# Best Fighter



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

The Mosquito was hardly used out there. And wood doesn't warp that quickly, there's more chance of the thing getting shot down before you have to worry about that.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

I know it wasn't used that often out there. My point was that the environment there would have taken more of a toll on the Mossie and parts and planes couldn't just be replaced.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

Wood doesn't just warp that badly. Wood is a strong material, if they kept it under cover it would last a while even in the South Pacific.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 15, 2004)

But (yes, I DO know not all trees have the same wood strength, consistency, etc.) there are trees EVERYWHERE!!!! im sure they could use some crappy Palm tree wood until a resupply. Maybe not for a flap, elevator, rudder or aileron or other control surfaces, but like a bullet hole and such....


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

Of course


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 15, 2004)

DUDE!!!! WHAT TIME IS IT?!? You seem to always be on!!! IN ENGLAND!!! THATS LIKE AN 8 HOUR DIFF! Let's see... Its 11pm for me..... Oh, never mind. its only 7am not too early. False alarm. But werent you on at 6pm for me? Hmmmmmm......... 2am? Oh well... If you have Insomnia, not my prob...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Well even if you can find the wood you still have the problem of a suitable glue.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

I work shifts. So, my sleeping times are lets say screwed up, even on the days I don't work. 
That's a point Lightning Guy, but with such things as small bullet holes you could just fabric cover anyway. I suppose they should have brought along enough glue.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2004)

the controll surfaces of the mossie were fabric couverd with wooden frames, and remember, the hurricane had a wooden frame and was partly fabric couvered, it didn't change anything...........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Did the Hurricane see any service in the SWPA. I know it saw some use in the CBI but that's still not as bad weather-wise as Australia and New Guinea.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

yes but we're talking about the effects of weather on mossies in brittain, which had no effect..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

He only asked a question, Lanc. No need to bite his head off.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

And it's a matter of fact that the weather in New Guinea is quite a bit different from the weather in Jolly Ol' England.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

And it's a fact that the Hurricane saw service over Burma and India. It was fine.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

I acknowledged that, and that may very well be the end of the argument. I was just theorizing that service in the SWPA might have been different from the CBI. I don't know, that's why I was theorizing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 17, 2004)

fair enought, and C.C., i wasn't having a go at anyone.................


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

So, it's all over. For the Brits on here, there's this thing on at the moment about Aircraft Carriers.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 17, 2004)

ohoh, i'm whaching that, it's very good, it's on five, it's not channel five, it's just five............


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

I was watching it, how the British invented the carrier, and how it improved, how the Americans took the ideas.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 17, 2004)

to right, but it couldn't stop singing prases to the american carries, when ours are allot better...............


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

It still mentioned we invented them though.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

It's hard to say American carriers or British carriers were better. Granted, British carriers possessed a great weight of armor, but it cost them about 20-30 planes when compared to the American carriers.


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

It wasn't going on about which was better, it was talking about 'building the ultimate' (That's the shows title) aircraft carrier, and it tells you all the needs for the best aircraft carrier. One of those things was an angle runway, on the flight deck, Americans took it, 
The ski-jump on British carriers allowing them to be smaller, British idea. It was just going on about them, and it was always praising the 'great' American carriers.


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

It wasn't going on about which was better, it was talking about 'building the ultimate' (That's the shows title) aircraft carrier, and it tells you all the needs for the best aircraft carrier. One of those things was an angle runway, on the flight deck, Americans took it, 
The ski-jump on British carriers allowing them to be smaller, British idea. It was just going on about them, and it was always praising the 'great' American carriers. 

It had some good footage of World War 2 aircraft crashing, and falling apart when trying to land. Mostly Hellcats...yes, I know they were designed to, it was still some good footage.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

Ski-jump does have it's uses. I don't think America would place them on its fleet carriers since the catapults are still doing a fine job. Using a ski-jump on the LHDs and LHAs of the amphibious assault groups would make good sense since they are already equipped with Harriers.


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

The Harrier equipped Carriers are what the ski-jump is for, it lets the carriers be smaller. The catapult on the American carriers, another British invention, is perfectly good enough for their design of carrier.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2004)

the americnas have bigger carriers which allows them to have more aircraft and the angled flight deck but it also means they need the steam catpult................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 19, 2004)

Actually, the heavier aircraft means they need the steem catapult. But there are some design studies being done about being able to eliminate them.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2004)

what, the catapult or the heavy aircraft??


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 19, 2004)

The catapult. I read something about that but I don't have the book with me.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2004)

i don't see how they're gonna get a plane from 0-180mph in 3 seconds any other way...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 19, 2004)

I don't remember how they were looking to do it, and I don't think they were eliminating it completely. The heaviest plane they opperate right now is the F-14D. The new F-35 is considerably lighter and proportionally more powerful so that helps. They might be considering a slight upward angle to the flight deck, a mini-ski-jump, but I don't have access to the book I read that in right now so I'm not sure.


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

American carriers being bigger doesn't mean they can have an angled flight deck, we just gave them that idea, and they put it on their already huge carriers. 
They'll probably use the ski-jump, or just not bother and carry on using the steam catapult. 

Funny thing about the Sea Harrier when we showed it off to the Americans; In 1969 when a Harrier took off vertically from the aft platform of the USS Coronado, a US Admiral remarked 'You Brits gave us the angled deck, the mirror sight and the steam catapult. And now, you've taken them all away!'


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

That is a funny quote, but not entirely accurate in that most aircraft still use the catapult and angled deck. Vertical take-offs are very inefficeint and both the Brits and the USMC hardly ever use that ability (though I must admit it's not a bad one to have).


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

He wasn't fully aware of how the Harrier worked, but just witnessing it made him believe that they would no longer need all that equipment. The hover time of a Harrier is 90 seconds because that's how much water it has to cool the fans. So, Harriers use their capability to land on carriers, not take off. But we had to do it, to show off.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

Well, the vertical take-off is also very inefficeint in that is uses a load of fuel and limits the Harrier to a weapons load of about 5,000lbs (any more than that and it's too heavy for a vertical TO).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 21, 2004)

but it's always fun to show off in front of the americans................


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2004)

Yes, yes it is. Especially after some of their stupid V/STOL projects.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 22, 2004)

And most of our stupid V/STOL ideas came from German wartime expirements.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2004)

just another example of how good our engineers are.................


----------



## plan_D (May 24, 2004)

If they were stupid then, why copy them? I know I've seen the German designs, GrG put some pictures up on the experimental planes thread. The Harrier is a very good example of British engineering.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2004)

our harrier is top quality, i still aint posted a pic of it


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2004)

our harrier is top quality, i still aint posted a pic of it


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2004)

our harrier is top quality, i still aint posted a pic of it


----------



## plan_D (May 24, 2004)

Why post a pic, everyone knows what it looks like. Then again if you get a good pic, by all means post it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2004)

ok, i will  sorry for the triple btw  but our harrier is no ordinary harrier


----------



## plan_D (May 24, 2004)

How did you manage to get the triple? How is our Harrier special, the American AV-8B (Which Carter tried to cancel) was superior to the original GR.3 Harriers, but the newest GR.7 Sea Harrier are the most advanced Harrier in the world.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 24, 2004)

I am not familiar with the GR.7, but the Harrier II Plus being used by the Marine Corp features the same APG-68 radar that is used on the F/A-18 Hornet. Among the most impressive capabilities that adds is the ability to fire AMRAAM missiles.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2004)

isn't the harrier the only brittish plane to be used by the americnas??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

plan_D, i mean my harrier, i aint uploaded the pics yet though


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

The only foreign aircraft in U.S service, that's why Carter tried to cancel it, because being arrogant, and thinking his country was superior, he thought they shouldn't have to use other countries planes, even his allies. 
The AV-8C (Harrier II plus) is the same as the RAF Harrier Gr.5 but with improved NV equipment. This said, the RAF Gr.7 is the same as Gr.5 but with improved avionics, and the same NV equipment as the AV-8C. In short, the GR.7 has improved avionics over the AV-8C.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

see? we do have a harrier 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

This better not become a lawnmower discussion. How old is that thing?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

no idea  15 years i think, dad says hes had it as long as weve lived here, which is 15 years  the speed limiter comes of, its a right hoot to mow the lawn with


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2004)

> This better not become a lawnmower discussion. How old is that thing?



surely that's inviting a conversation about it........................

and i wonder if that lawn mower can fly??


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 25, 2004)

I wasn't aware that the Gr.7 had a radar fitted.


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

Yes, the GR.7 has the exact same AN/APG-65 RADAR as the AV-8B (Harrier II Plus). In fact the GR.5 had that same RADAR, the GR.7 is a distinct improvment over them, replacing the AN/ALR-67 with Marconi Zeus ECM system, and replacing the GEC Cat's Eyes NVGs with Night-Owl NVGs. 
Many GR.5As were retrofitted to GR.7 standard, and now are the most advanced Harrier out there.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 26, 2004)

wow, what a lawnmower!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2004)

> I wasn't aware that the Gr.7 had a radar fitted.



i don't think there's any modern combat jets without radar, they're pretty useless without them.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

Several modern jets don't use radar (especially aircraft designed specifically for ground attack). The A-10, F-117, MiG-27, Su-25 all fulfill their missions very well without radar (and add the early versions of the Harrier to that list, though the Sea Harrier did carry radar).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2004)

i'm amazed the F-117 doesn't carry radar, are you sure??


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

Very sure, look at the nose of the F-117. Where would you put a radar?


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

They have tracking, and targeting systems, Lanc. Their RADAR is given to them by the AWACs, which are mainly Boeing E-3 Sentrys.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

They are equipped with IR looking forward and downward, and that works just fine for dropping bombs.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2004)

> AWACs



at the risk of sounding like brad, what does that mean??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 26, 2004)

im stumped too


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

Airborne Warning and Control System. Have you ever seen those planes with the huge thing on top like a mushroom, that's an AWAC the most widely used one is the E-3 Sentry.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

It functions as a command post in the sky providing information to friendly aircraft about the location of enemy fighters and directing other fighters to engage them.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

Flying high they rid the need for every aircraft to carry RADAR. Very effective aircraft, and one of, if not the most important aircraft in air battle. 
The Shackleton was used as an AWAC, the Nimrod was an AWAC, the Hawkeye is an AWAC. But as I said the E-3 Sentry, which is based off the 707 airframe is the mainstay AWAC of western forces.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

And as far as I know the Russian (and former Soviet States) AWAC is still the Tupolev Tu-126 'Moss'.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

No. The Russians have an updated version, the A-50 Mainstay. It is based off the same airframe as the Il-76 Candid transport.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

Yes, I forgot about that. The Il-76SK or A-50 'Mainstay. A strange looking monster, but I'm sure very effective.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

The Russians claim that it is able to detect stealth aircraft, but that may just be propaganda. I've never heard what range they are supposed to be able to detect a steath plane. If it is only 20 miles or so then that ability is not tha useful. Still, it offers the Russians a very big 'eye in the sky.'


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

I've heard that as well. They say that their supposedly obselete RADAR has less ground coverage but gives back more of a signature on planes, so they pick up F-117s. 
I heard the B-2 isn't stealth anyway, it just flies under the RADAR. You don't really know though because even though the wall has come down there's always bitterness and a sense of supremecy between East and West so there's so much propaganda.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

I don't know about the B-2 flying under the radar. When it was first developed it lacked the radar modes needed to make low-altitude navigation feasible.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 27, 2004)

i just thought it was designed to give a low radar signature??


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

It does. Recent software additions have allowed it to fly nap-of-the-earth if need be which should make it even harder to detect.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

That is what a Stealth is supposed to do, yes. I have seen, and read that the B-2s stealth capability isn't that great, so they just fly under the RADAR.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

I doubt it is as great as the F-117 or F-22 simply because of its size. That being said, I imagine it still has a smaller RCS that just about anything else out there.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 27, 2004)

> Recent software additions have allowed it to fly nap-of-the-earth if need be



what's nap-of-the-earth??


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

Flying very, very low. Taking advantage of the terrian by flying through valleys and along ridges as much as possible.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 28, 2004)

ah, i didn't think a B-2 would be able to do that??


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2004)

Why didn't you think it could? B-2s are very flat, and manuverable for something of their size. They can do it, and they do it. 
B-52s can do low level missions not as low as the B-2 but they can do them.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 28, 2004)

i would have thought the B-52 would be a bit sluggish??


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2004)

The B-52 is sluggish, this does not prevent it from doing low level missions. I've seen a B-52 flying pretty low, and they do it with ease.

You'd think the B-1 couldn't do it with its size, but you saw that pic of it water-skimming.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

actually i would have thought the B-1 would be manouverable.............


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2004)

It is more manouverable than the B-52. I was using its size as an example of size not restricted low level flight restrictions.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

the lanc was a suprising manouverable plane for it's size................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 29, 2004)

we all know that, youve said it about a million times


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

no need to take that tone we me, i was just making a point.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 29, 2004)

what tone?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

> we all know that, youve said it about a million times



that tone................


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2004)

Calm down, you two. 
You would be surprised by some aircraft of large size, that have outstanding maneuverablilty.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 29, 2004)

Is likes thats pics as lots. (Ss iss addeds tos thes ends ofs everys words)


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

wow, and you just shot down a plane


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

water skimming, sure.............

it's really got shot down and's ditching................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

no it hasnt, it doesnt have anything that says it been shot down on it  eg Engine: Inoperable; Fuel tank: leak


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

Maybe it has elevator, rudder or airelon damage.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

nope, it says that too if something happens.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

well it's oviously been doctered...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

i doubt it


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

it sooooooooo has..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

it hasnt, when you put auto pilot on it does do some pretty strange stuff


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

It's quite believable, after all it's only a computer game. I still find that B-1B picture impressive.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 30, 2004)

ah, so that's why you get shot down so much......................


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

Me? I never get shot down, I always try and show off and crash. Or I run into others while trying to shoot them down. I've only actually ever been shot down once, and that was by a Fw-190 that raped me while I was in a MiG-3.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2004)

sorry about that, i was replying to C.C., you must have just snuck in before me.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2004)

if you'd have gone back a page, you'd understand..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

i did, i still dont see the problem...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 1, 2004)

forget it.............

back to best fighters, which, in your opinions, was the best american fighter of the war..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 1, 2004)

P-38 Lightning. It was the only American fighter in service for the entire war, it was certainly the most versatile of the American planes, shot down more Japanese than anything else, and during the critical parts of the bomber offensive (1943 until D-Day) it was the only Allied fighter capable of providing cover over the targets.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 1, 2004)

i think that in terms of performance however the P-51 was the best??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

nope im in agreement with LG 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 1, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> no it hasnt, it doesnt have anything that says it been shot down on it  eg Engine: Inoperable; Fuel tank: leak



That's all right, but it would only say that for my plane (Fw-190 A-9 With 2 2xMg151 pods) in that run, not the B-17. Anywho, it was just banking. I had no hits on that plane as well. As you can see, i had no ammo (for the pods) but I was still closing in to finish him off with the fuselage guns. The reason the bloke is so low is because I started the mission at 100 meter altitude. (I think i still have the video...)


----------



## Erich (Jun 1, 2004)

Fantasy ? The Fw 190A-9 never had any underwing pods fitted.......


----------



## rcristi (Jun 1, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i think that in terms of performance however the P-51 was the best??



Nope, the TA 152 was the best.  

Cheers


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 1, 2004)

The Ta-152 waws hardly an American fighter. 

P-38L was faster than the P-51D above 15,000 ft and could outclimb/outdive it at any altitude. It also had an equal or better turning radius at any altitude. P-38L also had better range.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

and it was more american too


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2004)

It sure was, and it was really uneconomical like anything the Americans build. You can just tell it's American, I'm in agreement though the P-38 was the best American fighter. I think my second would be the P-47...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

im in agreement there too 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 2, 2004)

I would say the P-51D was better than most of the P-47s varients. The P-47M "Super T-bolt" had some great performance, if only it could have seen more action.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 2, 2004)

the P-47 sure was a hell of a suprise to both sides, the allies didn't ecpect a fighter almost twice the weight of the spit to perform that well, the germans just weren't expecting it altogether..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 2, 2004)

Ya'll probably won't like hearing this, but I know of instances where P-47s got the better of Spitfires in mock dogfights.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2004)

When you refer to the Spitfire refer to the mark, they were so different from the first to the last.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 2, 2004)

It was a Spit. Mk. IX. The P-47 was an early D model lacking water-injection or a paddleblade prop.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 3, 2004)

so if the P-47 had water injection and variable pitch prop it would have kicked the spit even more??.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 3, 2004)

most probably. apparently i america for 600 bucks you get to learn how to fly a plane and then laser dog fight someone, bargain if you ask me...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 3, 2004)

Yes it would have. With those modifications a P-47 could outclimb a Spit IX. I don't think it would have been enough to let a P-47 beat a Mk. XIV but the two planes were probably close enough the pilot skill and tactics became crucial.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 3, 2004)

I don't think a P-47D would have had the capability to force a Mk XIV into a tactics battle, the Mk. XIV would have simply out-classed it. The P-47N is a different matter but the Mk. XIV would have still been the superior plane of the two.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 3, 2004)

Oh don't tell me you are going to go to the outrun/outclimb bit now. If the Shiden could force a Corsair into combat, then a P-47D could certainly for a Mk. XIV Spit.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 4, 2004)

I said it couldn't force the Mk. XIV into a tactics battle, the Mk. XIV was just better. Anyway, the Corsair was better for the rookie than the Shiden. Surely though with the Hurricane as an inferior plane to the Bf-109E how come they shot so many down? The 109 could out-climb and out-dive the Hurricane but they still got shot down. 
You have to go into combat sometime.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 4, 2004)

well in the hands of a good pilot there's absolutely no reason why a hurricane can't take out a 109..............


----------



## plan_D (Jun 4, 2004)

That's the same principal surrounding our previous discussion about the Shiden and the Corsair on the Naval Thread.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 4, 2004)

I found something interesting in relation to that the other day. When designing the Zero, one 'faction' of the Imperial Navy wanted a fighter with more power and speed. Their reasoning was that a good pilot could make a sluggish plane handle better but no amount of pilot skill can make a slow plane go faster.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2004)

very true


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 6, 2004)

that's a fair point, but if the plane's sluggish even a good pilot would struggle to make it better..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 6, 2004)

Struggle, yes. But he IS NOT going to make a slow plane go faster. Physics just won't let him.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2004)

unless he bails out, that way the plane's ligher....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

but then he is not piloting the plane anymore.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 8, 2004)

And it poses very little threat to the enemy.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 8, 2004)

its also a waste of a perfectly good plane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2004)

he's made the plane go faster though........................


----------



## Capt. Scott Tailwheel (Nov 26, 2004)

I'm gonna vote for the Spitfire it just looks so darned sexy!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

good choise, any mark in particular??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

(Say late mark)


----------



## Capt. Scott Tailwheel (Nov 27, 2004)

Hmmm, They're all good after say the MK VIb, but I'd say the ultimate was the MKXXI Very sexy with the bubble canopy, although I'm somewhat partial to the 'malcolm hood' type of canopy.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 27, 2004)

Beauty!


----------



## Capt. Scott Tailwheel (Nov 27, 2004)

The clippped wing was very cool also. Hmm, so many I dont think there was really a bad Spitfire... But Kinda like them after the Mk IV. Seems like they kinda evolved at that point. Not that I'd turn down any...if someone were to want to donate one to me.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 27, 2004)

It's popularly held that 'the' definitive Spitfire was the Mk.IX, as it easily matched anything the Germans could throw at it at the time, and was second only to the Mk.V in terms of numbers produced. Of course, things only got better from there.

In terms of outward appearance, I like the looks of most of the later marks, with the tapered rudder and twin radiator baths. Malcolm hood or teardrop canopies look good, IMO.


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 27, 2004)

Now I could start a argument about the 110 being the best fighter again but i sharnt


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

Good


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 27, 2004)

Well just for you


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 27, 2004)

*The* Spitfire 8) 






Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Especially with that paint scheme 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)

dude that thing needs a good paint job............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

It looks great!


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 28, 2004)

Hi lanc , 
CC it's paint skeme is plain and boring


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)

yean needs some camo...........


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 28, 2004)

like a loverly german E-4 camo 8)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 28, 2004)

I think it looks great the way it is.
Very coooooooool! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Me too 8)


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 28, 2004)

Pffffffff


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)

yeah yeo, what do they know................


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 28, 2004)

Pffffffff?  

I think Yeoman spung a leak!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

I hope there was a bucket handy


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)

or teen movie style, a cup from which someone will inadvertanly drink from...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Hmmmmm, typical American film cliche...


Talking of films, I watched the first half of "Ultimate Films" lastnight, which is an official list of the 100 most watched films shown in Britain, and they said The Great Escape wasnt on the list  Dambusters was 86th.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)

quite supprised by that..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

About the great escape not being there? Hell im more than surprised, that films an institution...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)

well that and that the dambusters made it into the list ..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Why, Dambusters is a famous film...


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 28, 2004)

Nonskimmer said:


> Pffffffff?
> 
> I think Yeoman spung a leak!



Ok i have to admit that was quite agooden


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 28, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)




----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 29, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

Hey Yeo, did you know about this, the Bf-162? It was the intended Me-110 replacement (I think) And I reckon it looks much better


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 29, 2004)

it's cockpit looks like the mossie's...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

I just read it was actually a bomber that was nothing to do with the 110  My bad


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 29, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> Hey Yeo, did you know about this, the Bf-162? It was the intended Me-110 replacement (I think) And I reckon it looks much better



no i dont


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

You dont know about it or you dint think it looks better?


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 30, 2004)

I dont think it looks better , how dare you offend my 110


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

Im not offending it, I like the 110! 

You know the card game _Top Trumps_? Me and the lanc made a pack of our own about WW2 planes, I always win with the Me-110


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 30, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> Im not offending it, I like the 110!
> 
> You know the card game _Top Trumps_? Me and the lanc made a pack of our own about WW2 planes, I always win with the Me-110



Im only 14 and im afraid i dont now the card game top trumps but i suppose it has something to di with windy pops


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

God I wish


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 30, 2004)

well i suppose we could make a top trumps game about that as well..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

Cheddar Cheese:

Fart Frequency: 90%
Stench: Barely any to moderate
Sound: Extremely Quiet
Stench Radius: 1 metre


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 30, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 1, 2004)

that kind of thing, however i fell my card would be the worst in the pack..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 1, 2004)

Worst as in it would never win, or worst as in the farts are the worst?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 3, 2004)

as in it would never win.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 3, 2004)

No surprise there


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 6, 2004)

Yeomanz said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Yeo, did you know about this, the Bf-162? It was the intended Me-110 replacement (I think) And I reckon it looks much better
> ...




Here you go!

http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/messerschmitt/me162.htm


It's all in _Deutsch_, though.


----------



## Hot Space (Dec 7, 2004)

You're almost there, it was gonna be a Light Bomber Version of the 110:

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/bf162.html

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

Yeah I read about it a while back. 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 7, 2004)

it's stats aren't that impressive...............


----------



## Hot Space (Dec 7, 2004)

A bit of a donkey of a plane  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

I know but it looks good 8)


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 7, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i think that in terms of performance however the P-51 was the best??



In the words of Art Heiden who flew both the P-51 and the P-38 in combat " There's nothing a P-51 can do that a P-38L can't do better".

The P-38L flew further, climed 30% faster, flew higher, carried more, flew marginly faster and turned better. The P-38L also was more complicated to fly and cost more, for an average pilot the P-51 was easier to fly.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

But once the pilot was used to the P-38 it was a lethal machine.


----------



## Yeomanz (Dec 8, 2004)

ello i havent been around for a few days houw are you lot ?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 8, 2004)

depressed.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 8, 2004)

Why, has a mirror been installed somewhere near your computer? 

I am good Yeo, how are you? 8)


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 29, 2004)

wmaxt said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > i think that in terms of performance however the P-51 was the best??
> ...



1) Cruise at over 360 mph.

2) See the enemy first.

The P-51 was faster than the P-38, even the P-38L.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Dec 29, 2004)

That's a good, and cheap, one C.C - well done.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 29, 2004)

Why thankyou


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 29, 2004)

yes however you have used a similar theory for another joke so this one did not fulfill it's full potential..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 29, 2004)

Of course it did


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 29, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > the lancaster kicks ass said:
> ...



The P-51D was rated at 437 at optimum altitude, the P-38L could do 443 at it optimum altitude a small difference and not decisive in any case but it was there. I hate to admit it but a 5 mph speed difference could be due to waxing, poor maintenance or in the case of the Merlin worn cams of malfunctioning turbos.

As for seeing the enemy first I have to grant you there is more plane to look around on the P-38.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 29, 2004)

But once combat was engaged I would much rather be in the P-38L


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 29, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> But once combat was engaged I would much rather be in the P-38L



A Better point!


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 29, 2004)

The P-51 was a very capable plane capable of flying into Germany holding it's own and returning. When it arrived it had the following advantages: 

Politicaly correct timing of arrival
Training programs with combat experianced pilots
Cost in aquiring, maintaining and operating
Numbers 
A weakened enemy

It wasn't so much that the P-51 was the best plane but it had the timing to get credit it did not deserve.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 29, 2004)

Good point.


----------



## Hot Space (Dec 29, 2004)

Don't forget Spit XIV - just as good except range.

Hot Space


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 29, 2004)

Hot Space said:


> Don't forget Spit XIV - just as good except range.
> 
> Hot Space



Don't forget carrying capacity. That gave the P-38 a bit more flexibility.
The P-38 could take it to the enemy as far as 1,400 miles away fight on a minimum of equal 1 to 1 basis and come home. The next day the same plane can drop 4,000 to 5,200lbs of bombe/rockets on a target 450 to 500 miles away engage enemy fighters on an equal or better 1 to 1 basis and come home to do again the next day.

The Spit was great, as good as it gets, in it's sphere of duties and esp. as an interceptor and the P-38 was it's equal there too.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 29, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > the lancaster kicks ass said:
> ...



As to cruise a cruise is still optimum speed to get max range. I have seen the site you refered to, is there one with the same info on the P-38?

The closest I've seen was an account of some P-38s leaving Rumania doing a fast 'Cruise' at over 300mph, was only mentioned because the account was given by a pilot concerned his "one" engine might not be able to maintain the advanced throttle position for an extended time period. 

Based on other performance perameters there is no reason (beyond, possibly, the laminar flow wing) that there would be a substantial difference. The fuel load/distance per engine differnce is not great between the two planes. In fact max range fuel load is almost Identicleper engine: 

P-38L
55gal wing outboard
90gal main tank
40gal reserve
300gal max outboard
*485gal total
range 2,600mi

P-51D
190gal Main wing Might be 195gal?
85gal fusalage
216gal external
*491gal total 
Range 2,300mi

6 gallons More than the P-38, 300 miles less range.

These figures are normal figures not modified by Lindbergs methods assuming they would work similarly on both aircraft.

As shown above the P-51 had no magic formula to fly faster on less. I'm not able to compare your assumtion of range at throttle settings between cruise and METO.


----------



## Hot Space (Dec 29, 2004)

I think I might lose this one  

Hot Space


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 29, 2004)

wmaxt said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > wmaxt said:
> ...



Well, this is a problem that commonly occures when you mix sources. You're using the Lockheed "best performance" figure for the P-38L against the USAAF's published top speed figure for the P-51D. To be fair you have to compare same against same. The USAAF top speed figure for the P-38L is 414 mph @ ~25,000 feet, where the P-51's top speed figure is 437 mph @ ~25,000 feet.

The P-51D was about 3 mph slower than the P-51B, which has a USAAF published top speed of 440 mph. However, using the North American top speed figure changes the picture dramatically:

Report: NA-5798
Title: "Flight Test Performance for the P-51B-1
Date: January, 1944
Test Weight: 8,460 lbs
High Speed: 453 mph true airspeed at 28,800 feet at 67" HG and 1298 HP,
war emergency power, high blower, critical altitude.

So the P-51D should be about 450 mph, maybe a mph or two less because of the change in critical altitude from 28,800 to 25,600 feet.

This demonstrates the serious problem with comparing figures from different sources.

But again, the real issue is cruise speed. The P-51 could cruise in full auto-lean at speeds up to 395 mph (363 mph was a common fast cruise setting), which is more than 100 mph faster than the P-38 cruise.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 29, 2004)

Great Points LG..... 

There seems to be alot of direspect goin on here for the P-51D... Not a good thing.....

There was a reason why there were so many P-38's in the PTO..... Because they sucked in Europe..... Thats why they werent the dominant fighter...... Conditions and tactics did not favor the P-38's.....

I would rather be in a dogfight with a Bf-109G in a P-51D than a P-38L..... If it was combat with a Ki-84, Id pick the P-38L.....


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 29, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > RG_Lunatic said:
> ...



What load and trim was the test? Were there any modifications? This aircraft was also almost 3,000lbs less than normal max at 11,200lbs so this plane had min load that can add 10-12mph all by itself.

Mixed sources may be a problem however the Lockheed source also compares it with a P-51D which shows the normaly published speed of 437 for the P-51D as well as the 443 of the P-38L on identicaly set up aircraft with simulated amo load and half fuel. 

The 414 of the AAF posted number is METO not a fair comparison. The P-38L in equal trim is if not faster as shown still right there (indavidual planes could vary as much as 10mph). 

Should be isn't data. But the premis is logical.

As to cruise at higher speeds there is no reason to expect a signifigant difference in the two, since the P-38 is actualy more efficent at optimum cruise and other performance figures being as close as they are. Not having commonly published numbers does not mean not done or not possible. More data is needed here.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 29, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Great Points LG.....
> 
> There seems to be alot of direspect goin on here for the P-51D... Not a good thing.....
> 
> ...



There are many accounts of the P-38s out maneouvering German planes both 109s and 190s. The German planes used the split s on early model P-38s with inexperianced pilots with great effect (early P-38 pilots were afraid of compressibility and the orders were close escort in any case) at lower levels the German 109/190 needed a bounce or a lot less experianced or fuel limitated P-38 to have an even chance.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 29, 2004)

> There are many accounts of the P-38s out maneouvering German planes both 109s and 190s.


I suppose u think i havent actually read any of these accounts????? 



> There are many accounts of the P-38s out maneouvering German planes both 109s and 190s.


BTW, There are many accounts of Fw-190's and Bf-109's out maneouvering P-38's and P-51's.......



> at lower levels the German 109/190 needed a bounce or a lot less experianced or fuel limitated P-38 to have an even chance.


Dude, give me a break.... I guess all those 100 Kill Aces were crappin in their pants when combat went below 5,000 feet huh??? 

If #'s tell a tale, there were alot more P-38's falling down in flames from the cannon of Fw-190's than vice versa..... I dont seem to recall many aces in Europe flying the P-38.....


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 29, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> > There are many accounts of the P-38s out maneouvering German planes both 109s and 190s.
> 
> 
> I suppose u think i havent actually read any of these accounts?????
> ...



I went a little to far but the P-38 was very compettive. 

The loss rate was 1 P-38 to 4 experianced German planes by the way, but the P-38 was not a magnitude better. 

Some of the best accounts I've read are in this forum in the archives. One in particular was by the comander of the fighters on Sicily or Sardinia. 

I strongly belive that an experianced pilot in any top fifhter in WWII against an equal pilot could win any fight Including the bf-109, fw-190 ta-152, P-51, P-38, Spitfire, Tiffy and others.

Thanks for calling me on it, I do get wound up once in a while,


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 29, 2004)

Hehe.... Dont we all...


> The loss rate was 1 P-38 to 4 experianced German planes by the way


Are u telling me that the Lightning shot down 4 German planes to each -38 lost???

4:1?????

Are u sure thats not in the whole war???


----------



## redcoat (Dec 30, 2004)

wmaxt said:


> I went a little to far but the P-38 was very compettive.
> 
> The loss rate was 1 P-38 to 4 experianced German planes by the way, but the P-38 was not a magnitude better.



The official USAAF figures for the loss/kill rate of the P-38 in Europe is in fact 1.1:1
Shooting down 1,771 enemy aircraft for a loss of 1,758.

By late 44 all the P-38's in Fighters Groups in the 8th Air-force USAAF in NW Europe had been replaced by P-51's

In Europe the P-38 had major problems with its high altitude performance, and in Europe most of the air to air combat took place at high altitude


However if you look at the air-war in the East ( where most of the fighting took place at a lower altitude and against lower performance aircraft) the P-38 does have a very high kill to loss ratio.
In fact it was the highest scoring USAAF aircraft in this theater


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 30, 2004)

Thank You for confirming that redcoat.....


----------



## plan_D (Dec 30, 2004)

Randomly throwing the Spitfire in here, which got 8:1 kill ratio over the skies of Burma. That's right Maestro, the Mk. VIII!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 30, 2004)

Lets also randomly throw in the Brewster B-239 used by the Finns, which had a kill ration of 26:1, the highest of the war 8)


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 30, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Hehe.... Dont we all...
> 
> 
> > The loss rate was 1 P-38 to 4 experianced German planes by the way
> ...



Just to losses against German aircraft.

Just the ETO and the the majority of the P-38s sorties were close escort, against expert German pilots at 10-50/1 odds, while developing tactics and as you pointed out developing a plane ment to be an interceptor. Marten Cadin reported over 20+ Germans/1 P-38 the last 2 months of escort but everything was reversed by then and were talking 2 FGs?

It's been estimated that at least as many planes went down from bad fuel, thick oil from improper use of cowl flaps, the inovative wing intercoolers that sometimes separated the lead from the gas, and even frostbite as were lost to enemy fighters. The L models and to a lessor extent the late J models cured ALL that.

The kill numbers used by historians are 2,500+ in the ETO AND 5,730+ = 8,200+ FOR 10,000+/- p-38s built. And remember as many as 1/3 of it's sorties it was a bomber/attacker, when escorting was allways close escort with orders NOT to chase enemy aircraft and at least 1,400 were unarmed PR aircraft. It also set the 4/5% bomber loss rate with 5 F/G that the thousands of P-51s never improved on. 

That's why I think it was the best fighter in WWII - it could do the little things and the big thins against the odds and still get the job assigned done.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 30, 2004)

redcoat said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > I went a little to far but the P-38 was very compettive.
> ...



The official AAF records have been modified for political reasons droping 5,000 P-38 scores and 3,500 P-47 scores while ADDING some scores to the P-51 making the P-51 the best. Historians normaly give the P-38 2,500+in the ETO and 5,730+ in the PTO. The P-47 is normaly given 7,000+ for the war. The historicaly accepted numbers for the P-51 are 4,937 in the ETO, total for the was 5,932.  

4/1 still stands plane to plane in the ETO. As noted above it was better everywhere else.

The 1,758 is aircraft lost to ALL causes! more than half of those were lost to training and development causes not combat. Not a good feeling for a pilot!  

In 43 after the first round of disasterous bombing raids into Germany the questions arose in congress why were the bombers were not escorted. To Avoid a congressional investigation it was reported that NO fighter could do the job even though the P-38 was flying long range escort over to Italy from Africa. They also did the job in the ETO setting a 4/5% loss ratio the P-51s in their thousands never bettered! That's also why the "Official" posted top speed of the P-38L is 414mph they used METO not the 443 you get with WEP power settings.  

Following sources will help dispel many of the myths and show the truths (good and bad) about the P-38.
The web site "P38(C.C.Jordon)" explains the numbers. 
Marten Caiden in The Forke Tailed Devil: The P-38
Warren Bodie in his book on the P-38
Web page "p-38online"

Taking numbers out of contex is a bottomless trap.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 30, 2004)

It should also be noted that the P-38s in the 12th and 15th AFs dominated the same 109 and 190 competition they were facing in the ETO. 

As has been noted, even when factoring in the P-38s lost to all causes (which included a lot of mechanical failures and losses to ground fire) the P-38 still maintained a better than 1-1 kill ratio and that when the Luftwaffe was at top form. I've not heard the 4-1 ratio cited, but it would have been possible.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 31, 2004)

I thought the Hellcat had the best ratio in the war...or some Pacific fighter.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 31, 2004)

plan_D said:


> I thought the Hellcat had the best ratio in the war...or some Pacific fighter.



The Hellcat had a great kill ratio, I think it was highest too, and a lot of aircraft had a better ratio than the P-38. 

It should be taken into account that for much of the war the P-38 was on the short end when it came to numbers, experiance, tactics and support. Follow on aircraft benifitted greatly from the P-38s teething problems.

The 1:4 ratio can be found in the 'P-38(C.C.Jordon)' web page.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 31, 2004)

The P-38 is an interesting case, you never know when you pick up a reference wheather it will depict the plane as "Great" or "Mediocre"

Top speeds reported vary from 395 to 414 (a recent documentary cited 365) when it's 443, for the L model, with amo balast and half fuel @ WEP power. The aviation historians place its kills at 2,500+/5,730+ while the AAF uses 1,771/1,800 (picked up in this web page) a difference of almost 5,000 kills.

The best I can give is check it out and decide for yourself. The following sites/books have tried to present up to date truthful, data, both good and bad.

web pages
The P-38online 
p-38(C.C.Jordon) 
Planes and Pilots of WWII 

Flight journel Magazine article by Jeff Ethel on the P-38

books
The Forked Taile Devil the P-38 by Martin Caiden
The P-38 by Warren Bodie

It was an amazing plane for it's time.


----------



## Erich (Dec 31, 2004)

you silly guys...........catch me if you can !


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2004)

sure, anytime..............


----------



## Erich (Dec 31, 2004)

no way and this flew operational during the war correct over the skies of Germany ?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2004)

does that post make any sence to anyone else??


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 31, 2004)

He's asking if that thing actually flew operationally during the war.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 31, 2004)

Which it didnt.....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 31, 2004)

I didn't think so.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2004)

ah but it was almost a WWII aircraft, and when you challenged people to chase you you never specified a time period the aircraft used had to be from


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 31, 2004)

This is true..... But if thats the case, post a pic of a Mig-25 Foxbat then.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2004)

why not an SR-71??

i wanted to keep it close to WWII................

and it's british................


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 31, 2004)

Lets keep it in the fighter class ok???


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2004)

the whirlwind was a fighter................


----------



## Erich (Dec 31, 2004)

I was keeping it to WW 2 class fighters. Nothing could touch the Ta 152H-1 .............

ok let the comments fly ..................

back later 8)


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 31, 2004)

Erich, at what altitude are we talking here?????


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 31, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> why not an SR-71??
> 
> i wanted to keep it close to WWII................
> 
> and it's british................



The YF-12A was a fighter version of the SR-71. Only 3 were built they weren't very practicle at 80,000ft going Mach 3+ the turn radius was several hundred miles - not much for ACM.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 31, 2004)

I'm sure the sheer cost may have had something to do with it, as well!


----------



## Erich (Dec 31, 2004)

30,000 feet upwards to 42,000. It would be a total what-if of course 8)


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 31, 2004)

At that altitude, during WWII, I totally agree with u.....


----------



## Erich (Dec 31, 2004)

the Tank was suppose to be the answer to the P-51D and K but it never flew ops with(against them). Remember the Dora was suppose to be a short term remedy

Claes Sundin supplies the profile, green 4


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 1, 2005)

so was the spit Mk.IX but look what happend there.................


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 1, 2005)

I must make a correction of a post I made a earlier. The fuel tank sizes of the tanks in the P-38 are as follows:

P-38
Main *90gal*
reserve *60gal* - the 40gal I used was on a restored aircraft and was smaller than normal.
outboard wing *55gal* - though some were reported at 62gal
Drop tank *300gal*
*Total w/55gal wing - 505gal* Range 2,600mi

P-51
Main *195gal*
Fusalage *85gal*
Drop tanks *216gal*
*Total 496gal* Range 2,300

Difference 9gal and 300mi for the P-38

This works out to:
P-38 w/55gal w/tanks @ 2,600mi = 5.15mpg/per engine
P-38 w/62gal w/tanks @ 2,600mi = 5.1mpg/per engine
P-51 @ 2,300mi = 4.63mpg

One advantage the P-51 does have is that it carries 56% of it's fuel internaly while the P-38 carries 41% internaly. That 10% at the very end of a combat mission must have been uncomfortable. The last mission of the war on Aug 15, 45 over Borneo by P-38s was reported to have been 2,800mi!  

My contention that fuel effecincy is about equal still exists, sorry if I misled anyone.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 1, 2005)

I believe those numbers are not exactly correct. The actual fuel capacity of the main tanks on the P-38 were 93 gallons. Outer wing tanks held 62 gallons in the L models. Also, the external tanks had a true capacity of 310 gallons though they were often referred to as 300 gallon tanks. Milo Burcham demonstrated a ferry range of better than 3,000 miles for an early model P-38s. Late war F-5Gs were supposed to have been capable of actual missions covering 3,500miles.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 2, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> I must make a correction of a post I made a earlier. The fuel tank sizes of the tanks in the P-38 are as follows:
> 
> P-38
> Main *90gal*
> ...



P-51D max. range is listed as 2440 miles at "most economical cruise", with one hour of reserve (add another 400 miles).

It should also be noted that anything over about 40% of the fuel being carried in drop tanks does not really equate to "combat range", because if the plane flies the drop tanks dry to reach the target it cannot make it home, and you have to figure at least 10 mins (lets say 20% for the P-38L) of the internal fuel must be used for combat. Anything beyond about 40% (at these quantities, less for smaller interal fuel loads) of the fuel being in external tanks increases patrol time or ferry range, but not mission range.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 2, 2005)

The Dodge Viper of fighters...













Fast, simple, extremely powerful, beautiful, horrible at turning, and they both have HUGE engines, as evidenced by the last picture...


BRUTAL.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 2, 2005)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> The Dodge Viper of fighters...
> 
> Fast, simple, extremely powerful, beautiful, horrible at turning, and they both have HUGE engines, as evidenced by the last picture...BRUTAL.



Actually, I thought the Viper handled much better than I expected on real roads. The Corvette Z06 was a little better, but not as much as I expected.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Yeomanz (Jan 2, 2005)

I wonder what would happen if that engine came on all of a sudden


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 2, 2005)

Then GRG would be a little crispy. What was left of him, that is.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 2, 2005)

The Tumansky engines in the Foxbat were notoriously unreliable.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 2, 2005)

From what I've gathered, that's a problem that's long plagued Soviet/Russian aircraft.


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 2, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> I believe those numbers are not exactly correct. The actual fuel capacity of the main tanks on the P-38 were 93 gallons. Outer wing tanks held 62 gallons in the L models. Also, the external tanks had a true capacity of 310 gallons though they were often referred to as 300 gallon tanks. Milo Burcham demonstrated a ferry range of better than 3,000 miles for an early model P-38s. Late war F-5Gs were supposed to have been capable of actual missions covering 3,500miles.



Tour Preaching to the choir!  

I've seen those numbers, both sets, I tried to use the "normaly accepted numbers" for a comparison of relative efficency of the two aircraft in normal operation. Both the 55gal and the 62gal outer wing tanks are cited so I used both.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 2, 2005)

I thought it might be of interest to everyone to read the Clay Tice story. Tice was the first person to land in Japan. He did so in a P-38L. He states in his report that they were carrying over 700 gallons in a single 310 gallon ferry tank on the left pylon as well as leading edge slipper tanks in addition to internal fuel. On the right pylon was a single 1000lb GP bomb!

http://www.aerofiles.com/tice.html


----------



## wmaxt (Jan 2, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> I thought it might be of interest to everyone to read the Clay Tice story. Tice was the first person to land in Japan. He did so in a P-38L. He states in his report that they were carrying over 700 gallons in a single 310 gallon ferry tank on the left pylon as well as leading edge slipper tanks in addition to internal fuel. On the right pylon was a single 1000lb GP bomb!
> 
> http://www.aerofiles.com/tice.html



Great story I haven't seen it before. Thanks.

The 700+ gallons, I'm sure, is full internal fuel 424gal + 1ea 300/310 in the drop tank and 1 large (up to 2,000lb bomb). This is a standard load out for a long range strike mission. With this loadout the P-38 was more than capable of this range.

The wing tanks he refered to are the wing leading edge tanks (internal) 62gal sometimes refered to as "Tokio Tanks".


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 2, 2005)

evangilder said:


> The Tumansky engines in the Foxbat were notoriously unreliable.



Just a very quick aside about the Foxbat and the incident when a Soviet pilot defected to Japan - bringing with him a Mig-25......

Lt. Viktor Belenko's defection to the West gave the United States the opportunity to closely examine the Mig-25. The aircraft was completely dismantled and then carefully inspected by aviation scientists and engineers from both Japan and the United States. Upon dismantling the Mig-25, the data was analyzed by the Foreign Technology Division of the Air Force at Dayton, Ohio. 

_"My God! Look what this thing is made of! Why, the dumb bastards don't have transistors; they're still using vacuum tubes! These engines are monsters! Maybe the Sovs have a separate refinery for each plane! Jesus! See these rivet heads sticking out, and look at that welding! They did it by hand! Hell, the pilot can't see a thing unless it's practically in front of him! This contraption isn't an airplane; it's a rocket! Hey, see what they've done here! How clever! They were able to use aluminum! Why didn't we ever think of that? How ingenious! It's brilliant!"--- _ 

MiG Pilot : The Final Escape of Lieutenant Belenko 

On November 12, 1976, sixty-seven days after the defection of Belenko and his Mig-25 to the West, the United States and Japan returned the Mig-25 to Russia...in dismantled pieces!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2005)

that's a good story


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 2, 2005)




----------



## wmaxt (Jan 2, 2005)

Medvedya said:


> evangilder said:
> 
> 
> > The Tumansky engines in the Foxbat were notoriously unreliable.
> ...



There's one Soviet plane an early Yak jet that was smuggled out of Romania or Hungary or one of the satelite countries in that region. Anyway, it was smuggled out assembled (it started out crated) tested, dismanteled to the last rivet rebuilt and sent back. Nobody knew about the incident until the freedom of information act released the paperwork.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 2, 2005)




----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 2, 2005)

I hope for their sake, the guards of the time had long since covered their tracks! Try explaining _that_ to the local Commissar!


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 2, 2005)

Yes, that holiday on the Black Sea would be at great risk I'd say.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 2, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> GermansRGeniuses said:
> 
> 
> > The Dodge Viper of fighters...
> ...




I actually mean the first generation, but if that's the one you drove, then...


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 2, 2005)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > GermansRGeniuses said:
> ...



I got to drive the 2003 Viper, Z06 Corvette, and Porche 911 summer before last. All were less than 6 months old at that time. On the street (La Jolla CA, a suburb of San Diego), the Vette seemed the fastest by a hair, but the Porche felt smoother.

Note: The Vette has since been returned under the lemon law for a #8 cylinder noise problem GM refused to fix.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 2, 2005)

I don't believe I have seen any source that has published the 93 gallon figure for the main tanks on the P-38. Interestingly, however, close examination of cockpit photos list 'Main 93 Gallons' as one of the options on the tank selector switch.


----------



## R Pope (Jan 9, 2005)

Guys-- two squadrons of Whirlwinds were used in 1942-43 on offensive fighter sweeps over Europe. The Peregrine engines were not used on any other production type, so they were dropped. The pilots called for reinstating production to replace losses, but they were ignored. One of Britain's major goofs. Would have been a world-beater with Merlins! But it was a "real" WW2 fighter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2005)

I think it would have been a better ground attack aircraft than a fighter.



> The Westland Whirlwind
> 
> Summary
> 
> ...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 13, 2005)

The Whirlwind had a number of detail problems in its design. For example, there was no way to transfer fuel to either engine. Fuel load and ammo load were both relatively low. There was no provision for carrying external fuel. And the idea of a Merlin powered Whirlwind is not as simple as it sounds. The Merlin was much larger than the Peregrine and the Whirlwind would have required considerable increases in structural strength to hold the engines and increases in control surface area to handle to increased power. It would have made more sense for the RAF to expirement with Merlins in a P-322.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 13, 2005)

Besides that, there were pleanty of established planes needing the Merlin, and of course the Lancaster too.

The decision to switch to the Merlin on the P-51, rather than the Continental Hyper-Engine, was largely due to the desire to produce the Packard Merlin for export to the British. Packard Merlins were used in the Spit XVI (otherwise nearly identical to the Spit IX) and the Lancaster as well as a few other planes.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

The Merlin was a great engine that is why it was used in so many aircraft.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 13, 2005)

I personally prefer the radial engines, but the Merlin was an awesome, proven engine. It was the best inline the allies had, IMO.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

For performance I prefer the radial engines. However for looks I like the inline engines. I think it kept the aircraft more streamlined and better looking like the Spitfire, P-51, and Me-109's.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 13, 2005)

Definitely a matter of personal taste. But I agree that the above names planes would not look as good with a big radial in the front.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Yeah it is just personal taste. I do like radials though for there performance. Can you imagine what a Zero or Fw-190 would look like with an inline engine. Definatly would change things.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 13, 2005)

Isn't the TA-152 basically an FW-190 with an inline? It is hard to imagine a Zero like that though.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 13, 2005)

The Dora series of the FW-190 was inline, too. The type of radiator arrangement is what gave it that radial look.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

Personally I prefer the radial look, but I think the Allison inlines had a certain style to em 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

I will admit the Dora with the inline looks better than the Fw-190A (this is purely my opionion) but I dont think the Fw-190A would be the Fw-190A if it had an inline. I would just not think of it like I do today. And yes the Ta-152 design was based off of the Fw-190 and had an inline engine infact the same engine that was in the Fw-190D.



> POWERPLANT:
> Model: Junkers Jumo 213E-1 Number: One
> Type: 12-cylinder inverted Vee,liquid cooled with
> MW-50 injection and GM-1 boosting
> ...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

I thought the -152 was much more powerful than that?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

It was still quite powerful. You have to take into account weight, wing load ratio, and stuff like that. An aircraft with the same engine could be slower or faster, climb higher or climb less and so forth depending on its other characteristics. You also have to remember that it was designed to perform the best at High Altitudes. At lower altitudes it was less effective and at higher it was more efficient.

PERFORMANCE:
Maximum speed:
695km/h (431mph) at 10,500m (34,451 ft.)
750km/h (466mph) at 9,000m (29,529 ft.) with MW-50
760km/h (472mph) at 12,500m (41,012 ft.) with MW-50 and GM-1
Climb rate: 1000m/minute
Ceiling: 14,800m (48,560 ft.)
Range (Internal fuel): 1200km (745 Miles)


----------



## evangilder (Jan 13, 2005)

I always thought the TA-152 looked like they had taken a 190 and pulled it from each end to stretch it long and thin.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

I like it. I like to fly it on FB as well...just because it looks "OUT THERE" with stupidly long wings... 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Yeah it does look like that. It seems more slender and longer. And I guess you can say they did.

Fw-190A
Dimensions:
Wing span: 10.5m (34 ft. 5½ in.)
Wing Surface Area: 18.3 sq. m (197 sq. ft.)
Length: 9.00m (29 ft. 6 in.)
Height: 3.96m (13ft.)
Stabilizer Span: 3,650mm (11 ft. 11¾ in.)
Wheel Track: 3,500mm (11 ft. 5¾ in.)
Weights: 
Empty: 3,060kg (6,750 lbs.)
Gross: 4,865kg (10,725 lbs.)

Ta-152
DIMENSIONS:
Wing Span: 14.5m (47 ft. 6¾ in.)
Wing Area: 23.5m² (252.95 Sq. Ft.)
Length: 10.8m (35ft 5¼ in.)
Height: 4m (13 ft. 1.5 in.)
Wheel Track: 3.95m (12 ft. 11 in.)
Stabilizer Span: N/A
WEIGHTS:
Empty: 3,600kg (7,940 lbs.)
Loaded: 5,500kg (12,125 lbs.)


----------



## evangilder (Jan 13, 2005)

Put eet on ze rack, ve vill stretch zees fighter until eet performs...Ve haf vays!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I like it. I like to fly it on FB as well...just because it looks "OUT THERE" with stupidly long wings... 8)



I agree and I think it was a pretty nice looking aircaft also.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

I think the D looked then best, followed by the A and then the Ta-152. Im not a fan of its looks.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Nice impression there, evan. That is probably the exact words of Kurt Tank.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Oh I think the Dora was the sweetest. She was marvelous as you British chaps would say.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

No, we British would say it was the "Fuck-in' dogs bollocks, mate!"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Good stuff. I love the way you guys speak. Especially your women. I remember when I was dating this girl named Jade. She lived in Little Stoke (i probably butchered the spelling, please forgive me) But anyhow when she spoke it was such a turn on. Too bad it was too expensive to fly every 2 weeks to England from Germany to see her.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

Not heard the Cornish accent then Adler?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

No proabably not.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Oh god, all the Jades I know are dirty ho bags...skag is more important than water to them...I hate them, "Got 20 p mate"..."No I haven't so FUCK OFF!"


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

Youre very lucky then...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Naw she was a great gal.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

I'm sure she was, it's just that name...Jade...also girls named Chelsea...the vast majority are skag rats.


----------



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

and there's nothing wrong with the cornish accent.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

I never said there was.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Oh! Your sig reminds me, lanc. I saw this 'documentary' on great battleships the other day on UKTV History...and it said the USS...erm, Iowa? (Was there an Iowa in the Iowa class?)...I think it was USS Iowa...sank the Tirpitz in the atlantic in a one on one duel.    

But then, the SAME programme claimed the H.M.S Conqueror fired two torps at the Bel Grano (Sp?) in the Falklands and both hit, when in FACT they fired three and the first missed.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

Bloody Hell


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Yeah, it also claimed Admiral Marner (was it Marner, began with M anyway) of the US Navy created the idea that Navies were the first line of defence...not like the Royal Navy had been known as Britains' first line of defence for centuries or anything.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Woah what kind of show was this. The Tirpitz was not sunk by a US ship.



> In late September 1943, a British midget submarine raid planted explosives near Tirpitz, causing serious shock damage when they exploded. In February 1944, while she was under repair, the German battleship was the target of a raid by Soviet bombers that produced one near-miss. In early April, as her repairs were completing, Tirpitz was attacked by British carrier-based planes, receiving several hits and serious damage and casualties. Further repairs lasted until June, and she was again attacked by British planes in July and August, though the resulting damage was not serious. In mid-September, she was hit in the bow by very heavy bombs dropped by Royal Air Force heavy bombers. Moved to Tromsø in October, she was the target of further raids. Finally, on 12 November, Tirpitz was hit and near-missed by several very heavy bombs, causing massive damage. She listed heavily, suffered an ammunition explosion and rolled over. Her wreck was largely scrapped in place after the war.
> http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/germany/gersh-t/tirpitz.htm


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

Stupid or what....


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

I know how the Tirpitz was sunk, that's why I mentioned the crap 'documentary' it was Lancs with 13, 200 lb Tallboys that sunk it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Yeah I agree, must have been directed by an American.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Well, it was a lot in Americas favour. The only good thing was the footage, it has some sweet footage of the Iowa and New Jersey. Also a few good ones of the Bismarck, plus some World War I footage from Jutland.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I know how the Tirpitz was sunk, that's why I mentioned the crap 'documentary' it was Lancs with 13, 200 lb Tallboys that sunk it.



No I was not saying that you said it was sunk by an American ship, I was wondering what kind of show it was to say that.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

It was a, as we British put it, a dog wank show. Yeah, it said the USS Iowa sank it while it was raiding ships in the Atlantic. 

A) The Tirpitz never left the North Sea because the Royal Commandos blew up St. Nazaire
B) The British blew up the Tirpitz
C) NO!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

It never made it out of Norway.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

That's the North Sea...well, it leads straight into the North Sea.


----------



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

and after the first time it was damaged by 12,000lb tallboys (not sure where you got the figure 13,200 from Plan_D??) it was never going to, although we didn't know that...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Well either way it never really was a factor and had really no effect on the Germans winning the war. Hitler was too scared to committ it into combat.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

We had this discussion about the 13,200 or 12,000 figure before...and it was in the same talk that involved how many tallboys were dropped


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

Meet in the middle and say 12,600lbs...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

It was 12,000lb



> Tallboy and Earthquake Deep Penetration Bombs
> These massive bombs designed by Dr. Barnes Wallis came near the speed of sound during descent being streamlined and equipped with angled fins that produced spin. Penetrating the ground before exploding they worked by setting off shock waves that would bring down nearby structures. The 12,000 lb (5443 kg) Tallboy dropped from 20,000 ft (6096m) made a 80 ft (24m) deep crater 100 ft (30m) across and could go through 16 ft (4.88m) of concrete. On June 8-9, 1944 eight Lancaster bombers of No. 617 Squadron used the deep penetration Tallboy bomb in an attack against the Saumur Rail Tunnel. The new weapon proved its worth but at the cost of losing 5 of the 8 bombers on this mission. Eventually 854 Tallboy bombs were used, the most note-worthy mission resulting in the destruction of the battleship Tirpitz. The Grand Slam (Earthquake) bomb was of the same design as the Tallboy but larger and heavier weighing 22,000 lb (9972 kg.) The Grand Slam was first used on March 14, 1945 when a force of Lancaster bombers led by Royal Air Force Squadron Leader C.C. Calder attacked the Bielefeld railway viaduct destroying two spans. In another attack against submarine pens near Bremen two Grand Slams pentrated over 7m (23 ft) of reinforced concrete before exploding causing the collapse of the entire concrete ceiling. 41 Grand Slam Bombs were dropped by the end of the war mainly against bridges and viaducts.
> 
> Name: Tallboy
> ...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 13, 2005)

I always thought it was 12,000lbs...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

If I find that place that said 13,200 lbs...I'll just quote that so...nah nah nah...  I'll stop, fine it's 12,000 lbs.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

I might be wrong but everyplace I have found says 12000lb.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

I'm going to be sensible and say, the place that said 13,200 lbs was wrong.


----------



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

yes it was 12,000lbs, and my word is god..............


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Is that like word of the day? week? or what?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Its the word of God!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Does he only have one word?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

You cant hear it! Your ears would burst!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

I see...what's the point in the word then?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2005)

I dont know but has really anything we have said lately made any sense?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2005)

Possibly. It might....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 14, 2005)

Makes sense to me but thats not really saying much.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2005)

I am sort of lost where this convo is going anyhow.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 14, 2005)

I don't think your alone


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2005)

I hope not.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2005)

What? The conversation is going somewhere, I assure you.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 14, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I thought the -152 was much more powerful than that?



The TA's had a more effective supercharger (3 speeds I believe), and had NO2 injection for high altitude performance.

However, i believe in fact the NO2 injection was not installed on most service TA-152's.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 14, 2005)

Not many 152's saw service in the first place i think...as little as 12 I think, but im not sure.


----------



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

and that conversation was very valid and did have a point, and that's the word of god............


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2005)

I thought he only had one word. There's been two points now that have been the words of god, it's all wrong.


----------



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

it's the word of god, it can change if it wants...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 14, 2005)

God Shmod...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Not many 152's saw service in the first place i think...as little as 12 I think, but im not sure.



I am not sure how many it was but I know it was not many infact I have not seen an accurat account of how many were actually built.


----------



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

again, not many.............


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 15, 2005)

I've researched this quite a bit. From recall...

There were about 150 werknumbers assigned as TA152's (of all types) and Dora's beyond the Dora9 series.

There were about 75 airframes completed, including prototypes and pre-production combat planes (~20).

About 55 airframes were delivered.

About 30-55 saw combat.

Maximum strength was never more than about 20-25, typical strength was less than half that (it was a high maintanence plane).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 16, 2005)

As CC said above......


> Not many 152's saw service in the first place i think...as little as 12 I think, but im not sure.


Guess he was right on the money....

Ur # of aircraft manufactured tho is incorrect..... There were 26 prototypes and 67 pre-production and production Ta-152's manufactured before the end of the war, for a total of 93 airframes....

This comes from The Encyclopedia of Aircraft of WWII, by Paul Eden, 2004....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2005)

Still not too many and I can believe that it was a high maintenance aircraft.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 16, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> As CC said above......
> 
> 
> > Not many 152's saw service in the first place i think...as little as 12 I think, but im not sure.
> ...



I've seen lots of different figures for this plane from a variety of "reputable" sources. The numbers I gave were approximate. The 55 planes delivered figure sticks in my mind as having been pretty solid across many sources, and about 35 actual operational is the lowest figure I've seen.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 16, 2005)

Whatever the specific number, it was rather low.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 17, 2005)

Yup.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2005)

Yessum


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 17, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Whatever the specific number, it was rather low.



Yep. At the same time, there were a couple of P-51H's flying. So if we're comparing technology, the and the Ta152 is being considered, so should the P-51H. Had the war been going differently, the P-51H would certainly have been deployed. As it was, there simply was no pressing need to do so, and the logistics of doing so were deemed not worth the effort.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2005)

Yes the P-51H certainly would have been better then the Ta-152 but at the same time Germans would have countered it with a better version of the Ta-152. The whole thing between the Luftwaffe and the Allies was a cat and mouse game each getting the edge over the other and it would go back and forth.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 17, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes the P-51H certainly would have been better then the Ta-152 but at the same time Germans would have countered it with a better version of the Ta-152. The whole thing between the Luftwaffe and the Allies was a cat and mouse game each getting the edge over the other and it would go back and forth.



I agree it was point-counter-point. But I don't agree the German's would simply have produced a better Ta152. That plane already had their technology streached to its limits. A hypothetical Griffon powered P-51 might have been even superior to the P-51H, but there was no better/bigger engine available for the Ta152.

However, after these prop fighters I really think there was little future for either country. Both were turning to the jet.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2005)

I will agree that both were turning to the jet but I dont think Ta-152 was stretched to its limits, they easily could have designed more powerful engines and made the aircraft better than it already was, but again there was no time for that.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 17, 2005)

RG is right, the question of Ta-152 vs. P-51H is nothing more the academic. The future of the airwar (had there been one) would have been decided by the match-up of the Me-262 vs. the Meteor or P-80.

And as far as the P-51H goes, I never really liked it. The raised cockpit seemed to spoil the lines of a classic fighter. Of course, my objection is purely asthetic.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 18, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I will agree that both were turning to the jet but I dont think Ta-152 was stretched to its limits, they easily could have designed more powerful engines and made the aircraft better than it already was, but again there was no time for that.



Actually I don't see they were going to develop better piston engines. They'd already gone as far as cast head technology could take them in radials, and they had tried for years and failed to produce a working turbo-supercharger. Every other aspect of engine design they'd alredy peaked in (mostly how to fuel inject an engine and NO2 boost). They were far from being able to make forged heads and having the machine tools to work them, so how were they going to produce more powerful engines?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2005)

Again the Germans were very capable of coming up with new designs and machine tools. Please dont misunderstand me you say that the Germans were not capable of making machine tools, they too could have they were not stupid people. But I do agree that they were going to the Jets and it would not have been decided by the P-51H and the Ta-152.


----------



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

had the germans continued developing their jets i feel they would quickly out do us brits until the late 40's/early 50's.............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2005)

There designs were already years ahead of everyone else, but lets wait and see what RG_Lunatic will say about that I am sure he thinks us fools for believing that.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 18, 2005)

They wouldn't have out-done Britain on jet engines. We had the most powerful engine in the world, in the Nene. And we were making more and more powerful engines.


----------



## Udet (Jan 18, 2005)

Der Adler:

You are right. It appears like some guys here render the Germans uncapable of producing cutting edge tools and equipment.

A very bizarre behavior, since Germany produced a good deal of toys which played an ultimate influence in weapon development in the post war era. 

Gentlemen: German engineering is German engineering.

Lunatic: with all due respect, you appear to have issues with the Ta 152 and, globally speaking, with everything that is German. On what bloody grounds do you affirm the Germans could have not developed more powerful engines?


Why don´t you speak about the Long Nose Fw 190-D? Are you going to say it was "no match" for the P-51 or for any of the other toys fielded by the RAF and USAAF?

Unlike the Ta152, which did not see service in large numbers simply due to the overall circumstances of the war -the end was coming-, the Doras saw service in far bigger numbers and proved to be one of the very best fighters of the war, providing the Fw190 fighter with superb high altitude performance which the Butcher Bird certainly did not have.

Plan_D: "you" had the most powerful engine of the world? (what do you mean with "we"? were you there?)
I am sure your assertion demands a closer scrutiny and you might well be shocked to know you are not correct.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 18, 2005)

Being British I can take pride in the amazing engineering nation this once was, so we, yes. And you need to take your head from out of your ass, and look at the Rolls Royce Nene engine, October 1944 - 5000 lbs thrust. The most powerful engine in the War. The Germans were lucky to achieve 3000 lbs thrust, the Americans were in a close second with engines reaching 4600 lbs thrust.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 18, 2005)

> And you need to take your head from out of your ass


Easy dude..... Drop the knife and step back slowly.......


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 18, 2005)

"Bad boys, bad boys. Whatcha gonna do..."


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 18, 2005)

Udet said:


> Lunatic: with all due respect, you appear to have issues with the Ta 152 and, globally speaking, with everything that is German. On what bloody grounds do you affirm the Germans could have not developed more powerful engines?





DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Again the Germans were very capable of coming up with new designs and machine tools. Please dont misunderstand me you say that the Germans were not capable of making machine tools, they too could have they were not stupid people. But I do agree that they were going to the Jets and it would not have been decided by the P-51H and the Ta-152.



Ahh... but they didn't.

If you study the history of machine tool development you will find there was a diversion between those of Europe and those of America dating back to the end of the 18th century. After the Revolution, Britain maintained an embargo against the former Colonies, and this especially included machine tools.

Europe's machine tools dated back to the 14th century or even earlier, and had progressed in a steady evolution along the lines of what were known as "shaper" tools. Basically these were huge grinders involving very large moving parts, often a large spinning wheel or a table moving back and forth under water, and later steam, power. These tools were capable of creating very intricate designs, but relied heavily on the skill of the operator. The very nature of the European crafts guilds was such that they had a vested interest in this kind of labor/skill intensive machining, and this remained the way things were done right through WWI.

In America however, they had to improvise. There were very very few European machine tools in America, and even fewer skilled craftsmen able to really work them. As a result, new types machines were developed, especially in the 19th century, first to accomodate the railway boom and then the Civil War. The milling machine was invented in the USA, a much smaller tool than European shaping tools, and able to do complex machining using a series of jigs and patterns greatly reducing the skill required of the operators. This progressed into the automated industrial tools used by Ford and other American factories. Europe did not have this kind of industrial process, it was much more craftsmen than machine tool oriented. As a result, European craftsmenship of complex items such as automobiles was generally considerably better than most American craftsmenship of such items, but American quality of mass produced items was better than that of Europe. European items such as guns generally didn't enjoy the degree of parts interchangability that American guns did - ie: each gun had to be individually fitted, you could not take a part from another "identical" gun and exchange it without substantial work to fit it to the rest of the unit.

In the early 20th century, America enjoyed an instrial boom that Europe did not really share. Heavy industry made huge gains, especially the rail and ship-building industries. American automated machine tools of mass production, already ahead of those of Europe, advanced considerably during this time.

So when WWII came along, the Germans lacked the machine tool technology available in the USA (and by export to Britain). They were several generations behind in milling machines, and lacked a sophisticated automated large scale milling machine. They had no automated centerless grinders. They had no gang-of-saws machines. All these and many other machining tasks were undertaken by crews of skilled craftsmen.

But craftsmen simply cannot do some of the things that these tools could do. For instance, the Napier Sabre engine only became mass produceable when three Thompson automated centerless grinders capable of making oblong parts to better than 1/10,000th of an inch accuracy were provided by the USA (much to Pratt&Whitney's chigrin since they had funded their development, and the diversion of the first three grinders delayed the R-2800(c) by several months). As we know, Germany was never able to mass produce turbines of sufficient balance and quality to supply their jet engine program (which required 10,000 rpm turbines) or to make a workable turbo-supercharger at all (this required 25,000 rpm turbines). They were never able to make forged cylinder heads with 5" deep fins cut at 1/8th inch spacings as found on the R-2800(c) engines, work that is virtually impossible to accomplish in any quantity of production with power files, no matter how skilled the craftsmen, but which could be done on the production line in seconds by the new "gang-of-saws" machine tools.

The development of these kinds of tools was an evolutionary process and required decades to accomplish. Germany was not going to develop them over night to make a better engine for the Ta152. This is why the American (and British) aircraft industry was still focusing on increasing the basic power output of their engines, Germany had turned to tricks like MW50 and GM1 to achieve more power. The problem with that is that MW50 was quickly copied by the Allies, but the German's could not so easily steal the Allied innovations.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 18, 2005)

Udet said:


> Why don´t you speak about the Long Nose Fw 190-D? Are you going to say it was "no match" for the P-51 or for any of the other toys fielded by the RAF and USAAF?



No, it was a very good fighter. But really the Spit XIV was at least as good in almost every catagory of performance. The P-51D sacrificed a lot of outright fighter preformance for its much superior range, and still it was a match for the Dora9. For a fair interceptor comparision, you have to consider something like a P-51H but with a -7 engine in it, which would have out-performed the Dora9 substantially.

Also, the Dora9 was hard/expensive to produce, the P-51 was easy/cheap to produce. This is a huge factor when you are producing aircraft for war.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 18, 2005)

> Also, the Dora9 was hard/expensive to produce, the P-51 was easy/cheap to produce. This is a huge factor when you are producing aircraft for war.


Yea but it dont mean sh*t when ur talking performance..... If I was the German Finance Minister in 1945 I'd care.......



> The P-51D sacrificed a lot of outright fighter preformance for its much superior range, and still it was a match for the Dora9.


Dude, I cant believe u said that... I respect alot of what u say, but that was just plain dumb....... In no way shape or form was the -51D a "MATCH" for the -190D9...... Good competition maybe, but nowhere near equal...

Talk to some guys that fought against em.... I have.... Erich has.... Evan has.... Im sure theres others.....


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 18, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> > Also, the Dora9 was hard/expensive to produce, the P-51 was easy/cheap to produce. This is a huge factor when you are producing aircraft for war.
> 
> 
> Yea but it dont mean sh*t when ur talking performance..... If I was the German Finance Minister in 1945 I'd care.......
> ...



Numbers are important in real combat. A plane that requires a lot of resources to produce results in fewer of them being available for combat. A definite disadvantage.

As for the P-51D being a match for the Dora9, it depends on the circumstances of the fight. At high altitude in typical combat conditions, yes the P-51D was a match for the Dora9. It could sustain 400 mph class speeds for extended periods, the Dora9 could not. The Dora9 had a slight edge in sustained climb, the P-51 a slight edge in zoom climb. The Dora9 was better armored than the P-51, but in most respects this was not sufficient to matter much. P-51 pilot visability was better, the weapons package was better for dogfighting, it had a better gunsight, the pilot had a G-suit, and in most other catagories of performance they are roughly equal.

Just what makes you think the Dora9 was so much better?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Jan 18, 2005)

Charts, graphics and statistics may show one thing, but reality is sometimes completely different. Did you know on paper, a C-130 can't fly? Well then, I don't know what the hell that was that flew my happy ass all over the world for almost 2 years, but it sure was durable, reliable, and ALWAYS got me home.

This is another fine example. Maybe stats charts and spec sheets may show a match (I don't know, I haven't compared spec sheets), but Les is right, talk to a P-51 pilot who faced them. If you can get them to talk about it. Sometimes the guys who talk will shudder and turn white at the mere mention of the 190D9.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 18, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Charts, graphics and statistics may show one thing, but reality is sometimes completely different. Did you know on paper, a C-130 can't fly? Well then, I don't know what the hell that was that flew my happy ass all over the world for almost 2 years, but it sure was durable, reliable, and ALWAYS got me home.
> 
> This is another fine example. Maybe stats charts and spec sheets may show a match (I don't know, I haven't compared spec sheets), but Les is right, talk to a P-51 pilot who faced them. If you can get them to talk about it. Sometimes the guys who talk will shudder and turn white at the mere mention of the 190D9.



Oh. Name one? I've spoken to lots of WWII aces (and non-aces) over the years, and what I remember them consistantly saying is that there was no German prop fighter that they did not feel the P-51 was better than.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Jan 18, 2005)

Why do I have to name one, do you not believe me? Do you know every single pilot who ever flew a P-51 Mustang? Why should I care if you don't believe me? I don't know who you were talking to, but the guys that I have spoken to, and there have been several, (remember, I volunteer at a WWII aviation museum) have stated the the late model 190s were something they dreaded seeing. 

Look, I am not going to let this debate drag on, I have heard what I have heard, and I really don't care what you wish to believe.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 18, 2005)

Things listed on paper always tell a 1 sided story.... Stats are great and I love em.... But they arent everything.... 

And for the record, I have NEVER met someone who flew in the same airspace as those D9's and felt confident they were unbeatable.... The 4 or 5 guys i talked to who battled the Dora thought the plane superior in performance to their 51D's.....

But that is only 4-5 out of 1000???? But it's 100% of the pilots i talked to.....


> Oh. Name one?


Are u implying that we are just making this up for the hell of it???? 
First of all, I aint no liar and dont appreciate someone behind a computer screen accusing me of being one.....
Secondly, U DONT KNOW EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!
Thirdly, opinions are like assholes....... Everybody's got one.....
And forthly, Colonel Henry Brown of the 355th is one of the men I've spoken to.....


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 19, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Why do I have to name one, do you not believe me? Do you know every single pilot who ever flew a P-51 Mustang? Why should I care if you don't believe me? I don't know who you were talking to, but the guys that I have spoken to, and there have been several, (remember, I volunteer at a WWII aviation museum) have stated the the late model 190s were something they dreaded seeing.
> 
> Look, I am not going to let this debate drag on, I have heard what I have heard, and I really don't care what you wish to believe.



"have stated the the late model 190s were something they dreaded seeing."

A statement that could easily apply to any plane that posed a serious threat, even if inferior to the one the pilot is flying.

I've met Hannible Lee and others of the Tuskegee Airmen at Mongomery Field Airshows. I've managed to ask a few questions about the P-51 of Chuck Yeager, Henry Brown, Bruce Carr, William Whisner, amoung many others. Always I have asked questions like "was the FW, especially the long-nosed FW, better than the P-51?" and always the answer has been "no". I spoke to "Bud" Anderson in an online interview where questions like this were asked and he indicated none of the German props worried them, but they had some reticence when they first encountered the Me262.

Because out of all the WWII pilots I've met I've never yet met one who spoke of anything like what you say, yes, I would like to know who made this comment. It is totally out of keeping with virtually every pilot I've had the opportunity to speak with.

So, you volunteer at an air-museum. Well, while I was a kid my Dad was a navy pilot. Over the years he had many buddies he flew with in the Korean war and their buddies over for dinner parties and such, including amoung others Pappy Boyington. When I was very young, we spent 18 months in Europe while my dad trained NATO pilots in the use of air-to-air missiles, and I can remember WWII pilot stories told over after dinner drinks (but of course I was not allowed to ask questions or participate, only to listen). My Dad also spent a year assigned to the USAAF, when I was a little older, and I met quite a few WWII fighter pilots and was able to ask some questions and listen to stories at various parties and family activities. I was in fact, considered by my Dad, to be rather annoying sometimes for always wanting to hear WWII fighter stories, but the truth is a lot of those guys loved to be asked. Often, when my Dad and Mom were hosting a party (which was pretty often), I'd drag out my models and ask them if they ever shot down one of these.

Anyway, I've had the opportunity to speak to a lot of pilots over the years, and never have I heard any of them speak of dreading encountering any German plane in WWII, except the Me262 which they didn't know what to make of. For the most part, they were much more afraid of ground fire than the Luftwaffe'.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Jan 19, 2005)

How you ask a question or approach a WWII vet can make a big difference in the answer you get to questions. I don't always directly speak to them and often sit quietly back and listen while 2 vets talk about the old days or a vet who is talking to someone else. 

If I just came up to someone I had never met or spoke to before that I knew was a WWII vet, that would not be the first question out of my mouth. To be honest, they may have given the answer to you so they wouldn't have to take any more questions. From someone they don't know, if they answered that something else might be better, they could be accused of being unpatriotic, a liar, etc. It's a _safe_ answer.

I see that your vast experiences with aviators is SOOO much better than my volunteer work in a WWII aviation museum and things that I have heard with my own ears as well while there. You see, I don't always get their names, as I don't always engage them directly, nor do I often get told a name of a person that I am giving a tour to. Someone starts telling their story, I am not going to be rude to stop them and ask their name, fighter group, proof of what they did. I just LISTEN. I never asked them what their opinion of what is better, but I have heard it many times that the Mustang was a great plane, but it wasn't always the best in a fight. I heard others chatting about the late Doras and what they thought. I didn't interrupt them, I LISTENED. It is amazing how much you can pick up without ever having to utter a single question.

I treat all of our visitors the same, regardless of who they are or what they have or have not done. I have finished tours and after the gentlemen left, one of the other guys will ask me "Do you know who that was?" I don;t always know. Well, I have given tours to a number of known veterans like David Hackworth, and one of the crewmen from the Tokyo raid, who's name eludes me at the moment. He passed away a couple of years ago. When I saw his picture in the paper, I remembered him from a tour. Some tell stories, some do not. If they want to share, I LISTEN. Otherwise, I give the tour like I normally would.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 19, 2005)

evangilder said:


> How you ask a question or approach a WWII vet can make a big difference in the answer you get to questions. I don't always directly speak to them and often sit quietly back and listen while 2 vets talk about the old days or a vet who is talking to someone else.
> 
> If I just came up to someone I had never met or spoke to before that I knew was a WWII vet, that would not be the first question out of my mouth. To be honest, they may have given the answer to you so they wouldn't have to take any more questions. From someone they don't know, if they answered that something else might be better, they could be accused of being unpatriotic, a liar, etc. It's a _safe_ answer.
> 
> ...



And often I would just listen at dinner parties. I would ask a question and then they'd all start talking and telling stories. Remember, I was a kid and I got to ask a question or two, maybe, and that was it before my Dad would let me know that was it, or sometimes even send me into the other room or to bed. Alcohol helped a lot too. I can still remember Pappy Boyington (I think it was Boyington - I was maybe 6 or 7 at the time) putting out his cigar on my moms best tablecloth, he was not able to hit the ash tray! I can distinctly remember a discussion between pilots that turned into an argument about who were the more dangerous foes - the Germans or the Japanese, and the USAAF pilots who'd fought both said.... suprise.... THE JAPANESE!

All I'm saying is that your comments are not in line with anything I've ever heard. I don't think most pilots thought that way. They were selected for agressiveness, and trained to be even more aggressive. Every one of them thought they were the best pilot in the sky. And, in general, by the time the P-51 came into the war, they thought they had the best plane in the sky too.

I'm not saying the P-51 was better than the Dora9, I'm saying it was competitive and that each had advantages and disadvantages. However, more often than not, given the way the two planes match up, the P-51 should start in a position to control the fight and use its advantages and avoid those of the Dora9, and that is a huge factor in who wins a fight.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 19, 2005)

PS: It seems we have both spoken with Col. Henry Brown. Are you saying he said he dreaded the late model Dora? I sure don't remember him making that kind of comment when I heard him talking about flying the P-51!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Archangel (Jan 19, 2005)

i dont think u can say what fighter is the best one,.. they are all different, and to make an objective approach, u should ask someone who've flew them all


----------



## Erich (Jan 19, 2005)

I find this last part of this thread interesting....the Dora against all these US aces.

Fact is in most probability that 9/10th's of the US aces did not come up against the Dora in combat and the comparision is superfulous. ID was probably not correct but that is not surprising as when the Me 163 komet was sighted nearly all US fighter groups started to reprot them in the skies.


the Dora against British Spits and Tempests is another story.

let me remind you gents that only JG 2 and most of JG 26 were outfitted with the type. II./JG 301 in the winter-spring of 45 and much of it was on the ost front. Stab./JG 3 flew on the ost front as well as Stab./JG 4 with Dora's on the ost front. The Würger staffel of JV 44 probably had one instance with P-47's.

The Dora was anexcellent craft in the hands of a skilled pilot but so was a P-51D or K. The Dora like the Ta 152 and the Me 262 could not prove its;ef as it was overwhelmed with Allied numbers, and created to late in the war. A huge what-if.

Gruß


----------



## Udet (Jan 19, 2005)

Plan_D:

You really are a cyber-bully aren´t you?

Instead of resorting to your low budget insulting remarks, you should try to prove your points.


RG_Lunatic:

With all due respect for some of the veterans you mentioned (Chuck Yeager, Bud Anderson, etc.) I would certainly take some of their arguments with all due reserves. Why?

These USAAF veterans will of course speak about the Luftwaffe in terms very very similar, if not identical, to those Kozhedub and other soviet aces would use. A very normal and unsurprising thing; a standard procedure for any victor of any war.

Chuck Yeager, for instance, appears to speak gladly and fluently on the war sometimes apparently losing the ground.

That their answer to your question "was the Dora better than the P-51" was no, tells very little about the issue. 

*Yeager should really slow down sometimes for he himself got shot down in combat with German interceptors. In fact, mr. Yeager is as lucky to be alive as many of the top German aces who saw service virtually throughout the entire war.*

This means mr Yeager was effectively surpassed in combat and went down. Very lucky to be alive.

Even a soviet lady shot down more planes than he did. Furthermore, Yeager´s total bag was in many cases, a half an hour job for a big number of German experten.

My point is, those famous veterans of the USAAF over Europe are experts at pointing the weak spots of the enemy craft they faced, but curiously tell nothing regarding the weak spots of the aircraft they flew.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2005)

Udet said:


> Der Adler:
> 
> You are right. It appears like some guys here render the Germans uncapable of producing cutting edge tools and equipment.
> 
> ...



Thank you someone sees where I am coming from. RG_Lunatic seems to think that everyone but the United States was in the Stone Age. RG please dont take me wrong I respect your patriotism and all. I am a patriot for the United States and Germany. I love both countries and would die for either one. I wear a US flag on my shoulder right now and prepared to lay down my life for it, but I am sorry you make it sound like the Germans and everyone else could not have developed better weapons and engines and such because they were not smart or skilled eneogh and frankly you are dead wrong. Get off the high horse please. And yes there are people that are getting to angry about this topic, it is just a discussion. I know I was guilty of this earlier in the posting with RG_Lunatic but lets try and be more friendlier, unless you can tell it to there face and not safe behind a computer.



plan_D said:


> They wouldn't have out-done Britain on jet engines. We had the most powerful engine in the world, in the Nene. And we were making more and more powerful engines.



If the war had dragged on the Germans would have developed better jet engines also, dont take me wrong the Brits were very capable aswell and would have kept right up there also.



evenglider said:


> Charts, graphics and statistics may show one thing, but reality is sometimes completely different. Did you know on paper, a C-130 can't fly? Well then, I don't know what the hell that was that flew my happy ass all over the world for almost 2 years, but it sure was durable,reliable, and ALWAYS got me home.



You are absolutely correct, you can not base your comparison of two aircraft based off of charts and specs. I am sorry RG_Lunatic but you know what sometimes the specs dont tell the truth. Just like evenglider's C-130 an example of this is the British Puma and the Blackhawk. On paper the Puma is better and will outfly a Blackhawk anyday under any conditions. However I personally have proved this wrong. In Kosovo as a friendly wager between a British Puma crew and my crew we outflew, outclimbed, and out turned a Puma (dont ask me why 2 helicopters would need to outturn eachother). The face between Prestina and Camp Bondsteel to see who could fly faster, the Puma accelorated faster but we cought up with it and got there 3 minutes ahead of it. But on paper this was not possible, so I guess I am making this up because paper is always correct, correct RG_Lunatic?



RG_Lunatic said:


> Oh. Name one? I've spoken to lots of WWII aces (and non-aces) over the years, and what I remember them consistantly saying is that there was no German prop fighter that they did not feel the P-51 was better than.



Again man you did not fight the Dora so give it up. I know it was not a US fighter but it was a hell of a fighter and the P-51 was not gods gift to aviation. 



RG_Lunatic said:


> I've met Hannible Lee and others of the Tuskegee Airmen at Mongomery Field Airshows. I've managed to ask a few questions about the P-51 of Chuck Yeager, Henry Brown, Bruce Carr, William Whisner, amoung many others. Always I have asked questions like "was the FW, especially the long-nosed FW, better than the P-51?" and always the answer has been "no". I spoke to "Bud" Anderson in an online interview where questions like this were asked and he indicated none of the German props worried them, but they had some reticence when they first encountered the Me262.



Ofcourse they said that. Damn you are naive my friend. If you ask any pilot what they think the best aircraft is they say it is the one that they fly. It is a thing of pride. Whenever someone asks me I tell the best is the Blackhawk because I love my aircraft. Is the Blackhawk the best, more then likely no. You ask a Dora pilot which aircraft he thinks is the best out of pride and love of his aircraft he will say Dora. The same goes for Hurricane and Spitfire pilots. You go tell a Spitfire pilot that your beloved P-51 is better then his Spit and he will spit on you. Get over it please. And yes whats up with these questions of "Who", "What sources" and so what? What do you think we are all liars and stuff. How do we know that you actually have spoken to these pilots, you could be some 8 year old kid sitting behind the computer telling us that you are who you are. You even want to argue with Erich about is soarces and he has researched stuff like this more then any of us and talked with more pilots then you could have ever dreamed of.



RG_Lunatic said:


> For the most part, they were much more afraid of ground fire than the Luftwaffe'.



Of couse you would say this because the Luftwaffe was German. But this is easy for you to say since you never flew against the Luftwaffe. Have you ever flown over hostile lands? I surely have and you know what I take nothing for granted everything is dangerous and everything wants to kill you. But ofcourse when I am sitting back at the local Kneipe in Germany I am going to tell people I was more scared of the Iraqi birds then someone trying to kill me.



RG_Lunatic said:


> And, in general, by the time the P-51 came into the war, they thought they had the best plane in the sky too.



Again please read my post I made earlier. Ofcourse they thought they had the best plane, everyone thought they did and you know what that is still the same today. 



RG_Lunatic said:


> Are you saying he said he dreaded the late model Dora? I sure don't remember him making that kind of comment when I heard him talking about flying the P-51!



And again. I guess evenglider is a liar because he did not hear the same thing you did, and again that is what every pilot says about there aircraft.

And just off topic this is coming from the news lately. Airbus came out with the new Airbus A-380 yesterday. What do you think about that RG_Lunatic because it is not Boeing and not a US built aircraft? You probably think it is years behind anything that the US has built. Anyways I have said eneough on this, I need to stop before I go against what I said up top and get angry.


----------



## Udet (Jan 19, 2005)

Der Adler:

I wholeheartedly agree with all your points.

It is surprising you can find lots of webpages, books and magazine articles when it is affirmed: "The P-51 wholly outclassed the Bf109".

I will always oppose such argument by saying: "You should have asked Erich Hartmann who shot down 7 P-51s flying a Bf109 of the late G series and was never based in the Reich or in the west".

Is Yeager so confident he had nothing to worry about German interceptors? Then, why was he duly surpassed in combat getting shot down? It is either his P-51 was no superior at all, or that he perhaps was not the ultimate fighter pilot of the war.

Der Adler, just like when one is very pissed off and opens his mouth, such state of anger will certainly lead him to say stupid, groundless or offensive things, victory plays kind of a similar effect. Victory has this effect of drunkness on victors, many times having them saying unaccurate or untrue things.

I ve read a good deal of specifications on fighters of WWII. The Bf109G and K, globally speaking, were on equal terms to any fighter fielded by the allies. The same applies exactly to the Fw190 versions.

I do not care how much allied literature devoted to defame the Bf109 has been printed so far; the battlefield facts, even in the final defeat, prove the 109s were in no way inferior to any of the toys of the USAAF.

It is simple, victors want the whole cake in their fridge but most of the times it is not possible.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2005)

I dont not want to be taken wrong by anyone I am not saying that the allied technology was not great (it certainly was and in many things was better) and I am not saying that the P-51 was not a good aircraft. It certainly was one of the best but so were the Spitfire, the Me-109G and K (yes they did start to loose on maneuvarability but at high altitudes they were just as good and where were the bombers at high altitudes), the Fw-190A, Fw-190D, Ta-152. Just because it is not made in the US does not make it inferior and the Europeans were not uncapable of technological advances as a certain person likes to believe.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 19, 2005)

I can assure you, Adler, that the British would have kept ahead of the Germans in jet engine design. They kept ahead of the world for many decades after the war. The Germans were at best achieving 3000 lbs thrust, they were thinking too small. The Nene stayed the most powerful for years after the war, and not only was it powerful it was reliable, durable and economic. 

Udet, bully!?!  

You find a more powerful engine from the War than the Rolls Royce Nene engine, I'll give you a cookie. 



> BRITISH JET ENGINE DEVELOPMENT
> * Despite Whittle's success, development of the operational G.41 fighter was slow. Power Jets was not in a position to mass-produce the Whittle engine, and trying to find another firm with the resources to do it for them led to a two-year delay in production. As a result, progress of the G.41 project ended up tracking the somewhat convoluted path of early British turbojet development.
> 
> By October 1940, the Air Ministry was interested enough in the Whittle engine to arrange for production of the W.2B by Rover. Unfortunately, the term "misarranged" is probably more appropriate, since Power Jets and Rover worked at all times at cross purposes, with the confusion aggravated by contrary instructions from the British Ministry of Production.
> ...



http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avmeteor.html

There you go, there's your proof!


----------



## Erich (Jan 19, 2005)

Plan not to spoil your fun but have you develed in any of the later spring 1945 high tech Luftwaffe projects concerning futuristic engine/design developments ?

Again I point out that 10:1 many of the US fighter pilots listed probably never ran up against a Dora in combat, and their adversaries were flying the A-8 and A-9 and gving a good show of themselves


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2005)

I will not deny the fact that they would stay ahead but I do believe the Germans would have made more powerful ones then they had. As I said before it is a cat and mouse game it goes back and forth, back and forth, each one topping the other.


----------



## Erich (Jan 19, 2005)

the designs by the Allies cannot even reach the proprotions of what the Luftwaffe techs were accomplishing during 1945. Case in point as the materials and prototypes were so far advanced that the "secrets" have been hidden for over 45 years. why is the old cave-factories at Oberammergau guarded to this day ? sure there are a barracks there but why there ?..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2005)

It never made it off of the drawing table but it shows that they were making one.



> Jumo 012, Junkers Turbojet engine, developing about 6000lb thrust, planned for the Ju 287. Never left the drawing board
> http://www.ww2guide.com/jetrock.shtml#jengines



The Germans were thinking in more powerful engines way more then you think or the allies would not have taken the scientists working on them.



> A large number of key technical developments led to the production of the Me-262 which was the first tactical jet fighter. It was developed and used by the Germans during WWII. Over 1,400 had been produced and put into action from 1942 to the end of the war in 1945. The aircraft was powered by two Jumo 004 jet engines developed at Junkers which was also the first engine to use an afterburner. After Germany surrendered, the Allies found a large number of new jet designs of which the Me P1101 was the most advanced. The prototype aircraft was almost finished and scheduled for its maiden flight. Upon finding the jet at Oberammergau in the Bavarian Alps in May 1945, the Americans brought it to the Bell Aircraft Works and quickly built a modified version called the Bell X-5. Ref 1. 650 German scientists who had designed jet engines, rockets were brought to the US under Operation Paperclip. 20,000 scientist were brought to Russia. 7
> http://www.aircraftdesigns.com/jets.html


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2005)

The Germans were deffinatly thinking years ahead of the allies in there later designs. There are some great books that you can get through amazon and they are titled Seret Weapons of the Luftwaffe. There are several volumes of it each dedicated to its own type of aircraft such as bombers, ground attack, fighter and so forth. Very good reading. Some of the early US designs were based off of them including the Sabre, F-105, A-10 (that is a shocker isn't it).


----------



## evangilder (Jan 19, 2005)

I hadn't heard that about the A-10. While I like the airplane, I know little of it's development. I do remember hearing once that the design was built around the vulcan cannon, but that could have been hearsay.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2005)

This will show you how advanced the Messerschmitt P.1011 was:



> On July 15, 1944, the RLM submitted Proposal 226/II to Germany's aircraft manufacturers. This "Emergency Fighter Competition" specified the following requirements (although these were later to change several times) for the second-generation of jet-powered fighters for the Third Reich:
> 
> powered by a single Heinkel-Hirth He S 011 turbojet
> level speed of 1000 km/h (621 mph) at 7000 meters (22966 feet)
> ...



Here is some photos of the Oberamergau site that Erich is talking about and some photos of the P.1011 at the Oberamergau and again flying with US colors after the war.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 19, 2005)

6000 lbs thrust isn't much, when you consider the British soon developed engines more powerful than the Nene. I hate to burst your bubble but the British have always been the leaders in Jet engine technology. 1946 the Rolls Royce Avon 109 was set at 7,500 lb. Then came the Avon 206 11,000 lb thrust in 1951. Along with them the 15, 680 lb thrust Rolls Royce Avon 302 on the Lightning, 1947 design. 

You see, the British throughout the 40s, 50s and 60s were well beyond the rest of the world in jet technology. Only in the past two decades has America caught up, even then the JSF engine is a joint-venture between Rolls Royce and General Electric. Most 747s fly with Rolls Royce engines...the best engines are British, and they always have been.


----------



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

damn right!!!


----------



## Erich (Jan 19, 2005)

my that factory looks familiar............... 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2005)

What I am saying is the Germans would have done the same wiht there engines.

Just some more on fighter designs by the Germans:



> The first of five designs, the He. P.1078A was designed as a nightfighter. The crew of two sat back-to-back in the cockpit which was located near the nose. The wings were swept back 35 degrees and were mounted mid-fuselage, with two HeS 011 turbojets located in the wing roots. There was a V-tail and armament was to be four MK 108 30mm cannon.
> http://www.luft46.com/heinkel/hep1079a.html





> This was the second design (Entwurf II) for the He P.1079B all-weather heavy fighter. The wings were swept back sharply and contained six fuel tanks. Two He S 011 jet engines were located in the wing roots and were fed by intakes in the wing leading edges. A crew of two sat back-to-back in the cockpit, and armament was to be four MK 108 30mm cannon. No evidence has been found that the P.1079 projects were ever submitted to the RLM, but it is known that designer Siegfried Günter, along with his engineers Eichner and Hohbach, were working on these designs under U.S. supervision during the summer of 1945.
> http://www.luft46.com/heinkel/hep1079c.html





> Messerschmitt Me P.1102/5
> 
> 
> During the summer of 1944, the Messerschmitt Me P.1102 series was being developing at the same time as the Me P.1101 project. Both were swing-wing designs, except the P.1102 was being developed as a fast bomber and heavy fighter.
> ...



And the list goes on and on more than I can post, but just as the aircraft designs the engines would have done so too.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 19, 2005)

Of course the Germans would have moved on, I'm not saying that. I'm saying the British would have stayed ahead because they were already ahead, and were always developing engines more powerful. Even in peace time the British engine companies were making bigger, better and more powerful engines just to stay on top.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2005)

It is very interesting to see how it would have panned out. I think at some point the Germans would have come up with something that was far ahead it was only a matter of time in which they ran out of time. But I will not argue with you the fact that the British were masters at jet engines. That is true my friend.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 19, 2005)

Udet said:


> RG_Lunatic:
> 
> With all due respect for some of the veterans you mentioned (Chuck Yeager, Bud Anderson, etc.) I would certainly take some of their arguments with all due reserves. Why?
> 
> ...



I agree, combat stories are often full of apparent inaccuracies, and must always be taken with a grain of salt. But this does not change the point that I have never heard even one USAAF pilot speak of "dreading the late model FW" or any other German prop plane. It's not just one or two pilots I'm talking about, it's dozens.

As for Yeager, yes I agree he is of particular note for inaccuracies in his WWII flying stories, nor was he the greatest Ace of the war. I just included him because he was among the Aces I've heard speak. But to say he was "lucky to be alive" because he survived being shot down one time is absolute hogwash!

I suppose we might say the same of Adolf Galland? He was shot down FOUR TIMES! Or what about Marseille, who was shot down several times before his luck finally ran out in September 1942. I guess Gunther Rall was a really crappy fighter pilot, since he got shot down EIGHT TIMES!

As far as the high kill totals of many of the "Experten", in most cases they flew in very advantageous conditions. The great majority of them chalked up most of their kills on the E. front during the first 3 years of the war on that front. They had the advantage of superior aircraft and superior training at that point. As an example, consider Wilhelm "Willi" Batz, who fought starting in March of 1943. At this time the German's enjoyed numerical advantage. His first 15 kills over the first 4 months of combat consisted of six Lagg-3 "wooden coffins" (one unconfirmed), four Yak-1's, three IL-2's, one P-39 and one Boston. All pretty easy meat for his Bf-109G fighter. His next ten kills consisted of one Spitifire (model unknown, but probably a Spit Ia or maybe a Spit V) and 9 Yak-1's. Again - easy meat. By the time he faced his first worthy opponent, in a Lagg-5 he'd already had the luxury of plenty of combat experience against much weaker enemy aircraft. Of his first 123 kills, 60 were the much inferior Yak-1, and 17 were IL-2's.

Of Galland's 104 victories, 96 of them were scored in 1940 and 1941 when Germany held the initiative.

My point is German "Experten" had a huge advantage early in the war. With very few exceptions, the first 20 or more kills scored were against inferior aircraft, relatively poorly trained pilots with little combat experience, with numerical advantage, or all three. This allowed them to develop combat skills that can only be gained in actual combat in relative safety. And German pilots were rarely deep behind the enemy lines.

Allied pilots on the other-hand, started off facing technically superior German aircraft, flown my more experienced pilots, and were often outnumbered. When technical parity had been achieved, USAAF pilots in particular were flying missions deep into Axis territory - there was no getting shot down EIGHT TIMES and continuing to fly, in fact Yeager is a rarity in that he did manage to get back to friendly lines and fight again. Then when the Allies finally gained the upper hand, the Luftwaffe' was hard to find and aerial kills were hard to come by. To say that having been shot down ONE time means Yeager was a poor pilot is just STUPID! 

ANY PILOT COULD BE SHOT DOWN! OVER 90% OF THE FIGHTER PILOTS SHOT DOWN IN WWII WHO SURVIVED IT SAID THEY EITHER NEVER SAW THE PLANE THAT SHOT THEM DOWN OR NEVER SAW IT UNTIL AFTER THEY'D TAKEN CRITICAL DAMAGE.

This is true of some of the greatest Aces of the war.

I suggest you buy and watch Hunter's in the Sky and listen to the many interviews in that documentary.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 19, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What I am saying is the Germans would have done the same wiht there engines.
> ....
> 
> And the list goes on and on more than I can post, but just as the aircraft designs the engines would have done so too.



You can speculate all you want about the quality of German aero-engineering but the fact remains they could not mass-produce working jet engines of any reliability and there is nothing to suggest this was going to change any time soon. Designs are meaningless if they cannot be mass produced.

Even the British jet engines were built using American machine tools like the Thompson Centerless Grinder and the automated milling machine. These tools were exported to England throughout the war. In fact, in many cases, the first new units were diverted from the American companies which had specified them and paid for their development, delaying American projects such as the R-2800(c).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 19, 2005)

Every fact points to the inability of Germany to even break 2000 lbs s.t., let alone 6000! It's easy to design something and assume perfectly balanced parts... but making it.... that's a whole different story.

Yes the German's were designing all sorts of advanced technology. That doesn't mean they could actually build it!

The fact is that Germany was not going to have a significantly better jet engine to power its wonder weapons. That's the reality of it. The rest is just pure fantasy.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 19, 2005)

Alder,

That is exactly my point. All the pilots who flew competitive planes THOUGHT theirs were at least as good if not better than the enemies. You are affirming my position, which is that P-51 pilots were not in fear of the dreaded Dora9. I question the source of such info because, frankly, it is completely contrary to what I've heard from every pilot I've had the opportunity to hear speak on the topic.

I do not hate everything German. Certainly their tanks were much much better than those of the Allies. And the MG42 and MK108 were both revolutionary weapons. I simply point out that the very nature of the evolution of European machine tools was much different than those of the USA, and not well suited to mass production of very precise mechanisms like turbines. This is totally backed up by the historical fact that the USA was mass producing turbosuperchargers from the start of the war, but Germany was unable to produce them even in small quantities right up to the last days of the war. They tried repeatedly and failed repeatedly. In fact, they had a hard time getting even one-off's from the engineering labs that worked.

P-51's most certainly did encounter Dora9's in WWII. It was relatively infrequent, as there weren't that many Dora9's, but it certainly did happen. I'm going out of town for a couple of days but will try to find some accounts of this matchup when I get back.

As for the Airbus, I'm sure it's a very good plane. What bothers me is that Airbus is government subsidized which is not right in our supposedly free-market system. I hope that recent market studies are right and the new Airbus is a failure because of lack of demand for the superlarge airliner, the European's loose their shirts on the thing, and that puts an end to such subsidizations - which amount to nothing more than exportation of unemployment from Europe to the USA.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 20, 2005)

I can't see anyones posts, except RGs. I don't like the way you're talking about yourself wanting the Airbus to be a failure. Sounds awfully a lot like because it's not American, even with your excuse for wanting it to fail. 

The Germans were ahead in design technology in quite a few things. I give the Germans credit for being the first country to produce an axial-flow turbojet but the British still built one a few years later in 1941, I believe.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 20, 2005)

I agree, that comment was just ridiculous. Wishing the failure of the Airbus was mean spirited. Government subsidies? Please, all the government contracts going out to what few aircraft manufacturers we have left for military orders is more or less a subsidy as well. Whether direct or indirect, the aircraft industries are subsidized. You sound like a pissed off Boeing worker.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 20, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> I hope that recent market studies are right and the new Airbus is a failure because of lack of demand for the superlarge airliner, the European's loose their shirts on the thing, and that puts an end to such subsidizations - which amount to nothing more than exportation of unemployment from Europe to the USA.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



RG, I frequently enjoy reading your posts. You present some decent facts and often come at a topic from a different angle than others, causing some folks to pause and think. It adds real flavour to the discussion. 
And of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But _that_ was just a completely asinine thing to say!  Particularly considering the company you're in!


----------



## kiwimac (Jan 20, 2005)

LOCKED. continued in BEST FIGHTER III.

Kiwimac


----------

