engine replacement and the new radio navigation set fitted, with an MW50 field kit slapped on and a guage bolted in. If the opportunity was there several G-6, particularly G-6/AS issued in Feb44 which had blown engines by April but were otherwise in perfect condition, were actually taken back to an assembly lot and had the update gear fitted, you can tell these by the heavier jig restamping, right over the old G-6 numbers.
And fuel was assigned by airfield, not aircraft models. By Jan45 the aircraft were assigned from the body of accessable remaining service fighters by what fuel was available where. If 5./JG301 had DB motors and 12./JG301 had DC motors then 5 staffeln gets sent to one field with B4 and 12 staffeln gets split and sent to another with C3.

The only evidence that 605DC or ASC motors ever used 1.98ata and C3 (ie. 2000hp trim) is the fact JG301 operated G-10 and G-14/AS but the airfield those staffeln were stationed was exclusively supplied with C3 fuel, there is no record of B4 deliveries or supply to them, only of C3. Since we know the G-10 exclusively used the DB-605D series engine from the 109K, these should have been the DC engine.
The Luftwaffe in 1945 simply sent the Antons to C3 fields, Messers and Doras to B4 fields, essentially letting chips lay where they fell because logistics and industry was so bad. The majority of G-10 and K-4 were at B4 fields with either not enough C3 delivered for their sortie rate or no C3 supplied. But even where a 605DB is using C3 fuel it doesn't have to be recalibrated, it can function at 1.8ata without using MW50, which improves throttle height at overboost.

The DC is just a DB engine with 1.98ata recalibration and spark tuning for C3. It's a field mod, takes seconds, the nomenclature is purely administrative and the stamping is for fuel identification.
Same with the ASM/AM deal, the M for MW50 was restamped onto A-1 and AS engines using the older chamber design but late series piston crowns. They're retuned for C3 fuel and 1.7ata overboost but are otherwise A-1 engines and A-1 engines fitted with a 603 blower. The D motor sought to find some kind of midpoint between the AM and ASM performance extremes (4500m and 6500m) greatly improve reliability and performance at lower engine settings on the basic A-1, oil cooling, airflow dynamics and bottom end were the big concerns. The ASB motor is a D motor bottom end used with the 603 blower, I've compared technical details between the ASB and DB and there are none other than the blower, which has slightly different performance curves at medium settings and is more fuel efficient.

So the G-14 in October 44 mostly got 605ASM and were low engine life hotrods with 1800bhp field performance and 1500hp overboost at 6000 metres. The only differences that weren't purely administrative between it and a G-6/AS in March 44 are MW50 kit, a guage and some new radios. If it was a factory conversion it got a new instrument panel, if it was done in the field the guage was just bolted to the cockpit interior. Some done in the field didn't get MW50, just the new radios but were still reclassified as G-14. Most G-6/AS didn't have MW50, all G-14/AS did. In March 1945 however the G-14/AS started getting the ASB motor when they came in for an engine replacement (the ASM and AM hole pistons at full throttle within dozens of flying hours), so a 1945 G-14 could be K-4 standard like the G-10.

The only difference between the 605A-1 and 605AS is they put a DB-603 blower on the AS and made some tuning changes, this experimentation was performed in early 1942 after they were playing around with GM-1 on the channel front for about a year. A higher altitude engine was a more long term fix for a high altitude interceptor, the Fw-190A had become preferred as a low-mid altitude one.

From the very beginning the 605A was designed to use about 1550hp at normal military but the piston crowns and combustion chambers just couldn't deliver and it had burn through problems even at 1475hp, the 1300hp restriction was placed until new piston crowns entered production, but it was always chasing 1550hp military (the 601A-1 actually achieves this in mid-43 at about 1500 metres but they wanted it on the bench).

By this time MW30 (meant for bombers) or MW50 was already planned for series production but the engine kits were still in the development and planning stages, BMW/Focke Wulf and Daimler/Messerschmitt had two different ideas and approaches on the subject, and Tank's höhenjäger team had already supplied the first interim Dora prototypes based off A-6 airframes and were finding the new Jumo 213A was underpowered in the heavy little airframe, so they didn't know what kind of overboost system they were going to try, whilst Tank actually asked for Daimler engines.

Oh christ there's so much to it. Look the moral of the story is that from 1944 to the end of the war the Me-109 had little in the way of standardised equipment, performance or specification by subtype and that was the whole idea of simplifying production. Instead of having categorised fitments you just had a custom order policy and everybody, JG26, JG301, JG54 all operated mixed formations by then, and then the Erla factory made their own fighter-only specification. G-6, G-8, G-14, G-10 and K-4 all leap into a big fog there, a G-14/AS in Feb45 can be higher spec than a G-10 in Dec44, the Erla G-10 is higher performing than a common K-4 but Erla also made a lightened and streamlined K-4 in 1945 that must've been the fastest Messer of the war (figures around 730km/h and higher are tossed around for Erla G-10).

You bring the impression Ratsel that it was organised all nicely like a comfy American airplane plant in Indiana wheat fields on a pleasant sunny afternoon. It wasn't. Models and fitments were all over the place. I've read authoritive accounts of simply grabbing engines from broken crates and putting them in mix and match G-6 airframes and sending it out the door in early 45, G-14 with crate 605A-1 bolted in because that was the engine available and artillery shells were popping all around the factory at the time.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 14, 2011)

GregP said:


> Ratsel, I didn't forget anything and your analysis of what might happen is conjecture on your part. Sure, the Germans had good pilots, even great ones. Hartmann, Barkhorn and Rall come to mind right away. Best of the best in anybody's book.
> 
> The Allies had good pilots, too, and the P-51 was more than a match for the Me 109 from the time it first escorted a bomber into Europe.
> 
> ...



sorry but I'm not personally attacking you. flattered you feel that way though. also theres many instances of 109's shooting down P-51s in the turning dogfight also. right up till the end of the war. as far as the allies winning, well all they acomplished was to make an even greater enemy. I think you know what I'm talking about.


"*Too many hounds are the death of the fox*"
THAT single statement pretty much sums it up. I salute you Sir.


----------



## GregP (Oct 14, 2011)

Ratsel, maybe you're right, but getting rid of Hitler was worth it. Just an opinon.

I don't think of Hitler as Austrian or German as much as I think of him as evil. Evil knows no nationality; he could just as easily have been any other nationality. His stragety of the "master race" and eliminating others in purges and camps is what was necessary to stop. If it crops up again, we'll stop it again.

As to the greater enemy, this is a WWII forum and I'll refiran from expanding it. At least the former Axis powers are not aligned against peace due to the treaty of Versailles as they were in the late 1930's. to my way of thinking, the Treay of Versailles was the primary cause of WWII, but that is arguable and I don't expect agreement. The Allies asked Germany to pay for WWI and the US tried to cut off Japan from natural resources.

I'm not sure what the Allied politicians of the time expected, but national survival often trumps peaceful existence. Poverty and discontent breeds war, and it DID.

Enough philosophy ... I'll quit ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 15, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> well all they acomplished was to make an even greater enemy. I think you know what I'm talking about.



Hold your horses there, The USSR (while just as evil), never started a World War. Never set out to exterminate a whole race. You take out the enemy that poses the biggest threat at the time, and then you worry about the other one. That is a basic strategy that has stood the test of time. 

The Nazis were evil that needed to be destroyed! Plain and simple and FACT. If you don't believe that, then you might have a problem.
*
Now lets get this thread back on topic!*


----------



## Juha (Oct 15, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> ... Eric Brown also said the P-47 in a dive exceeding mach .75 was a death sentence. He also said a Bf 109G could do mach .85 in a dive, again, accurate statements?



Hello Ratsel, the highest Mach number achieved in tests flights by 109 I'm aware was Mach 0.805.

It was achieved when in order to find the explanation of accidents in the front-line units the flight test unit of Messerschmitt made series of dive tests during spring 1943. The plane used was Bf109 F W.Nr. 9228. To reduce the risk of pilot over-compensation, the control movement was limited to 50% of the reference movement of the ailerons. For the first test flights the plane was in the standard condition of a 109F with G-wings, except for the movement limitation of the ailerons and the ejection seat. At this form the plane lost stability (at median centre of gravity) at speeds over Va=650 km/h ie IAS. Movements, starting at the vertical stabilizer;appeared around the yaw and longitudinal axes.
After this the stabilizer was changed to a larger one. Meaning the late production higher wooden one. The elevator trim tab is enlarged in surface area by 100% compared to the original lower version. The horizontal stabilizer trim is limited in its upwards range of motion to +1°15 by a stop unit. With this new tail following speeds were achieved.
Maximum IAS Vamax = 737 km/h at 4.5 km, Maximum TAS Vwmax = 906 km/h at 5.8 km Maximum mach number = 0,805 at 7.0 km. This is the highest Mach number flown by 109 I’m aware. Bf 109K might well be capable to a bit higher max Mach number but was it ever tested flown in order to achieve that, I don’t know.


----------



## jim (Oct 15, 2011)

vanir said:


> The P-47 flown was by Lindberg not Yaeger, it was a C model and the air force wanted to investigate its dive speed limitations compared to manufacturer quotes. He found Republic Air overstated its safe dive speed by more than 100mph and discovered some unairworthy features under aerobatic combat conditions, so the P-47D series was meant to fix those. The D has a higher safe dive speed than the C.
> 
> The Messer had a very clean and streamlined, lightweight airframe with a good divespeed, but suffered elevator and other control issues at very high speed. Despite the fact its airframe Mach limit is comparatively high (beaten only by things like the Spit and Mustang), it isn't much more than a thrown stone at that speed. These kind of figures are really just the bonus round on a gameshow, you've already lost control of the aircraft and corkscrewed 15km in a plummet and incredibly when most fighters would've desintegrated you're in one piece, but if you ever manage to land the thing it'll be joining the scrap heap.
> 
> ...


 
Mr Vanir
Goog post. I would like to ask you what made the Erla built 109s faster . The streamline was along the lines of clean wing surgaces,clean radiators which -according to Mr Kurfust site- led to +12km/h? As far as i know no new propellers were produced that would add additionaly 12km/h.
But most interesting what made the Erla K4s lighter? 
Whats your sources and which book would you recomend that contains the most recent informations about Bf 109 ? The books that i poses are over 10 years old and apparently lack new informations
Thank you in advance.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 15, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello Ratsel, the highest Mach number achieved in tests flights by 109 I'm aware was Mach 0.805.
> 
> It was achieved when in order to find the explanation of accidents in the front-line units the flight test unit of Messerschmitt made series of dive tests during spring 1943. The plane used was Bf109 F W.Nr. 9228. To reduce the risk of pilot over-compensation, the control movement was limited to 50% of the reference movement of the ailerons. For the first test flights the plane was in the standard condition of a 109F with G-wings, except for the movement limitation of the ailerons and the ejection seat. At this form the plane lost stability (at median centre of gravity) at speeds over Va=650 km/h ie IAS. Movements, starting at the vertical stabilizer;appeared around the yaw and longitudinal axes.
> After this the stabilizer was changed to a larger one. Meaning the late production higher wooden one. The elevator trim tab is enlarged in surface area by 100% compared to the original lower version. The horizontal stabilizer trim is limited in its upwards range of motion to +1°15 by a stop unit. With this new tail following speeds were achieved.
> Maximum IAS Vamax = 737 km/h at 4.5 km, Maximum TAS Vwmax = 906 km/h at 5.8 km Maximum mach number = 0,805 at 7.0 km. This is the highest Mach number flown by 109 I’m aware. Bf 109K might well be capable to a bit higher max Mach number but was it ever tested flown in order to achieve that, I don’t know.



Hello Juha,

Thanks for this information. Very informative. The fastest speed I found was with Bf 109G-10 Curtis Wright serial number "T-2-122" which achieved transsonic speed of Mach .82 or about 966kph.


----------



## renrich (Oct 15, 2011)

In May, 1944, the Pacific war and the war in Europe were anything but winding down. Overlord in the ETO had not taken place. The kamikaze threat began in October, 44, and the Corsair was needed even more. The F4U1D had a significant edge in performance over the F6F3 and later the F4U4 had an even greater advantage over the F6F5. The F6Fs were good at the air to ground role and in fact were somewhat more survivable in that role than the F4U. It was in the pure fighter role and fleet defense that the F4U excelled over any other shipboard fighter.

The poor visibility and the difficult stall characteristics of the Corsair were largely eliminated by May, 1944. It would always be a more demanding AC to operate than the Hellcat but the better performance was a worthwhile trade off.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 15, 2011)

How well Corsair compares vs. a contemporary Seafire as a fleet defense fighter?


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 15, 2011)

GregP said:


> to my way of thinking, the Treay of Versailles was the primary cause of WWII, but that is arguable and I don't expect agreement.


on this, I agree with you 1000%

As too the stall of the Corsair, I've seen enough videos to determine there was nothing violent or unusual about it. It dips just the port wing a bit, from the "stall and how to recover' footage I've seen anyways. Stalling to land on a moving carrier deck is always dangerous.



jim said:


> Mr Vanir
> Goog post. I would like to ask you what made the Erla built 109s faster . The streamline was along the lines of clean wing surgaces,clean radiators which -according to Mr Kurfust site- led to +12km/h? As far as i know no new propellers were produced that would add additionaly 12km/h.
> But most interesting what made the Erla K4s lighter?
> Whats your sources and which book would you recomend that contains the most recent informations about Bf 109 ? The books that i poses are over 10 years old and apparently lack new informations
> Thank you in advance.


Erla built 109s were not faster then Mtt-Reg or WNF/Gyor built 109's. OR that Erla K-4's were lighter. Dunno where that came from.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 15, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Hello Juha,
> 
> Thanks for this information. Very informative. The fastest speed I found was with Bf 109G-10 Curtis Wright serial number "T-2-122" which achieved transsonic speed of Mach .82 or about 966kph.



This was not a Curtis Wright number. It is the re-numbering of the Foreign Evaluation number FE-122. When the Air Technical Service Command underwent reorganization the Technical Data Laboratory Branch became part of T-2 Intelligence. The machines were given new numbers; "FE-" was replaced with "T2-


----------



## Milosh (Oct 15, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Erla built 109s were not faster then Mtt-Reg or WNF/Gyor built 109's. OR that Erla K-4's were lighter. Dunno where that came from.



A person that did an in depth study of neubau 109s has no Ks built at Erla, though at least one K-4/R6 was built at Erla. Isn't the /R6 designation for heavy fighter with 20mm under wing gondies?


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 15, 2011)

Was talking G's in general. The Erla built prototype had the cannons installed inside the wing. There is a pic of the wing floating around the net somewhere.


----------



## jim (Oct 16, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> on this, I agree with you 1000%
> 
> As too the stall of the Corsair, I've seen enough videos to determine there was nothing violent or unusual about it. It dips just the port wing a bit, from the "stall and how to recover' footage I've seen anyways. Stalling to land on a moving carrier deck is always dangerous.
> 
> ...


 
From Mrs Vanirs post #40 on page 3


----------



## Juha (Oct 16, 2011)

Thanks a lot, Ratsel
I was unaware of the US test.

Juha


----------



## renrich (Oct 16, 2011)

TP, this subject of Seafire V Corsair was discussed ad nauseum on another thread with no one giving ground. Seafire was a joy to fly according to US pilots who flew them but was handicapped by lack of range, overall performance, deck landing problems which resulted in availability issues, short firing times, ditching problems, etc. Seafire was a modified land plane. Corsair was designed at the outset as a ship board fighter. With the kamikaze threat a fighter defending the fleet needed every bit of performance, endurance and firing duration it could muster. The Corsair was good at fleet protection and good in the escort role and good as a fighter bomber. Limited deck space dictated that a single purpose AC was not as desirable as a multi role AC.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 16, 2011)

Ren, I'm just too aware that Corsair was a better all-around CV plane (just love the machine), but at the particular issue (the best fleet defender) Seafire did have it's pluses - rate of climb IIRC, a thing that USN was looking after with Beracat?


----------



## GregP (Oct 16, 2011)

Ratsel,

The stalll of the Corsair is not so benign if the flaps are up, the ball is not centered, and the g-force isn't near 1.0. Any accelerated stall can be quite intersting.

Not saying it is dangerous, unless you aren't a trained Corsair pilot, but the stall over the carrier deck at 87 knots has very little to do with a combat stall at 225+ knots caused by pulling too hard on the stick.

Naturally, the same can be said of all WWII fighters, and there are very few videos of hard-maneuvering, accelerated stalls, with the ball in solid slip or skid. In this category, give me a Hellcat anytime!


----------



## davparlr (Oct 16, 2011)

renrich said:


> From "America's Hundred Thousand" "A modern evaluation of a Corsair found it to be "the weapon of choice" over a P51D, a P47D and an F6F5. A WW2 pilot noted the Corsair as a "high strung predator" while the Hellcat was a "nice safe pussycat." Why would the Navy state that the Hellcats should be replaced ASAP by Corsairs if the Corsair was not superior? As a matter of fact, post war, the Bearcats in the fleet were replaced by Corsairs because the Corsair was a better fighter-bomber.



Very weak, untraceable, and disappointing reference here. “Modern evaluation”? What was the models that were compared? F4U-1A, F4U-4, or F4U-5. The F4U-1D was more of a contemporary of the P-51D. The F4U-4 was a good year later but similar to the late P-51D in performance. The P-51D was definitely out of the class of the powerful 1946 F4U-5, but probably not so for the P-51H.

The much better reference Joint Fighter Conference listed the P-47 the best fighter above 25k, the P-51 next and the F4U-1D third, below 25k, the P-51 was listed as best, the F4U-1D second, still an impressive performance by a carrier fighter.

I agree with all your arguments on the F6F. The F4U was better and its selection for continuation after the war was decisive.



GregP said:


> You think a P-51 can't out-turn a 109? Why in the world would you think that? I'd agree if the opponent were Me 109F, but the P-51D usually fought against the G and later variants, with equal wing loading, so the instantaneous turn rates would be very similar, with the sustained turn rates being related to the airfoils and excess power. Most aerial attacks were decided well before the sustained turn rates would come into play.



On a “Dogfight” show, Bud Anderson, in an interview, claimed that, in May, 1944, he and his flight of four P-51, shown as “B”s, were able to close in on four Bf-109s in a sustained turning fight, and the program claimed the P-51 had a tighter turning circle. The program can be suspect but I am sure Bud’s telling of the incident is more reliable.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB6ka32iTbU_

Also, an article in “The Aeroplane” claims the P-51III (B) could out turn a Bf-109G, for what it is worth.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owwUq7yirfE_


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 16, 2011)

yep "Dogfight" is never biased towards Americans  lol


----------



## GregP (Oct 16, 2011)

C'mon Ratsel,

You should quit putting down TV programs, combat pilots, and other assorted items and make your points from your own data, verified by you, not from sarcasm and inuendo. I daresay Bud Anderson was there and you probably weren't, but I have no proof of that. Many WWII pilot opinions are colorerd by the fact that they flew only about 1 - 3 aircraft types after training, so they have no real basis for comparing their opponent's mount, except combat, because they never flew one.

Your points may be valid, but your method of delivery obscures that. C'mon, don"t put people down, make your points with YOUR facts and let it ride. Otherwise, it starts to look like name-calling, and that is nver nice or fun.

When you are making your intended points from facts, they are usually pretty good. Stick with it.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 16, 2011)

show me one instance where I put down anything/anyone. IF you ever watched dogfights, you'd know my comment is a fair statement. wasn't directed at any person here. So please stop assuming thats what I'm doing.


----------



## GregP (Oct 16, 2011)

Sounds that way to a reader. If you don't mean to sound sarcastic or to accuse someone of forgetting, disremebering, or just being inept , then don't write it so it sounds that way.

If you disagree, write that without personal references to some perceived fault. It plays a LOT better. You have good arguments and good opinions, but the personal stuff obscures it sometimes.

To disagree with a TV program, state that simply. Don't say that the program cannot possibly be biased (sarcastic) and add roll-eyes (also sarcastic). That is the definition of sarcasm, in anybody's book and will eleicit a reaction, usually negative, from someone (sorry it was me). It makes people automatically disagree with you due to the implied sarcasm. Basic human emotions ensure that.

I have a good time going back and forth with you unless you post that I must be disrmemebring things or am somehow at fault for thinking the way I do. I assure you, I think the way I do becasue of my experiences and accumulated stock of information, just as you do. Nothing to do with an agenda and definitely NOT accusing YOU of not knowing what you have read or ecperienced.

Not a pesonal attack on Ratsel just asking for pleasant discourse in lieu of a dissenting opinion with personal references attached. You will either understand and accept or you won't. I hope you do, and I hope you stay a frequent-contributing poster. I've been chastised for the same type of comments and I let myself cool down a bit these days before posting a retort that I might regret later. I don't always succeed and must beg occasional fiorgiveness from the object of the retort. I hope you understand that.

My retorts were similar to yours when I got kicked off this site more than 4 years ago. Since being allowed back, I re-read my own posts and I undertsand the beef at the time ... I suppose I'm milder now and hope you might be, too, on occasion maybe not always ...


----------



## renrich (Oct 16, 2011)

Dav, agree with you that the quotes from Dean's book lack a lot of punch. All they do is show what someone's opinion was. However, I can understand why some pilots felt the way they did. IMO, piloting the Corsair in combat, based on reading what many pilots thought, was like riding a hot blooded thoroughbred, at least from the standpoint of landing and takeoffs. The Hellcat was more like an old steady plug from the stables. Linnekin, in "80 knots to Mach 2" who was an operational fighter pilot in the Navy as well as a test pilot stated that the Hellcat was somewhat pedestrian in performance and also had some bad "right rudder and right rudder trim deficiences" so it was not the end all be all easy flying machine. He also said that overall, "The Corsair had better control harmony than either of the Grummans." Meaning the F6F and F8F. Which is why he found the Corsair easier to fly a good gunnery run. Here we go with the high side full deflection gunnery run again.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 16, 2011)

GregP said:


> If you don't mean to sound sarcastic or to accuse someone of forgetting, disremebering, or just being inept , then don't write it so it sounds that way.



so correcting somebody about information is classified as is me saying their inept in a sarcastic way? Where are you getting this from? Anyways my appologies.. English is not my first language. It goes German -> Greek -> English.


----------



## GregP (Oct 16, 2011)

Hi Ratsel,

If you are German, you are probably closer to data on the Messerschmitt Me 109 than I am.

I can find the kill ratio (victories to losses) for almost all American fighter types in WWII, but cannot seem to find the victories OR losses for the Me 109 for the entire war. That is, can find reference to "a LOT of kills" and "a lot of losses," but no numbers. Do you happen to have the victories, losses, and maybe operational losses?

It is my contention that the Me 109 shot down more enemy aircraft than any other fighter or fighters in history in all air wars all put together, but I can't prove it since I don't have the numbers. I think the 109 is a very strong candidate for the best fighter of all times but ... again, I have no numbers to back it up. Most of the people who strongly disagree with me on this say that kills and kill ratio are not tyhe best indicator of the best. They are almost big fans of other aircraft.

Can you shed some light on the real numbers? Or suggest a source for such information?


----------



## drgondog (Oct 17, 2011)

Dave - do you have access to the Fighter Conference Report?

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Milosh (Oct 17, 2011)

Bill, the report is available from Schiffer Publishing, Ltd.
Report of Joint Fighter Conference NAS Patuxent River, MD - 16-23 October 1944 by Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. - Schifferbooks.com


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 17, 2011)

GregP said:


> Sounds that way to a reader. If you don't mean to sound sarcastic or to accuse someone of forgetting, disremebering, or just being inept , then don't write it so it sounds that way.
> 
> If you disagree, write that without personal references to some perceived fault. It plays a LOT better. You have good arguments and good opinions, but the personal stuff obscures it sometimes.
> 
> ...



Well said.

Basically though, think about what you are trying to say, type it and then read it again. If you would not want to have it said to you, then don't post it.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 17, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> yep "Dogfight" is never biased towards Americans  lol


 So, let me understand what you are saying. You are claiming that when Bud Anderson, who was on the show, said that "they were coming around and we were coming around, in a big left circle, this goes about two times. Each time we go around I'm closer to getting in trail with them", he was lying?


----------



## davparlr (Oct 17, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> How well Corsair compares vs. a contemporary Seafire as a fleet defense fighter?



The joint fighter conference did not seem too excited or disappointed with the Seafire. The only thing it excelled in was low speed handling.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 17, 2011)

yes, I think I just ordered it from Amazon. I think it is a book all WW2 aircraft enthusiast should have. It is an honest attempt to evaluate allied aircraft and make improvements. It also reflects the thought process of the time.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 17, 2011)

davparlr said:


> So, let me understand what you are saying. You are claiming that when Bud Anderson, who was on the show, said that "they were coming around and we were coming around, in a big left circle, this goes about two times. Each time we go around I'm closer to getting in trail with them", he was lying?


 AGAIN point out one instance when I said anybody is lying or even implied so. What I'm saying is that dogfight gets only one side of the story, never the other, unlike Greatest tank Battles which shows a fair comparison.. from now on, I refrain from posting. I'll just read and enjoy.

Kindest Regards


----------



## kettbo (Oct 17, 2011)

No need for such drastic action there Ratsel

I agree, the German perspective of this turn would be interesting if there is an account



General note to forum members

Lots of people here are taking offense here when they should not be. Can we just talk planes and quit bickering here?


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 17, 2011)

The History Channel is owned by Disney Corp., I believe, a American company. It's probably made primarily for American audiences, and probably mostly American sponsors. It has easier access to American veterans, so mostly for it's own economic health it sticks to intertainment for the USA, not education.
If it were produced in Britain, Germany, Russia, or Japan, it's primary viewpoint would probably be different, and i'd probably like it more myself. But I don't think it would last long on American TV.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 17, 2011)

I must agree I find the Dogfights show is an excellent show but it does cover the USAAF much more them other air arms ,but it is an American show made for a US audience who pay the most advertising so it makes perfect sense.


----------



## GregP (Oct 17, 2011)

What would really be intersting is if we could have a "dogfights" show that had a revolving host.

That is, one show from tha American viewpoint, one from British viewpoint, one from German viewpoint, one from Japanese viewpoint, one from italian viewpoint, one from Romanian viewpoint, Bulgarian viewpoint, etc.

My serious opinion is that all sides, large and small, had great pilots and decent aircraft ... as well as the average and below average. The basic difference in most encounters would very probably boil down to pilot skill unless the planes were disparate in performance.

I apologize if I drove Ratsel off. All I wanted was to not be accused of forgetting things in a response to my posts.

Ratsel, come back!


----------



## renrich (Oct 18, 2011)

I have the Joint Fighter Conference Report and it is interesting to read but it still only represents the opinions of pilots who flew the airplanes. In other words the opinions are subjective. As far as Seafire is concerned the prevailing opinion was that it was outdated. Oddly in reading the opinions on all the AC some were at total variance with others. I had always wondered why the F4U4 did not rate higher in the ratings published by Dean in "America's Hundred Thousand" The reason was that only three pilots flew it, one British and two Navy. There were almost no comments so a really high performance fighter was hardly considered in the final rankings.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 18, 2011)

renrich said:


> I have the Joint Fighter Conference Report and it is interesting to read but it still only represents the opinions of pilots who flew the airplanes. In other words the opinions are subjective. As far as Seafire is concerned the prevailing opinion was that it was outdated. Oddly in reading the opinions on all the AC some were at total variance with others. I had always wondered why the F4U4 did not rate higher in the ratings published by Dean in "America's Hundred Thousand" The reason was that only three pilots flew it, one British and two Navy. There were almost no comments so a really high performance fighter was hardly considered in the final rankings.


 
What you say is correct. There were no test numbers created and all the performance evaluations were subjective. I feel it is still important because it reflected the atmosphere of the military at that time, and did show one to one flying experiences.

I think that the limited exposure to the XF4U-4 and the XF8F was due to the newness of the aircraft. The first production version of the F4U-4 only flew a month before the test. Possibly, the aircraft were not fully available due to other needs. I would suspect that both were heavily involved in the development of plans for integrating the airframes into operational procedures. Limited maintenance due to newness may also been a factor. I am sure that if both had production planes that were dedicated to this evaluation, both would have been flown a lot and would have been highly rated.


----------



## davparlr (Oct 18, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> AGAIN point out one instance when I said anybody is lying or even implied so. What I'm saying is that dogfight gets only one side of the story, never the other, unlike Greatest tank Battles which shows a fair comparison.. from now on, I refrain from posting. I'll just read and enjoy.
> 
> Kindest Regards



Sorry for being a bit abrasive, but I am sensitive to general comments on certain sites because of perceived, or factual, bias. I have seen official flight test reports, by military or corporations, dismissed because it came from Mike Williams site. That makes no sense to me. Yes, it may have been hand picked, or maybe posted by a bias site (which I don't really believe), but it does not negate the validity of the test report. When you Rolled your eyes, I perceived it as dismissing it all, including Bud Anderson's statements, which I felt were important as he was there, and he stated what he saw and did, just because it was on a US centered show.

No use in just reading, you should participate. Discussion just should be informative and non confrontational. You seem knowledgeable and promote discussion. 

I would love to see dogfights from other points of view, if we could just find someone to invest the money!


----------



## TheMustangRider (Oct 18, 2011)

davparlr said:


> I would love to see dogfights from other points of view, if we could just find someone to invest the money!



I always felt they should have included an episode about the Battle of Britain; "Hunt for the Bismark" was a nice episode but one BoB dedicated episode would have give tribute to the resilience of the RAF and overall Great Britain during WWII.


----------



## Kryten (Oct 18, 2011)

half the problem I see in these comparisons is trotting out a load of test results and then expecting every aircraft of that type to be identical, these planes were built at speed in factories under pressure, some would be complete dogs some would be exceptional, the test reports can only be regarded as a rough benchmark really!

but most importantly its the guy flying it that finally decides how well the aircraft can turn or maneuver, not everyone has the same G tolerance, physical strenth or even the ability to function whilst your head is swimming after a maneuver!


----------



## bobbysocks (Oct 18, 2011)

rastel, you seem to take the word of your aquaintance who flew for the LW and put weight to the fact that a certain 109 pilot made some seasoned 51 jocks look like novices...but in the same breath you discount bud anderson's account as a once in awhile event. 109 pilots knew all the tricks but so did the 51 boys. they knew which turn to get the 109 into so that the torque of the engine would fight the dynamics and make the plane not turn as sharp. they knew to drop flaps, slap the trim tabs, ride the stall to get inside an EA. there were many good pilots on both sides and somedays you fly your best and some you get through despite your flying. in general the 51 could match the 109 Gs in a turning battle and usually after the 2nd or 3rd rotation they would gain ground. all of this of course was dependant on fuel loads of both planes, etc. but it wasnt an isolated incident. if the 109 could out turn to 51 then they would never had gotten into that kind of dogfight PERIOD! russian yaks and LAs could out turn 109s and 190s so the LW pilots were told to never get into a dogfight with them ( gunther rall interview, etc. ). the AVGs P40 couldnt turn with the jap fighters they faced so they absolutely didnt get into a turning dogfight. it would have been the same for US pilots in the ETO were the 109s and 190s simply that dominating in turning battles. they would have taken the fight verticle or down on the deck or use some tactic that they could have used the superior characteristics of their plane. but they continually engaged in turning battles and more than a few times came out on top. i dare say if they hadnt been able to turn with 109s... you wouldnt be talking to a couple members of this forum. here's the words of the boys who did it...raw and uncensored and not embellished by Hollywood or the history channel.... 2/3rds of the way down is a section on turns and after that use of combat flaps.

Mustang Encounter Reports

here's the reports of the P47 pilots...not in sections so you would have to read through to get their take on LW aircraft and how they dealt with them.

P-47 Encounter Reports


----------



## jim (Oct 19, 2011)

bobbysocks said:


> rastel, you seem to take the word of your aquaintance who flew for the LW and put weight to the fact that a certain 109 pilot made some seasoned 51 jocks look like novices...but in the same breath you discount bud anderson's account as a once in awhile event. 109 pilots knew all the tricks but so did the 51 boys. they knew which turn to get the 109 into so that the torque of the engine would fight the dynamics and make the plane not turn as sharp. they knew to drop flaps, slap the trim tabs, ride the stall to get inside an EA. there were many good pilots on both sides and somedays you fly your best and some you get through despite your flying. in general the 51 could match the 109 Gs in a turning battle and usually after the 2nd or 3rd rotation they would gain ground. all of this of course was dependant on fuel loads of both planes, etc. but it wasnt an isolated incident. if the 109 could out turn to 51 then they would never had gotten into that kind of dogfight PERIOD! russian yaks and LAs could out turn 109s and 190s so the LW pilots were told to never get into a dogfight with them ( gunther rall interview, etc. ). the AVGs P40 couldnt turn with the jap fighters they faced so they absolutely didnt get into a turning dogfight. it would have been the same for US pilots in the ETO were the 109s and 190s simply that dominating in turning battles. they would have taken the fight verticle or down on the deck or use some tactic that they could have used the superior characteristics of their plane. but they continually engaged in turning battles and more than a few times came out on top. i dare say if they hadnt been able to turn with 109s... you wouldnt be talking to a couple members of this forum. here's the words of the boys who did it...raw and uncensored and not embellished by Hollywood or the history channel.... 2/3rds of the way down is a section on turns and after that use of combat flaps.
> 
> Mustang Encounter Reports
> 
> ...


 
Your statement that Lw pilots were told not to dogfight Yaks and Las is simply wrong and untrue and very far from reality . Even if the myth of uber Yak 3s and La7s was true the orders would be the same : Fight to the last bullet.
For every occasion of american pilots memories that you mention i can mention German memories with opposite conlusions. I am sure that all veterans were speaking honestly So i prefer to use maths to discover the truth( Lipfert mentions that the main problem with P51 was the numbers it appeared, he consider Yak 3 more dangerous but of course attacked them as much as anything else even without MW50)
Anyway, it is an american forum and some biasement is naturall, but its a pity that another diferent opinion is silenced


----------



## kettbo (Oct 20, 2011)

Bobbysocks

As Lenin said, "Quantity is a quality all its own." So all those POS Sherman Tanks and T-34s beat down the Germans and their fewer but better Tigers and Panthers and veteran MkIVs. Same in the air...lots of decent planes will overcome a few good ones.

I'd want to be flying the Mustangs if given the choice:
Faster to close/pursue
A good bird overall
long-ranged to take the fight to the enemy
lots and lots of my buddies with me who are all average or better
get to rotate home after my tour

Against this, the Germans still have a hot little fighter in the 109. Just not enough in 1944 and the overall crew quality in decline, less fuel to train or fight with.

In another thread I posted some pics of my 1/285 scale planes. Next game I'll have 16x P-51s take on 4-8 random late 109s


----------



## barney (Oct 26, 2011)

This thread made me curios enough to buy Brown's book, 5 dollars for a like new copy from Amazon. When it arrived I could tell my copy had spent its life on the floor of someone's basement. So, with nose running and handkerchief in hand, I dove in.

After reading Brown's bio on Wikipedia I'm a little disappointed with the book. If only half of what Wikipedia states about Brown is true the guy is still amazing and so should have been able to write a more amazing book than this. 

Brown was in Germany when war broke out between England and Germany. The SS evicted him from the country. Oh, and take your sports car with you, we can't have an English gentleman running around without a sports car. If that had been me, I would have ended the war building V2's.

The P-51 controversy......

The P-51 was the greatest plane ever. No, the P-51 was only average. The reason they used it was because it had the range. No, the Thunderbolt could have flown the Berlin with drop tanks, the Lightning could have flown to Berlin with drop tanks, the Spitfire could have flown to Berlin with drop tanks. The reason the P-51 was used was because of its lower cost. 

Now, Brown was known for dive testing. After the war he dive tested a four engine piston driven airliner. This is a quote from the Wikipedia bio on Brown.

“During this same period the RAE was approached by the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) General Jimmy Doolittle with a request for help, as the 8th Air Force had been having trouble when their Lightning, Thunderbolt and Mustang aircraft, providing top cover for the bombers, dived down onto attacking German fighters, some of the diving US fighters encountering speed regions where they became difficult to control. As a result of Doolittle's request, early in 1944 the P-38H Lightning, P-51B Mustang and P-47C Thunderbolt, were dived for compressibility testing at the RAE by Brown and several other pilots. The results of the tests were that the tactical Mach numbers, i.e., the manoeuvring limits, were Mach 0.68 for the Lightning, Mach 0.71 for the Thunderbolt and Mach 0.78 for the Mustang. The corresponding figure for both the Fw 190 and Me 109 was Mach 0.75. The tests flown by Brown and his colleagues resulted in Doolittle being able to argue with his superiors for the Mustang to be chosen in preference to the P-38 and P-47 for all escort duties from then on, which it subsequently was.”

So, was this true, was the Mustang chosen because it could reach a higher Mach number?


----------



## MikeGazdik (Oct 26, 2011)

Never read the info on the Mach number dive research, interesting. My opinion; the P-51 was simply the right answer for many reasons. It did have the range, it was mass production friendly which controlled it's cost better than any other, it's overall capabilies were really incredible for 1 plane to possess, yet didn't use any cutting edge technology for the time. It was a good plane of then basic construction, powered by a solid known engine that performed at the altitude needed in Europe. It's performance was on par, or better than anything then flying. It was liked by the pilots that flew it. How do you say no to all of that?


----------



## kettbo (Oct 27, 2011)

I never really considered the production cost and ease of assembly as a factor
Pretty sure the P-38 with twin engines and the P-47 with the ducting and rear mount turbosupercharger cost a ton more than the P-51 per unit.
P-47 and P-38s bloodied the LW heavily by the time of widespread Mustang service, Mustang coming in at the 7th inning as a pretty hot relief pitcher


----------



## MikeGazdik (Oct 27, 2011)

Pretty neat analogy! The Spitfire (England) and the P-40 (Africa / MTO) had the first 2 innings, the P-47 and P-38 covered up to the 7th, then the P-51 acted as the set-up in the 8th and the closer in the 9th!


----------



## GregP (Oct 27, 2011)

I find Eric Brown’s opinions in “Duels in the Sky” to be very entertaining. His views are the views of a consummate test pilot. He flew operationally and shot down two Fw 200 Condors in Grumman Martlets. He also flew operationally with fighter squadrons after that time, but spent most of his time flying test and training people to land on carriers. His views are, for the most part, flight-test views of a good pilot being asked to fly and test an aircraft. He was not necessarily familiar with the best techniques used to fly and FIGHT any one of his test ships, but was evaluating their flying characteristics analytically. Naturally, he liked the planes he was most familiar with or planes that had the same strengths as the ones he was very familiar with.

To me, there is no real dispute that his views are not the views of other pilots. Most German Aces thought the Me 109 was a war winner. Most Allied test pilots thought it was somewhat of a turkey, because they were not trained to FIGHT it and had very few hours in it. They were trained to fly their own planes that had their own strengths. One would have to do a very detailed and thorough flight test to find out the things the Me 109 did best to exploit its strengths. The Germans did that. It showed their genius in its war record. The Allies simply flew it for 4 – 8 hours and wrote a flight test report, never trying to fight it from the perspective of a pilot who KNEW what the Me 109 was good at and what it wasn’t.

To be fair, the Germans did the same with captured American or British planes … they flew them a short while and made reports. There was, as far as I know, a real attempt for any pilot to take a captured fighter and plan execute an attack on a domestic fighter after 40+ hours of familiarization with the enemy aircraft. They all did that because they could not be sure the captured enemy aircraft would LAST for 40+ hours without spare parts. It was a natural response, but not very accurate in the evaluation of enemy hardware.

So … I think Eric deserves a break in his book. My bet is that Hanna Reitsch, Heini Ditmar, and Rudy Opitz of the Luftwaffe probably ALSO evaluated enemy aircraft and the many German prototype aircraft from a test pilot’s viewpoint, not from a combat pilot’s viewpoint. I bet the Japanese / Italian / Czech / Hungarian / Bulgarian / Romanian / Greek test pilots did the same.

I could be wrong, but it seems logical to me.


----------



## renrich (Oct 27, 2011)

GregP, nice post and probably pretty much on the mark. A somewhat interesting anecdote about Brown. I have a biography of Marion Carl. A Marine aviator, fought at Midway, the Solomons, flew F4Fs and Corsairs and was also a test pilot after the war. I think he was the second guy to fly faster than the speed of sound. Brown and Carl were friends and spent a lot of time together. I wonder what Carl said about Brown's book. He must have read it. The book is packed so I am quoting from memory. I think that Brown was in the US post war when Carl commanded a squadron of Marine fighters. They were equipped with one of the early McDonnel jets and Corsairs, around half and half. The Corsairs out performed the jets in most ways so practically all the flying was in Corsairs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2011)

barney said:


> The P-51 controversy......
> 
> The P-51 was the greatest plane ever. No, the P-51 was only average. The reason they used it was because it had the range. No, the Thunderbolt could have flown the Berlin with drop tanks, the Lightning could have flown to Berlin with drop tanks, the Spitfire could have flown to Berlin with drop tanks. The reason the P-51 was used was because of its lower cost.



Sorry Barney, you're statements are flawed. First, depending on what version of each aircraft you mention will determine if it was going to make it to Berlin. Obviously a Spit Mk 1 is not going to do it, fight and return. The Mustang had the range, was able to loiter over target and return and it had performance sufficient enough to compete with the Luftwaffe, and I think history shows us that. Yes, it did cost less but in the end its overall performance won out although there were many ETO pilots who preferred the P-38 over the -51.


----------



## barney (Oct 27, 2011)

If you're test flying enemy aircraft, something Mr. Brown did a lot of, I'd suggest your job is not to look for strengths, but for weaknesses, something you can exploit against the enemy. Unfortunately, reporting of this sort is not as helpful as we would like, when trying compare these aircraft, 65+ years later.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2011)

barney said:


> If you're test flying enemy aircraft, something Mr. Brown did a lot of, I'd suggest your job is not to look for strengths, but for weaknesses, something you can exploit against the enemy. Unfortunately, reporting of this sort is not as helpful as we would like, when trying compare these aircraft, 65+ years later.


Actually a good evaluation is to look for BOTH strengths and weaknesses and then make comparisons. This was done when the US was able to evaluate some "attained" former Soviet Union combat aircraft during the 1980s.


----------



## barney (Oct 27, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Sorry Barney, you're statements are flawed. First, depending on what version of each aircraft you mention will determine if it was going to make it to Berlin. Obviously a Spit Mk 1 is not going to do it, fight and return. The Mustang had the range, was able to loiter over target and return and it had performance sufficient enough to compete with the Luftwaffe, and I think history shows us that. Yes, it did cost less but in the end its overall performance won out although there were many ETO pilots who preferred the P-38 over the -51.



While I haven't posted much, I have been a reader of this board for a few years. And during that reading I've encountered much debate on why the P-51 was the USAAF choice for long range escort over Germany. What I wrote is what I took away from those debates. 

Now, I read in the Wikipedia entry on Eric Brown that General Doolittle wanted the plane because of the speed it could obtain in a dive (another way of stating this might be - General Doolittle didn't want his fighters flying into the ground). For me, this is new information (if it is information). I do remember Mr. Brown stating in “Duels in the Sky” that the P-47's factory figure for dive speed was overstated by 100 mph. This, I take to be a direct reference to the dive testing mentioned in the Wikipedia entry.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vanir (Oct 27, 2011)

I did a bit of running around at one point trying to find "real world" mission ranges with the respective aircraft, I scoured the manuals and datasheets all over the web on pdf, all reproduced originals mind you, they are war records. Anyways the Mustang was the plane for the job. There is a misconception about them, but its significance I'm a tad disappointed to say, is not in the least overstated. Their impact literally provided the conditions absolutely required for D-Day.
It is no exaggeration to say the Mustang took air superiority back from the Luftwaffe during January and February of 1944, Allied pilots from various air forces in action over Europe have independently stated categorically that the quality of typical Luftwaffe fighter/interceptor pilots visibly deteriorated, notably, obviously, and suddenly after this time. This matches German war records.

As for its combat qualities one for one, aside from the escort range thing. Let's just compare one for one, talk to Günther Räll, he did it and speaks about it at length during dvd recorded seminars. He said, having comparatively tested a captured Mustang, Thunderbolt, Spits of every marqué, as he says, "every major Allied fighter in the war," for the Luftwaffe, that the Mustang was his favourite.
"Was it better than the Messerschmitt?" they asked him.
He laughed, "No. The thing that surprised me was its comfort and roominess, it was very comfortable to fly as an aircraft. But this makes sense, because its pilots sit in the cockpit for eight hour missions, German pilots are in the cockpit for maybe two hours. But the Messerschmitt was always competitive with Allied fighters, the Mustang is no different." Or words to that effect.

Yeah but you need to think about that.

Seriously. It goes from southern England to Berlin and goes toe to toe with G-10 top cover and the best interceptors the Luftwaffe can field. That's war winning, the only other aircraft that could do it was the P-38 and it couldn't tangle with an Erla G-10 like a P-51D can, and it can.

The Thunderbolt, they eventually custom made a king size centreline tank for it, add two of the biggest wing tanks in the air force and it can manage not making it to Berlin. Why? Because the R-2800 guzzles fuel at combat settings, and the Luftwaffe figured that out in mid-43 so they started bouncing P-47s over Holland. It burned their mission fuel. Later the 8th tag teamed Thunderbolts to Holland, with Mustangs taking over from there. Even if the Mustangs played a little over Holland/Denmark or thereabouts, they can still fly to Berlin and go home.

It's a very slippery airframe with a very efficient engine. It just all came together as if that was the original intention, but it just goes forever on the sniff of an oily rag yet carries tons of fuel.

So the revolutionary thing about the Mustang is that it did a twin engine role as a single engine predator. Contemporaries are the Me-110/210/410 or for Britain the Blenheim and Defiant believe it or not.
Closest contemporary is the Mosquito. But you can't compare it to any other single engine job except the Zero M21. These two birds are just in a class of their own, for the same reasons. Fighter performance exceeding conditions where fighters can be present.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 27, 2011)

Mustang was really a gem. 
Stating that it was contemporary of Blenheim Defiant is not true, however. And saying it's a contemporary of Bf-110 barely holds water.


----------



## barney (Oct 28, 2011)

As a follow up to the Wikipedia entry claiming that Eric Brown and others did dive testing on USAAF aircraft, which Wikipedia claims to have influenced General Doolittle's decision to use the P-51 for long range escort (almost to the exclusion of other types), I decided to do a little date checking.

January 6, 1944 - General Doolittle assumes command of the 8th Air Force

January 24, 1944 – the decision is made to go with the P-51 for long range escort

So, that leaves a window of 18 days for Doolittle to request the tests, for the tests to be conducted, for Doolittle to receive and act on the resulting report – not much time. 

And where was Captain Brown during this time? From December of 1943 to January of 1944 he was assigned to the Naval Test Squadron (Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment) Boscombe Down (the chronology I found for his whereabouts is only in months).


----------



## Juha (Oct 28, 2011)

Hello Barney
According to Dennis’ Royal Aircraft Establishment at war (2008 ), Brown was the Chief Naval Test Pilot, RAE Farnborough, 1944-49 and CO Aerodynamics Flight 1947-49. The High Speed Flight Section began to investigate the problems experienced at near sonic flight speeds early in 1943. The aim was to establish the max Mach No which could be achieved by a particular aeroplane. The Mustang used was Allison engine P-51, the book doesn’t give more exact type, it only notes that dive started from 28,000 ft only due to a/c ceiling limitations. Also on P-47 and -38, no subtype is given, only notes in both cases that Dive recovery flap investigation and additionally on P-47 Very high stick forces.
In his memoirs Wings on my sleeve, 2006 edition, Brown only writes that at the end of 43 (before Christmas anyway) he was transferred to Boscombe Down. 5-9 Jan 44, he visited Italy to testfly Italian a/c, when back he began his 4-engine training on Short S29, on 17 Jan he reported at Farnborough because the previous naval test pilot there had just been killed on the rocket Seafire. So he joined the famous Aerodynamics Flight on 17 Jan 44. And yes, he writes that the transonic flight testing took on a new emphasis after a visit to RAE early in 44 by Lt. Gen. Doolittle, who had just taken over command of the 8th USAAF which had suffered worrying escort fighter losses when the fighters on high cover dived down to intercept LW fighters and lost control. There was no time to set up a normal instrumented research program, but what was wanted was a hand-on series of tests on the P-38H, P-47C and P-51B. The tests up to their tactical and critical Mach numbers began in late Jan 44 and continued through to early March 44. So according to Brown these tests were not part of the famous scientific tests by RAE I mentioned at the beginning of this message.

HTH
Juha


----------



## davparlr (Oct 28, 2011)

vanir said:


> So the revolutionary thing about the Mustang is that it did a twin engine role as a single engine predator. Contemporaries are the Me-110/210/410 or for Britain the Blenheim and Defiant believe it or not.
> Closest contemporary is the Mosquito. But you can't compare it to any other single engine job except the Zero M21. These two birds are just in a class of their own, for the same reasons. Fighter performance exceeding conditions where fighters can be present.



Excellent write up!


----------



## vanir (Oct 28, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Mustang was really a gem.
> Stating that it was contemporary of Blenheim Defiant is not true, however. And saying it's a contemporary of Bf-110 barely holds water.


What I'm saying is we've been taught to look at the Mustang as a fighter enthusiast, but the secret of the Mustang is by thinking about it as a military logistical officer, a staff chief to the air force commander. It's not about fighter awesomeness, it's about a tool for a job. The job is very long range escort.

The Blenheim was designed as a long range light bomber to escort fast medium bombers as an escort fighter-bomber. I've some books quoting British Air Ministry documentation. The Defiant was designed as an escort fighter for overseas deployment, probably with far eastern assets in mind (ie. was most likely designed with RAF/FEC in mind based in India/Burma and DAF/ME ie. Iraq/Iran and Greece, plus of course any BEF/continental deployment). In any case these are typical prewar/early war very long range escort fighter designs. The Bf-110 is another example. The 210 and 410 as well but it changed to a secondary role after BoB experience, they became attack models (zerstörer in the schlacht role, eg. the Ju88C used to strafe soviet supply lines in 43, in 1940 the same aircraft type was a long range fighter/escort based in Norway).

The Mustang's success was in being used capably for this role. Nothing in its class could make the distance past Luftwaffe efforts to resist. As of October 1943 the AFS categorically documents the Luftwaffe had demonstrated air superiority over Europe, a report which directly led to Operation Point Blank. As my favourite warbird documentary puts it, "the plan called for the 8th air force to literally throw itself on the Luftwaffe's sword to blunt it."

The Mustang changed that. Took all German heavy interceptors (eg. Me410 with Bk5 tank guns blowing fortresses in half from over 1km range), right out of the equation. Thunderbolts couldn't get that far without being bounced and using all their mission fuel, whilst Lightnings were having severe problems dealing with Germans far more experienced operating at higher combat altitudes, with single engine deadlies achieving the same performance as less agile twin engine jobs. Even the best, most manoeuvrable and deadly twin engine fighter of the war, the Lightning couldn't tangle with a clean fighter trim Messer of the latest modification of the day. Well that might start some arguments so let's just say there were a few obvious disadvantages.

But again, the Mustang could. And that's only part of the point. The real point is that the logistics officers fills out paperwork and files it with aircraft twice the Mustang's size, that's the category it's in.
It's like the Zero, which has the role capabilities of the Fairey Fulmar, it should perform like one. It doesn't. It is far, far deadlier than that.

Compare them with the typical aircraft conventions that can match their role capabilities (ie. combat range), and what you wind up with is aircraft that cannot fight them one for one. This is why those two aircraft gained such indominable reputations at the time.
They're pretty ordinary as fighters but. Pretty amazing to get that where they could go. Pearl should have had to fight underpowered biplanes with gigantic fuel tanks, instead they had to fight aircraft that could compete with their land based fighters.
Same thing with the Mustang, German fighters should've been facing Lightnings at best, Mosquitoes otherwise, but no they get something that dogfights Messerschmitts like a walk in the park.


----------



## barney (Oct 28, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello Barney
> According to Dennis’ Royal Aircraft Establishment at war (2008 ), Brown was the Chief Naval Test Pilot, RAE Farnborough, 1944-49 and CO Aerodynamics Flight 1947-49. The High Speed Flight Section began to investigate the problems experienced at near sonic flight speeds early in 1943. The aim was to establish the max Mach No which could be achieved by a particular aeroplane. The Mustang used was Allison engine P-51, the book doesn’t give more exact type, it only notes that dive started from 28,000 ft only due to a/c ceiling limitations. Also on P-47 and -38, no subtype is given, only notes in both cases that Dive recovery flap investigation and additionally on P-47 Very high stick forces.
> In his memoirs Wings on my sleeve, 2006 edition, Brown only writes that at the end of 43 (before Christmas anyway) he was transferred to Boscombe Down. 5-9 Jan 44, he visited Italy to testfly Italian a/c, when back he began his 4-engine training on Short S29, on 17 Jan he reported at Farnborough because the previous naval test pilot there had just been killed on the rocket Seafire. So he joined the famous Aerodynamics Flight on 17 Jan 44. And yes, he writes that the transonic flight testing took on a new emphasis after a visit to RAE early in 44 by Lt. Gen. Doolittle, who had just taken over command of the 8th USAAF which had suffered worrying escort fighter losses when the fighters on high cover dived down to intercept LW fighters and lost control. There was no time to set up a normal instrumented research program, but what was wanted was a hand-on series of tests on the P-38H, P-47C and P-51B. The tests up to their tactical and critical Mach numbers began in late Jan 44 and continued through to early March 44. So according to Brown these tests were not part of the famous scientific tests by RAE I mentioned at the beginning of this message.
> 
> ...



Hello Juha

Great information on Brown – exactly what I was wanting. That little blurb in Wikipedia caught my eye, and while it might be misstated or overstated, it is, I now know, based on events that actually occurred. 

Thanks again
Barney

Now I need to find some books on Doolittle.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 28, 2011)

Hi, vanir,

Your assessment of Mustang's qualities and achievements is well written.

It was stating the Mustang as a _contemporary_ of Blenheim, Defiant Bf-110 that made me wonder - perhaps that's my bad, since English is not mine 1st language?

Further, Blenheim was _the_ fast bomber entering the service, so I'd really want to see RAF requiring of it to perform escort for it's bombers (=fighting enemy planes in process). Defiant was conceived as a bomber destroyer, IIRC? Saying that Blenheim Defiant are to assume very long-range fighter escort duties is non realistic IMO.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Hi, vanir,
> 
> Your assessment of Mustang's qualities and achievements is well written.
> 
> ...



In the US I think this pig carried the same thought process...


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 28, 2011)

Airacuda was to be a bomber destroyer - USAAC Defiant?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2011)

Bell YFM-1 Airacuda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 28, 2011)

Yep, Wiki and Vee's for victory agree here (from Wiki):



> In an effort to break into the aviation business, Bell Aircraft created a unique fighter concept touted to be "a mobile anti-aircraft platform"[3] as well as a "convoy fighter."[4] Created to intercept enemy bombers at distances beyond the range of single-seat fighter interceptors, the YFM-1 (Y, service test; F, fighter; M, multiplace) was an innovative design incorporating many features never before seen in a military aircraft, as well as several never seen again. Utilizing a streamlined, "futuristic" design, the Bell Airacuda appeared to be "unlike any other fighters up to that time."[5]



So - kill bombers, avoid fighters.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2011)

Yep. But in the end that thing couldn't get out of it's own way!


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 28, 2011)




----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 28, 2011)

To be fair the USAAC had an advantage the British did not, Unless we were attacked by Canada there was no chance of of any bomber reaching the US with a fighter escort for the foreseeable future. Please remember that the USAAC had not only contracted for the B-15 < Boeing XB-15 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > but it first flew in Oct 1937. There were several other design studies and the B-19 under construction. The USAAC probably had a better idea of what kind of aircraft (and what it's capabilities were) that could reach the US from anywhere but Canada or Mexico than any other nation did. It could specify a 'bomber destroyer' based on that knowledge.


----------



## vanir (Oct 28, 2011)

Don't forget the Amiot 143. It's roles assigned by Arm d'la Air (I dunno how to spell that) were: light bomber, escort fighter, tactical reconnaissance and army support. The reason I heard that it was designed like a tool shed with wings bolted to it and a fighter cockpit shoved on the roof, was to fill each of those primary roles using the same airframe, to cut defence expenditure with "revolutionary multipurpose designs" which aren't very good at any individual role.

This was the thinking behind escort fighters. First you had the Soviets pretty much invent the fast medium bomber, its success in Spain was being faster than the interceptors sent after it. France, England and Germany took to this idea and it formed interwar thinking on effective bomber forces. Since the bombers weren't under threat from fighters (it was assumed), escort fighters became a light attack and utilitarian role. They are pathfinders, damage surveyors, tactical assistance, and in the event of enemy interceptors they drop their loads and cover the bomber stream with pintle mounted guns generally.

Look at the Bf-110 in this context and it suddenly becomes a really powerful aircraft conceptually and makes a lot more sense as a bomber escort. Does those jobs superbly. The problem was interceptors got better.


----------



## barney (Oct 29, 2011)

vanir said:


> It just all came together as if that was the original intention, but it just goes forever on the sniff of an oily rag yet carries tons of fuel.



That is a great line.

I came upon some information regarding the ranges the USAAF was obtaining at various periods of the war from various escort aircraft in the ETO. These figures are said to include allowances for fuel consumed in takeoff delays, forming up over England, bad weather, fighters weaving to fly the same speed as bombers, the usual reserve and fuel used in combat. This is from a government document entitled, “Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe”. 

June 1943 Spitfire P-47 – 230 miles
July 1943 P-47 with 75 gal belly tank – 340 miles
August 1943 P-47 with 108 gal belly tank – 375 miles
November 1943 P-38 with 2 75 gal wing tanks – 520 miles
January 1944 P-51 – 475 miles
February 1944 P-38 with 2 108 gal wing tanks – 585 miles
February 1944 P-47 with 150 gal belly tank – 425 miles
February 1944 P-47 with 2 108 gal wing tanks – 475 miles
March 1944 P-51 with 2 75 gal wing tanks – 650 miles
March 1944 P-51 with 2 108 gal wing tanks – 850 miles

Unfortunately, the chart I took this from only provides the above information on aircraft type. Still, I think it is interesting to see how the range increases over time and what aircraft were used to achieve that range.

For reference, the distance from London to Berlin is 578 miles.


----------



## Francis marliere (Oct 31, 2011)

Vanir, the name of French air force is "armée de l'air".

Best,

Francis


----------



## vanir (Oct 31, 2011)

thank you Francis, I shall use that from now on.
I was tired and drinking, I should've looked it up I know.


----------

