# F4U in Europe



## VA5124 (Nov 15, 2021)

I'm wondering how the corsair would do in the ETO could it go toe to toe with the Germens ?


----------



## GregP (Nov 15, 2021)

The Corsair did well everywhere it went. It's late-war variants stand up well against the best ever piston aircraft. I think it would have done just fine with the possible exception of range. The F4U-4 had a range of 900 miles. That's a Navy range, which is slow cruise at low altitudes, with allowance for brief combat.

I'm not sure it could get from London to Berlin and back at 220+ mph and 25,000 feet. I'm not too sure the heater was up to it, for that matter. But the aircraft had good performance when it was needed for combat. The British FAA used it, but not to a large degree. When they were done with their Corsairs, they just pushed them off the carrier decks into the sea. So, I'd not waste a single extra Corsair in Europe unless it was for the U.S.A., and we didn't seem to need them there. 

That's not a knock on the Brits at all. It's an avid WWII aircraft buff not being happy at how Corsairs in Lend-Lease operation were disposed of. The method of disposition was likely chosen by the U.S.A., so I can't fault the Brits for it. If it were up to me, I'd not send a single piece of military equipment overseas unless it was included that they would all be returned to the U.S.A. when the equipment was no longer needed. To me, if the equipment isn't worth the cost to transport it home when the task is completed, then it isn't worth sending anywhere away from home and the conflict can be fought without the equipment.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Nov 15, 2021)

GregP said:


> The Corsair did well everywhere it went. It's late-war variants stand up well against the best ever piston aircraft. I think it would have done just fine with the possible exception of range. The F4U-4 had a range of 900 miles. That's a Navy range, which is slow cruise at low altitudes, with allowance for brief combat.
> 
> I'm not sure it could get from London to Berlin and back at 220+ mph and 25,000 feet. I'm not too sure the heater was up to it, for that matter. But the aircraft had good performance when it was needed for combat. The British FAA used it, but not to a large degree. When they were done with their Corsairs, they just pushed them off the carrier decks into the sea. So, I'd not waste a single extra Corsair in Europe unless it was for the U.S.A., and we didn't seem to need them there.
> 
> That's not a knock on the Brits at all. It's an avid WWII aircraft buff not being happy at how Corsairs in Lend-Lease operation were disposed of. The method of disposition was likely chosen by the U.S.A., so I can't fault the Brits for it. If it were up to me, I'd not send a single piece of military equipment overseas unless it was included that they would all be returned to the U.S.A. when the equipment was no longer needed. To me, if the equipment isn't worth the cost to transport it home when the task is completed, then it isn't worth sending anywhere away from home and the conflict can be fought without the equipment.


Thank for your oppinon sir i just wondered because I'm a huge fan of the Corsair she was the best of her time. She would have done very I think it had speed and a high ceiling and decent turning . What would hurt us though is the early ones didnt have cannon !!!!


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> Thank for your oppinon sir i just wondered because I'm a huge fan of the Corsair she was the best of her time. She would have done very I think it had speed and a high ceiling and decent turning . What would hurt us though is the early ones didnt have cannon !!!!


It would have been ideal for CAS during and after D-Day.

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


----------



## VA5124 (Nov 16, 2021)

pbehn said:


> It would have been ideal for CAS during and after D-Day.


I agree but could it go toe to toe with german fighters I'd say yes its fast it can turn decently but the 50 cals hurt us


----------



## wuzak (Nov 16, 2021)

GregP said:


> The Corsair did well everywhere it went. It's late-war variants stand up well against the best ever piston aircraft. I think it would have done just fine with the possible exception of range. The F4U-4 had a range of 900 miles. That's a Navy range, which is slow cruise at low altitudes, with allowance for brief combat.



The F4U-4 didn't arrive until late in the war. Deliveries began in early 1945.




GregP said:


> I'm not sure it could get from London to Berlin and back at 220+ mph and 25,000 feet. I'm not too sure the heater was up to it, for that matter. But the aircraft had good performance when it was needed for combat. The British FAA used it, but not to a large degree. When they were done with their Corsairs, they just pushed them off the carrier decks into the sea. So, I'd not waste a single extra Corsair in Europe unless it was for the U.S.A., and we didn't seem to need them there.



900 mile range you stated above suggests that a ~1,200 mile round trip to Berlin may not be feasible.




GregP said:


> That's not a knock on the Brits at all. It's an avid WWII aircraft buff not being happy at how Corsairs in Lend-Lease operation were disposed of. The method of disposition was likely chosen by the U.S.A., so I can't fault the Brits for it. If it were up to me, I'd not send a single piece of military equipment overseas unless it was included that they would all be returned to the U.S.A. when the equipment was no longer needed. To me, if the equipment isn't worth the cost to transport it home when the task is completed, then it isn't worth sending anywhere away from home and the conflict can be fought without the equipment.



The disposal of Lend Lease aircraft was, no doubt, part of the agreement.

I'm sure that the USAAF and USN would not want thousands of aircraft returned to them when they had more than sufficient aircraft in their inventories.

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


----------



## wuzak (Nov 16, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> I agree but could it go toe to toe with german fighters I'd say yes its fast it can turn decently but the 50 cals hurt us



Some, not a lot, had 4 x 20mm cannon.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2021)

GregP said:


> The Corsair did well everywhere it went. It's late-war variants stand up well against the best ever piston aircraft. I think it would have done just fine with the possible exception of range. The F4U-4 had a range of 900 miles. That's a Navy range, which is slow cruise at low altitudes, with allowance for brief combat.
> 
> I'm not sure it could get from London to Berlin and back at 220+ mph and 25,000 feet. I'm not too sure the heater was up to it, for that matter. But the aircraft had good performance when it was needed for combat. The British FAA used it, but not to a large degree. When they were done with their Corsairs, they just pushed them off the carrier decks into the sea. So, I'd not waste a single extra Corsair in Europe unless it was for the U.S.A., and we didn't seem to need them there.
> 
> That's not a knock on the Brits at all. It's an avid WWII aircraft buff not being happy at how Corsairs in Lend-Lease operation were disposed of. The method of disposition was likely chosen by the U.S.A., so I can't fault the Brits for it. If it were up to me, I'd not send a single piece of military equipment overseas unless it was included that they would all be returned to the U.S.A. when the equipment was no longer needed. To me, if the equipment isn't worth the cost to transport it home when the task is completed, then it isn't worth sending anywhere away from home and the conflict can be fought without the equipment.


After VE and VJ day the world was full of aircraft no one wanted. Here is a picture of RAF Thruxton in May 1945, it says in the caption that they were returned to USA but many werent, just as Typhoons werent always returned from Germany. With Corsairs in the Pacific I think they wanted to clear the hangers for use as hospitals or similar, sorting out the mess of ex POWs and civilians in Singapore Hong Kong etc.


----------



## VA5124 (Nov 16, 2021)

wuzak said:


> Some, not a lot, had 4 x 20mm cannon.


I understand that but most of ones we could get to the ETO would have 6x.50in guns


----------



## pbehn (Nov 16, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> I agree but could it go toe to toe with german fighters I'd say yes its fast it can turn decently but the 50 cals hurt us


As CAS it doesnt have to in Normandy, just give a good account of itself, even 6 x 0.5 mgs will ruin anyones day.


----------



## VA5124 (Nov 16, 2021)

pbehn said:


> As CAS it doesnt have to in Normandy, just give a good account of itself, even 6 x 0.5 mgs will ruin anyones day.


if we would have sent them what fighter do you think would be the biggest threat to us


----------



## Frog (Nov 16, 2021)

Could have been used in Project Danny by MAG 51, but the Army dryly rejected any USMC prominent role in the ETO...


----------



## Civettone (Nov 17, 2021)

GregP said:


> The Corsair did well everywhere it went. It's late-war variants stand up well against the best ever piston aircraft. I think it would have done just fine with the possible exception of range. The F4U-4 had a range of 900 miles. That's a Navy range, which is slow cruise at low altitudes, with allowance for brief combat.
> 
> I'm not sure it could get from London to Berlin and back at 220+ mph and 25,000 feet. I'm not too sure the heater was up to it, for that matter. But the aircraft had good performance when it was needed for combat. The British FAA used it, but not to a large degree. When they were done with their Corsairs, they just pushed them off the carrier decks into the sea. So, I'd not waste a single extra Corsair in Europe unless it was for the U.S.A., and we didn't seem to need them there.
> 
> That's not a knock on the Brits at all. It's an avid WWII aircraft buff not being happy at how Corsairs in Lend-Lease operation were disposed of. The method of disposition was likely chosen by the U.S.A., so I can't fault the Brits for it. If it were up to me, I'd not send a single piece of military equipment overseas unless it was included that they would all be returned to the U.S.A. when the equipment was no longer needed. To me, if the equipment isn't worth the cost to transport it home when the task is completed, then it isn't worth sending anywhere away from home and the conflict can be fought without the equipment.


Were ALL of the FAA Corsairs disposed that way? Or maybe only a small proportion?

Anyway, I think the USN Corsairs would have been used mainly in the FB and strike role rather than escorting USAAF bombers to Berlin. Maybe in a future invasion of Norway?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## EwenS (Nov 17, 2021)

Civettone said:


> Were ALL of the FAA Corsairs disposed that way? Or maybe only a small proportion?
> 
> Anyway, I think the USN Corsairs would have been used mainly in the FB and strike role rather than escorting USAAF bombers to Berlin. Maybe in a future invasion of Norway?


Not all. At least one squadron returned to the U.K. in 1946 to fly its aircraft ashore. After that who knows what happened to them. Those ashore in the U.K. probably joined all the other Lend Lease aircraft sold off to the scrapman. At least one survives to this day at the Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton.






Corsair KD 431


Fleet Air Arm Museum, Somerset exhibits include Corsair KD 431



www.fleetairarm.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 17, 2021)

Wasn't the terms of the Lend Lease agreement to either pay for them, scrap them, or return them? 
The US didn't want them back, and the UK couldn't afford, nor want/need them anymore. So the problem was made to go away.

Reminds me of a story behind a local Hawker Hurricane on museum display. It was salvaged from a farmers field, who had purchased it post war, for only a few dollars no doubt, for the sole purpose of using it as a tractor tug around the farm. He removed the wings, and used a damned fighter plane to taxi around and pull a trailer. What a waste, but better than getting pushed off the side of a ship I suppose.
I used to work at an air museum that had a Bristol Bolingbroke on display, which was also recovered from a local farmer, who had used the fuselage as a chicken coop for 50 years. Was much cheaper than building a shed

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 17, 2021)

Hi Wayne, 

I wasn't saying I need agreement from anyone on disposal of Military equipment. 

Disposal of Military hardware is a very sore subject with me and I could likely write a 100-page thread about it. Let's just say that not everyone agrees with things their government does. I'm one of them.

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


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 17, 2021)

Civettone said:


> Were ALL of the FAA Corsairs disposed that way? Or maybe only a small proportion?
> 
> Anyway, I think the USN Corsairs would have been used mainly in the FB and strike role rather than escorting USAAF bombers to Berlin. Maybe in a future invasion of Norway?


IIRC, one condition of Lend-Lease is that everything sent had to be returned (it was lent, after all) or destroyed.


----------



## Ovod (Nov 17, 2021)

GregP said:


> The Corsair did well everywhere it went. It's late-war variants stand up well against the best ever piston aircraft. I think it would have done just fine with the possible exception of range. The F4U-4 had a range of 900 miles. That's a Navy range, which is slow cruise at low altitudes, with allowance for brief combat.
> 
> I'm not sure it could get from London to Berlin and back at 220+ mph and 25,000 feet. I'm not too sure the heater was up to it, for that matter. But the aircraft had good performance when it was needed for combat.



I always considered the F4U as having excellent range - I'm sure it could have reached Berlin and back again the same way most other single-engine fighter planes were able to do it, by carrying drop tanks?


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 17, 2021)

I think we've been down this road before, the F4U is more along the lines of doing the Thunderbolts job but not really able to handle the Mustangs job. Range is one thing, altitude of ETO ops is another, I think 

 drgondog
addressed that in a post a couple of years ago, generally with the Mustang, you don't need the Corsair as it would have taken several modifications to do the job the P-51 was handling. 

You have to take into account the speed (and altitude) you have to use getting to and from the targets in the Reich, not the same as slow cruise over the Pacific.

The Corsair was a great airplane, the best? Dunno about that.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Metrallaroja (Nov 17, 2021)

Ovod said:


> I always considered the F4U as having excellent range - I'm sure it could have reached Berlin and back again the same way most other single-engine fighter planes were able to do it, by carrying drop tanks?


Range increases to 1500 nautical miles max with just one 150 external fuel tank. They could carry two of this.


----------



## DarrenW (Nov 17, 2021)

Ovod said:


> I always considered the F4U as having excellent range - I'm sure it could have reached Berlin and back again the same way most other single-engine fighter planes were able to do it, by carrying drop tanks?


I used to believe that the F6F and F4U could have performed LRE missions in Europe as well as the US Army types until I was persuaded by the very knowledgeable folks here on this forum.

The biggest detractors for the US Navy fighters were internal fuel capacity and overall fuel economy. Both the F6F and F4U carried less protected internal fuel than the P-47 (the F4U-1A wing tanks were normally never utilized because of their extreme vulnerability) but had basically the same thirsty R-2800 engine. They also used a supercharger set-up as opposed to the more fuel-efficient turbo (at high altitude) of the army fighter. Another factor was the thicker/larger wings of the naval fighters, obviously creating more drag (both parasitic and induced), which increased fuel consumption even more. This is proven out when you look at operational charts for each type. The P-47 normally burned less fuel (GPH) at each specified altitude and power setting (when similarly configured).

In regards to range the P-38 and P-51 were entirely in a class by themselves so comparing the naval fighters to them in this metric would be a complete waste of time.

Lastly, external tanks were only part of the answer to the range problem as it was common for fighters to jettison them before engaging the enemy. This forced the pilot to rely only on internal fuel for the ensuing combat _and_ to get him safely back home.

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


----------



## drgondog (Nov 17, 2021)

Ovod said:


> I always considered the F4U as having excellent range - I'm sure it could have reached Berlin and back again the same way most other single-engine fighter planes were able to do it, by carrying drop tanks?


Good range - yes, with external tanks and un-interrupted by combat. Only the F4U-1A with auxillary internal wing fuel giving it 361gal fuel total. but the wing fuel tanks were not self sealing and not permissable for ETO combat. Specifically, w/o wing tanks the F4U-1 series had 237 gal internal fuel. Compare to P-47C/D which had 305 gal until spring/summer 1944 when the D-25 emerged with 370 gal - and capable of reaching Berlin/Leipzig/Munich.

Additionally, optimal cruise speed for distance/range was much lower than P-51B/D at any altitude, and specifically much lower at 25K where range and cruise speed was at a premium. Additionally, that F4U-1 &A/B/C) at FTH (~21000) had a top speed of ~ 390-400mh and tapered away from there. Both the 109G and Fw 190A5/7 were a.) faster and more manueverable at, and above the FTH, and c.) still better at 25K and above. By contrast the P-47D had the same HP at 32000 as the F4U at 21K by virtue of turbosupercharger.

IF Vought had elected to replace the 62 gal wing fuel cells with combat tanks of say 55gal each, it would have extended the F4U combat radius to approximately 2/3 of a P-51B/D with 85 gal fuel tanks - not enough for Berlin - and just barely greater than P-47C/D - and now the second part enters. 

The F4U was contemplated as a Low/Medium high performance All Around Fighter - but Long Range escort for USAAF heavy bombers at high alitude was never in Corsair strike zone.

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


----------



## drgondog (Nov 17, 2021)

Metrallaroja said:


> Range increases to 1500 nautical miles max with just one 150 external fuel tank. They could carry two of this.


You need to understand that Range = maximum unmolested straight line capability at optimal cruise altitude and TAS. Combat Radius = 'molested tranquility' in which external stores are dropped, combat at Military and/or Combat Power is engaged, and the distance to return home is not exceeded by the remaining capacity of your (wing fuselge) internal tanks.

In your stated objection above, one of the better choices when attacked - is to 1.) eject the fragile, explosion prone tanks to reduce drag and 2.) increase odds of survival.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ovod (Nov 17, 2021)

Well, that seems to be me told!! 

So I take it that the F4U may indeed have the range to cover much of Germany in some kinds of escort missions, but it couldn't carry out such missions at the right altitude or speed to be anyway useful to the USAAF/8th AF - i.e. escort for B-17 and B-24 bomber missions?

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


----------



## drgondog (Nov 17, 2021)

Ovod said:


> Well, that seems to be me told!!
> 
> So I take it that the F4U may indeed have the range to cover much of Germany in some kinds of escort missions, but it couldn't carry out such missions at the right altitude or speed to be anyway useful to the USAAF/8th AF, ie. escort for B-17 and B-24 bomber missionsß


Visualize between P-47C and late model bubble canopy P-47D-25, then P-38J-15, then P-51B/C/D. Analogy - Brunswick/Stuttgart/ Schweinfurt but not Berlin, Leipzig, Brux, Ruhland, Munich.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 17, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> IIRC, one condition of Lend-Lease is that everything sent had to be returned (it was lent, after all) or destroyed.


They were, returned to the USA in UK "on paper" The USA just left them where they were. I would add that it could be questioned who was lending and leasing what and to whom. Mustangs were flown by RAF pilots from RAF airfields escorting USA bombers. The British ordered it, gave it an engine design and a gunsight design. If they wanted the scrap sent back thats one thing if they wanted flyable planes sent back by the thousand while much of the world was starving that is another, the ships men and fuel involved would be enormous and they would be scrapped in the USA anyway.



Mustang Mk III units were operational until the end of World War II, though many units had already converted to the Mustang Mk IV (P-51D/K). As the Mustang was a Lend-Lease type, all aircraft still on RAF charge at the end of the war were either returned to the USAAF "on paper" or retained by the RAF for scrapping.
From


North American Aviation P-51 Mustang - BCAR.org.uk

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Nov 17, 2021)

I don't think the Corsair was quite up to the latest Fw190s in 1944. It would have been a good substitute for the P-47s on ground attack. The P-47s were superior to everyone else at 30,000ft. This is not ideal for ground attack.


----------



## GregP (Nov 17, 2021)

The F4U did have decent range for a Navy aircraft. But the Navy carrier mission is NOT an escort mission. The Navy generally took off and loitered around the carrier at low power while forming up for a very short time, left on a relatively low-altitude mission (say, 1500 - 15000 feet), and allowed for some 5 - 15 minutes of combat. They typically cruised at 165 - 185 mph, just loafing along.

Escort missions took off and spent some 20 - 30 minutes joining up, cruise-climbed to something like 20,000+ feet. And escorted to Berlin and back at something like 220 mph IAS, which turns into 308 mph TAS at 20,000 feet.

165 mph IAS at 20,000 feet is 143 knots. That turns into 200 kts TAS, or 230 mph. That just won't cut it when flying into combat in the ETO. The P-51s were cruising at slightly over 300 mph and weaving above the bombers. The Corsair absolutely WILL do that, but it won't do it and still retain a good-enough escort range. Yes, they could fit drop tanks. But I don't think the Corsair will magically turn into a good escort fighter.

Would it handle the German fighters? Yes, it would, just fine. But handling the fighters is different from escorting a bomber stream.

The Corsair burned 93 gph at Max cruise at 20,500 feet. Internal fuel was 237 gallons and drop tanks could add another 126 gallons if they were able to be used until dry. Unlikely in the ETO. At a takeoff weight of 13,000 pounds, the range at Navy low cruise speed and low altitude, the range was about 920 NM, or 1058 statute miles. That is at 5,500 feet altitude, at low cruise speeds, with no reserve and no allowance for combat. Straight from the Corsair POH.

So, while the Corsair would have been useful in the ETO, it wasn't ever going to be a P-51 Mustang and tackle long-range missions on a regular basis. That doesn't mean it would not have been welcomed by the fighter community. It would have been.

There are threads in here about how over-rated the P-51 was and is, but I don't see a lot of the people claiming that offering up alternative suggestions for U.S.A.A.F. escort fighters. It absolutely wasn't going to be a Spitfire or Hurricane and, if they WERE available, the U.S.A.A.F. would not have accepted them as regular equipment. The P-47 wasn't up to it, range-wise. Neither was the P-38. We all know the P-39 could do it, at least for 150 - 180 miles or so. Then the P-39 simply drops out of the mission due to fuel shortage. So, it isn't going to make an escort fighter, ever. There were never enough P-61s, and they weren't suitable anyway for escort.

My question is, if the P-51 was so over-rated, what is your suggestion for an alternative U.S.A.A.F. escort fighter? It has to be available when the P-51 was actually available in the war, in sufficient numbers to be useful, and it has to be an aircraft the U.S.A.A.F. would take. That rules out foreign aircraft, which were not really acceptable to the U.S.A.A.F. during WWII.

I don't think the P-51 is overrated in the slightest. It was the only aircraft that could do the job for the U.S.A.A.F., and it was available and in sufficient numbers to make daylight precision bombing, altogether a laughable term ... at least the "precision" part, a reality.

So, they would have welcomed the Corsair, but it would have been used for fighter sweeps, ground attack, support mission, etc. But not for long-range escort.

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


----------



## pbehn (Nov 17, 2021)

GregP said:


> Escort missions took off and spent some 20 - 30 minutes joining up, cruise-climbed to something like 20,000+ feet. And escorted to Berlin and back at something like 220 mph IAS, which turns into 308 mph TAS at 20,000 feet.


Great post, just one point. The IAS or TAS is the speed of the fighter cruising at a speed ready for combat, the ground speed is that of the bomber formation while it is on station. So the consumption is that at 220mph 20K ft but the ground speed may be anything from 120 to 180 MPH


----------



## Howard Gibson (Nov 17, 2021)

GregP said:


> My question is, if the P-51 was so over-rated, what is your suggestion for an alternative U.S.A.A.F. escort fighter? It has to be available when the P-51 was actually available in the war, in sufficient numbers to be useful, and it has to be an aircraft the U.S.A.A.F. would take. That rules out foreign aircraft, which were not really acceptable to the U.S.A.A.F. during WWII.


Reinforcing your thought...

The P-51D was a Mustang airframe modified for long range escort. If you want to compare Spitfires, Fw190s and Corsairs, you need to compare with lightweight Mustangs like the P-51G, P-51F and P-51H. The really versatile aircraft, like the Mustangs and Mosquitos had enough performance that they could sacrifice some of it to perform specific missions.


----------



## GregP (Nov 17, 2021)

No, the consumption is the fuel burn rate of the fighters at the speeds THEY are flying. They S-turn above the bombers when in or coming to areas where combat is expected so they aren't caught slow and at reduced power.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 17, 2021)

The FAA did have Corsairs in the European theater, just not active in battles over the continent.


----------



## VA5124 (Nov 17, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The FAA did have Corsairs in the European theater, just not active in battles over the continent.


But they and the USAAF should have pressed them into combat over germany


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 17, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> But they and the USAAF should have pressed them into combat over germany


The US had the P-47 and the RAF had the Typhoon - both of which were beasts.

No need for the Corsair.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Nov 17, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The US had the P-47 and the RAF had the Typhoon - both of which were beasts.
> 
> No need for the Corsair.


I have to say this the P-47 was heavy the corsair was a little and i mean a little lighter which means when not doing ground attacks would have made it a better dogfighter


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 17, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> I have to say this the P-47 was heavy the corsair was a little and i mean a little lighter which means when not doing ground attacks would have made it a better dogfighter


Lighter doesn't mean better, in terms of dog-fighing.

The P-47 had the ability to turn and fight with the Bf109 at high altitudes, something the F4U would be hard pressed to do.
There was no piston powered aircraft in the Luftwaffe's inventory that could out dive the P-47 and the P-47 could absorb considerable damage and still stay in the fight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Nov 17, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Lighter doesn't mean better, in terms of dog-fighing.
> 
> The P-47 had the ability to turn and fight with the Bf109 at high altitudes, something the F4U would be hard pressed to do.
> There was no piston powered aircraft in the Luftwaffe's inventory that could out dive the P-47 and the P-47 could absorb considerable damage and still stay in the fight.


Well i might be wrong and I'm sorry if I am but I would still have took the corsair im sorry to have wasted everyone time


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 17, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> Well i might be wrong and I'm sorry if I am but I would still have took the corsair im sorry to have wasted everyone time


You're not wasting anyone's time - the F4U is an awesome machine, there's no doubting that at all.
And if it's any consolation, they used the F4U in Korea, not the P-47, so there's that.

The Corsair would have been an asset in ground attack during D-Day, especially since it was used with great succeed to scour the earth in the Pacific during the island invasion operations.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Nov 17, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> You're not wasting anyone's time - the F4U is an awesome machine, there's no doubting that at all.
> And if it's any consolation, they used the F4U in Korea, not the P-47, so there's that.
> 
> The Corsair would have been an asset in ground attack during D-Day, especially since it was used with great succeed to scour the earth in the Pacific during the island invasion operations.


I just think that corsair would have made a good choice because you get speed firepower and turning all in package plus like like you said good for gournd attack and CAS work


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 17, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> I agree but could it go toe to toe with german fighters I'd say yes its fast it can turn decently but the 50 cals hurt us



Why would the 50s hurt it? Did it hurt the P-51? 

Multiple 50s in each wing are more than enough to deal with fighter aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Nov 17, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why would the 50s hurt it? Did it hurt the P-51?
> 
> Multiple 50s in each wing are more than enough to deal with fighter aircraft.


I tend to perfer having at least 1 canonn though like the P-39


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 17, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> I tend to perfer having at least 1 canonn though like the P-39



Yeah but its not necessary to deal with fighter aircraft. Look at their primary opponent. The German aircraft were armed with heavier armament such as cannon because they trying to knock down bomber aircraft. 50s can deal with fighters just fine, which is what a Corsair’s primary opponent will be.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 17, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> I tend to perfer having at least 1 canonn though like the P-39



Even if that cannon is shit?

Though the P-39's cannon (for most variants) had a flat trajectory out to 200 yards, or so I am told.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> As CAS it doesnt have to in Normandy, just give a good account of itself, even 6 x 0.5 mgs will ruin anyones day.



Not to mention the rockets and/or bombs it would carry on such a short hop. The thing was a pig for ordnance.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 18, 2021)

GregP said:


> No, the consumption is the fuel burn rate of the fighters at the speeds THEY are flying. They S-turn above the bombers when in or coming to areas where combat is expected so they aren't caught slow and at reduced power.


That was my point, when discussing range while con station the consumption is the gallons/hr of the escort but the ground speed is that of the bombers being escorted.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 18, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> Well i might be wrong and I'm sorry if I am but I would still have took the corsair im sorry to have wasted everyone time


Some thoughts:

A). There's no shame in being wrong, especially not here, these guys are the most knowledgeable on WWII aviation on the net. You haven't been overbearing or arrogant so no worries. Feel free to ask these guys questions as they have all the answers, you like the Corsair? Great, the crew here will share a WEALTH of information if you ask.

B). Trust me, you haven't wasted anyone's time here. There's no learning if you don't ask questions, you asked about use of the F4U in the ETO, I'd say you got quite a lot of information in response, if it doesn't jive with your opinion, well, join the club. But I'd say you got a pretty good response from some experts in the field of aviation. As an aside, 

 drgondog
can always be counted on for accurate info regarding ETO ops, I just wish he'd write a book about it, well, one can hope.

Everyone here has a favorite aircraft, when it's deficiencies, however small they may be, are pointed out, it isn't with malice, just for informational purposes so we're all on the same (correct) page. I too like the Corsair, it's not my favorite but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate what a great plane it was and what it accomplished in two wars.

Cheers.

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2021)

Well said Peter. We kind of have a reputation here, but it only applies to people who are arrogant and combative. We welcome people with all levels of knowledge. We are all here to learn from each other. There is no stupid question, as long as someone learns from it:

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 18, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well said Peter. We kind of have a reputation here, but it only applies to people who are arrogant and combative. We welcome people with all levels of knowledge. We are all here to learn from each other. There is no stupid question, as long as someone learns from it:



Being a newer member here I'd say that just as with anything in life, if you carry yourself with courtesy and respect, you get treated with the same, and that is certainly the case here.

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


----------



## drgondog (Nov 18, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> Reinforcing your thought...
> 
> The P-51D was a Mustang airframe modified for long range escort. If you want to compare Spitfires, Fw190s and Corsairs, you need to compare with lightweight Mustangs like the P-51G, P-51F and P-51H. The really versatile aircraft, like the Mustangs and Mosquitos had enough performance that they could sacrifice some of it to perform specific missions.


True - but a point. The XP-51F/G had more fuel and range than the P-51B/D without 85 gallon Fuse tank. The H had 255 internal - only 14 gal less than B/D and same range based on slightly better aerodynamics.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Being a newer member here I'd say that just as with anything in life, if you carry yourself with courtesy and respect, you get treated with the same, and that is certainly the case here.



Thank you, and agreed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 18, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> I tend to perfer having at least 1 canonn though like the P-39


I would agree, an F4U with 4 cannons would have been better at pretty much everything, including destroying fighters, and certainly ground attack. The problem was that the US produced 20mm Hispano cannon was notoriously unreliable, and continued to be so, even so late as the Colt Mk12 on the Vietnam era F8 Crusader.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Nov 18, 2021)

The Navy tested a "cleaned up" version of the F4U-1 and found a maximum speed of 431 MPH - but the report was dated Feb. 8, 1945, and by that time F4U-4s were being issued to the fleet, and the war in Europe was almost over. 

If the F4U had to be used in Europe, I think it would have done "well", but it would not have practically done anything better than the P-47. I think it would have been inferior to both the P-47 and P-51 for escorting B-17s and B-24s. To maximize its potential range, it would either have to make due with the dangerous unsealed wing tanks or carry a drop-tank rated for combat. The F4U could have gained some speed by simple measures to optimize it for land-based operations. In air-to-air combat with FW-190 and Bf-109Gs, it would have done at least as well as the P-47.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 18, 2021)

I think the F4U probably could have done a _slightly_ better job in the CAS role than the P-47, specifically if they were up-gunned with 4x Hispano Mk.5's. Maybe a little better low altitude performance, shorter take off distance on crappy, hastily prepared landing strips. 
But really, why bother? There were more than enough P-47's, P-38's, P-51's, Typhoons, Tempests and Spitfires already doing the CAS mission in Europe

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


----------



## VA5124 (Nov 18, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I think the F4U probably could have done a _slightly_ better job in the CAS role than the P-47, specifically if they were up-gunned with 4x Hispano Mk.5's. Maybe a little better low altitude performance, shorter take off distance on crappy, hastily prepared landing strips.
> But really, why bother? There were more than enough P-47's, P-38's, P-51's, Typhoons, Tempests and Spitfires already doing the CAS mission in Europe


I'm sorry if this sounds dumb but can some of you people please tell me more about the typhoon and tempest i dont know much about them

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 18, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I think the F4U probably could have done a _slightly_ better job in the CAS role than the P-47, specifically if they were up-gunned with 4x Hispano Mk.5's. Maybe a little better low altitude performance, shorter take off distance on crappy, hastily prepared landing strips.
> But really, why bother? There were more than enough P-47's, P-38's, P-51's, Typhoons, Tempests and Spitfires already doing the CAS mission in Europe


It quite possibly would be more suitable than a P-47 if only because it was a carrier plane with lower take off landing speeds on steel mesh runways, but the USA was fighting two wars and had the luxury of choosing what went where from a large array of choices.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 18, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> I'm sorry if this sounds dumb but can some of you people please tell me more about the typhoon and tempest i dont know much about them



The Typhoon (Sabre engine) and Tornado (Vulture engine) were scheduled to be the RAF front line fighter into the 1940s. However Tornado with the vulture engine was cancelled due to Rolls Royce having no time to develop it after war was declared. The Typhoon fuselage had problems, the wings were too thick which caused problems, the engine was unreliable. It was rushed into service to cope with the Fw 190 tip and run raids, it did that but developed a bad reputation because it wasnt sorted.
Since the Spitfire was developed further as a fighter the Typhoon became a beast of a fighter bomber.

To solve the above problems the Typhoon got a new fuselage, new wings eventually a new (centaurus) engine and a new cockpit which became the Tempest one of the best performers as a fighter at low level during WW2. The next in the line was the post war sea fury very similar to the Bearcat in almost everything.










Hawker Typhoon - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org












Hawker Tornado - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org












Hawker Tempest - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org












Hawker Sea Fury - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 18, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> I'm sorry if this sounds dumb but can some of you people please tell me more about the typhoon and tempest i dont know much about them


Not dumb by any stretch, no better place to learn about them than here, as I said, these guys are happy to share their EXTENSIVE knowledge.

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


----------



## VA5124 (Nov 18, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> Not dumb by any stretch, no better place to learn about them than here, as I said, these guys are happy to share their EXTENSIVE knowledge.


I just thought it might though i know the main line planes but some of odd ones i dont


----------



## pbehn (Nov 18, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> I just thought it might though i know the main line planes but some of odd ones i dont


5,300 Typhoons and Tempests produced.


----------



## VA5124 (Nov 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> 5,300 Typhoons and Tempests produced.


Thats lower than most and I am not versed in lower production aircraft


----------



## pbehn (Nov 18, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> Thats lower than most and I am not versed in lower production aircraft


But in achievements Typhoon stopped Fw190 Tip and run raids, was instrumental during and post Normandy (Falaise) and supporting allied advance into Germany, Tempest was the only plane to be able to catch a V1 in level flight, at low level Me 262 pilots respected it as a challenge. Another low production aircraft you really must read up on is the B-29 Boeing B-29 Superfortress - Wikipedia


----------



## EwenS (Nov 18, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> I'm sorry if this sounds dumb but can some of you people please tell me more about the typhoon and tempest i dont know much about them








The Hawker Tempest Page







www.hawkertempest.se

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Nov 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> But in achievements Typhoon stopped Fw190 Tip and run raids, was instrumental during and post Normandy (Falaise) and supporting allied advance into Germany, Tempest was the only plane to be able to catch a V1 in level flight, at low level Me 262 pilots respected it as a challenge. Another low production aircraft you really must read up on is the B-29 Boeing B-29 Superfortress - Wikipedia


I actually know that high level bombing of japan plus kit dropped the only nukes to use at war


----------



## pbehn (Nov 18, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> I actually know that high level bombing of japan plus kit dropped the only nukes to use at war


Actually a lot of bombing of Japan was at low level.

The orders for the raid issued to the B-29 crews stated that the main purpose of the attack was to destroy the many small factories located within the target area, but also noted that it was intended to cause civilian casualties as a means of disrupting production at major industrial facilities.[73]​ Each of XXI Bomber Command's three wings was allocated a different altitude to bomb from, in bands between 5,000 feet (1,500 m) and 7,000 feet (2,100 m). These altitudes were calculated to be too high for the light Japanese antiaircraft guns to reach, and below the effective range of the heavy antiaircraft guns.[56]​









Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945) - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 18, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thank you, and agreed.



Well, thank y'all. It's a pleasure to find such a cool resource that is largely uncluttered with flame-wars and whatnot while delivering so much useful information.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Nov 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Actually a lot of bombing of Japan was at low level.
> 
> The orders for the raid issued to the B-29 crews stated that the main purpose of the attack was to destroy the many small factories located within the target area, but also noted that it was intended to cause civilian casualties as a means of disrupting production at major industrial facilities.[73]​ Each of XXI Bomber Command's three wings was allocated a different altitude to bomb from, in bands between 5,000 feet (1,500 m) and 7,000 feet (2,100 m). These altitudes were calculated to be too high for the light Japanese antiaircraft guns to reach, and below the effective range of the heavy antiaircraft guns.[56]​
> 
> ...


Sorry for that when I think of US heavy bomber usage I think 20,000 and about


----------



## pbehn (Nov 18, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> Sorry for that when I think of US heavy bomber usage I think 20,000 and about


The B29 could bomb from high altitude but with the jet stream at 30,000 ft they couldnt hit anything.


----------



## VA5124 (Nov 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The B29 could bomb from high altitude but with the jet stream at 30,000 ft they couldnt hit anything.


Oh i always forget those wind currents are a thing


----------



## special ed (Nov 18, 2021)

I'm 80 and have been reading about airplanes since I was at least 12 and thought I knew a lot, but every week I learn of another plane I had never heard of in addition to learning more about planes I had already studied. For instance, I've learned a certain small interceptor built in New York was so good we didn't need any other fighters. I've built models of it and I didn't know that. (humor)

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


----------



## pbehn (Nov 18, 2021)

special ed said:


> I'm 80 and have been reading about airplanes since I was at least 12 and thought I knew a lot, but every week I learn of another plane I had never heard of in addition to learning more about planes I had already studied. For instance, I've learned a certain small interceptor built in New York was so good we didn't need any other fighters. I've built models of it and I didn't know that. (humor)


I am the same, I just learned the Gloster Gamecock was built in New York.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MCamp (Nov 19, 2021)

Conslaw said:


> The Navy tested a "cleaned up" version of the F4U-1 and found a maximum speed of 431 MPH - but the report was dated Feb. 8, 1945, and by that time F4U-4s were being issued to the fleet, and the war in Europe was almost over.
> 
> If the F4U had to be used in Europe, I think it would have done "well", but it would not have practically done anything better than the P-47. I think it would have been inferior to both the P-47 and P-51 for escorting B-17s and B-24s. To maximize its potential range, it would either have to make due with the dangerous unsealed wing tanks or carry a drop-tank rated for combat. The F4U could have gained some speed by simple measures to optimize it for land-based operations. In air-to-air combat with FW-190 and Bf-109Gs, it would have done at least as well as the P-47.


----------



## MCamp (Nov 19, 2021)

pbehn said:


> But in achievements Typhoon stopped Fw190 Tip and run raids, was instrumental during and post Normandy (Falaise) and supporting allied advance into Germany, Tempest was the only plane to be able to catch a V1 in level flight, at low level Me 262 pilots respected it as a challenge. Another low production aircraft you really must read up on is the B-29 Boeing B-29 Superfortress - Wikipedia


Interesting fact the B-29 program cost more than the Manhattan project

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 19, 2021)

Someone here a while back posted the actual US Corsair vs. Fw 190 evaluation test report. If I recall correctly the report rated them rather equally. Each having advantages and disadvantages over the other, but pretty close to one another.

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


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 19, 2021)

As I stated before, I can see the F4U being used in CAS ala P-47, but I'd still take the Thunderbolt based on better range and the high altitude performance it's turbo delivered.

Not sure I can see a slot for the F6F in ETO ops though, dogfight wise I'm sure it could give a good account of itself but when and where you'd get that opportunity I'm not sure.


----------



## NTGray (Nov 19, 2021)

GregP said:


> That's not a knock on the Brits at all. It's an avid WWII aircraft buff not being happy at how Corsairs in Lend-Lease operation were disposed of. The method of disposition was likely chosen by the U.S.A., so I can't fault the Brits for it. If it were up to me, I'd not send a single piece of military equipment overseas unless it was included that they would all be returned to the U.S.A. when the equipment was no longer needed. To me, if the equipment isn't worth the cost to transport it home when the task is completed, then it isn't worth sending anywhere away from home and the conflict can be fought without the equipment.


Quote from the article: "When the war ended, the Americans were faced with the question of how to get their excess material back, including around 150 planes. It was decided it would be cheaper to get rid of the planes than to bring them back on ships, so they were simply pushed off the back of barges in the lagoon [Kwajelein]."









The Airplane Graveyard: The Forgotten WWII Warbirds of Kwajalein Atoll - Underwater360


At the end of WWII, around 150 American airplanes, all veterans of the Pacific war, were dumped in the lagoon of Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands. A master diver and superb underwater photographer, Brandi Mueller has dived to depths of 120 …




www.uw360.asia


----------



## special ed (Nov 19, 2021)

Somewhere in my stuff I have a Nat. Geographics from 1946 with pictures of U.S. B-24s being flown onto an island until no room to land more, then their backs broken by bulldozer and left.


----------



## NTGray (Nov 19, 2021)

special ed said:


> Somewhere in my stuff I have a Nat. Geographics from 1946 with pictures of U.S. B-24s being flown onto an island until no room to land more, then their backs broken by bulldozer and left.


Here are some more airplane graveyards, from all over. Those neat and tidy lines of Corsairs in New Zealand look almost ready to take off and fight.








26 Sad Images of WWII Airplane Graveyards & Storage Sites


These are very sad images of now priceless, warbirds that were left to rot outside to be recycled later. During and after WWII, crash landed and




www.warhistoryonline.com


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 19, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Someone here a while back posted the actual US Corsair vs. Fw 190 evaluation test report. If I recall correctly the report rated them rather equally. Each having advantages and disadvantages over the other, but pretty close to one another.





http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf



Worthy of note, the Fw 190 tested was a "converted fighter bomber", there seems to be disagreement as to the actual variant tested. As well, the engine was running rough, and seemed to inexplicably quit on them.

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 19, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf



Thank you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 19, 2021)

Hi pbehn. I get your point above about the ground speed. Agreed. So, the escort had to fly a much longer mission to escort the slower bombers than the bombers flew. We pretty much all knew that, but perhaps haven't heard it said quite that way. I have expressed it as, "Since the escorts flew faster than the bombers, they needed to fly farther. Said another way, they all needed the same endurance, but at different speeds, so the distances flown were not the same."

That means the F4U was, as we all pretty much said, never going to be a long-range escort. I think it would have done better than the P-47 in air-to-air combat, but not quite as good in ground attack ... unless the armament was changed to cannons but, this was covered above sufficiently.

Hi VA5124. You didn't waste anybody's time; you helped us get together and have a nice discussion. That's what we're looking for in here, people who stimulate discussion and ask questions we haven't really considered before to get the threads going. This was fun, so stick around! Cheers!

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


----------



## Howard Gibson (Nov 19, 2021)

GregP said:


> That means the F4U was, as we all pretty much said, never going to be a long-range escort. I think it would have done better than the P-47 in air-to-air combat, but not quite as good in ground attack ... unless the armament was changed to cannons but, this was covered above sufficiently.


Did the Thunderbolts use all eight machine guns for strafing? I was under the impression that they turned some of them off. Eight machine guns was how you made sure you hit other aircraft. 

For tactical air superiority and ground attack, I would go for the Corsairs. The Thunderbolts were excellent escort and air superiority planes at 30,000ft. They were effective at ground attack because the Germans were out of fuel and trained pilots.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 19, 2021)

GregP said:


> Hi pbehn. I get your point above about the ground speed. Agreed. So, the escort had to fly a much longer mission to escort the slower bombers than the bombers flew. We pretty much all knew that, but perhaps haven't heard it said quite that way. I have expressed it as, "Since the escorts flew faster than the bombers, they needed to fly farther. Said another way, they all needed the same endurance, but at different speeds, so the distances flown were not the same."


It is something people forget when discussing the radius of a action for a plane. The biggest problem AFAK was in the conduct of a mission, when the formation is going 60MPH slower than planned the various waves to take the bombers in and out get to the RDV point but the bombers arent there.

This was critical in the big raids by the LW on London in the BoB. They were flying into strong head winds which meant the whole formation had a ground speed of around 100mph, the waves of 109 that were sent out to cover the final leg to London caught up with the formation too early and had to turn back before they reached London to avoid running out of fuel. If the wind was blowing the other way the RAF would have been in big trouble.

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


----------



## P-39 Expert (Nov 23, 2021)

The 1943 Corsair and Thunderbolt were both great planes, but the Thunderbolt carried 305gal internal fuel and the Corsair only 237gal if the unprotected wing tanks were excluded. The Thunderbolt would have significantly greater combat radius for escort, and it was not known as a long range plane. 

Oddly the Thunderbolt escorting 8thAF bombers didn't carry drop tanks until August 1943 and then only single 75gal drop tanks. Larger tanks were added later. The Corsair didn't carry factory installed drop tank racks until production began in October 1943 (AHT). These likely barely made combat theaters until 1944. There were some field modification (home made) bomb racks (not tanks) in the Pacific in 1943. Also the Corsair didn't get factory water injection until late November 1943, unlikely these made combat until 1944.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 23, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> Oddly the Thunderbolt escorting 8thAF bombers didn't carry drop tanks until August 1943 and then only single 75gal drop tanks. Larger tanks were added later.


That was quite an achievement IMHO. The P-47 didnt become operational until April 1943 when the official doctrine was heavy bombers could defend themselves. To go from "no escorts needed" to "escorts available with LR tanks" in 4/5 months is quick in military terms, especially when it was on the other side of the Atlantic.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Nov 23, 2021)

pbehn said:


> That was quite an achievement IMHO. The P-47 didnt become operational until April 1943 when the official doctrine was heavy bombers could defend themselves. To go from "no escorts needed" to "escorts available with LR tanks" in 4/5 months is quick in military terms, especially when it was on the other side of the Atlantic.


Huge blunder to produce Thunderbolts without provision for drop tanks. P-38, P-39, P-40 and P-51A all had drop tanks before then.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 23, 2021)

Jun 19, 2020
drgondog 

There are two separate discussions - Ferry tanks and Combat (self sealing) tanks. The US produced only Ferry tanks through most of 1943 despite Arnold ordering Combat tanks as a high priority to Materiel Command in Fighter Conference of Feb 1942.

The use of Ferry Tanks in combat was forbidden in AAC. The mention of Arnold in Bodie was convoluted in origin and specifically pointed out for conversation Kelsey had with Arnold about how the P-38s of 1st FG were flown to England in July 1942.

The order 'forbidding' dropping external tanks was issued by CO of VIII FC, Gen. Monk Hunter because the supply of 75 gal Combat tanks was still very limited in August - October 1943. The Fighter Group CO's basically told their pilots to ignore the order if combat was imminent.

As to the Mustang I and IA. True no provision for combat or external ferry tanks - but early 1941 NAA developed an auxiliary fuel cell housed in the gun bay 0f 18 gal enabling a 1500 mi ferry (or about a 500 mi combat radius with 2x50 cal guns in Mk I and camera). The P-51-NA had the same provision but USAAF never used it as removing 4x20mm eliminated all armament.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 23, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> Huge blunder to produce Thunderbolts without provision for drop tanks. P-38, P-39, P-40 and P-51A all had drop tanks before then.


The blunder is obviously not ordering them, people dont produce things like that unless they are asked. I think you may find the pesky British were involved in some of those types being fitted with bomb and drop tank capability. Further to Milosh' post I think Bill posted that initially the ferry tanks werent pressurised so could only be filled with circa 100 gals which helped a bit on take off and climb. However the P-47 on internal fuel could go further than a P-39 with an external tank and neither the P-39 or P-40 could be considered for use from UK and N Africa is a big place.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Nov 23, 2021)

Plenty of combat with normal (unprotected) external tanks in '42 and '43. I was speaking of the P-51A, not the Mustang I.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Nov 23, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The blunder is obviously not ordering them, people dont produce things like that unless they are asked. I think you may find the pesky British were involved in some of those types being fitted with bomb and drop tank capability. Further to Milosh' post I think Bill posted that initially the ferry tanks werent pressurised so could only be filled with circa 100 gals which helped a bit on take off and climb. However the P-47 on internal fuel could go further than a P-39 with an external tank and neither the P-39 or P-40 could be considered for use from UK and N Africa is a big place.


P-47 on internal fuel could not go as far as a P-39 with an external tank.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 23, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> Plenty of combat with normal (unprotected) external tanks in '42 and '43. I was speaking of the P-51A, not the Mustang I.


I think the British specified drop tanks/ bomb hard points for future Mustangs but the war and lend lease took a hand, the British received 50 P-51As which were operated as Mustang Mk IIs, I need to wait for Christmas to find out in a book lol.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 23, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> P-47 on internal fuel could not go as far as a P-39 with an external tank.


It had over 300 gals compared to 90, but we have been through this, the P-39 couldnt fly from UK and certainly couldnt escort anything with or without a tank.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 23, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> P-47 on internal fuel could not go as far as a P-39 with an external tank.


The P-47N carried over 500 gallons internally IIRC.


----------



## ARTESH (Nov 23, 2021)

I wonder if that "U" has any other meaning other than "The Enemy".


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 23, 2021)

.


ARTESH said:


> I wonder if that "U" has any other meaning other than "The Enemy".


If you're referring to the "U" in the USN's designation "F4U", it stands for "Vought aircraft".

The breakdown is:
"F" - fighter
"4" - fourth type from manufacturer
"U" - Vought Aircraft

The US Navy had an interesting way of designating aircraft manufacturers, most often by an assigned letter that was not consistent with the manufacturer's name.

Several, like Douglas and Curtiss did have a corresponding suffix letter, but others (like Vought and Grumman), did not.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 23, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> Huge blunder to produce Thunderbolts without provision for drop tanks. P-38, P-39, P-40 and P-51A all had drop tanks before then.


Just looked up, the British were receiving Tomahawk IIBs in 1941 with drop tank and self sealing tanks.

The prototype, XP-40, was first flown in October 1938. Deliveries to the USAAC commenced in June 1940. The aircraft caught attention of several countries. The French ordered a batch of Hawk 81A fighters, which was the export version of the P-40, but France was overrun by the Germans shortly afterwards. The French order was taken over by the British, who gave the aircraft their own name – Tomahawk Mk I. Soon Curtiss came up with an improved version, more heavily armed and armored, with self-sealing coating for fuel tanks. The P-40B, first flown in March 1941, was named Tomahawk Mk IIA by the RAF. Two months later Curtiss made available P-40C (Tomahawk Mk IIB to the British) with provision for mounting a drop tank or a bomb on the centerline rack. The aircraft's weight increased, and its performance suffered accordingly.






Curtiss P-40 Warhawk (Tomahawk/Kittyhawk)


Kagero's Area.




www.kagero.eu


----------



## Conslaw (Nov 23, 2021)

This video by Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles goes into the P-47 range issue in great detail. It would have been very hard for the F4U to match the P-47 for bomber escort missions. The F6F is interesting because a relatively large 150-gallon drop tank was integral to the design and available from the start, but in terms of availability, the P-47 was (generalizing) a couple months behind the F4U, and the F6F was a couple months behind the P-47. Would the F6F have had the altitude performance necessary with a. 150-gallon droptank. (At some point, the F6F was also plumbed for carrying a tank under each wing. With 3 tanks, the F6F probably flew like a pig but had fantastic loiter time. A group commander actually got an F6F off a carrier deck with three tanks.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 23, 2021)

Starting with the P-47C-2, provisions were made for a 200 gallon centerline drop tank.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 23, 2021)

I've seen this quoted several times and I think it was mentioned in the book "The Forked Tailed Devil."

_"In November 1941, Kelsey asked his Lockheed contacts to design drop tanks to extend the range of the P‑38, *even though Air Corps policy at the time was absolutely inflexible toward fighter aircraft carrying external fuel tanks."*_

In other publications (that I can't remember at the current time) I believe that Kelsey verbally authorized Lockheed to design a drop tank installation in the guise of pylons that can carry bombs.

Too bad he didn't have the foresight to ask to improve the heater! 

A perfect example of the "customer" getting what they asked for, whether it was right or wrong!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dash119 (Nov 23, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The US Navy had an interesting way of designating aircraft manufacturers, most often by an assigned letter that was not consistent with the manufacturer's name.


I believe the idea was to assign a letter consistent with the manufacturers name. The problem is that several aircraft manufacturers had the gaul to use the same first letter in the name of the company.

F4U - The company that produced the Corsair was Chance-Vought, but the 'C' was already taken by Curtiss, so it was designated with a 'U'.

F4F, F6F, F7F, F8F, etc. - Grumman produced many aircraft for the Navy, but 'G' was already the designator for Great Lakes and later Goodyear, so it was designated with 'F'.

SNJ - North American was the manufacturer, but 'N' was already assigned to the Naval Aircraft Factory, so it was designated with 'J'. As an aside, the 'S' was for Scout, and the 'N' was for Trainer, 'T' having already been used to designate a Torpedo carrying.

See, clear as mud...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 23, 2021)

More about the AAC/ AAF ordering fighters with drop tank capability;

_In November 1941, Kelsey asked his Lockheed contacts to design drop tanks to extend the range of the P-38, even though *Air Corps policy at the time was absolutely inflexible toward fighter aircraft carrying external fuel tanks—the so-called Bomber Mafia favoring heavy bombers wanted no challenge from fighters and medium bombers in the long-range department.* Lockheed proceeded with the request, starting with a batch of 100 P-38Es intended for photo reconnaissance, despite having no written orders, only Kelsey's handshake. Thus, when combat requirements called for longer range via drop tanks, the P-38 was already equipped with fuel lines, hardpoints, and a supply of drop tanks._

Wiki - reference Bodie, Warren M. (1991). The Lockheed P-38 Lightning

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 23, 2021)

Dash119 said:


> I believe the idea was to assign a letter consistent with the manufacturers name. The problem is that several aircraft manufacturers had the gaul to use the same first letter in the name of the company.
> 
> F4U - The company that produced the Corsair was Chance-Vought, but the 'C' was already taken by Curtiss, so it was designated with a 'U'.
> 
> ...


The Japanese Navy was similar with their naming convention, G4M for example:
G - land based attack bomber
4 - fourth type in "G" series
M - Mitsubishi

In regarda to the USN's system, it was established in the 1920's and several of the suffixes were reused over time.

Typically, the letter was assigned in the order it became available.
The Naval Factory's "N" suffix was in use and Berliner-Joyce's "J" suffix was no longer in use (1929-1935), so North American got it.

The "G" suffix was in use by Great Lakes between 1929 and 1935, but when it became available, Goodyear got it, because Grumman had been assigned "F" in 1931.

So in most cases, a manufacturer was assigned the next available slot unless it just happened that an available letter coincided with their name.

As far as the trainer designation, the "N" was selected when the system was established in 1922, so they did use "T" for torpedo, as the USN wanted their combat aircraft to have the most recognizable prefix. Trainers and other non-combat types had "second pick" designations.


----------



## Howard Gibson (Nov 23, 2021)

Conslaw said:


> This video by Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles goes into the P-47 range issue in great detail. It would have been very hard for the F4U to match the P-47 for bomber escort missions. ...


Why would I use a Vought Corsair as an escort fighter? Vought Corsairs would have out performed the P-47 flying tactical air superiority and ground attack missions. Escorting B-17s flying at 28,000ft put combat precisely at altitudes P-47s were effective at. Notes the curves I posted in the earlier posting. ETO bomber escorts require range and high altitude performance.

The Corsair was a smaller, lighter, more manoeuvrable aircraft, with better acceleration and climb. The Thunderbolt was effective down low because the Germans had run out of fuel and experienced pilots.


----------



## GTX (Nov 23, 2021)

Speaking of F4U in Europe...:

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 23, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> The Corsair was a smaller, lighter, more manoeuvrable aircraft,


Smaller?
Three feet shorter and 800 pounds lighter than the P-47 - but one foot taller and one foot wider...

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 23, 2021)

Conslaw said:


> Would the F6F have had the altitude performance necessary with a. 150-gallon droptank. (At some point, the F6F was also plumbed for carrying a tank under each wing. With 3 tanks, the F6F probably flew like a pig but had fantastic loiter time. A group commander actually got an F6F off a carrier deck with three tanks.


I don't know how useful the F6F-3 would have been over Europe in 1944, as it had roughly the same performance as a Mk.V Spitfire, and Mk.V Spitfires were getting their a$$es handed to them by the opposition in 1941. 3 years later, the German stuff only got better, albeit the general quality of the individual Luftwaffe pilot had probably diminished by then.


----------



## Conslaw (Nov 23, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I don't know how useful the F6F-3 would have been over Europe in 1944, as it had roughly the same performance as a Mk.V Spitfire, and Mk.V Spitfires were getting their a$$es handed to them by the opposition in 1941. 3 years later, the German stuff only got better, albeit the general quality of the individual Luftwaffe pilot had probably diminished by then.


Don’t sell the F6F too short. The US Navy did a competitive test between the afásico-190, F4U and F6F. The full report is linked here. In general, the evaluation found that both the F6F and F4U were much more maneuverable than the FW-190. The F4U and FW-190 were generally pretty close in most other areas. The F6F just a bit slower.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 23, 2021)

That Fw 190 was also a converted fighter bomber, operated by unfamiliar crews, with inexplicable engine problems, that resulted in rough running, and un-commanded shutdowns. Whilst the results are interesting, I don't think they represent what an F6F pilot would encounter over occupied France.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 23, 2021)

Depends in the variant of the Fw190.
The Fw190A and Fw190D were fighters.
The Fw190F and Fw190G were ground attack, though the Fw190G was pressed into service as a Jabo during the defense of the Reich.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 23, 2021)

The tested Fw190, which the report claims to be an A4, but may have been an F or G, out ran, out climbed, and out rolled the F6F. 
The report also claimed that "No maneuvers could be done in the FW-190 which could not be followed by both the F4U-1 and F6F-3" yet the Fw190 easily out rolled the F6F in the test. Seems to me that a roll advantage of up to 100 degrees per second (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg) would be useful in a maneuver to shake a pursuing fighter. I am also skeptical of the claim that the Fw190 and F4U were found to be "about equal in rate of roll". 
I think the test is interesting, but also suspect that it isn't representative of a properly maintained, frontline fighter Fw190, crewed by experienced pilots on the type.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 23, 2021)

Worthy to note, when Arnim Faber's Fw190A3 was tested against a Spitfire Mk.VB by the RAE at Farnborough in July 1942, this was determined;

"...
*Climb*: The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire Mk VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet (7620 m). With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked.

*Dive*: Comparative dives have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.

*Manoeuvrability*: The manoeuvrability of the Fw 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can guite easily out-turn it. The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat. When the Fw 190 was in a turn and was attacked by the Spitfire, the superior rate of roll enabled it to flick into a diving turn in the opposite direction. The pilot of the Spitfire found great difficulty in following this manoeuvre and even when prepared for it was seldom able to allow the correct deflection. It was found that if the Spitfire was cruising at low speed and was 'bounced' by the Fw 190, it was easily caught even if the Fw 190 was sighted when well out of range.
..."

Keep in mind that a Spitfire Mk.V could both out turn and out roll an F6F, but the Hellcat and Corsair in the Navy test could follow the Fw190 with seeming ease, in any maneuver. That doesn't add up correctly to me.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## unkated (Nov 24, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> I understand that but most of ones we could get to the ETO would have 6x.50in guns


6x .50cal worked just fine vs Luftwaffe fighters. Had the Germans built heavy bombers in quantity, then US fighters might have needed autocannon for air to air. 

Uncle Ted

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Nov 24, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Keep in mind that a Spitfire Mk.V could both out turn and out roll an F6F, but the Hellcat and Corsair in the Navy test could follow the Fw190 with seeming ease, in any maneuver. That doesn't add up correctly to me.


I have David Brown's book on Seafires here. A Seafire is a modified, albeit, heavier version of the Spitfire MkV. Brown claims that an experienced pilot in an F4U or F6F could out-turn a Seafire.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 24, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Keep in mind that a Spitfire Mk.V could both out turn and out roll an F6F, but the Hellcat and Corsair in the Navy test could follow the Fw190 with seeming ease, in any maneuver. That doesn't add up correctly to me.


Consider the skill level of the pilot flying the aircraft.


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 24, 2021)

FW 190 not in optimum condition in that test?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 24, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Worthy to note, when Arnim Faber's Fw190A3 was tested against a Spitfire Mk.VB by the RAE at Farnborough in July 1942, this was determined;
> 
> "...
> *Climb*: The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire Mk VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet (7620 m). With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked.
> ...



I have seen many reports of comparative fighter performance that seemingly just don't add up. This one doesn't surprise me. It very likely has to do with the relative state of the captured aircraft, whether or not the pilots flying it were using correct power settings (sometimes they were limited by the testing authority so the engine could be kept running longer), and the relative experience of the pilots flying the aircraft. Someone very familiar with a Spitfire, for instance, could get good performance out of it. But the same pilot flying an Fw 190 for the first (or 2nd, 3rd, etc. up to whenever the pilot was very familiar with the new mount) might NOT be able to get the best out of it. You'd have to read the report, and it might not be there anyway, to find out whether or not the pilot flying the Fw 190 was changed into the Spitfire Mk. V on subsequent flight to check whether or not pilot ability had anything to do with the results. In general, WWII flight comparison reports do not seem to me to be very thorough. Many don't say whether or not rails were installed, sometimes not takeoff weight or configuration, how much time was flown before mock combat was joined so the weight could be extrapolated, etc.

It's like going to a dragstrip and seeing one car win big, then the other one wins big next time out. There are skills involved with driving cars at the limit of performance just like there are skills involved in flying fighter aircraft. A well-trained aerobatic pilot might fly a great demonstration of a fighter, but he might also be absolutely awful at combat flying.

Alas, we have the original reports to work with, and no new ones are likely to be generated using pilots with a lot of experience in piston fighters and aircraft of similar "freshness" and maintenance levels.

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 24, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> I have David Brown's book on Seafires here. A Seafire is a modified, albeit, heavier version of the Spitfire MkV. Brown claims that an experienced pilot in an F4U or F6F could out-turn a Seafire.


Sure, if the F4U or F6F pilot is experienced, and holds the aircraft on the ragged edge of a stall, it probably would, assuming the Seafire pilot ISN'T experienced, and doesn't know the limitations of his own aircraft


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 24, 2021)

The one thing we DO know, is that when the Fw190 was first introduced, it took the Allies by surprise and it was quite a while before they could field anything that could counter it at low to medium altitudes.
The one aircraft that was able to meet it on it's own terms, surprisingly enough, was the Typhoon.

So with that in mind, how well would the F4U stack up against the Tiffy?


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 24, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Consider the skill level of the pilot flying the aircraft.


Exactly. 
Experienced pilots, familiar with both the F4U and F6F, flying against a captured enemy aircraft, which is seemingly in a bad state of repair, and is flown by a pilot totally unfamiliar with it, and almost certainly not to its combat potential. I wouldn't doubt that there was an element of propaganda in the test as well, intended for crews still fighting the conflict. "See? our stuff is better, we tested it"

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


----------



## DarrenW (Nov 24, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I don't know how useful the F6F-3 would have been over Europe in 1944, as it had roughly the same performance as a Mk.V Spitfire, and Mk.V Spitfires were getting their a$$es handed to them by the opposition in 1941. 3 years later, the German stuff only got better, albeit the general quality of the individual Luftwaffe pilot had probably diminished by then.


I've seen this mentioned before and it holds some merit when one looks purely at statistical data. Maximum speed of the two aircraft was similar but not identical, with the F6F-3 holding a slight but not so useable edge overall. Both could climb to 20,000 feet in roughly the same time and their respective ceilings were nearly identical. The Hellcat did have a superior dive performance, range, and load carrying capability, with the Spit easily out-rolling the American fighter. I know you mentioned that the Spitfire could out-turn the Hellcat and if this is indeed true I'm fairly certain that it wasn't by very much. The Hellcat is considered one of the best turning allied fighters of the war. And just to recap I'm only comparing the Spitfire Mk.V with the Hellcat and not later models of the British fighter (which obviously had improved performance).

I just want to mention that later F6F-3s and F6F-5s had a somewhat better performance due to minor streamlining improvements and water injection (primarily in climb rate and level speed) but overall performance was still not hugely different from early F6F-3s. 

What has been lost here is the value of the Hellcat as a shipboard fighter. It served as an off-shore strike fighter during Operation Dragoon in August 1944, where the Hellcat saw action against German targets in Southern France and it made a very good accounting of itself. It was used in both the air superiority and ground attack role, with US Navy pilots destroying 825 vehicles and damaging another 334, along with a further 84 locomotives. Eight Luftwaffe aircraft were also brought down during the two week operation.

As stated earlier in this thread, no one in their right mind would ever employ the F6F or F4U as a high-altitude escort fighter in European skies, especially with the selection of USAAF types available from 1943-45. Both naval fighters would best serve as low/medium altitude coastal strike fighters where their capabilities could best be utilized to the fullest.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 24, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Exactly.
> Experienced pilots, familiar with both the F4U and F6F, flying against a captured enemy aircraft, which is seemingly in a bad state of repair, and is flown by a pilot totally unfamiliar with it, and almost certainly not to its combat potential. *I wouldn't doubt that there was an element of propaganda in the test as well, intended for crews still fighting the conflict. "See? our stuff is better, we tested it"*


Actually the opposite is desirable in some cases. "The enemy has better equipment, we need more funding or more orders of item x to deal with it."

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


----------



## DarrenW (Nov 24, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually the opposite is desirable in some cases. "The enemy has better equipment, we need more funding or more orders of item x to deal with it."


Fully agree. And what does anyone gain from "fudging" the numbers if the idea is to better understand an enemy's equipment and thus learn how to better deal with real world combat situations???

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 24, 2021)

DarrenW said:


> hat has been lost here is the value of the Hellcat as a shipboard fighter. It served as an off-shore strike fighter during Operation Dragoon in August 1944, where the Hellcat saw action against German targets in Southern France and it made a very good accounting of itself. It was used in both the air superiority and ground attack role, with US Navy pilots destroying 825 vehicles and damaging another 334, along with a further 84 locomotives. Eight Luftwaffe aircraft were also brought down during the two week operation.


I am assuming, but I think a Spitfire Mk.V would quite easily turn inside a Hellcat, at lower to medium speeds. It would be closer at higher speeds though, probably. The FAA also used Gannets (F6F's) against Luftwaffe units in Norway, and the Grumman's gave a good account of themselves, but they are fairly isolated incidents, and don't really prove much. The F6F was probably the best all around carrier fighter of the war, but would have been at a disadvantage over Europe, if it had been fielded there in any sort of numbers. The F4U would have done better, but again, why bother?


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 24, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually the opposite is desirable in some cases. "The enemy has better equipment, we need more funding or more orders of item x to deal with it."


Reminds me of this test, which was shown to new American recruits, before they deployed to Europe. Pure propaganda, intended to bolster their spirits, in the hopes that the first time an MG42 fires at them, they don't dig in and refuse to advance. Fact of the matter was, in some cases, the German guns WERE better, and formed the basis for new allied designs after the war. No point telling the 17 year old kid that, though

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


----------



## DarrenW (Nov 24, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The FAA also used Gannets (F6F's) against Luftwaffe units in Norway


 Just a small caveat needed here: The British only briefly called the F6F the Gannet (before it entered combat operations). By February 1944 all FAA F6Fs officially became known as Hellcat Mk.Is. 



Clayton Magnet said:


> but I think a Spitfire Mk.V would quite easily turn inside a Hellcat


I think "quite easily" would be stretch but we can just agree to disagree on this point.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Nov 24, 2021)

Always go for the Thompson M-1921. It never ran out of ammo. Just watch Sergeant Saunders on the tv show Combat.

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


----------



## Howard Gibson (Nov 24, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> So with that in mind, how well would the F4U stack up against the Tiffy?


I am looking at data from ww2aircraftperformance.org, and I see that the Typhoon is faster below 15,000ft, and much faster below 10,000ft. The F4U hits about the same top speed as the Typhoon at a somewhat higher altitude.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 24, 2021)

DarrenW said:


> I think "quite easily" would be stretch but we can just agree to disagree on this point


Turn radius is difficult to measure and compare, but if relative wing loading is anything to go by, then the Mk.V is about 10 lb/ft2​ less than a Hellcat, 27 vs 37. 
But there is more to it than that, so who knows.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 24, 2021)

I think one should note that several fighters that were successful in the ETO did not succeed in the Pacific.

I think it's unlikely either the Corsair or Hellcat would be significantly outclassed by _Luftwaffe_ fighters. One should also note that the US did comparisons between its own aircraft, and the Corsair, at least, was well able to meet any USAAF contemporary on equal terms.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 24, 2021)

The Hellcat had the most wing area of any Allied fighter. What would make you think a Spitfire would easily turn inside it? The wing loading was very much the same.

Spitfire faster? Sure, but a better turner? I'd like to see that measured in a flight comparison test.

That assumes both are at normal fighter weights and not long-range or heavy loads. The radial was closer to the CG in the Hellcat than the Merlin was in the Spitfire. That usually means better pitch rate ... not always, though.

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


----------



## wuzak (Nov 25, 2021)

GregP said:


> The Hellcat had the most wing area of any Allied fighter. What would make you think a Spitfire would easily turn inside it? The wing loading was very much the same.



The F6F had ~ 50% extra wing area compared to the Spitfire V and ~90% more gross weight.

In other words, roughly 40% greater wing loading.

I would imagine that the big wing area is best in low speed manoeuvring, but a little detrimental at high speeds.


----------



## Macandy (Nov 25, 2021)

GregP said:


> That's not a knock on the Brits at all. It's an avid WWII aircraft buff not being happy at how Corsairs in Lend-Lease operation were disposed of. The method of disposition was likely chosen by the U.S.A., so I can't fault the Brits for it. If it were up to me, I'd not send a single piece of military equipment overseas unless it was included that they would all be returned to the U.S.A. when the equipment was no longer needed. To me, if the equipment isn't worth the cost to transport it home when the task is completed, then it isn't worth sending anywhere away from home and the conflict can be fought without the equipment.




It was a stipulated requirement of Lend Lease that on end of war plus 12 weeks, all LL equipment had to be either, (1) Returned to US custody - no charge, (2) Declared as destroyed/written off - No charge, (2) Retained by end user - to be paid for at 10c on the $

There was a US list of equipment they would accept back, things like D model P-51's, but @90% of LL equipment was stricken off US charge on VJ Day as 'obsolete'.
Anything so declared, things like F4F Wildcats, P-40 Tomahawks, were to be destroyed in place by the end users and written off the LL bill.

The UK retained and paid for plenty of LL planes like the Dakota. The US didn't want to pay to bring home huge numbers of obsolete and war weary planes to scrap as well as depress its aircraft industry.

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


----------



## DarrenW (Nov 25, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> One should also note that the US did comparisons between its own aircraft, and the Corsair, at least, was well able to meet any USAAF contemporary on equal terms.


The Army Air Force also evaluated the Hellcat and gave it a pretty decent rating overall:



http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-3-25820.pdf


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 25, 2021)

GregP said:


> The Hellcat had the most wing area of any Allied fighter. What would make you think a Spitfire would easily turn inside it? The wing loading was very much the same.
> 
> Spitfire faster? Sure, but a better turner? I'd like to see that measured in a flight comparison test.
> 
> That assumes both are at normal fighter weights and not long-range or heavy loads. The radial was closer to the CG in the Hellcat than the Merlin was in the Spitfire. That usually means better pitch rate ... not always, though.


I would also like to see a flight comparison test. But if Wikipedia is worth anything, then the Mk.V Spitfire wing loading was about 10 pounds per square foot less than an F6F. A griffon engined Mk.XIV, which arguably could be considered a contemporary of the Hellcat, as they entered service within a few months of each other, had a closer, but still lower wing loading than an F6F. While wing loading was only part of the equation, the Spit Mk.V's was still _significantly_ lower.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Nov 25, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> the Mk.V Spitfire wing loading was about 10 pounds per square foot less than an F6F.


Calculations performed concerning wing loading can be deceiving. For example, it was common practice for the US Navy to test aircraft at their _overload_ weight but use them operationally at their _normal _weight. Concerning the F6F this would shave off approximately 1,000 lbs and lower the wing loading to just over 34 lbs per square foot. What would have been the _normal_ loaded weight of a Spitfire Mk. V? Just asking because I'm no expert on the Spitfire but I know some of you here are.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 25, 2021)

for what its worth, a US Navy test of the Ki-61 found "the Tony is greatly superior to the F6F in turns below 180 knots" but the advantage decreased slightly at 20000'. Considering the Ki-61 was a Japanese fighter designed to not stress horizontal maneuverability, yet still comfortably turned inside a Hellcat, is telling.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Nov 25, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> for what its worth, a US Navy test of the Ki-61 found "the Tony is greatly superior to the F6F in turns below 180 knots" but the advantage decreased slightly at 20000'. Considering the Ki-61 was a Japanese fighter designed to not stress horizontal maneuverability, yet still comfortably turned inside a Hellcat, is telling.
> 
> View attachment 649477



That's actually not too shocking really. The KI-61 was notably maneuverable and held up well when tested against it's contemporaries, both allied and axis types combined. Here is a quote from a web article that seems very well researched with good sources (although it doesn't list any details of the exact flight testing performed):

_The Ki-61 was pitted against other Japanese fighters, as well as against the Messerschmitt Bf 109E-3, of which two had been bought by the IJA from the Germans, and the Curtiss P-40E, several of which had fallen into Japanese hands after the capture of the Dutch East Indies.

While test pilots were a little skeptical of the new aircraft at first, pilots with combat experience appreciated the Ki-61's self-sealing fuel tanks, heavier armor and armament, and fast diving speed. The air combat tests showed the Ki-61 to be faster than all its adversaries, and it easily out-maneuvered everything it went up against except the Japanese Nakajima Ki-43._

Source: The Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien & Ki-100

Also we need to quantify what actually is meant by "greatly superior" in the American report, as the representative graph has no scale to help us truly understand how critical the evaluators were when comparing the outcome of the tests.

I'm actually in agreement that the Spitfire had an edge in the turn department but to say the British fighter could "quite easily turn inside a Hellcat" I think is somewhat of an exaggeration to say the least.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 25, 2021)

DarrenW said:


> I'm actually in agreement that the Spitfire had an edge in the turn department but to say the British fighter could "quite easily turn inside a Hellcat" I think is somewhat of an exaggeration to say the least.


well, a Seafire III was flown against an F6F in the Patuxent River trials, perhaps someone has the report?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Nov 25, 2021)

I understand that the control surfaces utilized during the implementation of a coordinated turn are the ailerons, rudder, and elevators. Maybe we can look further on the effectiveness of these in regards to both the Hellcat and Spitfire and draw some conclusions???

Hopefully real world pilots such as BiffF15 and FlyboyJ can also chime in and tell us what their thoughts are in regards to what factors can effect turn performance such as control surface design, wing loading, engine/propeller torque, location of CG, ect, not to mention altitude and speed at which the turn is initiated.

Any aircraft engineers or aerodynamicists out there as well?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Nov 25, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> well, a Seafire III was flown against an F6F in the Patuxent River trials, perhaps someone has the report?


Are you referring to the Joint Fighter Conference held during October 1944?


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 25, 2021)

DarrenW said:


> Are you referring to the Joint Fighter Conference held during October 1944?


Correct. A Seafire III was included I believe, but it was something of an afterthought. Would be a little worse performing than a Mk.V, but the turn rates would be similar I think

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Nov 25, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Correct. A Seafire III was included I believe, but it was something of an afterthought. Would be a little worse performing than a Mk.V, but the turn rates would be similar I think


This is what David Brown wrote about. The Hellcat out-turned the Seafire. The LIIIC Seafire was faster below 9,000ft. It had a faster roll, it was very much superior in acceleration and rate of climb. The Hellcat was faster above 10,000ft, it had a longer range. It was sturdier, and way safer to land on a carrier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 25, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> This is what David Brown wrote about


Was this posted earlier in the thread? Perhaps I missed it


----------



## Howard Gibson (Nov 25, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Was this posted earlier in the thread? Perhaps I missed it


Yes, by me.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 25, 2021)

DarrenW said:


> I understand that the control surfaces utilized during the implementation of a coordinated turn are the ailerons, rudder, and elevators. Maybe we can look further on the effectiveness of these in regards to both the Hellcat and Spitfire and draw some conclusions???
> 
> Hopefully real world pilots such as BiffF15 and FlyboyJ can also chime in and tell us what their thoughts are in regards to what factors can effect turn performance such as control surface design, wing loading, engine/propeller torque, location of CG, ect, not to mention altitude and speed at which the turn is initiated.
> 
> Any aircraft engineers or aerodynamicists out there as well?


As I understand it, instantaneous turn depends on things like wing loading and strength, the difference between how much power (thrust) the plane has and how much drag it generates determines how quickly it spirals down maintaining a that high G turn. For turning at a sustained altitude this can be compared to rate of climb. Maximum rates of climb and rates of climb at given forward speeds and altitudes are indicators of sustained turn ability at those altitudes and speeds. I would not be surprised if a Hellcat could out turn a Spitfire in instantaneous or low speed descending turns, a Hurricane could too. But carrier aircraft are normally at quite low altitude you cant lose altitude turning for long before you hit water.

If that makes any sense at all?

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 25, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> I have David Brown's book on Seafires here. A Seafire is a modified, albeit, heavier version of the Spitfire MkV. Brown claims that an experienced pilot in an F4U or F6F could out-turn a Seafire.


Do you have the reference handy? An experienced pilot in a Corsair or Hellcat may very well pull harder, because they know the limits of their aircraft. An experienced Hellcat pilot could out turn an A6M as well, if he kept his speed up and didn't play the Zero's game. 
Oberleutnant Erwin Leykauf claimed that he could ALWAYS out turn a spitfire in his Bf 109E, and often did, because he knew exactly where the stall was after the slats popped out, and could hold it there expertly. The pilots he out turned most likely didn't have his skill and experience, and didn't get the most out of their machine. Doesn't mean the 109E had a smaller turn radius than a Mk.I Spitfire, just means he knew what he was doing. A Spitfire Mk.V has a significant wing loading advantage over both the F6F and F4U, and should have a correspondingly smaller minimum turn radius.

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


----------



## pbehn (Nov 25, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> I have David Brown's book on Seafires here. A Seafire is a modified, albeit, heavier version of the Spitfire MkV. Brown claims that an experienced pilot in an F4U or F6F could out-turn a Seafire.


There were many types of Seafire, the most produced was based on a MK V Spitfire but a Mk V Spitfire was also the most produced Spitfire, the later versions of it were real low level hot rods, lighter than the twin stage types like the MK IX but with the same power if using the same boost and fuel.


----------



## Howard Gibson (Nov 25, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Do you have the reference handy? An experienced pilot in a Corsair or Hellcat may very well pull harder, because they know the limits of their aircraft. An experienced Hellcat pilot could out turn an A6M as well, if he kept his speed up and didn't play the Zero's game.
> Oberleutnant Erwin Leykauf claimed that he could ALWAYS out turn a spitfire in his Bf 109E, and often did, because he knew exactly where the stall was after the slats popped out, and could hold it there expertly. The pilots he out turned most likely didn't have his skill and experience, and didn't get the most out of their machine. Doesn't mean the 109E had a smaller turn radius than a Mk.I Spitfire, just means he knew what he was doing. A Spitfire Mk.V has a significant wing loading advantage over both the F6F and F4U, and should have a correspondingly smaller minimum turn radius.


The Seafire, by David Brown.

The tested aircraft was a Seafire LFIIIC, which had clipped wingtips. The low altitude Seafires were hot rods, although only at low altitude. The LFIICs and LFIIICs had six stack exhausts and, four blade propellers, so they look a bit like Spitfire_IXs. The engines put out 1,600HP at low altitude.

All of the WWII Seafires were modified Spitfire_Vs. The post war XVs and XVII were like Spitfire_XIIs, Seafires with Griffon engines replacing the Merlins. The Seafire_45 was the first to get a two-stage supercharger. 

I have recently learned that the flying Seafire_47 with the six blade contra-rotating propellers is using a Griffon_57 engine, presumably from an Avro Shackleton. Single-stage supercharger.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 25, 2021)

DarrenW said:


> I understand that the control surfaces utilized during the implementation of a coordinated turn are the ailerons, rudder, and elevators. Maybe we can look further on the effectiveness of these in regards to both the Hellcat and Spitfire and draw some conclusions???
> 
> Hopefully real world pilots such as BiffF15 and FlyboyJ can also chime in and tell us what their thoughts are in regards to what factors can effect turn performance such as control surface design, wing loading, engine/propeller torque, location of CG, ect, not to mention altitude and speed at which the turn is initiated.
> 
> Any aircraft engineers or aerodynamicists out there as well?


Aside from wing loading and performing a coordinated turn (pilot skill) you have to look at lift coefficient and available thrust. I had this link bookmarked, I think this explains a lot while discussing formation flying. https://www.kimerius.com/app/download/5784133491/Fighter+formation+fundamentals.pdf

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Nov 25, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Aside from wing loading and performing a coordinated turn (pilot skill) you have to look at lift coefficient and available thrust. I had this link bookmarked, I think this explains a lot while discussing formation flying. https://www.kimerius.com/app/download/5784133491/Fighter+formation+fundamentals.pdf


 I totally forgot about the importance of lift coefficient.

And thank you for the link. I will read it over and see what I can further learn about the topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Nov 26, 2021)

After re-discovering the importance of lift coefficient (CL) in a turning maneuver, I went back to look at some calculations presented by Francis H. Dean in his book _America's Hundred-Thousand_. On page 603 he created a chart which showed the turning performance of various fighters, including the Hellcat. He devised a rating system which utilized the formula:

_*wing loading/maximum lift coefficient=minimum turn radius index *_

In a nutshell, the aircraft with the lower index rating will be capable of a tighter minimum turn radius. I was then able to locate documents created by NACA during the war which show the results of stall testing performed on both the Spitfire Mk. VA and F6F-3 airplanes: 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/NACA-Spitfire-V-Stalling.pdf (page 7)

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19930092602/downloads/19930092602.pdf (page 3 &4)

I then used the minimum turn radius index formula and plugged in data from these reports and came up with these figures:

Spitfire Mk.VA : Glide condition (gear up/flaps up/no power) = 22.3
landing approach (gear down/flaps down/2300 rpm) = 14.9

F6F-3 Hellcat: Glide condition (gear up/flaps up/no power) = 23.1
landing approach (gear down/flaps down/2550 rpm) = 13.7

For reference purposes, the Hellcat was tested at 11,200 lbs, which put the wing loading at 33.5 pounds per square foot, while the Spitfire was tested at 6,184 lbs giving it a wing loading of 25.6 pounds per square foot. Both aircraft were apparently flown below their maximum take-off weights. I decided to use lift coefficient data with gun ports open, as I felt this better represented a combat condition airplane. By the way, the Spitfire test weight was obtained from a NACA report which was created during the same month as the stall testing of the airplane (September 1942), so I can only assume that the test weight for each was the same. 



http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/NACA-Spitfire-V-Flying.pdf



What I can gather from all of this is that the Spitfire has a slight turn advantage in a glide condition but when in a landing condition the Hellcat edges it out to some degree. I think the Hellcat benefited from a more efficient flap design, allowing for a much higher lift coefficient in a landing condition. I am aware that Hellcat pilots would sometimes deploy flaps in a dogfight in order to tighten their turns. It is also interesting how close the two aircraft are while using Dean's method to determine turn performance. 

What do you guys think of all this? I know it's not the most scientific means of determining turn radius but to some degree it does make sense, at least to me.

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 26, 2021)

DarrenW said:


> What do you guys think of all this? I know it's not the most scientific means of determining turn radius but to some degree it does make sense, at least to me.



It may or may not be definitive -- I'm not qualified to say one way or the other --but I sure do admire you shaking this problem like a terrier shaking a rat, and appreciate you doing so.

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


----------



## DarrenW (Nov 26, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> It may or may not be definitive -- I'm not qualified to say one way or the other --but I sure do admire you shaking this problem like a terrier shaking a rat, and appreciate you doing so.


LOL It is crazy how much effort I can put into something that most human beings would find a complete waste of their time! But I find it extremely fun so why the heck not?!?

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Nov 26, 2021)

DarrenW said:


> LOL It is crazy how much effort I can put into something that most human beings would find a complete waste of their time! But I find it extremely fun so why the heck not?!?



I get that way about things at times ... I had a friend way back when who'd tell folks, "watch out, Darrell's got lockmind right now."

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 26, 2021)

Now that's really going into the weeds! , thanks 

 DarrenW
. 
I am going to quote the late, great Parsifal here, whom had forgotten more about this stuff than I will ever know. I hope he wouldn't mind me using his words.

"Hellcat turn radius at its optimum combat speeds was about 670 feet. optimum turn radius for a spitfire @ 12000 feet and at sustained speeds in excess of 300 mph was 676 ft. On the face of it, the Hellcat can out turn a spitfire (by about a smidgeon), but we are not comparing apples to apples here. The speeds art which the Spitfire is making that turn are significantly greater than for Hellcat. If you compare the turn radius at similar speeds, the Spitfire will out turn the Hellcat by a comfortable margin.

RAAF tests conducted in 1943 after the drubbing it received at the hands of the A6M3 revealed that at lower speeds, the Zeke could easily out turn the Spit, but at higher speeds the tables were turned and the Spit could sustain a turn rate equal to or better than the Zeke. this was never matched by the Hellcat, except at speeds that the Zeke couldnt even be flown at.

There is no question in my mind, the Spitfire was a more manouverable plane in the horizontal plane."

Taken from this thread Hellcat vs Spitfire - which would you take?

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 26, 2021)

We know from the Navy trials with the captured Ki-61, that the Wildcat Fm-2 and Tony were "approximately equal in turn radius at all altitudes" . That same trial rated the Ki-61 as "greatly superior to the F6F in turns", so I think one could reasonably conclude that the Wildcat could comfortably turn inside a Hellcat. My question now, is there a comparative trial between a Seafire/Spitfire and the Martlet/Wildcat?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Nov 26, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Now that's really going into the weeds! , thanks
> 
> DarrenW
> .
> ...



No problem Clayton...looks like you like getting dirty too lol! 

What Parsifal said is basically proven out by my previous post. The Hellcat could normally out-turn the Spitfire at low to medium speeds but anything above 200 mph the Spitfire reigns supreme. How did I come up with this number? Well the Hellcat has an automatic electric flap system which could only be utilized below 170 knots, or 196 mph. This was implemented as both a safety feature as well as to lessen the workload of the pilot. Just flip the flap switch and the flaps will only work at pre-determined speeds. Once deployed, the flaps "blow up automatically" at varying degrees once 90 knots is reached, per the pilot manual.

So I think we now know the circumstances as to why David Brown made the statement that he made, agreed?


----------



## DarrenW (Nov 26, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> We know from the Navy trials with the captured Ki-61, that the Wildcat Fm-2 and Tony were "approximately equal in turn radius at all altitudes" . That same trial rated the Ki-61 as "greatly superior to the F6F in turns", so I think one could reasonably conclude that the Wildcat could comfortably turn inside a Hellcat. My question now, is there a comparative trial between a Seafire/Spitfire and the Martlet/Wildcat?


So are you comfortable saying that the Hellcat has a turn performance "greatly superior" to the Corsair? According to the graph it sure looks that way. My gut feeling says NO.....


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 26, 2021)

DarrenW said:


> What Parsifal said is basically proven out by my previous post. The Hellcat could normally out-turn the Spitfire at low to medium speeds but anything above 200 mph the Spitfire reigns supreme.


I think Parsifal stated the opposite. The Hellcat turning at its optimum speed was about equivalent and slightly better than a Spitfire (Which mark?) turning at 300+mph. When both are turning at the same, lower speed, the Spitfire turns inside the Hellcat.

Basically, if a Hellcat is going to out turn a spitfire, the Hellcat needs to be going slow, and the spitfire needs to be going fast. Same way the spitfires were able to out turn the A6M3's as per the RAAF test

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 26, 2021)

DarrenW said:


> So are you comfortable saying that the Hellcat has a turn performance "greatly superior" to the Corsair? According to the graph it sure looks that way. My gut feeling says NO.....


I don't think so, looking at that graph, they have the F6F only slightly in front of the F4U-4. I would be comfortable saying the Hellcat was a good turning fighter, but only really when compared to other heavy weights, like the F4U, P-47, P-51 and Tempest.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Nov 26, 2021)

How much does lift coefficient vary between Spit, F6F, F4U, Bf 109, P-51 etc.? How much of a difference does it typically make compared to Wing Loading?

The Soviets always made a significant distinction between 'horizontal' (turns) and vertical (loops etc.) maneuvering, and rated aircraft according to these factors. The latter has to do with climb rate.

Every anecdotal account I know of, and every test seems to place the Spitfire V, VIII or IX as a superior turner to almost any other aircraft it was compared to, with the exception of the A6M and Ki-43, and as previously noted here Spitfire (like several other Allied types) could out-turn A6M in high-speed turns. Not sure about the Ki-43 on that specific.

The issue of using flaps in turns is significant of course. Many aircraft had maneuvering flap settings, like Bf 109s I believe did, some had automatic maneuvering flaps like the Ki-43 and N1K1. From what I understand, most US Navy aircraft including specifically F4F and F6F, had flaps which could not be deployed above a certain speed, and which would automatically close. The Spitfire also seemed to have only two flap settings from what I remember reading - basically landing or up. They seemed to have such a turning advantage over German fighters that a combat flap setting wasn't thought necessary. The preferred strategy for dealing with Japanese fighters also tended against trying to improve turn rate.

The other factor in turns is power, which you can measure in power to weight ratios.

I was surprised to learn how relatively poor the roll rate for the F6F was. I always had a pet theory that most really successful fighters had pretty good roll. Maybe I need to rethink that.

Here are 'standard*' wing loadings and power / mass ratios for several fighters under discussion. Obviously this is very 'back of the envelope', it's just meant a kind of quick reference.

*Fighter ------ Weight*----- Wing Area ---- Wing Loading ---- Horsepower --- Power Loading ---- Full throttle height (Not certain about these numbers)*
F6F-3 -------- 12,500 ---------- 334 ----------- 37.4 --------------- 2000 ----------- 0.16 ------------------ 22k
F4U-1 ------- 12,000 --------- 314 ----------- 38.2 --------------- 2000 ----------- 0.17 ----------------- 22k
Spit V -------- 6,400 ---------- 242 ----------- 26.4 --------------- 1478 ----------- 0.23 ----------------- 20k
Spit V (Clipped)6,400 -------- 231 ------------ 27.7 -------------- 1478 ------------ 0.23 ----------------- 18k
Spit IX -------- 7,200 ---------- 242 ----------- 29.7 --------------- 1600 ------------ 0.22 ----------------- 25k (and 14k)
P-51C --------- 9,000 ---------- 235 ----------- 38.2 --------------- 1490 ----------- 0.16 ----------------- 25k
P-51D --------- 9,500 ---------- 235 ----------- 40.4 --------------- 1560 ----------- 0.16 ----------------- 25k
BF109G2 ------ 6371 ---------- 177 ----------- 35.9 --------------- 1450 ------------ 0.22 ----------------- 22k
Bf109G6 ------ 6940 ---------- 177 ----------- 39.2 --------------- 1550** ---------- 0.22 ----------------- 25k

* for weight I put combat weights I found on WW2Aircraft performance. This is supposed to be 'normal combat weight' not max gross.
Mustang on wing area I saw 233 or 235, I'm not sure which is right.

** G-6 has 1800 hp under MW/50 boost from what I understand, which makes power-weight of 0.25

Clipped wing Spitfires seem to have only marginally heavier wing loading but anecdotally, they didn't turn as well from what I understand.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Nov 26, 2021)

GTX said:


> Speaking of F4U in Europe...:
> 
> View attachment 649298


I wanted to give a shout out to this image. It really shows the differences between the Spit and Corsair even if the perspective makes the Corsair's wings appear shorter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 26, 2021)

NevadaK said:


> I wanted to give a shout out to this image. It really shows the differences between the Spit and Corsair even if the perspective makes the Corsair's wings appear shorter.


I believe the FAA Corsairs had shortened wings

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


----------



## DarrenW (Nov 26, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I don't think so, looking at that graph, they have the F6F only slightly in front of the F4U-4. I would be comfortable saying the Hellcat was a good turning fighter, but only really when compared to other heavy weights, like the F4U, P-47, P-51 and Tempest.


Not sure if we're reading the graph in the same but at this point it's immaterial. Until we can find hard statical data concerning turn performance between the Ki-61 and Spitfire Mk.V and draw an inference from there the graph has no real weight in our discussion. 

The main take away is that lift coefficient should be considered along with wing loading when determining an aircraft's turn performance. The lift coefficient of the Hellcat's wing was greater than that of the Spitfire and it offset some if not all of the wing loading deficiency at certain speeds. I think this is very telling to say the least.


----------



## NevadaK (Nov 26, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> I'm wondering how the corsair would do in the ETO could it go toe to toe with the Germens ?


Greetings VA 5124,

This is a provocative topic and has come up before on the forum. Here are a couple links to earlier threads:





Corsair and Hellcat in Europe


The Chance-Vought (actually Vought-Sikorsky ... all the drawings start with "VS" anyway) F4U Corsair gave the Japanese a nasty surprise. I was a very good fighter and, in its later versions, was simply outstanding by any measure of success of fighter prowess. What do you think might have...



ww2aircraft.net









Was the corsair as good a fighter as the spitfire or the FW?


I was reading this article about best fighter aircraft. Here it is http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html Chance Vought's F4U-4 came about as a development of the F4U-4XA, which was first flown in early April 1944. It was fitted with an up-rated Pratt Whitney R2800-18W or -42W...



ww2aircraft.net





My feeling is that the Corsair would have equalled or bettered potential opposing Axis fighters within its best operating envelope below 20,000 ft. While you mention the ETO, I suspect that the F4U-1 would have had great value in the MTO during the North Africa, Sicily, Italian campaigns especially in CAS and TAC. If the F4U had found its way to extensive use in the MTO/ETO I'm certain that we would have seen a variant appear that embodied the weight savings and performance modifications applied to Marine Corsairs in the Pacific. Ultimately, if the Corsair were being used as a strictly land based fighter, you would see a new non-folding wing further lightening and improving the basic design. (I was looking for a citation here, as I recall seeing reference to this proposed for Marine aircraft.)

The Corsair was an outstanding combat aircraft an assessment that is reinforced by the fact that it was produced well after the war and was used in Korea with distinction.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Nov 26, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I believe the FAA Corsairs had shortened wings


This is true, eight inches were clipped from each wingtip in order to clear the height of the ship's internal hangar space.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Nov 26, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I believe the FAA Corsairs had shortened wings


The FAA Corsair wings were reduced by 8" per side (16") The F4U wingspan was 41', so FAA wingspan should be around 39'- 6". The Spifire IX is list as 36' - 10". Not sure which model we are looking at in the photo, but it looks like the same wing plan.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 26, 2021)

Just looking at the wings makes the Spitfire appear bigger because it is closer, if you look at the shadows cast by both aircraft and compare to the white lines, the Spitfire clearly has the shorter span.

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


----------



## Schweik (Nov 26, 2021)

From reading through the thread, it sounds like the F4U didn't have the altitude performance to really dominate Bf 109 or Fw 190, which I found kind of surprising. On paper it looks very competitive aside from that, especially considering it can roll with the Fw but also out-turn it. But if it can't compete at 25,000 feet that would be a significant problem especially for any kind of escort mission.

Water injection may make the difference though, I'd like to see the numbers. 

Instinctively, if Spit Vs and P-40Fs could hold their own with Bf 109F and (early) G in North Africa and Italy I would think the F4U would do noticeably better.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 26, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I believe the FAA Corsairs had shortened wings


I have read that clipping the wings to get it in British carriers which had lower ceilings, also made it a better plane to land on a carrier, with a slightly higher sink rate and less tendency to float across the deck, obviously something is lost somewhere else in the envelope of performance.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 27, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I believe the FAA Corsairs had shortened wings


Not by much.


----------



## GregP (Nov 27, 2021)

wuzak said:


> The F6F had ~ 50% extra wing area compared to the Spitfire V and ~90% more gross weight.
> 
> In other words, roughly 40% greater wing loading.
> 
> I would imagine that the big wing area is best in low speed manoeuvring, but a little detrimental at high speeds.


No, it didn't.

The F6F-5 normal gross weight was 12,593 lbs. It had 334 sq ft of wing area. So, at gross weight, the wing loading was 37.7 lbs/sq ft. At 10,000 lbs, it was 29.9 lbs/sq ft.

A Spitfire Mk. V had a normal gross weight of 6,784 lbs and 242 sq ft of wing area, for a normal wing loading of 28.0 lbs/sq ft. At 5,900 lbs, it has a wing loading of 24.4 lbs/sq ft.

That is 35% higher wing loading at gross weight and about 25% greater at lighter weight for both. So, as the Hellcat gets lighter, the Spitfire V's advantage gets smaller. And, the Hellcat has a radial engine with the weight much closer to the CG, which should make the instantaneous turn rate better.

I'd like to see a real comparative test, if one exists.

Against a Spitfire XIV, the Hellcat's wing loading was almost the same. 37.7 lbs/sq ft for the Hellcat and 35.1 lbs/sq ft for the Spitfire XIV. The F6F-5 was killing Japanese air power right when the Spit XIV was being flown and the Mk. V was on the way out or pretty much gone since the Mk. IX was coming on strong. I'm not at all sure the XIV would out-turn a Hellcat, but I might give the Mk. V a nod to have a slight turning advantage ... maybe not.

As I said, I'd like to see a comparative turn test, but with airplanes being flown from mid-1943 through early 1945. Until then, the Hellcat scored exceptionally well against its competition. I don't have comparable statistics for the Spitfire, so any statements about the relative effectiveness would be unverifiable, at least to me.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 27, 2021)

Schweik said:


> From reading through the thread, it sounds like the F4U didn't have the altitude performance to really dominate Bf 109 or Fw 190, which I found kind of surprising. On paper it looks very competitive aside from that, especially considering it can roll with the Fw but also out-turn it. But if it can't compete at 25,000 feet that would be a significant problem especially for any kind of escort mission.
> 
> Water injection may make the difference though, I'd like to see the numbers.
> 
> Instinctively, if Spit Vs and P-40Fs could hold their own with Bf 109F and (early) G in North Africa and Italy I would think the F4U would do noticeably better.


The Fw 190 didn't have good altitude performance. It was running out of steam by 20,000 feet. That's the radial-engine version, which was, by far, the most-produced. The Hellcat had decent performance to about the same height or slightly higher than the Fw 190 radial-engined units.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 27, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Just looking at the wings makes the Spitfire appear bigger because it is closer, if you look at the shadows cast by both aircraft and compare to the white lines, the Spitfire clearly has the shorter span.


That image looks like a diorama to me.


----------



## PAT303 (Nov 27, 2021)

DarrenW said:


> This is true, eight inches were clipped from each wingtip in order to clear the height of the ship's internal hangar space.


And to help alleviate it's tendency to ''float'' over the deck when landing, same as the Seafire.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 27, 2021)

GregP said:


> Against a Spitfire XIV, the Hellcat's wing loading was almost the same. 37.7 lbs/sq ft for the Hellcat and 35.1 lbs/sq ft for the Spitfire XIV. T*he F6F-5 was killing Japanese air power right when the Spit XIV was being flown* and the Mk. V was on the way out or pretty much gone since the Mk. IX was coming on strong. I'm not at all sure the XIV would out-turn a Hellcat, but I might give the Mk. V a nod to have a slight turning advantage ... maybe not.



Being flown? As in the Mk.XIV was already in service for 6 months before the F6F-5 started operations? Shooting down V-1s for a month?

The Mk.XIV was a bigger leap in performance from the Mk.IX than the F6F-5 was to the F6F-3. 

The Mk.XIV could turn with the Mk.IX.



http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg



I suspect that the extra power compensates for the higher wing loading.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 27, 2021)

PAT303 said:


> That image looks like a diorama to me.


They say its a pic from HMS Fledgling/ Mill Meece Armoured Aircraft Carriers Armoured Aircraft Carriers


----------



## drgondog (Nov 27, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I don't think so, looking at that graph, they have the F6F only slightly in front of the F4U-4. I would be comfortable saying the Hellcat was a good turning fighter, but only really when compared to other heavy weights, like the F4U, P-47, P-51 and Tempest.


It seems as if most folks on this discussion conflate turn with a dominant air to air manueverability feature for mid-to late war fighters. It wasn't.

In addition, the V-n diagram based on the Combinations of airframe structure design limit G (or load factor 'n') rely also on pilot's ability to sustain the load factor n. 

The Corner Velocity Vmax =(Sqrt [2*nmax*(W/S)/(rho*CLmax)] and n= L/W and nmax= Q*CLmax/W ---------> f ( Sqrt (W/S, 1/CLmax, 2*nmax/rho) 

So, same altitude, same approx structural load capability, then W/L and CLmax dominate Corner Velocity.

Turn Radius (min) = 2*W/S/(rho*g*CLmax) -------------> f(W/S, 1/CLmax)

Rate of Turn wmax = g*Sqrt[rho*CLmax*nmax/(2*(W/S)] ---------> f(Sqrt (CLmax, nmax, 1/(W/S)] 

So, for same altitude and pilot's equal ability to sustain high g, the airplane with highest CLmax and lowest W/S should have best Rate of turn and shortest turn radius.

Now examine real life in a world of Thrust and Drag and control/stick forces and the flight envelope under discussion.

Important factors not discussed in the physics rendition above begin to surface, particularly for different types of engines (single stage, two stage, turbo supercharged, etc) with different power generation as a function of altitude, different propeller efficiencies in a range of speeds and altitudes to deliver Thrust Hp, different exhaust gas thrust as function of MP and altitude, different cooling drag and pressure drag considerations as a function of CL and Velocity, etc.

Now factor ability to enter key flight envelopes and maintain optimal control (i.e. stick forces/aileron deflection, directional stability under asymmetric loading in roll or turn (slats vs rudder) as a function of speed, roll initiation/damping/reversal).

Back to the F6F. An interesting quote that I found when researching NAA Mustang/B-25 Chief Test pilot Bob Chilton, was that the one airplane he considered the equal (or better) in maueverability/handling qualities to the P-51B was the F6F. The genesis of the remark was his invitation to Eglin (incl many different test pilots) to engage in mock combat with and between F6F-3, F4U-1, P-38J, P-39N, P-40N, P-47D-11, Bf 109G-6, FW 190A-4, and P-51B-1.

The experiences of most/all Warbird pilots that have flown all Big 3 (AAF) plus F4U and F6F seem to support his remarks.

I might also remark that Very Few Warbird pilots today even Know that P-51B/D are rigged for 10/12 and 15 degrees and are flying the Merlin Mustang at 10 degrees for ailerons. My father flew both 12 and 15 during WWII. Four of six 109s and one Ju 87 were shot down in contested manuevering fights, including on the deck with no real margin for error. I know that the P-51D that Corky Meyer flew in his comparisons was a D with only 10 degrees aileron rigging and also had Reverse Rudder Boost tabl installed - rendering that D to diminished manueverabilty against even a P-51A.

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


----------



## drgondog (Nov 27, 2021)

Schweik said:


> From reading through the thread, it sounds like the F4U didn't have the altitude performance to really dominate Bf 109 or Fw 190, which I found kind of surprising. On paper it looks very competitive aside from that, especially considering it can roll with the Fw but also out-turn it. But if it can't compete at 25,000 feet that would be a significant problem especially for any kind of escort mission.
> 
> Water injection may make the difference though, I'd like to see the numbers.
> 
> Instinctively, if Spit Vs and P-40Fs could hold their own with Bf 109F and (early) G in North Africa and Italy I would think the F4U would do noticeably better.


The FTH for the BMW, DB abd R-2800 were reasonably close. Are you under impression that life stops at 18-22K for those engines? The F4U-1D with R-2800-8W had 2S/2S WI and delivered 1975 HP at 17K and 1650 HP at 21K. It was a clean Radial, It was the same speed (417mph) as P-38J at 20K (faster than both 190A and 109G and still 400+ at 25K..

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NVSMITH (Nov 27, 2021)

-The US Secretary of the Army flew Corsairs!!
-Michael P. W. Stone, United States Secretary of the Army between 1989 and 1993
(Michael P. W. Stone - Wikipedia) was a FAA Corsair pilot during WW2. He addressed a bunch of students at an Army school I was attending and talked about flying Corsairs into France from the Med. I think he was describing recon missions but: 1) this was 30 years ago and 2) I was trying to figure out how a Royal Navy fighter pilot became SecArmy. Ain't politics wonderful??

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


----------



## Schweik (Nov 27, 2021)

drgondog said:


> The FTH for the BMW, DB abd R-2800 were reasonably close. Are you under impression that life stops at 18-22K for those engines? The F4U-1D with R-2800-8W had 2S/2S WI and delivered 1975 HP at 17K and 1650 HP at 21K. It was a clean Radial, It was the same speed (417mph) as P-38J at 20K (faster than both 190A and 109G and still 400+ at 25K


No I was not "under the impression that life sops at 18-22k" - I was trying to provide a benchmark to compare the various aircraft. I know they could still perform pretty well above their FTH. And I had read that Fw 190 was starting to have some trouble at above 20k ft but some of the posts in this thread seemed to indicate it had better altitude performance than the F4U. Numbers can be looked at from various different angles. 

As I stated, from what I understand about the operational histories I would assume the F4U would have done better than Spit 5, P-40F, or even the early P-38s that were flying in the Med Theater, and they were holding their own. So I would presume the F4U could have done quite well. I don't know how it would compare to the Spit IX though.

As for the maneuverability / turn rate of the Mustang, I have to call that into question. It's an interesting issue about stringing the ailerons to 10 vs 12 or 15 degrees. I remember something like that being an issue with the P-51A and A-36 (etc). but that would affect roll more than turn right? I still remember pilots like Jeff Ethel who presumably knew what they were talking about, saying in 1990 that a P-51 was like a flying "block of cement" compared to a P-40.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 27, 2021)

Schweik said:


> How much does lift coefficient vary between Spit, F6F, F4U, Bf 109, P-51 etc.? How much of a difference does it typically make compared to Wing Loading?
> 
> The Soviets always made a significant distinction between 'horizontal' (turns) and vertical (loops etc.) maneuvering, and rated aircraft according to these factors. The latter has to do with climb rate.
> 
> ...


Fw 190A5 -----9700----------197--------- 49.2 ------------ 1800 --------- 0.18 -------------- 19k


Schweik said:


> * for weight I put combat weights I found on WW2Aircraft performance. This is supposed to be 'normal combat weight' not max gross.
> Mustang on wing area I saw 233 or 235, I'm not sure which is right.
> 
> ** G-6 has 1800 hp under MW/50 boost from what I understand, which makes power-weight of 0.25
> ...


Added Fw 190


----------



## Schweik (Nov 27, 2021)

NevadaK said:


> Greetings VA 5124,
> 
> This is a provocative topic and has come up before on the forum. Here are a couple links to earlier threads:
> 
> ...



I think it would have been an outstanding air superiority fighter for the MTO, better than what they were using (Spit V, P-40F, P-38G/H)

The 109Fs and (early) Gs weren't super high altitude performers either, it seems like the F4U could keep up with them if it's still doing over 380 mph at ~25k

The DAF had plenty of good fighter bombers for that role.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 27, 2021)

Schweik said:


> . It's an interesting issue about stringing the ailerons to 10 vs 12 or 15 degrees.


You "string" model boats, you "rig" ailerons.

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


----------



## Schweik (Nov 27, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You "string" model boats, you "rig" ailerons.



I stand corrected.

From this 1944 test, it seems like the F4U-1 could do well over 400 mph at 26,000 ft _at Military power_



http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/17930-level.jpg



I assume that means no water injection. Weight listed is 12,162 lbs which is like 'beginning of a sortie' in a fighter configuration.

And still doing over 420 mph at 23,000 ft at WEP (with water injection)

That obviously is very good.

Interesting that the Boscombe down test seems to show far lower performance, but they seem to be using a fairly low power setting 32.8" (or are they referring to something else?)

This test shows it at 388 mph at 24,000 ft, I think that is still quite competitive with anything else flying around the MTO in 1943 - mid 1944


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 27, 2021)

drgondog said:


> I might also remark that Very Few Warbird pilots today even Know that P-51B/D are rigged for 10/12 and 15 degrees and are flying the Merlin Mustang at 10 degrees for ailerons. My father flew both 12 and 15 during WWII. Four of six 109s and one Ju 87 were shot down in contested manuevering fights, including on the deck with no real margin for error. I know that the P-51D that Corky Meyer flew in his comparisons was a D with only 10 degrees aileron rigging and also had Reverse Rudder Boost tabl installed - rendering that D to diminished manueverabilty against even a P-51A.


Bill,

I apologize in advance if I’ve asked this before. Would you please explain what you are referring to by 10, 12 and 15 degrees on the ailerons. I’m assuming it’s how much aileron you get per inch of stick travel or how much total aileron you get with max lateral deflection of the stick.

Also please explain why current warbirds are flown at 10 vice the other two settings.

Mucho Gracias,
Biff


----------



## drgondog (Nov 27, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> Bill,
> 
> I apologize in advance if I’ve asked this before. Would you please explain what you are referring to by 10, 12 and 15 degrees on the ailerons. I’m assuming it’s how much aileron you get per inch of stick travel or how much total aileron you get with max later deflection of the stick.
> 
> ...


Aileron deflection setting for max throw. 10/12 or 15 Degrees. I still haven't found out what the factory setting was in 1943-1945 as deleivered - but believe 15- 
IIRC the USAF re-set to 10 degrees post war and many P-51s that went into civilian market were at 10. Of all the Warbird piots I know, only John Muszula II was aware before I mentioned it - and flies his B/D Mustangs at 15. I think he is rigging dada's rebuilt P-51D-20-NA 44-72253 WR-B JANE VI at 15 degrees.

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


----------



## pbehn (Nov 27, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You "string" model boats, you "rig" ailerons.


You also string guitars, at some stage you must string race horses because I am told they are highly strung.

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


----------



## Schweik (Nov 27, 2021)

I know there was a problem with the ailerons on the early NA-73 / A-36 / P-51A Allison-engined types, and I think that was actually the issue, which they addressed with the first Merlin types.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 27, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I stand corrected.
> 
> From this 1944 test, it seems like the F4U-1 could do well over 400 mph at 26,000 ft _at Military power_
> 
> ...


This is a Specification with stated performance utilizing the P&W R-2800-8 (no water injection). Military Power for this airplane/engine is 2000HP at 54. MP at take off.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 27, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I know there was a problem with the ailerons on the early NA-73 / A-36 / P-51A Allison-engined types, and I think that was actually the issue, which they addressed with the first Merlin types.


All Allison Mustangs were rigged at 10 degrees, The test ship for A-36 AM-118 had the first 15 degree rigged aileron, the XP-51B was so rigged and all Merlin P-51B/C/D/K were so rigged for +/-10, 12 qnd 15 degree. The XP-51F/G/J/H were rigged with +/- 10 only but each had ~10% more aileron area.

The changes were instigated at both NAA in spring 1942 as well as NACA Langley on the XP-51 41-038 (#1), and implemented on AM-118 in June/July 1942.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Nov 27, 2021)

B/C/D had the same aileron size as P-51A / NA 73 / A-36?


----------



## NTGray (Nov 28, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You "string" model boats, you "rig" ailerons.


Ignorant, naive, but genuine question:
Since a ship has "rigging" and a submarine "rigs" for dive, your statement seems backward to me. Or at least halfway backwards, since I don't know any comparable references for airplanes. Can you expound further?


----------



## pbehn (Nov 28, 2021)

NTGray said:


> Ignorant, naive, but genuine question:
> Since a ship has "rigging" and a submarine "rigs" for dive, your statement seems backward to me. Or at least halfway backwards, since I don't know any comparable references for airplanes. Can you expound further?


Rigging is both a noun and a verb.

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2021)

NTGray said:


> Ignorant, naive, but genuine question:
> Since a ship has "rigging" and a submarine "rigs" for dive, your statement seems backward to me. Or at least halfway backwards, since I don't know any comparable references for airplanes. Can you expound further?



Its called “rigging” when you adjust the flight control cables. You adjust them to a specific tolerance, such degrees of upward or downward, or left to right movement. 

You “rig” ailerons, trim tabs, rudders, and elevators. You utilize “rig” pins and adjust turnbuckles for example to “rig” the flight control system.

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Rigging is both a noun and a verb.



Ding, ding, ding…

Tell pbehn what he’s won Vanna!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 28, 2021)

You string a toy boat with string because it is a toy boat, the string is decorative, because the main mast wont snap without it. A ships rigging was of tarred rope, shackles, capstans, block and tackles and other "stuff". When all this was made ready it was rigging the ship and when completed it was rigged. But there were many ways to rig a ship, to set sail, for light winds, for trade winds or for a storm. This is why people can claim elections and sports matches are rigged as well as aircraft.

To complete the pedant's revolt, all submarines are boats, not ships.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 28, 2021)

NTGray said:


> Ignorant, naive, but genuine question:
> Since a ship has "rigging" and a submarine "rigs" for dive, your statement seems backward to me. Or at least halfway backwards, since I don't know any comparable references for airplanes. Can you expound further?


You "rig" aircraft by adjusting control surfaces that may be actuated by cables or pushrods and in doing so you use* rig boards or a dial protractor* to acquire the correct deflection of the control surface being rigged.







Sorry if image is upside down

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


----------



## NTGray (Nov 28, 2021)

pbehn said:


> To complete the pedant's revolt, all submarines are boats, not ships.


Now, _that_ I already know. The rest of it was good info. Learned something today, from you and the others. Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 28, 2021)

NTGray said:


> Now, _that_ I already know. The rest of it was good info. Learned something today, from you and the others. Thanks.


I also just thought, use of the terms "string" and "stringing" may have been discouraged when longerons and "stringers" became part of an aircraft structure.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 28, 2021)

In the early days of aviation, many naming conventions were applied from the nautical realm as the technology evolved.
Vertical control surfaces were "rudders", they had "rigging" (a term from sailing ships, which were still in use at the time), the left side was "port" and the right was "starboard" (the red and green marker lamps were eventually applied as time went by), groups of aircraft were called "squadrons" and even some nation's air groups were called "flotillas" early on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 28, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> In the early days of aviation, many naming conventions were applied from the nautical realm as the technology evolved.
> Vertical control surfaces were "rudders", they had "rigging" (a term from sailing ships, which were still in use at the time), the left side was "port" and the right was "starboard" (the red and green marker lamps were eventually applied as time went by), groups of aircraft were called "squadrons" and even some nation's air groups were called "flotillas" early on.


Even the terms pilot and cockpit come from ships and seafaring.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 28, 2021)

"Stringers" are the structural "ribs" in a vessel, too.


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 28, 2021)

drgondog said:


> Aileron deflection setting for max throw. 10/12 or 15 Degrees. I still haven't found out what the factory setting was in 1943-1945 as deleivered - but believe 15-
> IIRC the USAF re-set to 10 degrees post war and many P-51s that went into civilian market were at 10. Of all the Warbird piots I know, only John Muszula II was aware before I mentioned it - and flies his B/D Mustangs at 15. I think he is rigging dada's rebuilt P-51D-20-NA 44-72253 WR-B JANE VI at 15 degrees.


Bill,

Any idea why the civilian / warbird world flies at 10 degrees vice the higher settings?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## drgondog (Nov 28, 2021)

Schweik said:


> No I was not "under the impression that life sops at 18-22k" - I was trying to provide a benchmark to compare the various aircraft. I know they could still perform pretty well above their FTH. And I had read that Fw 190 was starting to have some trouble at above 20k ft but some of the posts in this thread seemed to indicate it had better altitude performance than the F4U. Numbers can be looked at from various different angles.
> 
> As I stated, from what I understand about the operational histories I would assume the F4U would have done better than Spit 5, P-40F, or even the early P-38s that were flying in the Med Theater, and they were holding their own. So I would presume the F4U could have done quite well. I don't know how it would compare to the Spit IX though.
> 
> As for the maneuverability / turn rate of the Mustang, I have to call that into question. It's an interesting issue about stringing the ailerons to 10 vs 12 or 15 degrees. I remember something like that being an issue with the P-51A and A-36 (etc). but that would affect roll more than turn right? I still remember pilots like Jeff Ethel who presumably knew what they were talking about, saying in 1990 that a P-51 was like a flying "block of cement" compared to a P-40.


I knew Jeff very well and Jeff was also unaware of the standard wartime P-51B/C/D/K rigging. Jeff also mostly flew Mustangs with the Reverse Rudder boost tab - which is DESIGNED to inhibit roll at very high dive speeds.

Talk to John Musula II if you want a careful and studied opinion. Or any WWII fighter ace that got most scores in a P-51B/D, like Bud Anderson. My father had signigicant advanced fighter training an a P-40 and would acknowledge that the P-40 rolled and turned better at low to medium speed but not at high speed. Ditto the Bf 109G that he flew at Gabligen as post VE DatCO of the 355th FG. Several 355th fighter aces flew mock combat with the 109G-6 and Fw 190 two seat variants. Anecdotal purely but each considered the 109 and 190 much fun to fly at low to medium speeds and the 190 continued to be a better rolling/reversal airplane deep into the speed envelope where the 51s took over above 300+kts.


BiffF15 said:


> Bill,
> 
> Any idea why the civilian / warbird world flies at 10 degrees vice the higher settings?
> 
> ...


I believe ignorance of a.) the capability, and b.) the benefit to handling above 300 kts

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


----------



## drgondog (Nov 28, 2021)

Schweik said:


> B/C/D had the same aileron size as P-51A / NA 73 / A-36?


yes - but there were changes made to the spar that the aileron was mounted from as well as number of hinges (2 to 3) from P-51A to P-51B-1 (same two) to P-51B-5 (three) The aileron was basically the same until the NA-105 projects in which everything changed including the airfoil, the wing area, the aileron.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 28, 2021)

drgondog said:


> I believe ignorance of a.) the capability, and b.) the benefit to handling above 300 kts


Was/is it to avoid the dangers of over correction with inexperienced pilots, or is it some other plane I am thinking about?


----------



## Howard Gibson (Nov 29, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> In the early days of aviation, many naming conventions were applied from the nautical realm as the technology evolved.
> Vertical control surfaces were "rudders", they had "rigging" (a term from sailing ships, which were still in use at the time), the left side was "port" and the right was "starboard" (the red and green marker lamps were eventually applied as time went by), groups of aircraft were called "squadrons" and even some nation's air groups were called "flotillas" early on.


The terminology makes sense and it is useful. 

I have done mechanical design on equipment that goes into aircraft. To me, the terms "left" and "right" are relative to a where you or I are standing, or to a view on a drawing. The terms "port" and "starboard" are absolute. Sometimes, this matters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 29, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> The terminology makes sense and it is useful.
> 
> I have done mechanical design on equipment that goes into aircraft. To me, the terms "left" and "right" are relative to a where you or I are standing, or to a view on a drawing. The terms "port" and "starboard" are absolute. Sometimes, this matters.


In the automotive world, right and left are applied from the view as sitting behind the wheel.
This of course reflects the nautical convention of port/starboard, since it's also the view of the ship's pilot.

So if your standing in front of your vehicle and the right headlight is burned out, you'd be looking to the left to check it!


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 29, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> To me, the terms "left" and "right" are relative to a where you or I are standing, or to a view on a drawing.



In an aviation context that's not always the case. The Right Hand wing is always the starboard wing and vice versa with the Left Hand wing. It doesn't matter where you are viewing the aircraft from. We'd receive defect logs that read "Replace RH OB main wheel" Right Hand Out Board in case you're wondering. Our pilots wrote the logs in a similar fashion, so it isn't just the mechanics who refer to aircraft in such a way.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 29, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> In an aviation context that's not always the case. The Right Hand wing is always the starboard wing and vice versa with the Left Hand wing. It doesn't matter where you are viewing the aircraft from. We'd receive defect logs that read "Replace RH OB main wheel" Right Hand Out Board in case you're wondering. Our pilots wrote the logs in a similar fashion, so it isn't just the mechanics who refer to aircraft in such a way.


I used to get "fix orders" for lightbars repairs on patrol vehicles or fire apparatus.
If the work order said "right alley light inoperative) I'd go to the right side (passenger side here in the U.S.) and pull the cover to examine the bulb.
Most of the time, they got it right, but once in a while, the order would be written up by a cadet who was standing in front of the vehicle, and use their perspective to note the equipment issue!

It took a bit of detective work and got fixed in the end

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Nov 29, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> The terminology makes sense and it is useful.
> 
> I have done mechanical design on equipment that goes into aircraft. To me, the terms "left" and "right" are relative to a where you or I are standing, or to a view on a drawing. The terms "port" and "starboard" are absolute. Sometimes, this matters.


Absolute with reference to the aircraft. Same idea as using the terms "stage right" and "stage left" in theater, which are absolute with reference to a performer on stage facing the audience.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Nov 29, 2021)

drgondog said:


> I knew Jeff very well and Jeff was also unaware of the standard wartime P-51B/C/D/K rigging. Jeff also mostly flew Mustangs with the Reverse Rudder boost tab - which is DESIGNED to inhibit roll at very high dive speeds.
> 
> Talk to John Musula II if you want a careful and studied opinion. Or any WWII fighter ace that got most scores in a P-51B/D, like Bud Anderson. My father had signigicant advanced fighter training an a P-40 and would acknowledge that the P-40 rolled and turned better at low to medium speed but not at high speed. Ditto the Bf 109G that he flew at Gabligen as post VE DatCO of the 355th FG. Several 355th fighter aces flew mock combat with the 109G-6 and Fw 190 two seat variants. Anecdotal purely but each considered the 109 and 190 much fun to fly at low to medium speeds and the 190 continued to be a better rolling/reversal airplane deep into the speed envelope where the 51s took over above 300+kts.
> 
> I believe ignorance of a.) the capability, and b.) the benefit to handling above 300 kts


I'm well out of my zone on this, but based on comments from P-51 owners at the Reno Air Races, I suspect that the planes are being set up in a very conservative fashion to extend the life of the airframe. That's my guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 29, 2021)

NevadaK said:


> I'm well out of my zone on this, but based on comments from P-51 owners at the Reno Air Races, I suspect that the planes are being set up in a very conservative fashion to extend the life of the airframe. That's my guess.


You may (or may not) know that at Reno each race class is broken into 3 divisions - Gold, silver and bronze. With regards to the Unlimiteds you'll usually see the stock aircraft in the bronze or silver, the gold you'll usually find the highly modified racers and from what I've seen their set up is far from conservative.

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


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 29, 2021)

NevadaK said:


> I'm well out of my zone on this, but based on comments from P-51 owners at the Reno Air Races, I suspect that the planes are being set up in a very conservative fashion to extend the life of the airframe. That's my guess.


NevadaK,

I would agree that owners look to maximize life during their stewardship of the planes. However what Bill is speaking to with aileron deflection equates to good, better, and best roll rates (10/12/15 degrees). I doubt anyone flying these planes today is doing max deflection aileron rolls, especially at high speed (the faster you go the more stress put on the wing during full deflection rolls). The 10 degree default setting might be a way to keep the plane more docile at least in roll.

Cheers,
Biff

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


----------



## NevadaK (Nov 29, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You may (or may not) know that at Reno each race class is broken into 3 divisions - Gold, silver and bronze. With regards to the Unlimiteds you'll usually see the stock aircraft in the bronze or silver, the gold you'll usually find the highly modified racers and from what I've seen their set up is far from conservative.


Thanks FLYBOYJ,

Yeah, I wasn't putting the highly modified racers in that category. I was thinking of the aircraft that are more "stock".

Thanks,

Kk

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Nov 29, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> NevadaK,
> 
> I would agree that owners look to maximize life during their stewardship of the planes. However what Bill is speaking to with aileron deflection equates to good, better, and best roll rates (10/12/15 degrees). I doubt anyone flying these planes today is doing max deflection aileron rolls, especially at high speed (the faster you go the more stress put on the wing during full deflection rolls). The 10 degree default setting might be a way to keep the plane more docile at least in roll.
> 
> ...


Agree, BiffF15.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 29, 2021)

NevadaK said:


> Thanks FLYBOYJ,
> 
> Yeah, I wasn't putting the highly modified racers in that category. I was thinking of the aircraft that are more "stock".
> 
> ...


I think you'll find the stock guys treating their aircraft with kid gloves just like Biff mentioned. You can see by their speeds and the way they fly around the track that they are out there to have fun more than anything else.

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


----------



## pbehn (Nov 29, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> NevadaK,
> 
> I would agree that owners look to maximize life during their stewardship of the planes. However what Bill is speaking to with aileron deflection equates to good, better, and best roll rates (10/12/15 degrees). I doubt anyone flying these planes today is doing max deflection aileron rolls, especially at high speed (the faster you go the more stress put on the wing during full deflection rolls). The 10 degree default setting might be a way to keep the plane more docile at least in roll.
> 
> ...


Meteors were rigged heavy on the controls to avoid over stressing the wings.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Nov 29, 2021)

It's interesting that the British tried to apply nautical concepts to tanks, thinking of them as 'cruisers' etc., but it didn't really stick.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Nov 29, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think you'll find the stock guys treating their aircraft with kid gloves just like Biff mentioned. You can see by their speeds and the way they fly around the track that they are out there to have fun more than anything else.


The last couple races have pretty much been all stock. I moved up to Reno in 2016 and had an opportunity to see Voodoo and Strega go at it, but the modified have all pretty much retired. I typically go on Friday for the smaller crowd and ability to get around the pits better. My connection with the races goes back to the seventies. My family is from Kalamazoo, Michigan and my step-father who was a professional helicopter pilot was acquainted with Gunther Balz who won the unlimited class in Miss Roto Finish in 1972.

Reactions: Like Like:
8 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 29, 2021)

NevadaK said:


> The last couple races have pretty much been all stock. I moved up to Reno in 2016 and had an opportunity to see Voodoo and Strega go at it, but the modified have all pretty much retired. I typically go on Friday for the smaller crowd and ability to get around the pits better. My connection with the races goes back to the seventies. My family is from Kalamazoo, Michigan and my step-father who was a professional helicopter pilot was acquainted with Gunther Balz who won the unlimited class in Miss Roto Finish in 1972.
> View attachment 649877


I crewed with 2 jet teams 2007-2009 and then 2014 and 2015. It was a great experience as I had my run of the flight line. When my jet was down or I had some idle time (which was almost never) I would stroll over to the unlimiteds and chat with some of the crew members and crew chiefs there. Those 3 days for me were like working in a combat environment, the only difference I had as opposed to some of my unlimited brethren was if we blew an engine, we were done where some of the unlimited gold guys had a back up motor available.

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


----------



## Schweik (Nov 29, 2021)

NevadaK said:


> The last couple races have pretty much been all stock. I moved up to Reno in 2016 and had an opportunity to see Voodoo and Strega go at it, but the modified have all pretty much retired. I typically go on Friday for the smaller crowd and ability to get around the pits better. My connection with the races goes back to the seventies. My family is from Kalamazoo, Michigan and my step-father who was a professional helicopter pilot was acquainted with Gunther Balz who won the unlimited class in Miss Roto Finish in 1972.
> View attachment 649877



That is a pretty bird. Looks fast as hell.


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 29, 2021)

NevadaK said:


> The last couple races have pretty much been all stock. I moved up to Reno in 2016 and had an opportunity to see Voodoo and Strega go at it, but the modified have all pretty much retired. I typically go on Friday for the smaller crowd and ability to get around the pits better. My connection with the races goes back to the seventies. My family is from Kalamazoo, Michigan and my step-father who was a professional helicopter pilot was acquainted with Gunther Balz who won the unlimited class in Miss Roto Finish in 1972.
> View attachment 649877


I can't imagine what Gunthers call sign would have been in a fighter squadron...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 29, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> I can't imagine what Gunthers call sign would have been in a fighter squadron...


The last year I crewed at Reno my pilot's call sign was "Killer," guess how he got that one!


----------



## wuzak (Nov 29, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Those 3 days for me were like working in a combat environment, the only difference I had as opposed to some of my unlimited brethren was if we blew an engine, we were done where some of the unlimited gold guys had a back up motor available.



Did your team blow an engine?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 29, 2021)

wuzak said:


> Did your team blow an engine?


No, but we did have a few hot starts and had some FCU issues when I was crewing an L39. Thankfully one of the best L39 mechanics in the US happened to be on the field and helped us.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Nov 29, 2021)

Schweik said:


> How much does lift coefficient vary between Spit, F6F, F4U, Bf 109, P-51 etc.? How much of a difference does it typically make compared to Wing Loading?


I've seen NACA reports comparing the Spitfire Mk.V, F6F, F4U, P-51, and the F6F seems to have the greatest lift coefficient at all angles of attack. The F4U was next, followed by the Spitfire, and lastly the P-51. By the look of the airfoil used by the Bf 109 I think it would rate similar to the Spitfire, but the leading edge slats employed by the German fighter could have been a game changer under certain circumstances. Lastly, from what I understand the laminar inspired wing section of the P-51 aided in the reduction of drag (by how much I do not know) and also helped delay the onset of compressibility but conversely it had a negative effect on lift when compared to the 'turbulent airfoils' of the other four mentioned aircraft.

Hopefully someone here with more knowledge on the subject can expand on this...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 29, 2021)

The slats on the Bf 109 basically covered the ailerons and occupied about 1/3 of the span. They were not to lower the stall speed, though they might have done so by a few knots. They were there to keep the airflow over the ailerons attached through stall for roll control. Most of the wing is unslatted.

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


----------



## drgondog (Nov 30, 2021)

DarrenW said:


> I've seen NACA reports comparing the Spitfire Mk.V, F6F, F4U, P-51, and the F6F seems to have the greatest lift coefficient at all angles of attack. The F4U was next, followed by the Spitfire, and lastly the P-51. By the look of the airfoil used by the Bf 109 I think it would rate similar to the Spitfire, but the leading edge slats employed by the German fighter could have been a game changer under certain circumstances. Lastly, from what I understand the laminar inspired wing section of the P-51 aided in the reduction of drag (by how much I do not know) and also helped delay the onset of compresibilility but conversely it had a negative effect on lift when compared to the 'turbulent airfoils' of the other four mentioned aircraft.
> 
> Hopefully someone here with more knowledge on the subject can expand on this...


Greg posed the primary reason for slats on the Bf 109 - namely roll authority at low speed. The reason slats were considered at all was a desire to reduce the small contribution to Induced Drag that a convention wing twist would cause. It is important for near stall conditions but took great skill by the 109 pilot to fly in a tight bank with asymmerical lift - a condition in which one wing (high wing) stalls out independent of the slats - forcing a snap roll. Some (very few) LW aces mastered the slats and were successful at exploiting the higher CL enabled by slats in medium speed turns.

The Bf 109 airfoil was closer in design shape to the NACA 23xxx of the F6F and F4U with nice combinations of L/D across wide span of AoA - but less than P-51 wing. The F6F had the fattest airfoil - and was optimzed for climb, turn and low speed aero stall for carrier ops. That said, the F6F and F4U had parasite drag 50% higher than P51. Equally the NAA/NACA 45-100 pushed the max T/C to 37.5% compared to ~25% for NACA 23xxx - which dramatically delayed onset Mcr - and the step drag rise associated with Mach contributions to total Cd.

Note that F4U exhibited nasty low speed stall characteristics due to the upwash on the inboard wing section - making a necessary add of a spoiler addition to the downwash section to precipitate earlier stall to match -

The Spitfire had the thinnest wing of all the major fighter wings which was useful in delaying Mcr also.

A point should be made that Excess Hp Available is extremely important in Turn (and Climb and acceleration) Performance. When Drag > Thrust the turning aircraft may not maintain altitude in the turn. Ditto for Climb. One of the reasons that a P-51B/D was a significant dogfighter was that when a 109/190 was maxed out in top level speed (~400 mph at 22K), the Mustang was still capable of accelerating to 430mph at 24K and 440 mph at 29K (~) and also available for better climb performance. That said, the P-51B/D gave up some of this advantage at medium and low speeds.

CL was, and is important in Performance Calcs but as in all cases other attributes such as roll response and acceleration and dive speed and zoom climb were more important in air combat - recall that a ery high % of air to air victims never saw their attacker.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Nov 30, 2021)

drgondog said:


> Note that F4U exhibited nasty low speed stall characteristics due to the upwash on the inboard wing section - making a necessary add of a spoiler addition to the downwash section to precipitate earlier stall to match -


Yeah, that inverted gull wing caused less interference drag between wing root and fuselage but in turn had a negative effect on lift. Another great example of how everything related to aircraft design is a compromise.

And as always thanks for interjecting your knowledge in this area, it was very helpful.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 30, 2021)

DarrenW said:


> I've seen NACA reports comparing the Spitfire Mk.V, F6F, F4U, P-51, and the F6F seems to have the greatest lift coefficient at all angles of attack. The F4U was next, followed by the Spitfire, and lastly the P-51. By the look of the airfoil used by the Bf 109 I think it would rate similar to the Spitfire, but the leading edge slats employed by the German fighter could have been a game changer under certain circumstances. Lastly, from what I understand the laminar inspired wing section of the P-51 aided in the reduction of drag (by how much I do not know) and also helped delay the onset of compresibilility but conversely it had a negative effect on lift when compared to the 'turbulent airfoils' of the other four mentioned aircraft.
> 
> Hopefully someone here with more knowledge on the subject can expand on this...


The P-51 could use a small amount of flap (8 degrees as I remember) if involved in a turning fight.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Nov 30, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The P-51 could use a small amount of flap (8 degrees as I remember) if involved in a turning fight.


Yes, but - it was good for a sharp corner break to pull lead, but lot of energy lost with ensuing drag.

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


----------



## pbehn (Nov 30, 2021)

drgondog said:


> Yes, but - it was good for a sharp corner break to pull lead, but lot of energy lost with ensuing drag.


As I understand it the Bf 109s aerodynamics were poor, apart from it being small, but in some situations you want to be the "loser" and slow down faster than the other guy. Being able to choose how much energy you keep or lose must be a plus, if you know what you are doing?


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> As I understand it the Bf 109s aerodynamics were poor, apart from it being small, but in some situations you want to be the "loser" and slow down faster than the other guy. Being able to choose how much energy you keep or lose must be a plus, if you know what you are doing?


Any piston-engined aircraft with constant speed props has a large, built-in airbrake: reducing the throttle while keeping rpm constant is likely to produce a lot of drag.

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


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 1, 2021)

drgondog said:


> Greg posed the primary reason for slats on the Bf 109 - namely roll authority at low speed. The reason slats were considered at all was a desire to reduce the small contribution to Induced Drag that a convention wing twist would cause. It is important for near stall conditions but took great skill by the 109 pilot to fly in a tight bank with asymmerical lift - a condition in which one wing (high wing) stalls out independent of the slats - forcing a snap roll. Some (very few) LW aces mastered the slats and were successful at exploiting the higher CL enabled by slats in medium speed turns.
> 
> The Bf 109 airfoil was closer in design shape to the NACA 23xxx of the F6F and F4U with nice combinations of L/D across wide span of AoA - but less than P-51 wing. The F6F had the fattest airfoil - and was optimzed for climb, turn and low speed aero stall for carrier ops. That said, the F6F and F4U had parasite drag 50% higher than P51. Equally the NAA/NACA 45-100 pushed the max T/C to 37.5% compared to ~25% for NACA 23xxx - which dramatically delayed onset Mcr - and the step drag rise associated with Mach contributions to total Cd.
> 
> ...


I dunno, I see a lot of ancedotal rhetoric here.

Sources?

...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Being able to choose how much energy you keep or lose must be a plus, if you know what you are doing?




Well, you are going to lose energy a lot quicker than you can get it back so you have to have a 'really' good idea of what you are doing. 

You also need some rules so some interloper/s don't spoil the 'plan' by mucking about with a 'dual'.

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


----------



## NTGray (Dec 1, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> Any piston-engined aircraft with constant speed props has a large, built-in airbrake: reducing the throttle while keeping rpm constant is likely to produce a lot of drag.


Does it really work that way, or will the prop "semi-feather" to achieve zero net pull or drag? Asking because I don't know.


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 1, 2021)

NTGray said:


> Does it really work that way, or will the prop "semi-feather" to achieve zero net pull or drag? Asking because I don't know.


NTGray,

On multi engine aircraft there is the option to feather (not all were made like that back in the day). However, I don’t think SE WW2 fighters had that ability. I could be wrong, but the windmilling prop would be used to restart the engine hence no need for the ability to feather.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 1, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> NTGray,
> 
> On multi engine aircraft there is the option to feather (not all were made like that back in the day). However, I don’t think SE WW2 fighters had that ability. I could be wrong, but the windmilling prop would be used to restart the engine hence no need for the ability to feather.
> 
> ...


The Spitfire used to make high speed dives post war had to be fitted with a fully feathering prop to do it. It made no difference, the prop came off anyways.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The Spitfire used to make high speed dives post war had to be fitted with a fully feathering prop to do it. It made no difference, the prop came off anyways.


Nothing like stepping to fly a plane where you are expecting the prop to come off at some point…

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


----------



## NTGray (Dec 1, 2021)

Missing the point here. Swampyankee suggested that reducing throttle with a constant-speed prop will cause a significant air brake effect as the prop pitch flattens out. Having a brake like that could be used to good effect in a dogfight (although Tom Cruise didn't use a flattened propeller in Top Gun). Anyway, the question is would throttling back a WW2-era constant-speed prop actually act as a brake, or would it just result in zero net push or pull?


----------



## pbehn (Dec 1, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> Nothing like stepping to fly a plane where you are expecting the prop to come off at some point…


The prop coming off helped pull out of the dive, oh and he bent the wings back too, and blew the engine I don't think you could propose things like that today, Mr Martindale was a very lucky boy to land his glider..

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Dec 1, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The prop coming off helped pull out of the dive, oh and he bent the wings back too, and blew the engine I don't think you could propose things like that today, Mr Martindale was a very lucky boy to land his glider..



The propeller came off because the nose case broke.

Another test saw the supercharger exploding!


----------



## GregP (Dec 1, 2021)

reducing a constant=speed props power can have no effect or cause drag, depending on how much power is pulled out. Pull to the bottom of the constant-speed range and nothing much happens. Pull more off, however, and you get a good dose of drag because the prop goes flat trying to increase rpm that has dropped below the constant-speed range.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 1, 2021)

NTGray said:


> Having a brake like that could be used to good effect in a dogfight



Or it could induce severe vibration or overspeeding of the engine, which, worst case scenario you might as well start thinking about either getting out of your aeroplane or looking for a field to land in.


----------



## Escuadrilla Azul (Dec 2, 2021)

Dash119 said:


> I believe the idea was to assign a letter consistent with the manufacturers name. The problem is that several aircraft manufacturers had the gaul to use the same first letter in the name of the company.
> 
> F4U - The company that produced the Corsair was Chance-Vought, but the 'C' was already taken by Curtiss, so it was designated with a 'U'.
> 
> ...





GrauGeist said:


> The Japanese Navy was similar with their naming convention, G4M for example:
> G - land based attack bomber
> 4 - fourth type in "G" series
> M - Mitsubishi
> ...


A little of light regarding US Navy aircraft denominations (from the book United States Navy aircraft since 1911):

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


----------



## NTGray (Dec 11, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> Any piston-engined aircraft with constant speed props has a large, built-in airbrake: reducing the throttle while keeping rpm constant is likely to produce a lot of drag.


I asked earlier whether this really worked. Well, I accidentally found an answer.

From a Budd Davisson Flight Report (describing an F8F Bearcat):


> I always seem to have trouble getting airplanes like this down from altitude in a reasonable length of time, so this time I played with it a little. Even at low, low airspeeds, it didn't come down very fast, and I didn't want to dirty up, just to lose altitude. At 170 knots, I moved the prop pitch up to 2700 rpm and it was just as if I'd thrown out an anchor. Those big fat blades flattened out and I was actually thrown forward against my straps. In nothing flat I was down to pattern altitude.





Grumman F8F Bearcat Pilot Report

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2021)

DarrenW said:


> I've seen NACA reports comparing the Spitfire Mk.V, F6F, F4U, P-51, and the F6F seems to have the greatest lift coefficient at all angles of attack. The F4U was next, followed by the Spitfire, and lastly the P-51. By the look of the airfoil used by the Bf 109 I think it would rate similar to the Spitfire, but the leading edge slats employed by the German fighter could have been a game changer under certain circumstances. Lastly, from what I understand the laminar inspired wing section of the P-51 aided in the reduction of drag (by how much I do not know) and also helped delay the onset of compressibility but conversely it had a negative effect on lift when compared to the 'turbulent airfoils' of the other four mentioned aircraft.
> 
> Hopefully someone here with more knowledge on the subject can expand on this...



What I mean specifically is _how much_ more of a difference does *Lift Coefficient *make than *Wing Loading*? If you have a *Wing Loading* of 30 on one aircraft and of 40 on another, is a difference in *Lift Coefficient *enough to make the AC with higher wing loading turn better? I'd like to know some idea of the math here (in layman's terms if at all possible).

Anecdotally, from dozens of pilot interviews I have read, Spitfires out-turn every other Allied monoplane fighter except a Hurricane, and definitely out-turn both a Bf 109 and a Fw 190, and a P-51. Many German pilots noted that Spit V and IX could out-turn their Bf 109s. It's really hard to imagine a F6F or an F4U turning with a Spitfire except _maybe _at higher speeds. I know power (most easily quantified as horsepower to weight ratio) also plays a role here, but Spitfires do pretty well in that department too. (Better than an F6F). Climb rate is important too especially when it comes to vertical turns. But again, I think Spitfires climb better don't they?

Of course combat flaps definitely play a role, as do slats. My understanding is that the Spitfire, at least the early to mid-war models, did not have a combat flap setting partly because it was not deemed necessary.

When the Russians created those 'turn time' tests at specific speed and altitude, can we say this is a reasonable way to compare different fighter types?


----------



## drgondog (Dec 13, 2021)

Schweik said:


> What I mean specifically is _how much_ more of a difference does *Lift Coefficient *make than *Wing Loading*? If you have a *Wing Loading* of 30 on one aircraft and of 40 on another, is a difference in *Lift Coefficient *enough to make the AC with higher wing turn better? I'd like to know some idea of the math here (in layman's terms if at all possible).


I devoted a lot of time bringing the equations for Max Turn Velocity, Minimum Turn Radius (Function of SQRt of both CL and GW), and the boundary conditions for V-N diagram. Search - don't be lazy. Last two weeks.



Schweik said:


> Anecdotally, from dozens of pilot interviews I have read, Spitfires out-turn every other Allied monoplane fighter except a Hurricane, and definitely out-turn both a Bf 109 and a Fw 190, and a P-51. Many German pilots noted that Spit V and IX could out-turn their Bf 109s. It's really hard to imagine a F6F or an F4U turning with a Spitfire except maybe at higher speeds. I know power (most easily quantified as horsepower to weight ratio) also plays a role here, but Spitfires do pretty well in that department too. (Better than an F6F). Climb rate is important too especially when it comes to vertical turns. But again, I think Spitfires climb better don't they?
> 
> Of course combat flaps definitely play a role, as do slats. My understanding is that the Spitfire, at least the early to mid-war models, did not have a combat flap setting partly because it was not deemed necessary.
> 
> When the Russians created those 'turn time' tests at specific speed and altitude, can we say this is a reasonable way to compare different fighter types?


Lift Coefficient is a function of Angle of Attack which, for every airfoil, has a break/stall angle relative to freestream at some angle of attack for which CL is max. Wing (or Lift) Loading is a fuction of Gross Weight divided by Wing Area. Both are important in turn/climb performance as well as HP available vs HP required. When including contributions of flaps you also have to introduce loss of energy due to much higher drag. 

Look to Theory of Wing Sections by Abbott and Doenhoff to do a little research into airfoil properties.

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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2021)

drgondog said:


> I devoted a lot of time bringing the equations for Max Turn Velocity, Minimum Turn Radius (Function of SQRt of both CL and GW), and the boundary conditions for V-N diagram. Search - don't be lazy. Last two weeks.


I'm interested specifically in a summary, since I'm not an engineer. I've been away from the forum for a while, is there a summary in there somewhere?



drgondog said:


> Lift Coefficient is a function of Angle of Attack which, for every airfoil, has a break/stall angle relative to freestream at some angle of attack for which CL is max. Wing (or Lift) Loading is a fuction of Gross Weight divided by Wing Area. Both are important in turn/climb performance as well as HP available vs HP required. When including contributions of flaps you also have to introduce loss of energy due to much higher drag.
> 
> Look to Theory of Wing Sections by Abbott and Doenhoff to do a little research into airfoil properties.



I know what wing loading is. What I'm getting at is that wing loading does seem to correlate pretty well with turn radius such as shown in the turn-time tests that the Soviets published during the war. I've been reading a lot of this discussion and while I don't have time to read books on airfoils (I have a fairly full plate of other things to read somewhat more urgently right now) I'd like to have a better sense of the key factors at kind of a mid-level in terms of scale, if that makes any sense.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2021)

To make it more simple - looking at those Russian turn time tests I don't see any example where an aircraft with a higher wing loading has a shorter turn time than one with a lower wing loading. Can you cite one?


----------



## wuzak (Dec 13, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Of course combat flaps definitely play a role, as do slats. My understanding is that the Spitfire, at least the early to mid-war models, did not have a combat flap setting partly because it was not deemed necessary.



Spitfires had two flap positions - up and down.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2021)

wuzak said:


> Spitfires had two flap positions - up and down.


That is what I was referring to.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> More about the AAC/ AAF ordering fighters with drop tank capability;
> 
> _In November 1941, Kelsey asked his Lockheed contacts to design drop tanks to extend the range of the P-38, even though *Air Corps policy at the time was absolutely inflexible toward fighter aircraft carrying external fuel tanks—the so-called Bomber Mafia favoring heavy bombers wanted no challenge from fighters and medium bombers in the long-range department.* Lockheed proceeded with the request, starting with a batch of 100 P-38Es intended for photo reconnaissance, despite having no written orders, only Kelsey's handshake. Thus, when combat requirements called for longer range via drop tanks, the P-38 was already equipped with fuel lines, hardpoints, and a supply of drop tanks._
> 
> Wiki - reference Bodie, Warren M. (1991). The Lockheed P-38 Lightning



The bloody mindedness of that is awe inspiring. We get this kind of thing in every military in the world, it never fails to amaze me.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 13, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Anecdotally, from dozens of pilot interviews I have read, Spitfires out-turn every other Allied monoplane fighter except a Hurricane, and definitely out-turn both a Bf 109 and a Fw 190, and a P-51. Many German pilots noted that Spit V and IX could out-turn their Bf 109s.


The Fw190 was faster than the Spitfire MkV. So at high speed the Fw190 could turn at a speed that the Spitfire could only fly in a straight line. The Spitfire over France could engage in turns descending to the ground and then it was stumped, no where to go.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The Fw190 was faster than the Spitfire MkV. So at high speed the Fw190 could turn at a speed that the Spitfire could only fly in a straight line. The Spitfire over France could engage in turns descending to the ground and then it was stumped, no where to go.



This is an interesting aspect of turning performance, which I've read referred to as 'power of maneuver' in some WW2 documents. Definitely a point worth considering - I alluded to it in the power to weight comment above. However, the scenario you are describing here is a bit simpler than the reality I think. Not every turn is going to cause a Spit V to descend or lose altitude. Certainly there is a point where they will, especially once they start pulling G. But the Spit V (depending on the subtype and configuration) had fairly decent power to weight ratio, usually over .2. So I think they could manage a few turns, or for example perform a Low Yo Yo where they can dive a bit and zoom back up. A very sharp high G turn would certainly cause them to lose speed and altitude eventually.

Were Fw 190s actually outmaneuvering Spit Vs? Or were they simply able to engage and disengage at will?


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 13, 2021)

for what it is worth, member 
H
 HoHun
posted this graph on the thread f6f-5 vs 109
I cannot comment on the math used to arrive at the calculations, but it shows a Bf 109G-6 with a slight sustained turn advantage over an F6F-5. And in every test I have read, a comparable spitfire will generally turn inside a 109 without much difficulty.

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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Reminds me of this test, which was shown to new American recruits, before they deployed to Europe. Pure propaganda, intended to bolster their spirits, in the hopes that the first time an MG42 fires at them, they don't dig in and refuse to advance. Fact of the matter was, in some cases, the German guns WERE better, and formed the basis for new allied designs after the war. No point telling the 17 year old kid that, though




I don't care what the narrator claims, that MG 34 / 43 (whichever) is plenty scary sounding....


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> for what it is worth, member
> H
> HoHun
> posted this graph on the thread f6f-5 vs 109
> ...



G-6 was not one of the better turning 109 variants and my understanding is that even a Spit V could out-turn all 109s, with the F-2 being closest to parity.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2021)

pbehn said:


> As I understand it, instantaneous turn depends on things like wing loading and strength, the difference between how much power (thrust) the plane has and how much drag it generates determines how quickly it spirals down maintaining a that high G turn. *For turning at a sustained altitude this can be compared to rate of climb. * Maximum rates of climb and rates of climb at given forward speeds and altitudes are indicators of sustained turn ability at those altitudes and speeds. I would not be surprised if a Hellcat could out turn a Spitfire in instantaneous or low speed descending turns, a Hurricane could too. But carrier aircraft are normally at quite low altitude you cant lose altitude turning for long before you hit water.
> 
> If that makes any sense at all?



If that was really the case I would expect most Bf 109 marks would be out-turning all Allied aircraft, at least in sustained turns, but that doesn't seem to be what most German or British pilots were saying.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 13, 2021)

Schweik said:


> This is an interesting aspect of turning performance, which I've read referred to as 'power of maneuver' in some WW2 documents. Definitely a point worth considering - I alluded to it in the power to weight comment above. However, the scenario you are describing here is a bit simpler than the reality I think. Not every turn is going to cause a Spit V to descend or lose altitude. Certainly there is a point where they will, especially once they start pulling G. But the Spit V (depending on the subtype and configuration) had fairly decent power to weight ratio, usually over .2. So I think they could manage a few turns, or for example perform a Low Yo Yo where they can dive a bit and zoom back up. A very sharp high G turn would certainly cause them to lose speed and altitude eventually.
> 
> Were Fw 190s actually outmaneuvering Spit Vs? Or were they simply able to engage and disengage at will?


WW2 aircraft couldnt sustain high g turns in level flight, few aircraft can, so combat descends. The only advantage the Spitfire V had was in slow turning performance, but that is no advantage when you end up at ground level over France, there is no get out, and you are behind a flak belt.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2021)

NevadaK said:


> Greetings VA 5124,
> 
> This is a provocative topic and has come up before on the forum. Here are a couple links to earlier threads:
> 
> ...



Again, I think this is definitely true. There is no doubt that an F4U-1 is a better fighter than a Spit V, P-40F, or P-38G/H, and those were holding their own against the German fighters. I think it's a cinch that F4U would have done at least as well or better (IMO significantly better), though they may have still had to content with attacks from above by 109s. 

The main limitation and reason they weren't used there was because they were needed in the PTO and there weren't enough of them until after the tide in the MTO was already turned.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2021)

pbehn said:


> WW2 aircraft couldnt sustain high g turns in level flight, few aircraft can, so combat descends. The only advantage the Spitfire V had was in slow turning performance, but that is no advantage when you end up at ground level over France, there is no get out, and you are behind a flak belt.



I agree sustained dogfights tend to descend - even with jets. But in trying to better understand that elusive concept of aircraft maneuverability, I think the nuances are helpful to look at closely. 

Some air to air kills were as the famous Eric Hartmann quote - attacking where they other guy doesn't even see you coming. This definitely happened though I'm not sure it was 9 out of 10 victories as some people claim. I think it happened more in the beginning of the war with aircraft that had turtledecks and (especially) no radios and flying with wingmen. Around the time the Spit V showed up in North Africa they started flying in pairs and pretty much all Allied fighters had rearview mirrors and functional radios. Some air to air engagements were desperate turning fights which went all the way down to the ground level (where the fight can continue with both aircraft riding stalls, until one of the pilots makes a mistake). This is another thing which I believe was more common in the early war, more experienced pilots often knew which aircraft could turn better (instantaneous) and if it wasn't theirs, they would try to disengage as soon as possible.

Which is one reason why a lot of air combat also consisted of fighting, disengaging, chasing, fighting again. Turning (or slipping) just enough to evade being shot, performing vertical maneuvers like loops, scissors, Yo-Yo's etc. were well within the capabilities of many WW2 fighters and did not inevitably lead to a rapid descent. 

I do agree the fights would tend to descend anyway, if it continued long enough, but that would also depend on the tactics used. From reading pilots accounts there was a lot of engaging and disengaging and engaging again. I think that is something that the Fw 190 was particularly good at.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 13, 2021)

Schweik said:


> Again, I think this is definitely true. There is no doubt that an F4U-1 is a better fighter than a Spit V, P-40F, or P-38G/H, and those were holding their own against the German fighters. I think it's a cinch that F4U would have done at least as well or better (IMO significantly better), though they may have still had to content with attacks from above by 109s.
> 
> The main limitation and reason they weren't used there was because they were needed in the PTO and there weren't enough of them until after the tide in the MTO was already turned.


THE F4U DID NOT HAVE RANGE TO DO WELL AS TARGET ESCORTS IN BATTLE OVER DEEP GERMANY. THEY HAD LESS COMBAT RADIUS THAN P-47D BEFORE THE P-47D-25. THEY HAD LESS PERFORMANCE AT 8th AF BOMBER ESCORT ALTITUDES. FINE FIGHTER - BUT NOT BEST CHOICE EVEN AGAINST P-38J. 

To be effective, it 'had to get to the target where the fight was'.

FURTHER, the F6F would probably have been a better ground support/low altitude combat fighter for 9th and 12th AF than the P-47D - but a toss up. Both would probably be better than F4U-1. The USN deemed F6F better than F4U-1, all things considered because of oil cooler issues of F4U. That said F4U-4 was IMO the best all around fighter for USN.

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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2021)

drgondog said:


> THE F4U DID NOT HAVE RANGE TO DO WELL AS TARGET ESCORTS IN BATTLE OVER DEEP GERMANY. THEY HAD LESS COMBAT RADIUS THAN P-47D BEFORE THE P-47D-25. THEY HAD LESS PERFORMANCE AT 8th AF BOMBER ESCORT ALTITUDES. FINE FIGHTER - BUT NOT BEST CHOICE EVEN AGAINST P-38J.
> 
> To be effective, it 'had to get to the target where the fight was'.



Right, I was not referring to 8th AF or heavy bomber escort over northern Europe. *I was referring specifically to the MTO*. As in North Africa, Middle East, Sicily, Italy. Malta and some of the other smaller islands etc.

Also referring to P-38*G *and *H*, not J.



drgondog said:


> FURTHER, the F6F would probably have been a better ground support/low altitude combat fighter for 9th and 12th AF than the P-47D - but a toss up. Both would probably be better than F4U-1. The USN deemed F6F better than F4U-1, all things considered because of oil cooler issues of F4U. That said F4U-4 was IMO the best all around fighter for USN.


I'm not sure about that. I really don't think the P-47 was that great at low altitude. I'd love to see a detailed comparison of the three types (such as speed, climb rate etc.) at say, Sea level to 5,000 ft.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 13, 2021)

drgondog said:


> FURTHER, the F6F would probably have been a better ground support/low altitude combat fighter for 9th and 12th AF than the P-47D - but a toss up. Both would probably be better than F4U-1. The USN deemed F6F better than F4U-1, all things considered because of oil cooler issues of F4U. That said F4U-4 was IMO the best all around fighter for USN.


Could it have made up for the P-47 shortage?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 13, 2021)

They could use birch, spruce and balsa to build more Hellcats without touching strategic supplies. As they will be used in the CAS role, green paint will be used instead of wasting blue paint.

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


----------



## wuzak (Dec 13, 2021)

Schweik said:


> There is no doubt that an F4U-1 is a better fighter than a Spit V, P-40F, or P-38G/H, and those were holding their own against the German fighters.



I would hope that the 1943 F4U-1 was a better fighter than the 1941 Spitfire V.

But was it better than the 1942 Spitfire IX? Or the 1943 Spitfire XII?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Dec 13, 2021)

drgondog said:


> THE F4U DID NOT HAVE RANGE TO DO WELL AS TARGET ESCORTS IN BATTLE OVER DEEP GERMANY.



Seems to me that depends on whether its 150-gallon drop tanks are available in sufficient numbers. The P-47 didn't have much escort range either until loaded up with lots of external fuel.

There is a document that compared the performance of the F4U-1/4 to other fighters, including radius of action. The interesting thing is that the radius of action for Army fighters were evidently calculated using the Navy radius of action definition criteria. The results in statute miles:

F4U-4 = 615
F4U-1 = 500
F6F-5 = 500
P-47D = 650
P-38J = 450
P-51B = 550
F2G-1 = 525
F7F = 403
XF8F = 208

The P-47D was a 305 gallons internal version; the P-38J with 300 gallons internal; and the P-51B with 180 gallons internal.

The size of the external tank(s) carried was not specified. The note about the method of determining the radius only includes this: "An auxiliary tank is used for the rendezvous, climb, and cruising to objective and is dropped upon reaching the objective. All other fuel comes from main protected tank."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 13, 2021)

The Graf Zeppelin (LZ 127) had a range of 6,200 miles - all internal fuel, no drop tanks...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2021)

wuzak said:


> I would hope that the 1943 F4U-1 was a better fighter than the 1941 Spitfire V.
> 
> But was it better than the 1942 Spitfire IX? Or the 1943 Spitfire XII?



I never read about Spit XII operating in the MTO, at least not prior to say, Anzio.

Spit V remained the main Spitfire variant active in the zone well into 1943. Some Spit IX did arrive in 43 but there were never enough of them. There were also Seafires starting at the invasion of Sicily in Summer 43. More on that in a second.

The only one in Theater which compares to an F4U is the Spit IX. I'd say Spit IX would probably be a better interceptor but in every other role the F4U would certainly be better. Neither Spit V nor Seafire nor Spit IX had the range needed.

The F4U had some challenges flying from carriers early on, but I'd say in the Med the Corsair would certainly be an improvement over the Seafire which lost 40 planes in 3 days over Sicily, mostly in landing accidents.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 13, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The Graf Zeppelin (LZ 127) had a range of 6,200 miles - all internal fuel, no drop tanks...



They really need to bring back Zeppelins, we really lost something when those went out of action...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 14, 2021)

I believe Luftschiffbau Zeppelin may exist in a newer incarnation.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2021)

There are some new airships afloat... it's about time. But we need some proper airship-cruisers. Way more interesting than a cruise liner.

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


----------



## EwenS (Dec 14, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I never read about Spit XII operating in the MTO, at least not prior to say, Anzio.
> 
> Spit V remained the main Spitfire variant active in the zone well into 1943. Some Spit IX did arrive in 43 but there were never enough of them. There were also Seafires starting at the invasion of Sicily in Summer 43. More on that in a second.
> 
> ...


There were only 100 Spitfire XII built and they served with only 2 operational squadrons, 41 & 91, between Feb 1943 and Sept 1944, both in Britain.

Spitfire IX began to arrive in the Med in March 1943, with some of the first going to the Polish Fighting Team attached to 145 squadron in Tunisia. The Mk.VIII also arrived in the Med in mid-1943. But both models were in short supply and many squadrons operated a mix of Spitfire Vc and either VIII or IX (some even had both for short periods) until well into 1944. But the Mk.Vc was never fully replaced in the Med, with squadrons still converting to later models in late 1944 or early 1945. 352 (Yugoslav) squadron kept them until disbanded in June 1945, operating from bases in Italy and Yugoslavia. 

US Spitfire units in the Med also operated a mix of models in 1943/44 until replaced by P-51 Mustangs.

In Britain the Mk.V remained in the front line until mid-1944. Over the Normandy beaches they were used by units of RAF,RN and USN as part of the Gunfire Spotting Pool.

At low levels there was not a huge difference in performance between a Mk.V and a Mk.VIII or IX especially if the former was “clipped and cropped” (clipped wings and cropped supercharger impeller) which is why it lingered on for so long when the Luftwaffe became a rarity in the Med skies.

As for the Seafire, Salerno represents its nadir. It had only been introduced to service in the latter part of 1942, first seeing service during Operation Torch from Argus and the larger fleet carriers. Operation Avalanche off Salerno saw them operating off the slower escort carriers in newly equipped squadrons with many inexperienced pilots and in light wind conditions which they would not have experienced during training in British waters. The type never again experienced such high loss rates. They operated from escort and fleet carriers in the Arctic, Med, Indian Ocean and Pacific to the end of the war.

The F4U in 1943 was largely being used by the USMC from shore bases. The only USN carrier in 1943 with the F4U was the Bunker Hill. And they were replaced at the end of the year in the interests of standardisation, with the F6F being preferred due to its better handling characteristics around the carrier deck. The F4U was, in 1943, about as difficult to land as a Seafire. Instead it was the Fleet Air Arm that took it from July 1943 and helped sort out its defects in 1943/44. The first operational FAA squadrons went aboard the fleet carriers Illustrious in Dec 1943 and Victorious in March 1944.

The only regular use of the F4U from US flight decks until Dec 1944 were a few night fighter flights equipped with the F4U-2. When the US carriers needed more fighters in late 1944 it was again the USMC F4U squadrons that provided them from Dec 1944. It was only in 1945 that USN squadrons began regularly flying the F4U from carrier decks.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 14, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> Seems to me that depends on whether its 150-gallon drop tanks are available in sufficient numbers. The P-47 didn't have much escort range either until loaded up with lots of external fuel.
> 
> There is a document that compared the performance of the F4U-1/4 to other fighters, including radius of action. The interesting thing is that the radius of action for Army fighters were evidently calculated using the Navy radius of action definition criteria. The results in statute miles:
> 
> ...


The F4U-1 had more internal fuel than P-47D, but the two 62 gal wing tanks were unprotected. 

The AAF definition for Combat Radius includes Warm Up, Taxi/Takeoff, Climb to Cruise at Normal Power , Cruise at 210IAS at 25,000 feet, Drop Externals for Engagement, 5 Minutes Combat Power, 15 Min Military Power, Cruise to Descent at 210IAS, Descend and have 30 minutes reserve at Minimum Power.

No provision for formation assembly or flying formation.

The F4U-1 would not have been permitted to fly with unsealed (undroppable) tanks as produced in escort missions in ETO/MTO.

The P-47D with 305 gal internal, had a max combat radius with 2x150gal external combat tanks from April 1944. 

The P-51B cited is 1943/Jan 1944 configuration w/o 85 gal fuseage tank and 2x75 gal external combat tanks. From February forward, the P-51B w/85 gal internal for 269gal internal fuel, plus 2x75 gal had combat radius of 705 mi, with 2x108 gal externals = 750mi. To illustrate the difference between Range and Combat Radius, the P-51B/D with 269internal and 216external had a Range of 2150mi.

The P-38H/J range cited was with 2x150gal external combat tanks and without 2x55gal LE fuel tanks - same as P-51B 1943/Jan 1944. With LE tanks (410 gal internal fuel) had a combat radius of 650 miles.

The F4U-1 had 237 gal internal. Under same prohibition for unsealed internal tanks, the F4U-1 and F4U-4 (and F6F w/250 gal) had far less Combat Radius in hostile environment than P-47D. More than Spitfire but less than P-47D with same external tankage.

Source USAAF Planning Charts derived from AAF Flight testing and incorporated in 8th AF Planning. Additional sources 1.) Dean's "America's One Hundred Thousand" pg 600-601, 2.) Marshall's "P-51B Mustang; North American's Bastard Stepchild that Saved the 8th AF", pg 316-317

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 14, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I believe Luftschiffbau Zeppelin may exist in a newer incarnation.



Yes, they are actually building new Zeppelins, although they are smaller, modern, and use helium.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 14, 2021)

EwenS said:


> The F4U in 1943 was largely being used by the USMC from shore bases. The only USN carrier in 1943 with the F4U was the Bunker Hill. And they were replaced at the end of the year in the interests of standardisation, with the F6F being preferred due to its better handling characteristics around the carrier deck. The F4U was, in 1943, about as difficult to land as a Seafire. Instead it was the Fleet Air Arm that took it from July 1943 and helped sort out its defects in 1943/44. The first operational FAA squadrons went aboard the fleet carriers Illustrious in Dec 1943 and Victorious in March 1944.
> 
> The only regular use of the F4U from US flight decks until Dec 1944 were a few night fighter flights equipped with the F4U-2. When the US carriers needed more fighters in late 1944 it was again the USMC F4U squadrons that provided them from Dec 1944. It was only in 1945 that USN squadrons began regularly flying the F4U from carrier decks.


Not sure what you mean by FAA 'sorting out its defects'. The issues with tail wheels failing and 'assymetric stall' were pretty well sorted out as the FAA squadron 1830 was being formed in San Diego June 1943. VF-17 did its shakedown cruise on Bunker Hill in July. That said, VF(N)-101 were first F4U squadron to fly combat (Enterprise) in January 1944 - but it was a night fighter unit. About the same time FAA went operational in Med. The F4U was finally 'certified' for US Carrier ops after successful mod to landing gear in April 1944. 

AFAIK, the claim re: FAA sorting out the F4U was primarily based on the claim (false) that FAA introduced 'new approach' flight pattern to provide better visibility until final flare and landing but those processes were introduced in early 1943 before FAA even received 1st Corsair? The primary issues with precluding F4U early in carrier qual process were 1.) upwash inboard wing stalling before downwash wing, 2.) tail wheels blowing out, 3.) severe bounce due to original oleo strut design, d.) loss of rudder authority at low speed. All design, not 'process' issues. All sorted out by Vought, not FAA.

What is absolutely true is that FAA was operational earlier and in greater numbers than USN carrier ops. Further FAA was deploying all of its F4Us from Carriers when USMC/USN operated most F4Us from land until fall 1944.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Dec 14, 2021)

drgondog said:


> The F4U-1 had more internal fuel than P-47D, but the two 62 gal wing tanks were unprotected.
> 
> The AAF definition for Combat Radius includes Warm Up, Taxi/Takeoff, Climb to Cruise at Normal Power , Cruise at 210IAS at 25,000 feet, Drop Externals for Engagement, 5 Minutes Combat Power, 15 Min Military Power, Cruise to Descent at 210IAS, Descend and have 30 minutes reserve at Minimum Power.
> 
> ...


Summary - the lowest common denominator is the amount of internal fuel left after combat - it is all that is available to get home and find a place to land.

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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2021)

EwenS said:


> There were only 100 Spitfire XII built and they served with only 2 operational squadrons, 41 & 91, between Feb 1943 and Sept 1944, both in Britain.
> 
> Spitfire IX began to arrive in the Med in March 1943, with some of the first going to the Polish Fighting Team attached to 145 squadron in Tunisia. The Mk.VIII also arrived in the Med in mid-1943. But both models were in short supply and many squadrons operated a mix of Spitfire Vc and either VIII or IX (some even had both for short periods) until well into 1944. But the Mk.Vc was never fully replaced in the Med, with squadrons still converting to later models in late 1944 or early 1945. 352 (Yugoslav) squadron kept them until disbanded in June 1945, operating from bases in Italy and Yugoslavia.
> 
> ...



Yes, I'm aware of all that - that is essentially what I posted. Spit V remained the main Spitfire variant in the MTO through the conquest of Sicily with only a few Spit IX.


EwenS said:


> At low levels there was not a huge difference in performance between a Mk.V and a Mk.VIII or IX especially if the former was “clipped and cropped” (clipped wings and cropped supercharger impeller) which is why it lingered on for so long when the Luftwaffe became a rarity in the Med skies.


That I'm not sure I agree with, or anyway, the combat outcomes were markedly different. Spit IX did much better in the MTO, based on the numbers you read in Shores, than the Spit V. Spit IX was basically markedly superior to the German and Italian fighters, whereas Spit V was a bit inferior.



EwenS said:


> As for the Seafire, Salerno represents its nadir. It had only been introduced to service in the latter part of 1942, first seeing service during Operation Torch from Argus and the larger fleet carriers. Operation Avalanche off Salerno saw them operating off the slower escort carriers in newly equipped squadrons with many inexperienced pilots and in light wind conditions which they would not have experienced during training in British waters. The type never again experienced such high loss rates. They operated from escort and fleet carriers in the Arctic, Med, Indian Ocean and Pacific to the end of the war.



I'm well aware - but the Seafire was never exactly a wild success nor did it turn into the carrier fighter that the F4U did. The main limitation was in range but that was not the only problem. The F4U also had better performance.


EwenS said:


> The F4U in 1943 was largely being used by the USMC from shore bases. The only USN carrier in 1943 with the F4U was the Bunker Hill. And they were replaced at the end of the year in the interests of standardisation, with the F6F being preferred due to its better handling characteristics around the carrier deck. The F4U was, in 1943, about as difficult to land as a Seafire. Instead it was the Fleet Air Arm that took it from July 1943 and helped sort out its defects in 1943/44. The first operational FAA squadrons went aboard the fleet carriers Illustrious in Dec 1943 and Victorious in March 1944.
> 
> The only regular use of the F4U from US flight decks until Dec 1944 were a few night fighter flights equipped with the F4U-2. When the US carriers needed more fighters in late 1944 it was again the USMC F4U squadrons that provided them from Dec 1944. It was only in 1945 that USN squadrons began regularly flying the F4U from carrier decks.



Again, I'm aware of the operational history of the F4U. In this forum people seem to always have a problem with speculative scenarios. My comment was that the F4U could have been helpful in the MTO. Obviously, we all know it was not used there historically. I'm just saying it could have been and it would have compared well to what was actually used (which to be fair, did the job).

I don't think they would have had the number of accidents with F4U even if they used them from carriers (though they could not have used them from Escort carriers as I gather the Seafires were), and if used from land bases it would have superior range to the existing P-40 and Spit V which were the main fighter types in use. Not sure how F4U-1 compares to P-38G/H in range, but the early P-38 mods did not do well against Bf 109s in the MTO and had a variety of problems fighting at altitude.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2021)

drgondog said:


> Not sure what you mean by FAA 'sorting out its defects'. The issues with tail wheels failing and 'assymetric stall' were pretty well sorted out as the FAA squadron 1830 was being formed in San Diego June 1943. VF-17 did its shakedown cruise on Bunker Hill in July. That said, VF(N)-101 were first F4U squadron to fly combat (Enterprise) in January 1944 - but it was a night fighter unit. About the same time FAA went operational in Med. The F4U was finally 'certified' for US Carrier ops after successful mod to landing gear in April 1944.
> 
> AFAIK, the claim re: FAA sorting out the F4U was primarily based on the claim (false) that FAA introduced 'new approach' flight pattern to provide better visibility until final flare and landing but those processes were introduced in early 1943 before FAA even received 1st Corsair? The primary issues with precluding F4U early in carrier qual process were 1.) upwash inboard wing stalling before downwash wing, 2.) tail wheels blowing out, 3.) severe bounce due to original oleo strut design, d.) loss of rudder authority at low speed. All design, not 'process' issues. All sorted out by Vought, not FAA.
> 
> What is absolutely true is that FAA was operational earlier and in greater numbers than USN carrier ops. Further FAA was deploying all of its F4Us from Carriers when USMC/USN operated most F4Us from land until fall 1944.



I think it's one of those stories which gets a bit exaggerated, but there is some truth in it to the extent that the institutional inertia created by the early problems with the F4U in Navy / carrier service (some USN units flew them from land) was put paid by the obvious success FAA was having with them flying from carriers, with the benefit of the improvements Vought made. The FAA worked out their own approach and as we know, also had slightly different Corsair variants with the clipped wings etc.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 14, 2021)

Schweik said:


> In this forum people seem to always have a problem with speculative scenarios.


That's because there are many on here who are smart enough, have researched enough or have the actually experience to separate realistic speculation in lieu of fantasies and opinionated BS. If this disturbs you there are many other places in cyberspace that may suit your needs.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2021)

Since I don't participate in fantasies or opinionated BS, I am not disturbed, I was just pointing it out for what it is.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 14, 2021)

Mr. Leonard has.dispelled the myth many times over, how the FAA "solved the F4U's issues".

One of the key points, is that the FAA pilots were all trained in the U.S. before going operational.

The F4U's carrier-based problems were solved by Vought after feedback.

The FAA's clipped wings (8" removed from either wing) weren't for performance, it was to facilitate stowage aboard RN carriers.

The USN didn't use the Corsair aboard it's carriers as a primary, because it already had Hellcats, not because of "issues".

The list goes on, but this has all been covered in great detail in other threads.

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


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Mr. Leonard has.dispelled the myth many times over, how the FAA "solved the F4U's issues".
> 
> One of the key points, is that the FAA pilots were all trained in the U.S. before going operational.
> 
> ...



They say that this also affected the sink rate though, is that not true?


GrauGeist said:


> The USN didn't use the Corsair aboard it's carriers as a primary, because it already had Hellcats, not because of "issues".
> 
> The list goes on, but this has all been covered in great detail in other threads.



So no middle ground on it at all? It's 100% a myth?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 14, 2021)

Schweik said:


> They say that this also affected the sink rate though, is that not true?
> 
> 
> So no middle ground on it at all? It's 100% a myth?



This is from Wiki - I left the references in there...

_The U.S. Navy received its first production F4U-1 on 31 July 1942, though getting it into service proved difficult. The framed "birdcage" style canopy provided inadequate visibility for deck taxiing, and the long "hose nose" and nose-up attitude of the Corsair made it difficult to see straight ahead. The enormous torque of the Double Wasp engine also made it a handful for inexperienced pilots if they were forced to bolter. Early Navy pilots called the F4U the "hog", "hosenose", or "bent-wing widow maker".[42]​

Carrier qualification trials on the training carrier USS Wolverine and escort carriers USS Core and USS Charger in 1942 found that, despite visibility issues and control sensitivity, the Corsair was "...*an excellent carrier type and very easy to land aboard. It is no different than any other airplane."*[43]​ Two Navy units, VF-12 (October 1942) and later VF-17 (April 1943) were equipped with the F4U. By April 1943, VF-12 had successfully completed deck landing qualification.[44]​

*At the time, the U.S. Navy also had the Grumman F6F Hellcat, which did not have the performance of the F4U, but was a better deck landing aircraft. The Corsair was declared "ready for combat" at the end of 1942, though qualified to operate only from land bases until the last of the carrier qualification issues were worked out.[45]​ VF-17 went aboard the USS Bunker Hill in late 1943, and the Chief of Naval Operations wanted to equip four air groups with Corsairs by the end of 1943. The Commander, Air Forces, Pacific had a different opinion, stating that "In order to simplify spares problems and also to insure flexibility in carrier operations present practice in the Pacific is to assign all Corsairs to Marines and to equip FightRons [fighter squadrons] on medium and light carriers with Hellcats."[46]​ VF-12 soon abandoned its aircraft to the Marines. VF-17 kept its Corsairs, but was removed from its carrier, USS Bunker Hill, due to perceived difficulties in supplying parts at sea.*[47]​

The Marines needed a better fighter than the F4F Wildcat. For them, it was not as important that the F4U could be recovered aboard a carrier, as they usually flew from land bases. Growing pains aside, Marine Corps squadrons readily took to the radical new fighter._

*This was well documented in the book "Jolly Rogers" written by Tom Blackburn, C/O of VF-17*

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 14, 2021)

Schweik said:


> So no middle ground on it at all? It's 100% a myth?


There is a middle ground, sure.
VF-12 and VF-17 were the first two units to work up and operate the F4U and were fully qualified by spring of '43, which was about the same time the F6F was going into service.

The early F4U had to go through several iterations to sort out above-mentioned issues, like the oleos, which tended to make it bounce on recovery as well as the canopy configuration, etc. 

The F6F did not have to go through the same process, so it was quicker to deploy in strength, even though it's performance was not as high as the F4U's.

But in '43, the war's situation dictated numbers over performance, so the F6F won out. Bunker Hill (CV-17) was fully equipped with Corsairs by Fall of '43, by the way.

It might be interesting to note that the USN thought that the F4U's performance during trials was equal to any other carrier type.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 14, 2021)

Well, Joe beat me by a minute!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 14, 2021)

S
 Schweik
I am curious as to why you would think a Spitfire Mk IX would be better at low level than a Mk V using the same fuel and boost pressure.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> There is a middle ground, sure.
> VF-12 and VF-17 were the first two units to work up and operate the F4U and were fully qualified by spring of '43, which was about the same time the F6F was going into service.
> 
> The early F4U had to go through several iterations to sort out above-mentioned issues, like the oleos, which tended to make it bounce on recovery as well as the canopy configuration, etc.



Right, this is in part what I was referring to. Tail wheel as well right? I think also as with every time aircraft got a bit more powerful than the previous generation, there was a learning curve. There was the nickname 'ensign eliminator' in the early days, mainly due to issues with torque on takeoff power. As a kid, I was with my dad in 1974 when he interviewed a few F4U pilots and they were talking about this issue. 



GrauGeist said:


> The F6F did not have to go through the same process, so it was quicker to deploy in strength, even though it's performance was not as high as the F4U's.
> 
> But in '43, the war's situation dictated numbers over performance, so the F6F won out. Bunker Hill (CV-17) was fully equipped with Corsairs by Fall of '43, by the way.
> 
> It might be interesting to note that the USN thought that the F4U's performance during trials was equal to any other carrier type.



F4U had some teething issues, and not just on carriers, but almost all aircraft types did. Another issue frequently mentioned was oil leaks and oil getting on the windscreen, leading to the need to wire shut the cowl flaps on the top of the fuselage. I assume the F6 had some problems too though they don't seem to have been as widely discussed?

There was a passage by a high scoring USMC F4U Ace who had a bit of a rant about all the problems with the early F4U and all the maintenance they had to do on it. Just kind of a reality check. Sadly my google-fu is failing me and I can't find it.

I still think it was one of the best fighters of the war.


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2021)

pbehn said:


> S
> Schweik
> I am curious as to why you would think a Spitfire Mk IX would be better at low level than a Mk V using the same fuel and boost pressure.



I was referring specifically to the operational history. If you go through Shores in the MAW series, Spit IX almost always came out ahead in encounters with the German and Italian fighters. Spit V was more often a bit below parity. I do believe this often had to do with being able to preform better at ~ 20 - 25,000 feet. But not only that.

In general, I also gather that the Spit IX did a lot better against Fw 190s and not just at high altitude. Right?

Spit Mk IX had several minor technical improvements over the V beyond the improved altitude performance which did add up. IIRC the Bendix carburetor for example instead of the old float type meant that it could nose-over into dives, which was quite helpful (and a nasty surprise for some Axis pilots when they first appeared). I believe the four blade propeller conferred some advantages. Didn't the Spit IX have a better initial climb rate? I'm not sure if that is related. They had flush riveting and a streamlined rear view mirror, which meant less drag and therefore a bit higher speed retention. Later Mk IX had the larger rudder.

The Spit Mk IX also eventually (by 1944?) had the Mark II gunsights which were a huge improvement, I'm not sure of the V got these or not. Most had the C wing and some of them also had the E wing, both of which seemed to work better in terms of stoppages. I'm not sure precisely what the difference was from the earlier Spit VB but they seem to have better reliability with the guns.

Spit IX did have a somewhat higher wing loading.

All in all, many small changes along with the big one of the higher altitude performance, and it seemed to add up to a notable improvement in outcomes.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 14, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I was referring specifically to the operational history. If you go through Shores in the MAW series, Spit IX almost always came out ahead in encounters with the German and Italian fighters. Spit V was more often a bit below parity. I do believe this often had to do with being able to preform better at ~ 20 - 25,000 feet. But not only that.
> 
> In general, I also gather that the Spit IX did a lot better against Fw 190s and not just at high altitude. Right?
> 
> ...


The first Mk IX was produced about a year after the first MkV while the last MkV was produced two years after the first Mk IX generally you cant generalise.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Dec 14, 2021)

I recognize it's quite complicated and there were many sub-variants and different configurations, engines, boost settings etc.

That said, I believe you can make general comparisons between Spit V and Spit IX, albeit with caveats.

For convenience, I'll summarize some WW2performance org testing which shows the following performance markers:

*Test year / Variant / Engine / Climb low / climb medium / Speed low / Speed medium / Best Speed*
Apr 1941 / Spit VA / Merlin 45 / 3140 / * / * / * / 375
Jun 1941 / Spit VB / Merlin 45 / 3240 / 3250 / 331 / 351 / 371
Mar 1942 / Spit VC (Trop) / Merlin 45 / 2660 / * / * / 354
Nov 1942 / Spit VC / Merlin 45 / * / 3710 / * / * / 369 (+16 lb boost - climb rate is at 8,800 ft, best speed at 13,000 ft)
May 1943 / Spit VB / Merlin 50 / 4270 / 3800 / 334 / 350 / 350 (+16 to +18, ROC 2320 at 20,00 ft)

Oct 1942 / Spit IX / Merlin 61 / * / 3860 / 330 / 380 / 403 (ROC is at 12,600 ft and 3020 fpm @ 25,200 ft, speed 380 at 15,400 ft, 403 at 27,000 ft)
Mar 1943 / Spit IX / Merlin 66 / 4620 / 4700 / 336 / 384 / 407 (ROC @ Sea / 7,000 ft, Speeds at Sea / 10,00 ft / 22,000 ft. - Low Alt ver)
Mar 1943 / Spit IX / Merlin 70 / 4390 / 4530 / 329 / 396 / 415 (ROC at Sea / 11,900 ft, Speeds at Sea / 15,900 ft/ 27,000 ft - Hi Alt ver)
Aug 1943 / Spit IX / Merlin 70 / 4310 / 4310 / 326 / 358 / 413
Oct 1943 / Spit IX / Merlin 66 / 5740 / 5080 / 330 / 364 / 397 (this is +25 boost ROC at Sea / 5,000 ft, Speed at Sea / 8,000 ft / 20,000 ft)

So based on that, while speed performance is generally the same at sea level, even there Spit IX seems to have a better climb rate. Above about 5,000 feet Spit IX seems better across the board, with significantly better speed and climb at middling as well as higher altitudes.




Spitfire Mk V Performance Testing







Spitfire Mk IX Performance Trials


Spitfire Mk IX Performance Testing, wartime flight trials



www.spitfireperformance.com


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 14, 2021)

I am not sure those tests represent a later war Mk.V with clipped wings, cropped supercharger and increased boost. They were little rocket ships down low, with similar power output but without the weight penalty of the Mk.IX


----------



## VA5124 (Dec 14, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I recognize it's quite complicated and there were many sub-variants and different configurations, engines, boost settings etc.
> 
> That said, I believe you can make general comparisons between Spit V and Spit IX, albeit with caveats.
> 
> ...


Actual question though was the speed and turning compared to what would have been the land based version of the corsair i would aussme it having the 2,000hp R-2800 it would be a little faster and a little better at turning plus the other question if the spit the P-51 and the F4U went againist an canonn armed german fighter which could take the most hits i would aussme the corsair being carrier designed would be better at taking fire because of having to be bulit tougher for carrier ops

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 14, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> if the spit the P-51 and the F4U went againist an canonn armed german fighter which could take the most hits i would aussme the corsair being carrier designed would be better at taking fire


No aircraft is going to shrug off cannon hits, so it is usually a better idea to build an aircraft that can _AVOID_ hits rather than take them. Even the mighty IL2 with its armored bathtub was found to be very vulnerable if operated without local fighter cover.
An F4U will go down if hit by a burst of minengeschoss 20 or 30mm, just like a Spitfire will.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Dec 14, 2021)

There wasn't much point in putting more than 250 gallons of fuel internally in the F6F. With the 250 internal and 150 external, the F6F could match the combat radius of a loaded TBF/TBM Avenger, so if you can match the radius of your longest-legged strike plane, everything after that is diminishing marginal returns. On one mission in the Battle of the Philippine Sea, the Americans located the Japanese fleet at the edge of the combat radius of the US planes. The Japanese were fleeing, and flight operations into the wind caused the American fleet to largely go the opposite way. The US launched only F6F, each with a bomb and a drop-tank, to attack the Japanese force partially because the higher cruising speed of the fighters meant they could reach the Japanese force quicker, before they could get farther away, as every mile they gained at 30 knots was going to mean two that the American planes had to fly round trip. 

The F4U (without the unprotected wing tanks) had just a bit less internal fuel than the F6F, but as we discussed earlier, the Navy at least had the intention to use external tanks for the F4U that did not have to be dropped in combat. We were not able to determine whether these tanks were actually used and to what extent. The same dynamic applies to the F4U though as the F6F.

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


----------



## DarrenW (Dec 14, 2021)

Schweik said:


> I assume the F6 had some problems too though they don't seem to have been as widely discussed?


Unlike most mass produced fighters of the time, Grumman performed very few modifications to the F6F as a whole and most people would have a difficult time differentiating between an F6F-3 and -5 if it weren't for the change from tri-color to a glossy sea blue paint scheme.

Most notable improvements for the F6F-3 were the addition of ADI in early 1944 and removal of lower engine cowling cooling flaps/exhaust side bulges.

The F6F-5 incorporated aileron spring tabs, an aerodynamically tighter cowling, adaption of night fighter windscreen for day fighter variant, and removal of rear window (mid-production -5s and later). Rear fuselage/tail section was strengthened. Provisions were also made for the replacement of two machine guns with 20 mm cannon, and six rockets could be carried. Lastly the -5 had the pitot static port moved to a different location in order to improve the accuracy of airspeed indicator readings.

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


----------



## drgondog (Dec 14, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> Actual question though was the speed and turning compared to what would have been the land based version of the corsair i would aussme it having the 2,000hp R-2800 it would be a little faster and a little better at turning plus the other question if the spit the P-51 and the F4U went againist an canonn armed german fighter which could take the most hits i would aussme the corsair being carrier designed would be better at taking fire because of having to be bulit tougher for carrier ops


Why specifically do you believe that?


----------



## VA5124 (Dec 14, 2021)

drgondog said:


> Why specifically do you believe that?


Because 1. the R-2800 makes 2,000 hp which is something the merlin wouldnt do till the end of the war. 2. it was better turning than a spit in my oppion and 3. it being bulit tougher for carriers means higher damge could be taken


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 14, 2021)

The corsair was sturdy due to it's being a carrier-designed aircract, but that doesn't mean better able to withstand battle damage any better than a Mustang or Spitfire.
It simply means it can sustain hard landings far better than a Mustang or Spitfire.

It's one advantage over the other two, would be it's radial engine, which can sustain damage and remain operable.

As far as it's having a 2,000hp engine, yes that was alot of power, but what about the drag penalty imposed by it's frontal area? This is a key issue with radial engined aircraft and several manufacturers tried various solutions to address that (some being successful, some not).

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


----------



## VA5124 (Dec 14, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The corsair was sturdy due to it's being a carrier-designed aircract, but that doesn't mean better able to withstand battle damage any better than a Mustang or Spitfire.
> It simply means it can sustain hard landings far better than a Mustang or Spitfire.
> 
> It's one advantage over the other two, would be it's radial engine, which can sustain damage and remain operable.
> ...


I still think it may have been a better choice for us .


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 14, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> I still think it may have been a better choice for us .


So if the F4U is sent to Europe, which U.S. fighter does it replace?

Each type already there is performing a much needed task.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Dec 14, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> Because 1. the R-2800 makes 2,000 hp which is something the merlin wouldnt do till the end of the war. 2. it was better turning than a spit in my oppion and 3. it being bulit tougher for carriers means higher damge could be taken



1. It needed to make 2,000hp to compensate for the weight and drag
2. Would like to see something better than opinion on that point. I don't really know how well the F4U turned, and it may be that the advantage changes based on speed and/or altitude.
3. What are the parts strengthened for carrier operations that make a difference to survivability in combat?

Edit:

This graphic compares turning circles of various fighters of WW2.



http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-turning.jpg



The Spitfire IX/XVI and XIV is shown to be the tightest turning of them.

It doesn't specify the speed at which they are turning, nor altitude.

Where do you think the F4U would be on that graphic?


----------



## NevadaK (Dec 14, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> So if the F4U is sent to Europe, which U.S. fighter does it replace?
> 
> Each type already there is performing a much needed task.


That is a great question. The way I see it is that it isn't about what does it replace, but is it better at something than any of the existing fighters in the ETO. While there is a narrative in this thread that the F4U would have been outclassed in the ETO/MTO I don't think that tells the whole story. Yes, the F4U does start to run out of gas at higher altitudes, but not all combat was high altitude escort activities. The F4U would have been outstanding in close air support as well as AAC in the lower envelope. If the F4U is replacing anything its the P-47 and P-51 in the CAS. In support of this premise, I pulled this scoring matrix from the 1944 Joint Fighter Conference. I didn't create it, but found it useful to see how these types were compared by pilots at that time. It shows the Corsair being favorably thought of in a number of categories.

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


----------



## VA5124 (Dec 14, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> So if the F4U is sent to Europe, which U.S. fighter does it replace?
> 
> Each type already there is performing a much needed task.


I say the P-38 for the simple fact the corsair had a good bomb/rocket load so it could do ground attack plus having 6 .50in mgs means it could have maintained as a fighter too


----------



## VA5124 (Dec 14, 2021)

wuzak said:


> 1. It needed to make 2,000hp to compensate for the weight and drag
> 2. Would like to see something better than opinion on that point. I don't really know how well the F4U turned, and it may be that the advantage changes based on speed and/or altitude.
> 3. What are the parts strengthened for carrier operations that make a difference to survivability in combat?
> 
> ...


It wouldnt turn as tight as a spit ill give you that but I'd say it would be pretty darn close turn better than the meteor . It had better gear and the whole airframe was more rigid so i think she could take more damage then a spit


----------



## wuzak (Dec 14, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> I say the P-38 for the simple fact the corsair had a good bomb/rocket load so it could do ground attack plus having 6 .50in mgs means it could have maintained as a fighter too



Could it do the escort missions the P-38 were mostly used for in the ETO?


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 14, 2021)

NevadaK said:


> That is a great question. The way I see it is that it isn't about what does it replace, but is it better at something than any of the existing fighters in the ETO. While there is a narrative in this thread that the F4U would have been outclassed in the ETO/MTO I don't think that tells the whole story. Yes, the F4U does start to run out of gas at higher altitudes, but not all combat was high altitude escort activities. The F4U would have been outstanding in close air support as well as AAC in the lower envelope. If the F4U is replacing anything its the P-47 and P-51 in the CAS. In support of this premise, I pulled this scoring matrix from the 1944 Joint Fighter Conference. I didn't create it, but found it useful to see how these types were compared by pilots at that time. It shows the Corsair being favorably thought of in a number of categories.
> 
> View attachment 651605


I find that chart interesting, especially in the ground attack categories.
The F4U had six .50MGs, the P-47 had eight.
The F4U could carry eight 5" HVAR, the P-47 could carry ten.

For ground attack, the P-47 proved to a ferocious machine. Both it and the Typhoon were the scourge of the Wehrmacht on the Western front.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Dec 15, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> It wouldnt turn as tight as a spit ill give you that but I'd say it would be pretty darn close turn better than the meteor . It had better gear and the whole airframe was more rigid so i think she could take more damage then a spit


Based on competitive flights between the Spitfire and the A6M Zero, and Comparisons between the Corsair, Hellcat and the A6M Zero, I infer that that turn rate of both the Corsair and the Hellcat would have been in the same ballpark as the Spitfire.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Dec 15, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> Because 1. the R-2800 makes 2,000 hp which is something the merlin wouldnt do till the end of the war. 2. it was better turning than a spit in my oppion and 3. it being bulit tougher for carriers means higher damge could be taken


Well, Hp to Gw is a major factor for acceleration. Most R2800 equipped (F8F exception) were far heavier than Merlin equipped fighters were and draggier. The P-47D maintained 2000 HP throughout the range and crossed over the Mustang and Spritfire at 25000 feet. NONE of the R2800 equiped fighters out turned a Spit (incl F8F). The strengthened components of F4U and F6F were landing gear and lower longernon/empennage tensile capability of arresting hook.

The P-51D did not need significant beef up of fuselage to perform carrier trial tests.

So,explain how more damage can be absorbed by P47D/F4U? BTW loss rates for P-51D/F4U-4 were about the same per sortie and the P-51D was lying longer range missions exposed to flak.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Dec 15, 2021)

drgondog said:


> Well, Hp to Gw is a major factor for acceleration. Most R2800 equipped (F8F exception) were far heavier than Merlin equipped fighters were and draggier. The P-47D maintained 2000 HP throughout the range and crossed over the Mustang and Spritfire at 25000 feet. NONE of the R2800 equiped fighters out turned a Spit (incl F8F). The strengthened components of F4U and F6F were landing gear and lower longernon/empennage tensile capability of arresting hook.
> 
> The P-51D did not need significant beef up of fuselage to perform carrier trial tests.
> 
> So,explain how more damage can be absorbed by P47D/F4U? BTW loss rates for P-51D/F4U-4 were about the same per sortie and the P-51D was lying longer range missions exposed to flak.


I'll explain it with a differnt carrier based fighter the F4F wildcat theres a story of a IJN pilot who thought he could finish off a damaged wildcat with 7,7mm fire so he turns off his 20mm cannon (didnt know the zero had a switch for that ) and dumps a bunch of rounds into the F4F only for the bullet ridden plane to fly away thats why i say the corsair could have done it


----------



## pbehn (Dec 15, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> I'll explain it with a differnt carrier based fighter the F4F wildcat theres a story of a IJN pilot who thought he could finish off a damaged wildcat with 7,7mm fire so he turns off his 20mm cannon (didnt know the zero had a switch for that ) and dumps a bunch of rounds into the F4F only for the bullet ridden plane to fly away thats why i say the corsair could have done it


Was the switch so complicated that he couldnt switch on the cannon later?


----------



## VA5124 (Dec 15, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Was the switch so complicated that he couldnt switch on the cannon later?


I dont know


----------



## pbehn (Dec 15, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> I dont know


You cant base a strategy on one anecdote, there will have been SE aircraft of all types taken out with a single rifle calibre bullet.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 15, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> It wouldnt turn as tight as a spit ill give you that but I'd say it would be pretty darn close turn better than the meteor . It had better gear and the whole airframe was more rigid _*so i think she could take more damage then a spit*_


Not once 20 or 30mm cannon shells start flying.

Also I think the Korean War bears a quick examination, both the Mustang and Corsair were flying CAS over the same ground for the same amount of time, here are the numbers as best as I can recall, 

 drgondog
I think has the exact numbers:

*F-51* 341 lost to enemy action, 474 total (accidents etc. incl.)

*F4U* 325 lost to enemy action (Navy + Marines) 494 total (accidents etc. incl.)

Not sure the F4U stood up to ground fire any better. Math not my strong suit but I believe that's a less than 1% difference in lost to enemy action, I could be wrong on that though.

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


----------



## drgondog (Dec 15, 2021)

It has been perpetually amusing to see folks harping on the somewhat nebulous attribute of 'ability to absorb damage' as five star attribute?

I peronally favor the attribute to a.) be in a situation here I could choose to fight or flee, b.) Be able to flee WITHOUT getting my ass shot off, c.) be able to manuever on equal or better terms if I couldn't extend. The Mustang, Spitfire, Fw 190, F4U, F6F, P-47 and P-38 and I suppose 109G all fit pretty well. That said, under 30K the Mustang and Spit IX/XIV works for me.

None of the above work well if you don't see who just killed you.


IL-2 would not be my choice.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Dec 15, 2021)

drgondog said:


> It has been perpetually amusing to see folks harping on the somewhat nebulous attribute of 'ability to absorb damage' as five star attribute?
> 
> I peronally favor the attribute to a.) be in a situation here I could choose to fight or flee, b.) Be able to flee WITHOUT getting my ass shot off, c.) be able to manuever on equal or better terms if I couldn't extend. The Mustang, Spitfire, Fw 190, F4U, F6F, P-47 and P-38 and I suppose 109G all fit pretty well. That said, under 30K the Mustang and Spit IX/XIV works for me.
> 
> ...


It was a flying tank though


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 15, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> It was a flying tank though


Only to the pilot and even then, as long as it's being hit by MG fire (7mm, 13mm) - once the cannon shells start hitting, all bets are off.

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 15, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> It was a flying tank though


define "flying tank". That is also a term that gets flippantly tossed around. The IL-2 was an airplane, made out of flimsy sheet aluminum just like all the others. It was perhaps more resilient to some types of battle damage, but its ponderous performance also guaranteed that it was going to be shot up a lot.
Just because it could take a few hits, like a P-47, doesn't mean it was going to be very useful for the squadron commander while it was sitting on jacks in the hanger for 6 months getting patched up, or scrapped.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> It was a flying tank though


Flying tank or not - the worse feeling in the world you can have as a pilot is heating the sounds of metal peppering your aircraft (I've experienced that once and one time was good enough for me) and I don't care if you're in a bank vault with wings. The preferred situation is NOT to take on any fire and I would rather be in an aircraft that was fast or stealthy enough to ensure that.

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


----------



## glennasher (Dec 15, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> It was a flying tank though


A shot-down tank is still shot-down, is it not? 
If I were in an infantry shoot-out, I'd rather NOT get hit on my body armor at all, rather than rave about how great that body armor is.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 15, 2021)

drgondog said:


> attribute of 'ability to absorb damage' as five star attribute?




Well, it is only a five star attribute if *every other attribute *was already a 5 star level attribute. 

Or close to it. 
Self sealing fuel tanks did contribute to absorb battle damage, they didn't really allow the shot up plane to continue to engage in combat for very long (seconds) as too many other things also also degraded.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 15, 2021)

The armor on the IL-2, was to protect it from ground fire (like the Hs129).

Not really effective against enemy aircraft - unless the enemy aircraft was underneath and shooting upward...

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


----------



## NevadaK (Dec 15, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> I find that chart interesting, especially in the ground attack categories.
> The F4U had six .50MGs, the P-47 had eight.
> The F4U could carry eight 5" HVAR, the P-47 could carry ten.
> 
> For ground attack, the P-47 proved to a ferocious machine. Both it and the Typhoon were the scourge of the Wehrmacht on the Western front.


Greetings GrauGeist,

I was trying to find a citation, but IIRC the Corsair was highly regarded for its stability in ground attack. My guess is that it was a better platform than the P-47 for bomb delivery and rockets. The P-47 was ranked higher for strafing which makes sense given the greater number of guns. The Corsair, however, is able to carry a greater payload than than the P-47. According to a couple sources the Corsair was able to carry up to 4,000 lbs of ordinance versus 2,000 lbs for the Thunderbolt. This would certainly affect how it was rated for ground attack. I don't disagree that the P-47 and Typhoon/Tempest were important ground attack aircraft, but don't overlook the Corsair's contribution in the Pacific in the same role.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 15, 2021)

Fitting a lot of extra armour to Typhoons was an admission that it was no longer a pure fighter and needed other fighters to do its job. It could get rid of its bombs or rockets and fight, but that means the opposition have achieved their first objective.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 15, 2021)

With regard to post #320, the Il-2 wasn't just made of "flimsy aluminum." It had a very substantial armor shell made of steel that was 1/2 inch thick in places. It was almost immune to MG fire from below. Perhaps the propeller wasn't, but a propeller is very hard to hit anytime. While it certainly wasn't a fighter, and the performance wasn't especially brisk, the Il-2 was your best friend if you were a ground soldier and desperately needed air support. Against ground troops, it was likely the best of the war if the ability to stay there and attack the enemy troops was important.

In Viet Nam, the Skyraider was the ground pounder's best friend. The jets would make one pass, maybe two, and fly away. If four fully-armed Skyraiders showed up, they were a game-changer. They could orbit for 2 hours and drop something or shoot something on every pass. If you were a squad being attacked by a larger force, you could stand up and walk away with 4 Skyraiders flying around. The LAST thing the enemy wanted to do was to attract the attention of the Skyraiders. That could very easily prove fatal. And they didn't really need to run from MiGs, either.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Dec 15, 2021)

GregP said:


> With regard to post #320, the Il-2 wasn't just made of "flimsy aluminum." ...


Actually, most of it was made of wood. The pilot's station is heavily armoured. "Victor Suvorov" claims that the gunner was a penal assignment. If they somehow survived ten missions, they were sent off to clear mines. I cannot find any aircraft literature that confirms this story.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 15, 2021)

The armoured shell didn't encompass the entire external fuselage, it protected the engine, fuel and pilot (not necessarily the rear gunner). It was still an airplane, and airplanes need to be _*relatively*_ light weight to get off the ground, you cant build the whole thing out of steel plate. It was still vulnerable, just like every other airplane, and it was shot down in droves. It may have been able to defect rifle caliber hits from below, in certain areas, but an explosive 20mm cannon shell would still remove pieces, and you can only lose so many pieces before gravity, or a fire takes over

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 15, 2021)

GregP said:


> In Viet Nam, the Skyraider was the ground pounder's best friend


I don't doubt that at all. However, between the USAF, USN and South Vietnamese air force, something like 400 Skyraiders were lost in combat. Because they are flying low and slow, they are extremely vulnerable. They provide valuable service, no doubt, but at a great cost. The US lost more A-10's over Iraq than any other type, because flying low and slow over a battlefield means you will probably absorb more than your fair share of hits. An A-10 can take punishment as well, and has a similar sort of armored shell as an IL2, but it is still vulnerable.

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


----------



## VA5124 (Dec 15, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> define "flying tank". That is also a term that gets flippantly tossed around. The IL-2 was an airplane, made out of flimsy sheet aluminum just like all the others. It was perhaps more resilient to some types of battle damage, but its ponderous performance also guaranteed that it was going to be shot up a lot.
> Just because it could take a few hits, like a P-47, doesn't mean it was going to be very useful for the squadron commander while it was sitting on jacks in the hanger for 6 months getting patched up, or scrapped.


But armored with steel


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 15, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> But armored with steel


Sure, but you can only put so much steel armour on a plane before it won't get off the ground. Something like 15% of the IL-2's gross weight was armour plate. If they had made it 25%, then it truly would have been a tank, just not a flying one.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Dec 15, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Sure, but you can only put so much steel armour on a plane before it won't get off the ground. Something like 15% of the IL-2's gross weight was armour plate. If they had made it 25%, then it truly would have been a tank, just not a flying one.


But when your making 1500 hp out of a v-12 (AM-38F) you can afford the extra plating


----------



## GregP (Dec 15, 2021)

With regards to post #328, actually the Il-2's most notable feature was the inclusion of armor in an airframe load-bearing scheme. Armor plates replaced the frame and paneling throughout the nacelle and middle part of the fuselage, and an armored hull made of riveted homogeneous armor steel AB-1 (AB-2) secured the aircraft's engine, cockpit, water and oil radiators, and fuel tanks.

It did have mixed wood and metal construction, but the armor was the thing that set it apart from the rest of the ground attack aircraft.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 15, 2021)

GregP said:


> With regard to post #320, the Il-2 wasn't just made of "flimsy aluminum." It had a very substantial armor shell made of steel that was 1/2 inch thick in places. It was almost immune to MG fire from below. Perhaps the propeller wasn't, but a propeller is very hard to hit anytime. While it certainly wasn't a fighter, and the performance wasn't especially brisk, the Il-2 was your best friend if you were a ground soldier and desperately needed air support. Against ground troops, it was likely the best of the war if the ability to stay there and attack the enemy troops was important.
> 
> In Viet Nam, the Skyraider was the ground pounder's best friend. The jets would make one pass, maybe two, and fly away. If four fully-armed Skyraiders showed up, they were a game-changer. They could orbit for 2 hours and drop something or shoot something on every pass. If you were a squad being attacked by a larger force, you could stand up and walk away with 4 Skyraiders flying around. The LAST thing the enemy wanted to do was to attract the attention of the Skyraiders. That could very easily prove fatal. And they didn't really need to run from MiGs, either.


Great post, I'm sure my brother still walks this earth because of those Skyraiders. He never has talked much about his time in Vietnam but he knows my love of airplanes so I got just a few tidbits about them roaring in like the cavalry to the rescue.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> Great post, I'm sure* my brother still walks this earth because of those Skyraiders.* He never has talked much about his time in Vietnam but he knows my love of airplanes so I got just a few tidbits about them roaring in like the cavalry to the rescue.


Yours and mine both. My brother was in the A Shau valley during the Tet offensive. He had many stories of the Skyraider saving the day.

Another note - during my years at the academy and at the Reno air races, I came across many A-10 drivers and it seems when they spoke about their mission, the goal was not to take any fire although they knew they had a very rugged jet underneath them. One of my favorite officers to deal with at the academy came up the enlisted ranks, made it to OCS and eventually got to fly the A-10 (the same aircraft he twisted wrenches on). He told me that aside from avoiding harm to himself and his aircraft, he always had his maintainers in mind because "he was once there." 









Former Air Force pilot to receive Silver Star for Iraq combat mission


A pilot will receive a Silver Star — the third highest medal for valor in the military – in a private ceremony at the National Museum of the U.S. Air




www.daytondailynews.com

Reactions: Winner Winner:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Dec 15, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> Great post, I'm sure my brother still walks this earth because of those Skyraiders. He never has talked much about his time in Vietnam but he knows my love of airplanes so I got just a few tidbits about them roaring in like the cavalry to the rescue.


I have a close friend that was an AD driver (Navy Cross) that flew two tours and never brought home an AD that didn't require at least a patch every time he went in hot. He also has a hilarious story about a bar bet with an A-4 squadron relative to their (A-4) pilots easily mastering take off in ADs.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 15, 2021)

VA5124 said:


> But when your making 1500 hp out of a v-12 (AM-38F) you can afford the extra plating


They uprated the AM-38 in order to handle the addition of the rear gunner.

So you must decide:
Rear gunner or more armor for the pilot.

If the decision is more armor, keep in mind that the armor was to protect from ground fire, not attacking fighters.

The rear gunner was to defend the aircraft, which an armored bathtub cannot do.

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


----------



## Ovod (Dec 15, 2021)

GregP said:


> While it certainly wasn't a fighter, and the performance wasn't especially brisk, the Il-2 was your best friend if you were a ground soldier and desperately needed air support. Against ground troops, it was likely the best of the war if the ability to stay there and attack the enemy troops was important.



Can't see how the Il-2 provided ground support to the troops any better than aircraft such as the Typhoon or P-47. I also can't see how the Il-2 could provide better "staying power" or endurance compared to the 2 western aircraft – always thought the Il-2 had less than average range and endurance.



> Actually, most of it was made of wood. The pilot's station is heavily armoured. "Victor Suvorov" claims that the gunner was a penal assignment. If they somehow survived ten missions, they were sent off to clear mines. I cannot find any aircraft literature that confirms this story.



Why would being a gunner on a combat aircraft be considered a penal assignment? Was the role of defensive gunner on a British or American bomber or attack aircraft also considered a penal assignment?


----------



## Howard Gibson (Dec 15, 2021)

Ovod said:


> Why would being a gunner on a combat aircraft be considered a penal assignment? Was the role of defensive gunner on a British or American bomber or attack aircraft also considered a penal assignment?


The Russians definitely deployed penal battalions. These were made up of troops the Soviets wanted dead. The British and Americans wanted their air gunners to survive the mission. 

Note that I have one only not entirely reliable source for IL-2 air gunners.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 15, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> Actually, most of it was made of wood. The pilot's station is heavily armoured.



Only the rear fuselage and fin was made of wood - birch _shpon_, as the Soviets called it, laminated sheets, the wings and hori stab were light aluminium, while the fuselage and nose cowl panels was made of armoured steel. The aircraft was quite an engineering challenge for Ilyushin and the first prototype was a non-flying engineering mock-up with the intent of proving its structural elements, the issues with aligning the armour plating in sections with each other were considerable, particularly with misaligned fastening holes.

AB-1 (Aviatsiyonaya Bronya) armour plating was used, which was nickel/monel steel alloy, which had to be formed to shape in the manufacturing process before hardening took place, after which it was difficult to cut or shape, hence doing it while it was soft. The armoured body was known as the _bronyekorpus_, literally armoured body and was difficult to make, also because of the scarcity of alloying materials in the wartime Soviet Union, although that didn't stop them producing a shed ton of them. The nose armoured panels were 4mm around the front and 5 mm on the lower sides and underside, with a 7 mm slab behind the gunner. Rivets were 5 to 6 mm steel, which was difficult to form, requiring powerful guns - forming steel rivets take practise, it has to be done in one hit, unlike ali rivets that can be "touched" to finely shape the tail with the bucking bar. The weight of armoured panels on the Il-2 was around 700 kg and the top of the nose cowl was made from ali sheet.

These are pictures of Il-10s, which were not far removed from the Il-2 in structure, located in the derelict aircraft park of the China aviation museum, which at the time I took these photos was out of bounds to the public, even more so now as the perimeter fence has been fixed. In the Il-10 the underside nose cowl panel is over a centimetre in thickness. I got this pointed out to me whilst visiting the MLP in Cracow, the guide kindly opened it up for me.





DSC_6018

The difference between the Il-2 and Il-10 being that the rear fuse and fin are made of metal. Note the massive plate behind the pilot's head.




DSC_6028

The armoured cockpit section was hand rivetted as can be seen here, note the sheet ali structure making up the framework for the clear sections, the thickness of the foremost flat plate being gauged by the interior framework.




DSC_6057

In this picture you can see the disposition of steel armour and aluminium.




DSC_6059

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


----------



## 33k in the air (Dec 15, 2021)

drgondog said:


> The AAF definition for Combat Radius includes Warm Up, Taxi/Takeoff, Climb to Cruise at Normal Power , Cruise at 210IAS at 25,000 feet, Drop Externals for Engagement, 5 Minutes Combat Power, 15 Min Military Power, Cruise to Descent at 210IAS, Descend and have 30 minutes reserve at Minimum Power.



And the USN methodology for combat radius was:

20 minutes of warm up and idling; one minute for takeoff, 10 minutes for rendezvous at 60% normal power at sea level; climb to 15,000 feet at 60% normal power; cruising to objective at 15,000 feet at optimum cruising; 20 minutes of combat at 15,000 feet at full power; return to base at 1.500 feet at optimum cruising; and reserve of 60 minutes at optimum cruising. Radius includes distance covered in climb but not in descent.

Obviously, very different methodology than that used by the USAAF. Consequently, any figures published by each service are not directly comparable.

The document in question apparently recalculated the radius of the Army fighters using the Navy methodology. I don't remember where I found it; it was probably during a general internet search for aircraft radius/performance information. I've attached a screenshot of the relevant page below (the quality of the source document is not great). Of interest here is the final line of the table, and its accompanying note.

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


----------



## special ed (Dec 15, 2021)

Hello Nuuumannn
What is the jet next to the first Il-10?


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 15, 2021)

special ed said:


> What is the jet next to the first Il-10?



I was wondering if anyone would pick up on that, hey special ed, it's a Nanchang CJ-6 that has been modified with a jet nose to represent a US fighter for a movie. There was once quite a bit of curiosity online about it several years back.




DSC_6019




DSC_6025

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Dec 15, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> Not once 20 or 30mm cannon shells start flying.
> 
> Also I think the Korean War bears a quick examination, both the Mustang and Corsair were flying CAS over the same ground for the same amount of time, here are the numbers as best as I can recall,
> 
> ...


I had seen those statistics before of the loss rate of F-51 and F4U being effectively the same. I also read something about the oil cooler for the F4U being a weak spot. Does that account for the loss rates being the same? I don't know. Was there a difference in missions? I don't know. I think the numbers speak for themselves for the point that the F4U was not exceptionally damage resistant in ground attack missions. On balance the jets had lower loss rates, probably because they were harder to hit. Were they less accurate? I don't know.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 15, 2021)

Hello Ovod,

Though the USSR DID get a few P-47s (195 to be exact), they didn't operate Typhoons at all or P-47s widely at all in any ground support role. They built 36,000 Il-2s. Pretty easy to see which one was more important to the Soviet war effort. The Il-2 took small arms fire MUCH better than either the Typhoon or the P-47 since it was armored especially from ground fire. We tend to downplay the Soviet WWII aviation today but, without them, the war might VERY easily have gone the other way.

It's easy to say the late-war Il-2, La-5FN / La-7, Yaks, etc, weren't as good as our late model aircraft. It's not so easy when you are facing many hundred of them armed and on the attack. Early in the war, Soviet aircraft were shot down in droves by the Germans. Not quite so in late 1944 / 1945. They were competing on an equal or better basis by then. It is useful to remember who got to Berlin first. It was the Soviets, behind their armor and aircraft who got there first, not the US/UK.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 15, 2021)

GregP said:


> It was the Soviets, behind their armor and aircraft who got there first, not the US/UK.



To be fair, the Soviets had a head start and the deprivations the Nazis imposed on occupied populations, not to mention the the Soviet government's particular means of motivation provided unique and persuasive incentive to get to Berlin first.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Dec 15, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> To be fair, the Soviets had a head start and the deprivations the Nazis imposed on occupied populations, not to mention the the Soviet government's particular means of motivation provided unique and persuasive incentive to get to Berlin first.


The Russians and Western Allies were roughly the same distance from Berlin in June 1944. Operation Overlord is around 1100km and Kiev/Operation Bagration is around 1300km. Not a head start


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 15, 2021)

Eisenhower diverted the units in a way that allowed the Soviets to reach Berlin first, while creating a solid line to the north and south-east.
The U.S. Army advanced to the Elbe and stood down for 11 days, close enough to hear the battle raging in Berlin.

I suspect that they were following the idea of the Yalta conference, which predermined that the Soviets would have the eastern part of Germany and Berlin.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 16, 2021)

The U.S.A. had about 407,000 killed in WWII plus 12,000 civilians. The UK had about 384,000 military and 67,000 civilian. Germany had about 4 - 5M military and 1 - 3M civilians killed.

The USSR had about 9 - 11M military and 4.5 - 10M civilians killed. 

That's 22 times the U.S. military deaths and 500 times the U.S. civilian deaths.

I'm pretty sure the Soviets were going to get to Berlin first no matter what. They certainly had the motivation.

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


----------



## drgondog (Dec 16, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> And the USN methodology for combat radius was:
> 
> 20 minutes of warm up and idling; one minute for takeoff, 10 minutes for rendezvous at 60% normal power at sea level; climb to 15,000 feet at 60% normal power; cruising to objective at 15,000 feet at optimum cruising; 20 minutes of combat at 15,000 feet at full power; return to base at 1.500 feet at optimum cruising; and reserve of 60 minutes at optimum cruising. Radius includes distance covered in climb but not in descent.
> 
> ...


Clearly 1943 chart as USN perhaps didn't have Inteeligence reports on their rival AAF fighters. P-51B in Jan 1944 had 269 gal internal fuel and P-38J had 410 gal. Actually production release for P-47D-25 with 370 gal also occurred in Jan 1944.

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


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 16, 2021)

Conslaw said:


> I also read something about the oil cooler for the F4U being a weak spot. Does that account for the loss rates being the same?


On this tidbit.
Vought re-did the oil cooler system, from two in the wings into one bigger in the low fuselage behind/beneath the engine on the AU-1, while also providing the belly armor. Fresh air was taken from the 'lip' intake. 
Grumman did the similar thing for the F8F, just here the fresh air was taken by wing intakes and 'sent' to the oil cooler via piping. The F7F have had the 'S' piping, so the oil coolers can be protected by armor from frontal and rear arc fire.

The vulnerability of oil system was probably taken seriously some time in mid/late ww2 by some US companies.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 16, 2021)

GregP said:


> The U.S.A. had about 407,000 killed in WWII plus 12,000 civilians. The UK had about 384,000 military and 67,000 civilian. Germany had about 4 - 5M military and 1 - 3M civilians killed.
> 
> The USSR had about 9 - 11M military and 4.5 - 10M civilians killed.
> 
> ...


The U.S. 9th Army reached the Elbe before the Red Army reached the Oder.

Eisenhower ordered the stand down for several reasons, one of which was he didn't want American and Soviet troops mixed up in the street fighting, he also felt that Berlin was a political objective, not a tactical objective.

He made the agreement with Stalin personally, and infuriated Churchill in the process.

Here is a good source from a war correspondent who was there and explains in detail why Eisenhower ordered the stand down at the Elbe:
Why Eisenhower Halted at the Elbe

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


----------



## DarrenW (Dec 16, 2021)

NevadaK said:


> According to a couple sources the Corsair was able to carry up to 4,000 lbs of ordinance versus 2,000 lbs for the Thunderbolt


The 4000 lb load was not practical for most tactical situations as it would limit range considerably (no centerline drop tank could be carried). Heaviest practical loadout was two 1,000 lb bombs on wing hard points which was identical to the P-47D with a centerline tank. Maximum load out for a P-47D was actually 2,500 lbs which consisted of two 1,000 lbs on wing hard points + 500 lb bomb on centerline rack. 

Post in thread 'Largest bomb load of a WWII fighter?' Largest bomb load of a WWII fighter?

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


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 16, 2021)

NevadaK said:


> The Russians and Western Allies were roughly the same distance from Berlin in June 1944. Operation Overlord is around 1100km and Kiev/Operation Bagration is around 1300km. Not a head start



They started heading for Berlin from halting the German advance a lot sooner than 1944. Very much a head start and, like I said, they had extra motivation, so naturally they were going to get there first. The Allies were halted in their advance along the way on a few occasions, too, so shall we go into that, too?


----------



## NevadaK (Dec 17, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> They started heading for Berlin from halting the German advance a lot sooner than 1944. Very much a head start and, like I said, they had extra motivation, so naturally they were going to get there first. The Allies were halted in their advance along the way on a few occasions, too, so shall we go into that, too?


The point I was trying to make is that in June 1944 the eastern front was actually further from Berlin than the western front.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 17, 2021)

I remember a long and drawn out discussion where someone asserted that the P-39 could have been used as an escort from UK.

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


----------



## GregP (Dec 17, 2021)

Is that when they invented air-to-air refueling?

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


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 17, 2021)

NevadaK said:


> The point I was trying to make is that in June 1944 the eastern front was actually further from Berlin than the western front.



Does it matter? The Soviets still began their advance toward Germany before the Normandy landings, and they had greater motivation for doing so, which was the main point I was making - that their reasoning for doing so was a little more urgent than the Allies.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 19, 2021)

Conslaw said:


> There wasn't much point in putting more than 250 gallons of fuel internally in the F6F. With the 250 internal and 150 external, the F6F could match the combat radius of a loaded TBF/TBM Avenger, so if you can match the radius of your longest-legged strike plane, everything after that is diminishing marginal returns. On one mission in the Battle of the Philippine Sea, the Americans located the Japanese fleet at the edge of the combat radius of the US planes. The Japanese were fleeing, and flight operations into the wind caused the American fleet to largely go the opposite way. The US launched only F6F, each with a bomb and a drop-tank, to attack the Japanese force partially because the higher cruising speed of the fighters meant they could reach the Japanese force quicker, before they could get farther away, as every mile they gained at 30 knots was going to mean two that the American planes had to fly round trip.
> 
> The F4U (without the unprotected wing tanks) had just a bit less internal fuel than the F6F, but as we discussed earlier, the Navy at least had the intention to use external tanks for the F4U that did not have to be dropped in combat. We were not able to determine whether these tanks were actually used and to what extent. The same dynamic applies to the F4U though as the F6F.


Curiously it appears that the F4U was introduced into combat (Feb 1943) with no provision for external stores, similar to the P-47. AHT says that the Navy accepted the first Corsair with an external drop tank fitting in October 1943 after over 1300 had been produced. Jerry rigged mounts had been produced at forward bases, but no factory mounts until October 1943.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> Jerry rigged mounts had been produced at forward bases, but no factory mounts until October 1943.


These were more than "jerry rigged." VF-17 completed a field mod where they were able to carry bombs on their Corsairs, this mod was actually adopted by naval engineers and Vought IIRC. In the book "Jolly Rogers" dedicates a chapter on this and how VF-17 completed strikes against Rabaul.

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


----------



## drgondog (Dec 19, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> Curiously it appears that the F4U was introduced into combat (Feb 1943) with no provision for external stores, similar to the P-47.


By Feb 1943, the P-47C was in prodution with C/L keel and provisions for C/L 205 gal Ferry Tank or 500 pound bomb.


P-39 Expert said:


> AHT says that the Navy accepted the first Corsair with an external drop tank fitting in October 1943 after over 1300 had been produced. Jerry rigged mounts had been produced at forward bases, but no factory mounts until October 1943.


True but read the fine print - the F4U-1 carried up to 360 gallons internally. If theatre commanders could over ride regs prohibiting unsealed internal fuel tanks, the F4U-1 had about the same combat radius as P-47D with 110 gal C/L tank... and about 3X P-39 with 120 gal internal and 60 or 75 gal c/l combat tank. By October 1943, the same F4U-1 w/75 gal c/l tank had the same range as the P-47D with 150 gal C/L tank. Later versions eliminated to 2x62 gal inboard wing tanks.

The reason I keep bringng up the P-39 in comparison is that you harped so long about P-39 ability to compete against P-47 as ETO escort. Truth - it was dismissed by RAF as not being suitable for ETO (and every other theatre), followed by giving the P-39D/P-400 to VVS, followed by 8th AF immediately converting P-39 trained FGs arriving in ETO to Spitfires, followed by relegating all P-39 ops to convoy patrol, limited CAS and then followed by giving all to French and Italians.

If a P-51D or P-47N or P-38L was not capable of escorting B-36s to Moscow from UK, did that make them a failure as an escort fighter?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 19, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> These were more than "jerry rigged." VF-17 completed a field mod where they were able to carry bombs on their Corsairs, this mod was actually adopted by naval engineers and Vought IIRC. In the book "Jolly Rogers" dedicates a chapter on this and how VF-17 completed strikes against Rabaul.


Have you seen some of those "field mods?" Point being that factory drop tank mounts were not available until nearly 1944.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 19, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> Have you seen some of those "field mods?" Point being that factory drop tank mounts were not available until nearly 1944.


I have seen images of them. Curiously, they performed as designed and reliably worked.

As an aside, field modifications were performed on both the P-51 and P-47 to slave instrument vacuum pump to darw fuel from external fuel tanks in mid 1943. Depot mods were made on wings of P-47s to mount pylons, install fuel feed and move into opeations well before the P-47D-15 arrived with factory fix. The P-51B had the 85 gal tanks depot installed in November as a 'patch' to bridge to the P-51B-10 with factory tank installed.

Do you have a point? Look into the innovations of Pappy Gunn in SWP and Cass Hough in the ETO. The war didn't wait for factory insertion of critical modifications.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 19, 2021)

drgondog said:


> By Feb 1943, the P-47C was in prodution with C/L keel and provisions for C/L 205 gal Ferry Tank or 500 pound bomb.


No provision for drop tanks in England until August.


drgondog said:


> True but read the fine print - the F4U-1 carried up to 360 gallons internally. If theatre commanders could over ride regs prohibiting unsealed internal fuel tanks, the F4U-1 had about the same combat radius as P-47D with 110 gal C/L tank... and about 3X P-39 with 120 gal internal and 60 or 75 gal c/l combat tank. By October 1943, the same F4U-1 w/75 gal c/l tank had the same range as the P-47D with 150 gal C/L tank. Later versions eliminated to 2x62 gal inboard wing tanks.


You need to show me your method for the 3X P-39 radius.


drgondog said:


> The reason I keep bringng up the P-39 in comparison is that you harped so long about P-39 ability to compete against P-47 as ETO escort. Truth - it was dismissed by RAF as not being suitable for ETO (and every other theatre), followed by giving the P-39D/P-400 to VVS, followed by 8th AF immediately converting P-39 trained FGs arriving in ETO to Spitfires, followed by relegating all P-39 ops to convoy patrol, limited CAS and then followed by giving all to French and Italians.


Dismissed by the RAF because they specified construction of a 7850lb airplane when a 7000lb version would have performed much better. The Russians won the war with it (after reducing the weight by removing redundant or unneeded equipment). 


drgondog said:


> If a P-51D or P-47N or P-38L was not capable of escorting B-36s to Moscow from UK, did that make them a failure as an escort fighter?


You're comparing 1944 fighters to the B-36 which wasn't operational until 1948.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> Have you seen some of those "field mods?" Point being that factory drop tank mounts were not available until nearly 1944.


I have and many of them received some type of engineering approval. Unless you know what you're looking at it's really hard to use the term "jerry rigged." In the case of VF-17, not only standard bomb shackles were used but Blackburn had to get approval from a Marine Colonel before proceeding.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> The Russians won the war with it (after reducing the weight by removing redundant or unneeded equipment).

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


----------



## drgondog (Dec 19, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> No provision for drop tanks in England until August.


Provisions were made in production deliveries in February in P-47C-2 (IIRC for model). That said, it was delay in making fuel feed mods and the acquisition of combat tanks - not the 'provision for'.


P-39 Expert said:


> You need to show me your method for the 3X P-39 radius.


No, I don't. You need to develop better research skills. Start with Pilot handbooks.

Learn how to calculate a range profile and acquire the calculus skills to test your hypothesis for relationship between change in GW vs fuel consumption, integrate the change in GW with the change in cruise AoA, learn how to calculate - and integrate the rate of change to induced drag due to reduction of GW and associated reduction of AoA and CL.

If you don'thave any of the above talents and skills you will have to take my word for the '3x' estimate. Several of us gave you clues regarding fuel fraction use for awrm up, take off, formation forming and climb to cruise on internal fuel - huge (relative) consumption relative to % of available fuel for say F4U-1, P-47 and P-51. When you consume a high percentage of beginning fuel, can't get to higher altitudes to reach an altitude to reduce drag in cruise mode - your puny internal fuel reserve isn't much after combat consumption.


P-39 Expert said:


> Dismissed by the RAF because they specified construction of a 7850lb airplane when a 7000lb version would have performed much better. The Russians won the war with it (after reducing the weight by removing redundant or unneeded equipment).


Laughing out Loud. Dismissed because deemed 'unsuitable' (RAF for 'we'll sacrifice a lot of pilots to Fw 190/Bf 109 with this turkey' - but Ok for Russkies to ket killed). Somehow the P-39 had very little to do with USSR killing 3-5 million German soldiers and airmen. What it did do, is save lives of some VVS pilots converting from I-16 and Yak-1. That said the LaaG 7 and Yak 3 were far superior.


P-39 Expert said:


> You're comparing 1944 fighters to the B-36 which wasn't operational until 1948.



You are a model of perception and instantly picked up on that? But somehow all those fighters could escort B-29s from Iwo to and from Japan.

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


----------



## Howard Gibson (Dec 19, 2021)

drgondog said:


> The reason I keep bringng up the P-39 in comparison is that you harped so long about P-39 ability to compete against P-47 as ETO escort. Truth - it was dismissed by RAF as not being suitable for ETO (and every other theatre), followed by giving the P-39D/P-400 to VVS, followed by 8th AF immediately converting P-39 trained FGs arriving in ETO to Spitfires, followed by relegating all P-39 ops to convoy patrol, limited CAS and then followed by giving all to French and Italians.
> 
> If a P-51D or P-47N or P-38L was not capable of escorting B-36s to Moscow from UK, did that make them a failure as an escort fighter?


I am not sure where this discussion is headed, and I am new here, so I am not totally into running jokes about P-39s. 

The P-47 had excellent performance at 30,000ft, which made it ideal for combat while escorting B-17s and B-24s. The Merlin engined P-51 also were good at this. The Luftwaffe fighters were inferior at the altitudes at which they needed to intercept American heavy bombers. The Germans failed to develop two-stage supercharging until late in the war. The P-38s had good performance up there, but they were not grossly superior. In daylight bombing, your bombers cannot fly any further than your effective escorting fighters. 

P-39s were effective below 10,000ft, and useless about 20,000ft. They were useless in the ETO. They were ideal for the Russians, and they were superior to Russian equipment until late in the war. Like the P-39, the Typhoons and Tempests also were fast at low altitude.

P-47s were effective at ground attack late in the war, because the Luftwaffe no longer had the trained, experienced pilots to exploit their inferior performance and shoot them down.

The F4U would have been an effective tactical fighter in Europe, especially if they removed the carrier equipment. It was simpler. A non-carrier version would have been lighter, faster and more manoeuvrable. Its deficiencies would have kept it from being an excellent bomber escort.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> The F4U would have been an effective tactical fighter in Europe, especially if they removed the carrier equipment.


The first thing land based USN F4U squadrons did when reaching their assigned bases was to remove the carrier equipment (tail hook and catapult shackles.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 19, 2021)

Hi Howard. As to the first part of your post, that part of the conversation wasn’t going anywhere. Have you looked through the ground hog day part deux thread? Not the whole thing mind you but say, the last couple’ hundred pages.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Hi Howard. As to the first part of your post, that part of the conversation wasn’t going anywhere. Have you looked through the ground hog day part deux thread? Not the whole thing mind you but say, the last couple’ hundred pages.


Not wise to direct new members to the dark side of the forum.

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


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 19, 2021)

drgondog said:


> Provisions were made in production deliveries in February in P-47C-2 (IIRC for model). That said, it was delay in making fuel feed mods and the acquisition of combat tanks - not the 'provision for'.


No drop tanks for the P-47 until August. 


drgondog said:


> No, I don't. You need to develop better research skills. Start with Pilot handbooks.


Okay, one more time just for you. From the P-39N handbook, go to the Flight Operation Instruction Chart (Range Chart). The P-39 was designed to hold at least 120gal internal. Although fuel was reduced to 87gal on some models, an escort mission in Europe would require all 120gal. Add a 110gal drop tank which is what was available at 8thAF bases and was used on the P-39 in the Pacific. Total 230gal. Reduce that by 20gal allowance for takeoff and climb, 26gal for 20min combat at 25000' and 10 gal for a 20 minute landing reserve. Net gallons available for cruise is now 174gal. The P-39 burned 62 gallons per hour at 25000' so 174 divided by 62 = 2.8hrs. Cruising speed was 184mph IAS or 276mph TAS times the 2.8hrs = 773mi. Half that is the combat radius = 386mi. About the same as a 1943 P-47.


drgondog said:


> Learn how to calculate a range profile and acquire the calculus skills to test your hypothesis for relationship between change in GW vs fuel consumption, integrate the change in GW with the change in cruise AoA, learn how to calculate - and integrate the rate of change to induced drag due to reduction of GW and associated reduction of AoA and CL.


All you need to do is look at the Flight Operation Instruction Chart for either airplane.


drgondog said:


> If you don'thave any of the above talents and skills you will have to take my word for the '3x' estimate. Several of us gave you clues regarding fuel fraction use for awrm up, take off, formation forming and climb to cruise on internal fuel - huge (relative) consumption relative to % of available fuel for say F4U-1, P-47 and P-51. When you consume a high percentage of beginning fuel, can't get to higher altitudes to reach an altitude to reduce drag in cruise mode - your puny internal fuel reserve isn't much after combat consumption.


I don't need to take your word for anything, I can read. The exact figures per the manual are above.


drgondog said:


> Laughing out Loud. Dismissed because deemed 'unsuitable' (RAF for 'we'll sacrifice a lot of pilots to Fw 190/Bf 109 with this turkey' - but Ok for Russkies to ket killed). Somehow the P-39 had very little to do with USSR killing 3-5 million German soldiers and airmen. What it did do, is save lives of some VVS pilots converting from I-16 and Yak-1. That said the LaaG 7 and Yak 3 were far superior.


The Russians won the war with it. It shot down more axis planes than any other American fighter. Then there you go again veering off course with "USSR killing 3-5 million German soldiers." Where did that come from? And how were the Lagg 7 and Yak 3 far superior? Yak 3 was not in combat until summer 1944, Lagg 7 not in combat until Fall 1944. P-39N was already out of production by May 1943, a year earlier. Were the Lagg and Yak faster? Better climb? Higher ceiling? Longer range? Nope. How were they better?


drgondog said:


> You are a model of perception and instantly picked up on that? But somehow all those fighters could escort B-29s from Iwo to and from Japan.


Relevance?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> 10 gal for a 20 minute landing reserve.


Please get it through your cerebellum that *there is no such thing!!!! * When you fly a land based mission you plan to land with 30 minutes of fuel left in your tanks.






But I forgot - you're not a pilot, you just read the manuals!

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


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 19, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Please get it through your cerebellum that *there is no such thing!!!! * When you fly a land based mission you plan to land with 30 minutes of fuel left in your tanks.
> 
> View attachment 652198
> 
> ...


Fine, then use 15gal for the reserve for landing instead of 10. Five gallons less fuel works out to 4.8min less flying time or 22mi cruising range. It is a reserve, you can apply any amount you deem sufficient. The Navy specified a one hour reserve for landing but that was for carrier missions. The AAF could get by easily with 20min reserve since their airbase didn't move while they were gone.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> Fine, then use 15gal for the *reserve for landing* instead of 10. Five gallons less fuel works out to 4.8min less flying time or 22mi cruising range. It is a reserve, you can apply any amount you deem sufficient. The Navy specified a one hour reserve for landing but that was for carrier missions. The AAF could get by easily with 20min reserve since their airbase didn't move while they were gone.


And fine but again, no such thing!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> View attachment 652191



Seriously, are we still stroking the damn P-39??

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And fine but again, no such thing!!!!



He doesn’t read charts remember.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> He doesn’t read charts remember.


Yup...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> Fine, then use 15gal for the reserve for landing instead of 10. Five gallons less fuel works out to 4.8min less flying time or 22mi cruising range. It is a reserve, you can apply any amount you deem sufficient. The Navy specified a one hour reserve for landing but that was for carrier missions. The AAF could get by easily with 20min reserve since their airbase didn't move while they were gone.



Are you sure it works out to 4.8 min less flying time? What are the winds aloft? Headwind, tailwind?

Sorry buddy, but you are not doing yourself any favors here.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> All you need to do is look at the Flight Operation Instruction Chart for either airplane.


No you dont. The manufacturer only makes the plane, the user is a military organisation and they produce their own "manual" based on their experience. The US enquired how the British used the "Mustang" and reported back to the USA. This is a curious thing to do in your philosophy because the Americans were making it, but the British were flying it on tactical recon. missions. In practice, the way the British used the Mustang (P-51A) with 180 gals internal fuel resulted in a range of 90 miles inland from the enemy coast. I dont think "enemy coast" appears as a variable in the NAA manual for the Mustang I or II.

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2021)

And somehow this thread about the F4U turns into a P-39 Groundhog thread. Smfh…

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Dec 19, 2021)

I don't think he did. He didn't bring it up until after post #362 in response. Hi Expert, glad you're back.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I don't think he did. He didn't bring it up until after post #362 in response. Hi Expert, glad you're back.


Fair enough. Reworded my post.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And somehow this thread about the F4U turns into a P-39 Groundhog thread. Smfh…


Groundhoggery has many facets, apart from the P-39 issue, it also involves telling pilots how to fly and read manuals and using a manufacturers manual to construct a mission profile.

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Groundhoggery has many facets, apart from the P-39 issue, it also involves telling pilots how to fly and read manuals and using a manufacturers manual to construct a mission profile.



Par for the course…


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 19, 2021)

From now on, anyone who mentions the godlike P-39 needs to wear this

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


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 19, 2021)

The wheels on the bus go round and round…

And round an round and round and round.

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


----------



## pbehn (Dec 19, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> The wheels on the bus go round and round…
> 
> And round an round and round and round.


Great to have the input of a fighter pilot to give us the facts

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 19, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Great to have the input of a fighter pilot to give us the facts


That might be all fine and well, but has he read the P-39 pilot's manual?

I understand that doing so qualifies one as a leading authority on the subject...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> The wheels on the bus go round and round…
> 
> And round an round and round and round.



Stop it, you fighter pilot you!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Dec 19, 2021)

fubar57 said:


> From now on, anyone who mentions the godlike P-39 needs to wear this
> 
> View attachment 652200​


If I wear this, I'll have to remove my tinfoil hat. Noooo.....

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> That might be all fine and well, but has he read the P-39 pilot's manual?
> 
> I understand that doing so qualifies one as a leading authority on the subject...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 19, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Have you looked through the ground hog day part deux thread?



He's new, Rob, don't scare him away just yet...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 19, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> The Russians won the war with it. It shot down more axis planes than any other American fighter.



Aaaah, no they didn't. As for the latter statement, context is everything and a simple sentence like that taken out of context twists its meaning...

The fact remains that yes, while the Soviets used the P-39 extensively, it was given to them because the other Allies did not want it. That illustrates the disparity at the time between Soviet equipment and what the British and US forces were operating and the environment within which the Soviets were fighting; it doesn't confirm nor support the supposition that the P-39 was to become anything more than a hand-me-down to the Brits and the Yanks.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 19, 2021)



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


----------



## wuzak (Dec 19, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> No provision for drop tanks in England until August.



How long before then had P-47s been operating as escorts?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 19, 2021)

fubar57 said:


> From now on, anyone who mentions the godlike P-39 needs to wear this
> 
> View attachment 652200​


Where can I get a hat like that?


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 19, 2021)

Groundhog Hat | Highlights Kids


Make this fun hat to celebrate Groundhog's day.




www.highlightskids.com


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 19, 2021)

Getting back to the original point/s ( I if can remember what they were) 

The F4U was about 35-40mph slower than the P-47 at around 22,500ft to 25,000ft. 
The F4U was a bit better in rate climb at around 22,000ft but the P-47s kept up it's climb rate better as the altitude increased. 

The F4U _as built _didn't have the fuel capacity needed for the "long range" escort role. 
The outer wing panels/tanks were not set up for self sealing fuel tanks. So you have only the 234-237 gallon internal capacity. 
This is not an easy fix. The wing tanks were integral tanks. The tanks were spaces in between the ribs in the leading edge of the wing. Trying to fit actual fuel tanks was not impossible but it it complicated the wing structure and made the fuel capacity much smaller. Much like an older US army fighter went from 170 gallons to 120 gallons when it from integral tanks to multi cell fuel cells. 

The F4U used up more fuel at the same cruise settings high altitude than the P-47 did. Maybe not a lot more but since you start with less fuel that is one more count against it. 
The F4U was a bit faster at sea level but since that "bit" pretty much disappeared by 5,000ft basing a strategy on the speed difference between 330mph and 340mph at sea level doesn't to bring much to the table. 

Both planes wound up with water injection but since the P-47s got the paddle blade props and water injection months before the D-Day again the F4U doesn't bring much to the table. 

Nobody was flying fighter bombers over Europe at 200mph (or less) at low altitude to try stretch lean cruise. 

The F4U was a remarkable airplane. But it, like many aircraft, had limitations. Later versions fixed some the limitations.
AU-1 did fix some of the oil cooler problems but since the AU-1 got rid of the 2 stage supercharger and the inter coolers there was a whole heck of lot space in the wing roots and inside the fuselage to put the oil coolers into.

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


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 19, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> Where can I get a hat like that?



It's handed down from generation to generation. Only the annointed ones can wear it...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 20, 2021)

27 mostly derogatory posts since my last post and you complain about the threads being too long.

Yes I read the manuals, which most of you obviously don't.

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


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 20, 2021)

wuzak said:


> How long before then had P-47s been operating as escorts?


Since the end of April.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> 27 mostly derogatory posts since my last post and you complain about the threads being too long.
> 
> Yes I read the manuals, which most of you obviously don't.


Reading and understanding them are two different things.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 20, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> 27 mostly derogatory posts since my last post and you complain about the threads being too long.
> 
> Yes I read the manuals, which most of you obviously don't.


My post wasnt derogatory I just said you were wrong where I know you are wrong, the actual pilots on here do the same. The problem seems to be you read a manual and take from it what you want to take, not what is correct. We have been through it all before, it is just groundhoggery.

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


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 20, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Please get it through your cerebellum that *there is no such thing!!!! * When you fly a land based mission you plan to land with 30 minutes of fuel left in your tanks.
> 
> View attachment 652198
> 
> ...


If you plan to land with 30 minutes of fuel left in your tanks, then you have planned for a 30 minute landing reserve. 

And there is certainly such a thing as a landing reserve. Look at the Navy "Airplane Characteristics and Performance" sheets for the F4F, F6F and F4U. In the range calculation section there is a "60 minute rendezvous, landing and reserve at V for max range and auto-lean (lowest power/highest range setting). AAF pilots needed a much shorter reserve because their landing field was in the same place as when they took off and they were very familiar with it's location. They needed the reserve in case the base was under attack or weather had rolled in.

Your cerebellum needs revision.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 20, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> If you plan to land with 30 minutes of fuel left in your tanks, then you have planned for a 30 minute landing reserve.
> 
> And there is certainly such a thing as a landing reserve. Look at the Navy "Airplane Characteristics and Performance" sheets for the F4F, F6F and F4U. In the range calculation section there is a "60 minute rendezvous, landing and reserve at V for max range and auto-lean (lowest power/highest range setting). AAF pilots needed a much shorter reserve because their landing field was in the same place as when they took off and they were very familiar with it's location. They needed the reserve in case the base was under attack or weather had rolled in.
> 
> Your cerebellum needs revision.


Is that from the Navy? What do they do when the plane operates from land? Well obviously it is a different situation, as per the AAF POV. The situation changes again when you have to form up and cruise with bombers who are not flying to or from your airfield.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> If you plan to land with 30 minutes of fuel left in your tanks, then you have planned for a 30 minute landing reserve.


It is NOT called LANDING RESERVE! *Is this from your armchair glossary of aeronautical terms?!?!?*


P-39 Expert said:


> And there is certainly such a thing as a landing reserve. Look at the Navy "Airplane Characteristics and Performance" sheets for the F4F, F6F and F4U. In the range calculation section there is a "60 minute rendezvous, landing and reserve at V for max range and auto-lean (lowest power/highest range setting). AAF pilots needed a much shorter reserve because their landing field was in the same place as when they took off and they were very familiar with it's location. They needed the reserve in case the base was under attack or weather had rolled in.


SAME AS ABOVE!!!!

Do you realize that given a situation a pilot could blast over a base at full power, go into the overhead break, land and piss your non-existent "landing reserve" out the window? At the same token enter the pattern, go to engine idle and do a simulated power off landing and hardly burn up any fuel???

I bet you haven't got to that part in the manuals you read!



P-39 Expert said:


> *Your cerebellum needs revision.*


*2 weeks on the beach! I hope you meet a cute groundhog there!*

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> 27 mostly derogatory posts since my last post and you complain about the threads being too long.
> 
> Yes I read the manuals, which most of you obviously don't.


*Yes you do but you do not comprehend what you read* - there are many of us who worked on MANY aircraft to include (mechanics, pilots and engineers) warbirds, have tried initially and rationally explain things to you, *but you have a piss poor know-it-all attitude thus becoming the laughing stock of this forum*

Between the mechanics, engineers and pilots on here I'd bet there's over 200 years of combined experience on this forum (if not more). By your own admission, you have never worked on an aircraft, let alone flown one and then you try to tell some of these folks they're wrong when they all come up with the same consensus to one of your comments! If you're too stubborn or ignorant to accept when you're wrong let alone LEARN SOMETHIG the derogatory comments will continue by the membership who are just tired of putting up with your BS (literary)

Consider this while you sit on the beach with your favorite manual and ground hog.

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


----------



## wuzak (Dec 20, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> If you plan to land with 30 minutes of fuel left in your tanks, then you have planned for a 30 minute landing reserve.



I always thought the reserve was in case of unforeseen circumstances, such as being off course and flying a longer route as a consequence, or more combat than you have otherwise accounted for, or damage to the aircraft which means you use more fuel than planned for in the return trip.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 20, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> Since the end of April.



So, 3 or 4 months without drop tanks for the P-47?


----------



## drgondog (Dec 20, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> Fine, then use 15gal for the reserve for landing instead of 10. Five gallons less fuel works out to 4.8min less flying time or 22mi cruising range. It is a reserve, you can apply any amount you deem sufficient. The Navy specified a one hour reserve for landing but that was for carrier missions. The AAF could get by easily with 20min reserve since their airbase didn't move while they were gone.


You do not know how to read the Operating Tables for Range with and without 75 gal tank.

You do not know the definition or operating parameters for translating maximum operating range to Combat Radius planning assumptions.

You do not read the footnotes with respect to a.) using 16 gal of internal fuel for Warm Up, T.O. and climb to 5,000 feet, b.) using 20 gal of internal fuel for Warm Up, T.O. and climb to 5,000 feet with 75 gal tank.

You do not read the fine print for zero reserve calculation in the Range Table.

You do not seem aware that only one line exists for 20K altitude none for 25K altitude and that the max Range calc for 75 gal external is 690miles - at 15K, not 20K not 25K at a cruise speed of 170 mph IAS. BTW the TAS of the 15,000 foot flying P-39 for maximum RANGE is slower than B-17s flying 10,000 feet above the P-39Q.

The Operating Range Tables do Not include the fuel consumption for climb from 5,000 feet (at Max Continuous) to 15, 20 or 25K. Max Contnuous Power burn rate for the V-1710-89 is 109gph. Military Power is 138gph, Combat Power is 170gph. Even assuming Table Values for Military Power at 138 for Combat at max radius (i.e. no WEP at 170gph for 5 min),you have to subtract 138/3 for 20minutes=46 gal.

So, independent of cruise leg that P-39Q assigned escort duties for 25K, a.) uses 20 gal from Warm Up to 5K, b.)approximately 10minutes at Max Continuous Power to climb (clean) from 5K to 25K (source Dean AOHT) = 109/6 = 18gal, c.) 46 gal Combat at max radius d.) 20 minutes Reserve to find home base and land at Min Cruise Power (42gph/3) = 13. (source for a., b., c. and d P-39Q Handbook),

Of your 120 gal of internal fuel (you don't switch to external tanks until cruise altitude) you must subtract

20+18 + 46+ 13 gal =97 gal of your internal fuel Not used to cruise to and from the target to Let Down to find your base. Assuming your 75 gal tank could conceivably complete leg to Target and Combat (VERY Bad assumption), that leaves you with 23 gal (optimistic, no provision for flying formation, etc).

Get out yer sliderule kid, show me what you get in straight line RANGE at 25,000 feet flying minimum fuel burn rate of 42gph with 23 gallons of fuel at approx 170IAS (optimistic) at 25K.* That 'Leg' is your Combat Radius.* 

And BTW, the P-39Q can not fight anything useful at 25K, much less keep up with B-17/B-24 fully loaded. The LW will destroy all available P-39s in inventory in a couple of missions and the 8th AF will finally be able to use the P-47, P-38 and P-51 unmolested by P-39 acolytes.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Seriously, are we still stroking the damn P-39??


My Bad.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2021)

wuzak said:


> I always thought the reserve was in case of unforeseen circumstances, such as being off course and flying a longer route as a consequence, or more combat than you have otherwise accounted for, or damage to the aircraft which means you use more fuel than planned for in the return trip.


Exactly! Once again our friend makes up fictions terms to compensate for things he was reading into the manuals but did not have the real world education or experience to fully understand the full concept, and then refuses to accept any input from those who actually used this data to fly or maintain real aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2021)

drgondog said:


> You do not know how to read the Operating Tables for Range with and without 75 gal tank.
> 
> You do not know the definition or operating parameters for translating maximum operating range to Combat Radius planning assumptions.
> 
> ...



Was not directed at you personally.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 20, 2021)

wuzak said:


> I always thought the reserve was in case of unforeseen circumstances, such as being off course and flying a longer route as a consequence, or more combat than you have otherwise accounted for, or damage to the aircraft which means you use more fuel than planned for in the return trip.


A better name would be contingency, reserve gets mixed up with "reserve tank" which exists as a separate tank in some vehicles, or as part of the tank with a different tap on motorcycles. The "reserve" being discussed here only exists as a calculation, in other areas of life like a production schedule it is called a contingency.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2021)

drgondog said:


> Get out yer sliderule kid, show me what you get in straight line RANGE at 25,000 feet flying minimum fuel burn rate of 42gph with 23 gallons of fuel at approx 170IAS (optimistic) at 25K.* That 'Leg' is your Combat Radius.*


Bill, because our friend is temporarily in cyberspace, I broke out the ole E6B and just to add to the ambiance, I used my genuine AAF issue. It's been a while since I used one of these, LOL but based on this I come out with a *whopping 90 miles! EDIT 94 miles!

23 gallons at 170I gives you 33 minutes = 90~ miles EDIT 94 miles!*















It's kind of funny because a similar scenario was done on the original Ground Hog thread I think by ShortRound6 and he came up with about the same thing!

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


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 20, 2021)



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


----------



## Conslaw (Dec 20, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> Curiously it appears that the F4U was introduced into combat (Feb 1943) with no provision for external stores, similar to the P-47. AHT says that the Navy accepted the first Corsair with an external drop tank fitting in October 1943 after over 1300 had been produced. Jerry rigged mounts had been produced at forward bases, but no factory mounts until October 1943.


I remember in Tom Blackburn's book The Jolly Rogers, he said that his squadron improvised bomb racks for their Corsairs, which didn't come with them. I imagine some other folks will post with more interesting details on the F4U's external stores issues.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2021)

Conslaw said:


> I remember in Tom Blackburn's book The Jolly Rogers, he said that his squadron improvised bomb racks for their Corsairs, which didn't come with them. I imagine some other folks will post with more interesting details on the F4U's external stores issues.


I just got done reading this book (mentioned earlier). Blackburn's unit used original bomb shackles modified to VF-17's aircraft. He had some smart people in his squadron so this wasn't a "jerry-rigged" installation. it was tried and tested and he had to get the blessing of a Marine Colonel (his boss) before he was able to use this installation.

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


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 20, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Bill, because our friend is temporarily in cyberspace, I broke out the ole E6B and just to add to the ambiance, I used my genuine AAF issue. It's been a while since I used one of these, LOL but based on this I come out with a *whopping 90 miles!
> 
> 23 gallons at 170I gives you 33 minutes = 90~ miles*
> 
> ...


I still have my USGI version as well. Carried it according to regulations on every single F15 sortie I flew. I can also say I never ONCE pulled it out and used it ever after pilot training. 

Cheers,
Biff

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> I still have my USGI version as well. Carried it according to regulations on every single F15 sortie I flew. I can also say I never ONCE pulled it out and used it ever after pilot training.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



I still carry mine in my flight bag when I fly. Don’t have to worry about batteries ever running dry.

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 20, 2021)

Interesting that the F4U initially had ZERO external stores, but ended with over 8000lbs of it in the AU-1. 
Testament to a great design

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


----------



## drgondog (Dec 20, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Was not directed at you personally.


Hi Chris - I wasn't taking it personally, just reflecting on stirring up the clueless once again. Slapping self upside the haid.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Interesting that the F4U initially had ZERO external stores, but ended with over 8000lbs of it in the AU-1.
> Testament to a great design


It's all about what the customer wanted.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> I still have my USGI version as well. Carried it according to regulations on every single F15 sortie I flew. I can also say I never ONCE pulled it out and used it ever after pilot training.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff


I carry a small one in my flight bag and I have one on my watch which I now need a magnifying glass to read! I used to have an electronic one and IIRC the batteries died right before one of my written exams! As Chris said, don't have to worry about batteries!

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 20, 2021)

BiffF15 said:


> I still have my USGI version as well. Carried it according to regulations on every single F15 sortie I flew. I can also say I never ONCE pulled it out and used it ever after pilot training.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff


Thats proof that the system works, just imagine what would have happened on the day you didnt have it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Dec 20, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Interesting that the F4U initially had ZERO external stores, but ended with over 8000lbs of it in the AU-1.
> Testament to a great design


I read somewhere that they loaded 10,000lb into a Mosquto's bomb bay, and it took off and flew. They never seriously considered taking it into combat in that state. At some point, either you have a fantastic escort, or you are bombing people who cannot fight back.

The Americans were successful at long range escort because the Germans and Japanese did not develop two stage superchargers in time. At 30,000ft, an American fighter with 1000lb fuel on board, could out-run intercepting fighters. 

In 1940, it was obvious that the heavily armed bombers would not need escorts. If you can find a copy of _Victory Through Air Power_, by Alexander P. De Seversky, I recommend reading it. It shows you where a fairly knowledgable industry insider's head was at. The Walt Disney cartoon version of it is less informative, unfortunately.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 20, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> If you can find a copy of _Victory Through Air Power_, by Alexander P. De Seversky, I recommend reading it


I have my grandfathers copy, from 1942. He was a WAG on RCAF Lancasters in 1944. It is an interesting read


----------



## pbehn (Dec 20, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> I read somewhere that they loaded 10,000lb into a Mosquto's bomb bay, and it took off and flew. They never seriously considered taking it into combat in that state. At some point, either you have a fantastic escort, or you are bombing people who cannot fight back.
> 
> The Americans were successful at long range escort because the Germans and Japanese did not develop two stage superchargers in time. At 30,000ft, an American fighter with 1000lb fuel on board, could out-run intercepting fighters.
> 
> In 1940, it was obvious that the heavily armed bombers would not need escorts. If you can find a copy of _Victory Through Air Power_, by Alexander P. De Seversky, I recommend reading it. It shows you where a fairly knowledgable industry insider's head was at. The Walt Disney cartoon version of it is less informative, unfortunately.


The final PR versions of the Mosquito carried 1,192 gallons of fuel internally and 400 gallons in external tanks.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> In 1940, it was obvious that the heavily armed bombers would not need escorts. If you can find a copy of _Victory Through Air Power_, by Alexander P. De Seversky, I recommend reading it. It shows you where a fairly knowledgable industry insider's head was at. The Walt Disney cartoon version of it is less informative, unfortunately.


I have a copy of this book, he gives great insight for the day but some of his assertations proved to be grossly wrong as we look in hindsight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Dec 20, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> P-47s were effective at ground attack late in the war, because the Luftwaffe no longer had the trained, experienced pilots to exploit their inferior performance and shoot them down.



But by the time they were used in ground attack, P-47s really weren't inferior down low. By mid 1944, the P-47 had water injection, paddle-bladed prop, and 150-octane gas (at least in Europe). These changes made the P-47 much more competitive down low.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 20, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> great insight for the day but some of his assertations proved to be grossly wrong as we look in hindsight.


Like the Airacuda being a "preview of an effective long-range interceptor fighter"

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Like the Airacuda being a "preview of an effective long-range interceptor fighter"
> 
> View attachment 652301


Yep - and he mentioned some pretty wild claims about high altitude bombing accuracy.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 20, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> I read somewhere that they loaded 10,000lb into a Mosquto's bomb bay, and it took off and flew. They never seriously considered taking it into combat in that state. At some point, either you have a fantastic escort, or you are bombing people who cannot fight back.
> 
> The Americans were successful at long range escort because the Germans and Japanese did not develop two stage superchargers in time. At 30,000ft, an American fighter with 1000lb fuel on board, could out-run intercepting fighters.
> 
> In 1940, it was obvious that the heavily armed bombers would not need escorts. If you can find a copy of _Victory Through Air Power_, by Alexander P. De Seversky, I recommend reading it. It shows you where a fairly knowledgable industry insider's head was at. The Walt Disney cartoon version of it is less informative, unfortunately.


De Seversky echoed many (not all) senior Air Force officers as late as 1939. It was also clear to him that for engine technology of the day, that in US a turbosupercharger equipped Pursuit/Interceptor would have to be present to combat a B-17 type bomber at high altitude - resulting in P-43, then P-47.

Some, however, were clear enough in vision to understand that 'the Bomber will Always Get Through was NOT a constant as early as 1939. Thankfully, the dissidents included General Henry Arnold who carefully monitored what was happening to 'bombers' in Spain and correctly deduced that development in single engine Interceptor technology would outpace bomber technolgy. The 'dilemma' was how? The fault in perhaps earlier development of a long range escort was the short sided insistance on single stage engine coupled to turboSC concept at Wright Field.

Who knows what would have materialized if the idiots had taken Arnold's number one priority for 1939 Kilner-Lindbergh Board was to develop 'Pursuit aircraft with 1500 mile range'. An RFP to Douglas, Lockheed, Seversky/Republic and others to Propose rather than pursue Wright Field constraints may have resulted in something like the Mustang from other than NAA. 

We know that the T/E solution was deemed feasible and the S/E solution was deemed impossible.

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


----------



## Howard Gibson (Dec 20, 2021)

drgondog said:


> Who knows what would have materialized if the idiots had taken Arnold's number one priority for 1939 Kilner-Lindbergh Board was to develop 'Pursuit aircraft with 1500 mile range'. An RFP to Douglas, Lockheed, Seversky/Republic and others to Propose rather than pursue Wright Field constraints may have resulted in something like the Mustang from other than NAA.
> 
> We know that the T/E solution was deemed feasible and the S/E solution was deemed impossible.


If you build a fighter aircraft with 1500lb of fuel and I engage it with my fighter with 750lb fuel, your airplane will be heavier and more explosive. You need me to miss important technical developments like any form of two stage supercharging. 

In testing of P-47s versus Fw190s, it was demonstrated that the Fw190s were superior below 15,000ft, and that the Thunderbolts were better above 20,000ft. Escorting turbocharged bombers turned out to be the Thunderbolt's mission. A long range ground attack war 

In engineering, there is no free lunch. The Germans failed to develop high altitude engines, and the Mustang had an incredible, slippery airframe.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Dec 20, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> If you build a fighter aircraft with 1500lb of fuel and I engage it with my fighter with 750lb fuel, your airplane will be heavier and more explosive. You need me to miss important technical developments like any form of two stage supercharging.


Howard - it isn't about being missed. That is true a.) for head on closure to prevent opponent from gaining your 'six' by trying to flee or, b.) not being surprised from behind. My 1500 pound fuel (remaining) from 1600 at takeoff P-51B managed quite well versus Bf 109G (w/600#) and w 190A-5/-7/-8 (w/1000#).


Howard Gibson said:


> In testing of P-47s versus Fw190s, it was demonstrated that the Fw190s were superior below 15,000ft, and that the Thunderbolts were better above 20,000ft. Escorting turbocharged bombers turned out to be the Thunderbolt's mission. A long range ground attack war
> 
> In engineering, there is no free lunch. The Germans failed to develop high altitude engines, and the Mustang had an incredible, slippery airframe.


Depends on the version of P-47. The P-47M could fight with anything at any altitude save a Me 262. It had to avoid low to medium horizontal combats, but was fast enough to extend from Spit XIV, P-51B/D, F4U-5, Fw 190D-9... and had 2200# of internal fuel.

True - no free lunch. More wing area/greater climb and better tun but more drag, Less weight/less internal storage for fuel but better climb and acceleration, and so forth.

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


----------



## Howard Gibson (Dec 20, 2021)

drgondog said:


> Howard - it isn't about being missed. That is true a.) for head on closure to prevent opponent from gaining your 'six' by trying to flee or, b.) not being surprised from behind. My 1500 pound fuel (remaining) from 1600 at takeoff P-51B managed quite well versus Bf 109G (w/600#) and w 190A-5/-7/-8 (w/1000#).


The Bf109G and Fw190A lacked two stage supercharging. The Mustangs and Thunderbolts had huge speed advantages at bomber escort altitudes. If the Germans had built high altitude engines, they would have had lighter, more rugged aircraft, they would have been faster, and they would had the advantage of ground control. 


drgondog said:


> Depends on the version of P-47. The P-47M.


The P-47M was late war. We need to compare it with the Fw190D, with the two-stage Jumo 213, if the Germans had had their act together.


----------



## 33k in the air (Dec 20, 2021)

drgondog said:


> Some, however, were clear enough in vision to understand that 'the Bomber will Always Get Through was NOT a constant as early as 1939.



Strictly speaking, the sentiment is correct — the bomber did always get through. The problem was that the losses taken in getting through were unsustainable if escort fighters were not available.

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


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 20, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> 27 mostly derogatory posts since my last post



Yeah, but comments made out of context, simple refusal to acknowledge the facts as they stand, incorrect assessments of data, inaccurate synopses of situations... The list of points you get pulled up on gets larger with every thread you enter.



P-39 Expert said:


> Since the end of April.



Wha? The war ended years ago!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Dec 20, 2021)

Howard Gibson said:


> The Bf109G and Fw190A lacked two stage supercharging. The Mustangs and Thunderbolts had huge speed advantages at bomber escort altitudes. If the Germans had built high altitude engines, they would have had lighter, more rugged aircraft, they would have been faster, and they would had the advantage of ground control.


The German 'failure' matched the American 'failure' to develop 2S/2S engines sooner. As to developing lighter, more rugged aircraft? I dunno. The Germans were pretty dedicated to the Bf 109 airframe and the Fw 190 airframe. When the 109G and Fw 190A-2 was introduced, they took a back seat to no airframe.

It's interesting to speculate on perhaps stealing the Merlin 61 plans in late 1940 and racing nimbly to early 1942 at same time (hard to imagine). But 'just suppose'

Not modifying a 109 airframe to be 'lighter' and more rugged? It was already draggy to extreme compared to Mustang, would require lifting NAA (or Martin Baker prototype) cooling system to couple with the Merlin/1650-3 engine and already increase weight by several hundred pounds just to replace the DB 605. The DB 605 already produced more HP than the 1650-3 up to FTH for the DB 605. The Jumo 213 was a very good engine. In fact, had the Allies not been successful at bombing Fw and Jumo plants in spring and summer 1944, the D-9 would have been available much earlier - perhaps the same for the Ta 152. 

What project do you have in mind that were better candidates for 'lighter, more rugged' aircraft other than the ones just mentioned?

And the LW tracking and centralized control system was also pretty capable, and frequently able to vector large concentrations of fighters to poorly protected bomber Task Forces. December 29, April 11, April 24, April 29, May 12, etc, etc come to mind.

The 


Howard Gibson said:


> The P-47M was late war. We need to compare it with the Fw190D, with the two-stage Jumo 213, if the Germans had had their act together.


Howard - true that P-47M was 'late in war' but it also competed against the Fw 190D-9 at the same time (January 1945/December 1944) both were introduced into operations. It also competed successfully against Bf 109K and Me 262. The latter, only when the 262 pilot chose to engage rather leave with better speed.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Dec 20, 2021)

The introduction of the 47M didn't go that smoothly and wasn't really operation til late March, early April iirc. Only 130 made.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Dec 21, 2021)

Milosh said:


> The introduction of the 47M didn't go that smoothly and wasn't really operation til late March, early April iirc. Only 130 made.


Milosh - it was operational - but with many different problems. The first P-47M lost in combat was 44-19777, Magel, KIA by Fw 190 sw of Berlin. 'Really' operational, if defined as smoothly functioning, all major bugs ironed out was April.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 21, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Bill, because our friend is temporarily in cyberspace, I broke out the ole E6B and just to add to the ambiance, I used my genuine AAF issue. It's been a while since I used one of these, LOL but based on this I come out with a *whopping 90 miles! EDIT 94 miles!
> 
> 23 gallons at 170I gives you 33 minutes = 90~ miles EDIT 94 miles!*
> 
> ...


Oh man, I haven't seen one of those since the 70's, my brother took dad's and I misplaced the one I used back in the day after I stopped trying to play pilot (I was what you'd call ham fisted I think, I do fine in two dimensions, it's that up and down business that trips me up). 

Thanks Joe, brought back a lot of good memories.

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


----------



## Macandy (Dec 21, 2021)

drgondog said:


> Milosh - it was operational - but with many different problems. The first P-47M lost in combat was 44-19777, Magel, KIA by Fw 190 sw of Berlin. 'Really' operational, if defined as smoothly functioning, all major bugs ironed out was April.




The P-47M was really an interim 'hot rod' Jug that relied on a really competent crew chief to keep the highly tuned engine happy.
It wasn't a kick the tyres, light the fires and go! Fighter


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2021)

Macandy said:


> The P-47M was really an interim 'hot rod' Jug that relied on a really competent crew chief to keep the highly tuned engine happy.
> It wasn't a kick the tyres, light the fires and go! Fighter


And what do you think a "really competent crew chief" is going to do? In the field as a maintainer you're only going to ensure that your aircraft is meeting maintenance manual parameters.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And what do you think a "really competent crew chief" is going to do? In the field as a maintainer you're only going to ensure that your aircraft is meeting maintenance manual parameters.



Exactly, when we were in a combat zone all we cared about was making mission. If a fault was not flight or safety critical it could wait.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 21, 2021)

Macandy said:


> The P-47M was really an interim 'hot rod' Jug that relied on a really competent crew chief to keep the highly tuned engine happy.
> It wasn't a kick the tyres, light the fires and go! Fighter



True but you had about 3 different P-47s before the "M" hot rod.

2000hp with toothpick propeller.
2300hp water injection with paddle blade prop
2500-2600hp with even more water injection and/or 150 PN fuel. 

The earlier versions of the engines could be refitted in the field reach the higher power levels. 

The P-47 of June 1944 was NOT the P-47 of Oct 1943. 

German super planes of 1944 fitted with hypothetical/prototype 2 stage supercharged engines have a moving target performance wise.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2021)

I have limited experience around large radials, but the only thing I see any crew chief doing in the field is making sure the engine is making full power during ground runs (obviously), making sure it's not leaking or burning excessive oil, ensuring that engine and mag timing is maintained, maybe checking compression, and lastly checking spark plugs after each mission. The only other thing I can think of is doing a bore scope inspection on each cylinder but I don't know if borescopes were available for aviation use in WW2.

I think this would be the same regardless of which R-2800 version you are maintaining.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 21, 2021)

I think all allied fighters introduced in 1944 / 45 were various types of hot rod.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 21, 2021)

I believe the that the P-47M was bit fussy as to spark plugs and do to leaks in the long ducts because to the higher pressure. 

This wasn't exactly news to the P-47 and the instruction for fitting the water injection kit called for new packing to be done at the exhaust collector ring and at the turbo even to get the 56in pressure rating in the winter/spring of 1944

The engines in the P-47M were series "C" engines, not the series "B" engines and just about all of the thousands of the parts were NOT interchangeable. 

Even if a crew chief had swapped out a score of R-2800 "B"s in his career he might have been slower and more careful with the first few "C"s. 
Even such thing as as the sheet metal baffles may have been different with a different learning curve with the wiring harness?

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 21, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Even if a crew chief had swapped out a score of R-2800 "B"s in his career he might have been slower and more careful with the first few "C"s.
> Even such thing as as the sheet metal baffles may have been different with a different learning curve with the wiring harness?


Good point, but I think after an engine change or two this should be a non issue. I would also think that a civilian tech rep would be assigned to the squadron to assist with situations like this.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I still carry mine in my flight bag when I fly. Don’t have to worry about batteries ever running dry.



Speaking of the devil…

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Dec 21, 2021)

The metal ones look expensive! Apparently teenaged me in the late 90's opted for the more inexpensive option...

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The metal ones look expensive! Apparently teenaged me in the late 90's opted for the more inexpensive option...
> 
> View attachment 652409



Mine came with my ground school instructional materials.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 21, 2021)

Because I was "the kid", I got all the hand-me-downs.
So my flight computer was a military style kneeboard set up, my guess is that it was 1950's vintage?

Over the years, moving and such, it got lost, so no pics of it. But I still have two items (packed away somewhere) that was included in my gear: a compass and an altimeter, which was drilled into my that I never left the ground without.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Dec 21, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Exactly, when we were in a combat zone all we cared about was making mission. If a fault was not flight or safety critical it could wait.



This is why God made waivers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Dec 22, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And what do you think a "really competent crew chief" is going to do? In the field as a maintainer you're only going to ensure that your aircraft is meeting maintenance manual parameters.



The 'really competent crew chiefs' were the guys who went back to the States after the War and founded the huge US hot rod and tuning scene.
There's more to keeping a very highly tuned engine on the top line than just swapping the plugs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Dec 22, 2021)

Macandy said:


> The 'really competent crew chiefs' were the guys who went back to the States after the War and founded the huge US hot rod and tuning scene.
> There's more to keeping a very highly tuned engine on the top line than just swapping the plugs.


I think we would agree that street and drag racing post WWII greatly accelerated improvements to automotive/engine technology and perfomance - but they weren't doing their magic on the flight line. That said, Crew Chiefs, as Joe noted, were focused on making sure to the best of his ability that all systems on His ship were in the green when he handed it off to the pilot for a mission... and to the specs in the manual.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Dec 22, 2021)

Macandy said:


> The P-47M was really an interim 'hot rod' Jug that relied on a really competent crew chief to keep the highly tuned engine happy.
> It wasn't a kick the tyres, light the fires and go! Fighter


No. The crew chiefs could not overcome factory created issues trying to make the new R-2800 C version reliable. Issues ranging from turbo regulators to ignition harness construction matched to the new engine were all Depot level mods in November/December. Combinations of techs from Republic and BAD1 solved the problem to expedite kits to 'fix'. I am pretty certain that the Crew Chiefs at 56th FG contributed, particulary the old hands that saw similar issues with P-47C in early 1943 - but weren't tinkering with Magnetos and engine timing to experiment finding a solution on the base.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 22, 2021)

Macandy said:


> The 'really competent crew chiefs' were the guys who went back to the States after the War and founded the huge US hot rod and tuning scene.
> *There's more to keeping a very highly tuned engine on the top line than just swapping the plugs.*


Then tell us what that is with regards to maintaining large radial AIRCRAFT engines???

In the field working on a military aircraft, (and this goes back to WW2), there is a specified amount of maintenance and preventative maintenance a crew chief can do to their aircraft. If one tries to do any modifications or make adjustment outside of maintenance manual parameters, that individual could get themselves in a lot of trouble, especially if an incident or accident occurs as a result of not following maintenance guidelines.

The "really competent" maintenance crew chief who went back to the states after the war found themselves working for the airlines and more than likely in a supervisory role.

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 22, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Then tell us what that is with regards to maintaining large radial engines???
> 
> In the field working on a military aircraft, (and this goes back to WW2), there is a specified amount of maintenance and preventative maintenance a crew chief can do to their aircraft. *If one tries to do any modifications or make adjustment outside of maintenance manual parameters, that individual could get themselves in a lot of trouble, especially if an incident or accident occurs as a result of not following maintenance guidelines.*
> 
> The "really competent" maintenance crew chief who went back to the states after the war found themselves working for the airlines and more than likely in a supervisory role.



Not just that, but imagine if a mission was not made because unapproved repairs/mods were made.

As you know mechanics just don’t go doing whatever the heck they feel like. Repairs and mods have to be approved. It’s not like you are working on a car that can be pulled over on the side of the road.

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


----------



## pbehn (Dec 22, 2021)

Macandy said:


> There's more to keeping a very highly tuned engine on the top line than just swapping the plugs.


There is much more to keeping a squadron of planes serviceable every day for military operations than keeping a drag racer fit for quarter mile runs when and where you feel like doing them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 22, 2021)

pbehn said:


> There is much more to keeping a squadron of planes serviceable every day for military operations than keeping a drag racer fit for quarter mile runs when and where you feel like doing them.


Especially if the air group is conducting several sorties per day.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 22, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Especially if the air group is conducting several sorties per day.


I also have issues with the term "higher state of tune". WW2 aero engineers could have upped the power massively if they engine only had to run for 8 seconds. Producing thousands of engines that had high power outputs and ran for 6 hours without stopping and 250 hours between overhauls is the difficult part.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 22, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I also have issues with the term "higher state of tune". WW2 aero engineers could have upped the power massively if they engine only had to run for 8 seconds. Producing thousands of engines that had high power outputs and ran for 6 hours without stopping and 250 hours between overhauls is the difficult part.


I put that in the same category as a "worn out engine" with no details






"WORN OUT ENGINES"


Hoping to get some input from some of our resident engine experts (ShortRound6, GregP, Tomo, MiTasol, Bill M and Calum, to name a few, I know there's more). I've seen many publications (and some posts on here usually referencing another source) making references to "worn out engines," or "tired...



ww2aircraft.net


----------



## pbehn (Dec 22, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I put that in the same category as a "worn out engine" with no details
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you could use a dragster as a runabout family car and do a standing quarter in six seconds I would be impressed, to me a dragster is just in a different state of tune, it doesnt last long enough to get off the ground in an airplane. I think I said on that thread, most times I heard that it was to do with the whole plane not just the engine.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Dec 22, 2021)

pbehn said:


> If you could use a dragster as a runabout family car and do a standing quarter in six seconds I would be impressed, to me a dragster is just in a different state of tune, it doesnt last long enough to get off the ground in an airplane. I think I said on that thread, most times I heard that it was to do with the whole plane not just the engine.


I have seen the equivalent of drag racing in planes - STOL Drag Racing. (If you haven't seen it, its a thing) The top competitors in that category fly planes that are good for 10 seconds of max thrust, but not for actually cruising around. The event consists of two planes in parallel drag racing to take-off and then coasting/slide slipping to a landing about 1000ft turning around and doing the same thing in reverse. The first to come to a complete stop at the starting point wins. The guy who won at Reno this year was flying a Carbon Cub outfitted with a modified Jet Ski engine and a four bladed sea plane prop.

Here's a video link to see what it looks like:

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 22, 2021)

NevadaK said:


> I have seen the equivalent of drag racing in planes - STOL Drag Racing. (If you haven't seen it, its a thing) The top competitors in that category fly planes that are good for 10 seconds of max thrust, but not for actually cruising around. The event consists of two planes in parallel drag racing to take-off and then coasting/slide slipping to a landing about 1000ft turning around and doing the same thing in reverse. The first to come to a complete stop at the starting point wins. The guy who won at Reno this year was flying a Carbon Cub outfitted with a modified Jet Ski engine and a four bladed sea plane prop.


Yep but quite different from military operations.

Most, if not all of those aircraft are flying under an experimental airworthiness certificate thus they can legally do lot's of tweaks to their engines and airframes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Dec 22, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yep but quite different from military operations.
> 
> Most, if not all of those aircraft are flying under an experimental airworthiness certificate thus they can legally do lot's of tweaks to their engines and airframes.


Thanks FLYBOYJ,

I was trying to reinforce the point being made that engine tweaking for hot rodding and maintaining operations of high performance aircraft are not the same.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 22, 2021)

Very few crew chief's had access to temperature chambers/pressure chambers when on front line squadrons or the instruments the engine manufactures did.

Crew chiefs could do a lot of things in WW I with biplanes that they could *not* do in WW I.


Hot rodder's rarely had to take temperatures at thousands of feet in different altitude or at places hundreds of miles away on the same day. 
A good hot rodder could adjust the carb's for the best possible "tune" for a morning speed run and tweak it later for a mid day run.
A crew chief couldn't do that. He needed to keep the engine in the middle of the "range" so the engine would run without stalls/stubbles/ misfire. etc when the engine was running at 8;00am taxing out over a British dew and ground fog morning or running at 10:00AM at 30,000ft 300 miles to the east. 

WW II aircraft engines by the end of WW II were some of the most highly stressed and highest performance engines that could be found. There were no easy 'tweaks' to be found despite what some crew chiefs (both US and RAF) might have thought. Ununortized changes 

A P-38L with Allison engines in late 1944 was operating under quite different conditions than a P-38 in 1942. And the engine internals had quite different changes. Different piston rings, different valve springs (even though the valve timing was the same and the valve clearance was the same) the engines were operating at up 70in MAP using 150 PN fuel in Europe.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 22, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> He needed to keep the engine in the middle of the "range" so the engine would run without stalls/stubbles/ misfire. etc when the engine was running at 8;00am taxing out over a British dew and ground fog morning or running at 10:00AM at 30,000ft 300 miles to the east.


Exactly! And many times that "middle of the "range" was set in AAF TOs.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 22, 2021)

drgondog said:


> I think we would agree that street and drag racing post WWII greatly accelerated improvements to automotive/engine technology and perfomance - but they weren't doing their magic on the flight line. That said, Crew Chiefs, as Joe noted, were focused on making sure to the best of his ability that all systems on His ship were in the green when he handed it off to the pilot for a mission... and to the specs in the manual.


I would actually disagree with that statement. The requirements for production, street engines are radically different from one-off engines for hot-rods or street racing. Neglecting the need to produce them in hundreds or thousands (or, for automobiles, tens or hundreds of thousands) of near-identical units, there is the need to have vast quantities of spare parts quickly at hand.


----------



## GregP (Dec 22, 2021)

As for "worn-out" engines, I have seen several times that the TBO was set NOT so the planes would not have worn-out engines, but rather that at least 97% of the engines returned for overhaul had engine block that could be used again for the overhaul process. I have also seen the actual percentage number vary by ±1 or 2 %, but the intent was to have "rebuildable" engines, not to run them until the blocks had to be replaced instead of being overhauled.

By way of example, the Allison engine company only made pistons / cylinders in nominal (fits a 5.500" bore), .010 over (fits a 5.510" bore) and .020 over (fits a 5.520" bore). There were no other pistons / cylinders available from Allison. If a cylinder could not be cleaned up for use with a 5.20" bore, then the cylinder was replaced with one of nominal, .010" over, or .020" over.

Today, a well-built Allison V-1710 should run easily for 700 - 1200 hours, mostly trouble-free. In WWII, they were overhauled at anywhere from 250 - 500 hours, depending on the calendar year. TBO got longer as they got the engines tweaked better and had more experience with them. Ditto, Merlins, radials, and whatever. Same held true for early turbojets. Early units had little life. Today, turbines last a LONG time.

The only piston engines I know of that is not routinely overhauled are some diesels. When they get to their service life, they are simple replaced with new or used units and are then scrapped. They can be repaired, to be sure, but when the engine life is reached, they are basically shot. Many have a LONG life, making that a reasonable choice.

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


----------



## pbehn (Dec 22, 2021)

NevadaK said:


> I have seen the equivalent of drag racing in planes - STOL Drag Racing. (If you haven't seen it, its a thing) The top competitors in that category fly planes that are good for 10 seconds of max thrust, but not for actually cruising around. The event consists of two planes in parallel drag racing to take-off and then coasting/slide slipping to a landing about 1000ft turning around and doing the same thing in reverse. The first to come to a complete stop at the starting point wins. The guy who won at Reno this year was flying a Carbon Cub outfitted with a modified Jet Ski engine and a four bladed sea plane prop.
> 
> Here's a video link to see what it looks like:



When discussing aeroplanes normally I expect the aircraft to fly higher than the Wright flyer and leave the airfield.

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


----------



## wuzak (Dec 22, 2021)

Macandy said:


> The 'really competent crew chiefs' were the guys who went back to the States after the War and founded the huge US hot rod and tuning scene.



I thought the origins of hot rodding lay in the prohibition era.

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


----------



## GregP (Dec 24, 2021)

I KNEW it would get around to alcohol!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jan 3, 2022)

drgondog said:


> You do not know how to read the Operating Tables for Range with and without 75 gal tank.


I believe I do.


drgondog said:


> You do not know the definition or operating parameters for translating maximum operating range to Combat Radius planning assumptions.


I believe I do.


drgondog said:


> You do not read the footnotes with respect to a.) using 16 gal of internal fuel for Warm Up, T.O. and climb to 5,000 feet, b.) using 20 gal of internal fuel for Warm Up, T.O. and climb to 5,000 feet with 75 gal tank.


Sure I do.


drgondog said:


> You do not read the fine print for zero reserve calculation in the Range Table.


Sure I do. That's why reserves for combat and landing are deducted from the range for a combat mission. Otherwise it is a ferry mission as described in the table.


drgondog said:


> You do not seem aware that only one line exists for 20K altitude none for 25K altitude and that the max Range calc for 75 gal external is 690miles - at 15K, not 20K not 25K at a cruise speed of 170 mph IAS. BTW the TAS of the 15,000 foot flying P-39 for maximum RANGE is slower than B-17s flying 10,000 feet above the P-39Q.


You are correct about the 690 miles at 15000' but that column is for max range cruising, not combat. The left column of the chart (max continuous power) shows that the P-39Q will cruise at 25000' with a drop tank. Range in this column can be deceiving since the posted range figure is is only good at or below 12000'. Obviously burning a tank of fuel at 25000' (62 gallons per hour) will result in a much longer range than burning the same tank of fuel at 12000' (107gph). 

Example: At 12000' the 145 available gallons of fuel (after deducting the 20gal takeoff allowance) divided by 107gph gives 1.3hrs at 298mph TAS = 387mi. The chart shows 365mi reflecting the reduction for climb from 5000' to 25000' that is built into the chart to make it easy on the pilot.

Example: At 25000' the 145 available gallons of fuel being burned at 62gph gives a flight time of 2.3hrs at 267mph TAS = 614mi. Reduce that by the reduction for climb from 5000' to 25000' of 30mi and range is 584mi at 25000'. Substantially more than the 365mi at 12000' on exactly the same tank of fuel.

BTW the P-39 flying at minimum power at 15000' was slower than the B-17 at 25000' (221mph vs 225mph) but the B-17 was flying at a much higher power setting (max continuous power). At 25000' the P-39Q with a drop tank cruised at 267mph TAS which was faster than a B-17 cruised at that altitude. What's your point?


drgondog said:


> The Operating Range Tables do Not include the fuel consumption for climb from 5,000 feet (at Max Continuous) to 15, 20 or 25K. Max Contnuous Power burn rate for the V-1710-89 is 109gph. Military Power is 138gph, Combat Power is 170gph. Even assuming Table Values for Military Power at 138 for Combat at max radius (i.e. no WEP at 170gph for 5 min),you have to subtract 138/3 for 20minutes=46 gal.


The Flight Operation Instruction Chart (range chart) certainly does include a reduction in range to account for the climb from 5000' to 25000' as I explained above. The burn rates you quote are at 12000'. At 25000' the burn rates are substantially lower (109gph vs 62gph for max cont. power). Use the military and combat power burn rates for the 20 minute reserve for combat. They have no place in the range calculation unless you are calculating combat range or radius. Then you would deduct the combat reserve and landing reserve along with the 20gal takeoff/climb reserve from the total fuel load.


drgondog said:


> So, independent of cruise leg that P-39Q assigned escort duties for 25K, a.) uses 20 gal from Warm Up to 5K, b.)approximately 10minutes at Max Continuous Power to climb (clean) from 5K to 25K (source Dean AOHT) = 109/6 = 18gal, c.) 46 gal Combat at max radius d.) 20 minutes Reserve to find home base and land at Min Cruise Power (42gph/3) = 13. (source for a., b., c. and d P-39Q Handbook),


P-39Q (with drop tank) used 20gal reserve for takeoff and climb to 5000', 26gal for 20 minutes combat at 25000' and a 10gal for 20min landing reserve (32gph for 20 minutes). So for a combat mission deduct 56gal reserves from total fuel. The combat reserve is calculated as follows: military power is 1.27 times max continuous (138gph vs 109gph) at 12000'. At 25000' fuel burn is 62gph at max continuous x 1.27 = 79gph at combat power, 20 minutes would be 26gal. All from the P-39Q handbook. 


drgondog said:


> Of your 120 gal of internal fuel (you don't switch to external tanks until cruise altitude) you must subtract
> 
> 20+18 + 46+ 13 gal =97 gal of your internal fuel Not used to cruise to and from the target to Let Down to find your base. Assuming your 75 gal tank could conceivably complete leg to Target and Combat (VERY Bad assumption), that leaves you with 23 gal (optimistic, no provision for flying formation, etc).


Nope. Only 56gal in reserves is deducted from the total fuel available. 20+26+10. Climb from 5000' to 25000' WHILE HEADING TO THE TARGET was already figured in the tables. Drop whatever tank you are carrying and there are still 120gal internal less the combat allowance of 26gal and the landing reserve of 10 gal for a net after reserves of 84gal. Quite more than 23gal.


drgondog said:


> Get out yer sliderule kid, show me what you get in straight line RANGE at 25,000 feet flying minimum fuel burn rate of 42gph with 23 gallons of fuel at approx 170IAS (optimistic) at 25K.* That 'Leg' is your Combat Radius.*


Nope. Like I said above after the tank is dropped there are still 84gal internal after reserves. At 62gph there is still 1.35hrs at 330mph (cruise without drop tank) or 445 miles. After reserves.


drgondog said:


> And BTW, the P-39Q can not fight anything useful at 25K, much less keep up with B-17/B-24 fully loaded. The LW will destroy all available P-39s in inventory in a couple of missions and the 8th AF will finally be able to use the P-47, P-38 and P-51 unmolested by P-39 acolytes.


I don't think so. Like I said above a P-39Q with drop tank cruised at 267mph at 25000', well above the cruising speed of the B-17. For reference the P-47 cruised at 285mph with a drop tank. As to the LW destroying all available P-39s, how did that go with the Russians? They did pretty well with the P-39, shot down more Axis planes than any other American fighter. Of course they removed the underwing guns on the P-39Q, ordered most of them that way from the factory. 


drgondog said:


> My Bad.

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


----------



## pbehn (Jan 3, 2022)

P-39 Expert said:


> I believe I do.
> 
> I believe I do.
> 
> ...


Didnt we have 200 pages of this on another thread? Believing isn't quite enough in a technical discussion.

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2022)

pbehn said:


> Didnt we have 200 pages of this on another thread?



I guess the Corsair was a new version of the P-39 Groundhog.

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


----------



## pbehn (Jan 3, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I guess the Corsair was a new version of the P-39 Groundhog.


Funnily enough I am just reading a book on the P-51B ( a Christmas present) something about a Bastard Stepchild, anyway in discussion on pre war US aircraft the P-39 gets a couple of paragraphs from the 63 pages I have read so far, the main point being it wasnt as fast as advertised.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 3, 2022)

YGBSM!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 3, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> YGBSM!


I needed google, but I got there.

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


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 3, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> YGBSM!


Wasn't that from the Wild Groundhogs Weasels during Viet Nam?

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


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 3, 2022)

fubar57 said:


> Wasn't that from the Wild Groundhogs Weasels during Viet Nam?


Yes, rumor / legend has it during WW Nam a new guy was brought into the squadron and when someone explained their mission that was his reply. It then became part of their lore and adorned many of their patches.

I did several deployments / TDYs with them. The Snacko (the guy who keeps the snack bar and beer fridge stocked) was a Major. Usually it's the newest guy in the squadron (a 1st Lieutenant), but when rank is top heavy then the lowest rank gets the nod. It was a very senior squadron, and every one of them I dealt with was a great guy. 

1994 timeframe I take off from Dhahran as number #2 of 2 Eagles, tasked with protecting 1 AWACs, 1 KC-10A, and 4 F4Gs, aka Geasels. We go fly the sortie arriving over Iraq just after the sun has come up, call it MacAir appreciation day and 4.5 hours later come home. I run into the F4G snacko (previously mentioned Major) and he and another guy are giggling like school girls. So senior guys yucking it up means some classic prank has been executed. Come to find out they formed into an echelon formation, went full burner as high as they could go (low 30s - 2 drop tanks, 2 HARMs, 4 AIM-7 and 4 AIM-9) and flew into the SA-2 ring around Tallil, Iraq. They then peeled off one at a time and did a full burner dive down to 10k over the town, obviously supersonic, and as a flight probably kept the local glass guy in business for years. It was Saddam Hussein's birthday...

Cheers, 
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
4 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 3, 2022)

pbehn said:


> I needed google, but I got there.


My Uncles were retired Navy Chiefs - I knew that from a tender young age

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> My Uncles were retired Navy Chiefs - I knew that from a tender young age


Along with drinking really strong black coffee and about 20 horrific curse words that could set a nun's habit on fire!

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


----------



## wuzak (Jan 3, 2022)

P-39 Expert said:


> You are correct about the 690 miles at 15000' but that column is for max range cruising, not combat. The left column of the chart (max continuous power) shows that the P-39Q will cruise at 25000' with a drop tank. Range in this column can be deceiving since the posted range figure is is only good at or below 12000'. Obviously burning a tank of fuel at 25000' (62 gallons per hour) will result in a much longer range than burning the same tank of fuel at 12000' (107gph).



I wonder why the P-39 burns less fuel at 25,000ft than at 12,000ft?




P-39 Expert said:


> BTW the P-39 flying at minimum power at 15000' was slower than the B-17 at 25000' (221mph vs 225mph) but the B-17 was flying at a much higher power setting (max continuous power). At 25000' the P-39Q with a drop tank cruised at 267mph TAS which was faster than a B-17 cruised at that altitude.



What is "minimum power"?

Are you talking about most economical cruise?

What cruise setting was the B-17 using for 225mph at 25,000ft? I'm betting that cruise speed was dictated by formation flying, rather than aircraft capability.

What speed could a B-17 at 25,000 cruise using maximum continuous?




P-39 Expert said:


> P-39Q (with drop tank) used 20gal reserve for takeoff and climb to 5000', 26gal for 20 minutes combat at 25000' and a 10gal for 20min landing reserve (32gph for 20 minutes). So for a combat mission deduct 56gal reserves from total fuel. The combat reserve is calculated as follows: military power is 1.27 times max continuous (138gph vs 109gph) at 12000'. At 25000' fuel burn is 62gph at max continuous x 1.27 = 79gph at combat power, 20 minutes would be 26gal. All from the P-39Q handbook.



Not sure if the ratio between max continuous and combat power works the same at 25,000ft as it does at 12,000ft.

What rpm does max continuous use at 25,000ft? Is it different to combat power?




P-39 Expert said:


> I don't think so. Like I said above a P-39Q with drop tank cruised at 267mph at 25000', well above the cruising speed of the B-17. For reference the P-47 cruised at 285mph with a drop tank.



There is more than one cruise setting. Which ones are you using for this comparison?

Noting that the P-51, for one, could cruise at 300mph+ at 25,000ft.

A Spitfire PR.XI could cruise at 397mph @ 31,000ft, and 378mph @ 38,000ft. These are maximum continuous cruise speeds.

How does this all compare to the F4U-1 cruise performance?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 3, 2022)

It's great when things get back to normal.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 4, 2022)

So I had a look for myself in the 






To try and calculate range.

Full internal fuel (87 USG) and external tank (75 USG) is 162 USG (which the manual rounds up to 165 USG?). This gives a t/o weight of ~8,100lb.

In the Take-off, Climb and Landing Chart the following numbers are given for climb to 25,000ft.






That is, allow 39 USG for the P-39Q to climb to 25,000ft*. The note at the bottom says "fuel includes warm-up and take-off allowance".

That leaves 126 USG for cruising, fighting and reserve. The manual does not specify a reserve, either in USG or time.

The Flight Operation Instruction Chart says that at maximum continuous the speed is 287mph TAS, fuel consumption is 62 USGPH.






That would give a cruising time of 2.03 hours, or 583 miles. But that does not give allowance for combat or reserve. I can't find an actual fuel consumption for combat power either.

Maximum speed for the P-39Q at 25,000ft is 361mph from 772hp. If we use the ratio of speeds to calculate combat consumption at 25,000ft we get approximately 83 USGPH.

But the Note in the instructions for using the chart says that maximum continuous power is for Emergency Use Only.

That means that the bulk of the cruising will have to be performed at 20,000ft or lower.






179mph IAS ~ 250mph TAS.

Assume 30 minutes @ maximum continuous at 25,000ft, that gives 133.5 miles, used 31 USG.
Assume 5 minutes at Combat power at 25,000ft ~4 USG (don't count distance traveled as it could be further away).

That leaves 126 - 4 - 31 = 91 USG for cruise.

If we use the fastest cruise that we can for a sustained period, that is 250mph @ 20,000ft using 76 USG per hour, we get a total cruise time of 1.19 hours.

We may want a 20 minute reserve, which is 0.33 hours, gives remaining time of 0.86 hours. At 250mph that is 216 miles.

Total range is 216 miles + 133.5 miles ~ 350 miles.

Seems wrong. I must have messed up somewhere. 

* The Flight Operation Instruction Chart gives 20 USG allowance for warm-up and take-off and climb to 5,000ft, but the Take-off, Climb and Landing Chart shows 25 USG for 8,100lb take-off weight.

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


----------



## wuzak (Jan 4, 2022)

It seems to me that the manual is not set up to calculate range at 20,000ft or 25,000ft for the P-39Q.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2022)

wuzak said:


> So I had a look for myself in the
> 
> View attachment 653632
> 
> ...


I think you've done well. If you take your total range calculation it gives a radius of ~175 miles, which sounds about right under the best conditions.

but our stubborn friend keeps making delusional statements:



> The chart shows 365mi reflecting the reduction for climb from 5000' to 25000' that is *built into the chart to make it easy on the pilot.*


You don't need to make this easier on the pilot and no where does it indicate that on the chart! That's why you have a climb chart and E6B! All this is taught in ground school, something that our friend doesn't understand!

I guess pixie dust will get you 20,000'! 



> ** The Flight Operation Instruction Chart gives 20 USG allowance for warm-up and take-off and climb to 5,000ft, but the Take-off, Climb and Landing Chart shows 25 USG for 8,100lb take-off weight.*


It seems you understand this!



> We may want a *20 minute reserve*, which is 0.33 hours, gives remaining time of 0.86 hours. At 250mph that is 216 miles.


And this!

He refuses to acknowledge that you have to do climb calculations with the climb chart on the previous page. The cruise chart will give you the 20 gallon allowance to 5000' but you have to calculate climb depending on *the rate of climb and power settings used.*

If you factor that in the total range/ operating radius drops even further.

*I have no problem with your query on this but I'm only going to allow this broken record discussion to go on for only so long. 




*

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 4, 2022)

wuzak said:


> It seems to me that the manual is not set up to calculate range at 20,000ft or 25,000ft for the P-39Q.


The primary reason is that no one was stupid enough to assume that a P-39 would be useful at those altitudes - not for interception, convoy protection, CAS or Short Range Escort of B-17s to French Coast befor turning back. Therefore, desiring to be held as reasonably agile-mentally, nobody prepared science fiction scenarios for their superior officers at Materiel Command.

The Legend in His Own Mind is hopelessly in love with the runt tart 'that couldn't'...

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 4, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Along with drinking really strong black coffee and about 20 horrific curse words that could set a nun's habit on tire!


And never, Never clean their coffee mug!! 


Regarding the recent reemergence of the Bell product, let's look at it in reverse.
During the Battle of Britain, what was the ONE single most short-coming of the Bf109?
Power/speed? Nope.
Performance at any altitude? No.
Armament? More nope.

Than what could it possibly have been?
Range. It lacked range.

You can have a world-beater (real or imagined) and if it doesn't have the range to get the job done, fix it or find something that can.

The Germans fixed their problem (sort of), the Americans found something else that worked (obviously).

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 4, 2022)

Good thing the British didn't get ahold of the P-51 first, and destroy its reputation with outlandish requirements like the P-39! 
We could have lost the war

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


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Good thing the British didn't get ahold of the P-51 first, and destroy its reputation with outlandish requirements like the P-39!
> We could have lost the war


They tried, fortunately NAA were just too smart.

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


----------



## drgondog (Jan 4, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Good thing the British didn't get ahold of the P-51 first, and destroy its reputation with outlandish requirements like the P-39!
> We could have lost the war


In all seriousness, the RAF/Air Ministry were exceedingly helpful in both analysis and demonstrated improvements beginning with NA-73 product improvement and extending through sharing knowledge gained operationally - such as cockpit layout, gun mounts and feed systems, camera installation, etc. Did I mention doing damn fool things like installing Merlin 61?

One of the very prominant members on this forum, Colin Ford, was exceedngly helpful in fleshing such important trivia for the Bastard Stepchild book.

BTW, NAA specifically developed the XP-51B (NA-101) as a letter extension to preclude Wright Field from getting their hands on a Spec writing engagement. ALL WWII Development through B-45 and F-86 were done without 'helpful' assistance of Materiel Command.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 4, 2022)

Could you expand on "Spec writing engagement"?


----------



## wuzak (Jan 4, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *I have no problem with your query on this but I'm only going to allow this broken record discussion to go on for only so long. *



I apologize, I was more interested in the exercise of working through the range calculations for myself rather than reigniting that discussion.

I will have to look back in the thread to see if there were similar calculations made for the F4U in determining its suitability as an escort.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 4, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Could you expand on "Spec writing engagement"?


The MC wanted to dive into the XP-51B discussion and specify performance, etc. NAA told them 'hold my beer - we got this'. NAA suggested that breaking loose the Packard Merlin 1650-3 after Wright Bench tests Would Be Helpful, but once they showed Wright Field that the Mustang had been developed to EXISTING and Published AAC standards for Strength, etc they offered no real resistance.

Lee Atwood was a graduate Structures engineer from University of Texas - with first job at Wright Field and carried AAC 'standards' with him to Douglas, then to NAA. At one time the 'Echols Acolytes' tried to excuse ignoring the Mustang based on NAA using BAM/RAF design Limit/Ultimate Load standards - which are less but only slightly less than AAC/AAF in late 1930/early 1940s. The P-51H was desiged to Spitfire norm, and was ultimately stronger save the landing gear than P-51B/D at design Gross Weight,

Reactions: Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 4, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Good thing the British didn't get ahold of the P-51 first



Actually they did. As Bill will tell you the British suggested fitting the Merlin to the Mustang first and not for the Americans, but for the RAF. The British even expressed the view that the type should be licence built in Britain (by Gloster) with Rolls-Royce supplying the engines, all, again, for British use before the USAAF got hold of the type. It was Rolls-Royce who put a Merlin in a Mustang first and the information was shared between RR and various US agencies for their benefit, but originally it was for the aircraft to be supplied to the RAF.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 4, 2022)

Be vewy, vewy quiet ... we're hunting gwoundhogs!

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


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2022)

drgondog said:


> In all seriousness, the RAF/Air Ministry were exceedingly helpful in both analysis and demonstrated improvements beginning with NA-73 product improvement and extending through sharing knowledge gained operationally - such as cockpit layout, gun mounts and feed systems, camera installation, etc. Did I mention doing damn fool things like installing Merlin 61?
> 
> One of the very prominant members on this forum, Colin Ford, was exceedngly helpful in fleshing such important trivia for the Bastard Stepchild book.


Having just started reading said book, I am surprised how far back the involvement of the RAF/ Air ministry went and why. The true story gives the lie to any conspiracy theory that the British were trying to screw up US manufacturers. A great read so far.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 4, 2022)

pbehn said:


> The true story gives the lie to any conspiracy theory that the British were trying to screw up US manufacturers.


But....but...but a Groundhog "expert" said so

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 4, 2022)

fubar57 said:


> But....but...but a Groundhog "expert" said so


You got me, really the Brits were fighting a war and were only interested in complete crap.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 4, 2022)

wuzak said:


> I apologize, I was more interested in the exercise of working through the range calculations for myself rather than reigniting that discussion.
> 
> I will have to look back in the thread to see if there were similar calculations made for the F4U in determining its suitability as an escort.


There may have been, I have forgotten. 
But basically you have two different F4Us until you are well into 1944. 
The older ones have 361/3 gallons plus a single 150 drop tank. However out of the 3 internal tanks 162-4 gallons are in the two _unprotected _wing tanks. Even with a CO 2 system or some sort of inert gas/cooled exhaust system you only have 234 gallon of protected fuel to get home with. The gas system/s may keep the tank from catching fire but they doesn't keep the fuel from leaking out on the trip home. The P-47s had 305 gallons. Both planes are going to warm up, taxi out and take off using the internal tank/s until safe altitude before switching over and doing the climb out/ form up. 
Later F4Us had 234 gallons internal and two 150 gallon drop tanks.

Problem with the F4U is that unless running on water injection you can use up 75 gallon of fuel in 15 minutes, or 90 gallons in 20 minutes as your combat allowance. With tanks gone you have about roughly 75% of the protected fuel of a P-47. Which roughly means you are going to have 75% or the less of radius the P-47. It doesn't matter what kind of fuel calculations you do before you drop the tanks. What matters is the fuel left in the protected tank/s to get the pilot home after combat.

The P-47 Is also faster by almost 30mph at the speeds they want to escort at. At above 22,000 the P-47 will have better climb and it just gets per better the higher it goes compared to the F4U.The P-47 will have slightly better fuel consumption at the the altitudes they want to escort at due to the turbo.

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


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 4, 2022)

pbehn said:


> You got me, really the Brits were fighting a war and were only interested in complete crap.



Yup, we gotta keep the masses happy by perpetuating the myths. Can't have well informed individuals releasing those pesky "facts" into the mix... 

(The fact that Britain did produce the odd bit of crap here and there is a different story, the British can't pollute their own crap with foreign rubbish. As a former de Havilland engineer said to me once, "well, it maybe crap, but it's BRITISH crap!")


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2022)

wuzak said:


> I apologize, I was more interested in the exercise of working through the range calculations for myself rather than reigniting that discussion.
> 
> I will have to look back in the thread to see if there were similar calculations made for the F4U in determining its suitability as an escort.


No apologies needed my friend, my comment wasn’t directed at you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 4, 2022)

pbehn said:


> Having just started reading said book, I am surprised how far back the involvement of the RAF/ Air ministry went and why. The true story gives the lie to any conspiracy theory that the British were trying to screw up US manufacturers. A great read so far.



It's on my list after I finish Bendiner and Lundstrom is up after that. Looking forward to it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 4, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> There may have been, I have forgotten.
> But basically you have two different F4Us until you are well into 1944.
> The older ones have 361/3 gallons plus a single 150 drop tank. However out of the 3 internal tanks 162-4 gallons are in the two _unprotected _wing tanks. Even with a CO 2 system or some sort of inert gas/cooled exhaust system you only have 234 gallon of protected fuel to get home with. The gas system/s may keep the tank from catching fire but they doesn't keep the fuel from leaking out on the trip home. The P-47s had 305 gallons. Both planes are going to warm up, taxi out and take off using the internal tank/s until safe altitude before switching over and doing the climb out/ form up.
> Later F4Us had 234 gallons internal and two 150 gallon drop tanks.
> ...



I know the comparison with the P-47 has been made, but it is surely useful to see if the F4U could do it at all before comparing it to other aircraft?


----------



## drgondog (Jan 4, 2022)

wuzak said:


> I know the comparison with the P-47 has been made, but it is surely useful to see if the F4U could do it at all before comparing it to other aircraft?


If you look at the P-47 Operations Charts, the fuel consumption (for P-47) for warm up, takeoff, climb will be conservative as the F4U combat loaded is lighter than P-47. What I have not seen are data for cruise speeds with and without combat tanks. There again, specific fuel consumption should be close at 20K, diverging a bit at 25K.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 4, 2022)

wuzak said:


> I know the comparison with the P-47 has been made, but it is surely useful to see if the F4U could do it at all before comparing it to other aircraft?


Well, for the P-38, the P-47 and the P-51 the P-47 was the worst of the bunch in regards to range/radius. 
Why bring in a 4th type of fighter if you know it won't even match the P-47.

The US used an arbitrary standard but the 3 fighters were all compared the same one way. The F4U held less protected fuel, it won't fly as well at the desired altitude. 25,000ft at the desired cruise speed. 

Once you start making excuses (lower cruise speeds or less than a common altitude) you are already admitting the new plane you are talking about won't do the job.

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


----------



## wuzak (Jan 4, 2022)

I found a take-off and climbing chart for the F4U-1, but not a cruise chart.

At 11,700lb t/o weight the fuel used to 25,000ft was 55 USG.
At 13,100lb t/o weight the fuel used to 25,000ft was 71 USG.
At 14,200lb t/o weight the fuel used to 25,000ft was 86 USG.

Which includes allowance for warm-up and take-off.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 4, 2022)

pbehn said:


> You got me, really the Brits were fighting a war and were only interested in complete crap.


That explains the Cromwell, doesn't it?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 5, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Actually they did


That was the joke


----------



## pbehn (Jan 5, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> That was the joke


The Americans had the last laugh though, they left all the armour and self sealing tanks in, just to teach the Brits a lesson

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Jan 5, 2022)

I'm seeing a lot of discussion about the range of different planes according to "the book." But I recall reading that when Charles Lindbergh got to the South Pacific, he had some ideas for extending the range of their P-38s, and those ideas met with some resistance because they weren't "according to the book." Lindbergh's position was that he knew something about extending the range of an airplane by leaning the gas/air mixture, having done it when he flew across the Atlantic. Still, resistance. But he persuaded them to let him show them, and, sure enough, Lindbergh was right, and he got something like double the range that a P-38 was supposed to have, without wrecking the engines.
Anyway, that was from memory. Anybody here have more information on that matter, and speculation about how it might apply to this discussion (if at all)?


----------



## Howard Gibson (Jan 5, 2022)

NTGray said:


> I'm seeing a lot of discussion about the range of different planes according to "the book." But I recall reading that when Charles Lindbergh got to the South Pacific, he had some ideas for extending the range of their P-38s...


Didn't they do that with Corsairs too?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> Didn't they do that with Corsairs too?


He did...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2022)

NTGray said:


> I'm seeing a lot of discussion about the range of different planes according to "the book." But I recall reading that when Charles Lindbergh got to the South Pacific, he had some ideas for extending the range of their P-38s, and those ideas met with some resistance because they weren't "according to the book." Lindbergh's position was that he knew something about extending the range of an airplane by leaning the gas/air mixture, having done it when he flew across the Atlantic. Still, resistance. But he persuaded them to let him show them, and, sure enough, Lindbergh was right, and he got something like double the range that a P-38 was supposed to have, without wrecking the engines.
> Anyway, that was from memory. Anybody here have more information on that matter, and speculation about how it might apply to this discussion (if at all)?


Actually Lindberg didn't really do too much out side "the book" (as you call it). What Lindbergh did was show squadrons that flying at a lower RPM at Auto Lean while slightly rising manifold pressure increased engine efficiency, getting the engine to operate at "Lean of Peak." I'm sure some of our engine experts will chime in but this technique is still used today on GA recip operations

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


----------



## NTGray (Jan 5, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually Lindberg didn't really do too much out side "the book" (as you call it). What Lindbergh did was show squadrons that flying at a lower RPM at Auto Lean while slightly rising manifold pressure increased engine efficiency, getting the engine to operate at "Lean of Peak." I'm sure some of our engine experts will chime in but this technique is still used today on GA recip operations


Whatever the specific suggestion was, everybody thought it would wreck the engines, and therefore were reluctant even to try it. Lindbergh assured them it would NOT wreck the engines, but they were still hesitant. I don't remember how he persuaded them to try, but they finally did, and then it was all good.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2022)

NTGray said:


> *Whatever the specific suggestion was, everybody thought it would wreck the engines, and therefore were reluctant even to try it.* Lindbergh assured them it would NOT wreck the engines, but they were still hesitant. I don't remember how he persuaded them to try, but they finally did, and then it was all good.


They were reluctant to try it because they were never taught what "Lean of Peak" was, as a matter of fact IIRC when the AAC did preliminary testing on P-38 power settings they kept some of that data classified which was a great disservice to the men flying the machines.

I believe Lindberg took a flight out on a long training mission, all aircraft had full tanks. Upon their return Lindberg had a substantial amount of fuel left in his aircraft when compared with the other pilots, that's how he proved his point. He flew with Tom McGuire (475th FS) and later with 4 or 5 different Marine squadrons


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 5, 2022)

There was a lot of incredibly bad information floating around during WWII. 

The P-38s in both Europe and the Pacific got a lot of bad information. 

The thing here was the planes were NOT being "flown by the book" or at least not the book Lockheed was telling them use AND not the book that Allison was telling them to use. 
The Army (or mid level officers) were using their own books and it took quite a while to get the squadron pilots to fly the planes that both Allison and Lockheed wanted to be flown.

The British had gone through the whole low RPM and high boost cruise thing in 1941 and/or early 1942. 

Tony LeVier had done a number of demonstration flights In Europe in 1944 showing the same things. 
Most any commercial pilot that had flown before WW II could have done the same thing. Airline pilots that flew rich mixture the entire route weren't going to be around long.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> Tony LeVier had done a number of demonstration flights In Europe in 1944 showing the same things.


You beat me to the punch, I was about to mention LeVier.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 5, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> That was the joke



Yeah, I figured, Clayton, but there are some who forget the British role in the Mustang story, so I like to remind people every now and then

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Jan 5, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I believe Lindberg took a flight out on a long training mission, all aircraft had full tanks. Upon their return Lindberg had a substantial amount of fuel left in his aircraft when compared with the other pilots, that's how he proved his point. He flew with Tom McGuire (475th FS) and later with 4 or 5 different Marine squadrons


And, again, IIRC, they took apart and inspected Lindbergh's engines to see whether they had been damaged. They hadn't.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2022)

NTGray said:


> And, again, IIRC, they took apart and inspected Lindbergh's engines to see whether they had been damaged. They hadn't.


Yes, because what he was doing was known in the civilian community and if done properly (which is easy) wouldn't have any bad effects on the engine(s), if anything flying "Lean of Peak" is good for an engine as you're getting close to the perfect air/ fuel mixture AKA "stoichiometric mixture."

For some ungodly reason this wasn't taught during flight training and as ShortRound6 stated, it seems the AAC/AAF had their own agenda

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 5, 2022)

You have to keep pretty close track of the temp running lean of peak. So, if you change altitude (or if the ambient pressure changes), the mixture should change a bit to stay at target temp. Maybe they did this when they were alone (recon or ?), but weren't doing this when they were in formations that changed altitude frequently. In any case, lean of peak has also gotten better as we improved the metallurgy and digital sensors definitely make this something that CAN be automated (at some cost) whereas it was all manual in WWII.

I'd bet if we were still flying military piston in fighters, the engines would be single-lever power systems with digital control, digital fuel injection, and completely automatic turbo and superchargers, and the TBO would be longer because the mixtures would be WAY better than with a carburetor.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 5, 2022)

Well, you pays your money and your take your chances.

American civil engines (R-1820s and R-1830) did NOT have automatic boost control prewar because the pilots (or co-pilots?) were expected to adjust the boost and mixture to get the best performance from the engine. Now you are in the middle of a dog fight and you don't have a 3rd hand (or 4th) while climbing and diving several thousands feet per minute you can very quickly wind up with blown engine as you try to keep all the levers where they are supposed to be.
Perhaps the instructors over simplified things somewhat?

"Cadet Not-too -bright, when in combat keep your fat fingers away from the mixture control. People smarter than you have can set it up so you can fly with at least one eye outside the cockpit so you have 1/2 a chance at not being shot down the first few time an enemy plane is within 20 miles of you. I Still have my doubts Cadet, so repeat after me, Keep your fat fingers away from the mixture control and let the pressure limiter do it's job. You have enough on your plate trying to steer the airplane and getting the throttle to go in the right direction.!"

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2022)

GregP said:


> You have to keep pretty close track of the temp running lean of peak. So, if you change altitude (or if the ambient pressure changes), the mixture should change a bit to stay a target temp. Maybe they did this when they were alone (recon or ?), but weren't doing this when they were in formations that changed altitude frequently. In any case, lean of peak has also gotten better as we improved the metallurgy and digital sensors definitely make this something that CAN be automated (at some cost) whereas it was all manual in WWII.
> 
> I'd bet if we were still flying military piston in fighters, the engines would be single-lever power systems with digital control, digital fuel injection, and completely automatic turbo and superchargers, and the TBO would be longer because the mixtures would be WAY better than with a carburetor.


During WW2 I can see running the settings Lindberg suggested (lean of peak) during cruise or at a time when you're not in a combat zone, maybe that was part of the AAC's position on not adopting this as SOP. Between a CHT gauge, watching manifold pressure and knowing when you get that engine shudder when you're starting to run too lean, this is not too difficult of a task.

When I bop around in my club's 172 prior to take off I do my normal engine run and Mag check at 1800 RPM, lean until I see a rise in CHT and then back off when I start feeling the engine running a little rough. I'll go full power and do the same and see how close I can lean without getting the engine starting to run a little rough (keeps the spark plugs nice an clean). In the air I'll continue to check CHT and lean as required as I climb, but then again I'm flying at an airport at 5673 MSL!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Jan 6, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> During WW2 I can see running the settings Lindberg suggested (lean of peak) during cruise or at a time when you're not in a combat zone, maybe that was part of the AAC's position on not adopting this as SOP. Between a CHT gauge, watching manifold pressure and knowing when you get that engine shudder when you're starting to run too lean, this is not too difficult of a task.



In the Pacific most of the cruising time was over empty ocean with little chance of being jumped by enemy fighters, so maximizing cruise efficiency is easier in practice as compared to 
Europe, where the chance of running into enemy fighters would pretty much be present the moment of crossing the coast.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 6, 2022)

When the P-38 was prevalent in the PTO, it was still dominated by the Japanese.
The distances covered in that theater were often further than the radius between England and France, too.

Two different situations with different requirements.

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


----------



## GregP (Jan 6, 2022)

Don't think the P-38 was dominated by the Japanese ... but opinions vary.

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


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jan 6, 2022)

> In my opinion you are using the incorrect column





wuzak said:


> So I had a look for myself in the
> 
> View attachment 653632
> 
> ...

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


----------



## drgondog (Jan 6, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> There was a lot of incredibly bad information floating around during WWII.
> 
> The P-38s in both Europe and the Pacific got a lot of bad information.
> 
> ...


Dead on. The root causes were primarily at Wright Field which never stablished any semblance of operational testing before unleashing untested production aircraft into combat ops to learn the hard way. That is a major reason, such testing was mandated to occur at Eglin Field, but a little late to catch the nyriad of a.) bugs in wiring harnesses, radio comms, etc in P-47C to ETO. Air Technical Services as part of Materiel Command, ignored both Lockheed and Allison when the high altitude issues really brought the stupid recommended cruise settings to the forefront.

Lockheed and Allison pioneered optimized cruise settings on the long range runs in early 1942, testing the 30 gal Ferry tanks and new pylon/fuel feed systems.

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


----------



## wuzak (Jan 6, 2022)

P-39 Expert said:


> First, do not use the Take-Off, Climb and Landing chart to figure range or combat radius. Those figures don't apply to range.



Why not?

The take-off, climb and landing chart shows how much fuel is required to reach the specified altitude, including warm-up and take-off. How much fuel you use in that phase determines how much fuel is available for the rest of the flight plan.



P-39 Expert said:


> For (ferry) range just use the Flight Operation Instruction Chart. For combat range or radius the only additional figures needed are for the reserve for combat and the reserve for landing. Reserve for landing uses the far right column V (max range) for low altitude search for the airfield. 33gph for 20min = 11gal reserve. I usually use 10. Reserve for combat requires estimating the GPH at combat power (3000rpm) for 25000'.



We're not talking about ferry range. We're talking about flying in the world's most contested air space from 1942/1943-1945.

There is no "landing reserve" described or listed in the manual. Only a "reserve", the time for which does not seem to be specified.

Why would you use the max range speed for the reserve calculation? Looking at the chart and changing from IAS to TAS it is actually faster (280mph, without drop tank) at 20,000ft than max continuous at 25,000ft (with drop tank)! That seem odd to me.



P-39 Expert said:


> Combat fuel consumption isn't listed in the manual, it must be calculated (estimated). Converting max continuous power (aka normal power) 2600rpm to combat power 3000rpm can be done a couple of ways. Simply converting 62gph from 2600rpm to 3000rpm would increase it to 72gph or 24gph for 20min. Or refer to the Specific Engine Flight Chart in the manual and see that military power (3000rpm) burns 138gph at 15000' (while max continuous (2600rpm) burns 109gph at 14000' so military power burns 1.27 times the fuel that max continuous burns at 14000' Convert this to 25000' by multiplying 62gph X 1.27 = 79gph or 26gph for 20min. Take your pick, 24gph or 26gph, I normally use the 26gph.



You can't use the fuel consumption at 3,000rpm and 15,000ft compared to 2,600rpm and 14,000ft to calculate a consumption for 3,000rpm and 25,000ft.

Though I used speeds at 25,000ft to get a similar number to you.

You obviously meant 26 USG for 20 minutes or 24 USG for 20 minutes, not gph.




P-39 Expert said:


> All the flight manuals have the Emergency Use Only disclaimer for normal power at 2600rpm. However normal (max CONTINUOUS) power was used universally with no time limit as noted in the Specific Engine Flight Chart. Column I (max continuous/normal power) at 25000' can certainly be used continuously as it was for all the other AAF fighters.



If use of max continuous power was allowed, why put a note saying that it should only be used in emergency situations?




P-39 Expert said:


> Use column I (max continuous/normal power) at 25000' just as the manual says. Deduct the 20gal takeoff allowance, the 26gal for 20min combat and the 10gal landing reserve for net fuel of 106gal (87 internal + 75 drop tank = 162gal less 56gal reserves = 106gal net). 106gal divided by 62gph = 1.7hrs. X 267mph TAS (per chart) = 453mi. Divide by 2 for combat radius = 226mi.



226 miles isn't very useful in the ETO.

Nor, really, is a cruise of 267mph TAS in highly contested airspace conducive to remaining alive.

Your reserve should be calculated at higher fuel consumption, as it may be needed in the combat area. It may even need to be used when the drop tank is affixed (the pilot goes a bit off track trying to make the rendezvous with the bombers). It is NOT a "landing" reserve.

And your take-off allowance only gets you to 5,000ft.

That's why you use the take-off, climb and landing chart. It specifically says how much fuel is required for warming up, take-off and climb to altitude. FWIW there is a discrepancy between the take-off climb and landing chart and the Flight Operation Instruction Chart, in that the latter says 20 USG to warm-up, take-off and climb to 5,000ft, and the former says 25 USG.

To warm-up, take-off and climb to 25,000ft uses 39USG in a combat climb with drop tank (8,100lb t/o weight). In a ferry climb it uses 42 USG.

So we can apply that to your figures, we have -> 162 - 39 - 26 - 10 = 87 USG. 87 USG/62gph = 1.4 hours. 1.4 hours * 267mph = 374 miles. Combat Radius = 187 miles.

But we can go further than that.

Warm-up, Take-off and initial climb is undertaken using internal fuel. As is combat. And the reserve.

If we use the 20 USG to climb to 5,000ft as the basis of internal fuel usage, we have:
Full internal tank: 87 USG
Less warm-up, take-off and climb to 5,000ft: 87 - 20 = 67 USG
Less combat fuel allowance: 67 - 26 = 41 USG
Less reserve allowance: 41 - 10 = 31 USG

Chart for P-39Q without drop tank says maximum cruise is 330mph @ 25,000ft, 62 USG per hour.

31/62 * 330 = 165 miles. And that would be your combat radius.




P-39 Expert said:


> Again, don't use the Takeoff, Climb and Landing chart to calculate range. Hope this helps.



Why the F not?

The take-off, climb and landing chart shows how much fuel is required to reach the specified altitude, including warm-up and take-off. How much fuel you use in that phase determines how much fuel is available for the rest of the flight plan.

And why do you think you are helping anyone?

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


----------



## drgondog (Jan 6, 2022)

P-39 Expert said:


> First, do not use the Take-Off, Climb and Landing chart to figure range or combat radius. Those figures don't apply to range. For (ferry) range just use the Flight Operation Instruction Chart. For combat range or radius the only additional figures needed are for the reserve for combat and the reserve for landing. Reserve for landing uses the far right column V (max range) for low altitude search for the airfield. 33gph for 20min = 11gal reserve. I usually use 10. Reserve for combat requires estimating the GPH at combat power (3000rpm) for 25000'.


No, DO use Take-Off, Climb and Landing Chart to begin your 'range OR 'combat radius. Every pilot of the mystical P-39 a,) aspired to the exhiliration of flight, b.) the even greater joy of landing.The Ferry range discussion is irrelevant to your aspirations to transform the Iron Dog into an Axix Slaying Beast...


P-39 Expert said:


> Combat fuel consumption isn't listed in the manual, it must be calculated (estimated). Converting max continuous power (aka normal power) 2600rpm to combat power 3000rpm can be done a couple of ways. Simply converting 62gph from 2600rpm to 3000rpm would increase it to 72gph or 24gph for 20min. Or refer to the Specific Engine Flight Chart in the manual and see that military power (3000rpm) burns 138gph at 15000' (while max continuous (2600rpm) burns 109gph at 14000' so military power burns 1.27 times the fuel that max continuous burns at 14000' Convert this to 25000' by multiplying 62gph X 1.27 = 79gph or 26gph for 20min. Take your pick, 24gph or 26gph, I normally use the 26gph.
> 
> All the flight manuals have the Emergency Use Only disclaimer for normal power at 2600rpm. However normal (max CONTINUOUS) power was used universally with no time limit as noted in the Specific Engine Flight Chart. Column I (max continuous/normal power) at 25000' can certainly be used continuously as it was for all the other AAF fighters.


But NOT in Combat estimates - which are REQUIRED to provide fuel consumption for the engine. The Military Power and Combat Power fuel consumption rates are provided by the Engine manufacturer but are tested by Static Bench Tests for Sea Level at Wright Field. Those values over-ride the mfr and are contained in the range tables.


P-39 Expert said:


> Use column I (max continuous/normal power) at 25000' just as the manual says. Deduct the 20gal takeoff allowance, the 26gal for 20min combat and the 10gal landing reserve for net fuel of 106gal (87 internal + 75 drop tank = 162gal less 56gal reserves = 106gal net). 106gal divided by 62gph = 1.7hrs. X 267mph TAS (per chart) = 453mi. Divide by 2 for combat radius = 226mi.
> 
> In my opinion you are using the incorrect column (column II instead of I), incorrect duration of combat power (5min vs 20min ) and incorrect speed (250mph vs 267mph per manual). I'll stick with my calculations.
> 
> Again, don't use the Takeoff, Climb and Landing chart to calculate range. Hope this helps.


Bovine Fecal Matter - again, repeatedly. Your opinions are unfounded on multiple planes and dimensions - overridden by eternal optimism and unwarrented belief in the Tooth Fairy. You have neither historical record nor understanding of flight mechanics nor the laws of physics to achieve the triumph of an uncluttered mind and bring a fantasy to life. Help yourself on the path to healing - Give It Up.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jan 6, 2022)

Regarding mixture, once when my aviation nut buddy and I were returning to New Orleans from Lafayette, La, in his Grumman American, he had me take the controls enroute (about one hour) back I asked if I could adjust mixture from autorich and lean to a cruise setting. Pulling mixture out till just a quiver and back in appx 1/4 inch, we then watched the cylinder head temp which did not change during the flight. Immediately upon entering MSY control the first thing he did was push in to auto rich. The only aircraft I was in with him that he did not use autorich was in a glider. Although he was checked out in very many different birds, had single land and sea, twin, instrument, glider and instructor tickets he always used autorich. I know he was well informed, because in an effort to get me back into full scale aviation, he gave me all of his study material, articles, study guides, all with copious notes and high lighting. He also used only auto rich later in his L-19 although I showed him articles on reduced engine maintenance with proper mixture control, he kept it in autorich.

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2022)

P-39 Expert said:


> Again, don't use the Takeoff, Climb and Landing chart to calculate range. Hope this helps.



Say what?







I think I need to call my old flight instructor up and demand my money back.

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2022)

But…

I have to put my moderator hat on for a second.

:_putsmoderatorhaton:

I know this is frustrating, god knows I am frustrated, but everyone please remain civil (me included).

:takesoffmoderatorhat:

Carry on…

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


----------



## NTGray (Jan 6, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Dead on. The root causes were primarily at Wright Field which never established any semblance of operational testing before unleashing untested production aircraft into combat ops to learn the hard way.


And here I thought that the problem that submariners had with their torpedoes was unique.
Although, to be sure, the admins at the torpedo factory were busy rejecting the reports of the submarine captains in actual combat. telling them that there was nothing wrong with the torpedoes, they were just being used incorrectly. Did the pilots in the war zone have that same problem, or did the army brass listen to reason when they heard it?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 6, 2022)

The directions for figuring out the "ball park" combat radius of action as used by the USAAF are as follows

A, Warm up and take off equivalent to 5 minutes at normal rated power.
B, Climb to 25,000ft at normal rate of power. (distance covered in the climb not included in the radius.) 
C, Cruise out at 25,000ft and 210 I.A.S. 
D, Drop external tanks and/or bombs before entering combat.
E, Combat at 5 minutes at war emergency rating and 15 minutes at military rating.
F, Cruise back at 25,000ft and 210 I.A.S.
G, No account is taken of decreased fuel consumption during decent
H. allowance is made for 30 minutes reserve at minimum cruise power. 
I, no allowance is made for formation flight or for evasion action other than 20 minutes combat.

The charts shown are in 25 miles increments.
These are not flight plans.

But they are useful comparison tools between planes or between planes with different tank systems. 
Original poster wants to see how the F4U compared, then figure out the steps above (as best you can) and compare to P-38, P-47, P-51 with the tank set up of your choice. 
Or trying using a Spitfire with rear tank and/or drop tank. 
Or try using a P-40F ( probably won't make 210 IAS at 25,000ft at less than max cruise speed? ) 

Actual missions would have zig zag patterns, would include wind for a given day and a few other details. and actual mission distance would be shorter than the chart shows. 

However once a proponent of a certain aircraft starts fiddling with the numbers (Using climb to attitude as part of the radius or using shorter than specified reserve for "landing" ) then you aren't comparing apples to apples anymore. 

Also using planes that will not make a decent amount of combat power at 25,000ft (over and above 'cruise' power) is not going to end for the pilots.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 6, 2022)

the P-47 in the charts is instructive. 
A P-47 with 305 gallons is rated at 125 miles radius of action/
With 370 gallons the radius is 225 miles.
Adding the pair of 150 gallon drop tanks to the 305 internal fuel the radius goes 425 miles
Adding the pair of 150 gallons drop tanks to a P-47 with 370 gallons of internal fuel gives you a radius of 600 miles. 
an increase of 175 miles 

also note that with plane with 605 gallons (305 inside and 300 outside) about 3 1/2 times the radius as just having 305 gallons. 
Being able to go into combat with nearly full tanks is a huge advantage compared to having to turn back with tanks 60-70 % full and having to use 30-40% of your fuel climbing to altitude and reserving your fuel for combat.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2022)

FOLKS, LET'S NOT FEED THE TROLL WITH HIS P-39 BS. HE WAS SHOWN HE WAS WRONG BY SEVERAL PEOPLE ON HERE BUT CONTINUES TO SPAM THIS FORUM. I THINK THIS HAS RUN IT'S COURSE!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 6, 2022)

He’s still more pleasant to read than The All Knowing Knower Of All Things Knowable.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 6, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> FOLKS, LET'S NOT FEED THE TROLL WITH HIS P-39 BS. HE WAS SHOWN HE WAS WRONG BY SEVERAL PEOPLE ON HERE BUT CONTINUES TO SPAM THIS FORUM. I THINK THIS HAS RUN IT'S COURSE!
> 
> View attachment 653814


Then what am I going to do with this box of Purina Groundhog Chow?

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Then what am I going to do with this box of Purina Groundhog Chow?


Take it back to Costco!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 6, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Then what am I going to do with this box of Purina Groundhog Chow?


Set it out on the back porch - raccoons like that stuff (so I've been told)...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 6, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> The directions for figuring out the "ball park" combat radius of action as used by the USAAF are as follows
> 
> A, Warm up and take off equivalent to 5 minutes at normal rated power.
> B, Climb to 25,000ft at normal rate of power. (distance covered in the climb not included in the radius.)
> ...



What is the TAS of 210mph IAS at 25,000ft?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> He’s still more pleasant to read than The All Knowing Knower Of All Things Knowable.



Who was that? lol

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 6, 2022)

pben?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 6, 2022)

wuzak said:


> What is the TAS of 210mph IAS at 25,000ft?


it is about 315mph. This depends on some assumptions like actual air pressure (and/or temperature) and if there is any correction curve.
Some of our pilots can go over it more detail but a common assumption is that is it about .02 per 1000ft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2022)

Folks, I agree with Joe. I think its time to just leave it be, regarding the P-39 unicorn.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. Some people would rather continue living in a fantasy, have zero understanding of the data and charts, and how to read them. They will never admit they don’t understand, and will argue with pilots and subject matter experts until their face turns blue. That is their choice, and their prerogative, but it does not make them right.

Me personally? I like to learn. I also know that there is a lot that I do not know, and can admit when I am wrong. And when I am wrong, I want to listen and learn from those more knowledgeable. 

Time to move on…

Besides: *THIS IS AN F4U THREAD. WE ALREADY HAVE A P-39 GROUNDHOG THREAD. WHY IS THIS ONE BEING SPAMMED BY THE GROUNDHOG?*

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 6, 2022)

Tradition.

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


----------



## drgondog (Jan 6, 2022)

NTGray said:


> And here I thought that the problem that submariners had with their torpedoes was unique.
> Although, to be sure, the admins at the torpedo factory were busy rejecting the reports of the submarine captains in actual combat. telling them that there was nothing wrong with the torpedoes, they were just being used incorrectly. Did the pilots in the war zone have that same problem, or did the army brass listen to reason when they heard it?


Interesting question. VIII FC Air Tech Services reported issues from early 1943 regarding P-38/F4 and P-47C. The manufacturers responded, but Wright Field was sluggish to non-concerned aboutt beefing up Test processes. In this case 'army brass' was focused on Gen. Oliver Echols CO Materiel Command. The OP flight test was 100% absorbed by Eglin Air Proving Ground with much better results.


----------



## GregP (Jan 6, 2022)

wuzak said:


> What is the TAS of 210mph IAS at 25,000ft?



315 mph or so ...


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jan 6, 2022)

P-39 Expert said:


> AND IN MY OPINION YOU'RE NOW NOTHING MORE THAN A SPAMMER! THIS WILL BE THE LAST THREAD YOU WILL HIJACK WITH YOUR BS!


WTH? I didn't write this.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2022)

P-39 Expert said:


> WTH? I didn't write this.


*Yep, you didn't!*


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 6, 2022)

P-39 Expert said:


> WTH? I didn't write this.


Being able to read has it's benefits.

Seen below the bold text in that post:
Last edited by a moderator: Today at 6:54 AM

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2022)

P-39 Expert said:


> WTH? I didn't write this.


Ya know - I do owe you an apology - when I deleted your gibberish I meant to have the statement as a response. So with that said - 

*AND IN MY OPINION YOU'RE NOW NOTHING MORE THAN A SPAMMER! THIS WILL BE THE LAST THREAD YOU WILL HIJACK WITH YOUR BS!*


----------



## NevadaK (Jan 6, 2022)

So, uh hey yah. Getting back to the Corsair (BTW The P-51 and Corsair are my two favorite planes of the war - just a bit of fanboy for you) I came across this test between the P-51C (sounds like a birdcage canopy) and F4U-1. The conclusion is interesting.

Here is the link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf

I know there's a lot of "the Corsair couldn't cut it in the ETO" and in many regards this is correct. It wasn't suitable for long range escort or combat above 25K, but there were quite a few roles that it could have performed excellently. I've noticed in a few of the comparisons from the war, like the one linked here and the fighter convention, that the Corsair is rated first or second by the pilots tasked with determining what actually were the best aircraft. Seems to me, they probably knew what they were talking about.

As for all the range calcs and stuff, I'm out of my depth. But, I'm always learning when I visit here.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 6, 2022)

NevadaK said:


> So, uh hey yah. Getting back to the Corsair (BTW The P-51 and Corsair are my two favorite planes of the war - just a bit of fanboy for you) I came across this test between the P-51C (sounds like a birdcage canopy) and F4U-1. The conclusion is interesting.
> 
> Here is the link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf
> 
> ...


There is no doubt that the F4U could have done what the P-47 did in the CAS role in Europe, but why would you. The P-47 was in Europe the F4U wasnt. Why create another logistics line? The conflict in the far east was based on carriers, why not put your carrier capable planes there? The USA set up two factories producing the P-51, which was the best escort fighter of the war, why look for another one?

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 6, 2022)

NevadaK said:


> I know there's a lot of "the Corsair couldn't cut it in the ETO" and in many regards this is correct. It wasn't suitable for long range escort or combat above 25K, but there were quite a few roles that it could have performed excellently. I've noticed in a few of the comparisons from the war, like the one linked here and the fighter convention, that the Corsair is rated first or second by the pilots tasked with determining what actually were the best aircraft. Seems to me, they probably knew what they were talking about.


It's not so much that it "couldn't cut it", but rather factoring in the large quantity of types that were already there performing tasks that the Corsair was capable of.
Bringing F4Us into the fray would add to an already burdened logistics chain.

There were actually Corsairs in the area (with the FAA), they just weren't operating over Europe proper.

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


----------



## NevadaK (Jan 6, 2022)

pbehn and GrauGeist,

Thank you for your replies. You’ll get no argument from me about whether the F4U should have been used by US forces in the ETO. It makes no sense logistically or operationally. I just found the report compelling as to how successful it could have been.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 6, 2022)

As pben pointed out, the carrier planes should go to the PTO and the land based to the ETO to simplify logistics. It's funny that those planes had to be shipped to the other end of the U.S.A. to do it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 6, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> As pben pointed out, the carrier planes should go to the PTO and the land based to the ETO to simplify logistics. It's funny that those planes had to be shipped to the other end of the U.S.A. to do it.


The USN did have carriers operating near the ETO - up by Norway, the USS Ranger even tried to lure the Tirpitz out so she could unleash her SBDs on it, but the Kreigsmarine wasn't going for it, so the Ranger's SBDs went after other German shipping instead.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 6, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> The USN did have carriers operating near the ETO - up by Norway, the USS Ranger even tried to lure the Tirpitz out so she could unleash her SBDs on it, but the Kreigsmarine wasn't going for it, so the Ranger's SBDs went after other German shipping instead.


I was sure someone would write "the P-39s/47s/'cats/etc were built on the east coast."
That's because they have shorter range. 
So much for that joke.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 7, 2022)

The other thing that is against the F4U was that it didn't get into production soon enough.

While both the P-47 and the F4U had 3 factories tooled up not all factories were equal. Either in production or quality. Curtiss built P-47 weren't as bad as Brewster built F4Us but that leaves a lot of room.
By the end of 1943 the US had built about twice the number of P-47. 
By the time you get a large quantity of F4Us into Europe it would be well into 1944. 
Yes there were jobs the F4U could do very well, but in 1944 there were several alternatives already in place. 
The allies were starting to run out of runway space

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 7, 2022)

NevadaK said:


> So, uh hey yah. Getting back to the Corsair (BTW The P-51 and Corsair are my two favorite planes of the war - just a bit of fanboy for you) I came across this test between the P-51C (sounds like a birdcage canopy) and F4U-1. The conclusion is interesting.
> 
> Here is the link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf
> 
> ...


I remember seeing that test several years ago, I think it was 

 drgondog
who pointed out that all the pilots were Navy or Marine Corp F4U drivers and were perhaps a bit biased in their evaluation. Don't quote me on that though.

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


----------



## EwenS (Jan 7, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> The USN did have carriers operating near the ETO - up by Norway, the USS Ranger even tried to lure the Tirpitz out so she could unleash her SBDs on it, but the Kreigsmarine wasn't going for it, so the Ranger's SBDs went after other German shipping instead.


Ranger came to join the Home Fleet in late Aug 1943 to allow HMS Illustrious to go to the Med to replace the Indomitable which had been torpedoed in July and while the other Home Fleet Carrier, Furious, was refitting. She undertook two successful shipping strikes off Norway between 2-6 Oct 1943 sinking some 27,000grt of shipping and damaging another 19,000grt. She returned to the US at the beginning of Dec.

She did not go far enough north to have anything to do with Tirpitz nor Tirpitz with her (Russian convoys only began again in Nov). At the time of Ranger’s Norwegian air strikes, Tirpitz was lying immobile in Kaa Fjord. On 22nd Sept 1943 she had been successfully attacked in her lair by RN midget submarines and severely damaged. Repairs were not complete until April 1944.






Ranger IX (CV-4)


(CV-4: displacement 14,500; length 769'; beam 81'8




www.history.navy.mil












Operation Source - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org









Attack on the Tirpitz by Midget Submarines







www.kbismarck.com





Setting aside Atlantic CVE anti-submarine operations the only other offensive actions that I can think of in the Atlantic and Med theatres by US carriers were :
Wasp loaned to the RN to make 2 runs to ferry Spitfires to Malta April / May 1942
Operation Torch (Ranger, Sangamon, Suwannee, Santee plus Chenango as a ferry) Nov 1942
Operation Dragoon (Kasaan Bay and Tulagi) Aug 1944.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 7, 2022)

EwenS said:


> She did not go far enough north to have anything to do with Tirpitz nor Tirpitz with her (Russian convoys only began again in Nov). At the time of Ranger’s Norwegian air strikes, Tirpitz was lying immobile in Kaa Fjord.


A quote from Captain Rowe, Ranger's Commander:
_"on October 4 we spread panic and chaos in the Norwegian shipping lanes.
Only one thing we regret: We kept looking for the Tirpitz but either she wouldn't or couldn't come out"_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 7, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> I remember seeing that test several years ago, I think it was
> 
> drgondog
> who pointed out that all the pilots were Navy or Marine Corp F4U drivers and were perhaps a bit biased in their evaluation. Don't quote me on that though.


I did point that out. I may have also mentioned that the chances that USN would accept a.) In-line engine fighter with associatied coolant storage issues shipboard, and b.) and ARMY fighter, were infinitely small. After re-reading the flight test I noted that a.) the F4U flew without arresting gear and unclear whether P-51B-5 had external racks (which was standard delivery item - and no mention of removal in test), and b.) very high boost aided by WI was applied for top performance, along with sealing hinge lines for folding wing. I also noted that the 1650-3 was compared throughout, when the 1650-7 was being delivered - as well as 150 octane fuel - a MUCH better performer below 22K. In combat, roll is more important than turn, but even Dean shows the F4U-1D to be dead last in turn performance with the P-51D in the right/middle. Acceleration is always dependent on GW/Power but there again, the nature of the 1650-7 vs R-2800 power curve makes the comment 'F4U-1 accelerates faster" suspect to the altitude. Note top speeds obtained at Paxtuxent in same timeframe for F4U-1. I can't find One performance metric presented greater than average P-51B-10 with 1650-7 engine.

U.S. Naval Air Station
Patuxent River, Maryland
July 28, 1944
Model F4U-1 Airplane - Performance Characteristics of.
F4U-1 No. 02155



SUMMARY



Climb characteristics using best climbing speed, minimum cowl flap opening, and military rated power; (1)Rate of climb at sea level 2,890 fpm(2)Rate of climb at airplane critical altitude in neutral blower (700 ft.) 2,800 fpm(3)Rate of climb at airplane critical altitude in low blower (15,400 ft.) 2,300 fpm(4)Rate of climb at airplane critical altitude in high blower (21,200 ft.) 1,800 fpm(5)Service Ceiling (rate of climb - 100 fpm)38,200



Maximum true airspeed using military rated power; (1)At sea level348 mph(2)At airplane critical altitude in neutral blower (14,400 ft.)352 mph(3)At airplane critical altitude in low blower (17,800 ft.)390 mph(4)At airplane critical altitude in high blower (22,800 ft.)395 mph



F4U-1 No. 02155 Level Speed PerformanceF4U-1 No. 02155 Climb Performance

Very vague 'hocus pocus' with respect to comparisons. Simplified, it should have been conducted at Combat weight, combat conditions including guns/ammo and external racks (C/L for F4U-1 and wing pylons for P-51B). If fuel tangage was otherwise flown - the specific quantity of fuel at take off and fuel remaining during manuevers, including status of fuselage fuel tank. 

A Note for Patuxent River gathering Fall 1944. The P-51D was selected second "Best All Around Below 25,000" with , was second to P-47D for Best All Around Above 25,000 feet". The XF8F won but even the USN recognized the silliness of a prototype being in the conversation when XP-47J and XP-51G were not similarly considered. I would state without proof that a favorable report on P-51B vs F4U would not be a career enhancement gesture. Including inviting Eglin or Wright or NAA to pilot the P-51B and note GW/engine type/boost and presence/absence of wing racks..

Some interesting points (for me).
Persons evaluating F4U-1D Army 13, USN 4, RAF 3, Contractors 8
P-47D Army 1, USN14, RAF 4, Contractors 10
P-51D Army 1, USN 19, RAF 3, Contractors 15

For Best Overall Categories
*Voting - Army 6, USN 15, RAF 7, Contractors 20 * (Note: Contractor actuals Vought 16, Grumman 8, Lockheed 2 , Republic 5 , Bell 3 , NAA 2, Curtiss Wright 23 plus Goodyear, Northrup, DeHavilland, etc). USN/USMC attendees - 70 , Army 36, RAF/RN 13, NACA 4,

Best All-Around Above 25,000 Feet
P-47D 45%
P-51D 39%
F4U-4 7%
P-38L 2%
P-63B 0%
Best All_Around Below 25,000 feet
XF8F 30%
P-51D 29%
F4U-4 27%
P-38L 0%
P-63B 0%

The reason I mentioned the representative break outs is to point out that USN/USMC were dominantly highest % for both attendees and voting, and that NAA and Republic both had the fewest Contractor representation (2 each).

To those that still think F4U-4 and P-47D were believed to be better "roll performance" The Best Ailerons/roll > 300mph. I might add that both DF and Reverse Rudder Boost Tab was production article in D-5 #650 forward. The P-51B/C and early Ds were better roll performance.
P-51D 33%
F4U-4 20%
P-38L 19%
F6F-3 9%
XF8F 6%
P-47D 4%
P-63B 1%

Over the Fence, however, The P-51D-15 was ranked in tie for 5th with FM, Seafire at 5% for Roll Authority at 100mph
F6F-3 36%
F4U-4 12%
Seafire 12%
P-47D 6%

Francis Dean was the person selected to parse and capture the data for presentation and discussion.

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


----------



## NevadaK (Jan 7, 2022)

Thank you, drgondog.

Your expertise is without question. The only comment I would make is that the F4U set up without an arrestor hook and wing folding mechanisms matched the Marine's airframe configuration in the Pacific. 

Certainly pilot bias plays a part in any aircraft comparison. As someone who has a novice level of knowledge regarding these aircraft it always grabs my attention when a 1940's contemporary report seems to arrive at conclusions that differ from later narratives/conclusions.

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


----------



## pbehn (Jan 7, 2022)

drgondog said:


> I did point that out. I may have also mentioned that the chances that USN would accept a.) In-line engine fighter with associatied coolant storage issues shipboard, and b.) and ARMY fighter, were infinitely small. After re-reading the flight test I noted that a.) the F4U flew without arresting gear and unclear whether P-51B-5 had external racks (which was standard delivery item - and no mention of removal in test), and b.) very high boost aided by WI was applied for top performance, along with sealing hinge lines for folding wing. I also noted that the 1650-3 was compared throughout, when the 1650-7 was being delivered - as well as 150 octane fuel - a MUCH better performer below 22K. In combat, roll is more important than turn, but even Dean shows the F4U-1D to be dead last in turn performance with the P-51D in the right/middle. Acceleration is always dependent on GW/Power but there again, the nature of the 1650-7 vs R-2800 power curve makes the comment 'F4U-1 accelerates faster" suspect to the altitude. Note top speeds obtained at Paxtuxent in same timeframe for F4U-1. I can't find One performance metric presented greater than average P-51B-10 with 1650-7 engine.
> 
> U.S. Naval Air Station
> Patuxent River, Maryland
> ...


Its a pity those guys didnt have an internet forum, the discussion would have lasted years.

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 7, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> I think it was
> 
> drgondog
> 
> ...





drgondog said:


> I did point that out


I think the Navy evaluation and test of the Fw190 in 1944 was also somewhat "unscientific". 
As per this Link, Butcher Bird Hellcat & Corsair: A test pilot recalls - Flight Journal
The Focke-Wulf was assembled from a shipment of parts, and without the use of any manufacturer instructions or manuals...
"*There was no pilot's handbook—no manuals of any kind. This was a real credit to the mechanics who made a flyable airplane out of several crates of pieces*"
The author then concedes that the test probably wasn't truly reflective of the Fw 190's true performance....
"*I can't say that our maintenance of the Fw 190 adversely affected it, but there is a possibility that we didn't get the Fw 190's true peak performance because we weren't as familiar with it as we were with the F6F-3 and the F4U-1. This raises a number of "What ifs?" What if our assignment had been to make an interceptor comparison? What if we had tested it with German pilots who were as well trained in it as we were in our planes?*"
Considering that the Fw 190 in the test, that probably wasn't in perfectly serviceable condition, and flown by pilots almost completely unfamiliar with the type, still out-ran, out-rolled (sort of), and out-climbed both the F6F and F4U, yet the Navy still came to conclusion that the Fw 190 was "*not equal to the F4U-1 or F6F-3 in combat*."

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 7, 2022)

Reading Allied pilot reports on their combat encounter with the Fw190 is a far more accurate indication of what it was capable of than captured evaluations, charts/graphs and such.

It took a great deal of time and effort by the Allies to come up with something that could match or best it, and even then, it was down to pilot versus pilot as to the outcome of an encounter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 7, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Reading Allied pilot reports on their combat encounter with the Fw190 is a far more accurate indication of what it was capable of than captured evaluations, charts/graphs and such.


I would agree to a point, but anecdotal evidence is usually considered the worst kind of evidence.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 7, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I would agree to a point, but anecdotal evidence is usually considered the worst kind of evidence.


Mission reports weren't usually considered anecdotal.

If a mission report states that a flight of Spitfires were bounced at X location, X altitude by a flight of Fw190s and one of the Fw190s was downed for the cost of two Spitfires lost, that pretty much goes beyond a chart.

A test is conducted under a controlled situation by a test pilot - a combat encounter is conducted under variable conditions with variable weather.
Each pilot in the opposing groups has a different level of experience, each aircraft has a different level of mechanical fitness and each aircraft has a variable loadout of fuel, ammunition, etc.


----------



## NevadaK (Jan 9, 2022)

Greetings All,

A quick question: Does anyone have access to the Society of Experimental Test Pilots ("Flight Test Comparison — Ending the Argument" by John M. Ellis III and Christopher A. Wheal)

Here's a screen shot of the front page. Not interested in extending the never-ending thread. Just curious to read it. I have also seen the Air Zoo planes in person.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 9, 2022)

There may be links to the article either further back in thread or in another old thread.

I know I have read it on line and I believe it was either copied here or linked here.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 9, 2022)

NevadaK said:


> Greetings All,
> 
> A quick question: Does anyone have access to the Society of Experimental Test Pilots ("Flight Test Comparison — Ending the Argument" by John M. Ellis III and Christopher A. Wheal)
> 
> ...


I've read it - and suspect that one key feature of WWII Combat Mustangs (B/D) was not used for this test. Mustang Roll rate and stick force was described as heavy at high speed. All B/D Mustangs had 10/12/15 degree rigging and left the factory with 15 degrees. The warbird community is largely unaware and when asked, every one I have talked to about 15 degrees are actually surprised - replying that every Mustang they have flown are rigged for 10 degrees - which is no different from A-36 or P-51A. In fact a P-51A is more agile in both roll and turn because they are no equipped with reverse rudder boost tab or DF - and the B/D is heavier.

ALL WWII P-51B/D pilots will tell you that roll characteristics of their airframe were suprior to any comparable a/c save the Fw 190 and was better than 190 at or greater than 300 mph TAS. Army filight tests also indicated that characteristic, but noted that the P-40 for example, rolled slightly faster at lower airspeeds.

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


----------



## NevadaK (Jan 9, 2022)

drgondog said:


> I've read it - and suspect that one key feature of WWII Combat Mustangs (B/D) was not used for this test. Mustang Roll rate and stick force was described as heavy at high speed. All B/D Mustangs had 10/12/15 degree rigging and left the factory with 15 degrees. The warbird community is largely unaware and when asked, every one I have talked to about 15 degrees are actually surprised - replying that every Mustang they have flown are rigged for 10 degrees - which is no different from A-36 or P-51A. In fact a P-51A is more agile in both roll and turn because they are no equipped with reverse rudder boost tab or DF - and the B/D is heavier.
> 
> ALL WWII P-51B/D pilots will tell you that roll characteristics of their airframe were suprior to any comparable a/c save the Fw 190 and was better than 190 at or greater than 300 mph TAS. Army filight tests also indicated that characteristic, but noted that the P-40 for example, rolled slightly faster at lower airspeeds.


Thanks drgondog.

It really was out of curiosity rather than looking to extend this thread. TBH, I started googling roll rates for WW2 fighters in CW and CCW directions to see how they differed accounting for torque. Somewhere in this thread it was mentioned that the Corsair was hard to roll in the counter-torque direction and I started to wondering what that actually was. I came across this article and was unable to access it. I also suspect that this test being conducted with what would be 40 year old aircraft in 1988/89 would not be fully representative of how testing would have been conducted in 1944/45.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jan 9, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> There may be links to the article either further back in thread or in another old thread.
> 
> I know I have read it on line and I believe it was either copied here or linked here.


Thank you, Shortround6.

A quick search located the thread, with uploaded text, here: Ending the Argument

It is an interesting read. The conclusion is interesting as well. It reminds me of a day back in the 60's when my father and a neighbor were "debating" Mustang (Ford not NAA) vs Camaro next to their cars in the front yard. I think they are still debating.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 9, 2022)

NevadaK said:


> Thank you, Shortround6.
> 
> A quick search located the thread, with uploaded text, here: Ending the Argument
> 
> It is an interesting read. The conclusion is interesting as well. It reminds me of a day back in the 60's when my father and a neighbor were "debating" Mustang (Ford not NAA) vs Camaro next to their cars in the front yard. I think they are still debating.


A lot of people want a clear "winner" in these sorts of comparisons, but such a victor usually doesn't exist and Internet (and pre-Internet) discussion frequently goes down to the level a third grader (about 8 to those unfamiliar with US schools) would find embarrassingly puerile. 

While the F4U was not involved in much, if any, fighter-vs-fighter combat in Europe, its use would be restricted as a) it did not have high-altitude performance equal to the P-51 or the P-47 and b) it did not seem to have the useful combat range _in European conditions_ to serve in the heavy bomber escort role. The idea that it _couldn't_ be used because it would be dominated by _Luftwaffe_ aircraft below 25,000 ft is, however, contradicted by all the evidence comparing its performance with aircraft that were demonstrably successful against the FW190 and Bf109 _in combat_, that is the P-51, P-47, Spitfire, P-39, Typhoon, etc. _Luftwaffe _pilots would neither chortle with glee nor soil their pants seeing a Corsair. They may be surprised, as most would never have seen one before and it's not unlikely they would have little information about the aircraft.

Obviously, no comparative flight test can be perfect, especially when the comparison is against enemy aircraft, as things like flight and maintenance manuals aren't likely to be available, but there isn't a better alternative. 

It is incontestable that the Corsair was a remarkably successful and long-lived combat aircraft, and one which could fight with _any_ contemporary piston-engined fighter on equal terms. That it didn't in Europe only shows that it wasn't there, not that it couldn't.

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


----------



## 33k in the air (Jan 9, 2022)

swampyankee said:


> It is incontestable that the Corsair was a remarkably successful and long-lived combat aircraft, and one which could fight with _any_ contemporary piston-engined fighter on equal terms. That it didn't in Europe only shows that it wasn't there, not that it couldn't.



The reason it wasn't there was because it was a Navy aircraft, and the Army wasn't going to use a Navy aircraft if it could avoid it.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 9, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> The reason it wasn't there was because it was a Navy aircraft, and the Army wasn't going to use a Navy aircraft if it could avoid it.


...yet at least one Navy aircraft was used by the USAAF in combat during WW2, the SBD. The BF2C (A-25) was close, but missed. The PBY (OA-10) was used by the USAAF for SAR.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 9, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> The reason it wasn't there was because it was a Navy aircraft, and the Army wasn't going to use a Navy aircraft if it could avoid it.


While mostly true, the real reason is simply there weren't enough Corsairs to meet all the USN/Lend Lease Comitments - even if Army wanted them in 1943 when they could properly be vetted.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 9, 2022)

drgondog said:


> While mostly true, the real reason is simply there weren't enough Corsairs to meet all the USN/Lend Lease Comitments - even if Army wanted them in 1943 when they could properly be vetted.


AHT says just under 2300 F4Us built in 1943 while about 1700 P-51s were built, Plus just over 4400 P-47s, Plus just under 2500 P-38s. 

Now throw in 4950 or so P-39s and about 4250 P-40s. all figures just for 1943 production. 
The F4U might be nice to have but as Drgondog says the Navy and British comments don't leave much for experiments in deployment and F4U doesn't fulfil any holes (or much of one) in the US army deployments either in 1943 or most of 1944. 
Or reverse it. What US Army fighters could the Army swap for F4Us in the Marine and Navy deployments? The Navy/Marines are unlikely to swap 3/4 Corsair fighter groups for 3/4 P-39/P-40 groups. The Army is unlikely to swap P-38s/P-47s and P-51s for F4Us.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 9, 2022)

The FAA ended up with about one out of every six F4Us built - that wouldn't leave many for the USAF, if they had wanted it.

As it happens, the USAF operated more Navy-ordered types than the other way around.

In addition to the above mentioned PBY and SBD, the USAF also operated the JRF (OA-9), J2F (OA-12), J4F (OA-14), PV-1/2 (B-34 for ASW and B-37 for training).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Jan 9, 2022)

swampyankee said:


> ...yet at least one Navy aircraft was used by the USAAF in combat during WW2, the SBD. The BF2C (A-25) was close, but missed. The PBY (OA-10) was used by the USAAF for SAR.



Interestingly, the Navy and Army were both originally backing the development of the F7F, known to the Army as the P-65. But as each service had some differing requirements, satisfying both would have been difficult, and the Army dropped out in January 1942, leaving the Tigercat to the Navy.


----------



## EwenS (Jan 10, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> The FAA ended up with about one out of every six F4Us built - that wouldn't leave many for the USAF, if they had wanted it.
> 
> As it happens, the USAF operated more Navy-ordered types than the other way around.
> 
> In addition to the above mentioned PBY and SBD, the USAF also operated the JRF (OA-9), J2F (OA-12), J4F (OA-14), PV-1/2 (B-34 for ASW and B-37 for training).


 
The B-34 designation was first given to Lockheed Venturas ordered under Lend Lease contracts, initially intended for Britain. On the outbreak of war with Japan many of these were delivered to the USAAF instead. The last 27 of these went to the USN in Oct 1942 as the PV-3. The USAAF had also placed orders for another 550 as the O-56 later redesignated the B-37.

Then in early 1942 the USAAF and USN were arguing about who should be responsible for airborne ASW operations. This was settled in June 1942. The result was a reshuffling of aircraft orders including the B-37 Ventura order. After 18 B-37 were built for the USAAF the rest of the order was turned over to the USN and built as PV-1 from late 1942.

So no the PV-1/2 did not begin life as a USN type.

In exchange the USN gave up procurement of the Boeing PBB-1 Sea Ranger and handed the Boeing Renton factory over to B-29 production for the USAAF.

I’ve not sat down and added up which service provided most types to the other but it must have been fairly close given that the USN (incl the USMC) used most of the USAAF bomber types including the B-17, B-24, B-25 and B-26 as well as transport types and trainers.

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


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 10, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Considering that the Fw 190 in the test, that probably wasn't in perfectly serviceable condition, and flown by pilots almost completely unfamiliar with the type, still out-ran, out-rolled (sort of), and out-climbed both the F6F and F4U, yet the Navy still came to conclusion that the Fw 190 was "*not equal to the F4U-1 or F6F-3 in combat*."


 Your statement is too generalized and must be broken down into specific circumstances. During the tests the FW 190 was actually slower than the F4U-1 below 15,000 feet. Furthermore, the climb rates were compared at the "best climbing speeds" as this is optimum for each specific aircraft under test. Both US Navy aircraft had a lower "best climbing speed" than the German fighter. At these speeds the F4U climbed better than the FW 190 up to 20,000 feet and the F6F was similar in climb below 15,000 feet. Most data that I've seen shows the three aircraft taking a similar amount of time to reach 20,000 feet (8 - 8.5 minutes without WEP) with the Corsair and Hellcat climbing at a steeper angle of climb and the FW 190 at a faster climbing speed so this makes perfect sense to me. 

In regards to roll the report said the F4U and FW 190 were about equal.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 10, 2022)

Great photo of FW 190A-5 used during testing.






(source: Focke-Wulf Fw 190: The Butcher Bird of WWII )

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 10, 2022)

DarrenW said:


> Great photo of FW 190A-5 used during testing


Was the aircraft in the Navy test actually an A5 variant? The report only says it was a "FW-190-A/4" and was a "converted fighter-bomber, and was not the standard fighter version"

Edit: Perhaps it was in fact an A-5/U4?

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 10, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Was the aircraft in the Navy test actually an A5 variant? The report only says it was a "FW-190-A/4" and was a "converted fighter-bomber, and was not the standard fighter version"
> 
> Edit: Perhaps it was in fact an A-5/U4?




That's what I've read in various forums and research papers. Probably more likely a U3 variant as the U4 was a reconnaissance fighter with cameras. The Wikipedia article on the FW 190 stated it was _Werknummer_ 150 051:









Focke-Wulf Fw 190 - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 10, 2022)

DarrenW said:


> Both US Navy aircraft had a lower "best climbing speed" than the German fighter. At these speeds the F4U climbed better than the FW 190 up to 20,000 feet and the F6F was similar in climb below 15,000 feet. Most data that I've seen shows the three aircraft taking a similar amount of time to reach 20,000 feet (8 - 8.5 minutes without WEP) with the Corsair and Hellcat climbing at a steeper angle of climb and the FW 190 at a faster climbing speed so this makes perfect sense to me.


I do not doubt the experiences of the Navy test pilots, I just suspect that the Fw190 either wasn't performing properly, or wasn't operated at maximum performance due to unfamiliarity with the type, or a combination of the two factors. 
Interesting to note, that when the RAF miraculously secured Faber's Fw190A-3 in June 1942, the AFDU report regarding the relative climbing performance of the captured type and a Spitfire Mk.VB (which was no slouch in the climbing department) was as such: 
"*The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450ft/min better up to 25,000ft. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it*"

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 10, 2022)

They then tested the same captured Fw 190 against a brand new Spitfire IX pulled from No64 squadron in July of 1942. Again, keeping in mind that the Mk IX Spitfire was an excellent climbing aircraft, by most accounts.
"*During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 feet, with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire IX was slightly better. Above 22,000 feet the climb of the Fw 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing. When both aircraft were flying at high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw 190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from a dive. It must be appreciated that the differences between the two aircraft are only slight and that in actual combat the advantage in climb will be with the aircraft that has the initiative*." 

Of course the performance of both the Mk.V and IX would only increase (As would the Fw 190), with increases in boost pressure periodically throughout the remainder of the war, but it is still somewhat surprising how well matched the Fw 190 was with the Mk IX with respect to climb performance.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 10, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I do not doubt the experiences of the Navy test pilots, I just suspect that the Fw190 either wasn't performing properly, or wasn't operated at maximum performance due to unfamiliarity with the type, or a combination of the two factors.
> Interesting to note, that when the RAF miraculously secured Faber's Fw190A-3 in June 1942, the AFDU report regarding the relative climbing performance of the captured type and a Spitfire Mk.VB (which was no slouch in the climbing department) was as such:
> "*The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450ft/min better up to 25,000ft. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it*"


I don't have this report but would love to read it. What were the loaded weights of each aircraft, were they close to what was considered a normal loaded fighter? If not that would affect climb performance.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 10, 2022)

DarrenW said:


> I don't have this report but would love to read it. What were the loaded weights of each aircraft, were they close to what was considered a normal loaded fighter? If not that would affect climb performance.


I have no idea what the loaded weights of the respective aircraft were, but the report does mention that both Spitfire types were representative of operational types, as both were pulled from operational units for the purposes of the trial. At least as per "Spitfire: A complete fighting history" by Alfred Price, which was my source. The RAF was desperate to know the _true_ capabilities of the new German fighter, so I suspect they tested the Fw 190 exactly as they received it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 10, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> They then tested the same captured Fw 190 against a brand new Spitfire IX pulled from No64 squadron in July of 1942. Again, keeping in mind that the Mk IX Spitfire was an excellent climbing aircraft, by most accounts.
> "*During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 feet, with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire IX was slightly better. Above 22,000 feet the climb of the Fw 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing. When both aircraft were flying at high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw 190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from a dive. It must be appreciated that the differences between the two aircraft are only slight and that in actual combat the advantage in climb will be with the aircraft that has the initiative*."
> 
> Of course the performance of both the Mk.V and IX would only increase (As would the Fw 190), with increases in boost pressure periodically throughout the remainder of the war, but it is still somewhat surprising how well matched the Fw 190 was with the Mk IX with respect to climb performance.


Did the Spitfire have a Mark 61 or a later engine? This affects authorized boost considerably. And from what I understand the FW 190 was running in an over-boosted state through some of the testing (1.42 ata) which is higher than authorized for the A-3 when flown by Faber.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 10, 2022)

Here she is, after the comparative trials, in August 1942.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 10, 2022)

DarrenW said:


> Did the Spitfire have a Mark 61 or a later engine?


A Merlin 61, as per the book, no idea of boost pressures for either aircraft.


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 10, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> A Merlin 61, as per the book, no idea of boost pressures for either aircraft.
> 
> View attachment 654191


Thank you


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 10, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> Interestingly, the Navy and Army were both originally backing the development of the F7F, known to the Army as the P-65. But as each service had some differing requirements, satisfying both would have been difficult, and the Army dropped out in January 1942, leaving the Tigercat to the Navy.


A night fighter version of the F7F/P-65 would be an interesting alternative to the P-61...

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


----------



## EwenS (Jan 10, 2022)

swampyankee said:


> A night fighter version of the F7F/P-65 would be an interesting alternative to the P-61...


The F7F-2N night fighter reached the first USMC squadron on Okinawa just ascthecwar was sending. The F7F-3N sawcservicevin Korea.


----------



## 33k in the air (Jan 10, 2022)

swampyankee said:


> A night fighter version of the F7F/P-65 would be an interesting alternative to the P-61...



The F7F-1 was turned into the F7F-1N with a radar installed in the nose. The F7F-2N added a dedicated radar operator. Under military power, the F7F-2N reached a maximum of 353 MPH at sea level and 411 MPH at 22,700 feet. With full combat power, the maximums were 362 MPH at sea level and 421 MPH at 20,600 feet.


----------



## Schweik (Jan 10, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I am not sure those tests represent a later war Mk.V with clipped wings, cropped supercharger and increased boost. They were little rocket ships down low, with similar power output but without the weight penalty of the Mk.IX



They were great down low, but they needed the higher altitude (or high-medium) performance to tangle with 109s


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Jan 13, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> AHT says just under 2300 F4Us built in 1943 while about 1700 P-51s were built, Plus just over 4400 P-47s, Plus just under 2500 P-38s.


I think the P-38 figure includes the reconnaissance versions, 1943 production 570 P-38G, 601 H, 1,041 J, 1 K, total 2,213 plus 84 F-5A, and 200 F-5B. The British normally counted reconnaissance Mosquito and Spitfire as fighters in the official figures.


EwenS said:


> The B-34 designation was first given to Lockheed Venturas ordered under Lend Lease contracts, initially intended for Britain. On the outbreak of war with Japan many of these were delivered to the USAAF instead. The last 27 of these went to the USN in Oct 1942 as the PV-3. The USAAF had also placed orders for another 550 as the O-56 later redesignated the B-37.
> 
> Then in early 1942 the USAAF and USN were arguing about who should be responsible for airborne ASW operations. This was settled in June 1942. The result was a reshuffling of aircraft orders including the B-37 Ventura order. After 18 B-37 were built for the USAAF the rest of the order was turned over to the USN and built as PV-1 from late 1942.
> 
> ...


According to the USN, in terms of new production, 

Army for Navy
1940, 1 VA (A-20A/BD-1), 8 Transport and Utility, 3 trainer, total 12
1941, 23 Transport and Utility, 597 trainer, total 620
1942, 141 VP, 8 VA, 130 Transport and Utility, 3,392 trainer, 30 glider, total 3,701
1943, 497 VP, 1 VF (P-51 in May, #57987, Case #267 assigned to Navy 17 May 1943 by Munitions Aer-PL-630VS Assign. Board), 48 VO-VS, 525 Transport and Utility, 5,157 trainer, 26 glider, 3 helicopter, total 6,257
1944, 999 VP, 410 VA (SB2C-1A/RA-25A), 66 VO-VS, 705 Transport and Utility, 1,753 trainer, 352 special purpose, 32 glider, 22 helicopter, total 4,339
1945, 156 VP, 192 VO-VS, 445 Transport and Utility, 455 trainer, 576 special purpose, 33 helicopter, total 1,857
1946, 35 Transport and Utility (JD-1/A-26C, target tow), 272 special purpose (TD2C-1/PQ-14A), 6 helicopter, total 313.

Navy for Army, extracted from the Navy for Others section,
1941, 78 VA (RA-24/SBD-3A)
1942, 27 PBY-5 exchanged for 27 PV-1 received from Army and converted by Navy to PV-3 (Div. U.K A-1748, D.A.C. 152, C-91876), 185 VA (90 RA-24/SBD-3A, 95 RA-24A/SBD-4A) 5 Transport and Utility (JRF-5/OA-9), total 218. Curtiss St. Louis Plant taken over by Army as of 1 March 1943, dropped from Navy records (A-25). (J4F-2/OA-14 production reported as 12 for Portugal, 14 for Brazil).
1943, 4 VP (OA-10B, Canso A from Vickers), 75 VA (RA-24A/SBD-4A), total 79
1944, 202 VP (201 OA-10B, Canso A from Vickers, 1 PB2B-2)
1945 5 VP (PB2B-2), 1 Transport and Utility (JRF-5)

So all 900 SB2C-1A/A-25A were officially USAAF as paid for, with the last 410 Army for Navy, rather ironic. The 615 SBD-5A/A-24B were also a USAAF order. Other naval types in the USAAF were transfers.

Officially all Lockheed Model 37/Ventura II/B-34/PV-1 from December 1942 onwards were accepted as PV-1, the USAAF says
188 Model 37/Ventura I (September 1941 to April 1942), 
112 Model 37/Ventura II, (April to June 1942), 9 accepted for USAAF (April 1942)
375 Model 37/Ventura II (May to September 1942), 242 accepted for USAAF (May to September 1942), 30 USN (June to September 1942, 103 Britain (May to September 1942)
200 B-34 September to November 1942), 112 delivered for USAAF, 20 for Australia, 45 for Britain, 23 for New Zealand.

However, of the 875 aircraft involved, 348 delivered to USAAF, 30 USN, 20 Australia, 454 Britain, 23 New Zealand, slightly different to acceptances.

18 B-37 (January to April 1943), 
1,600 PV-1 (December 1942 to May 1944)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 13, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Considering that the Fw 190 in the test, that probably wasn't in perfectly serviceable condition....



Many have commented on the less than pristine condition of the FW 190 but fail to mention that the F4U wasn't operating as efficiently as it would have under different circumstances. Here's an excerpt from the report that clearly indicates this:

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 13, 2022)

DarrenW said:


> Many have commented on the less than pristine condition of the FW 190 but fail to mention that the F4U wasn't operating as efficiently as it would have under different circumstances. Here's an excerpt from the report that clearly indicates this


Good point. 
Makes me wonder what the intention of the test really was, with at least 2 of the 3 aircraft not performing correctly. I think the conclusions about roll rate are somewhat dubious as well.
The Navy "Final Flight Report" on the F4U-1 gives the Corsair a maximum roll rate of around 84 degrees per second (at 200KIAS)





While the oft quoted NACA chart gives the Fw 190 (no idea what model) a maximum roll rate of more than 160 degrees per second (at 255mph/221KIAS)






Yet, the comparative trials report rates the F4U and Fw 190 as "about equal" in roll.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 13, 2022)

If this was the Navy's test that included the F6F-3 along with the F4U-1, than it was an Fw190A-5.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 13, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Good point.
> Makes me wonder what the intention of the test really was, with at least 2 of the 3 aircraft not performing correctly. I think the conclusions about roll rate are somewhat dubious as well.
> The Navy "Final Flight Report" on the F4U-1 gives the Corsair a maximum roll rate of around 84 degrees per second (at 200KIAS)
> View attachment 654536
> ...


The only way we can honestly compare roll rates is when we test aircraft under the same set of parameters. The FW 190 was tested at a much higher altitude where there is normally less aerodynamic damping (so less retarding of motion). What were the stick forces used during the F4U-1D testing? Were they 30 or 50 lbs? These sorts of things have a great effect on roll rates.

Here are turn rates for an FG-1A (a Goodyear built F4U-!A ). Notice that stick forces were roughly half of what was used during the testing of the FW 190. Knowing this it wouldn't be hard to understand why it came up short when we compare it side by side with the German fighter:


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 13, 2022)

DarrenW said:


> Notice that stick forces were roughly half of what was used during the testing of the FW 190


It also states that the force used was required to fully defect the ailerons. If the ailerons are on the stops, using more force wont help.
For example, at 280mph, they needed 38 pounds of force to fully deflect the control surface, and got 92 degrees per second. If they had used 50, or 100 pounds of force, they still would have gotten 92 degrees, and sore arms/shoulders.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 13, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> It also states that the force used was required to fully defect the ailerons. If the ailerons are on the stops, using more force wont help.


True, but the FW 190 needs be tested with the same stick forces to make a relevant comparison. Apparently all the aircraft in the NACA chart were calculated with the same 50 lbs of stick force from 160 to 390 mph. I don't see the F4U-1 having less aileron deflection than those specified in the chart.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 13, 2022)

DarrenW said:


> True, but the FW 190 needs be tested with the same stick forces to make a relevant comparison


I agree, but testing aircraft roll rate without getting full aileron deflection is pointless. An F4U at 250 mph getting 90 degrees per second with 40 pounds force, is getting full deflection. An Fw 190 at 250 mph getting 160 degrees per second with 50 pounds of force is getting full deflection. They are a relevant comparison, as they are both getting their maximum rate of roll. I assume NACA used the value of 50 pounds as a simple control, as that would get full deflection from all the aircraft, within the speed range. All handling reports on the Fw 190 I have read all claim the Fw 190 had excellent control harmonization and superb aileron control, so I assume the Focke-Wulf probably achieved maximum deflection at a lower force than 50 pounds, at least at 250 mph. Perhaps not as low as the F4U, and almost certainly not as low as the F4U-4, which I believe had boosted controls.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 13, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I agree, but testing aircraft roll rate without getting full aileron deflection is pointless. An F4U at 250 mph getting 90 degrees per second with 40 pounds force, is getting full deflection. An Fw 190 at 250 mph getting 160 degrees per second with 50 pounds of force is getting full deflection. They are a relevant comparison, as they are both getting their maximum rate of roll. I assume NACA used the value of 50 pounds as a simple control, as that would get full deflection from all the aircraft, within the speed range. All handling reports on the Fw 190 I have read all claim the Fw 190 had excellent control harmonization and superb aileron control, so I assume the Focke-Wulf probably achieved maximum deflection at a lower force than 50 pounds, at least at 250 mph. Perhaps not as low as the F4U, and almost certainly not as low as the F4U-4, which I believe had boosted controls


I don't think it was in the best interests of the US Navy to distort the results of the test, i.e. how the two aircraft compared in roll rate. I'm sure there are people out there just like you who feel otherwise.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 13, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Good point.
> Makes me wonder what the intention of the test really was, with at least 2 of the 3 aircraft not performing correctly. I think the conclusions about roll rate are somewhat dubious as well.
> The Navy "Final Flight Report" on the F4U-1 gives the Corsair a maximum roll rate of around 84 degrees per second (at 200KIAS)
> View attachment 654536
> ...


Recall that these are Calculated Roll Rate comparisons..


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 13, 2022)

DarrenW said:


> I don't think it was in the best interests of the US Navy to distort the results of the test


I don't think the Navy intentional distorted the results, I just think the Fw 190, as-tested, probably wasn't reflective of a serviceable front line fighter in 1944. The Navy probably didn't really care at that point anyway, because by 1944 the chances of a USN F4U or F6F meeting a Fw 190 in combat were pretty small.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 14, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The Navy probably didn't really care at that point anyway, because by 1944 the chances of a USN F4U or F6F meeting a Fw 190 in combat were pretty small.


In hindsight yes, but when these tests were conducted there were still many obstacles to an eventual allied victory in Europe. In addition the US was willing to share this data with the British FAA whose Hellcats and Corsairs engaged German forces as early as the Spring of 1944.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 14, 2022)

DarrenW said:


> In hindsight yes, but when these tests were conducted there were still many obstacles to an eventual allied victory in Europe. In addition the US was willing to share this data with the British FAA whose Hellcats and Corsairs engaged German forces as early as the Spring of 1944.


Interesting that the FAA didn't request the captured Faber Fw 190 for evaluation, as it would have been available fully 2 years prior. Or perhaps they did, and the results of which are lost to history.
Either way, it seems that the Faber 190 was scrapped in September 1943, so it was turned into bully beef tins before the Royal Navy received any F4U or F6F's


----------



## EwenS (Jan 15, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Interesting that the FAA didn't request the captured Faber Fw 190 for evaluation, as it would have been available fully 2 years prior. Or perhaps they did, and the results of which are lost to history.
> Either way, it seems that the Faber 190 was scrapped in September 1943, so it was turned into bully beef tins before the Royal Navy received any F4U or F6F's


Why do you think that the FAA wouldn’t have obtained that information in 1942?

In Britain things were organised differently. There was not the same inter-service rivalry as between the USAAF and USN for historical reasons. So we had bodies like the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) at Farnborough and the Aircraft & Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE) down the road at Boscombe Down that employed pilots from all services and other personnel. That was then used for the good of the RAF and the FAA.

The RAF also had the Air Fighting Development Unit to develop air tactics and test captured enemy aircraft. From 1941 there was a co-located Naval Air Fighting Development Unit / 787 squadron. And there was also 1426 Flight, which took captured enemy aircraft around the country to demonstrate them to RAF/FAA units.








Air Fighting Development Unit RAF - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org












No. 1426 Flight RAF - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org





NAFDU/787 squadron operated all the types in FAA service and many other RAF types. It had F6F-3 Hellcats on its books from May 1943 (the first operational FAA squadrons received theirs in Northern Ireland in June and July 1943) and F4U Corsair Mk.I from July 1943 (the first operational FAA squadrons with Corsairs formed in the US at the beginning of June 1943).

The Faber Fw190A-3 began its RAF life at the RAE before being passed to the AFDU. 








Armin Faber - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org





But it was not the only one captured and tested. Eric Brown recalls that he first flew a Fw190A-4/U8 (RAF serial PE882) in Feb 1944 while at the RAE. It had landed at West Malling in southern England in April 1943 and was flown until w/o in Oct 1944.

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 15, 2022)

EwenS said:


> But it was not the only one captured and tested


Interesting, thank you for the additional clarification. 
My suggestion about the Faber 109A-3 was based on the fact that it was the only fighter varient Fw 190 to be captured and evaluated by the western allies, the rest being configured as fighter-bombers. Or so Wikipedia would have me believe.
Are you aware if the NAFDU ever tested the Faber aircraft against FAA Hellcats or Corsairs?


----------



## NevadaK (Jan 16, 2022)

Here is a question for this thread. A number of aircraft comparative tests have been cited and a common response is that the "losing" aircraft wasn't being flown in its best configuration or performance. 

My question is: What is the expected variance in performance from specifications for aircraft in use in the field? 

For instance, if we have five F4U would we see a 5% variation in top speed and climb? Would there be variations in roll rates? Thinking about the different flight test comparisons, would this translate to an expected variation in the tested aircraft? The FW-190 test is a good example where a common comment is that the FW-190 was underperforming, but would this variance actually fall within what would be expected in the field.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2022)

NevadaK said:


> Here is a question for this thread. A number of aircraft comparative tests have been cited and a common response is that the "losing" aircraft wasn't being flown in its best configuration or performance.
> 
> My question is: What is the expected variance in performance from specifications for aircraft in use in the field?
> 
> For instance, if we have five F4U would we see a 5% variation in top speed and climb? Would there be variations in roll rates? Thinking about the different flight test comparisons, would this translate to an expected variation in the tested aircraft? The FW-190 test is a good example where a common comment is that the FW-190 was underperforming, but would this variance actually fall within what would be expected in the field.


IIRC from the factory a 3% performance variance was the requirement, I'm not 100% sure about this. (US manufacturers)


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 16, 2022)

NevadaK said:


> Here is a question for this thread. A number of aircraft comparative tests have been cited and a common response is that the "losing" aircraft wasn't being flown in its best configuration or performance.
> 
> My question is: What is the expected variance in performance from specifications for aircraft in use in the field?
> 
> For instance, if we have five F4U would we see a 5% variation in top speed and climb? Would there be variations in roll rates? Thinking about the different flight test comparisons, would this translate to an expected variation in the tested aircraft? The FW-190 test is a good example where a common comment is that the FW-190 was underperforming, but would this variance actually fall within what would be expected in the field.


I believe (and contracts could be different) around 3% was the usual tolerance. If the plane doesn't meet that figure on an acceptance flight it needs to be reworked and test again.
Sometimes there were penalties, plane would be accepted but so much for every MPH or KPH off the specified speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jan 16, 2022)

Thank you, Shortround6 and FlyboyJ. 

If 3% from the manufacturer would you expect this variance to increase after some time spent in the field, or do you think this could be maintained throughout the aircrafts expected life?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2022)

NevadaK said:


> Thank you, Shortround6 and FlyboyJ.
> 
> If 3% from the manufacturer would you expect this variance to increase after some time spent in the field, or do you think this could be maintained throughout the aircrafts expected life?


I think so but a few things to consider...

Aircraft are not hand built (as some may believe). Major sub assemblies are built in jigs and fixtures and sometimes there may be multiple jigs and fixtures to support production demands. As long as the tooling is maintained and there is little to no difference between individual jig units, I believe this tolerance can (actually was) maintained.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 16, 2022)

It some case the planes were noted in test results as having poor or worn finish. And if this was at a test center than planes in the field could be all over the place. 

The ground crew would do what they could depending on weather and supplies and sortie rate (flying every day isn't easy to keep up a good finish when you are trying to take of mechanicals.) If the Crew has a day or two off when the mechanicals are good and the weather at the field isn't too bad (even though not for good flying) then some paint work or fill work or a little hammering out of the dents may be done.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 16, 2022)

NevadaK said:


> Here is a question for this thread. A number of aircraft comparative tests have been cited and a common response is that the "losing" aircraft wasn't being flown in its best configuration or performance.
> 
> My question is: What is the expected variance in performance from specifications for aircraft in use in the field?
> 
> For instance, if we have five F4U would we see a 5% variation in top speed and climb? Would there be variations in roll rates? Thinking about the different flight test comparisons, would this translate to an expected variation in the tested aircraft? The FW-190 test is a good example where a common comment is that the FW-190 was underperforming, but would this variance actually fall within what would be expected in the field.


Roll rate is difficult to test. The biggest cause of variance in roll rate on planes of the same type is the size, build and strength of the pilots themselves, especially on planes like the Bf109, the cockpit is so cramped a big guy cant exert the same leverage as a small but stocky guy.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## emu27 (Jan 17, 2022)

> Range increases to 1500 nautical miles max with just one 150 external fuel tank. They could carry two of this


Not is all as it may seem. The aircraft with the one tank option had a tank in each wing carrying 63USG each, 237USG in the main, 170USG in the single drop tank, making for a total 533USG.

Aircraft that could carry two drop tanks had the wing tanks deleted, so they carried 237USG in the main and 170USG in each drop tank, total 577USG. A unknown portion of that extra 44USG would have been burnt overcoming the extra parasitic drag of the extra drop tank.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 17, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Then what am I going to do with this box of Purina Groundhog Chow?



Makes a good addition to casserole...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 17, 2022)

Make sure you use lots of cream of mushroom soup.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 17, 2022)

emu27 said:


> Not is all as it may seem. The aircraft with the one tank option had a tank in each wing carrying 63USG each, 237USG in the main, 170USG in the single drop tank, making for a total 533USG.
> 
> Aircraft that could carry two drop tanks had the wing tanks deleted, so they carried 237USG in the main and 170USG in each drop tank, total 577USG. *A unknown portion of that extra 44USG would have been burnt overcoming the extra parasitic drag of the extra drop tank.*


Although that makes sense but wouldn't that have been built into the charts found in the flight manual? How did you come up with 44 USG for parasitic drag?


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 17, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Make sure you use lots of cream of mushroom soup.



Ooo, handy tip... Thanks man!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 17, 2022)

Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> However, of the 875 aircraft involved, 348 delivered to USAAF, 30 USN, 20 Australia, 454 Britain, 23 New Zealand, slightly different to acceptances.
> 
> 18 B-37 (January to April 1943),
> 1,600 PV-1 (December 1942 to May 1944)



It's worth mentioning at this juncture that the Ventura was designed by Lockheed for a British requirement and was subsequently adopted by the US armed services, as was the Hudson, whose design process began before the outbreak of WW2.

The Ventura was based on the Lockheed 18 Lodestar airframe as the Hudson was the Lockheed 14 Super Electra.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 17, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Interesting, thank you for the additional clarification.
> My suggestion about the Faber 109A-3 was based on the fact that it was the only fighter varient Fw 190 to be captured and evaluated by the western allies, the rest being configured as fighter-bombers. Or so Wikipedia would have me believe.
> Are you aware if the NAFDU ever tested the Faber aircraft against FAA Hellcats or Corsairs?



It was the first intact Fw 190 that the British received, hence its significance as the Brits were worried about the type, as the copious letters by the Air Ministry around the industry attested to. The Fw 190 gets the credit for the high Fighter Command losses in 1941/1942, although most of those were caused by Bf 109Fs.

I dunno if it was tested against any FAA types, but it was flown to Farnborough in July 1942 where it was put in a demonstration fly-off for Air Ministry big-wigs against a Typhoon and "a" Spitfire. Test pilot Jeffrey Quill flew the Spitfire, which was the Mk.IV DP845 powered by a Griffon, although no one knew that at the demonstration - this was pre-arranged in secret between Joe Smith of Supermarine and Quill and so come demonstration day, the Spitfire ran away from both the fighters, leaving the assembled audience astonished as they had expected the Spitfire to be there as a standard performance fighter, not a specially modified example.

Needless to say, interest in a Griffon-engined Spitfire in countering the Fw 190 was high.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 17, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Although that makes sense but wouldn't that have been built into the charts found in the flight manual? How did you come up with 44 USG for parasitic drag?




E
 emu27
was saying that there was 44 USG difference in fuel capacity between the two configurations, but some of that extra 44 USG would be burnt to compensate for extra drag of the extra drop tank.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 17, 2022)

wuzak said:


> E
> emu27
> was saying that there was 44 USG difference in fuel capacity between the two configurations, but some of that extra 44 USG would be burnt to compensate for extra drag of the extra drop tank.


I get that, I want to know how it was calculated. Was it based on the difference between the two configurations or is there a way this was actually calculated AND attributed to parasite drag?


----------



## wuzak (Jan 17, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I get that, I want to know how it was calculated. Was it based on the difference between the two configurations or is there a way this was actually calculated AND attributed to parasite drag?



Seems to have just been the difference between the two configurations.

Configuration 1: 237 USG Main Tank, 2 x 63 USG outer wing tanks, 1 x 170 USG drop tank = 533 USG
Configuration 2: 237 USG Main Tank, 2 x 170 USG drop tank = 577 USG (no wing tanks available)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 17, 2022)

wuzak said:


> Seems to have just been the difference between the two configurations.
> 
> Configuration 1: 237 USG Main Tank, 2 x 63 USG outer wing tanks, 1 x 170 USG drop tank = 533 USG
> Configuration 2: 237 USG Main Tank, 2 x 170 USG drop tank = 577 USG (no wing tanks available)


Well that is not a way to calculate that 44 gallon difference was entirely from parasitic drag. I'll agree it could be a contributing factor.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 17, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well that is not a way to calculate that 44 gallon difference was entirely from parasitic drag. I'll agree it could be a contributing factor.



He didn't say that.

Simply, one configuration has 44 gallons more fuel than the other. 

And using a second tank increases drag by an unspecified amount.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 18, 2022)

wuzak said:


> He didn't say that.
> 
> Simply, one configuration has 44 gallons more fuel than the other.
> 
> And using a second tank increases drag by an unspecified amount.


His statement...



> Aircraft that could carry two drop tanks had the wing tanks deleted, so they carried 237USG in the main and 170USG in each drop tank, total 577USG. *A unknown portion of that extra 44USG would have been burnt overcoming the extra parasitic drag of the extra drop tank.*


OK - I get it


----------



## BlackSheep (Jan 18, 2022)

GTX said:


> Speaking of F4U in Europe...:
> 
> View attachment 649298


Being a fanboi of all things American, especially the Corsair, seeing one sporting that paint job just seems wrong..so wrong.🥺 lol


----------



## BlackSheep (Jan 18, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Reminds me of this test, which was shown to new American recruits, before they deployed to Europe. Pure propaganda, intended to bolster their spirits, in the hopes that the first time an MG42 fires at them, they don't dig in and refuse to advance. Fact of the matter was, in some cases, the German guns WERE better, and formed the basis for new allied designs after the war. No point telling the 17 year old kid that, though



For a real laugh, check out YouTube’s Hickok45’s review of the Greasegun and it’s ROF slightly faster than an American Minuteman’s musket in 1776.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 18, 2022)

BlackSheep said:


> Being a fanboi of all things American, especially the Corsair, seeing one sporting that paint job just seems wrong



You're gonna hate this, then...





Josephine 

Guess the nationality.

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


----------



## VA5124 (Jan 18, 2022)

BlackSheep said:


> Being a fanboi of all things American, especially the Corsair, seeing one sporting that paint job just seems wrong..so wrong.🥺 lol


Especially considering the Fleet Air Arm dumped a bunch of them in the sea


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 18, 2022)

BlackSheep said:


> Being a fanboi of all things American, especially the Corsair, seeing one sporting that paint job just seems wrong..so wrong.🥺 lol


Not to mention the Wildcat in front of it.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Jan 18, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Fw 190 gets the credit for the high Fighter Command losses in 1941/1942, although most of those were caused by Bf 109Fs.



In 1941, that was the case, not surprisingly. II/ JG26 was the only Gruppe to convert to the Fw 190 in the autumn and and so didn't cause many FC losses, before things wound down for the winter. As the rest of JG 26 and JG 2 converted during the winter and spring, Fw 190's rightly deserve the credit for the high FC losses in 1942.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 18, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> I dunno if it was tested against any FAA types, but it was flown to Farnborough in July 1942 where it was put in a demonstration fly-off for Air Ministry big-wigs against a Typhoon and "a" Spitfire. Test pilot Jeffrey Quill flew the Spitfire, which was the Mk.IV DP845 powered by a Griffon


I remember reading about that, everyone in attendance assumed the brand new Typhoon would come in first, followed by the Fw 190, with the lowly Spitfire bringing up the rear. However, much to the delight of those in the know, the order was the exact opposite

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


----------



## BlackSheep (Jan 18, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> You're gonna hate this, then...
> 
> View attachment 654956
> Josephine
> ...


New Zealand? “The Old Stick and Rudder Co” Luckily, I am an old pro at the search bar and a first generation internet geek..although the Donald Duck graphic through me off at first..

I would love to visit that museum in Masterson, it reminds me of the Champlain Fighter Museum near my home in Arizona. I’ve got a couple of friends from New Zealand that travel back and forth, restrictions permitting, perhaps they’ll allow me to tag along as a third wheel sometime.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 18, 2022)

BlackSheep said:


> Being a fanboi of all things American, especially the Corsair, seeing one sporting that paint job just seems wrong..so wrong.🥺 lol



I built a Corsair model as a kid, I want to say it was Airfix but I don't rightly remember, which came as a RNZAF plane; F4U1-D, maybe? Anyway, I liked the look of the two-tone roundels on the paint-scheme of darker blue over grey.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Jan 20, 2022)

Schweik said:


> I'm not sure about that. I really don't think the P-47 was that great at low altitude. I'd love to see a detailed comparison of the three types (such as speed, climb rate etc.) at say, Sea level to 5,000 ft.


Speaking strictly about the late '43/early '44 time frame (without the cumbersome wing pylons installed), maximum level speed of the P-47D was marginally better than the F6F-3 up to 5,000 feet when both are using military power (52" Hg) and WEP (56" Hg and 60" Hg) respectively. At sea level the F4U-1 in military power was still faster than the P-47D utilizing 56" Hg but it slowly lost this edge as altitude increased unless it too used war emergency power.

The F6F-3 and F4U-1 could climb about 25 percent faster than the P-47D equipped with the Curtis 'toothpick' propeller (714 model) while using military power (52" Hg). The P-47D with this same propeller could only match the average climb rate of the two naval fighters when it used a higher manifold pressure of 56" Hg (F6F-3 and F4U-1 still using 52"Hg). Once the paddle blade propeller was installed in early 1944 the P-47D using 56" Hg exceeded the climb rate of the F6F-3 and F4U-1 (both using only military power). However about this same time the Corsair and Hellcat received ADI which then gave them a superior rate of climb below 10,000 feet. Not until the availability of 100/150 fuel and even higher authorized boost (summer 1944) did the Thunderbolt once again out-climb the two naval fighters.

As far as survivability is concerned, all three aircraft were very robust and could take a lot of punishment. Interestingly, the Hellcat was equipped with armor protection for the oil coolers, which was not the case for the Corsair and Thunderbolt. Lastly, the location of the Thunderbolt's turbo-supercharger (in the bottom belly of the fuselage) made it more vulnerable to ground fire during strafing runs.

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


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 23, 2022)

BlackSheep said:


> New Zealand? “The Old Stick and Rudder Co” Luckily, I am an old pro at the search bar and a first generation internet geek..although the Donald Duck graphic through me off at first..
> 
> I would love to visit that museum in Masterson, it reminds me of the Champlain Fighter Museum near my home in Arizona. I’ve got a couple of friends from New Zealand that travel back and forth, restrictions permitting, perhaps they’ll allow me to tag along as a third wheel sometime.



Yes! As it is today, but back then when I took the photo the aircraft was operated by the Old Flying Machine Company and was in RNZAF markings, living at Duxford, England at the time. Today it wears a generic US scheme.

Sadly, the hangar at Masterton has been closed for awhile now as there is a legal stoush going on involving Gene Demarco, The Vintage Aviator's former chief pilot - he was thrown in prison and fined large sums of money and so the aircraft are not on public display at present, although Wings over Wairarapa is looking to go ahead in 2023.

Photos I took in the hangar in 2017.









The Vintage Aviator Ltd Hangar


Hood Aerodrome, Masterton, February 2017.




www.flickr.com

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## BlackSheep (Jan 25, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Yes! As it is today, but back then when I took the photo the aircraft was operated by the Old Flying Machine Company and was in RNZAF markings, living at Duxford, England at the time. Today it wears a generic US scheme.
> 
> Sadly, the hangar at Masterton has been closed for awhile now as there is a legal stoush going on involving Gene Demarco, The Vintage Aviator's former chief pilot - he was thrown in prison and fined large sums of money and so the aircraft are not on public display at present, although Wings over Wairarapa is looking to go ahead in 2023.
> 
> ...


Reply, those are pictures of true beauty, it’s surprising how quick they lost their innocence. I wonder how many of today’s dashing and daring fighter jocks would run to a flight line where titanium and aluminum are replaced by wood and cloth, that cozy mind-comforting ejection seat replaced by a thatched lawn chair…

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 25, 2022)

I believe that is the first time I’ve seen the words comforting and ejection seat used in the same sentence

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 25, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I believe that is the first time I’ve seen the words comforting and ejection seat used in the same sentence


Considering that during the Great War, a pilot had two choices when things went wrong:
Jump and fall to your death.
Ride it in and die.

Quite a few were known to jump from their burning aircraft as it went down, too.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 25, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Considering that during the Great War, a pilot had two choices when things went wrong:
> Jump and fall to your death.
> Ride it in and die.
> 
> Quite a few were known to jump from their burning aircraft as it went down, too.


That's why my military aviation daydream was to be a company clerk.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## BlackSheep (Jan 25, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Considering that during the Great War, a pilot had two choices when things went wrong:
> Jump and fall to your death.
> Ride it in and die.
> 
> Quite a few were known to jump from their burning aircraft as it went down, too.


The movie “FlyBoys” showed the pilots being distributed pistols, “in case of fire”…. Don’t know how true that scene was but a trauma nurse friend told me that besides bone cancer, burns were the most painful wounds she knew of and I can imagine the 10-15 seconds till crash seeming like an eternity where eating the barrel might seem like the better option.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 25, 2022)

When I was a kid, photos of WWI were quite common - WWII is further from us now, than WWI was when I was young.

Many of those publications had photos of dead airmen, especially aircrew from bombers and airships.

One of the most memorable, was the deep impression in the soil, of a German officer who jumped from a Zeppelin that had been attacked and was going down in flames.

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


----------



## pbehn (Jan 25, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Considering that during the Great War, a pilot had two choices when things went wrong:
> Jump and fall to your death.
> Ride it in and die.
> 
> Quite a few were known to jump from their burning aircraft as it went down, too.


Some survived, landing in snow, bushes or trees and in at least one case barbed wire.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 25, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Quite a few were known to jump from their burning aircraft as it went down, too.



Raoul Lufbery.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BlackSheep (Jan 26, 2022)

pbehn said:


> Some survived, landing in snow, bushes or trees and in at least one case barbed wire.


I remember reading a story, if memory serves me correctly it was in a book about the great African Hunters and was relayed by Karamojo Bell, a great elephant hunter, incredible shot who often used a .276 caliber rifle to take down his prey, and WW1 fighter pilot in Africa. He spoke of an Irishman who rode down a fighter in I guess would be a flat spin, the lightweight of the plane allowed a slow enough descent that he survived with only one affliction. The centrifugal forces were presumed to have caused blood vessels in his eyes to burst leaving his blue eyes surrounded by a blood red color for the rest of his life and it was said that he particularly loved to display his demonic appearance after a few pints. (IIRC the story was in one of Peter Capstick’s “Death in the….” Series)

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## BlackSheep (Jan 26, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Raoul Lufbery.


I just read an account of this knight of the air and found something interesting about his death. A few days before his last aerial duel, Lufbery was asked what would he do in case of fire and he stated that jumping meant sure death and he would certainly stay with his plane, perhaps, fanning the flames away from him by side slipping through the air. On the fateful day, a tracer hit his fuel tank and within seconds turned his plane into a flying torch. Shortly after, he was seen jumping to his death. 

Apparently, when his fuel tank was hit, he also lost the thumb on his flying hand, perhaps, he couldn’t attempt the side-slipping maneuvers he had talked about due to injury?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 26, 2022)

BlackSheep said:


> I just read an account of this knight of the air and found something interesting about his death. A few days before his last aerial duel, Lufbery was asked what would he do in case of fire and he stated that jumping meant sure death and he would certainly stay with his plane, perhaps, fanning the flames away from him by side slipping through the air. On the fateful day, a tracer hit his fuel tank and within seconds turned his plane into a flying torch. Shortly after, he was seen jumping to his death.
> 
> Apparently, when his fuel tank was hit, he also lost the thumb on his flying hand, perhaps, he couldn’t attempt the side-slipping maneuvers he had talked about due to injury?



I didn't know about the pre-mortem conversation you mention, thanks for adding more to the story. I think I'll do some surfing looking up more about his life. I know he was a gadabout, and served in the FFL and also as a mechanic before flying for the French and then the Americans. I need to refresh my knowledge on him, one of the first somewhat American aces.

Matter of fact, now I'm hankering to read more about all the Great War aces. Thanks for the cue!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2022)

Part of the problem was that parachutes were in their infancy and little was known about them and particularly in making them small enough that they could be successfully carried aboard an aeroplane. Aircrew aboard balloons and airships had parachutes, but they were big and heavy. The British Guardian Angel parachute was attached too the underside of the aeroplane, for example. Much experimentation was done in Britain and the first RFC airman to parachute from an aeroplane did so under controlled conditions in January 1917. It was done by New Zealander Clive Collett, who was a fighter ace wounded in combat and employed by the Experimental Aircraft Station at Orfordness, who, incidentally was the first RFC pilot to achieve ace status in the Sopwith Camel.

A bit of info here:






Clive Collett's pioneering parachute jump | WW100 New Zealand







ww100.govt.nz

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


----------



## BlackSheep (Jan 27, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I didn't know about the pre-mortem conversation you mention, thanks for adding more to the story. I think I'll do some surfing looking up more about his life. I know he was a gadabout, and served in the FFL and also as a mechanic before flying for the French and then the Americans. I need to refresh my knowledge on him, one of the first somewhat American aces.
> 
> Matter of fact, now I'm hankering to read more about all the Great War aces. Thanks for the cue!


If you’ve ever seen the movie Fly Boys, no it isn’t about the latest Boy Band, its loosely about the Lafayette Escadrille, the “cool dude” with the lion is based on the real life Lufbery. Decent to good movie, I’d watch again if I ever saw it playing. 
A good quick read on Lufbery can be found at





Death of an Air Ace, 1918


Eye witness account of the fiery death of air ace Raoul Lufbery during a dogfight.



www.eyewitnesstohistory.com

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 27, 2022)

BlackSheep said:


> Decent to good movie, I’d watch again if I ever saw it playing


The movie lost me when EVERY German fighter was a multicolored Fokker Dr.1 piloted by a villainous stereotype. 
Similar to "Red Tails", except instead of Fokkers, substitute Me 262's armed with airsoft guns

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 27, 2022)

The reason they did that (officially) was so the audience could tell the sides apart.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 27, 2022)

Yeah, that was one of my major peeves about the movie.

In real life, there would have been more DR.VIIs than DR.Is and I am certain the audience would have had no trouble telling the "bad guys" from the good guys, as the Allied types were mostly the same color and the German/Austrian aircraft were very colorful (even without the lozenge camo).

The big black Iron Cross all over their aircraft was also a fairly easy thing to spot, too...

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 27, 2022)

Treating your perspective audience as idiots probably isn't a good production move.
You have to assume that a large percentage of the ticket buying audience going to see a movie about WWI aircraft will have an interest in WWI aircraft, and just may spot *flagrant* inaccuracies. The people that don't know, also probably don't care, they just came to see James Franco

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 27, 2022)

I had gone out with the same woman for years. During that time I had the same, unique looking car. Every day she would walk right by it when looking for us. 
Strange as it is to us, most of the audience would mix the planes up without visual aids. Besides, don’t you know that in the skies over WW I Europe , the Germans wore red?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 27, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> most of the audience would mix them up without visual aids


Perhaps they will understand its the "bad guy" when he starts shooting at the "good guy". That's not enough? 
I understand your point, I just think they ruin promising movies when they bow to the lowest common denominator

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


----------



## BlackSheep (Jan 27, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The movie lost me when EVERY German fighter was a multicolored Fokker Dr.1 piloted by a villainous stereotype.
> Similar to "Red Tails", except instead of Fokkers, substitute Me 262's armed with airsoft guns


Lol, and the big baddie in the Fokker looks exactly like the big baddie in the 262, down to the evil sneer!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 27, 2022)

I'm pretty sure the evil German uttered something like "show no mercy!" before diving on and peppering the brave American with what looks like a handful of pebbles from his 4x 30mm cannons 

Edit: Yep.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 27, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Strange as it is to us, most of the audience would mix the planes up without visual aids. Besides, don’t you know that in the skies over WW I Europe , the Germans wore red?


Actually, very few Imperial German Air Service aircraft were red.

Udet had a red DV.II but his Albatros was all black.
Out of the 12 types Richthofen flew, only four were red (3 Albatros, 1 DR.I).
Shultz's DR.VII was half red, half white.
Monnington's DR.VII was half red, half white.
Büren and Müller's DR.VIIs were also half red, half white along with most of Jasta 18 during summer of 1918.

But over all, the German and Austrian aircraft were a wide variety of colors: yellows, whites, blues, greens, blacks, purples and even pink.
Then add the stripes, chevron, lines, the Bavarian blue/white diamond motiff, Monnington's macabre green/gray camo (on his Albatros) and much, much more.

There is so much more that would literally take days to list.

The nose art in US aircraft during WWII couldn't hold a candle to the German aircraft of WWI.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jan 27, 2022)

Side note, Raymond Collishaw and his "Black Flight" comes to mind. 
The Canadian unit of the RNAS flew black painted Sopwith Triplanes, each one named in white lettering, like "Black Death" and "Black Maria". 
Good thing they weren't included in the movie, people would have been much to confused.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 27, 2022)

Somehow this F4U thread entered WWI soooooooo

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The movie lost me when EVERY German fighter was a multicolored Fokker Dr.1 piloted by a villainous stereotype.
> Similar to "Red Tails", except instead of Fokkers, substitute Me 262's armed with airsoft guns



Agreed, plus the ridiculous unrealistic flying combat scenes.


----------



## special ed (Jan 27, 2022)

I am reminded of Chuck Yeager's comment, "The first time I saw a Me 262, I shot it down."

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 27, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Side note, Raymond Collishaw and his "Black Flight" comes to mind.
> The Canadian unit of the RNAS flew black painted Sopwith Triplanes, each one named in white lettering, like "Black Death" and "Black Maria".
> Good thing they weren't included in the movie, people would have been much to confused.


I built that model when I was in junior high.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 27, 2022)

fubar57 said:


> Somehow this F4U thread entered WWI soooooooo
> 
> View attachment 656021​


That’ll learn those Limeys! We do know how to operate Corsairs off of carriers!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 27, 2022)

A slip wing Corsair. Calling fastmongrel!


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 27, 2022)

fubar57 said:


> Somehow this F4U thread entered WWI soooooooo
> 
> View attachment 656021​



And you thought forward visibility was bad before this subtype!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BlackSheep (Jan 28, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I'm pretty sure the evil German uttered something like "show no mercy!" before diving on and peppering the brave American with what looks like a handful of pebbles from his 4x 30mm cannons
> 
> Edit: Yep.



Like hail on a tin roof….
Those Germans and their wonder weapons! How do their 30mm shells know to rip apart a bomber but leave a Mustang flyable after a dozen hits? Some kind of advanced fuse no doubt…🤔

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


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 28, 2022)

Wasn't Werner Voss' DR 1 painted silver or a silvery light green? I know at least is wasn't red.

Also, "Red Tails" was too stupid for words.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 28, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> Wasn't Werner Voss' DR 1 painted silver or a silvery light green? I know at least is wasn't red.
> 
> Also, "Red Tails" was too stupid for words.



His was olive green, iirc.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 28, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> Wasn't Werner Voss' DR 1 painted silver or a silvery light green? I know at least is wasn't red.
> 
> Also, "Red Tails" was too stupid for words.


Voss' DR.I was a green color, but his Pfalz and Albatros were very colorful.

Loerzer's DR.I had black and white bands on the fuselage with black and white stripes running length-wise on the wings and horizontal stabilizer.

Of interest, Goering's D.VII was all white.

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


----------



## BlackSheep (Jan 28, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> Wasn't Werner Voss' DR 1 painted silver or a silvery light green? I know at least is wasn't red.
> 
> Also, "Red Tails" was too stupid for words.


Red Tails sounds like me and my hunting buddies after a HOT AF early season elk hunt in Az! Talk about pass the Gold Bond…😂

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Jan 30, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> Also, "Red Tails" was too stupid for words.



What an awful movie that was. It's especially galling since the underlying real story is so compelling.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 30, 2022)

I'd like to remember who said there's no reason to embellish the story. This person was talking about the movie Pearl Harbor. Red Tails, Pearl Harbor and Midway really diminish those who were there and make the films about a few actors. Using CGI to augment what really happened and keep the audience's attention is just lazy writing.

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 30, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I'd like remember who said there's no reason to embellish the story. This person was talking about the movie Pearl Harbor. Red Tails, Pearl Harbor and Midway really diminish those who were there and make the films about a few actors. Using CGI to augment what really happened and keep the audience's attention is just lazy writing.



I've said that before, and perhaps in this thread, though I can't remember. _Titanic_ was another movie gussied up with some gloppy love story, because a liner sinking with 1500+ killed just wasn't dramatic enough, I suppose.

ETA: It was here.

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


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 30, 2022)

I remember reading an article about Pearl Harbour and the audience's reaction to the movie. One person said at the theatre they were in, about halfway through the movie, someone screamed out, "For God's sake, start the war already"

Reactions: Funny Funny:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 30, 2022)

If you ever want to see a WWI movie with gorgeous (and fairly accurate) aircraft, then check out "Blue Max".
It does have the ever-present "love angle", however it's not thick enough to spoil the movie.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 30, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> If you ever want to see a WWI movie with gorgeous (and fairly accurate) aircraft, then check out "Blue Max".
> It does have the ever-present "love angle", however it's not thick enough to spoil the movie.


I watched that as a kid, George Peppard (A Team) was in it. I need to watch it again. I think that was my first initiation into fighter pilots & babes (Ursula Andress)!

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


----------



## Howard Gibson (Jan 30, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> If you ever want to see a WWI movie with gorgeous (and fairly accurate) aircraft, then check out "Blue Max".
> It does have the ever-present "love angle", however it's not thick enough to spoil the movie.


Hell's Angles has accurate aircraft. Wings, by far and away the better movie, features contemporary USAAF aircraft. It also features Clara Bow!

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 30, 2022)

Hell's Angels also has a really great song. So fly them wing to wing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BlackSheep (Jan 30, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> If you ever want to see a WWI movie with gorgeous (and fairly accurate) aircraft, then check out "Blue Max".
> It does have the ever-present "love angle", however it's not thick enough to spoil the movie.


I was really young, watching the Saturday morning “Action Theater” which followed “The World Beyond” (damn I’m getting old) which were double features of movies already old in the early ‘80s… “Toro Toro Toro” got me into WW2 and “The Dawn Patrol” opened my eyes to WW1.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Jan 30, 2022)

BlackSheep said:


> I was really young, watching the Saturday morning “Action Theater” which followed “The World Beyond” (damn I’m getting old) which were double features of movies already old in the early ‘80s… “Toro Toro Toro” got me into WW2 and “The Dawn Patrol” opened my eyes to WW1.


Which Dawn Patrol, the 1931 version, or 1937?


----------



## rob23 (Jan 30, 2022)

I really liked The Great Waldo Pepper. I thought the flying in that movie was done really well and the expressions on the actors faces at times was hilarious.

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


----------



## special ed (Jan 31, 2022)

There was a movie featuring excellent Stearman flying with actor Walter Mathaw (sp).
Tora,Tora,Tora and Strategic Air Command and Dive Bomber are are well worth your time and no GCI.
An interesting, to me, bit about the Tora movie was learned in a program of how it was made. It seems the set of the Nevada moving out into the Harbor could only be filmed once, so every one was well rehearsed but when the director called "ready", the set was launched and everyone reacted as rehearsed and the scene was perfect.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jan 31, 2022)

I highly recommend "Strategic Air Command" and "Airforce" as aviation movies.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 31, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> I highly recommend "Strategic Air Command" and "Airforce" as aviation movies.


Jimmy Stewart was great in Strategic Air Command, especially since he was a former B-24 pilot and knew the ropes up in the driver's seat.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 31, 2022)

Were there any F4Us in Catch 22? That was some great B-25 porn.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 31, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> I watched that as a kid, George Peppard (A Team) was in it. I need to watch it again. I think that was my first initiation into fighter pilots & babes (Ursula Andress)!


George Peppard is my 'doppelganger'. Would have liked to switch places with him when he was with Ursala Andress.. EDIT..

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


----------



## drgondog (Jan 31, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Jimmy Stewart was great in Strategic Air Command, especially since he was a former B-24 pilot and knew the ropes up in the driver's seat.


Dave - IIRC he was checked out in both B-36 and B-47. I also seem to recall that he may have made a couple of trips along the Trail as an observer in the B-52.

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 31, 2022)

drgondog said:


> Dave - IIRC he was checked out in both B-36 and B-47. I also seem to recall that he may have made a couple of trips along the Trail as an observer in the B-52.


I believe you're right, Bill, on all counts.

I don't remember, though, if he was a Brigadier before or after his last combat ride in a Buff.


----------



## special ed (Jan 31, 2022)

drgondog said:


> George Peppard is my 'doppelganger'. Would have liked to switch places with Ursala Andress....


As Humphry Bogart said, "She's too big for ya."

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 31, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> If you ever want to see a WWI movie with gorgeous (and fairly accurate) aircraft, then check out "Blue Max".
> It does have the ever-present "love angle", however it's not thick enough to spoil the movie.



You gotta draw the wimmenfolk when the couple are discussing what movie to watch.



Peter Gunn said:


> I highly recommend "Strategic Air Command" and "Airforce" as aviation movies.



I gotta admit, I'm a sucker for almost any Jimmy Stewart movie.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 31, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> I believe you're right, Bill, on all counts.
> 
> I don't remember, though, if he was a Brigadier before or after his last combat ride in a Buff.



I believe he starred up afterward, but don't quote me on it.


----------



## special ed (Jan 31, 2022)

A movie with good flying, comedy, and romance for a date is "Always", a modern color remake of the 1943 "A guy named Joe".

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Jan 31, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Were there any F4Us in Catch 22? That was some great B-25 porn.



Don't think so.

But I can relate this story about the Joseph Heller book: originally it was titled _Catch-18_. But because another book with the number '18' had been published shortly before, Heller changed his book to _Catch-22_.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 31, 2022)

I did not know that. Catch 22 is one of my favorite reads.


----------



## 33k in the air (Jan 31, 2022)

I haven't seen the film in years, but I do remember it starts with an impressively long, uninterrupted single-take shot.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 31, 2022)

What I remember most from the movie is “What do you mean I can’t have him shot?”


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 31, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Were there any F4Us in Catch 22? That was some great B-25 porn.


Catch-22 was based on B-25 operations in the Med.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 31, 2022)

_Catch-22_ took me three tries to finish, because of its hopscotch style of writing. But once I grokked the idea, it turned out to be a fantastic read.

Never have seen the movie, and honestly, not sure I want to, given the book's _fraktur_ approach to story-telling. In a sense it's like _Pulp Fiction_ ( which movie I love), but trying to convert that book into a coherent movie?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 31, 2022)

I read it in 24 hours, straight. 
I was a freshman in high school.

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


----------



## drgondog (Jan 31, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> I read it in 24 hours, straight.
> I was a freshman in high school.


I was a senior in HS (63) when I read it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 31, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Catch-22 was based on B-25 operations in the Med.


Just trying to stay "in-thread".


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 31, 2022)

I read that book quite a few times. 
Anyone think chocolate covered cotton might be good?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jan 31, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I read that book quite a few times.
> Anyone think chocolate covered cotton might be good?



Yeah, if you're suffering overhydration.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 31, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Were there any F4Us in Catch 22? That was some great B-25 porn.


Unlikely. _Catch-22_ took place in Europe.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 31, 2022)

Thread Title?


----------



## Greg Boeser (Jan 31, 2022)

Don't confuse hypothetical questions and fiction.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 31, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Don't confuse hypothetical questions and fiction.


That's why we don't talk about a certain plane unless using code words, like "groundhog"...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 31, 2022)

Okay guys, you do know I'm aware there weren't any F4Us in either the book or movie or the thread title, right?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 1, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Okay guys, you do know I'm aware there weren't any F4Us in either the book or movie or the thread title, right?


Or...were they and just not mentioned?

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


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 1, 2022)

I remember my brother reading and re-reading Catch-22 one summer back in the sixties and him just laughing his ass off, he really enjoyed it.

Gotta' admit, when I tried to read it years later, I didn't get through the first chapter, I ended renting the movie on VHS (kids, ask your parents) and really only watching the B-25's and fast forwarding through the rest of it.

Sorry, I guess I'm a lot more shallow than you guys or just not as smart, but I didn't grok it at all, in fact there was danger of becoming discorporated.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 1, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Or...were they and just not mentioned?


I have so much to learn.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 1, 2022)




----------



## drgondog (Feb 1, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> I remember my brother reading and re-reading Catch-22 one summer back in the sixties and him just laughing his ass off, he really enjoyed it.
> 
> Gotta' admit, when I tried to read it years later, I didn't get through the first chapter, I ended renting the movie on VHS (kids, ask your parents) and really only watching the B-25's and fast forwarding through the rest of it.
> 
> Sorry, I guess I'm a lot more shallow than you guys or just not as smart, but I didn't grok it at all, in fact there was danger of becoming discorporated.


You put your finger squarely on a MUCH better novel of the 60's. Thou Art God!

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 1, 2022)

I don’t understand, Hard Sir. I am only an egg.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 1, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Okay guys, you do know I'm aware there weren't any F4Us in either the book or movie or the thread title, right?



You're channeling your inner Minderbender.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 1, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Okay guys, you do know I'm aware there weren't any F4Us in either the book or movie or the thread title, right?



Oh, but there are . . . in my imagination!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 2, 2022)

drgondog said:


> You put your finger squarely on a MUCH better novel of the 60's. Thou Art God!


Ahh... one who groks.

Perhaps next we'll see a Fair Witness.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 2, 2022)

No grokking in fullness. This planet has laws.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 2, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> Ahh... one who groks.
> 
> Perhaps next we'll see a Fair Witness.


I think Heinlein was my favorite SciFi author.. among stiff competition. W.E.B Griffin is my favorite 'contemporary'.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 2, 2022)

I was a big fan of Larry Niven. How about a Lying Bastard vs. Hot Needle of Inquiry thread?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 2, 2022)

drgondog said:


> I think Heinlein was my favorite SciFi author.. among stiff competition. W.E.B Griffin is my favorite 'contemporary'.


Some of my all-time favorite Sci-Fi authors: Heinlein, Asimov, Bradbury, Saberhagen, J. Green (not W. Green, the WWII fiction author).

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 2, 2022)

Love all of those science fiction authors. Saberhagen sometimes makes me go Berserk, though.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 2, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> This planet has laws.



Laws? We don't need no stinking laws!

* throws badge on ground *

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 2, 2022)

Frank Herbert for sci-fi in my book. The writing was a little wooden, sure, but the points he made about so many different fields of human thinking make it worth digging through his weak prose.

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


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 2, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Frank Herbert for sci-fi in my book. The writing was a little wooden, sure, but the points he made about so many different fields of human thinking make it worth digging through his weak prose.



Personally, I think _Dune_ should be recognized alongside _The Lord of the Rings_ in terms of the incredible depth and complexity of the world building.

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


----------



## NTGray (Feb 2, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> Personally, I think _Dune_ should be recognized alongside _The Lord of the Rings_ in terms of the incredible depth and complexity of the world building.


I read _Dune_ back when it came out, but I only recently came across the claim that it is the highest-selling SF book of all time, which claim may well be true I didn't even realize it was a contender until very recently.
As for Heinlein's works, do y'all realize that "stranger in a a strange land" is a Biblical self-reference by Moses, found in Exodus 2:22 (King James Version)? Great title for a book, though.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Conslaw (Feb 2, 2022)

Might we have gotten a wee bit off topic in this thread?


----------



## fubar57 (Feb 2, 2022)

It was about P-39s.....correct?

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 2, 2022)

So what color was it?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 3, 2022)

NTGray said:


> I read _Dune_ back when it came out, but I only recently came across the claim that it is the highest-selling SF book of all time, which claim may well be true I didn't even realize it was a contender until very recently.



According to the back cover of my paperback edition published in the 1980s: _"With more than ten million copies sold worldwide, Frank Herbert's magnificent DUNE books stand among the major achievements of the human imagination."_

An interesting tidbit related to its initial publication: Herbert's manuscript had been rejected twenty-one times before finally being accepted by a publisher.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 3, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> So what color was it?



Blue! . . . No!

aaaaaaggghghgh

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Feb 3, 2022)

Conslaw said:


> Might we have gotten a wee bit off topic in this thread?


You noticed that, huh?
Long conversations do tend to meander.

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


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 3, 2022)

NTGray said:


> *SNIP*
> *As for Heinlein's works, do y'all realize that "stranger in a a strange land" is a Biblical self-reference by Moses, found in Exodus 2:22 (King James Version)? Great title for a book, though.*


Not to sound snarky (What...me?) or condescending but... us Old Ones do possess such knowledge.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 3, 2022)

I too am saddened, Fellow Elder.


He is only an egg.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Feb 3, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> Not to sound snarky (What...me?) or condescending but... us Old Ones do possess such knowledge.


I started reading it at 10 pm as a senior. My classmates remember me finishing it in English class the next day. Re-read three times - may pick it up tonight. Jubal Harshaw one of my favorite charachters. Starship Troopers closer to my life/political philosophy about Service and how politicians corrupt with power to control narrative.

Laumer and Schmitz passed before becoming legends and A.E. Van Vogt really started me along with Asimov

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


----------



## NTGray (Feb 3, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> Not to sound snarky (What...me?) or condescending but... us Old Ones do possess such knowledge.


Going further off track for a moment, Biblical references used to be commonplace, back when Mary was the most common baby girl's name by a two-to-one or greater margin over the second place name. (Mary lost that distinction in the early 1960s, and is not even in the top 100 currently). Biblical references in literature were common, even in science fiction. Virtually everybody went to church--even Robert Heinlein. After my dad retired from the Navy in 1966, we moved back to Kansas City, and in high school I attended Linwood Methodist Church, which I discovered (long afterward) was the church that Heinlein had attended when he lived in K.C.

But church attendance is a lot lower now than it used to be, and many younger people often don't recognize the references that many of us older ones take for granted. Like the time that somebody asked Admiral Halsey what the weather in that part of the South Pacific was going to be, and he answered, "Meaning no disrespect, but see Hebrews 13:8." Maybe you don't need to look that up, but if you do, you will find that it says, "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever."

Oh, and did I mention that among the many model planes I had hanging from my bedroom ceiling as a child was an F4U? (We now resume our regular programming.)

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 3, 2022)

NTGray said:


> Like the time that somebody asked Admiral Halsey what the weather in that part of the South Pacific was going to be, and he answered, "Meaning no disrespect, but see Hebrews 13:8."



The Brits would sometimes make a Biblical reference as a response, hoping or trusting that the receiving party would either know their scripture or look it up. Was it Churchill who answered Auchinleck's request for reinforcement with "Matt 7:7"?


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 3, 2022)

NTGray said:


> Oh, and did I mention that among the many model planes I had hanging from my bedroom ceiling as a child was an F4U? (We now resume our regular programming.)



For me, first it was the 1976 movie _Midway_ which got me interested in the Pacific theatre, and then the TV series which followed not long after, _Baa Baa Black Sheep,_ which made the Corsair my favourate WWII aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 4, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> f you ever want to see a WWI movie with gorgeous (and fairly accurate) aircraft, then check out "Blue Max".
> It does have the ever-present "love angle", however it's not thick enough to spoil the movie.



The Blue Max Pfalz's are in New Zealand now. One was converted from a Tiger Moth, the other a scale reproduction.

This is the Tiger based machine. The screen above the aeroplane plays segments of the film in which the aircraft, with Peppard in the cockpit appears.




Knights of the Sky 73

This is the other one.




Pfalz D III -4

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 4, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Catch-22 was based on B-25 operations in the Med.



Some great filming sequences in the movie, although it was filmed in Mexico, if I recall. 18 
B-25s were used in filming.



NTGray said:


> As for Heinlein's works, do y'all realize that "stranger in a a strange land" is a Biblical self-reference by Moses, found in Exodus 2:22 (King James Version)?



Stranger in a strange land? Every good novel should have an Iron Maiden soundtrack...

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


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 4, 2022)

drgondog said:


> I started reading it at 10 pm as a senior. My classmates remember me finishing it in English class the next day. Re-read three times - may pick it up tonight. Jubal Harshaw one of my favorite charachters. Starship Troopers closer to my life/political philosophy about Service and how politicians corrupt with power to control narrative.
> 
> Laumer and Schmitz passed before becoming legends and A.E. Van Vogt really started me along with Asimov


Agreed, summer, 1978. I absolutely devoured Stranger and have read it many times since, although not in the last 20 years but now I will dig out my very worn copy for the weekend and do what I haven't in quite a while, read a book.

On a side note, my youngest (19) now wants to read it, considering she's a carbon copy of me I think she's in for a great reading experience.

On a further side note, just to stay on topic, _Baa Baa Black Sheep/Black Sheep Squadron_ was absolutely awful from my perspective with regards to history, scripts and even the acting was a bit over the top for me but the exception was the F4U.

Not a fan of the Corsair but recognize that it was a great plane and one of the best of WWII, in my personal lexicon I put it my fifth favorite after the Mustang, Thunderbolt, Lightning and Hellcat. That is not a knock on the Corsair, just my personal favorites.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## NTGray (Feb 4, 2022)

OK, another interruption, but I gotta ask.
On this forum, what is the intended meaning of the Bacon emoji? Is it related to "bringing home the bacon" or does it signify "not kosher"? Or am I just missing something that is really obvious to everybody else?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 4, 2022)

NTGray said:


> OK, another interruption, but I gotta ask.
> On this forum, what is the intended meaning of the Bacon emoji? Is it related to "bringing home the bacon" or does it signify "not kosher"? Or am I just missing something that is really obvious to everybody else?


I asked the same thing.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Feb 4, 2022)

Bacon is the highest form of praise. An award of bacon means that someone found your post to be hot, crispy, and delicious.

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Bacon is the highest form of praise. An award of bacon means that someone found your post to be hot, crispy, and delicious.



And there you have it…

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 4, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Stranger in a strange land? Every good novel should have an Iron Maiden soundtrack...




IKR?

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


----------



## NTGray (Feb 4, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Bacon is the highest form of praise. An award of bacon means that someone found your post to be hot, crispy, and delicious.


Understood. Thank you.


----------



## Howard Gibson (Feb 4, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> Bacon is the highest form of praise. An award of bacon means that someone found your post to be hot, crispy, and delicious.


So, it is assumed that WWII aeroplane freaks are not vegans?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 4, 2022)

Since the bacon is represented by an icon, a vegan can "assume" it's veggie-bacon.

No electrons were harmed in the bacon icon making process...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 5, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> No electrons were harmed in the bacon icon making process...



I don't know, some of those electrons look shifty to me . . .

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 5, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> I don't know, some of those electrons look shifty to me . . .


The label on the package that the electrons came in, specifically stated that they were non-GMO!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Feb 5, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> So, it is assumed that WWII aeroplane freaks are not vegans?







Herbivores?!!! We _eat _herbivores!!!

Photo: muppetcentral.com

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 5, 2022)

If there's hog involved, I'm on it, GMO or no.

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


----------



## NVSMITH (Feb 5, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> View attachment 657102
> 
> Herbivores?!!! We _eat _herbivores!!!
> 
> Photo: muppetcentral.com


D'accord. Personally I practice second order vegetarianism: I only eat animals that eat plants.

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 5, 2022)

Salad is what food eats.

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


----------



## NVSMITH (Feb 12, 2022)

-Vegetarian: Native American word for bad hunter...

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


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> IKR?



A little more in keeping with the subject matter. I loved the promotional image for this one





http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sa0mVHB_RfQ/Uq4OdDIkoZI/AAAAAAAACSM/M_M1pZNtfmY/s1600/Iron+Maiden+Aces+High+copia.jpg

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 12, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> A little more in keeping with the subject matter. I loved the promotional image for this one
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Being a history buff even at that young age, I always dug the Irons' attention to the topic in their songs. "Fly to live, live to fly ..." sums up much of the oral histories I've read about WWII aviation pretty well.

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


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Being a history buff even at that young age, I always dug the Irons' attention to the topic in their songs.



Yeah, me too. It's a part of their attraction and it made for badass album covers. The Trooper is still one of the greatest record artworks out there...



As is Powerslave, adorning teenagers' bedroom walls since 1984...









How Stability Helped Iron Maiden Craft a Triumph in 'Powerslave'


Iron Maiden released ‘Powerslave’ on Sept. 3, 1984.




ultimateclassicrock.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 12, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Yeah, me too. It's a part of their attraction and it made for badass album covers. The Trooper is still one of the greatest record artworks out there...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




My first garage band did a passable cover of "Run to the Hills".

Gott love the fact too that Dickinson flew them around on tour after he got his jet multi- cert as well. That's _tres_ rock and roll!

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


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Gott love the fact too that Dickinson flew them around on tour after he got his jet multi- cert as well. That's _tres_ rock and roll!



Yeah! Got photos of the jet in New Zealand when they toured. I tried to arrange a photo shoot at AKL airport but the airport authorities were not up for it, dangit.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 12, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Yeah! Got photos of the jet in New Zealand when they toured. I tried to arrange a photo shoot at AKL airport but the airport authorities were not up for it, dangit.



Another noted rocker who got his wings: Alex Lifeson from Rush.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 12, 2022)

Don't forget Dexter Holland! Offspring!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Another noted rocker who got his wings: Alex Lifeson from Rush.



David Gilmour and Nick Mason, Pink Floyd and Nicko McBrain, Iron Maiden's drummer even...

Girmour owned his own aircraft leasing company, Intrepid Aviation at North Weald. He had a P-51, Beech Staggerwing, Yaks and various other things that he used to lease to various people who needed vintage aircraft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 12, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> David Gilmour and Nick Mason, Pink Floyd and Nicko McBrain, Iron Maiden's drummer even...



Two drummers learning to fly?! Ye gods!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2022)

Yeah, "subtle control input" is not something you associate with skin pounders....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 12, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Yeah, "subtle control input" is not something you associate with skin pounders....



It gives an entirely new dimension to the term "hamfisted".


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 12, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Yeah! Got photos of the jet in New Zealand when they toured. I tried to arrange a photo shoot at AKL airport but the airport authorities were not up for it, dangit.


Was that "Ed Force One", Dickenson's 747?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Was that "Ed Force One", Dickenson's 747?



Yup, the 757 as well that the band used on a previous tour.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BlackSheep (Feb 12, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> Which Dawn Patrol, the 1931 version, or 1937?


The later version with Errol Flynn. I’ve only seen clips of the 1931 version which was later renamed Flight Command(er) but that looked entertaining as well.
Dawn Patrol is an excellent movie and done so much better than movies like John Wayne’s Flying Tigers…but so many movies of the mid to late ‘30s were excellent films and a pleasure to watch
Shortly after watching the Dawn Patrol, I (15 yo) was hiking near some hills and hearing a loud buzzing looked up to see about a dozen ultralights from the local club coming over the hill with the sun at there back and I remember replaying the movie in my mind as I watched these guys in their flying lawn mowers pass overhead. I was hooked.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 13, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Was that "Ed Force One", Dickenson's 747?



Oops, sorry Dave, I might have misinterpreted your question, no the aircraft didn't belong to Dickinson, it was leased. Here's some info.






Login required







www.planespotters.net





The 757 was from Astraeus, the now defunct airline Dickinson used to fly with on his downtime, as G-STRX.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 13, 2022)

Here's their 747






_(src: interwebs)_

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


----------



## Snautzer01 (Feb 13, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Here's their 747
> 
> View attachment 657853
> 
> _(src: interwebs)_


That is below zero cool.

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


----------



## VA5124 (Feb 15, 2022)

A twincharged corsair would have been perfect in the ETO but no they were ordered to fight japan


----------



## wuzak (Feb 15, 2022)

VA5124 said:


> A twincharged corsair would have been perfect in the ETO but no they were ordered to fight japan



What do you mean by "twincharged"?

Most F4Us were fitted with 2 stage supercharged R-2800s.

What do you think makes them "perfect for the ETO"?


----------



## VA5124 (Feb 15, 2022)

wuzak said:


> What do you mean by "twincharged"?
> 
> Most F4Us were fitted with 2 stage supercharged R-2800s.
> 
> What do you think makes them "perfect for the ETO"?


Twinchargeing is something group B rally cars did they used super and turbo chargers to reduce lag and make more power as far as perfect its speed and firepower and bombload


----------



## wuzak (Feb 15, 2022)

VA5124 said:


> Twinchargeing is something group B rally cars did they used super and turbo chargers to reduce lag and make more power as far as perfect its speed and firepower and bombload



No production F4Us used a turbochargers.

F4U speed wasn't outstanding in ETO terms until F4U-4, which only got into service in early 1945, or F4U-5, which didn't get into service until after the war.

Firepower was average for US fighters - same as P-51D, less than P-47 and P-38.

Bombload was more than P-51, less than P-38 and about the same as P-47?

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


----------



## VA5124 (Feb 15, 2022)

wuzak said:


> No production F4Us used a turbochargers.
> 
> F4U speed wasn't outstanding in ETO terms until F4U-4, which only got into service in early 1945, or F4U-5, which didn't get into service until after the war.
> 
> ...


Did your thunderbolt get cannon late production corsairs did


----------



## wuzak (Feb 15, 2022)

VA5124 said:


> Did your thunderbolt get cannon late production corsairs did



F4U-1C in 1945?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 15, 2022)

VA5124 said:


> Twinchargeing is something group B rally cars did they used super and turbo chargers to reduce lag and make more power as far as perfect its speed and firepower and bombload


First, where are you going to put the turbocharger? It's pretty snug inside the cowl already.

Second, perhaps look into the Mustang and its two stage two speed supercharger, I hear they were quite the perfect escort for the ETO.

There's nothing the Corsair has to offer that the Mustang and Thunderbolt don't already have covered like a jimmy-hat.

Simply put, the Mustang could do (and did) the Corsairs job, the Corsair could not do the Mustang's job.

The Thunderbolt could reasonably do the Mustangs job and could do (and did) the Corsairs job and the P-38 was sort of a jack of all trades being able to handle whatever was thrown at it reasonably well.

This is not to say the Corsair wasn't a fantastic fighter-bomber, it was and proved itself many times over and I'd rate it as one of the top 5 or 6 WWII fighters. What it wasn't going to be however was a premier long range escort in the toughest air to air theater of WWII.

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


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Feb 15, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> There's nothing the Corsair has to offer that the Mustang and Thunderbolt don't already have covered like a jimmy-hat.




I personally think the F4U could have been a slightly more effective fighter bomber than the P-47 in Europe. The Thunderbolt was basically unchallenged above 30000 feet, but didn't have great performance down low. Corsairs in that role would have had better low altitude performance, similar bombload, shorter takeoff distance on the hastily prepared frontline airfields, and if armed with 4x 20mm cannons, better firepower.
But ultimately, why bother? the P-47's were doing fine.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 15, 2022)

VA5124 said:


> Twinchargeing is something group B rally cars did they used super and turbo chargers to reduce lag and make more power as far as perfect its speed and firepower and bombload


Granted it didn't show up until after WW II but the Corsair did get these.




two superchargers in parallel then going through an inter cooler to feed the main supercharger. 

something to consider when comparing WW fighters to 1970s and later race cars. 

1, the race cars aren't trying to make power at 25,000ft or so where the air is about 1/2 a dense as sea level (or a few thousand ft). You need much bigger superchargers get the needed airflow for the same power. 

2, The airplanes don't change engine speed that much once they go from cruise to either high climb rate, high speed or accelerating out of turns/maneuvers. 
The engine speed stays constant or nearly so while the propeller changes the pitch/twist of the blades. There is no shifting of a gear box and no using the engine as a brake to slow down for corners like a car on race track.

3, On a plane like an F4F-4 you have a 644lb propeller that is over 13ft in diameter acting like a giant flywheel running about 1/2 engine speed. 
What you do or don't do to the supercharger impellers is not going to change the throttle response of the engine to any great degree.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 16, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I personally think the F4U could have been a slightly more effective fighter bomber than the P-47 in Europe. The Thunderbolt was basically unchallenged above 30000 feet, but didn't have great performance down low. Corsairs in that role would have had better low altitude performance, similar bombload, shorter takeoff distance on the hastily prepared frontline airfields, and if armed with 4x 20mm cannons, better firepower.
> But ultimately, why bother? the P-47's were doing fine.


Agree 100%

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


----------



## DarrenW (Feb 16, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> Simply put, the Mustang could do (and did) the Corsairs job, the Corsair could not do the Mustang's job.


Hey Peter great synopsis and I agree with most of it but with one caveat. The Corsair had the added capability of being able to operate from carriers which was extremely valuable. In order to make the Mustang fully effective in this area it would have required several airframe modifications which would have undoubtedly reduced it's overall performance (such as folding wings, tail and catapult hooks, a strengthened airframe and landing gear, the added weight of extra survival gear, ect.). Comparing the two at this point would make the Corsair's star shine a bit brighter don't you think?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Feb 16, 2022)

DarrenW said:


> Hey Peter great synopsis and I agree with most of it but with one caveat. The Corsair had the added capability of being able to operate from carriers which was extremely valuable. In order to make the Mustang fully effective in this area it would have required several airframe modifications which would have undoubtedly reduced it's overall performance (such as folding wings, tail and catapult hooks, a strengthened airframe and landing gear, the added weight of extra survival gear, ect.). Comparing the two at this point would make the Corsair's star shine a bit brighter don't you think?


I agree, although I must admit, if I was flying off a WWII CV I'd probably take a Hellcat instead of a Corsair, but that's just my personal preference.

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


----------



## DarrenW (Feb 16, 2022)

Peter Gunn said:


> I agree, although I must admit, if I was flying off a WWII CV I'd probably take a Hellcat instead of a Corsair, but that's just my personal preference.


Obviously you get no argument from me there! 😊

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Feb 16, 2022)

VA5124 said:


> Twinchargeing is something group B rally cars did they used super and turbo chargers to reduce lag and make more power as far as perfect its speed and firepower and bombload


Supercharging a car does not solve the same problem as supercharging an aircraft. This is especially true if you are adding a supercharger to an existing car engine that was not intended to be supercharged.

WWII aircraft were equipped with two-stage superchargers, or a turbo-charger and a supercharger. If your very large engine (27l to 71.5l) needs more pressure than a centrifugal blower can deliver, you use two centrifugal blowers in series. One blower feeds the other blower, which feeds the engine, usually through an inter-cooler. Aircraft need to cope with the low pressures of high altitude. Atmospheric pressure is 101kPa (14.7psi) at ground level, and 0.414kPa (2.8psi) at 10km (33,000ft). This is where Thunderbolts were effective. 

Car engines are very much smaller, so positive displacement blowers like Roots blowers seem to be optimal.

My understanding is that cars with twin turbochargers are V4s, V6s, V8, or V12s, and each cylinder bank's exhaust manifold feeds a turbocharger. The turbochargers each feed their own bank of cylinders. This is two blowers in parallel. You get the pressure of one blower, at twice the airflow. 

I claim no expertise on automotive hot rods, but I wonder what benefit two stages of supercharging would bring an automobile. Two stage superchargers are effective in aircraft over 20,000ft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 16, 2022)

Two-stage turbochargers were used in aircraft engined because a) centrifugal compressors of the era had limited stage pressure ratios, and one stage could not provide enough boost and b) breaking compression into two stages permitted intercooling. Parallel compressors could be used, but matching was not simple.

Two-stage supercharging of automotive spark engines seem pointless as spark engines can't tolerate enough boost to make multiple stages useful.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Howard Gibson (Feb 16, 2022)

swampyankee said:


> Two-stage turbochargers were used in aircraft engined ...


Blowers are a complicated subject. A very crude rule of thumb is that bigger blowers sustain greater pressure. WWII aircraft engines were very much larger than car engines, which means that whatever blower technology they use, it will provide greater manifold pressure. WWII aircraft flying below 20,000ft worked fine with single-stage centrifugal blowers. The two-stage blowers were needed at higher altitudes. I am not aware of anything supercharging a WWII aircraft other than one or more centrifugal blowers.

Inter-coolers are required because gases heat up when compressed. Two-stage blowers cause more temperature increase than single-stage blowers. Inter-coolers work better when the gas is hot. The best place for one is at the output of the second stage.

It is a lot harder to get adequate manifold pressure on a car's little engine with a centrifugal blower, hence the use of Roots blowers. Two-stage automobile blowers are rather useless unless you want to drag race down Mount Everest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VA5124 (Feb 16, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> Supercharging a car does not solve the same problem as supercharging an aircraft. This is especially true if you are adding a supercharger to an existing car engine that was not intended to be supercharged.
> 
> WWII aircraft were equipped with two-stage superchargers, or a turbo-charger and a supercharger. If your very large engine (27l to 71.5l) needs more pressure than a centrifugal blower can deliver, you use two centrifugal blowers in series. One blower feeds the other blower, which feeds the engine, usually through an inter-cooler. Aircraft need to cope with the low pressures of high altitude. Atmospheric pressure is 101kPa (14.7psi) at ground level, and 0.414kPa (2.8psi) at 10km (33,000ft). This is where Thunderbolts were effective.
> 
> ...


I dont know the way lancia did it was a superchager at low rpm that fed the turbo thus redeucing turbo lag and increaseing horsepower thats the way audi did it too with their 5 clyinder


----------



## swampyankee (Feb 17, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> Blowers are a complicated subject. A very crude rule of thumb is that bigger blowers sustain greater pressure. WWII aircraft engines were very much larger than car engines, which means that whatever blower technology they use, it will provide greater manifold pressure. WWII aircraft flying below 20,000ft worked fine with single-stage centrifugal blowers. The two-stage blowers were needed at higher altitudes. I am not aware of anything supercharging a WWII aircraft other than one or more centrifugal blowers.
> 
> Inter-coolers are required because gases heat up when compressed. Two-stage blowers cause more temperature increase than single-stage blowers. Inter-coolers work better when the gas is hot. The best place for one is at the output of the second stage.
> 
> It is a lot harder to get adequate manifold pressure on a car's little engine with a centrifugal blower, hence the use of Roots blowers. Two-stage automobile blowers are rather useless unless you want to drag race down Mount Everest.


Positive displacement compressors were tried on aircraft engines in the 1920s; their mix of bulkiness, low pressure ratio, and poor efficiency made hem be considered pointless.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Feb 18, 2022)

Vought produced 200 cannon armed F4U-1C August 1944 to January 1945. Despite persistent reports of a cannon armed F4U-4C being built the next cannon armed version was the F4U-4B, acceptances began in April 1946, every other Corsair until then had the 6 machine guns.

According to the USN aircraft performance tables the F4U-1D/FG-1D as of August 1945, with 237 gallons of internal and 300 gallons of external fuel, had a range of 1,895 statute miles at 176 mph at 1,500 feet, giving a combat radius of 555 Nautical miles assuming one of the wing droppable tanks is self sealing and carried the entire distance. Otherwise 111 gallons of fuel remain in the droppable tank when entering combat must be dropped. Combat radius limited by internal fuel for combat and return is 345 nautical miles. Combat radius with 1x1000 pound bomb and 1x150 gallon external tank 300 nautical miles, 2x1,000 pound bomb 85 nautical miles, 8x5 inch rockets and 1x150 gallon external tank 315 nautical miles

Combat radii are calculated to include the effect of fuel pump back from droppable to main tanks after take off and 8.5 minutes combat at War Emergency Power and 11.5 minutes at Military Power. Class VF Airplanes. Practical combat radius is: 20 min, warm-up and idling, 1 min. take-off, 20 min. rendezvous at 60% normal sea-level power (N.S.P.) and auto lean, climb to 15,000 feet at 60% N.S.P. and auto rich, Cruise-out at 15,000 feet at V for max. range and auto lean, drop bombs and unprotected droppable tanks, 20 min. combat at 15,000 feet, Descend, Cruise-back at 1,500 feet at 170 knots true air speed and auto lean, 60 min. at V for max. range and auto lean as allowance for rendezvous, landing and reserve. The March 1946 F4U-4 chart has combat allowance as 10 minutes at War Emergency Power and 10 minutes at Military Power.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 18, 2022)

Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> Combat radius with 1x1000 pound bomb and 1x150 gallon external tank 300 nautical miles, *2x1,000 pound bomb 85 nautical miles*, 8x5 inch rockets and 1x150 gallon external tank 315 nautical miles



Is this a typo?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 18, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Is this a typo?



No. Remember the parameters of calculating the combat radius. That 20 minutes of rendezvous and one hour of reserve really cuts into fuel that otherwise would have been available for cruising, considering that all comes from internal fuel since drop tanks aren't carried for that mission profile.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 18, 2022)

I was gonna say same thing. Really.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 18, 2022)

33k in the air said:


> No. Remember the parameters of calculating the combat radius. That 20 minutes of rendezvous and one hour of reserve really cuts into fuel that otherwise would have been available for cruising, considering that all comes from internal fuel since drop tanks aren't carried for that mission profile.



The mistake was that I read his post wrong too early in the morning. Thanks for pulling the short hairs. I'd read the bomb+tank as being 85 miles. Sorry for my confusion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Feb 20, 2022)

Corsairs combat radius, nautical miles, with 2x1,000 pound bombs, FG-3 40 miles, F2G-2 105 miles, F4U-1D/FG-1D 85 miles, F4U-4 45 miles.

The full USN definitions of range and radius.

*7. Range:* Maximum range and range vs. speed curves assume no fuel used during warm-up or take-off and no fuel allowed for reserve. The effect on fuel consumption resulting from climb (at normal rated power, auto rich) to designated altitude and descent has been included. Range calculations based in tests or specification data have been found to be optimistic, accordingly, all rates of specific fuel consumption have been suitably increased. Where engine requirement data are used, they are increased 15%; where flight test data are used, they are increased by 5%. For jet propulsion one-half of these percentages are used. Bombs, torpedoes, all droppable tanks and radar are carried the full distance. 

*8. Operating Radius of Action:* On all data sheets listing a radius of action (combat radius, etc.) the sequence of flight operations of which the assumed radius problem is composed has been noted. In the process of selecting suitably representative radius problems some data sheets were issued with the sequence of operations slightly different from the present accepted problems, these will be recomputed on the present basis when they are again reissued. With the exception of special radius problems, the details of which will be noted when they occur, the present Bureau of Aeronautics radius problems and the various factors influencing their details of operation are noted as follows: 

*Class VF Airplanes.* Practical combat radius is: 20 min, warm-up and idling (see notes 3 and 5 below), 1 min. take-off (see notes 4 and 5), 20 min. rendezvous at 60% normal sea-level power (N.S.P.) and auto lean (see notes 6, 7 and 8), climb to 15,000 feet at 60% N.S.P. and auto rich (see notes 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10), Cruise-out at 15,000 feet at V for max. range and auto lean, drop bombs and unprotected droppable tanks (see notes 13 and 14), 20 min. combat at 15,000 feet (see note 15), Descend, Cruise-back at 1,500 feet at 170 knots true air speed and auto lean (see notes 11 and 12), 60 min. at V for max. range and auto lean as allowance for rendezvous, landing and reserve, see notes 1, 2, 17 and 19. 

*Class VB, VBT, VSB and VTS Airplanes.* Class VF Airplanes carrying large bombs. Practical combat radius is: 20 min, warm-up and idling (see notes 3 and 5 below), 1 min take-off (see notes 4 and 5), 20 min. rendezvous at 60% normal sea-level power (N.S.P.) and auto lean (see notes 6, 7 and 8), climb to 15,000 feet at 60% N.S.P. and auto rich (see notes 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10), Cruise-out at 15,000 feet at 180 knots true air speed and required mixture (see notes 11 and 12), drop unprotected droppable tanks (see notes 13 and 14), Dive or descend, drop bombs and torpedoes, 15 min. combat at 1,500 feet (see note 16), Cruise-back at 1,500 feet at 170 knots true air speed and auto lean (see notes 11 and 12), 60 min. at V for max. range and auto lean as allowance for rendezvous, landing and reserve, see notes 1, 2, 17 and 19. 

*Class VB, VBT, VSB, VTB, VS, VSO and VOS Airplanes*. Practical scouting radius is: 1/3 of range at V for max. range at 1,500 feet with fuel taken from initial fuel load for 20 min. warm-up and idling (see note 3), 1 min take-off (see note 4), and with allowance at end of flight for 60 min. at V for max. range and auto lean for rendezvous, landing and reserve. Bombs, torpedoes, radar and all droppable tanks are carried the entire distance. See notes 1, 2, 14, 18 and 19. 

*Class VP and VPB Airplanes.* Practical search radius: (Patrol, Bomber, Torpedo and A.S.W. loadings) is 40% of range at V for maximum range at 1,500 feet with 20% of initial fuel load as allowance for warm-up, take-off, climb and reserve. Bombs, torpedoes, radar and all droppable tanks are carried for the entire distance. The average speed for the search radius shall be listed in knots with the radius. See notes 1, 2, 14, 18 and 19. 

*Class VP and VPB Airplanes.* Practical A.S.W. radius: (A.S.W. loadings) is 1/3 of range at V for maximum range at 1,500 feet with 20% of initial fuel load as allowance for warm-up, take-off, climb and reserve. Bombs, radar and all droppable tanks are carried for the entire distance. The average speed for the A.S.W. radius shall be listed in knots with the radius. For A.S.W. loading conditions, the search radius is to be given in addition to the A.S.W. radius. See notes 1, 2, 14, 18 and 19. 

*Notes on Radius. *

1. Radius is given in nautical miles 

2. In calculating radius, engine requirement fuel consumption data are increased 15% and flight test fuel consumption data are increased 5% at all power conditions of conventional engines For J.P. engines, use one half of the above percentage increases

3. Warm-up: 
a) Conventional Engines: 20 min, warm-up at 1/2 rated RPM on propeller load curve. Fuel consumed in pounds in 10 min. warm-up (including 15% increase) may be taken as 0.03 times sea level normal rated BHP of engines.
b) J.P. Engines: Equivalent to 30 sec. warm-up at maximum static thrust. Fuel consumed in pounds (including 7.5% increase) in warm-up and accelerating to maximum static thrust may be taken as 1.2% of the maximum static thrust rating of the J.P. engines at sea level.
c) Combination of Conventional and J.P Engines: Fuel consumed in warm up of all engines in accordance with (a) and (b) above, is considered in calculating radius unless it is specified that J.P. engines shall not be used for take-off in which case conventional engines only are warmed up.

4. Take off: 
a) Conventional Engines: 1 min. take-off at rated take-off power.
b) J.P. Engines: 1 min. take-off at rated take-off thrust.
c) Combination of Conventional and J.P Engines: Conventional engines used at rated take-off power for 1 min. and J.P engines used at rated take-off thrust for 30 sec. All engines used for take-off unless it is specified that J.P. engines shall not be used.

5. Warm-up and take-off on internal protected fuel. Protected tanks may be refilled with fuel from unprotected tanks if fuel pump for this purpose is incorporated in the design. This will be noted on the sheet. 

6. Rendezvous, climb and cruise out is on unprotected fuel if available. 

7. For airplanes with combination of conventional and J.P. engines, the J.P. engines are not used in rendezvous, climb and cruise-out cruise-back and landing. 

8. For airplanes with J.P engines only (no conventional engines) 
a) 10 min. rendezvous at 60% normal rated thrust at sea level.
b) Climb to 15,000 feet is at maximum military rated thrust.

9. Auto. rich is used for climb unless flight test data are available indicating satisfactory engine cooling characteristics in climb with auto. lean. 

10. If average rate of climb in climbing to 15,000 feet at 60% N.S.P. is less that 400 ft./min., climb is given at full normal rated power and auto rich. 

11. Cruise-out or cruise-back speeds less than V for maximum range or greater than V at 60% N.S.P. are not used in calculating radius. Only a few of the older airplanes or new airplanes of special design are affected by this note. 

12. For airplanes with J.P. engines only (no conventional engines), cruise-out and cruise-back at speed for maximum range.

13. If it is necessary to drop fuel before entering combat, the following note will be added. "Combat radius limited by amount of protected fuel for use in combat and return. XXX gal. fuel remain in unprotected tanks when entering combat and muse be dropped, used for approximately YYY hrs. search, or used to increase speed in cruising-out to approximately ZZZ knots." 

14. Radar if specified for the airplane is carried the full distance out and back in all radius problems. 

15. Combat at 15,000 feet - Class VF Airplanes 
a) Conventional engines: Combat 20 min. of which 10 min. is at war emergency rated power and 10 min. is at military rated power. If war emergency rating is not available, combat 20 min. at military rated power.
b) J.P. Engines: Combat at 15 min. at military thrust rating at 15,000 feet and maximum airplane speed.
c) Combination of Conventional and J.P Engines: Combat 20 min. of which 10 min. is at war emergency rated power for conventional engines plus military rated thrust of J.P. and 10 min. is at military rated power of conventional engines plus idling J.P. engines. If war emergency rating is not available, use military rated power.

16. Combat at 1,500 feet - Class VB, VBT, VSB and VTB Airplanes 

a) Conventional engines: Combat 15 min. of which 5 min. is at war emergency rated power and 10 min. is at normal rated power. If war emergency rating is not available, combat 5 min. at military rated power and 10 min. at normal rated power.
b) J.P. Engines: Combat at 10 min. at military rated thrust at 1,500 feet and maximum airplane speed.
c) Combination of Conventional and J.P Engines: Combat 15 min. of which 5 min. is at war emergency rated power of conventional engines plus military rated thrust of J.P. engines and 10 min. is at normal rated power of conventional engines plus idling J.P. engines. If war emergency rating is not available, use military rated power.

17. Radius includes distance covered in climb, but not descent or dive. 

18. In listing the scouting radius and the search radius, the following note will be added. "Practical XXX radius is reduced YYY nautical miles for each minute of combat at 1,500 feet at war emergency rated power of conventional engines plus military rated thrust of J.P. engines." In the note, military rated power is used if war emergency power rating is not available and reference to J.P engines is deleted if they are not incorporated in the airplane.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Feb 20, 2022)

I like ducks

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


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Feb 20, 2022)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 20, 2022)

Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> Corsairs combat radius, nautical miles, with 2x1,000 pound bombs, FG-3 40 miles, F2G-2 105 miles, F4U-1D/FG-1D 85 miles, F4U-4 45 miles.
> 
> The full USN definitions of range and radius.
> 
> ...


And all this is from where? Manual?


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 20, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And all this is from where? Manual?



See the Airplance Chracteristics and Performance (USN) and Standard Aircraft Characteristics (USAF) publications found here.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 20, 2022)

fubar57 said:


> I like ducks


But what type: Grumman, Curtiss or Focke-Wulf?


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 21, 2022)

Anaheim? Long Island?


----------



## 33k in the air (Feb 21, 2022)

What do you mean, African or European ducks?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BlackSheep (Feb 22, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Here's their 747
> 
> View attachment 657853
> 
> _(src: interwebs)_


Always loved the song Aces High with the Churchill speech, “We shall fight on the beaches….”

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Feb 24, 2022)

Specifically the USN range and radius definitions were from 
CO NAVAER OO-45RA-500 U.S. Navy Service Airplane Characteristics and Performance Data Sheets as of 1 July 1944, Introduction.

Still waiting for the claimed correction to a Britmodeller message. Grumman Duck, if the 4th to 6th column is blank use the 3rd column data

ModelMeasurementJ2F-2, -3, -4 (Amphibian)Daten/a1-May-43Loading ConditionTypeUtilityUtilityTarget TowAnti SubGross WeightPounds6,439​6,694​7,059​7,112​Empty WeightPounds4,670FuelGallons150​190190​138OilGallons10​1212​9Flexible GunsNo./Typen/an/an/a1x0.30Flexible Guns AmmunitionRoundsn/an/an/a600​Depth BombsNo. x Poundsn/an/an/a2x325Engine RatingFor PerformanceNormalWing LoadingPounds/sq. feet15.7​16.4​17.2​17.4​Power Loading (BHP, Crit. Alt.)Pounds/BHP8.6​8.9​9.4​9.5​VM Sea LevelMPH171​171​170​165​VMMPH/Feet176/3,200176/3,200175/3,200170/3,200VMMPH/Feet174/5,000n/an/an/aVMMPH/Feet168/10,000n/an/an/aVMMPH/Feet157/15,000n/an/an/aVMMPH/Feetn/an/an/an/aVMMPH/Feetn/an/an/an/aVM (Critical Altitude) SpeedMPHn/an/an/an/aVM (Critical Altitude) HeightFeetn/an/an/an/aVS - Gross Weight, no powerMPH65.6​66.8​68.7​68.9​VS - Less Fuel, no powerMPH60.8​61​63​64.8​Time to 10,000 feetMinutes10.3​11.2​12.6​13​Time to 20,000 feetMinutesn/an/an/an/aService CeilingFeet18,900​18,200​17,400​16,900​Take off - CalmFeet894​992​1,143​1,193​Take off - 15 knots windFeet470​526​618​648​Take off - 25 knots windFeet274​313​371​390​Take off - Calm - SeaSeconds23​24​26​26​Climb Sea LevelFeet/Minute1,290​1,190​1,060​1,030​ClimbFPM/Heightn/an/an/an/aEndurance - 60% VMHours/Feet6/3,2007.4/3,2007/3,2004.9/3,200Endurance - 75% VMHours/Feet4.1/3,2005.1/3,20095/3,2003.5/3,200Endurance - 90% VMHours/Feetn/an/an/an/aEndurance - VMHours/Feet1.6/3,2002/3,2002/3,2001.5/3,200Max RangeStatute Miles640​790​745​500​Max Range Average SpeedMPH98​100​102​101​Max Endure./Range AltitudeFeet1,500Engine MakerNamen/aEngine TypeModelR-1820-30Engine Gear RatioTypeDirect DrivePropellerModelHS 2 position 3 Bl. 8ft 11in Bl.Des. 6101A-14Engine Rating Take-OffBHP /RPM790 / 1,950Engine Rating NormalBHP/RPM/Feet750 / 1,950 / 0-3,200Unprotected Tankage, FuelGallons190Fuel Tankage Fixed TotalGallons190Unprotected Tankage, OilGallons12Performance data fromTypeFlight test/EstimateRange and Radius data fromTypen/aFuel consumption increasePercentn/aCondition NumberNumber1234

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


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Mar 6, 2022)

Found this while looking for something else.

Admiralty Fleet Orders, Admiralty Fleet Orders | Royal Australian Navy

*214/1944. Corsair (F4U and F3A) Aircraft – Interchangeability of Spare Parts*

(N.S. Air/A.M.R. 2600/43 – 13 January 1944)

Corsair (F4U-1 with low hood) and Corsair II (F4U-1 with raised hood) are manufactured by Chance-Vought (United Aircraft Corporation) and Corsair III (F3A-1 with raised hood) by Brewster Aeronautical Corporation.

2. The airframe spares for Corsair I and II are interchangeable, except as to the hood fittings (See paragraph I above) and certain other modifications, but there is little or no interchangeability between the Corsair II and III although both manufacturers apply the same part numbers to spares performing equivalent functions.

3. All Major airframe components will be identifiable by a plate marked "F4U" when produced by Chance-Vought "F3A" when produced by Brewster.

4. As the products of the two manufacturers are not interchangeable the composition if individual Corsair squadrons is confined to either mark II (F4U) or mark III (F3A). The mark I (F4U-1) with low hood is being used solely for training purposes.

5. On receipt from America for spares of these types into store depots in the United Kingdom and abroad, care must be exercises to identify the parts by the type symbol (F4U and F3A) shown on the invoice (Form 600) and the manufacturer's tab attached to each part, and in the case of major airframe components by the change plate referred to in paragraph 3 above. Spares for the two types must be stowed and accounted for separately.

6. All demands on depots for Corsair airframe spares must indicate the Mark Number and maker of the aircraft for which the spares are required, in order to avoid the possibility of supply of spares which may prove to be unsuitable. It should be noted, however, that although the majority of the spares are not "interchangeable", many will be found to be "replaceable", that is, capable of being fitted, with some adjustments by drilling or reaming, to the aircraft produced by the other manufacturer. Consequently, stores depots in dealing with demands for spares of one type which are unavailable in stock should advise the availability (if this should be the case) of the corresponding spares of the other type.

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


----------



## Howard Gibson (Mar 6, 2022)

Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> Found this while looking for something else.
> 
> Admiralty Fleet Orders, Admiralty Fleet Orders | Royal Australian Navy
> 
> 4. As the products of the two manufacturers are not interchangeable the composition if individual Corsair squadrons is confined to either mark II (F4U) or mark III (F3A). The mark I (F4U-1) with low hood is being used solely for training purposes.


This does not surprise me. Problems with fit and assembly were worked out separately in each plant. All sorts of drafting standards were worked out after WWII, based on lessons learned during WWII.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 6, 2022)

Howard Gibson said:


> This does not surprise me. Problems with fit and assembly were worked out separately in each plant. All sorts of drafting standards were worked out after WWII, based on lessons learned during WWII.


Actually interchangeability was quite good with most US built aircraft with the exception of Brewster produced products (as shown in this report). This manufacturer was horrible, could barely produce their own products, let alone someone else's.

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


----------

